Energy infrastructure

tom1ie · 04-02-2021 6:04pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

This is untrue.

Explain if you would please.

Yellow_Fern · 04-02-2021 10:58pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Explain if you would please.

Originally Posted by tom1ie View Post
Why would we build nuclear when we have a massive bank of wind energy to harness?
Solve the storage issue and we are as energy rich as the oil rich Middle East only with renewables as opposed to oil and gas.

This is untrue.

________________

I am not against wind but it will never be lucrative like oil and gas has been to the Gulf of Arabia. The reason is that they are less dense. A 10 mph wind has something like 7 joules per m2, while a m2 of oil has 45,000,000,000 joules. Renewable energy is hard to scale as its so low dense. You cant change physics.

Markcheese · 04-02-2021 11:36pm

It's not even that , when we think of the middle east energy wealth , we're thinking of saudi sheiks ..
The state owns the oil which is sold at the world market price .. it's the cheapest oil to extract , and largely the difference goes to the saudi state ,
Or think of norway ,again owning the oil , ( dearer to extract though )

Wind isnt really extracted , and not cheaply extracted and then sold at world market prices ,
To an extent if ireland pays world market price for oil and gas , or contracts with international energy and finance companies to install danish designed ,spanish made wind turbines off the coast it's going to be much of a much
there may be more people involved in the installation / maintenence,. But there won't be huge royalties to the state (well not for the foreseeable future )
There'll be a saving in carbon charges penalties I suppose ...

Banana Republic 1 · 04-02-2021 11:47pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I am not against wind but it will never be lucrative like oil and gas has been to the Gulf of Arabia. The reason is that they are less dense. A 10 mph wind has something like 7 joules per m2, while a m2 of oil has 45,000,000,000 joules. Renewable energy is hard to scale as its so low dense. You cant change physics.

One barrel of oil has approx 6GJ of energy that’s 6120000000 joules. m2 is a measure of area not volume m3

Capt'n Midnight · 05-02-2021 2:27am

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I am not against wind but it will never be lucrative like oil and gas has been to the Gulf of Arabia. The reason is that they are less dense. A 10 mph wind has something like 7 joules per m2, while a m2 of oil has 45,000,000,000 joules. Renewable energy is hard to scale as its so low dense. You cant change physics.

It takes a lot of energy to recover fossil fuel. And you can store wind energy in hydrocarbons, its just not cost effective at the moment.

Look up Desertec to see just how little desert could supply our electricity needs. You can also use thermal storage , molten salts or TEG's to use energy harvested earlier at night.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55931873
Denmark are building an artificial island to act as a wind power hub. Previously these would have been like an oil rig like structure. For the capital cost of Hinkey C it will support 10GW of wind power, with another 3GW from a second island on the other side of the country.

Yellow_Fern · 05-02-2021 12:05pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

One barrel of oil has approx 6GJ of energy that’s 6120000000 joules. m2 is a measure of area not volume m3

True. My bad.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It takes a lot of energy to recover fossil fuel. And you can store wind energy in hydrocarbons, its just not cost effective at the moment.

Look up Desertec to see just how little desert could supply our electricity needs. You can also use thermal storage , molten salts or TEG's to use energy harvested earlier at night.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55931873
Denmark are building an artificial island to act as a wind power hub. Previously these would have been like an oil rig like structure. For the capital cost of Hinkey C it will support 10GW of wind power, with another 3GW from a second island on the other side of the country.

Solar has maxium possible efficieny of 50 watts per m2 area, impressive given that an English forest is typically only 0.2 watts m2 area. However Iraq's oilfield have a power density of about 5,000 watts m2 area.

Markcheese wrote: »

It's not even that , when we think of the middle east energy wealth , we're thinking of saudi sheiks ..
The state owns the oil which is sold at the world market price .. it's the cheapest oil to extract , and largely the difference goes to the saudi state ,
Or think of norway ,again owning the oil , ( dearer to extract though )

Wind isnt really extracted , and not cheaply extracted and then sold at world market prices ,
To an extent if ireland pays world market price for oil and gas , or contracts with international energy and finance companies to install danish designed ,spanish made wind turbines off the coast it's going to be much of a much
there may be more people involved in the installation / maintenence,. But there won't be huge royalties to the state (well not for the foreseeable future )
There'll be a saving in carbon charges penalties I suppose ...

That is a really good point.

josip · 05-02-2021 12:17pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Solar has maxium possible efficieny of 50 watts per m2 area, impressive given that an English forest is typically only 0.2 watts m2 area. However Iraq's oilfield have a power density of about 5,000 watts m2 area.

Do you mean 5,000 Watt Hours (5 kWh) for Iraq's oilfields?

gjim · 05-02-2021 8:30pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Solar has maxium possible efficieny of 50 watts per m2 area, impressive given that an English forest is typically only 0.2 watts m2 area. However Iraq's oilfield have a power density of about 5,000 watts m2 area.

This is gibberish.

Watts measure the energy rate not the capacity. Oil doesn't have a "wattage" - burn a barrel of oil in 1 hour, you'll get about a million watts from it, use it to power an old style wick oil light over a period of a decade, it will deliver maybe 10 watts.

But of course if you used the more reasonable measurement of energy, watt hours, then the argument falls apart as that m2 dedicated to solar can produce energy effectively for ever. Oil can only be burnt once.

And how is square meters of land surface relevant at all? Does the m2 for "oil efficiency" include the power stations, transport and storage infrastructure? A wind turbine takes up less than a few square meters of land and can deliver 1-2 MEGA watts.

But the argument is very odd anyway as burning oil for electricity hasn't been a thing for nearly 50 years. Only about 3% of global electricity comes from oil. I mean we can argue for coal and gas versus solar or wind (and probably lose the argument) but oil isn't even at the races when it comes to generating electricity - it's a phenomenally expensive way to provide electricity. Even the arabs don't use it for this.

Capt'n Midnight · 05-02-2021 9:00pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Solar has maxium possible efficieny of 50 watts per m2 area,

Sunlight is roughly 1,000 w/m2 for a panel facing the sun under ideal conditions.

So 50 watts would be 5%. That's actually how much more power the average panel today produces compared to the ones from just five years ago. Off the shelf panels are up to 22% efficient. So 220W/m2 if you track the sun.

For concentrated solar using mirrors you need a smaller area and so can afford more efficient panels (record is 47.1% - nearly ten times what you claimed solar can do.)

Desert land is usually cheap and if it isn't being used for anything you can use as many m2 as you like.

celtic_oz · 05-02-2021 10:42pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssfbq7PVktA

Amazing what you can learn if you just stop guessing sh1t

Yellow_Fern · 06-02-2021 1:42am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Sunlight is roughly 1,000 w/m2 for a panel facing the sun under ideal conditions.

So 50 watts would be 5%. That's actually how much more power the average panel today produces compared to the ones from just five years ago. Off the shelf panels are up to 22% efficient. So 220W/m2 if you track the sun.

For concentrated solar using mirrors you need a smaller area and so can afford more efficient panels (record is 47.1% - nearly ten times what you claimed solar can do.)

Desert land is usually cheap and if it isn't being used for anything you can use as many m2 as you like.

Desert is cheap (although it does have major ecological value which is impacted by any development such as roads and solar panels) and its the kind of place that is very attractive for solar but we dont have so much of it in Ireland.

gjim wrote: »

This is gibberish.

Watts measure the energy rate not the capacity. Oil doesn't have a "wattage" - burn a barrel of oil in 1 hour, you'll get about a million watts from it, use it to power an old style wick oil light over a period of a decade, it will deliver maybe 10 watts.

But of course if you used the more reasonable measurement of energy, watt hours, then the argument falls apart as that m2 dedicated to solar can produce energy effectively for ever. Oil can only be burnt once.

And how is square meters of land surface relevant at all? Does the m2 for "oil efficiency" include the power stations, transport and storage infrastructure? A wind turbine takes up less than a few square meters of land and can deliver 1-2 MEGA watts.

Ireland has only so much land and sea that it can use to produce electricty for export. Also the amount of land requires influences environmental impact. Coal is more energy dense fuel than timber which is why the advent of coal use in the early modern period allowed reafforestation and why globally forests are increasing despite population increase. I could go into land use from use of fossil stations and storage but it is not so much.

gjim wrote: »

But the argument is very odd anyway as burning oil for electricity hasn't been a thing for nearly 50 years. Only about 3% of global electricity comes from oil. I mean we can argue for coal and gas versus solar or wind (and probably lose the argument) but oil isn't even at the races when it comes to generating electricity - it's a phenomenally expensive way to provide electricity. Even the arabs don't use it for this.

You are not following the conversation. All fossil fuels are energy dense. Turf and brown coal are the least, while oil and gas are more dense. The poster claimed Ireland could replicate the oil and gas wealth of the Gulf of Arabia. Sadly this is a fanciful notion as Ireland simply dont have the sea and land area to generate comparable levels of energy and indeed stored energy that the Gulf petrostates have extracted from their oil and gas resources. You shouldn't label what you dont understand gibberish.

Capt'n Midnight · 06-02-2021 2:20am

Mariners have been given notice of a series of geophysical surveys for the Dublin Array Wind Farm taking place between next week and early May.

Up to 100 turbines 10km offshore

There are other banks to the north of Dublin

Banana Republic 1 · 06-02-2021 8:52am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Mariners have been given notice of a series of geophysical surveys for the Dublin Array Wind Farm taking place between next week and early May.

Up to 100 turbines 10km offshore

There are other banks to the north of Dublin

Were the rich won’t notice any impact. NIMBYISM

gjim · 06-02-2021 10:33am

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Ireland has only so much land and sea that it can use to produce electricty for export. Also the amount of land requires influences environmental impact. Coal is more energy dense fuel than timber which is why the advent of coal use in the early modern period allowed reafforestation and why globally forests are increasing despite population increase. I could go into land use from use of fossil stations and storage but it is not so much.

I was responding specifically to your use of "watts per square meter" as some sort of metric. It makes about as much sense as quoting the top speed of a car per litre of petrol. It's not a metric - it cannot be measured, yet you claimed very specific numbers for this "metric" which suggests you completely made up these numbers. Or else you're copying claims of someone else who doesn't know the difference between the rate of energy consumption and the amount of energy.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

You are not following the conversation. All fossil fuels are energy dense. Turf and brown coal are the least, while oil and gas are more dense. The poster claimed Ireland could replicate the oil and gas wealth of the Gulf of Arabia. Sadly this is a fanciful notion as Ireland simply dont have the sea and land area to generate comparable levels of energy and indeed stored energy that the Gulf petrostates have extracted from their oil and gas resources. You shouldn't label what you dont understand gibberish.

If someone starts arguing that one model of car is more efficient than another because they can do 50 km/h per litre of petrol while the other can only do 40 km/h per litre, then I can confidently say they are talking gibberish regardless of what provoked the claim.

Yellow_Fern · 06-02-2021 11:12am

gjim wrote: »

I was responding specifically to your use of "watts per square meter" as some sort of metric. It makes about as much sense as quoting the top speed of a car per litre of petrol. It's not a metric - it cannot be measured, yet you claimed very specific numbers for this "metric" which suggests you completely made up these numbers. Or else you're copying claims of someone else who doesn't know the difference between the rate of energy consumption and the amount of energy.

If someone starts arguing that one model of car is more efficient than another because they can do 50 km/h per litre of petrol while the other can only do 40 km/h per litre, then I can confidently say they are talking gibberish regardless of what provoked the claim.

My figures were very rough and yeah there are some typos but my point is that there are are orders of magitude. If someone really wants to get a sense of power density, look at nuclear and how its immensely more power dense than wind and solar

Capt'n Midnight · 06-02-2021 2:02pm

gjim wrote: »

I was responding specifically to your use of "watts per square meter" as some sort of metric. It makes about as much sense as quoting the top speed of a car per litre of petrol.

JCB made a diesel car that did just 11 miles to the US gallon.

But it was going 350.097 mph (563.418 kph).

If you like mixing dimensions then fuel economy is area.

06-02-2021 2:20pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

My figures were very rough and yeah there are some typos but my point is that there are are orders of magitude. If someone really wants to get a sense of power density, look at nuclear and how its immensely more power dense than wind and solar

There's a reason back of the envelope numbers do not count for anything in a discussion regarding energy

If you want to compare energy across sources you need to use LCOE, and to a lesser extent, LACE. As for storage, LCOS.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

While these are not perfect calculations, they are the standard that is used when comparing different sources.

More important than any other factor, they are the calculation methods used by investors when determining where to put their money.

Yellow_Fern · 06-02-2021 2:59pm

celtic_oz wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssfbq7PVktA

Amazing what you can learn if you just stop guessing sh1t

Anyone who titles a talk on any power generation 'Exponential Energy' should be viewed as suspect. Also the Sheik Ahmed Zaki quote that 'the Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones' is utter thrash. Stone wasnt the source of energy or basically any constraint on life in the Stone Age. Furthermore stone tools were used for thousands of years into the Bronze Age and Iron Age. Although stone blades are only used in niche situations today like in surgery we use vastly more stone today than during the Stone Age

Capt'n Midnight · 06-02-2021 3:48pm

Energy density is a non issue. Cost is.

There's lots of room for wind and wave in our 880,000Km2 EEZ

tom1ie · 06-02-2021 4:00pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I am not against wind but it will never be lucrative like oil and gas has been to the Gulf of Arabia. The reason is that they are less dense. A 10 mph wind has something like 7 joules per m2, while a m2 of oil has 45,000,000,000 joules. Renewable energy is hard to scale as its so low dense. You cant change physics.

Good points, but I wonder what would be the mean expected wind speed to be harvested out at sea? Don’t think it’d be as low as 10mph, of course that’s still not gonna get anywhere the joule density of oil.
However if we can harness excess clean energy store and then export it, this energy will be cheaper plus more attractive as carbon tax is increased on fossil fuels.
In this way I think we can become exporters of energy and actually make money on the electricity market.
Maybe that’s a naive view?

tom1ie · 06-02-2021 4:09pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Desert is cheap (although it does have major ecological value which is impacted by any development such as roads and solar panels) and its the kind of place that is very attractive for solar but we dont have so much of it in Ireland.

Ireland has only so much land and sea that it can use to produce electricty for export. Also the amount of land requires influences environmental impact. Coal is more energy dense fuel than timber which is why the advent of coal use in the early modern period allowed reafforestation and why globally forests are increasing despite population increase. I could go into land use from use of fossil stations and storage but it is not so much.

You are not following the conversation. All fossil fuels are energy dense. Turf and brown coal are the least, while oil and gas are more dense. The poster claimed Ireland could replicate the oil and gas wealth of the Gulf of Arabia. Sadly this is a fanciful notion as Ireland simply dont have the sea and land area to generate comparable levels of energy and indeed stored energy that the Gulf petrostates have extracted from their oil and gas resources. You shouldn't label what you dont understand gibberish.

Sorry I don’t agree.
If a wind turbine is built it constantly generates electricity unless the wind stops (out in the Atlantic there will pretty much always be wind) or the turbine breaks.
Now if ALL this electricity is excess and we can solve the storage issue (which I have already flagged) then that turbine is constantly making money.
The barrel of oil has been burnt and can only make money once.
The turbine makes money for 20 years (or whatever the expected lifetime is after build costs).
That’s what I’m basing my argument on.
Sorry if I didn’t make that clear earlier.

celtic_oz · 06-02-2021 4:15pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Anyone who titles a talk on any power generation 'Exponential Energy' should be viewed as suspect. Also the Sheik Ahmed Zaki quote that 'the Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones' is utter thrash. Stone wasnt the source of energy or basically any constraint on life in the Stone Age. Furthermore stone tools were used for thousands of years into the Bronze Age and Iron Age. Although stone blades are only used in niche situations today like in surgery we use vastly more stone today than during the Stone Age

Sorry but thats an inane point to pick out of a video that literally disproves everything you have said as being irrelevant.

Its like debating the issue using talking points in the 80's, the debate is well over now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-kbzfWzvSI

Yellow_Fern · 06-02-2021 4:46pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Sorry I don’t agree.
If a wind turbine is built it constantly generates electricity unless the wind stops (out in the Atlantic there will pretty much always be wind) or the turbine breaks.
Now if ALL this electricity is excess and we can solve the storage issue (which I have already flagged) then that turbine is constantly making money.
The barrel of oil has been burnt and can only make money once.
The turbine makes money for 20 years (or whatever the expected lifetime is after build costs).
That’s what I’m basing my argument on.
Sorry if I didn’t make that clear earlier.

Sure but there is still several magnitudes of difference in power density.

tom1ie wrote: »

Good points, but I wonder what would be the mean expected wind speed to be harvested out at sea? Don’t think it’d be as low as 10mph, of course that’s still not gonna get anywhere the joule density of oil.
However if we can harness excess clean energy store and then export it, this energy will be cheaper plus more attractive as carbon tax is increased on fossil fuels.
In this way I think we can become exporters of energy and actually make money on the electricity market.
Maybe that’s a naive view?

There is money to be made exporting wind energy certainly. Sadly it won't be bonanza like oil and gas and consumers will have to pay more for energy.

celtic_oz wrote: »

Sorry but thats an inane point to pick out of a video that literally disproves everything you have said as being irrelevant.

Its like debating the issue using talking points in the 80's, the debate is well over now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-kbzfWzvSI

What are you talking about? We wil be able to move away from oil and gas but we will be using it for a very long time yet.

Apogee · 08-02-2021 4:32pm

A few bits and pieces over past week or so. Small modification to Celtic Interconnector route:

Echo wrote:

The villages of Castlemartyr and Killeagh are set to be bypassed when EirGrid lays the cable for the Celtic Interconnector Project, linking the Irish and French electricity grids. Since then, following technical assessments and feedback from local stakeholders, it has been decided to bypass both villages.Michael Mahon, EirGrid chief infrastructure officer, explained:“We are proposing to lay the cable in agricultural land north of Castlemartyr and south-east of Killeagh."

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/arid-40222544.html

ESB/Coillte joint venture for 1,000MW wind energy:

ThinkBusiness wrote:

Ireland’s largest electricity provider ESB and the country’s chief forestry operator Coillte are to jointly invest €100m in a green energy venture.The project could develop 1,000 megawatts (mW) of renewable energy by 2030.

https://www.thinkbusiness.ie/articles/esb-coillte-green-energy-joint-venture/

Statkraft progressing 500MW array in Irish Sea:

Independent wrote:

Norwegian state-owned renewable energy developer Statkraft is progressing plans for a €1bn Irish Sea wind farm that would stretch from north Dublin to Co Louth. It has just begun a detailed consultation phase on the 500 megawatt North Irish Sea Array project. It is aiming to submit a planning application within the next 12 months for a project with up to 30 250 metre-tall turbines that will be visible from the Dublin, Meath and Louth coastline.

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/1bn-irish-sea-wind-farm-plan-moves-ahead-40055759.html

Whitegate out of action until June:

Irish Times wrote:

Bord Gáis has confirmed that Whitegate could be out of action until the end of June while it deals with a technical problem. That means the system is without a facility that can supply power to about 300,000 homes.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/irish-electricity-system-under-too-much-pressure-for-comfort-1.4477399

Markcheese · 08-02-2021 6:15pm

That must be one big technical fault to keep a half billion euro plant off line for 5 months

Banana Republic 1 · 08-02-2021 6:54pm

Got this in the post today, progress re batteries and everything in Ireland will be very slow.

Markcheese · 09-02-2021 10:15pm

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/08/queens-treasury-windfarm-bp-offshore-seabed-rights

Seems like the state could make money out of seabed off shore wind rights ..

11-02-2021 1:58pm

I think we just hit a new peak wind energy production with higher levels forecast for later.

Just out of interest, has there been any thought/policy research put into local/domestic storage? Average usage is around 12kWh per day and I've seen that battery costs are headed towards €100 per kWh, surely there's an opening for (say) a 15kWh battery for around €3000. Even without domestic solar just charging them on night rate would provide great smoothing over 24 hours.

Sam Russell · 11-02-2021 3:16pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I think we just hit a new peak wind energy production with higher levels forecast for later.

Just out of interest, has there been any thought/policy research put into local/domestic storage? Average usage is around 12kWh per day and I've seen that battery costs are headed towards €100 per kWh, surely there's an opening for (say) a 15kWh battery for around €3000. Even without domestic solar just charging them on night rate would provide great smoothing over 24 hours.

Add in a feed in tariff and intelligent meter, there might be an additional incentive. Charge at night rate and feed back at peak time (on demand by the grid) to defray capital cost.

Add an EV into the equation, and storage might be a solution.

Capt'n Midnight · 11-02-2021 10:22pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I think we just hit a new peak wind energy production with higher levels forecast for later.

Just out of interest, has there been any thought/policy research put into local/domestic storage? Average usage is around 12kWh per day and I've seen that battery costs are headed towards €100 per kWh, surely there's an opening for (say) a 15kWh battery for around €3000. Even without domestic solar just charging them on night rate would provide great smoothing over 24 hours.

Better insulation would also provide smoothing for space heating and water heating. You could also use demand shedding on heating to load balance.

That €3,000 + installation + tariffs battery would only save you the difference between the peak and off peak rates that are offered to end customers.

Peak demand here was when people came home from work, so not so sure how topped up car batteries would be then.

Energy infrastructure

Comments