Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Energy infrastructure
Options
Comments
-
Are there any large scale solar installations in Ireland? I have seen a lot of mention of them being proposed but not a single photo of one actually up and running.
There are a number of installations in NI. The first was built by Lightsource, now Lightsource BP. Thats a relatively small one, under 6MW. There are some fairly substantial projects, 50+ MW consented in ROI now. First projects are likely to be built in the Summer.
Solar coming on line is helpful because June to Sept tend to be pretty bad for wind generation in Ireland.0 -
In 10 years time we can moor a few of these on the Shannon Estuary at Moneypoint.
https://www.seaborg.co/0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 89018
What is the economic justification of this compared to tidal power ? Specifically tidal power at Moneypoint.In 10 years time we can moor a few of these on the Shannon Estuary at Moneypoint.
https://www.seaborg.co/
More vapourware. They don't even have a CGI picture of a working reactor. Nor are there any costs. But they've already have 8 figure venture capital debts so they'll need to make multiples of that to break even before you consider the costs of actual development.
Besides it's old tech. Been done before many times. "But this time it's different" how ??
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/omar2/The Aircraft Reactor Experiment was a concept designed at Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) in the 1940s to use molten salt reactors to propel a plane.
...
ARE was built at ORNL and achieved criticality in 1954
...
The molten salt reactor finally constructed was operated at 1-3 MWt. Liquid uranium tetrafluoride (UF4) fuel, using uranium enriched to 93.4% 235U,0 -
Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,241 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 10112
Peter Sweetman strikes again! This time he took down planning permission for Bord Na Monas windfarm in Longford. As annoying as this is, I struggle to get feel anything towards Sweetman. At this stage, everyone knows that Sweetman is gonna Sweetman, and anybody who doesn't take this into account is a fool.
Imagine going for planning permission for a wind farm without knowing exactly how tall the structures are going to be? How could anyone not look at that and think, "Hmm.... That seems like an obvious route for a Sweetman review there, maybe I should tighten that up" is beyond me.
Court quashes permission for proposed Longford windfarm, the joint-tallest structure in Ireland0 -
Peter Sweetman strikes again! This time he took down planning permission for Bord Na Monas windfarm in Longford. As annoying as this is, I struggle to get feel anything towards Sweetman. At this stage, everyone knows that Sweetman is gonna Sweetman, and anybody who doesn't take this into account is a fool.
Imagine going for planning permission for a wind farm without knowing exactly how tall the structures are going to be? How could anyone not look at that and think, "Hmm.... That seems like an obvious route for a Sweetman review there, maybe I should tighten that up" is beyond me.
Court quashes permission for proposed Longford windfarm, the joint-tallest structure in Ireland
Peter Sweetman has definitely won some niche gotcha cases in the past. However, applying and granting permission for a wind turbine without actually knowing how tall it will be is just asking for your permission to be quashed in the High Court.
The High Court has rule many times that what you actually build in the end doesn't need to match the planning permission precisely but applying in such a way to keep your options open this wide was definitely asking for trouble.0 -
Advertisement
-
It doesn't actually make any financial sense the more you read about it. The National Audit Office calculated the cost to consumers (of the guaranteed strike price to justify its build) at 50B.
This thing was planned more than 10 years ago when the electricity generation scene was very different. Renewables have dropped in price by 80-90% in the last ten years. The electricity generation world has been transformed by this.
For example, looking at the LCOE here - https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 - you can see that the middle of the LCOE price band for Nuclear (in 2020) is about $170/MWh while that for onshore wind is about $40. And wind generation costs are predicted to continue to drop. In contrast the LCOE for nuclear has been rising for decades - the gap is only going to get wider and wider.
For 20B pounds you could install 25GW of onshore wind and probably have it running in a year. And that's using 2020 prices. In ten years, the same amount of money will buy you double that. My prediction is that in 2030 years, Hinkley C will look like an expensive dinosaur and a huge mistake.
And yes nuclear isn't intermittent but neither can it's output be quickly adjusted to fluctuating demand which creates its own difficulties in matching grid demand and supply. While the incredible cheapness of wind means the intermittency isn't as big a deal as some predicted - using derating for example sounds crazy but is financially viable.
And in the near future after the world has switched to BEVs, the intermittency will be even less of an issue. And we have falls in grid-scale battery storage costs to look forward to - the cost has fallen by 98% in the last 12 years - it's starting to actually look viable. Who knows what the future will bring in terms of technology - there are so many promising fronts being explored at the moment - backed by big money - that committing to a 25B fission nuclear plant for 60 years is nuts.
For what the UK are going to spend on Hinkly point we could put a couple of days' worth of storage in just about every home in Ireland. Keep increasing "intermittent" generation and that's it sorted.0 -
An interesting one to look at.
Say four days supply is 40kWh for a meter point.
For 2.5m meter points that’s 100 million kWh.
That much storage even at the bargain price of 100 euros per kWh would cost ten billion euros. (Excluding finance and operating costs)
You would still need to build all the wind and interconnection (although you might need a less dense transmission network).
If the average consumption per house goes up (because of electrifying heat and transport) then the costs go up again.
In the end there is no cheap way to do this.0 -
Peter Sweetman strikes again! This time he took down planning permission for Bord Na Monas windfarm in Longford. As annoying as this is, I struggle to get feel anything towards Sweetman. At this stage, everyone knows that Sweetman is gonna Sweetman, and anybody who doesn't take this into account is a fool.
Imagine going for planning permission for a wind farm without knowing exactly how tall the structures are going to be? How could anyone not look at that and think, "Hmm.... That seems like an obvious route for a Sweetman review there, maybe I should tighten that up" is beyond me.
Court quashes permission for proposed Longford windfarm, the joint-tallest structure in Ireland
Honestly anyone who gets annoyed at Sweetman is directing their anger at the wrong place. If people submitting for planning, especially the government, aren't going to bother following the environmental legislation in Ireland they should expect to be defeated in court.
We would probably have a much better country for our citizens if there was a Peter Sweetman for every aspect of our society. There would certainly be no kissing gates or shoddy dropped kerbs if the councils were sued into oblivion for defying disability equality legisalation etc.
Sad that thats the way things have to get done though...0 -
We would have a much better country if they reformed the planning and enviro laws, since even the government have problems with them.
Some Parisiens objected to the LV art gallery in Paris that was designed by Gehry. The project was halted half way and ended up in court, so they passed a law allowing it to proceed.
The governemnt here have had their arm twisted by the planning officers who live to say nyet, when it comes to domestic solar panels, having to remove their ability to say nyet.
More of that needed, but really, the planning laws should be re-written wholesale to remove nimbyism, nyetism and aesthetic directions.0 -
riddlinrussell wrote: »Honestly anyone who gets annoyed at Sweetman is directing their anger at the wrong place. If people submitting for planning, especially the government, aren't going to bother following the environmental legislation in Ireland they should expect to be defeated in court.
We would probably have a much better country for our citizens if there was a Peter Sweetman for every aspect of our society. There would certainly be no kissing gates or shoddy dropped kerbs if the councils were sued into oblivion for defying disability equality legisalation etc.
Sad that thats the way things have to get done though...
Exactly this.
Sweetman typically only ever challenges on a point of law or regulations not being followed e.g. EIS not being completed and no solid justification as to why not etc.
One example where an EIS was not completed but there was a solid justification was in relation to the new bridge over the corrib due to be built next year. Typically an EIS would be required to show impact on the river ecology, however as there will not be anything going into the river (no structures) and there would be protective measures put in place to prevent any materials even accidently falling into the river (netting), then there is no impact or interference with the river. GCC ticked all the boxes in terms of making sure all permissions and evaluations were completed to confirm no EIS would be required and therefore there is no issue.
Where someone decides no EIS is required but doesn't back up the reasoning why with a solid justification, those are the ones he typically nails as they havent done their due diligence in making sure no harm will be done.
Sweetman likes to win (doesn't everybody) and only challenges when others havent done what they are supposed to do. If they do what is required, they never hear from him.
Its really quite simple and the issue is not with Sweetman, he is only pulling these people up on not doing their jobs.
I follow him on FB and funnily enough its honestly difficult to see what he approves of in terms of sustainability as he seems to dislike everything you or I would consider "green" e.g. wind power, electric cars etc. However he only ever challenges when the law is not being followed regardless of what he does or doesn't personally approve of0 -
Advertisement
-
Where did you get this 4 days from? Why would you need to build such a battery storage facility?antoinolachtnai wrote: »An interesting one to look at.
Say four days supply is 40kWh for a meter point.
For 2.5m meter points that’s 100 million kWh.
That much storage even at the bargain price of 100 euros per kWh would cost ten billion euros. (Excluding finance and operating costs)
You would still need to build all the wind and interconnection (although you might need a less dense transmission network).
If the average consumption per house goes up (because of electrifying heat and transport) then the costs go up again.
I completely disagree. Your argument/point of view is about 10 years out of date.antoinolachtnai wrote: »In the end there is no cheap way to do this.
And it's been disproved by experience. Ireland as gone from almost 0 to 45% renewables in 15 years. In that time, the consumer per kWh price in Ireland has gone from about 30% above the European average to just below average. The switch to renewables doesn't result in increasing prices to consumers. In inflation adjusted terms, the consumer price in Ireland was actually higher before wind generation started being rolled out.
Wind and solar have become so cheap that they've more or less made all other forms of generation obsolete - see https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/ - and given the trajectories for generation cost, the price advantage of wind and solar is just going to increase.
The wind/solar revolution that is happening now is already making electricity cheaper. Once Ireland's vehicle fleet has switched to BEVs which is clearly inevitable at this stage, Ireland will be in a position to become a net exporter of energy.
Now if you can show me a CHEAPER way of switching a country from being in a position where it's forced to import 90% of it's energy needs to becoming a net exporter, I'd be interested to hear it.
It's strange to keep hearing decades old arguments (that switching to intermittent renewables will be expensive, difficult, etc.) when we have actual experience that disproves it completely.0 -
Where did you get this 4 days from? Why would you need to build such a battery storage facility?
I was really fleshing out the previous poster's idea.
Nonetheless, it is not a completely unreasonable proposition at all. It is very reasonable to expect a kalte dunkelflaute every twenty years or so. This could mean cold windless conditions for two weeks. Storage would be needed to cover this. Such storage could also help deal with other system services of course.
The storage might be in the form of hydrogen which has its own characteristics, but if you want to get carbon off the grid, you are going to need storage.I completely disagree. Your argument/point of view is about 10 years out of date.
And it's been disproved by experience. Ireland as gone from almost 0 to 45% renewables in 15 years. In that time, the consumer per kWh price in Ireland has gone from about 30% above the European average to just below average. The switch to renewables doesn't result in increasing prices to consumers. In inflation adjusted terms, the consumer price in Ireland was actually higher before wind generation started being rolled out.
Your price data seems to be out of date.
Ireland's cost per kWh for householders is well above average. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Electricity_prices_for_household_consumers,_second_half_2020_(EUR_per_kWh)_v1.png
Your information about Ireland's switch to renewables is completely incorrect. Maybe 10 or 15 percent of Ireland's energy demand is from renewables.
https://www.seai.ie/data-and-insights/seai-statistics/key-statistics/energy-use-overview/Wind and solar have become so cheap that they've more or less made all other forms of generation obsolete - see https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/ - and given the trajectories for generation cost, the price advantage of wind and solar is just going to increase.
No one is bidding anything like those prices in the Irish market at RES auctions.
The price of PV has a limited amount to do with anything when it comes to meeting peak demand in Ireland, especially peak household demand. The sun just doesn't shine enough in the two darkest months.
This is presumably why there is still unfortunately a market for new gas plants.The wind/solar revolution that is happening now is already making electricity cheaper. Once Ireland's vehicle fleet has switched to BEVs which is clearly inevitable at this stage, Ireland will be in a position to become a net exporter of energy.
Sure, could be done, but only if we build loads and loads of wind generation (which I think we should do by the way). It would have to be cost-effective though. It might be more economic to locate massive scale floating offshore in the North Sea, closer to the markets, rather than off the Irish coast.
We would need in the order of 6 to 10 times as much wind generation as we have at present to achieve your goal.
Now if you can show me a CHEAPER way of switching a country from being in a position where it's forced to import 90% of it's energy needs to becoming a net exporter, I'd be interested to hear it.
Who said anything about 'CHEAPER' as you like to spell it? An energy transition is not going to be cheap. It's really about the cost in comparison to the alternative.It's strange to keep hearing decades old arguments (that switching to intermittent renewables will be expensive, difficult, etc.) when we have actual experience that disproves it completely.
You will need to provide more information to prove your points (that very little storage is needed, that consumer electricity prices are falling, that there is no economic case for anything other than PV and wind, and that Ireland will become an energy exporter).0 -
Do you have the statistics or numbers to support this 4 day claim? Managing the grid and supply is an engineering disciple - it doesn't work on what would seem "reasonable". It relies on lots of statistical models and not just weather ones.antoinolachtnai wrote: »I was really fleshing out the previous poster's idea.
Nonetheless, it is not a completely unreasonable proposition at all. It is very reasonable to expect a kalte dunkelflaute every twenty years or so. This could mean cold windless conditions for two weeks. Storage would be needed to cover this. Such storage could also help deal with other system services of course.
The storage might be in the form of hydrogen which has its own characteristics, but if you want to get carbon off the grid, you are going to need storage.
23.21c/KWh in the euro area vs 23.05c/KWh in Ireland for 2020 - see here https://www.seai.ie/data-and-insights/seai-statistics/key-statistics/prices/ - to be fair it looks like there is a mix-up in the eurostat data wrt to treatment of VAT or taxes. The SEAI number for Ireland looks more likely to me.Your price data seems to be out of date.
Ireland's cost per kWh for householders is well above average. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Electricity_prices_for_household_consumers,_second_half_2020_(EUR_per_kWh)_v1.png
But in any case, the trend during the period of Irelands switch to renewables is clear - relative to the rest of Europe electricity prices have become cheaper in Ireland.
43% of electricity came from renewables in 2020 - https://www.eirgridgroup.com/newsroom/electricity-consumption-f/Your information about Ireland's switch to renewables is completely incorrect. Maybe 10 or 15 percent of Ireland's energy demand is from renewables.
Unless you're trying a goalpost shift here? Given the conversation is about electricity and its storage and generation.
And if anything the fact that the next biggest use of energy in Ireland is transport and the switch to BEVs will compliment intermittent and renewable production means that we will effectively have a massive distributed battery storage available to consume off-peak renewable power.
None of this is hugely expensive.
Who cares? The type of renewables depends on the geography. Places with lots of sun are going for PV, places with lots of wind (like Ireland) are going for turbines. Both are super cheap and getting cheaper all the time.https://www.seai.ie/data-and-insights/seai-statistics/key-statistics/energy-use-overview/
No one is bidding anything like those prices in the Irish market at RES auctions.
The price of PV has a limited amount to do with anything when it comes to meeting peak demand in Ireland, especially peak household demand. The sun just doesn't shine enough in the two darkest months.
So what's your argument? That's happening now - load of wind generation is being built and it's displacing fossil fuel burning capacity each year. And it's happening because it's cheaper than building more fossil fuel burning plants.Sure, could be done, but only if we build loads and loads of wind generation (which I think we should do by the way). It would have to be cost-effective though. It might be more economic to locate massive scale floating offshore in the North Sea, closer to the markets, rather than off the Irish coast.
We would need in the order of 6 to 10 times as much wind generation as we have at present to achieve your goal.
Is there another way to spell it? You claimed "none of this would be cheap". Switching to renewables for electricity so far has proven to be far cheaper than the alternative which is to continue to invest in generating electricity from burning fossil fuels. So if we avoid this "energy transition", it will end up costing far more. Saying it isn't/won't be cheap is meaningless unless you compare it to the alternative - even if the alternative is to continue the status-quo.Who said anything about 'CHEAPER' as you like to spell it? An energy transition is not going to be cheap. It's really about the cost in comparison to the alternative.
And that's before you consider all the other disadvantages of not doing an energy transition - the environment and the continued complete reliance on the import of fossil fuels for energy.0 -
Where did you get this 4 days from? Why would you need to build such a battery storage facility?
I completely disagree. Your argument/point of view is about 10 years out of date.
And it's been disproved by experience. Ireland as gone from almost 0 to 45% renewables in 15 years. In that time, the consumer per kWh price in Ireland has gone from about 30% above the European average to just below average. The switch to renewables doesn't result in increasing prices to consumers. In inflation adjusted terms, the consumer price in Ireland was actually higher before wind generation started being rolled out.
Wind and solar have become so cheap that they've more or less made all other forms of generation obsolete - see https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/ - and given the trajectories for generation cost, the price advantage of wind and solar is just going to increase.
The wind/solar revolution that is happening now is already making electricity cheaper. Once Ireland's vehicle fleet has switched to BEVs which is clearly inevitable at this stage, Ireland will be in a position to become a net exporter of energy.
Now if you can show me a CHEAPER way of switching a country from being in a position where it's forced to import 90% of it's energy needs to becoming a net exporter, I'd be interested to hear it.
It's strange to keep hearing decades old arguments (that switching to intermittent renewables will be expensive, difficult, etc.) when we have actual experience that disproves it completely.
This cheaper cost of renewables - is that including the portion of the considerable cost of base load generation infrastructure required for when the reneables are not generating?
A true costing of renewables has to account for the appropriate portion of dispatchable generation required to fill in the holes.0 -
Your numbers are old. The SEAI graph is based on older eurostat data. The price of electricity fluctuates for lots of reasons There is no reason I can see to believe that small increases or decreases relative to the EU average are the result of a causal link with wind uptake.
You are the one who shifted the discussion to energy as opposed to electricity.
Ireland (island) has been an electricity net exporter in the past. But that really means nothing when we import so much in fossil fuels.
There isn’t really any wind being built for the prices you are quoting. Your insistence that renewable wind is so cheap isn’t borne out by the figures. If it can’t be bought in real life, it’s just snake oil.
Wind isn’t really displacing fossil fuel plants. The two are used together. At the moment the price of electricity is sky-high because many fossil plants in Ireland are out of action. The wind isn’t able to fill the gap.
That’s why the power companies are building new gas plants at the same time as pursuing renewables projects.
To cover a two week windless period you are going to need a lot of backup. On a completely carbon free grid you are going to need more than four days worth.
It is nice to think that this will be cheap but there is no evidence that it will be.
Your second last paragraph is a rehearsal of what I said.0 -
It's 2020 data - the average per KWh household electricity cost is 27c in your figures. Looking at the standard plans and tariff on a number of suppliers would suggest that the SEAI's average of 24c/kWh is far more likely.antoinolachtnai wrote: »Your numbers are old. The SEAI graph is based on older eurostat data. The price of electricity fluctuates for lots of reasons There is no reason I can see to believe that small increases or decreases relative to the EU average are the result of a causal link with wind uptake.
You disputed my 45% renewables claim by suggesting it was 10-15%. I provided a link - which you specifically asked for - showing 43% of electricity consumed in Ireland last year was generated by renewable sources.You are the one who shifted the discussion to energy as opposed to electricity.
Either you were off by a factor of 3 or 4 in your estimate or - as I assumed - you were shifting goalposts by using an all-energy share of renewables.
I'm confused about what prices you are you talking about, since I didn't quote any specific costs for generation? I referenced Lazard's annual report which show the current LCOE for various generation options. You can read about their methodology on their website or you can dismiss it as "snake oil" if you want.Ireland (island) has been an electricity net exporter in the past. But that really means nothing when we import so much in fossil fuels.
There isn’t really any wind being built for the prices you are quoting. Your insistence that renewable wind is so cheap isn’t borne out by the figures. If it can’t be bought in real life, it’s just snake oil.
We must have a different understanding of the word "displace". There's a higher share of electricity being provided by renewables and there is a smaller share provided by burning fossil fuels than there was in the past. That's displacement to me.Wind isn’t really displacing fossil fuel plants. The two are used together. At the moment the price of electricity is sky-high because many fossil plants in Ireland are out of action. The wind isn’t able to fill the gap.
And it's happening faster than expected. Peat has been completely decommissioned 7 years ahead of schedule. And most people, including the government, thought the 40% renewable electricity by 2020 target was impossible while it has been accomplished without any great fuss or disruption.That’s why the power companies are building new gas plants at the same time as pursuing renewables projects.
To cover a two week windless period you are going to need a lot of backup. On a completely carbon free grid you are going to need more than four days worth.
It is nice to think that this will be cheap but there is no evidence that it will be.
You categorically claimed "it would not be cheap" - so I guess softening that claim to "there's no evidence that it would be cheap" is a step in the right direction. Even though I've given plenty of evidence that so far it has been cheap and in the future it will be cheaper yet.
Anyway I'll probably bow out. I'm far more relaxed about renewable-denialism these days given that renewable electricity is winning on every front - in Ireland and globally. It's an unstoppable juggernaut despite the naysayers - who, to be fair, had a point ten or fifteen years ago when turbines and PV panels cost 10 to 20 times as much and when the engineering required to integrate intermittent sources with grid supply was less developed.0 -
You are right to bow out.
the SEAI figures are for the first half of 2020. The Eurostat figures are for the second half. Take either figure, it proves nothing.
The eurostat price has very little to do with the advertised unit price. Most of your domestic electricity price is driven by the PSO and network charges.
You have indeed misunderstood displacement. Displacement of fossil plants would be if wind was taking the place of these plants. But it is not. These plants run less but they aren’t being displaced. Part of your electricity bill goes toward paying them to stay available, a fee which is paid whether they run or not. (Wind does not get this fee because it is not consistently available.)
This is a regular thing now, someone rocks up, claims that they have read that there is a cheap solution to the problem of making energy renewable, and then they bow out when it comes to explaining how it could be done.
To go back to where we were earlier in the thread, this is why the Brits are doing their nuke. It’s expensive, but it’s far from clear that the alternatives are cheaper, based on technology that is actually available.0 -
I said I wouldn't but I can't resist.
and wind runs more... That's what people call displacement.antoinolachtnai wrote: »You have indeed misunderstood displacement. Displacement of fossil plants would be if wind was taking the place of these plants. But it is not. These plants run less...
This is a regular thing now, someone rocks up who hasn't followed the last 10 years of development in electricity generation technology and economics and claims renewable electricity is expensive.This is a regular thing now, someone rocks up, claims that they have read that there is a cheap solution to the problem of making energy renewable, and then they bow out when it comes to explaining how it could be done.
Like maybe someone who claimed only 10-15% of Irish electricity comes from renewable sources?
Wow what an example to pick. It is absolutely clear - it's outrageously expensive. They've been guaranteed a price of £98 per MWh of power produced from this plant for decades. The current wholesale price averages at £45 per MWh. So twice as expensive as what can be generated today? Is this your idea of cheap?To go back to where we were earlier in the thread, this is why the Brits are doing their nuke. It’s expensive, but it’s far from clear that the alternatives are cheaper, based on technology that is actually available.
Here are my 2 favourite quotes from the Hinkley Point C wikipedia article:
orJim Ratcliffe, the chairman and CEO of Ineos said he had recently agreed to purchase nuclear power in France at £37.94 (€45) per MWh and warned of the Hinkley Point C project: 'Forget it. Nobody in manufacturing is going to go near £95 per MWh'.Liberium Capital analysts described the strike price as 'economically insane' in October 2013: "as far as we can see this makes Hinkley Point the most expensive power station in the world..."
Like with Brexit, they're ploughing their own furrow and are stuck legally and bureaucratically with proceeding even though it makes no sense. The world has moved on - in 2020, renewables represented 90% of the entire global power sector’s expansion.
Or from the IEA: "Renewables were the only energy source for which demand increased in 2020 despite the pandemic, while consumption of all other fuels declined."
You really need to bring your knowledge of this subject up to date.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89018
antoinolachtnai wrote: »To go back to where we were earlier in the thread, this is why the Brits are doing their nuke. It’s expensive, but it’s far from clear that the alternatives are cheaper, based on technology that is actually available.
Unlike nuclear biomass doesn't need to run at a near constant output all day , every day. So you can use next week's wind forecast to optimise power output.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-drax-biomass-costs-idUKKBN1HR1IG“We have a cost of delivering energy from biomass that is about 75 pounds per megawatt-hour (MWh) and we are looking to drive that down to around 50 pounds over the course of the next 10 years,” Chief Executive Will Gardiner said.0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Unlike nuclear biomass doesn't need to run at a near constant output all day , every day. So you can use next week's wind forecast to optimise power output.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-drax-biomass-costs-idUKKBN1HR1IG
There is only so much biomass feedstock available at an economic price though. If the feedstock gets scarce the price will go up pretty quick.
Unless there is some new source of biomass it doesn’t really address the problem the nuke is supposed to solve.0 -
Advertisement
-
This cheaper cost of renewables - is that including the portion of the considerable cost of base load generation infrastructure required for when the reneables are not generating?
A true costing of renewables has to account for the appropriate portion of dispatchable generation required to fill in the holes.
As opposed to the billions we currently spend on oil and gas. Most of the energy from those sources is wasted due to inefficiency anyway.0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Unlike nuclear biomass doesn't need to run at a near constant output all day , every day. So you can use next week's wind forecast to optimise power output.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-drax-biomass-costs-idUKKBN1HR1IG
Unless there is some new source of biomass it doesn’t really address the problem the nuke is supposed to solve.[/quote]
Where is this biomass grown? Presumably in fields, what’s else do we grow in fields? O ya food, biomass is not the answer.0 -
Yeah biomass isn't the silver bullet it is sometimes made out to be.
Here is interesting video worth a watch on it
https://youtu.be/qJ_5sLWhVyI0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19067
Banana Republic 1 wrote: »Unless there is some new source of biomass it doesn’t really address the problem the nuke is supposed to solve.Where is this biomass grown? Presumably in fields, what’s else do we grow in fields? O ya food, biomass is not the answer.
Well, 100 years ago, most transport was provided by horses, and they ate biomass (hay, and oats) and so it would be going back to the future.0 -
Banana Republic 1 wrote: »As opposed to the billions we currently spend on oil and gas. Most of the energy from those sources is wasted due to inefficiency anyway.
The electricity generated from carbon sources is mostly wasted while that generated from renewables isn't. Tell my how that works, in detail.
Rehewables necessitate paying for two sets of energy generating infrastructue instead of one. It's like needing a car and buying two. That's cost and waste right there.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,487 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 22083
The electricity generated from carbon sources is mostly wasted while that generated from renewables isn't. Tell my how that works, in detail.
Rehewables necessitate paying for two sets of energy generating infrastructue instead of one. It's like needing a car and buying two. That's cost and waste right there.
People seem to forget, that the extraction of coal, oil and gas, require vast amounts of energy in their own right. Also oil then requires even more energy to refine into petrol/diesel. Almost every refinery has a power station right next door due to the amount of power that the process requires.
We have always needed more energy generating infrastructure then needed, you have always needed duplication for redundancy. Fossil fuel plants can often go offline for maintenance for months if not years on end, see Moneypoint recently.
Economically speaking, wind has become so cheap, that it actually makes economic sense to leave the gas plants sitting there turned off when the wind is blowing and only turn them on as needed.
In your car analogy, think of it like a farmer who has a big fuel guzzling truck for hauling stuff around the farmer, but also a second, small fuel efficient car for driving around outside the farm.
It is actually more economical and environmentally friendly for the farmer to have two vehicles like this, then just having the truck and trying to drive that to the local town every day.0 -
The electricity generated from carbon sources is mostly wasted while that generated from renewables isn't. Tell my how that works, in detail.
Rehewables necessitate paying for two sets of energy generating infrastructue instead of one. It's like needing a car and buying two. That's cost and waste right there.
Power plants are obnoxiously inefficient, same goes for any fossil fuel conversion process. The internal combustion engine for example that’s only 30 to 35% efficient. Which means for every Euro of fuel you get at the pumps only 35 cent of that actually drives the car the rest is completely wasted.
The difference with solar for instance is the sun will stay around for billions of years. The days of constantly having to find and dig up dead fish and dinosaurs are gone.0 -
People seem to forget, that the extraction of coal, oil and gas, require vast amounts of energy in their own right. Also oil then requires even more energy to refine into petrol/diesel. Almost every refinery has a power station right next door due to the amount of power that the process requires.
We have always needed more energy generating infrastructure then needed, you have always needed duplication for redundancy. Fossil fuel plants can often go offline for maintenance for months if not years on end, see Moneypoint recently.
Economically speaking, wind has become so cheap, that it actually makes economic sense to leave the gas plants sitting there turned off when the wind is blowing and only turn them on as needed.
In your car analogy, think of it like a farmer who has a big fuel guzzling truck for hauling stuff around the farmer, but also a second, small fuel efficient car for driving around outside the farm.
It is actually more economical and environmentally friendly for the farmer to have two vehicles like this, then just having the truck and trying to drive that to the local town every day.
Without fossil fuels, what exactly would you be making wind turbine blades from? You do know it takes energy and fossil fuels to manufacture the materials used to make wind turbines (resin) and solar cells from? The energy used to provision fossil fuels is a fatuous argument since it applies to all energy infrastructure. You might as well moan about the electricity used to make the aluminium and steel used in HT pylons and cables and the glass used in the insulators and the trucks and ships used to move everything around, or the copper used in the wiring of your house. An EV takes about twice as much energy to manufacture as an ICE car. And around and around we go.
It takes a wind turbine about three years of generation to pay offf it's initial cost to manufacture, which includes a lot of energy.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,487 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22083
Without fossil fuels, what exactly would you be making wind turbine blades from? You do know it takes energy and fossil fuels to manufacture the materials used to make wind turbines (resin) and solar cells from? The energy used to provision fossil fuels is a fatuous argument since it applies to all energy infrastructure. You might as well moan about the electricity used to make the aluminium and steel used in HT pylons and cables and the glass used in the insulators and the trucks and ships used to move everything around, or the copper used in the wiring of your house. An EV takes about twice as much energy to manufacture as an ICE car. And around and around we go.
It takes a wind turbine about three years of generation to pay offf it's initial cost to manufacture, which includes a lot of energy.
So what?
The point of all of this is to vastly reduce how much greenhouse gasses we release.
Take you car example, an EV might require more resources to build up front then a ICE car. But the ICE car will result in VASTLY higher greenhouse gas emission over it entire life time, even taking into account the higher up front resources.
And that is without taking into account the cancer causing NOX and PM emission that we have all been breathing in from Diesel vehicles.
A wind turbine might take three years to offset it's construction, but in will then give you decades of clean energy in return.
Do you know the vast amount of resources, concrete, etc that it takes to build power plants and build oil/gas rigs and the massive fleets of ships that service them *
* One of the most incredible sights I've ever seen was when I was in Rio, there were literally thousands of support vessels for the Oil rigs in the port, I can only imagine the only equivalent would be the D-Day landings, it was a real eye opener into the vast resources it takes to get oil to our vehicles.
When you are doing these sort of comparisons, you need to do a wheel to well (WtW) comparison.
Fossil fuels have terrible efficiency. It takes vast resources to extract, refine and transport the petrol/Diesel to your car, which in turn has only a 30% efficiency. Overall the WtW efficiency for oil is about 14%
By comparison, a wind turbine to EV car is about 80% efficient. And yes that is even taking into account the upfront resources needed to build the wind turbines, extra batteries in the EV, etc.
This is why it is actually economically sound to build the gas power station, but leave them ideal most of the time and use wind turbines when you can. It actually works out cheaper then just using gas only!
And this is just a pure economic argument, it actually makes financial sense (like it does for the farmer), which is why renewables are exploding all over the world, despite the efforts of people like Trump in the US, it just makes business sense now, they have become some cheap.
And that isn't taking into account the externalities, of global warming and the impact that will have.0 -
Advertisement
-
Without fossil fuels, what exactly would you be making wind turbine blades from? You do know it takes energy and fossil fuels to manufacture the materials used to make wind turbines (resin) and solar cells from? The energy used to provision fossil fuels is a fatuous argument since it applies to all energy infrastructure. You might as well moan about the electricity used to make the aluminium and steel used in HT pylons and cables and the glass used in the insulators and the trucks and ships used to move everything around, or the copper used in the wiring of your house. An EV takes about twice as much energy to manufacture as an ICE car. And around and around we go.
It takes a wind turbine about three years of generation to pay offf it's initial cost to manufacture, which includes a lot of energy.
Well to be honest there is work going on to decarbonise the supply chain when it comes to production of Steel for one, the same techniques been used there will be applied to Aluminum.
Vattenfall (swedish equivalent of ESB) have partnered up with LKAB (swedish state owned mining company) and SSAB (Steel manufacture) and built a pilot plant, they plan on producing a full scale steel plant by 2026 (replacing existing one)
More can be read here:
https://group.vattenfall.com/what-we-do/roadmap-to-fossil-freedom/industry-decarbonisation/hybrit?_t_id=wVlzomiHH7uK5WV_arioOw%3D%3D&_t_uuid=JP9QaSUzSPGMCwK5Abd3AA&_t_q=hybrit&_t_tags=language:en,siteid:ec6448d4-f3c8-47b9-b9c4-42845a8acf13,andquerymatch&_t_hit.id=Corporate_Web_Cms_ContentTypes_Pages_ContentPageE/_a0e5f122-f480-4ab6-becf-a14d1b395ac6_en&_t_hit.pos=20
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
_v1.png){kind=link}
Advertisement