Energy infrastructure

Sam Russell · 06-10-2021 3:19pm

By 2030, hopefully many homes will be insulated to at least a BER level of B. That would save quite a bit. Surviving at 18c instead of 22c would save quite a bit of heating.

We need to adapt rapidly over this and the next decade. Less consumption would be a start.

06-10-2021 3:39pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983061#Comment_117983061

Wasn't talking to you dude, chill, was just a general comment on the recent posts

Nermal · 06-10-2021 3:39pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117982830#Comment_117982830

There isn't a 'solution' as you concieve of it. There's no concievable path to carbon reduction on the scale we have committed to that doesn't involve a collapse in living standards of a scale unheard of in human history.

There is certainly a solution to the prospect of fines for not impoverishing ourselves: immediate withdrawal from all international agreements that force us to adopt carbon-targeting.

crisco10 · 06-10-2021 3:49pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983931#Comment_117983931

On top of that, offshore turbines are significantly larger than onshore turbines, and courtesy of the swept area being related to the radius squared can produce significantly more power than the smaller onshore turbines. E.g. an onshore turbine with a 100m rotor will produce a quarter of the kWh that an offshore turbine with a 200m rotor will produce (all else being equal).

What is also not equal, is that offshore wind (believe it or not) is less turbulent than onshore - there are no hills or forests offshore to disturb the wind.

All this combines to significantly increase the capacity factor of offshore, and produce power on all but the calmest of calm days.

Even thinking about the capacity factors quoted previously (24% onshore, 38% offshore), in MW terms that equates to roughly 24% of say a 2MW turbine onshore (500kW average) or 38% of 5MW++ (say 2MW average). Which again is about 4x the kWh difference between onshore and offshore. And the potential for larger turbines offshore is significantly more than onshore. Latest onshore turbines are ~4 to 5MW, latest offshore are 15MW and growing.

timmyntc · 06-10-2021 3:52pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984231#Comment_117984231

While I'd also like to see decreased consumption - it is not going to happen.

Reduced consumption means less money for producers of all sorts - which means less jobs, less tax revenue etc. Politically its a no-go unfortunately. People need their cheap disposable clothes, replaceable not repairable electronics/appliances and so on.

As for BER of B, not a hope in hell. THe government would have to roll out grant schemes to cover the majority of cost to bring all houses below B, up to that level. Most people are too cash poor to afford any improvements to their houses really.

06-10-2021 4:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984400#Comment_117984400

At times of the year when wind resource is negligible the amount of electricity harvested will remain negligible regardless of how you multiply it.

06-10-2021 4:30pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984552#Comment_117984552

Which is why there would also be solar, interconnectors, hydrogen and so on

Even going back to when we were virtually 100% fossil fueled, we had a mix of different sources to mitigate against risk. Its no different with renewables

Eggs in one basket and all that jazz

06-10-2021 4:40pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984111#Comment_117984111

You might want to look at the IEA report I posted. It doesn’t go into the specifics for Ireland but for Europe the potential for wind alone is ten times demand

at the moment we have small offshore wind farms but vast potential. To unlock that potential we need larger inter-connectors. It’s a bit chicken and egg, investors won’t invest without customers. That might be a bit too much joined up thinking though.

06-10-2021 4:52pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984170#Comment_117984170

It was 9kts today overland and 25kts over the west Atlantic

most of our wind generation is onshore right now but that would change

You say that offshore wind tracks onshore wind but it doesn’t. Offshore wind is never 0 kts. Nobody is doubting the need for connectors of course, particularly since the Irish wind farms when built will be over producing in good times. And we need storage. And nuclear (which will be imported in Ireland’s case). Offshore wind is a very viable resource, nevertheless.

crisco10 · 06-10-2021 5:25pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984552#Comment_117984552

That's only true when it's exactly zero. Otherwise the scale up difference is very much important.

Offshore isn't a panacea which will supply 100% of our energy needs, but it is significantly more reliable, and less prone to low wind days, than onshore. For weather related and technology related reasons.

josip · 06-10-2021 5:55pm

A mix of Hydrogen/Interconnectors/Solar/Batteries are all good to have but we will need to have enough non-Wind power to make up for a shortfall should a 2010 weather event reoccur.

Does anyone have the daily average wind speeds for end Nov and Dec 2010?

According to MET Eireann, there were some sunny days (I don't recall many) but I doubt if solar in December could contribute much.

https://www.met.ie/cms/assets/uploads/2017/08/ColdSpell10.pdf

bk · 06-10-2021 6:23pm

I feel with all the arguing over the past few pages, people have lost sight of the fact that there are two different goals, there is the 2030 goal and a different 2050 goal.

The goal for 2030 is that we are 70% renewable, this will be achieved with lots of offshore wind, but also keeping the existing natural gas power plants. When the wind is blowing we will be producing over 100% of our requirements from wind. When the wind isn't blowing we fire up the gas plants and produce the majority of our power via them (plus importing via interconnectors). Over a year this will all average out to fall under the 70/30 requirement. This is all very achievable with the technology already available.

Then there is the separate 2050 goal. This is the goal of 100% net zero energy (note energy, not just electricity). This goal will certainly be more challenging, but far from impossible. Again wind will make up the majority of or energy generation, the question will be how do we convert that last 30% of energy generation to zero carbon, when the wind isn't blowing.

I call this the Wind + X, where X is about a dozen different technologies which are all developing and vying to slot into this valuable market position.

These include technologies like Green Hydrogen, Natural Gas + CCS, SMR's and about a dozen different storage technologies (+ interconnectors)

All these technologies are competing for this spot. They work, but the question is which ones will scale up to the levels needed and most importantly at an attractive cost.

The good news is we have 29 years for these technologies to mature and scale up. That is forever for technolgy development. 29 years ago people would have laughed at you if you claimed that 40% of our electricity was generated by wind power, but here we are. Hell just 5 years ago you would have been called mad if you suggested the gas peaker plants be replaced by grid scale batteries, yet here we are. While I don't expect all of these technologies will work out, I expect a few will and it will simply come down to price (and different requirements).

But really, for now we need to be focusing on reaching the 2030 goal, which is very doable.

tom1ie · 06-10-2021 6:26pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117982755#Comment_117982755

Can you say this for certain?

wind turbines are built out at sea to a certain height are we certain there is no generation capacity even when a high pressure zone is in play?

tom1ie · 06-10-2021 6:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117985100#Comment_117985100

that should be wind turbines.

Markcheese · 06-10-2021 6:38pm

Somebody way back the thread pointed out that Ireland's electricity goal is to be 70% renewable by 2030 -pretty much 8years from now .. that's far from impossible , and without any new wonder tech - but it is going to mean change in attitudes ..

We're going to be reliant on gas for that 30 %. A lot of the current stations and for better or worse probably a good few new ones .

And (as we're currently aware) since any station is capable of going off line unexpectedly - that gas is also going to need to be backed up , either by more gas or by coal and oil ..

So we'll be paying for those as well - as we currently do anyway -

We're going to need enough gas plants to power the country- for when the winds not blowing - and we're going to need a lot of back up to that as well - but it doesn't need to be running for most of the time... Most of it can sit mothballed till needed ..

Coming up with consumer efficiencies and load shedding will be pretty important too..

Sam Russell · 06-10-2021 6:42pm

There are a few technologies that could help bridge the gap.

Solar - well not so much in winter, but windless periods in summer are generally sunny.

Tidal - very predictable, and could be harnessed off shore.

Pumped storage - we have tried that successfully, but it probably cannot be scaled enough due to our flat topography.

Plus a few more that have not been thought of yet.

Then of course we could cut back on usage. Less travel by car and more use of walking cycling, and PT. More insulation in houses. Less CO2 and methane from agriculture, which is happening at the research stage. Staycations.

06-10-2021 7:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117985166#Comment_117985166

Regarding 2 of those

Tidal - I love the idea of this and have followed various developments over the years. The biggest drawback of it is that its extremely limited in the amount of locations it can go. Now, if we could do something with wave power, rather than tidal, then we'd be laughing all the way to the powerbank but all wave power generation presently is very small scale

Pumped storage - A very viable option but the biggest drawback is, again, location. There's only a handful of places where this would work and trying to get something like this past planning may be difficult.

Fully agree that there's lots of options out there

Banana Republic 1 · 06-10-2021 7:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117985092#Comment_117985092

Not disagreeing, two things net zero and zero carbon are not the same thing. This may change with better tech but CCS is a smoke and mirrors campaign by big fossils, it been around years and it’s been a failure since then

gjim · 06-10-2021 7:18pm

"Ask French if they build one in France and build interconnectors to it, gonna have to build even larger amounts of interconnection anyways if ever want deal with wind not blowing over large area problems"

I think the French are tied up trying to finish the last new reactor they're building in Flamanville. It's already 10 years late (having started construction in 2007) with completion now pushed out until the end of 2022 and counting. And would you trust the French to build it to budget? Flamanville 3 is now estimated to cost over €20B (yes BILLION) - after an initial estimates of €3.3B. This is for a single 1.6GW reactor.

Not surprisingly even the French are doing some serious thinking about building any new nuclear reactors after this debacle.

Sam Russell · 06-10-2021 8:10pm

I classed tidal as including wave. Wave is related to wind so if there is no wind, then there are no waves. Having said that, waves are formed over a very large area while wind could be more localised.

Tidal could be tidal current based, or a pontoon anchored to the sea bottom and it generates as it rises and falls with the tide.

Or a large inlet or lake that fills and empties with each tide - few sites for this.

Natural gas could be the natural gas produced by bio-digesters using cattle waste - could not get more natural than that. There is thinking cattle can be trained to use a toilet area so such matter could be collected easily. Now there is an idea.

Or ideas not thought of yet.

ted1 · 06-10-2021 8:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117982492#Comment_117982492

* turbines , they aren’t milling anything.

the Atlantic is grand but those winter storms would cause havoc.

high wind shut down will happen just as often as no wind

Sam Russell · 06-10-2021 8:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117985590#Comment_117985590

High wind does not last long - hours not days or weeks. It is also very localised - like kilometres, not 100s of kms.

josip · 06-10-2021 10:14pm

If a private enterprise constructs a gas peaker, are they guaranteed a minimum amount of usage in order for them to recover their investment?

If so, won't that in the future be in conflict with the state-wide objective of minimising the amount of power coming from non-renewables?

Will there be gas peakers sitting idle with the state simply "repaying the loan" for the construction costs + risk money?

Capt'n Midnight · 07-10-2021 12:39am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117982909#Comment_117982909

If we fast track nuclear then it take 10 years to build a plant (with no delays) and let's say 5 years to plan it and do all the surveys if we railroad it through the courts. Look at how long it's taking Apple to build a data centre due to opposition from what I'm lead to believe is vested interests.

So realistically nuclear is 20 years away. So we are going to need an alternative energy source that will give us 2 decades to solve the problem of setting up a fleet of nuclear plants whose only reason to exist is to provide an alternative energy source for the 2-3 remaining decades of your 4-5.

The aim is to cut carbon long term. Wind and solar exist and work. And there are lab proven technologies that will lead to better, cheaper, power when commercialised. Grid level storage of gas in gas wells has been done. On the other hand nuclear hasn't delivered any fundamentally new tech in a long time because it's all been tried before. And there's the history of being late and over budget.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-10-2021 1:11am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117986065#Comment_117986065

In the UK a new nuclear plant is being given 35 years (from when it starts generating ~ 2026-2061 ) of guaranteed usage and price (index linked).

Have they sorted out the auction where gas plants had to say if they were going to be open or combined cycle on the day before instead of being able to operate in the most economic mode ?

Yes renewables undermine the hours a peaking plant can run. Lots of pumped storage plants in Germany are no longer as cost effective as they were, but having surplus wind energy at a fractional cost should help there. Gas peakers will have competition from batteries and demand shedding. But weather forecasts are improving by a day per decade so wind/wave/solar predictions are getting better all the time

I'd argue that nuclear is the poster boy for "repaying the loan" with the govt taking the risk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson's_law - measured over decades solar panels get 20% each time production doubles. Wind is similar as are most high volume manufacturing technologies. Wave machines should fall in price once they start churning out economic ones.

Nuclear power doesn't have anything like the same production levels to bring improvements. Despite France installing over 50 reactors of the same type EDF are making heavy weather of installing the latest model.

Insulating existing housing stock is probably cheaper than building more power plants and power lines and distributing gas. For new houses it's a no-brainer considering how much fuel we import , ie. we reduce the need for infrastructure.

Sam Russell · 07-10-2021 8:55am

The rise in energy prices pushed up the price of gas, electricity, petrol and diesel are outside the Irish Gov control. It is world wide.

There is no way the nuclear would be accepted by the Irish electorate. If you want to see opposition, riots, rebellion and worse, try and push it through. Even if it were approved, which it will not be, where will it go? NIMBYism will be 1,000 time any seen to date.

The biggest issue for cutting carbon is transport and agriculture. We are transposing car transport fuel carbon to electricity generation because of the transition to EV cars. Hmm, last time we transitioned from petrol to diesel - how did that go?

From your choice of nuclear or high bills for renewables would suggest that nuclear is free. France cannot finish its latest nuclear plant, despite its massive over-run in cost and its delay.

EDF says it would shut down its part owned nuclear plant in Guangdong, near Hong Kong. Below is a report from Bloomberg.

Bloomberg June 14th 2021: - "The French utility that partly owns a nuclear power plant near Hong Kong is seeking more information on a gas buildup in a reactor there, even as its Chinese partner insists the facility is operating safely.

Electricite de France SA, which has a 30% stake in the Taishan nuclear plant in southern China, has called for an extraordinary board meeting with majority owner China General Nuclear Power Corp., or CGN, to discuss the increased concentration of inert gases at the Unit 1 reactor in Guangdong."

So even now, nuclear plants have safety issues. I think most Irish voters would say: 'Nuclear - no thanks!'

Let us concentrate on transport, insulation, and agriculture.

timmyntc · 07-10-2021 9:11am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117985539#Comment_117985539

Proper "tidal currents" are based on tidal inlets that fill and empty - otherwise the tide doesnt have nearly enough of an impact to generate anything. Most if not all tidal trials have been based on inlets and tidal currents at the changing tide, I think NI had a turbine at strangford lough. The number of locations for these are very limited.

If you've ever been surfing is this country, you'll know that waves are not consistently around all year - there is a limited season where good swells are available, and even then its not consistently good, there are always prolonged periods with no swells on the west coast. Wave power designs are very specific to certain heights of waves, and certain periods. Some storm swells are too much also and most wave energy technology doesnt handle stormy weather very well due to irregular and short inter-wave periods among other things.

Plenty of wave power trials have occurred in the last 20 years, most have proved non-viable at scale and plenty of companies have been wound up or gone into administration over it.

crisco10 · 07-10-2021 9:26am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117986886#Comment_117986886

Indeed, I briefly did some work with Wavegen up in Inverness in 2008/2009. It was very clever tech, but totally unscalable. Other technology is scaleable but gets destroyed by the weather and salt out to sea.

josip · 07-10-2021 11:00am

Turbines are now up to 14MW (prototype)

https://newatlas.com/energy/haliade-x-14-prototype-offshore-wind-turbine-operational/

6 of these would have the same output as Ardnacrusha.

Sam Russell · 07-10-2021 4:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117987293#Comment_117987293

I can see reducing agriculture carbon would be achieved by several approaches.

There appears to be a feed containing seaweed can reduce significantly reduce methane production from cattle. There appears to be major benefits to reseeding pasture with multiple types of grass and clover rather than the monoculture of rye grass with a removal of the need to spread nitrogen fertilizer at a huge financial saving to the farmer. Also the new sward is much more resistance to drought. Spreading muck directly into the soil by injecting it, rather than flinging it wide and far - which also reduces the pong. There must be many more ways being studied to reduce the agriculture carbon foot print, other than becoming vegan, which I do not propose. Cutting back on meat is not vegan, or even vegetarian. It is a sensible healthy option, but may not suit everybody, and that is OK.

We should be led by the science. There is a lot of research underway.

If one considers transport/mobility. Is the journey necessary? Can we walk or cycle? Can we use PT? Why are so many kids driven (in a 4by4) the 2 km to school? And lots of other similar questions, If people tended to walk or cycle more then the obese/overweight problem would reduce, as would the diabetes epidemic - that would be a win-win for everyone.

I would see a huge benefit to making PT free or near free. A very large proportion of the population get free travel as it is.

It requires lots of small actions by everyone and a few big steps by Gov.

Energy infrastructure

Comments