Energy infrastructure

Sam Russell · 22-11-2021 10:46pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118207295#Comment_118207295

I think a more correct analogy would be steam engines that work well in trains but failed dismally when scaled down for use in cars. Some technologies scale linearly, some by the power of two, or three or four. Just because something works in one situation, does not make technology applicable at another scale. Model aircraft predate manned powered flight.

The jet aircraft you speak of could not scale up to travel economically above mach one, although Concorde tried and failed. If it had to shutdown one engine mid Atlantic, it could not reach its destination or return to origin at subsonic speeds because its range shrank considerably at the slower speed.

Nuclear power is not suitable for our size of grid, but wind is. Our problem is how to bridge the time when the wind does not blow. Grid battery storage, domestic battery storage, pumped storage, interconnectors, and other unknown suspects. Solar PV arrays might help in the summer, less so in winter. Hydro works in Ardnacrusha - pity we do not have enough sites.

Birdnuts · 23-11-2021 12:01am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118204105#Comment_118204105

6 hrs of storage is FA good when u have prolonged periods of cold anticylconic weather of the type we have currently and had for much of the spring and autumn so far. These are facts the wind bluffers on here don't seem to be able to get their head around, which is why the more money we waste building more windfarms, the more costs and reliability issues on the grid will escalate!!

23-11-2021 12:13am

https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/companies/arid-40750362.html

10 bil investment in offshore wind off the south coast

josip · 23-11-2021 1:23am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118208741#Comment_118208741

That's why offshore is considerably better.

Whereas inland is almost calm right now at 1-2 kts even in upland areas, buoys offshore are reporting 10-11 kts.

https://www.windfinder.com/#9/51.9993/-6.6714

Birdnuts · 23-11-2021 2:01am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118209005#Comment_118209005

Is it?? - the offshore industry hasn't exactly covered itself in glory in Germany or the UK this year...... Maybe floating windfarms in deeper waters might b better but again there are still big questions about costs and tech on that front

josip · 23-11-2021 10:19am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118209065#Comment_118209065

Agree that there are questions and the viability remains to be proven, but I think that the questions about offshore wind are fewer than for SMRs.

Sam Russell · 23-11-2021 10:32am

Mod: I am going to move all posts on nuclear vs wind over the last while to a new thread later this week when I have time.

I have mode posts that mention Nuclear to a new thread. Please do not post any comments about Nuclear in this thread, they will be deleted, as I cannot move them with the current system.

bk · 23-11-2021 1:44pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118209506#Comment_118209506

The viability of offshore wind is without question. Over 5,000 offshore turbines across Europe with a capacity of 25GW.

And in the UK they have just announced that they are going all in on offshore wind. They will have 40GW alone by 2030.

To put this in context, the UK currently has 9GW of Nuclear power plants, but plan on shutting down 5GW of old plants by 2024, 2.7GW by 2030 and 1.2GW by 2035. Hinkley Point C under construction will add 3.2 GW, so a net fall by the time it opens. Even if they built 6 SMR's, that is just 2.6GW.

Clearly even for the British offshore wind is their future.

23-11-2021 2:43pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118209567#Comment_118209567

Why? This thread is a bit of a catch-all regarding energy production / infrastructure in Ireland. There was also a thread split recently for the nuclear topic

If you do spilt it, can you please post a link here as a lot browse by bookmarks now rather than forums so might miss it

bk · 23-11-2021 6:05pm

Of course it is up to Sam, but perhaps a good way to split the threads would be something like this, rename this thread to "Energy Infrastructure Today and to 2030" and create a new one "Energy Infrastructure 2050".

The 2030 one would be for the more realistic short term projects, e.g. new on-land and offshore wind, inter-connectors, peaker battery plants, etc. The projects actually laid out and supported by current government policies. Along with the existing energy infrastrucutre, gas plants, etc.

The 2050 one for more long term, uncertain technologies like SMR's, hydrogen, CCS, flow batteries, etc.

I think these are too very different goals, the 2030 goals are very achievable with current technologies, while the 2050 goal will require technologies that are currently far more uncertain and immature. Unfortunately I think people frequently mix the two up. Separating them out into their own threads might help make it more obvious. Plus some people might just prefer to hear about the projects that are really happening and how they are progressing on the ground, versus purely theoretical solutions.

23-11-2021 6:43pm

Makes sense

Sam Russell · 23-11-2021 7:01pm

I like your suggestions.

It is difficult to control a thread that keeps going off topic, which turns into a rabbit hole.

I will rethink it, and try to accommodate those ideas.

[Edit] Mod: This is not a subject for this thread.

embraer170 · 23-11-2021 7:51pm

Sometimes I think energy infrastructure is such an interesting and topical issues that it deserves to be split into even more threads.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-11-2021 8:17pm

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2021/1123/1262525-renewable-energy/

1GW onshore wind by 2030 from 200 turbines ... no exchequer funding involved.

Markcheese · 23-11-2021 10:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118212701#Comment_118212701

Does PSO levy count as exchequer funding ? I doubt it ,

Birdnuts · 24-11-2021 3:04am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118210582#Comment_118210582

Really?? Not so this year and you seem to yet another who doesn't understand the difference between Turbine "capacity" and actual output🙄.

https://www.upstreamonline.com/exclusive/worlds-largest-offshore-wind-farm-unprofitable-for-equinor-say-government-funded-researchers/2-1-1098012?utm_term=upstream&fbclid=IwAR0P96frVNGLFRGoKWRZAevjiSsKcZS48P_8inZ5UM6flgVpg4YhFzdAbKc

Birdnuts · 24-11-2021 3:05am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118212701#Comment_118212701

No - we'll all just get even more screwed with government levies🙄

24-11-2021 3:34am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118214161#Comment_118214161

PSO levy is actually being reduced significantly for next year, somewhere in the region of 30%

Markcheese · 24-11-2021 11:09am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118214158#Comment_118214158

That article is kind of interesting - basically the scheme In question is making profit ,not as much as they'd like - and not as much if they'd invested in offshore oil and gas - but without the risks of heavy loses of oil and gas -

There's also no shortage of new offshore developments , which is driving down the price of energy that they sell , ( which ultimately affects profitability ) , also companies are still buying into established developments -

Effectively it's a technology that's maturing - there's not fortunes to be made anymore , but it's still expanding - and that's sea bed fixed wind in the north sea - akin to what's being planned off the east coast of Ireland - floating wind will have a different set of issues -

gjim · 24-11-2021 11:39am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118214158#Comment_118214158

Hmmm... "ABOUT US - The global oil & gas news source" or the main source - Prof. Petter Osmundsen - who's entire scholarly output has been on oil extraction economics.

But did you actually read the article? Reading past the disingenuous title (the project is NOT unprofitable) - it says that the rate of return for this project (4.4%) is lower than other business activities Equinor engage in (average 9%).

But it's hardly surprising that a state-owned company like Equinor - with an exclusive license (which cost them nothing) for oil and gas extraction in the most fossil fuel rich areas of this part of globe, can make more money pumping oil out of a hole in the ground and selling it than building wind farms.

And they had no problem selling two big chunks of the project to foreign investors.

bk · 24-11-2021 12:13pm

"Really?? Not so this year and you seem to yet another who doesn't understand the difference between Turbine "capacity" and actual output🙄."

Really?

How is the "actual output" of the two Natural Gas plants going that were offline for the past 6+ months?

How was the "actual output" of Moneypoint going back in 2019 when it was offline for most of the year?

How is the "actual output" of the new EPR reactor in China that has been offline for the past 4 months, or Dungeness B in the UK that was offline for 3 years?

In 2020, in the UK 29.4 TWh of Electricty were generated annually by renewables, mostly wind, with offshore wind up 11%. By comparison Nuclear produced just 10.9 TWh, a drop of 20% compared to the previous year.

cnocbui · 24-11-2021 1:16pm

Nothing about the vast spending needed on upgrading the network to handle large quantities of renewables. Presumably that comes from the exchequer?

"The minister said: "It will take time and it is not a small investment. The Government approved the other day an increase in ESB's borrowing limits recognising that we will have to invest in the grid. It will take time."

Ryan thinks microgeneration feed-ins will help stabilise the network. That's funny, roof top solar didn't do that in Australia"

"High levels of low-cost generation from commercial wind and solar projects in states like South Australia has increasingly forced the market operator to intervene and order high-priced but less variable gas generators into the market and shut down renewable generation to ensure stability."

Yet the ESB seem to think no investment will be required?

"There is little or no requirement for extra investment in the grid to support microgeneration. ESB Networks has published a report that assessed the impacts of increased penetration of micro-generators on their network. They have concluded that all electricity consumers could install up to 3kW in rural areas and 4kW in urban areas with little or no impact on the network"

https://www.rte.ie/news/environment/2021/0204/1194990-electric-grid/

All this wind capacity being added, and comparatively not a cent going into any storage projects that can power the grid for weeks.

24-11-2021 1:56pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118215434#Comment_118215434

High levels of low-cost generation from commercial wind and solar projects in states like South Australia has increasingly forced the market operator to intervene and order high-priced but less variable gas generators into the market and shut down renewable generation to ensure stability.

Source for this quote?

All this wind capacity being added, and comparatively not a cent going into any storage projects that can power the grid for weeks.

2.3GW of energy storage at various stages of development

Granted its not weeks, but then weeks worth of energy storage is not required as Ireland is not planning on putting all its eggs in one basket as you well know

cnocbui · 24-11-2021 2:04pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118215661#Comment_118215661

https://tinyurl.com/4zr3fp5x

Come off it, that amount of battery storage is for load levelling and is only good for very short periods of time. As for other eggs - what exactly are these whole grid demand satisfying zero CO2 power supply schemes, as I don't recall any?

bk · 24-11-2021 2:17pm

"Come off it, that amount of battery storage is for load levelling and is only good for very short periods of time. As for other eggs - what exactly are these whole grid demand satisfying zero CO2 power supply schemes, as I don't recall any?"

Why are you asking about "zero CO2 power supply schemes", that is a 2050 goal, not a today goal, nor a 2030 goal?

Again we can easily meet our 2030 goals of 70% renewables, maybe even stretch that out to 80%, with just adding lots of wind + interconnectors, plus some batteries, solar and of course running the existing gas plants when needed.

BTW replacing gas peaker plants with batteries for even 4 to 6 hours is a fantastic result. Gas peaker plants tend to be the dirtiest and most expensive generators on the grid. So replacing them with batteries has an outsized impact on reducing our greenhouse emissions.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-11-2021 4:12pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118215108#Comment_118215108

Technically speaking if the Finish EPR stays up 90% of the time it will take until 2034 to average 50% nameplate capacity since it was supposed to have come online in 2009.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-11-2021 4:25pm

A very rough average figure for wind is 30% of nameplate capacity.

But if you de-rate a 900kW turbine to 250kW then you can get twice the NIRO under NI's old rules. So very roughly 60% of time you can export at the new 250kW nameplate capacity. So you've halved the amount of backup needed and also leaves an average underutilisation of 120kW (=300kW*40%) available for storage to balance the 40% of the time you aren't exporting.

If you enough have pumped storage or batteries then you'd get close to the 80% efficiency needed to provide 250kW from wind or storage 100% of the time. Or use other stuff on the grid.

For seasonal storage your efficiency would fall to 40% for hydrogen in gas fields / CCGT but most of that infrastructure is already in place. Here's Scotland's version.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-59384415

the owner of Scotland's gas pipeline network has cooked up an £11.6bn plan to pump hydrogen into most homes and businesses through mostly existing pipes, and using others to gather, capture and banish carbon to a grave far below the North Sea.

The plan is to turn the gas mains in Aberdeen to hydrogen by 2030 so lots of appliances to upgrade and the rest of the country by 2045.

Markcheese · 24-11-2021 7:42pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118216723#Comment_118216723

Yeah , I'm not sold on large scale hydrogen in the gas grid , between the inefficencies in production. , The leakages , the serious cost of compression to give an acceptable energy density , the change of combustion equipment , and the whole high pressure hydrogen in domestic homes sort of thing ,it just seems like spending a fortune ,mainly to use the existing gas grid

- green hydrogen/ammonia is looking like it's going to be a very valuable industrial commodity , why would you try burn it In either a power-station or domestic /commercial boilers ?

Is there scope for bio-methane in the grid ..?

Markcheese · 24-11-2021 7:51pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118208792#Comment_118208792

The interesting thing with this proposal is that it's straight to hydrogen/ammonia . it's not spare wind energy , it's not almost free off-peak energy - it's straight to what'll likely be an expensive industrial commodity ... As to how it'll be transported ...who knows ..

cnocbui · 24-11-2021 8:21pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118217578#Comment_118217578

It took 10 years for the Koreans to build 4 reactors in the UAE. Critical infrastructure needed to answer the government's self-proclaimed 'climate emergency' shouldn't be subject to years of the usual planning nonsense. So 2032 if it was up to me and I genuinely thought the matter was urgent.

WW2 was an example of a real emergency. You didn't have the British government waiting 10 years for planning approval to build a desperately need aircraft or aero-engine factory.

I personally don't believe there is any emergency, but if idiots want to declare one then I want to see them react to it in a way that isn't hypocritical and shows they were serious in their declaration. If you are happy to put something on Ireland's famously long finger, it clearly isn't an emergency.

Energy infrastructure

Comments