Energy infrastructure

10-04-2022 10:05am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118905663#Comment_118905663

Power boost!

Capt'n Midnight · 10-04-2022 11:19am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118905663#Comment_118905663

No problems. Aircraft are Faraday Cages and the intensity of the death rays from space would be very low so not an issue. Might affect mobile phone reception though.

Boeing tried to sell SPS (solar power stations) way back. There is nothing new under the sun :pac: Like thorium this is another reliable way to get grant money by claiming modern tech means a failed tech will work now even though they don't address the basic issues.

One crowd had pictures of cows gracing under the wire mesh used to capture the 5G radiation. Actually Boeing and everyone else selling SPS's were looking for problems that could be solved by selling lots of rockets and there was sweet FA research into specifics. If the power station doesn't have frickn' huge radiators it's wishful thinking. The ISS is only in direct sunlight for 45 minutes at a time , the other half of the time the panels can radiate to 3K background.

If I was cynical I'd say it's a handy to transfer some money to the chumocracy while looking like they are doing something to keep the lights on.

Capt'n Midnight · 10-04-2022 11:49am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118905623#Comment_118905623

Power electronics and higher voltages mean that it's never been cheaper to transport power long distances. But solar panels have fallen further.

For massively parallel problems lots of small silicon can do the job of big centralised silicon whether it's for number crunching or photovoltaic.

Supercomputers could do each step quicker but with a massively parallel system you could start working on every possible combination of the next step so you have it ready ahead of time. It's a bit like the way an oversupply of renewables eats into base load. Having three times as much solar or wind as our demand means a lot less spent on storage or fossil fuel peaking plant.

Sam Russell · 10-04-2022 5:28pm

How No. 10 thinks - how to help the poor (chums).

If you cannot build an airport on the Thames Estuary, then try a tunnel between NI and Scotland through the Beaufort Dyke (except you cannot because it is already filled with discarded munitions).

Well then try a bridge longer than any built across open seas yet, plus the Dyke means the supports are longer than anyone has tried.

Well then try low orbit satellites from an entity that has already gone bust.

Ok, how about giant solar energy satellites that radiate the captured energy back to earth? Ok, small details - how do you radiate the energy? How do you capture the energy? And what is the cost per KWh - (that is because the cost per MWh would so huge that it would be ridiculous).

Ok, now for the serious bit - how much of this cash goes to our chums?

Sam Russell · 12-04-2022 7:09pm

I read the article of the solar energy satellite and a few questions occurred to me that others might be able to answer.

The claim is made that the satellite will be illuminated by the sun at all times, yet will be in orbit around the earth. So it is either in an orbit that does not pass behind the earth, or it gets eclipsed.
If it is circulating the earth, how does it aim its energy beam to its receiver in Hyde Park (or wherever the receiver is) at all times? Sounds impossible to me.
What happens in heavy cloud cover? Does the beam pass through cloud lossless?
If you can transmit energy from space wirelessly (obviously wireless - otherwise the cable ..... ) then why can we not transmit energy on earth wirelessly, like from North Africa to Spain? Or from Claire to the Aran Islands? Surely that would be easier to achieve - or perhaps just as impossible. Certainly it would be worth the attempt.
Does anyone consider this method of energy generation will be achieved before or after Nuclear Fusion becomes possible - which everyone knows is a decade or so away (as it has always been)?

I think this is BS vapourware.

ricimaki · 13-04-2022 12:55am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118917850#Comment_118917850

It absolutely is vaporware, but has just enough facts/theory in there for it to be possible for low power transmission.

It could be multiple satellites (Minimum of 3 for constant coverage)
Again, multiple satellites.
It won't be lossless, but some energy will pass through.
The key word here is energy. RF energy is passed between satellites and earth constantly. That energy just so happens to be enough to transmit data, which is an extremely low power signal (microwatts of received power for a mobile phone, possibly milliwatts for satellite). Large antennae and amplifiers on the transmit side can boost this up, but you're still going to be a long way off of kilowatt transmission, never mind megawatts...

Significantly more energy would be produced in 1 minute of the rocket burn that puts the satellites into space than you'd ever get across their entire lifetime...

Capt'n Midnight · 13-04-2022 1:56am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118917850#Comment_118917850

Costs £16Bn for 2GW. LCOE of £50/MWh vs £33 for ground based solar. And all you have to do is assemble 2,000 tonnes in geostationary orbit to save on the costs of storing the energy.

LCOE or Levelized Cost of Electricity is snake oil. You simply increase the lifetime years to get the LCOE to drop below the competition. It makes nuclear and hydro look good. BTW the other trick is to increase the power output like Rolls Royce did where SMR's went from 440MW to 470MW at the stroke of a pen which reduced the cost per MW.

1 In GEO there will be a few eclipses but rare and predictable. so panels in sunlight 99.9% of the time , but you need more panels because of conversion inefficiencies to get 2GW on the ground you need 4GW of panels , best case with 40% efficient panels you need to radiate away 6GW of heat.

2 a large grid of rectennas rectifier-antennas due to distance beam disperses anyway so low power per m2

3 GEO means a fixed point when viewed from the ground, just like TV and communication satellites. microwaves pass through clouds , like radar or 5G., power satellites will be chucking out billions of times as much power as a satellite channel so YMMV on reception issues

4 you loose 50% on the conversion efficiency, you can only go line of site distances before you have to re-convert again, from space you only have to go through the equivalent of 10Km of atmosphere at sea level because the air thins out

5 fusion is 2 decades away, like it's always been. Unless Mr Musk can make good on his $2 million per Starship flight (fuel costs not including R&D and other costs like the vehicle and wages) it's a pipe dream. Using Falcon Heavy it's about $11Bn to launch 2,000 tonnes of inert rocks to GEO.

In ALL projects of this type weight gain is usual which means there is no money to assemble the station or build or research into how to build one, and then you've to deliver massive improvements on efficiencies and power to weight ratios on solar and microwave. You've to design and build Porsches for the price of VW Beetles and you've already blown all the budget on fuel and you can't reverse engineer the Porsches because they don't exist.

Sam Russell · 13-04-2022 10:12am

'You've to design and build Porsches for the price of VW Beetles'

I think it is more like building Porsches for the price of a child's scooter.

This idea is even madder than the NI bridge, or tunnel - they are both beyond daft, but could be done if the need exceeded the ego of the proposer.

It must have been discussed at one of the clandestine parties at No 10 that never happened because there was no cake. Anyway it will turn out fine - or something like that.

Apogee · 13-04-2022 6:41pm

Yet again, delays in planning decisions highlighted.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1514228659569283073

Fast-tracking six projects is a positive step, Cunniffe accepts, but many more are needed including follow-through so first-phase projects can compete in the first offshore renewable energy support scheme later this year, and planning can be sought in early 2023.

The most pressing issue is the resourcing and capability of the planning system to manage the scale of projects involved, he adds. The public has to have confidence in An Bord Pleanála, that it is sufficiently resourced. “Right now, we don’t believe they have the skills and resources to make that a reality.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/winds-of-change-unnerving-times-for-ireland-s-offshore-energy-investors-1.4851929

RandomViewer · 13-04-2022 7:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118922517#Comment_118922517

With the Greens on about turf cutting can't see any windfarm getting permission that involve any disturbance of bogland, they've made their bed.

Birdnuts · 14-04-2022 2:32am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118922517#Comment_118922517

The industry itself is largely responsible for that given their shoddy approach to basic planning and environmental standards over the years

Danzy · 14-04-2022 4:11am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118922685#Comment_118922685

The turf cutting line is a mad one.

The greatest destruction of our bogs has been in their planting of pine plantations on the very, very most of them.

The turf cutting is a rounding error.

gjim · 14-04-2022 8:30am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118924380#Comment_118924380

Wonder of wonders, I find myself in strong agreement with you on something, Birdnuts. There's a lot wrong with the Irish planning system, notably under-resourcing, inconsistent decisions and an over-reliance on lengthy appeals processes and judicial reviews. But in far too many cases, planning delays are caused by sloppiness on the part of applicants. Not just minor dotting of Is and Ts stuff but leaving out required documents, not addressing environmental impact properly or trying to pull strokes by concealing parts of planned development, etc. It wastes everyone's time including that of scarce planning officials.

hans aus dtschl · 14-04-2022 11:02am

Yup, I'm jumping on that bandwagon too. Shoddy energy-related planning applications are causing a lot of unnecessary backlog and delays.

And very poor adherence to conditions is causing even more objections and scrutiny and distrust from the general public.

14-04-2022 11:04am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118924625#Comment_118924625

You're forgetting the most important thing, everyone gets paid. And often the worse they do their jobs the longer they're guaranteed to get paid.

M three · 15-04-2022 7:55pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118922517#Comment_118922517

Massive wind turbines with foundations containing thousands of tons of concrete and huge roadways throughout bogs.

How very environmentally friendly.

gjim · 15-04-2022 9:09pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118932271#Comment_118932271

Thousands of tonnes of concrete for wind turbine foundations is a drop in the ocean when it comes to the amounts of concrete used in the country. Nearly 15 MILLION tonnes of ready mix alone is poured in Ireland every year on top of 40 MILLION tonnes of aggregates. When we get to using around a million tonnes of foundation materials for turbines - less than 2% of concrete consumption - you might have a point.

Where are these "huge" roadways running "throughout" bogs? A google maps link would be great. Commercial wind power companies spending money building HUGE roads THROUGHOUT bogs. 🤔

And yeah, if the alternative is digging up and burning coal, oil, gas or turf, then yes the more energy we can harvest from wind the better for the environment.

josip · 15-04-2022 9:49pm

Last year we walked to the top of Seltannsaggart, county high point in Roscommon.

There were a lot of turbines and a fairly extensive road network to reach all of them.

You can see it on Google Street view and Satellite view here

https://goo.gl/maps/GzKJoGhzFfpPvBnC6

What's the payback time for a turbine in terms of CO2 emissions saved versus its construction incluiding materials, concrete, road distance, bog CO2 released etc. I'm in favour of wind and solar, but we can't ignore the CO2 cost of the turbines when sited on boggy mountains.

M three · 15-04-2022 10:07pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118932595#Comment_118932595

You have never been to a windfarm have you?

Cos if you did you would know that there are massive roadways throughout a windfarm. They're needed to transport in that concrete you talk about.

And then those huge articulated trucks that transport those huge windturbines and those huge blades. And the massive cranes that erect them. And then those same roadways are used to travel round during the lifetime of the windfarm to service them.

And whats more cutting roadways throughout bogs have many times resulted in huge bogslides, which have polluted streams and rivers and killed fish.

And yeah, if you have a problem with digging up turf or peat then you better get on the blower to semi state run bord na mona.

Not sure there is any point me debating with someone that is obviously so woefully ill informed.

gjim · 15-04-2022 10:45pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118932871#Comment_118932871

"Debating" - is that what you're doing? 😉

By my estimation, not even 0.05% of the concrete used annually in Ireland is used in wind turbine foundations, but we should avoid exploiting the one world-class energy resource in Ireland because... what exactly? We shouldn't be using any concrete at all?

You've seen how much concrete is used in a typical coal or gas plant? It's at least an order of magnitude more per MW capacity.

You want to give us that example of bogs being covered in MASSIVE roads or not? By the way what's a MASSIVE road in your book? 20m 40m wide?

I'm well aware of what happened in Derrybrien by the way - it was built without planning permission and is being dismantled as we speak. I'd be in favour of a criminal investigation in this case. But it's clearly an exception.

josip · 15-04-2022 11:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118933189#Comment_118933189

From what I remember, the Seltannasaggart roads were around 8-9m wide, about the width of a 2 lane road. I was surprised at the time by the width and quality of it for what I'd naively expected to be a simple track for service vehicle access. There was no subsidence or deterioration in the road surface so I'm assuming they had to put in a fair depth of aggregate. I don't know if they excavate all the way down to bedrock.

I got curious about how much concrete is actually used for the foundations and access road. I struggled to get a consistent number and realising it would vary per MW/ground type/size of turbine I went looking to see if anyone had already done some legwork on this. This paper from Berkeley was referenced by a few places and I'd expect them to be independent and reputable. It's 17 years old, have the numbers changed in that time? Is their methodology and comparison valid?

https://fhr.nuc.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/05-001-A_Material_input.pdf

The construction of existing 1970-vintage U.S. nuclear power plants required 40 metric tons (MT) of steel and 90 cubic meters (m3 ) of concrete per average megawatt of electricity (MW(ave)) generating capacity, when operated at a capacity factor of 0.9 MW(ave)/MW(rated) (Fig. 1). For comparison, a typical wind energy system operating with 6.5 meters-per-second average wind speed requires construction inputs of 460 MT of steel and 870 m3 of concrete per average MW(ave). Coal uses 98 MT of steel and 160 m 3 of concrete per average MW(ave); and natural-gas combined cycle plants use 3.3 MT steel and 27 m3 concrete.

gjim · 15-04-2022 11:35pm

Alright I'm being a bit of a dick there. If you want a debate, let me try to explain my position.

Do I like the appearance of wind turbines or that of electricity transmission infrastructure - particularly in areas of natural beauty? No I don't to be honest.

Do I like the fact that installing them involves the construction of gravel lanes (a more accurate description than "MASSIVE ROADS") for construction and operation? No not really.

Am I aware that the construction and installation of wind turbines requires concrete as well as a bunch of other minerals and requires heavy transport to deliver them? Of course.

But does this mean that wind turbines are bad for the environment? Absolutely not. The alternatives are not just many times worse in terms of materials, poisoning the air, propping up despicable regimes, being more expensive, etc. and that's before mentioning the critical aspect - they are accelerating the planet towards a step change in climate that will destroy much of the planet as we know it in terms of natural features, exterminate a huge amount of living species, and destroy the quality of life for a huge number of humans.

So for me the downsides of wind turbines are so few and so minor, that to claim they are on balance bad for the environment is completely daft.

M three · 16-04-2022 12:27am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118933474#Comment_118933474

The first sentence was sufficient.

Birdnuts · 16-04-2022 1:39am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118933189#Comment_118933189

In fact there are many more examples of windfarms doing serious damage to peatland sites - look up the Donegal Mweenbog case for a start that is still the subject of a criminal investigation on both sides of the border. Seems little has been learnt by the likes of ABP et al from the Derrybrein Case. Near my place in North Mayo the scale of environmental destruction by the giant Owenhinny project is really impacting local rivers and wildlife with ongoing silt etc. contamination of the former and a huge increase in wild deer and badgers straying onto local roads etc. Local birdlife suffering too with a significant reduction in wintering geese and breeding snipe in the area.Its also eye opening the sheer amount of concrete being used and hauled from as far away as Castlebar in daily convoys involving dozens of heavy lorries, which has been ongoing going for several years now and its less than half built!! - green energy my ar$e!!

Sam Russell · 16-04-2022 10:10am

We build roads, we build bridges, we build houses. They all use cement and concrete, and also aggregate - all of which require hauling from one place to another by heavy lorries.

At least the wind turbines will harness the wind to generate carbon free energy, while all the others will generate carbon through use. The heavy vehicles will still generate carbon in use - some more than others, while cars will either use fossil fuel or use the electricity generated by those wind turbines. The houses will require heating - either using fossil fuel or using the energy generated by those wind turbines.

Why do you not look at the carbon generated in the construction and provision of vehicles, houses, roads etc.?

josip · 16-04-2022 11:28am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118934214#Comment_118934214

Perhaps because the construction of vehicles, houses, roads etc would be considered OT for this thread?

It is relevant to compare the amount of concrete and CO2 impact used in the construction of wind farms against other sources of energy. As both yourself and gjim point out, at least the wind farms subsequently contribute to the reduction of CO2 generation. I think the problem birdnuts, M Three, et al have is that wind farms are often advertised to be carbon free and it's all sunny uplands, whereas it's not.

There also seems to be some confusion on just how much concrete is used, at least on my part. gjim says that at least an order of magnitude more concrete is used in a coal/gas plant per MW capacity than a wind farm. But the paper I quoted above, purports the exact opposite, that wind requires 5 times more concrete than coal over 30 times more than gas. Something doesn't seem right.

gjim · 16-04-2022 12:11pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118933613#Comment_118933613

😄 - I love these guys whose instinct is to charge into a thread swinging punches - then get all huffy after taking a little poke and decide they don’t want to play after all.

It might suit you better to go outside and vent your frustrations with the world by shouting at the sky - it won’t answer back.

gjim · 16-04-2022 12:23pm

Josip - the numbers I’ve seen are a fraction of those you quote - up to 250 m3 for a 2MW turbine. But I don’t know how reliable such a figure could be as the geology is going to have a huge bearing on foundation requirements. I’m also a little skeptical of the numbers for coal also - does it include all the infrastructure for mining, storage, shipping, ports, etc. or is it just the concrete required at the point of combustion?

Markcheese · 16-04-2022 6:38pm

It's going to be more complicated when you factor in life span of the infrastructure- technically a wind turbine is 15 - 20 years , but it could well go on for decades more , and the same foundations could go for generations ..

A gas plant ? Maybe 20/30 years but refurbs will see it go another 20 or 30 , (wether that'll be desirable due to efficiencies.. )

Money point could go on for another decade or so - and it probably will now with all the Ukraine drama - but that's 40 or 50 years then defunct -

Nuclear the same -

Newer gas stations seem to be less concrete than older ones .. just comparing whitegate and aghada ccgt to aghada 1 , giant chimney and all - ( but agahda was originally oil burning I think ? , maybe ? So that might make a difference )

Capt'n Midnight · 16-04-2022 11:20pm

Say 200Kg coal to produce a tonne of concrete or you could use nearly twice that amount of coal to produce 1MWh of electricity

ONE 6MW turbine going for 168 hours (one week) would offset 2,000 tonnes of concrete. Realistically it would be more than one week.

Each of Moneypoint's three generators can go through 119 tonnes of coal a hour. In the middle of the day today we were getting more than three Moneypoint's worth of power from wind. That would have taken over a thousand tonnes of coal per hour, or a thousand tonnes of concrete every twenty something minutes.

Energy infrastructure

Comments