Pretty disappointing news honestly if not surprising. I think an LNG terminal in Ireland would be ideal for energy security but of course Eamon Ryan has different ideas.
If only he’d share his alternatives..
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/shannon-lng-650m-liquefied-natural-gas-facility-to-be-rejected-by-an-bord-pleanala/a1564144302.html
The balance of trade between the EU and US does not include the economic activity of US MNC's located within the EU and is therefore very misleading. I strongly suspect the US is in the weaker position. The US syphons money out of the EU with a fire hose.
To avoid a trade war with the U.S. I suspect the E.U. are going to have to commit to buying U.S. not Russian Gas.
Trump will probably be making his set of demands known some time very soon.
That will require LNG terminals and Gas plants runnings 24x7 feeding batteries during the hours of low demand and is not the worst scenario in the world but will be tantamount to heresy to the Greens.
this is a fantasy of yours. I did not say that. The functions of AC interconnection cannot simply be replicated with a DC interconnector no matter how many times you say and no matter how much you insult people. AC is just not the same as DC.
Characteristics of a DC interconnector are very different from a AC interconnector. It cannot be used in the same way. But you would know that if you actually knew anything about the topics you drone on about.
Why can't they be used in the same way? Are you suggesting there is some difference between AC that originated from a DC interconnector versus if it came from an AC interconnector?
And these connections somehow will be incapable of transmitting electrons made by nuclear power both ways?
Have tou patented your Green electron spin discriminator (or is it nuclear tainted electron Filter?) nonsense yet??
🤣
You overlooked them?
Finland has enough AC interconnection (gigawatts) to make nuclear workable, whereas we have hardly any and only to a grid even smaller than our own. That is the relevant difference between Finland and Ireland.
It has two 400kV AC lines to Sweden and the 220kV to Norway, which yes I overlooked. The rest is undersea HVDC. The point I was really trying to make is that just being part of the European synchronous grid doesn't of itself imply a high level of connectivity. Finland has more connectivity to the outside world than we do, but is nowhere near the top of the table for interconnectivity in Europe.
What rubbish is this? The Finnish grid has massive AC interconnection with Sweden and is building more. As it stands there is around 2.5 GW of interconnection. There is also interconnection with Norway.
DC interconnectors? Not a synchronous grid link like Finland certainly.
How will the 37 GW off offshore wind we planning to build at cost of 200+ bn every 25 years get to Europe?
It's not just cars the government want to electrify, but also all heating, they want us all using heat pumps. So that's going to mean much more baseload demand, because people are always travelling, but enormous amounts of increased electricity demand for heating. And renewables aren't going to help - Germany has spent hundreds of billions of euros on their Energiewende since the concept was floated in 1980, and they have really nothing to show for it, (except for stupidly high electricity bills). And we can always increase our interconnection capabilities with the UK and France if we need to trade power and/or share spinning reserve.
So many wrong views here. most importantly, what do you think the maximum proportion of national baseload demand that any one unit should supply?
how much demand do you think 2.2 million EVs represent?
How much demand does a million heat pumps represent overnight, at the peak of summer?
If this plan is so brilliant then why isn’t South Korea doing it?
The APR-1400 reactors are not remotely too big. You are out of touch with the government and ESB plans for the country and net zero. in 2019 our total energy usage was 190 TWH, which of course included fossil fuels. A central plank in future plans is to replace fossil fuels with electrically produced fuels or electricity directly. The current baseload of the grid is irrelevant, it's the future baseload that has to be accommodated. Replacing all ICE vehicles with EV's and all fossil fueled central heating with electric heat pumps is going to require a prodigious increase in electrical energy generation.
Dr Meadhbh Connolly, Future Opportunities Manager - ESB Generation & Trading, gives a figure of our net zero projected energy needs being 528 TWh. Those APR-1400 reactors are anything but too large for the future Irish energy requirements, as I said, you would need probably at least 10 of them, not the 4 you would need at present.
Also, as I implied, you don't need to throttle any of the reactors up or down, you just shift the output to the production of fossil fuel replacements, most likely hydrogen. and likely some for export. There would be no waste, that is for sure.
I was basing the capacity factor on this:
In recent years the capacity factor for South Korean power reactors has averaged up to 96.5% – some of the highest figures in the world.
The electrolysis magic box is the ESB's crazy plan, not mine, so don't blame me.
About 26 Hiroshima nuclear weapons worth of the stuff held in storage:
The little black dot is Turlough Hill.
My idea is to reduce the need for so much hydrogen and electrolysis, which is based on tiding us through 6 week dunkelflauts. It's a lot more sensible than the crazy ESB plan. That need ceases to exist if you have multiple nuclear reactors. Your baseload reactors would be backed up by other reactors which are dedicated to producing hydrogen for industry and transport, and likely for export, which has been a nice little earner for France for decades. You don't even throttle down the baseload reactors during off peak, if such a thing would even exist with 2.2 million EV's all trying to chage overnight and everyones heat pumps going flat chat.
Finland is not an island grid. It is highly integrated with the large synchronous grid of Northern Europe.
It's effectively an island because it doesn't have any connections to the East (Russia) and the two main connections to the West are under-sea (500MW and 800MW)
There is still no economic nuclear station on the market that is small enough to fit on our grid, even with the gas backup it would require.
These are the realities of nuclear technology as it exists today. Economically workable SMRs and all the rest of it are a pipe dream (and would still require gas or other carbon backup even if they did exist).
IMO, we don't need to talk about SMRs until some are deployed successfully and we can see an actual realistic price list. That seems to be a long way off.
The APR-1400 is manifestly unsuitable for the Irish grid. It is far too big for a grid with baseload of a couple of GW. Even with the load doubling, it’s still too big.
The design goal for availability on the APR-1400 is 92 percent, not 96 percent. If you have spare reactor capacity sitting around waiting for something to go wrong and with no market for the electricity (as the French and Finns have through the synchronous continental grids) then the economics are going to end up being terrible because half the capacity will immediately go to waste.
During an outage, how fast do you think you could ramp up an APR 1400 from idling to full capacity without experiencing xenon poisoning? It’s designed to ramp up or down from 50 percent to 100 percent once a day over a couple of hours. It’s not the energizer bunny. You can’t just spin it up when you need it at least as it is currently designed.
Your magic box to rescue your idea from these obvious and serious problems seems to be cheap large scale electrolysis, a technology that again doesn’t really exist. And even with cheap electrolysis, you still need a fleet of gigawatts of gas plants to burn the hydrogen in.
The go to reactor at the moment are the Korean APR-1400, which each produce 1.4 GW. Their capacity factor in Korea is something like 96%, which means they are incredibly reliable. The plan to replace fossil fuels with electricity in this country means our projected needs are far higher than our current generation capacity - EV's heat pumps. etc.
Let's say it's 12 GW. To provide that with nuclear you would build 10 reactors, with the energy of perhaps 4 of them being dedicated to producing hydrogen for fossil fuel replacement where batteries wouldn't suit. These reactors could also serve as backups for the direct power delivery ones, whenever those units are down for refueling, maintainance or whatever. You would of course have a storage buffer of the fuels and fertiliser they produce, easily produced by switching low demand period capacity from the baseload generators to their production or exporting some of it to the continent or UK.
During recent times in France when they had maintainance issues with multiple reactors, the proportion of energy nuclear produced was still in the 60-70% range. In normal times when most or all the reactors are functioning, the most they seem to allow on the grid is around 70%, with the rest being exported to that bottomless pit of energy demand which is the European grid. For most of the past 30 years those reactors have been running, they have been producing more than France want's so the excess was exported. This earned them so much money they could have used it to build a new APR-1400 every 2 years, or on better maintainance, but it went into general revenue and they spent it.
So in simple terms, you wouldn't need to backup your reactors with gas turbines because you would have a slight surfeit of them with the surplus output being used in a non time critical way. These would provide the backup, which with a reliabilty of 96%, you wouldn't need too often.
To do the same with OSW, you would need 2.6-3 times required baseload demand and a vast hydrogen infrastructure to make, store and use all that hydrogen for the 52% of the time your OSW isn't generating to capacity and to make up for the shockingly low round trip efficiency of the hydrogen cycle.
Ask the Finns who have a population not much larger than what’s on this all island grid
Nuclear has 95% capacity factor while wind and sun in Ireland are 30% and 10% respectively, perhaps you can explain how we ever get off gas with such **** random uptime
Some day I hope you will explain how a nuclear plant can provide baseload on a small island grid without every MW having gas backup.
Normal OSW costs more than nuclear when both are evaluated as baseload providers, as in what would it cost to make wind a reliable baseload in the same way nuclear is. Floating is several multiples more expensive again.
ER is intending to offload the cost of his floating LNG facility directly on the consumer. One of the only OSW projects not yet cancelled on the US East coast was one where the contract specifically allowed for prices to be increased and passed to the consumer. I fully expect that if the Greens don't get removed from positions of political innfluence, we will see the same mechanism introduced here, which will result in us haveing the most expensive electricity in the EU.
60% increase the last UK offshore auction failed a couple of weeks back and wait for it
offshore floating now costs double HinkleyC per MW was discussed over in other thread with usual suspects trying to deflect from the carnage that occurred
This cheap cost of renewables is a fiction, arrived at be using the LCOE model to cost the energy they generate, which in itself only looked reasonable when borrowed money was nearly free. The best OSW has a capacity factor of just 48%, while solar is a risible 10% in Ireland. Capacity factor is where ER and other greenies blag about installing 10 GW of offshore wind capacity, when it will only actualy average 4.8 GW of actual power generated. Solar is worse, with a 1 GW solar farm only producing 100 MW. (Yes, I am not expressing it as Wh, where the numbers are bigger but the principle is the same.)
I believe more than $30 Bn of proposed offshore wind projects off the US east coast and in Europe have been cancelled recently due to 40% cost increases this year. The last round of OSW bidding in the UK had no bidders, because the offered price was too low. We recently had bidding on renewables here and the price settled on was double what the UK were at in the last succesful round and I doubt those projects will be built without a significant upward price negotiation.
yes, LNG being of high such compared to renewables.
@end of the road
Squeaky bum time for the UK gas network due to the present 'anticyclonic gloom' or as the Germans always have a great compound word for every situation: Dunkelflaute
Wait until you find out the same Green bell ends are planning (plan were made when interest rates were zero) to spend north of 200bn Euro every 25 years (probably 40% more now as offshore wind costs increased by this amount this year leading to bankruptcies)
to build 37 GW of offshore wind
guess who endsup on the hook for the money once these private companies go bankrupt and their directors have their villas in France, that’s right Irish Sheeple
edit: of this ship ever has an accident I guess we know who to blame for the environmental disaster and gasing of half of Limerick and Clare
ER is an absolute bell-end. Instead of a private company paying for and building a useful resource on land that will last indefinitely, the tax payer will have yet another special charge added on top of all the other special chrages this country so loves, to build something with a limited lifespan and likely high maintainance costs. The charge won't go away, because operations and maintainance will not have occured to the greens, as so many other things manage to slip their feebile mental grasp.
Maintainance of offshore wind farms runs to a staggering 19% of the initial capital outlay and operations adds another 9% so 27% on costs just to keep them working.. The seas corrode and befoul all that is put into them.
Sure it’s not his money to corrupt away but the green sheeple of Ireland
He probably just smirk in his condescending manner while pissing our tax moneybags away
how does this make sense? hes a gas man is eamo ryan...next thing it will be "we need a bigger boat"
Eamonn Ryan strikes me as the type to pay sticker price as well!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/925678a10b2fdb0546d802550390a10f.svg)
