Energy infrastructure

bk · 15-07-2020 11:48pm

500 million cost:
- https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/environmental-group-challenges-inclusion-of-500m-shannon-lng-terminal-and-pipeline-in-list-of-eu-projects-of-common-interest-1008413.html
- https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/plans-to-fast-track-shannon-fracked-gas-terminal-hit-legal-bump-1.4172721?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fcourts%2Fhigh-court%2Fplans-to-fast-track-shannon-fracked-gas-terminal-hit-legal-bump-1.4172721
- https://clarechampion.ie/e500-million-shannon-lng-project-scrapped/

And even if it is paid for purely by a private company, you really don't think they would be looking to make back that 500 million via the gas they sell us?!!

But your claim that the interconnector is much more expensive is also not true, a report I read on the matter found that the price we pay via the interconnectors is inline with the price of gas in the UK and mainland Europe.

The UK is also connected into both Norway and the mainland European grid via interconnectors with Netherlands and Belgium. UK too are a net importer of gas. So basically we are all part of the overall European market, with some extra transport costs involved.

But lets pretend for a moment you are correct, well we have already built those interconnectors and already have to pay for them one way or another, so why would we want to pay 500 million more ontop of that for capacity we don't even need?

It simply makes no logical sense. We already have the interconnectors, we have already paid for their construction, they are enough to supply all our gas needs.

Back in 2010, the Minister for Energy pointed out that the LNG projects would actually increase the price we pay for gas, not decrease it.

gjim wrote: »

And to add to the above - NG is pretty much vital if we are to transition to renewables. You cannot operate a grid on renewables at the moment without power sources like NG to match demand with production - otherwise you hit the limit of useful renewables very quickly and at too low small a level to help with CO2 emission reduction.

I'm not sure why you are repeating this? We all understand that ng is needed to support wind poor in the short term until storage tech advances and replaces the NG. No one is arguing that.

The point is we already have in place more then enough infrastructure via the interconnectors to import all the gas we need for our current high needs and our future lower needs to support wind.

You understand that this makes this whole point moot?

Again to be clear. Until 2016, the single interconnector we had at that point supplied 96% of all our gas needs, after that it dropped to 40% when Corrib came online.

In 2017 when there was an issue at Corrib happened, the single interconnector supplied 98% of our gas needs.

We now have two interconnectors, so even more capacity, along with improved redundancy.

As we move from 40% Wind to 70% wind over the next 10 years. You understand that while we will still use gas, it will be a lot less then we currently do?

So you understand that the two existing interconnectors can easily supply all our needs and we have no need of these LNG terminals?

gjim · 16-07-2020 8:05pm

bk wrote: »

And even if it is paid for purely by a private company, you really don't think they would be looking to make back that 500 million via the gas they sell us?!!

What do you mean "even if"? This is private money pure and simple.

They're welcome to "make back" the money but the only way they will be able to sell gas is if it's cheaper than GNI's current rates.

But your claim that the interconnector is much more expensive is also not true, a report I read on the matter found that the price we pay via the interconnectors is inline with the price of gas in the UK and mainland Europe.

The UK is also connected into both Norway and the mainland European grid via interconnectors with Netherlands and Belgium. UK too are a net importer of gas. So basically we are all part of the overall European market, with some extra transport costs involved.

Funny that the OECD says that Irish domestic consumers of NG pay almost 30% more than their counterparts in the UK for natural gas.

But lets pretend for a moment you are correct, well we have already built those interconnectors and already have to pay for them one way or another, so why would we want to pay 500 million more ontop of that for capacity we don't even need?

Who is "we"? This is private money - if it succeeds we all get cheaper NG, if it fails a bunch of capitalists will have lost a ball of money. Win-win.

It simply makes no logical sense. We already have the interconnectors, we have already paid for their construction, they are enough to supply all our gas needs.

Sunk cost fallacy. We may have enough capacity but without reference to the price to consumers, that's absolutely meaningless.

Back in 2010, the Minister for Energy pointed out that the LNG projects would actually increase the price we pay for gas, not decrease it.

The ministers argument was simply nonsensical but was typical of ministers viewing themselves as "protectors" of the semi-states. The convoluted logic was: GNI will have to pay money for the interconectors regardless of volumes or prices which sets a minimum profit per volume sold that GNI has to make in order to break even.

If they lose their monopoly position (i.e. consumers have the choice to pay less to another supplier), then they will sell less but be burdened with the same costs for the interconnectors. Thus to break-even, they will have to charge more.

I'm sure the flaw in this argument is pretty obvious.

The point is we already have in place more then enough infrastructure via the interconnectors to import all the gas we need for our current high needs and our future lower needs to support wind.

At what price?

We have a semi-state monopolist who have entered into a disastrous commercial arrangement which mean that they can only survive by gouging Irish consumers. And now they've spent years lobbying politicians and on PR (not ineffective it seems) convincing everyone that allowing anyone else to compete on supplying NG would be a BAD THING. It's simply nonsense.

You understand that this makes this whole point moot?

Only if you ignore prices. LNG is cheap and available and flexible. Even the European Commission is in favour of increasing LNG imports for strategic reasons given autocratic/unstable Russia is the biggest supplier to Europes gas network. There are a bunch of LNG terminals being built around Europe at the moment. Imports of LNG into Europe have ballooned over the last few years.

I have to hand it to GNI 'though - they've done some lobbying/PR convincing people that their monopoly on NG supply in Ireland is a good thing. Despite the fact that Irish consumers pay more and that they've effectively mismanaged their business to the extent that the only why to survive to block anyone else from selling NG to Irish consumers so that they have no competition when it comes to charging Irish consumers.

bk · 17-07-2020 11:01am

gjim wrote: »

What do you mean "even if"? This is private money pure and simple.

You know except for the fact that they are looking for money from the EU to build it:

https://greennews.ie/gas-shannon-lng-commission-pcilist/

You are very misinformed about this project:

You claimed, it will cost just 75million, I've proved it is 500 million, big difference.

You claimed it is being privately financed, as you can see from the link above they are looking for EU financing for the project.

You have claimed we were going to run out of gas and I've proven we have plenty of existing capacity.

You have claimed we will pay less, you clearly don't understand how interconnectors work or are priced. Once they are built, you have to pay for them regardless. So building these LNG terminals will only add to the cost of gas we pay, not reduce it.

Honestly this project makes no sense at all.

bk · 17-07-2020 11:34am

BTW I find the claim that GNI are running a lobbying/PR campaign hilarious. I've seen not a single article from GNI about this. However over the past few months I've seen an almost constant barge of articles in various papers from people involved in the Shannon LNG project.

And fair enough I've no problem with that in itself, you'd expect a company to do that. What I object to is the misinformation that they are spreading in these articles, which I can see people here in this thread repeating, so it seems to be working!!!

I find it very hypocritical that people talk about wanting to improve our security of supply and improving the environment. But then go on about a project whose goals is to import NG from Saudi Arabia, Russia and US fracking.

I'd call that hardly a good way to improve your energy security or help the environment.

NG has been fantastic, it has helped wean us off oil/coal/peat and as a result greatly reduce or CO2 emissions. But it isn't the end goal, it isn't completely clean, the end goal is to be net zero carbon.

What we need to be looking to now, is how we wean ourselves off NG over the next 20 years and get to that net zero carbon. Not how we can import even more NG that we don't actually need from horrible places like SA, Russia and US fracking!

We should be looking to invest money in projects like Biogas and Hydrogen generation, which will get us to net zero carbon and greatly improve our energy independence and security. We won't need to rely on any other countries then for our energy.

A project being pushed by a massive US oil and gas company, who wants to import lots of US fracked gas along with Saudi and Russian gas, doesn't feel like the right way for us to be going.

bk · 17-07-2020 3:09pm

Wow, the more I read up on these Shannon and Cork LNG projects, the more horrendous they seem from an environmental aspect.

It turns out that they not only want to build an LNG terminal at Shannon, but also a new 500MW gas power planet next to it!! Huh... I thought we were going to start weaning ourselves off NG. I thought we were going to greatly increase our wind power generation with off shore wind. So why exactly are we building another massive 500MW gas plant?!!

The other element of this plan seems to be to build a reverse flow facility at a cost of 100million on the Moffat interconnector. At the moment our interconnectors are uni-directional, UK to Ireland only. With this new facility, we will be able to export NG to the UK.

So overall this plan seems to be to import massive amounts of US fracked LNG to Shannon, burn some of it at the new Gas power plant and then export the rest to the UK market!

This is terrible. Fracked gas is terrible for the environment, fracking involves the release of large amounts of Methane into the atmosphere. Fracked gas, unlike well gas, is actually roughly 40% more polluting then coal!!

The whole thing seems insane. It is basically an attempt to use Ireland by the US Oil and Gas industry to get US fracked LNG into the European market. US fracked gas is already more expensive then existing European and Middle Eastern gas supplies.

Anyone who has any interest in the environment shouldn't want to touch this project with a ten foot pole. This is definitely NOT the direction we want to be going.

Markcheese · 17-07-2020 11:25pm

I'm kind of surprised the LNG project (s) haven't included a gas storage facility , in the hope of selling more of your more expensive , government subsidized gas into the UK market ..

lucernarian · 19-07-2020 8:13pm

bk wrote: »

Wow, the more I read up on these Shannon and Cork LNG projects, the more horrendous they seem from an environmental aspect.

It turns out that they not only want to build an LNG terminal at Shannon, but also a new 500MW gas power planet next to it!! Huh... I thought we were going to start weaning ourselves off NG. I thought we were going to greatly increase our wind power generation with off shore wind. So why exactly are we building another massive 500MW gas plant?!!

The other element of this plan seems to be to build a reverse flow facility at a cost of 100million on the Moffat interconnector. At the moment our interconnectors are uni-directional, UK to Ireland only. With this new facility, we will be able to export NG to the UK.

So overall this plan seems to be to import massive amounts of US fracked LNG to Shannon, burn some of it at the new Gas power plant and then export the rest to the UK market!

This is terrible. Fracked gas is terrible for the environment, fracking involves the release of large amounts of Methane into the atmosphere. Fracked gas, unlike well gas, is actually roughly 40% more polluting then coal!!

The whole thing seems insane. It is basically an attempt to use Ireland by the US Oil and Gas industry to get US fracked LNG into the European market. US fracked gas is already more expensive then existing European and Middle Eastern gas supplies.

Anyone who has any interest in the environment shouldn't want to touch this project with a ten foot pole. This is definitely NOT the direction we want to be going.

I'd love to see some more info or sources on this, but if true you've made a pretty compelling case for the negatives of the Shannon LNG terminal tbh.

Not sure that it really touches on the geopolitical aspects though. That second interconnector you mentioned was mostly on the back of EU assessments which showed that Ireland was in a critically weak position in the European gas energy network.

I'm not sure of the proposed capacity of that terminal. could it allow imports of gas comparable to e.g. the Corrib field? The more I think of it, the more I wonder how and why they would want a reverse flow pipeline to Britain when it seems hard to supply Ireland with enough gas in the first place. If this is only to allow gas exports when our electricity generation is bountiful from wind, they'd be better off co-financing another electricity interconnector

Markcheese · 19-07-2020 8:45pm

The Shannon scheme has been rumbling on for at least a decade now , as far as I remember it is ( or was ) a fixed , land based terminal ...
The cork one was proposed to be a floating platform , moored near the refinery , (as to wether you could get a large LNG carrier into cork harbour could be another story ) ,
Either project would need a large government commitment to pay for it/ underwrite it .. which I can't see the greens being keen on ,
I suppose the real risks / benefits would need to be weighed up , but a couple of large gas storage facilitys could be a much more cost effective and environmentally friendly insurance scheme than LNG plants

gjim · 19-07-2020 9:03pm

Very difficult to respond because of the multiple posting but..

bk wrote: »

You claimed, it will cost just 75million, I've proved it is 500 million, big difference.

No I didn't - I simply asked you for a reference as I was curious what had changed since the 75m figure that was being bandied about years ago.

You claimed it is being privately financed, as you can see from the link above they are looking for EU financing for the project.

This is nit picking, even if they got an EU grant - knowing the size of the Connecting Europe Facility - it would be unlikely to even amount to 1 or 2% of the claimed 500m.

You have claimed we were going to run out of gas and I've proven we have plenty of existing capacity.

I never claimed such a thing. You're simply making stuff up.

You have claimed we will pay less, you clearly don't understand how interconnectors work or are priced. Once they are built, you have to pay for them regardless. So building these LNG terminals will only add to the cost of gas we pay, not reduce it.

We currently get nearly half our NG from the UK but for some strange reason the exact same gas can be bought by a UK resident for 25% less. The cost difference is a combination of old-school semi-state monopoly along with ill-timed over investment in gas interconnectors when the world was starting to view shipping LNG as the future.

I've already explained this "allowing someone else to sell us Gas will DRIVE UP PRICES" and why this is a bs argument. Yes GNI will be screwed if they lose their monopoly position selling NG to Irish consumers - they need those juicy uncontested profit margins to keep afloat. The only way that this "adds to the cost of gas" is if GNI desperately tries to catch a few suckers by raising their prices in order to try to cover the gaping financial hole created by their poor business decisions. Some businesses may have tried such strategies in the past but it's not a very winning strategy but then who knows given GNI's disastrous interconnector contracts.

bk wrote: »

Wow, the more I read up on these Shannon and Cork LNG projects, the more horrendous they seem from an environmental aspect.

It turns out that they not only want to build an LNG terminal at Shannon, but also a new 500MW gas power planet next to it!! Huh... I thought we were going to start weaning ourselves off NG. I thought we were going to greatly increase our wind power generation with off shore wind. So why exactly are we building another massive 500MW gas plant?!!

I thought we covered this? I mean you berated me for bringing up the point that NG power complements the shift to renewables as a wast of time since "everyone knows that".

So you know as we increase our renewable sources of power we also need to increase our peaker plant capacity which means more NG power right?

The other element of this plan seems to be to build a reverse flow facility at a cost of 100million on the Moffat interconnector. At the moment our interconnectors are uni-directional, UK to Ireland only. With this new facility, we will be able to export NG to the UK.

So overall this plan seems to be to import massive amounts of US fracked LNG to Shannon, burn some of it at the new Gas power plant and then export the rest to the UK market!

This is veering into tin-foil hat territory. Why would "they" want to spend 500m in Ireland when they could use one of any number of existing LNG terminals around Europe already connected to the UK?

This is terrible. Fracked gas is terrible for the environment, fracking involves the release of large amounts of Methane into the atmosphere. Fracked gas, unlike well gas, is actually roughly 40% more polluting then coal!!

You know that LNG has nothing to do with fracking, right?

The vast majority of LNG being shipped around the world comes from wells. The biggest supplier of shipped LNG to Europe and the biggest exporter of LNG in the world extracts gas from wells (Qatar).

LNG is simply a cost effective, secure, modern and flexible mechanism to transport natural gas - that's it. You're trying to smear it by association with fracking.

And don't look now but fracked gas is already present in the gas being imported and distributed by GNI - over pipelines.

The whole thing seems insane. It is basically an attempt to use Ireland by the US Oil and Gas industry to get US fracked LNG into the European market. US fracked gas is already more expensive then existing European and Middle Eastern gas supplies.

Anyone who has any interest in the environment shouldn't want to touch this project with a ten foot pole. This is definitely NOT the direction we want to be going.

You're veering into tin-foil hat territory now. This isn't some Dr. Evil plan by "US Oil and Gas industry" - having more LNG terminals is actually a key part of the EU energy strategy. Here's a short overview - https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/oil-gas-and-coal/liquefied-natural-gas-lng_en

bk · 26-07-2020 1:52pm

No tin-foil hat here, that is a pretty rubbish argument to make!

The Shannon LNG is now owned by New Fortress Energy, a US Oil and Gas company. Just go up and read about them on their website. They say themselves that they specialise in the extraction, liquidation and transport of LNG.

All of their facilities except for Shannon are in US territories. Their two and only liquidation facilities are in the US
mainland.

The proposed Cork LNG is owned by NextDecade, a Texan Oil and Gas company who are currently building a LNG terminal in Rio Grande, Texas for exporting LNG. They themselves have said that they plan to import their LNG from their Rio Grande facility.

The fact that neither company has been willing to make a guarantee that they won't import any fracked gas says a lot. There is actually a third LNG project that is promising that they won't use any fracked LNG, fair enough on that one.

But if you don't think the Cork and Shannon LNG projects won't be importing US fracked LNG, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

BTW Yes, I'm aware that the EU is pushing the building LNG facilities as they want to reduce the EU's overall reliance on Russian gas, by being able to import more middle east gas.

But that is more mainland Europe, we are less impacted by that in the Ireland/UK/Norway/Belgium/Netherlands energy region that mostly uses North Sea Gas.

If you care about the environment, I don't see why anyone would support these two LNG terminals. Importing US fracked gas is simply not good for the environment, we might as well keep moneypoint running on coal, it would be cleaner!

Even importing Saudi gas is definitely morally wrong and I'd also question it for a security of supply angle. It is hardly the most stable part of the world.

If we are really worried about the environment and security of supply, then I'd argue that we would be much better off focusing on building as much wind power as possible, with more electricity interconnectors and using excess wind to generate and store bio-gas. Create our own indigenous industry that we have full control over, rather then relying on imports from US/Middle East.

bk · 26-07-2020 2:13pm

lucernarian wrote: »

Not sure that it really touches on the geopolitical aspects though. That second interconnector you mentioned was mostly on the back of EU assessments which showed that Ireland was in a critically weak position in the European gas energy network.

True. At the moment we are pretty ok, between Corrib and one interconnector, we have plenty of supply.

I get the impression that the second interconnector has been built, rather then going with the LNG terminals for future demand as Corrib gradually reduces.

The two interconnectors give us plenty of supply even when corrib runs out and even redundancy if one goes down.

Geopolitically things are all over the place at the moment. Not much US LNG is currently imported into Europe, but over the past 10 years, US companies have been rushing to try and build facilities in Europe to take US Gas.

But ironically US gas is currently having a hard crash due to the very low prices of Russian and Saudi gas, with wells and capital projects across the US shutting down due to the low gas prices and the relative expense of US fracked gas.

Which it is why the Shannon and Cork LNG projects being so closely linked to US gas companies is a pretty poor idea from an economic idea, even if you don't care about the environment.

To be honest, the low prices currently being seen in the oil and gas industry are I believe the death throws of those industries as they try and extract as much value, since renewable energy is getting so cheap they are finding it hard to compete.

Sure we should benefit from cheap gas for now, but I'm not sure we should be investing hundreds of millions in building new gas facilities, when I really don't think it has a long term future. It feels like we would just end up with another Moneypoint, another stranded asset.

I really feel like we are being sold a pup with the two LNG projects.

lucernarian wrote: »

I'm not sure of the proposed capacity of that terminal. could it allow imports of gas comparable to e.g. the Corrib field? The more I think of it, the more I wonder how and why they would want a reverse flow pipeline to Britain when it seems hard to supply Ireland with enough gas in the first place. If this is only to allow gas exports when our electricity generation is bountiful from wind, they'd be better off co-financing another electricity interconnector

Right! It really doesn't make much sense, other then perhaps a purely financial one.

I think it goes back to Europe trying the diversifying it's Gas supply away from Russian gas and US companies desperate for an outlet for the over supply of US fracked gas over there.

It feels more like trying to get more US fracked gas into UK, then much benefit to us.

I suppose it could potentially reduce the cost of gas here if we are exporting to the UK. But frankly this all doesn't feel right from a moral, ethical and environmental point of view.

gjim · 26-07-2020 8:34pm

bk wrote: »

No tin-foil hat here, that is a pretty rubbish argument to make!

I dunno, you claimed that the project is some sort of conspiracy to allow the US to sell fracked gas into European markets.

That makes no sense because if they wanted to do that there are already 20 LNG terminals around Europe they could use for this without spending 500 million and paying on-going interconnector fees to get the gas into the UK and to Europe.

The Shannon LNG is now owned by New Fortress Energy, a US Oil and Gas company. Just go up and read about them on their website. They say themselves that they specialise in the extraction, liquidation and transport of LNG.

So you're really doubling down on this LNG = fracked gas claim?

It's nonsense:
- most US fracked gas is consumed domestically and is distributed over pipelines.
- most (>70%?) of LNG being shipped around the world comes from wells
- we are currently consuming fracked gas - via the interconnectors - and have no way of rejecting NG on the basis of origin.

The last point is key - by completely relying on piped gas for imports, you completely cede control of the origin. We cannot say no to fracked gas, Russian gas or any other source of NG because it would mean not importing NG at all which would shut down the country.

The fact that the companies are American is surprising to you? Given that the US is the world leader in petrochemical technology, it'd be a bit like being surprised that your tulips came from Holland.

The fact that neither company has been willing to make a guarantee that they won't import any fracked gas says a lot. There is actually a third LNG project that is promising that they won't use any fracked LNG, fair enough on that one.

Making guarantees to who or what? What kind of guarantees? Who requested the guarantees - a blogger somewhere? This all just sounds like social media alarmism because, believe or not, they will be subject to the laws of the land - Ireland's laws in this case and we are completely free to restrict licensing of imports of LNG any way we please - other countries have done this.

Currently we have zero control over the origin or production methods used for nearly half the NG we consume. So if you were truly concerned about avoiding the consumption of fracked gas, then you'd be campaigning against the interconnectors and for LNG terminals.

But if you don't think the Cork and Shannon LNG projects won't be importing US fracked LNG, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Whether gas comes from fracking or from traditional wells has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it's transportation. You can transport fracked gas over pipelines as is most which is consumed domestically in the US and you can transport gas from wells in the form of LNG - as is the case at the moment where the majority of the LNG transported by ship comes from wells.

BTW Yes, I'm aware that the EU is pushing the building LNG facilities as they want to reduce the EU's overall reliance on Russian gas, by being able to import more middle east gas.

It's not just that. Imports of LNG are set to dominate imports into Europe if trends continue for cost, environmental and security of supply reasons. It's strategic, not just because of the Russia thing but because it's the future for international NG transport - like cloud computing will eventually replace all bulky, inflexible and capital intensive mainframes.

Unfortunately our national semi-state monopoly did the equivalent of installing a couple of huge IBM mainframes on a 30 year hire purchase scheme.

If you care about the environment, I don't see why anyone would support these two LNG terminals. Importing US fracked gas is simply not good for the environment, we might as well keep moneypoint running on coal, it would be cleaner!

Dude, I don't want to start bandying about the term "disingenuous" but you keep repeating this LNG = fracking rubbish - please stop - it adds nothing to the argument.

Even importing Saudi gas is definitely morally wrong and I'd also question it for a security of supply angle. It is hardly the most stable part of the world.

How did Saudi Arabia come into this? I mentioned that Qatar is the largest supplier of LNG to Europe, are you mixing it up?

If we are really worried about the environment and security of supply, then I'd argue that we would be much better off focusing on building as much wind power as possible, with more electricity interconnectors and using excess wind to generate and store bio-gas. Create our own indigenous industry that we have full control over, rather then relying on imports from US/Middle East.

Electricity interconnectors - agreed. Generating and storing bio-gas, absolutely not.

NG and burning petrochemicals has no long term future as humankind's source of energy - everyone knows this. That's another reason for stupidity of GNI's spending on interconnectors since we are simply not going to burning (and thus importing) as much gas a decade or two from now. But they invested on the assumption of ever increasing amounts of NG being burnt in Ireland and that they have a monopoly position on supply so that they can recoup the cost of the interconnectors.

There is a simple, sensible plan by most governments to get to zero-carbon energy. It works by first/immediately increasing renewable production matched with NG peaker plants. Then wind down the NG dependency over a decade or two as battery and other storage tech improves or as the switch to battery electric vehicles kicks in and the excess renewable electricity can be used to charge vehicle batteries for almost zero cost.

This minimises disruption and provides an immediate incentive for a move to battery electric vehicles (almost "free" fuel if you charge off-peak). And in the long term you end up completely carbon-free without massive economic disruption.

So I don't see any advantage and I do see a whole load of risk in your idea of waiting for "indigenous industry" to come up with a better solution.

For the former plan to work, NG is essential. And if the NG cost less (not 25% more than our neighbours) then the cost of the transition is greatly minimized. The advent of cheap NG has - strangely - provided a massive boost to investment in renewables.

Markcheese · 27-07-2020 12:19am

When you say peaker plants gjim, do you mean the relatively quick start up but relatively inefficient plant types that currently handle our grid peaks ( which I would have thought could be or should be handled by grid scale batteries , or do you mean the combined cycle gas stations we currently have sitting there as reserve ,(not necessarily spinning) , for forecasted low wind conditions , because you can't really have enough battery storage for a becalmed week in winter,

plodder · 27-07-2020 10:34am

An LNG terminal clearly would increase security of gas supply. Also refusing to use imported gas that might have been fracked makes as much sense as refusing imported electricity that might have come from a nuclear plant.

It's up to people in their own countries to make arguments for or against fracking/nuclear generation, as we have done.

Not really familiar with this PCI process, but in crude terms, is it free money, as in centrally funded by the EU?

bk · 27-07-2020 4:23pm

plodder wrote: »

An LNG terminal clearly would increase security of gas supply. Also refusing to use imported gas that might have been fracked makes as much sense as refusing imported electricity that might have come from a nuclear plant.

Nuclear energy is one of the most low carbon sources of energy available.

Now you might have other environmental concerns about Nuclear, such as safety and disposal, but in terms of global warming, they are excellent.

Fracked gas is more polluting (in terms of green house gases) then coal. So importing fracked gas really makes zero sense. If you are worried about security of supply, you can just keep moneypoint running and use coal, since we have massive quantities of coal and it would actually be less polluting.

plodder wrote: »

It's up to people in their own countries to make arguments for or against fracking/nuclear generation, as we have done.

And clearly the people of Ireland have made it clear that we don't want fracked gas.

plodder wrote: »

Not really familiar with this PCI process, but in crude terms, is it free money, as in centrally funded by the EU?

We are now pay more money into the EU then e receive from it. EU money isn't some magic money tree, it is our money.

And you would have to ask if this is the best way for us to spend our money. Are there perhaps better, more environmentally important projects such as wind and biogas that we could and should be investing that money in.

Markcheese · 27-07-2020 6:24pm

I think the advantage of security of supply with an LNG terminal is pretty obvious ,
But at a time when we're looking at seriously reducing the amount of gas we're burning , does it make sense ,
Who's pushing it ? Who looks to benefit and how ?
Basically if the Irish state and eu are looking at supporting the building of LNG terminals them gas companies will take them up on it , if that coincidences with making the gas interconnectors 2 way ( also at state expense ), then that's probably where the money is , gas networks Ireland expensive pipelines will get used ...the gas would be imported and sold to Britain ,

Apogee · 07-09-2020 11:02pm

Irish Times wrote:

Irish energy trading firm ElectroRoute has secured a deal to provide trading services to a €150 million electricity storage project in Co Offaly set to become one of the largest developments of its kind in Europe. Irish-based Lumcloon Energy began work last year with Korea’s Hanwha Energy to build two plants in Co Offaly that will store enough electricity to power about 100,000 homes. The plants will house batteries similar to those found in electric cars to store power that can be used at times of peak demand.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/electroroute-wins-energy-trading-deal-for-offaly-battery-project-1.4348564

dubhthach · 11-09-2020 3:45pm

Nearly 800MW of Solar approved in latest auction

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines/ress-auction-ireland-renewables

Solar farms ranging in size form 3.95MW to 95MW among the winning bidders:
http://www.eirgridgroup.com/site-files/library/EirGrid/RESS-1-Final-Auction-Results-(R1FAR).pdf

Obviously we are gonna need more battery in longer term to take advantage of Solar production. Current installed solar in the UK is about 13GW's as a a comparison. Obviously the continued downward pressure on cost of solar makes it more viable even in gloomier climes like our own.

theguzman · 11-09-2020 9:59pm

We have several high mountain valleys all over the place which could be dammed with something like the hoover dam, instead use Renewable Energy to pump up water and you have a perfect non-interruptible continuous stream of energy at all times. Pumped storage would be far better than some toxic Lithium Battery like in Offaly.

Sam Russell · 11-09-2020 10:43pm

What is the efficiency of pumped storage (energy recovered vs energy input) vs a Li ion battery system.

Also what is the useful service life of the two systems.

Also can Li ion batteries be re-manufactured?

Carawaystick · 12-09-2020 6:05pm

We have a 40 year old pumped service station working away here. We also refurbed the turbines in the hydro plants in the mid 00's onwards so thats about 70years for the turbines before they needed re-furb. Most of Turlough hill is bored into granite, so little concrete degradation to worry about, vs dams for larger projects.

I know the Poulaphuca plant got a lick of paint a decade ago, stripping the pitch and white lead that was there since it was built.

RE Apogee's post, any statement that says a battery can power X amount of things without stating For How Long is fairly pointless. The Fabs in intel can run off batteries too, but just for 4 seconds until the generators switch in.
In 06, and 07, we had no wind for the entire week before xmas, whish is when the highest grid demand is. If you cant store 2 weeks energy, we are gonna need dispatchable generation capacity.

bobbyy gee · 12-09-2020 6:41pm

France derives about 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy, due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. Government policy is to reduce this to 50% by 2035. France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this.France has 57 nuclear reactors operated by EDF, with a total capacity of 62.3 GWe.The low cost of French nuclear power generation is indicated by the national energy regulator (CRE) setting the price at which EdF’s electricity is sold to competing distributors. In 2014 the rate is €42/MWh, but CRE proposed an increase to €44 in 2015, €46 in 2016 and €48 in 2017 to allow EdF to recover costs of plant upgrades, which it put at €55 billion to extend all 58 reactor lifetimes by ten years. In November 2014 the government froze the price at €42 to mid-2015. This Arenh re-sale price has represented a long-term floor price for EdF’s power, and is nominally based on the cost of production. The industrial group Uniden said that the proposed 2015 wholesale price of €44/MWh would be €14 higher than Germany’s.
French retail prices, without major effects from feed-in tariffs for wind and solar, remain very low. In 2013 French prices for medium-size industrials were about 90% of EU-27 average, and those for medium-size households (at less than 8 c/kWh) were less than half of EU-27 average.

Apogee · 12-09-2020 7:38pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

RE Apogee's post, any statement that says a battery can power X amount of things without stating For How Long is fairly pointless.

That seems to happen repeatedly. If you look back through the many posts here quoting from newspaper reports on these various energy storage projects, they invariably quote a MW value but rarely MWh value. Presumably these reports are based on company press releases which also omit this information.

Carawaystick · 12-09-2020 9:55pm

bobbyy gee wrote: »

French retail prices, without major effects from feed-in tariffs for wind and solar, remain very low. In 2013 French prices for medium-size industrials were about 90% of EU-27 average, and those for medium-size households (at less than 8 c/kWh) were less than half of EU-27 average.

Its 3c/kWh on nightrate, which includes 2 hours around lunchtime. Well, was last year anyway

dubhthach · 13-09-2020 11:38am

Carawaystick wrote: »

We have a 40 year old pumped service station working away here. We also refurbed the turbines in the hydro plants in the mid 00's onwards so thats about 70years for the turbines before they needed re-furb. Most of Turlough hill is bored into granite, so little concrete degradation to worry about, vs dams for larger projects.

I know the Poulaphuca plant got a lick of paint a decade ago, stripping the pitch and white lead that was there since it was built.

RE Apogee's post, any statement that says a battery can power X amount of things without stating For How Long is fairly pointless. The Fabs in intel can run off batteries too, but just for 4 seconds until the generators switch in.
In 06, and 07, we had no wind for the entire week before xmas, whish is when the highest grid demand is. If you cant store 2 weeks energy, we are gonna need dispatchable generation capacity.

in the case of the Midland battery installations, each is 100MW/150MWh. Generally ye're best going to relevant company website / industry portal than relying on Irish media. Of course one of key aspects of large scale grid storage is to help stabalise the frequency of the grid. I'll imagine they'll probably make most of their money providing PFR (Primary frequency response) and rapid (short-term) dispatch.

This has been the case in South Australia and also in Belgium:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/05/teslas-new-battery-in-belgium-shows-value-is-in-dispatch-speed/

Of course the likes of GE have also been working on Hybrid Battery/Gas peaker solutions, as current peakers are quite inefficient given that they have to run in what's basic 'hot-standy' mode. Stick some rapid response batteries in front of them and you can keep the peaker in Cold Standby and have sufficient time to spin up the turbine while the battery dispatches.

https://www.ge.com/news/reports/batteries-included-hybrid-power-plants-let-californians-breathe-easy

SCE estimates it will use 2 million fewer gallons of water to operate each power site and reduce greenhouse emissions for the lifecycle of its peakers by 60 percent. It’s also paying off handsomely for SCE itself. Not only does using less water and natural gas drive down operational costs, but the type of power Hybrid EGT produces is very much in demand. Spinning reserve — the term used for power that can become available in less than 10 minutes — is currently valued between $5 and $7 per megawatt an hour (MWH), whereas its slower counterpart, known as non-spin reserve, only sells for 10 cents per MWH. Thanks to its new batteries, SCE can easily and cheaply generate spinning reserve for the grid.

Given that the battery can react to demand straight away (when spot price is highest) such a setup would pay for itself a lot quicker than a standard peaker.

Of course we need diversity of power generation, obviously it's nice if every day was both Windy and Sunny, but it's fairly obvious that for immediate future (well until batteries decline by another 50-80% in cost) that we'll be dependent on having dispatchable Gas on grid.

It's also why we are getting the Interconnector to France, obviously when the wind is blowing we'll probably be exporting to the European grid, but nice having the ability to import 700MW (Moneypoint is 915MW) in event of major surge in demand/powerstation failure/'grid issue'.

tom1ie · 13-09-2020 12:55pm

dubhthach wrote: »

in the case of the Midland battery installations, each is 100MW/150MWh. Generally ye're best going to relevant company website / industry portal than relying on Irish media. Of course one of key aspects of large scale grid storage is to help stabalise the frequency of the grid. I'll imagine they'll probably make most of their money providing PFR (Primary frequency response) and rapid (short-term) dispatch.

This has been the case in South Australia and also in Belgium:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/05/teslas-new-battery-in-belgium-shows-value-is-in-dispatch-speed/

Of course the likes of GE have also been working on Hybrid Battery/Gas peaker solutions, as current peakers are quite inefficient given that they have to run in what's basic 'hot-standy' mode. Stick some rapid response batteries in front of them and you can keep the peaker in Cold Standby and have sufficient time to spin up the turbine while the battery dispatches.

https://www.ge.com/news/reports/batteries-included-hybrid-power-plants-let-californians-breathe-easy

Given that the battery can react to demand straight away (when spot price is highest) such a setup would pay for itself a lot quicker than a standard peaker.

Of course we need diversity of power generation, obviously it's nice if every day was both Windy and Sunny, but it's fairly obvious that for immediate future (well until batteries decline by another 50-80% in cost) that we'll be dependent on having dispatchable Gas on grid.

It's also why we are getting the Interconnector to France, obviously when the wind is blowing we'll probably be exporting to the European grid, but nice having the ability to import 700MW (Moneypoint is 915MW) in event of major surge in demand/powerstation failure/'grid issue'.

Yep.
The issue is how much will it cost to import the 700 MW compared to how much we export when the wind blows?
From an economic pov would it cost more to run this interconnector or to run money point?
Obviously from an environmental pov the interconnector is best.

dubhthach · 13-09-2020 2:01pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Yep.
The issue is how much will it cost to import the 700 MW compared to how much we export when the wind blows?
From an economic pov would it cost more to run this interconnector or to run money point?
Obviously from an environmental pov the interconnector is best.

Given that the battery operators tend to be using Algorithmic systems for purchase/sales on the energy market I imagine we'd see them importing power over the Interconnector at certain times when the French spot rate is most favorable. In which case they can then dispatch it later making nice profit.

It'll be interesting what's in pipeline over the next 5 years, I imagine we'll see at least 1GW of grid storage go through the planning process.

bk · 14-09-2020 10:55am

A couple of thoughts on the past few comments:

- Pumped Storage - I love it, but it comes with it's own very significant environmental impacts. Flooding large numbers of valleys comes with it's own downsides.

- Batteries offering just 4 hours of storage, sure, pity not more, but still incredibly useful to help get through peak power usage times like everyone switching on the kettle after work at 6pm. Such peak usage tend to be by far the dirtiest energy generation. So eliminating them with battery + wind power from the night before is very helpful in decarbonising the grid.

- California has a massive pipeline of battery storage projects in development. 8GWh to give 2GW for 4 hours.

- Talking more sci-fi, there is a project under development to build skyscraper sized towers out of car sized concrete blocks, with cranes on the top. The cranes rearrange the blocks to store or release energy! Move concrete block to the top of the tower to store energy, lower the concrete block from the top to the bottom of the tower to release energy! Basically a physical version of pumped storage.

loyatemu · 14-09-2020 11:06am

that was the plan of the Energy Freedom(?) guys years ago - they wanted to dam a number of steep-sided bays on the west coast and use them for pumped storage alongside covering the coast with turbines. Didn't get off the ground for several obvious reasons.

Sam Russell · 14-09-2020 3:47pm

bk wrote: »

- Talking more sci-fi, there is a project under development to build skyscraper sized towers out of car sized concrete blocks, with cranes on the top. The cranes rearrange the blocks to store or release energy! Move concrete block to the top of the tower to store energy, lower the concrete block from the top to the bottom of the tower to release energy! Basically a physical version of pumped storage.

I like the idea of that If it could be done with the blocks falling inside the tower block, with accommodation included in the design on the outside, it might make a lot of sense.

Add a windmill atop of the tower, together with a solar panel, and wow, a positive contribution to renewable energy. I must rush off and patent this.

bk · 14-09-2020 4:16pm

It is sounds mad, but also sort of brilliant if it works (a big if of course), video simulation of what it would look like here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itbwXMMkBQw

Sam Russell · 14-09-2020 4:32pm

bk wrote: »

It is sounds mad, but also sort of brilliant if it works (a big if of course), video simulation of what it would look like here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itbwXMMkBQw

Looking at the simulation, it is OK at the beginning dropping a few tonnes of concrete a few hundred metres or so, but as the pile at the bottom grows, the pile at the top lessens, so the potential energy for each block lessens. So the system becomes less efficient, with the first quarter of blocks never being used.

Better to build a structure close to a cliff of some sort so the height is not lost as the blocks are lowered or raised.

It should be more efficient than a pumped water system.

Interesting concept - using the same type of technology found in the the regenerative braking of hybrid cars.

loyatemu · 14-09-2020 4:54pm

I seem to recall a similar proposal involving disused mine shafts?

EDIT: it was these guys: https://gravitricity.com/

theguzman · 14-09-2020 6:46pm

There is a test project in America called ARES which effectively uses gravity and a downhill system of railways.

https://www.wired.com/2016/05/forget-elons-batteries-fix-grid-rock-filled-train-hill/

https://www.aresnorthamerica.com/about-ares-north-america

Apogee · 15-09-2020 3:55pm

The Journal wrote:

PLANS FOR A North-South interconnector have been given the green light. It is set to create a 400kv overhead electricity line connecting the North with the Republic of Ireland, and has been described as “crucial” for handling growing demand across the island. Applications were previously approved by Northern Ireland’s Department for Infrastructure in 2018, however a legal challenge saw the two applications quashed and remitted back to the department for determination.

https://www.thejournal.ie/north-south-interconnector-2-5204641-Sep2020/

tom1ie · 03-10-2020 7:51pm

Anyone know if there are any country’s in the world using their excess electricity generated by (for example) wind energy and “storing” this energy by creating hydrogen via electrolysis?
We know batteries aren’t big enough to store electricity on a commercial scale for when it’s needed.
If seems to me as the grid increases renewables, there will be times (and are times) when we generate more than we consume.
So why not use this excess to create hydrogen which can be used as a liquid fuel to drive a fleet or be used to drive generators at peak time’s to feed the utility grid?
Thoughts?

Sam Russell · 03-10-2020 7:52pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Anyone know if there are any country’s in the world using their excess electricity generated by (for example) wind energy and “storing” this energy by creating hydrogen via electrolysis?
We know batteries aren’t big enough to store electricity on a commercial scale for when it’s needed.
If seems to me as the grid increases renewables, there will be times (and are times) when we generate more than we consume.
So why not use this excess to create hydrogen which can be used as a liquid fuel to drive a fleet or be used to drive generators at peak time’s to feed the utility grid?
Thoughts?

The hydrogen thus generated could be added to natural gas, along with methane from digesters.

gjim · 04-10-2020 8:59am

tom1ie wrote: »

Anyone know if there are any country’s in the world using their excess electricity generated by (for example) wind energy and “storing” this energy by creating hydrogen via electrolysis?
We know batteries aren’t big enough to store electricity on a commercial scale for when it’s needed.
If seems to me as the grid increases renewables, there will be times (and are times) when we generate more than we consume.
So why not use this excess to create hydrogen which can be used as a liquid fuel to drive a fleet or be used to drive generators at peak time’s to feed the utility grid?
Thoughts?

Round-trip efficiency of electricity storage by hydrogen (produced by electrolysis) is only about 30%. Storing/transporting hydrogen is no joke either. I don't see much use for hydrogen in the transition to renewables. Maybe it's not as silly as growing edible plants then extracting/converting the sugars to hydrocarbons to burn in internal combustion engines (i.e. biodiesel) but it doesn't solve any particularly problem well while introducing a whole bunch of other problems around storage/transportation and safety.

Markcheese · 04-10-2020 10:03am

Adding hydrogen to the gas grid is being tried in places, but in relatively small amounts , but it's relatively wastful in energy terms ,
And it's a fairly capital intensive operation to set up on the "off chance " of having a bit of spare electricity for a few hours off peak ...
I think a battery can have up to Around 95 % efficient, (energy in / energy out ) , hydrogen is around 30 ,maybe 40 ish % ...

Although you wouldn't have the same compressor losses by adding the gas directly to the gas grid ...

Markcheese · 04-10-2020 10:03am

Adding hydrogen to the gas grid is being tried in places, but in relatively small amounts , but it's relatively wastful in energy terms ,
And it's a fairly capital intensive operation to set up on the "off chance " of having a bit of spare electricity for a few hours off peak ...
I think a battery can have up to Around 95 % efficient, (energy in / energy out ) , hydrogen is around 30 ,maybe 40 ish % ...

Although you wouldn't have the same compressor losses by adding the gas directly to the gas grid ...

tom1ie · 04-10-2020 10:22am

Well we are regularly generating more renewable energy than needed at off peak time’s.
One way we store it is pumped storage a la turlough hill, but that’s relatively small.
So we are increasing renewables so it’ll be quite a wasteful grid at times when the renewables are maxed out generating.
Have we factored in that this electricity would be wasted anyway so why not put it into the electrolysis process and make some hydrogen that we can use later when it’s needed.

I do get it though if u were using a finite resource to make hydrogen it doesn’t make sense, however an excess renewable that we would otherwise be wasting.......

gjim · 04-10-2020 10:41am

tom1ie wrote: »

Well we are regularly generating more renewable energy than needed at off peak time’s.

One solution to this problem is to switch some of the 2.7 million hydrocarbon burning vehicles in the country to pure battery power which should be a priority anyway for health reasons.

Say 10% of the existing fleet were replaced with electrics, each with an average battery capacity of 50KWh. That gives you 13GWh (if my sums are correct) of electricity storage distributed around the country. Now you have a useful sink for excess electricity from renewables.

Sam Russell · 04-10-2020 10:50am

If battery powered cars become ubiquitous, those very batteries could be used as backup storage for the grid. We need a feed-in tariff so that microgenerators can be harnessed by the grid and local storage can also take pressure off the grid when needed. Using 20% to 30% of the battery stored energy will make little difference to the owner in most cases, but cumulatively would be huge for the network in times of shortage when the wind does not blow.

The feed-in tariff would need to be highly intelligent in order to work. This would allow domestic users to allow depletion of their stored energy at a premium price, and replenished at a lower price. [I would anticipate that the difference in price would be less than 10% to 15% but would be an attractive proposition to many by reducing the energy bill].

gjim · 04-10-2020 10:56am

I also think interesting economics could kick in in this scenario when battery electric vehicles reach 5% or 10% of the market.

For example, if electric vehicles could also feed electricity back into the grid at peak times, the price differentials would mean you could charge your vehicle overnight - for say 1c per KWh and sell 10% the electricity back into the grid at peak times for 10c an hour meaning you were paying nothing for the energy to run your vehicle while at the same time making more renewable production viable.

For all this magic to work 'though, you need variable pricing for electricity for consumers. Unfortunately I think the (misguided) water meter backlash means most politicians will be wary of introducing anything which smacks of making people pay in proportion to the cost. I suspect the left/opportunist/populist politicians would have no problem whipping up some national indignation if the government were to try to introduce smart electricity meters alongside making people pay twice or more the rate for using electricity during peak periods even though overall everyone would be better off.

edit - just saw your post after submitting mine Sam and see you've made the point I was trying to make.

Sam Russell · 04-10-2020 11:34am

gjim wrote: »

For all this magic to work 'though, you need variable pricing for electricity for consumers. Unfortunately I think the (misguided) water meter backlash means most politicians will be wary of introducing anything which smacks of making people pay in proportion to the cost. I suspect the left/opportunist/populist politicians would have no problem whipping up some national indignation if the government were to try to introduce smart electricity meters alongside making people pay twice or more the rate for using electricity during peak periods even though overall everyone would be better off.

edit - just saw your post after submitting mine Sam and see you've made the point I was trying to make.

There is already a low cost night rate with electricity, so this would just be a more sophisticated version. The benefit would, for a user that takes maximum benefit, a significant reduction in their energy bill while benefiting the grid, and the overall green agenda.

People who make their homes more energy efficient by insulating effectively make significant savings, and this approach could reduce their energy cost to zero or even make a profit.

This is what is needed across the whole nation.

Sam Russell · 04-10-2020 1:06pm

Post deleted.

boards.ie acting up at he moment.

TimeToShine · 04-10-2020 1:10pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Anyone know if there are any country’s in the world using their excess electricity generated by (for example) wind energy and “storing” this energy by creating hydrogen via electrolysis?
We know batteries aren’t big enough to store electricity on a commercial scale for when it’s needed.
If seems to me as the grid increases renewables, there will be times (and are times) when we generate more than we consume.
So why not use this excess to create hydrogen which can be used as a liquid fuel to drive a fleet or be used to drive generators at peak time’s to feed the utility grid?
Thoughts?

Not yet but they are trialling it in a few places and the EU Want 40GW of hydrogen from electrolysis of renewable energy by 2030. I think France and Germany have already committed to 5GW each.

Problem is most of this hydrogen will come from offshore wind, so you also have to transport it to the mainland. The costs add up.

TimeToShine · 04-10-2020 1:13pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is already a low cost night rate with electricity, so this would just be a more sophisticated version. The benefit would, for a user that takes maximum benefit, a significant reduction in their energy bill while benefiting the grid, and the overall green agenda.

People who make their homes more energy efficient by insulating effectively make significant savings, and this approach could reduce their energy cost to zero or even make a profit.

This is what is needed across the whole nation.

It won't be low cost forever, remember the treasury are losing a huge amount of tax revenue from declining petrol and diesel use, no government can take that lying down. if EV uptake is as fast as hoped we can expect to see taxes levied on night-time charging or maybe a tax paid per km driven. At the end of the day you'll be on the hook in some way, no such thing as a free lunch.

Sam Russell · 04-10-2020 1:27pm

TimeToShine wrote: »

It won't be low cost forever, remember the treasury are losing a huge amount of tax revenue from declining petrol and diesel use, no government can take that lying down. if EV uptake is as fast as hoped we can expect to see taxes levied on night-time charging or maybe a tax paid per km driven. At the end of the day you'll be on the hook in some way, no such thing as a free lunch.

Well, no-one keeps horses to pull their carriage anymore. That was a saving for those that had to keep horses. Life moves on.

It is obvious that tax revenue has to be got from somewhere, and the mandarins in Gov buildings can be very inventive. Property tax could rise, and broadband tax could be per mbyte down loaded, perhaps text messages charged 0.1c each, and I think they could invent a few more.

Sam Russell · 04-10-2020 3:46pm

Another duplicate post. What is up with boards.ie today?

Energy infrastructure

Comments