Energy infrastructure

antoinolachtnai · 09-03-2021 7:12pm

Closing Moneypoint would not result in any reduction whatsoever in CO2 production in the EU or the world.

bk wrote: »

The Texas problem was one de-regulation and profiteering.

True, it is handy for levelling out expensive peaks in demand. If you are generating excess wind energy overnight, store it in the batteries and then use it next day during the evening peak.

A few hundred MWh won’t make that much difference at peak demand. It’s better than nothing but it’s really just ramping capacity. We need a lot more storage than that to be able to tide us over a bad period.

We are such a small grid, that the French Nuclear plants can easily help our grid without needing extra plants, etc.

Also it isn't just about French Nuclear plants, it is about plugging into the entire mainland EU grid and gaining the resiliency that comes with that.

A 1 GW link to the French grid will not really give us much backup if we have 10 GW of demand. It helps but it’s not the big solution.

This idea really depends on power being abundant on the French coast at all times. I don’t think this is proven.

LOL the last time I looked, we don't have a coal supply either! In fact we have far more local gas supply then we do coal.

We can ship coal from anywhere. We don’t have to burn it. It’s something that we can keep for an emergency. We cannot bring in gas except through one route.

The reason to get rid of dirty old coal plants are:

- It produces over twice as much greenhouse gases as a natural gas plant for the same unit of electricity.

- Coal plants produce significant amounts of other pollutants into the air, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, PM's, lead, cadmium, arsenic and other heavy metals. All pretty bad for your health.

By comparison, NG produces between 90 to 99% less of the above (depending on the one you look at) per unit of energy produced.

NG basically burns much cleaner then coal, this is why we have banned the burning of coal in our cities and moved over to mostly NG heating.

I'm old enough to remember how horrifyingly poor the air was when we use to burn coal for heating. In winter the air would be black with all the chimneys. Everything was dirty and the air stank and lots of coughing. It certainly wasn't healthy and I'm very glad we have switched away from it.

- Coal powered plants actually release radiation into the atmosphere. Ironically much more then Nuclear power plants.

- Coal power plants are a poor backup to wind. They are typically slow to fire up and slow to shut down again. They are poor to respond to the needs of the grid as wind increases and decreases.

By comparison, NG is very fast to start up and shutdown and thus perfect for supporting wind and quickly responding to grid demand.

Burning coal really makes no sense at all. Gas is pretty much the holy grail when it comes to fossil fuels. Half the CO2, fraction of other pollutants, easy to transport and a great backup to renewables.

These are great reasons to burn coal as little as possible. They are not good reasons to shut down a plant and build an NG plant instead.

The ramping problem could be solved by the aforementioned batteries.

Getting rid of Moneypoint or not running it would not reduce overall CO2 emissions by a single gram.

gjim · 09-03-2021 9:18pm

cnocbui wrote: »

There are only two Nissan models that are usable, and it seems restricted to commercial users. I stand by what i said.

Didn't you say it was a "pie-in-the-sky" idea? I interpreted that as meaning you didn't think it's feasible at all. It's not only feasible technically but it has been developed and is currently available commerically.

Providing 5 year old quotes from a single EV manufacturer is hardly convincing evidence that the technology is "pie-in-the-sky". Ignoring the fact that 5 years is an age when it comes to this technology, Tesla are not going to be neutral with respect to V2G given that this technology competes with one of Tesla's own products - powerwall. Anyway, Tesla doesn't get to set the rules of the game - they are being outsold by a big margin by both Volkswagen and Renault-Nissan in Europe and Nissan are backing V2G.

The stuff about V2G damaging batteries is based on fear, uncertainty and doubt. Obviously preventing battery degradation was one of the earliest technical hurdles for V2G but it's been figured out years ago - http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/88018/13/WRAP-possibility-extending-lifetime-lithium-ion-batteries-Marco-2017.pdf. These systems limit what they draw from the battery depending on a whole bunch of conditions - specifically to avoid affecting the life-span of the battery.

gjim · 09-03-2021 9:52pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Potential savings of £250 per year per charger for fleet users.

Versus the huge costs of replacing EV batteries early.

If you read the page you see that the vehicles are leased. I'm pretty sure that Nissan probably know what they are doing here - if there was damage caused by the V2G resulting in "huge costs", then they'd know about it before offering this leasing.

The "damages the battery" argument is about 5 or 10 years stale. The technology and expertise has moved on. The Nissan V2G system does not affect the life-span of the battery in any significant way.

The savings to the user are limited because of this battery management - typically only 10 or 20KWh are feed into the grid per day. But savings are also limited because it's operating without a fully dynamic feed-in tariff/smart metering. This requires government policy/regulation - like any sort of feed-in tariff everywhere. Even if it only saves the consumer a few hundred a year, it also benefits the entire grid - a (small) win/win situation.

Anyway I'm only arguing this because V2G has been referred to as fantasy/pie-in-the-sky technology which I don't think it is.

But actually, like bk, I don't think V2G or large grid scale batteries are a requirement to increase renewable generation. In fact we need very little in terms of novel technologies. We can continue building on-shore wind even to the point of saturation/over-provision because it's so cheap even with aggressive derating. NG peaker capacity and a modest amount of battery storage and interconnector capacity will take care of the rest.

gjim · 10-03-2021 10:25am

Getting away from V2G, not sure if everyone has seen this but I recently came across the eirgrid dashboard - http://smartgriddashboard.eirgrid.com/ - which is really nicely done. And if you other energy nerds are anything like me you'll enjoy fiddling with it.

You can see all sorts of interesting generation and production numbers at 15 minute resolution. It's a pity the data only seems to go back a few months but nonetheless you can get some cool graphs - for example you can graph wind output vs net interconnector flows and see the (inverse) relationship clearly.

dubhthach · 10-03-2021 10:51am

The 100MW Lumcloon battery was supposedly energised in December, the reports state Q1 operational service, which would be in next 2-3 weeks.

Very little information to be found on MWh rating of this battery, but it would appear to be 25MWh, going off the planning documents on their website: https://lumcloonenergy.com/vs/2020/09/Lumcloon-Report-1.pdf

They are building a similar facility at Shannonbridge. Both of these batteries are for providing DS3 services to the grid, so basically for frequency stabilization of the grid. They will be biggest attached battery storage on the grid to date when operational.

10-03-2021 5:00pm

One that might be very viable for Ireland's waterways, an alternative to dams for generating power

Apogee · 15-03-2021 3:26pm

https://twitter.com/seamuscoffey/status/1371465408159608837

Banana Republic 1 · 15-03-2021 4:28pm

Deleted User wrote: »

One that might be very viable for Ireland's waterways, an alternative to dams for generating power

A very interesting concept that Michael flatley is looking to build on the blackwater near his house, he is not however to my knowledge doing to benefit others.

blindsider · 15-03-2021 5:10pm

Isn't he selling the house? IIRC his father passed away, and he's moving on to other places/things...

Can't imagine he will see a project like this through, if he's upping sticks.....

Banana Republic 1 · 15-03-2021 5:24pm

blindsider wrote: »

Isn't he selling the house? IIRC his father passed away, and he's moving on to other places/things...

Can't imagine he will see a project like this through, if he's upping sticks.....

Well unless things have suddenly changed but last I heard he was upgrading the house after the auction that time.

19-03-2021 8:48pm

A potential alternative to battery storage, Stirling Engines

Apogee · 08-04-2021 11:48am

Moneypoint/ESB wrote:

Moneypoint Offshore Wind Farm is ESB and Equinor’s flagship floating offshore wind development project proposed in Ireland. If developed, the project will be delivered in two phases. The first phase, Moneypoint Offshore One is located 16km off the Clare /Kerry Coast. The expected capacity from the first phase is estimated to be 400MW with the final windfarm area likely to be in the order of 70km2. The second phase, Moneypoint Offshore Two would be located a further 20km west of Moneypoint Offshore One, taking the total project capacity to between 1GW – 1.5GW. The latter phase would have a likely area of 200km2. The expected capacity output of the project as a whole, could provide enough energy to power up to 1.5 million homes.

https://www.moneypointoffshorewind.ie/project-information.html
https://www.rte.ie/news/regional/2021/0408/1208579-esb-moneypoint/

josip · 08-04-2021 11:57am

As of 2018, the only operational floating wind farm is Hywind Scotland, developed by Equinor ASA and commissioned in October 2017. The farm has 5 floating turbines with a total capacity of 30 MW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine

What would be the strike price required to make this 1.0-1.5 GW project viable, assuming there are no cost overruns on the initial €5bn estimate ?
https://www.moneypointoffshorewind.ie/project-information.html

cnocbui · 08-04-2021 1:29pm

€5 Bn to build? Oh, dear. Maintainance costs for offshore wind run to 25-30% of the base price - 2-3 cents per Kwh generated.

Banana Republic 1 · 08-04-2021 1:33pm

cnocbui wrote: »

€5 Bn to build? Oh, dear. Maintainance costs for offshore wind run to 25-30% of the base price - 2-3 cents per Kwh generated.

How much do they spend on fossil fuel atm.

josip · 08-04-2021 1:46pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

How much do they spend on fossil fuel atm.

Coal costs of 2mt @ $70/t = $140m

Capt'n Midnight · 08-04-2021 4:07pm

josip wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine

What would be the strike price required to make this 1.0-1.5 GW project viable, assuming there are no cost overruns on the initial €5bn estimate ?
https://www.moneypointoffshorewind.ie/project-information.html

In the UK nuclear is getting a strike price of £92.50 . In 2012 pounds, CPI adjusted it's £109.95 and it's for 35 years. And that's on top of the cost to build the thing. Makes offshore wind look cheap.

Foynes plan for Shannon-Estuary-Offshore-Wind
https://www.sfpc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/20163-R-001-Shannon-Estuary-Offshore-Wind-Rev2.pdf

Banana Republic 1 · 08-04-2021 4:13pm

josip wrote: »

Coal costs of 2mt @ $70/t = $140m

At best the power plants only have a 35% efficiency so most of the fuel cost is in fact sent up the chimney.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-04-2021 6:51pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

At best the power plants only have a 35% efficiency so most of the fuel cost is in fact sent up the chimney.

China is retro fitting old coal plant to improve efficiency https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/chinas-coal-plants-new-efficiency-benchmarks/

a retrofitted 300 MW subcritical coal fired unit in China that is expected to be capable of an efficiency of 42.8% (net, LHV basis) – a significant increase from the 38.4% level typical for a 300 MW subcritical unit in China – and achieved by raising the temperature of the main and hot reheat steam from 538°C to 600°C, while keeping the steam pressures unchanged.

...
the upgrade will reduce power plant emissions by more than 10% and extend turbine overhaul interval from six to 12 years.

josip · 08-04-2021 7:15pm

They omitted a bit

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

a retrofitted 300 MW subcritical coal fired unit in China that is expected to be capable of an efficiency of 42.8% (net, LHV basis) – a significant increase from the 38.4% level typical for a 300 MW subcritical unit in China – and achieved by raising the temperature of the main and hot reheat steam from 538°C to 600°C, while keeping the steam pressures unchanged.

...
the upgrade will reduce power plant emissions by more than 10% and extend turbine overhaul interval from six to 12 years.

and keep an outdated, filthy technology in operation even longer than it should.

It's like saying that we got the mugger down the road to reduce his mugging frequency by 10% and everyone in the area is much happier.

bk · 08-04-2021 7:30pm

Going from 38.4% efficiency to 42.8% does not sound impressive at all!

cruizer101 · 08-04-2021 8:30pm

Its a 10% increase (42.8/38.4 =1.1) thats impressive enough I think.
Yes it is still a dirty coal plant which ideally would be replaced with better, but if it is going to be ran anyway better to have it more efficient.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-04-2021 8:44pm

bk wrote: »

Going from 38.4% efficiency to 42.8% does not sound impressive at all!

It's an extra 11% of electricity from the same coal for the rest of the life of the plant, way better than building an extra 11% more plants.

It's a bridging technology that means you can spend more on renewables.

Banana Republic 1 · 08-04-2021 9:20pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

China is retro fitting old coal plant to improve efficiency https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/chinas-coal-plants-new-efficiency-benchmarks/

Raising the temp of combustion results in excessive NOX.

08-04-2021 10:06pm

bk wrote: »

Going from 38.4% efficiency to 42.8% does not sound impressive at all!

Although, if those were number for solar panels, they would be amazingly impressive

bk · 08-04-2021 10:42pm

Frankly it reminds me too much of clean coal and clean diesel, I'm not sure if I trust any numbers that come out of the coal industry and in particular out of China.

In Ireland we have almost completely removed coal and that is a lot better then making dirty coal very slightly less dirty.

TimeToShine · 08-04-2021 10:46pm

I wouldn't mind seeing the adequacy studies, with the data centre growth and general electrification not replacing MP with something dispatchable is an interesting move.

Peregrine · 08-04-2021 11:35pm

bk wrote: »

Going from 38.4% efficiency to 42.8% does not sound impressive at all!

Even in an ideal unrealistic world, you could only hope to get 60 something %. So 38.4% to 42.8% is impressive for a coal fired plant.

And that's the tragic thing about heat engines.

bk · 09-04-2021 7:52pm

Talking of coal plants and Moneypoint, the ESB today revealed their plans for it:

https://esb.ie/tns/press-centre/2021/2021/04/09/esb-announces-green-atlantic-@-moneypoint
https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0408/1208579-esb-moneypoint/

It will become a green energy hub, called "Green Atlantic at Moneypoint"

- Building worlds largest Synchronous Compensator to support more reneable energy on the grid.
- 1,400MW Offshore Windfarm
- Wind turbine construction hub to support the wind farms
- Hydrogen production, storage and generation facility

The devil will be in the detail, but sounds good.

tom1ie · 09-04-2021 8:07pm

bk wrote: »

Talking of coal plants and Moneypoint, the ESB today revealed their plans for it:

https://esb.ie/tns/press-centre/2021/2021/04/09/esb-announces-green-atlantic-@-moneypoint
https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0408/1208579-esb-moneypoint/

It will become a green energy hub, called "Green Atlantic at Moneypoint"

- Building worlds largest Synchronous Compensator to support more reneable energy on the grid.
- 1,400MW Offshore Windfarm
- Wind turbine construction hub to support the wind farms
- Hydrogen production, storage and generation facility

The devil will be in the detail, but sounds good.

Very interesting reading about the plans for hydrogen storage.
I wonder how they are managing the electrolysis and storage under pressure as a gas maybe?

Energy infrastructure

Comments