Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Thread Closed  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
23-03-2006, 10:44   #31
probe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulm17781
What do they use to generate electricity in this country?
The world doesn't stand still. We have a 12% EU renewable energy requirement for 2010. And that is only a starting point. Neither you nor the government nor anyone else can escape the fact that oil is running out. Those supplies that remain come increasingly from unstable parts of the world. Bush's ill-fated power/oil grab in Iraq shows how helpless they are at "fixing" things.

Norway, which has large hydro-electric power generating facilities, is building electricity interconnecters to mainland Europe (eg Netherlands) so that it can import electricity during periods of low rainfall.

No doubt in time, Ireland will wake up to the fact that it will have to build interconnectors to France over which it can export offshore wind (and other renewably) generated power and import French electricity during periods of low wind. (90% of France's electricity supply is either hydro or nuclear).

Electrification is not a project that can be done overnight. But if it isn't in the plan, new roads will continue to be built over railway lines with insufficient clearance for electrification, just like they did in the 18th century.

Energy prices will be rising at ever increasing rates as hydrocarbons dry up, exacerbated by growth in demand in China, India and other developing countries as oil resources shrink. Ireland is the most exposed country in Europe on the energy front. Which is laughable given the renewable energy potential of the island, if it were not so serious. Given the length of time everything infrastructural takes to achieve in the country, it is probably already too late

Probe
probe is offline  
Advertisement
23-03-2006, 12:45   #32
paulm17781
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by probe
The world doesn't stand still. We have a 12% EU renewable energy requirement for 2010. <snip>
No point using the environmental argument when 95% of our energy is from fossil fuels. When we can stop relying on oil it is worth looking at. In our current state (and frequency of trains as Mark said) it is pointless.
paulm17781 is offline  
23-03-2006, 14:31   #33
MarkoP11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,330
There is no business case for electrifcation, Mallow Limerick Junction currently is 8 passenger trains each way on a normal weekday, it becomes 14 each way next year. The DART logic was based on a increase in demand from 2000 per hour to 7000 which was achieved, thats 14,000 in total as northside and southside are considered. So number wise Dublin Cork currently moves in a day half of what the DART does in an hour. Ever other route is low frequency over single track so there is no justification

Depending on who you talk to rail has between 30 and 50% market share Dublin Cork so it would appear that there is no justification to spend heaps of money on electrification when the same benefits can be delivered quicker and at lower capital and operating costs by the proven diesel power solution, that could be bio diesel if such was available thus it can run off renewable energy.

As with many things the bulk of the benefits can be had by spending a small amount of money on specific issues, this talk of going to 200kph is quite premature as 160kph is still only possible on a fraction of the route, the time gained from going faster is disproportionate, say an increase from 60 to 70mph has a much larger impact than going from 90 to 100mph. Basics first dreams later, passengers are not impressed by heaps of investment they are impressed with service improvements that they can use

I just can't envisage a need, much better off electrifying the heavy suburban routes such as Drogheda Balbriggan Dublin (Drogheda Balbriggan was dropped because the Dublin Transport Office vetoed it) The only intercity line that has any chance is Dublin Belfast by virtue of the heavy commuter usage at both ends

The HST concept was developed in the UK in 1972 for medium to long distance intercity services, its quite tame in performance terms, 200kph 4000hp it is smooth after all it is an electric transmission. There is no vibration, the ride and passenger experience in a coach is the same regardless of what is pulling it. IE are not looking at a underfloor engine solution neither are the serious UK operators they are about to go out to tender so its a case of sit back and let them do the tricky and expensive R&D

It cost terms there is little between electric and diesel power and there is nothing stopping you from having the ability to run on diesel and overhead. The first prototype TGV was gas turbine powered they went electric since France had a large cheap supply of electrical power we don't

The raw energy required is roughly the same as power generation from fossil fuels is incredibly inefficient typically only 40% unless its one of the new combiend cycle gas plants so the environmental benefits are not as big as some may think

Quote:
Originally Posted by probe
Electrification is not a project that can be done overnight. But if it isn't in the plan, new roads will continue to be built over railway lines with insufficient clearance for electrification, just like they did in the 18th century.
Total bull. New bridges built over railway lines are designed to allow for later electrification, note the M50 bridge in Dublin built in the late 1980's was built wide enough for 4 tracks and tall enough for electrification. Same goes for the M1 and proposed M3. Have a look at the bridge in Maynooth station it was replaced one of sufficent clearance. It has been standard policy since the mid 1980's on most primary rail routes, most of the more recent are designed to allow for double decker trains. First railway opened in Ireland in the 19th century, 1834 and the one and only bridge over the line is still in place unmodified from 1834

Unless someone comes up with a cheap plentiful and reliable source of electricity there will be no electrification beyond suburban areas

Last edited by MarkoP11; 23-03-2006 at 14:36.
MarkoP11 is offline  
23-03-2006, 17:06   #34
probe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulm17781
No point using the environmental argument when 95% of our energy is from fossil fuels. When we can stop relying on oil it is worth looking at. In our current state (and frequency of trains as Mark said) it is pointless.

I regret to say that your head is in the sand with the other rail anoraks!

Ireland has no choice but to stop its reliance in fossil fuels. Sweden has announced this target for 2020*. One third of Ireland's electricity could come from offshore wind alone within 10 years – backed up by two interconnectors to the Continent which would be exporting and importing power to balance demand and provide system reliability.

Norway is the most hydrocarbon rich country in Europe. Yet the Norwegian government has put Britain on notice that it will not be in a position to export gas to GB within seven years - about the same date as Britain's own reserves are totally depleted. The shortage has started already. Retail gas prices have been increased twice in England since January 2006 by several gas suppliers – some as much as 30%. In less than three months.

Ireland has about 95,000 km of roads. How much of the road network is "profitable" in terms of vehicles use every day? They are part of the national infrastructure. The same goes for rail. There are thousands of km of electrified railway routes on the continent that carry only a handful of trains a day. Ireland has a higher population density than many of the countries with several thousand km of electrified rail - eg Finland with 20 people per km2 compared with IRL's 60 people - Finland has 2,619 km of electrified rail.

Build a good quality railway network and people will use it in large numbers, instead of the car or air transport.

Brussels > Paris used to have one or two flights per hour between the cities. Since they upgraded the rail service between the cities to TGV, there is only one flight per day!

If the population and economic expansion in Ireland predicted in recent economic reports covering the period to 2020 comes to pass, Ireland will become unliveable in terms of congestion, cost of transport and resulting quality of life.

Petrol cost about 5c per litre in 1960 in Ireland - now it is 105c - a 21 fold increase during an era of expanding oil production. In an environment of declining production and 2 bn people in Asia being able to afford an automobile for the first time it may go up 40 fold over the next 40 years - i.e. over €40 per litre! Great fun if you live in a house in KE, WW, MH, LH, or CW and have to drive to Dublin every day, IDT.

There is an enormous opportunity for a high quality electrified rail service if only people would wake up and smell the coffee!

*http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/3212/a/51058

probe
probe is offline  
23-03-2006, 17:29   #35
paulm17781
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by probe
I regret to say that your head is in the sand with the other rail anoraks!
Hypocrasy if ever I saw it. I am being realistic. Until Ireland's dependace on fossil fuels is reduced there is no point electrifying lines. The only people with their heads in the sand, are those who realistically think Ireland will meet it's Kyoto targets on time.*

*Elecrifying rail lines won't help until there is enough non-fossil based power.
paulm17781 is offline  
Advertisement
23-03-2006, 20:30   #36
probe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill McH
55 km seems like rather a high figure for Greystones to Howth/Malahide. I wonder is the real figure 27.5 km and then it gets doubled because there's two tracks.
The figure looks correct according to my map (they haven't doubled it). Greystones is a long way down!

probe
probe is offline  
23-03-2006, 20:34   #37
SeanW
Registered User
 
SeanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Longford/Dublin
Posts: 6,824
Don't forget about the Luas, 14km Red and 9km Green. That leaves 30 km for the DART Greystones to Malahide and Howth.

Last edited by SeanW; 23-03-2006 at 20:44.
SeanW is offline  
23-03-2006, 20:41   #38
dowlingm
Registered User
 
dowlingm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 5,063
Quote:
The first prototype TGV was gas turbine powered
Bombardier will sell you a jettrain if you're interested

Quote:
they went electric since France had a large cheap supply of electrical power we don't
Here's an example of France's cheap supply of electrical power. Needless to say we'll be a long time waiting for that in Ireland.
dowlingm is offline  
23-03-2006, 23:19   #39
A Dub in Glasgo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SE Glasgow, 100ft AMSL
Posts: 13,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by dowlingm

Here's an example of France's cheap supply of electrical power. Needless to say we'll be a long time waiting for that in Ireland.
Nuclear whole life costs are far from cheap
A Dub in Glasgo is offline  
Advertisement
24-03-2006, 00:14   #40
MarkoP11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,330
51km is the route length of DART, 55km is the full extent of the track, there being sections extending for a km or so beyond the termini. Total is about 95km all in

Let see

Journey time by mid range 200 kph trains would be similar for electric and diesel
While the electric option uses less energy at the point of use the total energy expended to provide that energy costs roughly the same as the diesel option but electric has a slight edge
The fuel cost is quite comparable so
We have no heavy haul freight where electric trains rule
The infrastructure upgrade cost for track is equal for both, ruling axle load of 17 tons is the high speed standard, UK HST is 17 as is TGV
The infrastructure upgrade cost for signalling is greater for electric, EMI issues
The infrastructure upgrade for civil works is greater for electric, bridges but can be reduced by passive provision of improved clearances as is policy anyway
The infrastructure maintenance cost is greater for electric, overhead wires substations etc

So in summary
There is no operational benefit from going electric at moderate speeds
There is no passenger impact or benefit, the essential SFE* is present anyway
Energy usage is roughly the same under current conditions
It costs a lot more to build and run an electric railway
The basic result is unless you don't already have an electrified line you stay diesel until the costs turn in favour
Unless you have the scale eg TGV 16 coach double deck trains at 3-5 minute intervals the costs

Given the money for the upgrade IE want doesn't exist its all academic

* SFE Shinny front end
MarkoP11 is offline  
24-03-2006, 05:17   #41
dowlingm
Registered User
 
dowlingm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 5,063
dub in glasgow - I know that, but obviously the french don't care.

MarkoP11 - are electric locos lighter than diesels for the same power, given no combustion chambers, no exhaust, no fuel storage?

Also - how is HEP managed in these dual diesel power cars?
dowlingm is offline  
24-03-2006, 09:06   #42
murphaph
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berlin
Posts: 17,409
As regards the whole-life cost of conventional nuclear power generation, some believe that it at least breaks even with large scal fossil production, and that includes decommissioning costs. I'm unsure myself, it's a very complex issue. Fossil stations may well have more labour intensive maintenance regimes than nuclear ones. The French seem entirely happy they went virtually all nuclear in the 50's, but i think to reap the rewards of nuclear you have to go all out and get some economy of scale in the construction costs and build a large domestic knowledge base like the French have done. I would imagine the UK way of dotting a nuclear station here and there (often all different in design) is a very expensive way of doing it but the French have many identical reactors which would have cut design costs (and probably sped up construction as the contractors knew exactly what they had to do each time).

I remain open minded on nuclear. I definitely believe the world would be in a better place had fossil fuels never been discovered and nuclear energy developed to make all the world's electricity. I'd take nuclear waste we can at least partially contain in a remote corner of the planet (or in space) over the trillions of tonnes of uncontrollable C02 etc. that's been released into the atmosphere.
murphaph is online now  
24-03-2006, 09:31   #43
probe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by dowlingm
Here's an example of France's cheap supply of electrical power. Needless to say we'll be a long time waiting for that in Ireland.
No need to wait! You don’t need Irish “planning permission” to run electricity connectors to France (and France is connected to most other grids in Europe). You don’t need to use dozy Irish companies to lay the cables between Ireland and France. The project could be put out to international tender tomorrow.

According to today’s Irish Times (confirmed by other sources) Ireland has 3 Gw of wind energy power capacity ready to run if they could connect them to the national grid. Work on this has been put on hold by the ESB mafia. Ireland’s peak electricity demand last night was just under 4.5Gw (http://www.eirgrid.com/EirGridPortal...eeLinkItemID=7)

Irish wind power could be sold on across the Continent and French nuclear power imported into Ireland during times of low wind levels. The abundant availability of cheap electricity would be an added business attraction for Ireland in the international context. The savings on buying Kyoto carbon credits ( pointcarbon.com ) would probably pay for the electricity interconnector in a short period of time.


probe
probe is offline  
24-03-2006, 17:26   #44
dowlingm
Registered User
 
dowlingm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 5,063
murphaph

all true.

As for electricity interconnection, it seems like a long way to run a cable. The further you go the more likely a break could happen. Interconnecting with UK seems more feasible as I assume they have an onward connector with France via Channel Tunnel.

Costing the totality of fossil fuel power properly is tricky because a lot of the costs of storing nuclear fuels are known but most ff emissions are discharged without penalty unless greenhouse gas/acid rain charging is implemented.
dowlingm is offline  
24-03-2006, 19:37   #45
Victor
Registered User
 
Victor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Dublin
Posts: 71,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by probe
According to today’s Irish Times (confirmed by other sources) Ireland has 3 Gw of wind energy power capacity
Capability (a wind farm on every hill) doesn't convert to (installed) capacity doesn't convert to avabilable capacity (downtime due to low winds and maintainence).

Because our need is small compared to our potential capability, our greatest oppurtunity is to export wind energy when its avavilable and import at other times.

Last edited by Victor; 24-03-2006 at 19:40.
Victor is offline  
Thread Closed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search