Wind-pumped hydro electric storage

Oldtree · 19-02-2012 12:57pm

djpbarry wrote: »

I'd find it a whole lot easier to engage with you if you stopped assuming everyone to be anti-nuclear.

I amnt assuming anything, as I mentioned above I havnt yet arrived at a conclusion for myself. I was just pointing to the fact that it is impossible to pinpoint the source of the electricity coming down the interconnector and have to accept the fact that we are all using nuclear generated power in our homes at the moment and will use more in the future and it is unavoidable. this could be rationally used as part of an argument for us establishing our own nuclear plants. Dare I say nimby.

Oldtree · 19-02-2012 1:10pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

IF they could be made silent. Current regs allow turbines without pp if you have a large enough back garden

There are economies of scale. It's windier when you go higher, 70m up you get more watts than at ground level. There are also control systems, transformers, meters which would have to be replicated in each premises. A 3m turbine mounted on the side of a building in an urban area can't compete with the efficiency of a 30m turbine on top of a mountain (ever been to "windy gap" clue is in the name) or offshore.

I was trying to put forward an idea to make each household as carbon neutral as possible. that a lot of households could derive their power needs from less polluting sources. I hope for a silent turbine that will not annoy the neighbours. As well as increasing the value of our forests with a major new output avenue.

The current fuel mix for power in my home is:

http://www.esb.ie/esbcustomersupply/residential/manage-your-account/fuel-mix.jsp

so my last bill for around 1000 kw caused 532kg of CO2 emissions.

and I would seek to improve that. If everybody did their bit then the impact would be huge. Scale dosnt matter if there are millions of small contributers.

No matter what your/my standpoint on global warming etc, emmitting less pollution into the air we breathe has to be a positive thing.

Capt'n Midnight · 19-02-2012 2:46pm

Oldtree wrote: »

f everybody did their bit then the impact would be huge. Scale dosnt matter if there are millions of small contributers.

No matter what your/my standpoint on global warming etc, emmitting less pollution into the air we breathe has to be a positive thing.

Please note my post about 600,000 Village backyard furnaces.

Each furnace used locally sourced fuel and local labour, but there was also labour and coal imported such there was a shortage of coal for the railways and production on farms dropped. There were other factors involved, but these furnaces were a contributory factor to the famines that killed tens of millions of people. The iron produced was next to useless for tool making with without further processing.

And all to replace 3 industrial sized furnaces that produced better quality iron as part of the steel making process.

For the average householder the better investment would be in insulation / heat pumps / purchase of more energy efficient devices. It's supply vs. demand. Reducing demand is the more effective for the householder.

(solar heating though is worth considering.)

Buying micro wind turbines at current prices is crazy, unless you can save on the grid connection costs. Making one from scrap is of course a zero cost option so worth considering.

Capt'n Midnight · 19-02-2012 3:46pm

Oldtree wrote: »

I was just pointing to the fact that it is impossible to pinpoint the source of the electricity coming down the interconnector and have to accept the fact that we are all using nuclear generated power in our homes at the moment and will use more in the future and it is unavoidable. this could be rationally used as part of an argument for us establishing our own nuclear plants. Dare I say nimby.

LOL

If you measure the drift velocity of electrons , none of the nuke electrons come near us

if your argument was anything other than FUD then Airtricity might as well shut up shop since their customers might get fossil fuel electricity :rolleyes:

How often do people have to point out to you that the UK nuke industry gets massive subsidies and a levy from all electricity just to break even. The economics just aren't there.

base price for electricity here is just 5c per KWhr, show me where nukes can match this ?? (And it's cold now so demand and price are above the summer valley, it's as low as 3c during winter weekends )

Look at the graph http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx

Oldtree · 19-02-2012 6:31pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Please note my post about 600,000 Village backyard furnaces.

Each furnace used locally sourced fuel and local labour, but there was also labour and coal imported such there was a shortage of coal for the railways and production on farms dropped. There were other factors involved, but these furnaces were a contributory factor to the famines that killed tens of millions of people. The iron produced was next to useless for tool making with without further processing.

And all to replace 3 industrial sized furnaces that produced better quality iron as part of the steel making process.

For the average householder the better investment would be in insulation / heat pumps / purchase of more energy efficient devices. It's supply vs. demand. Reducing demand is the more effective for the householder.

(solar heating though is worth considering.)

Buying micro wind turbines at current prices is crazy, unless you can save on the grid connection costs. Making one from scrap is of course a zero cost option so worth considering.

In heating terms alone a wood stove would burn say a maximum of 4 tonnes of wood to heat a well insulated house which is 4 tonnes of CO2 emitted, where as a oil burner would emit roughly 13 tonnes of CO2 to do the same job. A saving of 9 tonnes of CO2 per annum. i was talking about domestic use not industrial use and I wasnt talking about burning coal either. Solar vaccum tubes would see all the hot water needs for the other parts of the year.

And yes current prices for micro turbines are crazy which is why I suggested that the tax incentive and a quid pro quo from the ESB would help us move this issue forward.

Oldtree · 19-02-2012 6:39pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL

If you measure the drift velocity of electrons , none of the nuke electrons come near us

if your argument was anything other than FUD then Airtricity might as well shut up shop since their customers might get fossil fuel electricity :rolleyes:

How often do people have to point out to you that the UK nuke industry gets massive subsidies and a levy from all electricity just to break even. The economics just aren't there.

base price for electricity here is just 5c per KWhr, show me where nukes can match this ?? (And it's cold now so demand and price are above the summer valley, it's as low as 3c during winter weekends )

Look at the graph http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx

Trying to pretend that Airtricity customers use only renewable produced energy is silly just as saying the electricity that travels down the interconnector is seperated into renewable and non renewable electricity. what has economies got to do with how far electricity travels down a cable???

lolroaf

Oldtree · 19-02-2012 6:42pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

For the average householder the better investment would be in insulation / heat pumps / purchase of more energy efficient devices. It's supply vs. demand. Reducing demand is the more effective for the householder.
(solar heating though is worth considering.)

Absolutly agree that your suggestions are part of the way forward, every little bit helps imo.

Markcheese · 19-02-2012 7:51pm

Macha wrote: »

Markcheese wrote: »

(..and hang the environmentalists ...."-"

[mod]In an environmentalism forum? Please.[/mod]

Humour ? (class myself as an environmentalist)(sort of)

Also the great White hope of our big alternative energy projects spirit of irl is going to have massive environmental impact (locally ) in a country where u couldn't put up a single turbine mast without a comotion

Markcheese · 19-02-2012 8:54pm

How often do people have to point out to you that the UK nuke industry gets massive subsidies and a levy from all electricity just to break even. The economics just aren't there.

Well I for one am not assuming that nuclear is cheap, but Britain has them, and are seriously pushing to build more... If you've already spent 12 billion or so you're gonna use the bloody thing wether the overall costs stack up or not.... If fact you'll use it to the max to try justify the stupid start up and vast fixed running costs if only to try justify the prob political (not always rational) decision to build it,,,,

Markcheese · 19-02-2012 9:14pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Markcheese wrote: »

Mind u if someone built huge interconnectors, spirit of Ireland could prob get almost free night time nuclear power from uk nuclear and sell it back as expensive peak time power when the kettles go on during corrie
Could turn a tidy profit for mere tens of billions..;(..and hang the environmentalists ...."-"

Why would they do that when it would be cheaper to build the Severn Barrage and other similar schemes ?

Interconnectors form Scotland to Norway are another option for the UK that could prove cheaper for them than Spirit Of Ireland.

Airtiricity were to build interconnected windfarms from the English Channel to the Baltic too..

Could be right on that but... Severn scheme is very iffy on how much they reckon it'd cost, but will have a massive environmental impact on a huge area, there are questions about it's life span due to silting,
What do you do for electricity for time around full and low tide when the barrage won't be producing....?
Where would the norweigan/scotish interconnectors be sourcing their power from at peak times.....unreliable if it's wind.pointlessly expensive if it's gas or nuclear.
Of course the UK or French could build their own huge pumped storage to make their reactors more effective and efficent, that way they'd save on connectors. If they have enough appropriate sites....

Capt'n Midnight · 19-02-2012 10:24pm

Markcheese wrote: »

Where would the norweigan/scotish interconnectors be sourcing their power from at peak times.

Norwegian hydro perhaps ?

Severn is tidal. You can predict power output years in advance, +/- storm surge. Capital costs and economics are same order as nuclear. Environmental impact should be compared with fossil fuel it replaces. Hydro plants have very long lives compared to other generating stations. Some of the Roman dams are still in use.

Solair · 19-02-2012 10:37pm

I think new pumped storage infrastructure could be combined with the project to bring more reliable water supply to the Greater Dublin area.

Surely we could kill two birds with one stone and put some kind of a major reservoir system somewhere that could be used to store water abstracted from the Shannon and also have a two levels to allow pumped storage.

There's no reason why a large system could not incorporate pumped storage. You simply pump water from the lower resevoir to the upper one by wind power and at peak demand, you release it back down again. The same water, if the system is big enough, would be sufficient to keep the east coast topped up too and there would always be more water topping it up anyway most of the year as Ireland doesn't tend have long dry seasons.

During hot weather / dry weather, Irish electricity consumption also dips. We are not hot enough to require air conditioning in summer, so when heating loads drop off, the power consumption goes down on average.

So, during dry weather when more water might be required for urban water supplies, less would be required for pumped storage electrical generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turlough_Hill

Works pretty well and to be fair, has relatively low visual impact in Wicklow.

Markcheese · 20-02-2012 12:29am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Markcheese wrote: »

Where would the norweigan/scotish interconnectors be sourcing their power from at peak times.

Norwegian hydro perhaps ?

Severn is tidal. You can predict power output years in advance, +/- storm surge. Capital costs and economics are same order as nuclear. Environmental impact should be compared with fossil fuel it replaces. Hydro plants have very long lives compared to other generating stations. Some of the Roman dams are still in use.

Does Norway have much spare hydro capacity.... ?
Just because u can predict massive daily power outages years in advance won't make consumers of electricity any happier when the lights go out
Some hdyro schemes are long lived and effective , some dams silt up... And a tidal barrage is prob a bit unpredictable
Kind of worrying that costs and economics are in the same order as nuclear,5 to 6 years late and many billions over, which prob means Uk gov will push and then subsidise construction:) no matter the environmental cost..
They're still pushing nuclear as well , which ties in with pumped storage as getting almost free off peak power ( call it heavily subsidised) would save a fortune by stopping a gov having to build more reactors, at 10/12 Billion a go plus interest it's Staggering

djpbarry · 20-02-2012 9:58am

Oldtree wrote: »

In heating terms alone a wood stove would burn say a maximum of 4 tonnes of wood to heat a well insulated house which is 4 tonnes of CO2 emitted, where as a oil burner would emit roughly 13 tonnes of CO2 to do the same job.

What are you basing those figures on?

Oldtree wrote: »

I was just pointing to the fact that it is impossible to pinpoint the source of the electricity coming down the interconnector and have to accept the fact that we are all using nuclear generated power in our homes at the moment and will use more in the future and it is unavoidable. this could be rationally used as part of an argument for us establishing our own nuclear plants.

I suppose it could, but it wouldn’t be a very strong argument.

djpbarry · 20-02-2012 9:58am

Markcheese wrote: »

Just because u can predict massive daily power outages...

Who said anything about predicting power outages?

Markcheese · 20-02-2012 12:20pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Markcheese wrote: »

Just because u can predict massive daily power outages...

Who said anything about predicting power outages?

Well.... I assume as it's a tidal barrage it won't store any water.....? And since it's tidal there'll be 4 periods of slack water every 24 hours, half an hour or so either side of each high and low tide, and while it's totally predictable it ain't going to keep the lights on, without a back up.... And .... Here we go again

Oldtree · 20-02-2012 12:35pm

djpbarry wrote: »

What are you basing those figures on?
I suppose it could, but it wouldn’t be a very strong argument.

Oops caught me out there. That would be and oil burner, coal fire and electric boost for hot water and heating. A while back I did a simple calculation on my parents home, which is not well insulated, of the use of fuels for heating and hot water.

1500 liters oil used @ 2.7 co2 per litre = 4.05 ton CO2
2 tonne coal used (2 fires) @ 2.9 co2 per kg = 5.8 ton CO2
electric boost in mornings for hour over 52weeks
9kw/hr x7x52x 0.532kg CO2 = 1.7428 ton Co2
Total 11.59 ton CO2

I have been told by the owner of a well insulated home, triple glazing, (without heat recovery) that his use of wood in backboiler wood stove was 4 tonnes to meet his heating and hot water needs during the winter and solar met his hot Water needs in the summer. He also said that the solar heated the water up to 15 degrees for most of the winter. He also used the electric boost the odd time but not regularly.

Coford in 2008 suggested a wood burning boiler used to heat a home of 150 m2 (1,615 square feet) will use an average of 6 tonnes of pellets per annum and two kilogrammes of wood pellets replace 1 litre of gas oil.

And yes it isnt a strong argument merely to point out that we already use imported nuclear generated power here.

My own current usage for hot water and heating in a home constructed in 2000 with 5cm insulation and ordinary double glazing is:

900 litres oil for 2011 x 2.7 = 2.43
electric boost in mornings for (probably less) hour over 52 weeks
9kw/hr x7x52x 0.532kg CO2 = 1.7428 ton Co2
Also Dimplex heaters in kids rooms to maintain warmer temp difficult to quantify
No fires
total 4.1728 ton CO2

djpbarry · 20-02-2012 1:13pm

Markcheese wrote: »

...since it's tidal there'll be 4 periods of slack water every 24 hours, half an hour or so either side of each high and low tide, and while it's totally predictable it ain't going to keep the lights on...

No single power source on it's own is ever going to be relied on to "keep the lights on", so it is completely beyond me why people continuously use this argument.

Markcheese · 20-02-2012 3:15pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Markcheese wrote: »

...since it's tidal there'll be 4 periods of slack water every 24 hours, half an hour or so either side of each high and low tide, and while it's totally predictable it ain't going to keep the lights on...

No single power source on it's own is ever going to be relied on to "keep the lights on", so it is completely beyond me why people continuously use this argument.

Because the main thrust of the thread is supposed to be" wind pumped hydro storage". And if u suggest tidal barrage as a cheaper alternative to interconnectors and pumped storage...and then have to build the pumped storage as well as part of the same project , then it costs more... And my point is somebody pays.....always. Doesn't matter what the combination of capital,running costs and intrest .
Or more than likely I misread yr post and have just been on a solo rant:) I do love a good rant.....

Solair · 20-02-2012 3:43pm

Oldtree wrote: »

Oops caught me out there. That would be and oil burner, coal fire and electric boost for hot water and heating. A while back I did a simple calculation on my parents home, which is not well insulated, of the use of fuels for heating and hot water.

1500 liters oil used @ 2.7 co2 per litre = 4.05 ton CO2
2 tonne coal used (2 fires) @ 2.9 co2 per kg = 5.8 ton CO2
electric boost in mornings for hour over 52weeks
9kw/hr x7x52x 0.532kg CO2 = 1.7428 ton Co2
Total 11.59 ton CO2

I have been told by the owner of a well insulated home, triple glazing, (without heat recovery) that his use of wood in backboiler wood stove was 4 tonnes to meet his heating and hot water needs during the winter and solar met his hot Water needs in the summer. He also said that the solar heated the water up to 15 degrees for most of the winter. He also used the electric boost the odd time but not regularly.

Coford in 2008 suggested a wood burning boiler used to heat a home of 150 m2 (1,615 square feet) will use an average of 6 tonnes of pellets per annum and two kilogrammes of wood pellets replace 1 litre of gas oil.

And yes it isnt a strong argument merely to point out that we already use imported nuclear generated power here.

My own current usage for hot water and heating in a home constructed in 2000 with 5cm insulation and ordinary double glazing is:

900 litres oil for 2011 x 2.7 = 2.43
electric boost in mornings for (probably less) hour over 52 weeks
9kw/hr x7x52x 0.532kg CO2 = 1.7428 ton Co2
Also Dimplex heaters in kids rooms to maintain warmer temp difficult to quantify
No fires
total 4.1728 ton CO2

Most Irish (and indeed British too) homes waste vast amounts of energy on heating. It's incrediable that we haven't improved standards more dramatically over the decades.

There are still houses built as late as the 1970s that have no insulation in the attic at all and very poor insulation in the walls.
There are heating systems that expend most of their energy heating the foundations, or the pavement outside where the pipes cross over from the little outdoor boiler house.

There are a lot of homes that could make seriously huge financial savings with even relatively minor upgrades. Even really simple things like lagging heating pipes and putting in loft insulation, limiting heat loss from old boiler-house based boilers etc

You'd really have to wonder what it is about these two countries that we are so lax about such things. I suppose, the fact that in general, our climate's more slightly uncomfortably cold and damp than genuinely cold has a lot to do with it.

However, I think there are a lot of older people here who just seem to put up with places being cold and damp as if it were normal. It's the same in England too, there are loads of houses with absolutely inadquate heating and insulation.

France isn't much better either! I've stayed in houses over there that had as much insulation as a garden shed.

From a CO2 point of view, spending a few billion on upgrading homes' insulation and heating systems might be more long-term cost-effective in many countries than spending those billions on new CO2-neutral generation capacity, particularly nuclear.

Capt'n Midnight · 20-02-2012 8:03pm

Solair wrote: »

Most Irish (and indeed British too) homes waste vast amounts of energy on heating. It's incrediable that we haven't improved standards more dramatically over the decades.
....

You'd really have to wonder what it is about these two countries that we are so lax about such things. I suppose, the fact that in general, our climate's more slightly uncomfortably cold and damp than genuinely cold has a lot to do with it.

The phrase you are looking for is Excess Winter Mortality.

http://www.ageaction.ie/sign-petition-help-protect-vulnerable-older-people-winter

Research on fuel poverty and older people by the Dublin Institute of Technology and the Institute of Public Health -- funded by CARDI and due to be published in the coming weeks -- shows that during the winter of 2006/7 there were 1,281 excess winter deaths*. Of these, the vast majority were older people (1,216 were aged over-65).

Countries like Finland don't have anything like this magnitude of excess deaths.

From a CO2 point of view, spending a few billion on upgrading homes' insulation and heating systems might be more long-term cost-effective in many countries than spending those billions on new CO2-neutral generation capacity, particularly nuclear.

It's a no brainer

Capt'n Midnight · 20-02-2012 8:18pm

Markcheese wrote: »

And a tidal barrage is prob a bit unpredictable

Peek tides to 2026
http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/hilo.php?port=newport

ind of worrying that costs and economics are in the same order as nuclear,5 to 6 years late and many billions over, which prob means Uk gov will push and then subsidise construction:) no matter the environmental cost..

They got the channel tunnel built, so they can do megaprojects.
The construction cost would be the same as nuclear, but less to go wrong since it's mostly a big inert wall.

Environmental impact is interesting since some species will benefit, and it's more a matter of how you lay it out, especially if you spend a bit more on a two lagoon setup , which maximises power on demand.

Markcheese · 21-02-2012 9:10am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Markcheese wrote: »

And a tidal barrage is prob a bit unpredictable

Peek tides to 2026
http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/hilo.php?port=newport

ind of worrying that costs and economics are in the same order as nuclear,5 to 6 years late and many billions over, which prob means Uk gov will push and then subsidise construction:) no matter the environmental cost..

They got the channel tunnel built, so they can do megaprojects.
The construction cost would be the same as nuclear, but less to go wrong since it's mostly a big inert wall.

Environmental impact is interesting since some species will benefit, and it's more a matter of how you lay it out, especially if you spend a bit more on a two lagoon setup , which maximises power on demand.

Sorry I didn't word that very well...the "unpredictable bit" was about how the Severn, and Bristol channel could silt up due to change of flow..
I know Britain can do big projects I was saying they prob would build it because like nuclear it'd give hideously expensive electricity... It's also horribly difficult ,, to build a barrage that long on deep mud in a huge tidal surge. Successfully. Don' think anyone has ever done anything like it...
And there is no storage lagoon in a barrage system... It's not damming a valley .
None of which preclude it from being built as much as cost... And even if they do and don't build a couple of reactors, the uk may still build the other 6 new reactors that they seem to want regardless of cost....

Anyone have a guess at hoe much each spirit irl project would cost, producing how much power,for how many days on a full "charge"

pljudge321 · 21-02-2012 9:58am

Markcheese wrote: »

Anyone have a guess at hoe much each spirit irl project would cost, producing how much power,for how many days on a full "charge"

Think on a timescale of hours rather than days.

Oldtree · 21-02-2012 11:46am

Markcheese wrote: »

Don' think anyone has ever done anything like it

There appears only to have been three tidal power plants, with more bigger ones planned.

Rance Tidal Tidal Power Plant France 240 MW.
Annapolis Royal Tidal Power Plant USA 20 MW operates on the same principle of tidal barrage and it has also faced issues of damage to river and marine life.
Jiangxia Tidal Tidal Power Plant China 3.2 Mw.

djpbarry · 21-02-2012 12:26pm

Markcheese wrote: »

Because the main thrust of the thread is supposed to be" wind pumped hydro storage".

Ok, fair enough, but more generally, I don't see why the harnessing of tidal power should not be pursued, if it can be shown to be economically viable.

Markcheese · 21-02-2012 12:32pm

Oldtree wrote: »

Markcheese wrote: »

Don' think anyone has ever done anything like it

There appears only to have been three tidal power plants, with more bigger ones planned.

Rance Tidal Tidal Power Plant France 240 MW.
Annapolis Royal Tidal Power Plant USA 20 MW operates on the same principle of tidal barrage and it has also faced issues of damage to river and marine life.
Jiangxia Tidal Tidal Power Plant China 3.2 Mw.

I know it's a different situation but how appropriate would tidal system be to Ireland . The neck of cork harbour is pretty narrow between Forts Camden and Carlille ( I know Maher and Davis) it's state owned either side, would provide power in an industrialised area , would need a damm so would have storage and would protect Cork Harbour, port of cork ,cork city and most importantly MY HOUSE, from global warming related flooding...... Of course there is small matter of cost ,environmental impact, possibly tiny amount of power provided, maybe no global warming flooding ect ...... But this is the second city ( and my house) we're talking about)

Could a scheme work on the backwater....the shannon. Presume Dublin bay and the Liffey are out...?

Oldtree · 21-02-2012 12:40pm

Backwater indeed!

First ye want to steal our water and now any power produced there. NO

Markcheese · 21-02-2012 1:12pm

Oldtree wrote: »

Backwater indeed!

First ye want to steal our water and now any power produced there. NO

Sorry. Yet another typo (damn predictive text) Supposed to be Blackwater.....

Where are u that u think it's a back water.... Bit sensitive are u ???

Capt'n Midnight · 21-02-2012 5:06pm

Markcheese wrote: »

I know it's a different situation but how appropriate would tidal system be to Ireland .

There are tidal turbines in Carligford Lough. which would be more suited to places where shipping means you can't really block the passage

plans for 230 - 300MW tidal system up north , I don't have link , it's from a figure in a table on planning stage

reminder the French tidal thingy has been going for yonks now , and there are many bays on UK and Irish West coasts where it could be used. Also if you have two lagoons , one full, one empty, you can transfer water between then regardless of the state of the tide - useful for when you need to peak between high and low tide (two low and two high tides a day - so never more than a few hours of low power, and the tide is different in different parts of the country. )

If you could figure out how to use tidal or wave or wind power to pump water into pumped storage fairly directly without generators and motors you could be on to a winner

Markcheese · 22-02-2012 10:04am

The test turbine in strangford is in a deep, v fast flowing channel,it's like an underwater wind turbine(a bit). I know the ESB are partners in it, so assume it could have applications here.... If it performs.... Not sure have they built a full size one yet...

Oldtree · 22-02-2012 12:58pm

Consultancy case for proposed 480MW Seawater Pumped Hydroelectric Energy Storage (PHES) Scheme at Glinsk, Co. Mayo by Organic Power Limited lodged on 28/04/2010 is in Abeyance?

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/PC0093.htm

anybody know what that means?

Capt'n Midnight · 23-02-2012 4:18pm

Markcheese wrote: »

The test turbine in strangford is in a deep, v fast flowing channel,it's like an underwater wind turbine(a bit). I know the ESB are partners in it, so assume it could have applications here.... If it performs.... Not sure have they built a full size one yet...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-guernsey-17132574

Siemens have just bought in

Capt'n Midnight · 23-02-2012 4:40pm

Oldtree wrote: »

anybody know what that means?

http://www.organicpower.ie/content/projects/glinsk.htm

Local residents in Belderg, the closest village to the site of the proposed 960MW SWPHES scheme at Glinsk and national organisations have endorsed the project in principle.

...
The proposal includes a new high voltage transmission line to deliver the area’s strategic potential in wind and ocean energy to the existing high voltage network via an undersea cable, thus avoiding issues associated with overhead power lines.

...
It is planned to commission the facility in 2013.

And they will use the interconnector

The MAREX initiative (Method for Atlantic Renewable Energy Export) aims to provide an underground High Voltage Direct Current Cable transmission connection from North Mayo (i.e. the Energy Storage Hub proposed by Organic Power at Glinsk) to the Irish terminus of the East West Interconnector which links the UK and Irish electricity grids.

The company is also involved in Biomass which is another way of storing electricity , you only fire up the generators when there is demand.

Reservoir location on page 4 of
http://www.organicpower.ie/pdf/glinsk/OP18%20web%20brochure%20issue%203%20August%202011.pdf

Oldtree · 24-02-2012 12:55pm

Thank you for that effort, but I knew most of that info. I put my question badly, I meant what does "Abeyance" mean in the above ABP project?

Markcheese · 20-03-2012 9:46pm

Could a custom version of the sea raiser or some other sea powered hydraulic ram/lift raise large amounts of sea water to a spirit of Ireland size dam to be used in the same way....
Wouldn't have to wait for wind to blow
Built in storage too

gladfly · 22-04-2012 3:32pm

Does anyone know how easy it would be to set up charging points for electric vehicles from electricity produced from a small scale hydro power plant. Say using an environmental friendly system such as the archimedian screw?

BryanF · 22-04-2012 6:21pm

gladfly wrote: »

Does anyone know how easy it would be to set up charging points for electric vehicles from electricity produced from a small scale hydro power plant. Say using an environmental friendly system such as the archimedian screw?

more detail is required, like the quantity of electricity (at the correct DC voltage) you expect to produce, on your enviro friendly archimedian screw. its would be difficult to say until a the site suitability assessment was under taken to calculate the cost of set-up.

this is good starting point for Small-Scale-Water power generation

gladfly · 22-04-2012 8:09pm

Hi BryanF,
Thank you for your comment, it looks like it is possible so
gf

Oldtree · 04-05-2012 10:39am

The attached very recent presentation gives an few insights to wphes ideas by organic power. It is a very lush and seductive presentation.

What is clearly expressed in the presentation:

The cheapest electric power storage mechanism at scale is Pumped Hydro-Electric Energy Storage (PHES)

Polygeneration would be a focus around a phes

Zoned lands for wind turbine development at Gigawatt scale within 50km

Grid connection potential to an export market

Export Atlantic wind energy to UK market, 6 terawatt-hours/yr by 2017

Export Atlantic wind and wave energy to UK market, 9 terawatt-hours/yr by 2027

Manufacture under licence and install 1900MW onshore wind turbines in Mayo (1,000 jobs 3 yrs, 250 jobs 20 yrs)

Install dedicated export renewable energy grid

Map showing link to the UK from presentation

So no intention to increase the availability of renewable power from this project for our use then!!! :rolleyes:
1,000 jobs in windmill factory!

Oldtree · 05-06-2012 12:15pm

Following from the above Organic power presentation, I came across an Eirgrid ad in the Mayo News today informing of public information about a new high capacity power circut linking Bellacorick Co Mayo with a strong point on the national grid. Planning will be put in in 2015 and 2 lines are eventually envisaged to Cashla Co Galway and Flagford Co Roscommon, based on Mayo's huge renewable potential.

Capt'n Midnight · 05-06-2012 5:50pm

gladfly wrote: »

Does anyone know how easy it would be to set up charging points for electric vehicles from electricity produced from a small scale hydro power plant. Say using an environmental friendly system such as the archimedian screw?

https://www.esb.ie/electric-cars/electric-car-charging/electric-car-charge-point-categories.jsp

Fast charging can be done using 3-phase, 63A AC (44kW) or 120A, 400V DC (50kW). A 50kW DC fast charge point can charge a suitable electric car up to 80% in 20-30 minutes.

list of hydro - you need 0.044 / 0.05 MW to fast charge per car
https://www.esb.ie/esbnetworks/en/downloads/DSO-Energised-Connected-Non-Wind-Generators.pdf

If charging overnight you need less.

Heroditas · 06-06-2012 11:53am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And they will use the interconnector

Assuming there was any spare capacity on it and they bid enough to get some capacity for themselves on it.

Capt'n Midnight · 06-06-2012 2:22pm

Heroditas wrote: »

Assuming there was any spare capacity on it and they bid enough to get some capacity for themselves on it.

Market forces.

If we are generating a lot of wind power then it's unlikely we'd be importing as well. Since surplus wind is cheaper than fossil fuel I'm not sure that the bid would that high, unless there is some Enron type speculation afoot.

But cheap storage would be cool,
I think that cheap heat in insulated building / hot water tanks isn't such a bad way
next to that a way to use the surplus power in industrial processes, electrolysis and such
aluminium requires very hot furnaces so not so good

copper would be better , perhaps cheap electricity could be used to recover it from mine waste from the likes of Avoca

or electrolysis of ewaste

Rather than moan about the unreliability of wind power , an alternative is to find uses for intermittant power that aren't that capital intensive.

perhaps use the power for maintainance tasks like cleaning ultrafiltration membranes or osmosis membranes

hydro is still the cheapest form of storage but it isn't that cheap, what is interesting is that with a little more power you can use ultrafiltration to produce fresh water. Consider how much will be spend in Ireland on things like the Shannon scheme to pump water to Dublin.

With existing water storage of between 120 and 180 days intermittancy isn't really that big a problem, unless we are expecting several windless months.

Heroditas · 06-06-2012 3:16pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Market forces.

If we are generating a lot of wind power then it's unlikely we'd be importing as well. Since surplus wind is cheaper than fossil fuel I'm not sure that the bid would that high, unless there is some Enron type speculation afoot.

They still need to "buy" the capacity on the interconnector. It's not free to use it.

Capt'n Midnight · 06-06-2012 5:40pm

Heroditas wrote: »

They still need to "buy" the capacity on the interconnector. It's not free to use it.

There is a slight difference in cashflow between sinking a couple of hundred million into an interconnector and hiring space on it to sell surplus wind energy

NorNed made €50million in it's first two months

http://www.statnett.no/en/News/News-archive-Temp/News-archive-2012/Intraday-trading-on-NorNed-launched-14-March/

map with current energy flows between regions
http://www.statnett.no/en/The-power-system/Production-and-consumption/State-of-the-Nordic-Power-System-Map/

historical data
http://www.statnett.no/en/The-power-system/Production-and-consumption/stuff/

and the UK could access Norwegian power via http://www.britned.com/

Meanwhile in Cyprus - pumped storage just can't compete with this return on investment and is unlikely to happen with in a three year timescale
http://famagusta-gazette.com/euroasia-interconnector-project-to-turn-cyprus-into-regional-power-hub-p14288-69.htm

According to Ktoridis - as Famagusta Gazette reports -, the project, with an estimated budget of 1.5 billion euros, will be able to transfer energy with a total capacity of 2.000 MW. The completion period is estimated at 36 months from the start of construction, while the project's study is expected to be completed within 2012. The maximum underwater installation depth will reach 2.000 m. Through EuroAsia Inter-connector, Cyprus is expected to cease being isolated in terms of energy, Ktoridis said, and described the project "nationally important" and one that upgrades Cyprus' role in the wider region. He explained that the project consists of three junctions, connecting Israel to Cyprus, Cyprus to the Greek island of Crete and from there to the Greek mainland, in Peloponnese, southern Greece. Ktorides further noted that the project is estimated to yield a profit of 17.5 billion euros, according to a conservative estimate, while the financing will be undertaken by Dei-Quantum Energy. (ANSAmed).

Oldtree · 07-06-2012 10:16am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Market forces.
If we are generating a lot of wind power then it's unlikely we'd be importing as well. Since surplus wind is cheaper than fossil fuel I'm not sure that the bid would that high, unless there is some Enron type speculation afoot.

Given Organic Powers above stated intention to:

Export 6 terawatt-hours/yr to UK by 2017 and Install dedicated export renewable energy grid

its entirely possible that the premium attracted by exporting surplus wind will be more that our own fossil fuel cost here so we may end up in a purely export situation for all Organic Power's (and fellow investors linked into their export grid) wind power rather than surplus being sold on to the UK. Its clear that Organic Powers intention is not to sell to the irish market.

If you take the ESB bill and it says that 9.9% of their current supply is from renewables (less than the 12.1% for the irish market) then there is a long way to go before surplus, other then from periodic peak over supply from wind.

lofty intentions here too:
http://www.esb.ie/main/sustainability/sustainable-power-generation.jsp

and ESB intends one third of total generation from renewables by 2020:
http://www.esb.ie/main/sustainability/strategy-to-2020.jsp

Oldtree · 07-06-2012 10:28am

Just came across this where Lord Turner (chairman of the UK government's Committee on Climate Change) says umong other things:

"But as for onshore wind, it actually is not all that much more expensive than nuclear or coal or gas once you allow for a reasonable cost of carbon."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/27/adair-turner-windfarm-interview

This implies to me that there will be a premium to export to the uk.

pljudge321 · 07-06-2012 11:06am

The whole wind for export idea is largely nonsense. We will only have to curtail wind generation around 1%-3% of the time and when we do have the excess amount of power over what we could simply use here will be negligible.

Markcheese · 07-06-2012 9:36pm

pljudge321 wrote: »

The whole wind for export idea is largely nonsense. We will only have to curtail wind generation around 1%-3% of the time and when we do have the excess amount of power over what we could simply use here will be negligible.

Not sure I understand yr point , why would we curtail wind generation and from what level .... I assume there's a practical max of wind power that you'd want on our (current) grid , 30 /40% ?? So if we're building usual wind production capacity( ie not the max rating) above the 30/40% that eirgrid want then there could be quite a bit to export .... And since us going flat out would still be a relative drop in the ocean to the uk ... As would most of their wind resouce in comparison to their heavy demand their grid would be able to handle it . Presume most of the wind energy will be forward sold ? Rather than spot markets ...? Does such a thing exist or was that just enron land ... Will the interconnector operator be the buyer/ seller price maker....

Wind-pumped hydro electric storage

Comments