Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Energy infrastructure

12467172

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,646 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Their opposition to LNG is really an opposition to fracking.

    We are going to continue to need gas for the foreseeable future and more wind energy will only increase the importance of gas. Banning fracked gas here but not building infrastructure for us to source our own gas achieves very little. Without other import infrastructure, most of our gas will be coming through the interconnector with the UK. We will get what comes through the pipe which may be fracked gas the UK imported or what they fracked themselves.

    Opposing LPG because you are opposed to fracking makes no sense at all. If we control our importation of gas, we can specifically avoid fracked gas, thereby reducing demand for it. If most or all of our gas is coming from the UK, and if they take fracked gas, we are indirectly increasing demand for it. Better to specifically source non-fracked LPG.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Surely, LNG is gas, wherever it came from. Fracking is bad for the world, but a nuclear accident is more so. It is possible to ban fracked gas without banning LNG.

    Nuclear strangely has this reputation for being unsafe. Far more people have died as a result of energy production from fossil fuels than nuclear.

    The 2 prominent examples - Chernobyl (gross incompetence) and Fukashima (freak disaster), both non-modern plants, didn't even result in that many fatalities or environmental damage. Far less than fossil fuel plants.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,257 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Amirani wrote: »
    Nuclear strangely has this reputation for being unsafe. Far more people have died as a result of energy production from fossil fuels than nuclear.

    The 2 prominent examples - Chernobyl (gross incompetence) and Fukashima (freak disaster), both non-modern plants, didn't even result in that many fatalities or environmental damage. Far less than fossil fuel plants.

    That is a bit like the argument about air traffic not being safe, but cars are.

    The truth is we (as individuals) do not like plane crashes because everybody dies and everyone wonders could they be on such a flight. In other accidents - well we would not be involved, and would probably survive (we like to think). Smokers, likewise, do not see the danger, nor do the obese.

    However, until we have fuel cells that can create electricity directly from hydrogen and oxygen, we need a backup power source for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. Gas fits that very well. Importing nuclear generated power would be OK, as a nuclear power plant would be out of scale (and cost) for us.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,412 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Our stated energy aim is 70 % renewable , 30 percent other ... Effectively wind and gas , it isn't going to be quick or easy to get there but it's doable , (may be able to go further with future tech ,but that's for a future plan ) .. so how are we going to have 30 % gas ,without gas infrastructure .. ?
    We do have the current supply line ,(which has treated us well), and most of the gas stations are capable of running on diesel or kerosene for 10 days or something ,in case of emergency ...
    But we are at the end of a long supply line ,and things look a lot more uncertain from a stability point than 10 or 15 years ago ,
    So our own gas supply , (unlikely after corrib), gas storage (was proposed for ballycotton field but dropped ) or LNG , are all options , or all three ...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    That is what makes this Shannon LNG project so weird, we already have plenty of gas importation infrastructure!!

    We now have two gas interconnetors directly to Britain. The second was opened just last year at a cost of 100 million. We also have an interconnector with Northern Ireland, who then have their own third interconnector to Britain.

    These interconnectors are capable of delivering all our current gas needs.

    Note that in 2017 an issue at Corrib meant that it couldn't supply gas and in fact extra gas from the UK had to be pumped to Corrib to help resolve the problem. All our gas needs then was easily handled by the interconnectors and that was beforethe latest new third one came online!

    And keep in mind, the usage of gas is expected to drop over the next 10 years, as we use less for electricity generation due to more wind use and from homes getting better insulation.

    So why exactly do we need these LNG terminals at a cost of 500 million?

    There isn't even a cost argument, building these terminals is expected to actually increase the cost of gas here!! The reason being, we have to pay for the interconnectors even if they aren't used. So if we build these LNG terminals, then you have to pay the 500 million for building them, then pay for the gas and still continue to pay for the interconnectors! Madness.

    It really makes no sense to me at all. Gas will remain part of our energy mix, but we already have the infrastructure to import it, there is no threat of us running out of it.

    Originally the reason they thought they would need Shannon LNG, because they thought there would be greatly increasing demand with Moneypoint switching off and that it would be converted to a natural gas plant. Of course that isn't happening now, wind power advanced much faster then expected and now we simply don't need Moneypoint and we are going quicker and quicker to wind. We will still need gas of course, but less and less and we already have plenty capacity with the interconnectors.

    This really feels like it isn't needed at all and would end up another 500 million stranded asset like Moneypoint.

    I'd rather see 500 million to be invested in even more wind farms and use the extra energy to generate biogas or Hydrogen to pump into the gas network. That would be more environmentally friendly.

    This LNG project stinks of corporate profiteering bs. This stinks of gas companies scrambling to try and stay relevant in the face of greatly dropping demand. Look at the guy in the linked article. Chariman of the Port of Cork, but the former CEO of Bord Gais! Why should he care, well they have plans for a second LNG terminal in Cork and they are also desperately trying to come up with ways to reuse the facilities in Cork and the Kinsale gas fields, with talk of storing more gas there or switching to carbon capture and pumping carbon back into the Kinsale gas fields.

    I really haven't heard a good logical reason why we need these LNG terminals, versus the existing interconnectors + biogas/hydrogen.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Markcheese wrote: »
    Our stated energy aim is 70 % renewable , 30 percent other ... Effectively wind and gas , it isn't going to be quick or easy to get there but it's doable , (may be able to go further with future tech ,but that's for a future plan ) .. so how are we going to have 30 % gas ,without gas infrastructure .. ?

    I don't expect we'll be using 30%. We're likely to be using French nuclear in future as well.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    I just wanted to add, the Gas Networks Ireland seem to be completely uninterested and unimpressed by this Shannon LNG project.

    Last year the CEO of GNI pointed out that they believe that there are another 12 to 15 years of gas left in Corrib and that even when it runs out, our two interconnectors are easily capable of delivering on all needs for gas.

    GNI's vision for 2050 document that they published last year doesn't even mention the LNG projects. Instead their vision is to move to net zero carbon by 2050 via a combination of biogas generation + hydrogen generation + carbon capture storage tech.

    Now I'm somewhat dubious about this GNI plan, but despite that, there really doesn't seem to be any need for these LNG terminals.

    And of course this is all assuming that wind + storage tech doesn't progress faster then expected. I wouldn't bet against it, massive amounts of money world wide are being pumped into storage tech development projects and previous estimates on wind development have been completely blown away :D But even if storage tech doesn't pan out, it doesn't mean there is any fundamental threat to our gas supply.

    The reason why the government so easily agreed to give up on it when going into coalition with the Greens, is because it was already such a dubious project with little real demand behind it. It was likely to never happen anyway, so easier to blame the greens/give them a win.

    If we are wrong on this, we can always relatively easily revisit it. But it isn't like we are going to suddenly run out of electricity/gas because of a lack of it.

    I do think if we were to build this, we would most likely end up with another Moneypoint.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,257 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Moneypoint might be a good location for a nuclear reactor if we ever get need for one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭gjim


    bk wrote: »
    So why exactly do we need these LNG terminals at a cost of 500 million?

    There isn't even a cost argument, building these terminals is expected to actually increase the cost of gas here!! The reason being, we have to pay for the interconnectors even if they aren't used. So if we build these LNG terminals, then you have to pay the 500 million for building them, then pay for the gas and still continue to pay for the interconnectors! Madness.
    The LNG terminal is/was to be built privately, no? So it's not really a question of the the money being available for some other infrastructure project. Also where does the 500m figure come from? The earlier Shannon estuary LNG terminal proposal was to cost 75m or so.

    Nearly every other country in the Europe with a coast has an LNG terminal. It provides security of supply and gives you access to possibly the cheapest source of NG available at the moment. The former is particularly underestimated as soling relying on pipelines from other countries for vital energy hasn't worked out so well for some of our land-locked European neighbours to the east.

    GNI have opposed an LGN terminal for ever, since they committed to the interconnectors. Unfortunately their strategic decision has turned out to have been a poor (or unlucky) one. Global gas prices have fallen dramatically recently undermining the economic case that justified the capital spend on the interconnectors.

    To compound this blunder GNI entered into a commercial contract which demands that they pay for the interconnector regardless of the value of the gas which flows through it. Kinda the equivalent to the government guaranteeing to pay a a toll road operator regardless of the amount of traffic it carries.

    So GNI need high gas prices in Ireland in order to cover their commercial and business failings with regard to the interconnectors.

    As a result they've been waging a lobbying and publicity battle against importing LNG for years now for the simple reason that it would lower gas prices in Ireland and they would start losing money because of the stupid contracts they entered.

    High energy costs are a tax on everyone in the country and I don't see why everyone should pay this tax to cover up GNI's screw-ups. Unless you're a manager or exec in GNI, cheaper energy is good for the individual and the country as a whole. It passes into the cost of everything - electricity, transport, manufacturing and ultimately into the prices you see in shops.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭gjim


    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.

    NG is the cheapest and cleanest way of allowing wind and solar to feed into the grid at scale.

    Yes in the future we will have grid scale storage (not stabilisation) and have completely green electricity, but if we want to cut CO2 emissions NOW or in the next few years, NG is vital.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭gjim


    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.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    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.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    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.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,412 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    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 ..

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,412 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    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

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭gjim


    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


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    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.
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭gjim


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,412 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    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,

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,103 ✭✭✭plodder


    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?


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,350 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,412 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    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 ,

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,760 ✭✭✭Apogee


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭theguzman


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,257 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    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?


Advertisement