Energy island to supply green power when wind drops

silverharp

An interesting and ambitious idea!

Quote:
Energy island to supply green power when wind drops

A man-made island housing a hydroelectric plant and generating enough electricity to supply two million Dutch homes is planned for the North Sea by 2020.

It would act as back-up to wind farms by ensuring that electricity is still generated when the wind drops and would provide extra peak-time capacity. If successful, similar islands could be be built to supply other countries, especially those such as Britain that will increasingly come to depend on wind energy. The proposed site, called energy island, is expected to be built 15-20 miles (24-32km) off the Dutch coast, in waters about 20m (65ft) deep, and will be 3.7 miles (6km) long and up to 2.5 miles (4km) across.

Huge dykes would be constructed to hold back the sea and the centre of the island would be dug down to 40 metres (130ft) below sea level. Pipes in dykes would allow sea water to pour in, generating electricity in the same way as some dams. The water would then be pumped out. The electricity generated by the water pouring in is matched or exceeded by that needed to pump it out. The island should make a profit because it consumes electricity at a cheaper rate than it generates it.

Kema, the Dutch company behind the €3-3.5 billion (£2.5 billion) plan, is carrying out a feasibility study to pinpoint the best location. The Dutch Government is among potential investors. The project with a capacity of 1,500MW - similar to two large power plants - should help the Netherlands to reach its renewable energy target and its aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 30 per cent by 2020.

The Times, 10 Nov 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5119585.ece

BendiBus

Pumped storage in reverse? Interesting concept!

fishfoodie

I find it more than slightly ironic that a 6km & 4km concrete box in the North sea is considered a 'Green' solution to energy generation. :rolleyes:

Húrin

fishfoodie wrote: »

I find it more than slightly ironic that a 6km & 4km concrete box in the North sea is considered a 'Green' solution to energy generation. :rolleyes:

Yes, but The Netherlands is famously tight on land space. A plan like this could only work with a demand management strategy that would stretch the benefit of this concrete box to supply four or five million homes.

fishfoodie

Húrin wrote: »

Yes, but The Netherlands is famously tight on land space. A plan like this could only work with a demand management strategy that would stretch the benefit of this concrete box to supply four or five million homes.

Except that :

(24-32km) off the Dutch coast

would plonk it right in the middle of International waters, & if we in Ireland can have a particularly rare snail stop construction of a road, why are the impacts of scouring 24km sqr of seabed acceptable ?

Húrin

fishfoodie wrote: »

would plonk it right in the middle of International waters, & if we in Ireland can have a particularly rare snail stop construction of a road, why are the impacts of scouring 24km sqr of seabed acceptable ?

This Ireland country you speak of is building the M3 through one of its most historic sites so I don't think you know what you're talking about.

The energy industry has been building things in the North Sea for many years. This project will require the mother of all environmental impact studies, but it's not impossible.

robtri

Húrin wrote: »

This Ireland country you speak of is building the M3 through one of its most historic sites so I don't think you know what you're talking about.

The energy industry has been building things in the North Sea for many years. This project will require the mother of all environmental impact studies, but it's not impossible.

Your right some people don't know what they are talking about.....
the snails he is refering to are from the kildare by-pass, where some snails held up the construction of the motorway....

as to the M3, that is passing by the site and not through the hill of tara, the actual M3 is further away from the hill then the current road, the N3...

P. Breathnach

robtri wrote: »

as to the M3, that is passing by the site and not through the hill of tara, the actual M3 is further away from the hill then the current road, the N3...

That's like saying that you shouldn't complain if I break your left leg because I didn't break your right leg instead. The archaeological sites under threat are those in the Skreen valley.

Old-style conventional roads do relatively little damage to archaeology; building motorways involves destroying it.

fishfoodie

Húrin wrote: »

This Ireland country you speak of is building the M3 through one of its most historic sites so I don't think you know what you're talking about.

The energy industry has been building things in the North Sea for many years. This project will require the mother of all environmental impact studies, but it's not impossible.

So you think its a great idea that 24km sqr of seabed is going to be destroyed to create a very limited power station with an output of only 5x that of a conventional pumped storage station like Turlough Hill ?

robtri

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's like saying that you shouldn't complain if I break your left leg because I didn't break your right leg instead. The archaeological sites under threat are those in the Skreen valley.

Old-style conventional roads do relatively little damage to archaeology; building motorways involves destroying it.

no, thats nothing like breaking legs, how did you come up with that??

old style roads do not help us or our infrastructure, and with most developments certain area's do have to destroyed, its a fact... it is this sort of mentality that keeps ireland in the 60's.
Driving on old style roads makes cars emit more toxins that damage people and building, old style roads are more dangerous than motorways, old style roads are one of the top two biggest complaints for businesses wanting to set up shop in ireland..

RedPlanet

fishfoodie wrote: »

would plonk it right in the middle of International waters, & if we in Ireland can have a particularly rare snail stop construction of a road, why are the impacts of scouring 24km sqr of seabed acceptable ?

Since when is 24km from the coast "International Waters"?
It is no such thing.
Countries claim as much as 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) for their "Exclusive Economic Zone"
Don't you remember that large cocaine haul off the SW coast of ireland recently?
200 miles off our coast.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1106/corkdrugs.html
You'd think that'd put the boat in International Waters but no, they had to wait til the boat entered our zone.

P. Breathnach

robtri wrote: »

no, thats nothing like breaking legs, how did you come up with that??

I was using metaphor, but I recognise that some people do not relate to such language.

robtri wrote: »

old style roads do not help us or our infrastructure, and with most developments certain area's do have to destroyed, its a fact... it is this sort of mentality that keeps ireland in the 60's.

So to be up-to-date, we need to destroy things? That's not much of an argument. Even if things are to be damaged or destroyed, it makes good sense to minimise the destruction. And it's fatuous to describe that as the sort of mentality that keeps Ireland in the 1960s.

robtri wrote: »

Driving on old style roads makes cars emit more toxins that damage people and building, old style roads are more dangerous than motorways, old style roads are one of the top two biggest complaints for businesses wanting to set up shop in ireland..

There is some truth in that, but all living involves tradeoffs. It's not really old-style roads that provoke complaints, though; it's the bottlenecks when they enter towns or villages. Bypasses would solve, or at least greatly alleviate, many of the problems.

You have bought the PR message that the M3 is not a threat to our archaeological heritage because it does not go on or through the Hill of Tara. But that is not the complaint. The motorway lobby has misrepresented the problem in order to refute it.

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

The electricity generated by the water pouring in is matched or exceeded by that needed to pump it out.

Over 100% efficiency? - you cant defy the laws of physics!

Cuauhtemoc

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverharp View Post
The electricity generated by the water pouring in is matched or exceeded by that needed to pump it out.
Over 100% efficiency? - you cant defy the laws of physics!

I would read that as saying it takes the same or more energy to empty the island than it they get while it's filling.??

Sounds expensive for backup to wind power.

fishfoodie

RedPlanet wrote: »

Since when is 24km from the coast "International Waters"?
It is no such thing.
Countries claim as much as 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) for their "Exclusive Economic Zone"
Don't you remember that large cocaine haul off the SW coast of ireland recently?
200 miles off our coast.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1106/corkdrugs.html
You'd think that'd put the boat in International Waters but no, they had to wait til the boat entered our zone.

Its amazing the nits that people will pick, rather than actually speaking to the SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE !!!

i.e. Is there anything remote 'Green' about destroying 24km Sqr of sea bed !

Oh, by the way the Irish Maritime Claims, Dutch Maritime claims.

And you know what the boat was seized in International waters

Have you ever heard the expression: "Better to remain silent, & thought a fool; than speak & remove all doubt."

P. Breathnach

fishfoodie wrote: »

Is there anything remote 'Green' about destroying 24km Sqr of sea bed !

Possibly. Much of the shallower water in the North Sea has already been so messed up by human activity that there is little left to save.

An alternative point of view is that we should seek to undo all damage. We could start by dismantling the dykes and flooding much of Holland.

robtri

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I was using metaphor, but I recognise that some people do not relate to such language.
quote]

no I understand metaphors, but that one is so ridiculous in this context that I can't see the point in using it.

So to be up-to-date, we need to destroy things? That's not much of an argument. Even if things are to be damaged or destroyed, it makes good sense to minimise the destruction. And it's fatuous to describe that as the sort of mentality that keeps Ireland in the 1960s.

No, you are saying what I am saying, that for us to progress certain things will be damaged or destroyed and there is no getting around that. and Yes I agree it makes sense to minimise the destruction as much as possible and I believe that the M3 is doing this. Everytime we try to improve our road network somebody is campaigning against, its the snails, its the trees, its some history... that is the type of behaviour I am taking about that is keeping Ireland in an 1960's infrastructure...

There is some truth in that, but all living involves tradeoffs. It's not really old-style roads that provoke complaints, though; it's the bottlenecks when they enter towns or villages. Bypasses would solve, or at least greatly alleviate, many of the problems.

You have bought the PR message that the M3 is not a threat to our archaeological heritage because it does not go on or through the Hill of Tara. But that is not the complaint. The motorway lobby has misrepresented the problem in order to refute it.

the M3 is just a big bypass... so it will greatly allieviate a lot of problems.
no I havn't bought intot he PR from the motorway and yes they do twist it to suit there needs, just as much as the other side twist it to make it suit there needs...

P. Breathnach

robtri, we could bang on and on about the M3 route, but the difference between us comes down to a simple issue. I believe the archaeological inheritance around (not just on) the Hill of Tara is very valuable; you don't ascribe the same value to it. I am not saying that you give it no value at all, just less than I do.

I am vexed that the NRA and other supporters of the chosen route have presented a case that is, at best, skewed or, at worst, dishonest.

And I am not a nimby. I consider that much of the opposition to infrastructural projects is ignorant, unreasonably selfish, or plainly stupid.

But I'm still pissed off by what happened at Wood Quay.

robtri

P. Breathnach wrote: »

robtri, we could bang on and on about the M3 route, but the difference between us comes down to a simple issue. I believe the archaeological inheritance around (not just on) the Hill of Tara is very valuable; you don't ascribe the same value to it. I am not saying that you give it no value at all, just less than I do.

I am vexed that the NRA and other supporters of the chosen route have presented a case that is, at best, skewed or, at worst, dishonest.

And I am not a nimby. I consider that much of the opposition to infrastructural projects is ignorant, unreasonably selfish, or plainly stupid.

But I'm still pissed off by what happened at Wood Quay.

wood quay p*sses me off as well big time..