Spirit of Ireland - A bright spark in today's economic gloom?

patgill

Furet wrote: »

Pat, it seems you've been saying this for a long time now. What does "very soon" mean?

We began last Monday night on Frontline and we have been busy at local level for some time.

I have always been available and the very soon I suppose depends on the media and peoples interest.

We are working intensively all of the time progressing the project.

Ask and you shall receive.

Amtmann

Ok: Locations. What sites have been identified?

patgill

Furet wrote: »

Ok: Locations. What sites have been identified?

I assume that you want specific locations, why is this so important, they are all in the remote west of the country, in counties Kerry, Galway, Mayo, and Donegal.

The only one that has been publicly identified by locals and discussed in the media is a few miles north of Cahirciveen.

The matter of publicly identifing valleys has always been in the remit of the local communities. And that remains the case.

BluntGuy

Hi Patgill,

I have a question to ask.

Within what timeframe can we expect the project to be delivered in? For example, when can we expect the first Environmental Impact Study? Or the first construction tenders to be put out?

Would "by 2020" be a realistic expectation to have the first phase up and running.

How did Spirit of Ireland calculate its "within 5 years" figure?

Thanks very much for your contributions here.

Hoof Hearted

Regarding reservoir locations, I know Spirit of Ireland showed potential locations in their youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWl2TuHcY6w (go to 28:00 minutes position in video). I recall quite a few of the potential locations being on the south face of the Dingle peninsula amongst many others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWl2TuHcY6w

pete742

just north of Cahirciveen from google maps i reckon attached is location of one of the proposed dams.

regarding timeframe, see one of pat's previous posts

patgill wrote: »

We are concentrating on three sites at the moment and discussions with the landowners have started in earnest. Following this, the EIS studies will begin, this will take about a year, and the more comprehensive these are, the quicker the project will go through the planning process.

We intend also to do a Local Economic Impact Study to compliment the EIS.

And we intend to be producing electricity by 2016 at the latest.



Thank you, this is a project for everyone.

Hoof Hearted

Would this be what it looks like?

TimmyTarmac

"And Spirit of Ireland will be successful, why not join us."

Thanks for the reply Pat - I like the can do attitude. It's refreshing. Having just received an invitation from the Bank of Ireland to further invest in their august institution having diluted my existing ordinary shareholding, I am very favourably disposed towards buying a shareholding in something that will actually improve life in this country.

Once the locals in the areas where the infrastructure will be built are happy, I'll be happy. (I do realise there's no such thing as 100% happiness about these things in a community.)

patgill

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

Would this be what it looks like?

A few flowers wouldn't go amiss

patgill

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

Regarding reservoir locations, I know Spirit of Ireland showed potential locations in their youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWl2TuHcY6w (go to 28:00 minutes position in video). I recall quite a few of the potential locations being on the south face of the Dingle peninsula amongst many others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWl2TuHcY6w

Its important to remember that we usually only attend parties we are invited to.

Whether its a HSR or a windfarm.

Amtmann

patgill wrote: »

I assume that you want specific locations, why is this so important, they are all in the remote west of the country, in counties Kerry, Galway, Mayo, and Donegal.

Thanks. I'm very interested in the geography of the project. I'd also second BluntGuy's question about EISes and tenders, etc.

patgill

BluntGuy wrote: »

Hi Patgill,

I have a question to ask.

Within what timeframe can we expect the project to be delivered in? For example, when can we expect the first Environmental Impact Study? Or the first construction tenders to be put out?

Would "by 2020" be a realistic expectation to have the first phase up and running.

How did Spirit of Ireland calculate its "within 5 years" figure?

Thanks very much for your contributions here.

Furet wrote: »

Thanks. I'm very interested in the geography of the project. I'd also second BluntGuy's question about EISes and tenders, etc.

WE expect to have the negotiations on sites completed over the summer and site specific EIS begins immediately.

We expect the EIS studies to be completed within a year and pre planning work begins as soon as agreement on the sites are secured.

Planning applications require an EIS and so as soon as we have those completed, the planning applications are lodged.

The five year figure came from the estimate of the time between the first spade hits the ground and selling electricity out the gate of the HSR.

Everything will be tendered and we expect the EIS studies to be world class efforts.

There will soon be opportunities for a far larger amount of people to become involved and I would hope that this work will be commercialised as soon as possible.

Hoof Hearted

Pat

I assume if you can double the "head", you can half the water capacity requirement for an equal amount of energy storage. This would typically mean being farther from the ocean and more expense in building the penstocks (the pipes from the water head to the turbines). e.g. a number of locations on the Dingle Peninsula, for example have large relatively flat expanses above 200m with "sides" that go up to 300m which may be feasible if long penstocks can be cost effectively built.
I'm sure this project could reignite the field of penstock construction design.

So the ideal location would be a rapid rise in terrain over a short distance from the ocean and then a quick flattening of the terrain into the 3 sided U valley for the reservoir. Now it could be asked, if the construction of long penstocks could be done so relatively inexpensively, why not locate a smaller reservoirs at higher altitude (not far from the tops of some of our mountains, that have the desired U shaped terrain) and farther from the ocean. The penstocks could be built flush into the ground like culverts and follow the shape of the land down to the ocean. Lining the penstocks with low friction material would help maintain high flow rates. As long as no one lives between the reservoir and the ocean, the margins of safety may not need to be as high as in a hydro-electric scheme upstream of a city.

Alternatively have 2 reservoirs a high (400m) and a low (200m above ocean) where the outflow of the high (after power is generated is fed into the low. The low reservoir would be a 2nd SOI scheme. This may provide more flexibility for challenging terrain shapes; the low being nearer to the ocean, but water is only pumped from the ocean to the higher reservoir, as it is probably easier to pump water in a straight line to the high reservoir even if you have to go over ridges, due to the siphon effect.

Hoof Hearted

Illustration of 2 Reservoirs

patgill

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

Pat

I assume if you can double the "head", you can half the water capacity requirement for an equal amount of energy storage. This would typically mean being farther from the ocean and more expense in building the penstocks (the pipes from the water head to the turbines). e.g. a number of locations on the Dingle Peninsula, for example have large relatively flat expanses above 200m with "sides" that go up to 300m which may be feasible if long penstocks can be cost effectively built.
I'm sure this project could reignite the field of penstock construction design.

So the ideal location would be a rapid rise in terrain over a short distance from the ocean and then a quick flattening of the terrain into the 3 sided U valley for the reservoir. Now it could be asked, if the construction of long penstocks could be done so relatively inexpensively, why not locate a smaller reservoirs at higher altitude (not far from the tops of some of our mountains, that have the desired U shaped terrain) and farther from the ocean. The penstocks could be built flush into the ground like culverts and follow the shape of the land down to the ocean. Lining the penstocks with low friction material would help maintain high flow rates. As long as no one lives between the reservoir and the ocean, the margins of safety may not need to be as high as in a hydro-electric scheme upstream of a city.

Alternatively have 2 reservoirs a high (400m) and a low (200m above ocean) where the outflow of the high (after power is generated is fed into the low. The low reservoir would be a 2nd SOI scheme. This may provide more flexibility for challenging terrain shapes; the low being nearer to the ocean, but water is only pumped from the ocean to the higher reservoir, as it is probably easier to pump water in a straight line to the high reservoir even if you have to go over ridges, due to the siphon effect.

Hoof Hearted

The basic formula for determining the energy output (P) from a hydro plant is P = 9.81 x Q x H (kW). Q is the flow rate in cubic metres per sec, H is the head (distance the water drops before it spins the turbines) in metres, the 9.81 figure is the multiplication due to gravity. However that is a theoretical figure as according to the laws of thermodynamics, we will lose energy in any energy conversion, so we must allow for this when calculating our output.

As an example if we allow a water flow of 4m3/sec to drop through a head of 10m the calculation will be 9.81X4x10 = 392kw.

If we double the head to 20m the calculation will run 9.81X4X20 = 785kw

So in theory we will double the electricity output by doubling the head, but we have not yet done our conversion discount as demanded by thermodynamics and this where it gets tricky. A modern Francis turbine has an efficiency of up to 95% in converting the potential energy in the water flow into electricity, but the additional problem in a pumped hydro arrangement is that we must also pump the water uphill first, so we in effect have two energy conversions and you correctly identified the other problem, the friction and dynamic effects in the penstock and these can be considerable. So there is a trade off between head height and efficiency.

The S of I design manages a through efficiency of between 80% and 85%, depending on site. If you can locate a valley that might give a head height of 200m with a not too long penstock requirement, we should talk.

The other matter is the amount of water flow required in order to generate 1GW of electricity, in the order of 1000 cubic metres per sec.

In conclusion there would be a lot of mathamatics required to validate your two reservoir idea, but if the maths worked out !!!!

del88

why are the government not shouting about this .....they seemed very indifferent on the frontline.

Steviemak

del88 wrote: »

why are the government not shouting about this .....they seemed very indifferent on the frontline.

You mean the worst government in the history of the state? We'll leave them to destroying the economy for generations while the rest of us get on with doing something positive for the generations to come.

BluntGuy

Steviemak wrote: »

You mean the worst government in the history of the state? We'll leave them to destroying the economy for generations while the rest of us get on with doing something positive for the generations to come.

Someone will have to pull them out of Anglo's ass before they show any genuine interest in projects such as this.

But I agree, it is time for entrepeneurs, innovators and the people of the nation to take control of their own future. If the maths and engineering behind this venture is shown to be sound, then this is a very worthwhile pursuit.

ODriscoll

patgill wrote: »

The ownership structure proposed by S of I is a national Co Op, with share ownership open to all Irish citizens and companies, with any debt finance being raised in the international bond markets.

In a Co Op, an owner of one share has the same voting rights as the owner of 100 shares.

And yes we do have the resources to be energy exporters.

For a local co-operative that is fine idea, however! this is not a local co-op idea and the principle does not even start to address major concerns about what are (at present) national assets.
You, or no one else should have a right to access privately let alone monopolize air that blows, or the tides.

Consequences need to be thought through.
If people want an idea on a local basis of what was and what will be.
Look up the old head of Kinsale. Go and try and walk what was free to all just a few short years ago.

Look up shell to sea, look up Tara.
All projects that are now considered national mistakes by most thinking people.

A walk on a few acres is one thing to lose, thousands of acres is another.
The loss of a national asset to private groups is the significant other.

Someone wondered why Eamon Ryan seemed quite chilled on the subject. I have no doubt that he knows this scheme is far from the best interest of the national population, who should all share by right of citizenship, and he has already thought of the other obvious consequences.

People get carried away with big ideas and especially by thoughts of security through wealth.
No one yet has earned enough to live forever, or be really secure, so such ideas are always short term!

For our children's children futures has become a cliche. This sort of scheme will have them cursing the naivety and often selfish motives of their parents parents.


Ireland has these fantastic national assets. Tides and winds that could power new electric technology. We could export them, provide better quality of lives for all citizens. The national Health service and education will always do with extra money.

What we don't need is wee Irish equivalent of Sheiks! In the Arabian gulf, the descendants of greedy bullies call themselves Princes and Kings now, they were nothing more than local bullies propped up by the British empire, willing to take control, pay a cut to the British empire, who provided the guns to tell locals what to do!

Are the Irish that stupid, that we don't even need to be bullied to give away to a chosen few (those who can afford to buy shares), what is already ours.
It is about time we had a government that took control on all our behalf, that is after all what we vote them in for. Not hand it over to private business, not something so final and intrinsic as national energy.
Egg co-operative yes, milk yes, etc.

This is very different.
Think of it all locally, your house, your family! would you be so keen to allow any private business to come in, take control and take the core benefits, and do this on some implied assurances from a business!

gpjordanf1

ODriscoll wrote: »

Look up shell to sea, look up Tara.
All projects that are now considered national mistakes by most thinking people.

The Majority of people in the country are in favour of the corrib gas project and the tara project.

The tiniest of a minority are against these projects. And these are the trouble makers.

I really hope they dont get involved in this project and cause it any delays!

Stark

ODriscoll wrote: »

Look up shell to sea, look up Tara.
All projects that are now considered national mistakes by most thinking people.

Tara was still there last time I checked. Still has sheep ****ting all over it but I suppose that doesn't affect its natural beauty in the same manner as a motorway barely visible on the other side of the old N3 to Tara.

ODriscoll

double post sorry

Dan Jaman

ODriscoll has a very real point - sure, I wouldn't like to see the entire scheme owned by foreign investors. If we do this, it should be Irish owned as much as possible, but the amount of funding required will run it into the realms of international investment houses and the like, so it's just a fact of life these days. Perhaps a certain % could be reserved for only Irish investors. Hypothetically, if I owned a few acres out West which happened to be a prime valley site for this, I'd happily give it up for the good of the nation, but not for the benefit of some French or Saudi or American profit-making corporation.

KevR

Something I was wondering - how long would the water in the resevoir last if there was an unusually long period of calm weather coinciding with high demand for electricity? For example, during the cold spell during at the start of this year there was a higher than usual demand for electricity and it was really calm.

Would Spirit of Ireland's system be more robust if they used some wave or tidal in addition to wind?

ciaran75

KevR wrote: »

Something I was wondering - how long would the water in the resevoir last if there was an unusually long period of calm weather coinciding with high demand for electricity? For example, during the cold spell during at the start of this year there was a higher than usual demand for electricity and it was really calm.

Would Spirit of Ireland's system be more robust if they used some wave or tidal in addition to wind?

i think about a week if there was no wind.

Raoul Duke

ODriscoll wrote: »

You, or no one else should have a right to access privately let alone monopolize air that blows, or the tides.

What! Are we going to lose the wind and the tide, if this goes ahead? Scandalous! You're dead right - Think of the consequences:

Will we have to pay to breathe? Will the surfers of Ireland be forced elsewhere?

ODriscoll wrote: »

Tides and winds that could power new electric technology. We could export them, provide better quality of lives for all citizens.

A fantastic idea! Why didn't anyone think of it before? What's the market price these days for a wave or a breeze?

patgill

Dan Jaman wrote: »

ODriscoll has a very real point - sure, I wouldn't like to see the entire scheme owned by foreign investors. If we do this, it should be Irish owned as much as possible, but the amount of funding required will run it into the realms of international investment houses and the like, so it's just a fact of life these days. Perhaps a certain % could be reserved for only Irish investors. Hypothetically, if I owned a few acres out West which happened to be a prime valley site for this, I'd happily give it up for the good of the nation, but not for the benefit of some French or Saudi or American profit-making corporation.

The intention is that this project should put money into the pockets of as many Irish people as possible, hence the Co Operative approach, money will be raised in two ways, by people and companies buying shares and by a bond type offering to the international markets. The ESB for example recently raised several hundred million euro with a bond offering, the people who buy bonds are only interested in making a return, they are not normally interested in the concept of ownership.

patgill

KevR wrote: »

Something I was wondering - how long would the water in the resevoir last if there was an unusually long period of calm weather coinciding with high demand for electricity? For example, during the cold spell during at the start of this year there was a higher than usual demand for electricity and it was really calm.

Would Spirit of Ireland's system be more robust if they used some wave or tidal in addition to wind?

ciaran75 wrote: »

i think about a week if there was no wind.

Not bad ciaran, we intend to build reservoirs with at least 100GW/hrs of storage and have a generation capacity of 1GW, however we would normally generate at approx 700MW, so using those figures the sum is 100 divided by .7 = 142 hrs or just under 6 days. In practice however the market may not need our output at night and so this figure would increase to 10 or 14 days.

As wave and tidal energy become available, they would of course be welcome, they are also intermittant.

Another scenario is that because the design has 10 X 100MW generator/pump turbines we could in effect split the power station in two and use 5 generator sets for renewables and 5 for buying cheap electricity from thermal stations at night and return this electricity to the grid at peak demand the next day.

I fervently hope that the people reading this will become shareholders, if so, these will be your decisions.

crushproof

patgill wrote: »

Not bad ciaran, we intend to build reservoirs with at least 100GW/hrs of storage and have a generation capacity of 1GW, however we would normally generate at approx 700MW, so using those figures the sum is 100 divided by .7 = 142 hrs or just under 6 days. In practice however the market may not need our output at night and so this figure would increase to 10 or 14 days.

As wave and tidal energy become available, they would of course be welcome, they are also intermittant.

Another scenario is that because the design has 10 X 100MW generator/pump turbines we could in effect split the power station in two and use 5 generator sets for renewables and 5 for buying cheap electricity from thermal stations at night and return this electricity to the grid at peak demand the next day.

I fervently hope that the people reading this will become shareholders, if so, these will be your decisions.

Hmmmm, just throwing it out there but......when the lake is being filled or pumped out you could perhaps have tidal energy machines that also generate energy as the water rushes throught them, just like the one in Carlingford Lough.
Just a though, they wouldn't be used much but when they are I'd say they'd produce a good bit of power

Hoof Hearted

I would guess that because of the difference between our baseload (middle of the night usage) versus our peak usage, that even without wind there would be a substantial reduction in the variation of cost of our electricity. Even during calm periods the use of cheaper base load stations only would save us the cost of building newer stations designed for peak usage. Along with the construction of more interconnectors with the UK and Europe, the project may be feasible on that basis alone, adding wind into the equation is where it really gives a return on the investment. And Europe will need storage of power for their wind generation too. So I hope my quick back of the envelope calculations show this to be true.