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.

Carawaystick

Pat, are you not missing a factor for density in your equations about 2 pages back? seawater being denser than freshwater and all....

jinghong

patgill wrote: »

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 !!!!

Pat
Your figures look optimistic
I've worked in pumps and the highest efficiency multistages were in the high 70's (hydraulic). You then have electrical losses on the pumps. Then you have friction losses on the piping for the way up. I'm not sure what the efficiency of the Francis is when working in pump mode, but I doubt it is anything as high as turbine mode. I'd be surprised if you could exceed a combined efficiency of 75% from pumping

Then as you say you have turbine, penstock and electrical losses on the way down. Say this amounted to 80% efficiency, your total efficiency would be .8*.75 = 60%

Also leave the thermodynamics out, we're talking purely mechanical and electrical efficiency here

I know you are going to say this is site based, but tell me you can get better than that even with the most optimum site

patgill

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

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.

I will be posting soon on the advantages of the concept of a Natural Energy Power Station, particularly how it can share its resources to enable the efficiency of the entire energy system to inprove.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Pat, are you not missing a factor for density in your equations about 2 pages back? seawater being denser than freshwater and all....

Strictly true and the denser seawater will have a little more kinetic energy, if you were in a mathamathical frame of mind you could reverse engineer the figure I gave for the water flows needed to generate 1GW

jinghong wrote: »

Pat
Your figures look optimistic
I've worked in pumps and the highest efficiency multistages were in the high 70's (hydraulic). You then have electrical losses on the pumps. Then you have friction losses on the piping for the way up. I'm not sure what the efficiency of the Francis is when working in pump mode, but I doubt it is anything as high as turbine mode. I'd be surprised if you could exceed a combined efficiency of 75% from pumping

Then as you say you have turbine, penstock and electrical losses on the way down. Say this amounted to 80% efficiency, your total efficiency would be .8*.75 = 60%

Also leave the thermodynamics out, we're talking purely mechanical and electrical efficiency here

I know you are going to say this is site based, but tell me you can get better than that even with the most optimum site

Now we are beginning to get to the concept of a Natural Energy Power Station.

Turlough Hill, almost forty years old now. From a DECNR document

This is by far the most common form of
storage and is used at Turlough Hill. The construction price
varies by local geography. The energy efficiency is 70‐85%
and the cost is 0.1‐1.4¢/kWh.

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/996E85FC-A8AA-4E76-87AD-EB1647B71ED1/0/ElectricalEnergyStorage.pdf

The right site is vital to the ebb and flow (sorry) of the efficiency calculations.

jinghong

I'd like to see your own estimates. I don't trust the ramblings of a UCD engineering student (I was one myself many years back!).

Also you should include the embedded energy in construction (of the grid, dam, canals, penstock etc) and 'amortize' it over the useful lifetime of the project. This then should be included in the annual energy inputs, which will give a better idea or real efficiency

I want to believe in this project, but I need to be convinced on the figures

dowlingm

Does rainfall add a substantial amount of "free" energy when falling on the dam area, given the likely location of the dams on the Atlantic coast, or is it trivial?

ei.sdraob

dowlingm wrote: »

Does rainfall add a substantial amount of "free" energy when falling on the dam area, given the likely location of the dams on the Atlantic coast, or is it trivial?

lets say 2000mm a year (about right for west coast) then multiply that by the surface area of the reservoir?

patgill

jinghong wrote: »

I'd like to see your own estimates. I don't trust the ramblings of a UCD engineering student (I was one myself many years back!).

Also you should include the embedded energy in construction (of the grid, dam, canals, penstock etc) and 'amortize' it over the useful lifetime of the project. This then should be included in the annual energy inputs, which will give a better idea or real efficiency

I want to believe in this project, but I need to be convinced on the figures

jinghong

That particular student is actually one of Ireland's brighter prospects, I agree re the embedded energy costs, but we must begin to attach the embedded energy calculation into analysis of much more of our endevours.

More on this later, but the design life of our HSR is greater than a century, agreed that the wind turbines will not last that long, but neither will an Open Cycle Gas Turbine, along with its fuel logistics.

dowlingm wrote: »

Does rainfall add a substantial amount of "free" energy when falling on the dam area, given the likely location of the dams on the Atlantic coast, or is it trivial?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

lets say 2000mm a year (about right for west coast) then multiply that by the surface area of the reservoir?

This is another one of Gods gifts to Ireland, in many areas of the world, pumped storage must deal with evaporation as a real cost, in our climate we get an opposite effect, rain.

dowlingm

Reportage fail
http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/kfcwkfausncw/rss2/

the Irish Wind Energy Association (IWEA) revealed that April 5 last smashed the record for the amount of energy from turbines, with 1,120 MW of electricity being generated, enough to power 672,000 homes.

The largest electricity generating plant in the country is the coal burning ESB facility at Moneypoint in Co Clare, which can generate 850MW of electricity for the national grid.

http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/
Check out the following day and the 8th.

Without some kind of storage, wind is likely to be disruptive rather than helpful to grid management. I'm not saying SoI is it, but we'd better find something credible and cost-effective over the long term. I have written to the Examiner to chide them for simply reprinting the IWEA's press release rather than doing a bit of checking and asking some questions.

patgill

dowlingm

You have called it correctly, it is a fact though that the Irish media are to a large extent technically illiterate. Perhaps also there is the possibility of another influence at play here.

Some weeks ago, on the Frontline energy programme, I made a brief comment towards the end of the programme, Minister Ryan had been under pressure from Pat Kenny and Eddie Hobbs on his reluctance to wholeheartedly endorse Spirit of Ireland, and so I made the comment that as the Minister was the sole shareholder of the semi state energy companies, in many ways his hands were tied.

There are two articles in the present edition of Business and Finance, the first is a story on S of I, in which this very theme is discussed and the second article concerns the electricity market changes that are now in train from the regulator.

Last friday, there was a conference organised by the Limerick Clare Energy Agency held in Ennis. Most of the countries stakeholders were there and all presented their case. However it is notable that the only organisation that would not even countenance a change to the present wind regime was the Irish Wind Energy Association, scroll down along their home page and you will see that they mainly represent our own semi states, the ESB is represented by Hibernia Wind Power.


- IWEA is the national association for the wind industry in Ireland

And while I am here

One of the planks on which S of I has been built on is ownership by the people, and I deliberately say people rather than the state. The reasons are as follows and have nothing to do with capitalism or socialism.

The world is entering a new era, where security of energy supply will be the primary determinant of economic activity, this will mean that as a country we must begin to do things a little differently and at the start of this process people must feel involved and intrinsic to the process. But where are the people going to get the billions required to take this ownership.

Late last week there was a meeting between Padraig Howard, myself and a representative of a very prominent and reputable investment team and the purpose of this meeting was to begin the process of bringing into being an SSIA type of scheme, to which we have given the working title of the green bond project.

The purpose of this scheme will be to save in order to invest in our own energy future, there are of course one or two nice twists to this saving scheme which will encourage take up, but more about the details later.

S of I will not be the only major beneficiary of this fund, there is a lot of new innovation comong down the tracks, I get excited at least once a week by an Irish company or research team.

The investments of this new fund will be decided by a team of engineers, scientists and experienced project managers and should ideally have input from the policy makers in government.

However it is inspired by the words of the Scottish islander, who was asked did all of the wind turbines that surround his house keep him awake at night ? He replied, they do indeed, sometimes I count the money they earn for me three or four times, you see it was a community owned windfarm and that makes a big difference.

Sponge Bob

patgill wrote: »

You have called it correctly, it is a fact though that the Irish media are to a large extent technically illiterate. Perhaps also there is the possibility of another influence at play here.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Sums up the Irish media and anything complicated they try to get their headlets around.

ciaran75

Hi Pat,

Any update for us? been very quiet last while.

Cheers,

patgill

Ciaran

I have been dealing with a health problem recently.

The work is progressing, particularly with regard to community co op's

For some time now we have been promoting the idea of community owned energy Co Op's as a way to create sustainable employment in this country, energy is so intrinsic to our way of life and standard of living that it is one of the few very low risk businesses left in the world.

So what do we mean by community energy co op's ?



Energy is a vital part of our lives, much more we realise. It might surprise you to know that perhaps 40% of everthing you spend is actually spent on energy. Electricity, petrol, and heating bills are only the beginning of your energy spend, 20% of your food and clothing bills for example are made up of the energy cost of those products. Energy is getting more expensive as we pass through peak oil, while cheaply accessible oil and gas reserves begin to run down.



No doubt you will have heard or read, that Ireland has truly enormous renewable energy reserves. Wind and wave energy you probably already know about from companies such as Airtricity, or our semi state energy companies ESB, Bord Gais, and Bord na Mona. Who are all very active in wind farming in Ireland. However, there are other forms of renewable energy available to us in Ireland, for example, our ancestors were using our rivers and tidal pools to power their civilisations and help make the products of their time, for at least the last two thousand years. In many cases the basic civil engineering is still there waiting for an enterprising community to bring it back to valuable energy production.



What makes renewable energy relevant to every community in Ireland is the fact that they can all opt to become involved in this endevour. Be they urban or rural makes not the slightest difference, because whilst a prime wind harvesting community along the western seaboard, may need the help of urban energy co op partners to finance the western windfarm. The urban co op has a huge opportunity to develop an energy efficiency business or technology, and bring much needed employment to members of their own community.

And, we haven't even mentioned areas such as geothermal or biofuels.



We have come to believe over the last century or so, that energy production is for big companies to be involved in, and this is true when we speak about energy derived from fossil fuels. However, renewable energy is different, it happens within our communities rather than behind the perimeter fence of a conventional power station.

But if this is such a brilliant idea, why has it not been done before, well it has, and very successfully in countries as diverse as Japan, Canada, Denmark and the United States. Closer to home, there are quite few community energy Co op's in the UK particularly in Scotland.



The basic idea of a community energy Co op is for the people of a local area, or a local organisation, to come together and decide to become involved in the ownership of a renewable energy project. By doing so, such communities can unlock a revenue stream that can be used for the benefit of the community, money can be invested in local schools, roads, local projects infrastructure, or used to help create job's for local people limited only by their imagination.


Presently, there are many types of renewable energy technologies available, ranging from wind to wave, tidal, hydro, solar, bio etc.

However, the most technically advanced proven technology which suits the Irish environment is either wind or hydro, or, a combination of both. In the future it is envisaged that tidal and wave will be playing a significant role in renewable energy supplies, however the technology is still in its infancy, whereas wind / hydro is an "off the shelf" solution and is investor ready now.


A word of warning though, there are many vested interests in the field of renewables. Currently there are corporate entities and some private individuals buying up land rights and options from local farmers and landowners, with the promise of financial gain should the relevant lands be subject to future development for renewable energy. There is a real danger to those same landowners that should planning be subsequently granted, the options or rights may then be sold on to a much larger player bringing substantial rewards for the owner of such rights / options.

The simple rule here is that all Farmers, landowners, or commonage holders should never sign anything regardless of how innocent it may appear, without seeking legal advice in the first instance. This is the best way to protect the rights of rural communities and ensures that they benefit first from any initiatives presented by third parties.


So how should communities proceed in order that they may extract the most benefit from any potential renewable energy initiatives ? Perhaps the best option is to establish a Co op together with their neighbours and commonage holders. This is an easy step and advice can be had from the Irish Co Op Society who are the governing body in Ireland. The cost is negligible, and it would simplify matters such as legal advice, as all members would benefit from a single consultation rather than multiple of individuals seeking the same advice. It also serves as a conduit for investment, it ensures an open and up front platform for its members, and above all, it can protect members interests from exploitation by predatory and selfish third parties.

One of the first of these new community Co Op's is the Atlantic Coast Co Op and their website went live today.

Atlantic Coast Co-Operative Ltd

Best of Luck to all

Sponge Bob

patgill wrote: »

A word of warning though, there are many vested interests in the field of renewables. Currently there are corporate entities and some private individuals buying up land rights and options from local farmers and landowners, with the promise of financial gain should the relevant lands be subject to future development for renewable energy. There is a real danger to those same landowners that should planning be subsequently granted, the options or rights may then be sold on to a much larger player bringing substantial rewards for the owner of such rights / options.

This is where the law on commonage needs to be revised drastically so that a majority of somewhere between 60% and 75% ( opinions differ) can prevail against a blocking option or interest, sometimes as little as 2% of a commonage and 'owned' by one of these corporates.

Ugool

Lands acquired by the state in the '50s & '60s from my family, and my neighbours, by compulsory purchase order, or under threat of CPO, under the Turf Acts for the purpose of peat extraction to fuel the Bellacorick power station is now exhausted and the power station shut.

In the meantime lands which were left us are now designated & protected under EU law as Natura2000 sites - Special Areas of Conservation/Special Protected Areas. The lands acquired by the state were destroyed from an environmental view point, by the industrial production of peat and are not protected under EU law.

This has led to a very unjust situation where we are unable to apply for planning permission for wind turbines on our lands as they are protected, but the state can put up wind farms on these lands acquired from my family and my neighbours. Access to our natural resource, Wind, has been taken from us in a place where that resource is truly world class. :eek:

Need I remind you that North West Mayo has been polarized and it's community divided due to the scandalous mismanagement by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources of that other natural resource – the Corrib Gas field. Many argue that the Departments handling of yet another natural resource, those parts of the electromagnetic spectrum licensed for use by mobile phone companies, has been equally disastrous. :mad:

We seek for a fair resolution of this issue: Allow us to buy back the lands acquired from our families at the price paid to us by the state compounded by the rate of inflation since the date of acquisition.

Lands acquired by Northern Ireland Electricity in the 1960s at Camlough, Armagh, for the purpose of construction of a power station there were offered back. The project was cancelled and according to the Northern Ireland Minister in 2002, NIE were “offering the lands back to their original owners or their successors in title.”

We need something similar to happen here. :P

Sponge Bob

Ugool wrote: »

Lands acquired by the state in the '50s & '60s from my family, and my neighbours, by compulsory purchase order, or under threat of CPO, under the Turf Acts for the purpose of peat extraction to fuel the Bellacorick power station is now exhausted and the power station shut.

I take it you demanded the lands back, in writing, when the turf was exhausted because if you didn't then you are in a spot of bother. ) Of course that will not stop a lawyer from taking the case, no sirree

Ugool

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I take it you demanded the lands back, in writing, when the turf was exhausted because if you didn't then you are in a spot of bother. ) Of course that will not stop a lawyer from taking the case, no sirree

No we didn't. Bord na Mona got planning on these lands for 180 turbines 7 years ago and haven't built one yet. If they did we might have got employment from them. Six other application on lands adjoining this site were refused on the grounds of (1) Visual impact (2) Proximity to SAC (Special Areas of Conservation). Its now time for them to sh.. or leave the pot.

BluntGuy

Ugool wrote: »

No we didn't. Bord na Mona got planning on these lands for 180 turbines 7 years ago and haven't built one yet. If they did we might have got employment from them. Six other application on lands adjoining this site were refused on the grounds of (1) Visual impact (2) Proximity to SAC (Special Areas of Conservation). Its now time for them to sh.. or leave the pot.

What were the conditions of the planning permission? Did they have to begin construction within 5 or 10 years, for example?

Ugool

BluntGuy wrote: »

What were the conditions of the planning permission? Did they have to begin construction within 5 or 10 years, for example?

They are one of the few that got a 10 year starting date, but to hang onto your permission you only need to make a start. They have planning permission since 2003. Bord na Mona, Insight Consultants announce 300 new jobs in July'09 to get us all excited. http://www.bnm.ie/corporate/index.jsp?&1nID=93&nID=96&aID=797. They employ 3 there at the moment.

http://www.mayococo.ie/PlanSearch/mcc4/PlanningViewer/displayafile.asp?la=1&filenum=PL012542&subfilenum=Submit

Sponge Bob

You did not 'maintain' your claim over the land then.

I am sure that some lawyer will charge you handsomely for suing Bord na M but I am sceptical as to the merits of your case unless you maintained your claim over the land.....particularly when the bog was exhausted for its narrow Turf Act purpose around 1995-2003 or so.

It will cost all of you a lot of money, if it was a commonage in 1955 and were one shareholder in the commonage on the ball with a claim when the Turf was exhausted then you may all have a case. If not the statute of limitations may have closed the trap or may be about to close the trap meaning you must move now.

The RIGHT to litigate for the RIGHT to claim it back will probably cost all of you UP TO €100k in legal fees. If the shareholders in the old commonage will not invest pro rata in that case then you are already on a sticky wicket there are you not ???? You hardly expect Eamon Ryan, sole owner of Bord na M to care about it do you ??

Amtmann

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You hardly expect Eamon Ryan, sole owner of Bord na M to care about it do you ??

I doubt he will, and, without wishing to be mean, I don't either. Back on topic folks...

BTW, @ Ugool: you might get some good advice here. This forum isn't really for your issue.