Infrastructure in the new Programme for Government

Sponge Bob

Strictly speaking that is an inside domain load balancer not a demand management meter and it does not interoperate with the meter either .

It is more of an intelligent fuseboard than an intelligent meter

Smart meters are basically designed so if the cops want to raid your house at 6am then the electricity will be cut off at 5:59am and there is nothing you can do about it but they will of course do a lot more than that .

There is a hell of a lot of work to be done on the different domains and interops

http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/Report%20to%20NISTlAugust10%20%282%29.pdf

However we can do nothing much until the energy minister does something useful and works on the access deficit in communications networks .

Macha

Thanks for that knipex. A few questions:

-Is a CCGT plant going to be on 100% of the time?
-What would the cost in carbon credits be over, say a year?
-What are the O&M costs of CCGT plant over, again say a year?
-Is it the case that wind turbines life span is increasing beyond 25 years?

Also when you talk about providing back up - wind developers are not required to provide back up for their wind turbines. Surely enough conventional capacity already exists?

The EWEA report I'm using as reference also shows a cost of approximately:
- €73/MWh of onshore wind
- €63/MWh of offshore wind
- €55/MWh of CCGT
- €54/MWh of Coal

ie, wind is about 1/3 more expensive than CCGT or coal with the assumption of oil at $59/barrel.

BUT if oil goes up to $120/barrel, the costs change to:
- €73/MWh of onshore wind
- €63/MWh of offshore wind
- €95/MWh of CCGT
- €68/MWh of Coal

And also, is there not an economic cost to such fluctuations in energy price?

Sponge Bob - the EMMA can be bought and installed right now. What does the Energy Minister need to do for that to happen?

Sponge Bob

taconnol wrote: »

Sponge Bob - the EMMA can be bought and installed right now. What does the Energy Minister need to do for that to happen?

Nothing at all, sure buy away , I recommend you avoid micro wind because the payback is about 12 years if it survives that long..... or something enormous like that

Demand metering , packaged as smart metering , will eventually be a form of eugenics in rural areas. Every time it gets cold and the grid gets stressed poor old country people will find their electricity turned off for 'the good of the grid' and that will not happen in Leafy D4 or D6 where core green voters may be found .

Genuine smart metering is a form of energy social contract and requires full disclosure of transmission domain and distribution domain metrics ( in real time) together with the generation domain data we get now . All of this requires ubiquitous low latency always on networks nationwide.

We have not even started to discuss this and in the absence of this information and the means to transmit it nobody should touch smart meters unless they are the kind of turkey who would vote for christmas .

I will end up having to firewall my dear old mothers kettle before long

Macha

Hang on - Smart Meters depend on Home Area Networks with individual appliances being connected up. They're not interested in appliances like kettles but rather the emersion, hot water cylinder, air conditioning - things like that.

Also, residential demand management devices won't work off on/off. The resident will be allowed to choose from a number of options on when and under what circumstances their electricity will be switched off.

Heh, I know how awful micro wind is. PV is quite successful though, well the real stats I have seen come back on installed residential ones are quite good.

Sponge Bob

taconnol wrote: »

Hang on - Smart Meters depend on Home Area Networks with individual appliances being connected up. They're not interested in appliances like kettles but rather the emersion, hot water cylinder, air conditioning - things like that.

Also, residential demand management devices won't work off on/off. The resident will be allowed to choose from a number of options on when and under what circumstances their electricity will be switched off.

And this must be communicated right back to the NOC and the Billing system . if you program the aircon off ( on request) on a hot evening when the grid is stressed in California you should get credit for it against someone who said feck it , blast away .

Behaviour and outturn and two way real time communications between willing informed contracted parties are what a smart grid really is . If the grid is stressed aand a demand reduction request goes out then those who are seen to respond should get paid for it and those who do not should pay a premium .

This cannot happen in eamon ryans 3g mobile waffle bubble , it is technically impossible to communicate

Heh, I know how awful micro wind is. PV is quite successful though, well the real stats I have seen come back on installed residential ones are quite good.

Only if you import it same as wood pellet stoves and boilers .

Paying sei approved installers their price gouger premium makes the business case much weaker .

knipex

taconnol wrote: »

Thanks for that knipex. A few questions:

-Is a CCGT plant going to be on 100% of the time?
-What would the cost in carbon credits be over, say a year?
-What are the O&M costs of CCGT plant over, again say a year?
-Is it the case that wind turbines life span is increasing beyond 25 years?

Also when you talk about providing back up - wind developers are not required to provide back up for their wind turbines. Surely enough conventional capacity already exists?

The EWEA report I'm using as reference also shows a cost of approximately:
- €73/MWh of onshore wind
- €63/MWh of offshore wind
- €55/MWh of CCGT
- €54/MWh of Coal

ie, wind is about 1/3 more expensive than CCGT or coal with the assumption of oil at $59/barrel.

BUT if oil goes up to $120/barrel, the costs change to:
- €73/MWh of onshore wind
- €63/MWh of offshore wind
- €95/MWh of CCGT
- €68/MWh of Coal

And also, is there not an economic cost to such fluctuations in energy price?

Sponge Bob - the EMMA can be bought and installed right now. What does the Energy Minister need to do for that to happen?

CGT plants are not designed to be base load facilities but rather load balance, hence their use as a backup for wind-power. They are inefficient and expensive to operate and would never have existed on our grid network except for the introduction of large scale wind power with its massively variable output.

As outputs are variable so are costs hence I just cannot answer your question.

The figures you quote for wind look reasonably Ok but I would think ignore the significant grid investment required and also the costs associated with the backup supply (which you will find is excluded from all wind power costings and from most discussion on the subject) which will increase that total.

Your costs for Gas and coal look high to me. Based on the current long term wholesale energy costs they look very high...

The cost of coal generated electricity is relatively unaffected by oil prices so I cannot see how the cost would increase so dramatically as oil prices increase. Demand on coal would no increase dramatically as there is a finite number of coal generating plants.

Coal power electricity is popular for one major reason. It is cheap.

As for the life of wind turbines. Some turbines manufactures are now stating 25 year life BUT that is on older, smaller and less efficient models. Also there is no data as to how maintenance costs will rise as the turbine life increases. Increasing turbine life by an additional 5 years will increase depreciation time but will also increase financing costs. Their will be a net savings but quantifying it would be difficult.

The final issue which you have not addressed is backup.

As oil prices increase so will the cost of the backup solution which will increase your wind costs. They are not immune to energy prices which is another issue that none of the proponents of wind power are willing to discuss.

There is one fact that is now agree is beyond dispute. Wind power is not cheap.

Load factors are critical to the economic feasibility of any wind farm. 35% should be a minimum but wind farm have been built and government supported in Ireland with load factors as low as 20%. There appears to be no research of planning involved.

I am not saying wind does not have its place, it most certainly does but how its being currently implemented in Ireland is an example of how not to do things...

If you can get load factors high enough and either sort out a storage solution of accept the true cost of backup when doing cost benefit then I support it 100%.

However this government have committed to spending billions upgrading our grid to accept a hodgepodge of small scale wind farms with no overall planning or cost benefit in place. All this will do is result in high electricity costs in Ireland for generations.

As there is no discussion allowed on the subject I am afraid that this will continue until we are at the stage where it all implodes and a number of companies go bust taking investors and jobs with them.

While I am not a supporter of Spirit of Ireland had have a number of concerns regarding their proposal they at least have accepted these two facts and have an interesting idea as to interfacing with the grid.

I would recommend you make contact with them as they have allot of data on wind and appear willing to share.

Macha

knipex wrote: »

The figures you quote for wind look reasonably Ok but I would think ignore the significant grid investment required and also the costs associated with the backup supply (which you will find is excluded from all wind power costings and from most discussion on the subject) which will increase that total.

There is the argument that significant grid investment is required anyway, not just to allow for the integration of further renewables and so the cost of grid upgrade should be socialised.

knipex wrote: »

Your costs for Gas and coal look high to me. Based on the current long term wholesale energy costs they look very high...

Do you have a source? The costs include carbon credits.

knipex wrote: »

Coal power electricity is popular for one major reason. It is cheap.

Yeah, I know. It sucks.

knipex wrote: »

The final issue which you have not addressed is backup.

As oil prices increase so will the cost of the backup solution which will increase your wind costs. They are not immune to energy prices which is another issue that none of the proponents of wind power are willing to discuss.

Do you consider back up capacity the only solution in further integration of renewables? What about increased grid connection and demand management as well as increased energy efficiency in buildings?

knipex wrote: »

There is one fact that is now agree is beyond dispute. Wind power is not cheap.

No but burning fossil fuels is even more expensive when the costs of climate change are factored in. What is the alternative?

knipex wrote: »

Load factors are critical to the economic feasibility of any wind farm. 35% should be a minimum but wind farm have been built and government supported in Ireland with load factors as low as 20%. There appears to be no research of planning involved.

Yes I would consider load factors vital for planning purposes. But high load factors are possible. The average load factor in the North Sea, for example, is over 40%.

knipex wrote: »

If you can get load factors high enough and either sort out a storage solution of accept the true cost of backup when doing cost benefit then I support it 100%.

Agreed.

knipex wrote: »

However this government have committed to spending billions upgrading our grid to accept a hodgepodge of small scale wind farms with no overall planning or cost benefit in place. All this will do is result in high electricity costs in Ireland for generations.

Is it a case that the larger the wind turbine the better, always?

knipex wrote: »

While I am not a supporter of Spirit of Ireland had have a number of concerns regarding their proposal they at least have accepted these two facts and have an interesting idea as to interfacing with the grid.

I would recommend you make contact with them as they have allot of data on wind and appear willing to share.

Yes, they're having a conference or presentation soon that I hope to attend. But I'm not a supporter either. I have heard that the pumping efficiencies are not high and at a time when sea levels are expected to rise, I wonder about the long-term feasibility of the project.

Edit: Also, we're not the only ones with this problem. What are the policies of countries like Denmark and Germany in relation to the integration of wind and other renewables? I know Germany have just launched a huge plan for Offshore in the North Sea and their EGG regulation requires the grid operators to pay for connection and energy utilities to prioritise the purchase of renewable energy.

knipex

taconnol wrote: »

There is the argument that significant grid investment is required anyway, not just to allow for the integration of further renewables and so the cost of grid upgrade should be socialised.

Even if the cost of the grid upgrade is being primarially driven by the very nature of renewables and the relative small scale of production ?

taconnol wrote: »

Do you have a source? The costs include carbon credits.

The only source I have is a financial times story on wholesale electricity costs in the UK and France. Irish wholesale costs are about on par. I am not aware if they include the cost of carbon credits.

taconnol wrote: »

Yeah, I know. It sucks.

There is some significant research into cleaning up coal burning with very interesting results. If the technology matures as expected then coal remains an option.

taconnol wrote: »

Do you consider back up capacity the only solution in further integration of renewables? What about increased grid connection and demand management as well as increased energy efficiency in buildings?

Absolutely. Wind power is too variable you cannot guarantee supply and its either a backup \ storage or blackouts. Industry in Ireland will not survive without reliable power. It would destroy the country.

What you are talking about is to put it bluntly and no offence meant) nieve and does not take reality into account.

if you ration electricity we might as well shut down the country.

taconnol wrote: »

No but burning fossil fuels is even more expensive when the costs of climate change are factored in. What is the alternative?

Now you are talking ideology rather than reality.

You cannot ignore reality. Wind power is expensive, on its own it is not a solution. You are proposing power cuts, brown outs, even more expensive electricity than we have now and effectively rationing of power.

All that will achieve is drive all industry out of Ireland and put us back in the stone age.

Its is not an alternative.

taconnol wrote: »

Yes I would consider load factors vital for planning purposes. But high load factors are possible. The average load factor in the North Sea, for example, is over 40%.

So why are we building wind-farm with low load factors ? We are we allowing these to go ahead. Why are we investing billions in a grid to connect these ?

taconnol wrote: »

Is it a case that the larger the wind turbine the better, always?

Of course not. 3MW seems to be about the best point at the moment but as the technology matures larger turbines will become possible.

taconnol wrote: »

Yes, they're having a conference or presentation soon that I hope to attend. But I'm not a supporter either. I have heard that the pumping efficiencies are not high and at a time when sea levels are expected to rise, I wonder about the long-term feasibility of the project.

Look at the recent data on sea level increases..............

Pumping efficiencies are far far higher than battery efficiencies.

Pumped Hydro is a well proven reliable technology. Even salt water pumped hydro is a proven and reliable. The main issue here is scale.

taconnol wrote: »

Edit: Also, we're not the only ones with this problem. What are the policies of countries like Denmark and Germany in relation to the integration of wind and other renewables? I know Germany have just launched a huge plan for Offshore in the North Sea and their EGG regulation requires the grid operators to pay for connection and energy utilities to prioritise the purchase of renewable energy.

Denmark has the highest level of wind-power in the world.

Look at their electricity prices....

They also import allot of electricity as backup.

Macha

knipex wrote: »

Even if the cost of the grid upgrade is being primarially driven by the very nature of renewables and the relative small scale of production ?

I wouldn't say the grid upgrade is being primarily driven by the variable nature of renewables. Smart grid technologies, electric vehicles, V2G, smart metering, etc all require significant upgrades and those technology can quite easily be used for fossil fuel-generated energy as well as renewables. There is also the issues that most grids are over 40 years old, suffer significant transmission losses and are in need of an upgrade anyway.

knipex wrote: »

The only source I have is a financial times story on wholesale electricity costs in the UK and France. Irish wholesale costs are about on par. I am not aware if they include the cost of carbon credits.

No sorry I was saying that my prices included the cost of carbon credits. Surely whole sale electricity costs are open to fluctuations?

knipex wrote: »

There is some significant research into cleaning up coal burning with very interesting results. If the technology matures as expected then coal remains an option.

Indeed and there is enough coal around to last 400+ years. But there are other environmental impacts to coal including air pollution and the huge damage caused by mining. IMO, these costs that are currently externalised need to be internalised for energy prices to truly reflect the different options. Being short-sighted about this is why we're in the mess we are today.

knipex wrote: »

What you are talking about is to put it bluntly and no offence meant) nieve and does not take reality into account.

Can you explain your logic for dismissing energy efficiency, super grid, smart grid technologies as an alternative to backup capacity? What are our storage options?

Also, Wellinghoff, the new Chairman of FERC has been on record as calling the need for backup capacity "anachronistic" - do you think he's wrong?

But just on back up capacity, would you consider nuclear a viable technology? Apparently there is a new reactor in France that is very flexible in its output:

“The most recent nuclear plant in France (Flamanville 3, in Lower Normandy, EPR standard design currently under construction) will have considerable response capability – being able to maintain its output at 25% and then ramp up to full output at a rate of 2.5% of rated power per minute up to 60% output and then at 5% of rated output per minute up to full rated power. This means that the unit can change its output from 25% to 100% of full rated output in less than 30 minutes.”

knipex wrote: »

So why are we building wind-farm with low load factors ? We are we allowing these to go ahead. Why are we investing billions in a grid to connect these ?

Good point. I'll definitely be looking at load factors with a more critical eye from now on.

knipex wrote: »

Of course not. 3MW seems to be about the best point at the moment but as the technology matures larger turbines will become possible.

Even for offshore? HVDC connectors are going to be expensive but proper grouping of turbines can reduce connection costs.

knipex wrote: »

Look at the recent data on sea level increases..............

What is it?

knipex wrote: »

Pumping efficiencies are far far higher than battery efficiencies.

Source? I've heard the pumping efficiency is as low as 25%...

knipex wrote: »

Denmark has the highest level of wind-power in the world.

Look at their electricity prices....

They also import allot of electricity as backup.

They also export a lot, super grid could work?

IIMII

taconnol wrote: »

It's fine IIMII, I just feel like I'm under attack slightly from quite a few posters lately when I try to defend the Greens.

Do you mean the Dublin-Navan line?

Yes..

baalthor

taconnol wrote: »

As I understand it, the Dublin Mayor will be Country Dublin so covering Dublin City, Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown, Fingal & South Dublin.


A list might help:
-chair of the Dublin Transport Authority (National Transport Authority?)
-set municipal charges like water & waste.
-land-use planning
-housing
-congestion charges (fingers crossed this doesn't happen..)

Re: city managers, I'm guessing the mayor will work with the county councils to implement strategies. I suppose a large part of the role of the city managers is to implement council decisions - I'm guessing they will also now be implementing Mayor decisions, and giving more regional coherence to decisions taken.

We've had the councillor/manager model of local government in Ireland for a long time so it will be interesting to see how the Mayor fits in to the system. I look forward to seeing how Bertie (for example:D) deals with four managers, four council chairs and umpteen councillors while implementing water and congestion charges ...

I think for a truly effective Mayor the local government system would need to be restructured by giving the Mayor the functions carried out currently by the city and county managers and control of the budget. Don't think that's gonna happen though!

Well in the original Transport 21 plan, the bulk of the money was going to be spent on roads. In fairness, the quote from the PfG recognises that the emphasis in the past was on roads:



I don't have figures for how much has been spent on roads under Transport21 so far, their website is more than a little difficult to navigate. Would you have them?

I got the figures from last Sunday's Tribune. I seem to have thrown it out (er I mean recycled it) but from memory they estimate the roads budget will decrease from €1.7bn to €0.7bn.
Meanwhile public transport will be around €700. That's 50/50 but €300-€400 of roads is for local roads so if you subtract those and tweak a bit you get 2:1

Macha

IIMII wrote: »

Yes..

OK, I'll see what I can find

baalthor wrote: »

I think for a truly effective Mayor the local government system would need to be restructured by giving the Mayor the functions carried out currently by the city and county managers and control of the budget. Don't think that's gonna happen though!

Well now that you mention the budget, that's the other interesting point. It will be interesting to see if a shift in funding for the county councils & mayor's office moves away from central government (around 70% at the moment I think). That will be the difference between local government and local administration. And dear god let's hope Bertie stays at home.

baalthor wrote: »

I got the figures from last Sunday's Tribune. I seem to have thrown it out (er I mean recycled it) but from memory they estimate the roads budget will decrease from €1.7bn to €0.7bn.
Meanwhile public transport will be around €700. That's 50/50 but €300-€400 of roads is for local roads so if you subtract those and tweak a bit you get 2:1

OK ta, I missed the Sunday papers.

knipex, just a query - Austria has the highest levels of renewable energy (59.8% in 2007) and their electricity prices are lower than the EU-15 and EU 27 average as well as being lower than their prices in the mid 1990s.

How are they coping with the costs of high integration of RE so well?

Sponge Bob

baalthor wrote: »

I got the figures from last Sunday's Tribune. I seem to have thrown it out (er I mean recycled it) but from memory they estimate the roads budget will decrease from €1.7bn to €0.7bn.

Spot On

http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2009/oct/11/show-me-the-money-where-capital-spending-goes/

Roads is the single largest spending item in the capital budget, accounting for 23%, or €1.7bn, of the €7.3bn capital spend this year overall. That's down from 6% from the €2bn spent last year. Of the €1.7bn, €1.4bn will go this year to the National Roads Authority to build and maintain motorways and primary national routes and €321m will be spent on regional and local roads.

It is now likely the NRA grant will be cut by up to €1bn, and 10,000 jobs lost, because at least 10 major projects are due to be completed either this year or early in 2010. No major projects will likely start for the next two years. A decade ago, then finance minister Charlie McCreevy boasted in his budget that he increased roads spending to over €700m. It is not fanciful to assume that road spending during the next two years will fall to 2000 levels – only if the €400m the NRA allocates to local authorities and the €321m central government allocates directly to local authorities this year for local roads is not also cut.

Mind you I told ye all that major roads projects were canned a year and a half ago and all the roads freaks went completely ape**** .

This article merely confirms that and the greens appear to take credit for a 'green' decision that was essentially made by the department of Finance and by March 2008 .

I am very sorry for the poor eejits who wasted time and money tendering for Newlands Cross and for the M17 and the New Ross Bypass

knipex

taconnol wrote: »

I wouldn't say the grid upgrade is being primarily driven by the variable nature of renewables. Smart grid technologies, electric vehicles, V2G, smart metering, etc all require significant upgrades and those technology can quite easily be used for fossil fuel-generated energy as well as renewables. There is also the issues that most grids are over 40 years old, suffer significant transmission losses and are in need of an upgrade anyway.

Oh I agree but the grid design is being changed to incorporate the connection of a high number of relatively low output windfarms. This has a significant cost output.

taconnol wrote: »

No sorry I was saying that my prices included the cost of carbon credits. Surely whole sale electricity costs are open to fluctuations?

I agree on both counts. But long term contract whole sale prices are sightly more stable.

taconnol wrote: »

Indeed and there is enough coal around to last 400+ years. But there are other environmental impacts to coal including air pollution and the huge damage caused by mining. IMO, these costs that are currently externalised need to be internalised for energy prices to truly reflect the different options. Being short-sighted about this is why we're in the mess we are today.

I agree on all counts but there are significant developments on cleaning up coal as a power source.

taconnol wrote: »

Can you explain your logic for dismissing energy efficiency, super grid, smart grid technologies as an alternative to backup capacity? What are our storage options?

Because they will not work unless they actively cut off power when demand exceeds supply...... That means black outs which is not a realistic solution unless you want to see Ireland loose all industry.

taconnol wrote: »

Also, Wellinghoff, the new Chairman of FERC has been on record as calling the need for backup capacity "anachronistic" - do you think he's wrong?

To put it bluntly if he is addressing current renewable technologies he is talking crap. Power is required at defined periods, renewables are available on an ad hoc basis. Supply cannot and will not reliably meet demand so you either build storage or backup capacity or accept blackouts.

I for one do not see blackouts and electricity rationing as a viable alternative.

taconnol wrote: »

But just on back up capacity, would you consider nuclear a viable technology? Apparently there is a new reactor in France that is very flexible in its output:

Yes I would however the Green party have dismissed the option of Nuclear.

taconnol wrote: »

Good point. I'll definitely be looking at load factors with a more critical eye from now on.

Thank you.

taconnol wrote: »

Even for offshore? HVDC connectors are going to be expensive but proper grouping of turbines can reduce connection costs.

HVDC has some issues but in the main I think its a good idea. However maximum turbine size is determined by a number of variables not least of which is cost and ROI.

taconnol wrote: »

What is it?

There is much debate on what actuall sea level increases will be but the current belief appears to be that they will be far far short of previous expectations.

taconnol wrote: »

Source? I've heard the pumping efficiency is as low as 25%...

I woudl love to see whare you got that inforamtion. Turlough Hill is about 80% efficent (from memory) and efficiences of 90% plus are possible.

Pumped Hydro is well proven and used all over the world as a load balancer. Indeed it is a significant source of income for the Swiss.

taconnol wrote: »

They also export a lot, super grid could work?

Due to its nature you cannot sell wind on the logn term markets only on teh spot markets where it is effectively worthless.

knipex

taconnol wrote: »

knipex, just a query - Austria has the highest levels of renewable energy (59.8% in 2007) and their electricity prices are lower than the EU-15 and EU 27 average as well as being lower than their prices in the mid 1990s.
How are they coping with the costs of high integration of RE so well?

There is a huge difference between Hydro and Wind...... Austria has the geology to use significant volumes of Hydro power. Ireland does not.

Austria’s domestic production of energy is dominated by hydroelectricity and smaller amounts of other renewables,
mainly biomass. Austria remains an important importer of energy, in particular fossil fuels, with most of its remaining
energy requirements covered to a large extent by imports of crude oil from Asian and African countries, natural gas
from Russia and solid fuels from neighbouring Member States. Austrian has a policy that excludes the use of nuclear
energy in its energy mix. Industry and transport are the most energy consuming sectors. Austria demonstrates the
second lowest energy intensity within the EU.