Apple Data Centre Athenry = Middle of Nowhere.

dubhthach

I imagine it would be case that they did or are looking at doing a deal like what Microsoft did. Microsoft is basically gonna offset their Azure (the name of their cloud platform) energy usage in Ireland (major hyperscale DC campus in Grange castle) by buying the entire output of the GE owned wind farm in Kerry

https://news.microsoft.com/2017/10/09/microsoft-ge-sign-agreement-on-new-wind-project-in-ireland/

Interesting that they have integrated battery storage into each turbine in this farm, though personally I imagine it would be more efficient to have the turbines feeding into large battery storage unit such as the ones Tesla won contracts for in California:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/07/california-utility-looks-to-add-gigawatt-hours-of-battery-storage-before-2020/

The Mira Loma substation setup was 20MW/80MWh

https://electrek.co/2017/01/23/tesla-mira-loma-powerpack-station-southern-california-edison/

I'm not sure of the cost but it was probably on order of 20-30M. The South Australia 100MW/129MWh battery cost €56m and made back €8.1m in revenue in 6 months providing grid services

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/27/south-australias-tesla-battery-on-track-to-make-back-a-third-of-cost-in-a-year

If we take that as a ballpark and leaving aside the fact that battery prices have fallen you could potentially provide a GW of battery backed dispatcheable power for somewhere in area of 500-700m. That would at least allow you to offset excess production of wind etc and keep the grid balanced.

With regards to the French interconnection, on a similiar vane we are getting a Cork to France Fibre Optic cable to provide direct connection to continent and thus Brexit proofing data traffic for DC's etc.



It's gonna have 96 pairs with up to 10Tbps on each pair so total capacity of about 960 Tbits/s

Greaney

plodder wrote: »

One lived quite a long way away from it. Wicklow, if I'm not mistaken..

You are mistaken, the 'poxy twits' that you are giving out about live locally.

gctest50

Greaney wrote: »

You are mistaken, the 'poxy twits' that you are giving out about live locally.

There was another :


https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/ulster-bank-sues-apple-objector-and-brothers-over-wicklow-site-1.3559261?mode=amp

The bank is seeking judgment against three brothers over money given to them to buy an 80-acre site in Wicklow where it was proposed to develop a data centre

Imagine dat - an objector who happened to be buying an 80 acre site to develop a data centre


I wonder why they were objecting then ?

Greaney

Yes, there were many who objected, but your original rant was about the current two who are 'holding everything up', and they are local. Look, you can throw the kitchen sink at this, and be angry about it, but they have every right to object, and they may have a point that mainstream media etc. have missed.

Remember, we sold our fishing rights, and the rights to some of our natural resources in the past. Maybe, just maybe, through some bad planning, we're selling our resources (electricity grid, climate change promises etc.) for a song, to a multinational (s), from whom we ask no mitigation and maybe, we are so dazzled, that we cannot see the cost... right now.

gctest50

Greaney wrote: »

Yes, there were many who objected, but your original rant was about the current two who are 'holding everything up', and they are local.......

One of them is a yank, only here a few days as the saying goes

He moved here " for love reasons " or smth

dubhthach

gctest50 wrote: »

One of them is a yank, only here a few days as the saying goes

He moved here " for love reasons " or smth

perhaps but with surname like Daly he's hardly just a yank, the surname is present in East Galway since at least the 15th century

Greaney

gctest50 wrote: »

One of them is a yank, only here a few days as the saying goes

He moved here " for love reasons " or smth

A few days? Right, you're not that interested in any actual facts. The ad hominem attacks mean you don't have an actual argument on the matter itself. If your bottom line is jobs at any cost.....

plodder

Greaney wrote: »

You are mistaken, the 'poxy twits' that you are giving out about live locally.

I never used that term.

hans aus dtschl

dubhthach wrote: »

Interesting that they have integrated battery storage into each turbine in this farm, though personally I imagine it would be more efficient to have the turbines feeding into large battery storage unit such as the ones Tesla won contracts for in California:

I didn't realise they had storage, that's cool.
That concept is definitely the future and it feels like everyone's on the same page with it, but we're not they're yet, is all I was saying.

Edit: the French links can't happen soon enough. This was the EirGrid project I've had some exposure to. Without it we're in a slightly precarious position with regards power in a Brexit no-deal scenario.

plodder

I would guess that battery storage built into wind turbines is more for grid stability than anything else. Traditional fossil fueled generators are large heavy machines. So, they have a lot of inertia and can react well to instantaneous changes in power demand. Adding batteries to wind turbines emulates the same behaviour. The bottom line is the batteries only provide power at the level of seconds and minutes, rather than hours or days.

ezstreet5

bk wrote: »

Electricity usage and thus generation has fallen quiet a bit over the last few years, that is why the ESB and others have been shutting a number of power plants over the last few years.

There is wide agreement to the contrary. Per EirGrid's annual Capacity Generation Statements (Appendix 1), Ireland used:

2014 = 26.6 TWh
2015 = 27.4 TWh
2016 = 28.2 TWh
2017 = 28.8 TWh

bk wrote: »

Apple have already reached 100% renewable energy use at all their offices and data centers. This new one would have been no different.

This shows the influence of Apple's environmental public relations strategy. For the Athenry project, the An Bord Pleanala Inspector's Report says at para. 12.6.7:

"On balance I would agree with the basis of the argument put forward by the appellants and observers regarding the claims of 100 percent renewable power supply. [...] In my opinion the best assumption which can be made is that power supply to the development will be from the grid average power generation sources."

Yet the project was nonetheless approved, which could be seen as problematic. (It may be helpful to read that entire section of the Inspector's Report for full context).

plodder

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Yet the project was nonetheless approved, which could be seen as problematic.

A few fluffy statements about renewables aren't sufficient grounds to refuse an important project like that. Eirgrid in particular didn't seem to have major concerns.

Greaney

plodder wrote: »

I never used that term.

True, it was used by this dude...

SeanW wrote: »

This is the kind of stuff that makes my blood boil. The poxy twits who bogged this down in objections won. The billion euro investment in the West? Gone. Hundreds of jobs - outside main cities where they are desperately needed? Gone. They wanted to stick a knife in the backs of rural people who would have benefited and they succeeded. What the hell are they still suing for?

He can't understand why they're suing, and I said they lived locally so that would go some way to explaining. You answered my answer to his statement so you got the reply. Ye were kinda working as a tag team there

dubhthach

plodder wrote: »

I would guess that battery storage built into wind turbines is more for grid stability than anything else. Traditional fossil fueled generators are large heavy machines. So, they have a lot of inertia and can react well to instantaneous changes in power demand. Adding batteries to wind turbines emulates the same behaviour. The bottom line is the batteries only provide power at the level of seconds and minutes, rather than hours or days.

Well the example I gave above in California is designed to give out 20MW for 4 hours straight. That's not bad going. The Australian example will give you just over an hour of constant 100MW onto grid. I know there's a project under construction at the moment in California which is 100MW/400MWh so basically it will be able to dispatch 100MW onto grid constantly for 4 hours before it flatlines!

GE recently did a pilot I believe also in California where they tied a Grid scale battery to a Gas peaker plant. The major problem with peakers is you have to have turbines spinning at certain level to meet immediate demand, as a result there's pollution even when you aren't actually contributing to the grid. Anyways GE developed a system where turbine could be in complete cold state and when demand would peak that the battery system would dispatch for the 20minutes or so it took to spin turbine up. Result considerable reduction in greenhouse emissions from the peaker plant.

see:
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ges-current-builds-worlds-first-utility-battery-gas-turbine-hybrid#gs.pCyEO0c
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/inside-ge-and-socal-edisons-battery-integrated-gas-fired-peaker-plants#gs.go2rRtg

see GE's page here:
https://www.ge.com/power/services/gas-turbines/upgrades/hybrid-egt

GE Power Services business, together with Southern California Edison (SCE), in collaboration with Wellhead Power Solutions, LLC, recently installed the world’s first battery storage and gas turbine hybrid. The goal: to quell concerns around changing regulations and grid requirements following California’s Aliso Canyon energy emergency. The project will reinforce California’s grid, resulting in increased renewable energy and fuel savings.
SCE, a utility that provides more than 15 million people with power, has won six awards for the project, including two for innovation, one for clean air, and even one from Power Engineering for Best Overall Project.

“GE’s new LM6000 Hybrid EGT product fits well with SCE's objective of providing cost–effective, innovative solutions that enhance grid reliability, flexibility, and fast response to our customers,” said Phil Herrington, vice president of Generation for SCE.

As part of the project, GE installed a 10 MW battery energy storage system in the LM6000 Hybrid EGT followed by gas turbine controls upgrades to integrate the two systems. SCE estimates that the systems will use 2 million fewer gallons of water to operate, as well as reduce emissions by 60%. Additionally, the Hybrid EGT’s fast-start capabilities mean that it can produce spinning reserve power, making it even more valuable for SCE.

Vibhu Kaushik, director of grid technology and modernization at SCE remarked “Renewable and energy storage provide the perfect combination where you can harness renewable energy and match the supply to how the demand is shaped on the grid.”

https://www.ge.com/power/case-studies/southern-california-edison

ezstreet5

plodder wrote: »

A few fluffy statements about renewables aren't sufficient grounds to refuse an important project like that. Eirgrid in particular didn't seem to have major concerns.

What isn't fluffy is the 40% RES-E target that Ireland must meet by 2020. I doubt the EU considers this commitment to be "soft law," where if Ireland is a little short, or a little late, there will be no consequence. There are consequences built right into the Renewable Energy Directive, called "cooperation mechanisms," under which Ireland will need to purchase credit from Member States that have exceeded their targets, such as Denmark (and it isn't cheap). If Ireland fails to "cooperate," the EU has made it clear that infringement penalties will be assessed. So either Apple provides real, additional renewable energy to the grid to offset their new load, or the compliance cost will shift to the State, its taxpayers, and electricity rate payers.

Eirgrid have routinely distanced themselves from this issue with quotes such as:

‘We are not responsible for the development of energy policy. Neither do we own, construct, or operate any form of generation, including wind farms. As per our statutory and license obligations, we are required to plan and develop the transmission system to meet reasonable demands for the transmission of electricity. In addition, we are required to offer terms and enter into agreements for connection to and use of the transmission system with all those using and seeking to use the transmission system. This includes, large industrial customers, wind farms and data centres, irrespective of whether they are Irish or foreign owned.' (Grid Development Strategy - Response to Stakeholder Feedback, Section 3.3).

It is the Commission for Regulation of Utilities (formerly CER) that need to take a closer look at this issue.

plodder

Greaney wrote: »

Ye were kinda working as a tag team there

No we weren't. But please be less sloppy when replying to people's posts.

Greaney

plodder wrote: »

No we weren't. But please be less sloppy when replying to people's posts.

Sure

plodder

ezstreet5 wrote: »

What isn't fluffy is the 40% RES-E target that Ireland must meet by 2020. I doubt the EU considers this commitment to be "soft law," where if Ireland is a little short, or a little late, there will be no consequence. There are consequences built right into the Renewable Energy Directive, called "cooperation mechanisms," under which Ireland will need to purchase credit from Member States that have exceeded their targets, such as Denmark (and it isn't cheap). If Ireland fails to "cooperate," the EU has made it clear that infringement penalties will be assessed. So either Apple provides real, additional renewable energy to the grid to offset their new load, or the compliance cost will shift to the State, its taxpayers, and electricity rate payers.

Eirgrid have routinely distanced themselves from this issue with quotes such as:

‘We are not responsible for the development of energy policy. Neither do we own, construct, or operate any form of generation, including wind farms. As per our statutory and license obligations, we are required to plan and develop the transmission system to meet reasonable demands for the transmission of electricity. In addition, we are required to offer terms and enter into agreements for connection to and use of the transmission system with all those using and seeking to use the transmission system. This includes, large industrial customers, wind farms and data centres, irrespective of whether they are Irish or foreign owned.' (Grid Development Strategy - Response to Stakeholder Feedback, Section 3.3).

It is the Commission for Regulation of Utilities (formerly CER) that need to take a closer look at this issue.

Right, but what they were applying for was only 30MW for phase 1. There was nothing to stop the state (other than the project being cancelled of course ) from putting appropriate policies in place before future phases would be approved.

4ensic15

bk wrote: »

Oh god :rolleyes:

As I mentioned you do constantly upgrade the servers within the data center, that is where Moores Law comes in, new server with faster CPU's which can do more units of work faster and at a lower energy use (per unit of work).



Data centers aren't going anywhere.

Data centres are being cited in Ireland for climatic reasons. They need less heating or cooling in Ireland than in other locations. When the technology advances the climatic reasons will no longer be relevant. I recall when 1 gigabyte needed a machine the size of a washing machine in an air-conditioned room. In a few years, the current data centres will fit in a space the size of a lunch box and won't need air conditioning. There will be no reason to have them in Ireland. The ones that are here will be abandoned.

ezstreet5

plodder wrote: »

Right, but what they were applying for was only 30MW for phase 1. There was nothing to stop the state (other than the project being cancelled of course ) from putting appropriate policies in place before future phases would be approved.

Or even better, instead of waiting for some vague inter-agency government policy on data centres to develop and be applied, why doesn't the competent authority simply require project-specific mitigation measures to be applied as a condition of approval for Phase 1 of the development? Surely this can be done under the authority of the EIA Directive, and specifically, Annex IV(7) which requires "a description of the measures envisaged to avoid, prevent, reduce and wherever, if possible offset any identified significant adverse effects on the environment...." If Apple's '100% renewable energy' proposal is lacking (as the ABP Inspector apparently found), other measures should be considered. This could include waste heat recovery (as was required in Denmark), or even payment of 2.5x the PRO levy. (If the PRO levy is meant to support 40% renewables, than 2.5x the levy would support a claim of 100% renewables and lower the PRO for the rest of us). Or if no direct mitigation can be applied, then Apple should at least do what they proposed for their Waukee, Iowa data centre, and provide a $100 million community development fund for the area.

CatInABox

4ensic15 wrote: »

Data centres are being cited in Ireland for climatic reasons. They need less heating or cooling in Ireland than in other locations. When the technology advances the climatic reasons will no longer be relevant. I recall when 1 gigabyte needed a machine the size of a washing machine in an air-conditioned room. In a few years, the current data centres will fit in a space the size of a lunch box and won't need air conditioning. There will be no reason to have them in Ireland. The ones that are here will be abandoned.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

plodder

4ensic15 wrote: »

Data centres are being cited in Ireland for climatic reasons. They need less heating or cooling in Ireland than in other locations. When the technology advances the climatic reasons will no longer be relevant. I recall when 1 gigabyte needed a machine the size of a washing machine in an air-conditioned room. In a few years, the current data centres will fit in a space the size of a lunch box and won't need air conditioning. There will be no reason to have them in Ireland. The ones that are here will be abandoned.

You'd better get onto Facebook, Amazon and Apple and let them know. They don't seem to be aware they are wasting billions on all this ...

Or alternatively, as I pointed out ages ago, we're doing so much more computing with each new generation of hardware. CPUs and other components are getting smaller but faster. The amount of heat produced by a CPU is more or less proportional to its clock-speed.

The first PC I ever bought had an Intel 286 CPU in it (2W power consumption) and a fairly tiny amount of memory. To even be able to do what that PC could do 30 years ago today, requires a PC with GB's of memory and a vastly faster CPU (eg Intel i5 70-90W power) due to the much more complex operating systems used today. And that's just to stand still before you consider the more complex workloads today like voice synthesis and recognition, complex graphics etc.

SeanW

4ensic15 wrote: »

Moore's law.

You do realise that Moore's Law is coming to an end? There is a limit to how small an individual transistor can be, and as such, how efficient a processor can be, and we've nearly reached that limit.

4ensic15 wrote: »

Data centres are being cited in Ireland for climatic reasons. They need less heating or cooling in Ireland than in other locations. When the technology advances the climatic reasons will no longer be relevant. I recall when 1 gigabyte needed a machine the size of a washing machine in an air-conditioned room. In a few years, the current data centres will fit in a space the size of a lunch box and won't need air conditioning. There will be no reason to have them in Ireland. The ones that are here will be abandoned.

I suspect Apple knows a good deal more about this than you, which is why they were prepared to spend nearly a billion euros investing in a data centre in Athenry. But hey, our loss was Denmark's gain.

Or even better, instead of waiting for some vague inter-agency government policy on data centres to develop and be applied, why doesn't the competent authority simply require project-specific mitigation measures to be applied as a condition of approval for Phase 1 of the development? Surely this can be done under the authority of the EIA Directive, and specifically, Annex IV(7) which requires "a description of the measures envisaged to avoid, prevent, reduce and wherever, if possible offset any identified significant adverse effects on the environment...."

You do realise that it is not Apple's fault that Ireland burns fossil fuel for electricity, right? You also realise that renewables are not a solution because (at least in the case of wind and solar) they are literally as reliable as the weather, so any claim of "100%" renewable is not true, except in Iceland or Norway or Ontario Canada. Even at that, it is possible to have a near 100% non-fossil, low CO2 power grid anywhere on Earth as they have in France, Sweden and Switzerland, even if renewables are not going to power everything. Apple does not decide Ireland's energy policies. We do.

hans aus dtschl

SeanW wrote: »

You do realise that it is not Apple's fault that Ireland burns fossil fuel for electricity, right? You also realise that renewables are not a solution because (at least in the case of wind and solar) they are literally as reliable as the weather, so any claim of "100%" renewable is not true, except in Iceland or Norway or Ontario Canada. Even at that, it is possible to have a near 100% non-fossil, low CO2 power grid anywhere on Earth as they have in France, Sweden and Switzerland, even if renewables are not going to power everything. Apple does not decide Ireland's energy policies. We do.

You're not in any way refuting their point here though. There are a good few of us on here who are not saying "a data centre shouldn't be in Athenry" but rather that the claims of 100% renewable aren't really correct.

That poster said:

For the Athenry project, the An Bord Pleanala Inspector's Report says at para. 12.6.7:

"On balance I would agree with the basis of the argument put forward by the appellants and observers regarding the claims of 100 percent renewable power supply. [...] In my opinion the best assumption which can be made is that power supply to the development will be from the grid average power generation sources."

Yet the project was nonetheless approved, which could be seen as problematic. (It may be helpful to read that entire section of the Inspector's Report for full context).

I think it's a valid point. We can agree between us all that the state needs to do more.
But we can all also agree that the claim of 100% renewable power was... creative, shall we say.

dubhthach

4ensic15 wrote: »

Data centres are being cited in Ireland for climatic reasons. They need less heating or cooling in Ireland than in other locations. When the technology advances the climatic reasons will no longer be relevant. I recall when 1 gigabyte needed a machine the size of a washing machine in an air-conditioned room. In a few years, the current data centres will fit in a space the size of a lunch box and won't need air conditioning. There will be no reason to have them in Ireland. The ones that are here will be abandoned.

"640 K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates

Of course given that we are in infrastructure forum the more apt comparison is that road traffic expand to fill and then exceed capacity every time you increase the carrying capacity on a route. (mar shampla: M50 upgrade)

ezstreet5

SeanW wrote: »

You do realise that it is not Apple's fault that Ireland burns fossil fuel for electricity, right? You also realise that renewables are not a solution because (at least in the case of wind and solar) they are literally as reliable as the weather, so any claim of "100%" renewable is not true, except in Iceland or Norway or Ontario Canada. Even at that, it is possible to have a near 100% non-fossil, low CO2 power grid anywhere on Earth as they have in France, Sweden and Switzerland, even if renewables are not going to power everything. Apple does not decide Ireland's energy policies. We do.

The EU set Ireland's energy policy of 16% RES-TOT in 2009/28/EC, but I would agree that Ireland set its own subtargets of 40% RES-E, 10% RES-T, and 12% RES-H&C in domestic law. Current RES-E stands at 27.7%, so the "answer" to the shortfall (and avoiding infringement penalties) is either:

a) Increase renewable electricity generation by 3.7 TWh, or
b) Decrease national electricity usage by 6.9 TWh, or
c) Execute a Statistical Transfer for 6.2 TWh per year of renewable electricity, or
d) A combination of the above.

The problem with (a), as you noted, is a wind capacity factor of about 31%, meaning that we need 1,363 MW (nameplate rating) of new wind turbines. The problem with (b) is Ireland's love of data centres, to the degree that we would approve Project Antioch, which alone would add 1.85 TWh at full buildout. And the problem with (c) is that statistical transfers cost €15/MWh (per the most recent one from Estonia to Luxembourg) for an annual cost of €93 million per anum.

So instead of frolicking around and claiming to be powered by "100% renewable energy from day one" (based on Guarantees of Origin that do not factor into the RES-E equation at all), hyperscale data centres should address the real problem that they create, and in a meaningful way so that the costs are not shifted to you and me.

4ensic15

dubhthach wrote: »

"640 K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates

Of course given that we are in infrastructure forum the more apt comparison is that road traffic expand to fill and then exceed capacity every time you increase the carrying capacity on a route. (mar shampla: M50 upgrade)

That has nothing to do with the climatic reasons. Data centres are not in Ireland for any reason other than the temperate climate. When the temperate climate is no longer an issue and when further miniaturisation happens a data centre can be sited under a desk.

JohnC.

More and more of what a data centre provides will also be needed. Things have miniaturised quite a bit and become a lot more powerful since data centres started, yet there's more and more being built.

And if you think a data centre is going under a desk, you may be mistaken in what a data centre is for.

4ensic15

JohnC. wrote: »

More and more of what a data centre provides will also be needed. Things have miniaturised quite a bit and become a lot more powerful since data centres started, yet there's more and more being built.

And if you think a data centre is going under a desk, you may be mistaken in what a data centre is for.

They said the same thing to the guy who said 30gig of storage which at the time would fill a bus, would fit on a postage stamp and be no thicker than 4 of them together and wouldn't need an air-conditioned environment. When the climate issue changes the data centres will be put where electricity is cheapest.

4ensic15

SeanW wrote: »

I suspect Apple knows a good deal more about this than you, which is why they were prepared to spend nearly a billion euros investing in a data centre in Athenry. But hey, our loss was Denmark's gain.

.

Apple can't wait around until technology advances. At one point it made sense to attempt to build a data centre in Athenry. At one time it made sense to pay £10k for PC that could only do word processing. What is being done now won't be done in 10 years. What is the only show in town now won't be in the same town in 10 years. We welcomed call centres 25 years ago. Then, the call centres moved to India. The same will happen with data centres.