Energy infrastructure

gjim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119536692#Comment_119536692

I don't know how it's going to be handled to be honest. In the UK, if there's a rebate it gets given back to consumers according to this article but it seems it took some ruling from Ofgem to clarify the process. Currently the UK scheme is collecting about 1 billion a year from generators given the high wholesale prices.

Birdnuts

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119536504#Comment_119536504

Bad idea for who?? Where is the evidence that the developer led energy policies of the past 20 years have benefitted the consumer or made the grid more resilient??

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119538762#Comment_119538762

Thats the point - nordstream at 20% is still significant. Thats approx 33 million cubic meters of gas a day, which played an important role in filling the german reserves. Do they have the LNG capacity to make up for that shortfall, if NS were to be disconnected entirely?

At current flow of 20%, thats around 12billion cm annually. Given LNG is ~2.4 times as energy dense as pipeline gas, that means Germany needs at least 5 bcm of LNG capacity, and crucially, there needs to be at least that much LNG capacity in the market.

The largest LNG ship is around 260kcm, and unloading an LNG ship takes between 20-32hours (assume nice round 24hr here), that means they would need 53 LNG ships unloading every day, assuming the largest capacity ships and a quick turnaround (larger ships take longer to unload, closer to 30h mark).

Are there really that many ships available, that they could get so much LNG every day? Given journey times too, youd need many many multiples of that number of ships to keep a constant supply. Right now it still looks like a few very lean years ahead

gjim

Interesting calculation but I think pipeline capacity is generally quoted in cm at atmospheric pressure. So LNG is about 6 times as dense. Gives 21 unloadings per day. Whether that capacity is available or not, I don’t know. What we do know is that, whatever they’re doing, the Germans are filling storage faster than expected even on 20% ns1

bk

"Thats the point - nordstream at 20% is still significant. Thats approx 33 million cubic meters of gas a day, which played an important role in filling the german reserves. Do they have the LNG capacity to make up for that shortfall, if NS were to be disconnected entirely?"

As mentioned the Germans are "building" 5 new floating LNG terminals, which will be in place by next summer, with a total capacity of 34 bcm.

Netherlands, France and Italy are also putting new floating LNG terminals in place, 8 Bcm in the Dutch one.

It will be tight of course and prices will be ridiculously high, but the threat of power outages or no gas for heating is largely off the table.

"Are there really that many ships available, that they could get so much LNG every day?"

All you have to do is look at the situation off the coast of Britain this summer, massive queues of LNG ships waiting to get into the LNG terminals and record low gas prices!

Basically there is plenty of capacity in terms of available LNG and ships, it is the import LNG terminals in the right place, which is the bottleneck. And they are currently working to resolve that.

Then there is also the reality that Germany will simply outbid less well off Asian countries, for whatever LNG supplies it needs. This is already happening, LNG shipments have been redirected away from Asia towards Europe all summer long.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119541544#Comment_119541544

Thanks for that - 21 loads per day assuming larger ship capacity.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119541651#Comment_119541651

Good point on bidding - poorer countries will lose out. However given the figures above, 21 loads per day - and an approximate unloading time of 20-30 hours, that means they need LNG unloading space for at least 21 ships at the one time, right? Seems like a lot of large tankers.

Edit:

I knew I was missing something - compression ratio of NG to LNG is 1/600, not 1/6 (or 2.4 which is LNG to CNG). (https://www.chevron.com/operations/liquefied-natural-gas-lng)

To make up the shortfall from NS currently at 20% only requires 55,000cm of LNG, so a ship every couple of days could cover that. Makes much more sense.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119536505#Comment_119536505

Thats, funny, because a couple of minutes ago on France24 they were saying the risk of shortages and cuts was high.

is_that_so

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119542923#Comment_119542923

It all really depends on the headline they want and who such claims are attributed to. There are plenty on either side to give opinions on this.

Apogee

Corrib operators looking at plans to potentially extend use of gasfield until 2038:

Vermilion Energy privately briefed Taoiseach Micheál Martin on their proposals during a meeting at Government Buildings last month.

They are planning a €20m investment in new technology which will allow them to go deeper in search of more natural gas. Current expectations are that the field will be of limited use by 2026 or 2027, leaving Irish households and businesses almost fully reliant on the UK for gas supplies.

However, Vermilion told Mr Martin they believe the life expectancy of the site could be extended to 2038.

[...]

It is understood Vermilion has already supplied a ‘Design Notification’ to the Commission for Regulation of Utilities to kickstart the process of building a new cooling system at the existing plant site.

They hope to submit a request for planning permission to Mayo County Council late this year. A source familiar with the plans told the independent.ie a new cooling system would allow them extract gas at depths that are currently beyond reach.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/energy-crisis-corrib-gas-field-operator-tells-taoiseach-micheal-martin-they-can-extract-fuel-for-another-decade-41945944.html

marno21

Look at all those pragmatic European countries installing LNG capacity for future energy resilience.

Meanwhile we have Brid Smith giving out about fossil fuels being bad on Today FM this minute. Even Eamon Ryan kept reiterating at the Oireachtas committee today that this country still needs 2GW of extra gas generation for backup during times of low renewable generation.

ohographite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119543763#Comment_119543763

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change repeatedly states that no new fossil fuel infrastructure is affordable.

On page 32 of the summary for policymakers of their Sixth Assessment Report they state "The continued installation of unabated fossil fuel infrastructure will ‘lock-in’ GHG emissions."

Immediately banning construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure is not the same thing as immediately banning use of fossil fuels, because there is fossil fuel infrastructure that is already in operation.

Stephen_Maturin

You see all that and then see this absolute madness

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2022/08/31/nonsense-on-stilts-to-demolish-200m-derrybrien-wind-farm-during-an-energy-crisis/

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119545957#Comment_119545957

It was built incorrectly, without the required examinations and assessments, which resulted in massive landslides and destruction of natural habitat, which resulted in the govt being taken to the EU courts, where they lost, and later started getting daily fines which racked up millions in costs purely because the govt sat on its hands......just cos. Retrospective planning was applied for and rejected so they must be removed.

Also, linking to an article where only 1 line is readable with the rest paywalled, does not a strong argument make, regardless of the topic

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119538762#Comment_119538762

As for the following winter, Germany is currently building 5 floating LNG terminals, the first will be operational this winter, the other four by next summer. Germany then will have more then enough capacity to completely replace Russian gas.

Very impressive compared to the glacial progress of the LNG project here. Though, I imagine other bottle-necks like the availability of LNG carriers will come into play soon.

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119545599#Comment_119545599

What about the 2GW of extra gas generation? That’s new fossil fuel infrastructure is it not?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119547644#Comment_119547644

Very impressive compared to the glacial progress of the LNG project here.

Indeed, especially when you consider it had a valid planning permission to be built during the period 2008-2018 but the owners chose not to

Stephen_Maturin

What’s with the snark?

Just trying to get a ball rolling, sheesh

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119548522#Comment_119548522

Indeed, especially when you consider it had a valid planning permission to be built during the period 2008-2018 but the owners chose not to

The project was abandoned because it wasn't economic at the time due to the owners being required to subsidise gas interconnectors which they weren't going to use. I'm not sure what has changed - maybe just the price of gas has gone up so they can absorb the cost better now?

You'd wonder what is going to happen with this project now that a new road block has been installed - namely the fear that we might end up burning fracked gas to heat our homes. We seem to have gotten over the aversion to using nuclear generated electricity, so maybe the same will happen over fracked gas. A winter or two of tight gas supplies might concentrate the minds on that question. We're a great country for commissioning reports and studies, but not so good for actually building infrastructure.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119545957#Comment_119545957

That is absolute madness. Not that it's going to play any significant role in the coming energy crunch, but from a climate change perspective, to see the country dismantling a windfarm over a legal technicality would be insane.

Stephen_Maturin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119551880#Comment_119551880

The gatekeeper has spoken.

I’m sorry I’m not as knowledgeable on this topic as you are DaCor. I’m only trying to generate discussion on a discussion forum.

It's clear the farm shouldn’t have been built in the first place, but the peat slides and the associated fish kill have already happened. What’s done is done. It should never have happened but I don’t see how tearing down a perfectly good wind farm worth 200m that produces 60MW is going to reverse a fish kill from 14 years ago. May as well leave it in place to contribute to our renewable energy goals.

I understand it this comes from the EU and it has failed to get retrospective planning but I don’t see what’s to be gained by pulling it down for the sake of it.

I stand by my initial comment. It just seems like a mad bit of bureaucracy at this stage.

gjim

"That is absolute madness. Not that it's going to play any significant role in the coming energy crunch, but from a climate change perspective, to see the country dismantling a windfarm over a legal technicality would be insane."

But it's more than a legal technicality. The development caused a landslide which caused significant environmental damage. It killed half the fish of a nearby lake and interrupted domestic water supply. If that hadn't happened (and it followed a smaller earlier landslide caused by the construction which was ignored), then I think the "technicality" defence might have some chance.

It seems like a open and shut case of poor planning on both sides. The location was clearly not properly evaluated before construction or otherwise the instability of the land would have been noticed.

I guess you could say "damage done, may as well keep it now" but that would be a terrible precedent to set unless you want to get rid of planning altogether. Getting retention should never be easier than getting prior planning, otherwise they system can never work.

It's unfortunate but it seems you need cases like this to reinforce to government (who were found to be in breech of European law) that they need to get their act in order when it comes to planning.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119552268#Comment_119552268

It's unfortunate but it seems you need cases like this to reinforce to government (who were found to be in breech of European law) that they need to get their act in order when it comes to planning.

Pretty much this

In fact given the amount of challenges and appeals that the govt loses in relation to planning and environmental protections, you'd think they'd have learned by now. Unfortunately it seems like that nail has to be hammered on a regular basis

Some details on the terms of reference for the upcoming Energy Security Review published today

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/e30c0-independent-review-on-the-security-of-electricity-supply/

Terms of Reference

The review will be conducted by Mr McCarthy under the following Terms of Reference:

• to identify factors which have contributed to the capacity shortfall, including the possible role of the growth in demand for data centres and the associated policy
• to identify factors which contributed to any underestimation of the risk of capacity shortfall
• to identify factors associated with respective roles and responsibilities which may have contributed to this situation
• to identify learning which may be relevant to strengthening policy, capacity, governance and operational effectiveness in this area
• to identify any further technical analysis which may be helpful in this regard

Mr McCarthy has commenced the review and will engage with all relevant Agencies, utility companies and Government Departments during its course. An interim report is due to be presented to the Minister in the Autumn.

Apogee

Celtic interconnector moves step closer to starting construction

https://twitter.com/EirGrid/status/1565013220741582854

[edit] Small extra detail on potential start date

Eirgrid said that, subject to getting consent from the UK Marine Management Organisation, it expected work on the cable to begin this year.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2022/08/31/government-licenses-irish-french-power-line/

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119552268#Comment_119552268

But it's more than a legal technicality. The development caused a landslide which caused significant environmental damage. It killed half the fish of a nearby lake and interrupted domestic water supply. If that hadn't happened (and it followed a smaller earlier landslide caused by the construction which was ignored), then I think the "technicality" defence might have some chance.

It seems like a open and shut case of poor planning on both sides. The location was clearly not properly evaluated before construction or otherwise the instability of the land would have been noticed.

Are EIA's an exact science though? Can you say with certainty if one was done beforehand that the damage would have been predicted and the plan refused?

I don't think there's any question that projects like this increase the risk of such damage. Whatever about the risk/benefit equation when the project was planned, where do we stand on that now, with a far bigger climate catastrophe looming?

I guess you could say "damage done, may as well keep it now" but that would be a terrible precedent to set unless you want to get rid of planning altogether. Getting retention should never be easier than getting prior planning, otherwise they system can never work.

It's unfortunate but it seems you need cases like this to reinforce to government (who were found to be in breech of European law) that they need to get their act in order when it comes to planning.

Agreed, but another aspect is that this thing was planned and built over 20 years ago. Was the need for EIA's as well understood back then? I think the approach taken should depend on how flagrant the breach was. Also, according to an RTE report I looked at, the EU law on this recognises emergency needs where a slightly different approach to retention can be taken.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119552594#Comment_119552594

Are EIA's an exact science though? Can you say with certainty if one was done beforehand that the damage would have been predicted and the plan refused?

You don't need to. The fact is that they both didnt do an EIA, and they did cause a landslide. That in itself is enough to have it gone. We need to stop making excuses for poorly done work. They were supposed to have done their research on this before construction - they clearly didnt. You should not be rewarded by "getting away with it" after failing to do required work for a project.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119552664#Comment_119552664

But, that's the technicality point. Had they done the EIA beforehand, I presume we wouldn't be looking at pulling it down, even if the landslide had happened. But, because the EIA was done afterwards, we have to pull it down.

It's interesting as well that the planning system for private individuals and developers (though normally private individuals) takes a more benign and pragmatic approach towards retention.

How about the government just nationalises this project (takes it off the ESB) and sells it to the private sector? The ESB who were responsible for causing the problem, would suffer the loss in this scenario, but the windfarm would continue operating. It would need legislation I imagine.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119552884#Comment_119552884

We cant know for sure whether, had they done the EIA, it could have flagged issues which would have prevented the landslide in the first place.

Its like if somebody slips and falls on a wet floor - if there was a sign up warning them, then premises not at fault as they did their bit to try prevent these accidents. If they dont have a sign or warning, then they could be liable. Sure you could argue that even with a sign up people might still fall, but you havent done your due diligence to prevent it.

Same concept here, they should have done an EIA to try prevent, they didnt, its their fault.

The public/private retention argument is a red herring - regardless of ownership, failure to do an EIA and then cause massive environmental damage should be grounds for no retention regardless of owner. DO you have examples of same for private owners?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119552884#Comment_119552884

I can't imagine any private buyer putting a bid on something that no longer has planning permission.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119553064#Comment_119553064

I said it would need legislation. So a new retention application which would take account of changed national priorities could be submitted. The government should ask Michael McDowell. He seems to know how the law works (including planning law), and he kind of suggested something similar in his IT article yesterday.