Energy infrastructure

josip

But we must admit that Yanis is cool. Rides a bike, not the Eamon kind, a proper big engined yoke. And his wife was a muse for Jarvis Cocker.

Apogee

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118207596#Comment_118207596

This solar/battery project which was granted a grid connection in Nov 21, has now received planning approval:

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2023/0131/1352866-strategic-power-projects-approval/

ESB have submitted a planning application for a 299MW OCGT in Ringsend. There are quite a few of these in the pipeline by now.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2023/01/27/esb-lodges-plans-for-500m-emergency-dublin-power-plant/

More can kicking on Shannon LNG...

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/an-bord-pleanala-says-no-imminent-decision-on-650-million-shannon-lng-gas-plant-42308672.html

gjim

He's a great man altogether for predicting impending European disaster and collapse is Yanis.

His bio could be expanded from "former Finance Minister of Greece" to former "Finance Minster of Greece who legged it as his country collapsed to sip cocktails pool side at his private villa on Aegina". The collapse being caused by his own bizarre policy of telling those providing emergency credit to Greece to go f*ck themselves and say goodbye to their money while at the same time demanding that the same people lenders hand him even more money "no strings attached".

Ever since then he's been peddling predictions of euro doom. Have any of them even come close to remotely come true? At this stage, I'm still waiting for the abandonment of the Euro as a currency, the systematic economic collapse of all European economies, the disintegration of EU, etc.

And since the predicted European energy armageddon didn't happen this year (in the midst of the biggest disruption to energy markets since the oil crisis of the 1970s and the most destructive war on European soil since ww2), I guess I can add this one to the long list of his other failed predictions.

Birdnuts

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120189657#Comment_120189657

ESB are another semi state which appear to be beyond the control of any government - loading vast amounts of money on to bill payers via escalating standing charges, some of them not appearing to be even legal while as usual the CRU was asleep at the wheel https://www.rte.ie/news/2023/0131/1352915-esb-customers/

tom1ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120189343#Comment_120189343

Anyone that reads any of my posts knows I am pro renewables but also real side that until we crack long term grid storage we will always have gas.

That other posters tone is way out of line and needs to be addressed by another mod.

Speaking to anyone in that tone is outright bullying and needs to be taken to task.

Apogee

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119316658#Comment_119316658

Have been checking in now and again on the progress of the proposed Mayo electrolysis project above, and MCC have sought a number of clarifications in January, many related to impact on waterways. There also highlight the absence of a commitment from GNI on the use of the hydrogen produced:

Birdnuts

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120201636#Comment_120201636

That site is already an environmental disaster due to ongoing peat silt loss issues etc. from the giant Owenhinny wind farm

MightyMunster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120201636#Comment_120201636

I thought they can only add a small percentage of hydrogen to the gas network without remedial work, not just of the pipework but all boilers etc

Doesn't seem very cost effective in the short to medium term.

Would a hydrogen burning power plant be a better solution?

Apogee

GNI have previously claimed they can accommodate up to 20% hydrogen without having to make significant changes to domestic boilers etc.

https://www.gasnetworks.ie/docs/hydrogen-blend.pdf

Capt'n Midnight

Valentia Island in Kerry has been selected as a location for a study exploring the role of hydrogen in decarbonising energy.

The research will particularly focus on the use cases in the area of the marine, but the potential for business and other transport methods will also be explored.

The H2ORIZON study will be funded by the Brussels-based Clean Hydrogen Partnership and will be conducted by hydrogen consultants.

Markcheese

The energy density of hydrogen at the same pressure as gas in the mains grid is significantly lower than natural gas ,

So putting it in with natural gas isn't exactly great - because your gas power station can't produce as much electricity with the hydrogen/ gas mix as it could with just gas - so to produce the same amount of electricity you'll need more power stations -

Do-able but expensive , and you're already dealing with an expensive to produce fuel,

It's expensive to transport long distance too , it could be produced on site though if there's enough electrical connection..

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120214866#Comment_120214866

You just feed more gas/hydrogen into the power station, not build more power stations. If it was pure hydrogen, them maybe there might be a problem, but at 20% H2, then I do not think there would be any constraint.

The amount of H2 present in normal natural gas is a variable anyway.

Markcheese

If it's a constant amount of hydrogen in the natural gas you can reconfigure the power station to burn that ..

And of course you can add more hydrogen to the combustion chamber , by compressing it more ,

But thats one of the problems with hydrogen , it's low energy density unless you compress it massively, which is expensive ,and your power station equipment isnt designed for those pressures ,

So redesign and rebuild ...

It's not great for transmission either for the same reasons ,

And I've no idea if there are other issues with trying to compress a 20 % hydrogen 80 natural gas mix to a level where it has the same energy density as just nat gas

Sam Russell

Natural gas already has a hydrogen component, and that can be increased to 20% without issue.

If natural gas is still available, then that ratio remains OK. Biogas, derived from animal and vegetable waste, will be usable post 2050, so that is one solution, but it is probable insufficient for any major amount.

Wind currently provides 40% of our energy, and that will increase to about 80% by 2050, with interconnectors and solar providing some of the shortfall. However, we need to be mindful that data centres and EV transport will increase demand. This may need a rethink.

Markcheese

https://youtu.be/vrKvj2MHLVw

Bio-methane is possible and it's even do-able as evident from the UK and Europe , but you'd want to do some pretty indepth cost benefit analysis to see is it worth while , (how much fossil fuel energy are you using to produce transport and process product to make gas to replace fossil fuel ) , apparently it's on the way in Ireland though...

I'm pretty sceptical of solar in Ireland , except for it being used directly at source , so householder - farmer- business park , because you don't have transmission losses and the operator is much likely to change their consumption patterns to suit their production .

I still think wind is where it's at , more on land , and properly starting fixed offshore, ... Could still be tricky to get to 80 % on an annual basis .. worth trying

floating wind is still pie in the sky costs wise

bk

"Wind currently provides 40% of our energy, and that will increase to about 80% by 2050, with interconnectors and solar providing some of the shortfall. However, we need to be mindful that data centres and EV transport will increase demand. This may need a rethink."

Not really, the plans to move to renewables already includes a significant increase in electricity use to take account of the move to EV's, heat pumps and data centers. We are planning to build vastly more wind power over the next 20 years then we currently use.

Markcheese

Any idea how much extra wind can be realisticly provided on land ?

While turbines are getting significantly bigger that's got to limit where they can be realistically be placed ..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120219297#Comment_120219297

Afaik the current plan is to double the current onshore amount, to approx 9GW by 2030

Along with 5GW of solar and 7GW of offshore

cnocbui

Doubling onshore windfarms, great.

"There is less space for onshore wind now, we have used up a lot of the better sites and those that remain have issues in relation to environmental sensitivities," Mr McCann said.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2022/0103/1269242-wind-energy/

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120219642#Comment_120219642

The article you quote above also talks about repowering, the process of replacing old, now underpowered wind turbines with new, much more powerful ones. Increasing the amount of generation in the same footprint.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220678#Comment_120220678

Is there much of a generation capacity increase from replacing old turbines with newer turbines of the same size?

Any change to size would require new planning and may not be possible in a number of sites

Apogee

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220678#Comment_120220678

As it happens, there was an discussion on wind power on Pat Kenny Show on Tuesday. A repowering example of a windfarm in Donegal was mentioned. It appears to be this one where they received planning permission to replace 25 existing turbines with 13 larger turbines:

https://www.scottishpowerrenewables.com/pages/barnesmore_windfarm_repowering.aspx

The site currently consists of 25 x 600 kilowatt (kW) wind turbines of 61m to tip height, generating 15 megawatts (MW) of renewable power. The current site has consent to operate in perpetuity. Repowering the operational Barnesmore Windfarm will involve the removal of the existing 25 turbines and replacing them with up to 13, 4-6 MW turbines of up to 180m to tip height. The benefits of this are an increased overall generating capacity from the site, from 15 MW to potentially over 70 MW, as well as a reduction to almost half the total number of turbines within the site.

Meanwhile, Moneypoint project, from which Equinor previously withdrew, is still progressing:

Sam Russell

Question.

If the repowering of a current windfarm can increase its output by over four times as referenced above, how does this effect its performance affected to the good.

Will it generate power at lower wind levels? For example will it benefit from wind at higher levels more efficiently?

Is the reduction in the number of turbines required to reduce interference between too many close-by turbines?

This particular windfarm is 20 years old (according to the post above). Is the upgrade required as the existing turbines are end-of-life?

Markcheese

Kind of yes , kind of no , doubling the size the blades quadruples the wind power available .

.but you can't directly replace 10 small turbines with 10 large ones ...it would need a whole new lay out , new foundations and roads ,plus a lot more space. ( They need to be much more spread out )

gjim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120209457#Comment_120209457

That report states that the 20% hydrogen blend produces 15% less energy than pure natural gas? We could mix in 20% air and achieve only a slightly greater reduction of energy for a lot less money.

Or another way of looking at it, a 20% mix will only reduce the NG consumed by less than 5%. A pretty marginal saving in terms of CO2 reductions. And it would increase the cost per kWh considerably as green hydrogen is still hugely expensive to produce.

But even this potential savings, is offset by more recent scientific studies (e.g. https://newatlas.com/environment/hydrogen-greenhouse-gas/) which show that leaked hydrogen is 10 or 11 times more potent than CO2 in terms of global warming.

As for the claim of a reduction of NOx in this report, this goes against most of the scientific literature on the subject - which has found up to a 3 times increase in NOx production - which makes sense as hydrogen in the mix increases the flame temperature and it's the heat which causes the n2 and o2 in the air to combine into NOx.

I don't see any future or potential for hydrogen, except as a (continuing) mechanism for big engineering and energy operations to extract public money from gullible politicians.

You can produce carbon-neutral synthetic natural gas by electrolysis as efficiently as you can produce hydrogen. If leaking hydrogen is worse or the same for global warming as is methane/natural gas, then why involve hydrogen in the process at all? Just synthesise NG and replace fossil natural gas completely, with no new infrastructure required - all existing consumption, storage, transport can work without any change at all.

Markcheese

I didn't know about direct electrolizing of synthetic gas ...

Although I have read about direct to ammonia , which if the efficiency can be improved on could be a huge thing , especially for windy or sunny areas away from large populations or a power grid ..

bk

Lots of great questions about repowering.

• Yes it normally means replacing the old turbines with new larger ones
• Usually it means a reduction in the number of turbines at the wind farm, usually a reduction of at least half, but can differ from project to project
• Yes the reduction in turbines would be due to interference between larger turbines
• Yes, it will require planning permission and yes not all sites will be suitable for it. In Germany they find about 60% of sites suitable for repowering. Keep in mind that the reduction in number of wind turbines and the use of new better planning tech to reduce impact on nearby residents, along with newer, quieter turbines, can actually make it a popular change with local people.
• Yes the new turbines will typically be more efficient and work at lower wind speeds, also wind speeds tend to be higher, the higher you go up.
• Also projects like this gives wind farms the opportunity to integrate battery storage into their farm too.
• Yes, wind turbines have a typical life span of about 25 years. Though note this sort of repowering isn’t the only option. They can also just do a lifetime extension, basically maintenance on the existing turbines to keep them going. This is a lot cheaper to do, however there have been such big leaps in wind power technology over the last 20 years, that repowering looks very attractive, despite the higher capital cost.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120221911#Comment_120221911

Your link specifically sates The UK Government report explains that "the increase in equivalent CO2 emissions based on 1 percent and 10 percent H2 leakage rate offsets approximately 0.4 and 4 percent of the total equivalent CO2 emission reductions, respectively," so even assuming the worst leakage scenario, it's still an enormous improvement.

Hydrogen may be worse on a per tonne basis, but that tonne contains 22 times as many molecules as a tonne of CO2 and a lot more energy than a tonne of hydrocarbons. That's why even with 10% hydrogen leakage you only cause 4% of the effect of the CO2 emissions that would otherwise occur. (10% is insane given the explosive limits for hydrogen in air so real world figures would be much lower.)

Note: At present 2.3% of of USA natural gas leaks so they used 10% as an upper limit for hydrogen as it's leakier.

Yes NOX is a function of temperature. So you can mitigate it in existing turbines by adding water. Newer designs will use lower temperature pre-burners. And all designs can use emission scrubbing. Fuel cells are a way of sidestepping combustion, it's an option.

I'd love to see how you can make synthetic natural gas as efficiently as hydrogen. Steam methane reformation has an energy efficiency of ~70% and you've a lot of CO2 too.

bk

Yes Synthetic gas is less efficient than hydrogen, by a couple percent. That is of course because the normal way to create “wind gas” is to first use the power to gas process to generate hydrogen and then use a second step to convert it to gas. So it will always be less efficient then directly using the hydrogen.

Of course, it then comes down to economics if it makes more sense to generate gas at a higher cost and thus being able to reuse all the existing infrastructure or spend the capital up front to convert all your infrastructure to use hydrogen directly.

I suspect we will likely see both, for instance for home heating it probably makes more sense to go for a mix of 12 to 20% hydrogen and then the rest biogas and syngas, rather then trying to go 100% hydrogen but having to change out the entire natural gas infrastructure and boilers. Power plants on the other hand might gradually convert to hydrogen due to being more centralised.

Busman Paddy Lasty

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120222217#Comment_120222217

Regarding your last paragraph, this was posted about 15 months ago.

https://www.powermag.com/high-volume-hydrogen-gas-turbines-take-shape/

Tackling it at source is underway, this is from 2019 and could be obsolete information by now (or even total project failure! Need to Google it again) but a 10% CO2 reduction at 30% hydrogen is nothing to be sniffed at with no increase in NOx emissions.

For those concerned with NOx emissions an incentive program to replace gas hobs with induction hobs should be looked at. NOx indoors in your face is potentially more risk than being generated at a power plant.

Concerning adding hydrogen to the gas network to get a 5% CO2 reduction, the other side of the coin reducing heat demand of existing housing stock. One Stop Shop is great in theory but a tiny portion of the population have the money for it and it's very heat pump focused. A zero up front cost scheme could be implemented that focuses on getting building fabric improvements done rather than that and heating system replacement. Doing this without corruption/moral hazard would prove difficult, this must be acknowledged.