Energy infrastructure

bk

It is estimated that just 0.2% of Agriculture land is required to meet our solar goals!

To put that in context, we have a goal of 18% forest covering by 2050, up from 12% today.

prunudo

For anyone interested, there's a jack up rig located off Shanganagh cliffs. Its there for site investigations in relation to where the the Dublin array cabling may come ashore.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/k92FQbNgHXpqwsGW/

fael

Is the reported Solar PV capacity/production commercial scale only or also residential?

Was wondering this because I assume there can be calculations done on capacity using NC6 certs, but how would you know what production is PV or battery export?

josip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122219625#Comment_122219625

Excludes domestic

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122219024#Comment_122219024

I'm not sure which article from Ryan you are specifically asking about, but some general answers.

Most of the new Solar are coming from RESS auctions. RESS 1 796MW, RESS 2 1,534 MW, RESS 3 497 MW

Of course companies who miss out on RESS auctions, can and do go it alone, so add that in too.

Does this take into account the efficiency % of 20% for solar pv eg is 1GW really 200MW or not?

Solar panels are rated on their maximum output during peak Solar hours. So it would mean 1GW actual output during a sunny summer day. Of course in reality with clouds etc. it maybe less then that, but nothing like the 20% efficiency rating. It is output power, not input power.

As for weekly residential installs, the market is really only starting to get into gear here, I expect it will increase substantially as people realise the big savings to be made with them.

Our current wind energy capacity is 5GW I think. But this has a limit of 75% of grid demand.

The limit is for all non synchronous generators, which includes wind, solar and DC interconnectors, so not just wind. The goal is to gradually increase this figure to 95% by 2030, it is already up from 45% just two years ago.

What happens in the future on a sunny, windy day when we produce more solar and wind energy than demand?

Will it mean 100% of demand comes from renewables or will there be a similar limit of 75%?

It would be 95% by 2030. Excess beyond this would either be exported over the interconnectors, feed into batteries or other storage systems, generate hydrogen or simply curtailed beyond that.

orangerhyme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122219974#Comment_122219974

Thanks very much for your time and knowledgeable answers.

Does the 700/week solar connections include new homes that come with solar?

I'm assuming it doesn't and the figure comes from grants.

95% of electricity coming from renewables sounds amazing. I'd imagine we could hit that on many days already.

By 2030 we should have offshore wind up and running also.

fael

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122219810#Comment_122219810

Thanks josip.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122219024#Comment_122219024

Solar capacity factor - the amount of energy generated vs it's stated generation capacity - is 11% in Ireland, not 20%. It's always claimed solar is incredibly cheap, but that is because the LCOE cost model that is used, is broken when it comes to being used with renawbles. Using the same arithmatic to cost 1 GW of solar with an 11% capacity factor vs say some other tech which is also 1 GW but has a 96% capacity factor, is just madness. Great for politicians and renewables BSers who want to promote the tech because it's an easy green-wash sell.

Imagine you have a house and you want to take it off-grid using nothing but solar, the LCOE cost model will tell you go ahead, you're on a winner, but LCOE doesn't tell you that you are going to have to have many times as many panels as your usage would suggest you would need, based on panel rating, plus a battery pack as large as a shed to store summer sun to use over months of winter darkness and gloom, not to mention the 50% of the year that is comprised of night time.

This panel over-capacity and battery storage system, and all the associated infrastructure to get it to all work is not included in the cheap solar/renewables LCOE BS.

LCOE does not tell you the cost of providing power for the 89% of required energy solar can't generate. It's the same for wind. And this scales up to countries at grid level, solar is touted as being cheap, but LCOE is not including the cost of all the gas burnt and turbines needed the other 89% of the time.

https://esb.ie/media-centre-news/press-releases/article/2024/01/09/contract-awarded-for-first-esb-utility-scale-solar-farm-project-in-ireland

€13 million for 8.5 MW, that's €1.53 billion per GW of capacity for solar.

Continued in the nuclear for Ireland thread…

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122220224#Comment_122220224

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122218460#Comment_122218460

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/plan-for-150m-gas-fired-power-station-in-dublin-approved/a1443046281.html

The power station is expected to operate for between 22 hours and 95
hours in a year, with an annual average operation time of 46 hours.

Average capacity factor of half a percent shows how far we've come. :)

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122219024#Comment_122219024

Solar happens during peak demand hours. It's the cheapest power source producing during the most expensive time.

The 20% efficiency is how well it converts bright sunlight. Adding extra layers can double that. After 2030 it's likely that the best panels will produce 40% more power from the same acreage which saves 40% of your land and labour costs.

An 11% capacity factor here (compared to 24 hours of bright sunshine) translates to 22% during daylight hours with rather more hours in summer than winter when we have more wind.

The 75% includes stuff we import or export. So we could have 4.5GW of wind/solar with 1.5GW fossil/hydro (for grid stability). And then export 1.5GW And we got very close to doing that at times last year. I haven't looked up the figures for this year.

And that 75% is heading to 95% . And the 5% can include hydro, biomass and biomethane and fuel to energy and CHP and incinerators. Exports , Fuel to energy and other storage schemes (including heat) are ways to use surplus power. Bleach is made by putting electricity through salty water so there's ways of using power when it's cheap.

josip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122220357#Comment_122220357

It's the cheapest power source producing during the most expensive time.

I'm asking the same question I asked earlier today. At the moment, who does that 'cheapness' benefit? As long as there is any gas in the half hour mix, aren't we paying top dollar for that 'cheap' solar?

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122220367#Comment_122220367

That rule can be changed. It's not a political issue not a technical one.

KrisW1001

Costs do not scale linearly in any kind of generation, but I'll play along and assume that Solar is the only exception to this. The thing about that "€1.5 bn per GW" claim is that it's not all or nothing as it would be with, say, a nuclear plant.

If you have a 1.5 billion spend you don't do it in one go: it's more like 150 million a year over 10 years. But at Solar that means you'll get 100 MW in year 1, 200 MW year 2 and so on until you hit 1 GW at year ten. Only Gas is similarly incremental and predictable to construct, but gas suffers from unpredictable fuel costs when running.

Of course Solar only works when there's sun, but when it is working, we're not burning gas, and the primary goal is to stop burning gas, both because of CO2 emissions, and also for our energy security: Norway is basically the only stable, civilised nation that exports gas…we need to stop owing the likes of Qatar anything.

Gas plant construction cost per MW is about 30-40% of solar, but again, fuel costs for solar are zero.

Ireland is actually a good location for solar photovoltaic panels. PV panels work on light, and their performance degrades at high temperatures (they are semiconductors, and all semiconductors perform more efficiently when cold). Our bright, relatively cool Summer weather with long days is ideal for solar PV. Rated output for solar is quoted at 25°C, output is higher at lower temperatures for the same illumination.

In hotter countries, thermal solar generation becomes a better choice than PV. And incidentally, this kind of solar does operate at night, as it works by creating a very high temperature heat store (molten salt, normally) that is later used to drive a steam turbine as required.

Shoog

Wonderful contraptions those solar concentrators. Saw one in Morocco and you can literally see the cone of light beaming up to the furnace.

Busman Paddy Lasty

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122220367#Comment_122220367

To try and answer this question accurately, on an hourly scale then (A) yes the gas in the mix sets the price.

Across Ireland, Britain and Europe on a seasonal scale if 700 million people use little to no gas during this seasonal time then (B) the unti price of gas should be low and the price of A influenced downward by renewables.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122220485#Comment_122220485

With thousands of little puffs of smoke and steam from birds being instantly vapourised - 6,000 killed a year for one such palnt in California. No one is thinking of the insects, of course.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122220611#Comment_122220611

All this concern, quite the bird lover. When you consider how many birds die annually in collisions with cars it offers a little perspective.

But I'm sure your concern is perfectly genuine and nothing to do with your love of alternative energy 🤣

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122220367#Comment_122220367

Apologies I meant to get back to you on that, there have been lots of questions.

There are a bunch of different answers to that question.

First of all historically gas is cheap, gas is a by product of oil production, in the past they use to just burn it off! Of course the price of gas spiked with the war in Ukraine, but now it is back down again, not quite pre war prices, but damn close and Europe has pretty much oriented itself away from Russia gas to Norwegian gas and imported US gas.

So the combination of relatively cheap and flexible gas with cheap renewables is quite attractive. Of course for environmental reasons we want to get away from gas as much as possible, but it isn't the end of the world to use some as needed.

But there is no guarantee that gas continues to be the driver of marginal pricing of electricity. Back in 70's it was oil, then coal replaced it, now gas. But as we head to say 95% SNSP, gas will need to compete with Biogas and waste incinerators and hydrogen and battery and other storage systems for that marginal price setter position. Batteries in particular are already having a big impact on peaker gas plants.

You also have to consider competition between different gas power plants. It isn't really the gas you are paying for, it is the electricity output of those plants when needed. Lets say you have 5 gas power plants, but because the wind is blowing and the sun shinning, they are producing cheaper electricity, you now only need 1 of the 5 plants running, well all of those plants are going to be competing with one another to be the operator who is running, so they will try and undercut each other. Where if you didn't have the wind and solar, thus you needed all 5 plants, well obviously they are going to charge a higher price.

At a macro level, as more renewables are added around the world, the demand for gas will drop, which in turn will drive down the price of gas.

Of course eventually, post 2030, we will likely go to 100% SNSP, which means throughout much of the year we won't be using any gas and will only use it when the wind isn't blowing, etc. We will rely more on synchronous condensers, etc. to supply that service, then needing fossil fuel plants.

As an aside, Siemens have a product where they can turn old fossil fuel plant turbines into synchronous condensers!

Of course it won't happen over night, but becoming less reliant on gas over time will be good for both our pockets and the environment.

josip

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Is there a scenario in the future where because the percentage of gas in the mix decreases, there is no longer enough demand for those 5 gas power plants to operate profitably, so 3 or even 4 of those plants close rather than continuing at a loss leaving a monopoly/duopoly of 1/2 operators who can effectively set their own price for those times when they are needed?

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122221146#Comment_122221146

Sure, that is possible, but really it depends on the age of the plant. If it is a very old plant, that needs a major, expensive overhaul / maintenance, then it might make sense for them to shut it down or more likely convert to a hybrid synchronous condenser at that point (the turbine and all the surrounding building and electrical systems are still very useful, see Moneypoint for example).

On the other hand, if it is a younger plant, with many years of operation life left in it, you need to operate it to try and make back the money on the initial capital investment into it. Better to compete and operate it at least some of the time then just shut it down and take a loss.

Look at the brand new gas plant mentioned above that will operate for just an average of 46 hours per YEAR! They can still make money operating irregularly throughout a year.

Also keep in mind that they will also have to compete with other generators, storage systems, hydrogen, incinerators, biomass, etc. So any monopoly/duopoly wouldn't last long.

Also post 2030, we are likely to move to 100% SNSP. That means there will be long periods throughout the year when no gas is used and instead wind/solar are the drivers of the marginal pricing during those periods.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122220441#Comment_122220441

Ireland is not ideal for solar energy. This claim that the marginal temperature efficiency benefit more than offsets the massive deficit in direct sunshine responsible for the low temperature, is absolutely delusional. The capcity factor of solar in ireland is 11%, among the worst and lowest in the world, if this supposed low temperature efficiency superiority was actually real, we would have a higher capacity factor for solar than hot places like Australia, but we don't. The opposite is true.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/01/27/western-australian-solar-farm-leads-way-in-performance-stakes/

Chilly Ireland with it's pathetic 11% capacity factor versus warm Western Australia with almost tripple the capacity factor from the same tech at 29.6%.

Ireland being one of the best places for solar is one of the most delusionaly insane claims I have ever seen. I know you are not the author of it, my first recollection of seeing it was a typical barfing from Unkel.

josip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122222301#Comment_122222301

OT, but it seems a bit odd that Australia with its abundant sunshine hasn't been able to foster a strong indigenous solar industry. The top 5 performing solar farms listed in that article are owned by Indonesian, Indian, French, Japanese and Korean companies. And the abundant supply of uranium also hasn't stimulated a domestic nuclear power industry. Has the cheap coal and a strong mining sector, both economically and politically, stifled the growth of these industries?

orangerhyme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122222301#Comment_122222301

One real benefit of domestic solar is that it changes people behaviour.

People monitor their use on the app and change their use accordingly eg using washing machine off peak. I know people do this already.

So this isn't really quantified but is a big benefit.

700 homes a week are going solar. It was 500 last year.

It's conceivable that it'll be 1000 next year. Word of mouth is the most powerful form of marketing.

There's probably a ceiling somewhere like 2000/week because of labour shortage.

But if 1000 homes a week are connecting to solar, that's 52000 a year. In 10 years that's 520,000 homes.

So 520,000 homes all adapting their behaviour, using electricity at off peak times. This goes a long way to flattening the duck curve.

KrisW1001

@cnocbui I should not have used the word ideal. However the general point stands: people often assume solar PV won't work at all here because we get cold weather, but PV panels work on light, not heat, and high temperature is actually undesirable. Ireland is not a bad location for solar.

My simplest possible home PV panel installation with all panels facing south and no storage has a capacity factor of 11.5% (1005 kWh/year per kWp), and my own logs back this up. Maybe your figure of "just 11%" for grid-scale farms is wrong or out of date? PV technology has advanced a lot in just the last five years.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122222433#Comment_122222433

I can't speak to the why's of foreign investment in solar you quoted. I do have shares in AGL, the largest electrical energy provider in Australa, and they built at least one solar farm which at time of construction was the largest in the southern hemisphere, so it's not all foreign. The large mining companies all seem to be falling over themselves to build vast adjunct arrays to their operations to placate their shareholders and lower their carbon footprint, one notable one being a wonderful fossil fuel producer in WA, Woodside petroleum. There is a lot of native investment in solar in Australia, contrary to the impression that article has obviously given. The bonkers Sun cable venture was the brainchild of one of Australias most wealthy mining magnates, 'Twiggy' Forrest and a software man-bun billionaire, Mike Cannon-Brooks, who if he weren't so busy making money would be the sort chaining himself to trees in logging areas. That would have been the largest solar array on the planet had it ever got environmental approval, which I doubt. Glad it's dead; terrible idea for the environment.

The Prime Minister of Australia just announced a great, but possibly doomed to failure initiative to establish a domestic solar cell manufacturing industry to the tune of $1 billion or so.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-28/anthony-albanese-announces-solar-sunshot-manufacturing-program/103639924

That might not be enough money, it's less than what an OSW turbine installation ship would cost us.

Coal was just too plentiful and Australia too efficient at extracting it for nuclear to ever be a prospect prior to the AGW hypothesis taking a covid like hold on the planet. Now the opposition leader is suggesting it as an alternative to the grandiose renewables ambitions. I hate him and his side of the political spectrum, but he's actually right on this. Building out 10,000 km of high voltage power lines all over the place is a nasty idea, which would be completely avoided by just by building NPPs on the sites of existing coal-fired power stations which already have the necessary grid connections. Solves the unsolvable storage question with renewables.

The other reason Australia hasn't been more pro nuclear is a rather complicated set of historical baggage in the form of a very prominent and influential anti-nuclear activist, Dr Helen Caldicott, Australia's Gerhard Schroder, who instead of doing for Gazprom bribes, did it for free, who managed to turn a lot of the populace against nuclear, based on the very stupid and nasty carry on with French nuclear weapons testing at Mururoa atoll in the Pacific, to the east of Australia. She managed to successfully confabulate bad weapons testing and nuclear power in general in all forms, but like a true medical and intellectual hypocrite, she didn't quite push it to include the use or production of nuclear isotopes in medicine.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122222464#Comment_122222464

In my home town Perth, they have started fining domestic PVers who feed too much into the grid at peak times. They also massively cut the feed in tarrif because there was just too much. A lot of whinging was to be had.

Domestic PV is so widely adopted in Australia it's caused large companies to shut down coal fired power stations decades early. This has endangered the security and stability of the grid to the point the government is having to subsidise these companies and pay them to keep these power stations running, because even in Australia, there isn't much solar at night or under clouds.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122222802#Comment_122222802

Which is why a lot of people in Australia are now installing battery systems in their homes. Feed all that lovely solar into the battery and use it later in the evening/night, rather then trying to sell it back to the grid.

The whole Australian story is really interesting. The government there has fought hard against it, trying to push coal instead, however solar is so cheap and easy to install, with very quick payback, people have been largely saying screw that and just doing it, where it is so popular 1 in 3 homes have solar.

And now people are moving onto the next step of installing batteries.

If the Australian government wasn't so in bed with the coal industry, they wouldn't be so behind on grid stability technologies. Coal power plants like other base load power generators are a terrible choice for grids with so much renewables available.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122222654#Comment_122222654

A 6.6kWp system generating around 5,800 kWh per year typically yields a 20% net return on investment.

https://www.ifac.ie/news-insights/news/unlocking-solar-potential-on-irish-farms-calculating-payback-periods-for-sustainable-returns

That's 10.03%

Capacity factor: A capacity factor of 11.75% has been applied in order to solve for a post tax unlevered IRR of 5.0%. It is acknowledged that the RESS 2 terms and conditions reference an 11% capacity factor for solar projects and that such a capacity factor would be fairly typical for projects in Ireland. However, given the other base case assumptions selected for the Reference Case, it was necessary to assume a higher capacity factor in order to achieve the targeted level of return.

https://www.irishsolarenergy.org/_files/ugd/dcb342_fe0ac366c49e41ddb96118b008e1b6ab.pdf

I love the accounting BS going on there - typical of renewables... "it was necessary to assume a higher capacity factor in order to achieve the targeted level of return"

Need more? Your anecdotal capacity factor is for a single location in the country, wheras the average is likely to be different.

There is also a published paper on the subject I could find for a small fee.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122223004#Comment_122223004

If only things were simple. Traffic lights need power, street lights need power, though they should be turned off at 1am, hospitals need power, industry needs power, aluminium smelters need power, 2 out of 3 homes without solar need power. All of which are part of why you need a grid. While you think coal makes no sense, it made perfect sense when the power stations were first built.

Yes batteries.

Battery storage makes off-grid expensive

The cost of an off-grid system for a typical Australian home (18kWh / day) ranges between $25,000 – $45,000. The price is much higher due to the amount of battery storage necessary to power your home during winter months and days of minimal solar production. By comparison, a 6.6kW solar system would provide ample solar power for the same electricity usage, but the cost is dramatically lower at between $6,000 – $8,500.

Just to note, winter in Australia is a bit like summer here. Early yesterday morning it was 7°C where I am - there would be few mornings in a Perth winter that cold or below - then it warm up quickly.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122223147#Comment_122223147

LMAO, no one is saying that Australia doesn’t need a grid! Just that the government needs to make smarter decisions on the design of their grid, rather then being beholden to the coal industry.

BTW Smelters and major industries like that normally have their own generators and micro grids, cheaper then buying power from the grid for them, just like it is for home owners installing their own panels.

BBTW the battery costs you quote for batteries are going to drop dramatically as LFP batteries enter the market, followed by sodium ion systems. I hope the Australian government are ready for this! It will happen if they like it or not.

Not that I would promote people going fully off the grid, but if people do, it is because the government screwed up managing the grid and pricing of it.