Energy infrastructure

richie123

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think we just hit a new peak wind energy production with higher levels forecast for later.


Just out of interest, has there been any thought/policy research put into local/domestic storage? Average usage is around 12kWh per day and I've seen that battery costs are headed towards €100 per kWh, surely there's an opening for (say) a 15kWh battery for around €3000. Even without domestic solar just charging them on night rate would provide great smoothing over 24 hours.

Are we getting a bit closer to energy independence...2 15 kw battery's and a decent solar array and no grid connection ?

Banana Republic 1

richie123 wrote: »

Are we getting a bit closer to energy independence...2 15 kw battery's and a decent solar array and no grid connection ?

When you see people objecting to solar farms cause it will blind their horses it reminds us of reality.

machiavellianme

bk wrote: »

In addition to what Apogee said, there is quiet a bit of politics involved.

Some people in the French population want to see a reduction in Nuclear and increase in wind. As a result the government have agreed to increasingly use wind. But they are being clever and using a slight of hand. They aren't going to close Nuclear plants, instead, just export Nuke power to their neighbours who need it and buy excess wind from them.

They can then say they ran on 20% wind last year and that Nuke is decreasing, while reality is quiet different.

France, along with Norway is basically becoming the battery of Europe and they will be well paid for that backup capacity.



Yep, but it does show that we really don't need it. That we already have plenty of capacity between Wind and Gas. Gas is not only less polluting then coal, but it is also a better partner to wind as it can be spun up and down quickly as wind demand changes, unlike coal.

I get the feeling that they aren't actually putting much effort into quickly fixing Moneypoint, they know it is already pretty much end of life and on the way out. They are currently keeping it around and that coal supply, in case their is a shock to the gas market, totally understandable, but I won't be surprised if we see it been used much at all even once fixed.

Not everything is true in this post. The French, like every other EU country are signed up to the IEM and are following the network codes and Clean Energy Package requirements. There's no sleight of hand in such a market, all plant bid in and whatever clears flows, unless other bilateral contracts are in place. The French government have about as much say in what is imported and exported as ours does, ie none. Plus, capacity markets are considered state aid so are to be phased out by 2027. Therefore, wind has to stand on its own 2 feet compared to other tech, without any other supports or priority dispatch.

Also, how can something become the battery of Europe, unless it is installing actual batteries? French nuclear and Norwegian hydro is far more useful than being painted as a battery. For starters they are actual generators and not just a fanciful storage device. The problem with both is that they are finite so if the wind doesn't blow or the sun does not shine, they won't have the capacity to cover all of Europe's needs. We still need our own, for security of supply.

bk

machiavellianme wrote: »

Also, how can something become the battery of Europe, unless it is installing actual batteries? French nuclear and Norwegian hydro is far more useful than being painted as a battery. For starters they are actual generators and not just a fanciful storage device. The problem with both is that they are finite so if the wind doesn't blow or the sun does not shine, they won't have the capacity to cover all of Europe's needs. We still need our own, for security of supply.

:rolleyes:

Obviously hydro isn't literally a chemical battery, but I'd assume most people would have understood what I was staying!

Replace the word battery with "energy storage" instead.

Hydro is very much a form of energy storage. Pumped hydro is very obviously so, use excess energy to pump water up into the reserve and then during high demand times release it to generate electricity. Really just like a massive battery, but just without the chemistry.

Norway of course is using their dams to generate electricity all day for their own needs, as France does with Nuclear. But they have also built more dams then they need for themselves and they happily export it to their neighbours when prices are high.

Sure this is all hidden behind the energy trading market. But behind it all, it is pretty simple, when the wind is blowing, you use that as it is one of the cheaper forms of electricity generation. When the wind isn't blowing, then you reach out to more expensive sources, importing French Nuclear or Norwegian Hydro, etc. over inter-connectors at more expensive prices.

loyatemu

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Better insulation would also provide smoothing for space heating and water heating. You could also use demand shedding on heating to load balance.

That €3,000 + installation + tariffs battery would only save you the difference between the peak and off peak rates that are offered to end customers.

Peak demand here was when people came home from work, so not so sure how topped up car batteries would be then.

houses with poor insulation are probably not using electric heating though. All the older houses around here are on oil or mains gas.

loyatemu

loyatemu wrote: »

houses with poor insulation are probably not using electric heating though. All the older houses around here are on oil or mains gas.

I don't know about houses, but apartments certainly are. Thousands upon thousands of apartments using poxy storage heaters which, if you want them to actually heat the place, cost a fortune to run.

I have 3 storage heaters in my place and during the winter months, they add 80 eur a month to my electric bill...for 3 heaters.

loyatemu

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know about houses, but apartments certainly are. Thousands upon thousands of apartments using poxy storage heaters which, if you want them to actually heat the place, cost a fortune to run.

I have 3 storage heaters in my place and during the winter months, they add 80 eur a month to my electric bill...for 3 heaters.

true, but the idea of storage heaters is to use cheap night rate leccy to heat the place during the day, so they're already spreading demand by design (I know they often don't work all that well).

Also insulating apartments is a lot more complex than houses, particularly if you have to get the agreement of other owners in the block.

Yellow_Fern

richie123 wrote: »

Are we getting a bit closer to energy independence...2 15 kw battery's and a decent solar array and no grid connection ?

Energy independence isnt a good goal

Banana Republic 1

loyatemu wrote: »

houses with poor insulation are probably not using electric heating though. All the older houses around here are on oil or mains gas.

You still need to properly insulate them whatever energy source the use.

loyatemu

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

You still need to properly insulate them whatever energy source the use.

the comment was in relation to smoothing electricity demand.

A nice analysis done on the topic of energy storage for renewables by Real Engineering

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSgd-QhLHRI

Yellow_Fern

Deleted User wrote: »

A nice analysis done on the topic of energy storage for renewables by Real Engineering

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSgd-QhLHRI

So unless I misheard we'd need over 30 Turlough Hills, or one the size of Lough Erne. Depressing

richie123

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

So unless I misheard we'd need over 30 Turlough Hills, or one the size of Lough Erne. Depressing

The wind power production chart was interesting...very erratic.
Will more renewables help that situation.
Also the problem of turbines being shut down and wasting power is another big issue and its only going to get worse

celtic_oz

Tony Seba thinks the cost of electricity will go to zero in the next 15 years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM2RxWtF4Ds

tom1ie

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Energy independence isnt a good goal

?

Sam Russell

celtic_oz wrote: »

Tony Seba thinks the cost of electricity will go to zero in the next 15 years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM2RxWtF4Ds

They predicted that the cost of nuclear power in the 1950s would be cheap when they started the nuclear power stations - in fact electricity would be so cheap it wont be metered.

Didn't happen then - will it happen now? Well, the energy might be cheap to produce, but will it be given way? 90% of the cost of an iPhone is intellectual property.

On the other hand, currently telephone calls are 'free' or incredibly cheap thanks to the internet - that would have been thought impossible in the 1950s when it needed political pull to even get a phone line.


Predicting the future is an uncertain pastime and only for the brave.

Markcheese

I don't see why electricy would be free,
there's a fairly substantial cost to establishing renewables , and a very substantial cost to transmitting ,
I could see in an Irish context excess electricity (at off peak times ,with steady high wind speeds ) being free or near as damn it ...but a company may be slow to invest a large amount of capital just to take advantage of occasional or even irregular free power supply ...
( The exception could be batteries .... Domestic and business , especially if re-ox batteries become a thing , )

Markcheese

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

So unless I misheard we'd need over 30 Turlough Hills, or one the size of Lough Erne. Depressing

And for how long ? Was that 30 furlough hills per 24 hour period ?
It wouldn't be unlikely to have a calm fortnight ,so very little chance to replenish the upper reservoirs...

Sam Russell

Markcheese wrote: »

And for how long ? Was that 30 furlough hills per 24 hour period ?
It wouldn't be unlikely to have a calm fortnight ,so very little chance to replenish the upper reservoirs...

When Ardnacrusha was built, it was fantastic, 85 MW - filled a huge amount of our then electricity demand (close to 100%). Now it is hardly anything.

Yellow_Fern

tom1ie wrote: »

?

What matters is cheap energy and having a diversified supply. IMO it is hopeless for a small country like us to try to be independent. Supporting Irish jobs is bad idea if we overall pay more for energy.

Sam Russell wrote: »

They predicted that the cost of nuclear power in the 1950s would be cheap when they started the nuclear power stations - in fact electricity would be so cheap it wont be metered.

Didn't happen then - will it happen now? Well, the energy might be cheap to produce, but will it be given way? 90% of the cost of an iPhone is intellectual property.

On the other hand, currently telephone calls are 'free' or incredibly cheap thanks to the internet - that would have been thought impossible in the 1950s when it needed political pull to even get a phone line.


Predicting the future is an uncertain pastime and only for the brave.

Dead right. Very hard to predict. But I would say that nuclear is the least subsidized when you factor in the externalised costs of all sources of energy generation.

Apogee

Highlights again the need for better interconnector/grid infrastructure:

Irish Times wrote:

Wind Energy Ireland – formerly the Irish Wind Energy Association – says in its annual report that the industry supplied 36.3 per cent of the electricity used in the Republic, up from 32.5 per cent the previous year. The group says wind generated 10.73 million megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity in 2020. An average family home uses 4.6 MWh a year. Dr David Connolly, chief executive, Wind Energy Ireland, noted that the amount of “lost” wind power doubled last year to 1.4 million MWh.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/wind-generates-almost-40-of-electricity-used-in-republic-1.4488594


Cork solar farm due to kick off

Irish Independent wrote:

More than 150 containers are due to arrive in Cork from China over the coming weeks containing 120,000 solar panels that will be used in the development of eight of the proposed solar farms.

John Mullins, the former Bord Gáis chief executive who co- founded Amarenco, said he expected work to begin on the sites before the end of April.Six of those, including those in Mallow, Kanturk, Inniscarra, Whitechurch and two in Carrigaline are expected to be completed by August, with the remaining two in Cobh and Timoleague not becoming operational until 2022.

Each will incorporate 22,200 photovoltaic panels on ground mounted frames, two inverter/transformer stations, a delivery station and associated site works. Each will generate five mega-watts of green electricity, which will be fed back into the national grid.

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/corkman/news/work-to-finally-start-on-cork-solar-farms-in-april-40103545.html

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

They predicted that the cost of nuclear power in the 1950s would be cheap when they started the nuclear power stations - in fact electricity would be so cheap it wont be metered.

Didn't happen then - will it happen now? Well, the energy might be cheap to produce, but will it be given way? 90% of the cost of an iPhone is intellectual property.

On the other hand, currently telephone calls are 'free' or incredibly cheap thanks to the internet - that would have been thought impossible in the 1950s when it needed political pull to even get a phone line.


Predicting the future is an uncertain pastime and only for the brave.

Can't remember if it was fusion energy or the breeder cycle that was supposed to be cheap. Academic really since neither have been delivered yet.

Power delivery has gotten a little cheaper since higher voltages and special aluminium - zirconium alloys allow higher temperatures. So you can transfer more power using the same amount of material. But it's incremental.



There is no comparison with voice. Phone calls originally needed a pair of copper wires. Then they developed phantom lines to nearly double the capacity, then they used filters to put multiple calls on the same copper pair. They they digitised the voice on to 64Kb channels to sweat the copper further. The most aggressive codecs that can compress this by a factor of 10 using sneaky tricks like ignoring silences.

While that might sound impressive the data record over a single 75Km commercial optical fibre is 40Tbs way more than enough for 4 billion voice calls at the same time.

Markcheese

Sam Russell wrote: »

When Ardnacrusha was built, it was fantastic, 85 MW - filled a huge amount of our then electricity demand (close to 100%). Now it is hardly anything.

I might not have said that very well .. Ardnacrusha can produce it's 85mw 24 / 7 ( well depending on the flow of the Shannon ) , whereas turlough hill pumped storage can run at full tilt for 5 or so hours before it's upper reservoirs needs to be replenished..
So 30 turlough hill size stations would replace wind on a calm day for approx 24 hours ..(? )
Which wouldn't do much good if you've 2 calm day in a row ,
But if you've old fossil fuel stations on various levels of standby , batteries to level out the peaks and pumped storage to give you time to bring the fossil fuel up to speed ,
As energy storage , and load shedding / shifting improves you'd be planning on using the existing fossil fuel less and less , but for the foreseeable future they would allow you to depend more on renewables ( wind )

Markcheese

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Dead right. Very hard to predict. But I would say that nuclear is the least subsidized when you factor in the externalised costs of all sources of energy generation.

I thought it was the opposite ... Once you've factored in state paid for research and development , and subsidising the fuel mining ,refining and most importantly ( for the french anyway ) the security ..
Oh and the subsidised financing , cos it crazy expensive otherwise ,as in edf building hinkly point c levels of expensive ,
And the spent fuel storage ,(hasn't really happened in many places ,)
Oh and the decommissioning ( but that's not really happening very quickly either ,) ,

Capt'n Midnight

Markcheese wrote: »

I might not have said that very well .. Ardnacrusha can produce it's 85mw 24 / 7 ( well depending on the flow of the Shannon ) , whereas turlough hill pumped storage can run at full tilt for 5 or so hours before it's upper reservoirs needs to be replenished..
So 30 turlough hill size stations would replace wind on a calm day for approx 24 hours ..(? )
Which wouldn't do much good if you've 2 calm day in a row ,
But if you've old fossil fuel stations on various levels of standby , batteries to level out the peaks and pumped storage to give you time to bring the fossil fuel up to speed ,
As energy storage , and load shedding / shifting improves you'd be planning on using the existing fossil fuel less and less , but for the foreseeable future they would allow you to depend more on renewables ( wind )

Ardnacrusha averages about half that 40MW depends on rainfall and when you open the valves, it used to power the country, now we need to add it's capacity every year during the good times.

It's not like we have lots of other large rivers that we can dam.

Turlough was built to support nuclear amongst other reasons like the ESB making decent money from consultancy.

antoinolachtnai

celtic_oz wrote: »

Tony Seba thinks the cost of electricity will go to zero in the next 15 years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM2RxWtF4Ds

The marginal cost of energy will tend toward zero.

But that is not the same as electricity being free.

RandomViewer

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The marginal cost of energy will tend toward zero.

But that is not the same as electricity being free.

If anything the price will rise, actual cost of production may fall but there are a lot of wages to be covered,

antoinolachtnai

RandomViewer wrote: »

If anything the price will rise, actual cost of production may fall but there are a lot of wages to be covered,

It’s not really the ongoing wages. It’s that renewable energy infrastructure needs to be provided far in advance of the energy being consumed. It has to be paid for with borrowings and one way or another these borrowings have to be passed on to consumers over the term of the loan.

(Fossil fuel infrastructure is not the same.)

Yellow_Fern

Markcheese wrote: »

I thought it was the opposite ... Once you've factored in state paid for research and development , and subsidising the fuel mining ,refining and most importantly ( for the french anyway ) the security ..
Oh and the subsidised financing , cos it crazy expensive otherwise ,as in edf building hinkly point c levels of expensive ,
And the spent fuel storage ,(hasn't really happened in many places ,)
Oh and the decommissioning ( but that's not really happening very quickly either ,) ,

See figure 11 which shows nuclear gets the least aid. This is a study of global subsidies. It makes fossil fuels worse than they are which is misleading as most fossil fuel subsidies are to reduce the price to the consumer in very poor countries, while in rich countries renewables get far more subsidies at least before externalises are measured. Renewable subsidies tend to be aimed for the firms producing the energy. (see fig. 9). Would be great if these did the same analysis by country per megawatt.
https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Apr/IRENA_Energy_subsidies_2020.pdf

gjim

RandomViewer wrote: »

If anything the price will rise, actual cost of production may fall but there are a lot of wages to be covered,

Why do you think that? Solar and wind require minimal staffing - a small fraction of the number of people required to run the likes of a peat burning power station for example. And that's without considering there's no work required to harvest, process or transport fuel.