Energy infrastructure

Yellow_Fern

gjim wrote: »

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.

Yeah but you need absolutely loads of them. Wind is vastly less power dense than fossil fuels. Impossible for it to have less staffing requirements than coal or gas. Peat is less clear to me

antoinolachtnai

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Yeah but you need absolutely loads of them. Wind is vastly less power dense than fossil fuels. Impossible for it to have less staffing requirements than coal or gas. Peat is less clear to me

It takes a lot of people to manufacture and build wind farms. In that respect you may be correct. But once they are up they just don’t need that much work.

Yellow_Fern

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Wind is vastly less power dense than fossil fuels.

Can you give it a rest with the power density nonsense. Literally nobody, anywhere, uses this as a measure when comparing power sources.

This has been pointed out to you several times on this thread already.

Yellow_Fern

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It takes a lot of people to manufacture and build wind farms. In that respect you may be correct. But once they are up they just don’t need that much work.

Well they say in the US wind generates about 8% of electricity? but has 100,000 jobs, but coal produces about 23% of electricity but employs 160,000. gas employs 398,000 but produces 38%. Bear in mind, their coal plants would be old and new fossil fuel plants would require much less workers.


Sources
Energy mix- https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Employment - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/25/climate/todays-energy-jobs-are-in-solar-not-coal.html?_r=0

antoinolachtnai

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Well they say in the US wind generates about 8% of electricity? but has 100,000 jobs, but coal produces about 23% of electricity but employs 160,000. gas employs 398,000 but produces 38%. Bear in mind, their coal plants would be old and new fossil fuel plants would require much less workers.


Sources
Energy mix- https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Employment - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/25/climate/todays-energy-jobs-are-in-solar-not-coal.html?_r=0

Is this not because a lot of wind farms are being built but very few coal plants are being built or upgraded?

gjim

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Yeah but you need absolutely loads of them. Wind is vastly less power dense than fossil fuels. Impossible for it to have less staffing requirements than coal or gas. Peat is less clear to me

Ah will you stop with "power dense" stuff - even if it wasn't nonsense, it's completely irrelevant here.

A 150MW wind farm typically involves employing 3 to 7 people. A comparable solar farm even fewer - often they can go months without a single human stepping foot on the site.

A random selection for comparison: the recently closed Lough Ree employed 150 at it's height to produce 100MW of power and it was claimed directly supported hundreds more jobs to harvest, process and transport the peat.

There are just shy of 200 employed in the Moneypoint (950MW) plant without considering the work required for mining, processing and shipping the coal.

I've no idea how you've convinced yourself that this reality is "impossible". Even without looking up numbers, it's obvious from just looking at a picture of a wind or solar farm and then at a picture of a thermal electricity plant.

Capt'n Midnight

One of the biggest subsidies for nuclear is the price paid for the energy.

As it can only supply baseload it should be the cheapest source.

But it isn't.

Banana Republic 1

Fossil fuel inc gets around 500billion dollars a year in subsidies.

1huge1

I am quite a fan of this youtube channel called "Real Engineering", I've no doubt some of you are familiar with it. An Irish channel by the way.

He goes into a significant amount of detail regarding Turlough Hill and outlines why Ireland has had such issues in constructing a second one (despite Turlough Hill opening back in the early 1970s.)

He states that one has been in planning for c. 10 years but has yet to start construction, does anyone know where on the island this is?

riddlinrussell

It will be this one in the Silvermines probably: Silvermines Hydro

1huge1

riddlinrussell wrote: »

It will be this one in the Silvermines probably: Silvermines Hydro

That must be it, thank you

loyatemu

re pumped storage, this is an interesting one:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/08/powering-up-uk-hills-could-be-used-as-energy-batteries

essentially seems to be proposing using a "heavier" liquid to reduce the space and gradient required for pumped storage at scale. The diagram suggests the upper reservoir can be underground.

There an anti-windfarm protest that keeps popping up on my FB feed regarding the proposed Kilranelagh farm in west Wicklow, as apparently there's a hillfort on the site. My impression is that there is a hill fort or stone circle or some other ancient monument on practically every hill in the country, which will pumped storage tricky to locate.

1huge1

Going by the video, the acttal number of possible locations is less than people may imagine, I maximum distance ratio of 1:10 is required between the upper and lower reservoir, i.e. the upper reservoir couldn't be more than 200m vertically higher and 2000m away horizontally.

I think he also refers to using a different type of liquid or even having the lower horizontally as the oceon (using sea water).

josip

1huge1 wrote: »

Going by the video, the acttal number of possible locations is less than people may imagine, I maximum distance ratio of 1:10 is required between the upper and lower reservoir, i.e. the upper reservoir couldn't be more than 200m vertically higher and 2000m away horizontally.

I think he also refers to using a different type of liquid or even having the lower horizontally as the oceon (using sea water).

You won't get 38 years (Turlough Hill) out of the pony motors if it's salt water going through them.


Wouldn't every hill in Ireland with a corrie lake fit the horizontal/vertical criteria?
Why is the rock type an issue? Wouldn't both reservoirs be lined?
The Comeraghs could store for the whole country...

Banana Republic 1

loyatemu wrote: »

re pumped storage, this is an interesting one:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/08/powering-up-uk-hills-could-be-used-as-energy-batteries

essentially seems to be proposing using a "heavier" liquid to reduce the space and gradient required for pumped storage at scale. The diagram suggests the upper reservoir can be underground.

There an anti-windfarm protest that keeps popping up on my FB feed regarding the proposed Kilranelagh farm in west Wicklow, as apparently there's a hillfort on the site. My impression is that there is a hill fort or stone circle or some other ancient monument on practically every hill in the country, which will pumped storage tricky to locate.

Conveniently !

Banana Republic 1

josip wrote: »

You won't get 38 years (Turlough Hill) out of the pony motors if it's salt water going through them.


Wouldn't every hill in Ireland with a corrie lake fit the horizontal/vertical criteria?
Why is the rock type an issue? Wouldn't both reservoirs be lined?
The Comeraghs could store for the whole country...

That’s the first thing that came to my mind really the salt water.

loyatemu

Back in the dim mists of time, Spirit of Ireland were proposing using seawater. Is anyone actually doing this?

1huge1

loyatemu wrote: »

Back in the dim mists of time, Spirit of Ireland were proposing using seawater. Is anyone actually doing this?

The video I linked to a few posts up references one in Japan.

I believe this is it
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/17-18/cumbrae/Seawater%20pumped%20hydro.html#:~:text=Seawater%20pumped%2Dstorage%20hydro%20works%20similarly%20to%20traditional%20systems.&text=The%20main%20difference%20for%20seawater,to%20a%20land%20reservoir%20above.

Apogee

loyatemu wrote: »

Back in the dim mists of time, Spirit of Ireland were proposing using seawater. Is anyone actually doing this?

Norwegian energy giant spurned €1.5bn Irish pumped hydro power plan
https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/norwegian-energy-giant-spurned-15bn-irish-pumped-hydro-power-plan-36925962.html

Indo wrote:

A spokesman for Statkraft said: "I can confirm that in the spring of 2013 we received information about the project and that we did some calculations around it."Based on an evaluation of a number of aspects, we didn't express further interest in investing in the project, but showed continued interest in the trading and market aspects of it." Oslo-based, Norwegian state-owned Statkraft has annual revenues of €5bn and is the Nordic region's second largest power firm.

josip

Apogee wrote: »

Norwegian energy giant spurned €1.5bn Irish pumped hydro power plan
https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/norwegian-energy-giant-spurned-15bn-irish-pumped-hydro-power-plan-36925962.html

"..we didn't express further interest in investing in the project, but showed continued interest in the trading and market aspects of it"

https://translate.google.com/?sl=no&tl=en&op=translate

..didn't fancy ponying up any cash or getting our hands dirty, but wouldn't have minded creaming off a percentage all the same.

Markcheese

Has anyone tried tried doing the opposite approach ,
Building a lower freshwater reservoir in the sea , by daming an inlet or bay at the foot of a mountain or cliff , then pumping the water up the mountain to a vast upper freshwater reservoir ...
If there's a river flowing into either reservoir then you may get some extra power too ...

dubhthach

loyatemu wrote: »

re pumped storage, this is an interesting one:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/08/powering-up-uk-hills-could-be-used-as-energy-batteries

essentially seems to be proposing using a "heavier" liquid to reduce the space and gradient required for pumped storage at scale. The diagram suggests the upper reservoir can be underground.

There an anti-windfarm protest that keeps popping up on my FB feed regarding the proposed Kilranelagh farm in west Wicklow, as apparently there's a hillfort on the site. My impression is that there is a hill fort or stone circle or some other ancient monument on practically every hill in the country, which will pumped storage tricky to locate.

To be fair the Hillfort complex in Baltinglass area is fairly unique in an Irish context with at least 9 major forts. It's been termed the 'Hillfort Capital of Ireland' in various academic articles dating back as far as 1992.

Capt'n Midnight

loyatemu wrote: »

re pumped storage, this is an interesting one:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/08/powering-up-uk-hills-could-be-used-as-energy-batteries

essentially seems to be proposing using a "heavier" liquid to reduce the space and gradient required for pumped storage at scale. The diagram suggests the upper reservoir can be underground.

2.5 times the density means using salt or bentonite mud, and as mentioned above the turbines might not like it. So higher O&M costs. And more viscosity losses.

I'd rate it as snakeoil based on the square cube law. 2.5 times the volume is a little over a third more on all dimensions. You do save on the excavation costs. But you don't save all that much on the cost of lining the reservoirs compared to one filled with water because you have to make them just as thick because of the weight.

gjim

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The marginal cost of energy will tend toward zero.

But that is not the same as electricity being free.

I can hear the future anti-electricity charges campaign already. "But sure joe, electricity costs nuttin. It's an outrage we're being asked to pay for something they get free from the wind."

loyatemu

gjim wrote: »

I can hear the future anti-electricity charges campaign already. "But sure joe, electricity costs nuttin. It's an outrage we're being asked to pay for something they get free from the wind."

"sure they don't make the gas Joe, it's just lying around under the ground"

Sam Russell

loyatemu wrote: »

"sure they don't make the gas Joe, it's just lying around under the ground"

Well, not completely true.

There are people investing in digesters that convert animal waste and vegetation matter into bio-gas, that can be fed into the natural gas network.

I am sure you know about the cattle producing methane.

loyatemu

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, not completely true.

There are people investing in digesters that convert animal waste and vegetation matter into bio-gas, that can be fed into the natural gas network.

I am sure you know about the cattle producing methane.

it was a dumb joke...

Carawaystick

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?

It's 3c/kWhr in France for night rate, or the 2 hours at lunchtime in domestic houses, which is fairly cheap

Banana Republic 1

This is an article from a local newspaper in my area, it’s hard to take these groups seriously.

https://avondhupress.ie/claim-that-wind-farm-will-end-equine-industry/

millb

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

This is an article from a local newspaper in my area, it’s hard to take these groups seriously.

https://avondhupress.ie/claim-that-wind-farm-will-end-equine-industry/

Interesting and one sided - but the horse industry is significant outside of Dublin. Re the local reporting: they need to be positive to off-shore Wind and speed-up landing the much needed Celtic Interconnector into that same E Cork / W Waterford area.

I guess pylons wouldn't spook horses. But NIBY works. That is our planning process and in fairness there is a good bit of WF curtailment so grid not performing...

And who benefits from the horse industry and how? $£ from TV, on-line gambling, arab-oil money, horse-meat all facilitated by power / technology / investment.