Energy infrastructure

Apogee

Sunday Independent wrote:

An international energy group is planning a wind farm project off Bray Head to create what could be one of the country’s largest electricity generating facilities involving a potential investment of around €3bn.

Ocean Winds, a joint venture owned by energy giants EDPR and ENGIE, has applied for a foreshore licence to develop an offshore wind farm in Co Wicklow, the Sunday Independent has learned.

The up-to-1.6 gigawatts (GW) project, the Cailleach offshore wind farm, would be located 13km from the Bray coastline, with the company targeting completion for 2030.

Ocean Winds said the proposed development site is between the Codling Wind Park offshore wind project, which is 13km off the coast between Greystones and Wicklow Town, and the Dublin Array offshore wind farm project.

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/plansadvance-for-major-3bn-wind-farm-off-the-dublinwicklow-coastline-40292271.html

gjim

Burning coal is more or less irrelevant as a source of electricity - it's simply cannot compete on price with natural gas never mind renewables.

Making it cleaner will only make it more expensive and even less economic.

Coal peaked about 15/20 years ago and has been in decline since. The only country "investing" in coal electricity generation is China (and maybe India) and the reason China is building coal power stations is an artefact of the central planning/political set-up rather than for economic reasons; every region chases central funds which provides money for power stations.

Where you don't have central planning f-ups like this - e.g. in western countries - nobody is considering building coal generation stations. Why would you? If you want to generate electricity by burning fossil fuels, then burn natural gas. The plants are cheaper, the fuel is cheaper, the CO2 emissions and general pollution much less, and gas is far more flexible/dispatchable - coal stations are relatively slow to ramp up/down generation compared to gas. Coal is a legacy technology at this stage.

millb

gjim wrote: »

Burning coal is more or less irrelevant as a source of electricity - it's simply cannot compete on price with natural gas never mind renewables.

Making it cleaner will only make it more expensive and even less economic.

Coal peaked about 15/20 years ago and has been in decline since. The only country "investing" in coal electricity generation is China (and maybe India) and the reason China is building coal power stations is an artefact of the central planning/political set-up rather than for economic reasons; every region chases central funds which provides money for power stations.

Where you don't have central planning f-ups like this - e.g. in western countries - nobody is considering building coal generation stations. Why would you? If you want to generate electricity by burning fossil fuels, then burn natural gas. The plants are cheaper, the fuel is cheaper, the CO2 emissions and general pollution much less, and gas is far more flexible/dispatchable - coal stations are relatively slow to ramp up/down generation compared to gas. Coal is a legacy technology at this stage.

I'd say 99%+ of us agree with the above.

Moneypoint will only keep an emergency reserve of Coal in-case there is no wind and the Brits switch off our gas supply. !!

In 8 to 15 years time we will have an increasing amount of Hydrogen in our gas network and Hydrogen will be used in transport. Natural gas will decrease as excess wind will generate clean hydrogen which can be piped and stored - like NG.

It will just take the Germans or Scandinavians to lead the way but hopefully we can partner and not lag too far behind.

Banana Republic 1

millb wrote: »

I'd say 99%+ of us agree with the above.

Moneypoint will only keep an emergency reserve of Coal in-case there is no wind and the Brits switch off our gas supply. !!

In 8 to 15 years time we will have an increasing amount of Hydrogen in our gas network and Hydrogen will be used in transport. Natural gas will decrease as excess wind will generate clean hydrogen which can be piped and stored - like NG.

It will just take the Germans or Scandinavians to lead the way but hopefully we can partner and not lag too far behind.

I don’t disagree however Germany is holed on lignite coal afaik.

Banana Republic 1

gjim wrote: »

Burning coal is more or less irrelevant as a source of electricity - it's simply cannot compete on price with natural gas never mind renewables.

Making it cleaner will only make it more expensive and even less economic.

Coal peaked about 15/20 years ago and has been in decline since. The only country "investing" in coal electricity generation is China (and maybe India) and the reason China is building coal power stations is an artefact of the central planning/political set-up rather than for economic reasons; every region chases central funds which provides money for power stations.

Where you don't have central planning f-ups like this - e.g. in western countries - nobody is considering building coal generation stations. Why would you? If you want to generate electricity by burning fossil fuels, then burn natural gas. The plants are cheaper, the fuel is cheaper, the CO2 emissions and general pollution much less, and gas is far more flexible/dispatchable - coal stations are relatively slow to ramp up/down generation compared to gas. Coal is a legacy technology at this stage.

The clean coal thing or any other clean hydrocarbons is a total red hearing as is artificial carbon capture tech.

riddlinrussell

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

The clean coal thing or any other clean hydrocarbons is a total red hearing as is artificial carbon capture tech.

Given the reluctance of corporations and governments to move to genuinely clean energy and zero emissions, I can see some sort of artificial carbon capture becoming vital, just not as an alternative to zero emissions, more to reverse some of the damage we have done.

Sam Russell

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Given the reluctance of corporations and governments to move to genuinely clean energy and zero emissions, I can see some sort of artificial carbon capture becoming vital, just not as an alternative to zero emissions, more to reverse some of the damage we have done.

Planting trees is a good response. Trees not only capture carbon, they reduce water run off and stabilise the soil, plus help with wildlife and bio-diversity (depending on the variety of trees planted).

As for scrubbing the carbon from the chimney exhaust - do not put the carbon in the fire at the bottom and you do not need to remove it from the chimney.

Amirani

Sam Russell wrote: »

Planting trees is a good response. Trees not only capture carbon, they reduce water run off and stabilise the soil, plus help with wildlife and bio-diversity (depending on the variety of trees planted).

As for scrubbing the carbon from the chimney exhaust - do not put the carbon in the fire at the bottom and you do not need to remove it from the chimney.

Trees are great but won't do enough.

There are some things we do that release greenhouse gases that it's hard to see any clear alternative for. So for example, concrete and steel production. Or even some amount of livestock farming (can't see how this goes fully to 0). Hence I think we'll need some form of carbon capture technology in order to get net 0.

riddlinrussell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Planting trees is a good response. Trees not only capture carbon, they reduce water run off and stabilise the soil, plus help with wildlife and bio-diversity (depending on the variety of trees planted).

As for scrubbing the carbon from the chimney exhaust - do not put the carbon in the fire at the bottom and you do not need to remove it from the chimney.

Preaching to the converted re-trees, but they aren't a panacea for carbon capture, as recent headlines regarding the Amazon rainforest now releasing more carbon than it captures show, its not as simple as 'trees good', there is a bit of work to maximise that, and balance it with soil fixing and biodiversity.

I don't think we should just ignore artificial capture options, especially as some greenhouse gases likely will not be absorbed as easily as CO2.

Banana Republic 1

Amirani wrote: »

Trees are great but won't do enough.

There are some things we do that release greenhouse gases that it's hard to see any clear alternative for. So for example, concrete and steel production. Or even some amount of livestock farming (can't see how this goes fully to 0). Hence I think we'll need some form of carbon capture technology in order to get net 0.

Steel and concrete can utilise green energy.

From what I know about current artificial carbon capture tech they need energy to work. Having a gas/coal plant long side the carbon capture plant is a gigantic red hearing. There a couple of places that take power from wind farms but then they take energy from the grid, it’s the same as the biofuel scam.
Current practise for the captured carbon is to pump it down oil and gas wells to get more out which completely defeats the purpose.

If we stopped over fishing the seas it would by far and away more beneficial for extracting carbon from the atmosphere.

embraer170

bk wrote: »

Talking of coal plants and Moneypoint, the ESB today revealed their plans for it:

https://esb.ie/tns/press-centre/2021/2021/04/09/esb-announces-green-atlantic-@-moneypoint
https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0408/1208579-esb-moneypoint/

It will become a green energy hub, called "Green Atlantic at Moneypoint"

- Building worlds largest Synchronous Compensator to support more reneable energy on the grid.
- 1,400MW Offshore Windfarm
- Wind turbine construction hub to support the wind farms
- Hydrogen production, storage and generation facility

The devil will be in the detail, but sounds good.

Are there any large floating windfarms in operation?

antoinolachtnai

embraer170 wrote: »

Are there any large floating windfarms in operation?

There are not.

Nor are there any large scale hydrogen electrolyzing plants.

Nor are there any small modular nuclear reactor sets.

The whole world is facing a technology gap which has to be somehow bridged. We have our own unique issues here, but it’s not just Ireland.

Sam Russell

embraer170 wrote: »

Are there any large floating windfarms in operation?

There are drilling platforms that could be a model for the floating bit. There is a small scale floating windmill in Scotland.

So the only new bit will be getting the power/energy from the floating bit to Moneypoint. That might be the biggest problem.

Capt'n Midnight

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There are not.

Nor are there any large scale hydrogen electrolyzing plants.

Nor are there any small modular nuclear reactor sets.

The whole world is facing a technology gap which has to be somehow bridged. We have our own unique issues here, but it’s not just Ireland.

Hundreds of small modular nuclear reactor sets have been used since the 1950's but they haven't been commercialised yet.

Mostly used by the military were cost just isn't an issue. Same is true of supersonic jets.

loyatemu

Sam Russell wrote: »

There are drilling platforms that could be a model for the floating bit. There is a small scale floating windmill in Scotland.

So the only new bit will be getting the power/energy from the floating bit to Moneypoint. That might be the biggest problem.

In fairness I think the plan to build a floating windfarm about 50 times the capacity of the only currently operating example is going to be a problem as well.

gjim

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Given the reluctance of corporations and governments to move to genuinely clean energy and zero emissions, I can see some sort of artificial carbon capture becoming vital, just not as an alternative to zero emissions, more to reverse some of the damage we have done.

I'm not sure where you see this reluctance? There has been a large and dramatic shift into renewable energy generation in the last decade globally. In Ireland - in the last 10 years we've gone from under 20% electricity from wind to over 50%. The goal of 75%+ wind-generation without any fancy new technology looks feasible and nearly likely in the next decade.

The huge drop in prices for the technology which directly supports decarbonising energy production (in the last decade, wind turbines have fallen in price by 80-90%, batteries by 98%, etc.) is driving this revolution. This trend hasn't even started levelling off yet. So, I see little future for smoke stack CO2 scrubbers for example - it feels like trying to engineer a fancy exhaust system for diesel cars when the simpler and more effective solution is to buy a battery electric vehicle instead.

Firblog

loyatemu wrote: »

In fairness I think the plan to build a floating windfarm about 50 times the capacity of the only currently operating example is going to be a problem as well.

Wonder why they want to build off the west coast, surely much more exposed to bad weather than east coast? Could it be because they're afraid of objections from those who don't want to see windmills interrupting their expensive sea views?

Firblog

Firblog wrote: »

Wonder why they want to build off the west coast, surely much more exposed to bad weather than east coast? Could it be because they're afraid of objections from those who don't want to see windmills interrupting their expensive sea views?

East coast is suitable for turbines constructed into the seabed as its much shallower

On the west coast, they are looking at going something like 20-40km off the coast. Its too deep to do the same, hence floating turbines which are moored to the seabed.

To be honest I'm really excited for this project. If they manage it, and utilise the excess for green hydrogen production, Ireland could be to green hyydrogen what Kuwait is to oil production and the state coffers could benefit handsomely from it

cnocbui

Firblog wrote: »

Wonder why they want to build off the west coast, surely much more exposed to bad weather than east coast? Could it be because they're afraid of objections from those who don't want to see windmills interrupting their expensive sea views?

Prevailing wind direction and strength?

Personally I am dubious of such a scheme due to the marine biospheres relentless capacity to try and sink large floating things and the incessant attempts by the sea to corrode affordable metals. I also suspect there will be a not inconsiderable number of serious and fatal industrial accidents.

The nuclear power industry has an enviable industrial safety record.

gjim

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The whole world is facing a technology gap which has to be somehow bridged. We have our own unique issues here, but it’s not just Ireland.

What big technology gap do you see?

Solar and wind are displacing all other forms of electricity generation (except natural gas) globally at the moment, and it seems getting to 70%+ renewable generation is quite achievable without any radical new technology. I don't think it's too bold to predict Ireland will achieve 70%+ renewable electricity within a decade.

With such a rate of renewable generation, allowing domestic customers access to dynamic electricity prices via smart-meters should mean extremely low electricity prices for time insensitive uses - e.g. charging electric vehicle batteries or providing "base load" domestic heating. Thus supporting the switch to BEVs for transport and displacing oil/gas for domestic heating - two of the other major sources of CO2.

None of this is rocket science or requires a technological breakthrough. Technological breakthroughs will be welcome of course but we're many years away from reaching the limit of what can be achieved with the current technologies.

antoinolachtnai

The sun doesn’t shine at night. In Ireland PV makes basically no contribution to the peak load.

The wind sometimes goes calm.

There is certainly something to be done with demand management but in the end that will only even out the load across the day or maybe shift it in the week. It won’t allow you to compensate or deal with long lulls. And the technology to do this is obvious enough in principle but it isn’t actually in place. (There are other big issues here too. In reality there is not that much difference between peak and off peak wholesale prices for much of the year. The way electricity services are charged for needs to change to provide the benefits you rightly point to.)

So some sort of medium-term storage is needed.

(There are also issues with grid inertia which need technological solutions. This is an immediate issue. Wind and solar can only be 75 percent at peak. This makes it very difficult to reach 75 percent overall renewables)

In terms of wind, all the most attractive onshore sites are occupied already. Every further site is more difficult and lower yield. Fixed offshore opens up new possibilities but there are only so many suitable sites.

Offshore floating wind opens up a vast number of potential locations. Ireland is taking a global leadership role here which is very interesting and exciting. It’s exciting because once built, floating wind can be moved by sea to anywhere in the world that it is needed.

Another feasible direction is more cost effective and manageable nuclear units. This obviously isn’t a direction that suits Ireland to take the initiative on.

Sam Russell

cnocbui wrote: »

Prevailing wind direction and strength?

Personally I am dubious of such a scheme due to the marine biospheres relentless capacity to try and sink large floating things and the incessant attempts by the sea to corrode affordable metals. I also suspect there will be a not inconsiderable number of serious and fatal industrial accidents.

The nuclear power industry has an enviable industrial safety record.

There is experience in this - ships. They appear to be able to survive a reasonable time at sea. Also, drilling platforms appear to last a reasonable time at sea.

josip

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is experience in this - ships. They appear to be able to survive a reasonable time at sea. Also, drilling platforms appear to last a reasonable time at sea.

Ships can shelter and avoid the worst of the weather.
Valid point about the drilling platforms.

Sam Russell

josip wrote: »

Ships can shelter and avoid the worst of the weather.
Valid point about the drilling platforms.

Also, the use of metal for the construction is not essential. Concrete has been used for ships in the past, and for drilling platforms, but it is not used for ships generally, and perhaps currently not at all.

Yellow_Fern

Deleted User wrote: »

East coast is suitable for turbines constructed into the seabed as its much shallower

On the west coast, they are looking at going something like 20-40km off the coast. Its too deep to do the same, hence floating turbines which are moored to the seabed.

To be honest I'm really excited for this project. If they manage it, and utilise the excess for green hydrogen production, Ireland could be to green hyydrogen what Kuwait is to oil production and the state coffers could benefit handsomely from it

Kuwait without the royalties. There are fundamental reasons why wind can never generate the revenue that petrostates raised. not least due the lack of lack of taxation but also because the amount of energy weare talking about is vastly less than Kuwait.

Sam Russell

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Kuwait without the royalties. There are fundamental reasons why wind can never generate the revenue that petrostates raised. not least due the lack of lack of taxation but also because the amount of energy weare talking about is vastly less than Kuwait.

But also without the threat of invasion and war.

riddlinrussell

gjim wrote: »

I'm not sure where you see this reluctance? There has been a large and dramatic shift into renewable energy generation in the last decade globally. In Ireland - in the last 10 years we've gone from under 20% electricity from wind to over 50%. The goal of 75%+ wind-generation without any fancy new technology looks feasible and nearly likely in the next decade.

The huge drop in prices for the technology which directly supports decarbonising energy production (in the last decade, wind turbines have fallen in price by 80-90%, batteries by 98%, etc.) is driving this revolution. This trend hasn't even started levelling off yet. So, I see little future for smoke stack CO2 scrubbers for example - it feels like trying to engineer a fancy exhaust system for diesel cars when the simpler and more effective solution is to buy a battery electric vehicle instead.

I'm not referring to scrubbers on coal plants, Carbon Capture meaning sucking in carbon filled air from the atmosphere and capturing the carbon out of it, putting it into some storable or useable form. Obviously all non renewables should be phased out as soon as possible.

bob mcbob

embraer170 wrote: »

Are there any large floating windfarms in operation?

There is a small commercial windfarm in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland.

It is also the best performing wind farm in the UK.

https://www.energylivenews.com/2021/03/24/hywind-scotland-remains-uks-best-performing-offshore-wind-farm/

bk

Where Carbon capture and storage (CCS) will come into play, is where there isn't any good (or reasonably priced) alternative to producing greenhouse gases.

For instance, how do we heat our homes. New builds should obviously be highly insulated and use heat pumps, but for the millions of older homes, it will cost a fortune to renovate them and insulate them all to that standard and it will take time.

Thus it may make sense to continue heating them with natural gas (mixed with some hydrogen) and then use CCS to offset the greenhouse gases produced by the NG heating.

Other examples would be farming, etc.

Of course the key to all of this is to have more wind power then we actually use and only use this excess wind for the CCS.

bk

bob mcbob wrote: »

There is a small commercial windfarm in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland.

It is also the best performing wind farm in the UK.

https://www.energylivenews.com/2021/03/24/hywind-scotland-remains-uks-best-performing-offshore-wind-farm/

Fantastic videos of this project here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgCA5e7K7r8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcy4uOEdKY

Looks great, with excellent performance and it looks like our Norwegian friends could easily build these and float them down to us.

BTW They are now building another offshore floating windfarm off the cost of Norway too.