Energy infrastructure

josip

bk wrote: »

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.

Is the tug in that first vid the same tug that rescued the Dutch boat carrier recently?

RandomViewer

https://www.power-technology.com/news/russia-floating-nuclear-power-plant/

Park her down at the mouth of the Shannon

Banana Republic 1

Just saw this, floating solar farms.
https://theconversation.com/floating-solar-farms-could-cool-down-lakes-threatened-by-climate-change-157987

riddlinrussell

RandomViewer wrote: »

https://www.power-technology.com/news/russia-floating-nuclear-power-plant/

Park her down at the mouth of the Shannon

Honestly, this is a really interesting concept, instead of siting being utterly crucial to operation you can manufacture 100s of these in a few locations, then float them to wherever you want, put them in a sheltered bay and plug them into the grid. Unless you are somewhere with major tsunami risk you don't even have to worry about any but the most major earthquakes etc as there will be minimal impact on a floating object.

antoinolachtnai

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Honestly, this is a really interesting concept, instead of siting being utterly crucial to operation you can manufacture 100s of these in a few locations, then float them to wherever you want, put them in a sheltered bay and plug them into the grid. Unless you are somewhere with major tsunami risk you don't even have to worry about any but the most major earthquakes etc as there will be minimal impact on a floating object.

These units are being built to serve very remote settlements, typically in the Arctic. They are really expensive per megawatt as a result. (This one is said to have cost 230 million euros according to Wikipedia.)

riddlinrussell

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

These units are being built to serve very remote settlements, typically in the Arctic. They are really expensive per megawatt as a result. (This one is said to have cost 230 million euros according to Wikipedia.)

Yes, but isn't it the first of its kind? The first solar panel was ludicrously expensive per megawatt...

Obviously its never going to be 'cheap' but it could be 'cheaper', smaller scale and thus smaller total cost energy projects are likely to be a significant component of the national energy mix. Ireland is allergic to the word 'billion' so 230 million euros for this would be far more acceptable to the Irish public than trying to build an Irish "Hinckley Point C"

Sam Russell

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Yes, but isn't it the first of its kind? The first solar panel was ludicrously expensive per megawatt...

Obviously its never going to be 'cheap' but it could be 'cheaper', smaller scale and thus smaller total cost energy projects are likely to be a significant component of the national energy mix. Ireland is allergic to the word 'billion' so 230 million euros for this would be far more acceptable to the Irish public than trying to build an Irish "Hinckley Point C"

If it is floating, we could lease it for a few years and then let them tow it away at the end of the lease. Let someone else worry about the decommissioning cost.

josip

Sam Russell wrote: »

If it is floating, we could lease it for a few years and then let them tow it away at the end of the lease. Let someone else worry about the decommissioning cost.

I suspect it would magically run into difficulty on its decommissioning voyage and sink somewhere in the Barents Sea.
"Whoops, pity that."

bk

RandomViewer wrote: »

https://www.power-technology.com/news/russia-floating-nuclear-power-plant/

Park her down at the mouth of the Shannon

I watched a video about this vessel before, it has had a really long and tough history. It looked like a rusting wreck before they recently repainted it.

tom1ie

So are the wind turbines proposed at moneypoint one and two generating dc to an onshore inverter?
If so what sort of voltage are we talking about will be in the cable from the turbines to the inverter?
No real reason I’m asking, just nerdy. Also I’m parked outside ballymartin/smiths town wind farm and I’m interested how they transmit the power back on shore into the grid vs just having a pole line connected to a ground mounted sub on site at the “normal” wind farm.

antoinolachtnai

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Yes, but isn't it the first of its kind? The first solar panel was ludicrously expensive per megawatt...

Obviously its never going to be 'cheap' but it could be 'cheaper', smaller scale and thus smaller total cost energy projects are likely to be a significant component of the national energy mix. Ireland is allergic to the word 'billion' so 230 million euros for this would be far more acceptable to the Irish public than trying to build an Irish "Hinckley Point C"

It’s not really. These types of units are used on nuclear submarines and icebreakers for years as far as I know. Nobody is talking about these being commercially viable for well connected grids. The SMR designs are however oriented toward that sort of purpose.

Firblog

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Surely this is why the scheme should be located of the east coast, there are many more windfarms constructed like that, isn't it a more tried and tested technology? I'd understand proposing the plan for the west coast if most suitable sites had been utilized in the east.

Sam Russell

Firblog wrote: »

Surely this is why the scheme should be located of the east coast, there are many more windfarms constructed like that, isn't it a more tried and tested technology? I'd understand proposing the plan for the west coast if most suitable sites had been utilized in the east.

There is more wind out to sea on the west coast. Not only that, but there is more sea out to sea on the west coast.

If the costs stack up, then there is close to no limit on the west coast. We control a whole lot of continental shelf out there.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is more wind out to sea on the west coast. Not only that, but there is more sea out to sea on the west coast.

If the costs stack up, then there is close to no limit on the west coast. We control a whole lot of continental shelf out there.

This.

The possibilities for the West coast are insane as the potential area for use is massive

gjim

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

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.

I still don't see the "technology gap" you referred to previously that I was asking about.

Yes investments will have to be made in grid infrastructure, smart meters, etc. but that's a different matter to a claim that we've hit some sort of technological wall which blocks global progress.

We are at least a decade away from the known limits of decarbonising electricity production using current technology.

Considering wind alone, Ireland is at 50% renewable (wind) generation and this number continues to increase. The likes of Denmark have a concrete plan to get their wind number from 50% to 80%+ over the next 10 years. Europe as a whole is only at about 30% and the US is at just under 25% renewable at the moment so there's huge scope for global renewables expansion solely with current technology.

The predictions - from 10 or 20 years ago - about how intermittent sources could never contribute more than a small fraction (10 to 15%) to electricity supply without destabilising the grid have turned out it be false.

Of other stuff you mention: things like (cheap) medium term storage would be nice to have but is not essential yet; we are nowhere near running out of sites for onshore wind; nuclear is deader than coal - it's been in global decline since the 80s - too expensive and is clearly unnecessary to achieve the switch to renewables.

gjim

gjim wrote: »

The likes of Denmark have a concrete plan to get their wind number from 50% to 80%+ over the next 10 years.

The Danes are going a lot, LOT further than that.

They have about 2 million homes at the moment, but have started a project to generate enough off-shore power for up to 10 million homes, with connections to Sweden, Poland & Germany and infrastructure for power to "x" but likely green hydrogen production

josip

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is more wind out to sea on the west coast. Not only that, but there is more sea out to sea on the west coast.

If the costs stack up, then there is close to no limit on the west coast. We control a whole lot of continental shelf out there.

What would be the cost of getting this power ashore?
The 500km, 700MW interconnector will cost €930m.
The Moneypoint proposal I think is for 1.x GW but a lot shorter.

Capt'n Midnight

It can be done. Renewables met 97.4% of Scotland's electricity demand in 2020


PDF https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/statistics/2018/10/quarterly-energy-statistics-bulletins/documents/energy-statistics-summary---march-2021/energy-statistics-summary---march-2021/govscot%3Adocument/Scotland%2BEnergy%2BStatistics%2BQ4%2B2020.pdf

2020 was another record year for renewable electricity generation
in Scotland with 31.8 TWh generated,
...
Scotland’s net exports of electricity (exports minus imports) in 2020
was its highest to date at 19.3 TWh

Sam Russell

What is the likely value of hydrogen gas generated from excess electricity? If one Kw of electricty is worth, say, 10c - how much is the hydrogen gas generated by that Kw of electricity?

Is the Oxygen that is also generated of any real value?

Is the hydrogen best used in transport or heating or replacement for natural gas to generate electricity when the wind does not blow?

loyatemu

Firblog wrote: »

Surely this is why the scheme should be located of the east coast, there are many more windfarms constructed like that, isn't it a more tried and tested technology? I'd understand proposing the plan for the west coast if most suitable sites had been utilized in the east.

they are building loads of turbines on the East coast
https://codlingwindpark.ie/
https://dublinarray.com/

riddlinrussell

Sam Russell wrote: »

What is the likely value of hydrogen gas generated from excess electricity? If one Kw of electricty is worth, say, 10c - how much is the hydrogen gas generated by that Kw of electricity?

Is the Oxygen that is also generated of any real value?

Is the hydrogen best used in transport or heating or replacement for natural gas to generate electricity when the wind does not blow?

I believe there is a hydrogen storage facility planned in Northern Ireland, I thought it essentially acted as a storage battery and would be fed back into the grid when needed?

loyatemu

Sam Russell wrote: »

What is the likely value of hydrogen gas generated from excess electricity? If one Kw of electricty is worth, say, 10c - how much is the hydrogen gas generated by that Kw of electricity?

Is the Oxygen that is also generated of any real value?

Is the hydrogen best used in transport or heating or replacement for natural gas to generate electricity when the wind does not blow?

I don't know about value, but on the discussion about Hydrogen-powered buses someone stated that the efficiency of energy storage from making hydrogen was around 25%, i.e. 1kW of electricity produces 250W of Hydrogen, so it compares poorly to battery storage.

Sam Russell

loyatemu wrote: »

I don't know about value, but on the discussion about Hydrogen-powered buses someone stated that the efficiency of energy storage from making hydrogen was around 25%, i.e. 1kW of electricity produces 250W of Hydrogen, so it compares poorly to battery storage.

I am not surprised at such a low figure.

Would a fuel cell be a better way of using it?

Also, batteries are better for stationary use as the heavy battery does not require to be carted around.

antoinolachtnai

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It can be done. Renewables met 97.4% of Scotland's electricity demand in 2020


PDF https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/statistics/2018/10/quarterly-energy-statistics-bulletins/documents/energy-statistics-summary---march-2021/energy-statistics-summary---march-2021/govscot%3Adocument/Scotland%2BEnergy%2BStatistics%2BQ4%2B2020.pdf

Exports minus imports is what they are reckoning it off. It is quite a different sort of thing. They are able to use England (which has a massive industrial and population base and diverse generation) as a sort of battery.

plodder

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

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.

On the grid inertia issue, they have plans for the largest synchronous condenser/compensator in the world. It's mentioned in the ESB's own presser.

It's great to see bold plans like this. Only a few years ago people were predicting major grid instability with the current levels of renewables.

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

loyatemu

Sam Russell wrote: »

I am not surprised at such a low figure.

Would a fuel cell be a better way of using it?

I think that is using the H in a fuel cell (that's what the buses use).
I don't know the figure for is for using H to generate electricity in a traditional turbine (I think that's fairly new tech).

Sam Russell

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Exports minus imports is what they are reckoning it off. It is quite a different sort of thing. They are able to use England (which has a massive industrial and population base and diverse generation) as a sort of battery.

Is that not the purpose of the interconnectors built and planned?

bob mcbob

Sam Russell wrote: »

What is the likely value of hydrogen gas generated from excess electricity? If one Kw of electricty is worth, say, 10c - how much is the hydrogen gas generated by that Kw of electricity?

Is the Oxygen that is also generated of any real value?

Is the hydrogen best used in transport or heating or replacement for natural gas to generate electricity when the wind does not blow?

Here are details on planned site in Glasgow. It is venture between Scottish Power, ITM and BOC (formerly British Oxygen Co) so it looks like they may have a use for the Oxygen as well.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-56721727

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/sep/16/scottish-green-hydrogen-scheme-gears-up-to-fuel-ferries-buses-and-trains

I think the main thing is that when the wind is blowing overnight there is little demand for electricity so producing hydrogen at this time is perfect.

antoinolachtnai

Sam Russell wrote: »

Is that not the purpose of the interconnectors built and planned?

We’ll never have the same amount of interconnection as Scotland. We’re just not as well located viz Britain and the North Sea.

323

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.

Spent most of the last 25 years involved in offshore and subsea construction/installation. It's actually quite straightforward, know many of the installation team that did the five full scale Hywind units planted off the NE of Scotland a few years ago.

I turned down an offer to work on that one, project was too short. Had quite a lot of communications with the concept designers 2007/2008 before the original Hywind demonstrator was installed close to Karmøy, in Norway 12 years ago. Even then Equinor's plan was for a 1000 unit floating field in the upper North Sea.


Think the idea is a no brainer.

Wind resource on our west coast is considerably better than where Hywind units are installed off Peterhead, just a demonstration project but they are showing a very good return I believe.


Be nice to think permitting might be a bit quicker that to usual 10/11 years for wind energy projects in Ireland atm, wait an see.



Worked