Energy infrastructure

josip

Markcheese wrote: »

https://silvermineshydro.ie/

Haven't heard much of it recently , so don't know if it's dead or not ,
It was being projected to be 6 or 7 hundred million , but it'd be a damn big battery ... At 360 mw ,

Turlough Hill is 292MW according to Wikipedia (just for reference)

Markcheese

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've often heard that the turlough hill project came down to a shortlist of two, but have never heard what the rejected location was.

Would the environmental impact cripple doing another "mountain" based scheme ?
Pity In a way , turlough hill has been there for decades and still as effective as the day it opened ,and probably more useful now ..

josip

What would be the environmental impact of the project?
Replacing uninspiring Sitka, habitat-killing Coillte forest with a lake?

magicbastarder

i assume it'd more be along the lines of the overall environmental impact; rather than localised ecological one.

Capt'n Midnight

tom1ie wrote: »

Well I suppose the question is if we are massively increasing our capacity of renewable energy to get to as close as possible to 100%, there will be a huge amount of time when supply outstrips demand.
Therefore that excess supply has to go somewhere so why not into creating hydrogen that can fuel the hgv fleet or be transformed back into electricity if that need should arise at peak time.

You could also add some hydrogen to the gas supply.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/gas-networks-ireland-to-test-hydrogen-as-energy-supply-1.4313996

Apogee

BBC article on pilot project using liquefied air in UK, but interesting in context of discussion above:
UK energy plant to use liquid air

As usual, the report makes no mention of capacity. But there is info on project's website:

Highview wrote:

The 50 MW/250 MWh project is a clean large-scale energy storage facility that can help the UK achieve its goal of decarbonising industry, power, heat, and transport.

It can store energy for weeks, instead of hours or days, and at approximately £110/MWh for a for a 10-hour, 200 MW / 2 GWh system, the CRYOBattery™ offers the lowest levelized cost of storage for large-scale applications.

Capt'n Midnight

Having ways to capture excess energy means you can incorporate more renewables into the mix. Overcapacity means less times when you have to rely on fossil fuel top-ups.


The difference between our summer and winter demand is about 1GW most of which would be for heating buildings and water.

Better insulation and smart controls, perhaps that respond to frequency shift should be able to by reducing demand for short periods or boosting heating a little when there is oversupply.



Ammonia production uses something like 1% of global energy use. Nitrogen from the air is combined with Hydrogen under extreme conditions though there's a lot of research on that. It could be used as a fuel on ships. Way too smelly and toxic to use in vehicles.
https://cen.acs.org/energy/renewables/Ammonia-route-fuel-ships-planes/98/i31?PageSpeed=noscript

Topsoe forecasts in its study that the cost of green ammonia from solar and wind energy will be
$21.50–45.70 per GJ in 2025, dropping to
$13.50–15.00 in 2040. Fuel oil today is priced at
$12.50–15.00 per GJ.
Ammonia can be mixed with fuel oil, enabling its use to be increased steadily.

tom1ie

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Having ways to capture excess energy means you can incorporate more renewables into the mix. Overcapacity means less times when you have to rely on fossil fuel top-ups.


The difference between our summer and winter demand is about 1GW most of which would be for heating buildings and water.

Better insulation and smart controls, perhaps that respond to frequency shift should be able to by reducing demand for short periods or boosting heating a little when there is oversupply.



Ammonia production uses something like 1% of global energy use. Nitrogen from the air is combined with Hydrogen under extreme conditions though there's a lot of research on that. It could be used as a fuel on ships. Way too smelly and toxic to use in vehicles.
https://cen.acs.org/energy/renewables/Ammonia-route-fuel-ships-planes/98/i31?PageSpeed=noscript

In this era of interconnected grids it’s important to collect all the electrons we produce and store as much as we can, and then export to countries that don’t have access to clean renewables.
First step is to get our own grid to 100% renewable via some sort of storage coupled with green electricity production.

CatInABox

That wind turbine project out on the Kish and Bray banks is in the news again, this time because they're launching a public consultation. Rather unusual, seeing as it's unnecessary for them to do so. Wonder if it's just publicity they're after, or does their reasoning actually have something behind it? Would it not get through ABP as is, or do they actually need legal changes beforehand?

See here.

ED E

josip wrote: »

Turlough Hill is 292MW according to Wikipedia (just for reference)

Dinorwig is 1700MW, Turlough is a wee baby.

plodder

CatInABox wrote: »

That wind turbine project out on the Kish and Bray banks is in the news again, this time because they're launching a public consultation. Rather unusual, seeing as it's unnecessary for them to do so. Wonder if it's just publicity they're after, or does their reasoning actually have something behind it? Would it not get through ABP as is, or do they actually need legal changes beforehand?

See here.

I took a look at the photo montages and they are pretty reasonable. They probably want people to look at them rather than just read headlines (like in the IT) saying "Up to 60 Super-size Wind Turbines planned for Dublin Bay", which creates a totally different impression

riddlinrussell

plodder wrote: »

I took a look at the photo montages and they are pretty reasonable. They probably want people to look at them rather than just read headlines (like in the IT) saying "Up to 60 Super-size Wind Turbines planned for Dublin Bay", which creates a totally different impression

I think this is just the era of the 'non-statutory consultation' for huge projects like this. It's no skin off their nose to run one, they'd have to prepare something similar (if less 'general public digestible') for their planning application anyway, and this way they can point to it, to objections and concerns raised that are addressed in their ABP submission and can say the people potentially affected have been listened to.

Markcheese

tom1ie wrote: »

In this era of interconnected grids it’s important to collect all the electrons we produce and store as much as we can, and then export to countries that don’t have access to clean renewables.
First step is to get our own grid to 100% renewable via some sort of storage coupled with green electricity production.

I can't see how you'd get to 100 % renewables in the foreseeable future , and I'd be wary of not setting an achievable ( and economic) target such as eirgrids current 70 or 80 % renewables by 2030 ...

riddlinrussell

Markcheese wrote: »

I can't see how you'd get to 100 % renewables in the foreseeable future , and I'd be wary of not setting an achievable ( and economic) target such as eirgrids current 70 or 80 % renewables by 2030 ...

100% renewable would be a combination of live generation from wind/solar/geo plus stored load (Turlough Hill + Silvermines + Other Battery Storage) plus imported renewable surplus, rather than just live generation.

I'd say its a fair way off, but mainly through Nuclear not being considered renewable and the French base we will import from being mostly that.

Markcheese

Heard the uk are pushing on with another edf nuclear power station at sizewell in suffolk

BBC News - New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54754016

It was being touted elsewhere in the uk media that they could link their off peak nuclear production with hydrogen production , ( I'll see if I can find that ,) hydrogen production is getting more efficient ,but storage is still an issue )

Markcheese

http://www.fchea.org/in-transition/2020/5/11/using-nuclear-power-to-produce-green-hydrogen#:~:text=Using%20electricity%20and%20heat%20generated,less%20electricity%20than%20traditional%20electrolysis.

Not the uk connection ,but same message ..

bk

riddlinrussell wrote: »

100% renewable would be a combination of live generation from wind/solar/geo plus stored load (Turlough Hill + Silvermines + Other Battery Storage) plus imported renewable surplus, rather than just live generation.

I'd say its a fair way off, but mainly through Nuclear not being considered renewable and the French base we will import from being mostly that.

Rather then saying "renewable", the goal is actually "net zero carbon".

Of course renewable technologies will play a massive part in that, but the zero carbon goal allows other, non renewable, but very low carbon emission technologies like Nuclear/Interconnectors, Carbon Capture & Storage, Batteries, etc to play a part in our energy mix.

I also wouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of good enough.

While of course we want to get to 100% zero carbon, we shouldn't let that get in the way of much more achievable short term goals like getting 70%

I'm of the opinion that 70% is very doable. Basically build a massive amount of offshore wind and use the gas plants as a backup when the wind isn't blowing.

Basically you are turning the base load idea on it's head, wind becomes our base load, with gas as the backup (+interconnectors, hydro, etc.).

Also smart meters and curtailment of optional energy will play a massive part in this IMO.

Getting beyond the 70% will be more difficult, but there are also lots of technologies in development that will be able to help with that, which will likely be much more mature when that time comes and we can have a better idea of the costs and pick and choose which to use to get to 100%.

I feel moving cars from oil to EV and heating from gas/coal/oil to electric + insulation even at 70% net zero, will be more important then just getting electricity on it's own to 100%.

It is the bigger picture of our energy use that needs to de-carbonised and not just electricity alone.

Sam Russell

Markcheese wrote: »

Heard the uk are pushing on with another edf nuclear power station at sizewell in suffolk

BBC News - New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54754016

It was being touted elsewhere in the uk media that they could link their off peak nuclear production with hydrogen production , ( I'll see if I can find that ,) hydrogen production is getting more efficient ,but storage is still an issue )

When I see 'nuclear' and 'hydrogen' in the same context, my mind jumps to 'Hydrogen Bomb'. Not a good connection.

Capt'n Midnight

Markcheese wrote: »

I can't see how you'd get to 100 % renewables in the foreseeable future , and I'd be wary of not setting an achievable ( and economic) target such as eirgrids current 70 or 80 % renewables by 2030 ...

Ideally you'd go beyond 100% and use the excess electricity to top up the gas mains. So yes you'd still have gas turbines for peaking plant and windless night. But it would be more than offset by the fossil fuel replaced by hydrogen anytime the renewables were producing.

Capt'n Midnight

Markcheese wrote: »

Heard the uk are pushing on with another edf nuclear power station at sizewell in suffolk

BBC News - New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54754016

It was being touted elsewhere in the uk media that they could link their off peak nuclear production with hydrogen production , ( I'll see if I can find that ,) hydrogen production is getting more efficient ,but storage is still an issue )

Oh yeah the fifth gen reactors that can split water thermally at high efficiency. Or even just operate at higher temperature which means higher thermal efficiency.

The basics were done back in the 1960's with NERVA


Sizewell is costed at £20Bn and a strike price of £40 and £60. (I expect both to climb relentlessly)
It's not cheap energy. It's more than the international community has invested in Fusion in ITER.

A big problem for nuclear is that it's even less economic if you aren't running most of the time.You can store hydrogen so it should be made from the most economic power. I can't see how hydrogen production from nuclear cold compete with the price of excess renewables, TBH sounds like another subsidy for nuclear.


For renewables Boris Johnson has pledged £160 million for offshore wind power.
That's slightly less than the £20,000m for Sizewell.

Markcheese

I think the British gov is actually investing in sizewell ,instead of expecting edf to front all the cash and repay it out of their strike rate as in hinkley C ,
Which is interesting , if they run well and don't massively overrun edf will do well ( in about 30 years time when they've paid off the debt ),
If they can't run pretty much continuously then edf will probably go bust ..
Interestingly the hydrogen part isn't edfs problem ,if they can produce the power it's sold onto the grid ,regardless of demand ..

Capt'n Midnight

Markcheese wrote: »

Interestingly the hydrogen part isn't edfs problem ,if they can produce the power it's sold onto the grid ,regardless of demand ..

They can't sell onto the grid unless the price at the going rate. Because it's base load it has to be a price taker. Because of the large size the spinning reserve has to be subsidised by other power producers.

Of the six sites originally identified a decade ago, three have seen contractors pull out and only one is under construction - at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

And IIRC renewables get first dibs on grid access.



One problem with nuclear is the delays from stuff that seems obvious in hindsight.

The Suffolk Safeguarding Partnership (SSP) – whose key members are the police, Suffolk County Council and the county’s health services – says there have been no risk assessments of the impact of the nuclear power station development on vulnerable groups and is calling for EDF Energy to hold a “risk summit” to examine the issues.

The partnership says it cannot support EDF’s proposals for the £20billion twin reactor as they stand.

Markcheese

I'm fairly certain that hinkly has agreed a guaranteed rate of 92.50 sterling per mwh,In 2012 ,Inflation linked for 35 years ...

Markcheese

Incidentaly ,I think both hinkly and sizewell are bonkers ...

gjim

Markcheese wrote: »

Incidentaly ,I think both hinkly and sizewell are bonkers ...

Agreed.

I used to argue in favour of nuclear on the basis of carbon reduction and cost. But actually the levelized cost of electricity generated by nuclear is very high and really it seems it's only feasible at all with massive government subsidy. I guess the cost can be justified if there's a secondary use like providing material for bombs or other strategic applications but otherwise, nah.

On-shore wind is a third of the price or less.

And just think of the logistics. Exaggerating but one guy with a spanner, a soldering iron and some 3-in-1 oil can maintain a wind-farm or a solar plant. Running a fusion nuclear plant requires a team of rocket scientists/engineers and super-expensive technicians working 24h a day and needs hi-tech armed security and sepecialised infrastructure and ports for fuel transport and storage. You need a lot of nuclear plants to amortise these costs - and small countries are never going have the 50 or 60 that France has.

And while providing a constant base-load is more useful than the unreliable output from wind or solar, nuclear is inflexible in other ways - you can't ramp up or down a nuclear plant in the timeframes required to react to daily fluctuations in demand like you can with combined cycle gas.

It's a technological cul-de-sac.

Sam Russell

gjim wrote: »

Agreed.

I used to argue in favour of nuclear on the basis of carbon reduction and cost. But actually the levelized cost of electricity generated by nuclear is very high and really it seems it's only feasible at all with massive government subsidy. I guess the cost can be justified if there's a secondary use like providing material for bombs or other strategic applications but otherwise, nah.

On-shore wind is a third of the price or less.

And just think of the logistics. Exaggerating but one guy with a spanner, a soldering iron and some 3-in-1 oil can maintain a wind-farm or a solar plant. Running a fusion nuclear plant requires a team of rocket scientists/engineers and super-expensive technicians working 24h a day and needs hi-tech armed security and sepecialised infrastructure and ports for fuel transport and storage. You need a lot of nuclear plants to amortise these costs - and small countries are never going have the 50 or 60 that France has.

And while providing a constant base-load is more useful than the unreliable output from wind or solar, nuclear is inflexible in other ways - you can't ramp up or down a nuclear plant in the timeframes required to react to daily fluctuations in demand like you can with combined cycle gas.

It's a technological cul-de-sac.

There is the major problem of nuclear waste for which there is no safe answer. The long term cost (long term = centuries) will only mount, as more waste is produced.

Nuclear is not an answer for Ireland.

Capt'n Midnight

gjim wrote: »

Agreed.

I used to argue in favour of nuclear on the basis of carbon reduction and cost. But actually the levelized cost of electricity generated by nuclear is very high and really it seems it's only feasible at all with massive government subsidy. I guess the cost can be justified if there's a secondary use like providing material for bombs or other strategic applications but otherwise, nah.

On-shore wind is a third of the price or less.

And just think of the logistics. Exaggerating but one guy with a spanner, a soldering iron and some 3-in-1 oil can maintain a wind-farm or a solar plant. Running a fusion nuclear plant requires a team of rocket scientists/engineers and super-expensive technicians working 24h a day and needs hi-tech armed security and sepecialised infrastructure and ports for fuel transport and storage. You need a lot of nuclear plants to amortise these costs - and small countries are never going have the 50 or 60 that France has.

EDF are French and are making heavy weather of building their current model.

One big problem is that if there is an upset the the company goes bankrupt. In the 10 years (nuclear takes flippin' ages) that the UK has been trying to get the next generation built a few of the prospective companies have left the industry.

And while providing a constant base-load is more useful than the unreliable output from wind or solar, nuclear is inflexible in other ways - you can't ramp up or down a nuclear plant in the timeframes required to react to daily fluctuations in demand like you can with combined cycle gas.

It's a technological cul-de-sac.

I'd argue that wind is more predictable in the sense that better computers mean you have a good idea how much power can be generated by wind for the next week whereas a large nuclear plant can just drop off the grid. Sometimes forever.


On our grid it's open cycle gas that would provide more of the load following, running at 2/3rd's power so they can ramp up another 50% if there's a disturbance in the force, and the more efficient combined cycle being more towards the base load supply. Turlough Hill can act as an electricity 'sink' so stopping it's pumps is another way to load balance.


Both renewables and nuclear benefit from storage and both need backup and pylons to remote places. Renewables break even far sooner so there's a lot less capital tied up in them.

Markcheese

Sizewell and hinkly are make or break for Edf ...
The British government is super keen to start the second power station ( third reactor ) , but it didn't look like it would happen without government funding ,( wether Edf were struggling to get funding on the market ,with their chinese backers now out ,
The japanese seem to have pulled out of building new stations in britain completely , and it looks like the chinese are persona non grata .. so it's Edf or no one ,

tom1ie

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is the major problem of nuclear waste for which there is no safe answer. The long term cost (long term = centuries) will only mount, as more waste is produced.

Nuclear is not an answer for Ireland.

It is if we are importing electricity from countries that generate excess electricity via nuclear.
Inter connectivity is so important for selling excess and providing an alternative to storing electricity (as inefficient as that is atm) in Ireland.

plodder

If we don't go for nuclear then we will be relying on gas for replacing wind when it's not available. Which means the recent court decision against the Shannon LNG terminal is disappointing.