Electricity supply, what the news doesn't say.

Typedef

With respect to the fine job that the ESB does in supplying electricity to the nation, I happend across the closure of a peat power station on the national news in case you missed it http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/0226/newsinbrief.html

The ESB is to close down another power station in the Midlands. The company will cease operations at the peat-burning unit in Rhode, County Offaly. An industrial accident occurred at the plant in May last year. One hundred workers at the station will be relocated or offered severance terms. Rhode was built in the early 1960s.

On further investigation of the ESB website however I thought there were some ancillary and interesting pertinant facts to append to the offical state boradcast.

http://www.esb.ie/main/news_events/press_release120.jsp

In short

26th February 2002. The ESB Board today approved an additional EUR6.9m capital expenditure for two new peat stations in the midlands, which will create up to 1,200 jobs during construction phase. Government policy supports the continued long term use of peat, an indigenous fuel resource in Ireland and ESB welcomes the approval by Minister Mary O'Rourke TD of its investments to ensure the progression of this new peat project.

The ESB Board also decided today that the Rhode peat plant in County Offaly could not be brought back into operation in a manner which would ensure the safety of the people working there.

As peat fired stations produce massive amounts of pollution, cerosotes for example, 'cerosote' is the substance recently found in Waterford harbour, I thought that people might benefit from some more information on this issue.

bonkey

The peat stations have always been a contentious issue.

Yes, they put out relatively large amounts of pollutants, but they are comparetively small stations, thus their total contribution to pollution was deemed to be acceptable.

The closing/building of stations is a weird one. AFAIK, it has been deemed more effective to close a number of the older, smaller stations and to replace them with fewer, newer, smaller, safer ones.

There was also an amount of behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing in deciding the closure of the plants. It may not be the Rhodes plant, but I know one was shut because the unions asked for too much to do a renovation, making such a project unfeasible. Crazily, they had already been told that if they kept their mouths shut during the initial feasability study, they could put (and get) their demands once the project was approved.

This, of course, could be slightly coloured from the ESB source I heard it from.

In principle, I agree with Typedef, that we shouldnt be using peat stations at all, but I guess the mentality is that why not use our own natural resources rather than buying from others who are willing to use their own. Its the age-old economy vs ecology problem again.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by Typedef
As peat fired stations produce massive amounts of pollution, cerosotes for example, 'cerosote' is the substance recently found in Waterford harbour, I thought that people might benefit from some more information on this issue.

Eh, I'm not sure if this is a valid argument. I don't know how much soot the new plants will create, probably very little (and much less than esisting one). Creosote is more an issue with timber power / phone poles and railway sleepers (it is the black tar like substance) and I have only heard of specific concerns in relation to handling (like many complex polycarbons, it is carcinogenic in large doses), production and disposal, not with use or occassional contact.

The arguments against peat stations are primarily directed against the destruction of bogs (valid, but not absolute) and the higher CO2 emmission per KWh compared to say natural gas.

The harvesting / destruction of bogs here is generally done in a controlled manner. Many are / will be turned into forests and will operate as biomass resouces in the future.

azezil

well i must say this comes as a surprise to me, from a power production point of view.

From what i've heard the electricy grid is currently running at near full capacity and during winter they can't produce enough electricity and have to rent portable generators over from Germany (i think).

As for using our natural resources, which is more harmful to the environment burning coal or peat? both from the point of view of harvesting the resource and the toxins produced from burning.