Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Energy infrastructure

Options
17374767879180

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,047 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    He'll just go from a singular data point to it's an anomalous month ... then year.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    This is why we are expanding the wind energy sector in Ireland



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    the proponents of wind keep ignoring the massive cost of backup (whether hydro or battery) that will be required and are happy to burn coal and gas as backup

    Nope. 80% production is the 2030 goal, the remaining 20% and storage are the 2050 goal.

    Until then we'll keep using gas as the lowest co2 fossil fuel as a stepping stone.

    Personally, I'd love if we could ditch it tomorrow, but being pragmatic, it's needed for the interim period



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,678 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    I have a power monitor unit (Current Costs given to me by my supplier) on my electricity that reports the current power consumption and the daily, weekly, and monthly consumption.

    Now it averages about 7 to 8 KWh per day. I do not use electricity for domestic heating - just oven cooking. I checked the quiescent consumption at night when everything is off - except the fridge, battery charging, and the broadband router, plus ancillary standby units like TVs.

    This standby consumption was averaging about 130 w, dropping to 100 w with everything off except the router, and various clocks. Now that works out as 2.4 kwh to 3.3 kwh per day or 30% to 40% of my electricity consumed. Can that be right?

    That is a huge percentage that I should reduce. How do I go about doing so?

    Is this typical of many households or am I an exception?



  • Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭Zardaz


    100W quiescent consumption for just a router and clocks is a little high, unless you have a data centre there.

    Router should be <20W. Chargers, say 10W each max.

    Are you sure the fridge or freezer isn't plugged in? (The compressor will kick in and out though, so the draw is variable)

    Any Outside lights left on? Attic light/antifreeze heater up there? Heated plant propagators? Dimmer switches? Night Lights?

    You might try turning on and off individual MCBs/Fuses in your switchboard to better isolate it.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,678 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    I turned off the fridge/freezer which brought it down to 100w or so. I also turned off the network plugs - again I cannot see them consuming much.

    Turning off TVs etc did little. No outside lights or other things. CH was on, not sure what that would consume with no heat operating. I will try turning off the router tonight and see how much that saves.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,382 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Fridge is probably the biggest one. And most of the preventable energy loss is the cold air being replaced with warm air each time you open the door. Some people have moved to chest freezers with a different thermostat as a way to avoid this. Plus you get more insulation on a freezer.

    For TV / computer you can get master/slave power sockets. So things like DVD, speakers, non-recording devices are all completely powered down when the TV is off. Central heating pump. Illuminated door bells. Depends on how far you want to go to get close to zero.

    Cooker and Microwaves with clocks are a PITA. In this day and age you should not have to reset the clock when you power off completely or they should be using negligible power when off.


    Newer devices use less power but for things like laptops it's not really worth upgrading early for €30 a year savings. (for electronics much of the cost is the energy used in production down to mining the raw materials )


    Really what should happen is that more smart devices should be promoted so the grid can self load balance better. And they don't even need to be that internet-smart , just looking at the 50Hz mains frequency should be enough to let your immersion or electrical heating or fridge to know whether to start now or wait a wee bit. Ovens with more thermal mass (and no cooling fans) should also be able to do this for a few minutes once they reach temperature.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,678 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Note that whole home energy monitors can be quiet poor at measuring very low loads. It is possible that the 100w you are seeing is just a limitation of the device.

    “Really what should happen is that more smart devices should be promoted so the grid can self load balance better. And they don't even need to be that internet-smart , just looking at the 50Hz mains frequency should be enough to let your immersion or electrical heating or fridge to know whether to start now or wait a wee bit.”

    A company called Mixergy is doing exactly this in the UK, they have been featured on Fully Charged. It heats the hot water when electricity demand is low (and thus cheap) based on mains frequency and/or interfaces to energy company.

    I can see the same functionality being built into EV chargers too.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,678 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    A very interesting video by Real Engineering. I laughed when he said “BTU - British Thermal Units, a phrase I refuse to use!” 😂

    Intersting details about Natural Gas Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), while far from ideal, it looks like it could be a relatively easy solution to the last 20% problem, if no other better solution (e.g. hydrogen) comes along.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,382 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    IIRC 1 BTU = energy in a matchstick

    Carbon capture at source isn't great but it's miles better than carbon capture from the general atmosphere. Exposing powdered bedrock in central Asia or dumping iron or phosphorous into the sea to create algal blooms are other ways to extract carbon from the atmosphere but not as sexy for investors.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,678 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    IIRC 1 BTU = energy in a matchstick

    I recall my physics professor complaining of an American article that referred to a temperature of 'several thousand degrees (Fahrenheit)' saying that several thousand degrees was the same whether it was Celsius or Fahrenheit.

    SI units all the way.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,382 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    UK public consultation closed on Eirgrids submission on the 700MW Celtic Interconnector to France

    https://marinelicensing.marinemanagement.org.uk/mmofox5/fox/live/MMO_PUBLIC_REGISTER/search?area=3 case reference MLA/2021/0032


    The UK elements of the Celtic Interconnector (the Proposed Development) comprise:

    • A submarine circuit within the UK EEZ approximately 211km in length placed on or beneath the seabed. It passes approximately 30km west of the Isles of Scilly and approximately 75km west of Land’s End, but does not enter UK Territorial Waters.

    • Secondary rock protection using rock placement (if required), where target depth of cable lowering is not fully achieved or at cable crossings, with a linear extent of between 0km and 80km or 0 to 270 tonnes. See Figure 5.4 in the Environmental Report.

    • A fibre optic link shall be laid along the cable route for operational control, communication and telemetry purposes.Programme of works

    Subject to the grant of statutory approvals and all necessary consents, it is programmed that installation phase of the offshore route will commence in 2024, for it to become fully operational by 2027.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,382 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    If 'several' is taken to mean between 3 and 5 then there's no overlap at all because 5,000°F is less than 3,000°C.

    SI units all the way. Amen! *raises pint* A proper 568ml one that is.


    Just seen that the climate action pan includes producing 1.6TWh of biomethane a year. Call it 1TWh after conversion to electricity and it's 2.5% of annual demand or potentially 9 days of storable energy. Not much but it would help undermine the argument that wind doesn't always blow.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,678 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    His point was that an imprecise number is still imprecise whether you specify it as F or C degrees, and I think it was millions rather than thousands and might have been the temperature of the surface of the sun.

    Also, I do not think he liked non SI units either.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,460 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    I find the bio - methane plan interesting ,but I wonder how much diesel it would take to transport feedstock in and digestate out and spread it - obviously waste products like slurry and food waste are prime candidates - but grass clover ,maize and even fodder beet could be grown specially ,and stored ... As could algae and seaweed..

    The plus side of producing large amounts of fodder for feedstock would be less livestock on farms , so less methane emissions .. a double whammy ..

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,047 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    If this poster is correct, cows sequester around 3 times more CO2 than the methane is equivalent to:

    "A cow emits 100kg of methane in a full year..

    That's 2,800 kg's of CO2 equivalent for those who want to beef up their objection to cows.

    However the 5 tonnes of grass that cow eats in a year to make the methane, took in over 9 tonnes of CO2 in the year, just to grow."

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118515768/#Comment_118515768



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,382 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight



    The carbon stored in Grassland is way more than offset by carbon lost from drained soils nevermind the other sources.

    RTE Eco Eye season 20 episode 4 18:30 there's a nice 5 minute summary on how we account for 21m tonnes of emissions but don't account for another 10m tonnes of emissions from imported feed and fertilizer etc (compare that to a total of 12m tonnes for transport.)

    Beef and dairy agriculture are the biggest chunks of emissions where there isn't a decent roadmap for massive reduction. We're producing beef for ~20% less than in the UK so there'll be lots of demand.


    It's a huge carbon burden on the rest of our energy infrastructure which will be expected to decarbonise a lot of transport too.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,460 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    There are quite large plans for emission reduction in Irish farming , and more that's possible , but like everything else it'll cost - that drained peatland can relatively easily be rewetted , as long as it's paid for -

    Nitrous oxide emissions are mainly linked to fertilizer use , that can be reduced in intensive farming -

    And methane is an odd emission it's short lived - it's replacing previous methane emissions ,so methane levels from Irish farming ( and there greenhouse effects) are relatively constant - unlike carbon emissions which are cumulative ..

    Admittedly - a major reduction in methane emissions gives a very big reduction in greenhouse effect because methane is so potent early in it's cycle before it breaks down mostly in 10 to 20 years -

    Which is why environmental measures (like payments for fert use reduction , protecting wet-land,set aside areas along hedges and watercourses ) that compensate for decreased production , are a double benefit - and bio-methane from grassland could be a multifaceted program - reducing beef and dairy methane emission ,increasing carbon sequestration and providing renewable gas .. oh and significant rural employment ..

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,377 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    Is LPG compatible with the Bord gais network?

    The reason I ask is from another thread where we are talking about Russia and the gas going off etc, with the US promising to get alternative forms of gas to Europe so we won’t see a drop in supply.

    I presume the only way of doing this would be LPG?

    So I wonder how much Russian gas is used per day in Europe, how many LPG carrying ships would this require to transport the equivalent LPG, and is there specialist equipment needed to put the LPG in the national gas grid systems?

    Also I imagine the cost of shipping this LPG will send the price of gas through the roof and in turn electricity.

    Of course this is worst case scenario if Russia do decide to shut off the gas, so hopefully just a hypothetical question.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,382 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Seaweed should cut down methane emissions. Teagasc are working on local varieties.

    Vets sometimes have to puncture cows to let out the methane. No smoking in the vicinity! Technically it might be possible to capture methane at source but problems doing it and ethics isn't a county near London.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,382 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The gas network used to carry town gas and should be able to carry 20% hydrogen. But that changeover required, and a changeover to LPG would require, every burner to be checked / adjusted so not going to happen. You could add some LPG but no idea what the limits would be.

    All you need to compress LPG into a liquid is moderate pressure so you can have gas canisters in shops. LNG is typically transported at −160 °C so a wee bit more specialised.

    The US exports LNG so no need for LPG. Middle East also supply it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,377 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    So if “regular” gas is shut off from Russia it’s not really a quick fix to accept US or Middle Eastern shipments of LPG or LNG.

    Thats good to know and pretty important I imagine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,047 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    LNG is a suitable substitute, once converted from a cryogenic liquid to a room temp vapour. The main issue is you need an LNG terminal to handle the import side and we are blessed with Ryan, who's a really, really stupid green and is currently opposing constructing an LNG terminal on the Shannon which would allow energy independence. LNG terminals can get ships from anywhere that exports, pipelines can be shut off by the person on the other end.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The LNG terminal, isn't that where they want to offload the gas from the US, the shale/fracking gas?



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,826 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    In this part of the world,it will mostly be from the Arabian gulf.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,382 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Nearest LNG port might be Teeside in Yorkshire based on the route of the existing gas pipelines from Scotland.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,047 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    I'm not concerned about the sourcing of gas from democracies, unless it involves slave labour, unlike proponents of cheap Chinese solar panels.

    If the US government allows the production of gas by fracking, that's up to them and their electorate. I don't see why it should be your concern, unless you live in the US. Dictatorships and other places where the populace is not engaged in the decision making process, are another matter.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,377 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    I’ll take that over no gas and thus the risk of no electricity!!



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,382 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    How long would it take to get planning permission and build a working LNG terminal ?

    There's 1.2GW of interconnectors in the pipeline. Celtic to France 700MW, Greenlink to South Wales 500MW.

    That would give the island the ability to import (or export) 2.2GW which is a good chunk of minimum demand of 2.5GW



Advertisement