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
17576788081180

Comments

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


    LOL I was talking about Ireland where we have capacity. We aren't England where they will be waiting years for nuclear power and even then it won't fully replace the plants closing down.

    In the case of Germany (nuclear can't escape politic anywhere) even after the shutdowns the output of the the remaining plants dropped to 80% and 66% for days this month. Even having 100 nuclear power plants doesn't mean reliability. The USA's total nuclear output dropped down to 76% for a while in October and were below 80% for nearly two weeks.

    In the case of France EDF have already forecast 10% less nuclear power this year and it's only January. They have to come up with an Ireland's worth of electricity.

    Averaged out over long enough (and ignoring construction delays, extended outages lasting months or years and early shutdowns etc.) nuclear delivers a high % of it's capacity factor. But nuclear plants have a habit of dropping off the grid with little or no warning so you need lots of spinning reserve. They can also stay offline for extended times so you need lots of backup too.

    And if you have to invest in spinning reserve and backup you can use them to support renewables which produce power at a fraction of the cost of nuclear which means you can now afford more storage which means you can accommodate more renewables.


    We have to decarbonise a lot of transport too this decade. This means a lot of storable energy will be needed. So more renewables.



  • Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    I am firmly against the Shannon LNG terminal as the company that would use it, New Fortress Energy, would use it to import fracked gas. Fracked gas is an even worse fossil fuel than coal, regarding the greenhouse gas released by it, because there is methane which leaks from the ground when it is extracted from it, and carbon dioxide released when it is burnt to generate electricity. There are also other negative impacts of fracking, such as contaminating water supplies in the areas where it takes place, which can seriously damage the health of people who drink or wash themselves with the water from these areas. Fracking can also cause earthquakes.

    The climate crisis is such an urgent global emergency, so there is absolutely a need to stop burning fossil fuels as soon as possible, replacing them with clean energy sources.



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


    I suppose the thing with an LNG terminal is flexibility ... Sure there could be gas from the states , but also from the Gulf , could even be ships from northern Russia ,

    And if we don't have a reliable gas supply .. we're not able to back up wind -

    So we wouldn't be getting 80% from renewables ...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,687 ✭✭✭eire4


    I totally agree with you about how bad and dangerous fracked gas is. No thanks.



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


    “And if we don't have a reliable gas supply .. we're not able to back up wind -“

    Except we can import all the gas we need over the interconnectors, which includes three LNG terminals in the UK.

    So I really don’t see why we need these.

    And of course ideally we won’t need gas at all in the long term. Instead using green hydrogen, storage, DC interconnectors, highly insulated homes and geothermal.



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


    Energy independence should be a primary aim. Interconnectors are for Germans and other simmilar species of stupids. Oh sorry, forgot I was still in Ireland - carry on, great ideas you have there.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    What is your proposal for long term energy independence that doesn't require another country to supply the fuel?



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


    I am not allowed to post my answer in this forum.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Ah ok, I know what you are talking about, and it would still require another country to supply the fuel, in fact our options for fuel for that option would be more restricted



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


    If there was a shortage of gas worldwide, would you be happy depending on the UK to keep allowing the gas into Ireland via the interconnectors?

    We don’t need an LNG terminal until we actually do. Too late then.


    Of course long term I do think large amounts of excess wind coupled with green hydrogen storage is the way forward.

    For the moment we need gas and we need it bad.



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


    "If there was a shortage of gas worldwide, would you be happy depending on the UK to keep allowing the gas into Ireland via the interconnectors?

    We don’t need an LNG terminal until we actually do. Too late then."

    If there is a world wide shortage of gas, then a LNG terminal isn't going to help!

    Corrib, our own gas supply will help.

    Plus the British would never cut off our Gas supply, because of course it is needed to supply North Ireland too.

    Plus Britain itself is a net importer of gas and electricity from the EU. If they cut us off, the EU would retaliate by cutting them off.

    As an aside the amount of gas we import from Britain represents just 6% of Britain gas usage. It is a pittance in the bigger picture. It is too small to bother cutting it off compared the political fallout of Northern Ireland and EU.

    It simply will never happen, you are all talking about pure fantasy.



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


    "Ah ok, I know what you are talking about, and it would still require another country to supply the fuel, in fact our options for fuel for that option would be more restricted"

    Plus we have zero experience with it. We would need to get a French state owned company to build and operate it, assuming you aren't getting Russian or Chinese state owned companies to do it instead! If you are worried about relying on foreign nations, I really don't see how this would help!

    Surely if we are worried about security of supply, the best road ahead is loads of wind + green hydrogen. We would be completely energy independent then.

    And if we do still need some gas, surely developing more of our own gas fields is FAR more independent then trying to import LNG.

    Also I don't get how anyone could be against interconnectors. Interconnectors could make us serious €€€€€€€. With our exiting interconnector to the UK we export twice as much as we import. But for the Norwaegian to UK interconnector it is 20:1. If we build lots more wind, we could come close to doing the same and making good money from it.

    Saying we shouldn't build interconnectors is like saying Russia shouldn't build gas pipelines or the Middle East Oil and Gas terminals. It is seriously dumb, this infrastructure is how we profit from our resources.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭gjim


    Germany SAIDI (average minutes of electricity loss per customer per year - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAIDI) is 12.2 minutes. For France it's 68 minutes - more than 5 times worse. Denmark is even lower - 11.25 - so suggesting more renewables reduces the reliability of the grid or that more nuclear makes a grid more reliable is demonstrably false.



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


    Geothermal using shallow heat pump is sorta solar with lots of thermal mass.

    There's one form where you use pump solar heated water in pipes under a house in summer so that the heat can rise over several months. Underfloor heating if you like. But you have to remember to turn the heat on half a year before you need it.


    Investing in insulation to reduce the amount of infrastructure needed in future is like investing in fibre broadband to facilitate working from home vs. building more roads and importing motor fuel year after year.

    Thicknesses to provide the same insulation, the thinner stuff is more expensive but might be retrofitted into existing spaces.

    Making vacuum insulation panels (VIP) cheaper or figuring out ways to replace fibreglass wall insulation with Polyurethane would reduce a lot of heating demand which would reduce the load on infrastructure and reduce the extra demand in winter.



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


    Well I meant gas that is delivered via the grid as opposed to us being able to accept LNG shipments directly into a terminal in Ireland.

    I was under the impression that corrib would be empty by 2025.

    That’s only three years away, just about enough time to prioritise the building of an LNG terminal.

    If we don’t by 2025 we’ll be back to importing gas to the tune of 96% of our needs, but being completely dependent on the interconnectors.

    http://ireland2050.ie/questions/when-will-gas-from-irish-sources-run-out/



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


    Did we have any experience with hydro before Ardnacrusha? Did we have experience with large wind turbines before someone put one up? What a stupid non-argument.

    No country has green hydrogen storage at grid scale. There might be a reason for that. Suggesting unproven tech as an answer to a problem is not a valid solution to that problem, it's idealism. As for interconnectors - one reason we export via interconnectors is that the financial geniuses on the receiving end are gettign the power for less than our government is paying the the turbine operators for it. And as if thet weren't bad enough, you do know that it's quite possible the majority of it is generated from coal and gas? I'ts not just wind power.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭embraer170


    Unfortunately hard to argue with this:




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


    There is no plan or prospect of reducing load on infrastructure, quite the reverse: the move to EVs and coercing retrospective heat pumps and insulation on unsuitable buildings is the exact opposite and it's the core of current national zero CO2 energy policy.



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


    Large scale hydrogen technology has been around for ages. Half the nitrogen in humans and farm animals was taken out of the air using hydrogen in a process that consumes 2% of global energy use, it's not niche. Producing hydrogen from renewables was happening in Norway before WWII and they had a nice side line Heavy Water. Piping hydrogen for hundreds of Km in Europe and the USA isn't new either. Storing flammable gas in salt domes is not new either.

    All proven technologies.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,793 ✭✭✭Apogee


    Indo reporting that Shannon Commercial Properties have completed sale of land associated with LNG terminal, despite opposition of Ryan to the project.

    A company owned by the State has completed the sale of land for the proposed Shannon LNG gas terminal, the development of which would be against Government policy. Shannon Commercial Properties recently got the final payment for sale of the 630-acre site to New Fortress Energy.

    New Fortress has applied for planning permission to build a terminal there to receive shipments of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from overseas.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/state-owned-firm-sells-off-site-for-gas-project-that-is-against-official-policy-41294207.html



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,904 ✭✭✭✭josip


    My understanding of Shannon LNG is that it will be privately owned by New Fortress Energy who are extremely unlikely to source their LNG from anywhere except their PA and LA liquefiers. So this will be 100% gas obtained by fracking, something we banned in Ireland in 2017. Maybe Fortress Energy are playing the long game here and are waiting until a sympathetic minister is in power.

    https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/dbe48-policy-statement-on-the-importation-of-fracked-gas-published/

    Post edited by josip on


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Importing fracked gas isn’t illegal in Ireland and can’t be made illegal as per the above link.

    Eamon Ryan’s personal opinion shouldn’t really come into the equation here. His current stance on this is shared by the Kremlin which should be overruled by national energy security concerns.



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


    Asia, specifically India and China remain committed to coal.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Most of that increase in coal is due to countries shutting down clean Nuclear, and then crapping themselves about fuel prices (who could have seen it coming?)



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,328 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    That just isn't true. The vast majority of the increase came from Asia adding new plants, mainly in China and India.

    Demand in the US and Europe has fallen, not increased, with a large amount of coal plants shut down. It's just that decrease was offset by the construction of new plants in Asia. Even Germany have been reducing coal as a share of their production.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    H1 2020 vs H1 2021 in Germany

    Most of EU has a similar (albeit not as drastic) profile wrt coal - in the last year coal generation has jumped by up to 20% across EU and US. A decline in the long term since 2019, but not much. And a big increase from the optimistic 2020 when energy demand dropped and the greens attempted to capitalize by decarbonising quicker - only to discover we could not meet our energy demands and coal, gas jump right back up.



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


    In 2021 Wind produced more energy than Lignite and Solar more than Coal. It's a journey and as more renewable capacity is added the more they will eat into fossil fuel.

    Biomass, Hydro and pumped storage have multiplier effects. Here on our grid they allow 3W of wind or solar to be supplied for every Watt they generated.

    Ireland used 27.1TWh in 2019 for comparison to Germany's renewable outputs.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,051 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    What about Germanys industrial generation which that graph clearly states is not included? You can't just cherry pick just power generated for public consumption to prove your point.

    The article states that clean generation was down from 50% to 46% and that lignite picked up the slack from wind.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,904 ✭✭✭✭josip


    The problem for Germany is what will replace that 65.4 Twh of nuclear production? Any wind/solar that picks up the slack will need a corresponding 1/3 of hydro/bio/pumped according to your 2nd point. Is that likely?

    It's really shocking to think that a leading industrial nation such as Germany needs to burn so much lignite to keep the lights on.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I'm wondering what type of building is unsuitable for insulation



Advertisement