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
1129130132134135180

Comments

  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,370 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Correct. Crossing the Med means going way deeper than the continental shelf from here to Spain.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,217 ✭✭✭plodder


    Interesting quote from Robert Habeck, the German Green, Climate change minister:

    “By importing liquefied natural gas, we are making ourselves less dependent on imports of Russian pipeline gas,” said Robert Habeck, Germany’s minister for economy and climate change, in a statement. “At the same time, we are accelerating the import of green hydrogen.”

    The article is referring to supposed carbon-neutral (synthetic) natural gas. CO2 is used as an input where it is combined with H2 generated by electrolysis to produce normal methane. The CO2 input counterbalances the usual CO2 production when the gas is combusted.

    Pity we couldn't have considered options like this in our recent energy review.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-neutral_fuel

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/11/business/green-natural-gas.html?unlocked_article_code=j4i-Pj0iE9vPl_06ALH1tp4ZkSiHo1UahdS8HAy7xEoQc6Cl_HVnRtpRvvlYS3v5CYzO8BA3Js_Gzu7MDINTltCPpQeO4dH9_6MscxnYhzWrghw6WqUJUyDZ3JZsLgyuoGRh3feIWlt4X41zAwA5B77-2-hhKgL1ZK-Vip0YcpJA1MZ_KyQlqoPwIObEF2NlQyPWLtfUv-DgXWkHjxeOG42etno5QYtvTZI7BMIPZnkgm5f7ndiaUDTzpd2svUobcbgSyaxWutk3yJdNtJjzcIDX1yf-HRL-RwYO7SlSCTRGR-e7-x2az_CBVuo4zgs2gQohUmJB8Ah9YyMt&smid=share-url

    Post edited by plodder on


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,137 ✭✭✭323


    True, words heard from the guys planning the med job was "extremely challenging". Terrain/slopes, geology and the extreme depth in the eastern med. Biscay and the Western approach will also be challenging, sea conditions are horrible more often than not, very difficult lay conditions.

    “Follow the trend lines, not the headlines,”



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Bonkers stuff altogether from a group of senators in relation to Derrybrien.

    They reckon they can get around the environmental problems if the ESB "gift" the turbines to the local community who will then use the income to just keep paying the fines and ignore the EU ruling and it'll be ok because it'll be a local community who'll have ownership and not the ESB

    Like, wtf lol




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


    When I saw that the group was led by Michéal McDowell I thought there might be some merit or basis in the proposal, since whatever else one might think about McDowell, he's not stupid. Then I read the final name in the group and I'm no longer so confident that's its not just waffle.



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


    The Northern Irish competitors to Blow Hole Energy are pushing ahead with a 1.25 MW demonstrator in Scotland.

    It appears quite big, when compared with a 5 MW wind turbine for example and I expect it's a lot more expensive to manufacture and operate, at least at this stage in its evolution. So what's the business case? Is wave power less intermittent than wind? I always thought that waves were created by wind and that if there was little wind, there would be little to no waves.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,370 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The nice thing about wave power is that the swell continues to arrive after the storms so it complements wind.

    But you have to over engineer the stuff. A 25 m wave was measured at the Kinsale Energy Gas Platform on the 12th February 2014. And it's very seasonal more in winter when we need more power.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Govt repeats itself......again

    RTE news : Govt rules out electricity generation on Galway site





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


    Article in IT about plans by Maresconnect for another 750MW interconnector between Ireland and Wales with proposed operational date of 2027

    Project website is here:




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I know it's China and scale is bonkers as a result but this is insane especially when you consider its for 1 city

    43.3GW of offshore

    The wind farm's total production would equal the total power production of countries such as Poland and Argentina.




  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,370 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Existing grid https://www.entsoe.eu/data/map/

    Maynooth 220kV substation to "landfall near Dublin Bay" to Bodelwyddan 400kV substation.

    North or south of Dublin Bay ?

    You'd think they'd have linked up to Wylfa since it's already wired to the grid.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,677 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    "You'd think they'd have linked up to Wylfa since it's already wired to the grid."

    Perhaps not enough capacity or resiliency at Wyfla. Might be easier to just continue underwater then fight locals trying to upgrade overground cables.

    What I'm wondering, could it possibly connect with offshore wind farms along the way.



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


    This is only at pre-planning stage, but the scale of it caught my eye - up to 146 ha or 360 acres.

    https://ballylongfordsolarfarm.ie/

    ABP gave approval recently for a 12 turbine windfarm in the same townlands, though this seems to be a separate outfit/development.

    ESB also holding info sessions on Helvick Head project

    https://www.helvickheadoffshorewind.ie/



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




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


    Kerry aren't the worst for turbine installation. Order by county to see who's good and bad. I guess you need plenty of sunny uplands so topography has a bearing (not looking at you Clare)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_farms_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,278 ✭✭✭MightyMunster


    That's huge, 5 times bigger than the current largest wind farm we have!

    Hopefully it's up and going ASAP



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,370 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Wylfa used to have a pair of 490MW reactors, unless they took the cables away.

    No chance of connecting with wind farms. DC from Maynooth to Bodelwyddan so you'd need serious kit to connect it. The East-West one is ±200 kV. Maybe if there was a GW wind farm with it's own transformer station ?



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


    The proposed solar farm above is quite close to excellent grid connectivity so it’ll be a welcome addition to the grid. It’ll be quite close to Shannon LNG if that ever gets off the ground also so it’ll be useful to have an energy cluster in that area.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,217 ✭✭✭plodder


    There was an interesting discussion about LNG on Katie Hannon's program yesterday. There's a proposal to put an offshore FSRU on the Kinsale gas pipeline and the developer is saying they won' t use fracked gas. The panel were sceptical about such promises, and well they might considering that US gas prices have fallen through the floor and they basically can't give the stuff away at the moment.

    Sean Fleming made the claim that there's almost universal opposition to fracked gas in this country, but I think he is conflating opposition to "fracking" with opposition to using gas that was fracked somewhere else. Gas is a commodity like petrol. Do people use considerations other than price when deciding where to fill up the car? Probably some do, but it would be a stretch to claim that nearly everyone or even most people do.

    I'm not aware of any other country that has effectively banned fracked gas. How much is this stance costing us? People wonder why Ireland is a high cost country and it's because of stuff like this.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,370 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The bottleneck for LNG deliveries at the moment is regassification. LNG is very cold so there's a limit to how much of it can be boiled into gas at a time using existing infrastructure.

    There's about 50 large LNG carriers waiting to unload off Europe. Storage is mostly full and the weather is mild so the gas will command a higher price in a few weeks/months so they are in effect extra storage for this year.

    Converting LNG tankers to storage depots is not all that unusual.

    As others have pointed out we can import LNG via the existing pipeline to Scotland, or we could import electricity via the interconnectors. So unless we are expecting gas usage to soar or a political meltdown with the neighbours who rely on imported gas too we've no absolute need to import LNG.

    We could do with storage though in case there is an interruption to supply or price gouging and for future use.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,217 ✭✭✭plodder


    The bottleneck for LNG deliveries at the moment is regassification. LNG is very cold so there's a limit to how much of it can be boiled into gas at a time using existing infrastructure.

    There's about 50 large LNG carriers waiting to unload off Europe. Storage is mostly full and the weather is mild so the gas will command a higher price in a few weeks/months so they are in effect extra storage for this year.

    So, more FSRUs would be a good thing then. The energy review said as much; more LNG reception capacity would reduce gas prices in Europe generally.

    Converting LNG tankers to storage depots is not all that unusual.

    As others have pointed out we can import LNG via the existing pipeline to Scotland, or we could import electricity via the interconnectors. So unless we are expecting gas usage to soar or a political meltdown with the neighbours who rely on imported gas too we've no absolute need to import LNG.

    No absolute need, but what about economic efficiency? Do we not want to avoid over paying for gas/electricity?

    We could do with storage though in case there is an interruption to supply or price gouging and for future use.

    I'm not an expert in this field, but I see some red flags. We have some private sector operators who want to provide gas at a lower cost than how we get it currently (through a state monopoly). Sure, they want to take a profit from that, but if they are willing to build the infrastructure at their own risk, that sounds to me like there is economic efficiency at stake.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,843 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    The thing is, we could be getting fracked gas via the interconnector with the UK and the public wouldn't know or care.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,787 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    1. Gas is not brought to Ireland by a state monopoly.
    2. Gas from LNG will only be marginally cheaper than importing from GB.
    3. having an LNG terminal will cost consumers money. The cost of operating the interconnectors will remain the same and will have to be recovered from consumers. Smaller volume through interconnector => higher fixed and unit charges for interconnector.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,677 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    “The thing is, we could be getting fracked gas via the interconnector with the UK and the public wouldn't know or care.”

    We effectively already do. We import gas from the UK, which has 3 LNG terminals which import gas including fracked gas, so of course some of that gets to Ireland.

    The governments objection to Building a LNG terminal, is that it will actually lead to higher prices for gas, not lower!

    Basically because the 500 million or more cost of the terminal would need to be recouped of course.

    In case folks don’t know, we buy our gas in the UK gas market at the same UK prices, with a very small extra cost for transport through the interconnectors. The UK gas market is extremely liquid and competitive, between the 3 lng terminals, their own production and interconnectors to Norway and mainland Europe.

    We really wouldn’t gain much by building our own LNG terminal other then increased costs.

    If we are going to spend 500+ million, then it might be better spent on hydrogen production and storage facilities or more wind farms and interconnectors.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,504 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    There is other natural gas reserves off Corrib that the great Ned will not allow ashore. There is limited gas in the Barryroe field.

    Hydrogen create a bigger carbon problem than either of these. Hydrogen is not the clean carbonless fuel many think.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/06/estimating-the-carbon-footprint-of-hydrogen-production/?sh=3472591b24bd

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,217 ✭✭✭plodder


    The point isn't that anyone wants fracked gas. What we want is the cheapest possible gas, from as diverse a range of sources as possible.

    Gas is not brought to Ireland by a state monopoly.

    The gas network in Ireland is owned/operated by Gas Networks Ireland (a state monopoly) and that includes the interconnector.

    Gas from LNG will only be marginally cheaper than importing from GB.

    It's certainly not marginally cheaper at the moment.

    having an LNG terminal will cost consumers money. The cost of operating the interconnectors will remain the same and will have to be recovered from consumers. Smaller volume through interconnector => higher fixed and unit charges for interconnector.

    How do other countries deal with having two sources of gas like this? There needs to be an independent economic analysis on that question. It seems when the question first arose, GNI claimed their interconnector would become a "stranded asset" which itself suggests huge potential efficiency improvements from more competition, but they could even be over stating it, in a bid to protect the monopoly. I forgot to mention the radio panel the other day, I think it was Lynn Boylan who said that the recent energy review concluded we didn't need LNG. The consultants were told we can't be importing fracked gas, so they were effectively told to forget about LNG. Very misleading.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    2 things, look up about the different colours of hydrogen production because the one being referred to as part of the transition is green hydrogen. Your article refers to others. Also the method of creation, if using electrolysis then there are no issues like those mentioned.

    As for the consumption of it, I don't know of anyone who thinks burning hydrogen is a good idea. Its literally swapping one GHG for another.

    Using it through hydrogen cell tech on the other hand is a very clean way to use it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,504 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    It took us forty years to get where we are with wind turbines a technology that was around before that. Commercial solar is only a 20ish years in reality. Fuel cells are still at the concept stage to a great extent. They will not be an integrated part of any commercial reality for 30++ years

    The hydrogen we intend getting will be a carbon dirty fuel for another 50 years probably. Electrolysis produced hydrogen has a negative energy, that is you use more fuel that you produce.....and you have to store the sh!the you produce then.

    Hydrogen produced from Methane is very carbon inefficient.

    Yet the great Ned will not let us look for any more natural gas which is a much cleaner fuel than any hypothetical Hydrogen solution.

    Slava Ukrainii



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


    One thing that no one here seems to want to talk about is we live in a very different world in 2022 to pre-Covid, and this is still playing out in real time. Our energy security position as it stands belongs in the "we're all one big happy family" world outlook from the 90s until the late 10s which is now, sadly, history. We are an island with limited resources and we have 2 sources of gas, our own field in Mayo which provides c. 20% of supply and the interconnector to the UK which provides the balance. Therefore we have a single source, under the control of a foreign state, which we are completely reliant on for our national gas supply. We are also now in a time where undersea gas pipelines are being attacked and I see no reason to see why the Moffat interconnector is safe. We may not be in NATO, but part of this island (which the gas pipeline supplies) is in NATO and we have significant industry belonging to the US which is of strategic importance to the western world.

    Any national energy security review in Ireland would immediately recommend a) an LNG terminal and b) several weeks of gas storage. The review published recently is full of pie in the sky waffle to placate the environmentalists and those who believe that food comes from the shop and energy comes from the plug. Given the energy landscape in Europe in 2022, the fact that a private company is willing to develop an LNG terminal (which we need), a gas fired power plant (which we need) and gas storage (which we need), and the response is finding as many excuses as possible to obstruct the project, is absolutely bonkers.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,677 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    But that is the thing, if you are worried about security of Supply, a LNG terminal would barely improve it at all.

    Think about it for a moment, if the Russians are willing to hit the Moffat pipeline, then what would stop them from hitting your LNG terminal too or even LNG ships at sea.

    And of course if they do any of this, we all have much bigger issues to worry about as WW3 just started and the nukes are flying!

    If you are truly worried about security, then continuing to import a fossil fuel that needs to be shipped around the world and comes at least partly from places like Saudi Arabia, really isn't changing anything.

    If we need more gas, I'd rather we developed and explored our own gas fields as mentioned above, then desperately trying to import more LNG. Hell maybe even fracking within Ireland would be an option.

    Long term though, the only way we get to true security of supply is using wind + hydrogen (+ solar/batteries/geothermal/biogas), only then would all of our energy production be within our own borders and not reliant on foreign powers for fossil fuels!

    Also Hydrogen has the advantage that we could produce ammonia from it and thus fertiliser, which is vitally important to the security of our food supply. Ideally for security, you want to be independent on water, energy and fertiliser/food. Wind + Hydrogen would allow us to become completely independent.

    "Our energy security position as it stands belongs in the "we're all one big happy family" world outlook from the 90s until the late 10s which is now, sadly, history."

    BTW On this point, I'd disagree, on the contrary, this war has caused closer ties between European neighbours. NATO is now stronger then ever, revitalised and with Sweden and Finland joining. Europe has done a fantastic job in quickly weaning itself off Russian gas, filling up storage, neighbouring countries supplying electricity across interconnectors with each other to relieve the burden, etc. Hell even Britain has eased off on all the Brexit stuff and is reconizing that we are all in this together.



Advertisement