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

"Green" policies are destroying this country

Options
16206216236256261067

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭KildareP


    We have 2 interconnectors of 500MW capacity each currently and a 3rd of 700MW capacity in progress.

    How many do we propose we need and what will the capacities be so as not to risk failure of any one causing too great a loss of energy input to our grid?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    How did you get that suggestion from my question?



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    All that is happening there is ICE is transferring to hybrid mostly and PHEV secondary. The minor growth of EV is nothing to be signing the death certificate for ICE. Remember, PHEV and Hybrids have ICE engines.

    People are being smart about it, they're not going to totally rely on the grid to get them about the place - and who'd blame them given the current state of electricity prices and the extortionate prices at public charging points.

    Good friend of mine has a PHEV, she never bothers charging it - just runs it the whole time on petrol. It's only a school run vehicle and the odd trip to the city for shopping.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,581 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The Betz limit is like Carnot efficiency. Except wind is free and as you say you can simply extract more energy from a bigger volume of air by using longer blades on the same generator.

    The efficiencies in wind would be mainly economic efficiencies. Economies of scale and lessons learnt.

    You won't save much copper in the windings inside the generator, but running transformers at a higher frequency makes them smaller, using higher voltages means you can use less metal in the cables, aluminium can be used for cabling too etc. Reusable materials in the blades reduces decommissioning costs, coatings and edge shapes can reduce vortexes and extend lifetimes. Installation tasks that used to take days now take hours. I like idea of floating turbines built like the Flip Ship , tow them out flat , fill one end with water and it flips up to vertical.

    Rare earths aren't rare. And better separation techniques are being developed that will reduce waste and costs.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,581 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    CPI adjusted Hinkley-C's strike price is now £122/MWh At 3.2GW it will produce 3,2000 of them per hour.

    The inescapable cost is not 8 million a year it's £9.37 million per day.

    The cost per year would be €2.84Bn.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭Jonnyc135


    I'm afraid I'm not part of any lobby group, but was just given anecdotal evidence on my relatives recent shock when they seen their electricity bill. As some other poster said they may have it not set up correctly or as effecient as it should be, as it couldn't be drawing that much electricity.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,122 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    EV`s will outsell ICE`s next year ! where did you get that from what you posted ?

    Total sales for 2022 are 1,113,346.

    EV`s 34,646 (3.1%)

    ICE 979,132 (87.9%)



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    @Danno

    Good friend of mine has a PHEV, she never bothers charging it - just runs it the whole time on petrol. It's only a school run vehicle and the odd trip to the city for shopping.

    With that sort of usage pattern it is a close call whether it is actually better than an ICE..



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,122 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Greens are experts on the cost of everything except their own preferences. I find that very strange. It`s if they know that their own preference are so off the wall financially that they are purposely avoiding revealing wht they will cost

    You constantly make comparisons with "the dreadful deal behinds the worlds most expensive power plant" yet when asked you cannot put a figure on an ESB offshore plan you favour, so why not post the cost of this plan and we can make comparisons to the worst case you could find with nuclear



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,581 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Nuclear can't follow demand profiles either. Absolutely dependent on dispatchable generators to meet peak demand and cover extended outages.

    And renewables on this island are already delivering electricity %'s above the nuclear % for most other countries, and we have hardly any offshore wind or solar.

    For the 12 month period January 2020 to December 2020, 49.2% of total electricity consumption in Northern Ireland was generated from renewable sources located in Northern Ireland. And For the 12 month period October 2021 to September 2022, 49.3% Only France got significantly above that from Nuclear. When they get offshore wind and solar and north-south upgrades that % will only increase and it's already above nuclear power's % in most countries so nuclear isn't doing any better despite having a huge head start.


    Hydrogen production accounts for ~ 3% of global final energy demand, about the same % as nuclear power. 4% of today's hydrogen comes from hydrolysis so it's at grid scale already.

    Town gas was roughly 50:50 carbon monoxide and hydrogen and was in use in all major cities for a century. Dominating the Dublin skyline since 1934, the gasometer was once the tallest building in the city. - Video As Gaeilge you can see others on the site. Another site in Dublin now apartments Of course disused gas wells take up less room and have proven to be gas tight for geological times. And are dirt cheap.

    Which specific aspect of using hydrogen on a grid scale are you having difficulty with ?



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,581 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    I see you aren't disputing the £9.37m cost per day. It's two orders of magnitude greater than 8 million per year fuel cost per reactor suggested earlier.

    I've said many times that the UK expects the next one to cost £30bn less. So €100Bn rather than £100Bn (index linked over 35 years) Still crazy costs but not as crazy.

    I've said many times that the length of the strike price and the rules means nuclear gets spoon fed for a lot longer than wind which means it soaks up 5-7 times more costs than small projects here over it's life. And they've changed the rules again so that the 2030 deadline no longer breaks the contract. Shame because the UK govt could have walked away if EDF fail to complete within 13 years of when they said the would.

    Capital costs on renewables are paid for by investors so it's the strike price, contract length and delivery dates that matter.

    For nuclear the government is on the hook for billions if costs escalate. It takes a lot of fossil fuel to provide 3.2GW for 10+ years. We have no idea what the decommissioning costs will be. etc. etc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 890 ✭✭✭Ultimanemo


    Try to get a quote for solar panels and a battery, I did, it is complete rip off



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,273 ✭✭✭xxxxxxl




  • Registered Users Posts: 15,122 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    My post was not about contesting or accepting it was why do you keep avoiding the question.

    You can give the most expensive examples of nuclear you can find, go into extravagant detail while telling all and sundry that renewables are so much cheaper, yet you cannot even give a figure for how much this ESB offshore plan will cost.

    Why is that ?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I'll go easy on you and just ask you to check your numbers again and let you revisit your post



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,581 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    I

    Wind is providing about half our minimum demand today.

    And renewables are providing a smidgen over 49% of electricity in Northern Ireland annually.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,273 ✭✭✭xxxxxxl


    double



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,122 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    My mistake I was taking the figure over the past 10 years. This year fossil fuel powered car (59,838) outsold EV`s 4 to 1 (15,590) so a bit fanciful to imagine they will outsell fossil fueled next year imo. Especially now that the price of charging them has gone up so much, which was a major selling point with them.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,581 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Nuclear costs are not obvious. Hinkley-C at least costs long enough to pay off the loans.


    UAE has signed a power purchasing agreement, but how much will the 'leccy cost ? the costs of the plant varies depending on which source you use.


    Poland was doing a deal for 6 reactors for $18Bn in 2020 , they were going to cost $30Bn in 2021 and now they will cost $40Bn. And that's not including the cost of the electricity.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,122 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Wind provided 42% here in 2020, 35% 2021 and even with extra capacity added since 2020 it was just 34% end of November.

    With this month so far, with how little it has been providing, it will do well to be 34% by years end.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yeah I should have phrased that better. It would be more accurate to say they could outsell the individual fuels (petrol /diesel) rather than both rolled up



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,273 ✭✭✭xxxxxxl


    Don't know how electric cars batteries missed the fossil fuel label. Ethylene is used to make the cooling systems.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,581 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Northern Ireland. 49.3% from renewables, of which 84.9% was onshore wind.

    Still early days in terms of installed capacity. Adding solar and offshore wind and possibly tidal turbines would only increase that.


    Vogtle 3 is supposed to be starting up early next year. Here's the timeline from 2004-2012. Project was approved in 2009 and due to come online in 2016.

    Southern Nuclear and Georgia Power, both subsidiaries of Southern Company, took over management of the project to build the units in 2017 following Westinghouse's Chapter 11 bankruptcy.


    From 2017 - to explain why nuclear costs are hard.

    These nuclear power plants weren't built on per-kWh contracts to sell electricity and were instead guaranteed by ratepayers. But if we assume an 8% internal rate of return on the $22 billion investment in Vogtle, a 30-year life, and energy production 100% of the time, the capital cost alone is 10 cents per kWh. And that doesn't include any operational cost, fuel, or financing.

    BTW cost has gone up to $30Bn+ so that 10c would be close to 14c now ie $140/MWh £112 €131



  • Registered Users Posts: 140 ✭✭The Real President Trump


    14c per Kwh that's savagely cheap we should be biting the hand off for deals like that



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,122 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Why do you keep insisting on posting on nuclear with the highest costings you can find plus your your speculations on top, when you cannot give a costing for an offshore plan you favour ?

    Do you just not know what they are, or you do know and that by posting them comparisons can be made ?

    BTW based on the latest estimated cost for Arklow Bank the cost of the offshore turbines alone, with a lifespan of 27 years if they are lucky, has gone up €10Bn from the U;K. average of €83 Bn and the price of turbines is going up as well. Vestra is not going to continue selling at 8% below cost, Siemens Gamesa is effectively broke and General Electric have a $2Bn loss for the year from their renewables unit.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    They provided less than 10% last week though……



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭KildareP


    Which is why I would like to see a nuclear/renewable/interconnector mix. (Besides, if excess wind is good, why is excess nuclear bad?)

    More to the point, who is running a single grid of 7GW peak (and growing) producing exclusively on renewables with hydrogen storage, where the storage has provided the majority of power for 30+ days due to an extended absence of wind?

    The answer is no-one, so that's what my issue with proposing hydrogen is. Lots of small scale projects dotted around the globe does not mean they collectively scale to a grid like ours.

    Yet you propose banking our future energy needs entirely on a method of production that simply hasn't come close to being road tested at the collective scale required, to the exclusion of anything else. We may as well propose fusion as our 2050 solution and hope they figure it all out by then.

    If you still don't accept that well then I wonder what the collective power production of all Duracell batteries the world over is, or the storage potential of all 12V car batteries are, because I think I might have a grid scale BESS solution to sell you...



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭Mr. teddywinkles


    I'm building house at the moment. Got 2 independent quotes from 2 plumbers earlier on in build. And they wouldn't even entertain the idea of air to water. Just told me to super insulate and go traditional oil heating. Save on fuel consumption. Even asked about a combi system with oil and air to water. Told dont bother.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,581 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Between the Corrib Field and the gas Dutch have stored we could run our country until 2026. Storage at that scale is routine in the rest of the EU.

    Changing over to hydrogen over time would gradually reduce the energy density gradually as the cushion gas is diluted until by 2050, if there were no other options that sort of volume of storage of hydrogen would only keep us going for one full year.

    Fuel cells will probably replace them but the gas turbines are already in-situ and provide synchronous power. Today's gas turbines are quite happy with a mix of natural gas and hydrogen and retro fit kits to run on hydrogen alone should be available by 2030. We can still run on a mix till 2050 as long as we meet the emission reductions en route.

    Only very high grade steels undergo hydrogen embrittlement so most of the infrastructure can be reused.


    Hydrogen isn't the only option. But it is one that offers long term grid scale storage using existing infrastructure and off-the shelf kit. Installing excess renewables and interconnectors reduces when storage and peaking plant are needed so that's another option. I don't know what the optimum ratio of spending would be.


    Excess nuclear would take 30-35 years to pay off the loans + construction times so you are locked in for half a century.

    IIRC the dispatchable plant on our grid has a capacity factor of ~ 40% (divide total TWh by installed GW times 8760 hours). That would increase the price of nuclear power by two and a half times. No one does that. Not even the French who were practically giving away cheap night rate electricity to encourage massive uptake of storage heaters to provide a 24/7 demand for electricity.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,581 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight



    Re your claim that "these reactors are often over 50 years old"

    50 years ago was 1973, France wasn't getting much nuclear power just 2.8GW

    The world’s oldest turbine is Tvindkraft in Denmark, which has been in operation since 1978 so it's outlasted the oldest French plant Fessenheim which shut down 2 years ago at the age of 43.

    Out of 422 reactors worldwide only 12 are over 50 years old (2.8%). And exactly none of those are in France.

    Nuclear power plants getting to that age are rare and likely to be shut down for extended times or forever. France proved that. The UK's AGR while a different technology are another example of life extensions that didn't work. I CBA looking up the US's history there, but cheap gas killed off plants with high refurb and maintenance costs.

    Globally are ZERO nuclear power reactors that have been producing power for 60 years, the oft-claimed life for them.


    If we were getting a quarter of installed capacity from wind then we'd get full power from having 4x installed capacity ? Or we could import power if the price was right or we could use storage in future. And besides having gas running at full power for a few weeks a year is well within our emissions targets. Nuclear can't arrive in time to help with emissions.

    In all of Western Europe there's only ONE new nuclear power plant due to be completed before 2030 and it's 10 years late and they've extended to completion clause to beyond 2030 and taken on an additional 14 years of financing. (technically I should say 2 because the Finish plant was finished but it's already failed and will be offline for months)


    I hate to have to remind you, but the blades which are the main replaceable items cost just 5% of the overall cost. And you can get 40 year life turbines now. And repowering turbines with the latest tech can improve capacity factor and total output.



Advertisement