Shannon LNG terminal plans rejected by ABP

The main reason is; not doing things is cheap. It's actually the main reason for Irish neutrality and happlly letting the UK tax payer foot the bill when Russian planes and subs come around to threaten and hassle. Not helping out Ukraine much is cheap.

Irish cuteness at it's best. Eamon Ryan, on learning that the net zero via hydrogen plan is never going to work, has been calling for a stupid amount of interconnectors with France and the UK to provide the huge amount of backup you need when wind only has a capacity factor of 49% with the best of offshore wind farms, and a lot less for the majority of cheap onshore ones.

So let the French and British build nuclear reactors and burn gas and cop the CO2 numbers and just build interconnectors and then claim you have achieved net zero. Mind you, Irish consumers will probably then have the most expensive energy in Europe.

We have plenty cover for this for this winter. Extra generation has been brought in to make absolutely sure. This has been discussed ad nauseam. It has absolutely nothing to do with building an LNG terminal that Western Europe doesn’t really need.

Nothing fuels it most likely, because most likely it won’t be called on at all.

Why do you ask?

I assume someone commercial wants to do it so there must be a market. why tie one's hands behind one's back, the more options the better

The function of supply in electricity markets is not to generate electricity but to provide a specified amount of electricity to a specific place at a particular time. This situation you outline happened before Christmas in December 2022, you may recall the 2 week period of cold we had, during which time the all Ireland record (7031 MW at 17:30 December 14, 2022) demand for electricity was reached, while at the same time unreliable generation from wind and solar disappeared from the grid right across the British isles and much of the North sea area. Dispatchable power was available at severe cost by having the heavy industrial users fall back to their diesel generators, bringing online CHP generation, inter-connectors (includes generation by nuclear & LNG fracked gas), coal and gas generation. Note: Batteries and Turlough hill are storage rather than generators, useful short term peaks in demand, these had to be recharged/renewed afterwards.

Natural gas is not just used for electricity generation, it's also used for home heating and industrial production and pressure (linepack) must be maintained in the network, the only storage buffer the country has is whatever can be packed into the Moffat pipeline.

By the end of the decade, Corrib gas is gone, investment in dispatchable power from Tarbert and Moneypoint has been cut. The original plan was shut both plants by 2025, they are switching to heavy crude instead. Moneypoint can hold 3 months supply of coal, aside from the Moffat line buffer there is no gas storage in Ireland. The cost of consuming these fuels will rise due to various government duties and carbon tax, forcing more of the Irish public to use single secondary power source for heating and transport: electricity. The plan using smart meters is also move people onto variable pricing plans that seem cheap when the wind is blowing, i.e. dry your hair when the wind is blowing, but for the 2 week scenario you outline, it will be turn everything off and light candles.

Ireland is not unique in this regard, Britain and other EU countries are pursuing the same electricity generation policy, but they have options, Ireland is at the end of the pipeline of inter-connector extension leads.

The nightmare scenario is under construction and will happen when we experience an extended 6 to 8 week cold spell that settles in over Northern Europe. This happens intervals of ~10 to ~20 years, think February-March 1947 or the 1962/63 Winter, 1982, Winter events in 2009, 2010 & March 2018 were the nearest we have experienced in recent years to extended cold episodes. This extended cold will run down gas supplies across the continent and when it lasts long enough will lead to a gas supply emergency. When the pressure cannot be maintained in the gas network, Gas Networks Ireland will activate the Natural Gas Emergency Plan (NGEP) (see section 9).

As energy consumers we are also caught between a rock and a hard place, all this guff you read in the paper about wind and solar being cheap is supplied by industry public relations and uses levelised cost of electricity (LCOE), they never quote full cost of electricity (FCOE), as we learned from those two weeks in December 2022, we needed to have a parallel generation system in place, because wind and solar vanished from the grid. This parallel grid has to be maintained, meaning the more unreliable generation we put on the grid the more electricity prices most rise.

I’m also interested to know what fuels this extra generation that may be needed.

@antoinolachtnai do you know perhaps? 🤔

I think there's a kind of projection going on there. One of the fears (stated publicly) is that the interconnector pipelines will be stranded assets - rather than any privately owned LNG terminals, which we don't care about. I suspect they're also worried that gas might actually get cheaper, which causes problems for the switch over to heat pumps. There's already a UK company selling a heat-pump that produces much hotter water and can act as a slot in replacement for many gas boilers, but it's not economical to run unless gas prices go up. Threatening our energy security is the wrong solution to that problem imo. They should be looking instead at specific usage incentives for heat pumps as well as the up-front grants.

By the way, the CEPA report is worth reading. It goes through a number of shock scenarios and is completely upfront that the reason why it doesn't recommend commercial LNG is because it's against government policy.

Also:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/22/heat-pump-technology-soon-hot-even-britons-tempted/

In any case, having a carbon tax for gas used to heat up your home is despicable. A warm home is not a luxury and what's the point of saving the planet (yeah, sure) if for that we need to revert back to living in caves? Any measures taken should be in the form of encouragement, not punishment.

That would be an ecumenical matter...

...The gas is sanctified when it emerges here, same as the power from a French interconnector will be de-nucleared (!?) when it flows into Ireland!

It is a sacred mystery, like the Holy Trinity, transubstantiation etc

Some of the misunderstanding here is amazing. The proposed Tarbert plant consists of several modules – from non-LNG (e.g. a battery storage facility), a shore base connector for wind farms  to onshore LNG storage and a connector to the ship that plugs into the latter. All the groundwork is done , the project has been ready to staryt for two years. A private company builds and operates the facility and sells/feeds gas into an existing pipeline. They already do this successfully in many countries around the world. If their gas price is too dear, it will not be bought. If the project is not successful, zero cost to the taxpayer, the ship will (literally) depart and sail to service the docking points elsewhere such as those already built in Europe - Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, Croatia, Poland, Greece and Lithuania and another 12 planned, several of which already are under construction.

Just 7% of the Irish electorate are bullying a government that wants to keep its collective snout in the trough and is terrified of the Shinners. Holy Ireland’s Greens have their heads in a very dark place and spineless govt. parties are prepared to accept their demands.

Shiploads of coal arrive with regularity to fuel Moneypoint, that will in a few years change to oil.

The gas we buy via the Scottish interconnector contains fracked gas (but E Ryan/Greens choses to ignore this).

France (according to Ryan supposedly our saviour) has serious issues already in supplying itself with power due to the state of its generation system. It is so far behind and overbudget with nuclear power generation that its government has had to step in and first bailout, then buy EDF.

E. Ryan refused point blank to meet the LNG promoters (NFE); he has not released a completed review / critical report on Ireland’s energy security and has sat on it for months. Why?

APB was wrong (what’s new, a body that has a history of corruption!) not to take that report into consideration before making a decision – ABP had sat on its hands for > 2 years so scurrying out now with a decision now is highly suspect.

It is no secret that various Green Parties in Europe have been funded by and are tainted by Russia (e.g. German Green Alliance leader Schroder was appointed to the board of Gazprom. His Green Alliance government forced several German nuclear plants to close decades ahead of schedule. Similarly Belgian Green politicos forced the early closure of several reactors in that country (Doel & Tihange). Am I alone in thinking that it was because Putin wanted to corner the market for Russian gas?

As for Ryan’s notions of wind energy, the environment also is visual – I do not want a rows of Pigeon House size windmills in Killiney Bay or in Sally Gap or Killarney. The idea of floating windmills off the SW coast is farcical. Put Ryan on his cronies on a boat off Kerry in a gale and let them see how feasible their D4 notions are of survival in an Atlantic winter gale.

I love the environment; I want my children and grandchildren to have a better world but I also want them to have jobs and Ireland to have an economy. I do not accept what Ryan and co. are spouting. Saying ‘Wind is the solution’ is like saying in 1845 ‘Shur the potato crop is grand, it feeds the country’.

My hope is that he and his cronies will be consigned to the compost heap at the next election.

No argument that there is massive support for action on climate change, but considerably more than 70% of the people do not want to be in the dark because our system is not fit for purpose. We are very far off targets in alternative supply.

https://www.thejournal.ie/energy-security-review-electricity-6173704-Sep2023/

Indeed, just as you wanted to see! Have you no idea of what our competitor economies are doing? You a true disciple of the Ryan School of Economics, No wind + No back-up plan= magical supplyof power Shur it'll be grand!

What part of 'we will build' do you not understand? These facilities take a decade or so to get off the ground. One of the two facilities mentioned in Kerry has been on the drawingboard for years because it is located at the proposed LNG plant (now refused)

Leaving aside the shortage and escalated cost of mining Lithium, what environmental harm is going to be done in mining the required to build these batteries? Are you aware that the insurance indusrty already has serious concerns about the volatility/ fire hazard of Lithium batteries and cover is becoming increasingly costly?

What are the Green's proposals for handling the waste associated with disposing the spent windmill blades (many of which are soon due for replacement)?

Let's stop the 'will build' waffle and comeout with some practicalities. Ireland is being left far behind in powere security.

Ah yes, here we go again, the great 'Aiming for....!" That's the BS line fed to and swallowed by idiots. Aiming for a Childrens Hospital, Aiming for a sensible National Maternity Hospital, Aiming for a Metro North, etc., blah, blah.

The really sad thing is that I am a 'green' at heart, I have spent a lifetime in risk management and I see climate change on a daily basis . The issue is the complete failure of Ryan and his coterie of advisors to open their eyes to the realities of business life and an economy that is on the edge. The Irish Greens have achieved nothing other than to push people away from a sensible approach and to polarise them. Cycle lanes don't count.

FYI

The downside / risk of outages is clear and has been enumerated earlier. It also - I expect - will be detailed when Ryan allows the Review be published. Of course LNG at Tarbert is less expensive. For starters, Tarbert was being built by private equity, not the taxpayer. Also, it was to be a lot more than just a LNG site. Look up New Fortress Energy, the people Ryan has continuously refused to meet, and see what they have achieved in other partnerships around the world. Can you imagine a Minister in any government anywhere refusing to meet an investor? Even if only to say “No, we don’t want you”? It’s basic courtesy and economic sense. Then, for e.g., look at NFE’s recent developments and what is happening elsewhere  https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/logistics/cargo/lng/lng-partnerships

No, Eamon and his ideologues would rather ignore what other European countries are achieving. His ego and views are bordering on the fanatical. What really pi$$es me off is that he is saying the incoming LNG will be fracked, which is not fully true, and when some of the current interconnector gas also is fracked. Similarly, the Irish Greens refuse to even look at SMR’s, which most countries now regard as a gamechanger for 2030> and will play a very meaningful role. Our Greens have pandered totally to the wind energy brigade (totally unsightly) and ignored tidal power, a source that would ‘fit’ with the beauty of this country and work efficiently, albeit at a slightly higher cost. (Don't even start on solar! - looked out the window recently?)

Ireland needs a standby fuel source for now, not some dreamy plan for 2030 or 2050.  It also needs a government with a backbone and a population that gets off the couch and looks critically at what the Green Party is waffling on about. I'm not holding my breath.

The risk of an outage on three pipelines for more than three days is vanishingly small to the point of being imaginary. It isn’t ‘clear’ at all.

What are you on about? No military power is using a SMR, none have been promised for delivery, so your comment is laughable. I wrote " the Irish Greens refuse to even look at SMR’s, which most countries now regard as a gamechanger for 2030> and will play a very meaningful role".

There are no commercial SMRs in operation anywhere - there are a few in test at various universities,mainly in the US and Canada and some in China. It is generally accepted that SMRs will become commercially available after c2030 and yes they will be expensive but considerably cheaper than existing N Plants.

there are these things called nuclear submarines, they use small reactors to power them and have been doing so for decades, hence my mention of military use.

however, there is no comparison to high expensivity reactors for military application that power a ship, and commercially viable small reactors which will need to power a lot more and be a fraction of the cost.

there is no commercially viable, civilian use SMR available that is cheap and effective, there won't be either.

if any do come available in the 2030s (they have been promising them for decades) they will be of very high expensivity and that is why the greens are rightly staying away from them, as are the other parties.

we have more important things to spend money on and there are ultra-cheap options available that are more effective then high expensivity nuclear ever will be in any form.

Go back to what I said – the Greens have refused to consider an important development in power generation- SMRs – that is the point and not their effectiveness. Secondly, I said it is generally accepted that SMRs will not be available before 2030 (I wrote 2030>). These are a big topic internationally and a tiny percentage of the electorate is stopping discussion.

@endof Comparing the reactor unit of a nuclear-powered ship with a SMR shows a complete lack of understanding of SMRs/topic/nuclear power. The processes and operation of a traditional plant to a SMR are like comparing a Model T to a Tesla.

@antoineol Yes, that is correct. Big no longer is better, and SMR developments to date are proving that.