Irish energy system not producing enough power

J

joe sod

Registered User
Messages
2,326
www.irishtimes.com

Data centres not to blame for electricity squeeze, expert claims

Planning consultancy says problems due to State failures rather than inherent issues with ‘whipping boy’ data centres
www.irishtimes.com www.irishtimes.com

A sobering read about the failure of government to get developers to build gas power stations to fill in the gaps when no renewables. They say that data centres are being used as scape goats for failure in government policy regarding energy security. Also I heard today the UK energy regulator has questioned the viability of building an interconnector with ireland since in their eyes there is no benefit to UK as ireland won't have energy when UK needs it. All fingers pointing back at eamon Ryan as he is unable to make decisions that do not rhyme with green party ideology
 
However work has commenced on the interconnector with Europe so that may mitigate once that is done in 2026.
 
But France will only export power when they are in surplus, the situation has changed since ukraine war and cutting off of Russian gas, other countries are also looking for that French power including UK. We need to be realistic and build our own capacity, have to wait until eamon Ryan is gone for realism to enter government
 
Like many other issues with this country, I believe the main underlying issue is the planning permission system. I am sure I have read that for power generation it takes around 12 years from requesting planning to a spade entering the ground. Then you have ESB Networks believing/treating smaller 3rd party generators as incompetent.
 
From reading article, there is no company looking to even build a power station since it is not attractive enough, the capital outlay is too high and priority is given to renewable electricity in the auctions, they get first choice at peak demand (if the wind happens to be blowing at peak ) and also a very attractive minimum price even when there is no demand at 3am in the morning. It might look great from a pr point of view but we still need somebody to build power stations for when there is no renewable energy. They are supposed to be closing money point next year and last peat station in Midlands ( although it now burning Brazilian trees not irish peat) but because of dire energy situation they will need to keep them running
 
Some amount of fossil fuel fossils around here! Seriously lads, anyone remember Russia invading Ukraine and gas prices shooting through the roof? It should be abundantly clear that becoming self-sufficient and secure in our means of generating electricity should be a priority, and since burning peat is, well, a little poisonous then harnessing our considerable renewable capacity makes the most sense. A transformation like that won’t happen without a few bumps in the road, but it undoubtedly is the smartest strategy this country can take. I mean, we’re not a million miles off a hot war in the Middle East as we speak!
 
What happened to the plans for 3 reactors to power the country, with 2 being enough and 1 redundant? Eamon is retiring...
 
Towger said:
What happened to the plans for 3 reactors to power the country, with 2 being enough and 1 redundant? Eamon is retiring...
Click to expand...
Was that ever really a “plan”?

Good podcast from Philip Boucher Hayes on why nuclear in Ireland is at least 50 years away.

Spotify

open.spotify.com open.spotify.com
 
S class said:
If demand for electric cars accelerates the grid will be overwhelmed.
All part of Ryan's plan to force everyone onto bicycles.
Click to expand...
The grid will absolutely not be overwhelmed. Most EV charging happens at home and at night, when we’re more likely to be curtailing cheap renewables. EV’s will actually support the move to a more secure, stable energy system by mopping up that excess capacity and maybe even making it economically viable.

And that’s before V2H/V2G becomes a serious proposition, further enhancing the storage of cheap renewables for peak-time usage.

Also, everyone on bikes is hardly some hellish landscape. The Netherlands (“it’ll never work here!”) ain’t doing too bad!
 
conor_mc said:
Some amount of fossil fuel fossils around here! Seriously lads, anyone remember Russia invading Ukraine and gas prices shooting through the roof? It should be abundantly clear that becoming self-sufficient and secure in our means of generating electricity should be a priority, and since burning peat is, well, a little poisonous then harnessing our considerable renewable capacity makes the most sense. A transformation like that won’t happen without a few bumps in the road, but it undoubtedly is the smartest strategy this country can take. I mean, we’re not a million miles off a hot war in the Middle East as we speak!
Click to expand...
If you think gas is expensive, you haven't thought about out how much it costs to store enough renewable energy to guarantee availability of supply.
 
Nermal said:
If you think gas is expensive, you haven't thought about out how much it costs to store enough renewable energy to guarantee availability of supply.
Click to expand...
Today, yes.

Over the next 30-50 years, I’m pretty sure humanity will crack this. The pace of evolution has already been amazing re grid storage, interconnectors, etc. And yes that might mean someone else’s already-existing nuclear on occasion.
 
conor_mc said:
Today, yes.

Over the next 30-50 years, I’m pretty sure humanity will crack this. The pace of evolution has already been amazing re grid storage, interconnectors, etc. And yes that might mean someone else’s already-existing nuclear on occasion.
Click to expand...
but thats just wishful thinking and hope and a prayer which is effectively irish energy policy now . Its not the reality on the ground today, there is not enough nuclear capacity as it is in Europe for interconnectors to work, Germany foolishly closed their nuclear stations which made them highly dependant on russian gas, that russian gas hasn't been replaced by renewables but by keeping coal stations running in Germany and bringing in LNG gas mainly from Netherlands and Spain who wisely installed this infrastructure. If the industrial and technical powerhouse in Europe, Germany cannot solve the intermittancy of renewables and are scrambling to get LNG infrastructure in place , do you really think Ireland can? I mean we can't build enough houses and basic infrastructure as it is
 
joe sod said:
but thats just wishful thinking and hope and a prayer which is effectively irish energy policy now . Its not the reality on the ground today, there is not enough nuclear capacity as it is in Europe for interconnectors to work, Germany foolishly closed their nuclear stations which made them highly dependant on russian gas, that russian gas hasn't been replaced by renewables but by keeping coal stations running in Germany and bringing in LNG gas mainly from Netherlands and Spain who wisely installed this infrastructure. If the industrial and technical powerhouse in Europe, Germany cannot solve the intermittancy of renewables and are scrambling to get LNG infrastructure in place , do you really think Ireland can? I mean we can't build enough houses and basic infrastructure as it is
Click to expand...
Don’t disagree about Germany, if you’ve already got nukes, use them. But don’t bother starting a white elephant like Hinkley Point C. And even existing nukes can have major intermittency problems - intermittency like several months to a year, like France. It’s naive to think that big power stations aren’t as prone to duvet days as renewables, they just have them for several months on the trot. What then?
 
conor_mc said:
Some amount of fossil fuel fossils around here! Seriously lads, anyone remember Russia invading Ukraine and gas prices shooting through the roof? It should be abundantly clear that becoming self-sufficient and secure in our means of generating electricity should be a priority, and since burning peat is, well, a little poisonous then harnessing our considerable renewable capacity makes the most sense. A transformation like that won’t happen without a few bumps in the road, but it undoubtedly is the smartest strategy this country can take. I mean, we’re not a million miles off a hot war in the Middle East as we speak!
Click to expand...
I agree completely but wind and solar (wind in particular) aren't the answer. The only reliable form of green energy is nuclear.
 
conor_mc said:
Don’t disagree about Germany, if you’ve already got nukes, use them. But don’t bother starting a white elephant like Hinkley Point C. And even existing nukes can have major intermittency problems - intermittency like several months to a year, like France. It’s naive to think that big power stations aren’t as prone to duvet days as renewables, they just have them for several months on the trot. What then?
Click to expand...
The last nuclear power plant built in the USA was commissioned in 1978. It was designed over 50 years ago. Can you imagine if we all drove around in cars and flew around in aeroplanes which were designed over 50 years ago? Imagine the amount of plane crashes and road deaths. The idea that the safety of nuclear power should be based on plants that were designed and built before CAD software and modern designs, materials and standards is ridiculous.
Now imagine the pollution and inefficiency of 50 year old cars and aeroplanes relative to new ones. Apply the same logic to nuclear power stations.
 
Last edited:
Purple said:
I agree completely but wind and solar (wind in particular) aren't the answer. The only reliable form of green energy is nuclear.
Click to expand...
Generation, maybe.... although I'd argue that with sufficient geographic diversity, planned over-capacity, and more consistent performance via floating offshore eventually, that it is possible for wind to be a significant part of the answer. But the other part has to be a huge ramp up in grid storage.
 
Purple said:
The last nuclear power plant built in the USA was commissioned in 1978. It was designed over 50 years ago. Can you imagine if we all drove around in cars and flew around in aeroplanes which were designed over 50 years ago? Imagine the amount of plane crashes and road deaths. The idea that the safety of nuclear power should be based on plants that were designed and built before CAD software and modern designs, materials and standards is ridiculous.
Now imagine the pollution and inefficiency of 50 year old cars and aeroplanes relative to new ones. Apply the same logic to nuclear power stations.
Click to expand...
The problem with nuclear is that proponents seem to consistently ignore the not insignificant, long-tail cost (financial and risk) of storing spent nuclear waste. That's the main reason why I wouldn't be a fan of building more nuclear. But while I do think Germany's bet on gas over nuclear was wrong and rushed, a pivot now to renewables/storage over a longer timeframe will be viewed much more favourably by future generations.

Nuclear waste is reusable. Why aren’t we doing it?
 
conor_mc said:
The problem with nuclear is that proponents seem to consistently ignore the not insignificant, long-tail cost (financial and risk) of storing spent nuclear waste. That's the main reason why I wouldn't be a fan of building more nuclear. But while I do think Germany's bet on gas over nuclear was wrong and rushed, a pivot now to renewables/storage over a longer timeframe will be viewed much more favourably by future generations.

Nuclear waste is reusable. Why aren’t we doing it?
Click to expand...
There's no requirement to store nuclear waste if new technology is used.
The travelling wave reactor is a good example.
At the moment we pump the waste from burning fossil fuels into the air, killing tens of thousands of people every year and harming millions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top