Application received 17 August 2026. The August report defines a proposed design envelope; no planning decision, agreed connection or operational equipment is established.
The application describes an approximate 300 MW storage design
August 2026 application; approximate capacity and detailed-design limits retained · Clare 2660530; new LDES proposal, separate from other Moneypoint generation projects
What the evidence says
The August report proposes a battery-storage development of approximately 300 MW within Moneypoint’s former coal-storage area. Its physical envelope allows up to 564 enclosures in 47 linear bays within 12 blocks, 47 MV/inverter skids and 10 auxiliary transformers. It treats the capacity as indicative and the physical parameters as an upper design envelope. No energy capacity in MWh is calculated from the generic discussion of storage duration.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Energy and grid engineers can distinguish the planning envelope from a final electrical or energy-capacity specification.
What is not established
Final MW and MWh ratings, decision, selected supplier, construction and operation are unverified.
Inspect the evidence
Moneypoint LDES: planning and environmental considerations report · p.103
c.300 MW · Issued August 2026 (month only) · PL1; 229101734-MMD-0000-XX-RP-C-001; August 2026; received 17 August 2026. PDF page numbers include 30 front-matter pages. · Checked 2026-09-06
c.300 MW
Lithium-ion is the stated preferred technology, not a selected battery product
August 2026 application; approximate capacity and detailed-design limits retained · Planning-stage technology preference and separate network agreement
What the evidence says
The report selects lithium-ion as its preferred storage technology, while allowing future technology improvements within the assessed physical parameters. It does not identify a battery-cell chemistry variant, enclosure manufacturer or final system model. The proposed HV connection to the existing Moneypoint substation remains subject to EirGrid agreement.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Battery and protection engineers can assess the stated technology basis while keeping product selection and network acceptance open.
What is not established
Cell chemistry, supplier, final controls/protection design and agreed grid connection are unverified.
Inspect the evidence
Moneypoint LDES: planning and environmental considerations report · p.101
preferred technology · Issued August 2026 (month only) · PL1; 229101734-MMD-0000-XX-RP-C-001; August 2026; received 17 August 2026. PDF page numbers include 30 front-matter pages. · Checked 2026-09-06
preferred technology
Moneypoint LDES: planning and environmental considerations report · p.109
EirGrid · Issued August 2026 (month only) · PL1; 229101734-MMD-0000-XX-RP-C-001; August 2026; received 17 August 2026. PDF page numbers include 30 front-matter pages. · Checked 2026-09-06
EirGrid
The transformer-bund design names Entexol systems or approved equivalents
August 2026 application; approximate capacity and detailed-design limits retained · MV-skid and auxiliary-transformer bund-water handling; different details remain separate
What the evidence says
The MV-skid description proposes locally bunded transformers and Entexol SCS001 oil-sensitive dewatering or an approved equivalent. The ten auxiliary transformers additionally describe Entexol SCS002 integrated Class 1 full-retention oil separation or an approved equal. The report leaves the final drainage design dependent on the chosen supplier; these are stated alternatives, not evidence of a placed order.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Drainage and electrical engineers can compare proposed bund-water controls and equivalent systems against the final transformer design.
What is not established
Final supplier, bund calculations, separator sizes, approval and installation are unverified.
Inspect the evidence
Moneypoint LDES: planning and environmental considerations report · p.107
Entexol SCS001 · Issued August 2026 (month only) · PL1; 229101734-MMD-0000-XX-RP-C-001; August 2026; received 17 August 2026. PDF page numbers include 30 front-matter pages. · Checked 2026-09-06
Entexol SCS001
The report gives both five and four LV containers
August 2026 application; approximate capacity and detailed-design limits retained · Component list versus detailed LV section; PDF pages 104 and 107, printed pages 74 and 77
What the evidence says
The development-component list on PDF page 104 states five low-voltage switchgear containers. The later dedicated LV section on PDF page 107 states four prefabricated containers. This is an unresolved count disagreement within the same report; neither number is treated as a final equipment total.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Electrical designers can resolve the inconsistent LV schedule before sizing auxiliary distribution or comparing equipment quantities.
What is not established
The controlling LV count and final drawings are not established.
Inspect the evidence
Moneypoint LDES: planning and environmental considerations report · p.104
5 No · Issued August 2026 (month only) · PL1; 229101734-MMD-0000-XX-RP-C-001; August 2026; received 17 August 2026. PDF page numbers include 30 front-matter pages. · Checked 2026-09-06
5 No
Moneypoint LDES: planning and environmental considerations report · p.107
4 no. · Issued August 2026 (month only) · PL1; 229101734-MMD-0000-XX-RP-C-001; August 2026; received 17 August 2026. PDF page numbers include 30 front-matter pages. · Checked 2026-09-06
4 no.
Firewater supply and incident-water retention are separate systems
August 2026 application; approximate capacity and detailed-design limits retained · Supply tank and separate retention system described in section 3.3.3.1
What the evidence says
The report proposes a northern firewater supply tank of approximately 13.41 m diameter and maximum capacity about 1,378 m³, with the stored volume to be agreed during detailed design. It separately identifies a firewater pumphouse and below-ground retention tank. The stated supply-tank maximum is not assigned to the separate retention system.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Fire-protection and drainage engineers can keep firefighting supply and contaminated-water retention requirements distinct.
What is not established
Agreed firewater volume, pump duties, incident-retention volume, final safety design and installation are unverified.
Inspect the evidence
Moneypoint LDES: planning and environmental considerations report · p.107
firewater supply tank · Issued August 2026 (month only) · PL1; 229101734-MMD-0000-XX-RP-C-001; August 2026; received 17 August 2026. PDF page numbers include 30 front-matter pages. · Checked 2026-09-06
firewater supply tank
Four plinths do not establish four permanently installed generators
August 2026 application; approximate capacity and detailed-design limits retained · Contingency supply and permanent support plinths are different scope items
What the evidence says
The report describes secondary electrical supply and a temporary backup diesel generator as alternatives during outages. It proposes four permanent concrete plinths to accommodate temporary generators if required and if secondary supply is unavailable. It does not establish permanently installed diesel sets or their ratings.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Electrical and civil engineers can distinguish fixed enabling works from conditional backup equipment when reviewing the supply strategy.
What is not established
Final backup arrangement, generator count in use, output, fuel storage and installed equipment are unverified.
Inspect the evidence
Moneypoint LDES: planning and environmental considerations report · p.108
temporary backup · Issued August 2026 (month only) · PL1; 229101734-MMD-0000-XX-RP-C-001; August 2026; received 17 August 2026. PDF page numbers include 30 front-matter pages. · Checked 2026-09-06
temporary backup
A new drainage network would feed the modified settlement pond
August 2026 application; approximate capacity and detailed-design limits retained · LDES surface water and the existing coal-yard settlement pond
What the evidence says
The report says the existing coal-yard drainage is not fit for purpose. It proposes a new underground surface-water network, an oil separator and discharge to the modified southern settlement pond. The pond is existing infrastructure; the description does not establish a wholly new pond or a verified discharge capacity.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Civil engineers and drainage suppliers can identify replacement-network work and the retained pond interface that needs assessment.
What is not established
Pond condition, hydraulic design, separator specification, permitted discharge and completed works are unverified.
Inspect the evidence
Moneypoint LDES: planning and environmental considerations report · p.120
new surface water network · Issued August 2026 (month only) · PL1; 229101734-MMD-0000-XX-RP-C-001; August 2026; received 17 August 2026. PDF page numbers include 30 front-matter pages. · Checked 2026-09-06
new surface water network
The initial enabling works are shared with other repowering projects
August 2026 application; approximate capacity and detailed-design limits retained · Shared repowering enabling stage versus LDES-specific civil and electrical work
What the evidence says
The report describes early civil enabling works across the coal-storage area as common to LDES and the two OCGT developments. Later LDES works include reinforced-concrete foundations, with piling or ground improvement where necessary, and separate LDES/HV electrical fit-out. Shared enabling works are not counted as three independent site-preparation packages.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Civil designers and project teams can separate common infrastructure from the later storage package when comparing scope and sequencing.
What is not established
Ground investigations, final foundation method, contracted work packages and actual start dates are unverified.
Inspect the evidence
Moneypoint LDES: planning and environmental considerations report · p.110
common to all three · Issued August 2026 (month only) · PL1; 229101734-MMD-0000-XX-RP-C-001; August 2026; received 17 August 2026. PDF page numbers include 30 front-matter pages. · Checked 2026-09-06
common to all three
Selected pages of 1 government-published PDFs were visually inspected. 22 catalogue rows retained. Three PDFs were retrieved; selected pages of the 468-page environmental report support these findings. The cover and CEMP were text-screened only. This is not a review of all environmental chapters, appendices or drawings. Proposals do not establish procurement or installed work.