New Government Report spells disaster for on-shore Wind Energy

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

You were wrong too. Probability of your scenario is the product of the individual probabilities. Dice analogy is an excellent method.

The dice analogy is a stupid analogy because you're dealing with a continuous random variable (wind speed).

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

lol, feel free to be as abusive as you wish. It does not alter the fact that for a gaussian probability distribution this statement is true

You said:

"Although is might appear at first glance that you could achieve a 10 year mean with one figure above 9.1m/s and the rest below, as you say, it is not in fact true."

You were incorrect.

You also said:

"You cannot just use any numbers, you must use those under the area bounded by the bell curve in the gaussian distribution because only those wind speeds have a probability greater than zero..."

This statement is also factually inaccurate.

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

It will not be lost on those following this thread that the State's Hired Internet Trolls and the devotees of the Institutionalised Crime gang behind this massive natural resources fraud have failed utterly to explain the extraordinary conflict in the planning applications production figures. The ESB/BnM were given that opportunity at the public hearings and were at a complete loss to account for the missing €10billion.

Cut out the State Hired Trolls stuff please and keep it civil.

LiamMayo wrote: »

anyone know the wind shear for the site

0.16 iirc. You need to check it coz I am on the road. They calculated it in the application from measurements at 50m n 80m. Noise analysis I think.

LiamMayo wrote: »

no matter how i try i cannot get a valid roughness length for the site from the wind speeds given. maybe some thing wrong with my excel model. thx

If you try to calculate the roughness length for Oweninny using the 2013 wind atlas speeds for the site you are wasting your time - you will never get a sane result. The older atlas has no such issues, try those numbers in excel.

The Swiss Govt website will do it for you btw. Readers may wish to try it for themselves. The values given for Oweninny in the 2013 wind atlas are 7.1m/s and 7.7m/s at 75m and 100m a.g. respectively. See how the calculated value fits the standard table:

0.0002 m Water surfaces: seas and Lakes
0.0024 m Open terrain with smooth surface, e.g. concrete, airport runways, mown grass etc.
0.03 m Open agricultural land without fences and hedges; maybe some far apart buildings and very gentle hills
0.055 m Agricultural land with a few buildings and 8 m high hedges seperated by more than 1 km
0.1 m Agricultural land with a few buildings and 8 m high hedges seperated by approx. 500 m
0.2 m Agricultural land with many trees, bushes and plants, or 8 m high hedges seperated by approx. 250 m
0.4 m Towns, villages, agricultural land with many or high hedges, forests and very rough and uneven terrain
0.6 m Large towns with high buildings
1.6 m Large cities with high buildings and skyscrapers

For those who do not know our area, the Oweninny site is a strip mined bog.

Gibbet Hill Wexford (from the EIS)

The 40 m height wind speed has been corrected to ‘standardised’ 10 m height wind speed using a roughness length of 0.05 m as detailed in ISO 61400-11 [3].

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

A roughness length of 0.05m describes "Agricultural land with a few buildings and 8 m high hedges seperated by more than 1 km".

Does that describe Gibbet Hill?

A....

Yes perfect Wexford rolling countryside with mixed farming and the odd bit of forestry and a farm building now again

LiamMayo wrote: »

will the seai software upgrades fix it?

The 2013 wind atlas roughness length for Oweninny is 50 times the expected value, 6km away at Cluddaun it is 20 times the expected value.

How did SEAI, and their contractor the UK Met Office, manage that?

LiamMayo wrote: »

at least you have an idea of the size of the energy vortex you mentioned earlier
..
where would the energy go?

Maybe it is powering the Somebody Else's Problem Field that prevents mention in the Irish National Media of Oweninny Wind Farm and the Bizarre 2013 SEAI Wind Atlas.

When the Dept of Energy shows up lying to citizens in support of a vast Natural Resources Fraud, it is very much our problem. We will see them in Court and they will have to explain it all to a Judge.

Readers will note the defenders of the 2013 SEAI Wind Atlas, so active and rude of late, have nothing to contribute.

Paul Thomas Rowland wrote: »

Readers will note the defenders of the 2013 SEAI Wind Atlas, so active and rude of late, have nothing to contribute.

You made basic errors about maths. Errors I would be embarrassed to see a 10 year old make. When these errors were politely pointed out to you, you refused to accept it, you said I and others were wrong.

You refused and still refuse to accept that you were incorrect in your maths.

Have you even figured out you were wrong yet? Have you said "sorry djpbarry/beeno67 I was wrong you were right?". Don't think so but you have carried on in the same way. You received a warning from the moderators here about the need to keep it civil yet you carry on in the same vein.

fclauson wrote: »

Cludden wind farm refused -

https://www.facebook.com/peter.sweetman.35?fref=nf&pnref=story

MOYGOWNA REFUSED
the Board is not satisfied, on the basis of the information provided, and notwithstanding the inclusion of some of the subject lands within areas identified in the Renewable Energy Strategy for County Mayo 2011-2020 either as suitable for large scale wind farm development or as open for consideration for such development, that the development as proposed would not adversely affect the integrity of certain designated sites (including certain European sites) in view of those sites’ conservation objectives.
Specifically, the Board is not satisfied that the development as proposed would not have the potential to impact negatively on the surface and groundwater hydrology of those sites by, inter alia, peat slippage and changes to the morphology and flows in natural streams and rivers. The designated sites of concern are:
• Bellacorick Bog Complex candidate Special Area of Conservation (Site Code 001922);
• Glenamoy Bog Complex candidate Special Area of Conservation (Site Code 000500);
• Inagh Bog proposed Natural Heritage Area (Site Code 002391), and
• Ummerantarry Bog proposed National Heritage Area (Site Code 001570).
Having regard to the above, the Board considers that the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Great result and well done to all the locals and others who fought this. Interesting that peat slippage was sighted as one of the reasons for refusal. There is currently a court case ongoing in the high court over a BP deceision to allow a wind farm on the slopes of Keeper Hill in Tipperary. Since the start of the case photos have emerged of a recent major landslip right in the middle of the proposed wind farm. I wonder has this put the wind(excuse the pun!!) up the planning authorities?? In any case I hope it sets a precident when it comes to planning policy with regards to wind farms in this country since up to now far too many have got the go ahead on fragile peatland water sheds leading to disasters like Derrybrien etc.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/permission-refused-for-coillte-wind-farm-in-mayo-1.2220244

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm not "defending" anything.

djpbarry wrote: »

..I'm not sure this is grounds for conspiracy hunting.

You have trolled the thread since you joined it, along with your wingman. Your bruised ego(s) are of no concern to me or my community. We have bigger fish to fry.

Does anyone have anything to say about the fact that the 2013 Wind Altas, the DoE "guidance" for planning authorities when it comes to wind farms, has glaring irregularities when it comes to Oweninny?

Produced at some expense, following a State tender, it has considerable authority as it has the imprimatur of HMG.

This document is published by the Met Office on behalf of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, HM Government

So people are likely to believe it. Yet extraordinarily, it appears to defy the laws of physics when it comes to describing the lowest 100m of the atmosphere at Oweninny. The roughness length value there is 50 times the expected value so it utterly fails the most basic sanity test for that location. The problem is slightly less severe at Cluddaun, 6km to the NNE, but still over an order of magnitude off target.

The UK Met office did not cock it up, their reputation is too valuable to them. The problems arose, I believe, during the "validation exercise" involving, not just the ESB and BnM, but the actual project management team for Oweninny wind farm. That team provided "data" and "mast observations" to the contractors. Happily the contractors had the good sense to mention the meeting in their report.

So it is no surprise than that the 2013 wind atlas so accurately predicts the production figures in the OPL planning application, it was cooked precisely for that purpose. Without the 7.7m/s mean wind speed 100m a.g. at Oweninny contained in the 2013 Wind Atlas, the OPL production figures have no scientific validation at all, quite the opposite is the case.

You see it really is a very well planned highly sophisticated €10bn fraud being carried out by the State. The scientific evidence is there to robustly support that view.

We are quite certain we can reach the standard of proof required to have any planning decision made by the Board overturned in judicial review and have the files referred to the DPP and Fraud Squad.