Wind farms - ugly truths

Capt'n Midnight · 17-06-2014 11:00pm

daithi7 wrote: »

2. According to some sceptics, current technology doesn't ramp up well to allow for wind energies fluctuations, so this is a reason to shelve it.

I'm blue in the face pointing out that "current technology" guarantees to replace 75% of the loss of the biggest generator on the system ( usually > 300 MW ) within 15 SECONDS and 100% of that loss within ONE MINUTE.

Considering it would take more than 15 seconds for a wind front to pass a typical wind far it's unlikely we'll see that sort of change in wind unless someone vacuums all the air over the country into space.

5. We've loads of wind but very little fossil fuels so we really have to make this work along with smart use of tide, solar and Energy storage technologies to increase our energy independence and hence our national competitiveness.

This is down to economics. Wind is way cheaper than the others at present. Most of them are still more expensive than offshore wind, and we've got GW's of that ready to go , once someone provides the readies.

6. The CO2 emissions imho is a red herring and is only a secondary issue imho, the debate should be about average net costs and net amount of fossil fuels consumed to produce a MW of electricity over the lifetime of the plant required e.g 20 to 40 years.

Slightly off topic but between the mining and concrete and construction it takes many years for a nuclear plant to offset the CO2 that was used to build it. I can't see EDF's EPR's achieving that in their first 15 years from start of a project.

Wind can be carbon neutral in as little as 6 months, and you've also to include carbon tax / credits into the costs. And factor in that after 20 years you can refurbish a wind farm for about 15% of it's initial cost and get another 20 years out of it.

Capt'n Midnight · 17-06-2014 11:08pm

Birdnuts wrote: »

The coldest winter weather is associated with stagnant HP systems which are characterized by little wind. That is why during the cold winter of 2010 installed wind capacity performed particulary badly as was the case across Europe in the 2011 cold spell.

In theory there might be no wind for a while, in practice we got 1/4 of our energy from wind and it could have been substantially more if our gird could accept more than 50% asynch generation.

It's been pointed out to you ad nauseum that we have excess fossil fuel generating capacity for the foreseeable future. So not having wind just means that our electricity will come from the existing gas generators.

Thing is as we get more renewables on line we will be less dependent on wind speed.

Birdnuts · 18-06-2014 12:31am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In theory there might be no wind for a while, in practice we got 1/4 of our energy from wind and it could have been substantially more if our gird could accept more than 50% asynch generation.

It's been pointed out to you ad nauseum that we have excess fossil fuel generating capacity for the foreseeable future. So not having wind just means that our electricity will come from the existing gas generators.

Thing is as we get more renewables on line we will be less dependent on wind speed.

In practice this approach has not worked on the continent and is not likely to work here. Saying wind produced 1/4 of our energy is meaningless as it is so variable and unreliable that it cannot be compared to other power sources in terms of dispatch, load balancing etc. Just look at the poor output of the large installed capacity we currently have in recent weeks. Significantly most of this capacity sprawls across large parts of counties Donegal, Kerry etc. which are considered counties with the best wind potential. Building yet more capacity in regions with poorer wind resources like the midlands will make very little difference to the poor performance of wind power in the current low wind conditions.

fclauson · 18-06-2014 9:20am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In theory there might be no wind for a while, in practice we got 1/4 of our energy from wind and it could have been substantially more if our gird could accept more than 50% asynch generation.

It's been pointed out to you ad nauseum that we have excess fossil fuel generating capacity for the foreseeable future. So not having wind just means that our electricity will come from the existing gas generators.

Thing is as we get more renewables on line we will be less dependent on wind speed.

Couple of points:

read - http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.6435.pdf
about the real serious issues of having to much asynch generators on the network (a thing called rotational inertia). There is already a proposal to for this - read this
http://www.uregni.gov.uk/news/view/grid_code_modification_for_rocof_-_proposed_decision/

This means current existing rotating plants are going to have to accept a higher RoCoF. This is a hidden cost of wind as these plants then claim more PSO levy for making these changes.

Also see the conclusion above:
The presented analyses show that high shares of inverter-connected power generation can have a signiﬁcant impact on power system stability and power system operation.

CORRECTION: I originally put wind - but as OD pointed out you did say renewables. Storage will be the magic key here

On more turbines=less dependence on wind speed
this does not stack up - see below - and we did drop to 3Mw a week or two back from some 1800 installed turbines

fclauson · 18-06-2014 9:22am

I know some people find Pat controversial but here is his analysis of costs

http://www.turn180.ie/2014/06/16/deconstructing-seais-claims-that-wind-energy-provides-savings-for-the-taxpayer/

Old diesel · 18-06-2014 9:56am

fclauson wrote: »

Couple of points:

read - http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.6435.pdf
about the real serious issues of having to much asynch generators on the network (a thing called rotational inertia). There is already a proposal to for this - read this
http://www.uregni.gov.uk/news/view/grid_code_modification_for_rocof_-_proposed_decision/

This means current existing rotating plants are going to have to accept a higher RoCoF. This is a hidden cost of wind as these plants then claim more PSO levy for making these changes.

Also see the conclusion above:
The presented analyses show that high shares of inverter-connected power generation can have a signiﬁcant impact on power system stability and power system operation.

On more turbines=less dependence on wind speed
this does not stack up - see below - and we did drop to 3Mw a week or two back from some 1800 installed turbines

I read Capt'n Midnights comments on more renewables = less dependence on wind speed - as meaning different types of renewables.

Quite clearly the more wind turbines you depend on for your electricity - the higher your dependence on wind speed is.

Had a read of an article this morning - it was one of the farming weekly supplements from Irish examiner

Lady raised a couple of interesting points - relating to the turbine issue

1) She is concerned the young people will move away "who would want to live surrounded by turbines

2) If one lot of turbines go in - will more start shooting up???

The first point is extremely relevant in the context of Rural communities - so it raises the question - of AGAIN how do you plan the future of communities in a positive way in an era where wind power is becoming more of a feature in communities.

Her second point is interesting - planners talk about development suitable and sustainable for the area.

If you have one lot of turbines in - the argument that more are not in keeping with the area - loses a lot of ground - because the extra turbines going in - are going into an area where there is already a wind farm

She also makes the point that in her area "2 houses were in the process of been sold - but when the potential buyers heard about the turbines - they put their money in their pockets and disappeared"

I don't know how far advanced the sales were - or if it was simply a case of people viewing - and then losing complete interest on hearing of turbines. She just refers to houses been in the process of been sold - and potential buyers putting their money in their pockets on hearing about turbines

Bear in mind - this is in a community where the wind farm hasn't even got planning yet apparently

Old diesel · 18-06-2014 10:05am

Expanding again - if you plan a development that causes people to feel - due to the manner in which it is planned and other issues - that the project is a threat to their community - then its to be expected that people will object.

Afterall - threat to future of community in peoples minds = creating problems for their future.

Unfortunately - I feel that our local wind farm doesn't do anything to help bolster our communities future - and feel that instead - it restricts our communities future.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the wind argument - I feel having turbines in our community - 35 turbine project makes our community a less attractive one for someone to move into.

I think the increasing question in the mind of a buyer of a home, or a site for a home they want to build - in the coming years will be - how close am I to a wind farm - is there a wind farm in this community.

They will be more likely imo - to purchase a house if there is no wind farm in the area - or one in the planning system - or granted permission - but not yet built.

There is also a question mark in my mind that even in Rural areas that don't have turbines in their area - will buyers start been slow to purchase houses because they are concerned that having taken out a mortgage to buy or built - in 2 or 3 years time - a wind farm could be proposed and planned - yet the buyer basically will have no protection from the planning system.

The issue is simple - how we approach community planning in terms of the wider planning of wind farms

Old diesel · 18-06-2014 10:12am

Id like to say that the local wind farm doesn't actually interfere with my daily living too much - but given that I am 2 miles away* - id expect that quite frankly

Nonetheless - I feel our community would have a brighter future if it weren't for having a wind farm - I also feel that the community benefits scheme is a joke - the figure I heard for five years - I initially thought it was what we were been given for 12 months when I heard it first.

Turbines themselves aren't the issue - its how the business of planning them - and the engagement with communities - and the lack of planning for what a communities future is going to be - in any sort of positive way - that's the issue

The only focus is - get the turbines in - theres no broader planning beyond that - and that's a flaw of the Irish planning approach - not a flaw of turbines - although the flaws of wind turbines DO play a role in creating the issues - its the official planning policy and response to the issues that causes the difficulty

*estimated distance

Jim Martin · 18-06-2014 12:24pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This relies on having access to very cheap secondhand batteries which would become unavailable if demand grew.

Vehicle starting batteries aren't designed for deep discharge so won't have long lives unless you use an excess of them. Probably more environmentally friendly to recycle them into deep discharge batteries, but more expensive too.

Grassroots can work for solar since they are nearly zero maintenance and besides won't we all have smart meters soon :rolleyes:
One of the big costs in solar farms is the land , not a problem when you have roofs.

Spinning blades means you have to maintain them , and there may be insurance issues and whatever about noise from a wind farm 1Km away having one on your next door neighbours roof might irritate. And there are huge economies of scale with large turbines.

Don't think they're allowed on rooves in the UK - not sure what the law is here!

Recondite49 · 18-06-2014 1:55pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This relies on having access to very cheap secondhand batteries which would become unavailable if demand grew.

Vehicle starting batteries aren't designed for deep discharge so won't have long lives unless you use an excess of them. Probably more environmentally friendly to recycle them into deep discharge batteries, but more expensive too.

Grassroots can work for solar since they are nearly zero maintenance and besides won't we all have smart meters soon :rolleyes:
One of the big costs in solar farms is the land , not a problem when you have roofs.

Spinning blades means you have to maintain them , and there may be insurance issues and whatever about noise from a wind farm 1Km away having one on your next door neighbours roof might irritate. And there are huge economies of scale with large turbines.

Hi Captain Midnight - are you sure that there won't be a ready supply of 12V batteries? My friend uses recycled ones from old cars, no shortage of those - although as you say a deep cycle battery is much more efficient.

I do worry about the implications for his carbon footprint but then you'll want some decent batteries if you want to get full use of your solar panels surely? I for one wouldn't mind knowing I can have a relatively hot shower at night!

The reasons you give about NIMBYists is exactly why I think it's best to build your own as you're less likely to need planning permission and even if the council order you to take it down, you can just build another...

Capt'n Midnight · 18-06-2014 7:50pm

Recondite49 wrote: »

Hi Captain Midnight - are you sure that there won't be a ready supply of 12V batteries? My friend uses recycled ones from old cars, no shortage of those - although as you say a deep cycle battery is much more efficient.

As long as it's niche then yeah there will be batteries, but if the world and it's mother want to jump on the bandwagon ...

Recondite49 · 18-06-2014 7:53pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

As long as it's niche then yeah there will be batteries, but if the world and it's mother want to jump on the bandwagon ...

I just wonder if that needs to be a concern provided people keep on scrapping cars? I thought the number ran into the millions?

It's a shame that it has to be this way but there's simply too much opposition to large scale wind farms to make it a viable idea.

I know also you're a Survivalist like me so imagine you'd rather not be connected to the grid anyway if you can help it.

Old diesel · 18-06-2014 7:58pm

Recondite49 wrote: »

I just wonder if that needs to be a concern provided people keep on scrapping cars? I thought the number ran into the millions?

It's a shame that it has to be this way but there's simply too much opposition to large scale wind farms to make it a viable idea.

I know also you're a Survivalist like me so imagine you'd rather not be connected to the grid anyway if you can help it.

There may be lots of opposition to large scale wind farms - but the determination of Pat Rabbite and his Govt colleagues, An Bord Pleanala and the wind industry - are likely to win out.

in short don't worry about wind farm opposition stopping wind farms coming into operation.

Am I happy about this - well not particularly - but there you go :eek:

Capt'n Midnight · 18-06-2014 8:41pm

fclauson wrote: »

about the real serious issues of having to much asynch generators on the network (a thing called rotational inertia). There is already a proposal to for this - read this
...
This means current existing rotating plants are going to have to accept a higher RoCoF. This is a hidden cost of wind as these plants then claim more PSO levy for making these changes.

If we can move to a grid that can accept another 25% of asynch generators we could probably get 12.5% more of our units generated by them.

The presented analyses show that high shares of inverter-connected power generation can have a signiﬁcant impact on power system stability and power system operation.

a - inverters will get better
b - you can use flywheels and similar for grid stability
c - for many applications it doesn't matter as much as it used to.

Heating doesn't really care, CFL's and LED's don't care, most electronic devices use switched mode power supplies and most of them would work on DC without modification, universal motors don't care, how many big power users need power at exactly 50Hz ?

CORRECTION: I originally put wind - but as OD pointed out you did say renewables. Storage will be the magic key here

On more turbines=less dependence on wind speed
this does not stack up - see below - and we did drop to 3Mw a week or two back from some 1800 installed turbines

[/QUOTE]

fclauson · 21-06-2014 1:24pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I'm blue in the face pointing out that "current technology" guarantees to replace 75% of the loss of the biggest generator on the system ( usually > 300 MW ) within 15 SECONDS and 100% of that loss within ONE MINUTE.

Considering it would take more than 15 seconds for a wind front to pass a typical wind far it's unlikely we'll see that sort of change in wind unless someone vacuums all the air over the country into space.

Problem is wind is not classed as "dispatchable" and hence cannot be used to provide this backup - as mentioned many post back - event with a lot of wind on the network spinning reserve still needs to be provided for as you mention to maintain the guarantee.

Goes back to my comment even in peak wind
say we have a 2000Mw demand met by
1000Mw from "dispatchable" fossil or bio plant or hydro and
1000Mw from wind
say the largest generator on line is a 350Mw device

to maintain this guarantee I believe Eirgrid is still required to have 1350Mw spinning reserve which can cut in within the security of supply time lines to maintain that security of supply plus sufficient to cover any peak demand which may occur (worked out as an running average/statistical figure based on time of year/time of day etc).

This could amount to 1500 or 1600 spinning reserve to meet the above guarantee of service - unless someone can confirm anything different about how it operates .

Capt'n Midnight · 22-06-2014 12:25pm

fclauson wrote: »

Problem is wind is not classed as "dispatchable" and hence cannot be used to provide this backup - as mentioned many post back

I really don't know which is worse

that you think I meant wind could be used as spinning reserve

or that you meant to imply that I said wind could be used as spinning reserve

to maintain this guarantee I believe Eirgrid is still required to have 1350Mw spinning reserve which can cut in within the security of supply time lines to maintain that security of supply plus sufficient to cover any peak demand which may occur (worked out as an running average/statistical figure based on time of year/time of day etc).

This could amount to 1500 or 1600 spinning reserve to meet the above guarantee of service - unless someone can confirm anything different about how it operates .

Nuclear needs 100% spinning reserve. the UK will need a minimum of 3.2GW when Hinckley C goes online.

In comparison the largest windfarm in Ireland is 72MW, so that's the most spinning reserve needed to cover it going completely off line without warning. Well below the 115MW minimum needed anyway - so there is ZERO capital cost. There's even an argument that the biggest wind generator is only a few MW , but spinning reserve has to handle transformer outages too.

It's very disingenuous to claim wind unpredictable is a major problem when the predictions are issued DAYS ahead and backup generators can respond in SECONDS. Is it some sort of religious belief ?

Reserve power kicks in in 5 seconds.
Sound takes 5 seconds to travel one mile.

Believe me when I tell you that if there's a weather front that can travel a mile in 5 seconds you will certainly see the sort of power drop you predict. You will also see turbines, houses, cows, trees and soil drop because the landscape will be scoured to bed rock. The sonic boom would probably pulverise anything that survived the wind.

and that's for one wind farm, suggesting that all the wind across all the turbines across all wind farms across the country could change faster then the grid could respond is unlikely

Anyway read this
Operational Constraints Update
7th August 2013
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/OperationalConstraintsUpdate_v1.8_August2013.pdf

Primary Operating Reserve is to provide 75% of the largest generator within 5 seconds - minimum is 115MW
100% from tertiary reserve within 90 seconds

Look at the other constraints
There must be at least 5 high inertia machines on-load at all
times in Ireland. Required for dynamic stability.
Open cycle gas turbines can only run at 2/3rd's power so they can ramp up another 1/3rd sharpish
There must be at least one Moneypoint unit on load at all
times. Required to support the 400kV network.

more than enough to cover multiple wind farms going offline
and way more than enough to match changes in wind because at that stage the 5 day predictions are backed up with LIVE measurements on the wind farms too

Old diesel · 22-06-2014 12:58pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I really don't know which is worse

that you think I meant wind could be used as spinning reserve

or that you meant to imply that I said wind could be used as spinning reserve

Nuclear needs 100% spinning reserve. the UK will need a minimum of 3.2GW when Hinckley C goes online.

In comparison the largest windfarm in Ireland is 72MW, so that's the most spinning reserve needed to cover it going completely off line without warning. Well below the 115MW minimum needed anyway - so there is ZERO capital cost. There's even an argument that the biggest wind generator is only a few MW , but spinning reserve has to handle transformer outages too.

It's very disingenuous to claim wind unpredictable is a major problem when the predictions are issued DAYS ahead and backup generators can respond in SECONDS. Is it some sort of religious belief ?

Reserve power kicks in in 5 seconds.
Sound takes 5 seconds to travel one mile.

Believe me when I tell you that if there's a weather front that can travel a mile in 5 seconds you will certainly see the sort of power drop you predict. You will also see turbines, houses, cows, trees and soil drop because the landscape will be scoured to bed rock. The sonic boom would probably pulverise anything that survived the wind.

and that's for one wind farm, suggesting that all the wind across all the turbines across all wind farms across the country could change faster then the grid could respond is unlikely

Anyway read this
Operational Constraints Update
7th August 2013
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/OperationalConstraintsUpdate_v1.8_August2013.pdf

Primary Operating Reserve is to provide 75% of the largest generator within 5 seconds - minimum is 115MW
100% from tertiary reserve within 90 seconds

Look at the other constraints
There must be at least 5 high inertia machines on-load at all
times in Ireland. Required for dynamic stability.
Open cycle gas turbines can only run at 2/3rd's power so they can ramp up another 1/3rd sharpish
There must be at least one Moneypoint unit on load at all
times. Required to support the 400kV network.

more than enough to cover multiple wind farms going offline
and way more than enough to match changes in wind because at that stage the 5 day predictions are backed up with LIVE measurements on the wind farms too

So your saying spinning reserve - is what is needed to deal with a SUDDEN loss of power???.

And alternative power sources/generators - can be bought online in anticipation of anticipated low wind????

Just trying to get an understanding.

Because wind does need back up for occasions when its producing very little power - we need the ability imo to produce 100 percent of our power from non wind sources at times.

This imo - is also why we need grid upgrades* - so that on days when we have a lot of wind - we can achieve higher percentages in order to compensate for days when percentage from wind is low - so that over 12 months we can achieve 40 percent - and more - from renewables

Greensleeves · 22-06-2014 4:46pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's very disingenuous to claim wind unpredictable is a major problem when the predictions are issued DAYS ahead and backup generators can respond in SECONDS.

It is the unreliability of wind that is the problem: we can predict days in advance that there is going to be no wind so we need to have a reliable generator available for those days. Covering the country in wind turbines would not significantly improve on this because the lack of wind is the problem, not the lack of turbines.

Old diesel · 22-06-2014 4:57pm

Greensleeves wrote: »

It is the unreliability of wind that is the problem: we can predict days in advance that there is going to be no wind so we need to have a reliable generator available for those days. Covering the country in wind turbines would not significantly improve on this because the lack of wind is the problem, not the lack of turbines.

I think the pylons and associated grid upgrades should mean that you can use MORE of the power that's produced - due to extra capacity of the grid.

For example Eirgrid are planning for 650 MW of renewables (according to them not just wind - but wave and biomass too

) in the North west - hence the western pylon project.

It wouldn't be such an issue imo - if it weren't for the fact that lots of turbines = community impact - and youd have liked wind energy to be very reliable to make up for the planning difficulties.

fclauson · 22-06-2014 7:29pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I really don't know which is worse

that you think I meant wind could be used as spinning reserve

or that you meant to imply that I said wind could be used as spinning reserve

bit confused by the above

Nuclear needs 100% spinning reserve. the UK will need a minimum of 3.2GW when Hinckley C goes online.

but Nuclear generates negligible C02 :rolleyes:- Irish Spinning reserve is mainly carbon based

In comparison the largest windfarm in Ireland is 72MW, so that's the most spinning reserve needed to cover it going completely off line without warning. Well below the 115MW minimum needed anyway - so there is ZERO capital cost. There's even an argument that the biggest wind generator is only a few MW , but spinning reserve has to handle transformer outages too.

not sure your are right - wind is not dispatchable so correct me if I am wrong the spinning reserve has to cover ALL of the wind output as it cannot be relied upon.

It's very disingenuous to claim wind unpredictable is a major problem when the predictions are issued DAYS ahead and backup generators can respond in SECONDS. Is it some sort of religious belief ?

wind is unpredictable - fact
over a few days it can predicted - truth

...
and that's for one wind farm, suggesting that all the wind across all the turbines across all wind farms across the country could change faster then the grid could respond is unlikely

not the point - wind is not dispatchable - and hence cannot be relied upon for network security or stability

Anyway read this
Operational Constraints Update
7th August 2013
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/OperationalConstraintsUpdate_v1.8_August2013.pdf

Primary Operating Reserve is to provide 75% of the largest generator within 5 seconds - minimum is 115MW
100% from tertiary reserve within 90 seconds

Look at the other constraints
There must be at least 5 high inertia machines on-load at all
times in Ireland. Required for dynamic stability.
Open cycle gas turbines can only run at 2/3rd's power so they can ramp up another 1/3rd sharpish
There must be at least one Moneypoint unit on load at all
times. Required to support the 400kV network.

more than enough to cover multiple wind farms going offline
and way more than enough to match changes in wind because at that stage the 5 day predictions are backed up with LIVE measurements on the wind farms too

So we have all this reserve DESPITE wind (which was my original opening post) and the SEAI document does little to console one that non-dispatched generation is include in their CO2 generation numbers

Secondly the new 400kv pylon network will still need stability and its my understanding that they will still need to keep rotary stable generation going to keep it stable

Old diesel · 22-06-2014 7:45pm

fclauson wrote: »

bit confused by the above

but Nuclear generates negligible C02 :rolleyes:- Irish Spinning reserve is mainly carbon based

not sure your are right - wind is not dispatchable so correct me if I am wrong the spinning reserve has to cover ALL of the wind output as it cannot be relied upon.

wind is unpredictable - fact
over a few days it can predicted - truth

not the point - wind is not dispatchable - and hence cannot be relied upon for network security or stability

So we have all this reserve DESPITE wind (which was my original opening post) and the SEAI document does little to console one that non-dispatched generation is include in their CO2 generation numbers

Secondly the new 400kv pylon network will still need stability and its my understanding that they will still need to keep rotary stable generation going to keep it stable

Does rotary stable generation thus mean - even if there was enough wind to fulfil daily needs - and 400 kv lines could move it - we can't - and need other sources too????

I find it amazing thinking about it - that its Rural Ireland that has to apologise (almost) for being critical of wind - while those who think its awesome have free run of the field - and can make decisions that impact on Rural Irelands future - at their leisure and behind closed doors :mad:

And all for a technology that isn't up to the mark for good consistent supply.

:(:(

Im wondering who do I send my letter of apology to for wanting as positive a future as possible for as many Rural Communities as possible.

And wanting the energy technology - wind or other energy types - to fit in well with communities that are ALREADY there.

194 homes within 1 km of wind farm - that's the planning that's considered acceptable in a community in Co Offaly.

Some will say its good planning - I however am not so sure - it feels like its cross the line to a place where the community is squeezed around the wind farm - rather then the energy solution fitting around the communities needs and future

:(:(

Capt'n Midnight · 22-06-2014 8:02pm

In ROI we have 7388MW dispatchable, by 2020 this will rise to 7534

Peak ever demand in ROI was a smidgen over 5000W so most of the time there's at least 150% capacity

We could supply 250% of peak demand for today.

It's a complete non-issue because we already have oodles of dispatchable generation.

To dumb it down, we don't need to build backup for wind because we already had it.

We don't need to spend much on spinning reserve costs because we already need that extra power to backup the fossil generators.

Yes extra fuel needs to be burnt sometimes to cover gaps in wind, but wind saves 1,000 times more fuel.

Complaining about the extra cost of fuel needed to backup wind is like complaining about having to buy oil for a car every year instead of every two years even though it will improve your MPG by 33% and pay for itself on the first fill up

fclauson · 22-06-2014 8:04pm

fclauson wrote: »

I wanted to return to this original post as its probably time to reflect on the 466 plus posts there have been (and thanks to all participants).

Firstly let me make my position absolutely clear
I am not Anti-Wind.
I am not Pro-Wind.

I am pro factual based argument based on

Demand
Cost & Value
Environmental Impact (including C02, landscape damage, community impact)

We have been around many of these in various forms and reached consensus on some not on others.

If I try and summaries:

Demand has dropped below predictions of previous years due to a number of factors (economy, efficiency, population movements). The future view on demand is mixed but as prices rise and efficiency improve a lower rather than higher rate of change is expected.
The value of wind to the individual and the economy has not been properly established from a pure money spent - value to Irish customer received perspective. The general view is that we are spending too much to get what we are getting in return. (I have seen no wind is fab value for money comments)
Until we have effective storage, significantly lower demand and a better mix of renewables (solar, wind,wave, bio.....) there can be no decommissioning of fossil plants. (we have rumbled around on this but I think this is the conclusion)
For the CO2 argument we are very mixed in our thoughts.
Some will do anything to lower CO2
Some disagree that the SEAI document really gives a clear picture of what wind has actually saved.
Some want to believe wind is helping - but struggle to find the facts
Then again some do find the facts and start to believe wind is helping

This one aspect has been the most contentious - and will probably remain so
The landscape environmental impact has been considerable - there is no one who says that it has had no impact.
Community impact has been significant (and will rumble on for many years to come) - again there are no comments saying there has been none.

Finally what does the future hold - not sure - this has been one of the most polarized debates I have been involved in (and I wish we could have done it face to face as it would have been easier)

I cannot get my mind around why I cannot find any wind farm advocates who accept there are big issues and want to work with those affected

and in the same light

I cannot find any wind farm opponents who realize they have to have to work to fit wind turbines in to their communities going forward.

In closing for now (until a comment comes along I feel forced to respond to) thanks for all the input and

keep challenging all the arguments without becoming bigoted and retain the thought that you just might be wrong

Old diesel · 22-06-2014 8:30pm

I too find it disappointing that those in the Wind industry (not people in this thread id like to stress) don't seem interested in working to address issues that araise and challenges communities face in accepting wind.

Its one of the reasons I am often critical of wind.

In terms of communities working to fit wind into their community - its a fair point - but I do think that works both ways - communities may have to work to make wind fit into their community. But at the same time those at Govt level and the planners and at project development level - should try to work to deliver energy solutions that fit in with everyday pleasant living in rural communities.

But that touches on exactly part of the issue with the Irish planning system - no one seems interested in looking at how wind will fit into a positive future for the community - or indeed how we can ensure that the quality of life of people living in communities can be maintained at a similar level to what it was prior to the project

Ive said it before - and I will say it again - people will find it easier to accept change - if they can see a future that's aimed to be as positive as possible in their communities and/or in their everyday living

What I want basically are a number of things - maybe they are unreasonable or not making enough sacrifice.

But - my wants are - I don't know if they are possible - but I like to aim high

1) Working to ensure that homes in communities where energy projects go into - are still pleasant to live in when the project is operational - operational as in up and running - making power.

2) We need energy - we need good energy policy - no problem - but id like to see planning for the future of communities get more focus - and id like to see solutions that work to ensure a future for as many communities as possible that is as bright as possible.

3) I realise not every community will make it - and that won't be just down to wind - general declining rural populations - which is happening in areas - regardless of wind. But id like to maximise the numbers of communities that will continue to be communities in the long term with a good positive future. I take the view that if you take 100 communities - and you lose say 35 - that's not good at all - but that would mean 65 kept going as communities - and 65 is a lot better then zero.

I am a wind critic - but I try not to be closed to the idea of wind - in fact - id actually welcome seeing the technology improve - as I don't believe we should rule out options for energy - and id like to see Wind power achieve its full potential - whatever that maybe - as a technology.

I am concerned about the future of Rural Ireland and would like to see a future for it that's as good as it can be - I suppose id like to see Rural communities achieve their full potential - whatever that may be.

I accept hard decisions have to be made - but I wish we could work with communities to try and achieve the best solution for the communities, Ireland and the people.

Lots of challenges ahead

Old diesel · 22-06-2014 8:40pm

I will leave you with a quote from a Fine Gael Councillor - Councillor Mary Sheehan on the granting of a wind farm in Laois late last week/early this week

She said

"Its a sad day for the area"

I think that's what a lot of communities feel about wind - so how do we get to a point where - even if they may never love wind - communities don't feel the world has ended for them and their community when the wind farm is granted permission.

A better planning system could help - if communities felt they could work with planners/developers and Govt to achieve a solution that while not perfect - is okay for communities and doesn't mess them around.

The final thing - if Govt, Planners, Wind developers and others are assuring communities - Wind is great - you won't have issues with this project - how do we ensure if we make that promise to them - that what is promised - is whats delivered in reality.

In short - if Govt and others are promising Communities the wind farm plans won't mess up their everyday living and everything will be fine - that needs to be the reality that's delivered when the wind farm is operational.

Personally I think Pat Rabbite and others like some of the wind developers, An bord Pleanala and the like - have caused a lot of the current issues in the way they deal with communities.

Jim Martin · 05-08-2014 11:13am

High Court Quashes An Bord Pleanala Decision to Permit Windfarm in Roscommon:

http://irishplanningnews.ie/high-court-quashes-an-bord-pleanala-decision-to-permit-windfarm-in-roscommon/

sotobuild · 05-08-2014 11:16am

Found this - looks like you can add you own local wind farm and see what effect it has on your house

www (dot) windnoise (dot) info
(boards will not let me post completed URL)

Jim Martin · 08-08-2014 11:18am

Jim Martin wrote: »

High Court Quashes An Bord Pleanala Decision to Permit Windfarm in Roscommon:

http://irishplanningnews.ie/high-court-quashes-an-bord-pleanala-decision-to-permit-windfarm-in-roscommon/

There's a good article in this weeks Clare Champion about a similar high court case in W.Clare. Can't get a webpage for it, unfortunately (without subscribing)!

http://http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/residents-group-wins-right-to-judicial-review-of-wind-farm-plan-30491711.html

Jim Martin · 13-08-2014 12:36pm

Jim Martin wrote: »

There's a good article in this weeks Clare Champion about a similar high court case in W.Clare. Can't get a webpage for it, unfortunately (without subscribing)!

http://http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/residents-group-wins-right-to-judicial-review-of-wind-farm-plan-30491711.html

http://windawareclare.weebly.com/

fclauson · 14-08-2014 11:45am

sotobuild wrote: »

Found this - looks like you can add you own local wind farm and see what effect it has on your house

www (dot) windnoise (dot) info
(boards will not let me post completed URL)

This seems a really good resource - have added some of my local wind farms

Markcheese · 18-08-2014 3:56pm

Did anyone hear the argument/debate thingy on the mooney show (radio 1 ) last Friday... I doubt it'll change anyone's mind one way or the other but it was interesting...
There was a survey mentioned about attitudes across the country to wind farm, with cork (with most wind farms) being most positive,and west Meath (with none) being most negative.....
Now I've no idea who did the survey and how.. How they factored county sizes and population ect,ect.. But thought it interesting....

Old diesel · 18-08-2014 10:15pm

Markcheese wrote: »

Did anyone hear the argument/debate thingy on the mooney show (radio 1 ) last Friday... I doubt it'll change anyone's mind one way or the other but it was interesting...
There was a survey mentioned about attitudes across the country to wind farm, with cork (with most wind farms) being most positive,and west Meath (with none) being most negative.....
Now I've no idea who did the survey and how.. How they factored county sizes and population ect,ect.. But thought it interesting....

Thing to remember with the survey - imo

Cork - its the biggest county in Ireland - and part of Ireland biggest county - so MANY Cork people are not near enough to a wind farm to form a negative opinion.

Westmeath on the other hand is part of the Midlands were 2,500 turbines are/were proposed for Uk export.

Seen somewhere where one of the wind developers used the Cork vs Westmeath wind farm numbers thing to argue that wind farms don't impact house prices - and to support the point - he argued that Westmeath houses fell further then Cork house prices.

Again point been missed - is that houses in Cork are very often not near wind farms. While Cork has more wind farms then Westmeath - it does seem that a lot of future focus for the Midlands - is on wind turbines - almost to the point where one is left with the impression that the future for the Midlands is turbines - that's the no 1 thing - it seems.

That's helping drive negativity in the Midlands towards turbines - further I think

windnoiseinfo · 18-08-2014 10:57pm

Acceptance is based upon amongst other things

1 - greeness
2 - economic viability and understanding
3 - proximity to a wind farm

Unfortunately there is now an set of arguments which will address each of the above in both the positive and the negative and a persons view of acceptance will be based on the last article read.

A survey like this needs to probe each of the above and to test both the positive and the negative to get a true and valid set of outcomes

Birdnuts · 18-08-2014 11:01pm

Markcheese wrote: »

Did anyone hear the argument/debate thingy on the mooney show (radio 1 ) last Friday... I doubt it'll change anyone's mind one way or the other but it was interesting...
There was a survey mentioned about attitudes across the country to wind farm, with cork (with most wind farms) being most positive,and west Meath (with none) being most negative.....
Now I've no idea who did the survey and how.. How they factored county sizes and population ect,ect.. But thought it interesting....

In Cork most of the wind farms up till now have been constructed in isolated upland areas with little housing for miles in many cases. The governments crazy targets for wind now mean ever bigger turbines are starting to be built in more populated rural areas which is directly related to the growing number of anti-wind campaigns that are now popping up all over the country.
It doesn't help either that since the start of the year ABP has rubber stamped plans for nearly a dozen major wind farms in various locations against the advice of their own planners. The High court has recently over turned one of these flawed decisions in relation to a windfarm in Roscommon and there is currently another half dozen going through the courts as we speak. Sadly the lessons from the developer led planning disasters of the Celtic Tiger have clearly not been learnt by our so-called planning experts.

Old diesel · 18-08-2014 11:07pm

windnoiseinfo wrote: »

Acceptance is based upon amongst other things

1 - greeness
2 - economic viability and understanding
3 - proximity to a wind farm

Unfortunately there is now an set of arguments which will address each of the above in both the positive and the negative and a persons view of acceptance will be based on the last article read.

A survey like this needs to probe each of the above and to test both the positive and the negative to get a true and valid set of outcomes

Id add a 4th aspect to the list above - confidence in been able to live and work near the proposed project - and the perceived reality of living near a project.

Imo a key reason why many people object to wind farms near them - is because they feel they are going to have problems with or due to the wind farm been near them.

I think if we are serious about doing things properly with this issue (dealing with it) - we need a new approach.

Rather then the pro wind side going on about nimbyism - or saying residents are wrong because "lots of studies have cleared wind" - instead if wind is to drive forward.

you ENSURE the issues residents are worried about don't actually happen - and you develop a planning system that is fit for purpose and ensures that issues don't occur.

So Infrasounds is a big concern - so you put in place proper measurements, procedures, rules and regulations - so that no APPROVED project that's got planning - will cause infrasound issues.

Needs a lot of work to do it though - but its a way forward I think

fclauson · 19-08-2014 5:37am

Old diesel wrote: »

...
So Infrasounds is a big concern - so you put in place proper measurements, procedures, rules and regulations - so that no APPROVED project that's got planning - will cause infrasound issues.

The challenge with Infrasound is there is a view (which has generally been proven) you can not "hear" Infrasound in the normal sense. This is because the wavelength (and thus the vibration) is just too slow for the ear to pick up. Its like a dripping tap - while the water is running - even at a trickle - you can hear the flow - but as it slows further to a drip its a much harder sound to perceive. Infrasound is the same - the ear can not hear it in the normal sense of things.

Where the debate is in reality (but the "infrasound cannot be heard brigade" will not go near) is what impact on the human systems does this very slow frequency have - specifically when experienced over the long term.

Dr Evans of Belfast university has done some work in the space along with Prof Salt in the US

There have been experiments on this "slow drip" infrasound on groups of people but typically only for a very short time (hours) not days or week as experienced from a wind farm. Additionally many vibrations/wave forms set up harmonics (which might then be in the audible range) and its this effect of infrasound which is very poorly understood.

Old diesel · 19-08-2014 9:33am

fclauson wrote: »

The challenge with Infrasound is there is a view (which has generally been proven) you can not "hear" Infrasound in the normal sense. This is because the wavelength (and thus the vibration) is just too slow for the ear to pick up. Its like a dripping tap - while the water is running - even at a trickle - you can hear the flow - but as it slows further to a drip its a much harder sound to perceive. Infrasound is the same - the ear can not hear it in the normal sense of things.

Where the debate is in reality (but the "infrasound cannot be heard brigade" will not go near) is what impact on the human systems does this very slow frequency have - specifically when experienced over the long term.

Dr Evans of Belfast university has done some work in the space along with Prof Salt in the US

There have been experiments on this "slow drip" infrasound on groups of people but typically only for a very short time (hours) not days or week as experienced from a wind farm. Additionally many vibrations/wave forms set up harmonics (which might then be in the audible range) and its this effect of infrasound which is very poorly understood.

I agree its very challenging - but its also a potential health and safety issue - so its hard to see - how one can decide - "nah we aren't going to bother addressing it - too difficult"

The reality is that because the issue is been flagged now - I consider that it needs to be addressed properly - to ensure that we can plan correctly and properly - particularly in terms of planning peoples everyday living.

I think one would start by looking at locations where residents have reported issues* - and identifying whats happening with the wind turbines at those locations - in terms of infrasounds.

To me its about identifying - what level of infrasound is safe and problem free for the resident - ensuring pleasant comfortable living.

Then we identify how best to locate - in terms of setbacks etc - the turbines in a way that ensures problem free living for residents.

Basically - I see it as very challenging - but we need to move to a point of - asking the question - how do we ensure the project is perfectly safe and problem free for residents - and making sure that actually happens.

Or do we go down the road of the state been prepared to buy out residents homes at colossal cost (not saying that's a good idea btw - but to me buying out homes seems to most likely scenario if we don't ensure safe operations)

*their homes or former homes - where they had the issues - been used as test sites for PROPER research - and measurements

Old diesel · 19-08-2014 9:37am

I suppose basically - we need to work to ensure we have a solution that works well for residents.

If we are saying its okay to pick out groups of residents around the country - decide their future lives don't matter - then that's BAD policy. So we need to plan for the future of the resident - even if we find that its difficult.

I would personally prefer a solution where we can ensure that projects that are given planning - are in fact safe and problem free for the residents - this should be normal proper procedure.

And we need to have a PROPER plan to address any unforeseen issues - ie - Govt, planners and developers genuinely thought everything was going to be fine - but there are issues with the actual project.

I feel leaving residents in limbo is unacceptable - they need to be able to plan their future living in confidence

Capt'n Midnight · 20-08-2014 1:14am

Old diesel wrote: »

I suppose basically - we need to work to ensure we have a solution that works well for residents.

If we are saying its okay to pick out groups of residents around the country - decide their future lives don't matter - then that's BAD policy. So we need to plan for the future of the resident - even if we find that its difficult.

I would personally prefer a solution where we can ensure that projects that are given planning - are in fact safe and problem free for the residents - this should be normal proper procedure.

And we need to have a PROPER plan to address any unforeseen issues - ie - Govt, planners and developers genuinely thought everything was going to be fine - but there are issues with the actual project.

I feel leaving residents in limbo is unacceptable - they need to be able to plan their future living in confidence

Very little of the infrastructure and housing built during the boom would have happened if you'd insisted on stuff being problem free for existing residents.

The LUAS upgrades will disrupt the centre of Dublin for ages. Newlands Cross roadworks too.

You are in effect asking for privileges which the majority of the population who live in large urban areas are denied.

Infrasound is not a problem, because people who live near the sea don't suffer from it.

Pylons aren't a health problem because none of the people campaigning against then have asked for compensation or remediation for the urban dwellers who have lived with them for years.

Yes it would be nice if there was a cheaper solution than compulsory purchase of affected buildings at current market value that would make everyone happy. But as someone who already subsidises rural services I don't particularly want to subsidise irrational pseudo-science scaremongering, especially when the subsidies are being denied to urban dwellers who also have infrasound and construction projects foisted upon them. So if there is a more expensive solution than CPO's , I'm not really all that interested given the complete lack of empathy of the rural protesters for the plight of urbanites in similar circumstances.

Yes it would be nice if communities had a share / stake in local wind farms.

And again we got 25% of our electricity last winter from renewables, and it could have been double that if the grid could accept more asynchronous sources.

Markcheese · 20-08-2014 8:20am

"Cork - its the biggest county in Ireland - and part of Ireland biggest county - so MANY Cork people are not near enough to a wind farm to form a negative opinion."

Yup Cork county is big... But it's not the sahara , quite a lot of people live in rural cork ,even pretty, touristy west cork ,!!
But proximity to a wind farm should have been a factor in the survey...
Incidently , there are a few wind turbines in more urban/commuter belt areas in cork 2 in aghada, and 3 a couple of miles away In ringaskiddy ....
No big commotion ,

fclauson · 20-08-2014 9:28am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

...

Infrasound is not a problem, because people who live near the sea don't suffer from it.

Wind turbine infrasound - produced at a constant rhythmic rate with amplitude modulation which creates harmonics in higher frequency ranges is very different to that produced by the sea.

Also - against common Infrasound can be heard
"Single frequencies of infrasound are not perceived as pure tones. Instead they are described as more of a chugging or motorboating sound. This leads one to the conclusion that what a person really hears is not a pure tone of infrasound, but instead the harmonics generated by the distortion from the middle and inner ear"

reference http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a081792.pdf

Pylons aren't a health problem because none of the people campaigning against then have asked for compensation or remediation for the urban dwellers who have lived with them for years.

very few 400KVA lines in Dublin I believe

And again we got 25% of our electricity last winter from renewables, and it could have been double that if the grid could accept more asynchronous sources.

Thats the challenge - and the grid needs to resolve how to take this asynch supply

Markcheese wrote: »

".....
But proximity to a wind farm should have been a factor in the survey...
Incidently , there are a few wind turbines in more urban/commuter belt areas in cork 2 in aghada, and 3 a couple of miles away In ringaskiddy ....
No big commotion ,

I would suggest you check the output from these turbines - and see if they are market "green bling" turbines or if they are driven hard to drive a profit turbines

Markcheese · 20-08-2014 10:18am

" would suggest you check the output from these turbines - and see if they are market "green bling" turbines or if they are driven hard to drive a profit turbines"

The 3 in ringaskiddy are only operational since late spring , could be "greenwash", but an expensive way to do it ,especially with all the bad pr about turbines... But if you have output figures and reasons why they're an exceptional case , fire
them up...
The 2 turbines in aghada are just wind turbines... Not the biggest in the country (even when they went up )

Fabo · 20-08-2014 11:03am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Very little of the infrastructure and housing built during the boom would have happened if you'd insisted on stuff being problem free for existing residents.

The LUAS upgrades will disrupt the centre of Dublin for ages. Newlands Cross roadworks too.

You are in effect asking for privileges which the majority of the population who live in large urban areas are denied.

There is a large distinction to be made between temporary disruptions and permanent disruptions

Infrasound is not a problem, because people who live near the sea don't suffer from it.

Tell that to the Germans
http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/378/publikationen/texte_40_2014_machbarkeitsstudie_zu_wirkungen_von_infraschall.pdf

The research findings indicate that these standards have deficits with regards to the assessment of infrasound and should be further developed. The current revision of DIN 45680 shows a path for how inconsistencies in the area of low frequency sounds can be rectified.

Pylons aren't a health problem because none of the people campaigning against then have asked for compensation or remediation for the urban dwellers who have lived with them for years.

All of South Dublin has underground cabling

Yes it would be nice if communities had a share / stake in local wind farms.

Makes no difference, they still wont work anyway once connected to the grid

And again we got 25% of our electricity last winter from renewables, and it could have been double that if the grid could accept more asynchronous sources.

In terms of consumption perhaps, but not from generation.
Also,we wouldn’t have electricity at Frequency of 50Hz if we did what you said

Old diesel · 20-08-2014 12:49pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Very little of the infrastructure and housing built during the boom would have happened if you'd insisted on stuff being problem free for existing residents.

The LUAS upgrades will disrupt the centre of Dublin for ages. Newlands Cross roadworks too.

You are in effect asking for privileges which the majority of the population who live in large urban areas are denied.

Infrasound is not a problem, because people who live near the sea don't suffer from it.

Pylons aren't a health problem because none of the people campaigning against then have asked for compensation or remediation for the urban dwellers who have lived with them for years.

Yes it would be nice if there was a cheaper solution than compulsory purchase of affected buildings at current market value that would make everyone happy. But as someone who already subsidises rural services I don't particularly want to subsidise irrational pseudo-science scaremongering, especially when the subsidies are being denied to urban dwellers who also have infrasound and construction projects foisted upon them. So if there is a more expensive solution than CPO's , I'm not really all that interested given the complete lack of empathy of the rural protesters for the plight of urbanites in similar circumstances.

Yes it would be nice if communities had a share / stake in local wind farms.

And again we got 25% of our electricity last winter from renewables, and it could have been double that if the grid could accept more asynchronous sources.

When I meant problem/hassle free for the resident - I mean when the project is up and running.

In terms of the rest of your points - do you see ensuring that a project is problem free for residents when OPERATIONAL (all turbines operating and supplying to grid - commissioning fully done) as a block to wind development.

If wind turbines don't cause issues for the residents - then ensuring that should be very possible.

Btw - when I say problem free - I don't expect life to be perfect - what I mean by problem free - is that residents can ACTUALLY live in their homes comfortably and have a decent quality of life.

if both of those - been able to live in the home comfortably - and a decent quality of life IN THE HOME is an issue for you - why is this - do you not feel that comfortable living in the home and a decent quality of life in the home - is compatible with wind turbines.

What standards should a resident reasonably expect from the wind energy project near their homes. What safety standards should be in place - and do you think its reasonable for a resident to continue to expect to be able to live in their homes - if no buyout scheme is offered by developer and Govt of homes nearby

Btw - all I want to do - is to try and create a future for communities - and the people who live in them - not mess up Dublin.

If your saying that ensuring a future for Rural communities is wrong because it interferes with the building of wind farms - are you then saying the way forward is to wind down rural communities.

And if that is the case - how do we plan the futures of the people in these communities.

The way I look at it - is that people are entitled to be able to plan for their future - with some sort of confidence. This future may be where they are now - or they may end up moving somewhere else.

This is where proper planning is required.

I would prefer (but it may not be possible) to plan the future for communities - in a way that sees the people living in the communities now - been able to continue living there if they WANT TO.

I know you and I have different outlooks on this - I respect the points your making - even if I don't agree with them.

I do think whatever the best way forward is - if we are creating a BETTER future for Ireland - we shouldn't exclude people from it simply because their community is in a bad location - ie a wind farm site.

We need a broad planning strategy - that looks at how to deliver energy - but also looks at how people will live in the future.

The how people will live in the future is the part that's overlooked imo - wider debate needed when simply what we are having here

BrenCooney · 23-08-2014 7:59pm

Great read here on windturbine syndrome!

[HTML]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/wind-turbine-syndrome_n_5698211.html?utm_hp_ref=green[/HTML]

sotobuild · 23-08-2014 9:03pm

The most interesting part of the article being

said Melissa Whitfield Aslund, a scientist at the Canadian consulting firm Intrinsik, whose clients include wind energy developers. ..... Whitfield Aslund collaborated with six Intrinsik colleagues to review nearly 60 studies

So not exactly an independent - and obviously does not cover cases which were settled out of court when individuals got paid for silence

To give some balance and the opposing view then read waubrafoundation dot org dot au/resources/wind-turbine-noise-adverse-health-effects-june-2014/
(as a new user I am not allowed to post proper links)

Waubrafoundation are often accused of be non-wind biased but disregard that element and take the document as a summary of the links to many medics and acousticians who cite their views on the matter.

sotobuild · 24-08-2014 7:14am

There must be a war going on out there - here is a summary of those 49 cases mentioned by the huffington post

kirbymtn dot blogspot dot ie/2014/08/wind-health-impacts-dismissed-in-court.html?m=1
(again unable to publish actual link as I am new to boards

In the 49 cases from English-speaking countries that he presents, however, only 2 involve an operating wind energy facility. And in both, the facility was found to be in violation of the law.

Old diesel · 27-08-2014 2:15pm

3.2 km may be seen as excessive by many - but I think nonetheless - the county manager in Offaly and others driving wind policy - are handling things completely the wrong way

http://www.tullamoretribune.ie/articles/news/41837/drop-wind-turbine-set-back-plan-council-chief/

The questions should be

1) what is a good outcome for residents

2) What safety standards should be applied to wind development.

The 3,2 km setback in the Offaly CDP - whatever flaws one might feel it has was bought in by the councillors - in a bid to give better assurance and comfort to residents.

Now love them or hate them - the reality is that many people in rural communities have no confidence in wind developers or the way planning of wind turbines is done in this country and the standards that apply.

So what is the way forward - and how do we plan the future of residents who might or will be impacted on by having wind developers near their homes.

Now some may feel that the way forward in dealing with rural residents is to say tough luck - but I personally feel the wind industry needs to up its game - and the whole renewables sector in general.

If a resident can live happily with wind turbines nearby - then great - but we need to look at what happens when problems araise because the idea that problems can crop up for residents - with a project - whether its noise or some other issue - and the issue NOT be fixed - we need to move away from the idea that this is acceptable.

To me its simply - pro wind people - and most importantly - wind developers say the wind energy is safe - great - so lets make sure the project is perfectly safe - otherwise the promises are a waste of time

Old diesel · 27-08-2014 2:18pm

Part of the problem I feel is that the way wind turbines are planned - and the apparent inability to have standards in terms of their operation - leaves residents in limbo - as they don't have confidence in the project - and are concerned they will have issues.

Having standards that prevent problems from happening would help deliver confidence.

If we are saying that ensuring that residents won't experience issues that will interfere with normal everyday living and sleeping in their homes - is wrong because that would interfere with the development of wind energy - then you are justifying the residents lack of confidence

I think we need an understanding from a residents viewpoint on whats reasonable - and they need assurance that they are going to be treated fairly and not have the sort of issues that make living in their home a problem.

Old diesel · 27-08-2014 2:26pm

Painful as the idea sounds - we must plan how people are going to live in the future - and yes we will have to consider making changes to how we live. However this does need consultation with residents and homeowners - so that we can find solutions that work okay. Its important I think that people can plan their future going forward with some certainty and with as much confidence as possible. A key aspect of this - is that if promises are made - that we DELIVER on those promises - because delivering on promises - will help improve confidence

Are one off houses badly planned - well yes - but the state has to accept that its county councils gave planning for these houses - so its not now good enough to hang residents out to dry - when a normal member of the public should not be expected to know what the proper way to plan houses are. That's why theres planners and other people who are supposed to have these skills and knowledge.

So if we are going to impose changes and impose projects of concern - we need to improve how we plan them - and look at alternative options for how people would live - and indeed how we would look at improving the renewables technology.

Anti wind groups and anyone criticising wind in their local area is seen as the bad boys (nimbyism) - but there comes a point where we may need to consider the idea that the wind developers, wind turbine manufacturers and the renewables industry in general - need to do more to improve their solutions.

Wind farms - ugly truths

Comments