Wind farm for the Midlands

Capt'n Midnight · 13-12-2013 9:45pm

Jim Martin wrote: »

Nobody yet seems to have come up with the answer of where does the electricity come from on wind-less days - which can often occur on the coldest days when the most electricity is needed (witness the last 2 cold winters 2010/11)?

The existing fossil fuel plants.

The only difference is that wind means you save a lot of fuel overall.

Here's the Irish one that shows this Island has lots of spare capacity for the foreseeable future. Our current rules say that large fossil or hydro generators must supply at least 50% of the load. Though technology and planning may reduce this to 25% over time.
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/All-Island_GCS_2013-2022.pdf

Capt'n Midnight · 13-12-2013 10:06pm

fclauson wrote: »

There is (google megawatt batter) - one is being build for 400MW !! (heaven knows what environmental coast in terms of raw materials there is )

it would be interesting to compare coasts with a the pumped water model - which has the added benefit that of water for drinking etc - see the brown bit of the graph at http://www.eirgrid.com/media/All-Island_Wind_and_Fuel_Mix_Report_October_2013.pdf

Wind and solar have taken the predictability out of the market for pumped storage. It's not economic on sunny or windy days.

http://energytransition.de/2013/05/the-flattening-of-peak-and-base-prices/

The difference between the price of electricity at times of low demand (baseload) and high demand (peak load) has shrunk dramatically in Germany over just the past few years. As Craig Morris points out, one result is that pumped storage no longer pays for itself.
...
At six cents per kilowatt-hour, pumped-storage facilities were quite profitable. Basically, they would pump water uphill when electricity was cheap (at night) and run it back down the hill through turbines to generate power when the prices were higher (during the day).

Under the new market conditions, however, there’s no money to be made on sunny days in May. German power consumption generally stretches from 40 gigawatts at night to as much as 70 gigawatts on summer workdays – a difference of roughly 30 gigawatts. But Germany now regularly gets more than 20 gigawatts of solar power on sunny summer afternoons, with more than 22 gigawatts having been added from 2010-2012.

As a result, pump-storage plants now only run on certain days of the year at much tighter margins. And the future is already clear as Germany continues to add solar in excess of the target corridor of 2.5-3.5 gigawatts per year; by the end of this decade, pumped-storage plants in Germany will have reversed operation in the summer to store power from the day for the night.

A lot if it is down to economic rules. In the past in Northern England some companies found that is was more profitable to agree to shed load on demand than to carry on manufacturing during those times. A storage battery would have to be cheaper than such schemes and cheaper than investing in surplus renewables.

fclauson · 14-12-2013 7:00pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wind and solar have taken the predictability out of the market for pumped storage. It's not economic on sunny or windy days.

http://energytransition.de/2013/05/the-flattening-of-peak-and-base-prices/

A lot if it is down to economic rules. In the past in Northern England some companies found that is was more profitable to agree to shed load on demand than to carry on manufacturing during those times. A storage battery would have to be cheaper than such schemes and cheaper than investing in surplus renewables.

this all points to why we need smart meters - even a the domestic level I should be able to take advantage of fluctuating rates and not just be pushed into either day rate or night rate - specifically where I have capacity to "store" heat by virtual of thermal mass in my build

Greensleeves · 07-03-2014 11:11am

It looks like these wind farms are not going ahead. From the Independent today:

Proposals for giant wind farms are shelved

PLANS to erect thousands of wind turbines across the midlands to export power to the UK have been shelved, the Irish Independent has learnt.

An agreement between the Irish and British governments, which would allow power to be traded between both countries, is unlikely to go ahead, meaning at least 40 wind farms planned across five counties will be mothballed.

The lack of agreement comes amid concern from local communities about large-scale farms being developed here to allow the UK meet its legally binding renewable energy targets.

Full story...

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/proposals-for-giant-wind-farms-are-shelved-30071008.html

Grudaire · 07-03-2014 12:02pm

Greensleeves wrote: »

The lack of agreement comes amid concern from local communities about large-scale farms being developed here to allow the UK meet its legally binding renewable energy targets.

Amid - but not as a result of the concerns

I wonder what really ended it?

Old diesel · 07-03-2014 1:26pm

Grudaire wrote: »

Amid - but not as a result of the concerns

I wonder what really ended it?

The cynical among us could argue that the fact that theres elections in May could have called a halt to the project.

However there has been suggestions previously that the market for our wind energy in Uk wasn't as awesome as was suggested.

I know theres been at least one article in the Irish examiner about it.

Also Cameron is strongly behind fracking at the moment - so probably doesn't have the appitite for lots of wind energy.

Regardless - I don't think Fat Rabbite was overly bothered what the people of the Midlands thought from the word go.

So I think the fact that HE is saying that its unlikely to go through - is in itself a good sign - I hope.

I would hope the reason for shelving the project was simply down to not been able to get the right deal.

Hope we don't end up getting this back on table in 6 months :mad::mad::mad::mad:

But the longer it all drags on - the less chance of it all happening.

I do think however - that the shelving of the deal presents an opportunity to work and discuss a better future for communities going forward.

It presents a potential opportunity to create a better way forward for Regional development - and we should look to maximise that opportunity I think

Grudaire · 07-03-2014 2:40pm

Old diesel wrote: »

...

Regardless - I don't think Fat Rabbite was overly bothered what the people of the Midlands thought from the word go.

So I think the fact that HE is saying that its unlikely to go through - is in itself a good sign - I hope.

...

Some good points totally cheapened by the bolded bit..

I'm surprised that you think that it getting cancelled totally is good - surely the best solution would be a smaller development which would pump some money into the local areas while giving more agreeable setback distances.

Old diesel · 07-03-2014 2:51pm

Grudaire wrote: »

Some good points totally cheapened by the bolded bit..

I'm surprised that you think that it getting cancelled totally is good - surely the best solution would be a smaller development which would pump some money into the local areas while giving more agreeable setback distances.

Your right - I was childish in how I referred to Pat Rabbitte - and I apologise for it.

The idea of a smaller development - better planned - is potentially good - but we were never going to get that with the way the whole thing was planned.

Cancelling the whole thing (for now) gives us the opportunity to go back and plan for a better future for many communities throughout Ireland.

We have the opportunity - to start again with a clean sheet - that's why I think cancelling the whole thing is good.

We were going to be headed into a potential situation where an ENTIRE REGION was potentially going to be seen as just a place to put a wind farm.

There was no proper thought or planning put into it at all from the point of view of communities.

Now we can start again - and see how we can plan for a better future for communities ALL OVER Ireland.

Old diesel · 07-03-2014 8:48pm

Pat Rabbitte isn't giving up hope - hes thinking it might go ahead at a later stage

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/agribusiness-and-food/multi-billion-wind-energy-deal-unlikely-to-proceed-as-planned-1.1716726

Wind energy sector representative body is also putting a positive spin on the whole thing - referring to an opportunity delayed.

This won't go away - I don't think.

Demonstrates the continuing need - to focus on better planning - and looking at future community planning.

Can't afford to rest on our laurels on that regard - the champagne can't come out until we start having proper community focused planning as the norm - imo

fclauson · 08-03-2014 9:00am

Old diesel wrote: »

Pat Rabbitte isn't giving up hope - hes thinking it might go ahead at a later stage

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/agribusiness-and-food/multi-billion-wind-energy-deal-unlikely-to-proceed-as-planned-1.1716726

Wind energy sector representative body is also putting a positive spin on the whole thing - referring to an opportunity delayed.

This won't go away - I don't think.

Demonstrates the continuing need - to focus on better planning - and looking at future community planning.

Can't afford to rest on our laurels on that regard - the champagne can't come out until we start having proper community focused planning as the norm - imo

The whole health angle is going to add an interesting dimension to the DCMO has re-iterated her advice that there is issues siting people close to turbines

Old diesel · 08-03-2014 11:18am

fclauson wrote: »

The whole health angle is going to add an interesting dimension to the DCMO has re-iterated her advice that there is issues siting people close to turbines

The health angle is one of the more controversial aspects of the whole wind debate - lots of conflicting information.

Some saying no issue - while there are also studies showing that there are issues.

To my mind - it needs continuing research.

There is a location in Roscommon and another in Banteer Co Cork where people have been forced to move out due to issues with turbines.

It would be a massive help - if people with expertise in this area - were to go down to those two locations as a starting point - and identify what the issues are.

Youd need to measure the noise - INSIDE the affected houses

The Infrasound levels - INSIDE the affected houses - and establish - what difference there are - if you compare them to similar areas - where there are NO wind farms nearby. Alternatively - do the tests with the wind farm turned on - and when its turned off - over a period of time to allow for variation in weather conditions

Its also well worth looking to identify if there are/were issues at other locations - and carry out tests at those if identified also.

I don't mean those comments as been Anti turbine - I intend the idea of getting to the bottom of issues where they've arisen - as an aid to better planning in the future.

Also - if we can address those issues at future wind sites due to better planning and technology as a result of research like what I propose above - it could help provide reassurance to residents - that there are good guidelines in place to ensure their safety - and to ensure they can have pleasant living

That - and identifying issues - so we can improve the technology in the future.

Problem is - your up againsed the whole concept - that if people have issues - they can move out - that's probably the type of attitude your dealing with.

And AGAIN for the benefit of Pro wind people reading this - All I WANT is this - the only benchmark I want to achieve - is this

Where residents have enjoyed pleasant comfortable living in their homes prior to a wind farm or other project - been put into operation near them.

I simply want the projects planned in a way that ensures that this pleasant comfortable living can and will continue - when the project is fully operational.

I personally think that is very reasonable - and in my book - if residents are to lose out on their pleasant comfortable living - then they need to be compensated for that.

Id rather prevent the need for compensation though - as I think going down that road - is a lazy one.

Id rather invest the potential compo money - on investing on developing technology - so that we can have good planning.

Again - all I want in terms of good planning - is to ensure residents can continue to enjoy comfortable pleasant living - in their homes.

Need to work to the best quality standards in terms of achieving that - and achieving good planning.

That's where the Govt have failed to date

Sorry for the long winded rant

mbur · 10-03-2014 8:20pm

Old diesel wrote: »

...

Sorry for the long winded rant

Forgiven. I'm delighted to see the delay. Eddie Hobbs has zeroed in on the oil and gas giveaway. Someone needs to do the same for this shameful theft from the residents of this country.

Old diesel · 11-03-2014 12:29pm

Very interesting radio clip here from Kildare radio station

https://soundcloud.com/senateaudio-1/jw-kfm

Essential listening imo - feel free to discuss

In particular - the point about the amount of capacity been planned been 30,000 MW but daily demand been 5,000 MW

Old diesel · 11-03-2014 12:36pm

Again the clip highlights several points (hopefully it will work for you guys)

1) how much capacity and thus how many turbines we actually need - max demand at moment is claimed to be 5,000 MW but 30,000 MW of wind alone in proposed projects.

2) Been able to provie assurances to communities - many of them are worried according to John Whelan the labour senator been interviewed in the clip.

3) where now for energy - if all this is based on a 2006 plan????

4) and just why are the developers apparently making statements at the weekend that they will continue - like its insanity to build turbines with no market for their energy

fclauson · 11-03-2014 1:03pm

Old diesel wrote: »

Very interesting radio clip here from Kildare radio station

https://soundcloud.com/senateaudio-1/jw-kfm

Essential listening imo - feel free to discuss

In particular - the point about the amount of capacity been planned been 30,000 MW but daily demand been 5,000 MW

Is this to do with the fact that on average wind delivers around 25% to 30% of installed capacity
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/All-Island_Wind_and_Fuel_Mix_Report_Summary_2013.pdf

Old diesel · 11-03-2014 1:34pm

fclauson wrote: »

Is this to do with the fact that on average wind delivers around 25% to 30% of installed capacity
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/All-Island_Wind_and_Fuel_Mix_Report_Summary_2013.pdf

You could be right

- its still a very valid question by John Whelan though on the clip.

The question remains - how many do we need - and why

a technology that only produces 25 to 30 percent of its rated power on average - deserves harsh questioning for that ALONE.

Surely we can develop better solutions rather then simply writing off whole areas of a country as just places to put turbines.

Its beyond sickening at this stage - that we can't get honest answers - and that we are completely incapable of grasping the idea of working to high standards in terms of planning and technology - and continuously working to drive tech and standards forwards.

This thing of trying to work to the lowest possible standard possible, taking shortcuts - and messing communities about - is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

All I want is a few things basically

1) Working towards the best possible future for as many communities as we can - I think that's reasonable

2) where residents are enjoying pleasant comfortable living in their homes at present pre project - we need to aim to plan projects in a way that ensures that this pleasant living continues in the residents homes AFTER the project becomes operational - I think that's reasonable

3) Where an area has industries operational already - like horse industry - I want the project to be planned in a way that doesn't jeopardise them and that we don't lose jobs/industry due to poor planning - I think that's reasonable - especially in the context of this project which was an export project.

4) What I want is for a culture of continuously improving the technology of renewables - whether that's wind - or indeed other options like biomass - I think that's reasonable

5) Avoiding the idea of simply earmarking a region as just a place for wind turbines - I think that's reasonable and should fit in with reasonable planning.

6) whats best practice internationally in terms of how renewables are planned in the most community friendly way possible - you can then either strive to match that - or even exceed it - be ambitious - and be the world leaders in community focused planning of renewables.

think big - lets strive for the BEST SOLUTIONS

Old diesel · 11-03-2014 1:38pm

Btw - 10 percent of 30,000 MW is 3,000 MW - so assuming a 25 percent of rated power - that's 7,500 MW.

That assumes you are going for 100 PERCENT wind - and even at that your still producing on average 2,500 MW a day beyond MAX demand.

Of course the wider question is - is 25 percent of rated power on average per year - good enough - if it were anything else other then wind - the answer would be no.

So whats the solution????

Okay ive edited my post again - my calculations may be wrong - but assuming 5,000 MW demand - and 40 percent energy for wind - our renewables target is 2,000 MW.

Assuming a 25 percent of rated power on average performance - we need 8,000 MW to hit 40 percent target.

Still a way off from 30,000 MW if my figures are correct - that may well be where John Whelan is coming from

Green&Red · 11-03-2014 2:05pm

Old diesel wrote: »

Very interesting radio clip here from Kildare radio station

https://soundcloud.com/senateaudio-1/jw-kfm

Essential listening imo - feel free to discuss

In particular - the point about the amount of capacity been planned been 30,000 MW but daily demand been 5,000 MW

Some points of clarity:

0.24 - The British government have made no statement on the matter last week, Minister Rabbitte has.

2.11 - He says it never stacked up economically but the CBA hasnt been released for this, nor does he know what payment was to be made to the Irish exchequer for this

4.40 - BnM havent made any statement on the matter.

6.27 - The EU have made no such statement about renewable energy targets. They have INDICATED that they will go with a low carbon target.

He says he is for wind energy and it has it place but not in his backyard it seems, "it doesnt make sense any longer".

I didnt hear any reference to 30,000MW?

Green&Red · 11-03-2014 2:06pm

Old diesel wrote: »

You could be right - its still a very valid question by John Whelan though on the clip.

The question remains - how many do we need - and why

a technology that only produces 25 to 30 percent of its rated power on average - deserves harsh questioning for that ALONE.

Surely we can develop better solutions rather then simply writing off whole areas of a country as just places to put turbines.

Its beyond sickening at this stage - that we can't get honest answers - and that we are completely incapable of grasping the idea of working to high standards in terms of planning and technology - and continuously working to drive tech and standards forwards.

This thing of trying to work to the lowest possible standard possible, taking shortcuts - and messing communities about - is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

All I want is a few things basically

1) Working towards the best possible future for as many communities as we can - I think that's reasonable

2) where residents are enjoying pleasant comfortable living in their homes at present pre project - we need to aim to plan projects in a way that ensures that this pleasant living continues in the residents homes AFTER the project becomes operational - I think that's reasonable

3) Where an area has industries operational already - like horse industry - I want the project to be planned in a way that doesn't jeopardise them and that we don't lose jobs/industry due to poor planning - I think that's reasonable - especially in the context of this project which was an export project.

4) What I want is for a culture of continuously improving the technology of renewables - whether that's wind - or indeed other options like biomass - I think that's reasonable

5) Avoiding the idea of simply earmarking a region as just a place for wind turbines - I think that's reasonable and should fit in with reasonable planning.

6) whats best practice internationally in terms of how renewables are planned in the most community friendly way possible - you can then either strive to match that - or even exceed it - be ambitious - and be the world leaders in community focused planning of renewables.

think big - lets strive for the BEST SOLUTIONS

Honest answers to what?

Old diesel · 11-03-2014 2:11pm

Green&Red wrote: »

Honest answers to what?

How many turbines we need - and why we need x amount

Are we going for 40 percent targets or a higher figure???

Start addressing community concerns in a sensible way without been dismissive.

Also can we work to the best possible standards in terms of planning rather then the lowest standard we can get away with

With regard to the 30,000 MW figure - I genuinely thought he mentioned the 30,000 MW figure and was asking why we need 30,000 MW if max demand is 5,000 MW

If he didn't mention it - then I apologise.

With regard to the developer statements - I have to admit - that I couldn't see any sign of any such statements when I googled for them last night.

Old diesel · 11-03-2014 2:13pm

Green&Red wrote: »

Some points of clarity:

0.24 - The British government have made no statement on the matter last week, Minister Rabbitte has.

2.11 - He says it never stacked up economically but the CBA hasnt been released for this, nor does he know what payment was to be made to the Irish exchequer for this

4.40 - BnM havent made any statement on the matter.

6.27 - The EU have made no such statement about renewable energy targets. They have INDICATED that they will go with a low carbon target.

He says he is for wind energy and it has it place but not in his backyard it seems, "it doesnt make sense any longer".

I didnt hear any reference to 30,000MW?

I am under the impression that the EU commission proposals for 2030 on renewables - was an EU target of something like 27 percent for the WHOLE EU rather then a country by country target like the 2020 targets.

That's where John Whelan is making a point - I believe

Grudaire · 11-03-2014 2:33pm

Old diesel wrote: »

a technology that only produces 25 to 30 percent of its rated power on average - deserves harsh questioning for that ALONE.

Planning and consideration of course, but I think you are questioning something that everyone knows is part and parcel of wind power.

Old diesel wrote: »

Surely we can develop better solutions rather then simply writing off whole areas of a country as just places to put turbines.

That's not what is happening - Stop painting wind turbines as the end of the line for areas. I don't see any evidence that communities anywhere near wind turbines are 'written off'.

Indeed the land around wind farms can still be used for farming.

Old diesel wrote: »

think big - lets strive for the BEST SOLUTIONS

I'd agree that we should strive for the best solutions. Unfortunately I fail to see how writing off renewables will achieve anything other than more emmissions and polution.

Old diesel · 11-03-2014 2:43pm

Green&Red wrote: »

Some points of clarity:

0.24 - The British government have made no statement on the matter last week, Minister Rabbitte has.

2.11 - He says it never stacked up economically but the CBA hasnt been released for this, nor does he know what payment was to be made to the Irish exchequer for this

4.40 - BnM havent made any statement on the matter.

6.27 - The EU have made no such statement about renewable energy targets. They have INDICATED that they will go with a low carbon target.

He says he is for wind energy and it has it place but not in his backyard it seems, "it doesnt make sense any longer".

I didnt hear any reference to 30,000MW?

When I listened to the clip originally on soundcloud - it went straight onto a second clip with John Whelan been interviewed on RTEs this week programme

https://soundcloud.com/senateaudio-1/jw-this-week

the 30,000 MW was mentioned at between 4,20 and 4,31 on that clip.

Apologies for the confusion

Old diesel · 11-03-2014 2:52pm

Grudaire wrote: »

Planning and consideration of course, but I think you are questioning something that everyone knows is part and parcel of wind power.

That's not what is happening - Stop painting wind turbines as the end of the line for areas. I don't see any evidence that communities anywhere near wind turbines are 'written off'.

Indeed the land around wind farms can still be used for farming.

I'd agree that we should strive for the best solutions. Unfortunately I fail to see how writing off renewables will achieve anything other than more emmissions and polution.

Where the write off comes in my view - is that people don't want to live near wind farms - so existing residents may move out - and new potential buyers of their houses will be put off by wind farms.

So the community depopulates - I may be wrong on all that - but that is what id be concerned by. Having good planning would help address this imo

In short wind turbines - imo - make a community a less attractive place to live.

Its one thing to write off one village or 3 villages or even 10 - but we are talking a WHOLE REGION for this project - and for what return??? :eek:

Mind you - one could address those issues - if you were to establish with accuracy - the following

1) what is the proper method of calculating - or indeed the proper setback distance between homes and turbines - to ensure PLEASANT community living.

2) what are the required maximum limits of infrasound INSIDE a home to ensure that residents have PLEASANT COMFORTABLE living and sleeping in their homes.

3) on the basis of ACCUATE AND PROPER reliable data for points 1) and 2) - what is the best way to plan wind turbines in a COMMUNITY FRIENDLY way.

On the 25 percent figure - if you improved on that - over time - youd need less turbines - or achieve more power from a set amount of turbines.

It would mean more consistent performance from turbines

Green&Red · 11-03-2014 3:04pm

Old diesel wrote: »

I am under the impression that the EU commission proposals for 2030 on renewables - was an EU target of something like 27 percent for the WHOLE EU rather then a country by country target like the 2020 targets.

That's where John Whelan is making a point - I believe

But Ireland will be given a target as part of that, not a binding one but a target none the less.

Its people like this that are scare mongering.

I wonder how many people have actually been to a wind farm, or know what 500m is (the setback proposed as being binding in the revised guidelines) and what can be seen and heard from this distance?

This idea that wind farms will destory areas doesnt stand up for me, the fear versus the reality is what needs to be addressed and people like John Whelan or the developers dont help.

Old diesel · 11-03-2014 3:17pm

Green&Red wrote: »

But Ireland will be given a target as part of that, not a binding one but a target none the less.

Its people like this that are scare mongering.

I wonder how many people have actually been to a wind farm, or know what 500m is (the setback proposed as being binding in the revised guidelines) and what can be seen and heard from this distance?

This idea that wind farms will destory areas doesnt stand up for me, the fear versus the reality is what needs to be addressed and people like John Whelan or the developers dont help.

Part of the issue I feel is that wind farms like this project are planned in isolation - personally I feel if you worked to create a positive vision for community living in the future - and if wind farms were shown to fit in with that - it would help massively.

All I want basically more or less - is where a place is pleasant to live in now - I would like this to continue to be the case when projects are operational.

And I would like to get to the point where communities feel they can feel confident with the wind turbines - and feel confident with them operating in their area - and feel that you can still have a good community and still built the best possible future for their community.

And id like industries like the horse industry to have the confidence that whatever is planned in terms projects - that they can still keep their industry going.

That's all I want.

I don't mind wind turbines as a general idea (I do think they could do with improving though in terms of percentage of power produced vs max power) - if we can achieve what ive outlined above.

The question for me is - how do they plan these in the likes of Germany, Denmark, Holland and other countries - learn from the best practice - and achieve best solutions for everybody - including host communities.

To sum up then - all I want is - pleasant living for residents, the ability to achieve the best possible future for as many communities as possible.

And ensuring that there are no negative knock on affects on other jobs and industry - what I mean by that is - that horse industry has raised concerns that wind turbines will affect the thoroughbred type horses.

So that's an industry with 14,000 jobs and worth 1.1 bn to the economy - and which has a lot of presence in the Midlands - vs this project with from what I understand from what Pat Rabbitte was quoted as saying - 6,500 jobs.

So you can see then - that whether the horse industries concerns are justified or not - we need to address the concerns - so that they feel they can continue.

Heres the thing - I want renewables to work - and I would like to see wind work well if it can fit in well with community living - which I feel it potentially could do quite well if planned well with rules and regulations.

But I want to be positive and drive on for the best possible future for communities too.

Hard to get the balance right I know

Old diesel · 11-03-2014 3:26pm

I am however still very concerned at how wind turbines are planned here at the moment - and feel we need proper discussions - to ensure issues are addressed - ensure pleasant living for residents.

And try to plan in a way that sees turbines fit into their operating environment well - while ensuring they don't interfere with pleasant everyday living.

I use the word pleasant a lot - pleasant means nice/comfortable - and that's what I want to see in terms of how residents live in communities.

And I would like to see the scenario where communities can achieve their full potential over the coming years and not be held back in 10 years time by how a project was planned this year.

You may be right about the 500 metres - im not an expert - I just want pleasant living for residents - that's all - and the best possible future for communities.

Im not convinced YET that how wind turbines are planned CURRENTLY can give residents the confidence that they can still enjoy pleasant living.

Its all about confidence when it comes to residents I feel - they need the confidence that their everyday living and quality of live won't have negative impacts - and we need to ensure that if residents feel confident about the project - that this confidence is not misplaced when the project is operational.

Its all about confidence and more importantly TRUST.

Maybe im wrong in my thinking - but that's how I feel about it - as I type this

Green&Red · 11-03-2014 4:41pm

I think the 30,000MW refers to the Eirgrid predicted demand for 2020 of 30,000GWh

If that is the case then I think it says everything that needs to be said, a little knowledge is dangerous

Old diesel · 11-03-2014 4:45pm

Green&Red wrote: »

I think the 30,000MW refers to the Eirgrid predicted demand for 2020 of 30,000GWh

If that is the case then I think it says everything that needs to be said, a little knowledge is dangerous

Im no expert - but when you say GWH - is that the total power demand in one hour - wheras say a figure of say 3,500 MW as a demand figure refers to what demand is at an exact moment in time????

Also Whelan seems to be talking about the proposed wind projects in the system/pipeline when he refers to the 30,000 MW figure - but I may be wrong.

Wind projects from what I can see are normally quoted in MW from what I can see - ie wind farm X is a 100 MW project

Green&Red · 11-03-2014 4:53pm

In simple terms

MW is the power available

MWh is the energy, the amount of power over a period of time, so it has actually been dissipated

We wont get into instantaneous power

fclauson · 11-03-2014 5:43pm

Green&Red wrote: »

In simple terms

MW is the power available

MWh is the energy, the amount of power over a period of time, so it has actually been dissipated

We wont get into instantaneous power

Or into losses across network prior to delivery due to cable resistance etc which is an argument for locally placing generation (such as on site PV) as it means you minimus transmissions losses.

Green&Red · 11-03-2014 6:46pm

Old diesel wrote: »

a technology that only produces 25 to 30 percent of its rated power on average - deserves harsh questioning for that ALONE.

This is opposed to an efficiency of ~50% for a closed cycle gas turbine or ~30% for an open cycle, both of which are on the irish system already.

Like I say its easy to scare monger

Greensleeves · 11-03-2014 9:19pm

A British view on the stalled wind farm plans from Geoffrey Lean in the Telegraph.

Promoting community ownership would allow local people to benefit from wind turbines

You could almost hear the great sigh of relief gusting in the fierce winds that swept across the Irish Midlands last week. For a project that would have built at least 1000 turbines, three times as high as Nelson's column, across five counties finally seemed to run into the sand.

The plan – which I revealed in my Telegraph column in September – would have erected 40 wind farms, containing more turbines than have been put up in the whole of England to date – purely to generate electricity for export to the UK. Backed by the prime ministers of both countries, Britain and Ireland last year signed a Memorandum of Understanding for the power to be transmitted along highly efficient cables under the Irish Sea; a formal agreement was due to be finalised this year.

Full story...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100263063/promoting-community-ownership-would-allow-local-people-to-benefit-from-wind-turbines/

Greensleeves · 11-03-2014 9:31pm

Enda Kenny and David Cameron discussed the wind farms at a meeting in Downing Street today.

From the Belfast Telegraph.

Anglo-Irish relations 'at peak'

Mr Kenny said: "We asked the officials at the highest level if they would now take three months to see is it possible to put in place a different kind of economic structure and a different kind of model that might make this become viable."

Asked if the problem was price, he replied: "There are other issues. It's the whole structure of the model. The long term pricing arrangement is obviously one that you have to factor in and there are differences in the sense of having to provide a connector to Britain."

Full story...

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/angloirish-relations-at-peak-30083294.html

Old diesel · 11-03-2014 10:26pm

Greensleeves wrote: »

Enda Kenny and David Cameron discussed the wind farms at a meeting in Downing Street today.

From the Belfast Telegraph.

Anglo-Irish relations 'at peak'

Mr Kenny said: "We asked the officials at the highest level if they would now take three months to see is it possible to put in place a different kind of economic structure and a different kind of model that might make this become viable."

Asked if the problem was price, he replied: "There are other issues. It's the whole structure of the model. The long term pricing arrangement is obviously one that you have to factor in and there are differences in the sense of having to provide a connector to Britain."

Full story...

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/angloirish-relations-at-peak-30083294.html

So in short Kenny is so determined to drive ahead with the project - even though its now in failure mode :rolleyes:

Green&Red · 12-03-2014 11:03am

Old diesel wrote: »

So in short Kenny is so determined to drive ahead with the project - even though its now in failure mode :rolleyes:

How do you take that out of that statement?

This is what annoys me, you clearly dont have a clue about whats actually involved in these projects but are more than happy to use it as a stick to beat the government. Something like this has the possibility to bring revenue into Ireland and the midlands. Rabbitte has said that Britain need to sort out the regulatory regime for this to make it viable and Kenny says they are going to look at it again and you describe it as failure mode.

On your concerns for the communities, there has been a public consultation on the wind energy guidelines this year for noise and shadow flicker which propose changes to bring them above international standards. And theres been a consultation on a policy for export energy so that proper planning is put in place and ABP have guidelines. Did you reply to either of those consultations?

Greensleeves · 12-03-2014 11:37am

Green&Red wrote: »

On your concerns for the communities, there has been a public consultation on the wind energy guidelines this year for noise and shadow flicker which propose changes to bring them above international standards. And theres been a consultation on a policy for export energy so that proper planning is put in place and ABP have guidelines. Did you reply to either of those consultations?

What international standards are you referring to?

Old diesel · 12-03-2014 11:42am

Green&Red wrote: »

How do you take that out of that statement?

This is what annoys me, you clearly dont have a clue about whats actually involved in these projects but are more than happy to use it as a stick to beat the government. Something like this has the possibility to bring revenue into Ireland and the midlands. Rabbitte has said that Britain need to sort out the regulatory regime for this to make it viable and Kenny says they are going to look at it again and you describe it as failure mode.

On your concerns for the communities, there has been a public consultation on the wind energy guidelines this year for noise and shadow flicker which propose changes to bring them above international standards. And theres been a consultation on a policy for export energy so that proper planning is put in place and ABP have guidelines. Did you reply to either of those consultations?

Heres the problem - I SHOULDN'T need to be an expert on these projects - I am however entitled to question how the Govt is handling this - ie how they haven't consulted properly with communities or addressed their concerns. Im more focused on the sort of outcomes I would like to see happen - and how they might come about.

In terms of my thoughts on Endas comments - well Pat Rabbite himself - reckoned that the project won't make its deadline as there just too much work to be done in the time frame to the 2020 deadline for the EU targets.

Yet Kenny is still trying to force it forward - even though from what I can see the British don't seem to have a massive appitite for it.

There comes a time when you have to step back with something like this - and recognise that the projects in a sticky patch - and we need to step back and review - and work out the best way forward from here.

in terms of Regions - like the Midlands - I would like to see the best possible future for it. And would like to look at how we can create the most positive future for the Midlands and its communities.

That's the approach I would like to see been bought into the planning of this and indeed the future of the Midlands as a whole

Like I mean - im no expert on (for example) the inside workings of the Ambulance service - but I CAN STILL criticise the Ambulance service if I feel that the service it delivers isn't delivering the outcomes I would like in say the area of response times.

To me it looks like the Midlands is just seen as a place to put turbines - and I feel that's a negative view to take of an area - and would prefer to have a more positive outlook.

I would prefer a more integrated approach based on creating a positive future for communities - and integrating wind energy and related projects - into a POSITIVE community future.

I feel that hasn't happened yet- and that's why im critical of the whole process to date.

Rather then having a planning system that just pretends communities and houses aren't actually there - that's how the approach to this project to date looks like to me.

I welcome more revenue into Ireland BUT id simply prefer to see it done in a way that looks at a Region like the Midlands in a more positive light.

I also feel that questions have to be asked if the new export industry for the Midlands causes concerns for an existing horse industry that feels that said new industry.

I think that merits far more attention from Govt then its received to date - and their apparent lack of attention to horse industry concerns is worrying in terms of their approach to achieving a positive solution to all.

There is little point in pursuing say 6,500 jobs in wind energy export from the Midlands - if you lose an industry with 14,000 jobs - that does not make sense - and I don't need to be an expert on anything whatsoever to work that one out.

Yeah ive been annoying again - but the issue I have is - I would like to achieve some of the same results - ie more revenue, jobs etc - but id like to do it differently.

I recognise wind turbines as an essential part of our electricity infrastructure but believe that we need to plan them in the best way possible - and look at how you can have community living and turbines working away in Ireland without either causing issue for the other.

Anway I know im not the most knowledgeable person - and I know im a contrary one - but I don't think a lot of my views are terribly wrong or unreasonable

Old diesel · 12-03-2014 11:56am

Anyway - the reason I think the project is in failure mode is this - Rabbite himself has said the project is UNLIKELY to meet its 2020 deadline.

That suggests a project in failure mode given that the need to MEET A 2020 TARGET for the Uk was what was behind this project in the first place.

They will now miss that target - IF the project doesn't get back on track.

I also think a huge pile of the issue here - isn't so much turbines per se - but the sheer size of the project - if you have up to 2,000 turbines.

We need to look more at what is suitable development for the area - and be able to give people the confidence that they can live happily alongside the wind technology.

I think the confidence factor is VERY IMPORTANT - and feel it would be much easier to get communities onside IF they feel they can still have a future as a community - rather then seeing this as a threat to their community.

Now you can debate until the cows come home - about how much of a threat to communities this project really is - or isn't - but if a project is seen as a threat by a community to their future - you can't blame them for not been happy about it.

That's where Govt are failing at the moment - in terms of trying to communicate with communities and discuss concerns

fclauson · 12-03-2014 12:34pm

Green&Red wrote: »

...
On your concerns for the communities, there has been a public consultation on the wind energy guidelines this year for noise and shadow flicker which propose changes to bring them above international standards. And theres been a consultation on a policy for export energy so that proper planning is put in place and ABP have guidelines. Did you reply to either of those consultations?

thats the issue - in Meath they had a public consultation - the CC can up with a set of guidelines and the DoE (J.O'Sullivan) came in and used her powers to try and overrule the decision.

So lip service is sometimes paid to public consultation

Also the NREP was never consulted on - nor was the renewable targets

Search for Pat Swords
http://www.turn180.ie/2013/03/18/operation-of-wind-turbines-and-legal-liability/

Old diesel · 12-03-2014 1:15pm

fclauson wrote: »

thats the issue - in Meath they had a public consultation - the CC can up with a set of guidelines and the DoE (J.O'Sullivan) came in and used her powers to try and overrule the decision.

So lip service is sometimes paid to public consultation

Also the NREP was never consulted on - nor was the renewable targets

Search for Pat Swords
http://www.turn180.ie/2013/03/18/operation-of-wind-turbines-and-legal-liability/

See that's exactly it Francis - this plan isn't about driving communities forward - because if it was - it would be planned differently.

What I would love - and it doesn't matter what I think - because im wrong anyway.

But what id love is this - creating a future plan for regions and communities based on achieving the best possible future for them and their people.

Do that - and work in the energy planning around that - and focus on people from ALL OVER Ireland - including Dublin too

.

We are going wrong because - of things like Jan O Sullivan deciding she can't be bothered actually understanding why councillors representing people actually took decisions with the aim of addressing the concerns of the people they represent.

The way to handle that was - is to understand the concerns that led to the Westmeath decision in their CDP to have a 10 times the height of the turbine setback distance - and for Jan O Sullivan as minister for PLANNING to work to address those concerns.

Old diesel · 12-03-2014 2:09pm

So what do we think of what this lady is saying????

http://theresaleaf.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/community-acceptance/

Green&Red · 12-03-2014 6:03pm

Greensleeves wrote: »

What international standards are you referring to?

The MArshall Day report which accompanys the guideline review refers to the World Health Organisation guidelines (apologises, rather than standards) of 40dB(A), which is what the noise limit is set to

It also refers to noise limits across international jurisdictions

Green&Red · 12-03-2014 6:05pm

fclauson wrote: »

thats the issue - in Meath they had a public consultation - the CC can up with a set of guidelines and the DoE (J.O'Sullivan) came in and used her powers to try and overrule the decision.

So lip service is sometimes paid to public consultation

Also the NREP was never consulted on - nor was the renewable targets

Search for Pat Swords
http://www.turn180.ie/2013/03/18/operation-of-wind-turbines-and-legal-liability/

Two issues here, CC guidelines have to be in keeping with national guidelines, there is a hierarchy and it has to be consistent across the land. The national guidelines were consulted on.

The Pat Swords case is on-going, it is uncertain whether there is a need to consult on the NREAP.

Devils advocate could argue that people were consulted on government policy in the general election.

Renewable targets are agreed at EU level and are not subject to consultation

Old diesel · 12-03-2014 6:15pm

Green&Red wrote: »

Two issues here, CC guidelines have to be in keeping with national guidelines, there is a hierarchy and it has to be consistent across the land. The national guidelines were consulted on.

The Pat Swords case is on-going, it is uncertain whether there is a need to consult on the NREAP.

Devils advocate could argue that people were consulted on government policy in the general election.

Renewable targets are agreed at EU level and are not subject to consultation

What happens though if the Co Council is correct and the National guidelines are wrong????.

Like say Westmeath Co Council say 10 times the height of the turbine - but Jan O Sullivan minister for Planning says 500 metres.

How do we work out who is correct - and how do we address the reality that Co Councillors went for 10 times the height of the turbine based on the concerns of their constituients.

I think the answer to that - is to focus on two things - getting the planning as good as it can be.

And creating a positive future for communities - I mean - if you have a positive future ahead - its easier to face into change.

And no im not a planning expert - but again - I shouldn't need to be.

fclauson · 12-03-2014 8:08pm

Green&Red wrote: »

The MArshall Day report which accompanys the guideline review refers to the World Health Organisation guidelines (apologises, rather than standards) of 40dB(A), which is what the noise limit is set to

It also refers to noise limits across international jurisdictions

Unfortunately the Marshall Day report is woefully inadequate - for example the above mentioned 40db(A) is the Leq or L90 or what - Marshall Day are vague on this aspect. Additionally none of the appendices of the consultation where complete so it was not possible to understand the maths they where going to use to do any of the calculations

If you want a view on this report read all of http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PublicConsultations/Submissions-WindEnergy/

but if you only want to read one then read http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PublicConsultations/Submissions-WindEnergy/Unspecified/FileDownLoad,35130,en.pdf

the key table is the country by country limits table (sorry for formatting)

dB(LA90) Type Period
South Australia 35 Hybrid All
Victoria 35 Hybrid Night
Ontario 38 Hybrid All
Quebec 38 Hybrid Night
Alberta 38 Hybrid Night
Denmark 37 Absolute All
France 28 Hybrid Night
Germany 33 Absolute Night

and if you have time to read 2 then read
http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PublicConsultations/Submissions-WindEnergy/Unspecified/FileDownLoad,36282,en.pdf

finally can I also recommend you read all of the Shiven ones under Cork
and Ray Byrne under Wexford

And if you want you can read mine which is also under wexford

Old diesel · 12-03-2014 8:13pm

fclauson wrote: »

Unfortunately the Marshall Day report is woefully inadequate - for example the above mentioned 40db(A) is the Leq or L90 or what - Marshall Day are vague on this aspect. Additionally none of the appendices of the consultation where complete so it was not possible to understand the maths they where going to use to do any of the calculations

If you want a view on this report read all of http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PublicConsultations/Submissions-WindEnergy/

but if you only want to read one then read http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PublicConsultations/Submissions-WindEnergy/Unspecified/FileDownLoad,35130,en.pdf

the key table is the country by country limits table (sorry for formatting)

dB(LA90) Type Period
South Australia 35 Hybrid All
Victoria 35 Hybrid Night
Ontario 38 Hybrid All
Quebec 38 Hybrid Night
Alberta 38 Hybrid Night
Denmark 37 Absolute All
France 28 Hybrid Night
Germany 33 Absolute Night

and if you have time to read 2 then read
http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PublicConsultations/Submissions-WindEnergy/Unspecified/FileDownLoad,36282,en.pdf

finally can I also recommend you read all of the Shiven ones under Cork
and Ray Byrne under Wexford

And if you want you can read mine which is also under wexford

Could I just say Francis - fair play to you for the work you've put in

I still have concerns with this whole project - even though I am not from the Midlands - but well - I will do a final wrap up post to clarify my thoughts later.

Think I will finish up my involvement with these 2 threads - so will be back later with a final set of "clearing the air" posts.

Capt'n Midnight · 12-03-2014 9:08pm

fclauson wrote: »

Is this to do with the fact that on average wind delivers around 25% to 30% of installed capacity
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/All-Island_Wind_and_Fuel_Mix_Report_Summary_2013.pdf

Record demand was 5090 MW and there was spare dispatchable capacity then.
Minimum demand was 1786MW.

Point is that on average even the fossil fuel plants are only producing 25-30% of installed capacity.

Because we have weather predictions and a grid wind can be factored in. Yes you need reserve power in case the wind drops off. The amount is only a fraction of the power needed by the dispatchable stations. There are no extra capital costs, there are no extra running costs. Wind forecasts are fairly accurate 5 days out compared to gas turbines that ramp up in seconds.

robp · 13-03-2014 8:57am

Green&Red wrote: »

How do you take that out of that statement?

This is what annoys me, you clearly dont have a clue about whats actually involved in these projects but are more than happy to use it as a stick to beat the government. Something like this has the possibility to bring revenue into Ireland and the midlands. Rabbitte has said that Britain need to sort out the regulatory regime for this to make it viable and Kenny says they are going to look at it again and you describe it as failure mode.

On your concerns for the communities, there has been a public consultation on the wind energy guidelines this year for noise and shadow flicker which propose changes to bring them above international standards. And theres been a consultation on a policy for export energy so that proper planning is put in place and ABP have guidelines. Did you reply to either of those consultations?

There are many concerns about this project unrelated to human disturbance. There is a huge neglect of debate of the environmental impact. It was likely to lead to an industrialisation of wild areas that probably shouldn't be even considered for industrialised in the first place.

Green&Red · 13-03-2014 10:20am

robp wrote: »

There are many concerns about this project unrelated to human disturbance. There is a huge neglect of debate of the environmental impact. It was likely to an industrialisation of wild areas that probably shouldn't be even considered for industrialised.

Thats probably why the Renewable Energy Export Policy and Development Framework is being developed with an SEA.

It seems to be a common theme here, people calling for debate on things when there are on-going consultations on these issues where people have a chance to air their views.
The green paper will be up for consultation soon and it will set the energy agenda for the next five years

Wind farm for the Midlands

Comments