Wind farm for the Midlands

Green&Red wrote: »

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

Okay - heres the thing - the way I WOULD LIKE* (now the rights and wrongs of my thinking are another matter) to see things develop - IDEALLY is this

Take the Midlands as a region

1) I would LIKE to see a midset of developing the BEST POSSIBLE* future for communities/towns/people of the Midlands. And also in terms of the Midlands itself as a place where PEOPLE LIVE*.

2) Try to evolve* plans - whether that is turbines or anything else around having the best POSSIBLE* future for communities and people of the Midlands

3) Jan O Sullivans response to Westmeath Co Councils CDP stipulation on setback - if you were serious about consultation - provided an opportunity for her to hear the concerns that led to the stipulation on set backs - ie what was the reasoning behind it - because the councillors didn't do this just for fun. Her response would indicate to me - that consultation is just a tick box exercise - because if she was serious about CONSULTATION - she would recognise that if a council puts a stipulation in place in response to public concerns - these concerns should be listened to - that doesn't mean she has to agree with them - but having listened to - there is an opportunity then as minister for PLANNING - to see how those concerns could be addressed

Btw - im not saying that Jan O Sullivans thinking on the 500 metres setback been proper is wrong - or that Westmeath Co Councillors viewpoint on the 10 times the height of turbine setback is right.

But while Jan O Sullivan DOES have a job to do - and sees it as the proper thing to do to enforce national policy - i feel that she should have discussed the reasoning of the councillors decison with them - rather then heading straight into directive mode.

She could listen to the concerns - take them aboard - address them - and THEN look at the best course of action.

Like we are talking in this thread about a REGION of ireland - so lets try to get the priorities right here.

What future do we want for a Region of Ireland - in this case the Midlands - if your serious about the best possible future for the people of the Midlands - then surely that might be best achieve by giving them the opportunity to shape THEIR OWN FUTURE.

The fact that this may be seen by pro turbine - or anti rural people or anyone else that has issues with people objecting to Anti turbine people - as been Anti turbine is sad really.

If we are saying that the concept of developing the best possible future for the communities of the Midlands - and allowing the people there to help shape that plan is wrong - then that indicates a flaw in this projects plan.

I certainly feel that if the horse industry feels concerned about these proposals - then REMEMBERING that this is an EXPORT energy project - then it would be right because they are an industry worth 1.1 bn and with 14,000 people employed - to take on board their concerns.

If we can't plan in a manner thats acceptable to the horse industry - then to me that indicates flaws in this project - and in terms of wind turbines generally.

Frankly - turbines in themselves - don't bother me that much - inspite of the fact that my posts would indicate otherwise.

I do however feel that - we should TRY* to have a situation where this plan fits around the midlands as a place of communities - rather then the other way round - where you just see the Midlands as a place to put turbines. Or of course - looking at the Midlands itself - what is the best way forward for its future - whether thats turbines - or alternative options

I do feel that this project takes a negative outlook on the Midlands as a place - and that it would have been nicer* and far more ideal* if you had a more positive outlook on the place as a starting point.

The reason i feel that this project is taking a negative outlook on the Midlands - is that from what i can see - the project is all about getting in the turbines - in terms of how you view the location of the Midlands.

I know i will take a lot of flak for the above comments because they might be seen as flawed - and that im not knowledgable enough or haven't a clue - but tbh - all i want is the best possible solution for COMMUNITIES.

If that means im seen as clueless - then i don't know what to say really - except i fail to see whats wrong with wanting to achieve the best future for communities.

Why not.

*life isn't always perfect - and you can't always have what you want - i do however want an integrated plan for a Regions future - not jsut okay - heres 2,000 turbines - lets horse them up - and don't think at all about how they fit into or suit the areas they go into

I may never achieve the perfect plan - but in terms of the regions future - id like the best possible solution.

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.

Exactly Rob - and something else thats completely overlooked is the fact that an industry with 14,000 jobs - and worth 1.1 bn to the economy - the horse industry - is raising concerns on this project.

Thats a serious concern alone in my book - as i don't think that it would be good planning if we lost an industry of that importance because we could not plan an EXPORT project properly.

Of course the pro wind boys will say - the horse industry needs to PROVE its concerns - but what i would say - is that they don't need to prove their concerns - just the fact that they have concerns about the turbines - could mean they may feel its better to have the horses outside Ireland :rolleyes:

So it would be proper planning and help the cause a lot if the concerns of a valuable industry like the horse industry could be addressed.

Green&Red wrote: »

CDP have a very clear framework, this framework is set by national policy. By setting a different setback distance Westmeath Co Co were stepping outside of this framework.
If JOS were to allow this then every CDP in the country could set whatever rules they considered necessary, thats not a workable model.
There is national policy for a reason and Westmeath, liek every other county has to stick to it. The place to challenge that is at national level.

I wasn't saying that shes wrong - i just feel that her INITIAL response could have looked at the reasoning behind the CDP stipulation.

The concern i would have is this - the councillors - put in place a stipulation - now there are several things to look at here in my book

1) The councillors did this in response to public concern - Jan O Sullivans job is minister for PLANNING.

The concerns raised are a concern in relation to PLANNING.

2) She has the option of using her powers - those power are there for a reason - however sometimes having power is one thing - but its a bit driving a high performance car - you have the power - but you also have the option - to decide how best to use the power.

3) The deciding factor here - should be what is good planning for the Westmeath area - the 500 metres may well be a NATIONAL GUIDELINE and National policy. But what would be ideal i think - is to look at what was the proper planning in terms of the Westmeath area.

4) Jan O Sullivans response - could be seen as getting the message out there that getting as many turbines as possible is more important then the people of Westmeath.

What i thus feel - is that she should have listened to the concerns behind the stipulation.

yes Westmeath Co Councillors - may have broken the rules - or done the wrong thing - one could argue.

But they did it in response to the concerns of the people they represent - so firstly you could argue that Jan O Sullivans approach was undemocratic.

And secondly - there are concerns there in relation to planning rules and guidelines - if Jan O Sullivans only response to this is to just put out a directive AND NOT LISTEN to the concerns in Westmeath - are we saying that the priority for Westmeaths future - is ensuring there is enough space to put turbines.

That from what i can see is the Govt concern in relation to the Westmeath stipulation - as its seen as reducing/excluding the possibility for large scale wind development in Westmeath.

The way forward i feel is this

1) Start thinking in terms of what is the best solution in terms of Westmeath - in terms of what is good for Westmeath people and communities.

2) if thats wrong - are we thus saying that getting as many turbines into Westmeath is a higher priority then whats good for Westmeath people and communities going forward.

3) Going forward - what is the best way to strike a balance between energy needs - and working to evolve a solution that sees the best possible future for communites AND getting our energy requirements met

fclauson wrote: »

So national frame work is the right way to go then

http://www.turn180.ie/2014/01/01/why-eirgrids-pylon-grid-link-programme-is-illegal/

http://www.turn180.ie/2012/12/21/pat-swords-to-challenge-governments-renewable-energy-programme/

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/3/18/the-latest-from-pat-swords.html

the national frameworks were put in place without public consultation

And anyway - why not have different CDPs for every county - every county has different needs and requirements -why not put a few turbines in Phoenix Park - you could get you 500m separation, noise would not be an issue (background noise in high in Dublin) and you could make them 300M high to get above the trees etc

But this would be unacceptable - so why can't Meath or Kerry or Cork have their own set of guidelines. They have it for house building styles to fit in with the local vernacular structures

Its a good point you make on the idea of every county having different needs and requirements.

What id like to see is a plan that works as well as possible for as many communities as possible.

Theres a worrying issue here that i think would be difficult to resolve for all parties involved - Govt and communities and others.

It revolves around the issue - if how we see communities like say in Westmeath.

Do we see place like this - in terms of how we can put up turbines there - or how many turbines we can squeeze in.

Or do i look at a village in Westmeath as a place where people live - and look at their needs and what future they want for themselves and their community.

I think theres an issue here in terms of mindset - this project is been put forward as a step forward for the Midlands.

But WHO is it making the Midlands better for - IF WE want to create a future for the PEOPLE of the Midlands - then wouldn't we get better results from that - if the people are able to get the chance to shape the future THEY WANT.

Because if we aren't giving the people the opportunity to shape their future and that of their communities - then surely it could be argued that this project ISN'T about driving the Midlands forward for the PEOPLE there.

The way i see it is this - if your focus as a Govt in terms of this project was about the people of the Midlands - then surely - a community based project would deliver better returns for COMMUNITIES.

But that may not deliver the scale that some would say is needed or wanted.

Theres a town in Scotland - that has their own community wind farm - on the go wit 4 turbines - and they are using that as a platform to achieve their 2030 plan - which essentially is about securing the future of the town and making it stronger.

Now you have to ask - where is that sort of thinking in the Midlands project - its just not happening.

The claimes jobs figures are all over the place - you had the ridiculous figures of 54,000 claimed by one of the developers when he was quoted in a local paper some time back.

But now Pat Rabbite has scaled back to 6,500 when quoted in an article a few days ago.

To put 6,500 into perspective - the Horse industry employs 14,000 - and it has concerns over the turbines btw.

And Mary Kennedy in Nationwide last night stated that the fishing industry employs 11,000 - this been an industry many would say is in decline.

Still employing 11,000 people according to Mary Kennedy.

Grudaire wrote: »

But this is exactly the same nonsense that had everyone scars of the mma vaccine, no proof but lots of vocal people repeating themselves.

and the concerns only exist because people like you keep repeating them to anyone who will listen.

And to be honest at this stage I can barely give the time to scan over your posts, epically long.

My point is - the Horse industry doesn't need to prove its concerns - it has the option of PULLING OUT of Ireland - if it feels Ireland cannot provide the standards it would like in terms of a suitable environment for its horses.

it doesn't need to prove its right - in order to make the decision to pull out.

Look its not whether they are right or wrong im worried about in terms of horses - but i think that it shows a flaw in this project - IF an existing industry isn't happy with the plan - and cuts back investment in Ireland as a result - or starts moving horses abroad.

This is actually very very easy for the industry to do.

fclauson wrote: »

So lets split fact from rumour (I hate nonsense)

If this were true you wouldnt quote propoganda pieces like turn180 and would stick to actual facts

Green&Red wrote: »

If this were true you wouldnt quote propoganda pieces like turn180 and would stick to actual facts

Why would you consider it propaganda?

and you did not answer my Q as to what to do if you felt there is an issue

Grudaire wrote: »

Would your opinion be the same if it was an international bank?

Why does unfounded opinions gain traction if someone or an industry threatens to leave?

@Greensleeves

I wasn't trying to say that the industry/individuals weren't vocally opposing the windfarms. I was trying to make the point that they have come up with an argument that is not even based on any sort of evidence.

"particular sensitivity to perceived visual or auditory threats" is how they explain the dangers that windfarms may potentially pose. They haven't explained how a moving shadow or background noise might be different to tractors and shadows from the trees moving in the wind



The funny thing is that I do agree that the Gov etc have not approached it correctly, they haven't got community buy-in, and the community have now stake in the developments. Secondly I do think that the 500m setback is probably not appropriate for all situations, and I think that there must be a way that wind turbines can be placed so that the shadow will not be on top of the stables (etc)

It feels like the attitude from the 'anti-wind' side is based on 'Never, Never, Never' - and then finding excuses why it should be never.

I think the point your missing is that - the horse industry has the option of LEAVING the Midlands if it feels that the turbine situation isn't acceptable in terms of how it would impact their horses.

It doesn't need to have PROOF of anything - in order to make the decision to leave.

So the point is - one would have to give far more careful consideration to their concerns - simply from the point of view of trying to maximise job numbers.

Especially if your putting forward this export opportunity as something that will benefit an area - if an industry in that area has concerns that the "opportunity" will jeopardise their business (we can worry about the rights and wrongs separately) - then you need to look at those concerns in my view.

Why???

1) if an industry comes in with 10,000 jobs - but causes 11,000 jobs to be lost in an other industry - that changes the context of the opportunity completely.

2) Achieving the best solution for a Regions future means looking at achieving the best results in terms of jobs - meaning its better to have a plan that works as well as possible for BOTH horse industry and wind energy.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one - but no hard feeling whatsoever

This popped up via twitter this morning

WTF

https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2014/04/13/its-official-the-government-has-cancelled-its-midlands-wind-energy-export-plan/

Not sure if its a wind up or what - but it looks like Rabbite has shelved the plan

Back to the drawing board for our energy plans if this is true

Macha wrote: »

Well, the export plan was just that - an export plan to fill the gap created by the UK's incompetence in renewable energy policy.

I won't be very sorry to see it shelved - it's given renewables a bad name and getting renewables developed to get Ireland off imported fossil fuels is much more important.

agreed it did indeed cause a lot more negativity towards renewables.

Renewables development is very important as you say - and hopefully lessons can be learned from how the Midlands project was handled - so that progress can be made.

I think part of the LONG TERM renewables solutions would be looking at how we can make renewables perform - in terms getting more from less.

So for example if you take 1500 MW of power - developing turbines so that we need less to produce 1500 MW of power then we do today.

Very hard to make it work - but renewables are VERY important

mikep wrote: »

It look like the Midlands project has just done more to mobilise the BANANA brigade than anything.
I think this country is going to face major difficulties trying to get renewable forms of generation going due to local opposition.

Where do you see the major difficulties - from what I can see - all the important players and decision makers can continue to develop renewables happily in Ireland.

for the following reasons

1) Pro wind energy minister

2) planning system which is more favourable towards wind

3) Irelands ability to just ignore community concerns* - where other countries MIGHT adjust their policy to suit.

Im not saying those are good or bad things - im just saying that is how I see it

Even if one forsees difficulties in the future - there is still the valid question - how do you address community concerns - I don't mean no turbines - I mean looking at getting to a situation where communities feel comfortable living with renewables solutions in their community - particularly in terms of wind.

*I put that forward as an observation rather then a criticism - there is merit in having the ability to drive forward with unpopular decisions where those decisions are in fact good ones.

mikep wrote: »

I see the main delays due to the growing concern, right or wrong, with windfarms resulting in objections to planning thus lenghtening the planning process. I belive most of the problem is the lack of imagintation on the side of the authorities here..for instance the last time I flew into Amsterdam I was struck by the number of turbines located in Industrial estates, had our planners any vision they could have included a provision in planning for industrial developments for a commitment to inlcude wind turbines in any plans. Also as I drive along our motorways I am always struck by the amount of land on either side of the raodway that could perhaps accomadate turbines, particularly along the M8 in the Galtees.

You raise some interesting points there Mike - and I do think it would be very helpful for people on BOTH sides of the debate to gain an understanding of what is been done internationally.

On the motorway thing - I personally have seen footage from Spain via you tube - of a stretch of motorway - where the motorway goes right through the middle of the wind farm.

In terms of planning our future energy needs - and getting the energy solutions of the future through planning - I feel that Govt and the renewables industry need to start involving communities more in terms of planning projects that are proposed to be located in communities.

Unfortunately - people who are pro turbine would see that as been anti turbine.

which then raises the obvious question - how do we get communities comfortable with the technology - or bring the technology to a point where a community would feel comfortable that the technology will fit well into their everyday living

BrenCooney wrote: »

Wonder how comfortable the same communities will be when climate change starts to bit, really bit hard. I woudl appar the U.N. climate report was censored hard by politicans " http://grist.org/news/u-n-climate-report-was-censored/ via @grist" and it would appear its worse that we think and what we need to do to is going to be fairly draconion compared to a few wind turbines!!!

Yes we are all going to have to adapt to change - certainly renewables are essential.

Reinforces the need for public and Govt to work together on developing energy policy.

Also need better renewables technology so we can have superior more consistent performance from the likes of wind energy - as we could then (potentially) grow renewables share of electricity generation beyond the 40 percent that we are already committed to.

Still think wind industry has to start pulling its weight more in terms of delivering BETTER solutions for everyone.

And we need more focus on developing renewables more and more - and making them better and better.

Creating the idea of community shareholdings (along with Govt) in wind farms might help too.

Need a process of continuous improvement really

Old diesel wrote: »

Yes we are all going to have to adapt to change - certainly renewables are essential.

Are they essential though? Nuclear is a far superior alternative in nearly every way.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Forget the safety issues,
Forget that the nuclear industry just doesn't learn from the near misses of the past
Forget that they haven't delivered any major changes in technology since the 1950's
Forget the clean up costs
Forget that there aren't any working nuclear waste repositories
Forget the costs associate with climate-change proofing coastal power stations ( a repeat of the 1707 flood would mean a Fukushima in Wales )
Forget the insurance costs that the state adsorbs

Nuclear just isn't economic. The UK are signed up to 92.5p for base load power indexed linked for 40 years, and they have to have 3.2GW of spinning reserve to back it up.

The price has fallen by a third in recent years. Do I have to tell you of the spiralling costs of EDF's new reactors ?

Solar is also falling in price.

Big story from 2013 is that while investment in renewables had dropped, the price has dropped even more so the overall amount of power installed has improved.

Right - so nuclear isn't a runner - that's fair enough - I don't really expect it to be a runner in Ireland - regardless of what I or anyone else might think of it.

There is risk in nuclear without a doubt - my thinking on saying id be happy to consider it (note I said happy to consider it - I did NOT SAY I thought it was a good idea ) - is that we are ALREADY living with the risks of nuclear - via the fact that the Uk has nuclear on the go.

I may be completely wrong on all that - so hands up - I need to rethink.

But im still wondering - how can we drive renewables technology - especially wind forward.

You see im used to been into cars and trucks - where improvements are coming on line every month from manufacturers - the Trucks for example have just moved to the 6th generation of EU emissions rules - Euro 6.

Cars are much improved on safety - and on Co2 emissions and overall technology.

But where is wind improving - when are we going to see turbines improving so that I can get more power on a more consistent basis.

Or have turbines designed with the fact that they are going into communities 500 metres from peoples houses - in mind.

There is nothing wrong with questioning the technology - if that technology means that GOOD PLANNING has be put aside - which is how it looks like to me - to facilitate it.

Yes weve had bad planning in the past - and id have preferred to drive forward with good planning in the future - learning from past mistakes.

But the reality as I see it - is that you know have the scenario - that a community may now be just seen in terms of planning its future - in terms of how many turbines you can squeeze into it - rather then plan in a way that looks at a community positively as a place of community where people live and be respected for that.

Obviously short term - yes - we need to meet our 40 percent target - and that means turbines - Govt has chosen that route - so that's the way its going.

But long term - id like to see the technology improve - so that to produce 1500 MW of power (as an example) we would need less turbines then we do today.

In saying that - my understanding - is that we are already at 20 percent of power from wind - so at least we are already some of the way there rather then starting at zero

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wind turbines harvest the wind. No matter how you design the turbine it can only the energy in the wind that passes through the blades.

When you double the wind speed you get four times as much energy from each Kg of air that passes the blades, but you also get double the amount of air too so now there's eight times as much energy going through.

Tricky to design a turbine that can work in a 10kmph breeze and 100kmph storm , that's a thousand fold increase in power

So stuck with crap tech that can't be improved :mad:

Hope those ocean energy, floating turbines, tidal energy folk are getting on with developing their technology

Because - I don't mind technology that can't be improved if it works well.

But if it intrudes into communities and we are stuck with that for ever more - that's very hard to accept

Sooner we get better technology developed and can move on from wind - the better :rolleyes:

Im used to continuous improvement as a car enthusiast - not stuck with crap tech and no improvement for ever

Sorry its the wind tech I am ranting at - not your post/comments

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Terrible isn't it. It's the 21st century and our cars still have wheels with rubber tires, our trains still run on steel rails, our tube shaped jet airliners still travel at mach .8 with podded engines under the 70 degree sweep of their wings , slower aircraft with straight wings still use propellers Soyuz is still used to get people, into space, our ships still use propellers.





I don't know what you want.

You do realise that off shore wind means you need to build a stronger turbine that can withstand the storms and spray and salt corrosion and vibration from the pounding waves. You then need to build an platform that you can stick the turbine on. You also need to setup cables back to land too. Small wonder that offshore wind costs twice as much as onshore. And unless you can figure out a way to make zero cost platforms it will always cost more.

as a car enthusiast you'd probably be aware of diesel engines. Investing in wind is like that. It costs more up front, but you use less fuel in the long run.



If you want a technology to replace wind then it's got to be reasonably cheap and quick. (eg. there's no point in waiting 10 years for nuclear or waiting another 20 years to get your money back ) Wave is still under development. tidal turbines are still under development so still expensive but doable, tidal barrages are very expensive, geothermal is very very expensive here because drilling down 1,500m isn't cheap,

solar will help but don't have the sort of climate that makes it economic yet, we aren't as sunny as Cornwall.

Obviously we are going for wind in the short term - I suppose what im saying is - id like to see energy technology IMPROVE in the longer term.

wind will be a mainstay (regardless of what I think of it) in the shorter term - due to the need to meet our EU targets and the fines that would ring.

In terms of what I want - unfortunately due to the limitations of the current technology - I won't be able to have what I want.

What id like is to plan for a positive future for as many communities as possible - that definitely doesn't mean a turbine free future as that's unrealistic*

But we do have to work within the limitations of the technology that's available - that's the reality

*Hence why I say "as many as possible" rather then ALL communities