Wind Farms for scenic areas to go ahead

Crubeens

Windfarms are to be allowed in scenic locations

Thursday June 29th 2006


THE Government is to allow windfarms in scenic areas nationwide.

Those with more than 50 giant turbines are to go through a fast-track planning process, bypassing the local authority.

The moves, announced today, are bound to infuriate growing numbers of communities.

New planning guidelines for windfarms will significantly affect scenic areas - and those with protected birds - for the first time.

An Bord Pleanala and local authorities have recently thrown out a raft of planning applications for huge windfarms on the grounds that they were to be located in special areas of conservation, known as SACs.

The new policy is expected to open the floodgates for a wave of applications for windfarms in scenic areas, including those already refused in mountainous beauty spots.

Until now, local authorities took the view that designating an area for special protection because it had a scenic landscape or rare birds precluded the development of windfarms.

The new guidelines, obtained by the Irish Independent, say that the impact of windfarms in such sensitive areas can be mitigated through consultation between the companies and the local authorities.

They say that natural heritage may be affected by wind energy developments during the construction and operational phases. These impacts may be either temporary or permanent.

"Planning authorities must ensure that a proposal which is likely to have a significant effect on an SAC or other designated area is authorised only to the extent that the planning authority is satisfied it will not adversely affect the integrity of the area," the guidelines say.

"If necessary, they can seek changes to the development proposed or attach appropriate planning conditions.

"In circumstances where a wind energy project is likely to have an adverse effect on the integrity of a site of international importance for nature conservation, planning permission should only be granted where there is no alternative solution and where there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature."

They will clear the way for local authorities to identify areas where there is significant wind energy potential and include them in county development plans.

Local authorities will be "favourably disposed" to granting planning permission in those areas, subject to siting and design criteria.

Treacy Hogan

Bit of a dilemma?

Kelter

The Irish Independant, the paper of opinion...

when did the Indo last print an article that was positive about wind?

bonkey

Crubeens wrote:

Bit of a dilemma?

Not that I can see. THe crux of the article for me is where it says:

In circumstances where a wind energy project is likely to have an adverse effect on the integrity of a site of international importance for nature conservation, planning permission should only be granted where there is no alternative solution and where there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature."

So anything really important will be put at risk only as a last option.

As for "scenic locations"....I'm willing to bet that these are locations that you already drive on an asphalt road to. If its a proper wilderness, keep it that way. If its somewhere nice the family can drive their car to on a Sunday to have a stroll....trough noogies....any preservation moral high ground when the road was built.

ednwireland

bonkey wrote:

As for "scenic locations"....I'm willing to bet that these are locations that you already drive on an asphalt road to. If its a proper wilderness, keep it that way.

a farmer in the blue stack mountains near donegal town put in several miles of roughtrack to facilitate a wind farm going in on the highest point (674) if you look at the mountains in front of you from the mill park hotel you can actually see the road. the wind farm wasn't given planning pemission but the road was built anyway cos you dont need planning permission to build access roads into your own land (why not ?). i guess at some time in the near future the planning will go in with a caveat sure there's a road up there. if you look at a map the bluestack mountains are one of the last places with no roads through it in donegal. there is no sirect route from the fintown glenties road right doen to barnemore gap.
the whole planning system is funked if you ask a wind farm ws built on a sac here we won 7 objections to an bord plenala but they got permission anyway.
the gov gets european money to protect sac's but now it says you can build on them i really dont understand, i guess it wont stop till every hill is tarmaced and concreted.
i think its easy enough for these people to build anywhere they like as it i,s they dont need planning restrictions lifted.
What we really need is a thought through energy policy not just peicemeal private development.

bonkey

ednwireland wrote:

a farmer in the blue stack mountains near donegal town put in several miles of roughtrack to facilitate a wind farm going in on the highest point (674) if you look at the mountains in front of you from the mill park hotel you can actually see the road. the wind farm wasn't given planning pemission but the road was built anyway cos you dont need planning permission to build access roads into your own land (why not ?).

This is kinda my point.

The farmer doesn't need planning permission to build the road, and the road can be an eyesore.

Whether its for a wind-farm, to get easier access to one of his fields, or whatever reason, we're quite happy (apparently) allowing a system to continue where the scenic beauty of an unspoiled landscape can be destroyed because the landowner wants to.

if you look at a map the bluestack mountains are one of the last places with no roads through it in donegal.

Again, my point exactly. Where's the legislation to save this area from road-building? Why is it not a dilemna that roads can be built, potentially destroying this area....but as soon as someone says "wind-farm"...now it needs to be protected.

the gov gets european money to protect sac's but now it says you can build on them

It doesn't offer a carte blanche for building on them, so lets not get carried away here. This article says that the government's decision is expected to result in people reapplying for permission to build on SACs. It does not say that they will be granted that permission, and explicitly says that it "is authorised only to the extent that the planning authority is satisfied it will not adversely affect the integrity of the area".

[quote[
i think its easy enough for these people to build anywhere they like as it i,s
[/quote]
You think its easy enough for them to build on SACs right now?

What we really need is a thought through energy policy.

Do you not mean a thought-through energy policy that you agree with.

If the governmetn thought it through and said "nuclear" some people would be up in arms, and making the same type of criticism. If they said "gas" or "wind and wave" or anything else, someone is going to insist that its the wrong solution and shows they haven't thought it through.

jc

damiand

We live in a failed democracy..... its a fact...... a country run by muppets voted in by the general public.

Parochial pump house politics. My local TD spends more time going to funerals than tending to government and he is a junior minister.

FF do great things to facilitate farmers and builders. So lets all vote Fianna Fail and the PD's in the next election when we all get offered something stupid like...decentralistion or €1,000 per child per year untill the age of six which migrant workers with kids in their home country can also claim (fair play to them, I actuall have no proble with this). How about they give us every second Wednesday off, maby then we will forget the 200 people killed on the roads so far this year (not all the governmnets fault, I know) or the hospital beds/trolleys fiasco.

The wind strategy is another stunt by the governmnet. talk and act hard. The first time a Planning Authority grants a contensious Wind farm, tricky Dicky Roche will be on the news doging the LA.

The only hope we have is that the price of Turbines, which have increasd by over 40% within the last year will continue rising. The othet glitch which the governmnet can hang its hat on is that the ESB are very slow to connect new winf farms. They also have major capacity issues which they arent telling about, yet.........

SeanW

Ok, first of all, was it necessary to post that 6 times?

Secondly, you oppose further wind farm development. You seem to be happy with the rise in turbine prices. Great. Question. If we DON'T build these wind farms, what should be used to generate the electricity instead?

Because you can't be anti-everything and still have the lights come on.

piraka

These wind farms should not be located in the wild and remote areas of Ireland. These areas are now being commercialized by large-scale and inefficient structures.

The wind farms are also resulting in large-scale habitat destruction of very sensitive and protected areas.

It is also interesting to note that these farmers are also able to claim REPS payments and yet can install large commercial structures on these lands.

Build them beside large populated areas.

silverharp

damiand wrote:

The only hope we have is that the price of Turbines, which have increasd by over 40% within the last year will continue rising. The othet glitch which the governmnet can hang its hat on is that the ESB are very slow to connect new winf farms. They also have major capacity issues which they arent telling about, yet.........

Dont worry about the scenic impact of turbines, when petrol is 5Euro a ltr, we wont be able to visit thescenic areas in any case

piraka

silverharp wrote:

Dont worry about the scenic impact of turbines, when petrol is 5Euro a ltr, we wont be able to visit thescenic areas in any case

Hopefully we will have biofuels and hydrogen fuel cells, and don’t forget the old pushbike to go and enjoy the scenic views of the countryside when oil based fuels are €5/ltr. So it would be nice if the wind farms are kept off the scenic and environmentally sensitive areas of the country.

Foxwood

Am I the only one who thinks that a wind farm is a thing of beauty?

Frankly, a single bungalow does far more to destroy a scenic vista than an array of stately pylons, with turbines turning in the wind.

piraka

Foxwood wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks that a wind farm is a thing of beauty?

Frankly, a single bungalow does far more to destroy a scenic vista than an array of stately pylons, with turbines turning in the wind.

A single bungalow is about 15-20m in height, a 2 MW wind turbine is about
110m in height and a wind farm can have up to any number of these monsters installed.

Foxwood

piraka wrote:

A single bungalow is about 15-20m in height, a 2 MW wind turbine is about
110m in height and a wind farm can have up to any number of these monsters installed.

What has size got to do with anything?

A single 15-20m high bungalow (some bungalow!!!) is a greater eyesore than an array of stately, even elegant, wind turbines.

I can accept complaints about noise and even concerns about TV and radar interference. But I simply can't understand the argument that wind turbines "spoil the landscape" - it's a load of crap, in my opinion.

lostexpectation

Foxwood wrote:

What has size got to do with anything?

A single 15-20m high bungalow (some bungalow!!!) is a greater eyesore than an array of stately, even elegant, wind turbines.

I can accept complaints about noise and even concerns about TV and radar interference. But I simply can't understand the argument that wind turbines "spoil the landscape" - it's a load of crap, in my opinion.

because if not planned properly its not planned properly not matter whats built

ednwireland

bonkey wrote:

Do you not mean a thought-through energy policy that you agree with.

yeh your probably right

but i think an awful lot more should be made of energy conservation but that doesn't do anything for the people that support the gov's and if we use less elec what does that do for a potential esb flotation ?

my only objection to nuclear power is waste disposal sort that out its fine

a group one seven objections to this wind farm (see pic) ran out of money on the 8th built on an sac a lake was built to supply a micro hydro as well its now half full with silt 3 years later. does nobody look at the real value of these things

netwhizkid

As a person who has seen the completion of 15 turbines, which were built in my locality of Kilgarvan Co. Kerry. I can say that they have quite a lot of controversy. The main problem they have created is with our Television signal leaving most of the parish without a decent picture except for those lucky enough to have Sky.

A public meeting was held and guarantees were given by RTÉ that the problems would be rectified by the end of June it is now July and the fighting between RTÉ and SWS (South Western Services) continues and upon ringing RTE last week I was told it was a political matter. I myself and many others are now contemplating to refuse to pay our Television licences. Mine is up on July 31st and I will be fighting it every way through the courts as necessary.

It is a thundering disgrace my parish has been left without a TV signal for nearly 6 months now and is been totally left behind in everything. I would give this piece of advice to anyone who knows of anywhere a Windfarm is to be built to immediately call an emergency meeting and formulate a plan to ensure that TV services can be guaranteed. There is 15 turbines erected and another 40 to follow with the delay being that the Turbines cannot be built quickly enough in the factories in Scotland and Denmark

These were built with little consultation of my community and as usually big business and procrastination out of Fianna Fail is responsible for the mess that has happened. I am confident that when all the Turbines are erected it will not only leave no TV signal to my area but will also know out all FWA services available too as the Eircom FWA mast is located in the middle of the Windfarm.

I completely reject the Argument that they spoil the Landscape and landowners I know have been refused several times for planning permission to erect even more turbines, I myself own land which will now have potential for Windfarms if the OP’s post is accurate. It is located in the National Heritage Area and you could even apply for planning as a result. I favour Windfarms as long as the community is consulted and adequate means of receiving a TV signal is provided. DTT and RTE FTA Satellite comes to mind and an ever list of bungling out of the Government.

These pictures below were taken by myself at the completed Windfarm and shows the Turbines themselves and the landscape in the background which was a conifer plantation which was subsequently chopped down to build them Turbines. You can also see in two off my photos some of the Water Pollution Generated by their constuction etc.

I have attached a clip of the noise generated by them which I captured on my Digital camera as a video and I converted it into sound using Audacity. It can be downloaded here It should play in either iTunes or Windows Media Player. I would post the Video clip only my Dial-up would take approx 50hrs to upload it! Excuse my heavy breathing as that day (4th June 2006) was quite hot and I was after an Asthma attack brought on by the Mile walk uphill from the locked Security barriers.

View from about 5 miles away

Turbine Photo 1

Turbine Photo 2

Turbine Photo 3

Turbine Photo 4

Turbine Photo 5

Turbine Photo 6

Eircom FWA Mast Tower

Water Pollution 1

Water Pollution 2

Turbine Noise

SeanW

ednwireland wrote:

my only objection to nuclear power is waste disposal sort that out its fine

You mean this:

Is by volume the amount of High Level Waste made to supply a person with nuclear electricity for a lifetime.
Source.

HLW has been vitrified (segregated, wrapped up in insoluble glass and wrapped further in stainless steel cannisters) and these secure containments will soon be geologically buried. More about waste disposal, here.

And before anyone asks, no I don't work for the WNA, I just think they make a lot of sense.

And BTW, netwhizkid etc. complaints WRT windfarms in their area, is not the first time I've heard of problems.

A few years ago there was an environmental disaster at Derrybrien, Co. Galway as the contractors, building a wind farm at the top of a boggy, soggy hill, triggerend a massive mudslide.

Foxwood

SeanW wrote:

You mean this:

Is by volume the amount of High Level Waste made to supply a person with nuclear electricity for a lifetime.

Unless you're suggesting that we each carry our nuclear waste around in our pockets, a image showing someone holding a shiny metal ball doesn't really address ednwirelands "sort that out" comment.

On a rough guesstimate, that shiny little ball would represent 1 km of roadway, a metre deep, for the population of this state.

If vitrification solved all of the problems of nuclear waste, it would have been done years ago. But it is incredibly difficult for a society that has seen radical technological transformations in each of the last 4 or 5 generations to plan for a problem that needs to last between 30 and 300 generations. Stainless steel doesn't stay stainless for a 1000 years.

Nuclear has some significant advantages, given the world we're facing in the next 20-50 years. But it's problems are real, and they aren't in any practical sense solved, not least because even vitrified waste has to be kept out of the hands of "undesirables".

piraka

Foxwood wrote:

What has size got to do with anything?

A single 15-20m high bungalow (some bungalow!!!) is a greater eyesore than an array of stately, even elegant, wind turbines.

I can accept complaints about noise and even concerns about TV and radar interference. But I simply can't understand the argument that wind turbines "spoil the landscape" - it's a load of crap, in my opinion.

Thanks for the observation on the size of the bungalow. It should be smaller in size, which actually increases the scale of the turbine. These large turbines can be seen from up to 20km away!!

In my opinion, large-scale commercial developments, which lead to significant natural habitat loss “spoils the landscape”.

golden

surely having wind turbines is better than nuclear plants around the place what will happen when the fossel fuel be depleted. Also the trees that are in those pictures are not native trees so perhaps they should revert back to what it was in the first place!!!

SeanW

It's quite the opposite. Nuclear power does not rely on the weather, so a reactor does not have to be sited on the top of an unstable slush mountain like what happened at Derrybrien. There are, as mentioned, other problems with wind turbines that make large scale reliance on them impossible. Not the least of which is the fact that they deliver nothing when the wind isn't blowing. Wind has it's potential, as do many of the renewables, but they alone are simply not enough.

Nuclear power, on the other hand, can produce large volumes of "baseline load" electricity with no CO2, mercury, arsenic, Nitrous Oxide, Suplhur Dioxide or other emissions commonly associated with fossil fuels including much less radiaton emissions, for which coal is a doozy.

The contents of this picture were it located in Ireland, would supply all of our electricity needs. That's right, just the plant IN THAT PICTURE ALONE.

I would advise you to do some real, impartial research into nuclear power. For far too long, anti-nuclear FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) artists have helped to keep us reliant on fossil fuels, a filthy, unsustainable mugs game. Most other European countries either have nuclear installations, are designing/building them, or are importing nuclear power. It works, and beautifully. Seek the truth for it shall set you free.

lostexpectation

SeanW wrote:

It's quite the opposite. Nuclear power does not rely on the weather, so a reactor does not have to be sited on the top of an unstable slush mountain like what happened at Derrybrien. There are, as mentioned, other problems with wind turbines that make large scale reliance on them impossible. Not the least of which is the fact that they deliver nothing when the wind isn't blowing. Wind has it's potential, as do many of the renewables, but they alone are simply not enough.

you've repeated this falicy about problems with there not being wind all the time!

The contents of this picture were it located in Ireland, would supply all of our electricity needs. That's right, just the plant IN THAT PICTURE ALONE.

yay no need to reduce consumption then! fab

Foxwood

SeanW wrote:

The contents of this picture were it located in Ireland, would supply all of our electricity needs. That's right, just the plant IN THAT PICTURE ALONE.

And for anyone who can't count, there are 4 nuclear reactors in that picture.

SeanW

Figures don't lie. Go to the Eirgrid Portal and you can get details on Ireland's energy demand, and quite frankly scary fluctuations in the supply of wind power. Not saying we shouldn't invest in wind, quite the opposite I think it's a good thing, I'm just telling the truth that it can never be a reliable, majority component of our energy requirements.

And yes, that's 4 reactors in the picture of Cattenom, in Northeastern France. The standard output for a conventional nuclear reactor is 1GW. I had assumed that this was the capacity of Cattenom's 4 reactors, totalling 4GW. I was wrong, it's 1300MW each, meaning a total of 5200MW! If we cloned Cattenom, we'd have about about 1200MW to burn

yay no need to reduce consumption then! fab

Well, I'm not suggesting we should actually make a carbon copy of Cattenom here in Ireland. That would be kind of stupid considering we don't even need that much energy. I just showed that picture to put nuclear power production/required landmass into perspective.

It would make more sense to build 2 French style reactors, one near Dublin and a second somewhere between Cork and Limerick. 1-1.3GW each. Why? Although you could put a whole bunch of generating capacity in one place far away (and I would actively support a safe nuclear reactor near my house) you lose power by sending it over long distances. Better to put large generating capacities close to the cities and factories that need them, I'm sure you'll agree.

This COMBINED WITH a major expansion in renewables AND an energy efficiency drive, would put a major hole in Ireland's runaway demands for imported fossil fuel. Isn't that worth looking for?

PDD

<start-rant>

Windfarms do offer potential but for me it should not be at the expense of destroying natural habitats and that includes the scenary. From what Ive seen and what I take from the article mentioned above is that the Government has put the foot down on accelerating the development of wind engergy in this country. This is most likely due to alot of backhanders or just the vested interest like other industries e.g construction - where there's money to be made legislation isnt a problem.

For me its another case of having gob****es making decisions, those who are making the decsions are either misinformed or are simply ignoring the advice of the experts. Its about being smarter and that means cutting demand at the source thus reducing the need for the windfarms (solar pannels, vertical-axis wind turbines, geo-thermal energy, communal biomass). There is a whole host of options available for people that would be readily accepted if they were government funded and new technology coming onstream everyday. Just take a look:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/01/windy_city_colo.php
http://www.renewablesireland.com/faq-windsave.htm
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/11/windside_vertic.php
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/11/ultra-effective.php
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/11/norways_hydro_d.php
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/01/come_the_quiet_1.php
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/china_unveils_w.php

Its like that ****ing eejit that bought the electronic voting system (honestly why is he still in a job he has cost the taxpayer 10's of millions and still we pay him). Its like everything else the Irish government have done, react to a long term problem with a hap-hazard bandaid solution that only creates more problems in the long run! Its not just the Irish government, the UK announced it was going down the Nuclear road again yesterday and for less than the cost of building a nuclear powerstation they could have had something like this.

http://www.trecers.net/trec.html

I know the above may seem far fetched but is it really? Man can achieve anything he puts his mind to and the first step is simply saying thats not good enough!

For me the idea of a meritocracy seems damn appealing right now!

<end-rant>

spacetweek

PDD wrote:

<start-rant>
Windfarms do offer potential but for me it should not be at the expense of destroying natural habitats and that includes the scenary. From what Ive seen and what I take from the article mentioned above is that the Government has put the foot down on accelerating the development of wind engergy in this country. This is most likely due to alot of backhanders or just the vested interest like other industries e.g construction - where there's money to be made legislation isnt a problem.

For me its another case of having gob****es making decisions, those who are making the decsions are either misinformed or are simply ignoring the advice of the experts. Its about being smarter and that means cutting demand at the source thus reducing the need for the windfarms (solar pannels, vertical-axis wind turbines, geo-thermal energy, communal biomass). There is a whole host of options available for people that would be readily accepted if they were government funded and new technology coming onstream everyday. Just take a look:
<snip>

PDD, your rant against the welcome rollout of wind energy in Ireland is totally counter productive - you seem to be saying that wind energy is of no use just because it isn't mentioned on your tree-hugger website. We're all (nearly) on the same side here!

If the primary goal here is to reduce pollution (and it is), then the means to achieve this should be irrelevant. Nuclear, though it pollutes while the uranium is being mined, produces no air pollution during its lifetime, and is therefore an effective technology to have onside in the drive to reduce pollution. I for one am greatly in favour of the UK's choice to stay with nuclear and if anything they should be greatly expanding its modal share. We should be doing it too with the aim of generating say 2/3 of all Irish electricity with nuclear and the remainder with various renewables.

Lost expectation, no, building nuclear doesn't mean we stop reducing use - however it's much more important to reduce the pollution created when electricity is produced or used than it is to reduce demand for it. I think humans should be able to use as much energy as they need - with no pollution generated. We need to break that link, between energy use and pollution - the link that we all take for granted. It doesn't need to be that way.

SeanW

to be fair to lostexpectation, (s)he assumed I was suggesting that Ireland should build a carbon-copy (boo) of the Cattenom complex in France. At 5200MW, parked somewhere in Ireland, it would dramatically exceed Ireland's energy requirements.

PDD

Sean nuclear power is not the answer! Its like putting a bandage a bullet wound - short term solves the immediate problem of stopping/steming the bleeding but doesnt address anything after that.

At the moment for me personally the main problem I have with nuclear power is the waste (apart from the unworldly toxicicity of it) many countries still havent address the issue of storage of nuclear waste 50years on.

Even if you argue it from an economic perspective the sheer cost of ownership of the waste products for its lifetime of 25,000 years (or even 200/300 years etc) offsets any immediate benefits to be reaped from it. Make no mistake, nuclear power isnt about providing a solution to an energy problem its about corporations looking to make massive profits from public spending by pulling on con on politicans. If tyou look at the money that has already been wasted on nuclear power stations or even what is ear-marked to be spent on new nuclear powerstations across Europe it would be enough to fund this project 10 times over - outside the box people!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Mediterranean_Renewable_Energy_Cooperation

Again the whole political issue, goverments use their legistlative powers often to the detrement of those they claim to be serving and trying to help. Most of the time this is facilitated by misinformation, prime example being biofuels. While the government would like you to think that they are not feasible the reality is that they are its just the government and those with vested interests stand to loose money (i.e. tax income) by converting to the widespread use of biofuels. The government could easily create a new biofuels industry sector in this country by introducing plans like using biofuels for all county council vans/trucks etc.

bk

I really don't see what the alternative to Nuclear is. WE currently use a maximum of 4,500 Mw of power at peak in winter. Most of that is generated by burning gas, oil and coal. Would someone please explain to me in detail how we are going to replace that without Nuclear?

SeanW

That TREC plan looks good, but to me it smacks too much of relying on imports from more unstable parts of the world - looks a lot like what we're doing now only with solar electricity instead of oil. Given the periodic attacks on oil pipelines in places like Iraq, Nigeria and South America, I wouldn't expect HVDC power lines from some of these places to last very long.

Having said that I think it's a good idea, and it looks like something Europe should really think about.

To my mind the question isn't nuclear vs. renewables vs. biofuels vs. conservation, its nuclear + renewables + biofuels + conservation vs. fossil fuels. In all the above talk no-one has really mentioned just how bad they are, I mentioned the problems of Coal in particular here and in detail in other places.

Coal burning is a major source of mercury contamination, arsenic, radioactive elements (worse than nuclear), CO2 and Acid Rain forming compounds like Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrous Oxides. All of these things kill, maim and destroy all they touch, you none of this is ever mentioned, especially by anti-nukes.

Fossil fuels are the real enemy. Their health and environmental effects, unsustainability and as a reason for global unrest. We need to focus on getting rid of these, using every tool at our disposal - including nuclear.

The government could easily create a new biofuels industry sector in this country by introducing plans like using biofuels for all county council vans/trucks etc.

Strange thing is that the oil crazed Americans are miles ahead of us on this, just look up Biodiesel on Google News and no doubt you'll read lots about city buses/trucks converting to B20, new biodiesel refinaries etc - all in the US, UK, Australia ... everywhere but Ireland. Makes for depressing reading.

edanto

I think that wind farms look pretty good. I'd rather see a hundred of them on a horizon than a single smoke stack.

They complement areas of natural beauty by making a strong pro-environment statement.... every time that big propellor turns, we're using less fossil fuels.

SeanW

Very true edanto: I was truly surprised by the amount of windfarm bashing that went on in this thread. I really did not expect it at all.

If anyone can, get a copy of today's Indo and go to the review section. Nice little article in there called "Gone Fission." It looks at the Irish government's bashing of Britain's new nuclear aims, while 'revealing' what we already know
1: Dick Roche is the "Man without a Plan" (except to talk sh1te)
2: We're not nuclear virgins in Ireland - Ireland is a net importer of electricity from the U.K.

edanto

I agree that TREC sounds like a great idea. SeanW, maybe the problems with it aren't as serious as you think, though. I'd not heard of it before, but on a first read it seems like that project would improve relations between us and the other countries involved. That's one way to reduce the instability you refer to. As regards terrorist targets, I'd rather we had a power circut like TREC that they could damage and cause mild inconvenience, instead of nuclear power stations that could be attacked with devestating consequences.

On the subject of nuclear, I would be flying the same flag as PDD above (post 28, not 25). It's wrong to ignore the cost of 10,000 years of storage and security in the nuclear sums and when it's not ignored or passed on to the government (our money, after all) it makes nuclear fission prohibitively expensive.

There is hope from nuclear fusion, but the technology is still not at the stage where we can get more energy out of the reactor than we have to put in. Hopefully that will change with ITER, but that's still a prototype and won't even be built for about 10 years or something. It's impossible to predict how long it will be before fission contributes to the grid, but something like 30 years might be a reasonable minimum. Compared with fission, it's much more palatable in terms of waste production. Or at least, 'predicted waste production'. Anyone remember the original moniker for nuclear fission... 'electricity too cheap to meter' :rolleyes:

Until we have fusion, biodiesel or ethanol is the way forward for mobile energy and a combination of all renewables to reduce our fossil fuel spend on the grid. That means government intervention and I don't know which parties stand for which options. I'm guessing the Greens would be all for the renewables and biofuels, but I don't think they'd support fusion. Anyone know the stance of each party?

<apologies for continuing the off-topicness, maybe we should start a new one to have another discussion about all the options?>

bk

edanto wrote:

I'm guessing the Greens would be all for the renewables and biofuels, but I don't think they'd support fusion. Anyone know the stance of each party?

If they don't support fusion, then they are idiots, fusion has little or no waste and is completely safe.

BTW the waste from nuclear fission isn't really that difficult to deal with and manage, you should do a bit more research into it, it may open your eyes, start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste

Foxwood

bk wrote:

BTW the waste from nuclear fission isn't really that difficult to deal with and manage, you should do a bit more research into it, it may open your eyes, start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste

Are you reading the same article I am? (the one that says that Nuclear plants are creating 12,000 tons of High Level Nuclear Waste each year, and that the capacity of vitrification plants is 1,000 tonnes per year, and that there stil doesn't exist, anywhere in the western world, long term permanent storage for any of this stuff?)

Are we to believe that none of these issues have been properly dealt with simply because they're not "that difficult to deal with", rather than the truth, which is that it is incredibly expensive and difficult (technically and politically) to manage waste that will still be extremely dangerous for thousands of years?

Hand-waving exercises about the very real problems of nuclear waste by proponents of nuclear energy don't inspire confidence.

SeanW

Fair enough, I'll grant you that disposal is an issue, albeit a manageable one. But it doesn't look at the bigger picture.

The reality is that ALL of our activities will leave much bigger problems for future generations than nuclear power. And I mean everything. Did you throw away a newspaper today? If it went to landfill, it may still be readable in 50 years time. Plastic bottle? Old ceramic tiles? Those will be in the environment forever. Glass doesn't biodegrade for a million years. Tell that to the morons who break pint glasses and bottles outside the pub. Source.

And what about them CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use? Do you drive? Take a train? Turn on a lightswitch? You can bet on those causing major headaches from the generations to come.

The chances are, that through regular household activites, you have done more damage and caused more problems for future generations in the last week, that you would have for an entire lifetime using nuclear power.

You know that as a person, your legacy to future generations will be a bad one. I am keenly aware of this even though I am not a big-spender or big consumer.

When it comes to the electricity we use though we have a choice. Let's not make the wrong one.

golden

We can all do our bit to try and save our planet but one of the heaviest polluters in ireland is a 1980s ESB station in Moneypoint, Clare. Industry has to clean up its act as well as they are the heaviest polluter in Ireland. If it means going wind turbines do so to save the environment, but would there be enough electricty to support the population and if the electricity companies have to source other electricity from out of Ireland would they be selective and not go for Nuclear Power

BendiBus

golden wrote:

...and if the electricity companies have to source other electricity from out of Ireland would they be selective and not go for Nuclear Power

You can't really be selective. I think it was the CEO of Eirgrid on the news last week pointed out that electrons are electrons. They all whizz around the grid and you can't identfy & stop nuclear generated ones at the border!

lostexpectation

Lost expectation, no, building nuclear doesn't mean we stop reducing use - however it's much more important to reduce the pollution created when electricity is produced or used than it is to reduce demand for it. I think humans should be able to use as much energy as they need - with no pollution generated. We need to break that link, between energy use and pollution - the link that we all take for granted. It doesn't need to be that way.

I disagree I think energy consumption reduction is key, because it is the hardest one for us to do...

I think humans should be able to use as much energy as they need

yeah cos its the American way right?


I have to be fair that overstated seanw use of fallacy, it ain't so such a fallacy of variable wind electricty when it comes to windfarms within Ireland.

Look at what is happening in Bantry, the ESB is using laws that only should only apply to state companies to get private windfarms hooked up to the grid...


I was just readin an article in the Sunday Indo, where Roche said that careful planning was needed but that wind was a matter for private companies...?

Are the government not building their own wind farms, the ESB is not yet privatised but they seem to be planning for when it is by not building state windfarms...

bk

lostexpectation wrote:

I disagree I think energy consumption reduction is key, because it is the hardest one for us to do...

And I think it is an unrealistic and unworkable dream, which simply distracts from the real difficult decisions that need to be made.

Sure we can do some energy reduction, but it isn't going to be enough to make up for the massive increase in energy demands over the next few years:

1) World population increasing from 6 billion to 8 billion in 20 years.

2) Previously poor, subsistence farming communities which previously didn't have electricity, now working in big factories and living in apartments using electricity and buying cars, etc in Chine, India, etc.

3) Most western people simply don't care enough about the environment, just look around you, everyone wants their big screen TV's and SUV's.

lostexpectation wrote:

Look at what is happening in Bantry, the ESB is using laws that only should only apply to state companies to get private windfarms hooked up to the grid...

It is funny when I see people who are dead set against nuclear, but then they also don't want wind farms in their back garden.

lostexpectation

bk wrote:

And I think it is an unrealistic and unworkable dream, which simply distracts from the real difficult decisions that need to be made.

Sure we can do some energy reduction, but it isn't going to be enough to make up for the massive increase in energy demands over the next few years:

1) World population increasing from 6 billion to 8 billion in 20 years.

2) Previously poor, subsistence farming communities which previously didn't have electricity, now working in big factories and living in apartments using electricity and buying cars, etc in Chine, India, etc.

3) Most western people simply don't care enough about the environment, just look around you, everyone wants their big screen TV's and SUV's.



It is funny when I see people who are dead set against nuclear, but then they also don't want wind farms in their back garden.

this isn't about the wind famr its about the overhead powerlines going through their land to benefit of private oweners.

The Novacastrian

I think windfarms are a thing of beauty and do nothing to spoil a view across a landscape, if anything they can improve it. Most people out walking in scenic areas are the environmentally friendly type, and so should appreciate the environmental savings to be gained by windfarms.

I'm just back from Trier in Germany, which is one of Germany's most scenic areas, being in the Moselle valley, etc. It is impossible to drive 10mins without coming across another windfarm, and to me they look great! Also, if you climb the hill for the vineyard in Trier, a windfarm can be seen spinning away in the distance.

Windfarms need to be placed in rural areas to suit the grid as connection in cities is difficult without major investment on the grid itself - updating switchgear and lines etc.

I am also in favour of nuclear as a way forward for Ireland. And without doing research on the topic, I think ajoint venture with the north is a good idea.

GreenDoor

I'm all for wind energy and wind farms but they do ruin the countryside.

I'd like to see them off shore and combines with wave power a wind/wave farm could be possible with clever engineering. There is thousands of square miles of ocean so area wouldn't be a problem.

piraka

I think windfarms are a thing of beauty and do nothing to spoil a view across a landscape, if anything they can improve it.

I think windfarms located in mountain landscapes are hideous, but that is a matter of opinion.

How on can a steel structure 110m high improve a landscape? In fact it dominates it.

Most people out walking in scenic areas are the environmentally friendly type, and so should appreciate the environmental savings to be gained by windfarms.

There is limited environmental savings to be gained by windfarms. In fact they are more destructive to the environment, than actually saving it.

http://www.eirgrid.com/EirGridPortal/uploads/Publications/Wind%20Impact%20Study%20-%20main%20report.pdf

Go to No.6 Capacity Credit

http://www.rspb.org.uk/policy/windfarms/eaglestrike.asp


http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19125591.600.html

Windfarms need to be placed in rural areas to suit the grid as connection in cities is difficult without major investment on the grid itself - updating switchgear and lines etc.

Windfarms should be placed closer to where the power demand is required i.e. urban centers. This will reduce, loss of power due to transmission, pylons, poles required for connection and will also provide for easier grid connection.

bk

piraka wrote:

Windfarms should be placed closer to where the power demand is required i.e. urban centers. This will reduce, loss of power due to transmission, pylons, poles required for connection and will also provide for easier grid connection.

Unfortunately urban centers aren't good fo placing wind farms. You typically need an area that gets good wind, typically a high elevation and the wind flow not blocked by any obstacles.

That is why they are usually put on mountains and hills in rural areas as it is where they are most efficient.

Pocari Sweat

goslie wrote:

I'm just back from Trier in Germany, which is one of Germany's most scenic areas, being in the Moselle valley, etc. It is impossible to drive 10mins without coming across another windfarm, and to me they look great! Also, if you climb the hill for the vineyard in Trier, a windfarm can be seen spinning away in the distance.

My first memories being brought up in Germany, was a camping holiday on the banks of the Moselle Valley in Trier downhill from the same vineyards before wind farms took root, and I hope from what you say, the wind turbines there do not spoil the look of that gem of german beauty spots.

I was over awed by some of the amazing castles on the opposite banks of the Moselle and would hate to think the Moselle Valley of all places has been littered with badly planned wind farms.

piraka

bk wrote:

Unfortunately urban centers aren't good fo placing wind farms. You typically need an area that gets good wind, typically a high elevation and the wind flow not blocked by any obstacles.

That is why they are usually put on mountains and hills in rural areas as it is where they are most efficient.

With hub heights of over 70m the turbines would be well above an obstacle. The turbines are in mountains, where they are more efficient in making money for the developer.

The turbines would still be able to generate and provide electricty if they the are located near urban centers. Thoughthey won't provide much revenue to the developers.

bk

piraka wrote:

With hub heights of over 70m the turbines would be well above an obstacle. The turbines are in mountains, where they are more efficient in making money for the developer.

Not true, buildings and other obstacles cause turbulence in the wind flow which isn't good for even high turbines. Also in many places you can easily have buildings well over 70m.

It is very notable that weather conditions can be very different in urban areas then rural. A friend of my lives just a few miles up the road in Balbriggan, it is often amazing how windy it is up there, when at the samer time there is little or no wind in Dublin.

Also urban areas tend to be built in valleys which aren't good for turbines, as they typically need to be a t a high altitude.

piraka wrote:

The turbines would still be able to generate and provide electricty if they the are located near urban centers. Thoughthey won't provide much revenue to the developers.

:rolleyes: If the turbines aren't providing revenue, then that means they aren't generating much electricity.

And anyway, where are you going to put all these turbines? The base of a 70m turbine takes up almost as much space as a house. Where are you supposed to but them all?

Also what about the shadows they will cast over people homes?
What about the noise they make?
What about how ugly they look?

Can you imagine the uproar from residents that these would get. I'm sorry it simply isn't practical.

piraka

Not true, buildings and other obstacles cause turbulence in the wind flow which isn't good for even high turbines. Also in many places you can easily have buildings well over 70m.

Low obstacles will have negligible effect on wind energy at 70m.

http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/shelter/index.htm

What I said was to place turbines near urban centers, not in them.

I wonder how the turbine at Dundalk IT is doing.

It is very notable that weather conditions can be very different in urban areas then rural. A friend of my lives just a few miles up the road in Balbriggan, it is often amazing how windy it is up there, when at the samer time there is little or no wind in Dublin.

Exactly, put the turbines in the fields near Balbriggan

Also urban areas tend to be built in valleys which aren't good for turbines, as they typically need to be a t a high altitude.

Valleys have a funneling effect which give higher wind speeds.

http://www.tpub.com/weather2/3-22.htm

If the turbines aren't providing revenue, then that means they aren't generating much electricity.

They are still generating electricity even at low wind speeds.

And anyway, where are you going to put all these turbines? The base of a 70m turbine takes up almost as much space as a house. Where are you supposed to but them all?

In the parks and green spaces on the outskirts of the urban centers.

According to a lot of people they are things of beauty, but if they are in the mountains they will never get to see them.

Also what about the shadows they will cast over people homes?
What about the noise they make?
What about how ugly they look?

Can you imagine the uproar from residents that these would get. I'm sorry it simply isn't practical.

A touch of nimbyisim methinks

bk

Yes piraka, that is all nice and good, but how much electricity will all that create.

You do understand that wind can only make up about a total of 25% of a countries electric power, as it is not a base load generator?

While we certainly should use as much wind power as possible, we probably don't need to ruin the landscape with it. Offshore wind farms in the West and South West should be enough to reach the 25% that is the max you can get from wind.

The much more interesting question is how do we generate the other 75% of base load power.

piraka

Yes piraka, that is all nice and good, but how much electricity will all that create.

About 2,051,154 kWhr/yr to 2,934,162 kWhr/yr, from one 2MW turbine, could boil an awful large amount kettles

You do understand that wind can only make up about a total of 25% of a countries electric power, as it is not a base load generator?

I don’t understand what you trying are saying here, can you please explain.

While we certainly should use as much wind power as possible, we probably don't need to ruin the landscape with it. Offshore wind farms in the West and South West should be enough to reach the 25% that is the max you can get from wind.

It will be a long time before we will see offshore Wind Farms as they are too expensive.

The much more interesting question is how do we generate the other 75% of base load power.

That’s easy, nuclear power