Tesco building wind turbines

Cookie_Monster

Link I suppose "Policy" is the one this falls under but move it elsewhere if appropriate Mods

Retail giant Tesco is to be granted planning permission to construct two massive 300-feet high wind turbines at its distribution centre in north Dublin that, when completed, will be taller than the Republic's tallest building, The Elysian in Cork.

Fingal Co Council has just given the provisional go-ahead for the two wind turbines that will each have a 213-feet tall support base and 85-feet wide blades that will bring the total height of the structures to 91 metres. That's slightly under 300 feet and makes them about 30 feet higher than the Elysian, and nearly half the height of the landmark Poolbeg power station chimneys in Dublin.

The council recently indicated its intention to approve planning permission for the development, which will help power the distribution centre, while previous opponents of the plan can now take their case to An Bord Pleanala.

A Tesco spokesman declined to comment on the planning application, but it is understood the turbines need to be so high in order to capture enough wind to generate a viable amount of electricity.

The towers are so tall that search and rescue helicopters will have to plot new routes to safely bypass the turbines during adverse weather, while air traffic control at Dublin Airport had concerns that two turbines would be picked up by its radar system. That had the potential to have the huge structures mistaken for light aircraft.

Tesco originally applied for permission to construct the turbines in 2007, but withdrew that application before putting it to the council again last year.

Following concerns raised by both the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) and Dublin Airport, Tesco engaged a consultancy to determine the potential impact.

The report found that the turbines will occasionally generate so-called "primary target" echoes on the airport's radar system, depending on weather conditions.

Primary targets are generated by land-based radar systems without any additional information being provided to the system by identification equipment on board aircraft.

That report also found that on "rare occasions" the turbines could produce what are known as "false plots", which are radar signals received that don't correspond to the actual position of a real aircraft.

However, the major concerns expressed by the IAA were addressed.

Locals branded the plan as inappropriate and said that solar panels would have been better

No data on how much it will cost or what kind of return they are expecting but I hate this usual "scaremongering" by the paper, this will be affected, that will be affected :rolleyes:

Its about feckin time IMO, all large scale industrial buildings should have something like this and at only 300 ft / ~100 meters its not all that tall.

In response to the locals issues maybe solar and wind is the solution.

Cunsiderthis

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Link I suppose "Policy" is the one this falls under but move it elsewhere if appropriate Mods



No data on how much it will cost or what kind of return they are expecting but I hate this usual "scaremongering" by the paper, this will be affected, that will be affected :rolleyes:

Its about feckin time IMO, all large scale industrial buildings should have something like this and at only 300 ft / ~100 meters its not all that tall.

In response to the locals issues maybe solar and wind is the solution.

I imagine this will be something of a dichotomy, as wind turbines are "good" and Tesco is "bad" in the eyes of many.

Tesco seems to be extending its tentacles into every walk of life, and I fully expect soon to see even Tesco churches springing up all over the place!

quentingargan

There have been huge technical advances in minimising the effect that wind turbines can have on nearby radar, but it isn't scaremongering as such, and not surprising that the airport authorities would want their views to be considered.

I see no dichotomy. Renewable energy has, in many cases, moved from the realm of philanthropy to economics, and it is much more likely to thrive in that realm. I was involved in a 240 tube solar water heating project on the same Tesco site, and I often wondered in my mind whether this was driven by philanthropy, economics or greenwashing. Since it went in, I haven't seen a scrap of publicity anywhere about their solar water heating and have to conclude that it was indeed economics, or philanthropy. You can put your own spin on which of the two you think it to be....

Putting wind turbines on-site as done in Dundalk IT, allows you to buy your own electricity, offsetting the retail price, and sell your surplus to the grid as any other wind farm would. So although the site may have a lower mean wind speed, your average price per KwHr is higher than a normal wind farm. Makes sense.:)

Cunsiderthis

quentingargan wrote: »

There have been huge technical advances in minimising the effect that wind turbines can have on nearby radar, but it isn't scaremongering as such, and not surprising that the airport authorities would want their views to be considered.

I see no dichotomy. Renewable energy has, in many cases, moved from the realm of philanthropy to economics, and it is much more likely to thrive in that realm. I was involved in a 240 tube solar water heating project on the same Tesco site, and I often wondered in my mind whether this was driven by philanthropy, economics or greenwashing. Since it went in, I haven't seen a scrap of publicity anywhere about their solar water heating and have to conclude that it was indeed economics, or philanthropy. You can put your own spin on which of the two you think it to be....

Putting wind turbines on-site as done in Dundalk IT, allows you to buy your own electricity, offsetting the retail price, and sell your surplus to the grid as any other wind farm would. So although the site may have a lower mean wind speed, your average price per KwHr is higher than a normal wind farm. Makes sense.:)

Economically, I've yet to see a solar project in Ireland where the accounts make any kind of sense. Generating electricity by wind is expensive, and intermittent, when compared to generating electricity by other means, and if it weren't for favourable tax treatment the true cost of wind generation would render it economically not viable.

quentingargan

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Economically, I've yet to see a solar project in Ireland where the accounts make any kind of sense.

Must be philanthropy so.:)

Cunsiderthis

quentingargan wrote: »

Must be philanthropy so.:)

It's more likely to be the encouragement of the tax concessions. As we've seen in the hotel sector, many individuals built hotels not because they were economically viable, but because they were blinded by the tax concessions available. At least with wind turbines, you can do your figures and take your chances, and are not having to staff the turbines with chamber maids and reception staff and kitchen staff etc etc, while there are no guests to pay them.

Additionally, you know the wind will blow sometimes and turn the rotors, whereas no hotel is guaranteed even a single guest.