Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Wind farm policy
-
12-12-2013 10:24pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Why, should they?
Why shouldn't they
Not saying Ruby is right - but if your a Govt and your planning a particular project - and a leader in a particular industry comes along to say that they have concerns about this project - to the extend that they feel their industry is under treat from this project.
wouldn't you at least go and sit down and work through the issues.
I know wind turbines are more important then just about everything else - but still
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Old diesel wrote: »Why shouldn't they
Not saying Ruby is right - but if your a Govt and your planning a particular project - and a leader in a particular industry comes along to say that they have concerns about this project - to the extend that they feel their industry is under treat from this project.
wouldn't you at least go and sit down and work through the issues.
I know wind turbines are more important then just about everything else - but still
He's a jockey, not someone who has studied the impacts of turbines on horses. I don't see any evidence in that article and I'd like to see some independent research into what the possible impacts could be, not just listening to some gyu because he's famous and is a jockey.0 -
He's a jockey, not someone who has studied the impacts of turbines on horses. I don't see any evidence in that article and I'd like to see some independent research into what the possible impacts could be, not just listening to some gyu because he's famous and is a jockey.
Has someone actually done so?????
And if they have - have they factored in the fact that the turbines Ruby is protesting about - are 185 metre high.
Yes theres actually a video somewhere from one of the wind developers - featuring some guy from Mayo saying the horses take no notice of them - and he has 3 on his land - and he has some sort of a riding school/horse set up.
But those were 50 metre turbines - so the question is - does going from 50 metres to 185 metres introduce any new negative impact.
Problem is - its all very well to say - yes all is fine and dandy at 50 metres - but no one has even considered the impact of going over 3 times higher again.
And the horse industry is an important industry for areas where it operates - 14,000 jobs and worth 1.1 bn to the economy.
While independent research is good - when theres jobs on the line potentially - then the issue should be addressed don't you think.
Addressing the issue may not actually mean having to abandon the wind turbine project.
But concerns should still be addressed - in the interest of proper planning, keeping jobs going - and developing wind energy projects properly.
Regardless of whether one is pro or anti wind turbines - 2,000 185 metre turbines is a lot in a relatively small area.
Has anyone even thought about what the impact is going to be??? - I don't think anyone actually appears to have done so - because if they did - youd imagine it would be planned differently.
And get a rough ride on its journey through the planning system - rather then the current farce where it appears - the journey through the planning system will just be a mere formality - to show procedure was followed.
what id be inclined to do if I was in charge would be to carry out this project over time - plan it on a small scale basis initially with the 185 turbines - get REAL world experience with these turbines been operational in rural communities.
Use that as a learning process for the further stages in the project.
Shouldn't be an issue for developers - because if they are correct - in saying that impact on community will be small or acceptable - we will discover this early on.
And if weve completely f:mad::mad:ked up in committing to this project on this scale - its better to discover this after a small scale project of say 40, 60, 80 or 100 turbines are operational.
Rather then actually going full belt ahead - rushing into a full scale 2,000 turbine project - and discovering that actually weve encountered issues.
Its normal practice when going into new territory to start off on a small scale - to identify issues - and fix them.
Car manufacturers for example when developing new models - build prototypes and pre production example of the new model and test them to the last before the new car goes into production.
Even at that - they still get it wrong - and new tech still has issues.
How do you think the whole planning process for the 2,000 185 metre turbines should be handled.
And how do we establish whats the difference in impact between a 50 to 100 metre turbine - and these new 185 metre turbines.
Another question that's relevant - is that IF we need this 2,000 extra turbines - why are we shoving them into a small area.
Would smaller scale projects spread out more around the country not have less overall impact??? - if you need the full 2,000
Also would it be such a bad thing if you decided to only build (for example) 1,100 turbines - if that meant having a more acceptable level of impact then say 2,000 turbines.
Weve messed up planning enough in the past with all these ghost estates and building on flood plains - without messing up again.
Apologies for the long rant
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Greensleeves wrote: »On the buying houses thing Old Diesel you are so right!
I sold my place back in 2006 and was considering buying again but I'm going to hold off for a few years now to see what happens with the turbines. I'll be buying a small-holding with a view to planting willow for coppicing, growing vegetables and being as off-grid and environmentally friendly as I possibly can be. I'd prefer to buy in Ireland for family reasons but I will buy in France if it looks like I would end up surrounded by turbines and pylons in Ireland.
That's exactly the sort of scenario I had in mind - apart from the alternative location.
I feel that its easier from Govt point of view - to wind down rural communities - by neglect - over the coming years.
So im concerned that that's the type of attitude at play with wind turbine and pylon plans.
I have read at least one EIS type document for a wind farm - which among other things raised the point that in the area where that wind farm is (been built at the moment - 2 turbines operational already - I know this because I can see it from our Farm yard :rolleyes:) that the population was ageing and declining.
Difficulty is that it may well be seen that rural areas are in decline - so theres no need to treat them in the same way as somewhere "that's going places".
As ive said - the midlands issue may seem irrelevant to someone living in Rural Kerry, Clare, Limerick, Galway, Mayo, Roscommon Donegal and other counties.
But its far more relevant then they think - the Midlands has some of the best potential for Rural development - with towns like Mullingar, Tullamore, Athlone and Portlaoise offering potential which could drive on the rural areas that surround all these towns.
Yet the Govt shows communities in the Midlands such a lack of respect on this issue.
What have they got in store for other Rural communities.
Its a shame really - because in terms of driving the country forward in the future - I think the best way is to work on developing existing towns - like Killarney, Tralee, Mullingar, Athlone, Nenagh, Letterkenny and other such places.
Obtaining additional benefits by also at the same time - trying to move rural areas in the various regions those towns are in - by ensuring the benefits of developing the whole region as a Govt policy gets to as many parts of that region as possible.
This idea of everything going towards Dublin is not overly sustainable in the future.
If we talk about taking water from the River Shannon to supply Dublin - that raises the question - rather then do that - why not develop the potential of the areas near the River Shannon.
Places like Carrick on Shannon, Athlone - etc.
Again - ive gone off on a long rant - but this whole thing about keeping rural Ireland going as well as it can is something I feel strongly about (you may have figured that already)
We might as well get this thing right from the word go - as if mistakes are made - its harder to fix problems after - than to do the thing right from the start
B0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Greensleeves wrote: »Interesting input from the Heritage Council on wind energy policy...
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/heritage-council-urges-national-planning-policy-for-onshore-wind-1.1629727#.UrAjsk0ggMJ.twitter
Silly question - who are the heritage council - have they any power to do anthing.
Im not criticising them - in fact i agree with their thinking that's presented in that article.
In fact the reason i want to know if they have any power or real input into decision making - is that i want to write a letter to them if they have power or input
Thanks a million0 -
-
Greensleeves wrote: »Toothless but worthy custodians of all aspects of our natural and built environment that trot out nice glossy brochures?
According to their website their interests are very broad...
"It includes monuments, archaeological objects, heritage objects such as art and industrial works, documents and genealogical records, architectural heritage, flora, fauna, wildlife habitats, landscapes, seascapes, wrecks, geology, heritage gardens, parks and inland waterways."
http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/
Thought as much -
Saves me wasting my time on a letter to them any way 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
zombieland wrote: »Hi guys, I'm from a rural area and have just moved home recently. Where I live there has been a policy of planting trees on all available land. When I was a kid at night you could see lights all over our little valley from farm houses dotted around, I can now see just 1. The houses remain but can no longer be seen through the trees. I feel the wind farm policy i Ireland is being handled in the same ham-fisted manner as the planting of trees was in the past.
I am pro-wind energy, purley from an environmental point of view. I have small kids and would like to see a better planet left for them.
If you look at the policies adopted by the likes of Germany an the Netherlands it is community orientated. A quote I heard from a community member in one of those countries was "If a neighbour puts up a wind turbine it is a problem, if you own a part of it it is an asset", I am paraphrasing slightly but you get the message. One turbine supplied 650 houses, that would mean six would supply our local village and every house and farm in the surrounding area, and still some surplus to sell back into the national grid.
Instead of private companies setting up monster farms it should be local communities setting up their own farms and running them. If the Govt really had the citizens in mind this is the way they would be going with this.
And before anyone asks, I would not mind living close to a turbine, I'm not a million miles away from a wind farm as it is. It would be nice to own a piece of it though.
You might be interested in this
http://www.neilstonwindfarm.org/
Small town in Scotland developed a wind farm with 4 turbines in partnership - the vision they have for their town - is a blueprint Rural towns in Ireland would do well to consider - even if its not through a wind farm.
Part of the aim of the community involvement in the wind farm - was to try and use the income to drive the actual town forward.
A long way from the wind farm thinking in Ireland.
And your 100 percent right - the planning of wind farms in Ireland is quite ham fisted - and to my mind - isn't anything like as well thought out as it should be.
Turbines do have their flaws like every other technology - but a lot of the issues with them over here - isn't so much turbines themselves - but how Ireland plans them - or doesn't plant them.
Ive no problem though in saying that turbine technology DOES NEED to improve further - for superior performance - and thus reducing the amount of turbines that are needed to produce a given level of power.
Think community wind farms could help make that happen - because it looks much more attractive for a community if you could make the desired level of power - from say (for example) 4 turbines rather then say 7.
You may also find that for a communities - a suitable site may take 4 - but not 7 turbines - and that may enable a project to be developed in a way that fits in well with pleasant community living.
That sort of thinking would help drive turbine technology forward in the future0 -
very trueOld diesel wrote: »You might be interested in this
...
And your 100 percent right - the planning of wind farms in Ireland is quite ham fisted - and to my mind - isn't anything like as well thought out as it should be.Turbines do have their flaws like every other technology - but a lot of the issues with them over here - isn't so much turbines themselves - but how Ireland plans them - or doesn't plant them.
very very true0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Markcheese wrote: »Or just say because all the houses are dispersed there's a set level of nuisance and once the wind farm doesn't go above at your back door then tough...
Although I'm not sure that bigger and fewer turbines is always the way to go,
It must suit financially, but greater noise and more physically imposing may not suit communities...
my thinking on bigger BUT fewer turbines - would be to drive the tech forward so that the bigger one doesn't neccessarly make more noise - or alternatively - you have a group of turbines producing (for example) 50 percent more power per turbine - but the noise/discomfort is actually reduced - because less of them are actually there.
Your right on physically imposing - but the counterargument is - would 4 turbines - even though bigger - be less imposing overall than say 10 more typically sized turbines???
What would be the noise/discomfort if you only had 4 instead of 8 turbines??? even if the 4 were bigger.
The other point is - how much bigger would you have to go - personally I do think that the technology DOES need to progress in a manner that sees LESS turbines required to produce a set amount of power in the future.
Id like to think of it in terms of a van vs a truck - the van would be quieter than the truck - although obviously it carries less.
if you have one truck carrying 20 tonne - and 20 vans carrying one tonne - which produces less noise overall - 1 truck or 20 vans.
bad example I know - but hopefully you get my logic - I am however far from a wind turbine expert
The set level of nuisance concept is interesting - if you had the RIGHT type of measurement - based on good sound science - this in itself could address concerns.
For example some people say infrasounds can be an issue - so what limits of infrasounds inside a house would ensure pleasant comfortable living in that house???.
I suppose what we want to aim for in the planning - no matter whether its a community owned wind farm - or indeed a wind developer led operation - what we should try to aim for - is to ensure pleasant living can continue - and to be able to give residents the confidence that they can continue to live happily when the turbines are operational.
And to then deliver on the expectations that led to the confidence been built in the first place.
I suppose what id like overall is to try an create the best possible future for communities - and in particular host communities of a wind farm.
I don't want wind farms to be something THATS bad* for a community and causes it issues - this hampers acceptance of wind farms - and doesn't help the drive towards renewables - imo
*bad as in - the community goes downhill due to wind farm - and people no longer want to live in a community that was previously very pleasant to live in.0 -
Advertisement
-
Old diesel wrote: »my thinking on bigger BUT fewer turbines - would be to drive the tech forward so that the bigger one doesn't neccessarly make more noise - or alternatively - you have a group of turbines producing (for example) 50 percent more power per turbine - but the noise/discomfort is actually reduced - because less of them are actually there.
Your right on physically imposing - but the counterargument is - would 4 turbines - even though bigger - be less imposing overall than say 10 more typically sized turbines???
What would be the noise/discomfort if you only had 4 instead of 8 turbines??? even if the 4 were bigger.
The other point is - how much bigger would you have to go - personally I do think that the technology DOES need to progress in a manner that sees LESS turbines required to produce a set amount of power in the future.
Id like to think of it in terms of a van vs a truck - the van would be quieter than the truck - although obviously it carries less.
if you have one truck carrying 20 tonne - and 20 vans carrying one tonne - which produces less noise overall - 1 truck or 20 vans.
bad example I know - but hopefully you get my logic - I am however far from a wind turbine expert
The set level of nuisance concept is interesting - if you had the RIGHT type of measurement - based on good sound science - this in itself could address concerns.
For example some people say infrasounds can be an issue - so what limits of infrasounds inside a house would ensure pleasant comfortable living in that house???.
I suppose what we want to aim for in the planning - no matter whether its a community owned wind farm - or indeed a wind developer led operation - what we should try to aim for - is to ensure pleasant living can continue - and to be able to give residents the confidence that they can continue to live happily when the turbines are operational.
And to then deliver on the expectations that led to the confidence been built in the first place.
I suppose what id like overall is to try an create the best possible future for communities - and in particular host communities of a wind farm.
I don't want wind farms to be something THATS bad* for a community and causes it issues - this hampers acceptance of wind farms - and doesn't help the drive towards renewables - imo
*bad as in - the community goes downhill due to wind farm - and people no longer want to live in a community that was previously very pleasant to live in.
This is what has happened here in W.Clare - & it's not at all nice!0 -
Old diesel wrote: »You might be interested in this
http://www.neilstonwindfarm.org/
Small town in Scotland developed a wind farm with 4 turbines in partnership - the vision they have for their town - is a blueprint Rural towns in Ireland would do well to consider - even if its not through a wind farm.
Part of the aim of the community involvement in the wind farm - was to try and use the income to drive the actual town forward.
A long way from the wind farm thinking in Ireland.
And your 100 percent right - the planning of wind farms in Ireland is quite ham fisted - and to my mind - isn't anything like as well thought out as it should be.
Turbines do have their flaws like every other technology - but a lot of the issues with them over here - isn't so much turbines themselves - but how Ireland plans them - or doesn't plant them.
Ive no problem though in saying that turbine technology DOES NEED to improve further - for superior performance - and thus reducing the amount of turbines that are needed to produce a given level of power.
Think community wind farms could help make that happen - because it looks much more attractive for a community if you could make the desired level of power - from say (for example) 4 turbines rather then say 7.
You may also find that for a communities - a suitable site may take 4 - but not 7 turbines - and that may enable a project to be developed in a way that fits in well with pleasant community living.
That sort of thinking would help drive turbine technology forward in the future
An Taisce had a project, 'Kulyana', for developing local community schemes, one of which was anaerobic digesters for dealing with surplus organic waste, such as the big problem of slurry with its inherant polution problems! 3 birds could be killed with one stone - 1) waste disposal, 2) power generation from gasses produced, 3) fertilizer produced from left-over organic matter (muck spreading - much better than concentrated slurry)!0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement