Arguments against windfarms/pylons

TheBegotten

Seeing as plans for these windmills and their necessary pylons was reported on the news today as "controversial", I'd be interested in hearing arguments against the construction. I personally can't see a downside, apart from maybe aesthetic concerns - although I'd much rather look at windmills than sheep.

Sir Arthur Daley

TheBegotten wrote: »

I'd much rather look at windmills than sheep.

Sheep do look out of place in the mountains for sure, whats all that about.

Temptamperu

you can have sheep and pylons, I think they look cool any way. Both sheep and wind towers.

Awkward Badger

Some health concerns related to pylons as far as I know. Which is probably what makes them "controversial".

TheBegotten

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Some health concerns related to pylons as far as I know. Which is probably what makes them "controversial".

I took a look at the Professor cited in that report. Apparently he's making a few assumptions:

Many of the ideas in Professor Henshaw's research had been previously dismissed by the government's National Radiological Protection Board as "implausible and purely speculative".

From the BBC

catallus

Absolute monstrosities that are fire hazards, visually and aurally polluting, and lethal for birds.

There has to be a better way.

I can't understand why they can't harness tidal power in this country, we're made for it!

Awkward Badger

TheBegotten wrote: »

I took a look at the Professor cited in that report. Apparently he's making a few assumptions:
From the BBC

I have no idea how reliable the guy is or how accurate his statements. I'm just saying the "controversial" tag likely comes from the fact there are health concerns related to the pylons.

323

TheBegotten wrote: »

Seeing as plans for these windmills and their necessary pylons was reported on the news today as "controversial", I'd be interested in hearing arguments against the construction. I personally can't see a downside, apart from maybe aesthetic concerns - although I'd much rather look at windmills than sheep.

Are these two, windfarms & pylons, not different sets of arguments?

InReality

cons; noise pollution for locals. unsightly for locals and nature tourism. tiny energy generation.
pros; ?

mad muffin

Remind me again why they aren't erected offshore?

catallus

I think the argument is is that tranferring the energy from an offshore site isn't cost-effective or something like that.

hatrickpatrick

Noise pollution is the main issue for me, and one which I feel gets overlooked frequently. Some people have a high sensitivity to noise, I can only speak for myself but if there was something like that generating a constant hum 24/7 so that there'd neve be a moment of actual quiet, I'd personally go out of my mind.

The idea that this issue can't be solved in this day and age is a f*cking joke as well. If the pylons make a constant noise it means they're poorly constructed.

Brian?

mad muffin wrote: »

Remind me again why they aren't erected offshore?

They are. You can't see them because you don't live off shore. Nothing wrong with having them both on and off shore.

Let's be clear, there are no proven health risks from pylons or wind farms.

Someone said they produce a tiny amount of energy, they don't. They produce a significant amount of energy when grouped in farms. Hence the existence of wind farms and not isolated turbines.

professore

catallus wrote: »

Absolute monstrosities that are fire hazards, visually and aurally polluting, and lethal for birds.

There has to be a better way.

I can't understand why they can't harness tidal power in this country, we're made for it!

Tidal power is very very difficult. The power of the sea destroys everything.

Sure they have issues only working when it's windy, but really wind farms are a clean source of energy. How can anyone look at cars and trucks and fossil fuel power stations belching carcinogens into the air and possibly say windmills are polluting?

mad muffin

Brian? wrote: »

They are. You can't see them because you don't live off shore. Nothing wrong with having them both on and off shore.

Let's be clear, there are no proven health risks from pylons or wind farms.

Someone said they produce a tiny amount of energy, they don't. They produce a significant amount of energy when grouped in farms. Hence the existence of wind farms and not isolated turbines.

I say move them all offshore. Problem solved?

Brian?

professore wrote: »

Tidal power is very very difficult. The power of the sea destroys everything.

Really wind farms are a clean source of energy. How can anyone look at cars and trucks and fossil fuel power stations belching carcinogens into the air and possibly say windmills are polluting?

Tidal and wave power are the future for Ireland, the technology to harvest it is it's infancy. Wind is the present.

SEPT 23 1989

There was no outrage over pylons when they were placed in the middle of working class areas of Dublin

Brian?

mad muffin wrote: »

I say move them all offshore. Problem solved?

Have you any idea of the capital
Cost of moving all the present generation capacity off shore?

"Proble solved"? What's the problem exactly. Someone needs to define the actual problem with wind power and not touchy feely stuff.

PeteFalk78

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

There was no outrage over pylons when they were placed in the middle of working class areas of Dublin

Your point being?

_Redzer_

I was up on the bog last week surrounded by windmills and I thought they looked pretty beautiful in fairness

doyle61

Very inefficient for of generating electricity. Also it's where their building them is totally wrong. If they were off shore it'd be OK but not inland. Every year we have towns getting flooded out of it and here we have the authorities granting planning for the building of these on mountain bog lands. Putting thousands of tones of concrete in these areas is going to cause even more flooding because it's these bogs that soakup rain fall and re release it more gradually. It's just bloody madness

Brian?

doyle61 wrote: »

Very inefficient for of generating electricity. Also it's where their building them is totally wrong. If they were off shore it'd be OK but not inland. Every year we have towns getting flooded out of it and here we have the authorities granting planning for the building of these on mountain bog lands. Putting thousands of tones of concrete in these areas is going to cause even more flooding because it's these bogs that soakup rain fall and re release it more gradually. It's just bloody madness

You have clearly researched this subject extensively. Daily Mail?

PeteFalk78

Brian? wrote: »

You have clearly researched this subject extensively. Daily Mail?

Unreliable source of energy, Threat to wildlife, Noise and aesthetics.

_Redzer_

doyle61 wrote: »

Very inefficient for of generating electricity. Also it's where their building them is totally wrong. If they were off shore it'd be OK but not inland. Every year we have towns getting flooded out of it and here we have the authorities granting planning for the building of these on mountain bog lands. Putting thousands of tones of concrete in these areas is going to cause even more flooding because it's these bogs that soakup rain fall and re release it more gradually. It's just bloody madness

Relative to the vast area that bogs cover and the microscopic area these windmills will occupy, they will have no noticeable effect on soakage whatsoever.

Trees and forest along rivers are infinitely more efficient in soaking up water and preventing flooding. In fact, the decreasing % of trees along the Shannon has been held as one of the factors for our flooding problems.

doyle61

Brian? wrote: »

You have clearly researched this subject extensively. Daily Mail?

As a matter of fact I have. I had to do a project and presentation as part of my apprenticeship of energy generation and a lot of issues came up about wind turbines inland. Off shore not too bad but not inland. My vote would be to use tidal energy. As part of our research we also visited a nuclear power station in Wales which was actually very interesting

bleg

Put a coal powerplant nearby instead.

doyle61

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Relative to the vast area that bogs cover and the microscopic area these windmills will occupy, they will have no noticeable effect on soakage whatsoever.

Trees and forest along rivers are infinitely more efficient in soaking up water and preventing flooding. In fact, the decreasing % of trees along the Shannon has been held as one of the factors for our flooding problems.

I disagree. The increase in flooding over the past say 30-40 years coincides with the increase in the planting of forestry in upland mountain bog over the same period of time. My uncle works in the forestry (grandfather before him) and it came up in conversation before how upland forests cause quicker water run off.

Capt'n Midnight

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I have no idea how reliable the guy is or how accurate his statements. I'm just saying the "controversial" tag likely comes from the fact there are health concerns related to the pylons.

It's the nocebo effect.

Last year 4.3 Billion people had mobile phones, but still no "proof" of health problems, even a one in a million risk would have killed thousands. People still claim that mobile phones cause cancer, and discount the lives saved because people could call the emergency services.

Renewables here provided a quarter of electricity last winter. Without them we'd have to burn 1/3rd more fossil fuel. If there is any link between air quality and respiratory problems then probably a few lives saved.

Capt'n Midnight

mad muffin wrote: »

Remind me again why they aren't erected offshore?

Probably because it costs roughly twice as much because you have to build an artificial island first and then the whole thing has to survive winter storms

_Redzer_

doyle61 wrote: »

As a matter of fact I have. I had to do a project and presentation as part of my apprenticeship of energy generation and a lot of issues came up about wind turbines inland. Off shore not too bad but not inland. My vote would be to use tidal energy. As part of our research we also visited a nuclear power station in Wales which was actually very interesting

A few months ago I had to give a presentation on avipox virus and the possibility of it jumping the species barrier. Technically it is possible, but that doesn't make it likely or realistic to happen. It was more brain storming with ideas, in honesty.

Out of all the thousands of kilometres squared that bogs occupy across the midlands, how much of that would these wind farms take up? 1%, if not less?

That's going to have no noticeable impact on flooding.

ted1

doyle61 wrote: »

As a matter of fact I have. I had to do a project and presentation as part of my apprenticeship of energy generation and a lot of issues came up about wind turbines inland. Off shore not too bad but not inland. My vote would be to use tidal energy. As part of our research we also visited a nuclear power station in Wales which was actually very interesting

Can you tell us what commercially viable tidal energy convertor there is on the market?