Arguments against windfarms/pylons

_Redzer_

doyle61 wrote: »

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.

Well that'd completely contradict studies and investigations into the UK's flooding problem in recent years that found decreased tree coverage worsened the floods impact as they weren't there to soak it up and water was slower to recede in their absence.

What evidence does your uncle have to show that planting tress makes flooding worse, because that goes against an awful lot of research in flood prevention.

Also, has your uncle ever thought that climate change, which has made our climate noticeably wetter in recent decades has had an effect increasing rainfall?

Capt'n Midnight

catallus wrote: »

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

ascetics ?
lets get rid of the telegraph poles and one off houses , and sheep

Before steam engines and internal combustions were universal there were lots of windmills in Ireland. That big round tower in Guinness used to be the worlds biggest windmill.

Irish windmills used to turn the opposite way to foreign ones.

Back in the day there were 40-50,000 windmills across The Netherlands and North Germany.

So yeah there is LOTS of historic precedence for moving shadows and noise. It's not something new.

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!

Tides aren't continuous like waterfalls. If you use tidal turbines (like the 200MW planned up North) then you get approx. Zero power at the turn of the tide. If you use barrage then you max power at high / low tide and a lot less in between, unless you use several lagoons and the capital costs shoot up.

Also there's a huge difference between neap tide and spring tide,

Tides are predictable but not despatchable.

There is no question that tidal will be come more important in future, as the costs reduces due to new technology and economies of scale. But it's early days yet.



Solar is something we'll see more of as the cost continues to fall. This time of the year we could get 15 hours of bright sunshine on a good day. But it would be a seasonal resource. Oddly enough Wave Power is better in winter. But building an economic wave machine that can stand winter storms is still a way off.

Mr. Incognito

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!

What a load of nonsense.

I love the way people twist words. Visually and aurally POLLUTING.

They do not pollute. Thats the fecking point.

Burning Coal pollutes. Burning Turf pollutes. Heating uranium rods to irradate water which we ship to India where they put it in the water table pollutes.
Firing high pressure water with corrusive chemicals into our land which leaks into the water table pollutes.

People are morons that just read whatever crap the papers backed by industrialists spout.

We have eight billion people and finate coal gas and oil. It will run out. Wind and the sun wont for billions of years.

The ozone is fecked.

Your personal tastes can take a fecking jump.

Tidal power is in its infancy and not yet commercially viable like solar power 20 years ago.

Awkward Badger

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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.

Is it not just an argument that there may be health concerns and a certain amount of risk and even if its not conclusively proven its enough for some people (particularly those who will have to live in the areas they go up) to justify the extra cost to bury the cables ?

I don't think anyone want's to call the whole thing off and go without that electricity. Its just some people want to do it in the best way possible with the least risk for their personal health. Which imo is perfectly understandable.

Awkward Badger

On the noise aspect too, I live quite close to a wind farm and there generally is no noticeable noise. When its pretty windy there is a bit of a drone but its only really noticeable when outside. I've never had any problems with noise from them and noise in general bothers the hell out of me.

oppenheimer1

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

What a load of nonsense.

I love the way people twist words. Visually and aurally POLLUTING.

They do not pollute. Thats the fecking point.

Burning Coal pollutes. Burning Turf pollutes. Heating uranium rods to irradate water which we ship to India where they put it in the water table pollutes.
Firing high pressure water with corrusive chemicals into our land which leaks into the water table pollutes.

People are morons that just read whatever crap the papers backed by industrialists spout.

We have eight billion people and finate coal gas and oil. It will run out. Wind and the sun wont for billions of years.

The ozone is fecked.

Your personal tastes can take a fecking jump.

Tidal power is in its infancy and not yet commercially viable like solar power 20 years ago.

Wind power may actually not reduce carbon emissions in the whole. The problem is wind's intermittent nature. This means that inefficient quick start turbines have to be used when the wind ceases to blow.


It is entirely plausible that more CO2 would be released by these gas turbines than would be saved if high efficiency coal powered turbines (which take days to start up) were used instead of coal.


Wind isn't the answer in the short to medium term, nuclear is.

catallus

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

What a load of nonsense.


The ozone is fecked.

Your personal tastes can take a fecking jump.

Jeez relax I didn't feck the Ozone!

I just find them objectionable on the grounds that they are offensive and take away from my enjoyment of the countryside. Ban them, I say.

Tidal Power is the way to go.

doyle61

The increase in runoff was an observation. That conversation wasn't anything to do with wind turbines but an observation about a different topic altogether. Agree about trees in lowland areas though. Ye the construction of turbines in these areas isn't the sole reason for flooding of towns of the likes of carlow and athy say, but imo they contribute more than the 1% you say. Say if it contributed to 10% or lower say 5% of
the reason these towns are getting flooded it's still one of the reasons, and with the increase in global warming there's no need to add extra reasons for flooding when imo there are better power generation options out there.
The tidal generation option still needs development but I liked the theory big time as it's regular, twice a day every day.

_Redzer_

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Is it not just an argument that there may be health concerns and a certain amount of risk and even if its not conclusively proven its enough for some people (particularly those who will have to live in the areas they go up) to justify the extra cost to bury the cables ?

I don't think anyone want's to call the whole thing off and go without that electricity. Its just some people want to do it in the best way possible with the least risk for their personal health. Which imo is perfectly understandable.

There is no health risk with pylons.

Electricity is the same above and below ground. Thinking a few meters of soil over the cables magically makes it safe and healthier is ridiculous and unsubstantiated.

_Redzer_

doyle61 wrote: »

The increase in runoff was an observation. That conversation wasn't anything to do with wind turbines but an observation about a different topic altogether. Agree about trees in lowland areas though. Ye the construction of turbines in these areas isn't the sole reason for flooding of towns of the likes of carlow and athy say, but imo they contribute more than the 1% you say. Say if it contributed to 10% or lower say 5% of
the reason these towns are getting flooded it's still one of the reasons, and with the increase in global warming there's no need to add extra reasons for flooding when imo there are better power generation options out there.
The tidal generation option still needs development but I liked the theory big time as it's regular, twice a day every day.

How could wind turbines take up 10% of the surface area of the bogs and have any influence on flooding? Think about it, seriously. It doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever.

323

ted1 wrote: »

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

None commercially as yet, unlike offshore wind.

Afterthought: there is La Rance, Brittany, tidal barrage/bridge, very location specific but these type of systems would have their uses in certain areas.

Capt'n Midnight

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Its just some people want to do it in the best way possible with the least risk for their personal health. Which imo is perfectly understandable.

There are health risks with burying the cable.

Diverting millions of Euro would indirectly reduce funds available for road safety improvements and HSE funding.

The extra cost of electricity would affect fuel poverty here. There's already about 2,800 excess deaths each winter

We don't know if ungrounding could ever save any lives, but large scale implementation would almost certainly result in some preventable deaths.


Long story short, while people have a right to be concerned about their health they have no right to insist that others be put at worse risk.


One thing that totally turned me off all the those wanting underground cables was the complete lack of empathy they had for health effects or financial compensation for the people already living closer, and indeed under existing 200KV lines in urban areas. It smacks of NIMBYism with some greed.

Capt'n Midnight

ted1 wrote: »

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

SeaGen / Marine Current Turbines ?


OpenHydro
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/energy-and-resources/openhydro-signs-600m-tidal-turbine-deal-in-channel-islands-1.1758050

Openhydro, which has a turbine manufacturing facility in Greenore in Co Louth, has formed a new company, Race Tidal, to develop the 300MW project, in conjunction with Alderney Renewable Energy (ARE). Openhydro, which is majority-controlled by French submarine technology company DCNS, also owns a 31 per cent stake in ARE.

doyle61

_Redzer_ wrote: »

How could wind turbines take up 10% of the surface area of the bogs and have any influence on flooding? Think about it, seriously. It doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever.

I didn't mean they would take up 10% of the surface area, sorry if it came across that way.
What I'm getting at is the cubic metre of concrete for the bases means less soakage, way way quicker time to reach saturation point and hence more run off of heavy rain fall.........inevitably saturation will happen at the worst time possible time when the biggest storm of the year hits the country.
Surface area % used won't equate to damage caused imo so say if 1% of ground is used that isn't going to be 1% of contributing factor to flooding but imo more like the 5 or 10% I was getting at

LeinsterDub

mad muffin wrote: »

I say move them all offshore. Problem solved?

I say we all move off shore. Problem solved

bleg

Why don't we just build a load of these?

http://www.steorn.com/orbo/

Capt'n Midnight

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Wind power may actually not reduce carbon emissions in the whole. The problem is wind's intermittent nature. This means that inefficient quick start turbines have to be used when the wind ceases to blow.


It is entirely plausible that more CO2 would be released by these gas turbines than would be saved if high efficiency coal powered turbines (which take days to start up) were used instead of coal.


Wind isn't the answer in the short to medium term, nuclear is.

Actual measured figures from Eirgrid / UK National Grid show that wind produces 1,000 times as much energy needed to cater for unpredicted drops in wind.

Really.

I sick of saying this but...
Stopping and starting causes a lot more turbine wear than ramping up / down.
All the open cycle gas turbines on our grid run at 2/3rds power so they can ramp up if needed with minimal O&M costs - no quick start because they are already up to speed.
If you've ever been on an aeroplane you may be familiar with the way they can accelerate on take off.

The grid is setup to respond within 15 seconds , wind is predictable 5 days in advance.


Nuclear ?
Nuclear is capital intensive.
Hinkley C will cost 16Bn for 3.2GW ,not counting a £17Bn public subsidy
each unit will cost 9.25p (twice the wholesale rate)
it won't be ready until 2023 at the earliest
it won't be carbon neutral until years after that

and that's if everything goes to plan and there are no hiccups
if we have a repeat of the flood of 1707 it will be Fukushima all over again
if the demand for uranium increases such that granite ores have to be used it may never be carbon neutral
most UK nuclear power stations are close to the sea and will need £'s spent on flood defence because of global warming. Calder Hall AKA Windscale AKA Sellafield clean up will cost £100Bn and rising in total


just google news for nuclear shutdown
https://www.google.ie/search?q=nuclear+shutdown&tbm=nws
there's only 435 reactors worldwide so you will see a sizeable % there anytime , and remember a political shutdown is still a shutdown


Nuclear can be safe, reliable, economic but you can't have all three. ( Sometimes you can't have any. )

Naval reactors have been used reasonably safely and reliably by US, UK and France for over 60 years now. None of these have been commercialised.

Breeding fuel in multiple reactors has been going on for over 70 years. There still aren't any breeder reactors that could produce enough fuel for a second one, so don't expect Thorium any time soon. ( It's been tried in at least 4 full scale "commercial" reactors )

Capt'n Midnight

bleg wrote: »

Why don't we just build a load of these?

http://www.steorn.com/orbo/

Because solar is cheaper and it actually works.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I say we all move off shore. Problem solved

If cost was no object we could just go for geothermal.

But cost is kinda important and now onshore is a lot cheaper.

whupdedo

Remind me never to start an online dispute with captain midnight

catallus

whupdedo wrote: »

Remind me never to start an online dispute with captain midnight

Challenge accepted!

Geothermal is a bad idea because taking heat from the ground could stop the core from rotating.

And if that happens the magnetic field would flip, bringing about consequences of such catastrophic intensity that it would threaten the current winds, which would render wind-farms useless.

LeinsterDub

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Because solar is cheaper and it actually works.


If cost was no object we could just go for geothermal.

But cost is kinda important and now onshore is a lot cheaper.

I'm not sure us living underground would be a realistic option. Now us all living off shore...

tomwaterford

will the generating stations not have to be running constant as well....to account for when the wind is stopped??
as AFAIK electricity cant really be stored as such???

Brian?

tomwaterford wrote: »

will the generating stations not have to be running constant as well....to account for when the wind is stopped??
as AFAIK electricity cant really be stored as such???

Electricity can be stored in a myriad of ways. Batteries being the simplest. Pumped water storage has been used in Ireland since the 50s at Turlough hill.

ted1

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

SeaGen / Marine Current Turbines ?


OpenHydro
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/energy-and-resources/openhydro-signs-600m-tidal-turbine-deal-in-channel-islands-1.1758050

Neither are really ready for market.

ted1

Brian? wrote: »

Electricity can be stored in a myriad of ways. Batteries being the simplest. Pumped water storage has been used in Ireland since the 50s at Turlough hill.

Our topology doesn't really suit pumped hydro.

Mrtayto27

At the moment there is planning being sought for a wind farm in county Meath for a wind farm consisting of a number of windmills 3 times the height of normal units. This ffarm is being built to export energy to Britain. The British government have refused permission to build any farms of this extent . This farm is being built in the Irish midlands with extra infrastructure to be built so why is it being considered for the midlands when the east coast would be more cost effective. What gain is it to build it in the midlands.

Brian?

ted1 wrote: »

Our topology doesn't really suit pumped hydro.

Except for the current pumped hydro we use.

Batteries, flywheels, super capacitors etc etc can be used.

Brian?

Mrtayto27 wrote: »

At the moment there is planning being sought for a wind farm in county Meath for a wind farm consisting of a number of windmills 3 times the height of normal units. This ffarm is being built to export energy to Britain. The British government have refused permission to build any farms of this extent . This farm is being built in the Irish midlands with extra infrastructure to be built so why is it being considered for the midlands when the east coast would be more cost effective. What gain is it to build it in the midlands.

It's obviously more economically viable to build in the midlands. Hence the decision by a private company to build there.

ted1

Brian? wrote: »

Except for the current pumped hydro we use.

Batteries, flywheels, super capacitors etc etc can be used.

Yes we have a small pumped hydro station in turlough hill that was built to balance out the nuclear plant in Wexford. But that's it.

P.s there doing free tours of turlough hill at the moment, well worth a visit

Capt'n Midnight

ted1 wrote: »

Neither are really ready for market.

There's 600,000,000 reasons why you might be wrong

Of course they aren't ready to displace all other generators, otherwise everyone would already be using them