Nimbyism: Windfarm off South County Dublin

frash

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/up-to-60-supersize-wind-turbines-planned-for-dublin-bay-1.4403656

Can't see this getting the go ahead although it really should

Sandycove on the right

silver2020

I reckon it will. Personally I think it adds to a boring seascape. And of course all the green leaning residents will accept it too.

10km offshore - zero noise argument.
East of residents, so zero "Flicker" argument


Enough electricity for 600,000 homes - that's a hell of a green argument

mikep

I can't see it happening as it will be visible from the coast...
The usual suspects will line up against it..
It'll be interesting to see how many Green government members will support it!!

I can’t understand why anyone would object to this.

ted1

Aegir wrote: »

I can’t understand why anyone would object to this.

It looks horrible, could be put out further to sea but that’ll cost more money. It’ll take away the view with no benefit to those that enjoy it.

As for the green element that’s not an argument as it can be placed somewhere less intrusive

frash

ted1 wrote: »

It looks horrible, could be put out further to sea but that’ll cost more money. It’ll take away the view with no benefit to those that enjoy it.

As for the green element that’s not an argument as it can be placed somewhere less intrusive

Nimbyism?

Kingp35

frash wrote: »

Nimbyism?

Teds post is textbook definition of nimbyism.

ted1

frash wrote: »

Nimbyism?

and so what if it is? They are valid points. There are other sand banks available further out.

it is my back yard. I'm to busy to be worrying about what happens in other peoples back yards. and I don't expect someone in Oranmore to care about what happens off Killiney Beach

Kingp35

ted1 wrote: »

and so what if it is? They are valid points. There are other sand banks available further out.

it is my back yard. I'm to busy to be worrying about what happens in other peoples back yards. and I don't expect someone in Oranmore to care about what happens off Killiney Beach

I'm from Dalkey Ted, my entire family live in Dalkey. Luckily they don't have the same rotten attitude as you.

Hopefully this gets the go ahead. Crazy if it doesn't.

ted1

ted1 wrote: »

It looks horrible, could be put out further to sea but that’ll cost more money. It’ll take away the view with no benefit to those that enjoy it.

As for the green element that’s not an argument as it can be placed somewhere less intrusive

Maybe they could move the Kish bank somewhere less obtrusive.

They could stick the Sandycove cycle way on it as well.

seamus

"Disrupts the view". Of....empty sea and sky. OK.

The ones off Brittas Bay are actually great, they only appear on really clear days.

I think they look lovely, very graceful

ted1

Kingp35 wrote: »

I'm from Dalkey Ted, my entire family live in Dalkey. Luckily they don't have the same rotten attitude as you.

Hopefully this gets the go ahead. Crazy if it doesn't.

What rotten attitude?
Why would it be crazy if it doesn't go ahead?

ted1

seamus wrote: »

"Disrupts the view". Of....empty sea and sky. OK.

The ones off Brittas Bay are actually great, they only appear on really clear days.

There is only 6 of them, and they are much much smaller 124 meters V 310 meters

ted1

Aegir wrote: »

Maybe they could move the Kish bank somewhere less obtrusive.

They could stick the Sandycove cycle way on it as well.

you think the Kish is the only sandbank?

duffman13

ted1 wrote: »

Why would it be crazy if it doesn't go ahead?

Because it powers 600,000 homes and impacts nobody really. They arent building Sellafield 10kms offshore. Its a wind farm. To be honest, I never got the fascination that they look ****e etc. If it was going to cause issues due to noise, blocking sun etc then I'd understand a residents POV.

stoneill

Windfarms that far off shore do not have any visual, noise or any other impact.
Except if you are sitting there in a seething rage staring at them and muttering.

loyatemu

ted1 wrote: »

There is only 6 of them, and they are much much smaller 124 meters V 310 meters

there's a whole bunch more going in off Arklow and they will also be bigger.

local politicians in Greystones already complaining about "the view"

ted1

duffman13 wrote: »

Because it powers 600,000 homes and impacts nobody really. They arent building Sellafield 10kms offshore. Its a wind farm. To be honest, I never got the fascination that they look ****e etc. If it was going to cause issues due to noise, blocking sun etc then I'd understand a residents POV.

The could still have 900 MW further out to sea. I work in the industry and most other countries are going further out to sea.

seamus

ted1 wrote: »

There is only 6 of them, and they are much much smaller 124 meters V 310 meters

Take out a ruler there and hold out it in front of you. These new ones will appear to be about 2cm tall when you're standing on the shore.

That's about the width of your thumb held outstretched in front of your face.

In fact, they'll probably look even smaller since the blades will be moving and won't be as visible as the main structure.

mikep

ted1 wrote: »

The could still have 900 MW further out to sea. I work in the industry and most other countries are going further out to sea.

Couldn't they do both?
We are going to need windfarms wherever we can feasibly put them...

Marty Bird

I think they look fine out of curiosity why would they be rejected? Can residents object when it’s miles out to sea?

NotCarrotRidge

bubblypop wrote: »

I think they look lovely, very graceful

Totally agree. It is far from spoiling the view. I love looking at the ones off the Wicklow coast.

Edit: which would be preferable for Dublin bay residents, these turbines 10km away, or at least one gas production rig in the bay itself? I'm not saying that it's either or, but if we're moving away from hydrocarbons, our energy has to come from somewhere. You can't make an omelette....

JustAThought

loyatemu wrote: »

there's a whole bunch more going in off Arklow and they will also be bigger.

local politicians in Greystones already complaining about "the view"

Y - and generations of fishermen have been waiting for the fishing compensation payment for DECADES.

Re Dublin - I wonder why when they have thousands of miles of coastline they chose the one place IN the capital city that is know & loved for its beautiful nautical views.

Also one of the ‘busiest’ UNDERWATER sites for wrecks and underwater archeological artifacts and gravesites from wrecks.

And one of the busiest areas in the capitol for watersports - specifically sailing with 4 clubs and what used be thousands using the water to
compete weekly. The disruption will be enormous.

Is the no other place off our mostly unused and deserted coastline that could have been chosen instead? Louth for example.

lemonTrees

Won't get the go ahead i'd say. How's Bono and Pat Kenny meant to relax drinking their Latte's on a Sunday morning looking at that from their balcony. The horror.

ted1

ted1 wrote: »

you think the Kish is the only sandbank?

Oh good, if there are more they can build on them as well.

ted1

mikep wrote: »

Couldn't they do both?
We are going to need windfarms wherever we can feasibly put them...

No we won't. well not until we get BESS added in the design. We need to diversify our RES. Wind is not dispatachable

Solar, Biomass, hydrogen, etc

KevRossi

ted1 wrote: »

It looks horrible, could be put out further to sea but that’ll cost more money. It’ll take away the view with no benefit to those that enjoy it.

As for the green element that’s not an argument as it can be placed somewhere less intrusive

Yes, it's fine when it's out in Roscommon or Leiitrim, less fine if its in the view of the great and the good of South County Dublin.

Also very doubtful if they will power 600,000 typical homes in Dublin as stated. But they'll say anything to get planning.

Marty Bird wrote: »

I think they look fine out of curiosity why would they be rejected? Can residents object when it’s miles out to sea?

Yes they can.

Half the people that would object are probably the same ones arguing that the 200 apartments they are building on the site of a two bedroom bungalow enhance people’s views, which they don’t have a right to anyway.

ted1

Aegir wrote: »

Half the people that would object are probably the same ones arguing that the 200 apartments they are building on the site of a two bedroom bungalow enhance people’s views, which they don’t have a right to anyway.

What are you on about? I'm sure people would be more concerned about the traffic management, turning a 2 car entrance into a 300 car entrance.

If you think its going to be all green, have you any idea of how much concrete that'll go into the foundation, the damage the noise from construction and hydrographic surveys are going to have on marine life.

MrMusician18

Aegir wrote: »

Half the people that would object are probably the same ones arguing that the 200 apartments they are building on the site of a two bedroom bungalow enhance people’s views, which they don’t have a right to anyway.

No it's more like those that don't want these are also against the poolbeg chimneys being demolished.

Seaswimmer

Does anyone have an idea of the maximum depth of water for wind turbines?
I presume they have to go on a bank as opposed to deep water. A quick google lists the following banks in the Irish Sea. i didnt realise there were so many..


Bennet, Burford, Kish, Frazer, Bray, Codling, India, Arklow, Seven Fathom Bank, Glassgorman, Rusk, Blackwater/Moneyweights, Lucifer, Long and Holdens Banks

and this windfarm planned for Dundalk which i hadnt heard about..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriel_Wind_Farm

mikep

ted1 wrote: »

No we won't. well not until we get BESS added in the design. We need to diversify our RES. Wind is not dispatachable

Solar, Biomass, hydrogen, etc

I'm unfamiliar with those acronyms..

Can you clarify??

skooterblue2

bubblypop wrote: »

I think they look lovely, very graceful

You need to more into them. They are not as environmentally friendly as portrayed. They kill wildlife in the form of killing birds that fly in patterns. Then they have a finite life span. The cannot be recycled. They do not create as many jobs as other forms of energy.

Seaswimmer

seamus wrote: »

Take out a ruler there and hold out it in front of you. These new ones will appear to be about 2cm tall when you're standing on the shore.

That's about the width of your thumb held outstretched in front of your face.

In fact, they'll probably look even smaller since the blades will be moving and won't be as visible as the main structure.

Thats the old Father Ted "near and far away" argument. It didnt work for Dougal and it wont work in South Dublin..

JustAThought

Seaswimmer wrote: »

Does anyone have an idea of the maximum depth of water for wind turbines?
I presume they have to go on a bank as opposed to deep water. A quick google lists the following banks in the Irish Sea. i didnt realise there were so many..


Bennet, Burford, Kish, Frazer, Bray, Codling, India, Arklow, Seven Fathom Bank, Glassgorman, Rusk, Blackwater/Moneyweights, Lucifer, Long and Holdens Banks

and this windfarm planned for Dundalk which i hadnt heard about..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriel_Wind_Farm

Check your navigation charts for Dublin bay - not to mention that when areas are
impassible for navigation because of underwater obstructions/hidden dangers AND dangerous currents and depths around submerged objects - including tidal ones such as some sandbanks are - the picture gets a lot more complicated. Hence perhaps the ubiquituous phrases of ‘still waters run deep’ and ‘more going on beneath the surface’ - not to mwntion shifting sands.

Dublin bay and Dublin port are essential supply chain passages for most of the imports into this country. The safe channel into the mouth of Dublin port has to be monitored and dredged to keep it that way - deep, secure from underwater hazards that spring tides or other environmentL
factors has brought in or storms have churned up. How much risk, cost and disruption will a few years of umderwater construction, drilling, dumping and shifting and securing tens of thousands of tonnes of sand/soil/rock & debry cause.

Damage & power from local Tides and currents arn’t just visible as breaks or banks or waves.
Anyone interested in sandbanks or sand erosion should take a daytrip to Portrane ‘beach’ - or whats left of it - and see the ACRES of land that the tides have bitten away - and the houses there on the shorefront literally with their decking and patios falling into the sea. In the past 5 or so years they have lost up to 40 foot of their ‘gardens’ and in some cases the sea is almost up to the kitchen walls of their homes. Sand and sandbanks are bilt and eroded by the power of the sea. Much as the same way i wouldn’t contemplate building a house or business on sand, I’d certainly be very concerned about the amount of serious underwater infrastructural work and exological disruption & damage it would do
to make it functional...

quokula

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You need to more into them. They are not as environmentally friendly as portrayed. They kill wildlife in the form of killing birds that fly in patterns. Then they have a finite life span. The cannot be recycled. They do not create as many jobs as other forms of energy.

The turbines last approx 25 years and recycling solutions are being worked on. They're at about 85% recyclable now with further improvements being made. New turbines going up today will almost certainly be completely recyclable when they go out of commission in 2050. And other forms of power generation are no better when it comes to recycling hardware.

As for birds, fossil fuel power generation typically kills 20 times as many birds through pollution as wind turbines do per GWH generated. The affect on birds has been greatly over-exaggerated by various propaganda pieces, their impact is minuscule compared to cars or pet cats for example.

And they're not designed to create jobs, that's just a side effect, they're designed to create affordable energy without ****ing up the planet.

JustAThought

‘ go out of comission in 2050’

do you mean stop working and be acrapped. Only there is no scrappage for windmills - they’ll be left
there to rot or fall apart.

less than 30 years for major infracstuctiral project is not long - and lets face it when they finally get in the lifespan will be shorter. Like on all
things you buy on the back of promises.

By all means put them somewhere & save
the planet - but not in the essential import
port for the country, alongside Irelands busiest and longest established nautical recreational area and in an area when the sea view is the most stunning in the capitol and where there are multiple SAC and UNESCO protected sites, wetlands and marine protection areas for mammals - like Dublin Bay.

Can we not use some cop on and locate
them elsewhere - somewhere less
protected, with less environmental areas and national areas of special protection status, away from all the underwater wrecks and gravesites and where it will not add costs and risks to the port and all the containers, businesses and other industries that use it and rely on it?

And no - I don’t have an interest in property there (anymore).

skooterblue2

quokula wrote: »

The turbines last approx 25 years and recycling solutions are being worked on. They're at about 85% recyclable now with further improvements being made. New turbines going up today will almost certainly be completely recyclable when they go out of commission in 2050. And other forms of power generation are no better when it comes to recycling hardware.

As for birds, fossil fuel power generation typically kills 20 times as many birds through pollution as wind turbines do per GWH generated. The affect on birds has been greatly over-exaggerated by various propaganda pieces, their impact is minuscule compared to cars or pet cats for example.

And they're not designed to create jobs, that's just a side effect, they're designed to create affordable energy without ****ing up the planet.

Yeah I have seen all these recyclable claims. Most plastics arent recyclable and neither is fiberglass. Of course business men collect the subsidy for recycling and the bales of mixed plastic which end up in South East Asia or Africa.

The real reason for the green energy isnt the environment, its to shore up pension funds invested up to their neck in high risk ventures.

markjbloggs

duffman13 wrote: »

Because it powers 600,000 homes and impacts nobody really. They arent building Sellafield 10kms offshore. Its a wind farm. To be honest, I never got the fascination that they look ****e etc. If it was going to cause issues due to noise, blocking sun etc then I'd understand a residents POV.

It does NOT power 600,000 homes . On a very windy day, it may approach this but much of the time it will produce NOTHING (except an eyesore, and a shipping hazard).

ted1

mikep wrote: »

I'm unfamiliar with those acronyms..

Can you clarify??

Battery energy Storage systems
Renewable Energy Systems

timmyntc

They should stick a whopper nuclear plant in the Midlands instead - sure they have no scenery there to ruin

JustAThought

timmyntc wrote: »

They should stick a whopper nuclear plant in the Midlands instead - sure they have no scenery there to ruin

only the entire planet.

Chernobly anyone? Entirely human error. Look at the farce they have made of most infrastructure projects - zero accountability and brains locked closed. And of course zero accountability when things go wrong.

Eric Cartman

JustAThought wrote: »

only the entire planet.

Chernobly anyone? Entirely human error. Look at the farce they have made of most infrastructure projects - zero accountability and brains locked closed. And of course zero accountability when things go wrong.

Chernobyl was a failed design, built poorly, with staff improperly trained, too afraid to raise the alarm or call off the test because they were afraid of how the communists dealt with failure.

A modern designed nuclear reactor, built and operated by a private company is the safest, cleanest means of power possibly available and it is a fast ramping solution which doesn't require external storage unlike wind and solar.

There is no point in talking about electric cars or green power without putting nuclear on the table as an essential part. This business of just buying nuclear power through an interconnecter from the UK or France is also a complete farce and just nimbyism over long cables.

ted1

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This business of just buying nuclear power through an interconnecter from the UK or France is also a complete farce and just nimbyism over long cables.

We couldn’t really sustain a nuclear plant. With n+1 requirement it’d be to hard to maintain

Eric Cartman

ted1 wrote: »

We couldn’t really sustain a nuclear plant. With n+1 requirement it’d be to hard to maintain

thats what the interconnecter is for.

completion in 2026 its 700MW from France, plus domestic production from gas etc.. we could easily sustain something the size of Hinkley Point C

zom

frash wrote: »

Can't see this getting the go ahead although it really should

I wonder how it will influence property prices in this one of Ireland most expansive areas?

JustAThought

zom wrote: »

I wonder how it will influence property prices in this one of Ireland most expansive areas?

Doubt it will really - but a lot of solicitors will be grubbing up on environmental and planning objection laws in anticipation of an onslought of new southside clients!

Look at the fiasco the ringsend sewage plant has been. And the incinerator ‘mistakes’ and leaks. Not to mention the houses whose foundations collapsed into the Port Tunnel underground works.And the planning location joke fhat has become fhe childrens hospital - the most e pensive hole in yhe ground on the planet - And on and on. An irish chernobyl would be well in the cards - at the level of endless incompetence and utter inability to govern we consistently show. Safe my aras.

homer911

markjbloggs wrote: »

It does NOT power 600,000 homes . On a very windy day, it may approach this but much of the time it will produce NOTHING (except an eyesore, and a shipping hazard).

Shipping already avoids these banks.

"much of the time it will produce NOTHING" Hmm, an expert in wind strengths in near-shore waters on the Irish coast are you?

I live in Dublin, personally I think this is long overdue and the concerns are completely "overblown" (sorry!) - bring it on, the sooner the better.

HeidiHeidi

I live in Dublin, I sail/race in Dublin Bay and the Irish Sea, and I would be generally in favour of this.


I don't get the angst over the views - it's 10km out, you can hardly see the Kish Lighthouse most days which is about that distance, and there's something elegant about these turbines - they're practically ubiquitous on the Irish landscape these days, to the point where I hardly notice them.


Most Dublin Bay sailing and racing wouldn't go anywhere near that distance out - and the ones that do, well we already have to navigate around the Arklow Bank and various other hazards both natural and artificial - so this would be just one more! Albeit a very big one.


My only concern would be the environmental and wildlife damage they could do - I've seen strenuous and believable arguments for both sides, so I really don't know where I fall on that.


Overall I'd be in favour, with that one caveat.

ted1

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I live in Dublin, I sail/race in Dublin Bay and the Irish Sea, and I would be generally in favour of this.


I don't get the angst over the views - it's 10km out, you can hardly see the Kish Lighthouse most days which is about that distance, and there's something elegant about these turbines - they're practically ubiquitous on the Irish landscape these days, to the point where I hardly notice them.


Most Dublin Bay sailing and racing wouldn't go anywhere near that distance out - and the ones that do, well we already have to navigate around the Arklow Bank and various other hazards both natural and artificial - so this would be just one more! Albeit a very big one.


My only concern would be the environmental and wildlife damage they could do - I've seen strenuous and believable arguments for both sides, so I really don't know where I fall on that.


Overall I'd be in favour, with that one caveat.

You do know they take a lot of power out of the wind.