60 supersize wind turbines for Dublin Bay

Zenith74

Have to say I am super excited about this! Wind is such an untapped resource in Ireland. I also think the sight of them from Dublin or as you fly in will fit perfectly with the modern tech city we are trying to have.

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

I've 60 in sight of my house. I like looking out at them on the mountain

Tow

If they are out at the Kish Bank you will hardly be able to see them.

Tow

Tow wrote: »

If they are out at the Kish Bank you will hardly be able to see them.

Still expect numerous objections and complaints.

"Joe, the reception on the telly hasn't been right since the turbines went up".

Zenith74

SouthWesterly wrote: »

I've 60 in sight of my house. I like looking out at them on the mountain

These turbines are apparently going to be ~300m to the tip of the blade, I'm guessing the ones you're looking out on are a bit smaller?

There's a handy list here of all the wind farms in Ireland at the moment - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_farms_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland - looks like 170MW is the biggest at the moment. They're aiming for 900MW for this new deployment :eek:

AndyBoBandy

Tow wrote: »

If they are out at the Kish Bank you will hardly be able to see them.

You can see the Kish lighthouse from the shoreline, so you'll easily see the turbines which will be about 6 times taller than the Kish light.
(I have absolutely no objection to them being installed).

Tow

Deleted User wrote: »

Still expect numerous objections and complaints

That is always the case. We will end up with rolling power cuts at the current rate renewables are progressing. Or having to finish the Carnsore Point nuclear power plant.

Joe will be all for da windmills on the da bank, if he thought listeners without power will effect his JNRL ratings.

There were plans to drill for oil around there a few years ago and nothing appears to have happened!

Idbatterim

I dont know how I feel about these, I have been given forum bans for my rants on nimbys before. But if these could be set further out, where you wouldnt destroy the spectacular dublin bay vistas, it would be better. Its one thing putting them out at sea beside the coast when there is very little population density, but it is dublins location that makes it geographically stunning...

crisco10

I'd support these. Make a lot of sense. I don't mind looking at them, Although I do appreciate not everyone would agree with that. But on balance, it's much better to keep the lights on with these than a gas plant or worse again a peat one.

Zenith74 wrote: »

These turbines are apparently going to be ~300m to the tip of the blade, I'm guessing the ones you're looking out on are a bit smaller?

There's a handy list here of all the wind farms in Ireland at the moment - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_farms_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland - looks like 170MW is the biggest at the moment. They're aiming for 900MW for this new deployment :eek:

Individual Turbine rating will be much higher though. At least 10MW+, and most likely ~13MW. Galway Wind Park is 3MW machines. So about a quarter of the turbines will give you the same output.

Idbatterim wrote:

I dont know how I feel about these, I have been given forum bans for my rants on nimbys before. But if these could be set further out, where you wouldnt destroy the spectacular dublin bay vistas, it would be better. Its one thing putting them out at sea beside the coast when there is very little population density, but it is dublins location that makes it geographically stunning...

These are technically "near"-shore, not offshore turbines. And the benefit is the significant savings in cost of constructing near the shore, a cost which consumers will obviously need to pay eventually. The water is shallower so the foundations etc are much easier to construct. And the turbines are much cheaper to service because it doesn't take hours to get to them on a small boat.

Zenith74

Idbatterim wrote: »

I dont know how I feel about these, I have been given forum bans for my rants on nimbys before. But if these could be set further out, where you wouldnt destroy the spectacular dublin bay vistas, it would be better. Its one thing putting them out at sea beside the coast when there is very little population density, but it is dublins location that makes it geographically stunning...

To be fair my first thought when I started the article was why not put them further out and at a different location on the coast where there are less people.

But there is a lot of sense putting them in shallower water (and the water is a lot shallower on those banks) than in deeper. Particularly when you consider the main purpose here is to reduce emissions - the construction and maintenance would be much more carbon intensive in deep water.

Zenith74

Tow wrote: »

We will end up with rolling power cuts at the current rate renewables are progressing.

Not quite sure if you're serious or not here, but there is virtually no risk of that. While ESB/EirGrid take some flak on boards.ie at times, the reality is they are very competent and innovative organisations when it comes to managing the countries grid/generation, to the point that they do good business being brought in as consultants world wide to help other countries. The idea that they're going to so badly mismanage this that we end up with rolling powercuts is pure hyperbole.

Idbatterim

Zenith74 wrote: »

To be fair my first thought when I started the article was why not put them further out and at a different location on the coast where there are less people.

But there is a lot of sense putting them in shallower water (and the water is a lot shallower on those banks) than in deeper. Particularly when you consider the main purpose here is to reduce emissions - the construction and maintenance would be much more carbon intensive in deep water.

look I understand the company will want to put them in the least costly place for them to set up, I dont personally care for that consideration. they will be up there for decades. I am pro renewables, the current climate situation is totally unsustainable.

I am all for high rise etc buildings in the docklands etc for example and think the lack of them, makes for such a boring and underwhelming views etc. Put people where they want to be , cuts down on commutes, use existing infrastructure etc. But in the case of these turbines, if the visual impact can be totally removed from the equation, by putting them another few km out to sea, then that should happen in my opinion...

AndyBoBandy

Zenith74 wrote: »

But there is a lot of sense putting them in shallower water (and the water is a lot shallower on those banks) than in deeper. Particularly when you consider the main purpose here is to reduce emissions - the construction and maintenance would be much more carbon intensive in deep water.

The East Coast of Ireland is littered with sand banks from Howth down to Rosslare, and is prime location for wind farms. Some of these banks, you could stand in at low tide, and the water would only be up to your waist, yet be miles off the land.

Installing wind farms on shallow banks like this is akin to installing them on dry land...

Zenith74

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

The East Coast of Ireland is littered with sand banks from Howth down to Rosslare, and is prime location for wind farms.

This is discussed in the article/website, basically comes down to the fact the demand for the generated power will be in Dublin and the grid is most developed around there. Which seems logical enough tbh.

AndyBoBandy

And very little transmission distance from area generated to area consumed.

It's win win win

unkel

Pity the article doesn't state the power of the generators, I presume they will be around the biggest that are available at the moment at about 15MW each. It's a great shorter term development, but the more serious wind banks in the medium to longer term should be developed as floating in the Atlantic, where we have the best conditions for wind generation........in the wurrllld.

A good aim is to generate about 200-300% of our total national projected electricity needs from wind by 2030-2035

AndyBoBandy

When Arklow went in (and I thought it was later than 2001 as the article stated), the 3.2MW units were the largest offshore turbines GE made at the time. Arklow was the test bed for that 3.2MW unit.
The Arklow units are 124m high at their highest point, these bad boys will be more than double that. (and the Arklow turbines look huge when you're closer to them!!)



To think now they are up to 13+MW units :D:D:D

Tea drinker

Is there any merit to including tidal generation aloing with the wind turbines?
Would mostly use the same infrastructure to backhaul the power. I have no idea how the tides look at those sandbanks just... floating the idea ;-)

AndyBoBandy

Tea drinker wrote: »

I have no idea how the tides look at those sandbanks just... floating the idea ;-)

The tides are incredibly strong along that very same section of coast from Howth to Rosslare, the result of these strong tides are the many sand banks.

HeidiHeidi

Is there a reason tidal energy isn't being harnessed with the same enthusiasm as wind energy?


It would provide a much more reliable energy stream, surely?


Are the logistical/practical difficulties really that much more than erecting wind turbines?


That's a genuine question, from a position of complete and utter ignorance on the subject!

MrMusician18

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Is there a reason tidal energy isn't being harnessed with the same enthusiasm as wind energy?


It would provide a much more reliable energy stream, surely?


Are the logistical/practical difficulties really that much more than erecting wind turbines?


That's a genuine question, from a position of complete and utter ignorance on the subject!

In short, yes. The practicalities of installing tidal and wave energy harvesting systems is so difficult that it renders it impractical. The sea is a very aggressive environment

BorneTobyWilde

1.5 Billion........ So 10 Billion then.

AndyBoBandy

I think tidal is still in it's infancy and developmental stage. Wasn't there a tidal generator installed up North as a test bed a few years back, in Belfast Lough?

Tidal energy will be 100% dependable as it comes and goes twice a day.. and is predictable years in advance. Wind of course is great but it sometimes doesn't blow, so we'll end up relying on fossil fuel to make up the shortfalls, but if we harnessed tidal, those shortfalls would be ever smaller...

unkel

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

1.5 Billion........ So 10 Billion then.

It would be if we left it to the government or some semi-state company like the ESB to install them :pac:

Private sector jobby this. Purely for profit. No risk to the tax payer.

Idbatterim

I assume they cant put a rotatable tidal generator on the same massive shaft above it, providing the wind generation and tidal generation from the one shaft anchored to sea bed?

seems this technology does exist...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148117310248

this may be a mental idea, but with pumped storage, could they build huge concrete boxes out at sea holding millions of gallons, and use these at peak times, the water being let out, could also power turbines as it is being discharged... or could it be done from massive end of life oil tankers etc...

crisco10

MrMusician18 wrote: »

In short, yes. The practicalities of installing tidal and wave energy harvesting systems is so difficult that it renders it impractical. The sea is a very aggressive environment

Scalability is a factor for tidal too. The generator in Northern Ireland was 1MW or so, and it would have been hard to expand to an array which is what you really need. Perversely the areas of strong tidal currents are relatively space limited.

Wave energy is very much in its infancy. The problem it has is how harsh the environment is. To be prudent, you need to design to protect against 1 in 25 or in 50 year storms. And conditions are so violent offshore that the devices are either a) over engineered and expensive or b) have reliability issues. The wind turbines have the benefit of only having the foundation, and bottom of tower exposed to the sea/waves.

Idbatterim wrote:

look I understand the company will want to put them in the least costly place for them to set up, I dont personally care for that consideration. they will be up there for decades.

This confuses me. Who do you think will ultimately pay? the utilities will sell the electricity for profit. If it costs more, that means the consumer's electricity will cost more.
Decades is also only just about true. Certified life (currently) is about 25 years.

Idbatterim

crisco10 wrote: »

Scalability is a factor for tidal too. The generator in Northern Ireland was 1MW or so, and it would have been hard to expand to an array which is what you really need. Perversely the areas of strong tidal currents are relatively space limited.

Wave energy is very much in its infancy. The problem it has is how harsh the environment is. To be prudent, you need to design to protect against 1 in 25 or in 50 year storms. And conditions are so violent offshore that the devices are either a) over engineered and expensive or b) have reliability issues. The wind turbines have the benefit of only having the foundation, and bottom of tower exposed to the sea/waves.




This confuses me. Who do you think will ultimately pay? the utilities will sell the electricity for profit. If it costs more, that means the consumer's electricity will cost more.
Decades is also only just about true. Certified life (currently) is about 25 years.

in the main I expect the investor to simply get less return on the investment, look , I dont think having these visible from the stunning dublin bay, is worth an irrelevant pittance , even if its for the end user. depends on how much cost increases, to go further out. maybe a balance could be struck

Zzippy

Tea drinker wrote: »

Is there any merit to including tidal generation aloing with the wind turbines?
Would mostly use the same infrastructure to backhaul the power. I have no idea how the tides look at those sandbanks just... floating the idea ;-)

I see what you did there

HeidiHeidi

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Is there a reason tidal energy isn't being harnessed with the same enthusiasm as wind energy?


It would provide a much more reliable energy stream, surely?


Are the logistical/practical difficulties really that much more than erecting wind turbines?


That's a genuine question, from a position of complete and utter ignorance on the subject!

As a result of the way tidal energy is harnessed you need to have a mechanism underwater which requires regular maintenance to keep it working which is expensive. Between shells sticking to it, bits of seed weed, even just sand, the mechaism gets clogged up and stops working. Also sea water is corrosive.

Parts need to get replaced much more often than with wind turbines.

While it is a reliable source, the technology isn't mature enough yet.

AndyBoBandy

Thing you also have to remember with tides is that before and after both low & high tide in any given area (as the tide turns), it slows down a lot..

so for instance, 1 hour before and after high and low tide, it will not be flowing very fast (or at all for periods), so it's only really at full flow for about 14-16 hours, in every 24 hour period.

It would need to reduce in cost (and increase in efficiency) dramatically before anyone would even think about using it in the real world.

Calahonda52

Idbatterim wrote: »

I dont know how I feel about these, I have been given forum bans for my rants on nimbys before. But if these could be set further out, where you wouldnt destroy the spectacular dublin bay vistas, it would be better. Its one thing putting them out at sea beside the coast when there is very little population density, but it is dublins location that makes it geographically stunning...

and the most polluted, with raw sewage...

spacetweek

Zenith74 wrote: »

Have to say I am super excited about this! Wind is such an untapped resource in Ireland. I also think the sight of them from Dublin or as you fly in will fit perfectly with the modern tech city we are trying to have.

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

Although I agree, you have to understand that the majority of people will not see it that way. Generally people (esp. older ones) want to look out at the sea with nothing on the horizon. Expect huge protests.

unkel

spacetweek wrote: »

Although I agree, you have to understand that the majority of people will not see it that way. Generally people (esp. older ones) want to look out at the sea with nothing on the horizon. Expect huge protests.

Floating wind turbines in the Atlantic can be a good solution. So far out in the ocean that you couldn't even see them with the naked eye.

West coast of Ireland is one of the most suitable locations for wind farms, in the world. Wind energy is the cheapest form of electrictiy generation. We are so lucky with this natural resource. Now let's get on with it.

spacetweek

unkel wrote: »

Pity the article doesn't state the power of the generators, I presume they will be around the biggest that are available at the moment at about 15MW each.

From the article, 45-61 turbines @ 900 MW:
14.7 - 20 MW each.

unkel wrote: »

A good aim is to generate about 200-300% of our total national projected electricity needs from wind by 2030-2035

WTF? Are you saying 200-300% because you're including all the power electrified transport will need too?

AndyBoBandy

spacetweek wrote: »

WTF? Are you saying 200-300% because you're including all the power electrified transport will need too?

He's saying to generate 2-3 times more than we actually use/need.

Whatever we use now, or in the future will always be 100%, it's what we can generate above what we need at any given time, and then sell it to other countries.... Then when we have all that excess generated power, if suddenly we need more ourselves, we'll have it there on tap....

Zenith74

If you only build enough turbines to generate 100% of our requirement when they're producing their maximum output, then you'll be left short on less windy days or when repairs/maintenance are required. So you over-provision and hopefully sell any excess on windy days.

tom1ie

unkel wrote: »

It would be if we left it to the government or some semi-state company like the ESB to install them :pac:

Private sector jobby this. Purely for profit. No risk to the tax payer.

Would you stop with your ESB bashing. Quite childish tbh.

tom1ie

spacetweek wrote: »

unkel wrote: »

Pity the article doesn't state the power of the generators, I presume they will be around the biggest that are available at the moment at about 15MW each.

From the article, 45-61 turbines @ 900 MW:
14.7 - 20 MW each.


WTF? Are you saying 200-300% because you're including all the power electrified transport will need too?

So that we can sell the excess power generated via the interconnectors.

pummice

I would be more excited about this offshore windfarm, if they told me that my electricity bill would be cheaper, but thats not going to happen

Zenith74

pummice wrote: »

I would be more excited about this offshore windfarm, if they told me that my electricity bill would be cheaper, but thats not going to happen

Your savings in not having to pay for your or your family's asthma, lung cancer or other air pollution related illnesses will be worth more than any possible electricity savings.

Hyperbole aside, air pollution levels in Dublin were 1500% above WHO recommended levels last weekend, we need to stop burning **** to heat our homes, generate electricity or move our vehicles around.
https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2020/1201/1181592-solid-fuel-heating-air-quality-pollution-ireland/

Tea drinker

tom1ie wrote: »

spacetweek wrote: »

So that we can sell the excess power generated via the interconnectors.

So that *they* can sell loads via interconnects. Unless you invest in windfarms yourself of course. Eyesores can the thrown all around the coast so someone else can make money off it.

the_amazing_raisin

I'm going to chuck my 2 cents in and say that this is an absolutely brilliant idea. Combine this with additional rooftop solar grants, building retrofit schemes and a pumped hydro system in the Wicklow mountains and Dublin will be set for renewable energy for the near future

AndyBoBandy

tom1ie wrote: »

So that *they* can sell loads via interconnects. Unless you invest in windfarms yourself of course. Eyesores can the thrown all around the coast so someone else can make money off it.

No one generates electricity for free, whether by wind, coal, gas, peat or Nuclear. So regardless of who generates it, of course they'll sell it. Thats why we have some of the most efficient CCGT plants in the world here.. they wouldn't just get installed because Ireland needs efficient Gas Turbines.... it's all profit for someone...

It would be just nicer if we (they) didn't have to import so much gas, coal & oil into Ireland to do so... It would also mean a few more jobs in Ireland, as opposed to the people we (they) are currently supporting in Russia/China/Middle East refining what we currently consume to generate electricity.

The State then stands a better chance of meeting their (our) carbon emission targets (agreeing with them or not is irrelevant), and dont have to pay such heavy annual fines, and perhaps re-invest that money to where it's needed.

Eyesores to some, a better future for others...

Tea drinker

pummice wrote: »

I would be more excited about this offshore windfarm, if they told me that my electricity bill would be cheaper, but thats not going to happen

You're electricity will be more expensive, as you have to subsidise building them plus keep fossil generation plant running at your expense.
Give up the views, no benefit to you... where do i sign up to this religion? If I buy green energy do I go to heaven? Look if we were all stakeholders it could be interesting, but we're just cash cows.

Zenith74

Tea drinker wrote: »

Look if we were all stakeholders it could be interesting, but we're just cash cows.

Your family’s health being damaged by the pollutants pumped into the air burning fossil fuels to make electricity you use makes you a stakeholder

unkel

Tea drinker wrote: »

You're electricity will be more expensive

Eh, no. You're :rolleyes: electricity will be cheaper as the cheapest form of electricity generation currently is wind.

the_amazing_raisin

"The view" currently consists of a pair of disused smoke stacks, 3 decommissioned power plants, a waste incinerator and a port

Frankly some distant wind turbines would be a dramatic improvement

Maybe they'll get around to demolishing most of poolbeg power station if it isn't needed after the turbines are up and running

EDIT: I forgot to mention the sewage treatment plant

Tow

cruisey1987 wrote: »

EDIT: I forgot to mention the sewage treatment plant

Hard to forget the sewage treatment plant. Which was too small the day they opened it as they forgot to take into account all the people who work in Dublin and just used the census data.

There are preservation orders on the Pigeon House and some (people) want one on the chimneys. The ESB want them knocked. It will be interesting with the development of the glass bottle site.

the_amazing_raisin

Certainly it's hard to forget the smell the sewage treatment plant

I almost wouldn't mind the chimneys being kept, you could do something fun like turn them into an observation tower with a bridge in between

They have to keep the turbines from the old power station as they're now being fed steam from the incinerator

The rest of the site could be demolished as far as I'm concerned. Total eyesore

I imagine there wouldn't be a rush of people looking to build houses out there, given the industrial nature of nearby land, and the negative press of living beside a sewage plant and waste incinerator

But it could be used as a business park (assuming we need offices ever again) or some of the port facilities could be pushed out there to free up valuable land closer to the city center

Tea drinker

unkel wrote: »

Eh, no. You're :rolleyes: electricity will be cheaper as the cheapest form of electricity generation currently is wind.

No :rolleyes: the price will be fixed and no savings will be passed to customers.
The grants to the farms will be paid by taxpayers and won't show on the electric bill, so that's another hidden expense.
Hey maybe we'll be on the hook to dispose of the toxic fluids from the gearboxes as well. so we'll lose the views and gain zilch. As alluded to the shareholders may even plant turbines here which service UK so again, the toxins will be here, the loss of nature will be here, and the profits go to shareholders.

These would be far better ran as a community scheme with a national regulator and inspector, plenty of buy in from communities if they are included.
Schemes could be ran by ESB and the relevant authorities to encourage this, financing and grants can go to locals as long as they have appropriate locations.
As the ESB will have to backstop wind energy IMHO they are the ones who should manage that proposal. But they need to stop closing plants.


https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1211/1183760-eirgrid-warning-outages/

Eirgrid said the final shut-down today of the first of two peat-burning power stations in the Midlands has been factored into their projections for supply and demand in 2021.

But the company has warned of the risk of electricity deficit situations arising in the coming months.

When the wind is not blowing, renewable generation of electricity is at a low output and if sufficient support is not available from the UK across the inter-connectors, Ireland's national grid is vulnerable.

AndyBoBandy

cruisey1987 wrote: »

They have to keep the turbines from the old power station as they're now being fed steam from the incinerator

The incinerator would have its own Steam Turbine(s), I think around 30MW, which is only a baby unit.

The Poolbeg Steamers are I believe ABB units and are around 220MW each, and are 100% decommissioned. There is no connection whatsoever between the incinerator plant and any of the Poolbeg/Ringsend power stations, apart from their respective grid connections.