Walk slowly in the opposite direction......they will catch up

Birdnuts

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Is that index linked? 1000 euro won't be worth much in 30 years.

Something in the Farming Indo last year about Tax implications too that took alot of the shine off the spin that these companies are currently putting out and who at the end of the day can offer what they want but will ultimately depend on the shape of the RESS and how/if it is rolled over. Its one of those situations to seriously look at the small print - preferably by a legal type you trust.

paddysdream

Birdnuts wrote: »

Something in the Farming Indo last year about Tax implications too that took alot of the shine off the spin that these companies are currently putting out and who at the end of the day can offer what they want but will ultimately depend on the shape of the RESS and how/if it is rolled over. Its one of those situations to seriously look at the small print - preferably by a legal type you trust.

Didn't read that but from memory one big problem could be the classification of the land in question when it comes to inheritance ie its treated as industrial assets rather than farmland.
Nice big cheque every year looks good until the Revenue want a big chunk of it before the next generation get their bite.

Think if I was getting 1k an acre wouldn't be overly concerned what grew under the solar panels.
Also imagine sheep might not be my preferred lifestyle choice if I could plant 40 or 50 acres of shiny mirrors here.

Thinking about it though its a once in a lifetime move.Thirty years is " a mighty long time" as the song says and sellers regret would be at the back of peoples mind.Its really tying up the ground for a generation so would feel it might be difficult enough to get ground ,attractive as it seems from the outside.

richie123

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I never said it was a good scheme. If you look back over my posts you'll see I've warned people away from it. However, it is correct to say that keeping payments is a factor in that scheme.

Forestry is worse.payment per acre are far less and not index linked.
Once u plant ...your forced to rent that grand forever more.
I can be corrected on this but pv land qualifies for ag relief up in recent times.

richie123

richie123 wrote: »

Forestry is worse.payment per acre are far less and not index linked.
Once u plant ...your forced to rent that grand forever more.
I can be corrected on this but pv land qualifies for ag relief up in recent times.

Plant that ground i meant to say

bogman_bass

atlantic mist wrote: »

i dont really get the major impact the "renewable technology" like solar, pv and wind makes on the enviroment, it takes a lot of natural resources to make any of the renewables, out weighing the benifit in all cases

wind turbine (which is most efficient of current renewables) use a huge amount of steel which is dug in mines, use sand and lime in concrete which will never be taken back out of the ground, useful life 30 years

batteries need cobalt mined in congo....were just swapping oil for mines

Coal fired plants don’t exactly grow on trees either.
It’s the lifetime impact you have to look at

K.G.

paddysdream wrote: »

Didn't read that but from memory one big problem could be the classification of the land in question when it comes to inheritance ie its treated as industrial assets rather than farmland.
Nice big cheque every year looks good until the Revenue want a big chunk of it before the next generation get their bite.

Think if I was getting 1k an acre wouldn't be overly concerned what grew under the solar panels.
Also imagine sheep might not be my preferred lifestyle choice if I could plant 40 or 50 acres of shiny mirrors here.

Thinking about it though its a once in a lifetime move.Thirty years is " a mighty long time" as the song says and sellers regret would be at the back of peoples mind.Its really tying up the ground for a generation so would feel it might be difficult enough to get ground ,attractive as it seems from the outside.

I wonder why these companies dont just buy the land if its these solar farms stack up over the lifetime of the lease.in wind farms they buy a good few sites but dosent seem to be the same in solar.

J.O. Farmer

K.G. wrote: »

I wonder why these companies dont just buy the land if its these solar farms stack up over the lifetime of the lease.in wind farms they buy a good few sites but dosent seem to be the same in solar.

Seems strange alright, quick sums @1,000/acre x 30 years = €30,000/acre.

There's not much land making €30,000 per acre. Even allowing for the differences in writing off the rent as an expense v capital depreciation it would seem sensible to buy the land even if it's worth €0 in 30 years.

Maybe it's just hard to get people to sell in suitable areas. Wind farms are on top of mountains. Might be easier to get that deal over the line.

K.G.

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

Seems strange alright, quick sums @1,000/acre x 30 years = €30,000/acre.

There's not much land making €30,000 per acre. Even allowing for the differences in writing off the rent as an expense v capital depreciation it would seem sensible to buy the land even if it's worth €0 in 30 years.

Maybe it's just hard to get people to sell in suitable areas. Wind farms are on top of mountains. Might be easier to get that deal over the line.

If an acre costs 10 k the roi is 10 %.it cant be money as theres a heap of money chasing investments like that.

richie123

richie123 wrote: »

Forestry is worse.payment per acre are far less and not index linked.
Once u plant ...your forced to rent that grand forever more.
I can be corrected on this but pv land qualifies for ag relief up in recent times.

Correct. When I went to an open day for the Native Woodland Scheme I had a lot of questions they really didn't like. Mostly what can you do with your own land once their payment runs out, answer = sweet **** all. In effect they're buying control of land for ever more. Which will suit some people, ie older with no one wanting it belonging to them.

Bass Reeves

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

Seems strange alright, quick sums @1,000/acre x 30 years = €30,000/acre.

There's not much land making €30,000 per acre. Even allowing for the differences in writing off the rent as an expense v capital depreciation it would seem sensible to buy the land even if it's worth €0 in 30 years.

Maybe it's just hard to get people to sell in suitable areas. Wind farms are on top of mountains. Might be easier to get that deal over the line.

There are a few factors. First the solar company must get planning. To do this they'd have to take an option to purchase. Any land owner for any developments will expect a premium price anyway. They cannot risk buying land and then trying for planning. There is risk for the farmer as well you are dealing with a limited company. If the company fails you may not get the rent for a few years. Banks or finance houses may have first call.on income streams from the farms. At the end of thirty years you may be left with a couple hundred ton of scrap and dangerous materials on your farm if the company is go e into liquidation.

Finally while they are only renting the land they will have I stalked concrete pads for bases for the panels. To do this will they have removed topsoil to install these. The land you get back may not resemble the land you rented to them. Remember this is an income stream business these developers expect to put up a minimum amount of money up front. Solar panels will be leased or financed, any work carried out may well be from.borrowings. at the end of the day the up front investment by investors may be leaveraged by 10-1

Jjameson

Are you paying fairly sore commercial rates?

Bass Reeves

Jjameson wrote: »

Are you paying fairly sore commercial rates?

Maybe that as well. There is no such thing as a free lunch although I think tenant usually pays rates

Cattleman123

For turbines the land is normally leased. 25-30 year lease. If turbines are of a good size normally 10k a turbine or 2.5-2.7% of electricity sales. If its a good wind site they will always achieve this. I persume there will be the same kind of base payment amd percentage payment with solar panels.

atlantic mist

solar, wind and pv comanies will walk away from discussions if you try get them to buy your land

the investment companies will offer you a sweet deal day 1, 30 year time they will have you over a barrel, well actually they will be gone, having sold to a pension fund to fund the decomissioning and rebuild

goverment currently charging an additional levy on all our esb bill to help fuel the "renewables", wind companies are not viable at current electricity rates, in 30 years time the technology will have advanced, people want cheaper electricity in the long term as weve learned with food

coal mining, iron ore mining, cobalt mining....dont see the difference bogman

K.G.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

There are a few factors. First the solar company must get planning. To do this they'd have to take an option to purchase. Any land owner for any developments will expect a premium price anyway. They cannot risk buying land and then trying for planning. There is risk for the farmer as well you are dealing with a limited company. If the company fails you may not get the rent for a few years. Banks or finance houses may have first call.on income streams from the farms. At the end of thirty years you may be left with a couple hundred ton of scrap and dangerous materials on your farm if the company is go e into liquidation.

Finally while they are only renting the land they will have I stalked concrete pads for bases for the panels. To do this will they have removed topsoil to install these. The land you get back may not resemble the land you rented to them. Remember this is an income stream business these developers expect to put up a minimum amount of money up front. Solar panels will be leased or financed, any work carried out may well be from.borrowings. at the end of the day the up front investment by investors may be leaveraged by 10-1

But a property with an asset on a 30 year lease is an extremely attractive asset to pension funds investment funds etc.office buildings, shopping centres etc would carry the same risk of tennent going and are going at much lower yeilds than 10 %.

richie123

atlantic mist wrote: »

solar, wind and pv comanies will walk away from discussions if you try get them to buy your land

the investment companies will offer you a sweet deal day 1, 30 year time they will have you over a barrel, well actually they will be gone, having sold to a pension fund to fund the decomissioning and rebuild

goverment currently charging an additional levy on all our esb bill to help fuel the "renewables", wind companies are not viable at current electricity rates, in 30 years time the technology will have advanced, people want cheaper electricity in the long term as weve learned with food

coal mining, iron ore mining, cobalt mining....dont see the difference bogman

You need to research that a bit more
There's a massive difference in mining cobalt and mining coal due to the quantity involved and the fact that cobalt is not burned.
I think you have a bias against renewable systems fullstop

atlantic mist

no issue with wind, solar, pv

my point is you are depleting a natural resource be it cobalt, coal, peat, iron...and none of them are good for the enviroment...

relations putting up solar farm, we looked into putting up wind turbine.....when you actually do the research they are not that renewable....they have a sizable cost to the enviroment...and they are only being put up for financial reasons and are at the mercy of the ESB network who are a semi state body...if they need to make a bit more profit, renewables are turned off and the connector to france nuclear is turned on

Mooooo

The issue is they look at CO2 and think anything that doesn't directly emit it is great. Nuclear should prob be the focus

einn32

Mooooo wrote: »

The issue is they look at CO2 and think anything that doesn't directly emit it is great. Nuclear should prob be the focus

I've been saying it for years. It will never happen now. Cost too much. It's some energy source.

Birdnuts

einn32 wrote: »

I've been saying it for years. It will never happen now. Cost too much. It's some energy source.

We already import substantial nuclear via interconnectors - and a good thing too given the number of warnings issued by grid operators across the EU since the start of the year with wind/solar struggling to provide any significant power during cold spells in recent weeks. Its no accident either that France has the cleanest grid in the EU thanx to it being 70% nuclear(power prices there are also substantially lower than here and the likes of states with big wind energy rollout like Denmark and Germany).

Nuclear is far from being done either with both Germany and France pouring money into a new Fusion reactor in the South of France that within a few years could be a blueprint for cheap, endless and zero waste/CO2 energy source.

blue5000

Birdnuts wrote: »

We already import substantial nuclear via interconnectors - and a good thing too given the number of warnings issued by grid operators across the EU since the start of the year with wind/solar struggling to provide any significant power during cold spells in recent weeks. Its no accident either that France has the cleanest grid in the EU thanx to it being 70% nuclear(power prices there are also substantially lower than here and the likes of states with big wind energy rollout like Denmark and Germany).

Nuclear is far from being done either with both Germany and France pouring money into a new Fusion reactor in the South of France that within a few years could be a blueprint for cheap, endless and zero waste/CO2 energy source.

Please tell us a bit more about zero waste nuclear power.

Waffletraktor

blue5000 wrote: »

Please tell us a bit more about zero waste nuclear power.

There is a method that's theoretically possible to have no waste, none of us are clever enough to try explain it.

Bass Reeves

blue5000 wrote: »

Please tell us a bit more about zero waste nuclear power.

Thorium nuclear power us one option. It was discussed.on this thread nearly 10 years ago.

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056621088/1/#post78381112

Biggest issue with nuclear was most nuclear power was developed in tandem with manufacturing of nuclear weapons. Thirium was not as suitable for weaponising as uranium

richie123

Mooooo wrote: »

The issue is they look at CO2 and think anything that doesn't directly emit it is great. Nuclear should prob be the focus

We already have nuclear and more coming due to yet to be built French interconnector

Birdnuts

blue5000 wrote: »

Please tell us a bit more about zero waste nuclear power.

Nuclear Fusion - the tech up to now was developed from the arms race which used nuclear fission. Thorium reactors hold some promise in that area too

Edit - sorry just seen BR's post and he summed it well

Reggie.

Birdnuts wrote: »

We already import substantial nuclear via interconnectors - and a good thing too given the number of warnings issued by grid operators across the EU since the start of the year with wind/solar struggling to provide any significant power during cold spells in recent weeks. Its no accident either that France has the cleanest grid in the EU thanx to it being 70% nuclear(power prices there are also substantially lower than here and the likes of states with big wind energy rollout like Denmark and Germany).

Nuclear is far from being done either with both Germany and France pouring money into a new Fusion reactor in the South of France that within a few years could be a blueprint for cheap, endless and zero waste/CO2 energy source.

Cold fusion is the end game there

yosemitesam1

Birdnuts wrote: »

Nuclear Fusion - the tech up to now was developed from the arms race which used nuclear fission. Thorium reactors hold some promise in that area too

Edit - sorry just seen BR's post and he summed it well

The problem with fusion is it's been 10-20 years away for the last 30 years and we're still in the same position.

Birdnuts

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

The problem with fusion is it's been 10-20 years away for the last 30 years and we're still in the same position.

Its only now being seriously developed and invested in. Not just in the EU but India and China have big plans in that area too.

richie123

richie123 wrote: »

We already have nuclear and more coming due to yet to be built French interconnector

A selfish win/win for us, keep the power plant far away but get the benefit as long as the price is reasonable. I don't think I want an Irish run Nuclear plant tbh.

(Yes, I realise UK plants are closer).

jaymla627

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A selfish win/win for us, keep the power plant far away but get the benefit as long as the price is reasonable. I don't think I want an Irish run Nuclear plant tbh.

(Yes, I realise UK plants are closer).[/quo

Was listening to a podcast where their experimenting with salt cooled reactors that if a incident occurred they shut themselves down instead of a cherynobal type event with water cooled ones,