Greaney wrote: » The reason is, that the campus when all eight are built will be huge. The forest in Derry Donnell is just under 200ha. The impact will be profound and if done bit by bit, it will underplay the environmental effects. I'm assuming the whole project is the masterplan, because that (eight data halls) was what was 1) presented to the community as the project. 2) the basis for the site choice 3) here to fore, been consistently communicated as the end project, both regarding buildings and job numbers.
CatInABox wrote: » Yeah, but that's not what was applied for. They applied to build one, not eight. ABP even said that the way that Apple went about this was totally normal, and is done all over the country already. I also fail to see why the EIA would under play the effects when each new one has to reference the older ones.
hans aus dtschl wrote: » Eirgrid have been doing similar recently on another project I've seen - breaking it down to much smaller chunks to get through planning. They start by saying "just expanding to clean up the site layout", then follow with the next phase saying "industrial infrastructure exists on site, so minimal EIS necessary" etc. It's an abuse of the planning system alright: the EIS should evaluate the site as a whole as opposed to the marginal increases, but they get away with just EIS on the marginal increases. Edit: Further detail added.
plodder wrote: » An abuse occurs when you apply for something piecemeal, when the initial application isn't buildable standalone or there isn't an intention to build it standalone. There clearly was an intention in this case. Nobody can say that Apple were definitely going to build 8 halls. They were simply planning for the possibility and assuming demand for the services developed as projected. In the end, they didn't need to build even one. There are always contingency plans and alternatives. Denmark happens to have a more rational and sensible planning system than us. It's a joke that it is still being litigated long after the project was cancelled.
Greaney wrote: » Exactly, that's what the fuss is about. They're applying to build one.... but they will be building eight. Is this legal slight of hand, to play down the effects of project, and that's why it's in front of the courts. The EIA may not have to reference previous projects, they may just have to start as a baseline where the other data centre finished. We don't have a crystal ball and we know the government etc. are loving data centres at the moment, so they might just bend the rules as the project rolls along. In fairness... would the country even know what was going on with our resources if folk didn't stand up to shine a light on it? Our grid needs huge investment and I don't expect the tech multi-nationals will be asked to pay for their fair share. If they did.... that'd be another story.
Deleted User wrote: » Supreme Court told planning law “radically misapplied” in Apple Athenry case The law was “radically misapplied” by An Bord Plean when they gave the go ahead for Apple to build an €850 million date centre in Athenry the Supreme Court has been told. While Apple has decided to give up its plans for a data centre in Athenry after the project spent years in legal limbo, the Supreme Court is still hearing two objectors’ case. The central part of the objection has always been whether An Bord Plean was obliged to consider the environmental impact of eight data halls, Apple’s masterplan for the site, instead of just the one hall which was contained in the application Full story here - https://www.galwaydaily.com/news/supreme-court-told-planning-law-radically-misapplied-in-apple-athenry-case/
Greaney wrote: » Well, for a start they live near there, in fact, there were more who live near it, who had gone as far as judicial review. It's not as simple as it seems...
SeanW wrote: » This is the kind of stuff that makes my blood boil. The poxy twits who bogged this down in objections won. The billion euro investment in the West? Gone. Hundreds of jobs - outside main cities where they are desperately needed? Gone. They wanted to stick a knife in the backs of rural people who would have benefited and they succeeded. What the hell are they still suing for?
4ensic15 wrote: » The hundreds of jobs would only be during the construction phase. There would be very few jobs when the centre is running. The impact on the national grid would be enormous. When the data centres become redundant in a few years those places will be white elephants.
bk wrote: » How would data centers ever become redundant!!! They are here to stay for the long term. The servers in them do change constantly, get upgraded, etc. but the physical infrastructure doesn't change much, the building, the UPS, the cooling systems, the power supplies, etc. What do you think makes the internet work, magic fairy dust! Ironically this site you are posting on is hosted in a data center and pretty much every single website or service you use on your phone or laptop passes through a data center.
bk wrote: » How would data centers ever become redundant!!! Th.
Wanderer78 wrote: » We do have to ask ourselves, is a relatively low job creator and a relatively high energy use facility the way forward for Ireland?
Pussyhands wrote: » Stupid question off topic but does that mean all data is stored there? What isn't located there? What if someone bombed the data centre, would all data be lost or would boards for example have it backed up on multiple different DCs?
4ensic15 wrote: » Moore's law.
Moore's law is an observation and projection of a historical trend and not a physical or natural law. Although the rate held steady from 1975 until around 2012, the rate was faster during the first decade. In general, it is not logically sound to extrapolate from the historical growth rate into the indefinite future.
plodder wrote: » I'm still wondering what development is going to make these data centres redundant "in a few years". It's true there would potentially be a big impact on the grid, but it seems to me, that that should be a matter of discussion at national/government level and not something that is decided by the actions of individual objectors. Like why should Clonee be allowed to have a project like this, but not Athenry?
CatInABox wrote: » The electricity market in Ireland operates on supply and demand. If there's more demand, then companies will increase supply. If apple actually built all eight data centres, by the time that they are finished building, more windfarms and power plants will have come online to service the demand. That's how it's worked for the last 80 years or so, so I'm totally confused by the objections. What's more, Apple committed to 100% renewable, as they have worldwide, and are willing to pay more for it too. This data centre would have 100% resulted in more renewable electricity in Ireland, unless of course, people objected to those too.
bk wrote: » Data centers aren't going anywhere.
bk wrote: » The power generation argument is such nonsense. Electricity usage and thus generation has fallen quiet a bit over the last few years, that is why the ESB and others have been shutting a number of power plants over the last few years. The amount of CO2 generated per gigawatt of power has halved in the past 20 years alone and it will continue to fall. Just yesterday Bord Na Mona announced the laying off of a 1,000 people over the next few years as the demand for peat falls and the two peat powered plants close or get converted to biofuel. These peat plants were the dirtiest. The ESB just this year fully wrote off the cost of Moneypoint, our last goal burning plant. The 1.2 billion plant is now worthless and it is expected to close by 2025, just 7 years from now. Why is all of this happening, it is because wind and solar have gotten so cheap, along with "cleaner" gas, that peat, coal and oil simply can't economically compete anymore. Our grid is going clean. Apple have already reached 100% renewable energy use at all their offices and data centers. This new one would have been no different.
