60 supersize wind turbines for Dublin Bay

Zenith74 · 10-11-2020 10:26AM #1

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

10-11-2020 11:39AM

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

10-11-2020 11:44AM

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

10-11-2020 11:45AM

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 · 10-11-2020 11:51AM

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 · 10-11-2020 11:51AM

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).

10-11-2020 11:59AM

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 · 10-11-2020 12:12PM

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 · 10-11-2020 12:19PM

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 · 10-11-2020 12:51PM

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 · 10-11-2020 01:02PM

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 · 10-11-2020 01:10PM

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 · 10-11-2020 01:56PM

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 · 10-11-2020 02:01PM

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 · 10-11-2020 02:06PM

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

It's win win win

unkel · 10-11-2020 02:09PM

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 · 10-11-2020 02:26PM

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 · 10-11-2020 02:33PM

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 · 10-11-2020 02:40PM

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 · 10-11-2020 02:42PM

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 · 10-11-2020 02:46PM

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 · 10-11-2020 02:51PM

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

AndyBoBandy · 10-11-2020 02:51PM

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 · 10-11-2020 03:15PM

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 · 10-11-2020 03:20PM

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 · 10-11-2020 03:22PM

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 · 10-11-2020 03:27PM

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 · 10-11-2020 04:13PM

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

10-11-2020 04:58PM

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 · 10-11-2020 05:27PM

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 · 10-11-2020 05:53PM

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...

60 supersize wind turbines for Dublin Bay

Comments