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

J.O. Farmer · 02-02-2021 10:03am

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. · 02-02-2021 10:07am

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.

02-02-2021 10:32am

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 · 02-02-2021 11:05am

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

Bass Reeves · 02-02-2021 11:29am

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 · 02-02-2021 11:49am

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 · 02-02-2021 2:32pm

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. · 02-02-2021 2:46pm

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 · 02-02-2021 3:18pm

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 · 02-02-2021 3:30pm

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 · 02-02-2021 3:57pm

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 · 02-02-2021 7:16pm

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 · 02-02-2021 7:37pm

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 · 02-02-2021 10:05pm

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 · 02-02-2021 10:10pm

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 · 02-02-2021 10:37pm

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 · 02-02-2021 10:45pm

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 · 03-02-2021 1:06am

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. · 03-02-2021 8:29am

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 · 03-02-2021 3:16pm

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 · 03-02-2021 6:29pm

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.

03-02-2021 9:20pm

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 · 03-02-2021 9:54pm

[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,

NcdJd · 03-02-2021 10:13pm

jaymla627 wrote: »

[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,

Yeah ya wouldn't want it coming under Irish water's control. There would be a mini melt down every summer due to water restrictions:D

richie123 · 03-02-2021 10:16pm

[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).

And a selfish win win for France wholl get to use our plentiful wind supply to help offset some of there emissions with renewables..in years to come obviously when we have more wind supply

04-02-2021 12:57am

richie123 wrote: »

And a selfish win win for France wholl get to use our plentiful wind supply to help offset some of there emissions with renewables..in years to come obviously when we have more wind supply

I'm not sure many wind farms have radioactive issues

Timmaay · 04-02-2021 1:35am

The nuclear test plant in the south of France is ITER, its a test nuclear fusion plan, not thorium. Extremely impressive, however a pure white elephant, far too expensive and could well be obsolete by the time it's done. There are however a dozen or so private companies trying to crack commercial Fusion alot sooner (as in the next 10yrs). More modern clean fission or thorium power plants have an insanely expensive capital cost, they will payback massively after like 15yrs though, however governments are not willing to take the financial risk. Meanwhile solar pv costs appear to be ever reducing. As Elon musk says, we have a massive nuclear reactor in the sky already so why not just use it.

Timmaay · 04-02-2021 1:41am

vincenzolorenzo wrote: »

They'd be PV panels on the roof, so generating electricity rather than hot water. The technology is simple and proven to work in an Irish climate. The downside with farming is that the load profile is not a good match for generation profile, particularly on dairy farms. Max generation at midday, and very little (relative) in morning or evening. So you're looking at battery storage instead, which adds €€€'s to the cost

You can use the solar PV to heat the hot water required for the dairyfarm with an electric element. Reasonably efficient also. Main downside is your looking at offsetting nightrate electricity because alternatively you'd try to be heating the water at night. No feed in tariff for the esb is still the most single backwards limitation to solar pv in Ireland however.

Birdnuts · 04-02-2021 2:21am

richie123 wrote: »

And a selfish win win for France wholl get to use our plentiful wind supply to help offset some of there emissions with renewables..in years to come obviously when we have more wind supply

I fear we will end up like Denmark which has to dump excess wind energy into surrounding countries grids during windy spells and then has to shell out big money to keep its grid going via imported conventional power during calmer spells. No accident it now has the second highest highest power cost in the EU(just behind Germany who has also spend vast amounts of money on wind energy)

richie123 · 04-02-2021 9:00am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not sure many wind farms have radioactive issues

They will be using wind from Ireland to help offset emissions without having to build as many themselves..
In the future when we double our wind capacity

Bass Reeves · 04-02-2021 11:12am

Birdnuts wrote: »

I fear we will end up like Denmark which has to dump excess wind energy into surrounding countries grids during windy spells and then has to shell out big money to keep its grid going via imported conventional power during calmer spells. No accident it now has the second highest highest power cost in the EU(just behind Germany who has also spend vast amounts of money on wind energy)

Solar and wind are only viable if you put in a storage system for max demand and for times of low productions winter for sat and when there is no or low wind . There was 1-2 idea's on these. One to sort max demand was that people would plug there cars I to the grid and that power would be extracted back. However this would limit car usage for a few hours during and after max demand.

The only option for large storage for variable power sources is a hydro storage system. There is one in Scotland I think and a few in Scandinavian countries. It would be similar the way water is backed up for the Ardnacrusha power station. You would literally build a dam a cross an inlet where the sea comes in. You would flood the area behind the dam.

The theory us you would need 25-30 days storage minimum. Maybe with a combined wind/ solar you could reduce that but you would have to future proof as well. When there was excess electricity at night and times of high wind you would pump sea water behind the dam. When you need more electricity than your wind and solar provides you flood water through your turbines. The big disadvantage is you would have to flood a large area, The area flooded would need to be higher than the turbines to get enough electricity. You need massive turbines to supply such energy.

The cost.of the project would be in the 20-15 billion range the last time I heard about it

Birdnuts · 04-02-2021 12:41pm

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Solar and wind are only viable if you put in a storage system for max demand and for times of low productions winter for sat and when there is no or low wind . There was 1-2 idea's on these. One to sort max demand was that people would plug there cars I to the grid and that power would be extracted back. However this would limit car usage for a few hours during and after max demand.

The only option for large storage for variable power sources is a hydro storage system. There is one in Scotland I think and a few in Scandinavian countries. It would be similar the way water is backed up for the Ardnacrusha power station. You would literally build a dam a cross an inlet where the sea comes in. You would flood the area behind the dam.

The theory us you would need 25-30 days storage minimum. Maybe with a combined wind/ solar you could reduce that but you would have to future proof as well. When there was excess electricity at night and times of high wind you would pump sea water behind the dam. When you need more electricity than your wind and solar provides you flood water through your turbines. The big disadvantage is you would have to flood a large area, The area flooded would need to be higher than the turbines to get enough electricity. You need massive turbines to supply such energy.

The cost.of the project would be in the 20-15 billion range the last time I heard about it

Yes the costs are huge and you need geography like Norway(loads of Fjords) to make it any way viable or usefull

blue5000 · 04-02-2021 3:24pm

I think the old open cast mine in the Silvermine mountains near Nenagh is a proposed site for one of these. Pump the water back up at night when power demand is low and turn it on again to the grid when peak power supply is needed. Poulaphouca in Wicklow already works this way.

cal naughton · 04-02-2021 3:30pm

blue5000 wrote: »

I think the old open cast mine in the Silvermine mountains near Nenagh is a proposed site for one of these. Pump the water back up at night when power demand is low and turn it on again to the grid when peak power supply is needed. Poulaphouca in Wicklow already works this way.

Turlough hill in Wicklow is the one I think you meant. It's Ireland's only pumped storage power station

Bass Reeves · 04-02-2021 3:43pm

blue5000 wrote: »

I think the old open cast mine in the Silvermine mountains near Nenagh is a proposed site for one of these. Pump the water back up at night when power demand is low and turn it on again to the grid when peak power supply is needed. Poulaphouca in Wicklow already works this way.

The problem is these are all small scale projects. Poulaphouca is 25 MW, and the two smaller ones below are 4mw each. The newer wind turbines are over 1 MW each. Just start counting

patsy_mccabe · 04-02-2021 3:55pm

Timmaay wrote: »

....... As Elon musk says, we have a massive nuclear reactor in the sky already so why not just use it.

A massive nuclear reactor and no danger on nuclear fallout.

Dickie10 · 07-02-2021 12:27am

dont see solar farms ever being of much use in ireland surely we dont get enough solar energy to be worth it? plus they look worse than evergreen forestry , some blight on the landscape. the one place they would blend is bogland? surely a decent spot for them. i would imagine the likes of ireland with an extremely efficient food production syytem in proteins from grass should be made keep its lands in grass to feed the worlds growing population in decades to come in the most environmentally efficent manner , ourselves britain the few other areas that avoid drought in europe and uruguay, southern brazil, nz and parts of Australia. African countrues are sitting on a unbeliveable place for solar energy imagine the Sahara and Kalahari. or am i missing something?

Birdnuts · 07-02-2021 2:29am

Dickie10 wrote: »

. African countrues are sitting on a unbeliveable place for solar energy imagine the Sahara and Kalahari. or am i missing something?

It would certainly work better there for obvious reasons and the fact that its output corresponds much better with peak demands for power generation ie. air con, which obviously is not the case here.

Mad_maxx · 07-02-2021 12:13pm

Dickie10 wrote: »

dont see solar farms ever being of much use in ireland surely we dont get enough solar energy to be worth it? plus they look worse than evergreen forestry , some blight on the landscape. the one place they would blend is bogland? surely a decent spot for them. i would imagine the likes of ireland with an extremely efficient food production syytem in proteins from grass should be made keep its lands in grass to feed the worlds growing population in decades to come in the most environmentally efficent manner , ourselves britain the few other areas that avoid drought in europe and uruguay, southern brazil, nz and parts of Australia. African countrues are sitting on a unbeliveable place for solar energy imagine the Sahara and Kalahari. or am i missing something?

Africa is very rich in numerous things but the political instability puts Western money off

China does it's own thing in Africa

Solar panels would indeed look awful ugly on the landscape

Bass Reeves · 07-02-2021 2:06pm

Dickie10 wrote: »

dont see solar farms ever being of much use in ireland surely we dont get enough solar energy to be worth it? plus they look worse than evergreen forestry , some blight on the landscape. the one place they would blend is bogland? surely a decent spot for them. i would imagine the likes of ireland with an extremely efficient food production syytem in proteins from grass should be made keep its lands in grass to feed the worlds growing population in decades to come in the most environmentally efficent manner , ourselves britain the few other areas that avoid drought in europe and uruguay, southern brazil, nz and parts of Australia. African countrues are sitting on a unbeliveable place for solar energy imagine the Sahara and Kalahari. or am i missing something?

You still need storage. In really hot area like you named , night is as long as day most of the time. Demand would still be high during 3-6 hours of darkness. Solar would be grand for during the day to power everything, even allowing for interconnect power grids with other countries you still could not provide 24/7 power from solar only. You then need a storage system or a power source that will instantly kick in.

yosemitesam1 · 08-02-2021 12:11pm

Birdnuts wrote: »

It would certainly work better there for obvious reasons and the fact that its output corresponds much better with peak demands for power generation ie. air con, which obviously is not the case here.

Dust and sand are likely to be two major issues. They would need a lot of water to maintain in areas that haven't got much to spare.

Birdnuts · 08-02-2021 11:23pm

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Dust and sand are likely to be two major issues. They would need a lot of water to maintain in areas that haven't got much to spare.

That is true - though from my visits to rural areas of Kenya and Zim a couple of years ago, it has its uses on a micro scale eg. individual units for rural dwellers to reduce their dependency on fuelwood for cooking,hotwater etc.(and its attendant problems with deforestation and desetification)

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

Comments