Wind farms - ugly truths

Capt'n Midnight · 14-06-2014 7:05pm

Old diesel wrote: »

We need instead to start working to continuously improve the technology on offer - and minimise the amount of turbines we need - and the length of time we need to rely on CURRENT wind technology.

You keep going on about "improving the technology"

the lift to drag ratio of the rotors is in the order of 120:1 so the losses are already less than 1%

the generators would be typically 97% efficient

So even if you could halve the losses , and that's not likely because of diminishing returns, it would only get you 2% more power, the same as making the blades 1% longer

Old diesel · 14-06-2014 7:37pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You keep going on about "improving the technology"

the lift to drag ratio of the rotors is in the order of 120:1 so the losses are already less than 1%

the generators would be typically 97% efficient

So even if you could halve the losses , and that's not likely because of diminishing returns, it would only get you 2% more power, the same as making the blades 1% longer

Im talking about having the turbines been able to make power for longer periods by working to improve performance at lower wind speeds - or to put it another way - improve their consistency of performance.

That won't happen in the near future - but it DEFINITELY won't happen if key decision makers keep insisting that wind is awesome.

Im thinking of things like - looking at the capacity factor over the 12 months - and looking to improve that in small steps.

Half the battle imo - is accepting as a starting point - that for 40 percent of our electricity supply - wind is flawed.

If we accept that - we have 2 choices - work to improve wind - or develop the alternative options further - so we can diversify the mix.

Personally - I think that energy solutions should fit around the community living - not community living squeeze around the flaws of the energy solution - as is expected with wind.

But we can agree to disagree on that one

Capt'n Midnight · 14-06-2014 7:49pm

Fabo wrote: »

India worried about running out of coal despite $6 billion invested in renewables last year - why dont they just shut down the coal plants as Macha said ????

$6Bn isn't much per capita. and a lot of the spend on renewables in India is to replace diesel generators rather than support the main grid.

Old diesel · 14-06-2014 7:50pm

@ capt'n midnight

Had another look at the post you quoted - and actually what I was more referring to in that was renewables technology in general not just wind.

the major part of the solution - I think - is to develop other renewables technology more - so you have a more diverse mix - to overcome winds flaws.

Improving wind technology could deliver results - but at the moment - I don't think we can expect massive changes in the short term - but again - I feel Winds flaws need to be acknowledged if we are to improve renewables technology generally

Capt'n Midnight · 14-06-2014 8:22pm

Old diesel wrote: »

@ capt'n midnight

Had another look at the post you quoted - and actually what I was more referring to in that was renewables technology in general not just wind.

the major part of the solution - I think - is to develop other renewables technology more - so you have a more diverse mix - to overcome winds flaws.

Improving wind technology could deliver results - but at the moment - I don't think we can expect massive changes in the short term - but again - I feel Winds flaws need to be acknowledged if we are to improve renewables technology generally

Wind has the wonderful attraction that it is a prove, cheap, mature power source.

Solar is catching up, but here it will pretty much be just for nice sunny days. Make no mistake the price will continue to fall so it's a great power source if your grid can cherry pick. The technology for solar will improve for years to come. At some point in the future the cost will drop such that integrating solar in new builds will be a no-brainer. Vertical panels do better here because we are more than 45 degrees north, it's possible to make panels that use UV and IR light , so you could use them as windows.

We just don't have the weather to use concentrated solar. So no preheating steam for power stations, or 45% solar efficient panels.

Osmotic power didn't work out

Tidal is predictable but not dispatchable http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/tablet/business/400m-tidal-wave-scheme-could-power-one-in-10-homes-in-northern-ireland-30343453.html 100MW soon *crosses fingers* and hopefully the earlier plans of 300MW will happen

Wave power has the little problem of making a affordable platform that can survive the worst storms.

Geothermal is too deep here.

If we could just figure out a way to use the latent heat in the humidity...

Old diesel · 14-06-2014 9:17pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wind has the wonderful attraction that it is a prove, cheap, mature power source.

Solar is catching up, but here it will pretty much be just for nice sunny days. Make no mistake the price will continue to fall so it's a great power source if your grid can cherry pick. The technology for solar will improve for years to come. At some point in the future the cost will drop such that integrating solar in new builds will be a no-brainer. Vertical panels do better here because we are more than 45 degrees north, it's possible to make panels that use UV and IR light , so you could use them as windows.

We just don't have the weather to use concentrated solar. So no preheating steam for power stations, or 45% solar efficient panels.

Osmotic power didn't work out

Tidal is predictable but not dispatchable http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/tablet/business/400m-tidal-wave-scheme-could-power-one-in-10-homes-in-northern-ireland-30343453.html 100MW soon *crosses fingers* and hopefully the earlier plans of 300MW will happen

Wave power has the little problem of making a affordable platform that can survive the worst storms.

Geothermal is too deep here.

If we could just figure out a way to use the latent heat in the humidity...

Unfortunately the nature of wind power - imo - is that it cannot be tolerated as a full and final solution to our renewable needs here in Ireland.

It may be the solution NOW - but if its still the solution in 20 years time - we will have failed miserably as a country imo - in energy terms at least.

It just fails on so many terms

1) community planning - Jan O Sullivans thinking on setback distances for places like Westmeath - is to squeeze as many turbines as possible. Which sums up for me just how bad wind energy planning is (maybe it has to be that way - which is thus a big flaw for wind energy)

Communities are no longer seen as places to treasure or embrace by planners and Govt - they are just places to put turbines in.

This is negative planning imo - yes it may be needed in the eyes of some - but that doesn't mean I have to like it - and it certainly doesn't mean I can't want to see improved solutions in the coming years.

2) Performance - Eirgrid produce stats on a twitter account - mentioned in the page or 3 on this tread - keep an eye on it if your on twitter - the stats speak for themselves.

3) Developing BETTER renewable solutions - long term - would reduce the need to use fossils long term - you need to fire up the fossils on days when wind doesn't perform.

4) Jeopardising industries that deliver real jobs - so we can fit in wind turbines isn't good imo.

Old diesel · 14-06-2014 9:43pm

Btw - my comments on the jobs/industries is just my opinion - the horse industry DID raise concerns in relation to the Midlands wind turbines.

While it may be argued that its for the Horse industry to PROVE the issue - my take on it is that owners/breeders and trainers - have the option of simply pulling the horses out of Ireland - that's a very easy thing for them to do.

All they need is to not like turbines been near their horses - they don't have to prove why.

On the Tourism side - if turbines are put all over the place and not planned well - then it makes the place less attractive to visit - just my opinion

Jim Martin · 15-06-2014 5:22am

Old diesel wrote: »

In any case - if it could be shown that the turbines at that location could cause any harm to the hen harrier - then it could run into difficulty at EU level - if the Hen harrier is protected under EU law*.

That's because EU law overrides EU law - so if the development leads to a breach of EU law then - even if its completely legal under Irish law - its hard to see it not been illegal

*Not sure how or if its protected under EU law

As I understand it, it's protected under international law, which presumably overrides EU & Irish law!

Greensleeves · 15-06-2014 9:14am

Old diesel wrote: »

1) community planning - Jan O Sullivans thinking on setback distances for places like Westmeath - is to squeeze as many turbines as possible. Which sums up for me just how bad wind energy planning is (maybe it has to be that way - which is thus a big flaw for wind energy)

There simply isn't enough room in Ireland to have adequate setback distances (say 750m to 1km) for very big turbines. I think that the Danish setback is 4x the height which would be approx. 750m for the 185m turbines suggested for the midlands. IIRC the 4x rule in Denmark is absolute with acoustic tests determining if a greater setback is required.

Element Power address the setback problem on the Greenwire website:
http://greenwire.ie/faqs/16

This map from AIRO demonstrates how the available land shrinks as you increase the setback distance:
http://www.airo.ie/news/airo-mapping-asking-questions-new-wind-turbines-bill-0

Old diesel · 15-06-2014 10:18am

Greensleeves wrote: »

There simply isn't enough room in Ireland to have adequate setback distances (say 750m to 1km) for very big turbines. I think that the Danish setback is 4x the height which would be approx. 750m for the 185m turbines suggested for the midlands. IIRC the 4x rule in Denmark is absolute with acoustic tests determining if a greater setback is required.

Element Power address the setback problem on the Greenwire website:
http://greenwire.ie/faqs/16

This map from AIRO demonstrates how the available land shrinks as you increase the setback distance:
http://www.airo.ie/news/airo-mapping-asking-questions-new-wind-turbines-bill-0

Indeed - that's why I class community planning as an area where wind energy fails - it is the case that to do the work you need lots of machines around the place - which all need space.

The result - your only thinking at official level in terms of communities - is how many turbines you can squeeze in.

The flaws of the technology are such that we can't seem to be able to design the technology around pleasant community living instead the community must be squashed around the turbines.

This is something that imo - needs to be factored in when looking at the extra costs of going off shore or investing in the long term development of superior/improved renewables - would the extra costs of going off shore or driving technology be worth it - if

1) helps ensure a better future for MORE communities

2) helps enable industries like tourism and the horse industry to thrive and continue in Rural areas.

3) facilitates the continuation of rural communities - as thriving communities not just a place to put wind farms.

4) and this is most important - allowing pleasant living in homes.

The 2 of the things I mention are merely nice things to have - but the other 2 items pleasant living in homes and not jeopardising existing GOOD industries - that's all I want to aim for in terms of standards of planning in terms of wind energy.

But if it can't even allow that - then its clear we need to go back to the drawing board long term.

I have very little desire for energy solutions that jeopardise the future of communities because their flaws don't allow us to plan them in a community friendly way. Or in a way that doesn't kill off or damage good industries

I find it hard to accept the idea that waving good bye to good long term jobs in tourism* and in the horse industry in favour of winds SHORT TERM jobs and community intrusion is the way forward.

At the very least we should look at Denmarks experience in this area and learn from them - what have they got right - what mistakes have they made - etc.

*We all know that hospitality and catering doesn't always pay as well as it should or treat its staff as well as it should - but I think that in the context of planning a long term sustainable tourist industry - this could and should be addressed

Old diesel · 15-06-2014 10:28am

For me - environmentally friendliness - should mean keeping a community a nice place to live in - if the energy project makes a community less pleasant to live in then it was prior to the energy project arriving - then it CANNOT truly be classed as environmentally friendly.

Why - because the community is part of the environment and something environmentally friendly should not jeopardise the local environment - but maybe im looking at it all wrong.

That's not a pop at wind energy - but just a general observation of mine in relation to environmentally friendliness

Jim Martin · 15-06-2014 1:36pm

Jim Martin wrote: »

As I understand it, it's protected under international law, which presumably overrides EU & Irish law!

This is the International law (UN):

http://www.cbd.int/convention/

& this is the EU law:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/

Capt'n Midnight · 15-06-2014 7:23pm

Greensleeves wrote: »

There simply isn't enough room in Ireland to have adequate setback distances (say 750m to 1km) for very big turbines.

The problem is more to do with one-off houses

If the rule was change to more than X distance away from N houses it would be different.

Out of curiosity I'd like to see the map of areas where the nearest house got planning permission under section 4.

Greensleeves · 15-06-2014 7:53pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The problem is more to do with one-off houses

If the rule was change to more than X distance away from N houses it would be different.

Out of curiosity I'd like to see the map of areas where the nearest house got planning permission under section 4.

I agree with you about the one-off houses. We need some proper joined up planning in this country; it is not possible to build houses willy-nilly all over the place and then try to fit in pylons/motorways/windfarms etc between them. Unfortunately we are where we are with the existing mess.

Is section 4 some sort of exempted development clause?

Old diesel · 15-06-2014 8:14pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The problem is more to do with one-off houses

If the rule was change to more than X distance away from N houses it would be different.

Out of curiosity I'd like to see the map of areas where the nearest house got planning permission under section 4.

What are N houses????

Yeah I can see that the one off houses are an issue - the question is - how do we adjust our living in Rural Ireland to address the issue.

What I mean is - we could go down the continental route - where people generally live in the town or in a village - well that's my understanding from hearing criticism of Irish one off houses.

ie "its not an issue on the continent because in France/Germany/Italy/some other countries - people live in towns and villages - not in one off houses.

That's part of the issue imo - lack of thought about COMMUNITY living in the future.

How do we encourage people NICELY to change from one off houses to a better (from wind energy planning viewpoint) village/town or city living scenario.

I suppose the other thing is - its easy to say - they should fire them up in communities no bother if you don't live 500 metres away from a proposed group of turbines.

So the question is - how do you deal with people FAIRLY - and how do you even define what is fair

Old diesel · 15-06-2014 8:27pm

One off houses - are an issue

You could also argue the issue that wind energy technology doesn't fit in well in a country where too many one off houses were built BEFORE wind turbines were planned.

The planners, local authorities, councillors - and people who tried to get planning pushed through for their homes - by getting councillors involved etc - all made mistakes.

BUT - I would say they worked on the basis of what was in an area at the time.

my view is that the planners gave planning permission, the councillors worked to help people get planning permission and permissions were granted - without anyone realising that locations that got planning for one of homes would be wind turbine sites in years to come.

Going down the off shore route more would help mitigate the issue - the question is - does the desirability (as I would see it) of been able to help create a positive future for communities (id prefer personally not to have communities die away - personal view - everyone is different) and Regions in Ireland - merit taking on the extra costs of going off shore.

And is it a good idea to address previous bad planning - by deliberate poor/bad planning now???

Old diesel · 15-06-2014 8:35pm

The other elephant in the room is that IF the setback distance of 500 metres is in fact inadequate and if we cannot address that issue ie we have to go 500 metres even though its really not enough.

Do we then have to pay homeowners compensation - that to my mind merits been looked at in terms of how adding compensation cost to the cost of onshore wind - would then compare to off shore wind but no or lower compensation costs due to off shore turbines been (obviously) further away from homes.

In addition - we would need to assess - accurately the actual impact on residents of 500 metre setbacks from turbines - in order to decide if

1) 500 metre setbacks are adequate to allow COMFORTABLE PLEASANT living in homes - and to allow normal things like getting a good nights sleep in ones own home.

2) if 500 metres isn't enough - how do we adjust the rules to either a) have an adequate setback distance or b) work out a satisfactory compensation package for residents who have to live too close to turbines - or are stuck trying to sell houses too close to turbines.

Just because Govt, ABP and Wind devs want 500 metres to be adequate doesn't mean that it is adequate.

Hard to work out a way forward tbh - especially if you want to do your best as a Govt etc to be as fair as possible to residents

fclauson · 15-06-2014 10:23pm

Greensleeves wrote: »

I agree with you about the one-off houses. We need some proper joined up planning in this country; it is not possible to build houses willy-nilly all over the place and then try to fit in pylons/motorways/windfarms etc between them. Unfortunately we are where we are with the existing mess.

Is section 4 some sort of exempted development clause?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0030/sec0004.html

fclauson · 15-06-2014 10:26pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If the rule was change to more than X distance away from N houses it would be different.

.

That would breach the Irish constitution re "inviability of a dwelling"

Capt'n Midnight · 15-06-2014 10:50pm

fclauson wrote: »

That would breach the Irish constitution re "inviability of a dwelling"

I'd be curious how much rule bending / brown envelopes / pull was involved in a lot of one-off housing over the years

fclauson · 15-06-2014 10:56pm

Enough to keep every one happy and for every one to get what they wanted but not enough to prosecute any one !!

fclauson · 15-06-2014 10:57pm

Old diesel wrote: »

The other elephant in the room is that IF the setback distance of 500 metres is in fact inadequate and if we cannot address that issue ie we have to go 500 metres even though its really not enough.

Do we then have to pay homeowners compensation - that to my mind merits been looked at in terms of how adding compensation cost to the cost of onshore wind - would then compare to off shore wind but no or lower compensation costs due to off shore turbines been (obviously) further away from homes.

In addition - we would need to assess - accurately the actual impact on residents of 500 metre setbacks from turbines - in order to decide if

1) 500 metre setbacks are adequate to allow COMFORTABLE PLEASANT living in homes - and to allow normal things like getting a good nights sleep in ones own home.

2) if 500 metres isn't enough - how do we adjust the rules to either a) have an adequate setback distance or b) work out a satisfactory compensation package for residents who have to live too close to turbines - or are stuck trying to sell houses too close to turbines.

Just because Govt, ABP and Wind devs want 500 metres to be adequate doesn't mean that it is adequate.

Hard to work out a way forward tbh - especially if you want to do your best as a Govt etc to be as fair as possible to residents

500M is generally not enough to protect dwellings to the WHO standard of 40db(A) night let alone any of the other emerging standards for low frequency or amplitude modulation

Old diesel · 16-06-2014 9:22am

fclauson wrote: »

500M is generally not enough to protect dwellings to the WHO standard of 40db(A) night let alone any of the other emerging standards for low frequency or amplitude modulation

That's the problem - we don't have proper assessment on the setbacks here in Ireland - because the priority isn't good planning - its squeezing as many turbines in as possible - imo.

We know the one of houses make this more difficult - but its worth noting a number of things in the context of iffy planning, brown envelopes and other such shanigans

1) Many one off homes are no longer in the hands of the original owner who had them built.

2) Many people who did build them - imo - bought the site WITH PLANNING ALREADY OBTAINED. That's a very important thing to note because it suggests they had nothing to do with any dodgy dealings that MAY have gone on.

3) How many one off houses was planning applied for perfectly fine - no brown envelopes and no councillors getting involved in a way not conducive to good planning

4) The most important point - going forward - how do we accurately assess the impacts of a turbine development on residents and their homes nearby.

The issue I think - is that we need to get to a point - where if planners are saying a development won't adversely affect Residents nearby - then that's what needs to be delivered on in terms of the final project.

Compensation is something that may need to be looked at - but imo - to assess the need to pay compensation - and the amount to be paid if any - we need proper assessments - otherwise we don't know what is fair compensation - compensation would be paid on the basis of ACTUAL or likely impact.

Otherwise you could end up paying out too much to some - and not nearly enough to others.

Of course the question then arises - is it better to compensate - or is it better to plan properly in the first place

fclauson · 16-06-2014 9:36am

Old diesel wrote: »

2) Many people who did build them - imo - bought the site WITH PLANNING ALREADY OBTAINED. That's a very important thing to note because it suggests they had nothing to do with any dodgy dealings that MAY have gone on.

true - does no one remember the housing boom and every one was selling sites both with planning and subject to planning.

3) How many one off houses was planning applied for perfectly fine - no brown envelopes and no councillors getting involved in a way not conducive to good planning

many - I think generally most people are conscientious & law abiding - a considerable number were children building on family land having returned after the last recession

Old diesel · 16-06-2014 10:22am

fclauson wrote: »

true - does no one remember the housing boom and every one was selling sites both with planning and subject to planning.

many - I think generally most people are conscientious & law abiding - a considerable number were children building on family land having returned after the last recession

That's the thing - if someone has bought a site with planning ALREADY given, have bought a one off home 2nd hand (meaning a previous owner had already built it etc) or if they obtained planning perfectly okay (no iffy brown envelope type stuff) - then they SHOULD get one of the following

1) Be protected by proper planning

2) if 1) can't be achieved due to the need to build turbines everywhere - they should be compensated for the issues caused.

Level of compensation - and indeed if compensation is to be paid at all - should be based on proper assessments of the impact.

I wouldn't expect to get compensation simply because I don't like the look of turbines.

However if the turbines turn a home that was previously very pleasant to live in prior to turbines - into somewhere where I can no longer sleep - and this is down to the turbines - then compensation SHOULD be paid.

There seems to be a pretence at official planning level - that 500 meters gurantees all will be fine for residents nearby.

Unfortunately - they haven't properly assessed or researched that.

I think the following reply someone said to me in reply to a question I posed twitter sums it up quite well.

My question on twitter - Jan O Sullivan feels 500 metres is sufficient setback - Westmeath Co Councillors felt a 10 times the height - who is right

Reply from a fellow twitter user

"They are both right because its their opinions - they are both wrong because the decision should be made on the basis of proper planning"

What is proper planning though is the issue - just because Jan O Sullivan wants 500 metre setbacks doesn't mean - that's proper planning.

Its not proper planning just because Jan O Sullivan says it is

Old diesel · 16-06-2014 10:44am

what I would like to see - I don't know if it can be achieved or not - is to see as positive an outcome for the future of communities as possible.

Id like to see as many Rural Communities as possible continue as communities in the long term - but I see the planning of wind farms as been an obstacle.

Whether you see Rural communities as a good thing to see continue long term - is a matter of opinion - I think it would be good to see Rural communities be able to keep going - I see them as a big part of our countries tradition and heritage.

BUT I realise I can't always have everything I want - I do however take the view that - if you take 100 Rural communities - if 50 of them die - that's not good.

But if 50 of them (50 out of 100) keep going long term - that's a lot better then zero.

Old diesel · 16-06-2014 10:51am

Do turbines pose difficulties for Rural Communities - well I would say so yes - even if it simply means things like people choosing not to live in communities that are associated with having a wind farm.

The case however could be made - that writing off Rural Communities - for the greater good of the countries energy policy merits consideration.

Very hard to know the way forward though - especially in trying to be as fair as possible to residents.

There are definitely challenges caused by the likes of one off houses etc - but I feel that the current approach to wind farm planning - doesn't EVEN TRY to be fair to residents.

Its one thing to do everything you can to be fair to people - but end up having to make decisions that are difficult for people - but the way I look at it - is we aren't even TRYING.

Even if you got out of the private developer model - and had the ESB and Eirgrid and co in charge of wind development - and as part of that Govt - were in a position to give communities part ownership of the local windfarm.

That wouldn't address the issues - but would at least be an attempt to introduce a bit more fairness

Old diesel · 16-06-2014 11:02am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls_1p8ad2mc

Rural Scottish village at around 3 mins 50 mins into this video - its worth looking at what they achieved - 1/15th of the wind farm they actually own.

You can also see how this village is looking to build a future for itself.

50,000 sterling coming into village during loan period - going up to 400,000 when loan paid off.

food for thought

Greensleeves · 16-06-2014 5:54pm

Old diesel wrote: »

What are N houses????

Number of houses. If only 1 house is 400m from a proposed development and the rest are 1km away should that single house prevent the development?

Greensleeves · 16-06-2014 5:56pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I'd be curious how much rule bending / brown envelopes / pull was involved in a lot of one-off housing over the years

Probably not as much as you'd think which is actually the great tragedy of the situation. Rural local councils seem to actively favour one-off housing and the vast majority of rural dwellers don't think that there is a problem with one-off houses. I have had many discussions with people over the years about the madness of scattering houses all over the place but I find very few people agree with me. Until influential organisations like the IFA see sense and stop actively campaigning for the right to build on any bit of land in the country we will struggle to contain the problem.

http://oneoffireland.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/a-suburbanised-countryside-delusional-ifa-rural-planning-policy/

Wind farms - ugly truths

Comments