Arguments against windfarms/pylons

TheBegotten · 07-07-2014 6:55pm #1

Seeing as plans for these windmills and their necessary pylons was reported on the news today as "controversial", I'd be interested in hearing arguments against the construction. I personally can't see a downside, apart from maybe aesthetic concerns - although I'd much rather look at windmills than sheep.

Sir Arthur Daley · 07-07-2014 6:59pm

TheBegotten wrote: »

I'd much rather look at windmills than sheep.

Sheep do look out of place in the mountains for sure, whats all that about.

Temptamperu · 07-07-2014 7:00pm

you can have sheep and pylons, I think they look cool any way. Both sheep and wind towers.

Awkward Badger · 07-07-2014 7:00pm

Some health concerns related to pylons as far as I know. Which is probably what makes them "controversial".

TheBegotten · 07-07-2014 7:07pm

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Some health concerns related to pylons as far as I know. Which is probably what makes them "controversial".

I took a look at the Professor cited in that report. Apparently he's making a few assumptions:

Many of the ideas in Professor Henshaw's research had been previously dismissed by the government's National Radiological Protection Board as "implausible and purely speculative".

From the BBC

catallus · 07-07-2014 7:07pm

Absolute monstrosities that are fire hazards, visually and aurally polluting, and lethal for birds.

There has to be a better way.

I can't understand why they can't harness tidal power in this country, we're made for it!

Awkward Badger · 07-07-2014 7:15pm

TheBegotten wrote: »

I took a look at the Professor cited in that report. Apparently he's making a few assumptions:
From the BBC

I have no idea how reliable the guy is or how accurate his statements. I'm just saying the "controversial" tag likely comes from the fact there are health concerns related to the pylons.

07-07-2014 7:15pm

TheBegotten wrote: »

Seeing as plans for these windmills and their necessary pylons was reported on the news today as "controversial", I'd be interested in hearing arguments against the construction. I personally can't see a downside, apart from maybe aesthetic concerns - although I'd much rather look at windmills than sheep.

Are these two, windfarms & pylons, not different sets of arguments?

InReality · 07-07-2014 7:16pm

cons; noise pollution for locals. unsightly for locals and nature tourism. tiny energy generation.
pros; ?

mad muffin · 07-07-2014 7:17pm

Remind me again why they aren't erected offshore?

catallus · 07-07-2014 7:18pm

I think the argument is is that tranferring the energy from an offshore site isn't cost-effective or something like that.

hatrickpatrick · 07-07-2014 7:19pm

Noise pollution is the main issue for me, and one which I feel gets overlooked frequently. Some people have a high sensitivity to noise, I can only speak for myself but if there was something like that generating a constant hum 24/7 so that there'd neve be a moment of actual quiet, I'd personally go out of my mind.

The idea that this issue can't be solved in this day and age is a f*cking joke as well. If the pylons make a constant noise it means they're poorly constructed.

Brian? · 07-07-2014 7:21pm

mad muffin wrote: »

Remind me again why they aren't erected offshore?

They are. You can't see them because you don't live off shore. Nothing wrong with having them both on and off shore.

Let's be clear, there are no proven health risks from pylons or wind farms.

Someone said they produce a tiny amount of energy, they don't. They produce a significant amount of energy when grouped in farms. Hence the existence of wind farms and not isolated turbines.

professore · 07-07-2014 7:23pm

catallus wrote: »

Absolute monstrosities that are fire hazards, visually and aurally polluting, and lethal for birds.

There has to be a better way.

I can't understand why they can't harness tidal power in this country, we're made for it!

Tidal power is very very difficult. The power of the sea destroys everything.

Sure they have issues only working when it's windy, but really wind farms are a clean source of energy. How can anyone look at cars and trucks and fossil fuel power stations belching carcinogens into the air and possibly say windmills are polluting?

mad muffin · 07-07-2014 7:23pm

Brian? wrote: »

They are. You can't see them because you don't live off shore. Nothing wrong with having them both on and off shore.

Let's be clear, there are no proven health risks from pylons or wind farms.

Someone said they produce a tiny amount of energy, they don't. They produce a significant amount of energy when grouped in farms. Hence the existence of wind farms and not isolated turbines.

I say move them all offshore. Problem solved?

Brian? · 07-07-2014 7:25pm

professore wrote: »

Tidal power is very very difficult. The power of the sea destroys everything.

Really wind farms are a clean source of energy. How can anyone look at cars and trucks and fossil fuel power stations belching carcinogens into the air and possibly say windmills are polluting?

Tidal and wave power are the future for Ireland, the technology to harvest it is it's infancy. Wind is the present.

SEPT 23 1989 · 07-07-2014 7:26pm

There was no outrage over pylons when they were placed in the middle of working class areas of Dublin

Brian? · 07-07-2014 7:27pm

mad muffin wrote: »

I say move them all offshore. Problem solved?

Have you any idea of the capital
Cost of moving all the present generation capacity off shore?

"Proble solved"? What's the problem exactly. Someone needs to define the actual problem with wind power and not touchy feely stuff.

PeteFalk78 · 07-07-2014 7:29pm

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

There was no outrage over pylons when they were placed in the middle of working class areas of Dublin

Your point being?

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 7:29pm

I was up on the bog last week surrounded by windmills and I thought they looked pretty beautiful in fairness

doyle61 · 07-07-2014 7:30pm

Very inefficient for of generating electricity. Also it's where their building them is totally wrong. If they were off shore it'd be OK but not inland. Every year we have towns getting flooded out of it and here we have the authorities granting planning for the building of these on mountain bog lands. Putting thousands of tones of concrete in these areas is going to cause even more flooding because it's these bogs that soakup rain fall and re release it more gradually. It's just bloody madness

Brian? · 07-07-2014 7:31pm

doyle61 wrote: »

Very inefficient for of generating electricity. Also it's where their building them is totally wrong. If they were off shore it'd be OK but not inland. Every year we have towns getting flooded out of it and here we have the authorities granting planning for the building of these on mountain bog lands. Putting thousands of tones of concrete in these areas is going to cause even more flooding because it's these bogs that soakup rain fall and re release it more gradually. It's just bloody madness

You have clearly researched this subject extensively. Daily Mail?

PeteFalk78 · 07-07-2014 7:35pm

Brian? wrote: »

You have clearly researched this subject extensively. Daily Mail?

Unreliable source of energy, Threat to wildlife, Noise and aesthetics.

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 7:35pm

doyle61 wrote: »

Very inefficient for of generating electricity. Also it's where their building them is totally wrong. If they were off shore it'd be OK but not inland. Every year we have towns getting flooded out of it and here we have the authorities granting planning for the building of these on mountain bog lands. Putting thousands of tones of concrete in these areas is going to cause even more flooding because it's these bogs that soakup rain fall and re release it more gradually. It's just bloody madness

Relative to the vast area that bogs cover and the microscopic area these windmills will occupy, they will have no noticeable effect on soakage whatsoever.

Trees and forest along rivers are infinitely more efficient in soaking up water and preventing flooding. In fact, the decreasing % of trees along the Shannon has been held as one of the factors for our flooding problems.

doyle61 · 07-07-2014 7:41pm

Brian? wrote: »

You have clearly researched this subject extensively. Daily Mail?

As a matter of fact I have. I had to do a project and presentation as part of my apprenticeship of energy generation and a lot of issues came up about wind turbines inland. Off shore not too bad but not inland. My vote would be to use tidal energy. As part of our research we also visited a nuclear power station in Wales which was actually very interesting

bleg · 07-07-2014 7:50pm

Put a coal powerplant nearby instead.

doyle61 · 07-07-2014 7:52pm

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Relative to the vast area that bogs cover and the microscopic area these windmills will occupy, they will have no noticeable effect on soakage whatsoever.

Trees and forest along rivers are infinitely more efficient in soaking up water and preventing flooding. In fact, the decreasing % of trees along the Shannon has been held as one of the factors for our flooding problems.

I disagree. The increase in flooding over the past say 30-40 years coincides with the increase in the planting of forestry in upland mountain bog over the same period of time. My uncle works in the forestry (grandfather before him) and it came up in conversation before how upland forests cause quicker water run off.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-07-2014 7:53pm

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I have no idea how reliable the guy is or how accurate his statements. I'm just saying the "controversial" tag likely comes from the fact there are health concerns related to the pylons.

It's the nocebo effect.

Last year 4.3 Billion people had mobile phones, but still no "proof" of health problems, even a one in a million risk would have killed thousands. People still claim that mobile phones cause cancer, and discount the lives saved because people could call the emergency services.

Renewables here provided a quarter of electricity last winter. Without them we'd have to burn 1/3rd more fossil fuel. If there is any link between air quality and respiratory problems then probably a few lives saved.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-07-2014 7:54pm

mad muffin wrote: »

Remind me again why they aren't erected offshore?

Probably because it costs roughly twice as much because you have to build an artificial island first and then the whole thing has to survive winter storms

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 7:54pm

doyle61 wrote: »

As a matter of fact I have. I had to do a project and presentation as part of my apprenticeship of energy generation and a lot of issues came up about wind turbines inland. Off shore not too bad but not inland. My vote would be to use tidal energy. As part of our research we also visited a nuclear power station in Wales which was actually very interesting

A few months ago I had to give a presentation on avipox virus and the possibility of it jumping the species barrier. Technically it is possible, but that doesn't make it likely or realistic to happen. It was more brain storming with ideas, in honesty.

Out of all the thousands of kilometres squared that bogs occupy across the midlands, how much of that would these wind farms take up? 1%, if not less?

That's going to have no noticeable impact on flooding.

ted1 · 07-07-2014 7:57pm

doyle61 wrote: »

As a matter of fact I have. I had to do a project and presentation as part of my apprenticeship of energy generation and a lot of issues came up about wind turbines inland. Off shore not too bad but not inland. My vote would be to use tidal energy. As part of our research we also visited a nuclear power station in Wales which was actually very interesting

Can you tell us what commercially viable tidal energy convertor there is on the market?

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 7:59pm

doyle61 wrote: »

I disagree. The increase in flooding over the past say 30-40 years coincides with the increase in the planting of forestry in upland mountain bog over the same period of time. My uncle works in the forestry (grandfather before him) and it came up in conversation before how upland forests cause quicker water run off.

Well that'd completely contradict studies and investigations into the UK's flooding problem in recent years that found decreased tree coverage worsened the floods impact as they weren't there to soak it up and water was slower to recede in their absence.

What evidence does your uncle have to show that planting tress makes flooding worse, because that goes against an awful lot of research in flood prevention.

Also, has your uncle ever thought that climate change, which has made our climate noticeably wetter in recent decades has had an effect increasing rainfall?

Capt'n Midnight · 07-07-2014 8:12pm

catallus wrote: »

Absolute monstrosities that are fire hazards, visually and aurally polluting, and lethal for birds.

ascetics ?
lets get rid of the telegraph poles and one off houses , and sheep

Before steam engines and internal combustions were universal there were lots of windmills in Ireland. That big round tower in Guinness used to be the worlds biggest windmill.

Irish windmills used to turn the opposite way to foreign ones.

Back in the day there were 40-50,000 windmills across The Netherlands and North Germany.

So yeah there is LOTS of historic precedence for moving shadows and noise. It's not something new.

There has to be a better way.

I can't understand why they can't harness tidal power in this country, we're made for it!

Tides aren't continuous like waterfalls. If you use tidal turbines (like the 200MW planned up North) then you get approx. Zero power at the turn of the tide. If you use barrage then you max power at high / low tide and a lot less in between, unless you use several lagoons and the capital costs shoot up.

Also there's a huge difference between neap tide and spring tide,

Tides are predictable but not despatchable.

There is no question that tidal will be come more important in future, as the costs reduces due to new technology and economies of scale. But it's early days yet.

Solar is something we'll see more of as the cost continues to fall. This time of the year we could get 15 hours of bright sunshine on a good day. But it would be a seasonal resource. Oddly enough Wave Power is better in winter. But building an economic wave machine that can stand winter storms is still a way off.

Mr. Incognito · 07-07-2014 8:15pm

catallus wrote: »

Absolute monstrosities that are fire hazards, visually and aurally polluting, and lethal for birds.

There has to be a better way.

I can't understand why they can't harness tidal power in this country, we're made for it!

What a load of nonsense.

I love the way people twist words. Visually and aurally POLLUTING.

They do not pollute. Thats the fecking point.

Burning Coal pollutes. Burning Turf pollutes. Heating uranium rods to irradate water which we ship to India where they put it in the water table pollutes.
Firing high pressure water with corrusive chemicals into our land which leaks into the water table pollutes.

People are morons that just read whatever crap the papers backed by industrialists spout.

We have eight billion people and finate coal gas and oil. It will run out. Wind and the sun wont for billions of years.

The ozone is fecked.

Your personal tastes can take a fecking jump.

Tidal power is in its infancy and not yet commercially viable like solar power 20 years ago.

Awkward Badger · 07-07-2014 8:20pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's the nocebo effect.

Last year 4.3 Billion people had mobile phones, but still no "proof" of health problems, even a one in a million risk would have killed thousands. People still claim that mobile phones cause cancer, and discount the lives saved because people could call the emergency services.

Renewables here provided a quarter of electricity last winter. Without them we'd have to burn 1/3rd more fossil fuel. If there is any link between air quality and respiratory problems then probably a few lives saved.

Is it not just an argument that there may be health concerns and a certain amount of risk and even if its not conclusively proven its enough for some people (particularly those who will have to live in the areas they go up) to justify the extra cost to bury the cables ?

I don't think anyone want's to call the whole thing off and go without that electricity. Its just some people want to do it in the best way possible with the least risk for their personal health. Which imo is perfectly understandable.

Awkward Badger · 07-07-2014 8:25pm

On the noise aspect too, I live quite close to a wind farm and there generally is no noticeable noise. When its pretty windy there is a bit of a drone but its only really noticeable when outside. I've never had any problems with noise from them and noise in general bothers the hell out of me.

oppenheimer1 · 07-07-2014 8:28pm

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

What a load of nonsense.

I love the way people twist words. Visually and aurally POLLUTING.

They do not pollute. Thats the fecking point.

Burning Coal pollutes. Burning Turf pollutes. Heating uranium rods to irradate water which we ship to India where they put it in the water table pollutes.
Firing high pressure water with corrusive chemicals into our land which leaks into the water table pollutes.

People are morons that just read whatever crap the papers backed by industrialists spout.

We have eight billion people and finate coal gas and oil. It will run out. Wind and the sun wont for billions of years.

The ozone is fecked.

Your personal tastes can take a fecking jump.

Tidal power is in its infancy and not yet commercially viable like solar power 20 years ago.

Wind power may actually not reduce carbon emissions in the whole. The problem is wind's intermittent nature. This means that inefficient quick start turbines have to be used when the wind ceases to blow.

It is entirely plausible that more CO2 would be released by these gas turbines than would be saved if high efficiency coal powered turbines (which take days to start up) were used instead of coal.

Wind isn't the answer in the short to medium term, nuclear is.

catallus · 07-07-2014 8:28pm

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

What a load of nonsense.

The ozone is fecked.

Your personal tastes can take a fecking jump.

Jeez relax

I didn't feck the Ozone!

I just find them objectionable on the grounds that they are offensive and take away from my enjoyment of the countryside. Ban them, I say.

Tidal Power is the way to go.

doyle61 · 07-07-2014 8:29pm

The increase in runoff was an observation. That conversation wasn't anything to do with wind turbines but an observation about a different topic altogether. Agree about trees in lowland areas though. Ye the construction of turbines in these areas isn't the sole reason for flooding of towns of the likes of carlow and athy say, but imo they contribute more than the 1% you say. Say if it contributed to 10% or lower say 5% of
the reason these towns are getting flooded it's still one of the reasons, and with the increase in global warming there's no need to add extra reasons for flooding when imo there are better power generation options out there.
The tidal generation option still needs development but I liked the theory big time as it's regular, twice a day every day.

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 8:29pm

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Is it not just an argument that there may be health concerns and a certain amount of risk and even if its not conclusively proven its enough for some people (particularly those who will have to live in the areas they go up) to justify the extra cost to bury the cables ?

I don't think anyone want's to call the whole thing off and go without that electricity. Its just some people want to do it in the best way possible with the least risk for their personal health. Which imo is perfectly understandable.

There is no health risk with pylons.

Electricity is the same above and below ground. Thinking a few meters of soil over the cables magically makes it safe and healthier is ridiculous and unsubstantiated.

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 8:32pm

doyle61 wrote: »

The increase in runoff was an observation. That conversation wasn't anything to do with wind turbines but an observation about a different topic altogether. Agree about trees in lowland areas though. Ye the construction of turbines in these areas isn't the sole reason for flooding of towns of the likes of carlow and athy say, but imo they contribute more than the 1% you say. Say if it contributed to 10% or lower say 5% of
the reason these towns are getting flooded it's still one of the reasons, and with the increase in global warming there's no need to add extra reasons for flooding when imo there are better power generation options out there.
The tidal generation option still needs development but I liked the theory big time as it's regular, twice a day every day.

How could wind turbines take up 10% of the surface area of the bogs and have any influence on flooding? Think about it, seriously. It doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever.

07-07-2014 8:33pm

ted1 wrote: »

Can you tell us what commercially viable tidal energy convertor there is on the market?

None commercially as yet, unlike offshore wind.

Afterthought: there is La Rance, Brittany, tidal barrage/bridge, very location specific but these type of systems would have their uses in certain areas.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-07-2014 8:37pm

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Its just some people want to do it in the best way possible with the least risk for their personal health. Which imo is perfectly understandable.

There are health risks with burying the cable.

Diverting millions of Euro would indirectly reduce funds available for road safety improvements and HSE funding.

The extra cost of electricity would affect fuel poverty here. There's already about 2,800 excess deaths each winter

We don't know if ungrounding could ever save any lives, but large scale implementation would almost certainly result in some preventable deaths.

Long story short, while people have a right to be concerned about their health they have no right to insist that others be put at worse risk.

One thing that totally turned me off all the those wanting underground cables was the complete lack of empathy they had for health effects or financial compensation for the people already living closer, and indeed under existing 200KV lines in urban areas. It smacks of NIMBYism with some greed.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-07-2014 8:41pm

ted1 wrote: »

Can you tell us what commercially viable tidal energy convertor there is on the market?

SeaGen / Marine Current Turbines ?

OpenHydro
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/energy-and-resources/openhydro-signs-600m-tidal-turbine-deal-in-channel-islands-1.1758050

Openhydro, which has a turbine manufacturing facility in Greenore in Co Louth, has formed a new company, Race Tidal, to develop the 300MW project, in conjunction with Alderney Renewable Energy (ARE). Openhydro, which is majority-controlled by French submarine technology company DCNS, also owns a 31 per cent stake in ARE.

doyle61 · 07-07-2014 8:49pm

_Redzer_ wrote: »

How could wind turbines take up 10% of the surface area of the bogs and have any influence on flooding? Think about it, seriously. It doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever.

I didn't mean they would take up 10% of the surface area, sorry if it came across that way.
What I'm getting at is the cubic metre of concrete for the bases means less soakage, way way quicker time to reach saturation point and hence more run off of heavy rain fall.........inevitably saturation will happen at the worst time possible time when the biggest storm of the year hits the country.
Surface area % used won't equate to damage caused imo so say if 1% of ground is used that isn't going to be 1% of contributing factor to flooding but imo more like the 5 or 10% I was getting at

LeinsterDub · 07-07-2014 8:54pm

mad muffin wrote: »

I say move them all offshore. Problem solved?

I say we all move off shore. Problem solved

bleg · 07-07-2014 9:12pm

Why don't we just build a load of these?

http://www.steorn.com/orbo/

Capt'n Midnight · 07-07-2014 9:20pm

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Wind power may actually not reduce carbon emissions in the whole. The problem is wind's intermittent nature. This means that inefficient quick start turbines have to be used when the wind ceases to blow.

It is entirely plausible that more CO2 would be released by these gas turbines than would be saved if high efficiency coal powered turbines (which take days to start up) were used instead of coal.

Wind isn't the answer in the short to medium term, nuclear is.

Actual measured figures from Eirgrid / UK National Grid show that wind produces 1,000 times as much energy needed to cater for unpredicted drops in wind.

Really.

I sick of saying this but...
Stopping and starting causes a lot more turbine wear than ramping up / down.
All the open cycle gas turbines on our grid run at 2/3rds power so they can ramp up if needed with minimal O&M costs - no quick start because they are already up to speed.
If you've ever been on an aeroplane you may be familiar with the way they can accelerate on take off.

The grid is setup to respond within 15 seconds , wind is predictable 5 days in advance.

Nuclear ?
Nuclear is capital intensive.
Hinkley C will cost 16Bn for 3.2GW ,not counting a £17Bn public subsidy
each unit will cost 9.25p (twice the wholesale rate)
it won't be ready until 2023 at the earliest
it won't be carbon neutral until years after that

and that's if everything goes to plan and there are no hiccups
if we have a repeat of the flood of 1707 it will be Fukushima all over again
if the demand for uranium increases such that granite ores have to be used it may never be carbon neutral
most UK nuclear power stations are close to the sea and will need £'s spent on flood defence because of global warming. Calder Hall AKA Windscale AKA Sellafield clean up will cost £100Bn and rising in total

just google news for nuclear shutdown
https://www.google.ie/search?q=nuclear+shutdown&tbm=nws
there's only 435 reactors worldwide so you will see a sizeable % there anytime , and remember a political shutdown is still a shutdown

Nuclear can be safe, reliable, economic but you can't have all three. ( Sometimes you can't have any. )

Naval reactors have been used reasonably safely and reliably by US, UK and France for over 60 years now. None of these have been commercialised.

Breeding fuel in multiple reactors has been going on for over 70 years. There still aren't any breeder reactors that could produce enough fuel for a second one, so don't expect Thorium any time soon. ( It's been tried in at least 4 full scale "commercial" reactors )

Capt'n Midnight · 07-07-2014 9:24pm

bleg wrote: »

Why don't we just build a load of these?

http://www.steorn.com/orbo/

Because solar is cheaper and it actually works.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I say we all move off shore. Problem solved

If cost was no object we could just go for geothermal.

But cost is kinda important and now onshore is a lot cheaper.

whupdedo · 07-07-2014 9:35pm

Remind me never to start an online dispute with captain midnight

catallus · 07-07-2014 9:39pm

whupdedo wrote: »

Remind me never to start an online dispute with captain midnight

Challenge accepted!

Geothermal is a bad idea because taking heat from the ground could stop the core from rotating.

And if that happens the magnetic field would flip, bringing about consequences of such catastrophic intensity that it would threaten the current winds, which would render wind-farms useless.

Arguments against windfarms/pylons

Comments