Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

Wind farms - ugly truths

1222325272847

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You're not making any sense.

    Suppose there were no wind turbines in Ireland. Suppose there was, say, 7 GW of installed thermal generation capacity. Suppose then comes along and installs, say, 2 GW of wind capacity.

    Explain to me why any additional "back-up" thermal capacity needs to be installed in that scenario?

    Me not make sense - heavens above !!

    You are mixing installed vs dispatchable

    Point 1 - If you have 7gw if installed + 2 Gw of wind - and a max demand of 5Gw - why are you wasting money installing wind and then pay that wind around €80/Mw (which has to be used first) when it can be achieved much cheaper through other means.

    Point 2 - You need to install more flexible thermal (or storage) if you have wind and decommission existing plant - again more cost

    you should also read http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2015/08/backup-reserve-levels-to-be-increased.html
    At some stage you should look at real data.

    And it's OK to change your opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence.
    thank you

    Coal and peat are base load. While they can react to demand much faster than nuclear they just can't ramp up in seconds like gas or pumped storage that's spinning in air.

    Fuel mix
    http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/all-islandwindandfuelmixreport/

    Why are we still arguing about spinning reserve when wind reduces the amount needed ? Nuclear on the other hand requires the most seeing as how they are the largest generating units. Luckily in the UK all providers have to subsidise the amount nuclear needs.

    http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1192957/power-system-reserve---no-need-build-wind-back-up
    please stop dragging Nuclear into the argument - that was not mentioned in my original post

    Ok that's the theory, the reality is
    Nothing extra.

    Wind reduces the base load, we got 25% of our electricity from wind last winter.
    Wind cannot reduce "base load" - wind is not dispatchable

    Since you are making the remarkable claim you need to provide the remarkable evidence of how much extra spinning reserve we need when we use wind.

    Remember the existing reserve has to provide for the largest single generator going off-line. That's about 6MW for a wind turbine vs. 330MW for fossil ( vs. 3,200 MW for Hinkley C for UK planning )
    when wind fails - a single turbine does not fail - it all fails (the good law does not blow in one place while not in another) - see the report for wind accuracy - http://www.eirgrid.com/media/All_Island_Wind_Forecast_Accuracy_Report_October_2013.pdf

    UK figures showed that wind used roughly the same amount of spinning reserve fuel as other generators of similar capacity.
    You keep quoting the UK - its a much more complex generation market than Ireland it does not have in excess of 50% of wind which could make its way on to the grid but which has to be limited to stop frequency fluctuations and cascading grid failure.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    fclauson wrote: »
    don't understand your point

    list of generators can be found here
    http://www.eirgrid.com/customers/gridconnections/listofconnectedandcontractedgenerators/
    Total Installed TSO 7352.180MW

    Peak demand was 5090 MW and that was back in the Winter of 2010 so there's a wee bit of reserve, not counting wind or other projects in the pipeline.


    For all island stuff check here http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx
    Divide the blue line price by 10 to see cents per unit.

    or look at http://smartgriddashboard.eirgrid.com/#all/market-pricing to compare market price to wind generation levels. Don't worry about the peak prices, they are for interconnects, gas and hydro, slow response base load like nuclear, coal and peat needn't apply.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    Divide the blue line price by 10 to see cents per unit.

    Not so - does not include REFIT payment which is around €80 Kwh (I think)

    So yet again we are seeing wind is more expensive than the open market for electricity

    it was never cost justified


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    fclauson wrote: »
    b) the CO2 saving is more marginal than most advocates would have you believe
    Please give a figure for "marginal".

    How marginal is it compared to the two million tonnes of coal Moneypoint goes through a year ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,951 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Solar is pretty much free energy once you've paid off the capital costs..

    This is the same thing we hear about wind - yet retail power prices across Europe suggest otherwise. Good study on the subject below that covers all the issues

    http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,951 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Please give a figure for "marginal".

    How marginal is it compared to the two million tonnes of coal Moneypoint goes through a year ?

    Coal can only be replaced by gas or some other base load fuel for obvious reasons. Coal undperpins the German power system despite the vast and expensive spend on solar/wind farms


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    Please give a figure for "marginal".

    How marginal is it compared to the two million tonnes of coal Moneypoint goes through a year ?

    So its like your taxes (especially in the day when there was multiple tax rates - 10%,20%,30%,40%)

    You pay tax at your highest tax rate. (called you marginal tax rate)

    Read any wind farm EIS an they will talk about how many g/Kw they will save for all of the energy they product - typical figures are 700 to 900 g/kwh - but Eirgrid tell us we are down around 500 - so as you add a new wind turbine the marginal rate you save is less and less but the argument used that we need more and more wind keeps coming

    now look at https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/Tables/t0305.pdf

    Ireland has one of the most Co2 polluting systems in the world
    BUT
    and this is my argument on page 1 of this thread

    Is wind the best way of resolving this ?

    For example if you convert the whole country to be gas based we would today be producing less C02 than we are currently but we don;t we leave things like the Eden derry peat burning going on because we have to protect other political resources like peat cutters

    As I keep saying - wind displaces no thermal plant - we are not building much storage capability of any significance and all we keep adding is costs costs costs


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Coal can only be replaced by gas or some other base load fuel for obvious reasons. Coal undperpins the German power system despite the vast and expensive spend on solar/wind farms
    As you well know Germany hasn't approved new coal plants for years (2009 AFAIK) and is phasing out the existing ones starting with the less efficient ones.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-02/germany-to-close-coal-plants-in-effort-to-curb-pollution
    The country’s lignite plants generated 25.4 percent of German power last year, second only to renewables with 26.2 percent, according to AG Energiebilanzen. Hard coal accounted for 18 percent.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,951 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    As you well know Germany hasn't approved new coal plants for years (2009 AFAIK) and is phasing out the existing ones starting with the less efficient ones.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-02/germany-to-close-coal-plants-in-effort-to-curb-pollution

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Germany-energy-mix.png

    The reality is that despite the vast ongoing spend on wind and solar - Germany depends heavily on coal to keep the lights/heat on.In addition nuclear and gas all still provide more power than wind. Unless they switch more to gas or import more nuclear then these facts won't change.

    PS:Coals share of generation rises too in averge to colder winters - 2014 was a very mild winter in Germany(and unusually windy!!). This pattern is very striking in the years 2009-13


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    fclauson wrote: »
    For example if you convert the whole country to be gas based we would today be producing less C02 than we are currently but we don;t we leave things like the Eden derry peat burning going on because we have to protect other political resources like peat cutters
    Yes peat is a political issue. And together with a few CHP plants gets more subsidies than all the renewables so it's hardly value for money either.



    As I keep saying - wind displaces no thermal plant - we are not building much storage capability of any significance and all we keep adding is costs costs costs
    Oh my gosh !

    Who ever said that intermittent power sources would completely replace dispatchable ones. ? The name of the game is to reduce fossil fuel when renewables are available.

    And besides the thermal plant already exists.

    Having said that
    And we have interconnectors
    There are tidal and energy storage projects up north.
    So yes more base load and dispatchable in the pipeline.
    And there's smart meters and load shedding so a smarter grid can handle it better.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    ...
    And there's smart meters and load shedding so a smarter grid can handle it better.

    Now you are talking - load shedding / shifting is the cheapest form of "renewable" energy (or not used energy)

    I have 4Kw of PV which I try and match up with running my HP, Dish & Cloths washer etc

    I even claim for two Christmas days running my turkey cooked for nought


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fclauson wrote: »
    Point 1 - If you have 7gw if installed + 2 Gw of wind - and a max demand of 5Gw - why are you wasting money installing wind and then pay that wind around €80/Mw (which has to be used first) when it can be achieved much cheaper through other means.
    Why are you plucking figures out of thin air to suit your argument?
    fclauson wrote: »
    Point 2 - You need to install more flexible thermal (or storage) if you have wind and decommission existing plant - again more cost
    Who said anything about decommissioning? Again, you’re changing the scenario to suit your argument.

    It’s really simple. If you’ve got X GW of installed capacity, which comfortably meets peak demand, and you decide to install Y GW of wind capacity (Y < X), you don’t need to install any additional backup – it already exists.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Why are you plucking figures out of thin air to suit your argument?
    which bit of air would that be - the bit that delivers 0Mw when its not moving about or the bit when wind farms get paid to produce electricity when its not needed

    http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/energy/SiteCollectionDocuments/Renewable-Energy/Refit%20Reference%20Prices.pdf

    wind farms get around €80 per Mw (which includes getting paid when they are available to produce but the electricity is not used - constraint payments)
    Who said anything about decommissioning? Again, you’re changing the scenario to suit your argument.
    Did you read my original opening post ? - Item 2

    It’s really simple. If you’ve got X GW of installed capacity, which comfortably meets peak demand, and you decide to install Y GW of wind capacity (Y < X), you don’t need to install any additional backup – it already exists.

    again - did you read my original post - no decommissioning only installations = cost to the consumer

    I say again - is this the most cost effective method to reduce fuel dependency - no one has done (or have not published) the CBA


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,951 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    djpbarry wrote: »
    – it already exists.

    Which begs the question - why are we creating an expensive and sprawling parralell grid based on reneweables that can't be relied apon during times of peak demand??? - especcially when it would make alot more sense economically and environmentally to instead invest money on energy saving measures like retro-fitting homes etc. and converting peat/coal plants to cleaner burning gas and possibly sustaineable biomass. This would have the added benefit of reigning in spirralling energy costs for consumers and businesses.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    So you have a car - all be it a bit old - but it works its maintained and over time as bits wear or as new better performing bits come on to the market they are replaced/added.

    Then someone says - how about spending €4B on another car - now this new car is special - some days it will pull your old car (which will still have its engine running but don;t worry about that - its in case the new car fails) and some days your old car will have to pull the new one.

    We will be able to predict when this happens - but only with a reasonable degree of accuracy. There will be some days your new car wants to pull you but you don't actually need to go anywhere but you will still be paying for its needs to pull you. Other days your new car will just be a dead weight behind your old car - worse than that you new car will be using some of the power of your old car just to be pulled about. It also cannot work in really bad weather it has to be shut down when this happens - again the old car will be dragging around the dead weight then too.

    Your new car also has a couple of other odd features - its known to cause environmental noise impact which upsets its neighbours (almost regardless of the speed at which its going). Its can be seen from miles around - and ideally suited to the tops of some of the most stunning mountains/hill ranges in Ireland. It also requires many more cables to connect it - and track ways to drive up and look at it.

    The only saving grace of you new car is that when it works your old car will use less fuel and generate less C02

    Because we are bushed for time we have not looked at any other alternatives to doing this less fuel/less CO2 thing - we have also not carried any form of cost benefit analysis - or Strategic Environmental Assessments - nor do we want/expect/or demand that our planners when they write the planning conditions on how this new car should behave want them to actually implement those conditions or ensure they are followed

    Can I interest you in such a proposition?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fclauson wrote: »
    again - did you read my original post - no decommissioning only installations = cost to the consumer
    New installations cost money? What a revelation.

    Guess what – decommissioning costs money too.
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Which begs the question - why are we creating an expensive and sprawling parralell grid based on reneweables that can't be relied apon during times of peak demand???
    Because it cuts CO2 emissions (which people seem to have completely forgotten about and/or dismissed because it doesn’t suit their argument), reduces fossil fuel consumption and is pretty damn cheap to run, given that there are zero fuel costs.
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    - especcially when it would make alot more sense economically and environmentally to instead invest money on energy saving measures like retro-fitting homes etc. and converting peat/coal plants to cleaner burning gas and possibly sustaineable biomass.
    Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can’t we do all of those things?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fclauson wrote: »
    Can I interest you in such a proposition?
    Not really, because your analogy is flawed. But then, I think you know that.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Guess what – decommissioning costs money too.
    Especially Nuclear, with decommissioning costs that are only headed one way (in some cases exceeding original construction costs) and there's a shortage of long term repositories too.


    Wind Farms can be refurbished
    Although the typical price of replacement components (set of rotor blades, a gearbox and generator) is 15% - 20% of the price of a new turbine, a thorough check has to be made of the existing components to be sure that they are safe and suitable.
    and then you are good to go for another 20 years.

    Or you can sell them on to other markets, in poorer countries where people rely on diesel generators electricity costs are much higher. The trend is towards larger more efficient turbines so not as much of a resale market in OECD countries for utilities, but plenty of scope for local projects.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    djpbarry wrote: »
    New installations cost money? What a revelation.

    Because it cuts CO2 emissions (which people seem to have completely forgotten about and/or dismissed because it doesn’t suit their argument), reduces fossil fuel consumption and is pretty damn cheap to run, given that there are zero fuel costs.
    You have failed to cost justify (just like the irish Govt) that wind farms are the most economic way of creating C02 savings

    Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can’t we do all of those things?

    Cost
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Not really, because your analogy is flawed. But then, I think you know that.

    Pray - tell me which bit does not make sense - because I don't know
    ....
    then you are good to go for another 20 years.

    You are obviously not an engineer - gear boxes are failing regularly

    The massive charges Siemens incurred for inspecting and replacing main bearings in onshore wind turbines during its financial fourth quarter were due to an early degradation of the bearings in certain machines, Siemens Energy chief Lisa Davis said at a press conference.

    http://stopthesethings.com/2014/11/16/faulty-turbines-sending-siemens-wind-power-division-broke-as-samsung-cuts-runs-from-europe/

    These charges include: Costs for inspecting and replacing main bearings due to early degradation for a certain type of onshore wind turbine. These issues appear to be related to recent batches of bearings, and we are in close discussions with our supplier. And costs for blade repairs caused by harsh weather conditions, both offshore and onshore. This is a topic which we see across the industry and where we have already successfully implemented a design change for leading edge protection in our manufacturing facilities and will roll out a similar retrofit at affected
    locations


    http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2014/corporate/2014-Q4/2014-Q4-speech.pdf

    http://www.windsystemsmag.com/article/detail/515/are-transient-events-damaging-your-turbines-drivetrain

    http://www.windpowerengineering.com/design/mechanical/understanding-root-causes-axial-cracking-wind-turbine-gearbox-bearings/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fclauson wrote: »
    You have failed to cost justify (just like the irish Govt) that wind farms are the most economic way of creating C02 savings
    I never said that they were?
    fclauson wrote: »
    Cost
    Costs cannot be spread?
    fclauson wrote: »
    Pray - tell me which bit does not make sense - because I don't know

    You are obviously not an engineer…
    That’s a bit rich.

    A much better analogy would be if you offered someone a solar-powered car. The decision on whether to invest would then obviously depend on the upfront cost of the solar car, fuel costs for their conventional car, maintenance costs for both, number of sunny days in the year, etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    fclauson wrote: »
    You have failed to cost justify (just like the irish Govt) that wind farms are the most economic way of creating C02 savings
    Pray - tell me which bit does not make sense - because I don't know
    You are obviously not an engineer - gear boxes are failing regularly
    The massive charges Siemens incurred for inspecting and replacing main bearings in onshore wind turbines during its financial fourth quarter were due to an early degradation of the bearings in certain machines, Siemens Energy chief Lisa Davis said at a press conference.

    http://stopthesethings.com/2014/11/16/faulty-turbines-sending-siemens-wind-power-division-broke-as-samsung-cuts-runs-from-europe/

    These charges include: Costs for inspecting and replacing main bearings due to early degradation for a certain type of onshore wind turbine. These issues appear to be related to recent batches of bearings, and we are in close discussions with our supplier. And costs for blade repairs caused by harsh weather conditions, both offshore and onshore. This is a topic which we see across the industry and where we have already successfully implemented a design change for leading edge protection in our manufacturing facilities and will roll out a similar retrofit at affected
    locations


    http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2014/corporate/2014-Q4/2014-Q4-speech.pdf

    http://www.windsystemsmag.com/article/detail/515/are-transient-events-damaging-your-turbines-drivetrain

    http://www.windpowerengineering.com/design/mechanical/understanding-root-causes-axial-cracking-wind-turbine-gearbox-bearings/

    Of course products fail - happens in cars /trucks all the time - doesn't mean CARS ARE WRONG- bit of a daft argument really -
    One of the most consistantly windy turbine sites in the country in dunmanway has been in operation for over 15 years - the owner of the site is planning (for now) on refurbing the turbines when they revert to his ownership in a few years - not because it breaks down all the time - because they work -
    Even the article posted quoting Siemens talks about some models of gearbox not all of them -

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,951 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Because it cuts CO2 emissions (which people seem to have completely forgotten about and/or dismissed because it doesn’t suit their argument), reduces fossil fuel consumption and is pretty damn cheap to run, given that there are zero fuel costs.
    Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can’t we do all of those things?

    Every one is for reducing energy consumption,emmissions and costs. The argument is whether current energy policies that prioritise the interests of the wind industry over every other method of achieving this is the best way forward. Plenty of evidence presented here and elsewhere suggests this policy is seriously flawed on all counts.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,951 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Markcheese wrote: »
    Of course products fail - happens in cars /trucks all the time - doesn't mean CARS ARE WRONG- bit of a daft argument really -
    One of the most consistantly windy turbine sites in the country in dunmanway has been in operation for over 15 years - the owner of the site is planning (for now) on refurbing the turbines when they revert to his ownership in a few years - not because it breaks down all the time - because they work -
    Even the article posted quoting Siemens talks about some models of gearbox not all of them -

    Good for him - but you can easily point to many wind farms around the country with turbines that eitheir seem to be free wheeling due to their gears not being engaged(or similar faults) or not moving at all in steady winds. Plus in countries like Spain and the US whole hillsides are covered in rusting and abandoned wind turbines creating a serious blight on the landscape and issues with hazardious waste products leaking from their mechanisms


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 64 ✭✭signinlate


    A better analogy would be a sailing ship with an engine for when the wind is still.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,951 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    signinlate wrote: »
    A better analogy would be a sailing ship with an engine for when the wind is still.

    Power Grids are a bit more complicated than that and most conventional plant can't be turned on and off at the flick of a switch without significantly affecting their output in terms of both power and emmissions. A better analogy would be the output of a truck diesel engine in heavy city traffic compared to a steady crusing speed on a clear straight motorway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    signinlate wrote: »
    A better analogy would be a sailing ship with an engine for when the wind is still.

    No its not

    I have an engine which is doing a good job and now you want me to build a boat so that I can transport it about the place

    WHY ??


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 64 ✭✭signinlate


    fclauson wrote: »
    No its not

    I have an engine which is doing a good job and now you want me to build a boat so that I can transport it about the place

    WHY ??

    Simples.
    When the wind blows, the boat puts up its sails /grid draws power from wind farms.
    When there's no wind both use fossil fuels to move/generate power.
    Stop trying to overcomplicate things.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    So many of you just do not care about the cost or benefit of the wind program

    Lets put some numbers of this - €4Billion spent building an infrastructure in addition to what we previously had. That is approximately €18,000 per residential home in Ireland

    Something like 21% plus of homes in Ireland suffer fuel poverty (https://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/JACB201504/JACB201504.pdf)

    And the PSO level for renewabels is €173.9M (which is more than Peat - and argument which is sometimes used ) http://www.cer.ie/docs/001034/CER15110%20PSO%20Levy%202015-16%20Proposed%20Decision%20Paper.pdf

    So again I ask who can justify the wind program

    If we took that €18K and insulated homes we would
    a) remove fuel poverty
    b) increase people's health (cold kills, damp creates unhealthy living conditions) (http://www.publichealth.ie/files/file/FuelPoverty_0.pdf)
    c) radically reduce oil, gas and electrical usage
    d) create lots of jobs

    You have to remember my house uses just 200L of oil equivalent to stay warm - it will never in the 30 years I hope to live there be in fuel poverty - it never gets colder than 20C inside (or warmer than about 22C) its draft free, damp free, mould free

    wind turbines do not make economic sense when you look at all the possible ways of spending €4B


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    Markcheese wrote: »
    Of course products fail - happens in cars /trucks all the time - doesn't mean CARS ARE WRONG- bit of a daft argument really -
    One of the most consistantly windy turbine sites in the country in dunmanway has been in operation for over 15 years - the owner of the site is planning (for now) on refurbing the turbines when they revert to his ownership in a few years - not because it breaks down all the time - because they work -
    Even the article posted quoting Siemens talks about some models of gearbox not all of them -

    Who would not want to keep wind farms going if they had the finance to build one - at €80/Mwh guaranteed for 25 years (typical pay off time for a wind farm is around 7 years) its easy money paid for by the Irish consumer whom the Irish Government has no consideration for

    Also "revert to his ownership" - most sites have a planning condition that site must be returned to original state once planning life has expired - out of interest which particular wind farm is this ?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    fclauson wrote: »
    Who would not want to keep wind farms going if they had the finance to build one - at €80/Mwh guaranteed for 25 years
    Nuclear is £92.5 guaranteed for 35 years, and that price is index linked too so it'll go up.


Advertisement