Wind farms - ugly truths

Capt'n Midnight · 18-09-2015 08:05PM

fclauson wrote: »

So many of you just do not care about the cost or benefit of the wind program
....
wind turbines do not make economic sense when you look at all the possible ways of spending €4B

I've said it before, we could have bypassed eircom and rolled out fibre to the home to the whole country for less than the NRA were spending on roads.

The M50 toll bridge will cost about a billion euro, not bad for something that an initial investment of £30m

At one point, and I don't think anything has changed, we had the highest land cost for new roads in the EU, even places like the Neatherlands.

So yes insulation and energy efficiency should be a target, it just isn't happening except as a backhander to the construction industry. And the suspicion is that the grants are already factored into the prices

In GB they massively subsidise simple stuff like loft insulation. Over here there are regular threads on snakeoil like that "magic" insulation paint with the "magic" R value. Of course the paint bridged the spheres and you could never afford a thick enough layer to make any difference.

In the meantime wind rocks.
It works.
Like solar payback time is getting shorter, the subsidies per unit are going down too.

Some people don't like living near turbines. Some people don't like the government. It's impossible to please all the people all the time. I love the old joke about the farmer complaing about finally getting rain after a long dry spell "it rained on the wrong field" TBH I'd be more shocked if there weren't some begrudgers , after all it's Ireland.

Capt'n Midnight · 18-09-2015 08:21PM

Birdnuts wrote: »

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.

On and Off at a flick isn't easy. But no one except the anti-renewables brigade talks about on/off.

In the real world you are already running so it's not On and Off , it's putting the foot down on something that's already motoring. Like I keep saying we have wind forecasts that give an idea of how much power would be needed. And besides spinning reserve is already needed to cover the other fossil fuel plants.

And it's more like a diesel electric locomotive than a truck. The train from Cork still has the engine running when it's near enough free wheeling on the stretch from Kildare.

Markcheese · 18-09-2015 08:25PM

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 (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 ?

What's the planning life ?
Couldn't tell you the name of the windfarm -know the guy who's land it's on - know roughly where his house is but I've no idea of the town land the turbines are in - but it's on the right as you leave dunmanway heading for drimoleague -

Markcheese · 18-09-2015 08:34PM

Birdnuts wrote: »

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.

It's actually a really good analogy about the ship -
But the important thing is to factor in the cost of structural changes to the ship to accomadate the sails (wind turbines ) and wether or not the addition of sails leaves the ship suitable for purpose- and saves money on fuel
But to come up with a million and one reasons why "turbines are bad " cos you just don't like the look of them - I don't like the look of a lot of people's houses or where they're sited -but hey -

fclauson · 18-09-2015 09:10PM

Markcheese wrote: »

What's the planning life ?

Most wind farms have a timed planning permission which is codified into the planning conditions e.g. 20 years after commissioning they either must apply for a planning permission extension (which may get rejected) or they will have to decommission

All depends on what was set when they were originally built

fclauson · 18-09-2015 09:22PM

Markcheese wrote: »

It's actually a really good analogy about the ship -
But the important thing is to factor in the cost of structural changes to the ship to accomadate the sails (wind turbines ) and wether or not the addition of sails leaves the ship suitable for purpose- and saves money on fuel
But to come up with a million and one reasons why "turbines are bad " cos you just don't like the look of them - I don't like the look of a lot of people's houses or where they're sited -but hey -

It's not that I "don't like the look of them" I believe a proper evaluation of the right solution should have been done ( ask any of the contractors who worked on my house " assha it'll do" was not accepted and hence how I achieved Passive Certified and A1)

And it wasn't - but as captan midnight said above may be it was the easiest to implement (and made some folks rich)

It will I believe be classed as the biggest destruction of the Irish environment in years to come when there are 3000+ x 200+tonne decaying conference blocks decaying in some if the wildest and most remote unspoilt areas and tracks which interconnect these which have destroyed the underlying flora and forna

We have a duty to do what is best scientifically right and that just ain't happening

passive house was rejected by the building trade in Ireland in 2004 as being too hard and not as profitable to build - just consider if all of the housing built since then were as efficient as mine !!!!

We still have houses being built with 4in/100mm cavity with 70mm of board poorly fitted in them #madness
/100mm

Markcheese · 18-09-2015 09:49PM

You may well be right that in the future wind farms may be seen as a mistake- but the biggest environmental disaster ever- a bit melodramatic really - slabs of concrete (and relatively little in the grand scheme) that'll be grown over ? Track ways that'll revert to scrub after a few years- the turbines and their masts will be gone to the recycling yards-
I'm not convinced of the economics of wind turbines ( but I'm not an economist either) but would have thought they had their place in the power mix -and are a hedge against spikes in gas/coal prices-
I do think there should be tendering for energy efficency projects - and those with the most bang for the buck prioritized . Wether it be the best location for a renewable energy source- a biomass project or insulation (draught proofing) -

Mountainsandh · 19-09-2015 12:03AM

Markcheese wrote: »

But to come up with a million and one reasons why "turbines are bad " cos you just don't like the look of them - I don't like the look of a lot of people's houses or where they're sited -but hey -

The visual argument goes beyond that. Ireland's looks are worth money. Tourists come from countries more defaced to enjoy Irish landscapes. What's that phrase again they use a lot to describe Ireland ?
Oh yeah... wild, unspoilt.

I'm just back from taking pics along the Beara peninsula. No houses in my pics so far. Had to dodge a wind farm while composing my shots though.

fclauson · 19-09-2015 06:24AM

€4 Billion of Infrastructure producing 6Mw today - and we are exporting via the inter-connector 10% of the electricity we are producing (mainly Gas and Coal)

So back to my opening post
No infrastructure decommissioned
All new infrastructure is a cost burden not a swap for old infrastructure
You have to ramp power stations ahead of demand (hence exporting)

Capt'n Midnight · 19-09-2015 08:32PM

fclauson wrote: »

€4 Billion of Infrastructure producing 6Mw today - and we are exporting via the inter-connector 10% of the electricity we are producing (mainly Gas and Coal)

Thats still 6MW more than the EPR's that have been under construction since 2005 :P

And more than Japan has averaged over the last 4 years from Nuclear.

But nuclear is reliable enough for base load ?
I still think it needs too much spinning reserve.
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL5N11N1FB20150917
http://wincountry.com/news/articles/2015/sep/17/breakdown-takes-nuclear-power-plant-near-covert-offline/
http://westfaironline.com/74290/outage-planned-for-indian-point-reactor-after-water-leaks/

A lot of these outages this time of year are for refuelling but still it's interesting to slide back in time
http://www.eia.gov/beta/outages/

BTW

and we had up to 1,901MW on 28/8

and France now has 10GW of wind http://renewables.seenews.com/news/wind-power-crosses-10-gw-mark-in-france-492870

September 10 (SeeNews) - The world added 21.7 GW new wind power capacity in the first six months of the year, bring the total to 393 GW at the end of June, the World Wind Energy Association said.

https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm

As of June 01, 2015 in 31 countries 438 nuclear power plant units with an installed electric net capacity of about 379 GW are in operation and 67 plants with an installed capacity of 65 GW are in 16 countries under construction.

So in case there is any confusion. Nameplate capacity of wind has now surpassed that of nuclear. And the nameplate capacity of wind installed this year exceeds all the nuclear plants under construction, and a good few of those plants have been under construction for ages. Shows that worldwide people think wind works.

Capacity factor of wind is 30-35% vs nuclear at 80% means that wind could be producing more power than nuclear sooner than most people realise.

Birdnuts · 20-09-2015 12:52AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

. Shows that worldwide people think wind works.

Capacity factor of wind is 30-35% vs nuclear at 80% means that wind could be producing more power than nuclear sooner than most people realise.

Hmmm...Spain,UK and Australia are all cutting back support for wind on the back of escalating costs and other issues and the wind industries there are none too pleased with much shrill whining and lobbying, so the assumption that support for wind is currently worldwide is debatable to say the least. The capacity factors you quote - are they French?? Seem rather high given Irish capacity factors can be well under 30% from year to year - indeed the last stats I've seen on this shows Irish CF's are typically under 30% and substantially lower than that in cold winters such as 2010

fclauson · 20-09-2015 12:50PM

Some more facts an figures to consume - Whetley thinks that wind saves around 0.27 tCO2/Mw

see http://joewheatley.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/co2.pdf

It appears surprising at first sight that emissions savings (0.28tCO2/MWh)
are even lower than the emissions intensity of the cleanest thermal generators on the grid,

From my own research we also find EIS's of developers often over determine the CO2 benefits - and if Wheatly is right - the savings are even worse

This makes the pay back time for the concrete, steel etc and the environmental damage (roads, cables etc) much longer than previously predicted

djpbarry · 22-09-2015 02:22PM

Birdnuts wrote: »

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.

But that’s an argument against government policy, not an argument against harnessing renewable energy. As I said, there’s absolutely no reason why we can’t improve energy efficiency and harness renewables.

Birdnuts wrote: »

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.

Seem to be?

Birdnuts wrote: »

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

I’m not convinced that’s the case, but anyway, there’s a derelict house near where I live – we should probably stop building houses.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Hmmm...Spain,UK and Australia are all cutting back support for wind on the back of escalating costs and other issues and the wind industries there are none too pleased with much shrill whining and lobbying…

Eh, no. Government support for renewables are being phased out in the UK because the costs of such installations are falling fast. That and the fact that the Tories don’t believe in spending money on anything.

djpbarry · 22-09-2015 02:29PM

fclauson wrote: »

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 waste time and money building a “passive house” when there already exist plenty of perfectly good houses?

fclauson wrote: »

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

So you’re saying that’s €4 billion for, what, about 2.2 GW of capacity? Let’s say that generates about 730 MW on average and let’s say each wind turbine has a lifetime of about 20 years. Let’s allow an extra 10% (€400,000) for maintenance. That gives a very conservative estimate of €34 per MWh.

Are you trying to argue that’s expensive?

fclauson wrote: »

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

No, that’s the total figure for renewables.

djpbarry · 22-09-2015 02:41PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The visual argument goes beyond that. Ireland's looks are worth money. Tourists come from countries more defaced to enjoy Irish landscapes. What's that phrase again they use a lot to describe Ireland ?
Oh yeah... wild, unspoilt.

Anyone who thinks Ireland is in any way “wild and unspoilt” is utterly deluded.

fclauson · 22-09-2015 03:01PM

djpbarry wrote: »

...
So you’re saying that’s €4 billion for, what, about 2.2 GW of capacity? Let’s say that generates about 730 MW on average and let’s say each wind turbine has a lifetime of about 20 years. Let’s allow an extra 10% (€400,000) for maintenance. That gives a very conservative estimate of €34 per MWh.

10% of €4B is not 400K - and what is 730Mw - should that be is Mwh ?

Could you clarify your maths

Mountainsandh · 22-09-2015 03:31PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Anyone who thinks Ireland is in any way “wild and unspoilt” is utterly deluded.

It seems the Irish tourism board disagrees with you in its marketing.
I would guess that in a list of 10 adjectives about Ireland, most foreign nations would pick wild and unspoilt as best describing the country (along with others.)

Wild, rugged, unspoilt and untamed, where land and sea collide, this is Ireland's last frontier against the power of the Atlantic.

This is where you can journey along our nation's soul. Set to be the longest defined coastal touring route in the world, the Wild Atlantic Way was officially launched in March 2014, to promote the stunning coastal environment and natural landscape along its 2,400km route.

The Wild Atlantic Way will attract many thousands of visitors from all over the world as they embark on an incredible route that has been shaped and inspired by the invading sea and rugged land. The starting point of this journey is Kinsale, from where you will take in the stunning West Cork and Kerry coastline, following north up the western seaboard and finishing in Inishowen, Co.Donegal (or vice versa!).
Signposting along the route into ballybunion is now completed so that tourists can also enjoy this slice of paradise in North Kerry. But no matter which location you start from, the Wild Atlantic Way is sure to have you wanting to return to Ireland again and again.

http://www.ireland.com/wild-atlantic-way/

Erris is a glorious, wild, unspoilt and stunning little-known area. It’s almost totally undeveloped.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/irish-times-names-shortlist-in-best-place-to-go-wild-in-ireland-1.1811684

“Wild, Scenic & Unspoilt!” 5 of 5 stars
Review of Blacksod Bay

http://www.tripadvisor.ie/ShowUserReviews-g211862-d1192388-r304922263-Blacksod_Bay-Belmullet_County_Mayo_Western_Ireland.html

351,000 more results for "wild unspoilt Ireland", and that's just the English speaking tourism marketing bit.

On the Failte Ireland Tourism facts survey report for 2014 :

- 85% of overseas tourists thought that the "natural, unspoilt environment" was important, and 90% were satisfied with what they witnessed here.

- 90% thought beautiful scenery was important when making the choice to come over, and 95% were satisfied at what they found.

Page 6.
http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/3_Research_Insights/3_General_SurveysReports/Failte-Ireland-Tourism-Facts-2014-update.pdf?ext=.pdf

Importance and rating of destination issues among overseas holidaymakers (%)
Source: Fáilte Ireland’s Port Survey of Overseas Holidaymakers 2014

Your statement above is just a cynical, biased and deliberate attempt to belittle one of Ireland's strongest tourism (and social) asset : its scenery.

Rather than adopt that stance, it would be more effective to claim that in order to protect that asset in the global climate outlook, some will have to be sacrificed.

djpbarry · 22-09-2015 03:53PM

fclauson wrote: »

10% of €4B is not 400K - and what is 730Mw - should that be is Mwh ?

Could you clarify your maths

Sorry, 10% of €4 billion is obviously €400 million.

Installed wind capacity is about 2.2 GW, so I’m assuming that, on average, about 730 MW (one third of 2.2 GW) is being generated from wind.

djpbarry · 22-09-2015 03:53PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

It seems the Irish tourism board disagrees with you in its marketing.

So what? A huge amount of land in Ireland is used for cultivating grass – that’s hardly “wild and unspoilt”.

Mountainsandh · 22-09-2015 04:19PM

djpbarry wrote: »

So what? A huge amount of land in Ireland is used for cultivating grass – that’s hardly “wild and unspoilt”.

Tourists' perception is the point here, not technicalities.

The point is also whether or not these tourists will keep coming when the country's scenery is "spoilt" and no longer "wild" in their understanding of the word.

Your perception of the meaning of such words is irrelevant here.

signinlate · 22-09-2015 05:40PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Tourists' perception is the point here, not technicalities.

The point is also whether or not these tourists will keep coming when the country's scenery is "spoilt" and no longer "wild" in their understanding of the word.

Your perception of the meaning of such words is irrelevant here.

The most recent Bord Fáilte survey results reported by RTE in September 2013 showed that seven out of ten tourists (70%) holidaying in Ireland said that the presence of wind farms had either a positive effect or “no impact” at all on their likelihood to visit the country again. Of those tourists who did see a wind turbine 32% said it actually enhanced it, while 47% said it made no difference one way or the other (a total of 79%).

djpbarry · 22-09-2015 06:06PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Tourists' perception is the point here, not technicalities.

Well, yeah, that's my point. You're telling me that tourists perceive Ireland's landscape to be wild and unspoilt, when in fact it is largely man-made, so it's a poor argument against building something.

Capt'n Midnight · 22-09-2015 06:10PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Anyone who thinks Ireland is in any way “wild and unspoilt” is utterly deluded.

+1

We've been altering the landscape for the last 7,000 years.

If it's not oak forest, lake or bog then it's an artificial landscape. AFAIK even the Aran Islands used to be tree covered. IIRC we were down to 3% forest coverage at one stage and much of that was managed estates.

fclauson · 22-09-2015 08:12PM

djpbarry wrote: »

....That gives a very conservative estimate of €34 per MWh.....

Not bad when they get paid €80 Mwh REFIT payment for 25 years

Markcheese · 22-09-2015 08:25PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Tourists' perception is the point here, not technicalities.

The point is also whether or not these tourists will keep coming when the country's scenery is "spoilt" and no longer "wild" in their understanding of the word.

Your perception of the meaning of such words is irrelevant here.

Incidentally another part of our image is green which wind turbines add to - and back to my tourism in west-cork / Kerry -there's plenty of wind farms -and plenty of tourists there . Would there be more tourist if there was no wind farms ? I doubt it -

Mountainsandh · 22-09-2015 10:25PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, yeah, that's my point. You're telling me that tourists perceive Ireland's landscape to be wild and unspoilt, when in fact it is largely man-made, so it's a poor argument against building something.

So what, are you going to approach bus loads of French people to tell them that the grassy fields and hedges are manmade ? That Ireland should be covered in oak and hazel ?

My point is that if the face of Ireland is altered to the point where the perception of tourists becomes that of an industrialized landscape, they will stop coming.

Not altogether, because Ireland also has friendliness and culture going for it, but the effect would be greatly felt imo.

The most recent Bord Fáilte survey results reported by RTE in September 2013 showed that seven out of ten tourists (70%) holidaying in Ireland said that the presence of wind farms had either a positive effect or “no impact” at all on their likelihood to visit the country again. Of those tourists who did see a wind turbine 32% said it actually enhanced it, while 47% said it made no difference one way or the other (a total of 79%).

Yeah signinlate, that little tidbit is always dug out in such discussion.

Ireland is fine as it is. Of course it must have wind farms, to an extent. And tourists like the green approach, to an extent.
But the surface area of Ireland is such that really, a line has to be drawn somewhere as to the number of wind farms that should be allowed. It should certainly not be an access all areas situation, and it should certainly not be approached with "more is better" blinders.

The same tourists that answered the survey above may also be the ones to complain when their native region is pincushioned with turbines.

Of all the French people I know, every single one of them will roll eyes at the mention of turbines : "it was grand up to a certain point, but now it's just ridiculous".

Ask around, if you get a chance to travel.

So the one off survey, at a stage when Ireland had a reasonable proportion of turbines per surface area, yeah, good.

But the same survey in some 10 years time if wind farms multiply to a point where they can't be dodged out of a phone panorama, and where they are present on all scenic panoramas... would more than likely have a very different outcome, imo.

Birdnuts · 22-09-2015 10:37PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh, no. Government support for renewables are being phased out in the UK because the costs of such installations are falling fast. That and the fact that the Tories don’t believe in spending money on anything.

Well thats not really true now is it

http://www.capx.co/britain-acts-to-curb-renewable-subsidies-to-rein-in-spiralling-energy-bills/

Mountainsandh · 22-09-2015 10:37PM

Markcheese wrote: »

Incidentally another part of our image is green which wind turbines add to - and back to my tourism in west-cork / Kerry -there's plenty of wind farms -and plenty of tourists there . Would there be more tourist if there was no wind farms ? I doubt it -

No, the question to ask at this point in time is more : would there be the same amount of tourists there if there were more wind farms ?
Think ahead, in 10, 20 years (when some of these turbines will be rusty skeletons up a hill), 30, 40 years.

We've been altering the landscape for the last 7,000 years.

CM you and I are aware of that, the tourists aren't.

Are you going to tell them that, when the place is covered in wind turbines ?
"well sure you know, we've been at it for years, it never really was wild in the first place."

Is that really an argument for altering the landscape drastically ? Because the erection of highly visible turbines with all ancillaries is pretty drastic in my book.

And again, at the scale of Ireland vs most other European countries, it takes on a different dimension.

Birdnuts · 22-09-2015 10:46PM

signinlate wrote: »

The most recent Bord Fáilte survey results reported by RTE in September 2013 showed that seven out of ten tourists (70%) holidaying in Ireland said that the presence of wind farms had either a positive effect or “no impact” at all on their likelihood to visit the country again. Of those tourists who did see a wind turbine 32% said it actually enhanced it, while 47% said it made no difference one way or the other (a total of 79%).

Can you give a link to that and how the questions were actually phrased??

Many tourists visit Ireland on city breaks so wind farms on a hill in Kerry won't affect them. Others however are coming to experience the likes of the Wild Atlantic way and other such natural delights and these are being heavily marketed by the government atm.

In that regard there is already evidence of negative affects of poorly planned wind farm developments

http://www.leinsterexpress.ie/news/local-news/tipp-turbines-appalling-castle-owner-1-6260085

Whe also need to learn the lessons from the likes of Scotland that also depends heavily on scenery etc. for tourism in more remote areas

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/survey-shows-wind-farms-are-damaging-scottish-mountain-tourism

Birdnuts · 22-09-2015 10:51PM

Markcheese wrote: »

Incidentally another part of our image is green which wind turbines add to - and back to my tourism in west-cork / Kerry -there's plenty of wind farms -and plenty of tourists there . Would there be more tourist if there was no wind farms ? I doubt it -

Most of the turbines are in North and East Kerry - the main tourist areas are in the S and W where wind farm development is eithier banned or severly restricted. Indeed tourism interests in the North of the county have rising concerns about the number of wind farms in that part of the county

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/tourism-fears-over-windfarms-31495675.html

Wind farms - ugly truths

Comments