Ireland to build 'giant' wind turbines to power UK homes

Markcheese · 02-04-2013 9:07am

OldIrishWulf wrote: »

What should be blown up first ? The turbines or the Dail .

I quite like the dail, great building, bit of a pest problem though, gets cleared every 4/5 years and then some morons keep putting them back...

Chloe Pink · 02-04-2013 4:57pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And yet when I mention that similar events happen to nuclear power plants ...

I point to the link below which shows nuclear as having the lowest number of deaths per TWh.

Not quite sure what this as to do with wind turbines though as wind turbines are unlikely to displace / replace any other generators.

"I haven't checked the source of this but it's a start
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/dea...gy-source.html
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) CORRECTED
Coal (elect, heat,cook –world avg) 100 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal electricity – world avg 60 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal (elect,heat,cook)– China 170
Coal electricity- China 90
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat
12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)"

Chloe Pink · 02-04-2013 5:06pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The first one was a cheapo chinese domestic turbine already mentioned IIRC 11 of them failed and the big problem is that the farmers won't get their money back.

the picture on number two is from 2011

At this stage I'd regard any thing the indo prints with a pinch of salt, and if you want to see the pictures check out one of my previous posts.

As already pointed out, the Ardrossan turbine wasn't Chinese.
What's the big deal about 2011.
Anything to counteract the picture beyond your personal newspaper bias.

Capt'n Midnight · 02-04-2013 5:39pm

Chloe Pink wrote: »

I point to the link below which shows nuclear as having the lowest number of deaths per TWh.

So you are saying that wind is the safest form of energy apart from Hydro and Nuclear ?

That link doesn't say where figures come from, so may be selective.
They include a figure for rooftop solar.

And Nuclear is just too expensive
UK nuclear plans set back 5 years and first plant already has another £2 Bn added to the price tag.

Not quite sure what this as to do with wind turbines though as wind turbines are unlikely to displace / replace any other generators.

U.S. Renewable Energy Production Now Tops Nuclear Power :P

Also I'm going to keep reminding you that renewables in the UK have to contribute to the £160m a year to provide standby generation to cater for nuclear going offline. It's an example that any grid with Nuclear has to have quite a lot of spare capacity to cover a reactor going offline.

Jester252 · 02-04-2013 6:17pm

Chloe Pink wrote: »

I point to the link below which shows nuclear as having the lowest number of deaths per TWh.

Not quite sure what this as to do with wind turbines though as wind turbines are unlikely to displace / replace any other generators.

"I haven't checked the source of this but it's a start
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/dea...gy-source.html
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) CORRECTED
Coal (elect, heat,cook –world avg) 100 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal electricity – world avg 60 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal (elect,heat,cook)– China 170
Coal electricity- China 90
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat
12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)"

Some credit would be nice.
Still wind has less death than most other forms so why is the safety of wind in question?

jesus_thats_gre · 02-04-2013 6:25pm

Janedoe10 wrote: »

I guess seeing pictures and reading reports of potential hazards in your environs is going to cause anxiety !

I didn't have to search far to get these .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8998171/Wind-turbine-blades-fly-off-in-storm.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2071633/UK-weather-Wind-turbine-EXPLODES-hurricane-force-gusts-batter-Northern-Britain.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/safety-concerns-after-wind-turbine-snaps-and-falls-during-storm-29151242.html

Apartment buildings, walls and trucks looks a lot more dangerous:

Chloe Pink · 02-04-2013 7:24pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So you are saying that wind is the safest form of energy apart from Hydro and Nuclear ?
That link doesn't say where figures come from, so may be selective.
They include a figure for rooftop solar.

I'm saying that this source shows nuclear to be safest.
If you're not happy with this source of info go and find another one to counteract it.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And Nuclear is just too expensive
UK nuclear plans set back 5 years and first plant already has another £2 Bn added to the price tag.

Wrong thread again

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

U.S. Renewable Energy Production Now Tops Nuclear Power :P
Also I'm going to keep reminding you that renewables in the UK have to contribute to the £160m a year to provide standby generation to cater for nuclear going offline. It's an example that any grid with Nuclear has to have quite a lot of spare capacity to cover a reactor going offline.

Try reading the link below again CM; it doesn't state nuclear but the same principle applies and bear in mind we had nukes running happily without renewableas (excepting hydro where it's storage aspect was the relevant bit not its generation aspect).
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/8061708.htm
" 9. Excluding these factors, the weekday availability (actual availability/maximum total availability) of thermal (ie burning coal, gas, oil or biomass) plant over the winter period is about 95% with breakdowns accounting for 5% of maximum total availability. Crucially, breakdowns are generally not correlated with each other. There are exceptions and these have to be taken into account (such as loss of gas supply at a number of stations, or type faults), but they are generally a small effect. So, if a unit at Station X is unavailable, there is no reason to suppose that another unit at a different station is going to be unavailable. This means that conventional units are very effective at backing each other up, especially when the portfolio contains a mixture of plant types and fuels."

And for those who are on this thread because it's about wind and not about nuclear, from the same link:
"Our assessment of winter wind generation data in 2007URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/8061708.htm#note5"]5[/URL indicates that the system operator could rely on 8% of total UK wind capacity to meet winter peak demand at the same level of dependability as thermal plant. On this basis, if the UK required, say, 40,000MW of wind capacity to meet its renewable target by 2020, only 8% of this renewable capacity (3,600MW) could be relied on to meet winter peak demand."

Chloe Pink · 02-04-2013 7:44pm

Jester252 wrote: »

Some credit would be nice.
Still wind has less death than most other forms so why is the safety of wind in question?

Ah yes, my apologies Jester252; it was infact you who provided the link re deaths per TWh and a refreshing change it was that your post contributed something to the discussion.

If one energy generator offers a replacement for another, then the choice of which to use would take into account all aspects of each generator e.g. benefits, disbenefits, costs, intermittancy etc and safety.

Wind turbines are not replacement generators, they are additional so to a large degree, where they rank in the safety record is irrelelvant; their safety aspect is just another factor in weighing up the pros and cons of an additional generator to the system and the accidents are additional to those already encountered in an electricity generating system.

The safety of wind is also of concern, especially in Ireland, as there appear to be no safeguards in place e.g. minimunm setbacks from homes, roads, footpaths, byways, bridleways and neighbours land etc

And it is also of increasing concern because as more turbines are built the less suitable the available sites are likely to be on the basis that the more suitable available sites were taken first.

Chloe Pink · 02-04-2013 7:52pm

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Apartment buildings, walls and trucks looks a lot more dangerous:

Maybe but no-ones sleeping on the pavement or in the middle of the road

Chloe Pink · 02-04-2013 8:46pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Those are our guidelines yes. In practice 500m is a minimum separation save for landowners hosting a turbine and who contractually opt into a lesser separation to their house only.

I've read a link on this thread where the Irish wind inustry wanted to be able to put a 100m tall, 3MW turbine 300m from homes - can't pinpoint it at the mo.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/255-ioa-critique
What does this mean exactly then??? I'd like a summary explanation.

Well you could try reading the intro which I've extracted below.

In terms of it's relevance to your posts re 500meter setbacks, it shows how and when noise from a turbine is likely to give rise to complaint with regards to wind shear from properties 750 metres away.

This is despite the noise limits in place.

In Ireland there aren't even any noise limits.

"Introduction

Wind turbine noise is a problem of considerable concern to prospective and actual neighbours of wind farms, to wind power developers, and to decision makers in the planning system. The current guidance used in the United Kingdom for setting wind farm noise limits at neighbouring properties is the sixteen year old document The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, commonly known by its reference number, ETSU-R-97, a convention we adopt in this article. Unfortunately, ETSU-R-97 contains errors and omissions which limit its utility for noise assessment.

A fundamental requirement for the accurate prediction and assessment of turbine noise at neighbouring dwellings is an understanding of wind shear (the variation of wind speeds at different altitudes) and how this varies with time of day, wind speed, topography, and other variables. The authors of ETSU-R-97 were not meteorologists, and failed to understand that wind shear varies, and quite substantially, according to time of day. For example, after sunset when the solar heating of the ground and the near ground atmosphere ceases, wind shear tends to increase, with the result that wind speeds at turbine blade heights are considerably greater than wind speeds at or near ground level. This leads to high turbine speeds and thus high turbine noise levels at times when wind-induced masking noise nearer the ground is minimal. It is not surprising therefore, that many of the complaints about turbine noise arise in relation to evening and night time disturbance.

The ETSU-R-97 approach to wind shear leads to noise assessments that considerably understate the noise impact of wind farm developments, and also to noise conditions that are breached at times of high wind shear. In an attempt to rectify this situation, a group of acousticians published alternative guidance in the Acoustics Bulletin in 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Bulletin or the Bulletin method).[2] However, that paper made no attempt to validate the suggested modification to existing guidance or to determine if it was an effective methodology for dealing with the issue of wind shear in turbine noise assessments. This information note seeks to fill that gap."

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Only where one is north(ish) of a turbine. If south it is irrelevant. Shadow flicker effects are frequently psychosomatic anyway.

Good to see you know how shadows are cast.
There is nothing psychosomatic about shadow flicker or its effects; there's a video of it earlier in this thread.
The important thing is that if shadow flicker will occur (it can be calculated), then it can and should be prevented through curtailment and this shouild be in a planning condition if permission is granted.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

If turbines are so noisy/obtrusive please explain why there is such a difference between these three pictures from Galway.

1. 2000 Link
2. 2005 Link
3. 2012 Link

and where people are shown steadily building houses within 300m of a windfarm over a 10 year plus period.

In fact the number of houses within 500m TREBLED over that time and those people even applied for planning permission to live there.

No idea SB, and can't tell much from the photos either like how many turbines, what size turbines, how many houses, who built the houses etc - perhaps you could find some more info - you obviously know about it and weren't just looking at ariel photographs and remembered what they looked like ten years previous.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Thats a website, where is the study you refer to???

I've no idea, it's was just a throw away from WIKI - see gearless turbine here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_design

I'm hardly going to run around finding loads of research to counteract something for which you've posted no evidence at all:
Where's your support for
"no turbine will be located anywhere that close to a house anyway."
and
"None of these turbines where blades broke up under rotation were modern...generally only 1990s geared designs. A more modern turbine would shut down quicker and rotation is therefore not an issue as there ain't none."

jesus_thats_gre · 02-04-2013 10:03pm

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Maybe but no-ones sleeping on the pavement or in the middle of the road

Yeah but they are doing something as rudimentary as driving in car. I think a bit of perspective is needed to be honest as if you analyse anything to the depth that you are, you can arrive at the same conclusions.

Chloe Pink · 02-04-2013 10:19pm

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Yeah but they are doing something as rudimentary as driving in car. I think a bit of perspective is needed to be honest as if you analyse anything to the depth that you are, you can arrive at the same conclusions.

Of course there are things that are more dangerous than wind turbines, loads of them but that doesn't negate the disbenefits of this technology.
And people don't drive their car 24/7 for 25 years.
Besides cars are quite useful

Chloe Pink · 02-04-2013 10:21pm

More food for thought re low frequency noise - this time from Australia

http://www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/?page=Story&StoryID=1394

Jester252 · 02-04-2013 11:08pm

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Ah yes, my apologies Jester252; it was infact you who provided the link re deaths per TWh and a refreshing change it was that your post contributed something to the discussion.

A bit rich coming from you

If one energy generator offers a replacement for another, then the choice of which to use would take into account all aspects of each generator e.g. benefits, disbenefits, costs, intermittancy etc and safety.

Wind turbines are not replacement generators, they are additional so to a large degree, where they rank in the safety record is irrelelvant; their safety aspect is just another factor in weighing up the pros and cons of an additional generator to the system and the accidents are additional to those already encountered in an electricity generating system.

You do understand how wind work? While they might not replace a turbine they reduce the amount of time another fossil fuel turbine is online.
If safety is not an issue why bring it up?

The safety of wind is also of concern, especially in Ireland, as there appear to be no safeguards in place e.g. minimunm setbacks from homes, roads, footpaths, byways, bridleways and neighbours land etc

That irrelevant (according to you)

And it is also of increasing concern because as more turbines are built the less suitable the available sites are likely to be on the basis that the more suitable available sites were taken first.

The same could be said about schools, house, roads, power plants. Should we stop building them too?

Jester252 · 02-04-2013 11:43pm

Chloe Pink wrote: »

More food for thought re low frequency noise - this time from Australia

http://www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/?page=Story&StoryID=1394

LOL

Maudi · 02-04-2013 11:50pm

Jester252 wrote: »

LOL

not convinced about these yokes yet but i have a friend who lives on the wexford/arklow border and he confirmed that when the wind blows from the east (rarely admittidly) his family can hear the *whump .whump* of those turbines off the arklow coast..he lives on the coast six k from them.

Sponge Bob · 03-04-2013 12:44am

Chloe Pink wrote: »

No idea SB, and can't tell much from the photos either like how many turbines, what size turbines, how many houses, who built the houses etc - perhaps you could find some more info - you obviously know about it and weren't just looking at ariel photographs and remembered what they looked like ten years previous.

So you are unable to zoom in and look, are you ????

I put it to you that by clicking on the first and third links out of three, and zooming in and out a tad to check, you will see that there are 3 times as many houses within 500m of the turbines in 2012 as in 2000. To make it simple the turbines are large Vestas, in situ since the late 1990s and are in the top part of the aerial photo links. Helpfully they are ALL coloured white and in a bog!

I'll repeat the question and the links .

"If turbines are so noisy/obtrusive please explain why there is such a difference between these three pictures from Galway.

1. 2000 Link
2. 2005 Link
3. 2012 Link

and where people are shown steadily building houses within 300m of a windfarm over a 10 year plus period.

In fact the number of houses within 500m TREBLED over that time and those people even applied for planning permission to live there."

I've no idea, it's was just a throw away from WIKI - see gearless turbine here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_design

I'm hardly going to run around finding loads of research to counteract something for which you've posted no evidence at all:

Aw well , there goes another one of your links. I know you are not running around finding loads of research Chloe.

Jester252 · 03-04-2013 1:10am

Maudi wrote: »

not convinced about these yokes yet but i have a friend who lives on the wexford/arklow border and he confirmed that when the wind blows from the east (rarely admittidly) his family can hear the *whump .whump* of those turbines off the arklow coast..he lives on the coast six k from them.

Did you watch the video. 3e would have done better.

Maudi · 03-04-2013 8:03am

Jester252 wrote: »

Did you watch the video. 3e would have done better.

no?dnt see it.

Chloe Pink · 03-04-2013 2:33pm

Jester252 wrote: »

While they might not replace a turbine they reduce the amount of time another fossil fuel turbine is online.

The same could be said about schools, house, roads, power plants. Should we stop building them too?

Wind turbines can prevent the burning of a little fossil fuel; that doesn't necessarily mean that other generators can go offline.

When considering whether to build anything, it's benefits and disbenefits should be weighed up.
The need for schools, houses, roads and other power generators has to be justified and if they are, the necessary safety measures are put in place as part of the permissions and requirements from other regulatory bodies.

Why you seem to think wind turbines should be exempt from any care of those they impact is bizarre.

Chloe Pink · 03-04-2013 2:52pm

SB, if you have a point to make, make it rather than pointing to Bing maps which don't name the wind turbine site, or give the height of the turbines or their MWs or show whether the nearby buldings are houses or businesses or show who built the houses and or show whether they are occupied or whether the turbines are operating etc.

It does show some great big turbine shadows though.

Issues with wind turbines can be very location specific
It may well be that this turbine site is OK due to the topography, layout, prevailing winds and a host of other things.
But that doesn't mean that every site it OK and as the MW size of the turbines is increasing so it seems are the issues.
Maudi's friend and family can sometimes hear the whump whump of turbines 6km away.

I have provided many links to information and research on this thread - it's there for the looking.

Sponge Bob · 03-04-2013 3:52pm

Chloe Pink wrote: »

SB, if you have a point to make, make it rather than pointing to Bing maps which don't name the wind turbine site, or give the height of the turbines or show whether the nearby buldings are houses or businesses or show who built the houses and or show whether they are occupied or whether the turbines are operating etc.

It does show some great big turbine shadows though.

Only big turbines cast a big shadow Chloe. But no matter. That windfarm I linked to has been there for many many years in Ireland and people continued to build houses near it and live in them as shown in the my links. People choosing to build 300m or 400m or 500m from a windfarm tends to obviate some of the more hysterical assertions in this thread.

The location, BTW, is obvious if you zoom OUT!

I have provided many links to information and research on this thread - it's there for the looking.

I love that suicidal parachutist you found when you posted a link mentioning 3 people in the whole world who committed suicide by windfarm. Comedy Gold that.

Jester252 · 03-04-2013 3:57pm

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Wind turbines can prevent the burning of a little fossil fuel; that doesn't necessarily mean that other generators can go offline.

When considering whether to build anything, it's benefits and disbenefits should be weighed up.
The need for schools, houses, roads and other power generators has to be justified and if they are, the necessary safety measures are put in place as part of the permissions and requirements from other regulatory bodies.

Why you seem to think wind turbines should be exempt from any care of those they impact is bizarre.

You bring up safety as an issue but the safety record is irrelevant. Do you read what you type?
There is a need for wind turbines. Alternative energy is reducing especially wind is reducing the amount of fossil fuels being burned. This is not a little and other generators are offline because of wind. I never said wind turbine should be exempt from regulation and they do have regulations. The "impact" thar

Chloe Pink · 03-04-2013 4:00pm

My best guess SB is that it's the Inverin site, 5 x 0.66MW turbines, about 70metres high.

Nothing like the MW of those being proposed so LFN low frequency noise at Inverin is unlikely to be the issue it is with greater MW turbines.

It is the larger MW turbines that seem to be causing more disturbance than the smaller MW ones - it's all on this thread, the acoustics studies, the Canadian government's commissioned study on LFN and Denmarks new (2012) noise limits for LFN etc

Jester252 · 03-04-2013 4:03pm

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Issues with wind turbines can be very location specific
It may well be that this turbine site is OK due to the topography, layout, prevailing winds and a host of other things.
But that doesn't mean that every site it OK and as the MW size of the turbines is increasing so it seems are the issues.
Maudi's friend and family can sometimes hear the whump whump of turbines 6km away.

So someone on the internet said it therefore its true. Good to see your sticking with your usual "fact" gather method

I have provided many links to information and research on this thread - it's there for the looking.

Information taken from anti wind site most of the time and lets not forget your love of REF "research".

Capt'n Midnight · 03-04-2013 4:03pm

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Wind turbines can prevent the burning of a little fossil fuel; that doesn't necessarily mean that other generators can go offline.

a, it's not a little

b, Demand changes during the year and during the day so much of the existing capacity is well able to ramp up and down as needed. Wind is predicted 4 days in advance here.

Again it's not wind that's being subsidised to the tune of £160m a year to cover extra standby generating costs in the UK

Chloe Pink · 03-04-2013 4:09pm

Jester252 wrote: »

I never said wind turbine should be exempt from regulation and they do have regulations.

Could you point us to the regulations for Ireland please.

Oh and if you have any scientific evidence to counteract the Danish and Canadian Authorities concerns and actions on wind turbine noise and the information from the acoustics societies and all the others, please do post it.

Jester252 · 03-04-2013 4:52pm

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Could you point us to the regulations for Ireland please.

Oh and if you have any scientific evidence to counteract the Danish and Canadian Authorities concerns and actions on wind turbine noise and the information from the acoustics societies and all the others, please do post it.

I have done multiple time and you brushed it aside because it failed to fit into your opinion on wind turbines. One of the report was even a report already carried out in Canadian. Try not bog down the tread again.
Do you have anything useful to add?

As for regulators
Eirgrid, ESB, DCENR, An Bord Pleanala the list goes on and on.
You must do an EIS if the warm is over 5 turbines or 5MW.

Chloe Pink · 03-04-2013 5:01pm

Jester252 wrote: »

As for regulators
Eirgrid, ESB, DCENR, An Bord Pleanala the list goes on and on.
You must do an EIS if the warm is over 5 turbines or 5MW.

That's a list of regulators and an EIS is an Environmental Impact Statement (an exercise following a methodology)
Where are the Irish regulations for wind turbines in particular that involving setback distances and noise.

And still no scientific evidence to counteract the concerns and actions of the Canadian and Danish Authorities etc

Jester252 · 03-04-2013 5:31pm

Chloe Pink wrote: »

That's a list of regulators and an EIS is an Environmental Impact Statement (an exercise following a methodology)
Where are the Irish regulations for wind turbines in particular that involving setback distances and noise.

Here. While its might only be guidelines it would be hard to build a wind farm if you didn't follow them.

And still no scientific evidence to counteract the concerns and actions of the Canadian and Danish Authorities etc

Read back in the tread you will find what your looking for. Don't bog it down again. Beside an more correct question do you have any prove that noise from a wind turbine has a negative effect?

Ireland to build 'giant' wind turbines to power UK homes

Comments