PROPOSED WIND FARMS

Chloe Pink

Jester252 wrote: »

I am informing rational members of the public the proper way to adreess their issues with the development. Going after the private landowners is not the correct way.

No you're saying neighbours can no longer talk to neighbours and you're threatening them with law suits for harrassment and suicidal lessors if they do try and speak with their neighbours - I trust you've warned potential lessors that their position in the community will never be the same again.

Planning isn't protecting residents - so discouraging landowners from leasing their land to the wind industry is the only sure way of protrecting ones home from wind turbines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pjdUHpdFP-E#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmRaORKHY_o

Until the problems are addressed, opposition will continue and intensify


How dare you speak of the "correct way" to act - the correct way for the wind developers to act would be to urge potential lessors to discuss this development with their neighbours and to do their own research before signing anything.

AngryHippie

Chloe Pink wrote: »

No you're saying neighbours can no longer talk to neighbours and you're threatening them with law suits for harrassment and suicidal lessors if they do try and speak with their neighbours - I trust you've warned potential lessors that their position in the community will never be the same again.

Planning isn't protecting residents - so discouraging landowners from leasing their land to the wind industry is the only sure way of protrecting ones home from wind turbines.

How dare you speak of the "correct way" to act - the correct way for the wind developers to act would be to urge potential lessors to discuss this development with their neighbours and to do their own research before signing anything.

Communication and relations between neighbors in Ireland has led to suicides, murders and deaths in Ireland in the past. I would suggest that you go back even only to recent history and you will find ample evidence of this. As for ostracizing landowners for trying to generate an income from their land, well, it happens, but that doesn't make it right.

No damage is being done to peoples homes by wind turbines. To suggest that homes need protecting is sensationalist at best.

What needs protection is the environment, the economy and peoples way of life. Does a wind turbine harm any of these ?

The correct course of action to "protect" homes is usually through the planning approval process. As this is proving rather limp-wristed in this case, then the correct course of action is to pursue a case in the courts of law. To invoke community action to put pressure on landowners is a very foolish way to go about it. At best it may influence those who are marginal, at worst it will lead to a confrontation and cause fractures in the community whose only strength lies in unity. You are being very naive if you think it will pan out in any other fashion through pressure actions on landowners.

Regarding the "correct way" to act, Its high time that some people started to realise that land ownership is both a responsibility and a business. If the best return on their investment in land can be gained by installing a wind farm, then on a purely commercial basis, they are perfectly justified in signing a deal.
How dare you tell someone how to run their business.

I'm not saying discussions should not be had on a community basis, but the community have to realize that farmers are operating businesses. The community has some sense of entitlement over the land use. The bottom line is that they don't get to dictate how the farmer uses the land. They get to voice their opinion on any impacts that land use may have on them, but that is where their involvement stops. I think that many people have lost sight of this over the years.

AngryHippie

Chloe Pink wrote: »

After all the wind industry refer to landowners who sign up as "NGA"s - niave, gullible ands apathetic.

I suppose you can back that up with a source.

NGA afik stands for NorthgateArinso, in which case, you'd want to be very carefully about waking up the libel-monkey and the slander-bear.

Here's some I found for your amusement.



http://www.all-acronyms.com/NGA

http://www.abbreviations.com/NGA

http://www.nga.ie/#loaded

Chloe Pink

AngryHippie wrote: »

I suppose you can back that up with a source.

Yeah right, the wind developers have it plastered all over their websites

Chloe Pink

AngryHippie wrote: »

Communication and relations between neighbors in Ireland has led to suicides, murders and deaths in Ireland in the past. I would suggest that you go back even only to recent history and you will find ample evidence of this. As for ostracizing landowners for trying to generate an income from their land, well, it happens, but that doesn't make it right.

All the more reason for the wind developers to urge potentional lessors to speak with their community and to do their own research before committing to anything.

AngryHippie wrote: »

No damage is being done to peoples homes by wind turbines.

Of course it is - residential amenity is being damaged which is why properties are being devalued and in some cases made unihabitable - what do you thinks going on for the McGlinchey's and the Keenans and many others and what went on for the Davis family.

AngryHippie wrote: »

What needs protection is the environment, the economy and peoples way of life. Does a wind turbine harm any of these ?

Yes, wind turbines harm all of these - have you ever read the documentation for a wind turbine planning application or an appeal decision for one.

AngryHippie wrote: »

The correct course of action to "protect" homes is usually through the planning approval process. As this is proving rather limp-wristed in this case, then the correct course of action is to pursue a case in the courts of law.

Going through the law courts is a long and expensive process - do you fancy being without your home for six years (Davis family) - which remind me - it's worth everyone making sure they have legal protection included on their home insurance - that's how the Davis family funded their claim in the high Court.

AngryHippie wrote: »

To invoke community action to put pressure on landowners is a very foolish way to go about it. At best it may influence those who are marginal, at worst it will lead to a confrontation and cause fractures in the community whose only strength lies in unity. You are being very naive if you think it will pan out in any other fashion through pressure actions on landowners.

I haven't invoked community action to put pressure on landowners - that happens of it's own accord - if anything I'm suggesting ways to avoid it i.e. wind developers should urge potentional lessors to speak with their community and to do their own research before committing to anything.

AngryHippie wrote: »

Regarding the "correct way" to act, Its high time that some people started to realise that land ownership is both a responsibility and a business. If the best return on their investment in land can be gained by installing a wind farm, then on a purely commercial basis, they are perfectly justified in signing a deal.
How dare you tell someone how to run their business.

If you permit business on your premises which damages others, that's irresponsible and therefore you have to accept that there will be consequences.

AngryHippie wrote: »

I'm not saying discussions should not be had on a community basis,

Well thank goodness for that - not that it's something you could stop.

AngryHippie wrote: »

but the community have to realize that farmers are operating businesses.

And landowners who lease land to wind developers have to realiize that their neighbours have businesses too and homes that are impacted by a decision to lease their land to the wind industry - of course the wind developers may not build turbines on all the land they secure for potential lease so a landowner who agreed to lease their land to the wind developers may find that all they end up with is the impacts from their neighbours wind turbines.

Jester252

AngryHippie wrote: »

I suppose you can back that up with a source.

NGA afik stands for NorthgateArinso, in which case, you'd want to be very carefully about waking up the libel-monkey and the slander-bear.

Here's some I found for your amusement.



http://www.all-acronyms.com/NGA

http://www.abbreviations.com/NGA

http://www.nga.ie/#loaded

Don't get involved with that poster. That person is anti-wind. That person will make claims and use bised sources to "support" them with most of time supply no support. No amount of indepent research will make the poster change t
their mind. Don't waste your time.

Greensleeves

There are some public information meetings taking place this week about the midlands wind turbines.

WIND FARMS IN OFFALY: Public meeting in Rhode Community Centre on Tues. 4th June at 8pm.

https://www.facebook.com/owig2013


WIND FARMS IN LAOIS: Public AWARENESS & INFORMATION Meeting, Rosenallis Community Hall, Wednesday 5th JUNE, 9.00pm.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sliev...46130318858607


WIND FARMS IN WESTMEATH: Killucan-Raharney Information Meeting - Sat. 8th June @ 7.15pm - Rathwire Hall

http://lwig.net/index.html and https://www.facebook.com/pages/Lakel...41901932538961

Chloe Pink

As i've already posted Jester252, if you have an issue with one of my posts, quote it and provide the counter-evidence.

AngryHippie

Chloe Pink wrote: »

As i've already posted Jester252, if you have an issue with one of my posts, quote it and provide the counter-evidence.

Rubbish. I asked you for a source, You've said its plastered all over their websites. Link?????? !

AngryHippie

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Of course it is - residential amenity is being damaged which is why properties are being devalued and in some cases made unihabitable - what do you thinks going on for the McGlinchey's and the Keenans and many others and what went on for the Davis family.



Going through the law courts is a long and expensive process - do you fancy being without your home for six years (Davis family) - which remind me - it's worth everyone making sure they have legal protection included on their home insurance - that's how the Davis family funded their claim in the high Court.


And landowners who lease land to wind developers have to realiize that their neighbours have businesses too and homes that are impacted by a decision to lease their land to the wind industry - of course the wind developers may not build turbines on all the land they secure for potential lease so a landowner who agreed to lease their land to the wind developers may find that all they end up with is the impacts from their neighbours wind turbines.

The Davis case:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/8925467/Couple-settle-with-wind-farm-operators-over-unbearable-hum.html

Settled out of court, satisfied they have been justly compensated ?

For some reason you seem to think that everybody has some bizarre sense of entitlement over intangible residential amenities. Unfortunately your rebel rousing and stirring falls flat on its face because the reality is, everybody has their price.
Windfarms make noise....wow, so do substations, roads, railways, factories, pets, children, schools, air traffic. Does that mean that none of these things are necessary for our way of life?
If a compensation is given for the inconvenience or loss of an intangible residential amenity that is mutually agreed by both parties, where does your problem lie ?
With the mechanism ? - They don't make them, we do
In principle ? - Sure they might be operating on a commercial basis, pretty cold in terms of the human involvement, as it boils down to a number on a sheet of paper, boycott them if you're not happy about it. Just don't expect everyone to line up behind you after they've been given their payout or 30 pieces of silver or whatever.......
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=83387695

You seem to be a little frustrated by this whole issue. Unfortunately, its like being in the early 90's and frustrated by the internet. It's coming, and there is sod all you can do about it. Make it work for you instead of fighting against it !

Chloe Pink

AH, do you really think the wind developers are going to plaster the term NGA all over their websites - no of course they're not so why don't you look at what really matters and provide a source for these two statements (the second being more in the context of an exclamation than a question)

AngryHippie wrote: »

No damage is being done to peoples homes by wind turbines.

AngryHippie wrote: »

What needs protection is the environment, the economy and peoples way of life. Does a wind turbine harm any of these ?

And in what way do you think the planning process is a bit limp-wristed in this case

AngryHippie wrote: »

The correct course of action to "protect" homes is usually through the planning approval process. As this is proving rather limp-wristed in this case, then the correct course of action is to pursue a case in the courts of law.

AngryHippie

Chloe Pink wrote: »

AH, do you really think the wind developers are going to plaster the term NGA all over their websites

So you've been caught talking nonsense?

Chloe Pink wrote: »

And in what way do you think the planning process is a bit limp-wristed in this case

The planning process has allowed itself to be more or less bypassed and hasn't done enough to guarantee their own involvement.


Actually, where damage has been done, the damage has to be proven, so how about you detail where and how homes have been damaged.

They haven't...people have been inconvenienced they make their case, they receive compensation or legal satisfaction for their inconvenience. that is how the legal system addresses intangible damages. That seems to be at the core of your issue with this whole topic. Maybe that is what you should seek to address ????:rolleyes:

How exactly do they damage the environment, or the economy, or peoples way of life again and on exactly what timescale considering the current alternatives, you are asserting damage has been done, credible linky plz?

I feel like I am going in circles with you here. You are perfectly entitled to have your opinion about the wind-farms , but the main points you bring up again and again are bitterness about the system we have in place to control how energy companies do business. If that is the problem, why not tackle that, instead of spouting about morals. It's business. Decisions made based on facts. Try it some time


FYI, from our constitution:

Article 43

1. 1° The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods.

2° The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property.

2. 1° The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice.

2° The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.

Chloe Pink

AH
I can't speak for the Davis family although I have met Jane Davis and have corresponded with her but no I don't think they have been justly compensated on the basis that whatever the settlement was, I don't now how you compensate someone for six years of uncertainty and distress and homelessness which is the time it took for this case to get to the High Court. And how do you compensate somebody for the loss of their organic family farm.

As for your reference to "intangible residential amenities", the Davis family had no residential amenity, they had no residence, the wind turbines rendered their farm house uninhabitable - they couldn't live in it - and as far as I'm aware it is still unoccupied and in the ownership of the wind developers.
And have you ever wondered why the wind developers offered the Davis family an out of court settlement.


You say "If a compensation is given for the inconvenience or loss of an intangible residential amenity that is mutually agreed by both parties, where does your problem lie ?"
There isn't any compensation for loss of residential amenity! People don't get payouts or 30 pieces of silver and if their home becomes unfit for habitation they're up **** street - my problem - these issues are not being addressed - they should be so that people are protected and don't end up in the same situation as the Davis family and the seven families in Banteer who are heading to the High Courts.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/families-bid-to-sue-wind-farm-operator-225867.html
"Last year, the Noise and Health journal published results from a US survey which compared sleeping patterns between a group living within a mile of a wind farm, and another beyond that distance.

The study suggested that the former group’s sleeping was directly impacted by the operation of the turbines. It is believed to be the first study to show a relationship between the wind farms and what the journal calls the “important clinical indicators of health, including sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, and mental health”."


As you've found the other thread in After Hours, if you read it, you'll see that the noise from wind turbines is a problem at some properties - you'll see that wind turbine noise seems to be more problematic than traffic and industrial noise - you'll see that Denmark has legal limits to restrict the amount of low frequency noise from wind turbines (measured within buildings) - you'll see that the Canadian government has commissioned studies on the health impacts of wind turbine noise etc - the links are all there.

AngryHippie

Chloe Pink wrote: »

AH
how do you compensate somebody for the loss of their organic family farm.

And have you ever wondered why the wind developers offered the Davis family an out of court settlement.

There isn't any compensation for loss of residential amenity! People don't get payouts or 30 pieces of silver and if their home becomes unfit for habitation they're up **** street
you'll see that the noise from wind turbines is a problem at some properties and that wind turbine noise seems to be more problematic than traffic and industrial noise

You compensate them financially, was it an organic farm for commercial purposes ? If so then a compensation to the business to relocate ?
Low frequency noise does not stop fruit or vegetables from growing does it ?

I don't have enough information to speculate on why they settled out of court, neither do you, so I wouldn't waste my time on it. I would suggest you do likewise ?

Chloe Pink

AngryHippie wrote: »

You compensate them financially, was it an organic farm for commercial purposes ? If so then a compensation to the business to relocate ?
And what about the Low frequency noise does not stop fruit or vegetables from growing does it ?

What about the "six years of uncertainty and distress and homelessness" bit and having asked what my problem is with wind turbines, you have provided nothing to address it, infact you have ignored it.

Re low frequency noise and fruit and vegetable growing, you raise an interesting point bearing in mind things such as pollination by insects and insect population control by birds and bats etc- change these and you can impact crop growth:
http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/docs/noise.pdf
"Noise standards for wind turbines developed by countries such as Sweden and New Zealand and some specific site level standards implemented in the U.S. focus primarily on sleep disturbance and annoyance to humans. However noise standards do not generally exist for
wildlife, except in a few instances where federally listed species may be impacted. Findings
from recent research clearly indicate the need to better address noise-wildlife issues. As such,
noise impacts to wildlife should clearly be included as a factor in wind turbine siting, construction and operation"
It's only a short paper and well worth a read.
A quick search will reveal stuff re insects and low frequency noise.

AngryHippie wrote: »

I don't have enough information to speculate on why they settled out of court, neither do you,

Really
.

AngryHippie

Chloe Pink wrote: »

What about the "six years of uncertainty and distress and homelessness" bit and having asked what my problem is with wind turbines, you have provided nothing to address it, in fact you have ignored it.

If that is your problem with wind turbines, maybe you should ponder why people have accepted their settlements out court. Maybe they were adequately compensated and are happy to move on with their lives.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Re low frequency noise and fruit and vegetable growing, you raise an interesting point bearing in mind things such as pollination by insects and insect population control by birds and bats etc- change these and you can impact crop growth:
http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/docs/noise.pdf
"Noise standards for wind turbines developed by countries such as Sweden and New Zealand and some specific site level standards implemented in the U.S. focus primarily on sleep disturbance and annoyance to humans. However noise standards do not generally exist for
wildlife, except in a few instances where federally listed species may be impacted. Findings
from recent research clearly indicate the need to better address noise-wildlife issues. As such,
noise impacts to wildlife should clearly be included as a factor in wind turbine siting, construction and operation"
It's only a short paper and well worth a read.
A quick search will reveal stuff re insects and low frequency noise.

.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that it directly affects crop growth, crop pollenation maybe Growth directly ...Pure speculation
Again, this is a factor that can be evaluated, it's impact calculated and processes put in place to limit damage where necessary.
If threatened or endangered species are involved then the EIS will identify them.


On insect susceptibility to vibrations:

"With multiple vibrations on any given surface, Hill said, insects, like humans, find peace and quiet by filtering out all but the most critical incoming messages. For example, when an insect is ready to mate, mating becomes the primary focus."

"If it does not mate within a tiny window of time, it will die without contributing to the gene pool," she said. "In that scenario, motivation is high to process signals linked to mating, while those sent out by any other species are just so much noise."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/08/0812_040812_thornbug_2.html

Hmm...this seems to suggest that they can filter out unwanted noise.

And now for the punchline.....What is your alternative solution for sustainable energy supply ?
I will accept awkward silence as a response on that question.
Because aside from building the wind turbines somewhere inefficient or unworkable that happens to not be in your back yard, I'm guessing you don't have one.

Greensleeves

These two paragraphs could be about a townsland in the Irish midlands. Is this really what farmers want?

"We had a peaceful community here before the developer showed up, but no more. Now it’s neighbor against neighbor, family members not speaking to one another and there is no ease in conversation like in the old days. Everyone is afraid to talk for fear the subject of the wind turbines will come up. The kind of life we enjoyed in our community is gone forever."

"Now, at social functions, we can clearly see the huge division this has created among community members. Suddenly, there are strong-sided discussions and heated words between friends and, yes, between relatives about wind turbines. Perhaps this is a greater consequence than the harm caused to my land — life is short, and friendships are precious."

http://betterplan.squarespace.com/wisconsin-farmer-regrets-sayin/

Chloe Pink

AH,
Re your punch line - wind turbines are unlikely to replace or displace the UKs need for conventional generators (i.e. oil, gas, coal, nuclear).
An alternative to wind turbines - why would anyone want an alternative to generators that have massive impacts, provide only small amounts of electricity, are intermittant, cost loads, are additional to conventional generators and won't save the planet.

Meanwhile you still haven't addressed how you compensate someone for "six years of uncertainty and distress and homelessness" - as Greensleeves said - 'life is short' - money isn't everything.

And you still haven't addressed the key problem which is that noise issues from wind turbines are not being addressed.
Research and emerging cases indicate noise from wind turbines is a problem.
Other countries have taken the matter seriously and are attempting to address the problems of noise form wind turbines through legislation while Ireland has none.

Your posts not only fail to address these noise issues but fail to even acknowledge them - instead you post that "low frequency noise does not stop fruit or vegetables from growing does it".
When I post that "you raise an interesting point bearing in mind things such as pollination by insects and insect population control by birds and bats etc- change these and you can impact crop growth" you post "Are you seriously trying to tell me that it directly affects crop growth" - perhaps you could point out where I have said this.

Anyway as you raised the matter of crops, it seems that wind turbines can effect them and it's not yet clear whether these impacts will be overall be positive or negative.

By mixing up the air wts could give crops more CO2 and reduce night dew and subsequently fungal disease.
Wts make cooler day and warmer night temperatures so reducing frost damage but also reducing net growth as release more carbon at night. [Frost is key to the germination process of some seeds]
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2011/12/111219-wind-turbines-help-crops-on-farms/
Turbines attract insects [will this be good or bad for crops]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9067000/9067721.stm
Turbines kill bats which is definitely bad for crops [one pipstrelle can cosume 3,000 insects a night]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1372235/Wind-turbine-threat-bat-populations-costing-farmers-billions-year.html
More on damage to birds and bats
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8807761/wind-farms-vs-wildlife/

On a proposal of this scale, these effects cannot be taken lightly .

From your link http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...hornbug_2.html you suggest that insects "can filter out unwanted noise" i.e. the low frequency noise of the turbines. So the insects are fine and are attracted to the turbines but their natural predators are killed by the turbines - not such a great scenario.


Anyway back to low frequency noise and people
http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/docs/noise.pdf
"Noise does not have to be loud to have negative effects. Very low frequency sounds including infrasound are also being investigated for their possible effects on both humans and wildlife. Wind turbine noise results in a high infrasound component (Salt and Hullar 2010). Infrasound is inaudible to the human ear but this unheard sound can cause human annoyance, sensitivity, disturbance, and disorientation (Renewable Energy World 2010). For birds, bats, and other wildlife, the effects may be more profound."

Oh just a minute, on this basis shouldn't consideration be also given to farming livestock
- anyway back to people - what's going to be done on this proposal for the Midlands to protect people from wind turbine noise.

AngryHippie

perhaps you could point out where I have said this.

Post #76

Chloe Pink wrote: »

change these and you can impact crop growth:

Other countries have taken the matter seriously and are attempting to address the problems of noise form wind turbines through legislation while Ireland has none

And this is an energy companies problem why ?

Again, Your issue is with Irelands Slack-Ar$$ed legislation being behind the times, companies taking advantage of this, as they are perfectly entitled to do BY LAW
Take it up with the Dail, The Seanad and the Judiciary, They are the people who are failing you.

what's going to be done on this proposal for the Midlands to protect people from wind turbine noise

What the Energy company will do , is exactly what they are legally obliged to do, nothing more, and less if they are let get away with it.

I don't know why this comes as a surprise to you. Perhaps you have zero experience dealing with Engineering, Construction and Infrastructure. The bottom line is all of the companies in the above industries have shareholders and investors to answer to. The money will not get spent unless it has to.

Chloe Pink

"you raise an interesting point bearing in mind things such as pollination by insects and insect population control by birds and bats etc- change these and you can impact crop growth" - this is not a "direct" impact .

This is the wind developers problem because by taking advantage of Ireland's lack of legislation, the wind developers are
- inviting strong opposition to their proposals
- damaging their image as providers of a benign, green, eco-friendly technology; this damages trust and subesquently their ability to find rental land and finance
- incurring costs on creating and marketing their spin
- incurring costs in planning appeals
- incurring costs High Court cases
and when the sh** hits the fan and the law suits come rolling in what will they say to their stakeholders then.

The wind industry is perfectly entitled to act responsibly to those impacted by their developments, including the landowners it rents from, regardless of legislation

What makes yuo think I find this whole scenario surprising - what s surprising is your honesty - it's not an attribute related to the wind industry.

AngryHippie

I want to be clear on this, I'm not employed by the Wind Industry.

Just pragmatic.

The wind industry is perfectly entitled to act responsibly

No argument there. But until it is legally obliged to, as a commercial entities, don't expect them to erode their profits to satisfy the sense of entitlement of people who cannot be reasoned with.

Chloe Pink

As the wind industry advices and lobbys government and regulatory bodies on policy in relation to wind turbines, they are not entirely devoid of responsibility for current legislation.

AngryHippie

Once again, that is part of the problem with the situation in Ireland. Groups with a vested interest get to advise the govt. on policy decisions.

The bottom line is that their job descriptions do not involve assisting government to write policies that make their products less competitive. Why would anybody expect them to propose imposing punitive legislation on themselves ?

I know that they are ultimately the "experts" on wind powered electricity generation, but the conflict of interest is pretty obvious, and the consultation process for policy making should address this. No company would do anything short of rubbing their hands together with glee at being asked to assist in drafting the policies that regulate their business.

I'm pretty sure that is how the banks ended up in the crapper, along with some loose enforcement of the regulations that were there.

It's time the Irish government recruited the right personnel for the roles instead of the traditional parish pump and quasi nepotistic methods that they have used to put gombeens in high places.

Short term pain, long term gain. As opposed to the tragic legacy left behind by the last few administrations.

Greensleeves

The anti-windfarm campaign in the midlands is gaining momentum and Westmeath seems to be leading the charge.

Windfarm groups take protest to EU meeting
The midlands’ anti-windfarm campaigners intend taking their grievances to Dublin Castle next week, to protest outside an energy conference taking place as one of the final events of Ireland’s EU presidency.

http://www.westmeathexaminer.ie/news/roundup/articles/2013/06/18/4016330-windfarm-groups-take-protest-to-eu-meeting/

Hermy

I find this worrying.

From RTE.ie

Energy companies want no minimum distance between wind turbines and family homes
Bord Na Móna, Coillte and the ESB have all separately lobbied the Government to exclude any statutory minimum distance between wind turbines and family homes, as part of a review into the wind sector in Ireland, RTÉ News has learned.

Greensleeves

Hermy wrote: »

I find this worrying.

From RTE.ie

I find it worrying too. And even more worryingly they will probably get their way.

L.Jenkins

I support wind farms here in Ireland, as it's money being pumped into our economy, but I don't support an idea of no minimum distance from any residential property.

roosterman71

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/clean-tech/item/34391-wind-energy-contracts-to-sp

Marooned75

roosterman71 wrote: »

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/clean-tech/item/34391-wind-energy-contracts-to-sp

More BS from these people a bit like the Chinese hub in Athlone cloud cuckoo land

Tomjim

I was at a meeting recently where a Fingleton chap spoke against the wind turbines this guy also appeared on Prime time. He is from Co Laois and advised the meeting that he lived in an area where a company sought to establish wind mills.

From what he says he spends a lot of time going to meetings researching the internet.

Question who is paying this guy to oppose the turbines?