Windmills- Corrupt payment for neighbours?

Greensleeves

reilig wrote: »

Personally I would be more in favour of wind turbines than the refitting of any of the peat fired power stations in the midlands or the gas power station proposed for Kildare. But because they are already there, midlands dwellers are happy to keep them there and prefer to protest against a form of electricity generation that causes far less pollution, is less of an eyesore and doesn't release carcenogenics into the atmosphere that cause cancer!

These groups are specifically protesting against the proposal to build thousands of wind turbines in the Irish midlands to supply British homes with electricity. There will be no connection to the Irish grid, ALL the electricity will be exported so there will be no scaling back of peat-powered power stations etc.

If anything Irish CO2 levels will rise because of the quarrying required to cover 1,000 acres of land with concrete to place the turbines on. There will also be the diesel particulates, etc generated by the 100's of lorries ferrying concrete to the 40 sites throughout the midlands. So there will be no reduction in pollution and no reduction in the release of carcinogens into the atmosphere. And not a single Irish home will be supplied with green energy.

Greensleeves

reilig wrote: »

Then again I don't live in the midlands, but as I said in previous posts, we have large wind turbines close to a property that we own and instead of a nuscence, they are a tourist attraction in the area bringing vital money into the locl economy.

Where do these tourists come from and what do they spend money on? Do you mean that people come to this place ONLY to look at wind turbines? I can believe that tourists would briefly visit a wind farm if they were in a locality to see something else but I find it hard to believe that coach-loads of tourists make a special detour to look at wind turbines.

Here are some extracts from a blog post on an Irish-American website called IrishCentral which suggests that wind turbines might not be good for tourism:

"Would as many Americans, Germans and others travel to Dingle or Connemara or wherever if the views on offer were predominantly giant white wind turbines? Doubtful.

"Recently a new twist has been added to the wind farm mania: Britain. The idea is that the British government will subsidize wind energy companies to turn a chunk of the Irish midlands into a giant British wind farm, with the support and assistance of the Irish government. The obvious question is why: two "why's" really. Why aren't the British companies erecting these wind turbines in Britain and why is the Irish government keen on this idea.

"The answer to the first "why" is that the people of rural Britain are fed up with wind farms. They don't want any more. They're sick of the sight of them; they're sick of the sound of them. So Britain looked across the sea, saw all those complacent people only barely occupying Ireland's midlands and thought, "let's see if we can put those things up there?"

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/roots/the_american_in_ireland/ireland-as-britains-wind-farm---weighing-up-the-pros-and-cons-of-ugly-and-heavily-subsized-irish-windfarms-206737891.html

reilig

Greensleeves wrote: »

If anything Irish CO2 levels will rise because of the quarrying required to cover 1,000 acres of land with concrete to place the turbines on. There will also be the diesel particulates, etc generated by the 100's of lorries ferrying concrete to the 40 sites throughout the midlands. So there will be no reduction in pollution and no reduction in the release of carcinogens into the atmosphere. And not a single Irish home will be supplied with green energy.

You're misinformed.

That's why I said that there needs to be more discussion about this.

Each turbine requires only a few m3 of concrete - and most of this will be under ground. To say that thousands of acres will be covered is sensationalism. What about all the construction jobs that it will create and all the maintenance jobs for the future? What will it d for the road network in the area - surely the builders of the turbines will be required to pay towards their upgrading for their once off access to erect the turbines.

I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I work in the midlands and keep a good eye on all media about these turbines. So far I have only heard and read about the negative impacts of these turbines. Have you considered all of the positive benefits and have these positive benefits been relayed to the 206 homes that are within the windfarm boundary??

Windfarms aren't all bad. They bring a lot of positives to an area!

reilig

Greensleeves wrote: »

Where do these tourists come from and what do they spend money on? Do you mean that people come to this place ONLY to look at wind turbines? I can believe that tourists would briefly visit a wind farm if they were in a locality to see something else but I find it hard to believe that coach-loads of tourists make a special detour to look at wind turbines.

Here are some extracts from a blog post on an Irish-American website called IrishCentral which suggests that wind turbines might not be good for tourism:

"Would as many Americans, Germans and others travel to Dingle or Connemara or wherever if the views on offer were predominantly giant white wind turbines? Doubtful.

"Recently a new twist has been added to the wind farm mania: Britain. The idea is that the British government will subsidize wind energy companies to turn a chunk of the Irish midlands into a giant British wind farm, with the support and assistance of the Irish government. The obvious question is why: two "why's" really. Why aren't the British companies erecting these wind turbines in Britain and why is the Irish government keen on this idea.

"The answer to the first "why" is that the people of rural Britain are fed up with wind farms. They don't want any more. They're sick of the sight of them; they're sick of the sound of them. So Britain looked across the sea, saw all those complacent people only barely occupying Ireland's midlands and thought, "let's see if we can put those things up there?"

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/roots/the_american_in_ireland/ireland-as-britains-wind-farm---weighing-up-the-pros-and-cons-of-ugly-and-heavily-subsized-irish-windfarms-206737891.html

Anyone can write a blog to promote their own opinion. The fact it that it is normally just the opinion of one person or a small group of people.

The wind turbines in Arigna are the ones that I'm referring to. Tourists come to this area to visit the many tourist attractions which exist on this site which is a former coal mine. There are many monuments to coal miners across the hillside, a coal mine and shaft which you can have a guided tour of, hill walking, small villages with pubs and restaurants etc. The wind turbines form an integral part of the tourist attraction in this area. An area which, only a few years ago was raged with unemployment and emigration after the coal mine closed. Now they produce clean energy. The turbines provide maintenance work for locals. The area is also a focal point for tourists with the turbines being one of the main attractions!

If Killucan and Raharney could develop tourism in their area in the same way that Arigna has, it could become a spectacular place with a lot of tourist visits.

Greensleeves

reilig wrote: »

You're misinformed.

Each turbine requires only a few m3 of concrete - and most of this will be under ground.

I think you'll find that you are misinformed: it takes slightly more than a few m3 of concrete to make a base for a wind turbine. According to one American turbine base manufacturer it takes over 300 cubic yards of concrete for a turbine with an overall height of 397 feet. The turbines proposed for the Irish midlands will be 600ft high so presumably more concrete will be needed for each base.

"White Oak’s wind towers will stand about 262 feet high with a blade sweep area of 274 feet. The total overall height will be 397 feet. A typical foundation for this size turbine requires over 300 cubic yards of concrete."

http://windsystemsmag.com/article/detail/188/providing-concrete-evidence

And here is a description of the process by another US cement producer:

"The construction of 15- to 20-foot-deep concrete foundations to support all of the 328-foot-high towers with 2-MW turbines required 30,000 tons of cement.
On average, each of these below-ground support systems used 60 truckloads of concrete (750 cubic yards), which was poured via a two-step process."

http://www.forconstructionpros.com/article/10886050/ohios-first-large-scale-wind-farm-uses-lafarge-cement-for-turbine-concrete-foundations

Greensleeves

reilig wrote: »

The wind turbines in Arigna are the ones that I'm referring to.

So what you mean is that tourists visit the area for other reasons and some of them visit the wind farm. I visited Arigna last year as part of a holiday in Sligo/Leitrim but I did not go to look at the wind turbines. I looked at several houses for sale in the area; very cheap if I remember correctly. I drove past turbines in Sligo, again I didn't stop to look at them. I think most people would visit a windfarm once just to get a close-up look (I did in France a few years ago) but if you've seen one turbine you've seen them all. And once they are dotted all over the place you will be trying to escape them so places that remain turbine free will have the edge.

Greensleeves

reilig wrote: »

What about all the construction jobs that it will create and all the maintenance jobs for the future?

The whole jobs thing is completely overstated. Scotland has a mature wind industry yet only 2,235 people are directly employed to work on its 203 onshore windfarms.

"Every job in Britain’s wind farm industry is effectively subsidised to the extent of £100,000 per year, The Telegraph can disclose.

* In Scotland, which has 203 onshore wind farms — more than anywhere else in the UK — just 2,235 people are directly employed to work on them despite an annual subsidy of £344million. That works out at £154,000 per job;

* Even if the maximum number of jobs that have been forecast are created, by 2020 the effective subsidy on them would be £80,000 a year.

One source, who owns several wind farms, and did not wish to be named, said: “Anybody trying to justify subsidies on the basis of jobs created is talking nonsense. Wind farms are not labour intensive.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html

Greensleeves

reilig wrote: »

What will it d for the road network in the area - surely the builders of the turbines will be required to pay towards their upgrading for their once off access to erect the turbines.

Apparently not. The windfarms are to be exempt from the normal development levy.

"At last week’s meeting of Laois County Council, Cllr Deegan said he was totally opposed to guidelines which recommended that wind turbines which generated energy for export should be exempt from development contribution charges.

“What we should recommend is that over a certain height of turbine a serious imposition of levy be charged,” he said, adding that “monsters” were being erected across the Irish countryside.

“For any minister to have the audacity to say they should be exempt, when any normal person building has to pay the charge, that thinking is off the wall.”

http://www.leinsterexpress.ie/news/local/monsters-on-the-land-1-5241753#.UdrxdshdUag.twitter

Greensleeves

reilig wrote: »

Have you considered all of the positive benefits and have these positive benefits been relayed to the 206 homes that are within the windfarm boundary??

The "positive benefits" of wind farms were explained to the 206 homes by Mainstream before the survey was conducted. 91% were unconvinced.

Windfarms aren't all bad. They bring a lot of positives to an area!

That might be your opinion but many people don't share it.

brian_t

Greensleeves wrote: »

why is the Irish government keen on this idea.

Why is the Irish government so keen on the production of something we can export. I've no idea :rolleyes:

Greensleeves wrote: »

These groups are specifically protesting against the proposal to build thousands of wind turbines in the Irish midlands to supply British homes with electricity. There will be no connection to the Irish grid, ALL the electricity will be exported so there will be no scaling back of peat-powered power stations etc.

If anything Irish CO2 levels will rise.

There are a significent number of cattle produced in Ireland for the purposes of export.
If we were to stop this there would be a significent reduction in the production of CO2 gasses in Ireland.

yellow50HX

1 question Greensleeves, what do you suggest we should use as alternative to wind turbines?

With all this negativity about windturbines and vauge reports from lots of different scoucres you still have not put forward an alternative.

we are connected to the europen interconnector which allso power to be moved from country to contry so other then buying in our elecrity from say britan or france how can be genertae power in ireland with out using more imported fossil fuels?

reilig

Greensleeves wrote: »

The "positive benefits" of wind farms were explained to the 206 homes by Mainstream before the survey was conducted. 91% were unconvinced.

That might be your opinion but many people don't share it.

It's typical Irish NIMBYISM. I know loads of people in the Raharney and Killucan area that were harassed into doing that survey - they were told how to answer and told what the consequences would be for them if they didn't. It's very easy to print that they were conducted properly, but when they are carried out on behalf on a lobby group (directly or indirectly), you can't really call the accurate.

I'd love to have these in my area. There's so much sensationalism and crap about them in Westmeath, people don't know what to believe! Just like covering thousands of acres with concrete. You read a figure of m3 and then quoted it as m2. The actual footprint of concrete for each turbine will only be slightly greater than the diameter of the base of the turbine? In reality, a couple of m2!

yellow50HX

brian_t wrote: »

Why is the Irish government so keen on the production of something we can export. I've no idea :rolleyes:



There are a significent number of cattle produced in Ireland for the purposes of export.
If we were to stop this there would be a significent reduction in the production of CO2 gasses in Ireland.

ireland should stop farming animals? is this your suggestion? we are a small counrty whose economy is based on producing products for export, perhaps we should stop all those lorrys, ferrys and plane from leaving or entering the country, that'll reduce the ol CO2 emmisons

reilig

yellow50HX wrote: »

ireland should stop farming animals? is this your suggestion? we are a small counrty whose economy is based on producing products for export, perhaps we should stop all those lorrys, ferrys and plane from leaving or entering the country, that'll reduce the ol CO2 emmisons

He didn't say that. He used it as a comparison to the Co2 offset from having wind turbines. Essentially he's saying that exports are a good thing for the Irish economy. Pretty much the same thing that you are saying?

yellow50HX

reilig wrote: »

He didn't say that. He used it as a comparison to the Co2 offset from having wind turbines. Essentially he's saying that exports are a good thing for the Irish economy. Pretty much the same thing that you are saying?

grand like

yellow50HX

reilig wrote: »

It's typical Irish NIMBYISM.

i think that sums it up perfectly.

Marooned75

According to Colm McCarthy in the journal these Private companies will get all the profits from these ventures while the Irish taxpayer pays for the the pylons, grid upkeep etc gets nothing back in return this does not benefit the country one iota.How is this a good thing for Ireland when taxpayer gets nothing out of it.A bit like the oil rights etc.People whose property these turbines are on will benefit but Ireland Inc won't another missed opportunity by or lords and masters.

Saab Ed

Three words: Wind Turbine Flicker.

http://m.journalpioneer.com/News/Local/2013-06-09/article-3272664/Wind-turbine-flickering-affecting-Dekker-Road-homeowner/1e

Greensleeves

yellow50HX wrote: »

1 question Greensleeves, what do you suggest we should use as alternative to wind turbines?

With all this negativity about windturbines and vauge reports from lots of different scoucres you still have not put forward an alternative.

we are connected to the europen interconnector which allso power to be moved from country to contry so other then buying in our elecrity from say britan or france how can be genertae power in ireland with out using more imported fossil fuels?

Well since these windfarms are to supply electricity for the UK the alternative would be for the UK to host it's own wind turbines. Or they could run a cable from Holland or France and import electricity from mainland Europe.

The alternative for Ireland should be offshore wind farms. Yes, they cost more but because of the proliferation of houses in rural areas during the boom we haven't left enough room to have sensible setback distances. So offshore they should go. Another expensive legacy of the Celtic Tiger years.

hallo dare

I worked on a windfarm and the farmers were generously rewarded with yearly payments for putting turbines on there land.

hallo dare

Greensleeves wrote: »

Well since these windfarms are to supply electricity for the UK the alternative would be for the UK to host it's own wind turbines. Or they could run a cable from Holland or France and import electricity from mainland Europe.

The alternative for Ireland should be offshore wind farms. Yes, they cost more but because of the proliferation of houses in rural areas during the boom we haven't left enough room to have sensible setback distances. So offshore they should go. Another expensive legacy of the Celtic Tiger years.

there are some off shore. Arklow for example.

Greensleeves

reilig wrote: »

Just like covering thousands of acres with concrete. You read a figure of m3 and then quoted it as m2. The actual footprint of concrete for each turbine will only be slightly greater than the diameter of the base of the turbine? In reality, a couple of m2!

For the proposed wind farm at Straboy, Co. Donegal (An Bord Pleanala refused permission last month) each turbine foundation would have needed 307 cubic metres of concrete.

There are 8 cubic metres in a load of concrete so that would be 38 loads of concrete per turbine.

Apparently the leases are for 1 hectare of land and of that land an area equivalent to 1 acre will be concreted over. This would include the foundations of the turbine, the access road and an area of hard standing to park heavy equipment (a crane) on during the erection of the turbine.

I was told this by a local farmer and I saw a document from Element Power offering to lease 1 hectare of land.

So if there are 1,000 wind turbines there will be 1,000 acres of concrete.

maidhc

reilig wrote: »

It's typical Irish NIMBYISM. I know loads of people in the Raharney and Killucan area that were harassed into doing that survey - they were told how to answer and told what the consequences would be for them if they didn't. It's very easy to print that they were conducted properly, but when they are carried out on behalf on a lobby group (directly or indirectly), you can't really call the accurate.

The tide has really turned against wind turbines as regards local opposition. The new turbines are so big and so intrusive they do alter the locality, make a lot of noise, cast shadow flicker on peoples houses and devalue them. We are not talking about "windmills" like you would find on the dutch polders. In the UK and most other countries in the EU there is a substantial rowing back on their development, becauase the negatives (loss of amenity, requirment for reserve capacity) outweigh the benefits (money for developers/landowners!)

The wind industry are a powerful lobby group, much more powerful than locals, and with much deeper pockets.

Any farmer who does allow these be built on their land is running the risk of loosing their land through court cases and so forth.

reilig

Greensleeves wrote: »

For the proposed wind farm at Straboy, Co. Donegal (An Bord Pleanala refused permission last month) each turbine foundation would have needed 307 cubic metres of concrete.

There are 8 cubic metres in a load of concrete so that would be 38 loads of concrete per turbine.

Apparently the leases are for 1 hectare of land and of that land an area equivalent to 1 acre will be concreted over. This would include the foundations of the turbine, the access road and an area of hard standing to park heavy equipment (a crane) on during the erection of the turbine.

I was told this by a local farmer and I saw a document from Element Power offering to lease 1 hectare of land.

So if there are 1,000 wind turbines there will be 1,000 acres of concrete.

Can you see why I'm saying that there needs to be more information about this? Clearly you have taken it up wrong. Yes each turbine will require the lease on 1 hectare of land, but this is for safety and work area. The turbine will be stuck slap bang in the middle of that 1 hectare. Yes, it is quite possible that they will use 30 to 38 loads of concrete per turbine, but instead as you suggest them covering 1 acre with this concrete, the concrete will go down into the ground to make the foundation for the turbine. Instead of 1 acre per turbine being concreted over, there will in fact only be a couple of m2 of grass concreted over per turbine.

There are several concrete companies in this area that have been severely hit by recession. I believe that a project like this will provide much needed work for these companies and in turn a chance for them to take staff back on that were made unemployed following the bust!

reilig

maidhc wrote: »

Any farmer who does allow these be built on their land is running the risk of loosing their land through court cases and so forth.

Is that the threat that the anti wind people are using against farmers who might be able to make money out of this? It's pure bull****!

More sensationalism!!!!

This is the point I'm making. Proper information is not being made available to interest groups. ie. Landowners, local residents etc.

We've seen is twice on this forum in the last 24 hours.

1. The notion that 1000 acres of grassland will be covered with concrete.
2. The notion that farmers could be sued for leasing their land to wind companies.

Be truthful about it. Give people all the information and make sure that it is correct so that they can decide for themselves instead of you planting images and ideas in their heads that are not true!!!

If a farmer leases land to a wind company, and an anti wind person wants to bring a court case, it will be against the wind company, not the farmer.

Username John

maidhc wrote: »

The tide has really turned against wind turbines as regards local opposition. The new turbines are so big and so intrusive they do alter the locality, make a lot of noise, cast shadow flicker on peoples houses and devalue them. We are not talking about "windmills" like you would find on the dutch polders. In the UK and most other countries in the EU there is a substantial rowing back on their development, becauase the negatives (loss of amenity, requirment for reserve capacity) outweigh the benefits (money for developers/landowners!)

The wind industry are a powerful lobby group, much more powerful than locals, and with much deeper pockets.

Any farmer who does allow these be built on their land is running the risk of loosing their land through court cases and so forth.

Hi Maidhc,

The first part of your post - I get, poeple dont like them, fair enough.

The last statement in bold - "running the risk of loosing their land through court cases"
Have there been court cases already, that have resulted in lads losing farms?
Just wondering where this is coming from, I know you are involved in the 'law trade' - so do you know something we dont?

I think without backing the statement up, its kinda scare-mongering...

pakalasa

Greensleeves wrote: »

For the proposed wind farm at Straboy, Co. Donegal (An Bord Pleanala refused permission last month) each turbine foundation would have needed 307 cubic metres of concrete....

307 cubic metres is only the equivalent of a block, 22 feet by 22feet and 22 feet deep.

reilig

pakalasa wrote: »

307 cubic metres is only the equivalent of a block, 22 feet by 22feet and 22 feet deep.

or about 3/4 of an inch of concrete over 1 acre which would break up into gravel on the first frosty night!

Greensleeves

reilig wrote: »

Can you see why I'm saying that there needs to be more information about this? Clearly you have taken it up wrong.

I haven't taken anything up wrong; I was told this by a farmer who was debating whether to host a turbine. Perhaps the farmer misunderstood what the lads from Element Power were saying when they called to the farm; the land in question had been recently improved so the farmer was worried about drainage, etc.

Reilig, you really should read up on some of substantial body of information available about wind farms. For example:

"Scotland’s countryside faces being littered with the concrete bases of wind farms that have been dismantled at the end of their operational lives, a major study has warned.

Research commissioned by Scottish National Heritage (SNH) found that removing the reinforced concrete could cause more environmental damage than leaving the bases where they are."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10142126/Old-wind-farms-bases-could-be-left-in-countryside.html

maidhc

Username John wrote: »

Have there been court cases already, that have resulted in lads losing farms?
Just wondering where this is coming from, I know you are involved in the 'law trade' - so do you know something we dont?

Landowners have been named in other jurisdictions with similar legal systems. They are being sued under nuisance, and a host of other heads in the US.

In Ireland I am aware of only one such case, and there the developer only is being sued. However most recent windfarms are now being developed by shelf companies, so it would only be prudent for a lawyer to name the landowners so as to get paid, even if the only bear partial resposibility.

And yes, I'm a practicing Solicitor (and farmer!).