Gridwest project.

Chisler2

runawaybishop wrote: »

Energy demand contracted due to the recession and is predicted to rise again. Our infrastructure in the west is also outdated.

Are you saying if we had more demand people would be happy with the pylons? I think not.



The article was full of hyperbole from her.

“Every single tourist that has come is thoroughly disgusted. It is horrendous. They are shocked to the core.

^^ thats right, every single tourist, of which she spoke to 100%, is both disgusted and horrified.

"People are in tears"

^^ People are crying about wind turbine/. LOLs, clearly exaggerating.

She hasn't shown an iota of proof, nor is she actually discussing pylons.

This is not evidence that pylons affect tourism. Have you actual data?

I arrive at this exchange late but feel strongly motivated to respond to what reads like dangerously narrow thinking which refuses to engage with potential "unintended consequences".

No sensible person would refuse the benefits of cheap, clean, reliable power. Reading this thread, the "objectors" are sensible individuals. They have engaged with, and are raising, possible "unintended consequences" of the proposed pylons.

You ask for more-than-anecdotal evidence of the potential detrimental "unintended consequences". Not surprisingly, no such randomised-controlled trial-type evidence is available. These have not been conducted, nor will they be, as they would be counter to the proposals and interests of those who will benefit from the pylons...........the shareholders of the global outfits and associated hedge-funds in locations far from Ireland and its needs and best interests.

Any notion that Ireland will become self-sufficient through this method of energy-production AND sell spare energy capacity for profit is absurd for the following reasons. Ireland is TOO SMALL. The rest-of-the-world is TOO BIG.

Interestingly, this relative scale is also the basis of one of the "unintended consequences" mentioned by posters - the destruction of tourism which will ensue from additional pylons threading across this (very small) island.

Were you to do a little online scientific research yourself on-line and in the local library you would be confronted by the EVIDENCE of the impossibility that even a sizeable windfarm in western Ireland would make any dent in the (fluctuating!) thirst for energy in Ireland or further afield.

monument

Chisler2 wrote: »

Were you to do a little online scientific research yourself on-line and in the local library you would be confronted by the EVIDENCE of the impossibility that even a sizeable windfarm in western Ireland would make any dent in the (fluctuating!) thirst for energy in Ireland or further afield.

Wind enegry has powered around 33% of demand this year in Ireland so-far.

So, I'm afrade the data isn't with you on that one.

runawaybishop

Chisler2 wrote: »

I arrive at this exchange late but feel strongly motivated to respond to what reads like dangerously narrow thinking which refuses to engage with potential "unintended consequences".

No sensible person would refuse the benefits of cheap, clean, reliable power. Reading this thread, the "objectors" are sensible individuals. They have engaged with, and are raising, possible "unintended consequences" of the proposed pylons.

Debatable. A lot of what i have read seems like NIMBYism at its finest.

Chisler2 wrote: »

You ask for more-than-anecdotal evidence of the potential detrimental "unintended consequences". Not surprisingly, no such randomised-controlled trial-type evidence is available. These have not been conducted, nor will they be, as they would be counter to the proposals and interests of those who will benefit from the pylons...........the shareholders of the global outfits and associated hedge-funds in locations far from Ireland and its needs and best interests.

Balderdash. Pylons have been erected the world over. Statements were made that this will affect tourism in an area but no actual evidence has been shown of this. If this is such a fact then evidence must exist so that we can review and debate it.

Chisler2 wrote: »

Any notion that Ireland will become self-sufficient through this method of energy-production AND sell spare energy capacity for profit is absurd for the following reasons. Ireland is TOO SMALL. The rest-of-the-world is TOO BIG.

Interestingly, this relative scale is also the basis of one of the "unintended consequences" mentioned by posters - the destruction of tourism which will ensue from additional pylons threading across this (very small) island.

Were you to do a little online scientific research yourself on-line and in the local library you would be confronted by the EVIDENCE of the impossibility that even a sizeable windfarm in western Ireland would make any dent in the (fluctuating!) thirst for energy in Ireland or further afield.

Ireland has agreed to provide more of its energy demands via renewable energy. The proposal is to sell excess renewable energy generated, it is not to be self sufficient or to provide a general surplus nor is it to power the rest of the world. Your argument is based on an incorrect understanding.

Any negative effect on tourism should be easy to show, as per the above. Assuming a negative effect is shown the main question is does this outweigh the benefits or mean we should ignore our obligations.

I have provided links to verified data and i am requesting that people share the data that supports items they claim as fact. I am not sure why you think I need to go away and do research.

Finally, CAPS are not nice.

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

Sorry, that isn't a reliable source as its not even quoted. Our demand in 2011 was higher than in 2008 according to this though there are other figures which indicate our demand in 2011 was indeed lower than in 2008. There are no figures available for what we are currently using, none that i can find anyway.

At any rate our demand is expected to meet our highest level (2008) in a mere 5 years. Given that our demand rose by 30% from 2000 to 2008 and given that extra capacity is required by default in a network (typically anywhere from 10-20% to meet network outages) having this capacity will be fine for the next 15 years or so.



Pylons are necessary if the turbines go ahead and will be necessary in the future anyway, even if they do not.

I don't think any reasonable person could dispute that the density of pylons in the link below would spell bad news for any area that relies on natural beauty to attract visitors

That link isnt what is proposed for mayo though, so why bring it up? Apart form that why should one small area hold the rest of the region to ransom?

Your claiming the Ireland will buck the trend in other Western countries yet you have produced no evidence to support this. In the US power demand is also falling despite a growing economy just like the UK

http://www.aceee.org/blog/2014/02/us-electricity-use-declining-and-ener

In any case gridwest does not link to any reliable source of power and is simply another way of wasting more public money on wind energy by the back door with plans for major wind farms all across North Mayo. If lack of power was an issue in Mayo then they could simply upgrade the existing network. My link on pylons was very relevant due to the fact that far more pylons are needed to hook windfarms up to the national grid than one conventional power station due to the sprawling nature of wind energy.

PS: Those energy export plans to the UK have been shelved due to costs. The UK is already paying big subsidies to their own wind producers so are unlikely to want to throw yet more money down this black hole, which is already becoming an election issue over there.

Birdnuts

monument wrote: »

Wind enegry has powered around 33% of demand this year in Ireland so-far.

So, I'm afrade the data isn't with you on that one.

It only approached these levels in windy periods(last September it only provided 3% overall during that month) - on the other hand the coldest weather this month was under calm HP conditions at night when wind was providing low single digits in % terms during peak demands(see Eirgrid figures). And that is the nub of the problem with wind. It is not a disbatcheable power source so cannot be ramped up at times of peak demand, so has to be fully backed up at all times by converntional power stations that are forced to run ineffieciently in order to accomdate wind on a grid. This is why wind power is an extremly expensive and inefficient way to produce power and reduce emmissions as this MIT study below shows

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

This pattern can be seen across Europe with the likes of Germany having to burn more and more coal after switching from nuclear/gas to wind. Now they have the second highest power bills in the EU.

runawaybishop

Birdnuts wrote: »

Your claiming the Ireland will buck the trend in other Western countries yet you have produced no evidence to support this. In the US power demand is also falling despite a growing economy just like the UK

http://www.aceee.org/blog/2014/02/us-electricity-use-declining-and-ener

In any case gridwest does not link to any reliable source of power and is simply another way of wasting more public money on wind energy by the back door with plans for major wind farms all across North Mayo. If lack of power was an issue in Mayo then they could simply upgrade the existing network. My link on pylons was very relevant due to the fact that far more pylons are needed to hook windfarms up to the national grid than one conventional power station due to the sprawling nature of wind energy.

PS: Those energy export plans to the UK have been shelved due to costs. The UK is already paying big subsidies to their own wind producers so are unlikely to want to throw yet more money down this black hole, which is already becoming an election issue over there.

Eh, you yourself provided the evidence I referenced. All evidence poins to growing energy demands due to the recession ending and rising populations. The report you keep mentioning states directly that demand will rise by about 50%. Is there a reason you are wilfully ignoring this?

Your link was total bollocks. No pylon corridor like that was proposed

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

Eh, you yourself provided the evidence I referenced. All evidence poins to growing energy demands due to the recession ending and rising populations. The report you keep mentioning states directly that demand will rise by about 50%. Is there a reason you are wilfully ignoring this?

Your link was total bollocks. No pylon corridor like that was proposed

You appear to be rather ignorant of the plans for pylons and wind farms in this county. Gridwest is just one of many proposed by Eirgrid down the road.Plus every wind farm installed will have to be supplied with pylons.All the links I have posted support my contentions. Can you expand on your 50% figure and what exactly it refers too??

runawaybishop

Birdnuts wrote: »

You appear to be rather ignorant of the plans for pylons and wind farms in this county. Gridwest is just one of many proposed by Eirgrid down the road.Plus every wind farm installed will have to be supplied with pylons.All the links I have posted support my contentions. Can you expand on your 50% figure and what exactly it refers too??

Why don't you actually read the reports you keep referring to? Its all in the very articles you claim back up your assertions.

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

Why don't you actually read the reports you keep referring to? Its all in the very articles you claim back up your assertions.

I think your getting a bit confused here so I think I will clarify a few things. In 2008 at the peak of the boom, the grid system copped easily with the demand. Then the recession came and demand dropped off. Despite this the government in their widom kept adding to our energy production capacity so that today we have double our previous peak demand in capacity. Taking into account current trends in energy consumption across the Western world it is highly likely that energy demand per person will continue to fall with ongoing advances in energy saving technologies across homes and businesss. This all adds up to the fact that our energy system has as it stands, an enormous capacity to power the Irish economy for many years if not decades into the future.

Now if you think different, thats fine. But I've seen nothing from you that would put any doubt as to the reality on the ground AFAICS.

runawaybishop

Birdnuts wrote: »

I think your getting a bit confused here so I think I will clarify a few things. In 2008 at the peak of the boom, the grid system copped easily with the demand. Then the recession came and demand dropped off. Despite this the government in their widom kept adding to our energy production capacity so that today we have double our previous peak demand in capacity. Taking into account current trends in energy consumption across the Western world it is highly likely that energy demand per person will continue to fall with ongoing advances in energy saving technologies across homes and businesss. This all adds up to the fact that our energy system has as it stands, an enormous capacity to power the Irish economy for many years if not decades into the future.

Now if you think different, thats fine. But I've seen nothing from you that would put any doubt as to the reality on the ground AFAICS.

Again, the report you referenced directly contradicts this.

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

Again, the report you referenced directly contradicts this.

Which bit would that be?? Maybe I'm thicker than you so might need some help here

PS: I'd like to see some evidence that demand will be greater than 50% of 2008 figures which appears to be what you are claiming

runawaybishop

Birdnuts wrote: »

Which bit would that be?? Maybe I'm thicker than you so might need some help here

PS: I'd like to see some evidence that demand will be greater than 50% of 2008 figures which appears to be what you are claiming

ESB report I think it was? You mentioned it a couple of pages back and made claims as to what it said so i went off and read it. The report mentions prediction of large demand rise in the coming future. You can also see by usage statistics that demand rose by 30% from 00-08. Even that last link you posted said that analysts belive the recession is directly tied to lower usage.

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

ESB report I think it was? You mentioned it a couple of pages back and made claims as to what it said so i went off and read it. The report mentions prediction of large demand rise in the coming future. You can also see by usage statistics that demand rose by 30% from 00-08. Even that last link you posted said that analysts belive the recession is directly tied to lower usage.

When was this "prediction" made(if at all)?? Certainly not in the last few years. Eirgrids latest figures and projections are far more up to date and are cited by Colm McCarthy in the link I provided on this page. In any case Energy demand trends in the years prior to the recession have little relavance to modern trends in Western Economies as my links to the UK and US grid demands show.

monument

Birdnuts wrote: »

It only approached these levels in windy periods(last September it only provided 3% overall during that month) - on the other hand the coldest weather this month was under calm HP conditions at night when wind was providing low single digits in % terms during peak demands(see Eirgrid figures). And that is the nub of the problem with wind. It is not a disbatcheable power source so cannot be ramped up at times of peak demand, so has to be fully backed up at all times by converntional power stations that are forced to run ineffieciently in order to accomdate wind on a grid. This is why wind power is an extremly expensive and inefficient way to produce power and reduce emmissions as this MIT study below shows

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

I'm unsure what you're referencing with that link to the economist.com as I'm over thier metered quota, but you should know that the Economist are broadly in support for on-shore wind and I think you'll find that they have enough brains between them to relise that the wind does not blow all the time.

Birdnuts wrote: »

This pattern can be seen across Europe with the likes of Germany having to burn more and more coal after switching from nuclear/gas to wind. Now they have the second highest power bills in the EU.

What on earth are you talking about Germany switching from "nuclear/gas to wind"? You're honestly trying to twist Germany's political pressure to rapidly switch off nuclear as some kind of wind power issue?

Birdnuts

monument wrote: »

I'm unsure what you're referencing with that link to the economist.com as I'm over thier metered quota, but you should know that the Economist are broadly in support for on-shore wind and I think you'll find that they have enough brains between them to relise that the wind does not blow all the time.




What on earth are you talking about Germany switching from "nuclear/gas to wind"? You're honestly trying to twist Germany's political pressure to rapidly switch off nuclear as some kind of wind power issue?

Hmm.........their certainly not keen on subsidising it via the EU model going on recent pieces. Indeed there's a piece in this weeks Economist about how the spirralling cost of wind power subsidies are hitting investment in Germany. Its behind a paywall ATM but I will get it ASAP and post it here. As for Germany's energy policies. I'm simply pointing out what a failure they have been on costs and emmissions reduction since they deceided to bin nuclear and go with wind(or coal givens its spirralling use in their energy mix!!)

Niall_daaS

Birdnuts wrote: »

This pattern can be seen across Europe with the likes of Germany having to burn more and more coal after switching from nuclear/gas to wind. Now they have the second highest power bills in the EU.

But the high prices over here come more like from the miserable construction of financing the turn away from nuclear energy and not from the coal.

monument

Birdnuts wrote: »

Hmm.........their certainly not keen on subsidising it via the EU model going on recent pieces. Indeed there's a piece in this weeks Economist about how the spirralling cost of wind power subsidies are hitting investment in Germany. Its behind a paywall ATM but I will get it ASAP and post it here.

You're conflating two different thing -- (a) them having some issues with some aspects of subsidising wind for so long and being against wind.

But then again you also seem to think wind needs to be blowing all the time for it to make sense.

Birdnuts wrote: »

As for Germany's energy policies. I'm simply pointing out what a failure they have been on costs and emmissions reduction since they deceided to bin nuclear and go with wind(or coal givens its spirralling use in their energy mix!!)

Are you up for a few nuclear plants? We could have one in Mayo and another in Wicklow.

You can't just have one, it does not work like that.

MayoSalmon

monument wrote: »

You're conflating two different thing -- (a) them having some issues with some aspects of subsidising wind for so long and being against wind.

But then again you also seem to think wind needs to be blowing all the time for it to make sense.

.

Unfortunately it does need to blowing basically all the time as it is too intermittent for how our current grid operates.

I have heard suggestions about developing batteries that can store surplus wind energy for the times when the wind doesn't blow. Not sure if thats the solution mind.

monument

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Unfortunately it does need to blowing basically all the time as it is too intermittent for how our current grid operates.

Maybe but I know it's not a reason to reject wind power as many are trying to do.

Chisler2

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Unfortunately it does need to blowing basically all the time as it is too intermittent for how our current grid operates.

I have heard suggestions about developing batteries that can store surplus wind energy for the times when the wind doesn't blow. Not sure if thats the solution mind.

Research on management of turbines in different conditions is ongoing (have a look at Siemens website) and so far unsuccessful. There is a kind of "urban myth" that sticking a wind-farm in a windy location equals "free energy". Wind farms are not only massively expensive and environmentally-damaging to manufacture and instal and unproductive when there is insufficient wind but (a) unproductive when winds are too strong or from the "wrong" direction, as they must be de-coupled; (b) fatal to migrating and resident bird-populations (c) unsightly and destructive of an economically-vital industry......tourism (d) provide minimal sustainable employment in proportion to investment and loss of amenity (e) are economically productive only to the shareholders of whatever multinational/global outfit that accepts imprudent governments' blandishments to invidious Private-Public Partnerships of a kind which have proved disastrous in the UK public sector and (f).......just do not achieve the purported objective........to provide "cheap, clean energy"................and I speak as a former strong advocate of wind-farms. I changed my mind because my position was not supported by evidence.

MayoSalmon

Chisler2 wrote: »

Research on management of turbines in different conditions is ongoing (have a look at Siemens website) and so far unsuccessful. There is a kind of "urban myth" that sticking a wind-farm in a windy location equals "free energy". Wind farms are not only massively expensive and environmentally-damaging to manufacture and instal and unproductive when there is insufficient wind but (a) unproductive when winds are too strong or from the "wrong" direction, as they must be de-coupled; (b) fatal to migrating and resident bird-populations (c) unsightly and destructive of an economically-vital industry......tourism (d) provide minimal sustainable employment in proportion to investment and loss of amenity (e) are economically productive only to the shareholders of whatever multinational/global outfit that accepts imprudent governments' blandishments to invidious Private-Public Partnerships of a kind which have proved disastrous in the UK public sector and (f).......just do not achieve the purported objective........to provide "cheap, clean energy"................and I speak as a former strong advocate of wind-farms. I changed my mind because my position was not supported by evidence.

(a) I would imagine this could be overcome with improving technology
(b) I think the birds will be alright in the long run, I have seen some studies showing birds actively avoid wind turbines especially offshore
(c)(d) You'd be surprised to find that some people actually like the things in the same way people used to like windmills back in the day
(e) This i agree with and governments are getting it drastically wrong employing these tactics...
(f) They certainly provide cheapER energy than fossil

monument

Chisler2 wrote: »

Research on management of turbines in different conditions is ongoing (have a look at Siemens website) and so far unsuccessful.

Siemens says:

Wind power: Clean and affordable
With highly efficient, solid and reliable wind turbines, Siemens Wind Power offers solutions to meet both energy and environmental needs. Driving down the cost of wind power is our key target as we strive to make renewable energy independent of subsidies.

They also have "Lifecycle Assessments" of their turbines showing how they are environmentally friendly "from cradle to grave".

Chisler2 wrote: »

There is a kind of "urban myth" that sticking a wind-farm in a windy location equals "free energy".

I'm not aware of this urban myth - I've never heard of it.

It's free beside construction and maintenance costs, which is a lot freer than oil or gas or nuclear or most biomass.

Chisler2 wrote: »

Wind farms are not only massively expensive and environmentally-damaging to manufacture and instal and unproductive when there is insufficient wind... (c) unsightly and destructive of an economically-vital industry......tourism ... (e) are economically productive only to the shareholders of whatever multinational/global outfit that accepts imprudent governments' blandishments to invidious Private-Public Partnerships of a kind which have proved disastrous in the UK public sector

As opposed to coal-fire power plants? Gas power plants? Nuclear power plants? What's your preferred power source? OR should we all go live in caves?

Chisler2 wrote: »

(a) unproductive when winds are too strong or from the "wrong" direction, as they must be de-coupled;

There's unproductivity built into most power sources, including nuclear and solar. It's a sick myth that this is an insurmountable issue for wind power.

Chisler2 wrote: »

I changed my mind because my position was not supported by evidence.

That's evidence propagated by NIMBYs and big businesses involved in industry which is threatened by a shift to sustainable energy.

Birdnuts

monument wrote: »

Are you up for a few nuclear plants? We could have one in Mayo and another in Wicklow.

You can't just have one, it does not work like that.

No problem with nuclear at all and would happily live beside one. Small Thorium reactors are going to be a game changer in the future and Ireland should position itself to benefit from such developments.

Birdnuts

MayoSalmon wrote: »

(a)
(f) They certainly provide cheapER energy than fossil

Unfortunatly this has not proved to be the case in Europe when you look at the German,Danish etc. Grid. The link I posted earlier on the MIT study explains why this is the case.Indeed in Ireland since we adopted our current energy stategies with wind at its centre, the cost of electricity has gone from below the EU averge to the 4th most expensive:(

Birdnuts

monument wrote: »

.

It's free beside construction and maintenance costs, which is a lot freer than oil or gas or nuclear or most biomass.






.

Well thats the biggest Urban myth of all and I'm suprised your trotting it out. The entire cost of the extra pylon infrastrure to service wind farms and their need for back up power during high and low wind conditions is entirely borne by the end energy user. And it is far from cheap as I pointed out earlier. No matter how much of the countryside is plastered with wind farms and their pylons, we will still need the same capacity of conventional power sources to keep the lights on when the wind isn't playing ball.

MayoSalmon

Birdnuts wrote: »

Unfortunatly this has not proved to be the case in Europe when you look at the German,Danish etc. Grid. The link I posted earlier on the MIT study explains why this is the case.Indeed in Ireland since we adopted our current energy stategies with wind at its centre, the cost of electricity has gone from below the EU averge to the 4th most expensive:(

I'm talking about the long game here as in when the technology no longer needs heavy subsidies and infrastructure investment. When all that is said in done it is obviously cheaper as there in no input in comparison to fossil.

Birdnuts

MayoSalmon wrote: »

I'm talking about the long game here as in when the technology no longer needs heavy subsidies and infrastructure investment. When all that is said in done it is obviously cheaper as there in no input in comparison to fossil.

Hmmm....I'm not sure what technology will get over these problems FTFF(especcially the need for back up generation). In the meantime I think ongoing advances in energy saving technology and the likes of Thorium generation will deleiver far more benefits in this area,quicker and at a much more reasonable cost, while also avoiding all the issues surrounding the placement of massive number of windfarms throughout rural Ireland.

monument

Birdnuts wrote: »

Well thats the biggest Urban myth of all and I'm suprised your trotting it out. The entire cost of the extra pylon infrastrure to service wind farms and their need for back up power during high and low wind conditions is entirely borne by the end energy user. And it is far from cheap as I pointed out earlier. No matter how much of the countryside is plastered with wind farms and their pylons, we will still need the same capacity of conventional power sources to keep the lights on when the wind isn't playing ball.

Sorry, but regardless of how you phrase it, the normal planned functions around wind power are not shocking -- as the song goes: This is all part of the process. It's not shocking that the wind doesn't blow all the time or blows too strongly sometimes.

Things like "extra pylons" are included as infrastructure cost is included in construction and maintenance costs.

Unlike coal, oil, biomass, and gas there's no high internationally traded price, there's no extra transport cost (which isn't already included in the "construction and maintenance" costs, and there's no issues with prices spiking or shortages of supply because of geopolitical issues.

Birdnuts wrote: »

No problem with nuclear at all and would happily live beside one. Small Thorium reactors are going to be a game changer in the future and Ireland should position itself to benefit from such developments.

Great, so, forgetting about there being no guarantees over costs of such as of yet unproven reactors, you're selecting an option which is out of touch with the realpolitik landscape! Have you forgotten that even Germany are ditching nuclear?

You could have a wind farm in every town and village in Ireland faster than you could build a nuclear plant of any kind (the former is not going to happen but still more likely than the latter). If you think NIMBY opposition in Ireland to wind turbines is bad, have a try at really suggesting a nuclear plant of any kind anywhere near the most mild wind power objectors!

Birdnuts wrote: »

Unfortunatly this has not proved to be the case in Europe when you look at the German,Danish etc. Grid. The link I posted earlier on the MIT study explains why this is the case.Indeed in Ireland since we adopted our current energy stategies with wind at its centre, the cost of electricity has gone from below the EU averge to the 4th most expensive:(

It's the cost of investment -- with some things we pay such via general taxes but it has been chosen here and elsewhere with power and with water for the cost to be levied on users directly for different reasons.

The cost benefits of energy security alone, plus environment benefits, are massive.

Birdnuts

monument wrote: »

Sorry, but regardless of how you phrase it, the normal planned functions around wind power are not shocking -- as the song goes: This is all part of the process. It's not shocking that the wind doesn't blow all the time or blows too strongly sometimes.

Things like "extra pylons" are included as infrastructure cost is included in construction and maintenance costs.

Unlike coal, oil, biomass, and gas there's no high internationally traded price, there's no extra transport cost (which isn't already included in the "construction and maintenance" costs, and there's no issues with prices spiking or shortages of supply because of geopolitical issues.




Great, so, forgetting about there being no guarantees over costs of such as of yet unproven reactors, you're selecting an option which is out of touch with the realpolitik landscape! Have you forgotten that even Germany are ditching nuclear?

You could have a wind farm in every town and village in Ireland faster than you could build a nuclear plant of any kind (the former is not going to happen but still more likely than the latter). If you think NIMBY opposition in Ireland to wind turbines is bad, have a try at really suggesting a nuclear plant of any kind anywhere near the most mild wind power objectors!




It's the cost of investment -- with some things we pay such via general taxes but it has been chosen here and elsewhere with power and with water for the cost to be levied on users directly for different reasons.

The cost benefits of energy security alone, plus environment benefits, are massive.

Your trotting out more myths here. Firstly wind does not offer any type of energy security since it has to be backed up by conventional power stations. So no matter how much of the landscape we disfigure with windfarms, we will still be importing significant amounts of fossil power. Not one power station in Europe has been shut down on the back of wind. Again the experience of Germany shows that wind has failed on costs and emmission reduction. Their deceision to dump nuclear was totally without any merit as they are now having to keep the lights on by burning ever larger amounts of coal. Yet somehow this is seen as a success by people like yourself:rolleyes: btw - The added costs of maintaining and building a sprawling wind related pylon network are bourn by the energy user, not by the developer as you seem to think

PS: The childish name calling is getting a bit tiresome. I have already stated I have no problem with nuclear power stations or other neccesary and sensible power infrasturture in the countryside. NIMBY is a lazy term used by people who have no sensible arguements to make on planning in this country.

oscarBravo

Birdnuts wrote: »

I have already stated I have no problem with nuclear power stations...

Which is laudable, but completely irrelevant to the point that was made: nuclear isn't going to happen. If you think that nuclear power will be acceptable to most people just because you personally don't have a problem with it... I don't know what to say to you.