Gridwest project.

monument

More important than any of the below is the question you left unanswered:

How many construction and full time jobs are worth counting these days?

Birdnuts wrote: »

Wind isn't a reliable power source and oil/gas will be around for a long time yet.

You repeating "wind isn't a reliable power source" over and over does not make it true. Wind is reliable with quick-fire power plants as backups (even if you have some kind of strange, unexplained issue with quick-fire backup plants).

It does not matter if there's enough oil and gas for 1,000 years (which there isn't), and it does matter if we have oil and gas off the west coast to keep us going for that time as we will pay the same prices for "Irish" gas as we will pay for Russian gas.

Birdnuts wrote: »

The US has recently become self sufficient in gas and will soon be in oil so the myth that we are running out is just that - a myth put out by the wind industry and their fellow travellers.

This is amazing! You're against a few electricity pylons but you're trumpeting the US energy boom which is backed mainly dirtiest and most destructive energy extraction methods such as fracking and tar sands.

Would you be ok with fracking and oil sand extraction near your land in Mayo? Or is it a case of not in my back yard?

Also if you re-read my post you'll see I said nothing about the lack of oil and gas, but rather the future of cheap oil and gas.

The "wind industry and their fellow travelers" must include the oil industry as the oil industry are still claiming that growing demand will still outstrip growing supply (I'm not putting this across as something I agree with).

Birdnuts wrote: »

Wind power has to be backed up by conventional fuels when the wind is too light/strong

So, what?

What exactly is your point here? One second you're saying there's load of conventional fuels and then the next you're saying it's some kind of issue that renewables need to be backed up by these conventional fuels!

Birdnuts wrote: »

and drives up the price of electricity for business and domestic users. Germany has to pay billions of euros in subsidies to its business sector every year to compensate them for rising power prices on the back of accommodating wind on the grid. Ireland cannot afford such largesses,

Ireland can't afford not to and thankful for once we're not filling short-sighted short-term thinking.

Birdnuts wrote: »

let alone attract energy intensive industry on the back of it

No energy intensive industry? Intel? Coke Cola? Microsoft? Google? Amazon? What are you talking about?

But, regardless, we need clean and dependable power for all sorts of businesses and for residential use.

TheBully

Birdnuts wrote: »

??? - According to BnM who are building that wind farm, the maximum number of jobs post construction is in the single figures. This includes some vague promise of some sort of an interpretive centre. Check out the planning file they have lodged with Mayo CC. As I stated earlier in this thread Donegal has dozens of wind farms and is still one of the worst unemployment black spots in the country.

I work in and around that general area on and off, The Number of trucks alone going in and out just to build the road is unbelievable, Just because the windfarm itself will only sustain a small number of jobs, the construction and indirect jobs boost is massive, Remember this project will be ongoing for years, The owenenny windfarm is just the start of it

Dudda

Birdnuts wrote: »

Wind isn't a reliable power source and oil/gas will be around for a long time yet. The US has recently become self sufficient in gas and will soon be in oil so the myth that we are running out is just that - a myth put out by the wind industry and their fellow travellers. Wind power has to be backed up by conventional fuels when the wind is too light/strong and drives up the price of electricity for business and domestic users. Germany has to pay billions of euros in subsidies to its business sector every year to compensate them for rising power prices on the back of accommodating wind on the grid. Ireland cannot afford such largesses, let alone attract energy intensive industry on the back of it

If the US are self reliant on oil and gas they are showing a hell of a lot of interest in the Middle East for the last 30 years.

I saw a presentation about two years ago in Trinity where researchers were exploring the idea and investigating suitable sites where water would be pumped up to high level reservoirs in high winds which could flow back down and turn turbines during low winds making wind energy incredibly reliable. They highlighted a natural valley in Donegal as an example at high altitude in a remote location with suitable rock/bearing which could be a reservoir. It was beside the sea where the water would flow from and to reducing the infrastructure and cost required.

I've no idea if it would work in practice or how efficient it would be although they did present basic figures. I was however very impressed with the great ideas from Irish researchers and students.

oscarBravo

That was the "spirit of Ireland" project. And if we can't build a 400kV transmission line, you think we're going to be able to flood a valley with seawater?

Mickeroo

oscarBravo wrote: »

That was the "spirit of Ireland" project. And if we can't build a 400kV transmission line, you think we're going to be able to flood a valley with seawater?

I hope not, that always struck me as an ecological disaster in the making.

Birdnuts

TheBully wrote: »

I work in and around that general area on and off, The Number of trucks alone going in and out just to build the road is unbelievable, Just because the windfarm itself will only sustain a small number of jobs, the construction and indirect jobs boost is massive, Remember this project will be ongoing for years, The owenenny windfarm is just the start of it

Same could be said for all those ghost estates around the country. At the end of the day someone has to pay the bills for such follies - in this case the hard pressed domestic and business users of electricity. Why not build something usefull like a Nuclear power station??

PS - Can I ask what sustainable indirect jobs wind power generates??

Birdnuts

oscarBravo wrote: »

That was the "spirit of Ireland" project. And if we can't build a 400kV transmission line, you think we're going to be able to flood a valley with seawater?

A daft idea that was never going to work

Birdnuts

Dudda wrote: »

If the US are self reliant on oil and gas they are showing a hell of a lot of interest in the Middle East for the last 30 years.

.

Have you noticed that they are pulling out of Iraq and won't touch Syria with a barge poll??. A lot of the US activities in the Middle East concern Israel issues

Birdnuts

monument wrote: »

More important than any of the below is the question you left unanswered:

How many construction and full time jobs are worth counting these days?




You repeating "wind isn't a reliable power source" over and over does not make it true. Wind is reliable with quick-fire power plants as backups (even if you have some kind of strange, unexplained issue with quick-fire backup plants).

It does not matter if there's enough oil and gas for 1,000 years (which there isn't), and it does matter if we have oil and gas off the west coast to keep us going for that time as we will pay the same prices for "Irish" gas as we will pay for Russian gas.




This is amazing! You're against a few electricity pylons but you're trumpeting the US energy boom which is backed mainly dirtiest and most destructive energy extraction methods such as fracking and tar sands.

Would you be ok with fracking and oil sand extraction near your land in Mayo? Or is it a case of not in my back yard?

Also if you re-read my post you'll see I said nothing about the lack of oil and gas, but rather the future of cheap oil and gas.

The "wind industry and their fellow travelers" must include the oil industry as the oil industry are still claiming that growing demand will still outstrip growing supply (I'm not putting this across as something I agree with).




So, what?

What exactly is your point here? One second you're saying there's load of conventional fuels and then the next you're saying it's some kind of issue that renewables need to be backed up by these conventional fuels!




Ireland can't afford not to and thankful for once we're not filling short-sighted short-term thinking.




No energy intensive industry? Intel? Coke Cola? Microsoft? Google? Amazon? What are you talking about?

But, regardless, we need clean and dependable power for all sorts of businesses and for residential use.

So we ignore the experiences of other countries that have forced wind power into their grids and plough on regardless "cos shure there'll be a some quick fire construction jobs for a few months"?? Clearly some people have learn't nothing from the disaster that was the Celtic Tiger property boom which taxpayers and the rest of the economy are still paying dearly for. I suggest you read Colm McCarthy's piece on "NAMA for wind turbines"

PS: If someone proposes a Nuclear or gas fired power station for North Mayo then I'd be the first one out of the traps supporting such a project giving long term employment and a secure power supply - so don't play the lazy "your a NIMBY" card with me:rolleyes:

monument

Birdnuts wrote: »

So we ignore the experiences of other countries that have forced wind power into their grids and plough on regardless "cos shure there'll be a some quick fire construction jobs for a few months"?? Clearly some people have learn't nothing from the disaster that was the Celtic Tiger property boom which taxpayers and the rest of the economy are still paying dearly for. I suggest you read Colm McCarthy's piece on "NAMA for wind turbines"

Ok, so, your answer to the first half of the question seems to be that construction jobs are never worth counting! Even Colm McCarthy would agree that it's very simplistic to come to the conclusion that because we have had a building boom gone wrong you devalue any value from short-term jobs.

But less said about McCarthy and the Westlink toll bridge the better -- he seems fine with the state spending a ton to clean up private business messes when it suits him (ie when the private company pays him!). Also: Given your lack of understanding and lack of response re energy intensive industry, it really seems like you're the one who needs to read up about subjects.

And what about the second half?: How many full time jobs are worth counting these days?

Birdnuts wrote: »

PS: If someone proposes a Nuclear or gas fired power station for North Mayo then I'd be the first one out of the traps supporting such a project giving long term employment and a secure power supply - so don't play the lazy "your a NIMBY" card with me:rolleyes:

Nobody is playing any lazy cards.

I just asked: Would you be ok with fracking and oil sand extraction near your land in Mayo? Or is it a case of not in my back yard?

You're the one who was cheerleading the US's destructive and dirty energy boom (which is all about fracking and also things like tar sands and little to do with conventional gas or nuclear) and in the same breathe you are against a few pylons.

Or maybe you would be fine if it was fracking or tar sands happening in north Mayo? Or do you want to retract your support for the current US energy boom?

You can't have it every way!

Birdnuts

monument wrote: »

Ok, so, your answer to the first half of the question seems to be that construction jobs are never worth counting! Even Colm McCarthy would agree that it's very simplistic to come to the conclusion that because we have had a building boom gone wrong you devalue any value from short-term jobs.

But less said about McCarthy and the Westlink toll bridge the better -- he seems fine with the state spending a ton to clean up private business messes when it suits him (ie when the private company pays him!). Also: Given your lack of understanding and lack of response re energy intensive industry, it really seems like you're the one who needs to read up about subjects.

And what about the second half?: How many full time jobs are worth counting these days?




Nobody is playing any lazy cards.

I just asked: Would you be ok with fracking and oil sand extraction near your land in Mayo? Or is it a case of not in my back yard?

You're the one who was cheerleading the US's destructive and dirty energy boom (which is all about fracking and also things like tar sands and little to do with conventional gas or nuclear) and in the same breathe you are against a few pylons.

Or maybe you would be fine if it was fracking or tar sands happening in north Mayo? Or do you want to retract your support for the current US energy boom?

You can't have it every way!

So you support covering Mayo with pylons and wind turbines no matter what the cost to energy users or the local environment. I take it from that you were cheerleading the policies that led to the ghost estates that continue to be an environmental and economic blight on the country. You must be a big fan of dodgy developers,Anglo and that lot.

Funny that you accuse me of knowing nothing about energy intensive industries. I suggest its yourself that needs to read up on what's going on in the real world. In the same Economist article I referred to earlier about the vast amount of subsides industry is getting in Germany to compensate them for the cost of putting wind on the grid - it also referred to companies like Thyssen Grupen that are still planning to move much production capacity out of the country due to the cost and concerns about the stability of the grid. Britain too is moving back to Nuclear as it is slowly dawning over there that designing a grid based on wind makes it hugely expensive and unreliable. The latter point is interesting in the context of all this guff about exporting wind to the UK. Only the Liberals over there now support increasing peoples power bills to support the wind speculators and their support has plunged to Irish Labour party levels in recent times.

As for fracking gas - I have no problem with it if properly regulated as would be my view with any extractive industry.

oscarBravo

It's utterly disingenuous to say that we shouldn't invest in renewables, but in fracking and nuclear instead. Anyone who will claim with a straight face that there would be less opposition to a nuclear plant in Mayo than there is to a power line is either deluded or bare-faced lying.

Birdnuts

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's utterly disingenuous to say that we shouldn't invest in renewables, but in fracking and nuclear instead. Anyone who will claim with a straight face that there would be less opposition to a nuclear plant in Mayo than there is to a power line is either deluded or bare-faced lying.

Who's this we?? - I don't remember the Irish public being asked whether they want to subsidise the wind industry in terms of higher energy bills and energy sprawl across rural Ireland. As for opposition to Nuclear - many people do indeed believe the hysteria put out by vested interests on the matter but the facts speak for themselves in terms of safety, security of supply and impact on the environment.

yop

Birdnuts wrote: »

Who's this we?? - I don't remember the Irish public being asked whether they want to subsidise the wind industry in terms of higher energy bills and energy sprawl across rural Ireland. As for opposition to Nuclear - many people do indeed believe the hysteria put out by vested interests on the matter but the facts speak for themselves in terms of safety, security of supply and impact on the environment.

So nuclear is safer than energy lines..?

Mickeroo

yop wrote: »

So nuclear is safer than energy lines..?

Nuclear is very safe and clean too with way better output than wind. Would be a much better investment than wind imo but not a chance would it happen due to the stigma surrounding it.

irishgeo

nuclear is a non renewable fuel as well.

Mickeroo

irishgeo wrote: »

nuclear is a non renewable fuel as well.

Yeah but we're talking a very long time until we run out plus it gives renewables time to catch up technology wise. Compared to other non renewables its practically a green energy source in terms of pollution.

TopTec

OK. Sounds like this may be going down the 'choose the lesser of the evils' route.

1. 100's, even 1000s' of wind turbines feeding into miles and miles of pylons and power lines. This beautiful county blighted by marching metal monsters and massive white whirring sentinels. 1000's of unhappy Irish people who have these on their doorstep.

An unstable supply and overseas owners who are paid large grants to do nothing. Those grants will be paid for by us. (Every UK household currently pays 700 ish euro a year for renewable's).

2. Current power stations, especially those run on peat and coal to be replaced by nuclear. Clean long term, stable energy. Initial large investment, usually by the Chinese, but in the long run cheaper for this country and importantly guaranteeing our energy into the future.

Simplistic, I know, but to me its a no brainer.

Birdnuts

yop wrote: »

So nuclear is safer than energy lines..?

If you add up the number of people killed in accidents involving power lines around the world then I would say it is far safer.

oscarBravo

I'm not arguing about how safe nuclear is; I don't disagree that it's safe.

My point is that it doesn't matter a damn how safe it is; what matters is how scared of it people decide to be. We're talking about people who are afraid of being microwaved by overhead power lines. You really think those people are going to get behind a nuclear plant?

And that's leaving aside the rather significant question of how you think it makes any sense to build a nuclear plant without, y'know, building the transmission lines required to connect it to the grid.

TopTec

oscarBravo wrote: »

And that's leaving aside the rather significant question of how you think it makes any sense to build a nuclear plant without, y'know, building the transmission lines required to connect it to the grid.

The lines, like, you know, won't be needed as there won't be any windfarms that need the additional power lines which everyone seems to agree is why they are being built in the first place.

Mickeroo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not arguing about how safe nuclear is; I don't disagree that it's safe.

My point is that it doesn't matter a damn how safe it is; what matters is how scared of it people decide to be. We're talking about people who are afraid of being microwaved by overhead power lines. You really think those people are going to get behind a nuclear plant?

And that's leaving aside the rather significant question of how you think it makes any sense to build a nuclear plant without, y'know, building the transmission lines required to connect it to the grid.

Nobody's denying the fact that there's not a chance in hell the locals would get behind nuclear. I'm not actually against the power lines tbh.

Dudda

oscarBravo wrote: »

That was the "spirit of Ireland" project. And if we can't build a 400kV transmission line, you think we're going to be able to flood a valley with seawater?

Sounds about as daft as extracting gas off the coast of Mayo sounded 10 years ago or building an airport in Knock 50 years ago. One thing I've learned is if there is something to be gained, no matter how daft an idea sounds, someone will give it a go.

kadett

Originally Posted by oscarBravo View Post

That was the "spirit of Ireland" project. And if we can't build a 400kV transmission line, you think we're going to be able to flood a valley with seawater?

Sounds about as daft as extracting gas off the coast of Mayo sounded 10 years ago or building an airport in Knock 50 years ago. One thing I've learned is if there is something to be gained, no matter how daft an idea sounds, someone will give it a go.

http://www.organicpower.ie/content/projects/glinsk.htm

monument

Birdnuts wrote: »

So you support covering Mayo with pylons and wind turbines no matter what the cost to energy users or the local environment.

There's no plan or question of "covering Mayo" with pylons and turbines.

Birdnuts wrote: »

I take it from that you were cheerleading the policies that led to the ghost estates that continue to be an environmental and economic blight on the country. You must be a big fan of dodgy developers,Anglo and that lot.

No, I was never a cheerleader any of that. Quite the opposite.

If you read back you'll note that I've only accused you of being a cheerleader of something you have openly supported and have gone on to support some of those things and have not denied support of others.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Funny that you accuse me of knowing nothing about energy intensive industries.

I did not "accuse" you, I proved you wrong by listing energy intensive businesses that Ireland has attracted when you claimed that Ireland was not able to attract energy intensive industries.

Birdnuts wrote: »

I suggest its yourself that needs to read up on what's going on in the real world.

That does not mean much coming from somebody who has been so wrong.

Birdnuts wrote: »

In the same Economist article I referred to earlier about the vast amount of subsides industry is getting in Germany to compensate them for the cost of putting wind on the grid - it also referred to companies like Thyssen Grupen that are still planning to move much production capacity out of the country due to the cost and concerns about the stability of the grid.

Meanwhile, data centres etc are insisting on renewable as a core part of the mix and Germany hit high points of ~60% of power from renewables a few times now without any stability issues.

Recently there was even a few headlines aimed at the myth of stability issues -- ie "Germany Hits 59% Renewable Peak, Grid Does Not Explode".

Birdnuts wrote: »

As for fracking gas - I have no problem with it if properly regulated as would be my view with any extractive industry.

This again is amazing. You're against pylons but are supportive of this type of thing:

Mickeroo wrote: »

Nobody's denying the fact that there's not a chance in hell the locals would get behind nuclear. I'm not actually against the power lines tbh.

Others here are against power lines but are saying "go nuclear". Truly amazing stuff.

TopTec wrote: »

The lines, like, you know, won't be needed as there won't be any windfarms that need the additional power lines which everyone seems to agree is why they are being built in the first place.

That's classic not in my back yard stuff. If you truly want nuclear, you should be welcoming it with open arms to Mayo.

oscarBravo

TopTec wrote: »

The lines, like, you know, won't be needed as there won't be any windfarms that need the additional power lines which everyone seems to agree is why they are being built in the first place.

So, no windfarms, no transmission lines, no nuclear, no pumped storage, no gas pipeline, no nothing in my back yard... and when are the government going to do something about jobs in Mayo?

It's a great little country.

Birdnuts

kadett wrote: »

http://www.organicpower.ie/content/projects/glinsk.htm

The estimated cost of that project is 5 billion euros according to the stuff I read in the local press. It depends on the Brits buying the power at silly prices. As I mentioned earlier the UK are going down the nuclear route so the basis of such projects have a lot of question marks over them. Maybe the wind power fans on here might like to invest??

Birdnuts

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, no windfarms, no transmission lines, no nuclear, no pumped storage, no gas pipeline, no nothing in my back yard... and when are the government going to do something about jobs in Mayo?

It's a great little country.

Why are you shoving words in peoples mouths?? - I and others here have already stated our support for Nuclear and gas. If they wanted to build such a power station in Bellacorick then I would be the first one to pop the corks. What I don't support are ill conceived, uneconomic, landscape disfiguring, white elephants being shoved down the throats of rural Ireland

oscarBravo

Birdnuts wrote: »

Why are you shoving words in peoples mouths??

You're going to claim that the objections to this transmission line aren't almost pure undiluted NIMBYism?

I and others here have already stated our support for Nuclear and gas. If they wanted to build such a power station in Bellacorick then I would be the first one to pop the corks.

Are you labouring under the twin delusions that (a) the people who are scared witless of being microwaved by overhead power lines would contemplate a nuclear power plant within a thousand kilometers of their back yards, and (b) the electricity generated by a nuclear plant would magically and wirelessly join the national grid through the power of wishful thinking?

oscarBravo

Birdnuts wrote: »

The estimated cost of that project is 5 billion euros...

Turlough Hill cost £22 million - call it €100m in today's terms. Why would Glinsk cost fifty times as much?