Wind farms - ugly truths

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

So many of you just do not care about the cost or benefit of the wind program
....
wind turbines do not make economic sense when you look at all the possible ways of spending €4B

I've said it before, we could have bypassed eircom and rolled out fibre to the home to the whole country for less than the NRA were spending on roads.

The M50 toll bridge will cost about a billion euro, not bad for something that an initial investment of £30m

At one point, and I don't think anything has changed, we had the highest land cost for new roads in the EU, even places like the Neatherlands.

So yes insulation and energy efficiency should be a target, it just isn't happening except as a backhander to the construction industry. And the suspicion is that the grants are already factored into the prices

In GB they massively subsidise simple stuff like loft insulation. Over here there are regular threads on snakeoil like that "magic" insulation paint with the "magic" R value. Of course the paint bridged the spheres and you could never afford a thick enough layer to make any difference.

In the meantime wind rocks.
It works.
Like solar payback time is getting shorter, the subsidies per unit are going down too.

Some people don't like living near turbines. Some people don't like the government. It's impossible to please all the people all the time. I love the old joke about the farmer complaing about finally getting rain after a long dry spell "it rained on the wrong field" TBH I'd be more shocked if there weren't some begrudgers , after all it's Ireland.

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

Power Grids are a bit more complicated than that and most conventional plant can't be turned on and off at the flick of a switch without significantly affecting their output in terms of both power and emmissions. A better analogy would be the output of a truck diesel engine in heavy city traffic compared to a steady crusing speed on a clear straight motorway.

On and Off at a flick isn't easy. But no one except the anti-renewables brigade talks about on/off.

In the real world you are already running so it's not On and Off , it's putting the foot down on something that's already motoring. Like I keep saying we have wind forecasts that give an idea of how much power would be needed. And besides spinning reserve is already needed to cover the other fossil fuel plants.

And it's more like a diesel electric locomotive than a truck. The train from Cork still has the engine running when it's near enough free wheeling on the stretch from Kildare.

Markcheese

fclauson wrote: »

Who would not want to keep wind farms going if they had the finance to build one - at €80/Mwh guaranteed for 25 years (typical pay off time for a wind farm is around 7 years) its easy money paid for by the Irish consumer whom the Irish Government has no consideration for

Also "revert to his ownership" - most sites have a planning condition that site must be returned to original state once planning life has expired - out of interest which particular wind farm is this ?

What's the planning life ?
Couldn't tell you the name of the windfarm -know the guy who's land it's on - know roughly where his house is but I've no idea of the town land the turbines are in - but it's on the right as you leave dunmanway heading for drimoleague -

Markcheese

Birdnuts wrote: »

Power Grids are a bit more complicated than that and most conventional plant can't be turned on and off at the flick of a switch without significantly affecting their output in terms of both power and emmissions. A better analogy would be the output of a truck diesel engine in heavy city traffic compared to a steady crusing speed on a clear straight motorway.

It's actually a really good analogy about the ship -
But the important thing is to factor in the cost of structural changes to the ship to accomadate the sails (wind turbines ) and wether or not the addition of sails leaves the ship suitable for purpose- and saves money on fuel
But to come up with a million and one reasons why "turbines are bad " cos you just don't like the look of them - I don't like the look of a lot of people's houses or where they're sited -but hey -

fclauson

Markcheese wrote: »

What's the planning life ?

Most wind farms have a timed planning permission which is codified into the planning conditions e.g. 20 years after commissioning they either must apply for a planning permission extension (which may get rejected) or they will have to decommission

All depends on what was set when they were originally built

fclauson

Markcheese wrote: »

It's actually a really good analogy about the ship -
But the important thing is to factor in the cost of structural changes to the ship to accomadate the sails (wind turbines ) and wether or not the addition of sails leaves the ship suitable for purpose- and saves money on fuel
But to come up with a million and one reasons why "turbines are bad " cos you just don't like the look of them - I don't like the look of a lot of people's houses or where they're sited -but hey -

It's not that I "don't like the look of them" I believe a proper evaluation of the right solution should have been done ( ask any of the contractors who worked on my house " assha it'll do" was not accepted and hence how I achieved Passive Certified and A1)

And it wasn't - but as captan midnight said above may be it was the easiest to implement (and made some folks rich)

It will I believe be classed as the biggest destruction of the Irish environment in years to come when there are 3000+ x 200+tonne decaying conference blocks decaying in some if the wildest and most remote unspoilt areas and tracks which interconnect these which have destroyed the underlying flora and forna

We have a duty to do what is best scientifically right and that just ain't happening

passive house was rejected by the building trade in Ireland in 2004 as being too hard and not as profitable to build - just consider if all of the housing built since then were as efficient as mine !!!!

We still have houses being built with 4in/100mm cavity with 70mm of board poorly fitted in them #madness
/100mm

Markcheese

You may well be right that in the future wind farms may be seen as a mistake- but the biggest environmental disaster ever- a bit melodramatic really - slabs of concrete (and relatively little in the grand scheme) that'll be grown over ? Track ways that'll revert to scrub after a few years- the turbines and their masts will be gone to the recycling yards-
I'm not convinced of the economics of wind turbines ( but I'm not an economist either) but would have thought they had their place in the power mix -and are a hedge against spikes in gas/coal prices-
I do think there should be tendering for energy efficency projects - and those with the most bang for the buck prioritized . Wether it be the best location for a renewable energy source- a biomass project or insulation (draught proofing) -

Mountainsandh

Markcheese wrote: »

But to come up with a million and one reasons why "turbines are bad " cos you just don't like the look of them - I don't like the look of a lot of people's houses or where they're sited -but hey -

The visual argument goes beyond that. Ireland's looks are worth money. Tourists come from countries more defaced to enjoy Irish landscapes. What's that phrase again they use a lot to describe Ireland ?
Oh yeah... wild, unspoilt.

I'm just back from taking pics along the Beara peninsula. No houses in my pics so far. Had to dodge a wind farm while composing my shots though.

fclauson

€4 Billion of Infrastructure producing 6Mw today - and we are exporting via the inter-connector 10% of the electricity we are producing (mainly Gas and Coal)

So back to my opening post
No infrastructure decommissioned
All new infrastructure is a cost burden not a swap for old infrastructure
You have to ramp power stations ahead of demand (hence exporting)

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

€4 Billion of Infrastructure producing 6Mw today - and we are exporting via the inter-connector 10% of the electricity we are producing (mainly Gas and Coal)

Thats still 6MW more than the EPR's that have been under construction since 2005 :P

And more than Japan has averaged over the last 4 years from Nuclear.

But nuclear is reliable enough for base load ?
I still think it needs too much spinning reserve.
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL5N11N1FB20150917
http://wincountry.com/news/articles/2015/sep/17/breakdown-takes-nuclear-power-plant-near-covert-offline/
http://westfaironline.com/74290/outage-planned-for-indian-point-reactor-after-water-leaks/

A lot of these outages this time of year are for refuelling but still it's interesting to slide back in time
http://www.eia.gov/beta/outages/

BTW

and we had up to 1,901MW on 28/8

and France now has 10GW of wind http://renewables.seenews.com/news/wind-power-crosses-10-gw-mark-in-france-492870

September 10 (SeeNews) - The world added 21.7 GW new wind power capacity in the first six months of the year, bring the total to 393 GW at the end of June, the World Wind Energy Association said.

https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm

As of June 01, 2015 in 31 countries 438 nuclear power plant units with an installed electric net capacity of about 379 GW are in operation and 67 plants with an installed capacity of 65 GW are in 16 countries under construction.

So in case there is any confusion. Nameplate capacity of wind has now surpassed that of nuclear. And the nameplate capacity of wind installed this year exceeds all the nuclear plants under construction, and a good few of those plants have been under construction for ages. Shows that worldwide people think wind works.

Capacity factor of wind is 30-35% vs nuclear at 80% means that wind could be producing more power than nuclear sooner than most people realise.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

. Shows that worldwide people think wind works.

Capacity factor of wind is 30-35% vs nuclear at 80% means that wind could be producing more power than nuclear sooner than most people realise.

Hmmm...Spain,UK and Australia are all cutting back support for wind on the back of escalating costs and other issues and the wind industries there are none too pleased with much shrill whining and lobbying, so the assumption that support for wind is currently worldwide is debatable to say the least. The capacity factors you quote - are they French?? Seem rather high given Irish capacity factors can be well under 30% from year to year - indeed the last stats I've seen on this shows Irish CF's are typically under 30% and substantially lower than that in cold winters such as 2010

fclauson

Some more facts an figures to consume - Whetley thinks that wind saves around 0.27 tCO2/Mw

see http://joewheatley.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/co2.pdf

It appears surprising at first sight that emissions savings (0.28tCO2/MWh)
are even lower than the emissions intensity of the cleanest thermal generators on the grid,

From my own research we also find EIS's of developers often over determine the CO2 benefits - and if Wheatly is right - the savings are even worse

This makes the pay back time for the concrete, steel etc and the environmental damage (roads, cables etc) much longer than previously predicted

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

Every one is for reducing energy consumption,emmissions and costs. The argument is whether current energy policies that prioritise the interests of the wind industry over every other method of achieving this is the best way forward. Plenty of evidence presented here and elsewhere suggests this policy is seriously flawed on all counts.

But that’s an argument against government policy, not an argument against harnessing renewable energy. As I said, there’s absolutely no reason why we can’t improve energy efficiency and harness renewables.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Good for him - but you can easily point to many wind farms around the country with turbines that eitheir seem to be free wheeling due to their gears not being engaged(or similar faults) or not moving at all in steady winds.

Seem to be?

Birdnuts wrote: »

Plus in countries like Spain and the US whole hillsides are covered in rusting and abandoned wind turbines creating a serious blight on the landscape and issues with hazardious waste products leaking from their mechanisms

I’m not convinced that’s the case, but anyway, there’s a derelict house near where I live – we should probably stop building houses.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Hmmm...Spain,UK and Australia are all cutting back support for wind on the back of escalating costs and other issues and the wind industries there are none too pleased with much shrill whining and lobbying…

Eh, no. Government support for renewables are being phased out in the UK because the costs of such installations are falling fast. That and the fact that the Tories don’t believe in spending money on anything.

djpbarry

fclauson wrote: »

I have an engine which is doing a good job and now you want me to build a boat so that I can transport it about the place

Why waste time and money building a “passive house” when there already exist plenty of perfectly good houses?

fclauson wrote: »

Lets put some numbers of this - €4Billion spent building an infrastructure in addition to what we previously had. That is approximately €18,000 per residential home in Ireland

So you’re saying that’s €4 billion for, what, about 2.2 GW of capacity? Let’s say that generates about 730 MW on average and let’s say each wind turbine has a lifetime of about 20 years. Let’s allow an extra 10% (€400,000) for maintenance. That gives a very conservative estimate of €34 per MWh.

Are you trying to argue that’s expensive?

fclauson wrote: »

And the PSO level for renewabels is €173.9M (which is more than Peat - and argument which is sometimes used ) http://www.cer.ie/docs/001034/CER15110%20PSO%20Levy%202015-16%20Proposed%20Decision%20Paper.pdf

No, that’s the total figure for renewables.

djpbarry

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The visual argument goes beyond that. Ireland's looks are worth money. Tourists come from countries more defaced to enjoy Irish landscapes. What's that phrase again they use a lot to describe Ireland ?
Oh yeah... wild, unspoilt.

Anyone who thinks Ireland is in any way “wild and unspoilt” is utterly deluded.

fclauson

djpbarry wrote: »

...
So you’re saying that’s €4 billion for, what, about 2.2 GW of capacity? Let’s say that generates about 730 MW on average and let’s say each wind turbine has a lifetime of about 20 years. Let’s allow an extra 10% (€400,000) for maintenance. That gives a very conservative estimate of €34 per MWh.

10% of €4B is not 400K - and what is 730Mw - should that be is Mwh ?

Could you clarify your maths

Mountainsandh

djpbarry wrote: »

Anyone who thinks Ireland is in any way “wild and unspoilt” is utterly deluded.

It seems the Irish tourism board disagrees with you in its marketing.
I would guess that in a list of 10 adjectives about Ireland, most foreign nations would pick wild and unspoilt as best describing the country (along with others.)

Wild, rugged, unspoilt and untamed, where land and sea collide, this is Ireland's last frontier against the power of the Atlantic.

This is where you can journey along our nation's soul. Set to be the longest defined coastal touring route in the world, the Wild Atlantic Way was officially launched in March 2014, to promote the stunning coastal environment and natural landscape along its 2,400km route.

The Wild Atlantic Way will attract many thousands of visitors from all over the world as they embark on an incredible route that has been shaped and inspired by the invading sea and rugged land. The starting point of this journey is Kinsale, from where you will take in the stunning West Cork and Kerry coastline, following north up the western seaboard and finishing in Inishowen, Co.Donegal (or vice versa!).
Signposting along the route into ballybunion is now completed so that tourists can also enjoy this slice of paradise in North Kerry. But no matter which location you start from, the Wild Atlantic Way is sure to have you wanting to return to Ireland again and again.

http://www.ireland.com/wild-atlantic-way/

Erris is a glorious, wild, unspoilt and stunning little-known area. It’s almost totally undeveloped.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/irish-times-names-shortlist-in-best-place-to-go-wild-in-ireland-1.1811684

“Wild, Scenic & Unspoilt!” 5 of 5 stars
Review of Blacksod Bay

http://www.tripadvisor.ie/ShowUserReviews-g211862-d1192388-r304922263-Blacksod_Bay-Belmullet_County_Mayo_Western_Ireland.html

351,000 more results for "wild unspoilt Ireland", and that's just the English speaking tourism marketing bit.

On the Failte Ireland Tourism facts survey report for 2014 :

- 85% of overseas tourists thought that the "natural, unspoilt environment" was important, and 90% were satisfied with what they witnessed here.

- 90% thought beautiful scenery was important when making the choice to come over, and 95% were satisfied at what they found.

Page 6.
http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/3_Research_Insights/3_General_SurveysReports/Failte-Ireland-Tourism-Facts-2014-update.pdf?ext=.pdf

Importance and rating of destination issues among overseas holidaymakers (%)
Source: Fáilte Ireland’s Port Survey of Overseas Holidaymakers 2014





Your statement above is just a cynical, biased and deliberate attempt to belittle one of Ireland's strongest tourism (and social) asset : its scenery.

Rather than adopt that stance, it would be more effective to claim that in order to protect that asset in the global climate outlook, some will have to be sacrificed.

djpbarry

fclauson wrote: »

10% of €4B is not 400K - and what is 730Mw - should that be is Mwh ?

Could you clarify your maths

Sorry, 10% of €4 billion is obviously €400 million.

Installed wind capacity is about 2.2 GW, so I’m assuming that, on average, about 730 MW (one third of 2.2 GW) is being generated from wind.

djpbarry

Mountainsandh wrote: »

It seems the Irish tourism board disagrees with you in its marketing.

So what? A huge amount of land in Ireland is used for cultivating grass – that’s hardly “wild and unspoilt”.

Mountainsandh

djpbarry wrote: »

So what? A huge amount of land in Ireland is used for cultivating grass – that’s hardly “wild and unspoilt”.

Tourists' perception is the point here, not technicalities.

The point is also whether or not these tourists will keep coming when the country's scenery is "spoilt" and no longer "wild" in their understanding of the word.

Your perception of the meaning of such words is irrelevant here.

signinlate

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Tourists' perception is the point here, not technicalities.

The point is also whether or not these tourists will keep coming when the country's scenery is "spoilt" and no longer "wild" in their understanding of the word.

Your perception of the meaning of such words is irrelevant here.

The most recent Bord Fáilte survey results reported by RTE in September 2013 showed that seven out of ten tourists (70%) holidaying in Ireland said that the presence of wind farms had either a positive effect or “no impact” at all on their likelihood to visit the country again. Of those tourists who did see a wind turbine 32% said it actually enhanced it, while 47% said it made no difference one way or the other (a total of 79%).

djpbarry

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Tourists' perception is the point here, not technicalities.

Well, yeah, that's my point. You're telling me that tourists perceive Ireland's landscape to be wild and unspoilt, when in fact it is largely man-made, so it's a poor argument against building something.

Capt'n Midnight

djpbarry wrote: »

Anyone who thinks Ireland is in any way “wild and unspoilt” is utterly deluded.

+1

We've been altering the landscape for the last 7,000 years.

If it's not oak forest, lake or bog then it's an artificial landscape. AFAIK even the Aran Islands used to be tree covered. IIRC we were down to 3% forest coverage at one stage and much of that was managed estates.

fclauson

djpbarry wrote: »

....That gives a very conservative estimate of €34 per MWh.....

Not bad when they get paid €80 Mwh REFIT payment for 25 years

Markcheese

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Tourists' perception is the point here, not technicalities.

The point is also whether or not these tourists will keep coming when the country's scenery is "spoilt" and no longer "wild" in their understanding of the word.

Your perception of the meaning of such words is irrelevant here.

Incidentally another part of our image is green which wind turbines add to - and back to my tourism in west-cork / Kerry -there's plenty of wind farms -and plenty of tourists there . Would there be more tourist if there was no wind farms ? I doubt it -

Mountainsandh

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, yeah, that's my point. You're telling me that tourists perceive Ireland's landscape to be wild and unspoilt, when in fact it is largely man-made, so it's a poor argument against building something.

So what, are you going to approach bus loads of French people to tell them that the grassy fields and hedges are manmade ? That Ireland should be covered in oak and hazel ?

My point is that if the face of Ireland is altered to the point where the perception of tourists becomes that of an industrialized landscape, they will stop coming.

Not altogether, because Ireland also has friendliness and culture going for it, but the effect would be greatly felt imo.

The most recent Bord Fáilte survey results reported by RTE in September 2013 showed that seven out of ten tourists (70%) holidaying in Ireland said that the presence of wind farms had either a positive effect or “no impact” at all on their likelihood to visit the country again. Of those tourists who did see a wind turbine 32% said it actually enhanced it, while 47% said it made no difference one way or the other (a total of 79%).

Yeah signinlate, that little tidbit is always dug out in such discussion.

Ireland is fine as it is. Of course it must have wind farms, to an extent. And tourists like the green approach, to an extent.
But the surface area of Ireland is such that really, a line has to be drawn somewhere as to the number of wind farms that should be allowed. It should certainly not be an access all areas situation, and it should certainly not be approached with "more is better" blinders.

The same tourists that answered the survey above may also be the ones to complain when their native region is pincushioned with turbines.

Of all the French people I know, every single one of them will roll eyes at the mention of turbines : "it was grand up to a certain point, but now it's just ridiculous".

Ask around, if you get a chance to travel.

So the one off survey, at a stage when Ireland had a reasonable proportion of turbines per surface area, yeah, good.

But the same survey in some 10 years time if wind farms multiply to a point where they can't be dodged out of a phone panorama, and where they are present on all scenic panoramas... would more than likely have a very different outcome, imo.

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh, no. Government support for renewables are being phased out in the UK because the costs of such installations are falling fast. That and the fact that the Tories don’t believe in spending money on anything.

Well thats not really true now is it

http://www.capx.co/britain-acts-to-curb-renewable-subsidies-to-rein-in-spiralling-energy-bills/

Mountainsandh

Markcheese wrote: »

Incidentally another part of our image is green which wind turbines add to - and back to my tourism in west-cork / Kerry -there's plenty of wind farms -and plenty of tourists there . Would there be more tourist if there was no wind farms ? I doubt it -

No, the question to ask at this point in time is more : would there be the same amount of tourists there if there were more wind farms ?
Think ahead, in 10, 20 years (when some of these turbines will be rusty skeletons up a hill), 30, 40 years.

We've been altering the landscape for the last 7,000 years.

CM you and I are aware of that, the tourists aren't.

Are you going to tell them that, when the place is covered in wind turbines ?
"well sure you know, we've been at it for years, it never really was wild in the first place."

Is that really an argument for altering the landscape drastically ? Because the erection of highly visible turbines with all ancillaries is pretty drastic in my book.

And again, at the scale of Ireland vs most other European countries, it takes on a different dimension.

Birdnuts

signinlate wrote: »

The most recent Bord Fáilte survey results reported by RTE in September 2013 showed that seven out of ten tourists (70%) holidaying in Ireland said that the presence of wind farms had either a positive effect or “no impact” at all on their likelihood to visit the country again. Of those tourists who did see a wind turbine 32% said it actually enhanced it, while 47% said it made no difference one way or the other (a total of 79%).

Can you give a link to that and how the questions were actually phrased??

Many tourists visit Ireland on city breaks so wind farms on a hill in Kerry won't affect them. Others however are coming to experience the likes of the Wild Atlantic way and other such natural delights and these are being heavily marketed by the government atm.

In that regard there is already evidence of negative affects of poorly planned wind farm developments

http://www.leinsterexpress.ie/news/local-news/tipp-turbines-appalling-castle-owner-1-6260085

Whe also need to learn the lessons from the likes of Scotland that also depends heavily on scenery etc. for tourism in more remote areas

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/survey-shows-wind-farms-are-damaging-scottish-mountain-tourism

Birdnuts

Markcheese wrote: »

Incidentally another part of our image is green which wind turbines add to - and back to my tourism in west-cork / Kerry -there's plenty of wind farms -and plenty of tourists there . Would there be more tourist if there was no wind farms ? I doubt it -

Most of the turbines are in North and East Kerry - the main tourist areas are in the S and W where wind farm development is eithier banned or severly restricted. Indeed tourism interests in the North of the county have rising concerns about the number of wind farms in that part of the county

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/tourism-fears-over-windfarms-31495675.html

AngryHippie

Mountainsandh wrote: »

CM you and I are aware of that, the tourists aren't.

Getting off topic a little bit....

just because you can convince a tourist of something, does not make it a fact.

Blarney stone being a fairly nice analogy to this.
Blarney castle has plenty of honest to goodness historical reasons for a visit. Instead it has relied on a myth about kissing the damn thing in order to promote it.

Fair enough in the sense that gullible blue rinse tourists have been the majority of the demograph up until now. At some point we need to address the fact that this actual demograph is loosing it's spending power and that it may be time to add to the existing models.
The younger generations will not appreciate being deluded, they are media and tech savvy enough to find out the facts for themselves and will not spend money to visit a load of hokey crap or to be sold lies. I think in time the toorah-loorah cute hoor tourism market is going to be seen for what it is and will suffer for it.

Back on topic,

There are many areas that should definitely be protected from wind farm development, too many to list, but as long as public consultation processes that are in place are adhered to, there is a mechanism in place to do this.
If the political elite decide that they are going to bypass all of this as a favor to big business, then they should be out of a job. simples. Industry must recognize, respect and accept the law of the land and the implications it has for their business models.

Mountainsandh

I was looking at installed capacity in French regions, to have a better idea of proportions/ratios between Ireland and France, for example.

Some northern regions of France have larger installed capacity, having that bit more wind and some having less of a tourism industry than others, but I picked 2 for surface areas, and they sort of average out I believe.

Ireland installed capacity as far as I can see from a quick google search (I'm sure it's on here but bedtime nearing prevents me from double checking), the number I find is 3025 Megawatts (MW), but that's from ... IWEA, and the other number popping up from wiki is 2,230 megawatts(MW) as of March 2015.

The Rhone Alpes region + Region Centre Val de Loire surface area comes close to surface area of Ireland : 43,698 km² +39,151 km² = 82,849 km

Ireland 84,421 km2 but that's for the island of Ireland, Republic is only 70,273 km2 (these are wiki numbers again).

So, roughly, let's take our two French regions, being generous, which cover nearly the island of Ireland area, and add their respective installed wind capacity :
169 MW for Rhone Alpes + 758 MW for Centre Val de Loire, which, if I was to guess, has less other energetic resources (nuclear, hydro...).
But remember, we are being generous re-surface area.

So these two French regions, which are nearly the surface area of the island of Ireland, have 927 MW installed wind capacity, while Ireland has 2,230 MW.

So yes, of course Ireland has no hydro to speak of, no nuclear, etc... but as far as I can see, proportionate to its size, it has a very large wind capacity already installed.

If French people for example, think there are enough turbines in Rhone Alpes already, and they do now as far as I know, well then, imagine what it will be for them visiting Ireland in the next decades, if the voracious appetite for more capacity is not curbed.

Land surface area seems to be blissfully ignored in all discussions on wind capacity and how much Ireland could produce. IMO, it should be one of the first considerations, it should be obvious : how much land do we have, what density (of infrastructure) per surface area are we able to accommodate.

Of course, there's more surface area along the coasts, and a bit of margin before these offshore areas reach a turbine/surface area threshold.

Spend a little more on offshore, preserve tourism revenue ? Cost benefit ? It would be an interesting analysis to look at.

I'm pretty useless at numbers, so by all means correct numbers above if there are any mistakes, but I believe the point I am making must be a little clearer despite possible mistakes.

Mountainsandh

AngryHippie wrote: »

Getting off topic a little bit....

just because you can convince a tourist of something, does not make it a fact.

Blarney stone being a fairly nice analogy to this.
Blarney castle has plenty of honest to goodness historical reasons for a visit. Instead it has relied on a myth about kissing the damn thing in order to promote it.

Fair enough in the sense that gullible blue rinse tourists have been the majority of the demograph up until now. At some point we need to address the fact that this actual demograph is loosing it's spending power and that it may be time to add to the existing models.
The younger generations will not appreciate being deluded, they are media and tech savvy enough to find out the facts for themselves and will not spend money to visit a load of hokey crap or to be sold lies. I think in time the toorah-loorah cute hoor tourism market is going to be seen for what it is and will suffer for it.

Back on topic,

There are many areas that should definitely be protected from wind farm development, too many to list, but as long as public consultation processes that are in place are adhered to, there is a mechanism in place to do this.
If the political elite decide that they are going to bypass all of this as a favor to big business, then they should be out of a job. simples. Industry must recognize, respect and accept the law of the land and the implications it has for their business models.

I pretty much agree, but I believe the change in perception that you are referring to has already happened.

It seems to me that the current marketing targets mostly young and middle aged healthy, educated, nature lovers. The urban white collars of France and Germany, in search of fresh air, adventure, outdoor holidays. Hiking in particular seems to have really taken off.
Back in France, the shift has been so obvious. Practically every region that I visit with the campervan every year has oodles of outdoor/adventure attractions (you know, the climbing in trees and zipline things).

It seems to me that that aspect of Ireland has now taken over in the European perception of Ireland at least, and the mystique of Ireland now is the force of nature and its magical landscapes, and reconnecting with your wilder self, rather than little people and crocks of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Of course the cultural aspect and social is still there. From my experience of French crowds coming over, they have to take in the larger towns and a selection of museums/visits, but they allocate some of their time to walking/cycling/driving around scenery too.
While entry into museums and cultural centers can be measured, there is a less measurable footprint for tourists enjoying the landscape of course.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

Well thats not really true now is it

Yes, it is:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33619017

AngryHippie

Mountainsandh wrote: »

While entry into museums and cultural centers can be measured, there is a less measurable footprint for tourists enjoying the landscape of course.

And an even less measurable income from them. They can come over, bring their own car/campervan and see the whole coast without paying for anything more than fuel and food. If this is where the tourist demograph is heading, then the government and tourist board need to find a way to increase the spend, or increase and manage the numbers if they want to keep it viable in the long term....

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes, it is:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33619017

From your link


"Jonathan Selwyn, a board member of the STA, told the BBC that the subsidy cut would "have a very large impact" on the industry"

My link said the same thing about wind energy with their lobby group throwing their toys out of the pram too. The facts are that these supports have become unaffordable and that is the prime reason they are being cut as my link highlighted. And despite all the talk about "cheap solar" etc. its clear the industry cannot survive without imposing steadily rising energy bills on consumers.

Mountainsandh

AngryHippie wrote: »

And an even less measurable income from them. They can come over, bring their own car/campervan and see the whole coast without paying for anything more than fuel and food. If this is where the tourist demograph is heading, then the government and tourist board need to find a way to increase the spend, or increase and manage the numbers if they want to keep it viable in the long term....

Fuel, food, accommodation, car rentals in a lot of cases. There are very few wild camping spots in Ireland, and I don't think the proportion of campers is that large. Plus social/culture spend (pubs, concerts...).
I agree though, there is a lot more that can be done to increase the spend : more museums, heritage centers with tourist oriented shops for a start, and a much greater choice of other indoor activities for when the weather is poor.
We holidayed in Ireland this year, and for all the boasting about "things to do" for individual areas on discover Ireland, I found that the reality was there simply wasn't enough. Discover Ireland lists shops and pubs over several categories, which fills up the list, and heritage centres are often one room cottages which wouldn't occupy an afternoon.

So yeah, invest money in that for better returns, more contribution to economy, more money for innovative energy solutions.

Birdnuts

AngryHippie wrote: »

And an even less measurable income from them. They can come over, bring their own car/campervan and see the whole coast without paying for anything more than fuel and food. If this is where the tourist demograph is heading, then the government and tourist board need to find a way to increase the spend, or increase and manage the numbers if they want to keep it viable in the long term....

Alot of assumptions there - around my place in North Mayo(Erris) local Hotels,guest houses, rented accomodation, boat tour operators etc. all had a very good year despite the weather. The primary draw to this part of the country is its natural wonders.

AngryHippie

Birdnuts wrote: »

Alot of assumptions there - around my place in North Mayo(Erris) local Hotels,guest houses, rented accomodation, boat tour operators etc. all had a very good year despite the weather. The primary draw to this part of the country is its natural wonders.

the whole coast

in response to

less measurable footprint for tourists enjoying the landscape

But cool story anyway. lots of context, no generalizations or anecdotes !

Birdnuts

AngryHippie wrote: »

in response to



But cool story anyway. lots of context, no generalizations or anecdotes !

I was responding to your suggestion that people simply pass through such areas without spending much. Generalizations indeed!!

fclauson

We are seriously off track here -

Can we focus on my opening post

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

My link said the same thing about wind energy with their lobby group throwing their toys out of the pram too. The facts are that these supports have become unaffordable and that is the prime reason they are being cut as my link highlighted.

Your link highlighted nothing of the sort – if anything, it highlighted the opposite:

However the policy of subsidizing wind and solar capacity prevents the wholesale market from fulfilling its longer term function as a capital allocation mechanism. Although retail electricity prices are rising sharply, incentives to invest in new thermal generating capacity – especially in gas-fired power stations – have been destroyed. The energy input of wind and solar comes from the weather and doesn’t have to be paid for. When the wind blows and the sun shines, they are at the bottom of the merit order, displacing coal and gas power stations. Large, random amounts of zero marginal cost wind-generated electricity make it virtually impossible to earn a return on conventional power stations.

So cheap power from renewables is undermining investor confidence in conventional thermal plants – well boo-bloody-hoo.

Meanwhile, from the link I posted:

Energy Secretary Amber Rudd said: "Our support has driven down the cost of renewable energy significantly.

"As costs continue to fall it becomes easier for parts of the renewables industry to survive without subsidies."

She told the BBC's Today programme: "We can't have a situation where industry has a blank cheque, and that cheque is paid for by people's bills.

"We can't have a system, which we've had up to now, where there is basically unlimited [subsidy] headroom for new renewables, including solar."

It’s getting extremely difficult to take this “renewables are too expensive” argument seriously.

djpbarry

fclauson wrote: »

We are seriously off track here -

Can we focus on my opening post

What aspect of your opening post would you like us all to focus on? The bit about electricity generated from wind turbines not being matched 1-to-1 against CO2 reductions from conventional thermal generators? I'd be surprised if it was exactly 1-to-1, but let's have a look at the numbers...

According to Eirgrid’s system data, CO2 intensity is, on average, reduced by about 0.1 g/kWh for every 1 MW of electricity generated from wind. If we again say that about 730 MW (roughly 18% of average demand) is generated from wind on average, that represents a reduction in CO2 intensity of about 15%.

Anything about that you’re not happy with?

fclauson

djpbarry wrote: »

What aspect of your opening post would you like us all to focus on? The bit about electricity generated from wind turbines not being matched 1-to-1 against CO2 reductions from conventional thermal generators? I'd be surprised if it was exactly 1-to-1, but let's have a look at the numbers...

According to Eirgrid’s system data, CO2 intensity is, on average, reduced by about 0.1 g/kWh for every 1 MW of electricity generated from wind. If we again say that about 730 MW (roughly 18% of average demand) is generated from wind on average, that represents a reduction in CO2 intensity of about 15%.

Anything about that you’re not happy with?

So (lets hope I get all my maths right)
carbon is trading at around $12/Tonne http://calcarbondash.org/
and as per your instructions we are saving 730*1000*365*24*0.1/100000 Tonne of CO2 / annum
that's 638 Tonne of CO2 @ $12 = $7673 per annum

that's rubbish for a €4B investment

(Please check my maths before biting my head off for being wrong)

djpbarry

fclauson wrote: »

So (lets hope I get all my maths right)
carbon is trading at around $12/Tonne http://calcarbondash.org/
and as per your instructions we are saving 730*1000*365*24*0.1/100000 Tonne of CO2 / annum
that's 638 Tonne of CO2 @ $12 = $7673 per annum

that's rubbish for a €4B investment

(Please check my maths before biting my head off for being wrong)

If we’re assuming 730 MW on average from wind, roughly 0.1 g/kWh saving in CO2 intensity per MW generated from wind and an average system demand of 4GW, then that equates to:

730 MW * 0.1 g/kWh * 4 GW = 292,000,000 grams of CO2 saved per kWh generated, on average.

Over the course of a year, that’s:

292,000,000 * 365 * 24 = 2,557,920,000,000 grams or, if you prefer, 2,557,920 metric tonnes.

Taking a price of $12 per tonne of CO2 (which is pretty low), that comes in at about $30.7 million per year.

However, I would argue that saving money on emissions trading misses the point – it’s a bonus saving, nothing more. The primary goal is to get emissions down.

Markcheese

How much is also energy security- ok some of our gas will be coming from mayo- if the squeeze comes on our international supply do we need a diversity of supplies ( personally I'd like to see either a gas storage facility ( as was being investigated for east cork ) or/ and a LNG regasification plant - wind turbines would stretch out a very finite resource -
( not sure about very large scale biomass in Ireland - economically- environmentally and energy security wise) yes we should increase insulation and efficency - yes we should bring in effective smart meters -

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

So (lets hope I get all my maths right)

...
that's rubbish for a €4B investment

(Please check my maths before biting my head off for being wrong)

I think you might have missed out on the fossil fuel equivalent of 40 million tonnes of coal


Renewables generate as much power as Moneypoint.
So you need to add at least the annual costs of two million tonnes of coal equivalent over the 20 year life span of the wind farms (ignoring that you can refurbish them cheaply to extend that time )

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

Your link highlighted nothing of the sort – if anything, it highlighted the opposite:

So cheap power from renewables is undermining investor confidence in conventional thermal plants – well boo-bloody-hoo.

Meanwhile, from the link I posted:

It’s getting extremely difficult to take this “renewables are too expensive” argument seriously.

I suggest you re-read what you just quoted. Its says that subsidizing wind/solar has disrupted energy markets to the detriment of base loads leading to higher retail prices. Your second quote ignores the reality that the trade bodies of both the solar and wind industry are claiming that cuts to subsidies will hit the sector hard which strongly suggests these reneweables are not viable without the current level of supports - which are being cut preciesly because these costs continue to escalate and hit retail users hard despite falling oil and gas prices. You only have to see how both the Spanish and Australian wind industries have near ground to a halt in terms of adding new wind capacity on the back of recent subsidy cuts.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/02/08/business/australian-wind-farms-face-13-billion-wipeout-political-impasse/

https://www.navigantresearch.com/blog/spanish-wind-industry-faces-subsidy-cuts


"Some 44 Australian wind-farm projects, about half of them overseas-funded, have been shelved since the new conservative government said it wanted to cut state support for the industry a year ago, with investors and operators saying they are considering either downscaling or leaving the country altogether if it succeeds.".

and in Spain



"Even if the companies survive this hit, the prospects for domestic development of wind energy in Spain are dire. Companies like Iberdrola and Acciona have the option to go abroad to markets in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Brazil to install wind energy; but for wind development in Spain, there is nothing attractive to investors about joining a market where regulation is uncertain and government support withering. In 2014, Spain installed just 28 MW of wind power, far below the 175 MW installed in 2013. "


Also with regards my earlier link concerning the UK

"Predictably the renewable energy lobby criticized Ms Rudd’s announcement. But they had it coming. More renewables mean higher electricity bills. It was entirely predictable that policy-driven electricity price rises would, at some point, become politically unsustainable"

Birdnuts

fclauson wrote: »

So (lets hope I get all my maths right)
carbon is trading at around $12/Tonne http://calcarbondash.org/
and as per your instructions we are saving 730*1000*365*24*0.1/100000 Tonne of CO2 / annum
that's 638 Tonne of CO2 @ $12 = $7673 per annum

that's rubbish for a €4B investment

(Please check my maths before biting my head off for being wrong)

One has to ask could this money have been better spent on retrofitting housing stock and other energy saving incentives, converting existing power stations like Moneypoint to cleaner fuels etc. The current government policies are particulary perverse when you consider how they sold off a big chunk of our gas generating capacity on the cheap only 2 years ago, especcially when you consider the subdued outlook for gas prices FTFF. The same crowd are now extending the life of peat fueled power stations into the 2020's which just goes to show what a wastefull, ill-conceived mess their whole "wind power at any price" approach is to Ireland energy needs and emmission targets

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

I suggest you re-read what you just quoted. Its says that subsidizing wind/solar has disrupted energy markets to the detriment of base loads leading to higher retail prices.

It absolutely does not. It claims that:

1. The policy of subsidizing wind and solar capacity prevents the wholesale market from fulfilling its longer term function as a capital allocation mechanism.
2. Retail electricity prices are rising, but incentives to invest in new thermal generating capacity is being eroded.
3. Large, random amounts of zero marginal cost wind-generated electricity make it virtually impossible to earn a return on conventional power stations.

No direct link is made between subsidies and higher retail prices. Rather, a link is implied between subsidies, higher levels of renewables, lower returns from conventional generation and, therefore, lower investor confidence in conventional generation.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Your second quote ignores the reality that the trade bodies of both the solar and wind industry are claiming that cuts to subsidies will hit the sector hard which strongly suggests these reneweables are not viable without the current level of supports…

Any industry body would make exactly the same claim if they had subsidies cut – it’s in their interest to do so.

For example, the UK steel industry is currently seeking government protection. According to your logic, this obviously means that the steel industry is not viable – does the world no longer need steel? I doubt it.

Birdnuts wrote: »

…which are being cut preciesly because these costs continue to escalate…

Why do you insist on repeating this nonsense about increasing costs of renewables? Every piece of available evidence suggests that they are cheap and getting cheaper.

Birdnuts wrote: »

"Predictably the renewable energy lobby criticized Ms Rudd’s announcement. But they had it coming. More renewables mean higher electricity bills.

He fails to demonstrate why this should be the case - it's a completely unsupported statement.

I would also point out that you’re referring to a blog post, almost completely unreferenced – it is simply an opinion piece. The author’s opinion is no more valid than yours or mine.

Also, the investigation that he refers to by the CMA is still ongoing, so I’m not sure what report he’s referring to.