Wind farms - ugly truths

Old diesel

For me - environmentally friendliness - should mean keeping a community a nice place to live in - if the energy project makes a community less pleasant to live in then it was prior to the energy project arriving - then it CANNOT truly be classed as environmentally friendly.

Why - because the community is part of the environment and something environmentally friendly should not jeopardise the local environment - but maybe im looking at it all wrong.

That's not a pop at wind energy - but just a general observation of mine in relation to environmentally friendliness

Jim Martin

Jim Martin wrote: »

As I understand it, it's protected under international law, which presumably overrides EU & Irish law!

This is the International law (UN):

http://www.cbd.int/convention/

& this is the EU law:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/

Capt'n Midnight

Greensleeves wrote: »

There simply isn't enough room in Ireland to have adequate setback distances (say 750m to 1km) for very big turbines.

The problem is more to do with one-off houses

If the rule was change to more than X distance away from N houses it would be different.

Out of curiosity I'd like to see the map of areas where the nearest house got planning permission under section 4.

Greensleeves

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The problem is more to do with one-off houses

If the rule was change to more than X distance away from N houses it would be different.

Out of curiosity I'd like to see the map of areas where the nearest house got planning permission under section 4.

I agree with you about the one-off houses. We need some proper joined up planning in this country; it is not possible to build houses willy-nilly all over the place and then try to fit in pylons/motorways/windfarms etc between them. Unfortunately we are where we are with the existing mess.

Is section 4 some sort of exempted development clause?

Old diesel

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The problem is more to do with one-off houses

If the rule was change to more than X distance away from N houses it would be different.

Out of curiosity I'd like to see the map of areas where the nearest house got planning permission under section 4.

What are N houses????

Yeah I can see that the one off houses are an issue - the question is - how do we adjust our living in Rural Ireland to address the issue.

What I mean is - we could go down the continental route - where people generally live in the town or in a village - well that's my understanding from hearing criticism of Irish one off houses.

ie "its not an issue on the continent because in France/Germany/Italy/some other countries - people live in towns and villages - not in one off houses.

That's part of the issue imo - lack of thought about COMMUNITY living in the future.

How do we encourage people NICELY to change from one off houses to a better (from wind energy planning viewpoint) village/town or city living scenario.

I suppose the other thing is - its easy to say - they should fire them up in communities no bother if you don't live 500 metres away from a proposed group of turbines.

So the question is - how do you deal with people FAIRLY - and how do you even define what is fair

Old diesel

One off houses - are an issue

You could also argue the issue that wind energy technology doesn't fit in well in a country where too many one off houses were built BEFORE wind turbines were planned.

The planners, local authorities, councillors - and people who tried to get planning pushed through for their homes - by getting councillors involved etc - all made mistakes.

BUT - I would say they worked on the basis of what was in an area at the time.

my view is that the planners gave planning permission, the councillors worked to help people get planning permission and permissions were granted - without anyone realising that locations that got planning for one of homes would be wind turbine sites in years to come.

Going down the off shore route more would help mitigate the issue - the question is - does the desirability (as I would see it) of been able to help create a positive future for communities (id prefer personally not to have communities die away - personal view - everyone is different) and Regions in Ireland - merit taking on the extra costs of going off shore.

And is it a good idea to address previous bad planning - by deliberate poor/bad planning now???

Old diesel

The other elephant in the room is that IF the setback distance of 500 metres is in fact inadequate and if we cannot address that issue ie we have to go 500 metres even though its really not enough.

Do we then have to pay homeowners compensation - that to my mind merits been looked at in terms of how adding compensation cost to the cost of onshore wind - would then compare to off shore wind but no or lower compensation costs due to off shore turbines been (obviously) further away from homes.

In addition - we would need to assess - accurately the actual impact on residents of 500 metre setbacks from turbines - in order to decide if

1) 500 metre setbacks are adequate to allow COMFORTABLE PLEASANT living in homes - and to allow normal things like getting a good nights sleep in ones own home.

2) if 500 metres isn't enough - how do we adjust the rules to either a) have an adequate setback distance or b) work out a satisfactory compensation package for residents who have to live too close to turbines - or are stuck trying to sell houses too close to turbines.

Just because Govt, ABP and Wind devs want 500 metres to be adequate doesn't mean that it is adequate.

Hard to work out a way forward tbh - especially if you want to do your best as a Govt etc to be as fair as possible to residents

fclauson

Greensleeves wrote: »

I agree with you about the one-off houses. We need some proper joined up planning in this country; it is not possible to build houses willy-nilly all over the place and then try to fit in pylons/motorways/windfarms etc between them. Unfortunately we are where we are with the existing mess.

Is section 4 some sort of exempted development clause?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0030/sec0004.html

fclauson

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If the rule was change to more than X distance away from N houses it would be different.

.

That would breach the Irish constitution re "inviability of a dwelling"

Capt'n Midnight

fclauson wrote: »

That would breach the Irish constitution re "inviability of a dwelling"

I'd be curious how much rule bending / brown envelopes / pull was involved in a lot of one-off housing over the years

fclauson

Enough to keep every one happy and for every one to get what they wanted but not enough to prosecute any one !!

fclauson

Old diesel wrote: »

The other elephant in the room is that IF the setback distance of 500 metres is in fact inadequate and if we cannot address that issue ie we have to go 500 metres even though its really not enough.

Do we then have to pay homeowners compensation - that to my mind merits been looked at in terms of how adding compensation cost to the cost of onshore wind - would then compare to off shore wind but no or lower compensation costs due to off shore turbines been (obviously) further away from homes.

In addition - we would need to assess - accurately the actual impact on residents of 500 metre setbacks from turbines - in order to decide if

1) 500 metre setbacks are adequate to allow COMFORTABLE PLEASANT living in homes - and to allow normal things like getting a good nights sleep in ones own home.

2) if 500 metres isn't enough - how do we adjust the rules to either a) have an adequate setback distance or b) work out a satisfactory compensation package for residents who have to live too close to turbines - or are stuck trying to sell houses too close to turbines.

Just because Govt, ABP and Wind devs want 500 metres to be adequate doesn't mean that it is adequate.

Hard to work out a way forward tbh - especially if you want to do your best as a Govt etc to be as fair as possible to residents

500M is generally not enough to protect dwellings to the WHO standard of 40db(A) night let alone any of the other emerging standards for low frequency or amplitude modulation

Old diesel

fclauson wrote: »

500M is generally not enough to protect dwellings to the WHO standard of 40db(A) night let alone any of the other emerging standards for low frequency or amplitude modulation

That's the problem - we don't have proper assessment on the setbacks here in Ireland - because the priority isn't good planning - its squeezing as many turbines in as possible - imo.

We know the one of houses make this more difficult - but its worth noting a number of things in the context of iffy planning, brown envelopes and other such shanigans

1) Many one off homes are no longer in the hands of the original owner who had them built.

2) Many people who did build them - imo - bought the site WITH PLANNING ALREADY OBTAINED. That's a very important thing to note because it suggests they had nothing to do with any dodgy dealings that MAY have gone on.

3) How many one off houses was planning applied for perfectly fine - no brown envelopes and no councillors getting involved in a way not conducive to good planning

4) The most important point - going forward - how do we accurately assess the impacts of a turbine development on residents and their homes nearby.

The issue I think - is that we need to get to a point - where if planners are saying a development won't adversely affect Residents nearby - then that's what needs to be delivered on in terms of the final project.

Compensation is something that may need to be looked at - but imo - to assess the need to pay compensation - and the amount to be paid if any - we need proper assessments - otherwise we don't know what is fair compensation - compensation would be paid on the basis of ACTUAL or likely impact.

Otherwise you could end up paying out too much to some - and not nearly enough to others.

Of course the question then arises - is it better to compensate - or is it better to plan properly in the first place

fclauson

Old diesel wrote: »

2) Many people who did build them - imo - bought the site WITH PLANNING ALREADY OBTAINED. That's a very important thing to note because it suggests they had nothing to do with any dodgy dealings that MAY have gone on.

true - does no one remember the housing boom and every one was selling sites both with planning and subject to planning.

3) How many one off houses was planning applied for perfectly fine - no brown envelopes and no councillors getting involved in a way not conducive to good planning

many - I think generally most people are conscientious & law abiding - a considerable number were children building on family land having returned after the last recession

Old diesel

fclauson wrote: »

true - does no one remember the housing boom and every one was selling sites both with planning and subject to planning.

many - I think generally most people are conscientious & law abiding - a considerable number were children building on family land having returned after the last recession

That's the thing - if someone has bought a site with planning ALREADY given, have bought a one off home 2nd hand (meaning a previous owner had already built it etc) or if they obtained planning perfectly okay (no iffy brown envelope type stuff) - then they SHOULD get one of the following

1) Be protected by proper planning

2) if 1) can't be achieved due to the need to build turbines everywhere - they should be compensated for the issues caused.

Level of compensation - and indeed if compensation is to be paid at all - should be based on proper assessments of the impact.

I wouldn't expect to get compensation simply because I don't like the look of turbines.

However if the turbines turn a home that was previously very pleasant to live in prior to turbines - into somewhere where I can no longer sleep - and this is down to the turbines - then compensation SHOULD be paid.

There seems to be a pretence at official planning level - that 500 meters gurantees all will be fine for residents nearby.

Unfortunately - they haven't properly assessed or researched that.

I think the following reply someone said to me in reply to a question I posed twitter sums it up quite well.

My question on twitter - Jan O Sullivan feels 500 metres is sufficient setback - Westmeath Co Councillors felt a 10 times the height - who is right

Reply from a fellow twitter user

"They are both right because its their opinions - they are both wrong because the decision should be made on the basis of proper planning"

What is proper planning though is the issue - just because Jan O Sullivan wants 500 metre setbacks doesn't mean - that's proper planning.

Its not proper planning just because Jan O Sullivan says it is

Old diesel

what I would like to see - I don't know if it can be achieved or not - is to see as positive an outcome for the future of communities as possible.

Id like to see as many Rural Communities as possible continue as communities in the long term - but I see the planning of wind farms as been an obstacle.

Whether you see Rural communities as a good thing to see continue long term - is a matter of opinion - I think it would be good to see Rural communities be able to keep going - I see them as a big part of our countries tradition and heritage.

BUT I realise I can't always have everything I want - I do however take the view that - if you take 100 Rural communities - if 50 of them die - that's not good.

But if 50 of them (50 out of 100) keep going long term - that's a lot better then zero.

Old diesel

Do turbines pose difficulties for Rural Communities - well I would say so yes - even if it simply means things like people choosing not to live in communities that are associated with having a wind farm.

The case however could be made - that writing off Rural Communities - for the greater good of the countries energy policy merits consideration.

Very hard to know the way forward though - especially in trying to be as fair as possible to residents.

There are definitely challenges caused by the likes of one off houses etc - but I feel that the current approach to wind farm planning - doesn't EVEN TRY to be fair to residents.

Its one thing to do everything you can to be fair to people - but end up having to make decisions that are difficult for people - but the way I look at it - is we aren't even TRYING.

Even if you got out of the private developer model - and had the ESB and Eirgrid and co in charge of wind development - and as part of that Govt - were in a position to give communities part ownership of the local windfarm.

That wouldn't address the issues - but would at least be an attempt to introduce a bit more fairness

Old diesel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls_1p8ad2mc

Rural Scottish village at around 3 mins 50 mins into this video - its worth looking at what they achieved - 1/15th of the wind farm they actually own.

You can also see how this village is looking to build a future for itself.

50,000 sterling coming into village during loan period - going up to 400,000 when loan paid off.

food for thought

Greensleeves

Old diesel wrote: »

What are N houses????

Number of houses. If only 1 house is 400m from a proposed development and the rest are 1km away should that single house prevent the development?

Greensleeves

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I'd be curious how much rule bending / brown envelopes / pull was involved in a lot of one-off housing over the years

Probably not as much as you'd think which is actually the great tragedy of the situation. Rural local councils seem to actively favour one-off housing and the vast majority of rural dwellers don't think that there is a problem with one-off houses. I have had many discussions with people over the years about the madness of scattering houses all over the place but I find very few people agree with me. Until influential organisations like the IFA see sense and stop actively campaigning for the right to build on any bit of land in the country we will struggle to contain the problem.

http://oneoffireland.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/a-suburbanised-countryside-delusional-ifa-rural-planning-policy/

Old diesel

Greensleeves wrote: »

Number of houses. If only 1 house is 400m from a proposed development and the rest are 1km away should that single house prevent the development?

Yes that's a fair point - certainly - if you had two scenarios on offer

site 1 - 20 houses at 500 metres approx.

Site 2 - 20 houses 1 km away - but 1 house 450 metres away

Site 2 seems a better option - as your reducing the impact on people.

I wonder how often that sort of scenario actually araises though

Old diesel

The question of one off houses - is that if lots of people see them as fine - how do you educate them that there are better ways of planning and get them to buy into that.

Like for example - if we are saying that having a lot of them living in better planned housing in villages - rather then one offs is better - how do you get them to buy into that.

Personally while I can see the problem of one off houses - its very easy to understand why someone would consider that their one off house isn't doing any harm. The sceptic tank issue is something that needs dealing with - but id take the view that we could look to develop solutions to that issue.

id be intrigued to know how other countries deal with waste disposal from one off houses - because while Ireland has loads of one off houses - other countries have them too - just a lot less

Back on topic - On the N houses thing - I thought id mention the Offaly Co Councillors idea which they bought forward in discussions for the CDP - which was to have wind farms 2 kms away from towns and villages.

NOTE - they said from towns and villages - not individual houses.

Afaik - that met with objections due to National policy - I will see if I can find a link somewhere about it

Old diesel

Heres the Offaly thing I mentioned earlier

http://www.tullamoretribune.ie/articles/news/39641/councillors-will-oppose-removal-of-two-kilometre-wind-farm-buffer/

Its interesting to note that the County Managers main objection to a 2 km buffer zone around towns and villages is that its not in National Guidelines.

Such a stance doesn't help matters - and raises the question - are counties like Offaly intended (nationally) to focus on simply been been a place to put turbines.

Or do we look at how communities in Offaly will plan their future.

I can see why Westmeath Co Councils CDP idea of a 10 times the height of the turbine setback didn't go down well - I still feel that Jan O Sullivan should have dealt with it better - by meeting with people in Westmeath who have concerns - and looking to see what can be done to ensure those concerns are addressed.

Afterall the Westmeath Co Councillors made their decision on the 10 times the height of the turbine - in response to the concerns of locals - which to be fair is their job* - they represent the public - hence the term public representative.

*doesn't mean 10 times the height of the turbine is right - but still

Old diesel

Greensleeves wrote: »

Probably not as much as you'd think which is actually the great tragedy of the situation. Rural local councils seem to actively favour one-off housing and the vast majority of rural dwellers don't think that there is a problem with one-off houses. I have had many discussions with people over the years about the madness of scattering houses all over the place but I find very few people agree with me. Until influential organisations like the IFA see sense and stop actively campaigning for the right to build on any bit of land in the country we will struggle to contain the problem.

http://oneoffireland.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/a-suburbanised-countryside-delusional-ifa-rural-planning-policy/

This is a big challenge in terms of future Rural Planning - how to move away from one off houses.

The difficulty I see is - in one way - for a rural community its GOOD when people who grew up in a community want to build a house there for themselves and their families - as people moving into or staying in the community helps sustain that community.

Unfortunately - the option seems to be - build a house on a site you've bought - or is given to/handed down/inherited from Parents.

The way I see around it - is if you have a situation where you've got say 12 individual sites within one site - 12 houses next to each other - all bungalows in one off housing type style - but all right next to each other on separate sites.

Was in a place like that some time ago - will see if I can find pics of something similar

Old diesel

Old diesel wrote: »

This is a big challenge in terms of future Rural Planning - how to move away from one off houses.

The difficulty I see is - in one way - for a rural community its GOOD when people who grew up in a community want to build a house there for themselves and their families - as people moving into or staying in the community helps sustain that community.

Unfortunately - the option seems to be - build a house on a site you've bought - or is given to/handed down/inherited from Parents.

The way I see around it - is if you have a situation where you've got say 12 individual sites within one site - 12 houses next to each other - all bungalows in one off housing type style - but all right next to each other on separate sites.

Was in a place like that some time ago - will see if I can find pics of something similar

Couldn't find any im afraid - but I have arrived at the conclusion that looking at images of rural housing in other countries like France - Irish architecture on Rural housing seems a tad lacking.

Now I know why my brothers new house does very little for me

Different topic though - sorry

fclauson

Greensleeves wrote: »

Number of houses. If only 1 house is 400m from a proposed development and the rest are 1km away should that single house prevent the development?

depends - like with compulsory purchase for roads - if the new motorway is going past you front door you get compensation - if you are 400m away then not so

perhaps wind farms should take the same approach

Macha

Interesting article in TheJournal.ie (sister site of boards.ie if I'm not mistaken?) on community renewable power by Paul Kenny of Tipperary Energy Agency. Looks like the Danes have got it right again, as usual:

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/renewable-energy-community-projects-1516291-Jun2014/

Old diesel

Macha wrote: »

Interesting article in TheJournal.ie (sister site of boards.ie if I'm not mistaken?) on community renewable power by Paul Kenny of Tipperary Energy Agency. Looks like the Danes have got it right again, as usual:

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/renewable-energy-community-projects-1516291-Jun2014/

Definitely a huge improvement on the standard Irish approach.

I still feel we need to look at more - how communities and wind farms can be good neighbours to each other.

I suppose what id love - is to look at the community as a COMMUNITY - not say - think - the communities role in life is to host the wind farm.

But community ownership can work okay if well planned - ive already posted a link to the Nielston community wind farm earlier on this thread.

Greater public involvement in addressing this issue is needed - it would be easier to get people on side - if they are able to assist in shaping their own future.

Old diesel

I realise I can't always have what I want - and maybe what I want might not be the RIGHT thing.

But id like to see a bright future for as many communities as possible - and I suppose I consider that this would require - if possible - that wind farms are designed to be good neighbours to the nearby community.

The challenge is - how can we design the space needed for both to co exist happily.

That's why we need wider planning imo - into what the future of communities - I feel that if we should have anticipated the future of energy been wind before planning too many one off houses.

We should also look at the future for communities when looking to plan wind energy

Old diesel

So what I mean by community planning is this

Small Irish Rural community (made up for discussion)

350 residents - mainly in one off houses - with just 30 living in the "village"

You look to build a wind farm now - which is near some of the one off houses.

Planning for the future - extend the housing in the village - in a sustainable - well planned way

The residents who would be living near the wind farm - would EVENTUALLY move into the village

This would allow long term - the village to be 1.9 kms from the wind farm - but equally - the plan would allow for the wind farm to be built near where people are living now.

Am I gone completely off track with such an idea????

Btw - that's not a real community im talking about - and ive invented the 1.9 kms - but I merely put it forward for discussion purposes only

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

Interesting article in TheJournal.ie (sister site of boards.ie if I'm not mistaken?) on community renewable power by Paul Kenny of Tipperary Energy Agency. Looks like the Danes have got it right again, as usual:

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/renewable-energy-community-projects-1516291-Jun2014/

And the rest of us pay dearly for this indulgance - Danes currently pay the highest retail power prices in Europe and despite wall to wall wind turbines, relie heavily on imported conventional electricity - much of it coal and nuclear based. If these communties think wind power is the way to go let them generate their own power from wind and keep off the grid.

PS: At least the Danes make their own wind turbines, the wind industry here don't even offfer that and also use foreign contractors in many cases to install their imported turbines

Old diesel

Im not saying its a good idea - but I think theres merit in rethinking living space - in the context of the new era of wind farm development - so at the moment - we have a situation where a lot of one off houses are spread over a big area in a community.

Rethinking the living space COULD POTENTIALLY - if PLANNED WELL - that the housing for residents is redesigned into a smaller area by building new homes in say a village - thus creating a bigger settlement.

Could this help community sustainability and long term survival in the years to come.

If not - how do we plan the community futures in as positive a way as possible.

Community wind farms are one way forward that merit consideration - but would need a complete change of outlook compared to the current developer led model

Recondite49

ted1 wrote: »

So because the mass marketed RES is so inadequate in meeting our baseload or general energy needs,
we have to spend a fortune developing other RES to meet up its shortfall.
so we'll end up with even dearer electricity.

There is more than one way for us to benefit from windpower. I used to be Webmaster of a site which instructed people how to build their own turbines from old car parts and recycled wood.

These were then either connected to car batteries or better still 'deep cycle' batteries which in turn were charged by the wind.

Of course you'd need the time, skills and space to build turbines yourself or at least know someone who does.

Also if we were to adopt this grassroots approach to wind energy our carbon footprint would increase in terms of using batteries - but wouldn't this be offset by clean energy from the wind?

I'm not sure how far you can run with this logic anyway - it's always windy somewhere! :-)

Birdnuts

Old diesel wrote: »

Im not saying its a good idea - but I think theres merit in rethinking living space - in the context of the new era of wind farm development - so at the moment - we have a situation where a lot of one off houses are spread over a big area in a community.

Rethinking the living space COULD POTENTIALLY - if PLANNED WELL - that the housing for residents is redesigned into a smaller area by building new homes in say a village - thus creating a bigger settlement.

Could this help community sustainability and long term survival in the years to come.

If not - how do we plan the community futures in as positive a way as possible.

Community wind farms are one way forward that merit consideration - but would need a complete change of outlook compared to the current developer led model

The rural housing thing is a horse that bolted a long time ago. We have to deal with what we got. In any case wind developers are very much indulged in this country when it comes to our main planning agencies. We already have the worrying trend of ABP forcing through an increasing number of wind farms against the advice of their own inspectors. Clearly the lessons of the Celtic tiger have been quickly foregotten/ignored to the benefit of another powerfull cabal of developers

daithi7

I have no real agenda here but there are a few salient facts that are apparent:

1. There is something inherently elegant in an electricity power source such as wind power, harnessing a fuel source that is free and renewable

2. According to some sceptics, current technology doesn't ramp up well to allow for wind energies fluctuations, so this is a reason to shelve it.

3. Government subsidies for wind encourage investment in plant now, thereby encouraging the industry to come up with more efficient ramping technology for back up power sources

4. When you use a plant less, it generally lasts longer. So while time also takes it toll, having wind plant & conventional plant operating in tandem will extend the lifetime of the conventional plant and of course it will also significantly reduce its consumption of carbon based fuels pet annum

5. We've loads of wind but very little fossil fuels so we really have to make this work along with smart use of tide, solar and Energy storage technologies to increase our energy independence and hence our national competitiveness.

6. The CO2 emissions imho is a red herring and is only a secondary issue imho, the debate should be about average net costs and net amount of fossil fuels consumed to produce a MW of electricity over the lifetime of the plant required e.g 20 to 40 years.

Birdnuts

daithi7 wrote: »

I have no real agenda here but there are a few salient facts that are apparent:

1. There is something inherently elegant in an electricity power source such as wind power, harnessing a fuel source that is free and renewable

2. According to some sceptics, current technology doesn't ramp up well to slow for wind energies fluctuations, so this is a reason to shelve it.

3. Government subsidies for wind encourage investment in plant now, thereby encouraging the industry to come up with more efficient trapping technology for back up power sources

4. When you use a plant less, it generally lasts longer. So while time also takes it toll, having wind plant & conventional plant operating in tandem will extend the lifetime of the conventional plant and of course it will also significantly reduce its consumption of carbon based fuels pet annum

5. We've loads of wind but very little fossil fuels so we really have to make this work along with smart use of tide, solar and Energy storage technologies to increase our energy independence and hence our national competitiveness

6. The CO2 emissions imho is a red herring and is only a secondary issue imho, the debate should be about average net costs and net amount of fossil fuels consumed to produce a MW of electricity over the lifetime of the plant required e.g 20 to 40 years
.

Unfortunatly theres little evidence for these assumptions of you look at countries like Denmark and Germany that are much further down the road when it comes to wind. Unless you beleive that wind should be indulged at any cost to society,economy, rural landscapes etc., which appears to be the attitude of most wind advocates in this country. As for Irelands great wind resources - check out Eirgrids figures for the past few months, not pleasant viewing for the windies when it comes to actual output versus installed capacity!!

daithi7

Birdnuts wrote: »

Unfortunatly theres little evidence for these assumptions of you look at countries like Denmark and Germany that are much further down the road when it comes to wind. Unless you beleive that wind should be indulged at any cost to society, rural landscapes etc., which appears to be the attitude of most wind advocates in this country. As for Irelands great wind resources - check out Eirgrids figures for the past few months, not pleasant viewing for the windies when it comes to actual output versus installed capacity!!

i'm a sailor, you can take it from me, we have loads of wind energy and neatly we get more in the winter when the energy demands are in aggregate higher .

You can't assess a year round resource such as wind over a selective few summer weeks or months imho.

daithi7

Birdnuts wrote: »

Unfortunatly theres little evidence for these assumptions of you look at countries like Denmark and Germany that are much further down the road when it comes to wind. Unless you beleive that wind should be indulged at any cost to society, rural landscapes etc., which appears to be the attitude of most wind advocates in this country. As for Irelands great wind resources - check out Eirgrids figures for the past few months, not pleasant viewing for the windies when it comes to actual output versus installed capacity!!

i'm a sailor, you can take it from me, we have loads of wind energy and neatly we get more in the winter when the energy demands are in aggregate higher .

You can't assess a year round resource such as wind over a selective few summer weeks or months imho.

Birdnuts

daithi7 wrote: »

i'm a sailor, you can take it from me, we have loads of wind energy and neatly we get more in the winter when the energy demands are in aggregate higher .

You can't assess a year round resource such as wind over a selective few summer weeks or months imho.

The coldest winter weather is associated with stagnant HP systems which are characterized by little wind. That is why during the cold winter of 2010 installed wind capacity performed particulary badly as was the case across Europe in the 2011 cold spell. Offshore wind is another debate but here costs are higher and lifespans of turbines shorter so its merits are debatable too.
There was a good anlysis of offshore wind in the Economist a few months ago. Worth a read for anyone with an interest in the area

Recondite49

Birdnuts wrote: »

Unfortunatly theres little evidence for these assumptions of you look at countries like Denmark and Germany that are much further down the road when it comes to wind. Unless you beleive that wind should be indulged at any cost to society,economy, rural landscapes etc., which appears to be the attitude of most wind advocates in this country. As for Irelands great wind resources - check out Eirgrids figures for the past few months, not pleasant viewing for the windies when it comes to actual output versus installed capacity!!

As I mentioned above I'm good friends with a man who regularly powers his home with self-made wind turbines. Are you really trying to disprove in theory what he has done in practice?

My only real worry in his case is that he's still reliant on batteries which you can't build for yourself and of course use some carbon up to reduce but compared to using for instance a diesel generator, he's laughing all the way to the bank.

Birdnuts

Recondite49 wrote: »

As I mentioned above I'm good friends with a man who regularly powers his home with self-made wind turbines. Are you really trying to disprove in theory what he has done in practice?

My only real worry in his case is that he's still reliant on batteries which you can't build for yourself and of course use some carbon up to reduce but compared to using for instance a diesel generator, he's laughing all the way to the bank.

Best of luck to him - but running a domestic turbine for you own use is a whole different kettle of fish compared to accomodating wind on a country's power grid in terms of complexity,added costs etc.. I've no problem with domestic turbines as its the individual thats taking the punt, my problem is when wind powered grid costs are imposed on the rest of society

Old diesel

Birdnuts wrote: »

The rural housing thing is a horse that bolted a long time ago. We have to deal with what we got. In any case wind developers are very much indulged in this country when it comes to our main planning agencies. We already have the worrying trend of ABP forcing through an increasing number of wind farms against the advice of their own inspectors. Clearly the lessons of the Celtic tiger have been quickly foregotten/ignored to the benefit of another powerfull cabal of developers

Thing is - I actually agree with you when you say "we need to deal with what we got" in that - tbh in many ways I do feel that discussing one off houses as been the big bad boy in the room regarding wind farm planning - overlooks the flaws of the wind energy technology - in that you need so many machines around the country to make the power.

It also suggests that the way to address previous bad planning - one off houses - is more bad planning - in that to meet the requirements of wind farms - we need to go with bad planning in that we have to overlook the presence of houses near wind farms - and go for the lowest possible setback - and have a setback distance that is focused on how many turbines we can get in.

BUT - nonetheless - the people who plan these wind farms, the policy makers, Govt etc - are VERY happy to sacrifice the Rural communities if that's what it takes.

There is a certain amount of sound logic in what they are trying to do - in that its considered better to sacrifice a Rural community or communities - for the greater good of the wider world environment and as a contribution to improving the general world environment

They are GENERALLY unwilling to look at the concept of building a positive future for communities - because imo - that would be seen as looking for less turbines/mean less turbines been built/not meeting EU targets - getting fined for that.

Which is seen as a BAD thing

Old diesel

However having said that - I do think there is logic in what a previous poster was suggesting - in terms of looking at the idea that - how many houses should stop a development because the setback (from these homes) isn't enough.

My idea on extending the village housing - and getting people out of one off housing - into the village - is based on the idea - that id like to see Rural Communities continue.

That's the difficulty I have with the current planning system - or rather Govt policy - it doesn't look at planning what the future of communities will be.

If they turned around and said okay - for certain counties, certain regions, certain communities - our main priority is how many turbines we can put into those locations - those communities are finished in terms of future community development - at least they would be delivering frankness and honesty - and we could debate it.

At the moment - they are simply flying along getting as many wind farms approved as possible - well that's what it seems to me - to meet 2020 targets

Old diesel

I suppose what we really need to look at - is how we allocate spaces for pleasant community living and pleasant living in homes - and the wind energy production.

Personally I feel that if wind is a truly environmentally friendly technology - then it shouldn't adversely affect a communities local environment or its surrounding area.

That's because communities are PART OF THE ENVIRONMENT - and should be given the respect that been part of the environment deserves

Recondite49

Birdnuts wrote: »

Best of luck to him - but running a domestic turbine for you own use is a whole different kettle of fish compared to accomodating wind on a country's power grid in terms of complexity,added costs etc.. I've no problem with domestic turbines as its the individual thats taking the punt, my problem is when wind powered grid costs are imposed on the rest of society

I'm inclined to agree Birdnuts that due to opposition it's been difficult to get green energy off the ground. I think the argument is something of a self fulfilling prophecy in that opposition to funding wind energy is the real reason why we can't do it in a more efficient manner but perhaps a grassroots solution is a good compromise for everyone.

Old diesel

Recondite49 wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree Birdnuts that due to opposition it's been difficult to get green energy off the ground. I think the argument is something of a self fulfilling prophecy in that opposition to funding wind energy is the real reason why we can't do it in a more efficient manner but perhaps a grassroots solution is a good compromise for everyone.

If by grassroots level you mean at community level - then I couldn't agree with you more.

In terms of green energy getting off the ground - well if like most people you consider wind green energy - the reality is that its getting off the ground quite nicely.

Wind developers you see have a tool that no community seems to have - good working relationships and great support for what they are looking to do from both the planning system and the Govt - that's vital because these 2 sections of Irish Officialdom are driving the big decisions that are been made.

Not saying that's bad or good - just telling you how I see it

Recondite49

Old diesel wrote: »

If by grassroots level you mean at community level - then I couldn't agree with you more.

In terms of green energy getting off the ground - well if like most people you consider wind green energy - the reality is that its getting off the ground quite nicely.

Wind developers you see have a tool that no community seems to have - good working relationships and great support for what they are looking to do from both the planning system and the Govt - that's vital because these 2 sections of Irish Officialdom are driving the big decisions that are been made.

Not saying that's bad or good - just telling you how I see it

You said it Old Diesel - I can't be doing with the nightmares surrounding building offshore rigs full of wind turbines but mounting a few mini turbines to your roof for instance, especially in combination with a few solar panels seems to me to be the best way forward.

daithi7

It strikes me that the efficient development & use of wind energy is closely tied to the development of the smart electricity grid.

In order to get load balancing you will need smart metering and maybe the internet of things, so non time critical usages of energy can be staggered to coincide with when the wind blows or when other variable renewable generated power is available. E.g. charging electric cars, heating water, etc, etc

In that way, you can more smartly match your supply and demand and thereby use plant, generation & distribution far more efficiently than currently. This can't come soon enough for a country like Ireland, who import nearly all its energy via fossil fuels & nuclear from abroad.

Old diesel

daithi7 wrote: »

It strikes me that the efficient development & use of wind energy is closely tied to the development of the smart electricity grid.

In order to get load balancing you will need smart metering and maybe the internet of things, so non time critical usages of energy can be staggered to coincide with when the wind blows or when other variable renewable generated power is available. E.g. charging electric cars, heating water, etc, etc

In that way, you can more smartly match your supply and demand and thereby use plant, generation & distribution far more efficiently than currently. This can't come soon enough for a country like Ireland, who import nearly all its energy via fossil fuels & nuclear from abroad.

What id love is a way of designing the system so the amount of machines needed all over the country in Rural communities is minimised.

NOTE - I said MINIMISED not ELIMINATED - I can't help but wonder if it says something about the flaws of wind energy that there is so much work going on to fit everything around it - but very little it seems to me - to address the performance issues with turbines

Capt'n Midnight

Recondite49 wrote: »

I used to be Webmaster of a site which instructed people how to build their own turbines from old car parts and recycled wood.

These were then either connected to car batteries or better still 'deep cycle' batteries which in turn were charged by the wind.

Of course you'd need the time, skills and space to build turbines yourself or at least know someone who does.

Also if we were to adopt this grassroots approach to wind energy our carbon footprint would increase in terms of using batteries - but wouldn't this be offset by clean energy from the wind?

This relies on having access to very cheap secondhand batteries which would become unavailable if demand grew.

Vehicle starting batteries aren't designed for deep discharge so won't have long lives unless you use an excess of them. Probably more environmentally friendly to recycle them into deep discharge batteries, but more expensive too.


Grassroots can work for solar since they are nearly zero maintenance and besides won't we all have smart meters soon :rolleyes:
One of the big costs in solar farms is the land , not a problem when you have roofs.

Spinning blades means you have to maintain them , and there may be insurance issues and whatever about noise from a wind farm 1Km away having one on your next door neighbours roof might irritate. And there are huge economies of scale with large turbines.