Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Wind energy private corporations and government.
Comments
-
Well I don't think they should be allowed export energy (at a higher rate than they can obtain in Ireland) and retain specified tax breaks that they possess at the moment.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Let me ask another question.
Currently there are restrictions on exporting power from wind farms.
But energy companies are pushing to get this changed so they can sell power to the UK and Europe.
Let's hypothetically say Ireland invests heavily and gives funding for companies to build wind farms up and down the country.
Then these companies decide to sell this energy to the UK and Europe as they can make more money exporting it.....
Anyone have any issues with this?0 -
Not really but it depends on the grant amounts.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Let's hypothetically say Ireland invests heavily and gives funding for companies to build wind farms up and down the country.
Then these companies decide to sell this energy to the UK and Europe as they can make more money exporting it.....
Anyone have any issues with this?
By their nature, not too many people would be employed in running a wind farm so there's no gain in terms of employment.
However, by selling the energy abroad, the government may make a return through taxation on the earnings.
Am I not correct in thinking that they sell the electricity to the national grid who then export it?0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote:Anyone have any issues with this?
Nope, especially as most of the assistance given to wind farms isnt to build or set up the asset.. its a guaranteed price paid for electricity supplied .. so if they're exporting electricity direct we aint paying ... ( incidentally if the gas/electricity price is high,wind doesnt need or get a subsidy... so its a hedge against spikes in consumer electricity prices..Slava ukraini 🇺🇦
0 -
Not really but it depends on the grant amounts.
By their nature, not too many people would be employed in running a wind farm so there's no gain in terms of employment.
However, by selling the energy abroad, the government may make a return through taxation on the earnings.
Am I not correct in thinking that they sell the electricity to the national grid who then export it?
So you have no issue with wind farms being erected up and down the country regardless of who it impact then you have no issue for a corporation to then sell this off to the highest bidder?
Yeah the government will make a return, we have one of the lowest corporation taxation in the whole of Europe and wind-farms get tax breaks from government i.e. No corporation tax for in some cases the first 8 years.
This idea of it will create jobs is the nonsense politicians have been pedaling for years the good ole celtic tiger, let's not invest in the future let's just sell it all off now.
I do not know what to say to this!
I am not sure of the exact laws around exporting power I just know there are restrictions in place to stop the above happening wholesale.0 -
Markcheese wrote: »Nope, especially as most of the assistance given to wind farms isnt to build or set up the asset.. its a guaranteed price paid for electricity supplied .. so if they're exporting electricity direct we aint paying ... ( incidentally if the gas/electricity price is high,wind doesnt need or get a subsidy... so its a hedge against spikes in consumer electricity prices..
The Corporation tax right off alone would cover 20% of the entire build. So we are paying not only are we paying directly by allowing companies to operate in the state without paying the normal amount of tax, the country pays, turbines are not invisible they have an impact on the area and on people.
Sure while we are at it why do we not just make Ireland dumping ground for the rest of Europe we can set up massive silos in the country and take all the crap from the rest of Europe I am sure it will create jobs and the money we make in tax... bring back the tiger!!0 -
Advertisement
-
Where are you getting the corporation tax break of 8 years?
Watched the video that you posted. Really, no detailed figures of any sort, just emotive language.
I think a recent survey indicated about 14% of the pop against wind farms. Nearly 80% in favour. But then the video claims the people are brainwashed by the media.
People looking at agricultural grassland and saying its the natural environment being destroyed by turbines.
Grassland and fences are not the natural environment of Ireland or the UK. That is trees and scrub land.
Man has altered that landscape over the last 1,000 years to an unrecognisable degree.0 -
I did not say that.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »So you have no issue with wind farms being erected up and down the country regardless of who it impact then you have no issue for a corporation to then sell this off to the highest bidder?
I responded conditionally to your hypothetical scenario!
Where did you get 8 years?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Yeah the government will make a return, we have one of the lowest corporation taxation in the whole of Europe and wind-farms get tax breaks from government i.e. No corporation tax for in some cases the first 8 years.
As for the return, if such a hypothetical scenario were to be proposed, proper cost benefit analyses would be completed.
erm, did I not say that employment would not be a factor (it is with so many other grants)ShowMeTheCash wrote: »This idea of it will create jobs is the nonsense politicians have been pedaling for years the good ole celtic tiger, let's not invest in the future let's just sell it all off now.
For once?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I do not know what to say to this!
Excellent, so hypothetically your hypothetical company facilitated by hypothetical grants cannot sell their hypothetical electricity abroad!ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I am not sure of the exact laws around exporting power I just know there are restrictions in place to stop the above happening wholesale.0 -
Water John wrote: »Where are you getting the corporation tax break of 8 years?
It was in the DIT report I posted earlier on the profitability of wind turbines. The 8 years maybe for a specific type of turbine I am not sure but it does highlight 8 year no corporation tax I even made the point that the corpration tax right off would actually cover all the interest on any developer loan until the Capita return is paid off, which would happen in under 7 years.Water John wrote: »Watched the video that you posted. Really, no detailed figures of any sort, just emotive language.
No detailed figures is not a good argument for wind turbines!
Most people like the idea of it clean renewable energy that is what most people think when they hear wind turbines, it is what I thought.
The video asked the question is there any study that outlines the C02 savings wind turbines have, I think the response given was it was too early to give an analysis and that no governement in Europe has carried out and independent study around this.
So in the one hand we are being lead to believe one thing but there is as of yet no independent data to back that up.Water John wrote: »I think a recent survey indicated about 14% of the pop against wind farms. Nearly 80% in favour. But then the video claims the people are brainwashed by the media.
Of course there would be, most people know very little about them, I knew very little about them, you hear green energy you think good!
I think we need to stop playing innocent here, we live in Ireland our government is a joke, is it worse then any other government I dunno maybe maybe not, we really only have one main stream media outlet which is state funded do you think they are unbiased?Water John wrote: »People looking at agricultural grassland and saying its the natural environment being destroyed by turbines.
Grassland and fences are not the natural environment of Ireland or the UK. That is trees and scrub land.
Man has altered that landscape over the last 1,000 years to an unrecognisable degree.
Look some arguments I can at least see the other side of it, I might not agree with it but I can at least see why people might think this, the above is now getting ridiculous there is a stark contrast what farmers do to the country side and to what an industrial wind farms does the point I think you are trying to make here is weak I even suspect you do not buy into yourself you are just trying to score a point.
What I see above is not an argument for but simply that you do not buy the argument people have to oppose or an attempt to debunk, which for me is not an argument.0 -
-
I did not say that.
I responded conditionally to your hypothetical scenario!
The hypothetical is really to do with the North Meath Windfarm and what the greenwire corporation is currently trying to do. With regards breaking into the UK and EU market.
I do not know all the details but you are welcome to have a look.Where did you get 8 years?
As for the return, if such a hypothetical scenario were to be proposed, proper cost benefit analyses would be completed.
Again it was in the DIT report that was posted at the beginning of the thread, I said in my last post I posted it but thinking back it was someone else.
So after the cost benefit analysis, can you point me the cost benefit analysis of any current wind farms?erm, did I not say that employment would not be a factor (it is with so many other grants)
For once?
Excellent, so hypothetically your hypothetical company facilitated by hypothetical grants cannot sell their hypothetical electricity abroad!
I never really talked about grants I talked about tax breaks which is not a hypothetical and the only hypothetical part of this is the selling abroad which may not even be that hypothetical!0 -
Advertisement
-
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »Its the capital allowances on the wind turbines. Its almost impossible for a wind farm to make a taxable profit for CT in the first 8 years.
I am aware how it works, the turbine outlined in the report pays back the capita in 6.4 years.0 -
Ok the corporation tax right off thing is a new one on me.. that would be a concern, more of a concern on that front would be if the company making the profit from exporting the wind was incorporated outside the state... so no tax to ireland at all...
In relation to majorly inconveniencing people up and down the country for wind turbines to export power ... no I wouldnt be into that... but whats inconvenient, looking at them -hearing them, knowing they're a mile away... I though your issue was someone profiting from our national wind resource... which I have no issue with...Slava ukraini 🇺🇦
0 -
Markcheese wrote: »Ok the corporation tax right off thing is a new one on me.. that would be a concern, more of a concern on that front would be if the company making the profit from exporting the wind was incorporated outside the state... so no tax to ireland at all...
In relation to majorly inconveniencing people up and down the country for wind turbines to export power ... no I wouldnt be into that... but whats inconvenient, looking at them -hearing them, knowing they're a mile away... I though your issue was someone profiting from our national wind resource... which I have no issue with...
Are we finding common ground :eek:
I have saw turbines in places which I think are actually good sites good distance from dwellings but there are two in my area not near me but I have no idea how they got planning for this. I noticed a for sale sign in one of the houses and I just thought to myself "Good luck what that!"0 -
As far as I can understand EirGrid as the TSO controls the interconnecter and hence controls the export of the Irish grid power and distributes the monetary gain to the generators.
The fact is power generation and it's associated market is effectively completely within state control , private generators exist within a very controlled state environment , which could put them out of business in the morning. There can be no uncontrolled electricity generation in Ireland , commercial or otherwise
The Eu mandates a commercial generation environment so it's not essentially gov controlled anyway ( though access tariffs are ) so take the issue up at EU level . This is to encourage competition at wholesale generation level rather then a monopolistic system which essentially promotes price fixing.
Most EU countries have a mix of state and private generation , nothing wrong with that. As for explotation of natural resources , perhaps you would suggest we nationalise all the bottled water companies !!!!!0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote:Are we finding common ground I have saw turbines in places which I think are actually good sites good distance from dwellings but there are two in my area not near me but I have no idea how they got planning for this. I noticed a for sale sign in one of the houses and I just thought to myself "Good luck what that!"
Could be their land that the turbine is built on and they're selling up and gonba spend their rent money in costa brava..
Seriously though it depends on the market... theres five turbines within view of my house in different directions. 3 large gas turbines and 4 smaller ones and the oil refinery within a mile or two and it doesnt seemed to have affected demand for housing... there have been objections to the nearest turbines to me but mainly from people who live no where near by.. I doubt it would slow the sale of a site within 500meters of it...
But then I wouldnt live right next to an esb pylon , others dont mind..Slava ukraini 🇺🇦
0 -
The objection to private wind based generation becuae they may have sited a turbine in an place that you don't like is rather a facile argument don't you think
The argument about private explotation of a natural resource would have us naturalising farming , mining , solar , wind , pumped storage , trees , cement , etc etc.0 -
having cycled past a wind farm near donegal town where they have put in 60km of tracks and pads and cut down half a forest i see very little green in wind power0
-
As far as I can understand EirGrid as the TSO controls the interconnecter and hence controls the export of the Irish grid power and distributes the monetary gain to the generators.
The fact is power generation and it's associated market is effectively completely within state control , private generators exist within a very controlled state environment , which could put them out of business in the morning. There can be no uncontrolled electricity generation in Ireland , commercial or otherwise
As it stands but take a look at some of the TTIP rules and "putting the out of business in the morning". But I have seen campaigns whereby private wind companies are looking to gain access to the "free market in the EU".The Eu mandates a commercial generation environment so it's not essentially gov controlled anyway ( though access tariffs are ) so take the issue up at EU level . This is to encourage competition at wholesale generation level rather then a monopolistic system which essentially promotes price fixing.
My argument is not so much for government control I would go as far to encourage local control or local councils or cooperatives.Most EU countries have a mix of state and private generation
Depends on what you mean by private? Private commercial or private local generation? It would be interesting however to see that stats as I say this is an emerging market.As for explotation of natural resources , perhaps you would suggest we nationalise all the bottled water companies !!!!!
I could understand your point of view right up until the last point when you say something ridiculous!
My argument is not so much for nationalisation but more opposed to the squandering of resources and letting private corporations having it too much their own way, dictating strategy and riding rough shod over people purely based on the idea of profit.
But let's look at how ridiculous your statement is in an otherwise sensible post.
How many bottled water companies do see scattered all over the country?
How many people do you reckon the extraction of spring water effects?
Water is a fairly abundant in supply most people who buy bottled water do so not as a necessity but as a luxury.
What about oil seeing you have chosen the most abundant substance on the planet lets look at something that is in short demand and literally running out?
Do you think Stat oil in Norway was a bad idea? For a country to realise that the oil under their feet should not be sold off to some super corporation but be used and shared to benefit the people or Norway?
There is a middle ground here making ridiculous comparisons just makes the argument sound childish.0 -
Markcheese wrote: »Could be their land that the turbine is built on and they're selling up and gonba spend their rent money in costa brava..
Seriously though it depends on the market... theres five turbines within view of my house in different directions. 3 large gas turbines and 4 smaller ones and the oil refinery within a mile or two and it doesnt seemed to have affected demand for housing... there have been objections to the nearest turbines to me but mainly from people who live no where near by.. I doubt it would slow the sale of a site within 500meters of it...
But then I wouldnt live right next to an esb pylon , others dont mind..
I would not be so sure, if I get a chance I will take a photo.
A 130 meter Turbine, I would consider 500 meters still too close.
I have seen a lot of the smaller ones scattered around the place 30, 40, 50 meters but I am talking about the big ones, usually you only see them from a distance on some hill but standing close to one you fully appreciate the enormity of them.
There was a bill they tried to put in place back in 2014 stating that a turbine should be at least 10x the height in distance to any dwelling.
So 50 meter turbine 500 meters.
I though this a fairly reasonable bill but developers opposed this stating it would rule out too many potential sites.
But money seems to always win!0 -
Or common sense?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »But money seems to always win!
We do need to reduce reliance on non-renewable resources. Just because you're against private companies generating the electricity doesn't lessen their need!0 -
Advertisement
-
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »As it stands but take a look at some of the TTIP rules and "putting the out of business in the morning". But I have seen campaigns whereby private wind companies are looking to gain access to the "free market in the EU".
My argument is not so much for government control I would go as far to encourage local control or local councils or cooperatives.
Depends on what you mean by private? Private commercial or private local generation? It would be interesting however to see that stats as I say this is an emerging market.
I could understand your point of view right up until the last point when you say something ridiculous!
My argument is not so much for nationalisation but more opposed to the squandering of resources and letting private corporations having it too much their own way, dictating strategy and riding rough shod over people purely based on the idea of profit.
But let's look at how ridiculous your statement is in an otherwise sensible post.
How many bottled water companies do see scattered all over the country?
How many people do you reckon the extraction of spring water effects?
Water is a fairly abundant in supply most people who buy bottled water do so not as a necessity but as a luxury.
What about oil seeing you have chosen the most abundant substance on the planet lets look at something that is in short demand and literally running out?
Do you think Stat oil in Norway was a bad idea? For a country to realise that the oil under their feet should not be sold off to some super corporation but be used and shared to benefit the people or Norway?
There is a middle ground here making ridiculous comparisons just makes the argument sound childish.
You either have state risk money , or private risk money involved in resource exploration. In relation to offshore oil and gas , the state was not prepared to spend millions perhaps billions exploring all its continental shelf.
In return for allowing private money to be " squandered " searching the sea bed , the state granted such companies concessions on any financial gain . The state had little choice , it was either that or no exploration. As it was many oil companies wasted millions in a fruitless search and little exploration is now being undertaken.
Are you suggesting the state divert monies from say Heath spending or housing crisis to facilitate a search of the sea bed. ???
There is no comparison with the North Sea and statoil. The North Sea had known reserves and was much more of a sure bet
My argument is not so much for nationalisation but more opposed to the squandering of resources and letting private corporations having it too much their own way, dictating strategy and riding rough shod over people purely based on the idea of profit.
Where is the evidence that " private companies having it too much their own way " , where are they " riding roughshod over people" and what people
Too much of your argument is anecdotal and of the tin foil hat type.
Energy generation is a capital intensive business , the state under EU rules cannot borrow limitless funds to fund speculative exploration ventures or in fact establish monopolies or directly fund semi states, those days are over.
Electricity generation all over Europe is a commercial undertaking , generators raise private capital to fund generator projects , the resultant energy is then offers to the grid in a auction type process , ensuring that the most competitive energy sources are used.
Because wind is not competitive with 24/7 firms of energy generation, subsidies where introduced to spur the take up of renewables , particularly as the gov has signed up for co2 targets etc. ( Ireland is facing fines in this regard )
Private wind generation is entirely appropriate , ultilises private capital and a multitude of different generators offers eirgrid access to competitive sources of energy generation and results in a competitive end user marketplace.
The siting of wind farms , is no different , whether it be state owned or private . Both must meet planning and legislative requirements. The planning process in this country , offers applicants the ability to refer judgments to ABP for arbitration and ABP frequently reverse local planners judgement . This process is no different for wind farm developers as it is for a private house building
Again , it seems to me you think that " somehow" a state owned wind generation company is " better" without really advancing any concrete evidence, yet the experience in this country was that state controlled enterprises were less efficient , over manned and more costly then equivalent private operators. There is equally no evidence that a semi state will listen to the public either.
As I said , the private development of " natural resources " is all around us and forms a major basis of our market economy , this includes companies taking public water and making money from it ( bottled water ) , companys mining the ground , farmers " exploiting " the nations natural resources etc etc
Your argument seems to be based on that somehow the state can raise the millions or billions necessary ( not true and Eu limited ) , can be run more efficiently ( again little evidence ) and therefore return a gain to the exchequer ( again little evidence )
States have no business flying aircraft , producing food products or energy generation.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »There was a bill they tried to put in place back in 2014 stating that a turbine should be at least 10x the height in distance to any dwelling.
So 50 meter turbine 500 meters.
I though this a fairly reasonable bill but developers opposed this stating it would rule out too many potential sites.
But money seems to always win!
You " thought " this was " reasonable " , but obviously you are not an expert. The case has to be balanced against the Gov stated goal of having significant renewable energy generation. That goal requires private capital and a system of rules that encourages companies to build such wind farms. Too many restrictive rules and you get no wind farms.
What you " want " is not necessarily the most appropriate
It's nothing to do with " money always wins " , it's to do with the states desire to promote energy generation from renewables and establishing an attractive commercial landscape that encourages development.0 -
As I said, turbine 120 metres high, 400 metres from my house, no problem.
The state via ESB EirGrig are putting a new 110Kv line some miles from my house. Lots of objections. ESB pushed through anyway using Strategic Infrastructure Planning. LA had no say in the matter.
Cash do you think because it was the state in this case that it should have been granted and objections not listened to?
That seems to be your logic.0 -
Or common sense?
We do need to reduce reliance on non-renewable resources. Just because you're against private companies generating the electricity doesn't lessen their need!
I think it was Voltaire that said "Common sense is not that common".
But tell me why is it common sense?
I would argue the biggest reason is cost! Some areas would be much better nut it would simply cost too much to build a road, turbine companies will look to get the most cost effective access to a turbine.
This has nothing to do with reducing our reliance, private corporation are not green-peace I doubt very much they are trying to save the planet!
For many it is an emerging market and like most investors and developers there is opportunity to make money and next to making money is reducing cost....0 -
You either have state risk money , or private risk money involved in resource exploration. In relation to offshore oil and gas , the state was not prepared to spend millions perhaps billions exploring all its continental shelf.
In return for allowing private money to be " squandered " searching the sea bed , the state granted such companies concessions on any financial gain . The state had little choice , it was either that or no exploration. As it was many oil companies wasted millions in a fruitless search and little exploration is now being undertaken.
Are you suggesting the state divert monies from say Heath spending or housing crisis to facilitate a search of the sea bed. ???
There is no comparison with the North Sea and statoil. The North Sea had known reserves and was much more of a sure bet
Canada has done the same not just Norway but I am now rehashing an argument that was had at the beginning of this thread....
The model Canada put in place was that if Company X wanted to drill for oil a certain % would be stated owned this was done because the government where not experts in this field but it was a natural resource but they left it competitive enough companies where still interested.
What they done was take a smaller % the first time around but as the state grew their knowledge any further operations the state took a greater %.
Back in the 70s and 80s when there was the discovery of the Coribs oil and gas of Cork a deal was brokered where by the state would own a %.
This deal was effectively dismantled in the 80s. At the time the terms "state give away" was used and even "economic treason".
Now a new deal has been put in place since then again I think in the last 10 years. We still do not own a % but they upped the taxation.
I watch a documentary about on the riggers and the gist of what they talked about was how these oil corporations did not want the government to know exactly how much oil and gas there really was they always played down potential finds and over stated the costs.
You say the North sea had known reserves... Explain this?
What they had a magic 8 ball that told them where the oil was?
Where is the evidence that " private companies having it too much their own way " , where are they " riding roughshod over people" and what people
Too much of your argument is anecdotal and of the tin foil hat type.
Really? What studies have you posted? What information and sources have you provided?
I would even go as far to suggest you have not read too deep into this thread.
I provided an a link to an independent report that talks at corruption in the planning authority in relation to developers, it talks at length on how the promise of jobs and money seem to a deciding factor and the rules get overlooked. But again I am rehashing stuff we have already covered.
But we could look at government policy changes that saved top Irish business men millions while our politicians gave excuses like "I did not have a bank account" in the modern day and age while running a country.
We could look at the taxation top business pay to the state in comparison to the rest of Europe.
We could look at the relationship between developers and the banks pre 2007....
But now we are looking at a much larger and systemic issue.Energy generation is a capital intensive business , the state under EU rules cannot borrow limitless funds to fund speculative exploration ventures or in fact establish monopolies or directly fund semi states, those days are over.
Electricity generation all over Europe is a commercial undertaking , generators raise private capital to fund generator projects , the resultant energy is then offers to the grid in a auction type process , ensuring that the most competitive energy sources are used.
As much as I want to I will not get into this and some the dangers I think there are around this but it ties into the TTIP thing I posted and the idea that a Corporations can sue a country/ government, it's complete madness in my opinion.Because wind is not competitive with 24/7 firms of energy generation, subsidies where introduced to spur the take up of renewables , particularly as the gov has signed up for co2 targets etc. ( Ireland is facing fines in this regard )
What is the Co2 overhead for putting up turbines? How much do we save?Private wind generation is entirely appropriate , ultilises private capital and a multitude of different generators offers eirgrid access to competitive sources of energy generation and results in a competitive end user marketplace.
I will agree that is it probably the most effective way to creating wind farms in Ireland I just think it also the most short sighted and will benefit the people or Ireland the least.The siting of wind farms , is no different , whether it be state owned or private . Both must meet planning and legislative requirements. The planning process in this country , offers applicants the ability to refer judgments to ABP for arbitration and ABP frequently reverse local planners judgement . This process is no different for wind farm developers as it is for a private house building
Agreed but it is also corrupt and again not my words, go back and read the report I posted.Again , it seems to me you think that " somehow" a state owned wind generation company is " better" without really advancing any concrete evidence, yet the experience in this country was that state controlled enterprises were less efficient , over manned and more costly then equivalent private operators. There is equally no evidence that a semi state will listen to the public either.
I will also agree with this as this technically a different argument.
Albeit our government might be left wanting and I am no way a fan of what our government has done in recent decades but they are meant to be working for the people of this country.
My ideas around this are idealistic and I have said that a number of times.
Private enterprise is much more efficient because the market is much more competitive and the insentives different.
But effectively what you are arguing is we give something away because we are too inept to keep it and develop it ourselves. Which albeit and valid argument but this for me is not an argument for private enterprise but more an argument again state control.
I also mentioned cooperatives and locally funded projects.As I said , the private development of " natural resources " is all around us and forms a major basis of our market economy , this includes companies taking public water and making money from it ( bottled water ) , companys mining the ground , farmers " exploiting " the nations natural resources etc etc
Your argument seems to be based on that somehow the state can raise the millions or billions necessary ( not true and Eu limited ) , can be run more efficiently ( again little evidence ) and therefore return a gain to the exchequer ( again little evidence )
States have no business flying aircraft , producing food products or energy generation.
I think you have my argument wrong my concern is with privately owned wind farms and how that impacts the state and what we as a state get in return, state owned, state %, cooperative or locally funded projects are merely some suggestions.0 -
Water John wrote: »As I said, turbine 120 metres high, 400 metres from my house, no problem.
The state via ESB EirGrig are putting a new 110Kv line some miles from my house. Lots of objections. ESB pushed through anyway using Strategic Infrastructure Planning. LA had no say in the matter.
Cash do you think because it was the state in this case that it should have been granted and objections not listened to?
That seems to be your logic.
Again no, wrong is wrong, if the state done it I would simply be on here complaining that the state are ignoring the local planning authority etc etc..
I simply think this happens much more frequent with private developer led projects.
Can you tell me where these turbines are that are 400 meters from your home?
Also I just want to get this in prescriptive, turbines are not small, they are literally the largest man made structures I can think of in the county.
I know people sometimes get up-set at a neighbors hedge but these are on another level.
Did they need to build roads to it? Did they cause you any disruption?0 -
Or common sense?
Just on the common sense part of this:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/doctors-call-for-reductionin-turbine-noise-317947.html
Just to take some parts of this report:
"Leading doctors have called on the Government to reduce the noise levels of wind turbines — which they claim are four times that recommended by World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines."
and
"The Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association also said the set-back distance of 500m is not enough, that it should be increased to at least 1,500m"
"Prof Evans said the construction of wind turbines in Ireland “is being sanctioned too close to human habitation”.
“Because of its impulsive, intrusive, and sometimes incessant nature, the noise generated by wind turbines is particularly likely to disturb sleep,” he said.
“The young and the elderly are particularly at risk. Children who are sleep-deprived are more likely to become obese, predisposing them to diabetes and heart disease in adulthood. As memory is reinforced during sleep, they also exhibit impaired learning.”"
Interesting enough but let's not let this get in the way of common sense!0 -
You " thought " this was " reasonable " , but obviously you are not an expert. The case has to be balanced against the Gov stated goal of having significant renewable energy generation. That goal requires private capital and a system of rules that encourages companies to build such wind farms. Too many restrictive rules and you get no wind farms.
What you " want " is not necessarily the most appropriate
It's nothing to do with " money always wins " , it's to do with the states desire to promote energy generation from renewables and establishing an attractive commercial landscape that encourages development.
Oh I missed this one, no I am not an expert but I do site a report whereby the "The Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association" indicate 1500 meters distance should be adhered too for health reasons.
What I want or my opinion is much like your own not worth a whole lot unless of course you actually back it up with an expert or a study in the area in question.0 -
You implied that planning permission was given because money always wins. I offered an alternative view.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I think it was Voltaire that said "Common sense is not that common".
But tell me why is it common sense?
I would argue the biggest reason is cost! Some areas would be much better nut it would simply cost too much to build a road, turbine companies will look to get the most cost effective access to a turbine.
This has nothing to do with reducing our reliance, private corporation are not green-peace I doubt very much they are trying to save the planet!
For many it is an emerging market and like most investors and developers there is opportunity to make money and next to making money is reducing cost....
You still haven't provided evidence that money was a factor at all.
However, renewable resources if they fulfill the planning requirements do make sense!ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Just on the common sense part of this:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/doctors-call-for-reductionin-turbine-noise-317947.html
Just to take some parts of this report:
"Leading doctors have called on the Government to reduce the noise levels of wind turbines — which they claim are four times that recommended by World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines."
and
"The Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association also said the set-back distance of 500m is not enough, that it should be increased to at least 1,500m"
"Prof Evans said the construction of wind turbines in Ireland “is being sanctioned too close to human habitation”.
“Because of its impulsive, intrusive, and sometimes incessant nature, the noise generated by wind turbines is particularly likely to disturb sleep,” he said.
“The young and the elderly are particularly at risk. Children who are sleep-deprived are more likely to become obese, predisposing them to diabetes and heart disease in adulthood. As memory is reinforced during sleep, they also exhibit impaired learning.”"
Interesting enough but let's not let this get in the way of common sense!
Is this information made available to planners who have to make the decision (and I don't expect an article in the examiner tof carry any weight in the decision making process)? Have you evidence that this information was included within a planning objection or appeal?
If there are dangers to people then legislation is required and the planners will adhere to it. Until then, your health objection probably carries no weight.0 -
Advertisement
-
You implied that planning permission was given because money always wins. I offered an alternative view.
You still haven't provided evidence that money was a factor at all.
However, renewable resources if they fulfill the planning requirements do make sense!
The planning was turned down twice by the local authority but over turned by ABP. So there is conflicting interpretations even within our own planning system to whether it "make sense", so this is not always as clear cut as your post suggests.
I do not know what your alternative view is? I am giving the incentive for the developer, developer is out to make money and will apply to an area that is most feasible which is not always going to be the most suitable, perhaps suitable for the developer but you understand what I am saying.
Your alternative view is not an alternative but a completely separate point and more a way to explain why ABP agreed in the end. i.e. To reduce Co2 etc... This does not diminish the argument that money always wins.Is this information made available to planners who have to make the decision (and I don't expect an article in the examiner tof carry any weight in the decision making process)? Have you evidence that this information was included within a planning objection or appeal?
If there are dangers to people then legislation is required and the planners will adhere to it. Until then, your health objection probably carries no weight.
So if you read back you will see that I spoke about a bill in the dail back in 2014 whereby based on some of this research they tried to pass a law with regards distance turbines has had to be in relation to dwellings.
The bill stated that 10 times the height of the turbine should be observed.
http://www.thejournal.ie/wind-turbines-1402795-Apr2014/
So it's not like they haven't tried to pass legislation around this.
Ultimately the argument against passing this bill was.
"The Irish Wind Energy Association (IWEA) said the proposal is “effectively calling for an end to onshore wind development in Ireland”, and that it would cost jobs and Ireland’s energy security.
Chief Operating Officer Caitriona Diviney noted that previous studies show that once the separation distance is greater than 500m, the number of available sites drops significantly."
A few post back I say I think 500 meters for a 130 meter turbine is too close, people jump all over it.
I post some information which states, The Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association who also said the set-back distance of 500m is not enough.
Ultimately you can choose to ignore that if you want, government can choose to ignore that if they want also.
But what I see here are two arguments, the "The Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association" and the World health organization I am pretty sure do not have a dog in this fight and are probably not influenced by economic factors so I would be inclined to give these studies and the data in these reports a certain amount of credibility.
I totally understand the reasons set out by IWEA but they are arguing two separate issues peoples health vs wind farm development.0 -
"Prof Evans said the construction of wind turbines in Ireland “is being sanctioned too close to human habitation”.
“Because of its impulsive, intrusive, and sometimes incessant nature, the noise generated by wind turbines is particularly likely to disturb sleep,” he said.
“The young and the elderly are particularly at risk. Children who are sleep-deprived are more likely to become obese, predisposing them to diabetes and heart disease in adulthood. As memory is reinforced during sleep, they also exhibit impaired learning.”"
" the noise generated by wind turbines is particularly likely to disturb sleep", based on what scientific evidence ...........
what about people living near busy bus routes, near railway lines, near airports, near motorways..........0 -
" the noise generated by wind turbines is particularly likely to disturb sleep", based on what scientific evidence ...........
what about people living near busy bus routes, near railway lines, near airports, near motorways..........
Don't forget the sea. I remember not being able to sleep when I moved to a place within 100m of the sea and then again when I moved away and was no longer able to hear it every night. Damn its sometimes incessant noise.
Note the presumption that wind turbines may disturb peoples sleep, without any proof, then the launch in to a list of terrible consequences of sleep deprivation.0 -
" the noise generated by wind turbines is particularly likely to disturb sleep", based on what scientific evidence ...........
what about people living near busy bus routes, near railway lines, near airports, near motorways..........
You can take that up with the Professor and the lead Clinical consultant at Waterford general hospital if you wish I am neither a professor or a doctor.
I am sure you have put in a lot of research yourself and you are dismissing this due your vast knowledge in the area.
But reading the report it says:
"Because of its impulsive, intrusive, and sometimes incessant nature."
To hazard a guess I think the word "incessant" is particularly important.
I have lived in a number of major cities on different work projects for years at a time and what I have found is this.
At night even in Dublin it goes pretty quiet during the night buses, trains and planes are not constant, I once lived in Blanch between the trainline and the M50. Even the M50 goes quiet in the early hours.
So I think your comparison not overly well thought out.
And one thing you seem to missed is that there are health impacts for people who live near areas that are noisy at night or even people who work at night and try and sleep during the day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_from_noise
From my own personal experience of things that have kept me up at night there is one thing that I am reminded of.
My housemate when I lived Belfast used to be a DJ he had pretty bad tinnitus due to years of gigging, at night it would be bad so sometimes he would put on the tv on a static frequency the white noise you used to get on analog tv's and turn the sound down low, the static noise was enough that he could not hear his ears ringing and he said it was lesser of two evils so to speak, he would at least sleep.
Thing was I slept in the room next door and the noise of his tv was ever so slight but it used to wake me every night without fail used to drive me mad, I would usually wait until he slept and when in and turned it off.
But this is just an anecdotal experience I am no expert, professor or doctor.0 -
HivemindXX wrote: »Don't forget the sea. I remember not being able to sleep when I moved to a place within 100m of the sea and then again when I moved away and was no longer able to hear it every night. Damn its sometimes incessant noise.
Note the presumption that wind turbines may disturb peoples sleep, without any proof, then the launch in to a list of terrible consequences of sleep deprivation.
Your anecdotal experiences are much like my own!
You say that people launch right into the consequences of sleep deprivation but people do not need to do that, there has been a number of news articles highlighting people who claim to be impacted by living in close proximity to turbines and there are a number of studies ongoing to try and fully understand what risks to health there might be, the jury is still out!
The effects of noise on humans is not something I would dismiss right away!0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »You can take that up with the Professor and the lead Clinical consultant at Waterford general hospital if you wish I am neither a professor or a doctor.
I am sure you have put in a lot of research yourself and you are dismissing this due your vast knowledge in the area.
But reading the report it says:
"Because of its impulsive, intrusive, and sometimes incessant nature."
To hazard a guess I think the word "incessant" is particularly important.
I have lived in a number of major cities on different work projects for years at a time and what I have found is this.
At night even in Dublin it goes pretty quiet during the night buses, trains and planes are not constant, I once lived in Blanch between the trainline and the M50. Even the M50 goes quiet in the early hours.
So I think your comparison not overly well thought out.
And one thing you seem to missed is that there are health impacts for people who live near areas that are noisy at night or even people who work at night and try and sleep during the day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_from_noise
From my own personal experience of things that have kept me up at night there is one thing that I am reminded of.
My housemate when I lived Belfast used to be a DJ he had pretty bad tinnitus due to years of gigging, at night it would be bad so sometimes he would put on the tv on a static frequency the white noise you used to get on analog tv's and turn the sound down low, the static noise was enough that he could not hear his ears ringing and he said it was lesser of two evils so to speak, he would at least sleep.
Thing was I slept in the room next door and the noise of his tv was ever so slight but it used to wake me every night without fail used to drive me mad, I would usually wait until he slept and when in and turned it off.
But this is just an anecdotal experience I am no expert, professor or doctor.
Iam not disputing that noise can sometimes be problematic in sleep. I am simply suggesting that the good doctor has generated a " leap of faith " in concluding that wind turbine noise is "actually " intrusive in comparison to other common urban noise., nor do I see any reference to scientific peer reviewed surveys or tests to back that up,.
unless that is present all it is is an opinion !!.0 -
Advertisement
-
Iam not disputing that noise can sometimes be problematic in sleep. I am simply suggesting that the good doctor has generated a " leap of faith " in concluding that wind turbine noise is "actually " intrusive in comparison to other common urban noise., nor do I see any reference to scientific peer reviewed surveys or tests to back that up,.
unless that is present all it is is an opinion !!.
I do not think he is simply expressing an opinion after all his report did make it into the British medical journal.
3/10/12 British Medical Journal: Wind Turbine Noise
Saturday, March 10, 2012 at 01:28PM
Note: The British Medical Journal is an international peer reviewed journal of medicine.
Wind turbine noise seems to affect health adversely and an independent review of evidence is needed
SOURCE: British Medical Journal,
www.bmj.com
March 8, 2012
Authors:
Christopher D Hanning, honorary consultant in sleep medicine, Sleep Disorders Service,
University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester LE5 4PW, UK
Alun Evans, professor emeritus, Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University of Belfast, Institute of Clinical Science B, Belfast, UK
I have seen other scientific papers around this do suggest a link between health issues and turbines but they always usually say more evidence or research is needed.
You have to remember the up surge of wind turbines and wind farms are still in their infancy.0 -
Iam not disputing that noise can sometimes be problematic in sleep. I am simply suggesting that the good doctor has generated a " leap of faith " in concluding that wind turbine noise is "actually " intrusive in comparison to other common urban noise., nor do I see any reference to scientific peer reviewed surveys or tests to back that up,.
unless that is present all it is is an opinion !!.
Here you can read the whole thing if you wish with peered reviewed articles.
http://nieuwerustnoisewatch.org/wp-content/documents/peer-reviewed-articles/15-B-M%20J-Noise.pdf0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Here you can read the whole thing if you wish with peered reviewed articles.
http://nieuwerustnoisewatch.org/wp-content/documents/peer-reviewed-articles/15-B-M%20J-Noise.pdf
Thanks. The BMJ article is primarily a claim and a call for further study. One that i don't disagree should be done. The issue is whether rural dwellers should expect any less noise then urban dwellers, that's what I drew attention to.
If we accept that noise is a problem in sleeping , clearly quietening our cities would be far more beneficial to a greater number of people then a few rural dwellers unfortunate enough to be close to a wind farm
I should say , I don't like wind farms . And solar PV will make most redundant within 20 years0 -
Thanks. The BMJ article is primarily a claim and a call for further study. One that i don't disagree should be done. The issue is whether rural dwellers should expect any less noise then urban dwellers, that's what I drew attention to.
If we accept that noise is a problem in sleeping , clearly quietening our cities would be far more beneficial to a greater number of people then a few rural dwellers unfortunate enough to be close to a wind farm
I should say , I don't like wind farms . And solar PV will make most redundant within 20 years
My own personal view is that I am not actually against wind farms, I am simply of the opinion that a wider distance should be observed than 500 meters for a turbine that is 130 meters in height.
I think the jury is still out to the impact they have on peoples health but already this appears to be an area of concern for a number of health professionals and academics.
What I see however is developments continue whereby there could be a risk too people nearby.
What I see is turbines to go in locations that are very close to dwellings because it is cheaper.
Obviously any business wants to try and reduce cost but to what cost?
I think government and the PA should air in the side of caution, Ireland has not exhausted all good potential sites as far as I am aware, and by good I would say anywhere that observes a distance of around 1000 meters for larger turbines.
If studies find that there is no significant impact then perhaps look to reducing the distance.0
Advertisement