Nimbyism: Windfarm off South County Dublin

frash

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/up-to-60-supersize-wind-turbines-planned-for-dublin-bay-1.4403656

Can't see this getting the go ahead although it really should

Sandycove on the right

silver2020

I reckon it will. Personally I think it adds to a boring seascape. And of course all the green leaning residents will accept it too.

10km offshore - zero noise argument.
East of residents, so zero "Flicker" argument


Enough electricity for 600,000 homes - that's a hell of a green argument

mikep

I can't see it happening as it will be visible from the coast...
The usual suspects will line up against it..
It'll be interesting to see how many Green government members will support it!!

I can’t understand why anyone would object to this.

ted1

Aegir wrote: »

I can’t understand why anyone would object to this.

It looks horrible, could be put out further to sea but that’ll cost more money. It’ll take away the view with no benefit to those that enjoy it.

As for the green element that’s not an argument as it can be placed somewhere less intrusive

frash

ted1 wrote: »

It looks horrible, could be put out further to sea but that’ll cost more money. It’ll take away the view with no benefit to those that enjoy it.

As for the green element that’s not an argument as it can be placed somewhere less intrusive

Nimbyism?

Kingp35

frash wrote: »

Nimbyism?

Teds post is textbook definition of nimbyism.

ted1

frash wrote: »

Nimbyism?

and so what if it is? They are valid points. There are other sand banks available further out.

it is my back yard. I'm to busy to be worrying about what happens in other peoples back yards. and I don't expect someone in Oranmore to care about what happens off Killiney Beach

Kingp35

ted1 wrote: »

and so what if it is? They are valid points. There are other sand banks available further out.

it is my back yard. I'm to busy to be worrying about what happens in other peoples back yards. and I don't expect someone in Oranmore to care about what happens off Killiney Beach

I'm from Dalkey Ted, my entire family live in Dalkey. Luckily they don't have the same rotten attitude as you.

Hopefully this gets the go ahead. Crazy if it doesn't.

ted1

ted1 wrote: »

It looks horrible, could be put out further to sea but that’ll cost more money. It’ll take away the view with no benefit to those that enjoy it.

As for the green element that’s not an argument as it can be placed somewhere less intrusive

Maybe they could move the Kish bank somewhere less obtrusive.

They could stick the Sandycove cycle way on it as well.

seamus

"Disrupts the view". Of....empty sea and sky. OK.

The ones off Brittas Bay are actually great, they only appear on really clear days.

I think they look lovely, very graceful

ted1

Kingp35 wrote: »

I'm from Dalkey Ted, my entire family live in Dalkey. Luckily they don't have the same rotten attitude as you.

Hopefully this gets the go ahead. Crazy if it doesn't.

What rotten attitude?
Why would it be crazy if it doesn't go ahead?

ted1

seamus wrote: »

"Disrupts the view". Of....empty sea and sky. OK.

The ones off Brittas Bay are actually great, they only appear on really clear days.

There is only 6 of them, and they are much much smaller 124 meters V 310 meters

ted1

Aegir wrote: »

Maybe they could move the Kish bank somewhere less obtrusive.

They could stick the Sandycove cycle way on it as well.

you think the Kish is the only sandbank?

duffman13

ted1 wrote: »

Why would it be crazy if it doesn't go ahead?

Because it powers 600,000 homes and impacts nobody really. They arent building Sellafield 10kms offshore. Its a wind farm. To be honest, I never got the fascination that they look ****e etc. If it was going to cause issues due to noise, blocking sun etc then I'd understand a residents POV.

stoneill

Windfarms that far off shore do not have any visual, noise or any other impact.
Except if you are sitting there in a seething rage staring at them and muttering.

loyatemu

ted1 wrote: »

There is only 6 of them, and they are much much smaller 124 meters V 310 meters

there's a whole bunch more going in off Arklow and they will also be bigger.

local politicians in Greystones already complaining about "the view"

ted1

duffman13 wrote: »

Because it powers 600,000 homes and impacts nobody really. They arent building Sellafield 10kms offshore. Its a wind farm. To be honest, I never got the fascination that they look ****e etc. If it was going to cause issues due to noise, blocking sun etc then I'd understand a residents POV.

The could still have 900 MW further out to sea. I work in the industry and most other countries are going further out to sea.

seamus

ted1 wrote: »

There is only 6 of them, and they are much much smaller 124 meters V 310 meters

Take out a ruler there and hold out it in front of you. These new ones will appear to be about 2cm tall when you're standing on the shore.

That's about the width of your thumb held outstretched in front of your face.

In fact, they'll probably look even smaller since the blades will be moving and won't be as visible as the main structure.

mikep

ted1 wrote: »

The could still have 900 MW further out to sea. I work in the industry and most other countries are going further out to sea.

Couldn't they do both?
We are going to need windfarms wherever we can feasibly put them...

Marty Bird

I think they look fine out of curiosity why would they be rejected? Can residents object when it’s miles out to sea?

NotCarrotRidge

bubblypop wrote: »

I think they look lovely, very graceful

Totally agree. It is far from spoiling the view. I love looking at the ones off the Wicklow coast.

Edit: which would be preferable for Dublin bay residents, these turbines 10km away, or at least one gas production rig in the bay itself? I'm not saying that it's either or, but if we're moving away from hydrocarbons, our energy has to come from somewhere. You can't make an omelette....

JustAThought

loyatemu wrote: »

there's a whole bunch more going in off Arklow and they will also be bigger.

local politicians in Greystones already complaining about "the view"

Y - and generations of fishermen have been waiting for the fishing compensation payment for DECADES.

Re Dublin - I wonder why when they have thousands of miles of coastline they chose the one place IN the capital city that is know & loved for its beautiful nautical views.

Also one of the ‘busiest’ UNDERWATER sites for wrecks and underwater archeological artifacts and gravesites from wrecks.

And one of the busiest areas in the capitol for watersports - specifically sailing with 4 clubs and what used be thousands using the water to
compete weekly. The disruption will be enormous.

Is the no other place off our mostly unused and deserted coastline that could have been chosen instead? Louth for example.

lemonTrees

Won't get the go ahead i'd say. How's Bono and Pat Kenny meant to relax drinking their Latte's on a Sunday morning looking at that from their balcony. The horror.

ted1

ted1 wrote: »

you think the Kish is the only sandbank?

Oh good, if there are more they can build on them as well.

ted1

mikep wrote: »

Couldn't they do both?
We are going to need windfarms wherever we can feasibly put them...

No we won't. well not until we get BESS added in the design. We need to diversify our RES. Wind is not dispatachable

Solar, Biomass, hydrogen, etc

KevRossi

ted1 wrote: »

It looks horrible, could be put out further to sea but that’ll cost more money. It’ll take away the view with no benefit to those that enjoy it.

As for the green element that’s not an argument as it can be placed somewhere less intrusive

Yes, it's fine when it's out in Roscommon or Leiitrim, less fine if its in the view of the great and the good of South County Dublin.

Also very doubtful if they will power 600,000 typical homes in Dublin as stated. But they'll say anything to get planning.

Marty Bird wrote: »

I think they look fine out of curiosity why would they be rejected? Can residents object when it’s miles out to sea?

Yes they can.

Half the people that would object are probably the same ones arguing that the 200 apartments they are building on the site of a two bedroom bungalow enhance people’s views, which they don’t have a right to anyway.

ted1

Aegir wrote: »

Half the people that would object are probably the same ones arguing that the 200 apartments they are building on the site of a two bedroom bungalow enhance people’s views, which they don’t have a right to anyway.

What are you on about? I'm sure people would be more concerned about the traffic management, turning a 2 car entrance into a 300 car entrance.

If you think its going to be all green, have you any idea of how much concrete that'll go into the foundation, the damage the noise from construction and hydrographic surveys are going to have on marine life.

MrMusician18

Aegir wrote: »

Half the people that would object are probably the same ones arguing that the 200 apartments they are building on the site of a two bedroom bungalow enhance people’s views, which they don’t have a right to anyway.

No it's more like those that don't want these are also against the poolbeg chimneys being demolished.