Nimbyism: Windfarm off South County Dublin

Seaswimmer

Does anyone have an idea of the maximum depth of water for wind turbines?
I presume they have to go on a bank as opposed to deep water. A quick google lists the following banks in the Irish Sea. i didnt realise there were so many..


Bennet, Burford, Kish, Frazer, Bray, Codling, India, Arklow, Seven Fathom Bank, Glassgorman, Rusk, Blackwater/Moneyweights, Lucifer, Long and Holdens Banks

and this windfarm planned for Dundalk which i hadnt heard about..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriel_Wind_Farm

mikep

ted1 wrote: »

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

I'm unfamiliar with those acronyms..

Can you clarify??

skooterblue2

bubblypop wrote: »

I think they look lovely, very graceful

You need to more into them. They are not as environmentally friendly as portrayed. They kill wildlife in the form of killing birds that fly in patterns. Then they have a finite life span. The cannot be recycled. They do not create as many jobs as other forms of energy.

Seaswimmer

seamus wrote: »

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.

Thats the old Father Ted "near and far away" argument. It didnt work for Dougal and it wont work in South Dublin..

JustAThought

Seaswimmer wrote: »

Does anyone have an idea of the maximum depth of water for wind turbines?
I presume they have to go on a bank as opposed to deep water. A quick google lists the following banks in the Irish Sea. i didnt realise there were so many..


Bennet, Burford, Kish, Frazer, Bray, Codling, India, Arklow, Seven Fathom Bank, Glassgorman, Rusk, Blackwater/Moneyweights, Lucifer, Long and Holdens Banks

and this windfarm planned for Dundalk which i hadnt heard about..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriel_Wind_Farm

Check your navigation charts for Dublin bay - not to mention that when areas are
impassible for navigation because of underwater obstructions/hidden dangers AND dangerous currents and depths around submerged objects - including tidal ones such as some sandbanks are - the picture gets a lot more complicated. Hence perhaps the ubiquituous phrases of ‘still waters run deep’ and ‘more going on beneath the surface’ - not to mwntion shifting sands.

Dublin bay and Dublin port are essential supply chain passages for most of the imports into this country. The safe channel into the mouth of Dublin port has to be monitored and dredged to keep it that way - deep, secure from underwater hazards that spring tides or other environmentL
factors has brought in or storms have churned up. How much risk, cost and disruption will a few years of umderwater construction, drilling, dumping and shifting and securing tens of thousands of tonnes of sand/soil/rock & debry cause.

Damage & power from local Tides and currents arn’t just visible as breaks or banks or waves.
Anyone interested in sandbanks or sand erosion should take a daytrip to Portrane ‘beach’ - or whats left of it - and see the ACRES of land that the tides have bitten away - and the houses there on the shorefront literally with their decking and patios falling into the sea. In the past 5 or so years they have lost up to 40 foot of their ‘gardens’ and in some cases the sea is almost up to the kitchen walls of their homes. Sand and sandbanks are bilt and eroded by the power of the sea. Much as the same way i wouldn’t contemplate building a house or business on sand, I’d certainly be very concerned about the amount of serious underwater infrastructural work and exological disruption & damage it would do
to make it functional...

quokula

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You need to more into them. They are not as environmentally friendly as portrayed. They kill wildlife in the form of killing birds that fly in patterns. Then they have a finite life span. The cannot be recycled. They do not create as many jobs as other forms of energy.

The turbines last approx 25 years and recycling solutions are being worked on. They're at about 85% recyclable now with further improvements being made. New turbines going up today will almost certainly be completely recyclable when they go out of commission in 2050. And other forms of power generation are no better when it comes to recycling hardware.

As for birds, fossil fuel power generation typically kills 20 times as many birds through pollution as wind turbines do per GWH generated. The affect on birds has been greatly over-exaggerated by various propaganda pieces, their impact is minuscule compared to cars or pet cats for example.

And they're not designed to create jobs, that's just a side effect, they're designed to create affordable energy without ****ing up the planet.

JustAThought

‘ go out of comission in 2050’

do you mean stop working and be acrapped. Only there is no scrappage for windmills - they’ll be left
there to rot or fall apart.

less than 30 years for major infracstuctiral project is not long - and lets face it when they finally get in the lifespan will be shorter. Like on all
things you buy on the back of promises.

By all means put them somewhere & save
the planet - but not in the essential import
port for the country, alongside Irelands busiest and longest established nautical recreational area and in an area when the sea view is the most stunning in the capitol and where there are multiple SAC and UNESCO protected sites, wetlands and marine protection areas for mammals - like Dublin Bay.

Can we not use some cop on and locate
them elsewhere - somewhere less
protected, with less environmental areas and national areas of special protection status, away from all the underwater wrecks and gravesites and where it will not add costs and risks to the port and all the containers, businesses and other industries that use it and rely on it?

And no - I don’t have an interest in property there (anymore).

skooterblue2

quokula wrote: »

The turbines last approx 25 years and recycling solutions are being worked on. They're at about 85% recyclable now with further improvements being made. New turbines going up today will almost certainly be completely recyclable when they go out of commission in 2050. And other forms of power generation are no better when it comes to recycling hardware.

As for birds, fossil fuel power generation typically kills 20 times as many birds through pollution as wind turbines do per GWH generated. The affect on birds has been greatly over-exaggerated by various propaganda pieces, their impact is minuscule compared to cars or pet cats for example.

And they're not designed to create jobs, that's just a side effect, they're designed to create affordable energy without ****ing up the planet.

Yeah I have seen all these recyclable claims. Most plastics arent recyclable and neither is fiberglass. Of course business men collect the subsidy for recycling and the bales of mixed plastic which end up in South East Asia or Africa.

The real reason for the green energy isnt the environment, its to shore up pension funds invested up to their neck in high risk ventures.

markjbloggs

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.

It does NOT power 600,000 homes . On a very windy day, it may approach this but much of the time it will produce NOTHING (except an eyesore, and a shipping hazard).

ted1

mikep wrote: »

I'm unfamiliar with those acronyms..

Can you clarify??

Battery energy Storage systems
Renewable Energy Systems

timmyntc

They should stick a whopper nuclear plant in the Midlands instead - sure they have no scenery there to ruin

JustAThought

timmyntc wrote: »

They should stick a whopper nuclear plant in the Midlands instead - sure they have no scenery there to ruin

only the entire planet.

Chernobly anyone? Entirely human error. Look at the farce they have made of most infrastructure projects - zero accountability and brains locked closed. And of course zero accountability when things go wrong.

Eric Cartman

JustAThought wrote: »

only the entire planet.

Chernobly anyone? Entirely human error. Look at the farce they have made of most infrastructure projects - zero accountability and brains locked closed. And of course zero accountability when things go wrong.

Chernobyl was a failed design, built poorly, with staff improperly trained, too afraid to raise the alarm or call off the test because they were afraid of how the communists dealt with failure.

A modern designed nuclear reactor, built and operated by a private company is the safest, cleanest means of power possibly available and it is a fast ramping solution which doesn't require external storage unlike wind and solar.

There is no point in talking about electric cars or green power without putting nuclear on the table as an essential part. This business of just buying nuclear power through an interconnecter from the UK or France is also a complete farce and just nimbyism over long cables.

ted1

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This business of just buying nuclear power through an interconnecter from the UK or France is also a complete farce and just nimbyism over long cables.

We couldn’t really sustain a nuclear plant. With n+1 requirement it’d be to hard to maintain

Eric Cartman

ted1 wrote: »

We couldn’t really sustain a nuclear plant. With n+1 requirement it’d be to hard to maintain

thats what the interconnecter is for.

completion in 2026 its 700MW from France, plus domestic production from gas etc.. we could easily sustain something the size of Hinkley Point C

zom

frash wrote: »

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

I wonder how it will influence property prices in this one of Ireland most expansive areas?

JustAThought

zom wrote: »

I wonder how it will influence property prices in this one of Ireland most expansive areas?

Doubt it will really - but a lot of solicitors will be grubbing up on environmental and planning objection laws in anticipation of an onslought of new southside clients!

Look at the fiasco the ringsend sewage plant has been. And the incinerator ‘mistakes’ and leaks. Not to mention the houses whose foundations collapsed into the Port Tunnel underground works.And the planning location joke fhat has become fhe childrens hospital - the most e pensive hole in yhe ground on the planet - And on and on. An irish chernobyl would be well in the cards - at the level of endless incompetence and utter inability to govern we consistently show. Safe my aras.

homer911

markjbloggs wrote: »

It does NOT power 600,000 homes . On a very windy day, it may approach this but much of the time it will produce NOTHING (except an eyesore, and a shipping hazard).

Shipping already avoids these banks.

"much of the time it will produce NOTHING" Hmm, an expert in wind strengths in near-shore waters on the Irish coast are you?

I live in Dublin, personally I think this is long overdue and the concerns are completely "overblown" (sorry!) - bring it on, the sooner the better.

HeidiHeidi

I live in Dublin, I sail/race in Dublin Bay and the Irish Sea, and I would be generally in favour of this.


I don't get the angst over the views - it's 10km out, you can hardly see the Kish Lighthouse most days which is about that distance, and there's something elegant about these turbines - they're practically ubiquitous on the Irish landscape these days, to the point where I hardly notice them.


Most Dublin Bay sailing and racing wouldn't go anywhere near that distance out - and the ones that do, well we already have to navigate around the Arklow Bank and various other hazards both natural and artificial - so this would be just one more! Albeit a very big one.


My only concern would be the environmental and wildlife damage they could do - I've seen strenuous and believable arguments for both sides, so I really don't know where I fall on that.


Overall I'd be in favour, with that one caveat.

ted1

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I live in Dublin, I sail/race in Dublin Bay and the Irish Sea, and I would be generally in favour of this.


I don't get the angst over the views - it's 10km out, you can hardly see the Kish Lighthouse most days which is about that distance, and there's something elegant about these turbines - they're practically ubiquitous on the Irish landscape these days, to the point where I hardly notice them.


Most Dublin Bay sailing and racing wouldn't go anywhere near that distance out - and the ones that do, well we already have to navigate around the Arklow Bank and various other hazards both natural and artificial - so this would be just one more! Albeit a very big one.


My only concern would be the environmental and wildlife damage they could do - I've seen strenuous and believable arguments for both sides, so I really don't know where I fall on that.


Overall I'd be in favour, with that one caveat.

You do know they take a lot of power out of the wind.

HeidiHeidi

ted1 wrote: »

You do know they take a lot of power out of the wind.

What, now???

ted1

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

What, now???

They convert wind energy to electricity. So they take the power out of the wind so in a southerly or easterly you’ll have less sailing days

The RYA recommend a minimum of 12 nm from shore and not in sailing areas

https://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/legal/Web%20Documents/Environment/RYA%20Position%20OREI%20Wind%20Energy.pdf

zom

JustAThought wrote: »

And the incinerator ‘mistakes’ and leaks..

I don't live in that area but I used to come there frequently - not anymore, especially if wind goes West. With all history of industrial norm and standard lies I would rather keep myself far from that awful eyesore of incinerator if I could. In my opinion this is one of the biggest planing mistakes in Ireland ever - even knowing all pros and cons as I was following construction process.

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

there's something elegant about these turbines.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like them too but I understand some people might hate them.

listermint

I look at the ones off Wicklow out my sitting room window daily. They're class. They're so far out they have no impact on the view.

No offence to Ted but there's nothing else out there on the horizon. That's lunacy they ruin now view.

I've still been able to see Wales on a rare day depending on the weather and temperatures. And the windmills had no impact on that .

Zero problems with them. Providing carbon free power and providing on and offshore jobs. Only a Muppet would be against it and for no valid reason.

listermint

ted1 wrote: »

They convert wind energy to electricity. So they take the power out of the wind so in a southerly or easterly you’ll have less sailing days

The RYA recommend a minimum of 12 nm from shore and not in sailing areas

https://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/legal/Web%20Documents/Environment/RYA%20Position%20OREI%20Wind%20Energy.pdf

Less sailing days in this country.


Lol

Gufffaaaawww

HeidiHeidi

ted1 wrote: »

They convert wind energy to electricity. So they take the power out of the wind so in a southerly or easterly you’ll have less sailing days

The RYA recommend a minimum of 12 nm from shore and not in sailing areas

https://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/legal/Web%20Documents/Environment/RYA%20Position%20OREI%20Wind%20Energy.pdf

Is that really the best argument you can come up with?

They'll steal the wind???

In that case, they'd better get rid of that pesky anchorage they have just south of the shipping lane for ships waiting for parking spaces in Dublin Port, because a 200m ship causes a hell of a bigger wind shadow than a wind turbine 10km away, and we manage perfectly well with them!

Not to mention that the prevailing winds are SW'ly, so not much risk there. And the whole point of sailing racing is to deal with whatever conditions you're given.

Can't believe I'm even engaging with that for an argument!

ted1

listermint wrote: »

I look at the ones off Wicklow out my sitting room window daily. They're class. They're so far out they have no impact on the view.

No offence to Ted but there's nothing else out there on the horizon. That's lunacy they ruin now view.

I've still been able to see Wales on a rare day depending on the weather and temperatures. And the windmills had no impact on that .


Zero problems with them. Providing carbon free power and providing on and offshore jobs. Only a Muppet would be against it and for no valid reason.

Only a muppet would blindly support them. Some muppets as you call them may actually work in the industry. They don’t create much jobs. Just fly in a maintenance crew once a year.

The ones on the arklow bank are tiny compared to them, there’s only 6 of them.

As for Seen Wales, many people often get clouds on the horizon mistaken as wales

screamer

Where do they think the electricity is going to come from for their “look at me driving an electric car, aren’t I wonderful” vehicles? Nuclear from France, ah yes that’s ok so long as the nuclear generators are nowhere near them, or how bout the old fossil fuel powered generating plants? Again, oh grand, so long as the smelly fumes are far away, so they can drive around with zero emissions. Time to wake up. Can’t see why this won’t be granted, it’s about the best place to put wind generators.

Rigor Mortis

JustAThought wrote: »

‘ go out of comission in 2050’

do you mean stop working and be acrapped. Only there is no scrappage for windmills - they’ll be left
there to rot or fall apart.

less than 30 years for major infracstuctiral project is not long - and lets face it when they finally get in the lifespan will be shorter. Like on all
things you buy on the back of promises.

By all means put them somewhere & save
the planet - but not in the essential import
port for the country, alongside Irelands busiest and longest established nautical recreational area and in an area when the sea view is the most stunning in the capitol and where there are multiple SAC and UNESCO protected sites, wetlands and marine protection areas for mammals - like Dublin Bay.

Can we not use some cop on and locate
them elsewhere - somewhere less
protected, with less environmental areas and national areas of special protection status, away from all the underwater wrecks and gravesites and where it will not add costs and risks to the port and all the containers, businesses and other industries that use it and rely on it?

And no - I don’t have an interest in property there (anymore).

They are not in the Bay. They are further down the coast.
Also in terms of left there to rot or fall apart, there will almost certainly be a decommissioning bond. So that is not going to be an issue.

lawred2

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

Lol

Less intrusive for who?