Nimbyism: Windfarm off South County Dublin

ted1

lawred2 wrote: »

Lol

Less intrusive for who?

Further out. Just like other countries are putting them.

super_furry

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

There's plenty of benefit for those who enjoy it. It'll ensure that in 40 years the high tide isn't in their back garden.

ted1

super_furry wrote: »

There's plenty of benefit for those who enjoy it. It'll ensure that in 40 years the high tide isn't in their back garden.

That’ll happen no matter where they put them.

super_furry

ted1 wrote: »

Further out. Just like other countries are putting them.

Further out where? Wales is the next stop.

ted1

super_furry wrote: »

Further out where? Wales is the next stop.

Yeah, let’s totally forget about the 97km between the proposed site and Wales, that would be considered further out.

Yellow_Fern

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.

This is deeply incorrect post. Domestic/feral cats kill a lot of birds, however they tend to kill small rapidly breeding passerines that are common. In Ireland they kill black birds or thrushes while turbines can kill larger birds that live in remote areas. Irish wind turbines have killed several eagles which is deeply troubling as the population is so small and the turbines are are only going to increase massively. 1 eagle death is worse than a 1000 thrush deaths. It is not as if cats aren't an issue either. Feral cats are routinely shot to protect wildlife in Ireland and abroad.

listermint

ted1 wrote: »

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

I can show you pictures if you like. But sure you'd probably say they were fake.

skooterblue2

super_furry wrote: »

There's plenty of benefit for those who enjoy it. It'll ensure that in 40 years the high tide isn't in their back garden.

Oh please we have been hearing this for years its called climate change, There has always been climate change we just have to adapt to it. Do you know what the biggest Green House gas is? Give you a clue it isnt methane......

Yellow_Fern

ted1 wrote: »

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

I am against windfarms but to be fair the fact that wind farms create few jobs is a good thing. Is very much a good thing. It means cheaper electricity and freeing up smart people to do more important work.

skooterblue2

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Irish wind turbines have killed several eagles which is deeply troubling as the population is so small and the turbines are are only going to increase massively. 1 eagle death is worse than a 1000 thrush deaths.

Those arent the same eagles we spent millions of Euro on and all that monitoring for domestic breeding programs in the nation parks? They sound like a hazzard to me.

ted1

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Those arent the same eagles we spent millions of Euro on and all that monitoring for domestic breeding programs in the nation parks? They sound like a hazzard to me.

I believe they have the bird flu now

skooterblue2

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Is very much a good thing. It means cheaper electricity and freeing up smart people to do more important work.

When has that ever happened? In fact the price of electricity has increased with carbon taxes. These carbon credits will hold back developing nations and increase manufacturing costs for developed nations.

skooterblue2

ted1 wrote: »

I believe they have the bird flu now

Covid 19 strikes again.

Yellow_Fern

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Those arent the same eagles we spent millions of Euro on and all that monitoring for domestic breeding programs in the nation parks? They sound like a hazzard to me.

They are. The number of kills is very low compared to poison but it is still worrying. Wind kills is very serious in places with a lot of griffon vultures like Sardinia.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

When has that ever happened? In fact the price of electricity has increased with carbon taxes. These carbon credits will hold back developing nations and increase manufacturing costs for developed nations.

There is no question that natural gas is cheaper than wind. but I was just explaining that we are talking about creating something that is not exported like electricity, job creation should be always minimised. it is disturbing how many politicians dont understand this.

hmmm

Every one of them is one less Ferrari for a despot currently selling oil to us. I'd coat the Irish sea in them if I could.

ExMachina1000

Wind was only able to produce 1% of Ireland's power past Friday. Coal and gas to the rescue.

Go nuclear or go home

Yellow_Fern

hmmm wrote: »

Every one of them is one less Ferrari for a despot currently selling oil to us. I'd coat the Irish sea in them if I could.

Not exactly. The idea is that these wind turbines will replace our peat and coal and gas. The coal is coming from Poland and the gas from Norway, Algeria, Russia, Ireland. I guess if we all move to electric cars they will replace oil imports from Gulf but not right now.

skooterblue2

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Not exactly. The idea is that these wind turbines will replace our peat and coal and gas. The coal is coming from Poland and the gas from Norway, Algeria, Russia, Ireland. I guess if we all move to electric cars they will replace oil imports from Gulf but not right now.

Did you ever read about the deal the Soviet Union did with each individual country as regards building a pipeline to Europe? The European nations had to pay 80% of the cost for 20% of the gas. The USSR negotiated with every country separately. Great story if you read about it.

ted1

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Not exactly. The idea is that these wind turbines will replace our peat and coal and gas. The coal is coming from Poland and the gas from Norway, Algeria, Russia, Ireland. I guess if we all move to electric cars they will replace oil imports from Gulf but not right now.

Our coal comes from Columbia

Birdnuts

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.

Well thats just industry rubbish - windfarms are very much a threat to seabirds and large soaring birds like stork eagles etc. Cats are hardly a threat to them are they or the likes of nuclear power:rolleyes:?? The sandbanks off Dublin and Louth are some of the richest fisheries in the Irish Sea and are vital feeding grounds for rare tern species, puffins etc. Many of these species are already under pressure from over-fishing and plastic pollution. Loosing adult birds to wind farm blades could be the final nail in the coffin for many seabird species.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/13/seabirds-face-extinction-government-pursues-wind-farm-plan-rspb/

As for "affordable" energy - don't make me laugh, the PSO levy is going up another 50 euro this winter to pay the subs for all the useless junk wind farms we already have sterilising vast areas of upland Cork,Kerry and Donegal. All of which need constant back up from conventional power stations

Birdnuts

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.

The wind turbins proposed will be much larger and closer to the coast

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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

Yeah you're alright for Hinkley Point. Have you seen the guaranteed price they've been given for the electricity? Which has increased with inflation even before construction started. It's 4 times what it was claimed it would be in the business case when they wanted approval. I'll give you a hint, it's above what some companies are able to provide retail electricity for. So the government accepted that stupidly high price and because energy costs have consistently fallen the estimated cost to guarantee that price went from £6.1billion initially in 2013 to £29.7 billion in 2016 to £50 billion in 2017. Now I could be wrong but I think energy prices have fallen quite a bit since then so it's going to be higher again.
In an Irish context that £50 billion would be around £25k per household. Pretty sure that would supply enough batteries to every house in Ireland to store a week's worth of electricity.

Birdnuts

hmmm wrote: »

Every one of them is one less Ferrari for a despot currently selling oil to us. I'd coat the Irish sea in them if I could.

Incorrect - wind energy needs near constant back up from conventional power sources. Wind developers love spouting such BS to justify the fat subs they get. Its no accident that the likes of Denmark, Germany and this country have some of the highest energy bills in the EU off the back of supporting such nonsense

Birdnuts

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah you're alright for Hinkley Point. Have you seen the guaranteed price they've been given for the electricity? Which has increased with inflation even before construction started. It's 4 times what it was claimed it would be in the business case when they wanted approval. I'll give you a hint, it's above what some companies are able to provide retail electricity for. So the government accepted that stupidly high price and because energy costs have consistently fallen the estimated cost to guarantee that price went from £6.1billion initially in 2013 to £29.7 billion in 2016 to £50 billion in 2017. Now I could be wrong but I think energy prices have fallen quite a bit since then so it's going to be higher again.
In an Irish context that £50 billion would be around £25k per household. Pretty sure that would supply enough batteries to every house in Ireland to store a week's worth of electricity.

Oil and gas prices are currently a fraction of what they were in 2007 - and yet the cost of power here and in the likes of Germany has increased massively since. They one common strand?? Yep, adding wind energy to the grid, supported by folks who can't tell greenwash from the real thing

patrickbrophy18

I can't imagine how a field of rotating propellers would be bad for the sea life beneath given that they are propped up well above sea level at their closest point. The installation of the foundations i.e. the concrete supports for the mills themselves would be temporarily disruptive alright. However, I would like to think that the engineers installing them would be watching out for marine life during their respective shifts. Nevertheless, I don't know if their job description includes humane treatment of marine life forms.

I'm not too sure about the stats on birds flying into the propellers themselves either as birds regularly fly into man made objects on both land and sea.

I also don't know how often they are maintained after installation.

The argument for placing them further out to sea sounds ridiculous as I imagine that it would drive up the cost of installation due to the greater depths. Consequently, the longer time spent on the installation for each unit would mean longer periods of disruption to sub sea life.

Other than these factors, the remaining arguments against the proposals reeks of NIMBYism. At a 10KM distance from the shore, they are merely pin-wheels on the horizon.

Lastly, they are certainly a much better proposal than the oil rig previously proposed for the Kish Bank Basin.

GT89

All the while ignoring the single most efficient and enviromentally friendly method of energy production nuclear that would really get the nimbys on overdrive too. It is the sensible option.

Birdnuts

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I can't imagine how a field of rotating propellers would be bad for the sea life beneath given that they are propped up well above sea level at their closest point. The installation of the foundations i.e. the concrete supports for the mills themselves would be temporarily disruptive alright. However, I would like to think that the engineers installing them would be watching out for marine life during their respective shifts. Nevertheless, I don't know if their job description includes humane treatment of marine life forms.

I'm not too sure about the stats on birds flying into the propellers themselves either as birds regularly fly into man made objects on both land and sea.

I also don't know how often they are maintained after installation.

The argument for placing them further out to sea sounds ridiculous as I imagine that it would drive up the cost of installation due to the greater depths. Consequently, the longer time spent on the installation for each unit would mean longer periods of disruption to sub sea life.

Other than these factors, the remaining arguments against the proposals reeks of NIMBYism. At a 10KM distance from the shore, they are merely pin-wheels on the horizon.

Lastly, they are certainly a much better proposal than the oil rig previously proposed for the Kish Bank Basin.

Given the importance of the East Coast for rare species like Roseate and Little Terns - the impact of this proposal is of concern given research in this area

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226792953_Impact_of_wind_turbines_on_birds_in_Zeebrugge_Belgium

and thats before you consider issues like displacement and loss of habitat in key feeding areas that will be sterilised under these white elephants. Similar issues are already apparent with onshore wind farms.

Birdnuts

Birdnuts wrote: »

Oil and gas prices are currently a fraction of what they were in 2007 - and yet the cost of power here and in the likes of Germany has increased massively since. They one common strand?? Yep, adding wind energy to the grid, supported by folks who can't tell greenwash from the real thing

Well adding Nuclear with a base price above the current price and linked to inflation won't be helping that.

jimmycrackcorm

Birdnuts wrote: »

Incorrect - wind energy needs near constant back up from conventional power sources. Wind developers love spouting such BS to justify the fat subs they get. Its no accident that the likes of Denmark, Germany and this country have some of the highest energy bills in the EU off the back of supporting such nonsense

You could look at: "wind energy needs constant backup" and instead, view it as supplementing conventional power sources so that their carbon consumption gets reduced.

Germanys prices are higher because it was an early adopter of renewable energy and is in full throttle mode to transition. It will benefit later while the rest of us are still trying to catch up.

Our domestic natural gas prices aren't reducing with Shell operating in the west nor are we reaping any tax benefits yet because of the ROI required.

Your arguments are the same as saying nobody should buy electric cars.

Yellow_Fern

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah you're alright for Hinkley Point. Have you seen the guaranteed price they've been given for the electricity? Which has increased with inflation even before construction started. It's 4 times what it was claimed it would be in the business case when they wanted approval. I'll give you a hint, it's above what some companies are able to provide retail electricity for. So the government accepted that stupidly high price and because energy costs have consistently fallen the estimated cost to guarantee that price went from £6.1billion initially in 2013 to £29.7 billion in 2016 to £50 billion in 2017. Now I could be wrong but I think energy prices have fallen quite a bit since then so it's going to be higher again.
In an Irish context that £50 billion would be around £25k per household. Pretty sure that would supply enough batteries to every house in Ireland to store a week's worth of electricity.

These overruns are a less concerning when measured against a 80 life span and the low carbon intensity and high safe nature. If more nuclear stations were built the price would come down.