Nimbyism: Windfarm off South County Dublin

Birdnuts

Markcheese wrote: »

I don't think any grid costs or back up / spinning reserve are included with hinkly c or sizewell either ,

There is the advantage that both of those are at sites of current reactors ...
But a big source of power needs a huge amount of dispatchable reserve , no matter the source ,
With nuclear it's likely to another reactor .

Nuclear feeds into the existing grid, so costs are minimized - in contrast wind as a highly dispersed power source requires a vast and costly investment in extra pylon infrastructure etc.

Gaoth Laidir

These Sandycove and Dalkey residents really need to think a bit about what it is they're objecting to. The turbines will barely be noticeable. I dare say they'd have to look hard for them.

Simple maths:
Turbines max 300 m high and 10,000 m away means they'll only extend less than 1.7 degrees above the horizon, which is nothing. Extend your arm out straight and hold your little finger out horizontally. The width of the finger is all we're talking about here.

They'll only be noticeable on clear days with blue sky on the horizon as they would blend in if it were cloudy.

Nimbyism at its finest.

ted1

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

These Sandycove and Dalkey residents really need to think a bit about what it is they're objecting to. The turbines will barely be noticeable. I dare say they'd have to look hard for them.

Simple maths:
Turbines max 300 m high and 10,000 m away means they'll only extend less than 1.7 degrees above the horizon, which is nothing. Extend your arm out straight and hold your little finger out horizontally. The width of the finger is all we're talking about here.

They'll only be noticeable on clear days with blue sky on the horizon as they would blend in if it were cloudy.

Nimbyism at its finest.

You are clueless. They will be very visible everyday, even the developer acknowledges this.

For reference The kish lighthouse is only 31m and is visible every day , it’s 11km from Dun Laoighre. You can see it here : https://coastmonkey.ie/kish-lighthouse-gets-towed-out-video/

Looks like your maths are a bit to simple

Why single out Dalkey and Sandycove ? There’s Dun Laoighre , Glasthule, Killiney, Shankill , Bray,Monkstown snd several other places been affected too

beauf

completedit wrote: »

They look amazing. The natural world is amazing but sometimes I feel as if we feel we can't appreciate the marvels of man-made inventions. There is a beauty in their sheer might and power. Let's get them up.

Personally I love the industrial brutalisim of nuclear power stations and tall smoke stacks from coal burning stations. I think we should start a campaign to build them in all of our most scenic areas, cliffs of moher, giants causeway etc.

Id start another campaign for incinerators but we've already started doing that.

boombang

I can't see why anybody would object to these aesthetically. Even if I did think they were ugly they would rank far below things I wanted to see sorted that mattered to my quality of life: litter, dog mess, people parking all over pavements.

beauf

Hill of Tara another windy spot. Perfect for about 200 of them.

beauf

boombang wrote: »

I can't see why anybody would object to these aesthetically. Even if I did think they were ugly they would rank far below things I wanted to see sorted that mattered to my quality of life: litter, dog mess, people parking all over pavements.

Lots of space for housing in historical monuments going wasted.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/King-Johns-Castle-in-1986-a-few-years-before-corporation-housing-was-removed-to-enable_fig1_311102823

Markcheese

beauf wrote: »

Personally I love the industrial brutalisim of nuclear power stations and tall smoke stacks from coal burning stations. I think we should start a campaign to build them in all of our most scenic areas, cliffs of moher, giants causeway etc.

Id start another campaign for incinerators but we've already started doing that.

Spot on , but it's very mean to site them in out of the way rural areas,and hidden behind mountains , you really need to group them where everyone can see them .I dunno , somewhere like Dublin ....
Is the glass bottle site still available ? Ringsend for a nuke ?

cgcsb

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

looks fine to me tbh. What's horrible about it?

boombang

beauf wrote: »

Lots of space for housing in historical monuments going wasted.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/King-Johns-Castle-in-1986-a-few-years-before-corporation-housing-was-removed-to-enable_fig1_311102823

Are you suggesting council houses within a castle is akin to a windfarm 10km out at sea?

Markcheese

Birdnuts wrote: »

Nuclear feeds into the existing grid, so costs are minimized - in contrast wind as a highly dispersed power source requires a vast and costly investment in extra pylon infrastructure etc.

That's kind of my point .. as new reactors are built at the site of old ones they'll connect to the historic grid ..
And by building large windfarms off the east coast , it makes it easier and cheaper to connect to the existing grid , in the area with highest demand .. Dublin ...

cgcsb

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

actually it's good business sense, nuclear costs a lot, importing it when required and letting the brits pay is just being savy.

Banana Republic 1

beauf wrote: »

Hill of Tara another windy spot. Perfect for about 200 of them.

Sarcasm doesn’t seem to work on this site.

Banana Republic 1

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

Object to wind farms that disturb the view but be happy to breath in tonnes of NOX, sulphur, and particulates that burn your lungs and destroy your DNA. Good one!

beauf

boombang wrote: »

Are you suggesting council houses within a castle is akin to a windfarm 10km out at sea?

I'm suggesting you've a massive coastline to choose from. You've the entire sea to pick from. Is there some reason to pick one of the very few locations in that vast area where there will be significant objection.

ExMachina1000

beauf wrote: »

Hill of Tara another windy spot. Perfect for about 200 of them.

What about the druids though?
They wont like that

Banana Republic 1

beauf wrote: »

I'm suggesting you've a massive coastline to choose from. You've the entire sea to pick from. Is there some reason to pick one of the very few locations in that vast area where there will be significant objection.

Just to annoy people like you is all the reason needed.

beauf

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Object to wind farms that disturb the view but be happy to breath in tonnes of NOX, sulphur, and particulates that burn your lungs and destroy your DNA. Good one!

So objecting to a bad location for the national children's hospital must mean those people hate hospitals, and children hospitals in particular.

beauf

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Just to annoy people like you is all the reason needed.

Bit like wearing a sombrero hat to the cinema isn't it. Whiners the lot of them.

JohnnyMustang22

I got great amusement out of reading this thread. I used to work in the Shale gas business(Yes, that's fracking!!!) and I've heard these opposition arguments endless times. The easy fix to all of these "anti-everything" views is to create less demand. Stop driving, stop buying in supermarkets, stop ordering stuff online, have less kids and stop going onto the internet to have arguments with people. Demand will go down and we wont have to build as many power plants/turbines/etc. Everybody wants cheap electricity on demand 100% of the time, they want nice warm homes and shiny new stuff but just not near where they live.

IMO The destruction of our landscape has already been achieved by intense farming and the human sprawl. A few turbines out at sea is not really going to make much difference.


BTW I no longer work in the dirty, polluting, environmentally destructive Oil and Gas business. I now work in the mining business to supply all the materials we need for Electric Vehicles, phones, batteries and green technologies to work. Believe it or not lots of people are opposed to that too.

beauf

JohnnyMustang22 wrote: »

I got great amusement out of reading this thread. I used to work in the Shale gas business(Yes, that's fracking!!!) and I've heard these opposition arguments endless times. .....

I guess if people are going to complain about everything. There's really no reason not to go back to coal.

Gaoth Laidir

ted1 wrote: »

You are clueless. They will be very visible everyday, even the developer acknowledges this.

For reference The kish lighthouse is only 31m and is visible every day , it’s 11km from Dun Laoighre. You can see it here : https://coastmonkey.ie/kish-lighthouse-gets-towed-out-video/

Looks like your maths are a bit to simple

Why single out Dalkey and Sandycove ? There’s Dun Laoighre , Glasthule, Killiney, Shankill , Bray,Monkstown snd several other places been affected too

Exactly what does that video show in relation to its visibility from the coast?

The maths are indeed simple. Normally, objections to wind farms would be along the lines of noise pollution or flight flickering, and that may be the case on land in some cases where people are living literally in the shadow of these things (my aunt is one such case). However, the residents of all those locations (I just heard two from Sandycove and Dalkey on the radio) don't have such grounds for complaint and are grasping at a fairly fragile straw in claiming that these turbines will "ruin their daily walk". Absolute nonsense.

Call me all the names you like, but do the maths yourself and you'll see it's not to [sic] difficult to see the weakness in their argument. It seems that maybe you're one of these residents and may not like the obvious being pointed out.

gourcuff

offshore wind is key in a country where onshore is so difficult because of our dispersed settlement patterns.. this is the solution imo

ted1

boombang wrote: »

I can't see why anybody would object to these aesthetically. Even if I did think they were ugly they would rank far below things I wanted to see sorted that mattered to my quality of life: litter, dog mess, people parking all over pavements.

So you think it’s a choice between wind turbines or Dog Pooh?
Strange logic

ted1

gourcuff wrote: »

offshore wind is key in a country where onshore is so difficult because of our dispersed settlement patterns.. this is the solution imo

Offshore yes, but further out....

ted1

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It seems that maybe you're one of these residents and may not like the obvious being pointed out.

It by obvious you mean extremely large wind turbines owned by a German company with no interest in the local area. You may be sure I don’t like it.

These are so large they will have a effect on the wind through the city

gourcuff

ted1 wrote: »

It by obvious you mean extremely large wind turbines owned by a German company with no interest in the local area. You may be sure I don’t like it.

These are so large they will have a effect on the wind through the city

What grounds will you object on? the landscape and visual impact assessment will have the visual impact as minor/not significant,

there wont be shadow flicker

there wont be noise impact

ecological impacts - potentially, but mitigation can resolve significant ones...

Gaoth Laidir

ted1 wrote: »

It by obvious you mean extremely large wind turbines owned by a German company with no interest in the local area. You may be sure I don’t like it.

These are so large they will have a effect on the wind through the city

See now I think you're just being sarcastic. I get it now. At least I hope that comment was tongue-in-cheek and you don't actually believe it.

Banana Republic 1

beauf wrote: »

So objecting to a bad location for the national children's hospital must mean those people hate hospitals, and children hospitals in particular.

No, I don’t know where the children’s hospital came from lad we are talking about wind farms.

Banana Republic 1

beauf wrote: »

Bit like wearing a sombrero hat to the cinema isn't it. Whiners the lot of them.

If sombrero wearer was ten miles away then it wouldn’t matter.

ted1

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

See now I think you're just being sarcastic. I get it now. At least I hope that comment was tongue-in-cheek and you don't actually believe it.

Nope, it’s based on scientific evidence.
Think of the wake of the turbine like the a plume of smoke it propagates downwind and affects the aswell as causing turbulence. I work in the industry ( bit not this project ) and was talking to our modellers about it.

Banana Republic 1

ted1 wrote: »

Nope, it’s based on scientific evidence.
Think of the wake of the turbine like the a plume of smoke it propagates downwind and affects the aswell as causing turbulence. I work in the industry ( bit not this project ) and was talking to our modellers about it.

“Plume of smoke it propagates” they don’t run on diesel lad. There’s not many hand-gliders going down O’Connell street, turbulence FFs

ted1

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

“Plume of smoke it propagates” they don’t run on diesel lad. There’s not many hand-gliders going down O’Connell street, turbulence FFs

I said “think”, a plume of smoke is visible so it’s an easy analogy for people to understand.

Banana Republic 1

ted1 wrote: »

I said “think”, a plume of smoke is visible so it’s an easy analogy for people to understand.

Fair enough but I do know most of what’s pushed out from the anti turbine crowds is fake news.

Gaoth Laidir

ted1 wrote: »

Nope, it’s based on scientific evidence.
Think of the wake of the turbine like the a plume of smoke it propagates downwind and affects the aswell as causing turbulence. I work in the industry ( bit not this project ) and was talking to our modellers about it.

Firstly, our prevailing winds are southwesterlies, with easterlies making up less than 10% of the total winds in any one year.



Secondly, what exactly do you think would be any downwind effects be? You reckon trampolines will be strewn across the N11? :rolleyes: Remember, these people live downwind of the Wicklow mountains, which are in the way of the vast majority of the area's winds.

Banana Republic 1

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Firstly, our prevailing winds are southwesterlies, with easterlies making up less than 10% of the total winds in any one year.



Secondly, what exactly do you think would be any downwind effects be? You reckon trampolines will be strewn across the N11? :rolleyes: Remember, these people live downwind of the Wicklow mountains, which are in the way of the vast majority of the area's winds.

To many facts there, all the swivel eyes may explode.

beauf

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

If sombrero wearer was ten miles away then it wouldn’t matter.

If the turbines were the size of a sombrero then the ten miles wouldn't and location wouldn't be an issue.

beauf

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Sarcasm doesn’t seem to work on this site.

Common sense doesn't seem to work either.

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

No, I don’t know where the children’s hospital came from lad we are talking about wind farms.

Actually we are talking about the location of wind farms. You decided that objecting to the location of a wind farm was the same as objecting to any form of clean energy.

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

. happy to breath in tonnes of NOX, sulphur, and particulates that burn your lungs and destroy your DNA. Good one!

Banana Republic 1

beauf wrote: »

If the turbines were the size of a sombrero then the ten miles wouldn't and location wouldn't be an issue.

How would the sombrero fit into a cinema if it was the size of a wind turbine ?

beauf

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

How would the sombrero fit into a cinema if it was the size of a wind turbine ?

Drive in...

Edgware

The usual whingers will object like their ancestors objected to the Rock of Cashel building and railways

beauf

Edgware wrote: »

The usual whingers will object like their ancestors objected to the Rock of Cashel building and railways

Just to be pedantic, technically since its about nimbyism they could only object if they live near the Rock of Cashel, every railway and every wind farm.
They are unlikely to be the same people with the same ancestors and live in all these places all at the same time.

ted1

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Firstly, our prevailing winds are southwesterlies, with easterlies making up less than 10% of the total winds in any one year.



Secondly, what exactly do you think would be any downwind effects be? You reckon trampolines will be strewn across the N11? :rolleyes: Remember, these people live downwind of the Wicklow mountains, which are in the way of the vast majority of the area's winds.

Downwind are the recreational bay users like sailors , kitesurfers, windsurfers among others. These are vested interests/stakeholders who have legitimate concern.

I’ve yet to hear a good reason why they can’t be located further out to sea

beauf

ted1 wrote: »

...
I’ve yet to hear a good reason why they can’t be located further out to sea

I assume its just cost. I would assume the suitable sites that are feasible are limited, and also the costs of construction in certain locations might be prohibitive.

Maybe they could hide them with a wall. Trump might be free soon to take up such a project...

ted1

beauf wrote: »

I assume its just cost. I would assume the suitable sites that are feasible are limited, and also the costs of construction in certain locations might be prohibitive.

Maybe they could hide them with a wall. Trump might be free soon to take up such a project...

There several area available on the East coast that are further out and suitable. But the Germans want more profit, and sure it doesn’t affect them

bob mcbob

ted1 wrote: »

Downwind are the recreational bay users like sailors , kitesurfers, windsurfers among others. These are vested interests/stakeholders who have legitimate concern.

I’ve yet to hear a good reason why they can’t be located further out to sea

If they go further out they will be in the middle of the Irish Sea shipping routes -

see map in section 4

https://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11503152/shipping-routes-map

beauf

bob mcbob wrote: »

If they go further out they will be in the middle of the Irish Sea shipping routes -

see map in section 4

https://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11503152/shipping-routes-map

Its a long coastline. Its hard to believe that the only options are a shipping lane, and just off Sandycove. Are there no shipping lanes into Dublin and Dún Laoghaire that are near by?

Again I'm reminded off the children hospital. The only options where a terrible location and and even worse location. In the entire country.

Gaoth Laidir

ted1 wrote: »

Downwind are the recreational bay users like sailors , kitesurfers, windsurfers among others. These are vested interests/stakeholders who have legitimate concern.

I’ve yet to hear a good reason why they can’t be located further out to sea

You didn't hear the reason? It was very clearly stated that the reason is because of the shallow waters there. A secondary reason is efficiency and cost, with reduced cabling and hence power losses.

Both of these were clearly stated by the same contractor that you earlier told me acknowledges that the turbines will be visible. Maybe some selective hearing going on, no?

ted1

bob mcbob wrote: »

If they go further out they will be in the middle of the Irish Sea shipping routes -

see map in section 4

https://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11503152/shipping-routes-map

Nope. It’s a large stretch of coast that’s 90km wide. It’s not all shipping lanes. How big to you think ships are ?

ted1

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You didn't hear the reason? It was very clearly stated that the reason is because of the shallow waters there. A secondary reason is efficiency and cost, with reduced cabling and hence power losses.

Both of these were clearly stated by the same contractor that you earlier told me acknowledges that the turbines will be visible. Maybe some selective hearing going on, no?

There’s other sand banks available, and the losses on a the line will be minimal. The fact you think it’s to believe it’s for line loss in comical.


So you think the north Irish Sea WF is going to lose money as it’s 17km offshore ?