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

Nimbyism: Windfarm off South County Dublin

Options
1…34689…11

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,729 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #153
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #154
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,524 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #155
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #156
    boombang
    Registered Users Posts: 2,108 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


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


  • Options
    #158
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #159
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,464 ✭✭✭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 ?

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Options
    #160
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,523 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #161
    boombang
    Registered Users Posts: 2,108 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,464 ✭✭✭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 ...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Options
    #163
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,523 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #164
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #165
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #166
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #167
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    beauf wrote: »
    Hill of Tara another windy spot. Perfect for about 200 of them.

    What about the druids though?
    They wont like that


  • Options
    #168
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #169
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #170
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #171
    JohnnyMustang22
    Registered Users Posts: 169 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #173
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #174
    gourcuff
    Registered Users Posts: 295 ✭✭gourcuff


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


  • Options
    #175
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,524 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #176
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,524 ✭✭✭✭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....


  • Options
    #177
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,524 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #178
    gourcuff
    Registered Users Posts: 295 ✭✭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...


  • Options
    #179
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #180
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement