Windfarms the New Blight

by Noel Hogan Tue May 13, 2003 14:04

All you need is more efficient wind farms.

How else are we going to generate electricity - Moneypoint? Nuclear?

And please don't mention solar. This is Ireland for fu*ks sake!

Windfarms are the best option. By all means, let's not damage the scenery but let's be honest, electricity doesn't come from nowhere.

by Bart B Tue May 13, 2003 14:22

That article is load of rubish and shows no research what so ever. The comment of the power needed to turn the blades is laughable and shows that the author does not even understand Junior Cert level physics! The blades catch the winds energy and convert it to electricity, the more energy they catch i.e. the more it takes to turn the blades, the more electricity you get out, hence the bigger blades on the new machines.

About 10 years ago wind farms WERE inefficient, times have changed a lot, the technology was in its infancey then! They were single speed machines with no pitch control or anything like that. Modern machines are variable speed so they will work efficiently in a much larger range of wind speeds. The pitch control on the blades ensures they are always at the optimum angle to catch as much wind as possible making them extremely efficient.

A single wind mill can now generate up to 2.4 Mega Watts (comapred to abotu 120 KiloWats 10 years ago), that is more than a small turf burning power plant!

Would you rather have one windmill or or a Turfburning plant that is stripping off peat from our Bogs and spewing dirt into our air? I know I'd rather the wind mill!

If you want to see what these new big wind turbines look like take a trip to Ballyconnell in Cavan. There are 2 wind farms on the mountain above the village. One with 10 old wind turbines and one with just two of the new turbines. The two new one generate more than the 10 older ones!

Also, the future of windfarming is off-shore, like the project being started soon 8 miles off the Arclow coast. THere will be about 100 of the new turbines put there, well out of everyones way provideing a clean and sustainable supply of power.

We have to face up to the fact that our current use of energy is not sustainable. We have two choices, either stop using energy (VERY Unlieky) or change to someting that IS sustainanble. Buring peat and coal and oil is NOT sustainable, wind power is. If you want to be albe to use your computer and all the mod cons you ahve to face up to the reality that we need things like wind power to survive.

In about 20 years we will run out of oil, we had better hope to have some viable alternatives developed by then! Windpower is one such source and Ireland is ideally situated to harnas it.

by tom Tue May 13, 2003 14:22

what is it you find so ugly about windmills?For me, a nuclear power station would always look rotten because it is such a danger to life on the planet -it wouldn't matter atall how it was painted up or landscaped. Couldn't you try to get to like the look of windmills, pretend you'rein Holland or something?

by Joe Schmoe Tue May 13, 2003 14:23

You need to suggest an alternative. I know nothing about it, but that's the first question that sprung to my mind, and I imagine, it would be the same for your average Joe Schmoe.

by don iosaf de quixote Tue May 13, 2003 14:26

.........."Couldn't you try to get to like the look of windmills, pretend you'rein Holland or something?".............

try smoking skunk.
like in Amsterdam.
you can get energy from skunk/hemp.
lots.
as for wind, lots of it in Ireland.
not enough skunk though.

by Raymond McInerney Tue May 13, 2003 14:39

as Iosaf said could supply Ireland with plenty of energy plus give farmers a source an alternative source of income.

In addition different base chemicals could be extracted from the energy crops and be used to make household and other by-products.

They will lessen our dependency on the petroleum for energy and petroleum hydrocarbon by-products.

by Manus - LP Tue May 13, 2003 14:43

Although they do cause a visual effect on our landscape the overall benefits regarding reliance on fossil fuel/nuclear power for electricity does clearly outweighs this.

Wind farms can be placed in non-scenic/remote areas, or off shore.

I have a felling they have a bigger effect to energy requirements of Denmark and Germany as mentioned above.

It is a clean, renewable source of energy, while an visual impact can be removed overnight, there is no long lasting effect for the environment.

by jj curly kale Tue May 13, 2003 14:53

But whats he mean at the end about 'keeping our energy national'?

I think really anal ornithologists would be more concerned about the o'Reilly familys' Helicopters than the paltry amount of feather-plucking Irelands' few windfarms account for.

-and lets forget about the majesty of "Ireland's tourism industry" for a while shall we? If it wasn't for the fricking tourists [i mean THOSE tourists...]we'd have a bleedin environment and not 417 Golf Courses...

j

by conor mc gowan - none Tue May 13, 2003 14:54 conor at ziplip dot com

there is no doubt that windfarm tubines have not reached desireable levels of efficiency, but this sort of regressive attitude (no doubt founded on faff all techinal groundings) is going to help noone. i suppose you think that the computer you write with runs on ?

publically or privately owned, these windfarms are a step up. their use at sea (espically in the windy windy atlantic) and delelopment looks very promising indeed.

so, to conclude : fuckoff and do something better with your time

by pete ranks Tue May 13, 2003 14:55

This 'Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything' way of thinking is really annoying.

by A nitpicking nerd Tue May 13, 2003 14:58

Believe it or not windmills don't waste energy turning blades, on the contrary, the wind turns the blades, thats how the energy is generated, as im sure you know, but seeing as how the original poster cant quite get their mind around that, i dont think we should bother with the rest, as for pylons, i dont see why windmills would need them any more than any other form of power generation would need them to deliver their product. Yes windmills are not the prettiest of things but the alternatives are mostly more damaging even if in less visible ways.

by Albo Tue May 13, 2003 15:27

I think this guy is a troll but anyway...

"Think of all the energy they waste spinning those blades around"

The wind turns the blades, you gobsín!!! Anyway, the more energy it takes to spin the blades, the more energy that will be gotten out of it, because of the "Conservation of Energy" principle... (assuming other factors such as friction can be kept constant)

by iosaf Tue May 13, 2003 15:28

I thought you would be out there.
University Limerick accounts for one of the highest users of IMC ireland by the way folks, and down that way you will find Raymond, he who is sometimes dismissed as the flying carpet yogic man. But take him seriously as he has lots of thought on renewable energy, and they make sense.

At the moment the UK has the largest share of wind generated power and is piloting a project to be based on the outer Hebrides.

Now the brehon amongst you will know that Erron has a claim to the Hebrides along with Rockall that goes back to the battle of Dal Riada in 613AD. In fact in the future "Community of the Irish Sea" the nasty saxons won't be allowed used the wind power from our islands anymore as a way of saying Fuck you for killing our sea, and confusing everyone with the geographical term "British isles".

Temple Bar, that world famous momument to eviction, speculation and urban planning by ex-Maoist turned capitalist middle class gobshites offered the EU the first street run on green power.
Solar and Wind.

If a bunch of crusty hippy trippy internationalists can run their leky off a solar unit then so can ye.

There is enough Irish sunshine and wind to power our needs. We just need those decisions to be made. They may seem silly today, but in fiftyu years when we are buying lecky from the Scottish there will be many who will ask "why didn't we take Raymond Mc Inerny more seriously".

by Raymond McInerney Tue May 13, 2003 15:40

for your kind words.

by iosaf Tue May 13, 2003 15:46

i'm a bit strange too.

by Leon - No More Windfarms Tue May 13, 2003 15:53 nomorewindfarms at yahoo dot com

There are 4600 Turbines in Denmark. These produce 7% of that country's energy needs.

If people believe that their energy is coming from a 'green source' they will be less inclined to save energy. In this way windfarms will damage the environment. (The German Green party not just No More Windfarms).

There may be a case for offshore windfarms. Indeed if they were offshore opposition would vanish. There is no case for windfarm development in populated areas or areas of any natural beauty.

A windfarm is a piece of heavy industrial plant not a wooden house with fairy in it Conor McGowan (that cunt) thinks windfarms are a step up. And it doresn't matter whether the people own them or National Toll Roads. What a fuckwit. Why are the Danes abandoning them then.

By the way Bart windfarms weren't in their infancy 10 years ago they were first used during the second world war but if they have improved so much in the past 10 years lets give it another 10 and maybe they might be useful then.

Love You All except Conor McGowan

by Leon - No More Windfarms Tue May 13, 2003 15:55 nomorewindfarms at yahoo dot com

BTW anyone who hasn't been taken in by the Banana line (Kevin Myers came up with that so you see who we're up against)mail me on the above link.

by Ray McInerney Tue May 13, 2003 15:59

Leon

You'll have to give more details on who you are first.

by Bart B Tue May 13, 2003 15:59

OK, I am waiting for a meeting so I decieded to get some cold hard facts to show this wind bashing idiot the truth!

According to the ESB we use per year is approximately 25,000 GWH (http://www.esb.ie/main/about_esb/grid_growth.jsp).

That means we use 25,000 million Units of electricity per year. The question is with MODERN wind turbines can we reaistically make any signifficant impact. To test this I get th etechnical spec of the worlds biggest turbine the 3.6MW turbine from GE (http://www.gepower.com/dhtml/wind/en_us/products/mmw/mmwdata.jsp).

Now, on land it is not realistic to have sites with 10m/s wind speeds, a good site will give you about 8 a very good site will give you about 9 and the holly grail is 10! Offshote however (whre the future lies) 10m/s winds ARE easily available.

This means that a SINGLE TURBINE would produce about 15GWH in a year. We use 2,500 GWH in a year so how many turbines would we need to power the whole country? Well divide 25,000 by 15, the answer is 1,667 Turbines.

Now, no one wants to run this country entirely off Wind power, that is not really feasable, however we do want to run it off all renewables so we would get some power from hydro, some from wind, some from tidal, some Biomas and so forth. So a realistic target for wind farms would be to creat 10-20% of the national grid to do that we ouls only need 170 - 340 wind mills in the whole country. That is not that many at all when you consider that they usually come in groups of at least 10 and off sure usually more.

Now, how may you ask are Denamrk doign so poorly with so many windmills? The answer is that most of those mills are old 300Kw machines and some even older at only 120Kw. These WERE state of the art 10 years ago, now 3.6MW is state of the art, what will it be in another 10 years?

Like I said before wind power is the future and here are the FACTS to prove it!

by Ray McInerney Tue May 13, 2003 16:01

Back to your studies now young man.

See you around later.

by conor - no organisation Tue May 13, 2003 16:20 conor at ziplip dot com

i am fully aware (as a student of mechanical engineering) that windfarms are a form of heavy industrial plant. so ? . to take efficiency as :

workoutput/workinput * 100/1

you will find, that although work output for wind farms dosent equal that of other forms of generation,etc... the work input dosent involve - digging fuel/drilling fuel (fucking up a little part of the world) transporting fuel (more energy im afraid) and , of course burning fuel (woops, more dead birds/people).

but - i forgot - moneypoint is not an eyesore, and sellafield dosent involve any form of heavy plant.

if someone wants to provide energy at a cheaper cost than the esb, without building nasty stations, and make a p p p profit, fair fucks to them.theyll have contributed more to the common good than anyone like yourself.

im sure coal fired stations will be more efficient in 10 years time also.ass.

if you want to save energy ... turn off your computer, and stop writing unfounded crap.

by Sidlebar Tue May 13, 2003 16:21

As asked before, if your anti windpower, I presume you don't go in for nuclear, gas, peat or coal stations either....what alternative do you suggest, we all hook up our bikes & pedal for our power?
To be honest you are starting to slip on the banana skin

by pete ranks Tue May 13, 2003 16:24

and why are you persuing this? It seems ridiculous, wouldn't you be better off trying to stop bord na mona from commissioning more fossil fuel power stations instead of giving grief to those who are trying to develop a sustainable alternative. The only thing you seem to have against them is that they are a blot on the landscape, there are many other things worth creating a campaign for, are you just a waster? are there windfarms near you, therefore, making you just another NIMBY?

by JohnCunningham Tue May 13, 2003 16:29

I have never heard a sillier argument than the one about windpower being environmentally-damaging because people use more energy if they thing it is generated benignly. That's a recipe for doing nothing -and I don't believe that it has been advanced by German Greens.

As for whether windmills impact on visual amenity, I think it depends. Recently, I cycled through Denmark and Germany. In Jutland, windmills are situated in clusters of 4 to 6, and I thought they fitted in well in the agricultural landscape. In Nordfriesland in Germany, however, dozens of them were clustered together and I thought that the visual impact, in that instance, was very negative

by Terry - Non Party Tue May 13, 2003 16:56

It would be true to say that all sources of energy have some kind of environmental effect, but clearly
they are of a different nature and magnitude depending on the source.

A good point is raised in that we hardly want the whole country covered in these things, but I think
the issue comes down to one of democratic control and decision making over the location of all energy
production and the form we choose.

I certainly believe wind power causes less harm, than coal, oil or gas produced electricity or indeed
nuclear. But I have great difficulty, with this relatively new sector being placed in the hands of
corporate elites who are NOT democratic.

Ireleand has huge wind resources, and the logic of capitalism + corporates, says if they can get away
with it, they would place tens of 1000s of these turbines all around our costs, and send the electricity
to Europe where the market is huge. We don't want that either, but this huge project off Arklow, with a
projected 500+ turbines out to sea hints at this. This project also has potential problems with creating
ocean noise problems -see below.

There is huge potential for the corporate control of wind power to turn ugly.

The other problem is one of energy density. A single nuclear power station can produce upto 1000GW which
would be the equivalent of at least 500 2MW wind turbines. We all know the problems with nuclear, but
we can see clearly there is a trade off in the way more wind turbines are needed to collect the more
diffuse energy of the wind. And 500 turbines would be have a visual impact.

So in order to reduce the effects of all power production/extraction, it is essential that the real focus
in on energy demand itself, through energy conservation and efficiency increases. Again we have virtually
no say or influence here as we all know this topic feeds straight into the issues of price of oil, energy,
'free' markets and so forth.

It is worth noting that even though very little oil is actually used for electricity production, oil
nevertheless has the effect of reducing all other energy costs. One of these is direct, in terms of
'cheap' oil used by all the machines for transporting fuel/mining, construction and other related things,
and the other indirect, in that it would be impossible to cost in the true effects of the environment with
coal or nuclear and NOT do it for oil, which is the case now. When the cheap oil runs out, you will see
the costs of all other energy sources will rise too (closer to their true cost).

Another thing that must be said about Wind Power, particularly off-shore wind power and that has NOT been
addressed anywhere. This is the potential for these turbines to be a huge and constant source of noise in
the oceans and particularly in the relatively low frequencies where Whales and other 'accoustic' sea creatures
communicate. Any large mechanical structure with moving parts is bound to create low-frequency noise, and
WITHOUT some kind of insulation to damp this down, it could inject significant high levels of noise into
the ocean. This problem is potentially as determetrial as the well known threat to Whales, via the planned
use by the US Navy of their new Active Sonar System. See http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/nlfa.asp

And finally to Solar Power. There IS significant opportunity in Ireland for using solar power, particularly
passive solar energy, where incorporated into building design. I would agree solar-photovoltaic electricity
production may not be as good, in the South of Ireland, Cork, Waterford, Wexford, it does have some potential
for a number of applications. For a site with good hands-on knowledge of the use of Solar Energy see
http://www.homepower.com

by Alex Tue May 13, 2003 17:30

Alex wishes to say hello to all those on the wire. It is good and kind to see you all particpating in democracy even if you are all talking about changing the world with windmills.

As Tracey Chapman would say, talkin about a revolution. Talking.

I hope life will be kind to you all in your talks and someday we will meet under the windmills for a picnic of philosophy, ideology and Fine Gael in power.

Oh, that last bit has got me a bit excited, I must depart to breath some pure oxygen from the bright Oak trees of Wicklow. Oh but to be a tree, to be a tree.

by dowtcha Tue May 13, 2003 17:55

all we need to do is to put up wind turbines in mafor urban centre. there's one in Toironto and it actually looks majestic. I'm all for unobstructed scenery and all that so that makes cities good starting point. We could start with a few around those huge twin ESB chimneystacks in Dublin.

I think it'd look deadly.

by iosaf Tue May 13, 2003 19:24

i regularly say to people
"we need windmills on all our roofs".

If they say "eurghhh" followed by "erughhh the disfiguring of our urban skyline, oh no Mr O'as-if you have taken leave of your senses finally"

I reply

You have TV antenae/TV sat dishes every 5 metres (the average on mainland Europe).
The birds don't like them, and they are not fucking trees nor are they pretty.

So, heavy industrial plant savvy students and professionals, how much does a windmill cost?

& on an historical note, was not Ireland one of the few members of the EEC (oh the days) who overproduced electricity?
but that was due to the Bord na Mona plants no? and Mr Lenihan of the mature memories employment plans, oh Lemass, lemass.

lastly, you could always do the cervantes thing and (the pseudo intellectual literary reference for my pals in the WSM) and disguise the windmills as giants.

by Leon - No More Windfarms Tue May 13, 2003 20:00

The key problem with windfarms as they exist at the moment relates to their potential as a nexus of corruption and their damage to our landscape and heritage.

Re meeting up. I am more interested in meeting people who are against windmills than people who think they are a great idea. But would be willing to discuss strategies for wind energy which minimise damage to our cultural landscape.

Not sure why having first hand experience of windfarms should invalidate my opinions by the way.

by Limerick Lady Tue May 13, 2003 20:15

...he may be right about powerlines so stick them underground eh?

Yeah Ioesef lets have an anarchist federation of Ireland, Isle of Man and Scotland after all our form of gaelic ( q celtic as far as I know as opposed to the p celtic of Wales, Cornwall & Brittnany)is the same language;-))

by Wind power Tue May 13, 2003 22:01

When the Arklow offshore wind farm details were announced they said they could produce 10% of Irelands energy needs and it would cost them £600m to build it. Does this mean that we could have 100% renewable energy if we built 10 similar farms costing £6 billion (about a quarter of what dublins metro will cost)???
Regarding eyesores why dont they paint them green or sky blue to blend in with the environment???

by Killian Tue May 13, 2003 22:12

.....i mean don't get me started, when standing at the top of a huge hydro-electric dam i can't help but thinking what a waste it is to pump all that water up the top of the mountain. ;)

Ridiclous original posting.

by Jame McKenna Wed May 14, 2003 07:28

Couldn't we build the wind farms under ground, that way no one would see them ?

by Noel Hogan Wed May 14, 2003 12:27

How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

by Terry Wed May 14, 2003 14:28

I think he means that once this industry is controlled by corporations, which it mostly is now,
then like everything else they touch, it becomes corrupted and by that to me this refers to the
corruption in the location of the turbines, corruption and bribery in the planning process, corruption
in not carrying out proper environmental impact studies, corruption in lobbying for tax breaks and
so on.

This issue is really democratic control of our energy sources, generation and usage. That's a bigger
issue than wind farms, but I do believe that was the source of the original posting.

by biggles Wed May 14, 2003 15:52

What are ya talkin about.
Windfarms dont activate a coruption gene.
The development of a windfarm industry could possibly be subject to coruption. Not a reason to give up, go home and build a nuclear reactor, just a reason to get out there, campaign and make sure the thing is done right.

by iosaf - I support the revamped MacDiarmad idea of an anarchist federation of the Celtic Lands. Wed May 14, 2003 16:04

We need transparancy.
Only with a truly transparent wind, will we be able to gaurantee that Wind power will be truly transaparent.
We could clean the wind of all those dirty particles (that De Selby proved in his eggsperiments cause night) and then with our underground windmills be the envy of Europe.

MacDiarmad the Scottish poet (no relation) (well actually yes he is related but so are several other million scions of the Diarmad clan/septs) first suggested a celtic community.
and why not?

by Chris Henry - SP Wed May 14, 2003 21:18 lavosfanfiction at hotmail dot com

Personally I've been interested by the windfarm debate, as a result of living a few miles from Portstewart where I've just left school and sit in view of the location where turbines are scheduled to be built within the next couple of years. There is firey debate within Portstewart, Coleraine and the surrounding area concerning the new wind turbines, not least because of the fact that Portstewart has a thriving tourist industry that feeds directly into Coleraine also. Tourism is a huge element every year in regard to the Coleraine area's success; the North West 200, the Milk Cup and the fact that this is a seaside area all add to the importance of tourism to the local economic situation here. Many local politicians and residents have spoken out against the turbines; especially those residents in Portstewart who are afraid of the property value dropping in the town as a result of the wind farm.

My own personal view would be to allow the turbines, but I recognise myself that there are debates regarding the efficency of situating a wind farm in this area, as well as the obivous debate over tourism, etc. However, at the end of the day, we HAVE to look for a renewable source of energy now, rather than later. This "not in my back yard" mentality that has been adopted by many in my local area isn't intellegent when we look to the future.

In regard to corruption, etc, I think the arguments forced by Leon are a little too obivous. Of course the wind farms are going to be manipulated. It's inevitably in the society we live in. However, we have to put this into perspective. Any source of power developed will be manipulated for profit; we have to fight against that. The point is, if renewable sources of energy are being put forward, we should put forward the ideas ourselves of how we can make sure these resources are not manipulated for profit, and used in the best interests of the people they are supposedly being developed for. I would like to know what other ideas people would propose for the future of our energy here in Northern/Southern Ireland.

by Gaillimhed Thu May 15, 2003 15:32

so the question has to be which form of energy would do the *least* harm?
I mean would you prefer a windfarm or a turf-burning plant built on those rolling peatlands behind your house, or maybe a nuclear power plant, or maybe we could maim and disfigure the landscape with a HE dam.
Off shore windfarms! i dont see a problem with that at all, the underwater noise pollution maybe, but surely that would amount no more than commercial fishing fleets and nuclear submarines.
It should also be noted that the energy *consumption* needs to be tackled too. this may be even more important in the long term. Each hosehold can CHAEPLY & EASILY cut 10% off its main-line electricity consumption with a few cheap solar panels to heat water any time it happens to be sunny, never mind the savings that can be made with rational building design and a bit of the ole 'using yer head'. And those savings in consumption represent a couple of power stations in terms of supply requirements. These are simple strategies we can do today with readily accessible and inexpensive technologies. with a little more effort consumption could be reduced by up to 20 maybe 25% per household, and this is without any national schemes or incentives, without energy saver tax-cuts, or whatever intelligent organised national activity to reduce energy consumption.
the question should be how can we reduce energy consumption in the home and at work, supplement energy generation in the home, and replace existing dirty generation strategies with cleaner ones.

by iosaf i'm taking the piss. sorry. Thu May 15, 2003 20:52

Underwater noise pollution really kicked off with the criminal justice type acts that were passed in Europe towards the end of teh 20th century, many underground noise pollution rave tekno party rigs had no option but to play underwater instead.

by barry Fri May 16, 2003 00:50

A common thread runs through all those UK anti-wind power groups that will admit to existing, yup sir bernard ingram, former spin doctor to the imperial battleaxe mrs T and true champion of the dangers of wind power.

Sir bernard has, since the fall of his bitch of darkness, been graciously splitting his time between restoring englands pride in her nuclear industry www.sone.org.uk (generating 250,000 years of cleanup and storage work for the people of cumbria) and fighting the evils of windmills www.countryguardian.net (which have been making life hell for landscape painters everywhere).

now it seems they've found someone to speak for them in ireland. shit musta really burned to see a wind farm on carnsore point, still after the revolution ye can always clean the site up and restore it to its intended nuclear glory....

by Leon - No More Windfarms Fri May 16, 2003 12:24

The comments about the Arklow Bank are alarming in the extreme. If ten of these windfarms can provide all our power it is good bye ESB and hello private electricity.

Do you want National Toll Roads to control this country's electricity?

Leon

by Gaillimhed Fri May 16, 2003 17:15

Yes, but cant we have wind farms *without* privatisation,
Sorry leon, are you aginst wind-farms in general or just privatised ones, i can understand your resistance to the latter but not the former.
Any luck with setting up a meeting?

by Pete. Thu Jul 02, 2009 16:06

"The Danes have over 4,900 wind turbines these produce less than seven per cent of that country's electricity."

Not accurate.

Wind power provided 19.7 percent of electricity production and 24.1% of capacity in Denmark in 2007, a significantly higher proportion than in any other country.Denmark was a pioneer in developing commercial wind power during the 1970s, and today almost half of the wind turbines around the world are produced by Danish manufacturers such as Vestas.

If we Irish had the "cop-on" of the Danes in the 1970's IRISH WINDMILLS ,not Danish,would now be in half the world's windfarms.

We would have a MASSIVE export industry with massive jobs potential.
And windy Ireland would be a nett energy exporter as well (because our wind resources far exceed Denmark's.)

We are behind but we may be getting there.

See:
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/wind-turbine-p....html

And this "Spirit of Ireland" plan may yet be the saving of this country:

http://www.spiritofireland.org/

.