Spiritofireland.org - suggests energy independence in five years and much more

[realist]

We have a bit of a track record of not being limited by much, either as individuals or as a group. Success tends to make your outlook bold and brave, if there is a challenge then overcome it.

Is that what Clare County Council have done with their wind energy strategy?

On their website they have a map which shows"natural heritage and scenic landscape designation" areas and the two proposed strategic areas are the only non-coastal areas that contain scenic routes. They are also mainly designated vulnerable landscapes and border NHAs or contain Special Areas of Conservation.

If you gave that map to anyone and asked them to pick the the most environmentally unsuitable inland areas in which to build a wind farm - those would be the areas!

[donkylemore]

Very interesting discussion on the Today with Pat Kenny Show this morning concerning Wind Energy. Electrical Engineer Graham O'Donnell and Professor Igor Shvets from Trinity College discussed a wind energy project that could save all of Ireland's energy problems. It was also confirmed that politically even to Government level that the proposals have been greeted with enthusiasm.

The mission of Spirit of Ireland seems to be a breakthrough National Project which is supposed to create tens of thousands of jobs, achieve energy independence in five years, save €30 billion importing fossil fuels, create potential to add €50bn to our Economy and slash carbon dioxide emissions.

This is their Website for further details: Spirit of Ireland – A breakthrough National Project aiming for energy independence within five years. The project aims to create tens of thousands of jobs, inject a €10b stimulus to the economy, secure savings of €30b importing fossil fuel

The discussion on the Today with Pat Kenny Show is here (starts at about 34 mins in): RTÉ.ie Media Player: RTÉ Radio 1

Apparently there are "adverts" in the National Newspapers today as well re the above

This gang should really go down to Knock for the next Riverdance of the Sun.
Dont bring glasses ; it ruins the illusion.

[fiannafailure]

Is that what Clare County Council have done with their wind energy strategy?

On their website they have a map which shows"natural heritage and scenic landscape designation" areas and the two proposed strategic areas are the only non-coastal areas that contain scenic routes. They are also mainly designated vulnerable landscapes and border NHAs or contain Special Areas of Conservation.

If you gave that map to anyone and asked them to pick the the most environmentally unsuitable inland areas in which to build a wind farm - those would be the areas!

Since when are scenic routes an environmental concern and who defines scenic, the designated areas contain no SAC's or SPA's and have been through a full environmental assessment.

[fiannafailure]

This gang should really go down to Knock for the next Riverdance of the Sun.
Dont bring glasses ; it ruins the illusion.

Boo

[realist]

Since when are scenic routes an environmental concern and who defines scenic, the designated areas contain no SAC's or SPA's and have been through a full environmental assessment.

As the council have the areas marked scenic, it must be they who defined them. The areas border NHAs and SACs according to the map. ISn't Slieve Callan designated a NHA?

According to the Geological Survey of Ireland submission on the report no landslide susceptibility mapping has been done for Clare and the National Parks and Wildlife also highlighted the issue of potential landslides. An Taisce also state that "EIS assumptions about peat stability using standard methods are incorrect" and have called for a moratorium on developments on peatlands until new guidelines have been developed.

[fiannafailure]

As the council have the areas marked scenic, it must be they who defined them. The areas border NHAs and SACs according to the map. ISn't Slieve Callan designated a NHA?

According to the Geological Survey of Ireland submission on the report no landslide susceptibility mapping has been done for Clare and the National Parks and Wildlife also highlighted the issue of potential landslides. An Taisce also state that "EIS assumptions about peat stability using standard methods are incorrect" and have called for a moratorium on developments on peatlands until new guidelines have been developed.

NHA 's are a national designation and bordering an SAC is not inside same,

You seem to be of the belief that S of I and Clare County council are not capable of making reasonable decisions based on engineering, science and ordinary common sense.
You might be surprised at the level of expert consultation undertaken by S of I and most certainly by Clare County council.

I wonder do An Taisce require assistance with those new guidelines, we have come to know quite a few people in that organisation

[realist]

NHA 's are a national designation and bordering an SAC is not inside same,

You seem to be of the belief that S of I and Clare County council are not capable of making reasonable decisions based on engineering, science and ordinary common sense.
You might be surprised at the level of expert consultation undertaken by S of I and most certainly by Clare County council.

I wonder do An Taisce require assistance with those new guidelines, we have come to know quite a few people in that organisation

The strategic location defined for east clare includes an area that is in the middle of two SACs.

I quoted the submissions by the NPWS. GSI and An Taisce who all have reservations about the suitability of peatlands. An Taisce referenced the Scottish guidelines re peat landslide hazards so maybe they should be looked at?

To be honest you yourself have posted that wind technology will be surpassed in 10-20 years and I think that replacing tons of peat with tons of cement is not a very environmentally friendly short term solution.

[fiannafailure]

[quote=realist;2375697]

The strategic location defined for east clare includes an area that is in the middle of two SACs.

Between two SAC's rather than in the middle of.

I quoted the submissions by the NPWS. GSI and An Taisce who all have reservations about the suitability of peatlands. An Taisce referenced the Scottish guidelines re peat landslide hazards so maybe they should be looked at?

We know those Scottish guidelines almost by heart

To be honest you yourself have posted that wind technology will be surpassed in 10-20 years and I think that replacing tons of peat with tons of cement is not a very environmentally friendly short term solution.

I have posted that onshore wind will possibly be surpassed in time by ocean tech's in efficiency and that a wind turbine can removed and nobody can tell it was ever there and I also posted that a wind turbine does not destroy a scenic view, depending on the eye of the beholder it may enhance it, but worst case it borrows the view never destroys it in the literal sense of the word destroy.

Best practice rather than simply cost paramaters will be the hallmark of any project that S of I are involved in and do not forget that we are employed in an environmentally friendly enterprise compared to the alternatives, indeed the environment and its concerns are the primary reason that S of I was formed as a group. The whole is greater than the parts of our proposal, on many levels.

[realist]

Between two SAC's rather than in the middle of.



We know those Scottish guidelines almost by heart



I have posted that onshore wind will possibly be surpassed in time by ocean tech's in efficiency and that a wind turbine can removed and nobody can tell it was ever there and I also posted that a wind turbine does not destroy a scenic view, depending on the eye of the beholder it may enhance it, but worst case it borrows the view never destroys it in the literal sense of the word destroy.

Best practice rather than simply cost paramaters will be the hallmark of any project that S of I are involved in and do not forget that we are employed in an environmentally friendly enterprise compared to the alternatives, indeed the environment and its concerns are the primary reason that S of I was formed as a group. The whole is greater than the parts of our proposal, on many levels.

Between three SACs and a NHA!

The Clare council report says: "Guidelines will be referenced and geotechnical assessments will be recommended" It does not say they will be required.

It is the removal of peat to facilitate its replacement by cement for the turbine base that will cause the damage so saying that after its removal no will ever know it was there is a moot point.

Ok lets say it just despoils the view, not destroys it in the literal sense of destroy.

Best practice would be not to construct windfarms on peatlands.

[fiannafailure]

[quote=realist;2375725]

Between three SACs and a NHA!

Perhaps you should also take account of the guidelines issued by the Dept of the Environment on wind energy within or adjacent to National Heritage Areas, you might also note that the same Dept welcomed the adoption of the Clare wind strategy. Regarding the word heritage, todays everyday life is tomorrows heritage.

The Clare council report says: "Guidelines will be referenced and geotechnical assessments will be recommended" It does not say they will be required.

I would guess that will be a matter for each planning application and the planners.

It is the removal of peat to facilitate its replacement by cement for the turbine base that will cause the damage so saying that after its removal no will ever know it was there is a moot point.

Not so, just as products are now starting to be designed for easy recycling, so a foundation can be designed to be removable in the future.

Ok lets say it just despoils the view, not destroys it in the literal sense of destroy.

Perhaps you are being subjective tather than factual in that statement.

Best practice would be not to construct windfarms on peatlands.

Only if the peat is destroyed and the peatlands are irrepairably damaged by an activity could it be considered not best practise.

It may sound as if I am being uncompromising here, I would rather say that new thinking is required.