asitis Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 5 minutes ago, NoTail said: What is the official reasoning for not choosing Jurby? Purely a guess, but Earystane has now probably gained an inertia all of its own and closed minds to looking at alternatives across the board ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTail Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 2 minutes ago, asitis said: Purely a guess, but Earystane has now probably gained an inertia all of its own and closed minds to looking at alternatives across the board ! My understanding is that a range of sites was considered at the outset and that Earystane was selected as the best. Therefore Jurby was not as desirable for some reason. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 31 minutes ago, NoTail said: My understanding is that a range of sites was considered at the outset and that Earystane was selected as the best. Therefore Jurby was not as desirable for some reason. It made little sense to discount it IMHO. Jurby has plentiful wind and "easy" topography. It has navigable roads (for the size of plant that will be needed). It has the concrete plant on the doorstep. It already has electrical infrastructure that serves the local community that could be hooked into. It is already an industrial area with no environmental or major ecological concerns. With the exception of whatever wind they have monitored, Earystane has none of those advantages. Earystane looks like somebody has decided that their wet dreams must be forced through at any expense. A bit like electric trams on the Douglas prom. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Buggane Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 And with as much accountability when it is all a dismal failure and walk away with a big fat pension and golden handshake to make it all disappear under the worlds lumpiest carpet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 2 hours ago, asitis said: Purely a guess, but Earystane has now probably gained an inertia all of its own and closed minds to looking at alternatives across the board ! 2 hours ago, NoTail said: My understanding is that a range of sites was considered at the outset and that Earystane was selected as the best. Therefore Jurby was not as desirable for some reason. It may be that the MUA already own Earystane and they have a deadline (set by government) of 2030. Not sure who owns Jurby but assume DOI. That means that they may have plans for it (The new super Jurby). Just guessing. Not defending, just discussin Personally I reckon Earystane will be windier, but concede that Jurby would be windy enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 2 hours ago, NoTail said: What is the official reasoning for not choosing Jurby? Jurby was chosen decades ago due yo unfettered winds from nearly all directions, plus all the reasons I mentioned earlier. It is a no brainer. That is why if has NOT been chosen, yet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 16 minutes ago, Cambon said: Jurby was chosen decades ago due yo unfettered winds from nearly all directions, plus all the reasons I mentioned earlier. It is a no brainer. That is why if has NOT been chosen, yet. Jurby windspeeds around 7.9 m/s at 45m above ground (which is reasonable for a low lying site) [1] Earystane 10.62 m/s at 50m above ground [2] Note there is a good correlation between the measured speeds (taken with monitoring equipment installed since September 2023) and the predicted speeds for Earystane (taken from a wider wind model that takes various meteorological stations, topography, orography and other factors into account). [1] https://www.rensmart.com/Maps# [2] https://www.manxutilities.im/energy-transition/wind/wind-speeds/ That's around double the anticipated generation based on the Vestas site that Cambon linked to (albeit for higher installation cost), and MU own the site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 8 minutes ago, Mercenary said: Jurby windspeeds around 7.9 m/s at 45m above ground (which is reasonable for a low lying site) [1] Earystane 10.62 m/s at 50m above ground [2] Note there is a good correlation between the measured speeds (taken with monitoring equipment installed since September 2023) and the predicted speeds for Earystane (taken from a wider wind model that takes various meteorological stations, topography, orography and other factors into account). [1] https://www.rensmart.com/Maps# [2] https://www.manxutilities.im/energy-transition/wind/wind-speeds/ That's around double the anticipated generation based on the Vestas site that Cambon linked to (albeit for higher installation cost), and MU own the site. That is fair enough, but Jurby is more consistent and available from a wider range of directions. More turbines and more consistent wind means more electricity. Government own both locations. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omobono Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 1 hour ago, Cambon said: That is fair enough, but Jurby is more consistent and available from a wider range of directions. More turbines and more consistent wind means more electricity. Government own both locations. But doesn't Jurby have an 11'000 KV power cable that could bring the electricity to Ramsey power station for distribution to the network its a long way from Eareystane to Douglas and I would love to know the network costs which must be factored in and indeed in laymans terms how it is all going to work and cost 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 27 minutes ago, Omobono said: But doesn't Jurby have an 11'000 KV power cable that could bring the electricity to Ramsey power station for distribution to the network its a long way from Eareystane to Douglas and I would love to know the network costs which must be factored in and indeed in laymans terms how it is all going to work and cost I would imagine every substation on the island is served by 11 KV before being dropped to 240/415 for local distribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 Also bear in mind maintenance costs of onshore against offshore wind turbines, and how you deal with them when they get to the end of their natural (?) life. Digging up and disposing of onshore turbines has to be more efficient and environmentally friendly? They don't get in the way of ships and fishing boats, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 (edited) 29 minutes ago, monasqueen said: Also bear in mind maintenance costs of onshore against offshore wind turbines, and how you deal with them when they get to the end of their natural (?) life. Digging up and disposing of onshore turbines has to be more efficient and environmentally friendly? They don't get in the way of ships and fishing boats, either. Indeed, surely onshore will be cheaper to build, maintain and decommission. Although interestingly I've noticed that nowadays there almost always seems to be at least one maintenance vessel from the Windfarms in Douglas Harbour. There are 3 moored up there this afternoon. Edited July 4 by The Phantom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 33 minutes ago, finlo said: I would imagine every substation on the island is served by 11 KV before being dropped to 240/415 for local distribution. Closest substation is Castletown, which is required for the solar farm. All new multimillion pound substation in the middle of nowhere for Earystane, which will have to be connected either directly to Douglas or Peel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Cambon said: Closest substation is Castletown, which is required for the solar farm. All new multimillion pound substation in the middle of nowhere for Earystane, which will have to be connected either directly to Douglas or Peel. The round the island network 33KV appears to have a convenient branch off to the exact proposed location. Edited July 4 by finlo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 4 hours ago, Happier diner said: It may be that the MUA already own Earystane and they have a deadline (set by government) of 2030. Not sure who owns Jurby but assume DOI. That means that they may have plans for it (The new super Jurby). Just guessing. Not defending, just discussin Personally I reckon Earystane will be windier, but concede that Jurby would be windy enough. Mua don't own the land at eary stane. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.