To determine if the ‘NIMBY’ phenomenon explains the slow progress of wind farm development or do institutional factors need to be taken in to consideration?

The threats posed by climate change are placing governments under increasing pressure to meet electricity demand from low carbon sources. Wind energy has been has been identified as one of the main technologies to help in meeting these demands. The public in general favour wind energy yet proposed targets for generation capacity lag behind proposed goals. The N IM B Y phenomenon has been suggested as one of the reasons why we are behind our wind generation capacity targets. It is a common mistake to take general support for granted and expect the public to support developments when confronted with them in their local area. In many cases it is not unheard of that governing bodies whether social, political, regulatory, environmental, or cultural can overrule general public support and halt developments. Motives to halt developments will vary depending on the institutional body involved. The problem with the term N IM B Y is that it is too basic a term to describe the broad spectrum of complex motives that various institutions including the public may have against a development. This research focuses on a case study where the developer had major problems with the local county council and its wind energy policies when he was erecting a wind turbine despite having gained planning permission. A survey questionnaire was also used as part o f the research to seek the perception a rural community had on wind energy. The research findings and results are discussed with respect to the literature review highlighting a general public support for wind energy and the influence institutional bodies have over the progress of developments.

A review of the development of regional sludge treatment centres and a baseline characterisation of Irish sewage sludges

This Study assessed the development of sludge treatment and reuse policy since the original 1993 National Sludge Strategy Report (Weston-FTA, 1993). A review of the 48 sludge treatment centres, current wastewater treatment systems and current or planned sludge treatment and reuse systems was carried out Sludges from all Regional Sludge Treatment Centres (areas) were characterised through analysis of selected parameters. There have been many changes to the original policy, as a result of boundary reviews, delays in developing sludge management plans, development in technology and changes in tendering policy, most notably a move to design-build-operate (DBO) projects. As a result, there are now 35 designated Hub Centres. Only 5 of the Hub Centres are producing Class A Biosolids. These are Ringsend, Killamey, Carlow, Navan and Osberstown. Ringsend is the only Hub Centre that is fully operational, treating sludge from surrounding regions by Thermal Drying. Killamey is producing Class A Biosolids using Autothermal Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion (ATAD) but is not, as yet, treating imported sludge. The remaining three plants are producing Class A Biosolids using Alkaline Stabilisation. Anaerobic Digestion with post pasteurisation is the most common form of sludge treatment, with 11 Hub Centres proposing to use it. One plant is using ATAD, two intend to use Alkaline Stabilisation, seven have selected Thermal Drying and three have selected Composting. While the remaining plants have not decided which sludge treatment to select, this is because of incomplete Sludge Management Plans and on DBO contracts. Analysis of sludges from the Hub Centres showed that all Irish sewage sludge is safe for agricultural reuse as defined by the Waste Management Regulations {Use of Sewage Sludge in Agriculture) (S.I. 267/2001), providing that a nutrient management plan is taken into consideration and that the soil limits of the 1998 (S.I. 148/1998) Waste Management Regulations are not exceeded.