Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT Company claims that firms using its facilities are attempting to derail a data centre project proposed at its Limerick city docks “at all cost” through a series of “unsubstantiated” objections.
The Limerick port operator applied to the council last year for permission to moor a floating data centre on part of its lands at Ted Russell Dock.
The project would be developed by US data centre firm Nautilus – which has been backed by the Irish State – and would create 24 permanent jobs.
The overall development would span a 4,836 sq m site at the dock. A pricetag of €35 million has been put on the project.
The floating data centre would be 2,075 sq m and spread across two levels above the barge deck. An industrial building (558 sq m) and compound enclosure (1,490 sq m) are also proposed to be erected.
The project proposal has been welcomed by the State’s mid-west action plan for jobs chairman Barry O’Sullivan and Limerick Chamber, with the latter noting that the development could help attract more tech investment into the city.
A number of objections against the proposed data centre were also lodged with the council.
Limerick Port Users, a group of 16 businesses on the docklands, said the mooring of a data centre at the dock would prevent the port from meeting the needs of its existing clients.
The group, which is led by Grassland Agro boss Liam Woulfe, claimed that the data centre would reduce the capacity of the dock by nearly a quarter and hinder the facility’s ability to handle current tonnage levels, while also hampering future growth.
Limerick Port Users – which includes waste-to-energy firm Indaver and Irish Cement – also said that one of its members is currently unable to carrying out some shipments at the port because of insufficient space.
The group also raised issues around maintenance of the data centre barge, the noise that would emanate from the development and the effect waste heat from the vessel could have on nearby aquaculture.
Other objections by waste firm Panda, forestry business Green Belt and manufacturer BRC McMahon noted similar concerns.
Responding on behalf of the port company, consultants HRA Planning said that Shannon Foynes Port Company “respectfully submits that it is they who are best placed to determine the best and collective interests of Limerick Port”, not the objectors.
“The port company is disappointed that the submissions would appear to reflect concerted effort to object to the proposed development at all cost, clearly and evidently failing to take account of much of the technical info submitted,” planners said.
“The port company takes the concerns expressed by existing port users seriously, (it) is mindful that such concerns expressed by those parties are unsubstantiated and absent in any detail.”
The planning consultants claimed that the port has also engaged directly with its users to alleviate their concerns and that the docks has “more than sufficient capacity” to cater for the increasing demands of its current users.
“In recent years, the amount of open storage has increased by over 1,000 sq m due to the remediation of the former Texaco site and APT site,” the submission said.
The consultants also noted that the port’s berth occupancy rate of 16.8% – a metric used to measure port capacity – was well below the levels that would point towards capacity constraints.
“Contrary to the submission by the third parties, the proposed development will not impede the development potential of normal commercial shipping for existing or projected port users by reduction in berth, storage or handling capacity within Ted Russell Dock,” the submission said.
The planning consultants added that complaints the data centre wasn’t safe and would negatively impact on water and air quality in the area were unfounded.
‘Failed attempts’
It has been predicted that total investment in Irish data centre projects will exceed €9 billion by 2021.
A recent entrant to the Irish market, data centre developer Echelon, has claimed that these facilities are vital to attract new tech investment to Ireland.
However, planning disputes have stifled speedy development of data centres across Ireland in recent years, with Apple abandoning its plans for a large facility in Athenry as a result.
Planners for Shannon Foynes Port claim this floating data centre project would be a “first of its kind” in Europe.
In another complaint against the development, Limerick Port Users took a swipe at the “naivety” of the floating data centre developer Nautilus and questioned the US firm’s ability to deliver on the ambitious project.
They claimed the data centre group has been part of a number of “failed attempts” to construct similar projects and noted the firm is yet to successfully deliver and an operational floating data centre.
The US company previously said it successfully tested its water-based data centre concept back in 2015.
Since then, it has been planning its first commercial facility at Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Northern California, but the project has not been completed.
Nautilus received support from the State-backed Ireland Strategic Investment Fund in 2017 – to the tune of €4 million – as part of a €22 million series C funding round into the US firm.
A decision on the planning application was due last month, but Limerick Council has asked the port company to supply further information about the development before it can make a final judgement on whether to grant planning permission.
Written by Killian Woods and posted on Fora.ie
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The biggest trouble with this working paper is that it’s a classic case of nuanced academia meets tabloid headlines.
In this case, tabloid Irish Times coverage
Again… What short term…
My partner works… And makes just to much many to avail of family income supplement school allowances etc…. I need 33k to break even on childcare commute clothing cost when going to work.
We are taxed up to the hilt….
One of us at home… The other making a bit less would give us a higher expendable income and more time with our kids.
Thing is psychological we need work. So now for 100 a month extra we hardly see our kids
This report played right into the Krugman’s fallacy. People who work pay taxes, buy stuff (like child care) and generally support the employment of others. If more people go on the dole that has a strong negative feedback effect on the economy and their neighbors. Which is why, of course, austerity fails in a depression and stimulus works.
Clearly there is nothing wrong with the paper which can be read on the Irish Times, instead what we have is political interference, the powers that be in the ESRI blocking Tol’s research and that suggests the ESRI are not an independent institution. Actually what conclusions can be drawn from this research is how hard it is for low earners to survive in this country, with 7000 to 9000 costs just clocked up yearly form actually going to work. It also makes a laugh of the governments jobsbridge scheme, which is actually costing those with least income in our society to take up these shtty dead-end “internships” because the government has done nothing about job creation.
There is an important point here about the ubiquity of ecomonic commentators in Ireland at the current time. People seem to forget (and some economists don’t seem to realise) that life and society is much more complex than that which can be measured in pure economic terms. This is the same logic that looks at the value of culture only in terms of what it can pull in in hard tourist dollars.
I felt some sympathy (but not too much!) for Moore McDowell on a recent Frontline debate when he was asked to comment on the economics of Arts funding in Ireland. His opinion was undermined before he opened his mouth by PK’s reference to Oscar Wilde’s aphorism about knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing and Michael Colgan was able to seize on this in his criticism of the narrow focus of economics.
The ESRI, as its name suggests, has a remit beyond pure economics but it appears that this working paper leaned too heavily on that particular field of analysis.
Does anyone know the purpose of the ERSI?
And assuming it delivers on that purpose is it more important to our society than many of the services that have been slashed?
Just askin’
Thanks Brendan – I asked for that, so let me put the question a different way….
How would Irish society be worse off if the ERSI didn’t exist?
No problem Paul :)
Well for a start we wouldn’t have any of the following publications: http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/
ERSI reports are used to develop policy in relation to a wide range of areas. If there was no ERSI, there wouldn’t be the research, so there wouldn’t be any information to work off. So instead of the government of the day making crazed decisions based on the best possible evidence, they’d be making crazed decisions on no evidence at all.
At 12.8 million in 2010 that information comes relatively cheaply, particularly if you consider that in the same year we spent €1.354 Billion on Defence.
Nat,
Just to clear something up – the word ‘unprecedented’ was used by the ESRI themselves in their statement last night, which is why we in The Irish Times used it. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0612/breaking49.html
In the light of this, perhaps you might want to rephrase your introductory comments?
Regards,
Kilian
I’d pay a few pennies to see the opening comment changed to “we checked to see if it was in fact ‘unprecedented’, which the Irish Times didn’t do.”
Kilian,
Fair enough. I’ve changed the original post to reflect this.
http://www.progressive-economy.ie/2012/06/costs-of-working-in-ireland.html
Regards,
Nat
where is my comment
you are now censoring comments
None of your comments have been deleted from this piece Seamus. Was it on one of the other articles about Richard Tol, perhaps?
Well, back for a second small bite, after reading the paper, these and other posts and comments, it is clear that the paper is assigning costs for short term unemployment in a booming economy, while the inference, which the authors have not denied is for long term unemployment, e.g. people who stop working in order to take advantage of the short term differential.
According to Tol himself the “takeaway” food figure is overall spend on convenience food, NOT just lunch money. I suspect the clothing figure of 25 a week is also overall spend and not just for work. Correcting that would make a big difference to the results.
Well Christine another comment has not gone up.???.
There’s no record in the system of you leaving any other comments on this piece (besides the three that have already appeared here) so I’m going to pass this on to our tech team and see what the issue is. None of your comments have been removed by anyone here, just for the record. In the meantime, it could be worth clearing your cache and trying to post again.
Honestly, Christine this has never happened before, two comments in relation to the above article were not posted.
Have you tried turning it off an on again, Seamus?:)
have your say