Pylons or underground?

silverharp

Given the oppositions to the new north south electricity grid connections, and other upgrades, is there any reason that new connections can't be dug underground along side motorways, train lines etc.? on the face of it, the big overground pylons don't look cheap to make or maintain either

ircoha

silverharp wrote: »

Given the oppositions to the new north south electricity grid connections, and other upgrades, is there any reason that new connections can't be dug underground along side motorways, train lines etc.? on the face of it, the big overground pylons don't look cheap to make or maintain either

Initial costs are much higher and finding a fault is much more difficult.

Once u have the way leave for the pylons they can be easily upgraded while maintaining existing supply

The sooner we have rolling blackouts and power and gas shortages the better so the NIMBY lobbies will be 'dancing in the dark'.

Capt'n Midnight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission

Underground power transmission is used only in densely populated areas due to its high cost of installation and maintenance, and because the high reactive power produces large charging currents and difficulties in voltage management.

abakan

yes initial costs are much higher but there are benefits, getting a fault when there are buries underground is much less as you can get no weather problems, wind etc

how many times have you seen the ESB up a ladder repairing power lines compared to digging up ground to fix faults.
just yesterday I seen the ESB putting back up a power line that came down

blackbox

They don't go up ladders to fix pylons, so I think you must be talking about the local distribution grid rarther than the High Tension national grid.

Even with local distribution, there are more failures due to accidental damage of underground cables (JCBs etc) than weather damage to overhead cables.

Its a shame that they are unsightly, but its a price worth paying.

AngryHippie

This particular Nimby group really irritate me, They were looking for petition signatures in my area recently. They were passing out information sheets on electromagnetic fields and the possible health complications as a result, even though, as far as I know, burying a cable has little noticeable effect on the EMF off a HT line, So Pylon cable 15m over the ground is at least 15m from anybody, whereas you could be as close as 2m to a buried cable and not know...... If anyone can correct me on the HT EMF fields I'd be glad to see it, but if not, then it is merely a divisive misinformation campaign and they deserve to be called on it.......

abakan

there must be something to it that most of the other european countries are putting the wires underground, Sweden,France to name but 2

There will prob be a European law brought in, in the next 10-15 years to make countries put them underground so why not nip it in the butt now and bury them

They are ugly pylons and should be buries, not really nice to look at them ruining the countryside. There will be more massive plyons going through Ireland from the West to the East, the renewable energy that is being produced will have to be brough over the country some way

John_C

I've been to Sweden and I can confirm that they have electric pylons.

probe

Underground power cables create higher magnetic fields than overhead cables - five times as high if you are near the spot where the cable in buried.

Overhead cables put far more distance between you and the source of electromagnetic field - thereby diluting the strength of the magnetic field at ground level.

http://www.emfs.info/Source_underground.asp

.probe

AngryHippie

Thats what I thought , cheers .probe.

This does mean that the health link is total bunkum .

The issue is reduced to one of aesthetics,

The overground are easily damaged by wind and ice storms etc. but they are also easily repaired.

probe

High voltage electricity cables in France generally run (overhead) close to the autoroutes, along with TGV railway lines (LGV). It is basic good long term infrastructural planning now and into the future.

It helps keep the rest of the countryside free of heavy infrastructure, and minimises the amount of land that needs to be reserved for these applications. High speed rail needs electricity. Motorway service areas in the future will need heavy duty grid connections too - either for car battery recharging or hydrogen production or both.

.probe

silverharp

maybe they should think of a network around the Irish coast in the sea, it would tie in with the European supergrid idea and would tie in the off shore wind farms, and sod the midlands

probe

silverharp wrote: »

maybe they should think of a network around the Irish coast in the sea, it would tie in with the European supergrid idea and would tie in the off shore wind farms, and sod the midlands

Similar thoughts had occurred to me. Most of the population/demand, as well as the existing electricity production capacity (not to mention the green energy potential) exists around the coastline.

Multiple HVDC rings around Ireland, with connecting spurs leading to the mainland, and outreaching spurs heading outwards to other countries. No EMF worries along the trunk network. Fewer pylons.

I've done a quick very rough map here: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=53.120405,-4.812012&spn=11.619339,34.628906&z=6&msid=104290968492127663190.00044723328c8efd8d3b5

.probe

AngryHippie

That is thousands upon thousands of km of totally unnecessary undersea cables that are susecptible to tides, leaks and storm surges. Never gonna happen, definitely not a solution. Agree with the French system, its a good solution, Electrify the Rail network, There is a wayleave either side of newer railroad/road construction anyway, use that to bury cables 10 or 20m from anything, Bingo Bango. Considering the scale of the Motorway development in Ireland in the last 15 years, its a bit of a disgrace that it wasn't incorporated into the design initially.

Del2005

AngryHippie wrote: »

That is thousands upon thousands of km of totally unnecessary undersea cables that are susecptible to tides, leaks and storm surges. Never gonna happen, definitely not a solution. Agree with the French system, its a good solution, Electrify the Rail network, There is a wayleave either side of newer railroad/road construction anyway, use that to bury cables 10 or 20m from anything, Bingo Bango. Considering the scale of the Motorway development in Ireland in the last 15 years, its a bit of a disgrace that it wasn't incorporated into the design initially.

With this country they'd screw it up. Remember when Irish Rail got someone, can't remember who, to lay fibre optic cable along the rail lines to improve signaling and help spread BB. The company only laid their own cables and now IR can't lay their new signaling cables as the fibre optic cables would be damaged if they tried.

Eddiethehill

In Meath the current popularist solution for the proposed Eirgrid transmission lines... "Bury the cables. It's easy!"

So let's see now...

400KV transmission line, carryng over 3Mw of power.

Now that makes BIG electric and magnetic fields. Putting the cables below ground will reduce the electric field, but not the magnetic field. So we have to bury deep, and still have to keep our distance.

We dig a trench 5m wide, 8m deep and 58Km long, across Meath. We cross several large water courses, areas of scientific and cultural significance, and compensate everybody whos land we use.

I'm glad I don't have to pay for this. Oh wait I do , through my electricity bill!

I think this bury the cable idea is lunacy. We need to either use pylons or use less electricity. (or maybe a another approach entirely)

Is Mise...

AngryHippie

Good on ya Eddiethehill, you can see the practicalities of it, But honestly, If it was gonna be 100m from your house, how happy would you be to see it go up ?

Capt'n Midnight

AngryHippie wrote: »

Good on ya Eddiethehill, you can see the practicalities of it, But honestly, If it was gonna be 100m from your house, how happy would you be to see it go up ?

The wire on the top of the pylons is a lightening conductor so it does have some health advantages

probe

AngryHippie wrote: »

That is thousands upon thousands of km of totally unnecessary undersea cables that are susecptible to tides, leaks and storm surges. Never gonna happen, definitely not a solution. Agree with the French system, its a good solution, Electrify the Rail network, There is a wayleave either side of newer railroad/road construction anyway, use that to bury cables 10 or 20m from anything, Bingo Bango. Considering the scale of the Motorway development in Ireland in the last 15 years, its a bit of a disgrace that it wasn't incorporated into the design initially.

Why bury them? In France they are on pylons running parallel to rail and autoroute infrastructure - and most of them are taking far heavier loads of power than anything in IRL.

.probe

probe

AngryHippie wrote: »

Good on ya Eddiethehill, you can see the practicalities of it, But honestly, If it was gonna be 100m from your house, how happy would you be to see it go up ?

It would be impossible to run a high tension overhead electricity cable as close as 100m from a house. Most of them are 40 + m high off the ground - ignoring the lateral distance.

After 20 m, the magnetic field drops off to a low level.
http://www.emfs.info/Source_underground.asp

.probe

John_C

probe wrote: »

Why bury them? In France they are on pylons running parallel to rail and autoroute infrastructure - and most of them are taking far heavier loads of power than anything in IRL.

.probe

I'm going to chance a guess and say that, in France, their trains and roads run is reasonable straight lines between each of the major destinations. That's not really the case here.

The best route is presumably across the fields. There's no real need for the pylons to go through towns and villages simply because the road goes that way.

AngryHippie

Again you are back to destroying scenic rural areas, lakes, etc by going cross country, and even then, I'd guess you would be inconveniencing more landowners than by sticking to the major thoroughfares (motorways, Railroad, Canal) Aside from the fact that there will be less issues with wayleaves and accessibility if you are close to transport links, Them Unimogs are pricey.

probe

John_C wrote: »

I'm going to chance a guess and say that, in France, their trains and roads run is reasonable straight lines between each of the major destinations. That's not really the case here.

The best route is presumably across the fields. There's no real need for the pylons to go through towns and villages simply because the road goes that way.

Please read my posting again. In France, one has corridors of autoroute, often with TGV rail lines running in parallel, and high tension overhead electric cables following the same route. All running along in parallel across the same land space in the countryside.

None of this runs through "towns and villages". The closest the French autoroute system gets to an urban area is forming part of a périphérique serving the town in question.

.probe

John_C

probe wrote: »

Please read my posting again. In France, one has corridors of autoroute, often with TGV rail lines running in parallel, and high tension overhead electric cables following the same route. All running along in parallel across the same land space in the countryside.

None of this runs through "towns and villages". The closest the French autoroute system gets to an urban area is forming part of a périphérique serving the town in question.

.probe

I understand what you're saying but the equivalent Irish system, our national roads and patches of motorway, does run through towns and villages. What's good for France won't work here.

probe

John_C wrote: »

I understand what you're saying but the equivalent Irish system, our national roads and patches of motorway, does run through towns and villages. What's good for France won't work here.

The Irish motorway network (current + planned) does not run through towns and villages. Look at the NRA website. It is an ideal platform for add on infrastructure to run parallel to it...

Example from Germany - work in progress - the new railway line from the new (far out of town) Munich airport to the centre will largely run along the side of the existing autobahn - at 350 km/h.

MUC Airport to central station (a 28 km journey - ie 3 times the distance from Dublin airport to Connolly Station) in 10 minutes from 2011. Because it runs alongside an old autobahn, it requires very little new land.

While most German airports have an inter-city rail service direct from the airport, the position of the new Munich airport site relative to the routing of the Deutsche Bahn intercity network makes it simpler to shuttle everybody into the Hauptbahnhof at high speed in an all 1st class airport shuttle, where they can change trains to connect with inter-city/ICE, SBahn (suburban rail), UBahn (metro) and tram.

Munich has a similar population size to Dublin. Compare Munich airport's real T2 with the DAA's virtual DUB-T2. Words like Neolithic come to mind in relation to DAA & Co.


http://www.munich-airport.de/en/consumer/index.jsp

"Calm and relaxed"

Anyone using MUC airport should consider staying at the airport hotel. A very green building. The most un-airporty hotel on the planet... A 2 minute walk from T2 - no 20 minute wait for a shuttle bus.

http://www.kempinski-airport.de/en/hotel/index.htm

.probe

John_C

probe wrote: »

The Irish motorway network (current + planned) does not run through towns and villages. Look at the NRA website. It is an ideal platform for add on infrastructure to run parallel to it...

Have you ever been to Kilmacanogue in Wicklow?

There may well be some motorways that power lines could run along but there isn't one going through Cavan and Monaghan that this power line could follow.

probe

John_C wrote: »

Have you ever been to Kilmacanogue in Wicklow?

There may well be some motorways that power lines could run along but there isn't one going through Cavan and Monaghan that this power line could follow.

Why not route it down alongside the E1, instead of the non-existent M2/3?
http://www.elbruz.org/Infrastructure/eroads/E01.htm

.probe

John_C

probe wrote: »

Why not route it down alongside the E1, instead of the non-existent M2/3?

I would guess it's mainly because the road doesn't go along the route of the proposed wires but the fact that it runs right past people's houses might be another factor.

There's no need for the wires to follow any road when there are much better routes through the fields.

Capt'n Midnight

overhead cables are made of aluminium and have no insulation
the steel core carries very little current because of the skin effect

underground cables tend to made of copper which is probably more expensive.
over head cables have large insulators the green things , so unless you had a very high performance insulator you would need lots of it or perhaps a tunnel 2m in diameter with the cable in the middle ? supported at intervals by insulators

also the consequences of a JCB hitting an underground high voltage cable are scary and you all know it would happen sooner or later

maniac101

It looks like businesses involved in consulting to government departments are still doing a roaring trade, inspite of all this gloom and doom! What they can add to this debate is beyond me.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0930/breaking38.htm

International consultants will report by next June on whether to bury high voltage power lines underground, it was announced today.

Energy Minister Eamon Ryan said the Government has commissioned the national study to get professional advice on health and safety issues, costs and environmental impacts of overhead electricity cables compared to a buried network.

A Primal Nut

:pac:

AngryHippie wrote: »

Good on ya Eddiethehill, you can see the practicalities of it, But honestly, If it was gonna be 100m from your house, how happy would you be to see it go up ?

They could put them right over my house and I wouldn't care. In fact I would be delighted because it would spite all those liars who say electricity can cause cancer.

Any they never worry about the building materials there houses are made from.

GenericUser

maniac101 wrote: »

It looks like businesses involved in consulting to government departments are still doing a roaring trade, inspite of all this gloom and doom! What they can add to this debate is beyond me.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0930/breaking38.htm

Independant Expert Analysis is what they brought.
The report produced validated and confirmed the technical evidence that Overground high voltage lines are the superior and only plausable method of electrical transmission.
BTW the consultants involved were german.

maniac101

GenericUser wrote: »

Independant Expert Analysis is what they brought.
The report produced validated and confirmed the technical evidence that Overground high voltage lines are the superior and only plausable method of electrical transmission.
BTW the consultants involved were german.

But the press release from a couple of days ago indicates that another new report is to be commissioned; this would be in addition to the report that you're referring to from earlier in the year!
http://breakingnews.ie/archives/2008/0930/ireland/mhqlsnqlcwcw/

Yes, the Ecofys report did rightly find that overhead lines were the only viable and practical option. This is precisely why I would question the purpose of this additional report. Perhaps it provides an opportunity to postpone making a locally unpopular decision?

GenericUser

maniac101 wrote: »

But the press release from a couple of days ago indicates that another new report is to be commissioned; this would be in addition to the report that you're referring to from earlier in the year!
http://breakingnews.ie/archives/2008/0930/ireland/mhqlsnqlcwcw/

Yes, the Ecofys report did rightly find that overhead lines were the only viable and practical option. This is precisely why I would question the purpose of this additional report. Perhaps it provides an opportunity to postpone making a locally unpopular decision?

To be prefectly honest with you I would say that that news report is incorrect. If the date read september 2007 It might have been correct. To the best of my knowledge there has not been another government report commissioned. I'd say somehow that might have been a bit of a mistake by the news service there somehow. But then knowing our governments record on wasting money, it could very well be right