The ESB And Eirgrid can go f*ck themselves - Merge

marienbad

loremolis wrote: »

This is the last question you asked:



I'm not sure what you're asking when you say "so contrary". Inever used the word "contrary".

It's not just my view. The map shown on Tuesdays Primetime clearly showed that the straight line route was 20km and the route they chose was over 30km.

Why they did this? Who knows for sure. The entire process is unregulated and unchecked so there is no independent body to verify any given route.

However, the ESB and Eirgrid have wasted millions of euro on overhead lines in the last few years so there is no reason to believe that the way they've dealt with this line is any different.

The public service doesn't do economical, on budget or on time.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1008/1224280633221.html

I am not saying you used that specific word loremolis, the the gist of your posts is that the esb are being contrary, we all except that the straight line route is 20 as opposed to the 32 being used, my question to you is why would they pick such a route if it was not the best one taking into account all the circumstances ?

The only answer you have given is the ''more jobs for the boys'' scenario.

Zen65

loremolis wrote: »

Because the ESB and Eirgrid only do overground lines, that's all they know.
From their engineers & surveyors, to the guys who erect the pylons, poles and lines, they only know overhead.

Not wishing to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about, but ESB Networks also own several hundred km of transmission underground cable. Check out their statistics from 2006 (which is well out of date and I'm sure they have even more cable now, because they dug up large portions of Dublin recently putting in 110kV cable between Inchicore & Grangecastle for Microsoft).

An old college friend of mine also tells me that they've had contracts to install cable in Bahrain for decades. This being on the basis that ESB was among the first utilities in Europe to adopt the use of plastic HV cables.

Of course he's biased, and he didn't give me a breakdown of his statement


Z

Monty Burnz

loremolis wrote: »

The public service doesn't do economical, on budget or on time.

There are degrees of efficiency. ESB may not be as efficient as a private sector company (staff pay being the primary issue) but other than that it is a very well run organisation.

loremolis wrote: »

I don't like the way this woman has been treated by the ESB.
They've tried to walk all over her and her land without any regard for her rights.

They did no such thing. They respected her rights completely, but she did not respect theirs - that's why she was in prison, rather than the ESB being punished.

This is obvious stuff.

Capt'n Midnight

loremolis wrote: »

The issue is about the woman who owns the land being deprived of her rights over that land because of the actions of state bodies.

Just because you own land doesn't give all the rights you would expect.

Mineral rights are separate
Fishing rights are separate
Most people don't own land anyway, they just have very long leases

Zen65

loremolis wrote: »

It's not just my view. The map shown on Tuesdays Primetime clearly showed that the straight line route was 20km and the route they chose was over 30km.

Why they did this? Who knows for sure. The entire process is unregulated and unchecked so there is no independent body to verify any given route.

Well the "baldy guy" on Prime Time from EirGrid explained this (in summary) by saying they had to avoid SAC's and houses. You can find a much more detailed explanation (I'm sure... though I didn't check) in the Planning submission made to Offaly Co Co & An Bord Pleanala. Routes don't get made longer without good reason!

As an aside.... there are a ridiculous number of SAC's in this country. Try building anything in a straight line over a distance of 20km and you'll find you cannot avoid SAC's doing so. Galway must be the worst county in Ireland for that.

Anyway, on the point of it being unregulated........ that's completely incorrect. EirGrid and ESB Networks are regulated by CER, and the planning process is very difficult in Ireland because of all the regulation. Even a short road diversion needs to be referred to a long list of statutory bodies for consultation because of our planning regulations.

Z

Freddie59

loremolis wrote: »

I'm not wrong and I can prove it.

The only thing I ask for first is a guesstimate from you or anyone else as to what it would cost to underground a kilometer of 110kv electricity line (3 wires).

Let everyone interested put forward a Cost per km and reach an agreed figure.

After that I'll put forward reasonably detailed figures for an overground 110kv line per km.

Are you actually READING any of the replies? I put this to you several pages earlier. It speaks volumes. And indisputably contravenes your argument. It's EIGHT times more costly per Km to underground them.

Just to remind you again:

http://jcots.state.va.us/pdf/CostAnalysis.pdf

Nulty

biko wrote: »

Old lady, check
Big company, check
Angry people, check

Big company man says that ESB/Eirgrid had offered to compensate Ms Treacy and to plant new trees to replace any that might get damaged. He said it was not possible to place the wires underground.

Would the judge not send her to prison but acquit her any landowning Tom, Dick, Harry and so-called Irish Freemen would soon use this to piss off the government at any turn.

If this was a 30 year old man instead of a 65 year old woman would everyone scream blue murder? I don't think so.

It's her property. She shouldn't have to put the stuff on her land if she doesn't want it. Your reference to a 30yo man is ridiculous. Your insulting my intelligence with that comment. You expect me to say "Yeah you're right actually, it's only cause she's an old woman that I feel this way." ?

Monty Burnz

Nulty wrote: »

It's her property. She shouldn't have to put the stuff on her land if she doesn't want it. Your reference to a 30yo man is ridiculous. Your insulting my intelligence with that comment. You expect me to say "Yeah you're right actually, it's only cause she's an old woman that I feel this way." ?

Well that depends - do you want to live in a society, or a feudal kingdom of petty fiefdoms? How much extra are you willing to pay for your electricity so that everyone can have inalienable rights over their property? How much extra for water? How crooked do you want your main roads?

Or does it make more sense that there's reasonable give and take between the needs of the public and the rights of the individual?

loremolis

Freddie59 wrote: »

loremolis wrote: »

I'm not wrong and I can prove it.

The only thing I ask for first is a guesstimate from you or anyone else as to what it would cost to underground a kilometer of 110kv electricity line (3 wires).

Let everyone interested put forward a Cost per km and reach an agreed figure.

After that I'll put forward reasonably detailed figures for an overground 110kv line per km.

Are you actually READING any of the replies? I put this to you several pages earlier. It speaks volumes. And indisputably contravenes your argument. It's EIGHT times more costly per Km to underground them.

Just to remind you again:

http://jcots.state.va.us/pdf/CostAnalysis.pdf

Do you believe everything you read?

Those figures are bullsh1t.!

All I've asked for is a realistic figure for undergrounding 110kv wires per km.

No one can give me a figure and back it up.

With thanks to the earlier poster who suggests 20k per km, I think it's low.

If you had any practical experience in civil engineering works you would know that 8 times more for underground cables is rubbish.

I'll give detailed costs for overhead lines if someone can give me a cost for underground.

loremolis

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Nulty wrote: »

It's her property. She shouldn't have to put the stuff on her land if she doesn't want it. Your reference to a 30yo man is ridiculous. Your insulting my intelligence with that comment. You expect me to say "Yeah you're right actually, it's only cause she's an old woman that I feel this way." ?

Well that depends - do you want to live in a society, or a feudal kingdom of petty fiefdoms? How much extra are you willing to pay for your electricity so that everyone can have inalienable rights over their property? How much extra for water? How crooked do you want your main roads?

Or does it make more sense that there's reasonable give and take between the needs of the public and the rights of the individual?

I'm with you on the reasonable rights for the individual bit.

However, how much extra is added to the cost of electricity by the ESB running €150 million over budget on transmission line projects in the last 5 years.

They don't need ms. Treacy to waste money, they are professionals at it themselves.

Paparazzo

loremolis wrote: »

This is the last question you asked:



I'm not sure what you're asking when you say "so contrary". Inever used the word "contrary".

It's not just my view. The map shown on Tuesdays Primetime clearly showed that the straight line route was 20km and the route they chose was over 30km.

Why they did this? Who knows for sure. The entire process is unregulated and unchecked so there is no independent body to verify any given route.

However, the ESB and Eirgrid have wasted millions of euro on overhead lines in the last few years so there is no reason to believe that the way they've dealt with this line is any different.

The public service doesn't do economical, on budget or on time.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1008/1224280633221.html

Did you even read your link? Not a word on overhead lines and even the regulator said the overruns were “allowable” because they were caused by factors beyond the control. Did you see what one of these factors were?

delays due to land access problems

Each post gets worse. The process is unchecked and unregulated? bord pleanala and offaly co co review the route and it went through the proper planning process. It doesn't go straight because they put it as far away from peoples homes as possible.
Almost every sentence you have typed on this has been complete rubbish. And you still haven't provided links for your claims. You wouldn't happen to be making stuff up as you go along?

loremolis

Paparazzo wrote: »

loremolis wrote: »

This is the last question you asked:



I'm not sure what you're asking when you say "so contrary". Inever used the word "contrary".

It's not just my view. The map shown on Tuesdays Primetime clearly showed that the straight line route was 20km and the route they chose was over 30km.

Why they did this? Who knows for sure. The entire process is unregulated and unchecked so there is no independent body to verify any given route.

However, the ESB and Eirgrid have wasted millions of euro on overhead lines in the last few years so there is no reason to believe that the way they've dealt with this line is any different.

The public service doesn't do economical, on budget or on time.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1008/1224280633221.html

Did you even read your link? Not a word on overhead lines and even the regulator said the overruns were “allowable” because they were caused by factors beyond the control. Did you see what one of these factors were?

delays due to land access problems

Each post gets worse. The process is unchecked and unregulated? bord pleanala and offaly co co review the route and it went through the proper planning process. It doesn't go straight because they put it as far away from peoples homes as possible.
Almost every sentence you have typed on this has been complete rubbish. And you still haven't provided links for your claims. You wouldn't happen to be making stuff up as you go along?

I read it and understand it fully.

Why does the ESB have land access issues? I thought they have all the power to go onto whatever land they wished.

You see one quote from the CER and all of a sudden they're regulating new transmission lines.

Have you read the full report on which the article is based? Of course not.

You quoted section 9 of the 1927 act earlier without any explanation of it.
Do you even know what it means?

The local authority and the board review the route. Good one.

They wouldn't dare suggest that the ESB change the route of a line. They don't review and they certainly wouldnt question or suggest a change.

Pay attention, I said that the CER do not regulate the planning, construction or cost of electricity lines. They don't.

Paparazzo

loremolis wrote: »

This is the last question you asked:



I'm not sure what you're asking when you say "so contrary". Inever used the word "contrary".

It's not just my view. The map shown on Tuesdays Primetime clearly showed that the straight line route was 20km and the route they chose was over 30km.

Why they did this? Who knows for sure. The entire process is unregulated and unchecked so there is no independent body to verify any given route.

However, the ESB and Eirgrid have wasted millions of euro on overhead lines in the last few years so there is no reason to believe that the way they've dealt with this line is any different.

The public service doesn't do economical, on budget or on time.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1008/1224280633221.html

loremolis wrote: »

I read it and understand it fully.

Why does the ESB have land access issues? I thought they have all the power to go onto whatever land they wished.

You see one quote from the CER and all of a sudden they're regulating new transmission lines.

Have you read the full report on which the article is based? Of course not.

You quoted section 9 of the 1927 act earlier without any explanation of it.
Do you even know what it means?

The local authority and the board review the route. Good one.

They wouldn't dare suggest that the ESB change the route of a line. They don't review and they certainly wouldnt question or suggest a change.

Pay attention, I said that the CER do not regulate the planning, construction or cost of electricity lines. They don't.

That's the second time you told me to "pay attention" and the second time you were wrong. I don't think anyone else is suggesting the CER plans lines. Seriously, you're starting to babble now. Time for bed.
Oh yeah, you still haven't provided a link for your cheap underground lines.

Chuck Stone

loremolis wrote: »

The issue is about the woman who owns the land being deprived of her rights over that land because of the actions of state bodies.

You keep changing the goal posts. Is this about cost? Conservation? Property rights? The ESB wasting money?

You've lost all credibility in this argument and I, personally, think you should now be ignored by the people who have taken the time to reply to you.

Nulty wrote: »

It's her property. She shouldn't have to put the stuff on her land if she doesn't want it.

This is such a weak argument. If property rights were absolute then nothing would ever get done and the system would be open to massive abuse.

She probably enjoys the use of public roads which are built out to all sorts of backwaters at great cost to the public. How are these roads paid for? By taking money from tax-payers (i.e. their property) whether they agree to it or not.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

yourpics wrote: »

Further back on this thread, people were looking for real figures and costs, I have given some real figures for the groundwork element. So hopefully others can add what they know and we can see the real costs.

Yes granted, But that's a tiny part of the cost (like the stringing costs of overhead lines

yourpics wrote: »

srameen might have figures for cables costs

1600XLPE UG Cable is at least €215 per meter compared with 185/25 OH condutor at most €19 per meter.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Loremolis -Because the ESB and Eirgrid only do overground lines, that's all they know.
From their engineers & surveyors, to the guys who erect the pylons, poles and lines, they only know overhead.

Based on previous threads you obviously have some axe to grind with ESB.

What utter claptrap above. ESB Networks have €350Million worth of HV Cable (underground) compared with €800Million in overhead HV lines. They install UG HV Cables regularly where necessary and usually paid for by the customer. The fact is your statement about their ability to install UG is 100% inaccurate and based on nothing but your own biased view.
What I find remarkable is that you can be so ill-informed when the details are easily availbale to even the likes of me, who only has a passing interest, while you seem to have an obsession with the subject.:p

loremolis

To answer several of the last posts.

I have been jumping from one aspect of this to another without backing up my views and claims fully.

In my defence, it's not possible to discuss 3 or 4 aspects of anything at once.

I apologise.

Let me review and clarify:

Overhead v Underground.

While I accept that underground electricity lines are more expensive to construct than overhead lines, my contention is that they are not 8 times more expensive.

While information has been posted showing some comparisons, I'm pointing pointed out that Eirgrid and the ESB have never provided a detailed breakdown on this.

They don't want to have to underground long sections of electricity line but the '8 times more expensive' argument isn't accurate on their part.

ESB Undergrounding of HV Lines.

I've also said that the ESB have not got sufficient expertise to underground long sections of HV cables.

That is not accurate on my part.

They do not want to underground them for several reasons, including cost issues, and so they will only do it when absolutely necessary.

They are geared for overhead lines because 90% of the transmission and distribution lines in this country are overground and that is where their expertise lies.

Of course they can put lines underground but they are not geared for that type of work on a large scale.

Conservation of the trees.

I've never made any argument that the trees on this womans land should be preserved for their contribution to the environment or their ecological or habitat value.

ESB wasting money and 'jobs for the boys'.

They spent an additional €150 million of electricity transmission lines over a recent 5 year period.

One line ran €30,000,000 over budget and it isn't even finished.

There is no one to check or regulate this aspect of their business.

The erection of electricity transmission line (and distribution lines) is still an ESB controlled monopoly. There is no incentive for them to be economical.

If there is no incentive to be economical in a closed system, then that system can go out of control.

Most businesses have had to let people go in the recession because there isn't the same work available.

How many have the ESB let go?

Ms. Treacy.

The title of this thread is "The ESB and Eirgrid can go f*ck themselves"

While I would agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, electricity is a necessity for me like everyone else and while I might argue that they are inefficient and have treated Ms. Treacy and landowners badly....they keep the electricity flowing.


If anyone wants to continue the discussion, I'll keep it to what I know and can prove.
My apologies for not doing so in earlier posts.

loremolis

Alexa Billions Pension wrote: »

Based on previous threads you obviously have some axe to grind with ESB.

What utter claptrap above. ESB Networks have €350Million worth of HV Cable (underground) compared with €800Million in overhead HV lines. They install UG HV Cables regularly where necessary and usually paid for by the customer. The fact is your statement about their ability to install UG is 100% inaccurate and based on nothing but your own biased view.
What I find remarkable is that you can be so ill-informed when the details are easily availbale to even the likes of me, who only has a passing interest, while you seem to have an obsession with the subject.:p

Alexa Billions Pension,

I think I've addressed matters in the last post.

I've no axe to grind, but if I did I would use electricity from their lines to grind it.:)

I can assure you that I have obsessions, but the ESB isn't one of them.

Have you got any figures for the cost of pylons?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

loremolis wrote: »

They are geared for overhead lines because 90% of the transmission and distribution lines in this country are overground and that is where their expertise lies. .

There you go making unsupported statements again. :rolleyes:

90% just plucked out of the air. I gave you the HV (110kV and higher) figures and if your 90% holds then UG is many times more expensive than the 8 times stated elsewhere.
Distrubution networks are undergrounded all over the place. I can get the figure in a few days but your 90% (on distance or value) is grossly wide of the mark. What did you base the 90% on? What is the source?

marienbad

loremolis - fairplay to you with that 2nd last post. The gist of your argument boils down to your contention that the ESB will not underground the cables purely on convenience reasons as the cost is not that prohibitive. That and the fact that they are inveterate wasters of money and are arrogant into the bargain .

Is that a fair summation ?? I would agree with you on the money wasting and arrogance and so would 1000's more . But for now they are the only game in town and we have the courts as the final arbiter . If that breaks down the the whole system falls apart.

The Esb, both management and workforce are the most arrogant me feiners this country has and their day too will come - but not on this issue.

Stark

Would tree roots not be an issue if the cables were underground? Surely they would have to dig up trees regardless?

Freddie59

loremolis wrote: »

Do you believe everything you read?

Those figures are bullsh1t.!

All I've asked for is a realistic figure for undergrounding 110kv wires per km.

No one can give me a figure and back it up.

With thanks to the earlier poster who suggests 20k per km, I think it's low.

If you had any practical experience in civil engineering works you would know that 8 times more for underground cables is rubbish.

I'll give detailed costs for overhead lines if someone can give me a cost for underground.

Ah, Mother Ireland. You're still rearing them. You're in denial. But, unless they tally with your own peculiar slant on the cost of undergrounding services, then they're bullsh!t? WFT?!

carveone

Stark wrote: »

Would tree roots not be an issue if the cables were underground? Surely they would have to dig up trees regardless?

Indeed. I wonder do people expect them to tunnel? I also wonder where the rock strata lie in that area.

copeyhagen

loremolis wrote: »

Most businesses have had to let people go in the recession because there isn't the same work available.

How many have the ESB let go?

HUNDREDS, including 90% of my office

and theyre trying to almost half the workforce now.

theres been no new staff for about 3 years.

Freddie59

This is about 380 Kv lines, but you get the drift:

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/electricity/publications/doc/comp_cost_380kV_en.pdf
It is estimated that 380/400kV underground cables cost between 5 and 25 times as much to install as overhead lines (RTE in France quote 10 to 20 times, National Grid in the UK quote 15 to 25 times, UK regulator OFGEM quote 14 times).

To put it in very simplistic terms:

You want a new clothes line installed. There are two options:

1. Rawlbolt in House. Rawlbolt in wall at end of garden. String clothes line between both. Plus two pulleys.

2. A standalone line. Two 10' aluminium poles, sunken in concrete (one fifth below the surface) to bear the load and the stress. Labour, materials, time, etc accelerate exponentially.

Most (sensible) people would go for option 1.:rolleyes:

Freddie59

loremolis wrote: »

While I accept that underground electricity lines are more expensive to construct than overhead lines, my contention is that they are not 8 times more expensive.

You're right. They can be up to 15 times more expensive.:)

carveone

carveone wrote: »

Indeed. I wonder do people expect them to tunnel? I also wonder where the rock strata lie in that area.

I'll also add that these are HV lines. You cannot have trees above a HV line.


Edit: 15000 people in Tullamore and 237 beds in the Tullamore regional hospital. Ah sure, feck em anyway...

Zen65

loremolis wrote: »

The erection of electricity transmission line (and distribution lines) is still an ESB controlled monopoly. There is no incentive for them to be economical.

That's an interesting assertion. I guess it depends on how you define "controlled".

New Transmission lines are developed and designed by EirGrid. While ESB Networks manage the construction it seems that the majority of new Transmission lines built in the last 10 years or so are built by private contractors working for ESB.


But this:......

loremolis wrote: »

ESB wasting money and 'jobs for the boys'.

They spent an additional €150 million of electricity transmission lines over a recent 5 year period.

..is being very selective. The newspaper article you quoted from went on to say:

The commission’s view was that because the costs had been “efficiently incurred” taking account of the land issues, the overrun was acceptable. When savings in other areas are taken into account, ESB Network’s net overspending was €80 million.

...and if you search the source of that article you'll see ESB spent €2,155M compared to an original allowance of €2,083M which is an overspend against budget of €72M or just 3.4%.

Now, by any standard an overspend against an estimate from 5 years ago of just 3.4% is pretty good.

Of course you'd have to read the details to see whether or not there are specific inefficiencies along the way, but in the round there are savings which offset many of the over-spends. Compare this to any of the weekly home improvement episodes on RTE or BBC where you almost never see an overspend against budget of less than 10%.

Maybe I'm being too forgiving, but the speed of bias towards the state-commercial companies just seems to be unwarranted. The privatisation of the electricity generation business has not yielded any noticeable reduction in the cost to the end consumer.


Z

PS: My source document on the CER website might be wrong, but it was the nearest match I could find (I didn't read them all, I still have a life)

yourpics

copeyhagen wrote: »

HUNDREDS, including 90% of my office

and theyre trying to almost half the workforce now.

theres been no new staff for about 3 years.

they have raised the cost of electricity and now expect people to work for them on job bridge

loremolis

copeyhagen wrote: »

HUNDREDS, including 90% of my office

and theyre trying to almost half the workforce now.

theres been no new staff for about 3 years.

Sorry to hear that.

Major layoffs in the ESB hasn't made the news like other job losses.