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

Freddie59

robbie7730 wrote: »

You will be doing well in city centre`s to see many 10kv+ overhead lines. And im sure that the actual city centre`s and close by were what was meant, rather than the estates in the suburbs.

The thread is about the middle of the country though.;)

Chuck Stone

So what's the story? Is the issue now resolved?

Freddie59

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So what's the story? Is the issue now resolved?

Yeah the usual. She was let out of jail and a moral victory claimed.

loremolis

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yeah the usual. She was let out of jail and a moral victory claimed.

Speaking of claiming moral victories , did you have a look at the documents I posted yesterday in relation to the cost of underground electricity lines installed by the ESB?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

loremolis wrote: »

This document is available on the CER website under the "Standard Transmission Charges and Timelines" section.

http://www.cer.ie/GetAttachment.aspx?id=f86e6651-dfe1-4bef-aea7-e3d3ca585e0c

It presents the actual cost per km for the supply and installation of a 12km underground 110kv cable (described as 630mm2 Al) by ESB Networks to serve a windfarm at €6,033,063.
The CER decision document on this contains costings per km for several different types of HV OH and UG lines.

http://www.cer.ie/GetAttachment.aspx?id=0e95c64f-80f9-4487-b9c9-88f56b8209a5

Appendices A & C refer.

Can anyone understand the different cable sizes listed in those Appendices in order to, once and for all, provide an accurate ratio of how much more expensive UG is?

This is not like for like. But a decent place to start. The invoiced costs include overheads (not profit) to cover non direct staff costs (pension payments, back office staff, supervisors, storemen, transport, tools etc) while the second link gives prime cost only. These surcharges are agreed with CER annually. Taking the various aspects that would make up the UG installation (including terminations etc) you get about 3.3 million per Km. ESB surcharges are hefty and depend on the time to material mix of the job and if it's all internally labour or contractors. A very conservative surcharge within the industry would be 60 or 70%(could be up to 110%) - taking 3.3 to just over 5.2Million. But it could be over 6.5Million if they (as I suspect) have higher than 60% surcharge.

Zen65

loremolis wrote: »

http://www.cer.ie/GetAttachment.aspx?id=0e95c64f-80f9-4487-b9c9-88f56b8209a5

Appendices A & C refer.

Can anyone understand the different cable sizes listed in those Appendices in order to, once and for all, provide an accurate ratio of how much more expensive UG is?

I'm not entirely certain of my facts, but I believe that the rating of a 430's overhead line equates roughly to the 1,600Cu underground cable. The cost ratio for overhead vs underground per km in the report then gives €380k vs €1.9M, assuming that daytime construction is possible (i.e. cable is not in a city). That's almost 1:5, which underpins why utilities around the world don't rush to put this stuff underground.

However neither of these estimates include "pass-through" charges i.e. charges which ESB Networks would be required to pay which are not within their control. Most notably these are the costs of easements, wayleave, land damages & "flexibility" payments (are these brown envelope payments to landowners??).

It's hard to say whether underground or overhead attracts the larger "pass-through" costs. Certainly some landowner payments must be very high for the overhead line, but I expect an underground cable needs an easement for its entire length?

Incidentally I believe the costs quoted are the full cost including all indirect ("overhead") costs. There's an explanation of how ESB Networks incorporated those design & other charges into the "other" charges in the text (TL;DR).

Z

joela

Senator John Whelan isn’t beating about the bush with his opinion of the parties involved in the Teresa Tracy issue:

“Sinister elements have now jumped on the bandwagon and are deliberately misrepresenting the Teresa Treacy case for their own political advantage and ulterior motives. These people are even worse than Eirgrid in their cynical manipulation of this issue and it suits them to have a martyr to further their own selfish ends.”

“It is only fair that for the record it’s stated that the trees in question in the Tullamore dispute are a commercial crop, predominantly evergreens, planted with the assistance of grants for the purpose of being felled and harvested.”

Full story here:

http://www.offalyexpress.ie/news/local/teresa_treacy_to_meet_with_esb_1_3143058

loremolis

joela wrote: »

Senator John Whelan isn’t beating about the bush with his opinion of the parties involved in the Teresa Tracy issue:

He's certainly not. He hates everyone involved.:)

More from Senator Whelan here:

EIRGRID'S 'cavalier and confrontational corporate culture will lead to more trouble,' Laois/ Offaly Labour Senator John Whelan claimed in a major speech to Seanad Eireann last week on the Teresa Casey case.

'You would have to be heartless not to be dismayed and disturbed at the sight of a well meaning 65 year old woman ending up in Mountjoy in a case over power lines and pylons cutting through her farm. Theresa Treacy need not be in prison if Eirgrid did their job right.'

Added Senator Whelan: 'Eirgrid are based in Ballsbridge. Do they not understand the land, rural values or respect country people? They are not upfront, co-operative, transparent in their dealings with landowners, courteous, considerate nor do they engage in meaningful consultation.'

'The plight of Theresa Treacy from Tullamore does not really surprise me as there will be many more Theresa Treacys if Eirgrid don't cop on and radically change their heavy-handed corporate culture to one of consideration and genuine and honest engagement with communities.'

Claimed Senator Whelan: 'I see it first hand in my own community of Ratheniska-Timahoe where the 25km Laois to Kilkenny Reinforcement Line is to run down through the property of 110 landowners. Sound and sensible farmers and families are up in arms with Eirgrid and tensions are mounting and opposition gathering as a direct result of Eirgrid's antics, arrogance and ignorance and what I can only describe as bully-boy tactics. They are behaving more like the KGB than the ESB.'

'Only last week Eirgrid threatened a Laois farmer with legal action in a solicitor's letter. What was his crime? He had a mobile phone in his hand on his own family's land! Two Eirgrid staff accused the quietest man in Ireland of secretly taping them. This absurd and unfounded accusation was because he had a mobile phone in his hand in his own family's farmyard when they called. Their response was a classic Eirgrid over- reaction and the very next day he had a solicitor's letter demanding that he destroy the alleged tape recordings. Eirgrid are laughing stock in the community but this kind of carry-on only serves to get people's backs up and fuel community dissent and divisions.'

http://www.tullamoretribune.ie/articles/news/23662/whelan-points-finger-at-eirgrid-and-protesters/

joela

Yeah I saw that one too but couldn't make head nor tail of the rant and who it was aimed at as it seemed to be everyone but mainly ESB/Eirgrid.It was his comment re the protestors that interested me though although it was another rant

steve9859

joela wrote: »

]“It is only fair that for the record it’s stated that the trees in question in the Tullamore dispute are a commercial crop, predominantly evergreens, planted with the assistance of grants for the purpose of being felled and harvested.”

Thats brilliant. you couldnt make it up! I thought she was trying to protect some hundred year old orchard or something! What a farce. And what a bunch of moronic bandwagon protesters using the poor woman for their own ends

loremolis

steve9859 wrote: »

Thats brilliant. you couldnt make it up! I thought she was trying to protect some hundred year old orchard or something! What a farce. And what a bunch of moronic bandwagon protesters using the poor woman for their own ends

The age and type of the trees has nothing to do with this.

Let's say that it was a hundred year old orchard or a forest of oaks. From a legal point of view there is no difference between those trees and the ones there at the moment.

If the ESB has the right to cut down trees on Ms. Treacy's land then it doesn't matter whether they are Oaks, Chestnut, Sycamore or Spruce.

Similarly, Ms. Treacy is equally entitled to defend her trees on her land regardless of their age or type.

What you are saying is that if the trees were older or of a different type then they would be more worthy of protection that the ones that are there.

The age or type of the trees doesn't matter. If you introduce the age and type of trees as a factor then the real issue is hidden because your favoutie type of tree might be different than mine or indeed Ms. Treacy's.

If you follow your argument a bit further then you're suggesting that the ESB would be wrong to cut down an old orchard or oak trees if they wanted to put up a line and the protestors would be the good guys for stopping them.

The point is that they are her trees on her land and if she values them as much as you might value a 100 year old orchard or someone else might value a forest of oaks then she has every right to protect her trees on her property as much as you or someone else would have the same right to defend the orchard or the oaks.

Chuck Stone

This is simply untrue ^^ you're trying to sugest that we live in some sort of authoritarian state.

To say that an established native woodland with it's flora and fauna would be treated by the ESB, the legal system and people in general in the same manner as a plantation of non-native, conifer saplings grown for commercial purposes is just utter rubbish.

That's why we have SAC's, SPA's and NHA's.

Legislation

The most important legislation on nature conservation is the Wildlife Act, 1976, the Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000 and the European Union (Natural Habitats) Regulations, S.I. 94/1997 (which have been amended twice with S.I. 233/1998 & S.I. 378/2005). At European level the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) mandate the identification and protection of key Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) respectively in all EU Member States. In addition, Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) are designated under the Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000.


http://www.epa.ie/environment/biodiversity/protectedareas/

steve9859

loremolis wrote: »

The age and type of the trees has nothing to do with this.

Let's say that it was a hundred year old orchard or a forest of oaks. From a legal point of view there is no difference between those trees and the ones there at the moment.

If the ESB has the right to cut down trees on Ms. Treacy's land then it doesn't matter whether they are Oaks, Chestnut, Sycamore or Spruce.

Similarly, Ms. Treacy is equally entitled to defend her trees on her land regardless of their age or type.

What you are saying is that if the trees were older or of a different type then they would be more worthy of protection that the ones that are there.

The age or type of the trees doesn't matter. If you introduce the age and type of trees as a factor then the real issue is hidden because your favoutie type of tree might be different than mine or indeed Ms. Treacy's.

If you follow your argument a bit further then you're suggesting that the ESB would be wrong to cut down an old orchard or oak trees if they wanted to put up a line and the protestors would be the good guys for stopping them.

The point is that they are her trees on her land and if she values them as much as you might value a 100 year old orchard or someone else might value a forest of oaks then she has every right to protect her trees on her property as much as you or someone else would have the same right to defend the orchard or the oaks.

Nonsense. Of course there is a difference between non native trees grown with grants for the purposes of being harvested, and native ancient flora and fauna! Only people pushing an general anti-establishment agenda would try to claim otherwise. And unfortunately those people are winding up this woman and using her to further their own ends

If you want to keep them so bad, maybe you should offer to repay the grant that was used to fund the planting of them.

Freddie59

loremolis wrote: »

Speaking of claiming moral victories , did you have a look at the documents I posted yesterday in relation to the cost of underground electricity lines installed by the ESB?

Ha ha! God loves a trier L.:D

loremolis

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is simply untrue ^^ you're trying to sugest that we live in some sort of authoritarian state.

Irrelevant. I'm not suggesting any such thing.

To say that an established native woodland with it's flora and fauna would be treated by the ESB, the legal system and people in general in the same manner as a plantation of non-native, conifer saplings grown for commercial purposes is just utter rubbish.

That's why we have SAC's, SPA's and NHA's.

I'm not debating the quality of the trees in the Ms. Treacy case or in the merits or demerits of her trees when compared to a native woodland or a 100 year old orchard.

My point is that there is no differentiation between types or ages of trees in the Electricity Supply Acts and not all trees are within a SAC, a SPA or a NHA.

If they can cut down her trees today and then some older and better trees tomorrow and an orchard on Monday, where does it stop?

You might like native woodland or a 100 year old orchard, but what if a Judge in the High Court just sees trees as trees no matter how old or environmentally/ecologically important they are?

The argument that Ms. Treacy's trees aren't of sufficient environmental merit is totally avoiding the issue.

The next Ms. Treacy may have 50 acres of chestnut or mature oaks.
Would they be worthy of saving because they're better trees?

The type or environmental merit of the trees is irrelevant.

loremolis

Freddie59 wrote: »

Ha ha! God loves a trier L.:D

Who's trying?

I found costings for underground /overhead lines by the ESB/Eirgrid that make your costings look silly.

Originally Posted by Freddie59
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/electrici...t_380kV_en.pdf

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

It's not 8 times - it's up to 25 times more expensive.

It's kinda hard to argue that these figures are not "automatically correct" as you put it. Which seems to be why you are continuously avoiding commenting on them.

And they aren't even 8 times more expensive.:D

Chuck Stone

loremolis wrote: »

My point is that there is no differentiation between types or ages of trees in the Electricity Supply Acts and not all trees are within a SAC, a SPA or a NHA.

What do you want them to do? Have some sort of microscopically detailed criteria for what constitutes a group of trees of a indefineable emotional value greater than that which it may fetch for fire wood or furniture making?

Listen to yourself.

If they can cut down her trees today and then some older and better trees tomorrow and an orchard on Monday, where does it stop?

Oh the drama. Someone catch me for I may well feint.

You might like native woodland or a 100 year old orchard, but what if a Judge in the High Court just sees trees as trees no matter how old or environmentally/ecologically important they are?

Well then there is an appeal process. If enough people are pissed off enough about a judgement then people get together and make it economically unfeasible. Clearly enough people were not pissed off enough about mrs Treacy's trees except for those few who really haven't given the issue any critical thought at all.

The argument that Ms. Treacy's trees aren't of sufficient environmental merit is totally avoiding the issue.

What issue? If this is about demanding absolute property rights then you are living in a fantasy land. If people had absolute property rights then she wouldn't have grown the trees in the first place (I believe she is being paid to grow the trees).

Chuck Stone wrote: »

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.

Should have listened to myself.:rolleyes:

joela

loremolis wrote: »

The age and type of the trees has nothing to do with this.

Let's say that it was a hundred year old orchard or a forest of oaks. From a legal point of view there is no difference between those trees and the ones there at the moment.

If the ESB has the right to cut down trees on Ms. Treacy's land then it doesn't matter whether they are Oaks, Chestnut, Sycamore or Spruce.

Similarly, Ms. Treacy is equally entitled to defend her trees on her land regardless of their age or type.

What you are saying is that if the trees were older or of a different type then they would be more worthy of protection that the ones that are there.

The age or type of the trees doesn't matter. If you introduce the age and type of trees as a factor then the real issue is hidden because your favoutie type of tree might be different than mine or indeed Ms. Treacy's.

If you follow your argument a bit further then you're suggesting that the ESB would be wrong to cut down an old orchard or oak trees if they wanted to put up a line and the protestors would be the good guys for stopping them.

The point is that they are her trees on her land and if she values them as much as you might value a 100 year old orchard or someone else might value a forest of oaks then she has every right to protect her trees on her property as much as you or someone else would have the same right to defend the orchard or the oaks.

The age and type of trees do matter in this particular situation as much has been made of her attachment to her trees and it has been widely claimed she "hand planted" all of them. Cormac Lally, the neighbour who had never met her, claimed on RTE Radio 1 that she had walked around with a spade and a sapling in a sack planting trees. So yes, particularly in this instance lies have been told to promote her cause as fighting environmental destruction when it is blatantly untrue.

I know you flamed me last time I said this but I do KNOW that consideration is given to these things as part of the route selection. Plantation forestry is ecologically low value so it would not have been excluded for that very reason, obviously other factors were also taken into account when designing the line. As Chuck Stone said we have designated areas such as the SPA, SAC and then the pNHA and NHA's too so those are always avoided where possible as they are obviously high value nature areas.

Houses, terrain, other utilities, roads are all taken into account when selecting the route. It may be her land but unfortunately the line must go somewhere and the route selected was deemed the best route when reviewing all factors to be considered. So what is the solution, everyone just says no and nothing gets built?

joela

Ooops sorry crossed posts with a few people.

The age and species of tree is of course RELEVANT, that is why environmental reports are prepared to evaluate and assess potential impacts. The environmental report for this line was done in 2005/2006, An Bord Pleanala set some conditions from that report and that was in relation to compensatory planting. It is an awful lot easier to mitigate the loss of a commercial plantation than an ancient woodland which is practically a non-existent habitat in Ireland. You have to look at things in a greater scale too, is the habitat common and widespread in the area then the loss can be absorbed ecologically.

There may be some mature broadleaf specimens felled within the lands of Teresa Treacy as part of this scheme but while they may be more valuable in terms of ecology their loss is not great enough to make it a significant impact and mitigation will make some reasonable compensation for the loss. Forests and trees are constantly being cut down by landowners so should we prevent them cutting all their trees too? Broadleaf high value native woodland would be avoided at all costs by these types of works.

With regard to costs of lines, I asked my grid colleagues (NOT EIRGRID/ESB private company) to tell me the varying prices for UG lines they are working on at the moment. 38kV UG line for trenching and cable only €60k per km and a 110kV UG line for trenching and cable only €200k per km and I was told that they were good deals. There are other costs on top of this apparently.

Chuck Stone

joela wrote: »

So what is the solution, everyone just says no and nothing gets built?

Apparently so. Or better still, manipulate a situation where you are able to hold communities at ransome because your property rights must be respected at any cost.

The implications of absolute property rights are as unthinkable as having none at all.

joela

This stuff really worries me because these people don't care about anything but fighting the imagined oppressors http://www.teresatreacy.com/donate. What the eff are these people thinking?

Chuck Stone

joela wrote: »

This stuff really worries me because these people don't care about anything but fighting the imagined oppressors http://www.teresatreacy.com/donate. What the eff are these people thinking?

From that site.

About Teresa

Teresa is brave and makes great apple tart.

The Oak is the King of Trees.

Teresa Treacy is the Queen of Trees.

:pac:

joela

ROFL yeah I know:pac:

loremolis

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What do you want them to do? Have some sort of microscopically detailed criteria for what constitutes a group of trees of a indefineable emotional value greater than that which it may fetch for fire wood or furniture making?

I've already said:

I'm not debating the quality of the trees in the Ms. Treacy case or in the merits or demerits of her trees when compared to a native woodland or a 100 year old orchard.

I couldn't give a toss about the trees. My point is that the type of trees, be it oaks, apple or whatever doesn't matter.

Other people are suggesting that if the trees were in a 100 year old orchard or were oaks then they would be worth saving or protesting for and I'm saying that it's not about the type or age of the trees.

Even if it was a 100 year old orchard the ESB has the power to acquire it and then to put the line over the land it was on.

That power is given under section 45 of the Electricity Supply Acts.

Listen to yourself.

I'm not reading any of this out loud. I have mastered the art of reading without speaking.

Oh the drama. Someone catch me for I may well feint.

Sarcasm. It's "faint" not "feint".

Well then there is an appeal process. If enough people are pissed off enough about a judgement then people get together and make it economically unfeasible. Clearly enough people were not pissed off enough about mrs Treacy's trees except for those few who really haven't given the issue any critical thought at all.

Explain what you mean by "make it economically unfeasible". Make what economically unfeasible?

What issue?

Regardless of what type of trees, they are her trees on her land.

If the ESB want to acquire her tree planting rights then they should have CPO'd an easement.

The way they did it wasn't in accordance with their own policy on the matter or their own legislation.

If this is about demanding absolute property rights then you are living in a fantasy land. If people had absolute property rights then she wouldn't have grown the trees in the first place (I believe she is being paid to grow the trees).

I'm not demanding absolute property rights. Nor am I suggesting that the ESB have absolute rights to do whatever they want.

The ESB must be able to place power lines across private property. I'm not disputing that.

What I am disputing is their method of trying to acquire Ms Treacy's tree planting rights. There is a certain procedure for acquiring a persons land and a procedure for acquiring rights over a persons land.

What the ESB has done is cut down her trees without having used the proper procedure.

They know that they haven't used the proper procedure but they did it anyway.

Should have listened to myself.:rolleyes:

You're quoting yourself in support of your own argument.

loremolis

joela wrote: »

The age and type of trees do matter in this particular situation as much has been made of her attachment to her trees and it has been widely claimed she "hand planted" all of them. Cormac Lally, the neighbour who had never met her, claimed on RTE Radio 1 that she had walked around with a spade and a sapling in a sack planting trees. So yes, particularly in this instance lies have been told to promote her cause as fighting environmental destruction when it is blatantly untrue.

I agree that much has been made of the trees by Ms. Treacy and the "protestors" and that much of their environmental stance is bullsh1t.

My only point in mentioning the type of trees is that people who would consider it wrong if they were oaks or a 100 year old orchard are only looking at it from an environmental/preservation perspective.

Would Ms. Treacy be any more "right" in her stance if the trees were 100 year old oaks?

I don't know or care whether she planted them herself.

What I do care about is the fact that they are her trees on her land even if they are a commercial crop.

The environmental spin put on this by the "protestors" may be bullsh1t, but the fact remains that the ESB has cut down her trees without her consent and without having taken the proper steps to do so in accordance with their own legislation.

I know you flamed me last time I said this but I do KNOW that consideration is given to these things as part of the route selection. Plantation forestry is ecologically low value so it would not have been excluded for that very reason, obviously other factors were also taken into account when designing the line. As Chuck Stone said we have designated areas such as the SPA, SAC and then the pNHA and NHA's too so those are always avoided where possible as they are obviously high value nature areas.

I don't doubt that the ESB are careful not to propose a line which would destroy a native woodland or conflict with an SPA, SCA or a NHA.

Houses, terrain, other utilities, roads are all taken into account when selecting the route. It may be her land but unfortunately the line must go somewhere and the route selected was deemed the best route when reviewing all factors to be considered. So what is the solution, everyone just says no and nothing gets built?

The ESB has managed to build a lot of lines over the past 60/70 years and only a few have made headlines like this.

I'm not saying that the line won't be or shouldn't be built through the trees on Ms. Treacy's land. We all need electricity, even the people in Tullamore.:)

loremolis

Chuck Stone wrote: »

From that site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joela
This stuff really worries me because these people don't care about anything but fighting the imagined oppressors http://www.teresatreacy.com/donate. What the eff are these people thinking?

From that site.


Quote:
About Teresa

Teresa is brave and makes great apple tart.

The Oak is the King of Trees.
Teresa Treacy is the Queen of Trees.

:pac:

I actually agree with you on this.

Why do they think that people like that kind of sh1te?

joela

She gets paid compensation which factors in the loss of tree planting in a 20m (I think) corridor. How have you concluded they have cut down her trees without the proper procedure? This has been in front of several judges and lawyers so how come none of the legal professionals noticed or are they all in it together?

joela

loremolis wrote: »

I actually agree with you on this.

Why do they think that people like that kind of sh1te?

Sadly people like it and worse believe it See that is why I get so peed with this as someone who actually works in ecology because they peddle kak like this I get tarred with the same brush. I'm quite sensible about it all really

danjo-xx

When you look at the aerial view of this woodland you have to be made of steel not to feel hurt by this hugh scar cut through it.

There must have been a better way even apart from going underground, surely overhead power lines can be routed around objects.

I find it hard to accept that they can only go in straight lines but of course this is the quickest and cheapest option.


To put an old person behind bars for defending a beautiful piece of nature which shouldn't need defending anyway, in this day and age is just.........


aah I give up:(

loremolis

joela wrote: »

She gets paid compensation which factors in the loss of tree planting in a 20m (I think) corridor. How have you concluded they have cut down her trees without the proper procedure?

She gets paid compenation for loss of tree planting if she agrees to accept compensation for loss of tree planting.

She doesn't appear willing to agree anything so the ESB must resort to a compulsory acquisition order under Section 45 of the 1927 Act in order to acquire an easement for the tree planting rights.

I have a copy of such an easement somewhere if you want to see one.

They've already served a Section 53 wayleave notice on her but that doesn't get them the tree planting rights.

Section 98 (cutting or lopping trees) doesn't apply here. I can explain why if you want.

This has been in front of several judges and lawyers so how come none of the legal professionals noticed or are they all in it together?

Teresa Treacy had no lawyer in the court so she wouldn't have been aware of it.

You hardly think that the ESB were going to bring it up or that the Judge would raise it unless someone questioned it.

I guarantee that she knows it now.

Unlike some of the other stuff I was posting here previously re: undergrounding, I KNOW I'm right on this.

This is NOT a goad.

Srameen, I'd be interested in your views (or anyone else).