Irish Woman jailed for standing her ground

cards

Teresa is a 65yr woman has been jailed by the ESB since sept 13th for trying to protect trees on her own land..Teresa agreed that the ESB could run power lines under her land, but did not want them to cut down the beautiful native trees she spent years planting,

“The route is cutting through our forest and the old Whitethorn hedgerows. For over 25 years I have used all my time and energy getting our lands into a place of natural beauty and overnight it can be destroyed with high powered lines going through forests beside the old bridge, the old laneway and through the new Oak and Ash woods I planted over 20 years ago. I have spent many years replacing dead trees and cutting gorse with my hands. I filled containers with water from the river so that my forest is a model. All my trees have been pruned individually by me to promote their growth”

“My heart is broken by the thought that they may be uprooted and thrown away. I know I will never see them in their full glory but was satisfied knowing that others would enjoy them long into the future”


http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/editorial/jailed-for-trying-to-do-the-right-thing-168545.html#.ToIgs3BzXFN.facebook#ixzz1ZBxtVFVW

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/100498

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Teresa-Treacy/164471736970470

yesterdays Update - The ESB were swarming on Teresa's land today and cut down nearly 1000 trees before noon including a 150 year old Ash Tree. Supporters had gathered by then and stopped them working for the rest of the day. Some supporters are staying on the land overnight. ESB are expected back in force before dawn. Supporters are asked to gather from 6am onwards.

PseudoFamous

cards wrote: »

I have spent many years replacing dead trees and cutting gorse with my hands.

She could have used a hedge clippers, I wouldn't have minded.

Macha

<mod>Sorry no petitions allowed</mod>

As I understand it, the majority of her forest was planted in the 1990s after receipt of a government grant. So most of it wouldn't be over 25 years old.

Mothman

I can emphasise with how Teresa feels.

I have planted and am tending to my woodland. A part of my life and soul is with my trees and frankly it would be gut wrenching to see my woodland being ripped apart.

I also have powerlines traversing my land and while there are good guys in ESB, I generally find there is a lack of repsect from ESB towards me as landowner. I also have a gas line and I find it a pleasure to deal with Bord gais and it puts ESB to shame.

She could have used a hedge clippers, I wouldn't have minded.

This to me is just making light of what I consider a personal tragedy and I feel systematic of our cultural lack of respect to our environment.

As I understand it, the majority of her forest was planted in the 1990s after receipt of a government grant. So most of it wouldn't be over 25 years old.

I fail to see the greater relevance of this. Most of it is probably over 20 years old, what difference does it make if its over 25 years old

Mothman

And just a pedantic comment, surely she was jailed for contempt of court and not for standing her ground. These media slants annoy me

One final point, the corridor for a 110kv line is 64m. I understand the need for this width, but I'm just thinking if it was my own trees and it brings tears to my eyes

Macha

Mothman wrote: »

I fail to see the greater relevance of this. Most of it is probably over 20 years old, what difference does it make if its over 25 years old

Actually it is relevant because forests that are that young do not have a significant biodiversity value. If we were talking about cutting down acres of forest that was hundreds of years old, my opinion would be different. Plus if it is commercial forestry, that changes things as the tress would be expected to be cut down in 15+ years.

The aim of the project is to upgrade the line to Tullamore that has become unreliable. I absolutely accept that the cutting down of these trees is far from ideal but don't the population of Tullamore have the right to reliable electricity?

These are hard decisions but there have to be trade offs.

mr.interested

Macha wrote: »

don't the population of Tullamore have the right to reliable electricity?

Or, to rephrase your question: Don't the population of Tullamore have the right to Teresa Treacy's land?

killerboy

Mothman wrote: »

And just a pedantic comment, surely she was jailed for contempt of court and not for standing her ground. These media slants annoy me

I agree. And I work in media, which is why I have to make news stories sometimes sound like this just to be more outrageous and interesting, but it's the worst part of my job, I have to say. Never trust what the media says cause chances are if something sounds exaggerated, it probably is

mr.interested

Mothman wrote: »

And just a pedantic comment, surely she was jailed for contempt of court and not for standing her ground.

No. She was jailed for contempt of court because she was standing her ground.

Tabnabs

I'm undecided about this case but two things I know for definite are

1. She should never have received a custodial sentence (surely this falls into the realms of cummity service for contempt of court?)
2. Seeing the work now done, it would break your heart to see your land being treated in this way

Full article
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0930/1224305001520.html

syklops

Tabnabs wrote: »

I'm undecided about this case but two things I know for definite are

1. She should never have received a custodial sentence (surely this falls into the

I, too, am in 2 minds about this case but I have to disagree with this point here. The Courts system, flawed as it is, is the only system we have for deciding things. If you don't agree with a ruling there are roads you can go down. What she did was go against a High Court ruling. by blocking the ESB from her land. Ignore the High Court, and you do time. Doesnt matter what you do, however minor the original crime, if you disobey the High Court then you are in hot water.

Allow people to ignore the High Court and you are setting a very dangerous precedence.

Corsendonk

I do remember a campaign in the 1990s to stop people planting trees in the Irish countryside because it was a "safety issue" when you couldn't see your neighbours house.:rolleyes:

Macha

mr.interested wrote: »

Or, to rephrase your question: Don't the population of Tullamore have the right to Teresa Treacy's land?

What land has been used to bring you the electricity you use to power the computer you're currently using?

I'll say it again: there have to be trade-offs and while she shouldn't be in prison, I don't see how we are going to get our national electricity grid upgraded if we're not willing to chop down any trees.She's been offered compensation, ESB have offered to replant the trees, the other 83 landowners have made agreements with ESB.

I'd like to know what people think should happen instead.

mr.interested

Macha wrote: »

And what land has been used to bring you the electricity you use to power the computer you're currently using?

Right now I'm on the battery.

But this needs to be done trough a voluntary agreement, it's about fundamental principle. Situation in which a company (not a government!) can invade people's lands is scary.

Let's assume a hypothetical situation. Would you be willing to relocate the entire Cork of 119,418 people to supply Dublin of 525,383 people with electricity?

Macha wrote: »

I'll say it again: there have to be trade-offs and while she shouldn't be in prison, I don't see how we are going to get our national electricity grid upgraded if we're not willing to chop down any trees.She's been offered compensation, ESB have offered to replant the trees, the other 83 landowners have made agreements with ESB.

She did offer the underground solution, but ESB refused.

Macha

mr.interested wrote: »

Right now I'm on the battery.

Need I state the obvious that you've missed the point?

mr.interested wrote: »

But this needs to be done trough a voluntary agreement, it's about fundamental principle. Situation in which a company (not a government!) can invade people's lands is scary.

I think you let your arguments down with the use of words like "invade". Of course voluntary agreements with appropriate compensation is ideal but I don't know enough about this situation to state that ESB haven't done enough engagement with the relevant landowners. Do you?

mr.interested wrote: »

Let's assume a hypothetical situation. Would you be willing to relocate the entire Cork of 119,418 people to supply Dublin of 525,383 people with electricity?

I'm not interested in answering clearly loaded questions that have little to do with reality. I could conversely ask you if the power supply for the entire population of Dublin needed one tree to be cut down, would you be against it? But that is not what we're discussing and I'd appreciate if you stick to the facts.

mr.interested wrote: »

She did offer the underground solution, but ESB refused.

Underground is not a panacea. The installation costs are approximately 10 times higher, they are far less reliable and maintenance and repair are very tricky, take longer and cost more.

We are not going to underground every cable in this country because it isn't practical and it costs too much. No other country that I'm aware of does it en masse.

nicholasn7322

Eirgrid applied for planning permission for the line and have statutory powers to construct vital infrastructure...deal with it! If Landowners had been allowed to stop construction of power lines during the electrification of rural Ireland most of us would be living in the dark ages. Ireland must invest in its electricity infrastructure to reduce the carbon intensity of electricity generation and to ensure secure of supply...just as important as rural electrification in the world we live in today...imo.

Shakti

Couldn't the highest paid electricians (ESB) in the world have found a way around this woman's property? as they had no problem finding their way around other lands during the planning stages?. I'd like to see the all planning proposals and objections pertaining to this power line. They headed straight for this woman's property regardless and then used and manipulated the law while securing a judge with a narrow interpretation to get her locked up while they rape her land.
Thin edge of the wedge for anyone with woodland or who cares for woodland.

nicholasn7322

You'd like to see all planning proposals and objections...well I'd advise you do actually see them before making wild assumptions about them moving their powerline from the most economically and technically advantageous route to target this woman. I just love this "because I dont know anything about it I'll just make assumptions that this company acted unethically" approach.
Seriously "rape her land", "manipulated the law" you're sound like you are writing for a Red Top.
I dont agree with everything that goes on in this country but if due process in planning and the laws of the land are to be disregarded then we might as well forget about the country alltogether. The planning process was the time to fight the permitting of this line...if the route was not the best solution Offaly County Council and/or ABP would not have permitted it provided a reasoned objection was submitted....this whole "she planted the trees herself "crap might sell papers and attrace viewership but it is just pointless chatter.
If people have a problem with what has happined why not have a discussion about the statutory powers of Eirgrid or the planning guidelines in Offaly rather that just shouting save the trees.

PS I care about our woodland and environment as much if not more than the next person.

mr.interested

Macha wrote: »

Need I state the obvious that you've missed the point?

You didn't catch my humour.

Macha wrote: »

I think you let your arguments down with the use of words like "invade". Of course voluntary agreements with appropriate compensation is ideal but I don't know enough about this situation to state that ESB haven't done enough engagement with the relevant landowners. Do you?

I find the word 'invade' very appropriate. What word would you prefer?

But we can even agree, for the sake of your argument, that ESB has done enough. If you go to a car showroom to buy a brand new car for a penny, and spend weeks to justify your offer, can you take a car just because you did enough to persuade a salesman?

Macha wrote: »

I'm not interested in answering clearly loaded questions that have little to do with reality. I could conversely ask you if the power supply for the entire population of Dublin needed one tree to be cut down, would you be against it? But that is not what we're discussing and I'd appreciate if you stick to the facts.

It's crucial to your argument. We have to extremes:
(1) Relocate the entire population of Cork to supply the entire population of Dublin;
(2) Relocate one person to supply the entire population of Dublin.

It's safe to say that the extreme (2) is what we're discussing here, to which I object, but you don't. I'm trying to work out where do you draw a line?

So, how many people like Teresa Treacy need to sacrifice their lands so that the entire population of Tullamore can enjoy watching The Late Late show?

It's a simple question to which you need respond if your argument can be of any logical validity. Again, it's a fundamental principle we're discussing here.

Macha wrote: »

Underground is not a panacea. The installation costs are approximately 10 times higher, they are far less reliable and maintenance and repair are very tricky, take longer and cost more.

What about if, hypothetically, there's another solution that could make the overhead installation further 10 times cheaper, but it would require not 84 (as discussed here), but 8,400 people to sacrifice their lands, 100 of which is like Teresa Treacy. What would you choose then?

Macha wrote: »

We are not going to underground every cable in this country because it isn't practical and it costs too much. No other country that I'm aware of does it en masse.

No, you're not. ESB would. It's a company. They incur costs, and they charge for them their customers. Simple.

Macha

mr.interested wrote: »

You didn't catch my humour.

You didn't catch my hint to answer the question.

mr.interested wrote: »

I find the word 'invade' very appropriate. What word would you prefer?

Enter property to carry out infrastructure works of strategic importance would be more appropriate.

mr.interested wrote: »

But we can even agree, for the sake of your argument, that ESB has done enough. If you go to a car showroom to buy a brand new car for a penny, and spend weeks to justify your offer, can you take a car just because you did enough to persuade a salesman?

It's crucial to your argument. We have to extremes:
(1) Relocate the entire population of Cork to supply the entire population of Dublin;
(2) Relocate one person to supply the entire population of Dublin.

It's safe to say that the extreme (2) is what we're discussing here, to which I object, but you don't. I'm trying to work out where do you draw a line?

So, how many people like Teresa Treacy need to sacrifice their lands so that the entire population of Tullamore can enjoy watching The Late Late show?

It's a simple question to which you need respond if your argument can be of any logical validity. Again, it's a fundamental principle we're discussing here.

What about if, hypothetically, there's another solution that could make the overhead installation further 10 times cheaper, but it would require not 84 (as discussed here), but 8,400 people to sacrifice their lands, 100 of which is like Teresa Treacy. What would you choose then?

[mod]Enough with the emotive, pointless scenarios. You should be able to make your arguments on the facts of the case.[/mod]

mr.interested wrote: »

No, you're not. ESB would. It's a company. They incur costs, and they charge for them their customers. Simple.

The work is being done on behalf of this country's TSO: Eirgrid. ESB own the transmission networks but due to EU law, Eirgrid is the operator. Eirgrid is state-owned.

Shakti

nicholasn7322 wrote: »

You'd like to see all planning proposals and objections...well I'd advise you do actually see them before making wild assumptions about them moving their powerline from the most economically and technically advantageous route to target this woman.

Advantageous to who exactly? certainly not to Tracy or her trees.

I just love this "because I dont know anything about it I'll just make assumptions that this company acted unethically" approach.
Seriously "rape her land", "manipulated the law" you're sound like you are writing for a Red Top.

fabricated quote based on assumption perhaps you should write for the tabloids,

I dont agree with everything that goes on in this country but if due process in planning and the laws of the land are to be disregarded then we might as well forget about the country alltogether.

You would rather forget the country altogether rather than support an elderly woman trying to save her life's work, apathetic much?

The planning process was the time to fight the permitting of this line...if the route was not the best solution Offaly County Council and/or ABP would not have permitted it provided a reasoned objection was submitted....

And they didn't at that stage see the trees in the way then?
Now your leaning toward naivety.

this whole "she planted the trees herself "crap might sell papers and attrace viewership but it is just pointless chatter.

I might advise you to be careful of throwing wild accusations of deceit.

If people have a problem with what has happined why not have a discussion about the statutory powers of Eirgrid or the planning guidelines in Offaly rather that just shouting save the trees.

no doubt that they will/are

PS I care about our woodland and environment as much if not more than the next person.

great well we can all sleep better tonight knowing that.

Macha

[mod]OK, this is an emotive issue but can we please cut out the accusations and discuss this calmly. Thanks[/mod]

mr.interested

Macha wrote: »

You didn't catch my hint to answer the question.

Because the answer is obvious. Of course, electricity is provided to me by many many many agreements, some of them involuntary ones. But that doesn't mean it's good.

Is my desire to watch The Late Late Show more important that Teresa Treacy's enjoyment from her trees?

Macha wrote: »

Enter property to carry out infrastructure works of strategic importance would be more appropriate.

And how do you call entering property without consent of the owner to carry out infrastructure works of strategic importance? You don't give me logical arguments. Cause doesn't change definition of the word. Just because it was done to carry out infrastructure works of strategic importance, it doesn't mean it's not invasion. Just because I take bread from a shop to feed dying people, it doesn't mean it's not stealing.

Macha wrote: »

Enough with the emotive, pointless scenarios.

Apologies; I was hoping you were able to give me strong arguments based on logical reasoning, and not subjective thinking without any basis.

Macha wrote: »

You should be able to make your arguments on the facts of the case.

I already did. Forget about the facts, we'll come back to them later. Let's talk about fundamental principles first. They will allow as to reach easily the conclusion about the facts you're so emotionally attached to.

Macha wrote: »

The work is being done on behalf of this country's TSO: Eirgrid. ESB own the transmission networks but due to EU law, Eirgrid is the operator. Eirgrid is state-owned.

But still it's a costumer who would pay, right?

Morlar

I am not really one for enviornmental issues but what the esb are doing here seems completely wrong to me. It's also a bit stomach churning seeing this woman put in jail considering the multitude of suspended sentences that regularly get handed down to violent repeat offending scumbags.

PseudoFamous

mr.interested wrote: »

Is my desire to watch The Late Late Show more important that Teresa Treacy's enjoyment from her trees?

Have a sense of scale. We aren't talking about just you and Teresa, we're talking about more than 15000 people who need a reliable electricity supply, versus about a hundred or two trees.

mr.interested wrote: »

And how do you call entering property without consent of the owner to carry out infrastructure works of strategic importance?

This is the very attitude that has many towns without decent telecommunications, roads, and even my own, Arklow, without sewerage treatment. The importance of the works doesn't diminish just because the owner doesn't consent to entering the property to carry them out.

mr.interested wrote: »

But still it's a costumer who would pay, right?

Yes, the customer pays, and the money earned by eirgrid is reinvested in the electrical infrastructure of Ireland, and some reallocated to the national budget.

mr.interested

PseudoFamous wrote: »

Have a sense of scale. We aren't talking about just you and Teresa, we're talking about more than 15000 people who need a reliable electricity supply, versus about a hundred or two trees.

You're right. We're not talking about:
(1) me and Teresa;
but we're also not talking about:
(2) 15,000 people and 100-200 tress.
We're talking about:
(3) 15,000 people and Teresa.

So, to match your sense of scale, is reliable electricity for 15,000 more important that Teresa's property? My answer is 'no', but let's assume 'yes' for the sake of the argument.

Now, is reliable electricity for 1 person more important that Teresa's property?

PseudoFamous wrote: »

This is the very attitude that has many towns without decent telecommunications, roads, and even my own, Arklow, without sewerage treatment.

Illogical conclusion. The problem is not that Teresa didn't allow 15,000 people to have reliable electricity. The problem is that ESB didn't agree to do undergraduate cables on Teresa's site.

PseudoFamous wrote: »

The importance of the works doesn't diminish just because the owner doesn't consent to entering the property to carry them out.

Have you read carefully? Where did I say about diminishing importance of work? I said very clearly that cause (ie, importance of work) doest not change the definition of what we do. That's all what I said.

PseudoFamous wrote: »

Yes, the customer pays, and the money earned by eirgrid is reinvested in the electrical infrastructure of Ireland, and some reallocated to the national budget.

So if underground cables costs 10 times more on Teresa's site, it would simply translate into your average monthly bill being higher by X amount of money. Let's assume it's 1 euro. Is lose of 1 euro justified to breach Teresa's rights?

Macha

mr.interested wrote: »

Because the answer is obvious. Of course, electricity is provided to me by many many many agreements, some of them involuntary ones. But that doesn't mean it's good.

Is my desire to watch The Late Late Show more important that Teresa Treacy's enjoyment from her trees?

It's more than a little facetious to suggest that electricity is used for something as trivial as watching television. People use electricity for basic services such as to heat their homes and water and to cook food. Personally I do consider those things more important than one individual's opposition to some trees being cut down. Particularly when those trees are part of a commercial forest.

mr.interested wrote: »

And how do you call entering property without consent of the owner to carry out infrastructure works of strategic importance? You don't give me logical arguments. Cause doesn't change definition of the word. Just because it was done to carry out infrastructure works of strategic importance, it doesn't mean it's not invasion. Just because I take bread from a shop to feed dying people, it doesn't mean it's not stealing.

Of course the context and reason for entering the land makes a difference.

mr.interested wrote: »

Apologies; I was hoping you were able to give me strong arguments based on logical reasoning, and not subjective thinking without any basis.

I already did. Forget about the facts, we'll come back to them later. Let's talk about fundamental principles first. They will allow as to reach easily the conclusion about the facts you're so emotionally attached to.

Now you're just being rude.

mr.interested wrote: »

But still it's a costumer who would pay, right?

In general, the costs of infrastructure are paid for by customers. In this case, it's all electricity customers who bear the costs.

loremolis

Mothman wrote: »

I can emphasise with how Teresa feels.

I have planted and am tending to my woodland. A part of my life and soul is with my trees and frankly it would be gut wrenching to see my woodland being ripped apart.

I also have powerlines traversing my land and while there are good guys in ESB, I generally find there is a lack of repsect from ESB towards me as landowner. I also have a gas line and I find it a pleasure to deal with Bord gais and it puts ESB to shame.


This to me is just making light of what I consider a personal tragedy and I feel systematic of our cultural lack of respect to our environment.

I fail to see the greater relevance of this. Most of it is probably over 20 years old, what difference does it make if its over 25 years old

Mothman,

As you've said you have woodland which has electricity cables running over it and you've dealt with the ESB, I was wondering if you've dealt with them under their policy on loss of tree planting rights?

http://www.ifa.ie/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=8r4-ZhcrG7s%3D&tabid=654&mid=2535

joela

@loremolis

Tree planting rights POST line installation right? What is to know, you can't replant trees within a certain corridor. However when you talk about compensatory planting they will replace the trees outside of the corridor and in other locations where necessary or agreed or required under planning permission.

Mothman I know your land through meetings in your house and your land is a completely different situation. Really and truly this is a forestry plantation and does not support the diversity of species that is on your land and the surrounding areas. I think your tree planting is on a much smaller scale and again these plantations are less than 20 years old and it easier to mitigate their loss. I love the natural world but I am also an electricity user, a realist and glad that they are cutting down trees and not cutting bogs.

loremolis

joela wrote: »

@loremolis

Tree planting rights POST line installation right? What is to know, you can't replant trees within a certain corridor. However when you talk about compensatory planting they will replace the trees outside of the corridor and in other locations where necessary or agreed or required under planning permission.

Mothman I know your land through meetings in your house and your land is a completely different situation. Really and truly this is a forestry plantation and does not support the diversity of species that is on your land and the surrounding areas. I think your tree planting is on a much smaller scale and again these plantations are less than 20 years old and it easier to mitigate their loss. I love the natural world but I am also an electricity user, a realist and glad that they are cutting down trees and not cutting bogs.

Have you even read the document?

mr.interested

Macha wrote: »

It's more than a little facetious to suggest that electricity is used for something as trivial as watching television. People use electricity for basic services such as to heat their homes and water and to cook food. Personally I do consider those things more important than one individual's opposition to some trees being cut down. Particularly when those trees are part of a commercial forest.

Then, assuming that the collective is more important, can you please answer: How many people need to benefit here in order to deprive the landowner of her rights?

If you're so confident in the discussed case here that the landowner can loose her rights, you should be able to give me a specific ratio and justify it.

Macha wrote: »

Of course the context and reason for entering the land makes a difference.

No, it doesn't. It still doesn't change the definition. It might be morally justified, but it violates a fundamental principle regardless of the context and reason.

Macha wrote: »

Now you're just being rude.

Wasn't my intention. But you selectively respond to my comments and avoid answering inconvenient questions.

Macha wrote: »

In general, the costs of infrastructure are paid for by customers. In this case, it's all electricity customers who bear the costs.

Agreed. Then what's the problem if a costumer pays a little bit more if the cables are installed underground on Teresa's plot?

Remember, we're not discussing here doing this on every plot. Most of the people, here 83, agreed and will agree to overhead installation. However, some people are more attached to their lands, and it is for those people that we need to seek alternatives. In this case, the alternative exists. It's just more expensive. That's it.

It seems to me that you're avoiding this option. The choice wasn't between installing or not installing. The choice was among overhead installation, underground installation, and no installation.

joela

Mr Interested, do you think you can underground just within Ms Treacy's land and the rest as overhead? Because if you do ummmmm well think about it:eek:

joela

Yes I have thanks, what is your particular beef with it? Do you have legal training because then you are possibly seeing something I am not.

Macha

mr.interested wrote: »

Then, assuming that the collective is more important, can you please answer: How many people need to benefit here in order to deprive the landowner of her rights?

If you're so confident in the discussed case here that the landowner can loose her rights, you should be able to give me a specific ratio and justify it.

I don't think trying to simplify it down to a simple ratio is useful. The situation requires consideration of a number of factors, including in this case the age of the forest, the species involved, the status of the forest (ie commercial or not), the alternatives available and costs, plus other issues.

mr.interested wrote: »

No, it doesn't. It still doesn't change the definition. It might be morally justified, but it violates a fundamental principle regardless of the context and reason.

Of course it does. It just seems that you've decided to adopt as a "fundamental principle" for you that no government or state agency is justified in entering someone's land for any reason whatsoever. I find that position quite extreme and no way to run a country.

mr.interested wrote: »

Wasn't my intention. But you selectively respond to my comments and avoid answering inconvenient questions.

[mod hat again]There is no excuse for being rude and I've already asked you to cut out the accusations. They do not add to the debate. [/mod]

mr.interested wrote: »

Agreed. Then what's the problem if a costumer pays a little bit more if the cables are installed underground on Teresa's plot?

Remember, we're not discussing here doing this on every plot. Most of the people, here 83, agreed and will agree to overhead installation. However, some people are more attached to their lands, and it is for those people that we need to seek alternatives. In this case, the alternative exists. It's just more expensive. That's it.

Because Eirgrid is at the start of a massive grid upgrade and if we pay a "little bit more" for Teresa's plot, a precedent will be set. You say that the other 83 have agreed to overhead installation but what is the lesson in your scenario for future landowners? Dig your heels in and you'll get your underground cable. Then you can multiply the cost of Eirgrid's GRID25 programme by at least 5.

mr.interested wrote: »

It seems to me that you're avoiding this option. The choice wasn't between installing or not installing. The choice was among overhead installation, underground installation, and no installation.

Underground is often unsuitable for technical reasons. In this case, Eirgrid has said that it is unsuitable due to reduced reliability. Underground cables can have too much capacitance that forces the voltage up, which leads to premature aging of the cable. Overvoltage is a common issue with underground cables.

No installation is not an option. So really the options are:
1) overhead cabling
2) underground cabling that costs 5-10 times to install, costs more to maintain and repair and is less reliable.

I care about the environment but 15 acres of commercial forestry under 25 years old are not worth it.

BryanF

so these trees are part of a commercial forest
I cant see the problem with ESB at all... and I don't see how its their fault this unfortunate prison instance happened. are the

Macha wrote: »

trees are part of a commercial forest

? well then..
I'm all for the right to protest and even to go court, but surely this public outrage is a bit much. I mean grand, look for an alternative route and kick up a fuss it was perhaps the Glen of the Downs. but this right of way is for peoples power supply... is this not simply for the 'greater good'.
are the individuals outraged the same people that would complain about a lack of infrastructure for renewable energy...

zenno

12,000 trees to be cut down is insane. I mean a hundred or two is bad enough but 12,000 that's just fooked up in a big way. this woman should not be in prison no way. if it was me I would shoot the f*ckers in the esb if they put their foot on my land.

the ESB have plenty of money to be able to put the cables under-ground, theres no excuse.

joela

zenno wrote: »

12,000 trees to be cut down is insane. I mean a hundred or two is bad enough but 12,000 that's just fooked up in a big way. this woman should not be in prison no way. if it was me I would shoot the f*ckers in the esb if they put their foot on my land.

Who gave you the figure of 12,000? I think that is a wildly inaccurate figure generated for sensationalist impact and the trees are largely conifers.

The woman is in prison, as you or I would be, for contempt of court. She made the decision to ignore the court order so there are repercussions to doing that.

zenno

joela wrote: »

Who gave you the figure of 12,000? I think that is a wildly inaccurate figure generated for sensationalist impact and the trees are largely conifers.

The woman is in prison, as you or I would be, for contempt of court. She made the decision to ignore the court order so there are repercussions to doing that.

Think what you like, but that figure is around accurate. sure the ESB are screwing us all again anyway with their 20%/30% hikes in electricity as well as the gas junk, the ESB have more than enough money to pay to have these cables put under-ground as they will make it all back in profits from screwing the rest of the citizens of Ireland.

joela

How do you know it is accurate? Where is that mentioned anywhere besides by protestors on Facebook pages and twitter ?

You can thank people like Teresa Treacy in part then for those hikes, her refusal to allow this line is costing money, the strain on the grid due to her refusal is costing us money and her refusing to abide by the court order is also costing money. Don't think the ESB are all to blame now do we?

Oh top tip: reduce your electricity consumption between 5-7pm to take pressure off the peak hours of grid access. Saves money, ex-Eirgrid engineer told me that.

zenno

joela wrote: »

How do you know it is accurate? Where is that mentioned anywhere besides by protestors on Facebook pages and twitter ?

You can thank people like Teresa Treacy in part then for those hikes, her refusal to allow this line is costing money, the strain on the grid due to her refusal is costing us money and her refusing to abide by the court order is also costing money. Don't think the ESB are all to blame now do we?

Oh top tip: reduce your electricity consumption between 5-7pm to take pressure off the peak hours of grid access. Saves money, ex-Eirgrid engineer told me that.

She is 65, a single, retired businesswoman and she will, on the order of the High Court, be held indefinitely in Mountjoy Prison unless she concedes to ESB plans to fell 12,000 of her trees.

source... http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/editorial/jailed-for-trying-to-do-the-right-thing-168545.html#.ToIgs3BzXFN.facebook#ixzz1ZBxtVFVW

joela

That is a newspaper article and is not at all accurate in terms of trees to be felled. If you could show me a method statement or report saying this then I might take more notice but at it stands it is unlikely to 100s not to mind 12,000. Definitely not true..

As a matter of interest does anyone know what length of the line is running through Teresa T's land?

zenno

joela wrote: »

That is a newspaper article and is not at all accurate in terms of trees to be felled. If you could show me a method statement or report saying this then I might take more notice but at it stands it is unlikely to 100s not to mind 12,000. Definitely not true..

As a matter of interest does anyone know what length of the line is running through Teresa T's land?

ok hang on until I drop into mountjoy prison and get the papers off this lady. :rolleyes:

joela

well until you do you don't have any proof that 12,000 trees are being cleared. Have you looked at any of the pictures hanging about on the internet? Really and truly there is no where near that many trees being removed.

Macha

[mod]If we can't cut out the attitude, I'll have to hand out a few infractions or close the thread. It's an interesting debate so let's try to keep it civil.[/mod]

marienbad

Mr.interested - can I ask if you disagree with the CPO mechanism on principle in all cases ?

zenno

well my point is the fact that the ESB have choices, in that they can put the cables under-ground and this will not destroy the landscape or her land.

we all know that the lower/middle working class in society are getting destroyed and the well off companies/businesses are doing well with their profits but there is an alternative and I don't care if it costs a bit extra for the ESB to install them under-ground as they have the cash and will obviously make it all back in profits and backhanders as they do.

if this scenario keeps up and affects many more land owners in such cases like this then Irelands environment will not be a good place either for visiting tourists. it's all wrong, as the ESB have a choice, they should do the right thing is all i'm saying.

marienbad

zenno wrote: »

well my point is the fact that the ESB have choices, in that they can put the cables under-ground and this will not destroy the landscape or her land.

we all know that the lower/middle working class in society are getting destroyed and the well off companies/businesses are doing well with their profits but there is an alternative and I don't care if it costs a bit extra for the ESB to install them under-ground as they have the cash and will obviously make it all back in profits and backhanders as they do.

if this scenario keeps up and affects many more land owners in such cases like this then Irelands environment will not be a good place either for visiting tourists. it's all wrong, as the ESB have a choice, they should do the right thing is all i'm saying.

bit of a contradiction there as it is the lower/middle working class that make up most esb customers and so will bear most of the price hikes you are so blythely advocating

zenno

marienbad wrote: »

bit of a contradiction there as it is the lower/middle working class that make up most esb customers and so will bear most of the price hikes you are so blythely advocating

you have obviously took my comment up wrong, try reading it again.

it's "blithely" not blythely.

marienbad

zenno wrote: »

you have obviously took my comment up wrong, try reading it again.

it's "blithely" not blythely.

how so ? ESB raise prices, lower and middle classes take the brunt of it.

I assume you wish genuine discussion so I will ignore the spelling comment

loremolis

marienbad wrote: »

Mr.interested - can I ask if you disagree with the CPO mechanism on principle in all cases ?

I dont want to interrupt your discussion but I'd like to clarify that the ESB hasn't used the CPO mechanism in this woman's case.

They've simply served a wayleave notice and then acted as if it's a CPO. It's not.

mr.interested

marienbad wrote: »

Mr.interested - can I ask if you disagree with the CPO mechanism on principle in all cases ?

Yes.