Pylons

Billy86

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Replacing existing infrastructure is one matter... continuing bad practice is another.

Why?

This strikes me as wanting to have your cake and eat it too. If these pylons are such a hazard in your opinion, then 'better' methods should be adopted around the whole country and not just in rural areas.

almighty1 wrote: »

In some cases I agree. There is no fooking way in hell I would buy a house within 100metres of a 46m high pylon (unless it was going for absolute pittance and it was my last resort). And I'd take a fair punt that 99% of the population would agree with me.

So you're telling me that only around 46,000 people would agree to live within 100m of pylons in all of Ireland unless there were no other options and the property was basically given to them for nothing? Because I'm pretty sure there's a lot more than that living within 100m of pylons in this country already.

Blahblah2012

Billy86 wrote: »

Why?

This strikes me as wanting to have your cake and eat it too. If these pylons are such a hazard in your opinion, then 'better' methods should be adopted around the whole country and not just in rural areas.

Not sure what you are implying with cakes and eating them. I don't discriminate between rural and urban communities. Best (and safe) practice should be applied nationwide. But these "individuals" don't care as it doesn't affect them.

Billy86 wrote: »

So you're telling me that only around 46,000 people would agree to live within 100m of pylons in all of Ireland unless there were no other options and the property was basically given to them for nothing? Because I'm pretty sure there's a lot more than that living within 100m of pylons in this country already.

As far as I'm aware it's 50m(open to correction).
I think nobody would agree to live beside them...it's just that the people who do had NO CHOICE.

almighty1

MadYaker wrote: »

Are houses allowed to be built within 100m of these pylons? I would seriously doubt it but I don't care enough to actually look it up.

I don't know if a house can be built within 100 metres but I know a pylon can be constructed within 50 metres of a house.

almighty1

Billy86 wrote: »

So you're telling me that only around 46,000 people would agree to live within 100m of pylons in all of Ireland unless there were no other options and the property was basically given to them for nothing? Because I'm pretty sure there's a lot more than that living within 100m of pylons in this country already.

I'm taking it from a perspective of potential buyers, e.g. they have a choice.

And at the moment there aren't too many 46m high pylon routes in Ireland.

Billy86

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Not sure what you are implying with cakes and eating them. I don't discriminate between rural and urban communities. Best (and safe) practice should be applied nationwide. But these "individuals" don't care as it doesn't affect them.

But I don't see what the dangers are - the cancer risks are even debunked as 'unfounded/unproven' on some cancer awareness websites, along with things like skin colour being a factor in getting cancer, getting kicked in the testicles can give you testicular cancer, and eating coloured jelly babies increasing your chances of getting cancer.

As far as I'm aware it's 50m(open to correction).
I think nobody would agree to live beside them...it's just that the people who do had NO CHOICE.

The post I quoted (which you both thanked and replied to with '+1') said 100m, and I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that nobody who moved near them had any say in the matter of where they live to be honest.

Capt'n Midnight

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Replacing existing infrastructure is one matter... continuing bad practice is another.

MadYaker wrote: »

You would have to be living literally underneath the cables for that to make a calculable difference to your chances of getting leukemia and other types of cancer. The electromagnetic fields created by wiring and appliances in your home are as much of a risk.

MadYaker wrote: »

Are houses allowed to be built within 100m of these pylons? I would seriously doubt it but I don't care enough to actually look it up.

almighty1 wrote: »

I don't know if a house can be built within 100 metres but I know a pylon can be constructed within 50 metres of a house.

Houses under pylons. Follow the line for more of them - or any of the other 200KV lines into the Big Cities
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Palmerstown+Woods,+Dublin+22,+Ireland&hl=en&ll=53.336267,-6.393437&spn=0.001791,0.005284&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=38.826758,86.572266&oq=palme&t=h&hnear=Palmerstown+Woods,+Dublin+22,+County+Dublin,+Ireland&z=18
If there really is a health risk / ascetic risk then people who live that close should be sorted out first. If there isn't then the country cousins are acting out of nimbyism or hoping for compo, because they sure aren't campaigning for equal treatment :mad:

Billy86

almighty1 wrote: »

I'm taking it from a perspective of potential buyers, e.g. they have a choice.

And at the moment there aren't too many 46m high pylon routes in Ireland.

I don't know the exact height or voltage of them in Dublin, perhaps you can add a link? But either way, bigger or smaller they still have not been proven to pose additional cancer risks despite an awful lot of research into the matter, so again I fail to see what the issue is there.

almighty1

Billy86 wrote: »

I don't know the exact height or voltage of them in Dublin, perhaps you can add a link? But either way, bigger or smaller they still have not been proven to pose additional cancer risks despite an awful lot of research into the matter, so again I fail to see what the issue is there.

Plenty of reasons, house devaluation, impact to high amenity area, impact to tourism, potential health affects, etc etc......

Maybe ask the Eirgrid CEO as he famously said he wouldn't want to live close to one. Quite an admission from the head honcho of the company that plans to destroy the countryside with these horrible structures.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

Utterly irrelevant, those figures are so skewed by government interference and subsidies as to be useless for any realistic purpose.

LOL

The government can easily fiddle with the domestic retail price. But fiddling the wholesale price is tad more difficult, especially when you remember the electricity is also exported to other countries. If the UK government reduced the wholesale price from 4.8p to 3.8c we'd be leeching off them like a good thing.

Sorta like in the UK you could rig the Top 20 chart hits by buying more albums in certain shops. Over here the charts were based on the wholesale volumes so you couldn't target specific shops.

Blahblah2012

Billy86 wrote: »

But I don't see what the dangers are - the cancer risks are even debunked as 'unfounded/unproven' on some cancer awareness websites, along with things like skin colour being a factor in getting cancer, getting kicked in the testicles can give you testicular cancer, and eating coloured jelly babies increasing your chances of getting cancer.

The post I quoted (which you both thanked and replied to with '+1') said 100m, and I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that nobody who moved near them had any say in the matter of where they live to be honest.

Sure why don't u build a house in a pylon if ur so comfortable with it. Beggars belief.

Blahblah2012

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Houses under pylons. Follow the line for more of them - or any of the other 200KV lines into the Big Cities
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Palmerstown+Woods,+Dublin+22,+Ireland&hl=en&ll=53.336267,-6.393437&spn=0.001791,0.005284&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=38.826758,86.572266&oq=palme&t=h&hnear=Palmerstown+Woods,+Dublin+22,+County+Dublin,+Ireland&z=18
If there really is a health risk / ascetic risk then people who live that close should be sorted out first. If there isn't then the country cousins are acting out of nimbyism or hoping for compo, because they sure aren't campaigning for equal treatment :mad:

Captain flybynight more like it. Yawn.
Nothing to do with compo. Stop the spin. Is clear who lines your pockets

Capt'n Midnight

micosoft wrote: »

I can only go by their safety record which is pretty good so far including both Chernobyl and Fukashima.

Nope.

Like the space shuttle disaster the industry has normalised near misses.
The Japanese were very lucky that other nuclear plants weren't affected.
Stuff like 4 out of 5 backup lines failing at another plant.
Another plant had it's sea wall completed that week.

But forget about safety. Look at the costs involved with having to repair nuclear plants and the downtime and how many plants have to be fixed and how often.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Korean-reactors-cleared-for-restart-0201144.html

Three South Korean nuclear power reactors forced to stop operations in May 2013 after finding safety-related control cabling had falsified documentation have been given approval to restart.
...
The newly-constructed Shin Wolsong 2 is having its cabling replaced and still awaiting approval to start commercial operation for the first time.

Other nuclear news this year. IMHO nuclear isn't reliable because if you SCRAM you may be looking at 3 days before you can get back up to power.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-25612308

A nuclear power plant in Lancashire has been taken offline owing to a faulty boiler pump.

Back in August http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-23808744

Nuclear reactors have been shut down for the second time in three months at a plant in Lancashire.

Two reactors at Heysham 1 nuclear power station were shut down after an electrical fault in a gas turbine set off a sprinkler system on Thursday.

http://www.examiner.com/article/beaver-valley-nuclear-reactor-shutdown-zero-degrees

When the polar vortex's ultra-cold air moved into Pennsylvania Monday afternoon and plummeted to zero degrees, one of two nuclear reactors shut down at FirstEnergy Corp.'s Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station in Shippingport and remains shut down.
...
The company policy is to not disclose when the unit is expected to be back online due to competitive reasons.

LOL at the last bit.
BTW Shipping port is where they used to have a Thorium reactor running.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2014/20140107en.html

"On January 6th, 2014 at 2115 EST Indian Point Unit 3 experienced an Automatic Reactor Trip due to '33 Steam Generator Steam flow/Feed flow Mismatch.'

Billy86

almighty1 wrote: »

Plenty of reasons, house devaluation, impact to high amenity area, impact to tourism, potential health affects, etc etc......

Maybe ask the Eirgrid CEO as he famously said he wouldn't want to live close to one. Quite an admission from the head honcho of the company that plans to destroy the countryside with these horrible structures.

Do you have any studies to show how they have affected housing prices, by how much, etc where they do exist though? And likewise for tourism?

Also do you have any legit studies of potential health affects? There are studies for example that try to link cancer to coloured jelly babies, but there is also a reason they tend to be given very, very little credence. So something current and highly credible is what I mean.

And why are you not so vocal in wanting the pylons in Dublin to be taken down? It's an honest question. Especially in relation to the supposed health risks, with Dublin typically being much more congested than most other parts of the country.

Cienciano

almighty1 wrote: »

Plenty of reasons, house devaluation, impact to high amenity area, impact to tourism, potential health affects, etc etc......

Maybe ask the Eirgrid CEO as he famously said he wouldn't want to live close to one. Quite an admission from the head honcho of the company that plans to destroy the countryside with these horrible structures.

What do you mean "impact to high amenity area"?
Tourism one is bollocks, health affects is too, zero proof of house devaluation...

Billy86

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Captain flybynight more like it. Yawn.
Nothing to do with compo. Stop the spin. Is clear who lines your pockets

It's a very legitimate question - especially with Dublin being much more densely populated, typically.

As for your last sentence, you sound paranoid. Likewise it's easy to say you're having your pockets lined by FF or other political parties. Doesn't make it sound anything but paranoid though, does it? That you're resorting to this carry on and name calling doesn't speak well for your argument.

BMMachine

build 1 right beside the houses of parliament and DT rush them

Blahblah2012

Billy86 wrote: »

It's a very legitimate question - especially with Dublin being much more densely populated, typically.

As for your last sentence, you sound paranoid. Likewise it's easy to say you're having your pockets lined by FF or other political parties. Doesn't make it sound anything but paranoid though, does it? That you're resorting to this carry on and name calling doesn't speak well for your argument.

Nothing paranoid about it. If u bothered reading previous posts of mine you would have seen that I don't discriminate between urban and rural dwellers. Both are equally as important.

My interest is towards the people that FG,LB and more than likely FF are trying to bully into accepting these monstrosities on their properties or close to their properties. My interest is also with not repeating the mistakes of the past. The above mentioned parties have a long history of making the people of this country look like total fûckin eejits. Those standing pricks have no conscience.

Capt'n Midnight

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Captain flybynight more like it. Yawn.
Nothing to do with compo. Stop the spin. Is clear who lines your pockets

so you are saying those who have had to live with cables aren't entitled to compo but that we should spend a lot more on undergrounding them on the offchance rural dwellers might be offended ?

Blahblah2012

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

so you are saying those who have had to live with cables aren't entitled to compo but that we should spend a lot more on undergrounding them on the offchance rural dwellers might be offended ?

Is that you Enda?

roadrunner16

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

That clearly explains the long term effects of(continuous) exposure to high levels of EMF's alright.

show me one conclusive study done by a reputable source.

Blahblah2012

roadrunner16 wrote: »

show me one conclusive study done by a reputable source.

There isn't any(that I'm aware of)...no more than there's no conclusive study to show it's safe.
It is up to Eirgrid(or should be) to prove(conclusively) that it's safe. Not the other way around.

EoghanIRL

I was watching a documentary on nuclear power plants last year . It focused in on their safety rating and location and the conclusion was that quite a few wouldn't be allowed be built today because there location aren't safe .

So I was wondering where could you put one in Ireland . I'm actually interested to find out . Any proposed plans or anything ?

Capt'n Midnight

EoghanIRL wrote: »

I was watching a documentary on nuclear power plants last year . It focused in on their safety rating and location and the conclusion was that quite a few wouldn't be allowed be built today because there location aren't safe .

So I was wondering where could you put one in Ireland . I'm actually interested to find out . Any proposed plans or anything ?

Carnsore point was earmarked for one.

It would have to go somewhere remote and close to a big city. Remote because of NIMBY's and close to a big city to keep transmission and pylon costs to a minimum. And it would need lots of cooling water so would almost certainly have to be by the coast.

Perhaps down Moneypoint way otherwise along the coast from South/East coast from Cork to Dundalk , but ruling out any tourist, fishing or populated areas.

MadYaker

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

There isn't any(that I'm aware of)...no more than there's no conclusive study to show it's safe.
It is up to Eirgrid(or should be) to prove(conclusively) that it's safe. Not the other way around.

Actually it is the other way around....

Blahblah2012

MadYaker wrote: »

Actually it is the other way around....

Thatssss riiiight...or whatever you're trying to say.
:-)

Billy86

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Is that you Enda?

You still haven't answered his question. In fact it is becoming blatantly obvious that you're actively avoiding doing so.

There are also no up to date, conclusive studies to show that coloured jelly babies are safe. And yes, there are people worried about jelly babies giving them cancer. Should jelly babies be made illegal?

Sir Arthur Daley

All food colourings have to pass strict food regulations so it is unlikely that they can cause cancer. However, although strict food regulations such as those in UK and EU, and Australia pass these colours as safe for use with food, there is a growing minority who believe the effects of colourings have not been well enough researched and consider their use an unnecessary risk.

D Trent

roadrunner16 wrote: »

way more expensive, way more time , way more danger, way more in cost for maintenance, would you rather someone built a pylon either side of your field and have a cable above it or dig up the ground and render it useless for months on end ?

No way is it way more maintenance if you have underground lines no storm like the ones we've had recently can affect them. The recent wind did cause damage to some overhead lines resulting in some customers losing electricity be it for a short time

Capt'n Midnight

D Trent wrote: »

No way is it way more maintenance if you have underground lines no storm like the ones we've had recently can affect them. The recent wind did cause damage to some overhead lines resulting in some customers losing electricity be it for a short time

you are less likely to have a fault but when you do it's underground so it takes longer to repair

overhead cables can be checked using a thermal scanner from a helicopter (or UAV perhaps in the near future) cold spots show where insulators have failed

not sure how you'd do preventative maintenance for underground cables

more on
http://www.elp.com/articles/powergrid_international/print/volume-18/issue-2/features/underground-vs-overhead-power-line-installation-cost-comparison-.html

The typical repair duration of cross-linked polyethelene (XLPE), a solid dielectric type of underground cable, ranges from five to nine days. Outages are longer for lines that use other nonsolid dielectric underground cables such as high-pressure, gas-filled (HPGF) pipe-type cable, high-pressure, fluid-filled (HPFF) pipe-type cable, and self-contained, fluid-filled (SCFF)-type cable. In comparison, a fault or break in an overhead conductor usually can be located almost immediately and repaired within hours or a day or two at most.

Eirgrid have done network upgrades recently where they replaced the cables with one with zirconium alloy or something that allowed them run hotter which means at peak time they could carry more current without having to change the pylons (or insulators IIRC) underground cables can't be upgraded as easily

Thanks very much

Mountainsandh wrote: »

What's causing the anger is that there is an alternative.

I'm delighted I came upon this post so early in the thread. Please explain the alternative.