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

loremolis · 06-10-2011 10:55AM

This isn't the first time that the ESB has had someone put in Mountjoy because they wouldn't co-operate.

Does anyone know how this situation concluded?

I Heart Internet · 06-10-2011 03:16PM

longhalloween wrote: »

Hold on now, so does that mean the ESB can roll up to anyones house, say 'sorry luv we have to dig up your garden and stick a pylon in' and that's legal?

Pretty much, yes. The Electricity Acts give ESB Networks (or its agents) the right to enforce a wayleave on anyone to supply the country with electricity. It rarely comes to this but since 1921 (I believe) the ESB have had this power - rightly in my opinion.

longhalloween wrote: »

Grand it's all for the greater good or whatever but if you own a property, shouldn't it be YOUR property?

Yes, but taken to an extreme then we would have a "country" of micro-states. Unless everyone who owned a parcel of land agreed to everything, how would we efficiently lay roads, power lines, water supply, etc, etc?

longhalloween wrote: »

And so what if they were trees?? that could easily have been a shed or a garage in the way! Is she going to be compensated for the destruction of her property?

Yes. She would be compensated. Also, it's commercial forestry and would have been harvested anyway. More akin to cutting corn than some fairy dell.

She seems contrary - which, for the most part I admire in people. But I have no sympathy for her because she can choose to go home at any time if she decides to obey the laws of our state.

marienbad · 06-10-2011 03:27PM

loremolis wrote: »

His answers totally avoided the questions Miriam O'Callaghan asked him.

I'll have another look at it on RTE Player later after and give you exact instances.

But in fairness Miriam O'Callaghan's questions were meaningless , in effect '' what are you/EsB/ Eirgrid going to do to get this woman out of jail.

And as the answer was nothing (as they do not have that power) there was very little he could say . One of the reasons such RTE programmes are becoming less and less meaningful as they are just highlighting ''the human interest angle'' at the expense of real enlightment, More Liveline than current affairs.

loremolis · 06-10-2011 03:59PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yes. She would be compensated. Also, it's commercial forestry and would have been harvested anyway. More akin to cutting corn than some fairy dell.

There are two levels of compensation here.

The first, as you've rightly pointed out relates to the loss of the loss of the value of these trees for which she would receive compensation (if she wanted any).

However, she receives no compensation for the loss of her right to use the land for forestry in the future.

The land will be there for years to come and by placing the line without giving her adequate compensation for an easement they are asking her to forego the use of the land forever more without properly compensating her.

Not right.

She seems contrary - which, for the most part I admire in people. But I have no sympathy for her because she can choose to go home at any time if she decides to obey the laws of our state

She has been released without purging her contempt, so maybe the courts got it wrong.

loremolis · 06-10-2011 04:05PM

http://www.thejournal.ie/teresa-treacy-released-from-prison-247051-Oct2011/

She's been released without purging her contempt and said she'll never let them through.

Good for her.

Chuck Stone · 06-10-2011 04:12PM

loremolis wrote: »

they are asking her to forego the use of the land forever more without properly compensating her.

Forego the use forever or prevent her form planting trees while she's able to attend to them?

Could she not plant shpuds, cabbages or triffids or some other crop there?

I Heart Internet · 06-10-2011 04:22PM

I'm confused as to why she's been allowed walk free. The judge says the "punitive" and "coerciveness" of the contempt order has been used up. This seems fair enough. But the lady is still showing contempt for the order and the court that issued it. She repeats the contempt everyday.

But then no one wants an old lady remaining in jail for not very much and with no sign of a resolution so I guess I can understand why she would be relaeased now.

Seems the court is saying..."mmmmhhh....can't do a whole lot more with her."

06-10-2011 04:26PM

loremolis wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/teresa-treacy-released-from-prison-247051-Oct2011/

She's been released without purging her contempt and said she'll never let them through.

Good for her.

She was jailed as an example to others as to what could happen if you defy the law.

Don't forget that there are some very unpopular laws taxes in the pipeline, jail the odd lone wolf now with maximum publicity, deter hundreds of thousands from refusing to pay the rates/water rates.

loremolis · 06-10-2011 04:26PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

loremolis wrote: »

they are asking her to forego the use of the land forever more without properly compensating her.

Forego the use for ever or prevent her form planting trees while she's able to attend to them?

Could she not plant shpuds, cabbages or triffids or some other crop there?

She could plant whatever she wants because it's her land.

That's the point, it's her land.

If they want to stop her planting trees in the future then they must compensate her fully now.

It's not sufficient to say that it's an electricity line and you can grow your trees near it. That's not how the system works.

Paparazzo · 06-10-2011 04:27PM

The route was chosen because its the best way to avoid houses. But now its being diverted closer to peoples houses to protect someone tree crop. Unbelievable.

06-10-2011 04:28PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Forego the use forever or prevent her form planting trees while she's able to attend to them?

Could she not plant shpuds, cabbages or triffids or some other crop there?

Guard triffids, that'll keep the ESB out.

Paparazzo · 06-10-2011 04:32PM

yourpics wrote: »

On windfarms all cabling is u/g
Cant see why this isn't the same.

I see Michael Walsh is now with Eirgrid, people like him are never out of work while the rest of us suffer on.

The ESB have raised the prices for electricity but are offering jobs on job bridge scheme. They could easily afford to pay these people proper wages

Also its National Tree Day today thursday 6th Oct

So, you want cheaper electricity, but you want transmission lines underground. This reminds me of the bear tax

loremolis · 06-10-2011 04:34PM

Paparazzo wrote: »

So, you want cheaper electricity, but you want transmission lines underground. This reminds me of the bear tax

Why would undergrounding transmission lines increase the cost of electricity?

06-10-2011 04:37PM

loremolis wrote: »

Why would undergrounding transmission lines increase the cost of electricity?

It costs more money to make and bury HV cables!

Monty Burnz · 06-10-2011 04:40PM

loremolis wrote: »

Why would undergrounding transmission lines increase the cost of electricity?

Increased capital costs, and I'm guessing increased ongoing maintenance costs.

loremolis · 06-10-2011 04:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It costs more money to make and bury HV cables!

Show me the comparison figures of overground v underground that you are basing that on.

Please include the cost of wayleave payments in the figure for underground lines.

If your response is going to be "Everyone knows that undergrounding electricity lines is 5 to 8 times more expensive than overground lines", my response is "Show me the figures".

loremolis · 06-10-2011 04:44PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Increased capital costs, and I'm guessing increased ongoing maintenance costs.

Same question, show me the figures that you're basing that on.

06-10-2011 04:49PM

loremolis wrote: »

Show me the comparison figures of overground v underground that you are basing that on.

Please include the cost of wayleave payments in the figure for underground lines.

If your response is going to be "Everyone knows that undergrounding electricity lines is 5 to 8 times more expensive than overground lines", my response is "Show me the figures".

Tá sé anseo http://www.nie.co.uk/majorprojects/7%20PB%20Non%20Tech%20Summary%20Feb%2009.pdf

edit: add the interesting bit

As can be seen in the table below, the Report states that
the initial costs of putting the cables underground would
be €588 million, over seven times more than putting the
lines overhead, which would cost around €81 million.
Furthermore, the running cost of underground cables is
nearly €30 million more over the course of their lifetime.

Monty Burnz · 06-10-2011 04:56PM

loremolis wrote: »

Same question, show me the figures that you're basing that on.

To be honest, I was basing it on common sense, but Dolanbaker has hard numbers. If you really wanted to know though, you could just have Googled it.

Chuck Stone · 06-10-2011 04:59PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Increased capital costs, and I'm guessing increased ongoing maintenance costs.

Not to mention the environmental destruction of digging a big trench.

Monty Burnz · 06-10-2011 05:01PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not to mention the environmental destruction of digging a big trench.

No need. They could have just attached the cables to a giant needle and pushed it through the ground with a giant thimble.

PROVE OTHERWISE

loremolis · 06-10-2011 05:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Tá sé anseo http://www.nie.co.uk/majorprojects/7%20PB%20Non%20Tech%20Summary%20Feb%2009.pdf

edit: add the interesting bit

I said show me comparison figures i.e. calculations and costings, not two numbers picked out of a report prepared by bodies with a vested interest.

If they think that those costs are correct then why didn't they include the breakdown of the calculations?

Have you anything from an independent source or something with some credible cost analysis behind it?

Zen65 · 06-10-2011 05:06PM

loremolis wrote: »

She's been released without purging her contempt and said she'll never let them through.

Good for her.

Well that's going to make the story far more interesting. I wonder how her family will react now? It seemed for a while that they were trying to persuade her to negotiate.

Perhaps somebody should open a book on her being in court over this again?

Z

loremolis · 06-10-2011 05:08PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

To be honest, I was basing it on common sense, but Dolanbaker has hard numbers. If you really wanted to know though, you could just have Googled it.

Hard numbers? You call two unverified and unproven figures published in a 4 page report "hard numbers"?

If I was to give a quotation for a job and just include the bottom line, what would I be asked for? A breakdown.

The ESB or Eirgrid have ever published any breakdown of overhead v underground lines.

If they're so sure that overground is so much more expensive then why not publish the numbers?

I Heart Internet · 06-10-2011 05:08PM

loremolis wrote: »

I said show me comparison figures i.e. calculations and costings, not two numbers picked out of a report prepared by bodies with a vested interest.

If they think that those costs are correct then why didn't they include the breakdown of the calculations?

Have you anything from an independent source or something with some credible cost analysis behind it?

Have you?

Monty Burnz · 06-10-2011 05:09PM

loremolis wrote: »

I said show me comparison figures i.e. calculations and costings, not two numbers picked out of a report prepared by bodies with a vested interest.

If they think that those costs are correct then why didn't they include the breakdown of the calculations?

Have you anything from an independent source or something with some credible cost analysis behind it?

You are claiming that putting the powerlines underground is as cheap or cheaper than putting them on pylons, and is as cheap or cheaper to operate them underground.

Have you anything from an independent source or something with some credible cost analysis behind it to back up this claim?

Chuck Stone · 06-10-2011 05:10PM

The underground thing is a red herring anyway because the trees would have still been chopped, a big trench dug, and she wouldn't have been able to plant trees over an underground cable anyway.

It was re-route or straight through I'm guessing.

What would have been interesting is how much a re-route would have cost.

loremolis · 06-10-2011 05:12PM

Zen65 wrote: »

Well that's going to make the story far more interesting. I wonder how her family will react now? It seemed for a while that they were trying to persuade her to negotiate.

Perhaps somebody should open a book on her being in court over this again?

Z

It's hard to see how she can end up back in prison.

I heard her on the radio saying that she would nbever let them through and that she was going to get a lawyer.

If "negotiations" break down and she keeps blocking them, what can they do?

Do they go back to court and say that they couldn't agree and they want her locked up again?

It's not going to happen.

loremolis · 06-10-2011 05:13PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Have you?

You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

loremolis · 06-10-2011 05:13PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The underground thing is a red herring anyway because the trees would have still been chopped, a big trench dug, and she wouldn't have been able to plant trees over an underground cable anyway.

It was re-route or straight through I'm guessing.

What would have been interesting is how much a re-route would have cost.

Why can't they underground the cables around the forest?

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

Comments