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

Alexa Billions Pension wrote: »

There you go making unsupported statements again. :rolleyes:

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

I've already accepted that underground is more expensive than overhead.

Just because I still question the figure of 8 times more expensive, doesn't mean that everyone else is automatically correct.

I used 90% because at some stage I came across a list of the lengths of the various types of transmission lines and the lengths of underground lines and the figure of 90% was what I remember.

I wasn't trying to be exact, it was an approximate figure.
If you took your head out of your ass you would see that.

My last post quoted a post by copeyhagen.

That poster, which you thanked, used a figure of 90% layoffs in their office.

90% of layoffs in one ESB offices seems like an exaggeration but I didn't see you raising a question.

In my post of 12:16 I said that I apologised for some of my earlier posts and said I would like to continue the discussion.

I have no problem in discussing, debating or giving my opinion. I also have no problem apologising if I'm wrong.

You stay on the fence where it's safe.

I think the maintenance of a HV line like this is pretty costly. From what I have read and been told ug does not guarantee reliability so any fault is a much bigger problem to deal with. Someone else here was saying that due to the nature of it, ug, then faults can take days to fix whereas the ovg is obviously easier to access and locate the fault. Thus it means power outages are much more protracted which obviously is not good when you are providing power to such a large area.

Paparazzo wrote: »

Not sure of the stats I read, something along the lines of you get about half the faults with underground, but they take twice as long to fix.
And the cable quality deteriorates far quicker underground compared with overhead.
I think if you want underground around your private land you should be able to request a quote and pay for it yourself.

Wind farm developers underground cables, all at their own cost! I think the voltage is usually lower but I know of one case where they will have to underground a higher voltage but it is predominantly along roads. That is all I know about it, no idea of actual cost or distance.

I don't know where else to post this but I am genuinely quite concerned about it.

On twitter there is an account purporting to be Teresa Treacy and I came across it today and I guess I am wondering if a) the Treacy family & indeed Teresa know about it and b) if I should do something about it, like notify someone. Is it illegal to be posting

I have a new website and there's an open weekend on my land this weekend hosted by 'Protest Camp Teresa'. All Welcome.

here is also a Facebook page posting the same invitation, also called Teresa Treacy.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Teresa-Treacy/164471736970470?sk=wall

One of the tweets really upset me actually, it is as follows
While I'm in jail the ESB are trying to scare and bully my family with threats of mounting costs. Why don't they just underground the lines?

What an awful thing to say

joela wrote: »

I don't know where else to post this but I am genuinely quite concerned about it.

I think the extremists are starting to get involved. Ie: people who are solely looking to make trouble, start riots etc. Those that aren't involved with the Treacy family or interested in issues - compromise be damned!

carveone wrote: »

I think the extremists are starting to get involved. Ie: people who are solely looking to make trouble, start riots etc. Those that aren't involved with the Treacy family or interested in issues - compromise be damned!

I think they always were because I received some nasty messages on twitter when I disagreed with the untruths being told. I have blocked quite a few of them but I had feared that they were acting on their own behalf. The supposed written message from Teresa, the very strange voice recording posted in various places and now this!

Fecking scary actually:eek::eek:

Alexa Billions Pension wrote: »

Again, inaccurate and years out of date. Ever heard of contestability? Customers such as Windfarms or HV customers can build their own Lines and stations if they feel they can do so for less than the ESB/Eirgrid charges. CER introduced this a few years ago.
I'd let this go only you keep making statements that are simply not true. Opinions I can deal with and accept but not blatant inaccuracies of fact.

Read my posts from earlier today.

I know about contestability. You're using it out of context.

Even if those lines are built by the windfarm operator, HV customers or private electricity generators they amust be handed over to ESB Networks free of charge.

Instead of trying to knock others, what insights have you proferred into this?

What will happen in the Teresa Treacy situation?

It appears that it's a civil matter now. If so she can't go back to prison until she breaks another court order.

Anything informative or interesting to add?

joela wrote: »

WTF is your problem, are you really so stupid? You have continuously badgered and argued and I didn't reply because I didn't want to engage but jesus this takes the biscuit. You think the same "scared little 65 year old lady" was tweeting from prison and is opening up her precious land to the world? Get a bloody grip, people are pretending to be her and speaking on her behalf and you say the ESB and EirGrid are problems here? I'm actually incredulous at your comment.

Relax your kaks. It was a simple question.

If your "incredulous" at my comment then you don't get out much.

If you don't like what I post then ignore it and I'll skip over yours too.

loremolis wrote: »

Relax your kaks. It was a simple question.

If your "incredulous" at my comment then you don't get out much.

If you don't like what I post then ignore it and I'll skip over yours too.

I already skip over most of your posts mainly because as many others have pointed out they are hugely inaccurate but also because you seem to take great delight in badgering people for no good reason. Yes I am incredulous at that comment particularly when I had said I was genuinely concerned so an answer like yours is likely to be found wanting. A helpful response would have been nice.

Nulty wrote: »

I accept your argument and I agree to a certain extent, but this particular individual wants nothing except her trees and her land. I reckon she'd swap all the modern and public amenities for her trees and her land. It's more than that to her (whether it is a he or a her 18yo-105yo). Her land and her trees are EVERYTHING* and our electricity is negligible. It's not like we'll have our electricity taken away.

* I don't know this to be true but I'm basing my argument on that assumption

You really believe that? I think it extremely unlikely to be true, perhaps I'm cynical, that this is the situation. Not wishing to provoke an arguement but this particular lady is (was?) a business woman, she still owns properties other than this land and the trees planted were for commercial purposes. She is almost 99.9% certain to be receiving grant aid for the forestry which means she will be required to fell them within about 5-10years and my god her land will look far worse then than it does after a small percentage has been felled. These trees will be sold and she may then replant depending on the programme she signed up to, the native trees will remain for a while longer but ultimately they too are destined for felling. So truthfully I don't know what it is about but it isnt the trees or at least not in the way you describe.

I also think that while her apparent love of the land seems admirable the overall effect of the powerline is going to be minimal in terms of her land. I can't understand why people can't see that ESB and EirGrid planting native trees and shrubs is a really good thing for her if her concern is about her land. It will hugely enhance the land even with pylons etc. in terms of wildlife and it will also be good for the nearby river. I really think we are not seeing the big picture here and the reports being fed to the press and via social media is not from reliable sources.

Sorry Mr Moderator.

joela wrote: »

... this particular lady is (was?) a business woman, she still owns properties other than this land and the trees planted were for commercial purposes.

According to the maps there's a sawmill right across the road. Bit of luck that.

A tiny twist of fate and all the protestors would be protesting about her - bloody rackrenting landlords living on 100 acres while the rest of us can't afford a roof etc etc. Top 1% blocking lines to a needed hospital while they look for compo.

joela wrote: »

I already skip over most of your posts mainly because as many others have pointed out they are hugely inaccurate but also because you seem to take great delight in badgering people for no good reason. Yes I am incredulous at that comment particularly when I had said I was genuinely concerned so an answer like yours is likely to be found wanting. A helpful response would have been nice.

Where have I "badgered" anyone?

I've already apologised for posts that were inaccurate.

I'm here for honest debate and discussion.

In relation to your earlier post, I hope that the "protestors" are not taking advantage of Ms. Treacy.

But perhaps they are both getting something out of it.

She has them blocking the ESB access to her land and they get to protest against a state body on behalf of someone.

Anyone hazard a guess at what happens next?