Pylons

Mountainsandh · 24-11-2013 07:08PM

BMJD wrote: »

It was just over 5 years ago if that matters. You missed the part where I said that after a while they were barely noticeable. They were hardly my one abiding memory of the trip, it was just unusal to see them snaking through the Andes.
Here's a pic of what I'm talking about, I can't imagine Eirgrid would plonk one on top of Newgrange like the one in my photo.

But you did mention that memory. Is that what we want the people returning home from Ireland to remember ?
"It was beautiful and wild, pity about the pylons"

I too think it wasn't a good idea to place that pylon there. Would your pic not be a lot nicer if it was not there ?

Darkpagandeath my post was to reaffirm my point, I don't see how you could feel attacked.

Mountainsandh · 24-11-2013 07:10PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I'm guessing its fine to Build 1 off houses near stuff like that though aint it ....

Eirgrid are not proposing to build one off houses.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-11-2013 07:12PM

Manchester7 wrote: »

FoxT wrote: »

WALL OF TEXT

Underground costs are different to undersea costs.

fits · 24-11-2013 07:19PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I'm guessing its fine to Build 1 off houses near stuff like that though aint it ....

Honestly. Why is being used as a stick to beat opponents to the projects with?

I live in a village! I am not going to rest no matter what happens with Gridlink until the landscape of my area is recognised and protected.

Yes there are one off houses but in my opinion far less than in other parts of the country and do we try and rectify the mistakes of the past or throw in the towel and let the landscape be completely degraded?????

WoollyRedHat · 24-11-2013 07:19PM

OneArt wrote: »

Oh my God, infrastructure! What is this Devil-craft?

When electrcity was being introduced to rural Ireland they thought just that, that this strange and cosmopolitan intrusion was ungodly. They were suspicous of it.

darkpagandeath · 24-11-2013 07:20PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Eirgrid are not proposing to build one off houses.

So Leprechauns build houses now ? I'm pretty sure a house is man made just like a pylon so if you have a massive problem with pylons you must have the same massive problem with houses.

darkpagandeath · 24-11-2013 07:23PM

fits wrote: »

Honestly. Why is being used as a stick to beat opponents to the projects with?

I live in a village! I am not going to rest no matter what happens with Gridlink until the landscape of my area is recognised and protected.

Yes there are one off houses but in my opinion far less than in other parts of the country and do we try and rectify the mistakes of the past or throw in the towel and let the landscape be completely degraded?????

Because it points out there hypocrisy they have no problem with there fancy bungalow (even if it has been there say 300 years) but a massive problem with the pylons

BMJD · 24-11-2013 07:23PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But you did mention that memory. Is that what we want the people returning home from Ireland to remember ?
"It was beautiful and wild, pity about the pylons"

Well it's a thread about pylons. If it were about stray dogs, I could voice my displeasure about seeing so many of them in S. America too. A busfull of Yanks isn't going to happen upon a pylon in Co. Wherever, vomit and turn around and go home.

I too think it wasn't a good idea to place that pylon there. Would your pic not be a lot nicer if it was not there ?

Like I said, Eirgrid wouldn't stick one on Newgrange or whatever. I have 100's of photos that don't have a pylon hanging around. Point is, they are a necessary part of modern life, like motorways etc.

fits · 24-11-2013 07:25PM

How many one off houses can you see here?
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Raheendarragh,+Carlow,+Ireland&hl=en&ll=52.625248,-6.816502&spn=0.030219,0.084543&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=40.27343,86.572266&oq=rahenndarragh+&t=h&hnear=Raheendarragh,+County+Carlow,+Ireland&z=14&layer=c&cbll=52.625155,-6.816994&panoid=D3GS61k30ckSsUepCRyksQ&cbp=12,180.17,,0,0

BMJD · 24-11-2013 07:27PM

fits wrote: »

How many one off houses can you see here?
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Raheendarragh,+Carlow,+Ireland&hl=en&ll=52.625248,-6.816502&spn=0.030219,0.084543&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=40.27343,86.572266&oq=rahenndarragh+&t=h&hnear=Raheendarragh,+County+Carlow,+Ireland&z=14&layer=c&cbll=52.625155,-6.816994&panoid=D3GS61k30ckSsUepCRyksQ&cbp=12,180.17,,0,0

if you zoom out and switch to earth there are dozens

fits · 24-11-2013 07:29PM

Most of them are there a lonnng time I can assure you.

BMJD · 24-11-2013 07:30PM

and? in 20 years the pylons will be there a lonnng time too:P

Mountainsandh · 24-11-2013 07:57PM

I was reading a report to the French Assemblée Nationale about the burying of cables for high power lines, it's all in French but here's a link anyway. It is from 2000 so a bit dated now, but it's kind of a good thing, because we can take it that technological advances have greatly improved the prospect for underground, and lowered costs.

It has a section on Denmark, who at that time had a great percentage of underground lines. One line in particular was built underground to preserve landscape, it's 19 km long, but what they did, in order to have lesser maintenance costs, was to built verification pits every 800 m, where machines would monitor the spot were cables link with the next length of cable. This design was to ensure there was no need for intervention for 40 years. At the time the report was written 4 years had passed without any incident on that line.

It also seems to point to supraconductivity, and at that time the author of the report thought that would be the way of the future meaning less heat release, oil leaks, no electromagnetic field, and less volume for equal power load.

In his conclusions he is very strongly advocating the change to underground, believing that with better technology costs should go down and make it a realistic option to replace existing lines and bury new ones. He reckons France is lagging behind and it should change its culture of aerial power lines.

Another interesting paragraph and table show the risks associated with aerial lines vs underground for population (working, leisure...). There is also another table comparing ground surface requirements, repair duration, etc... Repair times are longer for underground, but surface requirements, and frequency of interventions are less.

Again, this is from 2000. One would hope that 13 years later the costs have again gone down and the technology is more cost effective. He did mention too that with larger/more numerous projects, costs could go down by 20% (costs of cables, insulation material, etc...).
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/rap-oecst/lignes_elect/i3477.asp#P404_17643

fits · 24-11-2013 07:59PM

Mountainsandh. Great and all as it is that you're posting it here, please submit to Eirgrid as well before the November 26th deadline!

Mountainsandh · 24-11-2013 08:09PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So Leprechauns build houses now ? I'm pretty sure a house is man made just like a pylon so if you have a massive problem with pylons you must have the same massive problem with houses.

I really don't see your point.
One off houses are there. The more recent ones were a mistake imo, and should never have been built, but now they are there.
Some of the one offs are also houses that were there long before the arrival of electricity.

So what's your point ?

Yes, Eirgrid has to make do with that, and find a solution to people's dislike of pylons near their houses. It's just something that they have to facture in, and look for solutions to.

One solution is to place the cables underground.

It's not like the people are rushing to build their one off bungalow right now on the Gridlink route.

Just to be clear on my situation, I'm in a one off house that is an old renovated house, no large pylons nearby, and not on the Gridlink route.

darkpagandeath · 24-11-2013 08:10PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I was reading a report to the French Assemblée Nationale about the burying of cables for high power lines, it's all in French but here's a link anyway. It is from 2000 so a bit dated now, but it's kind of a good thing, because we can take it that technological advances have greatly improved the prospect for underground, and lowered costs.

It has a section on Denmark, who at that time had a great percentage of underground lines. One line in particular was built underground to preserve landscape, it's 19 km long, but what they did, in order to have lesser maintenance costs, was to built verification pits every 800 m, where machines would monitor the spot were cables link with the next length of cable. This design was to ensure there was no need for intervention for 40 years. At the time the report was written 4 years had passed without any incident on that line.

It also seems to point to supraconductivity, and at that time the author of the report thought that would be the way of the future meaning less heat release, oil leaks, no electromagnetic field, and less volume for equal power load.

In his conclusions he is very strongly advocating the change to underground, believing that with better technology costs should go down and make it a realistic option to replace existing lines and bury new ones. He reckons France is lagging behind and it should change its culture of aerial power lines.

Another interesting paragraph and table show the risks associated with aerial lines vs underground for population (working, leisure...). There is also another table comparing ground surface requirements, repair duration, etc... Repair times are longer for underground, but surface requirements, and frequency of interventions are less.

Again, this is from 2000. One would hope that 13 years later the costs have again gone down and the technology is more cost effective. He did mention too that with larger/more numerous projects, costs could go down by 20% (costs of cables, insulation material, etc...).
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/rap-oecst/lignes_elect/i3477.asp#P404_17643

19 km that's not very long and i bet it was stupidly expensive but hey Denmark has the cash we don't. They have lots of fancy tech in Denmark as they have the cash to purchase it. Same in France there pretty well off Guess what Ireland is broke and still needs Infrastructure. So we bow down to the few people this affects and when we have no money to run ambulances hospitals and so on will they all be happy ? Things are way more expensive in 2013 compared to 2000 well not houses there is a thing called inflation.

Mountainsandh · 24-11-2013 08:25PM

fits wrote: »

Mountainsandh. Great and all as it is that you're posting it here, please submit to Eirgrid as well before the November 26th deadline!

Will do.
I also have interesting links to a very comprehensive review of numerous studies on the effect of low magnetic fields from high power lines on health, from the official/government Public Health and Safety organisation in France (ANSES). In 2008, they were asked by the French Minister for Health and Environment ministers to review again and summarize the findings of various studies. Their take on it is that some studies show a link between infantile leukemia and the proximity to high power lines, however it has not been possible so far to reproduce the causality in labs/controlled studies, and therefore the link with leukemia is still inconclusive.
However it is clearly stated that High Power lines are still internationally classified as Category 2B : "possibly cancer causing for humans".

le CIRC a classé en 2002 le champ magnétique de fréquences 50/60 Hz comme
cancérogène possible pour l’homme (catégorie 2B).

Link to a summary from this crowd, there is a pdf/larger page available somewhere http://www.anses.fr/fr/content/champs-%C3%A9lectromagn%C3%A9tiques-extr%C3%AAmement-basses-fr%C3%A9quences

I like to research things a bit.

Haven't found an update on whether France has taken note of what was said in 2000 though, and it takes time to find that stuff.

Mountainsandh · 24-11-2013 08:37PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

19 km that's not very long and i bet it was stupidly expensive but hey Denmark has the cash we don't. They have lots of fancy tech in Denmark as they have the cash to purchase it. Same in France there pretty well off Guess what Ireland is broke and still needs Infrastructure. So we bow down to the few people this affects and when we have no money to run ambulances hospitals and so on will they all be happy ? Things are way more expensive in 2013 compared to 2000 well not houses there is a thing called inflation.

That was in 1996 (that they built that underground line in Denmark). 17 years ago. Technology has hopefully gone a long way since.

If I understand what is going on right, Eirgrid have so far failed to take potential savings into consideration, as regards underground lines. Or at least they haven't published anything about that.

For example in case of a serious weather event, the underground option would turn out a lot cheaper. It's worth looking into this, but these would be long term savings, so you would indeed have to have a bit of vision for that.

The man in the report to the French Assembly above mentions that in 2000, as they did have a major weather event in 1999, that incurred great costs in repairing but also reinforcing the entire network in an attempt to protect it from future serious weather events. In his opinion it would have been very wise to invest in underground then.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-11-2013 09:59PM

In that 19 years overhead cable technology has advanced too

By adding zirconium to the aluminium alloy you can make conductors that can run hotter without sagging. so you can increase the power through existing pylons by changing the cable.

Underground cables mean you have to use DC and that requires expensive electronics that still aren't as reliable as the old swithgear. And you can increase the carrying capacity of existing pylons by using DC so they become cheaper.

TomoBhoy · 24-11-2013 10:03PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The children's hospital they weren't allowed to build in Dublin ? I'm guessing these people think magic fairy dust powers hospitals ?

Where they were thinking of building it was a bad idea, and as a parent who has spent a fair amount of time in Crumlin the parking/parent quaters outside the hospital did not do it any favours

Mountainsandh · 24-11-2013 10:44PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Manchester7 wrote: »

Speaking as a mother...

It just isn't worth the hassle because some parents get very emotive about imagined risks. Watching how parents drive and park near schools is can be downright scary. This is why there are no mobile phone masts on schools, but Garda stations have them as do many pubs and apartment blocks.

Put it this way I'm surprised that some parents aren't leading a crusade against broadband in schools, what with the wifis and satellites and stuff.

Or they are being cautious as worldwide studies have shown health implications, although not conclusive to the point of taking more drastic action. On reading several reports, I seem to come across the same status quo : studies show correlation (causality high power lines/cancer/nervous system/neurological problems, but in-vitro/lab studies cannot reproduce causality.

The Afsset in France (Agence Francaise de sécurité sanitaire de l'environnement et du travail) >> Public Health and Safety Agency released a set of recommendations to the French government in 2010.
In it (page 8, can't seem to copy paste), they recommend an exclusion zone (from high power lines) of 100 metres on both sides for all places likely to be frequented by "sensitive persons" ie pregnant women and children. They mention hospitals and schools specifically.
http://www.anses.fr/sites/default/files/documents/AP2008et0006Ra.pdf

So the Irish authorities might simply be silently observing the same kind of recommendations.

I was just looking at some European guidelines which again clearly stated that there was an unknown element as regards effects on health, and that in the meantime (while there are no more long term, conclusive studies) caution should be exercised, and some exposure guidelines should be adhered to. (it was in terms of exposure to different frequencies and very technical) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:199:0059:0070:FR:PDF

edit : sorry about all the French links, I think it is relevant to get another perspective.

Curly Judge · 24-11-2013 11:11PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The words I used earlier were Bungalow Blitz.

It refers to the series of plans from Bungalow Bliss.
None of them are traditional.
Few if any are faced in local materials or even attempt to blend into the land scape.
Most are prominent and many are white so stick out like sore thumbs.

Like I said I much prefer the relatively unspoilt coast of Mayo to Connemara just for that reason alone.

Bungalows advertising their presence means there's people around and you could be in a valley of squinting windows instead of being in a landscape where you are alone. Pylons and Wind farms and transmitters are all highly visible but you can still enjoy the loneliness of the landscape.

Bungalows..... baaad!

150 meter high wind turbines to export electricity for private profit to UK ....good?

YCMIO

darkpagandeath · 24-11-2013 11:40PM

Curly Judge wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Bungalows..... baaad!

150 meter high wind turbines to export electricity for private profit to UK ....good?

YCMIO

So you have a problem with renewable energy ?

Capt'n Midnight · 25-11-2013 12:10AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Curly Judge wrote: »

So you have a problem with renewable energy ?

Do you know I'm beginning to get that impression too :pac:

Curly Judge · 25-11-2013 12:11AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Curly Judge wrote: »

So you have a problem with renewable energy ?

Yes....and bear in mind that these pylons wouldn't be needed......well not yet anyway....if the insane rush to renewables wasn't being pushed through by the greens.
I'll bet though, that the extra cost of providing them won't appear on the cost per MW of renewables in the next puff piece you read lauding them.

Mountainsandh · 25-11-2013 12:17AM

Curly Judge wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Bungalows..... baaad!

150 meter high wind turbines to export electricity for private profit to UK ....good?

YCMIO

Just want to make it clear the quotes are not mine .

I think the turbines in the Midlands situation is similar to the current dilemma with Gridlink : all about money, and a reluctance to invest now in better solutions for the future. (oh dear, that turn of phrase is sure to be picked up on)

But I do agree with the others on how one off housing to that extent should never have been let happen. With my French background I'm a big supporter of renovating rather than pulling down old farmhouses.

I thought Captain Midnight had a good point though, it is true that a wild landscape with some pylons or one or two turbines feels less inhabited than if there were bungalows, and wilder.

But the bungalows are there to stay, and the few beautiful landscapes that are left without the intrusion of newer houses should be protected, not spoiled in turn by the addition of pylons or turbines.
And the ones with the bungalows don't need metal infrastructure on top of what's already there.

Again every time I or others bring up the simple aesthetic/scenery issue, in relation to tourism (which, bottom line, is related to the feel good factor of land untouched by human hand), it is scorned and mocked.
My very simple point is that it should not be, it should have the same weight as other approaches, and deserve the same money spent.

If health implications were clear, studies very conclusive, and it was downright proven that aerial high power lines cause cancer and other illnesses, what would happen ? would the money be spent then ? would people have to rethink, envisage other options ?

My point is that residents and domestic/international tourism considerations should bear the same weight.

Re-budget, the same as what would be done were the health implications proven to be true.

darkpagandeath · 25-11-2013 12:37AM

Curly Judge wrote: »

Curly Judge wrote: »

Yes....and bear in mind that these pylons wouldn't be needed......well not yet anyway....if the insane rush to renewables wasn't being pushed through by the greens.
I'll bet though, that the extra cost of providing them won't appear on the cost per MW of renewables in the next puff piece you read lauding them.

So all the other countries in the world using renewables are wrong then ? And the pylons may not be needed right now but they will be. Pretty sure there would be outrage if there were rolling brown outs and nothing had been put in place as a safety net. yeah planning for the future is bad.

Curly Judge · 25-11-2013 12:51AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Curly Judge wrote: »

So all the other countries in the world using renewables are wrong then ? And the pylons may not be needed right now but they will be. Pretty sure there would be outrage if there were rolling brown outs and nothing had been put in place as a safety net. yeah planning for the future is bad.

The world gets caught up in lots of fads. You're probably too young to remember the hoola Hoop and flared trousers?
Eventually they run their course, sanity regains traction and the world moves on.

Capt'n Midnight · 25-11-2013 12:52AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

If health implications were clear, studies very conclusive, and it was downright proven that aerial high power lines cause cancer and other illnesses, what would happen ? would the money be spent then ? would people have to rethink, envisage other options ?

Of course. It would be just like the way they already have restricted areas around high powered transmitters. Or would it be like the way we treat cars , cigarettes and alcohol where there are lots of preventable deaths. ?
We've removed the lead in petrol though.

And of course the problem of electricity in the home would be a lot tougher to deal with.

But so far no statistical link has been found and lots of people have looked. And that means it's probably less dangerous than Oxygen or Sunlight and not even on the scale compared to the real risks.

oppenheimer1 · 25-11-2013 01:02AM

Curly Judge wrote: »

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yes....and bear in mind that these pylons wouldn't be needed......well not yet anyway....if the insane rush to renewables wasn't being pushed through by the greens.
I'll bet though, that the extra cost of providing them won't appear on the cost per MW of renewables in the next puff piece you read lauding them.

You do know that the greens are gone?

Pylons

Comments