Pylons

Mountainsandh · 25-11-2013 01:06AM

No CM, it means we don't know yet because long term effects studies have not yet been conclusive.

In the course of reading reports on health implications of electromagnetic fields, I came across a report that explained that a lot of everyday objects producing such fields have a very localized impact. That is, your computer screen is harmful because you are close to it, but if you keep some distance, the effect is drastically reduced. Same with your microwave.
Some less than others.
I think the TV was comparatively more harmful because the width of its field was wider.
In comparison the field from high power lines was a lot more intrusive.

By all means yes, please, let's take all the measures possible to prevent harm, starting with a reasonable distance from all homes.

My MIL has a pylon probably just about 25 meters from her house (probably less actually, but I'll allow extra room for my guesstimate). Let's not have that again for a start.

And then let's look at killing 2 birds with a stone (see, I'm no activist

), and give due consideration to the aesthetic impact. It would be a lot more acceptable to spend the money to bury them then, wouldn't it ? if the health threat was really there ? some re-routing would just have to take place too, wouldn't it ? at whatever cost, since perimeters would be imposed for health reasons.

Cars, cigarettes and alcohol are choices the people make by the way, not something that is imposed by someone else. Same for electrical appliances for that matter.

darkpagandeath · 25-11-2013 01:11AM

Curly Judge wrote: »

Curly Judge wrote: »

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.

Yes just like mobile phones were a fad for the very rich. I used to wear Flares in school.

Mountainsandh · 25-11-2013 01:17AM

That's a bit OT, but did you hear that man on the radio not too long ago promoting his book about how, to heal the planet, we should really focus on contraception and reducing fertility, more so than on renewable energies etc... he had a great point.
His reasoning (if I got it right) is that with a lesser population the impact humans have on the environment would be a lot more balanced (obviously) and the current environmental problems would gradually recede.
I always seem to catch radio conversations midway though, so I could have got it wrong.
Would like to read the book though, if anyone knows who he was.

Zen65 · 25-11-2013 01:36AM

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.

I once did a project on infrastructure in France and found that legislation in France tended to ensure that French companies were more likely to win business for major infrastructure projects. This in part explains their fascination with the nuclear industry (to protect their national company Areva).

I'm guessing somebody in France makes underground cables?

Maybe I'm too cynical?

Z

Manchester7 · 25-11-2013 01:38AM

BMJD wrote: »

I can only speculate that critical infrastructure is more important than where you want to build a gaff.

Well done on zoning in on just point 6) and obviously not reading all my other points. I explained it already but I'll try again for you.... Never once did I mention that the Grid25 project should not go ahead...In points 1) & 2) I am outlining the benefits from and the cost analysis of undergrounding and this was my mantra right from the start.. You might have missed those points.. You also seem to have missed my comment in point 6) that i had no problem with the undergrounding of the gas pipeline.

Like I have said on numerous occasions I have no problem with Grid25 once it is done properly.But, as you did mention "critical infrastructure" lets look at that... The definition of "critical infrastructure" is 'Critical infrastructure is a term used by governments to describe assets that are essential for the functioning of a society and economy'.. Now Grid25 is most certainly not essential for the "functioning of society" as the current grid system only runs at an average of 30% capacity currently, when the coldest winter in history occured in December 2010 the grid was no where near running at full capacity.. This project is for export of renewable energy to Britain and mainland Europe where we will be generating almost 3 times the renewable energy that we are required to... It is therefore "critical infrastructure" for Europe not for Ireland. We will basically be a socket for Europe to plug into.
Again I'm not saying this should not go ahead & anyway as Ireland has committed to it already. What we can do though is do the job right and underground it..

Zen65 · 25-11-2013 01:38AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

That's a bit OT, but did you hear that man on the radio not too long ago promoting his book about how, to heal the planet, we should really focus on contraception and reducing fertility, more so than on renewable energies etc... he had a great point.

Well it was only a matter of time before somebody brought sex into the debate!

Zen65 · 25-11-2013 01:47AM

Manchester7 wrote: »

Now Grid25 is most certainly not essential for the "functioning of society" as the current grid system only runs at an average of 30% capacity currently, when the coldest winter in history occured in December 2010 the grid was no where near running at full capacity..

It is horrendously inefficient (and hence environmentally damaging) to run electrical grids anywhere near to their full capacity as the energy losses rise in proportion with the square of the percentage usage. Any Grid company that allows their network to run above 50% of its capacity as a matter of course should have their directors taken out and sacked. The term 'capacity' in the electrical sense refers to the Max rating rather than the efficient running point.

I'd be amazed if EirGrid are seeking to have money invested in the grid just for the heck of it. If they say it's needed I'm inclined to believe them, rather than the most spurious and ill-conceived argument you've raised here.

Z

Mountainsandh · 25-11-2013 01:56AM

Zen65 wrote: »

Well it was only a matter of time before somebody brought sex into the debate!

Happy to oblige

About French companies supplying cables I'm sure by the same token that there are French companies thriving on the pylon business. And it's hardly surprising or underhanded to seek French suppliers for French infrastructure projects, especially when materials are likely to be heavy to transport.

Also remember I haven't had a chance to verify whether this man's advice was acted on (should really memorize his name). Will look tomorrow.
edit Mr Kert is the man, obviously working for a govt department to advise senate &assembly on environmental & scientific matters.

Manchester7 · 25-11-2013 01:56AM

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.

Yeah I'm sure a body like Eirgrid who have finances to cover barristers of any cost are bricking it about taking on a hundred or so parents outside a country school. This sort of thing would be so small fry to them its laughable... What would concern them though is potentially huge lawsuits in maybe 10 years time if a link to health effects is proven.. Better to be safe than sorry would be their attitude.

Manchester7 · 25-11-2013 02:00AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Manchester7 wrote: »

Underground costs are different to undersea costs.

Thanks for your comprehensive list of figures to support your claim!!

Capt'n Midnight · 25-11-2013 02:14AM

Manchester7 wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Thanks for your comprehensive list of figures to support your claim!!

And thank you for yours.

In general it's up to the person making the extraordinary claim to provide the proof. Advertising isn't proof. It'll need to be peer-reviewed or from the site of the company that uses the installed cable or something of that ilk.

Capt'n Midnight · 25-11-2013 02:28AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

No CM, it means we don't know yet because long term effects studies have not yet been conclusive.

Since we haven't noticed any effects during the 86 years the Shannon scheme went on line would you suggest we wait another 86 years ??

The preventative principle is fine when there are major unknowns. But we're talking about stuff we've all been exposed to all our lives.

And then let's look at killing 2 birds with a stone (see, I'm no activist ), and give due consideration to the aesthetic impact. It would be a lot more acceptable to spend the money to bury them then, wouldn't it ? if the health threat was really there ? some re-routing would just have to take place too, wouldn't it ? at whatever cost, since perimeters would be imposed for health reasons.

So why should small groups in sparsely populated countryside get treatment denied to whole housing estates in the cities ????

Unless you are proposing that all urban high tension lines are buried you are asking those urbanites to subsidise something they have been denied and if you can't see the inherent unfairness in that ...

spank_inferno · 25-11-2013 02:39AM

Why are our marsh-dwelling cousins always against everything?

Must policy be at the whim of where someone wants yet another dormer bungalow?

Manchester7 · 25-11-2013 08:30AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Manchester7 wrote: »

And thank you for yours.

In general it's up to the person making the extraordinary claim to provide the proof. Advertising isn't proof. It'll need to be peer-reviewed or from the site of the company that uses the installed cable or something of that ilk.

As you may or may not have seen, I produced the figures for UG vs OG. Not advertising , but figures already out there from Eirgrids projects. It's you who is coming out with an "extraordinary claim " one liner without facts or figures to back it up.

Mountainsandh · 25-11-2013 09:03AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Since we haven't noticed any effects during
the 86 years the Shannon scheme went on line would you suggest we wait another
86 years ??

The preventative principle is fine when there are major unknowns. But we're
talking about stuff we've all been exposed to all our lives.

There could very well be plenty of anecdotal evidence, but no official study has been undertaken. Have there been official studies undertaken here in Ireland ?
Mr Mountains' Dad worked in a glass factory where most workers (around 50 or so I think) ended up with some cancer of some sort (lot of lung of course), but nothing officially recorded, or studied. So nothing official there.
Cancer is such a common occurrence that really, to establish causality, you really need closely targeted studies, no ? I mean, Mr Mountains family again, who have a pylon in their field, have just lost people to cancer, and had cancerous bits removed, but I am not on here brandishing that as evidence that lines are cancerous, right ? Because targeted, monitored studies need to be carried on.
There are in fact major unknowns (whether a child is more likely to have leukemia is pretty major), and we do not have a study to help clarify that. Please let me know if there has been a study carried on Irish families residing within say, 200 m of high power lines in Ireland, which would conclusively show the incidence (or lack thereof) of cancer within... say 30 years. So something started in the 80s, or the earlier the better). Oh, and a lot of the health implications I have read about involved neurological/nervous system illness too, so maybe the incidence of babies with spina bifida and other such conditions being born to a Mum who has lived 20 years under a high power line, and lived her pregnancy there, should be studied. Maybe there's something already done on that topic ?

So why should small groups in sparsely populated countryside get treatment
denied to whole housing estates in the cities ????

Unless you are proposing that all urban high tension lines are buried you are
asking those urbanites to subsidise something they have been denied and if you
can't see the inherent unfairness in that ...

Actually again reading about Europe, a lot of urban centres have underground stretches distributing power, and yes by all means, let town folks have that if they find overhead lines a problem. There are a lot of these urban underground stretches described in the Rapport to the French National Assembly. For political reasons, Berlin seems to have been one of the first, but others are doing it because of less political reasons. Not just Europe, Japan and the US also mentioned in that very comprehensive report, a lot of urban places using underground stretches.

Before you talk about fairness though, you also have to facture in people's choices : people already living in the city and having a power line pulled beside their estate were in the exact same position as the farmer in the ancestral home, with a line being pulled in his field.
People who decided to come settle in the city (from somewhere else), have made a choice to settle in a high infrastructure area, with all the glorious advantages, and all the bitter inconvenience it entails.
Like : brilliant, bus stops outside the door. Less brilliant, my baby's breathing the fumes. Just like they make a choice about smoking, drinking, using their car ... they make a choice of dwelling location.

Of course I know from reading a good few threads on this here that a lot of posters think people should not have the choice of where they want to live. I don't agree with this very basic (imo) point of view.

almighty1 · 25-11-2013 02:41PM

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/eirgrid-will-look-at-underground-pylon-plan-as-row-deepens-29779352.html

EIRGRID has said it will consider putting the controversial national pylon project underground, as Communications Minister Pat Rabbitte comes under intense political pressure over the escalating crisis.

In an interview with the Sunday Independent, senior company executives said the final decision would be down to the planning authorities, but insisted it had no objection to the project going underground.

EirGrid, which has been rocked by mounting public anger over plans to erect giant 45-metre pylons across huge swathes of the countryside, also admitted it had not attended any of the growing number of mass meetings taking place across the country in opposition to the project, despite requests to do so.

Meanwhile, Mr Rabbitte is coming under intense political pressure to broker a solution to the deepening pylon crisis.

Last week saw the highly unusual spectre of FG and Sinn Fein TDs uniting in attacking Mr Rabbitte as they themselves feel the brunt of a backlash in their constituencies.

In one incident, the Co Roscommon home of Senator John Kelly was pelted with eggs thrown by anti-pylon activists.

As opposition groups spring up across the country, senior EirGrid executives insisted the company was not opposed to the project going underground.

However, they claim the plans to erect the giant pylons as part of a massive €3.2bn overhaul of the country's electricity infrastructure is the most cost-effective option.

EirGrid transmission project manager Deborah Meghan told the Sunday Independent: "We are not anti-underground. As part of the assessment of the project we will look at it. We look at cabling, we look at undergrounding – we must consider alternatives."

Ms Meghan said EirGrid would recommend to the planning authorities to push ahead with its favoured option of erecting the giant pylons overground, despite rising public opposition to the project.

It also warned the cost of laying electricity cables underground would be up to three times higher than going overground, which would have to be passed on to customers. However, anti-pylon groups said EirGrid was unable to provide exact figures to back this up.

darkpagandeath · 25-11-2013 03:42PM

almighty1 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/eirgrid-will-look-at-underground-pylon-plan-as-row-deepens-29779352.html

looks like they maybe forced into sparing no expense now if this lot get there way .. yay for uber expensive electricity good job lads ... Oh and just adding a point nothing in this country ever ends up cheaper than expected so they better be prepared for 5/6 times more expensive in reality.

spank_inferno · 25-11-2013 06:34PM

If it keeps all the Bull McCabes happy, Eirgrid may have to relent......

,... and we will watch our power costs rise.

Birdnuts · 25-11-2013 06:40PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

looks like they maybe forced into sparing no expense now if this lot get there way .. yay for uber expensive electricity good job lads ... Oh and just adding a point nothing in this country ever ends up cheaper than expected so they better be prepared for 5/6 times more expensive in reality.

Its the likes of Eamonn Ryan and Pat Rabitte that want to hit Irish consumers the hardest in that regard

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/site/farming.php?newsid=17812

The phrase "people in glass houses....." springs to mind

fits · 25-11-2013 06:57PM

Gridlink Consultation Period extended until January 7th.

'The Minister for Energy, Pat Rabbitte T.D. said: “The decision by Eirgrid, in response to the request of the Joint Oireachtas Committee, to extend the period of public consultation for the Gridlink Project beyond 26 November is welcome.

“People and Community Groups will now have until January 7th to make their input. Whereas, ultimately, only one corridor can be selected, it is important that no citizen feels impeded in any way from setting out their response for appropriate consideration.”

darkpagandeath · 25-11-2013 06:57PM

Birdnuts wrote: »

Its the likes of Eamonn Ryan and Pat Rabitte that want to hit Irish consumers the hardest in that regard

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/site/farming.php?newsid=17812

The phrase "people in glass houses....." springs to mind

Yeah that paper would not be biased at all .... and nice lack of figures or facts

Birdnuts · 25-11-2013 07:16PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yeah that paper would not be biased at all .... and nice lack of figures or facts

I would say its based on facts like Denmark and Germany having the most expensive retail electricity prices in the EU thanx to the policies that Eamonn Ryan and co want to inflict on this country. Such facts are easily checked so have a good google instead of throwing stones out of your glasshouse.

Capt'n Midnight · 25-11-2013 08:02PM

So they are considering undergrounding a €4Bn project for three times the cost because someone assaulted a senator with eggs.

Talk about parish pump politics

And let's be clear about one thing, there are proven health risks to getting pelted with eggs. :mad:

TBH that person throwing the eggs should now be excluded from any benefit of re-routing because otherwise we are rewarding anti-social behaviour.

If it was only an issue of a couple of meters of extra cable to allow pylons to be stepped back further I don't think anyone would have an issue. But undergrounding means significant cost increase on a multi billion project.

micosoft · 25-11-2013 09:11PM

Eirgrid never had a problem under-grounding where it made economic and practical sense. However due to the level of untruth (such as the nonsense health scares from anti-science posters on this thread) being spread in the localities this has not become a technical operation but a political one - the arguments around overhead lines all come down to Nimbyism at it's worst.

There is a simple solution though - place a levy on the property tax on those along the corridor for their "undergrounding". A couple of thousand per annum over the next forty years to payoff this needless cost if incurred. Sure they will all be millionaires from the profits tourism will bring in so can afford it.

micosoft · 25-11-2013 09:14PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yeah that paper would not be biased at all .... and nice lack of figures or facts

Information is readily available.

For the record I think Germany are doing the right thing except for getting rid of their exceptionally safe nuclear plants and relying on coal until renewables kick in. Energy security is something Ireland won't know until it smacks us in the face. Of course we've never been to good on foresight. Let's wait till the blackouts....

Birdnuts · 25-11-2013 09:36PM

micosoft wrote: »

Information is readily available.

For the record I think Germany are doing the right thing except for getting rid of their exceptionally safe nuclear plants and relying on coal until renewables kick in. Energy security is something Ireland won't know until it smacks us in the face. Of course we've never been to good on foresight. Let's wait till the blackouts....

I wouldn't be as optimistic - most of the windier parts of Germany are already covered in Turbines, despite this costs continue to rise and last winter they were particularly dependent on their cold fired power stations due to long periods of windless freezing conditions across the country.

Capt'n Midnight · 25-11-2013 09:58PM

micosoft wrote: »

Information is readily available.

For the record I think Germany are doing the right thing except for getting rid of their exceptionally safe nuclear plants and relying on coal until renewables kick in. Energy security is something Ireland won't know until it smacks us in the face. Of course we've never been to good on foresight. Let's wait till the blackouts....

Germany stopped ordering new coal plants shortly before the economic turndown. All the new build is what was ordered and started by then. Coal is too valuable to use for power. They are using lignite, and that means a lot more CO2.

Since then most of the new power supplies have been wind or PV. They are adding about 7.5GW of PV a year.

Look up the stuff on the Eirgrid site. We've at least 50% more disatchable capacity on hand than our peak power demand. If we needed even more then it's simply a matter of not closing all the old plants as the new ones under construction come on line.

As an aside the Germans shutdown two of their pebble bed / Thorium reactors because of safety problems. Once you start digging deeper into the history of nuclear you find lots of stuff that didn't make the headlines. How many people know about the fake safety certs that mean multiple reactors in South Korea are offline ?

micosoft · 25-11-2013 10:00PM

Birdnuts wrote: »

I wouldn't be as optimistic - most of the windier parts of Germany are already covered in Turbines, despite this costs continue to rise and last winter they were particularly dependent on their cold fired power stations due to long periods of windless freezing conditions across the country.

They are bringing the wind energy down from the north sea and connecting to a supergrid.

micosoft · 25-11-2013 10:09PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Germany stopped ordering new coal plants shortly before the economic turndown. All the new build is what was ordered and started by then. Coal is too valuable to use for power. They are using lignite, and that means a lot more CO2.

Since then most of the new power supplies have been wind or PV. They are adding about 7.5GW of PV a year.

I stand corrected re Lignite. Awful stuff. My point was that they did need to bridge this gap whilst building renewable capacity.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Look up the stuff on the Eirgrid site. We've at least 50% more disatchable capacity on hand than our peak power demand. If we needed even more then it's simply a matter of not closing all the old plants as the new ones under construction come on line.

Not sure what you're getting at here. We mainly use CCGT for peaking. Most of that is pretty modern. Moneypoint is our baseload plant/security if the gas goes out. In either case I actually think a supergrid is the best solution - renewables when we can generate, backup when we can't. No fossil imports. That said we still need to deal with the need to create Megavars.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

As an aside the Germans shutdown two of their pebble bed / Thorium reactors because of safety problems. Once you start digging deeper into the history of nuclear you find lots of stuff that didn't make the headlines. How many people know about the fake safety certs that mean multiple reactors in South Korea are offline ?

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

Birdnuts · 25-11-2013 10:10PM

micosoft wrote: »

They are bringing the wind energy down from the north sea and connecting to a supergrid.

The costs of that assuming its even practical are astronomical even for Germany. Industry and public are already complaining about power prices there so I can't see that flight of fancy ever seeing the light of day.

Pylons

Comments