Pylons

Whilst not against the pylons per se, [I've stood an marvelled at them in some of the most beautiful parts of Switzerland where they run almost vertically up the sides of sheer rock faces] the fact remains that we wouldn't need them if it wasn't for the mad pursuit of renewables.
The greens, [they haven't gone away you know?] can't get the wind turbines to work without all these mods to the grid.
They won't work anyway but the renewable brigade will be able to prolong the charade a little longer if they can talk the people into accepting the spending of billions to give their ponzi scheme a soft landing.

Curly Judge wrote: »

Whilst not against the pylons per se, [I've stood an marvelled at them in some of the most beautiful parts of Switzerland where they run almost vertically up the sides of sheer rock faces] the fact remains that we wouldn't need them if it wasn't for the mad pursuit of renewables.
The greens, [they haven't gone away you know?] can't get the wind turbines to work without all these mods to the grid.
They won't work anyway but the renewable brigade will be able to prolong the charade a little longer if they can talk the people into accepting the spending of billions to give their ponzi scheme a soft landing.

The greens have gone away in quite a spectacular way - do keep up with the news. However all the other parties and civic society in general are in agreement that renewables are vitally important to the future of the country. I think what you are complaining about is that you are a tiny minority in this country that does not realise that climate change is happening and energy security is important.

Do you understand what the term Ponzi scheme means by the way? I'd be interested to know how you think this applies to renewables or is it a generic word you use for any business you disagree with?

Curly Judge wrote: »

Megavars.....?
You've really put the cat amongst the pigeons there!
Certain contributors will be frantically searching their back copies of Science Whizz to bone up on that one.
They'll be back on here quite soon giving the impression they knew all about it all the time and why renewables are immune to it.

Hydro.

micosoft wrote: »

The greens have gone away in quite a spectacular way - do keep up with the news.

You have probably heard of poetic or narrative licence sometime during your education? Perhaps not.
I use, what I like to call, argumentative license.
Some people call it irony.
Some people also find it difficult to detect it in other peoples speech or writing but it's a talent you'll probably pick up as you go along.

micosoft wrote: »

However all the other parties and civic society in general are in agreement that renewables are vitally important to the future of the country.

Not all. That is an unscientific statement. And I think I can detect from your posts that you are of a scientific bent.
There are still an [admittedly small] rump of diehards out there who think that renewables are a waste of time and I'm proud to be numbered among them.

micosoft wrote: »

I think what you are complaining about is that you are a tiny minority in this country that does not realise that climate change is happening and energy security is important.

You think wrongly.
I am a big fan of energy security. [If a small island with few natural resources
can achieve it without bankrupting itself.]
I have never denied climate change and if you can show me any place where I have done so I'll buy you your very own wind farm.

micosoft wrote: »

Do you understand what the term Ponzi scheme means by the way? I'd be interested to know how you think this applies to renewables or is it a generic word you use for any business you disagree with.

A ponzi scheme [in so far as my feeble brain can understand it]
is a scheme where smart, unscrupulous people get in early in an untenable financial venture [all the better if it has a subsidy slush fund backing it up] and get out before the bills start falling due and the sh!t hits the fan.
Of course it doesn't have to be entirely just about money.


Renewables...... maybe 20% penetration is okay, and then only to keep the cuddly brigade off the streets and out of the way while the realists get on with solving the problem of supplying the country with an electricity system that has power and punch.

'I wouldn’t like to live close to a pylon, but who would?’ – Incoming Eirgrid chair

http://www.thejournal.ie/eirgrid-pylons-1203572-Dec2013/

Good article about the pylons from yesterday's Independent.

"Who will benefit most from this electrical upgrade – the ordinary people, on whose land the ugly pylons will be built, or the well-heeled owners of private wind farms cashing in on Britain's growing demand for energy?"

http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/government-must-listen-to-rural-objectors-as-pylon-conflict-builds-29802945.html

Don't know if this has been mentioned here yet?

On 20th November last in the letters page of the Irish Times a certain Ronan de Paor proposed putting a necklace of undersea cables around the coast of Ireland with folds from that necklace coming ashore as required at all major ports and towns.
Does anyone know if this is technically or economically feasible?

Greensleeves wrote: »

'I wouldn’t like to live close to a pylon, but who would?’ – Incoming Eirgrid chair

http://www.thejournal.ie/eirgrid-pylons-1203572-Dec2013/

Who would choose IF they had a choice to live beside a:

• Motorway
• Pig Farm
• Prison
• Dump
• Petrol Station
• Pub
• Sewerage works
• Airport
• Firestation/Ambulance/Police Station
• Methadone Clinic
• Hostel
• Insert any other less then lovely but critical piece of infrastructure

Leading question was leading. At least he had the decency to give an honest answer. Nobody is saying Pylons are lovely. But they are a fact of modern life since rural electrification. No individual or community in the Irish state have the right to reject out of hand critical state infrastructure or services. Unfeasable alternatives (undergrounding) or fear mongering (health) are not reasonable responses.

Put it another way - if HV powerlines are so bad for these communities surely the campaigners are campaigning to have ALL High Voltage power-lines retrospectively under-grounded. A project that would probably cost more then the bank bailout. But they aren't because they know their claims are hyperbole to mask their "I don't want my view spoiled".

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Ironically the whole point of harvesting energy is to improve people's quality of life.

When people's quality of life is affected by the need to harvest energy, then it negates the whole purpose of whatever project.

The issue here is that a portion of the population refuses to consider that the need for infrastructure is affecting another portion of the population's way of life.

Of course you can justify some form of compromise when the need is genuine, and in the general interest, but that is not a given from what I understand.

There is a commercial intent in using Ireland's resources to sell energy abroad, that seems to play a huge part in the need to upgrade.

Whether the commercial intent is of benefit to the population of Ireland has yet to be shown clearly.

In other words, if the pylons planted all over our living areas are larger to accommodate the sale of power to foreign countries, then show us how and if it is going to benefit us, who will have to live alongside them.

If it is of no benefit to us, then find a way to make it less intrusive to our lifestyle.

Micosoft : I have no problem stating , it seems you have a problem acknowledging that this could be important, crucial, to someone's quality of life.

Would you have a problem saying : "I want a Luas/bus line within 5 minutes walk of my house" ? Would you be ashamed of saying something like that ?

I have no problem contributing to the Luas in my taxes. It's infrastructure, and needed somewhere, although I've never needed it, and am unlikely to ever need it.

You could argue that the Luas/bus is needed for visitors to Dublin too, that would make a lot of sense.
And I could argue that the view is something that visitors to the countryside appreciate and expect, that would make a lot of sense.

Where it doesn't make sense, is when the inconvenience, or the imposition on one's lifestyle, is for commercial purposes.

It's not all about setting up infrastructure, it is also about when and where to not develop it.

Your disingenuous urban/rural nonsense does not work on me. I live in the countryside. I make a significant living from the countryside (that awful word - "commercial", do you think Farmers are volunteering or, shudder, making a profit from the land). Furthermore I live within 500M of a HV line and my parents where I grew up was <50 metres. So again, your disingenuous Luas nonsense does not work on me.

A view is not a human right.

Every other line of your statement has already been discredited (a national grid has no proven societal benefit????) along with your smokescreen tactics of throwing in foreign countries etc. Perhaps the English people who live beside the Gas pipe supplying our countries gas and a significant amount of our power generation should lobby to close it - why should they have risk/inconvenience for foreigners to benefit?

The issue is that a tiny portion of society wants all the benefits of modern life but none of the potential downsides. The rest of society needs to stand up to this blackmail and make it plain that the need to have reliable, cost effective energy in this country far outweighs the minor inconvenience of affecting somebodies view from their bungalow.

I'll leave on a simple question. Do you propose taking all the existing HV lines in this country and burying them even at a cost that would potentially out spend the bank bailout? If not why not?

Mountainsandh wrote: »

With all due respect Micosoft you are totally missing my point.

Make as much money out of the countryside as you want, that's none of my business as long as it doesn't affect me and what I think is important.

I think I entirely get your point and you are avoiding addressing mine.

Your statement here is a non sequitur. The mere fact someone lives in the country side has an impact through traffic, demands on local services. Bringing it up a notch if I were spreading slurry that would impact on you no? If I had a pig farm or abattoir? It's a matter of degree of impact.

The concept of a compulsory purchase order is in enshrined in our legislation and has been supported at every legal level since...

So I reject your contention that you believe nobody can have an impact on you or what you think is important. It's neither practical or legal nor is it something that happens.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I have stated before in this thread and others, that I think the visual aspect of Ireland is important, and that, in my opinion, tourism should bear as much weight as any other industry or scheme. And one sure way to affect tourism, again in my opinion, is to destroy one of the things people come to Ireland for : scenery.

And this has been addressed before - there are pylons in FAR FAR more scenic and touristed parts of the country. It is literally a non-issue that has been invented.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I don't know your personal situation so my example is just that, an example.

You know enough to stop the "you must be Urban" craic that you raised before. I'm no hypocrite and understand that you have to deal with the inconvenient aspects of modern life. Pylons are fairly far down the list.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I will rephrase what I was saying in simple terms since you don't seem to get what I was trying to say :
if the big pylons are needed to sell energy to the UK, but are not necessary to upgrade the Irish grid, then the only reason someone will have a massive pylon in the field at the back of them will be so someone else can make money, without any benefit for the person looking at that pylon.

Again let me repeat : I have no pylon on my land, nor is any coming within 20km of my house.

But I do have family who have a 220 kv pylon within 25 m of their house.

They had no problem accepting that.

Aside from the faux nationalistic "big pylons are needed to sell energy to the UK" nonsense. Ireland buys in electricity from the UK frequently (in fact, if their is a strike we will be hugely dependent on UK energy).

Let me explain to you in simple terms.
- Everyone in this country needs electricity.
- We are shifting from carbon fuels to renewables (unless you deny global warming).
- We need to reinforce our grid for other reasons such as continuity of supply.
- We need to supply energy to industrial locations in the south and south east.
- Therefore we need a upgraded distribution system in the South East.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

No. It would be a great bonus if this happened, but there is no need. Because what is there is not as intrusive as what is proposed. Because the size of say, the 220 kv pylons that are on my MIL's land is not a great thing, but they have been there for years, and she has accepted that.

The issue here is that the pylon 25 m from her front door, under this new scheme, will be upgraded to 440 kv. Not for her and other Irish people's benefit, but for selling wind energy from Ireland to the UK.

So what I am saying is : show us who is going to profit from selling energy to the UK. If that 30 m pylon is to turn into a 45 m pylon, it has to be of benefit to my MIL, amongst others. Not just for the profit of one businessman.

OK - I really get what you are saying now - it's about complete hypocrisy. Old lines good. New lines bad.

You make it out as if we've never put in 400KV lines before. We clearly have.

We have an all islands grid and energy market. The proposed lines are as much for the South East as it is for other uses. Using faux nationalism is not an argument but in any case you never addressed why the English should put up with High Pressure Gas Line supplying Gas to "Irish" people....

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Will be back later, no more time now, your sentence about "a view not a human right" is as disingenuous as my arguments.

Disingenuous. not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does
By any reasonable standard a scenic view is not a human right. I don't believe you are think a scenic view is a human right and if not you debase and trivialise the notion of human rights which itself is an affront to human rights. Please show some evidence from the UN, EU, Amnesty or any other Human Rights organisation that supports your contention.

Your position comes down to:
- A conspiracy theory that it's some shadowy "profit making" businessman stealing electrons from Ireland to sell to, god help us, English people. And that's the only purpose of the line.
- I don't care about anyone else. Old HV lines good. New HV lines that affect me Bad.
- Made up "human rights".

So you have a right to have a view on this and reject pylons. I have a right to reject that view, and when people in this country see the cost of the fanciful undergrounding framed in the context of their electricity bill they will too. I seriously doubt people and businesses will accept a minimum of €1,000,000,000 on their electricity bill to pay for someones view in the south east (and to hell with anyone else who already had their view spoilt). The needs of the many will outweigh the needs of the few and after some bluster from "local" politicians minding their seats for profit, the cold reality will make the overhead line a fact.