Pylons

darkpagandeath · 05-12-2013 07:30PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Where did I claim it was ?
But...

[/LIST]
If a project such as placing a 45 m pylon less than 500 m from their home is going to interfere with a person's home, and well being (that's mentioned in another article there, well then, human rights might come into this.

I don't think there is a need for human rights to come into it. I said you seem to have a problem understanding it can be important, crucial even to someone's quality of life. I didn't say it was a human right.
Does everything have to be a law for people to get on ?

My point still stands : we are clearly told that in some part this upgrading is needed in order to accommodate the development of renewables. How much of it is needed exclusively for the accommodation of energy from wind turbines supplying the UK ?
If we were to take the Midlands wind turbines project out of the equation, what extent of an upgrade would be needed ?

I am not asking people on here, I am saying these are questions that should be clearly answered by Eirgrid, before the project goes to planning and executing stage.
Option A : upgrade with wind export to UK.
Option B : ugrade exclusively for Irish use. (possibly/probably involving wind generated energy, Irish scale)
Then Eirgrid would have a sound argument that the scale of the project is necessary for the good of everyone.

Do you understand now how your quotes below are not really relevant to my point ?

As regards English people lobbying against a gas pipe line, did that not happen ? if it did, I could understand people lobbying against it. That might be inconvenient, but that would make sense.

after quoting article 12... so it's ok for you to use the law to your advantage when it suits you.. and then dismiss others doing the same. and does not mention a view

Mountainsandh · 05-12-2013 07:34PM

micosoft wrote: »

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.

etc...

You are trying to make it very personal, to get an outraged reaction from me.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, and to think I'm a hypocrite, although you are totally mistaken.

Don't have the time to debunk point by point.

Again I am not asking of you to explain why Eirgrid want to upgrade, and to justify the scale.

This is something that they should have made clear from the start, and it is not.

Again, I am not affected by this, other than in a general area sort of way.
There are no pylons coming outside my door.

You brought up human rights in the discussion.

I am of the opinion that if something is genuinely needed for everyone, then compromises may have to be reached, but I need to be shown in an honest and clear manner that something is genuinely needed.

As I said, you are trying to make me out as someone that I am not, and saying things that I am not, and you are still not getting my point for these reasons. You are still completely dismissing the fact that visual impact can be deemed important by others. It is not up to you to decide what is important to someone else.

Mountainsandh · 05-12-2013 07:35PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

after quoting article 12... so it's ok for you to use the law to your advantage when it suits you.. and then dismiss others doing the same.

I did not, at any stage in my previous post, mention human rights, the other poster did.
Please read the lines below Article 12 quote. Again.

Busted Flat. · 31-12-2013 08:51PM

Reading in the Sunday Indo, the Enda Kenny asking Eirgrid to be more "Transparent" in dealing with the public.
Sweet divine Jasus, Transparency does he even know how to spell the word or know the meaning of it.

Greensleeves · 04-01-2014 11:47AM

There is an interesting piece about the pylons in the Irish Examiner today.

Electricity pylon troubles are piling up
By Michael Clifford
Saturday, January 04, 2014

ELECTRICITY pylons are set to stretch out across the landscape in 2014. The issue is embedded in the political culture of this country.

Throughout large swathes of Munster and Leinster, opposition has been mobilised against the proposal by Eirgrid to erect 1,300 pylons on a corridor running from Little Island, in Cork, through Wexford to Kildare. The exact route for the ‘Gridlink’ project has yet to be decided, but nobody within an ass’s roar of it is taking any chances.

The local and European elections, in June, are shaping up to be its battleground. Heads may roll, and long-fomented ambitions for elected office may end in tatters.

One senior politician whose head should be on the block because of this issue is the hapless Minister for Health, James Reilly.

Full article here...

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2014/0104/opinion/electricity-pylon-troubles-are-piling-up-254216.html#.Usfd4YoIRlA.twitter

micosoft · 04-01-2014 05:29PM

If the article about O'Reilly is true it's a indictment of him and the quality of our political system.

If he actually believes the pylons cause cancer we can forget about this project and bring in an emergency transmission levy to raise the 30 billion euro or so to bury our existing lines (something the anti pylon protestors don't seem to get - I see no protests about existing pylons?). But as the article points out - he probably doesnt'.

SeanW · 05-01-2014 12:12AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Having a better grid means more renewables can be used.

Aaaaand here we have the crux of the matter - renewables like wind power need these monster pylons with their attendant landscape spoiling (far worse than 1,000,000 one-off houses could ever do, because a rural one off house is only about ~10 metres high and can look nice, whereas these things are ~50 metres high and usually fugly even at the best of times) and potential health risks.

Becasue you have to put these pointless, expensive, ugly, bird-chomping, bat-killing monstrosities (aka wind turbines) on the tops of mountains, offshore and in other bizzare places, there is more "need" for monster pylons, causing the attendant problems and potential problems for those living in their shadow.

If on the other hand, we told reneables peddlers "go away until you have something reliable and not needing a subsidy" and instead opted to have a network of something like Toshiba 4S "Micro-Nukes" in 10 or 50MW versions as needed, you could make most of a places energy needs in its local area or general region.

But that would involve using the dreaded n-word and according to the environmental-left, we can't have that. So we keep spending heaps on money on pointless "green" solutions and causing problems like this one.

micosoft · 05-01-2014 01:19AM

SeanW wrote: »

If on the other hand, we told reneables peddlers "go away until you have something reliable and not needing a subsidy" and instead opted to have a network of something like Toshiba 4S "Micro-Nukes" in 10 or 50MW versions as needed, you could make most of a places energy needs in its local area or general region.

As a Nuclear Energy supporter I don't see why you need to make up stuff to support your argument about wind energy. Plenty on the left that support Nukes - in fact the further to the left you go the more enthusiastic. Distributed small Nuclear power-plants are nonsense from a logistics/cost perspective. If the ESB ever gets a Nuclear plant it will be in the UK - probably South Wales because of the economics of it (built as part of the UK fleet). Nothing to do with anti-nuclear - purely how it works in the real world.

You don't address how you get power to industry or high use domestic (electric cars) either.

Capt'n Midnight · 05-01-2014 02:53AM

SeanW wrote: »

If on the other hand, we told reneables peddlers "go away until you have something reliable and not needing a subsidy" and instead opted to have a network of something like Toshiba 4S "Micro-Nukes" in 10 or 50MW versions as needed, you could make most of a places energy needs in its local area or general region.

How about coming back to us when they they are proven to work economically, or even proven to work, or even when they build one, or even when they start to build one.

They only exist on paper. And even then they are only suitable for remote off-grid areas where electricity costs are four times higher than here.

Every so often there are noises about $30m for research, but that's not going to go far when even the smallest reactor is likely to cost hundreds of millions to develop based on full size developed reactor costs of many billions each.

Like I keep telling you, hundreds of small self contained reactors have been made and operated since the 1950's. The fact that no one has commercialised any of those naval reactors tells you all you need to know about micro-nukes.

Today Nukes means reactors of 1.6GW or to get economies of scale. That's about half our average electricity demand. In other words Nukes would require even more pylons than renewables because all the eggs would be in one basket.

EDF still haven't completed an EPR. The one in Finland was started in 2005 with an initial cost of €3.7Bn, there's another in France and two in China and the Hinkley C one in the UK where the cost is heading to €19Bn (Ok it will be twice the size of the Finish one but still..)

If the nuclear industry can't even build an incremental improvement of an existing design what makes anyone think that a brand new design will be on time and on budget ??

BTW: next year predictions are for 49GW of solar being installed.

roadrunner16 · 05-01-2014 03:01AM

MadsL wrote: »

Oh my god. The ground...we can dig it up and lay cables in it. What sorcery is this???

way more expensive, way more time , way more danger, way more in cost for maintenance, would you rather someone built a pylon either side of your field and have a cable above it or dig up the ground and render it useless for months on end ?

darkpagandeath · 07-01-2014 10:33PM

Prime time discussing it should be interesting to hear both sides...

Blahblah2012 · 07-01-2014 11:15PM

Kenny and Gilmore have expressed their usual contempt for the people of this country by sacrificing "lambs"in the name of the greater "GOOD", by subjecting them to a serious potential for physical illness, huge stress and making these people's homes worthless.

What a nasty and self serving shower of bloated pigs that so many(of the same type of people) voted into power in this country. Shame on YOU!!

Busted Flat. · 07-01-2014 11:27PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Prime time discussing it should be interesting to hear both sides...

Watched Ryan talking about climate change and storm damage in the last few weeks. It surprises me he can talk out of both sides of his mouth regarding pylons. If it is above ground it is more likely to encounter storm damage than cables below ground.

darkpagandeath · 08-01-2014 12:00AM

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Kenny and Gilmore have expressed their usual contempt for the people of this country by sacrificing "lambs"in the name of the greater "GOOD", by subjecting them to a serious potential for physical illness, huge stress and making these people's homes worthless.

What a nasty and self serving shower of bloated pigs that so many(of the same type of people) voted into power in this country. Shame on YOU!!

Proof ? You do know electricity has been around for a while yes ? Seems odd that their only worried about pylons hundreds of meters away and not all the electric wiring in their house. Living in a major urban area I’m close to these massive so called risks so are lots of people. Will you pay higher electric bills for all of us to have all our cables put underground ?

zl1whqvjs75cdy · 08-01-2014 12:02AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Proof ? You do know electricity has been around for a while yes ? Seems odd that their only worried about pylons hundreds of meters away and not all the electric wiring in there house. Living in a major urban area I’m close to these massive so called risks so are lots of people.

Long as it's not near him he's not really worried. Seems to be the common theme among the anti pylon brigade.

Blahblah2012 · 08-01-2014 12:14AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Proof ? You do know electricity has been around for a while yes ? Seems odd that their only worried about pylons hundreds of meters away and not all the electric wiring in there house. Living in a major urban area I’m close to these massive so called risks so are lots of people. Will you pay higher electric bills for all of us to have all our cables put underground ?

Why should somebody else have to risk their own health, have their house devalued and look at an eyesore 365 in order for you to get cheap electricity?

Birdnuts · 08-01-2014 12:54AM

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Why should somebody else have to risk their own health, have their house devalued and look at an eyesore 365 in order for you to get cheap electricity?

The Irony is that these pylons are being built to accomodate wind power which if the experience of Germany and Denmark is anything to go by will result in some of the most expensive power bills in Europe for Irish consumers. The whole thing is a giant white elephant in the making.

Busted Flat. · 08-01-2014 01:01AM

Birdnuts wrote: »

The Irony is that these pylons are being built to accomodate wind power which if the experience of Germany and Denmark is anything to go by will result in some of the most expensive power bills in Europe for Irish consumers. The whole thing is a giant white elephant in the making.

That's the green party for you, most of them are well to do and have no problem paying their energy bills, they have never considered the struggling middle class, the working class or the unemployed, in their destruction of the country. Remember that in the local elections.

roadrunner16 · 08-01-2014 01:51AM

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Why should somebody else have to risk their own health

... I may have missed something here ? where is the risk to health ??????

Sir Arthur Daley · 08-01-2014 01:57AM

roadrunner16 wrote: »

... I may have missed something here ? where is the risk to health ??????

If they fall over.

darkpagandeath · 08-01-2014 01:58AM

WikiHow wrote: »

If they fall over.

Like your house falling down ? or any other amount of random things ?

Sir Arthur Daley · 08-01-2014 02:01AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Like your house falling down ? or any other amount of random things ?

The bad storms anything could happen you know

roadrunner16 · 08-01-2014 02:01AM

WikiHow wrote: »

If they fall over.

...oh right Ted . ok

Sir Arthur Daley · 08-01-2014 02:05AM

I believe the Concrete lorry's mix porridge with the cement so with a weak mix and stormy weather bad combo.

zl1whqvjs75cdy · 08-01-2014 09:21AM

There is no risk to health for god sake, I'm sick of hearing that. I heard a woman on the radio this morning saying if you wake up and look out the window at a pylon then its going to have long term stress implications. I've been doing just that for years and my stress levels are perfectly fine, as are all of my neighbor's.

All those that are banging on about the risk of cancer I presume you have had your house checked for known cancerous agents, such as radon gas and have properly protected yourselves from it? I also presume none of you smoke? And are all the epitome of physical fitness? Since you are all so concerned about the imaginary cancer that pylons will cause.

I'm convinced this no campaign is just a ploy to get as much money as possible out of Eirgrid for the land, when there's money on the table the (incorrect) cancer concerns will suddenly disappear I have no doubt

SeanW · 08-01-2014 09:43AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How about coming back to us when they they are proven to work economically, or even proven to work, or even when they build one, or even when they start to build one.

Last I checked the Toshiba 4S was still at NRC licensing phase.

They only exist on paper. And even then they are only suitable for remote off-grid areas where electricity costs are four times higher than here.

That is true of the 10MW version, but the 50MW version may have certain economies of scale.

BTW: next year predictions are for 49GW of solar being installed.

Which may make sense in the U.S, Southern Europe, Africa and parts of Asia where there is a strong correlation between power requirements and solar radiation (high temperatures and air conditioning, A.C. is an absolutely massive use of electricity in the 'States). It's been a rather dreadful idea in Germany where renewables subsidies have multiplied the electricity costs 2 or 3 fold while requiring lots of new pylons there (to the remote offshore and mountain locations of wind turbines, and a lot of new North-South corridors will have to be built - at billpayers expense), nor our own temperate isle where there is a negative correlation between solar radiation and power demand.

Cienciano · 08-01-2014 10:23AM

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

There is no risk to health for god sake, I'm sick of hearing that. I heard a woman on the radio this morning saying if you wake up and look out the window at a pylon then its going to have long term stress implications. I've been doing just that for years and my stress levels are perfectly fine, as are all of my neighbor's.

All those that are banging on about the risk of cancer I presume you have had your house checked for known cancerous agents, such as radon gas and have properly protected yourselves from it? I also presume none of you smoke? And are all the epitome of physical fitness? Since you are all so concerned about the imaginary cancer that pylons will cause.

I'm convinced this no campaign is just a ploy to get as much money as possible out of Eirgrid for the land, when there's money on the table the (incorrect) cancer concerns will suddenly disappear I have no doubt

We all know there's no health risk, house price won't be effected either. But "I don't want to look at them" argument doesn't carry enough weight so made up arguments are used.

mickydoomsux · 08-01-2014 11:00AM

I've seen the "No Pylons Here!" signs popping up in my area over the past week.

Mostly outside farms.

Why not be truthful and write "No Pylons Here Unless The Price Is Right!"?

gobnaitolunacy · 08-01-2014 11:21AM

Cienciano wrote: »

We all know there's no health risk, house price won't be effected either. But "I don't want to look at them" argument doesn't carry enough weight so made up arguments are used.

The house price argument is valid, people will choose not to buy if it's right next to a ruddy great pylon. The health reasons being bandied about are pseudoscience.

gobnaitolunacy · 08-01-2014 11:22AM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

I've seen the "No Pylons Here!" signs popping up in my area over the past week.

Mostly outside farms.

Why not be truthful and write "No Pylons Here Unless The Price Is Right!"?

Throw enough money at the farmers and the impasse will vanish.

Pylons

Comments