Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Pylons

1…2122242627…53

Comments

  • #692
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Blahblah2012 wrote: »
    Yes..and what engineering marvels they are....

    Which also didn't affect tourism like the pylons wont.
    Well they didn't show much respect for the hill of Tara and its surrounding area (that's of huge archaeological significance to this country) when they built the N3. Like woodquay etc..they did what suited them and fûck anything or anyone that got in their way

    Despite all the cries that it would be the end of tourism in the country it didn't affect tourism like the pylons wont.
    Well fail safe has to focus on worst case scenarios. You're obviously not an engineer!!!

    No issues with talking about the worst case scenario of the project that is currently being protested but when you start making ‘thin edge of the wedge’ type arguments about further pylons outside of Grid 25 it’s just muddying the waters because the number of pylons planned currently will have little effect on the greater Irish landscape and you have to be sensational to cover it up.


  • #693
    Blahblah2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 397 ✭✭Blahblah2012


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    Which also didn't affect tourism like the pylons wont.

    It did affect tourism. It helped it and it helps the people of this country to get from a-> b quicker.
    But it's design and construction left a lot to be desired.

    Foxtrol wrote: »
    Despite all the cries that it would be the end of tourism in the country it didn't affect tourism like the pylons wont.

    What a silly thing to say and I'm saying that nicely to placate the mods.


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    No issues with talking about the worst case scenario of the project that is currently being protested but when you start making ‘thin edge of the wedge’ type arguments about further pylons outside of Grid 25 it’s just muddying the waters because the number of pylons planned currently will have little effect on the greater Irish landscape and you have to be sensational to cover it up.

    There's nothing sensational or sensationalist about being able to read between the lines(pardon the pun)


  • #694
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Blahblah2012 wrote: »
    Probably not many. I'd sooner look at a house than a Feckin pylon though to be honest.

    So you'd rather the tens of thousands of one of houses around the country than a few corridors of pylons? We can agree to disagree. I’m not totally against one off housing but its incredibly hypocritical for someone in one to start complaining about the destruction of landscape.
    Of course they shouldn't have been given permission for a house. The countryside is for pylons(get with the program)

    I’d prefer limited corridors of roads and pylons that are for the greater use of society than national sporadic unplanned housing that suits an individual.
    Now that is a laugh..benefits everyone. Our current network benefits everyone as it is. The proposed network only benefits the few who have a vested interest in it.

    Roads and pylons benefit a lot more people than one off housing does.


  • #695
    keith16
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭keith16


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    What like the upgraded road system that stretches to most corners of the country? That really has destroyed tourism.

    I’m sure many tourists would love it if we all travelled around on horses and carts down along boreens to our thatched roof houses but if they have enough money to be traveling here they understand that we’re a first world nation that needs modern infrastructure and they won’t bat an eye at it unless it goes through the middle of a big tourist attraction and I have seen no evidence that there’s a chance of this happening.

    Whenever I hear this ‘is only the start of things’ it just shows that they can’t make an argument for something they’re trying stop and have to bring hypothetical worse case scenarios in to muddy the waters. Deal with the issue that’s on the table now, the one that so many NIMBYs are protesting.

    What, like the hypothetical situation involving tourists travelling round the country by horse and cart?

    I'll tell you what's muddying the waters. Nonsensical comparisons between a motorway network that serves most of the country and a network of giant wind turbines that serves none of the ordinary citizens of this country.


  • #696
    Blahblah2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 397 ✭✭Blahblah2012


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    So you'd rather the tens of thousands of one of houses around the country than a few corridors of pylons? We can agree to disagree. I’m not totally against one off housing but its incredibly hypocritical for someone in one to start complaining about the destruction of landscape.
    I didn't say I like the idea you mention of tens of thousands of houses thrown up all over the place without respect for the environment around it.
    Foxtrol wrote: »
    I’d prefer limited corridors of roads and pylons that are for the greater use of society than national sporadic unplanned housing that suits an individual.
    Maybe use the road network to run the power network?
    The new grid isn't for the greater use of society. And that's certainly not what's motivating those behind it.
    Foxtrol wrote: »
    Roads and pylons benefit a lot more people than one off housing does.

    We have enough pylons for our society. Try reducing the number we have instead?
    Amazing to see the wonderful engineers behind this can only come up with horse and cart technology to run this network


  • Advertisement
  • #697
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Blahblah2012 wrote: »
    It did affect tourism. It helped it and it helps the people of this country to get from a-> b quicker.
    But it's design and construction left a lot to be desired.

    Like this project plenty of hysterical NIMBYs claimed over the years that roads were going to ruin the landscape and hurt tourism, as you’ve said it actually helped.
    What a silly thing to say and I'm saying that nicely to placate the mods.

    Again, NIMBYs claimed it would hurt tourism and I don’t think there’s a shred of evidence that it did.
    There's nothing sensational or sensationalist about being able to read between the lines(pardon the pun)

    There is plenty sensationalist about using ‘thin end of the wedge’ arguments as they aren’t currently proposed so we have no clue if it will happen and to what scale. It just shows you cant make an argument about the scale of what’s being protested about because it’s very minimal in the greater scheme of things.


  • #698
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,939 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    What like the upgraded road system that stretches to most corners of the country? That really has destroyed tourism.

    What relevance has that to these wind generated pylon plans??


  • #699
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    keith16 wrote: »
    What, like the hypothetical situation involving tourists travelling round the country by horse and cart?

    I'll tell you what's muddying the waters. Nonsensical comparisons between a motorway network that serves most of the country and a network of giant wind turbines that serves none of the ordinary citizens of this country.

    So the ordinary citizens aren’t affected by everyone in the country paying increased electricity costs for the foreseeable future due to the undergrounding of cables because John and Mary built a one off house and don’t want their view ruined?


  • #700
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,939 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    So the ordinary citizens aren’t affected by everyone in the country paying increased electricity costs for the foreseeable future due to the undergrounding of cables because John and Mary built a one off house and don’t want their view ruined?

    Your the one supporting these wind generated pylon plans that will see energy bills go through the roof as has been the case across Europe


  • #701
    keith16
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭keith16


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    Like this project plenty of hysterical NIMBYs claimed over the years that roads were going to ruin the landscape and hurt tourism, as you’ve said it actually helped.



    Again, NIMBYs claimed it would hurt tourism and I don’t think there’s a shred of evidence that it did.



    There is plenty sensationalist about using ‘thin end of the wedge’ arguments as they aren’t currently proposed so we have no clue if it will happen and to what scale. It just shows you cant make an argument about the scale of what’s being protested about because it’s very minimal in the greater scheme of things.

    Please don't treat the other side of this argument with such little respect as to paint as hysterical NIMBYism.

    Ireland is a small country. Very small. So small in fact, that one off housing for a relatively small section of the population is said to have a negative impact on the landscape.

    The scale of this is going to be far from minimal. And wheter you live beside them or not, is really not the salient point here.


  • Advertisement
  • #702
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    What relevance has that to these wind generated pylon plans??

    NIMBYs complained when pretty much every major motorway was built that it would ruin the landscape and would hurt tourism and it never happened. Quite similar claims are made by quite similar NIMBYs about these pylons so it’s relevance is that it shows how often the tourism card is played and how it never comes to actually happening.


  • #703
    Blahblah2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 397 ✭✭Blahblah2012


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    Like this project plenty of hysterical NIMBYs claimed over the years that roads were going to ruin the landscape and hurt tourism, as you’ve said it actually helped.



    Again, NIMBYs claimed it would hurt tourism and I don’t think there’s a shred of evidence that it did.



    There is plenty sensationalist about using ‘thin end of the wedge’ arguments as they aren’t currently proposed so we have no clue if it will happen and to what scale. It just shows you cant make an argument about the scale of what’s being protested about because it’s very minimal in the greater scheme of things.


    This is Enda kenny stuff!! You only read what you want of what people are saying here. And throw out the same answer off the sheet in front of you.

    It has to be you Enda...with your 'thin edge of the wedge' waffle. That stupid nimbyism word that seems to have become popular with the LOL crew.

    Dear oh dear.


  • #704
    keith16
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭keith16


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    So the ordinary citizens aren’t affected by everyone in the country paying increased electricity costs for the foreseeable future due to the undergrounding of cables because John and Mary built a one off house and don’t want their view ruined?

    If you think these pylons are going to result in reduced or even static electric (no pun intended :P) bills, you are very much mistaken.


  • #705
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Your the one supporting these wind generated pylon plans that will see energy bills go through the roof as has been the case across Europe

    You clearly haven't read this thread as there's plenty of posters who are of the same opinion.

    I haven't mentioned wind doing anything to bills, I've stated a point that undergrounding will cost more than pylons do you have a problem with that statement?


  • #706
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,939 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    NIMBYs complained when pretty much every major motorway was built that it would ruin the landscape and would hurt tourism and it never happened. Quite similar claims are made by quite similar NIMBYs about these pylons so it’s relevance is that it shows how often the tourism card is played and how it never comes to actually happening.

    Bord Failte have already expressed their concerns about this project. Maybe if more people objected to the likes of ghost estates,building on floodplains etc. we wouldn't be stuck with the costly mess such things have inflicted on taxpayers etc.


  • #707
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    keith16 wrote: »
    If you think these pylons are going to result in reduced or even static electric (no pun intended :P) bills, you are very much mistaken.

    Which will cost more, pylons or putting the cables underground? Who will foot the bill if we choose the more expensive option?


  • #708
    Blahblah2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 397 ✭✭Blahblah2012


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    You clearly haven't read this thread as there's plenty of posters who are of the same opinion.

    And they all seem to sing with the same voice as well.
    Has Enda upgraded ya's from tea duty to heads of propaganda? ;)

    Foxtrol wrote: »

    I've stated a point that undergrounding will cost more than pylons do you have a problem with that statement?

    Well a dirt road costs less than a motorway.


  • #709
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,939 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    You clearly haven't read this thread as there's plenty of posters who are of the same opinion.

    I haven't mentioned wind doing anything to bills, I've stated a point that undergrounding will cost more than pylons do you have a problem with that statement?

    Try and keep up - the bulk of the pylon projects proposed are to accommodate the interests of wind developers. If Eirgrid weren't pandering to these people then their would be no need for these pylons, underground or overground


  • #710
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    keith16 wrote: »
    What countries are these? Tourists come to Ireland to see the country, we don't have a big city tourism honey pot like Paris or NY.
    Just have to point out that Dublin has pylons, and it's never seemed an issue for the people so up in arms about them now, but let's leave this aside for a minute. I really just want to correct your comment, is all - rural Ireland is not at all the only or overwhelming reason people visit here. Dublin is the most popular tourist destination in the country, followed by Galway City, followed by Cork City, followed by Limerick City.

    The most popular free tourist attraction being the National Gallery (Dublin), followed by the Botanic Gardens (Dublin), followed by the National Museum of Archaeology (Dublin), followed by the Irish Museum of Modern Art (Dublin), followed by Farmleigh (Dublin), followed by the National Museum of Decorative Arts (Dublin), followed by the National Museum of Natural History (Dublin), followed by Chester Beatty Library (Dublin), followed by the Science Gallery (Dublin)... and FINALLY! followed by Holycross Abbey (Thurles).

    The most popular paid attractions being the Guinness Storehouse (Dublin), then Dublin Zoo (Dublin), then the National Aquatic Centre (Dublin), and only then in fourth the Cliffs of Moher (Clare), followed by The Book of Kells (back to Dublin), Fota Wildlife Park (just outside Cork City) St Patrick's Cathedral (yep, Dublin), Blarney (Cork), Kilmainham Gaol (Dublin), and finally Bunratty Castle (Clare).

    While we have some very popular rural sites, I'm sorry but Dublin is by far the biggest earner and the pylons here don't seem to have really done any damage at all too tourism. And I don't think anyone can honestly say they're expecting to see pylons placed near the the Cliffs of Moher, for example.

    People typically come to Ireland because we do things a little different - for some historic stuff, some scenery, some music and culture, but ultimately for 'a bit of craic'. Some pylons are not going to change that.


  • #711
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Bord Failte have already expressed their concerns about this project. Maybe if more people objected to the likes of ghost estates,building on floodplains etc. we wouldn't be stuck with the costly mess such things have inflicted on taxpayers etc.

    Care to link me where they actually state they’re concerned as I think you might have got overly excited by the hyperbolic headline?

    All they pretty much said in a statement was that the Irish landscape is important for tourism and the impacts should be properly assessed before it goes ahead. Hardly a stinging attack on the project.


  • Advertisement
  • #712
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,939 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Billy86 wrote: »
    People typically come to Ireland because we do things a little different - for some historic stuff, some scenery, some music and culture, but ultimately for 'a bit of craic'. Some pylons are not going to change that.


    Rural tourism unlike the examples of urban tourism you cite is primarily scenery related. A visitors expectation of what he/she sees in rural areas is entirely different to their expectations in a major city or town. That is why the likes Bord Failte, the Heritage Council etc. have expressed serious concerns about this project


  • #713
    Greensleeves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 337 ✭✭Greensleeves


    Irish Georgian Society critices EirGrid plan

    The Irish Georgian Society has expressed its opposition to EirGrid’s controversial plans for a line of high voltage cable on 60 metre pylons stretching from Cork to Waterford and from there north through a number of other counties.

    In a submission to EirGrid’s consultation process, which the society circulated yesterday, it said the various routes suggested by the company were based on a “desk top” examination of landscape and buildings affected.

    “The society is gravely concerned that the identification of these feasibility corridors has been based solely or primarily on the findings of desktop analysis of existing datasets in circumstances where EirGrid acknowledges that many of these datasets are incomplete,” read the submission, which was signed by the group’s executive director Donough Cahill.

    More here...

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-georgian-society-critices-eirgrid-plan-1.1655402


  • #714
    keith16
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭keith16


    Billy86 wrote: »
    People typically come to Ireland because we do things a little different - for some historic stuff, some scenery, some music and culture, but ultimately for 'a bit of craic'. Some pylons are not going to change that.

    Absolutely. That sounds reasonable. However, this is not just going to be some pylons.

    Tourism will indeed continue to these sights you outline. But what about developing a tourist interest outside of these honeypots?

    Personally, I would have no problem living in a windy house under a pylon. I would love nothing more for sustainable energy serving Ireland, meaning cheaper electricity.

    This will not happen as a result of these wind farms / pylons.


  • #715
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,939 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    Care to link me where they actually state they’re concerned as I think you might have got overly excited by the hyperbolic headline?

    .

    I've already posted a link earlier in the thread - you claimed you read through the thread so find the link yourself


  • #716
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Try and keep up - the bulk of the pylon projects proposed are to accommodate the interests of wind developers. If Eirgrid weren't pandering to these people then their would be no need for these pylons, underground or overground

    So without wind developers there is no need to upgrade the grid currently or planning for the future, despite all the evidence posted here to the contrary?


  • #717
    Greensleeves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 337 ✭✭Greensleeves


    Eirgrid’s network plans under fire

    Monday, January 13, 2014

    Fáilte Ireland claims Eirgrid’s controversial plans to upgrade the electricity network between Munster and Leinster have ignored internationally-used guidelines for the selection of routes of high voltage power lines.

    In its submission Fáilte Ireland claims Eirgrid has underestimated the significance of landscape and visual factors in a report which outlines several 1km-wide route options.

    The €500m Grid Link project by Eirgrid to construct new overhead power lines along a 200km route from east Cork to Kildare via Wexford has sparked widespread opposition from local communities. Eirgrid’s plans will also require the installation of an estimated 750 pylons along the route which covers up to 10 counties.

    A report by consultants, Brady Shipman Martin, commissioned by Fáilte Ireland said Eirgrid’s use of internationally-recognised guidelines for the routing of overhead power lines known as the “Holford Rules” were notable for the omission of landscape among “the highest-rated criteria”.

    The first of the Holford Rules states that major areas of highest amenity value, such as areas of outstanding natural beauty, should be avoided altogether if possible, even if it means the overall length of the route needs to be increased.

    More here...

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/eirgrids-network-plans-under-fire-255064.html


  • #718
    keith16
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭keith16


    Billy86 wrote: »

    While we have some very popular rural sites, I'm sorry but Dublin is by far the biggest earner and the pylons here don't seem to have really done any damage at all too tourism. And I don't think anyone can honestly say they're expecting to see pylons placed near the the Cliffs of Moher, for example.

    Also, wouldn't it be great if Dublin had another tourist site around Wood Quay?


  • #719
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    I've already posted a link earlier in the thread - you claimed you read through the thread so find the link yourself

    I've read it and my last post broke down the statement. It's hardly the stinging attack that you wish it was.


  • #720
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,939 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    So without wind developers there is no need to upgrade the grid currently or planning for the future, despite all the evidence posted here to the contrary?

    What evidence?? If the grid needs up grading they can simply ugrade the existing pylon system. What people are objecting too are wind generated pylons to nowhere


  • Advertisement
  • #721
    Greensleeves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 337 ✭✭Greensleeves


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    So without wind developers there is no need to upgrade the grid currently or planning for the future, despite all the evidence posted here to the contrary?

    The grid will presumably need to be upgraded in the future but none of the evidence points to any pressing requirement for the massive upgrade being suggested at present.


Advertisement