Pylons

Zen65 · 19-01-2014 09:34PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

This is an enthusiastic summary of what needs to be done, giving a vague idea that "Significantly Higher Renewable Generation Capacity Levels" are needed.

Irish history has shown that the people who say "we don't need this" were wrong when it came to energy and roads. I don't expect the situation has changed any.

Back in the days of the foundation of the Irish state, the ESB was set up to build the hydroelectric generator plant at Ardnacrusha in Co Limerick. During the construction (which involved a massive diversion of the Shannon river) some politician famously said that we did not need a plant this large, and Irish people would be "electrocuted in their beds". When Moneypoint was built as the alternative to the nuclear plant in Wexford people said it was far too big for our needs. Today everyone who works in the energy business understands how forward-thinking the decisions to build those plants were.

Now we have wind farms, and the "we don't need them" brigade are out again. I think they should be politely asked to put forward some detailed alternative strategy and have it assessed by an independent experts. I actually think that's largely what EirGrid did when they drew up their plan. Reading the Grid 25 document you'd have to admit it is a very reasonable set of arguments, and insofar as is possible it supports the idea of upgrading & reusing existing lines, even when that's more expensive than building new lines.

I don't particularly like the EirGrid company for a number of reasons, mostly because I think it has become too big and too difficult to deal with (I am an engineer providing technical services to businesses in the energy sector including both private and semi-private companies), but I would have to admit that they generally know what they're talking about. If anything I would say they spend too long engaged in consultation. They don't own any generation plant, wind or otherwise, so they do not have a vested interest when balancing the needs of the energy systems vs. the environment. I don't see that balance in the words of the NIMBY contributors here.

Z

Capt'n Midnight · 19-01-2014 09:53PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jBuNMHzqmI

Jens Stoltenberg the Prime Minister of Norway discussing pylons.

joela · 19-01-2014 09:57PM

Seriously, I hate you because I am annoyed by your posts? Get a grip please and stop being so melodramatic. I asked you and all the other nimbys to use reason and logic, I never said you weren't entitled to post but you most definitely are not taking a step back and listening. As I said before this will not be won if you use the kind of arguments you have been using, that is why we have a planning system.

You should write to Eirgrid and not rely on others to do so.

I agree with Zen65, I'm not necessarily a fan of Eirgrid either are as they are a large sometimes unwieldy organisation but they've been holding the grid together to date and not prone to spending money without reason. They have to plan years in advance for any significant work on the grid as they have to figure how how to move the power around while the lines are being worked on. They are also required to adhere to planning and legislative requirements so it is these areas that the scheme must be examined.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Wow you really hate me.

Again, the pylons are not passing in my backyard.

I have always made it clear that I talk about what feedback my French family and friends give me, and I have not talked about French policies in term of planning and development other than what I know from going back there on a regular basis, as well as reading information on the RTE site (http://www.rte-france.com/fr/) and other French information sites. I read a lot, and as time allows, I try to read what is relevant to discussions I might take part in online. Being French brings in some perspective, just like an Irish person who has lived abroad for a while will have a different perspective to someone who has spent their entire life in Ireland.

Writing to Eirgrid is a great idea, but fortunately the questions I am presenting here are being asked by community representatives currently involved in these discussions, who have a better chance of getting an answer.

I am not talking about technical aspects of the upgrade, in fact when CM and other knowledgeable people put forward technical data I read and take a step back, please check back. When I offer a suggestion on a technical aspect, it is likely to be based on something tangible that I have read about on a credible document, not speculation.

I don't know what exactly you find hysterical, emotive commentary-like, and scaremongering in my posts.
I am certainly enthusiastic, and idealistic. I think the pragmatic approach is lending itself too much to exploitation and money making schemes right now, when it comes to renewables especially, and some vision and idealism are needed to balance it.

The pragmatic approach seems to make little of what's important to people. Of course if you are downright pragmatic it makes total sense to plant the infrastructure and reap the benefits.
However there is a human dimension in all this, and not all people are that pragmatic, so some people like myself are trying to pass on the message that some things that are not important to others are indeed important to us, and shoud not be obliterated.

Like said in the linked pdf above :

Balance is needed.

joela by the way, I am as entitled to post here as anyone else be they engineers or housewives.

Mountainsandh · 19-01-2014 10:15PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Taken from almost directly under the wires.
When they are further away they are less intrusive.

Small, Far Away.

The pylons are visible because the hedgerow has been cut back. Further ahead
the trees would block the view. And there are other wooden poles up there too.

Not everybody lives far away from pylons though, or for some that do they will soon have one within that same distance in the pic, that is the very issue. Hedgerows are not going to hide 40 m pylons when you are near, it's a valid concern.

Like I said 24% of Decembers power came from wind.

Like I said earlier we get 20% of power from renewables and the target is
40%. Scotland are already at 40% so totally doable. Like I said there is a limit
of 800MW generation in the Cork are at present. Our population is growing.
Appartments use electric heating rather than gas because safety regs. cost
money. People are getting bigger TV's and more gadgets. Electricity demand is
constantly going up. Like I said the original Shannon Scheme would only provide
2% of our peak demand today.

I'm sure I've mentioned before about the new higher temperature aluminum alloy cable can run hotter and so allow more power on the same line, lots of sections of the existing network have been upgraded, using the same pylons, but you can only go so far with that

There are also the concepts of redundancy and future proofing.

I am not advocating that no upgrade should take place, I am asking the simple question of how much of an upgrade.

40% from renewable energies is very ambitious compared to the 23% projected for France by 2020, 18% for Germany, 20% for Spain, 17% for Italy, 15% for the UK.

Sweden are planning 49% and Austria 34%, Denmark 30%, and Estonia 25%. (European Commission numbers taken from this French governmental website http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/-Energies-renouvelables,3733-.html ).

But Sweden and Austria have a lot more land surface, and potentially a greater diversity (photovoltaic for Austria for example...).

As far as I can see in this document from the European Commission, for the Irish potential in renewable energies, it has decided that Ireland should reach the 16% mark in its use of renewables by 2020.

It's quite a jump from 16 to 40%.

Again CM, my point of view is that if achieving the 40% is too much of an imposition on the Irish population, then it should not be the threshold to aim for.

TBH if we wanted to remove all human impact on the land we'd have to cover most
of the country with oak forests.

Nobody in this thread has suggested that all human impact on the land should be removed.

We live in a democracy. And the question is "how much extra are you prepared to
pay on your ESB bill to pacify the fears of a few vocal complainers"

No. Again you are focusing on money, and this is purely your opinion. That is not democracy.
In my opinion the democratic question is : "how much impact on the environment and on the people is acceptable while upgrading ?".
And then : "how much of an upgrade can we then agree on ?"

Again, and I am not being emotive here, it is not all about money. Some people value their peace of mind and the quality of their environment more than money. Democracy is not about money to pacify the fears of people.

Maybe your personal threshold for peace of mind and quality of your environment is different, that does not mean that your, and other people on this thread's thresholds are the one we should go for.
That is democracy.

Again the purpose of energy in the first place is to offer a better quality of life (via lighting, heating, appliances, but also via industry and jobs made possible thanks to energy).

When the pursuit of energy affects negatively on people's quality of life, then to me, it becomes paradoxical, it simply doesn't make sense.

In this event, some quality of life will be affected regardless, because the upgrade is necessary for the greater part of society. That's acceptable.

But again, what level of an upgrade ?
What proportion of that upgrade will benefit the greater part of society ?
What proportion of that upgrade is acceptable to most of society to achieve a minimum 16%, and can we go further while keeping this acceptable ?

Greensleeves · 19-01-2014 10:26PM

From the Sunday Independent today.

Cabinet tension over Enda's pylon 'U-turn'

Rabbitte 'left hanging out to dry' by softened approach

JOHN DRENNAN AND EMMA JANE HADE – 19 JANUARY 2014

Taoiseach Enda Kenny's softening position on the controversial EirGrid pylon project has sparked further tensions with Labour amid concerns that the move has left embattled Communications Minister Pat Rabbitte "hanging out to dry".

Mr Kenny was last week challenged by the Fine Gael TD John Deasy to "show leadership on this critical infrastructural issue" at a meeting of the Fine Gael parliamentary party.

"No one knows where we stand on this, where are we going; right now we're no-where," Mr Deasy told the Taoiseach.

Full story here...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/cabinet-tension-over-endas-pylon-uturn-29929366.html

Blahblah2012 · 19-01-2014 10:28PM

joela wrote: »

You live in Ireland in a one-off house it seems so how can you really condemn grid upgrade when the dispersed settlement patterns in ireland are part of the reason our grid needs to sprawl so much.

The one off houses have nothing to do with the Upgrade and you should know it!!

joela wrote: »

You need to learn a bit more about planning and environmental laws here, as well as doing an electrical engineering degree if you are going to speak with authority on the technical aspects of the grid upgrade.

Dont talk rubbish. A huge proportion(most of the quality has left) of the engineers churned out in this country couldn't design a 3 pin plug.

joela wrote: »

That goes for all the nimbys on this thread who are practising Google science and engineering 101.

I'd say you're fond of google science yourself!!

joela wrote: »

It is extremely irritating to keep reading the conspiracy theories of BlahBlahBlah who is abusive to anyone who challenges his opinions and reasoning.

Waffler. What's this conspiracy theory?
As for abusive..read your own post!!

joela wrote: »

Newsflash* some of us have qualifications in planning, environment, grid engineering, renewables and more so we may know a little bit more than you about environmental laws, grid capacity etc.*

Is that you again micosoft? Lots of assumptions on your part.

joela wrote: »

Open to debate but please take a moment to listen to some of the people on here who obviously have technical expertise in relevant areas. Hysteria, emotive commentary and scaremongering will not win this issue, people must use facts, science, evidence based arguments and the planning

You obviously haven't read too much of this thread.

Mountainsandh · 19-01-2014 10:33PM

joela wrote: »

Seriously, I hate you because I am annoyed by your
posts? Get a grip please and stop being so melodramatic. I asked you and all the
other nimbys to use reason and logic, I never said you weren't entitled to post
but you most definitely are not taking a step back and listening. As I said
before this will not be won if you use the kind of arguments you have been
using, that is why we have a planning system.

You should write to Eirgrid and not rely on others to do so.

What I perceived was that you were the one getting pretty much heated in your previous post.

I can ask questions on here without having to justify them, this is a discussion forum.
I can absolutely rely on others to ask serious questions such as this for me, why else would there be local representatives, and community organizations ?
The whole point of supporting a local representative is that they will represent you, voice your concerns, and obtain answers to your questions ? Maybe I'm wrong ?

I am being very logical in fact joela, but my logic does not follow yours, so it seems you can't see it very well.

I can't just say I agree with you and others on here, because I just don't.

I don't think it's all about money.
I don't think Eirgrid are clear on their intent, I don't think the documents available give the answers we need.
I do think the impact on quality of life and environment is more important, and greater than what yourself and CM for example (and others) seem to understand.
I do think the impact on quality of life and environment should be given more weight than what optimum capacity from renewables is possible for this country.

I am reading the opposite side's posts, they just don't convince me.

Mountainsandh · 19-01-2014 11:05PM

Zen65 wrote: »

Irish history has shown that the people who say "we don't need this" were wrong when it came to energy and roads. I don't expect the situation has changed any.

Back in the days of the foundation of the Irish state, the ESB was set up to build the hydroelectric generator plant at Ardnacrusha in Co Limerick. During the construction (which involved a massive diversion of the Shannon river) some politician famously said that we did not need a plant this large, and Irish people would be "electrocuted in their beds". When Moneypoint was built as the alternative to the nuclear plant in Wexford people said it was far too big for our needs. Today everyone who works in the energy business understands how forward-thinking the decisions to build those plants were.
.....Grid 25 document you'd have to admit it is a very reasonable set of arguments, and insofar as is possible it supports the idea of upgrading & reusing existing lines, even when that's more expensive than building new lines.

Great points, and a bit more along my thinking. Yes, people should be ambitious, and sometimes that means be bold for the future, but my point is, how bold, and for what purpose exactly.
A lot of the current project seems to allow for money making purposes, which is fine as long as it does not impact too negatively on everyone for the benefit of a few.

I have a book called Ireland of the Welcomes by D.L.Kelleher. He comments on all aspects of Irish life he observed in 1930, while on a visit from the UK. In a chapter on Ardnacrushna he says :

"It is a good thing that a daring, young government has been rash and young
enough to invent the Shannon scheme. They will be justified for ever ultimately
though, for a brief while, the bailiff may sit in their parlour."

You are mentioning having to come up with alternatives. With CM, on a different thread about wind power, I was trying to educate myself on alternatives, and came across the wind lens for example, but that's more costly, because research and design are not finished, and it's not really produced yet. Then myself and others mentioned offshore turbines, but that's too costly. Then tidal, but that's too costly for the same reasons as the windlens.

It seems like every time an alternative is mentioned when it comes to renewables, and there would be I'm sure a lot more alternatives than I can think of, everything is too costly.

To go back to the pylons, again when it is suggested that underground, and like planned, upgrades to existing lines could be great alternatives, it's too costly*.

With Ardnacrushna if we are to believe D.L.Kelleher, the young government took a great leap of faith, and spent the money. You can probably confirm that with your sources.

Here we are told that the alternatives available are too costly, and simultaneously, the project and its impact are inflated to facilitate people making money.

My point being that maybe for these ambitious projects, you just need to spend the money to do it right.
(and maybe not attempt to make money from it right away)

*kudos to Eirgrid for going for the costlier option in the instance you are quoting.

Zen65 · 19-01-2014 11:41PM

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Dont talk rubbish. A huge proportion(most of the quality has left) of the engineers churned out in this country couldn't design a 3 pin plug.

Have you evidence to support this assertion?

Z

Blahblah2012 · 19-01-2014 11:51PM

Zen65 wrote: »

Have you evidence to support this assertion?

Z

Do you want me to start naming names?

Don't be rediculous.

Zen65 · 20-01-2014 12:54AM

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Do you want me to start naming names?

Don't be rediculous.

Well I'd like to hear the basis of your argument that Irish engineers are incompetent. It's a scurrilous comment on your part.

Birdnuts · 20-01-2014 01:01AM

Zen65 wrote: »

Irish history has shown that the people who say "we don't need this" were wrong when it came to energy and roads. I don't expect the situation has changed any.

Back in the days of the foundation of the Irish state, the ESB was set up to build the hydroelectric generator plant at Ardnacrusha in Co Limerick. During the construction (which involved a massive diversion of the Shannon river) some politician famously said that we did not need a plant this large, and Irish people would be "electrocuted in their beds". When Moneypoint was built as the alternative to the nuclear plant in Wexford people said it was far too big for our needs. Today everyone who works in the energy business understands how forward-thinking the decisions to build those plants were.

Now we have wind farms, and the "we don't need them" brigade are out again. I think they should be politely asked to put forward some detailed alternative strategy and have it assessed by an independent experts. I actually think that's largely what EirGrid did when they drew up their plan. Reading the Grid 25 document you'd have to admit it is a very reasonable set of arguments, and insofar as is possible it supports the idea of upgrading & reusing existing lines, even when that's more expensive than building new lines.

I don't particularly like the EirGrid company for a number of reasons, mostly because I think it has become too big and too difficult to deal with (I am an engineer providing technical services to businesses in the energy sector including both private and semi-private companies), but I would have to admit that they generally know what they're talking about. If anything I would say they spend too long engaged in consultation. They don't own any generation plant, wind or otherwise, so they do not have a vested interest when balancing the needs of the energy systems vs. the environment. I don't see that balance in the words of the NIMBY contributors here.

Z

You would have us ignore the experience of other countries that are now experiencing a wide range of difficulties basing a grid on wind power. Plenty of links have been provided in this thread highlighting these difficulties across Europe yet apologists like yourself for Eirgrid and the governments energy strategy would have us ignore all this evidence and plough ahead regardless. Interesting to note that there are increasing signs that the EU are about to bin their renewable energy targets on the basis of many of the problems which were highlighted in the links I and others provided on this thread yet its a case of head in sand and carry on regardless by the pylons to nowhere fans

Blahblah2012 · 20-01-2014 01:16AM

Zen65 wrote: »

Well I'd like to hear the basis of your argument that Irish engineers are incompetent. It's a scurrilous comment on your part.

I said most of the quality has left..which like most professions is true. Huge numbers of Graduates have emigrated seeking employment and I wouldn't imagine this is news to you or anyone else.
In relation to incompetence...that is my opinion on the matter.

Zen65 · 20-01-2014 01:25AM

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

In relation to incompetence...that is my opinion on the matter.

You have made a denigrating comment in a public forum in relation to the fitness of Irish engineers, and now you come back with a very meek "that's my opinion"?

I think that says a great deal about the quality of your opinions. If you have trained as an engineer as you say you have, then I hope you do not practice as one.

Zen65 · 20-01-2014 01:34AM

Birdnuts wrote: »

You would have us ignore the experience of other countries that are now experiencing a wide range of difficulties basing a grid on wind power. Plenty of links have been provided in this thread highlighting these difficulties across Europe yet apologists like yourself for Eirgrid and the governments energy strategy would have us ignore all this evidence and plough ahead regardless. Interesting to note that there are increasing signs that the EU are about to bin their renewable energy targets on the basis of many of the problems which were highlighted in the links I and others provided on this thread yet its a case of head in sand and carry on regardless by the pylons to nowhere fans

But oddly Ireland has one of the highest penetrations in percentage terms of wind energy on its grid, apparently with little problem. Countries like Germany are discovering that their wind farms do not produce the level of energy that might have been expected, but they lag behind the production levels achieved in Ireland. We simply have better wind conditions. They also have indigenous fuels like coal which will be cheaper to burn, but Ireland does not (other than peat which is not at all like coal, and could not be considered a valuable fuel). For Ireland wind energy generation offsets fuel imports, so there is a value at a national level. This is not the case for Germany; for them wind is displacing their own fossil fuel plants.

So where's the flaw in Irish energy policy?

Z

Blahblah2012 · 20-01-2014 01:35AM

Zen65 wrote: »

You have made a denigrating comment in a public forum in relation to the fitness of Irish engineers, and now you come back with a very meek "that's my opinion"?

I think that says a great deal about the quality of your opinions. If you have trained as an engineer as you say you have, then I hope you do not practice as one.

It is my opinion. You left out my message to you.

Message to zen65:
As for the quality of engineers....having studied engineering I am well aware of the standard of graduates. There are some very competent engineers coming out of colleges(that is true)..but I'm also well aware of the level of cheating, plagiarism, favouritism and overall incompetence that is rampant in the system.

Interesting how you left that out. Doing me a favour were ya?

Zen65 · 20-01-2014 01:45AM

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

It is my opinion. You left out my message to you.

Message to zen65:
As for the quality of engineers....having studied engineering I am well aware of the standard of graduates. There are some very competent engineers coming out of colleges(that is true)..but I'm also well aware of the level of cheating, plagiarism, favouritism and overall incompetence that is rampant in the system.

Interesting how you left that out. Doing me a favour were ya?

Private message gets private reply. I don't want to take this thread off-topic. If you could debate the issue rather than make libellous comments about a profession it would be more entertaining and educational for everyone.

Z

Mountainsandh · 20-01-2014 01:46AM

Zen65 wrote: »

So where's the flaw in Irish energy policy?

Z

The scale of its ambitions vs its country's size.

Blahblah2012 · 20-01-2014 01:54AM

Zen65 wrote: »

Private message gets private reply. I don't want to take this thread off-topic. If you could debate the issue rather than make libellous comments about a profession it would be more entertaining and educational for everyone.

Z

Libellous comments? Jesus. What a joke.

I'm not on here for entertainment

Birdnuts · 20-01-2014 02:32AM

Zen65 wrote: »

But oddly Ireland has one of the highest penetrations in percentage terms of wind energy on its grid, apparently with little problem. Countries like Germany are discovering that their wind farms do not produce the level of energy that might have been expected, but they lag behind the production levels achieved in Ireland. We simply have better wind conditions. They also have indigenous fuels like coal which will be cheaper to burn, but Ireland does not (other than peat which is not at all like coal, and could not be considered a valuable fuel). For Ireland wind energy generation offsets fuel imports, so there is a value at a national level. This is not the case for Germany; for them wind is displacing their own fossil fuel plants.

So where's the flaw in Irish energy policy?

Z

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=1hF6pPVAKvdyAM&tbnid=u8TvTA6d_val4M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.odenwaldwind.de%2FWindenergie%2F&ei=OH_cUqaRDNSrhAfTt4HoAw&bvm=bv.59568121,d.ZGU&psig=AFQjCNGd_wkybiiYABBl5WNJ0PMpPTXByA&ust=1390268582577127

http://www.met.ie/climate/wind.asp

We already have the 4th highest power bills in Europe. The averge wind speed across inland areas and the East coast are similar to Northern Germany
and are indeed less than much of Denmark. And averge wind speed is only part of it since variability is as big a factor on this island as it is in Europe with the early part of this winter being very calm across Ireland as was much of the summer with the actual output from turbines in Ireland approaching 0% on a number of days. The government wants us to follow Denmark and Germany with spiralling energy costs and poor environmental performance. The averge output from irish windfarms in 2012 was less than 30% of installed capacity according to Eirgrid. And since most of these Turbines are in the windier West and NW it says a lot about the plans to cover the midlands and elsehwhere with windfarms and pylon infrastructure. The indigenous fuel source argument in a red herring in any case when it comes to wind since the likes of Denmark with its wind based grid has to import a significant amount of conventional energy from Nuclear, coal and gas power stations just as Ireland does and will always have to do no matter how many windmills go up.

Capt'n Midnight · 20-01-2014 02:41AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

40% from renewable energies is very ambitious compared to the 23% projected for France by 2020, 18% for Germany, 20% for Spain, 17% for Italy, 15% for the UK.

Broken record time.

20% last year.
24% in December.
Scotland are already up to 40%
Portugal have hit 70% wind

it has decided that Ireland should reach the 16% mark in its use of renewables by 2020.

We'd have to scrap 1/3rd of the wind farms to reach that target

Again CM, my point of view is that if achieving the 40% is too much of an imposition on the Irish population, then it should not be the threshold to aim for.

How is it too much ?

More wind means less coal , less oil , less gas and less peat. Good thing peat harvesting isn't ruining the landscape or there'd be people giving out about it. It's a good thing inland power stations aren't affecting their local environment by discharging hot water or emitting noxious gasses.

Wind is backed up by gas. 99.9% of the energy ( actual UK figures ) is forecast. The other 0.1% is when you need reserve to kick in because of an unpredicted drop in wind. Gas is flexible to balance wind. Gas means less coal, less oil, less peat and so less CO2. BTW the UK figures show that over 90% of the reserve used on the grid wasn't used for wind.

Wind is here to stay. Though I'd expect solar to get interesting over the next few years. But probably mostly in the sunny south east. Wind is getting cheaper all the time, but from a grid planning perspective solar prices are in freefall such that the panels may no longer be the main cost of a project.

Again the purpose of energy in the first place is to offer a better quality of life (via lighting, heating, appliances, but also via industry and jobs made possible thanks to energy).

better quality of life for all not some. Like I keep saying 24% of energy from wind meant a lot less pollution in December and not importing all that fuel must have helped our balance of payments.

Capt'n Midnight · 20-01-2014 02:56AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

You are mentioning having to come up with alternatives. With CM, on a different thread about wind power, I was trying to educate myself on alternatives, and came across the wind lens for example, but that's more costly, because research and design are not finished, and it's not really produced yet. Then myself and others mentioned offshore turbines, but that's too costly. Then tidal, but that's too costly for the same reasons as the windlens.

Osmotic power didn't work out either that project was stopped recently.

The wind lens is yet another wind duct. It's little like a computer fan. Yes you get more power, but you need a lot more materials to do it. I was surprised to find out that the generator in a wind turbine only costs a few % of the overall cost. The wind lens uses shorter blades, but more of them. The materials to create the duct almost certainly cost more than extending the steel tube a normal wind turbine sits on. Wind is free so the fact that a three blade turbine doesn't extract all the energy that passes it's swept area isn't a problem. The other big difference is that the lift to drag ratio of a turbine blade is about 100:1 whereas the wind loading of a duct , that has to rotate into the wind is just scary. Noise may also be a problem as they'd have to rotate faster , large turbines can get a respectable tip speed at lower rpm.

The other difference is the frontal area of a duct system is a lot larger than the slender towers we are used to and so a lot more visible on the landscape. This is why I prefer lattice towers to huge poles or fancy sculptures.

Capt'n Midnight · 20-01-2014 03:22AM

Birdnuts wrote: »

And averge wind speed is only part of it since variability is as big a factor on this island as it is in Europe with the early part of this winter being very calm across Ireland as was much of the summer with the actual output from turbines in Ireland approaching 0% on a number of days.

That's why we use weather forecasts to know when to fire up the other generators.

Our existing open cycle gas turbine plants are held at 2/3rd's of capacity so they can ramp up within 5 seconds to take 75% of any sudden loss of the biggest generating unit. Grids mean that you need to keep everything on all the time. Wind doesn't add wear and tear to turbines, because reserves are already needed and it's the stop/starts that are worse than idling.

The government wants us to follow Denmark and Germany with spiralling energy costs and poor environmental performance.

Germany's wholesale cost is 3.8c/unit. Yes the retail price is four times this thanks to add ons.
and yes coal usage has gone up a staggering 0.6% :eek:
but that's kinda to be expected when you remove nuclear in one fell swoop and export power to Austria and Switzerland because the wholesale price is lower than your neighbours.

The averge output from irish windfarms in 2012 was less than 30% of installed capacity according to Eirgrid. And since most of these Turbines are in the windier West and NW it says a lot about the plans to cover the midlands and elsehwhere with windfarms and pylon infrastructure.

Oddly enough the wind in the midlands is steadier. At the coast you have to over engineer for the worst extremes so you can't extract as much on quieter days. It's a cube law thing.

Wind doesn't blow all the time. Good thing you pointed that out. Good thing we have lots more dispatchable capacity than our peak demand and can predict wind.

Oh and by the way, if someone figures out a cheaper way to make fuel out of wind there are going to be lots more turbines.

Blahblah2012 · 20-01-2014 03:45AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

"Good thing we have lots more dispatchable capacity than our peak demand"

.

Well said. We already have "lots more" juice available than we already need.....

conorhal · 20-01-2014 09:37AM

Billy86 wrote: »

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.

You're just being facetious, care to point out which of those Dublin attractions is right in the middle of a nest of pylons that nobody has noticed? Is there a massive transmission mast in the middle of Trinity College library?
There is a difference between an attraction and a view. Nobody bothers with a snap of a view filled with pylons and there are thousands upon thousands of spots around the country that tourists stop at to take a picture, the kind of places not on your list but are an essential aspect of what draws tourists to our landscape, and none of them would see a benefit from a dirty great pylon.]

JRant · 20-01-2014 12:05PM

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Glasshouses and stones Rant boy!!

I'm comfortable with most houses that were built to a high spec and within regulations.
As for your pylon fetish query..I said that nobody other than an esb engineer or someone with a pylon fetish wanted to look at or be around one.
You clearly fall into that bracket as its obvious enough you aren't an esb engineer.

A mind of a child being quite clear here little boy.

No ranting coming from me, unlike a lot of your childish name calling.

So you're comfortable talking out of both sides of your mouth then?
One off houses are grand if they're built to a high standard and regulations but pylons built to even higher standards and regs are not. NIMBYism 101.

JRant · 20-01-2014 12:07PM

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Libellous comments? Jesus. What a joke.

I'm not on here for entertainment

You sure? I've been very entertained by your head in the sand posts.

JRant · 20-01-2014 12:15PM

conorhal wrote: »

You're just being facetious, care to point out which of those Dublin attractions is right in the middle of a nest of pylons that nobody has noticed? Is there a massive transmission mast in the middle of Trinity College library?
There is a difference between an attraction and a view. Nobody bothers with a snap of a view filled with pylons and there are thousands upon thousands of spots around the country that tourists stop at to take a picture, the kind of places not on your list but are an essential aspect of what draws tourists to our landscape, and none of them would see a benefit from a dirty great pylon.]

2 issues with this.
1: Ireland is not that special when it comes to scenery. We have a few wild spots left (which the pylons won't be anywhere near) but unfortunately every town and village in the country thinks theirs is the most important part of the world.
2: I'd rather we future proofed the network now to the benefit of the millions who live here. Rather than try to placitate a few thousand tourists who may or may not come once a year to view your own "special" part of the world.

Greensleeves · 20-01-2014 12:38PM

There is an interesting piece on Richard Tol's blog about the pylons. He concludes...

"Ireland can therefore expect more transmission lines for electricity. The discussion should move away from the question whether the next pylon should be in Paddy Murphy’s backyard or in Mary Kelly’s. The discussion should focus on the question whether more pylons (et cetera) are a price worth paying. Are the aims of energy and climate policy sufficiently worthwhile to justify the planned transmission lines? If so, Paddy and Mary should be looked straight into the eyes and told that their personal sacrifice is for the greater good. Monetary compensation might help to convince them.

But if the benefits prove elusive or small, then protests should not target the pylons and transmission lines. These are but symptoms of the underlying policies. The debate should not be about the pylons, but rather about the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets that cannot be met without those pylons.

Some may argue that a few pylons here and there are a small price to pay for preventing the planet from overheating. Others may argue that Ireland’s contribution to climate change is too small to bother. But the smaller question whether to build new transmission lines and where to site them cannot be separated from the larger questions of energy and climate policy."

http://richardtol.blogspot.ie/2014/01/policy-not-pylons.html?m=1

Capt'n Midnight · 20-01-2014 12:43PM

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Well said. We already have "lots more" juice available than we already need.....

90% of that is from imported fossil fuel and most of the rest is from the destruction of peat bogs.

Biomass, landfill gas and hydro don't contribute much. So wind is the way to go until something better comes along.

The whole idea of a grid is there is no absolute requirement to stick power stations in the middle of cities. And that subject to the constraints imposed by the grid you can share the power. Read the constraints I've posted before esp. in the Cork area.

Pylons

Comments