Pylons

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

That's a great discretion of the anti-pylon brigade.


a varyin mix of compo / nimbyish depending on the individual

How many times have I dropped the hint ?

And still no one from the anti-pylon side has been able to show any empathy for those already living with pylons. Me Feinners all the way.

Do you realize at all what you are saying ?
You are saying that anti pylon groups should spontaneously, without even being asked, start a crusade to have long term pylon suffering people compensated (I presume it's money you are suggesting not undergrounding).

And I am arguing that really, all these people in the estates you have linked to, the people on here who are saying they live beside a pylon, are absolutely 100% positively free to join the mobilization if they so wish.

Presumably these people are not children who need to have someone speaking for them ? Holding their hand, anticipating their grievances ?

If you have a pylon on your land, or know directly someone who has, and are not happy with it, what are your options ? Sit on your ar$e and moan about it (or the fact you didn't get money), which is what you're doing on their/your behalf, or go out and do something about it ?

Again I will repeat very clearly since you seem to skim over some bits :

What do you think the reaction of an anti-pylons group is going to be towards a person who wishes to join, and who already has a pylon on their land ? Are they going to :
a) welcome them and support them ?
b) reject them and say "tough $hit" ?

Because right now you seem to suggest that :
a) the initiative should be that of anti-pylon groups to also militate for people who have chosen to live beside a pylon, or have not objected previously.
b) anti-pylon groups are actively going to reject such a person with a "tough $hit" comment.

I think you are just blinded by this self-victimizing stance (yes).

How disingenuous.

My point is obviously that anyone can speak out.

edit : I think CM is focusing on urban dwellers having to suffer pylons.
edit again (don't want to multiple post) : and your link refers to the first switching of lights, the first connection to electricity.
The current debate is not about just an upgrade for say, villagers use (if we were to take the villagers in your link), but also to accommodate wind farms generation/power for export.

pljudge321 wrote: »

An important point lots of people are missing when discussing future energy consumption needs is how long a project like this takes from initial studies through to final commissioning. I've been told the average worldwide is something approaching the 12 year mark, and then the line itself might expect a 40-50 year operational life. For this reason you pretty much have to sensibly plan much past the projected energy demands at time of project completion. Why do you think we haven't had to build any new lines of this scale in a while.

Year on year energy demand growths of 1-2% may sound small but give it twenty to thirty years and that becomes a large increase in energy consumption. Factor in things like electric vehicles and demand could easily grow higher than that.

You can add capacity on the existing pylon system if that is an issue - the pylon projects as envisaged are totally out of kilter for a country with a population of less than 5 million. Again Eirgrid have consistantly referred to wind energy export projects as the basis for these plans to drive massive new pylon infrastructure through every corner of the country(the current plans are just the tip of the ice-berg with a large number of other major pylon projects in the pipeline). The idea that our countryside should be sacrificed and turned into a wasteland of pylons and giant wind turbines to facilitate the Brits who don't want such things in their rural areas is abhorrent. In any case it is increasingly doubtfull whether this wind export plans are even viable given the UKs turn to Nuclear and the EU plans to revise its renewable energy planes on the back of rising energy costs on wind dependent grids and failure of wind to lower CO2 emmissions in countries like Germany.

Pylons pose no major health threat to humans, says European Commission
Tuesday, February 04, 2014

Electromagnetic fields from pylons pose no major health threat to humans, according to a review by the European Commission.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/pylons-pose-no-major-health-threat-to-humans-says-european-commission-257590.html

joela wrote: »

Pardon? I'm not following you I'm afraid. I post a link to a news piece about EU study on health effects and you say it is proof it is about turbines??

IIRC you have a material interest in the area of wind turbines.

micosoft wrote: »

What needs to happen is a review of the business case, not nonsense about compensation and under grounding. We either need them or don't and I think enough of a question has arisen over the business case given the length of time since is was signed off.

The McGuinness thing will find what every other analysis has - no discernable health implication and the costs of underground are stratospheric. We need an economic analysis though as to whether the basis still stands. It goes ahead regardless of the Nimbys if the case still exists.

Exactly.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But we do know that there have been hundreds of excess deaths in rural areas from road traffic accidents over 70% of the total.

And potentially a lot less deaths from repeated exposure to fumes, stress related illness, and anti-social behaviour, all harder to quantify.