Pylons

Greensleeves · 23-02-2014 08:26PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/shortfall-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-target-may-cost-ireland-e300m-818053-Mar2013/

300m for starts paying for carbon credits according to that. And that's fines basically not purchasing infrastructure or building and so on. I think a lot of people have their head in the sand even if these set of lines get undergrounded you cant underground the renewables.

Well since wind makes no significant difference to CO2 emissions we would want to start doing something that actually works; using gas instead of coal/turf and reducing demand for electricity, for example.

At least you finally seem to accept that the pylons/grid upgrade are about facilitating renewables.

Greensleeves · 23-02-2014 08:32PM

Heroditas wrote: »

The Commission will be examining progress towards the 2020 targets later this year and deciding upon the level of fines for non achievement of targets then

Do you have a link for this?

I've searched for information about fines for not meeting targets but can't find anything. Maybe I'm searching for the wrong thing: are the fines based on CO2 emissions or are there separate fines for not meeting the three separate bits of the 20-20-20 targets?

Heroditas · 23-02-2014 08:33PM

Greensleeves wrote: »

Do you have a link for this?

I've searched for information about fines for not meeting targets but can't find anything. Maybe I'm searching for the wrong thing: are the fines based on CO2 emissions or are there separate fines for not meeting the three separate bits of the 20-20-20 targets?

All of that is to be decided later this year.

Jester252 · 23-02-2014 09:26PM

Greensleeves wrote: »

More nuclear power flowing through Danish outlets

Although Denmark does not operate a single atomic plant, 14 percent of DONG's energy supply comes from nuclear power

An analysis of the national electricity distribution in the last three years shows an unexpected tendency at Denmark’s largest energy company, DONG.

The amount of electricity generated from nuclear power has doubled between 2011 and 2012, even though Denmark does not operate a single nuclear plant.

The analysis, made by Energinet.dk, showed that 14 percent of DONG's energy distribution came from nuclear plants in 2012, compared to seven percent in 2011and just one percent in 2010. Wind energy declined during the same period.

Full story...

http://cphpost.dk/news/more-nuclear-power-flowing-through-danish-outlets.6685.html

Another newspaper link.

So, why is more Danish energy coming from nuclear power when the country operates no plants?

"I understand why it may seem illogical,” Louise Hahn, the head of the private consumer department at DONG, told Politiken newspaper.

She explained that Danish energy imports from Sweden rose by 75 percent in 2012.

“This year a great surplus of hydro-electric power has lowered energy prices in Sweden and Norway. That is why we import from those countries and export our own wind energy to Germany,” Hahn said.

Since Sweden generates more than 40 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants, most of what is being imported to Denmark has been nuclear energy.

Note the part in bold, it's laughable.

What she is saying is the same as sticking five random people in a room and saying one is Chinese because 1 in 5 people are Chinese.

Greensleeves · 23-02-2014 09:57PM

Jester252 wrote: »

Note the part in bold, it's laughable.

What she is saying is the same as sticking five random people in a room and saying one is Chinese because 1 in 5 people are Chinese.

Sadly what is laughable is you. Do you imagine that the head of the private consumer department at DONG would say that DONG imports nuclear energy from Sweden just to prove you wrong?

Jester252 · 23-02-2014 10:09PM

Greensleeves wrote: »

Sadly what is laughable is you. Do you imagine that the head of the private consumer department at DONG would say that DONG imports nuclear energy from Sweden just to prove you wrong?

Someone in my family must be Chinese seen as I have five family members.
There is no way to track where an electron came from. Unless Sweden allowed the Danes to build a nuclear power plant.

Greensleeves · 24-02-2014 11:51AM

Jester252 wrote: »

Someone in my family must be Chinese seen as I have five family members.
There is no way to track where an electron came from. Unless Sweden allowed the Danes to build a nuclear power plant.

Since the data came from the Danish grid operator (Energinet.dk) I think it is safe to assume that they know what they are talking about. Unlike posters on internet forums.

"The analysis, made by Energinet.dk, showed that 14 percent of DONG's energy distribution came from nuclear plants in 2012, compared to seven percent in 2011and just one percent in 2010. Wind energy declined during the same period."

Jester252 · 24-02-2014 12:15PM

Greensleeves wrote: »

Since the data came from the Danish grid operator (Energinet.dk) I think it is safe to assume that they know what they are talking about. Unlike posters on internet forums.

"The analysis, made by Energinet.dk, showed that 14 percent of DONG's energy distribution came from nuclear plants in 2012, compared to seven percent in 2011and just one percent in 2010. Wind energy declined during the same period."

So, why is more Danish energy coming from nuclear power when the country operates no plants?

"I understand why it may seem illogical,” Louise Hahn, the head of the private consumer department at DONG, told Politiken newspaper.

She explained that Danish energy imports from Sweden rose by 75 percent in 2012.

“This year a great surplus of hydro-electric power has lowered energy prices in Sweden and Norway. That is why we import from those countries and export our own wind energy to Germany,” Hahn said.

Since Sweden generates more than 40 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants, most of what is being imported to Denmark has been nuclear energy.

Someone in my family of five must be Chinese as one in five people are Chinese.

What data did DONG give? What method did Energinet.dk use? Do you actually have a link to the report?

Are Dong tracking each electron? Do Denmark own a nuclear power station in Sweden.

Did somebody just take the number of MW imported from Sweden and multiply it by the percentage of nuclear generation in Sweden?

Capt'n Midnight · 24-02-2014 08:44PM

Jester252 wrote: »

Did somebody just take the number of MW imported from Sweden and multiply it by the percentage of nuclear generation in Sweden?

Regardless, it shows how useful a grid is.

And Sweden isn't the only one with a connection to them

IIRC maximum windpower in Denmark was 122%. Obviously they were exporting the surplus.

Energy flows, (now it's 600MW into Denmark from Sweden and 539 from Denmark into Germany ... )
http://www.statnett.no/en/market-and-operations/data-from-the-power-system/nordic-power-flow/

Capt'n Midnight · 24-02-2014 08:48PM

This says it better - look at the picture
http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/249471/graph-day-german-solar-power-exports

And if you want a real mental challenge try estimating how much Danish wind farms reduce emissions. Denmark more or less has two electricity grids, and often imports and exports from and to Sweden and Germany at the same time. And does a MWh from a Danish wind farm that displaces a MWh of Norwegian hydro reduce emissions at all?

Jester252 · 24-02-2014 09:28PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Regardless, it shows how useful a grid is.

And Sweden isn't the only one with a connection to them

IIRC maximum windpower in Denmark was 122%. Obviously they were exporting the surplus.

Energy flows, (now it's 600MW into Denmark from Sweden and 539 from Denmark into Germany ... )
http://www.statnett.no/en/market-and-operations/data-from-the-power-system/nordic-power-flow/

I understand the importance of a gird hence why I support the grid25 scheme

I know, I was using Sweden as it was the country mention by that ridiculous claim.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-02-2014 11:19PM

Jester252 wrote: »

I understand the importance of a gird hence why I support the grid25 scheme

I know, I was using Sweden as it was the country mention by that ridiculous claim.

I know, I know.

lies, damned lies and statistics :pac:

darkpagandeath · 26-02-2014 03:29PM

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/bungalow-bliss-will-disrupt-pylon-plans-warns-expert-259623.html

Even if undergrounded it won't be as much as people hope due to the branch nature of our system.

SeanW · 26-02-2014 04:15PM

Jester252 wrote: »

Someone in my family of five must be Chinese as one in five people are Chinese.

Maybe your cat is Chairman Meow?

househero · 04-03-2014 07:20PM

is there a proposed map route for the pylons I can see?

losthorizon · 04-03-2014 07:33PM

I see FF who have been keeping this issue going have suddenly unveiled Kieran Hartley a leading ant pylon campaigner.

househero · 07-03-2014 12:28AM

losthorizon wrote: »

I see FF who have been keeping this issue going have suddenly unveiled Kieran Hartley a leading ant pylon campaigner.

Yea I saw a billboard for someone in Wexford campaigning against them. Good to see they have their priorities straight.

Fek the economy... waste billions on burying a cable.

THIS IS NOT 1852! People ARE committing suicide because they can not find a job and provide for their families. But comfortable people are more concerned with something making their view a little bit less pretty. Same crap about wind turbines. WE NEED ELECTRICITY. WE DONT NEED A PRETTY VIEW.

Spend the money on generating jobs, not putting a cable underground.

Discussion ended.

realweirdo · 07-03-2014 01:33AM

Pylons are damned ugly.

Do I believe Ireland will benefit from these pylons and it will guarantee our energy supply? Or course not. They are to guarantee the supply to the UK and the profits of a small elite who will make fortunes out of this.

I have some knowledge of where many of these pylons are going and some of these areas particularly in Mayo would rival Kilarney for natural beauty. These pylons will be seen for miles around and will be a complete eye sore.

realweirdo · 07-03-2014 01:35AM

househero wrote: »

Yea I saw a billboard for someone in Wexford campaigning against them. Good to see they have their priorities straight.

Fek the economy... waste billions on burying a cable.

THIS IS NOT 1852! People ARE committing suicide because they can not find a job and provide for their families. But comfortable people are more concerned with something making their view a little bit less pretty. Same crap about wind turbines. WE NEED ELECTRICITY. WE DONT NEED A PRETTY VIEW.

Spend the money on generating jobs, not putting a cable underground.

Discussion ended.

So you'd have no problem with a pylon on your land? Or when you open the curtains in the morning, the first thing you see is a giant pylon?

househero · 07-03-2014 01:38AM

realweirdo wrote: »

They are to guarantee the supply to the UK

They will increase our net export figures. Increasing the wealth of EVERY SINGLE IRISH PERSON, by reducing the tax burden required to run the state. We should profit from selling a clean and renewable resource to England. AND Stabilise our electricity supply making Ireland more attractive to FDI from America.

WE NEED ELECTRICITY. WE NEED JOBS. WE NEED LOWER TAX'S. WE DO NOT NEED A PRETTY VIEW.

TheBigLebowski · 07-03-2014 01:43AM

realweirdo wrote: »

So you'd have no problem with a pylon on your land? Or when you open the curtains in the morning, the first thing you see is a giant pylon?

That's not really the point though is it. We can't have a minority of people dictating the infrastructure policies of the nation, especially if it's to maintain the view out their window. If we did, there would be no motorways, shipping ports, airports, and so on.

househero · 07-03-2014 01:45AM

realweirdo wrote: »

So you'd have no problem with a pylon on your land? Or when you open the curtains in the morning, the first thing you see is a giant pylon?

I look out my window and I see an abandoned mill. 100 years ago, when it was being built, I wouldn't be surprised to find out people would have complained that it ruined their view. now it is seen as an attractive feature of the countryside.

Unfortunately some peoples views will be partially blocked. But hundreds of jobs could be created, your tax burden could be reduced significantly and your neighbour might not kill themselves because they found a job and they CAN provide for their families.

The argument against is not very strong. Pylons are nothing new, if you actually look around you you WILL see much more visually unattractive man made structures. Roads scarring countryside, telegraph poles criss crossing your property. But how do you get around, or use electricity in your home? Unless you are concerned with the health problems associated with high voltage lines, the argument against is quite retarded.

realweirdo · 07-03-2014 02:14AM

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

That's not really the point though is it. We can't have a minority of people dictating the infrastructure policies of the nation, especially if it's to maintain the view out their window. If we did, there would be no motorways, shipping ports, airports, and so on.

These pylons will affect tens of thousands of people either directly or indirectly.

I also believe that when the reduction in property and land prices are taken into account for people who will be close to them as well as the other factors, the cost will be more than the cost of putting them underground.

How many people live beside shipping ports FFS? They are nearly always miles away from residential areas. Ditto airports.

realweirdo · 07-03-2014 02:16AM

househero wrote: »

They will increase our net export figures. Increasing the wealth of EVERY SINGLE IRISH PERSON, by reducing the tax burden required to run the state. We should profit from selling a clean and renewable resource to England. AND Stabilise our electricity supply making Ireland more attractive to FDI from America.

WE NEED ELECTRICITY. WE NEED JOBS. WE NEED LOWER TAX'S. WE DO NOT NEED A PRETTY VIEW.

Ah yes, the old "vote yes for jobs" myth. Usually rolled out whenever something hugely unpopular is being railroaded through.

For the record, I'd rather be unemployed and have a pretty view than be employed and staring at an ugly pylon monstrosity, which in any case is carrying energy to the UK.

househero · 07-03-2014 03:34AM

realweirdo wrote: »

rolled out whenever something hugely unpopular is being railroaded through.

I'd rather be unemployed and have a pretty view

Your view is NOT popular.

Most people want a future, not a view. Ask your younger relatives what they value most. You may be surprised that your passion is not shared with the wider population. Selfish attitudes are rarely entertained on a national scale.

If there was a referendum on it, do you think the majority of people would vote for, or against it?

conorhal · 07-03-2014 10:13AM

househero wrote: »

Your view is NOT popular.

Most people want a future, not a view. Ask your younger relatives what they value most. You may be surprised that your passion is not shared with the wider population. Selfish attitudes are rarely entertained on a national scale.

If there was a referendum on it, do you think the majority of people would vote for, or against it?

A view versus a future? This scheme offers neither. I see today that the windfarms which this infrastructure was designed to support have been shelved 'due to local resistance' so I put it to you that you are in the minority of people that actually support this scheme.
Can we now spend the money we would have wasted on massive subsidies for wind energy into undergrounding these cables?

Capt'n Midnight · 07-03-2014 10:14AM

realweirdo wrote: »

These pylons will affect tens of thousands of people either directly or indirectly.

yes and the reason they are being built is they affect 99.9% of the population positively.

I also believe that when the reduction in property and land prices are taken into account for people who will be close to them as well as the other factors, the cost will be more than the cost of putting them underground.

How many people live beside shipping ports FFS? They are nearly always miles away from residential areas. Ditto airports.

And that just shows you haven't a clue about the costs of underground cables.

Seriously.

Divide the cost of undergrounding by the number of homes affected and tell me what you get. Remember if the homes are bought they can be sold to people who aren't NIMBYs and remember too it's only directly affected homes not those that that could just about see pylons on the horizon on a clear day.

Do the sums and come back , other wise you are just asking for unrealistic subsidies from the rest of us.

Greensleeves · 07-03-2014 10:57AM

Looks like the UK is not so keen on importing our wind energy after all. From the Independent today:

Proposals for giant wind farms are shelved

PLANS to erect thousands of wind turbines across the midlands to export power to the UK have been shelved, the Irish Independent has learnt.

An agreement between the Irish and British governments, which would allow power to be traded between both countries, is unlikely to go ahead, meaning at least 40 wind farms planned across five counties will be mothballed.

The lack of agreement comes amid concern from local communities about large-scale farms being developed here to allow the UK meet its legally binding renewable energy targets.

Full story...

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/proposals-for-giant-wind-farms-are-shelved-30071008.html

Greensleeves · 07-03-2014 11:06AM

househero wrote: »

Your view is NOT popular.

Most people want a future, not a view. Ask your younger relatives what they value most. You may be surprised that your passion is not shared with the wider population. Selfish attitudes are rarely entertained on a national scale.

If there was a referendum on it, do you think the majority of people would vote for, or against it?

According to a poll in the Independent last week the majority of people are opposed to the pylons.

Plan for 'monster rally' underlines 70 per cent opposition to pylon plan: poll

AN overwhelming 70 per cent of voters want the State to abandon controversial plans to erect giant pylons across the countryside and instead put the project underground, a new Sunday Independent/ Millward Brown reveals.

This is despite the fact that the underground option will likely be more expensive.

The poll findings will heap further pressure on Communications Minister Pat Rabbitte, who has faced a major cross-party revolt on the issue from backbench TDs ahead of the local elections.

Full story...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/plan-for-monster-rally-underlines-70-per-cent-opposition-to-pylon-plan-poll-30054296.html

darkpagandeath · 07-03-2014 02:43PM

Hmm cant see any information on were this poll was taken or done. If it was online and Anti pylon/wind farm got hold of it I’m sure the information to sign no would have spread around fairly quick to these groups. Most normal people would not go out of their way to sign something like that. So If these wind farms have been shelved why are the Pylons still being built ? Maybe as people have said here they were for other reasons than running those supposed wind farms.

Interesting as well if the Wind farms have been shelved why are groups banding together to protest wind farms/pylons seems their just anti everything. Surely anti wind farms would be anti cables underground as well. The two groups objectives are completely different. Are they worried if they go separately on different days the turnout would not look good. Its a bit like anti motorway groups getting the help of anti car groups to boost their numbers.

Found out was Millward Brown

And despite the findings of a recent EU report which failed to uncover evidence of a major health threat to humans from high-voltage power lines, 74 per cent of those polled either "strongly agree" (47 per cent) or "somewhat agree" (27 per cent) that there are possible health concerns associated with pylons.

So no evidence will change their minds.

Pylons

Comments