Pylons

Mountainsandh · 16-03-2014 12:13PM

Wait until they see what the excavation work would be like for under grounding them!

What kind of a condescending attitude is that ?
That is assuming us "culchies" don't have a notion of what the work entails, because we're in the countryside ?

You could achieve the same purpose to your post without any of the scorn and sarcasm : extensive works are needed, and some might not realize the extent.

Interesting blurb on the site you linked to, sounds great :

As a gas-insulated system, the GIL has the advantage of electrical behavior similar to that of an overhead line, which is important to the operation of the complete network. Because of the large cross section of the conductor, the GIL has low electrical losses compared with other transmission systems (overhead lines and cables).

This reduces the operating and transmission costs, and it contributes to reduction of global warming because less power needs to be generated.

GIL combines reliability with high transmission capacity, low losses, and low emission of magnetic fields. Because it is laid in the ground, GIL also satisfies the requirements for power transmission lines without any visual impact on the environment or the landscape. Of course, the system can also be used to supply power to meet the high energy demands of conurbations and their surroundings.

Capt'n Midnight · 16-03-2014 02:58PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

What kind of a condescending attitude is that ?
That is assuming us "culchies" don't have a notion of what the work entails, because we're in the countryside ?

and it contributes to reduction of global warming because less power needs to be generated.

That's just PR spin.

The gas used for insulation is SF6

It's the most potent greenhouse gas known.

Undergrounding costs more. You could also reduce the power lost in transmission by doubling up pylons. Or by changing the alloy used in the aluminium conductors you can run the wires hotter. Yes you get more power loss at peak times but your capital costs are a lot lower.

Funny that, people get worked up over peak losses, when most of the time the grid only runs at half power.

It would be interesting to find out how many local wind farms we could get for the cost of undergrounding.

Yes they are probably right that if you already have a tunnel then it's worth looking at instead of pylons. If you don't have a tunnel then cloud cuckoo land economics

SpaceTime · 16-03-2014 03:10PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

What kind of a condescending attitude is that ?
That is assuming us "culchies" don't have a notion of what the work entails, because we're in the countryside ?

You could achieve the same purpose to your post without any of the scorn and sarcasm : extensive works are needed, and some might not realize the extent.

Interesting blurb on the site you linked to, sounds great :

I honestly don't believe that they realise what it entails because they're being fed facts about low voltage and medium voltage cables for local distribution which can be underground with about the same amount of difficult as laying a small sewer pipe

I have no idea how you can spin that as being 'condescending' to 'culchies'. I have been nothing of the sort.

The ground work involved in this is hugely disruptive and you would be quite literally talking about a project similar to laying a pretty major road across someone's land.

Facts are facts, there's nothing condescending about providing them!

Farmers and other land owners need to be aware of what the implications of under grounding cables across their lands are. They're very significant and I think not being given the raw facts is utterly ridiculous.

1) They'll be faced with their fields being dug up to create trenches to lay probably gas-filled cables.
2) They will have to be agreeable to allowing Eirgrid access to those lands and to potentially re-excavate them in case of faults.

There are upsides and down sides to all of these choices.

Under-grounding isn't a totally non-disruptive miracle solution. It's hugely disruptive to install and it's very expensive.

The other option is to just cap development in regional towns / regions with less grid access and put all new industrial development in Dublin, Cork and Limerick etc where power generation facilities of significant proportion and stability exist and just leave rural areas as protected scenic environments.

Without power infrastructure you can't really bring big industry in and you can't continue to grow towns.

If that's a choice those regions want to make, they should be able to make it though. Many other European countries would consider our planning lunacy anyway i.e. we tend to scatter stuff far and wide which means needing a lot more overhead infrastructure than other countries with tighter planning and more narrowly defined settlement patterns.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The gas used for insulation is SF6
It's the most potent greenhouse gas known.

That's actually not really very relevant as the cables are filled once and generally don't leak.

---

Life's about choices and unfortunately, you can't actually get electricity to places without wires which have to go in somewhere and these are very significant power lines. They're not distribution lines, they're transmission lines. It's like comparing a boreen with a motorway. They're much bigger pieces of infrastructure.

KyussBishop · 16-03-2014 03:47PM

While I agree that underground cables are not really practical for the whole network, when you evaluate them on costs though, you have to consider the unquantifiable costs:
What is the cost of harming the view of the landscape/scenery, and on animal habitats - and the knock-on costs of that?

That's a constant cost, compounded over at least 40 years (lifetime of a pylon I think), and probably 100+ years (since the route of pylons isn't all that likely to change, even after their lifetime does expire).

What estimates I can find, say that they cost 5x the amount of overhead cables, so it doesn't seem infeasible, to use underground cabling in select areas where the scenery is better preserved, or animal habitats particularly affected.

It's not a topic I really care about that much, one way or the other, but worth noting the real costs, will be far different to what you get on paper, just by evaluating the initial capital costs.

SpaceTime · 16-03-2014 03:58PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

What is the cost of harming the view of the landscape/scenery, and on animal habitats - and the knock-on costs of that?
.

On scenery, yes there's an argument but I think it should be on a case-by-case basis as the construction impact and cost of under grounding is very big.

There should be a lot of emphasis put on pylon design (it's possible to make them look less ugly) and also on sensitive routing away from scenic areas.

I don't see how they have any impact on animal habitats though? If anything, pylons might actually provide nesting environment for birds. They've very little impact on the physical environment - it's just a lattice structure in a concrete base.

Once installed, they've actually very little impact on anything. They're just a fairly light, quite compact structure ... grass will grow under them and all that. Probably have less impact than constructing a cow shed.

It's sort of beauty is in the eye of the beholder too.

Pylons yeah they're industrial looking but are they really any uglier than a victorian railway line or viaduct, than a motorway, than one-off housing scattered around the place ?

Properly positioned, they're not the worst looking things blotting the landscape in my opinion anyway. Mostly you'd hardly notice them because they're a lattice.

Manmade structures are all over our landscape, even farmland's far, far from what it would look like naturally. The entire landscape is radically altered by human activity.

KyussBishop · 16-03-2014 05:21PM

Ah on animal habitats, I was thinking more this recent research:

KyussBishop wrote: »

This is pretty interesting:
"Powerlines disturb animal habitats by appearing as disturbing flashes of UV light invisible to the human eye"
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/powerlines-disturb-animal-habitats-by-appearing-as-disturbing-flashes-of-uv-light-invisible-to-the-human-eye-9187631.html

So, this is what some animals see from pylons and such:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bafB7QwVw6I

I agree though, the scenic cost of them isn't that big of an issue - and there's certainly no way to quantify the cost of that in an objective way.

darkpagandeath · 16-03-2014 05:47PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ah on animal habitats, I was thinking more this recent research:

I agree though, the scenic cost of them isn't that big of an issue - and there's certainly no way to quantify the cost of that in an objective way.

Ah Jesus were back to this.... The recent study was a paper that has proven some animals can see UV. That was then hijacked by some Norwegian scientist to prove Reindeer moved their territory/migration paths. With the myriad of reasons I have given that could cause this. That scientist is clearly trying to make a name for himself. I have not seen any research just a theory. I have not seen any data to support these claims. I have only seen the paper that proves some animals can see UV. The sun and northern lights produce UV that has been flashing around for millions of years. Yet apparently new structures out in the tundra with some flashing UV on them is what's scaring them. And not the structures created by man in their territory.

KyussBishop · 16-03-2014 06:57PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Ah Jesus were back to this.... The recent study was a paper that has proven some animals can see UV. That was then hijacked by some Norwegian scientist to prove Reindeer moved their territory/migration paths. With the myriad of reasons I have given that could cause this. That scientist is clearly trying to make a name for himself. I have not seen any research just a theory. I have not seen any data to support these claims. I have only seen the paper that proves some animals can see UV. The sun and northern lights produce UV that has been flashing around for millions of years. Yet apparently new structures out in the tundra with some flashing UV on them is what's scaring them. And not the structures created by man in their territory.

Jesus darkpagan give it a rest - you're shítting on the research just for the sake of it.

If the mere sight of pylons is going to scare animals, as you say, then it's a logical step that rapid-never-ending-flashing pylons will scare them even more.

Quit making an argument just for the sake of it - it's a valid study, and you're not trying to debate anything here, just continually make unbacked assertions, in order to take a crap on the study (without actually providing anything substantive to disprove it); I have no interest in arguing with tedious bullshít like that, so please, don't drag me into that.

darkpagandeath · 16-03-2014 07:07PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Jesus darkpagan give it a rest - you're shítting on the research just for the sake of it.

If the mere sight of pylons is going to scare animals, as you say, then it's a logical step that rapid-never-ending-flashing pylons will scare them even more.

Quit making an argument just for the sake of it - it's a valid study, and you're not trying to debate anything here, just continually make unbacked assertions, in order to take a crap on the study (without actually providing anything substantive to disprove it); I have no interest in arguing with tedious bullshít like that, so please, don't drag me into that.

Were is the Data ? The only data I have see is that animals can see UV. Link the data if your so sure it's a proven theory. And I am not making anymore unbaked assertions than the links to this Theory. And again if it’s a valid study Were is the Data.

SpaceTime · 16-03-2014 07:42PM

I'd also point out we've been living with high tension power lines in our lives for >100 years now and certainly for the last 60+ in a big way.

We also all used to sit in front of a FAR more EM-emiting device (and one that could even emit X-Rays in some fault configurations!) - The humble cathode-ray tube television!

I really don't buy this EM field 'scientific research' to be quite honest. There's significant amounts of very serious scientific research showing they don't have any impact on anything at all and it would tend to correlate with the fact that power line workers who spend their time sitting on the damn things, tend to live very long and happy lives without any unusual impacts.

From a cancer risk point of view, some of the agricultural activities themselves i.e. spraying with pesticides etc, would be a far higher risk as are pollutants in the air from burning fossil fuels, people smoking, exposure to household chemicals etc etc etc.

Mountainsandh · 16-03-2014 07:52PM

SpaceTime wrote: »

On scenery, yes there's an argument but I think it should be on a case-by-case basis as the construction impact and cost of under grounding is very big.

There should be a lot of emphasis put on pylon design (it's possible to make them look less ugly) and also on sensitive routing away from scenic areas.

I don't see how they have any impact on animal habitats though? If anything, pylons might actually provide nesting environment for birds. They've very little impact on the physical environment - it's just a lattice structure in a concrete base.

Once installed, they've actually very little impact on anything. They're just a fairly light, quite compact structure ... grass will grow under them and all that. Probably have less impact than constructing a cow shed.

It's sort of beauty is in the eye of the beholder too.

Pylons yeah they're industrial looking but are they really any uglier than a victorian railway line or viaduct, than a motorway, than one-off housing scattered around the place ?

Properly positioned, they're not the worst looking things blotting the landscape in my opinion anyway. Mostly you'd hardly notice them because they're a lattice.

Manmade structures are all over our landscape, even farmland's far, far from what it would look like naturally. The entire landscape is radically altered by human activity.

All good points, except that for me anyway :
a) the fact that man made structures are already scattered on the landscape, ugly or not, does not justify adding more if that is not absolutely necessary*.

b) I would tend to notice them in most place (again, just me), I guess we all look at the scenery in different ways. Unfortunately some, like me, will take note and be bothered by it, including tourists.

c) They do look industrial, and so are likely to change the overall feel and face of some rural sections. This will more than likely affect tourism and the related industry, as well as people's quality of life. For example, if I bought an old farmhouse and restored it because I loved the area and the feel of that place so much, then I started a B&B or guesthouse business to share this lovely experience, it would be likely to affect my quality of life to have a pylon 60 metres from my farmhouse, and affect my tourism business. Actually it would more than likely affect the overall value of my property too.

* the question is, is the scale of this upgrade really necessary, or is it over ambitious ? was the Gridlink Grid25 upgrade designed with wind electricity exports in mind ? if that is the case (and it is, we just don't know to what extent), then a portion of these lines and pylons are not really necessary, they are a way to facilitate wind developers exports.

I'm ok with an upgrade for the Irish population in general, something that would benefit every one. I am not ok with pylons and HP lines intruding on rural landscape if these are directly linked to private commercial enterprises.

Like said often on this thread, it would be favouring one type of enterprise to the demise of others : aside from people's quality of life, the industrialisation of some areas would affect construction (people are less likely to choose to renovate or build beside pylons), and tourism.

So yes, it would facilitate quick money for exporting wind developers, to the demise of construction and tourism in the area in the long term, and I think that's wrong.

SpaceTime · 16-03-2014 08:12PM

So far anyway, we've not a hope in hell of exporting wind energy as we don't produce enough to even remotely meet national demand.

So, I think some of that stuff is pie in the sky nonsense anyway.

At present, the interconnectors are used primarily to buy in power, not export it.

darkpagandeath · 16-03-2014 08:12PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

All good points, except that for me anyway :
a) the fact that man made structures are already scattered on the landscape, ugly or not, does not justify adding more if that is not absolutely necessary*.

b) I would tend to notice them in most place (again, just me), I guess we all look at the scenery in different ways. Unfortunately some, like me, will take note and be bothered by it, including tourists.

c) They do look industrial, and so are likely to change the overall feel and face of some rural sections. This will more than likely affect tourism and the related industry, as well as people's quality of life. For example, if I bought an old farmhouse and restored it because I loved the area and the feel of that place so much, then I started a B&B or guesthouse business to share this lovely experience, it would be likely to affect my quality of life to have a pylon 60 metres from my farmhouse, and affect my tourism business. Actually it would more than likely affect the overall value of my property too.

* the question is, is the scale of this upgrade really necessary, or is it over ambitious ? was the Gridlink Grid25 upgrade designed with wind electricity exports in mind ? if that is the case (and it is, we just don't know to what extent), then a portion of these lines and pylons are not really necessary, they are a way to facilitate wind developers exports.

I'm ok with an upgrade for the Irish population in general, something that would benefit every one. I am not ok with pylons and HP lines intruding on rural landscape if these are directly linked to private commercial enterprises.

Like said often on this thread, it would be favouring one type of enterprise to the demise of others : aside from people's quality of life, the industrialisation of some areas would affect construction (people are less likely to choose to renovate or build beside pylons), and tourism.

So yes, it would facilitate quick money for exporting wind developers, to the demise of construction and tourism in the area in the long term, and I think that's wrong.

Was it not already said that any private wind farms would have to build there own links to the grid network.

SpaceTime · 16-03-2014 08:13PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Were is the Data ? The only data I have see is that animals can see UV. Link the data if your so sure it's a proven theory. And I am not making anymore unbaked assertions than the links to this Theory. And again if it’s a valid study Were is the Data.

Pylon not too far from me here and there are red squirrels living under it and climbing it! It's been there since the 1950s.

They don't seem too bothered by it tbh.

I would like to see ACTUAL science around this stuff though. There are a lot of claims and counter claims and way too much b/s in the debate.

Some of the anti-wires stuff is actually so ridiculous that it's undermining the argument.

I'm not passionately in favour of pylons and I think some of ESB's siting of them really leaves a lot to be desired, especially in the old days when they'd very serious abilities to ignore planning laws.

This whole debate needs to be about balancing the need to put in infrastructure with the need to protect the vista. There's no absolutes as both are needed.

Undergrounding isn't really a viable option for long runs, it may be for specific areas though.

Using less ugly pylon designs and ensuring that the routes are as visually unobtrusive as possible would be more useful.

Also, I think in terms of undegrounding - they need to take a look at some of the hideous messes of cabling in many cities, towns and villages an awful lot of that should be underground and is VERY visually obtrusive.

Those kinds of under grounding projects are cheap as it's just a matter of burying 230V/400V cables.

We have to strike a balance between having decent infrastructure and affordable electricity with protecting the landscape and that's somewhere in the middle, it's not a case of under grounding everything and it's not a case of building pylons willy nilly all over the place either.

Throwing hysterical pseudoscience into the debates really doesn't help though.

Mountainsandh · 16-03-2014 08:16PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Ah Jesus were back to this.... The recent study was a paper that has proven some animals can see UV. That was then hijacked by some Norwegian scientist to prove Reindeer moved their territory/migration paths. With the myriad of reasons I have given that could cause this. That scientist is clearly trying to make a name for himself. I have not seen any research just a theory. I have not seen any data to support these claims. I have only seen the paper that proves some animals can see UV. The sun and northern lights produce UV that has been flashing around for millions of years. Yet apparently new structures out in the tundra with some flashing UV on them is what's scaring them. And not the structures created by man in their territory.

You have a funny notion of the word "myriad".

Mountainsandh · 16-03-2014 08:22PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Was it not already said that any private wind farms would have to build there own links to the grid network.

But the grid network would have to have the capacity to accommodate them.

Thus when a 220 line might have sufficed for the locals, a 440kv might be planned to accommodate an area that is likely to host wind farms, if I understand right. Which would explain how Grid25 was calling on developers to submit estimates of when they would start, where, and what power they would generate all over the country in the next few years.

darkpagandeath · 16-03-2014 08:24PM

SpaceTime wrote: »

Pylon not too far from me here and there are red squirrels living under it and climbing it! It's been there since the 1950s.

They don't seem too bothered by it tbh.

I would like to see ACTUAL science around this stuff though. There are a lot of claims and counter claims and way too much b/s in the debate.

Some of the anti-wires stuff is actually so ridiculous that it's undermining the argument.

I'm not passionately in favour of pylons and I think some of ESB's siting of them really leaves a lot to be desired, especially in the old days when they'd very serious abilities to ignore planning laws.

This whole debate needs to be about balancing the need to put in infrastructure with the need to protect the vista. There's no absolutes as both are needed.

Undergrounding isn't really a viable option for long runs, it may be for specific areas though.

Using less ugly pylon designs and ensuring that the routes are as visually unobtrusive as possible would be more useful.

Also, I think in terms of undegrounding - they need to take a look at some of the hideous messes of cabling in many cities, towns and villages an awful lot of that should be underground and is VERY visually obtrusive.

Those kinds of under grounding projects are cheap as it's just a matter of burying 230V/400V cables.

We have to strike a balance between having decent infrastructure and affordable electricity with protecting the landscape and that's somewhere in the middle, it's not a case of under grounding everything and it's not a case of building pylons willy nilly all over the place either.

Yes too many present Theory as fact. On the one side we have health concerns debunked many many peer reviewed papers. Yet people still cry health problems. And the other hand makey uppy links to things that maybe or could.

darkpagandeath · 16-03-2014 08:28PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

You have a funny notion of the word "myriad".

How so ? do I have to make a massive list of things that could spook Reindeer.

Mountainsandh · 16-03-2014 08:31PM

The one and only reason you gave for reindeers being frightened of the pylons was that they were man made structures.

KyussBishop · 16-03-2014 08:33PM

SpaceTime wrote: »

...Throwing hysterical pseudoscience into the debates really doesn't help though.

If you're going to claim that, you better back it with something - because this is (once again) a proven study, demonstrating that certain animals can see in the UV range, and thus can see the corona discharge given off by transmission lines - squirrels can not.

This isn't even necessarily a recommendation of not having pylons (there are suggestions, that the power lines can just be sheathed to hide the corona discharge), so at least make a minimum of effort to understand what you're panning.

darkpagandeath · 16-03-2014 08:34PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The one and only reason you gave for reindeers being frightened of the pylons was that they were man made structures.

I was disagreeing with a theory of the flashing UV on pylons spook animals.

darkpagandeath · 16-03-2014 08:35PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

If you're going to claim that, you better back it with something - because this is (once again) a proven study, demonstrating that certain animals can see in the UV range, and thus can see the corona discharge given off by transmission lines - squirrels can not.

This isn't even necessarily a recommendation of not having pylons (there are suggestions, that the power lines can just be sheathed to hide the corona discharge), so at least make a minimum of effort to understand what you're panning.

You have still not linked any Data to support this wild Theory. Please share with the rest of us the proof. Yes it is proven animals can see UV who said otherwise ?

KyussBishop · 16-03-2014 08:39PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You have still not linked any Data to support this wild Theory. Please share with the rest of us the proof.

It's right in the original links.

Are you actually denying that some animals can:
1: See in the UV range, and
2: That power lines emit UV-range corona discharges?

If that is your claim (not merely that animals wouldn't be spooked by it), then you're straight-out wrong - because it is proven that both some animals can see in the UV range (in the exact post you're quoting - which you can't even be arsed to look at the links on), and the earlier video showing UV corona discharges.

You can do your own bloody searching, because you're taking issue just for the sake of it, and seem to be acting deliberately dumb/obtuse - in a particularly tedious way.

EDIT: Ok, your ninja-edit says you agree with point '1' above - now: Do you disagree with point '2'? If not - what on earth are you arguing about?

Mountainsandh · 16-03-2014 08:46PM

SpaceTime wrote: »

This whole debate needs to be about balancing the need to put in infrastructure with the need to protect the vista. There's no absolutes as both are needed.

Undergrounding isn't really a viable option for long runs, it may be for specific areas though.

Using less ugly pylon designs and ensuring that the routes are as visually unobtrusive as possible would be more useful.

Also, I think in terms of undegrounding - they need to take a look at some of the hideous messes of cabling in many cities, towns and villages an awful lot of that should be underground and is VERY visually obtrusive.

Those kinds of under grounding projects are cheap as it's just a matter of burying 230V/400V cables.

We have to strike a balance between having decent infrastructure and affordable electricity with protecting the landscape and that's somewhere in the middle, it's not a case of under grounding everything and it's not a case of building pylons willy nilly all over the place either.
.

Absolutely.

But Space Time, not all anti-pylon protesters are against the entire scheme, or freaking out about pseudo-science theories.

People tend to be labelled quickly when objecting to such schemes.

This scheme in my opinion reflects the trend to over inflate, over estimate, over shoot generally in Ireland ever since the good years.

It is right that people should question the inflated scale of projects for Ireland. It's not like there was plenty of land to work with. The place is tiny, relative to other European continental countries, and yet the ambitions are greater.

When the EU placed a target of 16% renewable energy by 2020 on Ireland, the powers that be decided it had to be 40%. It is not Europe that imposed 40% on Ireland.

See what I mean ?

That Irish policies should be ambitious is great, but not when it is very likely to affect the population's well being, and happiness index, if you see what I mean. And not when it is very likely to affect other very important sectors such as tourism, and construction for example, which may only deliver long term instead of having a quick return.

darkpagandeath · 16-03-2014 08:46PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's right in the original links.

Are you actually denying that some animals can:
1: See in the UV range, and
2: That power lines emit UV-range corona discharges?

If that is your claim (not merely that animals wouldn't be spooked by it), then you're straight-out wrong - because it is proven that both some animals can see in the UV range (in the exact post you're quoting - which you can't even be arsed to look at the links on), and the earlier video showing UV corona discharges.

You can do your own bloody searching, because you're taking issue just for the sake of it, and seem to be acting deliberately dumb/obtuse - in a particularly tedious way.

EDIT: Ok, your ninja-edit says you agree with point '1' above - now: Do you disagree with point '2'? If not - what on earth are you arguing about?

I never disagreed about certain animals being able to see UV. I disagreed with the Theory that was linked. Theory is not fact unless that has changed recently.

SpaceTime · 16-03-2014 09:09PM

Also you can largely design out coronal discharges. From the power company's point of view, they're very undesirable as they result in lost energy and damage to insulation.

They're mostly associated with older designs of insulators and sharp bends in lines from what I've read online.

Power companies go to great lengths to avoid them.

KyussBishop · 16-03-2014 09:32PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I never disagreed about certain animals being able to see UV. I disagreed with the Theory that was linked. Theory is not fact unless that has changed recently.

Except nobody said it was fact that animals are scared by it, only that it is a relevant and interesting fact that they can see it - which they could potentially be scared by.

You said earlier, without any backing, that animals are far more likely to be scared by the mere sight of pylons - so if you are arguing that is more likely, then it actually backs what you're panning, since animals who can see in the UV range don't just see static/inanimate pylons, they see neverending-rapidly-flashing corona discharges off of them as well.

KyussBishop · 16-03-2014 09:33PM

SpaceTime wrote: »

Also you can largely design out coronal discharges. From the power company's point of view, they're very undesirable as they result in lost energy and damage to insulation.

They're mostly associated with older designs of insulators and sharp bends in lines from what I've read online.

Power companies go to great lengths to avoid them.

This is true yes, though I don't think they can be completely gotten rid of - from what I've read, they are less of a problem on lower voltage power lines, but a much bigger problem on higher voltage ones - and that weather conditions affect the discharges as well.

Capt'n Midnight · 17-03-2014 12:30PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

b) I would tend to notice them in most place (again, just me), I guess we all look at the scenery in different ways. Unfortunately some, like me, will take note and be bothered by it, including tourists.

you notice them because you are looking for them

most tourists won't notice them because they've grown up with them, to them it's like street furniture

TBH honest telegraph poles and light pollution are far more noticeable

and don't trot out the spiel of telegraph poles being in tune with the landscape, they are up close and personal , the only reason you can stand them and all those dangling wires is because you grew up with them

Mountainsandh · 17-03-2014 02:08PM

You are forgetting I grew up in Lyon, in an industrial environment, and spent my week-ends and summers in more rural French places.

So yes I saw them from when I was small, and yes I am still noticing infrastructure in the landscape.

Telegraph poles easily disappear in bushes and trees, that cannot be said for lattice pylons. Height cannot be compared too.

I often think though, about what the French are doing.
RTE have committed themselves to not increasing the amount of overhead lines. In order to achieve that, they are burying some, and still putting up some that are absolutely necessary.
Their costs are similar to here, but what they are doing is that they are burying a lot of currently overhead lines of a lesser voltage, and so at lesser cost. That way, you are reducing the impact of infrastructure on the country overall, and so it is more acceptable to have the odd large pylon line, because it's not just coming on top of everything else.
So some areas will be spoiled with the overhead lines, but other areas, like scenic villages, or spots previously cluttered with infrastructure, are cleaned up.

If Eirgrid could demonstrate that they are going to clean up some areas, preserve the most scenic spots, have less infrastructure overall, but unfortunately have the strictly necessary larger infrastructure up, again it would help acceptance of the scheme greatly.

I would emphasize "strictly necessary" though.

Pylons

Comments