Pylons

fits · 23-03-2014 08:52AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

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.

.

The 16% refers to all renewable energy (heat, power, transport). The 40% refers to renewable electricity only since we are much more developed in that area than in the renewable heat and transport fuel areas.

Agree with what you're saying though. I'm not against pylons per se as long as they are well planned along infrastructure corridors with proper measures to compensate people along the way. Its covering the country with badly planned infrastructure that I object to particularly in unspoiled areas.

darkpagandeath · 23-03-2014 02:26PM

fits wrote: »

The 16% refers to all renewable energy (heat, power, transport). The 40% refers to renewable electricity only since we are much more developed in that area than in the renewable heat and transport fuel areas.

Agree with what you're saying though. I'm not against pylons per se as long as they are well planned along infrastructure corridors with proper measures to compensate people along the way. Its covering the country with badly planned infrastructure that I object to particularly in unspoiled areas.

Only if it goes through their land. I'm not a fan of I can see a pylon attitude people have. There is no proof it affects the housing price. And if it did I bet its a very low amount and not in the high % people make out.

Mountainsandh · 23-03-2014 10:52PM

fits wrote: »

The 16% refers to all renewable energy (heat, power, transport). The 40% refers to renewable electricity only since we are much more developed in that area than in the renewable heat and transport fuel areas.

It is still over ambitious imo, especially considering it is the most inconvenient to people, since it goes hand in hand with infrastructure, and again it was agreed in response to a plan submitted by Ireland.

Greensleeves · 27-04-2014 10:58AM

EirGrid 1, Protestors 0

EirGrid's €80m Laois-Kilkenny reinforcement project has been approved by An Bord Pleanála.

The decision to grant planning permission with conditions has been met with shock and disappointment by opponents of the plan.

EirGrid said the Laois-Kilkenny Reinforcement Project is a necessary enhancement of the transmission system for the midlands and southeast.

The project consists of a new 110/38kV substation at Ballyragget in Kilkenny and a new 400/110kV substation at Coolnabacky in Laois, with a 26km line connecting the two stations.

Coolnabacky will then take new connections from the existing Moneypoint-Dunstown and Athy-Portlaoise lines.

The Ballyragget to Kilkenny line will also be upgraded.

Campaigners in Co Laois believe the planned substation at Coolnabacky is too large and they fear the area will become a major electrical hub.

Ratheniska, Timahoe and Spink Substation Action Group spokesman Colm Fingleton said: "We are all kind of stunned with the decision.

"I think it is an outrage, it's like they never heard our concerns."

Full story...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0425/611797-laois-kilkenny-project/

SpaceTime · 27-04-2014 06:36PM

They did hear the concerns they just balanced them with the need for the infrastructure.

Life's about compromise.

darkpagandeath · 27-04-2014 06:45PM

Interesting seems it is a needed upgrade after all.

Mountainsandh · 27-04-2014 09:38PM

The need for the upgrade is widely accepted, it's the extent of it that is the issue.

In this case too, the spread and size of the complex is the issue I believe.

Greensleeves · 28-04-2014 09:40AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The need for the upgrade is widely accepted, it's the extent of it that is the issue.

In this case too, the spread and size of the complex is the issue I believe.

Yes, the scale of the proposal seems to be the problem and the fact that the substation and upgrade is to facilitate wind energy which EirGird apparently deny.

http://www.laois-nationalist.ie/news/2013/11/20/day-1-heated-exchanges-abp-oral-hearing/

Old diesel · 28-04-2014 12:00PM

Greensleeves wrote: »

Yes, the scale of the proposal seems to be the problem and the fact that the substation and upgrade is to facilitate wind energy which EirGird apparently deny.

http://www.laois-nationalist.ie/news/2013/11/20/day-1-heated-exchanges-abp-oral-hearing/

I guess an important question here is - IS the new substation intended to facilitate wind energy.

IF it is - did Eirgrid try to claim otherwise.

The other questions are - leaving aside the wind energy thing for a moment - they also have concerns about the site either been on - or too near (not sure which) their local water source.

So have they a case on the water source issue - what are the actual risks to their water supply. If there is a risk - how much risk is acceptable.

The community also feel that environmental law has been breached - and legal obligations araising from the Aarhaus convention have also been breached.

And finally - it seems Eirgrids consultation process is seen by the community as a shambles.

I guess a lot of people will say f:mad::mad:k em - but maybe if we look at it differently - if WE WERE all living in Ratheniska - or other communities facing controversial projects - pylons and wind energy - how would WE like to be treated - in terms of fairness.

Someone mentioned the need for compromise - that's fine - but how do we calculate in a fair (to the community) manner what is a reasonable level of compromise.

Personally - I think the day we accept that wind energy is flawed - will be a great day as then we can move forward - and START to address those flaws.

That doesn't mean you stop building wind turbines or stop wind projects - but if we can at least recognise the issue - we can continue building wind turbines in the mean time - but long term - we can devise better solutions

darkpagandeath · 28-04-2014 04:04PM

Old diesel wrote: »

I guess an important question here is - IS the new substation intended to facilitate wind energy.

IF it is - did Eirgrid try to claim otherwise.

The other questions are - leaving aside the wind energy thing for a moment - they also have concerns about the site either been on - or too near (not sure which) their local water source.

So have they a case on the water source issue - what are the actual risks to their water supply. If there is a risk - how much risk is acceptable.

The community also feel that environmental law has been breached - and legal obligations araising from the Aarhaus convention have also been breached.

And finally - it seems Eirgrids consultation process is seen by the community as a shambles.

I guess a lot of people will say f:mad::mad:k em - but maybe if we look at it differently - if WE WERE all living in Ratheniska - or other communities facing controversial projects - pylons and wind energy - how would WE like to be treated - in terms of fairness.

Someone mentioned the need for compromise - that's fine - but how do we calculate in a fair (to the community) manner what is a reasonable level of compromise.

Personally - I think the day we accept that wind energy is flawed - will be a great day as then we can move forward - and START to address those flaws.

That doesn't mean you stop building wind turbines or stop wind projects - but if we can at least recognise the issue - we can continue building wind turbines in the mean time - but long term - we can devise better solutions

I see so for the good of certain communities... Will these communities pay the massive fines Ireland will receive for not meeting it's Emission targets then. People seem to be under the impression they will just go away. They wont and we all will be paying for them.

Old diesel · 28-04-2014 05:30PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I see so for the good of certain communities... Will these communities pay the massive fines Ireland will receive for not meeting it's Emission targets then. People seem to be under the impression they will just go away. They wont and we all will be paying for them.

Shall I tell you what I expect to see happen - I expect that these turbines WILL be built. These turbines and the substations WILL be built.

The pylons will all be built as well

So I wouldn't be overly concerned about the fines because - the planning approach in Ireland WILL ensure that the wind farms will be built

I was merely pointing out a number of the issues the Ratheniska community had - I didn't comment on whether I thought the community are right or wrong - I did pose the question about the site been potentially near or on the site of the communities water supply - and was wondering what the actual risk was - and what was an acceptable level of risk would be if there was an actual risk. That's a completely different issue to the normal wind turbine and pylon issues.

I also posed a rather relevant (imo) question of - how we would like to be treated if WE WERE residents in Ratheniska.

Because - okay - we need to meet our targets for renewables - but we should TRY to be as fair as we can to these communities.

If you have difficulty grasping the concept - try and imagine if YOU lived in one of these communities - how would YOU like to be treated - how would you like the projects to be planned.

Very easy to say to a community - tough luck - if your not living there and won't have a project where YOU live.

Its easier - for people to accept change - if that change is as* positive as it can be for their daily everyday lives - and as* fair as possible.

I don't have a problem in saying the wind energy tech isn't great - its merely my opinions - and I did also say that this doesn't mean you don't build.

but merely that recognising the flaws would mean you could start to address them. That doesn't mean AGAIN that you don't build the turbines - as I said at the start - I fully expect them to be built anyway.

But that in the long term - we can devise better solutions.

The short term solution that's been pursued is turbines - and it doesn't matter what I think of them - that's what we as a country are going for.

I just want to be as fair as possible to communities in the process - because frankly - there are a lot of communities going to be having wind farms or pylons - and some may even have BOTH.

That doesn't mean that you don't build the turbines - but merely that you try to be as fair as possible.

*as fair and as positive as possible - does not mean you give the community what they want - but merely you do the best you can for them :rolleyes:

darkpagandeath · 28-04-2014 06:34PM

Were else do you put the pylons then ? Underground is not an option

Birdnuts · 28-04-2014 07:32PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I see so for the good of certain communities... Will these communities pay the massive fines Ireland will receive for not meeting it's Emission targets then. People seem to be under the impression they will just go away. They wont and we all will be paying for them.

Wind will do FA for Ireland and its emission targets(which are up for renegotiation anyway) - just as its done FA for Germany,Spain etc.. Its up to the Irish government to get the finger out on this and support the UK and others who are looking to reduce emmissions by adopting sensible policies like more nuclear, shale gas etc. instead of pouring more money into the black hole that is wind energy

Old diesel · 28-04-2014 07:33PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Were else do you put the pylons then ? Underground is not an option

As I said - the pylons WILL be built - theres no doubt about it

I have already said we NEED to meet our targets

Again I ask you the question - if it was YOUR community that was getting a controversial energy related project - how would you things to be handled.

Change is inevitable - we have to have change - and part of that is communities accepting energy projects in their area like pylons AND wind energy.

All I want is to make that change as fuss free and as pleasant as possible for people in communities.

its easier to deal with change if your treated in as fairly as possible

Yes we are limited in what can be done by the need to meet our EU targets - but there are potential options we can do to make things fairer

1) financial incentives for residents who live near these projects

2) Community windfarms - community owned - so communities get the benefits of the income

3) A windfarm in a village in Scotland did something unusual - they gave the nearby village a share of their windfarm - which amounted to the village getting one of the 15 turbines on the wind farm

4) Extra help for young people from the area in terms of things like college fees, setting up a business etc etc.

5) how do other countries plan their wind energy - are there countries that have successfully managed to get community acceptance of wind farms???? - how did they achieve this.

AGAIN - regardless of the above - the wind farms WILL be built - and the pylons WILL go up

darkpagandeath · 28-04-2014 07:36PM

Birdnuts wrote: »

Wind will do FA for Ireland and its emission targets(which are up for renegotiation anyway) - just as its done FA for Germany,Spain etc.. Its up to the Irish government to get the finger out on this and support the UK and others who are looking to reduce emmissions by adopting sensible policies like more nuclear, shale gas etc. instead of pouring more money into the black hole that is wind energy

Why ? Has Ireland reopened loads of coil/oil power plants recently to run them into the ground and create cheap power ? Nuclear is Illegal here, And you think people wont have more of an issue with Fracking ....

Old diesel · 28-04-2014 07:36PM

Birdnuts wrote: »

Wind will do FA for Ireland and its emission targets(which are up for renegotiation anyway) - just as its done FA for Germany,Spain etc.. Its up to the Irish government to get the finger out on this and support the UK and others who are looking to reduce emmissions by adopting sensible policies like more nuclear, shale gas etc. instead of pouring more money into the black hole that is wind energy

What wind will do - is to enable us to meet our 42.5 percent target in terms of electricity from renewables.

That's what it will do.

It also reduces our dependence on fossil fuels - ie the more wind energy we produce for our domestic needs - the less fossils we need to use.

Btw - I don't like wind energy technology either tbh - but in the short term that's what we will be working with.

darkpagandeath · 28-04-2014 07:47PM

1) financial incentives for residents who live near these projects

I live near pylons do I get the same financial incentive ?

2) Community windfarms - community owned - so communities get the benefits of the income

Again I live near infrastructure but don't get free electricity .

3) A windfarm in a village in Scotland did something unusual - they gave the nearby village a share of their windfarm - which amounted to the village getting one of the 15 turbines on the wind farm

If they were building a motorway should the people next to it be exempt from car tax for example ? Was nice gesture though, People next to the pylons are not next to the windfarms.

4) Extra help for young people from the area in terms of things like college fees, setting up a business etc etc.

What about actual disadvantaged areas, We have no money to give people who need the fee's money. Let alone giving grants out to people who don't need them

5) how do other countries plan their wind energy - are there countries that have successfully managed to get community acceptance of wind farms???? - how did they achieve this.

Alot of them don't have one off house's all over the place so was not an issue, Other countries people see the benefit to all as well. And don't just look at how it affects me.

Old diesel · 28-04-2014 08:10PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I live near pylons do I get the same financial incentive ?

Again I live near infrastructure but don't get free electricity .

If they were building a motorway should the people next to it be exempt from car tax for example ? Was nice gesture though, People next to the pylons are not next to the windfarms.

What about actual disadvantaged areas, We have no money to give people who need the fee's money. Let alone giving grants out to people who don't need them

Alot of them don't have one off house's all over the place so was not an issue, Other countries people see the benefit to all as well. And don't just look at how it affects me.

Basically im trying to make the NECCESSARY change as fuss free as possible - and treat people as fairly as possible - what on earth is wrong with that.

Unfortunately - the issue I have is - that I want communities to have as bright a future as possible.

I would LIKE to see rural Ireland keep going if possible and see as many communities as possible keep going.

Obviously they won't all keep going - but that's fine - my attitude is along the lines of okay - take 100 communities - if you lose 40 of them - that's not good.

But that still means 60 were kept going - and 60 out of 100 communities surviving - and thriving - is a lot better then 0 out of 100.

That's the sort of angle im coming from on this - I simply want the best possible outcome for communities.

If that's not possible - then its understandable that communities aren't happy.

Everyone wants the best possible future for themselves and their family.

Mountainsandh · 28-04-2014 08:13PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Alot of them don't have one off house's all over the place so was not an issue, Other countries people see the benefit to all as well. And don't just look at how it affects me.

Don't have the time to address all the equally poor points in your above post, but have to say this last one is the most subjective, unfounded of them all.

A lot of one off houses in France for example, a lot of old farms, mas, etc... so if you travel there as a tourist you're perhaps less likely to notice these ones (they blend very well in the environment), but a lot of new one off houses too.

"Grass is always greener" and all that.

The reason things are going a little smoother in other countries is perhaps that their governments are imposing community incentives to energy companies who wish to avail of communities' land for turbines.
Instead of trampling all over people from one's high horse claiming it's for the good of climate change.

Old diesel · 28-04-2014 08:17PM

Again - I accept we need to hit our renewables targets - hence the suggestions like financial incentives, community shareholdings in their local wind farms etc.

Those were merely suggestions - aimed at trying to be as fair as possible to communities - and trying to create a better future for residents - so that change can be made better.

You do have a valid point on the disadvantaged areas

darkpagandeath · 28-04-2014 08:36PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Don't have the time to address all the equally poor points in your above post, but have to say this last one is the most subjective, unfounded of them all.

A lot of one off houses in France for example, a lot of old farms, mas, etc... so if you travel there as a tourist you're perhaps less likely to notice these ones (they blend very well in the environment), but a lot of new one off houses too.

"Grass is always greener" and all that.

The reason things are going a little smoother in other countries is perhaps that their governments are imposing community incentives to energy companies who wish to avail of communities' land for turbines.
Instead of trampling all over people from one's high horse claiming it's for the good of climate change.

France is 8 times bigger and has a much larger population, Comparing the tiny population of Ireland and it's massive 1 off housing problem is a bit much. We have no way of avoiding houses when putting up pylons. I'm sure in France they went to great lengths to avoid houses but again you cant miss them all.

Old diesel · 28-04-2014 08:36PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Don't have the time to address all the equally poor points in your above post, but have to say this last one is the most subjective, unfounded of them all.

A lot of one off houses in France for example, a lot of old farms, mas, etc... so if you travel there as a tourist you're perhaps less likely to notice these ones (they blend very well in the environment), but a lot of new one off houses too.

"Grass is always greener" and all that.

The reason things are going a little smoother in other countries is perhaps that their governments are imposing community incentives to energy companies who wish to avail of communities' land for turbines.
Instead of trampling all over people from one's high horse claiming it's for the good of climate change.

Ive been arguing with darkpagandeath - on this whole thing - and while your posts are generally far closer to my own thinking then his/her posts.

Nonetheless - Darkpagandeath does have a point on the one offs in that other countries not having as many means - its easier to plan wind farms so you have better setback distances - so less upset people

I do think that community incentives have a role to play in helping make projects like what we are discussing here - more attractive - or less unattractive depending on your viewpoint.

I think that while we DO NEED TO meet our renewable energy targets - we can still try and threat communities as fairly as we can - again we are limited by the needs of our requirement to meet our targets - we have to MEET them.

The targets do impose limitations in what we can do - which is fine because the reality is - to get things done that need to be done - we need targets to push us along and get them done.

But I think if people can see that your doing your best to minimise the impact of the projects that NEED to be done - and trying to be as fair as possible - then change is easier to accept.

darkpagandeath · 28-04-2014 08:43PM

I'm not arguing, I'm simply pointing out the reality of the situation. The routs were chosen I'm sure to effect the smallest amount of people possible while taking the topography of the area into account. As I have said where will we put them if not in the areas chosen ? I see no other simple solution, fines are looming we don't have the time to re plan change routs.

Old diesel · 28-04-2014 08:47PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

France is 8 times bigger and has a much larger population, Comparing the tiny population of Ireland and it's massive 1 off housing problem is a bit much. We have no way of avoiding houses when putting up pylons. I'm sure in France they went to great lengths to avoid houses but again you cant miss them all.

Okay - lets look at this another way - too many one off houses - also means that any project is going to impact on more people then it would do in other countries.

How do we threat people as FAIRLY as possible - that's the question - we know we need to meet our renewables targets - we know that people need to compromise.

The one common factor that many people on BOTH sides of the argument share - is the fact that people all generally want the best possible future for themselves.

So how do we built on that - to achieve a fair compromise for people.

Compromise works both ways - obviously the future of people in Dublin is an issue - and ensuring this future is good - is dependent on getting these renewables up and running - the wind turbines - and the pylons we need to enable the wind energy deliver on our EU targets.

But if a community or residents make a compromise for the greater good of the country - how do we make their future as positive as possible.

darkpagandeath · 28-04-2014 08:51PM

Old diesel wrote: »

Okay - lets look at this another way - too many one off houses - also means that any project is going to impact on more people then it would do in other countries.

How do we threat people as FAIRLY as possible - that's the question - we know we need to meet our renewables targets - we know that people need to compromise.

The one common factor that many people on BOTH sides of the argument share - is the fact that people all generally want the best possible future for themselves.

So how do we built on that - to achieve a fair compromise for people.

Compromise works both ways - obviously the future of people in Dublin is an issue - and ensuring this future is good - is dependent on getting these renewables up and running - the wind turbines - and the pylons we need to enable the wind energy deliver on our EU targets.

But if a community or residents make a compromise for the greater good of the country - how do we make their future as positive as possible.

People seem to be forgetting why we are building windfarms in the first place. It's because we cant reduce the Emissions created by Rural Agriculture We have to offset them. You can be sure if any Emissions targets were suggested to the Agriculture industry there would be ructions. So in effect we are already compromising. 32% of all our Emissions is from that sector the European average is 10%

Old diesel · 28-04-2014 08:53PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I'm not arguing, I'm simply pointing out the reality of the situation. The routs were chosen I'm sure to effect the smallest amount of people possible while taking the topography of the area into account. As I have said where will we put them if not in the areas chosen ? I see no other simple solution, fines are looming we don't have the time to re plan change routs.

Again - I feel the need to point out - that yes I KNOW we need to make these renewable projects happen to meet our EU targets.

What I am saying is I want the best outcome for communities that is possible - while still meeting the targets.

Unfortunately - it seems for you - that been as fair as possible - seems to equate to stopping these projects going ahead.

Wheras - I would like to acknowledge that at this point in time - wind turbines ARE the main option in terms of meeting our energy targets - which we MUST meet

Greensleeves · 28-04-2014 09:08PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

People seem to be forgetting why we are building windfarms in the first place. It's because we cant reduce the Emissions created by Rural Agriculture We have to offset them. You can be sure if any Emissions targets were suggested to the Agriculture industry there would be ructions. So in effect we are already compromising. 32% of all our Emissions is from that sector the European average is 10%

Why can't we get our agricultural sector to reduce their emissions? There is big difference between 32% and 10% so surely we could get our emissions down to the the mid 20s.

I think we are facing ructions anyway. The farmers are opposed to the pylons but in favour of the wind farms. Which is obviously an odd position because the pylons are needed because of the wind farms. There are growing problems with how the wind energy companies treat the farmers; problems with leases, problems with money. This could lead to farmers refusing to host turbines. According to this article in the Examiner there are difficulties in Waterford between farmers and Element Power.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2014/0428/ireland/landowners-claim-energy-firm-not-honouring-deal-266699.html#.U13xF9qYYnE.twitter

Old diesel · 28-04-2014 09:11PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

People seem to be forgetting why we are building windfarms in the first place. It's because we cant reduce the Emissions created by Rural Agriculture We have to offset them. You can be sure if any Emissions targets were suggested to the Agriculture industry there would be ructions. So in effect we are already compromising. 32% of all our Emissions is from that sector the European average is 10%

My point is still a valid one - yes people need to compromise - - and you do make a valid point on the Agri side of things.

BUT - my point with the line you highlighted - is that the brighter a future people can see for themselves - the easier or less unpleasant compromise will be or seem to be.

Compromise is needed for sure - and we do need to meet our targets - I just want to make the whole process as fuss free as possible for communities.

Again we need to meet our targets - I just want the best outcomes that can be achieved for communities - simply because I want communities to have as good a future as possible.

But we are limited in terms of the outcomes we can achieve by the targets we need to meet - and that's fine

Birdnuts · 28-04-2014 09:45PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

? Nuclear is Illegal here, And you think people wont have more of an issue with Fracking ....

Wake up - with interconnectors Nuclear power will be powering Ireland in the near future if not already. If the government were serious about energy security and emmissions they would be educating people as to its benefits which are enjoyed already in many EU countries

darkpagandeath · 28-04-2014 09:49PM

Birdnuts wrote: »

Wake up - with interconnectors Nuclear power will be powering Ireland in the near future if not already. If the government were serious about energy security and emmissions they would be educating people as to its benefits which are enjoyed already in many EU countries

I have no issue with Nuclear was pointing out it's not an option here it's illegal. People think EMF off pylons gives you cancer imagine the outrage about fracking.

Pylons

Comments