Pylons

Birdnuts · 28-04-2014 09:50PM

Old diesel wrote: »

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.

The savings have been negligible thus far and the nature of wind energy means any savings will allways be marginal no matter how many wind farms pollute the Irish countryside as has been the case throughout the EU.

Birdnuts · 28-04-2014 09:52PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

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.

Fracking is again a case of education and regulation. Again if the government is serious about energy issues it would get the finger out, overall the current EPA model etc.

darkpagandeath · 28-04-2014 10:02PM

Birdnuts wrote: »

Fracking is again a case of education and regulation. Again if the government is serious about energy issues it would get the finger out, overall the current EPA model etc.

Hey I don't disagree but there has been plenty of education and regulation for pylons being safe. Yet one of the major argument against there placement is Nonsense health grounds. Do you think any of the same people would have a biofuel, methane reclamation, fracking near them ? Some of them have even been saying windturbines cause health problems.

Mountainsandh · 29-04-2014 12:24AM

You're right Darkpagandeath, they have more space in France. But they do also have more incentives.

And also, from my perspective, when you have less space, it makes sense to go for alternative ways to achieve the same result. You are simply given a different deck of cards, it should be the same as not having enough sun for solar. The only reason this is imposed on people is because the space factor is not deemed to be worthy. The methane reprocessing seems viable, biomass is less intrusive on people's lives, and is a very viable option in Ireland, off shore is a potential strength, wave etc... Money simply will need to be spent, but differently.

I think the public opinion on nuclear has actually changed quite a lot in recent years, it would be very interesting to run a poll on this now in Ireland. With some education and a clear presentation of where Ireland is going with energy targets and what options are available, people should and would make choices, and accept what needs to be accepted.

The big problem at the moment, is that options that have been chosen by a government the people don't trust are being slap banged on the table, and the only way people have of regaining control of the situation is to protest.

The policies are too hazy, too hasty, and too ambitious. They are underlined with commercial opportunities for a select few, and people who are still paying for grotesque excesses during the property boom are not prepared to undergo an energy development boom.

I think it's right, I'm glad the people are protesting, and I hope this might lead to more transparency and a greater input from ordinary folks rather than faceless big cheeses making commercial decisions as regards the very small land surface here.

Jester252 · 29-04-2014 06:35AM

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

There is no doubt that Ireland is being powered by nuclear energy but nuclear generation is illegal in Ireland and no politician is going to go near it.

Fracking will still need an improved grid and trying to implement it would only give the NIMBYs a field day.

Old diesel · 29-04-2014 10:26AM

a look at @eirgrid_info on twitter is a must - to understand the flaws of wind energy as a power generator - and why wind turbines NEED pylon back up.

We need to be able to move a huge volume of electricity on days when wind does well - to make up for the days that wind is very poor.

36 MW this morning - which for something supposed to make up 40 percent of our electricity generation isn't great.

We will be using wind for our renewables for the short term - but we REALLY need to work to keep the period we need to rely on wind energy for 40 percent of our power - to as short a period as possible

Knob Longman · 02-05-2014 10:19PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

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.

I'd be pro nuclear myself especially with regards to Thorium but Fracking is too destructive and short term.

Capt'n Midnight · 11-05-2014 11:10AM

Knob Longman wrote: »

I'd be pro nuclear myself especially with regards to Thorium but Fracking is too destructive and short term.

Thorium requires breeder reactors. We've been breeding plutonium in reactors since 1944 and still haven't don't have commercial breeders. It's combination of the laws of physics , in that you need an extra neutron to make a fertile fuel fissile compared to simple uranium burning, and you've only got 2.4 neutrons per fission to work with. And economics in that once through uranium burning is cheaper than breeding and the UK are willing to spend 9.25p per unit for the cheaper option.

Thing to remember here is that solar cost fell 7% a year for 30 years, except now it's falling even faster. Solar has replaced nuclear power on the Juno probe headed for Jupiter, that's an application where nuclear cost isn't an issue and the sunlight is less than 4% of what we have here.

Thorium has been tried in at least two full scale reactors in the US and two in Germany. The US has tested it in an atomic bomb.

OK let's pretend that thorium works, and that it's cheaper than uranium , and that none of the lab proven advances in solar can be commercialised (remember none of the new EPR reactors has been built let alone tested) and that wind stops dropping 14% every time capacity doubles and that tidal turbines and wave machines are a dead end and that there are no advances in the cost of geothermal tunnelling. Even then thorium has a major problem. At present it could only be done in a few reactors, you can more or less rule out any US or US based design, even the Candu's have been "watered down". The Chinese and Indians are looking at thorium but it's still test reactor days, then they've to try full scale then debug and commercialise it and then it takes time to breed enough. Even if you doubled the amount of nuclear power over the next ten years ( and you can't do it any quicker because they take a long time to build ) it would only provide about 1/5th of the worlds electricity, and little or none of the peak demand electricity which can only be done by hydro, fossil fuel or renewables when the weather suits. ( we get 25% of our power from renewables some months )

/RANT

and besides nuclear means more pylons because you have to keep the plants away from cities

darkpagandeath · 31-05-2014 01:47AM

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/concern-at-leukaemia-link-to-high-voltages-270430.html

No links to reports or any information or where the increase in leukaemia is located. Looks like just another scaremongering news report not even based on any reported facts. Just mentions different apparent experts.

The SCENIHR opinion contained no recommendations for precautionary measures to limit
exposure to EMF.

National and international health and scientific agencies have reviewed more than 30 years of research into EMF. None of these agencies has concluded that exposure to EMF from power lines or other electrical sources is a cause of adverse effects on humans, plants,or animals.

darkpagandeath · 30-04-2015 01:42AM

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0429/697716-eirgrid/

An independent panel appointed to oversee a review of the proposed Grid West project has found that EirGrid's analysis of route options is complete and objective.

micosoft · 30-04-2015 12:39PM

Unfortunately that will never be enough....

Speaking as someone who lives in the Country Side and spend my Childhood <50 metres from a Pylon it all boils down to Nimbyism.
- Healthcare is nonsense.
- I actually live in the MOST touristed part of the country so the economic argument is nonsense.

The problem is that a lot of people who live in the countryside do so for lifestyle, not work reasons. They believe they are entitled to a pristine environment and that other people should put up with the facilities needed to sustain modern life. They come up with wholly unrealistic suggestions where other people have to subsidise their lifestyle rather than engaging seriously on the topic.

zl1whqvjs75cdy · 30-04-2015 04:16PM

micosoft wrote: »

Unfortunately that will never be enough....

Speaking as someone who lives in the Country Side and spend my Childhood <50 metres from a Pylon it all boils down to Nimbyism.
- Healthcare is nonsense.
- I actually live in the MOST touristed part of the country so the economic argument is nonsense.

The problem is that a lot of people who live in the countryside do so for lifestyle, not work reasons. They believe they are entitled to a pristine environment and that other people should put up with the facilities needed to sustain modern life. They come up with wholly unrealistic suggestions where other people have to subsidise their lifestyle rather than engaging seriously on the topic.

Despite the fact that many of them made ****e of the pristine environment with their one off housing.

darkpagandeath · 30-04-2015 04:22PM

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Despite the fact that many of them made ****e of the pristine environment with their one off housing.

That and the landscape they live in is pretty much 99% man made. Or do walls and fields randomly appear in nature.

SeanW · 30-04-2015 04:42PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

and besides nuclear means more pylons because you have to keep the plants away from cities

But you don't have to put them on the tops of mountains ... and the nuclear plants don't expose birds to bird strikes or bats to barotrauma because their turbines are indoors.

hatrickpatrick · 30-04-2015 04:50PM

Why is 24/7 noise pollution not considered a legitimate complaint? I'd go feckin' insane if there was literally never a single respite from that buzzing sound, especially when trying to sleep.

darkpagandeath · 30-04-2015 05:12PM

SeanW wrote: »

But you don't have to put them on the tops of mountains ... and the nuclear plants don't expose birds to bird strikes or bats to barotrauma because their turbines are indoors.

Rout is fine has been independently verified.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is 24/7 noise pollution not considered a legitimate complaint? I'd go feckin' insane if there was literally never a single respite from that buzzing sound, especially when trying to sleep.

Modern life, Some people live near roads. Do you go mad when the sheep or the wind or any number of other things make noise ?

Capt'n Midnight · 30-04-2015 08:28PM

SeanW wrote: »

But you don't have to put them on the tops of mountains ... and the nuclear plants don't expose birds to bird strikes or bats to barotrauma because their turbines are indoors.

Nuclear plants are good for animals.

Nothing like large exclusion zones to facilitate wildlife. Animals generally have shorter lives and so have less livetime exposure to radiation.

TBH if I had my way I'd impregnate rhino horns with some nasty alpha sources, and spray beta sources on the inside surfaces just to be sure.

cml387 · 30-04-2015 08:30PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Nuclear plants are good for animals.

Nothing like large exclusion zones to facilitate wildlife. Animals generally have shorter lives and so have less livetime exposure to radiation.

TBH if I had my way I'd impregnate rhino horns with some nasty alpha sources, and spray beta sources on the inside surfaces just to be sure.

Wildlife is thriving around Chernobyl apparently.

micosoft · 03-05-2015 09:21PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is 24/7 noise pollution not considered a legitimate complaint? I'd go feckin' insane if there was literally never a single respite from that buzzing sound, especially when trying to sleep.

Because it's not 24/7. It's a couple of hours on a misty day with low/no wind. Hardly ever.

Cienciano · 03-05-2015 10:12PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is 24/7 noise pollution not considered a legitimate complaint? I'd go feckin' insane if there was literally never a single respite from that buzzing sound, especially when trying to sleep.

I regularly park my car under a 220kv double circuit. You'd barely hear the buzzing noise, only when it's very damp. You have to be almost directly underneath to hear it. Impossible to hear when you get into the car. It's a non issue.

Old diesel · 04-05-2015 12:53PM

The wider issue - BEYOND - turbines/pylons - and their advantages and disadvantages - is from a PLANNING view point.

1) Where will people live in the future - do some people need to move to facilitate the changes we need to make - to reduce carbon - if so - where do they live then - what implications - if any - for housing provision.

2) Do we go down the route of less communities in the future - if we reduce community numbers - this (obviously) means communities that exist today - may not exist in the future. One assumes that it will be small rural communities we will wind down if we go down the less communities route. Where do the people in those communities then live????

The potential advantage of less communities would be more space to put in things people don't like - or have issues with - like wind turbines.

Alternatively - you keep the communities - but DESIGN the solutions to actually work well in those communities.

I take the view personally - that if something is safe - there should be no issues with rules requiring this to be the case - or requiring those designing wind turbines for example - to design their turbine - with the idea it will be 500 metres from someones home - in other words - put a turbine 500 metres from someones home - it should be a turbine actually designed to be 500 metres from someones home.

That seems unlikely to happen - hence the reduced communities option...

But no one will like that option either because it means having to rehome people - at massive expense.

So how are we going to plan living and our low carbon solutions to actually work well together - massive challenge

Capt'n Midnight · 04-05-2015 05:04PM

Old diesel wrote: »

The wider issue - BEYOND - turbines/pylons - and their advantages and disadvantages - is from a PLANNING view point.
...
But no one will like that option either because it means having to rehome people - at massive expense.

So how are we going to plan living and our low carbon solutions to actually work well together - massive challenge

Working together means that rural residents don't get subsidised massively at the expense of urban dwellers.

Many rural areas have have falling populations so may not be as viable long term anyway. Also note that rural dwellers have several years longer life expectancy than urban residents.

I have no problem with compensating rural folk for pylons near their houses or paying to relocate them PROVIDED that urban dwellers along the existing 220KV lines get compensated at comparable rates for what they've had to put up with too.

Rehousing would be cheap compared to undergrounding. Either offer market value for house. Or compo to reflect fall in market value - easy to calculate the % because so many estates in Dublin have 220KV lines through them - or house swap to similar value. The house would then be resold with the proviso that it can't be sold back to the family for x years to prevent people churning.

You keep asking for solutions without providing any. You keep sounding like you want to include the community but exclude the wider community who are impacted by your demands.

Simple fact is that we now get more electricity from wind than from coal. Moneypoint sprewed out 3.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2010 not chump change by anyone's standards. This and the other emissions put a climate and health burden on us all. And rural communities in other parts of the world are very, very clear on climate change not being a myth. I've talked to people abroad who remember when farming was a lot better and now the local hydroelectric dam is all about selling water with electricity as sideline.

It would be interesting if that map of areas more than 500m/1Km/1.5Km from a house was changed to people within X distance of this spot or excluded houses recently built that needed some exemption.

Bit late now but if you were to stick point to point wifi links on tops of turbines or pylons to provide solid connectivity at decent speeds, how many people would put up with them ?

Mountainsandh · 04-05-2015 06:44PM

Well yes CM, that would definitely help some, not all but some.

Urban dwellers are drumming on about rural people expecting to be subsidized, while I, a rural dweller, am also subsidizing your bus, luas, and train services for example, your street lighting, your bicycle lanes, your playgrounds and green parks. Because I pay taxes too, and do not benefit from any of that.

But hey, that's fine, because I chose to live in the countryside. Town people choose to live there, and are entitled to have their bit of green in town for example, while I get mine outside the door.

You have to consider that urban dwellers choose to live in areas where infrastructure is essential. Urban centre = infrastructure. I think that's pretty much something we can all agree on, no ? They choose the good stuff (jobs, transport, shops, commodities...) along with the bad stuff.

If I were to buy a house in a town, or a suburb close to town, and move there, I would indeed expect to have to put up with infrastructure that goes with urban living. Roads, pylons, etc... Lots of people living in one spot = lots of advantages, but also lots of infrastructure needed.

I grew up in a town, and infrastructure was just part of the scenery, part of life.

Now I am an adult and I chose to move away from all that, take the lack of services along with the lack of infrastructure.

Of course there is always a minimum needed, and of course there is room to accommodate infrastructure to support towns, to a reasonable extent.

Thing is, while urban dwellers directly benefit from the infrastructure outside their doors, the issue with rural dwellers arises when the benefit to having infrastructure outside their door is minimal, or simply non-existent.

So yes, have some benefit to the local community that has to accept pylons, or turbines, that will serve urban dwellers, and people will be wise enough to choose whether they can live with the inconvenience to accommodate other parts of society, or not, as the case may be.

I think I posted this before, about a French village who collectively decided to let a wind farm set up shop up their hill. They struck a deal, part of the benefits goes to the village budget, and now they don't know what to do with their money. Local people have some compensation for putting up with the turbines , and can thus invest in other things, to make up for what is lost (scenery, tourism, quality of life). Village festival, refresh sidewalks etc..., subsidized shop, school boost, playground... The mayor says that they might even create a few jobs for young people with the money, to bring them back to the village, in something sustainable like timber felling, since the turbines will be gone in 20 years.
http://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/midi-pyrenees/2013/04/24/le-village-qui-avait-trop-d-argent-arfons-dans-le-tarn-240545.html

Ask rural communities if they would put up with some infrastructure for some of these community boosts. Some won't be interested, others will, and routes will be a lot easier to accommodate.

Old diesel · 04-05-2015 07:28PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Working together means that rural residents don't get subsidised massively at the expense of urban dwellers.

Many rural areas have have falling populations so may not be as viable long term anyway. Also note that rural dwellers have several years longer life expectancy than urban residents.

I have no problem with compensating rural folk for pylons near their houses or paying to relocate them PROVIDED that urban dwellers along the existing 220KV lines get compensated at comparable rates for what they've had to put up with too.

Rehousing would be cheap compared to undergrounding. Either offer market value for house. Or compo to reflect fall in market value - easy to calculate the % because so many estates in Dublin have 220KV lines through them - or house swap to similar value. The house would then be resold with the proviso that it can't be sold back to the family for x years to prevent people churning.

You keep asking for solutions without providing any. You keep sounding like you want to include the community but exclude the wider community who are impacted by your demands.

Simple fact is that we now get more electricity from wind than from coal. Moneypoint sprewed out 3.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2010 not chump change by anyone's standards. This and the other emissions put a climate and health burden on us all. And rural communities in other parts of the world are very, very clear on climate change not being a myth. I've talked to people abroad who remember when farming was a lot better and now the local hydroelectric dam is all about selling water with electricity as sideline.

It would be interesting if that map of areas more than 500m/1Km/1.5Km from a house was changed to people within X distance of this spot or excluded houses recently built that needed some exemption.

Bit late now but if you were to stick point to point wifi links on tops of turbines or pylons to provide solid connectivity at decent speeds, how many people would put up with them ?

I actually offered one in the post you quoted - although I know you may not like it. I actually am not too keen on it either - reducing the numbers of communities to actually free up land for production.

Biomass for heating, microgen and on site energy production (solar PV on the roof for example) all have a contribution to make.

Retrofit of homes (part of the reason we need to plan living in the first place) is very useful in actually reducing energy demand.

We DO NEED to go low carbon - my thinking is - we need to DESIGN living and design our energy solutions to work together. That's why I threw out the idea of reducing the numbers of community.

The challenge is do you design the energy solution to work in the community setting well. Or do you change the communities around to suit the needs of the energy solution - wind for example.

I prefer the design the energy solution to fit with the community idea - but expect ultimately that the change communities around to suit the needs of the energy solution

Wind is always going to be a player REGARDLESS of what I think of it - I don't expect to stop any wind projects going ahead.

Id like it to improve - but the industry doesn't seem to have that kind of mindset.

Id still like to plan for living - so that we can plan it and design it for low carbon - but still have the best possible outcomes for everyone - whether they are urban like you - or rural like me.

Basically I live in a house - id like to know - amongst other things - will I be able to keep living in it - or do I need to move out.

Planning should address that sort of thing going forward I think - so we all know where we are going and can plan with as much certainty and confidence as possible

Old diesel · 04-05-2015 07:41PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Well yes CM, that would definitely help some, not all but some.

Urban dwellers are drumming on about rural people expecting to be subsidized, while I, a rural dweller, am also subsidizing your bus, luas, and train services for example, your street lighting, your bicycle lanes, your playgrounds and green parks. Because I pay taxes too, and do not benefit from any of that.

But hey, that's fine, because I chose to live in the countryside. Town people choose to live there, and are entitled to have their bit of green in town for example, while I get mine outside the door.

You have to consider that urban dwellers choose to live in areas where infrastructure is essential. Urban centre = infrastructure. I think that's pretty much something we can all agree on, no ? They choose the good stuff (jobs, transport, shops, commodities...) along with the bad stuff.

If I were to buy a house in a town, or a suburb close to town, and move there, I would indeed expect to have to put up with infrastructure that goes with urban living. Roads, pylons, etc... Lots of people living in one spot = lots of advantages, but also lots of infrastructure needed.

I grew up in a town, and infrastructure was just part of the scenery, part of life.

Now I am an adult and I chose to move away from all that, take the lack of services along with the lack of infrastructure.

Of course there is always a minimum needed, and of course there is room to accommodate infrastructure to support towns, to a reasonable extent.

Thing is, while urban dwellers directly benefit from the infrastructure outside their doors, the issue with rural dwellers arises when the benefit to having infrastructure outside their door is minimal, or simply non-existent.

So yes, have some benefit to the local community that has to accept pylons, or turbines, that will serve urban dwellers, and people will be wise enough to choose whether they can live with the inconvenience to accommodate other parts of society, or not, as the case may be.

I think I posted this before, about a French village who collectively decided to let a wind farm set up shop up their hill. They struck a deal, part of the benefits goes to the village budget, and now they don't know what to do with their money. Local people have some compensation for putting up with the turbines , and can thus invest in other things, to make up for what is lost (scenery, tourism, quality of life). Village festival, refresh sidewalks etc..., subsidized shop, school boost, playground... The mayor says that they might even create a few jobs for young people with the money, to bring them back to the village, in something sustainable like timber felling, since the turbines will be gone in 20 years.
http://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/midi-pyrenees/2013/04/24/le-village-qui-avait-trop-d-argent-arfons-dans-le-tarn-240545.html

Ask rural communities if they would put up with some infrastructure for some of these community boosts. Some won't be interested, others will, and routes will be a lot easier to accommodate.

I think part of the challenge is what is in fact reasonable - in terms of what you lose out on. The idea that you lose something for the common good - saving the planet - that parts fine.

The challenge continues to be - the fear and concern communities have that they get stuck with a problem everyday - while somewhere like Dublin gets the power - without having to change in anyway.

Some sacrifice to quality of life/living is fine - but I suppose if we plan living both urban and rural going forward - theres a need to think about what a home is about - what is the purpose of it.

For me a home - wherever it is - is a place to relax, watch telly, enjoy a meal - enjoy a nice shower, sleep well, mess around with my laptop.

Generally a nice relaxed place - I like my house - but realise I may not be able to keep living there for ever more. I suppose what I mean by that is I don't expect to be able to always live where in my first choice location.

Don't really have a problem with that - but would like to plan and shape my alternative living solutions in the low carbon community

Mountainsandh · 05-05-2015 12:44AM

Old Diesel I guess you touch on a fundamental issue here, which is that of whether people in a democracy should be entitled to choose where they would like to live. And the obvious answer of course is "yes, with some conditions".
Now we all know how corrupt and inept those in charge (of ensuring the conditions were adhered to) have been for decades.

I think rather than trying to depopulate rural areas, the solution lies in gently relocating as many as can be convinced to redesigned and refurbished villages. And lo and behold, the potential injection of cash needed to start the transformation is right there for the taking : renewables, infrastructure.

But not just plumped anywhere without involving communities. Local people know what are the strengths of their area, they have their favourite spots, they know what tourists look for and at, they know what areas should not be touched for the rightful continuation of valid businesses/enterprises, and they can also agree on what spots may be sacrificed to the altar of progress, especially when their community will gain say, a playground, or maybe a new roof for the school, or even who knows, a starter investment for the community minibus service to town.

So while a house may lose value because of the pylon 500m away, it might be leveraged by the fact a playground and shop have just been added in the vicinity.

Oh, and cue younger couples now aiming to settle as close to the above facilities as possible rather than in a field some miles away.

micosoft · 05-05-2015 12:49AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Thing is, while urban dwellers directly benefit from the infrastructure outside their doors, the issue with rural dwellers arises when the benefit to having infrastructure outside their door is minimal, or simply non-existent.
.....
Ask rural communities if they would put up with some infrastructure for some of these community boosts. Some won't be interested, others will, and routes will be a lot easier to accommodate.

So this is an old canard. That because we don't get the same facilities in the countryside as the towns cities you should not have to put up with it because you don't get a benefit. The problem is that it simply isn't true. Living in a rural area where you are the only user of kilometers of road, wires, water and sewerage pipes means that you are exponentially more expensive to service then urban dwellers. So even without these "extra" urban facilities we are still being significantly subsidised by urban populations. And in this case you do get the benefit. Electricity is a pretty basic need.

With regard to the community - this is being done for wind farms but the state can't bribe people every time the right thing has to be done. Should someone be bribed because they live beside a Firestation, Sewage plant etc? It's really unfair on the rest of society, many who have worse conditions in urban areas and goes to the heart of the clientism in our political system. And this is aside from the practicality of asking permission for everyone on a HV line or Motorway.

Mountainsandh · 05-05-2015 01:04AM

micosoft wrote: »

So this is an old canard. That because we don't get the same facilities in the countryside as the towns cities you should not have to put up with it because you don't get a benefit. The problem is that it simply isn't true. Living in a rural area where you are the only user of kilometers of road, wires, water and sewerage pipes means that you are exponentially more expensive to service then urban dwellers. So even without these "extra" urban facilities we are still being significantly subsidised by urban populations. And in this case you do get the benefit. Electricity is a pretty basic need.

With regard to the community - this is being done for wind farms but the state can't bribe people every time the right thing has to be done. Should someone be bribed because they live beside a Firestation, Sewage plant etc? It's really unfair on the rest of society, many who have worse conditions in urban areas and goes to the heart of the clientism in our political system. And this is aside from the practicality of asking permission for everyone on a HV line or Motorway.

No, you are skewing the view to suit yourself.
I drive an old banger because I have chosen to live in a spot where the roads are $bitty, and rarely ever "done". This road was here since the land commission and is needed for agriculture and forestry, it wasn't built for me, or my estate (of which there is none). I paid for the esb infrastructure needed to reach my house from the farmer down the road. I have my own well and water treatment, and sewage, which can be requisited by the state if needs be. When the edges on the road need to be done, our local farmer gets the job done, and we chip in for our stretch.
When the big cold of 2010 happened, our roads weren't salted.
So yes, if you'll excuse me insisting, I do subsidize urban people's environment.

With respect, the second part of your post is also a load of codswallop. We simply have to move away from the notion of individual compo, and replace that with community compo. It is done elsewhere, there is no reason it couldn't work here other than companies or authorities are unwilling to try.

Oh, and again, people living in urban areas should expect such infrastructure as sewage plants and firestations. It's part of the deal when you choose town. In return your waste is dealt with and your house will be saved before it's burned down.

micosoft · 05-05-2015 01:14AM

Well you could be accused of doing the same. The vast vast majority of people who live in the countryside have metalled roads and get most infrastructure for free. As was outlined a couple of times before - there is a massive subsidy going from urban to rural inhabitants and that's a fact.
I live beside a proper road and sewerage because I can't be arsed putting up with hassle of living up near the land where I'd have to do what you outlined (and pay for my road with a little help from the EU). What you are describing is an "edge" case and I know some lads that live that life and don't cost the state too much. But nonetheless they are a minority. My only advice is to live near a national park/area of outstanding beauty if you want to avoid infrastructure!

Mountainsandh · 05-05-2015 01:23AM

As far as I know anyone who needs esb to go over some meters distance to their house has to pay. People are just about to start paying for their waste and water in rural communities just the same as in towns. The only road well taken care of in my area is the commuter road from town to town. It's the only road getting salt in the winter too.
It's not an edge situation, it's the reality for a lot of communities.

Pylons

Comments