Gridwest project.

Oldtree

From this recent article:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/huge-turnout-for-public-meeting-opposing-eirgrid-s-plans-for-overhead-pylons-1.1585506

Nepp was set up six years ago to oppose the North-South interconnector stretching from Tyrone to Meath. Mr O’Reilly told the meeting that technology had moved on and now underground high-voltage, direct current lines constituted 25 per cent of the lines planned across Europe in the next decade.

EirGrid had undermined its own argument about the costs involved by the success of the 256km East-West interconnector between Ireland and Wales which has 140km on land underground, he told the meeting.

I have been unable to find out much about the 140 km underground section of this interconnector that Mr O'Reilly refers to nor to where he got the figure of 25% for planned lines in Europe. Does anyone have any links as to exactly what type of cables/methods were used/are planned?

runawaybishop

Oldtree wrote: »

From this recent article:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/huge-turnout-for-public-meeting-opposing-eirgrid-s-plans-for-overhead-pylons-1.1585506

Nepp was set up six years ago to oppose the North-South interconnector stretching from Tyrone to Meath. Mr O’Reilly told the meeting that technology had moved on and now underground high-voltage, direct current lines constituted 25 per cent of the lines planned across Europe in the next decade.

EirGrid had undermined its own argument about the costs involved by the success of the 256km East-West interconnector between Ireland and Wales which has 140km on land underground, he told the meeting.

I have been unable to find out much about the 140 km underground section of this interconnector that Mr O'Reilly refers to nor to where he got the figure of 25% for planned lines in Europe. Does anyone have any links as to exactly what type of cables/methods were used/are planned?

That's DC though, not AC - or am i missing something?

Oldtree

runawaybishop wrote: »

That's DC though, not AC - or am i missing something?

It seems an interesting notion to explore as the interconnector works both ways, being both good enough for the UK grid and conversely our grid. I was trying to get more accurate details, before commenting, have you any please?

Oldtree

I found some info:

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/VA0002.htm

A high voltage direct current East West Interconnector between Ireland and Wales..... an underground high voltage direct current cable section from the underground transition joint in the said car park to an existing 400kV station in the townland of Woodland, County Meath, which will be 44.2 kilometres in length.... Furthermore the development comprises the converter station located adjacent to the existing ESB 400kV substation in the townland of Woodland, County Meath, and a 400kV cable bay to be constructed in the existing ESB Woodland 400kV.

http://www.centriforce.com/en/case-studies/utilities/eirgrid-east-west-interconnector-project-ewip/

Type of current HVDC Light
Power rating 500 MW
AC Voltage 400 kV
DC Voltage ±200 kV

http://www.eirgridprojects.com/media/The_Grid_West_project_FAQ_October_2013.pdf

The Grid West project will use 400 kV technology as this voltage is best suited to cater for the large amount of renewable electricity which is expected to be generated in the region. At either end, new substation equipment will be put in place to transfer electricity between the existing electricity lines in the region (110 kV and 220 kV) to and from this new 400 kV line.

Oldtree

An very recent offshore wind farm proposal report in the UK that proposes some relevant ideas:

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010021/2.%20Post-Submission/Application%20Documents/Additional%20Information%20(Reg%206)/7.2%20Cable%20Details%20and%20Grid%20Connection%20Statement%20F-ELC-SP-001%20FINAL%2013-08-13.pdf

1.1.5 The export system will be realised through high voltage direct current (HVDC) technology, which requires a converter station at both ends of the export system for the conversion between HVDC and high voltage alternating current (HVAC). The converter modules will be mounted on specific platforms for offshore locations and in dedicated converter buildings (converter substations) for onshore locations.

2.2.2 The total maximum installed power of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck is proposed to be 2,400 megawatts (MW) (2.4 gigawatts (GW)). However, the electrical system is designed to deliver up to 1,000 MW per project at the connection point.

3.2.3 Each converter station will convert HVDC export power to 400kV HVAC prior to connection to the Creyke Beck substation.

4.1.2 An indicative connection schematic for the offshore electrical system can be found in Figure 4. The development consent order provides for up to 400 wind turbines, up to eight offshore collector platforms and up to two offshore converter platforms in total, with the final number pending detailed electrical design.

4.2.2 Offshore wind turbine technology is evolving rapidly and it is anticipated that turbines rated at approximately 4MW to 10MW will be available within the timescales of construction.

7.1.1 The majority of the proposed onshore cable route passes through agricultural land, which at the time of the surveys was primarily being used for arable purposes. For the two projects Dogger Bank Creyke Beck, the maximum total width for two adjacent cable systems during installation is 36m for the HVDC cables over a distance of approximately 30km and 38m for the HVAC cables over a distance of approximately 2km, including cable trench, haul roads, fencing and temporary topsoil and subsoil storage areas

runawaybishop

So you are proposing they convert to DC, underground it and then reconvert it back to AC?

The converter stations, according to google, cost 130 million each.

The required converter stations are expensive and have limited overload capacity. At smaller transmission distances, the losses in the converter stations may be bigger than in an AC transmission line. The cost of the converters may not be offset by reductions in line construction cost and lower line loss.

Oldtree

runawaybishop wrote: »

So you are proposing they convert to DC, underground it and then reconvert it back to AC?

The converter stations, according to google, cost 130 million each.

The required converter stations are expensive and have limited overload capacity. At smaller transmission distances, the losses in the converter stations may be bigger than in an AC transmission line. The cost of the converters may not be offset by reductions in line construction cost and lower line loss.

I am exploring the idea as they seem to be over there. Why are they proposing the methods they are, whereas we are not? Why is it affordable over there and not here given we intend to export to the uk? (converting the energy along the way)

runawaybishop

Oldtree wrote: »

I am exploring the idea as they seem to be over there. Why are they proposing these methods they are, whereas we are not?

Money ofc.

Oldtree

runawaybishop wrote: »

Money ofc.

but its energy for the same market, so similar selling price I would have thought.

oscarBravo

Oldtree wrote: »

I am exploring the idea as they seem to be over there. Why are they proposing the methods they are, whereas we are not? Why is it affordable over there and not here given we intend to export to the uk? (converting the energy along the way)

I'm going to answer your questions. I'm reluctant on one level to do so, as I don't actually think you want your questions answered, but I'll do it anyway.

Electrical grids are AC. That's the way they've been for a very long time now. They're AC because you need very high voltages to minimise transmission line losses, and it's orders of magnitude easier to step voltages up and down with AC than it is with DC. When a grid operator wants to extend the grid or increase capacity to parts of the network, the logical choice is AC because it's much, much cheaper and more reliable to do so.

DC is chosen in a few select environments. One example is when building interconnecters between disparate grids. The reason for this is that the entire grid must run at a single, fixed and synchronised frequency - the entire grid on the island of Ireland is synchronised in this way - but the grid in Britain isn't in sync with the grid in Ireland, so it's not possible to interconnect with AC. In these circumstances, DC is a requirement. This means that you need a rectifier at the transmission end of the line to convert from AC to DC, and an inverter at the reception end to convert from DC to AC. Unlike transformers which work perfectly well in both directions, inverters and rectifiers don't work in reverse. This means that if you want your interconnector to be able to carry current in either direction, you need an inverter and a rectifier at each end, as well as some more complicated and expensive equipment to determine when to switch each of them in and out of the circuit.

Another reason to choose DC is when you have a specific reason to do a long underground or undersea line. AC works pretty horribly under the sea, because the water surrounding the cable makes the transmission line act like an enormous capacitor, which means that every time the current flow changes direction - which is 100 times per second - the cable has to be "charged up" before it will start passing current. This not only wastes electricity, it buggers up the load factor on the grid (if you don't know what load factor is, I'm not going to get into it now, but it's a bloody big issue for grid operators) requiring corrective equipment at either end. DC works better in this scenario, because the cable only gets "charged up" once. (Underground has similar issues. Overhead doesn't, because the dielectric properties of air are very different from those of water or earth.)

I hope it's becoming clear that DC gets chosen only when there are some very, very compelling reasons to do so. It's not as if it's some magical new technology that power companies never heard of before; it has its uses, but forming part of a robust and reliable grid isn't one of them.

This becomes obvious when you look at the applications that have been cited: offshore wind farms (undersea cable; one-way current flow), interconnectors (undersea cable; non-synchronised grids), that sort of thing.

If we're going to have a conversation about this, it would be nice if it were an honest one, where each side recognises that the other has valid points. I've made it clear that I believe some of the objections to have validity - the impact on scenery, for example. I've also made it clear - perhaps too bluntly - that others are, frankly, bull; notably the hysterical waffle about health effects. In turn, it would be nice if those who are opposed to the project would stop pretending that there is no appreciable technical difference between an overhead and an underground transmission line.

Chisler2

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm going to answer your questions. I'm reluctant on one level to do so, as I don't actually think you want your questions answered, but I'll do it anyway.

Electrical grids are AC. That's the way they've been for a very long time now. They're AC because you need very high voltages to minimise transmission line losses, and it's orders of magnitude easier to step voltages up and down with AC than it is with DC. When a grid operator wants to extend the grid or increase capacity to parts of the network, the logical choice is AC because it's much, much cheaper and more reliable to do so.

DC is chosen in a few select environments. One example is when building interconnecters between disparate grids. The reason for this is that the entire grid must run at a single, fixed and synchronised frequency - the entire grid on the island of Ireland is synchronised in this way - but the grid in Britain isn't in sync with the grid in Ireland, so it's not possible to interconnect with AC. In these circumstances, DC is a requirement. This means that you need a rectifier at the transmission end of the line to convert from AC to DC, and an inverter at the reception end to convert from DC to AC. Unlike transformers which work perfectly well in both directions, inverters and rectifiers don't work in reverse. This means that if you want your interconnector to be able to carry current in either direction, you need an inverter and a rectifier at each end, as well as some more complicated and expensive equipment to determine when to switch each of them in and out of the circuit.

Another reason to choose DC is when you have a specific reason to do a long underground or undersea line. AC works pretty horribly under the sea, because the water surrounding the cable makes the transmission line act like an enormous capacitor, which means that every time the current flow changes direction - which is 100 times per second - the cable has to be "charged up" before it will start passing current. This not only wastes electricity, it buggers up the load factor on the grid (if you don't know what load factor is, I'm not going to get into it now, but it's a bloody big issue for grid operators) requiring corrective equipment at either end. DC works better in this scenario, because the cable only gets "charged up" once. (Underground has similar issues. Overhead doesn't, because the dielectric properties of air are very different from those of water or earth.)

I hope it's becoming clear that DC gets chosen only when there are some very, very compelling reasons to do so. It's not as if it's some magical new technology that power companies never heard of before; it has its uses, but forming part of a robust and reliable grid isn't one of them.

This becomes obvious when you look at the applications that have been cited: offshore wind farms (undersea cable; one-way current flow), interconnectors (undersea cable; non-synchronised grids), that sort of thing.

If we're going to have a conversation about this, it would be nice if it were an honest one, where each side recognises that the other has valid points. I've made it clear that I believe some of the objections to have validity - the impact on scenery, for example. I've also made it clear - perhaps too bluntly - that others are, frankly, bull; notably the hysterical waffle about health effects. In turn, it would be nice if those who are opposed to the project would stop pretending that there is no appreciable technical difference between an overhead and an underground transmission line.

Perhaps the polarisation is not so extreme as you fear, or the positions quite so bigoted! In the 1970's I was an enthusiastic proponent of wind-power, and militant activist against nuclear power-stations. Over the past 50 years my position has shifted, based on experience and wider research, not on aspirational or political rhetoric. I sincerely believe that in the case of a small island like ours we cannot afford - environmentally, socially, economically - to wander unthinkingly into enterprises which have irreversible consequences................especially if the evidence of their flaws and downsides are available to us in the public sphere. The USA has (literally) tens of thousands of wind farms across the mid-west in some of the windiest areas on the planet, yet must resort to "fracking" for fuels as wind-generated power is not delivering. One aspect enthusiasts for this form may not know about is the tens of thousands of corpses of dead birds around these sites - another aspect of environmental degradation.

Oldtree

Thank you oscarB. I would not waste anybody's time asking a question that I did not want answered. I have an opinion not an agenda.

I have just read this from ABB:

http://www.ferc.gov/CalendarFiles/20130710161944-W2A_Feng.pdf

"Future grid will be a mix of AC and DC technologies"

and this presentation on alternative designs for overhead pylons that appear to have less of a visual impact:

http://www.scottishrenewables.com/media/uploads/events/ac2013/planning_grid_plenary_2.pdf

But I must take note that Eirgrids October 2013 reason for the 400kv line is:

The Grid West project will use 400 kV technology as this voltage is best suited to cater for the large amount of renewable electricity which is expected to be generated in the region.

which is a mainly a one way flow of power out of Mayo, while at the same time I recognise Mayo's need for a secure power supply.

As envisaged in the recent article:

Asking Mr Meagher how many extra lines would be needed in order to transport 12,700 mega watts of renewable energy that may be produced by 2020 according to Mayo County Council’s Renewable Energy Strategy, Mr Meagher estimated six to seven additional lines

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18842:concerns-mount-over-grid-west-project&catid=23:news&Itemid=46

That's eight lines @ 400kv and I can't envisage Mayo using or needing that kind of power supply

oscarBravo

Oldtree wrote: »

I have just read this from ABB:

http://www.ferc.gov/CalendarFiles/20130710161944-W2A_Feng.pdf

"Future grid will be a mix of AC and DC technologies"

I would be surprised to hear any other view expressed by the market leader in DC transmission systems.

and this presentation on alternative designs for overhead pylons that appear to have less of a visual impact:

http://www.scottishrenewables.com/media/uploads/events/ac2013/planning_grid_plenary_2.pdf

Nice. Do you think we'd have less opposition to the project if the line carriers were more attractive?

I'm willing to bet there's a fairly substantial "not under any circumstances" rump of opposition.

But I must take note that Eirgrids October 2013 reason for the 400kv line is:

The Grid West project will use 400 kV technology as this voltage is best suited to cater for the large amount of renewable electricity which is expected to be generated in the region.

which is a mainly a one way flow of power out of Mayo.

OK, but I'll reiterate a point I seem to have to keep making: if this line is built as an underground DC system, then you're designing that limitation into the system - in many respects, a worst-case scenario.

Think about it: we can build an AC transmission line, which is inherently two-way - there's no practical way to design a grid-connected AC line that can't be used for power import, because every single component of it works exactly the same way no matter which way the current is flowing. Or we can build an underground DC line with an inverter in Mayo and a rectifier... somewhere else. Or we can build an underground DC line with inverters and rectifiers at both ends.

If the purpose of the line is power export, then there's no reason to go for the third option, and the only feasible DC approach is inherently export-only. If we opt for the AC approach, then we're extending the backbone of the national grid into Mayo in a way that is every bit as useful to the county as if it had been purpose-built for the sole and only purpose of improving the electricity supply to the county.

pljudge321

Puts on electrical engineering hat.

oscarBravo wrote: »

This means that if you want your interconnector to be able to carry current in either direction, you need an inverter and a rectifier at each end, as well as some more complicated and expensive equipment to determine when to switch each of them in and out of the circuit.

That's incorrect you only need one converter station. In current source converters, such as the moyle, the dc current can only flow in one direction but you can reverse the power flow by reversing the voltage polarity of the system. Bit annoying as its bad for the cables but you can get around that by using contacters to switch which cable is connected to which pole. Voltage source converter based HVDC schemes, such as the east-west interconnector, can happily reverse the power flow direction without any voltage polarity change, they also have independent P-Q control which is neat from a system operators point of view.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Another reason to choose DC is when you have a specific reason to do a long underground or undersea line. AC works pretty horribly under the sea, because the water surrounding the cable makes the transmission line act like an enormous capacitor, which means that every time the current flow changes direction - which is 100 times per second - the cable has to be "charged up" before it will start passing current.

Cables are trenched and buried robots, so its not the capacitance to water but the capacitance to earth.http://www.fiberinc.net/images/sea.jpg. Underwater AC cables are effective up to about 80km, after which the charging current sucks up all your available active power flow.

Also current flow reverses 50 times a second in AC :P

Birdnuts

Oldtree wrote: »

As envisaged in the recent article:

Mr Meagher estimated six to seven additional lines

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18842:concerns-mount-over-grid-west-project&catid=23:news&Itemid=46

That's eight lines @ 400kv and I can't envisage Mayo using or needing that kind of power supply

If that doesn't illustrate the madness behind the current governments policy on energy then I don't know what will. Are they expecting the likes of Ballyhaunis to be a city of 1 million people in less than a decade from now????????????????? Is it any wonder the country went bankrupt when you have such people controlling public policy in these matters:mad:. And people wonder why I compared this whole saga to other examples of idiotic planning in this country. Its like rezoning half of Mayo as Urban and blowing billions on roads and sewers to nowhere. Only this sort of nonsense will cost tax and bill payers a whole lot more.

loremolis

Birdnuts wrote: »

If that doesn't illustrate the madness behind the current governments policy on energy then I don't know what will. Are they expecting the likes of Ballyhaunis to be a city of 1 million people in less than a decade from now????????????????? Is it any wonder the country went bankrupt when you have such people controlling public policy in these matters:mad:. And people wonder why I compared this whole saga to other examples of idiotic planning in this country. Its like rezoning half of Mayo as Urban and blowing billions on roads and sewers to nowhere. Only this sort of nonsense will cost tax and bill payers a whole lot more.

How can you call it Madness? Eirgrid has to do it.

If they don't develop new lines like this one then all of their inhouse planners, ecologists, engineers, project managers, Eirgrid's board etc. will have nothing to do.

They need to feed the monster that is their overpaid staff and they ONLY way to keep them busy is to propose, plan and develop new lines.

Who cares if they propose hundreds of kilometres of new lines that go nowhere every year. They are 'strengthening' the system and providing 'redundancy' so that towns have 23 different power supplies in case 22 go down.

It s joke of the highest order and we're paying for it.

Chisler2

loremolis wrote: »

How can you call it Madness? Eirgrid has to do it.

If they don't develop new lines like this one then all of their inhouse planners, ecologists, engineers, project managers, Eirgrid's board etc. will have nothing to do.

They need to feed the monster that is their overpaid staff and they ONLY way to keep them busy is to propose, plan and develop new lines.

Who cares if they propose hundreds of kilometres of new lines that go nowhere every year. They are 'strengthening' the system and providing 'redundancy' so that towns have 23 different power supplies in case 22 go down.

It s joke of the highest order and we're paying for it.

Whatever happened to that lovely little word "No!"

Avns1s

Chisler2 wrote: »

Whatever happened to that lovely little word "No!"

Oh believe me, it's alive and well and used extensively, all too often by those who are opposed to pretty much everything that's needed to drag this county of ours out of the last century!!

Chisler2

Avns1s wrote: »

Oh believe me, it's alive and well and used extensively, all too often by those who are opposed to pretty much everything that's needed to drag this county of ours out of the last century!!

My late father - who had a great 'gra' for our traditions, heritage and also worked his arse off throughout his long and contented life (and no........he did not sit in an office dictating policy, or 'manage' others who 'did' the work) used often shake his head sadly, on finishing his read of the daily newspaper, and opine: "If the Dutch lived in Ireland, they'd feed the world; if the Irish lived in Holland, it would be under the sea". At the time I thought that an extreme, unfair analysis, but the last 50 years indicate (in my humble view!) that there is a deep desire for magical solutions, for salvationist technology, for results without process. "If it looks/sounds too good to be true, then it is! To suggest appropriate investigation into the means-and-ends of what are large-scale, irreversible enterprises does not represent a rejection of technologies which we can use; it is to ensure that WE use THEM and are NOT ourselves USED BY THEM!

That's my last comment and last post on this thread.

pljudge321

Birdnuts wrote: »

If that doesn't illustrate the madness behind the current governments policy on energy then I don't know what will. Are they expecting the likes of Ballyhaunis to be a city of 1 million people in less than a decade from now????????????????? Is it any wonder the country went bankrupt when you have such people controlling public policy in these matters:mad:. And people wonder why I compared this whole saga to other examples of idiotic planning in this country. Its like rezoning half of Mayo as Urban and blowing billions on roads and sewers to nowhere. Only this sort of nonsense will cost tax and bill payers a whole lot more.

Thats just bad reporting on mayonews.ie's part. The article states

' Asking Mr Meagher how many extra lines would be needed in order to transport 12,700 mega watts of renewable energy that may be produced by 2020 according to Mayo County Council’s Renewable Energy Strategy, Mr Meagher estimated six to seven additional lines.'

If you read Renewable Energy Strategy it states that 12,700 MW is the upper theoretical limit of renewable peak power (not energy but thats another argument about stupidity) that

So Mr Meagher was asked how many lines would be needed to transport this peak theoretical power and he gave an answer, no chance in hell that number of lines will ever be built

yop

Chisler2 wrote: »

My late father - who had a great 'gra' for our traditions, heritage and also worked his arse off throughout his long and contented life (and no........he did not sit in an office dictating policy, or 'manage' others who 'did' the work) used often shake his head sadly, on finishing his read of the daily newspaper, and opine: "If the Dutch lived in Ireland, they'd feed the world; if the Irish lived in Holland, it would be under the sea". At the time I thought that an extreme, unfair analysis, but the last 50 years indicate (in my humble view!) that there is a deep desire for magical solutions, for salvationist technology, for results without process. "If it looks/sounds too good to be true, then it is! To suggest appropriate investigation into the means-and-ends of what are large-scale, irreversible enterprises does not represent a rejection of technologies which we can use; it is to ensure that WE use THEM and are NOT ourselves USED BY THEM!

That's my last comment and last post on this thread.

So in summary the Irish will always fuk it up? Good job you don't have to live here then!!

Its harsh to say the least if you consider that the Irish built half of England and probably in other countries as well.
The Irish have gone to 3rd countries and built houses for those with nothing, have been peacekeepers in many many countries and are well respected throughout the world for their innovation and hard work.

Chisler2

yop wrote: »

So in summary the Irish will always fuk it up? Good job you don't have to live here then!!

Its harsh to say the least if you consider that the Irish built half of England and probably in other countries as well.
The Irish have gone to 3rd countries and built houses for those with nothing, have been peacekeepers in many many countries and are well respected throughout the world for their innovation and hard work.

Though it was not my intention to post again on this thread, I need to once more. Having lived and worked between Ireland and England for decades, with (Irish) family in both countries I now live and work between Ireland and USA. This arrangement is familiar, evidenced by the obituary columns of local newspapers along the north-west, south-west and western seaboard. I did not suggest that all was yet lost, but that it might soon be in the absence of deep and serious public debate and discussion, with due diligence and analysis of energy-provision elsewhere! However such debate is probably unlikely on internet fora........which is why I am withdrawing at this point, with wishes that those who continue can continue to do so with mutual respect and reflection. Oh - last point! My own industry and hard work have been appreciated and financially well-rewarded internationally. Thank you.

Birdnuts

yop wrote: »

!!

Its harsh to say the least if you consider that the Irish built half of England and probably in other countries as well.
The Irish have gone to 3rd countries and built houses for those with nothing, have been peacekeepers in many many countries and are well respected throughout the world for their innovation and hard work.

We exported our brightest and best - certainly none of them would have ever got cushy jobs on state boards/agencies as they would probably show up the type of clowns responsible for mis-management of this state since its foundation.

runawaybishop

Birdnuts wrote: »

We exported our brightest and best - certainly none of them would have ever got cushy jobs on state boards/agencies as they would probably show up the type of clowns responsible for mis-management of this state since its foundation.

rolleyes :rolleyes:

yop

Birdnuts wrote: »

We exported our brightest and best - certainly none of them would have ever got cushy jobs on state boards/agencies as they would probably show up the type of clowns responsible for mis-management of this state since its foundation.

Not all the brightest and best have gone, do you think no Irish work in the tech sector or pharmaceutical industries? Have a look at the websummit and find the 1000's of Irish at it who have been innovating for years and years.

So who has worked in the state agencies and boards over the last 20 or 30 years? I think its a little disingenuous to say that they aren't bright and
there are plenty examples of private companies and their mis-management.

Birdnuts

yop wrote: »

Not all the brightest and best have gone, do you think no Irish work in the tech sector or pharmaceutical industries? Have a look at the websummit and find the 1000's of Irish at it who have been innovating for years and years.

So who has worked in the state agencies and boards over the last 20 or 30 years? I think its a little disingenuous to say that they aren't bright and
there are plenty examples of private companies and their mis-management.

I was making a general point in terms of the people who make policy in this country. Do you think the likes of FAS, Dept of Energy, HSE, Central of Bank of Ireland etc. have covered themselves in glory in recent years??

yop

Birdnuts wrote: »

I was making a general point in terms of the people who make policy in this country. Do you think the likes of FAS, Dept of Energy, HSE, Central of Bank of Ireland etc. have covered themselves in glory in recent years??

Your statement was "responsible for mis-management of this state since its foundation." not recent years.
Yes they have messed up plenty since in the last 4 or 5 years but without the likes of FAS my Dad and my brother wouldn't have had successful business so FAS as a whole was a success, what went out in higher management in recent times was disgraceful.

oscarBravo

pljudge321 wrote: »

Voltage source converter based HVDC schemes, such as the east-west interconnector, can happily reverse the power flow direction without any voltage polarity change, they also have independent P-Q control which is neat from a system operators point of view.

I'd be curious to see some background info on that, from a nerdy point of view. I'm still going to go out on a limb and speculate that it's a couple of orders of magnitude more expensive than a traffo.

Also current flow reverses 50 times a second in AC :P

Doesn't the current change direction twice per cycle?

Birdnuts

yop wrote: »

Your statement was "responsible for mis-management of this state since its foundation.

Why was this state an economic and social basket case for most of its history with mass emigration, reckless economic policy, failure to safeguard natural resources/heritage etc?? This state has faced numerious such issues since its foundation as a glance at the history books will attest.

yop

Birdnuts wrote: »

Why was this state an economic and social basket case for most of its history with mass emigration, reckless economic policy, failure to safeguard natural resources/heritage etc?? This state has faced numerious such issues since its foundation as a glance at the history books will attest.

Applicable to many many countries not just Ireland in the EU and worldwide.

Beginning to wonder why you wait here really if it annoys you that much or have you tried to run for politics and try to encourage your opinion on the masses?