Gridwest project.

MayoSalmon

runawaybishop wrote: »

Undergrounding is purely self centered and self focussed on personal gain or benefit

I bet you think the folks in Greenpeace are too

runawaybishop

MayoSalmon wrote: »

I bet you think the folks in Greenpeace are too

Not sure what greenspeace have to do with it. The majority of protesters advocating under grounding are doing so because of concerns, illfounded or not, that are specific to them and concerned only with them. They have no interest in the wider picture and are only advocating this for personal gain or benefit.

MayoSalmon

runawaybishop wrote: »

Not sure what greenspeace have to do with it. The majority of protesters advocating under grounding are doing so because of concerns, illfounded or not, that are specific to them and concerned only with them. They have no interest in the wider picture and are only advocating this for personal gain or benefit.

Couldn't disagree more...the whole region is involved not only landowners.

runawaybishop

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Couldn't disagree more...the whole region is involved not only landowners.

You mean people that live near it? Thats what i was referring to. People that are near it don't want it, most other people are for it. Its very much a case of NIMBY.

MayoSalmon

runawaybishop wrote: »

You mean people that live near it? Thats what i was referring to. People that are near it don't want it, most other people are for it. Its very much a case of NIMBY.

And you can provide evidence for this can you?

runawaybishop

MayoSalmon wrote: »

And you can provide evidence for this can you?

Only anecdotal, which is all you would have also.

MayoSalmon

runawaybishop wrote: »

Only anecdotal, which is all you would have also.

My evidence is based on the numerous consultations that have occured so far nothing anecdotal about that.

If everyone was for it, it would of been pushed through just like they did in Corrib, but that is not the case this time.

runawaybishop

MayoSalmon wrote: »

My evidence is based on the numerous consultations that have occured so far nothing anecdotal about that.

If everyone was for it, it would of been pushed through just like they did in Corrib, but that is not the case this time.

Nah, there is a vocal minority protesting and the government have decided to appease people by shelving it under the guise of researching options for a while. The protests locally seems to be concerned with how it will affect the locality, which is basic NIMBYism.

MayoSalmon

runawaybishop wrote: »

Nah, there is a vocal minority protesting and the government have decided to appease people by shelving it under the guise of researching options for a while. The protests locally seems to be concerned with how it will affect the locality, which is basic NIMBYism.

Nah...vocal opponents come from further afield than just the local community.

The Irish bloodstock industry is one. The pylons will effect tourism and agriculture, or maybe you think tourists will come to Ballina/Foxford to fish and visit the pylons.

You haven't a clue if you think its a few farmers out for a shout.

GridLink is also being opposed as is North-South Interconnector and there is anti pylon groups all over the country....NIMBYism me arse.

runawaybishop

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Nah...vocal opponents come from further afield than just the local community.

The Irish bloodstock industry is one. The pylons will effect tourism and agriculture, or maybe you think tourists will come to Ballina/Foxford to fish and visit the pylons.

You haven't a clue if you think its a few farmers out for a shout.

GridLink is also being opposed as is North-South Interconnector and there is anti pylon groups all over the country....NIMBYism me arse.

Ah, the career protesters. Not really bothered about them.

I don't think tourists will give a monkies about pylons, there are not exactly uncommon. You might as well try to ban people building ugly houses, of which there are a fair larger number than the proposed pylons.

Are you trying to state that the anti-pylon groups are not mainly concentrated in proposed pylon areas? Pull the other one, it has got bells on it.

For what its worth the pylon proposed route goes near my house, near my parants gaff and over some of our land.

MayoSalmon

runawaybishop wrote: »

Ah, the career protesters. Not really bothered about them.

I don't think tourists will give a monkies about pylons, there are not exactly uncommon. You might as well try to ban people building ugly houses, of which there are a fair larger number than the proposed pylons.

Are you trying to state that the anti-pylon groups are not mainly concentrated in proposed pylon areas? Pull the other one, it has got bells on it.

For what its worth the pylon proposed route goes near my house, near my parants gaff and over some of our land.

:rolleyes::rolleyes: Talk about wasting my time.

The number 1 reason tourists come to Ireland is the beautiful scenery and the unspolit environment which is maybe in turn the reason why they are uncommon here for a reason.

Protecting must clearly be given priority

runawaybishop

MayoSalmon wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes: Talk about wasting my time.

The number 1 reason tourists come to Ireland is the beautiful scenery and the unspolit environment which is maybe in turn the reason why they are uncommon here for a reason.

Protecting must clearly be given priority

Our environment is far from unspoilt, we are plagued with one off rural housing that is completely inappropriate and unsympathetic to the landscape. These pylons wont be going all over the country though, only in certain locations. Do you think tourist will stop visiting Ireland because of some pylons in a small village?

How do you propose we provide infrastructure to the country, is the fishing trade in foxford (which wont suffer due to pylons) more important than that?

Have you evidence basd research that shows pylons will negatively affect tourism, how much will it affect it by?

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

Wind, solar, oil, fart powered - we still require infrastructure which is going to cost us and undergrounding it will cost more.

We already have double the peak demand in terms of installed energy capacity in the country. Empire building by Eirgrid on behalf of wind developers makes no financial sense at any level.

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

Our environment is far from unspoilt, we are plagued with one off rural housing that is completely inappropriate and unsympathetic to the landscape. These pylons wont be going all over the country though, only in certain locations. Do you think tourist will stop visiting Ireland because of some pylons in a small village?

How do you propose we provide infrastructure to the country, is the fishing trade in foxford (which wont suffer due to pylons) more important than that?

Have you evidence basd research that shows pylons will negatively affect tourism, how much will it affect it by?

As I stated earlier the primary purpose of the Gridwest project is to benefit wind developers. This is stated quiet clearly by literature sent to homes in the affected area. More wind farms = a countryside spoiled by unnecessary and ugly energy sprawl which does indeed damage tourism. The indulgence of wind developers by this government is already damaging tourism in parts of the country(see link below) and it be a shame if measures like the Atlantic way are strangled before birth

http://www.leinsterexpress.ie/news/business/turbines-appalling-says-castle-owner-1-6260094

runawaybishop

Birdnuts wrote: »

We already have double the peak demand in terms of installed energy capacity in the country. Empire building by Eirgrid on behalf of wind developers makes no financial sense at any level.

Energy demand is forecasted to rise drastically. Peoper infrastructure is a requirement.

Birdnuts wrote: »

As I stated earlier the primary purpose of the Gridwest project is to benefit wind developers. This is stated quiet clearly by literature sent to homes in the affected area. More wind farms = a countryside spoiled by unnecessary and ugly energy sprawl which does indeed damage tourism. The indulgence of wind developers by this government is already damaging tourism in parts of the country(see link below) and it be a shame if measures like the Atlantic way are strangled before birth

http://www.leinsterexpress.ie/news/business/turbines-appalling-says-castle-owner-1-6260094

That article is a joke - its one persons opinion (and she makes ridiculous claims) and is in no way evidence based research. The countryside is far more spoiled by ugly housing.

MayoSalmon

runawaybishop wrote: »

Energy demand is forecasted to rise drastically. Peoper infrastructure is a requirement.

Not its not according to Eirgrid but maybe you have some other sources you can enlighten us with.

Ireland's GDP growth while good in comparision to the rest of Europe is still very modest. There is no drastic demand forecast ANYWHERE on the horizon.

The drastic requirement is building wind farms in the back arse of nowhere and then traipsing pylons through the countryside to connect them to the grid.

runawaybishop

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Not its not according to Eirgrid but maybe you have some other sources you can enlighten us with.

Ireland's GDP growth while good in comparision to the rest of Europe is still very modest. There is no drastic demand forecast ANYWHERE on the horizon.

The drastic requirement is building wind farms in the back arse of nowhere and then traipsing pylons through the countryside to connect them to the grid.

Energy demand globally is predicted to rise and we import 90% of our energy requirements, so yes there is a big demand for infrastructure to support this. Energy usage went down with the recession and is going to rise in accordance with the upturn.

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

Energy demand is forecasted to rise drastically. Peoper infrastructure is a requirement.



.

Energy demand is actually contracting across the Western world in response to energy efficiency gains in the home and industry. Ireland is no different as Eirgrid figures show

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

.



That article is a joke - its one persons opinion (and she makes ridiculous claims) and is in no way evidence based research. The countryside is far more spoiled by ugly housing.

The woman works in the tourism industry. What more evidence do you need or do you dismiss everything that doesn't fit into your view of the world??:rolleyes:

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

Energy demand globally is predicted to rise and we import 90% of our energy requirements, so yes there is a big demand for infrastructure to support this. Energy usage went down with the recession and is going to rise in accordance with the upturn.

If Gridwest was about connecting up to a reliable source of power like a gas or nuclear power station then an arguement could be made for it. Since this is not the case it makes no financial sense especcially when according to Eirgrid we already have double the energy capacity we need at peak times.

MayoSalmon

Birdnuts wrote: »

Energy demand is actually contracting across the Western world in response to energy efficiency gains in the home and industry. Ireland is no different as Eirgrid figures show

Exactly this, the majority of global energy growth across the world is coming from the emerging economies and particulary Asia .

runawaybishop

Birdnuts wrote: »

Energy demand is actually contracting across the Western world in response to energy efficiency gains in the home and industry. Ireland is no different as Eirgrid figures show

Energy demand contracted due to the recession and is predicted to rise again. Our infrastructure in the west is also outdated.

Are you saying if we had more demand people would be happy with the pylons? I think not.

Birdnuts wrote: »

The woman works in the tourism industry. What more evidence do you need or do you dismiss everything that doesn't fit into your view of the world:rolleyes:

The article was full of hyperbole from her.

“Every single tourist that has come is thoroughly disgusted. It is horrendous. They are shocked to the core.

^^ thats right, every single tourist, of which she spoke to 100%, is both disgusted and horrified.

"People are in tears"

^^ People are crying about wind turbine/. LOLs, clearly exaggerating.

She hasn't shown an iota of proof, nor is she actually discussing pylons.

This is not evidence that pylons affect tourism. Have you actual data?

runawaybishop

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Exactly this, the majority of global energy growth across the world is coming from the emerging economies and particulary Asia .

We import 90% of our energy requirements.

runawaybishop

Birdnuts wrote: »

If Gridwest was about connecting up to a reliable source of power like a gas or nuclear power station then an arguement could be made for it. Since this is not the case it makes no financial sense especcially when according to Eirgrid we already have double the energy capacity we need at peak times.

People are not protesting the turbines where i am, they are protesting the pylons because they will give them all cancer them and devalue their land.

Birdnuts

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Exactly this, the majority of global energy growth across the world is coming from the emerging economies and particulary Asia .

A prime example


http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30518649

The end bit also highlights how certain renweable energies are causuing energy bills to spiral.

mass_debater

Birdnuts wrote: »

If Gridwest was about connecting up to a reliable source of power like a gas or nuclear power station then an arguement could be made for it. Since this is not the case it makes no financial sense especcially when according to Eirgrid we already have double the energy capacity we need at peak times.

You'd most likely object to that also. Nimbyism at it's finest. There should be wind farms everywhere west from Kerry to Donegal.

runawaybishop

Birdnuts wrote: »

A prime example


http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30518649

The end bit also highlights how certain renweable energies are casuing energy bills to spiral.

A prime example of not seeing the woods for the trees. Total consumption peaked in 2008 and then went back to 2005 levels. Per capita consumption may see efficiencies but world pop is still massively on the rise.

You'd be fine with a nuclear generator in bel mullet though, right?

fyi, usage went up like 30% from 00 to 08.

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

We import 90% of our energy requirements.

So what?? We will still need to import the vast majority of our energy needs no matter how many windfarms and pylons sprawl across the coutryside as windpower does not delevier a reliable energy supply at peak times. This week under HP and slack winds being a prime example . That has been the experience across Europe. Indeed wind power is also an extremly expensive and ineffective way of reducing emmissions as this study from MIT shows

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and

runawaybishop

Birdnuts wrote: »

So what?? We will still need to import the vast majority of our energy needs no matter how many windfarms and pylons sprawl across the coutryside as windpower does not delevier a reliable energy supply at peak times. This week under HP and slack winds being a prime example . That has been the experience across Europe. Indeed wind power is also an extremly expensive and ineffective way of reducing emmissions as this study from MIT shows

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and

You keep mentioning windpower, but i am specifically talking about pylons.

Our massive reliance on outside power is a huge issue.

So what :rolleyes:

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

A prime example of not seeing the woods for the trees. Total consumption peaked in 2008 and then went back to 2005 levels. Per capita consumption may see efficiencies but world pop is still massively on the rise.

You'd be fine with a nuclear generator in bel mullet though, right?

What has the world popuation got to do with energy consumption in our small country??

And yes I would be fine with a modern Nuclear power station in Belmullet. France has the cheapest and cleanest energy system in Europe thanx to Nuclear plus within a few years small thorium reactors will replace uranium ones which will remove even the remotest risks of any nuclear accidents