Gridwest project.

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

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

The pylons are being built to accomodate wind farms. I suggest you read some of Eirgrids literature on the project

runawaybishop

There is a multi-quote button btw.

Birdnuts wrote: »

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

The more population you have the more your energy demands increase, as will be the case here. Combined with the ending of the recession and our energy demands will rise significantly. They have been rising steadily until the recession hit. The jump since the turn of the century is huge.

Birdnuts wrote: »

The pylons are being built to accomodate wind farms. I suggest you read some of Eirgrids literature on the project

Is anyone unaware of why they are being built? I am specifically discussing peoples objections to the pylons.

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

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.

Tell that to the people of Moygownagh

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/grid-west-not-needed-at-all-says-protest-group-chief-30378056.html

runawaybishop

Birdnuts wrote: »

Tell that to the people of Moygownagh

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/grid-west-not-needed-at-all-says-protest-group-chief-30378056.html

Are you deliberately trying to sabotage your own argument?

If there was 100,000 jobs coming into Mayo, or someone was planning a big industry, it would be one thing.

^^ NIMBYism at its finest.

My parents' farm would be affected because it would go up near land they have. "


hahahahh.

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

There is a multi-quote button btw.


The more population you have the more your energy demands increase, as will be the case here. Combined with the ending of the recession and our energy demands will rise significantly. They have been rising steadily until the recession hit. The jump since the turn of the century is huge.



.

There is no evidence for your opinion in modern Western economies. As my earlier link proved - the opposite is more likely. As it is we already have twice the generating capacity we need and adding more will simply make energy even more expensive hitting both domestic and industrial users

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

Are you deliberately trying to sabotage your own argument?

If there was 100,000 jobs coming into Mayo, or someone was planning a big industry, it would be one thing.

^^ NIMBYism at its finest.

My parents' farm would be affected because it would go up near land they have. "


hahahahh.

Whats wrong with pointing out facts?? Is it your contention that we should build white elephants for the sake of it??

runawaybishop

Birdnuts wrote: »

There is no evidence for your opinion in modern Western economies. As my earlier link proved - the opposite is more likely. As it is we already have twice the generating capacity we need and adding more will simply make energy even more expensive hitting both domestic and industrial users

Ehh, no. Demand is not likely to drop - per capita maybe for now, but once the recession ends expect it to rise per capita again

http://www.google.ie/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=eg_use_elec_kh_pc&idim=country:IRL:ITA:NLD&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=eg_use_elec_kh&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:IRL&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Birdnuts wrote: »

Whats wrong with pointing out facts?? Is it your contention that we should build white elephants for the sake of it??

You just linked to an article that confirms the opposition is NIMBYism and they would be fine about it with a few jobs thrown in and if it wasnt near his parents land.

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

Ehh, no. Demand is not likely to drop - per capita maybe for now, but once the recession ends expect it to rise per capita again

http://www.google.ie/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=eg_use_elec_kh_pc&idim=country:IRL:ITA:NLD&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=eg_use_elec_kh&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:IRL&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false



.

Care to point out on that link anything that supports your case cos I can't see it?? So basically you are claiming without any evidence that Irish energy use will be radically different in the years ahead compared to every other Western Country. Even the ESB has pointed out in their recent submission to the green paper on energy that we already have far more generating capacity then we will need FTFF

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

You just linked to an article that confirms the opposition is NIMBYism and they would be fine about it with a few jobs thrown in and if it wasnt near his parents land.

I bet you supported the construction of all those ghost estates too. You also appear to have a problem with local democracy.

runawaybishop

Birdnuts wrote: »

Care to point out on that link anything that supports your case cos I can't see it?? So basically you are claiming without any evidence that Irish energy use will be radically different in the years ahead compared to every other Western Country. Even the ESB has pointed out in their recent submission to the green paper on energy that we already have far more generating capacity then we will need FTFF

The 30% rise during the boom and the drop during the recession would be pretty compelling, thats if the very report you mentioned didnt specifically state demand will rise. Before the recession demand was predicted to rise by over 50% in the next 15 years. We are expected to return to pre-recession demand in the next 5 years.

Birdnuts wrote: »

I bet you supported the construction of all those ghost estates too. You also appear to have a problem with local democracy.

National concerns > local NIMBYism. Ghost estates have nothing to do with this. Stop trying to build strawmen.

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

The 30% rise during the boom and the drop during the recession would be pretty compelling, thats if the very report you mentioned didnt specifically state demand will rise. Before the recession demand was predicted to rise by over 50% in the next 15 years. We are expected to return to pre-recession demand in the next 5 years.



.

So the link you provided has no relevance to future energy use in this country. Yet you still claim you are right despite growing economies like the UK and the US exhibiting declining energy use rates. You have also ignored the fact that we already have twice the installed energy capacity we need at peak times. You also think you know more than the ESB on this matter. I could go on but I appear to be arguing with a brick wall:rolleyes:

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

National concerns > local NIMBYism. Ghost estates have nothing to do with this. Stop trying to build strawmen.

These people are doing us a favour by stopping White elephant projects that will damage the entire economy with higher energy prices and negative impacts on tourism and property values. I'm sorry but you appear to be totally clueless on the substantive issues in this area

runawaybishop

Birdnuts wrote: »

So the link you provided has no relevance to future energy use in this country. Yet you still claim you are right despite growing economies like the UK and the US exibiting declining energy use rates. You have also ignored the fact that we already have twice the installed energy capacity we need at peak times. You also think you know more than the ESB on this matter. I could go on but I appear to be arguing with a brick wall:rolleyes:

The ESB agree with me In bold for your inconvenience, again.

runawaybishop wrote: »

The 30% rise during the boom and the drop during the recession would be pretty compelling, thats if the very report you mentioned didnt specifically state demand will rise. Before the recession demand was predicted to rise by over 50% in the next 15 years. We are expected to return to pre-recession demand in the next 5 years.

:pac:

Birdnuts wrote: »

These people are doing us a favour by stopping White elephant projects that will damage the entire economy with higher energy prices and negative impacts on tourism and property values. I'm sorry but you appear to be totally clueless on the substantive issues in this area

I disagree. No need to be sorry, this is a discussion forum after all.

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

The ESB agree with me In bold for your inconvenience, again.



:pac:

.

In their submission to the recent government energy green paper, The ESB have forecast a mere 5% rise in energy demand between 2008 and 2024. Given that we already have twice the energy generating capacity we need it makes no sense to spend billions building pylons to nowhere. That is the nub of the issue. Gridwest does not link anyone to any usefull power source in any case, so is indeed the very defination of a white elephant.

runawaybishop

Birdnuts wrote: »

In their submission to the recent government energy green paper, The ESB have forecast a mere 5% rise in energy demand between 2008 and 2024. Given that we already have twice the energy generating capacity we need it makes no sense to spend billions building pylons to nowhere. That is the nub of the issue. Gridwest does not link anyone to any usefull power source in any case, so is indeed the very defination of a white elephant.

Incorrect. We will be back up to pre recession levels in 5 years, I.e 5..% rise and predicted to rise by like 50% in the next 15. It's in the report you keep referencing. Please link the capacity though, I haven't seen that yet.

Niall_daaS

I just read the last two days of discussion and there is just one question of understanding: it was pointed out several times that to cover the demand 90 % of energy is imported. But existing capacities are twice as big as needed. That sounds paradox. Is this because capacities mostly come from wind energy and are not stable enough to serve the demand at any time?

Birdnuts

Niall_daaS wrote: »

I just read the last two days of discussion and there is just one question of understanding: it was pointed out several times that to cover the demand 90 % of energy is imported. But existing capacities are twice as big as needed. That sounds paradox. Is this because capacities mostly come from wind energy and are not stable enough to serve the demand at any time?

Thats one of the reasons. We also have a number of new gas fired power stations running far below capacity. Wind power also lessons the efficiancies of conventional plants that have to be constantly switched on or off depending on the prevailing wind speeds. Its the equivalent of driving a diesel truck in heavy city traffic compared to a steady 50mph on the motorway. Germany with its vast installed wind capacity is running into this problem big time and having to burn more coal as a result to keep the lights on, which is why its emmissions have been rising in recent years despite a vast spend on wind energy.

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

Incorrect. We will be back up to pre recession levels in 5 years, I.e 5..% rise and predicted to rise by like 50% in the next 15. It's in the report you keep referencing. Please link the capacity though, I haven't seen that yet.

Your contention was that we need to spend vast billions on new pylons and wind farms to meet future demand. Demand that was easily met by existing infrastruture in 2008, since which alot more has been added including new Gas power stations. A mere 5% extra demand by 2024 will be easily accomodated by existing installed capacities - therefore gridwest which doesnt plug into any reliable energy source anyway is a total white elephant that serves no purpose. Even government TDS have copped on to that

http://www.martinheydon.com/2014/11/esb-submission-should-have-significant-impact-on-eirgrids-review-of-gridlink/


"Deputy Heydon highlighted that “ESB’s recent submission on national energy policy states that the latest demand projections by Eirgrid would only suggest an approximate 5% increase in demand for 2008 – 2024. This is compared to a forecasted increase in demand of 45% for the same period when the Gridlink project was first envisaged in 2008. These figures call into question the very need for the Gridlink project

runawaybishop

Birdnuts wrote: »

Your contention was that we need to spend vast billions on new pylons and wind farms to meet future demand. Demand that was easily met by existing infrastruture in 2008, since which alot more has been added including new Gas power stations. A mere 5% extra demand by 2024 will be easily accomodated by existing installed capacities - therefore gridwest which doesnt plug into any reliable energy source anyway is a total white elephant that serves no purpose. Even government TDS have copped on to that

http://www.martinheydon.com/2014/11/esb-submission-should-have-significant-impact-on-eirgrids-review-of-gridlink/


"Deputy Heydon highlighted that “ESB’s recent submission on national energy policy states that the latest demand projections by Eirgrid would only suggest an approximate 5% increase in demand for 2008 – 2024. This is compared to a forecasted increase in demand of 45% for the same period when the Gridlink project was first envisaged in 2008. These figures call into question the very need for the Gridlink project

Where is the evidence that we are x2 capacity? Thanks.

Recession hit demand, as it is passing demand is predicted to rise significantly.

Birdnuts

runawaybishop wrote: »

Where is the evidence that we are x2 capacity? Thanks.

Recession hit demand, as it is passing demand is predicted to rise significantly.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/scrap-wind-farm-plans-urges-economist-colm-mccarthy-1.1969289

Irish electricity consumption peaked in 2008 when it hit 5,000 megawatts and Eirgrid has predicted that this demand level will not be reached again until 2019 at the earliest. Yet Ireland has continued to expand it generation capacity to almost twice this level.

Niall_daaS

Birdnuts wrote: »

Thats one of the reasons. We also have a number of new gas fired power stations running far below capacity. Wind power also lessons the efficiancies of conventional plants that have to be constantly switched on or off depending on the prevailing wind speeds. Its the equivalent of driving a diesel truck in heavy city traffic compared to a steady 50mph on the motorway. Germany with its vast installed wind capacity is running into this problem big time and having to burn more coal as a result to keep the lights on, which is why its emmissions have been rising in recent years despite a vast spend on wind energy.

Thanks! Think this Mayo board is not the place to discuss the German electricity policy, but eventually there's one parallel to mention. A major discussion is recently going on in bavaria. Main issue: pylons

Niall_daaS

Something I would like to add to the discussion. I'm not an Irish local and I love travelling Ireland for the rural countryside and I go hill walking a lot to just be left with myself and the surrounding nature. So I would fall into the scheme of a tourist who might be "disgusted" by pylons at unspoiled places. I know few hills and mountains where tv masts or wind mills are build on the top. Recently I was on Achill and walked Minaun where a TV and a radio mast is placed. I must say it doesn't fit into the Achill surroundings. But I don't really care and wouldn't say that I never return to Achill (or Ireland) because of seeing this as an issue. I can't tell if it might had been possible or even better to build them somewhere else, but I see the necessity of them being somewhere. And in my eyes that's quit the same with the pylons. I can't measure if it's necessary to build them right along THIS corridor and wether they transport electricity that is badly needed or not. But fact is: if they are there for whatsoever reasons I would accept it. Think: that's just my personal pov as a tourist to come back to the part of discussion what tourists might say.

Birdnuts

Niall_daaS wrote: »

Something I would like to add to the discussion. I'm not an Irish local and I love travelling Ireland for the rural countryside and I go hill walking a lot to just be left with myself and the surrounding nature. So I would fall into the scheme of a tourist who might be "disgusted" by pylons at unspoiled places. I know few hills and mountains where tv masts or wind mills are build on the top. Recently I was on Achill and walked Minaun where a TV and a radio mast is placed. I must say it doesn't fit into the Achill surroundings. But I don't really care and wouldn't say that I never return to Achill (or Ireland) because of seeing this as an issue. I can't tell if it might had been possible or even better to build them somewhere else, but I see the necessity of them being somewhere. And in my eyes that's quit the same with the pylons. I can't measure if it's necessary to build them right along THIS corridor and wether they transport electricity that is badly needed or not. But fact is: if they are there for whatsoever reasons I would accept it. Think: that's just my personal pov as a tourist to come back to the part of discussion what tourists might say.

Fair comment - i would accept pylons too if they were actually neccesary. In the same way I don't have problems with TV masts on certain mountains. My problem is with white elephant projects like this one generating vast numbers of pylons in sensitive locations. Its important to note too that the Gridwest project is just the tip of the iceberg if all the wind farm plans in North Mayo saw the light of day. At the end of the day I don't think any reasonable person could dispute that the density of pylons in the link below would spell bad news for any area that relies on natural beauty to attract visitors

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/leaders/article762881.ece



.

Niall_daaS

Birdnuts wrote: »

Fair comment - i would accept pylons too if they were actually neccesary. In the same way I don't have problems with TV masts on certain mountains. My problem is with white elephant projects like this one generating vast numbers of pylons in sensitive locations. Its important to note too that the Gridwest project is just the tip of the iceberg if all the wind farm plans in North Mayo saw the light of day. At the end of the day I don't think any reasonable person could dispute that the density of pylons in the link below would spell bad news for any area that relies on natural beauty to attract visitors

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/leaders/article762881.ece



.

Are those wind farms planned to be on-shore or off-shore?

Birdnuts

Niall_daaS wrote: »

Are those wind farms planned to be on-shore or off-shore?

On shore

Niall_daaS

Birdnuts wrote: »

On shore

Would it be technically possible to build them offshore in the Atlantic without exploding cost for construction and maintanance? Or would this inevitably lead to drastic higher prices in comparison with on shore wind farms?

Chisler2

runawaybishop wrote: »

Yes, but we'd pay even more then

...............and wreck the tourist industry! :cool:

Chisler2

Birdnuts wrote: »

Fair comment - i would accept pylons too if they were actually neccesary. In the same way I don't have problems with TV masts on certain mountains. My problem is with white elephant projects like this one generating vast numbers of pylons in sensitive locations. Its important to note too that the Gridwest project is just the tip of the iceberg if all the wind farm plans in North Mayo saw the light of day. At the end of the day I don't think any reasonable person could dispute that the density of pylons in the link below would spell bad news for any area that relies on natural beauty to attract visitors

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/leaders/article762881.ece



.

Emphatically agree! An appraisal of the extent of wind-farms across Europe, the Scandinavian and the USA, and the statistics emerging on the limited pay-back on investment, demonstrates the folly of believing Ireland will be either generate sufficient power for local needs OR "sell" to a broader grid. There is little to be gained, and the loss (for such a small island) is loss of environmental amenity, loss of ecological balance and destruction of the tourist industry.

monument

Chisler2 wrote: »

Emphatically agree! An appraisal of the extent of wind-farms across Europe, the Scandinavian and the USA, and the statistics emerging on the limited pay-back on investment, demonstrates the folly of believing Ireland will be either generate sufficient power for local needs OR "sell" to a broader grid. There is little to be gained, and the loss (for such a small island) is loss of environmental amenity, loss of ecological balance and destruction of the tourist industry.

Where are you getting your info from? Anti-wind campaigners??? Germany, Sweden, France and the UK all added wind power last year.

It's amazing that some of the people most against wind farms are those living in one-off housing which has blighted the countryside -- mostly those with little or no connection to the countryside.

runawaybishop

Birdnuts wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/scrap-wind-farm-plans-urges-economist-colm-mccarthy-1.1969289

Irish electricity consumption peaked in 2008 when it hit 5,000 megawatts and Eirgrid has predicted that this demand level will not be reached again until 2019 at the earliest. Yet Ireland has continued to expand it generation capacity to almost twice this level.

Sorry, that isn't a reliable source as its not even quoted. Our demand in 2011 was higher than in 2008 according to this though there are other figures which indicate our demand in 2011 was indeed lower than in 2008. There are no figures available for what we are currently using, none that i can find anyway.

At any rate our demand is expected to meet our highest level (2008) in a mere 5 years. Given that our demand rose by 30% from 2000 to 2008 and given that extra capacity is required by default in a network (typically anywhere from 10-20% to meet network outages) having this capacity will be fine for the next 15 years or so.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Fair comment - i would accept pylons too if they were actually neccesary. In the same way I don't have problems with TV masts on certain mountains. My problem is with white elephant projects like this one generating vast numbers of pylons in sensitive locations. Its important to note too that the Gridwest project is just the tip of the iceberg if all the wind farm plans in North Mayo saw the light of day. At the end of the day I don't think any reasonable person could dispute that the density of pylons in the link below would spell bad news for any area that relies on natural beauty to attract visitors

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/leaders/article762881.ece



.

Pylons are necessary if the turbines go ahead and will be necessary in the future anyway, even if they do not.

I don't think any reasonable person could dispute that the density of pylons in the link below would spell bad news for any area that relies on natural beauty to attract visitors

That link isnt what is proposed for mayo though, so why bring it up? Apart form that why should one small area hold the rest of the region to ransom?