Gridwest project.

monument

Birdnuts wrote: »

Your trotting out more myths here. Firstly wind does not offer any type of energy security since it has to be backed up by conventional power stations. So no matter how much of the landscape we disfigure with windfarms, we will still be importing significant amounts of fossil power. Not one power station in Europe has been shut down on the back of wind.

Hold on a second -- you can't have it every which way.

You claimed that there's cost to having power plants fired down, so, you can't also say that there's no saving from burning less imported and/or market-priced energy.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Again the experience of Germany shows that wind has failed on costs and emmission reduction....

Their deceision to dump nuclear was totally without any merit as they are now having to keep the lights on by burning ever larger amounts of coal. Yet somehow this is seen as a success by people like yourself:rolleyes:

We're not Germany, we don't have nuclear and its likely that we will never have nuclear, at least not for the foreseeable future. So, please, let's stop talking about their increase in emissions as if they are not linked to Germany's rapid move away from nuclear

Birdnuts wrote: »

.... Yet somehow this is seen as a success by people like yourself:rolleyes:

Where have I said that? Please quote the post.

Birdnuts wrote: »

...a lazy term used by people who have no sensible arguements to make on planning in this country.

I'm not calling you a NIMBY, I'm saying most objectors to wind and many others would even more strongly object to a nuclear plant.

They are NIMBYs because they would object regardless of what is planned in their back yard.

Chisler2

monument wrote: »

Hold on a second -- you can't have it every which way.

You claimed that there's cost to having power plants fired down, so, you can't also say that there's no saving from burning less imported and/or market-priced energy.




We're not Germany, we don't have nuclear and its likely that we will never have nuclear, at least not for the foreseeable future. So, please, let's stop talking about their increase in emissions as if they are not linked to Germany's rapid move away from nuclear




Where have I said that? Please quote the post.




I'm not calling you a NIMBY, I'm saying most objectors to wind and many others would even more strongly object to a nuclear plant.

They are NIMBYs because they would object regardless of what is planned in their back yard.

Discussion would be easier (and on-line courtesy and etiquette observed) if posters desist from ad hominum remarks..........but that may be a NIMBY perspective :cool: !

Proliferation of on- or off-shore wind-farms combined with the crisscrossing of our small landmass with pylons seems a "steamroller-to-crack-a-nut" approach...........an enthusiastic but misguided embracing of a technology which does not fit, only partially delivers the desired energy combined with a plethora of new problems.

One viable alternative - more suited to Ireland and more productive - would be a mix of energy-generating technologies. Some US cities have already installed small turbines in the city water-supply generating energy every time a tap is run or lavatory flushed - hydropower without negative environmental effects, sufficient for individual and/or clusters of buildings such as schools, libraries etc. without the limitations of wind or solar and generating electricity at any time of day (the pipes always have water flowing through them).

Birdnuts

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which is laudable, but completely irrelevant to the point that was made: nuclear isn't going to happen. If you think that nuclear power will be acceptable to most people just because you personally don't have a problem with it... I don't know what to say to you.

And wind energy isn't exceptible to many people eitheir,so what your point??

Birdnuts

monument wrote: »

Hold on a second -- you can't have it every which way.

You claimed that there's cost to having power plants fired down, so, you can't also say that there's no saving from burning less imported and/or market-priced energy.




We're not Germany, we don't have nuclear and its likely that we will never have nuclear, at least not for the foreseeable future. So, please, let's stop talking about their increase in emissions as if they are not linked to Germany's rapid move away from nuclear




.

But there is no evidence of any savings based on the rising cost of consumer energy bills in the last 15 years or so. Indeed they have continued to rise despite the falling price of gas etc. Wind dependent Denmark has no Nuclear and the trend of rising prices and emmissions is even more evident there.

monument

Birdnuts wrote: »

But there is no evidence of any savings based on the rising cost of consumer energy bills in the last 15 years or so. Indeed they have continued to rise despite the falling price of gas etc. Wind dependent Denmark has no Nuclear and the trend of rising prices and emmissions is even more evident there.

The thread in Denmark is declining emissions:

"Denmark’s observed carbon emissions from energy consumption have dropped by 11.7 million tonnes since 1990, corresponding to 22% [decline]"

Although there's some year-on-year increases mainly in dry years when hydro isn't imported:

http://www.ens.dk/en/info/news-danish-energy-agency/danish-carbon-emissions-continue-drop

Birdnuts

monument wrote: »

The thread in Denmark is declining emissions:

"Denmark’s observed carbon emissions from energy consumption have dropped by 11.7 million tonnes since 1990, corresponding to 22% [decline]"

Although there's some year-on-year increases mainly in dry years when hydro isn't imported:

http://www.ens.dk/en/info/news-danish-energy-agency/danish-carbon-emissions-continue-drop

The decline of old dirty heavy industries was the main driver of lower emmissions across the EU in the 90's. Despite a vast investment in wind since 2000 emmissions are going up again in recent years in Denmark. A jump of 7% in 2013 alone!!

http://phys.org/news/2014-05-germany-eu-worst-polluter-co2.html

monument

Birdnuts wrote: »

The decline of old dirty heavy industries was the main driver of lower emmissions across the EU in the 90's. Despite a vast investment in wind since 2000 emmissions are going up again in recent years in Denmark. A jump of 7% in 2013 alone!!

http://phys.org/news/2014-05-germany-eu-worst-polluter-co2.html

Actually it was a 6.8% year-on-year increase -- if you bothered to read it, it's in the link I posted and you'll find if you read my post you'll see that there has been more than one year-on-year increase.

What matters most is the trend, not the year-on-year stats in isolation. Despite a number of year-on-year increases, the trend is still downwards.

Looking at stats in isolation is pure and utter propgranda.

monument

Objectors say that there's no chance of further investment following building wind turbines and a better connection to the grid, but such things would put Mayo far closer to investment like this:

Apple to invest €850m in new Galway data centre
http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0223/682120-apple-investment-galway/

Birdnuts

monument wrote: »

Objectors say that there's no chance of further investment following building wind turbines and a better connection to the grid, but such things would put Mayo far closer to investment like this:

Apple to invest €850m in new Galway data centre
http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0223/682120-apple-investment-galway/

Who said that?? Have you evidence that Athenry has a better grid connection then the main towns in Mayo or that our current grid connections are in any way preventing industry from setting up in Mayo over other parts of the country?? I see nothing in that press release which suggests so. If it is an issue then we can simply upgrade our existing pylon network. As for running data centres off "renewable energies" I'm not sure what that line is about unless Apple plan to run the facility off grid using a woodchip generator or something similar. Sounds more like a bit of corporate greenwash than anything else. If they are that concerned about such things than maybe they need to clean up their supply chain in the Chinese factories where their actual products are produced

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/07/29/apple-supplier-slapped-with-pollution-charges/

"Exporting" pollution does not equate to "preventing" it

oscarBravo

Birdnuts wrote: »

Who said that?? Have you evidence that Athenry has a better grid connection then the main towns in Mayo...

Have a look here - compare the grid at Cashla to that anywhere in Mayo.

...or that our current grid connections are in any way preventing industry from setting up in Mayo over other parts of the country?? I see nothing in that press release which suggests so. If it is an issue then we can simply upgrade our existing pylon network.

That's not the first time that canard has appeared in this thread. I'm pretty sure I asked before: how do you upgrade a 110kV pylon network to handle higher voltages?

Birdnuts

oscarBravo wrote: »

Have a look here - compare the grid at Cashla to that anywhere in Mayo. That's not the first time that canard has appeared in this thread. I'm pretty sure I asked before: how do you upgrade a 110kV pylon network to handle higher voltages?

Did Apple state that as a reason for choosing Athenry?? In any case such upgrades of existing networks happen all the time as stated by Eirgrid themselves. The following quote is from an Eirgrid document I found in the link below "EirGrid operates over 6,500km of overhead lines throughout the country. The Grid25 strategy involves the upgrading of 2,000km of the existing grid; this is called uprating and reduces the requirement to build new lines across the regions".

https://www.google.ie/#q=EirGrid+operates+over+6%2C500km+of+overhead+lines+throughout+the+country.+The+Grid25+strategy+involves+the+upgrading+of+2%2C000km+of+the+existing+grid%3B+this+is+called+uprating+and+reduces+the+requirement+to+build+new+lines+across+the+regions

oscarBravo

Birdnuts wrote: »

Did Apple state that as a reason for choosing Athenry??

I was answering the question I quoted.

The following quote is from an Eirgrid document I found in the link below "EirGrid operates over 6,500km of overhead lines throughout the country. The Grid25 strategy involves the upgrading of 2,000km of the existing grid; this is called uprating and reduces the requirement to build new lines across the regions".

That would be the same document that also contains the quote: "However, certain problems that occur in an electricity system, such as voltage violations or security of supply issues, cannot be mitigated by uprating circuits. In these circumstances, new additional circuits are required."

You say "we can simply upgrade our existing pylon network", and then quote a document that makes it clear that we can't always simply upgrade it; worse again, you quote a document whose overall purpose is to argue in favour of new lines where they are deemed necessary.

TopTec

And they still look crap....!



TT

Chisler2

TopTec wrote: »

And they still look crap....!



"Saccharine" is too mild a term! As an artist and an energy-consumer catching sight of THAT out of the corner of my eye whilst driving east into the rising sun would lead to a car-crash or bringing up my breakfast or both. How much would "consultancy costs" and "artist's fees' for this desecration and derangement of the mountain landscape have added to the unfortunate taxpaying consumers' bill, I wonder?

mass_debater

TopTec wrote: »

And they still look crap....!



TT

Thats just an opinion, I think they look awesome, couldn't care about the view

TopTec

mass_debater wrote: »

couldn't care about the view

Then there is no hope.... this world is doomed.

TT

oscarBravo

TopTec wrote: »

Then there is no hope.... this world is doomed.

I certainly wouldn't say I don't care about the view, but I equally wouldn't be arrogant enough to tell the Icelanders that they're going to have to do without electricity on the off-chance that I might want to go there some day and spend a few minutes looking at a nice view without pylons.

monument

They have being upgrading the current network on a very large scale in north Mayo over the last year or so -- this isn't an alternative to Gridwest.

Re different designs, these look better than any other designs I've even seen:

Chisler2

mass_debater wrote: »

Thats just an opinion, I think they look awesome, couldn't care about the view

Extraordinary choice, given Iceland's has the advantage of plentiful geothermal energy (remember those geysers?!) from which to generate power by use of, rather than ab-use of, its environment! Currently five major geothermal power-plants produce about a third of energy requirement and meets approximately 87% of heating and hot water requirements. Hydro-power produces 73.8% of electricity and Iceland will shortly be completely carbon-neutral without any use of fossil-fuel.

The source of the power these pylons carry is not apparent, but the jokey despoiling of the mountain landscape seems unnecessary on every level.

oscarBravo

Chisler2 wrote: »

Extraordinary choice, given Iceland's has the advantage of plentiful geothermal energy (remember those geysers?!) from which to generate power by use of, rather than ab-use of, its environment! Currently five major geothermal power-plants produce about a third of energy requirement and meets approximately 87% of heating and hot water requirements. Hydro-power produces 73.8% of electricity and Iceland will shortly be completely carbon-neutral without any use of fossil-fuel.

The source of the power these pylons carry is not apparent, but the jokey despoiling of the mountain landscape seems unnecessary on every level.

How, precisely, do you propose they get that all that hydro power to where it's needed without wires?

Birdnuts

oscarBravo wrote: »

it; worse again, you quote a document whose overall purpose is to argue in favour of new lines where they are deemed necessary.

I've no problem with power lines that are necessary. What I object to is basing pylon projects around the interests of the wind industry and expecting power users to pay dearly for it through ever rising energy bills. Any literature I've had through my door on the subject of gridwest from Eirgrid is peppered with waffle about wind energy.

Chisler2

oscarBravo wrote: »

How, precisely, do you propose they get that all that hydro power to where it's needed without wires?

Whilst aware that introduction of issues in other countries may be perceived to be taking this thread off-course I will answer your point briefly........then I'm out of here!

Apart from a tiny percentage, most of the population of Iceland live in Reykjavik. The massive hydro-electric developments and the availability of natural geothermal produce huge surplus of energy. Since this cannot be easily exportable Iceland "imports industry" - aluminium smelting of imported ores to be precise.

Finished.

oscarBravo

Chisler2 wrote: »

Apart from a tiny percentage, most of the population of Iceland live in Reykjavik. The massive hydro-electric developments and the availability of natural geothermal produce huge surplus of energy. Since this cannot be easily exportable Iceland "imports industry" - aluminium smelting of imported ores to be precise.

That doesn't answer my question.

TopTec

Looks like the decision has already been made for GridWest.....?

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/undergrounding-not-an-option-for-north-south-interconnector-eirgrid-179417/

TT

runawaybishop

No surprises there.

Villain

Makes sense, underground was not going to be viable.