Gridwest project.

Birdnuts

monument wrote: »

There's no plan or question of "covering Mayo" with pylons and turbines.




No, I was never a cheerleader any of that. Quite the opposite.

If you read back you'll note that I've only accused you of being a cheerleader of something you have openly supported and have gone on to support some of those things and have not denied support of others.




I did not "accuse" you, I proved you wrong by listing energy intensive businesses that Ireland has attracted when you claimed that Ireland was not able to attract energy intensive industries.




That does not mean much coming from somebody who has been so wrong.




Meanwhile, data centres etc are insisting on renewable as a core part of the mix and Germany hit high points of ~60% of power from renewables a few times now without any stability issues.

Recently there was even a few headlines aimed at the myth of stability issues -- ie "Germany Hits 59% Renewable Peak, Grid Does Not Explode".




This again is amazing. You're against pylons but are supportive of this type of thing:






Others here are against power lines but are saying "go nuclear". Truly amazing stuff.




That's classic not in my back yard stuff. If you truly want nuclear, you should be welcoming it with open arms to Mayo.

The major power companies are worried about the grid in Europe with respect to wind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAhzrxtCWnM


As for not covering Mayo in pylons, below is a link highlighting the massive energy sprawl in terms of pylons and turbines caused by wind power compared to nuclear power stations

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2013/10/infographic.jpg

PS: I've already stated I would support a Nuclear power stations in North Mayo so less of that childish "your a NIMBY" nonsense please:rolleyes:

Birdnuts

oscarBravo wrote: »

Turlough Hill cost £22 million - call it €100m in today's terms. Why would Glinsk cost fifty times as much?

Ask the developers - the scale and nature of the Glinsk project is on a totally different planet to Turlough Hill in terms of size and function. There is no comparison

PS: Interesting that Turlough Hill was a one off experiment from 40 years ago that the ESB never attempted to repeat which tells its own story. That more recent so-called "Spirit of Ireland" project appears to have died a death which would support my doubts about such things.

monument

Birdnuts wrote: »

The major power companies are worried about the grid in Europe with respect to wind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAhzrxtCWnM

Again: Renewables peaked at 60% of the power source in Germany and the grid was unaffected.

Companies like E.on are not worried about the stability if the grids, they are worried about dents in the profits.

Over 50% of E.on's generation is still from coal and another 30% is from gas -- so it's not in their interist to support renewables gaining market share.

Birdnuts wrote: »

As for not covering Mayo in pylons, below is a link highlighting the massive energy sprawl in terms of pylons and turbines caused by wind power compared to nuclear power stations

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2013/10/infographic.jpg

That does not mention pylons.

Birdnuts wrote: »

PS: I've already stated I would support a Nuclear power stations in North Mayo so less of that childish "your a NIMBY" nonsense please:rolleyes:

That was a direct reply to TopTec -- it's as clear as can be.

But, hey, you're against pylons for wind but are for nuclear which needs pylons anyway! And you talk about the local environment but you support the most destructive methods of energy production.

TopTec

Morning,

monument wrote: »

Others here are against power lines but are saying "go nuclear". Truly amazing stuff.

That's classic not in my back yard stuff. If you truly want nuclear, you should be welcoming it with open arms to Mayo.

There are several sites in this country that seem suitable for a nuclear power plant... ie close to water, existing grid infrastructure etc etc for example Moneypoint in Clare.

You assume a lot, Monument, accusing me of being a Nimby. It is a favourite accusation levelled at anyone opposed to a large project like Gridwest. I live 2k from the upgraded power lines east of Ballina, 3k from the Kilbride windfarm and less than a kilometre from the proposed windfarm at Drumsheen.

All these impact on the quality of my life in a variety of ways. Do I wish they were not there?... Course I do... but I accept that some are necessary. Do I think Gridwest is necessary... No, I don't.

You say I should welcome Nuclear to Mayo. I would. It is the lessor of all the energy evils. Ask all those people who will be blighted by Gridwest if they would support Nuclear if it meant no Gridwest then I bet my pension they all would.

Although I enjoyed banter and debate I don't like the sneering and sarcasm that sometimes infects some of the posts on the board. OscarBravo's responses are examples of that. It is those types of diatribe that keeps many posters away from contributions to the debate and is the reason why I try to to ignore such posts. Sometimes I give in and have to respond.

TT

oscarBravo

TopTec wrote: »

You say I should welcome Nuclear to Mayo. I would. It is the lessor of all the energy evils. Ask all those people who will be blighted by Gridwest if they would support Nuclear if it meant no Gridwest then I bet my pension they all would.

Now all you have to do is explain how a nuclear power plant would be of any use whatsoever without transmission lines.

That's not intended as sneering or sarcasm - it's a genuine question.

Also: if you think Irish people will accept a nuclear reactor in Ireland, you couldn't be more wrong. Irish people object to mobile phone masts, recycling plants, gas pipelines, wind turbines, electricity transmission lines... hell, they objected to the cooling tower being built in Bellacorick, then objected again to its demolition.

Seriously: you think the people who are afraid of the damage to their health from electric wiring will accept nuclear fusion without a murmur? Seriously?

yop

oscarBravo wrote: »

Now all you have to do is explain how a nuclear power plant would be of any use whatsoever without transmission lines.

That's not intended as sneering or sarcasm - it's a genuine question.

Also: if you think Irish people will accept a nuclear reactor in Ireland, you couldn't be more wrong. Irish people object to mobile phone masts, recycling plants, gas pipelines, wind turbines, electricity transmission lines... hell, they objected to the cooling tower being built in Bellacorick, then objected again to its demolition.

Seriously: you think the people who are afraid of the damage to their health from electric wiring will accept nuclear fusion without a murmur? Seriously?

Exactly, mention Nuclear in Mayo and it will be chaos on madwest radio!

Maybe its an Irish thing but if there is something to object to then the Irish will do it. Water meters, septic tanks, ESB etc etc etc

TopTec

oscarBravo wrote: »

Now all you have to do is explain how a nuclear power plant would be of any use whatsoever without transmission lines.

Seriously: you think the people who are afraid of the damage to their health from electric wiring will accept nuclear fusion without a murmur? Seriously?

FFS. How many times have I to type 'existing grid infrastructure'. That 'existing grid infrastructure' may have to be upgraded but it is there already. The purpose of Gridwest is to carry renewable power away. No more wind farms = no more pylons.

Why do you focus on health issue? Whether a health issue exists or not is not the point. It is the perception of a possible health issue that affects the thinking of those souls with pylons parked near their homes. It is the blight on the landscape, the serious effect on the value of their homes, the disruption..... the guest house and hotels that lose trade due to the proximity of the pylons.... etc etc.

Seriously, you are saying that these people, that are turning up in their thousands to the meetings, that are bombarding Eirgridd with submissions and objections wouldn't embrace nuclear as an alternative? Seriously?

TT

Mickeroo

TopTec wrote: »

FFS. How many times have I to type 'existing grid infrastructure'. That 'existing grid infrastructure' may have to be upgraded but it is there already. The purpose of Gridwest is to carry renewable power away. No more wind farms = no more pylons.

Why do you focus on health issue? Whether a health issue exists or not is not the point. It is the perception of a possible health issue that affects the thinking of those souls with pylons parked near their homes. It is the blight on the landscape, the serious effect on the value of their homes, the disruption..... the guest house and hotels that lose trade due to the proximity of the pylons.... etc etc.

Seriously, you are saying that these people, that are turning up in their thousands to the meetings, that are bombarding Eirgridd with submissions and objections wouldn't embrace nuclear as an alternative? Seriously?

TT

No way would they embrace nuclear. The general public in Ireland is terrified of it for the most part.

oscarBravo

TopTec wrote: »

FFS. How many times have I to type 'existing grid infrastructure'. That 'existing grid infrastructure' may have to be upgraded but it is there already. The purpose of Gridwest is to carry renewable power away. No more wind farms = no more pylons.

There is no existing grid infrastructure worth talking about in Mayo! There is not one single 220kV line anywhere in the county. Westport is fed by a single 110kV line with no resilient routing.

You talk about the existing infrastructure having to be upgraded: yes, it would have to be upgraded - to a new line with a 400kV capacity!

Why do you focus on health issue? Whether a health issue exists or not is not the point. It is the perception of a possible health issue that affects the thinking of those souls with pylons parked near their homes.

That's the sort of arrant nonsense that brings out the sneering and sarcastic responses in me.

If people want to invent fictional problems to stress over, that's their prerogative, but the idea that scaremongering nonsense deserves the same consideration as logic and reason... sorry, but no.

Imaginary threats cause enough problems in the world - the imaginary dangers of immunisation have led to epidemics of diseases that were all but eradicated; the perceived threat of terrorism makes it a humiliating ordeal just to get on an airplane. I'm fed up with the idea that everyone's entitled to their opinion: you're entitled to believe what you want, but if your belief is founded on something other than scientific fact, don't bug me about it.

...It is the blight on the landscape, the serious effect on the value of their homes, the disruption..... the guest house and hotels that lose trade due to the proximity of the pylons.... etc etc.

Got any figures to show a causative link between the construction of electricity infrastructure and a drop in property values and/or tourism anywhere in the country?

Because there's a demonstrable causative link between a lack of such infrastructure and a lack of industrial investment. If we as a county have made our minds up that we don't want industry and are content to eke out whatever living we can manage through simply looking pretty (and let's pretend that we don't already have a serious one-off housing problem that's done immeasurable damage on that front), fair enough: but you don't get to reject required infrastructure and still demand the jobs that depend on that infrastructure.

Seriously, you are saying that these people, that are turning up in their thousands to the meetings, that are bombarding Eirgridd with submissions and objections wouldn't embrace nuclear as an alternative? Seriously?

Absolutely. It will be a cold day in hell before there's a nuclear plant anywhere in Ireland, never mind Mayo.

Oldtree

The issue is no longer about the impact of 1 line, but up to 8:

"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

"Mr Meagher told the meeting that Eirgrid did not choose under-grounding the line as an option because of ‘the functional size of the system’."

I have to ask the Grid West project: would seven to eight lines now be of a functional size to choose under-grounding the lines as an option?

Seems a prudent option to me. But is it still financially unviable in the short term to plan ahead for 2020 and a further 6-7 lines?

oscarBravo

Undergrounding isn't an option because the project is too big for it, not because it's not big enough.

I'm open to correction, but my understanding is that the longest existing stretch of underground 400kV anywhere in the world is in London, it's 20km long, and the conductors are carried in air-conditioned tunnels. The idea that undergrounding this project is simply a question of digging a few trenches is pervasive, and it couldn't be more wrong.

Dudda

kadett wrote: »

http://www.organicpower.ie/content/projects/glinsk.htm

That's very cool. Wasn't aware of this and can't see how it would cost 5 billion. Really need to see a breakdown from whoever came up with that figure.

Oldtree

oscarBravo wrote: »

Undergrounding isn't an option because the project is too big for it, not because it's not big enough.

I'm open to correction, but my understanding is that the longest existing stretch of underground 400kV anywhere in the world is in London, it's 20km long, and the conductors are carried in air-conditioned tunnels. The idea that undergrounding this project is simply a question of digging a few trenches is pervasive, and it couldn't be more wrong.

I did get that from the article too, but it seems we can dig tunnels (large trenches:D) for a gas project in Mayo (in an sac) so I fail to see the difference, other than it is cheaper in the short term for Eirgrid.

"A few Trenches" is not what I would expect to happen, but to my mind at least the landscape can be preserved, even if it must include restoration.

Oldtree

Dudda wrote: »

That's very cool. Wasn't aware of this and can't see how it would cost 5 billion. Really need to see a breakdown from whoever came up with that figure.

Organic Power wanted a wind farm in an SAC and a PHES to follow.

For a deeper view :
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=57495769

monument

Oldtree wrote: »

I did get that from the article too, but it seems we can dig tunnels (large trenches:D) for a gas project in Mayo (in an sac) so I fail to see the difference, other than it is cheaper in the short term for Eirgrid.

"A few Trenches" is not what I would expect to happen, but to my mind at least the landscape can be preserved, even if it must include restoration.

As said in two or so posts above this one, the longest underground wires of this type is 20km, it needs air con and it's only underground because it's in London.

TopTec wrote: »

You assume a lot, Monument, accusing me of being a Nimby. It is a favourite accusation levelled at anyone opposed to a large project like Gridwest.

You're not being accused of being a Nimby -- you are proving your self to be one saying things like no pylons for Mayo but nuclear plants for Moneypoint. That's a sure sign of a classic Nimby.

TopTec wrote: »

I live 2k from the upgraded power lines east of Ballina, 3k from the Kilbride windfarm and less than a kilometre from the proposed windfarm at Drumsheen.

All these impact on the quality of my life in a variety of ways.

How exactly are these thing going to affect your quality of life?

oscarBravo

Oldtree wrote: »

I did get that from the article too, but it seems we can dig tunnels (large trenches:D) for a gas project in Mayo (in an sac) so I fail to see the difference...

You fail to see the difference?

How many gas pipelines have you seen dangling from pylons?

...other than it is cheaper in the short term for Eirgrid.

The short term? What makes you think it's cheaper in the long term?

"A few Trenches" is not what I would expect to happen, but to my mind at least the landscape can be preserved, even if it must include restoration.

Apart from the fact that the entire route of such an underground cable is permanently sterilised from ever having any trees planted on it. Apart from the fact that explicit permission would need to be sought from Eirgrid for so much as a fencepost or a shrub along the route. Apart from the fact that Eirgrid would need a permanent right-of-way including permission to dig at any point along the route for repairs. Apart from the fact that such cables typically have a service life of 40 years, after which the entire cable route needs to be dug up and replaced, at almost the entire capital cost of the original project.

Oldtree

monument wrote: »

As said in two or so posts above this one, the longest underground wires of this type is 20km, it needs air con and it's only underground because it's in London.

Dare I say So? Time for a bit of healthy bit of imaginative R and D given the magnitude of the proposed project then.

oscarBravo

Oldtree wrote: »

Dare I say So? Time for a bit of healthy bit of imaginative R and D given the magnitude of the proposed project then.

The R&D has been done. The problems are well-understood - by the people who have to actually deal with them. Magical thinking won't suddenly make it cost-effective to put the cables underground.

Oldtree

oscarBravo wrote: »

You fail to see the difference?

How many gas pipelines have you seen dangling from pylons? The short term? What makes you think it's cheaper in the long term? Apart from the fact that the entire route of such an underground cable is permanently sterilised from ever having any trees planted on it. Apart from the fact that explicit permission would need to be sought from Eirgrid for so much as a fencepost or a shrub along the route. Apart from the fact that Eirgrid would need a permanent right-of-way including permission to dig at any point along the route for repairs. Apart from the fact that such cables typically have a service life of 40 years, after which the entire cable route needs to be dug up and replaced, at almost the entire capital cost of the original project.

I think you are missing my point. If a pipeline can be dug for gas then a pipeline can be dug for Electricity, or tunnel if you prefer.
The entire route for a pylon system also needs planning permission, I fail to see you point there.
If cables are laid in a pipeline or tunnel then service is easy as sections can be dragged out to replace the cable or repair as necessary without replacing the whole structure as you suggest.

Oldtree

When I researched this issue previously I found studies that stated that the main reason for not implementing underground cables is the short term cost of overground is cheaper, as against the long term investment (more expensive in the short term) of underground and would mean a decrease in the dividend to shareholders, which was simply not on.

oscarBravo

Oldtree wrote: »

I think you are missing my point. If a pipeline can be dug for gas then a pipeline can be dug for Electricity, or tunnel if you prefer.

Yes. And if a motorway can be built from Dublin to Cork then one can be built from Castlebar to Belmullet.

The fact that something can be done doesn't mean that it makes sense to do it.

The entire route for a pylon system also needs planning permission, I fail to see you point there.

I didn't mention planning permission.

If cables are laid in a pipeline or tunnel then service is easy as sections can be dragged out to replace the cable or repair as necessary without replacing the whole structure as you suggest.

The cables don't get laid in a tunnel, as a rule, they get directly buried - in a trench, with a concrete foundation, embedded in something like bentonite to dissipate the heat (up to 90⁰C at peak capacity), covered with concrete slabs to mitigate the danger of accidental digging, buried a couple of metres underground. If a cable section needs to be repaired, it has to be dug up and reinstated.

As for replacing the whole structure, that's inevitable once it reaches the end of its designed lifetime.

oscarBravo

Oldtree wrote: »

When I researched this issue previously I found studies that stated that the main reason for not implementing underground cables is the short term cost of overground is cheaper, as against the long term investment (more expensive in the short term) of underground and would mean a decrease in the dividend to shareholders, which was simply not on.

I'm not seeing how it's a cheaper long-term option. Maintenance is more difficult and expensive. Transmission losses are much higher. Where are the savings?

Oldtree

Most of what you say is contained in this document by Eirgrid, see page 33 on.
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/North%20South%20400%20kV%20Interconnection%20Development%20-%20Re-evaluation%20Report.pdf
and this
http://www.eirgridprojects.com/media/PB%20Power%20Report.pdf

But I see no value placed here on the diminished landscape to deduct from the undergrounding costs.

Then have a look here at the UK where they are starting to underground 400kv cables:


"The landscape of Dedham Vale is highly valued locally and is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty.
The approach considers projects on an individual basis, taking into account a balance of environmental, cultural, visual, technical and cost factors
we said we would look along the length of the route to see where the additional cost of undergrounding the cables could be justified"

http://www2.nationalgrid.com/Media/UK-Press-releases/2012/National-Grid-announces-proposed-underground-sections-for-new-Bramford-to-Twinstead-electricity-connection/

and more recently

http://www.chesterfirst.co.uk/news/126736/quarter-of-pylon-route-to-be-buried-underground.aspx

oscarBravo

Oldtree wrote: »

Most of what you say is contained in this document by Eirgrid, see page 33 on.
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/North%20South%20400%20kV%20Interconnection%20Development%20-%20Re-evaluation%20Report.pdf
and this
http://www.eirgridprojects.com/media/PB%20Power%20Report.pdf

But I see no value placed here on the diminished landscape to deduct from the undergrounding costs.

Then all you need to do is demonstrate to the company who will be paying for the project how the diminished landscape will cost them more in the long term than burying the cables.

Then have a look here at the UK where they are starting to underground 400kv cables:


"The landscape of Dedham Vale is highly valued locally and is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty.
The approach considers projects on an individual basis, taking into account a balance of environmental, cultural, visual, technical and cost factors
we said we would look along the length of the route to see where the additional cost of undergrounding the cables could be justified"

http://www2.nationalgrid.com/Media/UK-Press-releases/2012/National-Grid-announces-proposed-underground-sections-for-new-Bramford-to-Twinstead-electricity-connection/

and more recently

http://www.chesterfirst.co.uk/news/126736/quarter-of-pylon-route-to-be-buried-underground.aspx

Yes. Eight miles to be buried in total. And even at that, the protesters are still demanding that the entire project be scrapped.

I'm not opposed to the idea of undergrounding portions of a transmission line, particularly in sensitive areas - but now we have the likes of Marian Harkin demanding that the government put in place a policy of undergrounding every single transmission line that will ever be proposed in the future:

I strongly advocate the precautionary principle which, taken with the economic case made so effectively by NEPP, makes undergrounding all 400kv lines essential.

In the same press release, she claims that Denmark plans to underground all new HV transmission lines, which is patently untrue.

Oldtree

oscarBravo wrote: »

Then all you need to do is demonstrate to the company who will be paying for the project how the diminished landscape will cost them more in the long term than burying the cables. .

It is obvious that there is no direct cost to the company and that is why they have no value attached to the landscape. Do you consider the landscape to have a value? I do. Both in tourist terms and what we will leave behind for our
children.

oscarBravo

Oldtree wrote: »

It is obvious that there is no direct cost to the company and that is why they have no value attached to the landscape. Do you consider the landscape to have a value? I do. Both in tourist terms and what we will leave behind for our
children.

To paraphrase my late father-in-law: "You can't eat scenery."

Yes, landscape has a value, as does a robust and reliable electricity transmission grid. As I've said, I'm not opposed to undergrounding short sections in particularly scenic areas. But that's not what's being demanded: what the protesters are demanding is that the transmission grid be built without pylons, or that it not be built at all.

Sorry, but neither of those are realistic options, unless we're going to be honest and say it's OK, we don't want industry in Mayo, we'd rather sit and admire the view.

Oldtree

oscarBravo wrote: »

To paraphrase my late father-in-law: "You can't eat scenery."

Yes, landscape has a value, as does a robust and reliable electricity transmission grid. As I've said, I'm not opposed to undergrounding short sections in particularly scenic areas. But that's not what's being demanded: what the protesters are demanding is that the transmission grid be built without pylons, or that it not be built at all.

Sorry, but neither of those are realistic options, unless we're going to be honest and say it's OK, we don't want industry in Mayo, we'd rather sit and admire the view.

The children cant eat scenery, but you cannot deny that a major contributor to income in Mayo is tourism.

I don't see any major industry coming to Mayo do you, really? These projects are not about bringing permanent jobs to Mayo, they are about exploiting Mayo's assets to the shareholders end,

and the driving point from the horses mouth so to speak is:

"Anything less will not be consistent with what investors want"

http://www.con-telegraph.ie/news/latest-news/4020-eirgrid-insist-underground-line-is-not-an-option

oscarBravo

Oldtree wrote: »

The children cant eat scenery, but you cannot deny that a major contributor to income in Mayo is tourism.

I wouldn't dream of denying that. Now all you have to do is demonstrate that our tourism industry will be irrevocably harmed by overhead wires.

I don't see any major industry coming to Mayo do you, really?

Not as long as we don't have a decent grid infrastructure, no.

But maybe you've resigned yourself to the idea that we're doomed to be an industrial black spot in perpetuity. Perhaps it's OK in your book if we bequeath to our children an unspoiled landscape (keep ignoring those one-off houses really, really hard, if you ignore them they're not really there) and tell them that they if they want decent jobs in the IT or biotech industries, they're just going to have to leave.

These projects are not about bringing permanent jobs to Mayo...

Fair enough so. No jobs for Mayo. Except whatever we can milk from tourism, that'll employ us all.

Oldtree

oscarBravo wrote: »

I wouldn't dream of denying that. Now all you have to do is demonstrate that our tourism industry will be irrevocably harmed by overhead wires.

Would you dream of going on holiday to a landscape that has a myriad of pylons and turbines?

Not as long as we don't have a decent grid infrastructure, no..

and a decent road and transport network, and , and..... :rolleyes:

But maybe you've resigned yourself to the idea that we're doomed to be an industrial black spot in perpetuity. Perhaps it's OK in your book if we bequeath to our children an unspoiled landscape (keep ignoring those one-off houses really, really hard, if you ignore them they're not really there) and tell them that they if they want decent jobs in the IT or biotech industries, they're just going to have to leave. Fair enough so. No jobs for Mayo. Except whatever we can milk from tourism, that'll employ us all.

Suddenly a large number of pylons leads to full employment, I think not.

oscarBravo

Oldtree wrote: »

Would you dream of going on holiday to a landscape that has a myriad of pylons and turbines?

I've been on holiday to lots of places with pylons, turbines and all sorts of other evidence of industry. We're not talking about blanketing the county with pylons; we're talking about a single transmission line.

and a decent road and transport network, and , and..... :rolleyes:

Yes, all of those things. We could argue against any of them on the grounds that it alone won't bring jobs, but that defeatist attitude is one I'm not interested in buying into.

Suddenly a large number of pylons leads to full employment, I think not.

That would be a straw man.