Gridwest project.

Oldtree

"Only 14% of tourists thought that electricity pylons had a positive impact" :eek: Page 4
http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/3_Research_Insights/4_Visitor_Insights/Visitor-Attitudes-on-the-Environment.pdf?ext=.pdf

I'm not defeatist, just pragmatic. What I see in these energy projects is lots of temporary jobs to use the natural resources of Mayo to make profits to take away from Mayo, proffering a token number of permanent jobs as the carrot. I do realise that there are many temporary jobs available for the construction phase of the projects. We need sustainable permanent jobs to keep out youth here.

We should have learned from the gas issue, but it appears we have not.

This is very interesting from 2002, over a decade ago, and could be a starting point:

The HVDC Light cable between Victoria and South Australia, Murray Link, is the world´s longest land cable with a length of 2x180 km

http://www05.abb.com/global/scot/scot245.nsf/veritydisplay/8ec99e21b99d1abcc12570270059cce6/$file/Project%20Murray%20Link-.pdf
http://www.abb.com/product/db0003db002618/c12573e7003302adc1256bdd0069c709.aspx

or this:

http://www.abb.com/product/db0003db002618/c12573e7003302adc1256bdc002351d3.aspx

Oldtree

oscarBravo wrote: »

we're talking about a single transmission line.

We are talking about 8 transmission 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

Will plans be made to fit then all on one tower initially, or do they intend to replace the towers when the need to upgrade? or build new tower route as and when?

oscarBravo

Oldtree wrote: »

"Only 14% of tourists thought that electricity pylons had a positive impact" :eek:

We don't need them to have a positive impact; we just need them not to have such a negative impact that they outweigh the benefits of having a robust and reliable power grid.

I'm not defeatist, just pragmatic. What I see in these energy projects is lots of temporary jobs to use the natural resources of Mayo to make profits to take away from Mayo, proffering a token number of permanent jobs as the carrot.

Sorry, but that's defeatist.

I do realise that there are many temporary jobs available for the construction phase of the projects. We need sustainable permanent jobs to keep out youth here.

As long as those sustainable permanent jobs don't need electricity.

We should have learned from the gas issue, but it appears we have not.

Yeah, it really sucks that not a single town in Mayo got access to a gas supply. Oh wait.

This is very interesting from 2002, over a decade ago, and could be a starting point:

The HVDC Light cable between Victoria and South Australia, Murray Link, is the world´s longest land cable with a length of 2x180 km

http://www05.abb.com/global/scot/scot245.nsf/veritydisplay/8ec99e21b99d1abcc12570270059cce6/$file/Project%20Murray%20Link-.pdf
http://www.abb.com/product/db0003db002618/c12573e7003302adc1256bdd0069c709.aspx

or this:

http://www.abb.com/product/db0003db002618/c12573e7003302adc1256bdc002351d3.aspx

I guess we'll just keep wishing really really hard for the technical obstacles to go away. That oughta fix it.

oscarBravo

Oldtree wrote: »

We are talking about 8 transmission lines.

I'm not sure where this comes from. The current 400kV backbone in this country consists of two lines from Moneypoint to two points outside Dublin. Do we really think we're going to need four times that capacity from Mayo to Leitrim?

Birdnuts

oscarBravo wrote: »

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; .

Well yes we are in the case of wind

Birdnuts

monument wrote: »

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.




.

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.

You obviously don't understand the nature of wind power if you think nuclear energy requires the same level of pylon infrastructure as tens of thousands of dispersed wind turbines.

Your comment about wind providing 60% at peak is also revealing. On a very windy day wind may indeed provide a significant % of power on a grid. However this more than often does not overlap with peak demand so serves no purpose since this power cannot be stored and indeed such surges at off peak demand times can and does damage a grid which is why the UK grid operator stated this summer that they are increasingly concerned about plans to import wind power from outside of the UK as it could damage the grid.

Secondly even the best wind turbine locations in perfect wind conditions rarely get to 50% of their installed output. Indeed in general Irish wind turbines managed less than 30% of their installed capacity last year according to Eirgrid figures, highlighting the unreliability of wind. Worse is the fact that wind provides little of no power during peak demand periods like cold,calm, dark frosty nights in winter.

Oldtree

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure where this comes from. The current 400kV backbone in this country consists of two lines from Moneypoint to two points outside Dublin. Do we really think we're going to need four times that capacity from Mayo to Leitrim?

:rolleyes: I will post the link again for you:

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

The Project Manager of the Grid West project Seán Meagher.

So now you know where it comes from and I guess he is best placed to know what is needed. I think you underestimate what this project is about. It is not about supplying the local Irish market, it is about export and using the existing backbone to do it.

This midlands project company intend 700 turbines and to put cables underground and export to the uk, it is privately funded and does not touch the irish grid, what lofty intentions:

http://www.greenwire.ie/greenwire-project/cable-connections/land/

Their FAQ's have some points about cable types and power loss you might like to read:

http://www.greenwire.ie/greenwire-project/frequently-asked-questions/

http://www.greenwire.ie/

Oldtree

oscarBravo wrote: »

We don't need them to have a positive impact; we just need them not to have such a negative impact that they outweigh the benefits of having a robust and reliable power grid.

You underestimate the benefit of the tourist industry and a robust and reliable power grid does not need to be aboveground.

Sorry, but that's defeatist.

No, its a statement of fact. defeatist is not allowing yourself to think nor progress any ideas.

As long as those sustainable permanent jobs don't need electricity.

silly retort, it is not an either or situation.

Yeah, it really sucks that not a single town in Mayo got access to a gas supply. Oh wait.

That was not my point. My point was the giving away of a state asset for nothing.

I guess we'll just keep wishing really really hard for the technical obstacles to go away. That oughta fix it.

Seems to me that technical obstacles are being put in the way to increase profit.

TheBully

Birdnuts wrote: »

If you add up the number of people killed in accidents involving power lines around the world then I would say it is far safer.

HOw the flip do ye expect the energy generated in Nuclear plants to be distributed around the country?

Have they invented wireless electricity or what??

oscarBravo

Oldtree wrote: »

You underestimate the benefit of the tourist industry...

On the contrary, you're overestimating both it and the damage that would be done to it by transmission lines.

We need tourism, yes. We also need industry. We won't get industry without a robust and reliable power grid, and you have yet to demonstrate that we won't get tourism if we do have such a grid.

...and a robust and reliable power grid does not need to be aboveground.

Yes, it does. If you think it doesn't, it's because you don't understand the technical issues.

silly retort, it is not an either or situation.

It's being made into one. We want mobile phone coverage, but we don't want mobile phone masts. We want industry, but we don't want an electricity grid or a gas refinery.

That was not my point. My point was the giving away of a state asset for nothing.

Oh ye gods, are we going down that rabbit hole?

I'm aware that there are people who believe that (a) we're giving away our gas for free, and (b) in times of austerity, we were in a position (and had the expertise) to spent a significant portion of our shrinking tax income on drilling speculative holes in the Atlantic - but I'm no more interested in debating with such nonsense than in discussing whether the moon landing was faked.

Seems to me that technical obstacles are being put in the way to increase profit.

And it seems to me that you're arguing from your conclusion, which means that you refuse to be swayed by any inconvenient things like facts. Which means that this conversation is a waste of time.

It's a depressing trend, this idea that opinion and fact are interchangeable. If it suits you to believe that the entire 400kV grid could be buried without any ill-effects on the robustness or capacity of the system, then all of a sudden your belief has the same validity as the opinion of the transmission system engineers who use science rather than wishful thinking to arrive at their conclusion.

That sort of wooly-minded thinking is doing immense harm to the world. If you want to believe that wishful thinking is equivalent to hard facts, go for it - hopefully if you fall off a cliff some day you can choose to believe you have wings.

runawaybishop

oscarBravo wrote: »

Also: if you think Irish people will accept a nuclear reactor in Ireland, you couldn't be more wrong.

We don't even accept nuclear in the UK!

TopTec wrote: »

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

Seriously, many of the people objecting about the grid are doing so on health concerns. They'd think nuclear would result in melty headed calves.

TopTec

runawaybishop wrote: »

We don't even accept nuclear in the UK!

I don't agree. It's been around for so long now it is accepted as an energy source. People don't necessarily like it but generally see that it is necessary to the UK grid. There are a few that still object but you rarely hear about that anymore. A good example is Hinkley Point in Somerset.

Very little local objection but some from wider afield regarding the impact of global warming etc. Its been around for so long now people in Somerset see it as a better alernative than the old coal fired monster that was there before.

TT

yop

TopTec wrote: »

I don't agree. It's been around for so long now it is accepted as an energy source. People don't necessarily like it but generally see that it is necessary to the UK grid. There are a few that still object but you rarely hear about that anymore. A good example is Hinkley Point in Somerset.

Very little local objection but some from wider afield regarding the impact of global warming etc. Its been around for so long now people in Somerset see it as a better alernative than the old coal fired monster that was there before.

TT

Looks like more than a few http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/

And what even more interesting is Germanys approach to Nuclear power and their switch to energy efficiency programmes.
http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/alternatives/

So going by whats above there are plenty who don't want nuclear and are looking at greener alternatives... wind turbines anyone

runawaybishop

TopTec wrote: »

I don't agree. It's been around for so long now it is accepted as an energy source. People don't necessarily like it but generally see that it is necessary to the UK grid. There are a few that still object but you rarely hear about that anymore. A good example is Hinkley Point in Somerset.

Very little local objection but some from wider afield regarding the impact of global warming etc. Its been around for so long now people in Somerset see it as a better alernative than the old coal fired monster that was there before.

TT

I think you overestimate peoples ability to be rational, nuclear is still very much seen as dangerous and unclean. Did you miss the ****e about the dangers of the UK plants to us?

Oldtree

oscarBravo wrote: »

That sort of wooly-minded thinking is doing immense harm to the world. If you want to believe that wishful thinking is equivalent to hard facts, go for it - hopefully if you fall off a cliff some day you can choose to believe you have wings.

I can see that you are not interested in a debate, only in pushing forward your own agenda and opinion. Open your eyes buddy, this project will not happen unless Eirgrid come up with a better solution than "it can't be done". Clearly it can..

It is clear that you did not read the links I put up and debate them.

What part of this did you not understand?

This midlands project company intend 700 turbines and to put cables underground and export to the uk, it is privately funded and does not touch the irish grid.

http://www.greenwire.ie/greenwire-project/cable-connections/land/

or this:

The HVDC Light cable between Victoria and South Australia, Murray Link, is the world´s longest land cable with a length of 2x180 km

Seems to me that you need to do more than obstinately deny, and browbeat, the possibility that a private company like Greenwire or Australia can do what Eirgrid says it cant! Do you think Greenwire and Australia suffer from woolly thinking I wonder???

oscarBravo wrote: »

then all of a sudden your belief has the same validity as the opinion of the transmission system engineers who use science rather than wishful thinking to arrive at their conclusion.

By the By, are you an independent transmission system engineer?

TopTec

yop wrote: »

Looks like more than a few

This is the local paper

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Pylons-way-says-council-group/story-20012584-detail/story.html

..... do a search on Hinkley C and what is thrown up... not the 30 protesters, from a National anti-nuclear group who scattered wild seed about the carpark and chained themselves to the fence, but the ongoing debate over the planning application regarding the new pylons that will carry the HV cable link from Hinkley to the National Grid. It is the pylons that is creating debate and angst not Nuclear.

I ought to declare a connection as I have an Uncle who was a Chemist at Hinkley till his retirement, I walk the Mendips regularly and am a Somerset born man.;)

TT

yop

TopTec wrote: »

This is the local paper

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Pylons-way-says-council-group/story-20012584-detail/story.html

..... do a search on Hinkley C and what is thrown up... not the 30 protesters, from a National anti-nuclear group who scattered wild seed about the carpark and chained themselves to the fence, but the ongoing debate over the planning application regarding the new pylons that will carry the HV cable link from Hinkley to the National Grid. It is the pylons that is creating debate and angst not Nuclear.

I ought to declare a connection as I have an Uncle who was a Chemist at Hinkley till his retirement, I walk the Mendips regularly and am a Somerset born man.;)

TT

So we have protester about Nuclear and we have protesters about the pylons... so we can take it that regardless of what we do that there will always be someone who has an issue with it.

So some lads want nuclear but that article goes to prove the point if you have nuclear you need pylons.

TopTec

yop wrote: »

So we have protester about Nuclear and we have protesters about the pylons... so we can take it that regardless of what we do that there will always be someone who has an issue with it.

So true... so true.

yop wrote: »

So some lads want nuclear but that article goes to prove the point if you have nuclear you need pylons.

..and as I have said many times now use the pylons that are already on site at the old power stations. they could be upgraded if necessary. In this case the additional new pylons are to service the expansion of Bristol.

Interestingly, reading more about this Hinkley plan, I see that the local protest group have established that for an extra £1 on bills the 67 mile, (107 kilometer) route could be buried under ground. Of a 1,000 people surveyed almost all agreed to the additional £1...... now there is food for thought.

TT

monument

Still waiting for an answer on this one...

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?

Birdnuts wrote: »

You obviously don't understand the nature of wind power if you think nuclear energy requires the same level of pylon infrastructure as tens of thousands of dispersed wind turbines.

What are you talking about?

The same kind of regional upgrades would be needed for nuclear. Every wind farm does not need pylons running right up to it.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Your comment about wind providing 60% at peak is also revealing. On a very windy day wind may indeed provide a significant % of power on a grid. However this more than often does not overlap with peak demand so serves no purpose since this power cannot be stored

It's not "revealing" of anything expect your continued inability to read what has been written, I said "Renewables" provided 60%, not wind alone.

And it's a complete fallacy to claim the energy serves "no purpose" since energy prices decline when wind provides more and it is a much, much cleaner power source than the general mix.

But given that you have yet to step back from your cheerleading of dirty and destructive energy sources, you don't seem to care about clean energy.

Birdnuts wrote: »

...and indeed such surges at off peak demand times can and does damage a grid which is why the UK grid operator stated this summer that they are increasingly concerned about plans to import wind power from outside of the UK as it could damage the grid.

As per my reply to your only link of the damage to the grid talk, companies like E.on are hardly reliably sources on this: 50% of E.on's generation is still from coal and another 30% is from gas.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Secondly even the best wind turbine locations in perfect wind conditions rarely get to 50% of their installed output. Indeed in general Irish wind turbines managed less than 30% of their installed capacity last year according to Eirgrid figures, highlighting the unreliability of wind.

That's not unreliability -- that's known before planned projects proceed and yet they are proceeding. You're interrupting (wilfully or not) how wind power works and making it out to be an killer issues when these things are known and planned for.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Worse is the fact that wind provides little of no power during peak demand periods like cold,calm, dark frosty nights in winter.

We're talking about Mayo here, it's windy more often than not. But, again: Wind energy is design around all of these things which you are trying so hard to make out to be major issues.

yop

TopTec wrote: »

So true... so true.



..and as I have said many times now use the pylons that are already on site at the old power stations. they could be upgraded if necessary. In this case the additional new pylons are to service the expansion of Bristol.

Interestingly, reading more about this Hinkley plan, I see that the local protest group have established that for an extra £1 on bills the 67 mile, (107 kilometer) route could be buried under ground. Of a 1,000 people surveyed almost all agreed to the additional £1...... now there is food for thought.

TT

Well if its only 1 pound then it makes more sense doesnt it, though I suspect its probably harder to do.

oscarBravo

Oldtree wrote: »

What part of this did you not understand?

This midlands project company intend 700 turbines and to put cables underground and export to the uk, it is privately funded and does not touch the irish grid.

http://www.greenwire.ie/greenwire-project/cable-connections/land/

or this:

The HVDC Light cable between Victoria and South Australia, Murray Link, is the world´s longest land cable with a length of 2x180 km

Which part of "both those projects are HVDC" are you carefully ignoring? Which part of the fact that neither project forms a core part of a single unified grid are you choosing not to take into account?

Seems to me that you need to do more than obstinately deny, and browbeat, the possibility that a private company like Greenwire or Australia can do what Eirgrid says it cant! Do you think Greenwire and Australia suffer from woolly thinking I wonder???

I think that they are doing something different, and it suits you to conflate those two things to make a point.

By the By, are you an independent transmission system engineer?

No. Are you? Because it seems to me that at least one of us is taking into account the technical challenges faced by such an engineer.

TopTec wrote: »

..and as I have said many times now use the pylons that are already on site at the old power stations.

Yes. Because you can put 400kV lines on 100kV pylons.

It's like you're not even trying to make sense.

Interestingly, reading more about this Hinkley plan, I see that the local protest group have established that for an extra £1 on bills the 67 mile, (107 kilometer) route could be buried under ground. Of a 1,000 people surveyed almost all agreed to the additional £1...... now there is food for thought.

You can't put 107km of grid-critical transmission line underground. It has never been done. It hasn't been done because it would be a crazy thing to do. The idea that every grid operator in the world is lying about the technical problems inherent in underground transmission just to save on initial capital costs... it's conspiracy-theory-esque.

Birdnuts

monument wrote: »

Still waiting for an answer on this one...



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




What are you talking about?

The same kind of regional upgrades would be needed for nuclear. Every wind farm does not need pylons running right up to it.




It's not "revealing" of anything expect your continued inability to read what has been written, I said "Renewables" provided 60%, not wind alone.

And it's a complete fallacy to claim the energy serves "no purpose" since energy prices decline when wind provides more and it is a much, much cleaner power source than the general mix.

But given that you have yet to step back from your cheerleading of dirty and destructive energy sources, you don't seem to care about clean energy.




As per my reply to your only link of the damage to the grid talk, companies like E.on are hardly reliably sources on this: 50% of E.on's generation is still from coal and another 30% is from gas.




That's not unreliability -- that's known before planned projects proceed and yet they are proceeding. You're interrupting (wilfully or not) how wind power works and making it out to be an killer issues when these things are known and planned for.




We're talking about Mayo here, it's windy more often than not. But, again: Wind energy is design around all of these things which you are trying so hard to make out to be major issues.

Firstly your claim the wind energy reduces the cost of retail energy is simply wrong as I have pointed out several times in this thread with the countries who have put the most wind into their grid having the highest energy prices in Europe eg. Germany, Denmark etc. The rising cost of energy in this country is also being driven by Eirgrids enormous spend on providing infrastructure and back up to the wind industry. The same thing is happening in the UK but at least their starting to release the folly of all this with the announcement of new nuclear power stations etc.

http://theenergycollective.com/lindsay-wilson/279126/average-electricity-prices-around-world-kwh


Again you appear to not understand what wind power does to a grid. Back up generation can't simply kick in when the wind is not producing adequate power. A power station takes a period of time to fire up and that is a big problem for the grid - wind also causes conventional power stations to run less efficiently when forced to cut in and cut out according to wind conditions. Its like the fuel consumption of a heavy diesel truck driving at a steady 80km per hour on a motorway compared to it being stuck in heavy city traffic.

On the subject on wind speeds in Mayo - the extreme coastal parts are a bit more windier than other parts of Ireland, but when you consider that the top wind turbine in Scotland( a turbine on North Isles who's averge wind speeds are significantly higher than even islands off our west coast) still only works at an average of 50% of capacity then you see the usual problems rearing their head in terms of consistent output. Plus there are large numbers of scattered homes in coastal Mayo along with protected sites so suitable areas are very limited

Birdnuts

TheBully wrote: »

HOw the flip do ye expect the energy generated in Nuclear plants to be distributed around the country?

?

On the existing grid - the purpose of the grid west project is to facilitate wind power speculators. I assumed you were aware of that

monument

Birdnuts wrote: »

On the existing grid - the purpose of the grid west project is to facilitate wind power speculators. I assumed you were aware of that

Wind, wave and tidal energy are highly likely to be a strong part of our power mix regardless of how much you dislike renewable power and regardless of how you want to dress it in a negitave light.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Firstly your claim the wind energy reduces the cost of retail energy is simply wrong as I have pointed out several times in this thread with the countries who have put the most wind into their grid having the highest energy prices in Europe eg. Germany, Denmark etc. The rising cost of energy in this country is also being driven by Eirgrids enormous spend on providing infrastructure and back up to the wind industry. 

You're mixing (a) how our governments have decided to pay for general infrastructure investment and to meet renewable targets and (b) the production unit price. The latter for wind is cheaper than oil or gas plants, and in the long term it's when you get the return from investment.

Unlike Ireland usually dragging its feet and only thinking about the short term, I for one am glad we are investing in general improvements and green energy now.

Birdnuts wrote: »

The same thing is happening in the UK but at least their starting to release the folly of all this with the announcement of new nuclear power stations etc. 

The UK will have to meet its renewable targets regardless.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Again you appear to not understand what wind power does to a grid. Back up generation can't simply kick in when the wind is not producing adequate power. A power station takes a period of time to fire up and that is a big problem for the grid -

So-far your only source on this is companies like E.on which have a massive vested interest in keeping all renewables to a small percentage of the mix -- and the motivation is their profit lines because they are so heavily invested in coal and gas.

You can't back up these claims from a reliable source, because what you are describing is not the major issue you're making it out to be.

Birdnuts wrote: »

wind also causes conventional power stations to run less efficiently when forced to cut in and cut out according to wind conditions. Its like the fuel consumption of a heavy diesel truck driving at a steady 80km per hour on a motorway compared to it being stuck in heavy city traffic. 

The result is still positive overall -- less emissions and cheaper production.

Birdnuts wrote: »

On the subject on wind speeds in Mayo - the extreme coastal parts are a bit more windier than other parts of Ireland, but when you consider that the top wind turbine in Scotland( a turbine on North Isles who's averge wind speeds are significantly higher than even islands off our west coast) still only works at an average of 50% of capacity then you see the usual problems rearing their head in terms of consistent output. 

All of this is planned and accounted for well before construction. Non-issues. You repeating your self without anything reliable to back up what you're saying won't change this.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Plus there are large numbers of scattered homes in coastal Mayo along with protected sites so suitable areas are very limited

What's suitable or not is up to the planning system.

Few people will trust you on this given that you're on record supporting the dirtiest and most destructive power sources which have fueled the US power boom.

Oldtree

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which part of "both those projects are HVDC" are you carefully ignoring? Which part of the fact that neither project forms a core part of a single unified grid are you choosing not to take into account? I think that they are doing something different, and it suits you to conflate those two things to make a point. No. Are you? Because it seems to me that at least one of us is taking into account the technical challenges faced by such an engineer.

Yes. Because you can put 400kV lines on 100kV pylons.

It's like you're not even trying to make sense. You can't put 107km of grid-critical transmission line underground. It has never been done. It hasn't been done because it would be a crazy thing to do. The idea that every grid operator in the world is lying about the technical problems inherent in underground transmission just to save on initial capital costs... it's conspiracy-theory-esque.

What I am saying Oscar is that there are options to explore. It has been done in short sections already, 20km. So it would appear that all we need is 5x20km cables. problem solved apart from the financial viewpoint. And if there is oodles of €'s to come in from wind energy, then surely some of it can be invested in preserving the landscape.

Oldtree

"The proposed new 400kv HDAC must be extremely reliable."

This could be said of a network that has power moving in both directions, as interruption to the supply would affect either a large number of domestic (or export) customers or some very large industrial users of electricity.

This cannot be said of this proposed line as it is a one way system from a renewable source. The power flow will fluctuate unless there is an entire system of PHES in place to cover demand when the wind isn't blowing, and that isn't likely.

So perhaps a lower kv cable could be used?

oscarBravo

Oldtree wrote: »

What I am saying Oscar is that there are options to explore. It has been done in short sections already, 20km. So it would appear that all we need is 5x20km cables.

Oldtree wrote: »

"The proposed new 400kv HDAC must be extremely reliable."

This could be said of a network that has power moving in both directions, as interruption to the supply would affect either a large number of domestic (or export) customers or some very large industrial users of electricity.

This cannot be said of this proposed line as it is a one way system from a renewable source.

You seem determined to keep demonstrating that you don't understand the issues involved.

An AC transmission grid is never a one-way system. The clue is in the name. For the same reason, the argument that this line can only be used to transmit power out of Mayo and not into it are nothing but arguments from ignorance.

Birdnuts

monument wrote: »

Wind, wave and tidal energy are highly likely to be a strong part of our power mix regardless of how much you dislike renewable power and regardless of how you want to dress it in a negitave light.



You're mixing (a) how our governments have decided to pay for general infrastructure investment and to meet renewable targets and (b) the production unit price. The latter for wind is cheaper than oil or gas plants, and in the long term it's when you get the return from investment.

Unlike Ireland usually dragging its feet and only thinking about the short term, I for one am glad we are investing in general improvements and green energy now.



The UK will have to meet its renewable targets regardless.



So-far your only source on this is companies like E.on which have a massive vested interest in keeping all renewables to a small percentage of the mix -- and the motivation is their profit lines because they are so heavily invested in coal and gas.

You can't back up these claims from a reliable source, because what you are describing is not the major issue you're making it out to be.



The result is still positive overall -- less emissions and cheaper production.



All of this is planned and accounted for well before construction. Non-issues. You repeating your self without anything reliable to back up what you're saying won't change this.



What's suitable or not is up to the planning system.

Few people will trust you on this given that you're on record supporting the dirtiest and most destructive power sources which have fueled the US power boom.

Your deluded - you claim that Europe's biggest power companies are wrong while you are right. Your comment about the retail cost suggests your main concern is that wind developers make a quick buck on the back of domestic and industrial power users. Wind power is also failing to significantly reduce CO2 in Europe - indeed emissions actually rose last year in Germany despite the massive amount of wind energy on their grid

monument

Birdnuts wrote: »

Your deluded

If you're going to stoop to childish name calling at least get it right -- the phrase you were looking for was "you're deluded" or "you are deluded".

Birdnuts wrote: »

- you claim that Europe's biggest power companies are wrong while you are right.

Again: E.on with 50% of their power from coal and 30% from gas have a massive interest in keeping renewables as a low part of the power mix.

You seem to be unable to deal with their conflict if interist here.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Your comment about the retail cost suggests your main concern is that wind developers make a quick buck on the back of domestic and industrial power users.

Cheap retail prices are good for consumers and businesses.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Wind power is also failing to significantly reduce CO2 in Europe - indeed emissions actually rose last year in Germany despite the massive amount of wind energy on their grid

First you make out that wind is unless at jobs because it does not provide enough jobs on its own to change an employment black spot to a booming area.

Now you're making out wind has no significantly effect because other things are causing emissions to rise.

Next you'll want wind to bring world peace!

Oldtree

oscarBravo wrote: »

You seem determined to keep demonstrating that you don't understand the issues involved.

An AC transmission grid is never a one-way system. The clue is in the name. For the same reason, the argument that this line can only be used to transmit power out of Mayo and not into it are nothing but arguments from ignorance.

Wouldn't it be lovely if I had your understanding of the issues involved! :rolleyes: Name calling is childish and in of itself ignorant and I am surprised at you tone esp as you appear to be admin. Do grow up.
Again you have missed my point.
What exactly in north west mayo is going to need to import and use a vast amount of power that the proposed 400kv line is capable of?
Therefore the reliability issue, combined with the variability of the wind generated electricity and the lack of industry needing that amount of power in north west mayo, means to me that Eirgrid's proposal of insisting on a 400kv above ground line is spurious to say the least. It is not needed.
What they want is to ensure is that they have the cheapest route to export as much renewable power to the UK as possible and you it appears advocate that.