Gridwest project.

runawaybishop

Oldtree wrote: »

In the context of this thread we are talking about data centres, pl see Oscars above comment.

In the context of this thread having the infrastructure does bring in work though.

Birdnuts

sudzs wrote: »

What about the biomass plant planned for Killala? Any word of that going ahead? Maybe the grid project is something to do with that??

I've not heard anything bout that for a while, unfortuntly a simliar project for Geesala has also bit the dust:(

yop

Oldtree wrote: »

I think that's great yop, I notice that it is planned to move this out into rural areas in the next 2 years and hope to benefit from it, but I cannot see a Data Centre being set up in Ballinrobe, much as I would like to see it done and welcome it for our 1,000 or so unemployed here.

Infrastructure is there so its down to inda and the other plebs to get jobs down here.

I work in the IT industry and but for the right infrastructure provides by West net I wud not be able to do it.

Hibernia college in West Port require big bandwidth to handle their online primary school teaching courses. Again an example of what can be achieved if the bones are there.

Listening to the guy from the sw on todayfm he was spinning some daftness. Can't prove any of it but it's not good for you.....

monument

Birdnuts wrote: »

You clearly don't understand that the bill for wind energy on a grid has to be paid for by someone, whether it is by energy users or taxpayers it hits ordinary citizens and business hard in the pocket.

Err... these quotes are from my last few posts:

the German government has made a policy point of putting the cost for the switch to renewable on energy bills

Paying for those subsidies by directly taxing users is a choice our governments have made.

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.

We pay for loads of things via direct or indirect taxes. Clean energy and energy security is hardly up there as one of the worse things. But it's also worth saying that I'm by no means saying that the German Energiewende project is flawless and not too headstrong. If you actually read the Economist (and not just reference it randomly) you'll see that they suggest solutions such as fix any grid issues at an EU level.

Birdnuts wrote: »

wind has failed to lower CO2 emmisions in Germany and the EU in general to any significant extent

This is simplistic thinking -- just like your simplistic thinking of how there's no wind energy jobs in Donegal just because it's a unemployment blackspot.

If you actually read the Economist (and not just reference it randomly) you'll see that there's a number of reasons emissions have not been lowered overall, and that wind could hardly be blamed. Wind power likely makes sure emissions are not even higher.

Birdnuts wrote: »

and thats not even taking into accountant the emmissions from the manufacture,installation and operation of turbines. In Ireland many turbines have been shoved into sensitive blanket bog areas - damaging a proven natural carbon store with the installation of roads, massive concrete bases, substations, pylons etc. And the there's the horrific pollution caused by the extraction of the rare earth metals used in turbines manufacture.

Emission from the manufacture, installation and operation of wind farms is small stuff compared to coal, oil, gas.

It's tiny compared to the US the massively dirty and destructive tar sands and fracking which you have yet to deny supporting! You have some cheek talking about emissions and horrific pollution when you support tar sands and fracking!

Birdnuts wrote: »

The powerfull and politically well connected wind power industry has succesfully fooled alot of people worldwide about their environmental credentals but the reality is more greenwash then green energy:(

There's lots of greenwashing out there but it's not really creditable when claims of greenwashing comes after your posts supporting fracking and tar sands.

You still support fracking and tar sands? Right?

Birdnuts wrote: »

I can't control the fact that you appear to be operating under the false notion that you know more about these issues then the likes of the major power companies, industry experts, Der spiegel, the Economist etc. but people reading the links I have posted can make up their own mind as to the merits of my arguement.

My position isn't based on me knowing more than the likes of the Economist, it's based on reading that newspaper. You must be reading a different Economist than I do. Because the Economist is very supportive of renewable energy, including wind.

They even have one titled "Paying off NIMBYs".

oscarBravo

Oldtree wrote: »

I'm fully aware of the coverage that exists here at the moment...

I doubt it.

Oldtree

oscarBravo wrote: »

I doubt it.

Helpful post as always Oscar

Oldtree

yop wrote: »

Infrastructure is there so its down to inda and the other plebs to get jobs down here.

I work in the IT industry and but for the right infrastructure provides by West net I wud not be able to do it.

Hibernia college in West Port require big bandwidth to handle their online primary school teaching courses. Again an example of what can be achieved if the bones are there.

Listening to the guy from the sw on todayfm he was spinning some daftness. Can't prove any of it but it's not good for you.....

I was being genuine yop and do hope for the best

yop

Oldtree wrote: »

I was being genuine yop and do hope for the best

Not doubting you at all, just saying that I have been involved in IT in Mayo for 16 years and its not down to the IT infrastructure that we dont have the jobs, we have had plenty of interest but the IDA and local politics can't get the finger out and over the line.
3 years ago there was a US company, owned by a Mayo man, who wanted to setup here in Mayo anything from 100-200 jobs, development, support etc, but they made a pigs ear of it and it never happened.

OB in fairness knows the internet infrastructure which is out there in Mayo like I know the hairs on my arse

oscarBravo

Oldtree wrote: »

Helpful post as always Oscar

Do you seriously want to get into a pissing contest with me over this? Because - trust me - you do not know as much as I do about fibre infrastructure in Mayo.

Oldtree

Avns1s wrote: »

You may be right and perhaps there may not be a data centre in Ballinrobe but one there's one thing for sure, without the necessary infrastructure, there won't be one.

Remember, the fibre infrastructure helps many medium sized businesses that those on the outside may not even consider would have a bandwidth requirement. I can even think of a few in Ballinrobe that would fit this category.

Often the provision of this infrastructure can sustain the existing jobs which can be equally good as creating new one, particularly as a starting position.

I agree, but the rationale that a 400kv line would allow data centres a secure power supply, which in turn would allow medium sized businesses to piggy back onto the data centres fibre, should the data centres come here to Mayo, seems a bit incredible as a reason to put up a 400kv line in the first place.

Don't misunderstand me, I am just as keen as the next person to see Mayo prosper.

What would Westport look like if it was covered in turbines and pylons and I would worry what effect that would have on the return visitor business there, in what I consider to be one of the most beautiful places in Ireland.

Oldtree

yop wrote: »

OB in fairness knows the internet infrastructure which is out there in Mayo like I know the hairs on my arse

I have to ask are you being sarcastic in that you havn't seen the hairs on you arse or you have as you use a mirror?

yop

Oldtree wrote: »

I have to ask are you being sarcastic in that you havn't seen the hairs on you arse or you have as you use a mirror?

I have a 6ft mirror. I have a lovely arse

Oldtree

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you seriously want to get into a pissing contest with me over this? Because - trust me - you do not know as much as I do about fibre infrastructure in Mayo.

No, I don't like pissing competitions and I am not questioning your knowledge, but you must know that you come across as very aggressive. If I am talking to someone of lesser knowledge, as I appear to be about fibre to you, then I would seek to encourage me to learn a bit more. nonetheless have a look at post no 251 and tell me what you think.

Oldtree

yop wrote: »

I have a 6ft mirror. I have a lovely arse

Understood Oscar knows a lot then

What about electric cables then?

Birdnuts

monument wrote: »

They even have one titled "Paying off NIMBYs".

The article doesn't state anywhere that the Economist supports wind power. It simply states how wind power companies can essentially bribe people into accepting turbine developments. As highlighted by many of the comments underneath the article. The article also mentions the generous subsidies and tax deals wind power companies get to enable them to do such things. Money that's taken out of the pockets of taxpayers and energy users. In a more recent article(still behind a paywall so can't post link ATM) from early September the Economist described EU policies on wind power as being "hugely expensive" and "doing little to cut emmissions". Sounds to me like any perceived support for wind power that was there has quickly evapourated over the summer

Birdnuts

monument wrote: »

. Clean energy and energy security is hardly up there as one of the worse things.




Emission from the manufacture, installation and operation of wind farms is small stuff compared to coal, oil, gas.

".

Now your really having a laugh - Germany is having to build more and more coal power stations to provide the necessary back up to wind . Your assertions about wind being clean or reliable are simply without foundation.

http://www.thegwpf.org/germany-coal-power-expanding-green-energy-stagnating/

The article also highlights the unreliability of wind as power source during the cold winter of 2012/13 in Germany

"The electricity generated by the renewable energy sector, however, decreased from January to June: The main reason was that the wind was blowing less strongly compared to last year, especially since the beginning of the year"

monument

Birdnuts wrote: »

The article doesn't state anywhere that the Economist supports wind power. It simply states how wind power companies can essentially bribe people into accepting turbine developments. As highlighted by many of the comments underneath the article. The article also mentions the generous subsidies and tax deals wind power companies get to enable them to do such things. Money that's taken out of the pockets of taxpayers and energy users. In a more recent article(still behind a paywall so can't post link ATM) from early September the Economist described EU policies on wind power as being "hugely expensive" and "doing little to cut emmissions". Sounds to me like any perceived support for wind power that was there has quickly evapourated over the summer

I'm not talking about one or two articles. I'm talking about a long-running position the publication has. They have a story archive page showing many articles about wind energy that they have published.

The Economist highlighting that something is expensive, or that policy has gone wrong, does not mean they are not supportive of the thing in question.

You'll see the same kind of theme in many of the articles which can be viewed online now -- they suggest ways at bettering the tech, the policy etc.

They have not advocated scrapping the move to wind and if they did in the latest article, they'd say it clearly!

You say "The article also mentions the generous subsidies and tax deals wind power companies get to enable them to do such things. Money that's taken out of the pockets of taxpayers and energy users" -- but if you manage to get beyond one article, they also talk about how the energy companies who are giving out have poor memories as they too were once subsidised!

TopTec

Pat Rabitte tonight....

"The engagement between company (Eirgrid) and community must be reasonable and must be tempered by what constitutes the public interest.

However, no Government can walk away from its responsibility to provide the country with a secure energy supply.

Nor can any Government wantonly inflict unnecessary costs on energy consumers to allay concerns that are not well founded."


http://www.thejournal.ie/eirgrid-pat-rabbitte-1172503-Nov2013/?utm_source=twitter_self

Talk about covering ones arse, especially the last sentence.

TT

yop

TopTec wrote: »

Pat Rabitte tonight....

"The engagement between company (Eirgrid) and community must be reasonable and must be tempered by what constitutes the public interest.

However, no Government can walk away from its responsibility to provide the country with a secure energy supply.

Nor can any Government wantonly inflict unnecessary costs on energy consumers to allay concerns that are not well founded."


http://www.thejournal.ie/eirgrid-pat-rabbitte-1172503-Nov2013/?utm_source=twitter_self

Talk about covering ones arse, especially the last sentence.

TT

WOW, so we know that the government will back Eirgrid to the arse then! I picked that up too in the interview with Matt Cooper there last week.
Then again the gov. do have a stake in Eirgrid.

irishgeo

one wonders if Ireland would have been electrified at all back in the 60s judging by some of the not in my backyard attitudes on here.

Oldtree

irishgeo wrote: »

one wonders if Ireland would have been electrified at all back in the 60s judging by some of the not in my backyard attitudes on here.

Well thank goodness for the planning laws here or we wouldn't have so many unauthorised quarries here in lovely mayo, taking away useless bits of now broken up limestone pavement, protected under 1992 European habitat legislation. :rolleyes:

Birdnuts

TopTec wrote: »

Pat Rabitte tonight....

"The engagement between company (Eirgrid) and community must be reasonable and must be tempered by what constitutes the public interest.

However, no Government can walk away from its responsibility to provide the country with a secure energy supply.

Nor can any Government wantonly inflict unnecessary costs on energy consumers to allay concerns that are not well founded."


http://www.thejournal.ie/eirgrid-pat-rabbitte-1172503-Nov2013/?utm_source=twitter_self

Talk about covering ones arse, especially the last sentence.

TT

There are so many contradictions in that statement by rabitte that I don't know were to start. All I'll say is that it is extremely alarming to have a minister so clueless and behind the curve on these matters:(

yop

Birdnuts wrote: »

There are so many contradictions in that statement by rabitte that I don't know were to start. All I'll say is that it is extremely alarming to have a minister so clueless and behind the curve on these matters:(

Alarming but we can't be shocked. The vast majority of them are out of touch and miles out of their depth.

monument

irishgeo wrote: »

one wonders if Ireland would have been electrified at all back in the 60s judging by some of the not in my backyard attitudes on here.

The electrifion came with all sorts of scare stories too.

I'm told it held up many villages getting power for some time because a large percentage of residents had to want it supplied to their homes. Many did not because they listened to the scare stories.

Chisler2

Supporters of these megalithic scars on the Irish rural landscape claim these initiatives generate income locally and are sustainable. They would do well to balance their reading-matter - which appears to consist of accounts by the private enterprises which finance, own and 'flip' these emerging assets - and add accounts of "what happens on the ground, in reality" to the picture.

Personal knowledge of the 48-unit offshore windfarm at Gunfleet Sands in Essex is that in contrast to the 'hype', those blades were stock-still for weeks, sometimes months, on end throughout two years when my sea-front office provided a direct view of them throughout the working week over a two-year period. That is fact, not fiction. As far as sustainability goes, the project has been sold on several times in a short period, generating massive profits for the (private) investors, two-thirds of them outside of the UK. As far as up-front employment was concerned, only half-a-million of the 1.6 million sterling invested in the building of a further 300 units a short distance up the coastline at Gunfleet Sands ended up with UK employees.....the remainder disappeared 'abroad'.

Yet another price-hike - this time of between 4 - 10% - is imminent. Oh - and forget about using the rail-network.............extortionately expensive fares are attributed to constantly-rising energy-costs.

But sure - go ahead! - follow the herd! It's "new", it's "technology" therefore it MUST be good.:cool:

By the way - given the size of the components of these pylons and wind generators, has anyone thought of how they will be transported into western Ireland? On the 1-80, the USA's main east-west interstate, I frequently overtake and pass a single blade being transported, with hazard-flashing "overside load" outriders before and aft. Airlift is a possibility...........or plough straight new roads through the mountain-ranges

Birdnuts

Chisler2 wrote: »

Supporters of these megalithic scars on the Irish rural landscape claim these initiatives generate income locally and are sustainable. They would do well to balance their reading-matter - which appears to consist of accounts by the private enterprises which finance, own and 'flip' these emerging assets - and add accounts of "what happens on the ground, in reality" to the picture.

Personal knowledge of the 48-unit offshore windfarm at Gunfleet Sands in Essex is that in contrast to the 'hype', those blades were stock-still for weeks, sometimes months, on end throughout two years when my sea-front office provided a direct view of them throughout the working week over a two-year period. That is fact, not fiction. As far as sustainability goes, the project has been sold on several times in a short period, generating massive profits for the (private) investors, two-thirds of them outside of the UK. As far as up-front employment was concerned, only half-a-million of the 1.6 million sterling invested in the building of a further 300 units a short distance up the coastline at Gunfleet Sands ended up with UK employees.....the remainder disappeared 'abroad'.

Yet another price-hike - this time of between 4 - 10% - is imminent. Oh - and forget about using the rail-network.............extortionately expensive fares are attributed to constantly-rising energy-costs.

But sure - go ahead! - follow the herd! It's "new", it's "technology" therefore it MUST be good.:cool:

By the way - given the size of the components of these pylons and wind generators, has anyone thought of how they will be transported into western Ireland? On the 1-80, the USA's main east-west interstate, I frequently overtake and pass a single blade being transported, with hazard-flashing "overside load" outriders before and aft. Airlift is a possibility...........or plough straight new roads through the mountain-ranges

Good post - Ireland suffers more than most from lazy minded types that like throwing around terms like "NIMBY". Never actually bother to look into whether a project actually makes financial sense or its affects on other people,business, environment etc. Hence all the Celtic tiger planning disasters up and down the country like Ghost Estates etc. Now their comparing this project to rural electrification:rolleyes: - maybe they know something the rest of us don't but going on this thread i doubt it.

oscarBravo

TopTec wrote: »

[Pat Rabbitte said] "...Nor can any Government wantonly inflict unnecessary costs on energy consumers to allay concerns that are not well founded."

Just so we're clear: is it your position that the government should wantonly inflict unnecessary costs on energy consumers to allay concerns that are not well founded?

Birdnuts wrote: »

Ireland suffers more than most from lazy minded types that like throwing around terms like "NIMBY".

Ironically, that's a lazy argument in its own right. The term "NIMBY" is an accurate one to describe a person who has no objection to something until it impacts on him personally. If you're objecting to something in your (metaphorical) back yard that you've never made an issue about elsewhere, then I'm afraid the shoe fits.

Never actually bother to look into whether a project actually makes financial sense or its affects on other people,business, environment etc.

Straw man.

Hence all the Celtic tiger planning disasters up and down the country like Ghost Estates etc.

I'm failing to see the correlation.

Now their comparing this project to rural electrification:rolleyes:

The comparison is apt. If you have a problem with it, perhaps you could make a coherent argument against it instead of the lazy option of an idiotic emoticon.

...maybe they know something the rest of us don't but going on this thread i doubt it.

And that's an ad-hominem. If you were going for a record number of logical fallacies in a single post, you're doing well.

Birdnuts

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ironically, that's a lazy argument in its own right. The term "NIMBY" is an accurate one to describe a person who has no objection to something until it impacts on him personally. If you're objecting to something in your (metaphorical) back yard that you've never made an issue about elsewhere, then I'm afraid the shoe fits. Straw man. I'm failing to see the correlation. The comparison is apt. If you have a problem with it, perhaps you could make a coherent argument against it instead of the lazy option of an idiotic emoticon. And that's an ad-hominem. If you were going for a record number of logical fallacies in a single post, you're doing well.

Do you have the attention span of a Goldfish?? - I've already outlined my problems with this project from an economic standpoint in terms of spending vast amounts of bill payers money to aid wind developers and the problems wind power has inflicted on grids across Europe in numerous posts on this thread.. I've stated that I have no problem with gas or nuclear power stations in my backyard. I've no problem eitheir with pylons servicing such installations. Your post is exactly why I used the term "lazy minded" - you simply recycle cheap insults like "NIMBY" since you can't come up with any better agruements. As for ad-hominem - throwing terms like "NIMBY" at other posters suggests a strong case of the pot calling the kettle black

oscarBravo

Birdnuts wrote: »

Do you have the attention span of a Goldfish??

That's another ad-hominem. I didn't call you specifically a NIMBY; I pointed out that it's intellectually lazy to dismiss the use of the term in situations where it's apt.

As for ad-hominem - throwing terms like "NIMBY" at other posters suggests a strong case of the pot calling the kettle black

Only if you're too lazy to actually read my posts.

yop

Mod Note -> Ok lads, its getting a bit too "tit for tat" on this now, keep it to the post and not the poster.
If it continues like this I will close this thread.