Pylons

almighty1

fits wrote: »

I have no evidence but I do have common sense. I would not buy a house near a 400kv line looking out at a massive pylon. Many people wouldn't. It devalues property, no question.

Agreed. Do people really have to prove statistics for something that is purely common sense. This is After Hours but thinking that large structures in close proximity to a house doesn't devalue it, is bordering on trolling.

SV

almighty1 wrote: »

Agreed. Do people really have to prove statistics for something that is purely common sense. This is After Hours but thinking that large structures in close proximity to a house doesn't devalue it, is bordering on trolling.

Yet many people wouldn't care less.
Many people wouldn't buy a home in the middle of nowhere with nothing around them either.

almighty1

SV wrote: »

Yet many people wouldn't care less.

I respectively disagree wholeheartedly.

323

Victor Yummy Revolver wrote: »

Under grounding costs between 5 and 14 times more than overhead. Repair of faults in underground cables is more than 10 times more expensive. Are we willing to carry this cost in all our electricity bills?

Absolute rubbish.
Little beyond 50km distance, underground HVDC cost is about the same, from there cost decreases compared to AC Pylons as distance increases.
As to repairs, yes repair cost may be a little higher but underground cables very very rarely develop faults, so on the long term maintenance costs are much lower.

Recently told by an Irish network engineer abroad how sad it is that Eirgrid are dead set on installing a 20th century system for the 21st century and beyond. What happens when GAA membership was the most important qualification for getting a job as an engineer.

micosoft

almighty1 wrote: »

Your "source" that proves undergrounding requires more expensive maintenance comes from Eirgrid. Really?

That source was plainly in response to someone claiming Eirgrid was not engaged in long term planning. The thing is - any plausible sources are from the engineering companies (Siemens etc) and Grid Operators and Energy Regulators. So you will shout "conspiracy". You want an independent investigation aka people who have not got any background in delivering grids (minor unpeer reviewed academic reviews) or use edge cases (powerlines over the alps). The vast vast vast bulk of evidence is that overground is substantially cheaper by a factor as previous posters have made clear.

almighty1 wrote: »

Re consultation. You think Eirgrid might want to allay peoples fears with regards to health and devaluation. People want to voice their concerns but Eirgrid make this impossible. Do you think that there should be no consultation with the public then?

They have. That people like yourself refuse to believe anything Eirgrid say because you think they are involved in a giant profit making conspiracy just because means it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion. Pylons have been around for years. There are no health implications and they would be obvious if there were.

Again - you are being disingenuous. I clearly did not say that their should be no consultation. I said their was a difference between consultation and getting your way.

almighty1 wrote: »

Regarding consultation I'm referring specifically to the identification of potential pylons routes throughout the country. I'm finding it difficult to find any confidentiality issues and even if there were, they would be minimal.

The identification of pylon routes is not part of consultation process. The potential pylon routes are identified and then consultation occurs. It's a group of engineers and planners who look at the three or four routes you could use with the many variables involved. Unless you are actually suggesting Eirgrid ask people where they think Pylons should be routed? (Clue: anywhere but near me).

almighty1 wrote: »

Of course there would be devaluation. Fintan Slye even mentioned it could be around 40k per house depending on proximity of pylons.

Link. In anycase you can make this argument about any type of infrastructure. Roads, Hospitals, Prisons, Sewerage. They have to go somewhere.

almighty1 wrote: »

There has never been a mention of compensation from the anti-pylon groups. Its not about money. People get 20k per pylon on their land but yet are fighting tooth and nail to keep them off. 97% of farmers on the North-East pylon route are refusing Eirgrid entry to their land.

Grand. That's why compulsory purchase orders are needed. Needs of the many. Don't know where you pulled that 97%? Another made up "Fact".

almighty1 wrote: »

People aren't gonna lie down and let the Eirgrid bullies run them over.

Gotcha. The core of your argument is Not In My Back Yard. I'm alright - I like using Motorways, Electricity, etc just as long as it does not impact on me. Super argument. So here is the thing. People aren't go to lie down when there are power cuts, industry refuses to setup in locations because of insufficient power, electricity prices go up because of a couple of Nimby's. Cuts both ways and I suspect patience is running thin with the Nimby movement at all levels of society.

shruikan2553

fits wrote: »

I have no evidence but I do have common sense. I would not buy a house near a 400kv line looking out at a massive pylon. Many people wouldn't. It devalues property, no question.

I wouldnt buy a house with poor roads that wouldnt be treated in winter, no decent broadband connection or a shop within 10 minutes. I doubt I am alone thinking like this so does not receiving a 100mb line devalue property? Shouldnt these people be trying to get the road improved if they care so much about the value of the property?

seamus

almighty1 wrote: »

Agreed. Do people really have to prove statistics for something that is purely common sense.

Uh....yes? "Common sense" refers to something which is believed to be correct by an individual, not something which is known to be factually true.

Zen65

kneemos wrote: »

Putting a pylon 50m from someone's house is a bit criminal in fairness.

We live in a country which allows people to build houses in 'ribbon development' fashion and a substantial amount of one-off housing. With that lack of foresight of course no electric company can find a route which does not come close to houses. This is compounded by the designation of many 'special conservation' landscapes and features, next to which it is impossible to get planning permission.

I love the fact that I live in a country where it is legal to object to development plans, but I despise the irresponsible, loutish behavior of those groups who claim all sorts of nonsense to scaremonger support.

Pylons cannot cause illness*; they are simply steel structures. If EMF caused cancer then the 'massive' EMF in your house (caused by your own wiring) is the problem as it is tens of times stronger than the EMF of a power line 50m away.

*of course I cannot prove that; nobody can prove a negative.

Zen65

almighty1 wrote: »

This is After Hours but thinking that large structures in close proximity to a house doesn't devalue it, is bordering on trolling.

But if my neighbour builds a 'corner house' on his property it might also devalue my house. The law does not entitle me to have his PP rejected on that basis alone, nor could I take a successful claim for devaluation of my property to court. We live in a democracy which upholds the idea of the superiority of the 'common good'.

Capt'n Midnight

IMHO one of the worst blights on the landscape are the white bunglow blitz houses on the coast. Compare Mayo to Connemara.

There are big pylons near me and they affect Long Wave reception on the radio in the car when nearby but so do mopeds and that's about it.


Plenty of people in West Dublin living in sight of large pylons.

Let's reverse the argument and see what it looks like

I don't see any culchies trying to get back dated compo for us so the Nimbys can go swing.

FoxT

It is hard to find out what the cost difference is between underground & overground transmission. Many papers on the internet come from biased sources.

The Guardian refers to a report which states that:

"When costs are calculated over 40 years, overhead cables were found to cost between £2.2m/km and £4.2m/ km to install and maintain, compared with between £10.2m/km and £24m/km for those buried. Costs varied according to the technology used and the voltage of the lines."


So, going by this, the underground option is between 2.5 & 10 times more expensive. I'm not an expert, but this looks like a reasonable in-the-ballpark range to me.



The NIMBYs will need to come up with a funding model for this if they are to have any credibility, IMO. The countryside is already blighted with pylons & bungalows, a few more pylons wont make much difference..



-FoxT

Chain_reaction

Frank Black wrote: »

Let them **** off and live in a cave if they don't want to put up with the 'inconvenience' of having a pylon located near them.

People like this drive me mad, they want all the conveniences that modern engineering can bestow like electricity, clean running water, sanitation - things that people from even 100years ago would find magical - but, put a necessary part of that infrastructure within 500 yards of them and their phoning Joe Duffy or onto their local Councillor.

****ing Clowns!

I take it that you've one on your door step then? I do, buzzes loudly all night when theres any moisture in the air.
The ESB turn up every so often and cut down what ever trees they like too, leaving you to clean up their mess on top of it and if you're lucky like we were they'll apologise but that won't stop it happening again and again!!

JupiterKid

I once had a dream where the pylons broke free of their power lines and came alive to kill all the humans they could find.:(

darkpagandeath

Chain_reaction wrote: »

I take it that you've one on your door step then? I do, buzzes loudly all night when theres any moisture in the air.
The ESB turn up every so often and cut down what ever trees they like too, leaving you to clean up their mess on top of it and if you're lucky like we were they'll apologise but that won't stop it happening again and again!!

So you don't notice the planes/helicopters overhead, thunder, cars on the road, sound of rivers/sea, wind, rain, trees moving and groaning, cows, horses, birds, deer, dogs, tractors, combine harvesters, radio, TV, wife, children, and the list goes on.... just the buzzing ?

FoxT

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

IMHO one of the worst blights on the landscape are the white bunglow blitz houses on the coast. Compare Mayo to Connemara.

There are big pylons near me and they affect Long Wave reception on the radio in the car when nearby but so do mopeds and that's about it.


Plenty of people in West Dublin living in sight of large pylons.

Let's reverse the argument and see what it looks like

I don't see any culchies trying to get back dated compo for us so the Nimbys can go swing.

WOW! You have a Long Wave radio!

I salute you, sir!

(I really do, used to be a radio ham)!!

FoxT

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

IMHO one of the worst blights on the landscape are the white bunglow blitz houses on the coast. Compare Mayo to Connemara.

There are big pylons near me and they affect Long Wave reception on the radio in the car when nearby but so do mopeds and that's about it.


Plenty of people in West Dublin living in sight of large pylons.

Let's reverse the argument and see what it looks like

I don't see any culchies trying to get back dated compo for us so the Nimbys can go swing.

I agree. Visually, those one-off houses look like leeches clinging to the earths surface. And the leech-dwellers are now complaining about pylons!

And, they are gnoring the significant extra cost in running cables underground, and also complaining about tourism (ie low-paid, seasonal) jobs being lost.

If they came back & offered to demolish all the bungalows, pay a premium for electricity in the locations where the transmission was underground, and turn off their cellphones & wifi, then they would have credibility.

-FoxT

Capt'n Midnight

FoxT wrote: »

So, going by this, the underground option is between 2.5 & 10 times more expensive. I'm not an expert, but this looks like a reasonable in-the-ballpark range to me.



The NIMBYs will need to come up with a funding model for this if they are to have any credibility, IMO. The countryside is already blighted with pylons & bungalows, a few more pylons wont make much difference..

If there is anything to the scaremongering about overhead cables then the priority must be to sort out urban areas first because more people are affected.

Simple as

If it's just about visuals, then again let's sort out the areas where most people are affected.



Having a better grid means more renewables can be used. The general trend is for increased electricity use over time, and we have a growing population too. This means better air quality because of reduced fossil fuels.

FoxT

Honestly, I think these NIMBYs know that there is no risk from EMI from overhead cables. I work with electricity,I am not at all an expert in the EMI/public health area, but if a report emerged about EMI effects on health, I would be alerted to it reasonably quickly by colleagues, trade bodies/employer safety bodies/employer insurance companies/ etc. , because of the nature of my job.


These people have already shown that they dont care about visuals, because their bungalow blight has already spoiled the landscape visually.

They care about money. They fear that their property values will fall if pylons are placed near them. They are obfuscating this with 'wont somebody think if the children ' type issues. I have no sympathy for them.

FoxT

JupiterKid wrote: »

I once had a dream where the pylons broke free of their power lines and came alive to kill all the humans they could find.:(

If that really happened, you would not be able to post about it. Sleep well

Mountainsandh

FoxT wrote: »

These people have already shown that they dont care about visuals, because their bungalow blight has already spoiled the landscape visually.
QUOTE]

What about people who are living in the old family home ? What about people who simply bought an existing (old) property ?

FoxT

They need to stop whinging & come up with a plan!

At bottom, my problem here is that the nimbys seem to be demanding that the taxpayer/consumer pays the extra costs associated with underground transmission. If they were to deliver some kind of plan whereby the extra costs would be paid (at least in part) by the beneficiaries, then I'd be OK with it.

And it would be helpful if they came out honestly about their worries about property devaluation, rather than being dishonest about EMI & tourism issues, which are red herrings. I, and I am sure, many others, would be sympathetic to loss of property value. IMO that is the core issue & that is what should be the basis for an honest, well thought out campaign.

czx

FoxT wrote: »

They need to stop whinging & come up with a plan!

At bottom, my problem here is that the nimbys seem to be demanding that the taxpayer/consumer pays the extra costs associated with underground transmission. If they were to deliver some kind of plan whereby the extra costs would be paid (at least in part) by the beneficiaries, then I'd be OK with it.

And it would be helpful if they came out honestly about their worries about property devaluation, rather than being dishonest about EMI & tourism issues, which are red herrings. I, and I am sure, many others, would be sympathetic to loss of property value. IMO that is the core issue & that is what should be the basis for an honest, well thought out campaign.

-foxt

Mountainsandh

FoxT wrote: »

They need to stop whinging & come up with a plan!

At bottom, my problem here is that the nimbys seem to be demanding that the taxpayer/consumer pays the extra costs associated with underground transmission. If they were to deliver some kind of plan whereby the extra costs would be paid (at least in part) by the beneficiaries, then I'd be OK with it.

And it would be helpful if they came out honestly about their worries about property devaluation, rather than being dishonest about EMI & tourism issues, which are red herrings. I, and I am sure, many others, would be sympathetic to loss of property value. IMO that is the core issue & that is what should be the basis for an honest, well thought out campaign.

It shows how many millions of miles apart you and a lot of people are then, when it comes to priorities and core issues.

Your comment above also suggests that you seem to place a lot of importance to immediate money return/money concerns, which is not at all the perspective of home owners when it comes to pylons (imo).

I don't think I can convince you to stop thinking about money, or to stop thinking about this in financial terms, or to stop thinking that local home owners have to fund this to save city dwellers money.

So I'm not going to try.


Thankfully not everyone is looking at this from your perspective.

The plan is very simple : bury them.

Capt'n Midnight

Mountainsandh wrote: »

FoxT wrote: »

What about people who are living in the old family home ? What about people who simply bought an existing (old) property ?

The words I used earlier were Bungalow Blitz.

It refers to the series of plans from Bungalow Bliss.
None of them are traditional.
Few if any are faced in local materials or even attempt to blend into the land scape.
Most are prominent and many are white so stick out like sore thumbs.

Like I said I much prefer the relatively unspoilt coast of Mayo to Connemara just for that reason alone.

Bungalows advertising their presence means there's people around and you could be in a valley of squinting windows instead of being in a landscape where you are alone. Pylons and Wind farms and transmitters are all highly visible but you can still enjoy the loneliness of the landscape.

Mountainsandh

But not all places are like the one you mention. Remember, we had that discussion about turbines.
There are a lot of still beautiful, still photo worthy places in my area, some bungalows, but also a lot of lovely old farmhouses.

The pylons are not going to be erected only in Bungalow Bliss places. They are going to be erected everywhere on the routes Eirgrid has decided, regardless of current scenic situation.

I live not too far away from where the Mahon Falls are. The pylons are not coming near me, they're not in my backyard.
But I support the Comeraghs Against Pylons group, because I agree with them that this area of the Mahon Falls in particular is going to be defaced forever when there are alternatives available.
It's not Bungalow Bliss up the Mahon Falls, it's quietly and majestically beautiful. It's awe inspiring when you're up there with the falls, the wild mountains behind you, and a breathtaking view over the sea.

The pylons will make a big difference to that particular site.

I think if burying the whole lot is too much, that like it has been suggested, the pylons should follow existing road infrastructure whenever possible, and use the burying option for high density or sensitive areas.

Capt'n Midnight

FoxT wrote: »

If they came back & offered to demolish all the bungalows, pay a premium for electricity in the locations where the transmission was underground, and turn off their cellphones & wifi, then they would have credibility

Actually they would have to remove the real high voltage sources / EM sources too

no petrol cars only diesels

no microwave ovens

no CRT or Plasma TV's anymore, though I suspect the Nimby's have moved on

No unscreened electrical wiring in the home, no unshielded electrical cables on any equipment

only allowed use induction motors since commutators cause sparks with the ozone and EMI discharges - so no 12V or 24V powered hair driers

no mains powered laptops, and even then only if they have LED back light because CFL or cold cathode - means large electical field within a meter of the user


And finally they would have to prove they have taken every possible precaution to avoid the proven carcinogenic emissions from that ginormous nuclear reactor in the sky.


Money is tight, just ask anyone spending a night on a trolley, so there needs to be some justification to spend vast sums of money on a tiny minority when a lot more city folk have to put up them through housing estates.



Risk is relative. There is no point throwing money at something with no demonstrable risk when people are dying every day from preventable stuff. Just look at our excess winter mortality statistics if you really want to save lives.



Having a pylon right next to your house means a slightly lower risk of lightening strike on your house because the top wire is a lightening conductor

Mountainsandh

A lot of city folks enjoy hiking and climbing in our unspoilt scenery too. Or are you saying city folks wouldn't mind if the entire land of Ireland was one big city ?

Capt'n Midnight

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Your comment above also suggests that you seem to place a lot of importance to immediate money return/money concerns, which is not at all the perspective of home owners when it comes to pylons (imo).
...
The plan is very simple : bury them.

Burying would solve the problem indeed, but I think we have laws against burying peoples :pac:


Using money in an argument is just a handy way to cut through a lot of emotions. "If it saves just one child then we should ban everything everywhere"

But more importantly money can be used to solve many socio-economic problems and diverting funds to one project means diverting them from others. The money would presumably have to come from increased electricity costs or state funding.

http://www.energyireland.ie/grid25/

EirGrid has recently stated that it expects the uprate to be delivered for significantly less than the €4 billion cost originally envisaged.

It would be disingenuous of me to suggest that putting the cables underground would mean the final cost would many multiples of €4Bn.

But since underground cabling costs in the order of six times as much the costs of doing it are likely to be in the hundreds of millions if not billions to implement. So based on the number of people affected it's a massive subsidy per capita.



Have a look at section 3.1 - it's not as if they are just ploking the pylons just anywhere
http://www.eirgridprojects.com/media/Appendix%202%20Approach%20to%20Catagorising%20Constraints.pdf

Capt'n Midnight

Mountainsandh wrote: »

A lot of city folks enjoy hiking and climbing in our unspoilt scenery too. Or are you saying city folks wouldn't mind if the entire land of Ireland was one big city ?

Thanks to years of unregulated ribbon development and section 25's there are few areas left of unspoilt scenery, there are few areas where there isn't a house visible or behind that hedge.

The green bits on this map are places more than 500m away from a house.
http://irelandafternama.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/setback_500m1.jpg

Look at that map and please tell us how the pylons should be routed, remembering to include how to pay for the increased capital and future transmission costs.


If you increase the distance to 1,000m from a house you are mostly left with the scenic parts of the country and bogs (opinions differ on how scenic they are, up around Bangor Erris there is a lot of empty space)
http://irelandafternama.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/setback_1000m.jpg

Mountainsandh

And similarly CM, you cannot approach an issue like this project affecting thousands of people in Ireland, by saying : "a sick child will suffer because you took that money".

All social issues deserve attention, this involves enough people to be a serious issue that deserves money spent on it. Same as other ongoing social issues.

Again this is Ireland about to spoil one of its major assets for money, and pretending it's all ok because it's not an asset in the first place.

Scenery and tourism is a major asset for Ireland, it has a great money making potential that is not being realized yet, it is something that would still be there should other aspects of the economy fail, and yet it is often denigrated and sniggered at (on Boards at least).

And cue you telling me no one's going to co Waterford in a hurry (for example, substitute Wexford, Tipperary, and others at will), there's nothing to see there, there's no tourism potential there, there's no money to be made there.

You know I'm French CM, so a little French tidbit you probably already know : the Eiffel tower was meant to be dismantled after 2 years, in fact Parisians hated the sight of it at first. At first.
Imagine if it had been dismantled.

Vision. Perspectives.

They justify budgeting differently.
I know you have your perspective CM anchored in your own vast knowledge of some particular aspects of energy demands, what I am talking about are alternative perspectives.

I am a big fan of Brian Cox, who advocates spending on science, even though we don't know what good may come of it, we can't envisage what discoveries might be made. He recommends investing in science in general rather than applied science, and it's a bit of a leap of faith to spend money when you don't know what return you'll get exactly.

I think the investment in the scenic aspect of Ireland right now requires a similar perspective, where you are willing to spend and not necessarily budget immediately on what the financial rewards may be.

Anyway, was going to link to this little spot, where 2 major lines are going to crisscross. Have things to do today.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=https:%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2Fmaps%2Fms%3Fmsid%3D207891274022173434914.0004e518df8048b4e31bd%26authuser%3D0%26msa%3D0%26vps%3D2%26hl%3Den%26ie%3DUTF8%26output%3Dkml&hl=en&ll=52.201189,-7.493448&spn=0.000105,0.084543&sll=52.621024,-7.342676&sspn=1.544039,3.911133&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=52.201029,-7.493222&panoid=a_dL-Nlhcy3PQuEfE-XdXg&cbp=12,350.89,,0,12.15

Mountainsandh

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Thanks to years of unregulated ribbon development and section 25's there are few areas left of unspoilt scenery, there are few areas where there isn't a house visible or behind that hedge.

Behind that hedge is fine in my book.
Isn't that the whole point of planning, that houses that are not too visible in the environment are given the go ahead ?
We agree that the planning hasn't been good, but thankfully there are still lots of "less spoilt" areas, and again I remember discussing that with you on the topic of turbines.

Take a trip down our way some time, you're only hurting yourself by revisiting the Bungalow Bliss spots you are referring to. :pac:


Breeaaathe .... in ... out ...
http://goo.gl/maps/FBpc9

As you travel down that road at the Mahon Falls, look towards the sea. That is where you will see the pylons crossing. From the spot on my link, you have to go up the hill a bit to your right, then down towards the falls.
As you drive along from down in the valley, the pylons will be in your way, as you look up towards the Comeragh Mountains.

darkpagandeath

Mountainsandh wrote: »

And similarly CM, you cannot approach an issue like this project affecting thousands of people in Ireland, by saying : "a sick child will suffer because you took that money".

All social issues deserve attention, this involves enough people to be a serious issue that deserves money spent on it. Same as other ongoing social issues.

Again this is Ireland about to spoil one of its major assets for money, and pretending it's all ok because it's not an asset in the first place.

Scenery and tourism is a major asset for Ireland, it has a great money making potential that is not being realized yet, it is something that would still be there should other aspects of the economy fail, and yet it is often denigrated and sniggered at (on Boards at least).

And cue you telling me no one's going to co Waterford in a hurry (for example, substitute Wexford, Tipperary, and others at will), there's nothing to see there, there's no tourism potential there, there's no money to be made there.

You know I'm French CM, so a little French tidbit you probably already know : the Eiffel tower was meant to be dismantled after 2 years, in fact Parisians hated the sight of it at first. At first.
Imagine if it had been dismantled.

Vision. Perspectives.

They justify budgeting differently.
I know you have your perspective CM anchored in your own vast knowledge of some particular aspects of energy demands, what I am talking about are alternative perspectives.

I am a big fan of Brian Cox, who advocates spending on science, even though we don't know what good may come of it, we can't envisage what discoveries might be made. He recommends investing in science in general rather than applied science, and it's a bit of a leap of faith to spend money when you don't know what return you'll get exactly.

I think the investment in the scenic aspect of Ireland right now requires a similar perspective, where you are willing to spend and not necessarily budget immediately on what the financial rewards may be.

Anyway, was going to link to this little spot, where 2 major lines are going to crisscross. Have things to do today.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=https:%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2Fmaps%2Fms%3Fmsid%3D207891274022173434914.0004e518df8048b4e31bd%26authuser%3D0%26msa%3D0%26vps%3D2%26hl%3Den%26ie%3DUTF8%26output%3Dkml&hl=en&ll=52.201189,-7.493448&spn=0.000105,0.084543&sll=52.621024,-7.342676&sspn=1.544039,3.911133&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=52.201029,-7.493222&panoid=a_dL-Nlhcy3PQuEfE-XdXg&cbp=12,350.89,,0,12.15

Yes because people will come to visit a country with no infrastructure or electricity. I think your getting confused about people coming to visit as there are decent amenities in these places and a nice view. a nice view on it's own would not bring in that many people.


They still hate it but have to live with it have you not notice people sitting in cafe's with there backs towards it ?

Mountainsandh

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yes because people will come to visit a country
with no infrastructure or electricity. I think your getting confused about
people coming to visit as there are decent amenities in these places and a nice
view. a nice view on it's own would not bring in that many people.

You mean like India ? Nepal ? the parks in Africa ? the desert ? the Australian outback (unless they have great amenities I don't know about) ? the mountains of New Zealand ? the rice fields of China ? The amazon river and forest ? The mountain ranges of Peru ? the Canadian Northern Territories ?

a) People don't care that much about infrastructure if the scenery and nature are preserved. Most people who want the scenery and nature, and less infrastructure, are those who actually live in big urban centers, with loads of infrastructure. They'll do without it to get back to nature, that's part of the fun of it.

b) Ireland already has a better infrastructure countrywide than most areas listed above.

They still hate it but have to live with it have you not notice people sitting
in cafe's with there backs towards it ?

This is something I have never paid attention to. I guess they're turning their back on it because they can see it whenever they bl00dy want to ?
The side of my family who are living in Paris certainly love their Eiffel Tower, especially in the winter with the lights. The Parisians I know live with a lot of things they dislike, but the Eiffel Tower is not one of them.

Do you know any Parisians, and are they more representative than mine for some reason ?

Anyway my point was that sometimes you just don't give due credit to something you already have. Just like my MIL who has the most amazing view onto a beautiful bay, but planted a hedge to hide it all, as she couldn't grow flowers with the sea wind. Somebody else would fight for that view.

Ireland has the scenery, bungalows or not, and it should preserve and promote it, not nibble at it constantly until this small island is nothing but urban centers and infrastructure with a few fields in between.

But yeah, it takes vision, and money.

micosoft

Mountainsandh wrote: »

are those who actually live in big urban centers, with loads of infrastructure. They'll do without it to get back to nature, that's part of the fun of it.


nothing but urban centers and infrastructure with a few fields in between.

But yeah, it takes vision, and money.

Firstly - can we just get this straight as you attempt to now turn this thread into an Urban/Rural thing. I and a lot of the posters who recognise the need for infrastructure are country and WORK the country. I suspect we are a lot more country then some who think country=views. It doesn't.

Second - Overhead lines ARE pro environment. They don't affect the environment at ALL. I'm pretty certain the wildlife don't give a damn about views and are happy with the refuge directly under the pylon and the pylon itself for birds. Where pylons actually massively benefit the environment is the support they will give to renewables. The reason for more high voltages lines is the need to connect dispersed renewables to our electricity network. Those that are anti-pylon seem happy that a dirty great coal plant in Moneypoint is belching out Co2 like no tomorrow. Out of sight out of mind. In my view the Pylon protesters care nothing for the real environment or their children's future by attempting to block the basic infrastructure needed to deliver environmentally sustainable energy.

But you are right about vision and money. You want other peoples money to pay for your vision.

micosoft

Sir, – Neither of us is an expert on the aesthetic, financial or practical issues surrounding the suggested building of a large number of electricity pylons in Ireland. However, we are aware of the debate surrounding the proposals and are troubled by the assertion that electricity pylons are implicated in the cause of leukaemia.
As haematologists who spend a lot of time diagnosing and treating leukaemia we are not aware of any causal relationship between low-energy electromagnetic fields and leukaemia. Although laboratory studies have indicated that electromagnetic fields may produce adverse biologic effects they do not release sufficient energy to damage DNA and therefore it is not surprising that the majority of studies of electric and magnetic field exposure have not shown an association with increased risk of childhood leukaemia. Furthermore, it should also be remembered that an association between childhood acute leukaemia and radiation from nuclear fallout is also quite weak, as numerous studies have failed to show an increase in the incidence of leukaemia in the areas contaminated by the Chernobyl reactor accident. It is fair to conclude that the cause of leukaemia remains unknown in the vast majority of cases.
A constructive debate on the pros and cons of a new electricity grid should not be confused by spurious health claims. – Yours, etc,
SHAUN McCANN,
Prof Emeritus of
Haematology & Academic
Medicine, St James’s
Hospital and TCD,
Clanbrassil Terrace,
Dublin 8 & OWEN P SMITH,
Prof of Haematology,
Consultant Paediatric
Haematologist,
Our Lady’s Children’s
Hospital and TCD,
St Laurence Road, Dublin 4.

Todays newspapers. This should close the health scare nonsense though I'm sure some will persist.

Mountainsandh

micosoft wrote: »

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Firstly - can we just get this straight as you attempt to now turn this thread into an Urban/Rural thing. I and a lot of the posters who recognise the need for infrastructure are country and WORK the country. I suspect we are a lot more country then some who think country=views. It doesn't.

Second - Overhead lines ARE pro environment. They don't affect the environment at ALL. I'm pretty certain the wildlife don't give a damn about views and are happy with the refuge directly under the pylon and the pylon itself for birds. Where pylons actually massively benefit the environment is the support they will give to renewables. The reason for more high voltages lines is the need to connect dispersed renewables to our electricity network. Those that are anti-pylon seem happy that a dirty great coal plant in Moneypoint is belching out Co2 like no tomorrow. Out of sight out of mind. In my view the Pylon protesters care nothing for the real environment or their children's future by attempting to block the basic infrastructure needed to deliver environmentally sustainable energy.

But you are right about vision and money. You want other peoples money to pay for your vision.

I don't know where you get this notion that I'm on about the environment and wildlife, I haven't made any mention of that whatsoever, please re-read. You seem to assume that I am some kind of hippy or Greenpeace activist which I am absolutely not, that is entirely constructed in your imagination.

Neither am I turning this into a town vs country debate.

My viewpoint is mostly that of tourism, and the reason I have had to mention town people is because it seems suggested that town people have no interest in the countryside, and that country folks expect to be subsidized.
I haven't brought that up by the way, Captain Midnight and FoxT did. (

there needs to be some justification to spend vast sums of money on a tiny
minority when a lot more city folk have to put up them through housing estates.

CM. for example).

My point is in fact the opposite, since I am arguing that town folks also enjoy the countryside, and that tourism (both domestic and foreign) relies heavily on people wanting to escape and enjoy scenic areas.

My focus is the aesthetic side.

I personally don't believe there are serious health implications, although the buzz and clicking of lines near some people I know doesn't feel right, it's probably just a feeling.

I don't believe they are a threat to wildlife at all, and I haven't said anything to that effect.

I believe they will have a big impact on tourism, and yes, that they will transform the environment (not kill squirrels) in that they will make a previously unspoilt, or very slightly spoilt place (say, one area where there was a road, a few inconspicuous houses, and your bog standard ESB line), into a more industrial/infrastructural looking place.
This is my concern.

And I think a lot of people brush this off, and scorn this aspect, and that is a major mistake. That is where vision is needed.

Capt'n Midnight

Mountainsandh wrote: »

And similarly CM, you cannot approach an issue like this project affecting thousands of people in Ireland, by saying : "a sick child will suffer because you took that money".

The project is costing €4 Billion. The health cuts are only one billion. When LARGE amounts of money are involved people die.

Anyway, was going to link to this little spot, where 2 major lines are going to crisscross. Have things to do today.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=https:%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2Fmaps%2Fms%3Fmsid%3D207891274022173434914.0004e518df8048b4e31bd%26authuser%3D0%26msa%3D0%26vps%3D2%26hl%3Den%26ie%3DUTF8%26output%3Dkml&hl=en&ll=52.201189,-7.493448&spn=0.000105,0.084543&sll=52.621024,-7.342676&sspn=1.544039,3.911133&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=52.201029,-7.493222&panoid=a_dL-Nlhcy3PQuEfE-XdXg&cbp=12,350.89,,0,12.15
...
]Breeaaathe .... in ... out ...
http://goo.gl/maps/FBpc9

TBH I was expecting something outstanding.


View of Turlough Hill pylons at Wicklow Gap

https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=county+wicklow,+&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.099308,86.572266&vpsrc=6&t=h&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Wicklow,+County+Wicklow,+Ireland&ll=53.04725,-6.406016&spn=0.006604,0.042272&z=15&layer=c&cbll=53.047254,-6.406014&panoid=ErhcNBLVJ8EzUgT4vm2uaA&cbp=11,297.69,,0,0

professore

kneemos wrote: »

Whatever the house is worth a pylon will lower it or make it impossible to sell.
You may be surprised to learn quite s few houses in the middle of nowhere are indeed worth €300,000 and more.

The view is belongs to everyone,if it's spoiled everyone loses.

Not according to the property tax returns!

Mountainsandh

I obviously, like most people I know, think that the health cuts are wrong.

There is a government, elected on the basis that they should be able to balance budgets, and set priorities that suit everyone.

What is interesting is that most people agree that epidemic one off housing from the 70s onwards was a major mistake that should have never happened, so this is one aspect of aesthetics that people acknowledge, and yet, the other aspects of how Ireland looks are often scorned or simply bypassed by a great number of politicians.

Imo, the aesthetic value of Ireland should be as important as other aspects, for non monetary reasons, and also for the economical value of tourism in the long term.

As regards the link, it wasn't meant to be spectacular, it's meant to be an illustration of a lovely, scenic, but lived in area, that is going to be drastically changed with the appearance of large pylons, imo.

I dislike the looks of the pylons in the link you provided, I think they spoil that part of the landscape, and I think that if I took my Mum and a bunch of other French people for a drive in that spot, they would remark on it, and how they spoil the view.
If you were to take a pic, would you gladly leave them in, or reframe to keep them out of the scenery ?

I know what I would do.

almighty1

micosoft wrote: »

......This should close the health scare nonsense though.......

Jaysus that's it then, potential health implications from EMFs are now well and truly blasted out of the water. :rolleyes:

All the studies in the world (however conclusive or inconclusive the evidence) and we'll take the opinion of these two guys.

Moved to here

micosoft

almighty1 wrote: »

Jaysus that's it then, potential health implications from EMFs are now well and truly blasted out of the water. :rolleyes:

All the studies in the world (however conclusive or inconclusive the evidence) and we'll take the opinion of these two guys.

Moved to here

You are suggesting that the Prof Emeritus of Haematology & Academic Medicine, St James’s Hospital and TCD, and the Prof of Haematology,
Consultant Paediatric Haematologist, Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital and TCD are just "two guys"? That their "opinion" carries no weight? And you in fact regard them as two comedians?

almighty1

micosoft wrote: »

You are suggesting that the Prof Emeritus of Haematology & Academic Medicine, St James’s Hospital and TCD, and the Prof of Haematology,
Consultant Paediatric Haematologist, Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital and TCD are just "two guys"? That their "opinion" carries no weight? And you in fact regard them as two comedians?

No you're the comedian. Placing their opinions as the final word on EMF related health risks. That's funny and I'm being lenient on you.

sonic85

good few people on this thread who seem to have no problem with pylons. why don't eirgrid get their names and addresses and amend the route so it goes past these peoples houses.

its a win win

almighty1

sonic85 wrote: »

good few people on this thread who seem to have no problem with pylons. why don't eirgrid get their names and addresses and amend the route so it goes past these peoples houses.

its a win win

Very good

Capt'n Midnight

sonic85 wrote: »

good few people on this thread who seem to have no problem with pylons. why don't eirgrid get their names and addresses and amend the route so it goes past these peoples houses.

If you'd actually bothered to read the thread you'd have noticed that many posters already live in the shadow of pylons. And they are a little upset that people are asking for investment to bypass individual dwellings when it wasn't given to bypass multiple housing estates in the cities.


This from September - did anyone attend ?
http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/eirgrid-power-lines-1066644-Sep2013/


Also
EirGrid is required as the licensed Transmission System
Operator in Statuary Instrument 445, 8(1a) to:
‘to operate and ensure the maintenance of and, if
necessary, develop a safe, secure, reliable, economical
and efficient electricity transmission system, … and having
due regard for the environment;’

Underground is not as economic or efficient. Underground is less reliable if you look at mean time to repair , fewer incidents but more down time , or the published stats from other countries.

Chain_reaction

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So you don't notice the planes/helicopters overhead, thunder, cars on the road, sound of rivers/sea, wind, rain, trees moving and groaning, cows, horses, birds, deer, dogs, tractors, combine harvesters, radio, TV, wife, children, and the list goes on.... just the buzzing ?

We're well back off the road so we can't hear cars etc. Birds are very different to buzzing and most of what you mentioned there is natural noise and not man made. So using your logic its perfectly fine for anyone to make as much as noise as they want because if they weren't making that noise something else would be making that noise anyway.

At night all you can hear is buzzing, without this it would be just pure silence as its an extremely remote spot. The house was there about 400 years before the three pylons too btw and we have four on our land in total, buzzing away like giant tinnitus machines.

rancher

Chain_reaction wrote: »

We're well back off the road so we can't hear cars etc. Birds are very different to buzzing and most of what you mentioned there is natural noise and not man made. So using your logic its perfectly fine for anyone to make as much as noise as they want because if they weren't making that noise something else would be making that noise anyway.

At night all you can hear is buzzing, without this it would be just pure silence as its an extremely remote spot. The house was there about 400 years before the three pylons too btw and we have four on our land in total, buzzing away like giant tinnitus machines.

Have pylons here on my land and have no problem with them but I was wondering what is your opinion of your drinking water coming in contact with the wires underground, will it affect it.....I'd imagine it would

BMJD

I lived ~5m from the Dublin - Belfast train line for a couple of years, you could feel trains rumbling by every few minutes at peak times. After a week or so I was used to it and didn't notice it. Visitors did! Anyone staying over would usually be woken by the early trains.

The Turlough Hill Street view link earlier, I didn't even notice pylons at first, although I am on a tablet. I know the area well, they are fairly unobtrusive. In fact, that whole facility is a fine engineering accomplishment in itself, I wouldn't be surprised if it attracted tourists!

Also, someone mentioned Peru earlier, I did the 4 day Inca Trail a few years ago, there are several parts of it where large pylons are visible along the way. They aren't pretty but again, after a while you barely notice them, and that is in a place of true wilderness.

I seriously doubt anyone's holiday will be ruined because they saw some power lines.

Chain_reaction

rancher wrote: »

Have pylons here on my land and have no problem with them but I was wondering what is your opinion of your drinking water coming in contact with the wires underground, will it affect it.....I'd imagine it would

I've no idea in regards to that. No chance of them going underground in my life time so I won't add that to my list of worries.

rancher

Chain_reaction wrote: »

I've no idea in regards to that. No chance of them going underground in my life time so I won't add that to my list of worries.

That question was meant to be directed to all the anti pylon posters, not just you, going underground isn't all win win either