Pylons - Ear to the Ground 21st Nov

Old diesel

Suckler wrote: »

How does it harm the food sector? Why would it have any affect on good communities and quality of life?

How it could harm the food sector - and tourism - is that it possibly has the potential to harm our green image if our countryside is perceived to have been harmed by having pylons running through it.

In terms of communities - some/many people will feel that they don't wan't to live near these.

All in my opinion obviously - and would be very happy to be wrong

RobertKK

The people against them based on health concerns and want them put underground are actually making the electromagnetic field much closer to them.

The big pylons are the ebst given how far up the electromagnetic field is, comapred to it being just 6 feet underground and the land over it doesn't stop the electromagnetic field.

When I see those pylons I don't see health problems or affecting our green image.
Pat Kenny had an expert on his show about this, the EU are actually increasing the amount of electromagneticism one can be exposed to as the evidence grows.
There is electromagneticism in your home from electrical appliances, from the Earth's own magentic field.

The problem is NIMBYism.

pburns

As far as I'm aware it was Eamon Ryan who got the ball rolling on this when he was minister by green-lighting a €4 billion investment in Eirgrid infrastructure. Why did he do this? Well you can be pretty sure it was to facilitate wind - at the time he was arguing that 40% of power should come from renewables. What I'd like to see is a proper analysis of how much of this infrastructure is needed if the wind export plans were shelved.

Colm McCarthy has written a number articles in the IFJ this year critical of the economics of exporting wind and financing the infrastructure that goes with them (i.e. pylons), saying what is proposed could lead to a ‘NAMA for wind turbines’ and as someone earlier said he is as hard-nosed a capitalist economist as you will find.

Pretty strange bedfellows - the Greens, Rabitte and the IFA!

I see IFA presidential candidate Eddie Downey has also been critical of the contract terms negotiated by the IFA as well...which is one in the eye for his rival Ger Bergin!

rancher

pburns wrote: »

As far as I'm aware it was Eamon Ryan who got the ball rolling on this when he was minister by green-lighting a €4 billion investment in Eirgrid infrastructure. Why did he do this? Well you can be pretty sure it was to facilitate wind - at the time he was arguing that 40% of power should come from renewables. What I'd like to see is a proper analysis of how much of this infrastructure is needed if the wind export plans were shelved.

Colm McCarthy has written a number articles in the IFJ this year critical of the economics of exporting wind and financing the infrastructure that goes with them (i.e. pylons), saying what is proposed could lead to a ‘NAMA for wind turbines’ and as someone earlier said he is as hard-nosed a capitalist economist as you will find.

Pretty strange bedfellows - the Greens, Rabitte and the IFA!

I see IFA presidential candidate Eddie Downey has also been critical of the contract terms negotiated by the IFA as well...which is one in the eye for his rival Ger Bergin!

IFA don't oppose infrastructural development....if they did there'd be no roads built. The difference of opinion with the presidential candidates is an example of why we don't oppose development as we have members both for and against turbines.
When eirgrid come to put the wire underground, they will have to negotiate with us as to terms, but that doesn't say we're supporting Eirgrid.
We're in bed with no one.
The contract terms are a lot better than what farmers were signing up to at the start, didn't make any difference to us whether they signed or not.

Old diesel

RobertKK wrote: »

The people against them based on health concerns and want them put underground are actually making the electromagnetic field much closer to them.

The big pylons are the ebst given how far up the electromagnetic field is, comapred to it being just 6 feet underground and the land over it doesn't stop the electromagnetic field.

When I see those pylons I don't see health problems or affecting our green image.
Pat Kenny had an expert on his show about this, the EU are actually increasing the amount of electromagneticism one can be exposed to as the evidence grows.
There is electromagneticism in your home from electrical appliances, from the Earth's own magentic field.

The problem is NIMBYism.

Id say NIMBYism won't be an issue at all in the end - as id be fairly confident (whatever the rights and wrongs are) that Pat Rabbite and Eirgrid will get there in the end and get these pylons put up.

Heard that lad on Pat Kenny the other day via Podcast - but while theres considerable merit in his points - i think the big issue is how Eirgrid have handled this from the word go.

They may well be right in their plans in how to do it - or they may not be right - but they've got their community relations all wrong.

Don't know how advises them in their PR - but they aren't doing their job particularly well.

Capercaille

Old diesel wrote: »

Bit of a difference though - in the impact of the removal of a mature hedge and putting in big massive pylons I think .

Personally - id be wanting to see some industry/jobs etc coming into rural towns in return for these and the wind turbines.

Completely unacceptable if you end up with a situation whereby all the benefits accrue to Dublin and other urban areas - while Rural Ireland gets all the negatives - including loss of tourism etc - and no benefits in return.

Personally - the health issues are a matter up for debate - more research needs to be done to get to the bottom of the issue.

But theres still the issue of tourism - its an important industry for many rural parts - and theres still the big issue (in my eyes) of how our image as food producers - would be damaged by these big Pylons been put in.

Think Eirgrids overall attitude towards communities is not helping either .

Hopefully in the long term it won't impact on rural Ireland too severly in terms of keeping it alive - but im not sure how that will pan out yet

He took out 200 year old oak trees with ash, whitethorn, blackthorn, elder, furze, guelder rose, hazel, spindle. I would rather have that hedge intact and a pylon erected than have a wire fence that has replaced the hedge.

As regards the image of the country as a food producer, I'd be more worried with the destruction of hedges, pollution of rivers, extermination of rare bird species, destruction of raised bogs than the bad image of pylons.

Good loser

Old diesel wrote: »

Id say NIMBYism won't be an issue at all in the end - as id be fairly confident (whatever the rights and wrongs are) that Pat Rabbite and Eirgrid will get there in the end and get these pylons put up.

Heard that lad on Pat Kenny the other day via Podcast - but while theres considerable merit in his points - i think the big issue is how Eirgrid have handled this from the word go.

They may well be right in their plans in how to do it - or they may not be right - but they've got their community relations all wrong.

Don't know how advises them in their PR - but they aren't doing their job particularly well.

Eirgrid's PR shouldn't matter to anybody. What matters are the facts.

The opposition are all over the place - emotionally confused and confusing.

The only anyway reasonable objection might be devaluation of houses etc and this comes into play only if the other reasons amount to something - which they don't. Once these pylons are up a few years noboby will notice them - like all new structures.

pburns

rancher wrote: »

The difference of opinion with the presidential candidates is an example of why we don't oppose development as we have members both for and against turbines.

Aye ye have alright. Especially after the TV3 Midweek programme where it was clearly shown that the IFA failed to point out the downsides - legal, tax, inheritance etc. and that these companies who have taken an option have massive powers re location of turbines etc.

rancher wrote: »

When eirgrid come to put the wire underground, they will have to negotiate with us as to terms, but that doesn't say we're supporting Eirgrid.

IMO they are just paying lip service to the underground option. And frankly, given the IFA's track record in this area I would keep them a million miles away. Stick to something you know something about.

rancher wrote: »

We're in bed with no one.

Ha, ha...:pac:!

Look up my previous reply to similar waffle in another thread...I won't repeat myself. I think it was yourself (or some other IFA-head) who couldn't handle the heat.

Birdnuts

Good loser wrote: »

The opposition are all over the place - emotionally confused and confusing.

The only anyway reasonable objection might be devaluation of houses etc and this comes into play only if the other reasons amount to something - which they don't. Once these pylons are up a few years noboby will notice them - like all new structures.

Depends on the size and proximity of the pylons. Smaller pylons at a reasonable setback are probably ok but I wouldn't fancy the chances of a house seller if they had a view in the link below out their sitting room window. I don't know would one ever get use to a view like that either.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/leaders/article762881.ece

A proper energy and planning policy would have most of such pylons being routed along the existing motorway system to minimize disruption and visual scarring of the landscape

rancher

pburns wrote: »

Aye ye have alright. Especially after the TV3 Midweek programme where it was clearly shown that the IFA failed to point out the downsides - legal, tax, inheritance etc. and that these companies who have taken an option have massive powers re location of turbines etc.



IMO they are just paying lip service to the underground option. And frankly, given the IFA's track record in this area I would keep them a million miles away. Stick to something you know something about.



Ha, ha...:pac:!

Look up my previous reply to similar waffle in another thread...I won't repeat myself. I think it was yourself (or some other IFA-head) who couldn't handle the heat.

There was a lot of lies in that programme,
We told the farmers to get legal opinion before they signed, That farmer got it after he signed, I told every farmer that asked me ''If in doubt don't sign'' each farmer got €1000 and more from the companies to pay a solicitor

.
Same with the Pylons, I have them on my land, see no problem with them, but again we have members on both sides so it's unlikely if we come strong on either side. You'll see who eirgrid will deal with if they have to put it across farms

That programme discredited local solicitors and farmers a lot more than it discredited IFA, Over 100 solicitors across the country ok'd that offer and midweek only interviewed one solicitor

Good loser

Birdnuts wrote: »

Depends on the size and proximity of the pylons. Smaller pylons at a reasonable setback are probably ok but I wouldn't fancy the chances of a house seller if they had a view in the link below out their sitting room window. I don't know would one ever get use to a view like that either.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/leaders/article762881.ece

A proper energy and planning policy would have most of such pylons being routed along the existing motorway system to minimize disruption and visual scarring of the landscape

That view would be totally exceptional.

pburns

rancher wrote: »

There was a lot of lies in that programme,
We told the farmers to get legal opinion before they signed, That farmer got it after he signed, I told every farmer that asked me ''If in doubt don't sign'' each farmer got €1000 and more from the companies to pay a solicitor

.
Same with the Pylons, I have them on my land, see no problem with them, but again we have members on both sides so it's unlikely if we come strong on either side. You'll see who eirgrid will deal with if they have to put it across farms

That programme discredited local solicitors and farmers a lot more than it discredited IFA, Over 100 solicitors across the country ok'd that offer and midweek only interviewed one solicitor

So you're pointing the finger at the solicitors are you? And the farmer? Pathetic...

May I point out that the Midweek programme invited the IFA to contribute (specifically your pocket-rocket sustainability guru Jer Bergin) but he was too busy eh...campaigning.... Surely if what you say is true he would have jumped at the chance to get some airtime, defend the IFA and strengthen his campaign.
"Lie low lads..." refrain the clodhoppers
"....wait for it to all blow over!"

It won't.

rancher

pburns wrote: »

So you're pointing the finger at the solicitors are you? And the farmer? Pathetic...

May I point out that the Midweek programme invited the IFA to contribute (specifically your pocket-rocket sustainability guru Jer Bergin) but he was too busy eh...campaigning.... Surely if what you say is true he would have jumped at the chance to get some airtime, defend the IFA and strengthen his campaign.
"Lie low lads..." refrain the clodhoppers
"....wait for it to all blow over!"

It won't.

We told farmers to get their own legal opinion before they signed...
You sign a contract, you take responsibility....right or wrong