Pylons - Ear to the Ground 21st Nov

Birdnuts

bogman_bass wrote: »

I think its disgraceful how the anti-pylon lobby have people terrified over them.

I have a physics degree and if you beleive that there is a health risk (I dont) then there is a greater one when they are burried since they are only 3 meters down as opposed to 20 meters up. The strength of electromagnetic radiation is directly prportional to the distance from the source

Wouldn't the 3m of soil and ducting not buffer the radiation to a large extent??

20silkcut

bogman_bass wrote: »

I think its disgraceful how the anti-pylon lobby have people terrified over them.

I have a physics degree and if you beleive that there is a health risk (I dont) then there is a greater one when they are burried since they are only 3 meters down as opposed to 20 meters up. The strength of electromagnetic radiation is directly prportional to the distance from the source

They look absolutely terrible can ruin the aesthetic of otherwise beautiful countryside.

st1979

Birdnuts wrote: »

You appear to live in a very black and white world.Every infrastructure project has to be viewed on a Cost Benefit Analysis level. Some projects make the grade on that basis, but others don't. I support the former type but not the latter. Hence the link I posted earlier in this thread to that IFJ article by Colm McCarthy. A man who is a hard nosed economist and full on capitalist, not a crusty hippy who lives in a tree house.

Really do you believe any cost benefit analysis will stop the nimby attitudes or allay the fears of health affects. You can give all the science in the world and it wont make a shred of difference. My wife wont even let me have an electric blanket on the bed as she is sleeping on copper wires and how dangerous it is long term health all while she smokes 20 a day. So we had a great debate about pylons as you can imagine. But in the end of the day society needs infrastructure. And nobody ever wants to live beside it.

st1979

20silkcut wrote: »

They look absolutely terrible can ruin the aesthetic of otherwise beautiful countryside.

Everything built looks terrible. Windmills pylons roads dumps caravan parks farm sheds bungalows (bungalow blitz)
So I think you ruined the country side with your house and farm sheds.

Now I am being facetious. But I know people that were up in arms about all the above. I have been told the country side looks awful when the oilseed rape is flowering as it looks an unnatural yellow. I know people who were up in arms over a farm 5 miles away wanting to put in a chicken shed. (It would ruin the beautiful countryside they bought into).
My local town puts it sewage totally untreated into the sea. Because for the last 23 years the owner of the land beside the proposed sewage treatment plant went through the courts. Even went to European court of human rights.

I like the fact when I turn on the lights there is power. I feel sorry for anyone who has to farm around existing pylons or the upset of new pylons but in the end of the day I want the light to work

rancher

st1979 wrote: »

Everything built looks terrible. Windmills pylons roads dumps caravan parks farm sheds bungalows (bungalow blitz)
So I think you ruined the country side with your house and farm sheds.

Now I am being facetious. But I know people that were up in arms about all the above. I have been told the country side looks awful when the oilseed rape is flowering as it looks an unnatural yellow. I know people who were up in arms over a farm 5 miles away wanting to put in a chicken shed. (It would ruin the beautiful countryside they bought into).
My local town puts it sewage totally untreated into the sea. Because for the last 23 years the owner of the land beside the proposed sewage treatment plant went through the courts. Even went to European court of human rights.

I like the fact when I turn on the lights there is power. I feel sorry for anyone who has to farm around existing pylons or the upset of new pylons but in the end of the day I want the light to work

Very true, I hated every new house that was built in the country side during the celtic tiger and I was proved right.
But that apart, farmers can destroy the countryside as well, rusty sheds, or painted the wrong colour, machinery dumps etc. when we live in an area for a while we get used to what's around us and don't see what other people see.
There's loads of pylons around me....like dirty sheds, we just don't see them and there has been no health problems.
It would be great to get them underground, especially if they go across farmland ( think it's nearly €100 mtr to the farmer) but it seems it's not practical or cost effective, and to be honest my electricity is dear enough

bbam

bogman_bass wrote: »

I think its disgraceful how the anti-pylon lobby have people terrified over them.

I have a physics degree and if you beleive that there is a health risk (I dont) then there is a greater one when they are burried since they are only 3 meters down as opposed to 20 meters up. The strength of electromagnetic radiation is directly prportional to the distance from the source

Dead right.
More radiation from the microwave in your kitchen or the phone in your pocket.

bogman_bass

Birdnuts wrote: »

Wouldn't the 3m of soil and ducting not buffer the radiation to a large extent??

To a degree but its exponentially proportional to distance so it has a greater effect

bogman_bass

Don't get me wrong if it was going through my land I'd want to be damn well compensated for it but I wouldn't protest against it. They have to go somewhere. I have no time for NIMBYism

Boaty

Offshore windfarms are the way to go?,
They are talking about building over 200 turbines off Wicklow, can't see it going ahead tho. People who don't even live near the sea and who wont even be affected the farm will object.

st1979

Boaty wrote: »

Offshore windfarms are the way to go?,
They are talking about building over 200 turbines off Wicklow, can't see it going ahead tho. People who don't even live near the sea and who wont even be affected the farm will object.

They can object all they like. No planning permission needed in the sea. Thats one of the biggest reasons for offshore. It also gets better wind but costs way more. Lots wanted to object to them first few they put up off arklow. But got a shock that they couldnt

20silkcut

st1979 wrote: »

Everything built looks terrible. Windmills pylons roads dumps caravan parks farm sheds bungalows (bungalow blitz)
So I think you ruined the country side with your house and farm sheds.

Now I am being facetious. But I know people that were up in arms about all the above. I have been told the country side looks awful when the oilseed rape is flowering as it looks an unnatural yellow. I know people who were up in arms over a farm 5 miles away wanting to put in a chicken shed. (It would ruin the beautiful countryside they bought into).
My local town puts it sewage totally untreated into the sea. Because for the last 23 years the owner of the land beside the proposed sewage treatment plant went through the courts. Even went to European court of human rights.

I like the fact when I turn on the lights there is power. I feel sorry for anyone who has to farm around existing pylons or the upset of new pylons but in the end of the day I want the light to work

Big difference between windmills and pylons and rusty sheds and bungalows.



They are massive and can be seen for miles around .

If you had a nut or bolt exposed on the wall of your sitting room you would cover it up because it looks out of place. It may be holding your house together but you still would cover it up.

Them pylons and windmills are desperate looking yokes and make no attempt to be sympathetic to the surrounding countryside.

A pylon in the Saudi Arabian desert is the very same as one in the densely populated idyllic countryside of Waterford and Tipperary.

Capercaille

20silkcut wrote: »

They look absolutely terrible can ruin the aesthetic of otherwise beautiful countryside.

My neighbour said the same thing. He levelled 250 meters of mature hedge during the summer, but that's OK though.

Old diesel

Capercaille wrote: »

My neighbour said the same thing. He levelled 250 meters of mature hedge during the summer, but that's OK though.

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

Scartbeg

bogman_bass wrote: »

I think its disgraceful how the anti-pylon lobby have people terrified over them.

I have a physics degree and if you beleive that there is a health risk (I dont) then there is a greater one when they are burried since they are only 3 meters down as opposed to 20 meters up. The strength of electromagnetic radiation is directly inversely prportional to the distance squared from the source

FYP.

For what it's worth, I would also have any doubts about health effects, as the fields generated are swamped by others in the environment. You are exposed to much higher electric/magnetic fields from devices in the home, using mobile phones, sitting at a PC, diagnostic scans etc. People are terrible at assessing levels of risk. You are much more likely to get cancer from radon gas or UV radiation from the sun.

Birdnuts

st1979 wrote: »

Really do you believe any cost benefit analysis will stop the nimby attitudes or allay the fears of health affects. You can give all the science in the world and it wont make a shred of difference. My wife wont even let me have an electric blanket on the bed as she is sleeping on copper wires and how dangerous it is long term health all while she smokes 20 a day. So we had a great debate about pylons as you can imagine. But in the end of the day society needs infrastructure. And nobody ever wants to live beside it.

Your talking in general terms again - I'm taking about this particular project and the highly dubious economic reasons behind it as was outlined in the link I posted earlier. Pylons are necessary, I get that and actually have a few near my small farm in North Mayo, no problem. What I have a problem with is the government blowing billions of euros of our money to create a sprawling grid and power system for the benefit of a cabal of well connected and powerfull vested interests which given the experience of other countries will turn out to be an expensive white elephant for the rest of us.

If proof is needed of my fears then you only have to look at the experience of Denmark and Germany that are now burdened with the highest retail electricity prices in the EU by a long way after going down the path the likes of Pat Rabbitte, Eamonn Ryan etc. would have us go down. Heavy industry in Germany is starting to pack up despite the government there giving billions of euros to industrial users in compensation for higher electricity prices. Ireland cannot afford such an expense and our chances of attracting energy intensive industry will be severely compromised not to mention the overall negative effects for the economy of a steep rise in bills for domestic users. Trashing the Irish countryside to bring this folly about is dumb economics given that our unspoilt image is the greatest money spinner for our tourism and food sectors

Good loser

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

No there, the health issues (?) have been disposed of again and again. No more money should be wasted on those.

Can't see the pylons having the slightest impact on tourism or our food producers image - what's that anyway?

Have had Eirgrid on my land twice in recent years - they were courteous and efficient. Not looking forward to months/years of stupid arguments and protests about this issue.

bob charles

forgive me guys, but is this big argument just over putting a few 400kv interconnector lines about the country you would swear people were arguing over something important

Old diesel

Birdnuts wrote: »

Your talking in general terms again - I'm taking about this particular project and the highly dubious economic reasons behind it as was outlined in the link I posted earlier. Pylons are necessary, I get that and actually have a few near my small farm in North Mayo, no problem. What I have a problem with is the government blowing billions of euros of our money to create a sprawling grid and power system for the benefit of a cabal of well connected and powerfull vested interests which given the experience of other countries will turn out to be an expensive white elephant for the rest of us.

If proof is needed of my fears then you only have to look at the experience of Denmark and Germany that are now burdened with the highest retail electricity prices in the EU by a long way after going down the path the likes of Pat Rabbitte, Eamonn Ryan etc. would have us go down. Heavy industry in Germany is starting to pack up despite the government there giving billions of euros to industrial users in compensation for higher electricity prices. Ireland cannot afford such an expense and our chances of attracting energy intensive industry will be severely compromised not to mention the overall negative effects for the economy of a steep rise in bills for domestic users. Trashing the Irish countryside to bring this folly about is dumb economics given that our unspoilt image is the greatest money spinner for our tourism and food sectors

Your very last point Birdnuts - is the big point that many commentators in media - and more importantly - Eirgrid and Pat Rabbite have failed to address.

To my mind - harming industries - like tourism and food - in order to help another industry that is of dubious benefit (wind) is poor planning.

My own concern and interest in this - is ensuring that Rural Ireland continues to survive as a place with good communities enjoying decent quality of life.

Old diesel

Good loser wrote: »

No there, the health issues (?) have been disposed of again and again. No more money should be wasted on those.

Can't see the pylons having the slightest impact on tourism or our food producers image - what's that anyway?

Have had Eirgrid on my land twice in recent years - they were courteous and efficient. Not looking forward to months/years of stupid arguments and protests about this issue.

Yes - well - theres arguments on both sides on the health debate - to be frank the health concerns don't keep me awake at night or anything.

But theres conflicting arguments on the health issue - some say its an issue - some say not. Need to get the facts one way or another - so people can be reassured if no health issues - and if there are issues - we can address them in terms of how a project is designed/planned.

As for image of the tourism and Food - this is a far bigger concern for me then health issues - the reality is that the perception that Ireland is a place full of lovely beautiful countryside - actually helps bring tourists to this country - and helps sell our food abroad.

So that's a real issue I think that needs to be addressed better I think - if food and tourism is damaged irreparably by pylons etc - then we need replacement jobs.

Big white wind turbines won't do it for us - and its hard to see Govt commit to job creation in rural Ireland - when their focus is mostly towards urban areas like Dublin and Cork City - in terms of job creation.

Suckler

Old diesel wrote: »

To my mind - harming industries - like tourism and food - in order to help another industry that is of dubious benefit (wind) is poor planning.

My own concern and interest in this - is ensuring that Rural Ireland continues to survive as a place with good communities enjoying decent quality of life.

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

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