Pylons have made waves. EirGrid’s plans to reinforce and
extend the power grid have run into considerable opposition. But pylons are
only a symptom. We should discuss energy and climate policy instead.
People have moved east, to the Greater Dublin Area where the
jobs are. Power generation has moved west, to the Atlantic seaboard where the
winds are. As a result, electricity needs to be transmitted over longer
distances. Transmission lines will need to be built.
Power cables can go over ground or under. Underground cables
are considerably more expensive, and it is much harder to detect and repair
faults. Underground cables are more common in countries like Denmark and the
Netherlands, but there soils are soft and the terrain is flat. Overground
cables and pylons are better suited for Ireland’s geography.
The case for more pylons is clear cut. It is an indictment
of the quality of the Irish planning process that this project has run into
such high profile opposition. The project has been years in the making, but still
a cabinet minister made off-the-cuff remarks that reinforced concerns. And the
same issues pop up for every large infrastructure project.
Three problems interlock. Companies and authorities do not
try very hard to consult stakeholders. Indeed, the entire National Renewable
Energy Action Plan, upon which rests the expansion of wind power and hence much
of the grid reinforcement, has been found, by the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe, to violate the rules for stakeholder involvement.
But the energy authorities are not the only ones to blame. Stakeholders
often ignore invitations to provide input into proposals for planning
permission, but swing into action when building starts. “We weren’t heard” is a
common complaint, but all too often people don’t speak up until it is too late
– until after decisions have been made. In this case, the decision to build new
pylons was made a long time ago without much public discussion. The remaining
decision is where the put them.
Lack of compensation is the third problem. The urban myth
that pylons and overhead power lines damage human health has been around for
decades but repeated research, with ever more data and ever more refined
methods, has never found any evidence for any health problems.
Pylons are ugly, though, in the eyes of most people. It
therefore stands to reason that they are concealed as best we can, that
recreation and conservation areas are spared, and that people who live nearby
are compensated for having to look at them.
The current row over pylons is nothing compared to what we
might expect in the future. The transmission lines now under discussion are
only the start. EirGrid foresees some 800 kilometers of new power lines by
2025. People are now getting worked up about the first 200 kilometers or so.
There are 600 kilometers to follow.
And EirGrid’s plans do not account for projects like
GreenWire and EnergyBridge, which aim to install 3,000-5,000 MegaWatt of new
wind turbine capacity. Current wind power capacity is around 2,000 MegaWatt.
The additional wind power would be for export to England and Wales. That would
require not only about five times the current interconnection capacity, but
also yet more overhead transmission lines.
GreenWire and EnergyBridge may well collapse. The English
are losing their appetite for subsidizing wind power. The European Union may
abandon its targets for renewable energy. Climate policy, however, seems here
to stay; and onshore wind power is still one of the cheaper options to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions. The dreams of a European SuperGrid are alive and
kicking, connecting Irish wind power to Norwegian and Swiss hydropower to
supply German industry.
Ireland can therefore expect more transmission lines for
electricity. The discussion should move away from the question whether the next
pylon should be in Paddy Murphy’s backyard or in Mary Kelly’s. The discussion
should focus on the question whether more pylons (et cetera) are a price worth
paying. Are the aims of energy and climate policy sufficiently worthwhile to
justify the planned transmission lines? If so, Paddy and Mary should be looked
straight into the eyes and told that their personal sacrifice is for the
greater good. Monetary compensation might help to convince them.
But if the benefits prove elusive or small, then protests
should not target the pylons and transmission lines. These are but symptoms of
the underlying policies. The debate should not be about the pylons, but rather
about the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets that cannot be met without
those pylons.
Some may argue that a few pylons here and there are a small
price to pay for preventing the planet from overheating. Others may argue that
Ireland’s contribution to climate change is too small to bother. But the
smaller question whether to build new transmission lines and where to site them
cannot be separated from the larger questions of energy and climate policy.
An edited version appeared in the Sunday Business Post of 19 January 2014
An edited version appeared in the Sunday Business Post of 19 January 2014
View comments