Consumers to pay for storm damage to the electricity distribution network?

That doesn't matter. My claim, "There go the claims that only rural dwellers are affected by this.", stands regardless.
 
TomEdison said:
Its various components are not designed to withstand these conditions, so they won't. And, when they fail, they'll have to be replaced.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting we build a distribution network impervious to falling trees and structures? If so then the most likely alternative is underground, but no one is willing to set aside the hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, that would cost.
 
ClubMan said:
Nobody pays 57% of their overall income in tax/PRSI/USC.
Click to expand...

"Gross pay" at margin = €100.00
"Net pay" at margin = €47.90 (net of IT 40%, USC 8% and PRSI 4.1%)
Actual remuneration cost to the employer = €111.50 (gross of 11.15% employer PRSI)
Amount received by the employee, net of appropriations, as a percentage of the actual remuneration cost to the employer = €47.90 / €111.50 = 43%
Amount appropriated = 57%

Of which exactly nil (along with PSO levy, standing charge and VAT) is used to provide you with a resilient electricity network.

Putting red herrings in the bin all day.
 
I'm contemplating installing a small modular nuclear reactor in my garden shed so I can go completely off grid. It'll probably cost me a few million quid, but in the long run it'll be far cheaper than the standing charges that will come about if the ESB is obliged to introduce a fully stormproof national grid! Hopefully the County Council will see my logic and will grant me planning permission.
 
Gross pay" at margin = €100.00
"Net pay" at margin = €47.90 (net of IT 40%, USC 8% and PRSI 4.1%)
Actual remuneration cost to the employer = €111.50 (gross of 11.15% employer PRSI)
Amount received by the employee, net of appropriations, as a percentage of the actual remuneration cost to the employer = €47.90 / €111.50 = 43%
Amount appropriated = 57%

I think you must be very rich, earning >>standard cut off band , most normal folk experience effective tax rates of c.25%-30%

What effective tax rate did you pay last year - have you ever checked ?


If you like, Revenue could get rid of all of the tax credits, but that would mean even workers earning a miserly rate would pay the same rate of tax as those earning factors of 10X greater.

ESB should finance the cost themselves agreed, but eventually the money comes from profit of your elec bill!.
 
Leo said:
Are you suggesting we build a distribution network impervious to falling trees and structures? If so then the most likely alternative is underground, but no one is willing to set aside the hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, that would cost.
Click to expand...
Agreed, putting underground is ridiculous and won't happen, last night they only compared to Scandinavian not to UK or France, most of their network is also overground.
Can you imagine the mistakes that would be made with powelines not put down accurately and then getting hit by construction works decades later. Sure didn't the OPW themselves encounter this with their wall in Dublin 4 !!
Talk of underground is a distraction away from the obvious issues of not renewing 60 year old poles and vegetation close to power lines.
We barely have enough outdoor workers for construction at the moment, there is no capability to put all the power lines underground even in urban areas.
Infrastructure not our strongest point sure we are still largely dependent on stone bridges etc built over 200 years ago. They did resilience in 19th century
 
joe sod said:
Sure didn't the OPW themselves encounter this with their wall in Dublin 4 !!
Click to expand...
Yep, and it cost over €60k to move that a short distance. Lifetime costs of underground cabling here has been estimated at 4x to 12x the cost of overground. As that already factors in repair and maintenance costs, we'd need to such storms to be quite a regular occurrence to tilt the balance the other way.
 
Leo said:
Lifetime costs of underground cabling here has been estimated at 4x to 12x the cost of overground.
Click to expand...
That’s fascinating. Is it per metre or dwelling served?

I’m powered from an underground cable that serves about 80 connections along a 300m stretch. Zero risk of wind damage but isolating and fixing a fault will indeed be expensive.
 
TomEdison said:
One of the characteristics of the legacy power system that we have now is that electricity is generated in a relatively small number of places but at a very large scale in those places. A second characteristic is that there is limited focus on power storage — power is generated only when needed. These two characteristics mean that the power distribution system is critical and, if it fails — and particularly if it suffers multiple failures — the consequences tend to be severe and to affect a great many people. (As we have just seen.)

In a greener system electricity generation would be more dispersed, and there would be greater capacity for power storage. You'd still need a distribution system, obviously, but it would be much less concentrated and less intensive, and local failures in the distribution system would be less critical.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure who made the argument to put distribution under ground? Above are the suggestions made by poster who appears to be attributed with suggesting under ground distribution. In fairness to the poster, the suggestion to move to more power storage capacity and more disperse distribution centers seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. There are a large number of battery storage centers popping up around the country so presumably that is in an attempt to plan for this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top