Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. I also welcome the debate because it is a topic worthy of discussion. I second Senator Mullen's motion as it is an area that needs more debate. We must go beyond the status quo whereby we are told that placing electricity lines underground is just too expensive. That seems a simple approach and Senator Mullen has explained it well. We must consider the benefits and bear in mind the concept of "future proofing", namely, not to just consider the short-term costs but also the longer-term implications. People have real concerns, which Senator Mullen has clearly indicated. Senator Cullinane was joined by up to 2,000 people who protested at the weekend against the proposed EirGrid network of pylons near the Comeragh Mountains.

While it is more expensive to put cabling underground, the costs have reduced considerably. Some argue that it is now only two to three times more expensive to put electricity cabling underground compared with overhead pylons. A recent UK report found that underground cabling was 4.5 to 5.7 times more expensive than traditional overhead pylons. That compares with the claim of being ten to 20 times more expensive made by the national grid company. The reduction in costs is massive since pylons were first erected. Some argue that the life cost of undergrounding cabling results in less loss of electricity over a number of years. When that is taken into account the sums change even more.

There is also the argument that underground cables would be even cheaper if extra factors were taken into account, such as the effect on tourism. The visual impact of pylons above ground is significant. In addition, there is a decrease in property values and community disruption as well as the negative effect on health and wildlife from pylons and overhead cabling. The aesthetic argument against pylons is strong. The environment looks better without massive electricity pylons. Electromagnetic radiation is emitted from pylons and that is significantly diminished when cables are underground. Some studies have linked cancer, in particular leukaemia and other diseases to electromagnetic radiation emitted by pylons. The case is based on studies that have not been proven but it is clear that there are concerns. It is questionable whether anyone would buy a house located beside an electricity pylon.

Some European countries have moved to fully underground power while others like Germany are moving in that direction. We must put the option on the table and consider the benefits the policy would bring. I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to the matter. I expect he will base his decision on cost rather than on other factors and if that is the case we must give serious consideration to how we can overcome the potential negative effects in the long term.

Last year I flew to Vienna and drove from there to Bratislava. I was astounded by the large number of pylons along the route but they were grouped together in one area instead of being spread out and therefore they did not impinge on many people. However, if we have long lines of pylons and cabling the effect on people will be multiplied. I am not convinced of the need for what is being planned.

I know there are benefits and I am sure the Minister will make the argument that if we are going to export the electricity then the State as a whole will benefit from that. However, Senator Mullen has made a very strong case and I believe others will make a similarly strong case about the need to ensure that this issue is given very serious consideration before any decision is reached. In that context, I welcome this debate and look forward to hearing the Minister's views on the matter.