UK Politics

[steviewevie]

that BMA vote happened?

[lazyred]

28 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

so you support what he's doing? Confused.

I have heard it is actually not necessarily quicker and cheaper and actually just a little more complicated than that and he is just making same arguments as other MPs in that area like Patel.

I don't know the economics of it but if it was quicker and cheaper you'd think it would be considered. It might have been rejected for other technical reasons but I think the people of Sussex want to lay a cable in the sea up to Lincolnshire and bring it ashore where poor people live.

[lazyred]

21 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

that BMA vote happened?

I think its tomorrow but I wouldn't worry about it. The BMA is a trade union not a scientific review body. The UK medical establishment has accepted Cass.

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, lazyred said:

I don't know the economics of it but if it was quicker and cheaper you'd think it would be considered. It might have been rejected for other technical reasons but I think the people of Sussex want to lay a cable in the sea up to Lincolnshire and bring it ashore where poor people live.

they did a report on alternatives...

No easy way to get offshore power to East Anglia, says report - BBC News

 

Not sure if fully decided yet, so maybe they'll avoid pylons going through some of these places.

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, lazyred said:

I think its tomorrow but I wouldn't worry about it. The BMA is a trade union not a scientific review body. The UK medical establishment has accepted Cass.

yes it is a union but I assume it is made up of people who have some knowledge and care about this stuff. Just not sure if this is just a few committee members or more widespread amongst its members.

[clarkete]

4 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

As I have written numerous times already, and he has said, he prefers the offshore grid infrastructure that is quicker and cheaper to put in place. 

What's your source for saying it's quicker to put in place?

 

These sources all refer to win and say that speed and cost of deployment is usually one of the strengths of onshore.

https://www.blackridgeresearch.com/blog/difference-between-onshore-and-offshore-wind-energy-farms-plants-mills

 

https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-news/2024/ecotricity-explains-onshore-vs-offshore-wind-power#:~:text=Wind speeds%3A Offshore winds tend,lot slower and more difficult.

https://blog.rippleenergy.com/environment/onshore-and-offshore-wind-farms/

 

https://www.gscapital.uk/news/blog/harnessing-the-wind-onshore-vs-offshore-wind-farms

[steviewevie]

52 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

It's all in the original article that started this ongoing conversation several days ago - the energy comapnies that back the offshore method are those who say it will be quicker and chaeaper and I take them as experts in that field so will trust them on it.

 

The offshore part IS NOT windfarms as your links all refer too - the off shore part is tjhe new grid infrastructure, the part that requires all the new pylons that people do not want onland.

there will need to be pylons somewhere right, unless they stick all the cables underground?

Anyway, found to reports on this...one by something called ESO, and another by a countryside charity called CPRE who are obviously looking to alternatives to these pylons..

can't be f**ked to read any of it.

download (nationalgrideso.com)

Greening_the_Great_Grid_Upgrade.pdf (cprenorfolk.org.uk)

[steviewevie]

anyway, shows that Labour is going to face loads of this local nimby objections with their new planning stuff with houses and renewables etc....good luck with all that..I guess that's where having a big majority helps.

[steviewevie]

49 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

anyway, shows that Labour is going to face loads of this local nimby objections with their new planning stuff with houses and renewables etc....good luck with all that..I guess that's where having a big majority helps.

other problem is finding enough people to build all this stuff.

[steviewevie]

the all important Zelensky greeting

 

[steviewevie]

37 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

The pylons we need are because they need to carry the offshore electricity to exisiti ng grid structures.
If you build new grid structures off shore then those pylons are not required.
Electricity fromn offshore grids will travel to homes and businesses down exisitng cables and pylons in over 05% of cases with very little new onshore infrastructure required.

That is simple terms is the arguement of the Green MP and those who agree with them

A report has warned that "critical trade-offs will need to be made" to decide how best to carry power from East Anglia's offshore wind farms.

The Electricity System Operator (ESO) said no single option would provide value for money, be easy to deliver - or minimise the impact on communities.

Onshore cabling was the cheapest and quickest option, the ESO report said.

But the operator said a "hybrid" scheme, involving more cabling at sea, could also work.

Campaigners hope National Grid will change its plans to lay more than 100 miles of new cables from Norwich to Tilbury.

'Impact'

Suffolk County Council welcomed the ESO report which, it said, had found potential ways to reduce the need for pylons.

But it also acknowledged that doing away with pylons would have an additional impact on communities and landscapes in east Suffolk.

 

The report, into how best to upgrade the National Grid in East Anglia, scored 10 proposals for cost, deliverability and impact on communities.

 

It concluded that all the schemes would be challenging to deliver and would have a significant impact on people close to new infrastructure, such as substations.

Moving most cabling offshore to go around the coast of East Anglia, avoiding the Essex coastline altogether, was one of most expensive options, costing around £6bn.

Using Bradwell as a landing point and then cabling to Tilbury was put at a cost of £5bn.

'Substation'

Onshore cabling from Norwich to Tilbury, and from a new substation in Friston to another in the Tendring area and then onto Tilbury, was the cheapest option which could be delivered by 2030.

 

But the report found that, if the delivery date was put back to 2034, a hybrid option, which used a combination of offshore and onshore cabling - and which may not need as many substations, could be viable - although a bit more expensive.

However, a planned substation for Friston on the Suffolk coast featured in all the proposals.

National Grid said it would use the report to decide whether to amend its existing proposals.

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-68546471

[steviewevie]

 

[zahidf]

2 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

The pylons we need are because they need to carry the offshore electricity to exisiti ng grid structures.
If you build new grid structures off shore then those pylons are not required.
Electricity fromn offshore grids will travel to homes and businesses down exisitng cables and pylons in over 05% of cases with very little new onshore infrastructure required.

That is simple terms is the arguement of the Green MP and those who agree with them

If its a climate emergency, then we need to use exiting grid structures to limit carbon emissions. No time to faff around building new grid structures

[steviewevie]

and also...is our current network going to cope with all the extra demand that will be required, we're going to be replacing gas/petrol with electricity from these renewable/nuclear sources. Just build the f**king pylons all over that Green MPs back garden.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Our current network cannot cope - that is the whole point.

We need new infrastructure.

That can be enlarged gird stations on land fed by all the new pylons or offshore new grid stations.

Either will work or a mix of both.

They are not mutually exclusive and if one can be done faster like offshore grid stations can be then why not do that?

And you're saying all these offshore grids can just be connected to current network with no new pylons required? Something that wasn't even suggested in that ESO report...

[steviewevie]

and also if it was the usual Tory MPs objecting to this stuff we wouldn't even be discussing it.

[clarkete]

5 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

It's all in the original article that started this ongoing conversation several days ago - the energy comapnies that back the offshore method are those who say it will be quicker and chaeaper and I take them as experts in that field so will trust them on it.

 

The offshore part IS NOT windfarms as your links all refer too - the off shore part is tjhe new grid infrastructure, the part that requires all the new pylons that people do not want onland.

 

Who shared the article?   I'm not reading through 314 pages 😉

 

One of my key uses of the thread is Stevie's news aggregation, but it does mean there's a lot of content 😊

[steviewevie]

In that ESO report thing it does have all the options they went through, which includes keeping it all offshore...see in here from p26 onwards.  You can see the traffic light gradings for environment/community/cost etc for the different options, none are perfect. What comes first, environment, cost, or community?

https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/304496/download

[steviewevie]

12 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

It was, I think, a link Stevie shared from the Torygrapoh or similar maybe a week ago - yes this debate has gone on that long LOL

In simple terms they attacked the Green MP for being a NIMBY (followed by posters on here) ignoring the fact that they had suggested, backed by some energy compaines, a viable and cost effective alternative to hundreds of new pylons.
That alternative is to build new grid stations offshore rather than  have hundreds of new pylons on shire taking electricity to existing grid stations all based on land.
Some links in a post just above about hwo Europe is looking to do this too.

?

this?

On 7/17/2024 at 8:57 AM, steviewevie said:

 

 

[steviewevie]

BMA Latest

 

[Crazyfool01]

Those just stop oil sentences ridiculously harsh when we have a problem with prison overcrowding. Hopefully new govt will take a look 

[steviewevie]

13 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

Those just stop oil sentences ridiculously harsh when we have a problem with prison overcrowding. Hopefully new govt will take a look 

they can put them in that massive new prison they're building in Waveney Valley.

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

besties

 

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

No, that's just a simple tweet that ignores 99% of what was said/written

you said I posted something about me sharing an article that started all this. I just posted that tweet.