UK Politics

[Nobody Interesting]

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

they still do the surgery things, but just not as often...

 

The PM and Speaker never do and most senior ministers rarely do - when ours was a minister we were told he no longer 'had the ability' to attend in person.

Also government MP's are a waste of time as all you ever get is a copy of government policy from them.

The only 'good' constiuency MP is one who is not in government who wants to impress the electorate locally - and even then many still just give you party policy.

 

Like most parts of the UK election process and outcomes, it is a tad broken and needs change.

[steviewevie]

13 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

The only 'good' constiuency MP is one who is not in government who wants to impress the electorate locally - and even then many still just give you party policy.

 

like a Green MP against pylons transmitting power from carbon free sources cause they're ugly.

[steviewevie]

the pylons that is....because you could never call this guy ugly.

[Nobody Interesting]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

like a Green MP against pylons transmitting power from carbon free sources cause they're ugly.

 

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. 
Do you have  a problem with looking at other methods of adding electricity to the grid especially those that are cheaper, quicker and will stop most NIMBY problems?
He has been very open about it all in all of his statements and actually coming up with an alternative rather than just saying 'no' is quite a refreshing change IMHO............... or should we just carry on the same ways and hope for  a different outcome?

[steviewevie]

1 minute 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. 
Do you have  a problem with looking at other methods of adding electricity to the grid especially those that are cheaper, quicker and will stop most NIMBY problems?
He has been very open about it all in all of his statements and actually coming up with an alternative rather than just saying 'no' is quite a refreshing change IMHO............... or should we just carry on the same ways and hope for  a different outcome?

 

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.

[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

[Nobody Interesting]

13 hours 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.

 

Personally I want the infrastructure built quickly and where it is needed and could not care less if a few pylons and turbines piss people off.

What I am saying is that at least he is offering an alternative, one backed by some energy companies, rather than just saying no.

There will always be those who say costs differ from what another says, I trust those in the industry such as the energy companies that say it will be quicker and cheaper.

[Nobody Interesting]

8 hours ago, clarkete said:

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

 

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.

[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

 

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

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)

 

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

[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]

 

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

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

 

This talks about cabling - not about a new grid station offshore which is a different thing entirely.

[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.

[Nobody Interesting]

33 minutes ago, zahidf said:

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

 

To use existing grid structures we need to put in place hundreds of miles of new pylons - so either way new things need to be built and a new offshore grid station is quicker to build than the pylons will be.

So yes it is an emergency so do it the quickest way we can and if that is new offshore grid stations rather than onshore pylons so be it.

[Nobody Interesting]

21 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

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.

 

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?