|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jul 27, 2024 9:55:03 GMT 1
A couple of things that may have a big effect on our energy future and need to be reviewed by Government right now. Pylons: Off shore energy needs to get to big cities, National Grid wants to get it done quickly, so wants to go with their tried and tested strategy, pylons. But, should the Government not be asking how long and how much alternatives would be? Underground, or around the coast offshore from. say, the East Coast to London, The Welsh coast to Liverpool. This isn't just about initial cost, it's about life time cost, security in case of war or terrorism, and environmental considerations.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkshrew on Jul 27, 2024 11:24:58 GMT 1
The pylons are a blot on the landscape, are less efficient in transmission and need far more maintenance and repair than underground - if we had any long term vision underground would be the way to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Jul 27, 2024 12:00:27 GMT 1
Depends if prople are prepared to pay the extra for underground either through increased energy costs or taxes. We end up paying either way so would you happily pay more for saving the landscape?
|
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Jul 27, 2024 12:01:22 GMT 1
The UK does not do long term vision
|
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Jul 27, 2024 12:01:51 GMT 1
Depends if prople are prepared to pay the extra for underground either through increased energy costs or taxes. We end up paying either way so would you happily pay more for saving the landscape? Yes |
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Jul 27, 2024 12:09:55 GMT 1
Depends if prople are prepared to pay the extra for underground either through increased energy costs or taxes. We end up paying either way so would you happily pay more for saving the landscape? Yes Me to but the majority can’t see the big picture, if we had an extra green energy tax to pay for such things there’d be uproar. |
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jul 27, 2024 12:15:24 GMT 1
Depends if prople are prepared to pay the extra for underground either through increased energy costs or taxes. We end up paying either way so would you happily pay more for saving the landscape? Having seen how easy it was for France to suffer attacks on infrastructure, those power lines would be better out of sight for security, rather than an obvious pylon in a quiet country field. National Grid needs a bit of " direction" from the Government. With long term lower maintenance, the overall cost needn't be a huge burden on bills. |
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Jul 27, 2024 12:42:08 GMT 1
Depends if prople are prepared to pay the extra for underground either through increased energy costs or taxes. We end up paying either way so would you happily pay more for saving the landscape? Having seen how easy it was for France to suffer attacks on infrastructure, those power lines would be better out of sight for security, rather than an obvious pylon in a quiet country field. National Grid needs a bit of " direction" from the Government. With long term lower maintenance, the overall cost needn't be a huge burden on bills. Scheme in place in Dorset £116 million to remove 22 pylons….. there’s 90,000 in the UK so to gain security on the ecisting would cost £4,745,454,545.00 so can’t see that happening. |
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jul 27, 2024 12:57:14 GMT 1
Having seen how easy it was for France to suffer attacks on infrastructure, those power lines would be better out of sight for security, rather than an obvious pylon in a quiet country field. National Grid needs a bit of " direction" from the Government. With long term lower maintenance, the overall cost needn't be a huge burden on bills. Scheme in place in Dorset £116 million to remove 22 pylons….. there’s 90,000 in the UK so to gain security on the ecisting would cost £4,745,454,545.00 so can’t see that happening. No, probably not. But the half wits at National Grid want to compound any security risks by erecting many more miles of pylons to take off shore wind farm energy to the consumer. |
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jul 27, 2024 14:43:18 GMT 1
Depends if prople are prepared to pay the extra for underground either through increased energy costs or taxes. We end up paying either way so would you happily pay more for saving the landscape? Having seen how easy it was for France to suffer attacks on infrastructure, those power lines would be better out of sight for security, rather than an obvious pylon in a quiet country field. National Grid needs a bit of " direction" from the Government. With long term lower maintenance, the overall cost needn't be a huge burden on bills. 6 years ago I noticed trenches being dug along side a country road on my regular cycling route. I asked a guy working there what the trenches were for and he said they were for pipes to carry aviation fuel from Shell Stanley oil refinery to Manchester Airport. So much for national security! |
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jul 29, 2024 16:45:48 GMT 1
Scheme in place in Dorset £116 million to remove 22 pylons….. there’s 90,000 in the UK so to gain security on the ecisting would cost £4,745,454,545.00 so can’t see that happening. No, probably not. But the half wits at National Grid want to compound any security risks by erecting many more miles of pylons to take off shore wind farm energy to the consumer. Half wits? They've got shareholders wanting dividends, of course they'll go for the cheaper, tried and trusted option! That's what happens when you put national infrastructure into private ownership. That said, I think the national security aspect can be overplayed. The Nord Stream gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea was sabotaged earlier in the Ukraine war. How would underground electricity cables be more secure? And would maintenance costs really be reduced? The number of times Severn Trent have dug up the road outside our house makes me sceptical that underground = lower maintenance. I'd also question how many would really be willing to pay more to have pylons replaced by underground cabling. Ideally that would happen - pylons are ugly - but the cost would be enormous, not to mention the disruption. I suspect it would be £00s extra per household for years to come and disruption that would make the Just Stop Oil protests seem about as disruptive as a carnival parade. |
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jul 29, 2024 16:58:10 GMT 1
No, probably not. But the half wits at National Grid want to compound any security risks by erecting many more miles of pylons to take off shore wind farm energy to the consumer. Half wits? They've got shareholders wanting dividends, of course they'll go for the cheaper, tried and trusted option! That's what happens when you put national infrastructure into private ownership. That said, I think the national security aspect can be overplayed. The Nord Stream gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea was sabotaged earlier in the Ukraine war. How would underground electricity cables be more secure? And would maintenance costs really be reduced? The number of times Severn Trent have dug up the road outside our house makes me sceptical that underground = lower maintenance. I'd also question how many would really be willing to pay more to have pylons replaced by underground cabling. Ideally that would happen - pylons are ugly - but the cost would be enormous, not to mention the disruption. I suspect it would be £00s extra per household for years to come and disruption that would make the Just Stop Oil protests seem about as disruptive as a carnival parade. You are confusing replacing pylons with the huge influx of new power lines required to get off shore to the consumer. Our existing network takes power from the industrial areas with power stations to the consumer, wholesale replacement of that isn't an option. National grid half wits because they can put the case to government and, having a monopoly, can pass on the costs to the power generators, but hear them talk and they don't want to listen. Underground is less maintenance if done right, after all these are power lines that just exist - they don't get messed around with or dug up (if done right) like in town cables. As for security, a buried cable versus a pylon standing in a remote field? |
|
