LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Why are there complaints about how unsightly onshore wind and solar is, but not gas power stations?0
-
You were implying that the UK isn't making an effort to use the wind in the North Sea, whereas Norway is, which is patently incorrect.rick_chasey said:
It's the opposite of odd. We already have the expertise. Let's double down!Dorset_Boy said:
Odd then that 7 or the 9 (and 11 of the 15) largest offshore wind farms are in UK waters.......rick_chasey said:Furthermore, it just so happens the North sea is one of the most ideal places for offshore wind stuff. Relatively shallow, very windy, lots of other places to send the energy if you don't need it.
I do worry this party is squandering the window of opportunity for Britain to be a world leader in this.
Norway is all over it and is forcing its sovereign wealth fund (read oil money piggy bank) into investing in a tonne of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms
Why is the PM not bragging about this mm?
0 -
Yes.First.Aspect said:Is there a link between the Tories and the Saudi regime? Just asking if there's a link Stevo, nothing more.
One of their biggest donors was in on the failed bid to buy Newcastle United with the Saudi PIF.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I am suggesting the levels of investment from the Dutch and the Norwegians is dramatically higher than the UK investment level is, and down the road this is going to erode Britain's natural competitive advantage.Dorset_Boy said:
You were implying that the UK isn't making an effort to use the wind in the North Sea, whereas Norway is, which is patently incorrect.rick_chasey said:
It's the opposite of odd. We already have the expertise. Let's double down!Dorset_Boy said:
Odd then that 7 or the 9 (and 11 of the 15) largest offshore wind farms are in UK waters.......rick_chasey said:Furthermore, it just so happens the North sea is one of the most ideal places for offshore wind stuff. Relatively shallow, very windy, lots of other places to send the energy if you don't need it.
I do worry this party is squandering the window of opportunity for Britain to be a world leader in this.
Norway is all over it and is forcing its sovereign wealth fund (read oil money piggy bank) into investing in a tonne of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms
Why is the PM not bragging about this mm?
With a PM that is more interested in fossil fuels and not the fact Britain is currently a world leader in a burgeoning industry with huge future upside, that does not look like it's set to change any time soon.
It's pretty basic. I think all of us can see a big future for renewable energy. This is a genuine bona fide opportunity to build a sustainable and profitable future, and Sunak is banging on about North Sea oil.
(the world's largest off-shore wind developer is in Norway, not the UK - let's face it, who is building and running these things is more important than which territorial waters they sit in)0 -
I would say that just means he feels Labour are more likely to put in green policies than the Tories. If he donated huge amounts to Cancer Research would that make Labour the political wing of curing cancer?Stevo_666 said:
It is a fact that Dale Vince, a major funder of JSO, also makes substantial donations to the Labour party. Would you not consider that a link?Pross said:
I wonder how long it will be until it is a ‘fact’ that Just Stop Oil are linked to the Labour Party. Another example of Trumpian tactics that need stamping out.briantrumpet said:Whoever did this ought to learn the difference in British English between 'license' (verb) and licence (noun). (As with practice/practise, check with 'advice' and 'advise' if in doubt.) Still, the Tories screwing up English is probably the least of our/their worries.
It's a blatant attempt to link Labour with a group that are widely disliked through the most tenuous thread possible in the hope that it will become an established fact. This is the sort of thing I really hate in modern politics (and all sides seem to be doing it to an extent, there was that one where Labour were saying Sunak was letting paedos out of prison). There needs to be more regulations in place to stop politicians making things up like this.0 -
Curious where you get your figures from to back up your claims, given that 11 of the largest offshore wind farms are UK ones.rick_chasey said:
I am suggesting the levels of investment from the Dutch and the Norwegians is dramatically higher than the UK investment level is, and down the road this is going to erode Britain's natural competitive advantage.Dorset_Boy said:
You were implying that the UK isn't making an effort to use the wind in the North Sea, whereas Norway is, which is patently incorrect.rick_chasey said:
It's the opposite of odd. We already have the expertise. Let's double down!Dorset_Boy said:
Odd then that 7 or the 9 (and 11 of the 15) largest offshore wind farms are in UK waters.......rick_chasey said:Furthermore, it just so happens the North sea is one of the most ideal places for offshore wind stuff. Relatively shallow, very windy, lots of other places to send the energy if you don't need it.
I do worry this party is squandering the window of opportunity for Britain to be a world leader in this.
Norway is all over it and is forcing its sovereign wealth fund (read oil money piggy bank) into investing in a tonne of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms
Why is the PM not bragging about this mm?
With a PM that is more interested in fossil fuels and not the fact Britain is currently a world leader in a burgeoning industry with huge future upside, that does not look like it's set to change any time soon.
It's pretty basic. I think all of us can see a big future for renewable energy. This is a genuine bona fide opportunity to build a sustainable and profitable future, and Sunak is banging on about North Sea oil.
(the world's largest off-shore wind developer is in Norway, not the UK - let's face it, who is building and running these things is more important than which territorial waters they sit in)
And it is only recently that China overtook the United Kingdom as the world’s biggest offshore wind market.
0 -
Surely it's "both for a while" not "either or"?rick_chasey said:It's pretty basic. I think all of us can see a big future for renewable energy. This is a genuine bona fide opportunity to build a sustainable and profitable future, and Sunak is banging on about North Sea oil.
The UK will hopefully eventually become largely powered by renewables, as a combination of changing lifestyles and adding additional renewables capacity. Even more hopefully, this will be sooner rather than later. Until then, the UK needs oil and gas, and in emissions terms, it makes no difference whether we import oil and gas or extract it ourselves.
So we might as well keep the financial benefits from oil and gas use within the UK by extracting it rather than importing it, with additional energy security benefits on the side.
1 -
https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2023/01/12/how-the-north-seas-bad-weather-is-fuelling-a-new-green-economyDorset_Boy said:
Curious where you get your figures from to back up your claims, given that 11 of the largest offshore wind farms are UK ones.rick_chasey said:
I am suggesting the levels of investment from the Dutch and the Norwegians is dramatically higher than the UK investment level is, and down the road this is going to erode Britain's natural competitive advantage.Dorset_Boy said:
You were implying that the UK isn't making an effort to use the wind in the North Sea, whereas Norway is, which is patently incorrect.rick_chasey said:
It's the opposite of odd. We already have the expertise. Let's double down!Dorset_Boy said:
Odd then that 7 or the 9 (and 11 of the 15) largest offshore wind farms are in UK waters.......rick_chasey said:Furthermore, it just so happens the North sea is one of the most ideal places for offshore wind stuff. Relatively shallow, very windy, lots of other places to send the energy if you don't need it.
I do worry this party is squandering the window of opportunity for Britain to be a world leader in this.
Norway is all over it and is forcing its sovereign wealth fund (read oil money piggy bank) into investing in a tonne of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms
Why is the PM not bragging about this mm?
With a PM that is more interested in fossil fuels and not the fact Britain is currently a world leader in a burgeoning industry with huge future upside, that does not look like it's set to change any time soon.
It's pretty basic. I think all of us can see a big future for renewable energy. This is a genuine bona fide opportunity to build a sustainable and profitable future, and Sunak is banging on about North Sea oil.
(the world's largest off-shore wind developer is in Norway, not the UK - let's face it, who is building and running these things is more important than which territorial waters they sit in)
And it is only recently that China overtook the United Kingdom as the world’s biggest offshore wind market.
This podcast in part looked at where the industries that are supplying the north sea wind farms come from, and Britain didn't sound great.
Biggest buyer of windfarms yes. Biggest supplier of kit and services, no.0 -
It's something we do well and to give Boris credit (which makes me feel dirty!) was something he pushed. The current bunch are trying to undo one of the few good things their own Government has achieved in the last decade or so. It's all part of this Government that has been in power for 15 years in one form or another, and that had an 80 seat majority at the last election, acting like a Party of opposition. I find it completely bizarre but I guess it just reflects how fractured they are internally.rick_chasey said:
It's the opposite of odd. We already have the expertise. Let's double down!Dorset_Boy said:
Odd then that 7 or the 9 (and 11 of the 15) largest offshore wind farms are in UK waters.......rick_chasey said:Furthermore, it just so happens the North sea is one of the most ideal places for offshore wind stuff. Relatively shallow, very windy, lots of other places to send the energy if you don't need it.
I do worry this party is squandering the window of opportunity for Britain to be a world leader in this.
Norway is all over it and is forcing its sovereign wealth fund (read oil money piggy bank) into investing in a tonne of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms
Why is the PM not bragging about this mm?
Edit - should add that it isn't that odd that a country that is completely surrounded by water has a lot of offshore wind generation. I suspect Norway manages to generate far more electric from hydro than the UK.0 -
Are they that widely disliked? I mean, they're not going to win a popularity contest and I'm not sure how effective their protests are, but I think most people have never had any interaction with them. Closing a few roads for half a day is pretty small beer and almost indistinguishable from general traffic issues. Seems to be only certain people who get triggered by it.Pross said:
It's something we do well and to give Boris credit (which makes me feel dirty!) was something he pushed. The current bunch are trying to undo one of the few good things their own Government has achieved in the last decade or so. It's all part of this Government that has been in power for 15 years in one form or another, and that had an 80 seat majority at the last election, acting like a Party of opposition. I find it completely bizarre but I guess it just reflects how fractured they are internally.rick_chasey said:
It's the opposite of odd. We already have the expertise. Let's double down!Dorset_Boy said:
Odd then that 7 or the 9 (and 11 of the 15) largest offshore wind farms are in UK waters.......rick_chasey said:Furthermore, it just so happens the North sea is one of the most ideal places for offshore wind stuff. Relatively shallow, very windy, lots of other places to send the energy if you don't need it.
I do worry this party is squandering the window of opportunity for Britain to be a world leader in this.
Norway is all over it and is forcing its sovereign wealth fund (read oil money piggy bank) into investing in a tonne of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms
Why is the PM not bragging about this mm?
Edit - should add that it isn't that odd that a country that is completely surrounded by water has a lot of offshore wind generation. I suspect Norway manages to generate far more electric from hydro than the UK.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I'll add it to the pile of deflection attempts to be disregarded. Good effort from the centre leftie tag team today though.rjsterry said:
This is a forum. You can always PM Pross if you want to have a private conversation.Stevo_666 said:Any more deflection attempts on behalf of Pross, get 'em in now
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The size of the things puts me off more than cost, even a 'normal' one.rjsterry said:
The heat pumps are fine. It's the housing stock that's a joke. You can just get a bigger heat pump, but that requires planning permission and...rick_chasey said:
Isn't the main problem with heat pumps the fact that UK housing stock is so draughty and poorly insulated that they just won't work very effectively across large swathes of the country?rjsterry said:
Who's 'they'? The press is awash with nonsense opinion piece stories about how some guy they knew had an EV and it was AWFUL because he forgot to charge it. Or that their heat pump made them less attractive to women.pblakeney said:
Three things.rick_chasey said:Real energy security would be weaning us off an energy source Britain has more or less exhausted, no?
1. They are weaning us off but the alternatives are not ready yet.
2. There is decades of supply left.
3. Oil is used for more than energy. Where does plastic and carbon come from? Are there alternatives?
Just the other day someone was trying to convince us that EVs weren't fast enough for an urban police service.
I'd like to go for a ground source heat pump but they need a big space for all the plant too. Biggest issue for me though is definitely making the house more energy efficient. I should probably start with replacing the windows, they're double glazed but must be at least 25 years old (probably 30 years) as I've been in the house nearly 24 years and they certainly weren't brand new at the time. It doesn't help being in a 1970s Barratt house with huge windows, the bedroom windows must take up well over 50% of the exterior wall space.0 -
It is an attempt (and a successful one) because clearly there is a link as described - both MSO and Labour receive funding from Dale vince. Do you not think there is a risk that Labour policy could be influenced by someone who bankrolls JSO? He must clearly support their views and aims if he substantially funds them.Pross said:
I would say that just means he feels Labour are more likely to put in green policies than the Tories. If he donated huge amounts to Cancer Research would that make Labour the political wing of curing cancer?Stevo_666 said:
It is a fact that Dale Vince, a major funder of JSO, also makes substantial donations to the Labour party. Would you not consider that a link?Pross said:
I wonder how long it will be until it is a ‘fact’ that Just Stop Oil are linked to the Labour Party. Another example of Trumpian tactics that need stamping out.briantrumpet said:Whoever did this ought to learn the difference in British English between 'license' (verb) and licence (noun). (As with practice/practise, check with 'advice' and 'advise' if in doubt.) Still, the Tories screwing up English is probably the least of our/their worries.
It's a blatant attempt to link Labour with a group that are widely disliked through the most tenuous thread possible in the hope that it will become an established fact. This is the sort of thing I really hate in modern politics (and all sides seem to be doing it to an extent, there was that one where Labour were saying Sunak was letting paedos out of prison). There needs to be more regulations in place to stop politicians making things up like this."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If you start calling every Party the 'political wing of [insert name of something else their donors give money to]' it will get a bit silly. I'm sure he'd like to influence the policies on energy, he has a vested interest, but that's the same for pretty much every major political donor and a big issue with political donations anywhere. JSO are a bunch of fuckwits but it's hardly surprising that someone who is a lifelong 'eco warrior' supports their aims (or that he is a bit of a Leftie). However, giving money to two different groups doesn't make the one group the political wing of the other. I know Shapps understands that and I'm pretty sure that you understand it too. Like most stuff on here I think you're just posting for a reaction and don't really believe what you're saying.Stevo_666 said:
It is an attempt (and a successful one) because clearly there is a link as described - both MSO and Labour receive funding from Dale vince. Do you not think there is a risk that Labour policy could be influenced by someone who bankrolls JSO? He must clearly support their views and aims if he substantially funds them.Pross said:
I would say that just means he feels Labour are more likely to put in green policies than the Tories. If he donated huge amounts to Cancer Research would that make Labour the political wing of curing cancer?Stevo_666 said:
It is a fact that Dale Vince, a major funder of JSO, also makes substantial donations to the Labour party. Would you not consider that a link?Pross said:
I wonder how long it will be until it is a ‘fact’ that Just Stop Oil are linked to the Labour Party. Another example of Trumpian tactics that need stamping out.briantrumpet said:Whoever did this ought to learn the difference in British English between 'license' (verb) and licence (noun). (As with practice/practise, check with 'advice' and 'advise' if in doubt.) Still, the Tories screwing up English is probably the least of our/their worries.
It's a blatant attempt to link Labour with a group that are widely disliked through the most tenuous thread possible in the hope that it will become an established fact. This is the sort of thing I really hate in modern politics (and all sides seem to be doing it to an extent, there was that one where Labour were saying Sunak was letting paedos out of prison). There needs to be more regulations in place to stop politicians making things up like this.0 -
We don't have to roll out the Thatcher and Savile photo do we?0
-
I think they are, disrupting events that people like and that are nothing to do with the Government or the issue at hand doesn't help. Their message is a bit naive and meaningless too, are they opposed to oil in general with all its uses or just against burning it for energy?rjsterry said:
Are they that widely disliked? I mean, they're not going to win a popularity contest and I'm not sure how effective their protests are, but I think most people have never had any interaction with them. Closing a few roads for half a day is pretty small beer and almost indistinguishable from general traffic issues. Seems to be only certain people who get triggered by it.Pross said:
It's something we do well and to give Boris credit (which makes me feel dirty!) was something he pushed. The current bunch are trying to undo one of the few good things their own Government has achieved in the last decade or so. It's all part of this Government that has been in power for 15 years in one form or another, and that had an 80 seat majority at the last election, acting like a Party of opposition. I find it completely bizarre but I guess it just reflects how fractured they are internally.rick_chasey said:
It's the opposite of odd. We already have the expertise. Let's double down!Dorset_Boy said:
Odd then that 7 or the 9 (and 11 of the 15) largest offshore wind farms are in UK waters.......rick_chasey said:Furthermore, it just so happens the North sea is one of the most ideal places for offshore wind stuff. Relatively shallow, very windy, lots of other places to send the energy if you don't need it.
I do worry this party is squandering the window of opportunity for Britain to be a world leader in this.
Norway is all over it and is forcing its sovereign wealth fund (read oil money piggy bank) into investing in a tonne of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms
Why is the PM not bragging about this mm?
Edit - should add that it isn't that odd that a country that is completely surrounded by water has a lot of offshore wind generation. I suspect Norway manages to generate far more electric from hydro than the UK.0 -
You're in the wrong thread, mate.Stevo_666 said:
It is an attempt (and a successful one) because clearly there is a link as described - both MSO and Labour receive funding from Dale vince. Do you not think there is a risk that Labour policy could be influenced by someone who bankrolls JSO? He must clearly support their views and aims if he substantially funds them.Pross said:
I would say that just means he feels Labour are more likely to put in green policies than the Tories. If he donated huge amounts to Cancer Research would that make Labour the political wing of curing cancer?Stevo_666 said:
It is a fact that Dale Vince, a major funder of JSO, also makes substantial donations to the Labour party. Would you not consider that a link?Pross said:
I wonder how long it will be until it is a ‘fact’ that Just Stop Oil are linked to the Labour Party. Another example of Trumpian tactics that need stamping out.briantrumpet said:Whoever did this ought to learn the difference in British English between 'license' (verb) and licence (noun). (As with practice/practise, check with 'advice' and 'advise' if in doubt.) Still, the Tories screwing up English is probably the least of our/their worries.
It's a blatant attempt to link Labour with a group that are widely disliked through the most tenuous thread possible in the hope that it will become an established fact. This is the sort of thing I really hate in modern politics (and all sides seem to be doing it to an extent, there was that one where Labour were saying Sunak was letting paedos out of prison). There needs to be more regulations in place to stop politicians making things up like this.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Sure, but this government and its MPs regularly block renewables development.wallace_and_gromit said:
Surely it's "both for a while" not "either or"?rick_chasey said:It's pretty basic. I think all of us can see a big future for renewable energy. This is a genuine bona fide opportunity to build a sustainable and profitable future, and Sunak is banging on about North Sea oil.
The UK will hopefully eventually become largely powered by renewables, as a combination of changing lifestyles and adding additional renewables capacity. Even more hopefully, this will be sooner rather than later. Until then, the UK needs oil and gas, and in emissions terms, it makes no difference whether we import oil and gas or extract it ourselves.
So we might as well keep the financial benefits from oil and gas use within the UK by extracting it rather than importing it, with additional energy security benefits on the side.
0 -
Conservative Party co-chair Amanda Milling claimed that government policy “is in no way influenced by the donations the party receives – they are entirely separate”
😆They'll probably be wanting their money back then.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I thought the best place for turbines was as close to cities as possible but that is where Cameron’s FiL lives so they build them out at sea at great cost to build, maintain and shift the power to the people.rick_chasey said:
Sure, but this government and its MPs regularly block renewables development.wallace_and_gromit said:
Surely it's "both for a while" not "either or"?rick_chasey said:It's pretty basic. I think all of us can see a big future for renewable energy. This is a genuine bona fide opportunity to build a sustainable and profitable future, and Sunak is banging on about North Sea oil.
The UK will hopefully eventually become largely powered by renewables, as a combination of changing lifestyles and adding additional renewables capacity. Even more hopefully, this will be sooner rather than later. Until then, the UK needs oil and gas, and in emissions terms, it makes no difference whether we import oil and gas or extract it ourselves.
So we might as well keep the financial benefits from oil and gas use within the UK by extracting it rather than importing it, with additional energy security benefits on the side.0 -
That's my understanding, albeit it's people in general rather than just Cameron's FiL who don't want turbines nearby. I've not heard anything to say that the government is blocking offshore wind projects, though higher interest rates are making these projects more challenging to justify financially.surrey_commuter said:
I thought the best place for turbines was as close to cities as possible but that is where Cameron’s FiL lives so they build them out at sea at great cost to build, maintain and shift the power to the people.rick_chasey said:
Sure, but this government and its MPs regularly block renewables development.wallace_and_gromit said:
Surely it's "both for a while" not "either or"?rick_chasey said:It's pretty basic. I think all of us can see a big future for renewable energy. This is a genuine bona fide opportunity to build a sustainable and profitable future, and Sunak is banging on about North Sea oil.
The UK will hopefully eventually become largely powered by renewables, as a combination of changing lifestyles and adding additional renewables capacity. Even more hopefully, this will be sooner rather than later. Until then, the UK needs oil and gas, and in emissions terms, it makes no difference whether we import oil and gas or extract it ourselves.
So we might as well keep the financial benefits from oil and gas use within the UK by extracting it rather than importing it, with additional energy security benefits on the side.0 -
At scale I think North Sea stuff is better in that you get more electricity for a given turbine because there's more consistent wind, IIRC. Something like 60% of capacity is used rather than 40% onshore.surrey_commuter said:
I thought the best place for turbines was as close to cities as possible but that is where Cameron’s FiL lives so they build them out at sea at great cost to build, maintain and shift the power to the people.rick_chasey said:
Sure, but this government and its MPs regularly block renewables development.wallace_and_gromit said:
Surely it's "both for a while" not "either or"?rick_chasey said:It's pretty basic. I think all of us can see a big future for renewable energy. This is a genuine bona fide opportunity to build a sustainable and profitable future, and Sunak is banging on about North Sea oil.
The UK will hopefully eventually become largely powered by renewables, as a combination of changing lifestyles and adding additional renewables capacity. Even more hopefully, this will be sooner rather than later. Until then, the UK needs oil and gas, and in emissions terms, it makes no difference whether we import oil and gas or extract it ourselves.
So we might as well keep the financial benefits from oil and gas use within the UK by extracting it rather than importing it, with additional energy security benefits on the side.
I think there are some ideas that building some monster turbine farms and then build a hydrogen producing island next to it, to use the excess energy from the turbines and store it as hydrogen energy to be used in whatever, cares etc, but I think there is too much energy loss in that process as it currently stands to make that level of investment in it.
As it is if you have a huge monster turbine farm, the reality is you need cables going all over the place, so if there's too much energy you can send it at least somewhere.0 -
Transmission losses across the national grid are small compared to distribution losses when the voltage has been stepped down.wallace_and_gromit said:
That's my understanding, albeit it's people in general rather than just Cameron's FiL who don't want turbines nearby. I've not heard anything to say that the government is blocking offshore wind projects, though higher interest rates are making these projects more challenging to justify financially.surrey_commuter said:
I thought the best place for turbines was as close to cities as possible but that is where Cameron’s FiL lives so they build them out at sea at great cost to build, maintain and shift the power to the people.rick_chasey said:
Sure, but this government and its MPs regularly block renewables development.wallace_and_gromit said:
Surely it's "both for a while" not "either or"?rick_chasey said:It's pretty basic. I think all of us can see a big future for renewable energy. This is a genuine bona fide opportunity to build a sustainable and profitable future, and Sunak is banging on about North Sea oil.
The UK will hopefully eventually become largely powered by renewables, as a combination of changing lifestyles and adding additional renewables capacity. Even more hopefully, this will be sooner rather than later. Until then, the UK needs oil and gas, and in emissions terms, it makes no difference whether we import oil and gas or extract it ourselves.
So we might as well keep the financial benefits from oil and gas use within the UK by extracting it rather than importing it, with additional energy security benefits on the side.
Differences due to distance to shore vs distance to, let's face it, Scotland, are negligible, and possibly in favour of offshore.1 -
The transmission loss from northern Scotland to London isn't negligible, but the main argument in favour of more localised production is that it avoids the need to upgrade the grid.1
-
Transmission loss of the national grid as a whole is 1.7%. If you want to avoid increasing that then put up a windfarm in Richmond Park and one across the south downs and one in the Chilterns.TheBigBean said:The transmission loss from northern Scotland to London isn't negligible, but the main argument in favour of more localised production is that it avoids the need to upgrade the grid.
Or would you all prefer them somewhere else?0 -
Canary Wharf is the windiest place on the planet so I would go in the estuary up to docklandsFirst.Aspect said:
Transmission loss of the national grid as a whole is 1.7%. If you want to avoid increasing that then put up a windfarm in Richmond Park and one across the south downs and one in the Chilterns.TheBigBean said:The transmission loss from northern Scotland to London isn't negligible, but the main argument in favour of more localised production is that it avoids the need to upgrade the grid.
Or would you all prefer them somewhere else?0 -
Would look good in RP but it's really not that big and inland it is just not that windy.First.Aspect said:
Transmission loss of the national grid as a whole is 1.7%. If you want to avoid increasing that then put up a windfarm in Richmond Park and one across the south downs and one in the Chilterns.TheBigBean said:The transmission loss from northern Scotland to London isn't negligible, but the main argument in favour of more localised production is that it avoids the need to upgrade the grid.
Or would you all prefer them somewhere else?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You are right, looking on the map, the Chilterns are good, and around Basingstoke. A Moreton in Marsh 24 turbine 220m to blade tip application really should go in.rjsterry said:
Would look good in RP but it's really not that big and inland it is just not that windy.First.Aspect said:
Transmission loss of the national grid as a whole is 1.7%. If you want to avoid increasing that then put up a windfarm in Richmond Park and one across the south downs and one in the Chilterns.TheBigBean said:The transmission loss from northern Scotland to London isn't negligible, but the main argument in favour of more localised production is that it avoids the need to upgrade the grid.
Or would you all prefer them somewhere else?0 -
Solar farm for RP. Its easily big enough for both tbh.rjsterry said:
Would look good in RP but it's really not that big and inland it is just not that windy.First.Aspect said:
Transmission loss of the national grid as a whole is 1.7%. If you want to avoid increasing that then put up a windfarm in Richmond Park and one across the south downs and one in the Chilterns.TheBigBean said:The transmission loss from northern Scotland to London isn't negligible, but the main argument in favour of more localised production is that it avoids the need to upgrade the grid.
Or would you all prefer them somewhere else?0 -
Severn Estuary is windy and plenty living either side + existing power stations nearby. Tidal range might be an issue for off shore, though.First.Aspect said:
You are right, looking on the map, the Chilterns are good, and around Basingstoke. A Moreton in Marsh 24 turbine 220m to blade tip application really should go in.rjsterry said:
Would look good in RP but it's really not that big and inland it is just not that windy.First.Aspect said:
Transmission loss of the national grid as a whole is 1.7%. If you want to avoid increasing that then put up a windfarm in Richmond Park and one across the south downs and one in the Chilterns.TheBigBean said:The transmission loss from northern Scotland to London isn't negligible, but the main argument in favour of more localised production is that it avoids the need to upgrade the grid.
Or would you all prefer them somewhere else?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
