That point was first made by me in a post four days ago when I suggested that this was a plot to undermine the Lords.
It is a double-edged sword. If the second chamber cannot challenge the HoC , then why have it ?
If the argument is that the HoC is elected, then we should elect the second chamber too ! 108 countries cannot be wrong.
The point is that it should be a revising chamber, but should always bow to the will of the elected chamber.
As soon as it is elected then it has its own democratic legitimacy and that can lead to deadlock.
So, what's the f*cking point ?
At least, then 37% can't do whatever they want. They should have called Osborne's bluff. The Tax credit changes was not included in a Finance Bill nor was it in the manifesto.
What is the difference between 37% (Tories have no mandate) and 39.5% - a 'stunning victory' for the Canadian Liberals (The people have spoken) - answer hypocrisy.
That point was first made by me in a post four days ago when I suggested that this was a plot to undermine the Lords.
It is a double-edged sword. If the second chamber cannot challenge the HoC , then why have it ?
If the argument is that the HoC is elected, then we should elect the second chamber too ! 108 countries cannot be wrong.
The point is that it should be a revising chamber, but should always bow to the will of the elected chamber.
As soon as it is elected then it has its own democratic legitimacy and that can lead to deadlock.
So, what's the f*cking point ?
At least, then 37% can't do whatever they want. They should have called Osborne's bluff. The Tax credit changes was not included in a Finance Bill nor was it in the manifesto.
The point, as you elegantly put it, is that legislation requires detailed scrutiny and there are plenty of ways that a revising house can add value without being party political.
I'm sure that there are lots of ways the tax credits legisltation could be improved - tweaks here and there, tightening up the wording, addressing small special cases etc. But the MPs elected by the voters want to implement the broad thrust of the changes and it is not the remit of unelected peers to contest that.
Mr. JEO, I'd guess it's because Labour dicked about doing nothing on energy, and the Coalition was very nearly as bad. We need to build rapidly, and the Chinese aren't muppets.
It really isn't that.
The problem is that the prevailing price of baseload electricity is £44/MW.
And no-one - anywhere in the world - will build a new nuclear plant without being guaranteed twice that price.
We can add new gas capacity relatively quickly. The lead-time for a new CCGT is probably five years, but you can get an OCGT up and running in about 18 months.
Also, please stop disturbing my firmly held beliefs with factual statements to the contrary. This is the internet, there's no place for evidence-based conclusions here
'It's difficult because that's his ex-wife who is apparently an ex-prostitute': Who WERE Jeremy Corbyn and David Cameron gossiping about as they waited for President Xi's speech?
Jeremy Corbyn chatted to PM about ex-sex worker ahead of China speech He said: 'It was difficult because, erm, that’s his ex-wife who is, erm, apparently an ex-prostitute' Mr Cameron replied: 'Oh!' before moving chat on to self-employment Labour leader also told a joke about losing glasses at a school party Mr Corbyn later wore white tie to meet the Queen but may not have bowed See our full news coverage of David Cameron gossiping in Parliament
They've been voting for a left wing labour candidate for 30 odd years, don't see why it should change now Corbo is in charge... Big Asian and Muslim area, split UKIP and Tory vote...
Surely a walkover for lab? 1/50?
The Labour price at the Bradford West by election of 2012 would have been something like that.
Yeah fair enough... If Galloway stands he might win? But he wants to be Mayor of London at the mo
If Galloway stands, then UKIP could slip through the middle and win:
UKIP 30 Galloway 25 Labour 25 Tories 15 The Field 5%
When Galloway won in Bradford, it was with a lot of support from ex-Tory voters who were disillusioned with the Conservatives, wanted to give Labour a bloody nose and didn't care too much about how to do it. They returned home this year. If Galloway did stand then I don't see anything like that kind of split. Either he'll make little impact and it's something close to an 'as normal' by-election, or he does and sweeps up all the rest of the anti-Labour votes. UKIP and Galloway won't both take a quarter of the vote.
Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.
The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?
I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.
You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.
On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.
Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.
We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.
Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.
@rcs1000 Why aren't CCGT or OCGT plants being built right now if they seem like such a good idea ^^; ?
See my piece earlier. The building of HPB makes it uneconomic to build new CCGTs.
(Some new OCGTs have been ordered to take advantage of the government capacity charging scheme. Effectively you could get a 4% yield with an option on the price of electricity spiking.)
"Gas is clean. Gas is available. Gas is cheap. Gas is reliable. Gas works at £44/MW. "
But burning gas releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere it is therefore an inherently evil fuel. Its use must be phased out and quickly otherwise the UK will not meet its mandated target of reducing filthy polluting emissions by at least 80% from 1990 levels. If we carry on burning gas all the baby polar bears will die. Will no one think of the polar bears.
Old fashioned nuclear plants of the sort EDF are trying to flog us are not only horrendously expensive but carry their own pollution risk with the dreadful waste products that need to be safely stored for thousands of years.
No the only answer, gentlemen, is wind and tidal. We may destroy irreplaceable wildlife habitats and cause ecological disasters, especially with the latter. It may be that at certain times of day there may not be enough electricity. These are prices we must be prepared to pay in order to ensure that the UK shows leadership internationally by highlighting the role it would take in contributing to urgent collective action to tackle climate change under the Kyoto Protocol.
Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.
The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?
I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.
You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.
On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.
Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.
We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.
Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.
Molten salt reactors have been the future for fifty years, and will remain in the future for large-scale generation for another fifty.
OCGTs are Open Cycle Gas Turbines - basically just jet engines that take gas and use it to directly spin a turbine. Capital costs are modest (£250-350/KW), but they are ineffiecient relative to modern CCGTSs.
CCGTs are Combined Cycle Gas Turbines. These combine the jet engine part with a boiler. Essentially the exhaust fumes of the jet engine are used to heat water, which gives you secondary energy recovery. These cost £500/KW capital cost, and require a lot, lot more land and are difficult to get planning permission for (on the basis they have cooling tower and the like). But they have much higher efficiencies.
Edit to add: the nice thing about OCGTs is that you can order a 25MW today and get it in - what - 18 months time.
Mr. JEO, I'd guess it's because Labour dicked about doing nothing on energy, and the Coalition was very nearly as bad. We need to build rapidly, and the Chinese aren't muppets.
It really isn't that.
The problem is that the prevailing price of baseload electricity is £44/MW.
And no-one - anywhere in the world - will build a new nuclear plant without being guaranteed twice that price.
Why not?
And if that's the case, why on Earth are we willing to pay it when onshore wind and gas are both cheaper? Even if you disagree, there must be some rationale.
Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.
The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?
I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.
You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.
On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.
Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.
We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.
Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.
The Japanese have had AWFUL problems with their molten salt reactors.
Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.
The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?
I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.
You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.
On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.
Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.
We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.
Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.
Molten salt reactors have been the future for fifty years, and will remain in the future for large-scale generation for another fifty.
That's the kind of thinking which leads to £24bn spent on generating just 7% of power requirements and £34bn on cutting journey times to Birmingham by 15mins. Make do and mend is why our infrastructure is so badly behind the times. Look at the Heathrow decision, while we agonise over another runway, rival EU nations are adding capacity at a massive rate.
Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.
The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?
I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.
You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.
On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.
Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.
We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.
Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.
The Japanese have had AWFUL problems with their molten salt reactors.
Japan have had worse problems with their PWRs. I wouldn't use Japan as a good example of anything at this point in time. Dying industries, lack of innovation, zombie companies and an insane government.
Mr. JEO, I'd guess it's because Labour dicked about doing nothing on energy, and the Coalition was very nearly as bad. We need to build rapidly, and the Chinese aren't muppets.
It really isn't that.
The problem is that the prevailing price of baseload electricity is £44/MW.
And no-one - anywhere in the world - will build a new nuclear plant without being guaranteed twice that price.
Why not?
And if that's the case, why on Earth are we willing to pay it when onshore wind and gas are both cheaper? Even if you disagree, there must be some rationale.
There are three reasons:
1. Until recently, it was assumed that UK gas production was in permanent decline, and worldwide gas was going to become more expensive. 2. Energy security. 3. "Low carbon".
We now know the world (and the UK) has much, much more gas than previously realised, and that we can source it from lots of friendly countries (like the US, Norway and Australia). Longer-term, we have shale gas reserves that will probably be exploited.
Which leaves 3. Which is not a good enough reason (to my mind) on its own.
OGH seems very keen to see Corbyn become a success now that his LibDem favourites are almost extinct.
Lib Dems almost extinct and now keen on Corbyn, I can see a pattern emerging here.
The only pattern that you can see, Mr England, is a load of excitable Tories, who always think precisely the same, telling one another that their wishes have been granted.
This is a realistic betting site, not a dream factory.
@rcs1000 When the facts change, the Gov't should change it's mind. Sunk costs are sunk costs and there won't be anything we can do about those - but has a spade been laid in anger at Hinkley yet (Or a paper committing to the Chinese been signed) ?
Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.
The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?
I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.
You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.
On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.
Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.
We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.
Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.
Molten salt reactors have been the future for fifty years, and will remain in the future for large-scale generation for another fifty.
What has caused that? Is it a fundamental problem with the science, the engineering needed or perhaps non-technical reasons. I am old enough and cynical enough to know that the best technical solution is not always the one that goes forward, especially when there are big vested interests that stand to lose out.
@rcs1000 When the facts change, the Gov't should change it's mind. Sunk costs are sunk costs and there won't be anything we can do about those - but has a spade been laid in anger at Hinkley yet (Or a paper committing to the Chinese been signed) ?
We should abandon HPB today, and remove all subsidies for building new wind capacity.
I thought it was because Bradford was very well-suited to Galloway's particular political proclivities.
But that section of the electorate wouldn't have been enough to secure him the win (as indeed it wasn't in May); what not only gave him the win but a stonking majority to boot was the support he won from elsewhere:
It's true that UKIP went up slightly but they still lost their deposit, which was a far worse result for them than other by-elections at the time. Fact is that at the by-election, Galloway hoovered up the anti-Labour vote, as well as a sizable chunk of the 2010 Labour vote.
Galloway must have the biggest ego in politics in what is a pretty strong field, he's addicted to the limelight. Heaven knows where the money comes from to fund all his campaigns.
I'm always amazed at what crap liars senior police officers are at HASCs.
They're so scared of saying something they waffle, try to answer another question, ask for stupid clarifications that provoke laughter and claim everything they did was right despite being in front of Parly for doing a poor job.
Mr. Llama, that's sarkier than a Japanese drunkard.
Sarky it may be, but factually accurate I think. The last phrase was a direct lift from the Committee on Climate Change (which is why it is ungrammatical).
That's the kind of thinking which leads to £24bn spent on generating just 7% of power requirements and £34bn on cutting journey times to Birmingham by 15mins. Make do and mend is why our infrastructure is so badly behind the times. Look at the Heathrow decision, while we agonise over another runway, rival EU nations are adding capacity at a massive rate.
I'm all for careful investment in long-shots (*). But you don't bet the house on them. MSR's are several decades away: we should look at investing in research into them, but if they can be made to work safely and economically, they'll only be ready in time to replace the reactors we are planning at the moment.
We need stuff built now, not dreams. It's quite possible that MSR's will never reach the safety, economics or capacity that proponents state for them. I'm very cynical about them because the current small research projects are not going too well, and they've been trying for fifty years.
The same goes for tidal: invest relatively small sums in the research and development, but don't assume the tech will mature.
BTW, you are evidently pretty clueless on HS2. Its about much more than time savings.
(*) I've suggested the government invests a certain amount each year in carefully-selected long-shots.
That was a really rude question from Laura Keunssberg to David Cameron - "how would you feel if you were a steel worker and had just lost your job?" He is not a bloody steel worker and has to govern for the whole country. These reporters are so far up themselves. Now SKY will be throwing their toys out of the pram because they weren't allowed a question.
One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
It can but batteries are expensive.
As is wind power.
Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.
"El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "
@rcs1000 When the facts change, the Gov't should change it's mind. Sunk costs are sunk costs and there won't be anything we can do about those - but has a spade been laid in anger at Hinkley yet (Or a paper committing to the Chinese been signed) ?
We should abandon HPB today, and remove all subsidies for building new wind capacity.
Can't be done Mr. 1000, at least not until some administration has the balls to repeal the Climate Change Act. Can you see Cameron doing that?
You really couldn't get more direct proof that this is a politically-motivated witchhunt.
Indeed, but Witchfinder Watson can't order police officers to do anything, only huff and puff. A senior officer must have done so, and presumably should now be sacked forthwith.
OGH seems very keen to see Corbyn become a success now that his LibDem favourites are almost extinct.
Lib Dems almost extinct and now keen on Corbyn, I can see a pattern emerging here.
The only pattern that you can see, Mr England, is a load of excitable Tories, who always think precisely the same, telling one another that their wishes have been granted.
This is a realistic betting site, not a dream factory.
Who made more money betting on the strength or otherwise of the LibDem vote in May - you, or "excitable Tories who always think precisely the same, telling each other that their wishes have been granted?"
You really couldn't get more direct proof that this is a politically-motivated witchhunt.
Indeed, but Witchfinder Watson can't order police officers to do anything, only huff and puff. A senior officer must have done so, and presumably should now be sacked forthwith.
One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
The capital cost of batteries is huge and they only have a certain number of cycles before they need to be replaced.
I'm quite interested in the use of flywheels for storing energy. It seems relatively scaleable and could, I guess, be distributed (e.g. each windfarm could have a small area of flywheels) rather than big plants.
Not sure which country is spending £34bn to make trains go faster between London and Brum but this country is spending £42bn to make massive increases in track capacity to allow for far more freight and commuter services into cities like Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and to vastly improve connectivity outside the south east by rail.
Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.
The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?
I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.
You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.
On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.
Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.
We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.
Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.
Molten salt reactors have been the future for fifty years, and will remain in the future for large-scale generation for another fifty.
That's the kind of thinking which leads to £24bn spent on generating just 7% of power requirements and £34bn on cutting journey times to Birmingham by 15mins. Make do and mend is why our infrastructure is so badly behind the times. Look at the Heathrow decision, while we agonise over another runway, rival EU nations are adding capacity at a massive rate.
@rcs1000 When the facts change, the Gov't should change it's mind. Sunk costs are sunk costs and there won't be anything we can do about those - but has a spade been laid in anger at Hinkley yet (Or a paper committing to the Chinese been signed) ?
We should abandon HPB today, and remove all subsidies for building new wind capacity.
Can't be done Mr. 1000, at least not until some administration has the balls to repeal the Climate Change Act. Can you see Cameron doing that?
How much has tbe Climate Change Act punished the Steel Industry in Redcar and similar?
One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
It can but batteries are expensive.
As is wind power.
Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.
"El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "
@rcs1000 When the facts change, the Gov't should change it's mind. Sunk costs are sunk costs and there won't be anything we can do about those - but has a spade been laid in anger at Hinkley yet (Or a paper committing to the Chinese been signed) ?
We should abandon HPB today, and remove all subsidies for building new wind capacity.
Can't be done Mr. 1000, at least not until some administration has the balls to repeal the Climate Change Act. Can you see Cameron doing that?
The great irony is that if we abandoned the CCA, then much more gas capacity would be built, displacing more polluting coal.
Abandoning HPB and offering no new subsidies would probably actually reduce our carbon footprint.
One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
The capital cost of batteries is huge and they only have a certain number of cycles before they need to be replaced.
I'm quite interested in the use of flywheels for storing energy. It seems relatively scaleable and could, I guess, be distributed (e.g. each windfarm could have a small area of flywheels) rather than big plants.
I don't know enough about flywheels, but they are certainly very interesting. I've also done some work on Compressed Air Energy Storage, which looks quite interesting - especially when combined with gas generation.
One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
It can but batteries are expensive.
As is wind power.
Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.
"El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "
The problem is the number of suitable sites is limited: you need room for a large reservoir as high up as possible, with a lower area nearby so they are cheap to connect. Unfortunately whilst we have lots of hilly areas, the areas where suitable upper reservoirs can be built are limited.
One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
The capital cost of batteries is huge and they only have a certain number of cycles before they need to be replaced.
I'm quite interested in the use of flywheels for storing energy. It seems relatively scaleable and could, I guess, be distributed (e.g. each windfarm could have a small area of flywheels) rather than big plants.
I don't know enough about flywheels, but they are certainly very interesting. I've also done some work on Compressed Air Energy Storage, which looks quite interesting - especially when combined with gas generation.
Ah, I'd forgotten about that - I've not seen much about it recently.
One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
The capital cost of batteries is huge and they only have a certain number of cycles before they need to be replaced.
I'm quite interested in the use of flywheels for storing energy. It seems relatively scaleable and could, I guess, be distributed (e.g. each windfarm could have a small area of flywheels) rather than big plants.
I don't know enough about flywheels, but they are certainly very interesting. I've also done some work on Compressed Air Energy Storage, which looks quite interesting - especially when combined with gas generation.
One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
It can but batteries are expensive.
As is wind power.
Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.
"El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "
The problem is the number of suitable sites is limited: you need room for a large reservoir as high up as possible, with a lower area nearby so they are cheap to connect. Unfortunately whilst we have lots of hilly areas, the areas where suitable upper reservoirs can be built are limited.
Surely we can just build new mountains? They could double as ski slopes, and would certainly be cheaper than HPB.
One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
The capital cost of batteries is huge and they only have a certain number of cycles before they need to be replaced.
I'm quite interested in the use of flywheels for storing energy. It seems relatively scaleable and could, I guess, be distributed (e.g. each windfarm could have a small area of flywheels) rather than big plants.
I don't know enough about flywheels, but they are certainly very interesting. I've also done some work on Compressed Air Energy Storage, which looks quite interesting - especially when combined with gas generation.
One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
The capital cost of batteries is huge and they only have a certain number of cycles before they need to be replaced.
I'm quite interested in the use of flywheels for storing energy. It seems relatively scaleable and could, I guess, be distributed (e.g. each windfarm could have a small area of flywheels) rather than big plants.
I don't know enough about flywheels, but they are certainly very interesting. I've also done some work on Compressed Air Energy Storage, which looks quite interesting - especially when combined with gas generation.
Scale up these things.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD_3QnUPvF0
I wonder if they have bulletproof casings?
There's a story - possibly apocryphal - about the early days of computing. Early disc drives had very large, heavy platters that spun very fast. One of these was in an office, and the cabinet door had been left open. The read or write head hit the platter, which disintegrated, and a piece spun out and killed a secretary.
What was it someone said the other day? Abolish the police? Great idea. They are starting to resemble the corrupted shambles of an organisation you might expect to find somewhere in central America.
That point was first made by me in a post four days ago when I suggested that this was a plot to undermine the Lords.
It is a double-edged sword. If the second chamber cannot challenge the HoC , then why have it ?
If the argument is that the HoC is elected, then we should elect the second chamber too ! 108 countries cannot be wrong.
The point is that it should be a revising chamber, but should always bow to the will of the elected chamber.
As soon as it is elected then it has its own democratic legitimacy and that can lead to deadlock.
So, what's the f*cking point ?
At least, then 37% can't do whatever they want. They should have called Osborne's bluff. The Tax credit changes was not included in a Finance Bill nor was it in the manifesto.
What is the difference between 37% (Tories have no mandate) and 39.5% - a 'stunning victory' for the Canadian Liberals (The people have spoken) - answer hypocrisy.
2.5 percentage points, or is this a trick question,
One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
It can but batteries are expensive.
As is wind power.
Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.
"El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "
The problem is the number of suitable sites is limited: you need room for a large reservoir as high up as possible, with a lower area nearby so they are cheap to connect. Unfortunately whilst we have lots of hilly areas, the areas where suitable upper reservoirs can be built are limited.
Surely we can just build new mountains? They could double as ski slopes, and would certainly be cheaper than HPB.
What was it someone said the other day? Abolish the police? Great idea. They are starting to resemble the corrupted shambles of an organisation you might expect to find somewhere in central America.
Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.
The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?
I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.
You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.
On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.
Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.
We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.
Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.
Molten Salt reactors have the problem of a lot of incredibly hot, radioactive, incredibly corrosive and reactive salts flowing around. Boosters of the tech tend to gloss over the "dealing with the molten salts" is not a solved problem.
That point was first made by me in a post four days ago when I suggested that this was a plot to undermine the Lords.
It is a double-edged sword. If the second chamber cannot challenge the HoC , then why have it ?
If the argument is that the HoC is elected, then we should elect the second chamber too ! 108 countries cannot be wrong.
The point is that it should be a revising chamber, but should always bow to the will of the elected chamber.
As soon as it is elected then it has its own democratic legitimacy and that can lead to deadlock.
So, what's the f*cking point ?
At least, then 37% can't do whatever they want. They should have called Osborne's bluff. The Tax credit changes was not included in a Finance Bill nor was it in the manifesto.
What is the difference between 37% (Tories have no mandate) and 39.5% - a 'stunning victory' for the Canadian Liberals (The people have spoken) - answer hypocrisy.
2.5 percentage points, or is this a trick question,
For your second question, what's the difference between 9,347,304 and 9,552,436 ?
Mr. JEO, I'd guess it's because Labour dicked about doing nothing on energy, and the Coalition was very nearly as bad. We need to build rapidly, and the Chinese aren't muppets.
It really isn't that.
The problem is that the prevailing price of baseload electricity is £44/MW.
And no-one - anywhere in the world - will build a new nuclear plant without being guaranteed twice that price.
Why not?
And if that's the case, why on Earth are we willing to pay it when onshore wind and gas are both cheaper? Even if you disagree, there must be some rationale.
There are three reasons:
1. Until recently, it was assumed that UK gas production was in permanent decline, and worldwide gas was going to become more expensive. 2. Energy security. 3. "Low carbon".
We now know the world (and the UK) has much, much more gas than previously realised, and that we can source it from lots of friendly countries (like the US, Norway and Australia). Longer-term, we have shale gas reserves that will probably be exploited.
Which leaves 3. Which is not a good enough reason (to my mind) on its own.
For the sake of argument, if we made the assumption that gas was too carbon pollutant (I know, I know, but I just won't want to rehash that argument here), what would be the best strategy? Onshore wind? Solar? Nuclear?
One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
It can but batteries are expensive.
As is wind power.
Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.
"El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "
The problem is the number of suitable sites is limited: you need room for a large reservoir as high up as possible, with a lower area nearby so they are cheap to connect. Unfortunately whilst we have lots of hilly areas, the areas where suitable upper reservoirs can be built are limited.
As far as I'm aware there aren't any suitable sites left in the UK for economical pumped storage.
In fact they hired an expensive consultancy with taxpayer money to make subjective judgment calls that happen to align with what their client wants to hear.
One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
It can but batteries are expensive.
As is wind power.
Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.
"El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "
The problem is the number of suitable sites is limited: you need room for a large reservoir as high up as possible, with a lower area nearby so they are cheap to connect. Unfortunately whilst we have lots of hilly areas, the areas where suitable upper reservoirs can be built are limited.
As far as I'm aware there aren't any suitable sites left in the UK for economical pumped storage.
It's worth visiting Dinowig if you're in North Wales, very impressive. I don't know whether you are right or not but this may be of interest: http://www.withouthotair.com/c26/page_192.shtml
That's the kind of thinking which leads to £24bn spent on generating just 7% of power requirements and £34bn on cutting journey times to Birmingham by 15mins. Make do and mend is why our infrastructure is so badly behind the times. Look at the Heathrow decision, while we agonise over another runway, rival EU nations are adding capacity at a massive rate.
I'm all for careful investment in long-shots (*). But you don't bet the house on them. MSR's are several decades away: we should look at investing in research into them, but if they can be made to work safely and economically, they'll only be ready in time to replace the reactors we are planning at the moment.
We need stuff built now, not dreams. It's quite possible that MSR's will never reach the safety, economics or capacity that proponents state for them. I'm very cynical about them because the current small research projects are not going too well, and they've been trying for fifty years.
The same goes for tidal: invest relatively small sums in the research and development, but don't assume the tech will mature.
BTW, you are evidently pretty clueless on HS2. Its about much more than time savings.
(*) I've suggested the government invests a certain amount each year in carefully-selected long-shots.
I don't disagree with a lot of that, but I don't see any mileage in buying in technology that is well past it for such a huge amount of money. We should be investing in CCGTs today and researching new technologies for tomorrow. Today and for the foreseeable future CCGTs are more stable, cheaper and less risky than PWRs, plus it won't involve us whoring ourselves out to the Chinese.
Tidal has a lot to prove but certain projects may be viable, barrages are more likely than lagoons though IMO. The Incheon lagoon is an interesting one and we should let the Koreans have a stab at it instead of going ahead with Swansea and finding we are not able to deal with the corrosion and maintenance issues.
As for HS2, as you know my issue is with scope and ambition. The current proposals are inadequate in both respects. For example, we have 8 TBMs from the Crossrail project and the crown owns all underground assets. Why are we not doing the whole of HS2 underground where noise, bridges and land purchases are no longer an issue. The scope is also far too narrow, why are we spending billions on electrifying the GWML when we should be looking at high speed rail, again underground, from London to Swansea and from Swansea to Birmingham via Cardiff. If we are going to do this, we should do it once and do it right. We did 26 miles of tunneling for Crossrail, London to Birmingha, is about 100 miles as the crow flies, add about 20 for additional stops and detours, it must be possible to make it happen, what we lack is not technical ability, but ambition.
That point was first made by me in a post four days ago when I suggested that this was a plot to undermine the Lords.
It is a double-edged sword. If the second chamber cannot challenge the HoC , then why have it ?
If the argument is that the HoC is elected, then we should elect the second chamber too ! 108 countries cannot be wrong.
The point is that it should be a revising chamber, but should always bow to the will of the elected chamber.
As soon as it is elected then it has its own democratic legitimacy and that can lead to deadlock.
So, what's the f*cking point ?
At least, then 37% can't do whatever they want. They should have called Osborne's bluff. The Tax credit changes was not included in a Finance Bill nor was it in the manifesto.
What is the difference between 37% (Tories have no mandate) and 39.5% - a 'stunning victory' for the Canadian Liberals (The people have spoken) - answer hypocrisy.
2.5 percentage points, or is this a trick question,
FPTP leads to this sort of thing. Candain Libs have Electoral Reform in the manifesto. Hopefully they'll take action.
@BBCJLandale: The plot thickens! Lib Dems to table their own "fatal motion" against tax credit cuts. Lord Kirkwood withdraws his softer "regret motion"
I don't disagree with a lot of that, but I don't see any mileage in buying in technology that is well past it for such a huge amount of money. We should be investing in CCGTs today and researching new technologies for tomorrow. Today and for the foreseeable future CCGTs are more stable, cheaper and less risky than PWRs, plus it won't involve us whoring ourselves out to the Chinese.
Tidal has a lot to prove but certain projects may be viable, barrages are more likely than lagoons though IMO. The Incheon lagoon is an interesting one and we should let the Koreans have a stab at it instead of going ahead with Swansea and finding we are not able to deal with the corrosion and maintenance issues.
As for HS2, as you know my issue is with scope and ambition. The current proposals are inadequate in both respects. For example, we have 8 TBMs from the Crossrail project and the crown owns all underground assets. Why are we not doing the whole of HS2 underground where noise, bridges and land purchases are no longer an issue. The scope is also far too narrow, why are we spending billions on electrifying the GWML when we should be looking at high speed rail, again underground, from London to Swansea and from Swansea to Birmingham via Cardiff. If we are going to do this, we should do it once and do it right. We did 26 miles of tunneling for Crossrail, London to Birmingha, is about 100 miles as the crow flies, add about 20 for additional stops and detours, it must be possible to make it happen, what we lack is not technical ability, but ambition.
That's quite a staggering proposal, and one I haven't seen seriously proposed before. The cost of tunnelling is massive, and very much depends on ground conditions. Also, what are your plans for the city-centre termini, where costs multiply massively and room (particularly in London) is limited?
King Cole, the zebraphile of the same name (not seen for a while, actually) and the two American posters of that name seem fine fellows. 'tis an outrageous and inaccurate slur against me.
King Cole, the zebraphile of the same name (not seen for a while, actually) and the two American posters of that name seem fine fellows. 'tis an outrageous and inaccurate slur against me.
I apologise for the inaccuracy. Outrageous....... that's different!
Comments
I'm sure that there are lots of ways the tax credits legisltation could be improved - tweaks here and there, tightening up the wording, addressing small special cases etc. But the MPs elected by the voters want to implement the broad thrust of the changes and it is not the remit of unelected peers to contest that.
The problem is that the prevailing price of baseload electricity is £44/MW.
And no-one - anywhere in the world - will build a new nuclear plant without being guaranteed twice that price.
Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, I stand corrected [on the pricing, I'm entirely right on governments dicking about].
We can add new gas capacity relatively quickly. The lead-time for a new CCGT is probably five years, but you can get an OCGT up and running in about 18 months.
Also, please stop disturbing my firmly held beliefs with factual statements to the contrary. This is the internet, there's no place for evidence-based conclusions here
We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.
Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.
I thought it was because Bradford was very well-suited to Galloway's particular political proclivities.
(Some new OCGTs have been ordered to take advantage of the government capacity charging scheme. Effectively you could get a 4% yield with an option on the price of electricity spiking.)
But burning gas releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere it is therefore an inherently evil fuel. Its use must be phased out and quickly otherwise the UK will not meet its mandated target of reducing filthy polluting emissions by at least 80% from 1990 levels. If we carry on burning gas all the baby polar bears will die. Will no one think of the polar bears.
Old fashioned nuclear plants of the sort EDF are trying to flog us are not only horrendously expensive but carry their own pollution risk with the dreadful waste products that need to be safely stored for thousands of years.
No the only answer, gentlemen, is wind and tidal. We may destroy irreplaceable wildlife habitats and cause ecological disasters, especially with the latter. It may be that at certain times of day there may not be enough electricity. These are prices we must be prepared to pay in order to ensure that the UK shows leadership internationally by highlighting the role it would take in contributing to urgent collective action to tackle climate change under the Kyoto Protocol.
OCGTs are Open Cycle Gas Turbines - basically just jet engines that take gas and use it to directly spin a turbine. Capital costs are modest (£250-350/KW), but they are ineffiecient relative to modern CCGTSs.
CCGTs are Combined Cycle Gas Turbines. These combine the jet engine part with a boiler. Essentially the exhaust fumes of the jet engine are used to heat water, which gives you secondary energy recovery. These cost £500/KW capital cost, and require a lot, lot more land and are difficult to get planning permission for (on the basis they have cooling tower and the like). But they have much higher efficiencies.
Edit to add: the nice thing about OCGTs is that you can order a 25MW today and get it in - what - 18 months time.
And if that's the case, why on Earth are we willing to pay it when onshore wind and gas are both cheaper? Even if you disagree, there must be some rationale.
Mr. Llama, that's sarkier than a Japanese drunkard.
1. Until recently, it was assumed that UK gas production was in permanent decline, and worldwide gas was going to become more expensive.
2. Energy security.
3. "Low carbon".
We now know the world (and the UK) has much, much more gas than previously realised, and that we can source it from lots of friendly countries (like the US, Norway and Australia). Longer-term, we have shale gas reserves that will probably be exploited.
Which leaves 3. Which is not a good enough reason (to my mind) on its own.
This is a realistic betting site, not a dream factory.
Con: 2010 - 31.1%; 2012 - 8.4%
LD: 2010 - 11.7%; 2012 - 4.6%
Grn: 2010 - 2.3%; 2012 - 1.5%
It's true that UKIP went up slightly but they still lost their deposit, which was a far worse result for them than other by-elections at the time. Fact is that at the by-election, Galloway hoovered up the anti-Labour vote, as well as a sizable chunk of the 2010 Labour vote.
They're so scared of saying something they waffle, try to answer another question, ask for stupid clarifications that provoke laughter and claim everything they did was right despite being in front of Parly for doing a poor job.
As is wind power.
We need stuff built now, not dreams. It's quite possible that MSR's will never reach the safety, economics or capacity that proponents state for them. I'm very cynical about them because the current small research projects are not going too well, and they've been trying for fifty years.
The same goes for tidal: invest relatively small sums in the research and development, but don't assume the tech will mature.
BTW, you are evidently pretty clueless on HS2. Its about much more than time savings.
(*) I've suggested the government invests a certain amount each year in carefully-selected long-shots.
"El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/03/03/how-small-spanish-island-became-renewable-energy-pioneer-el-hierro
Indeed, but Witchfinder Watson can't order police officers to do anything, only huff and puff. A senior officer must have done so, and presumably should now be sacked forthwith.
DCI Settle now has Chair of HASC to use for his.
If it can be made cheap and reliable enough.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/08/new-energy-storage-plant-could-revolutionise-renewable-sector
Abandoning HPB and offering no new subsidies would probably actually reduce our carbon footprint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station
The problem is the number of suitable sites is limited: you need room for a large reservoir as high up as possible, with a lower area nearby so they are cheap to connect. Unfortunately whilst we have lots of hilly areas, the areas where suitable upper reservoirs can be built are limited.
Scale up these things.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD_3QnUPvF0
And live on Sky
There's a story - possibly apocryphal - about the early days of computing. Early disc drives had very large, heavy platters that spun very fast. One of these was in an office, and the cabinet door had been left open. The read or write head hit the platter, which disintegrated, and a piece spun out and killed a secretary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage
My respect for him is approaching zero.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34591308
They hired KPMG to assess whether government fears the BBC was crowding out others was true.
So his website enquiry form leads nowhere apart from to Watson's office (who needed special training to handle requests).
Has Watson gone red here? I think he has.
I don't know whether you are right or not but this may be of interest:
http://www.withouthotair.com/c26/page_192.shtml
Tidal has a lot to prove but certain projects may be viable, barrages are more likely than lagoons though IMO. The Incheon lagoon is an interesting one and we should let the Koreans have a stab at it instead of going ahead with Swansea and finding we are not able to deal with the corrosion and maintenance issues.
As for HS2, as you know my issue is with scope and ambition. The current proposals are inadequate in both respects. For example, we have 8 TBMs from the Crossrail project and the crown owns all underground assets. Why are we not doing the whole of HS2 underground where noise, bridges and land purchases are no longer an issue. The scope is also far too narrow, why are we spending billions on electrifying the GWML when we should be looking at high speed rail, again underground, from London to Swansea and from Swansea to Birmingham via Cardiff. If we are going to do this, we should do it once and do it right. We did 26 miles of tunneling for Crossrail, London to Birmingha, is about 100 miles as the crow flies, add about 20 for additional stops and detours, it must be possible to make it happen, what we lack is not technical ability, but ambition.
Or it could make the Lib Dems appear an annoying irrelevance, when they should be seeking the mantle of responsible leftyness.
The following might be of interest:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/434516/HS2_Guide_to_Tunnelling_Costs.pdf
It's time David Winnick retired. Like Denis Skinner he only sits in the HoC for novelty value.