Vote Match 2010
They do indeed, but I recognise overpopulation as a problem for reasons other than that. The UK population is forecast to hit 70 million in 20 years time and as large portions of the UK are uninhabitable, it stands to reason that our cities will get bigger and bigger and more crowded, to the point where they're going to start colliding and merging with each other one day, as they already have in Japan. Plus more green-belt land will have to be destroyed as well. The alternative is to knock down all the spacious Edwardian houses and build thousands of cramped apartment blocks in their place. I'm not sure which is worse.
-
Ebeneezer Scrooge
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Tue 23 Sep, 2003 13.53
- Location: Scrooge Towers
Well obviously sput, it makes a lot of sense to expensively relocate those masts that, in reality, are so sparse they are easy enough to ignore.Sput wrote:Why on earth would you want to get rid of electricity pylons?
Snarky
-
martindtanderson
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Tue 23 Dec, 2003 04.03
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
It would only cost £2.3 billion per year over 30 years. The overhead lines will need upgrading eventually anyway and the National Grid can offset some of the cost by selling the 22,000 steel pylons for scrap.Sput wrote:Well that's definitely reason enough to remove our entire electrical grid and rebuild it underground. Sensible policies for a not-at-all-mental outlook!
-
martindtanderson
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Tue 23 Dec, 2003 04.03
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
Its all about priorities. I'd rather have people able to living in a house, and be paid a fair wage, and have good NHS services free for their use, and public services supported and encouraged, etc...Sput wrote:Do chie's latest dribblings in this thread make anyone else's face want to melt with frustration and despair about how asinine someone can be?
Rather than removing pylons and protecting nice looking empty green fields for posh people to look at while killing foxes on their horses.
I say, lets convert brown field land into nuclear power stations, and fill a lot of the empty countryside with Wind Turbines, and that's our future energy problems addressed.
If that number is correct (and I highly doubt it for several reasons) then I question the rationale for your use of the word "only".Chie wrote:It would only cost £2.3 billion per year over 30 years.Sput wrote:Well that's definitely reason enough to remove our entire electrical grid and rebuild it underground. Sensible policies for a not-at-all-mental outlook!
Knight knight
Why do you highly doubt it, Sput? It recently cost £200 million to build a 20 km underground power line in outter London, which was 3-metres in diameter. That's £10 million per km, and there are 7000 km of power lines across the UK that are supported by steel pylons.Sput wrote:If that number is correct (and I highly doubt it for several reasons) then I question the rationale for your use of the word "only".Chie wrote:It would only cost £2.3 billion per year over 30 years.Sput wrote:Well that's definitely reason enough to remove our entire electrical grid and rebuild it underground. Sensible policies for a not-at-all-mental outlook!
(7000 * 10000000) / 30 = 2333333333