Metropol

Chie wrote:Why do you highly doubt it, Sput? It recently cost £200 million to build a 20 km underground 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.

(7000 * 10000000) / 30 = 2333333333

The cost to Roads out of action as work is going on. Cost of disruption to business with power going down. Labour costs. Fluctuation in price gotten from scrap metal. You really haven't given this much thought.

What about start up costs, economies of scale etc?

and the geography and infrastructure of outer london is identical to that of the rest of the country. You'd do well in government Chie, you've got the tunnel vision already.

Clearly I was correct to doubt it. It's fantasy and irrelevance.

Also, I feel you haven't justified "only" when it's thirty billion pounds more (using your shoddy figure) so that a small percentage of people can have marginally nicer views of the countryside.

Hymagumba wrote:and the geography and infrastructure of outer london is identical to that of the rest of the country. You'd do well in government Chie, you've got the tunnel vision already.

No, the tunnel had to be built 100 feet below ground to avoid obstacles. They could probably be installed at a much shallower depth in the countryside, which would be cheaper too.

martindtanderson wrote:The cost to Roads out of action as work is going on. Cost of disruption to business with power going down. Labour costs. Fluctuation in price gotten from scrap metal. You really haven't given this much thought.

Well I think the idea is you build the tunnels first and then take the overhead power lines down.

What about labour costs? Do you think labour wasn't included in the £200 million?

Anyway, I'd rather keep the plyons than have to suffer even more pointless wind turbines.

Generating electricity is pointless?

No WONDER you don't feel a strong need for pylons!

Seriously though, not investing in renewables and nuclear (BOTH) is foolhardy. Britain is well situated to take advantage of wind and wave power, and the worldwide for uranium will only increase thereby driving up its price and scarcity. There's actually not THAT much.

Also Re: Labour costs, I think it should probably read "maintenance costs" which are higher for underground electrical cables that overhead.

Sput wrote:Seriously though, not investing in renewables and nuclear (BOTH) is foolhardy. Britain is well situated to take advantage of wind and wave power, and the worldwide for uranium will only increase thereby driving up its price and scarcity. There's actually not THAT much.

Fine, but the need for renewable energy should be argued for on the basis that resources will run out, not that emissions are destroying the planet. How many tons of carbon is sent up into the atmosphere in order to manufacture one wind turbine, and how many years is taken for the turbine to justify it?

Sput wrote:Generating electricity is pointless?

No WONDER you don't feel a strong need for pylons!

Seriously though, not investing in renewables and nuclear (BOTH) is foolhardy. Britain is well situated to take advantage of wind and wave power, and the worldwide for uranium will only increase thereby driving up its price and scarcity. There's actually not THAT much.

Also Re: Labour costs, I think it should probably read "maintenance costs" which are higher for underground electrical cables that overhead.

Also you wont have one set of staff working on it, from one area. So separate locations will have different staff costs, which means you cant take one example as a set price.

As for the explanation for renewables, why not have both explanations? I guess your a climate change sceptic as well. Not that I am a fully paid up believer myself.

martindtanderson wrote:

Sput wrote:Generating electricity is pointless?

No WONDER you don't feel a strong need for pylons!

Seriously though, not investing in renewables and nuclear (BOTH) is foolhardy. Britain is well situated to take advantage of wind and wave power, and the worldwide for uranium will only increase thereby driving up its price and scarcity. There's actually not THAT much.

Also Re: Labour costs, I think it should probably read "maintenance costs" which are higher for underground electrical cables that overhead.

Also you wont have one set of staff working on it, from one area. So separate locations will have different staff costs, which means you cant take one example as a set price.

As for the explanation for renewables, why not have both explanations? I guess your a climate change sceptic as well. Not that I am a fully paid up believer myself.

Ah right, I'm with you on the first point although my point means it's even MORE expensive

Personally I've never been given a reason to think that the science of climate change is wrong, and I've tried to be open minded about it, then again there are those who would believe I'm at the heart of the conspiracy working as I do in atmospheric science. The reason I argue for a mix of energy sources is that you simply can't depend on there to be enough wind or wave power to instantaneously satisfy demand. Overall there's a lot of energy, but you need to have a solid buffer. At any rate, a lack of diversity in energy sources is the reason we're in the current mess.

Oh and don't start with the strawman argument about windmills causing more CO2 to be emitted than coal fired power stations, Chie, because it really doesn't add up. Literally. Do some research that's not sponsored by a right-wing thinktank and you'll start to see what I mean.

And where do we have a spare £2.3 billion sat around so we can make a tiny percentage of already slightly spoilt countryside look slightly less spoilt?

The Government certainly doesn't have it, and I doubt very much that whoever owns the pylons these days will want to cough up that money just because someone has decided they spoil the view too much and have to be removed. It's not like they're even going to get remotely close to making a profit on selling the current pylons for scrap, the entire country's supply of pylons scrap value would probably pay for a couple of KM of tunnels. Add on the additional costs of maintaining an underground supply system compared to one above ground and the idea becomes even less attractive for business.

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?

Latest?

Most of them have so far. It's really the poor reasoning and so on that frustrate me.

Chie, what are your opinions on the aesthetics of wind turbines?