Capacity crunch on National Grid is delaying new homes in UK by years - Council leaders warn of ‘infrastructure crisis’ that will also affect green energy schemes and hinder growth

[TheChangeIsCast]

5 hours ago, Stewy said:

Because that worked well for the railways, roads and NHS 🤣

It did work for the railways though. There is a very good reason why Railtrack didn't last long and was re-nationalised and re-branded as Network Rail. It was a very short-lived experiment privatising the rail network. 

[debtlessmanc]

3 hours ago, Si1 said:

I have a suspicion we could have trouble in coming years if people are relying on British exceptionalism aka London growth. I suspect the regional cities may be better places having more room to grow. But London is ridiculous.

London will need desalination for its water, the have already built one at Beckton. But desalination is energy intensive. I posted here for years that water and energy are going to be the limit on house building - a least in the south east.

[Si1]

4 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

London will need desalination for its water, the have already built one at Beckton. But desalination is energy intensive. I posted here for years that water and energy are going to be the limit on house building - a least in the south east.

They should be able to transfer water from the north to the south. Regional water grids exist but not national, so 90% of the necessary infrastructure is already there. But planning restrictions prevent it being joined up across AONBs and NPs across the middle of England. Either way it's astonishing the anti-growth agenda of some significant sections of society, who sadly, unlike the Luddites of history, seem to have a lot of power right now.

[Dweller]

I guess data centers and also an issue in the UK re the grid and capacity? 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/power-grab-hidden-costs-of-ireland-datacentre-boom?fbclid=IwAR0nemsez1IPBuX54sU2Z3hTpLH8su8cPHPW7oPjeB94Gnh-UWkx-oGeP0I

 It’s suggested that if all the datacentres currently proposed in Ireland are built, they could be using up to 70% of the country’s electricity by 2030.

And then of course there is the question of who owns the utility companies and the water : 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/30/more-than-70-per-cent-english-water-industry-foreign-ownership?fbclid=IwAR3Ea_EAa3ddVh6B-o_279RdsN4AoEYSWPqY-zbtnvC3YYiPhpaWT972pn8

Revealed: more than 70% of English water industry is in foreign ownership

 

[Big Orange]

2 minutes ago, Dweller said:

I guess data centers and also an issue in the UK re the grid and capacity? 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/power-grab-hidden-costs-of-ireland-datacentre-boom?fbclid=IwAR0nemsez1IPBuX54sU2Z3hTpLH8su8cPHPW7oPjeB94Gnh-UWkx-oGeP0I

 It’s suggested that if all the datacentres currently proposed in Ireland are built, they could be using up to 70% of the country’s electricity by 2030.

And then of course there is the question of who owns the utility companies and the water : 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/30/more-than-70-per-cent-english-water-industry-foreign-ownership?fbclid=IwAR3Ea_EAa3ddVh6B-o_279RdsN4AoEYSWPqY-zbtnvC3YYiPhpaWT972pn8

Revealed: more than 70% of English water industry is in foreign ownership

 

Then just take off of them? What are the foreign company owners, directors, and shareholders overseas going to do about it when that eventually happens?

[Riedquat]

7 hours ago, TheChangeIsCast said:

It did work for the railways though. There is a very good reason why Railtrack didn't last long and was re-nationalised and re-branded as Network Rail. It was a very short-lived experiment privatising the rail network. 

Considering the poor state of so much stuff I'm not terribly convinced by Network Rail either. They love to carp on about "old infrastructure" or "climate conditions it wasn't built for" but it mostly seems to be to cover their inability to bother with basic maintenance. Just look how many bushes and trees are growing out of stonework. That's not because it's old, it's because they don't maintain it properly. If it was new you'd have the same problem in a few years if it's just left. "Leaves on the line" is similar, although goes back further - they stopped keeping the lineside clear after steam ended and now all the trees that started growing there are mature.

Unfortunately both politicians and the public seem to much prefer wasting money on flashy new white elephants.

[Riedquat]

4 hours ago, Si1 said:

They should be able to transfer water from the north to the south. Regional water grids exist but not national, so 90% of the necessary infrastructure is already there. But planning restrictions prevent it being joined up across AONBs and NPs across the middle of England. Either way it's astonishing the anti-growth agenda of some significant sections of society, who sadly, unlike the Luddites of history, seem to have a lot of power right now.

Right, so you'd rather build crap through the few parts of the country we've not made a mess of yet.

Thank god for those sections of society, considering the godawful destruction caused by the pro-growth agenda. Vandals must look on in awe, when all they can manage is the odd smashed bus shelter and bit of graffiti and litter.

Development and modernism with far too little restriction or thought are the biggest dangers the country faces. There's no contempt and disgust big enough for those pushing them.

Edited March 10 by Riedquat

[kzb]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Right, so you'd rather build crap through the few parts of the country we've not made a mess of yet.

Thank god for those sections of society, considering the godawful destruction caused by the pro-growth agenda. Vandals must look on in awe, when all they can manage is the odd smashed bus shelter and bit of graffiti and litter.

Development and modernism with far too little restriction or thought are the biggest dangers the country faces. There's no contempt and disgust big enough for those pushing them.

You're going to love this story:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/03/10/more-cash-for-wind-farms-near-towns-as-net-zero-shift-stretches-grid/

Developers are to be handed more cash to erect wind turbines and solar farms near towns and cities in a bid to get more power generation near to where it is needed.

The scheme, to be formally announced on Tuesday by Claire Coutinho, the Energy Secretary, is designed to trigger a rush to build wind and solar infrastructure on farmland around cities.

However, the policy is also likely to prove highly controversial with environment groups because of the likely impact on treasured landscapes.

The UK will be divided into about half a dozen generating zones so that onshore wind and solar farms in the Home Counties could be paid more for their power than those in Scotland, for example.

They would be encouraged to buy up swathes of farmland in a region stretching from London to Bristol and up to Norwich and Cambridge for solar parks and wind farms.

Ofgem has calculated that 20 gigawatts of solar power generation is needed in southern England. Solar farms need up to 4,000 acres of land for each gigawatt, implying 60 million industrial solar panels need to be spread across an area equivalent to 40,000 football pitches.

My own thoughts on this are it won't even supply 20GW, not when we want it anyhow.

[Stewy]

3 hours ago, kzb said:

You're going to love this story:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/03/10/more-cash-for-wind-farms-near-towns-as-net-zero-shift-stretches-grid/

Developers are to be handed more cash to erect wind turbines and solar farms near towns and cities in a bid to get more power generation near to where it is needed.

The scheme, to be formally announced on Tuesday by Claire Coutinho, the Energy Secretary, is designed to trigger a rush to build wind and solar infrastructure on farmland around cities.

However, the policy is also likely to prove highly controversial with environment groups because of the likely impact on treasured landscapes.

The UK will be divided into about half a dozen generating zones so that onshore wind and solar farms in the Home Counties could be paid more for their power than those in Scotland, for example.

They would be encouraged to buy up swathes of farmland in a region stretching from London to Bristol and up to Norwich and Cambridge for solar parks and wind farms.

Ofgem has calculated that 20 gigawatts of solar power generation is needed in southern England. Solar farms need up to 4,000 acres of land for each gigawatt, implying 60 million industrial solar panels need to be spread across an area equivalent to 40,000 football pitches.

My own thoughts on this are it won't even supply 20GW, not when we want it anyhow.

And then we'll need to build a fleet of conventional power stations capable of hitting the morning and evening peaks in demand, and turning off in between when solar floods the grid with worthless scrap power. 

Sure is complicated this "free" energy from the sun and wind...

[Locke]

22 hours ago, NoHPCinTheUK said:

Nationalise the critical infrastructure is the only way to modernise them at this point. 

It is Nationalised in everything but name! 

Just look at one of the few insightful things Stewy has said here

23 hours ago, Stewy said:

You'd be surprised how little %age the cost of the actual energy now is the end delivered unit...all these additional schemes (ROCs, carbon, contracts for difference, network upgrades etc etc) are adding on a huge amount...

 

[FANG]

21 hours ago, The Angry Capitalist said:

Lol.

Yes. It's pathetic at this stage in the game.

There's nothing wrong with privatizing services such as water or electricity but you need to ensure there is competition so no company can have a monopoly and maximize profits without re-investing any into upgrading infrastructure etc.

There is only one water pipe connecting households.

We only have 1 company to choose from.

Therefore, we either pay what they charge and put up with their shenanigans or we go without water.

Same with railways.

Only 1 track on majority of routes.

So if you want to go from A to B at 10 am on Monday you have one company to choose from so pay the price or get the bus etc.

If there is no scope for competition then the services should be nationalized.

It's not a perfect solution but at least things will get done even if it costs the taxpayer an arm and a leg to do so as opposed to the parasitical system we have at the moment where the water companies cannot be bothered to upgrade the pipes to stop leaks and solve the sewage issues.

BRITAIN IS ON THE VERGE OF COMPLETE COLLAPSE. BASIC SERVICES CANNOT EVEN BE DELIVERED TO ITS POPULATION.

And wait until the Labour party get in. You ain't seen nothing yet. 

[Locke]

4 hours ago, Stewy said:

And then we'll need to build a fleet of conventional power stations capable of hitting the morning and evening peaks in demand, and turning off in between when solar floods the grid with worthless scrap power. 

Sure is complicated this "free" energy from the sun and wind...

You've made many great posts in this thread.

8 hours ago, kzb said:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/03/10/more-cash-for-wind-farms-near-towns-as-net-zero-shift-stretches-grid/

Developers are to be handed more cash to erect wind turbines and solar farms near towns and cities in a bid to get more power generation near to where it is needed.

Ludicrous. That will simply exacerbate the problem. Solar and wind stress the absolute ****** out of the grid. You need way more total capacity to deal with them compared with gas turbines or nuclear.

[TheChangeIsCast]

10 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Considering the poor state of so much stuff I'm not terribly convinced by Network Rail either. They love to carp on about "old infrastructure" or "climate conditions it wasn't built for" but it mostly seems to be to cover their inability to bother with basic maintenance. Just look how many bushes and trees are growing out of stonework. That's not because it's old, it's because they don't maintain it properly. If it was new you'd have the same problem in a few years if it's just left. "Leaves on the line" is similar, although goes back further - they stopped keeping the lineside clear after steam ended and now all the trees that started growing there are mature.

Unfortunately both politicians and the public seem to much prefer wasting money on flashy new white elephants.

Network Rail aren't perfect, I agree with that. I've got 10 years experience of working in rail though, both with and directly for Network Rail. Firstly, and probably most importantly, they've been stripped to the absolute bone in terms of in house maintenance staff. British Rail used to have a comprehensive maintenance arm, they could even do for example basic track renewals in-house, basic engineering works. When it was privatised as Railtrack, this was pretty much stripped away, and it's something Network Rail inherited. So now, they just don't have the resources to do much of it in-house, they have to sub-contract works out to expensive subbies.

They don't 'carp' on about old infrastructure, that's just a fact. Our railways were built in a bombproof manner, to last. The trouble is, they're very difficult to maintain, and alter. I've worked extensively in rail, nuclear, defence, aerospace, and utilities, and by far the most challenging projects I've worked on are projects that are on the existing rail infrastructure. It's not easy working in tunnels, and in deep cuttings in city centres. Not only is the manner of the infrastructure itself not easy to improve (it wasn't built to be changed or improved), the track access is a huge issue. Example. I was working on a £25 million signalling job in the NW. There are sections of the track there around Runcorn, where you only have access one Saturday night every 8 weeks, and that's a 6 hour possession. By the time you get machinery on track at the nearest RRAP, you generally only have 4 hours or so of working time. Once, every 8 weeks. Why? Because of the need for engineering and maintenance works to fit around an operational rail network. If we shut down the rail system for a few years, it would be an order of magnitude easier to do engineering and improvement works, as you'd have the access to do it.

The climate conditions statement is also accurate. Our tracks are stressed for a temperate climate. This means that any extremes, hot or cold, cause problems. If you're in a country with predictable cold and dry weather, the track will be stressed for that. We have to have ours in the middle, able to cope with a variety of conditions, but not extremes either way. 

So in summary, the problem in the UK is two fold. Firstly, it's the bombproof infrastructure that was built at the start of the railways learning curve, infrastructure that was designed and built to never really be altered. Secondly, is track access, as all work within 3m of the tracks has to have suitable possession track access, and there are many areas where this is extremely limited.

PS You can do very limited work with look outs, basically working in-between trains, but this work is usually limited to very basic survey works, trial holes and such like. Anything more substantial than that, and you need a possession.

Edited March 11 by TheChangeIsCast

[hurlerontheditch]

9 minutes ago, TheChangeIsCast said:

Network Rail aren't perfect, I agree with that. I've got 10 years experience of working in rail though, both with and directly for Network Rail. Firstly, and probably most importantly, they've been stripped to the absolute bone in terms of in house maintenance staff. British Rail used to have a comprehensive maintenance arm, they could even do for example basic track renewals in-house, basic engineering works. When it was privatised as Railtrack, this was pretty much stripped away, and it's something Network Rail inherited. So now, they just don't have the resources to do much of it in-house, they have to sub-contract works out to expensive subbies.

They don't 'carp' on about old infrastructure, that's just a fact. Our railways were built in a bombproof manner, to last. The trouble is, they're very difficult to maintain, and alter. I've worked extensively in rail, nuclear, defence, aerospace, and utilities, and by far the most challenging projects I've worked on are projects that are on the existing rail infrastructure. It's not easy working in tunnels, and in deep cuttings in city centres. Not only is the manner of the infrastructure itself not easy to improve (it wasn't built to be changed or improved), the track access is a huge issue. Example. I was working on a £25 million signalling job in the NW. There are sections of the track there around Runcorn, where you only have access one Saturday night every 8 weeks, and that's a 6 hour possession. By the time you get machinery on track at the nearest RRAP, you generally only have 4 hours or so of working time. Once, every 8 weeks. Why? Because of the need for engineering and maintenance works to fit around an operational rail network. If we shut down the rail system for a few years, it would be an order of magnitude easier to do engineering and improvement works, as you'd have the access to do it.

The climate conditions statement is also accurate. Our tracks are stressed for a temperate climate. This means that any extremes, hot or cold, cause problems. If you're in a country with predictable cold and dry weather, the track will be stressed for that. We have to have ours in the middle, able to cope with a variety of conditions, but not extremes either way. 

So in summary, the problem in the UK is two fold. Firstly, it's the bombproof infrastructure that was built at the start of the railways learning curve, infrastructure that was designed and built to never really be altered. Secondly, is track access, as all work within 3m of the tracks has to have suitable possession track access, and there are many areas where this is extremely limited.

good post!

[Pebbles]

Instead of trying to fit ever more people and demand into this overcorwded and overstreached country fuelling the ponzi scheme that is an ever increasing population cant we have less people? You may call them nimbys but they are no worse than the pro immigration lot one wants to flood the country with people the other wants to stop it being built over. Look at a map of the south east in the early victorian era you see a world before mass population growth a greener britian one that i certainly prefer.

[onlooker]

40 minutes ago, TheChangeIsCast said:

Network Rail aren't perfect, I agree with that. I've got 10 years experience of working in rail though, both with and directly for Network Rail. Firstly, and probably most importantly, they've been stripped to the absolute bone in terms of in house maintenance staff. British Rail used to have a comprehensive maintenance arm, they could even do for example basic track renewals in-house, basic engineering works. When it was privatised as Railtrack, this was pretty much stripped away, and it's something Network Rail inherited. So now, they just don't have the resources to do much of it in-house, they have to sub-contract works out to expensive subbies.

They don't 'carp' on about old infrastructure, that's just a fact. Our railways were built in a bombproof manner, to last. The trouble is, they're very difficult to maintain, and alter. I've worked extensively in rail, nuclear, defence, aerospace, and utilities, and by far the most challenging projects I've worked on are projects that are on the existing rail infrastructure. It's not easy working in tunnels, and in deep cuttings in city centres. Not only is the manner of the infrastructure itself not easy to improve (it wasn't built to be changed or improved), the track access is a huge issue. Example. I was working on a £25 million signalling job in the NW. There are sections of the track there around Runcorn, where you only have access one Saturday night every 8 weeks, and that's a 6 hour possession. By the time you get machinery on track at the nearest RRAP, you generally only have 4 hours or so of working time. Once, every 8 weeks. Why? Because of the need for engineering and maintenance works to fit around an operational rail network. If we shut down the rail system for a few years, it would be an order of magnitude easier to do engineering and improvement works, as you'd have the access to do it.

The climate conditions statement is also accurate. Our tracks are stressed for a temperate climate. This means that any extremes, hot or cold, cause problems. If you're in a country with predictable cold and dry weather, the track will be stressed for that. We have to have ours in the middle, able to cope with a variety of conditions, but not extremes either way. 

So in summary, the problem in the UK is two fold. Firstly, it's the bombproof infrastructure that was built at the start of the railways learning curve, infrastructure that was designed and built to never really be altered. Secondly, is track access, as all work within 3m of the tracks has to have suitable possession track access, and there are many areas where this is extremely limited.

PS You can do very limited work with look outs, basically working in-between trains, but this work is usually limited to very basic survey works, trial holes and such like. Anything more substantial than that, and you need a possession.

Blame Beeching, whose plan to eradicate duplicate routes was implemented by the Labour Govt 1965-70. There is now no flexibility to divert services onto alternative routes while vital engineering work is undertaken.

[Si1]

12 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Right, so you'd rather build crap through the few parts of the country we've not made a mess of yet.

It's literally an underground pipe. You are a d1ckhead.

12 hours ago, Riedquat said:

 

 

[onlooker]

1 hour ago, Si1 said:

It's literally an underground pipe. You are a d1ckhead.

 

Pumping water horizontally across the country is extremely expensive, especially compared with pumping it vertically just 300m out of the ground. The other issue is where would you get the water from? The last big reservoir in the Welsh mountains (Llyn Celyn) flooded only a tiny hamlet, yet that boosted the standing of Plaid Cymru enormously. Imagine what the next English reservoir built in Wales would do.

[Saving For a Space Ship]

18 hours ago, debtlessmanc said:

London will need desalination for its water, the have already built one at Beckton. But desalination is energy intensive. I posted here for years that water and energy are going to be the limit on house building - a least in the south east.

Quote

Beckton desalination plant In 2010 the then Duke of Edinburgh beamed as he pulled back the royal blue curtain on a plaque to commemorate the opening of the £250m Beckton desalination plant in east London.

The plant, built in response to low reservoir levels in the mid-2000s and with considerable opposition from Ken Livingstone, then London mayor, was to provide a vital backup to supply in drought conditions for up to 400,000 households, taking water from the Thames and providing drinking water for homes and businesses.

Opponents urged the company to focus instead on water recycling and reducing leakage. However, it was argued that the site would provide resilience against increasing climatic uncertainty and, on becoming mayor in 2008, Boris Johnson withdrew his office’s opposition to the project.

Beckton desalination plant View image in fullscreen Despite the UK suffering a severe drought last year the Beckton desalination plant was out of action because of a carbon dioxide shortage.

More than a decade on, the plant, also known as the Thames Gateway water treatment works, has been labelled a “white elephant” by MPs.

Beckton has operated on just three occasions since it was opened. Its capacity has been downgraded, meaning it can only supply two-thirds of its planned 150m litres a day.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/30/sewage-in-kitchens-and-white-elephant-projects-why-thames-water-is-struggling

 

[Si1]

33 minutes ago, onlooker said:

Pumping water horizontally across the country is extremely expensive,

 

Not sure that's true. Doesn't need to be pumped far, just rebalanced southwards across the regional water super grids.

33 minutes ago, onlooker said:

especially compared with pumping it vertically just 300m out of the ground.

No. Otherwise the south wouldn't have a water shortage. There simply isn't enough in the southern aquifers, that's the point 

33 minutes ago, onlooker said:

 

The other issue is where would you get the water from? The last big reservoir in the Welsh mountains (Llyn Celyn) flooded only a tiny hamlet, yet that boosted the standing of Plaid Cymru enormously. Imagine what the next English reservoir built in Wales would do.

I don't think there's been a reservoir built in the UK for 20 or 30 years. Yeah NIMBYism may win on this one again but the countryside is a big place with plenty of room for several more boating lakes for the middle classes.

Edited March 11 by Si1

[hurlerontheditch]

7 minutes ago, Saving For a Space Ship said:

 

of course Johnson the white elephant champion would be in the middle of it

[Pebbles]

3 hours ago, Si1 said:

 

Not sure that's true. Doesn't need to be pumped far, just rebalanced southwards across the regional water super grids.

No. Otherwise the south wouldn't have a water shortage. There simply isn't enough in the southern aquifers, that's the point 

I don't think there's been a reservoir built in the UK for 20 or 30 years. Yeah NIMBYism may win on this one again but the countryside is a big place with plenty of room for several more boating lakes for the middle classes.

Pumping water horizontally is expensive, just ask any farmer who has to pump water from channels in east anglia you can pump it very far and often you need many pumps in series to repressure the water i've seen it done.

the south has a watershortage because it is overpopulated like i have a cash shortage because i spend too much. In both cases we could reduce demand by reducing population/spending rather than earning more/or bigger infrastructure.

That said i do support reservoir building so long as it is beneficial for the environment and doesnt reduce our ability to feed ourselves by removing farmland (or even it it does we then need further population reduction so we can have a sustainable population for our land size.)

[Si1]

1 hour ago, Pebbles said:

Pumping water horizontally is expensive, just ask any farmer who has to pump water from channels in east anglia you can pump it very far and often you need many pumps in series to repressure the water i've seen it done.

??

(Because farm irrigation is literally the same as mass water distribution, err actually no it isn't)

1 hour ago, Pebbles said:

the south has a watershortage because it is overpopulated like i have a cash shortage because i spend too much. In both cases we could reduce demand by reducing population/spending rather than earning more/or bigger infrastructure.

The infrastructure requirement is small. Most of it is literally already there.

1 hour ago, Pebbles said:

That said i do support reservoir building so long as it is beneficial for the environment and doesnt reduce our ability to feed ourselves by removing farmland (or even it it does we then need further population reduction so we can have a sustainable population for our land size.)

 

Edited March 11 by Si1

[winkie]

8 hours ago, hurlerontheditch said:

good post!

https://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/news/hertfordshire-news/look-back-devastating-potters-bar-4246126

https://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/news/hertfordshire-news/hatfield-rail-crash-how-devastating-4620580

Privatised railtrack didn't last long after this as I recall......two devastating accidents that shouldn't have happened.

Edited March 11 by winkie

[HousePriceTooHigh]

7 hours ago, Si1 said:

It's literally an underground pipe. You are a d1ckhead.

 

No need for a pipe even. See the Grand Contour Canal proposal