Ed Miliband Wants £200 Billion Of Your Money To Plaster The Countryside With Pylons
By Paul Homewood
The march of electricity pylons across Britain’s countryside is set to accelerate under Labour plans to make it easier to build new transmission lines across hills and open countryside.
Ed Miliband, shadow energy secretary, and Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, will set out plans at this week’s party conference to “rewire Britain” and build a cleaner energy grid, potentially unlocking £200bn of private investment.
It follows warnings from multiple sources, including Nick Winser, the government’s own Electricity Commissioner, that the lack of grid capacity and connections are blocking deployment of renewables and the switch from gas to electric home heating.
However, Labour’s plan is likely to prove highly controversial because it will mean building thousands of new electricity pylons and cables across rural or wild landscapes.
https://netzerowatch.us4.list-manage.com/track/click
Quite apart from the environmental vandalism, just let that £200bn of private investment sink in.
Whenever Labour talks of “investment”, keep a tight hold of your wallets! Private investors are not going to hand that money over out of the kindness of their hearts. They will demand a hefty pay back.
Consequently energy users will not just have to pay the £200bn back, which by the way amounts to about £8000 for every home in the UK, but a handsome profit on top.
Yet another cost of Ed Miliband’s wretched Net Zero obsession.
How on earth did this idiot ever get his hands on Britain’s energy policy?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
The same delusion applies in Australia where Labor is in power.
There is quite a bit of annoyance among those living in the places but the Governments (State & well as Federal) think they can ride over these objections as most people live in the main cities. In any case “green” projects override any environment laws e.g. wind turbines are killing off the (local Tasmania subspecies) of wedge tail eagles and wind ‘farms’ are allowed to destroy rain forests in National Parks.
A great tragedy in the making if Milliband remains influential
Wind power remains a mirage as intermittent and low calorific value
The Tories need to go anti green
Same here in NZ, there’s a short track exemption of the Resource Management Act when it comes the development of “Unreliable” Energy sources.
Miliband is deranged. As a nation we need a completely new approach to our energy security, storage and supply. Wind and solar are not the answer, they are intermittent and thus expensively unreliable as they will always require back up from gas, nuclear and coal. The failure to invest in nuclear especially RR SMR’s is yet another egregious mistake. Conservatives, Labour and Liberals are all wedded to renewables. We need change and only The Reform Party provides the answer.
Agree Michael – Reform UK will be getting my vote and those of dozens of acquaintances, colleagues and contacts
Ditto here.
The recent party conferences have confirmed this for me. Reform it is!!
Ed Milliband isn’t even the best intellect in the Milliband household.
Ed Bacon Butty Milliband is a life long socialist which is likely why he’s never achieved anything politically
His short tenure as leader ended in failure
He sees a new opportunity to try and escape his brothers shadow by dragging the UK masses into enforced poverty and despair via a nut zero drive guaranteed to affect the poorest, working classes hardest, those very souls his Party was set up to protect
Labour lost its founding father ties when Bliar hijacked it for his own nefarious purposes that left Britain changed for the worse forever
Ed will forge ahead with dystopia until reality smacks him in the butty hole – we can only wait, watch, laugh when the whole nut zero con unravels, as it will, spectacularly
No doubt …err… quite lot of it really, his detailed calculations will be published soon 🙄
A village is missing its idiot. Labour and Miliband are such easy targets. Leftist loons, totally unelectable, couldn’t run a bath never mind Britain.
More power consumed will need expanded distribution network. More profit from selling more power will go to service the capital borrowed to expand the network. The capital comes from the capital market or as govt. loans. The end user is a customer not a bank. What is difficult to understand about normal commercial funding arrangements? What’s it got to do with end users unless the network expansion proves to be commercially un-fundable? Is a profitable business with a virtual monopoly a poor investment and compulsion of the consumer is inevitable? Some may say ‘come off the grid’.
What does that pair know about science?
It’s the motivation that’s the issue here surely. More power for us consumers is a good thing and if more power means more pylons, so be it. However it’s obviously a waste of good pylons if they only carry power when the wind blows or the sun shines. But you can’t pin the rap on the pylons for that.
I wonder where Millibrain is going to find the electricity to flow through all these power lines..
Then there’s a small manner of increasing all the next tier of the network, digging up tens of thousands of roads to triple the capacity of the cabling…
And the domestic supply upgrades…
Plus substations…
Someone hand him a bacon sandwich to shut him up!
More of this and not just in “Posh Villages”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/24337193/posh-village-ruined-roadworks-ev-chargers/
Nick Winsor’s share options and pension are tied to NG income and profits. They are in turn tied to the RoR regulation that means all increase the more capital is spent on the transmission system.
I wouldn’t worry too much about ‘pylon mania’. We do not have access to enough affordable or accessible minerals to build the pylons and transmission lines in the first place. So it will all end in tears anyway. Albeit, very expensive tears. However, I do worry about the sanity of the electorate should these morons be put in charge. Having said that, anyone who votes Con/Lab/Lib Dem or Green probably requires certifying as they all offer the same route to economic suicide, just at different speeds.
Can’t find it, but this story is not new. A couple of years ago, at least.
Investors will be expecting a return of at least 15% in their investment, so it will add £1200 per year in addition to the payback per household.
This would double the average electricity bill, especially if all the extra costs for uprating cabling and substations is taken into account.
If they built genuinely “clean” energy (i.e. nuclear) then they wouldn’t need to ruin the countryside with a very expensive grid expansion.
Ahhhhh well…… you spotted the flaw in their plan!
I’ve started reading Prof. Ian Plimer’s book, Green Murder, again just to get away from all this stupidity surrounding us. In his Introduction, Page 18, he writes, “The IPCC” states that 3% of all emissions of carbon dioxide are from humans. Even if human emissions of Co2 did drive global warming, why is it that only human emission drive global warming whereas the 97% comprising natural carbon dioxide emissions don’t?”. If this is fact, why are Parties of all persuasion pressing ahead with Net Zero, which is economic suicide?
Ian Plimer’s contributions to the debate are always worthwhile, being both knowledgeable and humorous
“Even if human emissions of Co2 did drive global warming, why is it that only human emission drive global warming whereas the 97% comprising natural carbon dioxide emissions don’t?”.
I would be very interested in an answer to this questions, which is one I have often thought about.
“why is it that only British emissions drive global warming”
Fixed it.
Minibrain… a plan from a man with a track record for an Olympic level of asininity.
I know this has been mis-quoted before, but:
“In order to save the environment we first had to destroy it!”
Odd that I haven’t read much about these remarks in our media:
“The president of the upcoming COP28 climate talks in Dubai called on Sunday for governments to abandon the “fantasy” of hastily ditching existing energy infrastructure in pursuit of climate goals.”