Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom

West London Faces New Homes Ban as Electricity Grid Hits Capacity (ft.com) 128

Developers in west London face a potential ban on new housing projects until 2035 because the electricity grid has run out of capacity to support new homes, jeopardising housebuilding targets in the capital. From a report: The Greater London Authority wrote to developers this week warning them that it might take more than a decade to bulk up grid capacity and get developments under way again in three west London boroughs -- Hillingdon, Ealing and Hounslow. In those boroughs, "major new applicants to the distribution network... including housing developments, commercial premises and industrial activities will have to wait several years to receive new electricity connections," according to the GLA's note, which has been seen by the Financial Times.

A recent applicant to the distribution network was told that there is not "sufficient electrical capacity for a new connection" until up to 2035, according to the note. The three boroughs accounted for almost 5,000 homes in 2019-20, equivalent to 11 per cent of London's housing supply. Stalling new projects would exacerbate a chronic housing shortage in a city which already routinely undershoots its delivery targets.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

West London Faces New Homes Ban as Electricity Grid Hits Capacity

Comments Filter:
  • EVs (Score:3, Funny)

    by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Thursday July 28, 2022 @07:33AM (#62740946)
    Maybe they need everyone to buy EVs.
    • Re:EVs (Score:4, Informative)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Thursday July 28, 2022 @08:40AM (#62741190)
      London is really getting past the point where cars work at all. There's a £15 per day congestion fee to drive in. And of course they were a world leader in discovering air pollution, starting to have coal-soured fog 1,000 years ago.

      https://www.britannica.com/eve... [britannica.com]

      • So you are saying no one drives anymore because there is to much traffic?

      • There's a ã15 per day congestion fee to drive in.

        It needs to be 5x that, probably more, and extend all the way out to the M25. At the moment, you can enter the congestion charge zone (eventually), pay your £15 and sit stuck in traffic for ages. There's an optimum capacity for roads, beyond which adding more cars reduces the capacity, and London is way, way over that point.

        And yet, the moronic driver lobby will fight tooth and nail any attempt to do anything about it, because at

    • Maybe they need everyone to buy EVs.

      Might balance out demand, from what I hear.

    • Because they can double as tinyhomes.
  • This is what you get with the Tories, under investment in infrastructure combined with magical thinking.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 )

      Fisted by the invisible hand once again.

      But hey, I'm not the one to kinkshame.

      • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Thursday July 28, 2022 @08:05AM (#62741068) Journal
        That's not the invisible hand you're feeling, in a lot of cases these utilities and grid operators are little more than privatized monopolies. The market is not at play here, a few cronies have been given the opportunity to fleece the public. Same in my own country, BTW.
        • What? Utilities are naturally monopolies & aren't competitive unless you set up some kind of artificial, govt regulated competition system?! Tell me it's not true!!!
          • What? Utilities are naturally monopolies & aren't competitive unless you set up some kind of artificial, govt regulated competition system?! Tell me it's not true!!!

            I think he was saying the opposite. Goverments create the monoplies by restricting who can joing the market. We see the same in the States with ISPs.

            • by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Thursday July 28, 2022 @09:29AM (#62741374)
              No, govts don't create utilities monopolies. They're naturally monopolistic, i.e. it's infeasibly expensive & wasteful to install more than one source of water, electricity, phone, cable, etc. to a building so pretty much all buildings get one. The cost of switching would be prohibitive. Most of the "choice" consumers get is artificial & set up by govts to try to prevent price gouging & under-investment in new infrastructure. The alternative is nationalising them.
              • With Internet you build to the curb and let any provider use the public right away. If we were not so corrupt we would have a government fiber network to the curb and on that network ATT, Verizon, local assholes, would offer Internet service. We would get cheaper, faster Internet then we do now, but because ATT, Verizon have already bought the local politicians we now have to suffer with typically one or two options that cost about the same with okay service.

                Electric (go solar+batteries) and water (water ca

                • Electric (go solar+batteries) and water (water catchment and filtration system). Sewage can even be handled with septic tanks or use composting toilets. Grey water can be filtered and used for outdoor watering.

                  You must live in the countryside. Solar and batteries are on shaky ground in terms of reliability, it's why even homes with big roofs and small number of people still need to be connected to the grid in case of failures. And as for both those and septic tanks, good luck getting those to work in a densely populated area. Hell, even luck won't matter. You just can't do it. You need sewers. With septic tanks the ground around high-rises would become saturated with shit. Composting toilets, nope. Don't work in

                • Like it or not, we're interdependent & dependent on each other. In some cases, it makes more sense to do stuff democratically than to "leave it to the market," e.g. utilities. We need to build, develop, & maintain one set of infrastructure for water, sewage, electricity, phone, cable, & mobile, & we need transparent, democratic means of keeping it fair & reasonable.
                  • I don't really have much issue with central water, sewage, etc but we fail so hard at fair and reasonable as a society that the people controlling all this infrastructure are private interests that are doing it for money (got to pay the mortgage, or the yacht) as opposed for the overall benefit of society.

                    As a southern Californian, I'm quite sure they are screwing people on the price of electric and water. Speaking of water, if we are in a drought maybe we should act like. Beyond our state government whinin

              • In some cases you can try and separate the expensive monopolistic part from the rest. I.e. create a national (or statewide) grid, a municipal water network, phone/internet network and so on, then let commercial companies offer their services on that at cost. Some of that is what we have in NL, a national grid with several energy companies offering power, and consumers and companies buying that power from them. It works fairly well... except that the grid operators (there are 3 I think, each in their own
                • Utilities need centralised, coordinated (& nowadays internationally coordinated), long-term planning to meet our future needs & to build out international electricity grids so that they're stable & efficient. Low wind or sun generation in one area? OK, make that up with excess generation from another. Everyone benefits in the longer term. That's what utilities are for.
            • by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
              In the UK, government intervention in the market improved competition in ISPs, driving down prices.
        • It's far too difficult and expensive to build out the infrastructure. Typically governments build out the infrastructure and then just hand it over the private companies to profit from. Overtime the high cost and lower margins squeeze out competition and during economic downturns mergers and acquisitions gradually create monopolies.

          There are a whole bunch of things in human civilization that are just going to become monopolies and need to be run by society at Large and not private companies as a result.
        • That's not the invisible hand you're feeling, in a lot of cases these utilities and grid operators are little more than privatized monopolies. The market is not at play here, a few cronies have been given the opportunity to fleece the public. Same in my own country, BTW.

          While it's trendy to blame "monopoly utilities" , the reality is utilities that actually manage wires operate almost entirely off of what the government allows for funding in terms of rate increases. They also operate within the confines of what the government allows in terms of project planning. There isn't any real discretion on the part of the utility. And private utilities profit typically by building infrastructure or by hitting government set metrics for things like outages, speed of new connections

    • Every government and local council ever underfunds when it comes to infrastructure vs. building houses. It's essentially a license to print money, rely on creaky old infrastructure while issuing building permits to pack ten dogbox apartments on a property sized for one house.

      So this isn't going to stop the money rolling in to the council/government, they'll just keep charging to allow houses to be built and charging again every year once they're built, and whether there's power, water, parking, or ameniti

      • by nagora ( 177841 )

        Every government and local council ever underfunds when it comes to infrastructure vs. building houses. It's essentially a license to print money, rely on creaky old infrastructure while issuing building permits to pack ten dogbox apartments on a property sized for one house.

        So this isn't going to stop the money rolling in to the council/government, they'll just keep charging to allow houses to be built and charging again every year once they're built, and whether there's power, water, parking, or amenities available for them is someone else's problem. The previous government, or that other department way over there, or the local council if it's the government, the government if it's the local council.

        You betray a complete lack of knowledge about how UK councils and housing work.

        • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

          I have no knowledge of who is responsible for what permitting in the UK or what the tax local/regional/national tax authority structure looks like. So I'll just talk about the related issue the poster was speaking about in American terms.

          he has a point - the issue though unless you are the Fed and Maybe the national treasury - as long as you can hawking those bonds - money does have to come from somewhere. It not like city council folks are sitting around going - Hey lets hawk building permits and grow the

  • Now, install a generator to Her Majesty's wheeled throne.

  • by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <slashdot@nOSpam.keirstead.org> on Thursday July 28, 2022 @08:01AM (#62741044)

    Great motivation for developers to start building their own micro-grids.

    There is absolutely zero reason that a new neighborhood can not come with solar, wind, and storage, and leave the old grid behind.

    Distributed micro-grids are where we really need to be moving. They are more fault-tolerant and less expensive, and unlike with carbon-based plants there is little efficiency gain for solar and wind at scale... the efficiency scales much more linear... so why try to centralize it all? It is old-school thinking.

    • Yeah right, breaking a problem up into small, "distributed" chunks just magically solves all those "old-school" problems.
    • One side of a street is houses, the other side is solar panels, vertical wind turbine generators and micro nuclear fusion reactors*.

      * Coming soon**

      ** Which is why we need the solar panels and vertical wind turbine generators in the meantime.

    • by ryanw ( 131814 ) on Thursday July 28, 2022 @08:55AM (#62741242)

      Great motivation for developers to start building their own micro-grids.

      There is absolutely zero reason that a new neighborhood can not come with solar, wind, and storage, and leave the old grid behind.

      Distributed micro-grids are where we really need to be moving. They are more fault-tolerant and less expensive, and unlike with carbon-based plants there is little efficiency gain for solar and wind at scale... the efficiency scales much more linear... so why try to centralize it all? It is old-school thinking.

      That sounds fantastic. There aren't many cloudy/rainy days in london (Ya right) and the wind is always blowing at around 15 KPH (nope), and exactly what Solar and Wind "Storage" are you talking about? Micro Suns and Blow Dryers? I love the"magical thinkers" that make it sound so easy to have "reliable energy" with solar and wind ... and issolated at a neighborhood level is laughable.

      If you were talking about micro neuclar plants, or even coal/gas as the reliable energy source (aka. "storage" as you might call it), then you could have something to talk about. But issolated grids depending completely on wind and solar and this mythical storage that doesn't exist yet is setting themselves up for issues like Sri Lanka.

      If you don't believe the reports about how terrible it is for Sri Lanka, and others that have gone "green", you're not paying attention. Sri Lanka has national "power cuts" where people have to shut their power off after specific hours. It's insanity, but you ironically won't find this talked about in the US news. I only know about it because I talk to people in Sri Lanka and they have been having to work around the "power-cut" schedules for the past months.

      https://ceb.lk/ [ceb.lk]

      https://newsin.asia/power-cut-... [newsin.asia]

      • The panels have gotten so efficient cloudy weather just isn't an issue anymore and hasn't been for 10 years. You need to update your calculations. Wind is the same way. Improvements in efficiency mean you don't need to be Denmark to run a wind farm. And you can get base level power out of that too.

        We've solved the technical problems but we haven't solved the social ones. We can't get enough money pryed out of the hands of our Lords and lordesses to pay for it switching over to new and safer forms of ele
        • by mobby_6kl ( 668092 ) on Thursday July 28, 2022 @10:09AM (#62741504)

          The panels are magic now? You're still going to get less than half of peak output on a cloudy day and even less in the winter.

          It's sort of possible on a national scale, but the thread was talking about local "micro-grids".

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Shame there's only a limited number of solar panels in the world, and we can't just add more of them to cover cloudy days.

        • You get ~2.85 equivalent daily hours of sun on an annualized basis-- dropping to 0.85 in the winter (highest demand period), and 4.5 in the summer. Not a meaningful offset in winter for a residential house that might be able to generate 6 kWh per day in the winter.

    • Realistically the only way to do a microgrid in London area for a housing estate would be with gas microturbines and district heating, along with a good sized battery and thermal storage. It is unclear if the root issue is transmission, distribution, or generation, but that addresses all three.

      What the UK really needs though is a major efficiency and insulation upgrade program for the existing housing stock... preferably with fire-rated insulation. District heating might help in places, but most would be be

    • The problem is that kind of infrastructure even when you put the word micro in front of it is very, very expensive. Builders don't do the expensive part because that's not profitable enough in the short term. It takes decades sometimes generations for that kind of infrastructure to pay off unless the government's paying for it. If you drill into stuff like Elon musk's battery programs you'll find government subsidies backing them up and basically paying for everything. Well I'm not entirely certain what the
  • Paywall-free link (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ichijo ( 607641 ) on Thursday July 28, 2022 @08:19AM (#62741116) Journal

    In its note [archive.ph], the GLA said pressure on the grid in west London has been particularly acute because a number of data centres have been built nearby in recent years, taking advantage of fibre optic cables that run along the M4 corridor, before crossing the Atlantic.

    According to the GLA, "data centres use large quantities of electricity, the equivalent of towns or small cities, to power servers and ensure resilience in service".

    So charge them more in order to give them an incentive to use less power or move someplace more appropriate for their power needs.

    • If there is such a concentrated load in a few buildings have them build infrastructure to get power from some other part of the grid
      • Would the city approve that kind of building in the middle of the city? Are there no regaultory roadblocks that would prevent data centers from leaving the grid and creating their own?

        • West London can be quite far out of "the city" especially if it is close to the M4. Sounds to me like the boroughs might be desperate enough to consider granting them permission to run another cable alongside the M4 or perhaps even drop it into the river.

          There are other nearby cites to the west of London, It may not need to run the cable very far to join the adjacent "area" (or however the grid is compartmentalized)

          Maybe instead of taking grid power they could pay adjacent property owners to rent them r

    • "So sorry, we can't build your posh new condo because I want to watch Netflix."

    • by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

      So charge them more in order to give them an incentive to use less power or move someplace more appropriate for their power needs.

      The GLA doesn't get to set the tariff for the electricity, the electricity companies do.

    • So charge them more

      The only contracts which work like that are those between you and tech giants which get to say "accept our new terms or fuck off". The rest of the world has consequences of change, and consequences mean lawyers.

      There's a reason energy companies all over Europe are going bankrupt, and that reason has something to do with them not being able to simply charge more money.

  • Good (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Thursday July 28, 2022 @08:47AM (#62741208) Homepage Journal

    Sure they should invest in grid but this is the right thing to do with limited supply.

    Compare with New England ISO where Boston banned natural gas heat for all the new buildings and is mandating electric resistive.

    With no new generating capacity. No new pipelines are allowed. No new nukes can be rated. No off-shore wind. No LNG terminals. Zoning against solar. No new hydro.

    Because, fuck it, ESG and "power comes from the wall, that's where". Rolling blackouts are forecast in NH and VT because of these fuckheads. We're looking at separating from MA so they can die in peace.

    • by endus ( 698588 )

      Highly recommend leaving MA. Born and raised there but I just couldn't take the stupidity, corruption, criminality, malevolent AG, horrendous roads, high taxes, excessive and nonsensical level of bike lanes, etc.

    • While more capacity is a good idea, this isn't really about electricity generation, but about electrical distribution.

      It doesn't matte if you can make 1 billion kV if your transformers and wires can only transport 1 million kV. Standard high voltage lines carry 800 kV, sublines carry upto 69 kV. Each one of those can supply about 250 homes.

      You add a subdivision with 300 homes and you need a new subline going to it. If you build 10 or so large condominium buildings and you need a new High Voltage overhead

    • Sure they should invest in grid but this is the right thing to do with limited supply.

      Compare with New England ISO where Boston banned natural gas heat for all the new buildings and is mandating electric resistive.

      With no new generating capacity. No new pipelines are allowed. No new nukes can be rated. No off-shore wind. No LNG terminals. Zoning against solar. No new hydro.

      Because, fuck it, ESG and "power comes from the wall, that's where". Rolling blackouts are forecast in NH and VT because of these fuckheads. We're looking at separating from MA so they can die in peace.

      It is insane that first-world countries are dealing with "limited supply" issues of electricity generation. This is how first-world countries become third-world countries in a hurry. When governments no longer have the will/ability to satisfy the most basic requirements of the populace in less than a 13 year timespan.

    • I doubt there is a mandate for resistive, more a consequence of developers cheaping out and most consumers being idiots.

      I don't really see the problem with forcing new developments into ground source heatpumps though. Drilling costs for large developments are negligible, the utilization of drill rig and operator time is an order of magnitude better than for single homes. Ground source heatpumps just make sense for large housing developments. The earn back time relative to resistive would be a couple years,

    • No off-shore wind.

      Are you sure? From a little googling it appears two big offshore wind projects are in the works, Commonwealth Wind and Mayflower Wind

      https://www.offshorewind.biz/2... [offshorewind.biz]

      https://www.commonwealthwind.c... [commonwealthwind.com]

    • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

      Compare with New England ISO where Boston banned natural gas heat for all the new buildings

      Partially false [wsj.com]. Boston is not Brookline, and Brookline is not Boston.

      and is mandating electric resistive.

      Entirely false. [wbur.org]

      No new pipelines are allowed. No new nukes can be rated. No off-shore wind. No LNG terminals. Zoning against solar. No new hydro.

      A whole bunch of citations needed, because I'm not going to chase down each of your lies [boston.gov].

      Rolling blackouts are forecast in NH and VT because of these fuckheads. We're lo

      • You have news articles for sources, I have the President of the NE ISO giving a presentation to business owners. I think he knows a little better than NPC Radio.

        Get real.

  • by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Thursday July 28, 2022 @08:48AM (#62741214)

    Remember modems? When it felt slow, you simply enabled Van Jacobson in PPP and voila: faster internet!

    Apply that same principle on the electricity grid: compress the electricity to fit more through the existing lines.

    You're welcome.

    • Yeah we can just send power at both 50 Hz AND 60 Hz. And get twice as much power over the same lines. Filter it out at the load side. Genius!
  • This isn't much different from water shortages in the American west. The developers don't give a sh*t. That's somebody else's headache down the road. The city governments don't give a sh*t for two reasons: A) they're looking at all the additional property tax revenue they'll have to play with and 2) they've often been bought by the developers themselves.

    What you need is somebody with an engineering background who is willing to force the developers to make sacrifices. Case in point, a friend was on a cou

  • One of their main power providers, Electricité de France was nationalized by Macron a few weeks ago.

    But he might concentrate on France first.

  • The amount of money developers would be willing to pay to get those projects off the ground has to be an order of magnitude more than what is needed to get distribution put in within a couple years.

    Everything can be solved with enough money, except government. No fucking way a 13 year delay can be down to market limitations, government has to be the cause.

  • I think TFA screwed up its housing count, or counted skyscrapers with 200 units and single-family homes as "1" (of ~45,000... 5000 / 0.11). Greater London has ~16,000 people per square mile, and a population of at least 10-12 million. I think the slums of Mumbai & Lagos have more housing units per resident than TFA's math claims London has.

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

Working...