UKC

If you follow these things you’ll probably know that the development of new nuclear generating capacity near Sellafield is threatening the landscape of the Western Lakes because of the associated pylon construction. Pressure from the public and conservation organisations has had some beneficial effect on the plans of National Grid, largely in terms of burying some of the power lines, but they are now consulting the public on the revised plans, which involve the construction of huge pylons through the Duddon estuary area on land technically outside the National Park but often by only a few metres. These pylons are twice as high and 7 times the volume of the existing 132kv line in that area. The implications of this for the landscape are fairly obvious.
I’m afraid if you want to have some input to this issue it’s not just a question of ticking a box. You need to read a bit of stuff and then write something, as much or as little as you think best. The Friends of the Lake District has made this as easy as possible for you, so if you care about this issue here is the link to the appropriate page on their web-site. Note that the consultation period ends in early January.
http://www.friendsofthelakedistrict.org.uk/Pages/Site/say-no-to-pylons-in-t...

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Done Roger, lets keep it at the top of the forum!

In reply to Rog Wilko:

I'm a bit conflicted on this. Pylons aren't pretty, but then again neither are windfarms, which have sprung up on the park boundaries unchecked, and are far more visible from the tops than pylons.

Also there's a line going north through West Cumbria across some equally nice countryside, but not a peep from the Friends of the Lake District, even though they'll be visible from the Western Fells.

The power lines have to go somewhere unfortunately, but we need the least impact all round, not just protect the chocolate box areas at massive cost.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Done

In reply to Ridge:
With you on this. I love the Lakes in general and the Duddon in particular. However people want electricity at a cheap price. But they do not want Windfarms nor fracking, or at least not where it will affect them. Also one of the reasons that the Nuclear power is generated out there on the West coast is because the people there where desperate for jobs and money and had little political clout to resist. So the fact that the wires to transmit spoil a middle class playground does have a certain irony.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Yes, better to put a block on the plans of one of the few none tourist large scale employers in the lakes. I wouldn't want the weekend views of visitors or the value of those holiday homes in sight of it impacted.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Switzerland has power lines all over the place and it really doesn't detract from the scenery.

In reply to Lenin:

Why bring class into this? Walking and looking at the view is free. There are and always have been plenty of working class ramblers and climbers. It wasn't the middle class that fought to keep access to Kinder. A Wainwright wasn't born with a silver spoon.

In reply to Neil Williams:

That's a matter of opinion I guess.

In reply to marsbar:
Because the Friends of the Lake district is a middle/upper class lobby group http://www.friendsofthelakedistrict.org.uk/Pages/FAQs/Category/patrons , the only oik there is Dave Birkett.

In reply to Lenin:

.....spoil a middle class playground does have a certain irony.

So anyone against this is middle class and the Duddon Estuary is a middle class playground?

We could have a very valid debate around the tension between creating jobs and landscape/amenity impact. On the other hand we could just not bother and leap to a sweeping generalisation off the actual topic instead?

Actually it's been a busy day so I can't be bothered either. Bl**dy middle classes!

In reply to Wainers44:

I'd like to like this more than once. I'd already decided, with you, that I can't be bothered.....

In reply to Rog Wilko:

What about using more artistic pylons? I rather like the Icelandic ones that look like people.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

The friends of the Lake district are not really friends if you live here, they are a pain in the arse...

In reply to Lenin:

Well in that case, build all over it to spite them.

In reply to wintertree:

https://morfis.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/modern-design-pylons-e1330703325...

https://morfis.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/modern-design-pylons4.jpg

In reply to marsbar:



I like the big reindeer!

In reply to marsbar:

Indeed so, though I'd rather a few pylons (or wind turbines, or whatever) than carbon-based pollution.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Quite. I can't consider pylons desecration as they can be easily removed. The long term effects of fossil fuel - which these pylons would reduce - will do more than alter a few views in the lakes.

In reply to Rog Wilko: I thought you were going to be talking about new sheep farms. If you want to talk about desecration then that is far more damaging, because it damages the fabric of the place, rather than just the view if you look in a certain direction.

In reply to Rog Wilko:



There's a ready-written response which National Grid have said that they will accept - you can find it here.

http://www.powerwithoutpylons.org.uk/easy-way-respond-national-grid-consult...

There's lots more info on this website too.

There's no need for this pylon route to exist - an underground alternative is being used for the path through the Lake District, and an offshore route is viable too.

In reply to summo:


No-one's trying to put a block on the power station... just the way that the cables are transferred through the area...

An underground option is being taken through the Lake District - why not continue that right down through the Duddon Valley and the Lake District peninsula too, instead of a line of humongous pylons?

In reply to katherinec85:

Genuine question, if it's that easy, why aren't they doing that anyway?

In reply to wintertree:


I'm not sure it's as straightforward as you suggest. Maybe someone with more expertise can comment, but the creation of infrastructure on a large scale creates huge amounts of CO2 which will be long time being offset when it all comes on-stream.
Apart from that, I don't think people are denying the need for the link to carry the power, they're just wanting it burying. It costs a lot more, but some people think it's worth it.

In reply to Rog Wilko:


Yes but we need the infrastructure regardless. Tunnelling - as you suggest below - isn't exactly without cost either. The CO2 involved in superpylons is I think inconsequential compared to the carbon savings of a fission plant over its lifetime.


I'd rather we did it cost effectively and spent the money saved beefing up our infrastructure to the point where blackouts aren't looming on the horizon. Cost is normally a pretty good proxy for resource usage, which naively suggests to me the above ground solution is less resource intensive.

In reply to galpinos:

It all boils down to cost.

(P.S. I didn't say it was 'easy' — just that it's clearly possible — campaigning has managed to move a lot of the route underground already.)

In reply to katherinec85:



Lots of things are possible but aren't necessarily the right choice. I've no idea what is involved in burying these cables (quite a lot of work if it's that much more expensive), what impact that has on the environment (I'd imagine it'll need to be a decent excavation that will end up containing a lot of concrete - will this affect the watershed/water table etc?) and how they are maintained (underground cables sound expensive and difficult to maintain).

Personally, I think pylons in this case aren't the necessarily the wrong option and I'd like a decent debate about the pros and cons and the other viable options. The Friends of the Lake District blurb reads like knee jerk reactionary gubbins to me, a lot of rhetoric but little substance.

In reply to katherinec85:


It does, and what else can be done with that money if it isn't spent on that.

In reply to Rog Wilko:


I'm not convinced that the burden of some additional visual pollution justifies massively increased installation, maintenance and repair costs and complexity - all of which will be eventually be recouped through your energy bill, regardless of where you live. Underground cabling also seems more disruptive to the flora and fauna of an area than overground transmission.

I'm not saying we should always choose the cheapest options but I'd rather greater investment was going into green generation than into preserving the view of an area that's already been massively influenced by people.

In reply to katherinec85:



I agree, but it isn't free. Unless customers pay more for power, then they'll have it transferred by the cheapest mean possible.

In reply to katherinec85:


Exactly, in Sweden they have been burying cables for ten years since a big storm then caused people to be without power for near a monthly. All phone lines have gone too and they now use mobile network.

The cost; a monthly connection fee of £25 before vat for every customer before they pay for their power consumed. Granted it would be less in the UK as there isn't a drive to bury and storm proof nationally, but I don't think average Joe wants to pay a penny more.

In reply to summo:


Was that Sweden? I was talking about the landline switch-off at the weekend but couldn't remember which country it was. Cheers.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Yeah, copper lines and poles gone. You can keep your landline number and folk just get a dongle to put in the window, then you either plug your phone into it or your base unit for normal handheld phones that charge when not in use. Not cheap to do, but more of an eye to future savings.

In reply to summo:

That presumably is for wired telephony, not broadband. Last report I saw stated that an impressive 60% of Swedish homes are covered with fibre access and presumably a good percentage are still covered by DSL

In reply to GrahamD:
It varies, anything urban or semi urban is fibre. Especially flats, apartments and houses built in last 20 years as all services are communal, heating etc...

Rural, 4g or fibre. We have 4g but there is still a programme to put fibre in. Not cheap each household must put in roughly £2k, providers and government pays rest. To be weather proof and not blight the landscape there is a price to pay.

Edit; just seen your bit on DSL, you mean still using old lines. Nope copper been going for 3plus years. You either switch to 4g or fibre. No choice for consumers, the lines are going regardless, the vast majority have already have.

In reply to summo:

https://www.pts.se/upload/Rapporter/Tele/2016/Swedish-Telecommunications-Ma...

Suggests its not quite that black and white ! xDSL and CATV still have a significant role (currently) as you would expect.

In reply to Neil Williams:


They are all over British Columbia and visible from most major highways - though they do tend to seem rather insignificant in comparison to the vastness of the scenery.

The planned powerline through the south and west of Cumbria will have less visual impact than many of the windfarms that are dotted around the county.

There is an alternative solution to avoid the need for this particular line upgrade. Site the proposed Nuclear Power Station in the constituency of a Cabinet Minister in the 'Home Counties' - after all it would be closer to where most demand for electric power comes from. We are told by government that the new generation of Nuclear plants are supposedly very safe, an essential part of ensuring our security of supply, and a good thing for the nation. How could a cabinet minister possibly object.?

In reply to GrahamD:

can only presume that this traffic is nearly all business or office set ups, I don't know a single person who still has a copper line phone for calls or internet. It would not take many large offices in cities to swing the stats in that direction, despite 1000s of mile of copper being pulled out around the countryside.

It would be a nightmare for anyone on copper here as the speeds were dreadful due to the distances involved. Society is relatively electronic obsessed if you can do it virtual most people do, school blogs instead of handing out bits of paper, banking, even acknowledging that you will attend a persons funeral is done by going into the directors website!

Reading more, there are 6.2m 4g phone subscriptions (2015) out of total population of 9m ish. Page 27 shows that of 12m internet subscriptions less than 2m are by cable or xDSL, so roughly 17/18%. Or page 28, graph of dial up andSL connection through the years, pretty much a plummet downwards. Depressingly nearly half the population enjoy a downloaded speed quicker than us, we've never exceeded 50.

In reply to Lord of Starkness:

Not really very clever thinking to do that when all said and done. All those jobs going to the South-east. Bit of a daft comment.

In reply to Lord of Starkness:

Because most of the home counties don't have suitable locations and the plan to site new nuclear reactors at sites of existing nuclear facilities seems an eminently sensible thing to so, be that Sellafield, Hinkley, Wylfa or Sizewell?

In reply to galpinos:

Dungeness may not be quite Home Counties, but it's thoroughly southeast and has existing plants. And there is agreement to build at Bradwell, in Essex, not that far from Sizewell. And Winfrith may be in Dorset, but it's a lost closer to the centres of demand than the west of the Lake District. In fact, if you want to use existing sites, most of them are closer to the southeast than anything in the Lake District.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

A 20km overhead line isn't much at all. 20km of 132kv cable underground is quite a lot. The 132kv cable trench would be very wide indeed because of the separation needed between the separate phase cables of the circuit. Plus the number of joints required in that length of cable, make underground cable laying about 180 times more expensive than overhead. Then there's the disruption to the environment/road infrastructure whilst all the digging and laying is taking place

...And if one of those joints fails, or the cable is damaged - more digging and re-instatement required to fix the fault.


Overhead "may'' not be to everybody's taste, but it is probably the best option,...........And I'll be out of a job if it all get put underground

In reply to Rog Wilko:

to Neilh and Galpinos -- I guess you missed the point where my tongue was very firmly planted in my cheek. I've spent a significant part of my life in West Cumbria and know how desperate many people are to have the employment that a new Nuclear Power station and the associated infrastructure and service industries will bring. On a personal level I would much rather see more emphasis on renewables such as offshore wind and tidal lagoons, but accept that the nation is going to require a mix of generation sources.

I've been critical of the so called 'Friends of the Lakes District' lobby group for many years. Few actually live in the area, and they have been a major impediment to some much needed infrastructure. Look how long it took for the A66 and the coastal roads to be upgraded from the dreadful single carriageways of the 1970's. Don't get me started about the lack of affordable housing that is driving young people out of the area - yet many of the 'Friends' are happy to have their second homes or holiday lets.

In reply to Lord of Starkness:

Sorry, I did miss that.


I'm in the same boat here. Hopefully they'll be the last new phase and by the end of their lives we'll all be using a smart network running or 100% renewable with massive battery back-up.

In reply to Lord of Starkness: .


+1.

Also don't forget the latest improvements to the A66 stop east of the M6. The A66 from the M6 to the West of Cumbria is still pretty much single carriageway, with any improvements fiercely resisted by our 'friends'

In reply to Ridge:

I know more than my fair share about the 'improvement' of the A66 - I had a 'hand' in a lot of the structures along that route in the late 70's and 80's, and had to travel regularly between coasts. Even so when the major developments at Sellafield were going in the 90's, servicing the site was a major headache because Wigton, Workington, Egremont, Hensingham and Distington bypasses had not been built. The Carlisle northern bypass was not even at planning stage. Talk about waiting until the horse has bolted!

It's also a bit of a scandal that there is a gap of over 200 miles between continuous dual carriageway roads linking east and west coasts. Nothing between the M62 linking Merseyside and the Humber, and the M8 linking the Forth and Clyde. There is still no continous dual carriageway linking Newcastle and Edinburgh FFS! No wonder huge swathes of the North of England find it so hard to attract industry and employment, and why so many of our young people get sucked South.

In reply to Rog Wilko:


That's my position, that full consideration should be given to the other options (offshore or burial)

Having said that, I'm loving the moose pylons.

In reply to marsbar:


National Grid already have, I was reading about it yesterday, you'll have to find the site yourself.
I'm already subsiding rich people with PV FiT payments on my bill, why should I pay even more to bury some cables when there are already pylons on the route anyway?

In reply to marsbar:
"It costs a lot more, but some people think it's worth it."

In reply to marsbar:

"It costs a lot more, but some people think it's worth it."

But are those people who think this prepared to pay that cost? I am sure they will think of some nebulous "other" such as city capitailists or fat cat bankers. However in a market society the consumer usually pays, and that may 90 year Mrs Jones with fingerless gloves and a cat, having higher bills. Just to preserve a "middle class playground"

In reply to Lenin:

There are various stats stating the rich pay a massive proportion of the UK's tax revenue already and with the ever increasing threshold many pay nothing. Many UK problems are driven by the fact that for the past 30 years no one has been paying enough tax. Even a modest increase now, will take years to catch up on decades of under funding, and it's all an entirely self inflicted problem that won't be solved without some national sacrifice.

In reply to summo:
Totally agree with nearly * every word you have said there.

* Edit the nearly.

In reply to Lord of Starkness:

I went on a visit to the A66 Bridge at Keswick whilst it was being built. The geology on the north side of the Greta gorge was very difficult, friends of the lake district fought against and succeeded in blocking drilling of boreholes to investigate.

It had to built out from the south side on supports before being lowered on its northern foundations due the possibility the fractured Skiddaw slates may have collapsed into the Gorge. This made the bridge very expensive. If its cost had been known at planning then the alternative route using the B5305 round the northern edge of the lakes would have been chosen.

When completed inside the bridges box sections made a great place to party once it was discovered the man hole covers could be lifted out using 2 x chouinard No 3 stoppers.

The Moorside reactors are finding it hard to get financed with NuGen trying to get substantial parts of the Moorside infrastructure being reclassified as non-nuclear so they can receive extra government support. On 8th December the french partner Engie declared that it will pull out of the Moorside development because "it no longer has the resources to finance such expensive projects" and wants to concentrate on renewables instead.

The siting of the long term geological disposal store under Ennerdale will have a huge effect on west cumbria, I suspect Jamie Reed may lead the campaign to give these lads a good home http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/148A3/production/_87613148_sel...

In reply to Lenin:

Well if the working class want to they can play there too.

In reply to marsbar:

Looking at the signs by the footpath opposite Levens hall placed by that scion of the Friends of The Lake District Lord Levens, only so long as they do not stray off the path