UKC

A major new power line is being developed in the East Highlands. Running roughly 170km from Caithness, through Easter Ross into Inverness-shire, the Spittal - Loch Buidhe - Beauly 400kV Reinforcement will be a similar scale to the Beauly-Denny line completed around a decade ago, and may prove equally controversial.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Surely if it’s avoiding the wild land of Rhidorroch-Dearg - Wyvis area, for the cultural landscape of farming and the (affluent) Inverness commuter belt the proposed route is the better option, from a mountaineers perspective preserving the primary wild land area?

Also isn’t better that energy infrastructure is adjacent to population centres so people make the link between what they consume and how and where the energy comes from?

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

I don't understand your second point to be honest. If energy infrastructure were to be sited next to population centres then there wouldn't be any need for this pylon line in the first place. Instead, places like London would be surrounded by millions of acres of solar farms. Most of the power being generated by the windfarms in the north of Scotland is for "export" to other regions of the UK.  Not many people would make the argument that the windfarms are not important or necessary, but the routing of the infrastructure shouldn't be done at the expense of communities who are not the main market for the power.

On your first point, what you are in effect suggesting, is that the "wild land" of Rhidorrich etc is somehow prioritised as worthy of conservation at the expense of farmland or less "wild land".  I'm not for one minute suggesting that the line should be routed that way, but the preferred route will cross a lot more than just fields... its 100+ miles long and will cross a hell of a lot of very scenic and important high ground. Much that is also extremely important from a conservation and historical consideration. The Strathpeffer and Ben Wyvis area is one of the most important regions for the highly endangered Scottish Wildcat, for example. All of the proposed routes will pass through this and cause a lot of very long lasting damage.

As I understand it, (and I live right in the line of the preferred corridor, close to Strathpeffer) Ofgem have instructed SSE not to even consider an upgrade of the existing corridor. This is not any kind of "public consultation". This line should be either taken along the existing corridor, be buried, or take a more direct subsea route.

  

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Are Great Western Rock expanding their area of influence?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

It'll be to take our electricity. Shetland is currently being turned into one giant wind farm.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I don't think much of the 'artist's impression', the diameter of those cables looks massively over-sized and the pylons themselves are rendered way too bright.

In reply to Fraser:

Sorry, yes I know it's limited. They're also smaller by about 1/6 and have 5 fewer cables than the ones being proposed. So it's arguably six and half a dozen

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I confess the objections and proposed solutions don't seem to agree; on the one hand, there is concern about the damage caused by creating access roads to build the pylons, on the other hand, the suggestion to bury the cable along its entire length. I can't see that the damage & disruption caused by digging a damned great trench to bury the cable could be less damaging than building the temporary access roads.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

I'm not a fan of pylons by any means or have any opinion of the proposal one way or the other but your comment suggests the artist's impressions might have been prepared by UKC. Is that the case or am I completely misreading your post? 

In reply to Fraser:

No, they've been prepared by a community group

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Gotcha, thanks for clarifying.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Yes a good deal of disruption would occur with burying the cables, but actually not that much different to the pylons. Whatever the case, once the burying is done, then there will be much less lasting aesthetic and environmental damage.

What are you going to do in 20 years time when a number of people living near to the pylons, ends up with a spike in the number of lymphoma cases?

In reply to veteye:

Easily tackled with tinfoil and basic origami

In reply to GraB:

Do you know why OfGen have instructed SSE not to consider an upgrade of the current line?

Possibly this is to add resilience into the system, so there is a redundant route (in case of storm damage).

In reply to captain paranoia:

If buried, then at least they wouldn't be anywhere near as susceptible to the expected "freak" weather that we are meant to expect, and therefore one presumes that power cut problems would be drastically reduced or even eliminated in the winter.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Undergrounding lines is incredibly expensive, around 10 times as much per KM then pylons. Ofgem have the role of making sure that consumers country wide get 'good value for money' and the power companies have to prove this to them when they make their engineering proposal. Hence why new lines are only put underground in very specific situations such as the Hinkley C Connection project going underground through the Mendips Hills AONB or in specific engineering cases.

In reply to Tom F Harding:

And north of the buried bit the new pylon is actually quiet aesthetically pleasing compared to trad U.K. pylons.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

I once saw some new designs for pylons which were really aesthetically very elegant, a bit like the way wind turbines are. If we had those rather than the standard spidery things, I imagine there would be much less objection. Maybe they were too expensive.

In reply to Tom F Harding:

I don't disagree with this generally, but what rattles me is the fact that if the Highlands were in England then the whole place would be a national park, let alone an AONB.  Including all of the less "wild" parts, such as the areas that will be crossed by the proposed line.

There are just two national parks in the whole of Scotland... And nothing north of the Great Glen.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I think there’s one at the land slip above the dam at Loch Quoich?

In reply to UKC/UKH News: The only “environmental impact” seems to be spoiling the view from certain viewpoints. Indeed if the photographer / artistic impressonator had only walked half a mile from the roadside to the other side of the pylons this wouldn’t have been a problem. The grid reinforcement is an essential component of decarbonising the UK’s electricity supply, something that the vast majority of UKC seem to be in favour of. Of course it would be nicer if the pylons weren’t there, but the alternatives are greater reliance on energy imports from despotic regimes, accelerated climate change or more nuclear stations near to you. Underground cables would be nice but grossly expensive and further impact on electricity prices

In reply to Tom F Harding:

Interesting. I don't know what it is for UK wind and solar farms, but in the US for large solar projects the interconnection/transmission costs are not too far off the costs of the actual solar panels... 10x ing that portion of the cost would nearly quadruple the capital expense on the whole system; obviously 10xing the lines wouldn't do the same to the total interconnection/transmission costs, but you can see how quickly it could destroy the economics of it. For that kind of reason, I find it hard to get on board with those complaining about this, and find it annoying that UKC chooses to post stuff like this without putting any effort into looking at those issues.  

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Do you mean nuclear power stations instead of wind?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

In a recent governmental report looking at the best ways to help the offshore wind sector the main takeaway message was "If you take just one message from this report, it should be the urgent need to upgrade our national grid for a world of high renewables penetration, and widespread electrification of homes and businesses."
Whilst we need to be sensitive to natural areas, the only way we're going to even have a shot at making our Net Zero targets is by building infrastructure like this.  Whilst it would be ideal to burry the cables if we did this in every scenario then the costs would be so astronomical the price of our electricity would massively ramp up (even more...).  The UK has an extremely old grid that does not current support renewables and this needs to change urgently, especially with the amount of new generation that will be coming online in the next 20 years.

In reply to AliRLee:

Yes,  but don't kill the effing mountain environment to do so. Try building a new pylon power infrastructure to cross Snowdonia or the Lake District. The Scottish Highlands are getting despoiled and vandalised because not enough people care about their extraordinary beauty. Kick these pylons off the table and, if a power cable is really, really needed, then entrench it.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

"Do you really want to see a line of pylons running behind the Heights as a footnote to Ben Wyvis when driving north"

This comment from the article does IMO highlight the difference in priorities also shown on this thread.

In reply to AliRLee:

Why on earth do we have to have all these wind farms quite so far from the cities that use all the electricity ?

Instead of using the Scottish Highlands so much, what's wrong with covering the South Downs with these windmills and long lines of pylons - or is it that those people in the South East who make all the decisions like a pretty view from their country estates.

I know these areas aren't "as windy", but they're not the doldrums either.

In reply to Mike Stretford: digging a trench can have a massive environmental (as opposed to aesthetic) impact. Heavy excavating equipment would need to access every inch of the route, and “temporary” access roads to get the excavating equipment to site, all across sensitive habitats and eco systems. Not to mention blasting rock which is on or too close to the surface to allow the required cable depth. The bigger the pylons the farther apart they, and their foundations need to be. Pylons can be taken to site by helicopter and the actual cables installed with much less impact 

In reply to fred99:

absolutely wrong, there’s a massive difference in the annual wind yield north and south particularly for off shore wind 

As soon as we can overturn the de-facto ban on onshore wind there should and may well be more wind turbines on the south downs, but the yield would be far less than that available from Scotland off shore 

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

By environment you really mean aesthetics as in the view, rather than the environment for our biodiverse range of flora and fauna; many of which are under severe threat from climate change

I have great appreciation for the aesthetics of wild places, but the debate needs to be honest.

In reply to fred99

Shhh..... Once we've voted for independence and are negotiating Scexit, we'll be able to say "give us everything we want or we'll flick the switch off and sell all the power to Denmark or wherever instead".

In reply to kevin stephens:

I agree. My comment on priorities was about the 'driving' bit, I saw some irony in the comment I quoted.

In reply to fred99:

Well I'm guessing I'm not going to be converting you to a pro wind fan but put simply you get a lot better (cleaner and more consistent) wind up north and there's less stakeholders to contend with.  Ideally you do want to have them as close as possible to the cities but these areas also have more stakeholders to contend with and generally will have more turbulent wind (a wind turbine killer).  As an example of trying to put a wind farm near a city, look at the proposed new Hill of Fare wind farm near Aberdeen which has got many people angry even though it will annual almost generate enough energy for all of Aberdeen.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

A few thoughts:

Can the design of Pylons be so that they are less visibly disruptive/more in tune with the surrounds.

Pylons and above ground cables are effectively temporary, subsoil cables less so.

What is the impediment to a longer but less obtrusive route?

How was the current proposal arrived upon, a deal with the land owners - simply on cost to the Electricity provider. Is there fully transparency on the methodology?

Is central Govt funding being provided, if so then the public should have a role in determining how those monies are spent.

In reply to SFM:

I don't know for sure but I'd guess voltage-drop would come into it? 

In reply to abarro81:

Yep, uncritically reproducing the views of a local pressure group is hardly even handed. This is the same mechanism by which no infrastructure gets built in the UK, even solar or wind. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

like this?

https://www.nationalgrid.com/electricity-transmission/network-and-infrastru...

In reply to SFM:

The T-Pylons being used on the Hinkley C Connection project aim to do this. Two-thirds the height of a traditional lattice pylon, though considerably more expensive.

On paper underground cables have a shorter lifespan then pylons - 30-40 years before replacement. This is very much the 'minimum' life span but you can't 'refit' underground in the same way as an overhead. Pylons on the other hand with regular painting, the odd bit of steel replacing and major refits of the conductors and hardware every few decades have so far lasted the thick end of a century.

Losses and cost. Putting lines through more built up areas is more expensive - you have to compensate more people and the engineering is often more complex. It also depends on what you consider obtrusive - is people seeing a brand-new pylon out of their sitting room window more or less obtrusive then it crossing sparsely populated countryside. Its an interesting question.

I don't know the details of this particular scheme or Scottish law on this matter but in England this would be planned/approved under a Development Consent Order (DCO). This method of granting planning permission aims to take into account all the relevant stakeholders; the power company, environmental experts, Ofgem (representing the UK consumer), land owners, the public as a whole etc. Its pretty complicated and would be very hard to summarise in a few sentences.

In reply to fred99:

I live on Romney Marsh on the south coast, a SSSI and has large Rspb reserves, along with a very unique and important wildlife area.

Plus two nuclear power stations, wind farm and a solar farm and associated pylons

The wildlife seems to cope with it quite well

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yet another good reason to keep power generation far more local to power use than the current system.

In reply to AliRLee:

When you say stakeholders, I see NIMBY's.

These people want all the electricity, but don't want want any of the nasty things that go with it.

Isn't it about time we made efforts to reduce our consumption rather than continually trying to supply wastrels with electricity produced in someone else's backyard and transmitted across umpteen other people's backyards - all because some greedy piglets want an unlimited amount of power at the lowest cost (to them) and they refuse to consider reducing their electricity usage (or rather wastage !).

In reply to abarro81:

For the proposed offshore wind parks in the far NW (Scotwind sites) the grid transmission charges make up about 20% of the levelised cost of electricity (from memory - no longer have access to the numbers). 

Clearly capital costs of the grid reinforcement will make a up a goodly proportion of this, but there's also the operations and maintenance of the system when it's up. I'm not sure what the final impact would be of undergrounding, but it's not going to be 10x the the 20%, more like 10x 25% of the 20% - still significant.

Whatever way the sums finally fall, it's going to push already minimally viable projects to being totally commercially unviable as they have already bid their strike prices based on an assumption of grid connection charges, if those ramp significantly, then bye bye projects and good luck hitting 2030/2050 targets.

It's a commonly held view (not by you, this is a more general comment) that offshore wind projects are "astronomically profitable" and that SSEN will take short cuts to "maximise profits". SSEN are limited by OFGEM in how much profit they can make, and it's not as high as people would think.

Most commercial grade offshore wind developments are targeting 8% returns...

In reply to fred99:

Fred, the sad truth is that neither energy efficiency, nor renewables is enough. Even if we implement MAX efficiency AND max renewables we're still going to miss targets. Saying "let's not do the infrastructure and just use less" misses half the equation.  

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

Alasdair,

My problem is with those people who, whilst they have a "green" electricity provider, seem to think that they can use/abuse/waste this electricity and it doesn't matter because they're "green".

We can only produce so much electricity by wind/solar at present, and virtually no matter what we do in the future to increase this capacity, there will still be a limit.

Unless these wastrels reduce their usage - and it may well mean that above a certain consumption their bills have to be increased dramatically to "persuade" them - the amount of "non-green" electricity required will not be properly reduced.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

Good knowledge, thanks!

In reply to fred99:

Can you point me to one of these wastrels?

I suppose you could imagine a scenario whereby energy costs above some basic minimum for the size of place you live have a heavy penalty, maybe with some subsidies below this threshold for those with lower incomes, but as with any means-tested subsidy / penalty, it would no doubt cost way more to implement than it would save.

Can you point to any assessment of how big an issue this is? I.e. number of wastrels & energy wasted per wastrel? Or are you just ranting at some imaginary person that maybe is fairly insignificant in the grand scheme?

In reply to fred99:

I'm considering joining the 'wastrels' by buying an electric car. That'll increase my personal electricity consumption by 50% (roughly - it's shared by two people). Might save on pollution, but just watch those pylons sprouting up! System under-capacity? Oh dear - blackouts? Soaring energy prices? Perhaps I should stick with a petrol car. Tricky one.

In reply to Marek:

pah! done that - wait till I get the ASHP, that will really push up the meter readings

In reply to Dr.S at work:

I "waste" maybe 70 % of my electricity by working at home (and I don't mean tossing about on a computer). I actually wasted a fair bit this morning splitting wood for my heating but I guess I could save that by fitting a heat pump.

In reply to Tom F Harding:

You're absolutely right about DCOs. Huge huge exercises in consents, environmental and ecological impact surveys, negotiations with land owners and public consultation meetings.

As it happens I was sat today with one of the consents team who worked on Hinkley C circuits and the Mendip cables are proving to be an absolute arse because they keep failing their pressure tests plus the ground is so wet the earthworks have been an enormous quagmire in places. The T-pylons aren't planned anywhere else as they look pretty but aren't climbable, so MEWPs are needed for maintenance, which means semi-permanent MEWP access paths to every single pylon.

The "grumpy old men" OHL towers are by far the lowest impact ecologically, cost and engineering-wise but what people really mean is they don't like how they look and would rather the environment took the hit to preserve their view.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Shame about the T-pylons - they are better looking - why could they not be constructed in a climbable fashion?

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

That's broadly correct, The 10x cost is the actual materials and building costs per KM. It also to a slightly lesser extent applies to compensation and other costs related to things like environmental mitigation - all of which go up significantly by going underground. Things like building a new substation at each end of your new line, which would be a big part of a projects cost are not affected by going over or underground. The same with the cost of planning, designing and administrating the project, these aren't really affected.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I wont say too much about that project but yes, it has be complicated... getting there though. To also put in context the scale of these kind of projects - 'Just' 57km of new line (a little of which is underground), a new substation and some other significant re-jigging will cost more then £650 million. It has also taken nearly a decade to plan by a large team and is taking a half decade to construct. Upgrading just the transmission network (excl. distribution) nationwide to make it suitable for our future energy needs is a mammoth task.

In reply to fred99:

Here’s the Wind farm we look at from the South Downs…

https://www.rampionoffshore.com/wind-farm/

“Larger than the isle of Guernsey”