MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Hi all,
Long time lurker on here, but wanted to post about something that may be important to some people on here.
There are plans by the National Grid to plant a long line of pylons from the new Moorside nuclear plant in West Cumbria down towards Heysham to join the national grid. Campaigning has managed to change the proposed route through the Lake District National Park to be underground, but there's still a long stretch outside the Park that will be above ground — this'll pass through the Whicham Valley, the Duddon Valley and through south Cumbria. These pylons will be twice the height of the 'normal' pylons that already exist here - they'll be around 50 metres high, and they'll also hold 18 wires rather than 7. To say they'll be an eyesore on the boundary of the Lake District is an understatement. They'll block views into the park, and they'll be visible when looking out towards the sea from inside the Lake District.
There's a campaign for this part of the route to be changed too - an offshore route to Heysham is feasible.
If this matters to you, please respond to the consultation. There's a ready-written response here if you don't have time:
[url= http://www.powerwithoutpylons.org.uk/national-grid-response/ ]Here's the link to the page where you can send your response[/url]
Alternatively, you can respond on that page with your own thoughts too.
The deadline is Friday 6th, at 5pm, so please act now if you will.
Many thanks.
I guess the question is who is prepared to pay more for their electricity, to cover the cost of putting the cables underground?
Okay, I can live with rerouting this cable underground but ONLY if a wind turbine is placed at every location a pylon would be under the original proposal. If we're going to have something there, let's at least make sure it is doing something useful.
Rachel
The proposed pylons and associated wires spanning between them would have a catastrophic impact on the landscape including views into and out of the National Park. Your plans would damage unacceptably the Duddon Estuary. Here the landscape of the Lake District and its beauty rolls directly into the sea. The magnificence of the landscape can be seen to cross over the National Park boundary.
I've lived and worked up there a lot but what is the unacceptable damage?
Is this part of the old proposal for a loop from Carlisle round the coast to the M6 again?
What is the feasibility of the off shore version? We have just sat out a long and uncomfortable winter while boats flopped around trying to fix sub sea cables where as land based are easily looked after.
hey'll block views into the park, and they'll be visible when looking out towards the sea from inside the Lake District.
Do you have a picture of one please?
The off shore route won't fly, the sands move too much and there is dredging in the area
Oh and great news on the progress of the power stations, assuming this is the area just North of Sellafield itself - think I remember the Energy Coast stuff from many years ago
This [url= http://www.northwestcoastconnections.com/docs/ProposedRoute2016/CommunicationMaterials/NG%20NWCC_Map%20Booklet_2016.pdf ]map booklet[/url] may be useful - it has a lot more detail. There's also lots of info on [url= http://www.powerwithoutpylons.org.uk/ ]this website[/url].
I'm not asking to start a debate - I think it's a little late for that with the deadline being tomorrow - I simply just want to make people aware of the plans just in case they didn't know. People are then able to add their voice to the current campaign if it's something that matters to them.
Thanks for reading 🙂
The beauty rolls out to see where the wind turbines are, or where Sellafield is?
Running underground seems the best of both, but I can imagine the cost to be massive.
I'm not asking to start a debate
Long time lurker cred collapses
You posted on STW but "I'm not asking to start a debate"? Okaaaaay...
If you don't want pylons, stop using electricity. Whilst I'm no fan of nuclear power as such, especially the Sizewell proposals simply on cost/benefit, it is there in west Cumbria and we need to get the power on to the grid. The "view" isn't destroyed by pylons - they are powering the very devices people are using to take the picture that might be "spoiled". No pylons, to pictures...
Rachel
Running high power cables underground is neither cheap to install nor run. When the pump storage scheme was built at Dinorwig/Llyn Peris which is in the Snowdonia National Park they had to route the cables underground which meant that roughly every mile there's a large shed where the cables are accessible and they can cool them down.
+1 to the comments about power usage. One community I know of protested against a four pylon wind farm then passed a proposal for a floodlit sports pitch! Power is a bit like food in that there seems to be a disconnect in people's minds between production and consumption. A lot of NIMBYism. And before I get shouted at, I can see at least four wind turbines from my living room window that are less than 1 Km away, really not fussed about them.
MagicNumber8 - Am I understanding the map right, there is already a run of pylons there that are being removed and replaced with the new ones? What is the difference in size then?
I know there is a large cost to installing below ground cables, but for the life of them these days I think its justified to be done for the benefit over the huge lifetime of the cables. (Dont have a problem with wind turbines though, benefit vs impact is different)
I didn't know that posting on STW always had to be a debate. Sorry... I'll skulk off again.
I just wanted this post to flag this up to people who didn't know, but might care.
You say "If you don't want pylons, stop using electricity." The last I checked, pylons aren't the only way to transfer electricity cables...
The National Grid have a Visual Impact Provision scheme, where they're actually removing pylons in Areas of Natural Beauty and National Parks. This is part of the reason that the section of the route which runs through the Lake District is already planned to be underground. It just seems crazy that pylons need to pop up the minute the route passes back over the Lake District boundary, when places like the Duddon Valley are equally as beautiful.
I won't say any more - as I said before, my reasons for posting here were simply to raise awareness. Feel free to debate amongst yourselves though 😛
STATO - the new pylons will be 50 metres, double the height of the current ones, and therefore much, much wider too. The current pylons carry 7 cables, the new ones 18 - so they'll have a bigger visual impact looking 'through' the wires too.
Think it's been worked out that the current pylons are 12% of the 'volume' of the new ones.
according to the map, the new route follows the existing route (largely around the coast), so not exactly going to impact the huge amount of visitors who go to the Lakes, they follow roads anyway, and there will be about 130 fewer pylons...
Is that right?
you can't really complain unless you're prepared to stop using electricity. NIMBY. Mehh
You say "If you don't want pylons, stop using electricity." The last I checked, pylons aren't the only way to transfer electricity cables...
So I ask again: are you prepared to pay more for your electricity, so the cables can be buried?
So I ask again: are you prepared to pay more for your electricity, so the cables can be buried?
They got a £500million grant to bury other parts, so that's not being paid for in peoples bills (but in tax elsewhere 😆 ). So why not for some of this part, its doesn't all need to be buried.
I guess the question is who is prepared to pay more for their electricity, to cover the cost of putting the cables underground?
A colleague is on the CSR board for the Beauly - Denny pylon project as a volunteer public member. He suggests that a) the pylons cost more than suggested b) the undersea option was the same cost in the end...
The National Grid have a Visual Impact Provision scheme, where they're actually removing pylons in Areas of Natural Beauty and National Parks
Perhaps we need to remind them of said Beauly - Denny line...?
National level infrastructure needs to be built. Big roads, HS2, Wind turbines. Many of the arguments against those are a yes/no with no real alternative available. But when options ARE available they need to be considered, and in cases like this where infrastructure has a significant life I think the cost over the life is potentially viable.
Another example is the power lines alongside the A9 round the cairngorms, ok so the A9 ruins the valley on its own, but those power lines spoil much of the view you do get.
Another example is the power lines alongside the A9 round the cairngorms, ok so the A9 ruins the valley on its own, but those power lines do spoil much of the view you do get.
+1
I am looking at the southern end of that line out my window now. 🙁
As a result of BD there has been a significant reduction of other pylons in other parts of the CNP. On balance I'd rather put up with fewer, taller pylons along the A9 corridor and see them removed elsewhere.The National Grid have a Visual Impact Provision scheme, where they're actually removing pylons in Areas of Natural Beauty and National ParksPerhaps we need to remind them of said Beauly - Denny line...?
These new pylons do have a much bigger impact (we've had much the same debate about the Beauly-Denny line, it was all "you've already got pylons, what's the difference", well, this is the difference.
[img] 
[/img]
Now I'm not against pylons at all but there's a pretty big difference in impact. This particular shot shows how that can balance out a bit since there'll be far less pylons but that's not a simple +/- thing. Basically "you already have pylons there" is a pretty poor argument.
Remains to be seen just how reliable this all is too, what happens in a hard winter if they lose one of the pylons up the corrieyairack pass or something...
A colleague is on the CSR board for the Beauly - Denny pylon project as a volunteer public member. He suggests that a) the pylons cost more than suggested b) the undersea option was the same cost in the end...
A friend works for National Grid on infrastructure and says burying cables is at least 4 times more expensive than using pylons. Burying existing infrastructure costs more.
They got a £500million grant to bury other parts, so that's not being paid for in peoples bills (but in tax elsewhere ). So why not for some of this part, its doesn't all need to be buried.
That's a one-off, allocated by the regulator, paid from electricity bills, and is being used for existing infrastructure. At an estimated £7 million per pylon, it doesn't go very far.
The obvious solution is to build the power station closer to those who use the resulting energy 😆
Yes Bob, exactly what I was about to suggest 🙂
Burying existing infrastructure costs more.
Not just that, but they need oil cooling as well, as the ground insulates them too much....
matt_outandabout - MemberA colleague is on the CSR board for the Beauly - Denny pylon project as a volunteer public member. He suggests that a) the pylons cost more than suggested b) the undersea option was the same cost in the end...
I think that's true but then there's no guarantee that the other options would have been on budget, and you have to factor in maintenance/upkeep too. I'm a wee bit cynical about the forecast costs for any of these things tbh
That's a one-off, allocated by the regulator, paid from electricity bills, and is being used for existing infrastructure. At an estimated £7 million per pylon, it doesn't go very far.
Yes but what is the life of a pylon or buried line (actual question, anyone know?). Im guessing the cost would be spread over a long time.
Not just that, but they need oil cooling as well, as the ground insulates them too much....
Yes maintenance over the life does need to be considered also, buried lines will cost more per year id guess.
Yes but what is the life of a pylon or buried line (actual question, anyone know?). Im guessing the cost would be spread over a long time.
The cost estimates were made over 40 years, IIRC.
they are powering the very devices people are using to take the picture that might be "spoiled".
electric eyeballs?
Infrastructure maintenance is a significant proportion of what we as customers pay. Here's an NAO report for [url= https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/10286-001.Full-Report1.pdf ]water and energy[/url] Looking at railways, maintenance consumes 22% of a ticket price and infrastructure investment another 26%
The obvious solution is to build the power station closer to those who use the resulting energy
Yeah but if you suggest building new reactors in the middle of Bristol or London instead of Hinkley or Sizewell what happens? A load of NIMBYs pipe up objecting to it.
Ha, Dr J, you got there just before me, I'd just had a chuckle about that to myself.
they are powering the very devices people are using to take the picture that might be "spoiled"
What, my eyeballs are electric???
@johnners - exactly, they want the benefits (i.e. energy) without the responsibility (the generating facility) since that is someone else's problem.
I thought pylons was old tech and everything was underground these days?
As for on-shore wind farms, they are utterly pointless and nothing but a money making scheme for Power companies like EDF and their arms length consultancies.