The East Anglia network report states that it would not be possible to build a system of underground cables by 2030 due to the time involved in digging and installation. It would be possible to erect a sufficient number of pylons by this time.
However, under a 2034 time frame an underground cable system would come in £600 million cheaper than using pylons, it says.
The study was published by the National Energy System Operator, which was previously part of the National Grid but since the start of this month has become a separate government-owned body charged with accelerating Labour’s “clean power mission”.
What’s the cost of the pylons by 2034? That is, how much of the price difference is in the completion date and how much is in the tech itself? Now, pure gues on my part but that’s where I’d think the fiddle is.
Fiddle? A fiddle won’t suffice for Mad Ed. Even a symphony orchestra wouldn’t be enough.
There is no way that burying HV cables is cheaper than stringing them from pylons. Unless, like other eco/climate lies, they assume some magic technologies arrives in time (super-conducting cables?).
If I remember the figures correctly, buried AC cables cost about four times more to install than putting them on pylons and power losses in the line are increased 5-10 times. Burying DC cables makes some sense as there are no extra power losses, but you have the additional capital expenses of the AC/DC and DC/AC converter stations at either end. I don’t see that changing with a four year delay.
So they’ve made another department to handle this.
Straight away you know it’s bullshit.
In December 2022 “Neil Carter, the firm’s technical lead on the project, said laying cables underground, or along the coast on the sea bed, would involve a lot more disruption and take the cost of the project to £2bn+, compared to £793m for the pylon project.”
And now Nation Energy Systems Operator or whatever they are called now think that by allowing a completion date out to 2034 they can get the underground cost down to £600m less than the pylon system. So £193m then.
It’s a fiddle as you said.
People objecting to pylons should be allowed to achieve net zero by not being connected.
The fiddle is probably to factor in the costs of the legal system making vast sums out of the planning appeals stopping the pylons.
“ What’s the cost of the pylons by 2034? “
The whole Net Zero fantasy – time frame, cost – assumes the materials needed, particularly copper, and other resources will be consistently readily available. Since this path to ruin is being trod by all the developed Countries, capital, mining operations, metal production, equipment fabrication, construction, labour, transportation just will not be sufficient to meet demand.
I’m sure China will be glad to sell us all the rope we need.
PS
Having delivered the considerably increased HT supply, what plans are there to upgrade and extend the local LV networks so they can cope with the increase? And that cabling is mostly underground.
Digging up roads, pavements, and the urban environment won’t come cheap.
What matters is the cost per km of installing and then maintaining the OHL (pylons) for c.40 years vs the same costs for buried cables. The notional lifetime of a buried cable is 40 years compared to 25 years for OHL. Even then, buried cable comes out at 4 times (at least) more expensive, though this does not take into account the social and environmental costs of in effect industrialising rural areas dependent on amenity tourism. However, in the East Anglian case, the transmission lines would only need to be buried for relatively short stretches in environmentally sensitive areas, and this might well be worth the cost.
AtC
…power losses in the line are increased 5-10 times… with buried cables.
Not according to the briefing prepared by the HoL Library (Feb.2024) which said that the costs of operation, maintenance, and energy losses for underground cables and OHLs are similar.
Another point – 400kV (or above?) cables on pylons are steel-cored aluminium. I’m guessing that underground cables would have to be copper to reduce the resistive loss because soil is a good heat insulator.
As for AC vs DC, I note that, for the EA1 windfarm cables laid locally a few years ago, the original plans had +/- 300kV DC. What they actually laid was 220kV 3-phase AC, presumably because we would pay for the extra cable losses over its lifetime and the contractors would lose the cost of the AC/DC stuff at each end. Triples all round!
Of course, if we abandoned all this Net-Zero nonsense there is no need for these cables, even with a modest increase in electric cars and heat pumps.
Digging up roads, pavements, and the urban environment won’t come cheap.
Are you starting to suspect we won’t have 24/7/365 electricity in the coming years?
South Africa calls it “load shedding”.
I would say it depends on whether or not you bury the cables in a ditch or you construct a concrete tunnel. A ditch means that if something goes wrong you have a nasty maintenance job digging up the cable. The concrete tunnel means send a few blokes into the tunnel to walk to the section causing problems.
I would imagine geography would play a role too, with different soils and rocks meaning different techniques being required to dig the tunnel or ditch.
To be honest the only real difference between fossil fuel energy versus renewable energy is which resource extraction and processing industries you want to put most of your money in. One means a lot of investment in oil and gas exploration, extraction and processing, with a little going into mining and minerals processing. With renewables it means most of the investment going into the mining and minerals processing with some remaining in the oil and gas sector to deal with the need of plastics, lubricants and fuels for back up purposes.
I hedge my bets and invest in both. As for nuclear, there are ways of investing the uranium. Not sure about nuclear plant construction.
To be honest the only real difference between fossil fuel energy versus renewable energy is which resource extraction and processing industries you want to put most of your money in.
So both require shitloads of resource-hungry, pollution-causing industrial activity then? This is going to come as an unpleasant shock to the sandal-wearers.
Bongo
People objecting to pylons should be allowed to achieve net zero by not being connected.
Er…as TG says:
Of course, if we abandoned all this Net-Zero nonsense there is no need for these cables, even with a modest increase in electric cars and heat pumps.
@Tractor Gent
“Another point – 400kV (or above?) cables on pylons are steel-cored aluminium.”
Over here all distribution cables are aluminum right up to the meter. Including the underground cables. Most areas built in the last 40 years have underground electrical distribution. As California utilities are finding out, overhead lines are really expensive when they set off fires.
A new bit barn is opening up down the road, and they’re laying the underground 115kV power feed. They dig a trench and lay five empty plastic pipes, about the size of drain pipes. When that’s complete, they open up access points every km and pull the (fairly massive) copper cables through, joint them off, close up the access points and move 1km down the road. I can’t imagine it would be much different for 400kV.
I’m not sure why there are five cables, three phases and an earth, plus one for luck??
Chris Miller,
Neutral.
Even in an extremely dense urbanisation like we have in Clogland, we use pylons for high voltage distribution.
The fact that we theoretically, and quite easily, could bury the stuff, but don’t is a Bloody Big Hint about the economic feasability of this plan.
You do find mid-voltage underground stretches, usually integrated in tunnels and along the railways, and low-voltage is all underground. But high voltage is high up, as is most of the mid-voltage grid.
Monty Pylon and the Bacon Sandwich.
Monty Pylon and the North London Red.
‘Are you starting to suspect we won’t have 24/7/365 electricity in the coming years?’
Thanks Steve.
Since they just intend to keep the coal burners running indefinitely, I’ll definitely have to vote for the Libs in Queenslands’ coming election.