Pylon fears raised at public meeting

Wake-up call over ‘monstrous pylons’

By Stephen Pullinger Monday, July 18, 2011
6:30 AM

Towns and villages across rural parts of Norfolk and Suffolk have been urged to wake up to the looming threat of “monstrous electricity pylons” driven by offshore windfarm development.

At a packed meeting of community representatives in Ditchingham, near Bungay, Suffolk County Council officers said National Grid’s plans for 90 new pylons in the south of the county, across scenic Constable Country, could be just the tip of the iceberg.

They said National Grid had confirmed it was poised to start feasibility studies on how power could be brought ashore at Lowestoft from the huge East Anglia Array windfarm being planned, and connected to the grid at some point along high-voltage lines running from Norwich to Bramford in Suffolk.

This raised the spectre of pylons spoiling countryside along a corridor towards Diss, possibly impacting on the Broads along the picturesque Waveney Valley.

Ironically, news of the threat of giant pylons has broken in the same week that UK Power Networks has unveiled a £1.5m scheme to bury smaller cables underground in the Waveney Valley and take down unsightly wooden poles that carry electricity from sub-stations to homes and businesses.

Guy McGregor, Suffolk council’s portfolio holder for roads, transport and planning, who chaired the meeting emotively called Pylons in your Parish, said: “I don’t think the penny has dropped in Norfolk yet but we are fully aware of the issues in Suffolk because of National Grid’s plans for pylons from Bramford to Twinstead across the Stour Valley and Dedham Vale.

“Campaigners there feel they started too late and we want people to be on the front foot this time.”

He said his authority would be steadfastly opposing more pylons which represented old-fashioned technology and were simply not the way forward.

Urging councillors in Norfolk to join them in creating a powerful lobby to government, he said underground cables were perfectly feasible - while National Grid stated they cost at least 12 times as much as overhead lines, taking the whole life costs into account reduced that to less than four times the price. It also had to be considered that the detrimental value to the economy of each pylon had been calculated at £3m.

He added that technology even existed to run cables from the offshore windfarm down to Tilbury in Essex under the sea.

Mr McGregor said: “We live in a democracy and provided we put up rational arguments showing there is a better way we can stop this.

“There are alternatives and we are not going to see our fabulous countryside spoiled by monstrous pylons.”

He said county council officers had agreed to meet representatives of Great Yarmouth, Broadland and South Norfolk councils to discuss the issue.

Chris Punt, county councillor for Beccles, said a straight-line route for the pylons would go through the Waveney Valley where a new tourism initiative had just been launched.

“Who will want to come on holiday if 90 pylons are built between Waveney and Diss,” he asked?

“Once the pylons are up they are there for at least 25 years.”

He said it was important for local communities to get together and engage with National Grid and lobby their MPs.

“It is vital we work with National Grid rather than create a barrier. It is important we have offshore turbines that will create good jobs for young people,” he said.

South Norfolk councillor Jenny Wilby, who chairs the authority’s Waveney Valley neighbourhood board, said: “Pylons in the Waveney Valley would be devastating. We want to promote tourism along the valley which is one of our most picturesque areas.

“I will ask our officials in South Norfolk to look into this and we will have to work with colleagues in other authorities in a united front to protect the environment.”

While acknowledging people’s concerns, Norfolk County Council cabinet member Graham Plant said until any proposals became clear, and the feasibility of burying cables or running them under the sea became known, it was difficult to respond.

He said: “We are encouraging the energy sector to Norfolk and Suffolk to create jobs. If we are saying, ‘you are going to have really big trouble’, may be they will go somewhere else to bring the power into England.”

National Grid spokesman Jeanette Unsworth stressed that the project was at a very early stage and preferred routes would only be put forward after extensive public consultation taking in a wide range of stakeholders from local authorities to wildlife trusts.

Derek Christie, a spokesman for windfarm developer Scottish Power, said it had not yet even been determined whether power would be brought ashore at Lowestoft; it related to a later phase of the project unlikely to reach the planning stage for at least five years.

Latest News

30 comments

Andy, thank you for proving my point! Firstly your analogy is a non-sequitur and misleading. Secondly you are confusing the efficiency of a turbine with the requirements of the National Grid. Thirdly I never said that the output of conventional power stations fluctuated and you have given a convincing argument in favour of wind power in your prepenultimate sentence. I did return to the theme of the article but you deviated from it in your first comment in this thread because of your obsessive and irrational dislike of wind power 'We must fight, fight, fight again against this blot on our landscape ' - remember?

Report this comment

Thoreauwasright

Thursday, July 21, 2011
As you say, Thoreauwasright, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. On your analysis, a man with one foot in the fire and one foot in the freezer is, on average, perfectly comfortable. Wind turbines have not proved capable of generating 30% of their theoretical output except in rare cases. Onshore the true figure is around 20%. Building enough turbines to generate 30%, the EUgovernmenttarget, will mean that we have to double up on generating capacity and how sensible, and affordable, is that? The load factor varies between types of power station and the time of day and day of the week and to glibly state it is typically 50% is to misunderstand reality. Nuclear power for example does not fluctuate in that way and for practical reasons can't. To have power stations fluctuate in the way that you suggest would increase costs massively and means that we would be ever more dependent on gas. Also we would see even more occasions when turbines are 'throttled back' because they would produce more power than is required and it not being practical to power down or up conventional power stations quick enough to meet the erratic delivery of power from wind turbines. I rather thinking you mixing up data and drawing the wrong conclusions from the mismatch. This article is about power transmission and perhaps you should return to that theme.

Report this comment

andy

Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Andy, you miss the point. You're finding fault with the trees and in denial about the wood. Of course wind farms are not the answer but they ARE part of the answer and inshore turbines will also reduce the amount of transmission line which, I agree, is unsightly, especially crossing the Nar valley near me to provide electricity for Norwich.

Report this comment

Thoreauwasright

Wednesday, July 20, 2011
A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but it generates different outputs depending on the wind speed. Over the course of a year, it will typically generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output. This is known as its load factor. The load factor of conventional power stations is on average 50% . A modern wind turbine will generate enough to meet the electricity demands of more than a thousand homes over the course of a year.

Report this comment

Thoreauwasright

Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The UK's transmission system already operates with enough back-up to manage the instantaneous loss of a large power station. Variations in the output from wind farms are barely noticeable over and above the normal fluctuation in supply and demand, seen when the nation's workforce goes home, or if lightning brings down a high-voltage transmission line. Therefore, at present there is no need for additional back-up because of wind energy.

Report this comment

Thoreauwasright

Wednesday, July 20, 2011
All forms of power generation require back up and no energy technology can be relied upon 100%.

Report this comment

Thoreauwasright

Wednesday, July 20, 2011
All forms of power generation require back up and no energy technology can be relied upon 100%. The UK's transmission system already operates with enough back-up to manage the instantaneous loss of a large power station. Variations in the output from wind farms are barely noticeable over and above the normal fluctuation in supply and demand, seen when the nation's workforce goes home, or if lightning brings down a high-voltage transmission line. Therefore, at present there is no need for additional back-up because of wind energy.

Report this comment

Thoreauwasright

Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Just had something else blocked, At this precise moment, wind generated power is at 0.7% of our needs which is less than 8% of what it is the thereotical capabilities. We are buying in French nuclear power for 2.4% of our needs and gas - a fossil fuel - is generating 48% of our needs. Enough said?

Report this comment

andy

Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Chris Huhne states in his recent report that the price of electricty to consumers will increase by 50% to meet the cost of wind power although most informed opinion believes that it will be closer to 100%. The government produced figures a year or so ago which stated wind generated power was approximately twice as expensive as fossil fuels and nuclear power. At this precise moiment, wind turbines are only producing 8% of their capacity or 0.7% of our needs, nuclear power is producing over 18%, we are buying in French nuclear power for 2.4% and gas - a fossil fuel - is producing 48%. Enough said I hope.

Report this comment

andy

Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Thoreauwasright, we have something in common. I am also finding my responses blocked. I don't know what the Daily Mail is saying butr are they any more or less biased than Oxford? Keeping it straight forward for you, wind turbines produce at best 30% of their theoretical capability. They must therefore be supported by gas powered generators or our lights go out! No othet power station type is capable of backing up the variable and unreliable supply of wind turbines. Switching power stations on and off is expensive.

Report this comment

andy

Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Thoreauwasright, if you believe that report you need to get out more. As for the Daily Mail, I don't know what they have been saying but I doubt they have any more or less credilbilty than the UEA. Fact, the most efficient appropriately placed wind turbines do not generate more than 30% with very few exceptions and in many cases considerably less than that. For the rest of the time we must rely on conventional power stations to supply the short fall. Because of the time it takes to get a power station to get 'up to speed' the only power stations capable of doing this are gas generators. Switching them on and off is expensive and inefficient and leads to maintenance and longetivity of plant life issues. The flawed proposal from Chris Huhne states that electricity prices will have to rise by 50% to cover wind generation and mist informed opinion believes that the real figure is likely to be closer to a 100% increase in prices. That is why he is also backing nuclear power because he knows that wind turbines are not the answer. Simple!

Report this comment

andy

Wednesday, July 20, 2011
How can offshore turbines be more efficient when they require so much more energy and money for initial surveys for sites, for construction and for maintenance? Boat engines don't run on water. The wind might be stronger but I reckon they are only offshore because it is easier for companies to get the initial permission. If wind power is a solution to our energy needs it should be produced as cheaply as possible. From where I sit, I think the turbines offshore would be turning just as smartly if they were onshore on the hill at Scratby. The filth and mess of power production has mostly been on other counties doorsteps, now it is our turn but we should only accept it if we have been told the truth about the value of wind energy .

Report this comment

Daisy Roots

Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Andy, I suggest you start your reading with the paper 'Wind Power and the UK Wind Resource' from the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford. It's available as a PDF and I think you'll find it more enlightening than the Daily Mail.

Report this comment

Thoreauwasright

Wednesday, July 20, 2011
All forms of power generation require back up and no energy technology can be relied upon 100%. The UK's transmission system already operates with enough back-up to manage the instantaneous loss of a large power station. Variations in the output from wind farms are barely noticeable over and above the normal fluctuation in supply and demand, seen when the nation's workforce goes home, or if lightning brings down a high-voltage transmission line. Therefore, at present there is no need for additional back-up because of wind energy. Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nation's electricity needs, only a small amount of additional conventional back-up would be required, in the region of 300-500 megawatts (MW)

Report this comment

Thoreauwasright

Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Just encountered the moderation block again! No chance of a reasoned debate then!

Report this comment

Thoreauwasright

Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Hypocrits! What about the pylons already littering our skyline? When have there ever been objections raised against them and why is this issue presented as a fait a compli . The alternatives, long established in Sweden, would be to bury these powerlines and diminsh the hazards that are clearly posed around freely exposed powerlines. There are clear links with childhood cancers and leukemia, not that this should spoil our french power providers, or the Crown estate profitting from massive windfarms of our coast . Don't let them build pylons at great disruption to us, dig em in.

Report this comment

ingo wagenknecht

Tuesday, July 19, 2011
The hard facts are that off-shore wind power is far more efficient than on-shore wind, and whatever solution you use you will need to have some pylons to bring power to the people and industry. Do you think that building more capacity at Sizewell will mean that the current infrastructure will remain unchanged? I very much doubt it. Every form of power generation needs some form of back-up, but somewhere around Britain it is likely that the wind will be blowing, so wind power is a good part of the solution for future energy needs.

Report this comment

BigBry

Tuesday, July 19, 2011
My reply seems to have disappeared into the moderation black hole. Glad you're so sure of yourself Andy.

Report this comment

Thoreauwasright

Tuesday, July 19, 2011
"Myth: Wind energy needs back-up to work Fact: All forms of power generation require back up and no energy technology can be relied upon 100%. The UK's transmission system already operates with enough back-up to manage the instantaneous loss of a large power station. Variations in the output from wind farms are barely noticeable over and above the normal fluctuation in supply and demand, seen when the nation's workforce goes home, or if lightning brings down a high-voltage transmission line. Therefore, at present there is no need for additional back-up because of wind energy. "

Report this comment

Thoreauwasright

Monday, July 18, 2011
Well Thoreauwasright in this case I am correct. No apologies if I am repeating the obvious as to what the consequences of wind turbines are no matter inconvenient you find it. However, back to the original article, we should oppose more pylons which are not necessary and despoil the landscape.

Report this comment

andy

Monday, July 18, 2011
"because they rely on fossil fuels as a back up" - beginning to sound like a cracked record! A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Report this comment

Thoreauwasright

Monday, July 18, 2011
Northcity. Yes I fully support the new Sizewell station. There are already pylons in place for the existing station so no more should be needed - or at the most an upgrade on what is there already. Despite what some people may wish to think, nuclear is clean, reliable and far cheaper than wind turbines. I don't have any problem living near a nuclear power station! It is a far better future in fact and we could surely locate more on the same site or others if need be. If there really is a real (as against poltical) need to reduce carbon, this can only be achieved through nuclear power because wind turbines will fail to acheive it because they rely on fossil fuels as a back up.

Report this comment

andy

Monday, July 18, 2011
I suppose then Andy you'd be all for the new Sizewell power station being built in your backyard as it supports the low carbon future....Or probably not as the case maybe. People can't have it both ways, there need to be compromises. Can't expect to keep taking energy without giving something in return, be that land, aesthetics or financial aspects

Report this comment

NorthCity

Monday, July 18, 2011
Best hurry up and get the new Sizewell built then!

Report this comment

Digby

Monday, July 18, 2011
A very informative article. I would however add a cautionary note re. Mr. McGregor's assumption that we live in a democracy and that rational arguments will prevail. Our current experience in Kings Lynn regarding the monsterous expansion of existing polluters and the NCC proposed incinerator, show that rational argument and the opinions of 65000 residents are completely ignored by local and nation government.

Report this comment

mrsmurphy

Monday, July 18, 2011
And all this for something that is not going to be a solution to the UK energy needs! As well as blighting the landscape, the unreliable wind turbines will, even by Chris Huhne's dishonest figures, add 50% to our electricity costs but more realistically double the bills. And without actually reducing carbon emissions by any significant amount because weind turbies have to backed by carbon emitting power stations for over 70% of the time. This is a double folly, visual and financial. We must fight, fight, fight again against this blot on our landscape

Report this comment

andy

Monday, July 18, 2011
Norfolk is a vast county and is not going to be spoiled by one line of pylons. The existing pylons radiating from Norwich are hardly obtrusive [except for the single ugly tower at the grid station east of Norwich that dominates the skyline] and the design of pylons used in this country is superior to those used abroad. The alternative to harnessing the wind off-shore is presumably to have a scattered collection of turbines [one per village] feeding into the local distribution network but somebody will probably object to that.

Report this comment

JCW

Monday, July 18, 2011
That should have read 'anywhere near'!

Report this comment

Thoreauwasright

Monday, July 18, 2011
This follows closely on the heels of an article about running underground cable for the Dudgeon windfarm (July 15, EDP): "Protestors including farmers and parish councils said the route would cut a scar through the countryside damaging scenery, farmland soil and hedgerows." I take it all these objectors have a third alternative. We don't mind having electricity but we don't want the infrastructure anywhere our backyards.

Report this comment

Thoreauwasright

Monday, July 18, 2011
They position these wind farms out to sea so they don't blight the landscape, then build ugly pylons and sub-stations across the countryside? doesn’t make much sense to me.

Report this comment

chucky noris

Monday, July 18, 2011