National Grid had been accused of "grossy exaggerating" the cost of undergroudning electricity cables compared to overhead pylons
Suffolk/Essex: Report shows that pylon costs have been ‘grossly exaggerated’, say campaigners
By Craig Robinson
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
9:00 AM
A REPORT exploring the financial implications of burying power lines underground shows that energy bosses have “grossly exaggerated” the costs, campaigners from Suffolk and Essex said last night.
An independent inquiry into the comparative costs of overground and underground high power cables, commissioned by the Department for Climate Change in 2010, was published yesterday.
The National Grid has previously ruled out an underground route for the 400,000 volt power lines that it is looking to install alongside its existing cables from Bramford, near Ipswich, to Twinstead, near Sudbury.
It has said burying cable, which would carry power from Sizewell C and offshore wind farms, through some of the area’s most beautiful countryside, would mean a cost up to 17 times that of pylons.
But yesterday’s report shows that the difference in cost between putting cables underground compared to overhead is not so large.
Overhead power lines are the cheapest option – with a lifetime cost varying between £2.2m and £4.2m per km, according to the report.
The cheapest undergrounding option is direct burial, with a varying lifetime cost of between £10.2m and £24.1m per km – around five times the cost of overhead pylons.
A gas-insulated line, which is favoured by campaigners, would have a lifetime cost of between £13.1m and £16.2m per km. However the report adds such technology should be kept “under review”.
Last night David Holland, chairman of campaign group Stour Valley Underground, which claims giant pylons would ruin swathes of countryside, said the report showed installing gas-insulated line technology was “entirely possible”.
“The report is a valuable piece of documentation and clearly shows National Grid has vastly exaggerated the cost of underground transmission,” Mr Holland said.
“However, one of the big problems as far as we are concerned is that it does not look at the social and environmental costs. It looks at the costs purely from the point of the energy industry. There are other issues as well, such as the effect overhead power lines would have on a historically important landscape and the impact they could have on the tourism industry, vitally important to the economies of both Suffolk and Essex.”
South Suffolk MP Tim Yeo said: “We have heard consistently alarming estimates about how much extra it would be to underground electricity cables. From the report it is clear that the costs are nowhere near as high as National Grid has been quoting.
“What we can now calculate is how much extra that would put on our bills.
“It may be around £3 or £4, which I think is perfectly acceptable to protect our wonderful landscape and would offer assurance to not just people in Suffolk but people everywhere who are fighting similar proposals.”
A spokeswoman for National Grid said: “The costs of different technology options contained in the report are broadly in line with those that National Grid have used and published when carrying out appraisal of options on current projects such as Bramford to Twinstead and Hinkley Point. This is true whether using capital cost or lifetime cost.
“National Grid will take time to digest the detail contained in the report and if there is any new information we need to take into account in any of our current plans, or changes to the way in which we evaluate project options going forwards, then of course we will do so.”
Latest News See all
- Ipswich: Former Ipswich Town and England footballer Kevin Beattie admits £8k benefit charge
- Update: Stab victim in stable condition after attack near Ipswich Crown Court
- Video: Freerunners have two weeks to raise cash for American dream
- Ipswich/Fexlistowe: Teen speaks of her horror as bus ploughs into sign at Ipswich Hospital
- Ipswich/Felixstowe: My bus smash horror - teen tells of miracle escape as double-decker hits A&E department
More news
- Ipswich: Former Ipswich Town and England footballer Kevin Beattie admits £8k benefit charge
- Update: Stab victim in stable condition after attack near Ipswich Crown Court
- Video: Freerunners have two weeks to raise cash for American dream
- Ipswich/Fexlistowe: Teen speaks of her horror as bus ploughs into sign at Ipswich Hospital
- Ipswich/Felixstowe: My bus smash horror - teen tells of miracle escape as double-decker hits A&E department
- Ipswich: New interim hospital chief is ready to listen
- Ipswich: Dad claimed £16k in disability cash for footballer son
- Ipswich: Historic buildings at risk
- Poll: Tickets for Olympic torch party in Ipswich available tomorrow morning
- Ipswich: Growth of town puts MPs at loggerheads
4 comments
We are also opposing plans for 152-feet high pylons across the beautiful Somerset countrside which includes an area known as "The Somerset Levels" which, as the name suggests is flat countryside where those pylons would appear as alien excrescences. National Grid has always said that if new information came to light they would "back-track" on their proposals for a connection scheme. The report shows that the cost of undergrounding the cable is very much less than National Grid has claimed (and very much less than they quoted in their consulttaion 12 months ago on a revised undergrounding policy. Well, National Grid, it's time to back-track! Time for a complete rethink on all your connection schemes (Suffolk & Essex, Somerset, Cumbria, Mid Wales, Snowdonia). You are going to go underground in Lincolnshire and we want parity of treatment.
Report this comment
sayno2giantpylons
Saturday, February 4, 2012
This is indeed a most myopic report and view of the economics of the various electricity transmission technologies. Yes, underground transmission does cost more but this additional cost is much more than offset by the size of the economic impact of pylons in economically, culturally and historically important landscapes such as those involved here. Just a 5% hit on the tourism economy of Suffolk and North Essex during the lifetime of the proposed pylons will cost the rural economy of the area many £billions. This is because of an astonishing fact: Suffolk's tourist economy alone accounts for £1.75 billion per year and there is huge potential for growth in this area and we clearly cannot afford to allow this potential to be damaged through inappropriate developments in the countryside. The energy industry is trying to solve its problems in a fast and dirty way with the economic impact being felt by another - our local tourism industry. Sadly, this wider impact is not well captured by the planning process National Grid are addressing and so for all our sakes, I hope County Councillors ensure that the Council's response to National Grid's planning application makes this all important point and ensures that the energy industries interests do not run roughshod over the interests of the people and economy of the east of England.
Report this comment
David Holland
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
All those Tory voters in the sticks in Suffolk who voted Tory throughout the 1980s and early to mid 1990s cannot moan about pylons being constructed. Both Thatcher & Major had privatisation as a central plank of their political policy and it is obvious that private companies will seek to minimise costs to give more cash to shareholders. If you didn't want private companies to take the cheaper option by building pylons instead of the more expensive choice of putting them underground you shouldn't have voted for privatisation! You only have yourselves to blame.
Report this comment
Ipswich Red
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
I thought that it was the cost of underground cables that had be exagerated?
Report this comment
Bryan Taylor
Wednesday, February 1, 2012