Remember that one of the reasons HS2 became so expensive is that MPs indulged constituents in the countryside at every consultation and ended up with a railway design that was very attractive but enormously costly.
Say no to coal, nuclear, pylons, biomass, gas, just say no to everything. The trouble in this country and why we get nothing done is to many moaners. Either scrap it or get on with it
I think government is going have a full scale war nimbyism and I got a feeling they are going to be defeated like they have never been defeated, with new laws in Parliament that will firmly put them in the corner.
I don't care about seeing pilons and wind turbines in the countryside, they look fine. I get that it would be noisy it you lived right next to one, but I think calling them unsightly is stirring up fuss over nothing. Roads are way more disruptive to the countryside, but because they benefit landowners they don't cause a fuss about them.
You don’t care about the countryside then as long as it get energy to your big city. You don’t care about the miles of hedgerows and trees and killing wildlife for your wind and solar farms. It’s not about being NIMBY it’s about destroying an environment to create net zero
Pylons have been part of our countryside for decades. Doesn’t bother me, doesn’t seem to bother the farmers either. If you want a rainbow, you have to put up with some rain!
You aren't taking into consideration the amount of land that is lost due to the footprints of these pylons. If they are traversing mountains and forests. then no problem. Furthermore, if they can do it for London, why can't they do it elsewhere as in Germany.
So a small number of people have sway over our country’s future? The same people who decided Brexit was a great idea and their main concern is the price of their house.
100kv and 200kv high voltage ac power lines are not practical or possible underground. You would have to convert it to DC but with a much reduced capacity and cost 10x that of overhead. If farmer Giles and his friends want underground cables he should shoulder the cost. There are plenty of farmers fields around here that have had pylons in them for nearly 100 years, never heard anyone say anything about them - it just part of the landscape.
If you bury electricity cables underground then you have to carefully maintain a tree-free (including hedges) strip above them, to prevent the risk of damage from roots. It's no panacea.
funny that they just in the process of doing it right across Norfolk came right past my village still on going tunnelled under roads fields rivers with very little disruption came in from the north Norfolk coast Norwest project it is.
@Tim_Small Of course you can plant hedgerows on top of underground services...Vegetation restoration & reinstatement is an important part of any cross-country pipeline/infrastructure project...
@@joskowal3711 decades, not seconds, not minutes !!!!! Years and years.... And MORE: DO YOU KNOW THAT METHANE GAS HAS GREATER CLIMATE CHANGE COEFFICIENT THAN CARBON DIOXIDE ???
Have to say, I don't find myself looking at the ploughed field and thinking "there's a spot of natural beauty that would be ruined by a pylon..." Seriously though, yes there will be a loss of productive land for the farmers where those pylons are placed. I guess we're talking 10's of square meters per pylon. I think for the sake of saving the money and actually moving forwards on something that desperately needs movement, the farmers are just gonna have to deal with it. Doesn't seem like it'll wreck their livelihoods.
I'd say a 100 sq meters or yards or more, I can physically get quite close to one where a public walkway intersects a grid line path, and the footprint is quite massive or imposing
Consider all of the way leaves they will get for that land in perpetuity. It almost becomes more financially viable for the small strip of land to have a pylon on it then to grow food on it.
@@johnjakson444 Fair enough, I still wouldn't say that changes the overall calculus though... yes the farmers should have some compensation but they should not be able to hold the govt hostage over this.
Why does the title say that the tunnel is "saving" the green revolution. Anywhere else in the world it would be saying "promoting the green revolution" or dare I say it "upgrading our infrastructure for the benefit of the economy and our customers" x I'm sick of this country's negativity towards change, especially change that will protect this nation and benefit future generations.
Richard, it is unfortunate that the country has largely been brainwashed by lack of proper information. That lack of information is due to the poor standard of journalism these days, little to no research into what is being done, just an acceptance of what they are told. The change we are currently doing and have done for more than twenty years is a disadvantage to the U.K., is unworkable and will more than likely end up with widespread power losses in the relatively near future unless plans are reversed. Our loss of industry is entirely due to high enrgy costs which renewables entail. It is false to say they are cheap. The so called green revolution, or the transition from fossil fuels is practically and technically flawed!
If the NIMBYs had their way during industrialisation, we would still be an agrarian society without paved roads, canals, rail, electricity, airport, electricity, internet access etc.
Putting the cables to carry the 14 GW of power across Essex would require cable trenches wider than the M25 through the countryside. Given the relatively short distance AC cables on towers are the only way to go. It might help to increase the Grid voltage to 550kV the towers might be slightly higher but ultimately fewer circuits would be needed.
If the 2015 Cameron government hadn't stopped onshore wind and the proposed Navitus Bay offshore wind farm, we would have more power in the south. Stopping roof top solar on new builds was the most irresponsible act of all. Installing at the building stsge is less than half yhe cost of retrofitting. FIT payment could have ended for new build so each house built would be part of the solution, not adding to the problem.
Thinking that putting HV cables in tunnels is a substitute for overhead transmission lines is as bone-headed an idea as you could devise. What cables need are insulation and cooling, and by stringing them up from pylons you get that for free, from the surrounding air, which doesn't wear out or degrade, and is in abundant supply.
Maybe those objecting to pylons would prefer a nice clean modular nuclear power station instead or a system of electricity rationing in their area so we can get by with less pylons? Honestly if you live in a city you have put up with living near to a lot of big infrastructure. It’s modern life, get over it.
People don't object to pylons for supplying their needs. They object to pylons that exist solely to transport power to the other side of the country. London could be supplied using undersea cables from the wind farms down the coast and up the Themes, rather than pylons across Suffolk and Essex. We already do have nuclear power stations in Suffolk and they are planning to build another one.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191this makes no sense. Electricity can not always be generated nearby. There may also be human and environmental reasons why laying cables along the Thames estuary might not work. It’s just a pylon.
Yes, and of course nuclear (and power stations that burn stuff) all want to be on the coast so as to access seawater for cooling, so even they need pylons taking power inland
Excellent. Quite happy to see a few pylons, far better than massive coal and gas stations pumping out gas for miles. Glad to see Labour modify planning, so we get cheap clean energy in the most efficient way. Farmer Giles should be happy, as his costs will decrease for energy, and certainly should not be allowed to block such infrastructure. And the land is the UKs, not exclusively his.
No way! Trenching and all the associated works involved is never going to be cheaper over hundreds of miles! Added to that even if you do lay the cables as HVDC another massive cost is building converter stations at each end. Pylons don’t require anything so complex.
It's quite simple for the people protesting for not having power lines. Just disconnect them from the grid. They don't want it they don't get it. As well for the farmer if he wants them buried he can play the exact cost. We need infrastructure to grow.
Let’s have temporary pillions until such time they can be replaced by underground possibly supercooled cables to reduce the resistance and a legal guarantee that the pillions will only be temporary for a fixed maximum number of years.
It sounded like underground cables would have less capacity than cables between pylons. I can think of other issues: if you want to add cables later, then underground is trickier; difficulty of accessing underground cables.
He avoided going into the detail, but if that is what you wish for. AC transmits both active power, and reactive power. We only need the active power part. The AC nature of the transmission causes the polarity of the line to change in reference to the surrounding of the cable, either air for pylons, or earth for underground. Air and earth have different capacitances so the amount of power loss increases when sticking the cable underground. You then have a load of other headaches to deal with, heat being a big on. DC only transmits the active power so doesn’t suffer these power losses, but stepping it up and down from low voltage to high voltage is a lot more complex, expensive and unreliable compared to a good ol’ transformer. Therefore HVDC only becomes cost effective when the length of cable goes above a certain distance, or needs to be run under to ocean/ground as there is no other option available. Which isn’t true here.
@Channel4News The fact that you allowed complete misinformation to go unchallenged in this piece is irresponsible and misleading. There is absolutely no scenario where underground HVDC transmission is cheaper than Overhead power lines. And there is no National grid report that says otherwise. Also HVDC needs huge converter stations (in addition to regular sub-stations) to take it to and from AC at either end. In addition the environmental impact of cable trenches is larger than overhead while the embodied carbon of the cables is massively greater as are the emissions caused by the installation.
Sizewell nuclear power station is conveniently located on the Suffolk coast and has existing grid connections. Why can't North Sea wind power be routed into Sizewell, or even from a North Sea hub sea connected via the Thames Estuary direct into London? What's really going on here? Or even to the Isle of Grain gas powered station on the north Kent coast?
That last bit makes no sense, if a buried cable does not have enough capacity. You can just bury another one next to it. Why would it require a pylon on top of the buried cable?
i came here to say this. i really don't understand this argument against burying cables. there may be other good arguments against burying - but this one doesn't make sense.
@@fTooe simple argument against it is "Losses" With Overhead at 400kvAC cables losses are about 1-2% every 100 miles. Against 8-10% under ground. And even worse under sea. That is why the UK undersea connectors to France, Norway, Denmark etc are all HVDC, with massive DC-AC convertor stations at each end to return the power to HVAC. Do all that and you are looking at 10x the cost. At the end of all that, you would just get some "other" NIMBY objecting to the unsightly convertor stations. So they would be no better off anyway.
You think purchasing land and running overhead cables in London is as practical as doing it through fields? Once again, the only thing two tier in this country is people's cognitive ability.
Underground Network Is Much Better! To lay the Underground Electricity Infrastructure the Power Transmission needs to be done at Low Voltage with Power Conversions enabled by the Capacitor Banks and then through the Transformers - Low Voltage Transmission! But when comes to distribution point it goes by High Voltage Transmission to the Grid to avoid Power Losses. From Grid to Home is Nonetheless the Power Modulators with the Capacitance Banks in place to avoid the Voltage Fluctuations.
What a waste ! of time, money ! Greenwashing just du to lack basic electricity knowledges of the people. I thought England was a bit cleaver than France and the rest of Europe....
France has some of lowest energy costs in Europe. Do you think if you can’t spell due or clever do you have any right to be talking about the national grid?
wow, wait, how much electricity will be needed in the evening to charge an electric car every day, and we are only talking about physical consumption, not production
This myth was dispelled a decade ago. EV drivers use a cheap eg 7 p / kWh tariff in the off peak hours. Also set appliances like washing machine, dishwasher etc to use these times. So the peak demand is reduced.
Scotland produces a significant amount of renewable energy, much of which is used to power London and other areas in the UK. While Scotland generates energy for the rest of the country, the revenue generated from this energy does not always return directly to Scotland. This raises concerns about how Westminster manages resources and finances, especially given recent cuts to services like the winter fuel allowance that directly affect Scottish residents. It's crucial to ensure that Scotland is fairly compensated for its energy contributions and that its financial interests are protected.
@@andyalder7910 Electricity can indeed lose some energy as it travels long distances through transmission lines, but modern technology has improved efficiency significantly. Typically, high-voltage transmission reduces energy loss, but some energy is still lost as heat due to resistance in the cables. As for revenue, while London generates a considerable amount of its own income, it also relies on energy supplied from other regions, including Scotland. However, the way energy revenues are distributed can be complex. Scotland's energy generation does contribute to the overall UK grid, but the financial returns may not always reflect the level of contribution, which can be a point of contention.
@@JimBanksy Energy prices are determined by a market, the South needs a lot of electricity so please do sell it to us, just don't expect some sort of little extra on top for some undefined reason, as Europe is nearer, and the Thames Estuary is productive. I really don't think you want truly 'fair' pricing in Scotland, everything from internet, SIMs, groceries, stamps, banking, couriers, etc would go up instantly. We are a single market as the UK and that's best for both sides.
The UK has become obsessed with unreliable energy systems. The problems caused by this type of power-unreliable power-are numerous, particularly wind-reliant and sun-reliant sources. Incorporating them into systems where you need - (steady output and input )Of all the renewable options, tidal systems are possibly the best. However, if political radicals under the direction of the UN and the likes of Al Gore, hadn't monopolized the conversation, we would have invested billions of pounds in nuclear energy, leading to reliable, controlled power. We could have also invested in coal and modern regeneration for the short term . There’s a reason why no town or country in the world operates independently on solar and wind energy alone: their unreliability. The UK is following fear-based, mainly left-wing politics, rushing in and making a complete mess of the countryside. Wokism-and much of the population-has bought into the absurd nonsense of carbon zero, which is why the UK is destined to head toward third-world status in the coming decades.
@@andyalder7910 Actually, while the Thames does flow into the North Sea, the term 'North Sea' refers to the body of water that lies between Great Britain and mainland Europe. Scotland has a significant coastline along the North Sea, which it shares with other countries, including England and Norway. Additionally, there are historical concerns regarding Scotland's waters, particularly the 1999 agreement that many believe led to the 'stolen waters' of Scotland, where rights to resources and fishing were perceived to have been unfairly allocated. This highlights Scotland's vital role in the North Sea and its resources.
@@andyalder7910 It's true that the North Sea is adjacent to London, but that doesn’t change the fact that Scotland's resources are often undervalued and mismanaged. Many of the facilities extracting resources like oil and gas are owned by a handful of wealthy corporations. For instance, in 2022, BP reported profits of over £20 billion, while Shell announced record profits of nearly £33 billion. These profits don’t always benefit local communities in Scotland. Instead, it often feels like they are milking Scotland for its resources without giving back. This isn’t about supporting our beloved country; it’s about maximizing profits for a few while many in Scotland see little return from our natural wealth.
if we built a nuclear grid we could just use the old grid already in place, I would favour the Molten Salt Reactor design, anything but unreliable energy at the whim of the weather and when did this farmer get qualified as a grid engineer, its laughable, there are good engineering reasons why power is carried on pylons
Nope, the old power stations were coal (and so were sited inland near the coal mines) all the modern power stations want to be on the coast for access to sea water for cooling
@@backacheache the coolant loop in the Molten Salt Reactor is Molten Salt and is stored in hot tanks, separately the hot salt is used on demand in a conventional thermal electric cycle plant that could be conventional steam or better still a super critical CO2 which could operate at much closer to 60% thermal eff, so could be air cooled. besides it not like we have a US type situation with 3000 miles of country to span and multiple grids, oh but wait, we have been talking about solar in the north of Africa to help the UK
While the UK’s plans for a zero-carbon electricity system by 2030 are commendable, they rely heavily on upgrades to the National Grid. This raises the question: as Scotland generates substantial renewable energy, are they receiving fair compensation for the energy supplied to other regions like London? With the need for new pylons and cables to support this infrastructure, it's crucial to ensure that Scotland's contributions are recognized and that the revenue benefits the local communities, especially when recent cuts to services like the winter fuel allowance affect residents. Fair financial arrangements must be in place to protect Scotland’s interests as we transition to a greener future.
The entire notion of a union is one of pooled resources - you can't have it where Scotland's unique endowments e.g., green energy are recognised but the increased costs of say lower population density, or England (London's) place at the heart of the global financial system (which benefits Edinburgh) are not accounted for.
@@ruxiist While the union is indeed about pooled resources, it’s crucial to recognize that Scotland's unique contributions-like our vast renewable energy potential-should be fairly valued and compensated. Just because Scotland has a smaller population doesn’t mean we should be deprived of the resources that rightfully belong to us. The financial benefits that London receives shouldn't come at the expense of Scotland's well-being or economic stability. We deserve a fair share of the resources and revenues generated from our land and energy.
Electricity is traded on a market, if you have electricity to sell, it'll be brought, there's not favouritism whether its coming from Scotland, the Thames estuary or France, the only difference is the transmission costs. Scotland should look into produce hydrogen locally as it's never going to be economical to build a grid which can move all of the power on the most productive days. While Scotland has the best potential, it's cheap to build wind off the east coast of England, and cheap to maintain those turbines, and its only getting cheaper.
@@edc1569 You're right that electricity is traded on a market and transmission costs are a factor. However, the point remains that Scotland generates a significant amount of renewable energy, and the current system doesn't always ensure that we receive fair compensation for that. While exploring local hydrogen production is a good idea, it doesn’t negate the importance of valuing the renewable energy we already produce. The potential for wind energy off the coast of Scotland is among the highest in Europe, and it’s crucial that this potential is recognized in the market. Just because it might be cheaper to build wind farms in the East doesn’t mean we should undervalue Scotland’s contributions or the investments needed to harness our resources effectively. A balanced approach that respects the capabilities of both regions is necessary.
Scotland would be bankrupt if the UK as a whole hadn't bailed out RBS. Scots need to realise that different areas of the UK contribute different things. We don't get to say "but they are ours". I pay taxes in England, and have to accept the fact that more per head is spent on services for Scots than is spent on people where I live. I generally don't take every opportunity of saying those taxes belong to the English.
Apart from a few local developments we don't need to upgrade the electricity grid, it's the UK's 'accessory grid' and it has spare capacity for everything we have planned. What we should be doing is greening the UK's primary energy grid - the gas main. It has far higher capacity than the electricity grid and almost none of electricity's drawbacks. We have no functioning plan for running the UK off Variable Renewable Energy unless we can run gas power stations when VRE goes through sometimes huge lulls. Greening the gas main would mean nearly no new pylons - those new offshore wind farms (whose peak output we pay to turn off) should be mostly generating e-NG (renewable 'natural' gas) at the coast into storage.
We should do that for covering the VRE downtime, yes. But the losses are huge compared to losses over transmission lines and batteries. Chemical storage is only worth it for backup purposes, not for everyday usage. We still need to convert almost all heating to heat pumps, almost all trains to electric and almost all road transport to BEV. We're going to need considerably more generation and transmission than in the past.
@@mentality-monster I feel like "clean" moves the goalposts somewhat. Biocoal is a thing. 'Clean' is a mostly urban health issue. 'Green' is the more pressing environmental one. We could visit green/netzero heritage steam, but we'd still be coughing. Apart from heritage users, coal has gone in UK. Good climate news.
3:35 Germany is building 2 x 2GW north-south HVDC connections - something like 650Km and 750Km long. It's largely thanks to NIMBYs forcing the cables to be buried that has lead to the whole thing being years behind schedule and many times over budget.
3:50 Riddle me this one Batman. I'm confused. Was it time pressure in the edit or ~ and I struggle to believe this ~ was it poor joirnalism that stopped Alex Thompson the interviewer from asking this? The question on all our lips when greeted by the frankly laughable beyond laughable response from John Pettigrew the _Chief Executive_ no less, of National Grid that a cable tunnel wouldn't be enough and a Pylon transmission line would have to be built on top... The question which should have been asked whilst trying to disguise the inevitable sniggering incredulity is Why not build two tunnels? Poor journalism, I'm afraid to say.
Remember that one of the reasons HS2 became so expensive is that MPs indulged constituents in the countryside at every consultation and ended up with a railway design that was very attractive but enormously costly.
This is far from the reason for the over expenditure 😂
Corruption through price gouging tax payer coffers is far more significant.
Particularly the tunnels
@@EVLitterPickerexactly the managment go more than hapf the money paid towards the project .
Almost like the national grid engineers know more about power distribution than the average farmer. Wonder who we'll end up listening to...
Newsnight can have a debate between the two 😂
Say no to coal, nuclear, pylons, biomass, gas, just say no to everything.
The trouble in this country and why we get nothing done is to many moaners. Either scrap it or get on with it
It's like those that complain about mobile masts and then complain about weak signals.
Too much nimbyism in this country!
I think government is going have a full scale war nimbyism and I got a feeling they are going to be defeated like they have never been defeated, with new laws in Parliament that will firmly put them in the corner.
I don't care about seeing pilons and wind turbines in the countryside, they look fine. I get that it would be noisy it you lived right next to one, but I think calling them unsightly is stirring up fuss over nothing. Roads are way more disruptive to the countryside, but because they benefit landowners they don't cause a fuss about them.
I agree
You don’t care about the countryside then as long as it get energy to your big city. You don’t care about the miles of hedgerows and trees and killing wildlife for your wind and solar farms. It’s not about being NIMBY it’s about destroying an environment to create net zero
Pylons have been part of our countryside for decades. Doesn’t bother me, doesn’t seem to bother the farmers either. If you want a rainbow, you have to put up with some rain!
@@Militant_Atheist Of cause don't bother farmers, they get a nice yearly rental fee.
You aren't taking into consideration the amount of land that is lost due to the footprints of these pylons. If they are traversing mountains and forests. then no problem. Furthermore, if they can do it for London, why can't they do it elsewhere as in Germany.
So a small number of people have sway over our country’s future? The same people who decided Brexit was a great idea and their main concern is the price of their house.
If you don't want pylons then turn of your electricity
100kv and 200kv high voltage ac power lines are not practical or possible underground. You would have to convert it to DC but with a much reduced capacity and cost 10x that of overhead. If farmer Giles and his friends want underground cables he should shoulder the cost. There are plenty of farmers fields around here that have had pylons in them for nearly 100 years, never heard anyone say anything about them - it just part of the landscape.
Hear hear. Impact on farming?! The footprint is miniscule!
Farmer giles gets paid for it anyway, and a couple of pylons in a field is much less disruption than digging a trench across it.
If you bury electricity cables underground then you have to carefully maintain a tree-free (including hedges) strip above them, to prevent the risk of damage from roots. It's no panacea.
funny that they just in the process of doing it right across Norfolk came right past my village still on going tunnelled under roads fields rivers with very little disruption came in from the north Norfolk coast Norwest project it is.
@Tim_Small Of course you can plant hedgerows on top of underground services...Vegetation restoration & reinstatement is an important part of any cross-country pipeline/infrastructure project...
180 km line of electricity transport NO, but having methane gas heating home and diesel cars YES !!!?!!!
Crazy!
Methane degrades after a decade compared to centuries for carbon dioxide. It's not a pressing problem.
@@joskowal3711 decades, not seconds, not minutes !!!!!
Years and years....
And MORE: DO YOU KNOW THAT METHANE GAS HAS GREATER CLIMATE CHANGE COEFFICIENT THAN CARBON DIOXIDE ???
Literally just ignore these whiners in the countryside, it's just farming fields, artificial forests and roads.
Have to say, I don't find myself looking at the ploughed field and thinking "there's a spot of natural beauty that would be ruined by a pylon..."
Seriously though, yes there will be a loss of productive land for the farmers where those pylons are placed. I guess we're talking 10's of square meters per pylon. I think for the sake of saving the money and actually moving forwards on something that desperately needs movement, the farmers are just gonna have to deal with it. Doesn't seem like it'll wreck their livelihoods.
I'd say a 100 sq meters or yards or more, I can physically get quite close to one where a public walkway intersects a grid line path, and the footprint is quite massive or imposing
Consider all of the way leaves they will get for that land in perpetuity. It almost becomes more financially viable for the small strip of land to have a pylon on it then to grow food on it.
@@johnjakson444 Fair enough, I still wouldn't say that changes the overall calculus though... yes the farmers should have some compensation but they should not be able to hold the govt hostage over this.
Why does the title say that the tunnel is "saving" the green revolution. Anywhere else in the world it would be saying "promoting the green revolution" or dare I say it "upgrading our infrastructure for the benefit of the economy and our customers" x I'm sick of this country's negativity towards change, especially change that will protect this nation and benefit future generations.
Richard,
it is unfortunate that the country has largely been brainwashed by lack of proper information. That lack of information is due to the poor standard of journalism these days, little to no research into what is being done, just an acceptance of what they are told.
The change we are currently doing and have done for more than twenty years is a disadvantage to the U.K., is unworkable and will more than likely end up with widespread power losses in the relatively near future unless plans are reversed. Our loss of industry is entirely due to high enrgy costs which renewables entail. It is false to say they are cheap.
The so called green revolution, or the transition from fossil fuels is practically and technically flawed!
If the NIMBYs had their way during industrialisation, we would still be an agrarian society without paved roads, canals, rail, electricity, airport, electricity, internet access etc.
Putting the cables to carry the 14 GW of power across Essex would require cable trenches wider than the M25 through the countryside. Given the relatively short distance AC cables on towers are the only way to go. It might help to increase the Grid voltage to 550kV the towers might be slightly higher but ultimately fewer circuits would be needed.
If the 2015 Cameron government hadn't stopped onshore wind and the proposed Navitus Bay offshore wind farm, we would have more power in the south.
Stopping roof top solar on new builds was the most irresponsible act of all. Installing at the building stsge is less than half yhe cost of retrofitting. FIT payment could have ended for new build so each house built would be part of the solution, not adding to the problem.
Nimby's are why the UK is not as wonderfup a place as it could be
Thinking that putting HV cables in tunnels is a substitute for overhead transmission lines is as bone-headed an idea as you could devise. What cables need are insulation and cooling, and by stringing them up from pylons you get that for free, from the surrounding air, which doesn't wear out or degrade, and is in abundant supply.
Nimbies
Of course it’s important to upgrade the grid, but upgrading the infrastructure in London is not going to help in Orkney.
what is the new government doing on the sewage overflow pipes ? still floater flooding ?
Invest britain! Ffs!
Hey mr nimby farmer, it’s a pylon in a field on your land not your back garden..
Okay they want tunnels, they can pay for it. An the government should legislate to remove the need for the lost of value in a property as well.
Nimby ruining the benefit of the whole again. **sigh**
Seems odd that the arrows denoting the flow of coal powered electricity going to scotland, as if Scotland was unable to power itself....
People LOVE TO COMPLAIN…
Maybe those objecting to pylons would prefer a nice clean modular nuclear power station instead or a system of electricity rationing in their area so we can get by with less pylons? Honestly if you live in a city you have put up with living near to a lot of big infrastructure. It’s modern life, get over it.
People don't object to pylons for supplying their needs. They object to pylons that exist solely to transport power to the other side of the country. London could be supplied using undersea cables from the wind farms down the coast and up the Themes, rather than pylons across Suffolk and Essex. We already do have nuclear power stations in Suffolk and they are planning to build another one.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191this makes no sense. Electricity can not always be generated nearby. There may also be human and environmental reasons why laying cables along the Thames estuary might not work. It’s just a pylon.
Yes, and of course nuclear (and power stations that burn stuff) all want to be on the coast so as to access seawater for cooling, so even they need pylons taking power inland
If the pylons were white then they would be more visually appealing, also the designs could be better
Excellent. Quite happy to see a few pylons, far better than massive coal and gas stations pumping out gas for miles. Glad to see Labour modify planning, so we get cheap clean energy in the most efficient way. Farmer Giles should be happy, as his costs will decrease for energy, and certainly should not be allowed to block such infrastructure. And the land is the UKs, not exclusively his.
Professor Green is in full agreement with this as their is a need for Herbal Tunnels
No way! Trenching and all the associated works involved is never going to be cheaper over hundreds of miles!
Added to that even if you do lay the cables as HVDC another massive cost is building converter stations at each end.
Pylons don’t require anything so complex.
Wonder if underground electrical infrastructure could be more resilient to solar storms?
Is this why my electricity standing charge keeps going up every quarter?
It's quite simple for the people protesting for not having power lines. Just disconnect them from the grid. They don't want it they don't get it. As well for the farmer if he wants them buried he can play the exact cost. We need infrastructure to grow.
Let’s have temporary pillions until such time they can be replaced by underground possibly supercooled cables to reduce the resistance and a legal guarantee that the pillions will only be temporary for a fixed maximum number of years.
Wait, sorry, so what did that engineer say we must go with pylons (over burying the cables underground)?
It sounded like underground cables would have less capacity than cables between pylons. I can think of other issues: if you want to add cables later, then underground is trickier; difficulty of accessing underground cables.
It's much more expensive and can cause way more electrical interference, which is an issue
He avoided going into the detail, but if that is what you wish for.
AC transmits both active power, and reactive power. We only need the active power part. The AC nature of the transmission causes the polarity of the line to change in reference to the surrounding of the cable, either air for pylons, or earth for underground. Air and earth have different capacitances so the amount of power loss increases when sticking the cable underground. You then have a load of other headaches to deal with, heat being a big on.
DC only transmits the active power so doesn’t suffer these power losses, but stepping it up and down from low voltage to high voltage is a lot more complex, expensive and unreliable compared to a good ol’ transformer. Therefore HVDC only becomes cost effective when the length of cable goes above a certain distance, or needs to be run under to ocean/ground as there is no other option available. Which isn’t true here.
Hmm, why then do the underground cables work in Germany (among others)?🤔
You must construct additional pylons.
@Channel4News
The fact that you allowed complete misinformation to go unchallenged in this piece is irresponsible and misleading. There is absolutely no scenario where underground HVDC transmission is cheaper than Overhead power lines. And there is no National grid report that says otherwise. Also HVDC needs huge converter stations (in addition to regular sub-stations) to take it to and from AC at either end.
In addition the environmental impact of cable trenches is larger than overhead while the embodied carbon of the cables is massively greater as are the emissions caused by the installation.
Glad that Labour have changed the rules so NIMBYs can FO instead of holding the country back!
If only you put solar n new builds as standard! This would be a great help
Catering to a few people in the country when the benefit of getting cheaper energy for everyone is a easy decision.
Sizewell nuclear power station is conveniently located on the Suffolk coast and has existing grid connections. Why can't North Sea wind power be routed into Sizewell, or even from a North Sea hub sea connected via the Thames Estuary direct into London? What's really going on here? Or even to the Isle of Grain gas powered station on the north Kent coast?
We privatised the National Grid
And they did not invest
No one is surprised
That last bit makes no sense, if a buried cable does not have enough capacity. You can just bury another one next to it. Why would it require a pylon on top of the buried cable?
i came here to say this. i really don't understand this argument against burying cables.
there may be other good arguments against burying - but this one doesn't make sense.
If you have to bury two or three cable to get the same capacity as one pylon, it eventually going to cost more than just building the pylons.
@@fTooe simple argument against it is "Losses"
With Overhead at 400kvAC cables losses are about 1-2% every 100 miles.
Against 8-10% under ground. And even worse under sea.
That is why the UK undersea connectors to France, Norway, Denmark etc are all HVDC, with massive DC-AC convertor stations at each end to return the power to HVAC.
Do all that and you are looking at 10x the cost.
At the end of all that, you would just get some "other" NIMBY objecting to the unsightly convertor stations. So they would be no better off anyway.
It had to be london 🤷♂️
Build!
is this the location of a diddy music video
London.......
Buried
Strange that once again London can have everything underground & once it gets further out, it’s above ground... two tier once again!
Absolutely.👍
You think purchasing land and running overhead cables in London is as practical as doing it through fields? Once again, the only thing two tier in this country is people's cognitive ability.
Produce a TRILLION pounds a year and you can have your cables underground too, in the meantime enjoy some pilons.
It’s not strange.
It’s basic economics of scale.
Underground Network Is Much Better!
To lay the Underground Electricity Infrastructure the Power Transmission needs to be done at Low Voltage with Power Conversions enabled by the Capacitor Banks and then through the Transformers - Low Voltage Transmission!
But when comes to distribution point it goes by High Voltage Transmission to the Grid to avoid Power Losses.
From Grid to Home is Nonetheless the Power Modulators with the Capacitance Banks in place to avoid the Voltage Fluctuations.
uhmmm what if it gets flooded ? 🤔
they get out a giant mob and a very big hair dryer
The safest bet is to do it underground , I know the ecological impact but with 200mph storms coming soon , wont be much left after a couple of them :(
What a waste ! of time, money ! Greenwashing just du to lack basic electricity knowledges of the people. I thought England was a bit cleaver than France and the rest of Europe....
France has some of lowest energy costs in Europe. Do you think if you can’t spell due or clever do you have any right to be talking about the national grid?
Seems to be a lot of fossil fuel based production behind this green revolution
❤
wow, wait, how much electricity will be needed in the evening to charge an electric car every day, and we are only talking about physical consumption, not production
This myth was dispelled a decade ago. EV drivers use a cheap eg 7 p / kWh tariff in the off peak hours. Also set appliances like washing machine, dishwasher etc to use these times. So the peak demand is reduced.
Very misleading story those cable tunnels in London were built at least decade ago……….
This is being built currently the one you talking about was power tunnels 1 the one in the video is power tunnels 2
😅
More money wasted by this clueless Government
Scotland produces a significant amount of renewable energy, much of which is used to power London and other areas in the UK. While Scotland generates energy for the rest of the country, the revenue generated from this energy does not always return directly to Scotland. This raises concerns about how Westminster manages resources and finances, especially given recent cuts to services like the winter fuel allowance that directly affect Scottish residents. It's crucial to ensure that Scotland is fairly compensated for its energy contributions and that its financial interests are protected.
By the time power from Scotland has reached London half of it has been lost in cable resistance.
@@andyalder7910 so why do it then?
@@andyalder7910 Electricity can indeed lose some energy as it travels long distances through transmission lines, but modern technology has improved efficiency significantly. Typically, high-voltage transmission reduces energy loss, but some energy is still lost as heat due to resistance in the cables.
As for revenue, while London generates a considerable amount of its own income, it also relies on energy supplied from other regions, including Scotland. However, the way energy revenues are distributed can be complex. Scotland's energy generation does contribute to the overall UK grid, but the financial returns may not always reflect the level of contribution, which can be a point of contention.
@@JimBanksy We need a HVDC grid, and the best place for that is in the North Sea.
@@JimBanksy Energy prices are determined by a market, the South needs a lot of electricity so please do sell it to us, just don't expect some sort of little extra on top for some undefined reason, as Europe is nearer, and the Thames Estuary is productive. I really don't think you want truly 'fair' pricing in Scotland, everything from internet, SIMs, groceries, stamps, banking, couriers, etc would go up instantly. We are a single market as the UK and that's best for both sides.
The UK has become obsessed with unreliable energy systems. The problems caused by this type of power-unreliable power-are numerous, particularly wind-reliant and sun-reliant sources. Incorporating them into systems where you need - (steady output and input )Of all the renewable options, tidal systems are possibly the best. However, if political radicals under the direction of the UN and the likes of Al Gore, hadn't monopolized the conversation, we would have invested billions of pounds in nuclear energy, leading to reliable, controlled power. We could have also invested in coal and modern regeneration for the short term .
There’s a reason why no town or country in the world operates independently on solar and wind energy alone: their unreliability. The UK is following fear-based, mainly left-wing politics, rushing in and making a complete mess of the countryside. Wokism-and much of the population-has bought into the absurd nonsense of carbon zero, which is why the UK is destined to head toward third-world status in the coming decades.
So build more coal power? I don't think anyone's lungs will thank you you that :-)
@@backacheache Modern coal powered stations are very efficient /low emission especially when burning the best quality coal.
@@Jack-v6s7j burning the best quality coal... JC what a moronic thing to say.
I h8 green
North sea is up beside Scotland not london.
x
It's a big sea, Thames drains into the North Sea unless you have an older map that calls it the German Ocean.
@@andyalder7910 Actually, while the Thames does flow into the North Sea, the term 'North Sea' refers to the body of water that lies between Great Britain and mainland Europe. Scotland has a significant coastline along the North Sea, which it shares with other countries, including England and Norway. Additionally, there are historical concerns regarding Scotland's waters, particularly the 1999 agreement that many believe led to the 'stolen waters' of Scotland, where rights to resources and fishing were perceived to have been unfairly allocated. This highlights Scotland's vital role in the North Sea and its resources.
@@JimBanksy Make your mind up, you say the North Sea is not beside London then admit it is beside London.
@@andyalder7910 It's true that the North Sea is adjacent to London, but that doesn’t change the fact that Scotland's resources are often undervalued and mismanaged. Many of the facilities extracting resources like oil and gas are owned by a handful of wealthy corporations. For instance, in 2022, BP reported profits of over £20 billion, while Shell announced record profits of nearly £33 billion. These profits don’t always benefit local communities in Scotland. Instead, it often feels like they are milking Scotland for its resources without giving back. This isn’t about supporting our beloved country; it’s about maximizing profits for a few while many in Scotland see little return from our natural wealth.
if we built a nuclear grid we could just use the old grid already in place, I would favour the Molten Salt Reactor design, anything but unreliable energy at the whim of the weather
and when did this farmer get qualified as a grid engineer, its laughable, there are good engineering reasons why power is carried on pylons
Nope, the old power stations were coal (and so were sited inland near the coal mines) all the modern power stations want to be on the coast for access to sea water for cooling
@@backacheache the coolant loop in the Molten Salt Reactor is Molten Salt and is stored in hot tanks, separately the hot salt is used on demand in a conventional thermal electric cycle plant that could be conventional steam or better still a super critical CO2 which could operate at much closer to 60% thermal eff, so could be air cooled.
besides it not like we have a US type situation with 3000 miles of country to span and multiple grids, oh but wait, we have been talking about solar in the north of Africa to help the UK
While the UK’s plans for a zero-carbon electricity system by 2030 are commendable, they rely heavily on upgrades to the National Grid. This raises the question: as Scotland generates substantial renewable energy, are they receiving fair compensation for the energy supplied to other regions like London? With the need for new pylons and cables to support this infrastructure, it's crucial to ensure that Scotland's contributions are recognized and that the revenue benefits the local communities, especially when recent cuts to services like the winter fuel allowance affect residents. Fair financial arrangements must be in place to protect Scotland’s interests as we transition to a greener future.
The entire notion of a union is one of pooled resources - you can't have it where Scotland's unique endowments e.g., green energy are recognised but the increased costs of say lower population density, or England (London's) place at the heart of the global financial system (which benefits Edinburgh) are not accounted for.
@@ruxiist While the union is indeed about pooled resources, it’s crucial to recognize that Scotland's unique contributions-like our vast renewable energy potential-should be fairly valued and compensated. Just because Scotland has a smaller population doesn’t mean we should be deprived of the resources that rightfully belong to us. The financial benefits that London receives shouldn't come at the expense of Scotland's well-being or economic stability. We deserve a fair share of the resources and revenues generated from our land and energy.
Electricity is traded on a market, if you have electricity to sell, it'll be brought, there's not favouritism whether its coming from Scotland, the Thames estuary or France, the only difference is the transmission costs. Scotland should look into produce hydrogen locally as it's never going to be economical to build a grid which can move all of the power on the most productive days. While Scotland has the best potential, it's cheap to build wind off the east coast of England, and cheap to maintain those turbines, and its only getting cheaper.
@@edc1569 You're right that electricity is traded on a market and transmission costs are a factor. However, the point remains that Scotland generates a significant amount of renewable energy, and the current system doesn't always ensure that we receive fair compensation for that.
While exploring local hydrogen production is a good idea, it doesn’t negate the importance of valuing the renewable energy we already produce. The potential for wind energy off the coast of Scotland is among the highest in Europe, and it’s crucial that this potential is recognized in the market. Just because it might be cheaper to build wind farms in the East doesn’t mean we should undervalue Scotland’s contributions or the investments needed to harness our resources effectively. A balanced approach that respects the capabilities of both regions is necessary.
Scotland would be bankrupt if the UK as a whole hadn't bailed out RBS. Scots need to realise that different areas of the UK contribute different things. We don't get to say "but they are ours". I pay taxes in England, and have to accept the fact that more per head is spent on services for Scots than is spent on people where I live. I generally don't take every opportunity of saying those taxes belong to the English.
If the U.K didn’t reward chancers for entering the U.K illegally. Then our carbon footprint would be halved overnight
"make bills cheaper" and you call yourself a journalist.
i wonder what the cost of a bill is. can't be that high.
Are the engineers Chinese??
Joke Tinpot PONCE country 👉🏻🏴
Joke FINISHED UNION 👎🏻🇬🇧
Scotland doesn’t need little PONCE Engerlend 👎🏻🏴🇬🇧
🏴☮️🇪🇺
Zero carbon.... 2030..... 🤣 lies on toast
No one is suggesting 'zero carbon' by any date.
@@Steven-vo4ee can't you read ? 🤣🤦♂️
@@duncandisorderly6562 Can you form a factual or sensical sentence?
If you read the description of the video Einstein that's exact what is says 😂 you have the iq of a carrot
Read the description Einstein 😂
Apart from a few local developments we don't need to upgrade the electricity grid, it's the UK's 'accessory grid' and it has spare capacity for everything we have planned. What we should be doing is greening the UK's primary energy grid - the gas main. It has far higher capacity than the electricity grid and almost none of electricity's drawbacks. We have no functioning plan for running the UK off Variable Renewable Energy unless we can run gas power stations when VRE goes through sometimes huge lulls. Greening the gas main would mean nearly no new pylons - those new offshore wind farms (whose peak output we pay to turn off) should be mostly generating e-NG (renewable 'natural' gas) at the coast into storage.
We should do that for covering the VRE downtime, yes. But the losses are huge compared to losses over transmission lines and batteries. Chemical storage is only worth it for backup purposes, not for everyday usage. We still need to convert almost all heating to heat pumps, almost all trains to electric and almost all road transport to BEV. We're going to need considerably more generation and transmission than in the past.
Green gas grid? Pull the other one. Next you'll be telling us about clean coal.
@@mentality-monster I feel like "clean" moves the goalposts somewhat. Biocoal is a thing. 'Clean' is a mostly urban health issue. 'Green' is the more pressing environmental one. We could visit green/netzero heritage steam, but we'd still be coughing. Apart from heritage users, coal has gone in UK. Good climate news.
Stopping the boats would help
3:35 Germany is building 2 x 2GW north-south HVDC connections - something like 650Km and 750Km long. It's largely thanks to NIMBYs forcing the cables to be buried that has lead to the whole thing being years behind schedule and many times over budget.
Should use the central reservations of motorways for solar panels and running cables
Like the veins of a leaf across the whole country
Would be covered in dust and grime within days, wouldn't work.
3:50 Riddle me this one Batman.
I'm confused. Was it time pressure in the edit or ~ and I struggle to believe this ~ was it poor joirnalism that stopped Alex Thompson the interviewer from asking this?
The question on all our lips when greeted by the frankly laughable beyond laughable response from John Pettigrew the _Chief Executive_ no less, of National Grid that a cable tunnel wouldn't be enough and a Pylon transmission line would have to be built on top...
The question which should have been asked whilst trying to disguise the inevitable sniggering incredulity is
Why not build two tunnels?
Poor journalism, I'm afraid to say.