Undersea cables better option than giant pylons
Welcome to my blog, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
When I read this article stating that undersea cables are the most viable economic and environmental method of carrying electricity produced from renewable sources in the Western Isles to areas with a higher population, I wondered why the erection of giant pylons had been the initial proposal. The electricity generated by the giant wind farm in the Western Isles was to be brought onshore at Ullapool, then underground cable to Beauly near Inverness and the overground by giant pylon to central Scotland. I assume the undersea option would be a cable down the west coast of Scotland. Perhaps it is cheaper to erect pylons and then easier to repair and maintain them?
Certainly from a viewpoint of preserving the beautiful Scottish countryside an undersea cable would be preferable. I know sometimes when I have gone to take a photo, I’ve thought how much better the photo would be without the pylons, as illustrated below in this photo taken in Crieff, Perthshire, when I was attempting to capture the sunset over the hills.
Again it is a matter of balancing different needs. Scotland does want to be a leader in renewable energy, we all use plenty power in our everday lives and we want to enjoy unspoilt countryside.
March 14th, 2007 at 10:56 am
My suspicions have been confirmed in this article
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=397722007
saying that there was never serious consideration given to laying the cable underground due to the cost.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Thereis no correct answer to the problem of pylons versus underground cables, both have their advantages and disadvantages. The bottom line is that if we don’t do something to bring about an increase in renewable energy our energy systems will collapse. What is more important, taking photographs without pylons or looking after our childrens future/
April 28th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Helmac, I agree that it is essential to have viable energy systems for the future, I was discussing the best method by which to bring the power to more highly populated areas. I don’t think we should ignore the issue of erecting more giant pylons which can spoil the countryside.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
karen, The power companies will not support underground cables insisting that it is not cost effective for the amount of power being transmitted. This could be a bargaining position hoping that the British Government will step into the breech and meet more of the cost. However there could also be a time constraint as pylons are a much quicker method of achieving a transmission line than going underground. You are right that we can’t ignore the issue of despoiling the countryside but at the end of the day, needs must.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
From what I read about power companies profits and profit margins eg
http://www.fool.co.uk/news/money-saving-tips/household-bills/2007/03/21/gas-company
-profit-margins.aspx
it would appear to me that they could afford to lay underground cables. Obviously if it’s cheaper to use pylons and there is no Government legislation to control their choice, then the power companies will choose pylons. The question is should the power companies be allowed to make this choice solely on profit considerations? Should market forces rule supreme?
May 10th, 2007 at 10:25 am
I read today that the power companies rate overhead cables as “demonstrably more economic as they estimate the it will cost 19.7 million pounds a mile to lay the cables underground.
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=722892007