Help me decide my views on a large renewable energy project?
September 6, 2023 4:50 AM Subscribe
The Llyn Lort Energy Park project near me is now entering public consultation and I am considering my views, in particular on whether to join the push for the big national grid connection line to be buried or whether I think pylons are OK. I would love comments from people knowledgeable about this kind of infrastructure development. Please take the importance of renewable investment and the problems with NIMBYism as well understood, I am looking for comments about the best way to do this, not lectures about how important it is to do it.
These sorts of projects in Wales are both very very necessary and also very politically fraught for many historically valid reasons. There's a long history of extractive investment here that causes damage locally and ships all the profit/benefits to England. Because of that, the transmission line to Shropshire is likely to be the most politically charged issue rather than the wind turbines themselves, which I think should be fairly non-controversial. Local politicians are already picking up on the cause to argue that the line should be buried rather than on pylons. My default feeling is that medium size pylons that don't tower over the landscape are not terrible, but that perhaps with increased risk of fire in dry stretches from climate change maybe buried is safer? Also this is across a very rural area so I would expect burial to be mostly across farmers' fields with appropriate payments (vs pylons in farmers' fields with appropriate payments) so perhaps burial is not as great an expense as in more built up areas?
So, people who know about this stuff: support the push for burial or support the argument that the pylons are OK actually? And any other thoughts on other aspects of the project are also welcomed.
These sorts of projects in Wales are both very very necessary and also very politically fraught for many historically valid reasons. There's a long history of extractive investment here that causes damage locally and ships all the profit/benefits to England. Because of that, the transmission line to Shropshire is likely to be the most politically charged issue rather than the wind turbines themselves, which I think should be fairly non-controversial. Local politicians are already picking up on the cause to argue that the line should be buried rather than on pylons. My default feeling is that medium size pylons that don't tower over the landscape are not terrible, but that perhaps with increased risk of fire in dry stretches from climate change maybe buried is safer? Also this is across a very rural area so I would expect burial to be mostly across farmers' fields with appropriate payments (vs pylons in farmers' fields with appropriate payments) so perhaps burial is not as great an expense as in more built up areas?
So, people who know about this stuff: support the push for burial or support the argument that the pylons are OK actually? And any other thoughts on other aspects of the project are also welcomed.
Best answer: On the transmission issue specifically: to some extent the safety issues are (if you squint hard enough) moot: power transmission always carries risk. What you gain in protection from weather and fire, you lose in incidents of unplanned digging. I moved tot he UK from California, where this issue is really motivated by wildfire prevention and preservation of service in the event of wildfires, and complicated by seismic activity and extremely strong land use rules. Nevertheless, having lived on a street that collectively undergrounded its power (etc.) infrastructure within a city that hasn't fully done that, I have to say I was surprised by the visual and psychological impact. That city is very crowded with overhead wires, to the point that some people claim it as part of the city's visual identity. I think I may have felt that way, in a noncommittal sort of way... until the view was clear. It felt very good to have less visual noise. For my two cents, as long as you're comfortable with the political-social conversation around the impacts, burying cables might present an approach to people adjusting to the presence of this new thing a little faster/better. That's subjective, but once it's out of sight there will be less a reminder of the fraught politics and more just, well, access to reliable power.
These discussions are never easy, though, and I also think it's fine to say that you're undecided as long as you need to! If there are public hearings, go to them. These are almost always poorly attended until some very late process milsetone comes up that sends people to them in a panic. If you join as early as you can, you've got time to talk to people who can give you their input, and roll that input around in your mind before the issue gets to a more intense fever pitch.
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 6:09 AM on September 6, 2023 [5 favorites]
These discussions are never easy, though, and I also think it's fine to say that you're undecided as long as you need to! If there are public hearings, go to them. These are almost always poorly attended until some very late process milsetone comes up that sends people to them in a panic. If you join as early as you can, you've got time to talk to people who can give you their input, and roll that input around in your mind before the issue gets to a more intense fever pitch.
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 6:09 AM on September 6, 2023 [5 favorites]
Best answer: Here in the country next door this is an on-going issue: more kettles, more server-farms. This exec summary compares bury vs pylon. It was relevant because our valley was part of one of three routes connecting Dublin and Cork in ?2016? My memory is that pylons were cheaper but the smart "forever" money was on burial. When they chose a more distant route my Nimbyness powered down.
posted by BobTheScientist at 7:13 AM on September 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by BobTheScientist at 7:13 AM on September 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
For aesthetics: buried power lines are always superior. On road trips I always notice the clearcut strips that surround power transmission lines and I wonder how long forests would take to heal if the rights of way along those lines were no longer maintained. The land takings for right of way can be much larger than you'd think, and if they're going through (or even just near) a protected area the scarring of the landscape will be really noticeable.
For practicality: there are pros and cons. Overhead transmission is cheaper to install and cheaper and faster to repair, but the consequences of deferred maintenance are catastrophic. Buried transmission lines are more protected from weather related interruptions, but far more expensive and time consuming to repair in the case of damage. In California (and now Hawaii) we're seeing wildfires caused by failing equipment in poorly maintained transmission networks. In the US we've basically set up an incentive structure where power transmission companies are allowed to divert money that should be used for that maintenance into profits, and then when disasters happen they're mostly able to avoid liability through the magic of bankruptcy. I don't know if Wales is any better in that regard, but it from your description it doesn't sound like it is.
posted by fedward at 9:35 AM on September 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
For practicality: there are pros and cons. Overhead transmission is cheaper to install and cheaper and faster to repair, but the consequences of deferred maintenance are catastrophic. Buried transmission lines are more protected from weather related interruptions, but far more expensive and time consuming to repair in the case of damage. In California (and now Hawaii) we're seeing wildfires caused by failing equipment in poorly maintained transmission networks. In the US we've basically set up an incentive structure where power transmission companies are allowed to divert money that should be used for that maintenance into profits, and then when disasters happen they're mostly able to avoid liability through the magic of bankruptcy. I don't know if Wales is any better in that regard, but it from your description it doesn't sound like it is.
posted by fedward at 9:35 AM on September 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
Among the impacts would be:
Pylons: permanent occupation of space, including permanent rights of access with an obligation to affirmatively maintain both the structures and the vegetation to limit fire risks. So your overhead lines result in a permanent change in the vegetation along the alignment, and that can have real biological impacts. You also have ground-disturbing activity that is at least somewhat limited to the specific pylon locations.2
Undergrounded: if I were a local archaeologist, I would take a look at that alignment to see if it intersects with any known sites. Undergrounding need not involve trenching: there is a technology that allows for horizontal drilling without open trenches, but it is of course more expensive. The permanent impacts on the environment are minimized because the vegetation can grow over it, but the utility would retain permanent rights of access for maintenance and repair purposes. However undergrounding lines can be disruptive to the local community, and sometimes very loud.
If I were worried about fire risk, habitat, or land use being disrupted along the alignment, I would be more in favor of undergrounding. If i were worried about traffic impacts or project costs or disruption to local communities, I might lean towards the pylons.
Another thing to consider is how much flexibility do the project designers have w/rt the alignment? Can they switch back and forth? Can they zig-zag around a sensitive wetland? What are the limitations?
posted by suelac at 12:46 PM on September 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Pylons: permanent occupation of space, including permanent rights of access with an obligation to affirmatively maintain both the structures and the vegetation to limit fire risks. So your overhead lines result in a permanent change in the vegetation along the alignment, and that can have real biological impacts. You also have ground-disturbing activity that is at least somewhat limited to the specific pylon locations.2
Undergrounded: if I were a local archaeologist, I would take a look at that alignment to see if it intersects with any known sites. Undergrounding need not involve trenching: there is a technology that allows for horizontal drilling without open trenches, but it is of course more expensive. The permanent impacts on the environment are minimized because the vegetation can grow over it, but the utility would retain permanent rights of access for maintenance and repair purposes. However undergrounding lines can be disruptive to the local community, and sometimes very loud.
If I were worried about fire risk, habitat, or land use being disrupted along the alignment, I would be more in favor of undergrounding. If i were worried about traffic impacts or project costs or disruption to local communities, I might lean towards the pylons.
Another thing to consider is how much flexibility do the project designers have w/rt the alignment? Can they switch back and forth? Can they zig-zag around a sensitive wetland? What are the limitations?
posted by suelac at 12:46 PM on September 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
There's rural and then there's rural - keep in mind the distinction between running power through parks/forests/natural areas, versus through farmland. Many of the arguments against pylons are really talking about the former.
posted by kickingtheground at 12:53 PM on September 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by kickingtheground at 12:53 PM on September 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Visit some power pylons, of equivalent height and voltage, and see how you like the way they sound. The corona noise from high voltage power transmission is considerable, and if you were to live near a new one you might consider it a taking.
Likewise, a person living near a new lattice-steel tower might not consider them an improvement in the view.
I can't remember the last time I heard of a buried power line failure where I live, but a lattice tower collapsed near downtown just last winter, in high winds.
They'll still maintain a right of way on the path of the line, buried or not, so that's a land use consequence in both cases.
posted by the Real Dan at 1:35 PM on September 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Likewise, a person living near a new lattice-steel tower might not consider them an improvement in the view.
I can't remember the last time I heard of a buried power line failure where I live, but a lattice tower collapsed near downtown just last winter, in high winds.
They'll still maintain a right of way on the path of the line, buried or not, so that's a land use consequence in both cases.
posted by the Real Dan at 1:35 PM on September 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Our local lines were dug down some time ago, maybe 25 years? I'm not sure. What I am sure of is that we have far less power outages, and far shorter outages.
On road trips I always notice the clearcut strips that surround power transmission lines and I wonder how long forests would take to heal if the rights of way along those lines were no longer maintained. The land takings for right of way can be much larger than you'd think, and if they're going through (or even just near) a protected area the scarring of the landscape will be really noticeable.
Well, as I say this happened at least 25 years ago, and there is still a clear difference in the vegetation. It's a difference I kind of like where I live, because the wildlife likes it, but it is there, and some places a few km away the vegetation still hasn't recovered at all. The clearcut strips were very wide, because of the fire hazard. Different authorities may have different standards.
posted by mumimor at 2:51 PM on September 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
On road trips I always notice the clearcut strips that surround power transmission lines and I wonder how long forests would take to heal if the rights of way along those lines were no longer maintained. The land takings for right of way can be much larger than you'd think, and if they're going through (or even just near) a protected area the scarring of the landscape will be really noticeable.
Well, as I say this happened at least 25 years ago, and there is still a clear difference in the vegetation. It's a difference I kind of like where I live, because the wildlife likes it, but it is there, and some places a few km away the vegetation still hasn't recovered at all. The clearcut strips were very wide, because of the fire hazard. Different authorities may have different standards.
posted by mumimor at 2:51 PM on September 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I live in hydropower country crisscrossed by overhead transmission lines taking our natural resource to market. In 2018, a 60 kV line started a fire two miles from here; six weeks later, a 115 kV line ten miles away started a fire which destroyed half our town and quite a lot else. Both fires were the product of run-to-failure corporate recklessness. I have been active in the public process to oppose expensive, inefficient undergrounding at ratepayers' expense. Yet the part of town which just got brand new poles and 12kV lines in 2019 is now being torn up to move everything underground. I am lamentably knowledgeable about all of this and will try to focus my comments.
Undergrounding for fire risk reduction is generally a sham even in parts of California which get scant millimeters of rain over a long dry season with daytime temperatures exceeding 35C. Despite this extreme evaporative deficit turning pastures to kindling, the ignition rate is on the order of one per thousand line-miles per year. Of which fewer than 5% spread beyond 10 acres, generally when the origin is remote and conditions induce a rapid rate of spread. Given the climate in this part of Wales, the chance of a destructive wildfire is a fraction of a percent over the lifetime of the project, and undergrounding will cost more than a hundred million quid.
There may be other valid reasons to reject pylons. One powerhouse a mile from here draws water through a tunnel because of aesthetic objections to flumes along a stretch of canyon only a few kayakers ever see. I personally find clearcut transmission corridors through tall forest horrifying but am not bothered by pylons in the rangeland I cycle through. Nor apparently are the sheep and cattle either. The furious Montgomeryshire opposition suggests it's not the pylons but those scoundrels and the permanent visual reminder. Which I very much understand, as our scoundrels are individually taking the giant shade trees they missed in 2018 to dig their bloody trenches.
I will not be able to fully comprehend the British electricity market in one evening, but my surmise is that the Llyn Lort project aims to meet English demand rather than local demand and the benefits will accrue to millions of National Grid customers while the costs -- long-term aesthetics or short-term disruptive excavations -- will befall rural Powys. In which case, those negative externalities should be minimized or offset by other mandated projects benefitting the community in question (typically recreational facilities here with our hydro projects), but that's not how captive energy regulators operate.
Our undergrounding project is as burdensome as possible -- conflicts with water mains, laterals slashing roads, excessive tree removal as giants' roots are severed. Bute's preferred route is almost entirely through pasture, which means less cost and especially less time to install the conduit. Because the vegetation there is mostly grass and hedgerow, it can in fact grow back, unlike forest which is proscribed in underground utility corridors here. The wattage and distance favor AC over HVDC, and as underground AC transmission projects go, the Vyrnwy valley looks like favorable terrain, though an underground route couldn't be so cavalier about crossing and re-crossing the river itself.
If the locals are insisting on burying the grid connection to make the Llyn Lort project uneconomic and further forestall it, I wouldn't go along with that. If they are trying to preserve the bucolic gestalt of their valley and are willing to endure a few years of ear-splitting diggers and closed or one-lane roads, it's their valley, and they should be empowered to make those land-use decisions for themselves.
posted by backwoods at 3:02 AM on September 7, 2023 [3 favorites]
Undergrounding for fire risk reduction is generally a sham even in parts of California which get scant millimeters of rain over a long dry season with daytime temperatures exceeding 35C. Despite this extreme evaporative deficit turning pastures to kindling, the ignition rate is on the order of one per thousand line-miles per year. Of which fewer than 5% spread beyond 10 acres, generally when the origin is remote and conditions induce a rapid rate of spread. Given the climate in this part of Wales, the chance of a destructive wildfire is a fraction of a percent over the lifetime of the project, and undergrounding will cost more than a hundred million quid.
There may be other valid reasons to reject pylons. One powerhouse a mile from here draws water through a tunnel because of aesthetic objections to flumes along a stretch of canyon only a few kayakers ever see. I personally find clearcut transmission corridors through tall forest horrifying but am not bothered by pylons in the rangeland I cycle through. Nor apparently are the sheep and cattle either. The furious Montgomeryshire opposition suggests it's not the pylons but those scoundrels and the permanent visual reminder. Which I very much understand, as our scoundrels are individually taking the giant shade trees they missed in 2018 to dig their bloody trenches.
I will not be able to fully comprehend the British electricity market in one evening, but my surmise is that the Llyn Lort project aims to meet English demand rather than local demand and the benefits will accrue to millions of National Grid customers while the costs -- long-term aesthetics or short-term disruptive excavations -- will befall rural Powys. In which case, those negative externalities should be minimized or offset by other mandated projects benefitting the community in question (typically recreational facilities here with our hydro projects), but that's not how captive energy regulators operate.
Our undergrounding project is as burdensome as possible -- conflicts with water mains, laterals slashing roads, excessive tree removal as giants' roots are severed. Bute's preferred route is almost entirely through pasture, which means less cost and especially less time to install the conduit. Because the vegetation there is mostly grass and hedgerow, it can in fact grow back, unlike forest which is proscribed in underground utility corridors here. The wattage and distance favor AC over HVDC, and as underground AC transmission projects go, the Vyrnwy valley looks like favorable terrain, though an underground route couldn't be so cavalier about crossing and re-crossing the river itself.
If the locals are insisting on burying the grid connection to make the Llyn Lort project uneconomic and further forestall it, I wouldn't go along with that. If they are trying to preserve the bucolic gestalt of their valley and are willing to endure a few years of ear-splitting diggers and closed or one-lane roads, it's their valley, and they should be empowered to make those land-use decisions for themselves.
posted by backwoods at 3:02 AM on September 7, 2023 [3 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Rhedyn at 5:04 AM on September 6, 2023