New pylons cost millions
Overhead power lines could head into the Cheddar Valley if plans for a corridor of pylons are approved.
Energy giant EDF wants to open a new reactor at Hinkley Point power station but a new network of cables would be needed to carry the voltage.
-
The National Grid currently sends power east from Hinkley Point to Bridgwater and then north alongside the M5 corridor to a substation in Avonmouth, near Bristol.
Two possible new power route corridors will be debated at a public consultation running from Thursday, October 1 to Monday, January 4.
The first is to replace the current 132,000-volt corridor with a 400,000-volt one, or build the more powerful line alongside the current one.
The second, more complicated and multiple-choice option would see the newer line meandering eastwards from Bridgwater into the Cheddar Valley. Exactly where is not clear from the National Grid's guideline map but the route appears to strike through between Mark and Blackford and north through the Allertons and Badgworth, before rejoining the line at the Mendips. From there it would either run parallel and to the east of the motorway or parallel with the existing line. If the latter route is taken, the lines could either go east or west of the current line by Churchill substation.
But whatever choice is taken, the possible power lines converge northeast of Weston-super-Mare and continue east of Nailsea before rejoining the existing line near Portishead and on to Seabank.
The new corridor could be 37 miles long from Hinkley Point to Avonmouth, depending on what option is taken.
The scheme will include new substations, 46.5m-high pylons and any substantial upgrading of equipment is likely to cost £2 million per mile of line; a total of £600 million.
The lines are likely to be built in 2016.
For more information, visit www.nationalgrid.com/hinkleyconnection
4 Comments
by Richard Kellaway, Woolavington, Somerset
Wednesday, October 21 2009, 10:34PM
“The common sense route is to take the cables up the channel where they will be secure and out of sight. It will also be a fraction of the cost.
I admit to being a cynic, ie, realist, but I have to wonder whose pocket is going to benefit by building massive pylons across the county. Why has the sea option never been discussed, if it has then the British Energy Generation has kept very quiet.
Perhaps an examination into the various shareholders of B.E.G and whoever it is that builds the pylons was made. I am convinced that there are a number of vested interests involved. But that is the duty of the press and media. I wonder if they have the courage to do so.”
by Chris, United Kingdom
Friday, October 16 2009, 7:16AM
“The proposed route passes between areas of outstanding natural beauty. It would be a massive blot on the landscape to erect the lines across the levels.
Underwater cabling as proposed by Gerald would be ideal but costly, however the benefits would last for generations. An additional benefit of the underwater plan would be safety, apart from the numerous military helicopters in the area it is also well known for hot air ballooning, how long before a tragic accident?
If there is no alternative than to go over ground then surely the route of the M5 is the most direct and natural way to go.”
by Gerald Hayward, United Kingdom
Friday, October 09 2009, 5:20AM
“look forward to hearing
other views.”
by gerald, United Kingdom
Friday, October 09 2009, 5:05AM
“why,cant the cable be laid on the sea bed from bridgewater
to avonmouth - small cable
laying vessel's are avaialble for charter, why have power cable's overhead after speding millions on putting the underground. what abt health
implication 400,000 volts cable
in he air - cancer/etc or why did we start putting them underground- must be a better way than blotting our landscape after speding millions on clearing it of clutter???”