How best to deliver the Great National Grid Upgrades: Pylons or Progress?

The Government has promised to decarbonise the grid by 2030, but their current approach is widely questioned by the energy industry, economists and other experts.

The National Energy System Operator’s (NESO) 2030 Clean Power report warns that achieving clean power by 2030 requires “several elements” to deliver “at the limit of what is feasible” for the Government’s plan to work. However, there is huge potential for delays and increased costs. It is clear the Government’s plan is not so much ambitious as unrealistic. It’s already just been downgraded to 95 pct decarbonised. Expect more drift.

The government assumes 60 pct efficiency for offshore wind, but the experience so far is some way below that. They also dress their figures for the “dash from gas” on forecast gas prices that are some 30p per therm above the current market rate for delivery in 2030.

The challenge to install new non-carbon generating, storage and transmission infrastructure is enormous. The UK currently has around 14 Gigawatts of offshore wind capacity, but to meet future energy demands, this capacity will need to grow nearly threefold by 2030 and to continue expanding to handle 125 Gigawatts of wind power by 2050. This is a much faster rate of investment than we have seen so far, but projects assumed for 2030 are already falling behind. And National Grid says that we need to build five times more transmission capacity over the next six years than has been built over past three decades.

NESO’s Clean Power 2030 report highlights that community consent is “vital to the mission” of clean power by 2030. Losing consent is a significant threat to delivering these projects on time and within budget. The report states that achieving clean power by 2030 “should not come at the expense of public consent” as this would be “self-defeating”. However, by adopting a pylons-first agenda, the Government is doing exactly that.

The Norwich to Tilbury project has united communities in opposition. Funds for legal challenges are growing, and at least two judicial reviews are guaranteed. The Clean Power 2030 report notes Norwich to Tilbury will be delayed for at least one year, but that looks optimistic, and each year will cost £4bn per year. The government must ditch the ‘pylons-first’ dogma, as it is too risky and expensive. Undergrounding High Voltage Direct Current (U-HVDC) cables will avoid the same delays and therefore save money.

U-HVDC technology provides a scalable, future-proof alternative to pylons. U-HVDC does not provoke the same public resistance. Communities in the Northeast have already backed U-HVDC projects with minimal opposition or delay. Nobody is objecting the Anglian Water main being buried under Dedham Vale.

The government could streamline planning procedures for U-HVDC cables. Implementing the same simplified framework used for major underground water pipelines would reduce bureaucracy and expedite delivery.

Unlike pylons, U-HVDC cables are underground along the entire route, minimising disruption to sensitive landscapes. Its narrower trenches cost far less than undergrounding HV Alternative Current (AC) cables and cause far less destruction. AC cables must be spaced apart, demanding massive trenches 120m wide, destroying every tree or hedge in their path. U-HVDC are the best for Special Landscape Areas like Dedham Vale.

There are 17 more pylon-based schemes in the pipeline. Each of them is likely to face the same public hostility, legal challenges, and resulting delays.

The government has a choice: either pylons and face years of costly delays, create public opposition, and missed targets, or U-HVDC, a solution that will save time, money, and community goodwill. NESO’s report says clean power should not come “at the expense of public consent”, but the current approach invites exactly that, endangering both their targets and public trust.

U-HVDC is cheaper in the long run, avoids costly legal battles, and preserves our precious countryside. A pylon-first strategy will delay decarbonisation, cost more, and deliver less. It’s time for a rethink. If we’re serious about clean power by any date, we must stop fighting the public and start working with them.