Last week, six innovative pylon designs were unveiled as potential replacements for the iconic steel lattice structures that have carried electricity across the country for the best part of the century. Recognised by many of you, these pylons over the years have endured many mixed opinions. It is fair to say that most of you will have probably viewed these pylons as eye sores more than anything else. The steel structures aren’t exactly pretty, and furthermore, many other UK residents have reflected this sentiment by opposing to past proposals to build more [E.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. So, why are new designs coming out? Well, it may interest you to know that these new designs are an attempt to balance, elegance and utility.
T-Pylon by Bystrup: Others available for viewing, until 5 October 2011 at the V& A Museum [http://www.ribapylondesign.com/shortlist].
Launched last may, the Department of Energy and Climate change (DECC), the National Grid and the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) called for architects to submit new designs that could cope with future electric needs and are sympathetic to the countryside. 250 entrants became involved, later whittled down to the last six. Although architects may have been motivated by money – a £10, 000 prize fund – the designs are also to be given “serious consideration” by the National Grid as possible replacements for the older designs [6]. The reason for this contest is that two aspects of pylon construction need to be addressed.
Firstly, by 2020, a quarter of the country’s current generating capacity will need replacing [7]. The old pylons which you see before you now were designed in 1927, by Sir Regina Blomfield, for the launch of the National Grid in 1933. Yes, believe it or not, they have been around for that long! With the government, and hopefully you, supporting the push for green power. Renewable sources – onshore and offshore wind farms – as well as other such sources which have grown in attention such as, tidal and wave power (e.g. Orkney, Scotland); new land transmission cables are needed. Particularly as the existing electricity grid is in the wrong place for many new sources of power. Even at a time when electricity was starting to be of common use and needed unification, there was still an outcry to pylon building; many having regarded the National Grid as desecrating the British countryside [7]! With this in mind, this leads to the second aspect of pylon building.
As mentioned briefly earlier, many of you have withheld pylons with distaste. If pylons need replacing it makes sense that the original design should also be ‘replaced’. As climate change minister Chris Huhne points out, “we must make sure that we take into account the visual impact on the landscape and also the view of the public, and this is what the pylon design competition is all about” [6]. Therefore, the architects have tried to make their designs as aesthetically pleasing as possible, intended to blend into the countryside rather than contrast it.
Opponents of towering pylons are not convinced, they say the answer is to the bury power lines. At present, 950km of Britain’s 13,000km high voltage cables runs underground, most of it in urban areas. If you have ever been to Australia, you would notice the difference in visual appeal between uprooted, and underground, urban power lines. The problem with sinking the wires is that it creates a heavy environmental toll too. Pylon cables need a corridor which spans 14m by 40m wide. Furthermore, these corridors cannot be excavated in all terrains. After establishment of the corridors, there is also, ‘after’ land use effects. No planting, digging or building is allowed; as Richard Smith from the National Grid states, “you are effectively sterilising land use in the area” [7]. The combined effects of these factors make installing the cables up to, 12-17 times more expensive than overhead cables. In addition, the price of despoiling the scenery is hard to calculate – visual natural capital is difficult to prescribe a monetary value – essentially the cost of underground cables, may be even more! Consumers would have to pay for this through their own electricity bills. Everyone would additionally, have to fork out to protect the views and house prices of a few people.
Several paradoxes subsequently arise for pylon construction. On the one hand, you have people who want the electricity to reach their TV so that a nation could watch its football, or currently, its rugby. On the other hand, you have residents who do not want pylon construction to occur: near their houses or in the nearby countryside; even if it means reaching their houses. Paradox two, saving the world and cutting carbon emissions to support green power means dragging new power lines through existing scenic countryside. Paradox Three, what if you do not even support green power in the first place? Well, nuclear power plants or coal power plants, which are often built in the countryside, do not exactly face a warm reception either.
These debates are age old; but in hindsight, surely these new pylon designs don’t look so bad after all?
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13525701
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-13792992
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10498422
[4] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8479678.stm
[5] http://tohatchacrow.blogspot.com/2010/10/rugby-ace-joins-beauly-denny-pylon.html
[6] http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2109228/uks-pylons-future-revealed
[7] http://www.economist.com/node/21529083
