Representation by Nigel Heyworth Morgan
- Date submitted
- 22 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Response to the Planning Inspectorate – the “last with a chance” Quotation: "If we do make the transition to renewables at the lightning speed required, humankind will forever look back on this generation with gratitude, for we are indeed the first to truly understand the problem - and the last with a chance to do anything about it." (from A Life on our Planet (p 139), by David Attenborough). Conclusion This NG Proposal should be refused because it has not properly explored a very significant apparently-available technical option (the superconducting cable) as it was requested to do. Rationale It is perhaps unreasonable to expect a commercial organisation such as National Grid (NG) to make the required transition to renewables other than as directed by government policy. But so far, neither NG's approach to the Bramford to Twinstead line (B to T) nor government policy have yet caught up with the necessity to make this transition in the right way or "at the lightning speed required." Therefore, to you, the Planning Inspectorate (PI), inevitably now falls the whole responsibility of "doing something about it" for a major infrastructure project that is likely to be with us well into the next century - that is, for several generations to come. This situation was addressed in the PI’s Advice provided to the submission in my name which is reproduced as Item 4 of the Section 51 advice, posted 21 January 2022, being the attachment labelled "View advice (PDF)." Regarding the above submission and Advice: (a) NG has not issued a request for tenders for a superconducting cable option for Bramford to Twinstead, (b) that therefore we do not know the true availability (and cost) of such an option, and (c) as a consequence, that the Applicant has failed "to demonstrate in its submitted application where they have shown regard to responses received during their period of statutory consultation." (ref Section 51 Advice). With reference to 'showing regard to responses received,' NG in earlier correspondence did provide their then-current understanding of the technical reasons why a buried superconducting cable option was unfeasible for B to T which has not changed. However, it is strongly contended that whilst it may be reasonable to rely on NG's technical understanding for a conventional technology (eg overhead lines or multiple buried or submerged XLPE-type cables), it would be unwise to rely on their understanding of a fast-emerging new technology such as the superconducting cable (even though NG does possess some early examples elsewhere in its network). NG is a cable user not a cable manufacturer, and has not been pioneering the research and development of this technology in any significant way. Nor would that be expected. So the most up-to-date information on what would actually be available for a project can only be obtained from the manufacturers who have been fast developing the commercial products on which their livelihoods depend. The proper and long-accepted way forward in this situation is through tendering - the formal process of inviting proposals - in this case from qualifying potential EU and international cable suppliers. NG’s failure to do this has suppressed the possibility that the cable manufacturing industry could have provided a much better solution for B to T reinforcement than overhead pylons and/or buried XLPE-type cables. There are strong statements from the cable manufacturing industry which lead one to believe that a good superconducting cable proposal for B to T could be submitted should tenders be invited. There is still time to recover this significant opportunity - we would learn a lot from doing so. It is frankly beyond belief that a project of B to T's significance could have reached the present PI Examination stage without a proper consideration of all apparently-available technical options including buried superconducting cables. So who is to be believed: cable manufacturers who say ‘we can do it’ or NG who say ‘not yet’? The competitive tendering process would provide the answer to this basic question and could also open up alternatives for grid infrastructure provision more widely which government appears keen to do. In summary: NG's Proposal for B to T has not shown adequate “regard to responses received during their period of Statutory Consultation.” ==================================================================22nd June 2023