All posts by Alison Downes

Campaigners fear new £1bn energy project is ‘terrifying prospect’ that would destroy Suffolk countryside

PUBLISHED: 05:30 24 February 2020, Andrew Hirst

Vast swathes of countryside could be sacrificed for a £1billion new infrastructure project deemed ‘critical’ in meeting the nation’s energy needs.

Map shosing infrastructure projects, including the Suffolk to Kent connection Picture: NATIONAL GRID ESO

Map showing infrastructure projects, including the Suffolk to Kent connection Picture: NATIONAL GRID ESO

Energy bosses want to build a 2GW offshore connection between Suffolk and Kent, with associated substations and onshore cables, expected to industrialise more land near Sizewell.

 

The proposals, featured in a National Grid Electricity System Operator report, claim the new transmission route would offer economic benefits and help achieve carbon net zero targets.

But campaigners met the news with disbelief, saying the region is “swamped” and cannot cope with more energy projects.

Michael Mahony, of the Substation Action Save East Suffolk group, said: “It is difficult to comprehend how National Grid can even begin to think that an area which cannot accommodate seven major energy projects is suitable for yet two more. There is no thought to the irreversible damage to the East Suffolk countryside and people’s lives that all these projects will cause.”

Left to right, AONB Partnership chairman David Wood and manager Simon Amstutz. Picture: GREGG BROWN

Left to right, AONB Partnership chairman David Wood and manager Simon Amstutz. Picture: GREGG BROWN

Proposals for projects such as Sizewell C power station, various offshore wind farms and two ‘inter-connectors’, transmitting electricity between the UK and Europe, have seen Suffolk named the “Energy Coast”.

But while campaigners say they support renewable energy, they warned a lack of co-ordination from the industry risks sacrificing Suffolk’s precious landscapes for the UK’s growing energy demand.

ScottishPower Renewables’ (SPR) proposals for a 30-acre substation site near Friston, on the edge of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, have attracted some of the fiercest criticism, including from Suffolk County Council and East Suffolk Council.

SPR claims the substations are needed to transmit power from its East Anglia One North (EA1N) and East Anglia Two (EA2) wind farms, which together with East Anglia Three are expected to power 2.7 million homes.

The abnormal load makes it's way from Ipswich Quay, as it heads to the National Grid substation in Burwell, Cambridgeshire. Picture: GRAHAM MEADOWS

The abnormal load makes it’s way from Ipswich Quay, as it heads to the National Grid substation in Burwell, Cambridgeshire. Picture: GRAHAM MEADOWS

But with Suffolk expected to host even more wind farms in the future, there is growing concern about the extent of onshore infrastructure that will bring.

The concerns prompted a group of East Anglian MPs to write to Secretary of State for BEIS Andrea Leadsom in October to press the case for an ‘offshore ring main’ (ORM), which would see several wind farms connect to the same marine cable, thereby reducing the disruption onshore.

But while the government considers its strategy on the ORM, National Grid ESO is seeking to push ahead with projects deemed “critical” for its energy needs.

Its Network Options Assessment, published in January, includes the Suffolk to Kent ‘SCD1’ transmission route among 42 projects listed ‘to proceed’, with a completion date as soon as 2028. It estimates the cost as £500m-£1bn.

Paul Collins, Charles Mcdowell and Alison Downes from Therberton and Eastbridge Action Group on Sizewell (TEAGS) Picture: SARAH LUCY BROWN

Paul Collins, Charles Macdowell and Alison Downes from Theberton and Eastbridge Action Group on Sizewell (TEAGS) Picture: SARAH LUCY BROWN

A further project, ‘SCD2’, would see second 2GW circuit created between Suffolk and Kent, running parallel with SCD1. However, this is currently on “hold”, meaning investment is not required this year.

Although details of the onshore infrastructure required are scant, Mr Mahony claims it will cover a 30 acre site with buildings 28 metres tall, based on similar ‘converter stations’. He believes National Grid will seek to use the same Friston site as SPR plans to use for its substations, meaning further industrialisation of a rural location.

The Suffolk Coast and Heath AONB has previously highlighted concerns about the cumulative impact of energy projects on the natural landscape. Chairman David Wood said that although no details were publicly available yet, he hoped the developer would pay due regard to the purposes of the nationally designated landscape, to conserve natural beauty.

“The Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB is designated for its natural beauty and supports a wealth of wildlife and has outstanding landscapes,” he added. “This mixture supports a thriving tourism industry worth over £210m per year and supports over 4,500 jobs. We expect those making decisions that may impact the nationally designated landscape will play due regard to the purposes of the AONB.”

The Theberton and Eastbridge Action Group on Sizewell C (TEAGS) has also raised concerns.

TEAGS’ Alison Downes said: “We are going to be swamped. The more we hear about all the energy projects planned for this part of Suffolk, the stronger our fears about the cumulative effects on local people, our precious natural environment, tourism and businesses. Multiple, uncoordinated projects with all their construction traffic and workers, built at the same time, is a terrifying prospect.”

East Suffolk Council said it had not been consulted on the project.

What did National Grid have to say?

National Grid said the Network Options Assessment report was published each year with proposals to meet the future needs of the transmission network – as well as recommendations for those which would be most beneficial.

“National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET), as the electricity transmission network owner in England and Wales, publishes its response to the NOA each summer,” a spokesman added.

“NGET is currently considering all of the recommendations from the ESO alongside any other options available to deliver the capability required and will be outlining which we intend taking forward in our Network Development Policy in the summer.

“Where any link between Suffolk and Kent might connect to the transmission system has yet to be determined, and where any plans are taken forward, there will be consultation.

“We are committed to working with local communities in East Anglia.”

A Note on EDF’s Financial Results by Prof Steve Thomas

(EDF published its 2019 financial results on 14 February. We asked Professor Steve Thomas for some analysis and here is what he said.)

In presenting its 2019 results, [1] EDF focused on its improved levels of profits compared to 2018. Its gross profits, EBITDA, (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization) increased from €14.9bn to €16.7bn on sales of €71.3bn (up from €68.5bn). This figure comes down to €3.8bn compared to €2.5bn for 2018 when interest etc are taken off and excluding one-off items like sales of assets. 

What is conspicuous by its absence is any mention of ‘Opération Hercule’, the plan to split EDF into a renationalised ‘bad bank’, the nuclear assets, and a part-privatised ‘good bank’, renewables, electricity sales to consumers and power networks. Nowhere in the presentations is there any hint that EDF will need a massive restructuring effort underwritten by government if it is to remain a viable company. Also essentially absent is any mention of the Sizewell C project.

A key priority for EDF is to put itself in a position to finance the vast investments it will have to make in the next decade. The largest of these is the so-called Grand Carenage, the project to life extend its 58 operating reactors in France from 40 to 60 years, that cost it €4.3bn in 2019. The expected spend between 2014 and 2025 when perhaps half the reactors will have been life-extended went down from €55bn to €45bn presumably because of the decision to close the two Fessenheim reactors in 2022 and perhaps the four Bugey reactors by 2025. However, the French safety regulator, ASN, is not expected to specify exactly what upgrades will be required for life-extension until early 2021 and life-extension expenditures will continue beyond 2030. 

€1.76bn was invested in Hinkley Point C in 2019 compared to €1.61bn in 2018, leaving about €17-19bn to be spent assuming no more cost increase occur. If the project is completed near to time, about €2.2bn per year on average will be needed from now on of which two thirds will come from EDF, the rest from CGN (China).

The result of this was that net debt, after years of being relatively stable went up from €33bn to €41bn and EDF forecasts it will increase to €46bn in 2020. This is despite EDF forecasting that it will sell assets worth €2-3bn in 2020 compared to €0.5bn in 2019. It is not clear which assets are expected to be sold but there have been reports of EDF reducing its stake in British Energy (the UK’s AGRs and Sizewell B) from 80% to 51% perhaps generating up to €3bn. However, given that two of its station (Dungeness B and Hunterston) have been offline for a year or more with their return to service dates continually being put back, it is hard to see why anyone would take a gamble on such a risky set of assets. If this sale does not happen, EDF’s debt will increase further, which in turn will mean credit rating agencies may downgrade its rating increasing its cost of borrowing. Flamanville 3 continues to be a drain on EDF with €0.8bn invested in 2019 for a project that should have been generating income 7 years ago.

However, the end is not near for Flamanville. The method of dealing with the well reported problem of defective welds that cannot be accessed by humans is not expected to be approved by ASN until end 2020. This makes the target of loading fuel at the end of 2022 look very tight.

See https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/contrib/groupe-edf/espaces-dedies/espace-finance-en/financial-information/publications/financial-results/2019-annual-results/pdf/fy-results-2019-consolidated-financial-statements-20200214.pdf

and https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/contrib/groupe-edf/espaces-dedies/espace-finance-en/financial-information/publications/financial-results/2019-annual-results/pdf/fy-results-2019-appendices-20200214.pdf

and https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/contrib/groupe-edf/espaces-dedies/espace-finance-en/financial-information/publications/financial-results/2019-annual-results/pdf/fy-results-2019-appendices-20200214.pdf

NE CONSULTATION ON COAST FOOTPATH ALDEBURGH TO DUNWICH

If you would like to respond this consultation by 25 March, here are some suggestions:

Official Guidance on responding can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/england-coast-path-comment-on-a-proposed-new-stretch.

The documents for the stretch from Aldeburgh to Hopton on Sea can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/england-coast-path-from-aldeburgh-to-hopton-on-sea-comment-on-proposals. We are interested in the sections from Aldeburgh to Sizewell and Sizewell to Dunwich. The form to be completed is the second from bottom “Form to make a representation about proposals” (We don’t recommend objecting, and anyway only landowners and occupiers may do so.) Or you can download the form as a pdf below.

Box 1. The reference for the section Aldeburgh to Sizewell is AHS1. The reference for the section Sizewell to Dunwich is AHS2. If your comments include both the windfarm projects and Sizewell C, use both references.

Box 2 – leave blank

Box 3. Tick Other (unless of course you are responding on behalf of one of the agencies listed)

Box 4 – leave blank

Box 5 is for your comments. We suggest something short along the lines of the text below, but we strongly encourage you personalise this, or change it to say whatever you want: “I support the idea of a coastal path around the UK, but am distressed at the environmental damage and disruption to the Suffolk Heritage coast and the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB that will be caused by the proposed construction of twin reactors at Sizewell. This project will completely block this section of coastline for at least a decade. I am astonished to note that the reports covering the area between Aldeburgh and Sizewell do not appear to make any mention of the numerous (potentially 8 or more) offshore wind projects that are proposed to come ashore around Thorpeness, an area noted for its erosion and fragile coralline crag. If these projects go ahead, the cabling for offshore wind stations and interconnectors will result in the coastline and AONB being dug up repeatedly, ruining the area and your schemes for a coastal path. This area has been designated the ‘Energy Coast’ without our consent.”

Box 6 – up to you if there is something you want to include

Box 7 – probably the answer is “no” unless you have already submitted something

Box 8 – likely “no”

Box 9 is for your personal information

Send the completed form to eastcoastalaccess@naturalengland.org.uk or to England Coast Path Team, Natural England, Suite D, Unex House, Bourges Boulevard, Peterborough PE1 1NG