Members will be aware that this morning we were due to have a video conference with the Japanese authors of the TEPCO report. Unfortunately, it appears that we will be unable to proceed with that part of the meeting; the authors of the report e-mailed us to state they were concerned about the possibility that a remark inadvertently made by them could potentially develop into a serious legal matter. However, we have another report to discuss.
Business of Joint Committee.
Is it now out of the question that representatives of the company will come before the committee?
On the basis of the concerns expressed, yes.
As I am not a member of committee, I ask the Chairman's forgiveness for speaking out of turn but the report was compiled for the Minister and I would have thought a Dáil committee would be an appropriate place at which to discuss and examine its contents.
I want us to be clear that the report was not commissioned by the Minister but by EirGrid. We have been very anxious to ensure that we have a thorough analysis of all the reports done and the arguments for both under-grounding and over-grounding. There were four reports and we have considered the Ecofys report, the ASKON report and today we were due to look at the Parsons Brinckerhoff, PB, Power report and the Tokyo Electric Power Company, TEPCO, report.
I understand from the reasons given by TEPCO that it has some concerns about the procedures outlined in terms of privilege and so on. It is based in Japan and perhaps its representatives do not understand the way in which the committee system here works, as they do not need to be concerned. We would have dealt with them responsibly and it is very regrettable those representatives are not here; it is work left undone. If we are to make comprehensive recommendations, it should be on the basis of analysing and questioning all the consultants involved in the reports over the past two years in the area.
The implications are enormous in terms of the conclusions that may be drawn. The representatives of EirGrid are here to talk to us about an enormous construction project building electricity grid infrastructure for what is essentially a new Ireland and making Grid25 a reality and so on. In that context we should not eliminate the possibility of the TEPCO representatives coming before us at a future stage. The representative of PB Power is here.
We should seek answers to specific written questions, which is possible. We can explore the possibility with EirGrid, which took on TEPCO to do the report. From my reading of it there seems to be some interesting recommendations, and although I am not an expert in the area, some of the recommendations appear to be worth discussing in some detail. I would like a number of issues clarified with regard to the technical challenges of what is possible. In particular, there are matters relating to reliability, management of the grid and the challenges we would face if we were to take the approach of under-grounding some of the proposed infrastructure.
It is regrettable that TEPCO's representatives cannot be here today but we should not leave it at that. We should try to deal with all the reports, which were produced at great expense, in a comprehensive way. In that regard we must look for another way. I respect the right of TEPCO to express concerns and not be present. My understanding is that this comes from legal advice, which seems overly cautious, but that does not mean we should forget about trying to get clarification from the company.
I am disappointed that the video conferencing will not go ahead this morning. I understand the reasons have been explained with regard to the privilege we have as Members of the Oireachtas but the right is not extended to people who come before us with presentations. That has been the form since the committees were set up.
It seems that apart from the need stressed by Deputy Coveney to explore the issues raised in the TEPCO report, there are issues for committees in general. Video conferencing is a good tool that is new to our committees and I would be very saddened if we could not avail of that facility. This is the first Oireachtas committee to try to set up this kind of arrangement and the fact that it has not worked out today should spur us to find a solution rather than simply accepting that we will not be able to carry on if somebody has a difficulty.
I understand the cultural differences and this is not a criticism of TEPCO. It is a challenge for us and I ask the Chairman to raise it with other committee chairmen to see if we can find a way, if necessary, of facilitating presentations by video conferencing or extending privilege. Whatever the solution is, I would hate to lose the facility of video conferencing because we have met this obstacle. The idea of written questions is all very well but it is not the same as full engagement. Although the representatives were in Japan and we are in Ireland the facilities are there for a meeting and we should not lose them. I urge the Chairman to pursue the matter as best he can to resolve the issue in time for other presentations. We might come back to TEPCO at some point and open a dialogue, which is possible because of developments in communications.
I am anxious to get into the debate on the other report. I suggest that we discuss how to deal with the TEPCO report later in the meeting in order for us to consider the report we have in front of us.
As a Deputy representing an area affected by the issue, I am disappointed that this has happened. There is an issue of transparency and public relations, and it is very important that we are seen to scrutinise each of these documents in the same manner. The Minister gave a commitment on this discussion. The report should not be left aside. We will discuss how to approach it later on and although written questions will be grand to begin with, there will need to be a discussion. We have had written questions and answers from people in Denmark but this does not lead to the best clarity because people can interpret words differently. It is important that at some stage there is a face-to-face discussion.
I am sure the company was well paid to do the report, which is very significant because it considers the reliability of the project. Whatever it takes, the meeting must take place at some stage, and the sooner the better.
We will discuss it later. At this stage I welcome our guests. From EirGrid I welcome Mr. Dermot Byrne, Mr. Andrew Cooke and Mr. Mark Norton; and from Parsons Brinckerhoff, the main authors of the PB Power report, Mr. Mark Winfield. I ask Mr. Byrne to make his opening comments. Before he does so I draw everybody's attention to the fact that members have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses before it. Further, under salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
Mr. Dermot Byrne
I thank members for inviting us here today. I am joined by Mr. Andrew Cooke, director of grid development and commercial aspects at EirGrid and Mr. Mark Norton, who is the manager of technology and standards. Mr. Mark Winfield, the main author of the PB Power report, has travelled from the UK to be with us today.
We hoped Mr. Teruo Ohno, the main author of the TEPCO report, would join the meeting via video conferencing. We are very disappointed as well and it is with deep regret that representatives of TEPCO have decided not to appear before the committee by video conferencing. We worked in good faith with them until yesterday, when we tested the video conferencing facilities. For the reasons outlined by the Chairman, it is not possible.
Mr. Winfield will make a contribution but I will set out the context in which he and TEPCO provided services to EirGrid and Northern Ireland Electricity, NIE. The services were jointly procured by EirGrid and NIE. EirGrid is responsible for the planning, development and operation of a safe, secure, reliable, economic and efficient electricity transmission system with due regard for the environment. That is our legal obligation. We are meeting the urgent need to upgrade the Irish transmission system so jobs can be created and sustained, essential services can be provided in all regions and Ireland's rich renewable energy resource can be harnessed. The committee is familiar with the Grid25 strategy we are rolling out currently.
We constantly monitor technology developments, look at international developments and engage with colleagues in other transmission system operators, TSOs, and equipment manufacturers to know the best technology and roll it out where appropriate. We have always been willing to consider technologies which enable us to provide the safe, secure, reliable, economic and efficient power our customers require. We have direct contact with research organisations in Ireland and abroad, and through our membership of international bodies such as the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity, ENTSOE, and the International Council on Large Electric Systems, CIGRE, in which we are very active.
We also carry out or commission studies from time to time on relevant aspects of system and technology development. We have undertaken a number of such studies recently in the context of Grid25 and the significant investments required for the transmission system. The Tepco and PB Power reports are two such studies. PB Power was asked by EirGrid to look at the technical, engineering and cost challenges of constructing a long underground 400 kV cable project. It was not asked to consider the challenges of operating such a cable as part of an integrated electricity power system. The report specifically considered the Meath-Tyrone 400 kV interconnection development, for which we lodged a planning application with An Bord Pleanála before Christmas. The committee will be aware of the difficulty of discussing in detail a project which is in the statutory planning process. However, Mr. Winfield of PB Power is here as a specialist in transmission projects and is able to address issues in a general context.
The findings of PB Power are very much in line with those of other international studies and reports with regard to cost, reliability, international practice and operational challenges. These reports, commissioned by transmission system operators and government agencies, confirm that 400 kV underground cable costs significantly more than the alternative — typically six to eight times — and is significantly less reliable, with lower system security.
Tepco was asked by EirGrid and Northern Ireland Electricity to examine the complex electrical behaviour that might arise when long high-voltage cables were installed in the Irish system. We gave Tepco a number of scenarios which represent the type and scale of high-voltage circuits which are required in the transmission system in the coming years. The Meath-Tyrone project was one sample scenario that was addressed by Tepco. This is leading-edge analysis and is based entirely on computer simulations, as no underground cable of such length and voltage exists anywhere in the world.
Tepco was selected because it is expert in the field and operates the longest underground cable in the world at this voltage, at 40 km. The 40 km cable uses tunnel-type technology; in other words, a tunnel was excavated and the cable installed in it. In terms of cost multipliers, tunnel technology is 20 to 25 times more expensive than overhead cables. Tepco's is a technical study and EirGrid will consider its findings, as well as other information and studies, in coming to a decision on the development of the system.
The Tepco report highlight limits on the length of high-voltage underground cable that can be installed in a power system due to the complex electrical phenomena that are described in the reports. All of these reports have been made publicly available and are on our website. These electrical phenomena include the cable's being subject to resonant voltages which are outside the design specifications, cannot be tested for, and may result in major failure of the cable, causing risk to the entire power system. There is also the possibility of severe restrictions on the operation of the power system, resulting in inefficient operation, additional costs and an inability to carry out maintenance, with consequent major risk to customer supply and customer and investor confidence.
I will now hand over to Mark Winfield from PB Power.
Mr. Mark Winfield
I am pleased to be here this morning to answer the questions of Deputies and Senators about this factual report. The report was produced a year or so ago. I have produced a short presentation to show the committee, before I take questions, in order to clarify the main messages of the report. It will take just a few minutes.
I was not working alone on this report. Although I am the transmission specialist, I had a number of associates — cable specialists, a landscape architect, civil engineers — who also helped to produce the messages in the report.
The reason the report was commissioned, as has already been explained by Mr. Byrne, was that EirGrid had identified the need for a new circuit with a preferred voltage of 400 kV, and its first preference for its operation — for a number of reasons, including technical reasons and ease of construction — would be as an overhead line. Overhead lines can be environmentally beneficial in some ways but not all; there are also some negative environmental aspects. In the planning process, which is taking place at the moment, EirGrid has an obligation to consider the technical alternatives, and that is why Parsons Brinckerhoff was asked to consider the project. Our involvement has been to identify feasible alternatives to the high-voltage alternating current overhead line and to consider the technical, environmental and cost aspects at a strategic level — that is, generally rather than in detail. As Mr. Byrne said, we did not consider the implications of the alternative possibilities for the existing electrical system.
PB prides itself on providing independent professional service. We carry out projects for electricity companies, regulators, governments, local councils and investment banks, investigating all sides of the issues. We expect to provide a balanced view in all of these cases. These views are frequently tested by government committees such as this, public inquiries and other forums. In the team of specialists with whom I was pleased to work, my position was that of transmission specialist. My background is with the Central Electricity Generating Board in the UK, followed by the National Grid company when it was privatised in 1990. I have been with PB since 2002.
The project encompassed the setting up of a new 400 kV connection all the way from Woodland, County Meath, to the area around Kingscourt, County Cavan, and across the Border to Tyrone. The link was intended to comprise a single-circuit connection between those three substations. The northern two substations, in Tyrone and Kingscourt, do not yet exist, so we were considering a connection into an area rather than a specific geographical point.
A number of technical alternatives were proposed by EirGrid: it could opt for a high-voltage direct-current link or an underground cable instead of an overhead line. Although we have written about it extensively in the report, we have come to the view that direct current does not offer significant benefits in this case and so, unless members would like to ask specific questions on the subject, I will not discuss it further.
With regard to the alternating current underground option, the longest high-voltage cable that has been installed to date is the 40 km Tepco cable, which is at 500 kV rather than the 400 kV proposed for the interconnector. However, it is a similarly high-voltage transmission and thus is pushing the boundaries of the technology. There have been some recent examples of under-grounding. In the UK, 76 km of new double circuit was requested for the second Yorkshire line. In the event, 5.7 km of the 76 was under-grounded. New Zealand has had a recent proposal to underground parts of a 200 km overhead line. When I last heard about this the proposal was to underground the most sensitive 5 km, or less. A new 400 KV circuit has also been proposed for South west Connecticut. I believe it is for a 57-mile connection of which approximately 24 miles is being under-grounded. Since I wrote the report the new tunnel in east London to supply the Olympic area is to have 6 km of underground cable.
It is worth pointing out that these examples demonstrate the different reasons under-grounding might be done. The second Yorkshire line was in a rural area and was requested by virtue of the visual amenity that would be destroyed by the overhead line. In London, on the other hand, the primary reason was that there was not enough space to put overhead lines into that built-up area and therefore a tunnel was bored and cables installed.
For the case in Ireland we are considering a fairly high capacity for the new interconnector which will probably require two cores per phase if we were to underground. I can show members what this means in the powerpoint demonstration. Transmission circuits always come in threes. Normally speaking, there would be three cables in the ground but in this case there would be two sets of three. The two sets would be spaced apart by five metres and there would be a temporary haul road along the side while they were being installed, which would be removed later. The immediate potential demonstrated to me is that there might be the possibility, if the cable were put underground, of spending a little more money and having two independent circuits which would provide additional operational flexibility. That is an option, not a requirement.
There are some other points about technical issues, one such being losses. As understood by the members and by me, this is the wasted heat coming off the cables for which we must pay even though it is not delivered to our homes. The left-hand side of the graph shows a zero transfer down the circuits and, on the right-hand side, the maximum possible transfer. One can see that as the transfer increases from left to right, whether overhead or underground, the losses and, therefore, the costs for transmission increase.
Briefly, I point out the difference in this regard. The blue line, or overhead line, starts off at a very low level of losses when the transfer is small but rises to a higher level of losses and is therefore more expensive to run if operating at the full power capability of the line. On the other hand, cables start at a higher level of loss before even one megawatt has been transferred but as the transfer increases the losses in the cables increase more slowly. One can see on the left-hand side of the graph that there is a benefit to be got from overhead lines if the transfers down this circuit are low while the right-hand side shows there is a benefit to be gained from cables if the transfers down the circuit are higher, on average.
There is one further point about the technical issues. Security of supply is a difficult issue because it is based on statistics of failures of circuits and we do not have very many statistics. The numbers are quite sparse for failures in new cable technologies because not many such cables have been installed. The numbers we have, however, which are taken from an international organisation, CIGRE, that looks after transmission issues worldwide, would indicate that in the long term a cable is likely to be out of service longer than an overhead line. It will have fewer failures because it is underground and protected but when it fails it will take a long time to repair it. On the other hand, an overhead line will have many failures. It will be struck by lightning perhaps 20 times a year but can be switched back into service within seconds. If there is a persistent fault on a line, or if an aeroplane were to crash into it, for example, and demolish a span — which we hope will never happen — because the technology involved in overhead lines is fairly agricultural it can be repaired in a few hours or within a day or so. For that reason, the red line at the top of the graph would indicate that for a long circuit an overhead line would have a higher availability than a long underground cable. I can talk more about this if members wish, but I do not want to dwell on it if they do not wish to pursue the issue.
I shall turn quickly to the environmental side to offer some points, specifically on archaeology. It is evident that by going underground one would be more likely to run into undiscovered archaeological sites than if one were flying over it with an overhead line which needs towers only every 350 or 360 m. The operational swathe of the overhead line and the underground cable may be comparable but with the underground cable it is reasonably fixed. One can say that there is need to keep trees, roots, fenceposts and buildings away from the cable to avoid damaging it in the ground.
Regarding the overhead line, many things can be done underneath it. One can farm, grow things, graze it, go for a walk with the dog, drive tractors under it. What one cannot do is grow tall trees which would come close to the conductors. There needs to be a swathe which is kept clear of high structures.
Routing of the cable is an issue that has yet to be fully considered. We have sought a route search corridor, as discussed in our report. To do this we started with a straight line and then deviated from it whenever there were technical or environmental reasons for doing so. Members will probably remember seeing this in the report. I point out the straight line, or two straight lines, we started with and from which we developed our search corridor. The location of the two sub-stations were not known so we worked to a circle within which we hoped the sub-station would eventually be located.
The other important environmental issue is electric magnetic fields, EMFs, about which there is much concern. I cannot speak today about any health issues that may be raised because I am not a health expert and do not pretend to be one. What I can do is give members the international guidelines for magnetic fields and explain how the overhead line and the underground cable options compare with these guidelines. At the top, the slide shows the guidelines which have been prepared by the international commission on non-ionising radiation protection and adopted by the World Health Organisation, EirGrid and the Irish Government for electric fields. The organisation states that for the general public it is worthwhile not to exceed 9 KV per metre for extended periods of time. Regarding the magnetic side, it states that the general public should not be exposed to more than 360 microtesla for extended periods. When we compare this with the field strengths the overhead line and the underground cable produce, members can see that on the electric side, the overhead line comes in under the guideline by a margin, while the underground cable produces zero electric field. On the magnetic side, overhead lines 1 m above ground level, which is where these figures are measured and calculated, produce 48 microtesla, while an underground cable produces 68 microtesla. The message, therefore, is that both underground cables and overhead lines are compliant with international guidelines.
We identified a continuous, technically feasible strategic underground cable route search corridor which satisfied the environmental criteria. We then examined the costs involved. I have tried to compare the overhead line costs with those for underground cable and split them between the capital cost and interest during construction that would be incurred up front. Lifetime running costs which are in two parts — maintenance costs for these two alternatives which are very low compared with the capital cost and the cost of losses which I mentioned — are significant. Members can see the difference. It is important for me to point out to them that the lifetime running costs figure assumes an average load on an overhead line of 500 MVA. There are also 40-year replacement costs — the original capital cost discounted over the 40-year period — which are added to give an overall total, as members can see, of €98 million and €528 million for the underground cable.
Is the figure €61 million or €81 million? I thought the capital cost figure included in the report was €81 million.
Mr. Mark Winfield
That is a good question. What I have is a set of figures which brings together all of the costs associated with the line south of the Border. I am sorry to say the figures do not appear in the report. It is the sum of two sets of figures. If the Deputy would like me to do so, I will check them now or we can do so later.
Why did Mr. Winfield decide to report in a different way?
Mr. Mark Winfield
At the time I was compiling the report it seemed appropriate to talk about the circuit between counties Meath and Cavan and the one up to County Tyrone. I split the circuit to County Tyrone at the Border but what I did not think to do at the time was to add together the figures for the whole of the Republic of Ireland, as I have done here.
It just seemed strange.
Mr. Mark Winfield
I would be very happy to provide the detail later but the figures on the screen have been taken directly from the report and added together. Therefore, there is no new information.
The figures include all of the aspects we could reasonably think of that would be incurred in each of the two options — the preliminary works and civil engineering. We looked at river crossings — underground cable and overhead line — and reactive compensation. We made an allowance for the landscape through which the cables would be passing.
Regarding reactive compensation, there is a discussion to be had because, depending on how much is spent on the cables, it may or may not be needed. If more is spent on the cables, it may be possible to do away with reactive compensation between the substations. If there is a lighter weight lower cost cable, there may be a need for reactive compensation part of the way along the 60 km and 80 km sections of the line. I have opted to include a figure for reactive compensation because it is important to know that there may be land where reactive compensation may be installed.
The cost estimates are subject to a number of uncertainties this distance from the project. I have listed a number of possible uncertainties. They include: geological factors; quantity estimates; the fact that manufacturing and transport issue can introduce unknown delays; the weather; metals exchange prices; market conditions; and international exchange rates. In terms of the cost estimates, we came to the view at the time we wrote the report that there be should a margin of plus or minus 20% for the purposes of the members coming to their conclusions. I thank them for their time.
I thank the representatives for attending, including those from EirGrid. I hope my colleagues will bear with me while I put to the representatives some of the questions put to me, on which I need clarity. There is confusion about some of the conclusions Mr. Winfield has drawn and the premise for them in terms of the data used and so on. It would be useful, therefore, to have clarity.
I want to be clear on the terms of reference for the report. Mr. Byrne said the PB Power report was not about management of grid issues but about what was possible and route alternatives. The term he used was "identifying feasible alternatives to high voltage AC overhead lines".
In terms of route selection in providing for alternatives to the initial three routes EirGrid was considering, which have been narrowed down to one, what scope did it have in looking at different routes? For example, has it examined obvious infrastructure corridors such as rail networks? There is a used and disused rail line which covers almost the entire route, apart from about 2 km. In the context of putting something underground, in terms of access and land ownership, that was an obvious option and I want to know if it was examined.
Likewise, in terms of the motorway infrastructure being built from Dublin to Belfast, for example, did EirGrid consider using State owned National Roads Authority land or infrastructure to lay cables? Are there technical reasons as to why it could not have done this or was this part of the remit? There is a great deal of concern locally in the areas affected and questions are being asked as to the reason we cannot add on to existing infrastructure rather than having what is essentially an entirely new greenfield site to provide infrastructure either overground or underground, with all of the associated costs to do with land access and so on. Regarding the terms of reference, I have Mr. Winfield's executive summary in front of me which makes clear what he was asked to do in terms of the technical, environmental and cost elements but my question specifically concerns route selection, a controversial issue.
On the assumptions made throughout the report, most of which I have read, although some of it is slightly over my head, at times reference is made to the need to build a 140 km section of grid, while at others, there is reference to the fact that it is broken into two — an 80 km and a 60 km section — but may have to be broken into three — a 60 km and two 40 km sections. There is a concern that when it suits the argument, it is not possible to go underground because it would be a world first. We have never considered undertaking a 140 km underground project in one go. That is a spurious argument because there is no suggestion of a 140 km project. There is definitely an 80 km section and a 60 km section. Therefore we are talking about a maximum project of 80 km, or possibly, a 60 km section with the 80 km section broken into two 40 km sections. The technical arguments and the costing arguments are about the potential for three shorter distance projects that brings the cable above ground and does what is necessary to drive it underground again.
There is a tendency, when concern is expressed about this being a first and that the longest section of undergrounding is 40 km in Tokyo, to suggest that is way too ambitious for Ireland at this time because it is unproven. That is a spurious argument. I ask Mr. Winfield to address that issue because there are different points in the document referring to different sections of infrastructure of a much shorter distance than 140 km. The distances are used to suit the argument at different times.
The next question is on the power flow planned for this line. I have concerns about two issues, one is heat and the other is losses. The graph outlined for the committee makes it clear that from the point of view of losses of more than 800 MW it makes sense for the infrastructure to be underground but for losses under that amount it makes sense for the infrastructure to be overground. We are building an infrastructure to have the capacity to carry 1,500 MW of power, yet the argument made in regard to losses is that it is likely to carry between 300 MW and 500 MW. Perhaps Mr. Dermot Byrne will say what he expects will be the likely use of the line in terms of MVA or megawatts which is the same thing. There is a contradiction here. When trying to make the case in regard to heat we are using a figure of 1,500 MW but when making the case in terms of losses we say we will actually use only 300 MW to 500 MW on that line most of the time so that it makes sense to have the infrastructure over ground.
I would like some more detain on the issue of the cable design. My understanding is that the specification used for the costing for the cable which it is proposed to use was submarine cable rather than a subland cable, or whatever is the technical term. I may be wrong in that but I would like some clarity on it. Apparently, when going under water there is a lead sheath over the cable or as part of the cable but that is not required underground. That adds a significant cost element. I understand the difference between a submarine cable versus a land cable is a 30% to 40% price differential in terms of cost. Has this infrastructure been costed in the report, for which Mr. Winifield is responsible, in terms of submarine cable or land cable?
This bring me to the costing issues. I am somewhat confused on the cost. I understand the disparity between the figures given today and those in the report because the witnesses deal with the Republic of Ireland section of the infrastructure and if the Northern Ireland section is added it goes from €61 million to €81 million and likewise from €558 million to €588 million. What I am disputing is that my understanding from EirGrid was that the costing for putting an overhead powerline in place was approximately €280 million. Let us work on the figures in the report. There is a disparity between €81 million which, according to Mr. Winfield, is the cost for putting the infrastructure overground and €280 million according to EirGrid. Mr. Winfield is talking about actual construction costs but there is an added cost in terms of the planning process, compensation for land and so on. I would appreciate some clarity on that issue in order that we can get a real figure for the actual cost rather than giving the impression that it is €81 million versus €588 million.
There is an entirely different cost associated with land purchase and access issues when dealing with underground versus overground because of the intense objection to overgound pylons, which is a huge challenge for EirGrid. I want to get a clear understanding as to the breakdown of that cost and the breakdown of the overall cost that has been calculated by EirGrid and whether all of the same factors have been taken into account such as the stations at the end of each piece of infrastructure. It has been suggested that those stations, or whatever is required, have not been taken into account in terms of the costing of overground but they have for underground.
A section in the report deals with the unwanted visual effects on vegetation above cables. Does that mean crops cannot be grown above these cables? Does the land have to be set-aside, fallow land? My understanding is that one can farm quite normally over this infrastructure. It may impact on melting snow but not on growing grass or fodder beet. I do not want the impression to go out that there are problems with normal life over these cables.
My final question is on a technical issue. The type of cable recommended in the report is XLPE, cross laminated polyethylene cable. I do not know what that means but I know it is the most advanced technology in terms of the cable that is available.
One of the key findings in the report is in regard to average unavailability which is calculated on an hour per circuit kilometre per annum which essentially means the length of time one would expect a kilometre of this infrastructure to be out because of some problem during the year. I would be concerned, in terms of the management of the grid, regardless of who is managing it, if putting the infrastructure underground meant a significant increase in unavailability of that section of grid. The conclusions drawn — I am open to correction — is that overhead cable would have an unavailability of 0.126 hours per annum per kilometre and that the underground cable would be 6.4 hours. Concern has been expressed to me that the basis for that calculation which comes from a UK study is the use of oil filled cable rather than XLPE. Is that concern real and valid? If we are drawing our conclusions on the basis of yesterday's technology, despite the fact that we are recommending that XLPE be used as the cable, we are misrepresenting the findings of the report. If that is true, it is a big problem.
If my concern is correct and we had used the current data available about XLPE in terms of unavailability figures, would the availability figures for underground cables be far less of a concern and even lower than for overhead power lines? That is an important issue because, aside from the cost, the concerns expressed about underground cables are that we cannot stand over this infrastructure, it has not been done previously and the availability issues are important for the economy because if there are outages, people will not come to Ireland to invest because we cannot stand over the grid. We need to know whether the availability figures are actually based on the technology we are proposing, potentially, to be put in the ground. A detailed answer would be very helpful.
I will not cover the same ground Deputy Coveney covered so well. I am seeking greater clarity about the costs involved. I suspect the figure EirGrid has given, €280 million, results from additional costs due to the controversial nature of overground lines. We need a breakdown. It appears that the costs do not just arise from compensation but also from what appear to be inevitable delays because of public resistance and resistance from landowners. It is not a matter of simply putting money into it. It is not like capital costs, where one puts money in and gets a result. It is a very different difficulty that must be overcome and one that could ultimately be more costly than has been measured. I am curious to know what measurement has been used.
With regard to underground and overhead systems, one of the issues was reliability and security of supply. However, according to the information the representatives have provided, if there are two cores, it is not far away from overhead lines in terms of security of supply. Obviously, there is stability in having the system underground in that breakdowns are more rare, although inevitably more difficult to repair, but that seems to be far less of an issue when there is a two core arrangement.
I do not wish to put Mr. Byrne on the spot but when we discussed this issue in September 2009, he said overhead transmission was considered necessary for 400 kV transmissions because no one had cracked the technology to have it underground, not to mind the cost. It appears the technology has been cracked and that it is no longer an issue. I do not know whether it was an issue then; I am sure he said that in good faith. It is less than a year on and it appears the technology being cracked is not the big problem anymore, even though it is very new. We all understand there is no precedent in terms of the scale of the project, but the basic technology is obviously available. Perhaps Mr. Byrne will comment on the matter.
No one will argue that principles such as technical ease, the environment and cost must be addressed. However, I would have thought that future development was also an issue. It appears that with an overhead system it is much easier to expand capacity, as one simply builds a bigger pylon. However, one reaches a point where one is limited by the EMFs. Looking at the guidelines, the system the representative is assessing is very close to the limit of 9kV/m at approximately 8.3kV/m. Perhaps I am reading this in the wrong way but it appears he is limiting future development. It is perfectly understandable that with the country bankrupt we do not have the money and do not wish to increase electricity prices unnecessarily, but are we limiting future development? It would certainly be easier, even if it might not be very desirable, to have bigger pylons but because of environmental standards and guidelines which we should not and cannot breach, we cannot go further. Is that not a problem? It clearly is not a problem if one goes underground.
Will the representative comment on whether it is advisable for parts of the system to be underground? It is interesting that until now we understood underground technology was for cities such as Tokyo and London. However, an underground system was used in Yorkshire for scenic and environmental reasons. Will the representative comment on whether parts of the line in this country should be underground, if not all of it?
I welcome our guests. The report cites a 40-year life span for cables. I have been informed that cables can, in fact, have a 50 to 60-year life span. If that were the case, it would have huge implications for overall long-term costs. Will the represetative comment on this? On what basis does he arrive at the 40-year figure and does he consider a further 20 years a realistic possibility? Why not examine that aspect comprehensively?
My colleague, Deputy Coveney, dealt with an issue of great interest to the people we represent and whom the representatives wish to serve. To the lay person or reasonable onlooker, it is extraordinary that we would not follow the existing railway lines and use the tracks as a hard core area on which to move the machinery to carry out underground works. There will potentially be a new railway line from Navan. Similarly, it appears extraordinary not to use the new motorway. There is potential to do so. To a reasonable onlooker, these aspects have an extraordinary attractiveness in terms of practicality, in that one is not building new roadways in fields, as well as cost, efficacy and reducing public objections. A person with common sense would have a problem understanding this. There should be further elucidation as to why it cannot be the case. Was it factored in in the study?
Deputy Coveney asked about submarine cable, the different specifications of cable and costs involved. When Mr. Winfield speaks about the alleged damage, that the heat dissipation from the cables may cause an unwanted effect on vegetation above the area, what data is he using and what basis is there for this? How well can he establish that it would be the case? Surely, this would only be the case for 1.5 m on either side of the cables.
Deputy McManus asked to what degree had Mr. Winfield measured the costs in terms of delay and the objection of the locals. That is a significant issue. Reasonable local information would suggest that there is massive local resistance. Given the experience in County Roscommon in a different case, this could go on indefinitely. It seems there is significant farmer resistance, which is critical. One is speaking of a considerable long-term cost in that regard.
Is the security of supply issue not dealt with by the two cores of which Deputy McManus spoke? The reasonable onlooker or sceptic, the taxpayers of this country who have a unique clarity, would be concerned about common sense issues such as why not use the railway line or the motorway. Those are the two major issues in terms of what they would want, but I ask Mr. Winfield to address the other questions also.
My questions will be short but I might seek clarity when Mr. Winfield answers because most of the questions have been asked.
First, there are points of clarity. On the terms of reference, Mr. Winfield stated he was asked to identify alternatives to overground but I got the impression that he was asked to investigate the barriers to underground. There is a big difference in his approach to that aspect, and I ask for clarity.
Mr. Winfield stated his report was published a year ago, in February 2009. However, I read something from him dated February 2008. That was a short time by which to form an opinion on matters. At that stage, he stated it was nine times the cost. He seemed to start with an initial view that it was nine times the cost and then after a year of study, we got a better report, but I would question the preliminary findings in the first place. Perhaps he could explain that as well.
Did Mr. Windfield discuss with Iarnród Éireann the use of the railway line? That is a black and white question, and I want a "Yes" or "No" answer. It is important in terms of the issue of whether to construct a haul road.
The flow of power has been touched on by my colleagues. We will build a line that can carry 1,500 MW but more than likely we will use only 500 MW of it. Is it normal practice throughout the world to build something to such a high specification that one will not use? I would hope EirGrid or whomever is in charge of this would intend to use it. If that is the case, would it not be fairer to take in average usages, not just 500 MW? Surely at some stage it will be 700 MW, then 900 MW and then 1,000 MW, or why build it in the first place? Not to do so is unfair, and gives a distorted result. It is clear from Mr. Winfield's charts that at 750 MW or 800 MW, it is fairly equal in terms of losses, etc. That is an important point on which to respond.
On the length of the line, 60 km versus 80 km, Mr. Winfield's graph shows that in terms of security of supply, which is one of the significant issues here along with value for money, at 60 km and 80 km there is not much difference between overhead and underground, but at 140 km there is a massive difference. It is unfair. Maybe today we can decide. From now on, is it 140 km or is it 60 km and 80 km? I am fed up with the differences. In all the reports I read, when it suits they quote different figures. That needs to be clarified.
On the length of time for the cables to be constructed, Mr. Winfield is being a little unfair in stating it could take three or four years. Surely we can get a couple of factories to build these. On the teams to install it, Mr. Winfield spoke of ten teams. We could have 100 teams. There is nit-picking in that regard to make it sound difficult to go underground.
The last point also involves nit-picking. Mr. Winfield stated the expertise is not available in this country for maintenance of these lines, or if there are faults. Surely if one spends millions of euro building one of these lines, the expertise might follow, might arrive in Ireland or can be flown here quite quickly — I am sure Ryanair would help out with that. It is a silly argument to make. However, I may be wrong in that regard.
On the finding of faults and the delay with them, I am not big on technology but surely there have been massive improvements made year on year in finding faults and then dealing with them. Mr. Winfield mentioned the Connecticut line. I have visited that area and I would be interested in this. He stated it is between 24 and 26 miles long, which I understand is approximately 40 km. It is not in a tunnel, like the Japanese one, and I ask him to elaborate on it. If it is 40 km, similar to what we want to do here, it is very significant. The Japanese one is awkward to compare with because it is a tunnel.
Deputy Johnny Brady expressed regret that he had to leave to chair the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Deputy Johnny Brady asked me to put some of these questions on his behalf. As electricity transmission experts, do the members of the delegation anticipate any developments in cable technology that would make the underground option a more attractive or viable one? What is the difference between their report and the report that has been prepared by opponents to overhead cabling? Have they met to explore and tease out the differences between them? Is there a possibility of partially burying the cable, not only in environmentally sensitive areas but also in areas of dense population? What actions have they taken to explore partial underground cabling as an alternative to full overhead cabling?
I accept the point Mr. Winfield made earlier about not being a health expert. Health concerns have been put forward by opponents to this as a genuine concern about it going ahead. Are there any plans to undertake a comprehensive study of the health issues and addressing health concerns?
In the course of his presentation, Mr. Winfield mentioned that they were just about keeping below the recommended guidelines. Are there any other measures planned to take to alleviate the health concerns of people?
I do not have many questions following the detailed questions raised by my colleagues. As one living in the area which will be affected by the proposed line, I must say there is much anxiety and genuine fear about what is to happen. I suppose the issue of the Yorkshire line raises many question marks. If it was done in Yorkshire for the reasons Mr. Winfield stated, then there are certainly reasons for it to be done in parts of the Cavan-Monaghan area, in particular, because it will destroy the scenic value of that area if it is to be put overground.
One of the issues that worries me, as one who wants this to work because I believe it is necessary to have proper infrastructure, is that account has not been fully taken of the cost of delay by forcing this issue of overground installation. It will not be an easy task and there will be many obstacles, including ill-feeling. Were the alternative routes for an underground cable properly evaluated? We were informed it was not possible to go underground because it would take years before such underground cabling would be available for such a long stretch. However, other groups have assured us this is not an issue. We are getting differing comments and it is important, therefore, to hear an independent opinion.
This is a unique issue in that it is a cross-Border project. Is it possible that European funding might be available for a pilot project to see whether such infrastructure could be laid underground rather than over ground and to provide some degree of support towards the extra cost?
There has been much progress in technology for underground compared to over ground use. We must ensure that every possible aspect is examined before we force through a structure that might be of the older type and might need to be improved. I am in favour of the infrastructure being put in place. I have been involved in promotion of wind farms and other alternative energy projects and I know how difficult it is to get attached to the national grid. If our output of green energy is to improve, we need these structures. We need to look at how they can be installed in a speedy manner. Over ground work would be delayed significantly by the number of objections.
My question is the same as that asked by Senator Corrigan so I will not deal with the technical details. The cable will go through my constituency and therefore I have tunnel vision on this matter. Two years ago, costs were a major factor. When my colleagues and I asked for a report we said we were in favour of this project. It is a massive project which is good for the country. I acknowledge the benefits of modern technology and education and the one thing my constituents have is education.
I regret one of the reports before us today and it is wrong that it will not be discussed in detail. Deputy Coveney will make the company aware that it can talk in confidence to the committee at another meeting. The first report was never put out to public tender and it cost €158,000. The two reports acknowledge that the infrastructure can be put underground. I refer to the situation in Yorkshire and this is one of the grounds on which the people of Meath, Monaghan and Cavan are fighting.
We are not fools and we are all aware of the costs. The people of Meath and Cavan are not fools. They do not want the State to incur a cost that is out of reach. Our electricity is far too dear as it is. We must acknowledge modern technology. I can speak for the people of Meath — I cannot speak for the people of Cavan. They know we are not looking to the future. We must examine the facts about the up to date technology of underground cabling. We will be no further on with this project in five or ten years' time because the people of Meath have made it quite clear they will not allow them on to their lands for visible amenity and for health reasons. The people know about examples of modern technology. Such technology as is used in Tokyo may be expensive. Denmark has started the process. All new technology in America will be put underground. Our job is to look forward five years and not to look at what we did ten years' ago. In five years' time, can the delegation see underground cabling being more competitive than over ground cabling? Modern technology has made advances in the past two years and the companies are there to build it.
I think Mr. Winfield has enough there to keep him going for a while.
Mr. Mark Winfield
I thank the members for those questions which are very perceptive. I hope I will be able to answer all of them.
Deputy Coveney asked about the terms of reference, whether we were specifically asked to look at the railway or the road and the technical issues involved.
My question was whether Mr. Winfield had the scope to look at them rather than being specifically asked to look at them.
Mr. Mark Winfield
The scope of the routing?
Yes.
Mr. Mark Winfield
We were asked not to bother looking at the overhead line routes of which there were three, as Deputy Coveney pointed out. We were asked if we were to put an underground cable in place, would it be possible to find a continuous route for an underground cable or at least a route search corridor. We were given free rein to look at the whole of the area between these three sub-stations and find the shortest practical route. The shortest is cheaper and fewer people would be affected by the route in any event if it is a shorter route. We were not directed to look at any rail infrastructure, existing or past and we were not directed to look at any existing or construction work on the roads but neither was this ruled out.
On the subject of rail, the Deputy is right that there is an old route most of the way. EirGrid has written a report on the use of the old railway route — subsequent to this report — which I believe is available on the EirGrid website.
Has Mr. Winfield looked at this report?
Mr. Mark Winfield
I have looked at it since I have written this report but I did not look at it——
Did Mr. Winfield look at it prior to writing his report?
Mr. Mark Winfield
The EirGrid report did not exist prior to our report; it is relatively recent. Our report does not rule out the use of a rail route. It agrees there is an identified continuous route where underground cabling could be used.
When Parsons Brinckerhoff was doing the work on the ground is it fair to say its staff did not walk the route of the railway line to investigate it?
Mr. Mark Winfield
While we were on the ground we came across the railway on more than one occasion. I can even remember looking at bridges across the old rail route. So there were places where we were looking very close to that and there were other places where it was not quite so close. For us it was not an issue. While I may have made an inappropriate assumption here, a rail route that is now disused will be held by some party or parties and it did not seem to me at the time that there would be much difference between negotiating for access to an old rail route and negotiating for access to a field where potatoes are grown.
I wish to clarify a point.
This must be the Deputy's last point.
It is my last point. It is a pity that Parsons Brinckerhoff was not informed during the report that we intend to build a new rail line there and for half the route the line is still there on the ground and usable as a line. It is a very significant point.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Let me just say a little bit more about the use of a rail route. Obviously a rail route has a variety of parts to it. Some of those are in cuttings and some are on embankments. It passes over areas of flat land. It passes over and under bridges. Many of those are not very good for an underground cable installation. I ask members to imagine, for example, an embankment which would take a rail line and is perhaps 3 m or 4 m wide at the top with the embankment gradually coming down. We need a 5 m separation between our two clusters of cables in order that we can keep them cool enough to operate them efficiently. There may not be space on the top of a railway embankment to put two clusters. In addition if there were clusters on the top which produce heat as they operate, an embankment is a very easy place to dry out in a period when it is not raining — I understand it does rain here in Ireland. It would be a place that would dry out more readily. So an embankment is not a good place to put a double-circuit underground cable.
Similarly when it comes to a bridge, one might believe it would be very easy to run the cable straight over a bridge that passes over a river or a road. However, one of the aspects of an underground cable is that it is buried at least 1 m into the ground and sometimes more than that. The reason is to protect it physically from vehicles going over it, fence posts being put into it, mains being dug up, tractor ploughs and all sorts of other things. If it is placed at least 1 m under the surface, it is then possible to farm the land. I believe this was another of the Deputy's questions. There is no problem about farming the land over the top of a cable. However, with a bridge over a railway, there is not 1 m or even 0.5 m. So it is then necessary to modify and strengthen the bridge to continue across it. I am not saying that is impossible — one can do anything one likes with civil engineering — but it will cost extra money. It is not as straightforward as it appears. It is a lovely idea, but the practice of getting modern high-voltage high-power underground cables into a railway cutting or embankment is very tricky in practice.
I understand this report is on EirGrid's network. It may be worth the Deputy's while reading that report before we go too much further on this. I could come back, if necessary, on another occasion.
Mr. Dermot Byrne
As Mr. Winfield said, we did not restrict the area of investigation. However, subsequent to us publishing the report there were questions about the rail network. As a result of those subsequent queries we completed an investigation that looked specifically at the rail line and that is the report to which Mr. Winfield has referred. It was subsequent and as a direct result of the queries that came to us following completion and publication of the Parsons Brinckerhoff report.
Is that available?
Mr. Dermot Byrne
That is available.
There is one bridge north of Navan. Is there anything south of Navan?
Mr. Dermot Byrne
I cannot remember the details of the report.
Can copies of the report be circulated?
Mr. Dermot Byrne
Absolutely.
They are available on-line. There is some confusion here. I will not come in again, because I know there are many questions to be answered. However, the advantages of using an old or existing rail network are more for access purposes than actually building under a physical rail line. The access points that exist for servicing the rail network could potentially also be used to lay the cable. It is not necessarily building on an embankment; it may well be the parcel of land next door. However, the rail corridor that is already set aside for the access and maintenance for the railway could also be used for access and maintenance for this. That was the thinking. To be fair the EirGrid report deals with that.
Mr. Dermot Byrne
We are conscious of the cost issue. We asked PB Power if we were to choose the underground cable route, what would be the best route and what would be the least cost route. The subsequent report would highlight to us that even if underground cable were technically feasible and we wanted to do it, the railway route would be more costly. Therefore we did not want to be unduly biased against the underground cable in the analysis.
We can discuss that again.
Mr. Mark Winfield
We were talking about the assumptions that were made about 140 km versus the 60 km and 80 km sections and the implication for system reliability. The Deputy is absolutely right that there are 60 km and 80 km sections. The reliability issue comes to bear when one considers the parallel routing of the system. I have not been required to investigate the system design aspects at all. That could be expanded upon by EirGrid. In principle if there is a single route between two substations, it is vital that route is kept going at all times. If it fails then the system security has dropped. If there are two parallel routes it is possible to run both of these routes at half power. If one of them should fail for any reason due to lightning strike or being dug up by a digger, the other one is capable of taking the full supply and the security of the system is maintained. The more parallel routes involved, the less is the availability of one circuit critical to the security of supply of the system.
In this case we have effectively two parallel routes. At the moment there are two 275 kV cables to the east of the country. This would provide a doubling of that capacity. A new 400 kV underground cable would allow us to double the capacity of transfer between those parts of the country. Because we are looking at a system that is broadly speaking connected across a 140 km section of which there are no transmission parallel paths going part the way down that 140 km, it is quite important that the entire 140 km route is secure. If it were broken at the north or the south section, although there would be lower-voltage connectors through the Kingscourt substation, my understanding is that the main transfer of power — the main transmission route — would be broken anywhere along that 140 km section. That is why for the purposes of this study I was investigating the reliability of 140 km of cable and the security of supply based on that.
The technology of the cable is very good. The normal place to have a fault, unless it has been dug up by an excavator, is at the joints between the sections of the cable which are normally less than a kilometre apart. It is easy to see that if one has 140 km of cable, one may have 200 joints per phase and 600 joints for the three-phase connecting system and therefore there is a higher probability of a fault on a joint than if one has a short section of cable. That is why my graph increased in unavailability as the length of the line increased. Deputy Coveney is looking a little bit puzzled. Has that answered his question?
I am conscious that many other questions need to be asked. Mr. Winfield's diagram shows Woodland and Kingscourt up to Tyrone. It is clear that there is a breaker in the middle. What I do not understand is if one had a 60 km underground line at a certain point and another totally unconnected 80 km line in Cork, whether the Kingscourt break in the system essentially provides two entirely separate pieces of infrastructure.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes. Deputy Coveney is absolutely right; they are separate pieces of infrastructure but they rely on each other to provide the security of supply.
Yes, but whether that is overground or underground, they would still rely on each other.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Of course.
Is it the case that one still needs a back-up, a circular system, so that if one gets cut off, one can rely on a parallel line?
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes, that is right. One of the issues that arises is that it is only a single circuit line that is being proposed at the moment because it is paralleling the 275 kV existing circuit on the other side of the country. That is a problem that will decrease as more transmission lines are built. It is not easy to build transmission lines so that will not happen anytime soon.
Is one line travelling 140 km with no break in it or is it breaking at 60 km and going into the power station, and carrying on for 80 km?
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes.
In simple English, is it 140 km with no break or broken into two sections of 60 km and 80 km?
Mr. Mark Winfield
It is 60:80. That is absolutely straightforward. There will be a substation near the middle with a 60 km section and an 80 km section.
So it is not 140 km.
In terms of the backup to the overall grid, there is still 140 km of section.
Mr. Mark Winfield
That is right.
If, for example, some other major part of the grid gets cut off, is one rerouting power through there.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes, that is correct.
There are a number of questions and other members should be afforded the opportunity to ask their questions.
Mr. Mark Winfield
The other point which is easy to cover relates to the graph I was showing. Deputy McManus inquired whether it is the case that the green line just below the red line is the effective line if we were to split the cable into two separate circuits. That is exactly the case. If we spent a little bit more on the cable, which I accept is more expensive already, that would allow the two cables to remain electrically separate. In that case we would have three parallel paths and therefore the security of supply would be easier to maintain. That is why having two separate underground cable circuits is nearly the same as having the overhead line circuit.
So apart from the cost, that problem is sorted.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes, if one were to spend a little bit more on the underground cabling. I cannot say what is acceptable because that would be done by EirGrid's system studies department. What I can say is that if one had electrically separate cables, the security of supply would be less of an issue.
How big of an issue is it? Mr. Winfield referred to the extra spend, but that would be to make the system even better again. Is it technically okay as it is?
Mr. Mark Winfield
I cannot use the word "okay" because it is not in my gift to say what the system——
Mr. Winfield cannot say it is not "okay" either.
Mr. Mark Winfield
No, but that is something that would come from EirGrid in due course. On the question of power flow, 1,500 MW versus 500 MW, and the losses in the heat, I am not sure whether there was a completely correct understanding. The word "heat" was used at one point. For me, losses and heat are the same thing. What I was trying to say is that the losses, that is to say the wasted heat into the atmosphere, are dependent on how much transfer is being passed through the cable. It was completely correct to say that there is a crossover between the efficacy of transfer of overhead lines and cables but the heat and the losses are the same thing. Several members asked why we are working on a 500 MW losses calculation, bearing in mind that we have a 1,500 MW capacity circuit. That is a question I cannot answer. I am afraid it has to go back to EirGrid. Those were parameters which, again, will have come out of system studies. I am not quite clear for how far into the future the 1,500 MW was catering. I refer the Deputy back to EirGrid for that question.
Does it have a significant impact on the figures?
Mr. Mark Winfield
It absolutely does have a significant impact on the figures.
When I referred to the capacity issue of 1,500 MW, I was talking about the capacity of a line to withstand a power surge at a potential heat meltdown so that when one has increased capacity of up to 1,500 MW of a line, one has the capacity to withstand much higher power surges from the point of view of safety, outage and maintenance issues.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Systems security.
That is what I was talking about in terms of heat. I was talking about failures as a result of overheating. The figure of 1,500 MW is the ceiling of the capacity.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Maximum capacity.
In other words we need to build this to ensure we do not overheat on a line, yet the figure of 500 MW is then used in terms of what the loss is likely to be. I can understand where Mr. Winfield is coming from because we are essentially building a motorway even though we are only going to have a bicycle lane on it for starters. In the future it may well be ramped up into full motorway use, but it does skew the figures somewhat if one is looking at the lifetime of the infrastructure. I presume we are building 1,500 MW of capacity with a view to using it at some stage.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes, one would never use full capacity under normal circumstances. The normal running of the system would keep one below the full level because one wants to be secure in the event that one of the other parallel circuits fails and one then has the spare capacity to go higher.
Would it be normal international practice to propose a 1,500 MW capacity for a line that is likely to be used to the tune of 400 MW to 600 MW?
Mr. Mark Winfield
I am not able to say whether that would be the case here. I refer the Deputy back to the system studies to be able to demonstrate why we say 500 MW for the losses and 1,500 for the capacity.
Mr. Winfield should not get me wrong. I am in favour of building for the future but I am just trying to understand why we have picked 1,500 MW capacity.
Mr. Dermot Byrne
This goes straight to the heart of the nature of a transmission system and how we decide what are the criteria for designing it. It is as well if we deal with the issue now. I invite Mr. Cooke to go through those issues.
Mr. Andrew Cooke
As Mr. Winfield outlined earlier, when this circuit is complete, it will be one of two circuits running between the North and the South. There is an existing twin 275 kV circuit and this 400 kV circuit. Each of those would be capable of carrying up to 1,500 MW or perhaps a little bit more. As Mr. Winfield outlined, one has to deal with a situation where one of those circuits trips owing to a failure caused by physical interference, weather or lightning. In that case, the power that both of them carry before the fault ends up on the one remaining circuit. That is a characteristic of transmission systems. It would be very rare in normal operating conditions that either of the circuits would carry more than approximately 770 MW because, if one of them tripped, the remaining one would end up carrying 1,500 MW, which is its maximum capacity.
We have studied trends for several years into the future. The power the lines will carry will depend on a number of factors. It will vary depending on whether wind is blowing in the north of the country and not in the south, or vice versa, and also on which generators are running on a given day. Our studies show that the range will be quite wide. At times the lines might carry very little power and at other times they might carry up to 750 MW of power. This could change somewhat depending on where new-generation investment is made in ten or 20 years. However, it will be very rare for the lines to carry more than 750 MW.
We must always deal with the potential loss of one line, in which case the other would pick up the power. There is a reasonable maximum capacity of approximately 750 MW for normal operation. We provided Mr. Mark Winfield with an average figure of 500 MW for his calculations. This is probably a little high, if anything. Our experience of our high-voltage network to date indicates an average loading of 20% to 25% on the existing power lines. Five hundred megawatts is a 33% loading of 1,500 MW. The figure is probably a little high but we are allowing for future development and the potential for an increase.
We have talked to other transmission system operators about their experience. There are much more dense transmission networks in central Europe. Instead of having two parallel lines such as an existing and new line, which is what we are talking about at this meeting, there might at times be five or six 400 kV lines operating close together in parallel. In such cases, one can carry more than 50% because if one line is lost there are four or five others to pick up the slack. The sorts of percentages to which we refer, that is, percentages between 20% and 30%, appear to be reasonably typical throughout much of Europe. Other transmission system operators tell us this is consistent with their experience.
With regard to electromagnetic fields, is the value of 8.3 kV/m based on the absolute maximum value of 9 kV/m?
Mr. Mark Winfield
The value of 8.3 kV/m relates to the voltage of the line. Even if there were a greater current passing down the line, the voltage would not change. We arrived at the figure of 8.3 kV/m for the overhead line and it would not increase unless we changed the voltage of the line. This would not be practical because the towers would be designed for the existing voltage. To raise the voltage would require the construction of new towers, which is unlikely to happen. The figure of 8.3 kV/m is a limit, the maximum we find in practice.
Is that the case even with 1,500 MW?
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes.
When Mr. Winfield says it is highly unlikely that the voltage will increase, is he stating there will be no requirement for this in the future?
Mr. Mark Winfield
I am saying another 400 kV line could be built to develop one's capacity to transmit power. It would probably operate at 400 kV and, therefore, there would be a similar maximum field strength of approximately 8.3 kV/m. There would be two lines, both with strengths of 8.3 kV/m.
The lines could be put on the same pylons if they were adapted and extended.
Mr. Mark Winfield
One could extend the pylons. If, for example, one made the arms bigger and taller, one could perhaps have 500 kV instead of 400 kV but, at ground level where people are working, living and walking, the maximum field strength would not exceed the value of 9 kV/m that has been set as a guideline by the World Health Organisation.
Is it a matter of height?
Mr. Mark Winfield
It is a matter of height and the spread of the conductors. The geometry of the conductors has an effect, as does the height above ground. It is quite complicated. It is exactly the same for the magnetic field. It is not affected by the voltage but by the amount of current, or load, that is being transmitted at any instant through the overhead line. If one were to double the current in the line, the magnetic fields would increase. These calculations have been done according to the maximum capacity or current of the line. We are never likely to see magnetic fields much above the value I have outlined as they cannot take any more. They would have to be redesigned.
The guidelines issued by the World Health Organization were developed after much research and are pretty conservative given their starting point, which was based on health issues. The organisation was trying to ensure there would be no significant currents induced in the body. The calculations made to develop the guidelines were fairly conservative and the figures we have calculated in our report are the maxima that occur anywhere near the overhead line. As soon as one moves away from the overhead line and as soon as the current or load thereon drops below the maximum we have said will hardly ever occur, the magnetic fields will drop away in any case. The electric fields will drop away as one moves away from the line also. We are talking about the worst case values because, under normal circumstances, they are all lower.
Two or three members asked about submarine cables. We have not used submarine cable specifications. These are underground cables for overland applications. It was stated correctly that lead was suggested as a specification here. There is an alternative, aluminium, but it was felt by our cable expert at the time we were doing the study that lead would be a reasonable specification to use. At the time an underground cable is installed, the specification would be re-analysed because metal prices are very volatile. We use a great deal of copper or aluminium in the middle of a cable and a great deal of aluminium or lead on the outside to protect it from the water in which it sits. Whether we use aluminium or copper conduct, whether we use aluminium sheath or lead sheath and the amounts of these we use will be reassessed and optimised at the time the cable is put in place. There is no need for one to use a lead-sheathed cable if, for example, there is a political reason for not doing so.
Do we know the type of cable used in the most recent project in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Mark Winfield
I cannot answer that as I was not involved but I suspect an aluminium cable is being used in the tunnel to supply the Olympic Games area in east London.
What about undergrounding outside London?
Mr. Mark Winfield
I am not aware of any recent undergrounding at 400 kV. It happens a lot at the lower voltages.
What was used in the 24-mile cable in America?
Mr. Mark Winfield
I do not know offhand what was used in Milwaukee but there is a great deal of information on the Internet.
Some clarity is required in this area because this issue has been raised several times.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Submarine cables would have steel reinforcement on the outside because they have to be able to withstand the pull and stretch of sea currents and being snagged by, say, anchors.
Is the costing applied for land not submarine-based cabling?
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes we have not included the costs of land compensation or the end sub-stations. For these two reasons, our overhead line construction costs are likely to be much lower than EirGrid's overall costs. Our costs, however, include the sub-station connections which are relevant to the electrical compensation required because of the capacitance of the cables which does not occur in the case of overhead lines. Using high capacitance for underground cable must be compensated for with reactors. I have included the cost of the reactor and the connections to the underground cable at the end and the centre where they are needed.
Are they significant costs?
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes, in the report I have stripped those out so the committee can see where they are added.
I went through the report but did not see those figures.
Mr. Mark Winfield
So that the Deputy knows what to look for, I have separately costed the reactive compensation at the ends and centre of the cable. Where there is an intermediate compensating point, separate costings are provided.
When I worked with the undergrounding of sections of Scottish and Southern Energy's Beauly-Denny overhead line, I recall some of it was going through heath and moorland, territory which had never been disturbed. One of the points of the routing policy was to take cable through already disturbed land. Agricultural land is ideal because it is disturbed regularly and, probably, the crops grow better because the ground is a couple of degrees warmer above the cables. When going through heath and moorland an incision is made through the countryside that has never been made before. Those looking down from the hills above such lands are often concerned about the scar going across the landscape. It is not a large issue but has been raised in previous inquires.
Cross-linked polyethylene, commonly abbreviated to XLPE, is the technology for the cables in question. Deputy Coveney correctly interpreted the figures I gave in the report concerning the length of the line.
Regarding non-availability of a system to transmit power, the report gives a figure of 0.126 per year per kilometre for overhead line compared to 6.4 per year per kilometre for underground. An issue arises with these figures.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes. It must be remembered we have little information about XLPE 400 kV cable failures as the statistics are sparse. The 6.4 figure is going to be amended with electricity companies' experience of running this new type of cable. Confidence in XLPE is increasing. When we wrote this, it was still a new technology at 400 kV, particularly for long distance cabling. That figure, however, needs to be watched.
Yes, my concern is we are using 2003 figures from the European Commission which involved an entirely different underground cabling technology with an oil-filled cooling system. The potential reliability issues involved the leaking of oil into the ground which is no longer an issue with the new XLPE technology. Is it reasonable to assume the figure of 6.4 hours per year per kilometre of unavailability is inaccurate?
Mr. Mark Winfield
Availability is an issue. The figure needs to be revisited periodically by every electricity company when deciding between overhead and underground cabling.
The 6.4 per year per kilometre figure includes not only technology issues, such as how frequently will XLPE or a fluid-filled technology fail, but also covers the propensity for people to dig up cable compared to the propensity for overhead lines to fall down.
With these figures, I am taking the best estimate of the availability for 400 kV overhead lines for all causes and whatever information is available for the propensity for underground cable not to operate. It is a complex figure but I agree with the Deputy——
I understand the basis for the figure. The problem is we are talking about yesterday's technology because of the cooling systems for underground cable.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Some of it is yesterday's technology and some of it is not.
I accept it makes up an element. However, the question raised with me, and I am sure one which will be raised at public hearings, is that if the type of cable technology has advanced since 2003, could the availability figure have changed?
Mr. Mark Winfield
It is an important question and should be addressed at any future hearings on cabling projects. It might be worth noting, however, that there is a large gap for a single circuit. Even if the 6.4 figure were halved, there would still be a significant gap in the comparison.
Single circuiting is not an option for undergrounding as far as I am concerned but I accept Mr. Winfield's point.
From other reports we have seen UK figures. Is there much of a difference between the EU and the UK figures on this comparison?
Mr. Mark Winfield
I do not know about other reports but these figures were taken from the European Commission case study which was done in 2003, the latest available data to us when we were writing the report. These types of failures are not frequently reported because it is embarrassing for the manufacturers. It is embarrassing for the people who run the cable to have a failure, so it takes a good deal of effort to get new data.
Can Mr. Winfield reference this for the committee?
Mr. Mark Winfield
That is definitely the reference we have used for those figures.
How long would it take to update that? It seems a complete waste of time and money to be discussing something here today that is out of date.
Mr. Mark Winfield
We can go back to the market, at the time we want to update it, and see what other figures across the board have been published. We can then reassess what those figures should mean. The Deputy is right in saying that the 2003 data are old.
It has been a waste of time.
Mr. Mark Winfield
They were old at the time we wrote the report, but nevertheless this was the latest and best published information we could find. I am sure it is worth continuing to press this point at the time the decision is made.
I believe we have already mentioned the overhead line cost figures. They are not completely compatible because EirGrid——
What was the EirGrid costing?
Mr. Mark Winfield
I do not have any information about the EirGrid costing, I am sorry to say.
Can EirGrid respond, please?
Mr. Andrew Cooke
The €280 million figure referred to is our estimate of the cost for the overall project, including the overhead line circuit, the works at all three stations, the end points and the intermediate point in the Kingscourt area. It is consistent with our experience of projects, taking all factors into account, including the construction equipment costs as well as the land costs.
We did not want PB Power to adopt that figure but rather wanted it to look at overhead and underground cable on a comparable basis, which it would be comfortable addressing, and that is what it has done. When all the costs are taken into account, both the costs of underground cable and overhead line will ultimately be higher than the PB Power figures. We believe the ratios are reasonable and consistent with international experience.
It is hard to get an idea of the additional costs that will come about as a result of the overhead option going ahead, from compensation in court cases due to delays because this is much more controversial. That has to be factored in, in some concrete manner.
Mr. Andrew Cooke
That is factored into the €280 million figure is it not?
No——
Mr. Andrew Cooke
It would be included in our figures as regards the normal costs of a project of this nature, including all the compensation and additional costs.
There is a difference between a simple land acquisition and dealing with the fact that this is a major controversial issue, locally, which would lead to additional costs.
Mr. Andrew Cooke
It may do but the same could be true for an underground cable. If one is talking about a motorway with swathe across the countryside during the construction period, major disruption and the effects coming from that, the compensation costs associated with underground cable and the associated legal and environmental costs could also be very high.
Is Mr. Cooke saying that he does not see any difference in terms of the amount of costs generated by the public reaction to such a development? Is he factoring in any difference in terms of comparable costs?
Mr. Andrew Cooke
We believe there would be significant costs associated with either approach.
On that point, 99.5% of the people involved, farmers, whose land would be crossed are objecting to this, whereas they are totally in favour of the project going underground. They have made it clear that they will not object to it, in the event, as my colleague here was saying, so it just does not add up.
With the experience of the other line having now gone through the planning process, that would seem to have been a much smoother operation. It has gone through planning and is on schedule whereas this appears to be a couple of years behind schedule. On that basis alone, it seems to me there is a big difference in approach to underground versus overground. Costs can be worked out from that and it is fairly obvious, I believe. It is not fair to say that they are both the same.
Mr. Andrew Cooke
It is true that the cost of an overground cable would undoubtedly be significantly more than an overhead line, indeed several times the cost. Whether it is six or eight times the cost it is significantly more, regardless.
In terms of the compensation figure that EirGrid has to facilitate for landowners for, say, bringing the east-west interconnector into Meath, is it similar for undergrounding a DC line going through people's land to what it would be for overgrounding an AC line? From Mr. Cooke's experience, is the negotiation figure more or less the same?
Mr. Andrew Cooke
I would have to look at the figures, but the route for the east-west interconnector manages to largely avoid private land. There are a number of places where we touch on private land, but I could not give the Deputy the figures immediately, and I shall have to look into them.
Is there any data as regards oil-filled or XLPE power cables?
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes, there is some but not a great deal of information. That is the difficulty.
We can make an attempt to find some proper data on this, perhaps. If it is not available, then it should be appropriately referenced that old data are being used. I just wanted to make that point.
Mr. Andrew Cooke
There is not a vast amount of cable of this voltage to be found anywhere in the world, as we have said. However, it is not entirely new and has been around for about 20 years. We have not used anything other than XLPE cables in any of our urban projects in that period of time, so it is not that new and there is a considerable amount of experience available. I am sure it is provided for in the figures that are available.
Are we talking about oil-filled cable figures?
Mr. Andrew Cooke
I believe they include all cables.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes, that is correct.
Which is it?
Mr. Mark Winfield
It is the best overall data from which we can get a picture of high-voltage cable that——
Mr. Winfield gave me the impression a few minutes ago that we were talking about oil-filled cables, and this is an important point. That is the question I asked five minutes ago, as regards oil-filled cables.
Mr. Mark Winfield
No, they are not just oil-filled cables. The information we have is the best available on XLPE as well as high-voltage oil-filled cables.
It covers all types of XLPE and averages them across the data.
Mr. Mark Winfield
That is correct, but even talking about the word "average" is somewhat tricky because there is so little information. On average a peaky sparse set of data is a slightly worrying thing on which to place a good deal of emphasis. This is the best figure we have got, but it is not a very good figure. Therefore, one needs to understand that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the level we are looking at here, as regards unavailability.
It is the best "guesstimate", basically, we can make based on the data available.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes, it is our best estimate so far. As we get more evidence of the operation of XLPE cables, we shall be more confident about the figure we end up with.
Mr. Dermot Byrne
We are in danger, perhaps, of losing sight of the forest for the trees here. Through organisations such as CIGRE, there is an ongoing collection of data which is updated. We obviously track that and Mr. Winfield has given here the latest statistics on that. That is an ongoing activity because TSO utilities around the world are interested in these figures for the very reason we are having the discussion here.
However, cables fail. The problem, in the event of a cable failing, is that it is out for a long time. It might fail less often, but it is out for a long time. This may be partly addressed by having two cables in parallel, but from an operator's viewpoint if one cable fails, he or she must rely on another cable for possibly five to ten months. It depends on the time it takes to rectify the problem. We know of a recent failure of a 400 kV cable that was installed in Berlin. That is a 7 km cable and it failed when it was tested. We do not have full details on the reason for the failure but we understand it will require ten months to repair. The reality is that cables fail and there is an order of magnitude between the unavailability rate for cables and that of overhead of lines.
To discuss whether the figure should be 4.4, 6.4 or 7.4 is to lose sight of the fact that individual cables have a much greater level of unavailability than overhead lines. One way to mitigate the problem is to run two cables in parallel, which is what Mr. Mark Winfield indicated in the report. That would bring it close to the overhead unavailability level but it is a different type of unavailability because if one fails we would have to rely on the other for a lengthy period. The sleepless nights might continue for several months while the first cable is being repaired, whereas an overhead line can be repaired in a matter of hours even if it is not self-repairing.
My question was about the clarity of information rather than the scenario. We have to make sure the figures are correct.
Mr. Dermot Byrne
As the figures are quoted directly from a European report, there is no doubt about their accuracy. The issue is whether more up-to-date information is available. We will certainly pursue that issue.
That was my question and I wanted clarity on it.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Deputy McManus raised a question in regard to Mr. Byrne's comment on underground cable technology being cracked
Mr. Dermot Byrne
Perhaps I shall answer that one.
I am interested in Mr. Winfield's view. I do not want to put him on the spot but I would like to hear a fresh evaluation of the issue.
Mr. Mark Winfield
I have no idea of the context of the question.
When Mr. Winfield said "cracked", did he mean solved or mad?
Mr. Mark Winfield
Even I do not know the answer to that.
Mr. Dermot Byrne
I shall address what cracking the technology means. As somebody with responsibility for secure, reliable and economic power systems, it means for me that the technology is proven, that insurance companies have sufficient confidence to insure it and that other people have implemented it, which is the best way to ensure it is cracked. All these factors combine to make a decision about whether a technology is cracked.
Mr. Byrne came before this committee and stated that, quite apart from the cost, the technology has not been cracked. That does not appear to be the case, however. Most technologies, particularly emerging ones, have to withstand the test of time but my understanding of the implications is that we are discussing notional technology. Events have moved on significantly and it might be fair to argue that the technology is now being used. It may not be appropriate for the specific model under discussion today but it is not the case that the technology has not yet been cracked. Not only has it been cracked but it is being used in various countries and it is appropriate that we assess the issue as it pertains to Ireland. It seems that the major block is cost rather than technology. I do not neglect in any way the importance of using the proper technology. Cost is the big issue because the safeguards that have been developed in terms of the two cores or even the tunnel technology are available.
Mr. Dermot Byrne
The technology is available and, as Mr. Andrew Cooke said, we use XLPE technology at lower voltages when it is appropriate and safe to do so in a system context. When I said the technology has not been cracked, I was referring to technology at the 140 km lengths we are discussing today. We have been completely open in regard to where the technology has been used elsewhere, such as the 5.7 km used in the Vale of York and the 40 km in Tokyo. We have commissioned TEPCO to highlight for us the phenonoma that result from long cables. At the length of 140 km, however, members will see from the TEPCO report that serious electrical phenomena arise and in my opinion the technology is not cracked in that context. All we can say is that it is cracked for 40 km cables.
We clarified that earlier. We are discussing cable lengths of 60 km and 80 km. We are no longer proposing a 140 km cable.
Mr. Dermot Byrne
No.
There are two separate lines.
Mr. Dermot Byrne
If we are proposing to underground the interconnector between Meath and Tyrone, we are considering 140 km of cable. It has to be split in the middle for reactive compensation reasons but we also want to use it to supply the north east. That is why we have an intermediate station. However, the cable would be 140 km in length. It would have interactions with the power system as set out in the TEPCO report, which assesses the impact on the system of such a long cable, or two sections, based on modelling. We are discussing a 140 km long underground cable that happens to be split by a station. Even if we were not supplying the north east, we would still have to split it in a number of places to compensate for reactive power generation.
It is possible to put counter measures on the grid. The TEPCO report concludes that the risks may be avoided through carefully prepared operational countermeasures but that they will be a major burden for systems analysis. There would be a new burden on the system operator to manage the undergrounding of the infrastructure and I accept that the transition would not be easy. The PB Power report notes that a continuous and technically feasible strategic underground cable route search corridor which satisfied the environmental criteria was identified. It is possible to construct it, therefore, but at what cost and how much hassle for the grid operator?
How many sleepless nights will there be?
I ask Mr. Byrne to advise us if we are wrong
Mr. Dermot Byrne
To clarify, we specifically asked PB Power not to investigate electrical phenonoma because TEPCO was investigating that matter. Given my responsibility for running a secure, reliable and cost-effective system, I have to take all these inputs into account. Having regard for the PB Power and TEPCO reports, it would be madness for us to take the underground route because it has not been tested anywhere else in the world. I do not believe we would get companies to guarantee their cables or insurance companies to offer cover. Why would I put at risk the security of the power system by taking this route? After taking on board all the analysis we have commissioned from TEPCO and PB Power, my strong advice is that we should not go this way.
I would like to move on.
Mr. Byrne was invited before us to establish the facts.
Mr. Dermot Byrne
I was asked a question and I responded to it.
May I ask a further question?
No, I would like to move on.
Reference was made to a 24-mile line. Has that been completed? It is an important issue because it appears to involve an underground cable.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes, the one in America, the 24 miles — my understanding is that it is not a tunnel but a direct burial approach to underground cabling.
Is it similar to what Mr. Winfield investigated here?
Mr. Mark Winfield
I believe it was two core, but similar to what we have been investigating.
Is it built, under construction or where is it at?
Mr. Mark Winfield
I do not know the status of progress. We were discussing the decision.
Has it been signed off to take place?
Mr. Mark Winfield
My understanding is that it has been completely signed off. That is why we have put it in here as a decision.
Can we be sure it would be covered and not signed off without a guarantee or insurance?
We can check that out. It is a very important point.
To be fair to Mr. Byrne, this underlines the point about the TEPCO report. We must put it under some type of scrutiny. Whatever way we find to do so, it is important we get a chance.
Mr. Mark Winfield
There was a question about whether part of the system could be undergrounded. The answer is: absolutely, one could underground part of it. That is a straightforward question and if one selected areas where one needed to underground it more than others, then that would be a practical or a technical issue.
As far as the 40 year life span is concerned, we chose 40 years because that is a very common notional life of transmission equipment. A good deal of equipment is written off over a 40 year period. It is very much the case that in some situations, cables have been used for longer than 40 years. It is also the case that some cables have not reached a 40 year lifespan. For the purposes of this report, a 40 year life appeared to be a reasonable estimate for discounting purposes and this is the reason it was used.
I understand why the 40 year life span is used and it is fair to say it was used for both options. Mr. Winfield went on to state that it was necessary to factor in the likelihood that it might be necessary to rebuild both options totally, that is, overhead and underground, which is unlikely but it was included for the purposes of fair comparison. Mr. Winfield stated that it may be necessary to build a totally new system. My understanding is that if there are two underground cables it is possible to upgrade or repair them because there are two parallels not fully used. Is it possible to upgrade them without having to build a totally new one.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes. It is a good question because there is a significant difference between underground and overhead in this regard. Some people maintain overhead lines, especially towers, have no end of life because one builds a tower and when part of it rusts one replaces it with another part that is bolted in. When the next part rusts one bolts a new part there and this continues. This can be enhanced if they are painted periodically.
An overhead line conductor will have an end of life as will the associated insulator strings which support it. They will need to be replaced after approximately 40 years. That has been the experience of the national grid company. It is a good deal more difficult to replace underground cable piecemeal. One must dig it up and this process risks damaging the parts one does not wish to dig up. Normally speaking, from my experience and what I know of the national grid in the UK, most of the cables there have not yet reached the end of life. They were installed from 1963, when the earliest cables were put in place.
Were they oil-filled cables?
Mr. Mark Winfield
The early cables were oil-filled.
They do not last as long as the modern cables.
Mr. Mark Winfield
That is right. The national grid was somewhat more conservative about adopting XLPE cable than other places in the world. I will not bore the committee and I cannot remember the name of the place I was trying to think of as an example. It will come back to me. The grid company was somewhat more conservative but it started to use XLPE in the past ten or 15 years. Its cable has fared very nicely but some designs have failed as well and it had to strip out the whole length of the cable and replace it.
Is it fair to say then that the corollary applies and pylons could last for 50, 60 or 70 years. If this is the case and the figures in respect of loses on a weekly basis are different to those in the report, and if the programme runs for 60 years, it could prove that cables are better from a taxpayers' point of view.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Losses——
I accept Mr. Winfield's figures show losses to be higher for cables but these are the figures we are disputing. We can update our figures in this regard but there should be a balance in place. At the level of 750 the losses are equal. At some stage a cable could prove more cost effective over a longer period. That is my point. To say that they must be dug up in 40 years is somewhat unfair when in practice——
The losses are per annum anyway so it does not really matter about the lifetime.
It does. My point is that oil-filled cables already last more than 40 years. Manufacturers have informed me that it is likely the new cables, those in place for the past 20 years, could last 50, 60 or 70 years.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes, they could.
There is an argument to the effect that a cable may result in a net gain rather than a net loss on a yearly basis. It depends on their level of usage. Over time, the extra capital cost spent on cables could be recuperated through gains on a yearly basis.
Mr. Mark Winfield
There is certainly a balance to be struck. The Deputy is absolutely right. As far as the replacement costs are concerned, the calculation came in at the bottom. I draw the Deputy's attention to the last line of my table of costs. That is the only place where the 40-year life would have an effect.
However, if one believes there could be a gain rather than a loss it has an effect when one calculates the losses on a yearly basis as well. We differ on that, which is fair enough.
Mr. Mark Winfield
I take the Deputy's point. I would make the balance at the point where the losses calculation takes place. The Deputy is correct to suggest there is an interaction.
The next unanswered question related to barriers. Deputy English commented on my report which seemed to put barriers in place to underground cables. I am sorry if he believed this was the case because we were trying to explore how easy or difficult it would be to put the cable in place.
I accept that. The point I was trying to debate is relevant for everyone. Some of the pieces included are probably unnecessary in a real, proper debate about this issue. That is my only concern and they create a somewhat negative impression throughout the report. It does not help when one is trying to hold a good, solid debate.
Mr. Mark Winfield
The Deputy also asked about the preliminary findings according to which we estimated approximately nine times the cost and that came down in the later report. The reason is that recently we studied under-grounding of a proportion of the overhead line in Scotland. At the time we were aware that the cost of under-grouding in that terrain was closer to ten, 11 or 12 times. A quick examination of the terrain in Ireland suggested it would be less difficult to underground here, but we did not know by how much. The factor of nine was a first estimate and this was one reason it was important to have this more detailed study such that we could firm up the estimate for the cost ratio. That is where the factor of nine came from.
The Deputy referred to the time to build and he is absolutely correct. As long as they can be managed correctly, the more people one puts on the jobs, the shorter the completion time should be. One of the points I tried to make in the report was that it is not simply about the number of people. There could be ten or 100 teams but if one does not have the cable to install, it is not possible to do the work.
I accept that.
Mr. Mark Winfield
We wrote the report prior to the world economic slump. China was commandeering a good proportion of the world capacity to generate cable. We simply maintain when a decision is made to underground, one should examine the market to see what it can provide.
That market can change from month to month. It can and it has done so.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes, it has changed on a yearly basis. That is what we were trying to point out.
The costs of doing the work underground have changed vastly.
Mr. Mark Winfield
That is correct and they will be much more volatile than the capacity of a company to produce cable. It may be the case that a company could produce aluminium cord cable now. If one wanted copper, they may not be able to produce that for six months or a year because the set-up in the factory at the time allows them to produce aluminium immediately. It is a complex issue which is worth optimising at the time one goes out to tender.
On there being no expertise to maintain the cables in the country, it is similar to the previous point. There is limited available expertise in the world and if it not being used one can have it immediately. If it happens to be mending a cable in Korea, one has to wait.
It is fair to say cables are being used more often and we will have more experts.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes, there should be more experts.
That is my point. The presentation included information which did not help.
Mr. Mark Winfield
I would not recommend that one would pay experts to be in the country in case there is a problem with a cable.
I agree with Mr. Winfield.
Mr. Mark Winfield
It would be too expensive. Senator Corrigan raised the issue of cable technology developments which are in train in order to make things easier. I am not aware of any cable technologies which will trump XLPE. It is the prime underground cable technology for this kind of voltage for the time being. We should work with that assumption.
Does Mr. Winfield think the technology will be used more if the cost comes down?
Mr. Mark Winfield
It is unlikely that it will be reduced by much because cables are already being produced in quite large quantities for many places around the world. The economies of scale are already being exploited. The major changes to the cost of the cable will be the raw materials which, as we said, is a variable feast.
I was asked about the difference between our report and others, in particular the report produced by Ascon. I was able to spend a couple of days discussing the Ascon report and the report we presented to the committee today with EirGrid. There are not many differences. It was surprisingly similar, in terms of the technical answers which were coming out of the two reports. I do not have very much more to say about that, unless the members of the committee have some specific questions.
My question is not for Mr. Winfield. Was the Ascon report put out to tender?
Mr. Dermot Byrne
That is not our report.
The Ecofys report was done by the Department.
Mr. Dermot Byrne
I understand the Ecofys report was put out to tender. It was a departmental report. Our reports are always put out to tender.
Mr. Mark Winfield
There was a question about health concerns and what level of comprehensive research was being put in place. I do not know the exact status of the health research, but I know a very large body of research is available. People continue to test every assertion on health which relates to electromagnetic fields and I refer the committee to other experts on the Internet for that. There is an enormous body of work out there, not all of which is of very good quality. Some of it is good quality but a lot of it tends to be scare-mongering and it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between them.
On other measures which could be taken to reduce EMFs, I am not aware of ways of very easily reducing the electromagnetic fields from overhead lines or underground cables. In terms of overhead lines, it would be possible to screen the electric fields which come from them by placing additional wires beneath the existing cables. It would involve some costs but there would also be an additional visual impact and I have never been aware of it happening in practice. On underground cables, one way of reducing the magnetic fields is to bring the cables closer together. In doing so the magnetic field associated with one core will cancel out the magnetic field associated with other nearby cores. That is perfectly practical and can be done. There is a cost implication to that because by bringing them together, there is more heat associated with one small area of the trench. Therefore, one has to buy more copper to go into cable in order that less heat is generated or one may have to buy another set of cables to go in parallel in order that one keeps the temperature down to the design limits of the cables.
Did Mr. Winfield consider the issue of proximity to people's homes and businesses in his report——
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes, we did.
——and whether there is any international standard practice in that regard? Different standards are applied in different European countries, but that may be for political rather than health reasons.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes.
What is Mr. Winfield's assessment or advice on whether we have it right in Ireland, in terms of the proximity of overhead or underground cables to residential accommodation?
Mr. Mark Winfield
That is a good question. I will turn back to the ICNIRP guidelines of 9 kW per metre and 360 microtesla. As long as one is able to keep one's electromagnetic fields below those guideline levels, one will achieve what one needs to achieve. All the guidelines relate to prolonged or persistent exposure. For example, one would probably not want to exceed those guideline figures at any person's house or garden.
I understand that, but the policy decisions which have been made in different countries vary on this.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes, they do.
They are all based on the same evidence, which is what Mr. Winfield has given us.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes.
For reassurance purposes for the public, some countries have decided to set X metres from the nearest residential unit and the X varies in different countries.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Yes, it absolutely does.
Does Mr. Winfield have a view on that or is it outside his remit?
Mr. Mark Winfield
It is outside the remit of this report. For example, there is a right of way in America and within it one is not allowed to build or put various other things in place. In the United Kingdom there is no right of way. Although it has a policy of never building a line over a house, house builders do not have the same policy and have built houses underneath after lines have been laid, which is a rather silly situation and there might be a need to recommend a right of way. There have some considerable discussions recently with a group called SAGE on the issues of overhead lines and underground cable EMFs. It has the view that it would be inappropriately expensive to instigate rights of way in the United Kingdom at this point in time because of the low perceived risk. The issue has been considered recently and is available on the Internet.
We have already discussed partial undergrounding and the cost of the delay to the overhead line. The committee asked whether we had investigated any alternative underground cable routings, and the answer is "No". We have found one practicable route and written it up but that does not preclude the investigation of other routes. We looked for a single route to ensure it was a feasible option to have an underground cable between these substations.
There was a question about funding for a pile-up project on the underground cable. Perhaps Mr. Byrne could look at that.
Mr. Dermot Byrne
I am not aware of any funding being sought or given for a test for 100 kv cable.
It could be looked into but I assume there would not be any opposition to such testing.
Mr. Dermot Byrne
I am not aware of anyone who has sought it.
Critically, it is a cross-Border project and INTERREG and other funding is available for issues like that. It should be looked at and utilised if possible, even partially.
Mr. Dermot Byrne
Our proposal is for an overhead solution for the cable and that is what we are planning for.
We are aware of that.
Mr. Dermot Byrne
There is some element of INTERREG funding because it is a cross-Border project but that is more to develop the project than to look at any particular solution to it. We have availed of INTERREG funding.
In what context was it availed of?
Mr. Dermot Byrne
As it is cross-Border, it fulfils the mandate for INTERREG funds.
It is a reasonable question because the percentage of the cost for the east-west interconnector that will be met by EU funds is significant. This originated as a North-South interconnector so it is an interconnector of sorts, even though it is an AC line. It is a hybrid because it concerns a backbone grid infrastructure on the island even though it links North and South. It is hard to pigeon hole it into a definition but it is worth looking at accessing funds for it, whether it is overground or underground. It would reinforce the east-west interconnector as well because they are interlinked.
Mr. Dermot Byrne
Whatever funds are available, we will follow up on them because that limits the impact on customers.
Mr. Mark Winfield
Deputy Crawford mentioned the genuine concerns about the health issues and I agree they must be chased down. I might not be the right person to chase them but perhaps what has been said at this meeting covers his concerns.
It is an emotive issue. I have had to deal with this in other areas and I know better than must how emotive it can become. It must be dealt with in the most constructive way possible. Has anyone taken into account the length of time it may take to get the project overground, as opposed to underground, with the related difference in costs?
Mr. Mark Winfield
I have not addressed that issue in this report at all. The Deputy is right, people are extremely worried about this issue and it is a real concern for anyone trying to plan a new transmission circuit and it needs proper attention. I am sorry we have not dealt with that today. It is something EirGrid should be aware of as it moves ahead.
Deputy McEntee asked two further questions. From the technical aspect, we have found a continuous route that could be used to run the project underground. We have not discussed the issue today of the TEPCO aspect of the question. It is equally important that if we put an underground cable in place it can be connected and operated effectively and efficiently. It is an outstanding issue that the TEPCO report will help answer.
He also asked if we would still be looking at overhead lines in five years' time or if everything would be underground. That is a difficult question to answer without a crystal ball but we have tried to look at what has been constructed in the last ten years, what is at the consent stage of the planning process, and what is being constructed right now. It appears that overhead lines are still popular because of the cost. Many are being constructed and commissioned and a lot of overhead line is up for planning and consent. Whether it gets it is another question but a lot of it is still going on.
What does Mr. Winfield think?
Mr. Mark Winfield
It comes back to the question of what the underground and overhead options offer and how much they cost. I can offer half of the answer about costs and technical issues. The committee holds the other half of the answer because its members represent the public and they have the economic issues for Ireland at their fingertips. Those two have to knit together with my technical report. I cannot give an answer but the committee will be able to see the bigger picture at the end.
I am not sure we know it all.
What about the DC option? I cannot understand why it cannot be done. Perhaps we can discuss this afterwards.
I thank Mr. Byrne and his colleagues for attending today. I thank Mr. Winfield in particular for his comprehensive responses to all the questions asked by members.
The joint committee went into private session at 12.40 p.m. and adjourned at 12.50 p.m. until 9.45 a.m. on Wednesday, 31 March 2010.