This view is just very extreme, it is much less zig zag. It is just mounted to the wall at the high points and slack in between. Certainly there is also a reason for the exact amount of slack like thermal expansion.
* The amount pictured is in excess of that required for thermal expansion. The excess is to have some spare length in case of modifications. For example if you have to replace the transformer and the terminals are not in the same location. You cannot extend a massive cable like that easily or without degrading its specs.
* The sine wave pattern makes it into AC of course (/s)
Impressive piece of work, first time I’ve heard of this.
I had heard that tunnels were a good first step for rolling out super conducting cables, but that doesn’t seem to be a thing.
Superconducting cables have progressed a lot. I’m assuming that setting up a cryogenic system to keep cables cool enough, in a confined space wasn’t thought to be worth it.
The tunnels look tight enough, and boiling liquid nitrogen from a leak could cause asphyxiation I imagine.
"I had heard that tunnels were a good first step for rolling out super conducting cables, but that doesn’t seem to be a thing."
Yeah tunnels underground would be better for superconducting cables, but it is indeed not really a thing as the cooling and installing and maintainance would be waaaay more expensive, than just using higher voltage. Or if one really cares about the loss, use direct current - but we are talking aber very small distances here.
If superconducting would be easy, we likely just would have fusion plants everywhere with no need for transporting electricity long distances.
An interesting article, I’ll download the IoP report and maybe read it.
But it talks about doing the hard work to improve the Technological Readiness Level from 7 to 9. Although these cables need rare earths so might be problematic.
"In total, the £1 billion London Power Tunnels 2 (LPT2) project, which began in 2019, spans 32.5km across seven South London boroughs from Wimbledon to Hurst."
In spite of devolution and the so called "levelling up" programme for other parts of the UK, London obviously continues to be heavily subsidised by the rest of the UK.
"London obviously continues to be heavily subsidised by the rest of the UK"
This is a farcical comment. Were you being sarcastic? The tax revenue from London massively subsidises the rest of the UK. The investment happens in London because you can guarantee it will make a return, and quickly.
The real reason London is rich at all is because it was a trading depot with the continent. It made money from goods leaving England, and entering England. Later on, like Paris, it became wealthy off running an overseas empire, and when that empire vanished it turned to nearer territories.
London has centuries worth of investment from everywhere else based on that. That money has stayed there, and money is spent constantly on infrastructure which helps it make more money. Contrast this with Liverpool, Cardiff or Belfast which suffered decades of decline for various reasons and a fraction of the investment.
If the capital had been moved to Liverpool back at some point in the Middle Ages, then that would have remained a wealthy city instead of becoming a basket case in the eighties. The presence of the civil service and government alone would have kept Merseyside wealthy, and would have made it a huge tourist centre. Bigger than now, and even that was mostly to do with the Beatles.
By the way, the state funded Wembley refit cost more than the construction of the Scottish Parliament. Guess which one got all the negative press?
Cables on overhead high voltage lines are mounted using stacks of ceramic insulators, but here they seemingly just sleeved in some protection and hang on a tunnel wall. Why is that?
Overhead conductors use air as the insulator. Underground cables use an insulating jacket. In the past it was really difficult to build cables with voltage ranges in the 10s of thousands of volts without additional complexity like a dielectric oil being pumped through the cable. I think modern dielectrics are significantly better though.
The cost of oil insulated cables that can do 132kv is about £900 a meter. Whilst there are HV cables that exist on the outskirts of london, they are much rarer in zones 1-3.
I assume that the cost of pylons with raw cables is much much cheaper. The problem is planning permissions, physical clearance. planning permission and now one wants to live near HV cables (that they know of. There are a bunch of 33kv cables buried outside posh people's houses in zone 5, and a bunch in canals.)
Overhead high voltage conductors are not insulated with a coating, probably for many reasons but certainly for cost and heat dissipation.
That means the path through the air to some conducting materials needs a certain distance, and that even when wet or iced over or whatever can happen up there.
essentialy no choice in putting infrastructure underground as the cost's and
delays in putting a power corridor right of way through is unthinkable, they will almost certainly be useing old established locations for transformer substations that have the required set backs and other services, which must from time to time, come to the frenzied attention of developers, agast ,that they cant relieve someone of this "vacant" land
This region is by far the most heavily subsidised in the UK in reality, which is confirmed by the number of expensive infrastructure projects there such as this one.
London is effectively kept going by these infrastructure projects and so many UK government agencies and businesses being headquartered there. Even the monarchy plays a role, as a massive gravy train mostly based there. All that money keeps other businesses in London going. Every time someone pays UK taxes in any form they are supporting jobs and physical facilities based there. The BBC is another one. People throughout the UK are forced to pay a licence fee that is mostly used to produce content in and about London.
This is part of a repeating pattern. London took massive amounts of resources such as coal, metals and manufactured goods from other parts of the UK which are now in poverty. The North Sea Oil boom of the 1980s, was used to prop up the London stock market, and only a fraction of that money stayed within Scotland which was suffering industrial decline at the time. (Aberdeen has surprisingly little to show for the oil boom and is now a city in heavy decline.)
And I wish people would understand how costs work.
Pylons need space right, they also need maintenance corridors and access. Every ~360m you need a space to put a pylon[1]. Can you imagine the cost of buying 400m2 every 360 in zone 1?
what about the scaffolding when you need to re-string the cables? can you imagine how expensive that would be? what about if a lorry smacks into it? Its just not practical.
I grew up in norfolk, next to a bunch of HV pylons. No-one commented on them, because they were always there. THey are going to put some more in, and suddenly "its a blot on the land scape" and its "ecological damaging" Then its proposed that the cables are buried. apparently a 200 meter clearing 30km long is more ecologically friendly than pylons ever n hundred meters.
Sounds like you are trying to compare the many hundreds of miles (thousands?) of transmission cables needed to cope with the massive geographic change of generation sources to this ~20mi cable system.
There are many examples of how the UK is London-centric. This isn't one of them.
The UK is run as a city state for London's behalf.
The odd thing is that it makes fun of all those coal mining and oil producing areas whose wealth it has been only too happy to steal. A sort of internal colonialism.
People move to where the jobs are. That's how most English towns came to exist in the first place in the industrial revolution.
We're ~30 years into a new information/digital revolution and London is a world centre of it. There's plenty of wealth generation happening. People are welcome to sit and wait for it to come to them if they want.
What's the zig-zag pattern for, seems like a fair bit of extra conductor.
https://cdn.ca.emap.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2018/04/l...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catenary
I think that's just cables sagging, which is a requirement to accommodate thermal and seismic displacements.
* Cable thermal expansion under current load: https://www.ahelek.com/news/cable-thermal-expansion-and-its-...
* The amount pictured is in excess of that required for thermal expansion. The excess is to have some spare length in case of modifications. For example if you have to replace the transformer and the terminals are not in the same location. You cannot extend a massive cable like that easily or without degrading its specs.
* The sine wave pattern makes it into AC of course (/s)
I had heard that tunnels were a good first step for rolling out super conducting cables, but that doesn’t seem to be a thing.
Superconducting cables have progressed a lot. I’m assuming that setting up a cryogenic system to keep cables cool enough, in a confined space wasn’t thought to be worth it.
The tunnels look tight enough, and boiling liquid nitrogen from a leak could cause asphyxiation I imagine.
Yeah tunnels underground would be better for superconducting cables, but it is indeed not really a thing as the cooling and installing and maintainance would be waaaay more expensive, than just using higher voltage. Or if one really cares about the loss, use direct current - but we are talking aber very small distances here.
If superconducting would be easy, we likely just would have fusion plants everywhere with no need for transporting electricity long distances.
I thought direct current had higher transmission losses vs AC
Problem is they need these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_converter , for these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_converter_station which are expensive. So it depends on circumstances, how and when its economically feasible to use HVDC, or not.
https://ee.eng.cam.ac.uk/index.php/2025/09/22/from-gridlock-...
An interesting article, I’ll download the IoP report and maybe read it.
But it talks about doing the hard work to improve the Technological Readiness Level from 7 to 9. Although these cables need rare earths so might be problematic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Power_Tunnels
The fact that the tunnels are 50 meter underground leads me to wonder if their main requirement comes from national security needs.
* the recent new massive and extensive sewer tunnels,
* the secret basement extensions of the ultra rich, multi story archival storage, vaults, etc,
* the new underground tunnels (rail / subway for US readers),
* old roman and other buried but still 'conserved' architecture,
* crypts, graves, plague pits,
* WWII UXB's etc. etc
is a hell of a 3D needle to thread - there's > 2,000 years of urban layering in that small area.
If you wanna knock out the grid, hit the substations and power plants.
In spite of devolution and the so called "levelling up" programme for other parts of the UK, London obviously continues to be heavily subsidised by the rest of the UK.
This is a farcical comment. Were you being sarcastic? The tax revenue from London massively subsidises the rest of the UK. The investment happens in London because you can guarantee it will make a return, and quickly.
London has centuries worth of investment from everywhere else based on that. That money has stayed there, and money is spent constantly on infrastructure which helps it make more money. Contrast this with Liverpool, Cardiff or Belfast which suffered decades of decline for various reasons and a fraction of the investment.
If the capital had been moved to Liverpool back at some point in the Middle Ages, then that would have remained a wealthy city instead of becoming a basket case in the eighties. The presence of the civil service and government alone would have kept Merseyside wealthy, and would have made it a huge tourist centre. Bigger than now, and even that was mostly to do with the Beatles.
By the way, the state funded Wembley refit cost more than the construction of the Scottish Parliament. Guess which one got all the negative press?
The cost of oil insulated cables that can do 132kv is about £900 a meter. Whilst there are HV cables that exist on the outskirts of london, they are much rarer in zones 1-3.
I assume that the cost of pylons with raw cables is much much cheaper. The problem is planning permissions, physical clearance. planning permission and now one wants to live near HV cables (that they know of. There are a bunch of 33kv cables buried outside posh people's houses in zone 5, and a bunch in canals.)
That means the path through the air to some conducting materials needs a certain distance, and that even when wet or iced over or whatever can happen up there.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxe...
London is effectively kept going by these infrastructure projects and so many UK government agencies and businesses being headquartered there. Even the monarchy plays a role, as a massive gravy train mostly based there. All that money keeps other businesses in London going. Every time someone pays UK taxes in any form they are supporting jobs and physical facilities based there. The BBC is another one. People throughout the UK are forced to pay a licence fee that is mostly used to produce content in and about London.
This is part of a repeating pattern. London took massive amounts of resources such as coal, metals and manufactured goods from other parts of the UK which are now in poverty. The North Sea Oil boom of the 1980s, was used to prop up the London stock market, and only a fraction of that money stayed within Scotland which was suffering industrial decline at the time. (Aberdeen has surprisingly little to show for the oil boom and is now a city in heavy decline.)
And I wish people would understand how costs work.
Pylons need space right, they also need maintenance corridors and access. Every ~360m you need a space to put a pylon[1]. Can you imagine the cost of buying 400m2 every 360 in zone 1?
what about the scaffolding when you need to re-string the cables? can you imagine how expensive that would be? what about if a lorry smacks into it? Its just not practical.
I grew up in norfolk, next to a bunch of HV pylons. No-one commented on them, because they were always there. THey are going to put some more in, and suddenly "its a blot on the land scape" and its "ecological damaging" Then its proposed that the cables are buried. apparently a 200 meter clearing 30km long is more ecologically friendly than pylons ever n hundred meters.
but thats an aside.
[1]https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-distance-between-electrici...
There are many examples of how the UK is London-centric. This isn't one of them.
Not to mention that over ground wires are manifestly better in every dimension except for aesthetics.
This is a great example:
https://youtu.be/z-wQnWUhX5Y?si=qdqrpJ-zS7lh2J8Z
It’d be super, smashing, great! for the cities to be far better connected together across the Pennines.
The odd thing is that it makes fun of all those coal mining and oil producing areas whose wealth it has been only too happy to steal. A sort of internal colonialism.
We're ~30 years into a new information/digital revolution and London is a world centre of it. There's plenty of wealth generation happening. People are welcome to sit and wait for it to come to them if they want.
1. Cost per kWh transmitted?
2. Cost per person served?
3. Cost per pound of GDP generated?
Please provide this for London and the other locations you have in mind.
Cool to see cycling down there - much safer than on the roads above.