The Anonymous Widower

Cummins Inc. Selected By The UK Department Of Transport For Its High-Horsepower Methanol Vessel Retrofit Project

The title of this post, is the same as that of this press release from Cummins.

This is sub-heading.

One of Only 10 Flagship Projects Chosen in the Multi-Million-Pound ZEVI Competition Enabling Decarbonization of the UK’s Maritime Sector

These three paragraphs outline the project.

Today, Cummins Inc. (NYSE: CMI) announced the selection of its proposal to jointly develop a Methanol Kit for its QSK60 engine as part of the Zero Emission Vessels and Infrastructure (ZEVI) competition, funded by the UK Government and delivered in partnership with Innovate UK. To be chosen as one of the top 10 projects, Cummins delivered a proposal to collaborate with a major UK port and operators to develop, deploy and operate clean maritime technology solutions on the path to decarbonization and reduction to the overall greenhouse gas footprint.

The £4.4M in total funding will be leveraged by Cummins and its fellow project stakeholders — Ocean Infinity, the Aberdeen Harbour Board, and Proman AG — in the deployment of a UK-designed and built methanol conversion kit for a high-horsepower marine internal combustion engine, offering the UK an important foothold in enabling the transition to cleaner maritime fuels.

Upon completion in the second quarter of 2025, the project targets a reduction in CO2 emissions of 50 percent for offshore operations of the vessel with NOx, SOx and PM at levels considerably below those emitted by conventional fuel. Furthermore, all retrofitted dual-fuel engines will achieve compliance with IMO Tier III emission standards.

They certainly aim to get a move on to complete by mid-2025.

I have some thoughts.

Methanol Fuel

The Wikipedia entry for methanol fuel, starts with this sentence.

Methanol fuel is an alternative biofuel for internal combustion and other engines, either in combination with gasoline or independently. Methanol (CH3OH) is less expensive to produce sustainably than ethanol fuel, although it produces more toxic effects than ethanol and has lower energy density than gasoline. Methanol is safer for the environment than gasoline, is an anti-freeze agent, prevents dirt and grime buildup within the engine, has a higher flashpoint in case of fire, and produces horsepower equivalent to that of super high-octane gasoline.

Methanol certainly seems to be an environmentally-friendly fuel, when compared to alternatives.

Production Of Green Methanol

This paragraph from the Wikipedia entry for methanol fuel, explains some of the routes to make green methanol.

Bio-methanol, also known as green-methanol, may be produced by gasification of organic materials to synthesis gas followed by conventional methanol synthesis. This route can offer renewable methanol production from biomass at efficiencies up to 75%. Widespread production by this route has a proposed potential to offer methanol fuel at a low cost and with benefits to the environment. Increasingly, methanol fuel has been produced using renewable energy and carbon dioxide as a feedstock. Carbon Recycling International, an Icelandic-American company, completed the first commercial scale renewable methanol plant in 2011. As of 2018, Enerkem has been producing biomethanol through the conversion and gasification of municipal solid waste at its Edmonton facility. As of July 2023, construction for the $1 billion Varennes Carbon Recycling Plant, which will produce biofuel such as methanol through non-recyclable and timber waste, is 30 percent complete.

Surely, if the C in CH3OH, which is the chemical formula for methanol, comes from captured carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or say a gas-fired power station, methanol can be a truly green fuel.

 

March 7, 2024 Posted by | Energy, Transport/Travel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

UK’s Green Power Industry Receives Surprise £10bn Pledge

The title of this post, is the same as that of this article in the Guardian.

This is the sub-heading.

Potential investment by NatPower would create largest portfolio of battery storage projects in Britain

These five paragraphs outline the proposed investment.

Britain’s under-pressure green power industry has received a surprise fillip after a renewables developer pledged to plough £10bn into what would become the largest portfolio of battery storage projects in the country.

NatPower, a UK startup that is part of a larger European energy group, is poised to submit planning applications for three “gigaparks”, with a further 10 to follow next year.

Battery storage projects are seen as a key part of the jigsaw to decarbonise Britain’s power grid, allowing electricity generated by wind turbines and solar panels to be stored for use when weather conditions are still or not sunny.

The NatPower investment would lead to the construction of 60 gigawatt hours of battery storage, with solar and wind projects also in the pipeline.

The two gigaparks would be located in the north of England, with a further site in the west of the country planned later this year. The projects would be built on industrial land, and also through leasing deals with farmers.

Note.

  1. To gauge the scale of this development; the largest  energy storage development in the UK at present is SSE Renewable’s massive Coire Glas pumped storage hydro in the Highlands of Scotland, which is a 1.5 GW/30 GWh monster, that is budgeted to cost £1.5 billion.
  2. NatPower has a web site, which has an opening video, which is all landscape, sun, water and wind, that would be worthy of an epic from Hollywood or by Eisenstein.
  3. NatPower’s investment of £10 billion, buys them 60 GWh of storage and if it’s a proportionate amount of capacity to Coire Glas, perhaps around 3GW or around the capacity of Hinckley Point C.

I have a few thoughts.

Is It All A Hoax?

Those who were alive and sober in 1977, may well remember the April Fools’ Day Hoax of the Guardian of that year, which concerned a fake supplement in the paper promoting the island of San Serriffe.

The story has its own Wikipedia entry.

The web site; http://www.sanserriffe.com, doesn’t seem to be accessible.

Today’s story seems genuine, although some will smell a rat.

 

March 7, 2024 Posted by | Energy, Energy Storage, Finance | , , , | Leave a comment

Third Rail Or Batteries Could Replace Southern Diesel Trains

The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on Railway Gazette International.

I first wrote about the Uckfield Branch eight years ago, in Future-Proofing The Uckfield Branch.

Since then I have written about this branch several times and I have also read several articles in the railway press.

These are some of my posts.

It is an utter disgrace that no decision has been made in eight years about how to decarbonise to Uckfield.

The Railway Gazette article says this about third-rail electrification.

GTR is one of two operators participating in a Rail Safety & Standards Board project reviewing the safety, legal and regulatory issues around third rail electrification infill projects. This is looking at whole transport system safety, project and economic risks.

Bi-monthly South of England Diesel Replacement Programme meetings are held by DfT, Network Rail and GTR to review progress and options for third rail electrification of the Uckfield line or battery train trials. This includes reviewing the lessons learned from the use of bi-mode trains by GWR and LNER, and the failed attempt to deploy tri-mode Class 769 units on GWR’s North Downs services.

Could it just be that there is such fear that there will be a major incident, where several people are killed, that third-rail electrification is always turned down, by the Office of Road and Rail?

The Railway Gazette article also says this about battery trains, under a heading of Batteries Viable.

In the absence of electrification, GTR says battery powered trains are also a viable option for its diesel routes. Batteries can be charged while trains are running on electrified lines or through a rapid recharging facility at a terminus, although additional infrastructure and electrical upgrades may be needed.

I suspect that after a few teething troubles, Merseyrail would agree.

Hydrogen is also dismissed with this paragraph.

GTR has considered hydrogen but says it can only be considered a net zero-compliant fuel if it is produced from low or zero-carbon energy sources. It is also relatively inefficient with studies indicating an efficiency rate of around 35% to 40%.

It looks to me, that battery-electric trains are a viable solution.

So would it not be a good idea to take the decision to create a battery-electric prototype from a four-car Electrostar or a Class 350 train, so that the final decision can be taken after everybody on the committee has have a ride first?

Better still, why not stage a competition, where manufacturers, leasing companies or remanufacturers can build a four-car train and enter.

Allow the public to ride in them and then see what is best against a range of criteria.

The King could even get involved, as he’s probably one of the few people left, who rode the original British Rail BEMU between Aberdeen and Ballater, to get to Balmoral.

 

March 7, 2024 Posted by | Transport/Travel | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

UK Set To Provide Record GBP 800 Million Support For Offshore Wind Projects

The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.

This is the sub-heading.

The UK government has revealed the budget of over GBP 1 billion (approximately EUR 1.2 billion) for this year’s Contracts for Difference (CfD) Allocation Round 6 (AR6) with the majority of it, GBP 800 million (around EUR 936 million), earmarked for offshore wind.

These three paragraphs explain the three pots.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) confirmed that over GBP 1 billion will be set aside for the budget, divided into three pots.

Within the overall budget, GBP 120 million is designated for established technologies like solar and onshore wind in Pot 1, while GBP 105 million is set aside for emerging technologies such as floating offshore wind and geothermal in Pot 2.

According to DESNZ, following an extensive review of the latest evidence, including the impact of global events on supply chains, the government has allocated a record GBP 800 million for offshore wind, making this the largest round yet, with four times more budget available to offshore wind than in the previous round.

I am glad to see the support for geothermal energy.

Whilst, these three paragraphs explain the pricing.

This follows the increase in the maximum price for offshore wind and floating offshore wind in November and will help to deliver the UK’s ambition of up to 50 GW of offshore wind by 2030, including up to 5 GW of floating offshore wind, according to the government.

Last year, CfD Round 5 attracted no investors with the former maximum strike prices set at GBP 44/MWh for offshore wind with fixed-bottom foundations, which was too low for the developers who were facing the consequences of inflation and supply chain challenges. The maximum bid price for floating wind was GBP 114/MWh.

Now, the maximum price available for offshore wind projects with fixed-bottom foundations has risen by 66 per cent, from GBP 44/MWh to GBP 73/MWh. The maximum strike price for floating offshore wind projects increased by 52 per cent, from GBP 116/MWh to GBP 176/MWh ahead of AR6 which will open on 27 March.

Prices have certainly risen, but this paragraph explains a limiting mechanism, which is straight out of the Control Engineer’s Toolbox.

The funding for the support will be sourced from energy bills rather than taxation. However, if the price of electricity surpasses the predetermined rate, additional charges will be applied to wind power, with the excess funds returned to consumers.

I would hope that extensive mathematical modelling has been applied to test the new pricing structure.

March 7, 2024 Posted by | Energy | , , , , , , | 5 Comments