Wood Burning At Home
The title of this post, is the same as that of the title on the home page of this web site.
I actually accessed the page as it appeared as an advert on something I was looking at on the Internet.
This is the sub-heading.
How do you feel about open fires, wood burners and even wood smoke?
These four paragraphs make up the home page.
It has long been known that the small particles released by solid fuel burning can stay in the air and even travel long distances. These small particles, when inhaled, can increase your risk of stroke, asthma, lung cancer, heart disease and dementia.
It is estimated that around 4,000 premature deaths occur each year in London due to long-term exposure to air pollution, of which about 284 are attributable to domestic wood burning. Every one of those 284 deaths is completely avoidable.
Domestic wood burning has a health and economic cost of about £187 million per year in London. That’s a cost of £24 for every London resident, whether you burn solid fuels or not.
The most effective way of reducing pollution and protecting everyone’s health is simply to avoid burning any wood, coal, or other solid fuels at home.
As I don’t have naked flames at all in my house, this doesn’t apply to me.
When I helped to fund two guys, who were developing a metered dose inhaler for asthma drugs, I did my due diligence before I invested.
I found some research, that said that naked flames and the oxides of nitrogen they produce, were one of the main causes of asthma.
So I avoid them and don’t do barbecues, bonfires, gas cookers or gas fires.
Incidentally, the two guys did develop the metered dose inhaler for asthma drugs and it is now prescribed as Respimat. It is totally mechanical, with no compressed gases or batteries.
Firm Develops Jet Fuel Made Entirely From Human Poo
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on the BBC.
This is the sub-heading.
A new aviation company has developed a type of jet fuel made entirely from human sewage.
These are the first three paragraphs.
Chemists at a lab in Gloucestershire have turned the waste into kerosene.
James Hygate, Firefly Green Fuels CEO, said: “We wanted to find a really low-value feedstock that was highly abundant. And of course poo is abundant.”
Independent tests by international aviation regulators found it was nearly identical to standard fossil jet fuel.
It certainly seems to have a lot going for it.
I have some other thoughts.
What About Disposable Nappies?
I wrote Are Disposable Nappies A Wasted Resource?, about making hydrocarbon fuels from disposable nappies.
Should Disposable Nappies Be Collected Separately?
My food waste is collected separately in a special bin. Hackney Council say this is what happens to food waste.
Food waste from households in Hackney is sent to an anaerobic digestion facility in south east England, where it’s turned into renewable energy to power homes and biofertiliser to be spread on local farmland to grow crops.
Surely, a similar or appropriate process could be used for disposable nappies.
Biomethane From Sewage Works
In Centrica Signs UK Biomethane Agreement With Yorkshire Water And SGN Commercial Services, I wrote about how Centrica have found a way to distribute biomethane from sewage works using the UK’s gas grid.
Could Firefly take the solids and Centrica the biomethane?
Given that water companies are regularly blamed for spilling sewage could there be an opportunity for a large sewage works to be a major producer of green fuels for agriculture, aviation, industry and road transport.
BP And EnBW To Run Suction Bucket Trials At UK Offshore Wind Farm Sites
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
On 30 December, the vessel North Sea Giant is expected to start suction bucket trials within the array areas of the Mona and Morgan offshore wind farm sites, located off North West England and North Wales.
These are the first three paragraphs.
The trials will run for an estimated 32 days, during which time the vessel will be lifting a suction bucket and setting it down on the seabed, and using subsea pumps to drive the suction bucket into the seabed and back out.
The campaign is expected to consist of around 20 suction bucket trials, subject to weather conditions.
In their environmental impact assessment (EIA) scoping reports, issued last year, BP and EnBW state that a number of foundation types are being considered for the two proposed offshore wind farms and that the type(s) to be used will not be confirmed until the final design, after the projects are granted consent.
It sounds sensible to try out different types of foundations, but what is a suction bucket?
This page on the Ørsted web site is entitled Our Experience With Suction Bucket Jackets, explains how they work and are installed.
This is the first paragraph.
Monopiles (MPs) are currently the most commonly used foundation solution for offshore wind turbines with 81% of offshore wind turbines in European waters founded on MPs at the end of 2019 (Wind Europe, 2020). Where site conditions do not allow for an efficient or practical MP design, a number of alternative foundation solutions are available, including the suction bucket jacket (SBJ), piled jacket, gravity base or even a floating solution.
These two paragraphs, indicate when Ørsted has used SBJs.
Ørsted installed the world’s first SBJ for an offshore WTG at the Borkum Riffgrund 1 offshore windfarm in Germany in 2014.
Since the installation of the Borkum Riffgrund 1 SBJ, Ørsted has been involved in the design and installation of SBJs at the Borkum Riffgrund 2 and the design for Hornsea 1 offshore wind farms. At Hornsea 1, overall project timeline considerations and limitations of serial production capacities precluded the use of SBJs, and therefore the project chose an alternative foundation type.
It will be interesting to see how BP and EnBW’s trial gets on.
Enabling The UK To Become The Saudi Arabia Of Wind?
The title of this post, is the same as that of a paper from Imperial College.
The paper can be downloaded from this page of the Imperial College web site.
This is a paragraph from the Introduction of the paper.
In December 2020, the then Prime Minister outlined the government’s ten-point plan for a green industrial revolution, expressing an ambition “to turn the UK into the Saudi Arabia of wind power generation, enough wind power by 2030 to supply every single one of our homes with electricity”.
The reference to Saudi Arabia, one of the world’s largest oil producers for many decades, hints at the significant role the UK’s energy ambitions hoped to play in the global economy.
Boris Johnson was the UK Prime Minister at the time, so was his statement just his usual bluster or a simple deduction from the facts.
The paper I have indicated is a must-read and I do wonder if one of Boris’s advisors had read the paper before Boris’s speech. But as the paper appears to have been published in September 2023, that is not a valid scenario.
The paper though is full of important information.
The Intermittency Of Wind And Solar Power
The paper says this about the intermittency of wind and solar power.
One of the main issues is the intermittency of solar and wind electricity generation, which means it cannot be relied upon without some form of backup or sufficient storage.
Solar PV production varies strongly along both the day-night and seasonal cycles. While output is higher during the daytime (when demand is
higher than overnight), it is close to zero when it is needed most, during the times of peak electricity demand (winter evenings from 5-6 PM).At present, when wind output is low, the UK can fall back to fossil fuels to make up for the shortfall in electricity supply. Homes stay warm, and cars keep moving.
If all sectors were to run on variable renewables, either the country needs to curb energy usage during shortfalls (unlikely to be popular with consumers), accept continued use of fossil fuels across all sectors (incompatible with climate targets), or develop a large source of flexibility such as energy storage (likely to be prohibitively expensive at present).
The intermittency of wind and solar power means we have a difficult choice to make.
The Demand In Winter
The paper says this about the demand in winter.
There are issues around the high peaks in heating demand during winter, with all-electric heating very expensive to serve (as
the generators built to serve that load are only
needed for a few days a year).Converting all the UK’s vehicles to EVs would increase total electricity demand from 279 TWh to 395 TWh. Switching all homes across the country to heat pumps would increase demand by a further 30% to 506 TWh.
This implies that the full electrification of the heating and transport sectors would increase the annual power needs in the country by 81%.
This will require the expansion of the electricity system (transmission capacity, distribution grids, transformers,
substations, etc.), which would pose serious social, economic and technical challenges.Various paths, policies and technologies for the decarbonisation of heating, transport, and industrial emissions must be considered in order for the UK to meet its zero-emission targets.
It appears that electrification alone will not keep us warm, power our transport and keep our industry operating.
The Role Of Hydrogen
The paper says this about the role of hydrogen.
Electrifying all forms of transport might prove difficult (e.g., long-distance heavy goods) or nigh impossible (e.g., aviation) due to the high energy density requirements, which current batteries cannot meet.
Hydrogen has therefore been widely suggested as a low-carbon energy source for these sectors, benefiting from high energy density (by weight), ease of storage (relative to electricity) and its versatility to be used in many ways.
Hydrogen is also one of the few technologies capable of
providing very long-duration energy storage (e.g., moving energy between seasons), which is critical to supporting the decarbonisation of the whole energy system with high shares of renewables because it allows times of supply and demand mismatch to be managed over both short and long timescales.It is a clean alternative to fossil fuels as its use (e.g., combustion) does not emit any CO2.
Hydrogen appears to be ideal for difficult to decarbonise sectors and for storing energy for long durations.
The Problems With Hydrogen
The paper says this about the problems with hydrogen.
The growth of green hydrogen technology has been held back by the high cost, lack of existing infrastructure, and its lower efficiency
of conversion.Providing services with hydrogen requires two to three times more primary energy than direct use of electricity.
There is a lot of development to be done before hydrogen is as convenient and affordable as electricity and natural gas.
Offshore Wind
The paper says this about offshore wind.
Offshore wind is one of the fastest-growing forms of renewable energy, with the UK taking a strong lead on the global stage.
Deploying wind turbines offshore typically leads to a higher electricity output per turbine, as there are typically higher wind speeds and fewer obstacles to obstruct wind flow (such as trees and buildings).
The productivity of the UK’s offshore wind farms is nearly 50% higher than that of onshore wind farms.
Offshore wind generation also typically has higher social acceptability as it avoids land usage conflicts and has a lower visual impact.
To get the most out of this resource, very large structures (more than twice the height of Big Ben) must be connected to the ocean floor and operate in the harshest conditions for decades.
Offshore wind turbines are taller and have larger rotor diameters than onshore wind turbines, which produces a more consistent and higher output.
Offshore wind would appear to be more efficient and better value than onshore.
The Scale Of Offshore Wind
The paper says this about the scale of offshore wind.
The geographical distribution of offshore wind is heavily skewed towards Europe, which hosts over 80% of the total global offshore wind capacity.
This can be attributed to the good wind conditions and the shallow water depths of the North Sea.
The UK is ideally located to take advantage of offshore wind due to its extensive resource.
The UK could produce over 6000 TWh of electricity if the offshore wind resources in all the feasible area of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is exploited.
Note.
- 6000 TWh of electricity per annum would need 2740 GW of wind farms if the average capacity factor was a typical 25 %.
- At a price of 37.35 £/MWh, 6000 TWh would be worth $224.1 billion.
Typically, most domestic users seem to pay about 30 pence per KWh.
The Cost Of Offshore Wind
The paper says this about the cost of offshore wind.
The cost of UK offshore wind has fallen because of the reductions in capital expenditure (CapEx), operational expenditure (OpEx), and financing costs.
This has been supported by the global roll-out of bigger offshore wind turbines, hence, causing an increase in offshore wind energy capacity.
This increase in installed capacity has been fuelled by several low-carbon support schemes from the UK government.
The effect of these schemes can be seen in the UK 2017 Contracts for Difference (CfD) auctions where offshore wind reached strike prices as low as 57.50 £/MWh and an even lower strike price of 37.35 £/MWh in 2022.
Costs and prices appear to be going the right way.
The UK’s Offshore Wind Targets
The paper says this about the UK’s offshore wind targets.
The offshore wind capacity in the UK has grown over the past decade.
Currently, the UK has a total offshore wind capacity of 13.8GW, which is sufficient to power more than 10 million homes.
This represents a more than fourfold increase compared to the capacity installed in 2012.
The UK government has set ambitious targets for offshore wind development.
In 2019, the target was to install a total of 40 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030, and this was later raised to 50 GW, with up to 5 GW of floating offshore wind.
This will play a pivotal role in decarbonising the UK’s power system by the government’s deadline of 2035.
As I write this, the UK’s total electricity production is 31.8 GW. So 50 GW of wind will go a good way to providing the UK with zero-carbon energy. But it will need a certain amount of reliable alternative power sources for when the wind isn’t blowing.
The UK’s Hydrogen Targets
The paper says this about the UK’s hydrogen targets.
The UK has a target of 10 GW of low-carbon hydrogen production to be deployed by 2030, as set out in the British Energy Security Strategy.
Within this target, there is an ambition for at least half of the 10 GW of production capacity to be met through green hydrogen production technologies (as opposed to hydrogen produced from steam methane reforming using carbon capture).
Modelling conducted by the Committee on Climate Change in its Sixth Carbon Budget estimated that demand for low-carbon hydrogen across the whole country could reach 161–376 TWh annually by 2050, comparable in scale to the total electricity demand.
We’re going to need a lot of electrolyser capacity.
Pairing Hydrogen And Offshore Wind
The paper says this about pairing hydrogen and offshore wind.
Green hydrogen holds strong potential in addressing the intermittent nature of renewable generation sources, particularly wind and solar energy, which naturally fluctuate due to weather conditions.
Offshore wind in particular is viewed as being a complementary technology to pair with green hydrogen production, due to three main factors: a) the high wind energy capacity factors offshore, b) the potential for large-scale deployment and c) hydrogen as a supporting technology for offshore wind energy integration.
It looks like a match made in the waters around the UK.
The Cost Of Green Hydrogen
The paper says this about the cost of green hydrogen.
The cost of green hydrogen is strongly influenced by the price of the electrolyser unit itself.
If the electrolyser is run more intensively over the course of the lifetime of the plant, a larger volume of hydrogen will be produced and so the cost of the electrolyser will be spread out more, decreasing the cost per unit of produced hydrogen.
If the variable renewable electricity source powering the electrolyser has a higher capacity factor, this will contribute towards a
lower cost of hydrogen produced.Offshore wind in the UK typically has a higher capacity factor than onshore wind energy (up to 20%), and is around five times higher than solar, so pairing
offshore wind with green hydrogen production is of interest.
It would appear that any improvements in wind turbine and electrolyser efficiency would be welcomed.
The Size Of Wind Farms
The paper says this about the size of wind farms.
Offshore wind farms can also be larger scale, due to increased availability of space and reduced restrictions on tip heights due to planning permissions.
The average offshore wind turbine in the UK had a capacity of 3.6 MW in 2022, compared to just 2.5-3 MW for onshore turbines.
As there are fewer competing uses for space, offshore wind can not only have larger turbines but the wind farms can comprise many more turbines.
Due to the specialist infrastructure requirements for hydrogen transport and storage, and the need for economies of scale to reduce the costs of
production, pairing large-scale offshore wind electricity generation with green hydrogen
production could hold significant benefits.
I am not surprised that economies of scale give benefits.
The Versatility Of Hydrogen
The paper says this about the versatility of hydrogen.
Hydrogen is a highly adaptable energy carrier with numerous potential applications and has been anticipated by some as playing a key role in the future energy system, especially when produced through electrolysis.
It could support the full decarbonisation of “hard to decarbonise” processes within the UK industrial sector, offering a solution for areas which may be difficult to electrify or are heavily reliant on fossil fuels for high-temperature heat.
When produced through electrolysis, it could be paired effectively as an energy storage technology with offshore wind, with the potential to store energy across seasons with little to no energy degradation and transport low-carbon energy internationally.
The UK – with its significant offshore wind energy resources and targets – could play a potentially leading role in producing green hydrogen to both help its pathway to net zero, and potentially create a valuable export industry.
In RWE Acquires 4.2-Gigawatt UK Offshore Wind Development Portfolio From Vattenfall, I postulated that RWE may have purchased Vattenfall’s 4.2 GW Norfolk Zone of windfarms to create a giant hydrogen production facility on the Norfolk coast. I said this.
Consider.
- Vattenfall’s Norfolk Zone is a 4.2 GW group of wind farms, which have all the requisite permissions and are shovel ready.
- Bacton Gas terminal has gas pipelines to Europe.
- Sizewell’s nuclear power stations will add security of supply.
- Extra wind farms could be added to the Norfolk Zone.
- Europe and especially Germany has a massive need for zero-carbon energy.
The only extra infrastructure needing to be built is the giant electrolyser.
I wouldn’t be surprised if RWE built a large electrolyser to supply Europe with hydrogen.
The big irony of this plan is that the BBL Pipeline between Bacton and the Netherlands was built, so that the UK could import Russian gas.
Could it in future be used to send the UK’s green hydrogen to Europe, so that some of that Russian gas can be replaced with a zero-carbon fuel?
Mathematical Modelling
There is a lot of graphs, maps and reasoning, which is used to detail how the authors obtained their conclusions.
Conclusion
This is the last paragraph of the paper.
Creating a hydrogen production industry is a transition story for UK’s oil and gas sector.
The UK is one of the few countries that could produce more hydrogen than it consumes in hydrocarbons today.
It is located in the centre of a vast resource, which premediates positioning itself at the centre of the European hydrogen supply chains.
Investing now to reduce costs and benefit from the generated value of exported hydrogen would make a reality out of the ambition to become the “Saudi Arabia of Wind”.
Boris may or may not have realised that what he said was possible.
But certainly make sure you read the paper from Imperial College.
RWE Acquires 4.2-Gigawatt UK Offshore Wind Development Portfolio From Vattenfall
The title of this post, is the same as that of this press release from RWE.
These three bullet points, act as sub-headings.
- Highly attractive portfolio of three projects at a late stage of development, with grid connections and permits secured, as well as advanced procurement of key components
- Delivery of the three Norfolk Offshore Wind Zone projects off the UK’s East Anglia coast will be part of RWE’s Growing Green investment and growth plans
- Agreed purchase price corresponds to an enterprise value of £963 million
These two paragraphs outline the deal.
RWE, one of the world’s leading offshore wind companies, will acquire the UK Norfolk Offshore Wind Zone portfolio from Vattenfall. The portfolio comprises three offshore wind development projects off the east coast of England – Norfolk Vanguard West, Norfolk Vanguard East and Norfolk Boreas.
The three projects, each with a planned capacity of 1.4 gigawatts (GW), are located 50 to 80 kilometres off the coast of Norfolk in East Anglia. This area is one of the world’s largest and most attractive areas for offshore wind. After 13 years of development, the three development projects have already secured seabed rights, grid connections, Development Consent Orders and all other key permits. The Norfolk Vanguard West and Norfolk Vanguard East projects are most advanced, having secured the procurement of most key components. The next milestone in the development of these two projects is to secure a Contract for Difference (CfD) in one of the upcoming auction rounds. RWE will resume the development of the Norfolk Boreas project, which was previously halted. All three Norfolk projects are expected to be commissioned in this decade.
There is also this handy map, which shows the location of the wind farms.
Note that there are a series of assets along the East Anglian coast, that will be useful to RWE’s Norfolk Zone development.
- In Vattenfall Selects Norfolk Offshore Wind Zone O&M Base, I talked about how the Port of Great Yarmouth will be the operational base for the Norfolk Zone wind farms.
- Bacton gas terminal has gas interconnectors to Belgium and the Netherlands lies between Cromer and Great Yarmouth.
- The cable to the Norfolk Zone wind farms is planned to make landfall between Bacton and Great Yarmouth.
- Sizewell is South of Lowestoft and has the 1.25 GW Sizewell B nuclear power station, with the 3.2 GW Sizewell C on its way, for more than adequate backup.
- Dotted around the Norfolk and Suffolk coast are 3.3 GW of earlier generations of wind farms, of which 1.2 GW have connections to RWE.
- The LionLink multipurpose 1.8 GW interconnector will make landfall to the North of Southwold
- There is also the East Anglian Array, which currently looks to be about 3.6 GW, that connects to the shore at Bawdsey to the South of Aldeburgh.
- For recreation, there’s Southwold.
- I can also see more wind farms squeezed in along the coast. For example, according to Wikipedia, the East Anglian Array could be increased in size to 7.2 GW.
It appears that a 15.5 GW hybrid wind/nuclear power station is being created on the North-Eastern coast of East Anglia.
The big problem is that East Anglia doesn’t really have any large use for electricity.
But the other large asset in the area is the sea.
- Undersea interconnectors can be built to other locations, like London or Europe, where there is a much greater need for electricity.
- In addition, the UK Government has backed a consortium, who have the idea of storing energy by using pressurised sea-water in 3D-printed concrete hemispheres under the sea. I wrote about this development in UK Cleantech Consortium Awarded Funding For Energy Storage Technology Integrated With Floating Wind.
A proportion of Russian gas in Europe, will have been replaced by Norfolk wind power and hydrogen, which will be given a high level of reliability from Suffolk nuclear power.
I have some other thoughts.
Would Hydrogen Be Easier To Distribute From Norfolk?
A GW-range electrolyser would be feasible but expensive and it would be a substantial piece of infrastructure.
I also feel, that placed next to Bacton or even offshore, there would not be too many objections from the Norfolk Nimbys.
Hydrogen could be distributed from the site in one of these ways.
- By road transport, as ICI did, when I worked in their hydrogen plant at Runcorn.
- I suspect, a rail link could be arranged, if there was a will.
- By tanker from the Port of Great Yarmouth.
- By existing gas interconnectors to Belgium and the Netherlands.
As a last resort it could be blended into the natural gas pipeline at Bacton.
In Major Boost For Hydrogen As UK Unlocks New Investment And Jobs, I talked about using the gas grid as an offtaker of last resort. Any spare hydrogen would be fed into the gas network, provided safety criteria weren’t breached.
I remember a tale from ICI, who from their refinery got a substantial amount of petrol, which was sold to independent petrol retailers around the North of England.
But sometimes they had a problem, in that the refinery produced a lot more 5-star petrol than 2-star. So sometimes if you bought 2-star, you were getting 5-star.
On occasions, it was rumoured that other legal hydrocarbons were disposed of in the petrol. I was once told that it was discussed that used diluent oil from polypropylene plants could be disposed of in this way. But in the end it wasn’t!
If hydrogen were to be used to distribute all or some of the energy, there would be less need for pylons to march across Norfolk.
Could A Rail Connection Be Built To The Bacton Gas Terminal
This Google Map shows the area between North Walsham and the coast.
Note.
- North Walsham is in the South-Western corner of the map.
- North Walsham station on the Bittern Line is indicated by the red icon.
- The Bacton gas terminal is the trapezoidal-shaped area on the coast, at the top of the map.
ThisOpenRailwayMap shows the current and former rail lines in the same area as the previous Google Map.
Note.
- North Walsham station is in the South-West corner of the map.
- The yellow track going through North Walsham station is the Bittern Line to Cromer and Sheringham.
- The Bacton gas terminal is on the coast in the North-East corner of the map.
I believe it would be possible to build a small rail terminal in the area with a short pipeline connection to Bacton, so that hydrogen could be distributed by train.
There used to be a branch line from North Walsham station to Cromer Beach station, that closed in 1953.
Until 1964 it was possible to get trains to Mundesley-on-Sea station.
So would it be possible to build a rail spur to the Bacton gas terminal along the old branch line?
In the Wikipedia entry for the Bittern Line this is said.
The line is also used by freight trains which are operated by GB Railfreight. Some trains carry gas condensate from a terminal at North Walsham to Harwich International Port.
The rail spur could have four main uses.
- Taking passengers to and from Mundesley-on-Sea and Bacton.
- Collecting gas condensate from the Bacton gas terminal.
- Collecting hydrogen from the Bacton gas terminal.
- Bringing in heavy equipment for the Bacton gas terminal.
It looks like another case of one of Dr. Beeching’s closures coming back to take a large chunk out of rail efficiency.
Claire Coutinho And Robert Habeck’s Tete-a-Tete
I wrote about their meeting in Downing Street in UK And Germany Boost Offshore Renewables Ties.
- Did Habeck run the RWE/Vattenfall deal past Coutinho to see it was acceptable to the UK Government?
- Did Coutinho lobby for SeAH to get the contract for the monopile foundations for the Norfolk Zone wind farms?
- Did Coutinho have a word for other British suppliers like iTMPower.
Note.
- I think we’d have heard and/or the deal wouldn’t have happened, if there had been any objections to it from the UK Government.
- In SeAH To Deliver Monopiles For Vattenfall’s 2.8 GW Norfolk Vanguard Offshore Wind Project, I detailed how SeAH have got the important first contract they needed.
So it appears so far so good.
Rackheath Station And Eco-Town
According to the Wikipedia entry for the Bittern Line, there are also plans for a new station at Rackheath to serve a new eco-town.
This is said.
A new station is proposed as part of the Rackheath eco-town. The building of the town may also mean a short freight spur being built to transport fuel to fire an on-site power station. The plans for the settlement received approval from the government in 2009.
The eco-town has a Wikipedia entry, which has a large map and a lot of useful information.
But the development does seem to have been ensnared in the planning process by the Norfolk Nimbys.
The Wikipedia entry for the Rackheath eco-town says this about the rail arrangements for the new development.
The current rail service does not allow room for an extra station to be added to the line, due to the length of single track along the line and the current signalling network. The current service at Salhouse is only hourly during peak hours and two-hourly during off-peak hours, as not all trains are able to stop due to these problems. Fitting additional trains to this very tight network would not be possible without disrupting the entire network, as the length of the service would increase, missing the connections to the mainline services. This would mean that a new 15-minute shuttle service between Norwich and Rackheath would have to be created; however, this would interrupt the main service and cause additional platforming problems. Finding extra trains to run this service and finding extra space on the platforms at Norwich railway station to house these extra trains poses additional problems, as during peak hours all platforms are currently used.
In addition, the plans to the site show that both the existing and the new rail station, which is being built 300m away from the existing station, will remain open.
. As the trains cannot stop at both stations, changing between the two services would be difficult and confusing, as this would involve changing stations.
I feel that this eco-town is unlikely to go ahead.
Did RWE Buy Vattenfall’s Norfolk Zone To Create Green Hydrogen For Europe?
Consider.
- Vattenfall’s Norfolk Zone is a 4.2 GW group of wind farms, which have all the requisite permissions and are shovel ready.
- Bacton Gas terminal has gas pipelines to Europe.
- Sizewell’s nuclear power stations will add security of supply.
- Extra wind farms could be added to the Norfolk Zone.
- Europe and especially Germany has a massive need for zero-carbon energy.
The only extra infrastructure needing to be built is the giant electrolyser.
I wouldn’t be surprised if RWE built a large electrolyser to supply Europe with hydrogen.
Would You Buy A Battery Energy Storage System From Rolls-Royce?
I don’t often click on adverts that appear in web pages.
But I had to click on one from Rolls-Royce mtu, which advertised Battery Energy Storage Systems.
I wonder what the Honourable Charles Rolls would have thought of adverts on the Internet for the company he jointly founded?
I suspect he would have liked the idea, as Rolls was very much a promoter of motoring and aviation and opened one of the first car dealerships in the UK, according to his Wikipedia entry.
The Wikipedia entry for his business partner; Sir Henry Royce starts with this sentence.
Sir Frederick Henry Royce, 1st Baronet, OBE (27 March 1863 – 22 April 1933) was an English engineer famous for his designs of car and aeroplane engines with a reputation for reliability and longevity.
He is also described as a perfectionist.
This sentence from the Wikipedia entry, describes how he started the design of the legendary “R” engine.
In October 1928, he began design of the “R” engine while walking with some of his leading engineers on the beach at West Wittering, sketching ideas in the sand. Less than a year later, the “R” engine, designed in his studio in the village, set a new world air speed record of 357.7 miles per hour and won the Schneider Trophy of 1929.
Later with help from the maddest person my father ever met (his words, not mine!) ; Lady Houston, the Supermarine S.6B won the trophy in 1931 and then broke the world speed record at over 400 mph. Not bad for a seaplane. Take the floats off an S.6B and you almost have a Spitfire.
The Wikipedia entry also describes how the “R” engine was developed into what many engineers believe was the finest internal combustion engine of all time; the Rolls-Royce Merlin.
Following the success of the “R” engine, it was clear that they had an engine that would be of use to the Royal Air Force. As no Government assistance was forthcoming at first, in the national interest they went ahead with development of what was called the “PV-12” engine (standing for Private Venture, 12-cylinder). The idea was to produce an engine of about the same performance as the “R”, albeit with a much longer life. Rolls-Royce launched the PV-12 in October 1933 and the engine completed its first test in 1934, the year after Royce died. The PV-12 became the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.
Where would we have been in the Battle of Britain without the Merlin engine?
Since 1969, the engineers at Rolls-Royce have followed Sir Henry’s example of perfection and developed the revolutionary RB-211 into the modern day Trent, which is now about to take a big leap into a low-carbon future with the UltraFan.
If the quality of Rolls-Royce mtu’s Battery Energy Storage System matches the levels of perfection Rolls-Royce achieved with the Merlin and the Trent, then I suspect that Sir Henry would have given his approval.
This picture is shown on the web page for the Battery Energy Storage System.
These two paragraphs introduce, what Rolls-Royce mtu are calling the mtuEnergyPack.
In today’s world of economic growth and increasing populations, the demand for electricity is soaring. Governments and industries globally shift to distributed renewable energy, challenging centralized grids. To adapt to this changing energy landscape, the mtuEnergyPack offers an ideal solution.
It integrates renewable sources like solar and wind power, paving the way for future-ready sustainable power systems. The mtu EnergyPack is a scalable, all-in-one solution for autonomous off-grid facilities. It ensures reliable power through peak shaving, load-shifting, and grid stabilization, making it suitable for various applications.
These are my thoughts.
What Is The Output And The Storage Capacity?
This paragraph on this page gives this answer.
It efficiently stores electricity from distributed sources and delivers on demand. The mtu EnergyPack is available in different sizes: The QS and the QL, ranging from 200 kVA to 2,000 kVA, and from 312 kWh to 2,084 kWh, and the QG for grid scale storage needs, ranging from 4,400 kVA and 4,470 kWh to virtually any size.
It seems that you specify your requirements and Rolls-Royce mtu should be able to satisfy it.
What Devices Can Be Connected?
This paragraph on this page gives this answer.
The mtu EnergyPack serves as a key component in enhancing the reliability and profitability of microgrids and energy systems. It stores electricity generated by distributed power sources, including gensets, wind turbines, or solar panels, and delivers it when needed.
In the 1970s, when I was working at ICI, others in the section were working on a system called MEDIA, where every sensor on a chemical plant was connected to the central computer, through its own analog-to-digital computer. It would now be called plug-and-play by some.
I believe that Rolls-Royce mtu are using similar ideas to connect equipment to the control computer.
These are my thoughts about connecting various equipment.
- Hydrogen-powered generators and electrolysers as Rolls-Royce mtu are using at Duisburg, which I wrote about in Rolls-Royce Makes Duisburg Container Terminal Climate Neutral With MTU Hydrogen Technology.
- Could Rolls-Royce’s beer keg-sized 2.5 MW electrical generator based on a Super Hercules engine, be connected?
- Could a Rolls-Royce Trent be connected?
- Could one of Rolls-Royce’s small modular nuclear reactors be connected?
- In Rolls-Royce To Play Key Role In US Department Of Defense Nuclear Microreactor Program, I talk about developing a 1-5 MW nuclear reactor for US Department of Defense. Could these be connected?
I don’t see why every device can’t work to the same protocol.
What Is The Power Density Like?
This paragraph on this page gives this answer.
The mtu EnergyPack’s compact battery system designs suit projects with limited space and logistical restrictions.
In ‘Spirit of Innovation’ Stakes Claim To Be The World’s Fastest All-Electric Vehicle, I talked about Rolls-Royce’s record-breaking electric plane called Spirit of Innovation.
Has what has been learned about energy storage in the confined spaces of an aeroplane been applied to a Battery Energy Storage System?
What Do Rolls-Royce mtu Consider To Be Important Features?
On this page, they list these features.
- Power Density
- Digitally Connected
- Multilevel Safety
- Black Start Capability
- Scalability
- Ultra-Fast Response
- Flexible Use
- Plug-And-Play Installation
The design seems to have everything covered.
Can Similar Systems Be Designed By Others?
I would expect that similar systems can be designed, as technology like batteries is available to all and the operation is only as good as the software controlling the various components of the system.
But similar systems will be without the famous Rolls-Royce logo.
Could One Of These Systems Decarbonise A Village?
I once lived in a village with about fifty houses and perhaps a hundred inhabitants.
- There was an old World War Two airfield, that could probably accommodate a small wind farm of perhaps 20 MW.
- There were a couple of barns and large sheds, that could have solar panels similar to those I described in Bedford Depot’s Massive Solar Roof Helps Thameslink On Way To Net Zero.
I suspect an mtuEnergyPack could control all these inputs and provide the village with the following.
- Enough electricity to power all the needs of the inhabitants, businesses and their vehicles.
- If an electrolyser were to be provided, it could probably produce enough hydrogen to power every boiler and hydrogen-powered vehicle.
Note.
- Farmers would like the local availability of hydrogen, as it will be ideal for tractors and agricultural machinery.
- I actually believe that if a village had a reliable and affordable hydrogen supply, that a large proportion of the inhabitants would switch to hydrogen-powered vehicles.
There would still be the National Grid there for backup.
Conclusion
If I needed an mtuEnergyPack, I’d certainly give one a close look.
Bedford Depot’s Massive Solar Roof Helps Thameslink On Way To Net Zero
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on RailUK.
These four paragraphs give full details of the project.
Work has begun installing one of Bedford’s biggest solar arrays – on the roof of Govia Thameslink Railway’s (GTR’s) train depot, in Cauldwell Walk.
Almost 1,000 photovoltaic panels (932) will generate 322 MWh of electricity a year – enough to power 120 homes every year, saving more than 66 tonnes of CO2e. They form part of GTR’s commitment to become carbon ‘net zero’ for all its energy needs by 2050.
The solar roof – one of four at different depots across GTR’s vast 11 county network – is being installed by not-for-profit community climate action group Energy Garden.
When it comes online in the New Year, Energy Garden will sell half the solar electricity to GTR to power the depots and plough profits from selling what’s left over into community development projects – Energy Garden already works with more than 50 community groups.
This Google Map shows the location of Bedford Cauldwell Park TMD with respect to Bedford station.
Note.
Bedford station is at the top of the map.
Bedford Cauldwell Park TMD is marked by the red arrow.
This second map shows the depot to an enlarged scale.
Note.
- The map appears to show several roofs, that could be candidates for solar panels.
- At least one shed sells cars. Do they sell electric ones?
As the rail depot appears to be the largest building of its type in the centre of Bedford, in the future will it be serving as a advert for Energy Garden?
This project sounds like a good idea.
And I like the way it’s financed.
Ørsted Greenlights 2.9 GW Hornsea 3 Offshore Wind Farm
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
Ørsted has taken the final investment decision (FID) on what the company says is the world’s single largest offshore wind farm, the 2.9 GW Hornsea 3, which is expected to be completed around the end of 2027.
These are the two introductory paragraphs.
In July 2022, Ørsted was awarded a contract for difference (CfD) for Hornsea 3 at an inflation-indexed strike price of GBP 37.35 per MWh in 2012 prices.
The CfD framework permits a reduction of the awarded CfD capacity. The company said it will use this flexibility to submit a share of Hornsea 3’s capacity into the UK’s upcoming allocation round 6.
With all the work, that Ørsted have done to protect kittiwakes, which I wrote about in Kittiwake Compensation, the company seems to have been taking the development of this wind farm carefully and this statement from the wonderfully-named Mads Nipper, Group President and CEO of Ørsted indicates that the UK Government has been persuasive in times, that are not totally favourable to wind farm developers.
Offshore wind is an extremely competitive global market, so we also welcome the attractive policy regime in the UK which has helped secure this investment. We look forward to constructing this landmark project, which will deliver massive amounts of green energy to UK households and businesses and will be a significant addition to the world’s largest offshore wind cluster.
But the article also has this paragraph.
According to Ørsted, most of Hornsea 3’s capital expenditure was contracted before recent inflationary pressures, securing competitive prices from the supply chain, adding that the larger wind turbines and the synergies with Hornsea 1 and 2 lead to lower operating costs.
It looks like Ørsted, may have taken advantage of Siemens well-publicised financial woes and got a good price for the over two hundred turbines.
This page on the Hitachi web site, describes their part in Hornsea 3, where this is said.
Hitachi Energy has supported Ørsted with the grid connection of Hornsea One and Hornsea Two, but Hornsea 3 will be the first phase to use HVDC application in the Hornsea cluster.
The overall HVDC system, including the offshore platform, is delivered in partnership with Aibel. Hitachi Energy will supply two HVDC Light® converter systems, while Aibel will deliver two HVDC offshore converter platforms. The platform is based on Hitachi Energy’s modular HVDC system including its advanced control and protection system, MACH™. As the HVDC offshore market grows and becomes more complex, Hitachi Energy will continue to develop solutions with its customers and partners to enable a more flexible offshore grid of the future.
Hitachi Energy is supplying four HVDC converter stations, which convert AC power to DC for transmission in the subsea cables, then reconvert it to AC for integration into the onshore grid. Two of the converter stations will be installed on offshore platforms and two at mainland grid connections.
Note.
- Hitachi are pushing their electrical innovation hard.
- Hitachi and Ørsted have worked together on Hornsea 1 and 2.
- What better place is there for Hitachi to test their new modular HVDC system, than on one of the world’s largest wind farms?
- Hitachi appear to say, they like to develop with customers and partners.
It looks to me, that Ørsted may well have got new improved technology at an advantageous price.
This is the last paragraph of the article.
The Hornsea zone will also include the Hornsea 4 project, which could have a capacity of up to 2.6 GW. The wind farm received its development consent order from the UK government earlier in 2023 and is now eligible for forthcoming CfD allocation rounds.
So will Hornsea 4 be a slightly smaller version of Hornsea 3 using the same suppliers?
- There could be savings in the design and manufacturing of the electrical systems, foundations, sub-stations and turbines.
- Could for instance, Hitachi’s modular HVDC result in savings in converters and sub-stations, if the two wind farms shared infrastructure?
- I’m sure that Siemens, Hitachi and the other suppliers will be happy to just keep rolling.
- It would be an ideal follow-on.
It looks to me, that by using good design and management, and established suppliers, Ørsted have managed to get the costs of Hornsea 3 and Hornsea 4 to a level, where the venture is profitable.
Pipeline Of UK Energy Storage Projects Grows By Two-Thirds Over Last 12 Months
The title of this post, is the same as that of this press release from RenewableUK.
These four paragraphs summarise the data.
A new report released today by RenewableUK shows that the pipeline of energy storage projects which are operational, under construction, consented or being planned has increased by more than two-thirds over the last year in terms of capacity.
Batteries play a key role in our modern flexible energy system, helping grid operators to finely balance the supply of electricity to meet demand at all times.
Our EnergyPulse Energy Storage report shows that the total pipeline of battery projects has increased from 50.3 gigawatts (GW) a year ago to 84.8GW, an increase of 68.6% (34.5GW).
Operational battery storage capacity has grown to 3.5GW, and the capacity of projects under construction has reached 3.8GW. A further 24.5GW has been consented, 27.4GW has been submitted in the planning system and 25.7GW is at an early stage of development but yet to be submitted. This chart shows the total UK battery portfolio in megawatts (MW).
Note.
- I find the bare statistics very heartening, as how often do you find any industry, that will be positive for the future of the planet, that increases in size in a year by 68.6 %.
- Having been involved a couple of times in my life, with funding high growth markets, I suspect that in part this growth is happening, because banks, insurance and other financial companies are prepared to fund schemes that are proposed.
It is worth reading the press release in full, as it flags up are several interesting points.
Great Western Railway Updates EHRT On Its Upcoming Operational Trial Of Fast Charge Tech
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on Electric and Hybrid Rail Technology.
This is the sub-heading.
Great Western Railway’s senior program manager, Sonya Johns, speaks to Electric & Hybrid Rail Technology about the firm’s progress on developing ex-Vivarail Fast Charge technology for battery-powered trains, ahead of operational trials due to commence in 2024.
The article is a must-read as it describes the progress since First Group, acquired the assets and intellectual property of Vivarail and its Fast Charge battery train technology.
This paragraph describes the components of the Fast Charge technology.
The Fast Charge system consists of three key components: retractable charging shoe gear, which is mounted to the underframe of the train; short (4m) charging rails mounted between the underframe of the train; and the Fast Charge Battery Bank (FCBB) installed beside the track, acting as an energy buffer between the train and the grid.
This paragraph outlines the benefits of the system.
The Fast Charge system has several benefits, according to Johns, including high charging power, enabling the train to be recharged in around 10 minutes; a standard DNO connection, avoiding costly power supply upgrades; full automation, with no driver interaction required; low safety risk (the charging rails are never live unless fully covered by the train); and minimal disruption during installation, as the FCBB is manufactured offsite and the charging rails are attached to existing sleepers.
This sounds like a system, that has been designed by someone fed up with regulators saying no to innovative ideas.
Other points from the article include.
- The shoe gear has been designed to be easily installed on any rolling stock.
- The one-year trial of the Fast Charge technology and the Class 230 battery train on the West Ealing and Greenford line will commence in spring 2024.
- GWR will capture and analyze data during the trial to understand how the technology performs in different conditions.
The article finishes with this paragraph.
The work, according to GWR, is part of its commitment to reduce the carbon emissions of its train fleet with a view to removing all diesel-only traction from the network by 2040, in line with the Government’s Transport Decarbonisation Plan.
Adrian Shooter would have been pleased if he was here to see it.
The Anonymous Widower 