OWLC Selling Rights To Gravity Tripod Offshore Wind Foundation
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
The rights to the gravity tripod offshore wind foundation developed by the UK company Offshore Wind Logistics and Construction (OWLC) have been put up for sale following an appointment of administrators who initiated an accelerated sale of the business.
These two paragraphs give full details.
OWLC says its gravity tripod foundation can deliver a solution to the offshore wind industry that is quicker, cheaper and more environmentally friendly than monopiles or jackets.
The foundation, which uses concrete instead of steel, is said to reduce levelised cost of energy (LCOE) between 11 and 12 per cent, according to information on OWLC’s website, which cites BVG Associate’s study from 2020 that also found the gravity tripod to be 51 per cent cheaper than a jacket substructure and 36 per cent cheaper than a monopile to install.
The home page of the OWLC web site gives full details of their Gravity Tripod.
This is the company’s outline description of the foundation.
The Gravity Tripod™, globally patented, is an offshore subsea foundation structure designed to deliver up to 11.7% project cost reduction, to reduce project delivery times by up to 1/3 and create almost zero environmental impact.
The Gravity Tripod™ is a component base structure that benefits from the best aspects of other foundation concepts. It is a hydro-dynamic transparent structure which doesn’t require piling, is manufactured from low-cost tubular sections in a rapid assembly process and is installed with minimal seabed intervention.
The Gravity Tripod™ has two distinctive components that act together to ensure the structure has an extremely long design life (up to 100+ years) and is insensitive to turbine loads with a capacity of up to 25MWs. In addition, the structure has a low bearing pressure on the seabed and so is capable of accommodation a huge range of sediment types, with less seabed preparation required than other gravity-based designs.
Other points include.
- A design life of 100 + years.
- Biodiversity net gain.
- Sheaper to install.
- Designed for water depths of 20-75 metres.
- Easier to install
- No piling.
- Noiseless construction.
- Reduced embedded carbon
I like it and I hope someone buys it and turns it into a success.
Scrap Rail Caused Train Derailment – Network Rail
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on the BBC.
These three paragraphs introduce the story.
Scrap rail left on tracks following engineering works was the cause of a derailment in Surrey, according to Network Rail.
The company said a train hit the object at about 05:50 GMT on Monday in a 90mph area near Walton-on-Thames.
A Network Rail Wessex safety bulletin said it was the first train on the fast line following the weekend works.
I wrote about this incident before in Woking: Train Derailed On 90mph Line After Hitting Object On Track.
Someone is going to get their knuckles rapped or posterior spanked after this serious incident.
Meet The British ‘Space Inspectors’ Working For A Safe Blast-Off
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on the Daily Telegraph.
This is the sub-heading.
A small band of professionals is keeping Britain’s £65 billion space economy in good working order
The article talks about how the Civil Aviation Authority will make sure we boldly go, with a high degree of safety, starting with these three paragraphs.
With Britain’s first vertical launch expected to lift off from Shetland this year, the UK could soon become the go-to European destination for space missions.
But behind the scenes, an army of ‘space inspectors’ is ensuring that, despite reaching for the stars, companies have their feet planted firmly on the ground.
It is the job of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to make sure that things go off with a bang – but only at the right time.
Having lived through all the excitement of space exploration from Sputnik 1 in 1957 onwards.
A few decades ago, when I was in Florida, I saw a launch of the Space Shuttle.
Hopefully, I’ll be lucky enough to get to Shetland or Cornwall to see a space launch from the UK.
The Daily Telegraph article also has this paragraph.
There are more than 2,200 companies working in Britain’s £65 billion space economy from satellite manufacturers to spaceports, from software to observation. The industry has grown significantly in recent years, and is aiming to capture 10 per cent of the global space market by 2030.
I don’t think, the ten-year-old boy, that my father woke in 1957 to tell about Sputnik 1, really ever thought ever thought there would be a chance that he’d see a space launch from the UK.
But now it appears to be happening! Fingers crossed!
UK Onshore Wind Capacity Hits 15GW
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on reNEWS.BIZ.
This is the sub-heading.
Milestone reached after 30MW West Benhar project entered operations.
These are the first three paragraphs.
RenewableUK has revealed the UK has installed 15,000MW of operational onshore wind capacity.
The project which enabled the UK to cross the threshold was EDF Renewables UK’s 30.1MW West Benhar onshore wind farm in North Lanarkshire, consisting of seven turbines.
The UK now has 2631 operating onshore wind schemes.
These are my thoughts.
I Am Surprised At The Total Of Onshore Wind
The title says it all.
But 15 GW is almost the same power as five big nuclear power stations, the size of the running-late Hinckley Point C.
Should Some Strategically-Placed Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) Be Added?
Some wind farms have been built with wind farms and I very much feel, that with some mathematical modelling some excellent BESS sites could be found.
We should also use batteries, so that no wind farm is ever shut down, because too much wind is being generated.
Where Is West Benhar?
West Benhar wind farm has a web site, where this is the sub-heading.
West Benhar is a 7 turbine wind farm capable of powering up to 18,000 homes located near Shotts in North Lanarkshire.
It was opened on 28 February 2024.
This Google Map shows the location of West Benhar between Edinburgh and Glasgow.
West Benhar is North-East of Shotts and just South of the M8.
There’s More Onshore Wind To Come
These onshore wind farms appear to have Contracts for Difference, but have not been completed.
- Arecleoch Wind Farm Extension – 72.8 MW – Completion 2024/25
- Broken Cross – 48 MW – Completion 2024/25
- Chirmorie – 81.6 MW – Completion 2024/25
- Cumberhead West – 126 MW – + 40 MW BESS – Completion 2024/25
- Douglas West Extension – 78 MW – Completion 2024/25
- High Constellation – 50 MW – Completion 2024/25
- Kilgallioch Windfarm Extension – 51.3 MW – Completion 2024/25
- North Kyle – 206 MW – Completion 2024/25
- Stornoway – 200 MW – Completion 2024/25
- Stranoch – 84 MW – Completion 2024/25
- Viking – 443 MW – Completion 2024
All of these are in Scotland.
But that’s another 1,440.7 MW of onshore wind.
Community Wind Funds
Scotland seems to be continuing to build onshore wind farms.
Could it be that communities have seen the benefits of Community Wind Funds?
This is said about the fund at Stronach.
When operational, EDF Renewables will provide a community benefit fund in line with the Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Developments. The fund value for the community benefit fund would be £5,000 per megawatt for the lifetime of the wind farm. In the coming months we will begin to form a Community Liaison Group with local interested parties to decide how the funds will be disseminated once the wind farm becomes operational.
If the fund is yearly, then £420,000 is not money to be sneezed at!
Conclusion
It looks like in Scotland that Community Wind Funds promote the building of onshore wind.
Plans Progress To Build World’s Largest Tidal Scheme On The Banks Of The River Mersey
The title of this post, is the same as that of this press release from the Liverpool City Region.
These four bullet points, act as sub-headings.
- Mersey Tidal Power has the potential to become the world’s largest tidal scheme
- Formal planning process for UK’s “first of a kind” Mersey Tidal Power set to begin
- Potential to manage environmental issues associated with climate change
- Scheme would need government backing to complete development stage
These three paragraphs introduce the project.
Advanced proposals to build the world’s largest tidal scheme on the banks of the River Mersey have been unveiled by the Liverpool City Region’s Mayor Steve Rotheram.
Mayor Rotheram has revealed that the city region will pursue a barrage between the Wirral and Liverpool as the preferred option for the city region’s flagship Mersey Tidal Power project.
The barrage scheme – the “first of a kind” in the UK – could generate clean, predictable energy for 120 years and create thousands of jobs in its construction and operation.
Note.
- This page on the Liverpool City Region, has this explanatory video.
- This brochure can also be downloaded.
At a first glance all the documentation is very professional.
These are my thoughts.
How Much Power Will The Mersey Tidal Project Generate?
This graphic from the brochure shows electricity generation in Liverpool Bay.
Note.
- The dark blue circles are the thirteen existing wind farms, that have a total capacity of 3 GW.
- The yellow circles are four new wind farms, that will be built by 2030 and will have a total capacity of 4 GW.
- The Mersey Tidal Project will have 28 x 25 MW turbines and generate 700 MW.
I also suspect that the power generation will be supplemented by a large battery, that will smooth out the electricity, when the wind isn’t blowing and the tides are at the wrong cycle.
Access For Ships To The Tranmere Oil Terminal And The Manchester Ship Canal
This article on the Liverpool Business News is entitled £6bn ‘Barrage Across The Mersey’ Takes Step Forward.
This is the introductory paragraph.
Steve Rotheram says his £6bn Mersey Tidal Power project will see a barrage across the river, with locks to allow ships through, but original 2030 switch-on now looks unlikely.
The article has a picture which could show locks on the Wirral side of the Mersey.
This Google Map shows the location of the Tranmere Oil Terminal and the Manchester Ship Canal.
Note.
- Birkenhead is in the North-West corner of the map.
- The line of white squares running parallel to the River Mersey, indicate the stations of the Wirral Line to Chester and Ellesmere Port.
- The Tranmere Oil Terminal is indicated by the red arrow at the top of the map.
This second Google Map expands the area on the West bank of the Mersey, at the bottom of the map.
These are Eastham Locks, which allow ships to enter and leave the Manchester Ship Canal.
This third Google Map shows the area around the Tranmere Oil Terminal.
As before the Tranmere Oil Terminal is indicated by the red arrow, with Cammell Laird to the North.
The Liverpool Business News article says this about oil tankers, that use the Mersey.
In terms of oil tankers alone, there are more than 700 vessels coming in and out of the Mersey every year. Supertankers berth at the Tranmere Oil Terminal next to the Cammell Laird shipyard and around 500 smaller vessels berth at Stanlow at Ellesmere Port.
LBN understands that some form of lock system will be incorporated into the barrage to allow ships in and out. That might prove tricky for supertankers which suggests the barrage would be down river from the Tranmere terminal.
This Google Map shows the Manchester Ship Canal as it goes East from Eastham Locks.
Note.
- The Manchester Ship Canal clings to the South Bank of the Mersey.
- The red arrow indicates Stanlow Refinery,
- There is a lot of industry on the South Bank of the Manchester Ship Canal.
It would appear that access to the Manchester Ship Canal gives access to several important places other than Manchester.
Access To Garston Docks
This Google Map shows the Liverpool Bank of the Mersey.
Note.
- The blue marker in the North-West corner of the map indicates the Royal Albert Dock.
- Garston Docks are in the South-East corner of the map
- There are no docks between Liverpool and Garston and much of the route can be walked along the Mersey.
- On the other bank of the Mersey, note the green ship at the Tranmere Oil Terminal, that can be seen in other maps.
This second Google Map shows Garston Docks.
Note.
- There are three docks.
- The Garston Channel and the Old Garston River provide a route for ships to enter or leave the docks.
The Wikipedia entry for the Port of Garston, indicates that the port is rather run-down and a shadow of its former self.
It would appear that ships would have to pass through the locks in the barrier, which would likely be on the Wirral bank, to gain access to the Manchester Ship Canal and then cross the Mersey for Garston.
However, the barrier is built, it must have a route to both the Tranmere Oil Terminal and the Manchester Ship Canal at Eastham Locks.
The barrier could be built either North or South of the Tranmere Oil Terminal.
- If built North of the oil terminal, the locks in the barrier will have to accommodate the largest supertanker that calls at the terminal.
- If built South of the oil terminal, the locks in the barrier would only have to accommodate the largest ship that needed to use the Manchester Ship Canal or visit Garston.
One option would probably be more affordable.
Barrage Cross The Mersey
The very informative Liverpool Business News article, explains why a barrage was chosen, in this paragraph.
After pondering whether to build a barrage across the river from Liverpool to Wirral, or a floating lagoon, the Combined Authority has chosen the former as it would be cheaper and also creates a bridge that could have a pedestrian and cycle link.
The choice of a barrage sounds sensible on grounds of cost and accessibility.
LionLink: Proposed Windfarm Cabling Sites In Suffolk Are Revealed
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on the BBC.
This is the sub-heading.
National Grid has revealed where it wants to build energy infrastructure for cabling between the UK and the Netherlands.
These four paragraphs describe the project.
The power line, called LionLink, would connect offshore wind farms in the North Sea.
The energy company wants the cables to reach land at either Walberswick or Southwold, both in Suffolk.
A converter station would be built on the outskirts of nearby Saxmundham and could cover a six-hectare area.
That would then connect to a substation being built at the village of Friston, also in Suffolk, as part of the offshore wind plans.
But the plans have brought the Nimbies out in force.
This Google Map shows the Suffolk Coast, to the South of Southwold.
Note.
- Southwold and Walberswick in the North-East corner of the map.
- Saxmundham is just up from the South-West corner of the map, with Friston to its East.
- Sizewell with the 1.2 GW Sizewell B nuclear power station is on the coast directly East of Saxmundham.
- Sizewell B is planned to be joined by the 3.2 GW Sizewell C nuclear power station.
- LionLink is likely to have a capacity of 2 GW.
- I also believe that at least another GW of offshore wind power will be squeezed in along this section of coast.
The Sizewell site is connected to the National Grid at Bullen Lane substation to the West of Ipswich.
These pictures show the pylons that were built in the 1960s to connect Sizewell A to the National Grid.
I doubt, they would be allowed to be erected today.
One alternative would be to use T-pylons, like these built to connect Hinckley Point C to the National Grid.
There is more on T-pylons in this press release from National Grid, which is entitled National Grid Energise World’s First T-Pylons.
This Google Map shows the area between Ipswich and the coast.
Note.
- Sizewell is in the North-East corner of the map.
- Felixstowe, Harwich and Freeport East are at the mouth of the rivers Orwell and Stour.
- The Bullen Lane substation is to the West of Ipswich and shown by the red arrow.
Looking at maximum power flows in Suffolk and Somerset, we get.
- North-East Suffolk to the National Grid at Bullen Lane – 7.4 GW.
- Hinckley Point C to the National Grid – 3.26 GW.
I am led to the conclusion, that there need to be a doubling of the pylons between North-East Suffolk and Bullens Lane.
I can understand why the Nimbies have been aroused.
I believe that National Grid will have to take the undersea route along the coast of Essex and Suffolk, to get the electricity to its markets.
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
- Discontinuous Electrification Using IPEMUs – April 30th, 2016
- Will Innovative Electrification Be Used On The Uckfield Line? – August 24th, 1917
- Battery Trains On The Uckfield Branch – August 26th, 2018
- Battery Electrostars And The Uckfield Branch – September 30th, 2019
- Alstom Hydrogen Aventras And The Uckfield Branch – November 12th, 2021
- Electroflex Battery EMU Plan To End Southern Diesel Operation – January 22nd, 2020
- Uckfield Third Rail Is NR Priority – May 2nd, 2022
- Southeastern Keen On Battery EMUs – August 12th. 2023
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.
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.
The Anonymous Widower 