Smart Train Lease Aims ‘To Make Renting Trains As Easy And Simple As Renting A Car’
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on Railway Gazette International.
These four paragraphs outline the scheme.
Siemens Mobility has established a leasing subsidiary that would enable train operators to use its Mireo Smart battery, hydrogen and electric multiple-units without needing to make long-term investment commitments.
Smart Train Lease GmbH would make available at short notice multiple-units already approved for operation. These could be short or medium-term leases, with services such as maintenance available as part of the package. The aim is to provide operators with an economical way to quickly and flexibly expand their fleets and try out more sustainable traction technologies.
‘We want to make renting trains as easy and simple as renting a car, and thus help accelerate the mobility transition’, the leasing company’s CEO Benjamin Dobernecker explained on February 14.
Smart Train Lease will initially operate in Germany, although it plans to expand throughout Europe in the medium term.
I like this idea and I think it will work.
Metier Management Systems And Artemis
When four of us started Metier Management Systems in 1977 to sell our mini-computer-based project management system; Artemis, we generally rented or leased our systems, although we did sell some as the years progressed.
- For a fixed fee per month, a company got a project management computer and all the software.
- The fixed fee included installation, first line support, training and software updates.
- We could also supply extra training and project management consultancy at appropriate rates.
- The only extra costs to the client were the electricity to power the hardware and the paper to put in the printer.
- We also allowed clients to convert leases into outright sales.
This simple sales model appealed to a lot of our clients.
- The cost of the system was easy to budget.
- Many of our clients were happy with leasing or renting computer equipment.
- As the system was desk-sized, it easily fitted the average office.
But the leasing model was very advantageous to us.
- Most of our clients were large high-value quality organisations like big oil companies, nationalised industries and engineering consultancies.
- Our Finance Director and our Bank Manager at Lloyds Bank devised a plan, whereby we bundled a number of high-quality leases together and sold the bundle to Lloyds Bank’s leasing company.
The money we received gave us a healthy cash flow.
- The cash flow was then used to fund Research and Development and to finance more sales.
- If say someone like BP or Shell should phone up or send a fax, wanting a system immediately, we were generally able to fulfil their request.
I am sure that Siemens Mobility will be using a similar model.
They will aim to have trains in stock to fulfil clients needs.
So if Deutsche Bahn phone up saying have you got a three-car battery-electric train that works with 15 KVAC and has a range of 100 kilometres for next Monday, Siemens Mobility can generally say yes.
What helps is that the modular Mireo Smart multiple unit comes in battery, hydrogen and electric versions.
Extras could include full servicing a driver.
So Siemens Mobility will plug the train together and deliver it.
How Would Siemens Use The Leasing Model In Great Britain?
Consider.
- There are a lot of routes that need to be decarbonised in Great Britain.
- Many of these routes have electrification at one or both ends.
- Often these routes terminate in a bay platform.
- On most of these routes a two-, three-, four- or five-car train will be sufficient capacity.
- In the Desiro City, Siemens have a train, that is acceptable to Great Britain.
- If routes in Great Britain are to be electrified, they must be electrified with 25 KVAC overhead wires.
- Trains would be 100 mph, so they wouldn’t be limited as to routes.
- A Mireo-B has a range of between 80-100 kilometres or 49.7-74.6 miles.
I am sure Siemens Desiro City or its European equivalent; Mireo can be developed into a family of trains suitable for GB!
- The basic train would be two driving cars.
- Length would be increased by coupling trailer cars between the two driving cars.
- Hydrogen power would be in one of the trailers.
- Batteries would be under an appropriate number of cars.
Battery trains would be able to use a simple automatic charger, similar to the one, that I described in GWR Trialling Transformative Ultra-Rapid Charging Train Battery.
An Example – Mid-Cornwall Metro
This map shows the Mid-Cornwall Metro.
Consider.
- Newquay and Par is 20.8 miles.
- Falmouth Docks and Par is 30.8 miles.
- Newquay and Falmouth Docks is 51.6 miles.
- The maximum speed between Par and Newquay is around 30 mph
- The maximum speed between Par and Falmouth Docks is around 50-70 mph
- There are twelve intermediate stations.
- There is a reverse at Par station.
- Charging would be easy to install at Falmouth Docks, Newquay and Par.
- In Par Station – 10th February 2024, I suggested that Par station could be fully-electrified, so that expresses could have a Splash-and-Dash on their way to London and Penzance. If all platforms at Par were electrified the Mid-Cornwall Metro trains could charge from the electrification, as they reversed.
There are two main ways that the Mid-Cornwall Metro might operate.
- There would be chargers at Newquay and Falmouth Docks and trains would shuttle the 51.6 miles between the two stations.
- There would only be charging at Par and trains would after charging at Par go alternatively to Newquay and Falmouth Docks.
The first might need smaller batteries and the second would only need one charger.
An Example – Uckfield Branch
The Uckfield branch is in Southern England.
- It is not electrified between Hurst Green Junction and Uckfield, which is 24.7 miles.
- There are eight intermediate stations.
- The line can accommodate ten-car trains.
There is space at Uckfield station for a charger.
Charging would be at Uckfield station and North of Hurst Green Junction, where it will use the existing electrification.
Conclusions
This leasing/rental model will surely encourage train operators to replace diesels with appropriate zero-carbon alternatives on routes that need to be decarbonised.
Teesside Private SMR Nuclear Power Station To Be Built
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on the BBC.
This is the sub-heading.
An agreement has been reached to build a privately financed nuclear power station in Teesside.
These are the first three paragraphs.
Community Nuclear Power (CNP) has announced plans to install four small modular reactors (SMRs) in North Tees.
CNP said it aims to be up and running in ten years’ time and will supply “roughly a gigawatt of energy”.
With other similar power stations planned, hundreds of jobs are expected to be created in the north-east of England.
A CNP spokesperson said the four North Tees reactors will generate clean, always-on energy which will be used to help develop a green energy and chemical hub, also within the North Tees Group Estate, on the north bank of the River Tees near Stockton.
These are my thoughts.
The Westinghouse AP300™ SMR
This SMR has its own web page.
This is the sub-heading.
Only SMR based on Licensed, Operating & Advanced Reactor Technology
These paragraphs introduce the reactor.
The Westinghouse AP300™ Small Modular Reactor is the most advanced, proven and readily deployable SMR solution. Westinghouse proudly brings 70+ years of experience developing and implementing new nuclear technologies that enable reliable, clean, safe and economical sources of energy for generations to come.
Our AP1000® reactor is already proving itself every day around the globe. Currently, four units utilizing AP1000 technology are operating in China, setting performance records. Six more are under construction in China and one AP1000 reactor is operating at Plant Vogtle in Georgia while a second nears completion.
Our AP300 SMR leverages that operating experience, as well as tens of millions of hours on AP1000 reactor development.
Gain the benefits of the record-setting Westinghouse AP1000 PWR technology in a smaller power output to augment the backbone of your community energy system.
The AP300 SMR complements the AP1000 reactor for a cleaner energy mix, energy security, and grid flexibility and stabilization.
Westinghouse seem to have taken a very professional and scientifically correct approach and downsized something that works well.
Where Will The Reactors Be Built?
This is a paragraph from the BBC article.
Small reactors, built in a factory by the American power giant Westinghouse, will be transported to Seal Sands near Billingham, coming on stream in the early 2030s and going some way to providing part of the big rise in nuclear capacity the UK government wants to see by 2050.
This Google Map shows the mouth of the River Tees.
Note.
- The red arrow at the bottom of the map indicates the location of North Tees Group Estate.
- Follow the river to the North and a capitalised label indicating the position of Seal Sands can be seen.
This second Google Map shows the Seal Sands area in a larger scale.
There seems to be several spaces, where the reactors could be located.
Would It Be Safe To Locate A Nuclear Reactor Or Reactors In a Cluster Of Oil Refineries And/Or Chemical Plants?
Consider.
- In the 1970s, when I worked at ICI, there were companies like Westinghouse advocating nuclear steelmaking.
- We did discuss the concept a couple of times over coffee but no one, I worked with, ever looked at it officially or seriously, as far as I know.
- In addition to requiring large amounts of electricity, oil refineries and chemical plants often use a lot of steam.
- Nuclear reactors generate steam to produce electricity, so some could be diverted to oil refineries or chemical plants
- To decarbonise some processes might switch to hydrogen.
- In Westinghouse And Bloom Energy To Team Up For Pink Hydrogen, I talk about how to use a nuclear reactor to efficiently produce pink hydrogen.
It looks like for efficiency, building the various plant close together could be a good thing.
But is it safe?
I suspect the level of safety will be that of the least safe plant.
So provided all plants are designed to the highest standards, it should be OK, as nuclear plants, oil refineries and chemical plant don’t regularly explode.
The Donald C Cook Nuclear Plant
The Donald C Cook Nuclear Plant in Michigan is a 2.2 GW nuclear plant, that was built by Westinghouse and commissioned in the mid-1970s.
They were clients for Artemis, the project management system that I wrote.
Soon after the Three Mile Island accident on March 28th, 1979, I visited the Donald C Cook Nuclear Plant to see how they were coping with the aftermath of the accident.
I remember being told by the operators of the plant, who were American Electric Power, that as it was their only nuclear plant, they were going to do everything by the book and Artemis was helping them to do that.
Reading about the plant, which is now licenced to operate until 2034 for one reactor and 2037 for the other, it seems to have performed impeccably so far for nearly fifty years.
It is a credit to both Westinghouse, who built it and American Electric Power who own it.
Now that is what I call high-class engineering and I’d be happy to have a cluster of SMRs to the same standard in my back yard.
Sizewell B
I used to live a few miles from Sizewell B, which is another Westinghouse reactor.
- This is the Wikipedia entry for the power station.
- Sizewell B was based on a proven Westinghouse design.
- It seems to have performed well since it was commissioned in 1995.
It looks like it will be operating until 2055, which will make its working life similar to those of the reactors at the Donald C Cook Nuclear Plant.
Westinghouse And Hinckley Point C Compared
Consider.
- Sizewell B was built in approximately seven years.
- This compares well with the two units at the Donald C Cook Nuclear Plant, which took six and nine years respectively
- It looks like Hinckley Point C will take between twelve and fourteen years to build.
- Sizewell B and the two units at Donald C Cook Nuclear Plant seem to be looking at a sixty year operating lifetime.
- Sizewell has a rail connection and Hinckley Point does not.
- Sizewell B seems to have been signed off, when John Major was Prime Minister.
- Hinckley Pont C seems to have resulted from a government white paper when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister.
Westinghouse seem to design nuclear power stations, that can operate for a long period and can be built within a decade.
Westinghouse And Rolls-Royce
Consider.
- Rolls-Royce also have an SMR design.
- Rolls-Royce and Westinghouse are both world-class companies.
- Rolls-Royce have the advantage they are British.
- I also suspect, that both Westinghouse and Rolls-Royce will use the same subcontractors and sub-assembly manufacturers.
- The Rolls-Royce SMR has a power output of 470 MW.
- The Westinghouse SMR has a power output of 300 MW.
I suspect the choice between the two, will be like choosing between top-of-the-range British and American products.
Conclusion
I wonder why we ended up with an unproven new French design at Hinckley Point, when sitting in Suffolk was a traditional Westinghouse design, that was performing to its design specification?
But for the SMR, we need to buy the reactors, which are financially best for Britain. If Westinghouse choose to manufacture large sections in the UK, they could be the better bet, as I suspect, if SMRs are successful, we’ll be seeing exports from the UK.
Are Londoners The Tunnel Kings?
I was born in 1947 and it was in the early 1960s, that I started to develop an interest in engineering, which eventually led me to study Electrical Engineering and Electronics at Liverpool University.
Like most Londoners, I was a frequent user of the Underground and for six or seven years, I took the Piccadilly Line many days between Oakwood and Southgate to go to Minchenden Grammar School. Often, after school, I would go on to my father’s print works near Word Green tube station.
But not memories of London’s tunnels were so memorable at that time. One day, we were driving to see my Uncle Bert in Broadstairs and we were held in the Blackwall Tunnel for an hour or so because of an accident.
Perhaps, this is why I can remember a black-and-white video of digging the Western Tunnel of the Dartford Crossing so vividly. But as Raymond Baxter probably explained to BBC viewers at the time, it dug using a Greathead shield under pressure to keep the water out. It was probably the last tunnel dug under the Thames using methods, that would have been familiar to Victorian engineers.
This British Pathe video shows some of the construction of the Western tunnel.
This paragraph from the Wikipedia entry for the Eastern Tunnel describes its construction.
Construction was approved in April 1971, with an initial expected opening date in 1976. Work was delayed due to a lack of funds, which was resolved by EEC funding granted in 1974. The second tunnel opened in May 1980, allowing each tunnel to handle one direction of traffic, by which time the joint capacity of the two tunnels had increased to 65,000 vehicles per day. Connection of the crossing to the M25 was completed on the northerly Essex side in September 1982 (Junction 31), and to the southerly Kent side in September 1986 (Junction 1a)
The tunnels may be inadequate in terms of capacity, but they have certainly done a reliable job for sixty and forty-three years respectively.
There are other tunnels under the Thames, that have been built in my lifetime.
- Thames Cable Tunnel – 1970 – National Grid’s 400 kV cable.
- High Speed One – 2007
- Dartford Tunnel (East) – 1980
- Dartford Tunnel (West) – 1963
- Dartford Cable Tunnel – 2004
- Docklands Light Railway Tunnel – 2009
- Elizabeth Line Tunnel – 2014
- Millennium Dome Cable Tunnel – 1999
- Jubilee Line Tunnels – 1999 – Planned by Artemis
- Blackwall Runnel (East) – 1967
- Isle of Dogs Jubilee Line Tunnels – 1999 – Planned by Artemis
- Docklands Light Railway Tunnel – 1999 – Planned by Artemis
- Deptford Cable Tunnel –
- Jubilee Line Tunnels – 1999 – Planned by Artemis
- Victoria Line Tunnel – 1971
- New Cross to Finsbury Market Cable Tunnel – 2017
- Wimbledon to Pimlico Cable Tunnel – 1996
- London Power Tunnels – 2018, 2011
There are also these tunnels, which don’t go under the Thames
Bank Station Expansion And New Southbound Northern Line Tunnel – 2022
- Elstree to St. John’s Wood Cable Tunnel – 2005
- Heathrow Rail Tunnels – 1998
- Lee Tunnel – 2016
- Limehouse Link Tunnel – 1993
- Lower Lea Valley Cable Tunnels – 2008
- Northern Line Extension To Battersea – 2021
- Piccadilly Line Extension To Heathrow – 1975-2008
- Thames Tideway Tunnel – Estimated completion in 2025 – Tunnelling ended in 2022.
- Thames Water Ring Main – 2010
Note.
- The date is the opening date.
- I am pleased to see that at least some projects were planned, with the software, I wrote in a Suffolk attic.
In my lifetime, at least 27 substantial tunnels have been completed, a very large proportion of which have been on time and on budget, with the possible exception of the Heathrow Rail Tunnels, which collapsed.
So Why Has London Got A Good Record On Tunnelling?
In Millicent And Ursula Prepare To Go Tunnelling, I describe my visit to the Tideway Open Day today to see the tunnel boring machines; Millicent and Ursula before they went tunnelling.
On that Sunday morning, I also chatted with the engineers and tunnelers.
- All had worked on at least one of London’s previous tunnels.
- One had worked on the Second Dartford Tunnel, the Channel Tunnel and Crossrail.
- A couple said, that after the Tideway finished, they would be off to High Speed Two.
Is London’s good record on delivering tunnels safely and on time and on budget, a case of lots of experience and practice makes perfect?
If it is, we should definitely think hard about how we handle large projects.
Wind Farms
Many have been constructed this way.
- The grid substation and connection to the grid is built.
- The foundations of the turbines are installed.
- The turbines are erected.
- All the turbines are commissioned.
This sequence or something like it can be applied to onshore and offshore wind farms.
- Most jobs are repeated many times by specialist teams using purpose-built cranes, ships and other equipment.
- Bigger wind farms, just need more repeated operations.
- All operations are generally in a small geographical area.
- I suspect specialist software has been built to project manage, the building of wind farms. If it hasn’t, I have my ideas.
Project management should be relatively easy.
I’ve Often Worked On Christmas Day!
My father was a workaholic and would often go down his print works in Wood Green on Christmas morning.
When I became about seven, I would go with him and I would do small jobs.
In those days of the 1950s, it was a bit of a tradition that Spurs used to play at home on Christmas Day in the morning.
So probably for at least three years, we saw Spurs play and then went home to a late Christmas Lunch.
In the ten years or so, that I was writing and supporting Artemis, I would often use the Christmas holidays to develop the software or fix bugs, as I was unlikely to be phoned up to answer a query.
Today, I’m going to lunch with my son and his partner.
Before that though, I am pleased to see that The Times has published a full set of Monday puzzles. So I’ll be busy.
A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all.
Plans for Hydrogen Development At Dogger Bank D Gain Ground
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
Dogger Bank D, the potential fourth phase of the world’s largest offshore wind farm under construction, Dogger Bank Wind Farm, has awarded contracts to engineering consultants to support the feasibility and optimization of a large-scale green hydrogen development option on the project
These three paragraphs outline the project.
SSE Renewables and Equinor, the developers of the Dogger Bank wind farm in the UK, awarded contracts for green hydrogen concept and engineering and optimization studies to Genesis, H2GO Power, and Fichtner.
If progressed for delivery, Dogger Bank D would be located in the North Sea around 210 kilometers off the northeast coast of England. Subject to the successful outcome of further technical studies, the project could be capable of generating up to around 2 GW of renewable power.
The 2 GW offshore wind farm is currently planned to comprise 128 wind turbines and up to six offshore platforms.
Note.
According to the article, this would be one of the UK’s largest green hydrogen production facilities.
The partners said, that the project could contribute to the UK Government’s electrolytic hydrogen ambitions for 5 GW by 2030.
This is said about the studies.
Using AI machine learning and robust modeling, these studies will investigate the multitude of interdependent variables required to optimize a potential green hydrogen production facility, such as offshore wind farm sizing, electrolysis capacity, transport and storage capacity, water availability, and offtake optionality.
I was using robust modelling on projects such as these fifty years ago, both with Artemis and bespoke software.
To my mind, SSE Renewables and Equinor are doing the right thing. If anybody has a similar project with lots of variables, I’d love to give my opinion.
I have some thoughts.
How Much Hydrogen Will Be Produced?
Ryze Hydrogen are building the Herne Bay electrolyser.
- It will consume 23 MW of solar and wind power.
- It will produce ten tonnes of hydrogen per day.
The electrolyser will consume 552 MWh to produce ten tonnes of hydrogen, so creating one tonne of hydrogen needs 55.2 MWh of electricity.
This would mean that if the Japanese built one Herne Bay-size electrolyser, then it would produce around three hundred tonnes of hydrogen in an average month.
Consider.
- Dogger Bank D is likely to be a 2 GW wind farm.
- This document on the OFGEM web site, says that the Dogger Bank wind farms will have a capacity factor of 45 %.
- This means that Dogger Bank D wind farm will produce an average of 900 MW over a year.
- This works out at 7,884 GWh of electricity in a year.
As each tonne of hydrogen needs 55.2 MWh to be produced, this means if all the electricity produced by Dogger Bank D, is used to create green hydrogen, then 142,826.1 tonnes will be produced.
How Will The Hydrogen Be Brought Ashore?
142,826.1 tonnes is a lot of green hydrogen and the easiest ways to transfer it to the shore would be by a pipeline or a tanker.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the use of tankers, as this would give more flexibility and allow the export of hydrogen to countries in need of hydrogen.
Will There Be Hydrogen Storage In The Dogger Bank D Wind Farm?
This would surely be a possibility, but there are security considerations.
Cost would also be a factor!
The Location Of The Dogger Bank D Wind Farm
I clipped this map of Dogger Bank A, B, C and D wind farms from this page of the Dogger Bank D web site.
Note.
- RWE’s Dogger Bank South wind farm is not shown on the map.
- Dogger Bank D wind farm is the most Easterly of the four wind farms being developed by SSE Renewables and Equinor.
- Dogger Bank D wind farm must be the closest of the Dogger Bank wind farms to the Eastern border of the UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ.
Dogger Bank D wind farm would appear to be ideally placed to supply hydrogen to a number of places, by either pipeline or tanker.
Could Dogger Bank South Wind Farm Also Produce Hydrogen?
In RWE Partners With Masdar For 3 GW Dogger Bank South Offshore Wind Projects, I talked about the change of ownership of the Dogger Bank South wind farm.
I would assume that the Dogger Bank South wind farm will be located to the South of the Dogger Bank A,B, C and D wind farms.
Whether it will produce hydrogen will be a matter for the owners and market conditions.
I do believe though, that it could share some facilities with the those that might be built for Dogger Bank D wind farm.
Conclusion
After this brief look, Dogger Bank D could be an ideal place to build a large hydrogen production facility.
South Korea, UK Strengthen Offshore Wind Ties
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
The Republic of Korea (ROK) and the UK have signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) concerning cooperation on offshore wind energy
These three paragraphs outline the MoU.
The UK and ROK already have a proven relationship in offshore wind, with large-scale investments in the UK’s supply chain and in the development of ROK’s offshore wind sector.
This MoU emphasises the will to build on this existing cooperation to accelerate deployment, address barriers to trade, and encourage mutual economic development through regular government-to-government dialogue and business-to-business cooperation, according to the partners.
The participants will support the UK and ROK’s offshore wind deployment by sharing experience and expertise from their respective sectors.
These are my thoughts.
The British And The Koreans Have A Long Record Of Industrial Co-operation
My own experience of this, goes back to the last century, where one of the biggest export markets for Artemis; the project management system, that I wrote was South Korea.
We had started with Hyundai in Saudi Arabia, where the Korean company was providing labour for large projects.
I can remember modifying Artemis, so that it handled the Korean won, which in those days, came with lots of noughts.
The Korean, who managed their Saudi projects returned home and luckily for us, wanted a system in Korea.
Paul, who was our salesman for Korea, used to tell a story about selling in Korea.
Our Korean friend from Hyundai had setup a demonstration of Artemis with all the major corporations or chaebols in Korea.
Paul finished the demonstration and then asked if there were any questions.
There was only one question and it was translated as “Can we see the contract?”
So Paul handed out perhaps a dozen contracts.
Immediately, after a quick read, the attendees at the meeting, started to sign the contracts and give them back.
Paul asked our friendly Korean, what was going on and got the reply. “If it’s good enough for Hyundai, it’s good enough for my company!”
The King Played His Part
King Charles, London and the UK government certainly laid on a first class state visit and by his references in his speech the King certainly said the right things.
I always wonder, how much the Royal Family is worth to business deals, but I suspect in some countries it helps a lot.
With Artemis, we won two Queen’s Awards for Industry. Every year the monarch puts on a reception to which each company or organisation can send three representatives. I recounted my visit in The Day I Met the Queen.
For the second award, I suggested that we send Pat, who was the highest American, in the company.
Later in his career with the company, when he was running our US operations, Pat. found talking about the time, he met the Queen and Prince Philip, very good for doing business.
I wonder how many business and cooperation deals between the UK and Korea, will be revealed in the coming months.
This Deal Is Not Just About The UK And Korea
This paragraph widens out the deal.
In addition, participants accept to promote business activities and facilitate opportunities for UK and ROK companies to collaborate in ROK and the UK, as well as joint offshore wind projects in third countries, according to the press release from the UK Government.
An approach to some countries without the usual bullies of this world may offer advantages.
Has One Secondary Deal Already Been Signed?
This paragraph talks about a recent deal between BP, Dutch company; Corio and the South Koreans.
The news follows the recent announcement from South Korea’s Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy that two UK companies, Corio Generation and BP, submitted investment plans for offshore wind projects in South Korea totalling about EUR 1.06 billion.
This deal was apparently signed during the state visit.
There’s A Lot Of Wind Power To Be Harvested
These last two paragraphs summarise the wind potentials of the UK and Korea.
The UK has the world’s second-largest installed offshore wind capacity, with a government target to more than triple this capacity by 2030 to 50 GW, including 5 GW of floating offshore wind.
Back in 2018, the South Korean Government set a 2030 offshore wind target of 12 GW in its Renewable Energy 3020 Implementation Plan, which was reaffirmed by the now-former South Korea’s president Moon Jae-in in 2020. Since 2022, it has been reported that the country has a target of reaching 14.3 GW of offshore wind power by 2030.
Note that the UK’s population is almost exactly 30 % bigger than Korea’s.
So why will the UK by 2030, be generating three-and-half times the offshore wind power, than Korea?
Twenty days ago, I wrote UK And Germany Boost Offshore Renewables Ties, where I believe the sub-plot is about long-term power and energy security for the UK and Germany.
Long term, the numbers tell me, that UK and Irish seas will be Europe’s major powerhouse.
Australia’s Offshore Wind Market Could Significantly Benefit from Collaboration with UK Suppliers, Study Says
The title of this section, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
A new study has been launched that highlights significant opportunities for the UK to share its wind farm expertise with Australia’s emerging offshore wind market
These three paragraphs outline the study.
The Australian Offshore Wind Market Study, conducted by Arup, evaluates potential Australian offshore wind markets and analyses the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for UK support.
Key findings indicate that the Australian offshore wind market could “substantially” benefit from collaboration with the UK suppliers, given the UK’s 23 years of experience and its status as the second largest offshore wind market globally, boasting 13.9 GW of installed capacity as of 2023, according to the UK Government.
Currently, Australia has over 40 offshore wind projects proposed for development.
I believe that the Australians could be a partner in the deal between the UK and Korea, as all three countries have similar objectives.
Conclusion
The Korean and German deals. and a possible Australian deal should be considered together.
Each country have their strengths and together with a few friends, they can help change the world’s power generation for the better.
- Just as the UK can be Europe’s powerhouse, Australia can do a similar job for South-East Asia.
- Any country with lots of energy can supply the green steel needed for wind turbine floats and foundations.
I would have felt the Dutch would have been next to join, as their electricity network is solidly connected to the UK and Germany. But after this week’s Dutch election, who knows what the Dutch will do?
Silvertown Tunnel Works – 24th September 2023
I took these pictures of the Silvertown Tunnel works on the North Bank of the Thames today.
I was on a train going to Woolwich Arsenal.
What Is The Silvertown Tunnel?
The title of this section, is the same as that of this article on the Londonist, which is an excellent description of the Silvertown Tunnel.
The article says this about tolls.
The new tunnel will require you to part with some pounds if you want to use it. Despite the consultation on this taking place a decade ago, the final details have yet to be publicised. We can expect something similar to the Dartford Crossing (currently £2.50 for cars etc, free for motorbikes/mopeds).
As there is a mayoral election next year, I doubt that Sadiq Khan will announce the charge on the Silvertown and Blackwall Tunnels before the election.
Let’s Play Accountants
This is a paragraph in the Londonist Article.
Construction of the tunnel is eating up something like £1.2 billion (2020 estimate). It’ll then cost another estimated £1 billion over 25 years to pay for maintenance, financing and operation. Riverlinx paid up-front costs and will be paid back by TfL through money collected from tolls.
The running costs would appear to be a billion over 25 years, which is £ 40,000,000 in a year.
This is said on this page on the Greater London Assembly web site.
Blackwall tunnels (northbound and southbound) each carry approximately 50,000 vehicles per day in only two lanes of traffic.
That means that each tunnel handles approximately 18,250,000 vehicles per year.
Dartford Crossing charges are according to the Wikipedia entry are as follows.
- Cars, motorhomes, small minibuses – £ 2.50
- 2-axle buses, coaches, vans, goods – £ 3.00
- Multi-axle goods, coaches – £ 6.00
The Wikipedia entry also says this about the capacity and traffic through and over the Dartford Crossing.
The design capacity is 135,000 vehicles per day, but in practice the crossing carries around 160,000.
My good friend; Bob from the 1970s had an impeccable cv.
- Chief Accountant of Vickers.
- Chief Management Accountant of Lloyds Bank.
He was also one of two outstanding practical accountants I have known.
Several of his practical tips on how to handle money in computers, ended up in Artemis; the project management computer system, I wrote in the 1970.
Bob and I would solve problems in Mother Bunches Wine Bar and I suspect, we’d come to the conclusion, that an average charge of £3 per vehicle will be charged in the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels.
I also believe from my fluid flow experience, that a proportion of the excess traffic through and over the Dartford Crossing will divert to the new Silvertown Tunnel.
- Together the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels will have four lanes in both directions.
- The Silvertown Tunnel will hopefully designed to modern standards and be more free-flowing, than the Blackwall.
- Sat-navs will direct drivers to the quickest routes.
Just as water finds its own level, an equilibrium will develop between the flows.
- I suspect that during the day, the flow over the Dartford Crossing will drop to the design capacity of 135,000
- At night, will vehicles divert through the free-flowing Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels?
- Will those living in North Central London inside the North Circular Road drive through the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels?
- Will the free-flowing Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels encourage people crossing the Thames to use their car, rather than the train, as the car is more convenient and the toll will be less than the train fare?
- We should also beware that new roads, railways and tunnels generate new traffic, that no-one predicts.
My feeling is that combined traffic through the four lanes of the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels will be upwards of seventy thousand per day.
I can now calculate revenue for different levels of combined traffic through the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels.
- 40,000 vehicles in each direction per day is a total of 29,200,000 vehicles per year, which would raise £ 87.6 million per year in toll charges.
- 50,000 vehicles in each direction per day is a total of 36,500,000 vehicles per year, which would raise £ 109.5 million per year in toll charges.
- 60,000 vehicles in each direction per day is a total of 43,800,000 vehicles per year, which would raise £ 131.4 million per year in toll charges.
- 70,000 vehicles in each direction per day is a total of 51,100,000 vehicles per year, which would raise £ 153.3 million per year in toll charges.
- 80,000 vehicles in each direction per day is a total of 58.400,000 vehicles per year, which would raise £ 175.2 million per year in toll charges.
I am assuming the following.
- All days of a 365-day year have similar traffic.
- Everybody pays without fuss, by technology like number-plate recognition.
- The average toll chare paid is £ 3.
I am drawn to the conclusion, that the contract signed between Transport for London and Riverlinx, is a licence to print money.
Even, if the tunnels only attract 40-50,000 vehicles per day, the revenue is way in excess of the £40 million needed for maintenance, financing and operation of the Silvertown Tunnel.
I have a few further thoughts and questions.
Who Are Riverlinx?
This is said on the About Roverlinx page of the Riverlinx web site.
TfL awarded Riverlinx SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) the contract for financing and overseeing the design, build and maintenance of the Silvertown Tunnel in 2019.
The Riverlinx CJV (Construction Joint Venture) is contracted by TfL and Riverlinx SPV to complete the design and construction works, delivering the Silvertown Tunnel on time and on budget.
Riverlinx CJV is a joint venture, a partnership bringing together international, market leading expertise from three civil engineering and construction companies: BAM Nuttall, Ferrovial Construction and SK ecoplant.
In collaboration with TfL, our supply chain and other key stakeholders in the project, Riverlinx CJV will complete construction of the Silvertown Tunnel in Spring 2025.
Note.
- BAM Nuttall is a construction and civil engineering company, that is a subsidiary of the Dutch Royal BAM Group.
- Ferrovial Construction is the construction subsidiary of Spanish company; Ferrovial.
- SK ecoplant is a subsidiary of the South Korean conglomorate; SK Group.
These companies should be capable of building the Silvertown Tunnel.
Where Will The Money To Build The Tunnel Come From?
In World’s Largest Wind Farm Attracts Huge Backing From Insurance Giant, using an article in The Times, I explain how Aviva invest our pensions and insurance money in wind farms.
Strangely, a tolled tunnel is a bit like a wind farm financially, in that if it’s working and the wind is blowing or the traffic is coming, it will continue to generate an income.
Built by quality construction companies, as most tunnels are, they will be the sort of investment, that would satisfy the Avivas of this world.
Will Riverlinx Get All The Tolls From The Tunnel?
Nothing is said about how the excess of income over expenditure will go.
I suspect, as the project is being designed, financed and built by Riverlinx, that they will not go unrewarded.
Will The Mayor Set The Toll Charges?
I suspect that the Mayor and TfL will set the charges.
These are some figures with different charges for 70,000 vehicles in each direction per day or a total of 51,100,000 vehicles per year.
- £3 in each direction would raise £ 153.3 million per year in toll charges.
- £4 in each direction would raise £ 204.4 million per year in toll charges.
- £5 in each direction would raise £ 255.5 million per year in toll charges.
- £6 in each direction would raise £ 306.6 million per year in toll charges.
Note.
- Some of the papers are talking of a four pound charge.
- A pound increase may not be much to the average driver, but they will certainly mount up.
Higher toll charges could be used by an unscrupulous Mayor to deter vehicles entering Central London or nudge people towards public transport.
What Happens If The Tunnel Springs A Leak?
I can remember the following tunnels being built under the Thames in my lifetime.
- Blackwall Tunnel – second bore
- Dartford Tunnel
- DLR to Greenwich and Lewisham
- DLR to Woolwich
- Elizabeth Line to Woolwich
- Jubilee Line – four crossings
- Victoria Line to Vauxhall
None of these seven seems to have sprung a leak recently. And neither have the older Victorian tunnels.
Tunnels with an income stream, appear to be a good risk, if they don’t spring a leak.
But London tunnels don’t seem to have a high likelihood of leaking.
Fines
Fines could be a problem, but this article on Kent Online, which is entitled Dartford Crossing Continues To Generate more Than One-Third Of Income From Fines As Profits Total More Than £100m, says otherwise.
Conclusion
This would appear to be a low risk venture and I suspect it will make Riverlinx and TfL a lot of money.
Ørsted Divests Remaining Stake In London Array For EUR 829 Million
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
Ørsted has signed an agreement with funds managed by Schroders Greencoat to divest its remaining 25 per cent minority interest in the London Array offshore wind farm in the UK.
These first three paragraphs outline the deal and give Ørsted reasons.
The total value of the transaction is GBP 717 million (approximately EUR 829 million).
Ørsted originally owned 50 per cent of the project and divested an initial 25 per cent of London Array to Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ) in 2014.
The company does not have operations and maintenance (O&M) responsibility at the 630 MW London Array, and as the firm only holds a minority interest, Ørsted said it considers the asset non-strategic.
Note.
- Ørsted is the world’s largest developer of offshore wind power by number of built offshore wind farms.
- Schroders Greencoat LLP is a specialist manager dedicated to the renewable energy infrastructure sector.
This is a typical transaction, which is enabled between companies in the world’s financial centres all the time.
- Company A has an asset, which generates a predictable cash flow and needs money to invest in similar assets.
- Fund B has lots of money, but needs a predictable cash flow to pay interest to its investors.
So it is not surprising, that Fund B buys the asset from Company A.
I should say that the project management computer system, that I designed; Artemis was leased to the end users.
This eased the process of funding the sales.
In later years, I seem to remember, that we took bundles of leases with companies like BAe, BP, Shell, Texaco and sold them to banks, who needed a safe investment.
30 MW Offshore Wind Turbines Being Considered For New Project In Sweden
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
Freja Offshore, a joint venture between Hexicon and Mainstream Renewable Power, has submitted an application for an offshore wind farm in Sweden that could have an installed capacity of between 2 GW and 2.5 GW and, according to the project’s consultation document, could feature wind turbines of up to 30 MW per unit.
This paragraph, indicates how turbines have grown over the last two decades.
The wind turbines in the future will probably be taller, the rotor diameter larger and the turbines more powerful, the joint venture says in the consultation document, and compares the largest wind turbines launched in 2011, which have a rotor diameter of 164 metres and an installed capacity of 8 MW, with those launched 10 years later, featuring a rotor diameter of 236 metres and an output of 15 MW.
Moving on a few years to 2030 and it doesn’t seem unreasonable that turbine size will double again to 30 MW.
I could see them becoming the standard turbine, providing they aren’t too heavy for the fixed foundations or floats.
It would be an interesting exercise to model the costs of wind farms, as the turbines get bigger.
With North Sea oil and gas, I was told several times, by Artemis users, that as cranes got larger, which allowed bigger lifts, the costs of offshore infrastructure decreased.
Note.
The Anonymous Widower 