Stephen Fitzpatrick On May’s Energy Cap
Stephen Fitzpatrick is the chief executive of OVO Energy, so you could expect a well-thought out response to Theresa May’s proposed cap on energy prices.
This article on Sky is entitled May vows to cap energy bill increases if Tories win election.
This is reported as comments by Stephen Fitzpatrick in the article.
He described the policy as a “bold and ambitious move” – and argued that a cap on standard variable tariffs would not harm consumers or competition.
“It will be painful for some companies, especially those currently taking advantage of customer disengagement, but it will offer consumers a safety net, protecting them from some of the worst practices of the industry whilst still allowing innovative suppliers to compete,
I just wonder, if the energy cap is more targeted than we think.
Unlimited Energy Is More Than A Pipe Dream
This is the title of a comment in Friday’s Times from Ed Conway, who is economics editor of Sky News.
He says how energy storage will eventually solve our energy supply problem, by storing the energy generated from solar, tidal, wave and wind.
He mentions a storage idea from a company called ARES or Advanced Rail Energy Storage, which uses trains to store energy by pushing weights up hill.
This article from Interesting Engineering is entitled These Cool Energy Storage Trains Simply Work With the Power of Gravity.
This is said.
- Trains are loaded with concrete blocks.
- Trains are powered by third rail electrification.
- Energy is released using the regenerative braking, when the trains come down.
- Very little environmental damage is sustained.
- No water is used.
I have a feeling that in the right place, this idea could be made to work.
Consider the following facts and thoughts.
Dinorwig Power Station
Dinorwig Power Station in Snowdonia colloquial known as Electric Mountain is the UK’s largest pumped storage hydroelectric scheme.
Wikipedia says this about the power of Dinorwig.
From standstill, a single 450-tonne generator can synchronise and achieve full load in approximately 75 seconds. With all six units synchronised and spinning-in-air (Water is dispelled by compressed air and the unit draws a small amount of power to spin the shaft at full speed), 0 MW to 1800 MW load can be achieved in approximately 16 seconds. Once running, the station can provide power for up to 6 hours before running out of water.
So Dinotwig can effectively store about 6 x 1800 or 10800 MwH of electricity.
How Much Energy Would A Train Store?
If we took a 100 tonne wagon and raised it through a thousand metres, it would acquire 0.272 MwH of energy.
On a rough calculation, you would need to raise 40,000 wagons to have the capacity of a Dinorwig.
That would need a very large marshalling yard at the top and the bottom.
How Powerful Is A Locomotive?
A modern electric locomotive like a Bombardier TRAXX can be as big as 6 MW.
This locomotive doesn’t come with third-rail electrification, but that could easily be arranged.
If it took the train with say four locomotives, two hours to climb from the low to the high yards, this would expend 48 MwH of electricity.
So this energy would be enough to raise about two hundred wagons to the top.
Making All The Numbers Bigger
The numbers seem challenging and I think the idea is only possible with larger numbers.
- The trains would need to be raised through a much greater height – Say 2,000 metres
- The wagons would need to be very heavy – Say 2,000 tonnes
- The locomotives would need to be more powerful – Say 10 MW.
These give the following.
- The wagon would acquire 10.88 MwH of energy.
- Each train would expend 80 MwH of energy.
- A Dinorwig-sized facility would need about a thousand wagons.
Making the components bigger certainly reduced the numbers.
Could A Heavy And Powerful Self-Powered Wagon Be Designed And Built?
Concrete has various attributes including heavy weight, ease of use and affordable cost.
Boat builders have even built high-performance yachts from concrete.
Could it be possible to create a self-powered wagon with the following characteristics?
- A number of powered bogies, with a total power of perhaps 20-30 MW.
- Third rail power collection.
- Regenerative braking to generate power on the way down.
- A weight of 10,000 tonnes.
I suspect that the engineering exists to do it.
It would also need a very robust railway to carry it.
The potential energy acquired by the wagon at 1,000 metres would be 27.2 MwH.
If the time to get up the hill and the power of the wagon were balanced, I could see an efficient design being created.
Conclusion
This project might just be possible in an area like Nevada, where it could be coupled to massive solar farms, but I believe there are few other places in the world, where it would be as feasible.
The Beginning Of The End For Coal In The UK
This article on the BBC is entitled First coal-free day in Britain since Industrial Revolution.
This is opening two paragraphs.
Britain went a full day without using coal to generate electricity for the first time since the Industrial Revolution, the National Grid says.
The energy provider said Friday’s lack of coal usage was a “watershed” moment.
Let’s hope it’s not a long goodbye.
Sadly, whilst there are people like Trummkopf about, it will be a long time before coal burning across the world descreases to a low level.
How Norway Will Keep Britain’s Lights On
This is the title of an article in today’s Times about the building of the North Sea Link, which is described like this in Wikipedia.
The North Sea Link (also known as North Sea Network Link or NSN Link, HVDC Norway–Great Britain, and Norway–UK interconnector) is a 1,400 MW subsea high-voltage direct current electricity cable under construction between Norway and the United Kingdom. It is a joint project of the transmission system operators Statnett and National Grid plc and is due to be completed in 2021.
To put the size of the North Sea Link into context Hinckley Point C nuclear power station will generate 3,2000 MW, so we get 44% of the power reliably for as long as Norway’s hydro-electric power system functions.
The Times article also lists other interconnectors in which National Grid are involved.
- 160 MW system (1961) – 100 MW – co-owned with the French.
- 2000 MW system (1986) – 2000 MW co-owned with the French.
- IFA2 – 1000 MW co-owned with the French
- BritNed – 1000 MW co-owned with the Dutch.
- NemoLink – 1000 MW co-owned with the Belgians.
- Viking Link – 1400 MW co-owned with the Danes.
- ICELink – A possible 1000 MW link to Iceland.
- A possible second connection to Norway
- A possible second connection to the Netherlands.
In addition, there are other links like FABlink and NorthConnect, where National Grid don’t have an interest.
It’s not all importing of electricity, as recently because of troubles with their nuclear plants, we’ve been exporting electricity to the French.
As a control engineer, I think all of these interconnectors are sound investments, as Europe can mix the erratic sources of wind, wave, tidal and solar with the steady outputs of nuclear, coal and hydro.
This Wikipedia article called Wind power in the United Kingdom says this.
The United Kingdom is one of the best locations for wind power in the world, and is considered to be the best in Europe. Wind power contributed 11% of UK electricity generation in 2015, and 17% in December 2015. Allowing for the costs of pollution, particularly the carbon emissions of other forms of production, onshore wind power is the cheapest form of energy in the United Kingdom In 2016, the UK generated more electricity from wind power than from coal.
So back wind up by steady sources from the UK and Europe like nuclear and hydro-electric, when the wind stops and all is well with the lights.
And of course, as many of these interconnectors are bi-directional, when we have excess power, countries in Europe who need it can import it.
Who sits like spider in the middle of this web? – National Grid of course!
All those, who think that coal is a good idea, should be made to sit on the naughty step.
UK ‘Need Not Fear Electricity Blackouts’ Says Ex-National Grid Boss
This is the title of another article on the BBC.
This is said.
The UK has enough energy capacity to meet demand – even on the coldest days when demand is highest, says Steve Holliday, the man who ran National Grid for a decade.
He said news stories raising fears about blackouts should stop.
The article goes on to say how gas and coal-fired plants that would have been scrapped will fill any gaps.
They may do, but I have this feeling that energy users and especially big ones are much more savvy than they used to be and I wouldn’t be surprised to see the UK manage next winter without using coal, which produces a lot more CO2 and pollution, than natural gas.
I also think that after 2018, we’ll start to see new technologies and projects generating electricity or bringing it to the UK.
We might even have seen a start on the ICElik or Atlantic Superconnector, which will bring green electricity from Iceland to the UK.
Where’s The Emergency Train Power For Crossrail?
Things that can go wrong in a deep rail line do happen and even in the Channel Tunnel, there have been incidents.
There have been two major fires in the Channel Tunnel in 1996 and 2008 and there have also been various train failures.
I am not being alarmist, but as each Class 345 train can carry 1,500 passengers and twenty-four trains per hour will be going through the line for much of the time, there will be an awful lot of people underground at times.
If you look at the specification of a Class 345 train, it has features surely will help recovery if a train breaks down.
I found this snippet on the Internet which gives the formation of the new Class 345 trains.
When operating as nine-car trains, the Class 345 trains will have two Driving Motor Standard Opens (DMSO), two Pantograph Motor Standard Opens (PMSO), four Motor Standard Opens (MSO) and one Trailer Standard Open (TSO). They will be formed as DMSO+PMSO+MSO+MSO+TSO+MSO+MSO+PMSO+DMSO.
This formation and the train design could have positive implications for safety.
- It looks to me that the train will be two half-trains. Can they be driven independently, as Class 373 trains in the Channel Tunnel can?
- Half-trains must get around some train failures. If say the pantograph fails on one half-train, the other half-train can take the train to a suitable place like the next station to evacuate the passengers.
- The trains will also be walk through, so let’s assume that a passenger’s laptop or mobile catches fire, passengers can be moved to another safe part of the train.
I suspect that all the experience of running electric trains in long tunnels for several decades all over the World, will have been used in validating the design of Class 345 trains.
My biggest worry as an electrical engineer and a Londoner, is a complete electrical failure in the capital.
They don’t happen often, but this article on the BBC is entitled Blackout hits London’s Soho on Black Friday.
It describes London’s power failure of last week.
Power failures do happen, so what happens if a computer virus or extreme weather blacks out London?
I have just read this article in Rail Engineer, which is entitled Crossrail – approaching the final stages.
This is said about the power supply in the tunnels.
The Crossrail route will be powered by a 25kV overhead line system using a Cariboni 110mm deep rigid overhead conductor bar throughout the tunnels. Although from a different manufacturer, this design concept is similar to the one being installed in the Severn Tunnel that doesn’t require weights and pulleys.
In the central section, 25kV traction power for the Crossrail trains will be provided by two new bulk supply points from National Grid 400kV, at Pudding Mill Lane in the east and Kensal Green to the west. Super grid transformers have been installed and fitted with fans and additional coolants.
A 22kV high-voltage network will be installed in the central section from Royal Oak Portal in the west to Limmo Peninsula in the east with an 11kV high-voltage non-traction spur to be installed from Limmo through to Plumstead. This network will supply mains power to each Crossrail station, shaft and portal within the central section.
Note.
- It is a very simple power layout, for the trains, with a continous overhead rail providing power.
- There is only two feed points for the overhead power to the trains, but these feed points seem to be of a robust design.
- Trains in the middle will be fed by power coming a long way in the conductor rail.
- Conductor rail must be a more robust power supply to the trains, than the typical overhead wires.
- All Crossrail stations and shafts will use Crossrail’s own dedicated power supply.
The article though doesn’t mention two things.
- How is an emergency power failure handled?
- How is the power from regenerative braking fed back into the power network?
I’ll deal with the power failure first.
It would appear that a Central London power failure such as last Friday should have little effect on an independently-powered Crossrail. I wouldn’t expect anything less.
But there are always unexpected reasons, why a train may be isolated without power. So how does a train get to the next station or evacuation shaft, with its valuable load of passengers?
With respect to the regenerative braking, the power is usually fed into the overhead wires and used by another train nearby.
But, I do wonder if Crossrail will be doing things differently, as I like to think of the line as the latest and most energy-efficient of train lines.
Both the braking and failure problems are made easier, if the train is fitted with an on-board energy storage system or batteries in everyday parlance.
A fully-loaded Crossrail train going at its maximum speed of 145 kph will have an energy of 105 KwH, so if it stored this energy on the train when it brakes and stops, it could use it when it accelerated away.
Using batteries for regenerative braking has other effects.
- It relegates the overhead rail to providing top up power as the train proceeds through the tunnel.
- The overhead rail and its power supply, only has to cater for energy going to and not coming from the train.
- The engineering on the train is simpler, as braking energy doesn’t have to be raised to 25 KVAC to feed back into the overhead rail, using perhaps a heavy transformer.
But most importantly, it means that the train has stored energy to proceed to the next station or safe place, if the overhead power should fail.
I have no evidence that this is actually the case, but Bombardier have said that the train will have a remote wake-up facility as I discussed in Do Bombardier Aventras Have Remote Wake-Up?, so that the driver will turn up and find a train ready for action. Try doing that without a substantial on-board power source, without leaving the train plugged in to electricity all night.
Bombardier are only stealing ideas, from some of the latest cars, if I’m right.
Conclusion
I wouldn’t be surprised if Crossrail’s Class 345 trains are fitted with on board energy storage. The storage would handle.
- Regenerative Braking
- Emergency get you to safety power.
- Remote wake-up of trains.
The design would also mean that the Crossrail and its new trains would be more energy efficient.
Wattway
I was pointed to this French innovation by the Sunday Times.
Effectively, Wattway, is a system of solar panels that you can put in a road and drive on.
Click here for the Wattway web site.
I have a feeling that it will lead to all sorts of applications, especially where power is needed at a remote location.
I suspect too, that it doesn’t need planning permission as such, whereas even a small wind-turbine might!
Brits Keen To Go Green But Don’t Want To Pay For It
The title of this post is the same as that of this article on Energy Live News.
It is an interesting article.
- People in London and Northern Ireland are more likely to pay a green premium.
- People in the South-East and Wales are most unlikely.
- More than one in 10 of those willing to pay more would be happy to pay an extra 31-50% for greener energy.
I think it is better value to make sure you don’t use the energy in the first place.
I also feel, that much of our housing stock can never be made energy efficient and should be knocked down and replaced with better quality housing.
Coal’s Economic Victims
Coal still claims victims, but these days, the biggest ones are economic and corporate.
In the United States, this article has been published on Bloomberg, with a title of Coal Slump Sends Mining Giant Peabody Energy Into Bankruptcy.
The article makes these points.
-
Biggest U.S. producer felled by cheap gas, China slowdown
-
Environmental costs could complicate miner’s reorganisation
How many US pensions have lost value because Peabody was considered a safe investment?
As fracked cheap gas is given as the reason for Peabody’s fall, don’t think that the US is swapping one dirty fuel for another!
- When you burn coal, which is virtually pure carbon with impurities, you create a lot of carbon dioxide and spread the impurities, which are sometimes quite noxious over a wide area.
- But natural gas is mainly methane, which is one carbon atom and four of hydrogen. So burning gas creates a lot of water, as well as less carbon.
I seem to remember that to get the same amount of heat energy from natural gas, as from a given quantity of coal, you only create about forty percent of the carbon dioxide.
This page on the US Energy Information Administration probably can lead you to the answer.
In the UK, there are two recent stories on Global Rail News.
Rail freight is going through a bit of a crisis in the UK, because we are burning much less coal in power stations.
As coal is moved to power stations by diesel-hauled trains in the UK, from open-cast sites and the ports, the burning of less coal in power stations is having a serious effect on rail freight companies.
At least, if any train drivers are made redundant, there are plenty of vacancies for drivers of passenger trains and I’ve yet to meet a freight train driver, you likes the dreaded Class 66 locomotives, with all their noise, vibration and smell, that generally pull coal trains.
But it’s not all bad news, as this article from the Railway Gazette, which is entitled Freightliner wagons use recycled coal hopper components, shows. This is said.
Freightliner has taken delivery of the first of 64 open wagons which are being built by Greenbrier Europe using bogies and brake components recovered from coal hoppers made redundant as a result of the decline in coal traffic.
Freightliner Heavy Haul needed a fleet of high capacity box wagons for a new contract to haul construction materials for Tarmac, and decided to investigate the possibility of using recycled parts from redundant Type HHA 102 tonne coal hoppers. With assistance from engineering consultancy SNC Lavalin, Freightliner and Greenbrier Europe identified that with some modifications the bogies and some of the braking equipment would be compatible with an existing design of Greenbrier box wagon.
To a small extent, the movement of aggregates around the country by rail instead of truck, is replacing the coal trains on the the railways.
Did Aberfan Change My Thinking About Coal?
I have just watched a moving piece by John Humphrys on the BBC, which describes Aberfan now and compares it to what he remembers from fifty years ago.
Growing up in London, I remember the awful smogs of the 1950s caused by domestic coal smoke, so that might have had an affect on my thinking.
But I have been strongly anti-coal for as long as I can remember and I suspect that the tragedy of Aberfan, finally sealed its fate in my mind.
Coal mining tragedies used to happen regularly at that time all over the world and I probably felt it was just too high a price to pay for energy.
I must be one of the few people, who felt, through all of this country’s coal mining troubles of the latter twentieth-century, that the mines should be shut immediately.
I always remember an article in the Guardian, that stated that miners should be retrained into teams, that went round and insulated our pathetic housing stock. If you’ve ever put insulation into a roof, in some cases, it’s very much akin to Victorian coal-mining in reverse.
After all the greenest form of energy, is not to have to generate it in the first place.
I have solar panels on the flat roof of my three-bedroomed house, and even in the Autumn, I only use 50 KwH of electricity and 20 units of gas every week.
The Anonymous Widower 