South Korean Team To Develop SMR-Powered Ships
The title of this post is the same as that of this article on Neutron Bytes.
This is the introductory paragraph.
Nine South Korean organizations have signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to cooperate on the development and demonstration of ships and offshore systems powered with small modular reactors (SMRs). The partners will also develop marine systems and the production of hydrogen using molten salt reactors (MSRs).
These points are listed about nuclear-powered ships.
- Over 160 ships are powered by more than 200 small nuclear reactors.
- Most are submarines, but they range from icebreakers to aircraft carriers.
- In future, constraints on fossil fuel use in transport may bring marine nuclear propulsion into more widespread use.
- So far, exaggerated fears about safety have caused political restrictions on port access.
Note.
- When as a child, I used to watch the large container ships at Felixstowe, I thought then, that they could be nuclear-powered.
- One engineering lecturer at Liverpool University in the 1960s, was talking about nuclear-powered tunneling machines.
- Rolls-Royce to name just one company must have the reactor technology.
I just wonder, when the Korean President and his wife visited the UK, just before Christmas, that nuclear-powered ships were discussed.
RWE Acquires 4.2-Gigawatt UK Offshore Wind Development Portfolio From Vattenfall
The title of this post, is the same as that of this press release from RWE.
These three bullet points, act as sub-headings.
- Highly attractive portfolio of three projects at a late stage of development, with grid connections and permits secured, as well as advanced procurement of key components
- Delivery of the three Norfolk Offshore Wind Zone projects off the UK’s East Anglia coast will be part of RWE’s Growing Green investment and growth plans
- Agreed purchase price corresponds to an enterprise value of £963 million
These two paragraphs outline the deal.
RWE, one of the world’s leading offshore wind companies, will acquire the UK Norfolk Offshore Wind Zone portfolio from Vattenfall. The portfolio comprises three offshore wind development projects off the east coast of England – Norfolk Vanguard West, Norfolk Vanguard East and Norfolk Boreas.
The three projects, each with a planned capacity of 1.4 gigawatts (GW), are located 50 to 80 kilometres off the coast of Norfolk in East Anglia. This area is one of the world’s largest and most attractive areas for offshore wind. After 13 years of development, the three development projects have already secured seabed rights, grid connections, Development Consent Orders and all other key permits. The Norfolk Vanguard West and Norfolk Vanguard East projects are most advanced, having secured the procurement of most key components. The next milestone in the development of these two projects is to secure a Contract for Difference (CfD) in one of the upcoming auction rounds. RWE will resume the development of the Norfolk Boreas project, which was previously halted. All three Norfolk projects are expected to be commissioned in this decade.
There is also this handy map, which shows the location of the wind farms.
Note that there are a series of assets along the East Anglian coast, that will be useful to RWE’s Norfolk Zone development.
- In Vattenfall Selects Norfolk Offshore Wind Zone O&M Base, I talked about how the Port of Great Yarmouth will be the operational base for the Norfolk Zone wind farms.
- Bacton gas terminal has gas interconnectors to Belgium and the Netherlands lies between Cromer and Great Yarmouth.
- The cable to the Norfolk Zone wind farms is planned to make landfall between Bacton and Great Yarmouth.
- Sizewell is South of Lowestoft and has the 1.25 GW Sizewell B nuclear power station, with the 3.2 GW Sizewell C on its way, for more than adequate backup.
- Dotted around the Norfolk and Suffolk coast are 3.3 GW of earlier generations of wind farms, of which 1.2 GW have connections to RWE.
- The LionLink multipurpose 1.8 GW interconnector will make landfall to the North of Southwold
- There is also the East Anglian Array, which currently looks to be about 3.6 GW, that connects to the shore at Bawdsey to the South of Aldeburgh.
- For recreation, there’s Southwold.
- I can also see more wind farms squeezed in along the coast. For example, according to Wikipedia, the East Anglian Array could be increased in size to 7.2 GW.
It appears that a 15.5 GW hybrid wind/nuclear power station is being created on the North-Eastern coast of East Anglia.
The big problem is that East Anglia doesn’t really have any large use for electricity.
But the other large asset in the area is the sea.
- Undersea interconnectors can be built to other locations, like London or Europe, where there is a much greater need for electricity.
- In addition, the UK Government has backed a consortium, who have the idea of storing energy by using pressurised sea-water in 3D-printed concrete hemispheres under the sea. I wrote about this development in UK Cleantech Consortium Awarded Funding For Energy Storage Technology Integrated With Floating Wind.
A proportion of Russian gas in Europe, will have been replaced by Norfolk wind power and hydrogen, which will be given a high level of reliability from Suffolk nuclear power.
I have some other thoughts.
Would Hydrogen Be Easier To Distribute From Norfolk?
A GW-range electrolyser would be feasible but expensive and it would be a substantial piece of infrastructure.
I also feel, that placed next to Bacton or even offshore, there would not be too many objections from the Norfolk Nimbys.
Hydrogen could be distributed from the site in one of these ways.
- By road transport, as ICI did, when I worked in their hydrogen plant at Runcorn.
- I suspect, a rail link could be arranged, if there was a will.
- By tanker from the Port of Great Yarmouth.
- By existing gas interconnectors to Belgium and the Netherlands.
As a last resort it could be blended into the natural gas pipeline at Bacton.
In Major Boost For Hydrogen As UK Unlocks New Investment And Jobs, I talked about using the gas grid as an offtaker of last resort. Any spare hydrogen would be fed into the gas network, provided safety criteria weren’t breached.
I remember a tale from ICI, who from their refinery got a substantial amount of petrol, which was sold to independent petrol retailers around the North of England.
But sometimes they had a problem, in that the refinery produced a lot more 5-star petrol than 2-star. So sometimes if you bought 2-star, you were getting 5-star.
On occasions, it was rumoured that other legal hydrocarbons were disposed of in the petrol. I was once told that it was discussed that used diluent oil from polypropylene plants could be disposed of in this way. But in the end it wasn’t!
If hydrogen were to be used to distribute all or some of the energy, there would be less need for pylons to march across Norfolk.
Could A Rail Connection Be Built To The Bacton Gas Terminal
This Google Map shows the area between North Walsham and the coast.
Note.
- North Walsham is in the South-Western corner of the map.
- North Walsham station on the Bittern Line is indicated by the red icon.
- The Bacton gas terminal is the trapezoidal-shaped area on the coast, at the top of the map.
ThisOpenRailwayMap shows the current and former rail lines in the same area as the previous Google Map.
Note.
- North Walsham station is in the South-West corner of the map.
- The yellow track going through North Walsham station is the Bittern Line to Cromer and Sheringham.
- The Bacton gas terminal is on the coast in the North-East corner of the map.
I believe it would be possible to build a small rail terminal in the area with a short pipeline connection to Bacton, so that hydrogen could be distributed by train.
There used to be a branch line from North Walsham station to Cromer Beach station, that closed in 1953.
Until 1964 it was possible to get trains to Mundesley-on-Sea station.
So would it be possible to build a rail spur to the Bacton gas terminal along the old branch line?
In the Wikipedia entry for the Bittern Line this is said.
The line is also used by freight trains which are operated by GB Railfreight. Some trains carry gas condensate from a terminal at North Walsham to Harwich International Port.
The rail spur could have four main uses.
- Taking passengers to and from Mundesley-on-Sea and Bacton.
- Collecting gas condensate from the Bacton gas terminal.
- Collecting hydrogen from the Bacton gas terminal.
- Bringing in heavy equipment for the Bacton gas terminal.
It looks like another case of one of Dr. Beeching’s closures coming back to take a large chunk out of rail efficiency.
Claire Coutinho And Robert Habeck’s Tete-a-Tete
I wrote about their meeting in Downing Street in UK And Germany Boost Offshore Renewables Ties.
- Did Habeck run the RWE/Vattenfall deal past Coutinho to see it was acceptable to the UK Government?
- Did Coutinho lobby for SeAH to get the contract for the monopile foundations for the Norfolk Zone wind farms?
- Did Coutinho have a word for other British suppliers like iTMPower.
Note.
- I think we’d have heard and/or the deal wouldn’t have happened, if there had been any objections to it from the UK Government.
- In SeAH To Deliver Monopiles For Vattenfall’s 2.8 GW Norfolk Vanguard Offshore Wind Project, I detailed how SeAH have got the important first contract they needed.
So it appears so far so good.
Rackheath Station And Eco-Town
According to the Wikipedia entry for the Bittern Line, there are also plans for a new station at Rackheath to serve a new eco-town.
This is said.
A new station is proposed as part of the Rackheath eco-town. The building of the town may also mean a short freight spur being built to transport fuel to fire an on-site power station. The plans for the settlement received approval from the government in 2009.
The eco-town has a Wikipedia entry, which has a large map and a lot of useful information.
But the development does seem to have been ensnared in the planning process by the Norfolk Nimbys.
The Wikipedia entry for the Rackheath eco-town says this about the rail arrangements for the new development.
The current rail service does not allow room for an extra station to be added to the line, due to the length of single track along the line and the current signalling network. The current service at Salhouse is only hourly during peak hours and two-hourly during off-peak hours, as not all trains are able to stop due to these problems. Fitting additional trains to this very tight network would not be possible without disrupting the entire network, as the length of the service would increase, missing the connections to the mainline services. This would mean that a new 15-minute shuttle service between Norwich and Rackheath would have to be created; however, this would interrupt the main service and cause additional platforming problems. Finding extra trains to run this service and finding extra space on the platforms at Norwich railway station to house these extra trains poses additional problems, as during peak hours all platforms are currently used.
In addition, the plans to the site show that both the existing and the new rail station, which is being built 300m away from the existing station, will remain open.
. As the trains cannot stop at both stations, changing between the two services would be difficult and confusing, as this would involve changing stations.
I feel that this eco-town is unlikely to go ahead.
Did RWE Buy Vattenfall’s Norfolk Zone To Create Green Hydrogen For Europe?
Consider.
- Vattenfall’s Norfolk Zone is a 4.2 GW group of wind farms, which have all the requisite permissions and are shovel ready.
- Bacton Gas terminal has gas pipelines to Europe.
- Sizewell’s nuclear power stations will add security of supply.
- Extra wind farms could be added to the Norfolk Zone.
- Europe and especially Germany has a massive need for zero-carbon energy.
The only extra infrastructure needing to be built is the giant electrolyser.
I wouldn’t be surprised if RWE built a large electrolyser to supply Europe with hydrogen.
Is Sizewell C Needed?
I am generally pro-nuclear, but I am not sure if building a large nuke at Sizewell is the right action.
Consider.
- East Anglia has 3114 MW of offshore wind in operation.
- East Anglia has 6772 MW of offshore wind under construction, with Contracts for Difference or proposed.
- Vattenfall are considering abandoning development of their large wind farms off the Norfolk coast, which are proposed to have a capacity of 3196 MW.
- If the two Vattenfall wind farms don’t get built, it is likely that East Anglia will have around 6700 MW of offshore wind capacity.
- Sizewell C has a proposed nameplate capacity of 3260 MW. Some might argue, that to back up East Anglia’s offshore wind power, it needs to be larger!
- Norfolk and Suffolk no large electricity users, so are Vattenfall finding they have a product no one wants to buy.
- National Grid is developing four interconnectors to bring power from Scotland to the Eastern side of England, which will back up wind power in the East with the massive Scottish pumped storage, that is being developed.
- National Grid and their Dutch equivalent; TenneT are developing LionLink to connect the UK and the Netherlands to clusters of wind farms between our countries in the North Sea.
- Kent and East Anglia have several gas and electric interconnectors to Europe.
- Sizewell is well-connected to England’s grid.
These are my thoughts.
Energy Storage At Sizewell
Consider.
- Sizewell is well connected to the grid.
- It has the sea on one side.
- It could easily be connected to the large offshore wind farms, thirty miles out to sea.
If large energy storage could be built on the Sizewell site or perhaps under the sea, then this energy could be recovered and used in times of low wind.
Perhaps the technology of the STORE Consortium, which I discussed in UK Cleantech Consortium Awarded Funding For Energy Storage Technology Integrated With Floating Wind, could be used.
In this system, energy is stored in 3D-printed concrete hemispheres under the sea.
A Small Nuclear Reactor Cluster At Sizewell
Rolls-Royce are proposing that their small modular reactors will have a capacity of 470 MW.
Perhaps a cluster of seven small modular reactors at Sizewell, with a building schedule matched to the need to back up wind farms would be better and easier to finance.
I also feel a cluster of SMRs would have less risk and would be less likely to be delayed.
Where Is Generating Capacity Needed In The UK?
These areas already have large amounts of offshore wind in operation or proposed to be built before 2030.
- Celtic Sea
- North Wales
- Liverpool Bay
- Cumbria
- Scotland
- Scotland’s Offshore Islands
- North East England
- Humberside
- Lincolnshire
- East Anglia
- Thames Estuary
- Kent
- Sussex
Amongst the back up for these wind farms, there are only two modern nuclear stations; Sizewell B and the still-to-open Hinckley Point C.
If you look at a map of England and its power generation, there is a tremendous gap of capacity South of a line between Hinckley Point and Brighton, with little or no offshore wind and no nuclear.
There is probably a need for a large nuke near Weymouth.
Alternatively, perhaps several SMRs could be built underneath places like Salisbury Plain, Dartmoor and Exmoor!
Conclusion
We probably need the nuclear electricity from another Hinckley Point C-sized nuclear power station, so that we have adequate back-up for offshore wind.
But I am not sure that Sizewell is the right place to build it.
Ultra Safe Nuclear, Hyundai Engineering, SK Ecoplant Sign MOU For Clean Hydrogen Production
The title of this post, is the same as that of this press release from Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation.
These are the first two paragraphs.
Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, the U.S.-based global leader in the deployment of fourth-generation gas-cooled microreactors, Hyundai Engineering (Representative Director Hong Hyun-sung) and SK ecoplant (Representative Director Park Kyung-il) are teaming up to conduct research and development for carbon-free hydrogen production. The three companies signed an MOU on Thursday, April 20th for the construction of a “Hydrogen Micro Hub” at the SK ecoplant headquarters in Seoul’s Jongno-gu.
The “Hydrogen Micro Hub” is a facility that produces hydrogen by applying a high-temperature electrolysis process of solid oxide electrolysis cells (SOEC) to the electricity and high-temperature steam generated by USNC’s Micro-Modular™ Reactor (MMR®). This is a carbon-free hydrogen production method that extracts hydrogen by decomposing water with electricity generated from nuclear power.
Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation has a web site.
- Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, is a U.S. corporation headquartered in Seattle.
- Canada appears to be deeply involved.
- Innovate UK appears to have dished out a grant.
- They appear to have sold five of their MMRs.
The company could be a serious competitor in the market for small modular nuclear reactors.
Low Carbon Construction Of Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station
Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station is going to be built on the Suffolk Coast.
Wikipedia says this about the power station’s construction.
The project is expected to commence before 2024, with construction taking between nine and twelve years, depending on developments at the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, which is also being developed by EDF Energy and which shares major similarities with the Sizewell plant.
It is a massive project and I believe the construction program will be designed to be as low-carbon as possible.
High Speed Two is following the low-carbon route and as an example, this news item on their web site, which is entitled HS2 Completes Largest Ever UK Pour Of Carbon-Reducing Concrete On Euston Station Site, makes all the right noises.
These three paragraphs explain in detail what has been done on the Euston station site.
The team constructing HS2’s new Euston station has undertaken the largest ever UK pour of Earth Friendly Concrete (EFC) – a material that reduces the amount of carbon embedded into the concrete, saving over 76 tonnes of CO2 overall. John F Hunt, working for HS2’s station Construction Partner, Mace Dragados joint venture, completed the 232 m3 concrete pour in early September.
The EFC product, supplied by Capital Concrete, has been used as a foundation slab that will support polymer silos used for future piling works at the north of the Euston station site. Whilst the foundation is temporary, it will be in use for two years, and historically would have been constructed with a more traditional cement-based concrete.
The use of the product on this scale is an important step forward in how new, innovative environmentally sustainable products can be used in construction. It also helps support HS2’s objective of net-zero construction by 2035, and achieve its goal of halving the amount of carbon in the construction of Britain’s new high speed rail line.
Note.
- Ten of these slabs would fill an Olympic swimming pool.
- I first wrote about Earth Friendly Concrete (EFC) in this post called Earth Friendly Concrete.
- EFC is an Australian invention and is based on a geopolymer binder that is made from the chemical activation of two recycled industrial wastes; flyash and slag.
- HS2’s objective of net-zero construction by 2035 is laudable.
- It does appear that this is a trial, but as the slab will be removed in two years, they will be able to examine in detail how it performed.
I hope the Sizewell C project team are following High Speed Two’s lead.
Rail Support For Sizewell C
The Sizewell site has a rail connection and it appears that this will be used to bring in construction materials for the project.
In the January 2023 Edition of Modern Railways, there is an article, which is entitled Rail Set To Support Sizewell C Construction.
It details how sidings will be built to support the construction, with up to four trains per day (tpd), but electrification is not mentioned.
This is surprising to me, as increasingly, big construction projects are being managed to emit as small an amount of carbon as possible. Sizewell C may be an isolated site, but in Sizewell B, it’s got one of the UK’s biggest independent carbon-free electricity generators a couple of hundred metres away.
The writer of the Modern Railways article, thinks an opportunity is being missed.
I feel the following should be done.
- Improve and electrify the East Suffolk Line between Ipswich and Saxmundham Junction.
- Electrify the Aldeburgh Branch Line and the sidings to support the construction or agree to use battery-electric or hydrogen zero-carbon locomotives.
Sizewell C could be a superb demonstration project for low-carbon construction!
Sizewell C Deliveries
Sizewell C will be a massive project and and will require a large number of deliveries, many of which will be heavy.
The roads in the area are congested, so I suspect rail is the preferred method for deliveries.
We already know from the Modern Railways article, that four tpd will shuttle material to a number of sidings close to the site. This is a good start.
Since Sizewell A opened, trains have regularly served the Sizewell site to bring in and take out nuclear material. These occasional trains go via Ipswich and in the last couple of years have generally been hauled by Class 88 electro-diesel locomotives.
It would be reasonable to assume that the Sizewell C sidings will be served in the same manner.
But the route between Westerfield Junction and Ipswich station is becoming increasingly busy with the following services.
- Greater Anglia’s London and Norwich services
- Greater Anglia’s Ipswich and Cambridge services
- Greater Anglia’s Ipswich and Felixstowe services
- Greater Anglia’s Ipswich and Lowestoft services
- Greater Anglia’s Ipswich and Peterborough services
- Freight services serving the Port of Felixstowe, which are expected to increase significantly in forthcoming years.
But the Modern Railways article says this about Saxmundham junction.
Saxmundham junction, where the branch meets the main line, will be relaid on a slightly revised alignment, retaining the existing layout but with full signalling giving three routes from the junction protecting signal on the Down East Suffolk line and two in the Down direction on the bidirectional Up East Suffolk line. Trap points will be installed on the branch to protect the main line, with the exit signal having routes to both running lines.
Does the comprehensive signalling mean that a freight train can enter or leave the Sizewell sidings to or from either the busy Ipswich or the quieter Lowestoft direction in a very safe manner?
I’m no expert on signalling, but I think it does.
- A train coming from the Lowestoft direction needing to enter the sidings would go past Saxmundham junction on the Up line. Once clear of the junction, it would stop and reverse into the branch.
- A train coming from the Ipswich direction needing to enter the sidings would approach in the wrong direction on the Up line and go straight into the branch.
- A train leaving the sidings in the Lowestoft direction would exit from the branch and take the Up line until it became single track. The train would then stop and reverse on to the Down line and take this all the way to Lowestoft.
- A train leaving the sidings in the Ipswich direction would exit from the branch and take the Up line all the way to Ipswich.
There would need to be ability to move the locomotive from one end to the other inside the Sizewell site or perhaps these trains could be run with a locomotive on both ends.
The advantage of being able to run freight trains between Sizewell and Lowestoft becomes obvious, when you look at this Google Map, which shows the Port of Lowestoft.
Note.
- The Inner Harbour of the Port of Lowestoft.
- The East Suffolk Line running East-West to the North of the Inner Harbour.
- Lowestoft station at the East side of the map.
I doubt it would be the most difficult or expensive of projects to build a small freight terminal on the North side of the Inner Harbour.
I suspect that the easiest way to bring the material needed to build the power station to Sizewell would be to do the following.
- Deliver it to the Port of Lowestoft by ship.
- Tranship to a suitable shuttle train for the journey to the Sizewell sidings.
- I estimate that the distance is only about 25 miles and a battery or hydrogen locomotive will surely be available in the UK in the next few years, that will be able to provide the motive power for the return journey.
In The TruckTrain, I wrote about a revolutionary freight concept, that could be ideal for the Sizewell freight shuttle.
In addition, there is no reason, why shuttle trains couldn’t come in from anywhere connected to the East Suffolk Line.
Zero-Carbon Construction
Sizewell C could be the first major construction site in the UK to use electricity rather than diesel simply because of its neighbour.
Conclusion
I shall be following the construction methods at Sizewell C, as I’m fairly sure they will break new ground in the decarbonisation of the Construction industry.
Scientists Set To Make A Bang In Nuclear Fusion ‘Breakthrough’
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on The Times.
This is the caption under the very research looking picture at the top of the page.
Scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are expected to publish results of a controlled nuclear fusion experiment.
I shall report more, when the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory publishes their official press release.
EuroLink, Nautilus And Sea Link
EuroLink, Nautilus and Sea Link are three proposed interconnectors being developed by National Grid Ventures.
EuroLink
EuroLink has a web site, where this is said.
To support the UK’s growing energy needs, National Grid Ventures (NGV) is bringing forward proposals for a Multi-Purpose Interconnector (MPI) called EuroLink, which will deliver a new electricity link between Great Britain to the Netherlands.
EuroLink could supply up to 1.8 gigawatts (GW) of electricity, which will be enough to power approximately 1.8 million homes, as well as contribute to our national energy security and support the UK’s climate and energy goals. We’re holding a non-statutory public consultation to inform you about our EuroLink proposals, gather your feedback to help refine our plans and respond to your questions.
Note, that EuroLink is a Multi-Purpose Interconnector (MPI) and they are described on this page of the National Grid website.
In EuroLink’s case, this means it is basically an interconnector between the UK and The Netherlands, that also connects wind farms on the route to the shore.
- Coastal communities get less disruption, as the number of connecting cables coming ashore is reduced.
- Less space is needed onshore for substations.
- Electricity from the wind farms can be directed to where it is needed or can be stored.
As an Electrical and Control Engineer, I like the MPI approach.
The technology to implement the MPI approach is very much tried and tested.
There are many references to EuroLink terminating at Friston.
Nautilus
Nautilus has a web site, where this is said.
Nautilus could connect up to 1.4 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind to each country through subsea electricity whilst connecting to offshore wind farm/s at sea. By combining offshore wind generation with interconnector capacity between the UK and Belgium, Nautilus would significantly reduce the amount of infrastructure and disruption required both onshore and offshore.
With this new technology, we hope to reduce the impact of infrastructure on local communities and the environment, as well as support the government’s net zero and energy security targets. We are already working closely with other developers in the area to coordinate activities and minimise impact on local communities. We believe that through improved coordination, the UK government can achieve and support the co-existence of renewable energy with coastal communities.
Nautilus is another MPI.
This is said on the web site.
Last year, National Grid Ventures ran a non-statutory consultation for Nautilus, which proposed a connection at Friston.
NGV holds a connection agreement on the Isle of Grain in Kent as part of its development portfolio and we are currently investigating if this could be a potential location for Nautilus. Until this is confirmed to be technically feasible, Nautilus will be included as part of our coordination work in East Suffolk.
So it looks like, Nautilus could connect to the UK grid at Friston or the Isle of Grain.
Sea Link
Sea Link has a web site, and is a proposed interconnector across the Thames Estuary between Suffolk and Kent.
This is said on the web site about the need for and design of Sea Link.
The UK electricity industry is evolving at pace to help lead the way in meeting the climate challenge, whilst also creating a secure energy supply based on renewable and low carbon technologies.
The demands on the electricity network are set to grow as other sectors of the economy diversify their energy consumption from using fossil fuels towards cleaner forms, the move towards electric vehicles being just one example.
Where we’re getting our power from is changing and we need to change too. The new sources of renewable and low-carbon energy are located along the coastline. We need to reinforce existing transmission network and build new electricity infrastructure in these areas in order to transport the power to where it’s needed. This is the case along the whole of the East Coast including Suffolk and Kent.
To allow this increase in energy generation, we need to reinforce the electricity transmission system. Sea Link helps to reinforce the electricity network across Suffolk and Kent.
Our proposals include building an offshore high voltage direct current (HVDC) link between Suffolk and Kent with onshore converter stations and connections back to the national electricity transmission system.
On the web site, in answer to a question of What Is Sea Link?, this is said.
Sea Link is an essential upgrade to Britain’s electricity network in East Anglia and Kent using subsea and underground cable. The proposal includes approximately 130km of subsea cables between Sizewell area in East Suffolk and Richborough in Kent. At landfall, the cables would go underground for up to 5 km to a converter station (one at each end). The converter station converts direct current used for the subsea section to alternating current, which our homes and businesses use. A connection is then made to the existing transmission network. In Suffolk, via the proposed Friston substation; in Kent via a direct connection to the overhead line between Richborough and Canterbury.
Note, that from Kent electricity can also be exported to the Continent.
All Cables Lead To Friston In Suffolk
It looks like EuroLink, Nautilus and Sea Link could all be connected to a new substation at Friston.
But these will not be the only cables to pass close to the village.
This Google Map shows the village.
Running South-West to North-East across the map can be seen the dual line of electricity pylons, that connect the nuclear power stations at Sizewell to the UK electricity grid.
Has Friston been chosen for the substation, so that, the various interconnectors can be connected to the power lines, that connect the Sizewell site to the UK electricity grid.
This would enable EuroLink, Nautilus and/or Sea Link to stand in for the Sizewell nuclear stations, if they are shut down for any reason?
It does appear from reports on the Internet that the Friston substation is not welcome.
Exploring Opportunities For Coordination
The title of this section is a heading in the EuroLink web site, where this is said.
In response to stakeholder feedback, NGV’s Eurolink and Nautilus projects and NGET’s Sea Link project are exploring potential opportunities to coordinate. Coordination could range from co-location of infrastructure from different projects on the same site, to coordinating construction activities to reduce potential impacts on local communities and the environment.
That sounds very sensible.
Reports: Ineos In Talks With Rolls Royce To Build Nuclear Plant At Grangemouth Refinery
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on The Chemical Engineer.
These are the first two paragraphs.
INEOS is reportedly in talks with Rolls Royce about using its small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) technology to power the Grangemouth refinery in Scotland.
The Sunday Telegraph first reported the story, citing sources with knowledge of the discussions who claimed that early-stage talks between the companies have centred on the technology and that commercial negotiations are yet to take place.
This paragraph, also gives a useful summary of how large scale chemical plants can use low carbon energy.
Ineos is not the first chemicals major to explore using new nuclear plants to provide low-carbon power to help decarbonise its heavy operations. Options include raising low-carbon heat for use in chemicals processing and electrolysing water to produce hydrogen for use as chemical feedstocks. In August, Dow announced it will install SMRs from X-energy to provide power and process heat for its chemicals production on the US Gulf Coast.
It is interesting to note that Dow are also exploring the use of SMRs to power a large chemical plant.
This paragraph gives an assessment of the possible view of the Scottish government.
Scotland has set a target to achieve net zero emissions by 2045 – five years earlier than UK legislation. While the Scottish Government is opposed to new nuclear using current technologies it has said that it will assess how novel technologies might contribute to Scotland’s low carbon future.
So perhaps it is not the total opposition, that some would expect.
In the 1960s, when I worked at ICI, I can remember reading an article in a serious magazine about nuclear plants being used in chemical plants and for steelmaking. This application has taken a long time to come to fruition.
Morecambe Offshore Windfarm
I found this article on beyondradio, which is entitled Plans Unveiled To Build New Offshore Windfarms Off Morecambe Bay.
These care the first two paragraphs.
Plans are being developed to build new offshore windfarms off the Morecambe Bay coast.
Proposals have been unveiled for ‘Morecambe’ and ‘Morgan’, two new offshore wind farms being developed in the Irish Sea.
I’ve discussed Morgan and its sister; Mona before in Mona, Morgan And Morven, which describes the three projects BP are developing in a joint venture with enBW.
I haven’t come across the Morecambe Offshore Windfarm before and it has its own web site.
It has this summary of the wind farm.
Renewable energy is central to supporting the UK’s ambitions to lead the world in combatting climate change, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and embracing a future where renewable energy powers our homes and businesses.
Morecambe Offshore Windfarm which has a nominal capacity of 480MW. That’s enough to power over half a million households. It will also contribute to the UK Government’s commitment to:
- Generate 50GW of power from offshore wind by 2030
- Reach net zero by 2050.
It is located approximately 30km from the Lancashire coast.
This EnBW-BP infographic describes the Morgan and Mona projects.
it appears that the proposed Morecambe Offshore Windfarm will fit in the notch on the Eastern side of EnBW-BP’s two wind farms; Mona and Morgan.
- All three wind farms are fixed foundation wind farms.
- They have a total output of just under 3.5 GW.
- Could they share infrastructure like cables and substations?
- Heysham 1 is a 485 MW nuclear station, that will be decommissioned in 2024.
- Heysham 2 is a 1815 MW nuclear station, that will be decommissioned in 2028.
- What’s left of the two Heysham nuclear stations can probably generate 2.3 GW
Could it be that over 2.3 GW of wind power is being planned in the Irish Sea to make up for the loss of the four reactors at Heysham?
Could also the 480 MW Morecambe Bay wind farm be replacing what’s left of Heysham 1?
There would probably need to be a battery at Heysham, but it looks like the wind farms could be replacing the Heysham nuclear power station!
There will be consultation with the locals about the Morecambe ans Morgan wind farms, which will take place on Saturday, November 19, 2.30pm – 6.30pm, at Morecambe War Memorial Hall on Church Street.
I think, I might go!
Is This The World’s Best Renewable Energy Video?
This is a promotional video from Minesto about their Deep Green technology.
Is it a serious proposition or is it just kite-flying?
After reading their web site in detail, I think they are serious.
Here’s why!
The Company Is A Well-Backed Spin-Out from Swedish Aerospace Company SAAB
These two paragraphs are from the About Us page.
Minesto is a marine energy technology developer, founded in 2007 as a spin-off from Swedish aerospace manufacturer Saab. Since then, Minesto has successfully developed its unique Deep Green technology.
The company has operations in Sweden, Wales, Northern Ireland and Taiwan, with headquarters in Gothenburg, Sweden. Main owners are BGA Invest and Midroc New Technology. The Minesto share is listed on the Nasdaq First North Growth Market in Stockholm.
A company rarely succeeds without appropriate and sufficient financial backing.
One Of Their Target Markets Is Powering Remote Islands
This page from World Atlas is entitled Which Countries Have The Most Islands?
These are the top five countries.
- Sweden – 267,570
- Norway – 239,057
- Finland – 178,947
- Canada – 52,455
- United States – 18,617
Note.
- That’s a lot of islands.
- The United Kingdom is 26th with a thousand islands.
- Scandinavia has 685574 islands or 686993 if you include Denmark.
Sweden has a thousand inhabited islands, so that means that in Scandinavia alone, there are about 2,500 inhabited islands. How many need a reliable decarbonised power supply?
In the UK, we are developing Remote Island Wind to serve similar locations, which I wrote about in The Concept Of Remote Island Wind.
The UK and Minesto are both looking at the supply of power to remote islands.
One of Minesto’s projects is in the Faroe Islands and it is described in this page on the Minesto web site, which has a title of Faroe Islands – Tidal Energy To Reach 100% Renewable By 2030.
These are the first two paragraphs.
In the Faroe Islands, Minesto is part of one of the world’s most ambitious energy transition schemes.
Collaborating with the electric utility company SEV, Minesto is working to pave the way for tidal energy to become a core part of the Faroese energy mix, allowing them to reach 100% renewable energy by 2030.
Onshore wind and tidal could be an ideal combination, if they worked together.
At the bottom of the Faroe Islands page, the web site talks about The Deep Green Island Mode Project, where this is said.
In June 2019, Minesto was awarded a €2.5 million grant from the European Commission’s SME Instrument programme. The awarded funding will support the installation of Minesto’s technology in the Faroe Islands together with the utility company SEV. The aim of the project, called Deep Green Island Mode (DGIM), is to install Minesto’s first two commercially viable microgrid units in a production and customer environment.
Successful demonstration of DGIM will act as a first step to developing commercial ties with utilities across Europe, both for smaller-scale microgrid systems and as a catalyst for the market up take of larger utility-scale Deep Green systems.
This is also said about the number of installations in Europe.
15 million Europeans live on Europe’s 2,400 inhabited islands, at an average of approximately 1,500 households per island. As recognised by the European Commission, island energy is expensive, polluting, inefficient and dependent on external supply, with significant negative impacts on emissions, the competitiveness of businesses, and the economy.
It appears to me, that Minesto have researched their market well.
Minesto Can Provide Baseload Power
Another of Minesto’s projects is in Taiwan and it is described in this page on the Minesto web site, which has a title of Taiwan – Replacing Nuclear With Renewable Baseload.
These are the first two paragraphs.
In Taiwan, Minesto is carrying out site development with the purpose to establish the first tidal energy arrays with Minesto’s technology in Asia – and to demonstrate renewable baseload generation from the continuously-flowing Kuroshio current.
The conditions for extracting marine energy in Taiwan are very good due to access to both tidal streams and continuous ocean currents. Taiwan aims to produces 20% of electricity from renewable sources by 2025 and has decided to scrap its nuclear power capacity within the same timeframe. Today, 97.5 percent of the country’s total energy use comes from imported fossil fuels.
Taiwan has a well-developed industrial infrastructure and a number of stakeholders in the private and public sectors are active in marine energy.
Decarbonising Taiwan and removing nuclear is a tough ask!
Conclusion
Minesto may be kite-flying in an unusual way, but they appear to be a very serious Swedish company.
The Anonymous Widower 