Berwick Bank Wind Farm Could Provide Multi-Billion Pound Boost To Scottish Economy And Generate Thousands Of Jobs
The title of this post, is the same as that of this press release from SSE.
This press release is all about numbers.
- 307 turbines
- 4.1 GW nameplate capacity
- 5 million homes will be powered
- 8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide avoided
- Up to £8.3 billion to the UK economy
- 4650 potential jobs in Scotland
- 9300 potential jobs in the UK
These are all large figures.
This map from SSE shows the location of the wind farm.
The press release says this about connections to the grid.
Berwick Bank has secured a grid connection at Branxton, near Torness, in East Lothian. A second grid connection will be required for the project, which has been determined as Blyth, Northumberland.
Note, that Torness is the site of Torness nuclear power station.
- It has a nameplate capacity of 1.29 GW.
- It is scheduled to be shutdown in 2028.
This Google Map shows the coast between Dunbar and Torness nuclear power station.
Note.
- The town of Dunbar is outlined in red.
- The yellow line running diagonally across the map is the A1 road.
- Torness nuclear power station is in the South-East corner of the map to the North of the A1.
This second Google Map shoes an enlargement of the South-East corner of the map.
Note.
- Torness nuclear power station at the top of the map.
- The A1 road running across the map.
- The East Coast Main Line to the South of the A1.
- Innerwick Castle in the South-West corner of the map.
This Google Map shows the location of Branxton substation in relation to Innerwick Castle.
Note.
- Innerwick Castle is in the North-West corner of the map.
- Branxton substation is in the South-East corner of the map.
I estimate that the distance between Torness nuclear power station and Branxton substation is about five kilometres. The cable appears to be underground.
I have some thoughts.
Will The Connection Between Berwick Bank Wind Farm And Branxton Substation Be Underground?
If SSE follows the precedent of Torness nuclear power station, it will be underground.
Or will they use T-pylons?
This page on the National Grid web site is entitled What’s A T-Pylon And How Do We Build Them?.
From an engineering point of view, I suspect T-pylons could be used, but aesthetics and local preference may mean the cable is underground.
It should be noted that Torness nuclear power station will be shutdown in 2028. So will the current underground cable for the nuclear power station be repurposed after shutdown for the Berwick Bank wind farm?
This would mean, that the Southern connection cable to Blyth could be built first to support the first turbines erected in the wind farm.
When Will Berwick Bank Wind Farm Be Commissioned?
This page on the Berwick Bank wind farm web site is a briefing pack on the project.
The page gives construction and commission dates of 2026-2030.
Will There Be A Battery At Torness?
As we are talking about the latter half of the current decade for completion of the Berwick Bank wind farm, I believe that a substantial battery could be installed at Torness to smooth the output of the wind farm, when the wins isn’t blowing at full power.
One of Highview Power’s 2.5 GW/30 GWh CRYOBatteries could be about the right size if it has been successfully developed, but I am sure that other batteries will be of a suitable size.
If there is a case for a battery at Torness, there must surely be a case for a battery at Blyth.
Will Berwick Bank Wind Farm Be A Replacement For Torness Nuclear Power Station?
Consider.
- Torness nuclear power station is shutting down in 2028.
- Berwick Bank wind farm will be fully operational by 2030.
- Berwick Bank wind farm could use a repurposed connection to Branxton substation, if the nuclear power station no longer needs it.
- There is space on the Torness site for a large battery.
, it looks like Torness nuclear power station could be replaced by the larger wind farm.
Should The World Call A Halt To Large Nuclear Power Stations?
When I left Liverpool University in the 1960s with an engineering degree, my fellow graduates and myself felt that nuclear power would be a sensible way to provide the electricity we need. Aberfan and other disasters had ruined coal’s reputation and not one of my colleagues joined the National Coal Board.
Over the intervening years, nuclear power has suffered a greater proportion of adverse events compared to other forms of electricity generation.
Large nuclear has also suffered some of the largest time and cost overruns of any energy projects.
My optimism for nuclear power has declined, although I do hope and feel, that small modular factory-built reactors, like those proposed by Rolls-Royce and others, might prove to be as reliable and economic as gas-fired, hydro-electric and tidal power stations, or solar and wind farms.
The smaller size of an SMR could be advantageous in itself.
- Smaller factory-built power stations are more likely to be built on time and budget.
- The amount pf nuclear material involved is only about twenty percent of that of a large nuclear station.
- A smaller site would be easier to protect from terrorists and Putinistas.
- Would the risk of a serious accident be reduced?
- SMRs would be less of a blot on the landscape.
- SMRs would not need such a high-capacity grid connection.
- An SMR integrated with a high temperature electrolyser could be the easiest way to generate hydrogen for a large customer like a steelworks.
Overall, I believe an SMR would be involve less risk and disruption.
Zaporizhzhya
Zaporizhzhya is probably the last straw for large nuclear, although the incident isorchestrated by an evil dictator, who is much worse, than any of James Bond’s cruel adversities.
I doubt Putin would get the same leverage, if Zaporizhzhya were a gas-fired or hydroelectric power station.
Conclusion
I feel, the world must seriously question building any more large nuclear power stations.
The Rolls-Royce SMR Web Site
Rolls-Royce now have a web site for their proposed small modular reactor (SMR) design.
This page is entitled Why Rolls-Royce SMR?, has this outline of the reactor program.
Rolls-Royce SMR offers a radically different approach to delivering nuclear power, we have drastically reduced the amount of construction activities and transformed the delivery environment, from a large complex infrastructure programme into a factory built commoditised product.
Our design has evolved in response to a definitive set of market driven outcomes, this is not technology for technology’s sake, but innovation, to create a transformational clean energy solution that will deliver clean affordable energy for all.
This would appear to be an approach driven by proven engineering principles and excellence, good low-risk design, backed up by the best project management.
These are all traditions inherent in the Rolls-Royce DNA.
But I also believe that Rolls-Royce have looked at the world market for nuclear reactors and designed a product to fit that market.
This paragraph is in a long section entitled Global & Scalable.
The compact footprint increases site flexibility and maximises potential plant locations, including replacement for existing coal or gas-fired plants.
Many things said on the Rolls-Royce SMR Web Site, appear to be very much market led.
In my view, this is the web site of a product designed to dominate the world market for nuclear energy.
Sizewell C Nuclear Plant Campaigners Challenge Approval
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on the BBC.
These three paragraphs introduce the article.
Campaigners against the Sizewell C nuclear power station have written to Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng to legally challenge his decision to give the scheme the go-ahead.
The £20bn project for the Suffolk coast was given government approval in July.
However, the decision was against the advice of the Planning Inspectorate and those against the scheme said the consent was therefore “unlawful”.
I summed up my attitude to nuclear power in Sizewell C: Nuclear Power Station Plans For Suffolk Submitted, where I said this.
As a well-read and experienced engineer, I am not against the technologies of nuclear power.
But I do think, by the time it is completed , other technologies like wind and energy storage will be much better value. They will also be more flexible and easier to expand, should we get our energy forecasts wrong.
I wrote that in May 2020, which was before Vlad the Mad started his war in Ukraine. So our energy forecasts are totally wrong! Thanks for nothing, Vlad!
In Plan To Build £150m Green Hydrogen Plant At Felixstowe Port, I talked about ScottishPower’s plan to build a large electrolyser at Felixstowe.
The Port of Felixstowe has in the past talked of using electricity from Sizewell C to create hydrogen.
So is the port backing another horse or just playing safe?
Rolls-Royce Chief Warren East Spies Rebound For Air Travel
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on The Times.
It is a must-read article.
This is the first paragraph.
Warren East, the outgoing chief executive of Rolls-Royce, has sounded a bullish note on aviation’s recovery from Covid-19, reporting increased demand from the jet-engine maker’s airline customers and expressing his belief that China will gradually open up to international travel.
Certainly, with all the chaos at the Channel this weekend, people are starting to travel again.
Support For The Military
This is a paragraph in the article.
Tom Bell, head of Rolls-Royce Defence, said the company was in talks with the US and UK militaries about supplying “deployable” reactors for military bases.
I’m sure that a reactor would have advantages to a large diesel or gas-turbine generator to power a military base.
- Military bases need a lot of power.
- It would not need refuelling every day.
- It could be connected to an electrolyser, to generate hydrogen for vehicles.
- It would be a lot quieter.
- I wonder, if it could be transported in a large transport aircraft.
But I feel, it might have other applications.
- It could provide power support after a large earthquake or natural disaster.
- It could provide power in remote or difficult locations.
- If the only power station for a remote community had a catastrophic failure, a deployable reactor could be brought in.
- It could provide power for a large construction site, which would help to decarbonise the construction.
- Power would be zero-carbon at point of generation.
The reactors might even be rail-transportable, so they could be moved to where they are needed safely and quickly.
But I don’t think they would necessarily be the same size as the Rolls-Royce SMRs, which are 470 MW.
A Scalable Reactor
This is a paragraph in the article.
Rolls also has a contract with the UK Space Agency to develop a “micro reactor” for space vehicles and satellites, Bell added. “These are really exciting opportunities for us to not only perpetuate our business undersea, at sea, on land, in the air, but also to go to space,” he said. East noted the advantage of nuclear reactors in space: “You can’t have air-breathing engines on the moon.”
Note.
- East is Warren East, who is the outgoing Chief Executive of Rolls-Royce.
- Nuclear power sources have been used in space before, usually by using an isotope, that gives out heat, as it decays.
- How small is micro?
- The US deployed a 1.75 MW nuclear power plant in Antarctica under the Army Nuclear Power Program. That reactor also provided heating and hot water. It is worth reading the Wikipedia entry, especially the section about the MM-1 reactor.
It does seem that Rolls-Royce are designing a reactor that can be scaled in size, to cover a whole spectrum of applications.
Could Rolls-Royce SMRs Be The Solution To Europe’s Gas Shortage?
Of all the offshore wind farms, that I’ve looked at recently, I find Magnora’s ScotWind N3 wind farm the most interesting.
I wrote about it in ScotWind N3 Offshore Wind Farm.
I said this.
In any design competition, there is usually at least one design, that is not look like any of the others.
In the successful bids for the ScotWind leases, the bid from Magnora ASA stands out.
- The company has an unusual home page on its offshore wind web site.
- This page on their web site outlines their project.
- It will be technology agnostic, with 15MW turbines and a total capacity of 500MW
- It will use floating offshore wind with a concrete floater
- It is estimated, that it will have a capacity factor of 56 %.
- The water depth will be an astonishing 106-125m
- The construction and operation will use local facilities at Stornoway and Kishorn Ports.
- The floater will have local and Scottish content.
- The project will use UK operated vessels.
- Hydrogen is mentioned.
- Consent is planned for 2026, with construction starting in 2028 and completion in 2030.
This project could serve as a model for wind farms all round the world with a 500 MW power station, hydrogen production and local involvement and construction.
I very much like the idea of a concrete floater, which contains a huge electrolyser and gas storage, that is surrounded by an armada of giant floating wind turbines.
These are my thoughts.
Floating Concrete Structures
To many, they may have appear to have all the buoyancy of a lead balloon, but semi-submersible platforms made from concrete have been used in the oil and gas industry for several decades.
Kishorn Yard in Scotland was used to build the 600,000-tonne concrete Ninian Central Platform,in 1978. The Ninian Central Platform still holds the record as the largest movable object ever created by man.
The Ninian Central Platform sits on the sea floor, but there is no reason why a semi-submersible structure can’t be used.
Electrolysers
There is no reason, why a large electrolyser, such as those made by Cummins, ITM Power or others can’t be used, but others are on the way.
- Bloom Energy are working on high temperature electrolysis, which promises to be more efficient.
- Torvex Energy are developing electrolysis technology that used sea water, rather than more expensive purified water.
High Temperature Electrolysis
High temperature electrolysis needs a heat source to work efficiently and in Westinghouse And Bloom Energy To Team Up For Pink Hydrogen, I described how Bloom Energy propose to use steam from a large nuclear power station.
Offshore Nuclear Power
I’ve never heard of offshore nuclear power, but it is not a new idea.
In 1970, a company called Offshore Power Systems was created and it is introduced in its Wikipedia entry like this.
Offshore Power Systems (OPS) was a 1970 joint venture between Westinghouse Electric Company, which constructed nuclear generating plants, and Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock, which had recently merged with Tenneco, to create floating nuclear power plants at Jacksonville, Florida.
Westinghouse’s reactor was a 1.150 MW unit, which was typical of the time, and is very similar in size to Sizewell B.
The project was cancelled before the reactors were towed into position.
Nuclear Knowledge Has Improved
Consider.
- In the fifty years since Offshore Power Systems dabbed their toes in the water of offshore nuclear power, our knowledge of nuclear systems and engineering has improved greatly.
- The offshore oil and gas industry has also shown what works impeccably.
- The floating offshore wind industry looks like it might push the envelop further.
- There has been only one nuclear accident at Fukushima, where the sea was part of the problem and that disaster taught us a lot.
- There have been a large number of nuclear submarines built and most reached the planned end of their lives.
- Would a small modular nuclear reactor, be safer than a large nuclear power plant of several GW?
I would suggest we now have the knowledge to safely build and operate a nuclear reactor on a proven semi-submersible platform, built from non-rusting concrete.
An Offshore Wind Farm/Small Modular Reactor Combination Producing Hydrogen
Consider.
- A typical floating offshore wind farm is between one and two gigawatts.
- A Rolls-Royce small modular reactor is sized to produce nearly 0.5 GW.
- The high temperature electrolyser will need some heat to achieve an optimum working temperature.
- Spare electricity can be used to produce hydrogen.
- Hydrogen can be stored platform.
- Hydrogen can be sent ashore using existing gas pipes.
- Hydrogen could even be blended with natural gas produced offshore to create a lower-carbon fuel.
- It would also be possible to decarbonise nearby offshore infrastructure.
A balance between wind and nuclear power can be obtained, which would provide a steady output of energy.
Conclusion
There are a large numbers of possibilities, to locate a Rolls-Royce small modular reactor close to a wind farm to use high temperature electrolysis to create green hydrogen, which can be used in the UK or exported through the gas network.
Nuclear-Enabled Hydrogen – How It Helps To Reach Net Zero
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on Power Engineering.
These are the first two paragraphs.
Nuclear enabled hydrogen is zero carbon, has low cost energy input, is large scale and offers co-location synergy and energy system connectivity.
With the revival of interest in nuclear energy, interest is growing in the potential for nuclear-enabled hydrogen, otherwise sometimes known as ‘pink’ hydrogen, to meet the anticipated demand for hydrogen at scale.
The article is certainly a must-read.
Topics covered include.
- Co-location of pink hydrogen production with industrial clusters, where heat can also be provided.
- The production of hydrogen on a large scale.
- The use of high temperature electrolysis, using steam from the nuclear plant.
I particularly like the idea of combining a small modular nuclear reactor with high temperature electrolysis to generate hydrogen for local industry like a steelworks or chemical plant.
Westinghouse And Bloom Energy To Team Up For Pink Hydrogen
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on Hydrogen Fuel News.
This is the introductory paragraph.
Westinghouse Electric Company and Bloom Energy Corporation have announced that they have signed a letter of intent together for the production of pink hydrogen in the commercial nuclear power market.
Note.
- Westinghouse Electric Company is an American builder of nuclear power stations.
- Bloom Energy Corporation make a solid-oxide electrolyser.
- Pink hydrogen is green hydrogen produced using nuclear power.
Figures on the Bloom web site, claim that their electrolysers could be upwards of twelve percent more efficient than PEM electrolysers, as produced by companies like ITM Power.
Bloom Energy Vice President of Hydrogen Business Rick Beuttel, is quoted as saying this.
We are proud Westinghouse has turned to Bloom and our solid oxide technology to supercharge the clean hydrogen economy. Solid oxide technology is well suited for nuclear applications, efficiently harnessing steam to further improve the economics of hydrogen production. High temperature electrolysis is already garnering attention and accolades as a cost-effective and viable solution to create low-cost, clean hydrogen, which is critical to meeting aggressive decarbonization goals.
It sounds that by integrating the nuclear power station and the electrolyser, there are cost savings to be made.
Conclusion
I think this could turn out to be a significant development.
Some countries, like Iceland, Indonesia, New Zealand, Philippines and the United States, who can generate large amounts of electricity and steam from geothermal energy, Bloom’s technology must surely be a way of electrolysing hydrogen.
Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station: Government To Take 20% Stake
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on the BBC.
This is the first three paragraphs.
The government plans to take a 20% stake in a £20bn large-scale nuclear plant at Sizewell, the BBC has learned.
French developer EDF will also take a 20% stake in the Suffolk power station.
Ministers hope the confirmation of two cornerstone investors will encourage infrastructure investors and pension funds to take up the remaining 60%.
I used to live near Sixewell and the general feeling of local Suffolk people is not particularly against having nuclear power stations in their back yards.
There are several small points in favour of Sizewell C.
- Sizewell has been operating nuclear power plants safely since the 1960s.
- Leiston, which is the nearest town, has a very strong engineering tradition.
- Leiston also improved by several notches during the building of Sizewell B.
- The site is accessible by rail and possibly sea with the right ship.
- Nuclear fuel can be brought in and out by train.
- If they spent a small amount on the train service to Saxmundham, construction workers could come in by train.
- Sizewell C has been proposed to be used to generate hydrogen for Freeport East at the Ports of Harwich an Felixstowe.
- The power cable to take electricity from Sizewell C towards London is already built.
- Sizewell is much more convenient to get to from London, than other possible nuclear sites.
Overall, I feel that Sizewell is a good place for nuclear power station.
On the other hand, there are these points against the station.
- There will be at least 6.7 GW of wind farms built off the East Anglian coast before Sizewell C is completed.
- There may be substantial objection to the new power station.
- Large nuclear power stations are rarely built to time and on budget.
- I feel that if we go the nuclear route, that small modular nuclear reactors may be better.
I can understand why Governments like Sizewell as a nuclear power station site.
MacHairWind Wind Farm
MachairWind wind farm has its own page on the ScottishPower Renewables web site.
These are the two introductory paragraphs.
The MacHairWind project off the coast of Islay, which could deliver 2GW of cleaner renewable energy, will make a significant contribution to tackling climate change and achieving Net Zero, with the potential to generate enough clean electricity to power over 2 million homes in Scotland.
It will also build on ScottishPower’s long-standing presence and positive track record of investing in and working with local communities and businesses across Argyll & Bute to realise the benefits of renewable energy developments.
This Google Map shows the area of the wind farm, which is to the North West of the island of Islay.
Note.
- There certainly is a large space of empty sea to the North-West of Islay.
- Glasgow is not far away.
This second Google Map shows the area to the North-East of Islay.
Note.
- Islay is in the South-West corner of the map.
- Colonsay is the smaller island to the North.
- In the North-East corner of the map the red arrow indicate Cruachan pumped hydro power station.
- In the South-East corner of the map is the Clyde Estuary, where the two nuclear power stations at Hunterston were located.
- Hunterston is also the Northern end of Western HVDC Link to North Wales.
Wikipedia says this about the relationship of the Cruachan power station and Hunterston’s nuclear stations.
Construction began in 1959 to coincide with the Hunterston A nuclear power station in Ayrshire. Cruachan uses cheap off-peak electricity generated at night to pump water to the higher reservoir, which can then be released during the day to provide power as necessary.
Now that the two nuclear stations are being decommissioned, will the MacHairWind wind farm be used to pump water to Cruachan’s higher reservoir?
Conclusion
The MacHairWind wind farm seems a well-positioned wind farm.
- It is close to Glasgow.
- It can be used in tandem with the Cruachan pumped hydro power station.
- It will have access to the Western HVDC Link to send power to the North-West of England.
Is Scotland replacing the 1.2 GW Hunterston B nuclear power station with a 2 GW wind farm, with help from Cruachan and other proposed pumped storage hydro schemes to the North of Glasgow?
It also looks like increasing the power at Cruachan from the current 440 MW to a GW, by the building of Cruachan 2 would give the area even more energy security.
The Anonymous Widower 