BP And EnBW To Run Suction Bucket Trials At UK Offshore Wind Farm Sites
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
On 30 December, the vessel North Sea Giant is expected to start suction bucket trials within the array areas of the Mona and Morgan offshore wind farm sites, located off North West England and North Wales.
These are the first three paragraphs.
The trials will run for an estimated 32 days, during which time the vessel will be lifting a suction bucket and setting it down on the seabed, and using subsea pumps to drive the suction bucket into the seabed and back out.
The campaign is expected to consist of around 20 suction bucket trials, subject to weather conditions.
In their environmental impact assessment (EIA) scoping reports, issued last year, BP and EnBW state that a number of foundation types are being considered for the two proposed offshore wind farms and that the type(s) to be used will not be confirmed until the final design, after the projects are granted consent.
It sounds sensible to try out different types of foundations, but what is a suction bucket?
This page on the Ørsted web site is entitled Our Experience With Suction Bucket Jackets, explains how they work and are installed.
This is the first paragraph.
Monopiles (MPs) are currently the most commonly used foundation solution for offshore wind turbines with 81% of offshore wind turbines in European waters founded on MPs at the end of 2019 (Wind Europe, 2020). Where site conditions do not allow for an efficient or practical MP design, a number of alternative foundation solutions are available, including the suction bucket jacket (SBJ), piled jacket, gravity base or even a floating solution.
These two paragraphs, indicate when Ørsted has used SBJs.
Ørsted installed the world’s first SBJ for an offshore WTG at the Borkum Riffgrund 1 offshore windfarm in Germany in 2014.
Since the installation of the Borkum Riffgrund 1 SBJ, Ørsted has been involved in the design and installation of SBJs at the Borkum Riffgrund 2 and the design for Hornsea 1 offshore wind farms. At Hornsea 1, overall project timeline considerations and limitations of serial production capacities precluded the use of SBJs, and therefore the project chose an alternative foundation type.
It will be interesting to see how BP and EnBW’s trial gets on.
Ørsted Greenlights 2.9 GW Hornsea 3 Offshore Wind Farm
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
Ørsted has taken the final investment decision (FID) on what the company says is the world’s single largest offshore wind farm, the 2.9 GW Hornsea 3, which is expected to be completed around the end of 2027.
These are the two introductory paragraphs.
In July 2022, Ørsted was awarded a contract for difference (CfD) for Hornsea 3 at an inflation-indexed strike price of GBP 37.35 per MWh in 2012 prices.
The CfD framework permits a reduction of the awarded CfD capacity. The company said it will use this flexibility to submit a share of Hornsea 3’s capacity into the UK’s upcoming allocation round 6.
With all the work, that Ørsted have done to protect kittiwakes, which I wrote about in Kittiwake Compensation, the company seems to have been taking the development of this wind farm carefully and this statement from the wonderfully-named Mads Nipper, Group President and CEO of Ørsted indicates that the UK Government has been persuasive in times, that are not totally favourable to wind farm developers.
Offshore wind is an extremely competitive global market, so we also welcome the attractive policy regime in the UK which has helped secure this investment. We look forward to constructing this landmark project, which will deliver massive amounts of green energy to UK households and businesses and will be a significant addition to the world’s largest offshore wind cluster.
But the article also has this paragraph.
According to Ørsted, most of Hornsea 3’s capital expenditure was contracted before recent inflationary pressures, securing competitive prices from the supply chain, adding that the larger wind turbines and the synergies with Hornsea 1 and 2 lead to lower operating costs.
It looks like Ørsted, may have taken advantage of Siemens well-publicised financial woes and got a good price for the over two hundred turbines.
This page on the Hitachi web site, describes their part in Hornsea 3, where this is said.
Hitachi Energy has supported Ørsted with the grid connection of Hornsea One and Hornsea Two, but Hornsea 3 will be the first phase to use HVDC application in the Hornsea cluster.
The overall HVDC system, including the offshore platform, is delivered in partnership with Aibel. Hitachi Energy will supply two HVDC Light® converter systems, while Aibel will deliver two HVDC offshore converter platforms. The platform is based on Hitachi Energy’s modular HVDC system including its advanced control and protection system, MACH™. As the HVDC offshore market grows and becomes more complex, Hitachi Energy will continue to develop solutions with its customers and partners to enable a more flexible offshore grid of the future.
Hitachi Energy is supplying four HVDC converter stations, which convert AC power to DC for transmission in the subsea cables, then reconvert it to AC for integration into the onshore grid. Two of the converter stations will be installed on offshore platforms and two at mainland grid connections.
Note.
- Hitachi are pushing their electrical innovation hard.
- Hitachi and Ørsted have worked together on Hornsea 1 and 2.
- What better place is there for Hitachi to test their new modular HVDC system, than on one of the world’s largest wind farms?
- Hitachi appear to say, they like to develop with customers and partners.
It looks to me, that Ørsted may well have got new improved technology at an advantageous price.
This is the last paragraph of the article.
The Hornsea zone will also include the Hornsea 4 project, which could have a capacity of up to 2.6 GW. The wind farm received its development consent order from the UK government earlier in 2023 and is now eligible for forthcoming CfD allocation rounds.
So will Hornsea 4 be a slightly smaller version of Hornsea 3 using the same suppliers?
- There could be savings in the design and manufacturing of the electrical systems, foundations, sub-stations and turbines.
- Could for instance, Hitachi’s modular HVDC result in savings in converters and sub-stations, if the two wind farms shared infrastructure?
- I’m sure that Siemens, Hitachi and the other suppliers will be happy to just keep rolling.
- It would be an ideal follow-on.
It looks to me, that by using good design and management, and established suppliers, Ørsted have managed to get the costs of Hornsea 3 and Hornsea 4 to a level, where the venture is profitable.
First German Zero-Subsidy Offshore Wind Farm Starts Taking Shape
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
Offshore installation work has started at the 913 MW Borkum Riffgrund 3, the first subsidy-free offshore wind farm in Germany to reach this development phase, Ørsted, the developer of the project, said.
These two paragraphs introduce the project.
The first of the 83 monopile foundations have now been installed at the site some 53 kilometres off the island of Borkum in the German North Sea by Jan De Nul’s Lez Alizés.
The installation directly follows the foundation work in the adjacent 253 MW Gode Wind 3 project, which is being built in parallel by Ørsted in the North Sea.
Ørsted’s web site gives this history of Borkum Riffgrund 3.
Borkum Riffgrund 3 is expected to be fully commissioned in 2025. It comprises three offshore wind projects which were originally awarded to Ørsted in auctions in 2017 and 2018 under the names of Borkum Riffgrund West 1, Borkum Riffgrund West 2 and OWP West. The three projects were renamed in September 2019 and will be built as one joint project under the name of Borkum Riffgrund 3.
Borkum Riffgrund 3 was awarded without subsidies to Ørsted. A number of companies across IT, retail and the chemicals industry have signed corporate power purchase agreements for Borkum Riffgrund 3.
If Ørsted is doing this in Germany, how come, we are not seeing more subsidy-free wind farms in Europe?
These two paragraphs from the article give a partial explanation.
After commissioning in 2025, a large part of the electricity generated by the wind farm will be used for the decarbonization of the industry – through the so-called Corporate Power Purchase Agreements (CPPAs). For the project, long-term power purchase agreements were concluded with the companies Covestro, Amazon, the Energie-Handels-Gesellschaft/REWE Group, as well as BASF and Google.
Shares for Borkum Riffgrund 3 were also sold to an institutional investor well before construction. In October 2021, Nuveen signed an agreement with Glennmont Partners to sell 50 percent of the shares in Borkum Riffgrund 3.
The article also states that Borkum Riffgrund 3 will be the largest offshore wind farm in Germany to date.
This Google Map shows the location of the German Borkum island to the North of the Dutch city of Groningen.
Note.
- Groningen is the city in the South-West corner of the map.
- Borkum is the horseshoe-shaped island at the top of the map.
There are a cluster of wind farms to the North of Borkum, which includes Borkum Riffgrund 1, 2 and 3.
Highview Power, Ørsted Find Value In Integrating Offshore Wind With Liquid Air Energy Storage
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
Highview Power and Ørsted have completed their joint investigation into how combining the technologies of Liquid Air Energy Storage (LAES) and offshore wind could unlock greater value for investors and consumers.
These three paragraphs outline the findings.
The results show that there is value in combining offshore wind with LAES to support reducing wind curtailment, increasing productivity, and helping the move to a more flexible, resilient zero-carbon grid, according to Higher Power.
The two companies have carried out analysis of technical performance, route to planning approval, and route to market with a regulatory and economic assessment.
As a result of this study, the companies believe a project can be developed and built aligned with the timeline of an offshore wind farm.
I feel very strongly, that putting the two technologies together is a good idea.
In the simplest cases, the storage could be built into the offshore sub-station.
Could LAES Be Used With Hornsea 4 Wind Farm?
The Wikipedia entry for the Hornsea Wind Farm says this about Hornsea 4.
In July 2023, British government officials gave the final approval for Hornsea Four, the fourth phase of the wind project. Hornsea Four is expected to generate 2.6GW, have 180 giant wind turbines, and has the capability to generate enough renewable energy to power 1 million homes in Britain.
The Wikipedia entry also says this about Hornsea 3.
Project 3 will be to the east of Projects 1 and 2, with an estimated maximum capacity of 2.4 GW over 696 square kilometres (269 sq mi). DONG Energy (which in November 2017 changed its name to Ørsted) began consultation on the project’s development in May 2016. Ørsted submitted a Development consent application in 2018 and consent was granted on 31 December 2020.[69] In early 2023, consent was also given to a battery storage power station at Swardeston. The project is expected to begin construction in 2022, and be completed by 2025.
If Ørsted are adding a battery to the 2.4 GW Hornsea 3 wind farm, I would feel, that Ørsted would think about a battery on the 2.6 GW Hornsea 4 wind farm.
The Energy Storage The UK Needs
This is the last paragraph of the article.
The UK will need up to 100 GWh of energy storage by 2050 according to the estimates from National Grid ESO’s Future Energy Systems Scenario.
SSE Renewables are planning two large pumped-storage hydroelectric power stations in Scotland.
- Coire Glas – 1.5 GW/30 GWh – Possible completion in 2031.
- Loch Sloy – 152.5 MW/25 GWh – See SSE Unveils Redevelopment Plans For Sloy Hydro-Electric Power Station.
A quick calculation, says we’d need seven pumped-storage hydroelectric power stations, which need a lot of space and a handy mountain.
I don’t think pumped-storage hydroelectric would be feasible.
Highview Power say this about their next projects on this page of their web site.
Highview Power’s next projects will be located in Scotland and the North East and each will be 200MW/2.5GWh capacity. These will be located on the national transmission network where the wind is being generated and therefore will enable these regions to unleash their untapped renewable energy potential and store excess wind power at scale.
Note.
- This is more like the size.
- Work is now underway at Carrington – a 50MW / 300MWh plant at Trafford Energy Park near Manchester.
- Highview’s technology uses liquid air to store energy and well-proven turbo-machinery.
They are a definite possibility, as only eighteen 200MW/2.5GWh systems would be needed.
National Grid To Accelerate Up To 20GW Of Grid Connections Across Its Transmission And Distribution Networks
The title of this post, is the same as that of this press release from National Grid.
These four bullet points, act as sub-headings.
- Connection dates of 10GW of battery projects accelerated at transmission level, and 10GW of capacity unlocked at distribution level, both part of the Electricity System Operator (ESO)’s connections five-point plan.
- Battery energy storage projects connecting to the transmission network to be offered new connection dates averaging four years earlier than their current agreement.
- The accelerated 20GW equates to the capacity of six Hinkley Point C nuclear power stations.
- Work is part of ongoing collaborative industry efforts, together with Ofgem and government, to speed up and reform connections.
This is the opening paragraph.
National Grid is accelerating the connection of up to 20GW of clean energy projects to its electricity transmission and distribution networks in England and Wales as part of ongoing collaborative work across industry.
As I write this, the UK is generating 38.5 GW of electricity, so another 20 GW will be a large increase in capacity.
I shall look at what National Grid are proposing in sections.
10 GW Of Battery Power
These two paragraphs, outline the plan for 10 GW of battery power.
On its transmission network, 19 battery energy storage projects worth around 10GW will be offered dates to plug in averaging four years earlier than their current agreement, based on a new approach which removes the need for non-essential engineering works prior to connecting storage.
The new policy is part of National Grid’s connections reform initiative targeting transmission capacity, spearheaded by the ESO – which owns the contractual relationship with connecting projects – and actioned jointly with National Grid Electricity Transmission (ET), the part of the business which designs and builds the transmission infrastructure needed in England and Wales to plug projects in.
It looks to me that someone has been doing some serious mathematical modelling of the UK’s electricity network.
Fifty years ago, I provided the differential equation solving software, that enabled the Water Resources Board to plan, where reservoirs and pipelines were to be built. I have no idea how successful it was, but we don’t seem to have any serious water supply problems, except when there is equipment failures or serious drought.
But modelling water and electrical networks is mathematically similar, with rainfall, pipelines and reservoirs in the water network and power generation, transmission lines and batteries and pumped storage hydroelectricity in the electricity network.
I’d be interesting to know what software was used to solve the mathematical model.
I certainly agree with the solution.
Two of our modern sources of renewable energy; solar and wind are not very predictable, but cost a lot of capital investment to build.
So it is very wrong not to do something positive with any excess electricity generated. And what better place to put it than in a battery, so it can be retrieved later.
The earlier, the batteries come on stream, the earlier, the batteries can save all the excess electricity.
So moving the plug in dates for battery storage four years earlier is a very positive thing to do.
A simple calculation shows that for 10 GW, we would need nineteen batteries of about 526 MW.
Ideally, like power stations, they would be spread around the country.
Could Pumped-Storage Hydroelectricity Be Used?
The largest battery in the UK is the Dinorwig pumped-storage hydroelectric power station, which is commonly known as Electric Mountain or Mynydd Gwefru if you’re Welsh.
- It opened in 1984, after a ten years of construction.
- It has a power output of 1.8 GW.
- The energy storage capacity of the station is around 9.1 GWh.
Roughly, every gigawatt of output is backed up by 5 GWh of storage.
If the proposed nineteen new batteries have the same power to storage ratio as Electric Mountain, then each battery will have a storage capacity of 2.63 GWh
SSE Renewables are planning two large pumped-storage hydroelectric power stations in Scotland.
- Coire Glas – 1.5 GW/30 GWh – Possible completion in 2031.
- Loch Sloy – 152.5 MW/25 GWh – See SSE Unveils Redevelopment Plans For Sloy Hydro-Electric Power Station.
A quick calculation, says we’d need seven pumped-storage hydroelectric power stations, which need a lot of space and a handy mountain.
I don’t think pumped-storage hydroelectric would be feasible.
Could Lithium-Ion Batteries Be Used?
My mathematical jottings have shown we need nineteen batteries with this specification.
- An output of about 526 MW.
- A storage capacity of around 2.63 GWh
This Wikipedia entry gives a list of the world’s largest battery power stations.
The current largest is Vistra Moss Landing battery in California, which has this specification.
- An output of 750 MW.
- A storage capacity of 3 GWh
Reading the Wikipedia entry for Vistra Moss Landing, it appears to have taken five years to construct.
I believe that nineteen lithium-ion batteries could handle National Grid’s need and they could be built in a reasonable time.
Could Any Other Batteries Be Used?
Rounding the battery size, I feel it would be better have twenty batteries with this specification.
- An output of 500 MW.
- A storage capacity of 2.5 GWh
Are there any companies that could produce a battery of that size?
Form Energy
Form Energy are well-backed with an MIT heritage, but their largest proposed battery is only 10 MW/1 GWh.
They could be a possibility, but I feel it’s only a small chance.
Highview Power
Highview Power say this about their next projects on this page of their web site.
Highview Power’s next projects will be located in Scotland and the North East and each will be 200MW/2.5GWh capacity. These will be located on the national transmission network where the wind is being generated and therefore will enable these regions to unleash their untapped renewable energy potential and store excess wind power at scale.
Note.
- This is more like the size.
- Work is now underway at Carrington – a 50MW / 300MWh plant at Trafford Energy Park near Manchester.
- Highview’s technology uses liquid air to store energy and well-proven turbo-machinery.
- Highview have a co-operation agreement with Ørsted
They are a definite possibility.
10 GW Of Extra Unlocked Capacity
These two paragraphs, outline the plan for 10 GW of extra unlocked capacity.
On its distribution network in the Midlands, South West of England and South Wales, the additional 10GW of unlocked capacity announced recently is set to accelerate the connection of scores of low carbon technology projects, bringing forward some ‘shovel ready’ schemes by up to five years.
National Grid has already been in contact with more than 200 projects interested in fast tracking their distribution connection dates in the first wave of the capacity release, with 16 expressing an interest in connecting in the next 12 months and another 180 looking to connect within two to five years.
This page from National Grid ESO, lists the actions that were taken to release the extra grid capacity.
Conclusion
This looks to be a very good plan from National Grid.
Ørsted ‘First’ To Use Giant Autonomous Drones to Transport Cargo To Wind Turbines
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
Ørsted says it is the first offshore wind company in the world to use giant autonomous drones to transport cargo to wind turbines
These three paragraphs outline the use of drones.
The Danish offshore wind giant is testing the drones to transport cargo from vessels to its 1.2 GW Hornsea One project in the UK.
Building on its previous experience using smaller drones in other countries, the company is now trialling the 58-kilogram drones with a wingspan of 2.6 metres to transport cargo of up to 68 kilograms.
The drones are operated from existing crew transfer vessels (CVTs) and service operating vessels (SOVs) which are already on site, said Ørsted.
Using drones appears to save cost and time, reduce risk and even allows the deliveries with the turbine working.
With a payload of 68 kilograms, someone my size could even take a lift.
Scottish Project To Explore Tugdock Tech Application To Accelerate Floating Wind Development
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
The joint venture behind the Salamander floating wind project and the UK developer of marine buoyancy technology, Tugdock, have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to collaborate on research and innovation related to the development of technologies and supply chain for floating wind energy in Scotland.
This is the introductory paragraph.
The 100 MW floating wind farm, developed jointly by Simply Blue Group and Ørsted, and Subsea7 as a minority partner, is one of the 13 projects selected in Scotland’s Innovation and Targeted Oil and Gas (INTOG) leasing round and one of the five INTOG innovation projects which signed exclusivity agreements with Crown Estate Scotland in May.
There is more about Tugdock on their web site.
I like the concept, but then I did a lot of simulation of floating structures in the 1970s, which I wrote about in The Balaena Lives.
Airbus, Rolls-Royce, EasyJet Headline Formation Of UK Hydrogen Alliance
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article from Future Flight.
These two paragraphs outline the story.
A group of leading companies in the UK aviation and renewable energy sectors including EasyJet, Rolls-Royce, and Airbus has established the Hydrogen in Aviation (HIA) alliance to accelerate the delivery of zero-carbon aviation, the companies said Tuesday. HIA, whose partners also include Ørsted, GKN Aerospace, and Bristol Airport, said decarbonization efforts involving hydrogen should assume more urgency at a time when sustainable aviation fuel and batteries have drawn so much of the sector’s attention.
Working with government, local authorities, and the aviation and hydrogen sectors, the group plans to draw on members’ expertise to propose “a clear and deliverable pathway” to achieving hydrogen-powered aviation. Efforts center on clearing a pathway for preparing the needed infrastructure as well as policy, regulatory, and safety frameworks.
This Airbus infographic describes the aircraft in Airbus’s ZEROe project.
Discover the three zero-emission concept aircraft known as ZEROe in this infographic. These turbofan, turboprop, and blended-wing-body configurations are all hydrogen hybrid aircraft.
These are my thoughts.
Do The ZEROe Turboprop And The ZEROe Turbofan Have Similar Hydrogen Systems?
This is Airbus’s summary of the design of the ZEROe Turboprop
Two hybrid-hydrogen turboprop engines, which drive eight-bladed propellers, provide thrust. The liquid hydrogen storage and distribution system is located behind the rear pressure bulkhead
This screen capture taken from an Airbus video, shows a rear view of the plane.
Note the sizeable cone-shaped rear end to the fuselage with no windows.
This is Airbus’s summary of the design of the ZEROe Turbofan
Two hybrid hydrogen turbofan engines provide thrust. The liquid hydrogen storage and distribution system is located behind the rear pressure bulkhead.
This screen capture taken from an Airbus video, shows the plane.
Note how there are no windows at the back of the fuselage, as the hydrogen tank doesn’t need them.
It looks to me, that similar cone-shaped tanks for hydrogen, customised for each aircraft could be placed behind the rear bulkhead.
There would probably be space for any pumps needed to distribute the hydrogen to the engines.
All the stored hydrogen and its gubbins could be safely sealed behind the rear bulkhead.
I am fairly certain that the ZEROe Turboprop and the ZEROe Turbofan will have similar hydrogen systems.
Do The ZEROe Turboprop And The ZEROe Turbofan Have Auxiliary Power Units?
The auxiliary power unit or APU in an aircraft that provides energy for functions other than propulsion.
In Airbus To Trial In-flight Auxiliary Power Entirely Generated By Hydrogen, I wrote about Airbus’s development of APU’s based on fuel cells and running on hydrogen.
This surely could be a way to go.
- A battery could store power.
- Fuel cells are proving to be reliable.
- The plane would have two independent electrical systems.
Power would always be available for the cockpit, flying controls and to restart the engines, just as it is in any airliner today.
Do The ZEROe Turboprop And The ZEROe Turbofan Have The Same Cockpit?
The cockpits of the A 320 neo and the A 320 ceo seem to have a similar profile, but the cockpit of the ZEROe Turbofan seems to have been reprofiled.
In ZEROe – Towards The World’s First Zero-Emission Commercial Aircraft, I showed these front on views of the cockpits of the ZEROe Turboprop and ZEROe Turbofan.
I questioned if the two cockpits were related.
- A single cockpit for both aircraft would surely ease manufacture, maintenance and pilot training.
- I’m no aerodynamicist, but it certainly looks that the new cockpit will reduce drag and fuel consumption.
This common cockpit concept was used for the Boeing 757 and the Boeing 767 in the 1980s, so it is not a new concept.
Although the cockpit, appears to be being used in the ZEROe for the first time, I would expect it is already under development and might feature in any later version of the A 320 neo.
Do Airbus Have A Preferred Development Order?
Consider.
- My product development experience indicates that the development of the ZEROe Blended-Wing Body will involve more flight testing and aerodynamic checks than the other two aircraft, so I would make it the last aircraft to enter service.
- The ZEROe Turboprop appears to be a development of the ATR 72.
- The ZEROe Turbofan appears to be a development of an A 320 neo.
- The ZEROe Turboprop and ZEROe Turbofan would appear to have similar designs of cockpit, hydrogen systems and auxiliary power units.
- It looks to me that either of the ZEROe Turboprop or ZEROe Turbofan could be developed first.
I would develop the ZEROe Turboprop first, as it is the smaller aircraft.
Why Bristol Airport?
This page on the Airbus web site is entitled Airbus In The United Kingdom, where this is the first paragraph.
Building on a proud 100-year British aviation heritage, Airbus is part of the very fabric of the UK – which is one of the company’s four home markets, alongside France, Germany and Spain. Its 11,000-strong UK workforce is part of a global family of 125,000 employees.
This is said under Commercial Aircraft.
The sites at Filton and Broughton design, test and manufacture the wings for all Airbus’ A320 family, A330 and A350 commercial aircraft, directly sustaining more than 8,000 full-time jobs and hundreds of apprenticeships.
A220 family wings are designed and built by Spirit AeroSystems in Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Broughton has a proud tradition of aerospace manufacturing dating back 80 years, having supplied the RAF with vital aircraft during the Second World War. Employing almost 5,000 people, Broughton is a global centre of excellence for manufacturing and delivers over 500 wing sets per year for the A320 family, A330 and A350. Airbus has invested more than £2 billion in the Broughton plant over the past 10 years.
Core activities at Filton, where an additional 3,000 people work, are the design, engineering and support for Airbus wings, fuel systems and landing gear systems. Teams also work on aerodynamics research, development and test facilities, including our future zero-emissions programme, ZEROe, while wings for the A400M transporter are assembled on site.
It would appear that Filton in Bristol, is a very important part of Airbus’s operations in the UK.
- It appears to have major responsibility for all Airbus wings except the smallest.
- It has a large responsibility with respect to the ZEROe family of aircraft.
- Filton Airfield is now closed.
- Filton can do substantial assembly if required.
So was it just a logical decision to phone up Bristol Airport and ask, if they’d like to join the project?
In addition.
- Bristol Airport has a 2000 metre East West asphalt runway.
- The airport can handle a Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus A330.
- It is the eighth busiest airport in the UK.
- It is a busy general aviation airfield.
- There is plenty of electricity in the area and Hinckley Point C will open down the road in a couple of years.
Bristol Airport is probably typical of many provincial airports around the world.
Why EasyJet?
These paragraphs from the Future Flight article help to explain.
“There is no doubt that the UK has the potential to become a world leader in hydrogen aviation, which could bring with it a £34 billion per annum boost to the country’s economy by 2050, but in order to capture this opportunity, rapid change is needed and the time to act is now,” said Johan Lundgren, CEO of EasyJet and HIA’s first chairman.
“We must work together to deliver the radical solutions required for a hard-to-abate industry like aviation so we can protect and maximize the benefits that it brings to the UK economy and society and that we know British consumers want to be preserved.”
Under its Zero-E program, Airbus aims to bring to market the first hydrogen-powered narrowbody commercial airplane by 2035. Separately, a partnership between Rolls-Royce and EasyJet signed last year saw the companies test hydrogen fuel in gaseous form in an adapted AE2100-A turbine, the engine that powers the Saab 2000 regional airliner. The November 2022 test, which used hydrogen produced in the Orkney Islands by the European Marine Energy Centre using renewable energy, marked the first run of a modern engine using hydrogen.
EasyJet seems to be enthusiastic about hydrogen and their CEO will be the HIA’s first chairman.
EasyJet also has a series of routes from Bristol Airport.
- Alicante – 907 miles
- Amsterdam – 326 miles
- Athens – 1592 miles
- Antalya – 1981 miles
- Barcelona – 733 miles
- Basel/Mulhouse – 530 miles
- Belfast–City – 259 miles
- Belfast–International – 269 miles
- Berlin – 694 miles
- Bilbao – 559 miles
- Bodrum – 1772 miles
- Bordeaux – 462 miles
- Catania – 1295 miles
- Chania – 1719 miles
- Copenhagen – 694 miles
- Corfu – 1356 miles
- Dalaman – 1981 miles
- Dubrovnik – 1155 miles
- Edinburgh – 316 miles
- Enfidha – 1241 miles
- Faro – 1026 miles
- Fuerteventura – 1687 miles
- Funchal – 1473 miles
- Geneva – 536 miles
- Gibraltar – 1060 miles
- Glasgow – 317 miles
- Gran Canaria – 1749 miles
- Grenoble – 556 miles
- Heraklion – 1768 miles
- Hurghada – 2526 miles
- Ibiza – 887 miles
- Innsbruck – 693 miles
- Inverness – 429 miles
- Isle of Man – 203 miles
- Kefalonia – 1451 miles
- Kos – 1770 miles
- Kraków – 991 miles
- La Rochelle – 366 miles
- Lanzarote – 1649 miles
- Larnaca – 2126 miles
- Lisbon – 925 miles
- Lyon – 529 miles
- Madrid – 755 miles
- Málaga – 1020 miles
- Marrakesh – 1393 miles
- Marseille – 662 miles
- Menorca – 863 miles
- Milan–Malpensa – 682 miles
- Murcia – 945 miles
- Mykonos – 1670 miles
- Nantes – 251 miles
- Naples – 1085 miles
- Newcastle upon Tyne – 256 miles
- Nice – 704 miles
- Olbia – 929 miles
- Palma de Mallorca – 859 miles
- Paphos – 2087 miles
- Paris–Charles de Gaulle – 285 miles
- Paris–Orly – 290 miles
- Pisa – 808 miles
- Porto – 755 miles
- Prague – 746 miles
- Preveza/Lefkada – 1421 miles
- Pula – 885 miles
- Reykjavík–Keflavík – 1121 miles
- Rome–Fiumicino – 968 miles
- Rovaniemi – 1436 miles
- Salzburg – 745 miles
- Santorini – 1726 miles
- Sharm El Sheikh – 2507 miles
- Sofia – 1359 miles
- Split – 927 miles
- Tenerife–South – 1766 miles
- Toulouse – 569 miles
- Turin – 645 miles
- Venice – 798 miles
- Zakynthos – 1484 miles
Note.
- There are nine routes under 400 miles, which might enable a round trip without refuelling in a ZEROe Turboprop.
- There are nine routes under 800 miles, which might enable a round trip without refuelling in a ZEROe Turbofan.
- There are only four routes over 2000 miles, which might make a single trip difficult in a ZEROe Turbofan.
- Bristol and Toulouse is a convenient 569 miles for Airbus and its employees, customers and contractors.
It does appear that, EasyJet’s routes fit the 1000 mile range of a ZEROe Turboprop and the 2000 mile range of a ZEROe Turbofan exceedingly well.
Conclusion
Bristol will be important in the development of Airbus’s three ZEROe aircraft.
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.
Ørsted Receives Development Consent For 2.6 GW Hornsea Four Offshore Wind Farm
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
The UK Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has granted development consent to Hornsea Project Four, a 2.6 GW offshore wind farm Ørsted plans to build some 69 kilometres off the Yorkshire Coast.
This is the first paragraph.
The UK government, in a press release issued on 12 July, stated that Hornsea Four was the 126th Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project and 73rd energy application to have been examined by The Planning Inspectorate within the timescales laid down in the Planning Act 2008.
It certainly looks like The Planning Inspectorate has been working overtime.
Note that the four Hornsea wind farms are planned to have at least the following sizes.
- Hornsea 1 – 1218 MW
- Hornsea 2 – 1386 MW
- Hornsea 3 – 2852 MW
- Hornsea 4 – 2600 MW
These four wind farms give the Hornsea complex, a total capacity of at least 8056 MW.
When I worked at ICI in Runcorn in the late 1960s, I used to cross the Runcorn Bridge twice every day and would see Fiddlers Ferry power station, with its eight cooling towers, on the North Bank of the River Mersey to the East. It was generally thought of as a large coal-fired power station.
These pictures of Fiddlers Ferry power station were taken in 2021, from a Liverpool-bound train on the railway bridge.
This Google Map shows the power station.
Note.
- Fiddlers Ferry may have been large for its time at 1989 MW, but it is still less than a quarter of the size of the Hornsea wind farm!
- Drax power station in 1986 at 3960 MW, was larger than Fiddlers Ferry, but was still less than half of the size of Hornsea!
Hornsea wind farm is a true green giant!
This paragraph is from the Hornsea Project 4 section of the Wikipedia entry for the Hornsea wind farms.
Construction of the wind farm was provisionally expected to start in 2023, and be operational by 2027, at the earliest. The project’s capacity is unknown by Ørsted due to the ever increasing size of available wind turbines for the project.
When completed, it could be even bigger.
The Anonymous Widower 