Octopus Energy Invests In Floating Offshore Wind Tech Company
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
Octopus Energy’s generation arm has invested in US-headquartered Ocergy to boost the development of floating offshore wind farms globally.
These are the first three paragraphs.
According to Octopus, Ocergy has an innovative approach to designing and manufacturing floating foundations, reducing the time and cost of building them.
Ocergy is pioneering a hyper-local supply chain approach, working with local manufacturers and creating green jobs in the areas where the wind turbines are installed, said the company.
Further efficiencies are unlocked through Ocergy’s lighter and modular designs which make the turbine foundations easy to transport and assemble at their final destination, according to the press release.
This page on the Ocergy web site contains the press release, mentioned in the article.
These are some sentences from the press release.
- Ocergy, which is headquartered in the US and has operations in France, is pioneering a hyper-local supply chain approach, working with local manufacturers and creating green jobs in the areas where the turbines are installed.
- Further efficiencies are unlocked through Ocergy’s lighter and modular designs which make the turbine foundations easy to transport and assemble at their final destination.
- Floating foundations are used in areas with coastlines that are too deep for foundations that are fixed to the seabed. Around 80% of global offshore wind resources are located in deep waters, underscoring this technology’s vast untapped potential.
- It comes as governments across the globe have set ambitious targets for floating offshore wind. The UK alone is targeting 5 GW of floating offshore wind capacity by 2030.
I certainly like their approach.
believe that innovative designs and streamlined manufacturing will play a large part in installing the large amount of floating wind, that is planned by governments worldwide.
I also believe that because of the repetitive nature of the building of these floating structures, innovative project management software and systems will be developed.
I certainly have my own ideas for that!
Jobs, Homes And The Economy: Bakerloo Line Upgrade And Extension To Be Transformational For London
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on Rail Technology Magazine.
This is the sub-heading.
The government has been urged to use the upcoming spring budget to commit to upgrading and extending the Bakerloo line after a new impact assessment found its effects could be transformational.
These three paragraphs introduce the article.
The impact assessment – commissioned by Central London Forward, a partnership of 12 central London boroughs – finds that such a move would boost the economy, unlock new homes, create new jobs, and more.
The upgrade would centre around new trains and signalling, while the extension would take the terminus to Lewisham in the first phase, and eventually to Hayes – adding 14 new stations.
The impact assessment concludes that the extension and upgrade of the Bakerloo line would create 9,700 jobs, 190,000 square metres of commercial floorspace, as well as generate £1.5bn of GVA.
The article is a must-read and eloquently puts the case for the Bakerloo Line Extension.
I have a few thoughts.
A Loop At Brixton For The Victoria Line
This has been proposed and the Wikipedia entry for the Victoria Line has this paragraph.
Proposals have been made to extend the line one stop southwards from Brixton to Herne Hill, a significant interchange in south London providing access to Kent, Blackfriars, London Bridge and Sutton. The latter station would be on a large reversing loop with a single platform removing a critical capacity restriction eliminating the need for trains to reverse at Brixton and provide a more obvious route for passengers who look for the nearest tube station before any other transport options.
I like this idea.
- It will make it easier to run the full frequency of 33 trains per hour (tph) between Brixton and Walthamstow Central stations.
- Loops at Heathrow and Liverpool seem to work very well.
- A single-platform with platform-edge doors has a high level of safety.
- Only one tunnel boring machine (TBM) would be needed.
- Large lifts could be used between the surface and the platform.
- It is a more affordable option.
But perhaps most importantly, I am sure, the loop could be built whilst other services at Brixton and Herne Hill were running almost without disruption, as services did at Kennington, whilst the Battersea Extension of the Northern Line was built.
A Loop At Elephant And Castle For The Bakerloo Line
I have spent forty years involved in project management, writing software for project managers and generally listening to some of the thoughts and experiences of some of the best engineers from all over the world.
One common thread, which is best illustrated by how the size of lift possible increased in the North Sea in the 1970s, is that as time has progressed machines have got bigger and more capable, and the techniques of using them has improved immeasurably.
The Crossrail tunnel boring machines (TBM) make those used on the Jubilee Line extension or the Channel Tunnel look like toys. But not only are the TBMs bigger and faster, they have all the precision and control to go through the eye of the smallest needle.
If we look at the proposals for the Bakerloo Line Extension, there have been several differing ideas. Some envisage going under Camberwell and in others the trains terminate on the Hayes line.
Transport for London (TfL), obviously know the traffic patterns, but do we really want to take the chance of say connecting the Hayes line to the Bakerloo and then finding that it’s not the best solution?
What we should do is augment the services in the area, by providing a good alternative transport route, that links to some of the traditional rail lines to give even more flexibility. We certainly shouldn’t repeat the grave mistake that was made at Brixton in the 1960s by not connecting the Victoria line to the surface rail lines.
This is Transport for London’s indicative map of the extension.
I have reason to believe that the Northern Line Extension may be being built as an extension to the Kennington Loop.
So could we design the Bakerloo Line Extension as a loop starting and finishing at Elephant and Castle calling at important stations?
A possible route could be.
- Elephant and Castle – Interchange with Northern Line and National Rail including Thameslink
- Old Kent Road 1 – Proposed on Map
- Old Kent Road 2 – Proposed on Map
- New Cross Gate – Interchange with London Overground and National Rail
- Lewisham – Interchange with Docklands Light Railway and National Rail including Hayes Line
- Catford Bridge – Interchange with Catford station and National Rail including Hayes Line and Thameslink
- Peckham Rye – Interchange with London Overground and National Rail
- Camberwell – Interchange with National Rail including Thameslink
- Elephant and Castle
The advantages of this simple design are.
- The tunnel would be excavated in one pass by a single TBM.
- The line could be deep under any existing infrastructure.
- Most stations would be simple one-platform affairs, with perhaps only large lifts and emergency stairs, to give unrivalled step-free access for all from the street to the train. Surely lifts exist, that are large and fast enough to dispense with escalators.
- For safety, passenger convenience and flows, and other reasons, the stations could have two entrances, at opposite ends of the platform.
- The simple station entrances would be much easier to position on the surface, as they wouldn’t need to be much bigger than the area demanded by the lifts.
- A single loop would only need half the number of platform edge doors.
- At stations like New Cross Gate, Lewisham, Catford and Peckham Rye the lifts would surface within the confines of the existing surface stations.
- The route has interchanges with the Brighton Main Line, East London Line, Hayes Link, Thameslink and other services, so this would give lots of travel possibilities.
- Trains do not need a terminal platform, as they just keep going on back to Elephant and Castle.
- The loop would be operationally very simple, with no points to go wrong. TfL have aspirations to run twenty-seven trains per hour on the Bakerloo and a simple reversing loop , which would mean the driver didn’t have to change ends, must certainly help this. It would probably be a lot more difficult to get this capacity at the northern end of the line,where Harrow and Wealdstone doesn’t have the required capacity and the only possibility for a reversing loop would be north of Stonebridge Park.
- Elephant and Castle would need little or no modification. Although it would be nice to have lifts to the Bakerloo Line.
- Somewhere over two billion pounds has been quoted for the extension. A single loop with simple stations must be more affordable.
The main disadvantage is that the loop is only one-way.
But making even part of the loop two-way would create all the operational difficulties of scheduling the trains. It would probably be better, less costly and easier to make the trains go round the loop faster and more frequently.
But if a passenger went round the loop the wrong way and changed direction at Elephant and Castle that would probably only take a dozen minutes or so.
Alternatively, I’m sure some New Routemasters would step up to the plate and provide service in the other direction between the stations.
Future Rolling Stock For The Bakerloo Line
This has a section in the Wikipedia entry for the Bakerloo Line, where this is said.
In the mid 2010s, TfL began a process of ordering new rolling stock to replace trains on the Piccadilly, Central, Bakerloo and Waterloo & City lines. A feasibility study into the new trains showed that new generation trains and re-signalling could increase capacity on the Bakerloo line by 25%, with 27 trains per hour.
In June 2018, the Siemens Mobility Inspiro design was selected.[ These trains would have an open gangway design, wider doorways, air conditioning and the ability to run automatically with a new signalling system.[35] TfL could only afford to order Piccadilly line trains at a cost of £1.5bn. However, the contract with Siemens includes an option for 40 trains for the Bakerloo line in the future. This would take place after the delivery of the Piccadilly line trains in the late 2020s.
A loop from Elephant and Castle with a train every 2¼ minutes, is not going to be short of passengers.
The Catford Interchange
Catford and Catford Bridge stations are not far apart.
In An Opportunity At Catford, I talked about what could be done to create a full step-free interchange, which could be connected to the Bakerloo Line loop underneath.
Would It Be Possible For The Bakerloo And Watford DC Lines To Use The Same Trains?
I answered this question in a post with the same name and this was my conclusion.
A common fleet used by the Bakerloo and Watford DC Line would appear to give advantages and it has been done successfully before.
But what the Bakerloo Line, the Watford DC Line, the Abbey Line and the Bakerloo Line Extension need is a good dose of holistic design.
The current trains on the Watford DC Line would be moved to the London Overground. They could be ideal for the future West London Orbital Railway.
Would There Be Advantages In Creating The West London Orbital Railway And Extending The Bakerloo Line As One Project?
Consider.
- The two lines will have an interchange station at Harlesden, which will need to be rebuilt.
- The current trains on the Watford DC Line could be cascaded to the West London Orbital Railway.
- As new trains are delivered to the Piccadilly Line, some of the current trains could be cascaded to the Bakerloo Line.
- Major work for the Bakerloo Link Extension includes a new tunnel, updated signalling and at least seven underground stations.
- Major work for the West London Orbital probably includes track refurbishment, new signalling and updated stations.
I believe that with good project management, that if these two lines were to be created together, this would be advantageous.
Conclusion
I have only outlined how the two projects might be done together.
But I am absolutely certain, that someone with full knowledge of both projects could build the two at a very affordable cost.
Teesside Private SMR Nuclear Power Station To Be Built
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on the BBC.
This is the sub-heading.
An agreement has been reached to build a privately financed nuclear power station in Teesside.
These are the first three paragraphs.
Community Nuclear Power (CNP) has announced plans to install four small modular reactors (SMRs) in North Tees.
CNP said it aims to be up and running in ten years’ time and will supply “roughly a gigawatt of energy”.
With other similar power stations planned, hundreds of jobs are expected to be created in the north-east of England.
A CNP spokesperson said the four North Tees reactors will generate clean, always-on energy which will be used to help develop a green energy and chemical hub, also within the North Tees Group Estate, on the north bank of the River Tees near Stockton.
These are my thoughts.
The Westinghouse AP300™ SMR
This SMR has its own web page.
This is the sub-heading.
Only SMR based on Licensed, Operating & Advanced Reactor Technology
These paragraphs introduce the reactor.
The Westinghouse AP300™ Small Modular Reactor is the most advanced, proven and readily deployable SMR solution. Westinghouse proudly brings 70+ years of experience developing and implementing new nuclear technologies that enable reliable, clean, safe and economical sources of energy for generations to come.
Our AP1000® reactor is already proving itself every day around the globe. Currently, four units utilizing AP1000 technology are operating in China, setting performance records. Six more are under construction in China and one AP1000 reactor is operating at Plant Vogtle in Georgia while a second nears completion.
Our AP300 SMR leverages that operating experience, as well as tens of millions of hours on AP1000 reactor development.
Gain the benefits of the record-setting Westinghouse AP1000 PWR technology in a smaller power output to augment the backbone of your community energy system.
The AP300 SMR complements the AP1000 reactor for a cleaner energy mix, energy security, and grid flexibility and stabilization.
Westinghouse seem to have taken a very professional and scientifically correct approach and downsized something that works well.
Where Will The Reactors Be Built?
This is a paragraph from the BBC article.
Small reactors, built in a factory by the American power giant Westinghouse, will be transported to Seal Sands near Billingham, coming on stream in the early 2030s and going some way to providing part of the big rise in nuclear capacity the UK government wants to see by 2050.
This Google Map shows the mouth of the River Tees.
Note.
- The red arrow at the bottom of the map indicates the location of North Tees Group Estate.
- Follow the river to the North and a capitalised label indicating the position of Seal Sands can be seen.
This second Google Map shows the Seal Sands area in a larger scale.
There seems to be several spaces, where the reactors could be located.
Would It Be Safe To Locate A Nuclear Reactor Or Reactors In a Cluster Of Oil Refineries And/Or Chemical Plants?
Consider.
- In the 1970s, when I worked at ICI, there were companies like Westinghouse advocating nuclear steelmaking.
- We did discuss the concept a couple of times over coffee but no one, I worked with, ever looked at it officially or seriously, as far as I know.
- In addition to requiring large amounts of electricity, oil refineries and chemical plants often use a lot of steam.
- Nuclear reactors generate steam to produce electricity, so some could be diverted to oil refineries or chemical plants
- To decarbonise some processes might switch to hydrogen.
- In Westinghouse And Bloom Energy To Team Up For Pink Hydrogen, I talk about how to use a nuclear reactor to efficiently produce pink hydrogen.
It looks like for efficiency, building the various plant close together could be a good thing.
But is it safe?
I suspect the level of safety will be that of the least safe plant.
So provided all plants are designed to the highest standards, it should be OK, as nuclear plants, oil refineries and chemical plant don’t regularly explode.
The Donald C Cook Nuclear Plant
The Donald C Cook Nuclear Plant in Michigan is a 2.2 GW nuclear plant, that was built by Westinghouse and commissioned in the mid-1970s.
They were clients for Artemis, the project management system that I wrote.
Soon after the Three Mile Island accident on March 28th, 1979, I visited the Donald C Cook Nuclear Plant to see how they were coping with the aftermath of the accident.
I remember being told by the operators of the plant, who were American Electric Power, that as it was their only nuclear plant, they were going to do everything by the book and Artemis was helping them to do that.
Reading about the plant, which is now licenced to operate until 2034 for one reactor and 2037 for the other, it seems to have performed impeccably so far for nearly fifty years.
It is a credit to both Westinghouse, who built it and American Electric Power who own it.
Now that is what I call high-class engineering and I’d be happy to have a cluster of SMRs to the same standard in my back yard.
Sizewell B
I used to live a few miles from Sizewell B, which is another Westinghouse reactor.
- This is the Wikipedia entry for the power station.
- Sizewell B was based on a proven Westinghouse design.
- It seems to have performed well since it was commissioned in 1995.
It looks like it will be operating until 2055, which will make its working life similar to those of the reactors at the Donald C Cook Nuclear Plant.
Westinghouse And Hinckley Point C Compared
Consider.
- Sizewell B was built in approximately seven years.
- This compares well with the two units at the Donald C Cook Nuclear Plant, which took six and nine years respectively
- It looks like Hinckley Point C will take between twelve and fourteen years to build.
- Sizewell B and the two units at Donald C Cook Nuclear Plant seem to be looking at a sixty year operating lifetime.
- Sizewell has a rail connection and Hinckley Point does not.
- Sizewell B seems to have been signed off, when John Major was Prime Minister.
- Hinckley Pont C seems to have resulted from a government white paper when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister.
Westinghouse seem to design nuclear power stations, that can operate for a long period and can be built within a decade.
Westinghouse And Rolls-Royce
Consider.
- Rolls-Royce also have an SMR design.
- Rolls-Royce and Westinghouse are both world-class companies.
- Rolls-Royce have the advantage they are British.
- I also suspect, that both Westinghouse and Rolls-Royce will use the same subcontractors and sub-assembly manufacturers.
- The Rolls-Royce SMR has a power output of 470 MW.
- The Westinghouse SMR has a power output of 300 MW.
I suspect the choice between the two, will be like choosing between top-of-the-range British and American products.
Conclusion
I wonder why we ended up with an unproven new French design at Hinckley Point, when sitting in Suffolk was a traditional Westinghouse design, that was performing to its design specification?
But for the SMR, we need to buy the reactors, which are financially best for Britain. If Westinghouse choose to manufacture large sections in the UK, they could be the better bet, as I suspect, if SMRs are successful, we’ll be seeing exports from the UK.
New £24m Platform To Boost City Train Services
The title of this post is the same as that of this article on the BBC.
These are the first three paragraphs.
Bradford’s Forster Square station is to get a new £24m platform to boost rail services in the city.
Rail Minister Huw Merriman said the government-funded scheme would futureproof the station for generations to come.
It could lead to five more trains to London each day, the Department for Transport said.
There are positive comments from Bradford Council leader Susan Hinchcliffe and LNER.
These are my thoughts.
Where Will The New Platform Be Built?
This OpenRailway Map sows the layout of the current three platforms at Bradford Forster Square station.
The Wikipedia entry for Bradford Forster Square station, says this about platform usage.
During off-peak hours most trains use platforms 1 (for Skipton) and 2 (Leeds and Ilkley) – platform 3 is mainly used during weekday peak periods and in the evening, though a spare set is usually stabled here between 09.00 and 16.00 each weekday.
This picture was taken on the only time I visited the station in 2017.
Note.
- The middle platform is numbered 2b.
- As Bradford Forster Square station is a terminal station, I must have taken this picture from the Southern end of the station.
- From Network Rail’s plan of the station, it looks like Platform 1 is on the right or East and Platform 3 is on the left or West.
This page on the EnglandRover web site confirms that Platform 3 is the Western platform.
This article on the Bradford Argus is entitled Work On New Platform To Begin In Spring After £24m Boost.
This is a paragraph.
The extra platform will be built at the side of the station closest to Forster Square Retail Park. It means the station will expand outwards by a few metres, and the platform construction will require Network Rail to purchase a strip of land from retail park owners British Land.
This Google Map shows where the platform will be placed.
Note.
- The Forster Square Retail Park is in the North-East corner of the map.
- The glazed roof covers Platforms 1 and 2.
- There are trains in Platforms 1 and 3.
- Fitting in the new platform could be a bit tight.
Will the platforms be renumbered or will the new platform be called Platform 0?
Project Management Considerations
Consider.
- Bradford will be the UK City of Culture in 2025.
- British Land will want to have minimal disruption to the operation of their retail park.
For these reasons, all parties will want an early completion.
But as the site should have good access through the retail park, I could envisage that an early completion can be delivered by good project management.
How Many Platforms Will LNER Need?
Consider on the 1st of February 2024, four LNER trains visited the station.
- All trains were Class 801 trains.
- One train was a nine-car train and the others were a pair of five-car trains.
- Two trains used each of Platforms 1 and 2.
- LNER are planning to add five more trains per day (tpd), which will be a total of fourteen movements per day.
I suspect under normal operation, LNER could manage with one platform, as LNER’s movements are less than one per hour.
Conclusion
This new platform seems to be a good plan, that adds much-needed capacity for the short term and provides capacity for more services in the future.
Are Londoners The Tunnel Kings?
I was born in 1947 and it was in the early 1960s, that I started to develop an interest in engineering, which eventually led me to study Electrical Engineering and Electronics at Liverpool University.
Like most Londoners, I was a frequent user of the Underground and for six or seven years, I took the Piccadilly Line many days between Oakwood and Southgate to go to Minchenden Grammar School. Often, after school, I would go on to my father’s print works near Word Green tube station.
But not memories of London’s tunnels were so memorable at that time. One day, we were driving to see my Uncle Bert in Broadstairs and we were held in the Blackwall Tunnel for an hour or so because of an accident.
Perhaps, this is why I can remember a black-and-white video of digging the Western Tunnel of the Dartford Crossing so vividly. But as Raymond Baxter probably explained to BBC viewers at the time, it dug using a Greathead shield under pressure to keep the water out. It was probably the last tunnel dug under the Thames using methods, that would have been familiar to Victorian engineers.
This British Pathe video shows some of the construction of the Western tunnel.
This paragraph from the Wikipedia entry for the Eastern Tunnel describes its construction.
Construction was approved in April 1971, with an initial expected opening date in 1976. Work was delayed due to a lack of funds, which was resolved by EEC funding granted in 1974. The second tunnel opened in May 1980, allowing each tunnel to handle one direction of traffic, by which time the joint capacity of the two tunnels had increased to 65,000 vehicles per day. Connection of the crossing to the M25 was completed on the northerly Essex side in September 1982 (Junction 31), and to the southerly Kent side in September 1986 (Junction 1a)
The tunnels may be inadequate in terms of capacity, but they have certainly done a reliable job for sixty and forty-three years respectively.
There are other tunnels under the Thames, that have been built in my lifetime.
- Thames Cable Tunnel – 1970 – National Grid’s 400 kV cable.
- High Speed One – 2007
- Dartford Tunnel (East) – 1980
- Dartford Tunnel (West) – 1963
- Dartford Cable Tunnel – 2004
- Docklands Light Railway Tunnel – 2009
- Elizabeth Line Tunnel – 2014
- Millennium Dome Cable Tunnel – 1999
- Jubilee Line Tunnels – 1999 – Planned by Artemis
- Blackwall Runnel (East) – 1967
- Isle of Dogs Jubilee Line Tunnels – 1999 – Planned by Artemis
- Docklands Light Railway Tunnel – 1999 – Planned by Artemis
- Deptford Cable Tunnel –
- Jubilee Line Tunnels – 1999 – Planned by Artemis
- Victoria Line Tunnel – 1971
- New Cross to Finsbury Market Cable Tunnel – 2017
- Wimbledon to Pimlico Cable Tunnel – 1996
- London Power Tunnels – 2018, 2011
There are also these tunnels, which don’t go under the Thames
Bank Station Expansion And New Southbound Northern Line Tunnel – 2022
- Elstree to St. John’s Wood Cable Tunnel – 2005
- Heathrow Rail Tunnels – 1998
- Lee Tunnel – 2016
- Limehouse Link Tunnel – 1993
- Lower Lea Valley Cable Tunnels – 2008
- Northern Line Extension To Battersea – 2021
- Piccadilly Line Extension To Heathrow – 1975-2008
- Thames Tideway Tunnel – Estimated completion in 2025 – Tunnelling ended in 2022.
- Thames Water Ring Main – 2010
Note.
- The date is the opening date.
- I am pleased to see that at least some projects were planned, with the software, I wrote in a Suffolk attic.
In my lifetime, at least 27 substantial tunnels have been completed, a very large proportion of which have been on time and on budget, with the possible exception of the Heathrow Rail Tunnels, which collapsed.
So Why Has London Got A Good Record On Tunnelling?
In Millicent And Ursula Prepare To Go Tunnelling, I describe my visit to the Tideway Open Day today to see the tunnel boring machines; Millicent and Ursula before they went tunnelling.
On that Sunday morning, I also chatted with the engineers and tunnelers.
- All had worked on at least one of London’s previous tunnels.
- One had worked on the Second Dartford Tunnel, the Channel Tunnel and Crossrail.
- A couple said, that after the Tideway finished, they would be off to High Speed Two.
Is London’s good record on delivering tunnels safely and on time and on budget, a case of lots of experience and practice makes perfect?
If it is, we should definitely think hard about how we handle large projects.
Wind Farms
Many have been constructed this way.
- The grid substation and connection to the grid is built.
- The foundations of the turbines are installed.
- The turbines are erected.
- All the turbines are commissioned.
This sequence or something like it can be applied to onshore and offshore wind farms.
- Most jobs are repeated many times by specialist teams using purpose-built cranes, ships and other equipment.
- Bigger wind farms, just need more repeated operations.
- All operations are generally in a small geographical area.
- I suspect specialist software has been built to project manage, the building of wind farms. If it hasn’t, I have my ideas.
Project management should be relatively easy.
Funding Announced For First-In-Class Low-Carbon Installation Vessel For Floating Offshore Wind
The title of this post, is the same as that of this news item from Morek Engineering.
These two paragraphs outline the project.
The UK Government has awarded funding to a consortium led by Morek Engineering to design a new class of low-carbon installation vessel for the floating offshore wind market.
The consortium has won the funding through the UK Government’s Clean Maritime Demonstration Competition based on their proven track record in innovative vessel design and delivery of complex offshore operations. The consortium includes Morek Engineering, Solis Marine Engineering, Tope Ocean, First Marine Solutions and Celtic Sea Power.
Note.
- The design of the ship certainly seems to tick all the boxes.
- This is Morek’s web site.
Because of my experience of writing project management systems, I often wonder, whether some of my discarded ideas of the 1980s could be used in the deployment of floating offshore wind.
Plans for Hydrogen Development At Dogger Bank D Gain Ground
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
Dogger Bank D, the potential fourth phase of the world’s largest offshore wind farm under construction, Dogger Bank Wind Farm, has awarded contracts to engineering consultants to support the feasibility and optimization of a large-scale green hydrogen development option on the project
These three paragraphs outline the project.
SSE Renewables and Equinor, the developers of the Dogger Bank wind farm in the UK, awarded contracts for green hydrogen concept and engineering and optimization studies to Genesis, H2GO Power, and Fichtner.
If progressed for delivery, Dogger Bank D would be located in the North Sea around 210 kilometers off the northeast coast of England. Subject to the successful outcome of further technical studies, the project could be capable of generating up to around 2 GW of renewable power.
The 2 GW offshore wind farm is currently planned to comprise 128 wind turbines and up to six offshore platforms.
Note.
According to the article, this would be one of the UK’s largest green hydrogen production facilities.
The partners said, that the project could contribute to the UK Government’s electrolytic hydrogen ambitions for 5 GW by 2030.
This is said about the studies.
Using AI machine learning and robust modeling, these studies will investigate the multitude of interdependent variables required to optimize a potential green hydrogen production facility, such as offshore wind farm sizing, electrolysis capacity, transport and storage capacity, water availability, and offtake optionality.
I was using robust modelling on projects such as these fifty years ago, both with Artemis and bespoke software.
To my mind, SSE Renewables and Equinor are doing the right thing. If anybody has a similar project with lots of variables, I’d love to give my opinion.
I have some thoughts.
How Much Hydrogen Will Be Produced?
Ryze Hydrogen are building the Herne Bay electrolyser.
- It will consume 23 MW of solar and wind power.
- It will produce ten tonnes of hydrogen per day.
The electrolyser will consume 552 MWh to produce ten tonnes of hydrogen, so creating one tonne of hydrogen needs 55.2 MWh of electricity.
This would mean that if the Japanese built one Herne Bay-size electrolyser, then it would produce around three hundred tonnes of hydrogen in an average month.
Consider.
- Dogger Bank D is likely to be a 2 GW wind farm.
- This document on the OFGEM web site, says that the Dogger Bank wind farms will have a capacity factor of 45 %.
- This means that Dogger Bank D wind farm will produce an average of 900 MW over a year.
- This works out at 7,884 GWh of electricity in a year.
As each tonne of hydrogen needs 55.2 MWh to be produced, this means if all the electricity produced by Dogger Bank D, is used to create green hydrogen, then 142,826.1 tonnes will be produced.
How Will The Hydrogen Be Brought Ashore?
142,826.1 tonnes is a lot of green hydrogen and the easiest ways to transfer it to the shore would be by a pipeline or a tanker.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the use of tankers, as this would give more flexibility and allow the export of hydrogen to countries in need of hydrogen.
Will There Be Hydrogen Storage In The Dogger Bank D Wind Farm?
This would surely be a possibility, but there are security considerations.
Cost would also be a factor!
The Location Of The Dogger Bank D Wind Farm
I clipped this map of Dogger Bank A, B, C and D wind farms from this page of the Dogger Bank D web site.
Note.
- RWE’s Dogger Bank South wind farm is not shown on the map.
- Dogger Bank D wind farm is the most Easterly of the four wind farms being developed by SSE Renewables and Equinor.
- Dogger Bank D wind farm must be the closest of the Dogger Bank wind farms to the Eastern border of the UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ.
Dogger Bank D wind farm would appear to be ideally placed to supply hydrogen to a number of places, by either pipeline or tanker.
Could Dogger Bank South Wind Farm Also Produce Hydrogen?
In RWE Partners With Masdar For 3 GW Dogger Bank South Offshore Wind Projects, I talked about the change of ownership of the Dogger Bank South wind farm.
I would assume that the Dogger Bank South wind farm will be located to the South of the Dogger Bank A,B, C and D wind farms.
Whether it will produce hydrogen will be a matter for the owners and market conditions.
I do believe though, that it could share some facilities with the those that might be built for Dogger Bank D wind farm.
Conclusion
After this brief look, Dogger Bank D could be an ideal place to build a large hydrogen production facility.
New Plan To Lay Out Path For UK Offshore Wind Growth Expected In Early 2024
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
RenewableUK, the Offshore Wind Industry Council (OWIC), the Crown Estate, and Crown Estate Scotland are developing a new Industrial Growth Plan (IGP) to boost the long-term growth of the UK offshore wind sector.
These two paragraphs outline the plan.
The industry players have appointed KPMG to support the development of the IGP which is expected to be published early next year.
The IGP will build on the recent Supply Chain Capability Analysis which outlined a GBP 92 billion opportunity for the country if it can develop its capacity and expertise in a number of key areas, according to RenewableUK.
When plans like this are announced, I wish I was still involved in writing project management software.
South Korea, UK Strengthen Offshore Wind Ties
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
The Republic of Korea (ROK) and the UK have signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) concerning cooperation on offshore wind energy
These three paragraphs outline the MoU.
The UK and ROK already have a proven relationship in offshore wind, with large-scale investments in the UK’s supply chain and in the development of ROK’s offshore wind sector.
This MoU emphasises the will to build on this existing cooperation to accelerate deployment, address barriers to trade, and encourage mutual economic development through regular government-to-government dialogue and business-to-business cooperation, according to the partners.
The participants will support the UK and ROK’s offshore wind deployment by sharing experience and expertise from their respective sectors.
These are my thoughts.
The British And The Koreans Have A Long Record Of Industrial Co-operation
My own experience of this, goes back to the last century, where one of the biggest export markets for Artemis; the project management system, that I wrote was South Korea.
We had started with Hyundai in Saudi Arabia, where the Korean company was providing labour for large projects.
I can remember modifying Artemis, so that it handled the Korean won, which in those days, came with lots of noughts.
The Korean, who managed their Saudi projects returned home and luckily for us, wanted a system in Korea.
Paul, who was our salesman for Korea, used to tell a story about selling in Korea.
Our Korean friend from Hyundai had setup a demonstration of Artemis with all the major corporations or chaebols in Korea.
Paul finished the demonstration and then asked if there were any questions.
There was only one question and it was translated as “Can we see the contract?”
So Paul handed out perhaps a dozen contracts.
Immediately, after a quick read, the attendees at the meeting, started to sign the contracts and give them back.
Paul asked our friendly Korean, what was going on and got the reply. “If it’s good enough for Hyundai, it’s good enough for my company!”
The King Played His Part
King Charles, London and the UK government certainly laid on a first class state visit and by his references in his speech the King certainly said the right things.
I always wonder, how much the Royal Family is worth to business deals, but I suspect in some countries it helps a lot.
With Artemis, we won two Queen’s Awards for Industry. Every year the monarch puts on a reception to which each company or organisation can send three representatives. I recounted my visit in The Day I Met the Queen.
For the second award, I suggested that we send Pat, who was the highest American, in the company.
Later in his career with the company, when he was running our US operations, Pat. found talking about the time, he met the Queen and Prince Philip, very good for doing business.
I wonder how many business and cooperation deals between the UK and Korea, will be revealed in the coming months.
This Deal Is Not Just About The UK And Korea
This paragraph widens out the deal.
In addition, participants accept to promote business activities and facilitate opportunities for UK and ROK companies to collaborate in ROK and the UK, as well as joint offshore wind projects in third countries, according to the press release from the UK Government.
An approach to some countries without the usual bullies of this world may offer advantages.
Has One Secondary Deal Already Been Signed?
This paragraph talks about a recent deal between BP, Dutch company; Corio and the South Koreans.
The news follows the recent announcement from South Korea’s Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy that two UK companies, Corio Generation and BP, submitted investment plans for offshore wind projects in South Korea totalling about EUR 1.06 billion.
This deal was apparently signed during the state visit.
There’s A Lot Of Wind Power To Be Harvested
These last two paragraphs summarise the wind potentials of the UK and Korea.
The UK has the world’s second-largest installed offshore wind capacity, with a government target to more than triple this capacity by 2030 to 50 GW, including 5 GW of floating offshore wind.
Back in 2018, the South Korean Government set a 2030 offshore wind target of 12 GW in its Renewable Energy 3020 Implementation Plan, which was reaffirmed by the now-former South Korea’s president Moon Jae-in in 2020. Since 2022, it has been reported that the country has a target of reaching 14.3 GW of offshore wind power by 2030.
Note that the UK’s population is almost exactly 30 % bigger than Korea’s.
So why will the UK by 2030, be generating three-and-half times the offshore wind power, than Korea?
Twenty days ago, I wrote UK And Germany Boost Offshore Renewables Ties, where I believe the sub-plot is about long-term power and energy security for the UK and Germany.
Long term, the numbers tell me, that UK and Irish seas will be Europe’s major powerhouse.
Australia’s Offshore Wind Market Could Significantly Benefit from Collaboration with UK Suppliers, Study Says
The title of this section, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
A new study has been launched that highlights significant opportunities for the UK to share its wind farm expertise with Australia’s emerging offshore wind market
These three paragraphs outline the study.
The Australian Offshore Wind Market Study, conducted by Arup, evaluates potential Australian offshore wind markets and analyses the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for UK support.
Key findings indicate that the Australian offshore wind market could “substantially” benefit from collaboration with the UK suppliers, given the UK’s 23 years of experience and its status as the second largest offshore wind market globally, boasting 13.9 GW of installed capacity as of 2023, according to the UK Government.
Currently, Australia has over 40 offshore wind projects proposed for development.
I believe that the Australians could be a partner in the deal between the UK and Korea, as all three countries have similar objectives.
Conclusion
The Korean and German deals. and a possible Australian deal should be considered together.
Each country have their strengths and together with a few friends, they can help change the world’s power generation for the better.
- Just as the UK can be Europe’s powerhouse, Australia can do a similar job for South-East Asia.
- Any country with lots of energy can supply the green steel needed for wind turbine floats and foundations.
I would have felt the Dutch would have been next to join, as their electricity network is solidly connected to the UK and Germany. But after this week’s Dutch election, who knows what the Dutch will do?
The Anonymous Widower 