Scotland « The Anonymous Widower

13 Offshore Wind Projects Selected In World’s First Innovation And Targeted Oil & Gas Leasing Round

The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.

This is the sub-heading.

Crown Estate Scotland has selected 13 out of a total of 19 applications with a combined capacity of around 5.5 GW in the world’s first leasing round designed to enable offshore wind energy to directly supply offshore oil and gas platforms.

This paragraph outlines INTOG (Innovation and Targeted Oil & Gas) and its objectives.

INTOG, which has been designed in response to demand from government and industry to help achieve the targets of the North Sea Transition Sector Deal through decarbonising North Sea oil and gas operations, is also expected to further stimulate innovation in Scotland’s offshore wind sector, create additional supply chain opportunity, assist companies to enter the renewable energy market, and support net-zero ambitions.

This is undoubtedly the most important news of the day.

When complete it will generate 5416 MW of electricity.
4068 MW will be used primarily to decarbonise oil and gas platforms with surplus electricity going to the grid.
The amount of carbon dioxide released by oil and gas platforms in the North Sea will be reduced.
The gas saved by decarbonising oil and gas platforms, will be transported to the shore and used in the UK gas grid.
449 MW will be generated in innovative ways in small wind farms, with a capacity of less than 100 MW.

One of the benefits of INTOG is that the UK will be able to reduce gas imports, which must increase energy security.

This map from this document from the Crown Estate Scotland, shows the INTOG wind farms.

This is a list of the farms.

1 – Bluefloat Energy/Renantis Partnership – Innovation – Commercial – 99.45 MW
2 – Bluefloat Energy/Renantis Partnership – Innovation – Supply Chain – 99.45 MW
3 – Simply Blue Energy (Scotland) – Innovation – Supply Chain – 100 MW
4 – BP Alternative Energy Investments – Innovation – New Markets – 50 MW
5 – ESB Asset Development – Innovation – Cost Reduction – 100 MW
6 – Floatation Energy – Targeted Oil & Gas – 560 MW
7 – Cerulean Winds – Targeted Oil & Gas – 1008 MW
8 – Harbour Energy – Targeted Oil & Gas – 15 MW
9 – Cerulean Winds – Targeted Oil & Gas – 1008 MW
10 – Cerulean Winds – Targeted Oil & Gas – 1008 MW
11 – Floatation Energy – Targeted Oil & Gas – 1350 MW
12 – TotalEnergies – Targeted Oil & Gas – 3 MW
13 – Harbour Energy – Targeted Oil & Gas – 15 MW

Note.

The five Innovation sites seem to be as close to the coast as is possible.
I thought some Innovation sites would be closer, so supply difficult to reach communities, but they aren’t.
Floatation Energy and Cerulean Winds seemed to have bagged the lion’s share of the Targeted Oil & Gas.
Sites 6 and 7 sit either side of a square area, where Targeted Oil & Gas will be considered. Is that area, the cluster of oil and gas facilities around Forties Unity, shown on the map in this page on the BP web site?
Harbour Energy have secured two 15 MW sites for Targeted Oil & Gas.

These are my thoughts on the various companies.

Bluefloat Energy

Bluefloat Energy has posted this press release on their web site, which is entitled Bluefloat Energy | Renantis Partnership Bid Success For Two 99mw Innovation Projects In Crown Estate Scotland’s INTOG Process.

The press release starts with these three bullet points.

BlueFloat Energy | Renantis Partnership offered exclusivity rights to develop its Sinclair and Scaraben floating wind projects north of Fraserburgh – leveraging synergies via its 900MW Broadshore project.
The projects seek to trial innovative floating wind technology solutions, kick-starting supply chain growth and job creation in Scotland and providing a ‘stepping-stone’ to the partnership’s ScotWind projects.
Bid proposals include the intention to develop a scalable community benefit model – creating a potential blueprint for floating offshore wind in Scotland.

The first three paragraphs expand the bullet points.

The BlueFloat Energy and Renantis Partnership has been offered seabed exclusivity rights to develop two 99MW projects under the innovation arm of Crown Estate Scotland’s INTOG (Innovation and Targeted Oil & Gas) auction process. The auction saw ten projects bid to bring forward the development of small-scale innovation projects.

The Sinclair and Scaraben projects, located north of Fraserburgh and adjacent to the Partnership’s 900MW Broadshore project, seek to trial innovative foundation technologies, associated fabrication works and mooring systems with a view to maximising opportunities for the Scottish supply chain, driving local investment and job creation.

A key element of the bid proposals is the opportunity to test and adapt a community benefit model, governed independently, and directed by the communities in which the schemes will operate, through collaboration with our supply chain and project partners. The model could create a blueprint, shaping the future of community benefit from floating offshore wind throughout the whole of Scotland. This builds on Renantis’ successful track record of deploying similar schemes via its onshore wind farms in Scotland.

Note.

Companies called Sinclair Offshore Wind Farm and Scaraben Offshore Wind Farm were registered a few months ago in Inverness.
I couldn’t find the websites, so I suspect they’re still being created.
These two projects appear to be pathfinders for the 900 MW Broadshore project, with regards to the supply chain and community involvement.

It certainly looks like the partnership are going about the development of these two projects in a professional manner.

BP Alternative Energy Investments

There has been no press release from BP as I write this, so I will have to deduce what BP are planning.

This map from this document from the Crown Estate Scotland, shows the Southern INTOG wind farms.

Note.

Site 4 is the site of BP Alternative Energy Investments’s proposed wind farm.
Sites 6 and 7 could be either side of the cluster of platforms around Forties Unity.

Consider.

In the wider picture of wind in the North Sea, BP’s proposed 50 MW wind farm is a miniscule one. SSE’s Dogger Bank wind farm is over a hundred times as large.
A cable to the shore and substation for just one 50 MW wind farm would surely be expensive.
BP Alternative Energy Investments are also developing a 2.9 GW wind farm some sixty miles to the South.

For these are other reasons, I believe that there is no reason to believe that the proposed 50 MW wind farm is a traditional wind farm.

But if I’m right about sites 6 and 7 indicating the location the position of Forties Unity, it might open up other possibilities.

This document from INEOS, who own the Forties Pipeline System, explains how the pipeline works.

The Forties Pipeline System (FPS) is an integrated oil and gas transportation and processing system. It is owned and operated by INEOS and utilises more than 500 miles of pipeline to smoothly transport crude oil and gas from more than 80 offshore fields for processing at the Kinneil Terminal. At Kinneil the oil and gas are separated, with the oil returned as Forties Blend to customers at Hound Point or pumped to the Petroineos refinery at Grangemouth.
At the same time the gas goes to our LPG export facilities or is supplied to the INEOS petrochemical plant. FPS transports around 40% of the UK’s oil production supply and brings over 400,000 barrels ashore every day.

In Can The UK Have A Capacity To Create Five GW Of Green Hydrogen?, I said the following.

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.

If BP were to pair the wind farm with a 50 MW electrolyser it will produce 21.7 tonnes of hydrogen per day.

Could it be brought to the shore, by linking it by a pipeline to Forties Unity and then using the Forties Pipeline System?

As the category on site 4, is New Markets, are BP and INEOS investigating new markets for hydrogen and hydrogen blends?

Some of the latest electrolysers don’t need pure water and can use sea water. This makes them more affordable.
Do BP and/or INEOS have the capability to extract the hydrogen as it passes through the Cruden Bay terminal, to provide the hydrogen for Aberdeen’s buses and other users?
INEOS and BP probably have some of the best oil and gas engineers in the world.
How many other places in the world have an offshore oil or gas field set in a windy sea, where floating wind- turbine/electrolysers could generate hydrogen and send it ashore in an existing pipeline?
Several of these offshore oil and gas fields and the pipelines could even be owned by BP or its associates.
Remember that hydrogen is the lightest element, so I suspect it could be separated out by using this property.

This BP site, is to me, one of the most interesting of the successful bids.

BP probably have a large collection of bonkers ideas, that have been suggested during their long involvement with offshore oil and gas.
Some ideas could be even suggested by employees, whose fathers worked for BP fifty years ago. I’ve met a few BP employees, whose father also did.
Will the wind farm, be a floating electrolyser at the centre of a cluster of a few large floating turbines?
Will each turbine have its own electrolyser and the substation only handle hydrogen?
Will the floating electrolyser have hydrogen storage?
Have BP got a floating or semi-submersible platform, that could either go to the breakers or be repurposed as the floating electrolyser?
Repurposing a previous platform, would make all the right noises.

So many possibilities and so far, no clues as to what will be built have been given.

Cerulean Winds

In What Is INTOG?, I said this about Cerulean Winds.

Cerulean sounds like it could be a sea monster, but it is a shade of blue.

This article on offshoreWind.biz is entitled Cerulean Reveals 6 GW Floating Offshore Wind Bid Under INTOG Leasing Round.

These are the two introductory paragraphs.

Green energy infrastructure developer Cerulean Winds has revealed it will bid for four seabed lease sites with a combined capacity of 6 GW of floating wind to decarbonise the UK’s oil and gas sector under Crown Estate Scotland’s Innovation and Targeted Oil and Gas (INTOG) leasing round.

This scale will remove more emissions quickly, keep costs lower for platform operators and provide the anchor for large-scale North-South offshore transmission, Cerulean Winds said.

Note.

1. It is privately-funded project, that needs no government subsidy and will cost £30 billion.
2. It looks like each site will be a hundred turbines.
3. If they’re the same, they could be 1.5 GW each.
4. Each site will need £7.5 billion of investment. So it looks like Cerulean have access to a similar magic money tree as Kwasi Kwarteng.

Effectively, they’re building four 1.5 GW power stations in the seas around us to power a large proportion of the oil and gas rigs.

For more on Cerulean Winds’s massive project see Cerulean Winds Is A Different Type Of Wind Energy Company.

So does it mean, that instead of 6 GW, they were only successful at three sites and the other or others were in the six unsuccessful applications?

There is a press release on the Cerulean Winds web site, which is entitled Cerulean Winds Wins Bid For Three INTOG Floating Wind Sites, where this is said.

Cerulean Winds and Frontier Power International have been awarded three lease options for the Central North Sea in the highly competitive INTOG leasing round, the results of which were announced by Crown Estate Scotland today.

The sites, in the Central North Sea, will enable the green infrastructure developer and its partners to develop large floating offshore windfarms to decarbonise oil and gas assets. The scale of the development will enable a UK wide offshore transmission system, that can offer green energy to offshore assets in any location and create a beneficial export opportunity.

Nothing about unsuccessful applications was said.

This map from this document from the Crown Estate Scotland, shows the Southern INTOG wind farms.

Note.

Sites 7, 9 and 10 are Cerulean’s sites.
Sites 6 and 11 are Floatation Energy’s sites.
Site 4 is BP Alternative Energy Investments’s Innovation site.
Sites 8, 12 and 13 are much smaller sites.

It looks like Cerulean and Floatation Energy are well-placed to power a sizeable proportion of the platforms in the area.

ESB Asset Development

ESB Asset Development appear to be a subsidiary of ESB Group.

The ESB Group is described like this in the first paragraph of their Wikipedia entry.

The Electricity Supply Board is a state owned (95%; the rest are owned by employees) electricity company operating in the Republic of Ireland. While historically a monopoly, the ESB now operates as a commercial semi-state concern in a “liberalised” and competitive market. It is a statutory corporation whose members are appointed by the Government of Ireland.

This press release, is entitled ESB Offered Exclusive Rights To Develop Innovative 100MW Floating Offshore Wind Project In The Malin Sea.

These two paragraphs outline the project.

ESB today welcomes the outcome of Crown Estate Scotland’s latest seabed leasing process which has resulted in the offer of exclusive development rights to ESB for a 100MW floating wind project in Scottish waters off the north coast of Northern Ireland. The successful project, Malin Sea Wind, is a collaborative bid between ESB and leading technology developers Dublin Offshore Technology and Belfast-based CATAGEN. The outcome underscores ESB’s growing capabilities and expanding presence in the offshore wind industry.

The Innovation and Targeted Oil and Gas (INTOG) seabed leasing process, run by Crown Estate Scotland, aims to drive cost reduction in the offshore wind sector by enabling the deployment of new and innovative technologies, and to harness wind energy to decarbonize the oil and gas sector. Malin Sea Wind aims to support the reduction of floating offshore wind costs by demonstrating Dublin Offshore’s patented load-reduction technology. Furthermore, the project will support decarbonisation of the aviation sector by powering sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production technology currently under development by net-zero technology specialists, CATAGEN.

Note.

I’ve just looked at the Technology page of the Dublin Offshore Technology web site.
In the 1970s, I built large numbers of mathematical models of steel, concrete and water cylinders in my work with a Cambridge University spin-out called Balaena Structures.
I believe, that an experienced mathematically modeller could simulate this clever system.

That would prove if it works or not!

This Google Map shows the Malin Sea.

Note.

Malin Head is marked by the red arrows on the Northern Irish coast.
The most Westerly Scottish island is Islay and the most Easterly is the Isle of Arran.
Between the two islands is the Kintyre peninsula.
Portrush can be picked out on the Northern Irish coast.

By overlaying the two maps, I suspect the centroid of the wind farm will be North of Portrush about a few miles North of the Southern end of Arran.

I suspect that if all goes well, there could be a lot of floating wind turbines in the area.

This Google Map shows the River Foyle estuary and Foyle Port to the North-East of Londonderry/Derry.

Note.

Coolkeeragh ESB and Lisahally biomas power station on the South bank of the River Foyle.
Lisahally biomas power station has a capacity of 16 MW.
There appears to be a large substation at Coolkeeragh ESB.
A tanker of some sort seems to be discharging.

Until told, I’ve guessed wrong, it looks to me like Coolkeeragh ESB could be the destination for the electricity generated by Malin Sea Wind. Given that this project’s aim is cost reduction, a 100 MW wind farm could make a difference.

In addition could Foyle Port be used to assemble and maintain the floating turbines?

Floatation Energy

Floatation Energy have posted this press release on their web site, which is entitled Flotation Energy and Vårgrønn Awarded Exclusivity To Develop Up To 1.9 GW Of Floating Offshore Wind In Scotland.

The first part of the press release, has a graphic.

It shows how their proposed system will work.

A floating wind farm will be placed between the shore and oil and gas platforms to be decarbonised.
The wind farm will be connected to the shore by means of a bi-directional cable, so that the wind farm can export electricity to the grid and when the wind isn’t blowing the grid can power the platforms.
A cable between the wind farm and the platforms completes the system.

It is a simple system, where all elements have been built many times.

Floatation Energy must have been fairly confident that their bids would be successful as they have already named the farms and set up web sites.

Site 6 – Green Volt – 560 MW
Site 11 – Cenos – 1350 MW

The websites are very informative.

The Timeline for 2019-2021 on the Green Volt web site describes the describes the progress so far on the project.

2019 – As construction of the Kindardine offshore floating wind farm kicks off, Flotation Energy identifies the Buzzard oil facility (a relatively new oil and gas platform with a long field life and high electrical load) as the optimal starting point for a significant contribution to the North Sea Transition Deal – the process of replacing large scale, inefficient gas-fired power generation with renewable electricity from offshore wind.

2020 – Flotation Energy begins environmental surveys on the Ettrick/Blackbird oil field, a redundant site nearby Buzzard, which is in the process of decommissioning. The “brownfield” site is confirmed as an exceptional opportunity to create an offshore floating wind farm, with water depths of 90-100m and high quality wind resource.

2021 – Flotation Energy works with regulators to understand the potential for project “Green Volt” to decarbonise offshore power generation for Buzzard. Flotation Energy completes and submits an Environmental Scoping report to Marine Scotland, reaching the first major milestone in the Marine Consent process. Crown Estate Scotland announces a new leasing round for Innovation and Targeted Oil and Gas Decarbonisation (INTOG).

On a section on the Cenos web site, there is a section called Efficient Grid Connection, where this is said.

The power generated by the wind turbines will be Alternating Current (AC) and routed to a substation platform. AC power will be exported to the oil and gas platforms.

For efficient export to the UK grid, the substation platform will include a converter station to change the AC power to Direct Current (DC) before the power is transported to shore. This is due to transporting AC power over long distances leading to much of the power being lost.

Cenos is working in partnership with the consented NorthConnect interconnector project, to utilise their DC cable routing where possible. Cenos will also use the NorthConnect onshore converter station planned for Fourfields near Boddam, which then has an agreed link into the Peterhead Substation. This collaboration minimises the need to construct additional infrastructure for the Cenos project.

That all sounds very practical.

Note.

Floatation Energy delivered the Kincardine offshore floating wind farm.
Both wind farms appear to use the same shore substation.
Buzzard oil field is being expanded, so it could be an even more excellent oil field to decarbonise.
NorthConnect is a bit of an on-off project.

Floatation Energy seem to have made a very professional start to the delivery of their two wind farms.

Harbour Energy

The Wikipedia entry for Harbour Energy describes the company like this.

Harbour Energy plc is an independent oil and gas company based in Edinburgh, Scotland. It is the United Kingdom’s largest independent oil and gas business. It is listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 250 Index.

But if you look at news items and the share price of the company, things could look better for Harbour Energy.

On their map of UK operations, I can count nearly twenty oil and gas fields.

As they have other oil and gas fields around the world, decarbonisation of their offshore operations could increase production by a few percent and substantially cut their carbon emissions.

That is a philosophy that could be good for profits and ultimately the share price.

So has the company gone for a very simple approach of two identical floating wind turbines?

They have been successful in obtaining leases for sites 8 and 13.

Both have a capacity of 15 MW, so are the farms a single 15 MW wind turbine?
I think this is likely, unless it is decided to opt for say a 16 MW turbine.
Or even a smaller one, if the platform is in a bad place for wind.
The wind turbine would be parked by the platform to be decarbonised and connected up, to a simple substation on the platform.
I would recommend a battery on the platform, so that if the wind wasn’t blowing, power was still supplied to the platform.
There would be no need for any cable between shore and wind farm and the only substation, would be a relatively simple one with a battery on the platform.

It could be a very efficient way of decarbonising a large number of platforms.

Once Harbour Energy have proved the concept, I could build a simple mathematical model in Excel, to work out any change in profitability and carbon emissions for a particular oil or gas platform.

Who Is Britannia Ltd?

In this document from the Crown Estate Scotland, there is a section that gives the partners in each project.

Listed for site 8 are Chrysaor (U.K.) and Britannia Limited and for site 13 is Chryasaor Petroleum Company UK Limited.

This page on the Harbour Energy web site gives the history of Chrysaor and Harbour Energy.

This is the heading.

Chrysaor was founded in 2007 with the purpose of applying development and commercial skills to oil and gas assets and to realise their value safely.

This is the history.

The Group grew rapidly over the years through a series of acquisitions. With backing from Harbour Energy – an investment vehicle formed by EIG Global Energy Partners – Chrysaor acquired significant asset packages in the UK North Sea from Shell (2017) and ConocoPhillips (2019) to become the UK’s largest producer of hydrocarbons.

In 2021, Chrysaor merged with Premier Oil to become Harbour Energy plc.

So that explains the use of the Chrysaor name or Chryasaor as someone misspelt it on the Crown Estate Scotland document.

I asked myself, if Britannia Ltd. could be a technology company, so I checked them out. The only company, I could find was a former investment trust, that was dissolved over ten years ago.

But Britannia is an oil and gas field in the North Sea, which is partially owned by Harbour Energy. It has a page on Harbour Enerrgy’s web site, which is entitled Greater Britannia Area.

This is said about the Britannia field.

Britannia in Block 16/26 of the UK central North Sea sits approximately 210-kilometres north east of Aberdeen. The complex consists of a drilling, production and accommodation platform, a long-term compression module of mono-column design and a 90-metre bridge connected to a production and utilities platform. Britannia is one of the largest natural gas and condensate fields in the North Sea. Commercial production began in 1998. Condensate is delivered through the Forties Pipeline to the oil stabilisation and processing plant at Kerse of Kinneil near Grangemouth and natural gas is transported through a dedicated Britannia pipeline to the Scottish Area Gas Evacuation (SAGE) facility at St Fergus.

Looking at the maps on the Crown Estate Scotland, Harbour Energy and others, it looks like site 8 could be close to the

Greater Britannia Area or even the Britannia field itself.

Simply Blue Energy

Simply Blue Energy are developing the 100 MW Salamander wind farm.

I wrote about this project in The Salamander Project.

Did it get chosen, as it was a project, where the design was at an advanced stage?

TotalEnergies

I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that TotalEnergies have gone a very similar route to Harbour Energy, but they are trying it out with a 3 MW turbine.

Conclusion

They are an excellent group of good ideas and let’s hope that they make others think in better and move innovative ways.

Politics will never save the world, but engineering and science just might!

March 25, 2023 Posted by AnonW | Energy, World | Balaena Structures, BlueFloat Energy, BP, Broadshore Wind Farm, Cenos Wind Farm, Cerulean Winds, Crown Estate, Decarbonisation, Electrolysis, Engineering, Floating Wind Power, Fraserburgh, Green Volt Wind Farm, Hydrogen Blend, INEOS, INTOG, Kincardine Wind Farm, mathematical Modelling, North Sea Oil And Gas, NorthConnect, Offshore Operations Decarbonisation, Offshore Wind Power, Politics, Salamander Wind Farm, Scaraben Wind Farm, Science, Scotland, Simply Blue Group, Sinclair Wind Farm, TotalEnergies, Wind Power | 2 Comments

£100m Boost For Biggest UK Hydro Scheme In Decades

The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on the BBC.

This is the sub-heading.

A giant hydro scheme which would double the UK’s ability to store energy for long periods is taking a leap forward with a £100m investment by SSE.

These are the first three paragraphs.

The proposed 92m-high dam and two reservoirs at Coire Glas in the Highlands would be Britain’s biggest hydroelectric project for 40 years.

Scottish ministers approved the 1.5 GW pumped storage facility in 2020.

But power giant SSE wants assurances from the UK government before finally signing it off.

There are two major problems with this scheme.

Why The Forty Year Wait?

I am an Electrical and Control Engineer and it is a scandal that we are waiting forty years for another pumped storage scheme like the successful Electric Mountain or Cruachan power stations to arrive.

Petrol or diesel vehicles have batteries for these three main purposes.

To start the engine.
To stabilise the output of the generator or alternator.
To provide emergency power.

As to the latter, I can’t be the only person, who has dragged a car out of a ford on the starter motor. But think of the times, you’ve used the hazard warning lights, after an accident or an engine failure.

The nightmare of any operator of a complicated electricity network like the UK’s is a black start, which is defined by Wikipedia like this.

A black start is the process of restoring an electric power station or a part of an electric grid to operation without relying on the external electric power transmission network to recover from a total or partial shutdown.

Hydro electric power stations and especially those that are part of pumped storage schemes are ideal for providing the initial power, as they are often easy to start and have water available. Cruachan power station has a black start capability, but at 440 MW is it big enough?

Over the last few years, many lithium-ion batteries have been added to the UK power network, which are used to stabilise the grid, when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.

There are four pumped storage hydro-electric schemes in the UK.

Cruachan – 440 MW/7 GWh – 1965
Dinorwig (Electric Mountain) – 1800 MW/9.1 GWh -1984
Ffestiniog – 360MW/1.44 GWh – 1963
Foyers – 300 MW/6.3 GWh – 1974

Note.

I always give the power output and the storage capacity for a battery, if it is known.
According to Wikipedia, Scotland has a potential for around 500 GWh of pumped storage.
The largest lithium-ion battery that I know, that is being planned in the UK, is Intergen’s 320 MW/640 MWh battery at Thames Gateway, that I wrote about in Giant Batteries Will Provide Surge Of Electricity Storage. It’s smaller than any of the four current pumped storage schemes.
The Wikipedia entry for Coire Glas says that it is a 1.5 GW/30 GWh pumped storage hydro-electric power station.

I very much feel that even one 1.5 GW/30 GWh pumped storage hydro-electric power station must make a big difference mathematically.

Why have we had to wait so long? It’s not as though a pumped storage hydro-electric power station of this size has suffered a serious disaster.

Drax Needs Assurances Too?

The BBC article says this.

Scotland’s only other pumped storage scheme, operated by Drax Group, is housed within a giant artificial cavern inside Ben Cruachan on the shores of Loch Awe in Argyll.

The North Yorkshire-based company plans to more than double the generating capacity of its facility, nicknamed Hollow Mountain, to more than 1GW, with the construction of a new underground power station.

But both Drax and SSE have been reluctant to press ahead without assurances from Whitehall.

It looks like the right assurances would open up at least two pumped storage hydro-electric power station projects.

But it could be better than that, as there are other projects under development.

Balliemeanoch – 1.5GW/45 GWh
Corrievarkie – 600 MW/14.5 GWh
Loch Earba – 900 MW/33 GWh
Loch Kemp – 300 MW/9 GWh
Red John – 450 MW/2.8 GWh

This totals to 3750 MW/104.3 GWh or 5850 MW/134.3 GWh with the addition of Coire Glas and the extension to Cruachan.

Getting the assurances right could result in large amounts of construction in Scotland!

What Assurances Do Power Giants SSE And Drax Want Before Signing Off?

This news item on SSE Renewables, which is dated 18th March 2022, is entitled Ministerial Roundtable Seeks To Unlock Investment In UK Energy Storage.

These three paragraphs gives details of the meeting.

Business leaders have met with UK Energy Minister the Rt Hon Greg Hands MP to discuss how the government could unlock significant investment in vital energy storage technologies needed to decarbonise the power sector and help ensure greater energy independence.

The meeting was organised by the Long-Duration Electricity Storage Alliance, a new association of companies, progressing plans across a range of technologies to be first of their kind to be developed in the UK for decades.

Representatives from Drax, SSE Renewables, Highview Power and Invinity Energy Systems met with The Rt Hon Greg Hands MP, Minister of State for Business, Energy and Clean Growth [yesterday].

But they still don’t seem to have come up with a funding mechanism.

In this case, it seems that multiple politicians may not be to blame, as Greg Hands was the Minister of State for Business, Energy and Clean Growth until the 6th of September 2022, when he handed over to Graham Stuart, who is still the incumbent.
Could it be that civil servants for this problem need to be augmented by a Control Engineer with mathematical modelling skills from a practical university?

It is the sort of problem, I would love to get my teeth into, but unfortunately my three mentors in accountancy and banking; Bob, Brian and David, who could have helped me, have all passed on to another place to help someone else with their problems.

I’ve just had a virtual meeting with all three and they told me to look at it like a warehousing system.

Consider.

It would be very easy to measure the amount of water stored in the upper reservoir of a pumped storage hydro-electric power station.
It would also be easy to measure the electricity flows to and from the pumped storage hydro-electric power station.
A monetary value could be placed on the water in the upper reservoir and the flows, depending on the current price for electricity.

So it should be possible to know that a pumped storage hydro-electric power station, was perhaps storing energy as follows.

10 GWh for SSE
8 GWh for RWE
6 GWh for Scottish Power
6 GWh is not being used

And just as in a warehouse, they would pay a fee of so much for storing each GWh for an hour.

The system would work with any type of storage.
Would competition between the various storage sites bring down prices for storing electricity?
Pumped storage operators would get a bonus when it rained heavily.
Just as they do now, electricity generators would store it when prices are low and retrieve it when prices are high.

A lot of the rules used to decide where electricity goes would still work.

March 22, 2023 Posted by AnonW | Energy, Energy Storage, Finance | Coire Glas Pumped Hydro, Contracts for Difference, Control Engineering, Cruachan Power Station, Dinorwig Power Station (Electric Mountain), Ffestiniog Pumped Hydro, Foyers Pumped Hydro, Intergen, Pumped Storage Hydroelectricity, RWE, Scotland, SSE Renewables | 3 Comments

Scottish Hydrogen Fuel Tank – SHyFT

The title of this post, is the same as that of this page on the Innovatus Technologies web site.

This is the sub-heading.

Advanced Flexible Form Factor and Lightweight Multi-Chamber Type IV & V Hydrogen Storage Vessel

These paragraphs outline the product.

SHyFT is a unique Type IV or V composite high-pressure vessel unlike conventional large, heavyweight cylindrical vessels. The unique multi-chamber composite design, aided by patented composite technology and recyclable materials, allows for SHyFT to conform to any form factor specific to our customers needs.

SHyFT’s largest model boasts the worlds highest Gravimetric Storage Density of 10%, allowing 5.4 KG of hydrogen storage. This is a significant 10% increase on current market leaders in composite storage of gaseous substances.

The core composite technology drives a 25%+ weight and 20%+ cost reduction, whilst providing superior quality and technical performance for a more efficient and economical product. With SHyFT, various market applications such as commercial, personal and industrial transport, Marine and UAV, can be easily dominated creating a higher value proposition for our customers.

As with other companies in the past, like Pilkingtons, Rolls-Royce and Skeleton Technologies, who have developed a unique product, I suspect that the key is a special purpose machine that makes the tanks. I have two friends in Cambridge, who specialise in making unusual manufacturing machines and they are very busy.

I first came across this company as they are named in the Wikipedia entry for Project Fresson, which is a part-Scottish project to create a hydrogen-powered Islander aircraft.

Innovatus Technologies are building the composite hydrogen fuel tanks. Two, which are coloured green, appear to be mounted below the wings and there could be others inside the fuselage.

This company could solve one the major problems with hydrogen applications – How to cram in enough of the gas to make the application possible!

Conclusion

I predict a big future for this company, unless the Chinese or other idea-stealers ruin the market.

March 14, 2023 Posted by AnonW | Energy Storage, Hydrogen, Transport/Travel | Aviation, hydrogen Storage, Innovatus Technologies, Project Fresson, Scotland, SHyFT | Leave a comment

Thoughts On High Speed Two

These are a few thoughts about High Speed Two, after the reports of major changes today.

This article on the BBC is entitled HS2 Line Between Birmingham And Crewe Delayed By Two Years.

This is the sub-heading.

The Birmingham to Crewe leg of high speed railway HS2 will be delayed by two years to cut costs.

These are the three opening paragraphs.

Some of the design teams working on the Euston end of the line are also understood to be affected.

Transport secretary Mark Harper blamed soaring prices and said it was “committed” to the line linking London, the Midlands and North of England.

HS2 has been beset by delays and cost rises. In 2010, it was expected to cost £33bn but is now expected to be £71bn.

Delivering The Benefits Of High Speed Two Early

It is my belief that with a large project taking a decade or more , it is not a bad idea to deliver some worthwhile benefits early on.

The Elizabeth Line opened in stages.

The new Class 345 trains started replacing scrapyard specials in 2017.
The rebuilt Abbey Wood station opened in 2017.
Paddington local services were transferred to the Elizabeth Line in 2019.
Outer stations reopened regularly after refurbishment from 2018.
The through line opened in May 2022.

There’s still more to come.

Some projects wait until everything is ready and everybody gets fed up and annoyed.

Are there any parts of High Speed Two, that could be completed early, so that existing services will benefit?

In 2020, the refurbishment of Liverpool Lime Street station and the tracks leading to the station was completed and I wrote about the station in It’s A Privilege To Work Here!, where this was my conclusion.

Wikipedia says this about Liverpool Lime Street station.

Opened in August 1836, it is the oldest still-operating grand terminus mainline station in the world.

I’ve used Lime Street station for fifty-five years and finally, it is the station, the city needs and deserves.

I’ve been to grand termini all over the world and Lime Street may be the oldest, but now it is one of the best.

Are there any stations, that will be served by High Speed Two, that should be upgraded as soon as possible to give early benefits to passengers, staff and operators?

Avanti West Cost have solved the problem of the short platforms at Liverpool South Parkway station, by ordering shorter Class 807 trains. Will High Speed Two lengthen the platforms at this station?

A good project manager will need to get all the smaller sub-projects in a row and work out what is the best time to do each.

Digital Signalling

I would assume, as this will be needed for High Speed Two services in the West Coast Main Line to the North of Crewe, this is surely a must for installing as early as possible.

If the existing trains could run for a hundred miles at 140 mph, rather than the current 125 mph, that would save five worthwhile minutes.

Trains could run closer together and there is the possibility of organising services in flights, where a number of trains run together a safe number of minutes apart.

Remove Bottlenecks On Classic Lines, That Could Be Used By High Speed Two

I don’t know the bottlenecks on the West Coast Main Line, but there are two on the East Coast Main Line, that I have talked about in the past.

Could ERTMS And ETCS Solve The Newark Crossing Problem?

Improving The North Throat Of York Station Including Skelton Bridge Junction

Hopefully, the digital signalling will solve them.

Any bottlenecks on lines that will be part of High Speed Two, should be upgraded as soon as possible.

Birmingham And Crewe

I will start by looking at the leg between Birmingham and Crewe.

This section of the HS2 map shows High Speed Two between Birmingham and Lichfield.

Note.

The blue circle on the left at the bottom of the map is Birmingham Curzon Street station.
The blue circle on the right at the bottom of the map is Birmingham Interchange station.
The High Speed Two to and from London passes through Birmingham Interchange station.
The branch to Birmingham Curzon Street station connects to the main High Speed Two at a triangular junction.
North of the triangular junction, High Speed Two splits.
The Eastern branch goes to East Midlands Parkway station.
The Northern branch goes to Crewe, Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Piccadilly, Preston and Scotland.

At the top of the map, the Northern branch splits and lines are shown on this map.

Note.

The junction where the Northern and Eastern branches divide is in the South-East corner of the map.
To the North of Lichfield, the route divides again.
The Northern purple line is the direct line to Crewe.
The shorter Southern branch is a spur that connects High Speed Two to the Trent Valley Line, which is the current route taken by trains between London Euston and Crewe, Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Piccadilly, Preston and Scotland.
Crewe station is in the North-West corner of the map.

The route between the junction to the North of Lichfield and Crewe is essentially two double-track railways.

High Speed Two with a routine operating speed of 205 mph.
The Trent Valley Line with a routine operating speed of 140 mph.
High Speed Two Classic-Compatible trains can run on all tracks.
High Speed Two Full-Size trains may be able to run on the Trent Valley Line at reduced speed.
Eighteen trains per hour (tph) is the maximum frequency of High Speed Two.

I feel in an emergency, trains will be able to use the other route.

Will This Track Layout Allow An Innovative Build?

Suppose the link to the Trent Valley Line was built first, so that High Speed Two trains from London for Crewe, Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Piccadilly, Preston and Scotland, could transfer to the Trent Valley Line as they do now.

All lines used by High Speed Two services North of the junction, where High Speed Two joins the Trent Valley Line would be updated with digital signalling and 140 mph running. This will benefit current services on the line. For instance Euston and Liverpool/Manchester services could be under two hours.
The current services would be replaced by High Speed Two services run by High Speed Two Classic-Compatible trains.
The direct High Speed Two route between Lichfield and Crewe would now be built.
When this section of High Speed Two is complete, High Speed Two services would use it between Lichfield and Crewe.
As the direct route would be built later, this would delay the building of the Birmingham and Crewe high-speed route.

Currently, trains run the 41.8 miles between Lichfield and Crewe in 28 minutes, which is an average speed of 89.6 mph.

I can build a table of average speeds and times for Lichfield and Crewe.

100 mph – 25.1 minutes – 2.9 minutes saving
110 mph – 22.8 minutes – 5.2 minutes saving
120 mph – 20.9 minutes – 7.1 minutes saving
125 mph – 20.1 minutes – 7.9 minutes saving
130 mph – 19.3 minutes – 8.7 minutes saving
140 mph – 17.9 minutes – 10.1 minutes saving
160 mph – 15.7 minutes – 12.3 minutes saving
180 mph – 13.9 minutes – 14.1 minutes saving
200 mph – 12.5 minutes – 15.5 minutes saving

Note.

Even a slight increase in average speed creates several minutes saving.
Times apply for both routes.

I believe that a 125 mph average should be possible on the Trent Valley route, which may be enough for Euston and Liverpool/Manchester services to be under two hours.

Improving Classic Lines Used By High Speed Two North Of Lichfield

Real Time Trains shows these figures for a Glasgow Central to Euston service.

Glasgow and Lichfield Trent Valley is 298.2 miles.
Glasgow and Lichfield Trent Valley takes five hours.

This is an average speed of 59.6 mph.

Note.

The average speed is low considering the trains are capable of cruising at 125 mph and 140 mph with digital signalling.
High Speed Two services between Euston and Glasgow will use the classic network, to the North of Lichfield.

I can build a table of average speeds and times for Glasgow and Lichfield.

100 mph – 179 minutes – 121 minutes saving
110 mph – 163 minutes – 157 minutes saving
120 mph – 149 minutes – 151 minutes saving
125 mph – 143 minutes – 157 minutes saving
130 mph – 138 minutes – 162 minutes saving
140 mph – 128 minutes – 172 minutes saving

This table illustrates why it is important to improve all or as many as possible of classic lines used by High Speed Two to enable 140 mph running, with full digital signalling. Obviously, if 140 mph is not feasible, the speed should be increased to the highest possible.

Routes that could be updated include.

London Euston and Glasgow Central
London Euston and Liverpool Lime Street
London Euston and Manchester Piccadilly (all routes)
London Euston and Blackpool
London Euston and Holyhead
London Euston and Shrewsbury

Not all these routes will be served by High Speed Two, but they could be served by 140 mph trains.

What Times Would Be Possible?

The InterCity 225 was British Rail’s ultimate electric train and these two paragraphs from its Wikipedia entry, describe its performance.

The InterCity 225 was designed to achieve a peak service speed of 140 mph (225 km/h); during a test run in 1989 on Stoke Bank between Peterborough and Grantham, an InterCity 225 was recorded at a speed of 162 mph (260.7 km/h). Its high speed capabilities were again demonstrated via a 3hr 29mins non-stop run between London and Edinburgh on 26 September 1991. British regulations have since required in-cab signalling on any train running at speeds above 125 mph (201 km/h) preventing such speeds from being legally attained in regular service. Thus, except on High Speed 1, which is equipped with cab signalling, British signalling does not allow any train, including the InterCity 225, to exceed 125 mph (201 km/h) in regular service, due to the impracticality of correctly observing lineside signals at high speed.

The InterCity 225 has also operated on the West Coast Main Line (WCML). In April 1992, one trainset achieved a new speed record of two hours, eight minutes between Manchester and London Euston, shaving 11 minutes off the 1966 record. During 1993, trials were operated to Liverpool and Manchester in connection with the InterCity 250 project.

The fastest London Euston and Manchester Piccadilly services appear to be two hours and six minutes tomorrow, with stops at Nuneaton and Stoke-on-Trent.
The fastest London King’s Cross and Edinburgh service is four hours seventeen minutes tomorrow.

It does appear that British Rail’s 1980s-vintage InterCity 225 train did very well.

Trains that would be able to run at 140 mph with updated signalling include.

Alstom Class 390
Hitachi Class 800, 801, 802, 803, 805, 807 and 810
British Rail InterCity 225
High Speed Two Classic-Compatible.

All are electric trains.

Could High Speed Two, West Coast Main Line and East Coast Main Line Services Be Run By High Speed Two Classic-Compatible Trains?

I don’t see why not!

They would be able to use short stretches of High Speed Line like Lichfield and Crewe.
LNER and CrossCountry could also use the trains.
High Speed Two is providing the framework and it’s there to be used, provided the paths are available.

This graphic shows the preliminary schedule.

It only shows ten trains going through Crewe, so there could be up to eight spare high speed paths between Birmingham and Crewe.

Could High Speed Two Classic-Compatible Trains Be Used To Advantage On The East Coast Main Line?

I published this extract from the Wikipedia entry for the InterCity 225 earlier.

The InterCity 225 was designed to achieve a peak service speed of 140 mph (225 km/h); during a test run in 1989 on Stoke Bank between Peterborough and Grantham, an InterCity 225 was recorded at a speed of 162 mph (260.7 km/h). Its high speed capabilities were again demonstrated via a 3hr 29mins non-stop run between London and Edinburgh on 26 September 1991.

The London and Edinburgh run was at an average speed of around 112 mph.

I wonder what time, one of LNER’s Class 801 trains, that are all-electric could do, once the new digital signalling has been fully installed on the route? I suspect it would be close to three hours, but it would depend on how long the trains could run at 140 mph.

It should be noted that the Selby Diversion was designed for 160 mph, when it was built by British Rail in the 1980s.

In Are Short Lengths Of High Speed Line A Good Idea?, I look at the mathematics of putting in short lengths of new railway, which have higher speeds, where this was part of my conclusion.

I very much feel there is scope to create some new high speed sections on the current UK network, with only building very little outside of the current land used by the network.

I would love to know what some of Network Rail’s track experts feel is the fastest time possible between London and Edinburgh that can be achieved, by selective upgrading of the route.

If some of the trains were High Speed Two Classic-Compatible Trains, with a top speed of 205 mph, provided the track allowed it, there could be some interesting mathematics balancing the costs of track upgrades, new trains with what passengers and operators need in terms of journey times.

Could High Speed Two Classic-Compatible Trains Be Used To Advantage On The West Coast Main Line?

Much of what I said about the East Coast Main Line would apply to the West Coast Main Line.

But in addition, the West Coast Main Line will be a superb place to test the new High Speed Two Classic-Compatible Trains.

I believe, that before High Speed Two opens, we’ll see High Speed Two Classic-Compatible Trains, carrying passengers between Euston and Avanti West Coast’s destinations.

Could High Speed Two Be Split Into Two?

Consider.

Under earlier plans, the East Coast Main Line to the North of York, will be used by High Speed Two.
With digital signalling the East Coast Main Line will support continuous running at 140 mph for long sections of the route.
The East Coast Main Line has a recently-rebuilt large Southern terminal at King’s Cross with eleven platforms and good suburban services and excellent connections to the London Underground.
The East Coast Main Line has a very large Northern terminal at Edinburgh Waverley with twenty platforms and good local train connections.
There are large intermediate stations on the East Coast Main Line at Doncaster, Leeds, Newcastle, Peterborough and York. All these stations have good local train connections.
The East Coast Main Line has important branches to Cambridge, Harrogate, Huddersfield, Hull King’s Lynn, Lincoln, Middlesbrough, Nottingham, Scarborough, Sheffield, Skegness and Sunderland.

We are talking about an asset, that needs improving rather than sidelining.

Could High Speed Two Be A One-Nation Project?

Over three years ago, I wrote Could High Speed Two Be A One-Nation Project? and tried to answer the question in the title.

But now the core network is better defined, perhaps it is time to look at extending the High Speed network again.

The next few sections look at possible extensions.

Serving Chester And North Wales

I looked at this in Could High Speed Two Trains Serve Chester And North Wales?, which I have updated recently.

This was my conclusion.

It looks to me, that when High Speed Two, think about adding extra destinations, Chester and Holyhead could be on the list.

I also suspect that even without electrification and High Speed Two services, but with the new Class 805 trains, the route could be a valuable one for Avanti West Coast.

These are current and promised times for the two legs to Holyhead.

Euston and Crewe – 90 minutes – Fastest Class 390 train
Euston and Crewe – 55 minutes – High Speed Two Classic-Compatible train from Wikipedia
Crewe and Holyhead – 131 minutes – Fastest Class 221 train
Crewe and Holyhead – 70 minutes – 90 mph average speed
Crewe and Holyhead – 63 minutes – 100 mph average speed
Crewe and Holyhead – 57 minutes – 110 mph average speed
Crewe and Holyhead – 53 minutes – 120 mph average speed
Crewe and Holyhead – 45 minutes – 140 mph average speed

Note.

I have assumed that Crewe and Holyhead is 105.5 miles.
The operating speed of the North Wales Coast Line is 90 mph.
In the following estimates, I have assumed a change of train at Crewe, takes 6 minutes.

I think there are several options to run fast services to Chester and North Wales.

Pre-HS2 – Class 805 all the way