Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Tech Talk - Wind and Water in Southwest Scotland

It was an unexpected encounter! Last Tuesday we had come back to my Mother’s childhood home at St. John’s Town of Dalry in South-West Scotland on family matters, when we heard that the Town Hall was hosting an informational visit by representatives of E-on. Their topic was the planned new wind farm at Loch Urr, itself part of the development of the South West of Scotland as an energy source. Not unexpectedly, there were also protest posters outside, and an earnest young lady inside with a handout to provide an opposing point of view.


Figure 1. Location of the planned new wind farm near Dalry (E-on)


Figure 2. Planned wind farms near Dalry (Save Loch Urr)

I had barely made it into the room when I found, to my surprise, that I was entangled in the debate. It was raining, which it does a lot in this part of the country, and a gentleman visitor was wondering why this “gift of nature” was not being used. None of the folk there (on either side of the argument) was willing, nor perhaps even knowledgeable enough, to comment. Sigh! As a child I was first aware of the turbines on the river Ken, which runs past the bottom of the village, when one afternoon while I was still under the age of five, the local power station turned them on, and as the water in the Ken downstream of Earlstoun dam started to rise, my pants got wet, as I sat along the bank.


Figure 3. Earlstoun Dam spilling water after heavy rains in October 1953 (I have similar photos from March 1955, courtesy of Nora Little)

There are six dam/hydro-electric power station combinations around St. John’s Town of Dalry, collectively forming the Galloway Hydros, a complex with an installed capacity of 104 MW that was built in the 1930’s.


Figure 4. Layout of the Galloway Hydros dams and power stations

They have been there all my life, as part of the national power grid since they were installed, and I don’t recall there ever being much controversy over their existence or use, apart from the question of manning levels and automation. Apart, that is, from the minor inconvenience that their use causes due to the rise of the river when the turbines are running. The increase in water flow floods the stepping stones across the river that were a part of the Southern Upland Way (but have been replaced by a small footbridge upstream) and raises the level of the water, at a slow but inexorable rate that can catch unwary children by surprise. (Fast enough to wet the pants of the inattentive, slow enough that they can easily move out of the way before there is a more significant problem). The claim is that the power can be on line to meet demand within 5 minutes.


Figure 4. Remnants of the stepping stones at Dalry

There is already a wind farm just east of Dalry, which, after some searching, we had found on an earlier visit. It is hard to know that it is even there, and has had very little impact on the surrounding scenery, which is an important part of the attraction to the tourists that bring an important support to the local economy. (There is not a huge global demand for Clydesdales, another village business).

The E-on representatives were quick to point to artist’s renditions of photos on the exhibit that were intended to show that the new additions would not bring much significant change to these important vistas – far away as they lie from Edinburgh in political miles. Scottish energy independence is a critical part of the platform of the Scottish National Party, who are running a campaign to persuade their countrymen to vote next year to renounce the Treaty of Union of 1707 a hundred years after events brought James 6th of Scotland down to London as the first King James of a United Kingdom.

Unfortunately there was not a whole lot of information at the Town Hall on what exactly was planned for the wind farm, nor what the contribution would be to the promise by the SNP leader that the country will become energy independent after a sufficiency of these turbines are installed. On our journey north we had seen how ubiquitous the installation of turbines has been in the past few years. They are part of the landscape from Sherwood Forest on north, and line the coast in Northumberland and Durham, around where the coal pits used to be.

This is the land of the golden eagle, where red kites have been successfully reintroduced after disappearing in an earlier time. Will the turbines impact that population? And is it an important enough question to influence a scheme that will bring potential sources of power that will be independent of foreign sources? The trials of underwater turbines seeking to harness tidal power are a lead in to possibly more ambitious plans in the near future. But they have also reminded engineers (as other columns at this site have shown) how aggressive the combination of sand and water can be in cutting apart structures introduced into their environment.

A greater percentage of the wind turbines were rotating than I had seen in the past, but this is the time of year when that might be expected. In the less windy days of summer and winter when the need will certainly be greater there is less assurance of their contribution. This is unfortunate since the local economy is not doing well, the housing market is almost non-existent since there are few jobs outside the struggling tourist trade. The roughly 70 long-term jobs that the turbines will bring to the region won’t compare with the numbers that might have come with a resurrection of the coal trade, nor will it replace the disappearing wealth that the declines in production from the oil and gas fields offshore are already imposing on the Scottish economy. Nevertheless the Scottish Government is committed to an energy policy that ambitiously anticipates producing all its electricity needs from renewable sources by 2020.

There is no doubt that the UK needs a better energy policy than any of the major political parties is espousing right now – but whether putting hundreds of turbines into a land of great scenic beauty (when visible through the rain) is the right step requires a more detailed answer than was available at the meeting.

Editorial Note - my apologies that the Tech Talk post was delayed this week, but the local inn in Dalry changed hands last week, and that meant that the internet was down for the time that we were there, and a series of unanticipated other problems stopped my being able to post until I returned home.

Read more!
Posted by Heading Out at 10:43 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, February 22, 2013

OGPSS - Thoughts on the Precautionary Principle

As Michael Brander tells it, in his book on the Scottish Highland Regiments, the Scottish Highlands produced, between 1740 and 1815 men for some 86 Highland Regiments who travelled around the world to strengthen the British Empire. But, towards the end of that period sheep were introduced into Scotland and the great land clearances began that replaced the crofters on the estates with the occasional lone shepherd and his flocks. Thus, by the time of the Crimean War when the Duke of Sutherland tried to raise a regiment he got no volunteers. As an old man explained to him:
I am sorry for the response your Grace’s proposals are meeting here today, so near the spot where your maternal grand-mother, by giving some forty-eight hours notice, marshaled 1,500 men to pick out the 800 she required. But there is a cause for it, and a genuine cause, and, as your Grace demands to know it, I must tell you, as I see that none else is inclined in the assembly to do so. These lands are now devoted to rear dumb animals which your parents considered of far more value than men . . . . your parents, yourself and your Commissioners have desolated the glens and the straths of Sutherland where you should find hundreds, yea thousands of men to meet and respond to your call cheerfully had your parents kept faith with them. How could your Grace expect to find men where they are not?
The anecdote illustrates that are long-term consequences to policy decisions, often not fully recognized when the original decisions are made. I was reminded of the Scottish situation as I contemplate the great race to renewable energy and natural gas, and the rapid replacement being urged for coal-fired power stations and nuclear power plants. And there are some grounds for seeing an analogy to that earlier situation.

Coal and uranium are found underground and while there is a large surface mining component to mining, as these reserves are exhausted, or embargoed for environmental or other political reasons, the need, over time will move increasingly to the development of the deeper reserves. Mines, however do not spring up overnight. Just as you cannot get a baby in a month by making nine women pregnant, so the process of discovery, raising capital, permitting and development can mean that over a decade can pass before coal is produced in commercial quantitites. And that assumes that the Administration is somewhat favorable to the idea. As a candidate, now President Obama said "If someone wants to build a new coal-fired power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

As President he appointed Dr. Stephen Chu to head the Department of Energy, an individual who has said “Coal is my worst nightmare.”. And to follow on his statement as a candidate, the President appointed Lisa Jackson to the EPA who issued a finding that greenhouse gases constitute a threat to public health and welfare, with a series of actions to reduce carbon pollution. In such a political climate it is unlikely that applications for new mines and plants will receive an accelerated resolution. (Just consider the case of decision on the Keystone Pipeline, which continues to drag on.) If there is a sudden discovered need for new coal and nuclear power plants they will not (as with the Highlanders) be there to answer that call, and nor can they be for over a decade after the call is made.

Now it is not my intention here to argue the logic of a current change to natural gas, as the large reserve within the United States becomes available and, at low cost, provides a source of energy that helps keep the nation’s industry competitive. But what I would like to do is to invoke the same Precautionary Principle that has been used as an initial basis for action on control of power plant emissions and other factors with environmental impact. (see for example principle fifteen).

The precautionary principle can be briefly stated as:
the theory that an action should be taken when a problem or threat occurs, not after harm has bee inflicted; an approach to decision-making in risk management which justifies preventive measures or policies despite scientific uncertainty about whether whether detrimental effects will occur.
There is a significant scientific question as to the long-term reliability of the production levels for oil and natural gas that is being produced from the shales of the United States, and it has been articulated well both by Art and Rune, among others at the Oil Drum.

And as China draws an increasing amount of fuel out of Turkmenistan, Iran and the Middle East, with the potential for an additional increase in the draw from Russia, there is some concern that as China buys for the long-term, that tightening supplies will begin to limit the availability of fuel for Western Europe and the United States.

With the occasional collapse of the odd wind turbine, and the difficulty in seeing how solar power can help in the blizzards and snow storms I have gone through in the last week, there is some concern over the size of the contribution that these technologies can make into the energy mix of the next decade.

In those circumstances, a wise application of the Precautionary Principle to future energy supplies, in both Europe and the United States, might suggest that sufficient legacy power systems be left in place to ensure that neither community is left short of energy in the years ahead. This is to guard against the proposed replacements being either inadequate or insufficient to meet the future need.

And yet, unfortunately this is not likely to occur. As with many arguments and tools used in political debate, once a position or an argument has been adopted it is extremely rare for it to be renounced. The consequences of current decision making rarely come back to haunt those politicians who make them, since they often occur past the current elective term and are thus of less interest to those who are more focused on the next election.

Yet longer-term events do eventually arrive, and time having passed, the day of reckoning is becoming visible. It is likely that the Bakken will peak before the end of the current Administration. Ofgem has already raised concerns over an over-reliance on imported natural gas into the UK, and warned of possible shortages by the end of 2015, and urged a diversification of supply types. The IEA recently issued a chart that shows their projections for the energy future to 2035.


Figure 1. Past and future distribution of energy demand for the different sectors of the world (IEA )

The writing is beginning to appear on the wall. And while the Precautionary Principle is aimed more at less obvious, high risk scenarios – the risks to the world of a failure in the global supply chain, or even a national one is of such a high impact that even with a lower probability of occurrence than is becoming evident, it would be wise to start looking for answers. It is likely already far too late, and the world remains replete with folk denying the existence of a problem (even as gas prices continue to rise) but it will be interesting to see how the new Secretary of Energy addresses the situation.

Read more!
Posted by Heading Out at 12:09 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Rising Energy Prices and their impact

As the United States continues through the interminable process that will end with the national elections in November, the continued poor state of the economy is playing an increasing part in the debate over the likely outcome. What seems to have slipped from the discussion, however, is the contribution that energy costs are making in their impact on the different economies around the world including that of the United States. That awareness is becoming more evident in the UK, particularly in the debate over Scottish Independence. The recent Uswitch report notes:
Energy bills have more than doubled in the last 8 years – if this trend continues bills could reach £1,582 a year by 2015 and £2,766 by 2018. But almost six in ten people (59%) say that energy will become unaffordable in the UK if the average bill hits £1,500 a year, with the average household bill today already £1,252 a year.
Yet the increasing reliance on “green energies” in the United Kingdom, and particularly Scotland, are already recognized as leading to major current and future cost increases, with consequent impacts on the strength of the economies that they support.
Figure 1. Relative energy sources for Scotland and the UK in 2010 (Scottish Government)

 The growth of renewable energy in Scotland has been remarkable over the past decade, and has received consistent support to grow beyond the current levels. The major growth has been in the use of wind turbines, which – as I saw in a recent trip to the UK, are now more prevalent than ever. (And, more encouragingly, were also turning in greater proportion than I had seen in the past).

Figure 2. Installed capacity for renewable energy in Scotland through 2010 (Scottish Government)

  Current plans and projections would increase capacity from the roughly 4.4 GW shown above to a total of 28.8 GW being possible with pipeline and projected other projects. And in 2010 Scottish turbines produced more power from turbines than from hydro power for the first time.


Figure 3. Scottish electricity from renewables by source (Scottish Government) 

 Of these, however, only 3.3 GW have progressed beyond the planning stage. Yet, given that renewable sources have supplied nearly 20% of the need at present, this suggests a much greater role in the future, with less need for more conventional fossil fuels. Currently Scotland gets most (around 75%) of its electricity from five power stations, there are the two coal-fired power stations at Longannet and Cockenzie, one gas-fired station at Peterhead, and two nuclear power stations at Torness and Hunterston. These stations will be phased out as the transition to greater reliance on “wind and wave” with a target of 16 GW to be contributed in 2020.

Figure 4. Path to a Scottish Renewable Energy Future (Scottish Government ) 
 (A. Deployment projection based upon an extrapolation of the annual deployment levels experienced in 2007-08. 
B. Deployment projection based upon an extrapolation of the annual deployment levels experienced between 2009 and the start of 2011. 
C. Deployment projection, based on Scenario B above, adjusted for the improvements in the planning/consent system that were introduced in recent years but which have not yet impacted upon actual deployment rates. 
D. The 100% target line is a straight line extrapolation between current installed capacity and the estimated levels of capacity required to achieve 100% of gross consumption from renewables in 2020. 

This hypothetical line is incorporated to identify and acknowledge the scale of the challenge. In reality, it is recognised that deployment will not follow a straight line and would be expected to accelerate towards the latter part of the decade, particularly given the potential magnitude of offshore wind deployment.) 

 The political beliefs of the Scottish National Party (SNP) now in power, which include a desire to reject nuclear power and move to greener sources of electricity is, however, bumping up against the realities of cost and practicality. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers in the UK has released a report that concluded:
The Institution’s findings suggest that the original renewable energy target split for Scotland of 50% electricity, 11% heat and 11% energy for transport, making the overall 20%, and subsequent revision of the electricity generation target to 100%, did not appear to be supported by a rigorous engineering analysis of what is physically required to achieve a successful outcome in the timescale available. 
During the research for this report, First Minister Alex Salmond announced that the Scottish Government had increased the overall percentage target for energy from renewable sources to 30% by 2020. In light of this report’s analysis, this aspirational target appears to represent an ambition that cannot be justified from an engineering perspective.
The Scottish Government has responded, in part, by emphasizing the goal of reducing energy consumption in the country by 12% by the year 2020. Yet significantly raising energy costs and demanding that society reduce demand are not obvious ways of immediately stimulating economies to return to national prosperity. About 750 million British pounds (BP) ($480 million) worth of power came on line in 2011, but the investment required to meet targets in the future will be much higher. The estimated cost for the next 17 GW of capacity is $70 billion (46 billion BP). The Scottish GNP runs around $225 billion (145 billion BP) and there is increasing question over the ability of the country to be able to attract the funding needed to achieve its targets. 

 Yet the concern that worries me more as these debates continue is that while an increasing reliance on renewable energy sources may well be politically promoted, the financial and technical ability to reach those goals is becoming increasingly unavailable. (See particularly the IME report). For, while the focus of the debate remains on that side of the supply, the construction of alternate power sources to meet the anticipated demand are not being properly addressed.

 In Scotland there is now talk of a new coal-fired power station at Grangemouth following the cancellation of a carbon capture and sequestration project at Longannet. The Cockenzie coal-fired plant will close next year, though there are hopes that it might be replaced with a natural gas-fired plant. But these things take time to permit and construct, and should the required pace of renewable sources falter, then the conservation of energy that the Scottish Government would like to see as a voluntary activity might come to be an involuntary need instead, with consequent significantly more severe impact on industry and the Scottish economy. 

 Why is this relevant to the American election? Well unfortunately, though at a slower pace, there seems to be a similar argument being made in the United States to speed up the phase-out of coal-fired power, as perhaps evidenced by the recent decision to close the Big Sandy coal-fired power plant in Kentucky, under EPA pressure. There is a presumption in discussions of the future energy costs for the country that cheap natural gas will be an easy replacement for coal. However, much of that future relies on the low prices of natural gas, and as Chesapeake are finding, just because there is a market, does not mean it is a profitable one. You can’t make up the difference between producing natural gas for $5 a thousand cu ft (kcf), and selling it at $2/kcf by increasing the volume that you sell, and thereby realize a profit. When all the dust settles it is likely there will be less natural gas on the market, at a greater price, but that is a different story. For now one can only be concerned that the failure to recognize that energy prices are playing their part in restraining national economies seems to have become a neglected part of the national discussion, which is a pity – both in Scotland and in the USA.

Read more!
Posted by Heading Out at 4:36 PM 7 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, December 10, 2010

European weather, Danish and Scottish power supplies

Denmark would like to get rid of the idea of using coal for its power stations and would like to have the five largest cities in the country “coal free.” Because Denmark still uses conventional, currently coal-fired, power stations for power this requires that they be converted to burning biomass instead.
Converting to biomass from coal is predicted to reduce the country’s carbon dioxide emissions by between three and five percent. It has been estimated that the conversion to biomass will cost the state some 900 million kroner annually through the loss of levies on coal.
The process has begun at the Amager Power Station which now includes a unit that burns straw and wood pellets.
The renovation process has taken more than five years and cost DKK 1.9 billion. In return, we have reduced emissions by as much as 630,000 tons CO2 per year.
The straw comes from farmers in Zealand, where it is pelletized before being shipped to the plant, which will burn about 100,000 tons a year of straw and 300,000 tons of wood pellets that will be imported from neighboring countries. The power company that runs these power stations, Vattenfall, has the stated intention of being CO2 neutral by the year 2030.

One of the other suppliers, Dong Energy which supplies more than 50% of Danish energy, has been criticized in the past because it planned on building new coal-fired power plants at Griefswald in Germany and at Hunterston in Scotland.
The company dropped out of the German power station plan a year ago. And it now appears that it may have struck out in Scotland also. The Hunterston station was scheduled to burn a mixture of coal and wood pellets, and aimed to be a demonstration site for carbon capture.
The 1.6 gigawatt plant, proposed by Ayrshire Power, is seen as a test of the Scottish government’s energy policy, which is fiercely anti-nuclear and pro- renewables but which critics say ignores the realities of future demand for power.

If permission is granted, the site, at Hunterston, will be the first in the UK to have an experimental carbon capture and storage facility. The company claims that this will capture 90 per cent of carbon from the plant and reduce consumption by up to 25 per cent.
However, within the last month, it appears that this plan has also died with the issue of a new policy statement from the Government.
“There is no current need for an increase in overall thermal capacity,” the policy statement says. “A huge increase in the potential of renewable electricity has led to a downward revision in the estimated requirement for new-build thermal electricity generation plant.”

Environmental groups say this spells the end of the Hunterston project, as well as another hotly disputed power scheme – ScottishPower’s plan to convert an old coal plant at Cockenzie in East Lothian to gas. It also confirms there is no need for any new nuclear plants.

“This would seem to signal a death knell for new coal or gas power stations such as those proposed at Hunterston and at Cockenzie,” said Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland. He pointed out that, according to the new policy, Scotland would need just 2.5 gigawatts (GW) of power from fossil fuel plants in 2030. This could easily be met by cleaned-up electricity from refurbished plants at Longannet in Fife (2.4GW) and at Peterhead in Aberdeenshire (up to 1.6GW), he argued.
As a basic point of reference,
Scotland produced in 2008 48.217 TWh of electricity (Scotland 2 2008), equivalent to 5.5 GW continuous power output. Of this:
27% was from nuclear power stations, 29% coal & combined cycle, 10% from hydro power, 27 % from gas/oil plants, and 7% wind onshore from approximately 800 MW capacity.
Scotland has already seen one station brought on line the 44 MW station at Lockerbie, that burns only wood.
The CO2 neutral plant is the UK's largest dedicated wood burning plant . . . . . It will burn 475,000t of sustainable wood fuel a year, including 95,000t of short rotation coppice. It will save up to 140,000t of greenhouse gas emissions annually. . . . . . . . Wood can have high moisture content, including Small Round Wood (SRW, 52–58%) sawmill co-products (54–62%), and Short Rotation Coppice willow (SRC, 35–55%). Besides freshly cut and old wood, Stevens Croft can burn different grades of willow.

The power plant can reach full output even with high-moisture fuels. It will burn a maximum of 20% recycled wood (limited by Planning and IPPC), and a maximum of 20% SRC (targeted by grant conditions for end 2011). Moisture content range for the plant is between 46% and 58%, with a design blend of 53%.
The majority of the fuel comes from sources within 60 miles of the plant.

Now this isn’t where this post was supposed to end up. I had started writing it because of a report that Denmark was restarting mothballed coal-fired power plants to meet the demand for energy in this colder-than-normal winter. As the post evolved it showed that Denmark isn’t having much luck in finding other sources for power outside the country, but that Scotland is becoming more self-sufficient by, among other sources, increasing their use of wood, which is also in the Danish plan. However, at present, Denmark has had a remarkably stable supply of electricity from coal for the last decade, judging by their coal consumption. (Note that the plot below shows the BP data, there are other sources which report that Danish demand is higher (at 7.8 million tons in 2009) although the shape of the curve is the same.)

Coal use in Denmark (Export Energy Databrowser )

A review of the Nordic power balance earlier this year showed that Denmark should have been more than self-sufficient, even with a 1 in 10 severity winter. However, and this is the confirmation of the story that I began looking for, Dong Energy has had to recognize that this winter is more severe and has, in fact, had to reactivate coal-fired stations.
DONG Energy has today decided to temporarily bring back into service Unit 4 at 
Studstrup Power Station and Unit 5 at Asnæs Power Station with effect from 9 
December 2010 and 3 January 2011 respectively. At the same time, Unit 2 at 
Asnæs Power Station will be taken out of operation on 3 January 2011. It is 
DONG Energy's intention to take the two power station units out of operation 
again on 1 April 2011 and 1 May 2011 respectively and to recommence generation 
at Unit 2 at Asnæs Power Station on 1 May 2011. 



Cold weather, coupled with low water levels, in the reservoirs that supply the 
Norwegian hydroelectric plants has created great demand for generating capacity 
in the Nordic energy market. At the same time, the cold winter is putting 
pressure on supply of heat in Aarhus and the neighbouring municipalities. By 
bringing Unit 5 at Asnæs Power Station and Unit 4 at Studstrup Power Station 
back into service, DONG Energy will thus be contributing to securing the 
electricity supply and the heat supply.

Read more!
Posted by Heading Out at 11:03 AM 3 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Wind Energy Makes Progress, but will it be enough?

Over the last few days there have been several stories of wind energy, none in themselves remarkable, but which, put together show the progress that the technology is making. Consider, for example, the small community of Tocco Da Casauria in Central Italy. It is a small town of around 2,700 inhabitants that, because of its remote, mountainous location, has had to face expensive power costs in the past (about 3-times that of the average US household). However it has recently installed four wind turbines, and now not only has enough power for the community, but also exports a sufficient amount that last year it earned about $200,000, enough to significantly help with municipal expenses. (Though the turbines are privately owned the town gets a lease on the land, and a percentage profit from the power sale). Similarly, but on a smaller scale, the town has a solar array that lights the cemetery, raising about $2,000 which helps pay for the upkeep of the place. There have been six turbines in the farm which is one of 249 sites in Italy for which data is easily available, the first two turbines (which generated around 400 kW) were not successful, but the new set averages 2,500 operating hours/year and produces 3.6 MW.

However wind is not yet a major player in the Italian energy mix, and though Italy has a target of 17% renewable energy by 2020, it is still only at 7%, and is not reaching target goals. On the other hand, at the other corner of the European Union, consider the case of Scotland. Although the target is now to have 80% of that nation’s power come from renewable sources by 2020, recent successes have led the First Minister there to predict that 100% of the national power will come from renewable sources by 2025. The target of 80% by 2020 has only just been announced (last week) , up from the previous 50%, based in part on the perceived ability to reach an interim target of 31% by next year. Much of the increase will come from offshore wind farms, though the onshore Whitelee farm (which is expanding) already produces enough electricity to power Glasgow. Another onshore farm is planned for Shetland, but following protests from the local community, Viking Energy has just announced that the farm will be reduced by 23 turbines from the original 150. In addition the farm cannot be justified without a cable to carry the power to the mainland. Permission for that cable has not yet been given. Part of the problem has been the impact of the turbine installation on the deep peat bogs on the islands.

The level of local resistance to the farms, and its potential impact on overall rates for installation of the farms, and thus their contribution to future energy supply may have been underestimated in government. Which could be embarrassing in the future, since the provision of affordable, and sustained power is considered one of their responsibilities.

Whether the potential problems in Scotland presage similar problems for the overall power mix for the entire United Kingdom is similarly a question. The UK has just seen the opening of the Thanet Wind Farm, in the estuary of the River Thames.
London, September 29, 2010 — Vattenfall officially opened the Thanet Offshore Wind Farm, off England’s southeast coast. The wind farm has 100 turbines and will generate electricity equivalent to the annual consumption of over 200,000 British households.

The construction of the 300 MW Thanet Offshore Wind Farm has taken just over two years and the wind farm is expected to operate for at least 25 years. Between 2009 and 2011, Vattenfall plans to double its wind power electricity generation, constructing nine wind farms in six countries to supply electricity equivalent to the demand of 800,000 households annually.

Thanet is so far the company’s largest offshore wind farm . .
This moves the UK into the lead in regard to power from offshore wind farms. The islands have sufficient wind potential that it could provide a greater slice of the energy supply in the future.
The Offshore Valuation Group, made up of government and industry organizations, estimates if Britain were to develop just 29 percent of its potential offshore resource, this could deliver 169 gigawatts of capacity by 2050 and turn Britain into a net exporter of electricity.

This would involve installing 7.2 GW a year -- roughly equivalent to 1,000 7.5 Megawatt turbines -- with fixed offshore wind accounting for 5.4 GW of the average annual build rate needed.

The supply chain needed for this would have annual revenues of 62 billion pounds in 2050 and employ around 145,000 people directly, according to the Offshore Valuation report.
The other side of the story, however, comes from the costs involved. With the increase in the price of steel, and maintenance costs going up current projections may also be low.
However the UKERC have calculated that the cost per unit of energy – known as a Megawatt hour – over the 25 year lifespan of the farm is expected to be £149. That compares with £80 for coal and gas, and £97 for nuclear power.

(An) Onshore wind farm – at £88 per megawatt hour – is almost as efficient of fossil fuels but is hampered by complaints they ruin the landscape.
Current government plans are to have as many as 6,000 turbines located onshore, and some 4,000 offshore. However, as the scale of operations grow, so it can be anticipated that the size of the opposition may also increase. This has been, for example, the case in the United States where Senators such as Kennedy on the East Coast, and Feinstein on the West have objected to farm installations. Though the Cape Wind project is now approved. As sites move closer to construction it may be that more of this opposition may arise.

There is also, as the Scottish experience is indicating, the need to install the power cables that will carry the power from where it is generated, to where it is needed. And those cables themselves are sometimes controversial. It seems much easier to install the smaller systems, for local use, as in Italy, where the benefits are more visible.

Read more!
Posted by Heading Out at 1:00 PM 4 comments
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, January 1, 2010

And welcome to 2010

Well I trust that New Year’s Night went well for you, and tht you are all set for a Prosperous New Year. But what of the future for energy in this coming year? It used to be the tradition in the part of the world where I come from that the first foot through the door after midnight brought a lump of coal, a piece of cake (or shortbread), salt and a small piece of money. This is a part of the Hogmanay celebration. They symbolized the coming of wealth, and a wish for enough heat for the year. The tradition was:
When presenting the lump of coal, the first-foot should say, 'Lang may yer lum reek', a traditional Scots good luck blessing for the long dark nights, literally translated as 'Long may your chimney smoke.'
Somehow I don’t see that going down too well in the halls of the current American Administration. But for the rest of the world, I would expect that the use of coal would continue to grow as it proves, as it has over the past centuries, to be the cheapest indigenous fuel for many countries, at a time when they need something to provide electricity.

Pakistan, for example, is seeing continued load shedding, although the current culprit is being identified as the need to de-silt the reservoirs that supply hydro-electric power to the nation. (There is some 6 hours of load shedding a day in the cities and 8 hours in rural regions). Additional gas pipelines into the country are significantly more than a year a way (if then). The US is promising to help.
Pakistan has developed virtually no new power-production capacity in nearly a decade, despite possessing significant hydroelectric and coal assets, U.S. officials said. Islamabad has also faced difficulties attracting foreign investors.

Pakistan suffers an estimated shortfall of about 2,500 megawatts of power. Mrs. Clinton said the U.S. experts will begin rehabilitating power stations along the Indus River. Washington will also help repair 11,000 agricultural irrigation pumps.
It will be interesting if this translates into coal-fired power. The lack of power is one of the problems that is considered to be contributing to the increased terrorism within the country. (No jobs, and thus encouragement to revolt against the government).

India has a somewhat similar problem, and is also looking at getting support from abroad to help out – the World Bank has, in the past, helped with funding new coal-fired power stations, and there are other plans for expansion. Putting these sorts of activities together leads me to concur that this will be a year that sees the international coal trade continue to grow. As the EIA projects in their reference case:

Source EIA

In regard to the second of the three traditional fossil fuels, namely crude oil, its price has regained significant territory over the past year and is now back to hovering around $80 a barrel. I anticipate that as China becomes more aggressive in the market that OPEC will be able to keep up with the increased demand over the next year but that, by the end of the year (failing any major economic disruption) the economies of the world will have continued to recover, and driving demand will rise with that recovery, to considerably shrink the OPEC surplus. Prices will therefore rise, and I would anticipate that sometime in the next year, whether transiently or more permanently, we will return to around $100 a barrel. That increase will get folks’ attention and may slow the recovery somewhat, but oil supply, while more constrained, will not be a major subject of concern this year. Those looking into the future, however, and that is what these pages will try to do, may see, by the end of the year some additional signs that 2011 will be a year where the balance between supply and demand becomes a lot tighter, and, as a result, small changes in conditions may have a more than usual impact on the market, and thus price.

Which brings us to the third and final of the three, namely natural gas. The situation there is going to get, I suspect, a little more complicated. The movement of increasing amounts of natural gas to China is going to tighten available markets a little, but with the additional liquefied natural gas (LNG) coming from Qatar and the Middle East, and the increasing amounts that will be available from the gas shales of the United States I don’t expect that there will be questions on supply, but instead more concerns that those producing the gas can make sufficient profit to stay in the game. That concern will be a little strengthened by the move in the United States to add increasing regulation to the practice of hydro-fracing the shale, without which the resource is not economic to produce. Depending on the relative astuteness of the different PR firms hired to conduct this battle, (and in the current doubts about climate change this may also provide a different field for the environmental warriors to brandish their credentials) this may or may not be a growing problem by the end of the year. With the general gay abandon with which politicians can shoot themselves in the foot, I would not be surprised to see this be a major debating ground in the political fields above the Marcellus shale. (The rest of the country will likely just be grateful to have a relatively inexpensive fuel source).

Renewable fuels will be a little more controversial this year, as new sites become a little more difficult to acquire and permit, and money for their development remains tight. I suspect that the problems will slowly develop more over the year, but that it won’t be made much of an issue until, again 2011, when, after the next set of U.S. elections are over, we will start to revisit some of these concerns with a little more panic in our voice. Until then the earlier uses of alcohol come to mind, and with that I lift my glass and the traditional dram of whiskey to wish you again, all the best!

Read more!
Posted by Heading Out at 5:51 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, March 22, 2009

British Public Transport is so easy, and convenient

Hmm! Well this was going to be a post on American driving habits, but instead it is going to be on the downside of relying on British public transport. (With the odd redeeming feature). After posting last night (following the delayed dinner for which I got the free wine since it took so long) I was looking forward to a gentle journey through the English countryside by train, with a single change at Carlisle, and getting into Dumfries in time for a pleasant relaxed dinner. Instead of which I had, as I told Elaine, a fellow passenger, what should be thought of as an adventure (lest we despair).

Having been brought up in the UK, and remembering the reliability of the trains under British Rail, I meandered over to the London station at Euston*, expecting that I would have to wait at most an hour, for a train North. Wrong! There were repairs to the line going on up past Lancaster, and so we would have to bus around the problem section and, as a result, I should take the 2:25 pm train and not the one just after noon, getting on the bus at Oxenholme. That was when the good luck went away.

So I grabbed a paper and waited the couple of hours and then hopped on the train. One of the nice things that the railway folks in the UK do is to allow you to upgrade to first class on the weekend for about $20, so I did (the train was full) and thus got free coffee and cookies as the train rumbled north. Until we got to Preston. This is South of Lancaster, and so I was wondering why we were staying at the station.

Then I heard the announcer with the news that a freight train had broken down between Lancaster and Preston, and there was no passage further North. We should all proceed from the train, over the bridge, and out of the station, where a bus would soon come by to pick us up and take us on our way. This is a fully loaded 11-carriage train folks! So we all got off and dutifully moved across the bridge into the cool of a British Spring afternoon (did I mention I had left my heavy coat, gloves and scarf back in the London hotel for my return). We left the train at about 4:45 pm. I passed the time outside doing a Sunday Telegraph Sudoku. No buses, I did the other Telegraph Sudoku (these ain’t easy folks so this took some time). Still no buses. (They had been waiting for us at Lancaster, and so had to drive down to Preston first). And finally they came. So did they get parked along the concourse so that they could all load at once? Er, no we queue, and load them one at a time from the front. (I got on bus four). And so we left for Lancaster.

The orderly wait for 8 buses at Preston
It was 6:10 pm when we left, and getting dark as the bus drew in to Lancaster.

7:00 pm Arrival at Lancaster

Here the train-load was split into different destinations, and fortuitously, instead of having to go up to Oxenholme, they split the group so those of us going to Carlisle could go directly there. The bus was somewhat more comfortable (I could just read my Kindle) and off we went.

7:15 pm the bus leaves Lancaster

And so North to Carlisle, where we were to change to another bus, since they were apparently repairing the line to Dumfries. So we get to Carlisle, and look for a bus to transfer to.

8:20 pm Arrival at Carlisle

However we are now back on a schedule, and the bus to Dumfries leaves at 9:12 pm. I trust you will understand if, at this point, I beat a retreat to the bar in the local hotel and had a beer! (and a sandwich – just so that I didn’t feel guilty using the loo for free, you understand). Then back out for the bus to Dumfries. . . . .bus for Dumfries . . . . bus for Dumfries. The organizer was looking harassed (they tend to make public announcements in a whisper to their closest neighbor), but eventually we gathered that the bus had arrived 3 hours earlier and gone to park in the local Car Park. . . . . . (I could have had another beer).

9:40 pm No bus, nor taxi yet at Carlisle

The company instead ordered 3 taxis, to take the 11 of us up to Dumfries. There is a long pause, Elaine reminds us that they made a movie about a trip like this, with Steve Martin. Did I mention I did not have my gloves and scarf! A while later the taxis arrived. And so I shared a taxi with 6 others (including an opera singer from Kirkcudbright) and off we set into Scotland.

9:50 pm leaving Carlisle

We arrived at Dumfries at 10:30 pm, and the restaurant was closed, etc etc
What an adventure ! Can’t wait until tomorrow!

But the rail company did provide the taxis, and the buses, and though we rarely knew what was happening until it did, they did get me here – and I probably didn’t need that dinner any way.

Even before we left London there was much complaining of the cost of the tickets in the carriage I was in, and yet, as I said, the train was full. (The fare was sensibly one hundred English pounds (about $145).

* Having been given Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere for Christmas by the Advocate and the Bishop, I couldn’t resist this link.

Read more!
Posted by Heading Out at 7:34 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

P43. Pick Points

I mentioned in Monday’s post that I have an interest in algae, and so I will put up a couple of items that caught my attention this weekend. The first deals with the possibility of using wind power to provide some of the energy that algae need to foster growth Some of the European wind farms have been up for a while, and one in Denmark, that was installed in 1990, is looking at using some of the extra power to encourage algae growth. The algae, through the generation of biofuel, would thus act as a form of “battery” for the wind. One problem, however, is to ensure biological security, since the escape of algae species into a favorable place, such as in Hawaii, can have negative results, and require costly capture and remediation. The use of algae for flue gas cleanup has inspired a number of efforts, from Israel to MIT (who use it to make hydrogen), to Missouri . There is also the blog Oilgae, which carries the MIT report on the topic.


Developers of the Shtokman project are talking about using CCS as part of the strategy for development at the site. There is anticipation that the cost of the project will decline with the poor economy. More details of the loan from China to encourage a pipeline and oil supply to that nation are now emerging. The change in investment strategy has the advantage of getting a good price now for the oil, and securing it into the future. Russia is also trying to find a way to improve the efficient use of energy, with planning for a new law on the way, and an example of how it might be done, comes from a dairy. In the United States homeowners can look at the Home Energy Rating System which compares the energy use of a house with a standard. Based on the result that you get different approaches may be needed to lower the number (a 200 means you use twice the standard). Oregon is moving to have the state provide loans to encourage upgrading of homes in a way that would make them more energy efficient. As I noted in Monday’s post, this is something that we are seeing in an increasing number of states.

St Mary Land and Exploration is drilling horizontal wells into the Woodford, and Haynesville shale and while cutting the number of rigs back to 7, from 16 at the peak of last year, one or two of the rigs will shuttle between the Haynesville, the Eagle Ford and the Marcellus shale sites. The lateral section of the well is around 3,300 ft, and with 10 slick-water fracs will use some 3,000,000 lb of resin coated sand proppant. There is some move in Pennsylvania to require that drilling records for the Marcellus be made public (including production data) every six months. Other states such as Louisiana and Wyoming post such production on Web sites. Chesapeake, who is drilling both Marcellus and Hanesville is currently getting a favorable press. With natural gas prices projected as perhaps falling as low as $2 per MMBtu due to lack of demand and overproduction, this years prospects don’t look good for the industry.

Scotland is looking for new ways to develop marine energy, the target being some 60,000 MW. The current projects are based in Orkney, and the European Marine Energy Centre. The current targets are sites around Britain and Ireland that are capable of producing more than 1,000 MW each, largely from wave and tidal energy.

The State Governors are asking Presidential help in promoting biofuels hoping to see approval, for example, of ethanol blends above 10% and as high as 30%. (This was something Dr Chu was asked about last week).

Because of the global financial problems Russia and Kazakhstan are considering slowing the development of the Karachanganak project (which is reputed to have 47 trilion cubic ft of gas).

Read more!
Posted by Heading Out at 12:07 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, January 19, 2009

P20. Pick Points

Half-a-dozen or so stories of interest.

So is the Russian:Ukrainian story over for another year, or ten? Certainly it has lost the press coverage, but there will remain caution until the gas finally arrives. But one part of the deal is that RosUkrEnergo will be cut out of the action. Gazprom is reported to have set 0700 on Tuesday to resume supplies However it is estimated to take another 36 hours before gas will make it to Western Europe. The domestic situation in Ukraine is a little more complicated, since the coal and steel plants (that heavily use Russian gas) are in the east of the country, which has been a strong Russian supporter. But the gas problem has alienated some of the region, even though it is leading to a potential increase in the use of coal, which is locally mined. (pdf). The mines also contain natural gas, and this can be recovered as a separate fuel. (pdf), and such work appears to be under way.(pdf)
Here is the beginning of my post.
The British – oops! – Scottish coal industry has started to move into profit, after having been in the red a year ago, Scottish coal mining has become profitable. This occurred as sales dropped from 3.1 million tons to 2.9 million, and is encouraging the firm to open new and some old sites, though all will be surface mines, or opencast. The market will now be able to use 4 million tons/year, and so the prospects for a new deep mine at Canonbie are looking up. (Small personal note – back over a hundred and twenty years ago my ancestor was blacksmith in that village. It is a beautiful setting).

Speaking of coal there is a strange story up in Alaska about the power plant and a utility company.

I had mentioned the other day that CNG prices had gone up in Pakistan, the result has been that out of 250 stations in Rawalpindi and Islamabad that sold the fuel, over 150 were not in the cities and some 400 were out in the region, and those who had CNG were only working limited hours . It freed taxi drivers to raise rates. But it also appears that there were differences in the rates in different cities, and though the lack of supply was blamed on low gas pressure price may have also played some part. The current situation seems to be getting worse.

Speaking of reviews of the situation Energy Shortage points to a broad review of the problems that Nepal are having with hydro-electric power generation.

Investors seem to be pulling back from wind power investments, just as the plug was pulled in Maine, so it appears that the large London Array project, some 341 turbines which would generate some 1,000 mW of electricity, and which Shell backed out of, is now being reconsidered by the Abu Dhabi State owned Masdar company, again because of questionable economics. Though the drop in steel prices might help. Apparently wind driven power generation is still costing three times that of a conventional gas-fueled station, though how long that will last is likely a Russian decision.

As usual there are more stories at the Energy Bulletin and Drumbeat at The Oil Drum.

Read more!
Posted by Heading Out at 11:50 PM 2 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)