Network Rail draws up list of ‘no regret’ electrification schemes - New Civil Engineer

[Wapps]

Something that isnt often mentioned in the great race to decarbonise is that the majority of the products from the refining process are still going to be needed for many years (forever for some), such as Asphalt and oil based lubricants. One issue will be the millions of gallons of now useless petrol and diesel and what will be done with it all? In the olden days they dumped it straight into the sea! Maybe the geniuses leading the great race might want to look at a way to get rid of this now useless and worthless fuel oil. I dont know maybe a power station powered by Petrol would help.

The other problem is in 25 years all that renewable equipment is going to need to be replaced at great expense especially all those wind farms out at sea.

Anyways I digress, good news on the overheads going up none the less.

That’s not right. The asset life of offshore wind farms is now 35 years. Many will simply be re-powered (have the latest turbines put on them) in 35 years and go for another 35 years and are designed with that in mind. Investors are investing in them (with your money - eg pension funds) on that basis. The LCOE of renewables is below conventional power now - cheaper than coal, gas and nuclear. The only real issue with renewables is the intermittency (dependent on sun shining and wind blowing) - but that will be solved by the end of this decade through a mixture of green hydrogen (using surplus wind and solar to produce hydrogen carbon free, which can be stored (it’s a gas) and then later used to produce power - again, carbon free - when it’s dark and not very windy), lots of (and better) batteries (including your future car) and a smarter grid (appliances, cars, industry etc taking power when there is plenty of it and avoiding taking it when there is less being produced, without detriment to their end processes).

As somone who works in the energy sector, I can tell you there is an energy revolution underway. I would never have imagined that we would be building 13MW turbines in the North Sea 10 years ago. The advancement is HUGE. So we need to electrify as much as possible now in order to take advantage of what is coming down the track (to pardon the pun).

Plus, diesel is full of harmful substances - just stand on a platform and smell it. I wouldn’t let my child stand next to a smoking DSU.

 

[edwin_m]

I thought the Leeds-Huddersfield TPU work was waiting for a public enquiry to report on the land-take?
Maybe the Victoria-Stalybridge work is shovel ready, having been in that state when the original wiring project was cut back first to Miles Platting and then Brownlow St.

Anyway we will all "prosper mightily" however it turns out...

I saw a picture somewhere suggesting the Miles Platting curve work is actually in progress. Colton to Church Fenton appears to be ahead of the larger package of work on Huddersfield to Dewsbury, and as far as I know we've heard very little on Dewsbury to Leeds.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

My understanding is that is more to do with the very high power draw of modern high performance units than the number of services per se.

If the HSTs had just been replaced with a magical new fleet of Class 91s I dontt hink the upgrades would have been anywhere near as extensive.

There's not a massive difference between a Class 91 and a Class 801 (I believe it's 4,830kW for the locomotive v 4,520kW for the 9 car units) and I'd guess hotel demand is much the same, all in, taking into account more kit but better energy efficiency of that kit on the Hitachi.

The northern ECML was always marginal on supply and had issues when it was wired it back in the early 1990s (harmonics being one issue, and alternative/emergency feeding arrangements initially). The problems were a result of a very tight budget requiring the OLE supply only being specced for the service patterns expected when 'Electra' went into service and with a very sparse local population and minimal HV feeding options (which is why we're going down the route of static frequency converters now) there was never any likelihood of a beefier supply being do-able with the available budget.

The supply further south was specced for some 140mph running, that not being used did help provide a bit more headroom over the years, and of course it was situated rather closer to power stations and HV lines, so feeding was less troublesome and upgrading a fair bit easier.

You only need to look at the proposed Scottish electrification to see how valuable a HV supply is, wiring to Inverness will progress to Tain so it's possible to feed from the 400kV Beauly to Denny line.

 

[Class 170101]

We're fortunate, on an evening like tonight, only 27% of their energy consumption comes from gas generated electricity.

16% now. With some wind farms off line as there’s too much being produced.

Perhaps I am being thick here but surely if too much electricity is being produced then the gas should be switched off and not the wind turbines? Particularly in terms of being green?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps I am being thick here but surely if too much electricity is being produced then the gas should be switched off and not the wind turbines? Particularly in terms of being green?

Wind farms, perhaps ironically, tend to be turned off when the wind is too strong, not so much because they generate too much electricity but because excessively strong wind can make them turn too fast and damage the bearings.

 

[HSTEd]

Perhaps I am being thick here but surely if too much electricity is being produced then the gas should be switched off and not the wind turbines? Particularly in terms of being green?

And what happens when a generating unit falls off the grid and you have no rotating inertia or spinning reserve?

You get the debacle we had last year with the grid frequency going wildly out of spec and electrical equipment packing up all ove the place.

Wind turbines have negligible ability to respond to demand/generation/frequency transients.
We have a bunch of CCGTs running at minimum stable power.

 

[Class 170101]

And what happens when a generating unit falls off the grid and you have no rotating inertia or spinning reserve?

You get the debacle we had last year with the grid frequency going wildly out of spec and electrical equipment packing up all ove the place.

Wind turbines have negligible ability to respond to demand/generation/frequency transients.
We have a bunch of CCGTs running at minimum stable power.

So to understand what you are saying the gas has operate because its security of supply rather than actually needing to provide power in its own right per se - in the scenario above the wind could have done it but not for guarantee of network stability.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You are Chris Grayling and I claim my five pounds.

Incidentally, was the Gospel According to Grayling one that reflected his own views or that of his acting "Sir Humphrey"

 

[HSTEd]

So to understand what you are saying the gas has operate because its security of supply rather than actually needing to provide power in its own right per se - in the scenario above the wind could have done it but not for guarantee of network stability.

Yes, we have to have some gas turbines running because gas turbine sets take time to make ready, especially high efficiency combined cycle units.
So they plug along at whatever their minimum rated output is, so they can provide headroom if necessary to respond to some sort of sudden demand transient.

 

[Bald Rick]

Perhaps I am being thick here but surely if too much electricity is being produced then the gas should be switched off and not the wind turbines? Particularly in terms of being green?

So to understand what you are saying the gas has operate because its security of supply rather than actually needing to provide power in its own right per se - in the scenario above the wind could have done it but not for guarantee of network stability.

Yes that’s right. Closed Cycle gas turbines (CCGT) take a while to ‘warm up’ so many are kept on standby to allow for any major generator going off line. The curiously named ‘spinning reserve’.

Interestingly, this year has seen the minimum amount of CCGT kept going reduce; two years ago you rarely saw CCGT fall below 6GW, but now it is not unusual to see them at 4GW on a windy night in summer. Even now, in the middle of almost the shortest day of the year, CCGT is only at 5.8GW. When the new interconnectors come on line next year, I expect to see it fall to further, as the interconnectors effectively behave as a spinning reserve.

Thinking about it, I would not be at all surprised if the grid is ‘encouraged’ by Government to go for a fossil fuel free hour or even day in 2022 or 2023 on a windy sunny day in May or June. (By then, there will be several GW more wind commissioned, and peak output of wind and solar combined will be well over 30GW).

 

[HSTEd]

Thinking about it, I would not be at all surprised if the grid is ‘encouraged’ by Government to go for a fossil fuel free hour or even day in 2022 or 2023 on a windy sunny day in May or June. (By then, there will be several GW more wind commissioned, and peak output of wind and solar combined will be well over 30GW).

No doubt they will pay Sizewell B and Drax to take the role of spinning reserve for the benefit of the cameras, no matter how much it costs the consumers in wasted electricity, especially from the former.

 

[Bald Rick]

No doubt they will pay Sizewell B and Drax to take the role of spinning reserve for the benefit of the cameras, no matter how much it costs the consumers in wasted electricity, especially from the former.

Drax already do, not least through a special deal with them on the Cruachan pumped storage station.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

No doubt they will pay Sizewell B and Drax to take the role of spinning reserve for the benefit of the cameras, no matter how much it costs the consumers in wasted electricity, especially from the former.

The industry will not waste that energy - that's where the hydrogen for the fuel cell trains will come from. Drax are also planning on putting in huge battery packs, 200MW or so initially, when they switch from coal to gas generation on part of their site.

 

[quantinghome]

Point of order
electrifying is not decarbonising. To make electrification carbon free you have to decarbonise electricity generation. Right now we are dependant on gas.

Electricity is the one sector where we have seen massive decarbonisation in the past few years. Wind power has destroyed coal power production, and will start eating into gas quickly enough.

Road transport and heating remain the big issues to tackle.

 

[Wapps]

And what happens when a generating unit falls off the grid and you have no rotating inertia or spinning reserve?

You get the debacle we had last year with the grid frequency going wildly out of spec and electrical equipment packing up all ove the place.

Wind turbines have negligible ability to respond to demand/generation/frequency transients.
We have a bunch of CCGTs running at minimum stable power.

That incident last year happened because two generators went offline at the same time - a gas power station and a new offshore wind farm that was in the process of being commissioned. It was a freak incident and, in respect of the offshore wind farm, had nothing to do with it being dependent on wind (there was plenty of wind) - it was a software fault that has now been fixed (in fact, Orsted, the owner, had scheduled an upgrade for the next day or two, so it was very unfortunate that the unlikely scenario arose just days beforehand). The incident says as much about gas as it does renewable power - if the gas plant hadn’t gone offline, there wouldn’t have been an issue. The report into what happened is available on Ofgem’s website. Thameslink was criticised by Ofgem because their class 700s had batteries that should have got the trains to the next station but the drivers either didn’t know how to use them or the software on the trains didn’t work (I can’t remember what Ofgem said), so passengers were stranded and started evacuating themselves onto third rails - yikes! - which made the whole situation far worse than it needed to be.

As for balancing the grid, the operator does it very well and it continues to evolve as new means of storage and demand repose becomes available.

 

[heenan73]

The future is solar power (no moving parts, minimal maintenance); but wind power is definitely preferable to gas ... the reason they use gas is that they have already contracted to use it, and so they 'might as well' or it's cash wasted.
This kind of silliness will go on until we have ways of using up 'excess' electricity, for example, producing hydrogen for transport usage, or at worst, pumping water upstream so it can create hydro-electric power when needed.
Meanwhile, we should be electrifying all the sensible bits of the railway, and placing solar panels in sensible places to - roof tops, station platforms, and car parks for example.

Protects cars, produces electricity for 25 years. Virtually no maintenance.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I'm disappointed by the lack of solar going up on platform canopies and station roofing, with associated battery storage.

It wouldn't take much to run lighting, PIS and some waiting room HVAC from solar with battery storage built into retaining walls and underneath seating - maybe have missed it in one of the industry mags, but I'm sure there's a good modular solution to be designed and sold to the industry in this area.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thameslink was criticised by Ofgem because their class 700s had batteries that should have got the trains to the next station but the drivers either didn’t know how to use them or the software on the trains didn’t work (I can’t remember what Ofgem said), so passengers were stranded and started evacuating themselves onto third rails - yikes! - which made the whole situation far worse than it needed to be.

That’s not quite right. The 700s don’t have traction batteries that enable them to get to the next station, and units weren’t stranded on third rail sections.

What happened was that the traction electronics on units on the AC OLE sections detected the frequency drop below their theoretical limit, and sent messages to the Driver effectively saying ‘STOP NOW’. Which they duly did.

There were two software issues: 1) the limit if the frequency drop was set incorrectly, and 2) some units had a software version that prevented the issue being resolved when the driver rebooted the train.

This only occurred on the OLE sections - on the DC (third rail) there is (obviously) no frequency* and therefore no issue.

*actually there is, but it’s a small ripple.

 

[Wapps]

That’s not quite right. The 700s don’t have traction batteries that enable them to get to the next station, and units weren’t stranded on third rail sections.

What happened was that the traction electronics on units on the AC OLE sections detected the frequency drop below their theoretical limit, and sent messages to the Driver effectively saying ‘STOP NOW’. Which they duly did.

There were two software issues: 1) the limit if the frequency drop was set incorrectly, and 2) some units had a software version that prevented the issue being resolved when the driver rebooted the train.

This only occurred on the OLE sections - on the DC (third rail) there is (obviously) no frequency* and therefore no issue.

*actually there is, but it’s a small ripple.

I stand correct (I couldn’t remember what Ofgem said). I am sure they said some passengers got out (perhaps under wires), but maybe that’s something I read on here.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm disappointed by the lack of solar going up on platform canopies and station roofing, with associated battery storage.

Me too. I suppose one issue is that to get the best return the panels need to ‘face’ south, and this will not be possible at all stations, certainly not on all canopies. Some depots would perhaps be better, and a ready demand for the power on site. Having said that, the new shed at St Pancras is perfect for it, and no one can complain that it would harm the architecture of the place, as you can’t see it unless you are in an aircraft!

I stand correct (I couldn’t remember what Ofgem said). I am sure they said some passengers got out (perhaps under wires), but maybe that’s something I read on here.

Yes people were detrained from a number of units; I don’t thin’ any were south of the river though.

 

[Wapps]

The future is solar power (no moving parts, minimal maintenance); but wind power is definitely preferable to gas ... the reason they use gas is that they have already contracted to use it, and so they 'might as well' or it's cash wasted.
This kind of silliness will go on until we have ways of using up 'excess' electricity, for example, producing hydrogen for transport usage, or at worst, pumping water upstream so it can create hydro-electric power when needed.
Meanwhile, we should be electrifying all the sensible bits of the railway, and placing solar panels in sensible places to - roof tops, station platforms, and car parks for example.View attachment 87350

Protects cars, produces electricity for 25 years. Virtually no maintenance.

The problem with solar is scale. Dogger Bank (a new offshore wind farm in the North Sea that recently got its notice to proceed) will be 3.6GW in capacity. To get the same from solar you’d need to cover an area 33x the size of the City of London. We don’t have the space and in the optimum conditions to do that, hence the focus on wind (with which our islands are blessed).

That said, solar is still great and for providing distributed electricity like in the example you gave it is perfect. And it’s so cheap - just glass with a layer of silicone.

 

[Class 170101]

The future is solar power (no moving parts, minimal maintenance); but wind power is definitely preferable to gas ... the reason they use gas is that they have already contracted to use it, and so they 'might as well' or it's cash wasted.
This kind of silliness will go on until we have ways of using up 'excess' electricity, for example, producing hydrogen for transport usage, or at worst, pumping water upstream so it can create hydro-electric power when needed.
Meanwhile, we should be electrifying all the sensible bits of the railway, and placing solar panels in sensible places to - roof tops, station platforms, and car parks for example.View attachment 87350

Protects cars, produces electricity for 25 years. Virtually no maintenance.

Suggested this elsewhere - not exactly met with universal acclaim but I like the idea.

 

[HSTEd]

The industry will not waste that energy - that's where the hydrogen for the fuel cell trains will come from. Drax are also planning on putting in huge battery packs, 200MW or so initially, when they switch from coal to gas generation on part of their site.

They were wasting energy at Sizewell B all summer.

National Grid ordered one of the turbogenerators taken out of operation so that they didn't have to pay huge compensation to subsidised generators.

No way a battery bank will be available any time soon that could allow Sizewell or Drax into the spinnning reserve role without throwing way lots of cheap power.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Suggested this elsewhere - not exactly met with universal acclaim but I like the idea.

Until kids throw stones at it.

 

[Deepgreen]

I'm disappointed by the lack of solar going up on platform canopies and station roofing, with associated battery storage.

It wouldn't take much to run lighting, PIS and some waiting room HVAC from solar with battery storage built into retaining walls and underneath seating - maybe have missed it in one of the industry mags, but I'm sure there's a good modular solution to be designed and sold to the industry in this area.

Couldn't agree more - there's a huge untapped surface area potential on structures like canopies and roofs in general. So many people, too, seem to think that solar panels only work in bright sunshine (and therefore dismiss their use in the UK!) - their output is less in cloudy conditions, but far from nil.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Couldn't agree more - there's a huge untapped surface area potential on structures like canopies and roofs in general. So many people, too, seem to think that solar panels only work in bright sunshine (and therefore dismiss their use in the UK!) - their output is less in cloudy conditions, but far from nil.

I've seen several presentations which say just that - in fact, they tend to be more efficient in slightly cloudy (non direct sunlight) conditions as there's less reflection and less thermal stress on the panels. They're also typically angled to deliver a broad output for most of the year in the UK, rather than being useless in winter and awesome in summer, they're just good all year round.

 

[HSTEd]

PV installations are indeed optimised for maximum annual output.

But they are still almost useless in the winter, they cannot overcome physics, and physics says there just isn't very much sunlight available in the winter. Improved efficiency might make up a tiny fraction of that, but not much.

Nevermind that peak power demand (for the year) in the UK normally happens after dark....

About 6pm on a friday in february.

If solar rollout becomes more significant they will get hit really hard by the price collapse problem.

 

[Class 170101]

Until kids throw stones at it.

Depends how you build the structures around it - don't put a bridge near them then they can't throw stones at thenm.

Couldn't agree more - there's a huge untapped surface area potential on structures like canopies and roofs in general. So many people, too, seem to think that solar panels only work in bright sunshine (and therefore dismiss their use in the UK!) - their output is less in cloudy conditions, but far from nil.

As a country cannot hope nor afford cover our green and pleasant land with solar panels, firstly there wouldn't be enough land for the energy required, secondly people wouldn't approve and thirdly the land should be used to grow crops and provide land for homes to go on, especially in the case of the former we are leaving the EU and we still import around 50% of the food we eat.

PV installations are indeed optimised for maximum annual output.

But they are still almost useless in the winter, they cannot overcome physics, and physics says there just isn't very much sunlight available in the winter.

Nevermind that peak power demand in the UK normally happens after dark....

But on a station with extra canopies they perform a task summer and winter, extra cover when it rains and also if its too hot they provide shelter out of direct sunlight. It would also encourage people to sprerad out along the platform in these days of social distancing but also when its busy as people will use all available doors not just the ones under the canopy.

 

[HSTEd]

But on a station with extra canopies they perform a task summer and winter, extra cover when it rains and also if its too hot they provide shelter out of direct sunlight. It would also encourage people to sprerad out along the platform in these days of social distancing but also when its busy as people will use all available doors not just the ones under the canopy.

Perhaps, but myself I would honestly prefer transparent canopies to solar panel ones.

It is rare that we need shade in Britain, but underneath a roof can get quite dim and dingy sometimes.

(I wonder if you could make a canopy with the stuff from self darkening specs in it?)

 

[heenan73]

But they are still almost useless in the winter, they cannot overcome physics, and physics says there just isn't very much sunlight available in the winter. Improved efficiency might make up a tiny fraction of that, but not much.

You are mistaken (or out of date). Modern solar panels are pretty efficient, even in Winter, and provide 20-25% of their peak power, provided they' are installed to maximise a lower sun. It's really only the shorter day that really limits them.
The sensible plan would be to install for the winter requirements, and use the excess in summer for producing hydrogen, etc.
Modern battery installations are beginning to be efficient and cost effective, and can provide for the lower requirement of the dark hours.