Jason Ford
News Editor
With wind filling the sails of Britain’s green energy revolution and manufacturing sector performing well, Briefing looks at events that address grid connectivity and skills.
By 2020 around 30 per cent of electricity generated in the UK will have to come from renewable sources, which will require roughly 16GW of offshore wind to meet that target.
Luckily, Britain is well-positioned to embrace wind and organisers of an event in Bristol this evening state that over 40GW of offshore development is already planned, representing an investment of over £120bn.
Building wind farms, however, is only part of the green energy jigsaw which is why Matthew Knight, business development manager, Siemens Energy is delivering ‘Bringing wind power ashore’.
The event’s publicity material informs us that connecting offshore wind to the onshore grid raises challenges involving planning, regulation and financing, plus the practical issues of installing electrical equipment in the sea.
Registration is required for this event (click here for more details), which takes place at the University of West England from 6-30pm.
A more holistic view of renewable connectivity kicks off tomorrow at the two-day ‘Connecting renewable energy to the Grid’ conference in London.
The organisers say the event will bring together a range of experts including transmission operators, renewable technology experts, equipment suppliers and engineers to discuss the challenges and opportunities for increasing the penetration of renewable energy into the grid.
Paul Coventry from National Grid is delivering a talk tomorrow at Cardiff University that will propose HVDC cables as the most practical option for connecting offshore wind farms to the onshore grid.
Possible development of offshore HVDC connections around the UK will be described and the challenges involved in implementing the technology in the necessary timescales will be highlighted.
Britain’s big ticket projects – such as offshore wind farms and HS2 – won’t get very far without skilled and enthusiastic employees, many of whom will have started their careers as apprentices.
National Apprentice Week, which began today, aims to highlight the benefits of apprenticeships to employers, school leavers and careers changers alike.
The government says it is committed to increase the budget for apprenticeships to over £1.4bn in 2011-12 and that it is working with business to deliver 100,000 more apprentices by 2014.
BAE Systems announced today that it will be recruiting 290 apprentices for its UK business in 2011 and Jaguar Land Rover is looking to create 1,200 apprentice positions.
According to business secretary Vince Cable, 80 per cent of firms that employ apprentices believe they make for a more productive workplace.
Finally, City University London will be hosting Prof Neville Jackson, chief technology & innovation officer at Ricardo, who will discuss the prospects for low carbon technologies in transport this Wednesday.
In the UK 23.5 per cent of total CO2 is said to be produced directly from road transport. Of that total around one third is from commercial vehicles, with heavy goods vehicle traffic forecast to grow 14 per cent by 2025.
Technology solutions have emerged to address urban and city passenger car challenges but long distance passenger and goods transport will require more innovative solutions.
Prof Jackson’s lecture will provide examples of the investigations and measurements that have been critical in developing new technologies so far, and offer a longer term roadmap illustrating how the CO2 challenge can be met.
Balderdash and Bunkum spread by the wind turbine industry.
We are an island nation and we have we have the availability of tidal flow and tidal race water turbines that guarantee predictable power generation for 85% of each 24 hour day or 20.4 hours a day at times predictable against national electric power demands for the National Grid to provide continuous power.
At best off shore wind power will give an unpredictable 25% of the day or 6 hours of power generation a day and require fossil fuel power stations steamed up to provide dependable power generation to provide 24 hour cover for the National Grid to guarantee continuous power on demand.
Why the obsession with wind and subsidising German businesses like Siemens – The twin facts that German Greens closed down the German Nuclear Energy whereas France has over 90% Nuclear Power combined with the fact that Germany has a small coast line and most of that the Baltic Sea coast RENOWNED FOR IT’S LACK OF TIDES AND TIDAL FLOWS. and hence unable to generate tidal power and HENCE have to go for wind.
Wind power turbines need massive concrete foundations and hence the manufacture of Wind Turbines massively contributes to Global Warming with the up front CO2 generation for making and setting concrete. The Concrete industry is the main industry contributing to global warning!!
The low percentage time that wind power turbines can turn under load means that in some countries (where they have thopught out the problems of continuous power supply) will only indirect power generation from windpower turbines. The solution is to use the wind turbines to pump water uphill as stored potential energy and flow the water through water turbines when the National Grid of those countries requires it. One such country demanding this is Canada for inland power generation – They use water turbines on the coasts and rivers and are the home of Alstom’s Nyerpic factory a world leader in water turbines including reversable flow tidal water turbines. Why Alstom – is it because as a French Company they have an Atlantic and English Channel coast suitable for such Turbines (unlike Germany) and why based in French Speaking Canada – is it because France is 90% nuclear power
UK PLC can be at the forefront of water turbine technology if we invest UK plc money in UK plc businesses to create water turbine business here. If we do we will have a thriving export market to countries with coasts world wide.
All wind power manufacture is is a partial offset of local labour for assembly with all profits remitted to Germany AND NO EXPORTS for UK plc to earn export income.
Finally – we as the UK consumers (personal and business) are being lumbered with massive surcharges on our electricty bills to subsdise inefficient win farms for 30 years when efficient water turbines would not need subsidies would both generate real and sustainable UK jobs and an export industry to pay UK plc’s place in the world.
Julian
I hope the apprenticeships in question will align with the more traditional apprenticeships that are facing a skills shortage rather than the more ‘modern’ apprenticeships.
The apprenticeship position in the construction industry is at a very low figure , many of the sole traders are frightend to take on an apprentice due to the massive uncertanty in the economy .Only when this uncertain future is eased then the employer will take on apprentices. This must be lead by banks and lenders to stimulate the growth that is desperatly needed for the construction industry to begin to recover
If only Christmas was as ‘well’ publicised as National Apprentice Week, I’d save a fortune…
Apprenticeships are a good investment. Money spent now will reap good business and profits for the future. Windfarms, at £120 billion cost are not an investment because the money is not there (it has to come from energy users pockets) and they are not cost effective so make no natural profits. Is there a word for the opposite of “investment”?
As an Apprentice myself 40 yrs ago in a time of near full employment there was a confident choice to make between staying on at school or leaving to take up an apprenticeship. When employment and the economy took a down turn a few years later, those like me were encouraged to stay on at school and those that applied for apprenticeships were seen not to be suitable. The difference now is that with the cost of University education going up apprenticeships should be more attractive but where are they and what are the entry level requirements as I have two teenage boys looking for them!
I have to challenge P. Field’s comment that investing in wind is not a good idea. We have plenty of it, it is sustainable, reliability is going up and there is a market for the product.
We simply cannot keep relying on fossil fuels, we have to make the switch to ‘solar’ based energies and the Stern report basically said the sooner we do it the less it costs. We simply do not have enough carbon capital stored in the cellar to carry on with our lavish lifestyles, so we either cut the carbon, or cut the lifestyle. Have a look at the WWF report just out. It makes very stark reading. The highlight to me being that known oil reserves would last under 10 years if we adopted US or Singaporean lifestyles.
So whilst I sympathise with the view that offshore wind (and other sustainable technologies) are expensive, the alternative of no power is the real threat. History generally tells us that we can turn this to the uk’s advantage, so I for one WOULD strongly support the investment in wind. NOW!
HS2 is about steel and concrete. Hardly the technologies of the future. We should be teaching apprentices about fibre optics and rural broadband installations and the knowledge economy.
Anonymous | 7 Feb 2011 5:39 pm
Sorry, mate, 40 years ago was not a time of full employment or sparkling apprenticeships, on the contrary, that was the time of the ‘skillcentre’, 6 and 12 month government subsidised training courses, where people wer launched into industry with pretty low skill levels, all because someone decided apprenticeships were ‘far too long’! Thus was the demise of the crafted trade, now owned by China, presently sullied as ‘not green’ for following the same trail as we did, in our industrial revolution.
Julian seems to have a few of his facts incorrect. Probably worth correcting them in an Engineering forum…..
A modern offshore windfarm in the UK operates more than 80% of the time with load factors well over 40%. All offshore windfarms in the UK are on steel foundations, either monopiles or jackets.
National Grid has stated that up to 20% wind penetration is possible with no increased costs. Over 1 GW of back-up is always on-line at any one time to cover for the event that a single large power station trips (as Sizewell did in 2008). Wind is very forecastable – up to 80% precision at the 90 minute-ahead gate closure. One thing we’re good at in this country is forecasting the weather!
Employment in the wind industry in the UK has grown 90%+ between 2008 and 2010, and now employs in excess of 9600 people, more than the coal industry. Not many of those 9600 are drama graduates.
All new-build generating capacity is capital-intensive, either to build or operate. Can anyone suggest a silver bullet commercial alternative to wind, nuclear and gas?
With regard to anonymous I have worked in manufacturing in Power Generation since 1984 (NEI, GEC, GEC Alsthom, Alstom and Siemens) with responsibilities in for Design for Manufacture, Manufacture, Service, repair and breakdown repair working for companies that had forums for us to share best practice in design, manufacture, repair and service and, as a result, know the problems with each type of system for power generation system manufactured by my former employers.
Anonymous is obviously a Wind Fanatic ending his comment with the statement:-
? “All new-build generating capacity is capital-intensive, either to build or operate. Can anyone suggest a silver bullet commercial alternative to wind, nuclear and gas?”
I gave the answer in the comment Anonymous commented anonymously on – Reversing Water Turbines for Tidal flow or Tidal Races around the UK coast BUT Anonymous ignored it.
Tidal Races and Tidal Flow around the coast are 100% dependable unlike wind meaning Water Turbines in Tidal races should be active 24/7 whilst tidal flow Water Turbines are unable to turn under load at turn of tide meaning they can generate electricity 85% of a 24 hour day or 20.4 hours a day – More importantly as Tides can be predicted years in advance the National Grid can predict outputs in advance.
Wind Turbines are totally unreliable as their turbines can only turn when there is sufficient wind to turn them and can only produce power when there is sufficient wind to turn them under load – Insufficient wind and no power generation. Please note here the recent reports in the news papers that the cold spell prior to Xmas and over Xmas resulted in reduced wind power generation just when the country needed it most because there was no less wind than expected due to the meteoric conditions that caused the cold spell. Interesting reports because they indicated that it was likely that they will happen again when we get similar cold spells!
Even using Anonymous own figures for off shore wind power – 40% under load – That means electricity for just 9.6 hours a day with the time of the day being totally unpredictable as to whether at peak load between 4pm and 6pm or economy 7 times between 10pm and 6am !
Power output is dependant upon mass flow through a turbine essentially mass of fluid and the speed of the fluid passing through a turbine. Water has a specific gravity of 1 by definition and far more mass than an equivalent volume of air at 1 atmosphere pressure meaning one water turbine can produce far more power than one wind turbine meaning one water turbine would be equivalent of very many wind turbines and can be closer together than wind turbines meaning smaller fields reducing installation costs and grid connection costs, they wouldn’t need massive towers or be at risk or lightning strikes and less susceptible. Following a recent Engineer article on using submarine technology for nuclear submarine builders to build submersible nuclear reactors for off shore nuclear power stations the idea can easily be applied to water turbines – Water turbines mounted on a submersible skid anchored in position and raised for easy maintenance, towed ashore for major overhaul/repair and lowered for operation – far easier and cheaper to install than the steel foundations piled into the sea bed and the installation technology to install a wind tower and turbine blades offshore, yet alone landing maintenance crews onboard to climb and maintain!
Anonymous states the National Grid keeps 1 Giga Watt of power generation on standby to cover the possibility of one power station tripping like Sizewell did in 2008 and infers that up to 20% of UK power generation by Wind Power is possible without additional costs. I don’t know how Anonymous can say that when wind power is massively subsidized to build and generate and one recent off shore farm contract signed by a southern electricity supply company will cost their consumers guaranteed subsidies for 30 years costing the average domestic user an additional £65 a year at today’s prices.
If Anonymous means keeping 1Giga Watt of power plant online with our current supply mix, he is in cloud cuckoo land – That is 1Giga Watt of mainly fossil fuel fired steam plant kept steamed up so steam is available to drive the steam turbines in those power stations. The fuel used for this 1 Giga Watt is not free – It costs money that is paid for by us, the consumers, on our electricity bills so that the National Grid meets its obligation to distribute electric power without get power cuts if there is increased demand and/or there are supply problems. The fossil fueled power stations that are online are kept ‘steamed up’ because it takes at least 8 hours to fire up an oil fired station and 24 hours for a coal fired station steamed up. The fuel costs are born by the generators and passed unto us in our electricity bills. The low cycle thermal fatigue problems associated with switching steam turbines on and off is destroying our conventional fired steam power plant BUT fortunately power stations like Sizewell don’t trip out every day. The low cycle thermal fatigue problems has been known for years by the Gas Turbine Industry but didn’t became an issue of major concern to the Power Supply Industry in the early 1990’s when steam turbine design life was extended to 30 years.
Because of its unreliability, increasing the percentage of electricity generated by wind power means the UK will require more back up power generation steamed up and online to be available to cover for lulls in the wind. This means the consumer paying more through their electricity bills. This very matter was raised at a recent technical group meeting on Power Generation at the Welding Institute in the questions and answers session following a paper by Mr. Keith Waller of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) on the Governments infrastructure plan for energy and the requirement for 30% of UK power generation from renewable energy. Mr. Keith Waller, an Engineer with a power generation industry background, admitted major concern both with the reliability of generation by wind power and the problems of low cycle thermal fatigue in destroying the conventional steam powered plant required to act as back up power generation but didn’t have an answer either the problem or who would pay for repair of plant designed for continuous operation used as on/off/on/off back up generators. The cancellation of the Severn barrage scheme as a renewable energy source was raised by others and I raised the point about the fact we were an island with dependable tides and tidal races and that such turbines would put considerably less stress on the national grid combined with fuel cell technology used to store off peak electricity as chemical energy. I also raised the point that UK plc funding water turbine development and a water turbine industry would give us the technology and industry to compete with Germany plc on renewable energy in countries with coasts that have tidal flow.
The responses were essentially that the DECC is aware of the problems but that the UK Government does not have the money for UK plc to develop new technology for renewable energy and the market will decide the energy mix within the 30% target for renewables with massive subsidies from the consumer for implementing existing renewable energy technology (wind).
Returning to the problem of low cycle thermal fatigue:
The Laws of Physics convert the mass flow through a turbine.
Turbines turn because the ‘weight’ and speed of the mass flow through the turbine acts on the blades and causes them to turn – It is the same whether it is steam under pressure flowing through a steam turbine, compressed air through a gas turbine, air at atmospheric pressure flowing through a wind turbine and water through a water turbine. Very very many wind turbines are required to provide the same mass flow to produce the same output as single gas turbine, single steam turbine or a single water turbine.
A gas turbine operates on the same Induction/Compression/Combustion/Exhaust principal of the internal combustion engine but in a continuous cycle – the inlet air is induced through the air inlet into the compressor at a speed sufficient to cause a wind chill effect of – 60 deg C on the inlet blades of the compressor. Typically the compressor compresses the inlet gas to 20 atmospheres pressure. Combustion at 3000 deg C increases the kinetic energy to massively increase the pressure of the gas in the combustion system if combustion was carried out in a closed pressure vessel but because it is not closed, the heated gas is expanded out (exhausted) through the compressor Turbine at around 1200 deg C for an industrial turbine (air cooled thermal barrier coated blades) causing the Power Turbine to rotate the shaft at transonic speeds meaning the effective speed mass flow is above 20 atmospheres pressure and speeds in excess of the speed of sound.
Steam Turbines produce superheated steams in a boiler under pressure to expand (exhaust) through the steam turbine to rotate the turbine and turn a generator.
Both Gas Turbines and Steam Turbines are designed to withstand continuous dynamic fatigue for years. An industrial gas turbine with a transonic compressor will rotate at approx 10,000 RPM or 1.08million dynamic cycles an hour with a 36,000 hour service interval approx 40,000million dynamic fatigue cycles between services and a design life of 500,000million dynamic fatigue cycles. HOWEVER the Low Cycle Thermal Fatigue life of critical parts such as hot turbine disks will be approximately 200 Low Cycle Thermal Fatigue cycles requiring shutdown and shafts returned to the manufacturer for replacement and rebalancing in a complete turbine rebuild or risk catastrophic failure of the turbine.
I don’t know the equivalent dynamic fatigue life for Steam Turbines steam turbines but suspect 1/6th as rotation speed will be about 1/6th that of an industrial gas turbine with the same design life of 30 years. However steam turbines will have an even bigger problem with low cycle thermal fatigue than gas turbines because of their design. On steam turbines it affects the steam generation system, the steam chests and the steam pipework as well as the steam turbine rotor because steam is piped from the boiler to a steam turbine meaning in situ steam plant repair and a complete turbine rebuild as the welded rotors in steam turbines making swapping out of critical turbine disks impossible and a complete rebuild necessary. On industrial gas turbines with combustion occurring immediately prior to the hot blading and the hottest discs on the Compressor Turbine driving the compressor, it only affects the 2 hot discs which can be readily unbolted and replaced provided the rotor is returned to the manufacturer for rebalancing and overspeed tests
I have never seen a catastrophic turbine disc failure but read about one on a gas turbine in Germany in the 1990’s that destroyed the Turbine hall demolishing the building, reducing all the turbines in the turbine hall to scrap metal and killing the 4 men working in the turbine hall. A colleague of mine told me that when he worked for CEGB in the 1950’s/1960’s he visited a power station site in the UK immediately after there was a catastrophic turbine failure on steam turbine – he said not only was the building completely destroyed, there was no rubble just dust and lumps of scrap metal from the turbines that were so bashed about you couldn’t tell what the parts had been.
The consequences of Low Cycle Thermal Fatigue can be catastrophic both financially and in terms of human life if a disc fails and it causes a rotating rotor shaft with its immense inertia to ‘fail unsafe’ come out of it’s casing. It is the reason why preventative maintenance is carried out, repair technology developed and why very expensive life time extension projects are undertaken when the safe number of stop starts warranted by the manufacturer has been reached. The manufacturer will also reclaim any failed parts and forensically investigate to confirm nothing untoward has happened during operation and will also Metallurgically evaluate parts being scrapped off to evaluate residual life and establish additional data that might result in an increase or decrease plant life time expectancy.
As an example of what I mean, the gas turbines I used to be associated with had a ‘fail safe’ and a ‘fail unsafe’ mode with design made to encourage the ‘fail safe’ mode at the expense of the ‘fail unsafe’ mode. Fail safe was a failed disk was fired axially out the end and fail unsafe was rotor out, the only failure I can recall was a ‘fail safe’ with the gas turbine replaced with a new turbine whilst we investigated the failure. Fatigue comprises 3 stages, crack initiation, crack growth to critical size with a striation for every fatigue cycle encountered after crack initiation and failure once the critical defect size is reached. Examination of the low cycle thermal fatigue cracks on the hot discs to count the striations established they had undergone considerably more stop starts than those claimed by the customer indicating there were either undocumented stop/starts or there was an attempt to falsify a warranty claim. On routine service a percentage of critical parts would be scrapped off to metallurgical evaluate to establish residual life of similar parts in the turbine to establish which parts will be replaced or run for another service interval.