The Thameslink Programme, as you may well already know, is a £6 billion upgrade/expansion of the existing Thameslink rail network. Current trains are being replaced with newer and longer carriages; in addition to greater capacity, these trains will service a greater range of stations to the north and south of London. Passengers on these trains will no longer need to change trains in London to get to where they need.
At first glance, the Thameslink Programme sounds like a godsend, especially to regular commuters. We’ve all seen the legendary photos of overcrowded trains in Japan and shuddered to think how it felt to be there… Read more…
Photo courtesy of Abdul Awaes
Over the past few weeks, I was fortunate to travel to the U.A.E. and India as part of my annual visits to these countries. Although I travel to these countries fairly frequently, the pace of change in these countries is somewhat astronomical. In the U.A.E., I visited the City of Gold (Dubai), where new skyscrapers are being erected extremely quickly. The reason for this growth is of course due to the black gold known as oil. After the discovery of several oil deposits in the region in the 70′s, a massive influx of trade and foreign workers that made Dubai grow at an extraordinary rate. Today, the Dubai skyline is filled with state-of-the-art skyscrapers, including the Burj al Khalifa (pictured), that use innovative technologies to ensure they are environmentally friendly.
In India, I visited the Western state of Gujarat, where it was recently announced that the state had secured a massive investment from various organizations totaling Rs.15 lakhs crores (£200bn). A majority of that investment went to the power sector, as Gujarat continues to invest in greener technologies such as wind farms, and solar arrays. Gujarat is also known for its oil refineries, a sector that continues to grow in the region.
Even with the continued investments in both these countries, most of the developments are in the larger cities in the region. This hasn’t stopped development in the rural villages however as charities have taken it upon themselves to help equip and educate rural communities to develop long term low carbon power generation solutions. One of those charities is The British Asian Trust, part of the Prince’s Charities community. One of the initiatives developed by the British Asian Trust was the Barefoot College. The Barefoot College aims to alleviate the problems of frequent droughts, unsafe drinking water, adequate health and education facilities, and power generation. The College also focuses on educating women to become more active members of their societies by putting them in charge of key technologies that will help develop their communities. A case study of how the Barefoot College helped and educated a woman from a small village in Rajasthan to become a Solar Cooker Engineer can be found here.
In a post dated November 4th 2010, I declared a man a genius and no it wasn’t Mayowa Adebiyi but Professor Seamus Garvey. He denied the tag with a sharp, definitive – I am not a genius.
Despite our hero’s humility another by the name of ‘Tim’ agreed with the tag he will now find hard to shake, not because of my unashamed adulation of him but simply because anyone with an interest in Engineering, will and should be impressed with his ingenuity.
I did promise in my reply to his comment to ‘write my wrong’ of not doing enough justice to his Turbine design and was doing my research on his take on Compressed-Air Energy Storage (CAES) which he has had a few useless cycles on this system rid of and transformed into a complete forward flowing energy conversion process and called it ICARES (Integrated Compressed Air Renewable Energy Systems).
A presentation I saw by him, change my planned course, so now I have decided to let the man speak for himself.
Below is a bunch of screen grabs of a webinar given to the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC). Click here for link.
With profound quotes like
“The climate change problem will not be solved by politicians, but by engineers”
“There is no law of physics or Engineering stating that power from offshore wind turbines must be more expensive than power from fossil fuels“
I cannot help but think we might be witnessing the making of a legend and I do honestly wish our reluctant hero the best of luck.
One fifth of the national grid comes from nuclear power (photo courtesy of Scottish Government © Crown Copyright/2001)
The government has pledged to build eight new nuclear power stations, guaranteeing electricity supply for the next 40 years. But with two cancelled and existing ones due for decommission – is it too late to close the energy gap expected in 2015?
The new third generation reactors will be commissioned between 2018 and 2025 at a cost of £5billion each. They are all near existing sites close to the end of their operating lives – lives which may have to be extended to fill this 10MW gap (currently 18% of the market).
Two reactor designs have been approved – by EDF and Areva. They are part of an energy policy to cut greenhouse gases 80% by 2050 – when it is hoped a third of electricity will come from renewable sources. But until the storage of renewable energy such as wind power and wave power can be achieved - nuclear power will always have a place.
The government had pledged not to subsidise the private energy sector. But despite international anti-competition rules it will pick up the bill for radio-active waste disposal, after the government set a fixed cost – and accident reparations above £140million.
In the recession the economics of nuclear power are crucial. The government is already paying £100billion to decommission the current sites, and the new sites will be offered long contracts. They will also become more competitive as fossil fuel power stations have to pay carbon tax or for carbon capture technology.
Environmental targets with legally binding legislation is making nuclear power a key element of any sustainable future for energy generation. But the decision to build the new power stations should have been made to coincide with the natural design life of the older reactors - it would have saved money and been better for the environment.
Carbon capture would reduce carbon emissions by 90% (Photo courtesy of US Fish & Wildlife Service)
Despite the cuts – the government has pledged £1billion towards Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) – half the budget that Energy Secretary Chris Huhne wanted – But is it money well spent?
It’s the governments answer to meet legally binding targets to reduce green-house gases over the next 20 years. CO2 would be captured at large sources such as power stations and factories, then compressed and stored underground.
A modern power station could reduce its carbon output by 90% – but there is a price to pay. Apart from the expense of installation and storage, it would reduce the efficiency of a coal-powered fire station by up to 30%.
But is carbon reduction the best way to tackle global warming? Most scientists divide climate change into four questions – Does climate change exist? Is man a significant contributor? Is now a critical time? And is reducing carbon output the best solution?
While most agree on the first two points – the latter two are a major source of contention. Lady Thatcher – a chemist – was the first world leader to warn of global warming in 1988. She argued for risk management – saying the potential effects merited drastic action.
However, she later doubted such arguments as whether CO2 had more of an environmental effect than solar activity. CCS will cost billions, reduce the efficiency of power stations and inflate the price of energy – would it not be better investing the money in promoting ‘green’ energy sources instead?
Fire boats try to put out the fire on Deepwater Horizon (photo courtesy of US Coast Guard - http://cgvi.uscg.mil/media/main.php?g2_itemId=836364)
After its ‘annus horibilis’ BP seems finally to be putting the Deepwater Horizon disaster behind it, with last week’s appointment of a new Chief Executive Robert Dudley, and state department permission to continue drilling in the Gulf – but what lessons have been learnt?
A record settlement fund of $20bn and the potential break-up of the world’s fourth largest company sent shock waves through the industry. The message was that environmental reparations and litigation could bankrupt even the biggest and most profitable operators.
Aside from the ethics of whether lasting damage to the environment is too high a price to pay – It is now the realisation of what is at stake if the gamble fails, and an accident sends costs spiralling out of control.
The explosion on April 20 was the biggest ever accidental oil spill at an estimated five million barrels. It took three months to seal the leak. But BP weren’t alone – no other oil company had any better solution.
The plan was to cap the leak with a concrete housing then inject tons of concrete into the oil well to seal it. When this didn’t work the only alternative was to construct a larger cap and try again. Relief wells could then be drilled as a permanent fix - but problems in drilling a mile below sea level at pressures of 150bar are obvious.
The smell of profits will always be intoxicating to the board room. Hopefully the lasting legacy of Deepwater Horizon will be a reminder that if profits override safety the result can leave a toxic after-taste.
Contact us!