Generation was lost from three sources in quick succession: local, small-scale generators, two units of Hornsea one wind farm, and Little Barford gas-fired power station
The implication is that all three were triggered by a lightning strike on a transmission line just south of the Little Barford station. This caused the local generation to trip out, which would be expected (and easily covered - 500MW)
The circuit returned to normal, so... the connection between the lightning strike and the subsequent loss of power at the two big generators isn't clear
Little Barford failed in stages - three units shutting down sequentially. Looks like any one of those not happening might have prevented the wider disruption
However... headline figures suggest that protection systems did then work as intended. Distribution networks were given the all-clear to reconnect within 15 minutes of the lightning strike, and all customers were reconnected within 30 mins of that
Supplies to electric rails/powerlines of railways were not affected, the report says. Disruption seems to have been caused by some minor signalling outages, and mainly trains shutting themselves down and drivers not being able to restart them
So we seem to be left with five significant questions: 1) why did the lightning strike affect big generators, 2) do NG/DNOs procure enough backup routinely (and has Ofgem been encouraging/mandating enough), 3) could the Little Barford units have stayed on,
4) can customers that should be priorities (eg railway signalling) be better prioritised, and 5) why did such a short outage provoke such disruption on the railways?
Ofgem has now announced its own inquiry, to see whether any of the parties involved (generators, transmission, distribution) were at fault ofgem.gov.uk/publications-a…
Which is fine - but avoids the issue of whether @ofgem itself has been at fault. Has it been tough enough with DNOs? Has it encouraged or retarded deployment of eg batteries which can respond virtually instantaneously? This ought to be on the agenda somewhere
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD: Seen a bit of chat recently implying that the UK shouldn't put pedal to the metal on decarbonisation as it's so far gone faster than US - which is true, it has
The implication is that somehow this speed has been bad for the UK economy. The data say otherwise
Since 1990, UK GDP has increased 3.45-fold, according to the World Bank. The US, 3.42-fold. Basically, identical data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.G…
THREAD: With all the talk #cop28 centring on #fossilfuelphaseout or not – abated, unabated, etc – what actually is the logical role of CCS in the energy transition?
In a new paper for @thesmithschool @uniofoxford, Dr Andrea Bacilieri, Dr Rupert Way and I analyse the relative costs of taking a high-CCS vs a low-CCS route to #netzero and the 1.5°C temperature goal – a question that as far as we can see hasn’t been properly asked before
Hilarious to see @NetZeroWatch plugging this 'dangers of woke banking' line... here's their chairman's own company's sustainability page 😂😂😂 recordfg.com/sustainability/
I have deep reservations about this 'people who live near wind farms should get cheap electricity' thing, which has reached a new depth today with a recommendation that they should get free electricity
It would only make sense if people were opposed to having wind farms nearby, and there's a welter of evidence in a range of countries showing that the majority of people aren't opposed (eg sciencedirect.com/science/articl…)
THREAD: Climate change causes conflict, you say? Well: it's a bit more complex than that
Climate change and other facets of the global environmental crisis raise the risks of conflict and other forms of insecurity. But so do many other things - competition for resources, ethnic tensions, prior conflicts, pandemics...
And there is already a growing security crisis. Over the last 10 years (well before #Covid and Putin's war) the number of state-based armed conflicts, the number of people killed in them and the number of people displaced all roughly doubled
This is also a nod to all those lining up to pontificate that '1.5°C is dead', particularly scientists who make no attempt to clarify that that what they're saying is just their opinion, not fact
Firstly let's look at the #ParisAgreement's wording - to 'hold' warming 'well below 2°C' while 'making efforts' to keep it to 1.5°C. There is no time limit on that 'making efforts'. Governments did not pledge to make efforts until warming exceeds 1.5°C and then stop