Great Western Coffee Shop

Living directly under the take-off flight path when the wind is westerly(ish) I might not consider this qualifies as good news - 3 months+ of comparative quiet (rudely interrupted occasionally by an RAF C70 or A400M from Brize Norton using Exeter for 'circuits & bumps' training) has been most welcome.

First scheduled services Ryanair FR2796 Alicante 1435 > Exeter 1600 & FR2797 Exeter 1635 > Alicante 2000. (A short notice EXT>ALC ticket will set you back £145, possibly indicating a pretty full aircraft).

For the moment weekly Alicante<>Exeter (Saturday) & Malaga<>Exeter (Sunday) services are the limit of Ryanair's ambition.

Aurigny, Blue Islands & Loganair services to/from Guernsey, Jersey & Glasgow/Edinburgh/Manchester are currently pencilled in for various dates in August.

The air travel situation in this neck of the woods is improving / deteriorating - depending on your view of such things - fairly rapidly; TUI have recently announced the recommencement of their full holiday schedule (5 European countries, 9 individual destinations) from/to Exeter from 1st August and Aer Lingus Regional (aka Stobart Air) are restarting the former Flymaybe Belfast City<>Exeter route on 28th August. A degree of confidence that they can succeed seems to be indicated by an initial 5 return flights per week with a stated aspiration to run daily by 'early 2021'.

Extremely good news for anyone capable of rational thought. Confidence is what much of this recovery will be all about.

I agree completely, though there should be no doubt that the airline industry will be in for an extremely difficult time (along with other transport sectors) even if confidence levels are, please excuse the pun, sky high.  And they won't be.

It won't take much for a spike in cases (such as the one Spain is currently having) to potentially lead to restrictions on people being able to travel unrestricted to and from other countries.  Domestic flights should of course fare much better if we continue to stay on top of the situation.

Re Spanish outbreak looks like all those that rushed of to Spain will have to qurentine on arrival back in UK.

Or not as the case will probably be for many!  Should this sort of uncertainty become a recurring problem I can see huge long term consequences for the aviation industry.

Loganair commence flying between Edinburgh & Exeter tomorrow 27th July; somewhat earlier than we had been led to expect. Another former Flybe route. Starting with a seemingly random schedule the service settles down to a 'Daily except Wednesday' routine by the beginning of September. It can surely only be to the good that all flights at a particular regional airport are not in the hands of a single operator.

From The BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53541503)


Not sure what it's like in Leeds, but here in Wiltshire I've found rather more than 1% - at least 80% and more like 90% following the measures.  Of course, Michael Wilson is talking about Yorkshire people and as a Lancastrian, he may be right - who am I to disbelieve him?

Many will find they're not allowed to return to work if they have a responsible employer who is aware that they were holidaying in Spain. So even if they are disinclined to follow the quarantine rules, it will still have a negative effect on them (assuming they are not paid), but a positive effect in terms of reducing any potential spread at their workplace.

If I'm right in my thinking of this -
We holiday in (Spain); return to 14 days quarantine in the UK.
Living in Cornwall, we fly into (Heathrow) the UK.  HEX to Paddington.
Paddington - Pnz by train - wearing masks all the way.
Taxi/bus Pnz to home.
Then quarantine for 14 days? having travelled halfway across the UK and been in contact'ish along the way.
To me that makes a mockery of quarantine.
Surely, you should be holed up at your arrival airport for 14 days?

Hopefully I've got that all wrong!

No, you are correct.  After all that what are the chances that someone will come round to check you are quarantining at home?

That was my other loophole concern..........  ::)

In other news...Isles of Scilly Skybus are resuming direct flights between Exeter & St.Marys later this week - Exeter>IOS on Wednesday and Friday in the opposite direction. Currently one has to get to Lands End Airport for an air service, otherwise it's the Scillonian ferry from Penzance - or your own boat! This is however most decidedly not Ryanair standard; an adult Exeter>IOS single will set you back £170 for the dubious privilege of being transported in a DHC6 Twin Otter (good views though).

If we're going 'off topic from Exeter airport', and in the interests of balance, you can also helicopter from Penzance to either St Mary's or Tresco from £245 return!

Having just run through the booking process - as a test, I am not planning any trips just now - it appears to be £245 one-way and, therefore, £490 for a roundtrip.

It seems that the companies providing transport services between the mainland & IOS have settled on their target market!

The people have decided!? Despite the 'essential travel only' advice from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCO) regarding Spain , Ryanair have added mid-week services (Alicante<>Exeter - Tuesday evening & Malaga<>Exeter - Wednesday morning) to their schedule. I haven't checked but I would very surprised if the same is not happening at other regional airports.


Edit: VickiS - Clarifying abbreviation

Any update if the flights to Norwich will resume?

I would suspect that Exeter to Norwich flights (is that the route you're asking about?) would be primarily for business, and there won't be a catch-up surge of business travel over the summer in the same way as there is for holiday flights.

The ex-Flymaybe Exeter<>Norwich service was financially supported via the Regional Air Connectivity Fund. Just right now I suspect Mr. Sunak will have what are regarded as more pressing calls on the contents of his piggy bank so don't expect the route to be resurrected any time soon, if ever.

Latest announcements are:
Blue Islands - Exeter<>Manchester - Starting 31/08
Blue Islands - Exeter<>Jersey - Starting 01/09
Aurigny - Exeter<>Guernsey - Starting10/09
Loganair - Exeter<>Newcastle - Starting 14/09

so things are definitely on the up. However still no news AFAIK on the former Flybe routes between Exeter & London City, Glasgow, Dublin, Paris, Hamsterjam, Bergerac and Rennes (Exeter's twin city). There was also a seasonal ski flight to/from Chambery.

As a Southampton Airport fan (see posts passim) can I just draw everyone's attention to the fact that Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) have taken on the Southampton-Amsterdam route? While I might prefer to do the journey via Eurostar, going via Belgium presumably now invokes automatic quarantine on return.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying abbreviation

The resumption of flights is in my view regrettable.
If we are serious about climate change we need to fly a LOT less, and not more.

Flying is one of the unintended consequences of living on an island.

Not for Broadgage, he walks on water! (That's what fillet steak & Port does for you!) 🙂

Young sir, you again tend to exaggeration.
I have taken no port for some weeks, it is not in my view an ideal drink for warm weather, more of a winter thing.
This is the season for either beer, or gin and tonic.
Fillet steak is taken but once a week, on account of the environmental costs of red meat.

There are no recorded instances of me walking on water. IN water perhaps, swimming maybe.

I do avoid flying on account of the carbon emissions therefrom. I last flew about 20 years ago, and flew very little before then.
I have no car nor driving licence. I can just about drive, and would do so in dire emergency, for example if life was at stake. I would not contemplate driving illegally under any ordinary circumstances.

I don't have quite such a long record ... but have been overseas numerous times in the last few years, and mostly not flying - in fact, my last three flights have all been on return trips where the other leg was oversea or undersea.  Dublin, Aarlborg and Barcelona.   Also done New York to the UK twice by boat .... and that after the days of the classic ocean liner, too.

Really, journeys within Great Britain and to the near continent are done by rail and / or ferry as a first choice, and really should be for everyone.  Personal view, with an eye to the climate.  But the system is not made easy, comfortable or cheap to do it most of the time.

IT'S A   S H I P    :o ??? ;)

Agree.
A boat can be picked up and placed on a ship.
Ships carry boats in case of emergency and for trips ashore if port facilities cant take a ship.
Anyone may operate a boat, but a ship needs qualified mariners to run it.
If the vessel lists noticeably when a person moves from one side to the other, then it is boat not a ship.

There are exceptions and special cases, but the above is a good guide.

Boats have crossed the Atlantic, but many would consider a ship to be more suited for such a voyage.

With the greatest of respect, don't be silly!  If you have no knowledge of a subject I don't think it's appropriate to comment on it.  Maybe you'd like to explain your reasoning to the 2,500 employees from Flybe, the 10,000 from British Airways (BA) and 1,900 at Easyjet who are all out of jobs?

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying abbreviation

With the greatest of respect I do not think he was being silly.  While I do feel for the thousands of jobs at stake, if we are to tackle climate change then we do need to fly a LOT less.  And if we do not tackle climate change then it will not be just a few thousands of jobs but millions of lives at stake. 

Make have a real look at aviation and what they are doing to improve things. Not just because of peer pressure from Green Peace. But because using fuel = money, using less fuel means saving money which means greater profit. Especially now that Covid has taken out most of the oldest and least fuel efficient aircraft. By the times things improve most fleets will modern and very environmentally friendly. A350, 787 etc.

This idiotic idea that aircraft are 'gas guzzlers' is so far from the truth, if it were true most airline would have gone backrupt 10 years ago!

So how do you explain these figures
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/16D76/production/_108485539_optimised-travel_carbon-nc.png)


from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49349566 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49349566)

Edit to scale down the rather larger image (as was) - Grahame

Spotting words like "silly" and "idiotic" up-thread.   Please be careful - they may not be written with the intent of being personal insults but almost inevitably some element of belittling the poster you're commenting on can be read into the post.

That's not really relevant to my point though is it?

The last time I looked there was no rail line between London and Sydney, and lets be fair there will never be one! Nor will there be one to New York. The only way to get there is to fly. On that note flying is become more efficient and trying to be sustainable.

In regard to that graph it doesn't mean anything, here's why: 

In regards to a train, it doesn't tell you what type was used to collect data, I.e electric, modern DEMU or an old High Speed Train (HST).

In the same regard it doesn't say what aircraft we're used to collect data, a 747 will have a higher fuel burn than a modern 787. A 737 flying a domestic route would have a higher fuel burn than a Dash 8-400 or ATR. Maybe you should look at studying modern turbofan engines, as you would realise the majority of the power(thrust) doesn't even come from the engine itself.

There is also projects like https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/electric-flight/e-fan-x.html for example, looking to bring electric engines into use. This takes time as there is significant more red tape than most industries, and quite rightly so!

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying abbreviation

There's nearly 200 pages of background and 4mbytes of Data in three spread sheets (easily found from the source described at the base of the graph https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020

I have NOT read it all - have you, and can you confirm that it does not include that extra data you seek?



The domestic flight line makes a better comparison, perhaps.


Not quite ... been there by boat ship.  Back twice that way. Lisa has done it more that I have.

I see nothing silly in my remarks. Aviation is inherently virtually 100% fossil fuel powered. A transatlantic flight burns hundreds of liters of fuel per passenger.
The problem is not just the fuel used per mile, which is broadly similar to a car, but also the speed of air transport which permits of greater distances being covered.
Few people would drive 4,000 miles each way for a holiday, but many people do fly a similar distance.

I don't have detailed knowledge of the air transport industry, but I do know the following.
Virtually 100% fossil fuel powered.
Consumption per passenger mile broadly similar to driving, but much greater distances are covered.
A significant and increasing source of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

And yes I do feel sorry for those thrown out of work by airlines and aircraft builders.
If public money must be used to preserve jobs, then this should be in greener industries than air transport.

I cant consider air transport as being "very environmentally friendly" when it is virtually 100% fossil fuel powered, and when total fuel used by aviation is increasing.
Any slight improvement in fuel efficiency is swamped by more flying.

And anyway, quite a few airlines HAVE gone bust in the last 10 years, being bailed out in various ways.
And they would probably all go bust if they had to pay tax on the fuel used, perhaps at the same rate as levied on road fuel.

I repeat that if we are serious about climate change, that we need to fly a LOT less.
To move towards flying a lot less, we, as a nation, need to avoid taking policy decisions that subsidise or otherwise encourage flying.

Firstly, nearly everything transport wise is still fossil fuel powered, Cars, Trains, Buses. Even electric trains & cars are still fossil fuel powered the only difference is the source is somewhere else.

As for very few airlines going bust, let me explain a few things. Firstly aviation like the railway has boomed since the 2008 crisis, in fact until coronavirus very few old aircraft we're grounded, the lowest in aviation history in fact, brand new aircraft could not come out of the factory fast enough.

Yet during that time Air Berlin, Air Southwest, Thomas Cook, Monarch, Flybe and almost Virgin Atlantic have gone bust that's only the handful I can think of, since Covid 26 airlines around the world have gone bust.

Before Covid-19 aviation was predicted to grow 30% in the next 3 years, once we get out of the this mess it will grown again because supply and demand is there.

I would also like to point out how each time you've commented about commercial airlines yet fail to mention the many thousands of light private aircraft which fly every day.

Back on topic momentarily ;D Loganair start flying Newcastle<>Exeter twice weekly (Mon & Fri) today. The Monday southbound and Friday northbound services start/end at Aberdeen with a 20 minute NCL stop (which might have been useful to me 40 years ago!).

............will this provide competition for the Penzance-Aberdeen sleeper service?  ;)

Reminds me of a situation 25 years ago ... I said "People keep asking me for that, and I keep telling them there is no demand". Then I thought about what I was saying and built a business on it ....

Not directly (or dreckly in this case), but it does make The next High Speed line (HS2) a no brainer, with an extension to Cornwall.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying abbreviation

BBC News - Flybe set to fly again after brand is rescued
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54596915

Good news for the South West.

The cynic may think that the investors chose to let Flybe fail, then pick up the pieces that were worth something, but not the pensions or debts. It is potentially good news for the people of Devon (me), and I await developments with keen anticipation.

Likewise for Newquay, and especially flights to Heathrow and Manchester.

Yes, British Airways has one flight a day to London, but more would be welcome!
Manchester was also a good transfer destination from Newquay.

I will watch (any) developments with interest, although very much doubt there is enough potential passenger traffic remaining in the southwest for an exhumed Flybe to re-establish Exeter as a centre of operations. Depending of how many other operators have moved in to former Flybe locations perhaps restarting from Birmingham or Southampton might be a better bet.

Cyprus tried to rescue Flybe, they even attempted to get a new Aeronautical operational control, (AOC) before the airline ran out of cash, but the situation changed far too quickly for anything to be done.  (This is a simplified version of the  Ernst & Young Inc (EY) public document released in May)

The reason Flybe went bust is credit card holders kept back ?60 million in ticket sales, alongside Stobart refusing to put anymore money into the company.


Edit: VickiS - Clarifying acronyms and abbreviation

Not surprisingly all public commercial flights to/from Exeter are currently suspended with the exception of the thrice weekly (M,Th,Su) Aer Lingus Belfast service. Loganair, Blue Islands & TUI managed a few services over the Christmas & New Year period but even those companies cancelled several holiday flights they were intending to run.

The Aer Lingus Belfast City<>Exeter service has now been reduced to weekly, Fridays Only (FO).

The only other commercial activities at Exeter Airport are the Monday>Friday (evenings) West Atlantic / Royal Mail flights to East Midlands and Tuesday>Saturday (early mornings) returns.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying acronym

Not necessarily the right thread - but a quick look at airport web sites shows nothing in the next 24 hours from Newquay, Bristol or Cardiff airports either.   Heathrow departures looks like an impressive list until you realise that the same flight is listed 7 to 10 times under different airline codes with code sharing.   Tiny minority of normal flights operating - guess around 10%. And interesting to read in news of long waits (up to 4 hours) at immigration. 

True enough, for passenger flights, but a lot more freight flights than normal arriving and departing Heathrow at the moment.

Part of the reason for this is that the reduced number of passenger flights means that a lot of belly freight that is normally carried on these flights needs to fly another way.

Pure freighters are partly filling this gap, as are passenger aircraft flying with freight only. An example of this, among many, is Virgin Atlantic who are operating 787's to Evenes in northern Norway, returning each time with up to 50 tonnes of fresh fish in the belly holds, as described here https://blog.virginatlantic.com/flying-fresh-fish-from-the-fjords/ (https://blog.virginatlantic.com/flying-fresh-fish-from-the-fjords/)

As of today the Aer Lingus (Stobart Air) Belfast>Exeter>Belfast service increases to 3 days (M,F,Su) a week. According to the Exeter Airport website other operators will resume services from 12th April.

Good news but in common with all airports Exeter will most likely have another pretty barren summer in terms of holiday flights.

As they previously indicated would be the case Isles of Scilly Skybus has restarted operations from both Exeter (3 return trips / day) & Lands End (5) - but NOT Newquay at the moment. Their booking system shows most flights either full or nearly so for at least the next couple of weeks.

The next programmed resumption is the Blue Islands Jersey>Exeter>Jersey service on 27th April. 2 flights / week (Tu,Th).

The Passenger Terminal at Newquay is currently closed and there are no scheduled passenger flights scheduled until the end of the month. Apparently Boris was there last week to survey G7 preparations, however, and was flown in and out by the RAF.

Their website says that Skybus will resume to the IoS on 17th May.

I think a lot of that £7 million is being spent on it before it reopens.

Meanwhile, in France, lawmakers are looking to ban all internal flights where a rail alternative exist and takes no more than two and a half hours.

From the Beeb website:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56716708

Such a law here would preclude Exeter to Truro, but Redruth would be fine. I think the French could have a good idea with this if it spurs investment in rail, and isn't used to raise fares. And if it applies to the politicians too. I wonder how well it fits with the European ideals of free movement of people and trade, though.

The problem is that the French have already invested in rail to produce a comprehensive high speed system, whereas we just have a quick dash to the Channel Tunnel and a slow moving protest site moving towards Birmingham.  For all its problems the French have us totally licked in this regard. If only we had "HSs" to Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Hull.........

And the not fit for purpose Cross country trains...

Oh believe me, they have you licked in several other transport related ways as well - That's why I moved here  ;D

The new DfT Bus Strategy is at least a genuine step in the right direction though.

I'm pretty sure this bit of the new "climate change" law only applies to domestic routes.

In practice, the result of Air France spending months camped outside the government's front door with a very big hat is a deal that requires them to drop these flights in return for the state taking a bigger stake. Oh, and oodles of cash. This law will ban anyone else trying to fill the gap.

One point I do not understand is that, supposedly, connecting flights are still allowed. But if Air France have been bribed not to fly the routes, what does a connecting flight look like? Are they allowed to fly them but not market them as separate flights? I guess it will become clear eventually.

When first mooted, I think there would have been worries about whether the railway routes had enough capacity to replace airlines. But now, with both modes likely to see drops is numbers due to less travel for meetings (or what commuting there might have been) that probably won't be an issue, initially at least.

I wonder whether new routes are also banned. After all, if you pick two airports nowhere near a city (as used by RyanAir), the rail comparator would be very slow. And the business market of those not now using TGVs (as they live outside the Metro-served area) might find it suits them. But it would probably be squashed by some means or other.

This did get a mention somewhere on the forum when being drafted - though I can't remember where. What happened on Saturday was the bill's first reading, to be followed by a bit more hoop-jumping - I don't recall exactly what that is, though.

In my view the UK should introduce a law similar to that proposed in France.
The fact that most UK trains are slower than most comparable French trains would reduce the impact of any such legistlation, but it is still a step in the right direction.

My only misgiving is that TOCs once freed of airline competition would make trains even more expensive, and of even worse qaulity than at present.

Surely not ! Replacing full length HSTs with shorter DMUs was considered such a success that it was copied on other long distance routes.

It is domestic so no problems.  The Netherlands tried to ban Amsterdam - Brussels but that was ruled out as it was intra EU.

Interestingly the original French proposal was to ban flights under 4 hours but this has been reduced to 2 hours.

The government now controls all of that, Broadgage!  ;)

There isn't much competition from airlines within mainland UK. Flying from London to Manchester isn't faster than train any more. Scotland is quicker by air, but
 outside the 2 hours 30 minutes, and more convenient by rail for the majority. Most people drive or use a train or coach for long journeys. However, when my daughter had to go from Exeter to London, flying was the cheaper option by over £100. Stopping people of insufficient means from using a cheaper service is going to ruffle feathers in the equality industry, and the government passing laws to limit competition for its newly re-acquired railway network wouldn't pass unnoticed. That could bring about unwanted analysis of the real effects of the government's decarbonating strategies. I notice that today's electricity supply includes 1.49GW from coal power, as against the mere 200 MW contribution from our billions of pounds worth of wind turbines. You don't see that splashed across the front pages, but if stopping all electric trains meant that we could shut down the coal power stations, then a QC could argue that the railway network is still run on coal, and that aviation is therefore cleaner. Legislation will work better when we have an all-electric rail network and reliable sources of clean electricity, but it is fraught with problems at the moment. France is in a better position, with a higher percentage of its railway under wires, and a lot more nuclear and hydro energy than we have.

The irony of the less well-off having to fly instead of taking a train isn't lost on me, btw.

This "loi climat" came out of the Citizens' Convention for the Climate than ran from two years ago. That was set up to be independent of government, and (as you might expect, and Macron perhaps did too) came up with more radical proposals than the government was willing to implement.

But their scope for scaling down and phasing the steps in the current law is limited by parliamentary politics. Macron's party (LREM) has no majority now, and is faced by a large number of small parties (nine in all plus loads of hangers-on and -off) with green fringes in several of them (and in LREM too). This they have to compromise with the various sets of greens' idées fixes. Several of the measures still look at best half-baked, and may well have the opposite effect to what is intended, unless a lot of straightening out happens in its remaining parliamentary transit.

That convention itself was a response to the gilets jaunes who, in their original form (before the street protests got hijacked by other interests) were mainly non-metropolitan types protesting about an eco-tax on petrol. Macron's idea was to base green measures on what was demonstrably the will of "the people".

The convention finished last summer, in Covid's gap season, but didn't really reflect the changes in the economy, or peoples' views, which even now are not clear (and to some extent have not yet happened).

All in all, French and British politics aren't that different, it would seem.

It should be noted that today was an unusualy poor day for renewable electricity production. Wind was at a near record low.
Coal burning is steadily reducing, not many years ago it was TEN TIMES the figure reported today.
In the interest of fairness though, solar input to the national grid far exceeded that from coal for most of the day, It reached about 6 Gw, and is still significantly greater than coal.

 I observe that OCGT* plant is running at present, an expensive way of producing electricity and usually considered as a last resort.

We need more renewable generating capacity, more storage and more "virtual storage"
And more railway electrification, though even a diesel train is better than flying.

*OCGT=Open Cycle Gas Turbine. A gas turbine without any heat recovery from the exhaust. Quick and cheap to build. Simple to operate, some run unattended. Very quick starting. Generally burn natural gas, but some can also run on light oil in an emergency. Expensive to run.

Compare to CCGT=Combined Cycle Gas Turbine, similar to the above but with the addition of a steam boiler that uses the waste heat in the exhaust. The steam runs a steam turbine to produce extra output power from the same fuel input.
Expensive to build, more complex, slower to start, needs staff.
Efficient, cheap to run. A significant proportion of UK electricity is from CCGT plant. Burns natural gas normally, but some can use light oil in an emergency. Better than burning coal, but gas or light oil are still fossil fuels, and should be replaced by renewables whenever possible.

Again. It isn't much better today. It does badly whenever there is a high pressure area stalled over the UK. We had the same in the first week of last month, with only one day prior to 9 March achieving more than 5GW output, with output down to under 500 MW at times. This is despite installed capacity of over 20GW.


Which is to be welcomed. Since we started down the renewables path, coal-fired power stations have closed steadily, being replaced in part by gas powered generators, which are kept busy.


It certainly did, being above 5 GW between 0940 and 1320, with a peak output of almost a third of the lowest daytime figure for gas. Unfortunately, though, it went dark, falling to under 1GW by 1810. I am not sure how significantly greater than coal it was, given that coal was generating around the clock, against a window for solar of 9 to 10 hours.


That's a sign that things were desperate. I haven't seen OCGT on the maps much in the past couple of years. It was doing better than wind for a fair bit of yesterday, and it looks like every generator in the country was going at one point.


I don't know quite what you propose to store. For every minute of every day since the first wind turbine was plonked into a local beauty spot, fossil fuels have been burning to provide electricity. It makes far more sense to turn the gas down a bit when it is sunny or windy. Storing energy when you are burning gas or coal makes about as much sense as using your credit card to fill a savings account. Would more renewables help? A tenfold increase in wind capacity and a doubling of solar yesterday wouldn't have done much to change things, and though you say it was a record low point, it isn't as unusual as the advocates of wind and sun power would have you think. This is all without the added burden of electric cars, electrically powered air-source heating to replace tens of millions of gas boilers, and the conversion of public transport to electric.

I have noticed a change in the usual government spin of late. There was a fanfare of trumpets followed by an announcement that more than half of our electricity came from "clean" sources rather than the usual renewable tag. Fair enough, "clean" including the scandalous Drax biomass and a few biomass projects that involve growing crops for energy rather than food, then importing the food, but I think it signals a change in attitude towards nuclear. Renewables are very popular with politicians because they shut the likes of XR up, give exciting new opportunities to spin statistics, and a lot of them have family members at the trough. We are reaching a point, though, where people are beginning to notice that it isn't actually doing much to cut dependency on fossil fuels. I would expect more emphasis on nuclear soon, particularly the small modular stuff. I rather hope so, because logically it's the best way out of this mess.

When that is done, scientists will be able to use some of that energy to make synthetic aviation fuels to power my next flight out of Exeter airport, once the pandemic has settled down. *


(*See what I did there?)

Talking of Drax and OCGT, did you see that they have recently dropped their plan to replace their remaining two coal-burners at Drax with gas? They are however building a 300 MW OCGT station near Swansea (Abergelli Farm, south of Felindre), and I think looking for more sites.

And Lee may need something similar. On current plans three of France's four coal-burning stations will close within two years, but the one at Cordemais (1200 MW, upstream of Saint-Nazaire) can't be closed for a while yet as Brittany's electricity supply lacks security without it.

Why does crossrail need shuting up over renewables? (Hover mouse pointer over XR)

Ah yes - we should add a second definition to 'XR' in the abbreviations - or should we just change it completely to Extinction Rebellion?

In the near term, more renewable generating capacity is needed. Storage is a relatively low priority when we are still burning gas 24/7.
In the longer term, as renewable capacity increases, there will be a need to store energy at times of plenty and use it at times of scarcity.

Energy may be stored in several ways.

1) Pumped storage, works well but the best sites are already used which limits expansion.
2) Utility scale batteries, these show considerable promise and expansion is planned.
3) Compressed air and liquid air.
4) Hydrogen.

There is also growing interest in so called virtual storage. This does not DIRECTLY store energy, but achieves a similar result by indirect means such as,

1) Electric space or water  heating added to existing premises that have oil or gas boilers. When electricity is plentifull, an electric boiler is used instead of oil or gas. When electricity is in short supply, back to oil and gas. 250 large hotels, industrial launderies, or hospitals each with an average heating demand of 1 Mw, would provide an extra 250 Mw of demand at times of surplus.

2) Storing "cold" in industrial frozen food stores. When electricty is plentiful, the temperature is reduced, thereby saving electricity in future hours when it may be more expensive. Also applicable to future domestic freezers.

3) Storing "cold" in tanks of ice, for air conditioning etc.

4) EV charging, paused or slowed at times of shortage, for say an hour.

BTW, I think that I invented the term "virtual storage" at a meeting some years ago about future energy needs and storage.

I think we have a solution to this whole conundrum, courtesy of Airbus. New Atlas (https://newatlas.com/aircraft/airbus-liquid-hydrogen-cryogenic-superconductivity/) tells me that Airbus is working on hydrogen-powered planes with a twist, thought up after reading broadgage's suggestions of virtual storage in cold things - superconductivity. Those engines will be a whole lot more efficient if the electrics are cooled down, and what better way to cool them than by using that liquid hydrogen, tucked away in the back at -253C?


The picture in the article looks a bit Gerry Anderson at the moment, but Airbus is to  start work on a ground-based proof of concept after lunch, hopefully ready in 3 years or so. It has a snappy, if slightly cheaty, acronym - ASCEND. This stands for Advanced Superconducting & Cryogenic PowertraiN Demonstrator, probably NDECSA in French if the usual rules still apply post-Brexit.

The hydrogen will be produced by fusion power, spare wind power, or unicorn-driven treadmills, whichever comes first.

O/T - which in this instance means 'on topic'  ;D - As previously advertised Blue Islands Jersey>Exeter>Jersey service restarts today, initially twice a week (Tu,Th) and thrice weekly (Tu,Th,Sa) from 15th May. Passengers arriving in Jersey essentially have freedom of movement as long as they have submitted details of a negative PCR test prior to travelling and agree to a re-test on arrival. The additional Exeter>Manchester>Exeter services, which use the same aircraft, are not scheduled to restart until June 7th.

The Loganair services to Exeter and back from Edinburgh (M,Tu,F,Sa), Glasgow (M,F) & Newcastle (M,F) restart tomorrow 17/05.

Ryanair return to Exeter tomorrow (02/06) with their twice weekly (W,Su) Malaga>Exeter>Malaga service which runs until the end of October when it reverts to a weekly (SuO) schedule for the winter. Also, presumably as a direct result of higher passenger traffic levels, the airport shops are being reopened with long-furloughed staff returning to work.

As of tomorrow (08/06) the Blue Islands Jersey>Exeter>Jersey service becomes Jersey>Exeter>Manchester and return. Over the next three months or so the following services are also expected to restart:
Ryanair   Alicante   19 June
Loganair   Norwich   12 July
Aurigny   Guernsey   16 July
Aer Lingus   Dublin   30 August

TUI will undoubtedly reappear once the international (European) travel situation is sorted out. Which just leaves the Paris & Hamsterjam flights missing from the schedule that existed prior to Covid-19 / Flybe failing (personally I would use Eurostar).

From the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-57451845)

It seems that Aer Lingus has signed an agreement with Emerald Airlines for them to take over the Stobart Air routes. However the contract apparently does not take effect until 2022 so even if they start early there is bound to be a service hiatus of some kind. 

Most, if not all, of the services formerly run by Stobart Air have hurriedly been taken over by either the Aer Lingus main fleet or 'borrowed' BA CityFlyer aircraft (yesterday (13/06) the Belfast>Exeter>Belfast service was provided by a BA Embraer E195).

https://www.cornish-times.co.uk/article.cfm?id=130063&headline=Electric%20aircraft%20trial%20at%20Newquay%20Airport&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2021

A hybrid-electric aircraft is set to take off from Cornwall Airport Newquay this summer as part of a project to develop regional electric aircraft in the UK.  ((continues))

Set to quicken member broadgage pulse with excitement  ;D

.....only after he's assessed the comfort of the seats & the adequacy of the catering arrangements.

Certainly an interesting development, bit doubtful about the "hybrid" bit as "hybrid" has become the new term for "primarily fossil fuel powered"

I see a bright future for all electric aircraft for relatively short routes. The low energy density of the batteries as compared to jet fuel makes long distance use unlikely.

Many relatively short routes would be better served by fast trains, but where no such provision exists the electric plane has a part to play, for access to islands in particular.

An electric aircraft should be safer than an engine driven one. Electric motors are more reliable than the piston engines used in small aircraft. Batteries are inherently modular and complete failure most improbable.
Lithium batteries are a bit risky, but arguably less so than the petrol used by small planes.

Seating comfort and catering are less important for short flights. I would be satisfied with a glass of wine and a decent sandwich. Or even with no catering, provided that a decent bar and restaurant was available at the airport.

I thought "hybrid" meant "petrol engine, but with tax advantages for company car drivers".

Engine failures in aircraft are extremely uncommon. Many airline pilots go through a career from qualification to retirement without ever having to shut down an engine in flight, except in a simulator. Light aircraft are serviced after every 50 hours of flight, more intensively at each 150 hour interval, and extremely thoroughly annually. The engines are simple, often short-bore air cooled 4-cylinder motors, each cylinder having two spark plugs, each of which has an entirely independent ignition circuit. The carburettors (some have injection, but that adds complexity) are fed by a mechanical pump, with an electrical supplementary pump switched on for take-off, landing, and fuel tank changes. Plus, after a certain point in the course for a pilots licence, every lesson will include at least one moment when the instructor pulls back the throttle and announces that "the engine has bust, what do you do next?" The fuel in many small planes is basically leaded 2-star, but causes no more issues than in cars - less, most likely, because of the rigid adherence to servicing routines. Lithium batteries have brought down at least three large jet aircraft, and have been responsible for hundreds of lesser aircraft incidents on the ground. They are not safer than petrol engines, at least not yet.

There may be a bright future in electric aircraft. The advantages are obvious, as are the limitations. Big aircraft flying long distances will suffer from the fact that the fuel doesn't get lighter when it has been used, and I think the big market is likely to be at the recreational end of the spectrum, with the sort of 150 mile jaunts I used to do. That won't stop me from following the Twin Otter experiment with some interest.

https://www.flybe.com/en

On 28 January 2023, the High Court appointed David Pike and Mike Pink as Joint Administrators of Flybe Limited (“Flybe”).

Flybe has now ceased trading and all flights from and to the UK operated by Flybe have been cancelled and will not be rescheduled.

If you are a passenger affected by this event, please read the advice below.

(Continues)