Exeter Airport - Sat 04/07 Resumption Of Commercial Flights (COVID-19)

[whole diary]

[stuving]

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.

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^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse) (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.

[broadgage]

In my view the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) 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^▸ (Train Operating Company) once freed of airline competition would make trains even more expensive, and of even worse qaulity than at present.

[broadgage]

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

Surely not ! Replacing full length HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) with shorter DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) was considered such a success that it was copied on other long distance routes.

[eXPassenger]

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.

It is domestic so no problems.  The Netherlands tried to ban Amsterdam - Brussels but that was ruled out as it was intra EU^» (European Union - about).

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

[IndustryInsider]

My only misgiving is that TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) once freed of airline competition would make trains even more expensive, and of even worse qaulity than at present.

The government now controls all of that, Broadgage! 

[TonyK]

In my view the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) 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^▸ (Train Operating Company) once freed of airline competition would make trains even more expensive, and of even worse qaulity than at present.

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.

[stuving]

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

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).

[TonyK]

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

[broadgage]

There isn't much competition from airlines within mainland UK^▸ (United Kingdom). 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.

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^▸ (Open Cycle Gas Turbine)* 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)=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.

[TonyK]

It should be noted that today was an unusualy poor day for renewable electricity production. Wind was at a near record low.

Again. It isn't much better today. It does badly whenever there is a high pressure area stalled over the UK^▸ (United Kingdom). 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.

Coal burning is steadily reducing, not many years ago it was TEN TIMES the figure reported today.

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.

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.

It certainly did, being above 5 GW^▸ (Great Western) 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.

I observe that OCGT^▸ (Open Cycle Gas Turbine)* plant is running at present, an expensive way of producing electricity and usually considered as a last resort.

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.

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.

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^▸ (Crossrail) 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?)

[stuving]

Talking of Drax and OCGT^▸ (Open Cycle Gas Turbine), 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.

[MVR S&T]

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

[grahame]

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

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

[broadgage]

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^▸ (by the way), I think that I invented the term "virtual storage" at a meeting some years ago about future energy needs and storage.

[TonyK]

I think we have a solution to this whole conundrum, courtesy of Airbus. New Atlas 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 theory is that the liquid hydrogen can supercool the entire electric powertrain down to superconducting temperatures, at which point resistance virtually disappears from the system, and efficiency skyrockets. A powertrain designed to take full advantage of this effect, reasons Airbus, could get the same job done at less than half the weight, half the electrical losses and reduced voltages.

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.