Engineering and Technology Thread

[Nereus]

First battery-powered cruise ship sails for Arctic

https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/17051 ... for-arctic

OSLO: The world's first cruise ship propelled partially by battery power is set to head out from northern Norway on its maiden voyage, cruise operator Hurtigruten said on Monday.

The hybrid expedition cruise ship, the Roald Amundsen, can take 500 passengers and is designed to sail in harsh climate waters.

Named after the Norwegian explorer who navigated the Northwest Passage in 1903-06 and was first to reach the South Pole in 1911, the ship heads for the Arctic from Tromsoe this week and will sail the Northwest Passage to Alaska before heading south, reaching Antarctica in October.

While the engines run mainly on marine gasoil, the ship's battery pack enables it to run solely on batteries for around 45 to 60 minutes under ideal conditions, Hurtigruten chief executive Daniel Skjeldam told Reuters.

The company estimates that the battery pack will reduce fuel consumption and save about 20% in carbon dioxide emissions, compared to if the ship was operating on marine gasoil alone.

"It's designed to take excessive energy from the engines and put into the battery when the ship doesn't need it, and put it back into the engine when the ship needs it — it is a way of reducing emissions significantly without having charging stations available," Mr Skjeldam said.

The company, which operates scenic cruise lines along the country's fjords and into the Arctic, was inspired by Norway's fleet of hybrid ferries and also its growing fleet of electric cars, he said.

Battery technology for propelling ships is in its infancy, even on shorter routes, as few ports provide charging stations.

"We expect batteries to be an important part of shipping in the years to come, but of course we don't expect our ships to be able to operate only on batteries, because the ship can sail up to 18-20 days in areas where there are no charging points," Mr Skjeldam said.

Hurtigruten expects infrastructure will improve on its traditional routes along the Norwegian coast, while currently charging services are only provided in Bergen, Norway's second-largest city.

The future for batteries on larger ships also hinges on suppliers' capacity to develop lighter, more powerful systems.
"We expect a revolution on battery technology for ships, we expect batteries to be lighter, more effective, and we've set aside extra room for more batteries to be installed when battery packs become more effective," Mr Skjeldam said.

He added that the second hybrid cruise ship the company has on order, to be delivered later this year, will have battery pack with twice the capacity of the Roald Amundsen.

edit, add another link: https://www.ship-technology.com/project ... uise-ship/
............................................................................................................
Interestingly, Rolls Royce are the developers of this system, including the diesel engines. Also, the thruster pods are now using permanent magnet electric motors with variable frequency drives for speed control developed by Rolls Royce.

[Nereus]

RRS Sir David Attenborough

https://www.bas.ac.uk/polar-operations/ ... enborough/

A new polar research ship for Britain

Construction is progressing on the RRS Sir David Attenborough – one of the most advanced polar research vessels in the world. Following technical sea trials and scientific equipment testing, scientists researching oceans, ice and atmosphere will have access to state-of-the-art facilities on this floating multidisciplinary research platform. (Sir David Attenborough launches ship public wanted to call Boaty McBoatface – video:



The new polar ship is commissioned by NERC, built by Cammell Laird to a Rolls-Royce design and operated by British Antarctic Survey. This new research platform will transform how ship-borne science is conducted in the Polar Regions.

The commissioning of the RRS Sir David Attenborough is part of a major Government polar infrastructure investment programme designed to keep Britain at the forefront of world-leading research in Antarctica and the Arctic. This £200m commitment represents the UK Government‘s largest investment in polar science since the 1980s.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RRS_Sir_D ... tenborough

[Nereus]

I post this here because of the reference to the technology, rather than it being news. Ultra-supercritical technology in itself is not all that new, but advances in materials have led to an increase just how far both temperature and pressures can be pushed. It should be remembered that although cleaner and more efficient, this power station is still using Lignite (brown coal), which in itself is the lowest form of energy source.

https://www.powerengineeringint.com/art ... nking.html
........................................................................................................................................
Egat begins public hearings for Mae Moh coal plant units

https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/17 ... lant-units

The state-run Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) will start public hearings with stakeholders and local communities on Saturday in a bid to repower two existing units of the Mae Moh coal-fired power plant in Lampang.

Egat is budgeting 37 billion baht for development cost to repower Units 8 and 9 in Mae Moh district.

Units 8 and 9 have a combined power capacity of 540 megawatts with plans to upgrade to 660MW. Egat expects the two repowered units to have higher efficiency, less fuel consumption and lower emissions.

Units 8 and 9 are running on standby mode, and two power generators under the units will be decommissioned in 2022.

TLT Consultants was appointed to conduct the public hearing in order to make the environmental and health impact assessment report. Egat plans to finish the process by the end of July.

Benjaporn Boonyapookana, TLT's environmental specialist, said the public hearing is expected to provide information to locals involved with the project.

"We will collect their opinions on the impact of repowering power generators in a bid to resolve possible problems," she said.

The repowering plan for the Mae Moh power plant is in line with the new version of the national power development plan (2018-37) to maintain power security in the northern and upper-central regions.

Patana Sangsriroujana, Egat's deputy governor for policy and planning, said the repowering plan budget has increased from 35 billion baht in previous estimations to 37 billion baht.

Mae Moh is Thailand's first coal-fired power plant and has been operated by Egat since 1975.
Lignite coal from the Mae Moh basin serves the power plant.

Egat runs 10 units in the same location, producing 2,400 megawatts from Units 4 to 13. Units 1 to 3 were decommissioned during 1999-2000.

The Mae Moh plant can supply 50% of electricity to the North, 30% to the central region and 20% to the Northeast.

"The power generators at Units 8 and 9 are nearly 30 years old, and this coal-fired power plant is one of the country's major sources of power," Mr Patana said.

But Egat's power generator units in Mae Moh are ageing, he said, and Egat is proceeding with the repowering plan for Units 4 to 7 by completing construction for the power generator replacements.

Egat will start a test-run period soon before commencing commercial operations in the second half of 2019.

The replacement of Units 4 to 7 and the repowering project were approved by the government on Aug 19, 2014. The four units had combined capacity of 560MW.

The cabinet on Feb 26 approved expansion of the total power capacity to 655MW.

Mr Patana said the replacement and repowering project will use lignite coal for power generation with ultra-supercritical technology, which is the most modern and requires 20% less fuel for power generation.

This result is seen in lower CO2 emissions compared with the former subcritical technology.

"Egat wants to ensure that emissions released during the power generation process are better than the standard criteria and not a source of PM2.5 particles," Mr Patana said. "The PM2.5 level in Mae Moh district is lower than in nearby provinces."

He said the Mae Moh power plant will be developed in the future as a smart city with efficient power management.

The state-run Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand plans to repower two existing units of the Mae Moh coal-fired power plant in Lampang.

[huahin4ever]

This could be interesting if it works. A lot of secrecy though and even Google Earth has the site blurred out!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

https://earth.app.goo.gl/LZCvb2[IMG]htt ... bfcb01.jpg[/IMG]

YNWA

[Nereus]

This post is also about the technology, rather than the actual social disruption. In a country that has just the one power grid, the loss of just two stations(sometimes referred to just as "generators"), should not lead to widespread outages.
Some of the problems with more and more "renewable" sources of power, such as wind and solar, is the very delicate balance with these systems connected to a grid with traditional thermal powered generators. The safety systems built into and designed to protect particularly wind power systems, do not have the capacity to absorb transient "glitches" or short period faults in the same way as big thermal power stations do. It is a very complex subject, but one that needs to be considered as more and more older stations are replaced with "renewable" sources of supply.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
UK power cut: National Grid promises to learn lessons from blackout

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49302996

National Grid has said it will "learn the lessons" after nearly one million people across England and Wales lost power on Friday.

But director of operations Duncan Burt told the BBC that its systems "worked well" after the "incredibly rare event" of two power stations disconnecting.

He said he did not believe that a cyber-attack or unpredictable wind power generation was to blame.
The government has announced an investigation into what happened.

Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom said she is asking the Energy and Emergencies Executive Committee to carry out the investigation, which will look at whether National Grid's procedures are "fit for purpose".

Regulator Ofgem has demanded an "urgent detailed report" into what went wrong.

It said it could take enforcement action, including a fine, after train passengers were stranded, traffic lights failed to work and thousands of homes lost power during the blackout.

National Grid power was restored by 17:40 BST on Friday but some train services continued to be disrupted on Saturday.

The power cut happened at about 17:00 BST on Friday, National Grid said, with blackouts across the midlands, the south east, south west, north west and north east of England, and Wales.

National Grid said its systems were not to blame.

Industry experts said a gas-fired power station at Little Barford, Bedfordshire, failed at 16:58 followed, two minutes later, by the Hornsea offshore wind farm disconnecting from the grid.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Burt acknowledged the "immense disruption" the blackout had caused.
He said the near-simultaneous loss of two generators was more than the grid was routinely prepared for, prompting automatic safety systems to shut off power to some places.

"We think that worked well; we think the safety protection systems across the industry, on generators and on the network, worked well to secure and keep the grid safe, to make sure that we preserved power to the vast proportion of the country," he said.

But he said the industry needed to examine whether these safety systems were set up correctly to have "minimal impact" on people's daily lives.

RWE, owner of the Little Barford power station, said it shut down temporarily on Friday as a routine response to a technical issue, and called for National Grid and Ofgem to investigate the "wider system issues".

And Orsted, the owner of the Hornsea offshore wind farm, said automatic systems on Hornsea One "significantly reduced" power around the same time others failed.

A spokesperson added: "We are investigating the cause, working closely with National Grid System Operator, which balances the UK's electricity system."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49305250

UK power cut: Why it caused so much disruption

Why did the power stations fail?

It started with a routine blip - the gas-fired power station at Little Barford in Bedfordshire shut down at 16:58 BST due to a technical issue.

Then, a second power station, the new Hornsea offshore wind farm, also "lost load" - meaning the turbines were still moving, but power was not reaching the grid.

Two power stations shutting down almost simultaneously is "a very rare event", says David Hunter, energy analyst at Schneider Electric. "That took the National Grid by surprise."

He says an investigation into the causes may show that the two failures were "coincidental and unconnected", adding there have been occasions when two generators shut down independently before.

But he said a power station dropping off the grid can also create a "domino effect", where other generators buckle under the strain of making up for the shortfall in power.

Was wind power to blame?

Despite high winds on Friday, National Grid's director of operations Duncan Burt said the shutdowns had "nothing to do with changes in wind speed or the variability of wind".

Experts say there is no reason to think wind farms are more likely than other generators to disconnect from the grid.
But they say renewable energy such as wind power can create problems for the National Grid.

"Gas and coal-fired power stations have more flexibility. When one drops off it's easier for another to pick up the slack," Mr Hunter says.

Wind power is less effective as a "shock absorber" to shifts in supply and demand, according to the energy analyst.
He said National Grid was designing systems that were intended to cope with increasing amounts of renewable energy and those associated problems - but it was "too early to say" if it was a factor in Friday's power cuts.

Why did parts of the grid shut down?

The National Grid has to maintain an electrical frequency of 50Hz. When supply falls and demand remains high, the frequency drops - to 48.9Hz in this case, well below the accepted level.

The wrong frequency can be dangerous, says Mr Hunter, causing damage to the UK electricity infrastructure.
National Grid says its automated systems kick in to stop any damage, chiefly by cutting off parts of the grid to reduce overall demand.

Stuck on a train with no food or toilets

But Lord Adonis, a former chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission, has questioned the design of the automated systems if one of the first things to be affected was the national transport system.
He says National Grid needs to ensure "when something like this happens - two power stations going down - it doesn't lead to the whole country grinding to a halt".

Why did it take so long to fix the problems?

The blackouts were resolved relatively quickly. The power stations were back in action after 15 minutes and National Grid says local power suppliers were meeting demand by 17:40 BST.

But that is little comfort to passengers like Lawal Brown, who boarded a Thameslink train at Stevenage at 16:45. It took nearly six hours before he was evacuated onto another train and many more before he made it home.

Network Rail said the blackout affected signalling systems and power supply equipment across a large part of the rail system, but backup systems stepped in.

That still meant some delays because of safety requirements, says Nick King, network services director for Network Rail.

But he says further difficulties were caused by a "major systems failure" on "one particular fleet of trains". Thameslink has acknowledged that its trains required a technician to restart them after the power cut.

Mr King says this caused "significant disruption" in parts of the network, although Network Rail, train operators and police worked "flat out" to rescue stranded passengers.

[Nereus]

The UK's giant aircraft carriers

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/id ... t_carriers

A century ago the UK started work on the world's first purpose-built aircraft carrier.

Soon the first jets will fly off the massive deck of her latest successor - the giant HMS Queen Elizabeth. Along with her sister ship, HMS Prince of Wales, they’re the largest warships ever to be built for the Royal Navy.

The navy and the government believe they’re a statement of global ambition and intent. But there are critics who wonder whether the UK has made a huge mistake.

Britain's two new aircraft carriers are leviathans and an extraordinary feat of British engineering. Standing on board, it's hard not to be impressed by the sheer scale.

Inside the labyrinth of passageways - wider and more spacious than those on the older US Nimitz-class carriers - you'll find a chapel, a hospital and five galleys to feed the 700-plus crew.

That figure rises to 1,600 when you add the flight crews, engineers and Royal Marines who might also be on board. Even fully crewed there's still plenty of room. The generously sized sleeping cabins are a far cry from the cramped conditions of most warships.

There are five gyms to burn off the calories, though crew members can clock up 20,000 steps - as far as eight miles (13km) - during their average working day.

The 65,000-tonne HMS Queen Elizabeth is longer than the Houses of Parliament and, from keel to the top of the highest mast, taller than London’s Nelson’s Column. You could fit three football pitches on her massive flight deck.

She has been built to carry up to 36 new F-35 stealth jets, as well as helicopters. But in reality she'll routinely sail with fewer than half that number.

The first jets will fly off her deck in flight trials taking place off the east coast of the US this autumn. And she'll sail on her first “operational deployment” in 2021.

HMS Queen Elizabeth is like a small town. Her engines could provide enough power to run tens of thousands of homes.

The ship, and her sister carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, may have been inspired by US Navy equivalents, but the design is uniquely British.

The bulky angular appearance is, in part, down to how she's been assembled. Sections have been built in shipyards across the UK - Glasgow, Hebburn, on the Tyne, Appledore, in North Devon, Portsmouth and Birkenhead - and then ferried to Rosyth, in Scotland, to be welded together.

Sharing the work was a political, as well as a practical, decision. Rosyth, with its large dry dock, was chosen as the main assembly site when construction work began in 2009. It was just up the coast from the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s constituency.

Unlike most other aircraft carriers, the Queen Elizabeth class has two “islands", or towers, protruding from the flight deck.

The forward island houses the bridge for the ship's navigation. The aft island is the flight-control - or Flyco - tower. Large floor-to-ceiling windows on both the bridge and in the Flyco give the crew an unparalleled view of the flight deck.

The Royal Navy argues that having two separate islands will allow the carrier to continue operating should one be damaged or destroyed.

But there's another reason. The towers cover the ships' two exhausts and funnels.

While US and French carriers are nuclear powered, the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales run on two large gas-turbine and four diesel engines.

They'll have to be refuelled regularly. Four new tankers have been ordered to do the job - all built in South Korea, not UK shipyards.

For almost a century the massive bulk and distinctive profile of a carrier on the horizon has marked the ultimate representation of military might. It is “gunboat diplomacy” on steroids.

It's been said that the first question a US president asks in a crisis is: “Where's the nearest carrier?”

In 1918, after several years of British and American experimentation with carriers, the UK commissioned HMS Argus, originally designed as an ocean liner but adapted while under construction, to be the world's first full-length flat-deck carrier.

The same year the UK started work on its first purpose-built carrier, HMS Hermes.

After World War Two the British experimented with steam-powered catapults - an innovation that was to become the standard way to launch aircraft at sea. In many ways the Royal Navy led the rest of the world.

As Britain's global influence shrank, so did its navy and the size of its aircraft carriers. By the 1990s the Royal Navy had three small “light” carriers - HMS Invincible, HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal. These were primarily designed to carry helicopters to hunt down Russian submarines during the Cold War.

But along with the Harrier jump jet, they kept the Royal Navy in the carrier business.

Retaining the capability had proved vital during the Falklands War in 1982. Britain sent two carriers - HMS Invincible and the older HMS Hermes - to the South Atlantic.

They provided air cover for the vulnerable task force while 8,000 miles from home. Without the carriers and their Harrier jets, few believe it would have been possible to recapture the islands.

An aircraft carrier is a floating piece of sovereign territory which, in theory, has the ability to manoeuvre over 70% of the world's surface.

Commodore Andy Betton, the UK carrier strike group commander, says it can deliver “a meaningful and credible fighting force” anywhere in the world without having to worry about asking for another country's permission.

The last of the light carriers and their Harrier jump jets were scrapped as part of the substantial cuts of the 2010 defence and security review. It was a decision largely based on the state of the budget.

By the time HMS Queen Elizabeth goes on her first deployment, Britain will have been without an aircraft carrier for more than a decade.

But the truth is the UK has managed without.

Throughout that time Britain has still been able to launch air strikes around the world from land - in Afghanistan, against Libya in 2011, or more recently against the Islamic State group. At Akrotiri, in Cyprus, Britain already has a permanent base in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea.

Britain's lack of an aircraft carrier has caused, for some, a dent in national pride rather than a debilitating gap in military operations.

But it certainly has made a difference to how the UK is perceived by allies.

In 2014, the former US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, warned that without aircraft carriers Britain would not have the “full spectrum” of military capabilities and therefore risked its position as a full military partner of the US.

Perceptions matter.
An aircraft carrier is a statement of intent and global ambition as well as a very visible projection of military power. That's why the US Navy has 10. China has one and is building another. Russia and France each have a carrier and have now been joined by India.

The UK's investment in these new carriers was a political, as much as a military, decision.

Nick Childs, a naval analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, says that when Tony Blair's government decided to press ahead with the carrier project in 1998 “it was a deliberate decision to step up the strategic ladder”.

The Royal Navy is already referring to the new ships as Britain's “conventional deterrent” - a complement to the nuclear deterrent of Trident missiles carried by the four Vanguard-class submarines.

In the words of the captain of the first of these carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth, “it's going to be an iconic symbol of British naval power”.

Her captain, Commodore Jerry Kyd, boldly predicts the carriers will put the Royal Navy and the UK “back in the premier league” of the world's maritime powers.

The new carriers are built on a scale that defies the realities of a shrinking Royal Navy and smaller defence budget.
The two ships have cost more than £6bn to build. That's almost double the original budget, although the Navy is keen to highlight that they've been built to last for the next 50 years.

Given the parlous state of the UK's finances in 2010, David Cameron's coalition government briefly thought about scrapping the whole programme. But ministers found out that cancelling the contract would have cost them more in penalty fees than pressing ahead.

Then there was talk of selling off, or “mothballing”, one of the carriers. In the end, it was decided both would be entering service - stretching the Royal Navy's already limited resources.

But there are already doubts over whether Britain can afford that number. Earlier this year the Commons Public Accounts Committee warned the entire carrier strike programme left the defence budget “financially exposed”.

Among the concerns highlighted by MPs were fluctuations in the value of the pound, post-Brexit, making the F-35 even more expensive.

The National Audit Office estimates the costs of building the two new carriers, along with the initial order of F-35 jets and the Merlin Helicopters that will provide early-warning radar, will be more than £14bn.

Costs will inevitably rise. The navy has still to work out how it will transport people and equipment on and off the carrier while at sea. It might mean purchasing new US tilt-rotor aircraft, like the Osprey.

And operating the carriers and their jets won't be cheap, either.

It costs the US Navy more than $100m (£78m) a year to keep just one of their larger Nimitz-class carriers at sea, not including the costs of flying operations, ammunition and the salaries of the crew.

The UK Ministry of Defence hasn't been able to provide figures for the running costs of the new vessels. But Greg Bagwell, a former RAF air marshal, believes it'll be a strain on already limited resources.

He says Britain “does not have the money, people or capacity” to run the carriers as the navy would like.

Carriers don't sail around the world alone. They are sent as a “strike group”.

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Philip Jones says that in “high threat” areas Britain's carriers would be protected by two air-defence destroyers, two anti-submarine warfare frigates and an attack submarine - along with a tanker and a “solid support” ship carrying food and ammunition.

That would be a sizeable chunk of the Royal Navy’s shrinking fleet.

The navy has struggled with crewing and maintenance of its hunter-killer submarines. Last year there was a short period when all seven were tied up.

Navies around the world use “the rule of thirds”. For every ship at sea, one is getting ready for a deployment, while another is back in port, undergoing maintenance. That leaves little spare capacity.

We should in the future expect to see more auxiliary ships, minehunters and patrol vessels doing the tasks of frigates - whether helping hurricane-hit British overseas territories or escorting Russian warships through the English Channel.

Dr Peter Roberts, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, says the navy simply will not have the ability to protect its carriers “from all threats from all-comers on its own”.

He believes Britain will be “wholly reliant on European, US or Australian allies”.

That view has been echoed by the government's national security adviser, Sir Mark Sedwill, who earlier this year signalled to MPs that the carriers would be part of a larger international task group in times of danger.

In reality the Royal Navy is already a shadow of what it used to be. Critics around the world have painted a picture of a navy that once “ruled the waves” being in perpetual decline.

By the time of the Falklands War in 1982, the Royal Navy had half that number - 60 warships.
Further defence cuts, after the 2010 strategic defence and security review, took it to its current level - a new low of 19 frigates and destroyers.

The navy argues that today's warships are far more sophisticated than those of the past. One new one is worth many old ones, so the argument goes.

But then again, today's British warships are hardly armed to the teeth. Most have empty spaces on board for weapons the navy can't currently afford - like cruise missiles or the most up-to-date anti-ship missiles and anti-submarine torpedoes.

The navy has struggled to crew one carrier, let alone two. Such is the personnel shortage that a frigate and destroyer have been tied up in Portsmouth as “harbour training ships” for the past 18 months.

But the Royal Navy has, to some extent, prepared itself for the challenge.

While a US carrier has more than 3,000 sailors on board, HMS Queen Elizabeth's crew is made up of just 700 - or 1,600 with all of the flight crew and marines.

The navy argues it has been able to keep numbers low by relying on automation. Moving bombs and missiles to the flight deck, for instance, is done by a series of machines and lifts.

But Cdre Kyd has already hinted he might not have enough people on board HMS Queen Elizabeth. He has described the basic crew of 700 as a “good starting point”. On a recent visit to the ship I was told the crew numbers had already gone up to nearer 800.

The Royal Navy is staking its future on two very expensive warships that will put a considerable strain on already limited resources.

The military historian, Sir Max Hastings, has called them “symbols of everything that's wrong with British defence policy”. He provocatively predicted they'll be two “giant embarrassments” consuming “immense resources while possessing almost zero utility”.

Before he resigned as defence secretary last year, Sir Michael Fallon, dismissed the criticism. He said “armchair” commentators should “shut up” and described the carrier as “a highly versatile and potent force” that would be capable of humanitarian and disaster relief as well as “high-end warfighting”.

Gavin Williamson, his successor, said the carrier showed the rest of the world that the UK was “not a nation in retreat” and that it would “strike fear into the hearts of all our enemies” and allow Britain to “project its influence and its power right across the world”.

The carriers have to some extent become a totem for the ambitions of a post-Brexit “global Britain”.

They will certainly be a welcome addition for the UK's closest military ally - the United States.

The US has been a big influence on Britain re-entering the small group of nations operating “supercarriers”.

The US Navy has also helped its UK counterpart to retain the skills it needs to operate aircraft carriers. UK pilots have been allowed to fly off US carriers and there's been help in training UK flight-deck crews.

But Britain's decision to invest in its biggest warships in an era of austerity might look to some like delusions of grandeur.

Nick Childs acknowledges there might be a perception, as a result of Britain’s history, of “a self-consciousness about trying to revive past imperial glories, or having continuing pretensions of being a pocket superpower”.

The Royal Navy will now be able to plug the gaps for the Americans when they can't send one of their own carriers to the Gulf.
There are even new facilities being built in the middle east to support them.

The US Marine Corps’ F-35 jets will be on HMS Queen Elizabeth's first operational deployment. They'll certainly help fill the massive deck early on when the UK will have a relatively small number of F-35s of its own.

Cdre Betton says that “allies will help share the burden of resources” and “expand the authority of working as part of a coalition”. In other words, give it more international clout.

But it's the UK that will have to pick up the bills for operating these enormous ships.
Greg Bagwell says there's a danger the ships will “distort and skew” Britain's armed forces.

The Queen Elizabeth-class carriers are nearly three times the size of the old Invincible-class.
They're also bigger than France's carrier, Charles de Gaulle, and only slightly smaller than the US Nimitz-class.

Some argue the navy could - and should - have managed with smaller vessels - on the scale of the Invincible light carriers.

The Italian Navy's new Trieste-class carrier, currently being built, is a third of the size and, in theory, a third of the cost of HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Dr Roberts says: “We've built something huge to do the same thing that we were doing 20 years ago much more cheaply.”

Cdre Betton insists “size gives you versatility” and “political and strategic choice”. He argues the old Invincible-class carriers would not have been able to provide enough jets at a “sustained” level.

The carrier can also be loaded with a mix of different helicopters - including Merlins (general-purpose and anti-submarine capability), Wildcats (multi-role), Chinooks (heavy-lift and transport) and Apache ground-attack helicopters.

The reality is that because the nation has invested so much in these carriers they'll have to be jacks of all trades.
Just to run the carriers the navy is having to get rid of other ships. It has already sold the ageing HMS Ocean, its helicopter landing ship.

Ocean was used to launch Apache helicopters during the Libya campaign in 2011 and most recently to help last year in hurricane relief in the Caribbean. The navy needed Ocean's crew for the second carrier.

It is also having to work out whether it can afford to operate and crew its two amphibious assault ships, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark.

The biggest break with convention is the way Queen Elizabeth will launch and recover aircraft.

Most aircraft carriers operate catapults to launch their jets and arresting wires to recover them - what's called “cats and traps”. The Queen Elizabeth class does not.

The new F-35B jets will take off from a “ski jump” at the front of the ship and then hover to land - similar to the way Harrier jump jets flew on and off HMS Ark Royal.

In theory the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers could be fitted with “cats and traps”. This was considered in 2012 but was deemed too expensive - the estimated cost of fitting them to just one carrier went up from £500m to £2bn. Some in the Navy still hope they'll be retrofitted at a later date to operate other aircraft - such as unmanned drones.

Without “cats and traps” there will be limits to the other nations that can use the British carriers.

The US-designed F-35 will be Britain's first “stealth” fighter - designed to strike deep into enemy territory while being harder to detect by enemy radar.

Three variants of this fighter have been developed - the A variant for land bases, the B variant for short take-offs and vertical landings (STOVL) and the C variant for aircraft carriers fitted with “cats and traps”.

The production cost for each aircraft has been $120m (£95m). Software, spares and support will add to the final bill.

The main contractor, Lockheed Martin, says that as production ramps up, the cost of each aircraft will drop considerably. British defence firms are involved in the project, making about 15% of the jet, but it's still expensive.

Greg Bagwell suggests there's “no way” Britain can afford to keep the 24 F-35s on board the carrier for routine deployments.

He adds that, in contrast to the Royal Navy, the US Navy will be flying their older F-18 jets alongside their F-35s.
The older cheaper jets will be the workhorses. In contrast, Mr Bagwell says, “we'll be using a thoroughbred for donkey rides”.

But Cdre Betton, who's overseeing the Royal Navy's carrier strike group, says 24 is the “minimum credible number to support an operation”. It signals a potential fight between the RAF and the Royal Navy over numbers and who has operational control of the aircraft - especially in the early days when numbers of the aircraft available are low.

The F-35's “stealth” capability and sophisticated sensors will give the navy an edge gathering large amounts of data and intelligence in dangerous places.

But it won't be easy for the F-35 to relay all the information securely - not least to a ship with limited bandwidth. The navy says this challenge will eventually be overcome.

Russia has already called HMS Queen Elizabeth a “large convenient target”.

Many nations are investing heavily in anti-ship missiles. China can produce hundreds of its DF-21D ballistic ship missiles for the cost of a single carrier. The Pentagon estimates the range of such a missile is more than 1,000 miles.

Russia and Iran are also acquiring anti-ship missiles as well as submarines - another obvious threat to the carrier.

But you don't need sophisticated weaponry to target a large ship. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps has practised swarming a US carrier as it passes through the narrow Strait of Hormuz.

Dozens of small speed boats could potentially be used to overwhelm a carrier's defences.

And no-one can discount the possibility of terrorist groups getting hold of low-tech anti-ship missiles, boats or drones loaded with explosives to target a carrier near the shore.

However, Adm Jones believes that the great advantage of a carrier strike group is that it's always a “moving target”.

The captain of HMS Queen Elizabeth, Cdre Kyd, also insists that finding a carrier in a large ocean isn't that easy, especially when the enemy has to penetrate “layers of defence” from the other ships, aircraft and submarines that'll protect it.

It's also worth remembering they'll be in service for half a century - the final captain of HMS Queen Elizabeth probably has not yet been born.

But Dr Roberts says there's a danger that the nation has built a narrative that says these two carriers represent “the essence of Britain”. That makes them very tempting targets for any adversary.

There is the danger, too, that with the Royal Navy's resources and efforts focused so much on the carriers, it becomes little more than a “carrier escort fleet”.

Given the huge pressures on the defence budget, some will ask whether these are ships the nation can really afford.
Cdre Betton insists there is no “buyer's remorse”.

There are still good reasons why Britain has invested so much money and its national prestige in building these two massive warships.

The UK is a maritime nation. The carriers will be able to project British military power right across the globe for the next half-century. They will be used to deepen defence relationships with key allies - most notably the US.

But the sheer cost of running these two behemoths at a time when the defence budget is already under huge strain may make it difficult for the Royal Navy to keep its ambitions afloat.

Author
Jonathan Beale
Animated graphic
George Spencer
Original photography
Emma Lynch
Additional photography
Alamy
Getty Images
EPA
Press Association
Royal Navy
Online production
Ben Milne
Editor
Finlo Rohrer
Publication date
24 August 2018
Built with Shorthand
All images subject to copyright

[Nereus]

It appears that as with cars, the electric motor is not a problem, but the battery is.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
'World's first' fully-electric commercial flight takes off

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50738983

An all-electric powered seaplane has taken flight in Vancouver, Canada, in what the operators describe as a "world first" for the aviation industry.

The short test flight by Harbour Air and magniX involved a six-passenger aircraft fitted with an electric motor.
The companies said it was a first step to building the "world's first all-electric commercial fleet".

The push to electric could help slash carbon emissions in the high-polluting aviation sector.

"This historic flight signifies the start of the third era in aviation - the electric age," Harbour Air and magniX said in a statement.
The flight involved a six-passenger DHC-2 de Havilland Beaver with a 750-horsepower (560 kW) magni500 propulsion system.

Launched at the Paris Air Show earlier this year, Australian company magniX said its propulsion system aims to provide a "clean and efficient way to power airplanes".

Canadian seaplane operator Harbour Air hopes to electrify its entire fleet by 2022, provided it secures safety and regulatory approvals.

Electric ambitions

Shifting to electric engines is seen as one way to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the aviation sector.
It comes amid growing concern from travellers over the polluting impacts of flying.

In the UK, aviation is set to be the biggest source of emissions by 2050.

A recent survey by Swiss bank UBS found people are beginning to cut air travel over concern for the environment - as the Swedish concept of "flygskam" or "flight shame" appeared to spread.

Still, electric aircraft that can travel long distances remain a big challenge for the sector.

Electrical motors, generators, power distribution and controls have advanced rapidly but battery technology has not.
An aircraft like the one flown in Vancouver could only fly about 160km (100 miles) on lithium battery power, according to AFP.

"The [flight] range now is not where we'd love it to be, but it's enough to start the revolution," said magniX chief executive Roei Ganzarski, the news agency reported.

_110086593_dddebbb7-a702-455f-8990-156548e10c41.jpg (56.96 KiB) Viewed 1676 times

[pharvey]

Cyclists give my @rse a headache in the UK - especially on the winding roads in the Wye Valley However, (as long as not allowed on pavements) these seem a cracking idea. Travel is certainly going to change after the Coronavirus and I'm sure the UK (E-Bikes currently banned)/Europe will be looking towards this technology, especially in cities. Asia and especially China already have a prevalence of mopeds/bikes, many of which are electric or "electrically assisted", but this is different - ease of transportation a huge factor.

Full Story: - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52651470

Inflatable E-Scooter That Fits in Backpack Unveiled

"An inflatable e-scooter compact enough to be stored inside a commuter's backpack has been unveiled in Japan.
The Poimo, developed by the University of Tokyo, can be inflated in just over a minute, using an electric pump.
The creators said they wanted to create a vehicle that minimised the potential for injury in the event of an accident.
However, experts say e-scooter rules still need to be clarified by the government before such modes of transport can be considered safe.

The Poimo has five solid, detachable components:

* Two sets of wheels
* An electric motor
* A battery
* Handlebars with a built-in wireless controller

It is made primarily out of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), which is already used to make products such as airbeds.
The vehicle weighs about 5.5kg (12lb) in total.
But researchers hope to reduce this for subsequent prototypes.

"We believe that our inflatable mobility, which is different from existing mobility systems and creates new relationships with people, will be useful for the city in the future," said Ryuma Niiyama, part of the development team at the University of Tokyo.

But e-scooters are currently banned on UK roads.

That could change next month, though, following an urgent government review of the legislation."

[HHTel]

(E-Bikes currently banned)

AFAIK E-bikes are not banned in the UK, E-Scooters are.
E-Bikes must be ridden by over 14's and have pedals.

[pharvey]

(E-Bikes currently banned)

AFAIK E-bikes are not banned in the UK, E-Scooters are.
E-Bikes must be ridden by over 14's and have pedals.

Sorry - yes, quite correct HHTel, my mistake. Actually several stories last year I remember with Muppets riding on pavements (at speed) and injuring pedestrians. A major reason many cyclists pi$$ me off - the rules simply don't apply to them!!

Never-the-less, I like this idea as long as "policing" is brought in.

[EDIT] This is an interesting link regarding the above: -

https://www.techadvisor.co.uk/buying-ad ... k-3668587/

Would be interesting to know how these regulations compare to Thailand (not that any would be policed)...

[HHTel]

The days of being stopped as a teenager on a bike with no lights seem to be long gone. Riding on the pavement was an absolute no-no and a strong word from the local bobby used to do the trick.
However, younger kids (say 5,6,7,8) should ride on the pavement or in a bike lane if there is one. The traffic on the road is far too dangerous for very young riders. In my day, the odd motor car wasn't a problem!!

God! Am I really that old? Yep!

[STEVE G]

Cyclists give my @rse a headache in the UK - especially on the winding roads in the Wye Valley However, (as long as not allowed on pavements) these seem a cracking idea. Travel is certainly going to change after the Coronavirus and I'm sure the UK (E-Bikes currently banned)/Europe will be looking towards this technology, especially in cities.

I've been using an E-bike to commute for about a year here in Europe and it's brilliant. Because you can legally use cycle paths, it's much safer on the route I use than a conventional scooter or motorbike because I can avoid a large highway interchange that would be otherwise suicidal on two wheels.

[pharvey]

Cyclists give my @rse a headache in the UK - especially on the winding roads in the Wye Valley However, (as long as not allowed on pavements) these seem a cracking idea. Travel is certainly going to change after the Coronavirus and I'm sure the UK (E-Bikes currently banned)/Europe will be looking towards this technology, especially in cities.

I've been using an E-bike to commute for about a year here in Europe and it's brilliant. Because you can legally use cycle paths, it's much safer on the route I use than a conventional scooter or motorbike because I can avoid a large highway interchange that would be otherwise suicidal on two wheels.

Cycle paths - superb. Not enough in the UK, and the way many cyclists ride is dangerous to all. Seperate cyclists from road traffic and pedestrians and tax/register them (although that's a subject for a completely different thread).

As a question, what is the limited speed/power of your bike? Can you use pavements?

[HHTel]

Holland is a good example of that but there is the advantage of being a flat country. No hills.
Spent several holidays there when the kids were young. Cycle paths are excellent.

[STEVE G]

As a question, what is the limited speed/power of your bike? Can you use pavements?

I forget the exact power but it has the Bosch drive that most decent E-bikes use. You have to pedal to get electrical power and it cuts off at 25kmh,( you can go faster by pedaling ), which means here in Luxembourg, you can use it anywhere you can use a conventional bicycle, so not on the pavement. It is legal in pedestrian areas, in parks and on cycle paths which makes it a very quick way of getting around the city, it's certainly faster than driving!