Mickling Barf was designed and built be renowned local architects Rex and Jenifer Critchlow
An unusual house built by husband-and-wife architects for themselves and their family to live in has earned “national heritage” status.
Mickling Barf, in Hatcliffe, near Barnoldby-le-Beck, was constructed in three phases between 1962 and 1983 by Rex and Jenifer Critchlow. Laid out to a cranked 30/60 geometric design, with two main wings and an adjoining annexe, the architects’ model shows how the house was planned from the outset to be extended as the family grew, according to Historic England.
“The house retains in its second bathroom a GRP [glass reinforced plastic] pod formed in two halves, designed from a patent by Rex Critchlow which was later sold to Ideal Standard,” Historic England’s description notes. “The garden and landscaping surrounding the house was also designed by the Critchlows and the plans executed over time. The house remained the family home of the Critchlows until 2022.”
Grade two-listed Mickling Barf is among a total of 227 historic buildings, including 16 quirky examples, to be added to the National Heritage List for England in 2023. It has been designated on the grounds of its architectural merit and historic interest.
Rex and Jenifer, who met while studying architecture at Sheffield University and married in 1960, built the main part of the house between 1963 and 1965, added an office and bathroom in the 1970s and an annexe space in 1982. The couple worked in London before moving to Lincolnshire to gradually take over the architectural practice of Jenifer’s father, J. Fred Pye, on his retirement.
Mickling Barf is said to show influences of Frank Lloyd Wright – who adopted a “honeycomb” geometry for his 1930s Hanna House – in its construction and has a hexagonal-shaped sunken living room. Wide use of hexagonal floor tiles throughout echoes the angles of the building.
Though built of simple materials such as timber and brick, the house’s grid design allows for “unusual and interesting spaces” and “fluidity and abundant natural light”, says Historic England. “As an example of a family home built by the architects for themselves, the joint design by husband and wife gives additional interest.”
When the Critchlows moved to Grimsby, Jenifer worked for a local authority before largely giving up architecture, once her children began to arrive, though she maintained an interest in landscaping and wrote a guide to the local church. Rex Critchlow led a Sixties project on what had originally been a small terraced hotel amid houses and shops to help create an expanded Kingsway Hotel, in Cleethorpes.
An application by the Twentieth Century Society (C20), which campaigns for outstanding buildings, led to the designation of Mickling Barf, after it was advertised for sale. C20 said the property was “a strong example of post-war domestic architecture that survives remarkably intact”.
“The house was occupied by the Critchlows until 2022, with this continuity of ownership meaning the external and internal features of the building have not seen significant alteration in 60 years,” C20 said. “The remarkably intact interior of Mickling Barf holds a range of striking original features, with what Rex Critchlow referred to as ‘honest and cheap’ materials used throughout the house.”
Duncan Wilson, chief executive of Historic England, said:
“A range of remarkable historic buildings and sites are added to the list each year and 2023 is no exception. We’ve examined and protected some amazing sites this year, which together give us a window into our rich and varied historic environment.”
Heritage Minister Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay said:
“The striking range of places listed this year are a vivid demonstration of the richness and variety of our national heritage. The great work done by Historic England will ensure that they are protected for future generations to enjoy – and to learn about the fascinating people and stories connected with them.”
Source: Grimsby Live
Keep people safe from future dangers of asbestos, regulator warns
- The dangerous material was banned from construction 25 years ago
- Asbestos may still be present in buildings built before 2000
- New HSE campaign emphasises legal duties to manage asbestos
Buildings that people use in their daily lives, such as workplaces, schools and hospitals are the focus of a new campaign to keep people safe from asbestos.
Asbestos: Your Duty launching today, Monday 15 January, aims to improve understanding of what the legal duty to manage asbestos involves.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) wants anyone with responsibilities for buildings to do everything they must do to comply with the law and prevent exposure to this dangerous substance, which was widely used in post-war construction before it was completely banned in 1999.
The legal duty to manage asbestos covers a wide range of buildings such as museums, schools, hospitals, and places of worship, as well as workplaces like offices and factories.
Businesses and organisations responsible for premises built before the turn of the century, and especially those between 1950 and 1980 when the use of asbestos in construction was at its peak, must carry out the necessary checks and understand their legal responsibilities.
People who visit or work in these buildings will not be exposed if asbestos is properly contained. But it can become dangerous when disturbed or damaged.
Updated information, new templates (including an asbestos management plan template), and explanatory videos can be found on HSE’s website to help anyone who is unsure of their legal duties – or just need to refresh themselves – on what they need to do.
HSE will check how asbestos is managed when visiting a range of buildings – like schools and hospitals – requiring those responsible for managing asbestos risks to ensure they have the right arrangements in place.
Sarah Albon, HSE’s chief executive said: “To keep people safe from the harms of asbestos, a culture of safely managing asbestos is needed in our building industry and among those responsible for buildings.
“Asbestos exposure in Great Britain is still the single greatest cause of work-related deaths due to exposures decades ago.
“Together, we must protect people in the workplace and reduce future work-related ill health.”
Fylde nuclear site poised to produce new fuel technology that will help power UK
A nuclear fuel facility in Fylde could be key to powering the next generation of reactors.
The Springfields site at Salwick is one of only two in the UK with the potential to produce the special type of uranium that will be needed in the decades to come. Research into the fuel – known as “high-assay low enriched uranium (HALEU)” – is already being carried out at the plant, which is operated by Westinghouse UK.
Speaking after a visit on Thursday to the National Nuclear Laboratory at Springfields, Claire Coutinho, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, said there was
“a strong possibility” that there will be “a direct benefit for Lancashire and Cheshire”from the £300m that the government has this week committed to investing in the HALEU programme. The other facility with potential production capability is at Capenhurst, near Chester.
The cash commitment will enable the UK to become the first country outside of Russia to commercially produce HALEU, which it is hoped will help drive Vladimir Putin’s Russia out of the global energy market.
Ms. Coutinho said that the technology for advanced modular reactors (AMRs) is currently being developed and it is hoped to have the first demo model by 2030.
“The advanced nuclear fuel will then be ready in time for that fleet of AMRs, when [it] starts to come online. They are researching that type of fuel at the [National Nuclear Laboratory], which has been really important in the development of the work that we’re doing and the [government’s civil nuclear] roadmap. We will then be looking in the next phase at who could commercially produce it – and that’s the…stage which we will set out this year.”
“This is also a really important announcement when it comes to energy security – not just at home but also of our allies abroad. It’s really important that we don’t wean ourselves off Russian oil and gas only to be dependent on them for nuclear fuel,” Ms. Coutinho added.
The £300 million investment is part of plans to help deliver up to 24GW of reliable nuclear power by 2050 – the biggest expansion in capacity in 70 years and enough to meet a quarter of the UK’s electricity needs.
That ambition includes exploring the development of a GW-scale power plant as big as those at Sizewell in Suffolk and Hinkley in Somerset, which are capable of powering six million homes each, as well as a competition to develop small modular reactor technology.
Springfields has been producing nuclear fuel since 1946 and around a third of the UK’s low-carbon electricity comes from fuel manufactured at the site, in between Kirkham and Preston.
Ms. Coutinho described HALEU as a “highly efficient” fuel and said that the ability of advanced modular reactors to generate heat as well as electricity was going to make them “really useful when it comes to powering industry”.
However, she said that the UK was going to be “technology agnostic” over its nuclear future. To that end, a further £10m will be invested to develop the skills and sites needed to produce other advanced nuclear fuels.
“We’ll see out of these different types of technologies what will be the best value for the taxpayer and [provide] the best energy security for the country – and we’ll be making the decision on that basis,” the Secretary of State explained.
Source: The Gazette
The Global Offsite Construction Market latest research report examines the potential growth opportunities and trends in the development of the industry until 2030. Offsite Construction employing qualitative and quantitative methodologies, this report thoroughly analyzes the factors that drive and hinder market growth. It offers a detailed assessment of the market landscape, equipping companies with the essential information needed to make informed decisions about their business strategies and identify potential areas for growth.
According to the latest research, the global Offsite Construction market size was valued at USD 164903.73 million in 2022 and is expected to expand at a CAGR ( compound annual growth rate) of 8.5% during the forecast period, reaching USD 269035.09 million by 2028
In this research report Offsite Construction Market detailed analysis of business is mainly cover by Application, Residential, Commercial, Industrial, by Type, Prefab Construction, Modular Construction. The report provides conclusive information about the industry, making it easily accessible to readers and users. It is a valuable resource for businesses of all sizes to establish their commercial plans. The report presents statistical information in a simplified format.
Who are the top manufacturersof Offsite Construction Market?
- Red Sea Housing
- Dvele
- Laing O-Rourke
- Zhongtong Steel Structure Co.,Ltd
- ATCO
- Kleusberg GmbH & Co. (KG)
- Vaughan Buckley
- Broad Group
- Giant Containers Inc
- Sekisui House
- Skanska AB
- SG Blocks Inc
- Speed House Group of Companies
- Honomobo Corporation
- Anderco Pte. Ltd
The Reports Will Help with Solving the Following Inquiries:
- What is the current status of the Offsite Construction market request in different regions?
- How is the demand for Offsite Construction market segmented based on product types?
- What is the projected future development of the demand?
- How does the demand potential compare to other countries?
Offsite Construction Market Report Insights 2024-2030:
The report provides a thorough examination of the Offsite Construction market, encompassing its present and future goals, along with a competitive assessment of the industry. This evaluation is conducted considering application, type, and regional trends. Moreover, the report presents a summarized overview of the historical and current performance of prominent companies operating in the market.
Also the Offsite Construction market research study encompasses an assessment of the market’s possibilities, obstacles, risks, and factors that contribute to its growth as well as hinder it. Furthermore, the study investigates the potential for growth by examining and evaluating the challenges presented by new market entrants, competing products and services, and the overall competitive environment.
Key Points of Offsite Construction Market Report are: –
- Market Size Estimates: Offsite Construction market size estimation in terms of value and sales volume from 2018-2028
- Market Trends and Dynamics: Offsite Construction market drivers, opportunities, challenges, and risks
- Macro-economy and Regional Conflict: Influence of global inflation and Russia & Ukraine War on the Offsite Construction market
- Segment Market Analysis: Offsite Construction market value and sales volume by type and by application from 2018-2028
- Regional Market Analysis: Offsite Construction market situations and prospects in North America, Asia Pacific, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Africa
- Country-level Studies on the Offsite Construction Market: Revenue and sales volume of major countries in each region
- Offsite Construction Market Competitive Landscape and Major Players: Analysis of 10-15 leading market players, sales, price, revenue, gross, gross margin, product profile and application, etc.
- Trade Flow: Import and export volume of the Offsite Construction market in major regions.
- Offsite Construction Industry Value Chain: Offsite Construction market raw materials & suppliers, manufacturing process, distributors, downstream customers
- Offsite Construction Industry News, Policies & Regulation
Which Region are leading edge the Offsite Construction Market?
- North America (United States, Canada)
- Europe (Germany, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Russia, Netherlands, Turkey, Switzerland, Sweden)
- Asia Pacific (China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia)
- Latin America (Brazil, Mexico, Argentina)
- Middle East & Africa (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, South Africa)
The report covers: –
A brief overview of the research scope, as well as the definitions of the target market and the subdivisions.
Integrates and sketches the research findings and conclusions in a clear and explicit way.
Presents the competitive landscape by displaying the sales, revenue, and market shares of the top players. It also profiles the major market participants with their business introductions, sales, price, revenue, gross, growth rates, etc.
Breaks down the market by different product types and shares data correspondingly with the aim of helping the readers know how the market is distributed by type.\
Segments the Offsite Construction Market by downstream industry, with data covers sales, revenue, and growth rate tracing back to 2018.
Analyses of the whole market industrial chain, ranging from upstream raw materials to downstream customers, with regional conflicts taken into consideration.
Elaborates on market dynamics. Factors that drive, challenge, or restrain the market are all listed, together with industry news, opportunities, impacts of COVID-19, and SWOT analysis.
Shows the breakdown data at the regional level, which enables the readers to picture the regional competitive pattern of the market and learn about the revenue, sales, and market share of all the major regions.
Focuses on each and every of the major region, specifically, North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, Middle East & Africa. Sales, price, revenue, gross, gross margin, among others, will be all be presented.
Get a Sample Copy of the Offsite Construction Market Report 2024
The Federation of Master Builders (FMB) has expressed positivity for 2024, despite S&P Global/CIPS UK Construction PMI data indicating a decline in December 2023.
The S&P Global UK Construction PMI indicated another “solid fall” in UK construction activity,
however, according to the report, the December figures indicated the slowest decline for four months, since September, when the decline began.
Brian Berry, CEO at the FMB, reacted to the report:
“December’s Construction Output data once again shows a continued decline in house building rates, with commercial construction rates also down.
“There are, however, positive signs that the rate at which activity within the industry is declining is starting to slow, giving hope that 2024 may be a year when we finally start to see improvement.
“House building rates are still continuing to decline, and a comprehensive action plan is necessary if the UK is to deliver on the increased confidence of construction companies that 2024 will bring a rise in business activity.”
Source: Development Finance Today
TICA issues warning over AI-generated online training course
Trade body the Thermal Insulation Contractors Association (TICA) has issued a warning over AI-generated online training courses containing non-UK specific and outdated content.
Chris Ridge, TICA’s technical director, says one example offered a Level 1 certificate upon completion of the £39.99 thermal insulation course.
However, he found the listed contacts failed to link to social media accounts while there was no registered address or contact telephone number.
Mr Ridge said:
“Anyone signing up for online courses that may be generated using artificial intelligence should be aware that they may not contain the relevant information that meets UK compliance standards.
“I have seen examples of courses containing content that is non-UK specific and that is actually out of date.
“We advise anyone interested in signing up for an online course to ensure they are properly accredited by checking with their relevant trade organisation. It’s important to stress that artificial intelligence cannot deliver the quality of information required to evidence competence, but it can produce something that looks authentic to the uninitiated.
“It’s important for everyone in the construction industry to be mindful of such activities, because if it’s happening in the thermal insulation sector, it may be happening elsewhere.
“Trade associations such as TICA, work extremely hard to ensure the competence requirements laid out in the Building Safety Act are met and it is important that these standards are upheld.”
Source:
Decarbonisation and net zero carbon have become buzzwords in the construction industry and beyond, with many keen to express their green credentials – but what does it all mean? There are many similar sounding terms with slightly different meanings, and it is important to distinguish between these when discussing a route forward.
Carbon neutral is probably the easiest to achieve, particularly if you have deep pockets. Carbon neutrality simply means that all calculated carbon emissions have been offset to effectively neutralise the impact of them. The problem with this is it does not necessarily require any actual carbon reduction and carbon offsets can be purchased for as little as 10 USD per tonne.
The term net zero expands the definition to include all greenhouse gases usually expressed as a CO2 equivalent value. Furthermore, net zero is typically understood to require a reduction in carbon emissions first, with offsets only being the final step in the greenhouse gas mitigation hierarchy.
The differences are important as there are clear differences in outcomes. A company or building can claim to be carbon neutral by simply purchasing offsets. This often does nothing in the immediate term to reduce the emissions being emitted and contributing to climate change. For example, one of the preferred schemes is to plant trees. On face value this is a perfect initiative; trees absorb CO2 as they grow, they create habitats for wildlife and can reduce the ‘heat island’ effect which occurs when cities replace natural land cover with dense concentrations of buildings that absorb and retain heat.
The problem with this is that the typically quoted value of around one tonne of CO2 per tree is not realised until the tree is fully grown. This can take over 100 years, by which point, the damage has already been done.
“Carbon offsets – avoidance and removals | Vertree”
All of this is not to say that carbon offsetting should not be part of the solution. It can be an excellent funding mechanism for decarbonisation projects that may otherwise never see the light of day. Carbon offsets should still be utilised but only as a last resort, after all other avenues for active carbon reduction have been considered.
Putting Fabric first, second
Given the delayed carbon sequestration from planting trees, the construction industry is facing an urgent need to prioritise immediate carbon emissions over annual emissions from building operations. This new focus is vital to align with global climate goals and to understand the true environmental impact of construction projects.
The traditional “fabric first” approach has been an industry standard in reducing a building’s energy demand by focusing on the building’s envelope to minimise heat loss. This approach has led to strategies like increasing insulation to levels seen in passive house standards. However, with the ongoing shift towards a decarbonising grid, this emphasis on insulation may need to be reevaluated.
Carbon emissions from building operations are continually decreasing as energy production becomes cleaner. Consequently, the added insulation’s impact is diminishing, sometimes leading to diminishing returns. A prime example is the move from double to triple glazing, which requires up to 50% more glass and thicker insulation, resulting in an inherent increase in embodied carbon.
These increases in embodied carbon can take decades to pay back through operational energy savings and may never be achieved in some buildings’ lifespan. This brings forth a need for a more nuanced approach that doesn’t solely focus on U-values but also accounts for the whole life cycle impacts of the building. For instance, the construction industry can explore alternative materials like aerogels made from construction waste or wood fibres, which provide insulation with lower embodied carbon. Such innovative solutions can maintain high levels of insulation while reducing the overall carbon footprint.
The traditional hierarchy of design, which consists of reducing demand, improving efficiency, and incorporating renewable energy, also needs to be re-evaluated. The problem lies in its lack of consideration for the building’s whole life carbon perspective. Different buildings have different needs. For example, an old building with a gas-based system may still benefit significantly from insulation improvements, while a new, airtight building heated by high-efficiency heat pumps may not and such improvements are likely to increase the embodied carbon with minimal impact on the operational energy.
This variance emphasises the importance of life cycle carbon assessments early in the design process. Such assessments should inform major design decisions through construction, considering not only the building’s operational phase but also its construction, maintenance, and end-of-life stages. By shifting the focus from solely operational carbon to a more comprehensive life cycle view, the industry can better align with global sustainability goals.
The case for whole life carbon assessments is clear and assessing a building from cradle to grave is the only way to truly assess its impact, while designing with cradle-to-cradle principles in mind allows the design to consider the future and ensures that at the end of a building’s lifecycle, building materials can repurposed for future use as part of a circular economy.
To do this, the industry will need to rethink not only the design of the buildings, but the approach to design by incorporating the necessary expertise much earlier in the design process. It requires a major shift where short-term energy efficiency measures are balanced with long-term considerations of embodied carbon. The move towards considering immediate carbon emissions as more critical is not just a technological challenge but also a cultural one, requiring collaboration, innovation, and a willingness to redefine traditional practices. Only by embracing this holistic approach can the construction industry genuinely contribute to a low carbon future and reduce the greenwashing implications that can arise from only focusing on the more visible aspects of a building.
The Most Common Types of Dams Explained
A dam is a barrier that impounds water or underground streams. Dams generally serve the primary purpose of retaining water, while other structures such as floodgates or levees are used to manage or prevent water flow into specific land regions. The earliest known dams were built by Ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations, and since then dams have become common infrastructure worldwide, with over 58,000 large dams. Dams are constructed for a variety of purposes, including water supply, irrigation, power generation, flood prevention, navigation, recreation, and fish farming. The most common types of dams include embankment dams, gravity dams, arch dams, and buttress dams. Embankment dams are the most widespread, accounting for about two thirds of dams worldwide. They are constructed from compacted earth or rock and use their weight and mass to resist the force of water. The content will also cover other less common dam types, considerations around dam safety and environmental impacts, and some notable historic and modern dam projects worldwide. The goal is to provide a comprehensive overview of dam engineering and the role of dams in water management infrastructure.
Embankment Dams
Embankment dams are constructed from earth, rock or both. They are the most common type of dam in use today. Material used for embankment dams include natural soil or rock, or waste material obtained from mining or excavation. The material is compacted and shaped to create the dam structure. The most common method of construction is the rolled-fill method. Soil, rocks or other fill material is placed in thin layers and then compacted by heavy machinery. This process is repeated until the embankment reaches the designed height. Other methods include dumping, hydraulic filling and upstream construction. Proper compaction of materials and construction of suitable spillways and drains are critical in creating a stable embankment dam. When designed and built correctly, they are a cost-effective dam option.
Gravity Dams
Gravity dams are solid concrete structures that rely on their own weight and geometry to resist the tremendous pressure exerted by the reservoir water behind them. They are well-suited for narrow gorges or canyons with a solid rock foundation. Gravity dams have a triangular cross-section, resembling an inverted pyramid. The wide base and sloped upstream face help stabilize the dam against the reservoir water pressure. The downstream side is commonly vertical to minimize the amount of concrete required in construction. These dams use mass and gravity to counter the overturning forces caused by the water pressure. The low and wide structural profile accomplishes that by lowering the center of gravity. Gravity dams come in a variety of designs, including constant angles, variable angles, or curved faces.
Arch Dams
Arch dams are curved concrete structures that rely on strength from the shape of the arch to resist the large pressures from the reservoir. They provide economical designs for narrow canyons as they require much less concrete than a gravity dam. Arch dams are typically double-curvature structures built from concrete that span the full width of a canyon or gorge. The curve of the dam allows it to transfer the water load principally into the canyon or gorge walls. This makes an arch dam well suited for narrow canyons where there is good foundation rock on each side. The basic design uses a larger radius curve on the upstream face and a tighter curve on the downstream face. This shape allows the reservoir forces to be transferred to and resisted by the canyon. The concrete arch structure is often very thin compared to its height, just thick enough to support its own weight and transfer the loads to the abutments.
Buttress Dams
Buttress dams are a type of dam built using several triangular shaped buttresses to support the dam against the force of the water. They are a relatively uncommon type of dam compared to arch or gravity dams. Buttress dams contain thick, angled vertical walls called buttresses that support the upstream face of the dam. The buttresses connect to the dam core wall and help resist the water pressure. The triangular shaped buttresses transfer the water load to the dam foundation. The spaces between the buttresses are usually left open but can be filled in with concrete or rockfill materials. Buttress dams are often used for sites where the foundation could potentially cause issues for a gravity dam. The buttresses and core wall work together to divert stresses safely downward into the foundation. Buttress dams require less concrete and materials than gravity dams, but they are more structurally complex to design and build.
Dams are an incredible feat of engineering and construction that provide many benefits like hydropower, water storage, and flood control. However, they also come with drawbacks like environmental impacts and safety risks that must be carefully managed. Over the decades, dam design and construction has vastly improved to enhance safety and reduce harmful effects. Arch and gravity dams in particular exemplify the amazing progress in dam engineering. Moving forward, the focus will likely remain on limiting ecological disruption and making dams as structurally sound as possible. This overview of major dam types and considerations shows the complexity of these projects. When designed well, dams serve crucial purposes for society. But we must also acknowledge their consequences and pursue new solutions. With responsible dam development, communities can enjoy their benefits while safeguarding nature and public safety.
Source: Tata & Howaard
Cornwall Insights’ latest quarterly overview of power market trends in Britain states that, because the UK failed to attract any bids from offshore wind developers in its most recent Contracts for Difference (CfD) auction round, it risks missing its 2030 target to host 50GW of offshore wind capacity.
Funding totalling £227m was announced under the auction round in September 2023. No offshore windfarm bids were received, largely because developers found the CfD offering economically unviable as supply chain costs mounted.
Several developers in the UK, EU and US have paused or scrapped offshore wind projects this year due to rising supply chain costs, partly caused by soaring energy and commodity prices and continued disruption related to Covid-19.
A notable headline was Vattenfall’s pausing of the 1.4GW Norfolk Boreas offshore wind project in June 2023. The business subsequently sold its Norfolk Offshore Wind Zone to RWE for £963m.
The UK Government intervened in the market in November 2023, pledging to increase the maximum strike price in the CfD by more than 50% for all kinds of wind farms. Ministers also firmed up plans to reward developers for factors such as local supply chain development.
Gas transition – stalling?
Nonetheless, Cornwall Insight believes some significant damage has been done to the UK’s offshore wind pipeline.
The body estimates that offshore wind will account for 21% of the UK’s power generation mix in 2030-31, up from 13% in 2023-5.
This trend will see offshore wind arrays overtaking gas combined cycle power plants (CCGTs) to become the UK’s biggest source of generation by the end of the decade. This year, CCGTs will account for 29% of the UK’s power generation mix, and this will fall to 20%.
But Cornwall Insight had foreseen a steeper drop in CCGT capacity at its previous quarterly power market outlook, published before the CfD disaster for offshore wind. The body believes the UK is more likely to turn to gas and biomass than to other renewables to maintain energy security amid missing its offshore wind target.
This could present a challenge to the UK’s ambitions to bring all unabated gas-fired power generation offline by 2035.
It bears noting that Ministers are proposing an annual emissions limit for existing and new-build gas plants in the capacity market. This could push the owners of older, less efficient CCGT plants to convert to open-cycle gas turbine (OCGT) power stations. These are commonly used as peaking plants as they are generally less efficient to run, but easier to power up and down, than CCGTs.
Cornwall Insight’s overarching conclusion is that whether you look at CCGTs and/or OCGT plants, the UK’s reliance on gas-fired power generation at the end of the decade is likely to be higher than it would have been with swifter policy pivots to account for recent and ongoing renewable energy supply chain challenges.
Source: EdieNet
Building Specifier is an information portal for all professional building specifiers. We bring you the latest construction news from around the UK and the rest of the world.
Printed Magazines available FREE for the construction sector, Published by DataTeam
Click on the logo’s to view, subscribe or download media packs
