Learnings

Outcomes

One outcome from the project is conclusions. The conclusions from the whole project are summarised into three pages in the WP4 report, including specific conclusions collated from WP1, WP2, WP3, and the cost-benefit analysis described in WP4. These are not repeated here and the WP4 report should be consulted for the details.

Another outcome from the project is the recommendations, which are described in this report in section 10 – “Planned implementation, recommendations, or next steps”.

A further outcome of the project has been distilled from the conclusions and recommendations and is presented as the following five key challenges:

·       First, working with others in the industry to identify and fill the many knowledge gaps that exist. 

·       Second, reviewing and updating the large ‘library’ of interrelated documents that exist, and similarly updating the training and skills of operators whose working careers to date have focussed only on the less hazardous gas methane.

·       Third, the need to be open minded about possibly changing fundamentals, such as removing the gas to remove the risk rather than dealing with hydrogen mixed with air in situ; or introducing other means of leak detection into the LDZ with less reliance on the smell of gas (other examples are in the reports). 

·       Fourth, being prepared to challenge the status quo within the gas industry, including changes to agreed standards. This is especially needed regarding how close to a pipe some form of mechanical digging or vacuum excavation (also known as “vac ex”) can be used – with appropriate safeguards using current technology. Otherwise, there will be no significant improvement in excavation. 

·       Lastly, establishing a new baseline cost estimate for operations with hydrogen, since this may increase significantly from the current baseline costs, making new methods and new technologies essential to the conversion from natural gas to hydrogen rather than merely a pragmatic operational cost saving measure. 

It is important for NGT and WWU to note that there is a good overlap between these three essentials: 

1.       Need (i.e. excavating Safer-Faster-Cheaper).

2.       Solution (i.e. maturity of viable technology and means to develop it).

3.       Business case (i.e. a positive cost benefit analysis). 

This is clearer for current practice excavating and repairing natural gas pipelines and the potential benefits can be realised in the short term (1 to 2 years). 

Although further work needs to be done to clarify the drivers and costs for excavating and repairing hydrogen pipelines, there are three factors that help, making this feasible in the medium term (2 to 4 years): 

1.       The solution for natural gas is effectively a precursor to a similar solution for 100% hydrogen, so it is a step in the right direction. 

2.       There is still time to develop the necessary information for 100% hydrogen pipelines, and as this can be done in parallel with a development for natural gas (point 1), no time will be lost.

3.       It is likely that the cost benefit business case will be stronger for 100% hydrogen pipelines in order to reduce the higher risk for personnel. 

These factors combine to make it beneficial to start now.

Value tracking                                                           Data Point                                       Data Point Definition

Maturity                        TRL 2-3                                      At concept level (NIA Project)

Opportunity                   100% of single asset class              Buried pipeline

Deployment costs            £0                                             Unknown deployment costs, research project

Innovation cost               £330,185                                    Cost of innovation project

Financial Saving              £0                                             Unknown at the moment- however will be known later after cba

Safety                            0                                              Unknown but project will be able to contribute to safe hydrogen practices

Environment                   0.0                                            Unknown at the moment- may be able to understand for cba and will be able to contribute to hydrogen network development

Compliance                    Supports compliance                   Will help us comply with future hydrogen related safety regulations

Skills & Competencies      Departmental                             Shall develop competencies from construction department

Future proof                   Supports business strategy           Supports the growth of a hydrogen network

Lessons Learnt

Regarding the methodology and stakeholder engagement, the project start-up was delayed due to resource availability on both sides at short notice. This hampered both the supplier’s delivery team ramping up, and the clients’ ability to supply responses to the Requests for Information (RFI). These early delays affected later work packages. In hindsight, many of the RFIs could have been anticipated from both the Request for Quotation’s requirements and the corresponding proposal, and information gathered in advance of the Kick Off Meeting. Lack of availability of key staff at key times continued to impact the project for RFI responses and report reviews, exacerbated by some requests for this support clashing with the spring - a busy season for operations and repairs. This issue was handled by an extension to time that preserved quality of output. 

Regarding the effectiveness of the research undertaken, it has resulted in several challenges for NGT and WWU to consider, and many recommendations that need to be studied and possibly implemented. It is significant that although the project focus was on hydrogen, and the changes this brings from operating with methane, the steps required to implement advanced excavation for methane are on the pathway to the same goal for hydrogen. This means that there is potential to use some of the technologies researched to increase safety and efficiency for the current methane network, while also making progress towards improving safety and efficiency for the future hydrogen network. The Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of some partial solutions for advanced excavation is high enough for trials to take place in the short term (i.e. 1 to 2 years), but for the full requirements (which are yet to be determined), it is likely that the solution will need to cherry-pick technologies from a few high TRL demonstrators and add to these some bespoke subsystem developments. Technology for repairs is the least evident or mature and requires work, especially since solutions are likely to be less generic than for excavation.

It is significant that the cost-benefit analysis was positive for both advanced excavation use cases – for the NTS and the LDZ. There is a good overlap between the three essentials of:  Need (i.e. excavating Safer-Faster-Cheaper); Solution (i.e. maturity of viable technology and means to develop it); and Business case (i.e. a positive cost benefit analysis). These factors combine to make it beneficial to start now.