The Lemon Fool

dspp wrote:As the list of the supply chain constituents makes clear these projects are really all about getting a big pork barrel out for the civil construction industry. I remain highly sceptical.

regards, dspp

Quite. It always sounded to me like an excuse to get permission to reopen and vastly extend a stone quarry cut into the cliffs on the beautiful (for now) Cornish coast east of the Lizard. A quarry that happened to belong to same people planning the tidal lagoon.

It beggars belief that we are even thinking of building tidal lagoons

http://euanmearns.com/swansea-bay-tidal ... in-the-uk/

"....... UK tidal lagoons will produce more intermittent electricity than any other form of renewable generation providing four spikes separated by four periods of zero production each day. It is often claimed that the predictability of tides is a virtue. This also means we can predict with certainty that this energy source will be a disaster for the public as well as the environment......more"
and he goes onto explain why


https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... e-iceberg/

"................... According to the BEIS, the variable cost for CCGT is £38/MWh, for plants commissioning in 2020, well below even the most optimistic estimates for tidal. If we assume an average strike price of £105/MWh for the early years of operation of the six tidal lagoons discussed, and compare this with the variable cost of CCGT, we can calculate that the effective subsidy would amount to £1.9bn a year."

and that's before we've factored in the cost of backup from CCGT stations operating suboptimally, 4 times a day when generation is zero

schober wrote:

Hasn't this drivel been debunked within this very thread?

An individual tidal generator (lagoon or otherwise) is intermittent. That's why we have more than one, generating reliably 24/7. The UK has no comparably-reliable source other than nuclear - which has its own issues.

Tidal isn't quite that bad. If you space them suitably around the coast they fill in each others' gaps. Problem is that means you can't build them all in the Severn estuary.

regards, dspp

"Plans to build the world's first tidal power lagoon have been thrown out by the UK government. Ministers said the £1.3bn project was not value for money, despite claims by developers Tidal Lagoon Power (TLP) a revised offer made it cheaper. ......"

etc https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-sou ... s-44589083

If they couldn't get the price below Hinckley, they had no chance, as solar/wind is rapidly getting much cheaper, and while tidal is very predictable, it still needs to be coupled with storage solutions, so can't be a base load system.

I'd have thought a tidal lagoon is a storage solution - you can, within limits, regulate flow and generation. Clearly you need several in different parts of the coast to generate regular output.

Its an issue for rigorous numbers really and I haven't seen those myself.

The govnmt statement is worth a read
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... dal-lagoon

Concludes
" .......................... The inescapable conclusion of an extensive analysis is that however novel and appealing the proposal that has been made is, even with these factors taken into account, the costs that would be incurred by consumers and taxpayers would be so much higher than alternative sources of low carbon power, that it would be irresponsible to enter into a contract with the provider...."

Have we had a sudden outbreak of common sense I wonder?

schober wrote:The govnmt statement is worth a read
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... dal-lagoon

Concludes
" .......................... The inescapable conclusion of an extensive analysis is that however novel and appealing the proposal that has been made is, even with these factors taken into account, the costs that would be incurred by consumers and taxpayers would be so much higher than alternative sources of low carbon power, that it would be irresponsible to enter into a contract with the provider...."

Have we had a sudden outbreak of common sense I wonder?

And an acute shortage of cash in an economy that is spluttering, and an electorate that thinks it is experiencing austerity, but with debt-load still growing (the current acct isn't balanced yet). In that context anything that requires central cash is rightly being scrutinised by the Treasury and the more sensible folks at the DoE/DEC/whatever. Good call in my opinion, it was always a pork project for the civils folks. Please can we have more common sense like this.

regards, dspp

"The developers of a pioneering tidal power project in Swansea Bay have launched an 11th hour bid to raise over £1m to keep the project afloat....

Tidal Lagoon Power, the Swansea-based developer, hopes to raise “a relatively modest” £1.2m to undertake crucial planning work to prevent its development consent expiring in the middle of next year.

Mark Shorrock, Tidal Lagoon Power’s chief executive, ................. Shorrock has already spent about £37m of investor funds on the project."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... sing-drive

- dspp

It's an ill conceived project. The tidal flow turbines are a far better option.

TJH

I once heard from SSE that the cost of off shore wind turbines was much too high to be viable even with subsidies. Now they seem to be accepted as part of the future. Surely the same can be considered for tidal power? The Pentland Firth tide flows cannot be compared to any lagoon. Tides can reach 8 to 10 knots twice a day and I doubt that silt is likely to be a problem there. More like damage by boulders being swept along by the tides.

Marine turbines are going to provide a fairly assured supply of energy compared to wind turbines which are intermittent to say the least.

Dod

Dod101 wrote:I once heard from SSE that the cost of off shore wind turbines was much too high to be viable even with subsidies. Now they seem to be accepted as part of the future. Surely the same can be considered for tidal power? The Pentland Firth tide flows cannot be compared to any lagoon. Tides can reach 8 to 10 knots twice a day and I doubt that silt is likely to be a problem there. More like damage by boulders being swept along by the tides.

Marine turbines are going to provide a fairly assured supply of energy compared to wind turbines which are intermittent to say the least.

Dod

Dod,
Whoever you spoke to in SSE seems to have been out-of-date. Things have moved on. 99% of the world can use large wind turbines, but only 1% of the world can use tidal (big numbers, but about right). That means that we can get better at making wind turbines and bring the costs down, but we cannot get better at building tidal. Imagine what cars would look like today if only 1% of cars had ever been made - we'd still be using 1910's designs, performance, costs. As to intermittency both sources are intermittent, and predictably so, sufficiently so to be useful energy sources for humans. That's not to say that SSE are completely given up on marine tidal ... but it is not exactly front & centre.
regards,
dspp

dspp wrote:[
Dod,
Whoever you spoke to in SSE seems to have been out-of-date. Things have moved on. 99% of the world can use large wind turbines, but only 1% of the world can use tidal (big numbers, but about right). That means that we can get better at making wind turbines and bring the costs down, but we cannot get better at building tidal. Imagine what cars would look like today if only 1% of cars had ever been made - we'd still be using 1910's designs, performance, costs. As to intermittency both sources are intermittent, and predictably so, sufficiently so to be useful energy sources for humans. That's not to say that SSE are completely given up on marine tidal ... but it is not exactly front & centre.
regards,
dspp

Very interesting. I know nothing about all of this but am pleased to learn. When SSE spoke to us (a group of investors) it was some years ago and certainly the opinion is as you say out of date by now. What I was trying to suggest was that when wind turbines were introduced (and certainly those at sea) they were very expensive and needed large subsidies to make them work and maybe tidal power is at that stage as well.

I see what you are saying so maybe there is just not a big enough opportunity to use tidal power. Thanks anyway because I like to know about these things.

Dod

Dod101 wrote:Very interesting. I know nothing about all of this but am pleased to learn. When SSE spoke to us (a group of investors) it was some years ago and certainly the opinion is as you say out of date by now. What I was trying to suggest was that when wind turbines were introduced (and certainly those at sea) they were very expensive and needed large subsidies to make them work and maybe tidal power is at that stage as well.

I see what you are saying so maybe there is just not a big enough opportunity to use tidal power. Thanks anyway because I like to know about these things.

Dod

AIUI that's the theory behind subsidies for emerging technologies. Give them a helping hand through an R&D phase to bring them to a stage where they can bring costs down and become competitive with established technologies.

Some governments are willing to do that, others will only do it as a political bribe (as in the huge subsidies paid to homeowners who put up solar panels). Wind and solar got a helping hand from those who were prepared to help - for example wind just across the North Sea in Denmark.

Tidal energy should in principle be our best source here in the UK, and a worthwhile source in quite a few other places. What it hasn't had is supportive governments to help it through the uneconomic early phase SSE were facing at the time you recollect. The Swansea Tidal project was strongly recommended by more-or-less everyone[1] including the Hendry review commissioned by government, and even featured in Cameron's election manifesto, but was vetoed by the Daily Telegraph.

The Scottish government has been rather more supportive of projects there, and some are indeed happening - albeit on a small scale.

[1] Except (from memory) Neath MP Peter Hain, whose opposition was because he didn't want it distracting from his support for the Severn Barrage.

The objective of the feed in tariff for solar energy was to bring in investments to enable solar to operate at a lower cost. This it achieved.

It is a better approach than the government deciding which ideas to fund (ie pick winners) which generally they are not good at.

UncleEbenezer wrote:

Dod101 wrote:Very interesting. I know nothing about all of this but am pleased to learn. When SSE spoke to us (a group of investors) it was some years ago and certainly the opinion is as you say out of date by now. What I was trying to suggest was that when wind turbines were introduced (and certainly those at sea) they were very expensive and needed large subsidies to make them work and maybe tidal power is at that stage as well.

I see what you are saying so maybe there is just not a big enough opportunity to use tidal power. Thanks anyway because I like to know about these things.

Dod

AIUI that's the theory behind subsidies for emerging technologies. Give them a helping hand through an R&D phase to bring them to a stage where they can bring costs down and become competitive with established technologies.

Some governments are willing to do that, others will only do it as a political bribe (as in the huge subsidies paid to homeowners who put up solar panels). Wind and solar got a helping hand from those who were prepared to help - for example wind just across the North Sea in Denmark.

Tidal energy should in principle be our best source here in the UK, and a worthwhile source in quite a few other places. What it hasn't had is supportive governments to help it through the uneconomic early phase SSE were facing at the time you recollect. The Swansea Tidal project was strongly recommended by more-or-less everyone[1] including the Hendry review commissioned by government, and even featured in Cameron's election manifesto, but was vetoed by the Daily Telegraph.

The Scottish government has been rather more supportive of projects there, and some are indeed happening - albeit on a small scale.

[1] Except (from memory) Neath MP Peter Hain, whose opposition was because he didn't want it distracting from his support for the Severn Barrage.

1. The Swansea project was more or less derided by everyone apart from the civil engineering sector that was pushing it.

2. Would you care to put any realistic engineering & economic maths behind your assertion that tidal should be the UK's best source of energy.

regards, dspp

I spent some time on the Economic Development Committee of Birmingham City Council. This doled out grants to various commercial projects. Some infrastructure type things are worth funding, but generally funds go to the projects most capable of putting in a good bid rather than projects which are good for the country in the long term.

I have never really looked at the details of the tidal schemes proposed and I have both experience in commerce and also scientific qualifications. The promoters tend not to make available good data sets from which their assumptions can be tested.

dspp wrote:1. The Swansea project was more or less derided by everyone apart from the civil engineering sector that was pushing it.

2. Would you care to put any realistic engineering & economic maths behind your assertion that tidal should be the UK's best source of energy.

regards, dspp

I wouldn't presume to put myself forward as expert.

But I will offer a very reputable source.