The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
LongQ said:
If it's really that good then no doubt the local entrepreneurs, maybe the ever present Sir Terry Matthews, could put a consortium together to build it with the help of the Welsh Government (an resource of a type that is not available in England) whereby the use of some local taxes could fund the development and research. This would give the people living in Wales a global identity and an opportunity to profit from the knowledge and expertise that could be sold around the world. Or at least to anywhere with a suitable location for undertaking something similar and a power requirement that could not be satisfied in some other way. Plus enough demand for the recreational side of the concept to balance the books.
Right now pumping tax money into more proven concepts looks like a better deal.
Not necessarily a good deal, but a better deal on the basis of an achievable outcome.
They're not looking for taxpayers money to fund the Lagoon. Welsh government have offered it to reduce the financial risk on the programme.Right now pumping tax money into more proven concepts looks like a better deal.
Not necessarily a good deal, but a better deal on the basis of an achievable outcome.
The government have refused to endorse a strike price on the energy generated, which increases the risk on the project massively. Doesn't seem to be an issue for Nuclear though...
Evanivitch said:
They're not looking for taxpayers money to fund the Lagoon. Welsh government have offered it to reduce the financial risk on the programme.
The government have refused to endorse a strike price on the energy generated, which increases the risk on the project massively. Doesn't seem to be an issue for Nuclear though...
The big differences being that nuclear runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week (apart from maintenance down time) and has a capacity factor of 90%.The government have refused to endorse a strike price on the energy generated, which increases the risk on the project massively. Doesn't seem to be an issue for Nuclear though...
The now defunct Swansea Bay lagoon would have only functioned for 14 hours per day, varying between spring and neap tides and with an overall capacity factor of 19%; and at a cost much higher than nuclear being a drain on every household with massive increased electricity bills. Pulling the plug on the lagoon is a no brainer.
rolando said:
The big differences being that nuclear runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week (apart from maintenance down time) and has a capacity factor of 90%.
The now defunct Swansea Bay lagoon would have only functioned for 14 hours per day, varying between spring and neap tides and with an overall capacity factor of 19%; and at a cost much higher than nuclear being a drain on every household with massive increased electricity bills. Pulling the plug on the lagoon is a no brainer.
Hinkley C construction cost - £19BnThe now defunct Swansea Bay lagoon would have only functioned for 14 hours per day, varying between spring and neap tides and with an overall capacity factor of 19%; and at a cost much higher than nuclear being a drain on every household with massive increased electricity bills. Pulling the plug on the lagoon is a no brainer.
Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon - £1.3Bn
You're using the numbers for the entire "fleet" of lagoons and not the cost of the unit in Swansea.
Funny how we talk of a drain on every household, doesn't seem to stop CrossRail (£4.7Bn from treasury), HS2 (£55Bn) and Heathrow expansion infrastructure (circa £10Bn).
Scotty2 said:
You need to read the Private Eye view on the barrage scheme.
Corrupt as hell (in my opinion). Guy proposing it owns quarry who will supply stone e.t.c. plus wife and relatives all fingers in the pie, so I'm glad it did not get the OK.
As you are quoting these as facts perhaps you would have the courage to support them.Corrupt as hell (in my opinion). Guy proposing it owns quarry who will supply stone e.t.c. plus wife and relatives all fingers in the pie, so I'm glad it did not get the OK.
This is far bigger than one greedy group and as has been said all they asked for was a pre agreed strike rate.
rolando said:
The big differences being that nuclear runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week (apart from maintenance down time) and has a capacity factor of 90%.
The now defunct Swansea Bay lagoon would have only functioned for 14 hours per day, varying between spring and neap tides and with an overall capacity factor of 19%; and at a cost much higher than nuclear being a drain on every household with massive increased electricity bills. Pulling the plug on the lagoon is a no brainer.
It is a shame that a project like this does not stack up as viable, however physics is a harsh mistress and extracting energy using low potential energy differentials is generally going to need more infrastructure. To be fair this will also affect the other end of the scale in that the infrastructure to utilise and protect ourselves from very high potential energy difference sources is also large, see nuclear. I do have a concern that fusion may run into these limitations too, the cost of constructing and maintaining a fusion power plant could be so high that in practice building one may not be viable, particularly as advances in the field may make a plant obsolete before it can produce enough energy to pay for its costs.The now defunct Swansea Bay lagoon would have only functioned for 14 hours per day, varying between spring and neap tides and with an overall capacity factor of 19%; and at a cost much higher than nuclear being a drain on every household with massive increased electricity bills. Pulling the plug on the lagoon is a no brainer.
Dixy said:
As you are quoting these as facts perhaps you would have the courage to support them.
This is far bigger than one greedy group and as has been said all they asked for was a pre agreed strike rate.
Nearly £90/MWhr for 90 years, index linked presumably, a bit steep for 'free' energy. This is far bigger than one greedy group and as has been said all they asked for was a pre agreed strike rate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wal...
Granted still less than Hinckley, but that does not need additional supplies to fill in daily variability of supply.
Toltec said:
Nearly £90/MWhr for 90 years, index linked presumably, a bit steep for 'free' energy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wal...
Granted still less than Hinckley, but that does not need additional supplies to fill in daily variability of supply.
No, it just needs generations of taxpayer funded nuclear waste management...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wal...
Granted still less than Hinckley, but that does not need additional supplies to fill in daily variability of supply.
MYOB said:
Dixy said:
This is far bigger than one greedy group and as has been said all they asked for was a pre agreed strike rate.
Are you certain that was all the developer asked for? Do you know if they asked for anything else?Evanivitch said:
No, it just needs generations of taxpayer funded nuclear waste management...
Costs for that are already built into the supply price with the responsibility on EDF/France/China I would hope.Just the same as any costs for modifying a tidal lagoon to cope with increases in sea levels or channel silting etc. should be.
While on one hand I agree that producing non-polluting power should not be primarily driven by monetary cost it cannot be ignored when high costs would impact the quality of life for lower income households.
In some respects I think the problems we are going to face balancing an increasing population with increasing per capita energy use (globally anyway if you include production and transportation of food and consumer goods) will be as difficult to overcome as those we may face from changes in climate.
Evanivitch said:
MYOB said:
Dixy said:
This is far bigger than one greedy group and as has been said all they asked for was a pre agreed strike rate.
Are you certain that was all the developer asked for? Do you know if they asked for anything else?Dixy is focusing purely on the strike price issue and indicated that is all the developers have asked for. I'm simply enquiring as to whether he knows that for a fact.
Toltec said:
Costs for that are already built into the supply price with the responsibility on EDF/France/China I would hope.
Hope doesn't help in 60 years time when we need it.Toltec said:
Just the same as any costs for modifying a tidal lagoon to cope with increases in sea levels or channel silting etc. should be.
Valid, but not really comparable. Building a wall higher and dredging sand aren't complex.And as I've provided previously, this government doesn't seem afraid of finding huge projects that will not benefit the entire nation.
Edited by Evanivitch on Tuesday 26th June 14:45
Edited by Evanivitch on Tuesday 26th June 14:45
Evanivitch said:
Toltec said:
Costs for that are already built into the supply price with the responsibility on EDF/France/China I would hope.
Hope doesn't help in 60 years time when we need it.[quote]
Just the same as any costs for modifying a tidal lagoon to cope with increases in sea levels or channel silting etc. should be.
[quote]
While on one hand I agree that producing non-polluting power should not be primarily driven by monetary cost it cannot be ignored when high costs would impact the quality of life for lower income households.
And as I've provided previously, this government doesn't seem afraid of finding huge projects that will not benefit the entire nation.
Completely agree with the last, more about using the pool of public funds to benefit certain groups of the population.
While I may be able and to some extent pay more for electricity and taken as a whole producing energy in a less polluting way has to be good for the long term, in the short to medium term I'm sure that the people that will have to give up some luxuries will not like it and those that already struggle to pay for somewhere to live and buy food will definitely not see or appreciate the long term benefit.
Evanivitch said:
Hinkley C construction cost - £19Bn
Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon - £1.3Bn
You're using the numbers for the entire "fleet" of lagoons and not the cost of the unit in Swansea.
Funny how we talk of a drain on every household, doesn't seem to stop CrossRail (£4.7Bn from treasury), HS2 (£55Bn) and Heathrow expansion infrastructure (circa £10Bn).
Construction cost per MW capacity please.Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon - £1.3Bn
You're using the numbers for the entire "fleet" of lagoons and not the cost of the unit in Swansea.
Funny how we talk of a drain on every household, doesn't seem to stop CrossRail (£4.7Bn from treasury), HS2 (£55Bn) and Heathrow expansion infrastructure (circa £10Bn).
Drain is on household bills.
OT
Cross rail and Heathrow expansion are a necessary evil — but please don't get me started on the HS2 vanity project.
Toltec said:
Evanivitch said:
No, it just needs generations of taxpayer funded nuclear waste management...
Costs for that are already built into the supply price with the responsibility on EDF/France/China I would hope.Just the same as any costs for modifying a tidal lagoon to cope with increases in sea levels or channel silting etc. should be.
While on one hand I agree that producing non-polluting power should not be primarily driven by monetary cost it cannot be ignored when high costs would impact the quality of life for lower income households.
In some respects I think the problems we are going to face balancing an increasing population with increasing per capita energy use (globally anyway if you include production and transportation of food and consumer goods) will be as difficult to overcome as those we may face from changes in climate.
These fees are around £6 per MWh and are probably an over estimate by a factor of 5-10. The decommissioning statement should read "it’s a f**king PWR" in the US they have taken plants 2/3's the size of Hinckley back to fields for ~ $300-400 million. In the UK we believe nuclear decommissioning is expensive because we have odd existing facilities and are pretty good at making routine tasks complex. PWR plants are by comparison easy to deal with and there is lots of international experience.
In the US nuclear plant operators have even being suing the government as they have sat on a $20+ billion dollar fund for a deep geological repository that they have not built.
In actual pragmatic terms a perfectly valid solution would be to put used fuel in a concrete/steel waste cask which will last for around 500 years. At this point the hazard is low (most of it has decayed), human capabilities are in 500 years likely to be spectacularly advanced as to make either further storage or disposal trivial.
Toltec said:
Dixy said:
As you are quoting these as facts perhaps you would have the courage to support them.
This is far bigger than one greedy group and as has been said all they asked for was a pre agreed strike rate.
Nearly £90/MWhr for 90 years, index linked presumably, a bit steep for 'free' energy. This is far bigger than one greedy group and as has been said all they asked for was a pre agreed strike rate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wal...
Granted still less than Hinckley, but that does not need additional supplies to fill in daily variability of supply.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-44601268
They is also little chance that future schemes would be any cheaper, the majority of the costs are in building the sea walls which are mature technologies and not repeatable as each is built specific to local conditions.
Products like wind turbines and nuclear power plants get cheaper the more you build, this much less so.
Also the £90/MWh figure is a bit fishy, the initial cost will be £123/MWh and money today is worth more than money in the future.
In short this is like building a hydro dam, only instead of building the dam, we're also going to build the valley.
Edited by Talksteer on Tuesday 26th June 15:30
Talksteer said:
The 90/MWhr price was only achieved with a loan from the Welsh government at very favourable terms. The scheme would cost in the region of £150/MWh if funded like Hinckley Point C.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-44601268
They is also little chance that future schemes would be any cheaper, the majority of the costs are in building the sea walls which are mature technologies and not repeatable as each is built specific to local conditions.
Products like wind turbines and nuclear power plants get cheaper the more you build, this much less so.
You're right that quantity doesn't drive down costs, but in this case scale does. The Swansea project was a proof of concept design with further pools being considerably larger and with a greater plated capacity.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-44601268
They is also little chance that future schemes would be any cheaper, the majority of the costs are in building the sea walls which are mature technologies and not repeatable as each is built specific to local conditions.
Products like wind turbines and nuclear power plants get cheaper the more you build, this much less so.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff