Impressed About time :)

[Scouse]

I love a nice big engineering project as much as the next man but I particularly like this one as it's multiple use

Tidal power ftw:


Reminds me of a much bigger version of West Kirby boating lake with energy generation capacity added for good measure.

Energy generation capacity from tidal power is massive in blighty. It's clean and has the projects have the capacity to provide massive regeneration of areas, health benefits for all, yadda yadda yadda.

 

[caLLous]

Gah, I thought Toht had subscribed.

 

[Scouse]

Knew a lad once who steadfastly refused to believe that the tides were caused by the moon. Called me a moron for "believing" it - even though I could demonstrate a mechanism that would account for the action of the movement of the seas...

 

[Zarjazz]

Knew a lad once who steadfastly refused to believe that the tides were caused by the moon. Called me a moron for "believing" it - even though I could demonstrate a mechanism that would account for the action of the movement of the seas...

<pedant>Your friend was actually correct but probably only by accident. You would still get tides without the moon, they just wouldn't be as extreme high and lows.</pedant>

 

[Scouse]

Still mostly moon:

The sun is 27 million times more massive than the moon, but it is also 390 times farther away. As a result, the sun has 46 percent of the tide-generating forces

Plus - the dick said it was all down the earth's rotation...

 

[Raven]

Going to cost a metric fuckton to set up and is going to damage the local ecosystem.

Technically brilliant, practically a stupid idea.

 

[Scouse]

The £90 figure compares favourably with the £92.50 price for power from the planned Hinkley nuclear station, especially as the lagoon is designed to last 120 years - at a much lower risk than nuclear.

Also - it will act as a reef so although local ecosystem damage will occur the ecosystem will be able to adapt and it's unlikely there'll be lasting damage. Just a change to where the land effectively stops and the sea starts properly. No ongoing issues with waste disposal or longer-than-actual-life decomissioning costs and a metric fuckton of health-enhancing uses.

At that price, what's not to love?

 

[Raven]

a reef that smashes everything up in turbines, aye.

 

[Scouse]

a reef that smashes everything up in turbines, aye.

Considering most of the environmentalists are tentatively behind it then I'd say it's worth looking at. Nothing in life is zero-risk.

As for protection of fish from those horrible evil turbines. You ever seen something like this before?:

Spoiler

 

[leggy]

120 years lifetime? Utter bollocks reporting. Most of the main electrical and mechanical components will have to be replaced as soon as 25 years from first power and again every 15 - 25 years. The wall might last 120 years but the power plant definitely will not. No mention of the cost associated with that! And there is also no mention of actual Capacity.

I'm off to hunt for a real report on this project.

 

[leggy]

Saying that: I'm not against this at all and it should be a nice addition to the still necessary conventional plants.

 

[Scouse]

120 years lifetime? Utter bollocks reporting. Most of the main electrical and mechanical components will have to be replaced as soon as 25

I don't know where you get your figures from, but I do agree with that. But then, maintenance happens on all of the power generation facilities we have - and those figures will be costed in.

 

[leggy]

I don't know where you get your figures from, but I do agree with that. But then, maintenance happens on all of the power generation facilities we have - and those figures will be costed in.

The cost the BBC have quoted will be initial Capital and Development Cost only and will not include through life maintenance or component replacement. Detailed maintenance costs like this won't be available at this stage and are rarely reported as part of the overall project cost.

My figures are from a decade of experience as a HV power engineer (new build wind farms and power plants included).

Anyway - my point was that it's kind of misleading to suggest that it will live for 120 years. Most power plants can be life extended (beyond the original design life) but it's rarely cost effective to do so.

 

[Scouse]

Detailed maintenance costs like this won't be available at this stage and are rarely reported as part of the overall project cost.

I'd be surprised if they didn't have the life of the turbines and detailed costs on how much it is to repair a sea wall. It's old-school tech being deployed in a new configuration is all.

That's kinda hinted at by the comparative ease of construction - planning submission in 2017 and up and running five years later. The Swansea one obviously being the pilot - so they iron out construction issues and then rollout full steam.

£1bn to prove it, £29 billion to roll it out if we like it. Concrete and rocks, cables, already-existing turbines. No problem in the event of phreak tsunami!

 

[Embattle]

Interesting but don't see it happening on any large scale for a number of reasons, for example like quite a few green technologies it suffers from a lack of technology to store massive amounts of energy for crossing the divide between generation and use.

Naturally like many massive projects they are trying to tack on other advantages of doing such a project.

 

[Zarjazz]

It suffers from a lack of technology to store massive amounts of energy for crossing the divide between generation and use.

Maybe in small projects but for this they are taking about the combined output generating 8% of the total UK requirement. That's huge. With that kind of scale they store excess output in places like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station, so it can be used on demand at a later time.

 

[Embattle]

Maybe in small projects but for this they are taking about the combined output generating 8% of the total UK requirement. That's huge. With that kind of scale they store excess output in places like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station, so it can be used on demand at a later time.

Yeah I've read about Dinorwig before but it is already in use and the growing use of green energy would require many more of these hydro storage systems which in turn require the right locations and considerable money, as a world we so need to find improved energy storage systems at all scales.

 

[Scouse]

a reef that smashes everything up in turbines, aye.

Checked with the missus. She studied Marine Biology in Swansea. Did her research on the benthic fauna of Swansea bay.

She said, and I quote, "Swansea [bay] is a shithole. I think it's a great idea".

When I showed her your post she went "don't be daft - it'll just produce a load of sheltered environment for plants and animals", although she did admit to concerns about algal blooms.


That's good enough for me!

 

[Scouse]

She has just made the point that if the taxpayers are paying for it we shouldn't get a private company to build it, then lease it to the private company so it makes money for that private company for the duration at taxpayer expense - like is happening with Mersey Gateway (that she's involved in) and Hinkley (which she's not).

 

[leggy]

Maybe in small projects but for this they are taking about the combined output generating 8% of the total UK requirement. That's huge. With that kind of scale they store excess output in places like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station, so it can be used on demand at a later time.

1.7GW storage capacity (not taking efficiency into consideration). There isn't enough of these plants to make a dent in average generation demand in the UK. Right at this present time it's sitting at 44GW (approximately). It's probably only used in extreme cases and to provide emergency active power.

Large scale power storage doesn't really exist and plants like Dinorwig aren't used the way you describe (like a battery).

 

[Scouse]

Energy storage isn't the problem with tidal. It's a predictable source of clean energy - so you use all of that tidal energy and turn down your other generating sources whilst it's producing. During the 10 hours it ain't producing you turn your other generating sources back up.

Energy storage not needed (but is quickly becoming a thing).

 

[Moriath]

1.7GW storage capacity (not taking efficiency into consideration). There isn't enough of these plants to make a dent in average generation demand in the UK. Right at this present time it's sitting at 44GW (approximately). It's probably only used in extreme cases and to provide emergency active power.

Large scale power storage doesn't really exist and plants like Dinorwig aren't used the way you describe (like a battery).

Except in the way it comes on fast to cover a peak usage, doesn't last that long, and the water is then pumped back up to the top during low usage times.

It's kind of a battery. But only in an emergency sticking plaster sort of way.

 

[leggy]

Energy storage isn't the problem with tidal. It's a predictable source of clean energy - so you use all of that tidal energy and turn down your other generating sources whilst it's producing. During the 10 hours it ain't producing you turn your other generating sources back up.

Energy storage not needed (but is quickly becoming a thing).

Agreed. And this would be great if our generation assets were owned by the government. But we don't just turn down one plant to suit another regardless of the 'cleanliness' of the energy. As it stands this doesn't really fit with competition law

 

[leggy]

On storage I was really just commenting on the point Emb was making. Storage as we know it isn't required as most conventional plants are two-shifted and the likes. The rest only work when it's sunny and windy

 

[Scouse]

this would be great if our generation assets were owned by the government. But we don't just turn down one plant to suit another regardless of the 'cleanliness' of the energy. As it stands this doesn't really fit with competition law

Like @Moriath facepalmed me over my comment about the oil industry - now it's potentially loss-making it looks like the government's going to buy into it (with public money) - privatise the gains and socialise the losses.

But the energy industries are taking a battering. Especially in the US. A lot of the big generator's prospects have been severely downgraded by the banks - microgeneration and home storage will shortly start giving them a kicking.

Maybe it won't be long before the generation assets are back in public hands? I mean - we're effectively paying for new nuclear anyway, only to give the profits away to generation companies that are owned by other countries' governments. And if there's a risk of it becoming unprofitable to a small number of private individuals then it may be that the public may end up bearing all of the cost again, no?

 

[Job]

Can't we just drill into the mantle and pump water in and out, I mean it's a proven technology, all we need is one badass drill..if we spent 10 billion making a frickin drill we could have endless steam.

 

[Gwadien]

Can't we just drill into the mantle and pump water in and out, I mean it$s a.proven technology, all we need is one badass drill..if we spent 10 billion making a frickin drill we could have endless steam.

I'm no expert, but isn't that like creating another volcano?

 

[Moriath]

Like @Moriath facepalmed me over my comment about the oil industry - now it's potentially loss-making it looks like the government's going to buy into it (with public money) - privatise the gains and socialise the losses.

But the energy industries are taking a battering. Especially in the US. A lot of the big generator's prospects have been severely downgraded by the banks - microgeneration and home storage will shortly start giving them a kicking.

Maybe it won't be long before the generation assets are back in public hands? I mean - we're effectively paying for new nuclear anyway, only to give the profits away to generation companies that are owned by other countries' governments. And if there's a risk of it becoming unprofitable to a small number of private individuals then it may be that the public may end up bearing all of the cost again, no?

Sorry face palm was for the government wanting to privatise not you personally ... My bad

 

[Job]

It is an ongoing project, but never apears in any debates, the best thing is that everyone has it under their feet...no political consequences.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...thermal-energy-is-the-solution-for-the-future

 

[Scouse]

Another year, another £5,000,000,000 of public money with no change and no end in sight.

Spoiler

Considering the hit price for Hinkley doesn't include cleanup costs (which are totally separate and 100% public funded) - it makes these tidal lagoons look like the bargain of the century eh?