With apologies to Victor Meldrew.....

Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years 1 month

Posts: 11,141

.....I don't BELIEVE it! Hot on the heels of £50 billion to £80 billion (take your pick) HS2, Amber what's-her-name - Ed Davey's clone has approved the billion pound Swansea tidal lagoon. Totally un cost effective and subsidised three times that of off-shore wind! And we can't afford to defend ourselves!:mad:
Original post
Profile picture for user 1batfastard

Member for

6 years 9 months

Posts: 3,346

Hi All, Charlie, I agree with your sentiments entirely just a waste of more public money...:apologetic: Geoff.
Profile picture for user Newforest

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 8,808

Sounded like a workable project to me ?!
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years 1 month

Posts: 11,141

Suppose it depends on your definition of "workable". A gas fired power station up the coast for the same money or less producing more energy at a fraction of the cost for no subsidy at all. No contest!

Member for

8 years 7 months

Posts: 6,467

All down to the EU's Renewal Energy Directive. Remember that when/if it comes to the referendum!
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years 1 month

Posts: 11,141

It gets even worse after the G7 commitments the other day - glad I probably won't be around when the lights go out in about 15 years time.

Member for

9 years 7 months

Posts: 4,993

Maybe promises were made to the Welsh, prior to the election ? Cost aside, I think it's about time we made use of our tidal power, although it's not a new idea. There used to be tide mills around the country, using a similar method to power themselves. I believe the one at Woodbridge still works.
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years 1 month

Posts: 11,141

Alan - you say "cost aside" but cost is what it's all about. Our ludicrous energy policies result in some of the highest charges in Europe. You, me and all consumers deserve better.

Member for

9 years 7 months

Posts: 4,993

Of course cost is a (huge) factor, but tidal power has to be a better bet in the long run. More efficient (depending on which set of figures you believe) than the the proliferation of wind farms, both onshore and offshore. They will work all of the time at peak (or close to) efficiency, unlike wind turbines. They will work 24hrs, unlike solar arrays. No pollution etc . We will not be so dependent on Norway and Qatar for their gas. Apart from the initial outlay, what is there not to like about them ?
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years 1 month

Posts: 11,141

Well - For a start, the immense capital cost means that TLP is asking the Government to agree to it being given a uniquely high subsidy. They say that the power produced has to be sold to the National Grid at the ‘strike price’ of a staggering £168 per mgwh, or it is not viable - more than three times the wholesale price of unsubsidised electricity from coal or gas-fired power stations. That is more than the already inflated sudsidies paid for onshore wind, offshore wind and nuclear. It would make Swansea’s tidal power easily the most expensive electricity in the world, paid for by every UK householder through green surcharges on our electricity bills, in addition to the surcharges which are already applied. But of course the turbines will not generate power round the clock. Although their full capacity, if they could produce at full power 24 hours a day, is rated at 320 mgw, in fact they would turn, at varying speeds, for only some 14 hours a day, as the tides flow in and out. Reading between the lines of the published figures they show the average the output of all the turbines to be only 57 megawatts, or 18 per cent of their capacity. The gas-fired power station being built near Manchester for the same capital cost of £1 billion will be capable of generating 880 megawatts — that’s 15 times as much. I can see almost nothing to like about the scheme at all other than to satisfy the green lobby obsessed as it is by the utter fiction of efficient green energy. I certainly can see nothing for consumers to be happy about. Just think - with that billion, or no doubt more by the time it's finished, we could avoid the proposed defence cuts and maybe even have a bit extra. And without HS2 we'd be in happy land!!;)

Member for

4 years 5 months

Posts: 5

Given the enormous cost and the high energy content of the thing (all that cement, steel and chugging round in big chuggy things), how long will it be until we get back as much tidal energy as the fossil energy we put in? Will the sea level have risen so much by then that the thing stops working?

Member for

11 years 9 months

Posts: 2,248

Don't know the numbers so can't comment to any great extent, however the thought does wander into my mind that in order to progress experimentation, development and testing are required. If all we do is continue to build what worked 10 or 20 years ago and expect to keep pace with the requirement I think the risk of falling short is rather great. I offer you the British aircraft industry from the second world war onwards as a prime example. As I said don't know the numbers so probably a moot point, but thinking that continued reliance on coal, oil and gas, even in developed state, will continue to cut it into the future is more than a potential risk in my opinion.
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years 1 month

Posts: 11,141

Rather like successive governments you forgot about nuclear fission with fusion to be developed which carries lower subsidies that any of the other alternative options. And wind is wind and sun is sun and water is water - not much to be developed I would have thought.

Member for

9 years 7 months

Posts: 4,993

All things considered, I still think tidal power is the way forward. Using gas to produce electricity seems rather counter productive. But hey ho :)
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years 1 month

Posts: 11,141

Astonishing! But fair enough if that's really what you believe. But, unlike me and perhaps others, you are clearly happy to pay the huge premium for it.

Member for

11 years 9 months

Posts: 2,248

How dare you Charles, certainly have not forgotten nuclear! :) Actually believe it to be the energy source of the future. Having said that also not keen on having all eggs in one basket. With regard to development, and wind being wind etc. allow me to propose that with that sort of attitude we would all be walking around on four legs still or at the very best riding the available beasts to move around!
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years 1 month

Posts: 11,141

If by your last paragraph you imply we should not ignore all and every potential resource then I would agree. But we are not developing them - we are just using them to turn a wheel. Like we did a centuries ago.

Member for

11 years 9 months

Posts: 2,248

Yes but no. If the way the wheel is turned can be made more effective, so for a given input the amount produced is enhanced, that is progress.
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years 1 month

Posts: 11,141

I couldn't agree more. But we are not doing that. Now if we spent the next year or two or whatever it takes to dramatically improve the efficiency and THEN spent the millions on construction and subsidy it might just be worth it. But that's not what's happening, so driven are we by our self enforced targets. Mind you when it comes down to it you are still left with the problem that with the best will in the world a propellor will only turn when the wind is actually blowing. So when it isn't you still need power for your energy needs. Same argument applies for solar and tides and anything else which relies on the vagaries of nature.

Member for

11 years 9 months

Posts: 2,248

I would tend to agree with respect to the targets thing. The (western) world has become one "managed" by accountants and other similar creatures. Real leadership and attainment of true goals is sorely lacking. It is all about the tick in the box, it matters not if the objective is worthwhile or actually contributes anything, the tick is all important. I suspect this is driven by the recent focus on career and personal attainment in place of a sense of duty and collective achievement. Get all the ticks and move up a rung on the ladder, fail to get ticks yet contribute consistently and in a worthwhile fashion, remain where one is at best.