Fuck off matey

A £12bn scheme to build a series of tidal energy plants in Britain will be kickstarted on Friday as a planning application is submitted for the world’s largest power-generating lagoon in South Wales.

The promoters want to follow up an initial £850m project for Swansea Bay with four even larger lagoons with a capacity of 7,300MW – enough to meet 10% of the UK’s electricity needs.


It’s easy
to see that this is a foul, ghastly and hugely wasteful project:

Tidal Lagoon Power has put in a development consent order under the Planning Act 2008, but must convince the government to provide subsidies of £156 per MW/h – even more than that going to offshore wind farms.

That one number is all you need. The power is simply too damn expensive.

So fuck it.

25 comments on “Fuck off matey

  1. Big Green power can fuck up the environment catastrophically as long as it’s subsidised and motivated by the ecofascists but a little discreet and profitable fracking must be resisted at all costs…

  2. In Spain common sense has returned. They are proposing to cut all subsidies, retrospectively, and pay all generators of power the going wholesale price.

    Who know, such logic might one day also prevail here in the UK and the investors in these taxpayer milking schemes will loose their shirts.

    That day cannot come too soon for me.

    But, remember, there is nothing a carbon tax cannot fix.

  3. So that’s a 12BN project that need 9BN of taxpayers’ dosh a year as a subsidy just to operate profitably.

    Put another way that’s an extra 350 on every household’s energy bill (assuming it costs nothing to collect) – just for 10% of the market to have access to “green” power.

    Given that they can’t actually implement a single pound of real budget cut and the Millitard is talking price controls, why TF is this even being discussed?

    Arseholes.

    BTW there’s an interesting observation about the cost of corruption – it always costs the country more than it makes the corrupters. If this goes ahead the PP will probably make <10 quid a MWH so consumers will get conned into paying 9BN a year to fatten the deep pockets of some hypocritical pricks by 'only' 600M. No other proven benefit.

    No thanks tossers. Do fuck off please.

  4. So that’s a 12BN project that need 9BN of taxpayers’ dosh a year as a subsidy just to operate profitably.

    With the risk, of course, that a severe weather event (or whatever we’re meant to call it these days) comes along and washes the whole shebang away.

  5. TT
    February 7, 2014 at 12:06 pm

    So that’s a 12BN project that need 9BN of taxpayers’ dosh a year as a subsidy just to operate profitably.

    As this is a Green project and needs to get over a few hurdles to get access to our cash we can be fairly certain that the cost and benefits will all be at the extreme ends of their respective probability spectrum so that it can go through on the nod.

    With that in mind we need to apply that well know adjuster for all Government and green projects: PI()

    So that will be £40bn to build 2,323MW of power and require subsidies in the order of £30Bn pa.

  6. Absolute madness. And this at the same time af Lockheed Martins announcement for a possible breakthrough in compact nuclear fusion within 10 years to grid connection.

  7. Apparently they’re going to be powered by a horde of Territorial Army with brooms, sloshing the Somerset deluge back out to sea.

  8. Can we wait for the announcement they’ve produced it for commercial use before we celebrate.
    In the meantime this subsidising of power generation – should it not be those who want it to subsidise it? The greens who think of jobs as a benefit, who think a few billion a year in subsidy makes a method viable – charge them not those of us who like coal & gas?

  9. Perhaps the French would sell us the same amount of electricity from their power generators for a lower sum?

  10. The great thing about this is that the Left can both celebrate the green energy AND agitate over the fuel poverty. Win/win.

  11. I am always a little surprised that the ships in the Channel have space to move, rather than being entirely obstructed by huge privately-funded civil engineering projects to put in more HVDC cables to allow England to buy French nuclear electricity. We have a 2GW cable and it’s essentially full the whole time; so why isn’t building a second parallel one a no-brainer?

  12. I seriously object to this project being described as Green. Well maybe it is Green in the sense that Marx said he was not a Marxist. But it is not green.

    The problem with tidal power stations is that they use bays and coastal regions generally. Which are often very intensively used for other purposes. Like bird habitats. Coastal mud flats are one of the few environments we do not use much and so they tend to be full of wild life. The worst example of this is the Severn project, of which this looks like either a poor cousin or a cleverly renamed plan for the same thing. It is home to something like one in twelve birds in the UK. Who may not appreciate their homes being flooded.

  13. Does anyone want to crunch the numbers on this project? Tide heights do of course vary & why do I have a suspicion the power output is based on the top of the range rather than the average over time? Because it’s what’s been done with every other ‘alternative’ energy source going.
    It’s what happens with wind & solar PV. If you pick all the best case numbers you can get them to be profitable. But the profit/loss line’s not that far below those best case numbers.
    Tides are predictable, so there’s no real excuse for not producing ‘real’ numbers. But I wouldn’t put it past them just reading the power producing capability off the label of the generators & working from that. Roughly what’s done with wind.
    It should be possible to work out total m2 of water/ height & see how much energy’s there to capture.

  14. @VftS
    From the link?
    “A 100MW compact fusion reactor that runs on plentiful and cheap deuterium and tritium (isotopes of hydrogen). ”

    When did tritium become cheap? Deuterium’s expensive enough to refine for & tritium’s naturally much scarcer. Presumably they’re envisioning cooking the tritium up from lithium in a fission reactor?

  15. Crunching the numbers:

    Spending $1m per MW for a gas fired power station is par for the course (the actual value depends on technology/ efficiency/ add-ons such as CHP), so spending $2m per MW in capital doesn’t sound so bad considering more than half the lifetime costs of a gas fired power station is the gas and the tidal station.

    Trouble is, being tidal, it probably doesn’t run all the time, so while you might get 7.3GW at peak periods in practice it is going to produce much less.

    On the back of my envelope, if it needs £150/MWh subsidy on top the commercial £55/MWh (= £205MWh) to be viable (i.e. 10% return ignoring debt finance), and assuming it is down for maintenance 10% of the time and that 80% of the operating revenues are profit (before depreciation)/free cash, then I reckon they are planning on generating an average of only just 1GW, which for £12 billion is no bloody good.

  16. “being tidal, it probably doesn’t run all the time, so while you might get 7.3GW at peak periods in practice it is going to produce much less.”
    That doesn’t necessarily follow with tidal. There’s two rising & two falling episodes a day, but with suitable arrangement of channels & storage volumes it should be possible to get a steady flow through a turbine 24/7. You’d be draining from or filling into higher or lower storage volumes at slack tide.
    But then you can’t take the full tide range/flow as the energy available as you’re lopping the top & bottom off to cover this.

  17. bloke in spain – “When did tritium become cheap? Deuterium’s expensive enough to refine for & tritium’s naturally much scarcer. Presumably they’re envisioning cooking the tritium up from lithium in a fission reactor?”

    I think most plans have the fusion taking place in a torus shaped donut which is cooled externally by liquid lithium. As one of the product of D-T fusion is a spare neutron.

    D + T -> He4 + n + 17 MeV

    The lithium would not only cool the structure, it would absorb as many of the neutrons as possible thus creating the needed tritium. Presumably it would have to be lithium 6 which means more separation of isotopes at God knows what cost.

    Unfortunately the structure would also absorb a lot of them producing long lasting waste. Which makes me wonder why people don’t just stick with fission.

  18. @SMfS
    Not doubting your wonder of the practicality for other reasons, but why the requirement for separating for lithium 6? If your cooling shroud has unseparated Li & the neutrons split the Li6 isotopes to H3, then the problem’s still getting the H3 out of the Li to fuse with the H2. it makes no difference to the extraction process. I’m presuming the other isotope(s) of Li don’t fission, of course. Or make no difference to the neutron energy.

  19. The analogy is running a fission pile on unseparated, unrefined uranium ore & river water. You just need a lot of ore & a lot of moderator, rather than smaller amounts of 235 & Du. Works in nature, fine.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.