I cannot believe that the price per unit of electricity will come close to the Hinkley C strike price. But maybe one extravagance is enough.
The developers had previously asked for a 90-year contract with the UK government with an average strike price - a guaranteed price for the electricity generated - of £89.90 per megawatt hour. The new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C in Somerset was given a strike price of £92.50/MWh for 35 years.
That was for Swansea. Add in Cardiff and you are looking at a 20-25% discount on those numbers. But I'm told the Government/Civil Servants squashed that proposal for a two-fer....
Aren't the twitcher brigade against the lagoon projects?
Nah - we love looking for a rare wader a mile away through heat-haze!
I do know a vast amount of work has been done on the environmental aspects.
Fairy 'nuff - I know they were reallhy against the Severn barrage.
BTW, met a couple of twitchers on the banks of Moreton's Leam in Cambridgeshire on Friday. They're always lovely people, and very keen to share what they're spotting.
And how do they reconcile this with PM May, exactly?
It is interesting that May made it a whipped vote. Greg Hands was on R5 this afternoon indicating that this was a very late decision which, had it not been taken, would have meant he would not have been obliged to resign. Its almost as if May was keen to cause Boris a problem isn't it?
This is nothing. What's he going to do if May gets rest of Cabinet to agree to try and negotiate a single market deal?
I think May is saving up a big reckoning for Boris. She's steely and I suspect a bit vindictive. It won't be a simple resignation. It will be some kind of humiliation. Today is a sampler.
Well we know she is vindictive from how she treated Osborne - whether or not one thinks he deserved such such treatment, the leaking about how she game him what for and all that and showed him out the back did not seem like a sensible move.
Just imagine if May manages to find a way to eviscerate Boris and avert Brexit in a way that prevents the Tory party splitting. She'd instantly become a revered stateswoman and one of the strongest figures in European politics.
Suggestions anyone?
Theresa to Cabinet: I've decided the only way to square the circle and deliver a Brexit that is good for Britain and with EU support is to stay in the customs union and single market for goods. And I want you, Boris, to take the lead on selling this to the Party and the country in the most positive way that doesn't look like a betrayal in any way.
Boris: [ruffling hair] But but Prime Minister I'm not sure I can do that.
Theresa: I'm not asking you Boris. I'm telling you. You are very good at selling a story and it is an excellent test of your leadership skills. So that's agreed.
This year about 80,000 migrants will cross by sea to Greece, Italy and Spain. That's less than a tenth of the number of 2015 when more than a million made the voyage. Year-year-numbers are down about 60%, which in turn was well down on 2016. If progress can continue being made, it's not unreasonable to expect that 2019 might see fewer than 40,000 people making the trek, which is a whole bunch more manageable than a million.
I cannot believe that the price per unit of electricity will come close to the Hinkley C strike price. But maybe one extravagance is enough.
The developers had previously asked for a 90-year contract with the UK government with an average strike price - a guaranteed price for the electricity generated - of £89.90 per megawatt hour. The new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C in Somerset was given a strike price of £92.50/MWh for 35 years.
That was for Swansea. Add in Cardiff and you are looking at a 20-25% discount on those numbers. But I'm told the Government/Civil Servants squashed that proposal for a two-fer....
Seems a bonkers decision. But not the first from tories over the past few years have. Can we have a new sensible centrist / centre right / pro business party please....
The sooner the better. The lagoon decision has greatly annoyed me
Why? Are you claiming the government is wrong to say that it represents poor value for money? If so, on what basis?
It is a huge project for Wales and as Welsh politicians are saying the decision is because it is the wrong side of the border. Their is a real anger on Wales news tonight especially as it was in the 2015 Conservative manifesto
I cannot believe that the price per unit of electricity will come close to the Hinkley C strike price. But maybe one extravagance is enough.
The developers had previously asked for a 90-year contract with the UK government with an average strike price - a guaranteed price for the electricity generated - of £89.90 per megawatt hour. The new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C in Somerset was given a strike price of £92.50/MWh for 35 years.
That was for Swansea. Add in Cardiff and you are looking at a 20-25% discount on those numbers. But I'm told the Government/Civil Servants squashed that proposal for a two-fer....
Aren't the twitcher brigade against the lagoon projects?
Nah - we love looking for a rare wader a mile away through heat-haze!
I do know a vast amount of work has been done on the environmental aspects.
Fairy 'nuff - I know they were reallhy against the Severn barrage.
BTW, met a couple of twitchers on the banks of Moreton's Leam in Cambridgeshire on Friday. They're always lovely people, and very keen to share what they're spotting.
It's a sham I cannot tell my Dove from my Puffin.
The real hardcore end of twitching can be a bit troubling - but most of them are salt of the earth sorts, who love their wildlife and are passionate about preserving it.
No worries. It will be in the Labour manifesto, - paid for many times over by the cancellation of the Heathrow 3rd runway and the associated road costs.
And the economic harm of not increasing airport capacity will cost many times the barrage cost.
But... but... Gatwick! I hear you screech. Well, NIMBY's will be all over that as well. We either do LH3 now, or nothing for years and suffer the economic consequences.
So that's the question: your own narrow interests or the good of the country?
That is wrong decision for all kinds of reasons. Government is far too London centric
That is certainly true, and politically this may not be the right move, but what if the government are right about the cost being prohibitive (I have no idea if they are, or how to judge if they are)? Granted, governments go ahead with overly costly stuff all the time, but are the financial arguments a) not compelling b) compensated for due to the eventual benefits?
This year about 80,000 migrants will cross by sea to Greece, Italy and Spain. That's less than a tenth of the number of 2015 when more than a million made the voyage. Year-year-numbers are down about 60%, which in turn was well down on 2016. If progress can continue being made, it's not unreasonable to expect that 2019 might see fewer than 40,000 people making the trek, which is a whole bunch more manageable than a million.
Is it just me that has an issue with do gooders from northern countries poncing about the Med “saving lives” (or encouraging the traffic, according to choice) and then assuming that they have the right to dump the consequential problems and expense on someone else?
They should start to bill these organisations with the cost of care and repatriation.
I cannot believe that the price per unit of electricity will come close to the Hinkley C strike price. But maybe one extravagance is enough.
The developers had previously asked for a 90-year contract with the UK government with an average strike price - a guaranteed price for the electricity generated - of £89.90 per megawatt hour. The new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C in Somerset was given a strike price of £92.50/MWh for 35 years.
That was for Swansea. Add in Cardiff and you are looking at a 20-25% discount on those numbers. But I'm told the Government/Civil Servants squashed that proposal for a two-fer....
Seems a bonkers decision. But not the first from tories over the past few years have. Can we have a new sensible centrist / centre right / pro business party please....
The sooner the better. The lagoon decision has greatly annoyed me
Why? Are you claiming the government is wrong to say that it represents poor value for money? If so, on what basis?
Richard, I know quite a lot about this project. This decision will see me not renewing my Conservative Party membership.
Basically, the decision on the barrage has been taken to keep nuclear viable. It isn't. These tidal lagoons beat it, on any measure you want to concoct.
And how do they reconcile this with PM May, exactly?
It is interesting that May made it a whipped vote. Greg Hands was on R5 this afternoon indicating that this was a very late decision which, had it not been taken, would have meant he would not have been obliged to resign. Its almost as if May was keen to cause Boris a problem isn't it?
This is nothing. What's he going to do if May gets rest of Cabinet to agree to try and negotiate a single market deal?
I think May is saving up a big reckoning for Boris. She's steely and I suspect a bit vindictive. It won't be a simple resignation. It will be some kind of humiliation. Today is a sampler.
Well we know she is vindictive from how she treated Osborne - whether or not one thinks he deserved such such treatment, the leaking about how she game him what for and all that and showed him out the back did not seem like a sensible move.
Just imagine if May manages to find a way to eviscerate Boris and avert Brexit in a way that prevents the Tory party splitting. She'd instantly become a revered stateswoman and one of the strongest figures in European politics.
Suggestions anyone?
If she found footage of Boris reporting back to Vlad about how he successfully nobbled the Brexit count on Vlad's orders that might do it.
That is wrong decision for all kinds of reasons. Government is far too London centric
That is certainly true, and politically this may not be the right move, but what if the government are right about the cost being prohibitive (I have no idea if they are, or how to judge if they are)? Granted, governments go ahead with overly costly stuff all the time, but are the financial arguments a) not compelling b) compensated for due to the eventual benefits?
This is politically disastrous for the party in Wales especially following the cancellation of electrification to Swansea
I cannot believe that the price per unit of electricity will come close to the Hinkley C strike price. But maybe one extravagance is enough.
The developers had previously asked for a 90-year contract with the UK government with an average strike price - a guaranteed price for the electricity generated - of £89.90 per megawatt hour. The new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C in Somerset was given a strike price of £92.50/MWh for 35 years.
That was for Swansea. Add in Cardiff and you are looking at a 20-25% discount on those numbers. But I'm told the Government/Civil Servants squashed that proposal for a two-fer....
Seems a bonkers decision. But not the first from tories over the past few years have. Can we have a new sensible centrist / centre right / pro business party please....
The sooner the better. The lagoon decision has greatly annoyed me
Why? Are you claiming the government is wrong to say that it represents poor value for money? If so, on what basis?
It is a huge project for Wales and as Welsh politicians are saying the decision is because it is the wrong side of the border. Their is a real anger on Wales news tonight especially as it was in the 2015 Conservative manifesto
Welsh politicians would say that, wouldn't they, especially if they're Plaid or Labour politicians? But it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether this project is good value for money. I'd have thought that as a good Conservative you'd think value for money was a rather important consideration.
And how do they reconcile this with PM May, exactly?
It is interesting that May made it a whipped vote. Greg Hands was on R5 this afternoon indicating that this was a very late decision which, had it not been taken, would have meant he would not have been obliged to resign. Its almost as if May was keen to cause Boris a problem isn't it?
This is nothing. What's he going to do if May gets rest of Cabinet to agree to try and negotiate a single market deal?
I think May is saving up a big reckoning for Boris. She's steely and I suspect a bit vindictive. It won't be a simple resignation. It will be some kind of humiliation. Today is a sampler.
Well we know she is vindictive from how she treated Osborne - whether or not one thinks he deserved such such treatment, the leaking about how she game him what for and all that and showed him out the back did not seem like a sensible move.
Just imagine if May manages to find a way to eviscerate Boris and avert Brexit in a way that prevents the Tory party splitting. She'd instantly become a revered stateswoman and one of the strongest figures in European politics.
Suggestions anyone?
If she found footage of Boris reporting back to Vlad about how he successfully nobbled the Brexit count on Vlad's orders that might do it.
Oh, and the Skripals were onto him, but Boris was going to bump them off with the novichok that Vlad had supplied.
I cannot believe that the price per unit of electricity will come close to the Hinkley C strike price. But maybe one extravagance is enough.
The developers had previously asked for a 90-year contract with the UK government with an average strike price - a guaranteed price for the electricity generated - of £89.90 per megawatt hour. The new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C in Somerset was given a strike price of £92.50/MWh for 35 years.
That was for Swansea. Add in Cardiff and you are looking at a 20-25% discount on those numbers. But I'm told the Government/Civil Servants squashed that proposal for a two-fer....
Seems a bonkers decision. But not the first from tories over the past few years have. Can we have a new sensible centrist / centre right / pro business party please....
The sooner the better. The lagoon decision has greatly annoyed me
Why? Are you claiming the government is wrong to say that it represents poor value for money? If so, on what basis?
It is a huge project for Wales and as Welsh politicians are saying the decision is because it is the wrong side of the border. Their is a real anger on Wales news tonight especially as it was in the 2015 Conservative manifesto
Welsh politicians would say that, wouldn't they, especially if they're Plaid or Labour politicians? But it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether this project is good value for money. I'd have thought that as a good Conservative you'd think value for money was a rather important consideration.
I cannot believe that the price per unit of electricity will come close to the Hinkley C strike price. But maybe one extravagance is enough.
The developers had previously asked for a 90-year contract with the UK government with an average strike price - a guaranteed price for the electricity generated - of £89.90 per megawatt hour. The new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C in Somerset was given a strike price of £92.50/MWh for 35 years.
That was for Swansea. Add in Cardiff and you are looking at a 20-25% discount on those numbers. But I'm told the Government/Civil Servants squashed that proposal for a two-fer....
Seems a bonkers decision. But not the first from tories over the past few years have. Can we have a new sensible centrist / centre right / pro business party please....
The sooner the better. The lagoon decision has greatly annoyed me
Why? Are you claiming the government is wrong to say that it represents poor value for money? If so, on what basis?
It is a huge project for Wales and as Welsh politicians are saying the decision is because it is the wrong side of the border. Their is a real anger on Wales news tonight especially as it was in the 2015 Conservative manifesto
Welsh politicians would say that, wouldn't they, especially if they're Plaid or Labour politicians? But it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether this project is good value for money. I'd have thought that as a good Conservative you'd think value for money was a rather important consideration.
No - the English wind farms have had huge subsidies and this project was the first of two for Wales including one here in Colwyn Bay. The conservatives have just handed a load of Welsh seats to labour and plaid
I cannot believe that the price per unit of electricity will come close to the Hinkley C strike price. But maybe one extravagance is enough.
The developers had previously asked for a 90-year contract with the UK government with an average strike price - a guaranteed price for the electricity generated - of £89.90 per megawatt hour. The new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C in Somerset was given a strike price of £92.50/MWh for 35 years.
That was for Swansea. Add in Cardiff and you are looking at a 20-25% discount on those numbers. But I'm told the Government/Civil Servants squashed that proposal for a two-fer....
Seems a bonkers decision. But not the first from tories over the past few years have. Can we have a new sensible centrist / centre right / pro business party please....
The sooner the better. The lagoon decision has greatly annoyed me
Why? Are you claiming the government is wrong to say that it represents poor value for money? If so, on what basis?
It is a huge project for Wales and as Welsh politicians are saying the decision is because it is the wrong side of the border. Their is a real anger on Wales news tonight especially as it was in the 2015 Conservative manifesto
Welsh politicians would say that, wouldn't they, especially if they're Plaid or Labour politicians? But it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether this project is good value for money. I'd have thought that as a good Conservative you'd think value for money was a rather important consideration.
The Welsh Tories were strong advocates.
And it is competing with nuclear. Nuclear has a storage headache for ten thousand years. Tidal has...tomorrow's tide.
There is a real stink behind this decision. We shouldn't be talking about Boris resigning today. We should be talking about Greg Clark.
No worries. It will be in the Labour manifesto, - paid for many times over by the cancellation of the Heathrow 3rd runway and the associated road costs.
And the economic harm of not increasing airport capacity will cost many times the barrage cost.
But... but... Gatwick! I hear you screech. Well, NIMBY's will be all over that as well. We either do LH3 now, or nothing for years and suffer the economic consequences.
So that's the question: your own narrow interests or the good of the country?
Richard, I know quite a lot about this project. This decision will see me not renewing my Conservative Party membership.
Basically, the decision on the barrage has been taken to keep nuclear viable. It isn't. These tidal lagoons beat it, on any measure you want to concoct.
Well, I'm not an expert, but this statement by Greg Clark looks as though it's a sensible decision:
The proposal for the Swansea tidal lagoon would cost £1.3 billion to build. If successful to its maximum ambition, it would provide around 0.15% of the electricity we use each year.
The same power generated by the lagoon, over 60 years, for £1.3 billion, would cost around £400 million for offshore wind even at today’s prices, which have fallen rapidly, and we expect to be cheaper still in future.
At £1.3 billion, the capital cost per unit of electricity generated each year would be 3 times that of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station.
If a full programme of 6 lagoons were constructed, the Hendry Review found that the cost would be more than £50 billion, and be 2 and a half times the cost of Hinkley to generate a similar output of electricity.
Enough offshore wind to provide the same generation as a programme of lagoons is estimated to cost at least £31.5 billion less to build.
Taking all the costs together, I have been advised by analysts that, by 2050, the proposal that has been made – which would generate around 30 TWh per year of electricity - could cost up to £20 billion more to produce compared to generating that same electricity through a mix of offshore wind and nuclear, once financing, operating, and system costs have been taken into account.
I cannot believe that the price per unit of electricity will come close to the Hinkley C strike price. But maybe one extravagance is enough.
The developers had previously asked for a 90-year contract with the UK government with an average strike price - a guaranteed price for the electricity generated - of £89.90 per megawatt hour. The new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C in Somerset was given a strike price of £92.50/MWh for 35 years.
That was for Swansea. Add in Cardiff and you are looking at a 20-25% discount on those numbers. But I'm told the Government/Civil Servants squashed that proposal for a two-fer....
Seems a bonkers decision. But not the first from tories over the past few years have. Can we have a new sensible centrist / centre right / pro business party please....
The sooner the better. The lagoon decision has greatly annoyed me
Why? Are you claiming the government is wrong to say that it represents poor value for money? If so, on what basis?
It is a huge project for Wales and as Welsh politicians are saying the decision is because it is the wrong side of the border. Their is a real anger on Wales news tonight especially as it was in the 2015 Conservative manifesto
Welsh politicians would say that, wouldn't they, especially if they're Plaid or Labour politicians? But it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether this project is good value for money. I'd have thought that as a good Conservative you'd think value for money was a rather important consideration.
No - the English wind farms have had huge subsidies and this project was the first of two for Wales including one here in Colwyn Bay. The conservatives have just handed a load of Welsh seats to labour and plaid
I cannot believe that the price per unit of electricity will come close to the Hinkley C strike price. But maybe one extravagance is enough.
The developers had previously asked for a 90-year contract with the UK government with an average strike price - a guaranteed price for the electricity generated - of £89.90 per megawatt hour. The new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C in Somerset was given a strike price of £92.50/MWh for 35 years.
That was for Swansea. Add in Cardiff and you are looking at a 20-25% discount on those numbers. But I'm told the Government/Civil Servants squashed that proposal for a two-fer....
Seems a bonkers decision. But not the first from tories over the past few years have. Can we have a new sensible centrist / centre right / pro business party please....
The sooner the better. The lagoon decision has greatly annoyed me
Why? Are you claiming the government is wrong to say that it represents poor value for money? If so, on what basis?
It is a huge project for Wales and as Welsh politicians are saying the decision is because it is the wrong side of the border. Their is a real anger on Wales news tonight especially as it was in the 2015 Conservative manifesto
Welsh politicians would say that, wouldn't they, especially if they're Plaid or Labour politicians? But it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether this project is good value for money. I'd have thought that as a good Conservative you'd think value for money was a rather important consideration.
The Welsh Tories were strong advocates.
And it is competing with nuclear. Nuclear has a storage headache for ten thousand years. Tidal has...tomorrow's tide.
There is a real stink behind this decision. We shouldn't be talking about Boris resigning today. We should be talking about Greg Clark.
This year about 80,000 migrants will cross by sea to Greece, Italy and Spain. That's less than a tenth of the number of 2015 when more than a million made the voyage. Year-year-numbers are down about 60%, which in turn was well down on 2016. If progress can continue being made, it's not unreasonable to expect that 2019 might see fewer than 40,000 people making the trek, which is a whole bunch more manageable than a million.
Very effective deterrent policy. Note EU comment does not condemn this policy. You would at least have thought the EU would have provided some Evian and Foie Gras for the journey.
No worries. It will be in the Labour manifesto, - paid for many times over by the cancellation of the Heathrow 3rd runway and the associated road costs.
And the economic harm of not increasing airport capacity will cost many times the barrage cost.
But... but... Gatwick! I hear you screech. Well, NIMBY's will be all over that as well. We either do LH3 now, or nothing for years and suffer the economic consequences.
So that's the question: your own narrow interests or the good of the country?
The lagoon please.
Ah, so narrow interests. Because make no mistake: we need more airport capacity in the SE, and Heathrow failing to go ahead will not automagicallly make another project - such as Gatwick - go ahead. There'll be another decade or more of vested interests arguing pathetically against that option, and meanwhile the country is hurt.
Unlike most people who post here, and indeed most people period, I don't form strong views on highly technical issues which I haven't studied in depth.
Unlike most people who post here, and indeed most people period, I don't form strong views on highly technical issues which I haven't studied in depth.
So is BoJo going to follow Hands' example? I don't think we should hold our breaths.
Monday is probably the day Boris' leadership ambitions die for good.
I also noted that May might pair him off for a laugh too.
9 times out of 10 general elections are won by the more charismatic candidate and like Boris or loathe him he has more charisma than the rest of the Cabinet put together
Unlike most people who post here, and indeed most people period, I don't form strong views on highly technical issues which I haven't studied in depth.
That's the problem: "studying in depth" often depends on which sides's Kool-aid you have drunk.
As an example, I'm in favour of HS2, and believe I have a good handle on how the project may succeed and die. This involves reading (all?) the reports over nearly a decade, and a load of supporting information. Even then I might be utterly wrong - such are projections or using history as a projection of the future.
Likewise LH3: I feel something needs to be done *now* because of the lean spare capacity at LHR, and the projections show traffic is increasing. But what happens if those projections are wrong?
I haven't really been following the Swansea Lagoon/Barrage project, and a quick Google throws up such a massive amount of obviously contradictory information from the yeas and nays. I've no instinctive idea if the government's decision is right or wrong.
And the sad thing is even people working for the project for years might be wrong, as might those opposing.
I cannot believe that the price per unit of electricity will come close to the Hinkley C strike price. But maybe one extravagance is enough.
The developers had previously asked for a 90-year contract with the UK government with an average strike price - a guaranteed price for the electricity generated - of £89.90 per megawatt hour. The new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C in Somerset was given a strike price of £92.50/MWh for 35 years.
That was for Swansea. Add in Cardiff and you are looking at a 20-25% discount on those numbers. But I'm told the Government/Civil Servants squashed that proposal for a two-fer....
Seems a bonkers decision. But not the first from tories over the past few years have. Can we have a new sensible centrist / centre right / pro business party please....
The sooner the better. The lagoon decision has greatly annoyed me
Why? Are you claiming the government is wrong to say that it represents poor value for money? If so, on what basis?
It is a huge project for Wales and as Welsh politicians are saying the decision is because it is the wrong side of the border. Their is a real anger on Wales news tonight especially as it was in the 2015 Conservative manifesto
Welsh politicians would say that, wouldn't they, especially if they're Plaid or Labour politicians? But it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether this project is good value for money. I'd have thought that as a good Conservative you'd think value for money was a rather important consideration.
No - the English wind farms have had huge subsidies and this project was the first of two for Wales including one here in Colwyn Bay. The conservatives have just handed a load of Welsh seats to labour and plaid
There are no Tory seats around the Swansea estuary, they are all Labour
Wolfgang Munchau makes the point that the reality of US car tariffs could have a profound impact on the Brexit discussions. The UK is the largest export market for German car makers, followed by the US. If the US imposed tariffs, and if the Brexit talks were to collapse, the German auto industry would have to face crippling tariffs in three of its four largest export markets. The third one is China which is due to to slap car tariffs on US-made cars, many of them by German companies, in retaliation for the tariffs imposed by the US on Chinese goods. The EU clearly has no interest in a hard Brexit in this situation.
Actually most German cars sold in the US are made in the US. Most Harley Davidson's sold in the EU are not made in the EU but can be made elsewhere outside the EU. However, the adjustment will take time.
Richard, I know quite a lot about this project. This decision will see me not renewing my Conservative Party membership.
Basically, the decision on the barrage has been taken to keep nuclear viable. It isn't. These tidal lagoons beat it, on any measure you want to concoct.
Well, I'm not an expert, but this statement by Greg Clark looks as though it's a sensible decision:
The proposal for the Swansea tidal lagoon would cost £1.3 billion to build. If successful to its maximum ambition, it would provide around 0.15% of the electricity we use each year.
The same power generated by the lagoon, over 60 years, for £1.3 billion, would cost around £400 million for offshore wind even at today’s prices, which have fallen rapidly, and we expect to be cheaper still in future.
At £1.3 billion, the capital cost per unit of electricity generated each year would be 3 times that of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station.
If a full programme of 6 lagoons were constructed, the Hendry Review found that the cost would be more than £50 billion, and be 2 and a half times the cost of Hinkley to generate a similar output of electricity.
Enough offshore wind to provide the same generation as a programme of lagoons is estimated to cost at least £31.5 billion less to build.
Taking all the costs together, I have been advised by analysts that, by 2050, the proposal that has been made – which would generate around 30 TWh per year of electricity - could cost up to £20 billion more to produce compared to generating that same electricity through a mix of offshore wind and nuclear, once financing, operating, and system costs have been taken into account.
That statement is the most incredibly selective use of data. The basic issue it ignores is that these lagoons are constructed to be in place and providing power for 120 years. Factor that in and nothing else competes.
So, the government should spend billions because of the 'optics'.
Right...
Richard, IANAE either. But if the cleaner, safer energy source is also cheaper how can it be not value for money? I appreciate that we are already stuck with Hinkley C and we may well have to find cheaper sources of energy to cross subsidise its cost if UK manufacturing is going to remain competitive but not value for money? I really struggle to see it.
So, the government should spend billions because of the 'optics'.
Right...
This is your worst stint of sucking at the Government teat since you spent days telling us how wonderful Cameron's renegotiation with Brussels was.....
So, the government should spend billions because of the 'optics'.
Right...
Richard, IANAE either. But if the cleaner, safer energy source is also cheaper how can it be not value for money? I appreciate that we are already stuck with Hinkley C and we may well have to find cheaper sources of energy to cross subsidise its cost if UK manufacturing is going to remain competitive but not value for money? I really struggle to see it.
Simple. Richard cannot support this project because Hinckley C was executed by his guru Osborne. However, wind energy is much much cheaper, even in Wales.
That statement is the most incredibly selective use of data. The basic issue it ignores is that these lagoons are constructed to be in place and providing power for 120 years. Factor that in and nothing else competes.
Hmm, you need to factor in a 120-year timeframe to justify the project?
I cannot believe that the price per unit of electricity will come close to the Hinkley C strike price. But maybe one extravagance is enough.
The developers had previously asked for a 90-year contract with the UK government with an average strike price - a guaranteed price for the electricity generated - of £89.90 per megawatt hour. The new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C in Somerset was given a strike price of £92.50/MWh for 35 years.
That was for Swansea. Add in Cardiff and you are looking at a 20-25% discount on those numbers. But I'm told the Government/Civil Servants squashed that proposal for a two-fer....
Seems a bonkers decision. But not the first from tories over the past few years have. Can we have a new sensible centrist / centre right / pro business party please....
The sooner the better. The lagoon decision has greatly annoyed me
Why? Are you claiming the government is wrong to say that it represents poor value for money? If so, on what basis?
It is a huge project for Wales and as Welsh politicians are saying the decision is because it is the wrong side of the border. Their is a real anger on Wales news tonight especially as it was in the 2015 Conservative manifesto
Welsh politicians would say that, wouldn't they, especially if they're Plaid or Labour politicians? But it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether this project is good value for money. I'd have thought that as a good Conservative you'd think value for money was a rather important consideration.
No - the English wind farms have had huge subsidies and this project was the first of two for Wales including one here in Colwyn Bay. The conservatives have just handed a load of Welsh seats to labour and plaid
There are no Tory seats around the Swansea estuary, they are all Labour
I cannot believe you are so complacent. All the conservative seats in all of Wales are going to be under attack. This was not just for Swansea but also North Wales and is a big story of Government let down, especially as it was a 2015 manifesto commitment.
I have nowhere else to go politically but rarely has an English decision annoyed me more
So, the government should spend billions because of the 'optics'.
Right...
Perhaps, yes, if the government wants to represent the entire country.
Leaving aside the technical rights and wrongs of the barrage (and as I say below, I have no effing idea), there is a feeling that infrastructure investment is very London- and SE- centric. And I think that's right, even if there are often good reasons for that bias.
*If* the barrage is a reasonable project, perhaps the basic BCR is not the only factor to be used in judgement. If you ave two projects - say one at a BCR of 5 in London and 4 in a poor area of the country, it may be value to do the latter rather than the former (or even both).
That statement is the most incredibly selective use of data. The basic issue it ignores is that these lagoons are constructed to be in place and providing power for 120 years. Factor that in and nothing else competes.
Hmm, you need to factor in a 120-year timeframe to justify the project?
According to Digby Jones, Brexit will be worth it in 100 years.
Richard, I know quite a lot about this project. This decision will see me not renewing my Conservative Party membership.
Basically, the decision on the barrage has been taken to keep nuclear viable. It isn't. These tidal lagoons beat it, on any measure you want to concoct.
Well, I'm not an expert, but this statement by Greg Clark looks as though it's a sensible decision:
The proposal for the Swansea tidal lagoon would cost £1.3 billion to build. If successful to its maximum ambition, it would provide around 0.15% of the electricity we use each year.
The same power generated by the lagoon, over 60 years, for £1.3 billion, would cost around £400 million for offshore wind even at today’s prices, which have fallen rapidly, and we expect to be cheaper still in future.
At £1.3 billion, the capital cost per unit of electricity generated each year would be 3 times that of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station.
If a full programme of 6 lagoons were constructed, the Hendry Review found that the cost would be more than £50 billion, and be 2 and a half times the cost of Hinkley to generate a similar output of electricity.
Enough offshore wind to provide the same generation as a programme of lagoons is estimated to cost at least £31.5 billion less to build.
Taking all the costs together, I have been advised by analysts that, by 2050, the proposal that has been made – which would generate around 30 TWh per year of electricity - could cost up to £20 billion more to produce compared to generating that same electricity through a mix of offshore wind and nuclear, once financing, operating, and system costs have been taken into account.
The variable costs of the barrage would be lower (only 28 employees and free fuel) and there would be no decommissioning costs. So there are questions to be asked.
I'm always suspicious of models (or rather the creators of the models). The computer says yes. But there are always agendas and biases at work.
But, to be honest, I don't know whether the barrage is good value for money. It feels right and I'm certain I could produce a convincing set of assumptions and a model that "proved" it was.
Ploughing on with London-centric project while choosing today to abandon something ground-breaking and innovative in the regions.
And Boris the incredible Chicken on the least convincing last-minute escape since Harry Kane's winner against Tunisia.
Are they even trying? Looks like they are just taking the p at the moment.
Heathrow brings tourists and business people to the UK many of whom will travel elsewhere in the UK beyond London during their stay.
A tidal project in Swansea really means little unless you live around Swansea and wanted a job out of it
What a pathetic statement ! Basically, you are saying: Swansea, piss off !
It amazes me that Hyufd with his immense knowledge of all things conservative, and who I usually agree with (apart from Boris) is so English and out of touch on this
Theresa needs to overrule Greg Clark and announce to the people of Wales that this project is going ahead after all. Who cares about the cost? Just say it's coming out of the Brexit dividend.
So, the government should spend billions because of the 'optics'.
Right...
This is your worst stint of sucking at the Government teat since you spent days telling us how wonderful Cameron's renegotiation with Brussels was.....
Well, if someone would explain what is wrong with Greg Clark's statement, I'd be delighted to consider the argument. So far the complaints seem to be:
- Welsh politicians should be bought off - The government should pander to to the absurd argument that Wales somehow gets hard-done by - Money is being spent on Heathrow so it's OK to waste money on this project - Hinkley Point is expensive so it's OK to waste money on this project - The project doesn't look too bad if you amortise it over 120 years.
None of these seem to be terribly impressive arguments, by any stretch of the imagination.
Ploughing on with London-centric project while choosing today to abandon something ground-breaking and innovative in the regions.
And Boris the incredible Chicken on the least convincing last-minute escape since Harry Kane's winner against Tunisia.
Are they even trying? Looks like they are just taking the p at the moment.
Heathrow brings tourists and business people to the UK many of whom will travel elsewhere in the UK beyond London during their stay.
A tidal project in Swansea really means little unless you live around Swansea and wanted a job out of it
What a pathetic statement ! Basically, you are saying: Swansea, piss off !
It amazes me that Hyufd with his immense knowledge of all things conservative, and who I usually agree with (apart from Boris) is so English and out of touch on this
I lived in Aberystwyth for a year, I can assure you they will not be much concerned over whether Swansea gets a new tidal power plant or not
The thrust of this article is nonsense. Yes a number of funds did private polls by various means, and some (not all) of them showed leave winning by an amount within the margin of error. So exactly like the public polls. Nobody with any sense (and allowed to manage a few billion quid) was going to bet the farm on that.
I was persuaded to sell a modest amount of GBP when a rumour appeared on the BBC that Sunderland was heavily leave (confirmed maybe half an hour later to be true) and convinced to do more when Newcastle came out a few minutes afterwards and it was objectively already over.
The real reason for the price action on that night was what you might call orthodox groupthink, just like with Trump and the Scottish referendum (where it was proven correct of course). The globalist majority which dominate the markets simply couldn't believe any other outcome was possible.
Comments
Here was my take on the 21st when Hands resigned.. I also noted that May might pair him off for a laugh too.
BTW, met a couple of twitchers on the banks of Moreton's Leam in Cambridgeshire on Friday. They're always lovely people, and very keen to share what they're spotting.
It's a sham I cannot tell my Dove from my Puffin.
Boris: [ruffling hair] But but Prime Minister I'm not sure I can do that.
Theresa: I'm not asking you Boris. I'm telling you. You are very good at selling a story and it is an excellent test of your leadership skills. So that's agreed.
Boris: But but I'm not sure.
Theresa: The back door is that way.
This year about 80,000 migrants will cross by sea to Greece, Italy and Spain. That's less than a tenth of the number of 2015 when more than a million made the voyage. Year-year-numbers are down about 60%, which in turn was well down on 2016. If progress can continue being made, it's not unreasonable to expect that 2019 might see fewer than 40,000 people making the trek, which is a whole bunch more manageable than a million.
But... but... Gatwick! I hear you screech. Well, NIMBY's will be all over that as well. We either do LH3 now, or nothing for years and suffer the economic consequences.
So that's the question: your own narrow interests or the good of the country?
They should start to bill these organisations with the cost of care and repatriation.
Basically, the decision on the barrage has been taken to keep nuclear viable. It isn't. These tidal lagoons beat it, on any measure you want to concoct.
And it is competing with nuclear. Nuclear has a storage headache for ten thousand years. Tidal has...tomorrow's tide.
There is a real stink behind this decision. We shouldn't be talking about Boris resigning today. We should be talking about Greg Clark.
The proposal for the Swansea tidal lagoon would cost £1.3 billion to build. If successful to its maximum ambition, it would provide around 0.15% of the electricity we use each year.
The same power generated by the lagoon, over 60 years, for £1.3 billion, would cost around £400 million for offshore wind even at today’s prices, which have fallen rapidly, and we expect to be cheaper still in future.
At £1.3 billion, the capital cost per unit of electricity generated each year would be 3 times that of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station.
If a full programme of 6 lagoons were constructed, the Hendry Review found that the cost would be more than £50 billion, and be 2 and a half times the cost of Hinkley to generate a similar output of electricity.
Enough offshore wind to provide the same generation as a programme of lagoons is estimated to cost at least £31.5 billion less to build.
Taking all the costs together, I have been advised by analysts that, by 2050, the proposal that has been made – which would generate around 30 TWh per year of electricity - could cost up to £20 billion more to produce compared to generating that same electricity through a mix of offshore wind and nuclear, once financing, operating, and system costs have been taken into account.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/proposed-swansea-bay-tidal-lagoon
Very effective deterrent policy. Note EU comment does not condemn this policy. You would at least have thought the EU would have provided some Evian and Foie Gras for the journey.
Ploughing on with London-centric project while choosing today to abandon something ground-breaking and innovative in the regions.
And Boris the incredible Chicken on the least convincing last-minute escape since Harry Kane's winner against Tunisia.
Are they even trying? Looks like they are just taking the p at the moment.
I hold people who shoot videos vertically in the same contempt as I hold people who like pineapple on pizza.
Right...
As an example, I'm in favour of HS2, and believe I have a good handle on how the project may succeed and die. This involves reading (all?) the reports over nearly a decade, and a load of supporting information. Even then I might be utterly wrong - such are projections or using history as a projection of the future.
Likewise LH3: I feel something needs to be done *now* because of the lean spare capacity at LHR, and the projections show traffic is increasing. But what happens if those projections are wrong?
I haven't really been following the Swansea Lagoon/Barrage project, and a quick Google throws up such a massive amount of obviously contradictory information from the yeas and nays. I've no instinctive idea if the government's decision is right or wrong.
And the sad thing is even people working for the project for years might be wrong, as might those opposing.
Add the fact that I'm a man over 50 who wears speedos and I appear to offend every pb demographic.
A tidal project in Swansea really means little unless you live around Swansea and wanted a job out of it
I have nowhere else to go politically but rarely has an English decision annoyed me more
Leaving aside the technical rights and wrongs of the barrage (and as I say below, I have no effing idea), there is a feeling that infrastructure investment is very London- and SE- centric. And I think that's right, even if there are often good reasons for that bias.
*If* the barrage is a reasonable project, perhaps the basic BCR is not the only factor to be used in judgement. If you ave two projects - say one at a BCR of 5 in London and 4 in a poor area of the country, it may be value to do the latter rather than the former (or even both).
Then there are the base political considerations.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/719189/tidal-lagoon-programme-factsheet.pdf
The variable costs of the barrage would be lower (only 28 employees and free fuel) and there would be no decommissioning costs. So there are questions to be asked.
I'm always suspicious of models (or rather the creators of the models). The computer says yes. But there are always agendas and biases at work.
But, to be honest, I don't know whether the barrage is good value for money. It feels right and I'm certain I could produce a convincing set of assumptions and a model that "proved" it was.
- Welsh politicians should be bought off
- The government should pander to to the absurd argument that Wales somehow gets hard-done by
- Money is being spent on Heathrow so it's OK to waste money on this project
- Hinkley Point is expensive so it's OK to waste money on this project
- The project doesn't look too bad if you amortise it over 120 years.
None of these seem to be terribly impressive arguments, by any stretch of the imagination.
Maybe it's not a good decision, I don't know. However, so far the opposing arguments seem spectacularly weak.
NEW THREAD
I was persuaded to sell a modest amount of GBP when a rumour appeared on the BBC that Sunderland was heavily leave (confirmed maybe half an hour later to be true) and convinced to do more when Newcastle came out a few minutes afterwards and it was objectively already over.
The real reason for the price action on that night was what you might call orthodox groupthink, just like with Trump and the Scottish referendum (where it was proven correct of course). The globalist majority which dominate the markets simply couldn't believe any other outcome was possible.