Looking at current vaccination rates that seems about right.
Well, excluding France.
“Prepared” was the exam question, young Thompson. That’s a fail.
Indeed and our vaccination program dates back to ... February 2020. First contracts signed in February 2020, with the EUs first contracts signed from memory in August 2020.
Looking at current vaccination rates that seems about right.
Well, excluding France.
“Prepared” was the exam question, young Thompson. That’s a fail.
Indeed and our vaccination program dates back to ... February 2020. First contracts signed in February 2020, with the EUs first contracts signed from memory in August 2020.
Looking at current vaccination rates that seems about right.
Well, excluding France.
“Prepared” was the exam question, young Thompson. That’s a fail.
Indeed and our vaccination program dates back to ... February 2020. First contracts signed in February 2020, with the EUs first contracts signed from memory in August 2020.
Preparation in action.
Being prepared means before not during.
Well precisely. So before lockdown, before "stay at home", before anything significant, we were already in a position to sign contracts on vaccinations last February that led to our world leading vaccine success and ability to send a vaccine all around the world too. That's an impressive preparation.
Could Charlie Boy become Defender of No Faith, as we look forward to a humanist UK, the envy of the world?
No and anyway as immigration continues to rise so will religion again with Catholic East Europeans, African evangelicals and South Asian Hindus and Muslims which will be ideal for Charles to present himself as the defender of all faith.
Well if the answer's "no" and we're an irreligious country then it seems yet another reason to add to the pile to axe the monarchy. 👍
Absolutely not, the monarch also has a role in defending our established Church, as does the Tory Party as well as faith as a whole.
However I would not expect a non Tory, non conservative, non Unionist, former Labour voter with a republican, anti religion agenda such as yourself to understand that
I wonder whether Tory voters should be interviewed at the polling station to ensure they are eligible to vote Tory?
Surely 'pagan' and 'atheist' are completely different. Pagans believe in gods of some sort, just not the Christian one. Often several, too, as opposed to monotheistic religions, like the People of the Book. Atheists, like me, do not believe in any Supreme Being, or Beings.
Although having an 'ever-present hope in time of trouble' must be comforting.
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
All good points. If we weren't investing in wind and if wind wasn't cheaper.
But taking away Hinckley being stupid (we agree on that)
If tidal is meant to partner wind then how does it surge "on demand" to deal with when wind power goes down? Gas can be burnt to surge power on demand, how does tidal surge (besides storage lagoons which I agree are a good idea if economic)?
You're making a good case for tidal in isolation, but not addressing concerns about how tidal is meant to work in synergy with wind. Simply saying tidal is reliable isn't a solution since we don't need reliable with wind since wind isn't reliable. Unless your solution is to abandon wind as well as nuclear we need something that can work synergistically with wind to surge on demand - tidal isn't that is it?
That logic is faulty surely? You are saying we have one unreliable source so we should complement it with another unreliable source?
If you were complementing two reliable but cyclical sources that would make sense
Surely you need a base load source (like nuclear or tidal) to complement an episodic source like wind?
Yup. And tidal is W-A-Y cheaper than nuclear. £37 billion public subsidy for Hinkley C. Cardiff Tidal Lagoon Power Station? Almost identical power output, produces for minimum 120 years versus (an optimistic) 60 years - and power 40% cheaper - with zero public subsidy. Excluding the massive delays in construction of a technology that might trash your country, requires a small army of weapons-bearing security and produces waste than needs handling for tens of thousands of years.
Yet this Government is pushing nuclear. Go figure.
Morn’ all. Do I remember correctly that Wed was supposed to be the first day of Gangbusters Vaccines deliveries? Should we expect to see a juicy number this arvo?
The biggest thing forcing the development of battery storage, though, is the rapidly falling cost of solar. It is becoming incredibly cheap compared with other forms of generation, and in places with the best sunshine, the marginal cost of electricity at noon is tending towards zero. That’s massively distorting very large energy markets, and the only solution is storage. https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1370169450901737474
And is pretty much all imported from China.
The UK has put £9 billion into wind and solar subsidies. It has caused £14 billion in imports into the UK. Supported so many jobs.
In northern Europe and China.
Did you see the news yesterday about wind blade manufacturing in Teeside?
Looking at current vaccination rates that seems about right.
Well, excluding France.
“Prepared” was the exam question, young Thompson. That’s a fail.
Indeed and our vaccination program dates back to ... February 2020. First contracts signed in February 2020, with the EUs first contracts signed from memory in August 2020.
Preparation in action.
Being prepared means before not during.
Well precisely. So before lockdown, before "stay at home", before anything significant, we were already in a position to sign contracts on vaccinations last February that led to our world leading vaccine success and ability to send a vaccine all around the world too. That's an impressive preparation.
I think they meant pre virus, which in fairness we did have some plans as did the US before Trump gutted them.
It is possible to be prepared and not do well and possible to not be prepared and react well. Ideally you want both.
I was half asleeping listening to farming today this morning
Apparently the issue with the export of non-processed shellfish could be easily solved. The UK has stricter standards than the EU in classification of water - only 1% of our water is “category A”.
Shellfish from category A water can be exported without restrictions.
If we applied the average EU standards to our classification then the problem would largely go away. (I think this is the proposal suggested by the industry)
I have no idea if it is a good idea or what the other implications are of reclassifying water but it was an interesting nuance that hasn’t really come through in the discussion
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
All good points. If we weren't investing in wind and if wind wasn't cheaper.
But taking away Hinckley being stupid (we agree on that)
If tidal is meant to partner wind then how does it surge "on demand" to deal with when wind power goes down? Gas can be burnt to surge power on demand, how does tidal surge (besides storage lagoons which I agree are a good idea if economic)?
You're making a good case for tidal in isolation, but not addressing concerns about how tidal is meant to work in synergy with wind. Simply saying tidal is reliable isn't a solution since we don't need reliable with wind since wind isn't reliable. Unless your solution is to abandon wind as well as nuclear we need something that can work synergistically with wind to surge on demand - tidal isn't that is it?
That logic is faulty surely? You are saying we have one unreliable source so we should complement it with another unreliable source?
If you were complementing two reliable but cyclical sources that would make sense
Surely you need a base load source (like nuclear or tidal) to complement an episodic source like wind?
Yup. And tidal is W-A-Y cheaper than nuclear. £37 billion public subsidy for Hinkley C. Cardiff Tidal Lagoon Power Station? Almost identical power output, produces for minimum 120 years versus (an optimistic) 60 years - and power 40% cheaper - with zero public subsidy. Excluding the massive delays in construction of a technology that might trash your country, requires a small army of weapons-bearing security and produces waste than needs handling for tens of thousands of years.
Yet this Government is pushing nuclear. Go figure.
Nuclear is stupid, its uneconomic. But two wrongs don't make a right. If it weren't for the contracts already being signed I doubt Hinckley would be signed today.
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
All good points. If we weren't investing in wind and if wind wasn't cheaper.
But taking away Hinckley being stupid (we agree on that)
If tidal is meant to partner wind then how does it surge "on demand" to deal with when wind power goes down? Gas can be burnt to surge power on demand, how does tidal surge (besides storage lagoons which I agree are a good idea if economic)?
You're making a good case for tidal in isolation, but not addressing concerns about how tidal is meant to work in synergy with wind. Simply saying tidal is reliable isn't a solution since we don't need reliable with wind since wind isn't reliable. Unless your solution is to abandon wind as well as nuclear we need something that can work synergistically with wind to surge on demand - tidal isn't that is it?
That logic is faulty surely? You are saying we have one unreliable source so we should complement it with another unreliable source?
If you were complementing two reliable but cyclical sources that would make sense
Surely you need a base load source (like nuclear or tidal) to complement an episodic source like wind?
Yup. And tidal is W-A-Y cheaper than nuclear. £37 billion public subsidy for Hinkley C. Cardiff Tidal Lagoon Power Station? Almost identical power output, produces for minimum 120 years versus (an optimistic) 60 years - and power 40% cheaper - with zero public subsidy. Excluding the massive delays in construction of a technology that might trash your country, requires a small army of weapons-bearing security and produces waste than needs handling for tens of thousands of years.
Yet this Government is pushing nuclear. Go figure.
Looking at current vaccination rates that seems about right.
Well, excluding France.
“Prepared” was the exam question, young Thompson. That’s a fail.
Indeed and our vaccination program dates back to ... February 2020. First contracts signed in February 2020, with the EUs first contracts signed from memory in August 2020.
The biggest thing forcing the development of battery storage, though, is the rapidly falling cost of solar. It is becoming incredibly cheap compared with other forms of generation, and in places with the best sunshine, the marginal cost of electricity at noon is tending towards zero. That’s massively distorting very large energy markets, and the only solution is storage. https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1370169450901737474
And is pretty much all imported from China.
The UK has put £9 billion into wind and solar subsidies. It has caused £14 billion in imports into the UK. Supported so many jobs.
In northern Europe and China.
Did you see the news yesterday about wind blade manufacturing in Teeside?
At long last. That should have been us 20 years ago - we let our lead on this go.
And there is no reason why tidal and wind and hydrogen production shouldn't be a good mix in combination. Serve us nicely going forward. Get Chinese solar and CHinese/French nuclear out the mix, going forward.
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
All good points. If we weren't investing in wind and if wind wasn't cheaper.
But taking away Hinckley being stupid (we agree on that)
If tidal is meant to partner wind then how does it surge "on demand" to deal with when wind power goes down? Gas can be burnt to surge power on demand, how does tidal surge (besides storage lagoons which I agree are a good idea if economic)?
You're making a good case for tidal in isolation, but not addressing concerns about how tidal is meant to work in synergy with wind. Simply saying tidal is reliable isn't a solution since we don't need reliable with wind since wind isn't reliable. Unless your solution is to abandon wind as well as nuclear we need something that can work synergistically with wind to surge on demand - tidal isn't that is it?
That logic is faulty surely? You are saying we have one unreliable source so we should complement it with another unreliable source?
If you were complementing two reliable but cyclical sources that would make sense
Surely you need a base load source (like nuclear or tidal) to complement an episodic source like wind?
Yup. And tidal is W-A-Y cheaper than nuclear. £37 billion public subsidy for Hinkley C. Cardiff Tidal Lagoon Power Station? Almost identical power output, produces for minimum 120 years versus (an optimistic) 60 years - and power 40% cheaper. Excluding the massive delays in construction of a technology that might trash your country, requires a small army of weapons-bearing security and produces waste than needs handling for tens of thousands of years.
Yet this Government is pushing nuclear. Go figure.
Philip seems to be saying that tidal is not a good replacement for gas peaker plants. And it’s true that tidal is more useful as base load. But that’s largely irrelevant because batteries will have entirely replaced gas peakers in perhaps a decade anyway.
Robert’s figures on Tesla’s megabatteries are just zoomed in on the very start of an exponential growth curve. By 2030 gas peaker operators will be unfinanceable.
Tidal has always seemed a sensible gamble to take for a centralised Industrial Policy. Politicians like to talk about the burning urgency of climate change and shaking hands in front of the cameras at all the jollies. And then let themselves get talked out of relatively small bets like this by the bean counters, while with the other hand blowing tens of billions on testing, track and trace.
Apparently the issue with the export of non-processed shellfish could be easily solved. The UK has stricter standards than the EU in classification of water - only 1% of our water is “category A”.
Shellfish from category A water can be exported without restrictions.
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
All good points. If we weren't investing in wind and if wind wasn't cheaper.
But taking away Hinckley being stupid (we agree on that)
If tidal is meant to partner wind then how does it surge "on demand" to deal with when wind power goes down? Gas can be burnt to surge power on demand, how does tidal surge (besides storage lagoons which I agree are a good idea if economic)?
You're making a good case for tidal in isolation, but not addressing concerns about how tidal is meant to work in synergy with wind. Simply saying tidal is reliable isn't a solution since we don't need reliable with wind since wind isn't reliable. Unless your solution is to abandon wind as well as nuclear we need something that can work synergistically with wind to surge on demand - tidal isn't that is it?
That logic is faulty surely? You are saying we have one unreliable source so we should complement it with another unreliable source?
If you were complementing two reliable but cyclical sources that would make sense
Surely you need a base load source (like nuclear or tidal) to complement an episodic source like wind?
Yup. And tidal is W-A-Y cheaper than nuclear. £37 billion public subsidy for Hinkley C. Cardiff Tidal Lagoon Power Station? Almost identical power output, produces for minimum 120 years versus (an optimistic) 60 years - and power 40% cheaper - with zero public subsidy. Excluding the massive delays in construction of a technology that might trash your country, requires a small army of weapons-bearing security and produces waste than needs handling for tens of thousands of years.
Yet this Government is pushing nuclear. Go figure.
MM I've seen several comments from you over the years on tidal. Have you thought of doing a thread. I would certainly be interested. I'm sure others would also.
Morn’ all. Do I remember correctly that Wed was supposed to be the first day of Gangbusters Vaccines deliveries? Should we expect to see a juicy number this arvo?
You need arms to inject as well as vaccines, and I don't see how the necessary appointments can have been made with the recent uncertainty of supply.
1. There will have been stock piling. 2. Maybe demand is lower in the EU because of the pandemic, and because economic activity there is currently subdued. 3. Are the numbers properly seasonally adjusted? I.e., what normally happens to EU trade around this time of year. 4. What are the goods we import and export to the EU? If PPE imports are up 20%, and none is from the EU, then maybe it's the pattern of demand. 5. Manufactured goods is only a small portion of our trade.
Let's take a look at numbers in September, and then we can have a real discussion.
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
All good points. If we weren't investing in wind and if wind wasn't cheaper.
But taking away Hinckley being stupid (we agree on that)
If tidal is meant to partner wind then how does it surge "on demand" to deal with when wind power goes down? Gas can be burnt to surge power on demand, how does tidal surge (besides storage lagoons which I agree are a good idea if economic)?
You're making a good case for tidal in isolation, but not addressing concerns about how tidal is meant to work in synergy with wind. Simply saying tidal is reliable isn't a solution since we don't need reliable with wind since wind isn't reliable. Unless your solution is to abandon wind as well as nuclear we need something that can work synergistically with wind to surge on demand - tidal isn't that is it?
That logic is faulty surely? You are saying we have one unreliable source so we should complement it with another unreliable source?
If you were complementing two reliable but cyclical sources that would make sense
Surely you need a base load source (like nuclear or tidal) to complement an episodic source like wind?
Yup. And tidal is W-A-Y cheaper than nuclear. £37 billion public subsidy for Hinkley C. Cardiff Tidal Lagoon Power Station? Almost identical power output, produces for minimum 120 years versus (an optimistic) 60 years - and power 40% cheaper - with zero public subsidy. Excluding the massive delays in construction of a technology that might trash your country, requires a small army of weapons-bearing security and produces waste than needs handling for tens of thousands of years.
Yet this Government is pushing nuclear. Go figure.
Give us real numbers for those imports and exports.
In 2019, UK exports to the EU were £294 billion (43% of all UK exports). UK imports from the EU were £374 billion (52% of all UK imports). The share of UK exports accounted for by the EU has generally fallen over time from 54% in 2002 to 43% in 2019. (Source: Commons Library)
So, that drop in imports represents say £10 billion. The drop in imports on the same basis is £15.3 billion.
That "Brexit bonus" for the EU is looking pretty fucking dumb.
Imports are much more affected by UKstockpiling surely? We need several more months to be sure what the effect on our major trading partner is.
Morn’ all. Do I remember correctly that Wed was supposed to be the first day of Gangbusters Vaccines deliveries? Should we expect to see a juicy number this arvo?
You need arms to inject as well as vaccines, and I don't see how the necessary appointments can have been made with the recent uncertainty of supply.
Next week it is then I guess. We can’t have the USA overtaking us in the vaccine Olympics can we.
The biggest thing forcing the development of battery storage, though, is the rapidly falling cost of solar. It is becoming incredibly cheap compared with other forms of generation, and in places with the best sunshine, the marginal cost of electricity at noon is tending towards zero. That’s massively distorting very large energy markets, and the only solution is storage. https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1370169450901737474
And is pretty much all imported from China.
The UK has put £9 billion into wind and solar subsidies. It has caused £14 billion in imports into the UK. Supported so many jobs.
In northern Europe and China.
Did you see the news yesterday about wind blade manufacturing in Teeside?
At long last. That should have been us 20 years ago - we let our lead on this go.
And there is no reason why tidal and wind and hydrogen production shouldn't be a good mix in combination. Serve us nicely going forward. Get Chinese solar and CHinese/French nuclear out the mix, going forward.
If its economic with the same style of price guarantees or subsidies as wind gets then I absolutely agree with you.
What must never be done again is the abomination of Hinckley C and its absurd strike prices decades into the future.
Looking at current vaccination rates that seems about right.
Well, excluding France.
“Prepared” was the exam question, young Thompson. That’s a fail.
Indeed and our vaccination program dates back to ... February 2020. First contracts signed in February 2020, with the EUs first contracts signed from memory in August 2020.
Give us real numbers for those imports and exports.
In 2019, UK exports to the EU were £294 billion (43% of all UK exports). UK imports from the EU were £374 billion (52% of all UK imports). The share of UK exports accounted for by the EU has generally fallen over time from 54% in 2002 to 43% in 2019. (Source: Commons Library)
So, that drop in imports represents say £10 billion. The drop in imports on the same basis is £15.3 billion.
That "Brexit bonus" for the EU is looking pretty fucking dumb.
It's a bit more complicated than that, so you can't draw many conclusions yet.
Firstly, the trade balance is pretty volatile over the year, so using full year figures could be very misleading. Secondly, we'll have probably done more stock piling of EU imports than the other way around. Thirdly, there is a pandemic going on, and January was the nadir, so it's highly unlikely to be typical.
Looking at current vaccination rates that seems about right.
Well, excluding France.
“Prepared” was the exam question, young Thompson. That’s a fail.
Indeed and our vaccination program dates back to ... February 2020. First contracts signed in February 2020, with the EUs first contracts signed from memory in August 2020.
Preparation in action.
Being prepared means before not during.
Well precisely. So before lockdown, before "stay at home", before anything significant, we were already in a position to sign contracts on vaccinations last February that led to our world leading vaccine success and ability to send a vaccine all around the world too. That's an impressive preparation.
I think they meant pre virus, which in fairness we did have some plans as did the US before Trump gutted them.
It is possible to be prepared and not do well and possible to not be prepared and react well. Ideally you want both.
That's my point though. We were only in a position to exchange contracts in February 2000 because of pre-virus preparations. The groundwork that led to that wasn't rushed out of thin air in January 2000, some of it was already there then good decisions in February made by the government and Hancock especially led to the vaccine a year later.
The vaccines wouldn't have been possible without preparations, much of which were done pre-lockdown in February, some of which preceded it.
The problem with that argument is that it's not just EU countries which have a problem with the AZ vaccine.
Unless you think the South Africans, the Swiss, the Norwegians, the Americans and the Icelandics are all in together with the EU.
It's fearmongering. From the Telegraph:
The European Medicines Agency is investigating the reports, but stressed that the number of "thromboembolic events" - marked by the formation of blood clots - was no higher among vaccinated people than in the general population. It said 30 cases had been reported among the close to 5 million vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine in the European Economic Area.
That's not my point.
My point is that - on this board and Twitter - there is this extraordinary belief that this is all part of an EU plot, which skates over the fact that lots of countries outside the EU seem to have big (largely misguided IMHO) issues with the AZ vaccine.
It does make you wonder why the only not-for-profit vaccine might come in for particular criticism...
I remember when the initial Astra Zeneca trials data was released, there were a lot of very sceptical articles about AZ published in places like the NY Times, and @Charles suggested that it was the Pfizer "dirty tricks" department.
If it does turn out to be the case that Pfizer (for example) were to have spent time and money deliberately undermining trust in a safe and efficacious vaccine, then there should need to be serious consequences.
I don’t specifically remember saying that! But Pfizer is very very effective at persuading US regulators to act in their interests
It was certainly very convenient how about a dozen publications all ran stories about how AZ had not done a very good job with their trials and you needed to treat their results with scepticism.
The biggest thing forcing the development of battery storage, though, is the rapidly falling cost of solar. It is becoming incredibly cheap compared with other forms of generation, and in places with the best sunshine, the marginal cost of electricity at noon is tending towards zero. That’s massively distorting very large energy markets, and the only solution is storage. https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1370169450901737474
And is pretty much all imported from China.
The UK has put £9 billion into wind and solar subsidies. It has caused £14 billion in imports into the UK. Supported so many jobs.
In northern Europe and China.
If you import $100 of solar panels today, it may prevent the import of $500 of oil and gas over the next decade.
1. There will have been stock piling. 2. Maybe demand is lower in the EU because of the pandemic, and because economic activity there is currently subdued. 3. Are the numbers properly seasonally adjusted? I.e., what normally happens to EU trade around this time of year. 4. What are the goods we import and export to the EU? If PPE imports are up 20%, and none is from the EU, then maybe it's the pattern of demand. 5. Manufactured goods is only a small portion of our trade.
Let's take a look at numbers in September, and then we can have a real discussion.
As we don't start doing import checks until October, September is a bit early.
Whether the Oven Ready Deal is shit or merely bad is something that we have time over. After all we are stuck with it for the next few years.
1. There will have been stock piling. 2. Maybe demand is lower in the EU because of the pandemic, and because economic activity there is currently subdued. 3. Are the numbers properly seasonally adjusted? I.e., what normally happens to EU trade around this time of year. 4. What are the goods we import and export to the EU? If PPE imports are up 20%, and none is from the EU, then maybe it's the pattern of demand. 5. Manufactured goods is only a small portion of our trade.
Let's take a look at numbers in September, and then we can have a real discussion.
This was reported on the Today programme yesterday and today. The impact with Germany was particularly dramatic. The possibility of it being due to stockpiling and covid was highlighted. However the Government was heavily criticized by the ONS for providing misleading information on this weeks ago. Information that several leavers posted here to prove there wasn't a drop in trade in January.
The problem with that argument is that it's not just EU countries which have a problem with the AZ vaccine.
Unless you think the South Africans, the Swiss, the Norwegians, the Americans and the Icelandics are all in together with the EU.
It's fearmongering. From the Telegraph:
The European Medicines Agency is investigating the reports, but stressed that the number of "thromboembolic events" - marked by the formation of blood clots - was no higher among vaccinated people than in the general population. It said 30 cases had been reported among the close to 5 million vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine in the European Economic Area.
That's not my point.
My point is that - on this board and Twitter - there is this extraordinary belief that this is all part of an EU plot, which skates over the fact that lots of countries outside the EU seem to have big (largely misguided IMHO) issues with the AZ vaccine.
It does make you wonder why the only not-for-profit vaccine might come in for particular criticism...
I remember when the initial Astra Zeneca trials data was released, there were a lot of very sceptical articles about AZ published in places like the NY Times, and @Charles suggested that it was the Pfizer "dirty tricks" department.
If it does turn out to be the case that Pfizer (for example) were to have spent time and money deliberately undermining trust in a safe and efficacious vaccine, then there should need to be serious consequences.
I don’t specifically remember saying that! But Pfizer is very very effective at persuading US regulators to act in their interests
It was certainly very convenient how about a dozen publications all ran stories about how AZ had not done a very good job with their trials and you needed to treat their results with scepticism.
We discussed on here what a mess the AZN trials were in December. I don't think we have any paid Pfizer/BioNTech shills.
It wasn't Pfizer that got AZN to accidentally misdose a fair percentage of their participants for example.
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
Almost anything is cheaper than Hinckley Point C, but other than that, I agree that tidal requires more investigation.
We should just do it.
"More investigation" is the EU attitude to vaccines applied to stopping global warming.
We should try several things at once and find out in practice what works.
The biggest thing forcing the development of battery storage, though, is the rapidly falling cost of solar. It is becoming incredibly cheap compared with other forms of generation, and in places with the best sunshine, the marginal cost of electricity at noon is tending towards zero. That’s massively distorting very large energy markets, and the only solution is storage. https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1370169450901737474
And is pretty much all imported from China.
The UK has put £9 billion into wind and solar subsidies. It has caused £14 billion in imports into the UK. Supported so many jobs.
In northern Europe and China.
If you import $100 of solar panels today, it may prevent the import of $500 of oil and gas over the next decade.
The problem with solar is the UK is not California. We use heating not air conditioning.
Solar gives peak output in the summer. We have peak energy consumption in the winter.
Solar may be good at displacing fossil fuels in the summer, but its not a reliable net zero solution for the winter.
Give us real numbers for those imports and exports.
In 2019, UK exports to the EU were £294 billion (43% of all UK exports). UK imports from the EU were £374 billion (52% of all UK imports). The share of UK exports accounted for by the EU has generally fallen over time from 54% in 2002 to 43% in 2019. (Source: Commons Library)
So, that drop in imports represents say £10 billion. The drop in imports on the same basis is £15.3 billion.
That "Brexit bonus" for the EU is looking pretty fucking dumb.
It's a bit more complicated than that, so you can't draw many conclusions yet.
Firstly, the trade balance is pretty volatile over the year, so using full year figures could be very misleading. Secondly, we'll have probably done more stock piling of EU imports than the other way around. Thirdly, there is a pandemic going on, and January was the nadir, so it's highly unlikely to be typical.
Sure. But I was just offering a differing narrative to the one you will never hear from the Remainers. The one where German exporters are going "Shit.......".
I was half asleeping listening to farming today this morning
Apparently the issue with the export of non-processed shellfish could be easily solved. The UK has stricter standards than the EU in classification of water - only 1% of our water is “category A”.
Shellfish from category A water can be exported without restrictions.
If we applied the average EU standards to our classification then the problem would largely go away. (I think this is the proposal suggested by the industry)
I have no idea if it is a good idea or what the other implications are of reclassifying water but it was an interesting nuance that hasn’t really come through in the discussion
I've been aware of the 'Category A water' thing since January. ie coastal waters of higher quality or post-cleaning would permit imports.
But is the suggestion that UK "category A" is higher, or the need officially to adopt EU labels and the EU officialdom that go with it? That is, like the washing machine energy labels that simply have an EU flag on them as opposed to being any different.
I'm well aware that eg in Air Safety Registration certain UK standards were compromised when we adopted EU standards years ago.
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
All good points. If we weren't investing in wind and if wind wasn't cheaper.
But taking away Hinckley being stupid (we agree on that)
If tidal is meant to partner wind then how does it surge "on demand" to deal with when wind power goes down? Gas can be burnt to surge power on demand, how does tidal surge (besides storage lagoons which I agree are a good idea if economic)?
You're making a good case for tidal in isolation, but not addressing concerns about how tidal is meant to work in synergy with wind. Simply saying tidal is reliable isn't a solution since we don't need reliable with wind since wind isn't reliable. Unless your solution is to abandon wind as well as nuclear we need something that can work synergistically with wind to surge on demand - tidal isn't that is it?
That logic is faulty surely? You are saying we have one unreliable source so we should complement it with another unreliable source?
If you were complementing two reliable but cyclical sources that would make sense
Surely you need a base load source (like nuclear or tidal) to complement an episodic source like wind?
Yup. And tidal is W-A-Y cheaper than nuclear. £37 billion public subsidy for Hinkley C. Cardiff Tidal Lagoon Power Station? Almost identical power output, produces for minimum 120 years versus (an optimistic) 60 years - and power 40% cheaper. Excluding the massive delays in construction of a technology that might trash your country, requires a small army of weapons-bearing security and produces waste than needs handling for tens of thousands of years.
Yet this Government is pushing nuclear. Go figure.
Philip seems to be saying that tidal is not a good replacement for gas peaker plants. And it’s true that tidal is more useful as base load. But that’s largely irrelevant because batteries will have entirely replaced gas peakers in perhaps a decade anyway.
Robert’s figures on Tesla’s megabatteries are just zoomed in on the very start of an exponential growth curve. By 2030 gas peaker operators will be unfinanceable.
Tidal has always seemed a sensible gamble to take for a centralised Industrial Policy. Politicians like to talk about the burning urgency of climate change and shaking hands in front of the cameras at all the jollies. And then let themselves get talked out of relatively small bets like this by the bean counters, while with the other hand blowing tens of billions on testing, track and trace.
I agree my numbers are pretty early. And I'm about to buy home batteries, so that could well be the start of a trend...
That being said, I'm not that convinced that mass energy storage is that easy and cost efficient. Natural gas plants are, however, really cheap. And the current cost of an mmbtu of gas is under $3.
Looking at current vaccination rates that seems about right.
Well, excluding France.
“Prepared” was the exam question, young Thompson. That’s a fail.
Indeed and our vaccination program dates back to ... February 2020. First contracts signed in February 2020, with the EUs first contracts signed from memory in August 2020.
Preparation in action.
Being prepared means before not during.
Well precisely. So before lockdown, before "stay at home", before anything significant, we were already in a position to sign contracts on vaccinations last February that led to our world leading vaccine success and ability to send a vaccine all around the world too. That's an impressive preparation.
I think they meant pre virus, which in fairness we did have some plans as did the US before Trump gutted them.
It is possible to be prepared and not do well and possible to not be prepared and react well. Ideally you want both.
That's my point though. We were only in a position to exchange contracts in February 2000 because of pre-virus preparations. The groundwork that led to that wasn't rushed out of thin air in January 2000, some of it was already there then good decisions in February made by the government and Hancock especially led to the vaccine a year later.
The vaccines wouldn't have been possible without preparations, much of which were done pre-lockdown in February, some of which preceded it.
I don't think IanB2 or I were commenting on how well we were prepared. In fact the map implies we were better than most. The comments were referencing your evidence that we were prepared by giving evidence of what we did during. Pedantic maybe but this is PB.
Good news on Novavax! Lines up with what I'd heard previously on approval in the final week of March and deliveries by the second week of April.
Max the doubling of supply that we've been told should be available from now (probably appearing in usage figures from next week) - do you know or have a hint whether that is a permanent doubling from now on? Or just a temporary effect for a few weeks?
The biggest thing forcing the development of battery storage, though, is the rapidly falling cost of solar. It is becoming incredibly cheap compared with other forms of generation, and in places with the best sunshine, the marginal cost of electricity at noon is tending towards zero. That’s massively distorting very large energy markets, and the only solution is storage. https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1370169450901737474
And is pretty much all imported from China.
The UK has put £9 billion into wind and solar subsidies. It has caused £14 billion in imports into the UK. Supported so many jobs.
In northern Europe and China.
If you import $100 of solar panels today, it may prevent the import of $500 of oil and gas over the next decade.
Or have a UK-based tidal industry that has $15 of imports and may prevent that same $500 of oil and gas.
The efforts gone to in blocking UK tidal energy are a national scandal. It's still not too late to remedy that, whilstever people are talking about building new nuclear capacity here. Sizewell, for example. No way the economics of that stacks up against the Cardiff lagoon.
But let's have a task force charged with discovering it. Charged with at least TRYING to make the case. Rather than starting out with the utterly wrong-headed "It can't be done - it MUSTN'T be done!"
The biggest thing forcing the development of battery storage, though, is the rapidly falling cost of solar. It is becoming incredibly cheap compared with other forms of generation, and in places with the best sunshine, the marginal cost of electricity at noon is tending towards zero. That’s massively distorting very large energy markets, and the only solution is storage. https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1370169450901737474
And is pretty much all imported from China.
The UK has put £9 billion into wind and solar subsidies. It has caused £14 billion in imports into the UK. Supported so many jobs.
In northern Europe and China.
If you import $100 of solar panels today, it may prevent the import of $500 of oil and gas over the next decade.
The problem with solar is the UK is not California. We use heating not air conditioning.
Solar gives peak output in the summer. We have peak energy consumption in the winter.
Solar may be good at displacing fossil fuels in the summer, but its not a reliable net zero solution for the winter.
That's not really my point. We import natural gas. If our CCGTs are running for an hour less a day because of solar, that will reduce natural gas imports.
I believe import payback periods on solar are in the 18 to 24 month period in Northern Europe, so importing that panel from China may worsen our balance of payments today, but it's definitely a positive in the medium term.
Apparently the issue with the export of non-processed shellfish could be easily solved. The UK has stricter standards than the EU in classification of water - only 1% of our water is “category A”.
Shellfish from category A water can be exported without restrictions.
Good news on Novavax! Lines up with what I'd heard previously on approval in the final week of March and deliveries by the second week of April.
Max the doubling of supply that we've been told should be available from now (probably appearing in usage figures from next week) - do you know or have a hint whether that is a permanent doubling from now on? Or just a temporary effect for a few weeks?
8-10 weeks with the current suppliers, essentially as long as we need it with Novavax and Moderna from April. As Pfizer starts to drop out of the supply chain the other two wil pick up, Novavax quite significantly where there is 15m per month in domestic manufacturing ramping up at the moment.
You do realise those numbers demonstrate the surge in EU trade in Q4 2020. The pre-switchover stockpiling effect. 😂
It will be a year or two before we get a real understanding of how our self imposed restrictions on trade impact imports and exports. We are stuck with Johnson's Deal for the next few years so no hurry at assessing the decline.
Looking at current vaccination rates that seems about right.
Well, excluding France.
“Prepared” was the exam question, young Thompson. That’s a fail.
Indeed and our vaccination program dates back to ... February 2020. First contracts signed in February 2020, with the EUs first contracts signed from memory in August 2020.
Preparation in action.
Being prepared means before not during.
Well precisely. So before lockdown, before "stay at home", before anything significant, we were already in a position to sign contracts on vaccinations last February that led to our world leading vaccine success and ability to send a vaccine all around the world too. That's an impressive preparation.
I think they meant pre virus, which in fairness we did have some plans as did the US before Trump gutted them.
It is possible to be prepared and not do well and possible to not be prepared and react well. Ideally you want both.
That's my point though. We were only in a position to exchange contracts in February 2000 because of pre-virus preparations. The groundwork that led to that wasn't rushed out of thin air in January 2000, some of it was already there then good decisions in February made by the government and Hancock especially led to the vaccine a year later.
The vaccines wouldn't have been possible without preparations, much of which were done pre-lockdown in February, some of which preceded it.
I don't think IanB2 or I were commenting on how well we were prepared. In fact the map implies we were better than most. The comments were referencing your evidence that we were prepared by giving evidence of what we did during. Pedantic maybe but this is PB.
Well indeed but my point was that we were in a position to do what we did pre-Stay At Home, in part because we were prepared and of course in part because the government made wise decisions with those preparations.
It looks like the countries coloured as best prepared on that chart (besides France) will be the ones that end the pandemic first. That's interesting.
Why would Scots want independence when led by such a shower.. salmond sturgeon Blackford.. the chief whip....
Should give even the most hard-nosed Nat cause to pause about the type of country that awaits them.
And as for those who think the arguments are more nuanced - well, you can expect them to want some serious answers before putting their X against that big a change.
It will be a year or two before we get a real understanding of how our self imposed restrictions on trade impact imports and exports. We are stuck with Johnson's Deal for the next few years so no hurry at assessing the decline.
Should give even the most hard-nosed Nat cause to pause about the type of country that awaits them.
And as for those who think the arguments are more nuanced - well, you can expect them to want some serious answers before putting their X against that big a change.
Good news on Novavax! Lines up with what I'd heard previously on approval in the final week of March and deliveries by the second week of April.
Max the doubling of supply that we've been told should be available from now (probably appearing in usage figures from next week) - do you know or have a hint whether that is a permanent doubling from now on? Or just a temporary effect for a few weeks?
8-10 weeks with the current suppliers, essentially as long as we need it with Novavax and Moderna from April. As Pfizer starts to drop out of the supply chain the other two wil pick up, Novavax quite significantly where there is 15m per month in domestic manufacturing ramping up at the moment.
If we're going for 100 million vax we have the following:
24405221 Astra + Pfizer used 21702191 Astra/Pfizer must be used (Till mix and match trials show efficacy of two different vaccines) 53892588 Any vaccine
The biggest thing forcing the development of battery storage, though, is the rapidly falling cost of solar. It is becoming incredibly cheap compared with other forms of generation, and in places with the best sunshine, the marginal cost of electricity at noon is tending towards zero. That’s massively distorting very large energy markets, and the only solution is storage. https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1370169450901737474
And is pretty much all imported from China.
The UK has put £9 billion into wind and solar subsidies. It has caused £14 billion in imports into the UK. Supported so many jobs.
In northern Europe and China.
If you import $100 of solar panels today, it may prevent the import of $500 of oil and gas over the next decade.
Or have a UK-based tidal industry that has $15 of imports and may prevent that same $500 of oil and gas.
The efforts gone to in blocking UK tidal energy are a national scandal. It's still not too late to remedy that, whilstever people are talking about building new nuclear capacity here. Sizewell, for example. No way the economics of that stacks up against the Cardiff lagoon.
But let's have a task force charged with discovering it. Charged with at least TRYING to make the case. Rather than starting out with the utterly wrong-headed "It can't be done - it MUSTN'T be done!"
That's fair enough.
But if you don't mind me giving my two pence we here have a pretty unanimous viewpoint that the nuclear investment is an albatross that was a mistake to sign, it wouldn't surprise me if behind closed doors others think the same. So I don't think contrasting tidal with nuclear is a winning argument.
There's a reason wind and storage etc are what get spoken about now and nuclear hardly leads any government speeches anymore. Comparing yourself with nuclear is off-putting not favourable. Especially if there's a view that Sizewell was a mistake but we're kind of stuck with it now, then the idea that tidal could be like Sizewell but something we'd be stuck with for 120 years if its just as much of a mistake is a red flag more than a winning argument.
Try and build persuasive arguments that contrast tidal with wind & storage & hydrogen generation. Not a mistake like nuclear. That's my advice at least, feel free to disregard completely.
Apparently the issue with the export of non-processed shellfish could be easily solved. The UK has stricter standards than the EU in classification of water - only 1% of our water is “category A”.
Shellfish from category A water can be exported without restrictions.
Unfortunately once new sources have been identified buyers won't necessarily go back to where they were.
Mrs Foxy acquired some rather tasty live rope grown Scottish mussels in Waitrose last week. I've not noticed them before there. I do hope to pick up some bargain scallops and langoustines too.
British people are daft in their dislike of fresh seafood.
Give us real numbers for those imports and exports.
In 2019, UK exports to the EU were £294 billion (43% of all UK exports). UK imports from the EU were £374 billion (52% of all UK imports). The share of UK exports accounted for by the EU has generally fallen over time from 54% in 2002 to 43% in 2019. (Source: Commons Library)
So, that drop in imports represents say £10 billion. The drop in imports on the same basis is £15.3 billion.
That "Brexit bonus" for the EU is looking pretty fucking dumb.
It's a bit more complicated than that, so you can't draw many conclusions yet.
Firstly, the trade balance is pretty volatile over the year, so using full year figures could be very misleading. Secondly, we'll have probably done more stock piling of EU imports than the other way around. Thirdly, there is a pandemic going on, and January was the nadir, so it's highly unlikely to be typical.
Sure. But I was just offering a differing narrative to the one you will never hear from the Remainers. The one where German exporters are going "Shit.......".
I might be being unfair here Mark, but weren't you one of the posters ridiculing Remainers when the misleading information of January trade for which the Government has been criticized was made weeks ago. I am happy to accept these latest figures are meaningless. You can't have it both ways.
The other good news about Novavax is that it shows 55% efficacy against all symptoms for the SA variant and full protection from severe symptoms and death and their CMO has said they have already worked out the changed necessary to bring that 55% figure up as well.
The biggest thing forcing the development of battery storage, though, is the rapidly falling cost of solar. It is becoming incredibly cheap compared with other forms of generation, and in places with the best sunshine, the marginal cost of electricity at noon is tending towards zero. That’s massively distorting very large energy markets, and the only solution is storage. https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1370169450901737474
And is pretty much all imported from China.
The UK has put £9 billion into wind and solar subsidies. It has caused £14 billion in imports into the UK. Supported so many jobs.
In northern Europe and China.
If you import $100 of solar panels today, it may prevent the import of $500 of oil and gas over the next decade.
The problem with solar is the UK is not California. We use heating not air conditioning.
Solar gives peak output in the summer. We have peak energy consumption in the winter.
Solar may be good at displacing fossil fuels in the summer, but its not a reliable net zero solution for the winter.
That's not really my point. We import natural gas. If our CCGTs are running for an hour less a day because of solar, that will reduce natural gas imports.
I believe import payback periods on solar are in the 18 to 24 month period in Northern Europe, so importing that panel from China may worsen our balance of payments today, but it's definitely a positive in the medium term.
True but do solar panels give a return on investment in 18 to 24 minutes? If the ambition is to switch off CCGTs within a decade or so then there won't be natural gas imports ultimately.
Good news on Novavax! Lines up with what I'd heard previously on approval in the final week of March and deliveries by the second week of April.
Max the doubling of supply that we've been told should be available from now (probably appearing in usage figures from next week) - do you know or have a hint whether that is a permanent doubling from now on? Or just a temporary effect for a few weeks?
8-10 weeks with the current suppliers, essentially as long as we need it with Novavax and Moderna from April. As Pfizer starts to drop out of the supply chain the other two wil pick up, Novavax quite significantly where there is 15m per month in domestic manufacturing ramping up at the moment.
Should give even the most hard-nosed Nat cause to pause about the type of country that awaits them.
And as for those who think the arguments are more nuanced - well, you can expect them to want some serious answers before putting their X against that big a change.
LOL
Hilarious from a Brexiteer...
So you are mocking the idea that a lesson for the Scots to learn from Brexit is to be far, far more questioning of big change?
It will be a year or two before we get a real understanding of how our self imposed restrictions on trade impact imports and exports. We are stuck with Johnson's Deal for the next few years so no hurry at assessing the decline.
The biggest thing forcing the development of battery storage, though, is the rapidly falling cost of solar. It is becoming incredibly cheap compared with other forms of generation, and in places with the best sunshine, the marginal cost of electricity at noon is tending towards zero. That’s massively distorting very large energy markets, and the only solution is storage. https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1370169450901737474
And is pretty much all imported from China.
The UK has put £9 billion into wind and solar subsidies. It has caused £14 billion in imports into the UK. Supported so many jobs.
In northern Europe and China.
If you import $100 of solar panels today, it may prevent the import of $500 of oil and gas over the next decade.
The problem with solar is the UK is not California. We use heating not air conditioning.
Solar gives peak output in the summer. We have peak energy consumption in the winter.
Solar may be good at displacing fossil fuels in the summer, but its not a reliable net zero solution for the winter.
That's not really my point. We import natural gas. If our CCGTs are running for an hour less a day because of solar, that will reduce natural gas imports.
I believe import payback periods on solar are in the 18 to 24 month period in Northern Europe, so importing that panel from China may worsen our balance of payments today, but it's definitely a positive in the medium term.
True but do solar panels give a return on investment in 18 to 24 minutes? If the ambition is to switch off CCGTs within a decade or so then there won't be natural gas imports ultimately.
No, they don't give a return on investment in 18 to 24 months, but that wasn't the question. The question was "when is the cost of import of the solar panel paid back by the lower imports of natural gas/electricity/etc. from abroad?"
Most of the cost of getting solar panels on your roof is not the cost of the panels. Indeed, cost per watt (for the panel alone) is just 30-35 pence these days - it's installation that accounts for the bulk of the cost these days.
Apparently the issue with the export of non-processed shellfish could be easily solved. The UK has stricter standards than the EU in classification of water - only 1% of our water is “category A”.
Shellfish from category A water can be exported without restrictions.
Unfortunately once new sources have been identified buyers won't necessarily go back to where they were.
Mrs Foxy acquired some rather tasty live rope grown Scottish mussels in Waitrose last week. I've not noticed them before there. I do hope to pick up some bargain scallops and langoustines too.
British people are daft in their dislike of fresh seafood.
Quite agree; maybe changing British tastes will replace the lost EU business.
Will require some heavy marketing though; watch out for new books of the cookery shelves, such as Jamie Oliver's Seafood Tempters and Mary Berry's Lobster Delights
To be fair, I don't remember scampi as an option in the fish and chipperies of my youth; they're frequently available now.
On topic having an even vaguely credible Labour party is an essential part of the mix. The key to SNP dominance in recent years has been the collapse of Labour in the central belt with their voters going to the SNP for both Holyrood and Westminster. I wish them success in getting them back but there is a long way to go.
What the UK government needs to do is hammer home why being a part of the UK was very, very good for Scotland during the pandemic. The vastly superior economic strength which allowed the funding of things like furlough, extra benefits, getting rough sleepers somewhere to go, open ended spending on health have all been important and it is extremely doubtful that Scotland could have managed the same on its own.
The biggest single benefit was the smart investments that the UK put into both vaccine developments and early contracts for the supply of those vaccines. That will save the lives of thousands, possibly tens of thousands of Scots. Had we been in the EU and a part of their vaccine schemes roughly 1/3rd of those vaccinated in Scotland would have been.
We (that is Unionists) need to hammer home these messages. So far we have had the Nicola, mother of the nation, show and the huge gains from being part of the UK that Scotland has enjoyed have been very much underplayed or left unsaid. We need to change that if this welcome change of view is to be strengthened and embedded.
The biggest thing forcing the development of battery storage, though, is the rapidly falling cost of solar. It is becoming incredibly cheap compared with other forms of generation, and in places with the best sunshine, the marginal cost of electricity at noon is tending towards zero. That’s massively distorting very large energy markets, and the only solution is storage. https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1370169450901737474
And is pretty much all imported from China.
The UK has put £9 billion into wind and solar subsidies. It has caused £14 billion in imports into the UK. Supported so many jobs.
In northern Europe and China.
If you import $100 of solar panels today, it may prevent the import of $500 of oil and gas over the next decade.
Or have a UK-based tidal industry that has $15 of imports and may prevent that same $500 of oil and gas.
The efforts gone to in blocking UK tidal energy are a national scandal. It's still not too late to remedy that, whilstever people are talking about building new nuclear capacity here. Sizewell, for example. No way the economics of that stacks up against the Cardiff lagoon.
But let's have a task force charged with discovering it. Charged with at least TRYING to make the case. Rather than starting out with the utterly wrong-headed "It can't be done - it MUSTN'T be done!"
Look, I'm all in favour of pushing ahead with a proper, big trial of tidal.
But I also know that trusting the costings of a supplier is a very rapid way to go bust. Most of the analyses I've seen had tidal power costing north of £150/MWh. Now, I'm sure that will be driven down over time: iterations being the best way to get better at things. And I suspect that even today it would be better value than Hinckley Point C.
But you are not exactly a disinterested observer with your forecasts for the costs of tidal in the UK.
Related to the hit to GDP from Brexit. Humungous finance package passed into US law yesterday.
"Goldman Sachs now expects growth in the world’s largest economy to hit almost 7pc this year with the boost so big it will spill over to other economies. The package will increase GDP by 0.6pc in the UK and 1.1pc globally in the first 12 months, according to the OECD."
On topic having an even vaguely credible Labour party is an essential part of the mix. The key to SNP dominance in recent years has been the collapse of Labour in the central belt with their voters going to the SNP for both Holyrood and Westminster. I wish them success in getting them back but there is a long way to go.
What the UK government needs to do is hammer home why being a part of the UK was very, very good for Scotland during the pandemic. The vastly superior economic strength which allowed the funding of things like furlough, extra benefits, getting rough sleepers somewhere to go, open ended spending on health have all been important and it is extremely doubtful that Scotland could have managed the same on its own.
The biggest single benefit was the smart investments that the UK put into both vaccine developments and early contracts for the supply of those vaccines. That will save the lives of thousands, possibly tens of thousands of Scots. Had we been in the EU and a part of their vaccine schemes roughly 1/3rd of those vaccinated in Scotland would have been.
We (that is Unionists) need to hammer home these messages. So far we have had the Nicola, mother of the nation, show and the huge gains from being part of the UK that Scotland has enjoyed have been very much underplayed or left unsaid. We need to change that if this welcome change of view is to be strengthened and embedded.
Well that's all very nice for Scotland. What England gets in return for throwing money at Paisley that could be just as easily spent in Preston (or left in the bank) God alone knows.
It's amazing how times change: I thought Portugal was in the middle of a mega surge.
Ireland, Germany and Spain doing well too, despite the rather slow vaccination programme. Presumably mostly due to lockdown measures.
And South Africa. Lockdown has a lot to do with it without a shadow of a doubt but SA will be interesting to watch over the next week as they have gone to their lowest alert level. I sometimes wonder if a more transmissible variant sweeps through the most exposed parts of the population leaving the virus with nowhere much else to go. Lockdown is to a large extent a white collar thing. Only about 30% of the U.K. workforce can work exclusively from home.
I include Brazil below as they have a variant that is seemingly creating a never ending horror show.
I hesitate to make the obvious point here but if trade with non-EU countries (where we are also a 3rd country, and our relationship is based on a looser free trade deal or even on WTO terms) has hardly changed at all, but it only has with the EU (where we are now a 3rd country, but with supposedly a comprehensive trade deal) then perhaps the problem isn't being a 3rd country in steady-state it's the transition and the level of pedantry with which those two countries apply checks to each other.
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
All good points. If we weren't investing in wind and if wind wasn't cheaper.
But taking away Hinckley being stupid (we agree on that)
If tidal is meant to partner wind then how does it surge "on demand" to deal with when wind power goes down? Gas can be burnt to surge power on demand, how does tidal surge (besides storage lagoons which I agree are a good idea if economic)?
You're making a good case for tidal in isolation, but not addressing concerns about how tidal is meant to work in synergy with wind. Simply saying tidal is reliable isn't a solution since we don't need reliable with wind since wind isn't reliable. Unless your solution is to abandon wind as well as nuclear we need something that can work synergistically with wind to surge on demand - tidal isn't that is it?
That logic is faulty surely? You are saying we have one unreliable source so we should complement it with another unreliable source?
If you were complementing two reliable but cyclical sources that would make sense
Surely you need a base load source (like nuclear or tidal) to complement an episodic source like wind?
Agreed. Tidal is an alternative to nuclear - which is also baseload, and not dispatchable.
The biggest thing forcing the development of battery storage, though, is the rapidly falling cost of solar. It is becoming incredibly cheap compared with other forms of generation, and in places with the best sunshine, the marginal cost of electricity at noon is tending towards zero. That’s massively distorting very large energy markets, and the only solution is storage. https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1370169450901737474
And is pretty much all imported from China.
The UK has put £9 billion into wind and solar subsidies. It has caused £14 billion in imports into the UK. Supported so many jobs.
In northern Europe and China.
If you import $100 of solar panels today, it may prevent the import of $500 of oil and gas over the next decade.
Or have a UK-based tidal industry that has $15 of imports and may prevent that same $500 of oil and gas.
The efforts gone to in blocking UK tidal energy are a national scandal. It's still not too late to remedy that, whilstever people are talking about building new nuclear capacity here. Sizewell, for example. No way the economics of that stacks up against the Cardiff lagoon.
But let's have a task force charged with discovering it. Charged with at least TRYING to make the case. Rather than starting out with the utterly wrong-headed "It can't be done - it MUSTN'T be done!"
Look, I'm all in favour of pushing ahead with a proper, big trial of tidal.
But I also know that trusting the costings of a supplier is a very rapid way to go bust. Most of the analyses I've seen had tidal power costing north of £150/MWh. Now, I'm sure that will be driven down over time: iterations being the best way to get better at things. And I suspect that even today it would be better value than Hinckley Point C.
But you are not exactly a disinterested observer with your forecasts for the costs of tidal in the UK.
I'm up for tidal, but the analysis on the CBR I've seen is similar to yours.
Comments
https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1370133850454646788
Surely 'pagan' and 'atheist' are completely different. Pagans believe in gods of some sort, just not the Christian one. Often several, too, as opposed to monotheistic religions, like the People of the Book.
Atheists, like me, do not believe in any Supreme Being, or Beings.
Although having an 'ever-present hope in time of trouble' must be comforting.
Yet this Government is pushing nuclear. Go figure.
It is possible to be prepared and not do well and possible to not be prepared and react well. Ideally you want both.
Apparently the issue with the export of non-processed shellfish could be easily solved. The UK has stricter standards than the EU in classification of water - only 1% of our water is “category A”.
Shellfish from category A water can be exported without restrictions.
If we applied the average EU standards to our classification then the problem would largely go away. (I think this is the proposal suggested by the industry)
I have no idea if it is a good idea or what the other implications are of reclassifying water but it was an interesting nuance that hasn’t really come through in the discussion
And there is no reason why tidal and wind and hydrogen production shouldn't be a good mix in combination. Serve us nicely going forward. Get Chinese solar and CHinese/French nuclear out the mix, going forward.
Robert’s figures on Tesla’s megabatteries are just zoomed in on the very start of an exponential growth curve. By 2030 gas peaker operators will be unfinanceable.
Tidal has always seemed a sensible gamble to take for a centralised Industrial Policy. Politicians like to talk about the burning urgency of climate change and shaking hands in front of the cameras at all the jollies. And then let themselves get talked out of relatively small bets like this by the bean counters, while with the other hand blowing tens of billions on testing, track and trace.
https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1369327338425614350
2. Maybe demand is lower in the EU because of the pandemic, and because economic activity there is currently subdued.
3. Are the numbers properly seasonally adjusted? I.e., what normally happens to EU trade around this time of year.
4. What are the goods we import and export to the EU? If PPE imports are up 20%, and none is from the EU, then maybe it's the pattern of demand.
5. Manufactured goods is only a small portion of our trade.
Let's take a look at numbers in September, and then we can have a real discussion.
What the effect on services is too.
What must never be done again is the abomination of Hinckley C and its absurd strike prices decades into the future.
Firstly, the trade balance is pretty volatile over the year, so using full year figures could be very misleading.
Secondly, we'll have probably done more stock piling of EU imports than the other way around.
Thirdly, there is a pandemic going on, and January was the nadir, so it's highly unlikely to be typical.
The vaccines wouldn't have been possible without preparations, much of which were done pre-lockdown in February, some of which preceded it.
Hmmm. That's convincing.
Whether the Oven Ready Deal is shit or merely bad is something that we have time over. After all we are stuck with it for the next few years.
He knows January is changeover month for which there had been stockpiling before.
Changeover month. In the middle of a pandemic.
Nobody will know anything for at least four or five months, and probably more like nine or ten.
It wasn't Pfizer that got AZN to accidentally misdose a fair percentage of their participants for example.
"More investigation" is the EU attitude to vaccines applied to stopping global warming.
We should try several things at once and find out in practice what works.
Solar gives peak output in the summer. We have peak energy consumption in the winter.
Solar may be good at displacing fossil fuels in the summer, but its not a reliable net zero solution for the winter.
But is the suggestion that UK "category A" is higher, or the need officially to adopt EU labels and the EU officialdom that go with it? That is, like the washing machine energy labels that simply have an EU flag on them as opposed to being any different.
I'm well aware that eg in Air Safety Registration certain UK standards were compromised when we adopted EU standards years ago.
That being said, I'm not that convinced that mass energy storage is that easy and cost efficient. Natural gas plants are, however, really cheap. And the current cost of an mmbtu of gas is under $3.
The efforts gone to in blocking UK tidal energy are a national scandal. It's still not too late to remedy that, whilstever people are talking about building new nuclear capacity here. Sizewell, for example. No way the economics of that stacks up against the Cardiff lagoon.
But let's have a task force charged with discovering it. Charged with at least TRYING to make the case. Rather than starting out with the utterly wrong-headed "It can't be done - it MUSTN'T be done!"
I believe import payback periods on solar are in the 18 to 24 month period in Northern Europe, so importing that panel from China may worsen our balance of payments today, but it's definitely a positive in the medium term.
It looks like the countries coloured as best prepared on that chart (besides France) will be the ones that end the pandemic first. That's interesting.
Launched in 2015, Football Index mimics the stock market in that it allows traders to buy "shares" in footballers. Users receive dividends based on how the footballers perform, while the share price can also rise and fall.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/football-index-suspends-platform-and-enters-administration-after-market-crash/477618
And as for those who think the arguments are more nuanced - well, you can expect them to want some serious answers before putting their X against that big a change.
Hilarious from a Brexiteer...
24405221 Astra + Pfizer used
21702191 Astra/Pfizer must be used (Till mix and match trials show efficacy of two different vaccines)
53892588 Any vaccine
But if you don't mind me giving my two pence we here have a pretty unanimous viewpoint that the nuclear investment is an albatross that was a mistake to sign, it wouldn't surprise me if behind closed doors others think the same. So I don't think contrasting tidal with nuclear is a winning argument.
There's a reason wind and storage etc are what get spoken about now and nuclear hardly leads any government speeches anymore. Comparing yourself with nuclear is off-putting not favourable. Especially if there's a view that Sizewell was a mistake but we're kind of stuck with it now, then the idea that tidal could be like Sizewell but something we'd be stuck with for 120 years if its just as much of a mistake is a red flag more than a winning argument.
Try and build persuasive arguments that contrast tidal with wind & storage & hydrogen generation. Not a mistake like nuclear. That's my advice at least, feel free to disregard completely.
British people are daft in their dislike of fresh seafood.
I guess we have an answer.
LOL, as they say....
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1370287976194920455
My own distaste for Brexit is more due to the insult to my many Greek, Italian, Spanish, Belgian, Portuguese and Romanian friends and colleagues.
That you think it won't work on the Scots when it worked on you is hilarious.
It could even be Foxy who as a Remainer was honest enough to say it too.
Most of the cost of getting solar panels on your roof is not the cost of the panels. Indeed, cost per watt (for the panel alone) is just 30-35 pence these days - it's installation that accounts for the bulk of the cost these days.
Will require some heavy marketing though; watch out for new books of the cookery shelves, such as Jamie Oliver's Seafood Tempters and Mary Berry's Lobster Delights
To be fair, I don't remember scampi as an option in the fish and chipperies of my youth; they're frequently available now.
https://twitter.com/LukeSmithF1/status/1370287272097103872
What the UK government needs to do is hammer home why being a part of the UK was very, very good for Scotland during the pandemic. The vastly superior economic strength which allowed the funding of things like furlough, extra benefits, getting rough sleepers somewhere to go, open ended spending on health have all been important and it is extremely doubtful that Scotland could have managed the same on its own.
The biggest single benefit was the smart investments that the UK put into both vaccine developments and early contracts for the supply of those vaccines. That will save the lives of thousands, possibly tens of thousands of Scots. Had we been in the EU and a part of their vaccine schemes roughly 1/3rd of those vaccinated in Scotland would have been.
We (that is Unionists) need to hammer home these messages. So far we have had the Nicola, mother of the nation, show and the huge gains from being part of the UK that Scotland has enjoyed have been very much underplayed or left unsaid. We need to change that if this welcome change of view is to be strengthened and embedded.
But I also know that trusting the costings of a supplier is a very rapid way to go bust. Most of the analyses I've seen had tidal power costing north of £150/MWh. Now, I'm sure that will be driven down over time: iterations being the best way to get better at things. And I suspect that even today it would be better value than Hinckley Point C.
But you are not exactly a disinterested observer with your forecasts for the costs of tidal in the UK.
If a Theresa May adviser says its wrong, its a good hint its right.
"Goldman Sachs now expects growth in the world’s largest economy to hit almost 7pc this year with the boost so big it will spill over to other economies. The package will increase GDP by 0.6pc in the UK and 1.1pc globally in the first 12 months, according to the OECD."
(Telegraph)
I include Brazil below as they have a variant that is seemingly creating a never ending horror show.
Tidal is an alternative to nuclear - which is also baseload, and not dispatchable.