"a Government Brexit adviser" meaning an adviser to Theresa May. 😂
If a Theresa May adviser says its wrong, its a good hint its right.
Your extreme dislike of TMay and your worship of the philandering Boris Johnson does have a very strong ring of misogyny about it, which does of course fit with your other hard right opinions.
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.
The pricing I have seen for full scale tidal lagoons has a pricing assumption of £50-55, versus £92.50 for Hinkley and maybe c.£40 for offshore wind from 2025 - for a an infrastructure that might last a fifth of the life of a tidal lagoon. And then has to be completely replaced.
You want to see this pricing assumptions? Then tell your MP you want to see it investigated. Before any more decisions on nuclear are taken.
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.
Not to mention absurd ideas like the bridge to Ireland.
They ought also to look at tidal fence technology - which is considerably cheaper, and bird friendly - for the Severn.
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.
It seems a reasonable ballpark estimate. Fortunately I am not in a job depending on import/exports.
My own distaste for Brexit is more due to the insult to my many Greek, Italian, Spanish, Belgian, Portuguese and Romanian friends and colleagues.
Which, aside from the economics, was a good enough reason in itself to oppose it. The sad thing is that for many of the architects and most vociferous supporters of Brexit, their primary motivation was to do exactly that.
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 trouble is that half our existing nuclear capacity (which gives us about 20% of our electricity) is due to be retired in the next 5 years, and nuclear fusion isn't yet proven but we have climate commitments to meet and energy security to deliver.
Nuclear fission is expensive but, it's reliable and consistent baseload, it's atmospherically clean, and we can get uranium ore from places like Canada and Australia, thus giving us energy independence.
This generation of plants will very probably be the last to be built, and I think it's right we do so for now.
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.
The problem with tidal is that we will be the initial development so we cover all the learning costs without the future benefits as there aren't that many other places it can be deployed.
In a lot of ways it's a great idea but it's too expensive when the other option is more solar panels and storage - which may already be in the region of £100/MWh.
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.
The pricing I have seen for full scale tidal lagoons has a pricing assumption of £50-55, versus £92.50 for Hinkley and maybe c.£40 for offshore wind from 2025 - for a an infrastructure that might last a fifth of the life of a tidal lagoon. And then has to be completely replaced.
You want to see this pricing assumptions? Then tell your MP you want to see it investigated. Before any more decisions on nuclear are taken.
Yes, send it to me if you have it - but there's probably plenty of optimum bias in those estimates, I suspect. They are 2-3 times below what I've seen.
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.
It seems a reasonable ballpark estimate. Fortunately I am not in a job depending on import/exports.
My own distaste for Brexit is more due to the insult to my many Greek, Italian, Spanish, Belgian, Portuguese and Romanian friends and colleagues.
I'm a Unionist but, on the basis you'd support if you lived there, do you think that Scottish independence would be an insult to the English, Welsh and Northern Irish?
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.
That's irrelevant to the point I was making, which is that much larger energy markets than ours will ensure the development of large scale economic battery storage over the next decade.
The UK is actually a world leader in perovskite solar cell technology, which is what will enable the next decade's improvement in solar costs. We have, of course, licensed it for manufacturing elsewhere (Germany).
Scottish independence faces enough obstacles to make it mathematically unlikely in the medium term - which as far as anyone can see anything.
1) Westminster has to agree to consider the possibility of indyref 2) There needs to be a settled poll lead before SNP will go for it 3) The separatists need to win in 2021 reasonably clearly 4) The SNP have to be united in their policy and strategy in going for an indyref 5) They have to find an agreed answer to the familar hard questions - fudge may well not work 5) They have to win a referendum 6) There has to be a successful outcome of the Scexit negotiations 7) The subsequent legislation has to get through Westminster.
Prediction: It isn't going to reach stage 7 unless and until the SNP can do it as part of a coalition deal with Labour - and the enacting of stage 7 would destroy that very government. This is unlikely.
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.
Government policy has a part to play here, with carrots.
Hampshire County Council has written to me advertising some solar panel bid auction: apparently they identify households who are interested, ask them to describe their house and orientation, and then facilitate a bid in May, at the end of which they carve up a bulk quotation into household prices. This apparently saves a bit of money.
I'm sure it does and I'm sure it's a tad cheaper than me approaching the company direct. The problem is it still will cost me several grand I don't have.
If the Government agreed to defray 80% of the cost, so it was, say, £2k rather than £10k, I'd be up for it. But otherwise I'm not, so I stay with my Worcester-Bosch efficient, but still gas, boiler.
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 trouble is that half our existing nuclear capacity (which gives us about 20% of our electricity) is due to be retired in the next 5 years, and nuclear fusion isn't yet proven but we have climate commitments to meet and energy security to deliver.
Nuclear fission is expensive but, it's reliable and consistent baseload, it's atmospherically clean, and we can get uranium ore from places like Canada and Australia, thus giving us energy independence.
This generation of plants will very probably be the last to be built, and I think it's right we do so for now.
According to this article Hinkley Point C is not now expected to start generating electricity until the middle of 2026. It's unlikely to make your 5 year timeline for replacing our current nuclear, and it has a headstart of many years on any other proposed plant.
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.
The same thing that Scotland gets when oil extracted off its coast funds services in the rest of the UK - the assurance that as part of a Union, when there is need, the other parts of it will help.
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.
Tidal fences would be a great deal cheaper than that - and could easily be trialled on a smaller scale. It's frankly bizarre that government hasn't done that.
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.
The pricing I have seen for full scale tidal lagoons has a pricing assumption of £50-55, versus £92.50 for Hinkley and maybe c.£40 for offshore wind from 2025 - for a an infrastructure that might last a fifth of the life of a tidal lagoon. And then has to be completely replaced.
You want to see this pricing assumptions? Then tell your MP you want to see it investigated. Before any more decisions on nuclear are taken.
Yes, send it to me if you have it - but there's probably plenty of optimum bias in those estimates, I suspect. They are 2-3 times below what I've seen.
How do you feel about nuclear fusion?
The £150 price was an old number for Swansea - a much smaller testbed project. It is the number used by the enemies of tidal (mostly but not exclusively nuclear). Even the Swansea test bed could now be produced at a sub-Hinkley price. The Cardiff £50-£55 is price that nuclear never want heard - because at that level, we would never build another nuclear plant. Their economics just don't work versus large tidal plants.
At some point, somebody in Government is going to wake up and shout "We could have had WHAT? For WHAT?" But until then, nuclear keeps getting built. With £37 billion sickled from the public teat on Hinkley alone, you can understand why they don't want some upstart zero carbon zero waste zero subsidy competitor getting that foothold.
The nonsense fed to MPs about tidal power is a wonder of the dark arts.
"a Government Brexit adviser" meaning an adviser to Theresa May. 😂
If a Theresa May adviser says its wrong, its a good hint its right.
Your extreme dislike of TMay and your worship of the philandering Boris Johnson does have a very strong ring of misogyny about it, which does of course fit with your other hard right opinions.
Phil doesn't have a misogynist bone in his body. Nor is he hard right.
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.
The pricing I have seen for full scale tidal lagoons has a pricing assumption of £50-55, versus £92.50 for Hinkley and maybe c.£40 for offshore wind from 2025 - for a an infrastructure that might last a fifth of the life of a tidal lagoon. And then has to be completely replaced.
You want to see this pricing assumptions? Then tell your MP you want to see it investigated. Before any more decisions on nuclear are taken.
Yes, send it to me if you have it - but there's probably plenty of optimum bias in those estimates, I suspect. They are 2-3 times below what I've seen.
How do you feel about nuclear fusion?
I don't see fusion being an option in the medium term. Long term is probably "long after I have gone" term.
"a Government Brexit adviser" meaning an adviser to Theresa May. 😂
If a Theresa May adviser says its wrong, its a good hint its right.
Your extreme dislike of TMay and your worship of the philandering Boris Johnson does have a very strong ring of misogyny about it, which does of course fit with your other hard right opinions.
The hatred of various parts of the Tory party for each other is pretty well up there with that in the Labour; the difference is that it's personality, rather than ideas based.
The problem with the island of Ireland and Brexit is that, as currently configured, there is no possible solution, and it suited neither Remainers or Brexiteers to say so in the campaign.
Someone's red lines have to shift. Remarkably even after the deal that is still the case. The irresistible force and the immovable object are circling not crashing. In Irish politics of course time runs differently. Asquith would have recognised all the symptoms.
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.
I’m always slightly mystified by those enthusiasts for trumpeting the ‘huge gains from being part of the UK’ and support governments that tend to do the same who think this pov is very much underplayed or left unsaid. I’ll hazard a guess that this love that hitherto has been too nervous to speak its name will involve Tory ministers telling Scots that they should be a sight more grateful and slapping UJs on stuff.
I’ll look forward to seeing how that’s squared with the perennial analysis that 314 years of union has left a small Western European country blessed with abundant natural resources, an educated population and a fortunate geographical position uniquely unable to govern itself.
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.
I find it interesting that an efficacy figure of 55%, which would have been seen as a triumph on October 2020, is seen as poor in March 2021... We have been spoiled by the strikingly good results against the wild type, and yes, tweaks will bring the number up against the variants too. Happy days, and its friday! (Whatever that means in lockdown...)
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.
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 trouble is that half our existing nuclear capacity (which gives us about 20% of our electricity) is due to be retired in the next 5 years, and nuclear fusion isn't yet proven but we have climate commitments to meet and energy security to deliver.
Nuclear fission is expensive but, it's reliable and consistent baseload, it's atmospherically clean, and we can get uranium ore from places like Canada and Australia, thus giving us energy independence.
This generation of plants will very probably be the last to be built, and I think it's right we do so for now.
According to this article Hinkley Point C is not now expected to start generating electricity until the middle of 2026. It's unlikely to make your 5 year timeline for replacing our current nuclear, and it has a headstart of many years on any other proposed plant.
Yes, either the other plants will be extended for a few years (it was due to retire, not drop-dead - it's just they'll become less efficient and or expensive to run) or the gap will be covered by quick to build temporary CCGT plants.
"a Government Brexit adviser" meaning an adviser to Theresa May. 😂
If a Theresa May adviser says its wrong, its a good hint its right.
Your extreme dislike of TMay and your worship of the philandering Boris Johnson does have a very strong ring of misogyny about it, which does of course fit with your other hard right opinions.
Bullshit.
I dislike Theresa May as she's a nasty, xenophobic, authoritarian politician that represents the worst of the Tory Party. She also completely screwed up the most important negotiations of the past 50 years, but I disliked her from her xenophobia before then. I also dislike Phil Hammond whom she kept as Chancellor despite the way he was undermining the UK's Brexit preparations.
I like Boris Johnson as he's a liberal Conservative that represents the best of the Tory Party.
I am a huge fan of not just Thatcher in the past, but Liz Truss in the present and many other quality women. Theresa May I dislike as she was awful on her own merits, what she has between her legs doesn't enter into it.
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.
The pricing I have seen for full scale tidal lagoons has a pricing assumption of £50-55, versus £92.50 for Hinkley and maybe c.£40 for offshore wind from 2025 - for a an infrastructure that might last a fifth of the life of a tidal lagoon. And then has to be completely replaced.
You want to see this pricing assumptions? Then tell your MP you want to see it investigated. Before any more decisions on nuclear are taken.
Yes, send it to me if you have it - but there's probably plenty of optimum bias in those estimates, I suspect. They are 2-3 times below what I've seen.
How do you feel about nuclear fusion?
I don't see fusion being an option in the medium term. Long term is probably "long after I have gone" term.
Its probably about 30 years away (and always will be...)
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!"
May I offer a tiny critique of your 'sell' (as I assume very similar representations have been made to ministers)? I am not a lobbyist, but I am a marketer, and these comments are made from a 'marketing to a specific audience' standpoint.
The taskforce is a great model, as I think we discussed. However, I am puzzled as to why the taskforce is needed to discover benefits, as it seems from everything that has been said, that the benefits are already clear. The taskforce should be tasked with actually making Britain a tidal superpower. It cannot really fulfill an investigative role, as that would be expected to be impartial.
There's a slight tone of exasperation (understandable) which I am sure is not present in your official communications, but I think your angle should be - this is inevitable. It will be your Government or an opposing one, we believe it should be yours.
Again, I am sure this won't happen in your official comms, but it's probably unwise to rubbish nuclear, especially existing plans. Very complex commitments have no doubt been entered into on that score, so you'd just be rubbing salt into a wound. If possible, I'd try to find some ways that tidal will actually complement nuclear. And overall I'd adopt a positive tone about the wisdom of a varied portfolio of power sources.
As some additional points (sure you have these covered, but still).
There is surely a big 'strengthening the Union' angle here that should be hammered home. This is a big current preoccupation.
Is there a Glasgow climate conference angle? That's a big thing, and ideally, an announcement would take place beforehand.
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.
I’m always slightly mystified by those enthusiasts for trumpeting the ‘huge gains from being part of the UK’ and support governments that tend to do the same who think this pov is very much underplayed or left unsaid. I’ll hazard a guess that this love that hitherto has been too nervous to speak its name will involve Tory ministers telling Scots that they should be a sight more grateful and slapping UJs on stuff.
I’ll look forward to seeing how that’s squared with the perennial analysis that 314 years of union has left a small Western European country blessed with abundant natural resources, an educated population and a fortunate geographical position uniquely unable to govern itself.
Hard to believe the halfwits on here who alternate between us being poverty stricken and deprived and England showering us with money. How do they square that circle. What the other halfwit who was dribbling about money being showered on Paisley was smoking I don't know. They could at least try and stick to one theme for us.
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.
Comments
You want to see this pricing assumptions? Then tell your MP you want to see it investigated. Before any more decisions on nuclear are taken.
They ought also to look at tidal fence technology - which is considerably cheaper, and bird friendly - for the Severn.
Nuclear fission is expensive but, it's reliable and consistent baseload, it's atmospherically clean, and we can get uranium ore from places like Canada and Australia, thus giving us energy independence.
This generation of plants will very probably be the last to be built, and I think it's right we do so for now.
In a lot of ways it's a great idea but it's too expensive when the other option is more solar panels and storage - which may already be in the region of £100/MWh.
How do you feel about nuclear fusion?
The UK is actually a world leader in perovskite solar cell technology, which is what will enable the next decade's improvement in solar costs. We have, of course, licensed it for manufacturing elsewhere (Germany).
1) Westminster has to agree to consider the possibility of indyref
2) There needs to be a settled poll lead before SNP will go for it
3) The separatists need to win in 2021 reasonably clearly
4) The SNP have to be united in their policy and strategy in going for an indyref
5) They have to find an agreed answer to the familar hard questions - fudge may well not work
5) They have to win a referendum
6) There has to be a successful outcome of the Scexit negotiations
7) The subsequent legislation has to get through Westminster.
Prediction: It isn't going to reach stage 7 unless and until the SNP can do it as part of a coalition deal with Labour - and the enacting of stage 7 would destroy that very government. This is unlikely.
Hampshire County Council has written to me advertising some solar panel bid auction: apparently they identify households who are interested, ask them to describe their house and orientation, and then facilitate a bid in May, at the end of which they carve up a bulk quotation into household prices. This apparently saves a bit of money.
I'm sure it does and I'm sure it's a tad cheaper than me approaching the company direct. The problem is it still will cost me several grand I don't have.
If the Government agreed to defray 80% of the cost, so it was, say, £2k rather than £10k, I'd be up for it. But otherwise I'm not, so I stay with my Worcester-Bosch efficient, but still gas, boiler.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-55823575
At some point, somebody in Government is going to wake up and shout "We could have had WHAT? For WHAT?" But until then, nuclear keeps getting built. With £37 billion sickled from the public teat on Hinkley alone, you can understand why they don't want some upstart zero carbon zero waste zero subsidy competitor getting that foothold.
The nonsense fed to MPs about tidal power is a wonder of the dark arts.
Someone's red lines have to shift. Remarkably even after the deal that is still the case. The irresistible force and the immovable object are circling not crashing. In Irish politics of course time runs differently. Asquith would have recognised all the symptoms.
Do you suppose he wrote about the benefits of lying with his tongue in cheek?
Good morning, everyone.
I’ll look forward to seeing how that’s squared with the perennial analysis that 314 years of union has left a small Western European country blessed with abundant natural resources, an educated population and a fortunate geographical position uniquely unable to govern itself.
https://youtu.be/9N2AlpxRY9c
I dislike Theresa May as she's a nasty, xenophobic, authoritarian politician that represents the worst of the Tory Party. She also completely screwed up the most important negotiations of the past 50 years, but I disliked her from her xenophobia before then. I also dislike Phil Hammond whom she kept as Chancellor despite the way he was undermining the UK's Brexit preparations.
I like Boris Johnson as he's a liberal Conservative that represents the best of the Tory Party.
I am a huge fan of not just Thatcher in the past, but Liz Truss in the present and many other quality women. Theresa May I dislike as she was awful on her own merits, what she has between her legs doesn't enter into it.
Numbers Kim Jong Un can only dream of.
The taskforce is a great model, as I think we discussed. However, I am puzzled as to why the taskforce is needed to discover benefits, as it seems from everything that has been said, that the benefits are already clear. The taskforce should be tasked with actually making Britain a tidal superpower. It cannot really fulfill an investigative role, as that would be expected to be impartial.
There's a slight tone of exasperation (understandable) which I am sure is not present in your official communications, but I think your angle should be - this is inevitable. It will be your Government or an opposing one, we believe it should be yours.
Again, I am sure this won't happen in your official comms, but it's probably unwise to rubbish nuclear, especially existing plans. Very complex commitments have no doubt been entered into on that score, so you'd just be rubbing salt into a wound. If possible, I'd try to find some ways that tidal will actually complement nuclear. And overall I'd adopt a positive tone about the wisdom of a varied portfolio of power sources.
As some additional points (sure you have these covered, but still).
There is surely a big 'strengthening the Union' angle here that should be hammered home. This is a big current preoccupation.
Is there a Glasgow climate conference angle? That's a big thing, and ideally, an announcement would take place beforehand.
What the other halfwit who was dribbling about money being showered on Paisley was smoking I don't know. They could at least try and stick to one theme for us.
https://twitter.com/LukeSmithF1/status/1370308430771195905
Mercedes gearbox?
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=nation&areaName=England
The big increase in LF tests is already adding about 500 extra cases per day in England.
It’s adding more positive tests.
Although it will be interpreted as positive cases, and this is the problem...