Coming back to who should replace Starmer. If any of them had any sense, they would duck the opportunity as the Iran situation is a lot more intractable, and the effects a lot more disruptive than people estimate.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
Surely it has the *massive* advantage over wind and solar of its intermittancy being predictable, and of it always outputing roughly the same amount of power daily, just at varying times of the day.
...
The energy generated during neap tides is around a quarter of that during spring tides. So your intermittency is approximately monthly as well as daily.
The planning issue is another problem; it would quite likely create similar cost escalation to that experience by nuclear.
Solve that and you could also cut the cost of nuclear by at least 50%.
"US President Donald Trump says he "wasn't worried" while he was being evacuated from the White House Correspondents' Dinner, after a gunman attempted to storm the ballroom." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2d8dg57rzdo
Indeed, in the brief clips I've seen he only barely looks conscious.
"US President Donald Trump says he "wasn't worried" while he was being evacuated from the White House Correspondents' Dinner, after a gunman attempted to storm the ballroom." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2d8dg57rzdo
Indeed, in the brief clips I've seen he only barely looks conscious.
Apparently the reason Vance was evacuated faster than him is because Trump couldn't get out of his chair.
There are not a lot of tidal power stations in the world, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tidal_power_stations , suggesting that there are significant challenges with them, which are unconnected to any supposed uniquely British failings. Indeed, the UK appears to be among the world leaders.
There are not a lot of tidal power stations in the world, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tidal_power_stations , suggesting that there are significant challenges with them, which are unconnected to any supposed uniquely British failings. Indeed, the UK appears to be among the world leaders.
Worth noting though that the UK has more opportunity for tidal power than almost anywhere else in the world, die to a) the amount of shoreline we have relatively close to population centres, and b) our remarkably high tidal range.
Looks corrupt, I'm afraid. Whether Starmer knew what Mandelson was up to or not he really should not be so naive. And frankly, neither should his officials.
Looks corrupt, I'm afraid. Whether Starmer knew what Mandelson was up to or not he really should not be so naive. And frankly, neither should his officials.
The annoying thing is that my firm spends so much time warning public sector clients about procurement law risks and then >>> stuff like this happens <<<
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
Surely it has the *massive* advantage over wind and solar of its intermittancy being predictable, and of it always outputing roughly the same amount of power daily, just at varying times of the day.
The big, expensive problem we have is power generation on cold still days in winter, which our climate is won't to do for periods of a week at a time most winters.
Stack some tidal systems located in different parts of the UK (thus being out of phase with each other) and a big pile of batteries and you've basically got reliable, dispatchable power.
IMHO, it's not happened because it would be utterly impossible to get planning permission within the current system, and everyone knows that. Look at the ridiculous saga of the Hinckley point cooling system (basically engineered for "not one fish may die"), and scale that up x1000, and that's before you've started dealing with the RSPB...
You would be amazed how accurate forecasting is for solar and wind these days: the grid operator usually knows within 2-3% what output will be a couple of hours in advance.
Re multiple tidal barrages, you are absolutely right - with the proviso that not all parts of the UK have equally suitable locations, and some would be significantly more expensive than the Severn barrage.
The putative scheme off the south of the island has been quiet again for over a year; they got their planning for the onshore bit, then came back to the council wanting to change it around, which the council decided was a materially different application and refused. Meanwhile there are rumours about their financing and they have a lot of authorities to get for the offshore bit. The proposal has attracted some opposition from the local fisherfolk for meddling dangerously with the tides; I can’t recall whether theyre just worried that the fish might swim somewhere else or that the installation might inadvertently open up a vortex to the underworld.
As stinky as the very convenient mobile phone theft.
Mandelson was a blot on clean government. We knew this from his previous rsignations. Even if you buy the idea he was tour man in Washington solely because he was the only Trump wrangler we could find, his past actions should have meant every other aspect of his other dealings should have been viewed with great skepticism.
Looks corrupt, I'm afraid. Whether Starmer knew what Mandelson was up to or not he really should not be so naive. And frankly, neither should his officials.
And by the way, if that piece is right, Global Consult, the consultancy firm which Mandelson co-founded, was "reportedly absent from his vetting." How on earth is that possible? If you are looking to mitigate risk and conflicts of interest how could you possibly exclude a 24% share in a consultancy firm with international clients looking for UK contracts? What more blatant risk could you have?
We can already infer that the correspondence with Epstein was not disclosed or found because surely he would never have been appointed if it was.
So, this is 2 major risks that have apparently not been identified in the DV. Where the recommendation was that he not be appointed. We have got quite wrapped up with what Starmer was and was not told but was it worth the paper it was written on?
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
Surely it has the *massive* advantage over wind and solar of its intermittancy being predictable, and of it always outputing roughly the same amount of power daily, just at varying times of the day.
...
The energy generated during neap tides is around a quarter of that during spring tides. So your intermittency is approximately monthly as well as daily.
The planning issue is another problem; it would quite likely create similar cost escalation to that experience by nuclear.
Solve that and you could also cut the cost of nuclear by at least 50%.
Part of the cost increase for UK nuclear over cheaper South Korean nuclear is the safety case. Tidal isn't going to have that issue. It also doesn't have the environmental issues related to using the sea / estuary as a heat sink. You're just left with the impact of the lagoons.
There are not a lot of tidal power stations in the world, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tidal_power_stations , suggesting that there are significant challenges with them, which are unconnected to any supposed uniquely British failings. Indeed, the UK appears to be among the world leaders.
Worth noting though that the UK has more opportunity for tidal power than almost anywhere else in the world, die to a) the amount of shoreline we have relatively close to population centres, and b) our remarkably high tidal range.
We have half the wave energy that hits Europe.
The tidal range is the second highest in the world along the Severn estuary. Not developing it is akin to discovering North Sea oil - and leaving it under the seabed. Unlie North Sea oil, Miliband can't object to a low/zero carbon* energy source that creates no wate, requires no fuel tobe obtained and is not going to be cut off at the whim of a foreign government.
*The construction of the sea walls will require cement. Unlike at the time of the proposed Swansea tidal lagoon, there is now considerable research into reducing the CO2 in the manufacture of cement. In any event, it is a one-off construction hit - once built, you have 120/180 years of zero CO2 production.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
Surely it has the *massive* advantage over wind and solar of its intermittancy being predictable, and of it always outputing roughly the same amount of power daily, just at varying times of the day.
The big, expensive problem we have is power generation on cold still days in winter, which our climate is won't to do for periods of a week at a time most winters.
Stack some tidal systems located in different parts of the UK (thus being out of phase with each other) and a big pile of batteries and you've basically got reliable, dispatchable power.
IMHO, it's not happened because it would be utterly impossible to get planning permission within the current system, and everyone knows that. Look at the ridiculous saga of the Hinckley point cooling system (basically engineered for "not one fish may die"), and scale that up x1000, and that's before you've started dealing with the RSPB...
You would be amazed how accurate forecasting is for solar and wind these days: the grid operator usually knows within 2-3% what output will be a couple of hours in advance.
Re multiple tidal barrages, you are absolutely right - with the proviso that not all parts of the UK have equally suitable locations, and some would be significantly more expensive than the Severn barrage.
I think we're slightly at cross purposes. My point about predictablity is that a tidal scheme with a fairly modest battery effectively becomes dispatchable energy. The battery will *always* get recharged twice in a 24hr cycle, so you can always draw down pretty much the same total amount of power, every single day. (Spring and Neap tides vary it a bit, but the basic concept is valid as an approximation).
This is simply not the case for wind or solar - some days you get loads, other days nothing. Sometimes, in the UK climate, you get a week where it's bitterly cold (so demand is up) and deadly still, whilst the days are short and dull. Yes, we can forecast this a couple of days ahead very well, but it doesn't solve the problem of the power not being available.
The only solutions are massive batteries (~14x the size of the tidal battery to be able to support the same daily output for a week with no generation), overbuilding (not really viable with solar in the depths of winter, you'd need around 100 panels per house, useless with wind in a dead calm), or fossil fuel generation (eg CCGT).
It's the absence of significant day to day variability that makes tidal + 12hr battery such a strong contender, compared to wind and solar.
The solution I favour for storing wind power is to convert it to methane, have large amounts of methane storage, and have CCGTs on standby.
If the grid also has done nuclear and tidal then the amount of storage/CCGT you would need is reduced. You can also use this methane production with excess wind for domestic space heating and other applications, which reduces the pressure to electrify those uses.
If you fit CCS to the CCGT then you have a way to remove carbon from the atmosphere, which is useful if you're worried about the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and want to aim for a lower level of overall warming.
Power to methane is one of those things you think could never work... But is shockingly close to being economic.
What's the efficiency of that? Conversion to methane, burning and CCS doesn't seem an efficient cycle. Conversion to hydrogen doesn't require CCS.
Looks corrupt, I'm afraid. Whether Starmer knew what Mandelson was up to or not he really should not be so naive. And frankly, neither should his officials.
And by the way, if that piece is right, Global Consult, the consultancy firm which Mandelson co-founded, was "reportedly absent from his vetting." How on earth is that possible? If you are looking to mitigate risk and conflicts of interest how could you possibly exclude a 24% share in a consultancy firm with international clients looking for UK contracts? What more blatant risk could you have?
We can already infer that the correspondence with Epstein was not disclosed or found because surely he would never have been appointed if it was.
So, this is 2 major risks that have apparently not been identified in the DV. Where the recommendation was that he not be appointed. We have got quite wrapped up with what Starmer was and was not told but was it worth the paper it was written on?
We'll never know as it's confidential, in any case the decision-maker on the vetting didn't read it or the summary.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
Surely it has the *massive* advantage over wind and solar of its intermittancy being predictable, and of it always outputing roughly the same amount of power daily, just at varying times of the day.
The big, expensive problem we have is power generation on cold still days in winter, which our climate is won't to do for periods of a week at a time most winters.
Stack some tidal systems located in different parts of the UK (thus being out of phase with each other) and a big pile of batteries and you've basically got reliable, dispatchable power.
IMHO, it's not happened because it would be utterly impossible to get planning permission within the current system, and everyone knows that. Look at the ridiculous saga of the Hinckley point cooling system (basically engineered for "not one fish may die"), and scale that up x1000, and that's before you've started dealing with the RSPB...
You would be amazed how accurate forecasting is for solar and wind these days: the grid operator usually knows within 2-3% what output will be a couple of hours in advance.
Re multiple tidal barrages, you are absolutely right - with the proviso that not all parts of the UK have equally suitable locations, and some would be significantly more expensive than the Severn barrage.
The putative scheme off the south of the island has been quiet again for over a year; they got their planning for the onshore bit, then came back to the council wanting to change it around, which the council decided was a materially different application and refused. Meanwhile there are rumours about their financing and they have a lot of authorities to get for the offshore bit. The proposal has attracted some opposition from the local fisherfolk for meddling dangerously with the tides; I can’t recall whether theyre just worried that the fish might swim somewhere else or that the installation might inadvertently open up a vortex to the underworld.
We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue.
It is hardly surprising though, when we have immigration at scale from countries with much lower life expectancies. Have a wave of immigrants from say Afghanistan - where life expectancy is 12 years less than world averages - and it is an inevitable consequence.
Life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.
The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
Surely it has the *massive* advantage over wind and solar of its intermittancy being predictable, and of it always outputing roughly the same amount of power daily, just at varying times of the day.
The big, expensive problem we have is power generation on cold still days in winter, which our climate is won't to do for periods of a week at a time most winters.
Stack some tidal systems located in different parts of the UK (thus being out of phase with each other) and a big pile of batteries and you've basically got reliable, dispatchable power.
IMHO, it's not happened because it would be utterly impossible to get planning permission within the current system, and everyone knows that. Look at the ridiculous saga of the Hinckley point cooling system (basically engineered for "not one fish may die"), and scale that up x1000, and that's before you've started dealing with the RSPB...
You would be amazed how accurate forecasting is for solar and wind these days: the grid operator usually knows within 2-3% what output will be a couple of hours in advance.
Re multiple tidal barrages, you are absolutely right - with the proviso that not all parts of the UK have equally suitable locations, and some would be significantly more expensive than the Severn barrage.
I think we're slightly at cross purposes. My point about predictablity is that a tidal scheme with a fairly modest battery effectively becomes dispatchable energy. The battery will *always* get recharged twice in a 24hr cycle, so you can always draw down pretty much the same total amount of power, every single day. (Spring and Neap tides vary it a bit, but the basic concept is valid as an approximation).
This is simply not the case for wind or solar - some days you get loads, other days nothing. Sometimes, in the UK climate, you get a week where it's bitterly cold (so demand is up) and deadly still, whilst the days are short and dull. Yes, we can forecast this a couple of days ahead very well, but it doesn't solve the problem of the power not being available.
The only solutions are massive batteries (~14x the size of the tidal battery to be able to support the same daily output for a week with no generation), overbuilding (not really viable with solar in the depths of winter, you'd need around 100 panels per house, useless with wind in a dead calm), or fossil fuel generation (eg CCGT).
It's the absence of significant day to day variability that makes tidal + 12hr battery such a strong contender, compared to wind and solar.
The solution I favour for storing wind power is to convert it to methane, have large amounts of methane storage, and have CCGTs on standby.
If the grid also has done nuclear and tidal then the amount of storage/CCGT you would need is reduced. You can also use this methane production with excess wind for domestic space heating and other applications, which reduces the pressure to electrify those uses.
If you fit CCS to the CCGT then you have a way to remove carbon from the atmosphere, which is useful if you're worried about the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and want to aim for a lower level of overall warming.
Power to methane is one of those things you think could never work... But is shockingly close to being economic.
What's the efficiency of that? Conversion to methane, burning and CCS doesn't seem an efficient cycle. Conversion to hydrogen doesn't require CCS.
Isn't the big picture here that solar+wind+battery is comfortably cheapest for a 95% solution, and that model gives such an excess at peak production that we don't really have to worry about the efficiency of the conversion process?
Tidal lagoons, whatever their merits, probably fall into the "the stone age didn't end because stones ran out" issue. (In which case, yes- the research on them was 'wasted', but that's fine because we weren't to know that.)
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
Surely it has the *massive* advantage over wind and solar of its intermittancy being predictable, and of it always outputing roughly the same amount of power daily, just at varying times of the day.
The big, expensive problem we have is power generation on cold still days in winter, which our climate is won't to do for periods of a week at a time most winters.
Stack some tidal systems located in different parts of the UK (thus being out of phase with each other) and a big pile of batteries and you've basically got reliable, dispatchable power.
IMHO, it's not happened because it would be utterly impossible to get planning permission within the current system, and everyone knows that. Look at the ridiculous saga of the Hinckley point cooling system (basically engineered for "not one fish may die"), and scale that up x1000, and that's before you've started dealing with the RSPB...
You would be amazed how accurate forecasting is for solar and wind these days: the grid operator usually knows within 2-3% what output will be a couple of hours in advance.
Re multiple tidal barrages, you are absolutely right - with the proviso that not all parts of the UK have equally suitable locations, and some would be significantly more expensive than the Severn barrage.
I think we're slightly at cross purposes. My point about predictablity is that a tidal scheme with a fairly modest battery effectively becomes dispatchable energy. The battery will *always* get recharged twice in a 24hr cycle, so you can always draw down pretty much the same total amount of power, every single day. (Spring and Neap tides vary it a bit, but the basic concept is valid as an approximation).
This is simply not the case for wind or solar - some days you get loads, other days nothing. Sometimes, in the UK climate, you get a week where it's bitterly cold (so demand is up) and deadly still, whilst the days are short and dull. Yes, we can forecast this a couple of days ahead very well, but it doesn't solve the problem of the power not being available.
The only solutions are massive batteries (~14x the size of the tidal battery to be able to support the same daily output for a week with no generation), overbuilding (not really viable with solar in the depths of winter, you'd need around 100 panels per house, useless with wind in a dead calm), or fossil fuel generation (eg CCGT).
It's the absence of significant day to day variability that makes tidal + 12hr battery such a strong contender, compared to wind and solar.
The solution I favour for storing wind power is to convert it to methane, have large amounts of methane storage, and have CCGTs on standby.
If the grid also has done nuclear and tidal then the amount of storage/CCGT you would need is reduced. You can also use this methane production with excess wind for domestic space heating and other applications, which reduces the pressure to electrify those uses.
If you fit CCS to the CCGT then you have a way to remove carbon from the atmosphere, which is useful if you're worried about the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and want to aim for a lower level of overall warming.
Power to methane is one of those things you think could never work... But is shockingly close to being economic.
What's the efficiency of that? Conversion to methane, burning and CCS doesn't seem an efficient cycle. Conversion to hydrogen doesn't require CCS.
An idea I love is: - Use spare electricity for Electrolysis to make H2 and O2. - Sabatier reaction CO2 + H2 -> CH4 + H2O (exothermic). - Take pure CO2 and add that O2 to it at 20% (so it's easy to handle). - Burn CH4 in that CO2+O2 -> pure CO2 + H2O. - CO2 goes back to the Sabatier reaction. - Closed cycle.
No idea if this a) works and b) is the "close to being economic" solution though.
Comments
The Hormuz mine problem.
https://hormuzstraitmonitor.com/blog/mine-threat-outlasts-any-deal/
So your intermittency is approximately monthly as well as daily.
The planning issue is another problem; it would quite likely create similar cost escalation to that experience by nuclear.
Solve that and you could also cut the cost of nuclear by at least 50%.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2d8dg57rzdo
Indeed, in the brief clips I've seen he only barely looks conscious.
https://x.com/JChimirie66677/status/2048158731628642780?s=20
TRUMP: I'm not a rapist. I didn't rape anybody
O'DONNELL: Oh, you think he was referring to you?
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mkgq3ds7dq2t
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/27/people-in-uk-spend-fewer-years-in-good-health-than-a-decade-ago-study-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
This is being driven by declining mental and physical health of the working age population, including a noticeable drop in the youngest cohorts:
https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/socioeconomic-disadvantage-and-self-reported-health
We are not going to be reducing the welfare bill if we do not tackle this issue.
As stinky as the very convenient mobile phone theft.
Mandelson was a blot on clean government. We knew this from his previous rsignations. Even if you buy the idea he was tour man in Washington solely because he was the only Trump wrangler we could find, his past actions should have meant every other aspect of his other dealings should have been viewed with great skepticism.
Starmer must go.
We can already infer that the correspondence with Epstein was not disclosed or found because surely he would never have been appointed if it was.
So, this is 2 major risks that have apparently not been identified in the DV. Where the recommendation was that he not be appointed. We have got quite wrapped up with what Starmer was and was not told but was it worth the paper it was written on?
It also doesn't have the environmental issues related to using the sea / estuary as a heat sink.
You're just left with the impact of the lagoons.
The tidal range is the second highest in the world along the Severn estuary. Not developing it is akin to discovering North Sea oil - and leaving it under the seabed. Unlie North Sea oil, Miliband can't object to a low/zero carbon* energy source that creates no wate, requires no fuel tobe obtained and is not going to be cut off at the whim of a foreign government.
*The construction of the sea walls will require cement. Unlike at the time of the proposed Swansea tidal lagoon, there is now considerable research into reducing the CO2 in the manufacture of cement. In any event, it is a one-off construction hit - once built, you have 120/180 years of zero CO2 production.
Conversion to methane, burning and CCS doesn't seem an efficient cycle.
Conversion to hydrogen doesn't require CCS.
https://data.who.int/countries/004
Life expectancy in Nigeria is around 54, one of the lowest in the world.
The extra health care burden is an obvious consequence of large scale population migration into the UK. Better universal healthcare, free at the point of use, is one of the drivers of the desire to make a new life here. The likelihood is the migrants are likely to have greater health issues manifesting earlier than the native born population. Outwith any arguments about the rights and wrongs of migration, we simply have not made provision for this on a national scale.
NEW THREAD
Tidal lagoons, whatever their merits, probably fall into the "the stone age didn't end because stones ran out" issue. (In which case, yes- the research on them was 'wasted', but that's fine because we weren't to know that.)
- Use spare electricity for Electrolysis to make H2 and O2.
- Sabatier reaction CO2 + H2 -> CH4 + H2O (exothermic).
- Take pure CO2 and add that O2 to it at 20% (so it's easy to handle).
- Burn CH4 in that CO2+O2 -> pure CO2 + H2O.
- CO2 goes back to the Sabatier reaction.
- Closed cycle.
No idea if this a) works and b) is the "close to being economic" solution though.