| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? 20:12 - Nov 26 with 1666 views | Swanzay |
We should hear plenty about infrastructure investment in George Osborne’s Spending Review and Autumn Statement, with the High Speed 2 railway, “Northern Powerhouse” and a fleet of new nuclear stations all likely to be name-checked.
But one notable omission in the Chancellor’s speech a could be the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. This £1bn project is the brainchild of Gloucester-based Tidal Lagoon Power (TLP) and is backed by around £200m of equity cheques from the Prudential and InfraRed Capital Partners.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/will-swansea-bay-tidal- |  | | |  |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 20:37 - Nov 26 with 1648 views | Dyfnant |
Better to put this huge subsidy into domestic PV solar. Better value for the tax payer and the returns go to joe bloggs public. Personally I think it'll go ahead and the government are just using the cheap oil price to lower the strike price. |  |
| |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 23:36 - Nov 26 with 1576 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 20:37 - Nov 26 by Dyfnant |
Better to put this huge subsidy into domestic PV solar. Better value for the tax payer and the returns go to joe bloggs public. Personally I think it'll go ahead and the government are just using the cheap oil price to lower the strike price. |
The government are cutting the fed in tarriff by 80% so that has ruined all incentives for solar. There will be few solar companies going to the wall because of that.
Also the electrification of the main line will stop at Caerdff and go no further west, mark my words |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 23:56 - Nov 26 with 1561 views | Kilkennyjack |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 23:36 - Nov 26 by Brynmill_Jack |
The government are cutting the fed in tarriff by 80% so that has ruined all incentives for solar. There will be few solar companies going to the wall because of that.
Also the electrification of the main line will stop at Caerdff and go no further west, mark my words |
We need electrification through to swansea - and no stops in bridgend, neath, or port talbot. Sorry. |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 23:59 - Nov 26 with 1558 views | Highjack |
Tidal energy is a complete and utter waste of time anyway. |  |
| |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 11:15 - Nov 27 with 1479 views | Pegojack |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 23:56 - Nov 26 by Kilkennyjack |
We need electrification through to swansea - and no stops in bridgend, neath, or port talbot. Sorry. |
Good idea, let's have a passenger train with no stops for passengers to get on and off. |  | | |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 11:35 - Nov 27 with 1461 views | bluenile |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 11:15 - Nov 27 by Pegojack |
Good idea, let's have a passenger train with no stops for passengers to get on and off. |
Well, it could slow down.......................................jump and roll! |  |
| Open the ipod bay doors Hal |
| |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 12:08 - Nov 27 with 1450 views | westside |
if there's no electrification west of cardiff there will be no cardiff metro |  | | |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 21:11 - Nov 27 with 1354 views | yescomeon |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 23:59 - Nov 26 by Highjack |
Tidal energy is a complete and utter waste of time anyway. |
Why? |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 21:47 - Nov 27 with 1337 views | Jack_Meoff |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 21:11 - Nov 27 by yescomeon |
Why? |
Not sure if HJ meant cost-wise, but I went to a presentation on the lagoon last March/April and the cost of energy produced was eye wateringly high, massively subsidised, and fixed for 35 years. To me it reeked of yet another excuse to transfer money into private pockets with no discernible (financial at least) advantage to the wider public. |  |
| If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever. |
| |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 21:49 - Nov 27 with 1335 views | Dr_Winston |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 21:47 - Nov 27 by Jack_Meoff |
Not sure if HJ meant cost-wise, but I went to a presentation on the lagoon last March/April and the cost of energy produced was eye wateringly high, massively subsidised, and fixed for 35 years. To me it reeked of yet another excuse to transfer money into private pockets with no discernible (financial at least) advantage to the wider public. |
The whole project seemed ill thought out, questionable and just like a massive dodge designed to convince the gullible to get right behind it.
Naturally the Evening Post and its contributors are apoplectic at the possiblity that it might not go ahead. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 21:59 - Nov 27 with 1317 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
chuck a massive nuclear power station on the rec , thatll be great |  |
| |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 10:30 - Nov 28 with 1244 views | yescomeon |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 21:47 - Nov 27 by Jack_Meoff |
Not sure if HJ meant cost-wise, but I went to a presentation on the lagoon last March/April and the cost of energy produced was eye wateringly high, massively subsidised, and fixed for 35 years. To me it reeked of yet another excuse to transfer money into private pockets with no discernible (financial at least) advantage to the wider public. |
Energy is expensive, fossil fuels get subsidies of their own. Tidal power is unlimited, and the stations last longer than any other power station, so over the lifetime of the project it will probably work out the cheapest. The only concerns really are environmental impacts and that with sea level rise the station will be drowned or will become less effective because of a change in the tides. | |
| |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 10:47 - Nov 28 with 1232 views | Highjack |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 21:11 - Nov 27 by yescomeon |
Why? |
It seems like a good idea on the surface (no pun intended) as we are an island with big tidal drifts, so should be looking to take advantage of that. I've got nothing against the lagoon as it will create a lot of jobs for the area which can only be a good thing.
But in terms of creating energy, efficiency wise these politically correct green forms like wind and wave power are absolutely pathetic. If any of the "green" power is worth looking at its solar, but then you can't make a lot of money out of that. Nuclear would be better again but people have been conditioned into thinking it's dangerous by the green brigade. We have the technology to create unlimited, waste free energy but aren't doing enough to bring it to an industrial scale that can power the country.
I just think there's better options out there but for whatever reason the green policies rule the roost. | |
| |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 18:47 - Nov 28 with 1172 views | yescomeon |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 10:47 - Nov 28 by Highjack |
It seems like a good idea on the surface (no pun intended) as we are an island with big tidal drifts, so should be looking to take advantage of that. I've got nothing against the lagoon as it will create a lot of jobs for the area which can only be a good thing.
But in terms of creating energy, efficiency wise these politically correct green forms like wind and wave power are absolutely pathetic. If any of the "green" power is worth looking at its solar, but then you can't make a lot of money out of that. Nuclear would be better again but people have been conditioned into thinking it's dangerous by the green brigade. We have the technology to create unlimited, waste free energy but aren't doing enough to bring it to an industrial scale that can power the country.
I just think there's better options out there but for whatever reason the green policies rule the roost. |
I will start off by saying that I am no engineer and my knowledge of the workings of a nuclear power station are probably at a high school level but I doubt that they are more efficient than tidal power stations. I'm sure it is more efficient that solar and wind, I wouldn't think by a massive amount though. If your objection to tidal is the cost per kilowatt hour then it is strange to hold up nuclear as that is much more expensive I believe. I don't see how it can possibly be cheaper to mine the uranium, get it into a form suitable for a reactor, run and maintain the reactor and then dispose of the waste somewhere radiation proof for tens of thousands of years than it is to allow water to pass through a turbine twice a day. The initial construction cost I would guess is much more for a nuclear reactor as I would guess is the maintenance. The lifetime of a tidal station is much greater, many many times greater. As an investment tidal energy is a far better investment. What is the unlimited waste free energy? Wind, wave, tidal or solar? Wind is more or less at an industrial level, solar is progressing quickly, wave and tidal are more complicated by virtue of being offshore, but progress is slowly being made. | |
| |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 21:07 - Nov 28 with 1129 views | Highjack |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 18:47 - Nov 28 by yescomeon |
I will start off by saying that I am no engineer and my knowledge of the workings of a nuclear power station are probably at a high school level but I doubt that they are more efficient than tidal power stations. I'm sure it is more efficient that solar and wind, I wouldn't think by a massive amount though. If your objection to tidal is the cost per kilowatt hour then it is strange to hold up nuclear as that is much more expensive I believe. I don't see how it can possibly be cheaper to mine the uranium, get it into a form suitable for a reactor, run and maintain the reactor and then dispose of the waste somewhere radiation proof for tens of thousands of years than it is to allow water to pass through a turbine twice a day. The initial construction cost I would guess is much more for a nuclear reactor as I would guess is the maintenance. The lifetime of a tidal station is much greater, many many times greater. As an investment tidal energy is a far better investment. What is the unlimited waste free energy? Wind, wave, tidal or solar? Wind is more or less at an industrial level, solar is progressing quickly, wave and tidal are more complicated by virtue of being offshore, but progress is slowly being made. |
No, nuclear is definitely far more efficient in terms of how much energy you get out in relation to how much you put in. Don't know the exact fact but it's something like one gram of fuel can create the same amount of energy as burning hundreds of tons of coal. You get vast amounts of energy from tiny amounts of fuel = Hugely efficient. You mention the waste? The waste is contained within tiny pellets that fit in your hand, and are just locked up securely hundreds of metres under the ground.
Passing water through turbines twice a day isn't as efficient at creating energy as constantly shooting high pressure steam through them, which is what nuclear does.
As for the cost I don't know which is more expensive to build and run, only thing I know is that France is fully nuclear and has amongst the lowest energy prices in Europe. They also run a surplus so can sell excess energy to the idiots who are still perservering with green energy, namely us.
The unlimited waste free energy I was talking about was stepping from Fission to Fusion. That is the ultimate renewable energy as it converts the most abundant element in the universe into huge amounts of energy, with the only waste product being helium, which we conviniently need anyway for refrigeration and MRI scanners because it's running out on Earth. | |
| |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 21:13 - Nov 28 with 1124 views | Dyfnant |
The strike price wanted by the tidal group is around 50% more than the price agreed for the next nuclear reactor. Insane. | |
| |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 23:58 - Nov 28 with 1092 views | Highjack |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 21:13 - Nov 28 by Dyfnant |
The strike price wanted by the tidal group is around 50% more than the price agreed for the next nuclear reactor. Insane. |
Exactly. It is absolute sheer madness that we fear nuclear like we do as it would be the solution to a lot of our problems. I blame those 1950s Japanese films. | |
| |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 00:36 - Nov 29 with 1073 views | Dyfnant |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 23:58 - Nov 28 by Highjack |
Exactly. It is absolute sheer madness that we fear nuclear like we do as it would be the solution to a lot of our problems. I blame those 1950s Japanese films. |
Godzilla's friendly anyway, fact. | |
| |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 00:53 - Nov 29 with 1064 views | Highjack |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 00:36 - Nov 29 by Dyfnant |
Godzilla's friendly anyway, fact. |
She is. I had a drunken thing with her in uni | |
| |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 10:20 - Nov 29 with 1003 views | yescomeon |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 21:07 - Nov 28 by Highjack |
No, nuclear is definitely far more efficient in terms of how much energy you get out in relation to how much you put in. Don't know the exact fact but it's something like one gram of fuel can create the same amount of energy as burning hundreds of tons of coal. You get vast amounts of energy from tiny amounts of fuel = Hugely efficient. You mention the waste? The waste is contained within tiny pellets that fit in your hand, and are just locked up securely hundreds of metres under the ground.
Passing water through turbines twice a day isn't as efficient at creating energy as constantly shooting high pressure steam through them, which is what nuclear does.
As for the cost I don't know which is more expensive to build and run, only thing I know is that France is fully nuclear and has amongst the lowest energy prices in Europe. They also run a surplus so can sell excess energy to the idiots who are still perservering with green energy, namely us.
The unlimited waste free energy I was talking about was stepping from Fission to Fusion. That is the ultimate renewable energy as it converts the most abundant element in the universe into huge amounts of energy, with the only waste product being helium, which we conviniently need anyway for refrigeration and MRI scanners because it's running out on Earth. |
Yes fission releases lots of energy but that energy is used to heat water to create steam, which is used to turn a turbine. That is not a very efficient process and will never be as efficient as the turning of a turbine by a natural flow of water. The kinetic energy flux incident to a turbine in a tidal station has the advantage of a much larger density of fluid, water vs steam, let's say by about a factor of 1000, so if the water flow is at 1 m/s (about 2 mph) for the same cross-sectional area turbine you would need about a 10 m/s (about 20 mph) flow of steam to get the same kinetic energy flux. This can probably be done by pressurizing the gas but it isn't going to make the plant more efficient than a tidal station.
The advantage that a nuclear station is being able to continuously generate electricity whereas a tidal station can only do so 4 times a day if it has bi-directional turbines (which I would guess it would have to get the most bang for your buck).
France isn't fully nuclear, mostly, without doubt, but ironically they have the first and one of only 2 tidal power stations operation in the world, which has been generating electricity since the late 60's and show no sign of letting up (that station is a barrage though not a lagoon). The cost per megawatt hour is more for the tidal lagoons than for the new generation of nuclear power stations but there isn't much in it £111/MWh [1] vs £92.50/MWh [2]. I don't know how they calculate those figures, I don't think I am going to dive into the report ([1]) today, I plan on watching the Chelsea Spurs match. I will assume that nuclear does include the cost of fuel but does it include the cost of storing the waste? My guess would be no. I'm not sure what the uranium reserves are like in the UK but I am pretty sure we don't do much mining for it in the UK and we probably buy from abroad which puts us at the mercy of the markets, something that makes me uncomfortable. We are already much at the mercy of the markets to get the fuel for the vast majority of our other power stations. We have among the biggest tidal and wave resource in the world in the UK and it is downright stupid to ignore it, in my opinion it is a matter of national security develop these industries.
Fusion is the holy grail but it is like a mirage on the horizon and has been 20 years away for over 20 years already, I am not anti-nuclear, not by any stretch, I would far rather see investment in nuclear than fossil fuels but it is just a stop-gap solution and should be treated as such. At the end of the day though the energy mix will always remain a mix, all over the world. You play the hand you are dealt. You can't simply write off one source of electricity vs another. Even if we get to a place in the future where 100% of electricity comes from renewable sources then it will still be a mix of wave, wind, tidal, solar etc. (nuclear and biofuels are not renewables).
[1] - http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/storage/documents/tidallagoonpower_levelisedcost
[2] - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/21/hinkley-point-reactor-costs-r | |
| |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 11:35 - Nov 29 with 972 views | swan65split |
Electrifacation and the Lagoon ...all pie in the sky, ....Fairy tales for the do gooders.......I like Evans pIes anyway. |  | | |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 11:55 - Nov 29 with 956 views | NeathJack |
Just build a massive wind tunnel and fill it with wind turbines to oower the wind tunnel and more.
Free energy 👠|  | | |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 12:06 - Nov 29 with 951 views | Highjack |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 10:20 - Nov 29 by yescomeon |
Yes fission releases lots of energy but that energy is used to heat water to create steam, which is used to turn a turbine. That is not a very efficient process and will never be as efficient as the turning of a turbine by a natural flow of water. The kinetic energy flux incident to a turbine in a tidal station has the advantage of a much larger density of fluid, water vs steam, let's say by about a factor of 1000, so if the water flow is at 1 m/s (about 2 mph) for the same cross-sectional area turbine you would need about a 10 m/s (about 20 mph) flow of steam to get the same kinetic energy flux. This can probably be done by pressurizing the gas but it isn't going to make the plant more efficient than a tidal station.
The advantage that a nuclear station is being able to continuously generate electricity whereas a tidal station can only do so 4 times a day if it has bi-directional turbines (which I would guess it would have to get the most bang for your buck).
France isn't fully nuclear, mostly, without doubt, but ironically they have the first and one of only 2 tidal power stations operation in the world, which has been generating electricity since the late 60's and show no sign of letting up (that station is a barrage though not a lagoon). The cost per megawatt hour is more for the tidal lagoons than for the new generation of nuclear power stations but there isn't much in it £111/MWh [1] vs £92.50/MWh [2]. I don't know how they calculate those figures, I don't think I am going to dive into the report ([1]) today, I plan on watching the Chelsea Spurs match. I will assume that nuclear does include the cost of fuel but does it include the cost of storing the waste? My guess would be no. I'm not sure what the uranium reserves are like in the UK but I am pretty sure we don't do much mining for it in the UK and we probably buy from abroad which puts us at the mercy of the markets, something that makes me uncomfortable. We are already much at the mercy of the markets to get the fuel for the vast majority of our other power stations. We have among the biggest tidal and wave resource in the world in the UK and it is downright stupid to ignore it, in my opinion it is a matter of national security develop these industries.
Fusion is the holy grail but it is like a mirage on the horizon and has been 20 years away for over 20 years already, I am not anti-nuclear, not by any stretch, I would far rather see investment in nuclear than fossil fuels but it is just a stop-gap solution and should be treated as such. At the end of the day though the energy mix will always remain a mix, all over the world. You play the hand you are dealt. You can't simply write off one source of electricity vs another. Even if we get to a place in the future where 100% of electricity comes from renewable sources then it will still be a mix of wave, wind, tidal, solar etc. (nuclear and biofuels are not renewables).
[1] - http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/storage/documents/tidallagoonpower_levelisedcost
[2] - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/21/hinkley-point-reactor-costs-r |
the liquid water certainly isn't more efficient than steam. For a start you need a hell of a lot more water. Steam can be pressurised and fired at high speed which makes it more efficient again. We've been using it to power locomotive engines for hundreds of years.
How can it be more efficient if you need several millions of tonnes of water to generate the same amount of force as a much smaller volume of steam?
I admire your passion for the subject but I think you have a different definition of efficiency to the rest of the world. | |
| |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 12:33 - Nov 29 with 932 views | Dyfnant |
Canada has the largest tidal range/ resource, yet they haven't developed it! The 'promise' by this 'Gloucester based' tidal group is the high strike price £140+ /mega Watt for the Swansea one will precede lower cost ones over the uk when proven. So the uk taxpayers prove the technology for others to benefit! Jobs wise it's a joke, around a dozen permanent skilled jobs. | |
| |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 12:50 - Nov 29 with 920 views | yescomeon |
| Will Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Disappear Under The Waves? on 12:06 - Nov 29 by Highjack |
the liquid water certainly isn't more efficient than steam. For a start you need a hell of a lot more water. Steam can be pressurised and fired at high speed which makes it more efficient again. We've been using it to power locomotive engines for hundreds of years.
How can it be more efficient if you need several millions of tonnes of water to generate the same amount of force as a much smaller volume of steam?
I admire your passion for the subject but I think you have a different definition of efficiency to the rest of the world. |
I don't think we will agree. It seems obvious to me that it is more efficient to use water that is moving anyway to turn a turbine to generate electricity than it is to dig up uranium ore, refine it into a form useful for a reactor, ship it, probably from Australia, fission it to release the energy use the heat from the reaction to heat water to make steam which must then be pressurized to turn the turbine and then dig large concrete lined holes in the earth to fill with the waste.
You are yet to convince me that a nuclear power station is more efficient, I will look it up though. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
