| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon 18:13 - Oct 7 with 2089 views | sP7qupUf |
Given the energy crisis and the government's seeming stance to not deal with any of the immediate issues facing the nation but paint a blue sky picture of the future what chance of revising this project that the Tories kicked into touch? The rhetoric now is sorting out clean energy linked to the climate challenge. Is it time to get this scheme back on the table?
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |  |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 18:25 - Oct 7 with 2068 views | Luther27 |
It should never have left the table…it should be under construction as we speak. It’s all very well shutting down coal and gas fired power stations to save the planet but what replaces them? It’s going to be interesting when more electric vehicles starting plugging into an already archaic grid no matter what time of the day. | | | |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 21:48 - Oct 7 with 2012 views | Catullus |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 18:25 - Oct 7 by Luther27 |
It should never have left the table…it should be under construction as we speak. It’s all very well shutting down coal and gas fired power stations to save the planet but what replaces them? It’s going to be interesting when more electric vehicles starting plugging into an already archaic grid no matter what time of the day. |
Specially when only the priviliged few can afford gas!
Petrol cars will be around a fair while yet mind, who can afford a new electric car? | |
| |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 21:53 - Oct 7 with 2000 views | Flashberryjack |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 21:48 - Oct 7 by Catullus |
Specially when only the priviliged few can afford gas!
Petrol cars will be around a fair while yet mind, who can afford a new electric car? |
Electric cars ? who will be able to afford the electricity to put in them. |  |
| |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 21:58 - Oct 7 with 1994 views | A_Fans_Dad |
No, Never.
This country does not need 1 more megawatt of Intermittent Electricity production and certainly not at over £168 per MW.
It is only 320MW, barely enough to supply the all houses in Swansea district with power at peak output. | | | |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 08:28 - Oct 8 with 1932 views | Kilkennyjack |
Yes.
A new clean energy supply, plus a nice place to walk around. |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 09:23 - Oct 8 with 1919 views | Boundy |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 08:28 - Oct 8 by Kilkennyjack |
Yes.
A new clean energy supply, plus a nice place to walk around. |
The proposed tidal lagoon at Swansea Bay would have a capital cost more than 3 times as much, per unit of electricity, as the Hinkley Point C nuclear
power station.
The tidal lagoon proposed for Swansea Bay is estimated to have an annual electricity output of around 0.52 TeraWatt Hours (i.e. 0.52 billion units of energy). The developer’s estimated capital cost is £1.3bn.
The annual power output of Hinkley Point C will be 26.1 TeraWatt Hours. The developer’s estimated capital cost is £19.6bn, which was rounded up to £20bn to simplify calculations.
Using these figures, Swansea Bay’s cost - in terms of capital cost pounds per unit of electricity - is £1.3bn / 0.52 TeraWatt Hours. This gives a ratio of 2.5.
The equivalent figure for Hinkley Point C using the same calculation would be £20bn / 26TWh, which gives a ratio of 0.8.
The capital costs per unit of annual power output for Swansea Bay tidal lagoon are therefore more than three times that of Hinkley Point C (2.5 / 0.8 = 3.1)
It would cost only around £400m to use offshore wind instead to generate the same power as the proposed £1.3bn lagoon at Swansea Bay.
Over a 60-year period, the annual output of Swansea Bay outlined above would generate 30 TeraWatt Hours. This would come at a capital cost estimated by the developer of£1.3bn.
To produce the same electricity output each year using offshore wind would require only 120MW of built capacity, as offshore wind generates power around 50% of the time in comparison to Swansea Bay’s 19%.
Offshore wind plants, however, have a nominal lifetime of 25 years. In order to keep generating for 60 years they would need to be rebuilt around 1.4 times in addition to the original installation (for a total of 2.4 builds). A total of 288 MegaWatts of Offshore wind would therefore be needed over the 60 years — the original 120Mw of capacity built 2.4 times.BEIS’ capital and infrastructure cost estimate for offshore wind plants commissioning in 2024 — the same year that Swansea Bay tidal lagoon would begin generating — is£1,486/kW. 288MW of capacity would therefore cost around £400m. This assumes nofurther cost reductions for offshore wind beyond 2024.
So there you have , its too expensive for what it would produce | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 13:53 - Oct 8 with 1889 views | Luther27 |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 09:23 - Oct 8 by Boundy |
The proposed tidal lagoon at Swansea Bay would have a capital cost more than 3 times as much, per unit of electricity, as the Hinkley Point C nuclear
power station.
The tidal lagoon proposed for Swansea Bay is estimated to have an annual electricity output of around 0.52 TeraWatt Hours (i.e. 0.52 billion units of energy). The developer’s estimated capital cost is £1.3bn.
The annual power output of Hinkley Point C will be 26.1 TeraWatt Hours. The developer’s estimated capital cost is £19.6bn, which was rounded up to £20bn to simplify calculations.
Using these figures, Swansea Bay’s cost - in terms of capital cost pounds per unit of electricity - is £1.3bn / 0.52 TeraWatt Hours. This gives a ratio of 2.5.
The equivalent figure for Hinkley Point C using the same calculation would be £20bn / 26TWh, which gives a ratio of 0.8.
The capital costs per unit of annual power output for Swansea Bay tidal lagoon are therefore more than three times that of Hinkley Point C (2.5 / 0.8 = 3.1)
It would cost only around £400m to use offshore wind instead to generate the same power as the proposed £1.3bn lagoon at Swansea Bay.
Over a 60-year period, the annual output of Swansea Bay outlined above would generate 30 TeraWatt Hours. This would come at a capital cost estimated by the developer of£1.3bn.
To produce the same electricity output each year using offshore wind would require only 120MW of built capacity, as offshore wind generates power around 50% of the time in comparison to Swansea Bay’s 19%.
Offshore wind plants, however, have a nominal lifetime of 25 years. In order to keep generating for 60 years they would need to be rebuilt around 1.4 times in addition to the original installation (for a total of 2.4 builds). A total of 288 MegaWatts of Offshore wind would therefore be needed over the 60 years — the original 120Mw of capacity built 2.4 times.BEIS’ capital and infrastructure cost estimate for offshore wind plants commissioning in 2024 — the same year that Swansea Bay tidal lagoon would begin generating — is£1,486/kW. 288MW of capacity would therefore cost around £400m. This assumes nofurther cost reductions for offshore wind beyond 2024.
So there you have , its too expensive for what it would produce |
Have you included the cost of decommissioning a nuclear power station?
I still believe the tidal lagoon is value for money especially if todays scenario regarding gas prices is to be repeated in the future. | | | |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 14:10 - Oct 8 with 1881 views | felixstowe_jack |
It was not the Conservatives that pulled the plug. The lagoon had full planning permission the only thing that was left was approval from National Environment Wales which for reasons unknown to itself failed to issue approval before the planning consent ran out. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 14:10 - Oct 8 with 1877 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 13:53 - Oct 8 by Luther27 |
Have you included the cost of decommissioning a nuclear power station?
I still believe the tidal lagoon is value for money especially if todays scenario regarding gas prices is to be repeated in the future. |
Boundy couldn't have made it plainer.
What he didn't include was the running costs of both Wind and the Lagoon which would would require continual dredging to remove silt build up | | | |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 14:18 - Oct 8 with 1878 views | felixstowe_jack |
The Swansea lagoon was only designed as a pilot scheme to see if the the technology would work and the future proposals were for another 5 much larger lagoons around the British Channel and North Wales, which because of the difference in timings of the tides would provide power 24 hours a day not the 12 hours a day that Swansea would provide. | |
| |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 15:31 - Oct 8 with 1839 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 14:18 - Oct 8 by felixstowe_jack |
The Swansea lagoon was only designed as a pilot scheme to see if the the technology would work and the future proposals were for another 5 much larger lagoons around the British Channel and North Wales, which because of the difference in timings of the tides would provide power 24 hours a day not the 12 hours a day that Swansea would provide. |
Sorry, in the real world it does not work.
See for yourself.
http://euanmearns.com/swansea-bay-tidal-lagoon-and-baseload-tidal-generation-in- | | | |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 16:14 - Oct 8 with 1826 views | Luther27 |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 14:10 - Oct 8 by A_Fans_Dad |
Boundy couldn't have made it plainer.
What he didn't include was the running costs of both Wind and the Lagoon which would would require continual dredging to remove silt build up |
Can’t see the decommissioning costs there plus the construction costs have increased to circa £23 billion and rising.
My way of thinking is two tides a day gives guaranteed power. The weather is variable so gaps in the network will always exist if we are totally reliant on solar or wind power to supply the majority of our energy requirements.
The other option of course is fracking which the green brigade are dead against. The next six months will be interesting indeed. | | | |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 16:22 - Oct 8 with 1820 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 16:14 - Oct 8 by Luther27 |
Can’t see the decommissioning costs there plus the construction costs have increased to circa £23 billion and rising.
My way of thinking is two tides a day gives guaranteed power. The weather is variable so gaps in the network will always exist if we are totally reliant on solar or wind power to supply the majority of our energy requirements.
The other option of course is fracking which the green brigade are dead against. The next six months will be interesting indeed. |
I am not in favour of large scale Nuclear, especially when built by EDF with their very poor troubled design.
I prefer SMRs and MSRs until something else comes along.
But at the moment cost wise Gas & Coal are king, in fact as far as coal is concerned we have missed out on a massive market by not having our own mining. | | | |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 17:24 - Oct 8 with 1798 views | controversial_jack |
Unfortunately, there is no viable alternative to gas | | | |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 17:38 - Oct 8 with 1794 views | Catullus |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 17:24 - Oct 8 by controversial_jack |
Unfortunately, there is no viable alternative to gas |
Yes there is, a combination of wind, solar and tidal with some Nuclear back up.
The problem with the costs, it seems to me, is the private comoanies building these things. Thye want guaranteed profit and quickly too so they get a subsidy from government.
Wouldn't it be much better if these things were built by the country, owned by the country and providing our essential power at cost? A nationalised power industry that could sell any excess to other countries with the profits reinvested into the network.
Just spitballing here. | |
| |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 18:10 - Oct 8 with 1771 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 16:22 - Oct 8 by A_Fans_Dad |
I am not in favour of large scale Nuclear, especially when built by EDF with their very poor troubled design.
I prefer SMRs and MSRs until something else comes along.
But at the moment cost wise Gas & Coal are king, in fact as far as coal is concerned we have missed out on a massive market by not having our own mining. |
Don't think anyone wants polluting coal. [Post edited 8 Oct 2021 18:11]
| |
| |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 18:24 - Oct 8 with 1759 views | Flashberryjack |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 18:10 - Oct 8 by felixstowe_jack |
Don't think anyone wants polluting coal. [Post edited 8 Oct 2021 18:11]
|
Seems like Germany does. | |
| |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 20:47 - Oct 8 with 1719 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 18:24 - Oct 8 by Flashberryjack |
Seems like Germany does. |
Just about every other country in the world except the stupid west want it as well.
It is cheap, but getting more expensive due to China & India wanting massive amounts. | | | |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 20:50 - Oct 8 with 1714 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 17:38 - Oct 8 by Catullus |
Yes there is, a combination of wind, solar and tidal with some Nuclear back up.
The problem with the costs, it seems to me, is the private comoanies building these things. Thye want guaranteed profit and quickly too so they get a subsidy from government.
Wouldn't it be much better if these things were built by the country, owned by the country and providing our essential power at cost? A nationalised power industry that could sell any excess to other countries with the profits reinvested into the network.
Just spitballing here. |
There you go pushing intermittent energy which Industrialised countries cannot run on.
Why don't you look at how variable and expensive they are? | | | |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 21:56 - Oct 8 with 1700 views | Kilkennyjack |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 09:23 - Oct 8 by Boundy |
The proposed tidal lagoon at Swansea Bay would have a capital cost more than 3 times as much, per unit of electricity, as the Hinkley Point C nuclear
power station.
The tidal lagoon proposed for Swansea Bay is estimated to have an annual electricity output of around 0.52 TeraWatt Hours (i.e. 0.52 billion units of energy). The developer’s estimated capital cost is £1.3bn.
The annual power output of Hinkley Point C will be 26.1 TeraWatt Hours. The developer’s estimated capital cost is £19.6bn, which was rounded up to £20bn to simplify calculations.
Using these figures, Swansea Bay’s cost - in terms of capital cost pounds per unit of electricity - is £1.3bn / 0.52 TeraWatt Hours. This gives a ratio of 2.5.
The equivalent figure for Hinkley Point C using the same calculation would be £20bn / 26TWh, which gives a ratio of 0.8.
The capital costs per unit of annual power output for Swansea Bay tidal lagoon are therefore more than three times that of Hinkley Point C (2.5 / 0.8 = 3.1)
It would cost only around £400m to use offshore wind instead to generate the same power as the proposed £1.3bn lagoon at Swansea Bay.
Over a 60-year period, the annual output of Swansea Bay outlined above would generate 30 TeraWatt Hours. This would come at a capital cost estimated by the developer of£1.3bn.
To produce the same electricity output each year using offshore wind would require only 120MW of built capacity, as offshore wind generates power around 50% of the time in comparison to Swansea Bay’s 19%.
Offshore wind plants, however, have a nominal lifetime of 25 years. In order to keep generating for 60 years they would need to be rebuilt around 1.4 times in addition to the original installation (for a total of 2.4 builds). A total of 288 MegaWatts of Offshore wind would therefore be needed over the 60 years — the original 120Mw of capacity built 2.4 times.BEIS’ capital and infrastructure cost estimate for offshore wind plants commissioning in 2024 — the same year that Swansea Bay tidal lagoon would begin generating — is£1,486/kW. 288MW of capacity would therefore cost around £400m. This assumes nofurther cost reductions for offshore wind beyond 2024.
So there you have , its too expensive for what it would produce |
How much did the clean up cost in Chernobyl and Fukashima…?
Nuclear power - no thanks. | |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 23:00 - Oct 8 with 1662 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 21:56 - Oct 8 by Kilkennyjack |
How much did the clean up cost in Chernobyl and Fukashima…?
Nuclear power - no thanks. |
Can't fault your logic, comparing a very bad Russian designed Reactor being run dangerously with modern far safer design.
As for Fukashima, when as the last time time the UK had a 7.6 magnitude earthquake and 40 ft Tsunami on the same day? | | | |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 23:13 - Oct 8 with 1653 views | majorraglan |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 21:56 - Oct 8 by Kilkennyjack |
How much did the clean up cost in Chernobyl and Fukashima…?
Nuclear power - no thanks. |
We’re caught between a rock and a hard place.
Russia are playing hardball over Nord 2, if they get that on line the Ukraine a major ally of the West could find itself in a position where Russia turns off the gas resulting in huge hardships for millions. It’s an issue that’s causing lots of Europe and Biden some angst and is well documented in the media.
We’ve hardly got any gas storage and are at the whims of the market as we aren't self sufficient for gas or electricity. We have to do something. | | | |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 00:12 - Oct 9 with 1644 views | controversial_jack |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 23:13 - Oct 8 by majorraglan |
We’re caught between a rock and a hard place.
Russia are playing hardball over Nord 2, if they get that on line the Ukraine a major ally of the West could find itself in a position where Russia turns off the gas resulting in huge hardships for millions. It’s an issue that’s causing lots of Europe and Biden some angst and is well documented in the media.
We’ve hardly got any gas storage and are at the whims of the market as we aren't self sufficient for gas or electricity. We have to do something. |
At one time, the Ukraine was getting huge concessions from Russia for gas, they were virtually getting it for nothing, but decided to get greedy , not pay their bills and siphoned off some of it for their use. | | | |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 10:16 - Oct 9 with 1595 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon on 23:13 - Oct 8 by majorraglan |
We’re caught between a rock and a hard place.
Russia are playing hardball over Nord 2, if they get that on line the Ukraine a major ally of the West could find itself in a position where Russia turns off the gas resulting in huge hardships for millions. It’s an issue that’s causing lots of Europe and Biden some angst and is well documented in the media.
We’ve hardly got any gas storage and are at the whims of the market as we aren't self sufficient for gas or electricity. We have to do something. |
Biden gave Putin the do ahead for Nordstream 2.
I posted this on the Steel post, but is relevent here.
Just to put the current Boris the Buffoon Johnson's response to the Gas crisis in to perspective, he just prevented Shell from developing the North Sea "Jackdaw" gas field.
The guy is a very dangerous idiot and should not be running this country. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
