Rolls Royce SMR

[Moxi]

I would still like the politicians to consider some tidal systems as part of the mix - arguably as reliable as the moon rise and fall and suitable at many scales to the estuaries and rivers around the UK coast allowing us to start small and scale accordingly. Yes there are environmental impacts but there are also some important environmental benefits and improvements, trapped sediments can be routinely dredged and after a short residence bank side to reduce salt content they can be returned to upland farming land to replenish some of the soil washout. That would improve coastal water quality and the sea bed environment, maintain marginal salt and mud flats in estuaries and rivers and improve soil retention on upland farms all while producing reliable dependable electricity.

Rance was built in 1966 and still generates today and is cheaper per unit than nuclear generated power in France - we should learn from that and get building - even if we started next year could have a Rance sized generator finished before Sizewell C was ready for the MEICA fit out.

Moxi

[Ken]

It's a shame the UK simply isn't suitable for a vast amount of hydro. The countries that already have it are ideally positioned for the RE future. Even if the hydro doesn't have pumped storage, it can still be dialled down when wind/sun are high, and vice versa ..... so long as they maintain flow levels within appropriate limits.

Even Norway with its huge hydro and small population needs to manage the resource carefully and still does have tiny amount of FF
https://energifaktanorge.no/en/norsk-en ... roduksjon/

I think Norway is a significant part of UK storage. In end of winter and spring they can have excess production to export to us and then in our times of excess or low prices they arbitrage our supply. You can see it going from max import to max export - making a lot of money whilst not really doing much. https://bmrs.elexon.co.uk/interconnector-flows

[Mart]

Hi Moxi, soryy I can't shut up today (good mood, Toby dog is finally home from the vets) ....

... but, am I being unreasonable to suggest that the estimated £1.3bn for the Swansea tidal lagoon scheme isn't that much?

In fairness, it will produce leccy at a higher cost than the other larger schemes, but even if it proves the technology to be uneconomic, that will be an important lesson to learn, and it won't fail so to speak, just produce leccy at a higher cost than hoped.

The earliest off shore wind contracts were issued at £150/MWh, and that's old money, before index linking, now they are being issued at ~£60 (post invasion of Ukraine and massive inflationary impacts on this industry in particular), and did get as low as £37. [All prices using the same 2012 baseline.]

The last CfD auction issued contracts for floating wind at £140/MWh. Not because we want nor need that leccy at that cost, but because it should pump prime the industry and lead to falling costs.

So it really frrustrates me that we don't get on with it and try, even if we fail.

[Mart]

It's a shame the UK simply isn't suitable for a vast amount of hydro. The countries that already have it are ideally positioned for the RE future. Even if the hydro doesn't have pumped storage, it can still be dialled down when wind/sun are high, and vice versa ..... so long as they maintain flow levels within appropriate limits.

Even Norway with its huge hydro and small population needs to manage the resource carefully and still does have tiny amount of FF
https://energifaktanorge.no/en/norsk-en ... roduksjon/

I think Norway is a significant part of UK storage. In end of winter and spring they can have excess production to export to us and then in our times of excess or low prices they arbitrage our supply. You can see it going from max import to max export - making a lot of money whilst not really doing much. https://bmrs.elexon.co.uk/interconnector-flows

Speaking of Norway, I think I recall reading, perhaps 10yrs ago, that they have the potential for an additional 10-20GW of hydro generation. To go even further, I think that generation was possibly just from adding pumped hydro on existing reservoirs. So more turbines, catchment lagoons, and a large increase in the leccy infrastructure.

I think this is just a thought exercise, and I don't believe Norway needs it, but if other countries in Europe are willing to pay/contribute, then perhaps that may be a cheaper way to expand storage, than individual deployments. No idea.


Cool, I didn't imagine it, found an old article:

Norway Could Provide 20,000MW of Energy Storage to Europe

A nationwide 20-gigawatt pumped hydro energy storage project sounds expensive, requiring a massive amount of new infrastructure. But that's not necessarily so, says Vereide and his colleagues, because the 20 gigawatts of storage could be created by simply modifying existing plants whose reservoirs currently fill up and drain slowly over time, depending on ice melt, rainfall and other seasonal factors. These upgrades would allow them to be filled and drained much more rapidly, in order to meet the needs of commercially viable energy storage.

[Ken]

Tidal could certainly be one of the eggs in my basket but we cannot compare tidal with nuclear it is an order of magnitude different. Rance - Installed capacity, 240 MW · Capacity factor, 24%. Annual generation, 500 GWh. 500GWh will be little more than than 20 days of HPC production and remember Rance is in one of the best positions in the world with its very large tidal range, twice the UK. As you know they have been doing tidal research in Orkney Islands for yrs and still not able to demonstrate a economic proposition. The tidal flow turbine in N Ireland could not stand the enviroment, fast flowing water with sand and grit etc in is only trouble.

[Moxi]

yes Rance is not on the scale of an EPR but its comparable to SMR and its scalable up and down thanks to the use of Kaplan turbines, so most estuaries big or small could have a barrage or lagoons as may be preferred and generate some power on every ebb and flow of the tide. I agree open stream tidal seems fraught with problems but constrained channel tidal is as old as the mills that first used it to grind flour etc.

While we wait for two behemoth nuclear plants to get on the grid why dont we build some nationalised tidal lagoons/ barrages starting at 10MW and scaling up as we go. It would have been a better return on the money thats been wasted (IMO) on HS2 as an example.

Moxi

[Ken]

Mart,
I see that Norway hydro report is 10 yrs old and times must be changing. Norway is looking at much reduced oil and gas use long term so need a plan B

The best value has to be for the UK to pay for another interconnector or 2. They are both production and storage rolled into one. Wow, 2 for the price of one. You have hit the nail there.

Edit Its said the UK/Norway interconnector cost £1.7 B and 1.7GW -so 2 of them for £3.4 B v HPC at £40B - and we get the vast storage for free !
Ken

[Ken]

...
... but, am I being unreasonable to suggest that the estimated £1.3bn for the Swansea tidal lagoon scheme isn't that much?

The last CfD auction issued contracts for floating wind at £140/MWh. Not because we want nor need that leccy at that cost, but because it should pump prime the industry and lead to falling costs.
.

Yes i think you are particularly as it will silt up in short time. Swansea used to be a thriving open docks and now it is tidal for small ships.

If one is prepared to pay £140/ MWh then we should put the gas producers on CfDs and let the rest compete. Would bring the price down of leccy significantly when gas production is not setting the price.

Actually my money is on repowering wind which is coming to the end of the ROCs. thereby at least doubling production, Put everybody on Smart meters and start selling the advantages of TOU tariff.

[Mart]

Mart,
I see that Norway hydro report is 10 yrs old and times must be changing. Norway is looking at much reduced oil and gas use long term so need a plan B

The best value has to be for the UK to pay for another interconnector or 2. They are both production and storage rolled into one. Wow, 2 for the price of one. You have hit the nail there.

Edit Its said the UK/Norway interconnector cost £1.7 B and 1.7GW -so 2 of them for £3.4 B v HPC at £40B - and we get the vast storage for free !
Ken

Yeah it's a fun one, and whilst I don't think much has happened, I wonder if it's something that would interest many European countries, helping to make it viable for Norway.

Building on the thought exercise, Norway also has lots of untapped hydro potential. So could the UK arrange a long (say 99yr) lease on a location, and build at our expense. We build a hydro dam, reservoir, with catchment lagoon and pumped hydro, plus the power station, pylons cables etc, and the HVDC link. Then we run it as our own hydro/pumped hydro resource for topping up the grid, or storing excess wind from Scotland.

These ideas are a bit out there, but like the Morocco scheme, they are possible. All the parts work and the technology exists, it's just down to what is or isn't viable economically.

[Mart]

...
... but, am I being unreasonable to suggest that the estimated £1.3bn for the Swansea tidal lagoon scheme isn't that much?

The last CfD auction issued contracts for floating wind at £140/MWh. Not because we want nor need that leccy at that cost, but because it should pump prime the industry and lead to falling costs.
.

Yes i think you are particularly as it will silt up in short time. Swansea used to be a thriving open docks and now it is tidal for small ships.

If one is prepared to pay £140/ MWh then we should put the gas producers on CfDs and let the rest compete. Would bring the price down of leccy significantly when gas production is not setting the price.

Actually my money is on repowering wind which is coming to the end of the ROCs. thereby at least doubling production, Put everybody on Smart meters and start selling the advantages of TOU tariff.

Slight flaw in your gas CfD plans. The early and expensive CfD's are to get the industry going, so they are relatively small scale. So that £140/MWh for the first floating off shore wind contract is only for 400MW, whereas in the same round, the far cheaper conventional off shore wind CfD of £59 was for 3,363MW.

Allowing for capacity factor, that would equate to about 200MW of gas capacity.


With regard to re-powering wind, be it ROCs or CfD deployments as they age, I'm sure I read that ~40% of the cost was installing the land base, or sea mono-pile, the electrical infrastructure on site, and then the grid connection and build out. So theoretically, even if the very same quality of kit was installed when the WT's wear out, the 'new' costs would fall significantly.

Assuming I understood this correctly - way back I was surprised to see that UK CfD contracts were ~20% higher than most other European schemes, but that was I believe because the UK schemes included the cost of the grid infrastructure build out, whereas the other countries paid that centrally. It all works out the same, but helps to demonstrate that not all costs will repeat.