Wind curtailment

[Moxi]

Hi Krill I wasn’t aiming at you and I wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologies if you felt that I was.

My issue is with how lagoons and barrages are presented and the way big industry and government conflate information to derive the answers they want.

It is perfectly possible to build lagoons and barrages that do not create sedimentation or sea bed erosion and which mimic the ebb and flow of the tides.

We won’t see them built by private finance because there’s not enough profit or short enough return on investment.

To get the return on investment they need to optimise the lagoon or barrage for power production and this WILL give rise to sedimentation and sea bed erosion as in so doing it will damage habitats.

If government built a nationalised network of lagoons and barrages it can produce the base load stability we require twenty four seven 365 days a year with civil structures lasting in to the 140 year plus range and electro mechanical services replaced roughly every thirty years.

The consumer would pay a premium for this but that premium would largely stay within the uk economy rather going in to other sovereign nations savings.

Moxi

[Mart]

Hi Moxi, just for reference, I seem to recall that when the Gov carried out a review of the Swansea tidal lagoon costs last decade, it came to about 2.5x more expensive than HPC per MWh supplied.

But a couple of problems there though, the first being that I think the early £20bn estimated cost for HPC is now 2.5x higher, and the Swansea scheme is quite small, so therefore expected to be the most expensive*, with the Cardiff scheme at 10x the size expected to generate at half the cost. So we need the expensive Swansea scheme as a proof of concept, but it's hard to get it passed, since it's also so expensive (proportionately), Catch 22 situation.

*Thanks to maths, the larger the lagoon, the cheaper the generation should be. If you double the circumference of a circle, you quadruple the area. So a longer lagoon wall (if a semi-circlular design is viable) provides a disproprtionately larger catchment volume.


PS - For anyone interested, whilst tides vary, they are entirely predictable far into the future. So tidal lagoons will give a predictable generation four times per day. They will generate for 3.5hrs, 4x per day, with a 2.5hr slack period between. The Bristol Channel with its huge tidal range tends to offer the best opportunities, but if locations are spread more widely, then varying tide times will help to balance out some of the fluctuations. Also, if we look at the wider peak time period of 4pm to 8pm (not just the high peak of 5pm to 7pm), then we are guaranteed to get some peak period contribution from the tidal lagoons every single day.

[Krill]

Hi Krill I wasn’t aiming at you and I wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologies if you felt that I was.

My issue is with how lagoons and barrages are presented and the way big industry and government conflate information to derive the answers they want.

It is perfectly possible to build lagoons and barrages that do not create sedimentation or sea bed erosion and which mimic the ebb and flow of the tides.

We won’t see them built by private finance because there’s not enough profit or short enough return on investment.

To get the return on investment they need to optimise the lagoon or barrage for power production and this WILL give rise to sedimentation and sea bed erosion as in so doing it will damage habitats.

If government built a nationalised network of lagoons and barrages it can produce the base load stability we require twenty four seven 365 days a year with civil structures lasting in to the 140 year plus range and electro mechanical services replaced roughly every thirty years.

The consumer would pay a premium for this but that premium would largely stay within the uk economy rather going in to other sovereign nations savings.

Moxi

I'm sorry Moxi, I didn't think I was being targeted. I know that the way I write some forum posts can be rather formal, but I've found that it's usually the best way to ensure an understanding.

I don't like taking positions on things I don't understand - and there is very little in RE I do understand. I don't claim to know much at all about tidal power, so thank you to you and to Mart putting together some useful posts.

I suppose I should say that I'm general for solutions that involve society providing for itself and keeping the cost and benefits internal, as you say, if the economic costs involved in a tidal lagoon and spent within the UK market then that's better than paying France to build *anything*, and I don't like foisting costs onto future generations.

[Moxi]

I’m of the opinion that with some foresight the UK could and should be a net exporter of power to our continental colleagues when they need it for their benefit and security and the rest of the time we take excess cheap and available wind solar and tidal power and use it to subsidise a UK manufacturing base that includes strategic UK base manufacturing for sovereign resilience as well as high value assets for sale on the open market eg silicon waifers, batteries, electro won metals from mixed scrap etc etc

Doing that should mean good wages for workers, good tax returns for government from businesses and workers, and lower manufacturing costs and better profit margins for manufacturers to be cost competitive on the international markets.

Energy is a key to modern economics, a country blessed with cheap power options should be high in international rankings if they are able to monetise those energy sources.

Glad I hadn’t offended you Krill

Moxi

[Krill]

I’m of the opinion that with some foresight the UK could and should be a net exporter of power to our continental colleagues when they need it for their benefit and security and the rest of the time we take excess cheap and available wind solar and tidal power and use it to subsidise a UK manufacturing base that includes strategic UK base manufacturing for sovereign resilience as well as high value assets for sale on the open market eg silicon waifers, batteries, electro won metals from mixed scrap etc etc

Doing that should mean good wages for workers, good tax returns for government from businesses and workers, and lower manufacturing costs and better profit margins for manufacturers to be cost competitive on the international markets.

Energy is a key to modern economics, a country blessed with cheap power options should be high in international rankings if they are able to monetise those energy sources.

Glad I hadn’t offended you Krill

Moxi

This is sensible, hence it's never going to happen.

[openspaceman]

I suppose I should say that I'm general for solutions that involve society providing for itself and keeping the cost and benefits internal, as you say, if the economic costs involved in a tidal lagoon and spent within the UK market then that's better than paying France to build *anything*, and I don't like foisting costs onto future generations.

That's the way I have always felt (especially wrt nuclear waste) but, unfortunately, not the way our business leaders have thought as our economy has declined during my life, and before. I wouldn't single out France but be wary of any inward investment.

Looking at my domestic use it seems there are about 130 days when I am not self sufficient, a bigger battery may knock a week or so off that. So coming back to the curtailment issue; as we have more wind power coming online does anyone have figures that show how many days in the doldrums will have to be bridged?