Tidal Turbines (vaguely boaty)

[Rowana]

There have been many varied and valid points raised in this dicussion with regard to electricity generation and utilisation, but in my opionion we need to discuss the TRUE problem.

The population of the world is increasing at an expotential rate, and therfore are consuming resources at an ever increasing rate.

I'm of the opinion that "something" needs to be done to curb the world population, thereby reducing consumption of resources to a manageable level. Reduce the population of the UK by (?)%, and we won't need any more power stations!

Discuss.

[sahona]

Don't go there here, if you see what I mean.
The jar of birth-control and religion worms is best opened in another place, I think.

[Rowana]

Don't go there here, if you see what I mean.
The jar of birth-control and religion worms is best opened in another place, I think.

You're probably right, but this is still the fundamental problem, IMHO.

Can't see anyone grasping that particular nettle, though!

[Olivepage]

"Reduce the population of the UK by (?)%, and we won't need any more power stations! "

Very true, and much cheaper too.

With whom do you suggest we should start?

A friend of mine has a few shotguns, I'm sure he would lend you one.

Didn't someone try something like this once?

[Rowana]

"Reduce the population of the UK by (?)%, and we won't need any more power stations! "

Very true, and much cheaper too.

With whom do you suggest we should start?

A friend of mine has a few shotguns, I'm sure he would lend you one.

Didn't someone try something like this once?

There was a "Bit of a do" just over 90 years ago where the population of UK was reduced by a couple of hundred thousand. It was mostly those of a breeding age as well, which must have helped!

Perhaps we need another "do", or a human form of Myxomatosis. Shotguns are a bit messy, don't you think?



Seriously though, I don't know the answer, or even if there is on answer, but it does worry me what I am leaving my children to.

And before you ask, we only have 2 children, so we are not adding to the increase!

[JackJ]

Why worry. If the Jeremiah's are right (will they say "told you so") then if bird flu doesn't wipe out half the population then global warming will. Or all the old folks will die out in this wonderful new power cuts scare.
Bring back Malthus I say.

[ParaHandy]

Managing elctrical supply is a complex and highly skilled task which the national grid controllers have done for many years with remarkably few failures.

12GW of the coal-fired capacity opted out of the LPCD (they didn't build Flue Gas Desulphurisation add-on) and are permitted to run from 1 Jan 2008 to 2016 a maximum of 20,000hrs; they must be closed permanently after either reaching 20,000hrs operation or after 2016. The full capacity of these stations is written into the National Grid's calculations. Quite how this is going to be managed is very difficult to understand. These stations are designed for base load.

The UK Government could, and probably will have to, ask for derogation which is why I said previously that we'll pollute the rest of Europe. It will be extremely embarassing.

What is interesting is how the EU produce directives such as LPCD which appears at first sight to be entirely inimical to the interests of the UK. On another occasion and some years ago the EU Waste Directive was similarily contrary to the custom and practices of the UK. However, most of continental Europe had implemented waste recovery strategies years before the Waste Directive and, to a large extent, this directive merely reflected what was common practice already. So also with the LPCD; the Germans and Danes fully complied with LPCD by the late 90s.

The French, being nuclear, had no need of their own opt-out as they were granted in the Waste Directive of burning everything ....

[Olivepage]

Didn't know about the 20,000 hour thing.

First thought is that its impossible for UK to comply - 20khrs will leave us 3-4 years short at a guess.

Retrofitting FGD on aging plant wold be a financial nonsense.

Looks like we're snookered on that.l

Think I'll get my generator serviced.

And with that I'm off to the boat to get a few more jobs done

Have a good week end.

[Nick]

.

These technologies all require a subsidy to be viable.

Show us yer figures. Tidal turbine technology is in its infancy Para, you must be the world's leading expert on the economics of it. With future economies of scale I do not believe it is possible to say what the eventual cost of tidal electricity would be.

In the meantime nuclear is very heavily subsidised by dint of ignoring decomissioning and waste storage costs, while fossil fuel technologies are heavily subsidised by ignoring the cost of the environmental impact.

Perhaps you are Jack J??

[ParaHandy]

Show us yer figures.

oh dear ... you haven't read the references you are quoting. Here's a snippet you must have missed "... that tidal stream technologies can become competitive with other renewable energy technologies and, once extensive deployment and learning rates have been taken into account, can be supported purely by the RO in the higher velocity sites."

Quite amusing that you don't know who jackj is.

[Nick]

can be supported purely by the RO in the higher velocity sites

i.e. with no subsidy . . .

To me this indicates that the mature technology will not require subsidising, but as an English graduate and teacher what do I know about sentence construction and meaning?

Re. JackJ- yes, I do know who it is - someone not a million miles from my current location with too much time on his hands - but your alleged amusement baffles me, as I doubt very much if you have any idea who he is.

[ParaHandy]

RO is the renewal obligation received by the generator for non-fossil fuel generation in addition to whatever is received from the Grid for the electricity. It is a subsidy.

Since April 2001 a tax, called climate change levy, has been applied at the rate of 1% of electricity consumption. This is theoretically where the RO funds come from but it is, of course, a stealth tax.

If you google the Severn Barrier Scheme, for example, and find the minutes of a meeting between the sponsors and the DTI a few years ago, you will find that the scheme is considered viable if the government were able to guarantee the RO throughout the 25 years required to write off the capital cost. The government, understandably, refused. Current policy is as much a nod and a wink as anything else; wind farms appear to be covered for the next 10 years which is all they need.

[Nick]

.

I don't mind a 1% increase in my leccy bills personally if the money is being used to subsidise renewables, but would prefer a slightly larger percentage if it was used to develop the technology to the point where it didn't require subsidy at all.

Anyway, to get back to the statement quoted above and its interpretation - it is not saying that deployment of this technology depends on a subsidy, rather it would seem to be implying that because the subsidy alone completely covers the cost of deployment the electricity produced is essentially free at point of generation. The further implication is that even without the subsidy this would be attractive, but I don't know how cheap it implies it is as I don't know how (if at all) the RO subsidy translates into pennies per MW of renewable electricity generated.

My main point however is that this technology has the potential for easy deployment of a massive scale, with much greater reliability than windpower and the ability to supply base load by having stations (or fields as I think they will be called) at different points on the tidal cycle round the coastline. Mass deployment will bring unit costs down significantly - as it has done to a lesser extent with the less attractive wind technology.

We are not going to leap into the future by using accounting based on what is true today. Using that logic America would never have been discovered.

[DaveS]

Nick,

I don't think you quite realise the scale of the subsidy. Renewables Obligation Certificates are tradable so the price varies, but you could currently expect £40 per MWh or more, i.e. 4p / kWh. The system is soon to be modified in that different renewable technologies will be credited with different ROCs through application of a multiplier: X1 for on shore wind, X2 for off shore wind and tidal, X0.5 for landfill gas. This change is a step towards rewarding the newer and harder to develop renewable technologies, and will result in tidal power receiving double the present subsidy.

As things stand, the current popularity of wind farms is almost entirely driven by the ROCs income: the electricity, being largely unpredictable, is worth far less than the ROCs.

Mechanisms like these, clunky though they are, are necessary since we have a free market in generation and supply which would otherwise not invest in desirable things like renewable energy. It costs the government nothing since it is collected through increased electricity bills. So fuel poor Mrs McGinty in her tenement flat subsidises the Laird of Inverstourie to cover his hillsides with windmills.

[ParaHandy]

My main point however is that this technology has the potential for easy deployment of a massive scale

what in your war footing scenario does massive mean? specifically, what?