OT: Swansea Tidal Lagoon rejected

[Chris Hogg]

Not value for money.

At last, someone is beginning to see sense when it comes to the cost of renewables.

or

[F]

Private Eye have been commenting on this for some time. A number of 'interesting connections' within the proposal. Including the source of the rock they would need.

[T i m]

I think the only justification for most of this is the idea of being self sufficient.

Whilst that might be considered 'a good' thing when it comes to buying gas from Russia I'm not sure we are going to be anywhere close to self sufficiency if they keep closing down nukes and *only* replacing it with non-predictable (/ expensive / questionably 'green') renewable's.

So, maybe we should stay in the EU till such time that we are ... and especially in a cold day in the middle of the winter.

That or we will be further shafted for any energy we need buy from the EU. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[Brian Gaff]

In this case I agree, its a huge undertaking for not very much gain, and of course you will have conservationists all over you for this. From other countries experiences of this sort of scheme the hidden costs of moving the silt that this will create as build ups in unpredictable areas makes the whole thing rather borderline. Its a bit like double glazing, it would take years to pay for itself, and if you find you need a lot of dredging or a lot of maintenance then your profits vanish. Brian

[GB]

The tides are predictable.

[Chris Hogg]

Yea, on-off-on-off-on-off-on-off; four times a day (ebb and flow) 3 hrs at a time. Waddya going to do in the gaps? Wind? Not at the moment. Solar? Not at night. Coal? All shut down, or nearly so. Ah, nuclear to the rescue! But if you've built nuclear, which runs 27/7 and not like some flickering strip light, why bother with tidal (or wind, or solar)?

[The Natural Philosopher]

So is the night.

It doesnt make solar power any more useful.

Unpredictability is not the issue. Intermittency is.

Unpredictability just makes it somewhat worse, that's all.

[dennis]

Yes you can predict when the lagoon will generate zero power. However they won't have included the cost of generating plant to provide the missing power during that period either in money or CO2 produced. They don't for wind or solar so they wont for this.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Far better to pay some other country to build our nuclear power stations, than develop a new technology here.

And you Brexiteers think the UK will do well once outside the EU and competing on equal terms with the rest of the world. Except of course they won't be equal.

[T i m]

;-)

And this is all no different from the '£360M' on the side of a bus.

Everything has costs and if those costs don't weigh up (be it money or pollution etc) then it's often best simply not doing it.

Except when you can't get what you want any other way (like the Ruskies turn the gas off) than then the need may outweigh any 'cost'. Either that, provide substantial storage (the way I think it's going already) or go without (when the lagoon is empty or the suns gone in etc).

We use rechargeable batteries / solar charging when camping because it's ok for those needs (LED lights / torches) and we can always buy dry cells if we get stuck (or go without).

Cheers, T i m

[Chris Hogg]

Most of the rock was originally planned to come from Dean Quarry on the east side of the Lizard peninsula in Cornwall, as it's on the coast and has potential for loading directly onto barges or whatever, via a jetty as was done many decades ago. There was a lot of local opposition to the idea, but I don't know the current state of play.

[Chris Hogg]

Why is it you remoaners always slew almost any discussion here to brexit? Do you moan perpetually when your chosen party loses a general election? I doubt it; you accept the democratic vote, even if the number of voters who voted for the winners were a minority of the population as a whole. So why don't you accept the democratic decision on brexit? Just very bad losers is the only explanation.

[charles]

do you not realise that general elections happen every 5 years at a maximum? Brexit does not hav ethat option - it's forever.

[Chris Hogg]

No it's not, anymore than it was for ever when we had the referendum in 1975. We could always re-apply in the future if we wanted to.

[charles]

application and joining are two completely different things. Any one country could veto our application.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Why are you Brexiteers all so keen on paying others to build our nuclear power stations for us? Considering we once had somewhat of a world lead in this?

Do you really not see this is totally at odds with the UK making its way in a world they seem to want where everyone trades on the same terms? Which of course is a total nonsense anyway as seen with the US.

Perhaps they have this really far sighted view of things to come. Except that most will be long dead in that sort of timescale.

Seems to me thinking that Britain can soon once again rule the waves doesn't extend to actually building high tech stuff.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I'd guess he's just remembering an earlier post I made making exactly that point. Can't really seeing the Tories on here calling a future Labour government 'the will of the people' and shutting up.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Ah - right. So leaving merely an experiment to see if it works or not. And you worry about a tidal barrage being possibly a waste of money.

[Jethro_uk]

I've not met any Brexiteers who'd be able to understand the science. (I separate Leavers and Brexiteers - Leavers did have some clue).

[Bill]

In message , GB writes

But variable. As are the predictable marine growths and salt and sand attacks on anything mechanical in sea water. Not to mention the poison dosing to frighten the barnacles away.