<div class=”bbp-reply-author”>mikewsmith
<div class=”bbp-author-role”>
<div class=””>Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

What’s the base load in your plan tj?

</div>

Tidal flow with fast spin up gas to cover shortfalls in wind , wave and solar.

If we had spent the money wasted on hugely expensive and polluting ( its a total myth nuclear is clean.  Total lifetime pollution is high once you count in decommissioning, fuel mining, construction etc etc for nuclear ) on tidal flow we would not need the nuclear.  English politicians won’t go for it tho as most of the tidal flow generating would be done in Scotland. 😉

Tidal flow is viable now and ready to go

If we had spent the money wasted on hugely expensive and polluting ( its a total myth nuclear is clean.  Total lifetime pollution is high once you count in decommissioning, fuel mining, construction etc etc for nuclear ) on tidal flow we would not need the nuclear.

Yeah but we didn’t. Criteria for energy solutions going forward is that it needs to exist so we can implement it. No point crying over spilt uranium. Where are the viable sites? Found this as the worlds first? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeyGen

Seems very slow progress really? Whats the hold up if it’s so viable, the initial projection had it generating 1/10th of Hinkly with no figures on the area it takes up? How scalable is that as a solution and what is the transmission losses to where people actually need the power?

Nuclear is cleaner on the scale than fossil fuels, lifetime pollution and contamination of modern reactors .along with waste generated is much lower than historical. It also has an incredibly good safety record despite the scare stories that are regularly circulated and exaggerated.

Then we get to the “fast spin up gas” where is the gas coming from? How long do we have reserves for?

Tidal flow is already generating power in the pentland firth.  Companies are trying to develop it with almost no funding.  If we cancelled hinkly tomorrow and spent all that money over the next 7 and 9 years on tidal flow then they would be producing more power than hinkley could by 2025 ( which is never going to be when hinkly comes on stream)

there is enough energy in the tidal flow in the pentland firth and sound of islay to power the UK many times over – get really goping with the tidal then we don’t need the fast spin up gas

We ain’t got a lot of reserves of gas.  Its a stop gap until we have enough tidal flow or  fusion , thorium reactors  or hydrogen storage is sorted.  those 3 seem the best bet long term.

For Hinkly to be generating power by 2025 it would mean that it is built far quicker than any other reactor ever in the west would it not – and its totally disengenious to state its on 5 months behind schedule is it not?  the date for it to be producing power has already been put back years.

Do you have any figures on costs, power outputs, environmental impact?

Tidal flow isn’t very appealing to the vast lobbies that you never hear about in the news…

there is enough energy in the tidal flow in the pentland firth and sound of islay to power the UK many times over – get really goping with the tidal then we don’t need the fast spin up gas

Right then, couldn’t find the area stats but the scheme mentioned was going to be 1/10th of Hinkly with no area stats so how big does it need to be. So we need 10x that to replace Hinkly on it’s own, then we actually need more, a hell of a lot more so what are the numbers there?

https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Right now we need 34Gw of generation

Yes – thats the pilot scheme phase 2 from one company. ie a very small part of what is planned.  Numerous companies are developing different models.  this one is not my favourite design.

Using a depth-averaged numerical model, for the entire Firth we find that approximately 4.2 GW of power may be extracted

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270935953_Estimate_of_the_tidal_stream_power_resource_of_the_Pentland_Firth

Thats 12 % of the total UK need approx is it not?  And that is just from one site.

Add in the sound of islay which is a bit smaller IIRC as the second major site.  Add in the smaller sites ( think similar to ther small scale hydro that is being developed ie multiple MW sites rathert than one GW site) and baseload is easily covered adn tidal flow willk easily outproduce Hinkly

Thats 12 % of the total UK need approx is it not?  And that is just from one site.

12% of the total this instant, that does of course go up in Winter too, and it doesn’t account for any increase in consumption. So you need to ramp up all those schemes, get them all going and then you need more on top of that.

Add in the sound of islay which is a bit smaller IIRC as the second major site.  Add in the smaller sites ( think similar to ther small scale hydro that is being developed ie multiple MW sites rathert than one GW site) and baseload is easily covered adn tidal flow willk easily outproduce Hinkly

So you need all of that to make what one station does. It’s a numbers game and the biggest one isn’t price in the end of the day it’s energy security and stability.

Tjagain, do you know anything at all about the Severn Estuary and the Bristol Channel as a whole, as regards using tidal power generation?

count – not a lot.  I think they would rely on barrage rather than flow to do it ie dam up the estuary and hold the high tide back then run it thru turbines ( both on ther high and low tide) rather than put a load of underwater windmills in.  I am not in favour of barrage schemes.

Mike – the two sites could easily be producing 20% of the countries needs ie all the baseload you want.  Its also ideal because the two sites are 4 hours out of phase – so between them would produce a steady base.  then we add in all the smaller sites and 30% of the countries electricity is an easily acheivable target.  One of the reasons I don’t prefer the mygen solution is its that the units are huge.  I prefer the ducted small units that can be much more esily manufactured and installed.

so in the time before hinkly comes on line tidal could easily be producing more energy that Hinkly ever would.

As for security of supply – which is more secure – one huge machine or thousands of smaller ones?  say 10 % failure rate ( for argument)  so the tidal flow would produce 90% of its maximum all the time, the nuke would produce 100% of its output 90% of the time.  every heard of ” don’t put all your eggs in one basket”?

There are other measures that could also increase renewable / low pollution generation.  Local heat and power, etc

Of course we are all avoiding the elephant in the room – energy efficiency.  No money in that tho.  we could easily save a significant % of the countries energy use but as there is no money for big business in that its not happening.

The Swansea lagoon would have created 1/10 of the elec of Hinkley.  There were plans to put them on both sides of the Severn.  A proposed Cardiff lagoon twice as big as Swansea would have created the same amount of elec as Hinkley.

The massive tidal range around the Severnreally should be used, wouldnt it be fantastic to see tech developed that could be exported?

Mike – the two sites could easily be producing 20% of the countries needs ie all the baseload you want.  Its also ideal because the two sites are 4 hours out of phase – so between them would produce a steady base.  then we add in all the smaller sites and 30% of the countries electricity is an easily acheivable target.

Whoa hang on there, are these sites not producing 24/7?

As I said, this is the summer evening load when it’s still daylight, so what is the winter figure, then when we drop gas usage as it’s getting harder to get, and then add in some electric cars.

As for security of supply – which is more secure – one huge machine or thousands of smaller ones?  say 10 % failure rate ( for argument)

Better to get some real figures, it’s also not one station planned it’s a few.

the nuke would produce

If you really want to call them Nukes, can we call the Tidal “Hippy wave shit” too?

Of course we are all avoiding the elephant in the room – energy efficiency.  No money in that tho.  we could easily save a significant % of the countries energy use but as there is no money for big business in that its not happening.

There is huge money in energy efficiency, have some people I work with who make lots in that sector to big industry in heat/energy reclamation etc. Reducing energy usage is a key driver in most industries as it cuts cash from the bottom line.

It has already been seen that large solar plants can change the land around them. Ground temp, moisture levels etc.

a bit like how the oil pipelines in North America have changed migration of wildlife.

there are studies that show impact of hydroelectric systems (dams) but not sure there are any significant tidal generation systems and associated research on what the change in flow does to the surrounding ecosystem.

Of course tidal flow only generates for around 16 – 18 hours in 24.  No generation at slack water – Hence needing the two sites that are 4 hours out of phase.  The generation from tidal follows a sine curve.  Put two sine curves together out of phase and it smooths to steady base ( with a little further smoothing needed – easily done)

Its not hippy wave shit – its hippy tidal flow shit.  😉

Wave is a different issue and while there are and have been promising designs it has the same intermittent supply as wind.and tends to generate at the same time as wind.  so good for overall generation but not reliable for baseload.

Once the big brain bods find a decent storage solution of course intermittent supply is no longer the key issue.  I have hopes for hydrogen as the medium for storage.  already working on a small scale with the unst project.  Scalability is the issue.  what you do is use surplus ‘leccy when the gales blow to electrolyse water to produce hydrogen.  then when the wind drops use the hydrogen to generate electricity.

the other plan for this is for a north sea interconnect to Norway, use the high valleys there for pump storage.  Plans are in place form this.  so Scotland produces the tidal energy, Norway stores it then they sell it to Germany. ( cos england does not want to play with our tidal preferring to smash atoms instead!

You do realise that the infrastructure for a lot of this is actually being put in?  New interconnects and so on?

One of the reasons I want an independent sacotland is so we can actually invest real money in this stuff.  the scottish government cannot while it remains shackled to England and while the energy market is rigged so strongly against Scotland ( look up connection charges to the national grid)

F1 guys for energy storage.  Flywheel tech transferable i heard once

Tesla delivered smooth storage solutions in South Australia.

Tesla big battery officially switched on in South Australia

Your wave numbers start to sound optimistic when you are dropping 20-25% of your production every day from each site, it means you need 5 to make the numbers 4 were delivering. It sounds like a great compliment to nuclear though, same as everything else, a good mix with some strong sectors doing some real heavy lifting for the next 25-35 years while we work on some new tech.

Or when one doesn’t really scale like you think it’s going to.

but not sure there are any significant tidal generation systems and associated research on what the change in flow does to the surrounding ecosystem.

There are some.  This is why I don’t like barrage systems and prefer flow turbines.  flow turbines have less effects in this.  google is your friend.  Plenty of modelling has been done.  tidal flow will only take a small % of the total energy out but will alter current flows thus seabed sedimentation but it appears these effects are minimal.  I have seen less on effects with wildlife as that needs actual observation and experimentation rather than modelling but the consensus apears to be that the effects on wildlife are minimal.  Dunno what would happen if a blue whale swims into one.  small fish just go thru the turbines IIRC

Mike – have a wee think about it – the variability is already taken into account.

not in the way the numbers were quoted.

We can express them in terms of what they generate in isolation and then work out what it does in 75% of the time.

It might be your idea of a complete solution but it’s not complete and we still don’t know how many km2 of seabed we need and how much we have for these schemes

tidal flow means nuclear is not needed.  since this debate on here about hinkly started tidal flow has come on line in a pilot, renewables in scotland have more than doubled and hinkly is as far away from producing any electricity as it was five years ago

In the ten or more years that is actually a realistic timescale for hinkly and its bunny killin” nukes ( 😉 ) ( does anyone actually believe it will be ready in seven?  its already had its date put back by several years)  Nice fluffy bunny friendly tidal flow could be poroducing a nice steady baseload in excess of hinkly.

tidal flow means nuclear is not needed.  since this debate on here about hinkly started tidal flow has come on line in a pilot, renewables in scotland have more than doubled and hinkly is as far away from producing any electricity as it was five years ago

So how much area do you need for that? It’s a quick and simple question, you have the facts to say it’s bigger than 1 nuclear power plant, it’s still not the complete package for the UK energy needs. Remember those electric cars? They will need charging too so that number goes up. What is the GW figure your tidal schemes are going to deliver?

Also what is the Nuclear power plant bunny killing stats btw?

No mike – the variability is already taken into account and we do know exactly how much energy can be extracted from the two sites.  Critique it all you want – but read up on it first so you don’t make fundamental errors.  We know exactly how much each turbine of each current design will produce, we know exactly how big the area we can put them on is on those two main sites and quite a few of the smaller sites sthat are suitable for MW arrays rather than the GW array of the pentland firth and sound of islay, we know exactly how many of each design is needed for this.  all we need is the political will to do it.

the main issues are deciding which design is the best – we should know that in a year or two and then getting them into mass production.

Edit – and also building the boats to install them

That tesla big battery is an order of magnitude if not several smaller than is needed to smooth wind for the UK.  Its a local solution for a small area.

<div class=”bbp-reply-author”>squirrelking
<div class=”bbp-author-role”>
<div class=””>Member</div>
</div>
</div>

<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

Hinkley is still on schedule for unit 1 completion in 2025

It was supposed to be generating in 2023. 2025 isn’t on schedule, it’s the first fall-back point they made after admitting it couldn’t be on schedule. Though as of last year EDF were saying it wouldn’t generate til at least 18 months after that date.

</div>

 we know exactly how many of each design is needed for this.  all we need is the political will to do it.

the main issues are deciding which design is the best – we should know that in a year or two and then getting them into mass production.

Edit – and also building the boats to install them

Ah, ready tomorrow we just need to sort out the design. Is the tidal or nuclear the pot or kettle here 😉

and how many is it, how many areas do you need? What area is that? Can you get up to 40-50-60GW with it and when will that be online?

The Tesla batter is smaller – but it’s the size it needs to be, that is however a solution that is on the ground and ready to go.

Several simulation studies have shown that pure tidal schemes cannot actually meet the necessary continuous base load requirements, eg:

Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon and Baseload Tidal Generation in the UK

It requires multi-stage barrages (or separate energy storage schemes)  to achieve load leveling and that knocks overall efficiency or overall cost back significantly.

Once the big brain bods find a decent storage solution of course intermittent supply is no longer the key issue.

They’re trying, but pesky physics and chemistry gets in the way, not to mention economics. Pumped hydro needs a large upper reservoir and a large lower reservoir. That typically means a nice looking mountain close to the sea which is already in use by farmers and walkers (with some MTBers). Even if your prepared to piss off the current users, suitable sites are hard to find. Batteries are very low storage capacity compared with a pile of coal, a tanker of LPG or some nuclear fuel rods.

Tidal flow is useful because it’s predictable and doesn’t rely on storage or idle gas turbines waiting to cover a shortfall (high pressure system in winter = no wind for weeks, low solar).

I’m in favour of “all of the above” – build the stuff that we know works (fission, hydro, offshore wind where the wind is more constant), pilot the good others (alternative nuclear fuel cycles e.g. waste burning liquid sal, tidal flow, perhaps fusion although I went to a lecture in 1981 where the lecturer joked it was only 30 years away, same as it had been 30 years ago) and kill the subsidies to the rest.

there’s some tenuous facts being presented on both sides of the arguments here and it feels like groundhog day and I can’t be bothered repeating detail but for those interested

re Norwegian interconnectors, the gist is more we will have an excess of renewable energy in winter when Norwegian hydro is frozen solid, and vice versa in summer our wind resource is less and norwegian hydro is plentiful so electricity can be sold back and forth as required. There’s various other international HVDC interconnectors in existence and in planning too. Also read about European supergrid (I wonder if we’re doomed to candles/whale oil now with brexit?)

I have worked extensively on this one http://northconnect.no/, and there’s another http://northsealink.com/ and there’s britned etc.

re tidal power, keep an eye on http://renews.biz/tag/wave-tidal for example. I suspect UK will let its world leading position slide, sit back and let other countries develop the technology into a big industry then buy the product off them (via our foreign owned utility companies) as per it did with wind decades ago. However there are a few companies still developing here and some pilot projects . Some pretty cool tech – check out Minesto!

Maxtorque  that is about tidal barrage schemes not tidal flow.  tidal flow can produce the base load.  all the theoretical work is already done.  Pentland firth and sound of islay could provide all of the UKs baseload using current tech

Mike -0 its about making a decision on which is the best design and getting that in top production.  this is why the pilto schemes are going ahead to decide on this.  take a year or so to be sure which design or mix of designs is the best in practice then we have another 8 years to get them built and installed to make Hinkly not needed.  these things are not really high tech.  All that is needed is the political will.

Murray – no room for any more pump storage in Scotland really.  Certainly not enough to take us from 4 hours of use stored to the 4 weeks we need.  Hence the plan to use Norway – and this plan is well worked out ad has support in Norway

That physics is a bugger on the hydrogen.  It works on a small scale and has been doing for a decade.  scalability is a problem along with storage.  slippery stuff that wee h2 molecule.  I have high hopes for hydrogen storage.  I don’t see it as a solution for cars and the like but large hydrogen storage units near to the generators could be a solution.  to liquify iut takes a lot of energy.  store it as a gas takes a huge volume.  and every time you turn your back the wee buggers run away

take a year or so to be sure which design or mix of designs is the best in practice then we have another 8 years to get them built and installed to make Hinkly not needed.  these things are not really high tech.  All that is needed is the political will.

Missing the point there, you don’t need to replace Hinkly, you need Hinkly plus more, the UK is shutting down coal and existing Nuclear plants all over the place in the next few years, are you going to replace all the UK’s need with Tidal?

I sure hope there’s nothing happening globally right now that might make temperatures too high for nuclear generation more common!

I used to be a big fan of nuclear, but to do it properly just seems so expensive, given the rate at which the costs of renewables and energy efficiency measures are falling.

Tj, how does tidal provide base load, when it drops to zero 4 times a day?  Read the analysis i linked too, including actual measured tidal data from multiple sites, using both barrages and barrages augmented with flow turbines.

Under no case can a base load be generated and costs look to be around 4x that of HinkC per GWhr.

Next step in those cases would be to work on some sort of cooling and return system to deal with those days that are at the highest temps or to fall back to other means on those days and use Nuclear to hit the long hard winter.

maxtorque – in case you didn’t realise that chap you link is a fanatical anti renewables loony with a massively polarised site and from what I read before my eyes started bleeding and I lost the will to live it seems to have cherry picked a very small range of sites etc, in fact it doesn’t seem to cover any tidal flow sites like pentland firth. The high tides on one side of orkney are over an hour different from the other side alone for example, never mind around the UK. Always form your own opinion, don’t swallow others blindly and believe wild claims, this is how we ended up with brexit and trump!

Max – tidal flow generation output looks like a sine wave with a 12 hour period.  Pentland firth is 4 hour different from the sound of islay.  Add the two together you get an almost flat line.  perfect for baseload

are you going to replace all the UK’s need with Tidal?

No – just the baseload.  in the ten years minimum that hinkly will take at least to come on line tidal flow could be producing more electricity than Hinkly could.

Same point applies to you – how are you going to replace all the rest of the stuff?  Not with nuclear – its not going to be onl ine quickly enough

No – just the baseload.  in the ten years minimum that hinkly will take at least to come on line tidal flow could be producing more electricity than Hinkly could.

Hinkly isn’t the entire base load.

Same point applies to you – how are you going to replace all the rest of the stuff?  Not with nuclear – its not going to be onl ine quickly enough

Ideal world, build nuclear quick enough. We have the plans, we have the studies, we have the tech. The only thing stopping us is cash and nimbys. On top of that I have nothing against things like tidal but as part of the mix, Energy use will rise as oil and gas become more expensive and things like EV ramps up. We need everything we can get.

not a real answer bunny killer 😉

Hinkley is already more than 2.5 years late.  Its not going to be on line in ten years.  I thought base load was around 20 % of consumption? ie about what all of hinkly could produce or about all of what tidal coule produce? crap memory syndrome from me again?

20 years at least to get another nuke on line.  Nuclear is not the answer and can never be the answer.

For Hinkly to be generating power by 2025 it would mean that it is built far quicker than any other reactor ever in the west would it not

Torness broke ground in 1980 and was commissioned by 1988, Similarly Sizewell B was completed in 8years between ’87 and ’95. 2017 to 2025 is not ambitious by any means.

Bear in mind also that commissioning dates are not the same as synching to the grid. Hunterston and Hinkley B synched in 1974 but were never officially commissioned for another two years (and officially opened in 1980!)

Anyway, what makes you so sure Hinkley will either never come on line or it will be more than ten years in construction?

squirrelking – I meant in recent years and stuff of similar design.  Hinkly was supposed to be on line in 2023.  EDF admit they won’t get any power out of it until 2027 ie 9 years time and I don’t believe that.  I doubt it will ever produce anything.  It will be cancelled as an expensive white elephant