Forum menu
Really? Floating ones? Some one better get a Nav Warning out as they aren’t charted!
I wouldn't place any confidence in comments from a power generation specialist about a medical condition.
When a peer reviewed study estimated it could produce 1 MW?
TJ he said there weren't any in the Pentland Firth that was abundantly clear to anyone reading the post. The link you provided to make your point related to Orkney, which isn't the pentland firth.
Actually I'm talking crap there. Got my geography completely wrong. No idea what I was thinking.
No Gobuchal- tidal could produce 20% of the UKs needs using existing tech and that estimate of IGW is the lowest bar far ( not 1MW)
other sites - sound of islay is the ideal partner site to the pentland firth. I believe portland bill is another although i have not looked into it at all and others such as the menai straight have been mentioned.
40 GW ish is the total UK electricity consumption? 1 GW at a very conservative estimate from the pentland firth, similar from the sound of islay. 2 gw of 40 GW is 5%. thats just from 2 sites using the lowest estimates
20 % is certainly within range
Honestly Nuclear fission is the only currently available solution to provide suitable base load of electrical generation without burning fossil fuels
Except it’s not currently available.
Oops. Misread that. FUSION not currently available.
TJ – Dinorwig is still a hydro electric generator as it generates power using water flow. The technology used is a subset of hydro technology
It's still just a big battery.
Ta gonefishing
I'd like to see the HRA for 1GW of tidal in a single location
Then again in Scotland SEPA take a more "nuanced" view
40 GW ish is the total UK electricity consumption?
So we're now down to Electricity rather than energy.
1GW being the best estimate by experts representing approximately 2.8% of the 1Q of electricity for the UK in the 1Q 2020 (78.3 TWh I've averaged at 38.6 GW). Quite some way short of 20% and that's from the best site in the UK. Worth having absolutely no argument from me but don't kid yourself that it's easy. The new wind farms that are going in produce orders of magnitude more than that.
If tidal worked as claimed, why have other countries around the world not set up their own? We are not the only island country, or the only country with strong tidal streams. It is nothing to do with trying to suppress the Scottish economy and everything to do with the technology not being ready yet. They have been talking about tidal stream energy for decades, those of old enough to have watched "Tomorrows World" will have seen early examples.
It is a very difficult problem to solve which can be scaled up at an economic rate to make it a viable solution. I think of it a bit like Fusion - when it works, it will be great, but until it works and can be scaled with a viable economic cost, then it is just the future. But how do we solve the need now to meet our electricity demand and reduce burning of carbon fuels? Yes, we can mange demand better, but with the move to electric cars the demand will go up.
HRA?
using existing tech
I will ask again, which tech is this?
Yes, I know that if you put a turbine in moving water you can attach it to a generator and produce electricity. We all know there is more to it than that.
A handful of glichy prototypes does not "prove" anything.
No Gobuchal- tidal could produce 20% of the UKs needs using existing tech and that estimate of IGW is the lowest bar far ( not 1MW)
1000 MW = 1GW.
Drax has 4GW capacity.
Pentland could replace an average power station.
That's not my opinion but that of Dr Thomas Adcock, Associate Professor in the Department of Engineering Science at the University of Oxford
sadmadalan
Scotland is in a very unusual place with regard to tidal flow. I know of no other country were the same conditions exist ( narrow channels and high flows)
Other countries do have tidal barrage schemes
HRA?
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment.
Takes into account all of the hazards and subsequent risks from any activity.
There would probably be potentially serious environmental issues from the change in the natural water flow that such a large tidal "farm" would cause.
yes - and that 1gw is 2- 3 % of the UK consumption is it not? Add in the same from sound of islay, add in the other sites and 20% is not far off. that estimate orf 1 GW while it looks robust is the lowest I have seen
total extimnate tidal power avaiable from scottish coasts alone is 14 GW on the most optomitic estimates. thats 30+ % of UK needs from tnhe scottish coast alone
So in your book something that has been running for years in the MW region for years is simply discounted as glitchy and unreliable?
and all that done with tiny invesatment
Scotland is in a very unusual place with regard to tidal flow. I know of no other country were the same conditions exist ( narrow channels and high flows)
West Coast of Canada has larger tidal ranges and plenty of narrow channels.
Habitats Regulations Assessment
total extimnate tidal power avaiable from scottish coasts alone is 14 GW on the most optomitic estimates. thats 30+ % of UK needs from tnhe scottish coast alone
Transmission losses?
Oh that risk assesssment will be fun for sure. wonder what its like for sizewell?
it really amuses me tho the way that pro nuclear folk will use the opposite arguments to promote nuclear and to state tidal will not work
shortage of nuclear fuel? we will find more. No solution to waste - tech will provide
West Coast of Canada has larger tidal ranges and plenty of narrow channels.
Posted 2 minutes ago
good point. I have only really been looking at the scottish stuff
it really amuses me tho the way that pro nuclear folk will use the opposite arguments to promote nuclear and to state tidal will not work
I think it's more the evangelical promotion of a technology by someone who has no experience in the renewables or power generation sector. Coupled with the wiff of conspiracy theories...
yes – and that 1gw is 2- 3 % of the UK consumption is it not? Add in the same from sound of islay, add in the other sites and 20% is not far off. that estimate orf 1 GW while it looks robust is the lowest I have seen
TJ stop making numbers up.
yes – and that 1gw is 2- 3 % of the UK consumption is it not? Add in the same from sound of islay, add in the other sites and 20% is not far off. that estimate orf 1 GW while it looks robust is the lowest I have seen
By whom? Because if the answer is an SNP (or to be fair another party) politician the number is almost certainly wrong.
So in your book something that has been running for years in the MW region for years is simply discounted as glitchy and unreliable?
Scaling from MW to GW is not an easy task. Also I don't have the data to determine just how reliable the operation of those trial units have been and neither do you.
shortage of nuclear fuel? we will find more. No solution to waste – tech will provide
Oh and if you could stop misrepresenting what people say that would be great.
So in your book something that has been running for years in the MW region for years is simply discounted as glitchy and unreliable?
I haven't discounted it but it's not yet ready to scale up. It needs further development.
As I said earlier, a few years is not really enough to prove it and invest millions/billions in a major installation. Those prototypes have had issues.
It's not just the turbines but the installation techniques and suitable vessels that can work in the location. I know personally of one installation where it wrong and they ended up with a "turn" in the export cable. Easy to do when working in those currents but a major issue.
There are currently no construction vessels that can operate safely through the whole tidal cycle up there. So you have limited windows of opportunity to perform the installation.
There are some other factors to consider, all these operations need to be insured. No underwriter will insure you until you have performed 3rd party verification on the engineering and procedures. So if you kit is flawed and procedures too risky, forget it.
Gonfishing - please educate me on the numbers then.
whats the UK total consumption? the 1 GW from the pentland firth is a robust estimate from a respected engineer. Its the lowest i have seen but lets use it. ( he actually says 1.9 GW possible but 1 gw more likely) other estimates are hugely higher but lets use that one.
sound of islay has similar potential. thats 10% of UK consumption from 2 sites.
Where is my arithmetic wrong?
Oh and if you could stop misrepresenting what people say that would be great.
Where is that misrepresentation?
again where is the uranium coming from to scale up nuclear? the best estimate is we have 40 years worth at current consumption and please as well me the solution to waste
“Pentland Firth promises to be one of the best sites in the world for tidal power. What our research shows is that it could potentially generate power equivalent to almost half of Scotland’s annual electricity consumption,” said Thomas Adcock, the Oxford University engineer who led the research.
I had the link to the report but lost it. the 8 times higher estimate is the political one. 1 gw is certainly a conservative estimate but using conservative estimates is good practice.
alex222
Free Member
Nuclear is safer than fossil fuel and as green as renewables.
@alex222 - that's NOT what it says. It says that it has equally low carbon emissions when compared to renewables. That's not the same as being "green". Decommissioning and storage of radioactive waste and equipment is in no way "green" It's literally toxic. For THOUSANDS of years and any leakage during that period would be an environmental disaster on a scale rarely seen. Neither renewables of even fossil fuels have such a negative after effect.
TJ- nobody is saying that you cannot produce electricity from tidal power. Of course you can.
The current situation is that it's not ready to be scaled up yet. Further work, in all aspects of the engineering and operation is required to make it feasible. There is absolutely no economic or environmental benefit from installing a bunch of kit that doesn't work properly and you spend the next 10 years fixing it before you rip it out and replace with a proven working system.
It would be like trying to drill for oil West of Shetland with 1970s kit.
the best estimate is we have 40 years worth at current consumption
So I googled that, and the first hit was from Scientific America...
According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.
TJ read my previous post regarding UK electrical demand for 1Q 2020. The 1GW that is the best estimate from an actual expert is the only figure that you have references. That number represents around 2.8% of the UKs total UK ELECTRICITY demand. You then state that the sound of Islay is about the same. you haven't included any sort of source for that number. You then added "other sites" and then magically say that you've got to 20%. You've demonstrated 2.8% and then made up numbers to get to 20%.
yes – and that 1gw is 2- 3 % of the UK consumption is it not? Add in the same from sound of islay, add in the other sites and 20% is not far off. that estimate orf 1 GW while it looks robust is the lowest I have seen
The other point you have misrepresented are as follows
shortage of nuclear fuel? we will find more.
I never said that. I said that nuclear fuel was like every other raw material that we would have to go looking for just like oil, lithium, coal or any other rare earth metal. I never said it was an infinite resource that was out there to be discovered.
No solution to waste – tech will provide
The solution is encasement and storage based on the actual risk associated with how hazardous the material actually is. This is existing technology that need political will and long term options to deal with. It is far from a perfect solution I agree but that doesn't make it unworkable.
Tidal power has a real potential; but there are issues that need further work.
1) O&M is currently expensive, after financing costs its the bigest cost for the sector - as above its underwater. Floating tidal mitigates this but it is still offshore. THis should reduce with time as further R&D gets fones
2) site phasing. - a lot of the best sites currently being considered are in phase which means that peak generation co-incides between sites. As technology is developed and lower flow sites exploited this can be mitigated. A combination of tidal range and tidal stream could probably provide baseload. However these sites are spatially seperated about the UK, which I think means the baseload isnt as useful as if generated in one place - I think becuase smaller sites are plugged into distribution network not directly to transmission.
3) Distance of sites from population cnetres has implcations for energy transfer and costs of bolstering grid infrastructure
4) Environmental impacts still need better understanding.
Lots of people researching hydrogen as an energy vector, which could have real potential for opening up renewable generation at remote sites, sites with high intermittency.
I made the 20% claim based on previous estimates fro tidal power. that showed the pentland firth at 10gw plus. During this debate the 1.9 - 1 gw number came to the fore and wbhile the lowest estimate i have seen is sufficiently robust that it seems prudent to use it as a base. so yes - that reduces my 20% number.
sound Of islay is again a site whith huge potential
BTW - a tidal generator has been running in norway since 2003 - and those are the proven turbines that are being installed in a plant in the sound of islay ( dunno if its started yet)
here are some peer reviewed numbers and analysis of other sites
Note they believe the 1.9 gw for the pentland firth is too low
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148117302082
Bottom line is we don't have solution today, as we phase out fossil fuels we will need electrical generation to increase significantly to offset the direct use of gas in homes and businesses and ICE vehicles being phased out. Nuclear is an option, short term expensive but safe and reliable, medium term the fuel will run out and long term what do we do with the waste.
Tidal is years away from making a dent, nice to see today around 23% of electrical demand is solar and wind. We need to ramp this up fast, loads of roof space out there we could cover in panels, just need to sort out more mass energy storage. Wind also has a lot more to offer, loads of onshore possibilities if the NIMBYs can be made to shut up. I can see 5 major turbines from my window, space on the hillside for another 50 easily, it's all ex industrial moorland anyway, ironically used to be coal mines, when they put the first turbines in they actually cleared up some of the land.
However it will only really change when gas starts to run out, we're still at 50% electricity generation today from gas and a huge amount more used for heating and industrial processes.
We're going to need every energy source and a renewed drive to reduce usage, still massive amounts wasted through unnecessary use and refusal to upgrade to more efficient technology, how many homes still have incandescent bulbs.
Does anyone know much about hydrogen production, storage and transmission.
When I read the report this morning about Scottish windfarms being used to produce hydrogen I thought it was quite interesting as I understand that on windy days the installed capacity in Scotland produces more power than is actually needed and a lot of generation capacity is wasted?
The first test site is apparently going to go ahead at Whitelee.
Only way to settle this is to play a game; http://siemens.zincmediadev.com/energy/island/index.html
(Note - game is aimed at school children but I think it will work for STW people as well)
I was lucky enough to play with one of the reactors at Risø in Denmark before ignorant people forced them to close them all down.
They had tons of nuclear waste stored there, but most of it was from hospitals.
I assume you are dead against the use of all the radioactive isotopes in Hospitals as well due to the problem with the waste from that?
Its a very interesting idea richmtb but with issues. well proven on small scale ( Unst / PURE) but scaling it up has its own issues. Storing hydrogen at large scale is tricky. It can go thru ordinary steel and plastics so clever solutions needed materials wise and its low density so you need a lot of storage - even in liquid form and I believe making it liquid is not easy either.
its also very dangerous and making it back into electricity is not without issues - either burnt in engine which is inefficient or use a fuel cell which needs needs expensive catalysts
its something with huge potential and the main issue with renewables is energy storage but its a long way from proven tech. I am hopeful for it and whitelees is a good sounding project.
Mikkel - hospital waste is nothing like as dangerous as generator waste and has huge benefits.
Mikkel
Free MemberThey had tons of nuclear waste stored there, but most of it was from hospitals.
I assume you are dead against the use of all the radioactive isotopes in Hospitals as well due to the problem with the waste from that?
That's utter bollocks.
Hospital radioactive waste is tiny and relatively harmless compared to spent fuel rods.
90% of hospital waste has a decay rate which renders it inert inside of 30-40 days and the remaining 10% is inert inside of 30 years. nuclear power on the scale we're talking about generates 200-400 metric tonnes of extremely radioactive waste which will not fully decay for thousands of years. Not only that, but the spent fuel must be guarded as it can be used for weapons and cannot be stored together as there's a risk of explosion. Thus you need several sites.
Note they believe the 1.9 gw for the pentland firth is too low
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148117302082/blockquote >
That's not how I read that although I haven't read it in depth. It is an interesting paper though and one I intend to read properly. What is does indicate however is where the disparity of 19 MW (ish) quoted by Alex Salmond might have come from. This is an estimate of the the peak power that is available from the pentland firth however as we are talking about tidal currents this will only be available for a very short period of time and my guess, although I do not know, is that Mr Salmond being the canny politician that he is has quoted the peak figure without context to grab a headline. The 1GW is to average over an entire tidal cycle which is a much better estimate to the real available power. I suspect, although again I do not know, that this figure will also account for times when the equipment is out of service for repair/maintenance/damage that sort of thing. If this is the case then the 1GW is likely to be a much much more realistic number of what can actually be achieved.
That game is tough by the way... Just saying.
That's shit news. I worked at Wylfa until it shut down. The area was struggling and Wylfa provided a massive amount of jobs, not only from the site but also the local economy. B and B for contractors, local shops and bus and taxi firms.
The locals were all for a new reactor. That is really crap news.
If this is the case then the 1GW is likely to be a much much more realistic number of what can actually be achieved.
I am going to have to agree with you on that. I had been listening too much to the politicians I guess. an example of learning thru debate.
When I read the report this morning about Scottish windfarms being used to produce hydrogen I thought it was quite interesting as I understand that on windy days the installed capacity in Scotland produces more power than is actually needed and a lot of generation capacity is wasted?
Yep - we pay operators a subsidy when production is too high. If we could efficiently store electricity instead, that would help balance it out.
Also - more pumped storage. There's another scheme planned above Loch Ness (Red John).
Pumped storage - we really do not have enough space to build enough to make a big difference from what I know IIRC current pumped storage is around 4 hours worth of usage and we need storage more like 2 weeks of usage.. Cracking the storage issue is the holy grail of renewables. Hydrogen looks the best bet IMO - but a long way of practical yet.