On 12/10/16 13:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:09:28 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:24:55 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


if it's the same strike price the nukes are getting, you have no case

tim

Well, yes, marginally cheaper in fact, although it's actually less
than for green energy in general. But even at the same strike price as
Hinkley, it's still poor value as it's intermittent, while Hinkley
isn't. If you were buying a car, would you be happy to pay say £15k
for a car that went for twenty miles and then stopped for an hour
before starting again, or would you prefer a car, also at £15k, that
took you from A to B without stopping?

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they build
complementary barriers elsewhere. Environmental concerns not withstanding

tim

I can't see that the technology needs proving. The tidal barrage,
associated turbines and 'modus operandi' at La Rance in Brittany was
built 50 years ago and has no doubt been fine-tuned in the intervening
years. It's a well-established and well-publicised technology.
http://tinyurl.com/h242w5d


And no one has ever built another. Why is that then?

I another thread I showed that the Swansea scheme would only produce
about 58MW when its output was averaged over a year, and that you'd
need about 50 of them to match Hinkley C, at a total cost of say £50
billion, 2.5 times the cost of Hinkley C.

I actually don't think my analogy above was particularly good. A
better one, using the above comparative figures, would be if you
bought 50 old bangers at £750 each, total cost £37,500, and you parked
them at intervals of say 10 miles along a 500 mile journey. You then
set out to drive that 500 miles but the old banger breaks down every
10 miles and you have to change cars to the next old banger and so on
until you get to your destination. Alternatively, you buy one reliable
car for £15,000 (£37,500/2.5), and drive there non-stop in one go
without the inconvenience of stopping and changing cars, and saving
£22,500 into the bargain. Only an idiot would chose the old banger
option.


Yup. Thats about te way it is.

Likewise, only an idiot would build 50 tidal barrages at £1 billion
each, when they could build a single nuke for about £20 billion,
achieve the same output of electricity, and without the added
complication of having to phase-in and then phase-out a whole series
of tidal generators four times a day. And that assumes that there are
enough sites around the UK that are suitable for 50 tidal barrages.
Which there aren't. You'd be lucky to get 10. So the whole thing is
completely pointless.

Exactly.



--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.