"tim..." wrote in message
...

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
writes

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:09:28 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
om...
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.

I meant in the economic sense, not the technical sense.

The bean counters are going to want to see what the actual output is,
against the cost of construction.

It it doesn't work out, it's their money they are wasting, no-one else's.
The bill payer only gets a bill for the energ generated.

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

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.

A Nuke has higher running costs.

and then there is the "political" costs

Rightly or wrongly, there is a mistrust of Nuclear that makes getting
approval difficult

Wrongly
I understand that there are environmental issues with barriers that makes
them hard as well, but they are (probably) easier to overcome.


Likewise, only an idiot would build 50 tidal barrages at £1 billion
each, when they could build a single nuke for about £20 billion,

Not if the political barriers are too hard to overcome.

You may disagree with that those barriers are well founded, but they are
undoubtedly there.

Yes because there is no-one in government with any engineering knowledge
whatsoever. They're all right brained ****wits.

The political pressure doesn't come directly from government

Sometimes it does, particularly with the global warming ****.

it comes from the population

No it doesn't with the global warming ****.

(Rightly or Wrongly)

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.

I agree that the number of suitable sites is an issue,
The number of suitable sites or lack of kills the whole concept dead in
the water.
but individually that doesn't make a single complementary set of
barriers pointless,
Yes it does. Building several generating stations to get the equivalent
output of one is shear lunacy.
any more that building a single hydro power station that can only
produce 0.5% of total requirements pointless.
A hydro power station bears no resemblance to a tidal lagoon.

tim



--
bert