 | Cassandra's curse: how "The Limits to Growth" was demonized | The Oil Drum: Europe | Arctic Oil and Gas Ultimates |  |
73 comments on Andris Piebalgs on European Energy Security
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
The Severn Tidal Power Group proposal, which appears the most developed and costed, suggests 17 TWh per year from 8.64 GW installed capacity.
UK electricity consumption is 350 TWh per year, so the barrage scheme would supply less than 5%
And electricity is less than 20% of total delivered energy in the UK
I just made some rough approximations to illustrate the difficulty. A project of this scale to deliver 10% is bad enough. I did not take into account that tide is cyclic and therefore the installation would have an RMS of somewhat less than installed capacity. Forgive me for that if you will. The figure of 5% you quote makes things that much worse.
The second point you make is another thing that worries me. To generate 20% of our electricty from renewables by 2020 is to generate 5% of our total energy requirements by 2020. Oh dear!
If this were to displace coal fired plant, then you need to consider the 63% of primary energy wasted as heat. In other words 17 TWh may displace a significantly larger amount of primary energy. The tidal power is free and available every day - for so long as Earth, Moon and Sun continues to spin in space.
The cost lies in loss of amenity and inconvenienced ducks - no solution will suit everyone.
I won't dispute what you say here, the same applies to wind. Cost is a man made concept, but unfortunately money is the only universal "binder" of society.
I mentioned the Diana saga below, but this time I will use it in a more serious note. I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to how much money, both public and private has gone into this. At the end of all we will have no more than we did at the start. If the same amount of effort was put into doing something constructive there would be no problem. The fact is society is by and large none productive. The bed rock of our electrical infrastructure was built 50 years ago. To get a motivated labour force to repeat what was achieved then, especially with the "you can't make me do that its not safe" culture, is going to be a toughie.
Yes, I wasn't meaning that as a comment on the desirability of doing it or not - although I doubt it will ever be constructed (cost 8.3 billion pounds at 1988 prices). If we were serious about a transition to renewables in the UK then more consideration would be given to it than a few ministerial comments and reports left gathering dust.
According to this book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Renewable-Energy-Godfrey-Boyle/dp/0199261784 total UK potential is about 53 TWh, nearly all from the 8 largest potential sites in the UK.
Tidal power may be reliable and predictable but it is also variable between spring and neap tides, and peak generation times advance 50 minutes a day, so integration might still be a problem
Also, 350 TWh is consumption, actual generation is more like 380 TWh per year