Tidal & Geothermal CfD Prices
By Paul Homewood
I had not noticed at the time, but the last CfD round, AR5, included some tidal and geothermal projects.
.
https://cfd.lowcarboncontracts.uk/
The amounts are tiny, 94 and 12 MW respectively. But the prices are extremely high, particularly tidal.
It remains to be seen whether the govt pours millions more into future projects at these sort of prices.
It is also worth noting that there was a big hike in the Administrative Strike Price for the next AR6 round:
These are at 2012 prices. I don’t have the 2024 indexation yet, but at 2023 prices tidal will cost £358/MWh, and geothermal £216/MWh.
While Claire Coutinho is patting herself on the back for introducing all of this wonderful low carbon technology, our energy bills will incur the cost!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Low Carbon Technologies?
Some news for the Gullible:
Each MW of wind power ‘capacity’ requires 220 Tonnes of coal!
Carbon footprint of a typical wind turbine is a massive 241.85 tons of CO2.
EACH 3MW Wind Turbine Needs:
335 tons of steel; 4.7 tons of copper;
1,200 tons of concrete (cement and aggregates)
3 tons of aluminium; 2 tons of rare earth elements;
Aluminium; Zinc; Molybdenum. Zinc, Nickel,
Cobalt, Platinum, Aluminium, Rare Earth Elements,
and Nickel (new sources), are between 73 and 100% imported.
BLADES each weighing around 10,000 kilograms, the size of a jet fighter
contain multiple materials, resin, balsa wood,
aluminium, non-recyclable fibre, fibreglass,
hot ovens for curing, bolts, etc. Varnish, toxic Plastics. Etc etc
All drilled, mined, processed and transported, thousands of miles using fossil fuels, then dumped on our fragile upland ecosystems and pristine seas.
They last about 20 years and will require replacement time and time again!
And the bird slaughter continues with impunity, at the European average of 500 Birds per turbine per year.
Details for all to see at – Stop These Things – here —
https://stopthesethings.com/2014/08/16/how-much-co2-gets-emitted-to-build-a-wind-turbine/
They should have CfD Administrative Strike Prices for Activist Politicians and Ruinable Energy Promoters chained to exercise bicycles fitted with dynamos.
Payment to be made to the chaps beating a drum and encouraging effort by application of cat o’ninetails.
Despite my advanced age, would be content to do either of the latter jobs.
I would seek an age-related alternative for the flogging if I were you. How about a nice cattle prod.
Pouring money into these niche sources is pointless, as they are only viable in a few places in the world, so they will achieve diddly in global CO2. This is where the magic word “target” comes in, many people seem to think that a tiny country meeting a zero-consequence target is important, as we have seen in the case of Scotland.
Energy security is a different argument, but few people ever mention it.
So a large component of our energy mix (i.e. wind) will cost about £100 / MWh: what chance has UK industry got based on that? The Germans charge domestic users more – a form of taxation, but at least a subsidy for industry. Hope that our overseas investment income can keep us.
If you take money away from consumers/taxpayers then that money is no longer available to buy stuff even if electricity to business is free.
And despite subsidising industrial electricity, companies are going bankrupt, cutting production, relocating production or leaving completely on a regular basis in Germany. They have been trying to keep some of the costs from domestic users by paying it out of taxation but with the economy in recession and with no sign of any improvement, the government is struggling to find the money from taxation. And to cap it all off, Germany now imports energy having stupidly closed its nuclear plants based on lies from the Green Party.
But Paul, didn’t you get the memo? Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels – allegedly.
There’s that pesky work “allegedly” popping up. Nasty, that.
There were also awards under AR4 for tidal stream but only for £178.54 although none of them are built yet so we may never incur a penny of course.
‘Dutch province of Utrecht returns to fossil fuel as power-grid faces meltdown’ [25th. April 2024]:
https://brusselssignal.eu/2024/04/dutch-province-of-utrecht-returns-to-fossil-fuel-as-power-grid-faces-meltdown/
..Utrecht returns to fossil fuel..
The Netherlands is a densely populated country that is probably very suitable for coal-fired with CHP.
Tidal barrages are very very expensive to build.
Sihwa S Korea 254MW @$298m in 2011
La Rance France 240MW @$115m in 1966
Annapolis Canada 20MW cost?
Jiangxia China 3.2MW in 1980 now upgraded to 4.1MW
Kislaya Guba Russia 0.4MW in 1968 now 1.7MW
South Korea is planning further tidal power stations.
There have only been two major tidal power generation facilities built and only one this century. The evidence is they last considerably longer than a wind turbine. The cost is at 2011 prices $1million per MW to build.
The Sihwa facility produces 550GWh annually. If it ran 24/7 all year it would produce 2225GWh giving a load factor of around 25%
The positives are longevity and low running costs after initial build. A bit like nuclear in that respect.
To match the 7.8GW interconnectors you would need about 32GW of tidal generation. At 2011costs that would be $32 billion. With HS2 as a guide at least 10 times that.
“The positives are longevity and low running costs after initial build. A bit like nuclear in that respect.”
Isn’t there an issue with component erosion, thanks to the abrasive liquid turning the turbines?
The turbines at La Rance were well protected by sacrificial anodes and operated for several decades before requiring refurbishment. They are rather more robust in construction than a ship’s propeller which is similarly exposed and protected.
The tidal projects being subsidised are not tidal barrages, but tidal stream turbines. These have similar issues of intermittency and low average capacity factor. They have much bigger issues arising from the nature of tidal streams. Surface wave action and significant shear of current strength with water depth results in severe stresses on the rotors and hubs and very flickery output. They have to employ extreme stabilisation measures for their output. The standard now is to produce to a twin battery with one half absorbing the noisy generation and the other supplying power to the local grid, swapping over during slack water. Hydrogen electrolysers are also used to attempt stabilisation at O2 Orbital. All this adds cost. Meanwhile the economics are limited by the small turbine size necessary to limit the stresses on the rotors. The cube of velocity rule coupled with the shear are brutal, with attempts at larger designs soon wrecked.
it is hard to see the technology ever being economic.
If Rance was so successful in France you would think they would have built others. No other system exists.
There is also Lake Sihwa in Korea which is a similar size of project. Attempts at a project in the Bay of Fundy foundered https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapolis_Royal_Generating_Station
So long , and the fish now say thanks for stopping.
La Rance and Lake Sihwa have in common that the investment required for the retaining barrage was minimal. At La Rance, most of it is occupied by the turbines, sluices and a lock – and it serves as a 4 lane highway between St Malo and Dinard, saving a lengthy detour inland to the next bridge on the river. Lake Sihwa was intended to be fresh water storage, but it kept being inundated by the sea. It did not have to pay for barrage construction either, with the sluices and turbines being built into the existing causeway. Producing a maximum of ~240MW on a spring tide, neither project is large enough to cause significant difficulty on being incorporated in the grid. The average output of ~60MW is about the same as one large jet engine.
An energy “entrepreneur” once tried to hire me as a consultant. It turned out he couldn’t distinguish wave power from tidal power. Some entrepreneur. At least the great railway entrepreneurs of the 19th century could distinguish rails from trains.
The problem of intermittency afflicts tidal, if more predictable than wind. Proponents claim this is solved by placement around the UK, noting that tide times vary round the coast. I’m sure I read on this site that this is a fallacy, there being very few locations where continuity of generation could be achieved, so we’re back to feast or famine again.
The oldest tidals, France and Russia, have been upgraded to increase output possibly because if wear.
There is about 6 hours difference between high tides E to West, North to South. Aided by the most westerly point being nearly 5′ West. As tidal generation will peak at high and again at low tide it should be just about possible to, in theory, have tidal all round the coast. However the best locations are on the North Western coast of Scotland and South West England. The east coast is mainly river estuaries.
Apart from environmentalists complaining about migrating fish and birds being adversely affected. Can commercial shipping and cruises? As with wind, there are problems of remoteness.
The practicality is probably demonstrated by how few have been built in 60 years.
Correct. It is a fallacy. See
https://euanmearns.com/green-mythology-tidal-base-load-power-in-the-uk/
Tidal power is another net zero renewable falsehood – humanity needs reliable, secure, 24/7/365, affordable power, it can only come, at present, from coal, gas or nuclear