Pentland Firth Tidal Scheme

[Lancashire Lad]

It seems fairly obvious that sub sea tidal stream turbines offer a far more reliable energy source than wind turbines – tides are predictable and consistent, whereas wind is not.

Recent announcements confirm that Meygen, a marine energy consortium, has entered into agreement with the Crown Estate to construct a (£1.6billion), 400MW tidal scheme in Scotland’s Pentland Firth: -
Tidal bidder MeyGen wins Scottish ?jewel in the crown? marine site / marine energy news

The scheme will consist of 400 “Atlantis AK1000” tidal turbines, each with a potential to generate 1MW of power: -
Press Release

Although I strongly favour sub-sea tidal generation over wind, it goes without saying that the underwater sites for these sub-sea facilities need to be chosen very carefully indeed to avoid potentially detrimental impact upon both marine life and terrain in general. Economics must also be a major consideration, and any (ultimately consumer financed) subsidies for such schemes, must be kept within reasonable bounds.

Whilst this particular proposal will undoubtedly create much local employment, both in component manufacture and on-site construction, it is somewhat disappointing to discover that the Meygen consortium comprises of International Power (45%), US investment bank Morgan Stanley (45%), and Singapore tidal company Atlantis – the turbine design company (10%). Yet again, major commercial construction industry projects within Britain, being wholly owned by foreign interests.

Why oh why, can’t British companies get their act together and, so to speak, do such projects “in house”?

As something of an aside, it is interesting to note that the Crown Estate owns the seabed around Britain’s coast, and that it will be paid a rent by Meygen for use of the seabed area. (A nice little earner for the Royal family too, who will benefit from 15% of the Crown Estate’s profits).

All in all, I have mixed feelings towards this scheme. I favour the concept as a good environmentally friendly solution, but I can’t help feeling that Britain, as an industrial country, should be capable of constructing and “buying British” at the end of the day.

Regards,
Mike.

[bigdave60dog]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

It seems fairly obvious that sub sea tidal stream turbines offer a far more reliable energy source than wind turbines – tides are predictable and consistent, whereas wind is not.

Recent announcements confirm that Meygen, a marine energy consortium, has entered into agreement with the Crown Estate to construct a (£1.6billion), 400MW tidal scheme in Scotland’s Pentland Firth: -
Tidal bidder MeyGen wins Scottish ?jewel in the crown? marine site / marine energy news

The scheme will consist of 400 “Atlantis AK1000” tidal turbines, each with a potential to generate 1MW of power: -
Press Release

Although I strongly favour sub-sea tidal generation over wind, it goes without saying that the underwater sites for these sub-sea facilities need to be chosen very carefully indeed to avoid potentially detrimental impact upon both marine life and terrain in general. Economics must also be a major consideration, and any (ultimately consumer financed) subsidies for such schemes, must be kept within reasonable bounds.

Whilst this particular proposal will undoubtedly create much local employment, both in component manufacture and on-site construction, it is somewhat disappointing to discover that the Meygen consortium comprises of International Power (45%), US investment bank Morgan Stanley (45%), and Singapore tidal company Atlantis – the turbine design company (10%). Yet again, major commercial construction industry projects within Britain, being wholly owned by foreign interests.

Why oh why, can’t British companies get their act together and, so to speak, do such projects “in house”?

As something of an aside, it is interesting to note that the Crown Estate owns the seabed around Britain’s coast, and that it will be paid a rent by Meygen for use of the seabed area. (A nice little earner for the Royal family too, who will benefit from 15% of the Crown Estate’s profits).

All in all, I have mixed feelings towards this scheme. I favour the concept as a good environmentally friendly solution, but I can’t help feeling that Britain, as an industrial country, should be capable of constructing and “buying British” at the end of the day.

Regards,
Mike.

Thanks Mike,
I hate to get involved with politics on this site but you need to remember that we have an SNP Scottish Government and an enormous majority of labour seats in Scotland.
The present government is not going to do anything that will assist either Labour or the SNP. Much less encourage a financially independent Scotland.
The rights and wrongs of this situation is not for a wildlife Forum but that is why we have this type of situation where the same may not necessarily occur in a strong Tory area.
Cheers,
Dave

[Hobjob]

I still don't see tidal power as helping much with base load.

No doubt they will work on both the ebb and the flow, but IIRC thre is a sinusoidal curve to tidal sea speeds, so for a large part of the time there will not be much "power" available.

Any of the experts here know the figures?

[Lancashire Lad]

Can't find specific data, but you are correct.
There will be a period of slack water, followed by gradual build up to full tide run, followed by gradual slow down to slack water onece again.

As far as base load use is concerned, at least with tidal schemes, the times for generated output will be able to be calculated with some accuracy.

So, for argument's sake, it might be known that the tide would be in full flow at 3.30pm in six days time. (And given the slow revolution speed at which these turbines operate, it might be possible to obtain full output for say three/four hours on any given rising/falling tide).

Thus it is entirely feasable to program the use of the electricity which will be generated as part of base load. And, since tides run at different times of day in deifferent locations around the coast, it should be possible (given enough tidal schemes) to ensure continuity of a given amount of supply.

I agree that it will be some years before this technology is in a position to deliver major contributions to base load, but it can easily be seen that tidal schemes will most definitely be more reliable as a supply source than any current or future wind farm can ever be.

As far as comparable efficiency goes, they have a very long way to go before they will be able to compete with typical base load provision from coal/gas/nuclear, and they are subject to even more subsidy than offshore wind (Scottish tidal schemes currently attract 3 ROC's/MW)

Regards,
Mike.