| This looks like a great concept 13:27 - Dec 27 with 724 views | StokieBlue |
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/dec/27/london-eye-architect-propose
The proposed barrage a few years back ran into a lot of environmental objections around wildlife and disturbing the estuary, this proposal avoids many of those issues by curving into the estuary then back to land.
It could generate enough clean power for 2m homes as well as providing recreational walks and cycle paths into the estuary and even a lido.
We are going to need bold proposals like this going forward, hopefully it will be considered.
SB |  | | |  |
| This looks like a great concept on 13:47 - Dec 27 with 640 views | NthQldITFC |
The fact that our stupid, privatised, failing UK PLC hasn't invested in tidal and wave energy yet is a bleedin' disgrace, but what do you expect of successive governments voted in by a money- and property-obsessed electorate who have forgotten since Thatcher that health and happiness and environmental sustainability are the truly important metrics. |  |
| |
| This looks like a great concept on 15:24 - Dec 27 with 538 views | DJR |
I'd be interested to know what those with expertise think about this proposal in a technical sense, leaving aside any environmental side effects.
It promises 2,500 MV of electricity but the largest tidal scheme in the world at the moment produces only 254 MV.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sihwa_Lake_Tidal_Power_Station
Leaving that aside, a couple of passages from the article struck me.
"even though there are several hours when tides turn each day with little or no power"
"If the decision is to go ahead with adopting more and more AI – which I am surprised is not being questioned more at a time of climate emergency – then it is going to be better with a renewable energy source,” said Barfield. “Datacentres could double energy demand and this is a predictable and reliable source.” [Post edited 27 Dec 15:26]
|  | | |
| This looks like a great concept on 16:08 - Dec 27 with 471 views | EdwardStone |
| This looks like a great concept on 15:24 - Dec 27 by DJR |
I'd be interested to know what those with expertise think about this proposal in a technical sense, leaving aside any environmental side effects.
It promises 2,500 MV of electricity but the largest tidal scheme in the world at the moment produces only 254 MV.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sihwa_Lake_Tidal_Power_Station
Leaving that aside, a couple of passages from the article struck me.
"even though there are several hours when tides turn each day with little or no power"
"If the decision is to go ahead with adopting more and more AI – which I am surprised is not being questioned more at a time of climate emergency – then it is going to be better with a renewable energy source,” said Barfield. “Datacentres could double energy demand and this is a predictable and reliable source.” [Post edited 27 Dec 15:26]
|
Predictable and reliable are the cudgels that the pro-nuclear nutters use to beat the renewables lobby
For centuaries we have known that tides ebb and flow, that Ol' Man River endlessly flows and that waves just won't stop waving
Yet we tip endless squillions of pounds into shiny new Sizewell and Hinckley Point white elelphants in order to provide for the base load when the wind isn't blowing and the sun ain't shining
If only someone clever could have thought of this earlier...... |  | | |
| This looks like a great concept on 16:31 - Dec 27 with 417 views | DJR |
| This looks like a great concept on 16:08 - Dec 27 by EdwardStone |
Predictable and reliable are the cudgels that the pro-nuclear nutters use to beat the renewables lobby
For centuaries we have known that tides ebb and flow, that Ol' Man River endlessly flows and that waves just won't stop waving
Yet we tip endless squillions of pounds into shiny new Sizewell and Hinckley Point white elelphants in order to provide for the base load when the wind isn't blowing and the sun ain't shining
If only someone clever could have thought of this earlier...... |
My comment was mainly concerned the technical aspects of the project, and was neutral when it came to other other sources of electricity but I did come across the following with a bit more digging, the first from the MIT.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-dont-we-use-tidal-power-more
https://www.ft.com/content/2462d15d-d07b-433d-8406-d5dcb42056b0
As regards continuity, the schemes around Orkney (which do not involve a barrage) do not seem to suffer from that issue because they are located in a place where the tide flows constantly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67639476 [Post edited 27 Dec 16:46]
| | | |
| This looks like a great concept on 16:49 - Dec 27 with 369 views | EdwardStone |
Thanks for these articles.... F T seems to be paywalled
M I T points out some truisms; you can't just develop a mature industry... you have to start at the beginning . Without the Wright brothers there would not have been Concorde
It all takes time, investment and patience
The civilian Nuclear industry has had more than 60 years to develop..... from complex dangerous reactors that were millions of pounds over budget, countless years late into service and fail to deliver as promised. And now look how they have moved forward to new generating stations that are crazy over budget, waaaay behind schedule, fail to generate as much as promised and yet governments across the World lavish them with boundless generosity, showering them with riches beyond any comprehension
M I T seem to be saying that Tidal is all a bit involved and complicated...... but I feel that this is exactly the kind of progress we should be fully supporting, it will be a part of the meze of generation that provides safe energy for the future | | | |
| This looks like a great concept on 17:07 - Dec 27 with 331 views | NthQldITFC |
| This looks like a great concept on 16:49 - Dec 27 by EdwardStone |
Thanks for these articles.... F T seems to be paywalled
M I T points out some truisms; you can't just develop a mature industry... you have to start at the beginning . Without the Wright brothers there would not have been Concorde
It all takes time, investment and patience
The civilian Nuclear industry has had more than 60 years to develop..... from complex dangerous reactors that were millions of pounds over budget, countless years late into service and fail to deliver as promised. And now look how they have moved forward to new generating stations that are crazy over budget, waaaay behind schedule, fail to generate as much as promised and yet governments across the World lavish them with boundless generosity, showering them with riches beyond any comprehension
M I T seem to be saying that Tidal is all a bit involved and complicated...... but I feel that this is exactly the kind of progress we should be fully supporting, it will be a part of the meze of generation that provides safe energy for the future |
'It all takes time, investment and patience.'
It shouldn't take too much time or patience; it's not exactly high tech in terms of either efficient design or safety considerations when weighed against practical requirements. It could take time if modern, corrupt practices are allowed in planning and contracting, but this ought to be a national infrastructure project, bought into by the public and bought by public funding with parasitic capitalism kept as far away as possible.
If we don't stand up as a country, as individuals, and demand that things like this are done for the public good and for the environment and not used as yet another cynical vehicle for the extraction of money at the expense of security, we're fked. Truly fked. | |
| |
| This looks like a great concept on 17:40 - Dec 27 with 269 views | J2BLUE |
Lots of upside. Minimal downside. I wonder why it will get rejected. |  |
| |
| This looks like a great concept on 17:45 - Dec 27 with 252 views | EdwardStone |
| This looks like a great concept on 17:40 - Dec 27 by J2BLUE |
Lots of upside. Minimal downside. I wonder why it will get rejected. |
Vested interests will enthusiastically agree that it is is fine in principle, but there are just too many details to be addressed before any meaningful progress can be allowed
Lots of hand wringing, statements that start "Yes, but..."
It's almost enough for a carnivore such as myself vote for Mr Polanski to bang a few heads together | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| This looks like a great concept on 17:46 - Dec 27 with 244 views | J2BLUE |
| This looks like a great concept on 17:45 - Dec 27 by EdwardStone |
Vested interests will enthusiastically agree that it is is fine in principle, but there are just too many details to be addressed before any meaningful progress can be allowed
Lots of hand wringing, statements that start "Yes, but..."
It's almost enough for a carnivore such as myself vote for Mr Polanski to bang a few heads together |
He would be too busy withdrawing from NATO and asking Putin to pretty please play nice. | |
| |
| This looks like a great concept on 17:57 - Dec 27 with 202 views | EdwardStone |
| This looks like a great concept on 17:46 - Dec 27 by J2BLUE |
He would be too busy withdrawing from NATO and asking Putin to pretty please play nice. |
Tbh, I'm not quite sure that is what Mr P is saying
More along the lines that he will talk to anyone anytime to point out the error of their ways, including deluded fool Putin
And Nato needs a bit of a re-jig as it currently is not really able to do what it should | | | |
| This looks like a great concept on 17:59 - Dec 27 with 197 views | DJR |
| This looks like a great concept on 16:49 - Dec 27 by EdwardStone |
Thanks for these articles.... F T seems to be paywalled
M I T points out some truisms; you can't just develop a mature industry... you have to start at the beginning . Without the Wright brothers there would not have been Concorde
It all takes time, investment and patience
The civilian Nuclear industry has had more than 60 years to develop..... from complex dangerous reactors that were millions of pounds over budget, countless years late into service and fail to deliver as promised. And now look how they have moved forward to new generating stations that are crazy over budget, waaaay behind schedule, fail to generate as much as promised and yet governments across the World lavish them with boundless generosity, showering them with riches beyond any comprehension
M I T seem to be saying that Tidal is all a bit involved and complicated...... but I feel that this is exactly the kind of progress we should be fully supporting, it will be a part of the meze of generation that provides safe energy for the future |
Sorry about that. The link worked for me the first time but no longer.
It was an article about a report on tidal power by NESO, the government owned energy system operator.
Here's another article about the report.
https://www.newpower.info/2025/10/neso-finds-tapping-tidal-range-generation-woul
As regards nuclear power, the UK produced the first civil nuclear power station in 1956 only two years after the creation of the United Kingdom Energy Authority. That was nationalisation for you but these days we rely on others and the private sector for the technology and the delays.
In those days there was clearly a will as well as a way, but the only observation I would have when it comes to tidal power is that this is not a route that the Chinese have gone down despite their drive towards renewables. Maybe this does just point to some sort of limitation when it comes to tidal power, and for what it is worth I am inclined to think the approach in Orkney is maybe the better and less risky way forward.
I might add that the article in the Guardian does seem to be a bit of a powder puff piece, maybe aimed at attracting/rekindling attention/investment, given that this story first emerged about a year ago.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvglq9v6679o
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/10-9bn-somerset-tidal-power-proposal-wil [Post edited 27 Dec 18:05]
| | | |
| This looks like a great concept on 19:07 - Dec 27 with 103 views | ronnyd |
I can't see it happening. All we have had for a number of year is successive governments of either colour wringing their hands regarding our generating infrastructure, without ever coming to a real decision. Yes, it sounds great, but have they got the balls to actually do it and others like it. |  | | |
| This looks like a great concept on 19:23 - Dec 27 with 66 views | Swansea_Blue |
Price seems to be the killer, yet they are cheaper now than when wind farms first popped up (just about). So you’d expect costs to drop. I suspect though they have a much higher potential future cost than wind has now achieves, even with technological improvements. Ultimately the bulk of the cost is going to be the massive scale earthworks needed for the barrages.
Reliability isn’t such an issue. Down times at slack water are apparently fairly minimal and it’s only really an issue at high water when they don’t have the potential head for a pretty short period of time. Bi-directional turbines allow them to operate through the whole falling tide and low slack water as water is released from the barrage, and then they reverse and power up on the rising tide too. If you had multiple around the coasts there’d be no dead spot due to tide time differences.
The one proposed here in Swansea was scuppered on financial grounds. The Welsh Government backed it, offered significant capital funding and provided a guarantee, but the UK government wouldn’t offer them an energy contract. It was expensive; they needed about £150/megawatt, which is about half as much again as nuclear (if you ignore disposal and decommissioning costs). But it would have been a groundbreaking project. Ecological concerns were significant as well. [Post edited 27 Dec 19:25]
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
