[stone]

Interesting. My impression was more that there wasn’t really anyone in a position ready to build commercially sized tidal turbines, but I may be wrong.

I seems a shame that this promising start in 2012 wasn't repeated elsewhere. I guess Strangford Lough is the best possible site though and if more sites got developed, the remaining sites would be less amenable. https://www.power-technology.com/projects/strangford-lough/

I think it's really important though not to let detractors of windpower claim that tidal power is an alternative. At best it is a small part in a diversified RE mix. It only really works when the tides are large. During neap tide weeks, it's hopeless.
 

[Fultonius]

Atlantis Renewables (now call SAE) have built a 1.5MW , pitch regulated, variable speed fully commercial turbine, as have Andritz Hydro Hammerfest.

One of the Atlantis turbines and 3 of the Andritz ones were deployed in Meygen (Pentland firth) back in around 2016. I actually did my uni MSC thesis with Atlantis during their nacelle power testing program in Blyth at the OREC test facility just before it went north to get lowered to the seabed.

The spring/neap thing isn't a show stopper in any technical way - it's all about project economics. Do you optimise for maximum baseload and waste loads of energy when it's spring tides, or do you optimise for maximum energy export through the full cycle?


This is a plot showing the combined projected outputs of 3 Scottish sites dotted around the country across a lunar cycle, the "power limiting" one would the one optimised for baseload. You could probably further optimise them for that, but I don't think it would have a big gain economically.

Yes, if we go "too heavy" on the tidal power, and in a cold winter neap tide, low wind week we'd need loads of backup power, but in reality we're unlikely to ever get enough tidal power to have that much of a dent on UK-wide needs. And tidal is wonderfully predictable.

The biggest challenges with tidal are project economics, and operations and maintenance. When a wind turbine faults (which happens 4-5 times a year on overage) the guys (or gals Pete) jump in a van and go to site. With tidal you pretty much need to mobilise a retrieval vessel in slack tide, disconnect the nacelle, lift to the surface, go to port, repair and return.

So...annual maintenance needs to be "designed out" to 5 or 7 year periods, component reliability needs to be much higher which all leads to more and more capital cost.

SAE seem to have won a 59MW "CFD" (fixed price for energy) at £172/Mwh which is roughly 2.5x to 3x the  current cost for wind...  https://saerenewables.com/tidal-stream/meygen/

If it were cheap and easy, it would already be widespread as there are plenty out there keen for it.

[stone]

Thanks Fultonius, it's great to hear from people like you with first hand knowledge about this.

[teestub]

Perhaps I'm being overly cynical but if that was the intention, surely they'd be explicitly making a point of it in their communications?

This bit?

Should be very easy for them to show big biodiversity net gain and probably a decent amount of natural flood management as part of the works, all of which would cost buttons in the scheme of the project.

 

In addition to supporting the UK’s Net Zero objectives, the Calderdale Wind Farm will also include significant biodiversity enhancement measures. These will focus on habitat creation and restoration, further strengthening our commitment to environmental sustainability at Walshaw Moor.
 
We continue to believe this project presents a unique opportunity to deliver both renewable energy benefits and meaningful ecological improvements to the region.

[spidermonkey09]

To me the interesting bit is the way that the developers are very clearly planning on tailoring the proposal to fit the governments reforms to the planning sector almost exactly. Fairly transparently they want to make the project as big and 'nationally important' as possible so that it ends up on Ed Miliband's desk, under the auspices of the NSIP framework, rather than being dealt with entirely locally. This probably savvy tactics, given government rhetoric on infrastructure during the election campaign and the recent recall of several other large planning projects, e.g. https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/09/uk_datacenter_new_govt_planning/

This could put the government in a bit of a bind. It sounds like there are reasonable issues with this project, but whether they're out of the ordinary for such a big development I have no idea. Regardless, the government have kind of boxed themselves in by presenting themselves as pro-big infrastructure. Can they politically afford to see this scheme rejected when an application is eventually made, given that they've presented themselves as so pro-net zero and pro infrastructure development? Will be fascinating to see how it plays out.

Re Paul's point that there might be other locations nearby that are more suitable, are these owned by the same landowner do youknow? As JB sggested earlier in the thread, I guess these kinds of developmeny are restricted by the extent of land that is privately owned in the UK, projects sometimes have to go where the landowner wants to develop rather than where might be optimal. (good discussion of how compulsory purchase in the UK needs wholesale reform in Torsten Bells' book).

[Paul B]

I know Stubbs, but there isn't a single acknowledgement of the SSSI and if that's genuinely a project intention (rather than some bolt-on to box-tick and try and bolster the likelihood of it being accepted at planning), then I'd hope they'd be stating that.

Re Paul's point that there might be other locations nearby that are more suitable, are these owned by the same landowner do youknow? As JB sggested earlier in the thread, I guess these kinds of developmeny are restricted by the extent of land that is privately owned in the UK, projects sometimes have to go where the landowner wants to develop rather than where might be optimal. (good discussion of how compulsory purchase in the UK needs wholesale reform in Torsten Bells' book).

I think you covered off my feelings to the developer's approach in your post. In terms of landowners, I don't honestly know but there is a LOT of grouse moor (I'd also suspect Yorkshire Water own a lot?). I will confess that as someone that's worked extensively in the dams industry (specifically those from the Pennine era) the irony of man-made waterbodies characterising the area aren't lost on me when discussing turbines!

[teestub]

I know Stubbs, but there isn't a single acknowledgement of the SSSI and if that's genuinely a project intention (rather than some bolt-on to box-tick and try and bolster the likelihood of it being accepted at planning), then I'd hope they'd be stating that.

Well the project intention is to build some windmills and make some money, everything else is definitely a bolt on box tick.

I think they probably haven’t mentioned the SSSI and used broader terms as people get very knee jerky about SSSIs. I bet HS2 had gone through a few for a very broad example!

[Johnny Brown]

If you look at the DEFRA map, pretty much all the moorland in the Pennines is designated as SSSI. Given pretty much all the highest areas are moorland, it’s not easy to find good potential sites that aren’t SSSI.

I doubt very much if the wildlife or water retention of the moor would be worse under a wind farm than the current regime.

[Paul B]

Have you looked in the actual area  proposed and nearby as it isn't all SSSI and there's plenty of feckin' windy places nearby? As I implied, just the other side of the causeway (where there's a bunch of less tall turbines already).

As Fultonius suggested, you're going to be digging a sh*t load of Peat out for foundations suitable for the turbines suggested (again, these are on the larger side of things), access roads, enabling works (like crane pads on Peat which has the bearing capacity of about half a fart on a good day for what will be relatively large plant items) etc.

[spidermonkey09]

I don't understand. The presence of non-SSI and still windy placesnearby does not mean the (likely private) landowners there want to submit an application for a wind farm surely? Unless the govt takes charge and personally organises a load of state funded projects on compulsorily purchased land (which actually would be my preference, but won't happen in the aftermath of the HS2 debacle) we are surely restricted to applications submitted by landowners who are happy to develop that land, which probably won't be optimally positioned but will at least result in some infrastructure getting built? Edit: sorry I see you partially covered this in an earlier post, but I think the point stands in that many grouse moor owners (boo, hiss etc) are unlikely to want to develop their estates.

[Fultonius]

think the point stands in that many grouse moor owners (boo, hiss etc) are unlikely to want to develop their estates.

And the ones that do are sometimes massive @#v^bags who just want to accumulate even more wealth with exorbitant rents, all the while trying their damnedest to avoid a single penny more to the local funds than the legal minimum, the brothel running, tory funding, twats that they are. 

Yeah, compulsory purchase I would be strongly for! Shows us yer deeds ya sack o dicks!

[Paul B]

Edit: sorry I see you partially covered this in an earlier post, but I think the point stands in that many grouse moor owners (boo, hiss etc) are unlikely to want to develop their estates.

This is a thread specific to a location/proposal so no, I don't really think it does. I'm not certain on the extents owned by the landowner in question but it's safe to say they own an awful lot around here. My opinion is suitability of location trumps willingness of landowners to develop.

Yeah, compulsory purchase I would be strongly for! Shows us yer deeds ya sack o dicks!

[spidermonkey09]

I don't think its any further removed the thread topic than tidal power! But fair enough. That would be my preference too in an ideal world, I'm just unconvinced that another hypothetical compulsory purchased project in the area wouldn't be subject to significant similar objections. I think it would get more people onside for sure, but by no means all, and at the cost of very significant delays and court delays over compensation.

Topical - this was published two days ago and perhaps illustrates that compulsory purchase reform is a priority, which is good.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/compensation-for-the-compulsory-purchase-of-land/#:~:text=Compulsory%20purchase%20is%20a%20legal,public%20interest%20to%20do%20so.

[stone]

Some people very deeply value the notion that land ownership is a supreme source of authority over that land.

Personally I don't respect that so much, but I think it is important to chose the battles that gain the most with the least aggravation.

So I can understand that it may make sense to try and get windfarms by landowner consent rather than by compulsory purchase.

As an example of where I'd rather "spend" that "pissing_off powerful people" budget, it might be on insisting that moorland has to be made to comply with "Moors_for_the_Future" style restoration. (also restricting passenger flights to a CO2emission/passenger/km incompatible with private jets  ).

[Oldmanmatt]

Atlantis Renewables (now call SAE) have built a 1.5MW , pitch regulated, variable speed fully commercial turbine, as have Andritz Hydro Hammerfest.

One of the Atlantis turbines and 3 of the Andritz ones were deployed in Meygen (Pentland firth) back in around 2016. I actually did my uni MSC thesis with Atlantis during their nacelle power testing program in Blyth at the OREC test facility just before it went north to get lowered to the seabed.

The spring/neap thing isn't a show stopper in any technical way - it's all about project economics. Do you optimise for maximum baseload and waste loads of energy when it's spring tides, or do you optimise for maximum energy export through the full cycle?


This is a plot showing the combined projected outputs of 3 Scottish sites dotted around the country across a lunar cycle, the "power limiting" one would the one optimised for baseload. You could probably further optimise them for that, but I don't think it would have a big gain economically.

Yes, if we go "too heavy" on the tidal power, and in a cold winter neap tide, low wind week we'd need loads of backup power, but in reality we're unlikely to ever get enough tidal power to have that much of a dent on UK-wide needs. And tidal is wonderfully predictable.

The biggest challenges with tidal are project economics, and operations and maintenance. When a wind turbine faults (which happens 4-5 times a year on overage) the guys (or gals Pete) jump in a van and go to site. With tidal you pretty much need to mobilise a retrieval vessel in slack tide, disconnect the nacelle, lift to the surface, go to port, repair and return.

So...annual maintenance needs to be "designed out" to 5 or 7 year periods, component reliability needs to be much higher which all leads to more and more capital cost.

SAE seem to have won a 59MW "CFD" (fixed price for energy) at £172/Mwh which is roughly 2.5x to 3x the  current cost for wind...  https://saerenewables.com/tidal-stream/meygen/

If it were cheap and easy, it would already be widespread as there are plenty out there keen for it.

I’ve drawn and costed construction several floating docks over the years. It’s not prohibitively expensive. If we hadn’t secured land with lifting facilities here, we would have gone down that route for the yard we’re building right now. I can easily imagine incorporating recovery equipment/machinery into a self propelled dock (hybrid, Veth or the smaller Schottel thrusters). DP is now easy and quite cheap to achieve, even our new yachts will be DP1. Recover, service on site, replace. Off the top of my head, €2.5M for a 3000kW propulsion package, <€2M hull, <€1M general outfitting and we just bought a 200t crane for €0.5M. 🤷‍♂️ say €6.5M-€8M total build cost, call it 10% of that annual operating cost… If warfage and docking costs are what I imagine them to be there, I would guess it’s a viable option with considerable savings even over 5 years of operation.