The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, LJS said:

I haven't seen this. Do you have a link?

Then perhaps you shouldn't invent your own worthless bollocks and present it as something it isn't?

I have sources of qualified engineers working on the project.

Which is a far better source than the nothing of your fantasies.

You're capable of googling. I think. Then again, when you show yourself as incapable of applying any intelligence you have, perhaps not.

 

20 minutes ago, LJS said:

I presume it takes into account that this is a technology in its infancy so is likely to get cheaper over time?

There's fuck all to get cheaper.

It's a motor with a fan on it working in reverse, same as all generators. It's 150 year old technology.

The costs are the high costs of sub-sea structures to mount the generators on plus the high costs of servicing sea-structures, same as all sea structures.

Exactly the same as why wind turbines at sea are nearly double the cost of wind turbines on land - and they're not getti8ng any cheaper, despite now being a mature technology.

 

[Comfy Bean]

6 hours ago, LJS said:

I didn't. There are many reasons for labour's nosedive in Scotland. Being perceived as being  too far to the right may have played it's part although I suspect that's more to do with the new labour project than the current leadership. I've said before that I would probably have voted labour at the last GE if I lived in Englandshire.

I've explained why I currently vote SNP. I do hope to feel able to vote labour again  in the future.

As do I. I think we`ve both made the point many times over the years that Indy will see a resurgence in Labour`s fortunes up here. " Traditional " Labour voters hold the key and when you consider the numbers who were still holding out hoping for Milliband to be the next PM the last time round I reckon YES would get enough. I reckon plenty of these traditional Labour voters now see the SNP  as a vehicle for independence then we can all wait and see what Labour come up with before deciding who to vote for down the line. With Labour being all over the place at the moment and various noises coming from them that they might support indy next time round then it`s all to play for.....in my opinion. The latest convert seems to be a former Labour First Minister up here. He also has some interesting views on the eu......

He`s still a Labour man of course but I suspect he`ll now be labelled as a dirty snipper by some 

 

Asked about the Brexit negotiations, Henry McLeish said: “I think we’re slowly running out of red lines, and I’m slowly running out of patience. My Britishness is actually being squeezed out. I’m in a position now where I could vote for independence.”

McLeish, who was Scotland’s second first minister from October 2000 to November 2001, urged his own party to sharpen its constitutional policy, to at least the extent of backing a federal structure. This would see Holyrood control every aspect of public policy except defence, foreign affairs and macroeconomics.
However, Labour was “all over the place” on the issue, he said.

“The Labour Party has got to recognise that independence should not just be the flag of the Scottish National Party. They have no right to a monopoly, because independence could come from any party,” McLeish said.

“Independence isn’t necessarily about their kind of nationalism. It’s about wanting to be maybe like Finland, or Sweden or Denmark – the Nordic countries generally. We would have a different way of life, different social investment policies, be a genuinely social democratic country.”

McLeish said his changed view arose partly from Brexit: “That was like a bereavement for me. I think it was the most monumentally stupid decision this country has taken since 1945.

“That said, Scotland and England’s politics are diverging. There’s a growth of hard-headed nationalism in England, there’s xenophobia, there’s racism, there’s an ugly politics developing that we’re not part of.

“I think that for Scots it’s not just the European Union issue. It’s other issues that tend to cement the idea that maybe part of the union is not where we want to be. And being part of the EU is much more internationalist, much more ambitious, much more where a modern Scotland could be.”

He also made clear that he expected freedom of movement to be the price of continued access to the EU single market: “If the Conservative Party and their right wing and UKIP are not willing to have that, we might be left isolated if we try to get all the trade deals without being in the single market. That, to me, would convince most Scots and much of the country that we’d had enough.”

Pressed on the timing of a second referendum on Scottish independence, McLeish voiced concern that Nicola Sturgeon’s party might force her to hold a vote too soon: “There are a lot of issues, from the currency through to nation building, that the SNP haven’t bothered with too much. I think an early referendum would be a mistake.“

But he added: “I think that within five years is a possibility and, yes, I would really, really be seriously thinking about casting my vote [for independence]”.

McLeish was speaking after Theresa May’s visit to meet first minister Nicola Sturgeon in Edinburgh. “Tactically, politically it was a sound idea,” he said, but added: “I’m not sure it will do much to close that gap that has now emerged between Scotland and England.”

He deplored as “disgusting” May’s refusal to guarantee residency to EU citizens in the UK – “to use them as a bargaining chip is mean and miserable” – and suggested that parliament should still have the final say on whether to leave the EU once the Brexit terms had been negotiated.

“I’ve always been sceptical of referendums because you cannot take massively complicated issues and reduce them to a binary number, yes or no – especially when, after 43 years, this country has been starved of any decent debate about the EU. This is shallow democracy, and we deserve to have another go at it.”

 

[Comfy Bean]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

But anyway, as you're now taking on the debt that's morally yours, it's a non-issue........

[LJS]

53 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Then perhaps you shouldn't invent your own worthless bollocks and present it as something it isn't?

I have sources of qualified engineers working on the project.

Which is a far better source than the nothing of your fantasies.

You're capable of googling. I think. Then again, when you show yourself as incapable of applying any intelligence you have, perhaps not.

 

There's fuck all to get cheaper.

It's a motor with a fan on it working in reverse, same as all generators. It's 150 year old technology.

The costs are the high costs of sub-sea structures to mount the generators on plus the high costs of servicing sea-structures, same as all sea structures.

Exactly the same as why wind turbines at sea are nearly double the cost of wind turbines on land - and they're not getti8ng any cheaper, despite now being a mature technology.

 

I don't believe you. 

[eFestivals]

2 hours ago, LJS said:

I don't believe you. 

see, you're post-truth.

The facts are out there, easy to find. You prefer to stay (free)dumb and wrongly call people liars.

Myths and lies is all you have.

[LJS]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

see, you're post-truth.

The facts are out there, easy to find. You prefer to stay (free)dumb and wrongly call people liars.

Myths and lies is all you have.

Considering your record of blatant lying over the past couple of days, I'd steer clear of glass houses if I were you.

You quoted a unit cost for tidal electricity. Until you provide evidence, I will assume that you made it up just like the other stuff you have made up. 

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

Considering your record of blatant lying over the past couple of days, I'd steer clear of glass houses if I were you.

You quoted a unit cost for tidal electricity. Until you provide evidence, I will assume that you made it up just like the other stuff you have made up. 

if I was wrong about the thing earlier I apologise, but it's hardly any surprise I might get confused when you now are arguing against your own arguments from the past.

But anyway, I googled around and soon realised it would be way out of your depth, so I'll give you this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_Kingdom

The numbers it quotes are from 2010, and if you wish to try to (you'll fail) dispute their relevance for today I'll leave that one with you.

And if you really want to chase down all the nitty gritty which you can then google for confo9rmations on each technical or cost point, you can find some of the smart guys amongst the indynuts in the comments under this article.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/12/worlds-first-large-scale-tidal-energy-farm-launches-scotland

And from the bit of googling i've just done, it looks like MayGen 1b wants a 'strike price' of £305 per MWh - over three times the cost of Hinkley, and much more than most offshore wind... which quite possibly means they'll be no MayGen 1b and nothing more than the piddly 6MW of 1a.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

if I was wrong about the thing earlier I apologise, but it's hardly any surprise I might get confused when you now are arguing against your own arguments from the past.

I almost thought I was getting a real apology for a minute.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

But anyway, I googled around and soon realised it would be way out of your depth, so I'll give you this...

If I want patronised, i can find much better people than you to patronise me thanks 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_Kingdom

The numbers it quotes are from 2010, and if you wish to try to (you'll fail) dispute their relevance for today I'll leave that one with you.

And if you really want to chase down all the nitty gritty which you can then google for confo9rmations on each technical or cost point, you can find some of the smart guys amongst the indynuts in the comments under this article.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/12/worlds-first-large-scale-tidal-energy-farm-launches-scotland

And from the bit of googling i've just done, it looks like MayGen 1b wants a 'strike price' of £305 per MWh - over three times the cost of Hinkley, and much more than most offshore wind... which quite possibly means they'll be no MayGen 1b and nothing more than the piddly 6MW of 1a.

What your articles prove irrefutably is that, as I said, " This is a technology in its infancy so is likely to get cheaper over time"

I presume you will now accept that your claim that its a 150 year old technology is just ridiculous. Yes something whizzing round some copper coils has been around for a while, but adapting it to its most efficient form for wind power took many years.If it didn't they'd look like this..

It may have escaped your attention but sea water is different from air so it will take just as long to perfect the technology. The high costs of that development allied to the small scale of the early tidal power plants mean the costs are bound to be high at this stage.

 Here is an article that challenges some of the assumptions ...https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/may/18/tidal-energy-uk-best-secret

Even if it ends up being more expensive than wind power, tidal power is a premium product. Unlike wind power it is predictiable and guaranteed. The only other non fossil fuel powered power source that can say that is Nuclear. Should we rely 100% on nuclear for our "base" power needs. (hydro is another one but not capable of significant expansion beyond what we already produce I should imagine - although we could always flood a few welsh valleys!!!)

Are there problems with tidal power? Yes, Like wind power its in the wrong place and the technology is largely unproven in the long term. Similar arguments were made against wind power 20 or 30 years ago. Few now dispute that it should produce  a significant proportion of our electricity. 

So there is an element of risk involved but there is also a prize much greater than a few giggly warts of electricity. Keeping in the forefront of developing the technology will give business & employment opportunities flogging that technology around the world. The Danes have done pretty well out of windmills.

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

What your articles prove irrefutably is that, as I said, " This is a technology in its infancy so is likely to get cheaper over time"

and two years later you still haven't realised that making it up in your head doesn't equal a fact.

It might get ten percent cheaper, but that will still leave it as three times more expensive than Hinckley C.

 

 

Edited September 23, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Even if it ends up being more expensive than wind power, tidal power is a premium product. Unlike wind power it is predictiable and guaranteed.

It's *ONLY* the 'predictable' which makes tidal worthwhile.

Tidal in just about all places - and certainly with MayGen (it might be different in the Bristol channel, because of its truly massive tidal range) - is less efficient than wind's 30-ish% while costing far more.

The most efficient tidal generation comes from 'tidal lagoons', which is a 50+ year old technology - that no one is doing, because the environmental costs are so high.

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Are there problems with tidal power? Yes, Like wind power its in the wrong place and the technology is largely unproven in the long term.

The 'wrong place' is just about everywhere, because standard tidal flows are too minimal. It needs a funnelling effect to work well, and even then its performance is comparatively poor. MayGen is the worse performing tidal installation around the UK.

 

Quote

Similar arguments were made against wind power 20 or 30 years ago. Few now dispute that it should produce  a significant proportion of our electricity. 

The climate necessities are a different argument to the supposed economic benefit that had you post about MayGen.

There is no economic benefit in paying three times as much for the same thing.

Edited September 23, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

It's *ONLY* the 'predictable' which makes tidal worthwhile.

Tidal in just about all places - and certainly with MayGen (it might be different in the Bristol channel, because of its truly massive tidal range) - is less efficient than wind's 30-ish% while costing far more.

The most efficient tidal generation comes from 'tidal lagoons', which is a 50+ year old technology - that no one is doing, because the environmental costs are so high.

The 'wrong place' is just about everywhere, because standard tidal flows are too minimal. It needs a funnelling effect to work well, and even then its performance is comparatively poor. MayGen is the worse performing tidal installation around the UK.

 

The climate necessities are a different argument to the supposed economic benefit that had you post about MayGen.

There is no economic benefit in paying three times as much for the same thing.

Presumably then, you would support stopping any government support for tidal power as it clearly, in your view, will never be economically viable?

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

Presumably then, you would support stopping any government support for tidal power as it clearly, in your view, will never be economically viable?

Did I say that?

You're trying to change from your original reason for posting about maygen, which was all about the potential economic advantages - when there's nothing meaningful at all, because power at two or three times the price it might otherwise be is not any advantage.

Meanwhile, you can't even really claim the climate advantages either, when it's your intention to pump every last drop of oil from around Scotland. It's only that climate advantage if the oil pumping stops.

 

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Did I say that?

I didn't say you did. It seemed a logical conclusion from what you had said. So, Neil, if you were in charge would you continue to support the development of tidal power. Or would you pull the plug?

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

You're trying to change from your original reason for posting about maygen, which was all about the potential economic advantages -

I think my original reason for posting was in response to the hilarious "sturgeon says Scotland" video to show that she says other things too. Whilst I do support the development of tidal power, I don't think I have made any massive claims for it. As I remember Comfy was quite big on it.

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

when there's nothing meaningful at all, because power at two or three times the price it might otherwise be is not any advantage.

Meanwhile, you can't even really claim the climate advantages either, when it's your intention to pump every last drop of oil from around Scotland. It's only that climate advantage if the oil pumping stops.

 

Whether Scotland stops or continues pumping oil is literally a drop in the ocean. And anyway does the government realistically have the power to stop folk pumping the oil?

[eFestivals]

33 minutes ago, LJS said:

I think my original reason for posting was in response to the hilarious "sturgeon says Scotland" video to show that she says other things too.

that wouldn't be any of the 'snooker' you claimed, tho, would it?

This of course isn't you inventing new 'facts' because the real ones are a bit inconvenient.

 

[eFestivals]

34 minutes ago, LJS said:

Whether Scotland stops or continues pumping oil is literally a drop in the ocean. And anyway does the government realistically have the power to stop folk pumping the oil?

Yes.

The govt issues licences. the govt can revoke licences.

The SNP demands licences are issued at a cheaper price too, currebntly.

[LJS]

59 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that wouldn't be any of the 'snooker' you claimed, tho, would it?

This of course isn't you inventing new 'facts' because the real ones are a bit inconvenient.

 

No & no

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Yes.

The govt issues licences. the govt can revoke licences.

Of course they can. However don't you think BP and the rest of them might look for some compensation?

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

The SNP demands licences are issued at a cheaper price too, currebntly.

So...?

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

Of course they can. However don't you think BP and the rest of them might look for some compensation?

does BP own anything up there still? I thought all the big players had pulled out.

But you're right, there's be a world expectation of compensation paid, and the nation state that didn't pay compensation would be economically-blackballed.

Ultimately tho it's no different to any other state compulsory purchase of a commercial enterprise, and so ultimately doesn't happen only because there's not the political will to make it happen.

 

Just now, LJS said:

So...?

The party that says there should be an oil fund is making the possibility even more remote than it ever was...?

I'd say that had a bit of relevance, as it's yet another bit of duplicitousness

You'll say that giving commercial enterprises even greater profits at Scotland's expense is .... you pushing for that oil fund and you being a good left-winger?

[LJS]

28 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

does BP own anything up there still? I thought all the big players had pulled out.

But you're right, there's be a world expectation of compensation paid, and the nation state that didn't pay compensation would be economically-blackballed.

Ultimately tho it's no different to any other state compulsory purchase of a commercial enterprise, and so ultimately doesn't happen only because there's not the political will to make it happen.

 

The party that says there should be an oil fund is making the possibility even more remote than it ever was...?

I'd say that had a bit of relevance, as it's yet another bit of duplicitousness

You'll say that giving commercial enterprises even greater profits at Scotland's expense is .... you pushing for that oil fund and you being a good left-winger?

I think the good ship oil fund was sunk many years ago by Callaghan, Thatcher etc. When they decided to split the massive oil bonanza between the oil companies & the DHSS.

[eFestivals]

31 minutes ago, LJS said:

I think the good ship oil fund was sunk many years ago by Callaghan, Thatcher etc. When they decided to split the massive oil bonanza between the oil companies & the DHSS.

your Dear Leader still likes to talk about Norway's, with the clear implication that Scotland will have one too post-indy.

I guess that classes as a dog-whistle.

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

your Dear Leader still likes to talk about Norway's, with the clear implication that Scotland will have one too post-indy.

I guess that classes as a dog-whistle.

Norway certainly took advantage of their resources far better than the UK. 

Of course in a few years time once our onshore deficit has gone, the oil money will indeed be a bonus. Who knows what will happen to oil prices (or revenues) in the medium to long term.  It is very volatile you know.

So, back to tidal power, would president Neil pull the plug?

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, LJS said:

Norway certainly took advantage of their resources far better than the UK. 

Nah, that's complete and utter bollocks - if you put aside any arguments about it being poorly spent, anyway.

Norway, as a small country with a comparatively large oil find needed a fund to protect itself from 'the dutch disease'. The UK as a large country with a comparatively small oil find did not, and therefore the money was better-invented in the UK than invested overseas.

(you do know that *all* of Norway's funds are overseas, don't you...? It doesn't protect them from the dutch disease otherwise).

And as further necessity, Norway can only draw down on that fund at a small rate - to the extent that it's recently not been able to protect them from cuts.

A fund is appropriate for Norway and would have been appropriate for Scotland if indy back then, but it never made much sense for the UK. Spending at the time was the right choice.

The wrong choices were all about how exactly it was spent, but that's a different discussion.

 

9 minutes ago, LJS said:

Of course in a few years time once our onshore deficit has gone, the oil money will indeed be a bonus. Who knows what will happen to oil prices (or revenues) in the medium to long term.  It is very volatile you know.

Yep, if you did ever see off that deficit - you won't, without them being cuts deliberately chosen to be made by Scotland (can you see it? I can't) - the oil money would indeed be a nice bonus now and then.

It just wouldn't ever make up for what you'd lost.

 

9 minutes ago, LJS said:

So, back to tidal power, would president Neil pull the plug?

I've got nowhere near enough info to give more than a generality.

The ideal would be all renewable, but there's various issues that make the power too unreliable as the only source, so that'll never happen. Sometimes the wind doesn't blow, it's night so no solar, or the tide is out, etc.

So you need a base supply of some sort - nuke is the best clean bet (outside a land of enough mountain rivers), and then stuff like gas which can be fired quickly to fill in the blanks when needed.

Tidal is much like offshore wind, popular cos it's mostly out of sight - and people will pay a premium for that, clearly. But unless the costs start to come down, which doesn't look particularly likely (at least, not by enough), they'll be a small-ish limit to how much is installed. There's also very limited good sites for tidal stream.

Wave will be the off-shore dogs bollocks, I think, if it ever gets sussed. That's the one where there's genuine opportunity to invent an entirely new technology, can be installed almost anywhere, and the percentage of time spent generating is much better than wind's 30%.

It's great some tidal is being developed in Scotland or anywhere else in the UK - we all get the climate benefit of it - but it's damned expensive, and it's unlikely Scotland would want to self-fund anything like the amount it'll probably get as part of the UK.

(Scotland is likely to get a disproportionate amount, because I guess it's got more funnel-type inlets, as well as its remoteness meaning those inlets having less shipping ... the Bristol Channel might have a fantastic tidal range, but it's also got a lot of shipping - and i suspect that's a part of the reason there doesn't seem to be too much happening down here)

[LJS]

On 23/09/2016 at 5:49 PM, eFestivals said:

I've got nowhere near enough info to give more than a generality.

The ideal would be all renewable, but there's various issues that make the power too unreliable as the only source, so that'll never happen. Sometimes the wind doesn't blow, it's night so no solar, or the tide is out, etc.

So you need a base supply of some sort - nuke is the best clean bet (outside a land of enough mountain rivers), and then stuff like gas which can be fired quickly to fill in the blanks when needed.

Tidal is much like offshore wind, popular cos it's mostly out of sight - and people will pay a premium for that, clearly. But unless the costs start to come down, which doesn't look particularly likely (at least, not by enough), they'll be a small-ish limit to how much is installed. There's also very limited good sites for tidal stream.

Wave will be the off-shore dogs bollocks, I think, if it ever gets sussed. That's the one where there's genuine opportunity to invent an entirely new technology, can be installed almost anywhere, and the percentage of time spent generating is much better than wind's 30%.

It's great some tidal is being developed in Scotland or anywhere else in the UK - we all get the climate benefit of it - but it's damned expensive, and it's unlikely Scotland would want to self-fund anything like the amount it'll probably get as part of the UK.

(Scotland is likely to get a disproportionate amount, because I guess it's got more funnel-type inlets, as well as its remoteness meaning those inlets having less shipping ... the Bristol Channel might have a fantastic tidal range, but it's also got a lot of shipping - and i suspect that's a part of the reason there doesn't seem to be too much happening down here)

I thought i twas only fair that as someone who dishes out criticism of your contributions on a regular basis that I gave credit where it is due. 

This was an excellent post measured & balanced, making your position clear & acknowledging lack of expertise where appropriate.

You managed to avoid calling anyone a moron, in fact you didn't insult anyone at all and you didn't start throwing vast billions of £££'s around at random.

That's not to say i agree with everything, I think you underestimate the extent to which the price of tidal power might fall and I suspect you big up wave power a bit too much - I seem to have been hearing about bobbing ducks etc for years but they hardly ever seem to do any actual bobbing. I suspect one of the problems is that areas with sizeable enough waves to make generation worthwhile will from time to time have huge waves with immense power & building something robust enough to cope with these events is a sizeable challenge. By contrast the conditions underwater are far more constant.

To sum up, I don't think tidal power will be the salvation of Scotland. i do think it has the potential to be a significant player in the Scottish economy in the medium to long term particularly if we can establish some sort of expertise in building installing & maintaining the kit.  

 

[eFestivals]

21 hours ago, LJS said:

I think you underestimate the extent to which the price of tidal power might fall

it might fall by 10% or 20%, but it's not going to fall by even the 50% it would need to match off-shore wind, let alone the 70% to match nukes or the 85% to match gas.

It's still worth the premium price from a number of aspects - particularly the 'out of sight' and 'guaranteed power at particular times' aspects - tho there's a limit to those benefits against the high price.

21 hours ago, LJS said:

I suspect you big up wave power a bit too much - I seem to have been hearing about bobbing ducks etc for years but they hardly ever seem to do any actual bobbing. I suspect one of the problems is that areas with sizeable enough waves to make generation worthwhile will from time to time have huge waves with immense power & building something robust enough to cope with these events is a sizeable challenge. By contrast the conditions underwater are far more constant.

You're perhaps right that it ill never amount to much.

I was making the point that IF they suss it it's the best renewable energy there can be (outside of standard hydro), because waves are more constant than wind or sun, and it's not anywhere near as limited as tidal stream which needs suitable locations when there's comparatively-few suitable locations.

21 hours ago, LJS said:

By contrast the conditions underwater are far more constant.

Nope. The maygen tidal stream generates for fewer hours a day than the average on-shore wind turbine, and performs lower than the 30% a wind turbine gets at best. There's too much slack time with too little water movement around the low and high points of tides.

Other places for tidal stream might perhaps get a slightly extended generation time over maygen because of using a more-suitable site for the installation where there's a greater funnelling effect to the tides, but they won't be huge differences.

Tidal lagoons will always work better than tidal streams because a greater control can be made of the water flows, tho they come with hugely greater environmental costs. It's for this reason that the often-suggested-for-50+-years Severn Barrage has never happened, even tho it could create a similar output to Hinkley C.

21 hours ago, LJS said:

To sum up, I don't think tidal power will be the salvation of Scotland. i do think it has the potential to be a significant player in the Scottish economy in the medium to long term particularly if we can establish some sort of expertise in building installing & maintaining the kit.  

It'll only be a 'significant player' if generation of perhaps (just perhaps) 10% of Scottish domestic electricity needs classes as significant. I don't think anyone would really class 10% of energy needs as particularly significant, tho of course it's useful (tho less useful when it costs significantly more than other options, which is why it won't be a big player anywhere).

There's perhaps the chance for Scotland to build an industry around the expertise for selling overseas, but it'll always be a very limited market. It needs sites that are geographically-suitable (with a funnelling effect) as well as big-enough tides. Tides are pretty minimal near the equator, plus the likes of the Med which has minimal tides, so most of the countries of the world don't have suitable tides.

Which really only leaves a few countries in Northern Europe plus the USA and Canada, really, tho nearly all of those possible countries are at least as advanced with green technologies as Scotland is, so likely to have their own industries they'll be wanting to support.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it might fall by 10% or 20%, but it's not going to fall by even the 50% it would need to match off-shore wind, let alone the 70% to match nukes or the 85% to match gas.

Just to demonstrate this point a bit further....

Off-shore wind is about double the cost of onshore wind, when both use identical technology for generation. The difference in cost is essentially the different costs of mounting the turbine in the ground, where pouring a concrete base at sea is a much harder task and consequently cost.

So if we say that on-shore wind is half the price of off-shore wind (which it is, roughly), you can see that the mounting base is half the cost of those off-shore costs for wind, and the cost of that base with nothing on it is about the same (for each unit of electric produced) as Hinckley C.

So even if tidal stream came down in price to match off-shore wind (which it wont!), it's still poor value against nuke generation, while also being a poorer source of power because it doesn't generate constantly.

It's a useful addition to generation methods as part of an overall plan, but it'll never be a major part because of the high costs.