Wind: £3.33 billion per GW (cancelled) vs nuclear: £5 billion per GW
We just lost a proposed £4 billion, 1.2 GW offshore wind installation. RWE cite `technological challenges and market conditions'. We're spending £16 billion for 3.2 GW of nuclear and a whole load of uncertainty about waste the taxpayer appears to be responsible for.
Offshore windfarm: £3.33 billion per GW vs nuclear: £5 billion per GW. Oh good. (Looking here the windfarm output figure is an annual average output based on meteorological models/data, not peak output, so should be comparable.)
Let's hope this was more `technological challenges' than `market conditions' and that the market conditions didn't include mixed signals from government. Losing 1.2 GW of carbon-free generation right now? Madness. (Yeah, I know there's carbon in the production of wind turbines...)
I'm for nuclear too: despite the issues involved, Hinkley Point is still 3.2 GW, whatever the per-watt price. But it's awful to see projects like the Atlantic Array get so close to reality and then fail.
Comments
Atlantic Array
Greater concern than losing 1.2Gw in the Outer Bristol Channel could be expressed
at the loss of 1.8Gw at the Dogger Bank. The Crown Estates authorised the Zone
for 9.0 GW and yet developers Forewind are planning for only 7.2Gw.
The Dogger Bank is far more suitable for wind-farm development than the Outer
Bristol Channel every could be. It is four times as far from land (125Km) than was
the Array (31Km from Devon - less in places) and the water is only 18m deep -
which allows vessels to anchor safely.
The Relevant Representations for the first stage (called Creyke Beck) have now
been submitted but there is still an opportunity to get involved with stage Two
by checking out the Planning Inspectorate portal website.
The important points are
a) We need a mix of energy supply technologies.
b) The target is 25Gw from wind and the Round Three list had 33Gw - leaving
a signficant contingency margin.
c) Inreasing the base-load from Wind increases the grid-management challenge
and so we should be looking to utilise more predictable resources.
Conclusions:
a) Press to get Dogger Bank expedited (and 1.8Gw cut restored)
b) Assist investment in TRUE marine energy
(Not least in the Bristol Channel area)
Meantime we need to address the looming energy supply crisis by the UK
government applying for a derogation to the 2001 LCPD directive that is
requiring us to close our "back-up" generators by 31st December 2015.
==
Crying over spilled misk at the Atlantic Array is pointless.
We need to plan for the 2020s and start NOW.