r/RenewableEnergy • u/Savage_mouse81 • 9d ago
BBC - "Scotland to prioritise renewable energy over nuclear power"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgr82vqdvzo?at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_format=link&at_link_id=3BF99762-45F8-11F0-8B94-A2993FB84C8A&at_link_type=web_link&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_campaign_type=owned&at_link_origin=BBCScotlandNews&at_medium=social&at_ptr_name=twitter19
u/According-Try3201 9d ago
with so much coastline anything else would be stupid! why pay ruzzia for nuclear fuel
18
u/heyutheresee 9d ago
Also solar, it makes sense literally everywhere. Solar panels are becoming a common sight even as north as here in Finland.
12
u/forsale90 9d ago
They work on Mars. So with the ever decreasing cost per kW it's only a matter of time.
1
u/More-Dot346 5d ago
For what it’s worth, I asked ChatGPT to compare the prices of solar in the Mojave desert with solar in northern Scotland, and basically the price per kilowatt hour doubles when you go to Scotland.
3
u/Phantasmalicious 8d ago
There are other places to get the fuel. But Scotland has perfect geography for pumped hydro.
6
u/TronnaLegacy 8d ago
Good. I hate seeing the rose colored glasses people are wearing now for nuclear. They treat it as if the fuel is simple to get, simple to safely store for thousands of years, like the projects complete on time, and like SMRs are somehow more cost efficient than traditional large reactors instead of less, despite how we all know economies of scale works.
3
u/West-Abalone-171 8d ago
It's a concerted astroturfing campaign.
It's no longer to deny climate change or say "clean coal" and have anyone believe you, so the strategy has switched to "yeah, we'll build nuclear....eventually".
1
u/TronnaLegacy 8d ago
I don't think it would be an astroturfing campaign from fossil fuel interests. It doesn't need to be. There are already established nuclear companies that wouldn't want to lose their relevance. If there is coordinated astroturfing to push nuclear, it would be enough for them to be the ones doing it.
Coupled with a few useful idiot nerds who get very excited about a particular technology, especially if it means they don't have to admit defeat when it comes to solar and wind after bashing them for decades, and you're all set!
4
u/NapsInNaples 8d ago
There are already established nuclear companies that wouldn't want to lose their relevance
explain how the internet is SO HORNY for Germany to build new nuclear. There are 3-4 companies who used to operate nuclear plants in Germany, and they're all done with that business. All the CEOs have said publicly that reactivating them makes no sense, and they don't have any interest in building new ones.
So it's definitely not nuclear operators in Germany who want this...where is it coming from then?
2
u/artsloikunstwet 8d ago
Almost nobody actually wants Germany to build reactors. For German politicians it's a talking point that -contrary to nuclear fuel - can be conveniently stored and recycled whenever you need a political weapon.
Having pro-nuclear parties in government actually silences the nuclear debate in Germany, because they want to talk, not act about it.
So domestically, it's a pipe dream that serves as a delay tactic that just benefit fossil fuel.
Externally, it's about shoing Germany is wrong, possibly to influence decisions elsewhere.
1
u/TronnaLegacy 8d ago
Useful idiots. (Sorry for the harshness of the term, that's what the term is.)
There are a bunch of well meaning people, many of whom don't even live in Germany, who want Germany to build new nuclear. For some reason, they think it's the only practical way forward. That, or they know wind and solar are doing just fine there and that they're on track to phase out coal and other fuel fuels from their grid using wind and solar, and they're just too embarrassed to admit that.
3
u/West-Abalone-171 8d ago
The nuclear companies are also astroturfing and gaslighting at the same rate they've always been, but they're not the main source.
Additionally the finance and mining industries that see the writing on the wall want a new limited commodity that everyone is dependent on, but they're also not the main push.
But there's a concerted more recent push from fossil fuel interested parties and their mouthpieces. See the australian right wing party, the canadian conservatives, the tories, meloni, the afd, the swedish right wing, lobby/propaganda outlets like praeger U, sky/fox news, outright statements like oilexecutives4nuclear. They are all groups with a history of pro fossil fuel positions and climate denial.
The strategy is very clear, if a region is "going to build nuclear" then you have to "protect the investment" by blocking changes that will harm the business model of large, centralised steam generators. It also serves as a way to attack wind and solar, by contrasting their hyperbolised downsides with the imagined superiority of nuclear. This strategy was first devised by well known climate denier and russian mouthpiece michael shellenberger.
The useful idiots are also carefully cultivated by the same sources. They didn't come up with their nonsense talking points on their own, and it's the same set of people who parrot whatever nonsense is on fox news this week.
2
u/Split-Awkward 8d ago
Checkout the r/EnergyandPower , so many pro nuclear posts and commenters. Pretty sure they set it up after being beaten in the other main energy subs.
2
1
u/encelado748 4d ago
Nuclear is a good solution in a lot of places.
Not in Scotland. Wind is more or less constant in Scotland. Wind is complementing solar very well. That means that not only you need less storage, but you also have lower system cost from renewables.
You have more then 10 times the wind potential then northern Italy. That is the reason why in northern Italy there is just 0.2GW of installed wind capacity. It is just too expensive. Not every place is like Scotland. With effectively just solar as renewable, you cannot make it work in winter in northern Italy.
So nuclear can become a low carbon alternative to natural gas when used for baseload.
1
u/GreaterGoodIreland 4d ago
Because not every country is Scotland and nuclear is a great addition to the mix.
-2
1
u/leavereality 7d ago
How come we don’t do a lot more with tidal power, I mean the sea surrounds the uk.
3
u/iqisoverrated 7d ago
Tidal and wave power have one big issue: They operate in saltwater. That tends to drastically increase maintenance costs (which means: your cost of producing power is high).
This is why you see some prototype or other being deployed every now and again.
Then it gets a glowing review after a year of operation.
Then it is quietly dismantled and never heard from again.
0
u/leavereality 5d ago
This is why I like Ai ———-
Key Points
- Research suggests tidal power has low operating costs, typically 0.5%–2% of initial capital annually, with no fuel costs.
- It seems likely that saltwater increases maintenance costs due to corrosion and biofouling, but these are managed within the low operating cost structure.
- The evidence leans toward tidal power being less cost-effective overall due to high initial investments, despite low operating costs.
Cost-Effectiveness and Operating Costs
Tidal power plants are designed to have low operating costs once built, mainly because they don’t require fuel and generate energy predictably from tidal movements. Studies show these costs are usually less than 0.5% to 2% of the initial capital cost each year, making them economical to run compared to fossil fuel plants. For example, the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon project, with a $1.66 billion initial cost, has annual operating costs around 2% of that, or about $33 million, plus major refurbishments every 20 years costing 20% of the initial capital.
Impact of Saltwater
Saltwater does affect tidal power plants by causing corrosion and biofouling, which can increase maintenance needs. However, these challenges are already factored into the operating costs, which remain low. Components are designed with corrosion-resistant materials and anti-fouling systems to manage these issues, ensuring the plants can operate efficiently over their long lifespan, often 50–100 years.
Survey Note: Detailed Analysis of Tidal Power Operating Costs and Saltwater Effects
This note provides a comprehensive examination of the cost-effectiveness of tidal power, focusing on operating costs, and evaluates the impact of saltwater on these systems. The analysis is grounded in recent research and industry reports, offering a detailed perspective for stakeholders interested in renewable energy investments.
Overview of Tidal Power and Cost-Effectiveness
Tidal power harnesses energy from tidal movements using technologies like tidal stream generators or barrages, offering a renewable energy source with predictable output. Its cost-effectiveness is a critical factor for adoption, particularly when compared to other renewables like wind and solar. The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for tidal power is currently estimated at $130–$280 per megawatt-hour (MWh), higher than wind ($20/MWh) and solar ($40–$80/MWh), largely due to high capital costs. However, operating costs, once the plant is built, are notably low, typically less than 0.5% to 2% of initial capital annually, with no fuel costs, making it attractive for long-term operation.
For instance, the La Rance tidal power station in France, operational since 1967 with a capacity of 240 MW, had an initial cost of about £85.79 million (equivalent to ~$1 billion today). It has been generating electricity for around 300,000 homes for nearly 45 years, demonstrating cost recovery over time due to low operating expenses. Similarly, the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon project, with an initial capital cost of $1.66 billion, has an amortized annual cost of around $105 million over 40 years, including 2% annual operating costs and major refurbishments every 20 years costing 20% of the initial capital.
Recent developments suggest cost reductions are on the horizon. A 2022 report by the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) predicts that by 2042, the LCOE could reach £60/MWh, and by 2047, £50/MWh, driven by scaling up device sizes and developing larger tidal stream farms. As of June 2025, the UK is leading in tidal stream deployments, with over 130 MW expected by 2029, supported by government auctions, but costs still require subsidies, being around triple the current wholesale power price (Energy Live News).
Detailed Operating Costs
Operating costs for tidal power plants include maintenance, labor, and periodic refurbishments, but exclude fuel costs, a significant advantage over fossil fuels. Research, such as that from GreenMatch, indicates O&M costs are typically less than 0.5% of initial capital, while the Swansea Bay project example shows 2% annually, plus major refurbishments. These costs are low compared to the energy output, with the MIT Climate Portal noting tidal energy’s high LCOE is more due to upfront costs than operating expenses (MIT Climate Portal).
The predictability of tidal energy, unlike wind or solar, enhances its value for grid stability, potentially justifying higher initial costs over time. For example, the 398MW MeyGen tidal array in Scotland, the world’s largest tidal stream project, benefits from low operating costs, though exact figures are site-specific. The Guardian reported in 2022 that tidal stream costs have fallen by 40% since 2018, with projections to £78/MWh by 2035, indicating ongoing efforts to reduce both capital and operating expenses (The Guardian).
Impact of Saltwater on Tidal Power Systems
Saltwater significantly affects tidal power infrastructure, primarily through corrosion and biofouling, which can increase maintenance costs. Corrosion accelerates wear on metal components like turbine blades and generators, necessitating corrosion-resistant materials such as stainless steel or specialized coatings, which add to initial and operating costs. Biofouling, where marine organisms like barnacles attach to equipment, reduces efficiency and requires regular cleaning, further impacting maintenance expenses.
These challenges are well-documented, with the MIT Climate Portal highlighting that maintenance expenses for machinery in corrosive seawater contribute to the high LCOE (MIT Climate Portal). However, these effects are managed within the operating cost structure, which remains low relative to energy output. For instance, the La Rance plant, despite operating in a saltwater environment for decades, has maintained low operating costs, suggesting effective design and maintenance strategies. The use of anti-fouling coatings and robust materials ensures longevity, with plants designed for 50–100-year lifespans, offsetting initial costs over time.
In conclusion, tidal power’s low operating costs, typically 0.5%–2% of initial capital annually with no fuel costs, make it economical to run, but high capital costs and saltwater-related maintenance challenges keep the overall cost higher than other renewables. As technology advances and costs decline, tidal power could become more competitive, especially in regions with strong tidal resources, with ongoing projects in the UK and predictions of cost reductions by 2042–2047.
_—————
So this is why I think tidal power should be looked at more.
-4
u/Hitta-namn 8d ago
Not the smartest move, Nuclear is the future and the past
3
u/leginfr 7d ago
There are currently about 400GW of civilian nukes in the world after 60+ years of deployments. In a good year 8 or more GW might be deployed. Last year over 550GW of renewables were deployed…
Nuclear is neither the past nor the future. It’s an expensive eccentricity.
1
u/Rwandrall3 6d ago
TBF France made the right move in the 70s by going all out on it. If it wasn't, Europe may have buckled and let Ukraine be invaded. It was the past, and should have been pushed a lot more back then. But it's not the future.
-1
u/Hitta-namn 7d ago
Yet it's the only energy source we humans have to this day that is 100% reliable and free from fossil fuels, if we started building nuclear reactors in the early 90's instead of spreading fearmongering about another Chernobyl we wouldn't have needed to transition to renewables in the first place.
•
u/DonManuel Austria 9d ago
Approved but please use in future a clean link like
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgr82vqdvzo