Why no Swansea Tidal Lagoon?

Before anybody objects to the mention of 'Brexit' I'd like to protest at the insertion of anti-Corbyn comments into a thread that has nothing at all to do with him.

There has been no anti Corbyn comment, just an explanation to a poster in Scotland that Wales and Scotland governments cannot be compared.

Cost of Swansea Tidal Project 1.3 billion pounds generating 320Mwe

Cost of Hinckley Point C Nuclear Power station 20.3 billion pounds (National Audit Office estimates final cost of 50 billion) generating 1,600Mwe

The Math: Hinckley costs 20 times (and rising) as much as Swansea while only having 5 times the generating capacity. It will cost at least 7 billion to decommission.

But then again Hinckley will produce weapons-grade Plutonium for use in Trident (another 100+ billion down the drain!)

We might also want to consider what might happen at either site should there (heaven forbid) be an accident there!

Now we have it. Plutonium.

And ...
"Marine Licence 12/45/ML, granted by the Welsh Government, permits the disposal of up to 300,000 tonnes of radioactively contaminated marine sediment, dredged from the seabed at the Hinkley Point nuclear site, into the Cardiff Grounds marine dump site close to the South Wales coast. This will allow work to begin on the 2 new Hinkley C nuclear reactor pipelines."

Pray for South Wales or, better still, get active Welsh grannies!!

It’s a shame it looks as if Hinkley May have got to the point of no return, while EDF seem to be dithering and may back down on Sizewell using B****t as the excuse.

The Government doesn’t want to subsidise a tidal power project that offers long term, environmentally safe electricity. They prefer to subsidise polluting, short term and unsafe Nuclear power stations which could potentially devastate huge areas if an accident happens such as at Chernobyl or Fukushima.

Sorry it just doesn’t make sense to me in economic, environmental or political terms.

The Government was "preparing to throw billions of taxpayers’ hard earned cash at a nuclear industry that has been relying on hand outs for 60 years, as its prices just keep spiralling and delivery is delayed year after year. Instead of supporting a potential success, the government has decided to continue propping up a failure”

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/swansea-bay-tidal-lagoon-renewable-energy-wave-electricity-generation-government-greg-clark-a8416621.html

Let’s hope the rest of the media get on board then.

Apparently it is not 'cost'effective'

So - is HS2 cost-effective?

so instead we get Hinckley and a very sensible project gets turned down - one which could be the future.
We are an island with a lot of 'wave power' - which is wasted.

which could potentially devastate huge areas if an accident happens such as at Chernobyl or Fukushima.
I hope not mh, I really hope not!
But I cannot understand the reasoning.

It's a terrible decision, arrived at, so the government says, because it is "uneconomic".

That is from a government that knows - or at least is only interested in - the cost of everything (but the value of nothing).

I often wonder how they arrive at these economic calculations and projections. Do they, for instance, include the possible devastating consequences and ensuing "cost" (in human, ecological and economic terms) of a nuclear "mishap" or the ongoing cost and risks of storing dangerous radioactive material?

Several experts have claimed that fracking is an uneconomic process. It is also something which has caused great anger and anxiety to people in the areas in which it takes place. Yet the government has backed it.

I also disagree with the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow or anywhere else. Every day there are reports about pollution and environmental degradation and yet more roads, more airports and more runways continue to be built.

Again, "economic necessity" is cited but if we ruin our planet no amount of money will reverse its ruin.

Agree completely. Plus HS2 and a third runway will only make things more London-centric.

Hear hear!

"cost-effective" is a weasel word. Effective for whom? Look at who donates a lot to the Tories, and match it with the list of CEOs of the companies lined up to build the runway.

Wales doesn't get the lagoon because they haven't provided a big enough bung.

Of course, it's entirely possible that Wales could have obtained regional development funding from the EU to cover or subsidise the costs of the barrage.

Oh well... let's not cry over spilt milk.

Never say never:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-44657084

I did say on Friday ‘this is not the end ‘, thinking what Nigel did with Dwr Cymru anything is possible.