Utility Week

Policy & Regulation UTILITY WEEK | 6TH - 12TH JULY 2018 | 15 which Shorrock described as a "small bet" on homegrown and reliable energy. Even building out the whole fleet of lagoons proposed by TLP around the Welsh coast would only add 30p per annum to the average consumer's electricity bill, the company claimed. And the figures cited by Clark in his state- ment were the worst-case scenario outlined in the value-for-money assessment of the project published by BEIS. Longer-lasting scheme Labour's energy spokesperson Alan White- head argues that TLP's proposal cannot be judged on a level playing field with offshore wind and nuclear. "In the short term it doesn't compare well with some other forms of power but Swansea Bay is not short term, it's a structure that will last for 120 years. "As a long-lasting scheme, it needs to be looked at at a longer timescale than some other projects," he says, pointing to figures in the government's Hendry review that show the lagoon paying back aer 30 to 40 years of operation. While the first generation of onshore windfarms are nearly worn out aer two dec- ades of use, the tidal lagoons have a planned 120-year lifespan. Greenpeace's Parr questions whether a project such as the Swansea Bay lagoon "The Secretary of State is clearly misinformed as his briefing today was very misleading. He says Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon will cost three times nuclear. This is incorrect. Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon will add just 30 pence to consumers' bills whereas Hinkley Point C will add £12 or more to bills." Mark Shorrock, founder and chief executive, Tidal Lagoon Power Reaction: 'Britain condemned to 20th century' should even be paid for out of consumers' electricity bills via CfDs. As a testbed project it should be financed via a different mechanism, he says: "The bar for a first in the world seems to be that it has to be cheaper than Hinkley. If this is innovation funding it would normally come out of tax." And Whitehead believes last week's Committee on Climate Change (CCC) annual progress report underlines the strategic case for lagoons, which Labour has gone out on a limb to back. The CCC's concerns about a lack of pro- gress on decarbonising heat and transport point to electricity generation continuing to supply a disproportionate chunk of the UK's required emissions savings, he says: "Swan- sea Bay would be one of the main areas of possible further decarbonisation." And lagoon projects will take a relatively short time to build compared with nuclear power stations, meaning they could help plug the emerging gaps in the low-carbon electricity generation mix, Whitehead adds. "It would give you some very solid, low- carbon power in the early 2020s so would make a direct dent in those figures and enable the power sector to carry more of the load into the future. "This move has closed off a major option that could ease some of the problems that the CCC have raised about decarbonisation." But Richard Black, director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, doubts the lagoons could generate a game-changing amount of electricity, given that the total generating capacity of TLP's six lagoons equates to a single large nuclear plant. "It's difficult to make a case that we need tidal lagoons so the question is whether they are a useful addition." Whiff of hypocrisy But while opinions even in the low-carbon camp are divided over whether TLP's project is worth supporting, there is greater consen- sus over the whiff of hypocrisy that hangs over Clark's statement on value for money. The elephant in this particular room is the even cheaper low-carbon generation that can be delivered by onshore wind and solar power. Whitehead says: "They are making sol- emn strictures about value for money while removing the most value for money mature technology: onshore wind, which will proba- bly be cheaper than gas over the next period. It doesn't make much sense." And Parr worries that the project's can- cellation is a harbinger for a less favour- able approach to renewable energy in a post-Brexit Britain. He doubts whether renewable energy, which now accounts for nearly a third of total electricity generation, according to the most recent BEIS statistics, would have taken off so rapidly if the government had not been pushed into deploying it by EU directives. "In the absence of that I suspect it would not have found favour in the UK," he says, suspecting that UK energy policy is reverting to type following Brexit. "The status quo ante way of considering energy projects is reasserting itself. It's dif- ficult to imagine that the government would have funded renewables to a significant degree without that." Given the rich energy sources waiting to be harvested off the UK's coast, the UK is missing out on a huge opportunity, Parr con- cludes: "The next one will be cheaper, but you will never know if you don't build one." 2016 2017 2018 Tidal lagoons feature in the National Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2016-2021. UK government commissions a six-month independent review of tidal lagoon energy. Hendry Review reports favourably on tidal lagoons and describes pathfinder project as a "no-regrets" option. JANUARY: Welsh government urges the UK government to stop "dragging its feet" and give the go-ahead to the proposed Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. JUNE: Energy minister Claire Perry faces questions from the joint committee inquiry into the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. 25 JUNE: Government announces it will not back plans for the tidal lagoon, based on figures showing that nuclear and offshore wind can generate the same amount of electricity at a third of the cost. "The treatment of the pathfinder tidal lagoon makes a mockery of a supposed new Industrial Strategy for the UK that pledges to back the disruptors and embrace new industries for a new future. The reality is that indecision sucks the life out of innovation and timid leadership will condemn Brexit Britain to the 20th century." Keith Clarke CBE, chair, Tidal Lagoon (Swansea Bay)

• Cover