Tidal Range Alliance

The Long Duration Energy Storage (LDES) policy support process offers a template for how Government can look to bring forward the support required for Tidal Range.

This should begin with Department ESNZ publishing a Call for Evidence along the lines of the Long Duration Energy Storage call for Evidence, that looked for Industry to share information to help build an understanding around:

• The barriers within the current market
• How these might be addressed
• The risks that may be associated with potential interventions to support the deployment of
  Tidal Range Energy.

A Strategic Task force requires the following to be effective:

a) Strategic planning by the Government;
b) Analysing who will need to work with The Crown Estate, owner of most of the seabed where Tidal
Range projects will be delivered,
c) Ensuring that the task force works with the Industry, to understand the potential projects and where there’s increased added value based on UKs needs.

An effective taskforce with clear and defined objectives, facilitating communication among government bodies, addressing specific industry needs and adopting a multi-layered approach involving different groups. This partnership will need to coordinate across government departments (including HM Treasury, DESNZ, and DEFRA), involve cabinet ministers, and align with devolution deals. It should be based on other successful models like offshore wind commission OWIC or Thames Tideway and incorporate quantifiable objectives A coalition of willing parties, long-term continuity, and a commitment to nationalised, people-centric benefits should define this  taskforce.

A roadmap is required but this should be more focused on spatial planning governance issues to understand the best combination of potential options and any cumulative development impacts.

Tidal Range is a proven old technology and has been used on many run-of-river hydropower schemes worldwide in Europe for decades. Large tidal power projects have been operating at La Rance (60 years) and Sihwa (10 years) with success. There is an argument for more innovation and research and research and development, but this should be done in tandem to work looking at developing the existing pipeline, in the same way that FLOW is being brought forward concurrently with fixed bed off-shore wind.

A project will typically take 5 years to secure consent with detailed development work, EIA and consultation required before a consent application is submitted. It will take a further five years to build.

If work on a pilot started now, it would not facilitate further tidal range development until 2039, or later, with subsequent projects not generating until after 2050 unless some projects were advanced “at-risk”. Therefore, it is felt that the road map, rather than pathfinder, for developing a pipeline of projects is more expedient.

An effective road map for tidal range projects would involve a collection of projects with clearly defined timelines:

• Commitment to a pipeline is considered vital for realising wider benefits, and once momentum is established, nuanced policy adjustments become easier.
• Environmental data is identified as a crucial aspect and establishing upfront baselines for the entire pipeline, is deemed essential.
• The program should cover various types of projects, including barrages and lagoon installations.
• Supporting a concurrent innovation program focusing on enhancing efficiencies.
• Enabling access to modelling data and software to support a combined pipeline.
• Feasibility grants, as the initial step on the roadmap, are proposed, and the program should not face unnecessary delays.
• Emphasis on developing a scalable, domestic-led supply chain is highlighted, along with collaboration with the Environment Agency to address flood risks.
• Encouraging the use of UK technology and innovative solutions, setting reachable objectives, and incorporating a full-size test site for insurance approval are key components.
• Recognising the importance of innovation to address environmental and financial concerns, the program should be adaptable to different locations’ unique environmental factors rather than imposing a universal standard.

A bespoke regulatory structure for tidal range is unlikely as the total investment required for potential UK tidal range projects is substantially less (c£60bn based on 15GW) than that required for potential UK new nuclear (c£160bn based on 25GW).

CfD’s are market based devices evaluated on a contract period of 15 years (typically 60% of a wind or solar project lifespan). If a CfD was permitted for an 80 year period, no long term value would be recognised after 35 years at private sector hurdle rates, so the tidal range sector has to consider other, longer term financing methodologies. Longer life, high capital cost projects therefore require a long term financing methodology such as the Regulated Asset Base.

Large scale infrastructure projects in the transport sector are not financed on market demand or revenues but through long term business case evaluation based on economic benefits and cash-flow costs. Tidal Range and Nuclear are large scale infrastructure projects which generate both financial revenues and economic benefits. If longer term CfD’s were feasible, the financial revenues would not in themselves be sufficient to finance their construction as discounting negates the value of long term energy. The economic benefits of tidal range exclude energy generation as it has been monetised under CfD evaluation but that is not the case with RAB where the economic justification is to produce a given energy output for minimal cost to the consumer over the long term.