When asked at Utility Week Live whether she thought the technology had a place in the future energy mix, she said: “Why not, we need diversity, we represent every sort of technology going within our trade association and you honestly can’t have enough of that mix.
“They all need to work closely together, obviously we need to minimise the impact and uncertainty across the transmission and distribution network, but the more the better as far as I’m concerned.”
Director of Aurora Energy Research Cameron Hepburn disagreed. He emphasised the expense of the project compared with other renewable energy generation such as wind and solar.
He said: “It may or may not be a coincidence that it’s been announced shortly before an election and that it’s a promise, like many of the other promises that have been made. The other thing I’d say is that the implicit carbon price on that project is enormously high. So it’s very expensive and it’s clearly not the most cost-effective way of delivering the carbon reductions that we need.
“It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. If people love tidal power and are willing to pay for it then fine, but what people want is a decarbonised electricity system.”
Former senior government official and consultant Jonathan Brearley, who chaired the session, argued that although there is a long way to go with Swansea Tidal, and although it is expensive, “you would only ever spend this amount of money upfront, if you believe in the second and third order costs that have been put out there”.
In February, Tidal Lagoon Power said it had submitted an Environmental Impact Assessment report to the planning inspectorate for the project, which will have an installed capacity of between 1.8 GW and 2.8 GW.
Read Utility Week’s analysis on whether tidal power is worth the cost here.