Xlinks snub

[Moxi]

The cable and the location both bothered me when this project first hit the headlines, trouble is anything built UK side is likely to be longer to build and triple the cost and still owned by foreign interests.

If UK Ltd is serious then why dont British Power or whatever they are called now break out the Torness and Heysham stage 2 blue prints, get in touch with the Atkins and Jacobs consultancies to identify whats left of the teams that built and designed them and the teams that currently keep them on the bars from a safety case POV and engineering POV and go and build build some new AGR's - we would have to buy turbines and transformers from overseas as we have long since lost that capability but the re's enough surviving heavy industries in the UK to do the core, reactor vessels and primary and secondary cooling circuits. It wouldn't be particularly quick but its tech we know and understand and its British and the recycling infrastructure and waste handling is already available for the fuel cycle and again its British based.

Too many politicians thinking of jam tomorrow instead of focusing on what's at hand that works

Moxi

[Countrypaul]

You don't put 25% of your countries power supply in the hands of another country. Sorry Morroco but you're not a stable enough platform. One of the best North African states though.

You certainly don't rely on a multiple 000's K set of lines in relatively shallow water either. There's a lot can go wrong there by misfortune or worst case misdeed.

Maybe on a different planet with different species running the show?

As to the threat to move the project? Crack on then, bye!

https://www.current-news.co.uk/x-links- ... -progress/

Joe, where do you get 25% from? The X-links website only talks about 8% or 3.6GW (2 x 1.8GW supplies). If we expect our power requirements to grow significantlt over the next few years due to EVs, HPs and datacentres etc. that 8% could easily drop to <4% surely?

[Joeboy]

You don't put 25% of your countries power supply in the hands of another country. Sorry Morroco but you're not a stable enough platform. One of the best North African states though.

You certainly don't rely on a multiple 000's K set of lines in relatively shallow water either. There's a lot can go wrong there by misfortune or worst case misdeed.

Maybe on a different planet with different species running the show?

As to the threat to move the project? Crack on then, bye!

https://www.current-news.co.uk/x-links- ... -progress/

Joe, where do you get 25% from? The X-links website only talks about 8% or 3.6GW (2 x 1.8GW supplies). If we expect our power requirements to grow significantlt over the next few years due to EVs, HPs and datacentres etc. that 8% could easily drop to <4% surely?

My fallible memory Paul.

Not as bad a I thought then but I still wouldn't touch it. It's a nice idea but 'geopolitics' will kick in and all that goes with it.

This may read as over pessimistic but not too long ago I was a part of the team that laid & commissioned Nordstream.

A bright new future in a EuroRussian energy marketplace turned into something quite different.

[Mart]

I can understand concerns about cable damage, especially with all the Russian heavy trawlers 'accidentally' dragging their anchors repeatedly across cable routes, but I've never understood the concerns about a country's politics etc.

These schemes are totally different to gas and oil pipelines, where a physical product has to be extracted, processed and then transported, and which can be stored if there is a dispute, before being sold/sent somewhere else. Even if storage is exhausted, the product will remain in the ground for later use, if extraction is paused.

With RE schemes, if you don't send it to the country that wants it, then it will be lost (or in this case, storage fulled and production curtailed). So Morocco for example, would lose all of the sale revenue and income from the scheme immediately, suffering just as much as the UK would.

So cutting supply is as bad for the country of production, as for the country that needs it, and will sour all potential future contracts with the source country to anywhere else. It's more like MAD (mutually assured destruction) than having a country control your energy. This of course doesn't mean that concerns about a country's potential actions (Morocco in this example) shouldn't be considered, but the vulnerability and losses are not one-sided.

[Joeboy]

I can understand concerns about cable damage, especially with all the Russian heavy trawlers 'accidentally' dragging their anchors repeatedly across cable routes, but I've never understood the concerns about a country's politics etc.

These schemes are totally different to gas and oil pipelines, where a physical product has to be extracted, processed and then transported, and which can be stored if there is a dispute, before being sold/sent somewhere else. Even if storage is exhausted, the product will remain in the ground for later use, if extraction is paused.

With RE schemes, if you don't send it to the country that wants it, then it will be lost (or in this case, storage fulled and production curtailed). So Morocco for example, would lose all of the sale revenue and income from the scheme immediately, suffering just as much as the UK would.

So cutting supply is as bad for the country of production, as for the country that needs it, and will sour all potential future contracts with the source country to anywhere else. It's more like MAD (mutually assured destruction) than having a country control your energy. This of course doesn't mean that concerns about a country's potential actions (Morocco in this example) shouldn't be considered, but the vulnerability and losses are not one-sided.

It isn't really different from O&G. In both scenarios the sale is not made for whatever reason. At the other end the people are denied a reliable power source but the sun keeps shining and is not depleted.

Russia is an excellent example of how sense isn't in it at all. Could be politics, could be the imaginary boss doing the telling, could be a single line in a thousand year old book or a two thousand year old book. I like my solar generation where I can see it. I hope to be proved wrong on this. That would be

[nowty]

In my opinion it’s never getting built, no one’s going to insure it for terrorism or war so the UK government is likely to underwrite any losses to investors.

Also although Mart makes good arguments for it, the government still has to sell the idea to the public who mostly will think it’s a bonkers idea. Too much political risk of it turning into another HS2 fiasco for our politicians to take.

If we cannot get the renewable power from Scotland to southern England, not much chance of getting it from a desert place in Morocco.

[Mart]

I can understand concerns about cable damage, especially with all the Russian heavy trawlers 'accidentally' dragging their anchors repeatedly across cable routes, but I've never understood the concerns about a country's politics etc.

These schemes are totally different to gas and oil pipelines, where a physical product has to be extracted, processed and then transported, and which can be stored if there is a dispute, before being sold/sent somewhere else. Even if storage is exhausted, the product will remain in the ground for later use, if extraction is paused.

With RE schemes, if you don't send it to the country that wants it, then it will be lost (or in this case, storage fulled and production curtailed). So Morocco for example, would lose all of the sale revenue and income from the scheme immediately, suffering just as much as the UK would.

So cutting supply is as bad for the country of production, as for the country that needs it, and will sour all potential future contracts with the source country to anywhere else. It's more like MAD (mutually assured destruction) than having a country control your energy. This of course doesn't mean that concerns about a country's potential actions (Morocco in this example) shouldn't be considered, but the vulnerability and losses are not one-sided.

It isn't really different from O&G. In both scenarios the sale is not made for whatever reason. At the other end the people are denied a reliable power source but the sun keeps shining and is not depleted.

Russia is an excellent example of how sense isn't in it at all. Could be politics, could be the imaginary boss doing the telling, could be a single line in a thousand year old book or a two thousand year old book. I like my solar generation where I can see it. I hope to be proved wrong on this. That would be

Sorry, but I disagree about it being like O & G. Yes the people at the end are denied the energy, but the people selling it, have lost (forever) the revenue. Yes in this example Morocco could catch the sun and wind for the next day, but they have lost the sun/wind and revenue for that day, so unlike O&G where the fuel remains and so does the future revenue, it has now been lost.

Russia is an excellent example, they wanted and need to sell the fuel and get the revenue, but worst case, they still have it, and are trying to sell it elsewhere via their shadow tanker fleet. If Morocco doesn't sell the energy to the UK, then they will need to develop a new supply line, and even that will be tricky as other countries will now be wary of committing.

Yes, disconnection / power cutting is worth considering, but it is I believe quite an extreme edge case issue, since the cutter losses just as much as the cuttee. For a simple example, imagine switching off your own PV inverter on the grounds that the sun hasn't been depleted, and will still be shining tomorrow or next week, you will still experience a loss that can never be recovered.

[Joeboy]

No worries Mart. I look at it as in infinite resource. Cheers.

[Mart]

No worries Mart. I look at it as in infinite resource. Cheers.

Hi Joe. TBH, whilst I love the idea, I've always been pessimistic about its chances.

I don't know if it's possible yet, but large scale long duration energy storage in the UK, appropriately distributed, would solve the issue that the Xlinks scheme addresses.

We have more than enough potential for 100% RE leccy, given our vast wind resources, so perhaps a CfD like subsidy (or direct subsidy support) for storage, would be a better alround solution in the long term. Just need viable and economically competitive solutions.

But for now ........ Xlinks v's SZC ....... I know which one I'd prefer, especially if Xlinks had a lower CfD strike price (oops, I may have given away which one is my favourite, and I've been trying to hide it so hard )