What is Digg?74 Comments
- aaaleman, on 04/08/2008, -1/+15Love to read stuff like this!
- hiPpymIck, on 04/08/2008, -0/+9theyre going to monitor it
"It has established a £2million programme to closely monitor the environmental impact of SeaGen, involving scientists from the Queen’s University Belfast (QUB) and from the Sea Mammal Research Unit at St Andrew’s University (SMRU).
http://www.marineturbines.com/3/news/article/7/sea ... - 471776, on 04/08/2008, -0/+9This is tidal power, not wave power.
Although I agree, buoys are the best method of tapping wave power. - praneym, on 04/08/2008, -4/+12I wonder if it is harmful to the marine life
- lettruthout, on 04/08/2008, -0/+8A better question is: Will it harm sea life LESS than current fossil fuels do? All the mercury from coal burning power plants can't be doing sea life any good.
- KdogTN, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5This is just one notch in the cog of being environmentally friendly. This combined with wave, solar, wind, geothermal, ethanol and conservation will make a difference. It's all one big wheel we have to put into motion to save our environment... Good work and hope it make a difference..
- lettruthout, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5Try reading the article...
"The holy grail for tidal energy experts, however, is the Pentland Firth... Once attainable it could supply up to 15 per cent of Britain’s electricity."
...That's just one location. 'Seems pretty significant to me. - serif69, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Take ethanol out of there and you're spot on.
- inactive, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Was that supposed to answer his question?
- philodygmn, on 04/08/2008, -6/+10This is worse than wind power turbines. Buoys are a much better way to harness wave power.
- jmkiii, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Economically, it is.
Physically, it is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy - lettruthout, on 04/08/2008, -1/+4A good way to get started in the US is to stop corporate welfare for the oil industry. Instead turn that money towards renewable energy. We're going to run out of fossil fuels some day, and they're going to become more expensive until we do, so let's start moving towards renewables now.
- manitoba98xp, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Are those *tidal* turbine systems? (I honestly don't know, it's just that's what the article refers to; you'd think they'd know about something in the UK, seeing as it's a UK, not US, news source.)
- MeatyDoughnut, on 04/08/2008, -4/+7But will it blend...stuff?
- gwolf, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Can you imagine where we would be if we spent the moon shot and Manhattan project money on alternative energy.
- lou2005, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3i understand that its so noisy that any sea life that can propel itself will steer clear. if i understand it right the blades rotate pretty slowly so the little stuff isn't effected much.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3First there was solar power, now there's lunar power...
- jmkiii, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Energy with no or negligible feedstock cost, including solar power, telluric power, WATER POWER, and wind power
- diggcensors, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Special Interests.
- Enron1985, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3There has got to be some sort of ecological impact that will piss people off.
- Bukowsky, on 04/08/2008, -2/+4I'm not quite sure how effective these turbines are going to be in the long-run. Don't get me wrong. I like any form of Alternative/Clean Energy, but I just don't think this is going to have as big of an impact as Solar & Wind projects.
- Balath, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Dug for the pun in the title. It made me groan aloud.
- mrch0mp3rs, on 04/08/2008, -3/+5These turbines seem like free energy, but they'll slow the earth's rotation down by changing the pattern of the ocean currents, thus ripping holes in the very fabric of space and time.
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southland_Tales - diggcensors, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Maybe this will slow the Moon's orbit until it falls and kills us all... you damn dirty hippies...
- fquednau, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Mate, it's gonna make Sushi on a big scale. This is gonna be big in Japan!
- lettruthout, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2You care only if you want to continue living - we cannot survive without it.
- elfprince13, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3and we didn't do this 20 years ago, because?
- purpleaffro, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2This is starting to be done in Nova Scotia too, in the Bay of Fundy but with small mini wind turbines on the ocean floor.
- greenlight2001, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Who's Kevin? Never heard of him.
- tugger, on 04/08/2008, -2/+3er.. hello? The severn river 'commercial' turbine in the british isles been providing electricity into the national grid since the mid-70s. The same system in Norway fjords and somewhere in Japan.
The US's first turbine would be a better description. - lettruthout, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2Care to substantiate any of those wild claims?
- sockpuppets, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2Can someone explain to me why tapping tidal power isn't considered "free energy"? It's effectively harnessing gravity, isn't it?
- Hetman, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1This sounds great but like all forms of energy some enviromentalist. "not that I have a problem with them, the enviroment should be protected but sacerfices have to be made" Will be like but it is destroying the ecosystem of the sea. Just as they say the same thing about wind powered turbines. "kill rare bird speices because they fly into it." Im sorry but at a certain point you have to chose human over the other species. Yea their are going to be problems. But would you prefer oil, nuclear, solar. "producing solar panels causes a lot of pollution" water. You have to chose one or STFU and stop using electric.
- whatsthatsmell, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1FLUID KARMA?
- joshblufs, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2Well defining "free energy" seems to be the first problem. If the term wasn't so hopelessly confused with perpetual motion and wild conspiracy theories someone might be able to come up with an answer. I looked but so far have been unable to find a credible and or widely accepted definition. Do you have one? Perhaps you could rephrase your question so it is not so nebulous.
- benbrooks101, on 04/08/2008, -0/+11980 want's their article back.
- acdcfanbill, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2Because we would be essentially slowing the orbit of the moon by a very small amount.
- gwolf, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2Exxon, Mobile, BP ....
- whatsthatsmell, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1and you are not good at locating humor, are you?
- joshblufs, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Which F'in wiki link? that one is a directory.
"Free energy may refer to:" followed by an assload of links.......
Do I have to read them all? - ebcreasoner, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2.
- gwolf, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Your really good at not finding the bright side of things aren't you.
- dustedknuckle, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2This is great stuff, there is enough naturally created energy in the world, ie wind, solar, tidal, geothermal to help us get energy independence from the oil barons, unfortunately its going to take some time and a lot of money.....
That being said though..... there are still a lot of things we need oil for, plastics, fertilizers etc. - whatsthatsmell, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1wish this had showed up so i hadn't reposted it. now i look really dumb
- whatsthatsmell, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Fluid Karma?
- makis, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1i think wave dragons ( http://www.wavedragon.net/ ) are better and less harmfull
- lettruthout, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1You mean: there has to be some kind of red herring environmental scare issue that fossil advocates can use to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt)?
- drguerra, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1They are hardly wild.
"...the environment is changed for many miles upstream and downstream. Many birds rely on the tide uncovering the mud flats so that they can feed."
http://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/tidal.htm
I'm sure you can find many more links on the topic. - MizuhoChan, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1The best question is: Does anybody care if it harms marine life?
-
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is