What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
67 Comments
- TJ11240, on 07/17/2008, -0/+21I'd be interested to know how these compare to wind turbines in terms of cost and efficiency. I would guess that they do fairly well, because water currents are more energy dense than air currents. This is a new technology worth following.
- DrCrankenstein, on 07/17/2008, -3/+23Awesome!
- scotq, on 07/17/2008, -0/+16Hope this technology is both marine life safe and commercially feasible... that would be awesome!
- bradleyland, on 07/18/2008, -0/+11I would have dugg you up JBrown, but when you said, "Tides can be just as reliable as wind currents..." my brain short circuited, because my position could be summarized as, "tides are _more_ reliable than wind currents."
See, making no sense is infectious. My attempt to explain your nonsensicalness has taken on a nonsensical tone! - bradleyland, on 07/18/2008, -0/+11Predictability is probably the largest advantage. There are parts of the world where the wind blows pretty reliably, but the tides are governed by the orbit of the moon around the earth. If that process somehow ceases to continue, we've got much larger problems than our suddenly useless tidal generator.
- grumpyrain, on 07/18/2008, -0/+9The current project seems to be a micro-scale, hopefully more of a prototype producing only 1.2MW. A single turbine in a single wind farm will most likely put out a figure similar to this (and the larger ones will easily double it). Water is far denser than air, but tides tend to be slower moving as well. The main advantage I can see is that tides are very predictable, but they would certainly have to jump through some technical hoops to get it reliably working underwater.
- Kyan, on 07/18/2008, -1/+9How about burying you for being a schmuck?
- bradleyland, on 07/18/2008, -1/+9Don't worry, they put a warning plaque on the side instructing marine life to "STAY CLEAR OF ROTATING ASSEMBLY!!" in bright yellow.
- inactive, on 07/18/2008, -0/+6But will it blend?
- jrbeilke, on 07/18/2008, -0/+5I would consider this to be the first "commercial-scale" tidal power as the Rance was more of an experiment and proof of concept than anything.
More on the Rance Tidal Power Plant Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_tidal_power_pla ...
It will be interesting to see where this technology goes as the Rance proves that this technology can not only pay for itself, but it is also cheaper than nuclear power. One major drawback to this wave energy (and most other "natural/renewable" energy sources), is that the power generated can not be relied on 100% of the time.
Oh and there is also an animation of the new SeaGen System here:
http://ecoscraps.com/2008/04/06/animation-seagen-t ... - drgreenberg, on 07/18/2008, -0/+5"Why aren't they harnessing waterfall energy. It seems with a place like Niagra Falls, you could put some paddles in there and generate a ton of motion that could feed the upper northern states and Canada."
The water that flows over Niagara Falls is already part of a turbine-based hydroelectric system and has been so for decades. In fact, the flow over the falls is completely controlled and one of the two falls was even turned completely off in the past. There are regulations in place that require a certain minimum flow during summer tourist season to avoid too much water being diverted to the power turbines. Essentially, the falls consist of the water the hydroelectric plant chooses (or is forced to choose by regulations) to allow to bypass the generation facility. - HonoredMule, on 07/18/2008, -0/+5I bet even bringing the oceans to a complete standstill (like freezing them or something) would not have a strong enough effect on the moon to destabilize its orbit. I think seismic activity would be a more likely outcome, but also highly unlikely with the amount of effect we can realistically exert on the oceans.
- inactive, on 07/17/2008, -1/+6We need to keep improving and proving to the ROTW that clean energy is the answer.
- HonoredMule, on 07/18/2008, -2/+71.2 MW doesn't sound like much to me, but if the article is correct in assessing the output at the equivalent of 1000 homes, then it is. Supposing the average home's power bill is 100 pounds before taxes (a very rough guess as I don't live in the UK), this turbine would be netting 100,000 pounds per month. Somehow I think that IS enough to cover operation and maintenance of a single turbine, assuming my assessment is in the right ballpark.
- subliminalurge, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4By about an inch and a half a year, btw.
- Markie1006, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4U.K... ***** yea!
- caseycoold, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4As an engineer, let me tell you we couldn't even come close to having a measureable effect on the moon with this. Even effecting the ocean would be astronomical.
There are ~1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water out there. It would take a pump running perfectly efficiency at 10.65 Gigawatts a year.
Thats 90 Billion kW-hours. $7.75 Billion.
An inch.
The ocean is 7 miles deep in places.
Let that role around for a bit. I think we are killing Earth other ways faster that slowing down the ocean.
And don't get me started on the numbers for the moon, it's bigger and heavier my many orders of magnitude.
Sources:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtm ...
http://www.wisegeek.com/how-much-is-a-kilowatt-hou ...
1.3 × 10^18 m^3 * 1kg/m^3= 1.3 × 10^18 kg of water
PE=m*g*h =1.3 × 10^18 kg*9.81km/s^2*0.0254m=3.2393*10^14 kilojoules
1 year= 31,556,926 seconds
(1 kW-h)(1000 W/kW)(3600 sec/h) = 3,600,000 W•sec = 3,600,000 J = 3.6*10^6 J - diggydougie, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4I thought that Niagra Falls has a huge dam already. Isn't it called Con-Edison?
- mrbambastik, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4Claiming this is the first commercial-scale tidal power system is incorrect.
The first tidal power system is France's "Usine Maremotrice de Rance" which was put in place in 1964 and is still operating:
http://www.edf.com/html/panorama/transversal/media ... - ivoices, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3Aren't there other places in the world with much stronger tides?
- zcreem, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3I imagine the blades will turn quite slowly due to tidal current. The speed of a normal boat propeller would be far more dangerous, and the fish will avoid the sound anyway.
- CATSCEO2, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4IF we actually built enough of these that it slowed the progression of the tides, it could slow the orbit of the moon and keep it on earth orbit longer (its currently moving away from us) or stabilize its orbit so we never lose it.
- diggmeup, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3Put a few windmills on top and get even more energy
- moobies, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3
According to this company, the rotors spin at about 10 to 15 revolutions per minute. If the rotors have a 10 meter radius than that works out to about 20 miles per hour. I think that's too slow to cut up a fish, and its not like these rotors are a knife edge. The fish also inhabit areas where the tidal currents are strong, so you can probably expect that they will be a bit more agile than your average fish. So, maybe not cut them up, but it might knock them the ***** around though, LOL. - paintgrl, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3I have to say it is horrible and wonderful that gas prices have gone so high. If the pressure from these high prices were not bearing down us, would we be so innovative?
I doubt it. We humans are so sad when it comes to do whats right for ourselves. - HonoredMule, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4Hey, rather than silently digging/burying me (currently at +3/-2), how about someone reply with some supporting or contradicting evidence or information? Is 100 pounds a typical power bill in the UK? Is 1.2 MW actually enough to power 1000 homes? What are the operating/maintenance costs on related/similar turbines?
Constructive dialogue would be nice. - diggydougie, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2A whale might be big enough to destroy the blades.
- inactive, on 07/18/2008, -3/+51.2 Megawatts is very little when you factor the cost of producing the thing, not to mention the chewed up sea life that will be floating around it.
- diggydougie, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3What if it did? It can't be worse than all the fish that we catch daily. This sounds just like the birds and bats arguments against wind power. I don't see any difference between these things killing animals and road kill. Do you propose that we stop driving cars because they kill possum and deer? And if you added it up we kill a lot of animals every day on the highways.
- stonewall123, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2Here's one.. http://gothamist.com/2007/08/13/east_river_turb.ph ...
Underwater turbines are a great idea if positioned in the right places.
For a video..
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=a16561a2d932 ... - subliminalurge, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3That's actually an interesting question....
Does anyone know just exactly how much energy we would have to extract from tides before we had an effect on the moon's orbit? Clearly we're a long, long way from that level, but it would be interesting to know exactly where the line is.
I'm sure somebody's done the math already. - CrispyBeef, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2...or they'll just put nets around the things. ;-)
- inactive, on 07/18/2008, -3/+5can't wait for one of these to chew up a whale into bits. that'll get you greenies in a conundrum right quick.
- ericjohnson0, on 07/18/2008, -3/+4The Pickens Plan (video clip) to cut our need for oil... good stuff.
http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/7/8/37828 ... - mythicflux, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Fluid Karma from Southland Tales?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtp14ikRvxo
(Not a rickroll) - diggydougie, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1It's very simple. We are a capitalist society. We will get our energy in whatever form is cheapest. If it is cheaper to burn up the planet by burning carbon then that's what we will do. The Arabs are doing us a favor by driving up the cost of oil. When you read about alternative energy sources they sometimes mention that what is holding it back is that energy from oil is cheaper. With expensive oil other sources are suddenly attractive. Thing is, Canada has more than Saudi Arabia, but in sand, and expensive to pump. When we start using Canadian oil all the solar and wind solutions will seem like too much trouble.
- SiliconViper, on 07/18/2008, -2/+3Dugg because renewable energy is trendy.
- bosssmiley, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1I wondered exactly the same about the bird mincers they're sticking on the hilltops now.
- maxhrk, on 07/18/2008, -2/+3wind mill kill birds, next fishes fall to underwater mill?
- Vullkan, on 07/29/2008, -1/+2finally, Neptune will get back to work
- diggydougie, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2It's 1.2 Megawatts all the time. Look at your electric bill and do the math. It will pay for itself. The chewed up sea life will just be food for other sea life (if it even does kill things, see other comments above). I expect that sharks will love the area.
- andydumi, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Its more of a test system on a smaller scale. If they prove it works, then they will start "commercializing it".
- opnickc, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2"IF we actually built enough of these that it slowed the progression of the tides, it could slow the orbit of the moon and keep it on earth orbit longer (its currently moving away from us) or stabilize its orbit so we never lose it."
That sounds like a win-win! Seriously, with all the talk of alternative power sources, why hasn't this gotten more attention? - moobies, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1it'll only kill the idiot divers...and I'm more for that than alternative energy itself
- inactive, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2Let's hope so, for the whales' sake.
- dixon1e, on 12/21/2008, -0/+1Unlike wind power, which is often generated at long distances from the large consuming metro areas, tidal power can more easily reach a much larger portion of the world's population. For example, according to Rice University researchers, by 2025 75% of Americans will be living near the coast: http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=V ...
This makes breakthroughs in this technology all the more important.
Another great example would be to locate tidal power for New York City in the East River, which is actually an ocean estuary between the north and south of Long Island. This is a massive, sustainable power source right in the middle of the one of the largest cities in the world. - lettruthout, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Or, to put it into perspective...
"Hope this technology is both MORE marine safe and commercially viable."
It should be compared to the damage that coal burning mercury pollution causes for instance.
All of our other forms of energy production take their toll on our environment. This one seems pretty benign in comparison. - inactive, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Lordy, I actually needed the /sarcasm switch?
Funny about the moon leaving us -- I had been (wrongly) told long ago that because of tidal drag that it would crash into us one day. Seemed reasonable that drag == into us. Well, when I saw a tv program a few years ago that said it was leaving because of tidal drag, I jumped off the couch and did my best impersonation of the Southpark mayor {"what what what?!"}
Thinking about it a little bit; It's kind of like a very slippy clutch. Energy is taken out of our rotation (slowing us down) and throwing the moon farther away as it gains it. - lettruthout, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Not me. I'd actually like to see wind turbines on the mountains within sight of my home. This would mean that my community is that much closer to being sustainable.
- ecoaussie, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Can't wait to see the stats on this soon.
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is