for a few hours every day.
for a few hours every day.
trials
There is a boat hit it a few months back, bet I can't find it with the crappy search on the BBC news site.
Strangford Lough:
But also found these first. Some one mentioned the Pentland Firth:
Trial Orkney:
Like windmills you can only take a small fraction of the total energy available, yes there will be slowing but not a great deal.
I wouldn't say that most tidal flow sites are particularly laminar. The channel beds are rarely smooth and level.
Which means the results will be difficult to predict. I suppose the worst that can happen is we stop the ocean currents and all sea life dies out and we get a permanent ice age. The sort of scare stories the climate change groups like to put out.
Then we can all ice-skate to France.
That's 4 times a few hours each day and several hours peak difference round the entire country.
I am not advocating this as an alternative to nuclear; just pointing up the predictability compared to wind or Sun.
The tides take place at different times round our coast shitferbrains.
None of these projects is viable short term. But you have to think long term. Half wit financers are onlyinterested in instant profit. Which is what gotus into the position we are in now.
It has taken many decade to get us wher ewe are now ith nuclear power & eeven then we still get accidents. It took centuries to perfect coal power.
In article , harryagain scribeth thus
Extremely rarely..
And sadly a lot more lives then nuclear ever did !...
True but to get constant output you have therefore to build two sets of kit. Just like any other renewable. So, as usual, you pay twice.
predictability is less than sun and is still irrelevant.
The thing that matters is the uncontrolled variability whether predictable or not.
A stopped watch is predictably correct twice a day..
How so? I imagine you could predict tide strength, direction of flow and duration for the odd thousand years. The variation during the Lunar cycle is also predictable. If the energy is in the wrong place or too expensive or as Tim suggests you need double the tackle, fair enough, don't do it.
How about a variable economy 7 to match tidal output?
You could predict your max and min capability and juggle other plant to gap fill.
All the current green energy systems have their downsides. If the cost/reliability fits I guess this has less than most. Sadly, most of the best currents are off Scotland.
Bring on the nuclear....
In message , harryagain writes
So what do you suggest? Multiple sets of turbines every few miles all around the coast each set only producing power for a few hours a day? Just how many sets would it take? Then what happens when we get the wrong sort of tides?
In message , harryagain writes
Dithering politicians listening to the green lobby got us where we are today
Nope It took less than a couple. We then did nothing for 40 years as explained above
Utter bollocks not worth answering in detail
In message , tony sayer writes
But fewer per GW generated than wind turbines
No, tidal has its uses. A barrage on Morecambe Bay, and one in the Severn, could provide power over the 24 hour period.
Probably enough to replace ONE whole nuclear station. And at an enormous cost to the environment.
Andy
and even more cost to the consumer.
The strike price for tidal is £305/MWh!!!
having 10% of your electricity produced my that adds 3p onto every unit more or less.
IIRC the full sized Severn *Barrage* project would have been 12 GW or about 4 GW more than entire current nuclear fleet...
Even more frightening cost wise..
12GW twice a day mostly when you didn't need it..at 6 times market price for it's output..
Is this some kind of point you're trying to prove? If it isn't fossil fuel, it must be inherently shit?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.