Scotland Touts Tidal Energy As The Renewable Of The Future
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 гру 2018
- Scotland's Tidal Energy Future: Producing 70% of its electricity from renewable resources last year, Scotland is striving to become 100% powered by renewables by 2020. It is now implementing the world's largest planned tidal project.
Subscribe to Journeyman here: ua-cam.com/users/subscription_c...
"Once they get this 150 tonne turbine into the water, this entire thing will swivel with the tide, four times a day, generating about enough power for 1000 homes." Eddie Scott is overseeing the instalment of turbines 100 feet underwater for Simec Atlantis Energy, the leaders of Scotland's MeyGen project to develop tidal power. Unlike wind turbines, these generators will capture energy from the regular tidal currents off Scotland's coast. "That's the real advantage of tidal energy: it's very, very predictable", says Eddie. An EU-subsidised project will test the MeyGen turbines, but Brexit could stall the process. However, the SAE is determined to persevere. "When it's fully done you're talking more than a quarter of a million homes that can benefit from the power that's generated", says SAE's CEO Tim Cornelius.
For more information, visit www.journeyman.tv/film/7493
Like us on Facebook: / journeymanpictures
Follow us on Twitter:
/ journeymannews
/ journeymanvod
Follow us on Instagram: / journeymanpictures
Visit our subreddit: / journeymanpictures
Say hi on tumblr: / journeymanpictures
PBS Newshour Weekend - Ref. 7493
cool thing about these tidal turbines is the fact that they can use Extremely High Torque Low RPM permanent magnet motors since water is 784 times denser then air its has much more force behind it and can move much heavier objects
If we take Denmark as a example of green energy, which is mostly wind turbines, they chose to invest far before the technology was economical , but now they are world leaders in wind technology, so my point is investing in tidal energy at this point is a must , with predictable tides for years to come ,
Yes Denmark has been investing in wind for a thousand plus years!
Charlie K sorry I have no idea on both questions, but I’m aware there’s a cost to the danish taxpayers,but this was a cost they planned years ahead
I. Used Denmark as a example of creating a industry, which ticks a lot of boxes for UK future ,i.e green energy, predictable tidal energy, UK is a island with massive potential in this industry,and the many technology’s are in place to achieve it , if UK do not support it , some other countries will , will it cost the UK ? how much I have no idea , but in 20 to 30 years time it would be well worth it , I’ll throw in a link using North Sea oil as example as a cost to UK tax payer, www.desmog.co.uk/2018/06/04/uk-worst-g7-countries-hiding-fossil-fuel-subsidies-report
My point entirely is to put the money in a industry with a future , job creation , leading a industry, creating a enormous potential leading the market creating a greener climate.
@Charlie K Wind power is the cheapest now (solar might be cheaper near the equator). Electricity is expensive in Denmark, but that is mainly due to taxes. The main cost is for when the wind isn't blowing, we import power, mostly from Norway - their hydro power works like a battery for us. But as a whole, the system is awesome. Feeding existing coal plants is more expensive than building new renewables.
@@tomkelly8827 We really invested in wind power after the oil crisis. But I guess you were talking about viking sailing ships?
Until the Chinese steal the technology and produce cheaply.
This seems like a no brainer for coastal countries
Absolutely. The sheer amount of energy in tidal currents is quite immense and I can't fathom how better technology for harvesting that energy is so slow coming.
Not every coastal country has meaningful tides, but yes, every form of renewable energy that is supplied by natural means should be tapped into.
and still is an idiotic idea promoted by idealists and con artists alike.
Unlike Wind power, much of which is on land and close to communities, Sea Turbine power is always far away, and then the costs of maintenance is huge because it's submerged out in no-where....AND the cost of delivery is exhorbitant. Since on average power networks lose about 25% - 30% on transmission (due to heat loss) putting a power source and extra 30 miles away is really costly.
Present systems generate heck of alot of power, then step it up to high voltage (126kV or 242kV or 500kV etc) to over come this problem because higher the voltage means lower the current means less heat loss.
But for ocean turbines to generate that much power they have to be HUGE and geographically very concentrated. With those requirements they have to be in deeper waters, and turbine power in water creates friction which slows it down. AND the there are problems of bioorganisms living on it....
I can tell you it's not even forseeable that Ocean Generators have that level of efficiency....nor are they ever gonna be that indestructible.
All they are selling you is hope : if you put money in it, the tech will one day payback. Unfortunately it never did for ocean power. Every sales pitch promises double the power and delivers a quarter of the performance promised. They have spent literally 10s of billions of dollars of research funds and given us nothing.
I will tell you now not to compare with Wind Energy. Wind power was started by a small Danish company called Vestas about 30 years ago,and at one point it dominated 70% of world markets. But it Never spent billions of VC funds to start up. It hardly delivered dud projects.
All I can say is Ocean Power Tech in its present state isn't just a tech waiting for money to grow, it's a con Job.
@@toraguchitoraguchi9154 Although your numbers are valid, you undoubtedly realize that the vast majority of wind power turbines are offshore? Not much difference in fact - I'm not a 'fan' of both technologies myself - but they both have merit in certain situations.
@@velianlodestone1249 The Vast majority of wind farms are not exactly off-shore. They would be useless if they were. Current systems are 12kV - 36kV systems, They can't deliver power more than 20 miles. Most of them that are built in oceans are on the coast line but close to land, which is not the same as sea turbines which need go be further out.
We’d only need 27,083 to power every home in Britain
That’s not sarcasm that’s surprisingly low
as with all technology green, it just gets bigger . so likely these turbines will become larger and more efficient . so maybe one quarter of that number or less as we become more efficient and better at building these machines .not only that . the energy of the water does not diminish so running them in formation behind one and other capturing endless free energy .
@@irish-medi-weed-grower5240 The energy does diminish. The exit velocity of the water is lower than the entrance velocity. You never get something for nothing.
@@rogeronslow1498 not sure that the amount of lost energy would even be measurable as the mass of the tide rushing in and out is unstoppable . you see the mass of the water that you seem to think loses velocity doesn't . this is because the mass of water behind that water is so vast in energy ,and all moving in the same direction .
just as long as we dont start driving electric cars. nice to see that subsidies are going to the oil industry :) we must keep that going!!!
@@randylecobik1412 yes there would be ,as with any substance being used to propel . but the force of the tide behind , pushing those turbulent waters , plus simple maths to work out a pattern to lay the turbines in order to cause least effect on subsequent turbines . something like the formation of geese ?
Because the tide is so regular this would require a minimum amount of storage to act as baseload power.
2021 is going to be (another) important year for Simec Atlantis but I'm not gonna lie: Being a shareholder of this company was not very enjoyable so far. XD
Majority of Scotland's power now comes from renewables, wind turbines alone produced (at peak) 109% power requirements for Scotland.
Niiiiice
and when the winter doldrums come they will produce close to zero. The Scottish Institute of Engineers has warned of the inevitable event. You quote peak because that is the only good number. Typically a solar or wind plant only produces 30% of its nameplate (peak) power rating, and then only when wetaher and time of day permit, not necessarily when you need it.
Wind power is better than ocean power, but wind power alone is not enough. You need lots of backup systems for when the wind stops blowing.
The whole point of it being spread out over the country is that it's always windy here, somewhere, hence the redundancy of supply. There are solar, tidal, hydro etc as well for the sake of redundancy too.
Now, I've not got figures for Scotland on its own as it's integrated into the national grid but the vast majority of the wind power in the below website is from here, if you monitor it over the course of a few days, you'll see it remains fairly consistent.
gridwatch.co.uk
There are also plans to use old mine shafts as storage for power, this is basically a really simple and ingenious method of storing excess power, ever seen an old clock where you pull the cord to raise the weight? Same principle. Electric motor raises the (huge) weight when there's excess power available then on demand lowers it, releasing the potential energy back into the grid.
@@yarpos I said it PRODUCED as in actually made 109% of our power requirements from wind alone, not that it had the capacity to. Granted demand was low and production was high but capacity is much higher, but that's not the average, the average production is lower, that's why we use hydro, wind, solar, tidal etc as part of a network so that if any one source had a drop in production then the others are there to take up the slack. Nuclear and coal are being phased out over the course of the next could of decades. Scottish power has already sold off the majority of is fossil plants and Hunterston nuclear power plant was sold to edf years ago and is being completely decommissioned within 5 years.
According to a report by the IMF in 2015, fossile energies receives an annual subsidy of roughly 3500 bn USD !
Cut that subsidy and renewable is competitive.
We had one of these type of turbines 15 years ago placed at the tidal mouth of strangford lough in Northern Ireland but it was removed for environmental reasons mainly for the safety of marine mammals the area is a protected nature reserve
It's taken almost half a century for this to get started. The oceans are the only source of renewable energy with the potential to power the world, about time! Thanks to all concerned.
Awesome. Today is the first time am hearing of Wave Energy.
Wow...your about 40 years late to the party..lol
Check out SeaQuest DSV. Water turbines in the show. Nothing new but maybe an inspiration to create one.
I hate the dumbing down of talking about "homes" being powered, it isn't a useful measure of energy production.
Each turbine apparently has a nameplate capacity of 1.5MW so you'd need 1100 of them to match the nameplate capacity of one EPR Reactor.
Capacity factor is around 40% and more predictable vs around 30% for wind in Scotland, Nuclear is typically >80%.
What about transferable technology from the Edinburgh tram project ?
11:15 I might have to wait 300 years for a 200 year storm to come along...
Yes, that's in the realm of possibilities.
only use a long handle so we got more torque at one end of the sea saw by half cycle technology
7: 41
that great hump near sea beaches are very good naturally
it can give you a place to established a floating and created energy by sea saw modal movement in either case of pendulum going to move
The first device seems the best because you don't see it. It sits completely on the sea bed.
This maybe the first in Europe , but Nova Scotia has a water turbine in the Bay of Fundy ..
Yup, there's many tidal/water turbine projects about the UK and there's been some even since the late 70's.
a planned 2,500 tidal turbine project was cancelled by the uk government recently, it would have created 10,000 jobs during the construction phase, however, despite Westminster removing key factors like the green subsidy, investment in the green sector has continued within Scotland, primarily due the SNP and EU support, it is vital for the sector, and the Scottish Government will capitalise on the fact that sub sea power cables now connect us to the south of England, and now already send power to that region, earning hundreds of millions of pounds a year for the generators, Scotlands potential has been estimated at around £8-£10 Billion in tax a year, thats around 5 times what oil brings in, so its vital for that investment to continue.
and still is an idiotic idea promoted by idealists and con artists alike.
Unlike Wind power, much of which is on land and close to communities, Sea Turbine power is always far away, and then the costs of maintenance is huge because it's submerged out in no-where....AND the cost of delivery is exhorbitant. Since on average power networks lose about 25% - 30% on transmission (due to heat loss) putting a power source and extra 30 miles away is really costly.
Present systems generate heck of alot of power, then step it up to high voltage (126kV or 242kV or 500kV etc) to over come this problem because higher the voltage means lower the current means less heat loss.
But for ocean turbines to generate that much power they have to be HUGE and geographically very concentrated. With those requirements they have to be in deeper waters, and turbine power in water creates friction which slows it down. AND the there are problems of bioorganisms living on it....
I can tell you it's not even forseeable that Ocean Generators have that level of efficiency....nor are they ever gonna be that indestructible.
All they are selling you is hope : if you put money in it, the tech will one day payback. Unfortunately it never did for ocean power. Every sales pitch promises double the power and delivers a quarter of the performance promised. They have spent literally 10s of billions of dollars of research funds and given us nothing.
I will tell you now not to compare with Wind Energy. Wind power was started by a small Danish company called Vestas about 30 years ago,and at one point it dominated 70% of world markets. But it Never spent billions of VC funds to start up. It hardly delivered dud projects.
All I can say is Ocean Power Tech in its present state isn't just a tech waiting for money to grow, it's a con Job.
@@toraguchitoraguchi9154 ya just copy pasted your previous reply to another comment ya lazy badger
@@chamiboulette Yes, the reply is the same and the content won't change for many years to go.
And seeing how ocean-floor installations today are abandoned after 10-15 years, it's no wonder why those ocean-floor power generating farms remain university projects.....university students are too stupid to realize that all sorts of coral and other stuff will grow and jam their devices on the ocean bed within a few years.....
@@toraguchitoraguchi9154 which is why the development of movable turbines is crucial, every watt counts, and the tide, unlike wind, can be relied on, which is why its so important to develop, single sources aint the answer, and its a blend of technologies that we need, so dont be all THAT, calm down and rationalise.
@@thelastdruidofscotland I wish people would do a little research into how many years and how many billions of dollars have been thrown into developing ocean turbines...and why all those hyped up projects failed.....I would love to read every failure analysis.
What if the conveyor stops? Will it work in a little iceage?
Water move under ice! really get an education man.
I'd imagine that maintenance is quite expensive for something that's underwater. (Well they answered that just now) You'd also still need energy storage. Is it better than wind? I'm doubtful. I'd like these guys to keep getting funded of course
"This 150 tonne turban"
Ey?
That's one heftily adorned Sikh!
Charles Morris
Extreme Sikhism!
Every day is neck day
As an island nation this is a no brainier
One of these is equivalent to 800 wind turbines....to put things in perspective.
So we don't see them and we don't hear them. What if any are their affects on the underwater environment?
What are your concerns extactly?
Anyone interested in this should check out Minesto and their Deep Green project. It could potentially make tidal energy much cheaper by using much less material
Nope. Another stupid idea.
and still is an idiotic idea promoted by idealists and con artists alike.
Unlike Wind power, much of which is on land and close to communities, Sea Turbine power is always far away, and then the costs of maintenance is huge because it's submerged out in no-where....AND the cost of delivery is exhorbitant. Since on average power networks lose about 25% - 30% on transmission (due to heat loss) putting a power source and extra 30 miles away is really costly.
Present systems generate heck of alot of power, then step it up to high voltage (126kV or 242kV or 500kV etc) to over come this problem because higher the voltage means lower the current means less heat loss.
But for ocean turbines to generate that much power they have to be HUGE and geographically very concentrated. With those requirements they have to be in deeper waters, and turbine power in water creates friction which slows it down. AND the there are problems of bioorganisms living on it....
I can tell you it's not even forseeable that Ocean Generators have that level of efficiency....nor are they ever gonna be that indestructible.
All they are selling you is hope : if you put money in it, the tech will one day payback. Unfortunately it never did for ocean power. Every sales pitch promises double the power and delivers a quarter of the performance promised. They have spent literally 10s of billions of dollars of research funds and given us nothing.
I will tell you now not to compare with Wind Energy. Wind power was started by a small Danish company called Vestas about 30 years ago,and at one point it dominated 70% of world markets. But it Never spent billions of VC funds to start up. It hardly delivered dud projects.
All I can say is Ocean Power Tech in its present state isn't just a tech waiting for money to grow, it's a con Job.
Texas 's electric bill is lowest among the States because of using a lot of wind power!
actually in terms of actual power delivered Texas has very little wind power the great majority (80%ish) is from traditional sources. They are very good at PR spin though
Texas has 25000 wind turbines. That's equivalent to 65 of these....
For Texas why not use geothermal storage. This would reduce peak load and heat even when electricity mains fails.
Would be overjoyed to detail.
Systems Engineer lecturer Air conditionning.
There’s a trick we’re missing here in the central belt. It’s dotted with former coal mines, deep mines where there’s lots of heat just sitting there... why haven’t we put heat exchangers down there to generate hot water and power?
Because the Romans got there first and they are now protected sites. lol
Why do they always say it can power 100k homes, how much power is that? Tell us in Mw hours instead of telling us in bullshit.
I would imagine it's vaguely to do with the fact that average people know very little about the semantics of energy production. News is usually reported in lay-terms so that as many people as possible can grasp the concept. While you may well know what a Mw hour is, if you asked my Mum if she does the answer would be somewhere along the lines of "What the fuck are you talking about?" 😁
Just as an aside - 2 minutes flipping between Google and my calculator has revealed that the answer to your question is: around 460,000Mw Hours. Have a great day 😉
@@vonmarmotson812 I think you worked out Kwh not Mwh and even still that would be 46kwh per house per day that's a lot I was averaging 26kwh a day in summer running 2 very old air conditioner units(in Australia). Now I have solar panels and replace both AC with new ones I think I'm using less than 10kwh. But we are doing the journalism for them. They could have done a better job of it and I'll be commenting on how impressive it is. Instead we are still trying to find out what 100k homes really means.
@@corporalpunishment1133 there is no A/C in Scotland.
@ why not ? you can efficiently heat and cool with A/C (or heat pumps as they call them in some places)
For some engineering analysis of tidal energy possibilities around Britain (as an example of the considerations that go into using tidal energy) I recommend the Energy Matters post A Trip Round Swansea Bay, euanmearns.com/a-trip-round-swansea-bay/ . If you search Energy Matters for posts tagged 'tidal' you'll find a lot more useful information and food for thought.
Search Energy Matters on 'batteries' for reality checks about the amount of storage that intermittent energy sources need.
Our Norther Cousins should become independent
i remember something like this being done,years ago,to me its a no brainer,what took them so long, its like solar roofs,dont see many of those either,why the hell not? anything to get power cheaper has got to be done...NOW.
and still is an idiotic idea promoted by idealists and con artists alike.
Unlike Wind power, much of which is on land and close to communities, Sea Turbine power is always far away, and then the costs of maintenance is huge because it's submerged out in no-where....AND the cost of delivery is exhorbitant. Since on average power networks lose about 25% - 30% on transmission (due to heat loss) putting a power source and extra 30 miles away is really costly.
Present systems generate heck of alot of power, then step it up to high voltage (126kV or 242kV or 500kV etc) to over come this problem because higher the voltage means lower the current means less heat loss.
But for ocean turbines to generate that much power they have to be HUGE and geographically very concentrated. With those requirements they have to be in deeper waters, and turbine power in water creates friction which slows it down. AND the there are problems of bioorganisms living on it....
I can tell you it's not even forseeable that Ocean Generators have that level of efficiency....nor are they ever gonna be that indestructible.
All they are selling you is hope : if you put money in it, the tech will one day payback. Unfortunately it never did for ocean power. Every sales pitch promises double the power and delivers a quarter of the performance promised. They have spent literally 10s of billions of dollars of research funds and given us nothing.
I will tell you now not to compare with Wind Energy. Wind power was started by a small Danish company called Vestas about 30 years ago,and at one point it dominated 70% of world markets. But it Never spent billions of VC funds to start up. It hardly delivered dud projects.
All I can say is Ocean Power Tech in its present state isn't just a tech waiting for money to grow, it's a con Job.
@@toraguchitoraguchi9154
You clearly did not pay attention to the documentary and appear to cling onto old tech ideas and aspirations like a true fossil addict.
@@showme360 Same old ocean energy crap rehashed.
It seems like it would effect wildlife more to have many tidal turbines under water, than a few mega size wind turbines that are also more efficient and productive at this point. But hopefully tidal energy can get more competitive with wind in the next few years.
Wind has a more dramatic effect on the turbines than tidal water movement, which is more stable and consistent in strength and speed. The turbine moves with the water, not the other way round! The number of turbines would be considerably less than wind, but could conceivably achieve the same amount of energy in the same time frame!
Excellent. Sea and wind, it is all our species of today (with assistance from our scientists learning) need to keep ourselves warm and lit. Or perhaps not, perhaps God's kind words are needed too. Have a wonderful Christmas. x
This is a way out for the oil industry.
I hope the Scottish government puts in about 1 billion to push this project for under water wind turbines
Ryan,
if they did it would be money down the drain. Tidal power si not a good source of energy. The Swansea Bay project was scrapped because the cost of building and maintaining the generators wsas far too expensive for the pitifully small amount of power it can generate. It is low energy power and another renewable dead end.
@ 0:08 "each with 30 foot blade". foot? are they walking somewhere?
Good
No one on board. That will end in tears.
Make the Norway gass undervater tube a pensjonist already. Nice. NORWEGIAN
Skottland can be the king of Norway. The brexit is nice we think in Norway. Standing outside together can be a Nice salution.
Hope those turbines don't leak any oil into the ocean
Before you watch: Dont expect any mention of cost per kwh
why would they? The only ongoing cost is maintenance.
You mean the wind energy that’s failing.
I needed the captions more for the Scottish people than for the Spanish guy
It's Scotland not Scatland
you been to Glasgow?
Yeah different people have different accents mate
@@countertopconfessions9975 I have been to North America they pronounce O as O not A
Why would one have to wait 300 years for a 200 year storm?
the last one was 100 years ago
no guarantee that the next 200 years will be as stormy
Tsunami ?
Bhaskar Raju Little to no threat of a tsunami in Scotland
Are the maline animals safe from those rotating blade?
I would assume the blades move much slower than on a windmill, and thus are safer.
The turbine moves with the water, not the other way round!
That's great. Wish the Scottish Government would sort out the mobile phone companies like Vodafone that charge it's customers for services they don't deliver. So I can get reception and watch the rest of this clip.
ไหนลองเอาเรือดำน้ำมาดูดน้ำและเอาน้ำมาต้มให้เป็นไอน้ำเพื่อสร้างอาศจากไอน้ำที่ต้มภายในเรือดำน้ำสิโธ่... บอกไปแลัวสูตรสำเร็จนี้โธ่...
More than twice as expensive than allready very heavy subsidised wind. That makes this even more ridiculous for intermittent tiny bits of power. It can never compete with gas or coal and can forget to ever compete with nuclear.
You mean like Hinkley point nuclear power plant? A power plant that is only built because the government guarantees an electricity price that is much higher than current prices, including that of renewables? Nuclear is not competitive even with coal.
@@superdau you are mixing up real costs with political costs.
if this technology gives tremendous energy electricity then use that energy for hydrolysis of water so more oxygen are going to environment and pollution solution become easy
For what its worth, here are a few things to consider about any device, wind, water, solar, etc designed to capture " free" energy. Why: Why are you doing it? is it to reduce the cost of electricity to the end consumer? or is it to save the planet? If its the latter, then the question is simple this: does the device that you intend on making, cost more in terms of polluting the planet, during its manufacture and maintenance, than in its ability to reduce pollution, when generating electricity during it operational, and decommissioning lifetime? If the answer is
that its about the same? then is it really worth doing at all?, for saving the environment and planet? The trick is to have a device that can generate electricity, that doesn't cost, or have a great impact on the environment, by the pollution generated during its manufacture! That should be the holy grail of green power, the goal that all devices should be able to claim. Thus it is not a race to see whether wind or tidal energy can produce the most electricity, its what the true cost to the environment, that should be the bottom line! and which generating system can rightly claim that it generates "cleanest " electricity by virtue of impacting the environment, the least during its manufacture and decommissioning.
keep chatting me over it
My English pronunciation is very confused after watching this video...
Blended seals and dolphins here we come!
They turn at very low rpm , dolphins will be curious and swim safety around , tankers , cruise ships etc pose more dangers to marine life.
its speed is up to 5 rpm. it has sensors when a big mammal approach and a blade is as sharp as a log.
I just think it’s curious that they did not mention the risk of impact with sea life. Ships often collide whales and other large sea mammals, I would be surprised if this is not a risk here too.
The land in Scotland is so old! Not long now and It's all washed out to sea.
All this FUNDING from the EU, comes from the UK!!!
Is this slowing down the earth or the moon or both?
Just you.
Both, but that energy was going to be taken anyway because the shores of the sea cause a lot more drag than we ever could
mhappy01 omg is it dangerous?
Curiosity Of Mankind sounds reasonable. Thanks!
Just the moon
Tidal power is the most wasted power that could be harnessed as stored energy. It is predictable in power and schedule. It is totally created from the moon's gravity as the moon orbits the Earth . So you know it won't change overnight. If we were to use the principles of hydraulics , we could use the weight of the water to pump or elevate either the water or other mediums that can later be used to release the stored energy when in demand.
Presently they pump water using excess hydro power. Imagine capturing the potential energy of a mass of water in a man made bay that is manipulated by hydraulics to elevate a medium , 10 times higher for free and release that stored energy when needed.
In the mean time turbines can still be used as gates as the tide waters enter and exit.
Together they would supply energy around the clock , even outside of the tide's schedules.
Bring hydraulics experts and engineers into the designing.
I'm sure this is the way to go.
Tidal power & hydroelectric power is the most efficent clean ways of producing power.
Not hoping half the coasts will be occupied with turbines, I fear for marine life, bigger fish and divers.
The turbine moves with the water, not the other way round!
Take a look at www.vertogen.eu
What would be ideal is to have sluice gates at the gorge to hold the water back as the tide goes out, then open the sluices through to generators and use all the stored energy of the water rather than let 98% of it get wasted.
Go one further and have those generators power pumps to pump sea water into a natural mountain reservoir so you have power 24hrs a day on tap.
The great thing about the sea is it can be predicted far into the future, so you know what you're getting and when.
Amazing how gullible people are to think that these are environmentally friendly.
Right Flyer, why don't you enlighten us then?
pointless statement of a fossil!
The solution is nuclear but humans can not handle nuclear energy with responsibility so alternative energy is better for all..
If we could use fusion then yes, that's true but fission is just too difficult to manage. Scotland is decommissioning nuclear plants over the next few years, Scottish power has already sold off it's nuclear in favour of renewables and is set to sell or decommission it's fossil fuel plants over the next decade or so as well.
Nuclear is already more expensive than many of the other energy generation methods, not to mention all the unsolved problems it has.
Why no mention of the down sides? First, the tide only runs fast for a couple of hours and then it slows down, stops and starts to run in the opposite direction and it does this almost 4 times a day.....so you need other energy sources during these periods of low/no production.
2nd, the marine environment is far harder on things than the land, after a couple of years they will be over-grown with marine life and anything that can corrode will be corroded.
3rd, what about marine animals like whales and dolphins, do they have to take their chances that they don't get cut up?
We never had dolphins, and frankly we've successfully killed off most of the even vaguely interesting sea animals around our coast. Now we have..... Jellyfish and um.... The occasional seal, a basking shark or two...... Yeah, that's pretty much it. Most animals have the ability to steer around large reasonably stationary obstacles like these without too much issue.
This is clearly designed as supplemental power generation, and as such is not designed to run on its own, hence the national Grid.
In the article they said it needs to be pulled out and refurbished every 6 years, though I imagine there's more routine maintenance done on site.
Btw, in November we produced (at peak supply) 109% of Scotland's power demand from wind turbines alone. But the problem with that is its not consistent, so in answer to that, in development, there is a project to use old mine shafts to store power in the form of a massive weight which is winched up the shaft when there is excess power and lowered releasing the potential energy back into the grid. Simple, low tech solution to energy storage.
@@alexarcano
A wee sonic warning pulse being emitted will keep everything away, I mean if theyre smart enough to stick a big turbine under water n power 1000 homes from it theyre smart enough to attach a dog whistle for fish onto it.
Because pipelines and drilling equipment for oil and gas and fracking do not corrode? If you have ever seen a tide ripping through a sound at full speed, so fast and turbulent it produces white water, marine life adapted to all that. seems like these turbines move fairly slowly even at full speed one full rotation takes a few seconds, methinks not fast enough to frappé marine life or produce cavitation that would burst an air bladder, unlike the turbines of hydro dams that choke rivers all over the world.
You know very little about tides by the looks of it. Around Britain there are hours of differences between high/low tides depending on location. Strategically positioning a number of these would provide constant supply of electricity.
@@onemaninaboat Yeah, I know there can be hours of difference between tides over a relative short distance. The problem being, you need somewhere that the tide creates a strong current, like the opening into large natural harbours and bays, the best is straights between 2 large land masses. So it's only natural to place the turbines where they will generate the most power, but that means the locations are very limited.
Iron brew and refugees in hamster wheels thats the answer im telling you
We are not leaving Europe. We are leaving the EU political system. The money for EMEC that comes from EU actually comes from UK. Something like £15 billion payed in, and a few Billion comes back for projects like EMEC. EU decides where to spend our taxes as it sees fit.
I totally agree that the EU fee is far too high.
Sweden, where I live, pays 35 billion SEK (£3 billion).
The average UK citizen pays around £230 and the average Swedish citizen pays even more, around £300 each year for the EU membership.
On the other hand, Swedish trade and export to former Warsaw pact countries has sky rocketed when these countries economies were helped up by the EU.
Meanwhile the Tories are either cancelling or reducing investment in the area of Green Energy.
mud and garbage will stop the fan of turbine so useless in a while
There isnt a single tidal energy project that is still working two years after the grand opening. People greatly underestimate the maribe environment. Powered by subsidies and other people money why should they?
Yes they are, and the effects are being examined by the 1st protoype to help develop the techonolgy in this environment, and as for subsideies which are still paying to polute the air we breath! www.desmog.co.uk/2018/06/04/uk-worst-g7-countries-hiding-fossil-fuel-subsidies-report
It time we switched!!!!!
Needs a guard for whales. 6 year maintenance cycle. Eh? Mmm sure?
Haha after 6 years underwater, this thing will have soo much marine life hanging off it, they need to actually put something on the bottom of the ocean for 6 years and see what it looks like at the end of it.
If the turbine is renewable how often does the tidal turbine have to be renewed it is made with coal steel and oik (fossil fuels) and doesn't last for ever
Roger Reimer
Did you watch the video? 25 year lifespan and made from carbon not steel.
Will it slow the earth rotation eventually???
u what?
No with all them turbines it will get faster 😂😂😂
Don't be silly the Earth is flat, how can it have any rotation? It zig zags.
No, but you will with comments like that
Lppfusion.com has turn key systems size of garage. 6500 HP. No new discoveries needed. Will tital work in space? LoL.
actually YES its the moon in space that makes our tides! wonderfull isnt it!!
Hm. Is not all this renewable energy supposed to cost less in our bills. I must be an idiot, I justo this get it🤕🤕🤕🤕🤕
Not necessarily, it's designed to move away from the reliance on fossil fuel and nuclear power supply, not to produce cheaper power. Hunterston nuclear power plant is getting decommissioned in a couple of years and frankly the no need to replace it with anything similar because projects such as these and abundant existing renewables are in place already to cope with demand. So anyway there is maintenance costs involved along with setup, wages and training, all the usual things involved with running the grid so costs are slightly less but roughly equivalent. As the saying goes, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
VERY OLD IDEAS! STUDY THE NEW POWER OF ADAM TROMBLY!
and still is an idiotic idea promoted by idealists and con artists alike.
Unlike Wind power, much of which is on land and close to communities, Sea Turbine power is always far away, and then the costs of maintenance is huge because it's submerged out in no-where....AND the cost of delivery is exhorbitant. Since on average power networks lose about 25% - 30% on transmission (due to heat loss) putting a power source and extra 30 miles away is really costly.
Present systems generate heck of alot of power, then step it up to high voltage (126kV or 242kV or 500kV etc) to over come this problem because higher the voltage means lower the current means less heat loss.
But for ocean turbines to generate that much power they have to be HUGE and geographically very concentrated. With those requirements they have to be in deeper waters, and turbine power in water creates friction which slows it down. AND the there are problems of bioorganisms living on it....
I can tell you it's not even forseeable that Ocean Generators have that level of efficiency....nor are they ever gonna be that indestructible.
All they are selling you is hope : if you put money in it, the tech will one day payback. Unfortunately it never did for ocean power. Every sales pitch promises double the power and delivers a quarter of the performance promised. They have spent literally 10s of billions of dollars of research funds and given us nothing.
I will tell you now not to compare with Wind Energy. Wind power was started by a small Danish company called Vestas about 30 years ago,and at one point it dominated 70% of world markets. But it Never spent billions of VC funds to start up. It hardly delivered dud projects.
All I can say is Ocean Power Tech in its present state isn't just a tech waiting for money to grow, it's a con Job.
You clearly did not pay attention to the documentary and appear to cling onto old tech ideas and aspirations like a true fossil addict.
I wonder if the tides will stop with Brexit? It appears that any opportunity to knock the Brexit process its taken. The UK will continue to fund R&D into tidal energy. Whether a Spanish company still operates in UK waters with EU funding remains to be seen. But if we stay in the EUSSR the waters around the UK that are ideal for capturing tidal energy will be deemed by the EUSSR as their recourse so the sooner we're out the better.
EUSSR? I thought it was the fourth Reich? No! It's an Islamic caliphate!..or.. a Zionist superstate, yes! I don't know what to believe anymore, guys..
Yes EUSSR, it represents a number of former free self governing nations that have surrendered their sovereignty without the consent of its citizens and now decides what's best for us all without thinking or caring to ask.
the money the eu gets to give to these companies is acutally the UKs money as 10% of the EUs annual money is from the UK! don't try and make out nothing can get done without the eu, as that is very dishonest! Bad reporting.
Why? We have plenty of energy.
@Rolf Jander There is no proof that man made CO2 is making any significant difference to the climate. The cost to switch to alternative energy is staggering and will result in significant degradation in human quality of life.
This has been badly implemented. The people pay half the cost to build it and then pay tarrifs.In the case of windmills we pay more tarrifs when they are not in use. And the rich get richer. Mindless and most people are completely unaware. What a sellout.
So only last 25 years and repaired every 6 years that is very expensive a lot of fossil fuels to do that salt water causes a lot of corrosion
@Rolf Jander Much less.
@Rolf Jander Yes, if they are land based systems. It does depend on manufacturer though.
@Rolf Jander
A bloody lot as someone who has worked on maintenance on various power plants including nuclear; I can safely say there is no such thing as a maintenance free day on any type of energy plant that is why they have such large maintenance crews. One small hydro electric plant ( used only in Peak Demand Mostly ) had a maintenance budget of over Twenty Million pounds Annually and used every bit of it and had to get more to fix everything that went wrong in the 4 years i was there, Bye the way this was a modern plant at the time came on line about 1983 I worked there 1991-95.
This is why your electricity bills are soo high. This plonker will never even recover it's cost.
How about some figures please.
Love how they say European funded, it is all tax payer funded by you the tax payer.
if the government is pumping money in to it would bring costs down on energy but taxes would go up. that's a low cost for development that we may need in the future
@@rossmckechnie4491 or we could just utilise thorium nuclear and be set for the next 100000 years.
You mean like Hinkley point? That is a decades long liability on the taxpayer because the government guarantees an electricity price that is much higher than current prices, including that of renewables?