Tidal energy on its way.

[noseall]

http://news.sky.com/story/1499090/uk-to-get-underwater-power-station.

A few more of theses around Britains huge coastline and there will be no need for fossil fuel power stations.

 

[joe-90]

That's a bit of a 'bore'.

 

[KenGMac]

Up here, in the far frozen north with big waves all around the Country various wave nodding ideas have been tried, but the floating wave energy model does not seem to have worked too well?

There are some sea bed fixed turbines sited in areas of high concentrations of large water flow in the Sea, these sites are yet to be proven. these sort of gismos should work? there are numerous areas around Scotland where Sea Bed mounted generators could work, with the technology of contra rotating blades incoming and outgoing tide in theory can produce a large generation potential?

It appears that the Lagoon with Contra Rotating generation may be a good way to go?

 

[Brigadier]

All part of the overall future, but £1 billion for a small town's worth of homes? We'll need an awful lot of these, to wean ourselves off fossil fuels.
Not to mention completely new heating systems.

 

[JohnD]

Morecambe bay has been eyed up for at least 50 years. It is enormous and has a huge flow. It could have a barrage built and turbines using well-understood and reliable technology.

however it would disrupt bird habitat and yotties, so is obviously out of the question.

 

[JBR]

I'd be very surprised if properly developed tidal energy systems wouldn't prove far more efficient than windmills on the grounds that tides are predictable and inevitable whereas wind is not.

 

[joe-90]

It is on curry nights.

 

[AronSearle]

Mixed about this.

If ITER works, then it will all be a huge waste of money.

At the same time, whilst it is expensive, we should be building this stuff whilst oil is cheap.

 

[wobs]

Mixed about this.

If ITER works, then it will all be a huge waste of money.

At the same time, whilst it is expensive, we should be building this stuff whilst oil is cheap.

ITER is many years away, and even if it does work, it will take time to develop the following generations of fusion reactors.

Current nuclear fission is worth expanding of course, and we need to do this ASAP. And employ a new re-processing system such a PRISM.

Tidal has some potential expansion, but the reason that the Seven Bore didn't happen was largely down to its unique design. In other words, its not something you can roll out across the country's other estuaries etc, as each one would need a specific design, which would add to the cost. And its still intermittent, albiet preictable.

The reason that wind has enjoyed such expansion is that it is repeatable across the whole country (and world). You get a small number of designs, and replicate it thousands of times, and save a huge amount of dosh.

The subsidies that renewables enjoy apply to both, so that isn't the issue here.

 

[Brigadier]

Mixed about this.

If ITER works, then it will all be a huge waste of money.

At the same time, whilst it is expensive, we should be building this stuff whilst oil is cheap.

ITER is many years away, and even if it does work, it will take time to develop the following generations of fusion reactors.

Current nuclear fission is worth expanding of course, and we need to do this ASAP. And employ a new re-processing system such a PRISM.

Tidal has some potential expansion, but the reason that the Seven Bore didn't happen was largely down to its unique design. In other words, its not something you can roll out across the country's other estuaries etc, as each one would need a specific design, which would add to the cost. And its still intermittent, albiet preictable.

The reason that wind has enjoyed such expansion is that it is repeatable across the whole country (and world). You get a small number of designs, and replicate it thousands of times, and save a huge amount of dosh.

The subsidies that renewables enjoy apply to both, so that isn't the issue here.

Big fly in the ointment is that all of the renewables and nuclear produce electricity, which we can't practically store to any great extent.

Unless some of it is used to split water for hydrogen, economies and societies like ours will have to completely change the way they think, drive, behave, live.


Final point - I used to read New Scientist, and read an article some years ago, where leaders in each field were asked about likely advances in their respective specialities, with timescales.

I recall that the concensus was that cancers would be "cured" by 2018 latest, but that controllable fusion would be 2050; although this was heavily caveated with the supposedly oft-repeated phrase "Fusion is 50 years away, and always will be."

 

[longdogs]

Morecambe bay has been eyed up for at least 50 years. It is enormous and has a huge flow. It could have a barrage built and turbines using well-understood and reliable technology.

however it would disrupt bird habitat and yotties, so is obviously out of the question.

Are you talking about yachts or drugs?

 

[wobs]

Mixed about this.

If ITER works, then it will all be a huge waste of money.

At the same time, whilst it is expensive, we should be building this stuff whilst oil is cheap.

ITER is many years away, and even if it does work, it will take time to develop the following generations of fusion reactors.

Current nuclear fission is worth expanding of course, and we need to do this ASAP. And employ a new re-processing system such a PRISM.

Tidal has some potential expansion, but the reason that the Seven Bore didn't happen was largely down to its unique design. In other words, its not something you can roll out across the country's other estuaries etc, as each one would need a specific design, which would add to the cost. And its still intermittent, albiet preictable.

The reason that wind has enjoyed such expansion is that it is repeatable across the whole country (and world). You get a small number of designs, and replicate it thousands of times, and save a huge amount of dosh.

The subsidies that renewables enjoy apply to both, so that isn't the issue here.

Big fly in the ointment is that all of the renewables and nuclear produce electricity, which we can't practically store to any great extent.

Unless some of it is used to split water for hydrogen, economies and societies like ours will have to completely change the way they think, drive, behave, live.


Final point - I used to read New Scientist, and read an article some years ago, where leaders in each field were asked about likely advances in their respective specialities, with timescales.

I recall that the concensus was that cancers would be "cured" by 2018 latest, but that controllable fusion would be 2050; although this was heavily caveated with the supposedly oft-repeated phrase "Fusion is 50 years away, and always will be."

Why would you need to store electricity produce by nuclear fission?
Renewables (most of them) are intermittent, and therefore can only supply up about 20% of the grid without resorting to storage or importing/exporting to other countries.

Storage is an extra cost ultimately, but currently is not a big issue, as we are still expanding towards that 20% level. Only then will it become a major issue.

The line about fusion always being 50years away is a cliche, but not necessarily true. Progress has been made in recent years in getting reactions running for longer periods, and there are more than one system being developed, so we'll see which acheives the end goal.

ITER would not be built if they thought they wouldn't get to an end goal of a workable plant, and it is part of the long term plan to acheive that.

 

[jeds]

Big fly in the ointment is that all of the renewables and nuclear produce electricity, which we can't practically store to any great extent.

Yes, but, a tidal lagoon is in effect a massive battery. You can let the water out whenever you like.

I still think it's a shame the Severn barrage didn't get approval. I like wildlife and particularly birds but the massive potential of the estuary outweighs the arguments. I also believe they are more resilient than we think and would relocate themselves or adapt.

 

[JBR]

As far as I'm aware, the only method of electricity production that is able to react to sudden additional demands (or reduction of demand) is the burning of fossil fuels: coal, gas and oil. Nuclear fission is controllable in this respect, but to a lesser extent.
The problem is that 'fossil fuel' has become a dirty word(!) these days. Unfortunately, we still need them not only for the above reason but also because we have not invested enough in nuclear power. 'Renewables', of course, are not going to supply what we need for a long time and I doubt that wind power especially is not going to prove anything like sufficient or reliable enough.

 

[JohnD]

Hydro. You turn the tap on. Nothing is faster. They do it at times of high demand when the price is high, and turn off when demand and cost falls.

Pumped hydro, they pump water up to the reservoir when demand and price are low, and run it down when high.

They can predict demand pretty well. You will find the AC frequency varies by only a very small amount with mismatch of S and D.

Metered Windpower currently produces in the region of 5%-10% of UK supply and, once built, will sell into any price. Last Saturday it was producing almost 5GW, and as I write it is about 1.6GW. Unmetered windpower is about half as much again.

Total demand as I write is about 32GW and Nuclear is producing about 7.2GW