The first ever commercial electricity powered by the tides has been put on the National Grid, project managers said today.
The £10million SeaGen turbine based in Northern Ireland’s Strangford Lough generated enough green energy to supply 150 homes in a test. Full-blown production is expected in a few weeks’ time.
The SeaGen in Strangford Lough will generate 1.2 megawatts of power at full capacity
Working like an underwater windmill, the turbine’s two rotors are propelled by some of the world’s fastest tidal flows that stream in and out of the Lough at speeds of up to 8 knots.
It is moored to the sea floor 400 meters from the shore and will work for about 20 hours each day. No energy is generated during tide changes as tidal speed drops to below 2 knots.
There are many places in the USA where this type of power could be generated. Unlike the wind, the tides are always dependable.
Found by oz4me on Cage Match.
Like wtf….. About f’n time.
Hooray! In America, I guess we started to utilize power production in Boston damming Mill Creek to Mill Pond in the early 1800s. Reminds me of the Calusa natives in south Florida using the tides to net their free lunch (dinner and breakfast) 6,000 years ago.
Let’s always catch the wave!
Not only can we generate power from the ocean by the tides but also by wave power and temperature differential.
Good stuff.
I still like wave generation better..
Can’t wait till the environmentalists find a reason that this is bad too.
We start trying to implement Wind Power on a wide scale. Then they complain that it kills birds or its an eye sore.
For this its gona be whales or dolphins or something like that.
Environmentalism and Saving the earth is about fealing good about yourself. Not actualy saving anything. Some Yuppies who’ve lost their faith in any contemporary religion have filled the void with saving the earth.
Those people need to get a life.
If saving the earth doesn’t work for you, then how about the case that we are just running out of power due to population growth and the rising living standards in China, India and the third world.
In early 2007 I went to a seminar @ MIT.
I heard Daniel Nocera, W. M. Keck, Professor of Energy and Professor of Chemistry, speak.
Bottom line is he’s MIT’s solar guy.
Here’s a quote about him.
“Right now humans globally require 13 trillion watts (or terawatts) of power. By 2050, we’ll need 28 terawatts. Nocera pokes holes in some
hypothetical scenarios offered to achieve this objective. If you gave over every square inch of cropland on the face of the earth to biomass
production, you’d only get 7 additional terawatts. Plus, “you couldn’t eat anymore.” You’d still need to add 8,000 nuclear power plants, by building a new plant every 1.6 days for the next 45 years; put wind turbines everywhere; and dam every available river, to approach the 28 terawatt goal.
These technologies don’t scale up realistically, says Nocera, so we must look to the sun, which in one hour puts out as much energy as humans use during an entire year.”
And why, if WE are hurting for energy, wasn’t this done first in the USA? What happened to an energy policy that would promote energy sources such as this? An energy policy that would lead to lower energy costs.
And you wonder why I’m not voting for McCain or Obama.
Grandpa,
BECAUSE ITS NOT PROFITABLE…
A corp does not want to earn $0.01 per Kwatt, they dont want to install LARGE farms of solar.
ALSO, most power companies DONT OWN power generation facilities…THEY BUY IT, and then SELL it..
Think that MOSt of the power Dams, were Created by the Gov, and RENTED/LEASED to the corps.
WE even pay for running and maintenance..
Great, for about 3% of the US population. I’d rather we build lots of standardized cookie-cutter nuke plants. In the real world, few of us can rely on the tides to provide us with energy.
Why is this not being done in the SF BAY as we speak? Hmmm, I don’t know either.
Don
There is no lack of energy available at our fingertips. There are only shortcomings of capture and distribution, technically. Then there are the business interests in keeping the status quo, and the political interests that too often seem deaf, blind and stupid.
For all the nay braying about Gore’s 10 year plan, it’s doable, needed and right. But it requires will, multiple ways of approaching the issue (like this one) and major government commitments. Aye, there’s the rub.
10,
I want you to show me 1 day WITHOUT tides.
the only way is to get rid of the moon. TRY IT..
also i would rather use MANY ways then to use 1 way that may FAIL..
why use solar on a stormy day, Capture the wind..
Another thought is interesting…and a BIT of a pain…
ANYONE HEARD of water rights??
If you are current on Water power gen, you will understand that there is NO change in current or speed of water…BUT…YOU CANT INSTALL ANYTHING in a creek, river, ANYPLACE int he water, unless you get a FEDERAL OK.
LETS add to all this, and WONDER why in HELL we havent TAPPED geothermal around a few Volcanoes…DO you know WHY?? COST…return in investment, wont happen for the first 10 years, FEDERAL OK, BLM lands, PARKS, VIABLE PROVEN tech…Ice land is better off then we are…
IF IT WONT MAKE PROFIT(3 times what is PUT into it) CORPS wont DO IT.
Anyone speak French here? Non? Then I speak for you. France has something that’s been generating 2 orders of magnitude more juice for over 40 Earth years.
#6 – Czen,
Can’t wait till the environmentalists find a reason that this is bad too.
We start trying to implement Wind Power on a wide scale. Then they complain that it kills birds or its an eye sore.
For this its gona [sic] be whales or dolphins or something like that.
Environmentalism and Saving the earth is about fealing [sic] good about yourself. Not actualy [sic] saving anything. Some Yuppies who’ve lost their faith in any contemporary religion have filled the void with saving the earth.
Those people need to get a life.
There are actually downsides and trade-offs in most of what we do. For example, the trade-off of a few seconds download time to get a browser with a spelling checker was clearly not worth it to you.
This tidal energy technology probably will have an effect on the ocean. Birds and bats do indeed fly into wind turbines and die.
The question is whether the trade-off is worth it. In this environmentalist’s opinion, yes.
The damage done by wind turbines and by tidal power are highly unlikely to cause more death and destruction than the global warming they seek to address.
#10 – Lou Minatti,
Great, for about 3% of the US population. I’d rather we build lots of standardized cookie-cutter nuke plants. In the real world, few of us can rely on the tides to provide us with energy.
Don’t know about you. Last I heard, electricity transmits across wire with a pretty high degree of efficiency. If we raise the voltage, it will be even more efficient, though a tad more dangerous. Perhaps that trade-off is worth it as well.
#14 – B. Dog,
Anyone speak French here? Non? Then I speak for you. France has something that’s been generating 2 orders of magnitude more juice for over 40 Earth years.
True. However, they have yet to properly dispose of the first gram of their nuclear waste. I’ve taken the time to write up many reasons why nuclear power is not the way to go and have backed it up with numerous links.
The issues include, but are not limited to:
Safety of mining.
Safety from terrorists.
Radioactive waste — Depleted uranium.
Radioactive waste — from the plant itself.
Cost — Nuclear power is our most expensive energy source.
Instead of trying to repeat my entire write-up here, please see my post on the subject and then discuss it either here or there, your choice.
Nukes Are Not The Answer!!
Scott17:
I didn’t think I was comparing apples and oranges. I was talking about the tidal power plant at La Rance.
#18 – B. Dog,
Scott17:
I didn’t think I was comparing apples and oranges. I was talking about the tidal power plant at La Rance.
My mistake. Without a link and with everyone always talking about France’s nuclear program, I made an ass of you and me, or more likely, just me, when I AssUMed that you meant nukes.
Sorry. Damn that’s impressive. In the 1950s, Canada had a plan to use the tides in the Bay of Fundy (highest tides in the world), but didn’t do it, for some reason.
Makes me wonder why with tidal power so well proven in France they chose to go Nuke as well?
As Scott–I thought transmission by wire was very inefficient? Hence the recent development of “warm” superconductors for a few physics labs that need a lot of power? If the mechanical problems have been solved, why not use ocean currents? That would be 24/7 operation and out of sight.
Yes, we have a lot of options that only those invested in the status quo can be against. The future is cataract bright.
Tidal power is only an option in a few select bays that have a narrow opening with a large area behind the restriction to store and release the tidal flow. There are just not that many places that have the right geography.
The energy mass from a tidal damn is much lower than a high river damn such as hoover damn. It is just a part of the puzzle, not the solution.
Don
I remember when Americans were the investigators and the innovators and the rest of the world had to play catch up. Back in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s they were the high tech kings. Unfortunately private industry is more interested in the quick buck, and the government is strongly against subsidizing pure research and anxious to spend in defense.
Alternative energy development holds a brilliant future precisely because it’s high tech – means it’ll be a few years before the 3rd world can produce.
#21 – Don,
Actually Don, tidal power can be a significant part of the puzzle. Anywhere there are currents, there can be undersea turbines. New York City has installed test turbines and is getting power from them. The intent is for hundreds of them in the east river generating megawatts of power.
It does not have to be the whole answer to be a significant part of the solution. Areas with strong tidal forces can get power from the tides. Areas with strong waves can get power from waves. Areas with a lot of wind can get power from wind. Areas with a lot of sun can get power from the sun.
All of this can be putting power on an improved grid. All of the electrons flowing look the same.
Already, the grid in the Northeast of the U.S. is so large that a single outage can take out the entire area, and parts of Canada. Power transmission works. We need a diverse portfolio of renewable energy. It’s all good.
What’s the cost per kilowatt/hour?
USA has tried them already. Atlantic City used one on a trial basis.
http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/ac.htm