Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday October 28 2017, @10:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the go-with-the-flow dept.

A scale-up of tidal energy projects aims to expand capacity, improve reliability and prove their worth to investors as a renewable energy source.

It's clean, doesn't spoil the landscape and is totally predictable, yet tidal power is one of the least exploited forms of renewable energy.

The challenge of building out at sea, the toll the salt water can take on equipment and the huge strain the currents can put on components has meant that it is seen as an expensive endeavour.

'The sea is one of the world's most challenging environments,' said Simon Forrest, chief executive of Nova Innovation, a tidal power company based in Edinburgh, UK. 'However, technical innovation and learnings from the wind sector are being used to make the dream of harnessing energy from the tide a reality.'

Last year, Nova Innovation deployed the world's first array of tidal turbines, which were connected to the electricity grid in Shetland, UK.

Predictability and the theoretical energy that can be captured are both attractive, but fouling and wear-and-tear remain barriers.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @01:43PM (19 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @01:43PM (#588668)

    Not satisfied with slaughtering birds - including Bald Eagles - by the millions, environmentalists turn their attention to slaughtering sea life.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Troll=2, Insightful=1, Funny=2, Total=5
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @02:15PM (18 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @02:15PM (#588677)

    what do environmentalists have to do with large windows? (flying into windows kills orders of magnitude more birds than wind turbines).

    If you are really worried about the birds and not the politics, methinks you should be complaining about developers who build glass surfaced skyscrapers.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @02:50PM (9 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @02:50PM (#588688)

      [citation needed]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @03:34PM (8 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @03:34PM (#588696)

        Here's one citation, a bit old, has a nice plot that gives uncertainty ranges:
              http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/ [sibleyguides.com]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @03:41PM (7 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @03:41PM (#588700)

          A 14-year-old chart made from uncited "various sources" does not a citation make.

          • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday October 28 2017, @04:39PM (6 children)

            by JNCF (4317) on Saturday October 28 2017, @04:39PM (#588716) Journal

            It's better than nothing. I'll buy that windows kill more birds than turbines do, but there are also many more windows than turbines. I'd like to see bird deaths per square inch of surface area, rather than a raw total.

            • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @05:03PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @05:03PM (#588723)

              > many more windows than turbines

              That's the key. Further, modern wind turbines are very low "solidity" -- while huge diameter, most of that circle is open air. From a discussion in https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24250-catch-the-breeze/ [newscientist.com]

              Finding the optimum “solidity” – the solid surface area of the blades presented to the wind as a percentage of the total area swept by the blades – needs to be done empirically. The typical optimum is just a few per cent. This small amount of surface area must be spread across three blades in a standard three-blade design (pictured), though you could have wider blades by only having two.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @09:28PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @09:28PM (#588807)

                Can't we just use Linux turbines instead?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @12:47AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @12:47AM (#588851)

                  > ...Linux turbines

                  And how many birds will they kill?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @09:00AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @09:00AM (#588969)

              My housecats make luncheon out of pigeon.

              ( Never liked pigeons much... to me they are more like a flying shit tank. )

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @03:08PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @03:08PM (#589049)

              No, no it's much worse than nothing. It could be entirely made-up, yet fools believe it to be true with zero evidence that it is simply because it exists. I can make all kinds of unsourced charts that say all kinds of untrue things.

              • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday October 30 2017, @03:27PM

                by JNCF (4317) on Monday October 30 2017, @03:27PM (#589470) Journal

                Trust exists on a continuum, and truth is fundamentally unprovable. Articles published in scientific journals are sometimes frauds, but I still grant them some level of probabilistic trust. I grant significantly less trust to unsourced charts on the internet, but in lieu of other sources or convincing rebuttals that trust is greater than zero. The person compiling that data probably did their best. Maybe they didn't. Knowledge is tricky.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @03:48PM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @03:48PM (#588704)

      Logical fallacy.

      That more birds are killed by windows does not make the slaughter of birds by windmills acceptable.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @05:25PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @05:25PM (#588726)

        > That more birds are killed by windows does not make the slaughter of birds by windmills acceptable.

        OK, but if you care about birds, wouldn't it make sense to put your personal effort where it could do the most good? For example, retrofitting large windows so they don't mirror the clear sky to the birds, using a suitable film or other layer.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @06:42PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @06:42PM (#588748)

          Following up one fallacious argument with another is... fallacious.

      • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday October 28 2017, @05:58PM (4 children)

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday October 28 2017, @05:58PM (#588736) Homepage

        People who want to stop development of wind turbines because of bird strikes are the highest order of snob or moron, and quite possibly both.

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @06:38PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @06:38PM (#588745)

          Also a fallacious argument. The alcohol is not serving you well.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @12:48AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @12:48AM (#588853)

            Let me guess, "fallacious" was your new word for today, amiright?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:14AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:14AM (#588922)

              Calling someone a moron or snob doesn't refute the person's argument.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @03:04PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @03:04PM (#589045)

              It's quite meaty and cromulent, don't you think?