New ways of gaining energy

2008-07-18 16:55:20

#1

konfusion: mostly afk; +480|6971|CH/BR - in UK

World’s First Commercial-Scale Tidal Power Turbine Begins Feeding Electricity to the Grid

The world’s first commercial-scale tidal turbine, developed by British tidal energy company, Marine Current Turbines, has delivered electricity onto the grid for the first time. In principle, SeaGen works much like an “underwater windmill” with the rotors driven by the power of the tidal currents rather than the wind. Conservative estimates suggest there is at least five gigawatts of power in tidal flows in Britain, but there could be as much as 15GW.

The tidal current turbine, known as SeaGen, has briefly generated 150kW of power onto the grid as part of its commissioning work, ahead of it achieving full capacity a few weeks from now. SeaGen’s power is being intentionally constrained to 300kW during the commissioning phase, but once fully operational, it will generate 1.2MW of clean, renewable energy to the equivalent of 1000 homes.

This looks like a step in the right direction... Using virtually any energy you can muster around you, and making it usable. What else is there? We have solar, wind and tidal energy - oh, and bio energy.

-kon

2008-07-18 17:08:13

#2

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|7105|United States of America

As long as it is reasonably cost-effective, I'll embrace it. All of this helps to supplement the electricity-producing systems already in place.

2008-07-18 17:15:34

#3

konfusion: mostly afk; +480|6971|CH/BR - in UK

DesertFox- wrote:
As long as it is reasonably cost-effective, I'll embrace it. All of this helps to supplement the electricity-producing systems already in place.

It should be cheaper than gas, at any rate

-kon

2008-07-18 18:14:12

#4

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6950|Global Command

Imagine, you're cruising along on your personal water craft.
You don't realize the blades are spinning.
Chop.
Chop.
Sharks. Screaming. Bereaved parents and friends.

2008-07-18 18:23:13

#5

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6889

ATG wrote:
Imagine, you're cruising along on your personal water craft.
You don't realize the blades are spinning.
Chop.
Chop.
Sharks. Screaming. Bereaved parents and friends.

I believe that the turbines are in cages so that they don't get fucked up by larger fish or boats.

Last edited by DoctaStrangelove (2008-07-18 18:23:23)

2008-07-18 18:25:51

#6

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6950|Global Command

DoctaStrangelove wrote:
ATG wrote:
Imagine, you're cruising along on your personal water craft.
You don't realize the blades are spinning.
Chop.
Chop.
Sharks. Screaming. Bereaved parents and friends.
I believe that the turbines are in cages so that they don't get fucked up by larger fish or boats.

From OP

https://cleantechnica.com/files/2008/07/seagen-raised-courtesy-dr-i-j-stevenson_2.jpg

2008-07-18 19:54:54

#7

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|7187|UK

Tidal flow isn't fast ATG, the blades would move round at a pretty slow speed but with constant force.

2008-07-18 19:59:38

#8

Mutantbear: Semi Constructive Criticism; +1,431|6386|London, England

Vilham wrote:
Tidal flow isn't fast ATG, the blades would move round at a pretty slow speed but with constant force.

Why the fuck would anyone be boating around a huge energy turbine in the first place? They deserve to be chopped up if they were

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

2008-07-18 22:00:38

#9

HurricaИe: Banned; +877|6382|Washington DC

pierro wrote:
Instead of a generator based on tides, wouldn't ones you put underwater and based on ocean currents (which intuitively seems like it possesses more energy then either tides or wind) be more efficient?

I believe they're working on that. Heard about it on NPR a while back... it's a really good idea in theory.

2008-07-18 22:12:10

#10

Blehm98: conservative hatemonger; +150|6884|meh-land

In america, if there is a 0% possibility of any animals noticing it then the enviromaniacs attack it
if it is over water, it is an automatic eyesore, regardless of size or distance from land
if it is underwater, it is a navigational hazard

America ftw

2008-07-18 22:23:58

#11

HurricaИe: Banned; +877|6382|Washington DC

Blehm98 wrote:
In america, if there is a 0% possibility of any animals noticing it then the enviromaniacs attack it
if it is over water, it is an automatic eyesore, regardless of size or distance from land
if it is underwater, it is a navigational hazard

America ftw

if it's nuclear, then we're just one step away from a worldwide nuclear war/holocaust

It's funny how in 50 years computers have advanced so much yet for the most part we're still sucking on the hundred-year-old titties of coal plants.

2008-07-19 05:30:05

#12

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6643|Brisneyland

konfusion wrote:
What else is there? We have solar, wind and tidal energy - oh, and bio energy.

I think one of the best ones is Geothermal energy

Basically digging a hole into the Earths crust and injecting water. Water turns to steam and runs turbines. Base load power and no emissions.

2008-07-19 07:44:46

#13

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|7042|London, England

I never understood how tidal power worked, I mean shit, the tide comes in and out quite slow. And it only happens like.....4 times a day (or twice, I forget)

2008-07-19 07:55:32

#14

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|7086|NT, like Mick Dundee

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
konfusion wrote:
What else is there? We have solar, wind and tidal energy - oh, and bio energy.
I think one of the best ones is Geothermal energy

Basically digging a hole into the Earths crust and injecting water. Water turns to steam and runs turbines. Base load power and no emissions.

Qft. That, solar and thorium based nuclear energy all got potential. Reeeal potential.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2008-07-19 08:11:14

#15

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6976

2008-07-19 08:21:14

#16

PureFodder: Member; +225|6706

Mek-Stizzle wrote:
I never understood how tidal power worked, I mean shit, the tide comes in and out quite slow. And it only happens like.....4 times a day (or twice, I forget)

It moves slow but a hell of a lot of water moves. That means there's a lot of energy to harness.

2008-07-19 08:29:49

#17

Sydney: 2λчиэλ; +783|7264|Reykjavík, Iceland.

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
konfusion wrote:
What else is there? We have solar, wind and tidal energy - oh, and bio energy.
I think one of the best ones is Geothermal energy

Basically digging a hole into the Earths crust and injecting water. Water turns to steam and runs turbines. Base load power and no emissions.

We Icelanders are masters of geothermal energy, since we live on a big volcano anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal … in_Iceland

Our electricity is produced by Geothermal power plants or hydroelectric power plants.

100% reusable

2008-07-19 09:21:14

#18

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|7187|UK

pierro wrote:
Instead of a generator based on tides, wouldn't ones you put underwater and based on ocean currents (which intuitively seems like it possesses more energy then either tides or wind) be more efficient?

Yeah, however building any structure on water is expensive, building underwater is phenomenally expensive. I don't think it's viable atm.

Mutantsteak wrote:
Vilham wrote:
Tidal flow isn't fast ATG, the blades would move round at a pretty slow speed but with constant force.
Why the fuck would anyone be boating around a huge energy turbine in the first place? They deserve to be chopped up if they were

Trust me you probably would get people near them, the number of stupid people who take out a boat for the first time without getting any previous experience is massive.

Last edited by Vilham (2008-07-19 09:22:16)

2008-07-19 10:12:17

#19

Blehm98: conservative hatemonger; +150|6884|meh-land

pierro wrote:
-I’m completely sure if this is true or not, but I’ve heard that nuclear power plants require so much concrete (which requires energy intensive process to create) that in the end they can be worse for the environment than other sources i.e. Coal

it sounds like sum BS to me...

a building or bridge would use far more concrete than a nuclear reactor...

2008-07-19 10:31:03

#20

TSI: Cholera in the time of love; +247|6402|Toronto

@pierro--there are enormous amounts of energy available in tides. For instance, those in the Bay of Fundy routinely top 40 metres, sometimes reaching 50. Waves, on the other hand, are only present in a constant direction near shorelines, which makes their use impractical (enviro freaks insert comment here). Also, the currents do possess energy, granted, but not as much as you think. For instance, the Gulf Stream moves at about 2.5 km/h. That's great, but to get something into the Gulf Stream would involve anchoring it, which once again, and with good reason, piss off the hippies. Tides, for their part, are predictable, constant, and even back in Roman times this was recognized.

France built a tidal power station a while ago (1966), whilst another was built in Nova Scotia in 1984. A few others, of smaller capacity, have also been built worldwide.

I like pie.

2008-07-19 11:31:42

#21

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|7187|UK

Because the sea is so powerful, ie it has a much larger mass than air, it can turn a much larger generator hence produce decent amounts of power.

BF2S Forums New ways of gaining energy

DesertFox- wrote:

ATG wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

ATG wrote:

Vilham wrote:

pierro wrote:

Blehm98 wrote:

konfusion wrote:

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

konfusion wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

konfusion wrote:

pierro wrote:

Mutantsteak wrote:

Vilham wrote:

pierro wrote:

Board footer