Tidal barrages even more so rely on specific sites and have significant drawbacks – silting up, alteration of habitats and huge cost.

Tidal flow is good

There are two ( at least) different wave power generators being installed as well

A few more than that around the place so far, and more to come.

Tidal barrage appears to be a much better solution.

Huge issues surrounding tidal barrages – have a look into the proposed Severn one for examples. Someone pointed out the wildlife monitoring requirements for small turbine deployment sites – (big) barrages present a somewhat broader/different and larger scale set of issues.

In case of interest, here is a linky to a map of the Orkney developments, for some reason the crown estate don’t have the west of scotland and welsh tidal developments on a map

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/71435/pfow_development_sites_map.pdf

I am sure Zokes will be along to tell us tidal does not work and nuclear is the only answer

You really can be a pillock at times.

Tidal power of the type being discussed here is great. My issues, as ever, are:

1) Will it be ready any time soon? (i.e. is it not still in the early stages of development)

2) Can it produce the sort of power, in a mix with other carbon-neutral options, that removes the requirement for coal (massively polluting) and gas (running out, fracking even more polluting), and nuclear?

If not, then nuclear is the least worst compared to coal. As ever, you obfuscate the argument to be nuclear vs renewables. It’s not.

I could use your argument and state that as Switzerland can’t have tidal power, it’s not a global fix, so shouldn’t be considered though…

And lo and behold – here he is 🙂 Exactly as predicted.

And lo and behold – here he is Exactly as predicted.

and am I doing this?

I am sure Zokes will be along to tell us tidal does not work and nuclear is the only answer

Or is that just another TJ FACT you made up?

I could use your argument and state that as Switzerland can’t have tidal power

I’m sure they can afford to import the power.

One report claims that the Pentland Firth has the potential to supply 25% of the EUROPEAN demand.

Hot air capture used to drive turbines->alternators would be the best al round solution.

Yes zokes 🙄

Tidal Power – the future?

it’s great!

but it makes offshore wind power look cheap and easy…

i’m not saying it wont/can’t work, i’m not saying we shouldn’t go for it, we should and clearly will. But it’s not exactly energy ‘for free’.

TJ in failure to read shocker. Never seen that one before 🙄

You’ve somehow managed to start an argument with me before I’d even posted, when I was going to agree with the OP in the first place…

I’m sure they can afford to import the power.

I know this WackoAK – I actually think they’re a great idea.

It’s a response to one of TJ’s more tenuous arguments that as ‘we’ (whoever ‘we’ are) won’t let certain states have nuclear power, nuclear power has no purpose as it’s not a global solution. An easy way to demonstrate how ludicrous that argument appears is by pointing out that land-locked countries don’t have coasts, so they can’t have tidal / wave, and as such, tidal / wave have no purpose as they’re not a global solution.

Not an expert on any of this. My idea is that EVERY building is given a solar panel.There is no difficult engineering involved. Its not a target like a power station and it shouldn’t cost that much.
Obviously the panels won’t power everything but it must be equal to 1 nuclear power station country wide.
Please point out any flaws.

Zokes – why you have to continually falsify what I say and to attack me shows the weakness of your position.

I knew you would come on this thread and show your ignorance of alternatives and your evangelical attitude to nuclear and sure enough you have done. Just as predicted.

zippykona – Member
Not an expert on any of this. My idea is that EVERY building is given a solar panel.There is no difficult engineering involved. Its not a target like a power station and it shouldn’t cost that much.
Obviously the panels won’t power everything but it must be equal to 1 nuclear power station country wide.
Please point out any flaws.

Cost of materials.
Cost of installation.
Cost of hooking up to mains and any converters.
Pollution caused by manufacture and materials.

Its the solution for Scotland but not for Englanshire. Once we are independant we can really focus on out energy needs and capacity to create electritity to export. (along with water)

The sooner we invest in Tidal/Wave power and stop building any more wind the better.

Its all good.

Just as predicted.

*swoons*

The sooner we invest in Tidal/Wave power and stop building any more wind the better.

I’d tend to agree with there being far too much wind on this thread.

We all could, of course, consume less.

Don, we could do that ASWELL. That would be even smarter.

You can’t just load electricity onto a lorry you know. Transmitting power all the way to Switzerland from Scotland (or indeed anywhere with high tidal flow) isn’t going to be easy or efficient, afaik.

Hook, line and sinker 🙂

Zokes – why you have to continually falsify what I say and to attack me shows the weakness of your position.

Erm? I have never, ever, stated that we should build nuclear instead of renewables.

You seem to forget this with monotonous regularity, trolling like you did up there.

You have frequently stated that one of the reasons nuclear has no place in the global energy mix is because certain countries can’t have it. Others point out that you’d be running out of energy strategies PDQ if you applied that false logic to everything else – tidal being the obvious one. Or should we discuss solar in Greenland?

I knew you would come on this thread and show your ignorance of alternatives and your evangelical attitude to nuclear and sure enough you have done. Just as predicted.

Still not reading. You should try it some time – you learn things and evrifink.

I have now stated three times on this thread that FWIW, I reckon tidal turbines are a great idea.

You, however, couldn’t resist starting this pathetic slanging match. As you correctly observed, until you posted a load of tripe about me, I hadn’t posted on this thread.

As for my ignorance, I have a degree and PhD in Environmental Science, and hold a position at a world-leading science organisation. You, I believe, are a nurse. Now I wouldn’t even dream of suggesting a medical treatment, especially not whilst criticising a medically trained person’s opinion, so why do you keep saying this:

I knew you would come on this thread and show your ignorance of alternatives and your evangelical attitude to nuclear and sure enough you have done. Just as predicted.

Negative use of the forum if ever there was.

Don, we could do that ASWELL. That would be even smarter.

We could actually do that first, then look at our requirements. I’ve heard that some people are spending in excess of £400 on gas alone, per month ( I guess for two people). That’s where the problem is. I don’t have the figures to hand, but something like 50% of emissions are produced by domestic users. We can each do our bit.

How many solar panels would the cost of building,supplying and protecting a nuclear power station buy?

How many solar panels would the cost of building,supplying and protecting a nuclear power station buy?

Lots, I presume.

Now then, what’s the unquantified cost in human lives and damage to the environment of coal-fired power? That’s where I’d start phasing out for solar.

Zokes – oh wow – a whole degree in environmental sciences – you must know everything about alternative power generation / energy conservation then. that why you knew about the various alternative generation being installed in Scotland now on a commercial scale? You must know the answer to the two questions you asked then

Zokes, I am on your side but please for the sake of the forum, let it go!

Now then, what’s the unquantified cost in human lives and damage to the environment of coal-fired power?

As you say, what is it? If you don’t know what it is, then how do you know that the cost is high, or alternatively, that the cost is very low. Does this cost outweigh benefits? Industrialising a nation on cheap energy may drive up the standard of living (hygiene, access to clean water) and lower overall environmental impacts as new and better technologies are developed/bought. edit: leading to fewer deaths, less illness, etc.

Zokes, I am on your side but please for the sake of the forum, let it go!

Amen. I’ll leave him to troll to himself.

I have now stated three times on this thread that FWIW, I reckon tidal turbines are a great idea.

Your first post

1) Will it be ready any time soon? (i.e. is it not still in the early stages of development)

2) Can it produce the sort of power, in a mix with other carbon-neutral options, that removes the requirement for coal (massively polluting) and gas (running out, fracking even more polluting), and nuclear?

Which neatly shows your ignorance of developments in tidal power ( IIRC you didn’t even know about these turbines until I told you about them) and your evangelical love for nuclear

There will be many MW of tidal running of the scottish coast befoere a single new nuke is commissioned.

Which neatly shows your ignorance of developments in tidal power

In my professional opinion, I’d say it demonstrates a far better understanding than yours…

Chartered Marine Scientist
Oceanographer
Underwater instrumentation product manager

Jambo – he thought all tidal generators need barrages and does not realise that turbines like this have been running for many years.

Wahts your experience of tidal flow turbines then?

these things are in the water and are generating electricity

Back to the OP’s point… there are pros and cons to each of the tidal/wave power generation systems. As stated above, barrier generation has potential issues with siltation etc. but more so with the potential habitat loss and EU legislation and possible effect on far-field tides. These issues could be overcome with sufficient political willpower, but it appears easier to look at smaller scale developments: tidal stream and wave. With regard to the tidal stream, I agree it is very encouraging that the demo site is working so well and without too many technical difficulties. As far as I know, whilst the test site will continue to operate operationally to prove reliability and resilience to more extreme conditions, there is on-going research into impacts of the structures and their energy extraction which should complete in the next few years (see here for examples). So the Government is funding research in a timely manner in order to enable to role out of the devices, once the commercial operators are satisfied of the robustness of the devices and their risk in (attempting) to install them. Key sites around the UK are known, where the tidal stream is strong (but not so strong it could jepardise the operation!) but until we can show there are no detrimental effects or mitigatable effects to the near and far-field, commercial companies aren’t going to take any further financial risk in moving forward with installations.

Tidal and Wave power are very immature still, rely almost solely on goverment funding, and still require a huge amount of investment.

Survivabilty is the key. At present they don’t….

IIRC you didn’t even know about these turbines until I told you about them

Somewhere, buried in the basement of Bangor University’s library, you’ll find an assignment I wrote in 2004 reviewing all forms of energy available at that time – tidal turbines included. They were very much a fledgling technology then. One assumes in 8 years they’ve come on some.

If fossil-derived energy wasn’t discounted massively against the environment, I suspect they would have come on considerably more. But why would you do R&D into alternative energy on any great scale when you can make megabucks digging energy up out of the ground?

There will be many MW of tidal running of the scottish coast befoere a single new nuke is commissioned.

Which is great. If we can move away from centralised generation of any sort it will be a big step forward. All I ever ask in these exchanges is that you look at the argument I am putting forward. I fully support the development of renewables above all other electricity generation sources, including nuclear. What I don’t support is the decommissioning, or deferred construction of, nuclear power for a cheap, massively polluting fossil-fueled fix.

Wahts your experience of tidal flow turbines then?

selling instrumentation to the developers. Whats yours?

selling instrumentation to the developers. Whats yours?

He’s a nurse in the NHS. Noble profession, granted; but not known for having a major role in energy policy…

jam bo – Member
Tidal and Wave Nuclear power are is very immature still, relies almost solely on goverment funding, and still requires a huge amount of investment.
[/quote]FTFY

Business should be looking up then Jambo – MW of these going in in the next few years.

Zokes – I am sure you claimed in a previous debate that tidal wouldn’t work because the barrages cannot be built

You continually refuse to acknowledge the major shortcomings of nuclear – continually disparaging alternative sources of power and of energy conservation.

Business should be looking up then Jambo – MW of these going in in the next few years.

small fry compared to the amount of money being spent on oil and gas exploration.

much as I would like to see tidal and wave power working, I honestly can’t see it happening on any great scale.

TJ: Hint – try reading…

Which is great. If we can move away from centralised generation of any sort it will be a big step forward. All I ever ask in these exchanges is that you look at the argument I am putting forward. I fully support the development of renewables above all other electricity generation sources, including nuclear. What I don’t support is the decommissioning, or deferred construction of, nuclear power for a cheap, massively polluting fossil-fueled fix.

Well watch and see then – there is no doubt at all that large scale commercial tidal is going ahead.