Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 131 total)
  • Tidal Power – the future?
  • jam-bo
    Full Member

    there is no doubt at all that large scale commercial tidal is going ahead

    there is plenty of doubt in the industry.

    but I’ll keep selling them kit until the funding plug gets pulled…

    coffeeking
    Free Member

    there is plenty of doubt in the industry.

    but I’ll keep selling them kit until the funding plug gets pulled…

    Not from the side I’m looking from, some spectacular research inputs to it and several businesses currently growing from it around here, that and wave.

    jam-bo
    Full Member

    The biggest hurdle is the jump to commercial scale.

    plenty of startups with brilliant, innovative ideas, results and field trials have withered because they haven’t been able to secure the investment to make that jump.

    oh, that and survivability. did I mention that?

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Survivabilty is the issue – but that one survived the winter in place and here are models of it that have been running for many years without trouble

    this is the start of the jump to commencial scale the political will is there – and so is the money

    bristolbiker
    Free Member

    Not from the side I’m looking from, some spectacular research inputs to it and several businesses currently growing from it around here, that and wave.

    Same here.

    From what I’ve seen the funding gap has been bridged from Government technology demonstration to PLC full-scale demonstration (with a good dollop of consolidation in the market to boot). The key next step is for Government to get its ducks in a row and sell/license sites and the land-based infrastructure which will then allow the manufacturers to sell product and service contracts to the field operators. After that (with a good deal of optimism) it’s self sustaining.

    Wave power – I have another friend engineering a sea-snake type device. Less convinced about that TBH…..

    bristolbiker
    Free Member

    this is the start of the jump to commencial scale the political will backhanders necessary for this to replace lost jobs in Aberdeen is there

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    The key next step is for Government to get its ducks in a row and sell/license sites

    Done already – the contracts are signed for much of it

    Wave power – I have another friend engineering a sea-snake type device. Less convinced about that TBH..

    pelarmis? their offices used to be under my flat and I can see their factory from my window

    stevewhyte
    Free Member

    My biggest issue is with energy security. That critical, many of the other arguments have very little impact.

    Tidal is viable its proven techology just need some investment.

    Nuclear is the same, exept the fuel is running out. And the more countries who move to it the less thee will be, we do not have any fuel in the UK.

    Wind is not viable as it cannot be relied on.

    Coal is viable we have about 100 years worth.

    Oil is vaialble but its better used to make petrol and pastic as they give a higher return. We have about 40 year worth.

    I have always advocated tidal for Scotland. As a Civil Engineer i hated to see all those wind project come into the office as i knew it was really a red herring.

    Solar has a small merit in reducing the base load, but its small amounts, enough to heat your water in the winter at best.

    TooTall
    Free Member

    pelarmis? their offices used to be under my flat and I can see their factory from my window

    That trumps any relevant qualification or experience right there. TJ wins.

    zokes
    Free Member

    That trumps any relevant qualification or experience right there. TJ wins.

    \o/

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Edited

    jam-bo
    Full Member

    here you go TJ.

    you should apply…

    http://www.pelamiswave.com/operations-engineer

    TooTall
    Free Member

    My biggest issue is with energy security

    With complete disregard to the environment. Oh – 100 years for coal doesn’t make that a viable answer for our future energy needs.

    zokes
    Free Member

    come on Zokes – this is the key drawback to nuclear but one you ignore.

    Feel free to read any of the tedious threads there have been on this topic.

    Kit
    Free Member

    Oh – 100 years for coal doesn’t make that a viable answer for our future energy needs

    100 years is better than nothing, and that’s 100 years to find (a) viable alternative(s).

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Better reinstated the edited post. then

    stevewhyte – Member

    Nuclear is the same, exept the fuel is running out. And the more countries who move to it the less thee will be, we do not have any fuel in the UK.

    You have never been able to answer this zokes on any thread. I have read them You simply ignore this major drawback as you know there is no answer to it.

    zokes
    Free Member

    100 years is better than nothing, and that’s 100 years to find (a) viable alternative(s).

    Cool. Nuclear it is then…

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    Feel free to read any of the tedious threads there have been on this topic.

    Damn I feel like I missed something really really importnant now 😳

    molgrips
    Free Member

    I understand there’s some argument about whether or not nuclear fuel supplies are as limited as some people claim.

    jam-bo
    Full Member

    I understand there’s some argument about whether or not fossil fuel supplies are as limited as some people claim.

    Drac
    Full Member

    There are far more alternatives than tidal power.

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8yW5cyXXRc[/video]

    Kit
    Free Member

    I understand there’s some argument about whether or not fossil fuel supplies are as limited as some people claim.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    You have never been able to answer this zokes on any thread. I have read them You simply ignore this major drawback as you know there is no answer to it.

    NO PLEASE GOD NOOOOOOOOOOOO

    It has been done you choose to ignore it. It is not as conclusive as you suggest. No one can answer anything to your satisfaction when you put the TJ head of stubborness on NO ONE

    * PS you usually say this for storage rather than supply. Because you dont like or agree with the answers this does not mean it has not been answered [ it means you dont like /agree with the answer] but I will leave that dance to the dedicated as you explain why your logic has bestested all before it

    alex222
    Free Member

    zokes
    Free Member

    but I will leave that dance to the dedicated a syou explain why your logic has bestested all before it

    He already has done. A wave power company used to live in the same building as him. This seems to trump anything us mere mortals with relevant qualifications or industry experience can muster.

    I love TJ logic 🙂

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Junkyard -Not at all. Its not a question of me not liking the answer.

    It is a fact that at current usage there is a few decades of nuclear fuel left and that is as a small % of the worlds energy usage.

    druidh
    Free Member

    It’s tedious chaps – especially TJ and Zokes (yes Zokes – I blame TJ for invoking your name on this one, but please don’t play the game).

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Here we go – personal attack from Zokes as he is exposed for talking nonsense.

    Sorry Druidh.

    druidh
    Free Member

    I’m anti-nuke but everything I’ve read suggests that there is no shortage of fissionable material, especially given emerging technologies.

    druidh
    Free Member

    TandemJeremy – Member
    Here we go – personal attack from Zokes as he is exposed for talking nonsense.

    Err – sorry TJ, but you started it….

    zokes
    Free Member

    Here we go – personal attack from Zokes as he is exposed for talking nonsense.

    Have a look at the top of Pg2 – I think you’ll find that’s the first mention of my name anywhere on this thread. And lo and behold, it’s an ad hominem attack by your good self.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Druidh – the nuclear industries own people say around 40 years of known fuel at current usage – this is the issue.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Zokes – that was a simple prediction – I do not make any attack on you there and lo and behold I was right in my prediction.

    zokes
    Free Member

    TJ:

    Feel free to read any of the tedious threads there have been on this topic.

    Then read these posts in this thread:

    molgrips – Member

    I understand there’s some argument about whether or not nuclear fuel supplies are as limited as some people claim.

    Junkyard – Member

    NO PLEASE GOD NOOOOOOOOOOOO

    It has been done you choose to ignore it. It is not as conclusive as you suggest. No one can answer anything to your satisfaction when you put the TJ head of stubborness on NO ONE

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    So then – yo still have no answer to this Zokes. I’ll leave it at that with the major flaw in your pro nuclear evangelisicm exposed.

    By the nuclear industries own figures there is a few decades of fuel available at current usage rates. Thus nuclear can never be more than a bit part player in the worlds energy consumption

    zokes
    Free Member

    Zokes – that was a simple prediction – I do not make any attack on you there and lo and behold I was right in my prediction.

    Well, instead of bringing what was quite an interesting thread down to the predictable dirge with your negative use – deliberately trolling with a loaded statement, why didn’t you just exalt the virtues of tidal turbines? Like I did?

    alex222
    Free Member

    It is a fact that at current usage there is a few decades of nuclear fuel left

    Playing the game now but; where do you get that information from? I don’t think that you can just make a statement like that with no peer approved study or even peer reviewed study to back it up.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    It is a fact that at current usage there is a few decades of nuclear fuel left

    I wonder what the ROI on a nuclear power plant is and over what time period? And if the companies that build them are aware of the limited fuel supplies?

    zokes
    Free Member

    TandemJeremy – Member
    So then – yo still have no answer to this Zokes. I’ll leave it at that with the major flaw in your pro nuclear evangelisicm exposed.

    Where have I been evangelical about anything on this thread, apart from the need to build renewables?

    I’ve even praised your logic, and you’re still not happy!

    druidh
    Free Member

    Thorium.

    Relatively abundant. More efficient than Uranium. Less waste. Shorter half-life (as radioactive as ash after 500 years). Can’t be made into bombs.

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 131 total)

The topic ‘Tidal Power – the future?’ is closed to new replies.