Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Tidal-Energy Testbed Launched In Devon

Posted by timothy on from the lowered-might-be-a-better-word dept.

JaJ_D writes " According to the Beeb, Lynmonth in North Devon (in the south west of the UK) have just launched a new tidal energy generating system. The system is different to others by having the rotor blades fully under water and turning at about 20 rpm (so no harm to the fish). Each '...single 11 metre-long rotor blade will be capable of producing 300 kilowatts of electricity and will be a test-bed for further tidal turbines' Clean, relatively cheap and very little damage to the environment either by discharges or damage to the views. I wonder how many more will be made."

62 comments

  1. You are slowing the moon down!!! by OwnerOfWhinyCat · · Score: 5, Funny

    Stop it. Just STOP it!

    This message brought to you by the Society for the Preservation of Astronomical Zealotry

    1. Re:You are slowing the moon down!!! by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cool bit of trivia: this is one of the few forms of commercial power generation that's not ultimately solar. Wind, hydro, fossil fuels, biomass and OTEC are all solar-driven or rely on stored solar energy.

      The other two, geothermal and fission, depend on radioactive elements created in supernovas, so in a sense they're solar too, just using a different star from ours.

    2. Re:You are slowing the moon down!!! by the_consumer · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure, but doesn't the sun's gravity have some influence on the tides?

      --
      "If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
    3. Re:You are slowing the moon down!!! by jasno · · Score: 1

      You mean we're gonna slow the sun down, too!?!?!?

      --

      http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    4. Re:You are slowing the moon down!!! by ravenousbugblatter · · Score: 1

      The sun does affect the tides, but not nearly as much as the moon. The largest tides do occur when the moon and the sun are both on the same side of the earth (earth > moon > sun)(I can't remember the term), and if you've heard of neap tides, those are when the moon and the sun are at a ninety degree angle to each other relative to the earth.

    5. Re:You are slowing the moon down!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The largest tides do occur when the moon and the sun are both on the same side of the earth (earth > moon > sun)(I can't remember the term)
      New moon?
    6. Re:You are slowing the moon down!!! by bravehamster · · Score: 1

      Neap tides is the term I believe you're looking for.

      --
      ---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
    7. Re:You are slowing the moon down!!! by blakeh · · Score: 1

      Gravity from the Sun and Moon play the major role in the tides and currents but Solar radiation is also a very key player. Solar radiation heats the atmosphere and the ocean which adds to the currents.

      Does anyone know the amounts?

    8. Re:You are slowing the moon down!!! by CracktownHts · · Score: 1

      That said, can we be released from the Matrix now?

  2. I'm impressed by hawkbug · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think that US states like California and Florida need to investigate energy strategies like this as soon as possible. With all these recent improvements with Solar, Wind, and now Tidal energy sources, I'm amazed that the US isn't doing more to utilize them.

    1. Re:I'm impressed by ObviousGuy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It may be cleaner, but it isn't cheaper than fossil fuels. California's problem isn't that they don't have enough power, it's that it's too expensive.

      --
      I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    2. Re:I'm impressed by kchoboter · · Score: 1

      Exactly!

      I think that the energy companies of the US should be the ones leading the charge into cleaner methods of power generation. Its very much the same in the automobile industry, one of the only reasons that we don't have alternative fuels in the mainstream is because the car companies scratching the backs of the oil companies who cozy up with the government in all those fuel taxes.

      I think its starting to move in the right direction, with companies such as Ford and GM seriously investigating and developing alternative fuels.

      The power side has not seen much development though, and I for one, hope that these methods begin to be impemented.

      --
      4B4556494E
    3. Re:I'm impressed by lirkbald · · Score: 4, Informative

      They have. California, at least. If you take the 10 east from Los Angeles, you'll see literally thousands of windmills through some of the mountain passes. I think my electric bills usually indicate that one or two percent of my power is coming from wind power.

      The problem with both wind and tidal is you can't just toss them up anywhere- you need somewhere with steady, fairly strong winds, or unusually large tides. I don't know much about tidal, but I doubt florida is going to have much luck with wind power- it's dead flat, and the best places for wind power tend to be mountain passes, which 'funnel' in the wind.

    4. Re:I'm impressed by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That is not nessary true about the need for montians. You would note that it is also quite possible to build windmills in very flat areas because the wind picks up well there. IE. North Dakota has a lot of wind and so do most places in the ocean. I read an article. I thought it was around here somewhere about how all the greenpeace people who live on cape cod were suffering from not in my back yard syndrome over a proposed windmill project out in the ocean that would provide 70% of the power new england needed.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    5. Re:I'm impressed by Red+Rocket · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...I doubt florida is going to have much luck with wind power- it's dead flat, and the best places for wind power tend to be mountain passes, which 'funnel' in the wind.

      Which is why the next Americas Cup race will be held in Colorado.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    6. Re:I'm impressed by ravenousbugblatter · · Score: 1
      I agree completely, but it may be that that there aren't any really good locations around the US coastline to use this technology, as the geography of the UK is significantly different (they have much larger tides than the US).

      The big problem with the US and such technologies is that the oil industry and all it's related offspring (automotive, etc) have way too much influence on Washington, which is the reason we are so dependent on the middle east. Without washington to back the use of these technologies it won't happen. Look for heavy investing in this sort of stuff when the government realizes it has to do something or the country will tank because of lack of oil (because of increased destabilization of the middle east, particularly Saudi Arabia which produces more than 25% of the world's oil).

    7. Re:I'm impressed by at_kernel_99 · · Score: 1

      I think that US states like California and Florida need to investigate energy strategies like this as soon as possible. With all these recent improvements with Solar, Wind, and now Tidal energy sources, I'm amazed that the US isn't doing more to utilize them.

      As other posts have noted, the NIMBY is one problem. If you ask me, the real problem is the assumption that power needs to come from large, centralized facilities run by big companies. So we end up with huge, multi-million to billion dollar projects like building new nuke plants, giant wind farms, immense dams, etc. This results in more eyesores in the form of transmission lines.

      These are the plans that government & traditional power companies are accustomed to. There are no incentives to change their business model, so we don't see new ideas like smaller, local power generation. There was an article a couple months ago (sorry, too lazy to search) about a farmer that generates his own power by capturing the gasses emitted by his animals. What a brilliant thought! Methane emissions from feed lots are a huge issue in some communities. Here's a guy who's solving all sorts of problems by capturing the stuff: generates his own power, which means he's not buying 'dirty' power from someone else; eliminates the feedlot smell; stops emitting a greenhouse gas. But somehow thats not enough of an incentive for a company to pick up the idea & sell it. They can't figure out how to make money. The new business model in our increasingly service-based economy is generate revenue through subscriptions - you need repeat customers, not one-time customers. So if you sell a guy a system that will help him generate his own power, you've eliminated him as a customer. But when you make the power & sell it to him every month, you have a long-term revenue stream. Pretty simple, actually. Do I really have to use the MS example?

      So, to get better ideas, we need better incentives. The politicians aren't going to provide them, because they're already disincented by the existing big companies to keep the status quo. So its unlikely to happen until enough people get pissed off at the status quo to change the politicians, and get them to do something before they're sucked into the lobbying / fundraising / status quo lifestyle.

      Not that I'm cynical or anything.

    8. Re:I'm impressed by SporkLand · · Score: 1

      Aren't those two intertwinded? Supply and Demand, if they have too much power then costs will drop, if they have to little it will go up. I know this is a gross simplification, but isn't it the overall trend.

    9. Re:I'm impressed by hawkbug · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you make some great points here about the way this country works in terms of power, etc. I could slap up my own solar panels on my roof in suburban colorado, but as far as wind power goes, I doubt the old HOA will allow me to install a huge windmill on my roof :) I'd love to have some nice solar panels up around my house generating power so I wouldn't have to purchase it from the dirty sources you talk about.

    10. Re:I'm impressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the best places for wind power tend to be mountain passes, which 'funnel' in the wind.

      Yeah, that's why Holland is famous for both its windmills and its mountains. And yes, Holland has lots of modern windmills (i.e. wind-based power generators) too.

    11. Re:I'm impressed by pokeyburro · · Score: 1

      I doubt florida is going to have much luck with wind power- it's dead flat, and the best places for wind power tend to be mountain passes, which 'funnel' in the wind.

      Actually, during the summer, Florida tends to get much more wind than it knows what to do with.

      --
      Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.
    12. Re:I'm impressed by nojomofo · · Score: 1

      It's not greenpeace people, afaik, that don't want the turbines near cape cod. It's all of the people who own million dollar homes there or on Martha's Vineyard, and don't want "their" view spoiled (as if somehow owning property near there makes a view "theirs").

  3. Go ahead... by Atario · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...swim through there. I dares ya. I DOUBLE DOG dares ya.

    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    1. Re:Go ahead... by crazygeek · · Score: 1

      good point. 20 rpm is still too damn quick for us humans to get out of the way.
      I hope they've made it bloody obvious where these damn things are - I don't want to wander into one whilst diving.

  4. Glad to see us doing stuff about this by loadquo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The UK needs to do more offshore work on wind/wave and tides as this is the most likely schemes to work (solar, this is Britain we are talking about :), no thermal and little onshore Hydro to speak of).
    We have lots of NIMBYs (not in my back yard) because of the eye sore etc. So underwater turbines should be good.
    Tidal power is also good because it is predictable, if you are going to have a significant proportion of alternative energy (as one would hope to relieve independace form overseas if nothing else) then when the power outputs drops (the clouds come over etc). You need to replace this power with something like gas which needs to be quick to start up and always ready. The predictability of the tide allows the load balancing to be better managed so less gas needs to be used.

    1. Re:Glad to see us doing stuff about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter if it's not visisible, I still don't want it my back yard! Once I've grabbed my little piece of expensive paradise, no one else is allowed to use it. Unless, of course, I'm the one making money off of it...

  5. Now there's some good news. by meringuoid · · Score: 0

    Hopefully, if this works, we could have the Severn Barrage back on the agenda. Build that thing and we could power Bristol and Cardiff and have enough left over to run half of Somerset, all without a single mole of CO2...

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    1. Re:Now there's some good news. by canthusus · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Hopefully, if this works, we could have the Severn Barrage back on the agenda

      No.

      The Severn Barrage is not a very environmentally friendly way of generating power, and would destroy hundreds of square miles of coastal and estuarine ecosystem.

      The whole point of the underwater turbines is that there is very little impact on the ecosystem, or the atmosphere, or on "visual amenity". The only adverse effects I can think of are disturbance at the time of construction, and possible underwater noise (disturbing any cetaceans).

      Looks like a truly great development - I really hope it proves successful.

    2. Re:Now there's some good news. by turgid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, and if they built new nuclear powerstations at Berkeley, Oldbury and Hinckley Point they could power a hell of a lot more too without producing any CO2. Not that I'm bitter about the decline of the Bristish nuclear industry or anything...

      --
      Stick Men
    3. Re:Now there's some good news. by temojen · · Score: 1

      And, it's a shipping hazard, if the outer extents of the blade path aren't marked clearly... Imagine the damage an 11 meter blade could do to a fishing vessel.

      There have been proposals to put a tidal energy turbine in Dodd's narrows between Vancouver Island and Mudge Island, but this route is often used by small craft. When they catch the tide going the right direction, they can greatly cut down on the travel time. Probably wildlife uses the same technique.

  6. Weather patterns by asdfx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm curious as to what the long term effects of this would be. Indeed, there is a whole hell of a lot of water, but if this were our primary power source and there were hundreds or even thousands around the globe, what might be the outcome? If, for example, we were capable of decreasing the average wave height by 1" (which is completely arbitrary because I know too little about wave patterns :-p), that would probably lead to a change in wind patterns. This would, in turn, affect general weather patterns.

    Although, I suppose this is more of a wind power thing. I'm not confident that this could be catastrophic. More of a hypothetical. ::shrug::

    1. Re:Weather patterns by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      What is the difference? We are already altering the earth with poisons. At least if we change the wether patterns, we can move.

    2. Re:Weather patterns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where to? If we're talking global change, then we better get that space race sped up!

    3. Re:Weather patterns by fluffy666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For your next excercise in applied science, calculate the total energy contained in tidal water movement in the Bristol channel. Then compare it to the total energy output of all the UK's power stations..

  7. Re:Tidal energy is dying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    Tidal energy is dying, just like BSD. That is why no one is posting on this thread.


    Honestly, you are a moron. But, it doesn't always have to be this way. You can help! Step one, is killing anyone as dumb or dumber than you. Step two is killing yourself. Any questions? I would imagine so, based on your limited intellect. Have a nice life.

  8. No harm to fish?!? by isorox · · Score: 3, Informative

    rotor blades fully under water and turning at about 20 rpm (so no harm to the fish).

    Erm, 11m blades, spinning arround, mean the outside of the blades travel 3.14*2*11*20/60 metres per second, thats about 50mph. I wouldnt want to be hit by one of them!

    1. Re:No harm to fish?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I think you might have gained an extra 2 - you want omega.r, not omega.d. Not that different in the end though - it's still ~25 mph, which I certainly wouldn't enjoy swimming through if I were a fish.

    2. Re:No harm to fish?!? by mark2003 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not the speed of the balde that is important - rather the interval and the width of the blade. 20 RPM with two blades means a blade passes through any point every 1.5 seconds - it all depends if the fish can swim more than the width of the blade's cross-section in 1.5 seconds.

      Er... sounds like a fish blender to me!

    3. Re:No harm to fish?!? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're assuming that the poor fish can see the blade coming in time to get out of the way - this is the north atlantic we're talking about. The fish wuold be lucky to see it 3 feet away.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    4. Re:No harm to fish?!? by isorox · · Score: 1

      11m radius, so the outside travels 2(PI)r per revolution, or arround 70m. It does that every 3 seconds, so travels arround 25m/s, or 80kph, or 50mph.

    5. Re:No harm to fish?!? by GeoGreg · · Score: 1
      I think that the entire blade is 11 m long, making the radius 5.5 m, thus 25 mph (41.5 kph).

      I suspect that the real reason for a low rate of fish kills is that, unlike hydro turbines, there is no suction produced by these systems. Thus, fish won't be sucked into them. At 20 rpm, the blades make one revolution every 3 seconds, leaving about a 1.5 second window for a fish that happens to swim into the path of the blade to get out of the way.

    6. Re:No harm to fish?!? by ravenousbugblatter · · Score: 1

      The fish can probably sense the spinning of the blade (with whatever the hell those special scales along their sides are called that let them sense movement in the water), so they'll probably just swim around them.

    7. Re:No harm to fish?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (Spamalamadingdong posting AC, etc. etc...)
      The fish wuold be lucky to see it 3 feet away.
      The fish don't have to see it; they have pressure sensors (aka the "lateral line") with which they detect things coming at them through the water.

      Then there is the fact that the turbines are not in ducts, but in the free stream. This means that some water will react to the resistance of the turbines by flowing through the space around them. The fish could just as easily swim with this speedier flow.

  9. on of the best places to do it? by Rxke · · Score: 1

    tidal powers in the channel (between Englan and Europe are quite strong, a mass of water moving has a lot more power than wind, i'd think. great idea, why didn't they do this a lot earlier? Also, this would be great to power remote sensing equipment, even quite power hungry devices. Way to go guys!

  10. Thread missing from front page by sbszine · · Score: 1

    Tidal energy is dying, just like BSD. That is why no one is posting on this thread.

    That, or the fact that this thread doesn't seem to be on the front page...

    (Well, it doesn't for me, anyway. Your mileage may vary.)

    --

    Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

  11. No damage to views? by slashnik · · Score: 1

    What do they mean no damage to views.

    What about the line of 50' tall bright yellow knob ends sticking out of the sea?

    slashnik

    1. Re:No damage to views? by JaJ_D · · Score: 1

      bright yellow knob ends sticking out of the sea

      In Devon and cornwall they're called "Holiday makers", or "Tourists".

      Jaj

  12. More information. by JaJ_D · · Score: 3, Informative

    The beeb have released a Real audio file here. May be of interest

    Jaj

  13. Hmmm mix this with John West by schappim · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now if only they mixed this with a John West Tinning Factory, you'd get the whole mushed fish thing, and free power!

  14. Re:Tidal energy is dying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't feed the trolls ;)

  15. Read as: by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    I don't know what I'm talking about, but I've been raised on the fag end of the European philosophical bundle of irrationalism and skepticism, so I'm going to assume that because I can create a sentence about something happening, it might be possible. Aren't you the same guy who worried about ion engines "polluting" space? No?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  16. Centralization still has advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    (Spamalamadingdong, posting AC because I used mod points here... but I didn't mod the parent.)
    I think that US states like California and Florida need to investigate energy strategies like this as soon as possible. With all these recent improvements with Solar, Wind, and now Tidal energy sources, I'm amazed that the US isn't doing more to utilize them.
    As other posts have noted, the NIMBY is one problem. If you ask me, the real problem is the assumption that power needs to come from large, centralized facilities run by big companies. So we end up with huge, multi-million to billion dollar projects like building new nuke plants, giant wind farms, immense dams, etc. This results in more eyesores in the form of transmission lines.
    Au contraire, there are lots of good reasons for putting a fair amount of anything in one place. To list a few off the top of my head:
    1. If you have a resource like wind which is unevenly distributed, putting a lot of capacity in the best spots is more cost-effective than spreading it out for spreading's sake.
    2. Maintenance of any system is essential, and the maintenance costs will be lower if the travel requirements are smaller. Putting things closer together is better for that.
    3. If you have any sort of power-conditioning systems required to hook into the grid, one big one is usually cheaper (and less costly to maintain) than two little ones.
    You're right that things like transmission losses do make it rather silly to try to generate all our electricity from the wind blowing in South Dakota, but you can go too far the other way too; just look at the per-watt costs of a Bergey turbine on your own personal tower vs. one of the state-of-the-art multi-megawatt machines, and you have to admit that some things work better when they're big.
  17. Shipping hazards of blades not a factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Imagine the damage an 11 meter blade could do to a fishing vessel.
    Imagine the foolhardiness of a skipper who tries navigating between two closely-spaced piers between which he knows is a turbine with blades massing a ton or so.

    Face it. Anyone with a brain is going to stick to the designated channel.

  18. You'd think by Cackmobile · · Score: 2, Interesting

    that with tidal power, solar, wind and hydro we could run this planet through renewable source. We just need some tough decisions. I would mind a row of wind turbines off the coast of sydney if it got rid of the smog that hangs over the city. Here in oz our roofs should be made of solar cells. We could probably get enough power out of them to run the whole house even in summer.

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
    1. Re:You'd think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrt: solar cells - no, you couldn't produce enough power to unhook your home from the grid. The incident radient energy of the sun on average is around 300-600 Watts per sq meter of surface. Solar cell panel are at most 20% efficient or so.

      Even at 100% efficiency (which is unachievable) you'd never be able to completely unhook from the grid.

    2. Re:You'd think by patomuerto · · Score: 1

      Most homes off the grid have battery banks and low power appliances (which can be expensive). If they are not there durring the day the house recharges and then used in the evening. Heating and cooking is done by gas that is usually trucked in. If done right it is hard to notice the difference between a self sufficient home and one hooked to the grid. The main problem is the cost and upkeep. It can be worth it if you find a piece of property in the middle of nowhere and dont want to pay the utility companies to run power to the homes but few do it in suburbia when they find out it will take 10 years to make up the price difference of normal utility costs and solar/wind systems.

      --
      I have secretly hidden some mispelled words in this post. Can you find them?
    3. Re:You'd think by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      OK. so if its a family type home that you are probably going to live in for 20 years its do able. I don't really mind price too much if i am doing my bit to save the world.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
    4. Re:You'd think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      could so!

      all my electricity at home comes from solar photovoltaics. key thing is to reduce power consumption

      social change more important than technological change as usual.

  19. cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe they can burn the hydrogen under-water?

  20. Solar energy by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1
    Yeah, and burning coal is solar energy because it is the stored up energy from fossil plants (unless you believe Thomas Gold about elemental carbon and planet formation).

    And I am a vegetarian for eating steaks because cows store up the food energy of grass.