Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scottish Wave Energy Plans Move Forward

Posted by kdawson on from the brittania-waives-the-rules dept.

It's been a long time coming (2007, 2005, and 2002 respectively), but the project to harness wave energy off the Scots coast is finally coming together. Reader krou writes: "The BBC is reporting that ten sites on the seabed off Scotland in Pentland Firth and around Orkney have been leased to energy companies with the hopes of generating wave and tidal energy. 'Six sites have been allocated for wave energy developments potentially generating 600 megawatts of power and four for tidal projects, also generating 600 MW.' The leases were awarded to SSE Renewables Developments, Aquamarine Power, ScottishPower Renewables, E.ON, Pelamis Wave Power, OpenHydro Site Developments, and Marine Current Turbines. Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond said that 'These waters have been described as the Saudi Arabia of marine power and the wave and tidal projects unveiled today — exceeding the initial 700MW target capacity — underline the rich natural resources of the waters off Scotland.'"

31 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. They're missing some.... by HBoar · · Score: 3, Funny

    The aim is to generate 1.2 gigawatts

    I think they'll find they need another 10MW to achieve what they're really after....

    1. Re:They're missing some.... by permcody · · Score: 2, Informative

      The aim is to generate 1.2 gigawatts

      I think they'll find they need another 10MW to achieve what they're really after....

      Nah - We only need to wait 6 more years and surely the likely invention of "Mr. Fusion" will negate the need for that power and should help us clean up some of our household refuse at the same time!

    2. Re:They're missing some.... by moosesocks · · Score: 3, Funny

      We're givin' her all she's got, cap'n!

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    3. Re:They're missing some.... by fm6 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Scotty, I'm really tired of that cliché. You're fired.

  2. The big question by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Removing this energy from the ocean may cause an imbalance in the gravitational effects between the Earth and the Moon. Well, not imbalance, but rather a rebalance.

    If we cause the Moon to move away from our planet, we lose both our astrodebris sweeper and more importantly our tide maker. Anthropogenic effects are real, and I'm not sure I'm happy to see the deliberate removal of energy from the ocean without further study on longterm planetary effects.

    1. Re:The big question by Al's+Hat · · Score: 4, Funny

      The electricity generated will power devices that shed heat, the heat adds to global warming, the global warming increases intensity of hurricanes and cyclones, the hurricanes and cyclones stir the oceans...no problem!

    2. Re:The big question by benjamindees · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder what it will be like for those humans, a million years from now, when they realize that the moon is crashing into the earth because their great-great-great-great-etc uncles needed more electricity to post on slashdot.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    3. Re:The big question by dbIII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm confused about the motivations behind that "big question" post.
      Are you being serious but incredibly badly informed there, attempting a joke, or have some ulterior motive to attempt to influence the gullible?
      If you are being serious I suggest going down to the seaside and look at the waves hitting a big fucking cliff and consider how much energy is being tranferred there.
      If you are joking is it a dig at climate change being postulated to alter things on your perfect, unchanging 6000 year old earth? Things are changing no matter how much you want to make fun of anyone with a clue.
      If you are attempting to influence the gullible then feel free to assume that I'm directing the worst insults you can think of in your direction.

    4. Re:The big question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The force of gravity between the earth and the moon is roughly 2*10^20 newtons. Moving the moon 10 meters further from the earth would take over 10^13 Joules of energy (and that only accounts for the change in gravitational potential).

      Furthermore, the rotation of the earth is already causing us to loose the moon at a rate of about 3 cm per year. If we were to reduce tide to the point where the ocean did not fluctuate at all, perhaps we wouldn't loose the moon in 1000000 years.

    5. Re:The big question by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Informative

      The moon is moving away. We only have 600 million more years before there will be no more total solar eclipses.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    6. Re:The big question by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Were that I be so wise as to deduce the secrets of Creation by gazing upon the Scottish shore.

      That is what a lot of science is - looking at things to work out the secrets of creation. The whole religeon vs science thing is from people with no clue about either.

    7. Re:The big question by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

      The tidal bulge on the Earth actually drags on the moon and increases its orbital velocity. It does this because the rotation of the Earth drags the bulge ahead of the sub-lunar point. The gravitational field of the bulge attracts the moon so the earths rotation slows as the moons orbital velocity increases. Eventually we will be tidally locked like Pluto and Charon and tides will be much smaller.

      My preferred solution is to dump a whole lot of nuclear waste on the far side of the moon and turn it into a bomb. I wanted my proposal implemented by 1999 but not enough people saw the gravity of the situation.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    8. Re:The big question by saiha · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think looking at a Scottish pub would be quicker.

    9. Re:The big question by Netssansfrontieres · · Score: 4, Informative

      We sometimes forget just how heavy water is, or how much energy ocean waves carry.

      Some time ago, I did some statistical analysis of wave heights in Scapa Flow, not far away from the site proposed here in northern Scottish waters. It has very steady, large swells.

      Imagine a wave (or swell) of 10m peak height, extending 2 km across, and 50m front-to-back. That's a nice 0.3 * 10^6 kg of water ... move it forward at 30kph ... repeat every 10 or 20 seconds, and you've got 10^9 Joules/second, about 1GW. For the surface wave. (More energy is transferred more steadily by sub-surface currents.)

      Lunar tidal flows are so much larger than these that the prospect of drawing enough energy from open waters to do anything to earth - moon movements seem to be off by many orders of magnitude.

      Full disclosure: I used to be a pretty good physicist, but that was a long time ago.

    10. Re:The big question by benjamindees · · Score: 2, Informative

      Temporarily, yes. But once the earth-moon system is tidally-locked, it will come back. Extracting tidal energy slows the earth's rotation and hastens the process.

      Of course, a million years is slightly exaggerated. It's probably more than 30 billion years, without help, and of course the sun would vaporize us all long before then. We would have to build a lot of tidal generators to actually speed it up.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    11. Re:The big question by Z34107 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Mods are on crack. That deserves a +5 troll, because that was the most successful troll I've seen... well, in a few days. But still, a hearty chuckle ye brought me, Bad Analogy Guy.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    12. Re:The big question by Kentari · · Score: 5, Informative

      You calculated the kinetic energy of a mass of water moving forward at 30kph. In a wave water is not moving forward at the wave speed, but rather gently in an elliptic trajectory. I gather you used 10m as amplitude and not crest to through height.

      The energy flux of waves is given by the formula which you can find on this wikipedia page. A 20m (crest to through) wave with a period of 10s over a lenght of 50m gives you 20MW of wave energy. Still a lot, but almost 2 orders of magnitude less than 1GW.

  3. Transmission by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Where's this power going to? Is there a transmission grid in place to take it to a populated area that could use an extra 600MW? Orkney's in the middle of ^*$&ing nowhere.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    1. Re:Transmission by lilo_booter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Depends where you are - if you live in Orkney, it's not remote, everywhere else is :-).

    2. Re:Transmission by drsquare · · Score: 4, Funny

      Where's this power going to? Is there a transmission grid in place to take it to a populated area that could use an extra 600MW? Orkney's in the middle of ^*$&ing nowhere.

      No, they're just going to fire the electricity into the air. They have no plans to actually deliver and sell it. You see, people who invest in this sort of thing simply hate money.

  4. It figures by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    If it involves messing around with waves, there's usually a Scottsman involved somehow.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  5. Re:We Are Swimming in Clean Energy by shermo · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm glad that blog has the word 'science' in its title, otherwise I would think it was a load of made up nonsense.

    --
    Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
  6. Re:Should have an advantage over wind.. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not only that but by converting gravitational potential energy into heat we create photons which transfer momentum to the moon and push it away faster. I propose that all future lunar landings be on the far side to compensate.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  7. We can use it to power a gun! A BIG gun! by Nova+Express · · Score: 2, Funny

    In fact, a "Wave Motion Gun!"

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  8. Re:The trouble with Scotland by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Informative

    Troll??!!

    Yeah maybe.. It was said by an Irishman. I really doubt he was serious. In fact, I think he was just reading a quote. I think you people should lighten up a bit.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  9. Re:Tsunamis! by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    More likely: they might "generate" localized calm-ish zones and be magnets for debris.

  10. Re:The trouble with Scotland by icebraining · · Score: 2, Funny

    "It won't last; they're are natural enemies. Like Englishmen and Scots. Or Welshmen and Scots. Or Japanese and Scots. Or Scots and other Scots. Damn Scots, they ruined Scotland!"

    --
    Dilbert RSS feed
  11. If it's not Scottish Wave Energy... by zawarski · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...it's crap!

  12. Re:The trouble with Scotland by jonbryce · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not really. We will be cheering on Algeria, Slovenia and USA in the world cup in June, and if that fails, we will have some more countries to cheer on. In the case of the USA, it wouldn't surpise me if there are more Scottish fans cheering on the team than natives.

  13. Cost per MW? by baker_tony · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So what's the cost per Mw-hr?
    How does it compare against Nuclear's $30 per Mw-hr?
    http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm

  14. Re:Tsunamis! by M-RES · · Score: 2, Informative

    Tidal generators don't create 'calm' zones, because tides aren't driven by a pushing force, rather by a pulling force (lunar gravitational pull), so water is merely dragged across/through a generator and continues to be dragged after it has passed the 'obstacle'.

    Wave powered generators such as the Salter Duck did leave calm zones behind them as they absorbed the waves' vertical kinetic energy in long arrays strung out perpendicular to the direction of the waves' travel. However, these designs were dropped a long time ago in favour of 'snake' designs which harness as much energy but without causing these calm areas behind them.

    Sea Snake on YouTube