A lot of people who promote 'green' power use TCO (total cost of ownership) arguments. They argue that coal, oil and particularly nuclear fission have very high TCOs when the cost of decomissioning, infrastructure, polution and environmental restoration is taken into account.
The article on this tidal current generator is very upfront about the costs of the project - so they are not really saying it is 'free'.
Your concern about romanticising 'free' energy is a terminology issue. No serious renewable energy proponent would say renewable energy is 'free', (because typically most renewable energy technologies have high up front costs), but rather that by definition the energy _source_ is 'free' - ie renewable.
The tidal example in this story is a prototype designed to use tidal power without having to construct a large dam (as per existing larger projects). The design goal seems to be: 'extract the energy from tidal currents without large earthworks so as to minimise the impact on sea life, and make it reliable and maintainable'. This design goal is what makes it new.
If the UAT works out for this prototype then the next generation would have a much lower up front cost (less research cost, economy of scale etc) so the TCO would drop from the current $'s per kwh to hopefully a few cents per kwh. Even if it ends up being more expensive than other existing technologies (eg offshore wind) it may be applicable to some areas which have low wind resources or other limitation. (Variety is good, monlithic/monoculture is bad)
Development of coal/oil/nuclear technologies went through similar improvements as they matured - helped along by large taxpayer subsidies - degrees of magnitude larger than any subsidies currently given to renewable energy R&D.
Some rough price comparisons: TCO for wind generation is $0.03-$0.05 / kwh the price for coal without TCO is $0.04-$0.05 / kwh TCO for coal which includes costs of global warming, health damage, acid rain, site cleanup, centralised infrastructure etc could make that $0.1 - $0.2 / kwh TCO for nuclear fission - depends on the time frame for cleanup and the number of accidents (the cynic in me says ask the people who live near Chernobyl)
The modern era requires energy sources that are tailored to the loads and situations where they are required. One solution/size does not fit all. There needs to be a mix of renewable and non renewable energy sources with an real public commitment to make the gradual but significant transition away from fossil fuels. There also needs to be public commitment to use energy more efficiently - good efficient design in every building, vehicle and appliance counts. As the price of oil grows exponentially in the next 50 years there will be plenty of incentive to move this way.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people who promote 'green' power use TCO (total cost of ownership) arguments. They argue that coal, oil and particularly nuclear fission have very high TCOs when the cost of decomissioning, infrastructure, polution and environmental restoration is taken into account.
The article on this tidal current generator is very upfront about the costs of the project - so they are not really saying it is 'free'.
Your concern about romanticising 'free' energy is a terminology issue. No serious renewable energy proponent would say renewable energy is 'free', (because typically most renewable energy technologies have high up front costs), but rather that by definition the energy _source_ is 'free' - ie renewable.
The tidal example in this story is a prototype designed to use tidal power without having to construct a large dam (as per existing larger projects). The design goal seems to be: 'extract the energy from tidal currents without large earthworks so as to minimise the impact on sea life, and make it reliable and maintainable'. This design goal is what makes it new.
If the UAT works out for this prototype then the next generation would have a much lower up front cost (less research cost, economy of scale etc) so the TCO would drop from the current $'s per kwh to hopefully a few cents per kwh. Even if it ends up being more expensive than other existing technologies (eg offshore wind) it may be applicable to some areas which have low wind resources or other limitation. (Variety is good, monlithic/monoculture is bad)
Development of coal/oil/nuclear technologies went through similar improvements as they matured - helped along by large taxpayer subsidies - degrees of magnitude larger than any subsidies currently given to renewable energy R&D.
Some rough price comparisons:
TCO for wind generation is $0.03-$0.05 / kwh
the price for coal without TCO is $0.04-$0.05 / kwh
TCO for coal which includes costs of global warming, health damage, acid rain, site cleanup, centralised infrastructure etc could make that $0.1 - $0.2 / kwh
TCO for nuclear fission - depends on the time frame for cleanup and the number of accidents (the cynic in me says ask the people who live near Chernobyl)
The modern era requires energy sources that are tailored to the loads and situations where they are required. One solution/size does not fit all. There needs to be a mix of renewable and non renewable energy sources with an real public commitment to make the gradual but significant transition away from fossil fuels. There also needs to be public commitment to use energy more efficiently - good efficient design in every building, vehicle and appliance counts. As the price of oil grows exponentially in the next 50 years there will be plenty of incentive to move this way.