I love how these have become units... Olympic swimming pools, double decker bus, or football field. The three measurements used to describe just about everything
Actually with several pools, the energy CAN be stored for when it is needed. For generating electricity, you need one full pool and one empty pool. You can make full pools at high tide and empty pools at low tide. It is a matter of opening and closing access to the sea at the right time. Then connect a full and an empty basin when you need the electricity.
Swansea is in South Wales. Wales is a country of its own and is situated to the west of England not to be confused with Cornwall which is further South.
So in order to calculate potential power: 1. We have at 0:18 volume flow of the water of 5 Olympic swimming pools / second; 2. Average head, I don't know, but the video showed at 0:25something up to 11 m, so moves between 0 and 11 meter, at average say 5.5 meters of difference? With those two numbers it's easy to calculate power. ... They did it for us already. At 0:25 he said it is enough for 155,000 homes per year. Say at average rate of 4,000 kWh / home, makes an estimated: 620,000,000 kWh / year. Or 620,000 MWh / year. The project takes about 4 years to build (at 1:34) and takes a 1.6 Bln USD as an investment. Sounds al quite interesting and promising with such a strong tidal difference. So curious to learn what the status is of the project. Who is planning to invest in the project? What about fish protection, is it safe to pass through the turbines? Hope to learn more.
Enough power for 150,000 homes > 330 homes = 1 Megawatt Hour > Tidal Plant would produce 450ish Megawatts > Average US Nuclear Plant produces 1,000 Megawatts
This will never pay for itself. Way too much material to move. Check out the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia/ New Brunswick Canada. We have the record for highest tide there at 71'! The shape of the land is perfect for this. When the tide is happening, it has 4 times the flow of all freshwater rivers in the world combined! What are we waiting for Canada? Let's do this!
Well good for the welsh. And it a source that is more predictable then the sun. Especially there across the pond. Good show ol boy Edit i forgot the unpredictable wind
@Mike Rogers wind generator were created to help the main generators... Not to be the only ones... It's the same with tide generators... What happens if you don't have wind for one all day ??? You will wait 24 hours to cook ??? Idiot.
A comparison with offshore wind power: Swansea lagoon tidal power: Costs: ~£1.3bn Average power: ~48 MW Annual production: 420 MWh Dudgeon offshore wind farm: Costs: ~£1.5bn Average power: ~200 MW Annual production: 1,700 MWh Tidal power changes with the tides: Long-time-predictable Wind power changes with the wind: Only a few days roughly predictable Lifetime: Maybe a big advantage of the Swansea lagoon. But nobody really knows the demand of maintenance and repair.
Of course, this is a substantial advantage. But how much is that worth? And a tidal power plant doesn't give you a steady consistent power supply like a thermal power plant, but an up and down with no power 4 times a day (changing tides).
If you're going to spend over a billion dollars, the tidal power plant needs to 1. last forever 2. have basically 0 maintenance cost 3. produce more value in cost of electricity saved then the variable costs associated with running this power plant PLUS the initial 1 billion dollars needed. 4. This needs to happen not within 100, 80, 60, 40, or 30 years, but within 20 years at max.
There’s plenty of wave and tidal generators that don’t require a massive bay to be made. For example why couldn’t they just attach a line of turbines to the sea bed across the Estuary, then its all hidden and no need to build anything except the turbines!.
Because you would yield just a small fraction of the energy this way. Free tidal turbines are rather suited for sites with fast tidal currents, for instance between two islands (narrow channel, funneling effect). Anyway, there are always some environmental issues. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power#Environmental_concerns I'd put the money rather into more (offshore) wind power and photovoltaics, despite the unreliable power production. Both is a lot cheaper, so you could afford some battery storage too.
For a turbine to work best it needs to have pressure pushing on it. If you just stick them on the bottom of the bay the water will largely just flow round them. By building the wall you force the water to flow through them.
Rance tidal power plant has been operating since 1966, this is not quite a revolution in that the power generated is out of step with peak demand. And Iain Reid - power is from head and flow, effective hydro power needs only one of those to be large to get any real work done.
We have strong sea currents around our coast line which could be used. The whole of the North sea is replaced within every 4 years and that is a lot of potential power on our doorstep. It would take a lot of nuclear power stations to power turbines to do that.
This sounds like a very intelligent use of tidal power but their sandbag concept might not hold up to the relentless pounding of the north Atlantic storm season.
Make it a bit taller and use it for peak shaving as well, it could be complimentary to more transient renewable energy by serving as short term energy storage.
I meant to overfill it using the turbine as a pump when there is surplus energy available in grid, naturally that would depend on having favourable high tide times in relation to the grid peak demand.
What an absolutely novel idea! Using a CONTINUOUS, FREE, RELIABLE, RENEWABLE AND NATURAL resource to generate electricity… No doubt some yahoo would ask, "But what if the earth stopped spending and the tides stops going in and out?!?!?
It would produce 320 MW Peak Power and an annual output of 420 GWh. Which would be an average power of only 48 MW. @"Reliable power supply": It's completely predictable, that's a big advantage of course. But the power production varies with the tides: 4 times a day high power, 4 times a day no power. It can't provide a continuous power supply like run-of-the-river-hydroelectricity or thermal power plants.
I didn't want to bash it, I'm just a fan of considering pros and cons. Such RUclips-videos tend to neglect the cons. It would be quite expensive. Photovoltaics would cost about half as much referred to annual production. In the cloudy UK! On the other hand, it would last for a very long time. And like I mentioned: Reliable, predictable supply.
Batteries are going to keep getting cheaper until they're literally dirt cheap. So predictability and consistency will become less of an issue over time. I don't know anything about this project, maybe it's great or terrible, but the idea is basically good.
Here's the thing. The UK has a fair deal of water resivoir graviometric potential energy storage facilities. Grid operators can bank the power at a 50%flux rate by pumping water uphill and scale returned energy up and down to grid demand in about 30 seconds.
@David Jackson, II: "A fair deal of pumped storage": It's roughly 2,8 Gigawatts in the UK. Installed fluctuating power sources in the United Kingdom today (2017): Solar: 12,3 Gigawatts Wind: 19,8 Gigawatts Pumped storage is nice and useful, but it doesn't has the capability to compensate the fluctuation of volatile power sources, if they play a main part in electricity supply. Regarding tidal power: Different locations, different tides: Several tidal power stations at different locations could together supply reliable and to some extent stable power. There is still the spring-neap tide cycle and the influence of wind, but you could get some assured baseload at least. But not from one single tidal power station, I just wanted to point this out. Because it's not well-known.
Why not replace the aging nuclear power plants with the latest nuclear technology like molten salt thorium reactors? Replacing nuclear power with wind, solar or anything else is like replacing the internal combustion engine of a car with bicycle pedals and saying it is more sustainable and environmentally friendly.
daniel combrinck Where can we buy a commercial thorium reactor?The new Hinkley Point C nuclear power station is such an affordable plant. Bicycles are indeed more environmentally friendly (and more fun)
The new Hinkley point station will provide power at almost twice the cost that the new offshore wind farms will do. Despite what is often claimed offshore wind rarely dies down. Plus....no long term waste, no mining and transport of fuel, no potential catastrophic failures.
Because it’s true. Offshore winds blow most consistently than onshore ones. as for raising the cost of power...the new offshore wind farms are contracted to supply power at HALF the cost of the new nuclear plant. Which, in case your maths is bad, is the opposite of increasing costs
I’ve not moved the goal posts. If i say it is more consistent that is simply another way of saying it rarely dies down. Offshore wind vary rarely dies down completely. And it’s still half the cost per unit of power provided than nuclear.....and no waste problems.
I’ve been trying to find info if or how Marine life could be affected. I mean surely fish, seals etc etc will get sucked into the turbines and get chopped to pieces?
diceman199 I know the turbines don’t actually suck but are turned by the force of water being channelled towards the turbines. So ok not strictly suck, but water is pressured through the turbines, so my concern re marine life being chopped up by the turbines remains the same!.
diceman199 The blades turn according to how fast the water is moving into the bay and the pressure that is built by the incoming water being funnelled into the turbines. The only way the blades would move slower than the incoming water+ pressure from funnelling. Is by gearing the turbines so they can move relatively slowly while the gears take up the difference and use that to turn the generators.
That's exactly how they work. As with wind turbines, the driving blade is moving relatively slowly but with high torque from the pressure on it. This is then geared into driving the much higher speed generating turbine.
Im thinking the gulf of Mexico or Hudson bay. add a a system of locks...imagine if a second panama canal was built for the inevitable shipping traffic and the old canal was converted to tidal power generation. I dont think the planet could survive another fukishima.
Festivejelly... Explosive meltdowns,we can agree on that point,and I'm not uneducated on the subject. It's the fact that it's built on the beach basically,chernobyl was nowhere near the coast, and all the water they have used to attempt to cool it with runs right into and across the pacific doing unknowable damage to the world's fisheries. That is one of the most important food sources to the developing world and a large part of the first world. Maybe you don't mind eating radiation emmiting particulates for dinner but most of us do.
Festivejelly maybe you should check your ego because it seems you aren't satisfied with arguing other peoples "facts". You want to attack opinions as well. Well take your attempts at mind control and stick them in your ass. Everyone has a right to express their opinions here.
Robert Flask ...there are no pumps. The locks are all gravity powered. So yes,it is kind of like a river except it begins at the Atlantic at a higher elevation (not sure how much higher)and ends at the pacific. Due to the earth's rotation and tidal forces,sea levels are higher on the east coast of Panama and lower on the west. Fact is that it was just a thought. I'm no engineer.
dapolilitica, tides are much lower at the equator. There is no bigger "bulge of the ocean" there. Follow this link and learn: www.quora.com/Why-are-tides-lower-at-the-equator
“By Alan Marble, software engineer. (quora.com) The biggest factor contributing to tidal variation is geography. Specifically, we can see that the highest tides tend to exist in areas where the geography of the land constricts the ocean - bays and narrow channels and the like. What is happening is the land essentially "funnels" the rising and falling tides in these areas and exaggerates the tidal variations you see. Where there is less constriction and more open ocean, the tides are less affected by geography. Interestingly enough, if this geographical constriction was not a factor, you would see the highest tides along the equator, where the tidal bulge is the widest. “
Now researching some more i see that because the inclination of the rotation plane of the earth in relation to the moon and sun the bulge of the oceans would be bigger at higher and lower latitudes and not exactly around the equador. I give you that. But then the last paragraph of Mr. Alan Marble needs clarification!
Wayyyy to expensive, tides in the Irish Sea are some of the largest in the world and basically all large capacity coves or bays are too deep which would make them really hard and expensive to build
what's the cost per mwh and what is the efficiency percentage? wind is about 80 usd and 40pc Solar is as low as 60 some places 30 but at 30pc (generation efficiency not photovoltaic efficiency)
The lagoon could hold a massive floating solar farm, thus increasing the impact of the project. Wind turbines could be located on the lagoon wall. This is a great project.
It may be 'massive' in renewable terms but it is puny in the real world of generation. It is expensive and intermittent so has real drawbacks before it starts. once again a project that takes lots of subsidies and produces little, Developers.3 consumer 0
Aren't tides dependent on the current moon phase though? The power output wouldn't be as random as solar or wind of course, but you'd still get a period of lowered production roughly every 2 weeks. But I don't really know how much the moon phase affects tides, so this might turn out to be a non-issue.
Doug Mcdonell moon phases depend on relative position of sun & moon to Earth, which affects the strength of tides. You get the strongest tides during full moon & new moon and weakest tides during quarter moon.
tidal power has just left a trail of failed projects and junk left in the sea around the world. Amazing how there never seems to be anyone left around when this stuff needs to be hauled out of the sea.
I think you are thinking of wave power projects. These tidal trap systems have been in use for at least a couple of hundred years. Where I work is a place that used to be 3 mills that were powered by tidal water level changes on both the incoming and outgoing tides. Admittedly it's a way smaller scale than the one in the news article but it works just fine.
correct...most of these projects have consumed more available energy than would be recouped. The fabrication/construction of all materials used and the projects themselves have to be factored into the equation of return.
This concept seems to forget past projects that entrain water unnaturally and the long term environmental affect....take for example one of the oldest man/water projects still in use but environmentally wrecked...venice.
No worries, in a few billion years, the sun will become a red giant so large that it will engulf the earth... But the Earth will become uninhabitable much sooner than that. After about a billion years the sun will become hot enough to boil our oceans.
Energie générée par le mouvement des marées!!... En France (Bretagne) la différence de hauteur des marées est de +/- 13 mètres!!... Au Canada dans certain fjord la différence est de 17 mètres!!!.. By
It's going to make "HUGE" amounts of energy. We all know how much energy a huge amount is, right? How much energy is produced with an Olympic size swimming pool of water flowing through every minute exactly? I have no clue and neither does anyone else. I guess you can't use understandable numbers or measurements so people can relate if you don't want people to get it's a idea that shouldn't be funded. If you want people to get it's a idea that should be funded you give easy to understand numbers and examples. That tells me rightly or wrongly this concept is dead in the water and time will prove they true or not.
why not use it like a giant battery? close the doors once max tide water height is achieved, then open doors as power is needed. Easy way to achieve battery-like renewable energy i'd think. Pretty large dam though, structure cost/design may be too much to achieve water holding?
Some tidal power plants like Rance in France are partially used as pumped storage power plants too. But the power and the storage capacity would be rather poor compared to other pumped-storage-plants.
The earth is an oblate spheroid. Due to the earth's rotational velocity there is an equatorial bulge. If the earth's rotational velocity is reduced so the period of the earth's rotation goes from 23:57:00 in 2000 to 23:57:01 in 2100 ... which is the current rate of slowing ... what happens to sea level at the equator and at the poles? The earth's rotational velocity is slowing due to tidal friction. The earth's rotational velocity is a finite resource; its not renewable. Do you think its a good idea to increase the tidal friction with tidal power generators? I don't.
PLEASE CHANGE THE TITLE TO WALES. It is as wrong as writing Canada instead of the U.S. Lesser known places aren't an excuse for poor research and ignorance.
Put stuff in water.... water levels rise. Please be sure to first displace the same amount of matter from the oceans so as to have water level neutrality. Sure, ONE of these is not enough to cause concern, but what about when every coastal city in the world has one? If it cannot be done a million times without raising water levels, it's not perfect. Good start. Call me for more engineering ideas; seriously, I'd like to lend a hand.
How on earth do you measure electricity using 'Olympic swimming pools'?
new imperial units for measuring electricity. also why 125 000 homes per year? another interesting measurement.
I love how these have become units... Olympic swimming pools, double decker bus, or football field. The three measurements used to describe just about everything
Jebi Se no average house is 95kw hrs or something using homes as measurement I understand but swimming pools is beyond me.
I think he meant flow rate rather than power.
You know how much water is going to flow out, so you can figure out how much potential energy there is available.
Olympic Swimming Pool is the S.I. unit of Measurement in U.K. I guess...
@@CGrantL yes there maths is poor how can someone use this instead of number so we can calculate
An Olympic swimming pool is 660,000 gallons.
So about 168960000 tablespoon
Whale 🐳 Size of school bus 🚌
This absolutely makes sense.
Awesome.
this is absolutely brilliant...were nearly there people
Actually with several pools, the energy CAN be stored for when it is needed. For generating electricity, you need one full pool and one empty pool.
You can make full pools at high tide and empty pools at low tide. It is a matter of opening and closing access to the sea at the right time. Then connect a full and an empty basin when you need the electricity.
Absolutely correct. In hydroelectric dams with river sources they store water for high demand times.
congratulations, for the sustainable project...
Since when did the municipality of Swansea move to England !?
Well said!
Since they found something useful there. Be glad it wasn’t oil!
beautiful get it done, i approve this message
Sounds like a kick ass idea. Send it!
A great idea! Now, make it happen!
Swansea is in South Wales. Wales is a country of its own and is situated to the west of England not to be confused with Cornwall which is further South.
So in order to calculate potential power:
1. We have at 0:18 volume flow of the water of 5 Olympic swimming pools / second;
2. Average head, I don't know, but the video showed at 0:25something up to 11 m, so moves between 0 and 11 meter, at average say 5.5 meters of difference?
With those two numbers it's easy to calculate power. ...
They did it for us already. At 0:25 he said it is enough for 155,000 homes per year. Say at average rate of 4,000 kWh / home, makes an estimated: 620,000,000 kWh / year. Or 620,000 MWh / year.
The project takes about 4 years to build (at 1:34) and takes a 1.6 Bln USD as an investment.
Sounds al quite interesting and promising with such a strong tidal difference. So curious to learn what the status is of the project. Who is planning to invest in the project?
What about fish protection, is it safe to pass through the turbines? Hope to learn more.
Thank you for the information
Hope it works. High maintenance is the issue. Salt, debris and the cost of building in sea water.
Anders Fogel. But it was done with oil rigs.
So that is a really new kind of renewable energy: it is moon energy! So we have solar and moon energy now.
Fossils fuels are also solar energy....just in long term storage
Wind is also solar energy.
Also true :-)
Tides also depend on the suns position
Only a little bit though. mostly down to the moon
Enough power for 150,000 homes > 330 homes = 1 Megawatt Hour > Tidal Plant would produce 450ish Megawatts > Average US Nuclear Plant produces 1,000 Megawatts
some is better then none...nuclear is dangerous...just 1 bad accident and...THE END
There's the Severn Bore and the Solent and many other places in the UK with strong currents- free energy for the taking.
This will never pay for itself. Way too much material to move.
Check out the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia/ New Brunswick Canada. We have the record for highest tide there at 71'! The shape of the land is perfect for this. When the tide is happening, it has 4 times the flow of all freshwater rivers in the world combined!
What are we waiting for Canada? Let's do this!
Should be done all over the UK
We Want These Kind of Wave Power Station in Pakistan 🇵🇰
Swansea is in wales not England
david davies I laughed so hard when I saw that. I think a lot of Americans think the UK is england.
you're an idiot
Well good for the welsh. And it a source that is more predictable then the sun. Especially there across the pond. Good show ol boy Edit i forgot the unpredictable wind
120 years F no make the long term investment. pour some concrete you Britts or Welshys.
It's in Chernobil
IT IS IN WALES
sounds good. better then wind. because of predictabily of the tides
@Mike Rogers wind generator were created to help the main generators... Not to be the only ones... It's the same with tide generators... What happens if you don't have wind for one all day ??? You will wait 24 hours to cook ??? Idiot.
Genius!
A comparison with offshore wind power:
Swansea lagoon tidal power:
Costs: ~£1.3bn
Average power: ~48 MW
Annual production: 420 MWh
Dudgeon offshore wind farm:
Costs: ~£1.5bn
Average power: ~200 MW
Annual production: 1,700 MWh
Tidal power changes with the tides: Long-time-predictable
Wind power changes with the wind: Only a few days roughly predictable
Lifetime: Maybe a big advantage of the Swansea lagoon. But nobody really knows the demand of maintenance and repair.
Tides are absolutely reliable every day, wind is not.
Of course, this is a substantial advantage.
But how much is that worth?
And a tidal power plant doesn't give you a steady consistent power supply like a thermal power plant, but an up and down with no power 4 times a day (changing tides).
If you're going to spend over a billion dollars, the tidal power plant needs to 1. last forever 2. have basically 0 maintenance cost 3. produce more value in cost of electricity saved then the variable costs associated with running this power plant PLUS the initial 1 billion dollars needed. 4. This needs to happen not within 100, 80, 60, 40, or 30 years, but within 20 years at max.
Replace old nuclear with New Nuclear, spend all the time and effort on building fool proof safety measures.
There’s plenty of wave and tidal generators that don’t require a massive bay to be made. For example why couldn’t they just attach a line of turbines to the sea bed across the Estuary, then its all hidden and no need to build anything except the turbines!.
Because you would yield just a small fraction of the energy this way.
Free tidal turbines are rather suited for sites with fast tidal currents, for instance between two islands (narrow channel, funneling effect).
Anyway, there are always some environmental issues.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power#Environmental_concerns
I'd put the money rather into more (offshore) wind power and photovoltaics, despite the unreliable power production.
Both is a lot cheaper, so you could afford some battery storage too.
For a turbine to work best it needs to have pressure pushing on it. If you just stick them on the bottom of the bay the water will largely just flow round them. By building the wall you force the water to flow through them.
Great work! Tidal power all over the world can be achieved if we have the will to do it.
Brad, it can be done but it is a poor source of power. Effective hydro power needs large heads, i.e. pressure to get any real work done.
Rance tidal power plant has been operating since 1966, this is not quite a revolution in that the power generated is out of step with peak demand. And Iain Reid - power is from head and flow, effective hydro power needs only one of those to be large to get any real work done.
We have strong sea currents around our coast line which could be used. The whole of the North sea is replaced within every 4 years and that is a lot of potential power on our doorstep. It would take a lot of nuclear power stations to power turbines to do that.
Hundreds of years ... or, you know ... until the sea levels rise.
then youd just make the sea wall a bit higher
Trouble with this is there's no big money for landowners, unlike wind, so no one is pushing it.
This is fantastic 👍🏻🇬🇧
POB.
Has this project come to fruition?
Err. Someone's probably already mentioned this. Swansea is in Wales, not England.
Until all the sea plastic clogs up all the turbines
If a hydro dam was built from Cardiff to Western-Supermare, could it produce enough power for the whole of the UK?🧐
This sounds like a very intelligent use of tidal power but their sandbag concept might not hold up to the relentless pounding of the north Atlantic storm season.
Make it a bit taller and use it for peak shaving as well, it could be complimentary to more transient renewable energy by serving as short term energy storage.
You can't just make it taller. Max height is determined by the max tidal level in the area you're building it in.
I meant to overfill it using the turbine as a pump when there is surplus energy available in grid, naturally that would depend on having favourable high tide times in relation to the grid peak demand.
That would be an option though i'm not sure they would be allowed to build it higher in that location
@@diceman199 Environmental Protection UK Enters the Chat:
Get the queen to pay and get it on.
Rance Tidal Power Station near Saint-Malo, France was opened 55 year ago as the world's first. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station
What an absolutely novel idea! Using a CONTINUOUS, FREE, RELIABLE, RENEWABLE AND NATURAL resource to generate electricity… No doubt some yahoo would ask, "But what if the earth stopped spending and the tides stops going in and out?!?!?
It would produce 320 MW Peak Power and an annual output of 420 GWh. Which would be an average power of only 48 MW.
@"Reliable power supply": It's completely predictable, that's a big advantage of course.
But the power production varies with the tides: 4 times a day high power, 4 times a day no power.
It can't provide a continuous power supply like run-of-the-river-hydroelectricity or thermal power plants.
I didn't want to bash it, I'm just a fan of considering pros and cons.
Such RUclips-videos tend to neglect the cons.
It would be quite expensive.
Photovoltaics would cost about half as much referred to annual production. In the cloudy UK!
On the other hand, it would last for a very long time.
And like I mentioned: Reliable, predictable supply.
Batteries are going to keep getting cheaper until they're literally dirt cheap. So predictability and consistency will become less of an issue over time.
I don't know anything about this project, maybe it's great or terrible, but the idea is basically good.
Here's the thing. The UK has a fair deal of water resivoir graviometric potential energy storage facilities. Grid operators can bank the power at a 50%flux rate by pumping water uphill and scale returned energy up and down to grid demand in about 30 seconds.
@David Jackson, II: "A fair deal of pumped storage": It's roughly 2,8 Gigawatts in the UK.
Installed fluctuating power sources in the United Kingdom today (2017):
Solar: 12,3 Gigawatts
Wind: 19,8 Gigawatts
Pumped storage is nice and useful, but it doesn't has the capability to compensate the fluctuation of volatile power sources, if they play a main part in electricity supply.
Regarding tidal power: Different locations, different tides: Several tidal power stations at different locations could together supply reliable and to some extent stable power. There is still the spring-neap tide cycle and the influence of wind, but you could get some assured baseload at least.
But not from one single tidal power station, I just wanted to point this out.
Because it's not well-known.
The commas are decimal separators of course.
Error in translation, I'm Austrian.
With whom does that man speak with? He even dont look at tha screen what a shy man😄😄
Tidal power plant in Annaplis Royal Nova Scotia lasted a few decades. Then it was shutdown. Great idea! Nothing new...
Why not replace the aging nuclear power plants with the latest nuclear technology like molten salt thorium reactors? Replacing nuclear power with wind, solar or anything else is like replacing the internal combustion engine of a car with bicycle pedals and saying it is more sustainable and environmentally friendly.
daniel combrinck Where can we buy a commercial thorium reactor?The new Hinkley Point C nuclear power station is such an affordable plant.
Bicycles are indeed more environmentally friendly (and more fun)
The new Hinkley point station will provide power at almost twice the cost that the new offshore wind farms will do. Despite what is often claimed offshore wind rarely dies down.
Plus....no long term waste, no mining and transport of fuel, no potential catastrophic failures.
Because it’s true. Offshore winds blow most consistently than onshore ones.
as for raising the cost of power...the new offshore wind farms are contracted to supply power at HALF the cost of the new nuclear plant. Which, in case your maths is bad, is the opposite of increasing costs
I’ve not moved the goal posts. If i say it is more consistent that is simply another way of saying it rarely dies down. Offshore wind vary rarely dies down completely.
And it’s still half the cost per unit of power provided than nuclear.....and no waste problems.
diceman199 Is it half the cost per watt or jag half the cost in general?
Cant we get electricity from thunder? Lol
2.5 gigawatts
The ocean is the answer to our energy problem.
@Korsalath there is a lot of ocean front property that has nothing to do.
Just don't tell the Welsh that Swansea is now part of the English coastline!
5 swimming pools worth of electricity, that's an interesting one..
I’ve been trying to find info if or how Marine life could be affected. I mean surely fish, seals etc etc will get sucked into the turbines and get chopped to pieces?
The turbines don't suck. They get pushed round when the water flows past them....like wind turbines.
diceman199 I know the turbines don’t actually suck but are turned by the force of water being channelled towards the turbines. So ok not strictly suck, but water is pressured through the turbines, so my concern re marine life being chopped up by the turbines remains the same!.
The blades are turning with the water flow rather than cutting rapidly through the flow. So damage to small fish is unlikely
diceman199 The blades turn according to how fast the water is moving into the bay and the pressure that is built by the incoming water being funnelled into the turbines. The only way the blades would move slower than the incoming water+ pressure from funnelling. Is by gearing the turbines so they can move relatively slowly while the gears take up the difference and use that to turn the generators.
That's exactly how they work. As with wind turbines, the driving blade is moving relatively slowly but with high torque from the pressure on it. This is then geared into driving the much higher speed generating turbine.
Im thinking the gulf of Mexico or Hudson bay. add a a system of locks...imagine if a second panama canal was built for the inevitable shipping traffic and the old canal was converted to tidal power generation. I dont think the planet could survive another fukishima.
Festivejelly... Explosive meltdowns,we can agree on that point,and I'm not uneducated on the subject. It's the fact that it's built on the beach basically,chernobyl was nowhere near the coast, and all the water they have used to attempt to cool it with runs right into and across the pacific doing unknowable damage to the world's fisheries. That is one of the most important food sources to the developing world and a large part of the first world. Maybe you don't mind eating radiation emmiting particulates for dinner but most of us do.
Festivejelly maybe you should check your ego because it seems you aren't satisfied with arguing other peoples "facts". You want to attack opinions as well. Well take your attempts at mind control and stick them in your ass. Everyone has a right to express their opinions here.
Robert Flask ...there are no pumps. The locks are all gravity powered. So yes,it is kind of like a river except it begins at the Atlantic at a higher elevation (not sure how much higher)and ends at the pacific. Due to the earth's rotation and tidal forces,sea levels are higher on the east coast of Panama and lower on the west. Fact is that it was just a thought. I'm no engineer.
Robert Flask ...it might be a dumb idea. Like I said I'm no engineer. I'm guessing you aren't either. It was just a thought. Not worth arguing about.
Robert Flask ... Ya,cause that's what I said. go watch a documentary or something,just quit trolling me. Please.
What happens after 120 years though? Like. It doesn't just go away, so is that the estimated time when repairs would cost more than a new dam?
I would guess it is destroyed ealier. Storms and waves will take it away earlier.
its almost 5 years can you deliver the result.
I didn't see how those turbine's work in BOTH directions.
Bruh they probably have 1. For each direction
@@karenslivesmatter2186 Why do you think everyone is your "bruh"? Probably is a lame answer.
Put alternators and swimming pools Motors so when the water goes to the water pump of the pool and makes power same thing with ACS and everything else
When they say 120 years. It probably last 10 to 20 years.
How many tides does this place have? Test at school is not clear
Can't you find a natural properly shaped bay instead of this expensive sand bag thing?
Same thought here! And lets remember the bulge of the oceans on the planet are bigger at the equador, that means bigger tides around there.
dapolilitica, tides are much lower at the equator. There is no bigger "bulge of the ocean" there. Follow this link and learn: www.quora.com/Why-are-tides-lower-at-the-equator
“By Alan Marble, software engineer. (quora.com)
The biggest factor contributing to tidal variation is geography. Specifically, we can see that the highest tides tend to exist in areas where the geography of the land constricts the ocean - bays and narrow channels and the like. What is happening is the land essentially "funnels" the rising and falling tides in these areas and exaggerates the tidal variations you see. Where there is less constriction and more open ocean, the tides are less affected by geography.
Interestingly enough, if this geographical constriction was not a factor, you would see the highest tides along the equator, where the tidal bulge is the widest. “
Now researching some more i see that because the inclination of the rotation plane of the earth in relation to the moon and sun the bulge of the oceans would be bigger at higher and lower latitudes and not exactly around the equador. I give you that. But then the last paragraph of Mr. Alan Marble needs clarification!
Wayyyy to expensive, tides in the Irish Sea are some of the largest in the world and basically all large capacity coves or bays are too deep which would make them really hard and expensive to build
what's the cost per mwh and what is the efficiency percentage? wind is about 80 usd and 40pc Solar is as low as 60 some places 30 but at 30pc (generation efficiency not photovoltaic efficiency)
What's the efficiency about? Wasted wind, sun or tide?
Swansea is in Wales 🏴
The lagoon could hold a massive floating solar farm, thus increasing the impact of the project. Wind turbines could be located on the lagoon wall. This is a great project.
It may be 'massive' in renewable terms but it is puny in the real world of generation.
It is expensive and intermittent so has real drawbacks before it starts. once again a project that takes lots of subsidies and produces little, Developers.3 consumer 0
The idea is to do it more than once, 1000 times starts to count in the real world of generation.
Aren't tides dependent on the current moon phase though? The power output wouldn't be as random as solar or wind of course, but you'd still get a period of lowered production roughly every 2 weeks. But I don't really know how much the moon phase affects tides, so this might turn out to be a non-issue.
moon phases are about reflected sunlight, not tides which are regular
Doug Mcdonell moon phases depend on relative position of sun & moon to Earth, which affects the strength of tides. You get the strongest tides during full moon & new moon and weakest tides during quarter moon.
Is this already built? The video was 4 years ago
tidal power has just left a trail of failed projects and junk left in the sea around the world. Amazing how there never seems to be anyone left around when this stuff needs to be hauled out of the sea.
I think you are thinking of wave power projects. These tidal trap systems have been in use for at least a couple of hundred years. Where I work is a place that used to be 3 mills that were powered by tidal water level changes on both the incoming and outgoing tides. Admittedly it's a way smaller scale than the one in the news article but it works just fine.
correct...most of these projects have consumed more available energy than would be recouped. The fabrication/construction of all materials used and the projects themselves have to be factored into the equation of return.
Sorry but that’s the normal BS spread by the fossil fuel lobby. www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/29/turbines-energy
Would be better to use ocean current to create energy. On that way less envairoment damage will be produced
where currents are strong enough... where tides are high those are better.
Maintenance cost high.........
It makes sense.So why are they doing it.
Too little, too late!
Doesn’t give power. 5 pools or150000 houses doesn’t tell you the power and isn’t that great
1.6 billion??? Electricity from this project will cost more than 50p per kilowatt hour.
Bet they wish they'd built this and more
That's not fucking England. It's Wales
This concept seems to forget past projects that entrain water unnaturally and the long term environmental affect....take for example one of the oldest man/water projects still in use but environmentally wrecked...venice.
Swansea is in Wales, Not England
how about the fishies?
Fish soup
Wow~~~!
Don't they know this will slow the moon down!!!! and cause it to crash into the earth in a few billion years!!
No worries, in a few billion years, the sun will become a red giant so large that it will engulf the earth... But the Earth will become uninhabitable much sooner than that. After about a billion years the sun will become hot enough to boil our oceans.
155k homes is not enough.
Big business uses way more power than homes. LED light bulbs don't come close to having an effect on energy consumption.
Energie générée par le mouvement des marées!!... En France (Bretagne) la différence de hauteur des marées est de +/- 13 mètres!!... Au Canada dans certain fjord la différence est de 17 mètres!!!.. By
It's going to make "HUGE" amounts of energy. We all know how much energy a huge amount is, right? How much energy is produced with an Olympic size swimming pool of water flowing through every minute exactly? I have no clue and neither does anyone else. I guess you can't use understandable numbers or measurements so people can relate if you don't want people to get it's a idea that shouldn't be funded. If you want people to get it's a idea that should be funded you give easy to understand numbers and examples. That tells me rightly or wrongly this concept is dead in the water and time will prove they true or not.
Yes
It doesn't have to be a wall in a straight line, make multiple smaller sections? Save some money...
what about the fishermen?
why not use it like a giant battery? close the doors once max tide water height is achieved, then open doors as power is needed. Easy way to achieve battery-like renewable energy i'd think. Pretty large dam though, structure cost/design may be too much to achieve water holding?
Some tidal power plants like Rance in France are partially used as pumped storage power plants too.
But the power and the storage capacity would be rather poor compared to other pumped-storage-plants.
what about storms?
Swansea is in WALES not England !
The earth is an oblate spheroid. Due to the earth's rotational velocity there is an equatorial bulge. If the earth's rotational velocity is reduced so the period of the earth's rotation goes from 23:57:00 in 2000 to 23:57:01 in 2100 ... which is the current rate of slowing ... what happens to sea level at the equator and at the poles?
The earth's rotational velocity is slowing due to tidal friction.
The earth's rotational velocity is a finite resource; its not renewable.
Do you think its a good idea to increase the tidal friction with tidal power generators?
I don't.
@Korsalath Preferably before more tidal power generators are built.
They ain’t going ahead with it now.
Swansea.... England..... Wat
1.6 billion for 155000 homes..??
How do the English even measure electricity? They don't use miles or cups or watts...
This sounds fishy.
BTU's?
Even though James Watt was Scottish, the English do use watts as a measure of power.
Won't the sea level rise..?
The sea level rising and falling is what generates power.
what whoud happen to the fish if they get suck by turbines?
What about the wildlife
Lol, be there for 120 years?? Hardee har har, in 20 years, maybe 10, the technology will be so outdated, they'll tear it out.
The Rance Tidal Power Station in France became operational in 1966, they haven't torn it out because it keeps generating electricity.
Since when does turbine technology get outdated every 10 years?
Trump does NOT approve
It will be underwater far sooner than 120 years from now.
It's supposed to be underwater.
PLEASE CHANGE THE TITLE TO WALES. It is as wrong as writing Canada instead of the U.S. Lesser known places aren't an excuse for poor research and ignorance.
Put stuff in water.... water levels rise. Please be sure to first displace the same amount of matter from the oceans so as to have water level neutrality. Sure, ONE of these is not enough to cause concern, but what about when every coastal city in the world has one? If it cannot be done a million times without raising water levels, it's not perfect. Good start. Call me for more engineering ideas; seriously, I'd like to lend a hand.
Unfortunately your knowledge of engineering is not sufficient to help anything.