Is Wave Energy Dead In The Water?

[Larky Masher]

Seems ominous that two wave energy firms have run into problems in the last few weeks, is the technology simply not developing as hoped or is the model not financially viable?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-30313111

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-30151276

[deecie]

Just needs more time.

[Orraloon]

I think it's right that we investigate all different alternative forms of energy supply to see what the potential is. And that means spending money. IMO, if these announcements means more money is diverted towards tidal technology then that is a good thing. I think tidal is a big part of the answer to energy supply in the future. It is as regular and predictable as the phases of the moon.

[Orraloon]

Just needs more time.

Or more waves?

[Toepoke]

Just to clarify it's wave energy affected here not tidal power?

[deecie]

All the problems I've seen with them are when there's too many waves!

But I agree, Tidal Stuff is much more predictable.

[Orraloon]

All the problems I've seen with them are when there's too many waves!

But I agree, Tidal Stuff is much more predictable.

Sorry, my mistake.

[biffer]

Tidal has caught up massively over the last decade or so. Previously wave energy was considered more mature - and in some ways it still is. The key problem isn't generating energy. it's survivability. Power generation systems are expected to have a lifetime of about 25 years. Statistically that means they have to be able to survive a storm that only occurs once in a hundred years (bizarre bit of stats there, but I was assured it was right by multiple folks in the know). It's a massive engineering challenge as we've never had to put anything that relies on being constantly moving permanently into the sea that's had to survive these kinds of storms (other offshore installations - oil rigs, wind turbines - aren't a mish mash of moving parts, they're a fixed structure so it's a different challenge). But the industry is now at the stage that if you can't fix the problem you won't get any more investment - and if you can't get investment it's difficult to work on the problem.

Tidal suffers far less from the survivability problem because it's below the surface so the effects aren't as bad.

Edited December 4, 2014 by biffer

[Larky Masher]

Tidal has caught up massively over the last decade or so. Previously wave energy was considered more mature - and in some ways it still is. The key problem isn't generating energy. it's survivability. Power generation systems are expected to have a lifetime of about 25 years. Statistically that means they have to be able to survive a storm that only occurs once in a hundred years (bizarre bit of stats there, but I was assured it was right by multiple folks in the know). It's a massive engineering challenge as we've never had to put anything that relies on being constantly moving permanently into the sea that's had to survive these kinds of storms (other offshore installations - oil rigs, wind turbines - aren't a mish mash of moving parts, they're a fixed structure so it's a different challenge). But the industry is now at the stage that if you can't fix the problem you won't get any more investment - and if you can't get investment it's difficult to work on the problem.

Tidal suffers far less from the survivability problem because it's below the surface so the effects aren't as bad.

I'd agree with that the engineering challenges (both structural and transmission) seem to be huge.

[Larky Masher]

But given tidal power is generated for (on the whole) less than 12 hours a day (when the tide is going in or out) it doesn't seem the perfect option.

[deecie]

But given tidal power is generated for (on the whole) less than 12 hours a day (when the tide is going in or out) it doesn't seem the perfect option.

Turn then round every 12 hours then.

I've just doubled the output from your turbine.

That'll be £4.7million please.

[Orraloon]

Turn then round every 12 hours then.

I've just doubled the output from your turbine.

That'll be £4.7million please.

Shit, wish I'd thought of that. That wis easy money.

As you say the only times a tidal turbine isn't capable of producing is when the tide is turning. So, you need to fill the gaps with other sources - pump and dump for example.

[Bzzzz]

Turn then round every 12 hours then.

I've just doubled the output from your turbine.

That'll be £4.7million please.

[biffer]

But given tidal power is generated for (on the whole) less than 12 hours a day (when the tide is going in or out) it doesn't seem the perfect option.

There's no such thing as a perfect option for energy generation. Looking for one brilliant technology to solve all the problems will never, ever work.

Fossil Fuels - emissions of sulphur and carbon dioxide, plust often scar the landscape during production

Nuclear - radioactive waste and potential disasters

Wave - depends on the waves

Wind - depends on the wind

Solar - depends on the clouds and only works during the day

Tidal - only works with the tides

Hydro - flooding vast tracts of land and emissions from decomposing plants and soils

Biofuels - reduces the amount of food grown

etc.

Tidal is one of the best - it's genuinely clean and it's predictable. But to approach energy supply looking for 'THE' answer is completely the wrong way to go about it. We need a genuine mix of energy provision to ensure stability and security of our energy system Tidal has the potential to be a fairly significant part of it. But the big parts of the mix which don't get the publicity because they're not big and shiny and politicians can't get a photo op next to them are smart grids and energy efficiency. We need as much progress in these as in generation tech to develop our future energy network.

[Larky Masher]

Turn then round every 12 hours then.

I've just doubled the output from your turbine.

That'll be £4.7million please.

I think you'll find the capacity factor suggested for Scotland is 40% i.e. around 10 hours generation per day, the La Rance barrage in France runs at 26%.

[Armchair Bob]

Nuclear fusion - it's going to save us all.

Only 20 years away.

[Orraloon]

I think you'll find the capacity factor suggested for Scotland is 40% i.e. around 10 hours generation per day, the La Rance barrage in France runs at 26%.

Even Hydro is only about 35%. 40% would be pretty good. As Biffer says we need a mixture of technologies.

[biffer]

I think you'll find the capacity factor suggested for Scotland is 40% i.e. around 10 hours generation per day, the La Rance barrage in France runs at 26%.

Capacity factor isn't really the most relevant in terms of efficiency to be honest. It's something the fossil fuel industry started using to say how poor renewables were, and then stopped using when they realised how poor the old coal powered plants were - some of them were in the twenty and thirty per cent range as well!

[Larky Masher]

Capacity factor isn't really the most relevant in terms of efficiency to be honest. It's something the fossil fuel industry started using to say how poor renewables were, and then stopped using when they realised how poor the old coal powered plants were - some of them were in the twenty and thirty per cent range as well!

It is a comparative measure but it's relevant there needs to be an understanding that the output of tidal power stations would vary significantly over the course of a day. Coal fired power stations might have been/are inefficient and harmed the environment but they did/do produce power at roughly the same level 24 hours a day. However as everyone says there isn't a magic bullet solution to this. What I don't understand is why so much little emphasis is being put on energy storage, last week was the first ever conference on this in the UK.

[mariokempes56]

Time travel - its the future.

[hunchy]

The trouble when most folk talk about renewable energy sources is they do seem to make it sound like there way is the only way. For me this is part of the reason that puts people off. Totally agree that a good mix of methods is needed and there needs to be a good look at energy storage. Nuclear fusion is also a very good looking prospect but it still seems a long way from being a viable option.

[biffer]

It is a comparative measure but it's relevant there needs to be an understanding that the output of tidal power stations would vary significantly over the course of a day. Coal fired power stations might have been/are inefficient and harmed the environment but they did/do produce power at roughly the same level 24 hours a day. However as everyone says there isn't a magic bullet solution to this. What I don't understand is why so much little emphasis is being put on energy storage, last week was the first ever conference on this in the UK.

They might have advertised it as the first but it wasn't. You're right about storage though, it sits with smart grids and efficiency as necessary to establish a proper system.

[thplinth]

Waves are caused by winds interacting with the surface of the sea.

Winds are caused by differential heating of the earth surface from the sun caused by its curvature, this then compounds into complex localized weather systems, but all driven by the sun.

Renewable is a misleading name, we only have one sun in our solar system but this is energy that to us might as well be 'renewable' in our species' lifespan.

Unless we crack cold fusion this stuff has a big role to play.

Renewables could provide 50% of UK energy no problem but they must be layered with other supplies, coal, oil, gas, nuclear... you build up a diversified overcapacity of energy supply portfolio and then when one is incapacitated or reduced for any reason the others take up the slack. You need this just to manage things like the kettle surge at half time during the world cup etc... e.g. Gas powered stations are the quick response slack reducers with the ability to power up quickly.

Big myth that wind is unreliable if you are geographically diversified. Plus wind speed has an inverse relationship with height, the higher up you go it really increases a lot. That is why they build these increasingly huge ones.

The may be ugly to some but the energy they harvest is renewable and virtually clean.

[deecie]

Waves are caused by winds interacting with the surface of the sea.

Only some.

[Larky Masher]

Waves are caused by winds interacting with the surface of the sea.

Winds are caused by differential heating of the earth surface from the sun caused by its curvature, this then compounds into complex localized weather systems, but all driven by the sun.

Renewable is a misleading name, we only have one sun in our solar system but this is energy that to us might as well be 'renewable' in our species' lifespan.

Unless we crack cold fusion this stuff has a big role to play.

Renewables could provide 50% of UK energy no problem but they must be layered with other supplies, coal, oil, gas, nuclear... you build up a diversified overcapacity of energy supply portfolio and then when one is incapacitated or reduced for any reason the others take up the slack. You need this just to manage things like the kettle surge at half time during the world cup etc... e.g. Gas powered stations are the quick response slack reducers with the ability to power up quickly.

Big myth that wind is unreliable if you are geographically diversified. Plus wind speed has an inverse relationship with height, the higher up you go it really increases a lot. That is why they build these increasingly huge ones.

The may be ugly to some but the energy they harvest is renewable and virtually clean.

If wind speed increases as height increases is that an inverse relationship?