Millennium3

Good to have an expert on board.

Why is wave power so difficult to convert? For Britain it seems the perfect solution - so much water so much tide - their must be enough energy here to make a significant number of power stations redundant!

mkpdavies

I think cost of contruction and maintainence has to be a major factor with wave power. With big powerful salty waves crashing around, it needs to be very robust and well maintained.

Also when the sea rises/freezes/evaporates, you might have problems.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Millennium3

I assumed you would have floating booms to cope with sea level changes.

John Carter

So, another pig with his snout in the trough.

Everything you have ever said about climate change is now tainted by your vested interest in it.

Hartlepool

I fear you may be right about that JC.

Besoeker

That's just silly.
Since you don't know what my opinion about whether or not human activity has affected or is affecting climate, you have simply no basis for that
comment.
Let me set you straight about this. I have a commercial interest in all forms of electrical power and power generation.
Not unreasonable considering that I make a living as an electrical engineer.
Just because I have a commercial interest in one form of generation doesn't preclude an interest in other forms.

As a matter of fact, over the past year the number and value of projects directly involved in generation from fossils has considerably exceeded those for renewable and energy efficiency.
Our business isn't altruistic. It is driven by commercial realities, not by any higher motivation than that. Zeal to save the planet is all well and fine, but it doesn't pay the wages of our staff.

So why should I have a vested interest in one form of generation over the other?

Go take your daft inaccurate comments elsewhere.

Besoeker

Thank you for your kind words.
I think MKP is right about the cost of construction and maintenance.
There are two other points I would like to add to that.

The first is one of scale - often not really appreciated.
The system in operation on Islay is around 500kW capacity. To put that in perspective, a single alternator at Drax power station (coal fired) is 660,000kW. Puting it otherwise, it would need over 1 million of the systems at Islay to generate the output of just one of the alternators at Drax - and Drax has 6 such alternators making it about 7% of total UK capacity.

The other point is variability.
Sometimes there will be big waves, sometimes little ones and sometimes none at all. And there are times when people want power and times when they don't. Wave power is an on availability source. Electrical power is an on demand expectation. To cope with the variability means that you need to be connected to a grid system that is capable of providing power when the waves don't, and just as importantly, can accept the excess over requirements when demand is low. That requires bulk generating capacity to be able to cope with the variability. You can't just shut down power stations without risking grid instability.

Millennium3

Thank you.

Clippo

I had initially prepared an in depth critique of Unionist’s post but I’ve missed the moment. All I would say is I think it is you who have missed the point and I think you are unduly sensitive. Some of the things I’ve been called by many of the posters in this particular thread are a quantum leap in insult terms to your problem but actually I’ve viewed them to be absurdly funny. The old adages apply – if you stick your head above the parapet, expect it to get shot at - or – if you can’t stand the heat, keep out of the kitchen.

When I made the statement earlier I was really referring/hoping for some positive action from the government to promote alternative technologies rather than some exceedingly suspicious and ineffective tax rises.

I do understand many of the scale and other limitations of alternative energy technologies when suggested in a UK context. To my certain knowledge, a barrage across the Severn estuary, near where I used to live has been ‘revived’ periodically for 20 odd years. Ironically, an hour ago on local TV, trials of a pilot generator in the Mersey have been announced.

But I’ve never ever accepted that alternative technologies could provide even more than a fraction of the UK’s power requirements. Furthermore, since the UK has little spare land, there’s no hope of us converting to bio-fuels in a big way. Since also we have negligible geothermal sites, (okay some spa towns like Bath, Kidderminster ?, Harrogate ? Buxton? may be able to have some limited local schemes) that’s inadequate nationally. Furthermore, hopes of the wind blowing us out of trouble appear to have been dashed just a few days ago :- see

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...09/nwind09.xml
So, yes, mpkdavies is right (but not a phrase I would necessarily use & twice in 2 days - I never live it down)– Well they (Germany) will be f****d then.

I suspected that in Sweden they would be promoting hydroelectric power and non-fossil carbon combustion ( they have a lot of trees in Sweden!!). I googled ‘oil free Sweden’ and came up with this ( sorry it’s the enemy rag for you GW doubters), but it is interesting, if a little optimistic. Another critical factor is, from the article that Sweden’s population is only 9 million which to me makes a big difference.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,1704954,00.html

So my conclusions for the UK, (& accepting that it is bad to continue burning fossil fuels is that nuclear is the only option). We can’t rely on ‘fusion’ technology, either hot or cold, because they’ve been dubbed 50 year technologies – they’ve always been 50 years away from practicality.

Do you know of any other practical schemes Besoeker?

Besoeker

None at all. And that's after about 40 years in the industry.
I see two choices.
1. Accept that nuclear is the way to go.
2. Rely on imported energy like electricity from contries that produce it from nuclear or gas LNG from sources such as Libya or Russia.

There is a third way, of course. Let the lights go out.
Maybe not so unlikely according to some. This was on the front page of Electrical Review:
[/img]