Tidal energy project could be established off Portland

Dorset Echo: STORMY SEAS: Wild waters off Portland Bill STORMY SEAS: Wild waters off Portland Bill

TIDAL turbines could be installed off Portland after the seabed was leased to an energy company.

The Crown Estate, which manages the UK seabed, has agreed rights to an area off the Bill to a developer for clean energy.

Although those in support of clean energy have welcomed the announcement, fishermen say they fear what it could mean for business if huge turbines are installed near fishing areas.

Siemens Marine Current Turbines (MCT) has been allocated a tidal stream ‘project site’- which could see turbines installed under the water by 2021.

Tidal turbines are ‘very much like underwater windmills,’ except the rotors are driven by consistent, fast-moving currents.

The submerged rotors harness the power of the marine currents to drive generators, which produce electricity.

The company couldn’t give the Echo any more details about theplans, just that the agreement ‘gives MCT the go-ahead to start investigations on the site’.

Jane Burnet, Green Party parliamentary candidate for South Dorset, said the party would support the project.

She added: “We can’t keep saying ‘no’ because Dorset is too beautiful.

“Dorset has to make some contribution towards the national energy requirements and subject to the correct provisions, we would support this project.”

But Weymouth fisherman Andy Alcock said he had not heard about the plans before.

He said: “I’d like to see a lot more information about it.”

Portland Bill was right in the middle of a lot of fishing grounds Mr Alcock added, and if the turbines were close to shore it could affect a lot of fishermen.

The strong tidal streams around the Bill are notorious and one of the greatest navigational hazards in the Channel.

It is one of three sites around the UK coastline which will be leased to Siemens MCT and 11 sites overall leased to energy companies. Rob Hastings, director of Energy and Infrastructure at The Crown Estate, said: “By providing these additional seabed rights we are pleased to be enabling further technology development and commercialisation, which will be critical if the UK is to unlock its significant natural resources for wave and tidal current energy.

“This innovative approach to leasing the seabed sees us responding to market demand and introducing managed demonstration zones to give other organisations the opportunity to lend tangible support in their local areas.”

Steve Stoye, chief executive officer of MCT, said: “The strategic decision to push forward with developing commercial-scale projects demonstrates Siemens commitment to the tidal sector and our confidence that there will be a future market for its SeaGen technology.

“Securing these new Agreements for Lease (AfL) is an important first step in investigating the sites as part of the wider development process.”

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:44am Tue 8 Jul 14

FerryFan says...

I heard this on the news this morning, what a great idea. Maybe I will be disagreed with, but if the Navitus Bay project was an underwater one there wouldn't be a fraction of the fuss about it that therehas been. Out of sight and out of mind

I am against it as is it by the way, I just think it is a huge blight on a beautiful part of the country, no matter what its supposed benefits. I am not sure of what ecological problems could be causes if any from having an underwater turbine system instead of these orrible windmills!! This Portland turbine is an excellent idea.
I heard this on the news this morning, what a great idea. Maybe I will be disagreed with, but if the Navitus Bay project was an underwater one there wouldn't be a fraction of the fuss about it that therehas been. Out of sight and out of mind I am against it as is it by the way, I just think it is a huge blight on a beautiful part of the country, no matter what its supposed benefits. I am not sure of what ecological problems could be causes if any from having an underwater turbine system instead of these orrible windmills!! This Portland turbine is an excellent idea. FerryFan
  • Score: 9

10:47am Tue 8 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

FerryFan wrote:
I heard this on the news this morning, what a great idea. Maybe I will be disagreed with, but if the Navitus Bay project was an underwater one there wouldn't be a fraction of the fuss about it that therehas been. Out of sight and out of mind

I am against it as is it by the way, I just think it is a huge blight on a beautiful part of the country, no matter what its supposed benefits. I am not sure of what ecological problems could be causes if any from having an underwater turbine system instead of these orrible windmills!! This Portland turbine is an excellent idea.
I'm not bothered by windmills aesthetically, i just question their usefulness. Generation from tides can be predicted decades in advance and so generation should be as reliable as conventional generation.
A lot is made of damage to the environment but in most cases, provided that toxins aren't leaching out continually, that environment recovers. On this basis i think that this scheme should be supported. I hope that the lease includes obligation for Siemens to actually build the scheme.
As for the fishermen, clearly we should be concerned about their livelihoods but i suspect these turbines will actually become a haven for fish, safe from the nets.
[quote][p][bold]FerryFan[/bold] wrote: I heard this on the news this morning, what a great idea. Maybe I will be disagreed with, but if the Navitus Bay project was an underwater one there wouldn't be a fraction of the fuss about it that therehas been. Out of sight and out of mind I am against it as is it by the way, I just think it is a huge blight on a beautiful part of the country, no matter what its supposed benefits. I am not sure of what ecological problems could be causes if any from having an underwater turbine system instead of these orrible windmills!! This Portland turbine is an excellent idea.[/p][/quote]I'm not bothered by windmills aesthetically, i just question their usefulness. Generation from tides can be predicted decades in advance and so generation should be as reliable as conventional generation. A lot is made of damage to the environment but in most cases, provided that toxins aren't leaching out continually, that environment recovers. On this basis i think that this scheme should be supported. I hope that the lease includes obligation for Siemens to actually build the scheme. As for the fishermen, clearly we should be concerned about their livelihoods but i suspect these turbines will actually become a haven for fish, safe from the nets. JamesYoung
  • Score: 4

10:48am Tue 8 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

FerryFan wrote:
I heard this on the news this morning, what a great idea. Maybe I will be disagreed with, but if the Navitus Bay project was an underwater one there wouldn't be a fraction of the fuss about it that therehas been. Out of sight and out of mind

I am against it as is it by the way, I just think it is a huge blight on a beautiful part of the country, no matter what its supposed benefits. I am not sure of what ecological problems could be causes if any from having an underwater turbine system instead of these orrible windmills!! This Portland turbine is an excellent idea.
Oh and PS: i have to ask this, but is your last name Watts?
[quote][p][bold]FerryFan[/bold] wrote: I heard this on the news this morning, what a great idea. Maybe I will be disagreed with, but if the Navitus Bay project was an underwater one there wouldn't be a fraction of the fuss about it that therehas been. Out of sight and out of mind I am against it as is it by the way, I just think it is a huge blight on a beautiful part of the country, no matter what its supposed benefits. I am not sure of what ecological problems could be causes if any from having an underwater turbine system instead of these orrible windmills!! This Portland turbine is an excellent idea.[/p][/quote]Oh and PS: i have to ask this, but is your last name Watts? JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

10:48am Tue 8 Jul 14

shy talk says...

Unlike wind turbines, tidal turbines have predictable generation times. The energy contained in the tidal races off the west of the UK is as great as anywhere in the world.

Because water is a thousand or so times heavier than air, the maximum speeds of perhaps 6 metres a second are capable of generating far more electricity per square metre of turbine area than a wind turbine.

It is estimated that tidal power could generate around 20% of Britain's requirements. However the UK government seems obsessed with wind turbines. And is reluctant to invest in tidal power leaving it to private sector investment.
Unlike wind turbines, tidal turbines have predictable generation times. The energy contained in the tidal races off the west of the UK is as great as anywhere in the world. Because water is a thousand or so times heavier than air, the maximum speeds of perhaps 6 metres a second are capable of generating far more electricity per square metre of turbine area than a wind turbine. It is estimated that tidal power could generate around 20% of Britain's requirements. However the UK government seems obsessed with wind turbines. And is reluctant to invest in tidal power leaving it to private sector investment. shy talk
  • Score: 6

11:21am Tue 8 Jul 14

Panyan says...

shy talk wrote:
Unlike wind turbines, tidal turbines have predictable generation times. The energy contained in the tidal races off the west of the UK is as great as anywhere in the world.

Because water is a thousand or so times heavier than air, the maximum speeds of perhaps 6 metres a second are capable of generating far more electricity per square metre of turbine area than a wind turbine.

It is estimated that tidal power could generate around 20% of Britain's requirements. However the UK government seems obsessed with wind turbines. And is reluctant to invest in tidal power leaving it to private sector investment.
Not sure of my facts but I was told landowners get a generous annual payment for having a wind turbine on their land.
[quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Unlike wind turbines, tidal turbines have predictable generation times. The energy contained in the tidal races off the west of the UK is as great as anywhere in the world. Because water is a thousand or so times heavier than air, the maximum speeds of perhaps 6 metres a second are capable of generating far more electricity per square metre of turbine area than a wind turbine. It is estimated that tidal power could generate around 20% of Britain's requirements. However the UK government seems obsessed with wind turbines. And is reluctant to invest in tidal power leaving it to private sector investment.[/p][/quote]Not sure of my facts but I was told landowners get a generous annual payment for having a wind turbine on their land. Panyan
  • Score: 2

11:29am Tue 8 Jul 14

elloello1980 says...

"after the seabed was leased to an energy company" lol
"after the seabed was leased to an energy company" lol elloello1980
  • Score: 3

11:43am Tue 8 Jul 14

shy talk says...

Panyan wrote:
shy talk wrote:
Unlike wind turbines, tidal turbines have predictable generation times. The energy contained in the tidal races off the west of the UK is as great as anywhere in the world.

Because water is a thousand or so times heavier than air, the maximum speeds of perhaps 6 metres a second are capable of generating far more electricity per square metre of turbine area than a wind turbine.

It is estimated that tidal power could generate around 20% of Britain's requirements. However the UK government seems obsessed with wind turbines. And is reluctant to invest in tidal power leaving it to private sector investment.
Not sure of my facts but I was told landowners get a generous annual payment for having a wind turbine on their land.
Yes, landowners do get annual payments for wind turbines on their land. For example the Earl of Moray is thought to get about £2m a year in rent from a 49-turbine windfarm on his Doune estate in Perthshire. And as we all know rents never go down, only up.
[quote][p][bold]Panyan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Unlike wind turbines, tidal turbines have predictable generation times. The energy contained in the tidal races off the west of the UK is as great as anywhere in the world. Because water is a thousand or so times heavier than air, the maximum speeds of perhaps 6 metres a second are capable of generating far more electricity per square metre of turbine area than a wind turbine. It is estimated that tidal power could generate around 20% of Britain's requirements. However the UK government seems obsessed with wind turbines. And is reluctant to invest in tidal power leaving it to private sector investment.[/p][/quote]Not sure of my facts but I was told landowners get a generous annual payment for having a wind turbine on their land.[/p][/quote]Yes, landowners do get annual payments for wind turbines on their land. For example the Earl of Moray is thought to get about £2m a year in rent from a 49-turbine windfarm on his Doune estate in Perthshire. And as we all know rents never go down, only up. shy talk
  • Score: 2

12:23pm Tue 8 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

shy talk wrote:
Panyan wrote:
shy talk wrote:
Unlike wind turbines, tidal turbines have predictable generation times. The energy contained in the tidal races off the west of the UK is as great as anywhere in the world.

Because water is a thousand or so times heavier than air, the maximum speeds of perhaps 6 metres a second are capable of generating far more electricity per square metre of turbine area than a wind turbine.

It is estimated that tidal power could generate around 20% of Britain's requirements. However the UK government seems obsessed with wind turbines. And is reluctant to invest in tidal power leaving it to private sector investment.
Not sure of my facts but I was told landowners get a generous annual payment for having a wind turbine on their land.
Yes, landowners do get annual payments for wind turbines on their land. For example the Earl of Moray is thought to get about £2m a year in rent from a 49-turbine windfarm on his Doune estate in Perthshire. And as we all know rents never go down, only up.
The old rule: they own land, give them money.
Land (as opposed to home) owners ARE GIVEN around £85 per annum per acre owned in taxpayer subsidy.
Home owners PAY an average of £1800 for their home, which equates (again on an average) to £18,000 an acre.
The top 50 landowners in this country receive an average of £3.5m each year in subsidies each.
It's a very fair system :-).
[quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Panyan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: Unlike wind turbines, tidal turbines have predictable generation times. The energy contained in the tidal races off the west of the UK is as great as anywhere in the world. Because water is a thousand or so times heavier than air, the maximum speeds of perhaps 6 metres a second are capable of generating far more electricity per square metre of turbine area than a wind turbine. It is estimated that tidal power could generate around 20% of Britain's requirements. However the UK government seems obsessed with wind turbines. And is reluctant to invest in tidal power leaving it to private sector investment.[/p][/quote]Not sure of my facts but I was told landowners get a generous annual payment for having a wind turbine on their land.[/p][/quote]Yes, landowners do get annual payments for wind turbines on their land. For example the Earl of Moray is thought to get about £2m a year in rent from a 49-turbine windfarm on his Doune estate in Perthshire. And as we all know rents never go down, only up.[/p][/quote]The old rule: they own land, give them money. Land (as opposed to home) owners ARE GIVEN around £85 per annum per acre owned in taxpayer subsidy. Home owners PAY an average of £1800 for their home, which equates (again on an average) to £18,000 an acre. The top 50 landowners in this country receive an average of £3.5m each year in subsidies each. It's a very fair system :-). JamesYoung
  • Score: 4

12:25pm Tue 8 Jul 14

The Fish says...

FerryFan wrote:
I heard this on the news this morning, what a great idea. Maybe I will be disagreed with, but if the Navitus Bay project was an underwater one there wouldn't be a fraction of the fuss about it that therehas been. Out of sight and out of mind I am against it as is it by the way, I just think it is a huge blight on a beautiful part of the country, no matter what its supposed benefits. I am not sure of what ecological problems could be causes if any from having an underwater turbine system instead of these orrible windmills!! This Portland turbine is an excellent idea.
A misnomer that the Portland turbine will be underwater, though the turbines are underwater, a large tower will be visible above the surface (see Strangford Lough generator - built by the same people) - access will be required and at times resttrictions around the area as maintenance is carried out.
[quote][p][bold]FerryFan[/bold] wrote: I heard this on the news this morning, what a great idea. Maybe I will be disagreed with, but if the Navitus Bay project was an underwater one there wouldn't be a fraction of the fuss about it that therehas been. Out of sight and out of mind I am against it as is it by the way, I just think it is a huge blight on a beautiful part of the country, no matter what its supposed benefits. I am not sure of what ecological problems could be causes if any from having an underwater turbine system instead of these orrible windmills!! This Portland turbine is an excellent idea.[/p][/quote]A misnomer that the Portland turbine will be underwater, though the turbines are underwater, a large tower will be visible above the surface (see Strangford Lough generator - built by the same people) - access will be required and at times resttrictions around the area as maintenance is carried out. The Fish
  • Score: 1

12:27pm Tue 8 Jul 14

The Fish says...

JamesYoung wrote:
FerryFan wrote: I heard this on the news this morning, what a great idea. Maybe I will be disagreed with, but if the Navitus Bay project was an underwater one there wouldn't be a fraction of the fuss about it that therehas been. Out of sight and out of mind I am against it as is it by the way, I just think it is a huge blight on a beautiful part of the country, no matter what its supposed benefits. I am not sure of what ecological problems could be causes if any from having an underwater turbine system instead of these orrible windmills!! This Portland turbine is an excellent idea.
I'm not bothered by windmills aesthetically, i just question their usefulness. Generation from tides can be predicted decades in advance and so generation should be as reliable as conventional generation. A lot is made of damage to the environment but in most cases, provided that toxins aren't leaching out continually, that environment recovers. On this basis i think that this scheme should be supported. I hope that the lease includes obligation for Siemens to actually build the scheme. As for the fishermen, clearly we should be concerned about their livelihoods but i suspect these turbines will actually become a haven for fish, safe from the nets.
James, the fisherman referred too are rod & line fisherman catching Bass from the race area around Portland Bill. I've not yet seen the maps but if the turbines are in this area then they would not be able to fish for them and hence a large loss of livelyhood.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FerryFan[/bold] wrote: I heard this on the news this morning, what a great idea. Maybe I will be disagreed with, but if the Navitus Bay project was an underwater one there wouldn't be a fraction of the fuss about it that therehas been. Out of sight and out of mind I am against it as is it by the way, I just think it is a huge blight on a beautiful part of the country, no matter what its supposed benefits. I am not sure of what ecological problems could be causes if any from having an underwater turbine system instead of these orrible windmills!! This Portland turbine is an excellent idea.[/p][/quote]I'm not bothered by windmills aesthetically, i just question their usefulness. Generation from tides can be predicted decades in advance and so generation should be as reliable as conventional generation. A lot is made of damage to the environment but in most cases, provided that toxins aren't leaching out continually, that environment recovers. On this basis i think that this scheme should be supported. I hope that the lease includes obligation for Siemens to actually build the scheme. As for the fishermen, clearly we should be concerned about their livelihoods but i suspect these turbines will actually become a haven for fish, safe from the nets.[/p][/quote]James, the fisherman referred too are rod & line fisherman catching Bass from the race area around Portland Bill. I've not yet seen the maps but if the turbines are in this area then they would not be able to fish for them and hence a large loss of livelyhood. The Fish
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Tue 8 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

The Fish wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
FerryFan wrote: I heard this on the news this morning, what a great idea. Maybe I will be disagreed with, but if the Navitus Bay project was an underwater one there wouldn't be a fraction of the fuss about it that therehas been. Out of sight and out of mind I am against it as is it by the way, I just think it is a huge blight on a beautiful part of the country, no matter what its supposed benefits. I am not sure of what ecological problems could be causes if any from having an underwater turbine system instead of these orrible windmills!! This Portland turbine is an excellent idea.
I'm not bothered by windmills aesthetically, i just question their usefulness. Generation from tides can be predicted decades in advance and so generation should be as reliable as conventional generation. A lot is made of damage to the environment but in most cases, provided that toxins aren't leaching out continually, that environment recovers. On this basis i think that this scheme should be supported. I hope that the lease includes obligation for Siemens to actually build the scheme. As for the fishermen, clearly we should be concerned about their livelihoods but i suspect these turbines will actually become a haven for fish, safe from the nets.
James, the fisherman referred too are rod & line fisherman catching Bass from the race area around Portland Bill. I've not yet seen the maps but if the turbines are in this area then they would not be able to fish for them and hence a large loss of livelyhood.
OK, didn't realise that. One thing i would observe though, as an angler myself, is that whenever the trawlers have been out around the Bill, the fish are pretty scarce inshore. So i suppose that's why i think that a fishing free area might be a good thing.
[quote][p][bold]The Fish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FerryFan[/bold] wrote: I heard this on the news this morning, what a great idea. Maybe I will be disagreed with, but if the Navitus Bay project was an underwater one there wouldn't be a fraction of the fuss about it that therehas been. Out of sight and out of mind I am against it as is it by the way, I just think it is a huge blight on a beautiful part of the country, no matter what its supposed benefits. I am not sure of what ecological problems could be causes if any from having an underwater turbine system instead of these orrible windmills!! This Portland turbine is an excellent idea.[/p][/quote]I'm not bothered by windmills aesthetically, i just question their usefulness. Generation from tides can be predicted decades in advance and so generation should be as reliable as conventional generation. A lot is made of damage to the environment but in most cases, provided that toxins aren't leaching out continually, that environment recovers. On this basis i think that this scheme should be supported. I hope that the lease includes obligation for Siemens to actually build the scheme. As for the fishermen, clearly we should be concerned about their livelihoods but i suspect these turbines will actually become a haven for fish, safe from the nets.[/p][/quote]James, the fisherman referred too are rod & line fisherman catching Bass from the race area around Portland Bill. I've not yet seen the maps but if the turbines are in this area then they would not be able to fish for them and hence a large loss of livelyhood.[/p][/quote]OK, didn't realise that. One thing i would observe though, as an angler myself, is that whenever the trawlers have been out around the Bill, the fish are pretty scarce inshore. So i suppose that's why i think that a fishing free area might be a good thing. JamesYoung
  • Score: 3

1:28pm Tue 8 Jul 14

The Fish says...

JamesYoung wrote:
The Fish wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
FerryFan wrote: I heard this on the news this morning, what a great idea. Maybe I will be disagreed with, but if the Navitus Bay project was an underwater one there wouldn't be a fraction of the fuss about it that therehas been. Out of sight and out of mind I am against it as is it by the way, I just think it is a huge blight on a beautiful part of the country, no matter what its supposed benefits. I am not sure of what ecological problems could be causes if any from having an underwater turbine system instead of these orrible windmills!! This Portland turbine is an excellent idea.
I'm not bothered by windmills aesthetically, i just question their usefulness. Generation from tides can be predicted decades in advance and so generation should be as reliable as conventional generation. A lot is made of damage to the environment but in most cases, provided that toxins aren't leaching out continually, that environment recovers. On this basis i think that this scheme should be supported. I hope that the lease includes obligation for Siemens to actually build the scheme. As for the fishermen, clearly we should be concerned about their livelihoods but i suspect these turbines will actually become a haven for fish, safe from the nets.
James, the fisherman referred too are rod & line fisherman catching Bass from the race area around Portland Bill. I've not yet seen the maps but if the turbines are in this area then they would not be able to fish for them and hence a large loss of livelyhood.
OK, didn't realise that. One thing i would observe though, as an angler myself, is that whenever the trawlers have been out around the Bill, the fish are pretty scarce inshore. So i suppose that's why i think that a fishing free area might be a good thing.
I'll think you will find that fishing on Chesil has considerably improved with some nice rays being caught, I can only put this down to Stennas Ledge becoming a MCZ and hence protected from trawling.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Fish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FerryFan[/bold] wrote: I heard this on the news this morning, what a great idea. Maybe I will be disagreed with, but if the Navitus Bay project was an underwater one there wouldn't be a fraction of the fuss about it that therehas been. Out of sight and out of mind I am against it as is it by the way, I just think it is a huge blight on a beautiful part of the country, no matter what its supposed benefits. I am not sure of what ecological problems could be causes if any from having an underwater turbine system instead of these orrible windmills!! This Portland turbine is an excellent idea.[/p][/quote]I'm not bothered by windmills aesthetically, i just question their usefulness. Generation from tides can be predicted decades in advance and so generation should be as reliable as conventional generation. A lot is made of damage to the environment but in most cases, provided that toxins aren't leaching out continually, that environment recovers. On this basis i think that this scheme should be supported. I hope that the lease includes obligation for Siemens to actually build the scheme. As for the fishermen, clearly we should be concerned about their livelihoods but i suspect these turbines will actually become a haven for fish, safe from the nets.[/p][/quote]James, the fisherman referred too are rod & line fisherman catching Bass from the race area around Portland Bill. I've not yet seen the maps but if the turbines are in this area then they would not be able to fish for them and hence a large loss of livelyhood.[/p][/quote]OK, didn't realise that. One thing i would observe though, as an angler myself, is that whenever the trawlers have been out around the Bill, the fish are pretty scarce inshore. So i suppose that's why i think that a fishing free area might be a good thing.[/p][/quote]I'll think you will find that fishing on Chesil has considerably improved with some nice rays being caught, I can only put this down to Stennas Ledge becoming a MCZ and hence protected from trawling. The Fish
  • Score: 2

1:43pm Tue 8 Jul 14

radiator says...

This is wonderfull news and something that I have talked about for years with different engineers on various contracts that I was involved in.I remember one senior Norwegian engineer stating that one day these turbines would be on the seabed if the water depth was suitable,he also said that if the power of the english channel tidal system could be harnessed it would provide enough power to supply half of europe.In my mind tidal power is the way forward instead of the Wind turbines but as is been mentioned there are too many making a fast buck on having the turbines on their land. I have every confidence that one day the tidal power will be used for our needs.
This is wonderfull news and something that I have talked about for years with different engineers on various contracts that I was involved in.I remember one senior Norwegian engineer stating that one day these turbines would be on the seabed if the water depth was suitable,he also said that if the power of the english channel tidal system could be harnessed it would provide enough power to supply half of europe.In my mind tidal power is the way forward instead of the Wind turbines but as is been mentioned there are too many making a fast buck on having the turbines on their land. I have every confidence that one day the tidal power will be used for our needs. radiator
  • Score: 3

2:10pm Tue 8 Jul 14

The Fish says...

A link to MCT-Siemens news

http://www.marinetur
bines.com/News/2014/
07/08/siemens-welcom
es-latest-boost-tida
l-technology
A link to MCT-Siemens news http://www.marinetur bines.com/News/2014/ 07/08/siemens-welcom es-latest-boost-tida l-technology The Fish
  • Score: 0

2:25pm Tue 8 Jul 14

The Fish says...

From Practical Boat Owner:

http://www.pbo.co.uk
/news/536922/new-wav
e-and-tidal-projects
-announced

which gives a map - does'nt look good for the Bass fisherman!
From Practical Boat Owner: http://www.pbo.co.uk /news/536922/new-wav e-and-tidal-projects -announced which gives a map - does'nt look good for the Bass fisherman! The Fish
  • Score: 0

2:30pm Tue 8 Jul 14

The Fish says...

... and more technically a report into Portland Bill and the Isle of Wight:

http://users.ox.ac.u
k/~spet1235/OMAE2014
-23032.pdf
... and more technically a report into Portland Bill and the Isle of Wight: http://users.ox.ac.u k/~spet1235/OMAE2014 -23032.pdf The Fish
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Rocksalt says...

No energy generation or extraction scheme is entirely without an aesthetic or environmental cost. This one seems to be one of the "least worse" options, but I sense that some folk will ultimately only be happy if energy is produced, refined etc somewhere else, preferably far away.
No energy generation or extraction scheme is entirely without an aesthetic or environmental cost. This one seems to be one of the "least worse" options, but I sense that some folk will ultimately only be happy if energy is produced, refined etc somewhere else, preferably far away. Rocksalt
  • Score: 2

3:56pm Tue 8 Jul 14

FerryFan says...

JamesYoung wrote:
FerryFan wrote:
I heard this on the news this morning, what a great idea. Maybe I will be disagreed with, but if the Navitus Bay project was an underwater one there wouldn't be a fraction of the fuss about it that therehas been. Out of sight and out of mind

I am against it as is it by the way, I just think it is a huge blight on a beautiful part of the country, no matter what its supposed benefits. I am not sure of what ecological problems could be causes if any from having an underwater turbine system instead of these orrible windmills!! This Portland turbine is an excellent idea.
Oh and PS: i have to ask this, but is your last name Watts?
Sorry James,no it isn't!! Not a Watts.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FerryFan[/bold] wrote: I heard this on the news this morning, what a great idea. Maybe I will be disagreed with, but if the Navitus Bay project was an underwater one there wouldn't be a fraction of the fuss about it that therehas been. Out of sight and out of mind I am against it as is it by the way, I just think it is a huge blight on a beautiful part of the country, no matter what its supposed benefits. I am not sure of what ecological problems could be causes if any from having an underwater turbine system instead of these orrible windmills!! This Portland turbine is an excellent idea.[/p][/quote]Oh and PS: i have to ask this, but is your last name Watts?[/p][/quote]Sorry James,no it isn't!! Not a Watts. FerryFan
  • Score: 0

4:09pm Tue 8 Jul 14

FerryFan says...

The Fish wrote:
FerryFan wrote:
I heard this on the news this morning, what a great idea. Maybe I will be disagreed with, but if the Navitus Bay project was an underwater one there wouldn't be a fraction of the fuss about it that therehas been. Out of sight and out of mind I am against it as is it by the way, I just think it is a huge blight on a beautiful part of the country, no matter what its supposed benefits. I am not sure of what ecological problems could be causes if any from having an underwater turbine system instead of these orrible windmills!! This Portland turbine is an excellent idea.
A misnomer that the Portland turbine will be underwater, though the turbines are underwater, a large tower will be visible above the surface (see Strangford Lough generator - built by the same people) - access will be required and at times resttrictions around the area as maintenance is carried out.
Just looked at the Strangford Lough generator - bit of an ugly beggar isn't it!!! Would this be on sea or land in Portland?. Could if on land be placed somewhere where it won't be such an eyesore? I remember seeing these tidal snake like things they have I think up in Scotland somewhere, they apparently have large power units on land somewhere.

Although I live in Bournemouth, I was born and brought up around the area of Weymouth/Dorchester and Portland so am interested in what is happening in these areas where I spent my childhood even though I am a few miles East, so have feelings for both areas!!
[quote][p][bold]The Fish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FerryFan[/bold] wrote: I heard this on the news this morning, what a great idea. Maybe I will be disagreed with, but if the Navitus Bay project was an underwater one there wouldn't be a fraction of the fuss about it that therehas been. Out of sight and out of mind I am against it as is it by the way, I just think it is a huge blight on a beautiful part of the country, no matter what its supposed benefits. I am not sure of what ecological problems could be causes if any from having an underwater turbine system instead of these orrible windmills!! This Portland turbine is an excellent idea.[/p][/quote]A misnomer that the Portland turbine will be underwater, though the turbines are underwater, a large tower will be visible above the surface (see Strangford Lough generator - built by the same people) - access will be required and at times resttrictions around the area as maintenance is carried out.[/p][/quote]Just looked at the Strangford Lough generator - bit of an ugly beggar isn't it!!! Would this be on sea or land in Portland?. Could if on land be placed somewhere where it won't be such an eyesore? I remember seeing these tidal snake like things they have I think up in Scotland somewhere, they apparently have large power units on land somewhere. Although I live in Bournemouth, I was born and brought up around the area of Weymouth/Dorchester and Portland so am interested in what is happening in these areas where I spent my childhood even though I am a few miles East, so have feelings for both areas!! FerryFan
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Tue 8 Jul 14

WykeReg says...

Even if windmills and tidal power generation can make some contribution to the nation's energy needs it will never be more than a fraction of those needs and will do nothing to secure the base load that is required 24/7/365.

If the contribution of renewables is 20% of the total that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: Where does the other 80% come from?

The answer is, and has always been, nuclear power. If you hate the thought, then get over it.
Even if windmills and tidal power generation can make some contribution to the nation's energy needs it will never be more than a fraction of those needs and will do nothing to secure the base load that is required 24/7/365. If the contribution of renewables is 20% of the total that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: Where does the other 80% come from? The answer is, and has always been, nuclear power. If you hate the thought, then get over it. WykeReg
  • Score: 4

4:29pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Isosceles says...

Pictures of the Strangford Lough SeaGen can be seen on wiki by doing a web search for Seagen
Pictures of the Strangford Lough SeaGen can be seen on wiki by doing a web search for Seagen Isosceles
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Tue 8 Jul 14

FerryFan says...

After looking at the Strangford Generator again, I change my earlier comment about it possibly being on land, it probably isn't really possible

This may be a good alternative - if painted a better colour than red to blend in with its surroundings. The giant snake!!

http://www.greenwise
business.co.uk/news/
carbon-trust-invests
-in-efforts-to-bring
-down-cost-of-deploy
ing-pelamis-and-seag
en-722.aspx#.U7wTL9q
9KSM
After looking at the Strangford Generator again, I change my earlier comment about it possibly being on land, it probably isn't really possible This may be a good alternative - if painted a better colour than red to blend in with its surroundings. The giant snake!! http://www.greenwise business.co.uk/news/ carbon-trust-invests -in-efforts-to-bring -down-cost-of-deploy ing-pelamis-and-seag en-722.aspx#.U7wTL9q 9KSM FerryFan
  • Score: -1

5:04pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Rocksalt says...

WykeReg wrote:
Even if windmills and tidal power generation can make some contribution to the nation's energy needs it will never be more than a fraction of those needs and will do nothing to secure the base load that is required 24/7/365.

If the contribution of renewables is 20% of the total that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: Where does the other 80% come from?

The answer is, and has always been, nuclear power. If you hate the thought, then get over it.
I agree it is probably the answer for electricity maybe ( although conveniently enough I don't suppose nuclear power stations can be sitedf in Dorset ). That said , not so useful for powering gas central heating. Fracking ahoy
[quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: Even if windmills and tidal power generation can make some contribution to the nation's energy needs it will never be more than a fraction of those needs and will do nothing to secure the base load that is required 24/7/365. If the contribution of renewables is 20% of the total that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: Where does the other 80% come from? The answer is, and has always been, nuclear power. If you hate the thought, then get over it.[/p][/quote]I agree it is probably the answer for electricity maybe ( although conveniently enough I don't suppose nuclear power stations can be sitedf in Dorset ). That said , not so useful for powering gas central heating. Fracking ahoy Rocksalt
  • Score: 0

6:25pm Tue 8 Jul 14

TenBobDylanThomasHardy says...

Worth bearing in mind the SeaGen produces around 1.2 MW, Navitus is aiming for something like 900 MW, you'd need quite a few SeaGens (with attendant no go zone) to match that. As some else has stated, no scheme is wothout it's problems, unless we each use a lot less power!
Worth bearing in mind the SeaGen produces around 1.2 MW, Navitus is aiming for something like 900 MW, you'd need quite a few SeaGens (with attendant no go zone) to match that. As some else has stated, no scheme is wothout it's problems, unless we each use a lot less power! TenBobDylanThomasHardy
  • Score: 2

7:30pm Tue 8 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

Rocksalt wrote:
WykeReg wrote:
Even if windmills and tidal power generation can make some contribution to the nation's energy needs it will never be more than a fraction of those needs and will do nothing to secure the base load that is required 24/7/365.

If the contribution of renewables is 20% of the total that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: Where does the other 80% come from?

The answer is, and has always been, nuclear power. If you hate the thought, then get over it.
I agree it is probably the answer for electricity maybe ( although conveniently enough I don't suppose nuclear power stations can be sitedf in Dorset ). That said , not so useful for powering gas central heating. Fracking ahoy
Central heating is, ironically, probably the easiest thing to fix. Ground or air source heat pumps. Expensive at present, but reducing in price.
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: Even if windmills and tidal power generation can make some contribution to the nation's energy needs it will never be more than a fraction of those needs and will do nothing to secure the base load that is required 24/7/365. If the contribution of renewables is 20% of the total that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: Where does the other 80% come from? The answer is, and has always been, nuclear power. If you hate the thought, then get over it.[/p][/quote]I agree it is probably the answer for electricity maybe ( although conveniently enough I don't suppose nuclear power stations can be sitedf in Dorset ). That said , not so useful for powering gas central heating. Fracking ahoy[/p][/quote]Central heating is, ironically, probably the easiest thing to fix. Ground or air source heat pumps. Expensive at present, but reducing in price. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

10:54pm Tue 8 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

radiator wrote:
This is wonderfull news and something that I have talked about for years with different engineers on various contracts that I was involved in.I remember one senior Norwegian engineer stating that one day these turbines would be on the seabed if the water depth was suitable,he also said that if the power of the english channel tidal system could be harnessed it would provide enough power to supply half of europe.In my mind tidal power is the way forward instead of the Wind turbines but as is been mentioned there are too many making a fast buck on having the turbines on their land. I have every confidence that one day the tidal power will be used for our needs.
There was a very successful research centre at Cadnam. It was closed when the funding was withdrawn in the early 1980s. The body controlling energy research funding at the time was the Atomic Energy Authority. Enough said.
[quote][p][bold]radiator[/bold] wrote: This is wonderfull news and something that I have talked about for years with different engineers on various contracts that I was involved in.I remember one senior Norwegian engineer stating that one day these turbines would be on the seabed if the water depth was suitable,he also said that if the power of the english channel tidal system could be harnessed it would provide enough power to supply half of europe.In my mind tidal power is the way forward instead of the Wind turbines but as is been mentioned there are too many making a fast buck on having the turbines on their land. I have every confidence that one day the tidal power will be used for our needs.[/p][/quote]There was a very successful research centre at Cadnam. It was closed when the funding was withdrawn in the early 1980s. The body controlling energy research funding at the time was the Atomic Energy Authority. Enough said. breamoreboy
  • Score: 1

10:58pm Tue 8 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

WykeReg wrote:
Even if windmills and tidal power generation can make some contribution to the nation's energy needs it will never be more than a fraction of those needs and will do nothing to secure the base load that is required 24/7/365.

If the contribution of renewables is 20% of the total that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: Where does the other 80% come from?

The answer is, and has always been, nuclear power. If you hate the thought, then get over it.
I've perfectly happy about nuclear power, provided that the highly radioactive waste with a half life of 250,000 years is buried under your back garden and not under mine. Is it still if you hate the thought, then get over it?
[quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: Even if windmills and tidal power generation can make some contribution to the nation's energy needs it will never be more than a fraction of those needs and will do nothing to secure the base load that is required 24/7/365. If the contribution of renewables is 20% of the total that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: Where does the other 80% come from? The answer is, and has always been, nuclear power. If you hate the thought, then get over it.[/p][/quote]I've perfectly happy about nuclear power, provided that the highly radioactive waste with a half life of 250,000 years is buried under your back garden and not under mine. Is it still if you hate the thought, then get over it? breamoreboy
  • Score: -3

7:29am Wed 9 Jul 14

Rocksalt says...

JamesYoung wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
WykeReg wrote:
Even if windmills and tidal power generation can make some contribution to the nation's energy needs it will never be more than a fraction of those needs and will do nothing to secure the base load that is required 24/7/365.

If the contribution of renewables is 20% of the total that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: Where does the other 80% come from?

The answer is, and has always been, nuclear power. If you hate the thought, then get over it.
I agree it is probably the answer for electricity maybe ( although conveniently enough I don't suppose nuclear power stations can be sitedf in Dorset ). That said , not so useful for powering gas central heating. Fracking ahoy
Central heating is, ironically, probably the easiest thing to fix. Ground or air source heat pumps. Expensive at present, but reducing in price.
Good luck sinking shafts for ground pumps for every house /flat in a crowded town. And good luck with air source pumps if you live in an old house that can't readily be insulated.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: Even if windmills and tidal power generation can make some contribution to the nation's energy needs it will never be more than a fraction of those needs and will do nothing to secure the base load that is required 24/7/365. If the contribution of renewables is 20% of the total that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: Where does the other 80% come from? The answer is, and has always been, nuclear power. If you hate the thought, then get over it.[/p][/quote]I agree it is probably the answer for electricity maybe ( although conveniently enough I don't suppose nuclear power stations can be sitedf in Dorset ). That said , not so useful for powering gas central heating. Fracking ahoy[/p][/quote]Central heating is, ironically, probably the easiest thing to fix. Ground or air source heat pumps. Expensive at present, but reducing in price.[/p][/quote]Good luck sinking shafts for ground pumps for every house /flat in a crowded town. And good luck with air source pumps if you live in an old house that can't readily be insulated. Rocksalt
  • Score: 0

10:00am Wed 9 Jul 14

codlips says...

Its a lot easier to run your central heating and hot water off a wood/multifuel burner.
Its a lot easier to run your central heating and hot water off a wood/multifuel burner. codlips
  • Score: 1

10:11am Wed 9 Jul 14

Rocksalt says...

codlips wrote:
Its a lot easier to run your central heating and hot water off a wood/multifuel burner.
Albeit it requires some ingenuity if you live in a flat or don't have a garden. ( Or a chimney !) It would also be significantly more expensive if the entire county went back to using solid fuel/wood.
[quote][p][bold]codlips[/bold] wrote: Its a lot easier to run your central heating and hot water off a wood/multifuel burner.[/p][/quote]Albeit it requires some ingenuity if you live in a flat or don't have a garden. ( Or a chimney !) It would also be significantly more expensive if the entire county went back to using solid fuel/wood. Rocksalt
  • Score: 0

10:52am Wed 9 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

breamoreboy wrote:
WykeReg wrote:
Even if windmills and tidal power generation can make some contribution to the nation's energy needs it will never be more than a fraction of those needs and will do nothing to secure the base load that is required 24/7/365.

If the contribution of renewables is 20% of the total that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: Where does the other 80% come from?

The answer is, and has always been, nuclear power. If you hate the thought, then get over it.
I've perfectly happy about nuclear power, provided that the highly radioactive waste with a half life of 250,000 years is buried under your back garden and not under mine. Is it still if you hate the thought, then get over it?
Very little waste these days :-).
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: Even if windmills and tidal power generation can make some contribution to the nation's energy needs it will never be more than a fraction of those needs and will do nothing to secure the base load that is required 24/7/365. If the contribution of renewables is 20% of the total that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: Where does the other 80% come from? The answer is, and has always been, nuclear power. If you hate the thought, then get over it.[/p][/quote]I've perfectly happy about nuclear power, provided that the highly radioactive waste with a half life of 250,000 years is buried under your back garden and not under mine. Is it still if you hate the thought, then get over it?[/p][/quote]Very little waste these days :-). JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

10:52am Wed 9 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

breamoreboy wrote:
WykeReg wrote:
Even if windmills and tidal power generation can make some contribution to the nation's energy needs it will never be more than a fraction of those needs and will do nothing to secure the base load that is required 24/7/365.

If the contribution of renewables is 20% of the total that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: Where does the other 80% come from?

The answer is, and has always been, nuclear power. If you hate the thought, then get over it.
I've perfectly happy about nuclear power, provided that the highly radioactive waste with a half life of 250,000 years is buried under your back garden and not under mine. Is it still if you hate the thought, then get over it?
Very little waste these days :-).
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: Even if windmills and tidal power generation can make some contribution to the nation's energy needs it will never be more than a fraction of those needs and will do nothing to secure the base load that is required 24/7/365. If the contribution of renewables is 20% of the total that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: Where does the other 80% come from? The answer is, and has always been, nuclear power. If you hate the thought, then get over it.[/p][/quote]I've perfectly happy about nuclear power, provided that the highly radioactive waste with a half life of 250,000 years is buried under your back garden and not under mine. Is it still if you hate the thought, then get over it?[/p][/quote]Very little waste these days :-). JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

5:32pm Wed 9 Jul 14

WykeReg says...

JamesYoung wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
WykeReg wrote:
Even if windmills and tidal power generation can make some contribution to the nation's energy needs it will never be more than a fraction of those needs and will do nothing to secure the base load that is required 24/7/365.

If the contribution of renewables is 20% of the total that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: Where does the other 80% come from?

The answer is, and has always been, nuclear power. If you hate the thought, then get over it.
I've perfectly happy about nuclear power, provided that the highly radioactive waste with a half life of 250,000 years is buried under your back garden and not under mine. Is it still if you hate the thought, then get over it?
Very little waste these days :-).
You must try and keep up with the news. French scientists announced just a few months ago early results of a process that treats radioactive waste so that it is fully depleted within a few years - I think it was five or less. At that point the residual radiation is about the same as the background radiation that occurs naturally

But another interesting development is under way in some startup firms in the US. They are building domestic nuclear power plants about the size of a fridge. The amount of radioactive material used is minuscule and even if a leak did occur it would be no greater, again, than the naturally occurring radiation level. If these reactors are as efficient as those in the US aircraft carriers they will only need to be refueled once every 25 years and that will be a simple swap of one sealed unit for another.

In the long run, fusion reactors will become a reality and they create more fuel than they consume - the ultimate in true renewable energy.

There is no problem that cannot be solved. But people who live in fear don't do the solving.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: Even if windmills and tidal power generation can make some contribution to the nation's energy needs it will never be more than a fraction of those needs and will do nothing to secure the base load that is required 24/7/365. If the contribution of renewables is 20% of the total that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: Where does the other 80% come from? The answer is, and has always been, nuclear power. If you hate the thought, then get over it.[/p][/quote]I've perfectly happy about nuclear power, provided that the highly radioactive waste with a half life of 250,000 years is buried under your back garden and not under mine. Is it still if you hate the thought, then get over it?[/p][/quote]Very little waste these days :-).[/p][/quote]You must try and keep up with the news. French scientists announced just a few months ago early results of a process that treats radioactive waste so that it is fully depleted within a few years - I think it was five or less. At that point the residual radiation is about the same as the background radiation that occurs naturally But another interesting development is under way in some startup firms in the US. They are building domestic nuclear power plants about the size of a fridge. The amount of radioactive material used is minuscule and even if a leak did occur it would be no greater, again, than the naturally occurring radiation level. If these reactors are as efficient as those in the US aircraft carriers they will only need to be refueled once every 25 years and that will be a simple swap of one sealed unit for another. In the long run, fusion reactors will become a reality and they create more fuel than they consume - the ultimate in true renewable energy. There is no problem that cannot be solved. But people who live in fear don't do the solving. WykeReg
  • Score: 1

8:12pm Wed 9 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

WykeReg wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
WykeReg wrote:
Even if windmills and tidal power generation can make some contribution to the nation's energy needs it will never be more than a fraction of those needs and will do nothing to secure the base load that is required 24/7/365.

If the contribution of renewables is 20% of the total that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: Where does the other 80% come from?

The answer is, and has always been, nuclear power. If you hate the thought, then get over it.
I've perfectly happy about nuclear power, provided that the highly radioactive waste with a half life of 250,000 years is buried under your back garden and not under mine. Is it still if you hate the thought, then get over it?
Very little waste these days :-).
You must try and keep up with the news. French scientists announced just a few months ago early results of a process that treats radioactive waste so that it is fully depleted within a few years - I think it was five or less. At that point the residual radiation is about the same as the background radiation that occurs naturally

But another interesting development is under way in some startup firms in the US. They are building domestic nuclear power plants about the size of a fridge. The amount of radioactive material used is minuscule and even if a leak did occur it would be no greater, again, than the naturally occurring radiation level. If these reactors are as efficient as those in the US aircraft carriers they will only need to be refueled once every 25 years and that will be a simple swap of one sealed unit for another.

In the long run, fusion reactors will become a reality and they create more fuel than they consume - the ultimate in true renewable energy.

There is no problem that cannot be solved. But people who live in fear don't do the solving.
I think you are talking about the recent developments in LENR? I've been following it for several years but i'm really not sure that as much progress has been made as has been claimed. Andrea Rossi promised a reactor for the home about 3 years ago and hasn't delivered and his so called customers are shrouded in mystery.
[quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: Even if windmills and tidal power generation can make some contribution to the nation's energy needs it will never be more than a fraction of those needs and will do nothing to secure the base load that is required 24/7/365. If the contribution of renewables is 20% of the total that leaves us with the uncomfortable question: Where does the other 80% come from? The answer is, and has always been, nuclear power. If you hate the thought, then get over it.[/p][/quote]I've perfectly happy about nuclear power, provided that the highly radioactive waste with a half life of 250,000 years is buried under your back garden and not under mine. Is it still if you hate the thought, then get over it?[/p][/quote]Very little waste these days :-).[/p][/quote]You must try and keep up with the news. French scientists announced just a few months ago early results of a process that treats radioactive waste so that it is fully depleted within a few years - I think it was five or less. At that point the residual radiation is about the same as the background radiation that occurs naturally But another interesting development is under way in some startup firms in the US. They are building domestic nuclear power plants about the size of a fridge. The amount of radioactive material used is minuscule and even if a leak did occur it would be no greater, again, than the naturally occurring radiation level. If these reactors are as efficient as those in the US aircraft carriers they will only need to be refueled once every 25 years and that will be a simple swap of one sealed unit for another. In the long run, fusion reactors will become a reality and they create more fuel than they consume - the ultimate in true renewable energy. There is no problem that cannot be solved. But people who live in fear don't do the solving.[/p][/quote]I think you are talking about the recent developments in LENR? I've been following it for several years but i'm really not sure that as much progress has been made as has been claimed. Andrea Rossi promised a reactor for the home about 3 years ago and hasn't delivered and his so called customers are shrouded in mystery. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

10:02pm Thu 10 Jul 14

wurzelbasher says...

Tidal power, especially in estuaries, is definitely the way ahead. Without subsidies wind farms would be non-existent and no wonder for they are white elephants!
Tidal power, especially in estuaries, is definitely the way ahead. Without subsidies wind farms would be non-existent and no wonder for they are white elephants! wurzelbasher
  • Score: 3
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree