Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scottish Wave Energy Plans Move Forward

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the brittania-waives-the-rules dept.

Earth 100

It's been a long time coming (2007, 2005, and 2002 respectively), but the project to harness wave energy off the Scots coast is finally coming together. Reader krou writes: "The BBC is reporting that ten sites on the seabed off Scotland in Pentland Firth and around Orkney have been leased to energy companies with the hopes of generating wave and tidal energy. 'Six sites have been allocated for wave energy developments potentially generating 600 megawatts of power and four for tidal projects, also generating 600 MW.' The leases were awarded to SSE Renewables Developments, Aquamarine Power, ScottishPower Renewables, E.ON, Pelamis Wave Power, OpenHydro Site Developments, and Marine Current Turbines. Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond said that 'These waters have been described as the Saudi Arabia of marine power and the wave and tidal projects unveiled today — exceeding the initial 700MW target capacity — underline the rich natural resources of the waters off Scotland.'"

cancel ×

100 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Tsunamis! (1)

eparker05 (1738842) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504428)

I hope this turns out better than the geothermal energy that was causing earthquakes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/business/energy-environment/24geotherm.html [nytimes.com]

But I jest, this is a step in the right direction.

Breaking news (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31504792)

Re:Tsunamis! (2, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504992)

More likely: they might "generate" localized calm-ish zones and be magnets for debris.

Re:Tsunamis! (2, Informative)

M-RES (653754) | more than 3 years ago | (#31509088)

Tidal generators don't create 'calm' zones, because tides aren't driven by a pushing force, rather by a pulling force (lunar gravitational pull), so water is merely dragged across/through a generator and continues to be dragged after it has passed the 'obstacle'.

Wave powered generators such as the Salter Duck did leave calm zones behind them as they absorbed the waves' vertical kinetic energy in long arrays strung out perpendicular to the direction of the waves' travel. However, these designs were dropped a long time ago in favour of 'snake' designs which harness as much energy but without causing these calm areas behind them.

Sea Snake on YouTube [youtube.com]

Re:Tsunamis! (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31505358)

Well, I for one, do not want to be accused of accelerating climate change and continental drift.

Re:Tsunamis! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#31508550)

That WAS causing earthquakes? The nyt link didn't load for me even when I allowed scripts, I guess the NYT is dead to me. But I live near to The Geysers and they're still pumping shit into the ground, we're still more seismically active than without the shit-pumping, and they're still paying out claims for people with earthquake damage on Cobb mountain. I was relieved when they cancelled the plan to do their experimental drilling here, of the type that caused major seismic activity elsewhere. We really don't need more. We get so many that we can now identify them, at least to the major Richter value.

They're missing some.... (3, Funny)

HBoar (1642149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504458)

The aim is to generate 1.2 gigawatts

I think they'll find they need another 10MW to achieve what they're really after....

Re:They're missing some.... (2, Informative)

permcody (1768988) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504676)

The aim is to generate 1.2 gigawatts

I think they'll find they need another 10MW to achieve what they're really after....

Nah - We only need to wait 6 more years and surely the likely invention of "Mr. Fusion" will negate the need for that power and should help us clean up some of our household refuse at the same time!

Re:They're missing some.... (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 3 years ago | (#31505876)

Well, we already have 3D Movies!

Where are my flying cars and hoverboards?

Re:They're missing some.... (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 3 years ago | (#31506388)

Can't tell about hoverboard, but here's your flying car [youtube.com] .

Re:They're missing some.... (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 3 years ago | (#31506902)

But first the Cubs have to win the world series.

Re:They're missing some.... (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504698)

Also don't forget the difficultly of moving the whole tidal generator at 88mph!

Re:They're missing some.... (3, Funny)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504780)

We're givin' her all she's got, cap'n!

Re:They're missing some.... (4, Funny)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31505006)

Scotty, I'm really tired of that cliché. You're fired.

Re:They're missing some.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31505294)

It's 21.1 JIGGA-watts you insensitive clod!

Don't you know the dewey-decimal system?

The big question (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504484)

Removing this energy from the ocean may cause an imbalance in the gravitational effects between the Earth and the Moon. Well, not imbalance, but rather a rebalance.

If we cause the Moon to move away from our planet, we lose both our astrodebris sweeper and more importantly our tide maker. Anthropogenic effects are real, and I'm not sure I'm happy to see the deliberate removal of energy from the ocean without further study on longterm planetary effects.

Re:The big question (4, Funny)

Al's Hat (1765456) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504540)

The electricity generated will power devices that shed heat, the heat adds to global warming, the global warming increases intensity of hurricanes and cyclones, the hurricanes and cyclones stir the oceans...no problem!

Re:The big question (1)

fabioalcor (1663783) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504572)

Don't worry, it's just periodically call a lot of people for a jump day in the beaches all over the world...

Re:The big question (2, Funny)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504584)

I wonder what it will be like for those humans, a million years from now, when they realize that the moon is crashing into the earth because their great-great-great-great-etc uncles needed more electricity to post on slashdot.

Re:The big question (1)

JesseL (107722) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504884)

Doesn't tapping tidal energy result in the moon moving further from Earth?

Re:The big question (2, Informative)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 4 years ago | (#31505184)

Temporarily, yes. But once the earth-moon system is tidally-locked, it will come back. Extracting tidal energy slows the earth's rotation and hastens the process.

Of course, a million years is slightly exaggerated. It's probably more than 30 billion years, without help, and of course the sun would vaporize us all long before then. We would have to build a lot of tidal generators to actually speed it up.

Re:The big question (1)

BrentH (1154987) | more than 3 years ago | (#31507400)

I'd tap that.

Re:The big question (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31505098)

They'll probably think of us as insensitive clods...

Re:The big question (1)

BrentH (1154987) | more than 3 years ago | (#31507354)

You're saying slashdotters will have kids now? Nonsense. The moon will crash into the sea before that happens.

Re:The big question (2, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504612)

I'm confused about the motivations behind that "big question" post.
Are you being serious but incredibly badly informed there, attempting a joke, or have some ulterior motive to attempt to influence the gullible?
If you are being serious I suggest going down to the seaside and look at the waves hitting a big fucking cliff and consider how much energy is being tranferred there.
If you are joking is it a dig at climate change being postulated to alter things on your perfect, unchanging 6000 year old earth? Things are changing no matter how much you want to make fun of anyone with a clue.
If you are attempting to influence the gullible then feel free to assume that I'm directing the worst insults you can think of in your direction.

Re:The big question (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504670)

I suggest going down to the seaside and look at the waves hitting a big fucking cliff and consider how much energy is being tranferred there.

Were that I be so wise as to deduce the secrets of Creation by gazing upon the Scottish shore.

Re:The big question (4, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504876)

Were that I be so wise as to deduce the secrets of Creation by gazing upon the Scottish shore.

That is what a lot of science is - looking at things to work out the secrets of creation. The whole religeon vs science thing is from people with no clue about either.

Re:The big question (2, Funny)

saiha (665337) | more than 4 years ago | (#31505034)

I think looking at a Scottish pub would be quicker.

Re:The big question (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 3 years ago | (#31506340)

Fortunately the Scots have conveniently placed pubs...at the shores!

Try the prawns while you're there.

Re:The big question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31507020)

Well, if it was good enough for king Cnut the Great [wikipedia.org] ...

Mind you, might have been an English rather than a Scottish shore.

Re:The big question (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504742)

It's BadAnalogyGuy...

You must be new here.

Re:The big question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31504754)

Where's the analogy?

Re:The big question (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#31505022)

It's BadAnalogyGuy... You must be new here.

Where's the analogy?

It's that bad. He's one Bad Analogizing Mother...

SHUT YOUR MOUTH!
I'm just talking about BadAnalogyGuy.
We can dig it.

Re:The big question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31505028)

SHUT YOUR MOUTH!

You gotta do it right. (Unless /. removed this functionality overnight)

Re:The big question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31507536)

Awesome

Re:The big question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31505972)

I think you should switch to decaff for a while

Re:The big question (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31504614)

The force of gravity between the earth and the moon is roughly 2*10^20 newtons. Moving the moon 10 meters further from the earth would take over 10^13 Joules of energy (and that only accounts for the change in gravitational potential).

Furthermore, the rotation of the earth is already causing us to loose the moon at a rate of about 3 cm per year. If we were to reduce tide to the point where the ocean did not fluctuate at all, perhaps we wouldn't loose the moon in 1000000 years.

Re:The big question (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#31508114)

Moving the moon 10 meters further from the earth would take over 10^13 Joules of energy (and that only accounts for the change in gravitational potential).

Hmm, 10^13 joules. 1.2 gigawatts. So, we're talking about 140 minutes output for this tidal generator....

Re:The big question (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#31510450)

The force of gravity between the earth and the moon is roughly 2*10^20 newtons. Moving the moon 10 meters further from the earth would take over 10^13 Joules of energy

I think you're missing a "few" orders of magnitude there... 2*10^20 N over 10 meters is 2*10^21 J. 10^13 J is an absolutely wimpy amount of energy -- humanity consumes that much every couple of seconds.

Re:The big question (1)

HBoar (1642149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504616)

Surely you mean move toward our planet? In any case, I imagine the energy required to shift the moons orbit any significant amount would be rather astronomical..... can someone be bothered calculating it out?

Re:The big question (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 3 years ago | (#31506984)

No moving away is correct the moon pulls the water the earth spins causing the rising water to move ahead of the moon which pulls back on the moon thus adding extra acceleration to the moon which causes it to move away.

Re:The big question (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31504796)

You've been moderated as funny but you sound crazy and serious.

The moon causes tides. The tides don't cause the moon to stay in orbit.

Re:The big question (5, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504920)

The tidal bulge on the Earth actually drags on the moon and increases its orbital velocity. It does this because the rotation of the Earth drags the bulge ahead of the sub-lunar point. The gravitational field of the bulge attracts the moon so the earths rotation slows as the moons orbital velocity increases. Eventually we will be tidally locked like Pluto and Charon and tides will be much smaller.

My preferred solution is to dump a whole lot of nuclear waste on the far side of the moon and turn it into a bomb. I wanted my proposal implemented by 1999 but not enough people saw the gravity of the situation.

Re:The big question (1)

halowolf (692775) | more than 4 years ago | (#31505174)

And silver didn't become the expected fashion accessory that sci-fi hoped.

Re:The big question (3, Funny)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 3 years ago | (#31505622)

Mods are on crack. That deserves a +5 troll, because that was the most successful troll I've seen... well, in a few days. But still, a hearty chuckle ye brought me, Bad Analogy Guy.

Re:The big question (2, Informative)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504830)

The moon is moving away. We only have 600 million more years before there will be no more total solar eclipses.

Re:The big question (4, Informative)

Netssansfrontieres (214626) | more than 4 years ago | (#31505142)

We sometimes forget just how heavy water is, or how much energy ocean waves carry.

Some time ago, I did some statistical analysis of wave heights in Scapa Flow, not far away from the site proposed here in northern Scottish waters. It has very steady, large swells.

Imagine a wave (or swell) of 10m peak height, extending 2 km across, and 50m front-to-back. That's a nice 0.3 * 10^6 kg of water ... move it forward at 30kph ... repeat every 10 or 20 seconds, and you've got 10^9 Joules/second, about 1GW. For the surface wave. (More energy is transferred more steadily by sub-surface currents.)

Lunar tidal flows are so much larger than these that the prospect of drawing enough energy from open waters to do anything to earth - moon movements seem to be off by many orders of magnitude.

Full disclosure: I used to be a pretty good physicist, but that was a long time ago.

Re:The big question (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31505498)

Full disclosure: I used to be a pretty good physicist, but that was a long time ago.

Right you are mate. Now wheres mah chip butty?

Re:The big question (5, Informative)

Kentari (1265084) | more than 3 years ago | (#31506174)

You calculated the kinetic energy of a mass of water moving forward at 30kph. In a wave water is not moving forward at the wave speed, but rather gently in an elliptic trajectory. I gather you used 10m as amplitude and not crest to through height.

The energy flux of waves is given by the formula which you can find on this wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] . A 20m (crest to through) wave with a period of 10s over a lenght of 50m gives you 20MW of wave energy. Still a lot, but almost 2 orders of magnitude less than 1GW.

Re:The big question (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31508904)

You used 50m of coastline. He used 2000. 40 times 20 MW is 800MW which isn't that far from 1 GW.

Re:The big question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31505736)

I doubt it will be a problem, since waves slamming into the headland probably has the same effect but on a bigger scale...

Re:The big question (1)

Jayman2 (150729) | more than 3 years ago | (#31506236)

Funny, but almost correct! There are indeed studies [google.co.uk] of the effect on ocean circulation being conducted to look at the effect of plonking a big turbine into a strong tidal force :)

Re:The big question (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 3 years ago | (#31506960)

What happens is that the moon pulls water towards itself (tides) then because the earth is spinning the tides are actually ahead of the moon which in turn pull the moon around the earth faster causing to get further away. So employing this would keep the moon where it is longer. Also the moon has a gyroscopic effect on earth and with out is earth's wobble would be more significant. So doing this would keep the moon around a little longer.

Re:The big question (1)

tarius8105 (683929) | more than 3 years ago | (#31507904)

It will create a rip in space and time where sean william scott will be the new messiah. We will also switch our dependence on oil to something called Fluid Karma.

Re:The big question and the unanswered question (1)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | more than 3 years ago | (#31508404)

Greed, its all about greed. How can we get something for nothing. In this case energy. If any project steals energy from the waves, the whole eco-system and energy system is changed. What's at stake, fisheries, the gulf stream, the weather, whatever interacts with that energy system currently. I doubt that anyone has done extensive research on what the effects might be except on the bottom line. The ones that will make the money off this one are certainly selling it.

Lets see, I think cutting down the Cedars of Lebanon were a good example that triggered the desertification of parts of the Middle East. The bad farming practices of the U.S. midwest building up to the Dust Bowl. China's killing of birds all over China in the middle of last century because they thought they ate crops, followed by insect plauges that did eat crops. We can be so stupid with simple Mass solutions. Now we have massive computer technology to simulate some of these systems, we should before we embark on large scale projects that could have large scale effects (remember the butterfly effect, a small change here can have a big change somewhere else, like a pin prick on a ballon, small action big reaction, our climate is going through some stresses now, the number of species alive is dwindling, rain forrests are disapearing. Oh lets just go out and harvest some free energy in from the Oceans, the fish won't mind.

    Dumb, really Dumb to go into things with a blindfold on. or start a project as a large project.

 

Re:The big question (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 3 years ago | (#31508626)

You're being funny, (I hope) but I might more seriously wonder about other side-effects. Way back when they were looking at a tidal energy project at the Bay of Fundy, when hydraulic modeling showed that harnessing that tidal energy would have the "side effect" of flooding Boston. I hope they've done such modeling for this. Now that I think of it, with greater computer power available, I wonder if they could examine variations on the Bay of Fundy project to find a way to get the energy without flooding Boston.

Should have an advantage over wind.. (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504494)

Seems to me that in some parts of the world, you'd never see the ocean completely flat. Should be far more reliable than wind power.

-jcr

Re:Should have an advantage over wind.. (-1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504560)

Tides are a result of lunar energy, whereas wind is the result of solar energy. The sun isn't going anywhere for a long time and will continue to provide energy in massive amounts for a long time to come. The moon, on the other hand is much smaller and is constantly moving away from the Earth, reducing its energy transfer at an ever increasing pace.

Lunar energy is not sustainable, and the possible effects related to the rotation of the Earth make lunar energy harnessing a dangerous gamble.

Re:Should have an advantage over wind.. (4, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504866)

Not only that but by converting gravitational potential energy into heat we create photons which transfer momentum to the moon and push it away faster. I propose that all future lunar landings be on the far side to compensate.

Re:Should have an advantage over wind.. (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504874)

lolwut?

Re:Should have an advantage over wind.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31506480)

Where's the "-1, loony" option?

Transmission (4, Interesting)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504624)

Where's this power going to? Is there a transmission grid in place to take it to a populated area that could use an extra 600MW? Orkney's in the middle of ^*$&ing nowhere.

Re:Transmission (5, Funny)

lilo_booter (649045) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504832)

Depends where you are - if you live in Orkney, it's not remote, everywhere else is :-).

Re:Transmission (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31505042)

Where's this power going to? Is there a transmission grid in place to take it to a populated area that could use an extra 600MW?

I'd suggest that the point isn't that this is an *extra* 600MW, but a replacement...

Re:Transmission (4, Funny)

drsquare (530038) | more than 3 years ago | (#31505664)

Where's this power going to? Is there a transmission grid in place to take it to a populated area that could use an extra 600MW? Orkney's in the middle of ^*$&ing nowhere.

No, they're just going to fire the electricity into the air. They have no plans to actually deliver and sell it. You see, people who invest in this sort of thing simply hate money.

Re:Transmission (1)

baker_tony (621742) | more than 3 years ago | (#31508370)

You laugh, but that happens with wind power in the states. You can build a wind farm of, say 100MW but the "greenies" will only allow you to put in trunking that handles 50MW because it might upset some frog species if you lay down more trunking.
You can then increase your wind farm to 200MW, claim all the benefits for your State and lock down 3/4 of the blades (again, because the "greenies" won't let you increase the trunking off the wind farm).

Like I say, you laugh but that scenario exists.

Re:Transmission (1)

dylan_- (1661) | more than 3 years ago | (#31511204)

Like I say, you laugh but that scenario exists.

Where is that happening?

Re:Transmission (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 3 years ago | (#31516758)

Ah yes, the Reverse Lightning Project. We'll show those clouds who's boss!

Re:Transmission (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#31506422)

Here [nationalgrid.com] is a map of England and Wales' high-voltage electricity grid, but I'm not sure if it's complete for Scotland. It extends to Orkney, anyway.

Re:Transmission (1)

hey (83763) | more than 3 years ago | (#31508608)

Nice and blurry JPEG.

Re:Transmission (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31506590)

Dounreay nuclear power station is just across the water.

Re:Transmission (1)

arethuza (737069) | more than 3 years ago | (#31506854)

Dounreay was more of a research location rather than a site for large scale power generation - the main nuclear power stations in Scotland are fairly close to cities (Edinburgh for Torness and Glasgow for Hunterston). It is a bit of a give away that it's about as far as you can get from London and still be on the mainland and have reasonable communication links.

It figures (4, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504640)

If it involves messing around with waves, there's usually a Scottsman [wikipedia.org] involved somehow.

We Are Swimming in Clean Energy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31504712)

Lots and lots of it. A new analysis of the causality of motion reveals that Aristotle was right to insist that inertial motion needs a cause and that, as a result, normal matter is immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles, without which motion would be impossible. Soon, we will use this knowledge to create technologies that will allow us to tap into the lattice for energy production and super fast transportation. Floating sky cities, New York to Beijing in minutes, Earth to Mars in hours! That's real the future of energy and transportation. Almost every other form of energy production (waves, fossil fuel, geothermal, solar, wind, etc.) and transportation (cars, airplanes, jets, rockets, boats, trains, etc.) will become obsolete. Even normal walking will become rare.

Read Physics: The Problem with Motion [blogspot.com] if you're interested in the real future of energy.

Re:We Are Swimming in Clean Energy (5, Funny)

shermo (1284310) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504822)

I'm glad that blog has the word 'science' in its title, otherwise I would think it was a load of made up nonsense.

Re:We Are Swimming in Clean Energy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31505134)

I am glad you were moderated funny. Now the parent site is getting a lot of traffic, exactly the opposite effect of what the moderators (censors) intended. LOL. What a bunch of losers!

The trouble with Scotland (1, Troll)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504806)

is that it's full of Scots..

Re:The trouble with Scotland (2, Informative)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504946)

Troll??!!

Yeah maybe.. It was said by an Irishman [imdb.com] . I really doubt he was serious. In fact, I think he was just reading a quote. I think you people should lighten up a bit.

Re:The trouble with Scotland (2, Funny)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#31505884)

"It won't last; they're are natural enemies. Like Englishmen and Scots. Or Welshmen and Scots. Or Japanese and Scots. Or Scots and other Scots. Damn Scots, they ruined Scotland!"

Re:The trouble with Scotland (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31506346)

Well the English did try sending some of the Scots back to their native Ireland, but the other Irish complained about that rather vigourously with Semtex.

Re:The trouble with Scotland (2, Funny)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#31506702)

Not really. We will be cheering on Algeria, Slovenia and USA in the world cup in June, and if that fails, we will have some more countries to cheer on. In the case of the USA, it wouldn't surpise me if there are more Scottish fans cheering on the team than natives.

Re:The trouble with Scotland (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31508988)

Aw. That's cute. Let me know when you have a team of your own that can compete.

The 'Anyone But England' thing is tiresome. Get over it already.

We can use it to power a gun! A BIG gun! (2, Funny)

Nova Express (100383) | more than 4 years ago | (#31504888)

In fact, a "Wave Motion Gun!"

Re:We can use it to power a gun! A BIG gun! (1)

Y2KDragon (525979) | more than 3 years ago | (#31507756)

Great minds think alike...and so do ours. Thank you for not leaving me to be the first to post that.

Stray Ships (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 4 years ago | (#31505146)

I do wonder how ships disabled in storms can be handled in such a way to assure that wind farms are not destroyed. I live in an area where hurricanes strike quite frequently and even in calmer seas we end up with tankers stranded on our beaches all too often.

Re: Stray Ships (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31505256)

Torpedos?

Godzilla. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31507860)

Godzilla.

Re: Stray Ships (1)

baker_tony (621742) | more than 3 years ago | (#31508398)

You mean tidal power could be used to sink ships!? Sounds like terrorism to me, I say halt production of them if they could be used for terrorism!

Re: Stray Ships (1)

rocca (61281) | more than 4 years ago | (#31519278)

Waves of Mass Destruction...

LFTR (1)

RudyHartmann (1032120) | more than 4 years ago | (#31505232)

All other means of energy production will not be able to compete with a Liquid Fluorine Thorium Reactor. Maybe if they ever figure out fusion. But they'll probably have to go to the moon to mine Helium 3 to make that work and Obama is death on NASA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR [wikipedia.org]

Re:LFTR (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#31505340)

WTF! Electricity was mentioned so of course somebody had to bring the crackpot nukes and the politics.
At this small scale something cheap and simple beats big experimental nukes with technology twenty years behind South Africa, India and China any day. Give up on Oak Ridge, all they've been good for over the last twenty years is silly stories about how fly ash is supposedly nuclear waste even though it is less radioactive on average than seawater.
If you want to be a nuke advocate and want to advocate thorium then consider accelerated thorium instead.

Re:LFTR (1)

Ipeunipig (934414) | more than 3 years ago | (#31509736)

The Fly Ash was all TVA and their crap engineers. It had nothing to do with Oak Ridge, Y-12, K-25 or X-10.

Re:LFTR (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#31517866)

I'm not talking about a spill, i'm talking about a scare campaign.
The crap engineer was J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge labs who stepped outside of the field he knew to publish some alarmist crap in 1978. For some reason nobody since then has been able to find all the radioactive material that he insisted was so commonplace that it could be used by terrorists to build a nuclear bomb. It perpetuated furthur crap like the 2007 SciAm article "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste" and a childish PR campaign that went along the lines of "coal can spread nuclear material around, why should we have to take care with real nuclear waste?".
The reality is real coal problems kill real people instead of this nuclear fantasy bullshit.

We'd best keep seaQuest DSV nearby! (1)

zero_out (1705074) | more than 4 years ago | (#31505458)

It has already been documented that any undersea turbines will cause too much heat, crack the Earth's crust, and cause the polar ice caps to melt. We'd best keep the seaQuest DSV nearby to stop it when it happens!

Higher Power (seaQuest DSV) [wikipedia.org]

Do any of the devices work? (1)

heffrey (229704) | more than 4 years ago | (#31505472)

Since the most advanced device, pelamis, appears not to work at all this all seems moot right now.

The Saudi Arabia of tidal energy ? (0)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 3 years ago | (#31505542)

Wow, I can already imagine a Scotsman with a thickly rolling "r" in a limousine with blackened windows, going to Qatar or Abu Dhabi to spend his billions. "Yes mate, I am frrrrrom Scotland. Wave sheikh, you know. At home on ya old Orrrrrkneys. Waiter ! Twenty morrre bottles of champagnes forrrr my wives, please !"

If it's not Scottish Wave Energy... (2, Funny)

zawarski (1381571) | more than 3 years ago | (#31506452)

...it's crap!

Log Throwing (1)

syntap (242090) | more than 3 years ago | (#31506510)

I'm not sure it was so smart deploying a device of that design right off the coast of the country they chose.

Direct lunar power (1)

hey (83763) | more than 3 years ago | (#31508580)

I wonder if there is a way to get power directly from the gravitational pull of the moon. Just asking.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>