Very creative.

https://www.euronews.com/green/2025/03/18/inside-the-underwater-turbine-farm-set-to-generate-clean-energy-from-frances-tides

Noel

 

I wonder if any marine life will be harmed by these turbines, like the whales in the Northeast USA?

How much will this clean electricity cost per kw/h?

Germany and the UK have amongst the highest electricity costs in the developed world, while the USA and China have the lowest.

Turbines are only viable in very windy, remote locations, and they should not be used offshore or under water IMO.  Forget about the necessary battery storage which is expensive and must be replaced every 10-15 years, and only holds enough backup charge to provide less than one day of power.

All these neat "clean" technologies must be backstopped by natural gas, coal-fired, hydroelectric, and nuclear power plants.  They are not viable on their own, and they will never provide nearly enough affordable power for all the AI computing centers, data centers, and millions more EVs.

Nuclear power is the answer, not silly projects like this.

Dave

 

Edited March 31, 20251 yr by dave2013

This was considered for the Bay of Fundy due to it having the largest tides on Planet Earth. Not so much a risk to marine life because they spin very slowly, but it has a massive effect on lobster fishing or any other type of commercial fishing where they operate. This is an issue for the offshore windmills as well and undersea powerlines, the lobster fishing can no longer use these areas and have to go further out. So basically trading one industry for the other, and of coarse the little guy will lose to big corporates 

Here in Porta Land we have a few projects of that type, but the Portuguese coast isn't that easy to adapt to such structures given the canons ... the same that make that big 100m waves of Nazaré (Nazareth) 🙂

 

Edited April 1, 20251 yr by jcomm

Great idea. In the UK we have some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world and have wasted years not developing these resources.

 

But of course, Dave, anything new and innovative you would be against.  I expected that.

And of course your preferred 'clean energy' source would be nuclear despite Fukushima and Chernobyl and the fact that an average of 5 nuclear plants are shut down each year.  https://www.statista.com/statistics/238656/number-of-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-worldwide/

And what to do about storing nuclear waste?

Are fossil fuels like coal and oil and natural gas really the answer?  They wont last very far into the foreseeable future.  https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/years-of-fossil-fuel-reserves-left

Noel

 

Carbon is not a problem. That's the biggest lie told in the history of the world. Well, after Taylor Swift has talent that is!

Edited April 1, 20251 yr by FBW737

18 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I wonder if any marine life will be harmed by these turbines

Nuclear power is the answer, not silly projects like this.

Dave

 

 

https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2020/02/09/nuclear-power-and-harm-to-animals/

4 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Great idea. In the UK we have some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world and have wasted years not developing these resources.

 

 

My location especially. Huge tidal range in Guernsey and Jersey doubles in size at low tide. 

52 minutes ago, FBW737 said:

Carbon is not a problem. That's the biggest lie told in the history of the world. Well, after Taylor Swift has talent that is!

 

Wrong for both. And Miss Swift wouldn't be worth 1.6 billion if she was devoid of talent. Or sold 114 million albums.

And she's sexy. 😉

And she like cats. 👍😺

Edit: Hang on, I get it. You're a crazed Swifty and climate protester and posted an April fool. 🤔😅

 

Edited April 1, 20251 yr by martin-w

2 hours ago, birdguy said:

But of course, Dave, anything new and innovative you would be against.  I expected that.

No, Noel, I actually promote and support new technology and innovation, which BTW require a robust *free market* unhindered by excessive, onerous, and burdensome govt. regulation and control.

I keep having to repeat myself, but here goes - wind turbines and solar panels are great, and I support their use *where it makes sense* and where it is viable and cost effective.  *At this time* they cannot replace fossil fuels for energy considering how much power the world needs, and I'm not even factoring in the huge increase in electricity consumption on the horizon for AI and EVs.  This is a fact which can be verified by doing a little research.  Perhaps one day the technology will progress enough that these forms of energy will be able to power the world.  Right now we need a mix of all forms of energy production.  The claim that wind power costs less than coal or natural gas power is not true, and is easily debunked by referencing the average cost of electricity for the countries that use a high percentage of this type of power production.  Germany has reopened coal power plants and is importing coal as we speak - that says it all.

Your own State of New Mexico gets a lot of its revenue from oil and gas, BTW.

Modern nuclear plant designs are much safer, produce much less waste, and are more efficient than the old designs the world is using now.  Nuclear is a reliable and relatively clean form of energy, which is why some countries are making plans to build more of them, especially the smaller, modular reactors.

I've been reading about "peak oil" since the 1970s and it just hasn't happened.  There is at least another century's worth of oil and gas under the ground, and new discoveries are made all the time.  I support using natural gas as a transition energy source until the nuclear can be built out and solar and wind become more mature and effective.

Dave

18 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

The claim that wind power costs less than coal or natural gas power is not true

 

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/csiro-confirms-nuclear-fantasy-would-cost-twice-as-much-as-renewables/#:~:text=Nuclear energy is still at,them over the same period.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-and-solar-power-half-the-cost-of-coal-and-gas-one-third-the-cost-of-nuclear-says-lazard/

Actually, solar is the cheapest.

https://www.wtsenergy.com/solar-cheapest-energy-source-in-history-factor/#:~:text=Solar energy has come a,International Energy Agency (IEA).

Meanwhile...

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/terrapower-smr-advanced-nuclear-reactor-bill-gates/718722/

Edited April 1, 20251 yr by martin-w

 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

Your own State of New Mexico gets a lot of its revenue from oil and gas, BTW.

And much of it has to be used to clean up abandoned drilling sites as well as abandoned uranium mines that have played out.  The oil and gas and mining industry loves the profits they get from the product they excract but are loathe to put any of it back into cleaning up the mess they make and the real estate they scar.

Up to now there has been a federal fund to assist the cleanup expenses but how long do you expect that to last?

Noel

49 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

a robust *free market* unhindered by excessive, onerous, and burdensome govt. regulation and control.

 The claim that wind power costs less than coal or natural gas power is not true, and is easily debunked by referencing the average cost of electricity for the countries that use a high percentage of this type of power production.  Germany has reopened coal power plants and is importing coal as we speak - that says it all.

In Europe renewables are now much cheaper than fossil fuels or nuclear….and that’s not even taking into account the cost of dismantling nuclear at the end of its working life.

In the case of the UK and Germany - when even Nixon rose up from his coffin to warn us Russia would be delivered into the hands of a malevolent dictator - that robust free market decided that cheap natural gas from Siberia was the ideal solution. 

Strangely that hasn’t worked out too well….

As to the new (but still imaginary) small, friendly nuclear power plants that are being touted as the next answer to our power needs; considering what a handful of religious maniacs did with three hijacked airliners not so long ago…. I wonder what harm a similar group of psychopaths could do if they managed to get into one of them….

 

 

 

Here's a couple links to charts/tables of the cost of electricity and the percentage of electricity from renewables(includes hydroelectric):

https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-renewables

https://reports.electricinsights.co.uk/q2-2024/wind-becomes-britains-largest-electricity-source/

Let's look at the UK which has an electricity cost of 35c/kw-hr:

46% of its electricity from renewables, 35% from wind, 5% from solar, and the rest hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, etc.

Germany electricity cost 39c/kw-hr:

52% from renewables, 32% wind, 12% solar

Denmark electricity cost 32c/kw-hr:

88% from renewables, 60% wind, 6% solar

United States electricity cost 18c/kw-hr (this is heavily skewed by California and a few other States which have very high taxes and regulations, as well as a lot of *solar* and/or *wind*, most people in the USA pay 15c/kw-hr or less)

23% from renewables, 11% wind, 5% solar (adding a lot more every year as we have deserts which have 300 days/year of sunshine), nuclear 18%

Facts are facts.  Electricity in the USA is a lot cheaper than other countries which have chosen to get a large percentage of their electricity from wind and solar.

The renewable power industry is not honest about the cost, and they do not include the massive govt. subsidies they get in order to build and operate, which is an additional cost that is not factored in.

Dave