This Invention May Change the World of Renewable Energy [Part 2]

[@foipa13]

On the upper East Side Of Manhattan New York there have been two turbines using tidal flow to power a small area in close proximity of the turbines. At least ten years

[@davidgibbons5637]

Interesting, however If the amount of electricity it generates was stated - it would've been impressive

[@andjesussaid2343]

I'm open minded on Global warming, but regardless, any sane person should want to cut down pollution, this is one of the best projects I've seen yet!

[@iareid8255]

Mr Said, CO2 is not a pollutant, it is the basis of life on earth.

[@iareid8255]

Sen Se, you are missing the point. Of course global warming occurs and also the opposite occurs where the climate cools. It has done that for millenia. the current obssesion with CO2 is both illogical and entirely unpproven. CO2 a gas that is of such small concentration where a far more potent gas is 500 times more prevalent in the atmosphere and with a much broader spectrum of capture is ignored. That gas is H2O. As a point of actual fact, science is not about certainty but of debate and evaluation of research and hypothesis, it is rarely certain and most certainly ambivolous about climate. Your comparison about gravity and climate is fatuous.

[@iareid8255]

Sen Se, your insulting language is typical of the ill informed. It does you no favour to insult me. If you disagree with what I say, tell me what is wrong with my statement. Please do not quote that silly 97% consensus. Science is not about voting, but rigorous challenge to hypthesis. Science is no different to engineering, they too have a confidence level in their conclusions. CO2 is a minor green house gas, it is insignificant compared to H2O and is now exhausted at present levels, scientists say it is saturated and can absorb no more heat energy in the frequency with which it operates. Trying to reduce it is pointless and the means by which we attempt to do so are ineffective.

[@iareid8255]

Sen Se, Yes, that is true that without greenhouse gases the earth would be much cooler. Methane is even less than CO2 which now has minimal influence on climate. Even the IPCC acknowledges that man made CO2 emissions are a tiny fraction of total global emissions. As an engineering student you must be aware of levers? We are trying to alter climate, (An arrogant and unrealistic aim) by using the wrong end of a lever. We are working at trying to use a mechanical disadvantage.

[@peterclark6290]

@Sen Se Then you would know that H²O is the principal greenhouse gas; and that any atmospheric energy capture done by CO² or CH⁴ is largely already covered by the principal GHG. Therefore I would expect you to be advocating dehumidifying the atmosphere as obviously the world is out to get us. Or you are being lied to and your critical faculties are not adequate to cope with the information. Where you get that 15% figure from ... start there, take a clothes peg for your nostrils.

[@Thegobstopper61]

It is, and has been for years, utterly ridiculous that wind farms in the north of Scotland are charged three times the amount levied on their counterparts in southern England for a connection to the electricity grid. Scotland also charged ridiculous rates by the the based Ofgem.Scotland charged over £7.00 per unit to resupply the grid yet southeast England is less than 50pence. Scotland was robbed of oil money and now being robbed for our renewable energy.

[@jimboniface7202]

Actually another source is right beneath your feet. Geo thermal. Drill down deep enough and you have enormous heat that will never run out. Add water, add steam turbines. Every Island, country continent is sitting on and endless supply. And you don't have to crowd the oceans with these things or dot the landscape with wind turbines

[@crawdad9696]

Yellowstone should be a giant powerplant not a national park. I'm all about nature and stuff. Actually making most efficient use of resources reduces human impact.

[@Chris.Davies]

Indeed.

[@Music5362]

Do you really want to accelerate the cooling of the planet?

[@jimboniface7202]

@@Music5362 People also think the sun will burn out one day. They both get thier energy from somewhere else. The will never burn out

[@rogerjamespaul5528]

In the right location, I imagine this method circumvents the concern over downtime.

[@stephenhaywood5672]

This has got to be the way to go renewables wise. Old corn miles on the coast used tide pools to drive there machinery centuries ago. Tide comes in and goes out twice a day EVERY day ,rain or shine. Hope this really takes off. Wind and solar won’t provide enough for future needs , no way .

[@omnianti0]

just math the total cost of fully powering your house with solar and wind versus gasoline cost no mention of the size of this instalations

[@jeffg5579]

I would like to know if this project is going to leak oil like all these windmills do after the maintenance is neglected ?! Also, what is the life span and maintenance difficulties being in the middle of a high speed waterway !

[@randomoverpopulatedworldid3286]

Another new beautiful clean energy source. Lets' hurry and invest in these new energies so we can maybe go back to normal in a few hundred years??

[@kams2520]

Then we screwed

[@florentinojavieriii1868]

HOPING WE ABLE TO ADOPT THIS IN THE PHILIPPINES THRU PARTNERSHIP INVESTMENT

[@roadboat9216]

Very good! I love it. We need more.

[@tuberroot1112]

Shame a report on an engineering project can't give the most basic figures: the energy produced per year. I don't want to hear about how many "homes" it can do or tons of "carbon" which have no defined meaning , I want SCIENTIFIC UNITS , you know MW or MW.h/year. It's probably rather puny so that's why they don't want to say. This is typical bureaucrat PR blurb totally unscientific.

[@hupkip8924]

Not an accident

[@ProgressiveVegan]

Agree, this report was lame, but that data is available. This was the final scaled-up stage of proof of concept. It's now proven, so let's make 1,000 more of them.

[@lolguy-x9n]

@@ProgressiveVegan so it was proven to be how many MWatts? or its the usual honey is medicinal slogans.

[@terrystephens1102]

Another significant step forward in harnessing green energy 😃👌👌👌👏👏👏👏

[@jsmariani4180]

Tidal energy has a long way to go become the major player in the renewable energy market.

[@Oliverg8sr]

I'd love to believe this but the cost/benefit ratio just isn't there. The fact that the UK Government has invested makes me even more nervous - couldn't they convince enough VCs to risk their own money?

[@riazchamkani6337]

If, 300 millions dollar can only benefit then it's doesn't cost efficient

[@thebobloblawshow8832]

Brilliant idea. This makes solar and wind power look like a joke. I say this because both those industries have huge costs, bi products and recycling costs. It’s not a clean industry at all.This looks like it is.

[@tuberroot1112]

This one cost 300 million and no mention of production unit cost. What makes you think this is any different to other "renewable" money magnets?

[@thebobloblawshow8832]

@@tuberroot1112 I said “ this LOOKS like it is”. I didn’t say it was. They definitely have their leg up on recycling, it’s all metal. Maybe read through things a little more throughly before you open your yap. You come across as an asshole.

[@willymac5036]

Tidal power is not cost effective. There are several tidal power stations in service around the world right now, but they are expensive and inefficient. Check out the La Rance tidal power station in France. It is one of the largest tidal power stations ever constructed and it only has a 240MW generating capacity. It also cost 620 million francs when it was built….in 1967. That comes out to roughly 100 million euros, or 114 million dollars. Adjusted for inflation that is almost 1 Billion in today’s dollars, and it only has a capacity factor of 28%. That is incredibly low for the industry, even most wind turbines reach a capacity factor in the 35-40% range. Offshore wind averages 65%. Tidal power cannot compete with the current costs of wind and solar, which are both below 1 cent per KW currently.

[@tuberroot1112]

@@willymac5036 Yes, the infrastructure cost of La Rance for a mean output of just 60MW is crazy. You have to try once. I suspect this project has proved this new kind of anchored floating device is equally expensive, that is why they do not provide any figures to allow that calculation in their PR video. Just looking running cost per kWh is not that informative and easily rigged. You need to look at all costs such as construction / deconstruction, maintenance, storage and treatment of waste etc. I'm very suspicious of any figures unless you have a very transparent explanation of the calculation process. Be careful what you believe and repeat to others. Most of it rigged in one way or another.

[@sat7755]

Solar is by far the cheapest energy source we are ever going to have, until some one can prove that we have a better all around alternative, and this tiny source is not one of them, unless you can show us some numbers to prove this BS story based on wishful thinking is a far better alternative.

[@mlight6845]

Do these stations have the capability of moving to the sea floor during storm events?

[@PatpongSaraburi]

Orbital2 มันทำงานได้ไหม ผลิตไฟได้คุ้มค่าหรือเปล่า?

[@pnunezaguila]

The cost of building enough tidal generators to suply the UK would be over 3 trillion euros....

[@robh5789]

Funny gas powered boat had to move it

[@tuberroot1112]

Peak energy four times a day on sliding time scale, drifting daily throughout the month. Irregular but at least predictable. No mention of the actual power produced but it's not much. "2000 homes" means what? How many MW ?? Peak output or 24h averaged? No mention of estimated cost per unit. When a PR pitch adopts total obscurity, it tells you it's massively expensive and not practicable.

[@archerry6457]

I agree with all that but in the interests of fairness, economies of scale would be at play. If they make 1000 to be located around the island of Great Britain the total cost wouldn't be 1000x the cost of this one prototype. But I hear you. I'd be going the nuclear route, no question.

[@tuberroot1112]

@@archerry6457 The fact they give no figures says it all for me. They're hiding the facts and that is not because it's super powerful and cheap. You have to explore these ideas but having done a very expensive feasibility study they need to tell us the results.

[@archerry6457]

@@tuberroot1112 I'd guess that if more are built, then the numbers are starting to work. If no more are built, that should speak for itself. But yeah, a documentary like this would only benefit from some actual numbers.

[@gridfreedomquest8613]

would it not be easier to build a lock style dam that allows high tide in, closes the locks and slowly lets the water out during low tide through a turbine?

[@zeuso.1947]

"Easier" ? . . . No Its far far more difficult, expensive, and damaging to the environment to build dams and locks to control the tides.

[@chandlerbing700]

Best to use volcanos for generating electricity.

[@shahabhanif5038]

What is this wave energy device called and which company makes it please?

[@jimparsons6803]

Not to be the obvious fly in this ointment, but steel, which had to be smelted. Coal then. Not to mention barnacles, that probably have to be scraped off at some point. I think that some Japanese folks tried something like this maybe ten years back? Made out of fiberglass was their version. It was a small pilot project. So this later version still might have barnacles, though. I'm not sure that CO2 is produced when fiberglass as with steel.

[@GeneCAu]

nice floating corral reef

[@33mavboy]

They say if you live by the river, you will have no worries with life

[@djkillachris]

How many tons of co2 was released in the making of this structure?

[@aviator27zero]

Less than from all the sighs intelligent people made after reading your comment.

[@merlin6955]

Absolutely, an obvious question and the same applies even moreso on electric cars!

[@ProgressiveVegan]

@@merlin6955 Cradle to grave, EVs have been proven to use significantly less CO2 in their use even when coal is their source of electricity, and coal use is decreasing.

[@tomjohn8733]

Very nice, Every innovative energy concept works, hopefully a ship doesn’t collide with it….

[@iareid8255]

Tidal and wave generation is not a great idea as it gives very little power for the size of the machinery. It will be expensive to maintain and of course it is asynchronous, we alreday have too much asynchronous generation in the form of wind and solar. You cannot run a grid with asynchrous genertaors.

[@ognyanpetkov2815]

You are seriously mistaken. Modern wind turbines are synchronous and have no problem synchronizing with the grid. In fact, the generated voltage in the generator is rectified and then a computer-controlled sinusoid is formed. It is a very complicated circuitry. You can control the shape and phase of the sinosuid.

[@iareid8255]

Ognyan, you do not understand how the term asynchronous refers to generators. A synchronous generator maintains frequency by modulating it's fuel input (This cannot be done electronically, it must be done by fuel input modulation) Without such input the grid would not be able to maintain frequency. Frequency is the most important parameter as that is what determines if input and output is balanced, i.e. supply and demand. Any generator when connected to a grid will follow the grid frequency, but only synchronous generators can keep the frequency within limits. Too much asynchronous generation connected destabilises the grid and trips can occur.

[@steves916]

2000 homes, there's 29 million in the UK so you propose 14,500 of these?

[@GeneCAu]

exactly!

[@zenkepler]

That’s with an initial cost of about $150,000 per home.

[@zenkepler]

Perhaps they could just make one of these 02 turbines, but make it 14,500 times bigger.😜

[@omnianti0]

the cheaper argument seem discutable with 60Mw for 300M$ its like paying a gasoline generator 5$ for 1W when i see 8W per 1$ in amazon so a 40ratio even with large scale it still 10time more expensive than gasoline who seem more expensive than nuclear

[@arthurwagar6224]

Interesting. Hope many pay for themselves.

[@frankhoffman3566]

The more of this the better

[@vthilton]

Save Our Planet

[@rumplestillskin6424]

Isn't there under water currents ? You could do the same with Using buoyancy devices

[@skyrask1948]

300 millions dollars for 2200 homes lets say 20 years of life time that comes to 6800 dolars yearly for electricity per home. And that is without any maintenance.

[@Chris.Davies]

These fish killers are the dumbest idea since wind turbines, which kill birds. Why do people invent things with absolutely no thought to the harm they'll cause other animals?

[@unclebob7534]

It need more testing for the safety of marine life

[@sat7755]

Fish are not as dumb as you may think.

[@TheStandardJoe]

One question - LCOE?

[@mortimerhasbeengud2834]

Can this replace nearly all of the current electricity-making, produced by the "ugly stuff; fossils, nukes, Yes or No? Would "mass use" of these tidal engines really not harm marine life as everything is close to shore to pick up the mechanical movement of the tide, Yes or No? Thought, why not build these engines further out to sea and anchor these on the sea floor? More costly, yeah, but there is more room to place these in massive amounts. There was a study by IEA in 2019 indicating that wind turbines at far ocean zones would produce the 11 x the energy use by humankind of 2018. Marine turbines could thus generate a similar amount.

[@snehalsuryawanshi5677]

Where is part 1?

[@cruzanmongoose]

Never cut it, the salt will eat it up.. another greenie feel good story

[@matthewhuszarik4173]

How about rivers?

[@mikehood4516]

Water turbines produce Massive amounts of energy And do not affect tidal flows fish or anything And are smart technology That already exist 😎😎😎😎

[@Chris.Davies]

Video begins at 3:35

[@harrissumali5698]

Make it bigger for more electric, may be cheaper than coals or oil

[@tuberroot1112]

you probably need several *hundred* such units to equal a typical power station. I hope the next one costs less the 300 million.

[@saiprayastha7141]

What if there is a Tsunami

[@lolguy-x9n]

what we really need on top of this oil rig like contraptionis a beautifully designed hotel!!

[@33mavboy]

What about mini turbines on sides of electric vehicles, idk it it will be too much resistance, who knows or trains could do it, to some extent where it creates some power

[@missyreviews5894]

However they don’t tell us the dangers and waist of the “green” energy

[@zaza-ik5ws]

Put your tin foil hat on, these people are a hundred times smarter than you. They have thought it through.

[@ProgressiveVegan]

Green energy is renewable. The waste is in fossil fuels.

[@Trevor7727]

and how many of these projects have already been bankrupted?

[@ProgressiveVegan]

I've followed dozens of ocean energy projects. A number of renewable ocean energy projects have been bankrupted, and one reason is because governments continue to subsidize fossil fuels instead of only investing in renewables. The ocean energy tech keeps inexorably developing yearly. The picture keeps improving. This project completion is significant.

[@jorgemanso521]

This world is a big mystery to me...really 300 million dollars to come up with this expensive, hard to build and transport, and maintain pieace of crap... A tidal current capture system for electricity production in its simplest design consists of a barge with paddlewheels, wheels like the ones that some riverboats use, that catch the current and attached to generators produce electricity...the generators are above water...the wheels are easy to repair because 45% is out of the water...the paddles are simple to make...I mean there were paddle turbines made 500, 700 years ago, and more... Can some help them please...there can be a system built in to direct and catch a wither area of current to the paddles...no?...not there?...uhhhrrr...

[@jorgemanso521]

@Hugh Jaanus I use one, Grammarly but I had a computer problem and I could not use it for a while...corrected it already...thank you...

[@jorgemanso521]

@Hugh Jaanus Thank you again...you must realize by now that English is not my main language...but let me tell you about languages and in particular certain words... the way they are spelled does not make any sense.

[@rumplestillskin6424]

Also EMP proof

[@timhinchcliffe5372]

Does it generate continuously? Or is it going to be another battery farm scam job?

[@florentinojavieriii1868]

GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT DIRECT PARTNERSHIP WILL BOTH BENEFIT BOTH COUNTRIES IN FRUITION

[@peterclark6290]

Tidal based - when any attempt to harness (control) the water invariably leads to silting problems, as do dammed rivers. So use it to reclaim land, not as a permanent energy source.

[@davidwarland2680]

moon and the sun, not moon only are tide makers.

[@rumplestillskin6424]

And you could charge all your electric boats subs ect . From these power stations

[@hassanmahdi5012]

but you would have to wait 90 years till it would pay of! i did count that with the normal price for electricity, ich you want it to pay of twice as fast, you would have to make the price double as high. I dont know how long that thing would survive and if it would pay of, + for global health, but not a got choice for comercials

[@charlesvoege2202]

Electricity Rates have doubled in 17 years.......What is the problem??? Do you really think rates will go down???

[@hassanmahdi5012]

@@charlesvoege2202 nah that aint what i mean. I dod just count the price with his Values thats it. I Mein i think reusable energy is the future, but it doesnt Look to me that this is atractive enough for Company. This concept just works if it last at least a 100 years. But the question is. Will this Service that long

[@hassanmahdi5012]

Sry for that broke Englisch, my autocorrection is annoying me. Im from germany 🤣

[@jeffstewart3978]

Seems like an unsightly nuisance to have thousands or millions of these in the ocean near the shore, tethered with electrical cords. I' would much rather see the development of new fail safe small nuclear, or molten salt reactors, etc.

[@mortimerhasbeengud2834]

I read for this stuff daily and so far, despite the journalistic cooings by writers about salt reactors, or small reactors, we so far have no reduction in cost or a proven improvement in safety. Nothing proven, demonstrated, built-unless you trust the Chinese claims with their salt moderated reactor? I don't, and despite advances, nothing to market yet with perovskite solar, or baby vertical axis wind turbines, or battery storage. I offer no solutions, but just note that whether it's KZbin, or Reddit claims are made all the time.

[@jerrybritton5724]

Now combine this with desalinization.a😎.

[@rumplestillskin6424]

Gulf stream hello.

[@jeffwilson8702]

When you capture energy from tides, you are removing energy from the earth's rotation.

[@randomoverpopulatedworldid3286]

that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

[@dm55]

Seriously? I hope you are just messing with people,

[@jamescollins4500]

Those who deny Jeff's premise demonstrate how for some (or many) the adoration of an agenda precludes analysis.

[@danmac5510]

Jesus H Christ did Trump tell u that or Qanon ?

[@jyvben1520]

so what are the problems with lower rotation speed ? longer days and ... the moon escaping ?

[@2sillytube]

Poland Ukraine E40 waterway?

[@stephenbunn2150]

Fish mincer 😬

[@andybawn1]

why build something so big? why not lots of small ones? put one down every drain in the country

[@MelioraCogito]

300M$ for 2000 households. Ya, like that's going to be economical. Furthermore, it may not affect _"sea flora and fauna"_ but it will certainly have an impact on sea mammals that happen to pass too close to the turbine blades (even at low RPM).

[@cheed38]

Sea mammals are a bit smarter than you give them credit for. They will be aware of the props and avoid them. The $300 million figure includes R&D, and the building and maintaining of fabrication infrastucture during the many years it took to build the first unit. Economies of scale may make the product viable, but it is only ever intended to account for a small percentage of total electricity production. The fact that the energy generation is 100% predictable, will also allow it to command a slight premium over other renewable methods as well, so I wouldn't write it off just yet. Having said that, it is certainly no substitute for fusion power; let us hope that ITER performs as planned.

[@skyrask1948]

@@cheed38 Thermonuclear fusion is not going to work any time soon to the point that it is basically a scam.

[@peerpede-p.]

Will massive tidal energi-plants have any effect on earths rotation?

[@charlesvoege2202]

Yes ......if you are a flat earther massive wobble.

[@jamesmacleod9382]

Yes, you may now begin running around in fear and panic

[@peterclark6290]

LOL 😀😁🤣😥

[@ProgressiveVegan]

No.

[@peerpede-p.]

@@ProgressiveVegan I thought that too, but it's a fact that very large water masses, like behind Three Gorges Dam in China, do alter the pressure on the earths crust and can affect earthquakes.

[@christopherscobie]

300 million / 2000 households .. mmm. 150, 000 per house.

[@Brainbuster]

The $300 million cost is just a one time cost, then this outputs energy every day for decades.

[@MrMaxUtility]

Yes and if you assume each home has a $100 a month electric bill, that is $1,200 a year and assuming the machine has a 30 year lifespan (which I think is a stretch) means each house will only pay out $36,000 through its useful life. This does not recoup the resources invested. Obviously there are fixed costs that get distributed if they enter mass production, but based on the information provided in this video it is difficult to believe this is economically viable.

[@philippthomann7782]

The cost ist with the research and developement and patent of the technologie, so the caluculation for massproduction would be different.

[@marcosprivado]

Do you calculate 300 millions of dolars for the electricity of only 2000 houses? jajajaja sorry

[@royschmidt675]

Convoluted imagery distracting to the real images. Creative it is not. 👎👎

[@haldunabdullah868]

Much easier to produce and distribute condomns!

[@Rick_1337]

I love the idea of green energy but in all honesty if these ideas were even remotely feasible then someone would already be making money from building them. If I could make a 20% return on coal/oil or a 10% return on green energy, I would still choose the green energy just because I believe it to be the better choice for man. Now with that being said, I do think we should continue the funding of research into these type of projects as they will become more efficient over time. However making them a required source of energy at this point is just wasting money on something that they already know will fail and is primarily done to make someone rich at the taxpayers expense.

[@johnfossett1423]

,

[@timsadventures9888]

Waste of money and time

[@LoveVanillaRose]

There's no such thing as running out of oil and gas.