Ocean Tidal Turbines: New Clean Alternative Energy: Harnessing the Energy of Underwater Currents.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2015 11:20 PM GMT
    This is a new technology that could provide cities with access to ocean coastline with plenty of limitless electric power, safe enough that would not cause marine or ecological issues, and also deep enough that would not cause a problem for shipping lanes.

    Scotland is already in the process of implementing this technology.

    1415116428244_wps_38_Atlantis_graphic_2_


    http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/11/tech/innovation/scotland-underwater-turbines/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2015 2:00 PM GMT
    Wind Turbines are already shredding birds. Obama continues to provide wind turbine operators immunity against prosecution under federal environmental wildlife regulations.
    http://abcbirds.org/program/wind-energy/

    How are marine mammals safe from these underwater turbines?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2015 2:05 PM GMT
    uombroca saidThis is a new technology...

    Actually I was reading about this nearly 60 years ago. Not really new, just neglected and not developed.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4864

    Dec 13, 2015 5:13 PM GMT
    Surely it is a reasonable thing to try, but success is far from assured. However, if it does turn out to be practical (I think that the likelihood is much less than 50%), it could greatly affect the way we get power.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 13, 2015 5:56 PM GMT
    mx5guynj saidWind Turbines are already shredding birds. Obama continues to provide wind turbine operators immunity against prosecution under federal environmental wildlife regulations.
    http://abcbirds.org/program/wind-energy/

    How are marine mammals safe from these underwater turbines?

    It doesn't help that the diagram looks like a boss in a Megaman game.icon_confused.gif They need to put a cage around it to prevent fish from going near it.
  • JackNNJ

    Posts: 1051

    Dec 13, 2015 7:43 PM GMT
    http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/07/20/how-much-oil-does-texas-really-produce-the-eia-now-says-it-has-a-better-way-to-count/#26983101=0

    TEXAS

    has always loomed large in the US oil production picture. The Eagle Ford and Permian basins are the main sources of production growth, lifting the state's oil output from just over 1 million barrels per day in 2009 to 2.9 million barrels per day in March 2014.

    1191x862.jpg

    Don't forget offshore rigs:

    offshore-drilling-4.jpg
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Dec 13, 2015 7:46 PM GMT
    "new technology"?

    Popular Science had this stuff 25 years ago

    plus you need about 20,000 of them to generate any decent amount of power

    another dumb idea for idiots that know nothing (plus, the maintenance would be ridiculously expensive)
  • JackNNJ

    Posts: 1051

    Dec 13, 2015 7:55 PM GMT
    tj85016 said"new technology"?

    Popular Science had this stuff 25 years ago

    plus you need about 20,000 of them to generate any decent amount of power

    another dumb idea for idiots that know nothing (plus, the maintenance would be ridiculously expensive)


    Pipe Dream vs. Pipe Reality.

    True progress:

    maptitude-us-oil-pipeline-map.jpg
  • JackNNJ

    Posts: 1051

    Dec 13, 2015 8:23 PM GMT
    Hopefully this makes you white Liberals feel better. Wind farms in

    TEXAS.

    I drove thru the Panhandle last month, that damn wind farm is the size of Connecticut.

    image_asset_17.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2015 9:09 PM GMT
    Nuclear energy is the way to go. Already developed. Fucking liberals.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4864

    Dec 14, 2015 12:28 AM GMT
    CLTMike46 saidNuclear energy is the way to go. Already developed. Fucking liberals.


    Probably I would be considered to be a liberal. However, I strongly support nuclear power and very much doubt that CO2 emissions can be adequately controlled without nuclear power. I see this as not a matter of liberal vs conservative, but rather, a matter of being pragmatic.

    Dr. James Hansen, who is a respected climate scientist and a professor at Columbia University, sees nuclear power as essential. For more information, google "James Hansen nuclear".

    I see our present nuclear technology as a serious mistake, but still it is better than alternative sources of power. We need a better, safer, and less wasteful nuclear technology. For one of several possibilities, google "energy from thorium". A better nuclear technology would generate perhaps 1% as much waste as our current nuclear technology.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 14, 2015 1:44 AM GMT
    I've seen tide-powered mills that are hundreds of years old. There are tidal power stations in Europe that are fifty years old at least.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2015 6:41 AM GMT
    tj85016 said"new technology"?

    Popular Science had this stuff 25 years ago

    plus you need about 20,000 of them to generate any decent amount of power

    another dumb idea for idiots that know nothing (plus, the maintenance would be ridiculously expensive)



    Yeah, it was a regular feature in popular science when I was a kid . They would build them and find they underperformed and were maintenance nightmares. They are in the same league as three wheel cars.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2015 5:05 PM GMT
    mx5guynj saidWind Turbines are already shredding birds. Obama continues to provide wind turbine operators immunity against prosecution under federal environmental wildlife regulations.
    http://abcbirds.org/program/wind-energy/

    How are marine mammals safe from these underwater turbines?




    It's in the article if you had bothered to read it. They rotate very slowly.....between 12-18 revolutions per minute.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Dec 19, 2015 6:47 PM GMT
    Alpha13 said
    tj85016 said"new technology"?

    Popular Science had this stuff 25 years ago

    plus you need about 20,000 of them to generate any decent amount of power

    another dumb idea for idiots that know nothing (plus, the maintenance would be ridiculously expensive)



    Yeah, it was a regular feature in popular science when I was a kid . They would build them and find they underperformed and were maintenance nightmares. They are in the same league as three wheel cars.


    I wonder if the technology may have changed since those far off days? icon_cool.gif
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14351

    Dec 19, 2015 7:32 PM GMT
    FRE0 said
    CLTMike46 saidNuclear energy is the way to go. Already developed. Fucking liberals.


    Probably I would be considered to be a liberal. However, I strongly support nuclear power and very much doubt that CO2 emissions can be adequately controlled without nuclear power. I see this as not a matter of liberal vs conservative, but rather, a matter of being pragmatic.

    Dr. James Hansen, who is a respected climate scientist and a professor at Columbia University, sees nuclear power as essential. For more information, google "James Hansen nuclear".

    I see our present nuclear technology as a serious mistake, but still it is better than alternative sources of power. We need a better, safer, and less wasteful nuclear technology. For one of several possibilities, google "energy from thorium". A better nuclear technology would generate perhaps 1% as much waste as our current nuclear technology.
    +2,000,000
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4864

    Dec 19, 2015 9:10 PM GMT
    mindgarden saidI've seen tide-powered mills that are hundreds of years old. There are tidal power stations in Europe that are fifty years old at least.


    For what percentage of the time do they generate power? Is it 100% of the time, which is what we need?

    Before burning fossil fuels became the primary source of power, wind and hydro power were used. Wind power was actually used for grinding grain. If the power was not available 100% of the time that was not an insuperable problem; they'd just grind grain when the power was available. Now power reliability is more important.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4864

    Dec 19, 2015 9:15 PM GMT
    tazzari said
    Alpha13 said
    tj85016 said"new technology"?

    Popular Science had this stuff 25 years ago

    plus you need about 20,000 of them to generate any decent amount of power

    another dumb idea for idiots that know nothing (plus, the maintenance would be ridiculously expensive)



    Yeah, it was a regular feature in popular science when I was a kid . They would build them and find they underperformed and were maintenance nightmares. They are in the same league as three wheel cars.


    I wonder if the technology may have changed since those far off days? icon_cool.gif


    Probably it has to a certain extent. However, "Popular Science" doesn't seem to have changed much; it is still more popular than scientific. From many of the articles published, it looks as though their journalists do not have degrees in any branch of science. Probably few of them have had even one course in physics at the tertiary level.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Dec 20, 2015 1:06 AM GMT
    another dumb idea for idiots that know nothing

    Precisely the sort of arrogant, black-or-white comment that does far more to alienate than convince and often turns RJ into a battlefield.

    Calling people names, denigrating other opinions - the death of discussion.

    I just hit the Ignore button. I enjoy reading opinions that challenge me or teach me something, but I draw the line at out-and-out insulting language.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2015 2:07 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    mx5guynj saidWind Turbines are already shredding birds. Obama continues to provide wind turbine operators immunity against prosecution under federal environmental wildlife regulations.
    http://abcbirds.org/program/wind-energy/How are marine mammals safe from these underwater turbines?
    It doesn't help that the diagram looks like a boss in a Megaman game.icon_confused.gif They need to put a cage around it to prevent fish from going near it.

    No, they have filters on the other side to catch the ground up meat and then they sell it as that fake crab with the red marks applied to it.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4864

    Dec 20, 2015 3:58 AM GMT
    tazzari saidanother dumb idea for idiots that know nothing

    Precisely the sort of arrogant, black-or-white comment that does far more to alienate than convince and often turns RJ into a battlefield.

    Calling people names, denigrating other opinions - the death of discussion.

    I just hit the Ignore button. I enjoy reading opinions that challenge me or teach me something, but I draw the line at out-and-out insulting language.




    ^^^ This ^^^

    I agree. It should be possible to have a discussion without name calling. Also, let us try to evaluate ideas objectively instead of assuming that they are wrong because they came from a liberal or a conservative.

    During the McCarthy era, just about any proposal could be killed by asserting that the Russian communists supported it. Such an assertion could even kill a proposal to support motherhood, flag, and country. I see history repeating itself.