Sign-In  or  Create a Free Account
Sign-in with:
 
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
 
Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

How Tidal Power is Riding the Crest of a Wave

By Andrew Tipp, Contributor
November 5, 2012   |   13 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

 
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

13 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 13
November 5, 2012
This is great. I don't want to challenge the good work but Scottish Power's Hammerfest sits on top of 1,000 tons of steel. That's a lot. Has the carbon cost of all that steel production been taken into account when assessing the viability of this particular generation facility?
Comment
2 of 13
November 6, 2012
Hi Peter. You're absolutely right that we need to think about the 'start-up' environmental impact of renewables. 1k tons of steel is substantial, and the amount of Hammerfest units needed to equal the output of a power plant is significant.

The way to approach this is to run calculations of what the construction/maintenance costs of are and project the long-term net gain in efficiency and sustainability over non-renewables.

I think factors working in the Hammerfest's favour are its durability, suggesting that once the initial start-up is complete, it can run and run with minimal future investment.
Comment
3 of 13
November 10, 2012
As a student of sustainable energy systems and as a critically thinking person, I am concerned by the sweeping statements and claims made in this article. Many of these were made right off the bat in the "strong case" for tidal energy. For example, to say that there is a "practically infinite supply" of tidal energy is unhelpful and in fact wrong. There is a finite amount a tidal energy flowing around Britain, for example (I live in Scotland), and of this finite amount, only so much is technically feasible to harness, and of that, there is less that is economically, politically, environmentally allowable. (David MacKay, in a very simplified although telling estimation, calculated generation potential of perhaps 5kWh/day/person for the UK [1].)

When you say that it is cost-efficient, to which technology are you referring? Tidal stream technology is yet nascent, and would not be cost efficient to an investor without generous public subsidy. A simple internet search of "tidal energy environmental impact" discredits the claim of "minimal effect on the marine environment". Indeed, tidal barrages can cause significant changes to the local ecosystems, and many of these effects are still being studied and characterised. If we should install tidal stream turbines in the Pentland Firth as proposed recently by Professor Stephen Salter [2], we should expect impacts there as well.

In the "Future energy strategy" section, I fear you lead readers in some unhelpful directions. While it is true in a sense that "certain areas of the world are better for some renewable energy generation sources than others", statements like this can suggest to some people that we shouldn't be developing solar in the UK because it's better in Spain. That's the wrong way to look at it.

(con't.)
Comment
4 of 13
November 10, 2012
(con't.)

Further, I don't know how far you look into the future, but it is not "clear [that] renewables will not be unable to completely fill the gap". This is another broad assertion made on I-don't-know-what information. From the information I have, the future of the energy mix could go many different ways depending on variables like technology developments, governmental policy, and economic trends. Here, we need to be long-sighted, and look to when renewables can bridge that gap. (Think about Scotland's electricity goals!) Statements like this and the unsubstantiated, seemingly arbitrary assertion of "maybe hundreds of thousands of new jobs" from tidal energy do not help the cause.

Also, it is curious that you should bring up the Pelamis device---which converts energy from waves---in your defence of tidal energy. The potential gains of underwater turbines over air turbines (which is a very good point) have nothing to do with how Pelamis performs. It's not a tidal device.

I'm about the biggest proponent of developing and supporting renewable energy technologies there is. But a person reading this article would be left with a very different picture of tidal energy from reality.

I apologise for the lengthy comment, but I feel that these are important issues, and that it is important they are conveyed to non-technical audiences in constructive ways that do not lead to misunderstandings.

Nathan

[1] MacKay, DJC. Sustainable Energy – without the hot air. Cambridge: UIT Cambridge Ltd, 2009. http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c14/page_83.shtml

[2] Salter, S and J Taylor. Vertical-Axis Tidal-Current Generators and the Pentland Firth. Proc.I.Mech.E. vol. 221 Part A. Journal of Power and Energy Special Issue paper pp.181­195. http://bit.ly/Q4ywYC
Comment
5 of 13
November 10, 2012
Please refer to "tidal and wave power" instead of using the term "tidal power" to include "wave power."

Wave power could theoretically supply several terawatts of power. Tidal power is, in contrast, a quite limited source of power. Perhaps a few tens of gigawatts of installed capacity are possible.

Total tidal friction is about 3.5 terawatts. Very large tidal power systems can reduce tides at the point of capture and increase tides elsewhere.
Comment
6 of 13
November 11, 2012
To Andrew Tipp,

Thanks for the info - I'm glad there are standardised measures which take the full sum of impacts into account. I'm surprised though, that 1,000 tonnes of steel PER TURBINE is used. Do you know what the payback is? I.e. how many months of generation it would take to break even on the installation production energy input?

While considering this, I'm wondering why they couldn't have built say steel containers or base frames, and filled them with natural material e.g. rock, sandstone, instead of steel...yes there's a density dirrerence so the volume woul need to be greater. But the energy input would surely be a lot lower. And potentially the installation effort too...

P
Comment
7 of 13
November 11, 2012
Generally, life-time emissions of different energy converters are calculated by carrying out life-cycle assessments (also known as life-cycle analyses; LCAs). There are varying methodologies, but they generally consider the full cradle-to-grave cycle, including input materials, manufacturing processes, installation, operation, and decommissioning. Ultimately, an important metric is the carbon intensity, which is effectively the total carbon emissions over the whole cycle divided by the total electricity output, gCO2/kWh.

A recent LCA of Pelamis [1] found the device to emit about 22 gCO2/kWh. That is leagues better than coal, which can be upwards of 1000 gCO2/kWh, and natural gas, at around 500 gCO2/kWh. The study found that Pelamis paid back its energy input after just about one year. A different study of a tidal turbine [2] found its intensity to be just 15 gCO2/kWh.

Wind and solar energy have very low life-time carbon intensities, too. Median wind energy emissions are just 11 gCO2/kWh [3]. Various thin-film solar PV emit around 14–26 gCO2/kWh [4]. Crystalline silicon PVs have been a bit higher at 45 gCO2/kWh [5], and concentrating solar troughs and towers stand at about 23 gCO2/kWh [6].

So, all these renewables emit only about 5% or less of the CO2 that coal plants emit.

(sources below)
Comment
8 of 13
November 11, 2012
Sources:
[1] Banerjee, S. et al. Life cycle analysis of selected solar and wave energy systems. . Accessed 11 Nov 2012.
[2] Douglas, C.A., G.P. Harrison, and J.P. Chick, Life cycle assessment of the Seagen marine current turbine. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 2008. 222(1): p. 1-12.
[3] Dolan, S.L. and G.A. Heath, Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Utility-Scale Wind Power. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2012. 16: p. S136-S154.
[4] Kim, H.C., et al., Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Thin-film Photovoltaic Electricity Generation. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2012. 16: p. S110-S121.
[5] Hsu, D.D., et al., Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Electricity Generation. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2012. 16: p. S122-S135.
[6] Burkhardt, J.J., G. Heath, and E. Cohen, Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Trough and Tower Concentrating Solar Power Electricity Generation. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2012. 16: p. S93-S109.
Comment
9 of 13
November 11, 2012
Thanks a lot for your contribution. This is very helpful (and educational). It also puts the question beyond doubt...
Comment
10 of 13
November 11, 2012
You're welcome!

And yes, the amounts of steel and also concrete (this contributes greatly to the carbon cost) are currently receiving a lot of attention within the groups designing these marine energy devices. One of the major first goals of the Pelamis wave device team was survivability: How could they build it to withstand the harsh marine conditions, and still generate electricity? Now, several iterations along, they are focusing on reducing and replacing steel and concrete without compromising mechanical integrity. It certainly makes for fun engineering questions! But this is also why these technologies are still in the research and development stages.
Comment
11 of 13
November 19, 2012
(1/2)

Hello recent commenters (especially Nathan).

While I welcome technical corrections of areas of the article, I feel I should address some of your criticisms and defend some of my work here.

I'm writing for an interested but general audience. Not an industry professional audience or expert readership; think more BBC science or New Scientist magazine than a scientific peer review community.

There is a significant difference between journalistic article writing and scientific writing. As such, I have deliberately used 'broad sweeping statements' in several places to convey a sense of the subject matter, not to describe it in specific detail.

'But the detail matters!' I can here you cry. Yes, it does. But for the general audience I'm trying to intentionally simply and generalise in order to create an impression of where this industry is to non-experts.

Regarding some of the specific generalisations - "practically infinite supply" is intended to mean sustainability, not finite amount. As in (withstanding pedantry), 'oil will run out; oceans won't'.

With "minimal tidal energy environmental impact" I am, of course, comparing tidal and wave to oil. I can't imagine any number of turbines equalling the devastation of the recent BP oil catastrophe. I feel the language here is appropriate.

"certain areas of the world are better for some renewable energy generation sources than others" – I never meant for this to read that some countries should not ever engage in certain renewable production. I merely wrote that certain countries are naturally more suited to certain renewables. This seems an entirely reasonable statement.
Comment
12 of 13
November 19, 2012
(2/2)

With "clear [that] renewables will not be unable to completely fill the gap" - first of all this is a confusing misquote, and second you forgot to include "in the foreseeable future" which completely changes that paragraph and is totally rational. Could renewables make up near 100 percent of energy production within 5 years? 10 years? Even 20 years? Unlikely.

Using the phrase "maybe hundreds of thousands of new jobs" I am simply trying to emphasise that could be a real industry with serious job numbers, not a pipe dream – the criticism of many anti-renewable voices.

In terms of "Please refer to "tidal and wave power" instead of using the term "tidal power" to include "wave power." – apologies if this reads horribly to a more informed audience, but to a general audience it's probably acceptable to use these terms interchangeably (the same way you might use sociopath and psychopath interchangeably in a psychology article).

Yes, I have been told by industry pros that there are a few weaknesses in the article, but that it does a good job of conveying a complicated topic.

Please continue to critique some technical statements on my part, as it adds value to this article + comments page combination. But please be aware that 'sweeping statements' are often there for a journalistic reason, and realise that 'correcting' broad statements with statistical and technical analysis often confuses rather than clarifies issues for a general audience – as a 'general' reader on the topic, some of what you have written above is incomprehensible, and adding references does not actually help.
Comment
13 of 13
March 31, 2013
Dear Sir,

days ago I visited more home pages referring TIDAL projects. As I was previously following similar VERDANT program from USA, after studying all VOITH – Siemens and ALSTOM designs, I found out that all that projects are carrying similar disadvantages which are coursing 12 to 20 times larger investing and operational costs for each received MWh which instead of 35 to 40 € per MWh has price which overcomes 500 € per MWh and by my calculations could be never smaller than 300 € for MWh.

Since more years I am http://www.izumi.si involved also to problem of exploring energy from slowly moving water streams. Up to last year I used to work on only smaller units (SP 1) with Power up to 80 kW. Today I am involved in new designs (SP 2) which are 10 times stronger.

SP 2 units are incomparably cheaper, technically extremely simple and their life time can realistically be longer than 50 years. They are maximally 3 m high but their horizontal diameter is very large because SP2 are not axially operating (like other TIDAL turbines) but on radial way. Therefore, I made plans and calculations for two types of SP 2 units - 22 and 32 meters of diameter – very convenient to be used as TIDAL units:

SP 22 m with 300 kW of Power, complete price of 1,5 Million € and price for each MWh of 45 €
SP 32 m with 500 kW of Power, complete price of 1,9 Million € and price for each MWh of 40 €

In deeper water with high of nearly 6 m, capacity of each can be multiplied but not with doubled producing price what means that price for electricity can be lowered to 30 to 35 € for each MWh.

Please, answer me what are the reasons that all those companies are insisting in production of 20 times more expensive and technically wrong solutions regarding which we shall never get electric power based on expectable price ? I tried to ask them but I remained without any kind of answer.

Best regards,

Vladimir Markovic Ljubljana, 2013-03-31
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Andrew Tipp

View Andrew Tipp's Profile
About: I'm a professional writer, blogger and editor. As an author I've written news, features, articles and guides both online and in print, and as a presenter I've d... more »

Advertise With Us

Geothermal Energy Association marcus evans Natural Power SMA America, LLC ASME - American Society of Mechanical Engineers Helios Solar Works 3TIER
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters