[Peak Oil] Tidal Power

[Lonestar]

I had a *ahem* fairly interesting discussion about alternative energy sources once the energy crisis reaches the point of no return with a coworker today, and when the "N-word"(Nuclear) was brought up he went on a rant that indicated he very thoroughly drank the Greenpeace Kool-Aid(tm)(Hurr hurr hurr nuclear waste, save the enviroment). When I asked what he thought would be a practical alternative to fossil fuels he responded "Tidal".

Yes, Tidal. Now, I am somewhat skeptical of Tidal power providing a reasonable solution. To me if that were the case we'd be seeing them all over the place("It's a New technology!" "The first one was built in the '60s!" *shows on wiki) as the basics behing it seem simple...like, Middle-Ages water mill simple.

Am I wrong? Is there some kind of giant "Big Energy" conspiracy to withhold the almight Tidal from being the giant that it could be?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Scotland doesn't think so, nor Ireland. Tidal breakthroughs have happened this year thanks to several X-Prize like projects going on in trying to harness such energies for our use. Unlike wind, tidal is always on and not so much an eyesore to boot.

It won't supply all power, especially if you're landlocked and so shit out of luck, but it will be another piece in the ever more diverse and hopefully decentralised power grid of the future.

And I find it hilarious your co-worker is against nuclear, given your workplace. The bigger issue is finding a place for the low-grade waste and security. The technology is sound, it's the people running the things that become a problem at times.

[SCRawl]

I saw a bit on harnessing the tides here in Canada, specifically the Bay of Fundy. There's a pilot project in the works, which has the potential to provide quite a bit of electricity. One of the issues there, though, is that it's also a tourism attraction. It does have some of the most impressive tides in the world, and is therefore a logical place to try to generate power.

It'll happen, probably sooner rather than later.

[Androsphinx]

A lot of different things will get tried in the next twenty years or so. Tidal may get lucky, but I wouldn't bet on it. The thing is, there is no -one- answer, and so there a big problem with thinking "What is the alternative to fossil fuels?", when the answer is "a bit over everything"

[CaptainChewbacca]

There's actually a test program off the Oregon coast which is using a number of buoys to generate power. Each massive buoy can generate up to half a megawatt.

[Chris OFarrell]

There is a bit of a difference between tidal power and wave power. The later has a bit of promise, not for base load electricity really, but still a significant part of the solution.

But nuclear is the only answer to replacing coal, oil and so on for both replacing the current base load power AND expanding it dramatically to deal with the decline of using oil to power transport and so on.

[Lonestar]

There is a bit of a difference between tidal power and wave power. The later has a bit of promise, not for base load electricity really, but still a significant part of the solution.

But nuclear is the only answer to replacing coal, oil and so on for both replacing the current base load power AND expanding it dramatically to deal with the decline of using oil to power transport and so on.

Is Nuclear more efficient, and easier to to expand upon(infrastructure-wise) than Tidal?

And I find it hilarious your co-worker is against nuclear, given your workplace.

You know, just like any large group of people, service members, DoD employees, and contractors have a wide range of views and political Agendas. There's a retired Gunny in IA who oozes "Marine!" but once said:

You don't understand Government Regs. It doesn't matter how technology or society has changed, or if the regulation was written 60 years ago and no longer has any bearing on reality. They are monolithic, immutable, and must be Obeyed. Much like the Bible.

[Lord Insanity]

Is Nuclear more efficient, and easier to to expand upon(infrastructure-wise) than Tidal?

Well it could be. Link

[Sea Skimmer]

Tidal power is pretty much devastating to the environment and only works decently in a handful of areas on earth. Perhaps this fool of a coworker of yours has confused tidal power with wave power, which will work anywhere along a coast, but has enormous technical problems, most prominently the cost of maintenance.

Is Nuclear more efficient, and easier to to expand upon(infrastructure-wise) than Tidal?

Tidal power requires damming off whole bays or estuaries with large tidal ranges, not a very practical undertaking all in all. Most of the best sites have already been taken or at least already have plants under construction, so there really isn’t that much future in it. Some of the remaining good sites also happen to be major shipping channels, which means you would not only need to build dams that can stand up to fast moving tides and storms, but also which have locks big enough for 150,000 ton ships.

[Admiral Valdemar]

In the UK, there are plans for both such projects. I believe the Severn may get such a system given it's already in a unique position with the bridge there. The wave systems Scotland and others are working on are far more likely to be accepted given they can be used anywhere and are proving remarkably resilient and efficient now the teething problems have been nearly ironed out.