New Scottish Wave Energy Generator Unveiled

MikeChino writes "We've learned about Scotland's wave energy initiatives in the past, and just this morning the nation unveiled Aquamarine Power's next-generation Oyster 800 wave power plant. The new generator can produce 250% more power at one third the cost of the first full-scale 315kw Oyster that was installed in Orkney in 2009. The device's shape has been modified and made wider to enable it to capture more wave energy, and a double seabed pile system allows for easier installation."

simplified

[Charliemopps]

"A farm of just 20 Oyster 800 devices would generate sufficient power for up to 15,000 homes"

or... 1 device can power 750 homes.

Re:NIH

[ScentCone]

No, all of the replies would have been put-downs, and they'd all have been written by Europeans, except for one or two from the US who would be whining about how someone, somewhere, might make eeeeevil money while doing this.

Re:The Doomsday Scenario

[gweihir]

This is not a tide-generator. It is a wave generator, i.e. basically wind-powered. Your scenario does not apply.

The way this works is that it has several joints and swims and thereby fits to waves. As the waves move past the device, the joints are bent in one or the other direction. This is converted to energy via a hydraulic system.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Majik Sheff]

Perhaps the pendulum should swing in the other direction? I laugh at the stereotypes of my ancestors (Polish and Irish top the list). Perhaps everyone needs to lighten up and laugh at the things that make us different instead of flying off the handle and getting offended.

TL;DR: lighten up, life's too short.

Comparing tiny single units to entire power plants

[dbIII]

the typical coal plant in the U.S. is about 340 MW

No it isn't. That's a small single generator of probably 1970s or earlier vintage, and you have several of them in a single power plant because you need a lot of cooling, water treatmentt, coal handling etc gear whether you have one unit or several. Many of the concrete cooling towers you see are designed to cool two seperate units for example.
If a power plant has for example four 650MW units that adds up to more than your number for nuclear, which is also wrong because there are some much bigger plants there along with the tiny research reactors and the many very small miltary run "power" plants in developing countries that bring the average down. Don't confuse "average" with typical and compare apples and orchards.

Re:For comparison

[AmiMoJo]

You forgot the most important points: Wave power does not need any fuel, does not pollute and needs very little maintenance. Yeah, it needs more development to get efficiency up and we need a lot of them, but on the other hand they are clean and cheap to run. We have plenty of space for them.