Australian Company Generates Cheap Renewable Energy From Tides (cnn.com) 84
An anonymous reader quotes CNN:
Although tidal energy is still in its infancy, it could help to reduce Australia's dependence on fossil fuels... The island nation is only beginning to explore tidal power through a number of pilot projects. But this form of energy has one major advantage: its predictability. While the sun may not shine, or the wind may not blow, the sea moves in predictable tidal currents...
Among those harnessing this tidal potential is Sydney-based Mako Energy. The company makes underwater turbines ranging between two and four meters in diameter. One turbine operating in constantly flowing water can produce enough electricity to power up to 20 homes. Their design enables them to generate electricity even in slow-flowing water, meaning they could be used in rivers and irrigation canals as well as the ocean. "We're developing turbines at a scale where they can be deployed easily in remote communities, coastal businesses, island communities and resorts," Douglas Hunt, managing director of Mako Energy, told CNN Business...
So far, Mako's customers have predominantly been large industrial and government sites, but it wants to make its turbines accessible to energy customers big and small... "We want to contribute to an energy mix that is less reliant on fossil fuels, by empowering local businesses and communities to generate their own power from a predictable and abundant source that is hiding in plain sight — often flowing directly past communities," says Hunt.
Among those harnessing this tidal potential is Sydney-based Mako Energy. The company makes underwater turbines ranging between two and four meters in diameter. One turbine operating in constantly flowing water can produce enough electricity to power up to 20 homes. Their design enables them to generate electricity even in slow-flowing water, meaning they could be used in rivers and irrigation canals as well as the ocean. "We're developing turbines at a scale where they can be deployed easily in remote communities, coastal businesses, island communities and resorts," Douglas Hunt, managing director of Mako Energy, told CNN Business...
So far, Mako's customers have predominantly been large industrial and government sites, but it wants to make its turbines accessible to energy customers big and small... "We want to contribute to an energy mix that is less reliant on fossil fuels, by empowering local businesses and communities to generate their own power from a predictable and abundant source that is hiding in plain sight — often flowing directly past communities," says Hunt.
its not cheap compared to molten salt (Score:4, Informative)
its not cheap compared to molten salt powered by the sun in Australia
(plus Australia has a LOT of coal delivered by robots)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:its not cheap compared to molten salt (Score:4)
So what are the prices for the various technologies? How much more expensive is tidal power? If it is only marginally different then it makes sense to have a mix of energy sources.
Re:its not cheap compared to molten salt (Score:4, Insightful)
The limiter for tidal power isn't so much the cost of the equipment, which is not that different from the turbines that can be immersed in flowing rivers. Like the river-flow turbines, the primary issue is location. There needs to be a location where the tidal flow is restricted enough to push the turbine fast enough to create juice, or else you need to spend a ton of money to build that restriction. There are plenty of restricted tidal flow locations in the Polynesian atolls, but unfortunately dropping a turbine in the middle of those reef channels is a recipe for fish burger and environmental chaos. The Bay of Fundy is an example of an excellent location for tidal power generation, other sites will vary in applicability and the amount of construction necessary to make them functional.
So like any other real estate development the three primary concerns are:
1) Location
2) Location
3) Location
Re:its not cheap compared to molten salt (Score:4, Interesting)
plus Australia has a LOT of coal delivered by robots
And coal plants are shutting down anyway because it's not cost effective to operate them, and this despite the idiots running the company being pro-coal anti carbon tax in ways that would make Trump blush so hard you'd see it through his makeup.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you mean coal mines, or coal-fired electricity plants?
'cos you might be at odds with the article. We will continue to sell fuckloads of coal to china (and others) as long as they're willing to pay.
I'd prefer we didn't do that, but I'm not the one making those decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Plants. We are digging coal out of the ground as fast as we can before it becomes worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:its not cheap compared to molten salt (Score:4, Insightful)
Cheap isn't always the best policy.
Energy is vital to the economies of the world. Having an energy policy around the cheapest source isn't a good policy.
Coal may be cheap for the purchase, but it is more expense to the community where the coal power plants operate. Hindering their water supplies, and making the community a place that is difficult to attract people to live or additional economic drivers. The local economy is just tied around Coal, which means if the Price of Coal shoots up, or a cheaper source (Like natural gas in America) is found, the coal communities basically die overnight. With a 1 economy community without its main driver and long term damage to its environment that will not make it attractive for additional economies to flourish.
Solar is good for Australia. A lot of sun and open areas. But Australia isn't the easiest country to maintain the panels. This country seems determined to kill you. So some of the best areas to generate electricity are also the hardest parts to get to
Tidal Energy does fit a good niche. It is clean, and it along the coast where the population is. So while it may be more expensive than solar and coal there is less negative impacts as well.
Re: (Score:2)
An often-overlooked advantage of renewables is that there is no ongoing cost for fuel. The IMF/World Bank is generally happy to write a loan for a coal or diesel power plant in Argentina or Peru, because they know that the country will be on the hook to buy fuel for the next 20+ years and they can arrange financially ruinous contracts for that supply. On the other hand they don't like financing renewables unless they can ensure that the country will quickly privatize the installation for pennies on the do
Re: (Score:2)
The IMF/World Bank is generally happy to write a loan for a coal or diesel power plant in Argentina or Peru
True.
because they know that the country will be on the hook to buy fuel for the next 20+ years and they can arrange financially ruinous contracts for that supply.
The IMF/Worldbank does not do such things ... it is a charity organization to help developing countries. Moron ...
Re: (Score:2)
No, it would be nice if they lived up to that fiction, but they're the exact opposite and always have been. Their purpose is to enable (originally US and now multinational) corporations access to the resources and manpower of the developing world and to control those countries' economies. Among themselves they're pretty open about their purpose, as you can see when their internal documents get leaked to journalists like Greg Palast, or when some of their personnel accidentally grow a conscience like John
Re:its not cheap compared to nearly anything (Score:2)
Tidal as these guys see it is a small-output, reversible, low-head turbine. The idea (and the product) has been around for decades (maybe a century), but has limited use because the cost and the complications are usually too high. If these guys in fact have brought the cost down to ~$50K (USD or AUD? For just the turbine or installed?) it might be competitive or complementary with solar or wind sufficient to power a small village in the Marquesas. It's not going to put $utility$ with a network of coal or ga
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I mean how could it not be winner? Australia's endlessly abundant hard flowing rivers and mega-miles of irrigation canals could easily, if well sited turbines are placed, charge a phone, maybe two, in possibly less than a year. Something about the driest continent and all that?
As for tidal waters there are some places with big tides. The east Coast around Mackay has 8 metre tides but there is a Great Barrier Reef thingy that stops dead any project that gets wet on even the highest tide and somewhat inlan
Re: (Score:3)
Oh god of fuck (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a Mako energy plant, didn't ecoterrorists just bomb one of those???
Came here for exactly that the design looks like a prop so fish mince looks like a problem that Greenies will complain about. along with who needs a bomb any long piece of floating debris will put them out of action without the legal repucusions
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just put a cage around it, same way we do with fans in the home?
Eg:
https://www.hygienesuppliesdir... [hygienesup...direct.com]
Re:Oh god of fuck (Score:4, Insightful)
Because that doesn't fit with the anti-everything brigade.
You know, the buggy-whip manufacturers. Can't have any change, everything is perfect as it is, why change, it's all too expensive/difficult/benefits the opposition.
Christ, I'm tired of adversarial politics. It's a pity we haven't come up with anything better - we're supposed to be smart.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Christ, I'm tired of adversarial politics. It's a pity we haven't come up with anything better - we're supposed to be smart."
Nonsense.
If a company develops something and it is cost-effective/competitive, and consumers want/need it, that technology will be made, bought, and implemented. It has little to do with politics... Unless they are looking to the government to solve the problems or supply cronyism. Government only does the latter well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. But they'll moan like mad about it being a stupid idea until it's actually developed. Often well beyond that.
Re: (Score:2)
There are people who think the earth is flat, and it is often tied with politics.
I drive a Prius. Because it was cost-effective, competitive to other cars in the same class, it was handy for my commutes. I don't have a bunch of Bumper stickers promoting any political party. I live in a rural area, so I understand why many drivers need trucks while I do not. That said I will often get bullied by trucks often with TRUMP bumper stickers on it. (and one with a sticker stating that "This truck will cut off an
Re: (Score:2)
Strange that in Europe the people vote in governments that do politics that make companies do what the people want.
Strange that is not so in your country.
Re: (Score:3)
People have a hard time understanding the concept of trade-offs. Where there is often a different disadvantage created for a problem solved.
Often a well engineered system will try to diminish the trade-off however it may require a different use of the device.
For example the modern electric car. They now have between 250-350 mile ranges and can take hours to fully recharge. However if you charge your car at home every night, your normal local travel will probably not be hindered with 100 mile range less. Be
Re: (Score:2)
Because debris can get caught on the cage and slow down, and possibly stop, the water going to the turbines. Then you've created a maintenance item. A cage needs to be there to protect the turbine from larger items that could damage it but still let everything flow freely. Even having a diver go once a month to clean the cages would add a considerable expense over the lifetime of the turbine.
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine that since tides reverse four times a day blocking screens would be less of an issue than in things like hydro dams on rivers. The moon effectively backflows your system twice a day.
Because then it stops working. (Score:2)
Why not just put a cage around it, same way we do with fans in the home?
Because then it clogs with debris and stops.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Tidal flows reverse four times a day.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why, they can just stay behind it with their mouths open and let the cut up remains of smaller fish just float right in. /s
Re:Oh god of fuck (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to piss off the sharks.
Why? Can't they just cut through the metal with their lasers?
Yes. 100 HP fish blender. Shoulda used a Gorlov. (Score:2)
Came here for exactly that the design looks like a prop so fish mince looks like a problem that Greenies will complain about.
Went to TFA to see if it was something sane, like a Gorlov or maybe something new. TFA had nothing on the design, so went to their site. Horrible resolution on the images, but it looks like either a prop or a ducted prop. Ideal for chopping up fish (which can't avoid it). Unidirectonal flow for 6 hours at a time, so once it gets plastered with seaweed and debris it stops until th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know if you don't try.
There are some things that it is nearly impossible to get done via commercial means. Commercial Funding is risk adverse, and will want to see a quick payoff. We need grants for larger public works projects, because there is either a higher risk, but if works the reward would be great for the public.
Re: (Score:2)
I don’t think that really solves anything though. We’ve seen plenty of kickstarter projects that are just as hair-brained
PR Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
What an utter puff piece. They are still in prototype testing.
And it's not in "it's infancy" : there was a large tidal barrage built in France in 1966 that produced power for nearly 50 years.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: PR Bullshit (Score:2)
I can't read German but that looks like a run of the river setup to me. Considering that Austria is landlocked it's unlikely to be ocean tides.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, if you were serious about tidal power you would be looking at creating barrages. It's kinda pointless though, the cost is too high compared to offshore wind and solar thermal and the benefits too small. Plus it has a much greater environmental impact.
Re: (Score:3)
And it's not in "it's infancy" : there was a large tidal barrage built in France in 1966 that produced power for nearly 50 years.
Noted the same thing. What is in its infancy is "wave power". They have some designs that work, but reliability and endurance is not good enough for actual deployment. But tidal stuff is _old_. I guess the "journalist" got confused.
Re:PR Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
The Rance Tidal Power Station [wikipedia.org] is still producing power...
Re: (Score:3)
yep, Simec Atlantis Energy has been running a tidal power plant since 2010. Will generate 398MW when fully completed.
https://simecatlantis.com/proj... [simecatlantis.com] has good pictures of the huge turbines and engineeringy-marketing details.
Add some pods (Score:1)
Add some pods and you'll have an Australian company generating cheap and clean renewable energy from Tides
Pick Your Target (Score:3)
Their design enables them to generate electricity even in slow-flowing water, meaning they could be used in rivers and irrigation canals as well as the ocean.
... in the mere handful of inland rivers in Australia that exhibit regular and reliable flow. Stick to the oceans guys: unlike the inland rivers, government policy is less likely to dry these up.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, inland rivers in Oz is not a viable proposition. They're fragile enough without introducing demands that will eventually require some form of geoengineering to maintain output. Just leave the fuckin things alone - stop allowing farmers to trade water rights, for a start.
"You need x megalitres to run your property? Fine, you can have them. You can NOT trade those rights on an open market. If you don't use them, they revert to environmental flow."
Re: (Score:2)
Their design enables them to generate electricity even in slow-flowing water, meaning they could be used in rivers and irrigation canals as well as the ocean.
... in the mere handful of inland rivers in Australia that exhibit regular and reliable flow. Stick to the oceans guys: unlike the inland rivers, government policy is less likely to dry these up.
They just invented the water wheel
Re: (Score:2)
which are inefficient - river based hydro power tends to be via Archimedes screws instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Why Australia? Surely this company can then export the technology to make a profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Needs more zeros (Score:1)
I won't even get out of bed in the morning for twenty homes.
pfft solar will win (Score:3)
That's if it can get past our coal-loving government anyway.
Not new for Australia (Score:1)
The island nation is only beginning to explore tidal power
CSIRO was exploring tidal power 35 years ago when I did work experience their when I was at high school
Re: (Score:1)
Oops *there
Re: (Score:2)
Your self correction made me smile. (Though would be nice if Slashdot had an edit feature).
Re: (Score:2)
It does; it's called the Preview button.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are going to go that far, the early stars threw their remnants away from themselves, giving them the kinetic and gravitational potential energy that would eventually place a moon orbiting around a spinning planet, creating the tides that these generators extract energy from.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is coolness: apart from nuclear, this is the one other source of power which is not ultimately solar driven in some way (oil? essentially stored solar energy from the day of the dinosaurs).
What about geothermal? No sun involved there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Geothermal is a form of nuclear power - radioactive decay.
Re: (Score:2)
Geothermal energy is released from the decay of radioactive elements in the Earth's mantle and core. Those elements were produced in supernovae and neutron star collisions.
It's fusion and gravitational collapse all the way down.
The "island"? (Score:2, Informative)
Australia is a continent, not an island.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Australia is a continent, not an island.
No need for fat shaming.
She's just big boned.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually Australia is 2 islands - don't forget Tasmania.
Re: (Score:3)
Austrailia is a continent and has many offshore island. Tasmania is just one of them.
Actually the river-based stuff is in production... (Score:4, Informative)
A company called Turbulent (out of Belgium) has a whirlpool turbine setup that allows the exploitation of elevation changes in a fish-safe, stackable manner and continuous output.
https://www.turbulent.be/ [turbulent.be]
The stackability is nice, because it allows allows for multiple extractions of energy along a section of river. And they're literally just short concrete causeways. Low impact.
And while they're expensive, not really much more so than an equivalently sized solar array. So they're generally affordable by end-users as well.
Re: (Score:2)
This technology is only usable if you don't have Indian tribes that will cry about your interfering with their sacred river.
Have we learned nothing??? (Score:1)
Back in highscool... (Score:3, Funny)
Their infant is middle age now (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
By example the "Usine maremotrice de la Rance" built in 1966
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
OK, but likely not a big deal (Score:3, Informative)
Puff piece. But it's not a complete fabrication.
Practical tidal power has been around for more than half a century. It's a perfectly reasonable energy source if you have a suitable location. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Strong points: It's predicable. It doesn't need appreciable fossil fuel except for initial construction. It can generate respectable amounts of power -- hundreds of megawatts in the best cases. Tidal power facilities pretty much can't blow up and probably won't harm the neighbors if they fail.
Weak points: There can be significant environmental affects. The generating equipment is subject to salt-water corrosion and fouling by marine organisms. (Probably) twice daily times of peak power production will shift by 50 minutes a day. In a few cases, generation may interfere with navigation. While most potential sites will have two tidal peaks a day, one peak can be substantially weaker than the other. The initial costs are high. And mostly, there aren't a lot of good sites with exceptionally high tides. However, the Arafura Sea between Australia and New Guinea is a place with exceptionally high tides. (Others -- The Bristol Channel, Gulf of California, Bay of Fundy,Cook Inlet,Strait of Magellan.)
So as Slashdot's daily dose of enviro-babble goes, tidal power stands out as not being something that a competent editor should reject out or hand. This particular article is a bit short on substance. But it could be a lot worse.
Tidal's all well and good... (Score:4, Funny)
They say:
"The company makes underwater turbines ranging between two and four meters in diameter. One turbine operating in constantly flowing water can produce enough electricity to power up to 20 homes." ...all well and good when the tide comes *in*, but as soon as it goes out, it sucks all the power right back out of those 20 homes.
Re: (Score:2)
You can put underwater turbines in deeper water where there are currents that always run or in rivers thus solving the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
So put gears and a clutch on it.
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to misunderstand basic elements of electricity production. The tide going out is essential to provide an AC supply.
Island Nation? (Score:1)