Tidal Power?

Not at these prices!

Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon project

Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon project

I occasionally get e-mails from UKIP members saying “OK, I know why we oppose wind and solar.  But we can’t afford to be against all renewables.  Why don’t we take a strong stand in favour of tidal power?  After all, it’s free”.

To be honest, I’d always regarded tidal power as a bit marginal, and hadn’t done a lot of work on it.  Some years ago I spent some time looking at Rolls Royce’s underwater tidal turbine project, which seemed interesting, but the nearest I could get to the economics was a vague assurance that “with enough development, it could get to be competitive with off-shore wind”.   Since we oppose offshore wind inter alia because of its massive cost, this didn’t seem very promising, and I’ve heard little more of it.

But my interest was piqued by the announcement of the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon project, so I thought it was time to have a look, and I got our energy guru Ben Pile to do me a briefing. The figures are startling – and explain why I don’t think tidal power should be a key plank of UKIP’s energy policy.  The system is proposed to have a net installed capacity of 240MW, but because of the vagaries of the tide will deliver only a fraction of that – about 47MW average.  This of course is intermittent.  Better than wind and solar, because the tides are at least predictable, but intermittent and requiring back-up, nonetheless.  Moreover the tides precess around the clock.  One week the system will be producing during day-time peak demand.  A couple of weeks later it’ll be producing in the dead of night when demand is low.

At these numbers, the cost comes out at £16 to £18,000 per KW.  How does this compare?


New gas fired:             £500 to 900

New coal:                    £1300 to 2800

On-shore wind:           £3300 to 7400

Off-shore wind:           £3500 to 14,200

Tidal:                           £16,000 to 18,000

I think that’s what’s called “prohibitive”.  The whole project is estimated at £800 million (and these cost estimates usually over-run – call it a billion).  But even at £800 million, we’d be paying £750 million or so over the odds compared to gas.  And it’s still intermittent.  All that extra cost comes ultimately from you, either as a consumer or a tax-payer.  We drive up energy costs for households and industry to eye-watering levels, with all the damage to our economy, and our quality of life, that I so often write about.

Someone will point out that with gas you have to pay for the fuel, whereas with tidal you don’t.  But with the lagoon, there’ll be high costs for maintenance and probably dredging, whereas with gas, we’ll have shale gas soon, and that will be, if not cheap, at least a whole lot cheaper than imported Russian gas.

I’m happy to keep a watching brief on tidal, but I couldn’t support it at these prices.  So is UKIP implacably opposed to renewables?  Not at all.  There’s a strong case for hydro (despite the huge numbers of deaths historically in the industry).  There’s a case for geothermal (although it is likely to cause more seismic incidents than fracking).  But broadly speaking, the Swansea Bay numbers confirm UKIP’s policy: Coal, gas and nuclear.



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Tidal Power?

  1. aelfrith says:

    I think you need to check your units I don’t think anyone is paying £500 per kilowatt (KW). Perhaps you meant megawatt (MW) or hopefully gigawatt (GW).

  2. Me_Again says:

    Totally agree regarding price and the requirement to be self funding BUT utterly disagree with anyone calling the tide ‘intermittant’
    It is as predictable -literally- as night following day. The tides for the next thousand years can be calculated to the second. How so then intermittent?

    There will be variance given the moon state but even the variance is predictable. Sited well they can guarantee production so no back up will be required if all calculations are done on ‘actual’ production ability rather than theoretical.

    • Roger Helmer MEP says:

      Me_Again: Please get a dictionary and read the definition of “intermittent” (and the spelling!). The tide goes up and down. You get slack periods at high and low tide. So you’re right — it’s predictable with great accuracy centuries ahead. But also I’m right — it’s intermittent. There will be a couple of periods every 24 hours (approx) when it won’t be producing. That’s intermittent.

      • Me_Again says:

        Sorry about the spelling Mr Perfect.
        No that isn’t intermittent. Intermittent in context of power, implies unpredictable. If you had tidal turbines from lands end to John O Groats there would be a rolling non availability due to slack water. Not the same in any two places and utterly predictable as a whole.

  3. neilfutureboy says:

    A good explanation of why letting the market choose, as in your previous paper, works.

    (Though I will now make my special plea for nuclear – that a free market requires regulations are either do not matter much or are equally onerous, compared to the risks they are supposed to be dealing with, for all systems. Nuclear is probably 1,000 times safer than most alternatives and is certainly restricted at least hundreds of times more by “safety” regulations. In a genuine free market at least 90% and probably around 98% of the cost would disappear.)

    • Roger Helmer MEP says:

      You’re right — over-regulation, and especially regulatory uncertainty, are the bane of large, long-term infrastructure projects.

  4. Chris says:

    The insanity of this project is twofold:

    One, is that a few miles east of this proposed monstrosity is a modern gas fired power station (CCGT) which produces 525MWe 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at a build cost of £300 million.

    Second, Swansea Bay has a lot of sand which shifts due to the tidal wave action. How long before this tidal lagoon is silts up and hence can hold less water?

    This is yet another useless green energy project which will be funded by the British taxpayer.

  5. nollyprott says:

    These are the eco-fascist alternatives to a full Severn and then Morecambe Bay barrage which will last forever and could alleviate flooding of both the Severn and the Lune ?

  6. Thomas Fox says:

    Lived next to Morecambe Bay that,s some water power from Lancaster to ggGra

  7. Ex-expat Colin says:

    I have a problem with the numbers at: http://tidallagoonswanseabay.com/faqs.aspx
    “How much energy will the tidal lagoon produce?
    Following a thorough feasibility study to estimate the potential energy production of the tidal lagoon, we are planning to install around 16 turbines, each with a rated output of about 15 megawatts (MW). As such, we propose on average the lagoon will have a nominal rated power output of 240MW (16 x 15 MW) and we will be able extract a net annual output of 400 gigawatt hours (GWh) or 400,000MWh

    The lagoon will be capable of generating electricity for 14 hours a day”

    I come up with 3.36GWh per 14hr day. Appears to be a lot more than the net annual amount, whatever that actually means. Power factor and so on I suppose.

    I have never dealt with large energy lumps like this, so I expect to be somewhat or way off. I assume whatever is generated is to be stepped up and ultimately stepped down, so losses there twice and transmission losses.

    Trying to imagine if some of the generators sit in standby mode, but don’t think that can happen.

    So looks good for Wales. Time to separate?

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      Ok…it’ll be designed about 30% over target capacity (desired o/p) and then the tide won’t run right (20% failure). Should halve the direct calculation that considers input as constant. Peaks are then contained – something like that.

      I thought I saw that Japanese had drilled into the methane hydrate reserves off their shores…I guess that’s bad news, except for the Japanese.

  8. johnd2008 says:

    Another factor to be considered is marine growth. Anything put into the sea eventually becomes covered in barnacles etc. I know the machines could be covered in anti fouling, but even the best stuff has to be regularly maintained, ask any yachtsman.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Agreed, the sea will foul the whole works very rapidly. Even continuous treatment with hideously toxic biocides, turning the entire undersea region into a watery desert, will not prevent something growing on the equipment.

  9. silverminer says:

    We keep hearing a lot about shale gas. Whilst I think we should be trying to exploit this resource in a safe and responsible manner, I’m some what skeptical that the rate of development is going to be sufficient to keep up with rising demand and the fall off in North Sea production. Don’t we have economically viable, mothballed coal mines we can re-open? If we can’t manage to be self sufficient in fossil fuel then I’d rather we invested in coal fired power stations and imported North American coal rather than the riskier Russia and Middle Eastern gas. You can stockpile coal very easily and it’s cheap.

    I’m certain that we shouldn’t be subsiding any of the current crop of renewables nor any more legacy uranium fueled pressured water reactors (I don’t support the deal with the French, it’s poor value). Nuclear has a future but it is in LFTRs (Thorium fueled molten salt reactors), which will be a step change in safety, cost and efficiency over PWRs. They can also burn our legacy waste and are only about a decade away. We can manage with coal and gas until then.

    In the long run, it’s almost certain (we’ve all seen the evidence, but perhaps few of us have realised it) that the US military have advanced energy devices already operational and weaponised which tap into energy from the “ether” for want of a better term. The kind of thing Nikola Tesla was onto 100 years ago. However, I doubt we’ll see any of this technology until Big Oil is through the best part of it’s $200 trillion in reserves. A productive use for some R&D expenditure would be to look again at “cold fusion” which appeared a little too promising in the 1990s and was disgracefully shut down. Worth an hour of anyone’s time:-

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Cold fusion was shut down because it was junk science.

      Modern “demonstrations” of cold fusion postulate a magic fusion reaction which doesn’t release any neutrons – utter garbage science. Why? Because if a real fusion reaction was happening in the magic cauldron, everyone in the room would die from radiation poisoning.

      Fusion creates 100x the radiation of fission, and a fission reaction powerful enough to create even mild warmth will kill you many times over.

      Consider the case of Louis Stotin – received a horribly fatal dose of radiation when a core he was manipulating slipped – but he didn’t burn his hand from heat, when he removed the core, to stop the blast of radiation.


      • silverminer says:

        It isn’t fusion, Eric. “Cold fusion” was a label applied to it by the de-bunkers. You’re taking a mainstream science view of a phenomena that defies conventional physics. Researchers continue to find tritium, excess energy and transmutation of elements. Mainstream physics can’t explain any of this so they try to ignore it lest they have to re-write their text books on nuclear physics. To think we understand everything there is to know about this kind of thing is hubris. We haven’t even scratched the surface.

      • neilfutureboy says:

        There are repeated results that suggest there is something to LENR (Low energy nuclear reactions – since “cold fusion” has a bad rep and is less accurate anyway). However we are a long way from getting mains power from it and normal nuclear fission has been doing so successfully for 60 years. Anyway if LENR comes online the ecofascists will denounce it – they only like stuff when it doesn’t work, because their agenda is Luddism.

      • Roger Helmer MEP says:

        I’m strongly pro-coal. But (sadly) I’m advised that if we tried to re-open UK coal mines, the coal would be hopelessly uncompetitive with American & Australian coal.

      • by the way, as you seems british you should read the very shy warning page 92

        Click to access GST4_v9_Feb10.pdf

        ‘New Energy Source’:

        “A novel, efficient form of energy generation could be developed that rapidly lowers demand for hydrocarbons. For example, the development of commercially available cold fusion reactors could result in the rapid economic marginalisation of oil-rich states. This loss of status and income in undiversified economies could lead to state-failure and provide opportunities for extremist groups to rise in influence.”

        the Japanese government in 1945 warning Hiroshima’s mayor of the impact of a nuclear bomb on weather… funny.

        see also Elforsk (a kind of Swedish DoE) about the test they funded

        and Chinese government on Baoding HIDZ partnership with Cherokee fund on Rossi’s technology

        ENEA conference in Brussels parliament

        and look for NASA/NARI Seedling project (doug wells), SUGAR Boeing/NASA study, the DoD/Darpa funding of US navy researche, hidden as nanotech…

        good reading, and hope this helps.

    • eddie coke says:

      That’s a very interesting video Silverminer. Thanks for posting it. My own views were also along the lines of LFTRs, for kind of the same reasons. Namely that it’ll take ten years to get at the shale gas, and there’s allegedly only five years worth of reserves anyway. (Though of course, on fracking, so far I have only heard hyperbolic views at both extremes. Balanced science would be nice.)

      It’s fairly shameful that I’d forgotten about cold fusion, since I was an undergrad doing my project in the Southampton Electrochemistry Group back in 1990/91 and met and chatted with Professor Fleischmann. I think he was in the process of moving to France, so he was back and forth somewhat.

      • silverminer says:

        Eddie, I’m annoyed that we have to put up with this BS about an energy crisis when multiple solutions are known about to replace fossil fuels (LFTRs , cold fusion, plus other stuff that hasn’t really leaked out yet). It’s maddening that those who could put the required funding behind these things don’t do so. In the pockets of the oil industry and scared to set us free with abundant, cheap energy? What other explanation is there? The Chinese will probably get there before too long. We’re being badly let down by our leaders. Kind of on the lines of energy, another very interesting series of videos:-

      • eddie coke says:

        Silverminer, cheers, I’ll take a look at that other video on Monday. Yes, it’s a pain that fossils still rule the roost. I don’t have a major problem with the environmental issues as long as they don’t go berserk – FWIW, I quite like Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis about the interplay between cosmic rays and the solar magnetic field strength for “global warming”, because the data appear to fit short-, medium- and long-term climate patterns. What I have a problem with is – as you imply – big oil, big banks, petrodollar, etc. It’s a (very human) case of money, power, control – the last thing “they” want is for everybody on earth to have virtually free energy to use, and to live as they wish without paying above the odds.

        As for the cold fusion stuff, I’m really intrigued about that because on that first video, they are all using metals (eg palladium, nickel, etc). I’ll have to dig in and look for info as to why. If it’s just an electron source, or a catalyst, wouldn’t it be great to find an enzyme or something biological that would do the same job? Something everybody could grow in their garden if they wished? The obvious worry is that palladium is expensive and the market presumably easily cornered by – ahem – “them” (sounds very “tinfoil-hatty” but some people always think *they* should be able to profit from everything). It would be important to squeeze “them” completely out of the energy sector altogether.

      • silverminer says:

        “Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. This idea is not novel. Men have been led to it long ago by instinct or reason; it has been expressed in many ways, and in many places, in the history of old and new. We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time. Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic — and this we know it is, for certain — then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.” Nikola Tesla.
        This has to be the key to abundant energy, Eddie. Tesla understood it 100 years ago and I think perhaps David LaPoint is showing us the “wheelwork of nature” in the Primer Fields videos. Couple a simple device to this energy source and publish the plans on the internet and we’re free from “them”.

      • neilfutureboy says:

        We don’t need these semi-magical power sources (I’m not saying some might work someday, but merely we can do with what we have now).
        Current nuclear power works perfectly well or would if it wasn’t prevented for political reasons. Shale gas is available for centuries.
        Solar power satellites could provide more power than humanity on Earth could, even in theory, ever use and would be almost free once established.

        The era of cheap energy can dawn now & only political parasitism is preventing it.

      • silverminer says:

        I’m not for any more of the current generation of uranium fueled PWRs, Neil. 1950s technology which was a poor second to the LFTRs developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratories in the 1960s. Why put ourselves in hock to France and China when you can have something far better, safer and cheaper within a decade (we’ve enough fossil fuels to see us through until then)? I think you’re overestimating shale gas. The decline rates are merciless and the EROEI is not anywhere near what we got from the big oil discoveries in the Middle East. It give us a breathing space we should proactively use to develop new technologies.

        Incidentally, unless we protect our transmission system from solar flares, sooner or later we’ll be in a grid down situation and unless the “authorities” around the world (not always known for their efficiency and forward planning) can keep the 800 reactors already in existence supplied with diesel fuel for their back up generators we’re looking at multiple Chernobyls. Looks like the US might be waking up to this:-
        What are we doing about this? Perhaps Roger can tell us? I’m sure the EU have it covered…

  10. omanuel says:


    Power poverty is the result of a 1945 decision to hide the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima & Nagasaki, neutron repulsion.

    The repulsive force between neutrons causes the universe to expand, and

    The attractive gravitational force between atoms causes it to collapse.

    That breathed life into the cosmos. What a superb engineering design.

    Far beyond the comprehension of “consensus-scientist-for-hire !”

    • Eric Worrall says:

      That is complete nonsense. Protons repel, due to their strong electrical charge. Neutrons stabilise large atoms by reducing the proton repulsion. That is why stable isotopes of large atoms have lots of neutrons.

      • omanuel says:

        Thank you Eric for agreeing to discuss nine pages of precise experimental data (pages 19-27) in my autobiography [1] that falsify standard, post-1945 models of:

        1. Stars
        2. Nuclei

        The next chapter (in progress) will be “The force.”

        With kind regards,
        Oliver K. Manuel
        Former NASA Principal
        Investigator for Apollo
        PhD, Nuclear Chemistry
        Postdoc, Space Physics

        1. Oliver K. Manuel, A Journey to the Core if the Sun, Chapter 2: Acceptance of Reality

        Click to access Chapter_2.pdf

  11. DICK R says:

    Just build proper coal fired power stations, cut out all the green crap

    • Roger Helmer MEP says:

      Yes. But add nuclear and gas. R.

    • Me_Again says:

      Well it isn’t green crap actually. Apart the fact that burning coal is burning a vast resource of an almost infinite number of hydrocarbons which we can use in manufacturing, some ‘green crap’ is worth pursuing. Coal burnt in power stations without filters of any kind is chucking a lot of real crap into the air -unnecessarily. We can’t really protect ourselves from things we don’t know but we can say ‘hang on a minute is that a smart thing to do?’ to known hazards.

      Until the global warming brigade took over environmental issues we dealt with real threats like pollution. Remember that? Well if you want an idea of what an absence of green crap can do, then visit Mongolia and go to a place where they mine rare earth metals, fabricate and refine them. Messrs Clegg, Cameron and Milliband should really be forced to live there for a week. This is the place that the Chinese use to supply the aforementioned ‘goody two shoes’ with the Neodymium they need for the magnets in their ‘green crap’ windmills, on average about 2 tons for each big one.
      It is hell on earth for those that live there.
      A lake approx 7 miles by 5 made up of effluent from the fabrication and refining, highly toxic and radioactive to boot, has formed in a depression near the plants. They just pump the crap out without regard for disposal and effect. The incidence of the killer pancreatic cancer is massively higher there, as are respiratory disorders.

      Now if you want to deregulate our country and go back to Dickensian industrial Britain then you are a fool of the first water.

      • Roger Helmer MEP says:

        For the thousandth time: UKIP recognises the problems of emissions from coal-fired power stations of SOx, NOx, particulates and so on. But these problems can be mitigated. We are not concerned about CO2, but that doesn’t mean we offer a licence to pollute.

      • Me_Again says:

        Why for the thousanth time? I never said UKIP did or did not do anything. What I was attempting to do was to point out that ‘green crap’ is just another generalisation and includes sensible environmental concerns as well.

        I will mention UKIP in this post, to simply say that they should make it clearer that they do not oppose all environmental concerns and that being a non polluter is a good thing -always.
        Sadly, like many subjects, there seems to be an instant dichotomy, you are either n eco-fascist or an anti-green. Well there are more than the two options and I refuse to sit in either convenient pigeon hole.

  12. Richard111 says:

    May I suggest a good hard look at THORIUM? After all, the technology has been available for some sixty years.

    • omanuel says:


      Before any more nuclear reactors are designed, built, and operated . . .

      Nuclear sciences must be corrected by

      1. Acknowledging neutron repulsion as the driving force of fission

      2. Replacing von Weizsacker’s flawed “nuclear binding energy” in textbooks with Lord Aston’s rigorously valid “nuclear packing fraction.”

      I.e., in deceiving the public about neutron repulsion we destroyed the integrity of the basic science needed to safely harvest nuclear energy.


  13. Colin Kay says:

    start opening coal mines again and you`ll get all those lefties fighting it just like they fought to stop pit closures 30 years ago!

  14. Mike Stallard says:

    Are you sure that the tidal lagoon is not a clever plan to make the rivers flow downhill? Certainly this was the plan on the Somerset Levels where there were two alternatives offered by the Green Lobby: make the rivers flow uphill or lower the sea level. By introducing a wash at the mouth of the river, the sea level is reduced and the river can flow down into it.

    I live in the Fens and am getting seriously worried by this kind of statement. I do not want the Wash to return to all the land north of Wisbech. I do not want to see the return of Whittlesea Mere where I live.
    And these dangerous Green loonies, who all live in safe Universities, are scientists. So they know all about hydrology even how to spell it. And some of them wear specs too. Just like real geeks!

    • Me_Again says:

      I can empathise Mike, being Boston born myself and still living in Lincolnshire. For ordinary estuaries the idea of having areas to soak up high and extra high tides is I believe sensible. When I say ordinary I mean like the Humber or any single output estuary which narrows rapidly. The Wash is a whole kettle of fish different with 5 rivers [might be 4 I can’t recall all the names] draining into the one huge area. I cannot see really how in such an open estuary how deliberate flooding will actually help as a policy. There’s plenty of marsh still on the seaward side of the dykes but if anyone wanted to volunteer to re-flood/return to marsh any place they’d need to do it through a sluice wouldn’t they?
      Don’t tar all those with an interest in the environment and protecting it with the epithet ‘loony’. Sensible and reasonable concern over your environment is just that.
      To condemn all environmental efforts is to paint yourself as a loony since who’d want to live in with the pigs?

      • Roger Helmer MEP says:

        See my up-coming blog on James Lovelock. He may be an environmentalist, but he recognises the benefits of nuclear power, shale gas and GMOs for the environment.

  15. This form tidal lagoon would never get off the ground, as it would only get the same amount of subsidy as offshore wind. That is 2.0 Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) per megawatt hour, or £84 at current rates. It is about £140 Mwh once the revenue is added in.
    With a 47MW average output, the scheme will expect to generate 412000 Mwh of electricity, giving £57.7m in revenue, or a 7% return on £800m before operating costs. Pretty marginal. It operates at just under 20% of name plate capacity
    An offshore windfarm costing £5000 kw would generate gross returns of more than 3 times this. So even with maintenance there are potentially still large and safe returns.
    For those who believe in our lovely dash for renewables, I have calculated the contribution to our targets if this scheme went ahead.
    412000 Mwh of renewables would “save” (using RenewablesUK definition) 0.177 million tonnes of CO2 per annum, equivalent to 0.02% of the UK’s 1990 emissions baseline. By Stern’s $85 t/CO2 social cost of carbon (about the most extreme available) this prevents around £9m of future climate change costs.This is compared to the marginal cost of £34.6m (£84*412000). You do not have to be a tad sceptical of global warming to see the UK’s policy is grossly net harmful. But policy harm is not considered in the Climate Change Act 2008.
    Calculation basis can be found below.

  16. omanuel says:


    Professor P. K. Kuroda died in 2001
    Neutron repulsion was reported as the source of energy in atomic rest masses in journals of nuclear and space sciences in 2001:

    1. “The Sun’s origin, composition and source of energy”, 1041, 32nd Lunar and Planetary Science Conf.,
    Houston, TX, March 12-16, 2001.

    Click to access lpsc.prn.pdf

    2. “Attraction & repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy,” J. Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001).

    Click to access jfeinterbetnuc.pdf

    3. “Paul K. Kuroda,” Meteoritics & Planetary Sci 36, 1409-1410 (2001).

    Click to access KurodaWriteupMeteoritic.pdf

    4. “Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda: 1917-2001,″ Geochemical Journal 35, 211-212 (2001)

    Click to access KurodasWriteupGeochem.pdf

    5. “My Early Days at the Imperial University of Tokyo,” Postmortem publication of autobiography of the late Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda:

    Click to access PKKAutobiography.pdf

    6. ”Why the Model of a Hydrogen-Filled Sun Is Obsolete, “ Paper presented at the 199th Annual AAS meeting (January 7, 2002). http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410569.pdf

    7. “Nuclear systematics: III. The source of solar luminosity,” J. Radioanalytical & Nuclear Chemistry 252, 3-7 (2002)

    8. “Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source”, J. Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2001).

  17. omanuel says:

    Almost immediately after Chapter 2 of my autobiography confronted the scientific community with nine pages of precise experimental data that falsify their standard models, . . .

    Experts changed their opinion about stellar energy and diplomatically claimed they already knew the truth 40 years ago.


  18. Tidal barriers I agree have intermittency issues although they are at least predictable compared to wind and solar. The use of wide area tidal flow turbines however, offers the possibility of both being predictable and being capable of providing some degree of baseload power, over a wide enough sea area.

    I think it is worthwhile including discussions of such other renewables in detail, if only to rule then out with carefully agued logic as perhaps unceconomic or impractical. This will answer those critics of UKIP who accuse us of entirely ignoring any possibility of ‘renewable energy’. This theme is pursued here. http://ccact2008.wordpress.com/best-renewables/

  19. prkralex says:

    The Swansea Bay tidal lagoon project in the UK and the MeyGen tidal array project in Scotland stand out among the few large-scale tidal power projects currently under development. Here a tidal generator converts the energy of tidal flows into electricity. Greater tidal variation and higher tidal current velocities can dramatically increase the potential of a site for tidal electricity generation. I think this is something very interesting to look for.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s