Tidal Turbines Help Light Up Manhattan

Comments

• Good news, bad news theBike45 on 04/23/2007 at 8:54 AM

  Posts: 14 Avg Rating:

  The good news is that this technology is far superior to unreliable wind power in being redictable and reliable. The bad news is that there just isn't very much tidal energy that can be tapped in the U.S. a point ignored by the cheerleading article. Elsewhere I learned that very few U.S. locations allow for significant tidal energy extraction, and the amounts extracted aren't that great. As I recall, New York has the best situation and yet will only yield around 10 megawatts of power. I'd guess that city needs something like 20,000 plus megawatts during peak demand. More than a drop in the bucket, but also more than 30 $2 million plus wind turbines can produce and more than 200 wind turbines can produce during peak demand periods. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: Good news, bad news kitk on 04/23/2007 at 2:46 PM

    Posts: 55 Avg Rating:

    You are right, there is only limited energy to be had from tides in most places. Some, sure, will be able to harvest much more; and slow river currents can offer energy too. But 35Kw for New York City?! It is another case of dumping a lot of money and tech to make some people feel good. We could impoverish ourselves, in fact, the entire planet, with such projects to make the Planeteers happy, and still be out of energy. I'd rather the effort and resources go to places that can yield significant results. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • 	Re: Good news, bad news Tysto on 04/23/2007 at 8:55 PM
      Posts: 16 Avg Rating:	Each turbine is 35 kW. The article says 100 of them are planned. That's 3.5 megawatts. That's far shy of a 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant, but it's still significant for renewable, non-polluting power. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Conservation is the solution dmm on 04/23/2007 at 3:09 PM

  Posts: 149 Avg Rating:

  I am not convinced that global warming is primarily anthropogenic.  Plus, we have a high family income, and most people on this board would describe me as a radical right-wing religious conservative.  HOWEVER:  My family does not eat lots of meat.  I live only 3 miles from work.  Our house is 40+ years old, rather than a new McMansion.  We keep our house cool in winter and warm in summer.  We have one reasonably-sized TV, and mostly fluorescent lights.  We have no dog or cat.  We do not fertilize or water our lawn, and we mulch rather than bag the clippings.  We recycle as much as possible.  We rarely buy new clothing.  Our cars are used, are inexpensive models, and get washed once a year. Reduce, reuse, recycle.  Give a hoot, don't pollute.  Save the rainforest.  Don't let species go extinct.  Ranger Rick and friends were giving us good sensible advice LONG before the supposed global warming crisis.  My advice is: Forget about greenhouse gasses.  Simply consume less and spend less money.  By doing so, you will naturally reduce your environmental footprint. My policy recommendations (for the U.S.): 1. Permanently raise taxes on energy while raising personal exemptions on income tax to remain revenue-neutral and not unduly burden the poor.  The free market will then act to reduce national energy use. 2. Spend more money on urban infrastructure to encourage people and businesses to stay close together.  Save the countryside for farmers and wildlife. 3. Encourage people to save rather than consume.  Do not tax interest income below a generous amount.  Do not take savings into account when doling out college financial aid, Medicaid, etc.  Why should wastrels who mess up the environment get MORE gov't help while eco-friendly savers get LESS? 4. Commit to a steady long-term program of research on energy saving and clean(er) energy science and technology.  Attempting quick fixes and Manhattan projects will almost always backfire.  [Manhattan projects!  Get it?] Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Efficiency is a sexier word for conservation? nekote on 04/24/2007 at 9:57 AM

    Posts: 122 Avg Rating:

    2¢ Efficiency versus Conservation. Conservation has a connotation of going / doing / using less "stuff" - of saving / not spending. Efficiency has a connotation of going / doing the same, while using fewer / less resources. Both are usually about less resource consumption. A whole lot more people embrace being efficient with their usage of water, energy, carbon, ... ? Versus shunning conservation. Please consider using the word efficiency, rather than conservation. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Sashimi sbkadar on 04/23/2007 at 10:32 PM
  Posts: 5 Avg Rating:	Since we are so concerned with the windmills filleting birds are we equally concerned with these turbines turning what fish are left in the Hudson into sashimi? Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: Tidal Power tn on 04/24/2007 at 9:43 AM

    Posts: 1 Avg Rating:

    Check the Open Hydro link. Open Hydro acquired Florida Hydro a year or so ago. Florida Hydro (as well as Clean Current) has a brilliant design to simplify turbine/generator design and operation to avoid fish kill and Florida Hydro was investigating the massive Florida Current as a an energy source. The Florida Current could provide all the electricity needs for the Southeastern United States with power left over to produce hydrogen. This could happen 24 hours per day  every day of the year (with an extra kick the Florida Current provides in summer just in time for the A/C season). All happening deep underwater, out of sight and secure. Resources are not, they become. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Tidal lifting power architectrb on 04/25/2007 at 2:55 PM
  Posts: 2 Avg Rating:	tides in NY Harbor rise and fall 6' twice a day - 25'+/- total each day; they lift the biggest ships; why not also use that lifitng power?  It does not depend on wind or sun; no fish problem; never stops because it  is powered by the moon and sun; offer  $10MM prize for most efficient generator - maybe compressed air? Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: Tidal lifting power schmuzl on 09/26/2008 at 6:13 PM
    Posts: 1	You have it exactly right, It is quit simple, Lift a weight and let is fall at a governed rate lift many weights and let them fall as they raise they can generate power and as they fall they can do the same.. Schmuzl  Jim Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Why limit yourself to the current? zig158 on 04/26/2007 at 4:04 AM

  Posts: 64 Avg Rating:

  There are some companies working on what you’re talking about. It is just a buoy with a liner generator that is anchored to the bottom with a cable. It generates electricity when it rises and falls with the waves. These seem like the most practical way of collecting energy from the ocean because they are small simple, and relatively low tech. No Multi million dollar project just to get 35KW. They are getting closer to cost effective, in a few years they may look good. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: Why limit yourself to the current? Rubingrinnola on 04/30/2007 at 9:45 AM

    Posts: 2 Avg Rating:

    There was an experamental stsyem like this I believe on the south coast of France a few years ago. The problem is that ocean waves are not predictable or stable. So the power output is variable just like in wind generation. I think what does need to be explored however is power generation using these same system but placed in rivers not just tidal areas. Since river currents are also relatively stable and fast moving, it seems to me that they could work there as well. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Tide powered Turbines skiyryder on 05/01/2007 at 10:12 AM
  Posts: 1 Avg Rating:	Can a smaller version be made for US rivers?  My house on the Cape Fear river could be powered by one of these easily.  Of course the environmental Police groups would have a cow.  Renewable energy has to become the new way to power the country, and this looks like an outstanding way to generate power safely and with a very low up-keep cost. Rate this comment: (Reply)