According to a June 6, 2007 press release by Marine Current Turbines Ltd (MCT), the installation of its 1.2 MW SeaGen commercial tidal energy system will commence during the week of August 20th in Northern Ireland’s Strangford Lough. SeaGen will be the world’s largest tidal current device and will generate clean and sustainable electricity for approximately 1000 homes. Being a full size prototype, no scale up will be required for future commercial installations.
SeaGen consists of twin axial flow rotors, each of 16m diameter driving a generator via a gearbox much like a hydro-electric turbine or a wind turbine. The twin power units of each system are mounted on wing-like extensions either side of a tubular steel monopile 3m in diameter which is set into a hole drilled into the seabed. SeaGen will generate electricity from the flow in both directions.
On June 21 MCT annnounced that it had secured £7.5 million ($15 million) in funding from investment and savings bank Triodos Bank, along with new money from hedge fund AM2 (Bermuda) Ltd and some existing shareholders, will support the SeaGen tidal energy project and facilitate the company’s corporate ambitions and future project developments in UK and international waters.
The SeaGen demonstrator has been developed on the basis of SeaFlow, a 300kW experimental test system installed in 2003 off the north Devon coast, (previous post). It has taken the subsequent four years for Marine Current Turbines to design and build SeaGen and secure the necessary environmental and planning consents.
A jack-up barge is planning to mobilise from Belfast’s Harland & Wolf shipyard, where SeaGen is already complete and waiting, to Strangford Lough on August 20th. It is expected that the drilling of the single pile into the seabed and the installation of the twin-turbine device will take 14 days, with commissioning and power generation to the local grid shortly afterwards. sector.
Martin Wright, Managing Director of Marine Current Turbines said: “SeaGen’s installation is a very significant milestone for both Marine Current Turbines and the emerging marine energy. Following from our previous experience with SeaFlow ... we are confident that SeaGen will show that tidal energy can be truly competitive with other forms of power generation. Decentralised tidal current energy is fundamentally predictable and sustainable. It is also environmentally benign.
We will build on the success of SeaGen to develop a commercial tidal farm, of up to 10MW in UK waters, within the next three years. With the right funding and regulatory framework, we believe we can realistically achieve up to 500MW of tidal capacity by 2015 based on this new SeaGen technology.”
The basic requirements for cost-effective power generation from tidal streams using MCT's technology are a mean spring peak velocity exceeding about 2.25 to 2.5m/s (4.5 to 5 knots) with a depth of water of 20 to 30m - the red spots on the map (left) show some of the locations meeting these criteria around the UK and northern France.
They should put a wind turbine on top of that.
Posted by: The Anonymous Poster | June 27, 2007 at 10:43 AM
I'm sure there's actually a good reason, so could someone explain to me why tidal and offshore windturbines are never put together? Is it because tidal needs to be in more shallow water where offshore wind is seen as an eyesore? Is it because the power/voltage conversions are done on shore, so mixing the tidal and wind outputs causes a problem? It just seems that if you're going to plant something into the ocean bed (expensive) and run power cables to shore (expensive) that dropping tidal props on an existing wind turbine is a no-brainer. Clearly I'm incorrect. Someone please explain...
Posted by: KZ | June 27, 2007 at 01:14 PM
Any projections on costs per kw of delivered baseline power?
Posted by: George Bruce | June 27, 2007 at 03:17 PM
No, they should put a wind turbine AND a solid oxide fuel cell on top of it. DRX would be in hog heaven with that configuration.
Posted by: Jules | June 27, 2007 at 05:22 PM
I think adding wind makes sense, but this is a prototype of the tidal generator.
If it's successful, then they can think about making deals with wind turbine companies to package the two together.
Posted by: greg woulf | June 27, 2007 at 07:01 PM
There are no good reasons to put thing in the ocean.
Putting a wind mill on top would only compound the environmental insult.
I am skeptical of the manufacture claims that it is clean and sustainable. The reason many renewable energy developers do not discuss environmental impact in quantitative terms is that the environmentalist would draw the same conclusion.
Posted by: Kit P. | June 27, 2007 at 07:31 PM
Very interesting technology; are there similar tidal generators in USA? It should be an unlimited source of energy.
Posted by: nath | June 27, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Nath, I can not think of any place in the US that would have that good of tidal resources. However, several wave renewable energy projects are in the works. This technology is not very sustainable. The ocean is a very unforgiving place to put a power plant. Land lubbers dream on.
Posted by: Kit P. | June 28, 2007 at 04:29 PM
"No, they should put a wind turbine AND a solid oxide fuel cell on top of it. DRX would be in hog heaven with that configuration".
That SOFC could run on the local marine wildlife that's shredded in the blades of the tidal generator. Lots of BTU's in fish oil.(The blades would have to run much faster though)
Solid Oxide Fish Cell.
Off course, Doc X won't be pleased anymore...
Posted by: Calamity | June 29, 2007 at 11:25 AM
I posted a comment about this on treehugger where I sort of indirectly asked Jim to post this on this site so we could have some good discussion.
That said I'm quite disappointed with the discussion so far.
Posted by: Lenny | June 29, 2007 at 12:01 PM
I posted a comment about this on treehugger where I sort of indirectly asked Jim to post this on this site so we could have some good discussion.
That said I'm quite disappointed with the discussion so far.
Posted by: Lenny | June 29, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Most tidal energy schemes require massive concrete constructions to trap the water, which increases upfront capital costs so much that it really becomes a non-starter.
This modular design changes that, which might make it more widespread instead of remaining a rare curiosity. Tidal energy has a lot of potential and is very easy to predict over longer periods of time (making it more easy to integrate with baseload especially in conjunction with wave power).
Water usually doesn't flow as quickly as the wind can blow but makes up for it by being much denser. Durability is an issue but not impossible to solve, it's more likely to be an engineering challenge.
Posted by: Calamity | June 30, 2007 at 08:15 AM
"Solid Oxide Fish Cell"
That's a good one. It certainly does conjure up some interesting mental images...
Posted by: Jules | June 30, 2007 at 04:30 PM
I'm thinking might it be possible with enough of these machines in a certain area (say Scotland as they seem to have good tide resource) would it be possible in times of spring tide to turn all else off for 2 days. That would be perfect if it's possible.
Posted by: Lenny | June 30, 2007 at 08:12 PM
"A number of possible sites have been identified in Scotland. The Pentland Firth has been described as the Saudi Arabia of the world's future tidal industry, which is capable of providing up to 10% of the UK's energy demand alone. Scottish Enterprise has estimated that 34% of the UK's electricity demand could be generated by tidal currents."
http://www.renewscotland.org/sea/tidal.html
"Professor Bryden, of the Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, will present findings of research at the World Renewable Energy Congress in the US... He said: "If you go above the guidelines that we are suggesting then you would produce a local slowing of the tidal flow which could have an influence on marine life - sea birds, marine mammals, fish - we don't at this stage know how severe that impact would be."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3580484.stm
Sounds like the usual story: lots of potential and lots of details to work out.
Posted by: averagejoe | June 30, 2007 at 10:57 PM
"I can not think of any place in the US that would have that good of tidal resources"
Unlimited is exaggerated. According to the EERE:
"Some of the oldest ocean energy technologies use tidal power. All coastal areas consistently experience two high and two low tides over a period of slightly greater than 24 hours. For those tidal differences to be harnessed into electricity, the difference between high and low tides must be at least five meters, or more than 16 feet. There are only about 40 sites on the Earth with tidal ranges of this magnitude".
But also:
"Currently, there are no tidal power plants in the United States. However, conditions are good for tidal power generation in both the Pacific Northwest and the Atlantic Northeast regions of the country".
And:
"Tidal power plants that dam estuaries can impede sea life migration, and silt build-ups behind such facilities can impact local ecosystems. Tidal fences may also disturb sea life migration. Newly developed tidal turbines may prove ultimately to be the least environmentally damaging of the tidal power technologies because they don't block migratory paths".
If the tidal turbines are carefully constructed and site selection is done with the environment in mind, the impacts may be kept to a minimum. And the blades run rather slow, so they won't damage the local fauna as much as I was joking about earlier. There goes that Solid Oxide Fish Cell idea...
Posted by: Calamity | July 01, 2007 at 04:44 AM
Well actually algae could be collected and converted to biogas for a seabourne solid oxide fuel cell/turbine, hehehey. This removes extra nitrogen from fertilizer run off from manure, sewers, and chemical farming. It would work at the mouth of rivers especially.
A wind powered version could even suck up sediment and weeds from choking and dying lakes and rivers. the sediment cooked down in biodigestors to remove contaminants like mercury and the GE PCBs in the hudson river.
I would prefer that floating wind turbines be mounted on wave generating platforms of the toroidal design. the waves break over the edge of the donut and flow down through the donut hole powering turbine blades. A 1500 foot diameter unit should produce around 20 megwatts in a good location.
If ocean currents or tidal currents can be harvested in the area an underwater turbine could extend from the bottom of the platform.
The underwater, wind, and wave power inputs could all power a generator set through a flywheel to smooth the power flow. One generator set with three inputs floating offshore out of sight and mind of NIMBYs, protecting coastal fisheries from industrial 40 mile net fishing.
A line of these every mile or so along our coasts would power the whole country. Vote for me for energy sectretary under the Hillary administration! Hehehey.
Posted by: amazingdrx | July 01, 2007 at 08:23 AM
Those algae powered SOFC's wouldn't produce much power though. You'd need fairly high concentrations of algae in the water otherwise you might end up using more energy for the pumps than the SOFC puts out.
(EROI <1)
Posted by: Calamity | July 02, 2007 at 05:18 AM
Well the river current carrying the algae overgrowth from fertilizer run off would power the filtration nicely. Ocean and tidal currents could serve this purpose as well.
Look at all the pollution related red tide poisoning going on now. A cure is needed lest we lose all our fisheries to these plagues. Added to energy platforms that collect energy from wave, wind, and currents, these filtration systems would pay their way nicely.
But why not mount oyster farms along the wave collection surfaces as well? they are mounted on docks and breakwaters now and are helping replace the jobs lost in the fishing industry from overfishing and pollution. It's a very valuable seafood product that could pay the bills. And farming them further out at sea would provide a much cleaner, safer food source.
Maybe the fishermen objecting to the Cape wind project, for instance, would see it in a more favorable light if they were allowed to farm oysters on floating facilities off the wind tower locations?
Posted by: amazingdrx | July 02, 2007 at 08:23 AM
It sounds very promising for dealing with fertiliser runoff. But what will happen to all that nitrogen in the SOFC? Not turned into NOx I hope...
Posted by: Calamity | July 02, 2007 at 01:16 PM
Ahh.. no the nitrogen goes into the fertilizer. The biogas is methane. No nitrogen in it.
The cO2 emitted by the fuel cell is perfect for enhancing algae growth in solar collectors to produce biofuel.
Algae grown in tanks where concentrating collectors channel the light down into the tanks would seem to solve the cost problem with algae biodiesel production. Pyrolisis using the waste heat of the fuel cell is a good way to extract and refine the oil for biodiesel, then the rest of the algae is tuirned into charcoal soil amendment to act as a carbon sink.
That makes up the carbon debt for using the biodiesel to power backup generation fuel cells for plugin electric vehicles.
Posted by: amazingdrx | July 02, 2007 at 08:02 PM
I've read about perpetual wave motion and turbine powered electricity and find it fascinating. The perpetual currents of the oceans could potentially solve all the world's energy needs - just waiting for it to become mainstream - I even did a note about it on my blog at http://www.creativeexpression.org/wordpress
What does it take for this type of technology to make it into the mainstream or popular media? Also very interested in bio-fuels that come from waste vs. illogical use of corn (can't fathom the efficiencies there - just the special interests).
Posted by: Chris | July 06, 2007 at 04:16 PM
The first commercial scale turbine is being installed next weekend (5 April 2008).
A small marine turbine farm is already scheduled to be built using a number of these devices.
This isn't actually a prototype as such, the prototype was 4 times smaller and performed better than expected for some 3 years.
Posted by: The Ville | March 23, 2008 at 07:20 AM
Check out my new website to learn about the basics of tidal power and development in the US!
www.tidalpowerUS.com
Posted by: Libby Murphy | September 03, 2008 at 07:27 PM
this is going to be so good to see. i am glad they are doing this.
Posted by: oilfield equipment | April 08, 2009 at 04:41 PM
Yes, you are right.
....................................... Vertical Axis Wind Turbine (VAWT)
JL CarbonFree Energy Co., Ltd http://www.carbonfreeenergy.cn http://carbonfreeenergy.en.alibaba.com
Posted by: www.carbonfreeenergy.cn | June 02, 2009 at 09:08 PM
"Well actually algae could be collected and converted to biogas for a seabourne solid oxide fuel cell/turbine, hehehey."
This is actually a valid point and there have been several conclusive studies done on this over the past 18 months. However, at the moment the efficacy of this type of alternative source is limited by the cost of conversion, and the archaic conversion methods being discussed and tested.
With more funding, well as always, who knows but it would certainly help.
Posted by: Generators For Home Generators | March 24, 2010 at 06:24 PM
It was highly contagious.
--It came on very suddenly and killed very quickly. It was said that
an infected person could be "dancing at nine o'clock and dead by
eleven."
--It was, as the name suggets, characterized by a high fever and sweating.
--It wasn't the plague, and it wasn't smallpox.
Posted by: differences between men and women | April 21, 2010 at 10:41 AM
This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job, indeed.
Posted by: portable diesel Generator | July 16, 2010 at 02:26 PM
tidal power is one of the best way to controll pollution less electric power generation.
Posted by: priya | September 15, 2010 at 07:20 AM
HI dear sir wonderfull explantion.
Posted by: THIYAGARAJAN | September 25, 2010 at 06:55 AM
I have had a look a the SeaGen website. http://www.seageneration.co.uk/ and I must say that it is a bit disappointing they haven't shown what the progress has been since they installed this some 3 years ago. You can get downloads with all the claims, but seing as they have three years experince, you would think they would discuss the impact their technology has had.
Posted by: Generators For Home Use | January 12, 2011 at 04:21 AM
Well I am not at all well versed with the pros and cons of this environmentally speaking but the idea of harnessing this sort of power does seem an attractive one - its never going to run out.
Posted by: Postpartum Girdle | September 04, 2011 at 07:08 AM
I am skeptical of the manufacture claims that it is clean and sustainable. The reason many renewable energy developers do not discuss environmental impact in quantitative terms is that the environmentalist would draw the same conclusion.
Posted by: r4 card | October 13, 2011 at 11:06 AM