Funds Insider - Opening the door to funds

Welcome to the Citywire Funds Insider Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error
Wave and tide technology
+ Reply to discussion
Options
Lex Further
Posted: 20 June 2023 20:16:11(UTC)
#31

Joined: 18/09/2021(UTC)
Posts: 181
Never heard of it before. But very happy to read that technology are improving day by day. Also discovered foe myself PalmPay reviews here https://palmpay.pissedconsumer.com/review.htmland i think it will be great for my future business. Still don't understand completely how does everything work, but hope to figure that out these days.
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
lenahan
Posted: 08 August 2023 22:53:54(UTC)
#32

Joined: 07/12/2017(UTC)
Posts: 242
Marine Power Systems now raising new equity investment for anyone interested:

https://www.crowdcube.co...n=Marine_Power_Systems_(MPS)%3Aeisupdate&utm_term=campaign_referral_link
Back to top Quote
SF100
Posted: 05 September 2023 12:14:43(UTC)
#33

Joined: 08/02/2020(UTC)
Posts: 2,259

Thanks: 4162 times
Was thanked: 3073 time(s) in 1373 post(s)
Interesting article on the economical developments in the highlands & islands of Scotland, perhaps not overly relevant to Wave and Tidal energy, but associated.
Apologies in advance to the BBC haters.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/ne...otland-business-66695143
Back to top Quote
1 user thanked SF100 for this post.
ANDREW FOSTER on 05/09/2023(UTC)
Tim D
Posted: 19 January 2024 10:11:47(UTC)
#34

Joined: 07/06/2017(UTC)
Posts: 8,883

Thanks: 33209 times
Was thanked: 24362 time(s) in 7229 post(s)
Nice piece on the MeyGen tidal turbines project up in Orkney:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67639476
Also covers the ongoing struggle to get anywhere with wave power.
Back to top Quote
1 user thanked Tim D for this post.
SF100 on 19/01/2024(UTC)
ANDREW FOSTER
Posted: 19 January 2024 10:26:30(UTC)
#35

Joined: 23/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8,125

Thanks: 11371 times
Was thanked: 18235 time(s) in 5981 post(s)
Tim D;293224 wrote:
Nice piece on the MeyGen tidal turbines project up in Orkney:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67639476
Also covers the ongoing struggle to get anywhere with wave power.


The issue with waves (as opposed to tidal) is that they simple don't contain much energy to be harvested.

Equipment to do it has to be able to cope with salt water corrosion and serious storms that can damage both the kit and the flexible cable needed to extract the power.

The cost vs energy equation is inferior to tidal and way inferior to wind. Its the runt of the litter and likely going nowhere.
Back to top Quote
1 user thanked ANDREW FOSTER for this post.
Tim D on 19/01/2024(UTC)
SF100
Posted: 19 January 2024 13:21:19(UTC)
#36

Joined: 08/02/2020(UTC)
Posts: 2,259

Thanks: 4162 times
Was thanked: 3073 time(s) in 1373 post(s)
ANDREW FOSTER;293227 wrote:
1. The issue with waves (as opposed to tidal) is that they simple don't contain much energy to be harvested.

2. Equipment to do it has to be able to cope with salt water corrosion and serious storms that can damage both the kit and the flexible cable needed to extract the power.

3. The cost vs energy equation is inferior to tidal and way inferior to wind. Its the runt of the litter and likely going nowhere.

1. The waves don't need to be 10ft tall; there are literally millions of other 'waves' per annum, all creating relative movement, continuously, usually. But aunt mildred standing on the pier wouldn't call those 'waves'

2. Like ships....save for the cable

3. Presume you mean onshore wind rather than offshore, otherwise see your point 2

Other than that I have no opinion
Back to top Quote
ANDREW FOSTER
Posted: 19 January 2024 14:04:30(UTC)
#37

Joined: 23/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8,125

Thanks: 11371 times
Was thanked: 18235 time(s) in 5981 post(s)
SF100;293253 wrote:
ANDREW FOSTER;293227 wrote:
1. The issue with waves (as opposed to tidal) is that they simple don't contain much energy to be harvested.

2. Equipment to do it has to be able to cope with salt water corrosion and serious storms that can damage both the kit and the flexible cable needed to extract the power.

3. The cost vs energy equation is inferior to tidal and way inferior to wind. Its the runt of the litter and likely going nowhere.

1. The waves don't need to be 10ft tall; there are literally millions of other 'waves' per annum, all creating relative movement, continuously, usually. But aunt mildred standing on the pier wouldn't call those 'waves'

2. Like ships....save for the cable

3. Presume you mean onshore wind rather than offshore, otherwise see your point 2

Other than that I have no opinion


No it's not like ships... The y can bob up and down in a storm, or to an extent avoid them.

Wave power machinery is usually tethered to the sea bed and had to withstand huge stresses to a mechanism designed to absorb wave energy (not like ships designed to avoid it)

Sure you can engineer anything out, but that adds cost. And that goes back to my point that the cost/benefit is worse than for a simple land based wind system.

Probably worse too than an offshore wind system but Id be guessing on that.
Back to top Quote
1 user thanked ANDREW FOSTER for this post.
SF100 on 19/01/2024(UTC)
SF100
Posted: 19 January 2024 15:07:44(UTC)
#38

Joined: 08/02/2020(UTC)
Posts: 2,259

Thanks: 4162 times
Was thanked: 3073 time(s) in 1373 post(s)
ANDREW FOSTER;293260 wrote:
SF100;293253 wrote:
ANDREW FOSTER;293227 wrote:
1. The issue with waves (as opposed to tidal) is that they simple don't contain much energy to be harvested.

2. Equipment to do it has to be able to cope with salt water corrosion and serious storms that can damage both the kit and the flexible cable needed to extract the power.

3. The cost vs energy equation is inferior to tidal and way inferior to wind. Its the runt of the litter and likely going nowhere.

1. The waves don't need to be 10ft tall; there are literally millions of other 'waves' per annum, all creating relative movement, continuously, usually. But aunt mildred standing on the pier wouldn't call those 'waves'

2. Like ships....save for the cable

3. Presume you mean onshore wind rather than offshore, otherwise see your point 2

Other than that I have no opinion


No it's not like ships... The y can bob up and down in a storm, or to an extent avoid them.

Wave power machinery is usually tethered to the sea bed and had to withstand huge stresses to a mechanism designed to absorb wave energy (not like ships designed to avoid it)

Sure you can engineer anything out, but that adds cost. And that goes back to my point that the cost/benefit is worse than for a simple land based wind system.

Probably worse too than an offshore wind system but Id be guessing on that.
is that one of those new AI designs; a-storm-AND-gravity-avoiding-ship :)

Most, probably all, of your points are dealt with via offshore wind turbines; I'm sure the main players gave those great thought beforehand continuing to deploy.

I personally believe we need a mixture of sources; diversification if you will.

The greens mightn't like the stuff in the sea that causes marine life distress though, noise, moving parts etc
eg there is a beluga whale at Shetland at present
Back to top Quote
ANDREW FOSTER
Posted: 19 January 2024 15:35:34(UTC)
#39

Joined: 23/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8,125

Thanks: 11371 times
Was thanked: 18235 time(s) in 5981 post(s)
SF100;293263 wrote:


I personally believe we need a mixture of sources; diversification if you will.

The greens mightn't like the stuff in the sea that causes marine life distress though, noise, moving parts etc
eg there is a beluga whale at Shetland at present


I'd say we need to separate the wheat from the chaff. Look at what works and what doesn't. Stop wasting money on the white elephants and go big on the things that deliver.

Wheat:-

Solar
Wind
Hydro
Micro Generation
Biomass

Chaff:-

Waves
Hydrogen
Fusion
Carbon Capture
Tidal

Too much cash is spaffed away trying to make the no hopers function because someone likes spending grant money and politicians aren't engineers.
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
jonathan rowe
Posted: 19 January 2024 16:31:56(UTC)
#40

Joined: 30/03/2018(UTC)
Posts: 176
ANDREW FOSTER;293267 wrote:
SF100;293263 wrote:


I personally believe we need a mixture of sources; diversification if you will.

The greens mightn't like the stuff in the sea that causes marine life distress though, noise, moving parts etc
eg there is a beluga whale at Shetland at present


I'd say we need to separate the wheat from the chaff. Look at what works and what doesn't. Stop wasting money on the white elephants and go big on the things that deliver.

Wheat:-

Solar
Wind
Hydro
Micro Generation
Biomass

Chaff:-

Waves
Hydrogen
Fusion
Carbon Capture
Tidal

Too much cash is spaffed away trying to make the no hopers function because someone likes spending grant money and politicians aren't engineers.


I agree, investment wise stick to the wheat

But, that doesn't mean the state shouldn't be investing in research and prototypes and perhaps even pump-priming demand for tech when it's demonstrably a benefit but too expensive (ie. domestic solar scheme, green subsidy, CFD bids for renewable projects)
Back to top Quote
5 Pages«Previous page2345Next page
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets