Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Plugging in the giant generator that is our seas

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
01 November 2007
WHIPPED up white and spitting salty spray, the waves that crash against our coastline are charged with hidden energy. Driven by winds and currents across thousands of miles of the Atlantic, they pound beaches and cliffs with enough raw power per foot for 100 homes.
This is a giant generator waiting to be tapped, one rivalled only by Chile and Australia for its potential to produce more than three times our annual power requirements. The question is: how do we turn it on? And what will be the environmental cost?

Next year, at Billiacroo Bay, near Stromness in the Orkney Islands, a quiet stretch of water facing the open Atlantic, four giant metal "sausages", each 520ft long will be towed 2km offshore, where they will float, quietly harvesting the waves. The "Pelamis" generators, named after a type of sea-snake, bob up and down with the action of the water pushing hydraulic rams into a generator, which, in turn pressurises oil that is used to drive a turbine.

The £25 million wave-power farm will, in time, be the world's largest and is expected to generate 3MW of electricity by 2010, enough to power 3,000 homes on the Orkney Islands.

ScottishPower hopes that by 2020 the farm could expand to produce 600MW a year.

The power company is working with Ocean Power Delivery, the Edinburgh firm that devised the Pelamis, and the European Marine Energy Centre, which is monitoring what is largely an experiment. While the Pelamis is among the most advanced of such projects, it will not be the only generator in the sea.

Earlier this year the Scottish Government, or Executive as it then was, invested £13 million in the development of eight systems designed to generate electricity from the seas. There is genuine hope that Scotland could become the marine renewables capital of the world and grab a major slice of a market potentially worth billions of pounds.

Nicol Stephen, the former deputy first minister, said: "This is as significant for Scotland's future and arguably more significant for the planet's future than the discovery of North Sea oil."

Yet as Neil Kermode, managing director of the European Marine Energy Centre at Stromness, which is trialling three of the systems, explained: "We're at the early stages and we need to discover what systems work best. If you compare us to the aviation industry, we're still at the Wright brothers stage."

While the Pelamis floats on the surface there are also plans to sink into the deep to harvest tidal currents, deemed the most reliable form of marine energy.

In ten years' time if you were to sink down into the deep blue waters of the Pentland Firth, the narrow channel between the mainland and Orkney, Scottish Power hopes you would see a forest of as many as 1,000 sunken "windmills", generators fixed to the sea bed and rising up 30m as they collect energy from the fast-flowing tidal stream.

The company believes as much as 1,000MW could be collected from the Firth and is in partnership with a Norwegian company which has pioneered the generators in Fjords.

Alan Mortimer, head of renewables development at ScottishPower, said: "What is really exciting abut this site is that its completely predictable."

Given the nutrients stirred up by the strong currents and the whales these attract, it could also be classified as a nationally important marine area and there may be concerns about the creation of an obstacle course of sunken steel pillars.

Yet Mr Mortimer believes that with careful negotiation everyone will benefit.

"If it is handled sensibly there should not be too much overlap with ecologically sensitive areas. We think conflict can be avoided," he said.

It is a sentiment shared by Jason Ormiston, chief executive of Scottish Renewables, who said it was important for the industry to continue to conduct research into the effects of new machinery on the environment and wildlife. He said: "We are still a long way from any large-scale implementation, but any wave or tidal farms will be subject to strict scrutiny and environmental impact studies."

Yet applying untested technology means dipping a toe into uncharted waters.

Ian Boyd of the sea mammal research unit at St Andrews University explained: "There is considerable uncertainty about how offshore wind, tide and wave farms might affect marine wildlife, and this presents us with some important challenges and ethical dilemmas.

"Development needs to go hand-in-hand with adaptation of the designs and approaches. It is likely that much marine wildlife will not be affected significantly but some, like marine mammals, could be sensitive to some types of development.

"We need to be prepared to treat these developments as experiments and ready to make the tough decision that some approaches might not work from an environmental perspective."

FROM WAVES TO WATTS

IN THE Western Isles, another means of harnessing wave power is to be trialled.

Npower Renewables wishes to install a giant concrete "Limpet" to an excavated rock face at Barvas, on the coastline west of Stornoway.

The movement of waves is used to push air in and out of a concrete chamber. This air is passed through a turbine to generate electricity. Npower has applied for planning permission and hopes to generate four megawatts a year by the end of 2010.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 01 November 2007 12:20 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Save our Seas
 
1

Meths Rides Again™,

01/11/2007 01:34:03

What about investing in power economy, rather than overly expensive generation schemes??? FOir this money, they could buy every house a limitless supply of energy saving light bulbs, new loft insulation and triple glazing.

2

Mercutio,

Falkirk 01/11/2007 01:50:47

#1 and a partridge in a pear tree.

3

John M,

Melbourne, Australia 01/11/2007 02:37:43

What happens with this floating monster in a decent storm?

Should have gone with a seabed technology like CETO (see http://www.ceto.com.au/home.php) because it's relatively unaffected by storms.

4

Big Nige,

Arizona, USA 01/11/2007 03:24:16

#1, what is with your values? You would spend billions on funding universities (see other article) but 25m on potentially revolutionary energy technology is overly expensive? You're right though that energy efficiency is important but not instead of investing in renewables, it needs to be as well as. And the way to increase energy efficiency is to make consumers pay the true price through capping and taxing, the revenue from which can be invested in things like renewables. What a nice circle.

#3, I think you've hit on something there. You'd better phone them and tell them in case they forgot about that kind of thing.

5

Haleakelaman,

Auld Grey City 01/11/2007 06:37:12

#1
I agree,have you seen the price of energy saving GU10 lamps?
I'm all for harnessing power from wind, waves sun, but when will they be cost effective?

6

Boy Wonder,

01/11/2007 07:21:50

I'm with #3. We need to get in on the ground floor (or seabed!) on this one.

7

Conan,

Moffat 01/11/2007 07:30:07

The easist and most reliable way to 'turn it on' is to build more seawater cooled nuclear power plants.

8

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 01/11/2007 07:33:28

Usually you build a prototype and test it. Then you can put a figure on capital and running costs and say you can generate so many MW at location F and deliver it to G.

Then you've to deal with the energy biz with alot of stranded thinking and running stranded plant into the ground until the lights go out.

I used to think we owned the hydrodams and distribution network (and some public fishing in the rivers), many of us having designed and built them.

For providing this strategic reserve, the Boards had an obligation to connect remote users at fixed rates. That was then.

9

Tweedmouth,

01/11/2007 08:28:49

In 1974 an American called Amory Lovins was sent over to the UK to set up Friends of the Earth. Having done this he went home and became an energy expert - created the Rocky Mountains Institute for Energy. He persuaded the California energy giants that if they GAVE every household energy efficient lightbulbs, fridges and washing machines - they could save money and make more profit because their main 'costs' were generating power. Amazingly they agreed and they did it - they gave away millions of lightbulbs and fridges to all their customers. The result was a huge drop in energy demand and the power companies were able to close two nuclear stations (I recall? - possibly more)
they saved hundreds of millions $ in costs and their profits soared.

We use many times more power than our parents or grandparents but the number of electric gadgets we acquire increases every year. Reduction in demand, decent insulation standards for all new houses and retro-fitting of wall and roof insulation in all existing houses would cancel the need for future generating increases. But it wouldn't be 'sexy' as underwater windmills and there would be no vast increase in grants for industry and university. The windmills are apparently shredding migratory birds in California and underwater windmills will presumably shred fish?

It shouldn't be 'either or'. By all means spend £25 million on a prototype tidal stream windmill; but better to spend $1 billion on demand reduction through better insulation, efficient lightbulbs etc.

10

Apoplectic Insouciant,

01/11/2007 09:06:08

#9
if only there were more folk like you willing to do the sums to evidence that balance and compromise are the way forward. We should not however ignore the potential of engineering our way out of problems , we're good at that, what were useless at is funding the development to capture the profit.

11

,

01/11/2007 09:16:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1104976, Article id was mapped to record!
12

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 01/11/2007 10:39:16

It is refreshing to see a sensible article on renewable energy followed by a largely sensible series of comments.

I particularly agree with #9 Tweedmouth's comments re. Amory Lovins, a very fine and original thinker on energy matters. I remember banging on about him over twenty years ago when the Conservative government was thwarting research into renewable energy.

As for "underwater windmills" (something of an oxymoron surely!) shredding fish: I surmise that because of the much greater density of water compared with air, the energy in the flow is correspondingly more concentrated and the "windmills" therefore do not need to be so large to generate the same amount of energy. Thus, it may be possible to house the turbine in a cylinder with a grid over the entrance to keep out all sea mammals and all but the smallest fish, which latter possibly wouldn't be effected anyway.

13

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 01/11/2007 10:57:09

#1: Meths, You've missed the point completely. No matter how much we economise with (fossil fuel) energy, it is finite and will run out eventually. Are you suggesting that we wait until this happens before we start looking for alternative sources?

Briefly reading through this article it seems that harnessing wave power may be a good idea, hoever you've already got the brain-dead tree huggers finding fault with it.

This kind of thing, combined with nuclear power stations and fuel cells instead of internal combustion engines will mean that we become far less dependant on fossil fuels whilst at the same time retaining our standard of living.

Good idea.

14

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 01/11/2007 11:29:29

#13

Meths may have overstated his case, but it remains true that by far the most cost effective means of "generating" electricity is to use it more efficiently and to not waste it, so that it doesn't need to be generated in the first place.

A program of insulating buildings would also result in more comfortable homes, less prone to damp, and provide employment throughout all communities.

As for your asinine comment about "brain-dead tree huggers", I evidently spoke too soon when I commended the largely sensible series of comments following this article.

15

Meths Rides Again™,

01/11/2007 11:35:07

#14 Slioch, with respect, I've not missed the point at all! I'm not saying don't look at these schemes, but what I am saying is look at the whole picture. Energy is demand-led, so why are we not investing large sums in reducing consumption?
I understand it is a relative thing -£25m for a major engineering project is nothing, but £25m for local 'green' initiatives would be enormous. If we are going to invest in green initiatives, at least spend the money where it will go furthest!

16

Meths Rides Again™,

01/11/2007 11:36:57

sorry that was to #13 High Octane type person..!

17

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 01/11/2007 11:49:56

#14:

I have no problems with using energy in the most efficient way. However, that is not the root of the issue. The issue here is to reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels---there is no other issue.

No matter what energy saving schemes you dream up, the basic problem still remains---that of using up fossil fuels. All you are doing is extending the finite life span of the sources. Unless you change the means of generating power, you are not achieving much.

That is why I support the concept of schemes like this one. There is a potential to harness a lot of energy here. The full implications have not yet been brought to light yet, and neither has the potential. However, in principles it is a good idea.

The reason I mentioned "brain-dead tree huggers" was because no matter what idea is mooted, these fools find some reason or another for it not to go ahead or to make things far more complex than they need be. For instance:-

1. Nuclear power: Could explode like a bomb; Nuclear "waste" problem; residual radiation; Used for making nuclear bombs

2. Wind power: Ruins the landscape; Noisy

3. Bio fuel: Can't be done on a large scale; Will not cut down car use (?)

4: Solar power: Ruins the look of buildings

I could go on and on. These comments are simply excuses and are either knee-jerks in response to percieved problems (which change like Chinese Whispers) or are simply wild assumptions that have no basis in fact. It seems that there are some people who will never be satisfied and as such people shouls ignore them and let them go back to their beards, sandals and garlic cornflakes.

18

Ayrshire Scot™,

01/11/2007 11:51:49

13 Spot on

19

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 01/11/2007 12:04:27

#15:

I think we are both on the same track here, just different emphasis. I always tend to look at root causes rather than seeing what could be done to lessen the effect.

I truth, I think a combination of both is the way to go. The problem I find is that most of the emphasis seems to be on lessening the effect rather than dealing with the root cause---hence my comments about "tree huggers".

It's only when someone comes up with a sensible suggestion like this that you hear about proactive measures rather than the standard set of reactive measures that are foisted upon us all the time.

I'm sure that fossil fuels will last indefinately if we all revert to scrapping our cars, hunting for food and living in caves but do any of us (normal people) really want to do this? Of course not. The solution then is obvious---find a means of generating power that does not rely on fossil fuels.

20

mr. underperson,

01/11/2007 12:07:34

I'm all for generating energy from the waves; it's cleaner, greener, sustainable, but please, fossil fuels may be dirty, but they aren't EVER going to run out, stop kidding yourselves.

http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html

-mu

21

Nell,

The Preservation Hall 01/11/2007 13:12:56

Will these sausage wave generators cause bowel cancer?

22

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 01/11/2007 14:06:30

I think we should harvest humans to make electricity just like the Matrix. we could start with politicians who have so much hot air each one could run a turbine on their own steam. Then move down to civil servants army generals and soldiers all of whom are a massive drain on world resources. We could use neds and convicts as a backup system...

23

Macd123,

02/11/2007 12:19:43

How about making it economic to generate your own power?

At the moment the grants for geothermal are just a bit too small ie. it would take 30yrs for it to pay for itself.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.