Talk:Dynamic tidal power

Separated from main page

Many thanks to Rehman for creating this separated page. UNguyinChina —Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Thank you. Rehman 09:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality and Importance

Seems the quality and importance need a review. Contents are quite complete, with adequate references. Class B may be appropriate. Also priority may be better set at High or even Top. UNguyinChina —Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

 Done, I have reassessed per recent updates and improvements. Rehman 10:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Coming updates

I will be making more modifications to this page, to reflect some of the latest developments. Several major international R&D programs between the EU and China are under development. UNguyinChina —Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Great work on the new diagram and added info. Kind regards. Rehman 09:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still working on the article in coming days, will be including more science. (UNguyinChina (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC))

Dynamic Tidal Power

Has anyone bothered to stop and think about this edition? This so called "Dynamic Tidal Power" is a complete nonesense. Let me explain. The first consideration for any project where power is produced is the commercial outcome. Building a seawall 20 miles in one direction with another wall 20 miles long at right angles would cost billions and take centuries to recover the cost. To build a sea wall that would stay in place and stand up to sea squals let alone storms 20 miles out into the ocean is mind boggling. Building a structure in depths 20 miles off shore would mean building a wall where most sea depths would be so great as to make the exercise next to impossible. Billions of tons of concrete and steel would be needed. Then there is the power that would be produced. No one has ever built a prototype, nor a proof of concept, nor a commercial model and no peer reviews of the concept that would stand scrutiny have been produced. Then there are few sites where this type of system would work - that is where there is sufficient pressure differential to provide a commercial power generation facility. Balanced against the cost of the project and the dubious amount of power that could be produced this is a commercial nonesense. NO INVESTOR WOULD INVEST IN THIS PROJECT. This is an hallucination. Just because someone postulates an hypothesis at a convention and then has it repeated does not make this a viable commercial option for the future of the enegry sector. In fact to do so is fool hardy. The editing of this site falls over when people with little or no understanding of the industry, engineering or science are allowed to treat fairies at the bottom of the garden as factual. Someone should put a stop to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.86.171.114 (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the papers about the project and there is no costing for the walls. But one should remember that it is proposed by the Dutch who have created the Zuiderzee Works which is a 32km long wall across the open sea, and amazing to drive along. That's what they're talking about. The cost of that is given in the Wiki artice as €700m in 2004 prices which doesn't seem so much given potential peak powers approaching 10GW. They are not talking about doing this in deep water - 30m is what they are considering with the main focus being the Yellow Sea.

To my mind a more serious potential problem is sedimentation, which isn't even considered in their papers. What they are proposing is after all a massive breakwater and in any sea with a mud or sandy bottom we all know how quickly a beach can build up. I don't know if it will be a problem but until they've simulated a lot more they won't know. Chris55 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's good to see some excited comments appearing on this talk page. I am personally exposed to the developments regarding DTP. It's certainly a complex project, but by no means impossible. Many very reputable stakeholders (from industry, government, and academic institutions) endorse, finance, and are engaged in priority research to study issues such as the ones mentioned above (cost and method of construction, sedimentation, ecological impacts, power generation capacity, etc). After all, the potential scale of renewable power generation, combined with other benefits of such a major offshore structure, warrants a careful investigation. UNguyinChina (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)