We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Beat me to it there. Tidal flow is a dynamic operation. Rectifying issues around normal wear and tear on surfaced based wind farms comes with significant challenges. Place a similar concept underwater and it just s gets daft. Also as Greenhighlander points out, there’s actually only a small number of viable locations. When you add all the cons together and then place this concept up against say nuclear miniaturisation (which is already scalable) then it’s obvious what the future looks like in regards to cheap and sustainable energy production.
Casapinos nailed it.
Very interesting project…but the shareholders trying to make a difference and perhaps more importantly the project itself have been screwed.
So dull, so very British.
Greenhighlander...thats not right. I don't need to tell you this but... Oil/gas fields have two elements 1. Exploration and 2. Production.
Exploration is shorter term and with simple moving parts (pipe, drills, metal to metal seals). Once a field is producing the technology is somewhat fire and forget and will be in position as long as field is producing (5-50 years plus)...The subsea kit is stationary with static installations such as pipes and metal to metal seals, pressure seals etc. which require zero to minimal maintenance. An underwater turbine is incredibly complex with many moving parts and needing regular maintenance. Hardly comparing apples with apples there fella.
As a subsea engineer i see your pessimism regarding machinery longevity and reliability subsea. But these points would be well down my list if concerns most of these issues have been solved during forty years of oil and gas experience.
Main issue for me is there enough tidal areas that have sufficient flow,suitable Seabed topography to support enough turbines to make a viable opportunity
Gordonthegopher reading your post was like sniffing a bag of glue in the 80's, hit the spot.
What an honest assessment...I just cant see the tide turning on this one, sp is definitely underwater...
You’re very welcome clown shoes. I guess your opinion is the only one that counts.
Let’s do a little list shall we, of all the reasons why this idea is thicker than a whale omelet:
Material degradation of the turbine structure. These machines will be continuously exposed to an immersive environment full of salts and little sea creatures that like sticking to and chewing on metals.
Bio fouling of gearing (and let’s not even start on about the whole electrifying the energy capture array! How much would that cost??!)
Maintenance and mooring/anchoring complications.
Environmental damage through oil leakage (remember these things need to be lubricated most likely with a graphite/silicone Grease compound.
The costs of anchoring and then linking each turbine to the underground network (astronomical costs).
Like I mentioned, this isn’t North Sea oil, which at the time of the initial investment was well worth the squeeze. Oh and by the way, American engineers and scientists at the time said that it was easier and cheaper to put people on the moon than drill the North Sea. Now we’re all meant to believe that tidal flow is the way forward. I think you’ll find mr nofookinclue you’ve bought into a pipe dream of epic proportions. You’d be better off sticking your money in the Springfield monorail.
The unnamed organisation which committed to buying SAE shares at a heavy discount has clearly realised that SAE is in terminal decline and has adopted a policy of exercising its rights to buy (at about 20-30%below market price)and drip-feeding the market to extract a small profit on each tranche. The net effect of this is to drive the SP down and to hasten the financial collapse of SAE. As I have said before, tidal's time will come but not now and not here.
Thank you gordenthegofer for your wealth of knowledge in this sector and detailed first and hopefully last post!