This always makes me wonder... the tide has to be one of the biggest sources of free kinetic energy, cycled daily. I can picture a hundred different ways to tap it for free energy. Why aren't we doing it?
Salt water is a bitch. It will corrode though everything, especially moving parts. It's not that we couldn't do it, but the maintenance cost makes it unattractive.
Make it all out of whatever offshore windmills are made of (ok I say this half jokingly because I honestly have no knowledge in this area)
Because it is anything but simple.
Years back, senior year design project was exactly this. There are a millions ways to harvest energy, but to do it economically is incredibly difficult. To do it efficiently and reliably makes it that much more difficult. And then storing the energy to be used later adds even more cost and complexity.
The money spent on trying to generate power from tidal waves is ultimately better spent on other methods. There are (or at lest there were) test wave generators in Spain or France (if my memory is correct) but I don't think they were ever truly commercialized.
You basically need a few conditions to be met to make this useable: tide needs to be high enough, there needs to be suitable geological formation that enables building of such power plants, it has to be publicly acceptable to build there, and you need to connect it to the grid. The last two can especially cancel eachother out.
However, this assumes you use potential energy. What you are envisioning might be more like current power (so kinetic energy) where I'm not sure what the limitations are. Perhaps it's not too practical to build huge plants underwater in locations with relatively constant current and connect them to the grid
It isn't "free," in the sense that the energy is part of regular climate cycles. Wind farms, for example, will disrupt downstream climate patterns if deployed at large scale and in concentrated areas.
It isn't "free," in the sense that the energy is part of regular climate cycles. Wind farms, for example, will disrupt downstream climate patterns if deployed at large scale and in concentrated areas.
so do it already
the actual demand or the future demand considering the exponential demand for energy?
This is untrue, power demand has been largely flat since the 2000s.
Efforts at efficiency, moving away from incandescent bulbs (ludicrously inefficient), and other changes have had significant effects:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/201794/us-electricity-consumption-since-1975/
We're having an increase now, likely from EVs, but understand the time of demand also matters, solar panels are most effective almost at the exact time we have the highest demand from air conditioning, and in the same locations, which dramatically reduces the need for peaker plants.
The downsides are our utilities have become less efficient from bureaucracy and political exploitation (great place to put an idiot nephew and get kickbacks from).
We need to decentralize the grid more, which utilities are fighting tooth and nail.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
