• SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    With wind, at least all the moving parts tend to be well above water, only exposed to salt spray (though that’s still pretty nasty).

    Tidal and especially wave have moving components exposed to water, often right on the wind-water line. That makes them corrosion and maintenance horrors.

    There have been plenty of demonstration wave & tidal plants that have produced power, but I think the operation record is about two years, most much less.

    Building and scrapping your plants every year or two is neither cost nor energy efficient.

    Solar, hydro, geothermal, and wind are much nicer to deal with.

    • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Tidal and especially wave have moving components exposed to water, often right on the wind-water line. That makes them corrosion and maintenance horrors.

      True, the environment is not easy, and a lot of detail problems need to be solved.

      But ships solved the same issues.

      The charm of wave power is that the ocean surface is the storage medium. The surface stores and transports the energy to the shore.

      This is a very powerful principle.

      • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Ships haven’t really ‘solved’ the same issues. They’re dry-docked at regular intervals (about every 5 years?), have minimal moving components below the waterline, and get the props cleaned by divers more frequently.

        They are also capable of travelling to dry-dock under their own power and deliver a lot more revenue than your average wave turbine would, so the costs of dry-docking them aren’t as significant.