Talk:Tidal power/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3

Rename

I think this page should be renamed to "Tide power". Similar to that of "Wind power", "Solar power", etc. Just a suggestion. Regards. Rehman(+) 07:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again I disagree - it can be either - Wind ENERGY, Solar ENERGY, Tidal ENERGY. instead of imposing your view on the site which others have laboured so long to produce and that you seem to show so little regard for, why not leave it alone ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.86.171.114 (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
This anonymous user has repeatedly made comments like this. Considering Rehman's comments are over 11 months old and the page has already been named, they seem out-of-touch (as do some of the others). Also, it appears that another anonymous address may be a sock-puppet for the same user.--E8 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Play the ball NOT the man. The issue is not about sock puppets but one of an industry acceptable standard. I am a retired engineer with decades of experience - who the hell are you and Rehman? I have been editing this site for many years now - at one stage the majority of edits here were from me - I along with the silent majority am alarmed at the amount of rubbish content placed on this site by people who have no idea about what they writing. How about you get rid of the theoretical nonesense and get with the real up to date data!? There is also the issue of Rehman vandalising the site and people like you validating his actions so much so that where once there was a coherent one stop shop, now the information is fragmented all over at the whim of some one who thinks their form of anarchy rules - how about a little consideration for researchers and those who come to this site looking for information. Restore the site to it's original condition - then learn how to play the ball not the man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.169.177.107 (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no industry acceptable standard on the name. A Google Books search gives about 50 thousand hits for "tidal power" and about 30 thousand hits for "tidal energy". Similarly, Google Scholar gives about 8 thousands hits for "tidal power" and 11½ thousand hits for "tidal energy". So both names have an equivalent usage.
The amount of edits you have made or the "silent majority" are not relevant in this discussion. Inclusion of material into the article is reached through obtaining consensus on the basis of arguments, notability and reliable sources.
Please be civil, and refrain from using terms as "vandalising" and otherwise with respect to other editors. -- Crowsnest (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
You use terms like "sock puppet", "relevant" and "civil" when you go about your business of anarchy and hypocrisy - you place your template over what you deem to be right and insist everyone adheres to it or else. That's not the way wiki works.... This site was vandalised by Rehman and you are just running interference for him. Who made you god over the site !? Your lack of understanding regarding the issues is only belittled by your arrogance in dictating what people should think - OR ELSE. (NoI did not miss your hollow threat) There are names that come to mind that describe people who are closed minded to anything but their point of view and bully others who they can't bend to theirs ... I say it again and call for someone to step in and revert the site back to what is was before you and your friend Rehman changed it. The site was concise and reflected the industry according to what those in the industry - not your so called Google search - use by convention. This site has been vandalised by people who have never worked in the industry nor have any relevant knowledge of the industry and are portraying the site according to a nonsense set of standards that only make sense to them selves. Someone should do something about it - the absolute nonesense about "dynamic tidal power" is a blight on the site and shows clearly what happens when people who do not know what theya re talking about are let free to run amok. If you want to know what iss not relevant then dynamic tidal power is at the bottom of the garden with these fairies.

Does anyone care anymore or has the standard here slipped to where science and industry mean nothing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.169.177.107 (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Maine

Ed Muskey, senator from Maine, mentioned many years ago that tidal power from Maine had the potential to power most of the US for little cost ( of course to make not to use). The technology has been available for a long long time but since it is not needed - oil is still available and will be for decades/centuries/?? - no action is planned. Wind power and sun power are being pursued mostly because they cost alot and have little or no potential.159.105.81.31 (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

This site has been totally vandalised - years of editing has been removed - peer reviews, formulas and vital information about advcances in technology like shrouds and venturis has all been removed. What are students and researchers interested in this page going to do now ? Who is going to fix this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.86.171.114 (talkcontribs) 06:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no vandalism. All that's happened is that the information has been spread across several pages, rather than all condensed into one page. That's been done because the page got too long. All the information that was here previously on tidal barrages, is now on the Tidal barrage page. And all the information that was here previously on tidal stream generators, is now on the Tidal stream generator page. Both these pages are linked to, from this Tidal Power page. ErnestfaxTalk 08:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Potential energy or kinetic energy?

"Tidal power is the only technology that draws on potential energy..." Is it not true that the energy that creates the tides comes from the kinetic energy of the Earth's rotation? A very small fraction of that kinetic energy actually goes to increasing the potential energy of the Earth-Moon system by lifting the Moon into a higher orbit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.83.53 (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Add case study from May-June 2011 Environment magazine of planned “Ganghwa Tidal Power Plant” in South Korea?

Add case study from May-June 2011 Environment magazine of planned “Ganghwa Tidal Power Plant” in South Korea ... A Conflict of Greens: Green Development Versus Habitat Preservation – The Case of Incheon, South Korea by Yekang Ko, Derek K. Schubert and Randolph T. Hester ? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Of interest, within article Green Growth and Songdo International Business District? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Potential addition

I removed this content from the article page due to a lack of citations, formatting, and editing issues. I'll move it to List of tidal power stations once it's verified.

New york has just licensed (January 2012) a 1 megawatt tidal electrical plant in the East River. The plant uses a relatively new technology of water turbines -- which look sort of like modern windmills -- anchored to the floor of the river. Over the past 4 years, those turbines have proven themselves in various tests in which they supplied electrical power to a local supermarket and a parking lot. The manufacturer of the turbines, "Verdant Energy" claims it will be the first commercial tidal electricity generating station anywhere in the world. Other plants produce electricity at "commercial scale", but Verdant says the East River Project will be the first to actually produce commercially.

--E8 (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This was just added again, albeit in shorter form, so I moved it to a more appropriate place, edited and found a reference. Derek Andrews (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Environment & Corrosion

This site has seen a massive decline in the quality of information posted. I wholly agree with the comments of vandalism. To cite two examples, firstly the statements under the environment heading do not cite any references and are at best an ill informed opinion and at worst grossly misleading. To highlight this as misleading with actual real life examples that the editor is either ignorant of or has chosen to ignore with misleading comments, the turbines that were installed in the East River in New York a decade ago, had sonar fitted to the turbines. Over the years not a single fish kill has been recorded by independent third party experts. These types of shrill rhetoric by editors are damaging to the credibility of this site and need to be seen for what they are - misleading rubbish. In the case of the turbines undergoing corrosion and leaking fluids, all the turbines installed around the glob are made from composite products that by engineering standards will probably be around long after those who made these grossly misleading comments are feeding worms - and, as for the fluids leaking, the gearboxes and other parts that need lubrication run bio degradable “food grade” lubricants, that if a leakage occurs actually feed the environment. It is a pre-requisite by regulators to provide the assurance that any leakage will NOT harm the environment. Finally if wiki is to continue to undergo the maturation of the movement that is being experienced editors will have to restrain their unbridled enthusiasm for making comments that have the potential to negatively impact and mislead the readers. It is little wonder we have a green lobby that paralyses and feeds the ignorance of regulators when supposed informed individuals are editing articles here in this fashion. As a parting thought both those articles should be rewritten correcting the errors and all future editions should quote reliable peer reviewed sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.14.9 (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Percentage of global energy generation

Could the percentage of global energy generation that tidal power produces be added to this page? Perhaps in a table comparing it to other forms of power? Ro234 (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

At this moment that is negligible. See for instance Rance Tidal Power Station -- one of the largest contributors of tidal power at this moment -- only contributing 0.012% of the power demand of France. However, given the availability of tidal power potentials, there may be large possibilities. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is an interesting fact for you people to provide references - there is enough energy in the Gulf Stream between Florida and Cuba to power the entire planet. The Gulf Stream is the third largest ocean current behind the Southern Polar Circumvention current and the East African Current. With 70 % of the globe covered by water your do the math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.14.9 (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding content

I think we should add a list of potential sites for building tidal power stations, as well as the reason and some other information about them.Dadaszehon — Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Renewable

Topic contents moved down to bottom for further discussion DavRosen (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

--Silvio1973 (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC) What planet are you on - you are pedantic and in the strictest terms wrong. Please get your facts straight before you post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.14.9 (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Renewable

Topic contents moved down here from original section further discussion DavRosen (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I would not look pedantic, but tidal power is not renewable. Indeed it's a largely available source of energy at low CO2 emission rate (the contruction of the tidal plant) but it's not renewable. All electricity generated is momentum subtracted to the Earth's rotation. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What planet are you on - you are pedantic and in the strictest terms wrong. Please get your facts straight before you post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.14.9 (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
What Silvio1973 is saying is simply consistent with what it currently says in the first section of the article body -- if it isn't correct then let's change the article rather than simply disagreeing with a talk post in itself.
DavRosen (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Another project

Someone should include Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy in New York City? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.8.241.2 (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

process of tidal power

I would like wikipedia to add a video on the above topic and explain. I suggest it to be done on every topic please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.191.220 (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tidal power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)