@ps61318: Keep in mind they're underwater, do they don't need to be nearly as rigid as they would if they were in the air.

Z4N5H1N

I'm having trouble with the scale of this thing. Because if the blades are as long as I think, it seems to me that they are going to need a good amount of stiffness to keep efficient angles to optimize energy transfer from the tide. And if a stiff blade that long turning even at a relatively slow speed hits you, you gonna die. Might not slice and dice, but it's gonna macerate your organs but good.

ps61318

@rawbdee: In Strangford Lough, Tidal Turbine Power Station blends YOU!

If you're rather gelatinous to begin with.

itchytooth

Ingenuity at its best. At current electricity rates, would be interesting to know the ROI on this thing... Wind is approx 7 years. Didn't they also put in a blade in Seattle-waters recently?

zarchitect

So, it doesn't blend?

rawbdee

How long until we have enough of these to disrupt the orbit of the moon, or our own rotational axis?

Mmmmmmm! Mwaaaa! Mwahahhahhhaha!

aelver

OK, can we forget about how things "impact" the wildlife? I don't mean I don't like wild life, but lets think about this logically. Wind turbine blades are like 60-150 ft long. I have been told numerous times that hawks and their ilk can spot a tit mouse from a mile up. Pigeons can spot a life vest in open ocean from like a half mile away. Yet these birds can't see a 300 ft spinning blade? As for these turbines, how many fish are shredded by ship propellers? They spin much faster than this, which at top speed, takes 4 seconds to make a full revolution. ANY animal which gets shredded by a wind turbine, shredded by this, runs into a building is pretty much doomed to begin with b/c it has some problem. If this was a problem for "regular animals", we would see thousands of dead birds at the base of every building and turbine.

Git Em SteveDave is a poor substitute for LindsayJoy

@Z4N5H1N: Hmmmmmmmmmm. Really? I know they will seem less heavy (remember Tarzan fighting bad guys in the water? Anybody? Geez, I'm old...) but stiffness shouldn't be related to that. And while in the air you're fighting sag (think helicopter rotor) in the water you've got stresses every which way. I think I stand by my previous call for stiffness.

...which just sounds wrong like that. Anyway....

ps61318

@Git Em SteveDave is a poor substitute for LindsayJoy: You had me at "tit mouse."

Seriously, you make an interesting argument.

I don't worry so much about wildlife in relation to these - wind turbines, buildings, etc. I worry, actually, more about stupid humans who cannot see a titmouse from a mile away, or detect color in low light, or whose instincts have been too dulled by modern comforts to avoid swimming near one of these (think Johnny Knoxville is an aberration? More like the next stage in evolution). Oh, and by the way, same rules apply - if you're stupid enough to go near these, you get what you deserve.

ps61318

Beautiful. A step in the right direction.

stryder100

Well also remember there is a stream of water passing around it on the leading edge, if it's big enough the poor mammal or fish should be pushed out of the way. Plus they probably make lots of noise. Most animals will stay away from them. At the speed they should have no problem avoiding them.

Killing a few fish should prove beneficial as it would make great fishing spot. Chum's already in the water.

rurena

@Git Em SteveDave is a poor substitute for LindsayJoy: I'll bet you $100 that if a big white propeller with flashing lights on the tips was just left constantly spinning without a cowling out on the street, people would be checking into hospitals left and right because they accidentally walked into it.

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

@qbrad's thoroughly impressed with NY Gizmodians: I don't believe the blades exit the water, except to service them. Having them splash into the water would reduce the power they could generate, as breaking the surface tension both entering and exiting the water would sap power. Also, they would then hit a point where with two blades no blade would stay in the water, which would generate no power. Also, if you read the article, it is a "underwater" windmill.

Git Em SteveDave is a poor substitute for LindsayJoy

@qbrad's thoroughly impressed with NY Gizmodians: Not sure what you're after with the "blades entering the water" thing. The blades in this turbine are actually fully submerged... the pic is of the blade assembly hauled to the top of the structure, presumably for experiments/maintenance.

Kit Eaton

@Dr.Danger, Shogun of Jalopnik: How many knots equal 88 MPH?

Git Em SteveDave is a poor substitute for LindsayJoy

One of the major problems with turbines on dams is not so much the shredding of wildlife, but the concussive force produced by compression of an air/water mix as the blade enters the water. In this setup, I think you may have a similar problem. Sure, the blades move relatively slowly, but there is still the air/water mix to deal with, so any animal that gets caught in this machine isn't going to get shredded, it will be pulverized and exploded. Ew.

qbrad's thoroughly impressed with NY Gizmodians

1.2 Megawatts?

are you sure you don't mean 1.21 gigawatts?

Dr.Danger, Shogun of Jalopnik

@Z4N5H1N: If anything I'd think they need to be MORE rigid. Flexible blades = inefficient blades, and water has a hell of a lot more weight and viscosity than air.

And for those of you too lazy to go there, here's the video from the article:

+ Watch video

FredicvsMaximvs

And I was looking forward to a Baby Seal Frappicino.

zenpoet

1000 homes? So for a small city of say 250,000 people you'd need more than 100 of these things. How much energy do they require to build?

glibberthwix

@glibberthwix: Can't make a cake...

opedog

@glibberthwix: I'd think that since this is the first, its experimental, and thus not operating at max commercial output. Come on... get with the programme! This is a pretty fantastic thingy, that will generate green power. And it's actually running for real, rather than a concept.

Kit Eaton

@Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!: I do not doubt you. I could regal you with a story of human stupidity from when I was a pump jockey at a Amaco station, but if I did, it might actually drive you to self-harm.

Git Em SteveDave is a poor substitute for LindsayJoy

@ps61318:
but you missed the true underwater fighting champion
mike nelson (aka lloyd bridges) from "sea hunt".
until you cut the exhaust hose from his scuba gear, that is

godwhacker

@Dr.Danger, Shogun of Jalopnik: No, Marty, what we need is 1.21 Jiggawatts!!!

danson

@zenpoet: With or without organic soy milk?

jabber

I wonder what the ROI is compared to the giant rubber snake generators? It seems like this would have much, much higher operations & maintenance costs....

PigVenus

That's neat and all, but if it's not killing sea life than what's the point?

Rabid Penguin

@Git Em SteveDave is a poor substitute for LindsayJoy: Ok, does Frigg's Law apply if the spelling error is funny? And the intent is not to correct but rather exploit it?

Because if so, I think trying to Regal someone is against the Constitution, dude.

If not, I will own my dick-ness this time.

ps61318

"the blades shouldn't offer a threat to sealife like the local common seals."

2 months from now
*as the cheif engineer looks over a mound of blended seals*

- well... we did say "shouldn't", I'm covered right? petas not going to get me?.. I said SHOULDN'T!!

SeventhExile

This really isn't a first for tidal turbine power stations. Just the first for this submerged design that doesn't involve daming I believe. I've been to Annapolis Royal Generating Station in Nova Scotia. Which has been kicking out 10x the output since the mid 80s.

Decent overview here [en.wikipedia.org]

sidmuchrock

I was excited about this until i read this: "It is moored to the sea floor 400 metres from the shore and will work for about 20 hours each day. No energy is generated during tide changes as tidal speed drops to below 2 knots". So this is basically uselss, unless of course you don't mind living without power 16% of the time.

skiterr

@skiterr: And... so for how many hours per day does a solar plant run for? And what % of the year does a windmill spin for?

Kit Eaton

@Kit Eaton: this is just another useless "green" invention that serves no real solution to the power shortage or the green movement. If it's not going to produce reliable power 24/7 there is no point of building it. But of course the media and uneducated masses eat this shit right up. Nuclear power is the only way to go, for now, I'm still waiting for an alternative, maybe the rubber snakes....

skiterr

This is awesome. I hope they can start putting these off the coast of California (where I live) soon.

As for not hurting marine mammals, I'm not so sure that's true. Here's some math:

- Slowest spin rate is 10 revs per minute.
- Assuming the blades are 10' long, the distance traveled - in one minute is 20feet x pi x 10 revs = 628
- Multiply by 60 to get 37680 feet per hour
- Divide by 5280 to get 7.1 miles per hour.

These things have a lot of mass getting hit by one will hurt. Imagine getting hit by a car at that speed. This calculation is best case too because the blades are probably longer than 10 feet and weigh more than a car.

jaramilr