We now know how to make enough
carbon free power to satisfy ALL of
Australia's needs just from the tides!
Yes, really. Read on to find out how
EXCUTIVE SUMMARY
1. We appear
to have invested untold millions of dollars on solar and wind, yet the total
amount of electricity generated, while helpful, is insignificant when looked at
from a national point of view. We need to think bigger.
2. We need a
way to make huge amounts of power that more than meets
our needs now and way into the future.
3. After
Chernobyl and what happened in Japan plus the accident at Four Mile
Island in
USA we probably don’t want nuclear but we should consider it because it ios kind to the environment.
4. One good way to make carbon free electricity in huge quantities is harnessing the
tides and we now know a way to do it.
5. Here in
the north of
6. There is
increasing urgency to solve the climate change crisis and the youth of today
are leading that charge (especially Greta Thornburg).
7. I believe we need to think BIG, invest the billions and start making real power in sufficient quantities to cater for our every need. Read on to see how.
WARNING: I have done extensive
research into global warming and the effects that it will have on human life.
It is clear that there is nothing we can now do to repair the incredible damage
we humans have inflicted on our only home. In other words, Planet Earth as a
home for humanity has a very definite life span too horrible to contemplate. My
children will see some of it and my grandchildren will see all of it. The
horrible truth is that much of Planet Earth will become uninhabitable which
will mean billions of refugees will fight for somewhere to live; yes there will
be wars. No, I am not a pessimist, just a realist. Study it up for yourself and
be horrified like I have been.
The best we can hope for now is to
DELAY the effects so our grandchildren can enjoy the sort of lifestyle we have
enjoyed for a little longer. What follows is a way that Australia can play its
part but we must move NOW. We must have all this in place by 2030 at the latest
and hope that is enough……
ARTICLE
Let
me introduce myself. My name is J. Duncan McNeill and I live in
I
call myself a product design engineer though I have no formal training in that
field but all my product designs are innovative and unique and all work extremely well. Check me out at www.beat-the-vandals.com where you
can see my latest product ready for someone to take up.
For
20 years now I have been advocating using the power of the tides to generate
carbon free electricity. A few years ago I visited Homer on the
south west coast of
We
need to ask the question:
Why
Tidal?
There
are several reasons. Solar doesn’t make any power at night or when it is cloudy
(and what do we do with millions of dead solar panels when their 20 year life
span is up?). Wind doesn’t make any power when there is no wind (and wind
turbines kill birds and they have a 20 year lifespan too). Wave power doesn’t make power when the sea is calm. Not
only does that mean there are periods of no electricity production, but all
three are totally unpredictable and unreliable. Also, we have invested millions
of dollars on those and we still have huge power stations spewing millions of
tons of carbon into the environment. We must find a way to do it bigger and better.
Sure,
tidal doesn’t make power between tides, but at least it is 100% reliable and
totally predictable. We can know in advance exactly how much power will be made
on August 27th 2053 or any other future date you care to name.
South
Korea has the worlds largest tidal power station producing 5.5 billion
kilowatt/hours annually. This is a one way station making power when the tide
comes in only. It uses turbines which are not efficient in a tidal situation -
more on that later.
We
are blessed with huge tides here in Darwin, with a huge harbour which is what
got me thinking about this amazing resource. Upon doing further research, I
have found that the further west you go from Darwin the tides get bigger;
indeed, Derby (Kings Sound) has tidal differences of over ten metres (spring)
to a low of eight metres (neap). The tides subside as you go further around the
coast from there. After Darwin, the next obvious site is Cambridge Gulf where
the tidal flows vary from 7 metres to 9 metres. The port of Wyndham in
that gulf (population 900 in 2018) services the cattle and mining industries.
A
huge advantage with Cambridge Gulf and King Sound is the low population in that
area combined with the fact that the power plant would be “out of sight, out of
mind” from the town means there would hopefully be minimum opposition,
objections, etc.
The
amount of electricity that could be generated if we harnessed all that power
boggles the imagination – supplying all of our needs (including
transport).
How To Make Base Load Power
From Tidal Generation
By
now you are thinking that’s fine but you mentioned base load power – how can
you do that when there is no power through the tide changes?
Easy, there are two ways:
1) When you have several plants when one is idle another will be generating because tide times vary along the coast;
2) Better
yet, take all the power that is generated to Ord River where you set up
a large electrolysis plant to have it all made into hydrogen using the
plentiful clean water there. From there you pipe it all over Australia.
Hydrogen can be converted back to electricity in two ways: directly through a
fuel cell; or you can burn it pollution free where the only product of
combustion is clean pure water. This burning can take place in existing power
stations that currently run on gas or coal which I imagine would only take
minor modifications.
Further to this a huge quantity of it
can be moved through a relatively small pipe if you convert it to
ammonia. The ammonia (which is one atom of nitrogen and THREE of
hydrogen) can carry more hydrogen than hydrogen alone. Indeed, our
existing gas
pipelines could be used to send hydrogen/ammonia down south. What’s
more, there are no
losses in sending it long distances as there is now transmitting
electricity
overland. A hundred units of power leaving the north coast will still
be 100
units in Sydney or Melbourne.
I see hydrogen/ammonia production
and piped all over the nation as a major part of this whole project. As part of
that thinking, I believe that hydrogen is going to be major player in transport
so we are going to be needing piped hydrogen everywhere anyway, especially for
road trains and commercial vehicles. Heavy vehicles could never carry enough
batteries, whereas hydrogen can do it.
Sure, the whole project is
going to cost billions, of not trillions, but it will all last 100 – 200 years,
so once you have done it, you have clean free energy for life. I think it would
be great if all solar and wind farms were full time making hydrogen too.
Are Turbines The Best Option?
Short answer – NO.
I am not convinced that turbines
are the way to go. Below you can see images of two different types of turbines,
(one in a tunnel, one in open water) which they claim to be ‘fish friendly’,
but I don’t really believe that. While smaller fish might slip through
unharmed, a large fish (shark? whale?) may well get stuck and drown.
But
I have a major reservation about turbines. You can clearly see that if you were
to lock the turbine in its tunnel so it couldn’t revolve, the water can still
get past it quite easily. Sure, the water would have to do a little chicane to
get past but there really would be very little restriction or resistance.
Therefore it is obvious that a turbine can only harness a very small amount of
the power – maybe less than 20%? (That is a guess on my part, but probably
pretty close).
I
have another major reservation with turbines. Turbines work well when there is
a large ‘head’. Think of a hydroelectric power station where the head (total depth
of water above the turbine) could be anything from 60 feet to 600 feet or even
more, and that head is usually a constant. Then they work well. But if you use
them in a tidal situation, you have a tiny (head) meaning a tiny bit of power
at low tide, slowly building as the tide rises so it will peak at high tide and
after that brief 'great performance' it tails off as the tide drops. But even at
its peak, the ‘head’ is only 30 feet maximum. Result? Pathetic!
One
last point against turbines is the need to virtually dam the whole opening to
the estuary with huge amounts of concrete – imagine trying to pour concrete in
a remote spot with huge tides rushing in and out non stop! Plus so much water
would be held back that the tidal flow in the estuary would be seriously
compromised and destroy much wildlife habitat. Also it is difficult to service
them as they are underwater.
As an inventor, I have a better idea…….
What
I can see is a row of undershot water wheels side by side that stretch from
shore to shore across the opening to an estuary; they would be very similar to
the undershot water wheel that has been in common use for centuries. They would
sit in channels exactly the same width as the paddles and the bottom of the
channels would have the same curve as the circumference of the wheel.
Now
it can be clearly seen that if the wheel was locked unable to turn, no water
could get past it. This now means that every little bit of energy that is
available can be harvested, whereas a turbine could only gather that tiny
little bit mentioned earlier.
Below
is a side view of how my water wheels might look.
!
At
first I thought that where the paddles first touched the curved bottom it would
be a sure fire fish killer and we would need a fish strainer. But it turns out
that fish never swim near the sea bed. Also the blades only move at the same
speed as the water.
I
imagine the cost to make a dam containing turbines would be far more than a row
of water wheels. So to me it would be a disaster to use turbines which will
only make a pathetic amount of power compared to what the water wheels could
and would do.
So
this is proven technology!
I
imagine it will be much cheaper to build water wheels than drilling for oil or
gas - and heaps better for the environment too! Once you install the first
channel, you can immediately put a water wheel in it and set it to work making
electricity. Rinse and repeat. The only thing is you don't get much power until
the last wheel is installed as water will rush through the open gap; therefore,
the first real power station needs to be in a tiny opening where the cost is
low and it has a chance to prove itself.
The
channels would be fabricated in steel using ship building techniques and barged
to the site. They would be craned onto a bed of wet concrete (also brought on
the barge) at low tide - this system would vastly reduce the amount of work to
be done on site plus a huge reduction in the amount of concrete, compared to
channels made of concrete. This is by far the most economical way to do it.
Steel won't rust in a marine environment if you trickle a little electricity to
it (reverse electrolysis).
Another
nice surprise is the lack of preparation before laying the concrete. It seems
that when you have a big tide rushing in and out four times a day the sea floor
is swept clean of silt and mud and leaves solid bedrock (deep water excepted).
Bottom
line: WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO IGNORE THIS WONDERFUL FREE RESOURCE!
|
Introducing Professor R.C.T.Rainey MA, MSc, DIC, CEng, FIMarEST, FREng of Southampton University. He independently developed the
concept of a water wheel barrage at the Severn estuary, which was never
actually built. See http://rranda.co.uk/tidal-power/. His
designs for the Severn estuary (in UK) were worked up to the point of
power and weight calulations, and drive train design. The tides there
are a massive 15 metres. Rod Rainey has looked over my designs and not only given his stamp of approval
but has given me permission to add his name and credentials to this web page.
He has also given me lots of helpful advice and I am deeply grateful for
his help and encouragement. Thank you Professor Rod Rainey.
Professor Rod Rainey went on to say "I reckon Cambridge
Gulf is comparable with my Severn Barrage scheme, whose annual-average power
output is 4 GW, which gives 40 TWh/year. King Sound is about 4 times that so
overall 200 TWh/year. That is, by coincidence, Australia's total electricity
consumption". He went on to say that it
may be uneconomic to pipe hydrogen to the major cities down south, but I
reckon we have pipe lines bringing gas north, so why not use them to take
hydrogen south? We are part way there! And when you consider the untold
millions we have spent on temporary solar and wind which has so far done
nothing to solve our energy needs, we must ask, where should we spend the
money?.
|
Two things stand out about this project:
1).. It is goiung to provide hundreds of thousands of jobs.
2).. It is going to cost literally billions of dollars (but much of that is for pipelines that are needed anyway0.
To me, it doesn’t matter what it costs because the cost of not doing it will be a price we could not afford. I believe that if we made the decision to go ahead today, we could have carbon free power in 5 to 8 years. There would also be a spin off effect around the world as other countries would see what we have done and redouble their efforts to become carbon free too. If we don’t do this, other countries will drag the chain and so hasten the end of planet Earth as we know it.
There are
other places around the world that could use tidal power after we show
them how: from Alaska right round the north coast of Canada,
Scandinavia and UK all enjoy big tides.
So how do we
finance this huge price tag? My suggestion is to float government backed bonds
and every person in Australia is encouraged to put money into it. That way the
project doesn’t belong to the government; it belongs to the people. That means
that a change of government could not cancel the project.
One last thought: we are too late to save Planet Earth,
but if all this was put in place by 2030 and other countries followed suit, we
could at least DELAY the onset of the worst effects of Global Warming/Climate
Change. I despair of the world my children and grandchildren will have to face.
SUMMARY
OF WATER WHEEL ADVANTAGES
1. Water wheels won’t hurt
fish.
2.All machinery, hydraulics, electrics
and electronics are on dry land for easy servicing and repair.
3. Wheels can be cleaned/
serviced while out of the water between tides.
4. Water wheels can make as
much power as we want - enough for all our needs including transport as
well as (possibly) export opportunities. There are heaps of sites we could harness
after Cambridge Gulf and King Sound.
5. Turbines could never do
that unless we had a million of them, plus they are hard to service being
underwater and I am not satisfied they won’t hurt fish.
7. We could also have an
aluminium smelter that take huge amounts of power.
8. There would be minimal impact
on the environment or the habitat of wildlife.
9. Water wheels are a PERMANENT
solution. The life span would be 100 to 200 years!
10. This is technology
that has been proven over 2 or 3 centuries – it is not rocket science!
If
you are reading this and are concerned about the survival of our planet (as I
am), then please get onto your local MP and appropriate minister and talk about
tidal power and global warming and climate change, clamour for action. Please
also send this message to everyone on your email address book – the more people
who are aware of tidal power and the more that people talk about it, the more
likely the government will be moved to act!
Let's see if we can help save the planet! Note: your grandchildren will thank you. Please be aware that solar and wind can never solve our energy needs – we need to think bigger and long term.
Other thoughts:
1) I read somewhere that it is
estimated that city reservoirs lose two thirds of the water to evaporation, so
why not float solar panels cheek by jowl on them covering the entire surface?
Everyone knows that solar panels don’t work as well when they get hot, so the
water would keep them cool, advancing their performance and their life span as
well while stopping evaporation.
2) We must stop
the development of Beetaloo. We don’t need it and the resultant gas means
carbon.
3) The idea of sending solar power to Singapore is
ludicrous! We need all of the power here for transport. Besides, wouldn’t there
be horrendous power losses going that enormous distance by under water sea-cable?
4) Except for making steel, shouldn’t we stop mining coal,
even for export?
Thank you for your attention.