Just think of all those pontoons and buoys that are scattered around the planet to act as moorings for all kinds of water craft and all exposed to the action of the waves and tides. Even if not ideally located for the maximum benefit one supposes they could scavenge at least some of the energy needs of the local community.
The question is as ever, what does is the energy cost/benefit ratio? and the financial cost/benefit? OK so wind power probably will never have the same capability as water power for energy production but we are seeing claims that wind turbines will just about pay for themselves within their claimed life expectancy (never mind the subsidies).
We also have to ask how many sites are there that are optimum for this sort of scheme and what the environmental impacts will be. One assumes there was a study before this was installed.
As you may deduce, amid all the debate and the subsidies, the lies distortions, claims and counter claims I begin to be sceptical of just about anything these days and I keep reminding myself of:
[ul][li] ther's no such thing as a free lunch[/li]
[li]if it seems too good to be true it probably is too good to be true[/li]
[li]the degree of veracity can be determined by the inverse relationship between the truth and the slickness of the website and one factor is all important animation[/ul]
Oh well, I think I'm open to be persuaded that this is the best thing since sliced bread but maybe I am now a confirmed cynic.
On the other hand, the animation here wasn't that slick and didn't in fact reveal anything at all. I would have thought we could all envisage from the photos what would happen to the sausage string when the waves hit it so what i was expecting when i clicked on the animation was to see the action of the hydraulic generators illustrated. I suppose this lack of "sickness" should actually persuade me this is going to be the best thing since sliced bread.
OK, time for some party animals to chime in with some "positive waves" (Sorry, couldn't resist).
JMW
