In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 09:05:30 +0100, Jeff Layman
wrote:

I like the idea of tidal power as it is constant and predictable. But
will the technology ever be up to it?

The Achilles heel of tidal power, like all renewables, is
intermittency. It may be more predictable than wind and solar, but it
still has to be compensated for, by supplying yet more intermittent
and inefficient power elsewhere to coincide with the gaps. Oh, and
tidal power isn't that constant either. It varies across each tidal
cycle from nothing to a peak and then back down again, and the peaks
vary in strength with a two-week cycle between spring and neap tides.

I notice in the Bay of Fundy article the usual reference to the
maximum power output of the turbines, when in reality it will be
something like 20% of that when averaged over 12 months, due primarily
to intermittency.
Nuclear doesn't suffer from intermittency, except perhaps when
governments such as Merkel's get involved!

Perhaps now all those tidal power supporters would like to pile in and
show why Chris is talking cock. With numbers please - so if you can't
do sums don't bother.

Not me. I liked the tidal flow job but, if the sums don't work, stick
with nuclear.


--
Tim Lamb