3 ms·
Ya I think you're right, the float needs to be as thin as possible, otherwise most of it will be underwater and not affected when the surface rises. So a 1 MW
by zackmorris 13y ago
Ya I think you're right, the float needs to be as thin as possible, otherwise most of it will be underwater and not affected when the surface rises. So a 1 MW float would have a volume of about 4 million m3, which is 2 km on a side if it's 1 m thick. It's probably better to just find large bays and install low head turbines. Kinda fun to do the math though!
- dredmorbius 13y agoIt's not that the float needs to be thin. It's that the thickness doesn't matter in terms of power generation. The minimal requirement is that the float, well, float. Other than that, more material is simply excess cost to consider. The EPRI study I mention is based on, IIRC, turbines installed at the gate. Maximum capture would require building a barrier dam, which has been done at a few limited sites, though it would be impractical in SF due to ship traffic requirements.