Tidal power stations require specialized technology to capture energy from changing tides, which is still in the early stages of development and more expensive to build and maintain compared to traditional hydroelectric power stations. Additionally, tidal power stations face more technical challenges due to the harsh marine environment, increasing their construction and operation costs.
Hydroelectric power stations certainly have their advantages and disadvantages, as do all forms of electrical generation. Probably the best solution is to use a combination of different means of producing electricity, with hydroelectric stations as part of the mix.
There is usually a large one off initial capital outlay, for example to build a dam. After that the electricity produced is almost zero cost You will usually be sued also, but it is too clean to turn down.
Tidal energy is a form of gathering energy from the tidal currents. Depending of the size of the system it could cost billions. A system planned for Britain would cost 15 billion pounds to build.
Power turbines are driven by steam. Steam can be raised by thermal, nuclear or geothermal processes. Wind and water can also drive a generator. The auxiliaries for a power station (which I think is what this question is asking) are typically powered by step down transformers within the power station. In nuclear power stations there are often standby-critical supplies which are driven by gas turbines or diesel generators.
Coal is still the largest energy supply for power stations, with natural gas in second place. Of course this does vary from one country to another, for example if hydro is widely available this will be used, as in Canada, and France uses mainly nuclear.
Hydroelectric power stations certainly have their advantages and disadvantages, as do all forms of electrical generation. Probably the best solution is to use a combination of different means of producing electricity, with hydroelectric stations as part of the mix.
very
The cost is the difference of thousands of families without jobs
Depending on the size it could cost millions of dollars, millions of pounds, millions of euros. There's no way of answering this question accurately. One of the suggested tidal stations for the Severn Estuary in England/Wales is costed at 23 billion pounds. That depends on how wide an estuary it has to span, on the geological conditions for its foundations, on the tidal range, and other factors. But for any serious tidal barrage you are looking at hundreds of millions of pounds, probably billions of pounds. Basically what we are saying is that Tidal power is not developed as of yet. We do not know the cost per watt of this technology as of yet.
Oil fired power stations contribute to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, while tidal power stations have minimal environmental impact. Oil fired power stations are dependent on a finite resource, whereas tidal power is a renewable energy source. Additionally, tidal power stations have predictable energy generation patterns, while oil prices can fluctuate.
It may cos around 100 MWh
Destruction of free-running rivers and their ecosystems
There is usually a large one off initial capital outlay, for example to build a dam. After that the electricity produced is almost zero cost You will usually be sued also, but it is too clean to turn down.
Tidal energy is a form of gathering energy from the tidal currents. Depending of the size of the system it could cost billions. A system planned for Britain would cost 15 billion pounds to build.
The major hurdle associated with hydro power is to ensure uniform availability of water which is not possible as water availability is gioverened by nature. The huge capital cost ( almost three to four times than thermal power) is another drawback yielda higher unit rate of production.
Power turbines are driven by steam. Steam can be raised by thermal, nuclear or geothermal processes. Wind and water can also drive a generator. The auxiliaries for a power station (which I think is what this question is asking) are typically powered by step down transformers within the power station. In nuclear power stations there are often standby-critical supplies which are driven by gas turbines or diesel generators.
Yes, hydroelectric could power a city. The issue with most green energy sources is cost and inability to obtain uninterrupted power on demand. Hydroelectric does not have these limitations. It does have some negative environmental impacts, just as all energy sources do.