MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404026498 · doi:10.31224/4078

A review of global tidal stream energy resources

2024· review· en· W4404026498 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Danny Coles, Andrew Cornett, Kevin Haas, Chi-Yong Jo, Hongwei Liu, Jon Miles, Patxi Garcia Novo, Jérôme Thiébot

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater-Energy-Food Nexus Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy (signal processing)Energy resourcesEnvironmental scienceGeographyComputer scienceGeologyPhysicsEnvironmental protection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review identifies 426 sites with potentially suitable characteristics for tidal stream energy development, across nineteen countries in Europe, the Americas, Asia and Australasia. The most common site assessment quantifies the theoretical resource, which is the maximum amount of total energy that can be extracted by filling a site with turbines. This includes not only the energy extracted directly for electricity production, but also the energy losses resulting from support structure drag, drive train losses and wake mixing. The aggregated theoretical resource estimate is 1,000 TWh/year, from 262 sites (62% of those identified), across six countries. A more informative, albeit less common, indicator of electricity generation potential, is provided by practical resource studies, that estimate annual electricity production once economic, environmental, regulatory and social constraints are taken into account. Practical resource assessments are limited mainly to UK sites, with an estimated resource of 34 TWh/year, equivalent to 10% of the theoretical resource estimate. Of the seven countries with sufficient resource information, sites in the UK, Indonesia and New Zealand show the greatest potential to make national-scale electricity supply contributions. Resource assessment in France, Canada, USA and China indicates regional-scale impact potential, with possible further resource that may be developed, depending on future resource assessment of an additional 80 sites. For countries limited to resource assessment of ambient flow characteristics only, sites in Norway, Faroe Islands, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines show the greatest energy potential. This review brings to light the inconsistent and wide ranging site selection criteria and practical constraints that are adopted in the literature. This is reflective of uncertainty in (i) what constitutes a suitable site, (ii) how site suitability evolves over time (e.g., with changing competing energy costs in the energy sector), and (iii) the level of energy that can practically be extracted. When these uncertainties are combined, along with uncertainty in resource data, and the magnitude of energy losses, reported P10 and P90 resource estimates can lie 43% below and 30% above the P50 value respectively. It is recommended that future resource assessment characterises how the resource magnitude is impacted by site selection criteria/practical constraint ranges, that acknowledge and reflect their time-dependency and uncertainty.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater-Energy-Food Nexus StudiesFrench-language works237,207