Fox, McDonald and Pritchard's fluid mechanics book brought me here

I know they had to give up for lack of funding and lack of successes or taking too long to deploy - but considering the POTENTIAL of RANDOM wave movements we (all the first world countries) should throw money right, left and center at all attempts, provided they have enthusiastic academcis and _engineers_ behind them 70 % of the plantet is covered by ocean and a lot is shallow enough that anchoring a cable into the ocean ground would be feasible earr the coasts and being "agitated" enough that they have something to harvest (although milder waters may have the advantage of NO monster waves, think Mediterranean, so less output would be paired with less constructive challenges). Once such a strong cable is installed into the ocean ground (with a foundation of concrete and steel) other things could be also anchored to it, changing the cable is not _that_ much of a technical or cost challenge, that is tech we have mastered long ago, and there is economy of scale. So the existing foundation & cable could be used for other types of wave generators later or completely other things think growing enclosures for fish, or floating solar panels, or even a floating "garden" or island for human settlement. * society at large, the scientific and engineering community also gains KNOWLEDGE & skills, and if ONE of them would be viable it would not matter that 99 other projects failed. It is like with Pennicillin. It took from 1927 - 1944 until they could mass produce it as medication. But once it was available for mankind and agriculture it was such a game changer. It was not even that expensive to develop it - but it would not have mattered if it had cost 1000 times more to develop it, it would still have been a game changer (or in other words 200 - 400 other such projects could have been pushed for). There is plenty of money - these governments would rather splurge it on war, military contractors, and big biz (in form of subsidies, even nuclear and fossil fuels get a lot). As opposed to splurging on research and engineers and STEM graduates. The Afghanistan and Iraq war likely cost 4 - 6 trillion USD (could be even higher). The U.S. spends 1.3 trillion per year on the military (if you include the VA, and that is an estimate of Larry Wilkerson in ? 2017 or 2018). Wars are extra ! Of course that is higher than the _official_ budgets of almost 800 billion USD now (he includes the VA and other stuff that is conveniently left out). The NATO partners also spend a lot - there is the money also the trillions they CREATED in form of QE for the Banks after 2009. 4.5 trillion alone in the U.S, comparable volumes in the EURO zone and I think the Bank of England created 700 - 800 billion GBP. Never mind they resumed that practice again with the pandemic. Even before the pandemic, during the "good" ecnomy. They already had propped up "the markets" again in fall 2019 in the U.S. when severe cracks appeared in the global financial system again: banks would not lend each other money over night. That is standard operating procedure. The interests for that standard procedure skyrocketed in fall 2019 and that was very reminiscent of the height of the financial crisis when the banks did not trust each other anymore. The fed / treasury injected again money, which they created with the trick of QE, then "only" billions. Funny how the lauded "free" financial "markets" are on life support (or at least in the ICU) every few years. QE is allegedly an "asset" swap. Yeah, but the assets that no one would buy and I very much doubt the trillions of the Great Financial Crisis swaps had been swapped back before they resumed the practice in 2019. And 1.2 trillions were created in the U.S. for the "marketes" to bail out finance when corona hit them the. That was mid March 2020, and before anyone else got any help, not even big biz (that produced something other than speculation and bets). One could have funded hundreds of wave related projects and with so much research going on - some teams find big hits. While others find nuggest, not the big win, but still useful. One big hit among 100 and a few decent if more modest successes (other applications, niche off grid applications, or not very efficent for easy to maintain and cheap for developing countries) would come out of it. Maybe that project would have needed more engineering input and paid engineering work hours ?? In other words understaffed or not enough budget for wages to attract (additional) excellent talent. These are precarious jobs, the engineers may be enthusiastic but they have to live with it that they most likely will be out of a job in 1 - 2 years. You can also be fired by the big industries as well, but it is not _that_ predictable. Better funding would mean more job security (or longer projects) so they would have more applicants. They seem to have taken long to implement the first generator and also the project in Portugal was dragged out. Or was that already impacted by less than ideal funding ? The good engineers and researchers need to be paid and you need enough of them to push the project forward. STEM careers would be possible, and those STEM graduates get a first class practical, hands-on further education as they work in such projects. I just watched the Makani project (kite), no doubt those STEM graduates also needed a lot of skills to work with materials, they needed to improvise. Likely the amateurs have no chance when it comes to harnessing wave engery because it is too complex and it is hard to catch erratic energy. I would expect that taking that energy out would minimally cool the water, not a bad thing if that happens at a large scale. As for amateuer solutions (wind): There are DIY Savonius / Darrieus style vertical windturbines made for cheap from barrels etc. That type of wind turbine is not very efficient (whether industrially manufactured or DIY) when it comes to using a lot of the available wind energy. Horizontal put the wind to much better use. BUT they can be much smaller they allow for a DIY solution, in which case they are cheap to make. From old steel drums or other materials, they can be put on the ground, are not visible (do not need to be on a hill), can be mounted almost everywhere, they catch even little wind & from every direction, no hassle with noise, neighbours, zoning codes, wildlife. so they do "base load" at a very low harvesting level and for cheap. Not a large harvest, but what they _can_ get, they get reliably and they get it especially if solar does not work. Even if there is only little wind in summer nights, the low tech generator will catch it. No sun - there is a good chance it is at least a little windy. Often more than on sunny days. So it is an ideal backup for solar in off grid situations. No expensive foundations, special transports, or maintainance needed. The turtle beating the hare. The Dutch clawed land from the sea with a low tech approach. (the built dams and used the mills to pump it dry. Then they grew plants that could tolerate the high salt content, and the humus enclosed the salt, so it became inert. Then they could grow more demanding plants in the new fields or meadows. Rinse and repeat, until that was good and fertile farm land. Do it long enough and often enough and you also make progress. Steady and modest and large scale did the trick for the Dutch. And folks w/o a lot of money to buy better tech, can have the DIY turbines. A lot of locations are not a good fit for the large efficient turbines (they must be windy, and most of the time to warrant the huge investment), plus the good windy sites are often close to settlements. DIY applications: in developing countries. Or small, robust (off grid) operations. I saw a (Kirsten Dirksen ?) video where the DIY wind generator very reliably runs the pumps (video) of a low maintainance, off grid, "remote / extensive" aquaponic system in a parking lot. "Remote" means: not near where the person lives, he is a nerdy engineer. Or regenerating a pond by pumping air into it, or pumping water from a water catchment to irrigate a property (or to pump it uphill to another pond for cattle). It could be a small set up to power a remote cabin in areas where you cannot rely on the sun, or to support the solar panels of a house boat in regions with lots of rain and a cold season (I saw a video of a couple that lives off grid on a houseboat and they have a floating garden on a body of water in British Columbia. They would not have the space on shore (or would not get permission). They have solar panels on the roof of the house boat - but a small wind installation (on land) that fills up batteries for backup could be an option. They would haul it onto the boat when needed. (Or a little freezer that is on a small cabin on the land so that animals cannot get into it). A small land mounted installation would spare them stability issues with a wind turbine on water, they would need to anchor it to the ground, that is not an option for such a small operation. The advantage, they have a source of energy that delivers when solar energy harvest is low. DIY Daerrius / Savonius turbines could provide a minimum of energy in developing countries to ensure they can cool food, have light, can wash or dry things. (and hardly ever need a diesel generator). Or can skip that investment (and risk if it spills). The Darrieus / Savonius type turbines do not provide a lot of energy and do not use a lot of the potential wind - but that harvest they provide reliably and with low investment costs or impact on the environment. So that would be an ideal setup for developing countries. I cannot see such options for DIY wave / tidal energy though.

Sadly, now bought for £1 by Orkney Council and lies dormant at Lyness. What a shame.

I will be asking my MP, etc., why England hasn't taken up this opportunity. Oh, but I know the answer; MP's have investments in fracking companies; what a pity that we all have to pay for their greed and shortsightedness.

Excellent use of solar power!

plus d'informations svp