Field Comparison
A study was done to compare the general features of wave energy and particularly those of the the Slow Mill, to other sustainable energy ffields. At first inspection it looks like the Slow Mill outperforms most other technologies.
Technology | Visual Impact | Alternative Income | Increase Biodiversity | Flexible Planning | Grid Flexibility |
Geothermal | V | X | X | X | V |
Solar | X | X | X | V | X |
Offshore Wind | X | X | V | X | X |
Onshore Wind | X | X | X | X | X |
Slow Mill | V | V | V | V | V |
Biofuel | V | X | X | X | V |
Tidal | V | X | X | X | X |
Footprint
The power density of wave energy in the Netherlands also compares favourably to other sustainable energy sources. Whereas solar gets about 150W/m2, winds yields about 600W/m2 and open tidal may reach up to 4000W/m2, Dutch wave energy reaches up to 15.000W/m, hardly needing any surface area. A direct competitor, Wind at Sea, was closer examined as to the amount of space needed for the same amount of energy. A 70 km2 wind farm of 350 MW installed capacity and a utilisation rate of 45% generates an average of 158 MW. A Slow Mill wave farm, consisting of a single row of 35km length and 0,1 km wide in 15kW/m seas, receives an average of 35.000 x 15=525 MW wave energy. At 30% efficiency (or in case of a double row at lower effficiency 2 x 15%) this is also 158 MW. However, the space needed for this same amount of energy, is 35 x 0,1 = 3,5km2 or 3,5/70=5% of the wind footprint.