http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-16676818

I have to say this does seem a really simple and great idea - it allows you to store energy which has always been an issue and there must be lost of sites where it could be used

Seems to make sense.
Only problem I see is the seawater reservoirs on the cliff top, salt damage to surrounding plants if there are leaks. And people falling in if not covered. And the variability of flow depending on the waves, too full when rough, not full enough when calm.

I seem to remember that some hydroelectric plants used to pump water back up overnight when demand was low rather than shut down or slow the (relatively more) efficient conventional stations. Also hydro could be flipped on quickly to meet the commercial break spikes when all the kettles went on

Exactly - I see this as an expansion of the Stored Hydro schemes - the advantage (to the UK) is that they can be built anywhere where this is a reasonable drop from sea to "storage tank" and we have a good coastline.

It doesn't have the capability to be a very large provider though. In the article they say:

Surely it just combines the standard problem of all wave power (sea water is corrosive and all this kit will need masses of maintenance) with the waste that is inherent in all stored hydro to create what is almost certainly going to be hugely expensive trickle of power.

A much better idea than wind power is you ask me. It's not as if you're going to get several days in a row without tides.
Wind power is a unreliable waste of tax/bill payers money.

Personally I'd go for carbon capture on coal power stations and pump the waste gas down old oil/gas wells.
Coal is readily available in the UK so we wouldn't need to worry about other countries cutting off the supply. Yes, it's prices, but no more so that stupid wind turbines and the extra power stations required to back them up on calm days.

But damn you future of the planet and some enormous government subsidies are at stake!


Well wave power is still variable - some days you get bigger waves than others. The solutions I've seen that use surface wave generation have to be massively over-engineered to cope with the fact that wave height can be anything from a few inches to 10's of feet. I've seen some solutions that use under-surface currents rather than waves which seemed a bit more feasible, but the total cost per watt still isn't any better than a nuke plant, even accounting for clean up costs of the latter.

I'm talking about tidal power, not wave power.

The article is talking about wave power, not tidal power. Specifically, it states "swell" waves hence the required dpths etc : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swell_%28ocean%29

As to cost, maybe he's full of sails bull but he states: