Talk:Shrouded tidal turbine

Energy Mid‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Math for Revenue Calculation

I am having a hard time replicating your results for the revenue calculation. It seems to be off by a decimal point.

for example, cutting and pasting your formula into google results in the follwing: [1] (1,049.02087)

Excel 2008 does the same.

Krystalogik (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction seems wrong

The introduction feels incomplete. Can somebody fix it? Mainly because the last sentence doesn't make sense and doesn't have punctuation.

Yours trully Railroader 96 06:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Copied from Turbine (commented out so <ref> is not necessary)

Although situating the rotor in the throat of the duct allows the blades to be supported at their tips (thus reducing bending stress from hydrodynamic thrust) the financial impact of the large amount of steel in the duct must not be omitted from any energy cost calculations.

Struck "There is no evidence that shrouded turbines..." as the general body of that content is confusing and not cited. See Talk.

The content of the line was confusing at best. It compared two different types of technology (Shrouded Turbine with Open Turbine) and gave no empirical evidence to substantiate the claims made. Furthermore the lack of citation and clarity- coupled with the content being identified as a "disadvantage"- caused the article to end at a point of confusion. Removing the extraneous content finishes the article and does not cause any loss of information in general. I'd recommend if someone with the expertise wants to compare Open Tidal Turbines to Closed Tidal Turbines and their comparative impact for fish strikes they develop that as an entirely different section. The content is interesting and topical.