Slashdot Mirror


The Heavyweight Sea Snail

Roland Piquepaille writes "Scotland, like many European countries, must comply with regulations requiring that a mandatory percentage of the energy it uses comes from renewable sources. For Scotland, this percentage will be 18% in 2010 and 40% by 2020. One of the programs in development is Ian Bryden's sea 'Snail' program. The Snail is a 30-ton anchoring device which uses hydrofoils -- wings that 'fly' in the water -- to generate enough power from tidal waves to service 10,000 homes by 2007. This overview contains more details and a picture of a prototype of the Snail with its six wings." There are several mentions of this in UK newspapers and the Scottish government webpages.

358 comments

  1. Salter's Duck by alanw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's hope it does better than the Salter's Duck. The development project was cancelled in the 1980's after UK government departments grossly over-estimated (by a factor of 10) the cost of the electricity it was going to produce. Cock-up or conspiracy?

    1. Re:Salter's Duck by Vihai · · Score: 0

      "...enough power from tidal waves to service 10,000 homes..."

      ...and how many human hairs is it big?

    2. Re:Salter's Duck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Salty Dick ? Is it better than that ?

    3. Re:Salter's Duck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many Fish and other sea life will this kill! Sick PETA on them!

  2. Whew. . . by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I never tried escargot, and probably never will, but I saw snail, 30 ton and almost lost my lunch.

    1. Re:Whew. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing out on a delicacy.

  3. Why? by Wes+Janson · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Don't we have regulations like that over here in the US? And how come I managed to get first post? Is the apocalypse coming?

    1. Re:Why? by oneishy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How was the parent post modded Score:0,Troll ?

      It is a good point that if there were regulations like that in the US, things might be very different. I think few would argue that we depend on oil for to many of our energy needs.

      The annoying part which neither the summary or the article address, is that a country is sovereign and is not *required* to follow regulations setup by another group. It may choose to take part in a treaty, or follow similar guidelines as other countries, but *required* is another story. But alas, there is no supporting information on said regulations and/or their origin, so we must blindly accept everything that is said!

      But I digress....

    2. Re:Why? by The_K4 · · Score: 5, Informative

      In this case it's not oil that we are dependent on but COAL. Now while we mine coal right here in the US remember that coal mining is by far the most dangerous occupation in the US, for each coal plant in the US one coal-miner is killed each year in an accident. This doesn't count the long term healt and psychological effects that mining has on a person. Nor does it take into effects the polution generated by a coal plant. Sorry, but oil fuels some of our energy needs (heating and automobiles) but very little oil is used in electrical power generation.

    3. Re:Why? by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1, Funny

      One big reason is the USA is huge compared to most countries. And these alternative power sources normally cost a lot more in setup cost then your average power plant. So it would cost us a lot more to go around building these things everywhere.
      Another big reason starts with G ends with H. and has eorge W. Bus in the middle.

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    4. Re:Why? by robslimo · · Score: 1

      I'm not too conversant with all the states relevent laws but, sadly, I think California is probably the most aggressive in that regard (though mightily mis-guided in some energy related areas).

      I admire Scotland and others for their proactive approach, I just hope that it is enough. The overwhelming problem is convincing the population at large that there really is a problem approaching (more quickly that most realize).

      That's why my sig promotes a discussion forum that's focused on Alt/Renewable energy. It's amazing how many newbies who just stop by to see what's up wind up building their own RE systems (limited as some of them may be) in just a short while. Even better, they do a great job of spreading the interest/infection to others around them.

      We need to raise public awareness of the folly of long term fossil fuel dependence and sway the opinions and actions of the people we put in power.

    5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how come I managed to get first post? Is the apocalypse coming? Must not be.

    6. Re:Why? by Naffer · · Score: 3, Informative

      While it is true that coal mining is still a rather dangerous occupation, the polution generated by coal-fired power stations isn't as bad as many people belive. In the last few decades, coal has come quite a long way in reducing toxic emmisions. Modern coal plants combust the fuel much more completly, and are outfitted with high-tech (and very expensive) scrubbers to remove the really toxic byproducts (especially sulfer).
      Considering that our coal supplies will long outlast our oil supplies, I think that its still a good idea to invest in cleaner coal technologies. Linky.

    7. Re:Why? by po8 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not to nitpick, but coal mining is the number 2 most dangerous occupation in the world IIRC. Commercial fishing is substantially more dangerous.

    8. Re:Why? by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      What about mercury poisoning? Is it not true that due to burning coal the murcury content of most domestic freshwater fish, and some saltwater species is at a high enough level that eating fish too often (more than once a week) can lead to troubling accumulation of mercury in the body?

    9. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because we were well on our way to using 40% renewable energy before Bush took office. In fact if Gore had taken office we'd probably all be living in a free-energy utopian society right now wouldn't we.

    10. Re:Why? by U.I.D+754625 · · Score: 1

      Some stats from 2002: http://money.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P63405.a sp

      It states that mining is the most perilous industry as a whole to work in. This is US stats only, not world though.

      --


      //Blessed are they that run around in circles, for they shall be known as wheels.
  4. Socialism at its best by Gothmolly · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Isn't it great, where the State can mandate the advance of technology? This reminds me of that Simpon's quote "Young lady, in this house we obey the 2nd law of Thermodynamics!"

    Who's to say that these energy mandates are even achievable, or desirable? Since they won't be affordable, all this does is create a new class of subsidized business, and executives to run the businesses, and higher taxes on (in the case of Scotland) an already under-performing economy.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Socialism at its best by velo_mike · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Since they won't be affordable, all this does is create a new class of subsidized business, and executives to run the businesses, and higher taxes on

      Who's to say that's not desirable - for the state. One's power increases with each person dependant on you, all the better to guarantee your position in government.

      --

      At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
      Alan Greenspan

    2. Re:Socialism at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Better than being caught in 20 years time with rising oil prices and a renewable energy industry that went bust 15 years ago, isnt it?

    3. Re:Socialism at its best by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not socialism, it's simply a mandate to cover everyone's asses. As non-renewable sources are depleted (or grow more expensive), it will be better to have an extra decade or so of development - not to be desperately scrambling for a solution.

    4. Re:Socialism at its best by b-baggins · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. Create fairytale disaster
      2. Come up with boondoggle, pork-laden solution
      3. Profit!!

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    5. Re:Socialism at its best by oneishy · · Score: 1

      "Since they won't be affordable, ...

      Whoa, predicting the future again? Funny you say that they are not affordable, as if that was not the second goal of renewable energy sources.

      Further you definition of affordable is probably short sited, as others have pointed out. Would you rather pay an extra 1cent/kwh long term, or ignore problems that will come in the future which could cause a 50cent/kwh raise in prices?

      "higher taxes"? Are you assuming the energy would be free, and taxes would pay for the production? This being different in the end from paying for the energy and having no change in taxes?

    6. Re:Socialism at its best by general_re · · Score: 2, Interesting
      As non-renewable sources are depleted (or grow more expensive), it will be better to have an extra decade or so of development - not to be desperately scrambling for a solution.

      Except that there are distinct advantages to being second in such a case. Let the Euros make the huge investment in R&D for feasible alternatives, while the US continues to enjoy cheap energy via petroleum. Then, if/when oil becomes economically infeasible, the US simply borrows whatever magic solution the Euros have discovered in the mean time.

      Sometimes it's cheaper and easier to let someone else do the pioneering.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    7. Re:Socialism at its best by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      It's not nearly as funny when you supply step 2. In fact, it starts coming dangerously close to being insightful.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    8. Re:Socialism at its best by _LORAX_ · · Score: 1

      Better than being caught in 20 years time with rising oil prices and a renewable energy industry that went bust 15 years ago, isnt it?


      Better for whom is the question you need to ask... oh.. you meant the general population?
    9. Re:Socialism at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's not socialism, it's simply a mandate to cover everyone's asses.

      Here's a hint, when you cover your own ass, it's a free market. When the state covers your ass, it's a collective one (Socialism, Communism, etc).

    10. Re:Socialism at its best by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The state has had a huge role in creating new technologies. Half the stuff in the computer industry, a great deal of basic research in genetics, in physics. People seriously overestimate the contributions that the free market to science and knowledge as a whole.

      Private corporations are great at going the last mile, making a processor or a hard drive that's 10% better than last year.

      They're less good at pumping in huge amounts of money to make a technology initially feasable or doing basic research.

      The free market provides substandard information. There've been several studies of rogaine published in scientific journals. Those funded by industry (even though industry doesn't disclose their funding, sometimes in violation of the pubishing journal's standards ) often show a drug doing much better than government funded research shows it to be.

      Besides, many countries try to lure venture capital, which creates jobs. Better infrastructure and more stable energy costs are considerations for major manufacturing concerns which help more developed countries compete with cheap labor.

      Besides, if you have high unemployment projects like this can create jobs as well as contributing to the economy. And unemployment creates more problems than just people not working (crime, drug use, etc.)

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    11. Re:Socialism at its best by Malc · · Score: 1, Troll

      "Since they won't be affordable, all this does is create a new class of subsidized business, and executives to run the businesses, and higher taxes on (in the case of Scotland) an already under-performing economy."

      As if the US defence industry is any different. The US spends more than the next 5 biggest defence spenders combined. It's a form of welfare. If the government's going to spend money like this then I would prefer it to be for something useful like renewable energy than the military.

    12. Re:Socialism at its best by !splut · · Score: 1

      Well said, chum.

      I for one am a staunch supporter of the undemocratic influence on politics, the wholesale environmental damage, and the pronounced socio-economic striation resulting from overreliance on non-renewable resources controlled by massive corporate monopolies.

      By continuing to allow petro-chemical interests to dominate political policy, we ensure that the natural, capitalist, laissez faire stagnation of innovation maintains the status quo, so I can buy another yacht, and poor children in cities around the world may continue to suffer from debilitating asthma.

      Hurrah!

      --
      The angel in the oatmeal.
    13. Re:Socialism at its best by JET+666 · · Score: 1

      4. GOTO 1.

      --
      De sig boss de sig
    14. Re:Socialism at its best by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh, that's a great business model, and one that's alive and well in the neoconservative politics currently controlling our country.

      But the impending bankrupcy of oil supplies is NOT a fairytale. I think it's obvious, or at least it should be, that getting power by burning or exploding several millions of barrels per day of a substance that exists only sparsely is not the sort of thing we can do forever. My relatively ecomoderate history professor liked to quote that oil supplies will start to run out around 2040, using 1992's numbers. And our consumption has increased vastly since then...not due to the SUV as some will tell you, but due to increased petroleum usage in the industrial development of second and third wave nations, as well as increased reliance by first wave nations.

      Personally, I'm not too worried, because right around the time that oil gets really scarce, all of the hundreds of alternative solutions that are already fairly mature will suddenly become viable. At that point, whoever has the best, most efficient way to use the elements to make juice will stand pretty strong against the backdrop of nations scrambling to gather their their oil money.

      Europe has these regulations to decrease the potential effects of oil greed. When the oil crunch comes, they're half way to neutrality. If the US had regulations and incentives, or rather, more of them (NY does offer tax credits for alternative fuel sources but they're break-even deals, not something to bank on), we wouldn't have to worry either. "Let the Arabs fight over their oil, we've got solar farms!" Unfortunately, America's caught between myopic politicians and a still strong petroleum industry trying to squeeze as much as possible out of their remaining power. The end result is -- well, war, high fuel prices and an intense media driven hatred of "green" politics.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    15. Re:Socialism at its best by jilles · · Score: 1

      Then the Republican party must be dominated by socialists, how else would you explain the recent focus on Mars and Nasa :-).

      Capitalists are a pretty stupid bunch. With their focus on short term profit they tend to be sort of self destructive. Socialism was a response to the capitalistic self destructiveness. Of course communism, which can be seen as the extreme form of socialism, is equally self destructive. The past century provides plenty of evidence that extreme forms of both are not a good idea. The US economy nearly collapsed in the thirties whereas communism has wreaked havoc in other parts of the world. Since then, moderated forms of both have been quite succesful. Communist China is currently one of the fastest growing economies whereas many european citizens maintain a lifestyle that is unthinkable in the rest of the world (including the US).

      Luckily there are shades of grey for those with enough of a brain to grasp concepts other than black and white. Hopefully one of those is elected in November.

      Now back to the energy debate. Capitalist individuals tend to not account for a major portion of the cost: cleaning up the mess. Good functioning governments do because usually that cost ends up on their balance sheet in one way or another. Obviously the US goverment is dysfunctional in this respect because it has to subsidize oil to sustain a rediculous (from a technical perspective) waste of energy. For example, billions of dollars are currently being spend to safeguard access to middle east oilsupplies (exercise: divide defense budget by population number, add amount to your annual fuel expenses. Now compensate for the fact that not all US citizens drive cars. Don't worry you've already payed your bill via other taxes). At the same time the US government allows their citizens to drive SUVs which burn the subsidized fuel like crazy. Something is deeply wrong there from an economical perspective.

      Calculations of when the world oil supplies will be depleted vary widely (personally I don't think it will happen during my life time) but it is becoming painfully obvious that it will be much sooner than is necessary from a technical point of view (just compare the average fuelconsumption per kilometer of cars in the US and Europe). Fuel consumption could easily be throttled down 20 to 30% using existing technology. Using more advanced techniques, you can go much further (40-50%). Abandon the concept of combustion as a means of powering engines and you can go even further than that. This is why I believe the currently projected oil reserves will last much longer than it would if todays technology would cease to develop.

      Investments in alternative forms of energy have no short term advantage. However, the long term advantages are critical from both a strategic and economical point of view. Hence, it is something governments should be stimulating. Right now this strategically important technology is being developed, and commercialized outside of the US. By the time the US needs the technology they'll need to import it. By this time capitalism will be mercyless to the US.

      --

      Jilles
    16. Re:Socialism at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Then, if/when oil becomes economically infeasible, the US simply borrows whatever magic solution the Euros have discovered in the mean time.

      "Simply borrows?" You mean licenses the patents from European companies, buys the equipment from European companies, and hires experts and contractors from Europe to actually implement it all?

      Sometimes it's cheaper and easier to let someone else do the pioneering.

      And sometimes it puts you at a strategic disavantage.

    17. Re:Socialism at its best by miro2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The fact is that private companies do not have the long-term interests of society in mind. They have a mandate to increase profits.

      Socialism is bad when it causes the state to interfere in short-term market issues (ie, price fixing), because no single entity can affectively micromange such a complex system. But applying broad long-term pressures to the market is not socialism, its a smart policy that recognizes the deep complexity of the market system.

    18. Re:Socialism at its best by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      Thanks for this excellent treatment.

    19. Re:Socialism at its best by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Then, if/when oil becomes economically infeasible...
      What do you mean by "if"? Is there a magical bottomless oil well you're not telling us about? If so I'd like to buy some shares.
    20. Re:Socialism at its best by velo_mike · · Score: 1
      Then the Republican party must be dominated by socialists, how else would you explain the recent focus on Mars and Nasa :-).

      Or the prescription drug bill, the massive increase in government spending for homeland (in)security, and education. You're correct there, the current version of the republicans are no different than their democrat opponents, not overt socialists but certainly not economic conservatives.

      Capitalists are a pretty stupid bunch. With their focus on short term profit they tend to be sort of self destructive. Socialism was a response to the capitalistic self destructiveness

      You're refering to the capitalist ideal of social security, which in the name of short term policies is doomed to require a massive cash influx? Or the capitalist ideals of modern europe who are also faced with the baby boom, have promised things that are undeliverable and now face massive strikes when the truth comes out?

      --

      At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
      Alan Greenspan

    21. Re:Socialism at its best by general_re · · Score: 1

      It's a comparative measure - as long as the price of oil is lower than the alternatives, it'll be viable, no matter how expensive it is in absolute terms. That being said, change it to "when", if you want ;)

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    22. Re:Socialism at its best by danharan · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wholeheartedly agree.

      The production tax credit (PTC) for wind in the US was 1.5c per kilowatt-hour because that was needed to have a level playing field with the heavily subsidized fossil fuel industry.

      So instead of cutting the subsidies to polluting tech, we increase it for the next generation. Fusion and fission are both heavily subsidized as well. Meanwhile the PTC for wind has expired, and it is competing against unfairly subsidized incumbents.

      Besides the obvious tax burden, this has a nasty counter-productive effect: cheaper energy makes it harder for energy-efficiency to be taken as seriously as it should. Subsidizing production makes us all wasteful.

      Better we stop subsidizing all this energy production and let the markets take care of it. We might find that under a truly capitalist system we waste less and produce what we need far more efficiently than we do under our current socialist system- something the Russians learned after the fall of the Berlin wall.

      --
      Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
    23. Re:Socialism at its best by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Who's to say that these energy mandates are even achievable, or desirable? Since they won't be affordable, all this does is create a new class of subsidized business, and executives to run the businesses, and higher taxes on (in the case of Scotland) an already under-performing economy.

      A government by definition is designed to serve the interests of its constituents. Towards this end it must do things (such as construction zoning) that the people affected may find annoying, or even fight. It's a constant deliberation, considering what is, in fact, "the common good".

      Developing alternative energy sources is an honorable, long-term goal, and one I sincerely wish our United States of America would persue with more vigor.

      Nuclear energy doesn't have to be the messy, dangerous, unsightly compounds developed in the 1960's - we have micronuclear plants small enough to power a neighborhood, specifically engineered to fail gracefully. Wasn't there an article about this recently where a Japanese company offered to build one for an Alaskan city? (I can't find a link)

      Having reviewed the design, I can say that I would *love it* if my community decided to go for one of these. Knowing that my energy use is fundamentally not polluting the environment would give me tremendous peace of mind!

      Oh, and a coal-fired plant gives off more radiation than one of these micronuclear plants!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    24. Re:Socialism at its best by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      You are aware that oil wells in the gulf are refilling? You are aware that most oil may be non-biotic; we've extracted oil from wells drilled in solid granite. You are aware that oils there are several species of plants that can be refined into a very fine oil. You are aware that animal entrails can be reduced to a very fine grade oil, right?

      The last two points make oil a renewable resource.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    25. Re:Socialism at its best by IceAgeComing · · Score: 1

      You're refering to the capitalist ideal of social security, which in the name of short term policies is doomed to require a massive cash influx?

      Uh, removing slimy tax loopholes for the insanely rich and the corps' they own should cover that. And, by the way, done properly it will not destroy incentives to invest where there is actual risk of loss.

      Or the capitalist ideals of modern europe who are also faced with the baby boom, have promised things that are undeliverable and now face massive strikes when the truth comes out?

      Uhhhh, what? Modern Europe has some pretty solid economic foundations. Life's pretty good there for most. It's too bad more Americans don't ever leave their own countries. It's my explanation for why the Republican Party can continue to exist.

    26. Re:Socialism at its best by general_re · · Score: 1
      You mean licenses the patents from European companies, buys the equipment from European companies, and hires experts and contractors from Europe to actually implement it all?

      See previous comment.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    27. Re:Socialism at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Socialism? How about Kennedy's commitment to landing a man on the moon and bringing him home safetly to Earth?

    28. Re:Socialism at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware that non-biotic oil and the "refilling" of the gulf have been refuted by geologists and planetary physicists alike?

      This is Bush science. "Keep investing in Oil" science. And if you'd look beyond the press release, you'd see that it's pretty shoddy science.

      But, you know, you fucking idiots will believe anything if it means you can buy a V8.

    29. Re:Socialism at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My relatively ecomoderate history professor liked to quote that oil supplies will start to run out around 2040, using 1992's numbers.

      And if he quoted ones from the 70's with Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" numbers we would be eating each other by now due to a lack of oil.

    30. Re:Socialism at its best by michael_cain · · Score: 1
      The state has had a huge role in creating new technologies. Half the stuff in the computer industry, a great deal of basic research in genetics, in physics. People seriously overestimate the contributions that the free market to science and knowledge as a whole... Private corporations are great at going the last mile, making a processor or a hard drive that's 10% better than last year.

      Interesting. I would have made almost exactly the opposite statement: people seriously overestimate the contributions that the state makes to science and knowledge as a whole.

      Part of it may be that I think you underestimate the value of so-called applied research, the work that has to be done to reduce something from theory to real practice. It is one thing to know that quantum theory predicts that flash memory is possible. It is quite another to know how to fabricate such a device and make it work reliably. Research in the private sector does tend to be more focused on understanding how to solve particular problems. Yet those attempts produce a surprising amount of "pure" knowledge as well -- Bell Labs was not looking for the background radiation from the Big Bang, they were trying to solve a problem with static on microwave communications links.

      Part of it may be that I think computers are a particularly bad example to use. I think it is difficult to credit much of the current state of computer hardware and software technology to state-led research. Integrated circuits were developed privately. Microprocessors were developed privately. I believe that hard disks were developed privately. To expand on that, I believe that IBM and other companies put very large amounts of money into pure research on the magnetic properties of thin films -- and that there is very little state-led research in that area. I would assert that the same situation is true on the software side.

      Part of it may be that we disagree on who should get credit for some research results. Suppose a professor at the local land-grant university develops an elegant new bit of mathematics -- does the state or private enterprise get credit? Not necessarily a trivial question. Suppose 10% of the professor's salary is paid by a grant from the NSF, 20% of that salary is paid from students' tuition, and 70% of that salary is paid from an endowment left by a wealthy alumni. Which sector gets credit for the research results? Perhaps the building in which he worked was built 50 years ago by the state government for an entirely different purpose. It would still be hard for me to give much credit to the state government, since in all liklihood, if they have any concern about the professor, it is that he/she spends too much time on research and not enough time teaching (a commonly heard complaint in many states).

      However, in some areas you are right, particularly those where basic research has become very expensive. Private enterprise is unlikely to fund the kind of accelerators needed to do basic experimental research in particle physics. Genetics may be a different issue -- wasn't it a race to see whether the government-led effort or a privately-funded one would sequence the human genome first?

    31. Re:Socialism at its best by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      The difference is that oil consumption numbers have gone UP since 1992 while oil supply numbers have gone DOWN -- and the cost of extraction has nearly doubled.

      See? We what you just did a straw man argument, and outside of right wing talk shows it's generally considered poor forensic practice.. Just because one statistic was wrong doesn't mean others, which aren't dependent on it, are wrong as well.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    32. Re:Socialism at its best by orim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Personally, I'm not too worried, because right around the time that oil gets really scarce, all of the hundreds of alternative solutions that are already fairly mature will suddenly become viable"

      Maybe. But you should be worried, very worried. Gasolene is not the only thing we make out of oil, you know... byproducts are everywhere... think plastics, for instance. Look around you, and start counting/writing it down. If all of a sudden, you have to replace every single piece of plastic around you with something of similar properties, *and* just as cheap, what would you use??? Composites? Too expensive. Metal? Enormous energy cost to mine, clean, smelt, shape/cast. Wood? Not the same. Anything else?

      Once oil is done, we're screwed economically. It's not *just* the gasolene...

      --
      "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
    33. Re:Socialism at its best by misleb · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Isn't it great, where the State can mandate the advance of technology? This reminds me of that Simpon's quote "Young lady, in this house we obey the 2nd law of Thermodynamics!"

      The standards have to be set somewhere by someone. Business isn't going to regulate itself. Besides, it isn't really anything unique to "socialism." Even in the US, we have certain standards (albeit low) for fuel economy, polution, etc. It isn't like they are saying exactly which technologies to pursue. They just say "This is the standard, meet it however you can."

      Who's to say that these energy mandates are even achievable, or desirable? Since they won't be affordable, all this does is create a new class of subsidized business, and executives to run the businesses, and higher taxes on (in the case of Scotland) an already under-performing economy.

      You could view it like that. Or you could see it as a challenge to businesses and universities to truely innovate and work for a cleaner, less oil (or other limited/imported resource) dependant future. I don't see how this could be anyting but a good thing in the long run. Eventually natural resources will become more difficult and expensive to obtain. Any country with the infrastructure and know-how to utilize renewable sources of energy is going to have an edge. This is an area I see the US falling way behind in.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    34. Re:Socialism at its best by misleb · · Score: 1
      You are aware that oil wells in the gulf are refilling? You are aware that most oil may be non-biotic; we've extracted oil from wells drilled in solid granite.

      Refilling from where exactly? Is the oil just magically appearing there out of thin air (or granite, as the case may be)? If the oil is non-biotic, what was the process that made it? You do understand that oil is stored chemical energy, don't you? Where did this energy come from?

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    35. Re:Socialism at its best by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not too worried. PLA plastics are already pretty viable, if not cheap, and increasing oil prices means they'll seem more and more useful.

      And thanks to lax recycling practices, we've got tons of raw materials sitting in landfills. If costs increase high enough, it'll be cost effective to mine these.

      I mean, when steel started to get expensive, we moved to plastic and aluminum. As plastic gets expensive, we'll move on from there. Like many environmentalists, you seem to imply that a reduction in a single resource means a complete loss of options. Usually, the big picture is somewhere in between murals painted by amateur ecologists and the wallet sized version held by industrialists.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    36. Re:Socialism at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware that animal entrails can be reduced to a very fine grade oil, right?

      Yeah, well can burning animals possibly be renewable?

    37. Re:Socialism at its best by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      You are aware that oil wells in the gulf are refilling?

      Got links for this?

      You are aware that most oil may be non-biotic; we've extracted oil from wells drilled in solid granite.

      Are you referring to oil shale, oil sand, or something else? It takes more energy to extract oil from oil shale than you get from burning the oil, so that's only a source for non-fuel uses. Oil sand won't be economically viable until the cost of oil doubles. If you're referring to something else, how about some links?

      You are aware that oils there are several species of plants that can be refined into a very fine oil

      You're referring to biodiesel? Makes a nice (if smelly) fuel oil, but isn't much good for anything that requires long-chain hydrocarbons.

      You are aware that animal entrails can be reduced to a very fine grade oil, right?

      Got any information on how much energy it takes to do this? Even if it's an energetically favorable reaction, it will probably suffer from the same limitations as biodiesel.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    38. Re:Socialism at its best by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      Sure it can. Animals eat vegetables, vegetables repurpose sunlight, this is yet another form of solar power.

      In the end, even oil is a renewable fuel source based on solar power -- so long as you don't use more of it than is recycled. And currenly, we're way overusing it.

      Of course, it seems like it's probably much easier to just use photovoltaics and a good battery, but hey, what do I know about the efficiency of chemical energy, I'm not a Wachowski brother.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    39. Re:Socialism at its best by velo_mike · · Score: 1
      Uhhhh, what? Modern Europe has some pretty solid economic foundations. Life's pretty good there for most.

      The french govt workers, transport specifically, spent most of last summer on strike. Chirac's attempt to balance the budget, caused by a looming increase of pensioners on an already overburdened system led the teachers and medical workers to walk out. Lets also not forget the 10,000 or so people who died last year in the heat wave because the state operated hospitals didn't have enough people. These are not solid economic foundations.

      --

      At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
      Alan Greenspan

    40. Re:Socialism at its best by velo_mike · · Score: 1
      It's too bad more Americans don't ever leave their own countries. It's my explanation for why the Republican Party can continue to exist.

      At last, something we can agree on. The last 2 years here has shown me how bad reliance on the state can be and pushed me from moderate republican to anarcho-capitalist.

      --

      At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
      Alan Greenspan

    41. Re:Socialism at its best by orim · · Score: 1

      You are right, there are alternatives. There are always alternatives. But the speed with which we're moving on these issues is very troubling. What's the current run-out date? 2040? 2050? Depends on who you're listening to. Let's take the 2040 number. Let's even assume that the production will peak then. 30 years away, and you have only two commercially available hybrid cars?
      Fuel cell tech is at least a decade away at this rate... and that's for the first models, never mind replacing entire countries' worth of cars, which... how much strain will that put on the atmosphere, processing all those materials?

      In order to insure a smooth transition to oil-less world, we need to start 10 years ago. The only question at this point isn't whether weaning ourselves off of oil is going to hurt, it's how much it will hurt.

      I don't see much interest in anything alternative. Two commercial hybrids, and people are buying SUVs like there's no tomorrow. People don't care. People don't even realize there will be a problem. Any time anyone suggest there is such a thing as global warming, what's the response? Let's have a new study. We *know* pumping too much CO2 is bad... yet because we haven't seen what it can do to a planet yet, despite all the models, we're not gonna do anything about it? What are you waiting for people? The moment your house in the Himalayas floods? The moment you can't breathe anymore?
      It will be too damn late.

      --
      "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
    42. Re:Socialism at its best by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I couldn't disagree with you more.

      We are 36 years away from the oil pinch. That's more than a generation. We are just now starting to see oil prices go up. People have yet to realize that they aren't ever going to go back down into the $.80/gal region. Another year of $2 gas prices combined with decreasing wages, and we'll start to see more demand. The SUV thing isn't going to dry up based on oil costs, because currently the apparent safety and comfort override the concern of oil costs. As costs continue to rise, and manufacturers start releasing more efficient SUVs (like Ford's hybrid Escape), people will buy those.

      I'm not saying this is the best way to go about things. I'm saying that, barring some kind of oligarchy, this is the way things ARE going to happen. Free market democracy doesn't guarantee a bed of roses...it guarantees the possibility of some roses and the right to sleep on them given the means.

      The real world moves slowly and hyperbolically. If there's a direct line to avoid a problem, we'll arc around it and get into a little bit of trouble. This is just the way humanity works -- we're a reactive people and we're always trying to one up the system. Getting into a little trouble ecologically is something we HAVE to do, or there will never be any support for reforms.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    43. Re:Socialism at its best by IceAgeComing · · Score: 1

      The last 2 years here has shown me how bad reliance on the state can be and pushed me from moderate republican to anarcho-capitalist.

      You're not, I hope, trolling. I know there are people out there who fervently believe the beauty of pure capitalism, such as all those interesting folks at the Cato Institute.

      I understand the power of personal incentive, but I do believe there is a proper balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society. Societies can and do get torn apart when the power of individuals gets too strong. I fail utterly to see how a society can function, long-term, under anarcho-capitalism. It is as crazy a utopian ideal as Marxist communism.

      But I still believe I have an open mind, so I'll pay attention to any constructive reply you might have.

    44. Re:Socialism at its best by IceAgeComing · · Score: 1

      Anecdotes are persuasive only to the timid, and I can certainly point out that you've covered less than 1/1000 of Europe with yours.

      In fact, you may enjoy reading commonly employed devices in disinformation campaigns.

      I remain unconvinced of your position.

    45. Re:Socialism at its best by velo_mike · · Score: 1
      You're not, I hope, trolling. I know there are people out there who fervently believe the beauty of pure capitalism, such as all those interesting folks at the Cato Institute.

      Exagerating a bit, my experiences in France (as well as the actions of G.W.) have pushed me away from the republicans, but I'm not quite all the way to anarcho-capitalist. Free market libertarian is probably the best descriptor - allow the government to run national defence and protect the people and property against the most egregious crimes: primarily murder. Most everything else can be handled by tort law. Social and especially moral issues are not the state's concern.

      I understand the power of personal incentive, but I do believe there is a proper balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society.

      I think Adam Smith was right, an individual, working only for his own benefit will positively influence society. Working for only my own benefit, how many people's livlihood do I contribute to? Unless I'm sacking my money away under the matress, I'm providing employment (well, contributing to it anyways), everyone from the grocery clerk on up is benefiting from my being employed. If I don't spend it and invest it that money is allowing banks to make business or mortage loan or giving companies the capital to expand. I'm not doing this out of the goodness of my heart, I'm getting a return. At this point the argument generally shifts around to the "super rich" and how they're not paying their fair share. Their money isn't under the mattress' either, it's providing more jobs, loans, and capital than my small salary ever could.

      Beyond all that, it's my belief that people can only operate in their own best interest due to the survival instinct. There are a very few true martyrs, most are simple cons preying on people's good nature. Every society has them, the party members who lived it pretty damn well while the "proles" subsisted in misery or our current government whose forcing us into the social security con while exempting themselves (ever seen the pension those bastards get?). Again, the "super rich" are usually lumped into this category but do they truly belong? I've never heard bill gates claim to be "giving himself up only for my benefit". Those who are truly martyrs? They're dead and their usefulness and contribution to society died with them.

      Societies can and do get torn apart when the power of individuals gets too strong.

      Only when those individuals are created by the will of, or due to force of, the state. Al Capone, Pablo Escobar, or the other crime lords? All created by the state's wish to control some substances "for our benefit". State created monopolies are a problem, think ma bell. When the state, who is supposed to operate for everyone's benefit, declares that one company is the one true way, that's a huge barrier to entry. Outside of those, the free market has ways of dealing with individuals who get out of hand. Microsoft is the current target, but really, as microsofts share in the marketplace has risen, haven't you noticed the rise in Linux and BSD distributions? If you can do better than MS, do so, otherwise get the hell out of the way because someone else will. Money spent on lawsuits trying to break up the company could have been invested into a competitor to bring another product to market. There is no need for the state to interfere in this area.

      I have to apologize for the spelling and lack of coherence, it's way past my bedtime... If you're at all interested in this viewpoint, check out Harry Browne a past libertarian candidate and much more skilled orator.

      --

      At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
      Alan Greenspan

    46. Re:Socialism at its best by velo_mike · · Score: 1
      ...I can certainly point out that you've covered less than 1/1000 of Europe with yours.

      14% by land mass, 13% by population or 7% by number, which metric are you using? France is the only country I'm intimatly familiar with, though I know that Germany and Spain are in the same boat due to overextended social welfare systems and a declining population.

      In fact, you may enjoy reading commonly employed devices in disinformation campaigns.

      Maybe in the morning...

      --

      At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
      Alan Greenspan

    47. Re:Socialism at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what do I know about the efficiency of chemical energy, I'm not a Wachowski brother.

      Mod +1 Matrix Second Law of Thermodynamics quote!

    48. Re:Socialism at its best by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1


      Essentially, here's where I was coming from;

      1. Credit goes to 'cherry pickers'. The average Joe wants the government to spend money on 'cancer research' more than 'mecahnisms of apoptosis in mouse cells.' Of course, cancer research is probably a bad example, since it's only been recently that pure research has had much bearing on treatment. Some people even have a hard time understanding why scientists are doing experiments on conditions in mice rather than people. This is part of why I think the recent technology transfer and Bayh-Dole acts are so dangerous. They encourage universities to turn away from research that can't result in a patent.

      2. I was going from the standpoint of 'what would a world without government funded research look like.' Regarding your professor, I'd say that any group whose support is vital should be viewed as such. So the question, in my mind, is; to what acheivements has government been a vital contributor, regardless of the contributions of private industry.

      3. Speaking of funny, I would have used Bell labs to support my case as well. Bell labs wasn't an ordinary corporation. It had a government sanctioned monopoly till 1984. Those corporations which do contribute to basic research are often those that have something pretty close to a monopoly in their respective fields. ... I'll try and respond to the second half of your post later with more concrete examples than what I've given, but I have a friend coming over now so I'm just going to post.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    49. Re:Socialism at its best by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Okay, looking at the race to see who could map the human genome first. That was certainly a bit of pure research that private industry, in the form of Celera, excelled at. What was different there?

      To use your example, Celera wasn't mapping the genome out of the kindness of it's corporate heart. It was trying to patent genes. The gov got a corporation to do pure research by changing the laws to make it applied research. The notion of patenting genes is a divergence from normal patent laws. Traditionally, patents were "use" patents. If the patent laws were applied correctly, Celera would have to find a productive use for some genetic data - how to upregulate a particular protein to promote weight loss or whatever. Instead, they got patents for what ammounts to looking at a particular gene. Their patents were for using a particular sequence of base pairs to identify the gene in question. Using base pairs to identify genes is not a new technology. It's as if you said "if you find a species of plant that no-one has ever seen before, you can patent the ability to look at it's unique features." Patenting naturally occuring objects was previously disallowed.

      The US Gov defended the divergence from normal patent policy alternatly by saying it was needed in order to get the genetic data and claiming that it nothing essentially new was happening here.

      I agree that biotech companies can certainly be encouraged to do a great deal of pure research if they're issued patents or other government-mandated incentives for doing so.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    50. Re:Socialism at its best by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Basically, a summary; Heated competition doesn't encourage a lot of 'pure' research. Those institutions that do a lot of publicized pure research are frequently;

      1. Monopolies, or companies otherwise protected from free market forces.

      2. Governments

      3. Private companies that are offered government incentives of some kind, whether it be in the form of purchases that would not otherwise be made or protectionsism or grants, to do pure research.

      In short, they're the portions of the free market that are less a part of the "free market," even if they happen to be private industry.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    51. Re:Socialism at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware that oil wells in the gulf are refilling?

      Hahahaha for a Texan you read wayyyy too much Lord of the Rings.

    52. Re:Socialism at its best by Brad+Mace · · Score: 1
      It's not all about capitalism vs communism. Subsidies just need to be applied smartly. They are the government's way of encouraging the market to do what is best for everyone. When used this way, rather than to make your buddies rich, they are a good thing.

      Pure capitalism may indeed be more efficient; it would also be more polluting. Controlling emissions and properly disposing of waste is expensive.

    53. Re:Socialism at its best by danharan · · Score: 1

      I recommend you check out Natural Capitalism (available for free at natcap.org). There certainly is more to this than capitalism vs. communism.

      In the case of energy, it is clear the government is subsidizing the wrong thing.

      --
      Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
    54. Re:Socialism at its best by Brad+Mace · · Score: 1
      If you're saying subsidizing oil is a bad idea, then i completely agree. Oil-based industries are mature, and if they can't survive on their own at this point, then they should cease to exist.

      Subsidizing cleaner energy creates an opportunity to explore new ways of doing things. Some will probably work out, other will not. Without subsidies though, these ideas would likely be crushed before they ever had a chance.

    55. Re:Socialism at its best by danharan · · Score: 1

      Take a look at my initial comment. The PTC for wind energy was put in place to level the playing field.

      So if you got rid of subsidies to the polluting industries, it would have the same effect with regards to wind. As we have seen, with a PTC of just 1.5c/kwh, wind was growing at more than 30% a year.

      Therefore I must disagree with your statement- wind would stand a very good chance if the market were fair. This does not match all the FUD of the anti-greens, but it's the honest truth: Wind is now competitive.

      There are two ways of making the market fair. The first, and most obvious, is to subsidize wind. The second is to cut subsidies to other energy types.

      Both choices are OK, but getting rid of subsidies is a better alternative. Why? two reasons:
      -low energy costs inhibits conservation and related technological advances
      -billions of dollars of taxes will be saved

      It is also more elegant, because it goes after the root of the problem.

      To add a bit of nuance to what I said- I am not completely opposed to subsidizing new technologies. The best possible situation would be to shift the subsidy from smoke-stack to renewables over a period of say, 10 years (at the same time as keeping the PTC!)- this has to be done gradually to avoid backlash and market disruption. Utilities should also be given time to retire the oldest plants, and have enough warning ahead of time to know not to build new plants.

      I'm not holding my breath that government will do this. Please don't let the title Natural Capitalism turn you off: the book has a lot of great ideas, and is downright critical of capitalism on several points. It also includes plenty of ways we could change things at the community level, and through technology.

      --
      Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
  5. How does it work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What good is a "downward force" if it doesn't do anything? The article doesn't explain how this downward force from hydrofoils produces any energy.

    1. Re:How does it work? by re-Verse · · Score: 2, Informative

      I heard the secondary articles too, and it seems that this device uses down downward force exerted on the "wings" to power a turbine of some sort.

      It seems pretty logical, and it makes me think - Most of the water generators I've read about seem to be tide based - where this is more using the force of the incomng water laterally. I wonder how practical it would be to set up these devices inside of the oceans currents, or fast flowing channels. Using these 'wings' to generate force that way seems to me like it could be pretty effective. Of course - IANAPhysicist - I'm just a network geek... but it seems pretty practical to me.

    2. Re:How does it work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine the whole point of the downward force is just to prevent the snail from drifting downstream.

      The actual power appears to be generated by that smallish-looking propeller that would drive a generator as water rushes past.

    3. Re:How does it work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the part that was left out is that the 200 tons of downward force secure the machanism to the seabed and uses this anchoring ability to drive a traditional turbine.

    4. Re:How does it work? by PrinceAshitaka · · Score: 4, Informative

      This link explans better how the sea snail works. http://www.friendsofscotland.gov.uk/education/rene wable.html Basically, the foils are to keep the snail anchored while the turbine is moved by the water.

      --
      quis custodiet ipsos custodes
    5. Re:How does it work? by sp00 · · Score: 1

      With it being able to generate "generate more than 200 tons of downward force to the seabed" does this pose some ecological problems? That much force would potentially cause a great disturbance to the seafloor.

    6. Re:How does it work? by daveashcroft · · Score: 2, Informative

      Considering the god-knows how many tonnes of water already being supported by the sea-floor - i cant see that 200 extra tonnes will make that much difference to the N/m2

    7. Re:How does it work? by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      From the picture it doesn't look like the wings do anything other than push down. Which is good. You'll notice the propeller looking thingie in the middle of the structure. I'd imagine this produces the power.

      What's the advantage? You don't have to excavate at depth to make the thing stay put, just lower it into the water, and let the water hold it down. Why not just use weights? I don't know, I didn't design the thing.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    8. Re:How does it work? by jamesl · · Score: 1

      The "snail" generates no electricity. It is designed to be a lower cost and more flexible method for anchoring a turbine. It took some digging to find that.

    9. Re:How does it work? by oneishy · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem with weights, is they have to be able to hold it in place under the maximum force of water. By making the pressure down relative to the force of water the installation / choice of locations is easier. As the force of water grows, the 'snail' is held tighter to the ground.

    10. Re:How does it work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the "SNAIL" device were made heavy enough to anchor itself securely to the sea bottom, then eventually, the whole thing would probably disappear into the muck. Moving it would also be more difficult. The "wings", if they can be rotated, can make it easier to raise the device off the sea floor for maintenance or repositioning.

    11. Re:How does it work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about?

      The hydrofoils only hold it in place in a smart way: adding downforce when the tide gets stronger. The generator is a prefectly normal propeller job.

      How would you convert downforce into electricity?

      And exactly how do you oppose "tide based" and "using water laterally"?

      Okay...

      The article was a really poor job. The author didn't understand the thing either, and sure didn't let that stop him.

      And on second thought, maybe you could use the downforce after all... Have a buoy that naturally comes up, and at regular intervals use the foils to push the buoy down. Then use this up'n'down motion to move a magnet in a coil to generate electricity :-P

    12. Re:How does it work? by Aberdonian · · Score: 1

      I actually attended a presentatation by the inventor and was no wiser by the end how electricity was actually generated, so asked him. It is by a conventional propellor driven turbine at the top. The point of the wings generating a downward force is to keep the thing in one place. Apparently, just increasing its mass is more expensive and, in many parts of the sea bed, it would just sink into the sand.

  6. Power supplies by Space+cowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting


    It seems that a fair amount of research into new power plants is coming to fruition - the latest New Scientist had an essay on the JET (Joint European Torus) breaking even on its power budget for nuclear fusion. The big argument now is not whether to build one that ought to provide 10x its input requirements, but where to build it (France or Japan, from memory).

    With windfarms (popping up all over Scotland and the exposed areas of England - presumably Ireland as well, that's one hell of a windy place :-), sea-based production, and fusion plants, perhaps power won't be too hard to come by in the future after all, despite out ever-increasing demands...

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:Power supplies by Simon+Lyngshede · · Score: 2, Informative

      YES; BUY DANISH WINDMILLS. There, did my part for the Danish windmill industry :-)

      Last year more than 25% of the electricity in Denmark was produced by windpower, that's pretty good.

    2. Re:Power supplies by JanneM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course, the fact that the entire country is one flat concourse for north-atlantic sea winds could have something to do with that percentage. :)

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    3. Re:Power supplies by bennomatic · · Score: 3, Funny
      It's really nice when this sort of thing happens, isn't it? I mean, if they've got strong winds, why not use them? If they've got strong tides, why not use them?

      Now if they could only capture all those lemmings and hook them up to little hamster wheel generators around the time they start running toward the sea, they'd have an energy surplus they could sell off cheap!

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    4. Re:Power supplies by niko9 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      perhaps power won't be too hard to come by in the future after all, despite out ever-increasing demands..

      How about the ever increasing waste? And since this is slashdot: how about the ever increasing waste concerning desktop processors? When will technologies like AMD's Cool & Quiet become standard? I cringe when I think of all the new power hungry P4's that I see popping up at my hospital. The ones in ER registration sitting their ideling 24hrs a day, and for what? To access the UNIX mainframe via Rhumba. That's it.

      They make great advances in the laptop arena, but this technology should trickle down to the desktop.

      -

    5. Re:Power supplies by Simon+Lyngshede · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ups, always check you facts before posting, it should only be 20%... Damn

      http://www.windpower.org/

    6. Re:Power supplies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's OK, 23% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

    7. Re:Power supplies by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      how about the ever increasing waste concerning desktop processors?

      I wonder if the push towards quiet computers will start to help. We've reached the point where the typical desktop computer user hasn't had to upgrade in several years; very few people have any desire to get the latest PowerSucker 4.0GHz. (Or whatever it is these days. I'm still using my Athlon 900, and the only time I've wished I had a faster computer was while ripping a DVD.) People are going to start looking for systems that are smaller and quieter, and those will generally have lower power consumption.

      And, of course, with LCD displays improving and getting more affordable, we'll see a huge jump in efficiency. Although then I'll probably have to buy a seperate space heater for my room.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    8. Re:Power supplies by easter1916 · · Score: 1
      presumably Ireland as well, that's one hell of a windy place :-)
      Hey! We can't help it, that blasted Guinness causes it... ;-)

      Last time I checked, the Irish government had put out to tender a plan to build one of Europe's largest windfarms on the Arklow bank, off the east coast, in the Irish Sea.

    9. Re:Power supplies by DrXym · · Score: 1

      More annoying is the number of computers and monitors left on in the workplace after hours. I wonder how complacent companies would be if charges quadrupled between 8pm and 7am. I'm sure we'd see emails flying urging people to shut down at night. Assuming everyone did so it would actually save the company money and mean a massive saving on overall energy consumption.

    10. Re:Power supplies by kerrbear · · Score: 1

      Yes but when global seas cooling happens because people are bleeding off all the tidal energy and we are all thrown into a new ice age, people will regret all this.

      Sign the Glasgow Global Cooling Treaty now!

    11. Re:Power supplies by djplurvert · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To access the UNIX mainframe via Rhumba. That's it.

      I confess I don't understand this aspect of corporate purchasing. I've worked as a sysadmin for a small local industrial supply company that ran most of their business on AIX. We had a bunch of dumb terminals in places and PCs in others and someone suggested replacing all of the terminals with PCs. I pointed out that the terminals never needed rebooting, seldom needed reconfiguring and were quiet, small, and energy efficient relative to a PC. Further, what exactly were the salesguys going to do with a PC that they couldn't do with a dumb terminal.

      The owner agreed, he was old school, if the system was down for any reason that was a pencil and paper training opportunity.

      I'm not suggesting that terminals are what's needed in ER. But why isn't more thought put into what technology is appropriate for a given circumstance. What I see is a systematic cyclic computer refresh that just gets whatever is the latest for every desktop. I suppose that it is more difficult, perhaps more costly, to look at every situation independantly. However, at what point is the impact on the environment worth that extra cost?

      /plurvert

    12. Re:Power supplies by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      my mate did a report on energy usage at his site, in order to cut costs blah blah blah. He said that if they just set all the PCs they had to use the power saving mode, they'd save 75,000 UKP a year.

      Figure out the costs for your local company (a 17" monitor uses about 200W in use, 20W in standby) send an email to the finance director, and wait for the mainenance/admin team to rush round ensuring all PCs have their power save mode switched on.

    13. Re:Power supplies by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      because a terminal costs about 5 times as much a s a cheapo PC. Given that, it'll take several years for a terminal to recoup the initial expenditure based on electricity usage and administration.

      Besides, if you then move to a web-based clients, the infrastructure will be in place, without spending loads on new clients.

    14. Re:Power supplies by djplurvert · · Score: 1

      That's not correct. A terminal was THEN around $600. About the same price as a cheapo PC today, but still cheaper than a cheap PC then. If you add the cost of maintaining the PC, the terminal was FAR cheaper.

      However, you're missing the point. As I said, I wasn't suggesting that the hospital use terminals, I was questioning the wholesale upgrade of PCs to machines that far exceed the necessary power. In fact, I might suggeset thin clients in such an envrionment.

      In regards to why we continued to use terminals I think your opinion is oversimplified and a typical of those that let cool technology drive business decisions. I find it interesting how so many tech-types use these sorts of "but if ..." scenarios to drive there decision making when there is no evidence to assume such scenarios would come to fruition. This was seven years ago, they still aren't using "web clients" and I dont' expect they will for some time, if ever.

      I have yet to observe that point of sale environments benefit from a gui unless it is a touch screen. The salesguys were fast on terminals and putting touch screens or a mouse in a location where one is frequently wiping gear oil off of the counter doesn't make sense.

      Words from my replacement when I left "This is one of the most business centric IT installations I have ever seen."

      plurvert

    15. Re:Power supplies by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      well, fair enough - but there's no problem in upgrading to newer stuff, most of the time they're idle and not using up any more power than older stuff (relatively speaking - energy cost is dwarfed by the monitor, hdd, ram etc. CPU that does nothing uses next to no power).
      On the other hand, if you did upgrade to way powerful machines, you might not need to upgrade next time... which will mean a total cost saving.

      Besides, there's a reason to use commodity hardware - cost of replacements. We had to replace a X25 card a while back.. ouch!

      One thing about your reply - 'this is the most business centric IT installations'. well, yes, that's the point - IT exists to serve the business, not to serve itself.

    16. Re:Power supplies by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Gasoline has become expensive, now fuel efficient cars are becoming popular. Even at a dollar a gallon people felt it was pretty cheap, but now it's two bucks and hybrids are the thing all of a sudden right? Gasoline used to be a quarter a gallon though, and it becoming a buck a gallon really didn't change shit, so who knows where the magical line is? Energy prices have doubled (or far more) over the last decade, especially for us poor sad saps in California.

      Energy-efficient desktop PCs are not going to be a concern to people until either A> they demand small quiet PCs, which will simply mandate low power consumption, or B> energy prices skyrocket, by which I mean quadruple or more, not merely doubling.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Power supplies by djplurvert · · Score: 1

      Certainly that's why IT exists, but it is all too frequenly forgotten. In other words, he was surprised at the degree to which I focused on business driven technology.

  7. They must be stopped! by machine+of+god · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is all part of an alien conspiracy to bring the moon crashing down on us! Awaken to the truth before it's too late!

    1. Re:They must be stopped! by cylcyl · · Score: 1

      Haven't you been watching BSSM? Moon crashing into earth is caused by the forbidden love between Princess Serenity (Sailor Moon) and Prince Endymion (Tuxedo Mask).

  8. Is this really renewable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Doesn't this just steal energy from the moon? Leading to disastrous complications if our insatiable moon power lust is not quelled.

    1. Re:Is this really renewable? by Rebar · · Score: 2, Funny

      You raise a good point. Stealing rotational energy from the earth isn't exactly tapping into a renewable source of energy, unless we set up giant arrays of solar-powered gyroscopes to add back to the rotational energy of the earth.

      You read it here first, friends - a new way to transmit power halfway around the world without power lines! Giant solar powered gyroscopes in the desert adding to the Earth's rotation, and humongous sea-snails in Scottland removing it!

    2. Re:Is this really renewable? by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as renewable energy; it would take more energy to renew the energy than the energy you first got out of it. i.e. there is no such thing as a perpetual motion device.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    3. Re:Is this really renewable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For most purposes, anything that comes from solar power (directly or indirectly) might as well be considered renewable.

    4. Re:Is this really renewable? by fdicostanzo · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, we have the Sun to take up the slack.

      --
      Synergies are basically awesome, and they're even better when you leverage them. -PA
    5. Re:Is this really renewable? by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 1

      > For most purposes, anything that comes from solar
      > power (directly or indirectly) might as well be
      > considered renewable.

      Yep, I agree. Solar power is the nearest thing to renewable we have. The energy is gonna go somewhere; may as well be captured by us. Now, if we begin capturing too much of it, we may cool the earth; I just don't see us affecting temp that much though. I could be wrong.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
  9. How does it work? by inio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article mentions that the device is able to "generate more than 200 tons of downward force to the seabed", but nowhere does it state how that force is used. A static force does no work and therefore can generate no energy.

  10. 5MW good for 10,000 homes? by gricholson75 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    5MW is good for 10,000 homes, so a house in Scotland only uses 500 watts of electricity?

    1. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by stevesliva · · Score: 1
      5MW is good for 10,000 homes, so a house in Scotland only uses 500 watts of electricity?
      Yeah, they must not be using Intel Inside(TM).
      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    2. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by Mattintosh · · Score: 5, Informative

      Over what period of time?

      You're (at least in the US) usually billed in kilowatt-hours (kWh). I'm no expert, but I doubt most homes use more than 0.5kWh at anything other than peak times (weekday evenings and weekend afternoons).

      Appliances (again, in the US) all come with a sticker saying how many kWh they use in a year. A refrigerator is usually around 1000. That's a little less than 3 kWh a day, or 0.125 kWh (period... in an hour). That's only 1/4th of your constant usage allowance. How many other household appliances run 24/7? Probably none.

      A good storage mechanism would store that unused energy for use at peak times. A poorly designed system would just fail over to a traditional power grid at peak times. In any event, it still reduces the load on the main grid.

      Of course, my experiences are from my house in the USA... maybe Scotland is full of wasteful, electricity-hungry, even-worse-than-American people... but I doubt it.

    3. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by scatter_gather · · Score: 1
      "5MW is good for 10,000 homes, so a house in Scotland only uses 500 watts of electricity?"

      Aye, those Scotts are mighty thrrrifty!

    4. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by gricholson75 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever looked at your electric bill? I used 570 kWh last month, or about 800 watts continuos average. And my $55 electric bill is considered small in the US.

    5. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by syphax · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's almost exactly our average consumption in my house (3BR, 4 people) here in the U.S.

      I use mostly CF light bulbs, but do have an electric range and clothes dryer that runs pretty often (2 of the 4 occupants are small and generally muddy).

      (I also buy a good portion of my electricity from a small local hydro plant for a small surcharge, thanks to my friendly municipal utility).

      --
      Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
    6. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by gricholson75 · · Score: 1

      So your telling me that you only use 360kWh a month? With two kids? Do you have no air conditioner, do you not heat the place? Is it a really small 3BR.

    7. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Insightful

      5MW is good for 10,000 homes, so a house in Scotland only uses 500 watts of electricity?

      Rule of thumb for the US is 1 KW/home "fleet average B-) ". A LOT of that is either air conditioning or (in the few remaining ones from the "it's going to be too cheap to meter" era) electric heating and/or electric water heating, in the houses so equipped.

      Resistance heating is HORRIBLY expensive in terms of power consumption. (More than a factor of three inefficiency compared to burning the same fuel to apply heat directly.) Air conditioning comes in two forms - heat pumping (also very energy intensive) and evaporative (only usable in arid areas, and an allergy and toxin problem, so much less common).

      Scotland has a very mild climate compared to the US. It sits at the end of the gulf stream, which provides heating that nicely compensates for its latitude and moderates its climate dramatically. (For an extreme of this effect look at "Summer Isle" - just off the coast on the gulf-steam side and growing palm trees.) The US is spread out over a continent, with considerable variation in latitude and altitude - and thus temperature. The mountains on the upwind side also dump the moisture out of the prevailing winds and their heat of vaporization into the atmosphere, creating the western and soutwestern deserts.

      No, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the US averages twice the domestic electric consumption of Scotland.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    8. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by a1englishman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your $55 electric bill might be small, but your 570 KWh usage isn't. Here, in SoCal, that would cost you something like $100. I know, because I used that much during the summer. We are alloted a maximum number of KWh per month, based upon location and house size (yada, yada). Usage over that amout is billed considerably higher. I'm allotted 313KWh, used 447 last month, and was billed $35 plus $24 for overage.

    9. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by SlayerofGods · · Score: 0

      Thats because refrigerators turn on and off all the time. When on they use 725 watts of power.
      Heres a list of some devices and their power usesages. As you can see 500 watts isn't much.....
      http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo/refbriefs/ ec7.html

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    10. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

      Possible explanation: The USA has air-conditioning, turned on permanently.

      Scotland has heating, often by gas (not counted in electricity bill) and focussed in the evenings.

    11. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We are alloted a maximum number of KWh per month, based upon location and house size

      commies...

    12. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by mrgeometry · · Score: 2, Informative

      A refrigerator is usually around 1000. That's a little less than 3 kWh a day, or 0.125 kWh (period... in an hour).

      0.125 kWh per hour is equal to 0.125 kilowatts, or 12.5 Watts.

      Over what period of time?

      Oh my. "Watts" don't go over a period of time; the OP was perfectly fine.

      zach

    13. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by borgasm · · Score: 1

      Servers in my home: 3 * (300W)
      Monitors in my home 2 * (210W)
      the list goes on

      Maybe they can install one of these specifically for me. A few kW would be fine.

    14. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by bitbank · · Score: 1

      I think 5MW would power about 100 homes in South Florida. I know in my case that I average about 50KWh a day in the Winter an 100KWh in the Summer. Use of power in my house (in order): 1) 2 zones of A/C which run frequently 2) Pool Pump (8-10 hours a day) 3) 2-3 Pentium computers run 10-14 hours a day 4) 2 refrigerators My house is typical for my neighborhood, so FPL (Florida Power and Light) must be generating an enormous amount of power for the 8+ Million residents of S. FL.

    15. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      Were you deliberately misunderstanding what the guy said? The OP says that it seems unlikely that the average home only uses 500 watts of electricity. The guy after that correctly points out that 500 watts is actually a lot, when you consider that 500 constant watts add up to 12 kWh/day. Then you come in and claim he's wrong because of vague grammar.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    16. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by dunedan · · Score: 1

      My wife and I live in a smallish two beddrom apartment with no air conditioning, gas heat and a gas water heater. We use compact flourecent bulbs whenever possible.

      Our electrical bills are about $20 per month. At the going rate of $.0069 per kilowatt hour we use about 300/month. that averages to a 400Watt continuing usage.

    17. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by Mspangler · · Score: 1

      I just calculated my power consumption. From Mid Feb to mid March, it worked up to 3.8 kw. This is in the winter at 47 degrees N, in a house with electric heat, electric hot water, electric stove, and 5 people, including two teenagers. 10,000 homes still seems a bit high, even averaged over the year.

    18. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Let us also not forget the tendency in the US to build homes totally unsuited to the climate just because they're the kind of house you want to own and you can afford to heat/cool them. The fact that mud is cheap ain't the only reason to build with adobe if you live in the desert, for example...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by ignavus · · Score: 1

      Aye, they're verrah thrifty in Scotland!

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    20. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by mrgeometry · · Score: 1

      Were you deliberately misunderstanding what I said? I have nothing against his claim that 500 watts is a lot. In fact, it seems rather a lot to me, too. But why can't he just say watts? Why say "kilowatt-hours per hour"? That's just silly.

      "12 kWh/day". Whatever.

    21. Re:5MW good for 10,000 homes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you actually measured the power draw of those servers? Just because they have 300W power supplies doesn't mean they actually draw anywhere near that...

  11. Tidal Waves!? by frobnoid · · Score: 2, Funny

    Its powered by Tidal waves?
    Really, how often do they have Tsunami there?

    1. Re:Tidal Waves!? by Radical+Rad · · Score: 1
      Its powered by Tidal waves?
      Really, how often do they have Tsunami there?

      When it's not being powered by tidal waves it is able to convert natural energy from earthquakes to electricity.

    2. Re:Tidal Waves!? by Adriax · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gozirra VS. Mecha Tidalwave Powered Sea Snail! Now even the scotts are trying to destroy tokyo, yeesh...

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    3. Re:Tidal Waves!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know this post is humor. but anyway, here is a little science. it is true that most of the energy in the sea is in big waves. but the most energy dissipation takes place in small waves. i.e. all big waves becomes little waves without losing much energy. so a tidal device which can efficiently extract power from small waves is as good as the one which can extract power from large waves.

  12. first tampons got wings... by Lazarus_Bitmap · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Now sea snails. Armageddon is coming.

    --
    -Laz .:change is inevitable -- growth is optional:.
  13. maintenance by maxbang · · Score: 1

    When they need to fix it, they'll be calling Christopher Lambert to walk under water and make the necessary repairs, right? Or will the maintenance crew be expected to ride one of those Scooby-Doobie things?

    Yes, I have difficulties separating the real world from cinema.

    --
    I also reply below your current threshold.
    1. Re:maintenance by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      The hydrofoil anchor system means it's light enough for a small (ish) boat to pull up, hoist it out of the water, and make the necessary repairs or replace it.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
  14. Repost by PurdueGraphicsMan · · Score: 1
    Here is a reposting of the article text. Do NOT mod me up, it wasn't that difficult and didn't take any thinking...

    The Heavyweight Sea Snail

    Scotland, like many European countries, must comply with regulations requiring that a mandatory percentage of the energy it uses comes from renewable sources. For Scotland, this percentage will be 18% in 2010 and 40% by 2020. In "Tidal farming's new wave," Red Herring explains this why Scotland is very supportive of Ian Bryden's sea "Snail" program. The Snail is a 30-ton anchoring device which uses hydrofoils -- wings that "fly" in the water -- to generate enough power from tidal waves to service 10,000 homes by 2007.

    Here is the introduction of Red Herring's article.

    After losing the wind wars to the Danes in the early '80s, Scotland is on the verge of owning a small, yet significant new power market -- tidal energy.

    Inventors have long dreamt of harnessing energy from the daily ebb and flow of ocean tides using underwater windmills. Yet a large-scale tidal farm has remained elusive -- at least, until now. Making use of Scotland's geographic assets and answering a renewed call for an energy alternative, Aberdeen scientist Ian Bryden is putting his new invention, "the Snail," to work.

    So what exactly is the "Snail"?

    At Aberdeen's Robert Gordon University, Mr. Bryden has circumvented traditional turbine designs. His brainchild, the Snail, is a 15x12 meter (roughly 49x39 feet) anchoring device that uses hydrofoils -- what scientists describe as wings that "fly" in water -- to generate more than 200 tons of downward force to the seabed. Six dragon-like wings attach the unit to the national grid.

    Here is a picture of a prototype of the Snail with its six wings (Credit: Robert Gordon University)

    Red Herring also says that the Snail will cost less than traditional technologies relying on turbines. So when will the Snails invade the seas?

    The first experimental tidal farm, to be launched in 2007, will yield just 5MW at first, enough for around 10,000 homes. While possessing only enough energy to power less than one quarter one percent of Scotland's population, it would mark a significant first step for the emerging technology.

    Scotland has identified Orkney's Pentland Firth and Shetland's Yell Sound -- about 330 miles north of Edinburgh -- as its best sites for harnessing tidal power. Both have sea channels and are exposed to the Atlantic, making the area a prime location for capturing big tidal movements. An energy test site has already been built using a local investment of 5 million pounds ($9.18 million).

    Providing that this technology is licensed to one or several developers, other European countries will also be able to use Snails to produce clean energy at reasonable costs.

    For more information, you might want to check this news release from Robert Gordon University, "University Research Team Poised for SNAIL launch."

    Sources: Red Herring, March 25, 2004; Robert Gordon University

    --


    The guitars sound good, now give me about 10db more on the cow bell.
    1. Re:Repost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then why didn't you post it anonymously? Clicking "Post Anonymously" isn't difficult and only requires thinking, "hmm, I won't Karma Whore today."

    2. Re:Repost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giving you karma isn't the only reason to mod up a repost of the article. It also makes the repost visible to people browsing at a high threshold.

  15. America... by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Things like this are amazing ideas and very, very, very important and will only be increasing more so. Oil won't last forever. You know it. i know it. Why beat around the bush (no pun) and say 10, 20, 50, etc years? Who gives a fuck *how* long we have....get on the ball and get renewable energy sources up past 95% of out uses.

    Sad part is tanks and planes don't run on well wishes and rainbows, the US military and the non-efficient consumer vehicles have *got* to be brought under control. Go ahead and argue all you want. You are wrong and we have *got* to get off of energy sources that will run out.

    Also, i'm happy this sort of thing is being done....just wish more and more stories of new energy studies (that don't involve how to make *more* money for oil companies) come from the US. We either need to get *everyone* behind this or it's not going to happen. People, in general, are lazy and won't change unless they have a personal interest or are forced to. Let's get some grants and scholarships for people doing this kind of work in the US.

    Sorry for rambling and not spell checking.

    1. Re:America... by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 1

      Sorry. Forgot a part.

      How to get everyone behind something like this? Hike the fuck out of gas prices and gas taxes.

      The riots ensuing will be far worse if this problem is ignored and people find out that instead of having "a little left to tide us over until the trasition is complete" to "we are fucked and time is up."

    2. Re:America... by VAXcat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Instead of your authoritarian social engineering project to have the Central Committee of Commissars (no doubt with you and your ilk on the committee) artificially control the price of fuels, in order to control everyone who doesn't agree with you, couldn't we let the prices go up naturally as the resource becomes scarce, at which point people will naturally make the choice to seek other lower cost sources of energy? I prefer using the law of supply and demand rather than an artificial edict from a baby bolshevik.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    3. Re:America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your not thinking like a proper American here...

      Let the Euros go through all the hassle of figuring out the technology to use alternative energy. Once they get it working at a competitive cost we can just steal the technology...

      Geesh... Well my Hummer is idling outside... Gotta go...

    4. Re:America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tanks are diesel powered, planes on the other hand are questionable. Personally I feel we should be migrating to diesel as much as possible since we've the ability to use our breadbasket (the great plains) for other purposes. The first diesel engine was powered by peanut oil if I remember correctly, why not focus on natural renewable alternatives to fossil fuels? With the economy in its current state here in the south where we grow cotton and peanuts for a living I /know/ it's a possibility. Why don't we simply work on migrating from petro based fuels to renewable alternatives such as corn, peanut, or even god forbid hemp oil? Biodiesel (petro - renewable mix) works and is cleaner burning than straight diesel and is the perfect step towards a totally renewable fuel source. Why are we in Iraq and relying on OPEC for oil when we could simply grow our own and still make a profit on exporting?

    5. Re:America... by Fortress · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's kind of sad that the US interferes with the natural market processes that would wean us off oil gradually rather than the cataclysmic reorganization we'll have when oil runs out. Ordinarily, the gradually increasing price of oil as it runs out would make alternatives more viable. By forcing the Middle East to sell oil cheaply at the barrel of a gun, the US prevents other energy production methods from taking off as they are too costly. Yet, if you include the "Defence" budget required to keep oil prices down, the total cost is quite high, not even accounting for the human cost.

      The US seems to be like a spoiled child that wants all the remaining cheap energy to feed its ever-increasing needs. We need to use that energy to develop new methods of generating energy, not fueling 1 SUV for every 3 Americans, not to mention the immense, oil-swilling military.

      I dread the day when the tap finally runs dry, which it must as oil is a finite, non-recyclable resource. What painful reorganizations will occur when we can only afford a tenth of the energy we used to consume?

    6. Re:America... by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Where I live, there are people trying to build wind farms. No grants, gov't subsidies, etc, they did the math and think they can make a profit in the free market.

      However, a vocal minority of people complain that they look too ugly, are too big, ruin the view, etc, and have been able to use lawsuits and regulatory processes to prevent them from being built. As you might expect, they're also trying to convince the state legislature to pass strict regulations governing where and how they can be built.

      I know this isn't an isolated incident. There was a plan to build a windfarm in the atlantic ocean outside of massachussettes. "Not in my backyard."

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    7. Re:America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not fueling 1 SUV for every 3 Americans

      Dude,

      If you think I'm sharing my Hummer with two other people you are so mistaken... I need my space!

    8. Re:America... by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
      Go ahead and argue all you want. You are wrong ...

      Gee, Mr. Marx, your mind is as open as ever. Two hundred twentyone years in the grave didn't change you a bit. Your thoughts still stink.

    9. Re:America... by mw2040 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a staggering over-simplification of the international oil economy. I just spent a semmester studying the economies of the middle east and north africa, and that was just a broad overview. This is a complicated problem.
      While the United States and other countries that don't produce enough oil to run their economies would obviously like the price to be as low as possilbe (and I agree that internalizing the enviornmental, military, and foriegn aid costs of oil would greatly drive up its price), the idea that the price of oil is where it is because the US forces it to be so is just plain bad economics.
      The Sauids (and not just Bush's buddies the House of Saud, but whatever theoretical government might be in place there) have a lot more oil than anyone else and a much larger time frame for extraction. So, they fight with the rest of OPEC to keep the price in an acceptable range (lower than other members would want) and use their massive capacity to flood the market when others get out of line. This is precisely so that oil doesn't get so expensive that people start looking elsewhere. Furthermore, this type of behavior is inherant is the nature of oil (rentier) economies, not a result of anyone's policies.
      Now, I am far from an expert in these matters, but those who express admiration for "natural market processes" shouldn't also demonstrate such complete ignorance of how those processes work.

    10. Re:America... by Atzanteol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do I hear a bit of jealousy at the US gas prices?

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    11. Re:America... by jtev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here here brother, from the great state of KS where we destroy more crops than most countries produce, I'd love to see a USE for all the wheat that needs taken out of the market for price control. Wiskey powered cars, penut powered tanks, Nobody will ever be able to beat the US on it's sheer agricultural might. Once the Military isn't dependant on foriegn energy sources we can tell OPEC to suck our balls, and cut all the ill fitting alliences we have with realy pretty bad people in the mid-east. Well, I'm done ranting for now.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    12. Re:America... by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 1

      i don't think i could agree with you more. Right on. You are very correct in dreading the day is gone or close enough that its cost makes it "gone" to normal people.

    13. Re:America... by Umrick · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Here's your oil. It can be processed from bio waste, tires, plastic, etc to produce light crude oil. The plant can also run off of the oil produced, needing under a fifth of the processed oil for operation.

      There's a pilot plant outside Philly, and another in Montana or Missouri (don't remember).

      With this available, I just wish we were far sighted enough to pop these up all over the country to process any and all recoverable waste. With this as an option, the need to drill for oil becomes greatly reduced if not eliminated.

      It has absolutely nothing to do with being spoiled children, it's that our taxes on fuel use are not at the obsurd levels applied in many parts of the world. Just how much better would it be if the mostly hidden tax on gas wasn't there. Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents a gallon, MD tax rate is 23.5 cents a gallon. Someone come up with a single reason why gas should have a 26% tax on it?

      If you stop the knee jerk reaction, why are fuel prices in Europe so much higher than the US three times in some cases? Taxes. $2.82 out of every $4.07 gallon in France is tax. It's just insane.

    14. Re:America... by JoeStreet · · Score: 1

      wean us off oil gradually rather than the cataclysmic reorganization we'll have when oil runs out

      Running out of oil won't be a here-today-gone-tomorrow type event. There won't be anything cataclysmic about it. The supply will diminish gradually, prices will rise, and alternative energy sources will be gradually adopted as they become cheaper than oil. The transition will be driven by simple economics.

    15. Re:America... by jgardn · · Score: 1

      By forcing the Middle East to sell oil cheaply at the barrel of a gun, the US prevents other energy production methods from taking off as they are too costly.

      Interesting, because after we invaded Iraq, oil prices went up. Either we really stink at this "oil or you life" thing, or it is just plain balderdash.

      Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps we really did go into Iraq to stabilize the Middle East and secure the free world from terrorism and WMDs? Maybe Bush didn't lie after all, but he was telling the bald-faced truth the whole time?

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    16. Re:America... by jackbird · · Score: 1
      Someone come up with a single reason why gas should have a 26% tax on it?

      Roads cost money.

    17. Re:America... by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Fine for small-scale devices like cars, but how about power plants? Those take a hell of a long time to design, approve, build, and get running.

    18. Re:America... by mw2040 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Reasons gas should have a 26% (or higher) tax on it:

      The right reason: Internalize the "externalities" of gasoline use such as pollution, foreign aid, and military expenditures (unfortunately, in practice, this money doesn't actually go to offset these problems).

      Another (largely European) reason: Shield the consumer from oil shocks such as OPEC-generated shortages. If the pre-tax price of a gallon of oil goes from $1 to $1.50 and you see that at the pump, the economy is going to take a major blow. With the taxes, the observed price goes from $4 to $4.50... still not fun, but the economy is build to integrate this kind of shock much more easily. Ideally, the government could even decrease the taxes until the shortage was over and keep the price at the original ($4) level (but that would never happen). This takes the power over western economies out of the hands of foreign, oil-producing nations. The US has tools such as the strategic petroleum reserve that fulfill a similar function (but with non-oil consuming tax-payers subsidizing the security of oil-users, since the funds to buy the SPR come from the general fund rather than oil taxes).

    19. Re:America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, don't go there.

    20. Re:America... by El_Smack · · Score: 1

      Mod this guy up!!!!!

      --


      There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
    21. Re:America... by Fortress · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oil prices went up because of the huge hit reserves take when you add a new, huge consumer, namely the US military. It's simple supply and demand.

      As to WMDs in Iraq, surely you jest. This is just the way the Bush admin sold the war to the public, with the help of the news herd. If there were WMDs in Iraq, why didn't Hussein use them? If he had them and didn't use them, then why did we invade? The hypocritical use of WMDs as a justification for war is asinine. After all, we don't invade Israel when they break the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by developing their own nukes. We can't even admit they have nukes (a widely accepted fact) because our own laws forbid trade or aid with a country that breaks the NNPT.

      I just find it ironic that every time a Texan sits in the White House, we have a war. Is it any coincidence that Haliburton (a company that Dick Cheney headed and still holds huge amounts of stock in) received billions in non-competitive contracts for rebuilding Iraq? And that they are cost-plus contracts, guaranteed to be profitable?

    22. Re:America... by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this is a troll, but you make it sound like being a pidgeon to the likes of Kenneth Lay, Dick Cheney and the other fat pigs of the oil industry is any better. Right now the cost of oil energy is highly subsidised in this country (USA), and is therefor held at an artificially low level. If you think that supply and demand is what drives the US economy in any area then you are being IMHO quite naive. A free market is just fine, but that is not what we have. The best alternative in my mind is to be self sufficient . . . not to have to turn to a private utility or a public utility, but to supply my own energy, and live according to what I can generate using solar, wind, micro-hydro, and anything else that comes to mind.

    23. Re:America... by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      "not to have to turn to a private utility or a public utility, but to supply my own energy, and live according to what I can generate using solar, wind, micro-hydro, and anything else that comes to mind." Thus totally losing the benefits of any economies of scale...

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    24. Re:America... by BlewScreen · · Score: 1
      That's not a reason for a gasoline tax - that's a reason to charge for the use of a road.

      A gas tax to pay for roads is like a food tax to pay for sewage systems. There is no reason to believe that using a certain amount of gas requires a correlated amount of road use any more than saying that if we both eat the same size pizza, we'll have the same amount of "sewage usage".

      -bs

      --
      That that is is not that that is not. That that is not is not that that is.
    25. Re:America... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "How to get everyone behind something like this? Hike the fuck out of gas prices and gas taxes."

      Not yet please...I'm about to get a Viper...

      :-)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    26. Re:America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has tools such as the strategic petroleum reserve that fulfill a similar function (but with non-oil consuming tax-payers subsidizing the security of oil-users, since the funds to buy the SPR come from the general fund rather than oil taxes).

      Actually, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve costs practically nothing to operate in the long term. Its whole purpose is to sell oil when it's expensive, and to buy oil when it's cheaper. Now, you're not going to make a lot of money with that kind of investment, but unless you make some really bad decisions, it's certainly not going to cost any money.

    27. Re:America... by jackbird · · Score: 1
      It's about as accurate as you can get without employing technologies that either make roads less useable (tollbooths, including RFID EZPass-like tech) or are horribly invasive (London traffic cams). And vehicles that use more gas do tend to be heavier and cause more wear on roads. Your lawnmower doesn't impact roads, but then how big is its tank?

      Have a better solution?

    28. Re:America... by BlewScreen · · Score: 1
      Have a better solution?

      Maybe, maybe not, but we're going to need one eventually. If we start building vehicles that don't use gas, we'll need to replace the lost revenue somehow...

      BTW - I'm not sure that EzPass makes toll roads less useable - in fact, if there didn't "need" to be a cash alternative, we could make the roads more useable by removing the booths and allowing people to pay the toll without having to slow down...

      Also - my 2600 lb. car gets 18 miles to the gallon. I'm sure I do only slightly more damage to the roads using them than my lawnmower would, but I pay more in gas taxes than a lot of far heavier vehicles. Furthermore, when I'm on a privately owned track (I give the owner money to maintain it), I get something like 8 miles per gallon. I'm still paying gas tax on this and doing NO damage to public highways...

      Taxing gasoline is not a fair way to collect revenue for road upkeep. We've got the technology to improve this, but no one wants to use it.

      In fact, until it's a private company monitoring my road usage, and not the government, I'm not sure I want to use it. However, there are alternatives (tolls by mile, tolls by location, etc.), and we will eventually need them (assuming less gas consumption by vehicles in the future), so we need to start somewhere...

      -bs

      --
      That that is is not that that is not. That that is not is not that that is.
    29. Re:America... by mw2040 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're right, compared to the income for the at-the-pump tax, the SPR costs very little... How Stuff Works puts the cost at $21M for maintanance and $157M for buying oil (link) in what I think was 2000 or 2001. As for selling the oil high, it looks like they loan it to oil companies when things get tight and then ask for it back in the next couple of years... so I'm not sure how much of a profit that makes... but, its not unreasonable to think the SPR could be self-sufficient.

      My point was more that the SPR isn't a very well targeted response to the problem, since it affects oil users and non-users equally.

    30. Re:America... by misleb · · Score: 1
      Interesting, because after we invaded Iraq, oil prices went up. Either we really stink at this "oil or you life" thing, or it is just plain balderdash.

      We're too busy putting down the Iraqi resistance to occupation to get the oil flowin'. The invansion has only just begun. We've been riding on post-liberation euphoria up until this point. The Iraqi's are only just now waking up to the fact that we dont' give a shit about them.

      Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps we really did go into Iraq to stabilize the Middle East and secure the free world from terrorism and WMDs?

      Considered. And discarded. We've created a whole new lineage of "terrorists" in Iraq. The only way to free the world from terrorism is to stop pissing people off to such a degree that they feel the desire the blow themselves up and take us with them. And in case you haven't been watching the news, the whole Iraq/WMD connection has been blown to bits. Yeah, Saddam *had* WMDs (guess who gave them to him), but he didn't have any at the time we invaded. Even the Bush administration has quietly moved the focus from WMDs (because they could no longer maintain the lie) to "giving democracy to the Iraqi people." And that last reason for being there is also a joke. We don't want the Iraqi people to elect the leader of their choice. We want them to "elect" the leader of our choice. We want to install a leader that is friendly to US interests (oil, Israel)... all while ignoring the real problem: the Saudis.

      Maybe Bush didn't lie after all, but he was telling the bald-faced truth the whole time?

      And maybe my my door is a jar. You've been duped. Admit it, and vote against Bush this fall (assuming they don't cancel the election and declare martial law as Rush Limbaugh proposed).

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    31. Re:America... by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      why not - we have tax on tobacco partly to fund trhe health service (in the UK at least), and partly to stop people from smoking (to keep people healthier and therefore reduce the impact on the health service.).

      There is talk of introducing a 'fat tax' on processed foods for the same reasons.

    32. Re:America... by misleb · · Score: 1
      Why are we in Iraq and relying on OPEC for oil when we could simply grow our own and still make a profit on exporting?

      There is no way you can make growing, harvesting, and processing biomass anywhere NEAR as economical as pumping oil out of the ground. Also, do you have any idea how much land it would take just to supply enough biomass to power our automobiles? It is an environmental nightmare. All that raped land. All those pesticides and fertilizers...

      Also, oil companies aren't stupid. If biodiesel were profitable, they'd be doing it. Oil is so profitibale that it is worth paying the "OPEC tax" to get it. You'd have to subsidize biodiesel.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    33. Re:America... by hmbJeff · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This is more than just an issue of whether something is cheaper than fossil fuels today. It is about what kind of life any of us can expect in the coming decades. For example, if you look a little closer at the link between abundant oil, food and population, you see that they are way more closely correlated than is generally considered.

      Our planet now supports 6.3 billion people. To feed them, we industrially generate as much nitrogen (in the form of chemical fertilizers produced from natural gas) as the biosphere produces naturally. Essentially, we use our unrenewable fossil fuel "capital" to make the planet produce approximately twice as much food as it could using the renewable "income" of solar radiation and natural nutrient cycles.

      According to a study by David Pimentel and Mario Giampietro found that 10 kcal of exosomatic (non-muscle-power) energy are required to produce 1 kcal of food delivered to the consumer in the U.S. food system. This includes packaging and all delivery expenses, but excludes household cooking). We spend 10 times the fossil-fuel energy that we get back in food energy.

      What happens when that fossil fuel "capital" is used up? Suddenly we can't support 6 billion people. Estimates of population size supportable under normal solar input range between 2 and 3 billion.

      Further, an increasing number of people believe that we are much further down the slope of oil depletion than is generally acknowledged by goverments and oil companies. Many believe that we have already reached peak supply, while demand continues to soar. For example, it has been over 20 years since more oil was discovered in a year than was consumed that year. In that environment, energy intensive practices (including energy driven food production) will become economically unfeasible. I expect to see the effects of this becoming significant in the next 10 years.

      So if one were to check up on these assertions (as I have tried to do) and conclude them credible (as I have), there is a frightening conclusion to be drawn. As the oil runs out over the coming decades, somehow at least 50% of the human population will need to be eliminated.

      How this happens is up to us. We can go for a "last man standing" strategy (as I think the Bush Admin necons are trying today) where force is used to ensure that we maintain our industrial power and luxury lifestyle up to the very end, by condemning weaker nations to war and famine. Or we could try to ratchet things down more methodically and fairly and possibly achive a soft landing worldwide. This would mean changes to every aspect of human affairs, to seek solutions that allow us to continue human society using a fraction of the energy we use today, and with every effort made toward humanely lowering birthrates below replacement levels.

      I frankly think that the latter option is the least likely of all, given the way things work in our world.

      Still, it changes the entire framework of the argument when these assertions are considered--it is not so much about whether one particular option is more economically advantageous in today's market than it is a question of what can we do to preserve any kind of desirable human society as our current system becomes impossible to sustain over the next 10-40 years.

      See the article Eating Fossil Fuels for a detailed treatment of this topic, or the book The Party's Over by Richard Heinberg for a more comprehensive analysis.

    34. Re:America... by EvanTaylor · · Score: 1

      Well, about MA. Those windfarms are being builts by a rather disreputable CEO (who's currently being sued in either RI or CN for fraud in relation to another "cleaner energy" company), are not profitable w/out government subsidy, and are being built on free federal land not having to pay taxes/etc. The Propeller tech they are using isnt the most efficient because it attracts birds, and in 5 years they could be moved miles out where you could use really efficient technology, not make it impossible for rescue helicopters to pickup people in heavily traficked areas of sailing/boating/commercial fishing (my cousin was in an accident, had these been up hed be deaD).

      --
      Sleep is for the weak.
    35. Re:America... by stroeks · · Score: 1

      2004 - 1883 = 221 years in the grave? Your math doesn't smell so good either!

    36. Re:America... by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      >>assuming they don't cancel the election and declare martial law

      Shrub didn't get elected the first time, why shouldn't he go 2 for 2?

      --
      Huh?
    37. Re:America... by misleb · · Score: 1
      Shrub didn't get elected the first time, why shouldn't he go 2 for 2?

      Shouldn't be too difficult with the makers of the voting machines on his side.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    38. Re:America... by spRed · · Score: 1

      Dear Confused,

      1) Do you think the US interferes with the natural market processes or are they hyper captilisists? Please pick one.

      2) Oil isn't running out in our lifetime. Oh sure, if you look around some people think it will but people have predicted apocalypse (food, ice age) for two hundred years.

      3) Clever about the US defense bugdet and the US killing for oil and all. Your country pays the same for oil on the world market as the US does. Tax a $1 gallon of gas $5 and it will cost $6. Mereley tax it $1 (like in the US) at it will cost $2.

      here is a Frenchman(!) writing about the "new" anti-Americanism. His point is that the hate isn't new at all, just a hundreds of years old envy directed against someone new. (although the US has been the object for the last hundred plus).

      The US seems to be like a spoiled child that wants all the remaining cheap energy to feed its ever-increasing needs. You seem like a spoiled child who refuses to believe your family isn't better off or more deserving than your neighbor.

      --
      .sig Karma out the wazoo, better to spend points elsewhere if this is above 2 or below 0
    39. Re:America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The US seems to be like a spoiled child that wants all the remaining cheap energy to feed its ever-increasing needs. We need to use that energy to develop new methods of generating energy, not fueling 1 SUV for every 3 Americans, not to mention the immense, oil-swilling military."

      Sure, but not every American is responsible. Let the blame fall on those who most deserve it: the suburb-dwellers. They skip out on the cities to get their precious low taxes, then demand that the federal government build the highways to get them back into the city for work everyday. Who pays for the highways? Everyone, even the city dwellers who don't use them!

      The suburbanites are the militaristic right-wing jerks who give us a bad name around the world, who drive SUVs as if oil were multiplying as fast as their annoying hockey-playing spoiled brat children, the suburbanites are huge hypocrites and freeloaders, and deserve to be held responsible for their reckless actions!

    40. Re:America... by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      I just find it ironic that every time a Texan sits in the White House, we have a war.


      I have to ask...

      How is that ironic?
    41. Re:America... by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      I agree with what you're saying, but I think you have part of it backwards.

      Gas prices are (for the most part) set by OPEC. They control nearly 50% of crude oil production. Oil Economists estimate that without the OPEC production controlls crude oil would be selling for $8 a barrel (Currently it is around $33 a barrel).

    42. Re:America... by ckedge · · Score: 1

      > If there were WMDs in Iraq, why didn't Hussein use them?

      Actually there was a nice bit of investigative reporting a while back that noted that he actively tried to maintain the illusion of "possibly hiding" them by being obstenate to the UN inspectors *in order to* try and dissuade an invasion and maintain power. So it's no wonder the feds fooled themselves into thinking he had WMD, Hussein himself was trying to create that illusion.

      But you don't hear about all these complicated things, all the press can do is scream about their latest "scoop" and shit, and all the other people can do is simply play partisan pollitics.

      I'm Canadian, and I supported the invasion *KNOWING* that there was no reason wrt WMD to invade (he can't use them if we're watching like a hawk, and if he did have any left he had to bury it all due to inspections, etc etc).

      AFAIAC there were lots of other good reasons to invade (and it's only the Iranian supported Shia morons that are going to screw the pooch for the Iraqi common folk - one of the "in the know" Iraqi bloggers has said that the Shia militia's are getting paid regularly in USD provided by Iran).

      I'm not particularly happy wrt Haliburton, but look at it this way. Of the dozens of people who hold high positions of power, how many have involvement in US corporations? All of them. Therefore how likely is it (wrt statistical odds) that at least one of them will have some kind of interest in at least one company, in ANY 100 billion dollar endeavour that the USA undertakes?

      I'd bet 100 pct. It doesn't mean that there's a conspiracy or that the contract was necessarily "rigged". Most US government contracts are pretty bad deals wrt the US taxpayer all of the time!!

      What I do consider a near crime (certainly incompetent decision making and priorities) is that such a large fraction of the rebuilding money is going to Western companies instead of Iraqi companies. Saddam rebuilt Iraq after the first gulf war with Iraqi workers, how the hell is it of any advantage to spend the money on $150,000 western labour rather than $5,000 Iraqi labour? They've got lots of engineers and lots of industry that needs rebuilding. We're missing out on a huge "marshal plan" type opportunity here in a big way, and the repercussion is 50 plus pct Iraqi unemployment, which is creating a LOT of the problems we are seeing.

    43. Re:America... by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1
      Not really losing those benefits. The economy of scale would be seen in the dropping price of PV cells, micro-hydro is quite affordable, and there are many passive heating technologies that can be home made providing solar hot air for mid day heating. If you think that you are reaping the benefits of economy of scale by relying on the coal and oil industries then I think you are mistaken. We are now paying more for energy than we can afford if you take into account the true cost, including environmental impact and infrastructure maintenance.

      Local small scale public utilities actually offer the best in terms of economy of scale when handled in a not-for-profit way. There are many towns and cities in the US who are successfully implementing this model, and as the price for solar, wind and other alternative power generation technologies drop I am betting that we will see more of it.

      Really, do some hard critical research into what is going on in the energy world. Don't simply sit back and critizize through name calling and meaningless buzzword-ology.

    44. Re:America... by jgardn · · Score: 1

      And maybe my my door is a jar. You've been duped. Admit it, and vote against Bush this fall (assuming they don't cancel the election and declare martial law as Rush Limbaugh proposed).

      I haven't been duped. I've read both sides of the story, and frankly, the Bush Administration is a lot more consistent with reports from my soldier friend in Fallujah and what I'm seeing

      I must've missed that one from Rush Limbaugh. See, I read his website. I'll call "liar" until you prove it. Are you sure you aren't being duped? Check your sources and their sources.

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    45. Re:America... by misleb · · Score: 1
      I haven't been duped.

      You have been if you believed the Saddam/WMD lie. Bush would have said just about anything to get his war. I imagine his motto is "The end justifies the means."

      >I've read both sides of the story, and frankly, the Bush Administration is a lot more consistent with reports from my soldier friend in Fallujah and what I'm seeing

      What "story" exactly? You seem to have failed to comment on the meat of my post.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    46. Re:America... by Brad+Mace · · Score: 1

      Yes, its a sad situation. The government needs to start laying down the STFU card in these cases. Things come at a price, and not just in money. Wind generators really aren't that bad. They're huge, but they're not ugly, and they're sure better than having a coal plant next door.

  16. Get ready for environmentalists to complain by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Insightful


    I predict environmentalists will shit a brick because it might disrupt a few sea animals. Just like environmentalists hate wind power since some bird aren't intelligent enough to fly around the windmills.


    Considering the cost of the alternatives (coal, natural gas, oil, etc) isn't even on their radar.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:Get ready for environmentalists to complain by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

      Which do you think is less desirable?

      Disrupting a sea ecosystem?
      or
      Continuing to use energy sources that disrupt air, sea and land ecosystems?

      I think that the whole "drilling for fossil fuels, tankers spilling in the ocean, using a fuel that destroys the environment just from burning it" is far worse than this...

    2. Re:Get ready for environmentalists to complain by dolphinling · · Score: 1

      Um? Environmentalists don't hate wind power, they just ask that it be put in the right place. Same with this--would you rather put this in a place where it'll kill off several entire ecosystems, or put it in a place where it can do its good without hurting anyone else?

      --
      There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.
    3. Re:Get ready for environmentalists to complain by cindy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'm no tree hugger (or fish hugger in this case), but there may be some legitimate questions here...
      • How will they keep marine life from growing on it? Most current techniques involve painting things with bio-toxins.
      • How will this effect the local currents? They already have a lot of problems with erosion in the UK, how will this fit into the mix?
      • How will marine animals that rely on the currents be affected by this?
      • How will commercial fishing interact with this?
      • How often will it need maintainence and how will that maintainence be done? What impact will that have? Also, how much will it cost to maintain?
    4. Re:Get ready for environmentalists to complain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "right place" means "not in my backyard". Everybody likes the idea of affordable housing, but nobody wants that affordable housing in their neighborhood. Everybody hates offshoring our jobs, but nobody wants to pay a couple bucks extra for something made in America. and so on.

    5. Re:Get ready for environmentalists to complain by dolphinling · · Score: 1

      No, "right place" to environmentalists means "where it won't kill off 14 entire genuses"--hence the fact that it's usually NON-environmentalists that oppose atual wind power construction projects, while supporting the idea in general.

      --
      There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.
    6. Re:Get ready for environmentalists to complain by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      All the same, I would be thrilled to live by one of these. We need it.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    7. Re:Get ready for environmentalists to complain by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1

      How will marine animals that rely on the currents be affected by this?

      Hmm... i pictured the sea turtles from Finding Nemo riding the currents, passing through a "snail farm", and ending up as minced meat on the other side...

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    8. Re:Get ready for environmentalists to complain by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      How will they keep marine life from growing on it? Most current techniques involve painting things with bio-toxins.

      That's an excellent question, particularly WRT to barnacles. Also, painting biotoxins on something like this might not be a good idea, unless you can limit the lifetime of the toxin in question. Then again, most rivers dump enormous amounts of toxins into the ocean environment, so it's likely that even on a large scale these would be just a very small fraction of what's already entering that ecosystem.

      How will this effect the local currents?

      Very little if at all, unless it's deployed on a truly huge scale. There's a helluva lot of momentum/inertia in ocean currents - think of how large they are, the mass they contain and the forces "powering" them. I doubt that even thousands of these units would affect most ocean currents more than a fraction of, say, what a fjord tidal harnessing system does in it's local environment.

      Maintenance, I suspect, would be a real headache in a large system. But it'd create lots of jobs :)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  17. Red Herring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kudos to Red for getting involved in marine-related work. I bet no one takes him seriously on April 1st... :o)

  18. Tidal energy isn't new... by slackerboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to this site:
    "Currently, although the technology required to harness tidal energy is well established, tidal power is expensive, and there is only one major tidal generating station in operation. This is a 240 megawatt (1 megawatt = 1 MW = 1 million watts) at the mouth of the La Rance river estuary on the northern coast of France (a large coal or nuclear power plant generates about 1,000 MW of electricity). The La Rance generating station has been in operation since 1966 and has been a very reliable source of electricity for France. La Rance was supposed to be one of many tidal power plants in France, until their nuclear program was greatly expanded in the late 1960's. Elsewhere there is a 20 MW experimental facility at Annapolis Royal in Nova Scotia, and a 0.4 MW tidal power plant near Murmansk in Russia. "

    I also recall having seen articles talking about attempts in Norway to capture wave/tidal energy for electricity generation.

    I'm always a fan of renewable energy. I just wanted to point out that this is more an attempt to do something in a new way than to do something new.

    --
    Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday
  19. Just occurred to me by symbolic · · Score: 2, Insightful


    If there are many of these units in deployment, what are the chances that they will begin to alter or somehow affect the normal flow of water beneath the surface? And what kind of effect will this have on the ecosystem?

    1. Re:Just occurred to me by theguywhosaid · · Score: 1

      with 200 tons of downward force, im sure they will crush a few sea snails with their power snails.
      sort of a gamble in that respect, which is worse, burning the oil or killing the snails for 5MW of power

  20. A new internet law by panurge · · Score: 2, Funny
    Panurge's Law:

    No energy technology supported by a UK government and reported on the internet will ever produce more power than was consumed in publicising it.

    Corollary: No energy technology will be supported by a US government unless it can (a)power an SUV and (b) create explosions.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    1. Re:A new internet law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No slashdot comment shall be modded up without a retarded anti-US or anti-MSFT caveat, no matter how offtopic, unfunny or just plain stupid.

  21. Affordable? by FlyingOrca · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know much about the initiative in question, so please don't read this as an unqualified endorsement. However, one factor that needs to be borne in mind when looking at the "affordability" of an alternate power source is its sustainability.

    Energy from petrochemicals is not sustainable. It might be cheap - right now - but it's not going to last. Moving to sustainability while we have cheap petrochemicals to help us get there makes sense. I think it's high time that environmental costs, lack of sustainibility, and other "externalities" were factored in when comparing "affordability". Cheers!

    --
    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    1. Re:Affordable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A free market, left alone, is amazingly flexible. When petrochemical supply runs too low, an alternative will appear to fill the demand for cheap, reliable power.

    2. Re:Affordable? by jridley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but the free market can't dictate the creation of technological breakthrough any more than a government mandate; they happen when insightful people have been working on a problem for a length of time. Goosing the market a bit in order to gain more time for innovation to occur is not a bad thing if we can afford it. If it turns out we can't make the mandate, then I'm sure the legislation will be relaxed.

    3. Re:Affordable? by FlyingOrca · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Free vs. controlled markets are a matter of economic philosophy; I happen to lean more toward Hawken than Friedman. I don't believe the current energy market is "free", either; both supply and demand are subsidized in a variety of ways. This might lend less credence to your argument.

      Further, I think petrochemical supplies are already running too low, hence my support for the alternatives that are appearing. That's beside my original point, though: when you count the real costs (environmental/sustainibility) of current energy technology, this sort of thing may well prove more "affordable". Cheers!

      --
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
  22. Doh! by Aphrika · · Score: 1

    Yes, now I know, Red Herring is a mag, not a person... thanks to the smartarse on the terminal next to me for pointing this out...

  23. Doing well with renewable energy by gary+chund · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems we could quite happily reach our targets. Our 3rd largest city, Aberdeen, will be powered solely by wind in the near future (as a large wind-farm out at sea is in the pipeline. Quite ironic, as Aberdeen is the oil capital of europe :). IIRC The Isle of Skye may also have a windfarm and there's a couple more planned. Forget about solar energy though, our annual sun quota (approximately one day, give or take a few hours) would provide enough energy to power a digital watch. For a few minutes. Just.

    1. Re:Doing well with renewable energy by camliner · · Score: 1
      Quite ironic, as Aberdeen is the oil capital of europe :).
      "Don't get high on your own supply..." - Scarface
    2. Re:Doing well with renewable energy by qtp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Quite ironic, as Aberdeen is the oil capital of europe :).

      Quite sensible fiscal policy, actually. It seems that you'll soon be in the eviable position of being able to sell a valuable comodity while not consuming any (very little) of it yourselves.

      If the US politicians and oil producers could wrap their minds around that concept, there'd be quite a change in the amount of polution produced in the world, as well as curing our horrendous trade deficit, but I'm afraid that there's far too much power politics involved to see any useful change here. The oil conglomerates make far too much off of importing, the politicians use the promise of US dollars far too often as a diplomatic ploy, and the two groups have been in bed together far to long for them to see that the relationship is destructive. (It's somewhat like a couple that are always fighting each other, except when they are fucking, or have allied in order to fight someone else. Their neighbors are suffering from it, their children are suffering from it, they themselves are suffering from it, but they'll be damned if they'll allow anything to change it.)

      --
      Read, L
    3. Re:Doing well with renewable energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that of course you cannot run a city purely with windenergy. Every place that's saying it does is playing with the numbers. Why ? For the simple reason that sometimes there is no wind. During these periods such places have to be supported by other sources of energy. In practise, you run into problems if you supply more than about 10% of your energy from wind. Yes, there are places that claim higher percentages, but they do it by importing conventional energy to bridge periods of no wind.

      And yes, this could be solved if we could somehow store the energy from windy periods to use during those when it's calm, but we don't have any such technology that's really good.

    4. Re:Doing well with renewable energy by cruachan · · Score: 1

      Not ironic really. Best place to put wind turbines, and only place to put tidal generators, is out at sea. Aberdeen has more offshore expertese available than any other place in the UK - with the possible exception of Shetland - so is naturally the best place to get these things off the ground. Also don't forget the mass of spare heavy engineering capacity and skilled labour for building offshore plant just down the coast at the Dornoch firth.

    5. Re:Doing well with renewable energy by csteinle · · Score: 1

      You ever been to Aberdeen? Trust me, there's always wind.

    6. Re:Doing well with renewable energy by cmorriss · · Score: 1
      Sorry to bring a little common sense to your tirade, but what does oil have to do with generating power for homes?

      Quite sensible fiscal policy, actually. It seems that you'll soon be in the eviable position of being able to sell a valuable comodity while not consuming any (very little) of it yourselves.

      I'm thinking they would still have vehicles that must consume this valuable commodity.

      If the US politicians and oil producers could wrap their minds around that concept, there'd be quite a change in the amount of polution produced in the world, as well as curing our horrendous trade deficit...

      Umm..The U.S. gets its power from natural gas, coal, and nuclear fuel. If it went completely to renewable energy for power generation, it would still need just as much oil.

      --
      10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
    7. Re:Doing well with renewable energy by LenE · · Score: 1
      If the US politicians and oil producers could wrap their minds around that concept, there'd be quite a change in the amount of polution produced in the world, as well as curing our horrendous trade deficit, but I'm afraid that there's far too much power politics involved to see any useful change here. The oil conglomerates make far too much off of importing, blah, blah, blah...

      Oh the tired rant I used to mouth in a former life.

      I used to believe the evil and arrogance of oil companies and their political enablers, until I heard from the mouths of two separate Oil CEO's that were adamant about the need to find alternatives to hydrocarbon fuels. Both had implemented immense R&D programs at their companies to find alternatives to petroleum and mineral sources of energy. Why would this be?

      First of all, who has the most to lose with the advent of a better alternative? The companies who's entire business is based on sucking oil from the ground. Do you think that oil companies like doing business in more dangerous parts of the world? How about the prospect of figuring out what to do when all of the low-hanging fruit is picked, and technology has not enabled economical retrieval of some known deposits. What about increasing liability for environmental mishaps encountered in transporting oil.

      Most oil companies now look at themselves as energy companies, and as such, are looking beyond their position today towards a more tenable future, where mineral oil is a scarce commodity. Still, as no alternative has become technically or economically viable yet, they remain primarily oil companies.

      -- Len

    8. Re:Doing well with renewable energy by gary+chund · · Score: 1

      Yeh, I used to live there. Always wind, occasionally accompanied by a slight hint of fish while strolling down union street. I Still love the place, mind.

    9. Re:Doing well with renewable energy by Galvatron · · Score: 1
      Quite sensible fiscal policy, actually. It seems that you'll soon be in the eviable position of being able to sell a valuable comodity while not consuming any (very little) of it yourselves.

      ...and having provided the world with free R&D so that they can move away from oil as well. Sorry, but that line of logic really doesn't make any sense. ANY switch from oil to a clean alternative is going to have the effect of driving down oil prices. Don't get me wrong, I'm hearitly in favor of renewable energy (I'm especially in favor of Europe freely deciding to bear the cost while America still reaps the benefits, but that's neither here nor there), but the justification is not fiscal, it's environmental.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    10. Re:Doing well with renewable energy by qtp · · Score: 1

      having provided the world with free R&D

      But the majority of effective R&D that has produced viable alternatives top oil has not come from the oil companies, but from General Electric (fuel cell and wind turbine technology) and a large handful of semiconductor companies (practical and efficient solar cells).

      The big energy companies do not consider technologies that are as efficient on a small scale as on a large scale to be viable, because their very existance is dependant on preventing a truly distributed market in energy from forming. Wind, solar, and natural gas (both fossil and renewable) are viable technologies on a micro generation scale. Renewable natural gas has the advantage of working in automobiles (this has already been implemented by many municiple fleets in the US due to both cost-cutting and environmental issues).

      but the justification is not fiscal, it's environmental.

      The environmental issues will never be addressed until the cost of those solutions are similar or better. The ecconomics of the issue are more than simply cost, but also concerned with the changes that will occur as power production becomes more localized and the ownership of production becomes more distrbuted.

      The oil companies will come forward with efficient and implementable technologies they find one that does not disturb their place in the economy.

      --
      Read, L
    11. Re:Doing well with renewable energy by qtp · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking they would still have vehicles that must consume this valuable commodity.

      I'm sorry, I think I should have mentioned this. It's odd that they are talking about 600 GBP grants for conversions, but the tech might costr a bit more there than it currently does here (around $700 to $900, depending on the make of the car.)

      The U.S. gets its power from natural gas, coal, and nuclear fuel.

      You are right, the US gets only about 5% of it's energy from oil fired generators. The techs you mention are the root cause of the east-coast blackout that we expirienced last summer due to the need for heavy currents being transmitted at high voltage over long distance power lines. Most of the renewable energy technologies that have been proven to be feasable (wind, solar, renewable natural gas) work as efficiently on a micro-generator scale as they do on a centralized generation model. As we consume more and more energy, it will become necessary to move the production of electrical power closer to the consumer.

      If it went completely to renewable energy for power generation, it would still need just as much oil.

      If the US went to renewable natural gas generation on its livestock farms and at its sewage treatment plants, the cost of natural gas would drop enough that it would be feasible to run our cars on it.Lubricants and other petroleum based products could easily be made from our domestic oil production or manufactured from vegetablesopurces or meat/poultry rendering waste products.

      --
      Read, L
  24. Oh no! by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1

    Then energy consumed will slow down the moon and it will collide with the Earth. We are all going to die. Oh the manatee!

  25. actually the effect should be as minor by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    as a butterfly flapping it's wings

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:actually the effect should be as minor by saderax · · Score: 1

      "as a butterfly flapping it's wings"

      ... in China!!!

      muahahahahahah!

  26. Foils as anchors. by Bagheera · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While they don't say so in the article, it would appear from the picture of the device that there is a medium diameter horizontal axis generator on the dorsal surface, and the six foils are going to generate the downforce required to anchor the device to the bottom.

    This is just from looking at it, obviously not from the plans. One of the challenges they would face with any form of tidal or current energy device is how to keep the thing in place. With the foils, I can see issues with keeping it in position, but it does seem like that's what they're trying to do.

    There's probably also a hard mooring to keep it from drifitng away at slack tide, which would also allow it to change facing when the tides change direction or the currant shitfs.

    --
    Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
    1. Re:Foils as anchors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good explanation! But look what a half-assed attempt the article made:

      At Aberdeen's Robert Gordon University, Mr. Bryden has circumvented traditional turbine designs.

      The "Snail" is still a turbine design (with "active anchoring").

      His brainchild, the Snail, is a 15x12 meter (roughly 49x39 feet) anchoring device that uses hydrofoils -- what scientists describe as wings that "fly" in water -- to generate more than 200 tons of downward force to the seabed.

      I think it's journalists not scientists who describe hydrofoils that way...

      Six dragon-like wings attach the unit to the national grid.

      Say again? These wings now attach the unit to the electricity network? What? (While there is something that looks like a big roll of cable in the article's picture...)

      Just having a bit of fun here ;-)

    2. Re:Foils as anchors. by spRed · · Score: 1

      I have mod points, but I posted instead of just modding you down.

      You can't say "there is a medium diameter horizontal axis generator on the dorsal surface" without also saying "I am a marine physicist who accidentally posted shop-talk." If you leave that out you just said "I am a giant ass" or "Remember on Star Trek when they used ten words when two would do? I was that writer"

      What would be a large diameter generator on a never before seen prototype? And what does being on the center-middle-top have to do with it?

      "The turbine looking thing probably _is_ a turbine, so it swims up and down to make it spin" Was that so hard?

      Mod me down, but take that post with me.

      --
      .sig Karma out the wazoo, better to spend points elsewhere if this is above 2 or below 0
    3. Re:Foils as anchors. by ocie · · Score: 1

      One of the challenges they would face with any form of tidal or current energy device is how to keep the thing in place.

      The other of course being how do you keep the surfaces from being fouled by marine life. From fish down to barnicles there are things in the ocean that will increase the roughness of the working surfaces until they need to be replaced. Is it stull "renewable" with this replacement?

      --
      JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
    4. Re:Foils as anchors. by Bagheera · · Score: 1

      Interesting comment, and I suppose your "There's a propeller thing on the back that might be a generator" works just as well, but it takes as many words and makes you sound like you know, well, more than you seem to, actually.

      What does "so it swims up and down to make it spin" mean, anyway?

      And, to answer your specific question here: "What would be a large diameter generator on a never before seen prototype? And what does being on the center-middle-top have to do with it?"

      A large diameter turbine, in this context, would be closer in diameter to the beam of the structure. Everything being relative, and all.

      As for what being on the "center-middle-top" has to do with it, I'll go with the small words short description since you don't seem to like technical explanations.

      It's on top so it will be further up in the current where the water flow is smoother. It's in the middle so the load it transfers to the structure is well supported, and it's less likely to tip over.

      Happier?

      Oh, and it would be Naval Architect or Marine Engineer, not Marine Physicist.

      Sorry you didn't like the technical description, mate. Next time, use your mod points...

      Cheers.

      --
      Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
  27. Read the articles carefully! by KommissarHorizon · · Score: 2, Informative

    The hydrofoils aren't generating power they merely provide a cheap way of holding a turbine down on the seabed.

  28. -1, US-Centric by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    Dude, the US is not the only country in the world. Want to bash countries for consuming natural resources? How about Indonesia, who has generated 40% of the world's CO2 since 1990 by burning off their natural forests.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  29. You got it backward. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is all part of an alien conspiracy to bring the moon crashing down on us! Awaken to the truth before it's too late!

    Actually, tidal friction slows the rotation of the earth and raises the orbit of the moon. Extracting tidal power will increase the friction and thus the rate at which this happens.

    (Of course if there WAS a chance of bringing down the moon that would make for QUITE the "environmental impact".)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:You got it backward. by Adriax · · Score: 2, Funny

      So it's a secret alien plot to change the length of the day, so we all suffer from constant jet lag?

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    2. Re:You got it backward. by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      no no no, read what the guy wrote:

      Actually, tidal friction slows the rotation of the earth and raises the orbit of the moon. Extracting tidal power will increase the friction and thus the rate at which this happens.

      so the moon will get further away.

      so its a secret alien plot to bring back 70s TV shows about rogue moonbases flung out to the stars.

    3. Re:You got it backward. by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I think there is a study that showed that the human body "prefers" a 27.5 hour day approx. So I believe slowing down the earth is a good thing. I, for one, could use the extra sleep. Seriously, I doubt people have an idea of how big these machines would have to be to have any effect.

      --
      What?
  30. uhm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scotish goverment? There's no such thing. Scotland is part of the UK, and is mainly ruled from Westminster, but there is a Scotish parliament, which, is not interchangeable with goverment.

    Personally I'm waiting for Scotland to leave the UK, it'd be best all around, the rest of the UK would benefit and Scotland would be taught a lesson, but this isn't to troll, it's to say that Scotland is not an independant country, and so does not have a goverment.

  31. City of Austin by michael_mitchell · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The City of Austin (Texas) owns its own power company and has mandated that it will generate 10% of its power from renewable sources over the next 10 or 20 years. It will be interesting to see how successful they are.

  32. TANSTAAFL? by Salamanders · · Score: 1

    If this thing harvests the energy in wave power, then what happens... the waves behind it are smaller? Can't think of anything offhand that relies on waves to live/eat/etc, but I'm not a naturalist. Always a little wary of sucking energy out of the environment in new ways.

    1. Re:TANSTAAFL? by JoeStreet · · Score: 1

      I just got back from northern Germany which is covered up with windmills (the modern, electric generating kind, not the farming, grain grinding kind). I wonder how long it will be before France or Denmark sue to get their breeze back.

    2. Re:TANSTAAFL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was under the impression that France sucked and Germany blows thus creating a constant and limitless amount of airflow on the borders.

  33. it's like the recycling bins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard the truck that goes `round to people's houses to pick up the recycling bins (which most homes in the UK have them, or have the right to get one for free) actually uses far more energy than what is gained from recycling.

    We're in the very early stages of this at the moment, though I think we're only a couple decade off of 'clean living'.

    1. Re:it's like the recycling bins by raygundan · · Score: 1

      Recylcing is a HUGE energy sink. But it's not about the energy-- it's about the raw materials. I'm surprised anyone would ever think for a second that recycling is about energy.

      Of COURSE the pickup, processing, melting, and re-forming of materials is going to use a ton of energy. It does have other nice side-effects, though: less deforestation, less mining, etc...

      It's a tradeoff. You spend energy to get material.

    2. Re:it's like the recycling bins by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      True, but you're ignoring the sunk cost of picking up said trash to begin with. If the stuff has to be hauled away to a landfill or hauled away to a recycling facility, then there's no net energy consumption for recycling. The "far more energy than what is gained from recycling" assumes that if the trash wasn't picked up by recyclers, it wouldn't be picked up at all.

      That said, recycling is horribly inefficient- mainly because of contaminants and/or separation requirements in the process flow. It is also very costly in terms of man-hours to recover valuable (saleable) materials.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:it's like the recycling bins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recycling does save energy by itself. It's more efficient than mining for the ore.

      That's not why we recycle, though. Mostly it's done because of the economics of mining, which costs more than recycling.

    4. Re:it's like the recycling bins by raygundan · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see numbers. I am an "environmentalist", but I'm too much of an engineer/skeptic to take stuff at face value. (Please do not associate an engineer's environmentalism with the nutcases who give simple ideas like efficiency a bad name by strapping themselves to baby seals) Sending trucks to pick up bottles, labor/machinery to sort and remove things like labels and rings of different materials, and the energy to melt down, purify, and re-form materials seems like it would be on par with the digging, shipping, and forming of material in the first place.

      This will depend greatly on the material, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if some materials are gains and others are losses.

      Without more data, though, my gut tells me that recycling is good, but not so much because of energy savings, as you say.

  34. Missing the Obvious by im2xlt · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The turbine on top of the snail seems rather delicate. I think you could generate more power from the actual wings themselves.

    Have servo motors move the wings to lift the entire structure upward. This would "arm" the device for the power stroke. The power stroke would come from tilting the wings dramatically downward. This would provide 200 tons of pressure to work a pump that could pressurize sea water that turns a more efficient turbine.

    1. Re:Missing the Obvious by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
      I'm afraid you're missing a bit of the obvious too, friend. What's generating that 200 tons of down-force is the water rushing over the foils (think of it as an upside down airplane wing) so in order to crank those foils to an up position you're not only going to have to provide enough energy to the servos to do it, but generate a hell of a lot of force, which means more gearing, which costs more energy, etc.
      In addition as the foils go out of parallel (with the sea floor) the force that is generated on/over the foils will change dynamically with their angle. I'm no MechE (yet) but that's gonna either decrease their force coming back into position, or possibly make it even harder to raise them the higher you go. In theory while the device might produce enough power for a positive net gain after powering these foil servos, between energy lost due to mechanical transferrance and friction you'll consume at least as much if not more than you produce.

      Still, I like the idea, you just might need to take a different approach, like adding rudders and aerons to the foils so you can alter thier lift and use much less energy to raise the foil, then snap the rudders back into place and left the damn thing WHOOSH back down into place.
      Hmmm.... pardon me, I have a patent to write....

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    2. Re:Missing the Obvious by im2xlt · · Score: 1
      I respectfully disagree. Going to an up position will require almost no force. Once you are at the end of a power stroke the wings will be able to go to a neutral position with NO added energy; simply release the force that is keeping them in the down position.

      Since the only resistance in moving the structure to the up position is the weight of the Snail itself, the wings will only have to move slightly, and then back to neutral.

      Addressing your concern about using more energy to move the wings downward for a power stroke than is generated, use your own example of an airplane. The hydraulic pumps used aboard a Boeing 777 to control the flaps can move a jet to a higher altitude and weighs almost double the 200 tons we are talking about here without an enormous power supply.

      The underwater wings do not have to be fast responding like on a jet either, which means extreme-ratio reduction gearing could be used and use a relatively small motor for the amount of work that is being done.

    3. Re:Missing the Obvious by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
      This is a good debate. :) But I think we're visualizeng two different things here. For a moment I'll disregard what the Snail actually does and what the purpose of its foils are.

      I'm imaging the entire device being more or less anchored to the seabed, and the foils move up and down, in turn using a piston to turn a generator crank, similar to the action you see in the classic texas oil-pump.

      I see from your second post you mean to move then entire snail up and down, which could be easily accomplished with some air-filled drums mounted to it.

      Using a little armchair physics (i.e. a paper airplane) to remind me of how angle effects lift, i see that angling the foils upward would result in less downward force, not more. So I concede your point in either application.
      The only question remaining now is where can we get some funding to develop one or both of these ideas into a better generator than this snail?

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
  35. Tidal energy is NOT renewable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The energy to power tides comes from the rotational
    inertia of the earth and moon. Extracting power
    from tides slows down the earth (making days long)
    and makes the moon drive further away from the earth
    (in order to preserve angular momentum.) Once all
    the power is used up, the earth and moon will be
    in tidal lock and a day on earth will last a
    month. It will get very hot by midday, and very
    cold at night. Most of life as we know it will
    cease to exist on earth.

    On the other hand, the power tied up in the rotation
    of the earth is immense, and it is unlikely that
    Scotland is going to reduce it by any measurable
    amount. But still....

  36. Moon going away by ImWithBrilliant · · Score: 1

    Since the Moon is actually increasing it's distance from us,
    we should have a big buffer of orbital energy to steal.

    Could be why it's so hard to go back after 30 years, it's so much further away.

    --

    Is it a rule, that there's an exception to every rule?

    1. Re:Moon going away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The moon's orbital distance is increasing at a rate of 3.8 centimeters per year, I doubt that makes much of an impact on the difficulty of getting there.

  37. Steady, there -- you're sounding too reasonable by ianscot · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Goosing the market a bit in order to gain more time for innovation to occur is not a bad thing

    C'mon, stop saying such reasonable things. Get out of the way and let the big energy interests scuttle their competition. They're powerful, and they'd like a market that's "free" to allow them to throw their weight around.

    We're in very great danger of a socialist takeover because of this Sea Snail project. Honest. 'Cause there's never been an innovation encouraged by government that helped the economy at all. The British Government didn't encourage the development of chronographs by offering a "Longitude" prize, and don't you let those whiny liberals convince you otherwise.

    (It's not like the government subsidized the nascent railway and airline industries, ever, by sending the mail through them, or anything like that. We'd never do something like that. Wouldn't be the good old American way. Nope.)

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  38. more issues with... by Pegasi51 · · Score: 1

    Before I actually get on topic I have to wonder aloud, what ever happened to OTEC technology? I thought that it sounded like on of the most potentially viable alternative energy sources. Though you do have to have floating cities to use them :)

    I am curious how these regulations work out in reality; there is a growing movement in central Texas to try to push a 10% law through the Texas government.

    I am afraid that the economics are against it, right now at current costs for oil, natural gas, and coal in Texas it is going to be more bottom line friendly to use traditional energy production. Any legislation mandated eco-friendly percentages are going to hike not only costs for that renewable energy but also electricity costs across the board.

    Part of this is of course green energy is very expensive to develop and implement. But more importantly is because they can. Without competition prices are going to keep inching up at the rate that we are almost, but not quite, mobilized into a rampaging mob each year.

    for the lazy who do not want to actually read all that I will conclude, renewable energy is nice but I doubt we will see it in the US at any scale untill non-renewable energy costs rise so the economics get better. If we try it before that happens the cure will be worse then the disease (astronomically rising energy costs)

    Thanks for listening :)

    --
    There is no situation you can not make worse. -Jim Lovell
  39. Austin renewables by Tau+Zero · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I parked a number of times at the (old) Austin airport, and noticed that the acres upon acres of asphalt would have been a great place to hang solar panels over. "Shingling" carports with some sort of solar collector would have had the dual benefit of generating energy and keeping the vehicles below from cooking in the sun (one wonders how much those cars contributed to smog from evaporative fuel emissions; you can't purge a vapor-recovery canister when the car isn't operating).

    --
    Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
    1. Re:Austin renewables by okayiaT+ver.65535 · · Score: 1

      > cooking in the sun

      Are you Cook and Eat "The Heavyweight Sea Snail"?
      Super recycling. ;)

      _
      # CheapGbE!GbE!!TheKLF!KLF!!TheRMS!RMS!! And a meme sparks ...

      --

      _
      # CheapGbE!GbE!!TheKLF!KLF!!TheRMS!RMS!! And a meme sparks ...
  40. Clearly a fuzzy-thinking "Plan B"... by 0x69 · · Score: 1

    Reading the linked articles, i don't think that their authors understood how this system is supposed to work.

    My guess is that this is some pointy-hairbrained Plan B that they came up with at the last minute, after both Nessie and the Loch locals said "hell no!" to the treadmill/generator idea.

    --
    It's easy to make up & spread cool- and credible-sounding stuff. Finding & checking hard facts is hard work.
  41. Re:Those Scotts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe he was talking about grass seed

  42. Oil from turkey guts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Almost a year ago there was an article in Discovery magazine about a plant designed to process turkey guts into oil. The company running the plant has been pretty tight lipped about how things are going but they have finally made some kind of announcement. The plant is making a small profit.

    The consequences of this new technology are huge.

    1 - They are using biomass which has zero net effect on atmospheric CO2.

    2 - They are diverting biomass from landfill.

    3 - They are reducing the amount of money we have to pay for foreign oil from countries where a lot of the people hate us.

    3a - (ok I can't resist a good rant) This makes it unnecessary to spend money invading countries to get their oil.

    4 - They are providing jobs for Americans. I can't think of any way to profitably outsource those jobs either.

    5 - Oil is a much better way to fuel cars than electricity. We've been working on batteries and fuel cells for how long? And they still aren't practical.

    www.mindfully.org/Energy/2004/Changing-World-Tec hn ologies4apr04.htm

    1. Re:Oil from turkey guts by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      okay, I'll bite:

      1 - yeah, it's probably no worse than the current situation, though most folks complain it's pretty bad right now.

      2 - I'll buy that one

      3 - I'll buy that too, but we buy lots of things from countries where people hate us: China - everything, most of Africa - minerals, France - wine (sorry, couldn't resist the dig on France)

      3a - I've always maintained that Oil has little to do with Iraq. It all comes down to a phone conversation overheard in January 2001, when an unidentified speaker remarked "Don't worry, Dad, I'll get him for ya!"

      4 - That's what illegal's are for. They have most of the nasty, filthy poultry processing jobs in the US.

      5 - Oil generally has very high specific stored energy, but it is quite complex to extract that energy (ever looked at a modern engine schematic?). Right now, electric power is not viable because the Big 3 have not yet found it profitable to switch. Can you imagine how expensive a modern internal combustion engine would be to build from scratch, without a tuned assembly-line approach? That's where electric is.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  43. Distributed Would Be Better... by cdavies · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know why we bother putting our money into these centralised energy projects. Why not just mandate that all houses must have photovoltaics and solar heating installed? We just had solar heating installed, which works great even in sunny Britain. Photovoltaics would be more expensive (20K UKP expensive) but we calculate that they could provide about 120% of our idle energy needs, so at night the grid would actually have to pay us! :) The payback period would be ~ 6 years we estimate. Just a little more thought, and the government could easily reach their European targets at little cost to themselves, and with no new R&D.

    1. Re:Distributed Would Be Better... by Mindwarp · · Score: 1

      Photovoltaics would be more expensive (20K UKP expensive).......at night the grid would actually have to pay us!

      I'm no physicist, but I think I may have found a flaw in your reasoning.

      --
      The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.
    2. Re:Distributed Would Be Better... by cdavies · · Score: 1
      *sigh* I guess some people miss jokes even when you append a smiley to them.

      For the pedants amongst you, we calculated the total energy output of a 25m^2 solar installation, and divided by our estimated idle energy usage (which includes the odd light bulb, idle computer equipment, TV, etc. on standby) for 24h to get the percentage figure.

    3. Re:Distributed Would Be Better... by panurge · · Score: 1
      How much power are you using? I have a highly energy efficient house and the payback on photovoltaics is never - they would fail long before payback. If your payback is 6 years you are presumably paying approx. $5000 a year for electricity, assuming your 120% figure is correct. And how much have you allowed for maintenance? Your name isn't Charles Windsor by any chance?

      However, I agree with you in part. Unfortunately it is hard to store electricity in any quantity and we therefore need sources which are not daylight dependent. A mixed approach of lots of small windfarms, photovoltaics, hydro, coppicing and steam generation, bioDiesel, enhanced insulation, and (heresy this) a few nuclear plants to provide a base load for trains and essential services could be a lot more robust overall than the present system.

      --
      Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    4. Re:Distributed Would Be Better... by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 2, Informative

      He's talking about the payback for his solar thermal system ( ~ 2,500) not a photovoltaic installation ( ~ 20,000).

      Most of the electricity consumed by a UK house goes to heat the hot water tank and provide central heating so the biggest bang for buck is to do that using a solar/thermal system. The thermal vacuum tube systems are far more efficient at extracting energy from the sun than photovoltaics, up to 80% efficient and they are far far cheaper, nearly 1/10th the price.

      --
      Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  44. Re:30 Tonnes by CriX · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm missing something, but I couldn't find any mention of how they'll be using the 200 ton downward force of this 30 ton beast to create electrical potential.

    --
    Moderation: +1 pwnage
  45. Not where, but who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subsidize these people

    or Dick Cheney

    or some shiek or ...

  46. Sci-Fi to reality. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't tidal power the powersource for the dome city in Logans Run?

    Just how many of you guys and girls are over 30 now?

  47. Borrows? by edremy · · Score: 1

    US simply borrows whatever magic solution the Euros have discovered in the mean time.

    I think you mean "Pay through the nose for the patented technology the Euros have discovered in the mean time."

    Let's outsource all R&D to other places! It's just a drag on the bottom line! We can always borrow some more to pay for it.

    --
    "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    1. Re:Borrows? by general_re · · Score: 1
      I think you mean "Pay through the nose for the patented technology the Euros have discovered in the mean time."

      Or "laughs riotously at the fact that the Euros spent a ton of money without coming up with a silver bullet." Either way. Not to mention that alternatives already exist - the Euros don't have a patent on nuclear reactors, for starters. The fact that they are currently economically unviable is a comparative measure - they are only unviable in comparison with petroleum, which means that at some point, the price of oil can/will rise to the point that alternatives that are currently unviable become viable.

      Let's outsource all R&D to other places!

      I don't think you understand how this works. If I, as a third-world country, want to make antibiotics, I don't have to wait for a native version of Alexander Fleming to spring up, and then start from scratch - I just have to read the literature thoughtfully provided by the real Alexander Fleming and his first-world successors. Nothing truly groundbreaking is going to stay secret for long, patent or not.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    2. Re:Borrows? by edremy · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand how this works. If I, as a third-world country, want to make antibiotics, I don't have to wait for a native version of Alexander Fleming to spring up, and then start from scratch - I just have to read the literature thoughtfully provided by the real Alexander Fleming and his first-world successors. Nothing truly groundbreaking is going to stay secret for long, patent or not.

      Having been a chemist for a major drug maker, I understand *exactly* how this works.

      Yes, I can read the literature. Yes, this will give me ideas. *Every* *single* *one* of those ideas developed by industry (and lately academia as well) will be patented up the wazoo. Pretty much every commercially viable idea is these days. I now have three options

      1. Pay $$$$ to use this idea
      2. Wait until the patent runs out. (And unlike copyright, they do, despite many tricks used by companies to extend their life- look at what's happened with generic drugs after patent expiration)
      3. Ignore the patent. If I'm in a first world state (US/Canada/Japan/Europe) I'm going to get squished like a bug under an army of patent lawyers. If I'm in Outer Elbownia and start using this idea to get around the high prices of stuff developed elsewhere, expect that nation to get a visit from the various trade representatives of the country holding the patent. You can get away with this a few times if you're big enough, but it's not going to endear you to anyone. (Unless, of course, you're the United States and badly need Cipro during an anthrax scare.)
      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    3. Re:Borrows? by general_re · · Score: 1
      You forgot #4 - "use something else". Consider option 1 in light of that:

      Pay $$$$ to use this idea

      Either that's the cheapest alternative, or it isn't. But it's hardly the only alternative, so the price can't be truly extortionate - it has to be lower than what it costs me to use the pre-existing alternates, or I use those, save money, and I win. Even if it was the only alternative, your asking price still has to be lower than what it would cost for me to develop my own solution, or I'll develop my own, save money, and I win. Either way, I win.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    4. Re:Borrows? by edremy · · Score: 1

      it has to be lower than what it costs me to use the pre-existing alternates, or I use those, save money, and I win.

      Depending on the technology in question, there may well not be alternatives. This is true for many blockbuster drugs for example

      Even if it was the only alternative, your asking price still has to be lower than what it would cost for me to develop my own solution, or I'll develop my own, save money, and I win.

      R&D is not a fixed cost. You have no idea how much it is going to cost or how long it will take to develop that alternative, especially in the drug field. My father was also a chemist: 35 years of work and nothing he worked has ever been sold to a customer. He did get one into human testing: after ~7 years of development and ~$300million in expense the compound flopped- it was no better than existing, cheaper alternatives. (Although in a staggering display of corporate idiocy, the noted side effect of "it's also a non-sedating antihistamine" wasn't deemed commercially interesting since nobody would ever care about something like that. This was 10 years before the chemically similar Seldane and Claritin came on the market.)

      Even worse, you might spend a ton of money only to find that Monsanto filed the patent on your chemical a week before you did. Too bad. Start over from scratch.

      R&D is way risky. The only reason companies bother is because the payoff can be so huge.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    5. Re:Borrows? by general_re · · Score: 1
      Depending on the technology in question, there may well not be alternatives.

      We already know there are alternatives - it's just that at the moment, they aren't competitive, economically speaking. Like I said, Europe doesn't hold a patent on fission reactors.

      R&D is not a fixed cost. You have no idea how much it is going to cost or how long it will take to develop that alternative, especially in the drug field.

      Why are we imagining that my solution has to be some sui generis thing here? I have your work to build off of, and to serve as a benchmark for my own. The people who developed amoxicillin had a pretty good idea of how to proceed and how much it would cost, simply by looking at the development paths and costs of similar solutions - e.g., ampicillin.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    6. Re:Borrows? by edremy · · Score: 1

      We already know there are alternatives - it's just that at the moment, they aren't competitive, economically speaking. Like I said, Europe doesn't hold a patent on fission reactors.

      Certainly, in some cases (like this) there are alternatives. But I'm not sure fission power is a viable alternative in today's political climate, although technologically/environmentally it's far better than almost anything else.

      I have your work to build off of, and to serve as a benchmark for my own. The people who developed amoxicillin had a pretty good idea of how to proceed and how much it would cost, simply by looking at the development paths and costs of similar solutions - e.g., ampicillin.

      Again, no. The drug I mentioned before my dad worked on was a simple modification of an existing class of compounds, very similar to the situation you describe. Whoops-it wasn't worth anything. This is the norm in drug development.

      While I was working as a chemist, I got to analyze a great new compound that the head of the HIV project was very excited about. It was very similar to a class of compounds that worked great in a test tube but weren't tolerated by the body. The synthetic chemists had made some careful tweaks that the modelers promised would enhance bioabsorption without affecting the effectiveness. Weeks of high-end workstation time and a ~3week synthesis got ~0.5mg of white powder that was injected into a bunch of rats to see what happened.

      Not even a blip on my HPLC. Toss that idea, start again.

      Meanwhile, Pfizer is making a fortune on a failed drug for chest pain that has, um, other uses. The best anti-baldness drug on the market was developed for people with prostate enlargement. Research often doesn't work the way you expect.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    7. Re:Borrows? by general_re · · Score: 1
      Well, you're just a glass-is-half-empty sort of person, aren't you? ;)

      But I'm not sure fission power is a viable alternative in today's political climate, although technologically/environmentally it's far better than almost anything else.

      Perhaps, but we're not talking about a barrier that's inherently insurmountable - e.g., due to the laws of physics or whatever. Let gas hit $10 a gallon due to real scarcity, and the idea of electric cars plugged into fission generators will start looking mighty attractive to some of those people who currently object to nuclear power. Let it go to $20 a gallon, and that bandwagon will get somewhat larger still. And you don't have to do anything to encourage that switch, really - the economics drives the choices without any external intervention.

      The drug I mentioned before my dad worked on was a simple modification of an existing class of compounds, very similar to the situation you describe. Whoops-it wasn't worth anything.

      Does it always work out? Obviously not. But the fact that you and your father chose to pursue the lines of investigation that you did suggests that you thought they might potentially be productive lines of investigation. That is, despite the fact that it didn't work out, neither of you were exactly shooting in the dark, so to speak. I'm sure that along with the failed attempts you can name, you could probably think of at least one or two cases where derivatives were as effective or more effective than their predecessors, if you really put your mind to it ;)

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
  48. Sea Snake - Pelamis project seems more interesting by AndyGasman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This seems an interesting project, though another project in Scotland, the Pelamis seems more interesting and closer to completion. A an old Uni mate of mine works at Ocean Power Delivery which has spent the last few years developing the Pelamis, which is basically a 120m long 3m round articulated snake. A working full-scale prototype is currently getting installed in a channel around the Shetland isles. The software and control systems seem really interesting due to the large amount of backup systems and the use of FPGAs.

  49. Sustainable? by wsanders · · Score: 1

    What happens when we have sucked all the energy our of the ocean's surface? We will wake up to a perfectly flat sea and no one will be able to start their 100,000-HP hyper cars!

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  50. The collapse of oil is no fairy tale by metalhed77 · · Score: 1

    No one expects oil to last into the next century. The expected to peak rather soon. What we really need is more government funded research into alternative energy so we can get off this oil train as soon as possible. Or at least be ready when it crashes.

    --
    Photos.
  51. Socialism, or a reality check? by Tau+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Speaking as a native-born citizen of the USA, the US isn't doing terribly well either; we still subsidize the consumption of oil (via "depletion allowances", defense costs not allocated to users, and other tax benefits) and do stupid things like promoting the consumption of natural gas for electric generation while the supply of NG is shrinking. Just because our policy is different from the Eurosocialists' doesn't mean it's smart.

    We already have a lot of fuel-saving technologies which will pay for themselves nicely at current prices (let alone future prices), yet adoption has been very slow. I can think of a number of causes:

    1. Tax subsidies which have the effect of paying users not to change.
    2. Outmoded regulations which slow or even block desirable change.
    3. Interest groups which resist changes which threaten their way of doing business.
    4. Simple inertia.
    As an example of 3 and 4, I hold up the continued widespread use of stick-built construction when SIPs (Structural Insulated Panels) leak a lot less heat, have next to zero air leakage when properly installed, and save a lot of time and labor in the construction. They also reduce the use of wood. We should be promoting or mandating their use where feasible and training builders and building inspectors in their proper installatino. Are we? No. I'll bet there are a lot of union carpenters who like it that way.

    Another is the relative lack of CHP (Combined Heat and Power, or cogeneration) systems in the USA vs. Europe. This may be due to power regulations which make it impossible to obtain a market price for the production of small generators, or far too expensive to connect to the grid save as a pure consumer. Again, this is something which can be fixed with proper regulatory changes.

    There are questions not answered in the article about the snail, such as the handling of the variable output of the tidal power systems versus the contrary schedule of grid demand. These things must be dealt with; unfortunately, they are beyond the scope of small news items. What's truly a pity is that news editors don't think they are sufficiently important to collect links for further study.

    --
    Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
    1. Re:Socialism, or a reality check? by general_re · · Score: 1
      If I had mod points, I'd spend them here ;)

      In any case, whether some magic bullet comes along or not is really irrelevant. There are already alternatives to petroleum that are, at the moment, simply at a competitive disadvantage for one reason or another. Restructuring the current regulatory regime where appropriate - that is, by removing regulatory barriers to alternatives, rather than creating barriers for current technology - is very much a worthwhile exercise. And in any case, once the price of oil rises high enough, those alternatives will eventually become economically attractive in and of themselves. Even if one petroleum based unit of energy currently costs $X, and the alternative costs 10X, that alternative becomes viable the minute oil hits a price of $10X+1, with no need to monkey around with promoting or disparaging any technology.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    2. Re:Socialism, or a reality check? by Justice8096 · · Score: 1

      The reason that construction doesn't change is two-fold: 1. The cost of failure is high - as an example, check the cost to communities of using grey PBC pipe that leaks in the presence of chlorine for water lines. 2. The construction workers in most areas are incompetent or undertrained - as an example, one in three houses built in the area I live have switched hot and cold water pipes - so you stand a chance of getting severe burns when using the toilet. Oh, and I live in the anti-union state of Virginia.
      As for tax breaks, no, that isn't the reason that energy efficiency is not supported. It is because of taxes that it isn't supported - a look at the taxes in the DC area reveals three seperate taxes on electricity, on gas and on telephone. Methods such as Internet must be centralized (and made inefficient) to support the raising of local revenue by taxes. Remember that these are the only ways that some areas can get much revenue - outsourcing removes the wage taxes that could be retrieved (and that is far more aggregate than capital gains for corporations, which tops out at 20% - I pay more for my salary to the government than a corporation pays for it's profit on outsourcing my job).

  52. Uh, what about the environment? by g00bd0g · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I do hope everyone realizes what an impact this will have on the environment. This installation will be fairly small, but what if this idea expands? We will permanently alter the currents of the ocean, and no one will be able to predict how.

    Even this small installation will extract 5MW from the ocean currents. Energy that would have gone on to do something else.

    I'm very concerned about the lack of foresight for supposedly environmentally friendly energy production. Think about it:

    Huge windmill power stations will extract their energy from the air. Altering our atmospheres natural flow.

    Huge solar plants will abosorb their energy from our sun. That energy would have heated our soil, been absorbed by plants, been reflected back into the atmosphere, etc...

    Geothermal generation will cool our planets core faster.

    Tidal generators will alter the oceans natural currents, etc...

    People don't think about the impact because all of the existing installations of these types are fairly small.

    Think about replacing a nuclear power plant with a tidal generator. You are sucking an entire nuclear power stations energy output from the ocean! Don't you think that might have some sort of consequences? And that's just one nuclear power plant. There are dozens!

    The only solution is to be more efficient, not to try and generate more power.

    This is why I design/build super effecient personal transportation. Check out my website

    Sorry folks, energy aint free, we are just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

    And unfortunately Peter is our children...

    1. Re:Uh, what about the environment? by starsong · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These seemed like valid concerns at first glance, but the numbers just don't add up. It's something we often deal with in physics; it's very hard for humans to compare quantities which are very very large.

      The amount of energy we're extracting from the water is miniscule. Take the 5MW sea power station. Water weighs 1 gram / cc, which means 1000kg per m^3. 5 MW in 1 second is the kinetic energy (using E=(1/2)m(v^2)) in 100 cubic meters of water moving at 10 m/s: E=(1/2)(1000gm)(100m/s)^2 = 5e6 joules. 100 cubic meters, even once a second, is NOTHING compared to the rest of the sea. 7/10 of the Earth's surface is covered by water; the seas have an estimated volume of 1.4*(10^18) cubic meters!

      Huge solar plants will abosorb their energy from our sun. That energy would have heated our soil, been absorbed by plants, been reflected back into the atmosphere...

      The amount of land affected is exactly that in the shadow of the solar array. No more, no less. Even the power we "extract" from that shadow returns to the environment in the form of heat, after it's used in the grid. Remember, energy is always conserved.

      Geothermal generation will cool our planets core faster

      This one really set me off. Come on people, the Earth is a GIANT BALL OF MOLTEN ROCK. The crust, with all the seas, life, solid rocks and mountain chains, is a few miles on top of it. The radius of the Earth is 4000 miles = 6400km. It has a volume of 1.1*(10^12 cubic KILOMETERS)! You could literally pour every ocean on Earth (10^9 km^3) into the mantle, boil it off into space, and barely make a dent in the temperature. There's a reason it takes billions of years for planets to cool.

      Think about replacing a nuclear power plant with a tidal generator. You are sucking an entire nuclear power stations energy output from the ocean! Don't you think that might have some sort of consequences? And that's just one nuclear power plant. There are dozens!

      This seems really logical, because to humans a nuclear power plant generates an enormous amount of energy, i.e. many orders of magnitude more than it takes to run your electric razor. But the power in the oceans (7/10 of the Earth covered by VERY dense material moving about) makes those power plants look like coin cells by comparison.

      The only solution is to be more efficient, not to try and generate more power.

      On this point I agree with you in spirit, but have to point out that it will simply never work. Google for "The Tragedy of the Commons" if you want to know why. Simply put, any person/organization which tries to consume less energy puts himself at a competitive disadvantage. It sucks, but it's the way economics work.

    2. Re:Uh, what about the environment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call upon all environmentalists to kill themselves and their children, right now, to prevent further degradation of Mother Gaia!

      What do you mean, you're not going to do that?

      Hypocrites.

    3. Re:Uh, what about the environment? by g00bd0g · · Score: 1

      You seriously neglect one of my key points. If the majority of our power is generated using tidal power you are talking about MILLIONS of these 5MW tidal generators. You can average the power output against the entire ocean, but the truth is that it is extracted in only a small percent of the oceans volume, resulting in DRASTIC environmental effects in those areas.

      Of course the whole idea is a bit idealistic, but we gotta start thinking about these things sooner than later.

    4. Re:Uh, what about the environment? by the+bluebrain · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the numbers. I thought the geothermal bit was a joke, but after re-reading it, I'm not so sure. Without the numbers, I'd put it this way: humans as a whole have a discernable impact on the environment. That is: the biosphere. Outside of that, the impact is not detectable (let alone non-catastrophic). Some things are measurable: number of species going extinct, depletion of the ozone layer, fewer catchable fish in the sea, and so on. All in the biosphere. But still, if humankind abandons a city, it takes no more that the blink of the eye, in geological terms, and what used to be a city is once more indistinguishable from the surrounding countryside.
      Which leads me to the question: why save energy? Reduce pollution, fine, minimise the environmental impact, OK. But using less energy just out of principle makes no sense to me. As far as I'm concerned, if it's clean, if there's no impact on the environment: bring it on.

      --
      yes, we have no bananas
  53. Re:30 Tonnes by re-Verse · · Score: 1

    yeah you may be right - i think i misread part of it - my apologies... thought it may be a good idea - I'd like to know the difference of power generated via either downward force of wings to the standard propeller style

  54. Re:When I saw heaveyweight... by James+Lewis · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Probably because the US is the United States of America. Most names for people from a country are a short version of the country's name with "an" on the end. Lets not try to read arrogance into EVERYthing having to do with the US...

  55. my TiVo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have my TiVo on. I have three ethernet swiches (which generally use as much power as the TiVo!), of course my DSL modem.

    Pluse some applicances use significant power even when turned off.

    You'd be surprised how much stuff is on 24/7 nowadays. A big change from 20 years ago.

  56. Missing some of the potential of those foils by Tau+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The hydrofoils are going to do the same thing that every lifting surface does: they will generate tip vortices. These vortices represent lost energy; the intelligent thing to do would be to situate the power turbines so that they counter-rotate in the vortices and recapture the vortex energy.

    Bonus points for tilting the turbine so as to generate a lift moment downward and use it to produce some of its own downforce.

    --
    Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
  57. Scotland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scotland will get its independance the day after it runs out of cheap oil/natural gas... 15 years or so from now.

  58. Units nit by Tau+Zero · · Score: 1
    I'm no expert, but I doubt most homes use more than 0.5kWh at anything other than peak times (weekday evenings and weekend afternoons).
    KWH are a measure of energy. You do not speak of power consumption in kilowatt-hours any more than you speak of engine power in gallons of fuel. Power is a rate of transfer of energy, so you speak of gallons/hour for power supplied to an engine and watts or kilowatts for power supplied to your computer. To get energy consumption you multiply power by time; kilowatts*hours = KWH, surprise!

    This has been a free service of the Original, Legitimate Deputies of the Physics Help And Roving Tutor System (OLD PHARTS).

    --
    Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
  59. Wrong - and quit linking to bloggers by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative
    This story links to some bozo's blog, not a real source.

    An article in the Scottish press has more useful info.

    It only generates 150KW. That's not much. Typical wind turbines generate 200KW to 700KW each, on windy days. (Average values are much lower.) Typical nuclear power plants generate 1,000,000KW. Powering a home takes about 1-2KW on average, so 10,000 homes require perhaps 15,000KW.

    The SNAIL people want to move up to the 750KW range or so. That's more reasonable. As wind power people have discovered, having huge numbers of little turbines isn't cost effective. But somewhere around a few hundred KW per turbine, the economics start to work. If you can find a good site with steady wind. As with dams, there aren't that many good sites.

    It will probably take several decades of operating experience to turn this into a reliable technology, just as it did with windpower. It's been half a century since the Grandpa's Knob loss of blade accident. The first big power-generating wind turbine oversped and threw a blade several hundred feet. For many years, nobody built one that big again. Gradually, the aerodynamics and control problems were figured out. It's taken that long to make large wind turbines work reliably and profitably.

    Anything with moving parts in the ocean is likely to be high-maintenance. Making one of these things work reliably for decades will be tough. Maintenance will be costly. There's no guarantee of success.

    In short, there's no breakthrough here until it's been running for a few years without breaking.

  60. And what is today's so-called free market? by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    I'd call it corporate socialisim.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  61. Renewable???? by Surt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Like the tidal energy isn't coming straight out of the moon. Won't be very easy to renew when we've used this one up.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  62. Capitalism at its best by IceAgeComing · · Score: 1

    Socialism is not perfect, but neither is Capitalism.

    CAPITALIST MAXIMS:

    1. Plan short-term strategies to maximize profit; never mind the long-term consequences. If you don't, your competitor will and you might not last long enough to plan your next move.

    2. Profits are maximized when people are discontent; they're better consumers than those who are happy with what they already have.

    So here we are, metaphorically driving at night without our lights on. Sounds like a great idea!

    Let's just sit back and let our descendants worry about coastal flooding around the world (read google news and search for greenland). Ha ha, suckers!

  63. Formula correction by starsong · · Score: 2, Informative

    My bad, the formula in paragraph 2 should have read:

    E=(1/2)(1000kg*100)(10m/s)^2 = 5e6 joules

    The answer is the same; just a typo.

  64. Made up statistic by Moschaef · · Score: 2, Informative

    for each coal plant in the US one coal-miner is killed each year in an accident
    Only 30 people died in Coal Mining Accidents last year. There are 1586 Electrical plants that use coal. That's one death for every 53 plants.
    It only took about 1 min using google to find this data, next time please research your fantastic claims.
    http://www.msha.gov/stats/charts/coaldaily.asp

    1. Re:Made up statistic by The_K4 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ok, I was using out of date information. This was not a "fantastic claim" it was a stat that went and looked up as being about 10 - 15 years old, which is about the amount of time that has passed since the source of that info stopped working in power generation.

    2. Re:Made up statistic by Galvatron · · Score: 1
      I don't think it's out of date, either. If you look at his link, it goes back as far as 2000, and there were only a few more deaths. How on earth did we go from 1,500/year to 38/year in about 7-12 years? Hell, even if we built 50 new coal plants per year (not including replacements for decomissioned plants) and your information is 15 years old, the death rate among coal miners still had to fall by 95%!

      I'm pretty sure you were just talking out your ass, and I really think you ought to be man enough to admit it. Even if there has been this massive revolution in coal mining safety, that still invalidates your original point, because your point was based around people dying from extracting coal.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
  65. Re:When I saw heaveyweight... by clarkcox3 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    why did the U.S. steal the term that covers everyone from North, Central, & South AMERICA?
    Well, seeing as Virginia was the first English colony in the Americas, I see no problem with the people living in the country that that colony eventually became calling themselves Americans (i.e. the English name for people from that continent). Just as I would have no problem with the people living in the countries that came from the first Spanish colonies calling themselves Americanos. What do you suggest people from the United States of America call themselves?
    --
    There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
  66. One Drawback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    So, when the tide changes, and this device reverses its direction, do you have unplug all of your appliances and flip the plug over to accomodate for the reversed current?

    1. Re:One Drawback by orim · · Score: 1

      See, that will only work in Europe. Cause in the US, our plugs have one side wider and the other narrower. So we'll have to take our plugs apart to get over this problem!!!

      Of course, the Europeans will still be just as screwed with anything using three prongs :)

      --
      "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
    2. Re:One Drawback by jDinK · · Score: 1

      Boy, it'd be really tough to do that 60 times a second.

      Ever hear of AC (alternating current), friend? =)

  67. Changing the environment by Hungus · · Score: 1

    DO people simply not realize that all of these "Renewable" methods alter the environment? It can range from minor actions such as changing tidal patterns to larger ones that can lead to major changes over time. Don;t get me wrong I fully support renawable sources for energy but people do need to realize that the energy does have to come from somewhere. One windmill will not change much in the way of air patterns but hundreds of farms certainly will. For anecdotal evidence I provide this slightly off topic rant about my childhood home of Dallas Texas: Every year it seams that teh summers are getting wetter and wetter, As it turns out they really are and it is due primarily to teh changing of the eco system by people who want green lawns and pools, Grass releases much more moisture into the air ( especially with maint and watering) than does sage bruch and the like and damming up the rivers creates lakes ( there are no natural lakes in Texas) and increases evaporation again. The result: Much more atmospheric moisture increasing heat (perceptual (I would rather it be 110 and 15% humidity than 110 and raining)and real (moisture traps heat much more effectively than simple air))

    --
    Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    1. Re:Changing the environment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, sitting naked in the woods, breathing, you're altering the environment.

    2. Re:Changing the environment by Hungus · · Score: 1

      No sitting naked in the woods breathing I am a) Part of the environment and possibly B) Dying of hypothermia or C) Critter food depending on the location of said woods and time of year

      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
  68. Re:When I saw heaveyweight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Wow. Wow. WOW!!! is all I can say. If anyone should worry about consumption it is you who will be consumed by your hatred.


    You should really spend some time in the states. We're not that bad of a people. We're definitely not as rabid as a lot of people in the rest of the world...

  69. Danger to fish? by Ra5pu7in · · Score: 1

    California (US) wind farms are having trouble with environmentalists over the number of birds that run into windmills. I don't see any information on this "snail" related to preventing fish and other marine life from being negatively impacted.

    --
    I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
  70. Who's going to service this contraption? by burbilog · · Score: 1

    Sea water is a very aggressive thing. How they are going to keep mechanics oiled and sealed? How they are going to service these things, it won't be trivial. How they are going to transport electricity -- they'll need underwater high woltage power lines that don't suffer from salted water either. It could work for small towns near the shoreline but no more...

  71. What and Where to build by UrgleHoth · · Score: 1

    The next one in the pipe is ITER.
    Don't forget Canada and Spain as potential homes.

    --

    Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
  72. law of conservation of energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    IANAPhysicist, but it would seem to me that sea waves are probabally an integral part of the ecosystem, and any energy removed from them would detract from the energy in the system.

    Yes, I understand that waves are a function of the moon's gravity, but the energy extracted was going SOMEWHERE before the 30 ton snails moved in.

  73. You dropped a decimal point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .125 KWH/hr = 125 watts, not 12.5 watts

  74. No power is "renewable" by that definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, that's not what people generally mean when they say renewable. If that's your criterion, then NO energy source is EVER renewable... second law of thermodynamics.

  75. Abiotic oil is not a significant source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While it is true that some oil is abiotic (the hydrocarbons come out of compounds in the mantle and are cooked into nice energy bearing oil), reputable geologists (my S.O. is one of them) believe that it is a very minor source of oil.

    As for turning plants and animals into oil... so far, at least, it is much more economical to drill it out of the ground. In any case, we are already using too much land for crops, so once this becomes economical, it is merely a better way to recycle the non-edible parts of plants and animals and will not scale to provide our entire energy needs.

  76. You should be worried... the next step is coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Personally, I'm not too worried, because right around the time that oil gets really scarce, all of the hundreds of alternative solutions that are already fairly mature will suddenly become viable.

    You should be worried. The most mature alternative solution is coal, which will continue to produce greenhouse emissions, as well as all sorts of other nasty pollutants (sulfur, mercury, yum!).
  77. Contra Boss. by JRootabega · · Score: 1

    Before they build this, they should consider one thing: how hard would it be to kill this thing in Contra? Because you just know it's going to become self-aware and make itself boss of the underwater level.

  78. The real solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is to harvest solar energy on the moon and beam it back to the Earth. The technology exists. It would be horrendously expensive to implement initially so the costs would have to be spread out across countries and over a period of time. However, the benefit is a virtually unlimited supply of renewable energy.

    With the whole energy problem sorted, that will leave water as the next scarce resource that countries will kill their young folks over. But given cheap/plentiful enough power, you can just snag your water from the ocean and desalinate it.

    Cheers,

  79. Nice troll by the_twisted_pair · · Score: 1

    And this was moderated 'insightful'...?

    Try running the numbers. We have to worry about losing the Moon and biodiversity from abstracting tidal energy to roughly the same degree we have to plan in advance for the Earth being consumed when the Sun turns Red Giant...

    1. Re:Nice troll by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      >>roughly the same degree we have to plan in advance for the Earth being consumed when the Sun turns Red Giant...

      But by then we will have evolved into energy based life forms much like the Vorlons, and will have long since moved away from the planet of our birth.

      wbs.

      --
      Huh?
  80. Other Water/Wave engergy ... by hanssing · · Score: 1

    Other more viable source of energy based on a conventional wave-approach from Denmark (as the windmills), can be viewed here: http://www.waveenergy.dk This project concentrates the waves and leads them through turbines. This should be used as a reference to the flow ankrored underwater turbines. I still think the underwater turbines are to difficult to maintain, and to expensive to build....

  81. Re:When I saw heaveyweight... by geoswan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The noun for citizens of the United States is Americans not USians. USian makes you sound like some sort of ignorant turd, or French.

    Lol. Good troll. Lots of countries get called something else in foreign countries. In English speaking countries we call it "Germany". In French speaking countries they call it "Allemagne". But in German speaking countries I believe they call it Deutchland. This is a very common phenomenon.

    You can't really control what foriegners call you. I suggest you try to get used to it.

    One of the later contributors to this thread claimed that since Virginia was the first English speaking colony in the Americas, the United States should get to claim the name "America" for the country it eventually became a part of. Lol.

    But wasn't Amerigo Vespuci Italian? So what does he have to do with the USA? Lol.

  82. Ever hear of a little thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    known as sarcasm, dumbass?

  83. Take up the slack? Oh, come on... by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
    Sure, you say that now. But in a mere 4-6 billion year, where will our fair-weather friend be then, huh?

    (listens)

    Oh, so you say he'll have expanded to a few orders of magnitude beyond his current size, and be all red and evil looking? Well, what kind of friend is that?

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  84. Helos by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
    The Propeller tech they are using isnt the most efficient because it attracts birds, and in 5 years they could be moved miles out where you could use really efficient technology, not make it impossible for rescue helicopters to pickup people in heavily traficked areas of sailing/boating/commercial fishing (my cousin was in an accident, had these been up hed be deaD).

    I'm not going to claim that I know a lot about wind farms, and I'm not a helo pilot (my eyesight's not good enough, so I'm stuck on the boat), but I really fail to see how a wind turbine on land is going to seriously interfere with a helo-op taking place on the water. There's plenty of radio towers that are just as tall as a wind turbine in our area, and I've never seen either a CG or Medevac chopper have a problem with any of them. Now, if these turbines were being built partially submerged, half a NM out in the water or something, that'd be a different story.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    1. Re:Helos by EvanTaylor · · Score: 1

      These are partially submerged, and they are too close together for coast guard rescue choppers to get in safely, especially given the wind conditions. Yeah, you essentially nailed it, they are being put in the natucket sound.

      --
      Sleep is for the weak.
  85. Re:When I saw heaveyweight... by G-funk · · Score: 1

    Erm, America does not exist. There are two continents, North America, and South America, which contain various countries, one of which is The United States of America.

    --
    Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  86. That doesn't make sence by Quantum+Jim · · Score: 1

    The only solution is to be more efficient, not to try and generate more power.

    On this point I agree with you in spirit, but have to point out that it will simply never work. Google for "The Tragedy of the Commons" if you want to know why. Simply put, any person/organization which tries to consume less energy puts himself at a competitive disadvantage. It sucks, but it's the way economics work.

    I am aware of the tragedy of the commons, but your application doesn't make sense. Any person that consumes less resources with the same productivity than his or her competitors is at an advantage with less costs. That is what being more efficient means: doing more or the same with less resources. The premise of the tragedy only applies when individuals become less efficient compared to their competitors from helping the common good. So I reiterate: It is cheaper for individuals to be more efficient, because that is the definition of efficiency!

    --
    It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
    - Jerome Klapka Jerome
  87. Re:Take up the slack? Oh, come on... by Lectrik · · Score: 1
    Oh, so you say he'll have expanded to a few orders of magnitude beyond his current size, and be all red and evil looking? Well, what kind of friend is that?


    a pregnant one?

    (it's a joke, i don't wish to offend anyone who is pregnant, or trying to become pregnant, or trying to get me to get them pregnant.... ok mostly the last group...)
    --
    --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
  88. Re:When I saw heaveyweight... by Ghandee · · Score: 1

    Yeah it really annoys me that the word America has become synonymous with USA. Btw, Scotland is not a country either ;)

  89. Re:When I saw heaveyweight... by G-funk · · Score: 1

    Scotland is not a country either

    No shit? That's definitely news to me... Explain.

    --
    Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  90. Scot-land? by sangdrax · · Score: 1

    ..isn't a seperate country but part of Great Britain since 1707? Welcome back to earth..