Slashdot Mirror
Green Energy Now, And On The Tide
thpr writes "The Electric Power Research Institute and its partners have completed their Offshore Wave Power Feasibility Demonstration Project, which defined potential wave energy projects off the shores of the United States. This is building off of work already done in Scotland (and elsewhere). San Francisco, New York and other areas are considering trial installations of the technology. It is interesting to note (table 1 in the report) that the energy density (kW/m^2) that can be achieved is much higher than wind or solar. In addition, harnessing 24% of available wave energy near the US at 50% efficiency is equal to all of the hydropower currently generated in the US (~7% of total electricity production). On a separate note, in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's $1.2B 2006 budget the Department of Energy is closing out the Hydropower Technologies Program. Maybe that's why this technology is missing from our National Energy Policy?" Until it reaches maturity, though, U.S. readers can pay for other forms of green energy.
Those electrical generators are going to TOTALLY kill those waves I wanted to surf. Oh MAN.
Seriously, though, it's a clean source of power, but what kind of impact will it have on coastal areas? No more beach fish spawning, no more killer waves to surf, and the area where these will be deployed will become almost like kiddie pools.
Most likely this will have massive effects on oceanlife and beachlife in the areas they are installed. I view it as a technology with its uses but the greenies have yet again started blabbing about how ecofriendly it is without thinking about the true long term consequences.
Do people know of any serious downsides to wave energy ?
I hear that you cant put it in densly populated water ways, as it really impeeds boats moving (at least the surface variety, are there deep buried kinds, too ?).
If anyone could comment on the negatives of this, it'd be nice to see the other side. For instance, wind power is usually cited as an eyesore, and solar as having problems w/ where you are located (same w/ wind to some extent).
Both power providers and consumers need to work in harmony: (1) the power companies are to increase the efficiency in generating more power and (2) the consumers are to utilize the available energy in an efficient manner.
/.ing. You can do a little to cut some energy expenses by following these actions. In reality I am not going to save over $20 a year. But when people start doing the same, it soon becomes a real money.
There isn't much I can do for (1). But I can do for (2) by replacing light bulbs with energy saving bulbs (ESBs, or compact fluorescent bulb that fits in an incadescent lamp), turn off the light where not needed, and turn the damned TV when
Wave power is a total ridiculosity - you want to sacrifice TWENTY FOUR PERCENT of US coastline in order to supply SEVEN PERCENT of the electricity.
:)
This is our electricity usage BEFORE we tack on the electricity used to power our hydrogen cars, which will raise our consumption an order of magnitude.
Using algal biodiesel, breeder fission(with development on fusion), and wind where suitable, are the only remotely practical eco-friendly choices that are sustainable - Photovoltaic trumps them all, but to convert even just our current electrical needs to photovoltaic would cost more than we've spent on imported oil since we started importing oil. We could create an infrastructure to supply the entire nation's demand for fuel with algal biodiesel on an amount of money that's similar to what we spend anually on importing oil, which is coincidentally about the same amount of money it would cost to install a single hydrogen pump at every gas station in the US.
Wave power is and has always been a crock as an energy scheme.
whoops, forgot to log in
People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
That even when a totally non-CO2 emitting, non-radioactive power source is found we still get the "OMG!! It's could cause xxx", uproar.
Living here in the post-industrial wonderland of NJ, I find this amusing in a bad way.
The other thing that shocked me was the supposedly "higher" costs for "green" energy. Bad news folks, it's lower than what I pay to Conectiv/Pepco.
And now back to our regular insomnia...
Photovoltaic trumps them all, but to convert even just our current electrical needs to photovoltaic would cost more than we've spent on imported oil since we started importing oil.
Not to mention the fact that we'd basically have to pave over New Mexico. Have you ever been out there? It's a desert, but even a desert is prettier than 40,000 square miles of solar cells.
Wind power is also relatively non-disruptive I used to live near a wind turbine that is on the outskirts of a medium sized wind farm. They are the most disruptive energy producers I can think of to be near in terms of effect on people (and possibly animals). The low frequency noise produced by the machine played havoc on sleep (you got none) and can drive you to the point that you think of any stupid excuse not to go home. I had to sell up and move, it had got so bad, due to the fact it was starting to effect every part of my personal and professional life from sleep deprevation and stress. I realise you were referring to the environment, but some of these 'green' solutions to power generation produce an effect to its surrounds other than what is normally addressed when their impact is reviewed. Wind power is often viewed, here at least, to be one of the most cleanest methods of producing energy and I believe that to be true.....as long as you don't live near them.
And no, I couldn't give a shit what my karma is.
I find the claim that this technology provides better energy density than solar problematic if the cited stats are correct.
Sterling solar which is a thermal solar, rather than PV solar, technology. They say that a mere 100ssquare miles of their concentrators would supply the entire electricity needs of the US.
First, there are no CO2 emissions. That's the most important thing. Fossil fuels leave behind CO2 which heats up the planet.
Second, there is no soot and other such trash going to the atmosphere. Third, the amount of radioactive waste is in fact very little compared to the amount of waste produced by other methods.
Yes, the waste is highly toxic. And the acquiring of the uranium leaves waste behind. But even so, nuclear power is cleaner and better than any plant fossil based fuel source (oil, gas).
Even if you are green (I am), get your facts correct and don't think with your emotions in things like these.
Not sure if Discover/Wired did something on this, but PBS Frontline did an awesome show on our fear of anything "Nuclear" (IMHO, I think we're only scared of "Nukular" but whatever).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Haha, blast from the past...that was our chief affirmative plan for my 1995 high school debate team...none of the other teams had a clue WTF we were talking about - but then, neither did the judges...
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Hydroelectric also destroys the ecosystem where it is built, flooding large areas of land. Environmentalists will eat alive anyone who even attempts to create hydroelectric power plants in the US, asfaik we are actually getting rid of some at this point.
I haven't done the math, but I would bet that the combined land use of buildings + paved areas is a lot greater than that needed by solar power. That and the buildings can usually do both.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Presumably harnessing this energy is affecting the interaction with the earth and the moon or slowing the earth down (I mean the energy has to come from somewhere right? - and I guess it isn't the sun in this case).
:-)
I guess the effect is negiligable, but it kind of bothers me that we might be slowly crashing the moon into the Earth or something (which would be slightly worse than a Nuclear accident
Does anyone no where the energy actually comes from for tidal power?
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Why? Just make a huge circular (or some shape dictated by local streams and wind/wave pattern) concrete-wall "tub" on a shallow part of continental shelf and exploit the differences in water level that occur between the tub and sea. Using ferrocement (naval concrete, used to make ship hulls) and reinforcing columns for construction should do just fine.
I say forget the whole Hydrogen idea! My vote goes to electric power for most anything but autonomous systems. And for them, bio fuels made from biomass grown intensively in hydroponic facilities with assistance of electric power for ilumination, pumping CO2-enriched air into water and for maintainance.
We'll have to catch atmospheric CO2 anyway, so why don't we use the same facilities for both energy storage AND carbon catching (I guess we can carbonize biomass for storage instead of fermenting it into fuel)?
Yeah, cos if the sun explodes.....
Right on my man/woman.
Somewhat OT but what were the stats again on how many power plants are needed to run "hibernating" electronics ?
We have the tech now to schedule stuff to power up on state/condition.
A television that learned to turn off in non-viewing periods and come back to "warm" when viewing was likely would save a lot of base load power.
The flaw in this argument is that nobody is saying that 100% of our energy should come from photovoltaic cells. Solar panels are only one source of energy.
OLPC Australia
That said, I'd be perfectly willion to spend 0.1% of the world's annual GDP on fusion, since after we solve the world's energy problem, I'd like us to reduce trips to other planets in the solar system to a few days each way. :-)
One of the problems with solar energy is that its not constant.
T FUTURE.HTM
:)
for anyone who thinks that large scale solar power generation has anything to do with the dime-sized solar cells you played with in highschool, i invite you to do a quick search for:
"mirrors" "salt" "solar power"
high pollution production for cells that dont work a night?
try concentrated sunlight, heating salt so water can be boiled round the clock.
stable, simple, clean solar collection that works.
http://www.energylan.sandia.gov/sunlab/Snapshot/S
"The plant operated successfully until 1988... operating with 96% availability during its final year. It generated more than 38,000 megawatt-hours during its lifetime and consistently ran at its 10-megawatt rating."
Read the whole page and keep reading more if you want, it really is a sophisticated and inexpensive form of power generation that gave me a quite a 'good vibe' when i first came across it. this kind of simplicity would work so well for developing nations, cant you just imagine plants like this creating jobs and supplying energy to towns the world over.
-yours truly, AC
You are missing a key relationship: the longer a half life is, the less radioactive the substance is. So while plutonium will stick around for a long time, its radioactivity is relatively low in comparison to some of the other nuclear wastes. In addition, the plutonium can be reprocessed and broken down again and again. But the most important thing is that the radioactivity is well understood, and can therefore be diluted and safely stored in a specially designed facility. Of course we don't have such a facility right now, but that's a completely different issue.
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
The only reason "old nuclear" has been so expensive is that ever single plant built in the US was designed and built separately. They essentially never got out of the "experimental design" mindset. France has standardized plant design and it's been relatively cheap as a result. The electricity isn't "too cheap to meter", but that line was from a 1950's "atomic energy will save the world" pipe dream anyway.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I live near the "Hannaford" [Hanford] nuclear reservation and have all of my life. I worked for WNP-2 at the reactor for two years as an engineering student and have worked at Framatome, ANP for the past 7 years working with nuclear fuel. Do you think that any of us living here don't know what happens in our own back yard? I would rather have a dozen reactors cranking out power, and have to deal with the spent fuel, than one more acre of those crappy windmills ruining the horizon. And just about all of the waste problem at Hanford is from the nuclear weapons effort, not the power. For some reason people always lump those two together. There is a HUGE difference. Have you researched nuclear accidents? It's a fun little trip into human stupidity. And if you think the Ginna accident was "serious" check out the Tokai accident in 1999.
The project's Web site gives the impression that they're still planning and trying to secure funding. That is to be expected; a $700 million tower isn't built overnight.
OLPC Australia
I should also add that we have already covered a significant portion of our landscape with roads and buildings. What if we could put solar panels on top of some of those buildings, and use the roads for heat production (roads can get very hot during the day)? This is already being done in some countries.
OLPC Australia