Slashdot Mirror
Scotland Building Wave Power Farms
eldavojohn writes "Scottish engineers are taking advantage of the huge ocean coast that Scotland enjoys by building a 'wave farm' to harvest electricity from the ocean's powerful waves. These big red tubes have been named the Pelamis System after a sea snake. Max Carcas, the business developer for the firm, says it is 'a bit like a ship at anchor or a flag on a flagpole, it self orientates into the waves ... Waves then travel down the length of the machine and in doing so each of the sections, each of these train carriages, moves up and down and side to side.' These snake-like movements push hydraulic fluid through generators to produce electricity."
If you think this idea is new, it is not. The patents for this technology go all the way back to the 1970s.[1] [2]
As was noted in the original discussion on this topic, Which explains why you'll see this more and more in the news. Some of the countries in Europe have energy generation from wind & waves up to 10% or 15% but 2010 is getting closer and closer.
Everyone recognizes that it's not smart to put all your eggs in one basket and right now a lot of countries are pretty dependent on oil. With a possible energy crisis or global warming problem, wave power looks like it will be one of the many solutions that each country will develop to mitigate their problems.
My work here is dung.
We just had a environmentalist come to our school to talk about alternate energy sources (this is in the UK), and according to him, these systems will only produce one megawatt of power per unit*, comparable to wind turbines. While there is a lot more space in the water to be taken up by power-generators than on land, I've got to wonder how much energy has gone into producing, designing, and deploying this system. With such a low output per unit, is it even worthwhile? * Again, this is not coming from a really reputable source, just some environmental campaigner. Anyone know any real statistics for these type of systems?
games journalism blog
Scientists have been doing research on this off the coast of Oregon as well.
m l
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0915/p02s02-usgn.ht
In Portugal. From TFA:
Scottish engineers will soon deploy an offshore "wave farm" in Portugal.
They have also signed a deal to build an even larger farm in Scottish waters.
Construction of the wave farm in Portugal has been underway for the past year in a busy shipyard in the Portuguese coastal town of Peniche.
Edith Keeler Must Die
'Bout time that good for nothing sea pulled its weight.
I mean, what's it ever done for us? Nothing!
Generating a little electricity will only start repaying what its mother and I have given it over the years.
Now if we could just get it to move out of our basement or start paying rent...
Geez!
"It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
As per the FA, "These snake-like movements push hydraulic fluid through generators to produce electricity." Is this fluid water, or something else?
If they're using typical "hydraulic fluid" then they should be shot immediately. Or in fact ANYTHING other than water. Fresh or salt makes no difference, can't cause more than a minor blip in the salt content if it's fresh anyway.
But since the FA doesn't say, and I'm too lazy to go do a bunch of research... Anyone know?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
...in Nantucket Sound, off Martha's Vineyard.
Science never settles, never rests.
I've got to wonder how much energy has gone into producing, designing, and deploying this system.
That is an interesting factoid, but irrelevant to the decision of whether or not to deploy. The R&D is a "sunk cost", the money/energy is gone and can not be recovered.
Ocean Power is currently installing their Utility-sized bouys off the Oregon Coast, with the first 14 being a 2MW power plant for the city of Reedsport (providing about a quarter of the needed electricity for that resort community). The BBC article doesn't say what the expected output of the Scottish plant, using different technology, would be. Anybody know how the power output compares?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
With such a low output per unit, is it even worthwhile?
:)
One thing to consider is that wave based systems could conceivably be hidden, unlike wind based systems. Wind turbine projects in the US are often stalled or canceled because someone's view is going to be affected. Ideally the wave based units would be well below the surface and therefore not a navigational hazard, and therefore deployable over a wider area. In other words, we'll make up for the low output with volume.
I'm not entirely sure if the 5MW is per unit but, from the Wikipedia page on wave power: And from the specific wave farm: And for the UK: So I would guess that "per unit" would be 3MW/4 Units or 0.75 MW/Unit. Although I don't know what the point is if by unit you mean machine and a Pelamis machine is much less in cost to build than a coal/oil powered turbine. Could you specify if you mean per unit as in per turbine? I understand what you mean, there is a lot to be said about start up cost and maintenance though I don't think there's a lot of information out there as Portugal and Scotland are few countries investing in this technology.
My work here is dung.
"We canna create any more power, Captain! They're wiggling as fast as they can!"
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
I'm sure this questions is answered somewhere in TFA but I'm going to confess to being too damn lazy to read it.
Are the ocean waves consistent enough that fixed-length tubes will be efficient in all conditions, or are they adjustable for higher and lower frequency waves?
Where I find this technology to be very cool, it seems to me that simple tidal generators would be simpler and more consistent.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
like these: http://www.quietrevolution.co.uk/ great for tidal power since it works both ways.
{democrat seagull}
OMG! The world is coming to an end! If we don't change our behavior now, the whole planet is done. Aghhhhh!!!!
--runs like a chicken with his head cut off--
--out of the crowd's site, he calms down and starts evaluating if that earning the necessary personal karma for the next power grab--
"Dear, could you turn the Olympic sized pool to 115F? Our hot-tub is just far too small.
Do you think we add a couple more floors on this empty nester monstrosity? As it is, I don't think we're absolutely dwarfing the common family to the degree that we fully should."
{/democrat seagull}
Can someone explain what "democrat" means when used as an adjective? I've heard a similar term "democratic" used as an adjective. Maybe the adjective "democrat" means "the person saying this should get their head out of the punch bowl and stop drinking the kool aid."
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Public Radio International had a 5 minute piece on this a few weeks ago. You can listen here if you can play wma.
This post climbed Mt. Washington.
Is no one concerned about the potential impact this will have, by providing a drag on the waves that would else naturally strike the coast, thus potentially reducing the habitat for species adatped to the wave-heavy environment of Scotland's coast? What about the mollusks and other marine invertebrates who can only spread and prosper via wave transort...
Its just like those people who advocate wind power and never consider the impact of slowing down the world's winds, thus reducing the natural spread of wind-bourne seeds and so on...
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
Interesting you should mention this particular point. While I do wish I put liberal, to more aptly fit with the grandparent, I happened to be thinking of Gore at the moment which led me to Democrat.
I apologize. While I might be classically conservative, I most certainly am not a Republican, or a supporter of Bush or any Evangelical crusade, or mixing of church and state.
Nonetheless, conservatives (conserve-atives) in no way correlate with the observation of the OP, so the OP probably should have used republican given that it was clearly their real target.
Having said that, I do find it humorous that some act so injured by the term "Democrat", given that it is a word that has been in use to refer to members or supporters of the Democratic party for decades. In fact, why don't you take a look at the URL for The Democratic Party. Yeah, it's the pluralization of democrat given any normal use of the English language.
In fact, what do you know, the dictionary definition includes the definition "Democrat - A member of the Democratic Party.".
So my intended use was exactly right, though you've shown that you've regurgitated one of the standard talking points, apparently drinking a little too much of the kool-aid.
Seriously, who really cares about a minor misuse of grammar? I think the point he was trying to make is that this seagull is apparently registered to vote, and that just makes no sense at all. Why should seagulls be allowed to belong to political parties? Why should they be allowed to vote? That's the question you SHOULD be asking. I think we should all be asking it.
Where's Cumberland when you need him?
So, this whole system is just a series of tubes?
The problem I have with wave power is that it takes energy out of the oceanic eco system. What effects is that going to have ten years down the road?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
No, really. It isn't.
Some offshore oil platforms (that aren't foundations on the seafloor) use hydraulic feedback lifters to rock their bottoms against the rising waves, keeping their platforms level even in heavy seas. Is there a version of that system which can power itself from the energy coming from those waves. Maybe with a little power against friction to keep the seesaw net action balanced.
Is there a cheap system (<$100K) I could use for a floating home of my own, even if I have to invent the feedback power system myself?
--
make install -not war
I wonder how the infrastructure and mechanisms in place would stand up to severe weather (however, the larger the waves, the more power generated) and located in the ocean, salt water. Corrosion of moving parts (bearings) would be a huge issue in my opinion. Design, Construction and Material costs would probably be higher as a result. However, if this design proves to be cheap, robust and effective, this technology could go far.
Oh this will NEVER work, it won't even put a DENT in the countries energy needs, it's all a POINTLESS endeavor.
You'll just have to keep buying foreign oil.
Funny, that is the exact same argument that liberals use when talking about ANWR. Fact is, any energy added to the grid is a good thing, as long as it produces more energy than what you put into it!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You forget that wind is extremely variable, ocean waves are pretty consistent. Over the long term wind can produce more predictable results, but in the short term, you won't have days where these things sit idle and are not useful like windmills.
... a funny story about a multi-million pound jack-up barge and an uncharted reef.
This is an example of patents effectively stifling innovation which would benefit everyone.
Is no one concerned about the potential impact this will have, by providing a drag on the waves that would else naturally strike the coast...?
:D
IANAS, but (1) there's not enough of these to have any forseeable impact at the moment and (2) ocean movement energy is supplied by the tides, which are powered by gravitational forces between the earth, sun and the moon. So if anything, this is solar power.
Fact is, any energy added to the grid is a good thing, as long as it produces more energy than what you put into it!
And as long as all externalities are paid for by the people causing them. Which rules out the ANWR, doesn't it?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
. . . I am going to EXPLODE with self-righteous rage!
(What the hell - my karma's shot anyways. . .)
What?
> And as long as all externalities are paid for by the people causing them. Which rules out the ANWR, doesn't it?
You're right - it would most effect Alaskans, particularly the Inuit. Odd how most Alaskans, and north coast Inuit seem to be in favor of ANWR drilling. Oh, well. Let's just import more mid-east oil.
[Insert pithy quote here]
"each of these train carriages, moves up and down and side to side."?
And I'll be harnessing road kill sushi. How's this going to affect surrounding sea life?
Let me be the first to say, I hope he doesn't drown on the project, lest these waves wash up his decaying Carcas.
Annnnnnnd, I'm going home.
I'm just waiting for some environmental group to start whining about these, too. They complain that windmills kill too many birds. I would put money on someone coming forth and claiming one of several detriments, such as the anchor cables are entangling whales, or the anchors and power cables back to shore (shore ties) are destroying habitat, or they might leak oil, or, or....that these things are shielding too much sunlight (blocking photosynthesis in plankton or something).
Honestly, I think it's a good idea, on par with offshore windmills and such, but I think that it's only a matter of time before some group starts a resistance movement for some idiotic and quite negligible reason.
Although the company OPD (who are actually customers of my company) is based in Leith, Edinburgh, Scotland, the money is mostly from Norway! OPD went bust and Norsk Hydro (a major Norwegian state oil co) bailed them out with some 3i venture capital.
Rather a shame that we Brits can't seem to do these things ourselves. Apparently the DTI (dept. trade & industry) have stated that they are not prepared to lose out on wave power, after having lost to Denmark over onshore wind power. Seems that this desire not to lose is not backed by any resolve (=cash!)
My top tip for offshore energy is SWAY: http://www.sway.no/
Odd how most Alaskans, and north coast Inuit seem to be in favor of ANWR drilling. Oh, well. Let's just import more mid-east oil.
Odd how Alaskans, who all profit off of oil, would be in favor of something that would give them a bigger government check. Strange how externalities like destruction of habitat impact everyone, not just those living nearby. Weird how little oil there actually is in the ANWR. Bizarre how the only possible alternative to drilling in a wildlife refuge is importing foreign oil.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
There are plans afoot to harness the ridiculously powerful tides of Strangford Lough in Northern Ireland, and build a turbine of similar generating power to this contraption. The tide there sometimes moves as fast as you can jog.Here's a BBC report on it.
Power, Scotty! I need more power!
include $sig;
1;
Is it too far out of line to think about using a non-petroleum based oil? They do make special application hydraulic oils made from vegetable/tree oil. Sure, it's a lot more expensive and maybe a little inferior in comparison to its petroleum equivalent, but it's cheap insurance. That way when does leak or fail, the environmental impact would be much less.
You can't "run out" of wind or "stop" wind by using wind energy any more than you can "use up" a river with a mill wheel. Wind is pretty much just the atmosphere trying to correct pressure differentials caused by uneven heating and cooling caused by solar radiation. So really it's just a kinetic form of solar power :-P
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
you seem to be missing the point. 'democrat' is a noun. hence, 'democrats'. the adjective version is 'democratic'.
the use of 'democrat' as an adjective as in 'the democrat party' is a long-standing republican dig on the dems. i believe it originated as a means to slander them essentially refusing to describe them or their ideas as 'democratic' from some belief that since they're liberal they are anti-democracy.
it would be similar to dems describing the GOP as the "republican't party". 'oops, we just accidentally added a 't' there, no harm done'.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
This is not a troll. This is a serious issue. Spilling ANYTHING but saltwater into the ocean is NOT GOOD. Even things which biodegrade don't do it instantly. Even fresh water is bad; depending on conditions, currents, etc it may or may not dissipate rapidly into the seawater, and fresh water can kill some marine creatures surprisingly rapidly. I only bring IT up as a solution because it will not be likely to leave the cylinders quickly even if they are holed, so it will be very diffuse. That matters a lot less with oil, though. If you want to call this flamebait because I suggested that someone be shot, that's fine; although I think that most of us would agree that the health of the ocean is more important than the lives of a handful of people. Moderating down a comment because of the person who wrote it (which is what most of my "troll" mods are based upon) is irresponsible and displays the same lack of interest in protecting the slashdot environment as this project displays in the real one.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A democrat is a friend of the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Scoths vs. Irish. If either one wins, it's good for all of us. I hope that at lest one of them succeeds. I hate to pay for Russian oil/gas.
"You can't "run out" of wind or "stop" wind by using wind energy any more than you can "use up" a river with a mill wheel."
The originally mighty Colorado River in the United States would strong disagree with you.
You can indeed run out of wind, slowing it down to nearly nothing with enough windmills. Ditto for "a mill wheel". Each one removes energy from the water, changes the environment up and downstream. With enough of them, the water will practically come to a stop and never reach its destination.
The OP's claims are still bullshit. Using wind-power doesn't mean we need to use 100% of it... Things like dams have worked out wonderfully, and although we can't expand on them much more than we can, what they provide is great, and far better than the alternatives, NOT utilizing hydro.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Odd how Alaskans, who all profit off of oil, would be in favor of something that would give them a bigger government check. Strange how externalities like destruction of habitat impact everyone, not just those living nearby.
We are drilling in Prudhoe bay, about 50 miles from ANWR. Is there a "destruction of habitat" there? Nope. The wildlife is actually doing better there. Besides, who's habitat is it if not the Alaskans? Would like Eskimos telling your state where it can build roads or structures?
Weird how little oil there actually is in the ANWR.
It's estimated that we will be able to pump as much out of ANWR as we are importing from Saudi Arabia for 30 years. Some say it's only about 3% of us annual oil use, but that's still a LOT of friggin oil!
Bizarre how the only possible alternative to drilling in a wildlife refuge is importing foreign oil.
Well, if we are not drillining ANWR, it's either import it or not use it. While everyone agrees that we should eliminate our need for fossil fuels altogether, that's still a long way off. Hopefully, 30 years should cover it.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
yep, and we'll never produce enough pollution to make a difference.
I'm sure that wind farms do not get even close to making up for the gain in wind because of deforestation due to clear cutting for logging.
A pretty small dent may be all that is needed. Take say, a country with four significant energy suppliers, all imported and all capacity constrained. Now add a fifth, and better yet domestic supply source. The market changes significantly - especially when those other countries are hugely dependent on selling that energy, so a 5% drop in demand means maybe 3% drop in their GDP.
The importance of margins has parallels with regard to the environment too. Our environment can absorb and deal with significant pollution and maintain the status quo. Our problem is caused only by how much we are exceeding that amount.
5% energy from wave, 10% from wind, 15% reduction in pollution from energy generation already. Insulation and efficient appliances/factories reduce demand on the fossil plants by say 15%. Now add gizmos to reduce the emissions from remaining fossil plants by 20%. Now reduce car emissions by 20%. Keep going. Enough small dents and it's a very beaten problem.
The real problem is getting everyone else to do it too.
"You'll just have to keep buying foreign oil." Actually Scotland produces all of its own oil, and exports a LOT more.
I bet trees really slow down the world's winds.
Save our planet! Cut down the rain forests!
Off the top of my head, it seems like the best place to implement these would be in places where you would be artificially altering the coastline anyway. Ports and harbors would be a good example, or the areas surrounding landfills.
Levees, such as those in New Orleans, are built to keep the harsh waves at bay, and something which absorbed them like this would be extremely beneficial. You're building the levee and disrupting marine life anyway, so you may as well do it in a way which reduces your environmental footprint.
I don't think anybody is advocating excavating coral reefs and replacing them with wave-farms to "save the environment"...
We are drilling in Prudhoe bay, about 50 miles from ANWR. Is there a "destruction of habitat" there? Nope. The wildlife is actually doing better there.
Really? I seem to recall this little incident in Prudhoe Bay not long ago. Lets just say there was a major pipeline leak that caused some environmental damage due to some penny pinching by 'Big Oil' men who wanted to maximize their profit over doing routine pipeline maintenance. ANWR isn't going to solve our problem and the reserves aren't even enough to last us 5 years. We could drill ANWR out, completely ruin the habitat and only have to revert to importing foreign oil after 5 years. Where the hell would that get us? Exactly no-where, minus a Wildlife Preserve and we would be back in the same exact position we are today.
Platinum Networks Hosting www.platinum-networks.com
Scotland doesn't produce any of its own olive oil.
Don't forget the fish. The same environmentalists that advocate alternative energy throw fits over windmills killing birds. After all the generators DO look like really big worms. Now if I just had an appropriately sized hook....
...to the list of alternative ocean-based energy sources:
Tides around Golden Gate are potential energy source [Sept 2006]
and
San Francisco Plans Tidal-Energy Pilot Project [older]
Limina.Log
Um, you do know about the 267,000 gallon Prudhoe Bay oil spill, right? I fail to see how that counts as no destruction of habitat.
As far as I know, Alaska is part of America. Here in America, we have this thing called a democratic republic. As part of this whole "democracy" thing, we created the ANWR back in 1960. It is not Alaska's land anymore, sorry. You want to fuck it up now, you ask the US Congress first.
The U.S. Department of Energy's own Energy Information Administration predicts that Arctic Refuge drilling would reduce the price of gas by no more than a few cents per gallon when it is at or near peak production twenty years down the road.
On August 8 2006, BP was forced to shut down the eastern half of its Prudhoe Bay oil field after severe corrosion was found in the company's low-pressure transit lines. The corrosion was discovered after a court-ordered testing of its pipeline system, the first cleaning and testing of the low-pressure transit pipe system since 1992.
Prudhoe Bay and its Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System average over 500 reported spills every year of oil and other toxic substances.
The Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, which represents 229 Native Alaskan tribes, officially opposes any development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
According to polls, the majority of residents of the United States and Canada are also opposed to drilling in the Arctic Refuge. A poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times and published on August 4, 2006 reported that 51% of Americans were opposed to drilling in the Arctic NWR and 45% were in favor of drilling.
Funny how, in an article about wave power, you refuse to recognize alternative energy sources as another possible source of energy. Reduce or import, those are our only options.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
This is the same problem I have with the damming of rivers (Damn you rivers!! Get off my lawn!)... sure, the changes to the environment aren't immediately all that great... but the fact is, nobody can predict the long term effects of, well, pretty much any action in a system as complex as earth.
Don't go thinking I'm against this idea however. If we had to factor in all possible effects of any given action, nobody would ever end up doing... anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
I'm not good at making signatures...
I'm disgusted by waste as much as you are, but if/when we achieve cheap renewable power it won't matter anymore. People can waste power with very little impact. I'll still turn lights off and keep my thermostat set reasonably, but it won't matter anymore.
Man, you really need that seminar!
It was in portugal not scotland, but the same thing still applies
"Hate is baggage. Life's too short to be pissed off all the time." Danny Vinyard -American History X
Looks like Wolf Blitzer finally has a challenger in the World's Most Absurdly Macho Name competition.
Actually, you can only extra 2/3 of the energy from the wind or water (which led Carnot to his famous cycle).
It wouldn't disappear, of course. It would be trapped upstream, causing plenty of environmental issues there, and completely drying up the river further downstream.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
A much bigger problem is that the waves are generated by the pull from the moon (or so I was told). If we reduce the amount or amplitude of ocean waves, this could have an effect on the moon.
Think about it... just like current can create a magnetic field and a magnetic field can create a current, the gravitational pull from the moon is creating waves.
If we stop these waves, the moon's orbit could change.
We will all die because we wanted to create clean energy.
Let's stop this madness before it's too late.
I like metaphor. --The Celts are the first to benefit from 'Wave' energy, eh?
Interesting.
-FL
Thanks to the current practices of the timber industry, there are more trees in North America now than there were in pre-Columbian times. They plant several for each one they cut down. It is in their interest to do so, so they'll have something to harvest 30 years from now.
The Lorax gave an incorrect impression to a whole generation of kids.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
In fact, wind farms do take energy out of the wind. All things being equal, if you build a second wind farm immediately downwind from an existing wind farm, the second one will not generate as much electricity as the first.
Likewise, wave farms take energy out of waves. Shoreside of a wave farm, wave amplitude will be smaller; the wave farm "stills the waters" to some extent.
These things do indeed have environmental impact. To name an example that the original poster didn't: the reduced-amplitude waves will cause less erosion than would naturally take place.
Original post should be modded Interesting, not Funny.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
"I'm just waiting for some environmental group to start whining about these, too."
Sure there are plenty of NIMBY's, but they come from all walks of life and politics not just the environmental fringe, for example do you want to live within earshot of a windfarm or do you want it hidden from view by the ocean's horizon?
"They complain that windmills kill too many birds."
Here in Australia the last group to "complain that windmills kill too many birds" was the conservative federal government who put a halt to a windfarm in my (coal rich) state because of a rare parrot. The (ex) fedral enviroment minister responsible for the decision was unashamedly in the pocket of the coal industry that is busy chewing up the bulk of our "green energy research" subsidies looking for the "clean coal" magic bullet. The windfarm project is now back on track but the procrastination was deliberate political posturing that had nothing to do with parrots or the environment.
Also just because these things don't spew CO2 does not mean that they won't have a some unforseen consequences, large structures can change currents and the shoreline, you might end up inadvertantly filling a shipping channel with sand or washing away sand dunes that hold wetlands in place. The envionmental impact of any large infrastructure should be studied and assesed to reduce the risk of shooting ourselves in the foot.
I for one would certainly not like to see them dotting the coast of the Whitsunday islands, shark bay, the Shetland isles, or any other fragile breeding ground for fish and wildlife. I would also like to see these things up and running but the TCO (including the environmental costs) needs to be proven on something other than paper before we make them ubiquitous.
Do you see the connection with the parrots - they were used as a scapegoat to trivialise environmental concerns, just as you are using them as a scapegoat for why the uptake of this tech has been so arduosly slow.
""Honestly, I think it's a good idea, on par with offshore windmills and such, but I think that it's only a matter of time before some group starts a resistance movement for some idiotic and quite negligible reason."
There is an effective "resistant movement" in the form of the fossil fuel industry that has been successfull in stagnating these projects for many decades (although it's effacacy here in Oz has diminished dramatically over the past 2-3 years). Wind and water power ideas have been politically pushed by "environmental groups" since the club of rome, if not before. You say yourself they are a "good idea" but then claim that "enviromental groups" will hamper the progress of such projects with trivial complaints. After decades of pushing for these project (against many trivial objections) why the hell would they do that?
This bashing of environmentalists is patently false doublespeak. So what exactly do you find so objectionable about the concept of people organising in groups with the aim of preserving the environment, and is it so far fetched to think of the people who are financing this project as an "environmental group"? My guess is that you have thought about power generation but haven't done much thinking about the society and enviroment around you, you have simply sucked up some propoganda about "environmental groups" that for some reason you thought was worth repeating.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
What, the Scots finally figured out how to sodomize these "wave powers?"
I kid, I kid. Some of my best friends are sheep, I mean Scots.
Didn't BP inherit that facility (and other troubles) from Amoco?
Scotland has two major rivers, the Forth & Clyde. The Forth has a 6m tidal range & the Clyde has about 2m at the mouth of the estuary. Though the daily volume of water may not be as great as some other rivers, the water volume should still be large enough to completely power the electricity requirements for the populations surrounding each river.
3 28507.ece 1 391.stm
Compare to what's planned for the River Mersey (tidal range 8-10m). This may generate a consistent two gigawatts of electricity - about 3x the requirement for the entire Liverpool conurbation (Merseyside).
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/617
Source: http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/jobmarket/regional_unem
Fucking sassenach troll...
Caution: May contain nuts.
No it wouldn't; it would have to be let flow downstream or else you aren't getting any power out of the mills. In fact, because of that you realistically couldn't approach using "100%" of the energy in the river anyway. The only real consequence would be that you slowed down the river, which would cause sediment to build up and eventually turn it into a meandering river with a flood plain.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
People seem to think that "renewable" means free. TANSTAAFL
This is an interesting subject that I've never seen seriously addressed. Can anyone think of a Sci-Fi reference to depleting the kinetic energy of a biosphere?
We'll be paving the planet and growing food in tanks if things go according to plan. Haven't you read the American Enterprise Institutes's web page?
The majority of the gravitational force that generates our tides is provided by the moon, so this would be Lunar power. Proponents could be considered loonies.
Prudhoe Bay and its Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System average over 500 reported spills every year of oil and other toxic substances.
.001% is going to ruin all of ANWR. Of course, the oil would be piped out via existing pipelines because it would make no sense to build entirely new pipelines. And since no pipelines run through ANWR today, it all but eliminates the risk of an ANWR oil spill.
Wow! and yet the porcupines caribous still live and thrive in the area. I figured that such an environmental would have devastated all of Alaska and part of Canada... and yet the pristine virgin wilderness of ANWR remains unscathed by such environmental devastation a mere 50 miles away!
In other words, ANWR is fucking big... I mean really really fucking big! If Bill Gates sold everything he owns and used it to purchase crude to dump all over ANWR, he wouldn't make a fucking dent! ANWR is that fucking big. ANWR is about the size of South Carolina kind of fucking big. I seriously doubt that exploration in less that 5% and actual drilling in less that
So if the environment really is your reason for not drilling in ANWR, I call bullshit. If you pumped all the oil out of 1002 area and sprayed it all around, the impact would only be limited to the local area, leaving the rest of ANWR completely unscathed for you to not take your granola fueled nature hikes on.
Now of course, if you care to be honest and simply say that you don't like oil, we can debate that. But until then, quit being a pussy and saying it's all about saving the wilderness that you will never visit and you wouldn't know it existed if Democrats didn't oppose it and show you pretty pictures that are not even from the same area that the oil is in!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
We could drill ANWR out, completely ruin the habitat and only have to revert to importing foreign oil after 5 years. Where the hell would that get us?
That would leave us with enemies that are five years worth of oil poorer than they would be otherwise. That would be about 20,000 families that could be supported for five years.
Of course, your five year estimate is the most conservative that I've seen. Actually, the big debate among geologists isn't how much oil is there, it is how much we can retrieve cheaper than the current market price. The estimates I've read are about 30 billion barrels if oil is priced above $30 a barrel. When it drops below that price, it is no long worth retrieving beyond the five years estimate you've thrown out.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
No. There needs to be SOME amount of water going over the LAST water wheel. It can be a very small amount... small enough that it evaporates within a mile or so.
Every bit of energy you pull out of a river slows it just a bit more, and causes more to pool upstream, and less flowing downstream. There is no way around it. Just look at any dams. That is inherently how any hydro power works. It can just be harder to see on a smaller scale, like smal water wheels.
Show me ANY volume of flowing water, and I'll show you how to extract work out of it. Even a trickle. You can't hit 100%, obviously, but pretty damn near it.
You obvious have no idea what you are talking about.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
A rough guess says these things can't even pay for the interest and maintenance costs, much less ever pay back their original cost in $$,$$$,$$$ or energy.
The basic probelm is the sea has many more hazards, in the way of waves, corrosion, and stress, than it does easily capturable energy.
handed out advice: avoid patent thickets. If an area of technology is covered by many patents held by various patent holders, just give up. All the patent holders will believe that their own one is the key patent that deserves the lions share of the royalties and you will never be able to complete the multiway patent negotiations on reasonable terms. When the people with the money say "we are not investing in areas covered by patent thickets" that is exactly the phenomen of patents holding back technical progress.
However the original post mentions two patents, so that is not a thicket. Nevertheless the sole power that a patent grants is the power to prevent others from using the invention. Patent holders make their money two ways. First by playing hardball, pay the royalty we demand or do without the invention. Second by making the product themselves, refusing to let any-one else make it, and charging monopoly prices. MobyDisk is very confused about patents if he doubts that the companies held the patents to prevent other from practising the invention.
The economic question about patents is whether there is a public benefit to offset the undoubted cost of granting monopolies. The theory is that private companies can invest serious money of research that is unsuitable to be held as a trade secret because they can earn a return using the patent system.
It clearly didn't work out here, because the invention hasn't been practised. Understand the theoretical problem. If you invest money researching and developing wave energy machines and you get a patent on a half-solution to the problem, engineers will want to spend more money on research and development to complete the solution to the problem. If the half-solution is covered by a patent, the engineers are going to have serious trouble with their bankers. The bankers will realise that the holder of the patent on the first half of the solution has them by the balls. A patent on part of an invention tends to kill it, blocking research funding to bring the invention to completion.
Yahoo has several videos on Pelamis.
Another technology using waves/currents to produce energy is an under water turbine using two rotors, delivering up to 1MW. This company already has single rotor turbines in use.
extra: why not use your sewage to produce energy?
Rabtherm English translation
press article English translation
ok then, have it your way.
"Too many watermills: water stops running downhill".
Why is "you don't even visit the ANWR" a valid objection to demanding its protection? The whole point of the environmental movement is understanding that everything is interconnected. The Greenland ice shelf keeps the ocean twenty feet lower than it would otherwise be, which helps Floridans who have never set foot on it. The Amazon rainforests scrub the air everyone breathes, not just the air for visiting tourists. The ANWR provides wildlife habitat, which is critical to the overall health of the ecology and therefore benefits you even if you don't give a rat about moose.
Drilling the ANWR will not create a secure domestic oil supply. In your own words, "it wouldn't even make a fucking dent". At current consumption rates, there is estimated to be about a year's worth of oil in the protected area. But it wouldn't start producing for another ten years, and reach its peak for another decade. So you have to spread that number out over twenty or thirty years. Compared to the security that would come from higher fuel economy standards and other conservation efforts, the ANWR gives you nothing but petroleum-covered elk.
Drilling the ANWR will have three effects. First, it will allow us to delay the transition away from oil for a negligible amount of time. This leads to the second effect: a relatively small increase in CO2 emissions. The third effect? Oil companies will make a whole bunch of money that they wouldn't have made otherwise.
ANWR is irrelevant, because we can never become an energy-independent nation until we break the oil addiction. But there is money to be made by businesses, so the right wing and their amply-funded but empty-headed think tanks are screaming to get the drilling going.
Oil sucks. It pollutes the atmosphere, raises the temperature of the globe, and keeps us dependent on a resource that--ANWR or no--will be gone soon. There. I've been "honest" by your reckoning--as though environmentalists were insincere about wanting to protect wilderness. Now why don't you be honest? Your entire approach to government policy is nothing more than an unthinking assent to the ludicrous idea that, so long as we let wealthy industrialists do exactly as they like, they'll bring utopia to the rest of us.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
The ANWR provides wildlife habitat, which is critical to the overall health of the ecology and therefore benefits you even if you don't give a rat about moose.
First, the ecology in ANWR has no effect on the ecology in Juno, much less N. Dakota or the rest of the states. The ecology in ANWR effects the ecology in ANWR, nothing more. And don't give me that a moose sneezes which sets off a chain of events that causes a sand-storm 10000 years later either. Yes, we are all somewhat interconnected, but major events render the little ones meaningless. Next, like I've said a hundred times, the ecology in ANWR is not in any danger, drilling or otherwise. It's a big big big place and the area where we will be drilling is extremely miniscule when compared to the size of ANWR (which, as I said, is the size of S. Carolina!)
Next, ever been to Michigan? With the exception of Detroit and Flint, it really is a beautiful place. I remember driving from Lansing MI to Traverse City and seeing an oil derek right in the middle of a corn field. We eat that corn! So far, there have been no reported problems from eating corn that was grown near an oil derek. Now if we pump oil out of a field that grows our food, I don't think there will be a problem with the porcupine caribous that migrate through the area. Again, they don't seem to have a problem with Prudhoe Bay that is 50 miles away. You talk about drilling in ANWR as if there is a 100% chance of the entire ecosystem being destroyed for eternity. Nothing can be further from the truth.
ANWR is irrelevant, because we can never become an energy-independent nation until we break the oil addiction. But there is money to be made by businesses, so the right wing and their amply-funded but empty-headed think tanks are screaming to get the drilling going.
You are correct that it is about money, but not about people getting rich. This is on National land, therefor, it's National oil. The government hires companies to pump it out (after a bidding process) and the government keeps the profits. It's about the money that we will NOT be sending money to governments that will spend it trying to kill us. Countries like Iran, Venezuela, and Russia are all oil rich, and want to see the US fall. Why do we keeping sending these people money when there is more oil in ANWR than we are importing from these anti-American tyrants? Will it solve our oil dependency? NO, but it will keep that dependency from propping up tyrannical dictators and offer us more energy independence than we have today.
Oil sucks. It pollutes the atmosphere, raises the temperature of the globe, and keeps us dependent on a resource that--ANWR or no--will be gone soon. There. I've been "honest" by your reckoning--as though environmentalists were insincere about wanting to protect wilderness.
Thank you. I feel that the problem is more with oil than with protecting the "wildernesses". This is why drilling is being opposed across the board in the US, no matter where it is. Unfortunately, it's actually making drilling for oil more of a risk than before. First, because we can't drill in the Great Lakes for example, oil companies have started to drill horizontally from land to under the great lakes. This is actually a greater risk to the environment than just drilling off a rig in the lake itself. Enviro's are OK with this because it makes the drilling more expensive, thus making more of the oil not worth going after.
Still, if the problem is with oil, then why not do something about it. Plant a windmill and solar panels in your back yard and disconnect from the grid. Of course, you'll have to sell your car and grow your own food (how else do you think food gets to the store?). Yes, we dependent on oil. There is nothing we can do about that except voluntarily turn ourselves into a starving third world country. You think starvation in Africa is bad? That will be nothing to an fossil-fuel-free America!
Yes, I agree that ANWR is simply a band-aid on a much bigger problem. But then again, do you bandage a wound until you can get to the hospital or do you let the patient bleed to death? You are suggesting the latter.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
>> I remember driving from Lansing MI to Traverse City and seeing an oil derek right in the middle of a corn field. We eat that corn!
You're seriously comparing oil extraction's effects on the ANWR (a complex, interdependent ecosystem) with its effects on a man-made corn monoculture, where fertilizers and pesticides are the norm? Further, you're seriously asking me to base my opinion on something you once saw driving in Michigan? How does your over-the-dashboard view of this field qualify as a comprehensive ecological study, demonstrating the harmlessness of oil extraction?
>> First, the ecology in ANWR has no effect on the ecology in Juno, much less N. Dakota or the rest of the states. The ecology in ANWR effects the ecology in ANWR, nothing more.
The healthy ecology of the ANWR increases the overall biodiversity of the globe, which is an increasingly scarce resource. Like every other protected wilderness area, its plant life sucks down CO2 and releases oxygen, which affects the ecology everywhere. Like every protected wilderness area, animals migrate in and out of it, and plants cross-pollinate with plants outside its boundaries. And like any previously pristine area, there is a huge risk of economic development bringing in invasive species (a single one of which has the potential to wreck an ecology). Nothing more? Hell, that's the short list.
I firmly believe that proponents like you are intentionally and seriously understating the damage that extraction will cause. But even if I could be convinced that the damage was "acceptable," I would still object to drilling on two grounds. First, because where it sits now, the oil under ANWR represents a sizeable carbon sequestration, which would take ungodly sums of money to duplicate. Second, because right now we would be burning off this reserve as a matter of convenience, not survival. Keeping it around for emergencies is like pretending that your bank balance is $2000 lower than it actually is. Forget it exists, and it will always be there in case it's needed. Which it will be, so long as your side keeps running interference for the oil industry the way it has been.
>> You are correct that it is about money, but not about people getting rich. This is on National land, therefor, it's National oil. The government hires companies to pump it out (after a bidding process) and the government keeps the profits.
So, you're saying that the oil companies are going to drill ANWR pro bono? That all the pressure to drill ANWR is coming from the Alaskan congressional delegation? That the government never uses its power and influence to funnel money into corporate coffers?
It sounds to me like you're using some Sean Hannity clone for your talking points. If the oil companies weren't going to make a nice fortune off the contract, they wouldn't sign it.
>> Still, if the problem is with oil, then why not do something about it. Plant a windmill and solar panels in your back yard and disconnect from the grid.
Ah, I see. Your solution isn't to start changing the system, but for the 0.1% of people who can and want to do so to disconnect from it, leaving the overall system basically unaltered.
I'd give you my rant about the futility of individual solutions to systemic problems, but it would take too long.
>> Of course, you'll have to sell your car and grow your own food (how else do you think food gets to the store?).
I thought food magically appeared in the grocery store, through a process possibly involving faerie dust.
You're not making any friends here by talking to me like I'm stupid.
>> Yes, we dependent on oil. There is nothing we can do about that except voluntarily turn ourselves into a starving third world country.
Don't even pretend that the only options on the table are "Drill ANWR" or "mass starvation". Hybrids, increases in CAFTA standards, electric vehicles, increased mass transit, telecommuting, procurement of more food fr
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
You're seriously comparing oil extraction's effects on the ANWR (a complex, interdependent ecosystem) with its effects on a man-made corn monoculture, where fertilizers and pesticides are the norm?
Yes, I am. I think it is plainly obvious that the oil extraction does not mean an "instant ecological disaster". The cornfield proves that. But don't take my word for it. Go to California and take a look at the natural beauty there. Take a look at where they drill for oil in California and you will find that they are extracting oil well within the area that ANWR takes up. I challenge you to find organic certified farms that is not within 32000 square miles of an oil platform. I'm no ecologist, but I have common sense. To "Put another way, if ANWR were the size of a page of the Washington Post, and you put something on it about a square quarter inch, that would be about the size of the drilling footprint of ANWR." Again, we are not talking about all of ANWR.
Further, you're seriously asking me to base my opinion on something you once saw driving in Michigan? How does your over-the-dashboard view of this field qualify as a comprehensive ecological study, demonstrating the harmlessness of oil extraction?
Like I said, I have common sense. If oil is being extracted in a cornfield in Northern Lower Michigan, and oil was an ecological disaster, then there wouldn't be pristine wilderness in Northern Lower Michigan, or the Michigan Upper Peninsula (UP). If you've ever been to either place, you'd know what I'm talking about. This is an area that still has wild deer, turkey, brown bears (yes, BEARS!) and other wildlife, all completely unaffected by the energy industry of Michigan. Actually, the corn field causes more eco damage the oil derek, yet I see no one protesting corn fields!
So, you're saying that the oil companies are going to drill ANWR pro bono? That all the pressure to drill ANWR is coming from the Alaskan congressional delegation? That the government never uses its power and influence to funnel money into corporate coffers?
This is not about money, it's about energy independence. And, yes, the "Alaskan congressional delegation" is pressuring for drilling in ANWR.
I never said that no one was going to make money. Have you ever met a roughneck? Have you ever met their families? Have you ever been to their home and had dinner? You'll find that these people are not rich, but yes, they will make money from Alaskan drilling. Do you have a problem with people working for a living? What I said is you are not going to make a Jed Clampet style fat-cat from drilling in ANWR. (We all know how much Democrats hate to see people making money!)
As to corporate coffers, do you have a 401k? That, my friend is a corporate coffer. I think it says a lot that you have such disdain for private property (yes, corporations are private property). You would think that it would make you happy that ANWR is federal land and no corporation can own it. Yes, it certainly be a large company hired to extract the oil, but if you can find a small business or non-profit organization with the knowhow to extract oil and be environmentally sound, make sure they enter the bidding process.
It sounds to me like you're using some Sean Hannity clone for your talking points.
And you sound like some Karl Marx clone, so what's your point?
If the oil companies weren't going to make a nice fortune off the contract, they wouldn't sign it.
I think you are confusing profit with fortune. (again, do you own a 401k? Even George Soros invests in Haliburton) I mean, really, if you are anti-profit, move to a place that agrees with you. I hear Cuba is nice.
But the longer we avoid reducing our exposure to the risk of oil scarcity, the more likely it is that we'll be unprepared for a sudden, sharp shock. Also, the greater our daily demand compared to the supply, the harder we have
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
>> Do you not think that an estimated 90 Billion dollars in clean energy research would be a good idea? Would that compromise work for you?
It would.
As to the rest of your points:
* Demonstrating that you can grow a single crop on oil-producing land without danger to the humans eating it (which--"common sense" or no--you haven't done) is a far different thing than proving that oil extraction can be done without significant harm to an ecosystem.
* "Organic certified" doesn't mean jack to me, given the FDA's exceedingly loose standards.
* Using square miles as a unit of distance? Not remotely kosher.
* I'm sure the Alaskan delegation is pressuring for drilling. What I said was, if the oil companies weren't standing to make a lot of money off drilling, the Alaskans would be pretty much alone in that desire.
* I'm not against people making money. I'm not against people living well. I even believe that some inequity is necessary to motivate effort. But when a CEO is making several hundred times what his average worker does, and when half the corporate stock in this country is owned by the wealthiest 1% of the population, and when corporations seem hell-bent on doing whatever earns them money regardless of the cost to the environment or the people their decisions affect, then your song and dance about "making money is a great thing for everybody" wears tiresome. If despising the current kleptocracy that basically runs America today makes me Karl Marx's love child in your eyes, I could care less.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Good chat. It really has been fun and informative, I hope for both of us.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.