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."
I like poo
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.
{conservative seagull}
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.
{/conservative seagull}
The other 50% is employed by the State to administer to dole system. Guess who foots the bill? The English!
Don't wait for these selfish fucks to declare independence. Get a grip and boot these lazy cunts out of the United Kingdom.
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.
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
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.
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.
. . . I am going to EXPLODE with self-righteous rage!
(What the hell - my karma's shot anyways. . .)
What?
"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/
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.
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.'"
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
I also like poo. Let us eat a butt! Duh duh duh!
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.
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"...
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
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.
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
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.
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".