New Wave Power Research Rising Off Oregon Coast

necro81 writes "A prototype buoy has been launched off the Oregon coast to try generating electrical power from the ever-present waves. The OSU device works like a giant shake-up flashlight. It is one of several competing designs to take advantage of a potential clean energy goldmine. It will be years before substantial power is contributed to the grid, but several companies have received permits to develop test platforms. The New York Times has an article that surveys the current outlook for wave energy, which it compares to wind energy's prospects back in the 1980s. Concerns about impacts to wildlife and fishing remain to be answered."

Comments

Sounds good

[timeOday]

Sounds like most of the resistance is from the fishing industry, but since it's not a very well proven technology, I'd say they have a fair point. So the current plan - to do some small proof-of-concept wave farms first - seems just the right thing to do. From the end of the article:

Philip D. Moeller, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and a supporter of wave and tidal energy projects, said the government was "not allowing these to go into sensitive areas." Mr. Moeller added, "We haven't defined sensitive area, but the point is we'll be cognizant of that."

He said the commission was encouraging wave energy companies to seek a new five-year "pilot license" the commission has created specifically for wave and tidal energy projects. The license, which could be gained in six months, would let companies set up a short-term wave farm to test technology and demonstrate success to wary investors. If environmental damage became evident, he said, the equipment could be removed from the ocean fairly quickly, something that is far more complicated with dams.

Re:Sounds good

[jcr]

Who do you know that surfs miles offshore?

-jcr

No energy is free

[Eddi3]

There's no such thing as free energy. What I wonder, is what this is affecting in the long run, and by how much.

Re:No energy is free

[LBArrettAnderson]

The actual harnessing of the waves probably won't affect much. It would be much worse to create a man-made harbor instead -- all you're doing is breaking down the waves before they break on the beach. The only negative affects would come with giant metal buckets floating in the water with long rods going down to the bottom... some fish might bump their heads...

Re:No energy is free

[Dunbal]

What I wonder, is what this is affecting in the long run, and by how much.

      It will affect mean wave height, and reduce coastal erosion...

Re:Laws of Physics

[CastrTroy]

Couldn't the same be said about all the wind turbines we're setting up stopping/slowing the wind?

Re:Laws of Physics

[Anonymous Coward]

You make a very interesting point that I hadn't thought of that I suppose does require some attention. My first thought, however, would be that reducing beach-erosion would be a positive thing... although it is very possible that there are some species of fish and/or crabs that rely on it. That being said, there is a lot of beach on the planet and a good portion of it doesn't get any waves at all. I doubt that these wave power farms will ever cover more than 2% of the world's coastline.

Re:Laws of Physics

[charlievarrick]

Sure. Covering a substantial quantity of the earth's surface with solar panels would probably have a substantial effect on surface tempurature/weather patterns. So would releasing all the stored carbon energy by lighting everthing on fire.

two birds one stone

[DMoylan]

nah, have you never heard of a lazy wind? it doesn't go around you it goes right through you. :-)

more on topic. if this would reduce wave action there are loads of locations that need very expensive sea defences and we also need to generate power. could we not combine the two by floating these generators off known locations that are been eroded? protect the location and generate power. makes it cheaper to build if you can tap into the others funds.

Re:Environmentalists will shut this down

[jcr]

Really I don't think the environmentalists (a) believe what they say, and (b) actually want to solve anything.

There are environmentalists, and there are misanthropes who pretend to be environmentalists. The former are enthusiastic about alternative energy sources. The latter want us all to just freeze in the dark.

-jcr

Re:Wave and Tidal...

[LWATCDR]

Well I am not for wasting resources. Coastal areas are very sensitive and I think that is a big problem for tidal plants. As far as giving it a try.
I am all for using a little bit of EVERYTHING. I think that every house built in the southern US should have a small solar panel. Even if it is just 100 Watts. The problem is that right now solar panels are in short supply. But you know if you build 10,000 homes with a small 100 watt panel then at peak production you gain a mega watt of clean power. Geo Thermal is under used and should be exploited. I am all for Nuclear plants in fact I get my power from one. Modern nuclear plants are right now the best solution for controllable clean power production. The mid western states and places like New Mexico could be producing a lot of wind power right now. I am not a huge fan of wind power since it seems the less reliable than Solar and Geothermal but I could be wrong on that.
Tidal is just too small and diverse of power source to be worth spending a huge amount of development money on IMHO. submerging turbines in salt water just make me cringe.
My post was more to try and stop all the zealots. Every time I hear that Solar, Wind, Tidal, electric cars, fuel cells, or Hydrogen is "THE SOLUTION" it just makes my head hurt.
There isn't a single solution. We need to have more options and more sources of power.
Oil will not go away. If we run out we will make it from coal. If we run out of coal we will make it from water and atmospheric CO2.
So yes use tidal where it makes sense but don't delude yourself.