Slashdot Mirror


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."

42 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. "Current outlook" by dvonhand · · Score: 5, Funny

    Experts predict that current will flow from the anode to the cathode terminal in the near future.

    1. Re:"Current outlook" by chuckymonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Great, we now have the nerd equivalent of the Weekly World News Zodiac Astrologer (WWWNZA?). Taurus: Your code will compile with unexpected results. Also a diet of cheetos and soda pop will lead to weight gain. Scorpio: Experts predict that current will flow from the anode to the cathode terminal in the near future. Also romance prospects with your new Macbook Pro look promising. So on and so forth.

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
  2. Sounds good by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:Sounds good by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's OK, in 20 years when we really need the power, there won't be any more fish in the sea, so there will be no fishing industry to complain.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Sounds good by Reverend528 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Honestly, if there's any industry that's crippled by this, it's the surfing industry. Unfortunately, they can't afford very good lobbyists.

    3. Re:Sounds good by JK_the_Slacker · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought that most of the resistance came from the expense of superconductors. My bad.

      --
      I'm waiting for a "-1 somepeoplejustshouldn'tgetmodprivileges" meta-moderation.
    4. Re:Sounds good by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who do you know that surfs miles offshore?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    5. Re:Sounds good by owndao · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm kind of dissappointed that the parent post was rated "Funny" as this is an actual problem.
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110200913.html/

      World's Fish Supply Running Out, Researchers Warn
      The 14 researchers from Canada, Panama, Sweden, Britain and the United States spent four years analyzing fish populations, catch records and ocean ecosystems to reach their conclusion. They found that by 2003 -- the last year for which data on global commercial fish catches are available -- 29 percent of all fished species had collapsed, meaning they are now at least 90 percent below their historic maximum catch levels.
      The rate of population collapses has accelerated in recent years. As of 1980, just 13.5 percent of fished species had collapsed, even though fishing vessels were pursuing 1,736 fewer species then. Today, the fishing industry harvests 7,784 species commercially.
      "It's like hitting the gas pedal and holding it down at a constant level," Worm said in a telephone interview. "The rate accelerates over time."
      I believe that this trend was again confirmed in 2007.
      --
      Be as you would have the world become.
  3. New Wave Power? by __aagctu1952 · · Score: 3, Funny

    So... I'm assuming harnessing New Wave Power off the coast of Oregon will be about dumping Adam & the Ants in the Pacific and attaching a generator and power cables to them? Hey, I'm for it! In fact... screw the turbine. And the cables...

    1. Re:New Wave Power? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Stand and deliver -- your money or your life! You insensitive clod!

  4. No energy is free by Eddi3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    1. Re:No energy is free by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

    2. Re:No energy is free by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:No energy is free by Tumbleweed · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is a tidal system being changed, so we have to look at the other things effected by the tidal system, like, the Moon. This will certainly slow down the Moon's orbit around the Earth. Now, what will THAT change? First to my mind is: women's menstruation cycles. It will make it take longer between periods, which is a good thing for sure, but on the other hand, it may also lengthen how long she's experiencing it, which is really, really bad. Not sure whether this falls in the pro or con category.

      Other things: werewolves. Obviously, same deal as menstruation - less frequent, possibly for longer periods (so to speak). I'd invest in the silver industry, you could probably make a tidy profit on this! I won't make the joke about women being related to werewolves (cuz, you know, they get 'bitchy' at that time), because that would just be obvious and tacky, and this IS Slashdot.

      I'm pretty sure vampires are not effected by the Moon, so that's good, though this will not help prevent Dick Cheney attacks, so that's actually disappointing.

      As with other clean power production technologies, the animal rights activists will find a way to claim it hurts migratory birds, and I'm sure to some extent that will be true, though they'll likely be harmed a lot less by this than by the pollution produced by conventional power production.

      With fewer waves hitting the shoes, less sediment will be drawn into the ocean, so they'll be a bit more sparkly-clean looking, which is good, but there's probably some stuff in there that some ocean creature feeds on, so they'll starve, so that'll be bad.

      Most likely a net positive because of the reduced pollution thing, I'm guessing.

  5. Laws of Physics by charlievarrick · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When wave energy hits a breakwater the energy is dispersed and reflected back into the medium (the ocean). If it hits a a generator it is absorbed and converted into electrical energy. Something like this is taking energy out of a closed system which will have effects. How much? depends on how much energy you take out.

    1. Re:Laws of Physics by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're right about the energy being dispersed and reflected, but only a very small portion of wave energy goes back into the ocean. Most of it is absorbed by the beach. If this weren't the case the waves would be just as large going back out as they are coming in. Sure, sometimes the waves going back out are visible, but they are much smaller and it doesn't happen very often -- especially on shallow sandy beaches (think how much energy is lost in (very inelastic) collisions and sound (beaches are loud)).

    2. Re:Laws of Physics by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Laws of Physics by charlievarrick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Laws of Physics by zenkonami · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Couldn't the same be said about all the wind turbines we're setting up stopping/slowing the wind? Unfortunately it often is. I wonder if the same people who worry so much about the potential damage of these suggested solutions have considered that we do not exist in a static environment, and that we are a part of that environment. We affect the system and the system affects us because we are a component of the system.

      I wonder how we are negatively affecting the system by eating animals / plants?
      Irrigation seems to remove water from somewhere else...is agriculture worth it?
      Yes, but capturing solar energy is no free lunch! The panels still come from somewhere

      Look, it's all true. Any one thing is a trade off for another. In our current circumstance I don't think we're in too poor a shape if we give some of these alternative solutions a try. The alternative to that is to twiddle our thumbs waiting for the "perfect" solution (perpetual motion? zero-point energy?) that may never come.

      I think it's time to stop throwing all our eggs in one basket anyway. A decent distribution of solutions is probably safer than seeking the ultimate, one-size-fits-all answer. Nature has understood diversification for millennia. Maybe we should take some notes.
      --

      Do You Experiment?
    5. Re:Laws of Physics by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In fact, few countries have thrown their eggs in one basket, though some have bigger baskets than other. The French currently use 80% nukes. America uses 60% coal. China is currently using something like 90% coal. What I find funny is when ppl say that solar or wind will handle 100% of our needs. The fact that somebody would consider that is incredible. I would like to see America (and any nation) get to the point where the most that they have from one arena is 50%. Why? Because it will force that nation to take a political stance on the item if future concerns come up. For example, USA back in the 60's, was under fire for the pollutants coming from coal. So, we cleaned it up; kind of. We still have large mercury being spread. Now, we have to worry about CO2. If coal accounted for say 10-20% of the matrix, then we would slowly wipe it out.

      China now has 5x the plants that America had back in the 60's, far worse coal, and they have not been willing to clean them up, not even simple scrubbers. Why? because it would mean less ability to compete (though that is total crap; a price will be paid one way or another). If nations had no more than 50% dependency on any one type of power, then if a future issue is found, they will typically clean it up. China is looking to go nukes, but they want all the tech. transfered to them for free so that they can manufacture it themselves as well as compete.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:Laws of Physics by jadavis · · Score: 2, Funny

      How about nuclear? Fairly cheap, doesn't take the energy away from other systems, and the pollution is concentrated and contained in convenient waste barrels.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
  6. Anticipated in 1932 SF novel! by StefanJ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Olaf Stapledon's "Last and First Men" is a mind-boggling future history. Very dated and politically/ideologically goofy in its early parts, then increasingly way-out as humanity nearly dies out, evolves, nearly dies out again, moves to a terraformed Venus . . . and so on, until the 17th and final human species dies out on Neptune 2 billions years from now.

    While racing through the history of the cat-like "Third Men," Stapledon notes that one civilization uses tidal power to such an extent that the orbit of the moon is slightly altered!

  7. Anchoring is the issue by ThreeGigs · · Score: 2, Informative

    Biggest problem with using a 'float height' generation system is the bottom anchor. The seafloor isn't all that sturdy to support constant tugging. Plus, the conservationists will have a point in that the bottom anchors will be disruptive to the seafloor ecology.

  8. Not this shiat again by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone needs to create something along the lines of the spam solutions template, but for new technologies (like wave power or wind farms).

    I'll start:
    (things in bold can be easily replaced)

    Your solution advocates a

    (*) technical ( ) legislative (*) market-based ( ) vigilante

    approach to solving a looming energy problem. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state or country to country before a bad federal or international law was passed.)

    (*) It will be fought by entrenched fishing interests
    (*) It will be fought by entrenched energy corporations
    (*) It will be fought by ______________
    (*) It will succumb to NIMBY Syndrome
    (*) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
    ( ) Technology doesn't work that way
    (*) NIMBY Syndrome will prevent mass deployment

    Specifically, your plan fails to account for:

    (*) Idiots with boats
    ( ) International reluctance to engage in sweeping change
    (*) Technically illiterate politicians
    (*) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who vote
    ( ) A lack of support from famous Musicians and Actors
    (*) Conflicting environmental interests

    and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

    ( ) The money could be better spent curing cancer
    ( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
    been shown practical
    (*) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
    (*) Your solution is expensive
    (*) Your solution may be politically infeasible
    ( ) The money could be better spent implementing [other] solution
    ( ) It makes life harder, not easier

    Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

    (*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
    ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
    ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

    You get the idea. Please improve it.
    Not that I'm shitting on wave power, but NIMBY, questions about environmental impact and the fishing & energy industries could seriously crimp any offshore plans.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  9. New Wave Power? by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Funny

    New Wave Power is gonna fucking kick ass. Why hasn't anyone thought of this sooner?

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  10. Wave and Tidal... by PhotoGuy · · Score: 4, Informative

    It always surprised me that wave and tidal energy weren't harnessed more. Wave energy is really just wind energy thrown into a thick medium which should allow us to extract it in all its concentrated goodness. (And wind, in turn, is caused by solar heating.)

    But what always seemed more dramatic to me, however, are the tides. Especially living in an area with the highest tides in the world, seeing phenomenal amounts of water come in and out with a 6 foot difference, twice a day, always struck me as having a lot more potential (ha ha) than other sources of renewable energy. Effectively harnessing the gravitation pull of our moon through the tides, always seemed to me to be a solution that was too good to be true. There are days when the sea is calm and the wing generators are slower due to lack of wind; coal and oil prices vary wildly. But nothing stops the tides, day or night; the energy available and its cost is 100% predictable, which is a rarity among energy sources.

    In Nova Scotia, we have tidal power plant which generates power from the tides. However, it seems to be in a constant state of research, politics, grants, and such, and is fairly small. (Even twenty years ago, it was in this state; instead of referring to it by its name, the "Fundy Tidal Project," people used to refer to it as the "Tidy Fundal Project.") The amount of energy that could be captured from even a small part of the Bay of Fundy is staggering. Yes, it would be quite an engineering feat, but not really anything beyond other megaprojects. It's sad we haven't progressed further in harnessing this.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    1. Re:Wave and Tidal... by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is synchronizing the generated energy with the grid. Power electronics have now advanced to the point where it is possible to generate power any which way and then convert it electronically to suit the grid. This was not possible before. Consequently the new designs for wave power generation can be much simpler than they would have needed to be in order to maintain synchronization mechanically. For example, these tethered buoys will generate AC at the same frequency as the waves, which is a very low frequency and also somewhat erratic. The only way to hook that to the grid, is through expensive electronic conversion, but irrespective of the cost, this simply wasn't possible until about 20 years ago.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:Wave and Tidal... by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well for tidal power there are a few problems.
      1. They Bay of Fundy is kind of unusual. There is a lack of sites that are really that good.
      2. Enviromental impact. Tidal areas tend to be very sensitive.
      3. Cost. Except at few places tidal energy isn't very dense. It would require constructing huge systems.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Wave and Tidal... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It has been estimated by scientists that more water flows in and out of the bay of fundy
      every 12.4 hrs than all the rivers in the world.

      If true, it would be more than enough to power all of North America by itself with
      passive underwater Aquanators.( underwater Venturi focused turbines )

      230 billion tonnes of water per day.

      That is some serious generating capacity.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    4. Re:Wave and Tidal... by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  11. Global calamity by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let me be the first to object to using tidal energy as a "renewable" resource. Don't people know that it will cause the moon to fly away from the Earth at ever increasing speeds? It's not like the energy is free, you know. Call me a lunatic if you'd like, but I refuse to destroy our moon just to let people run their massive new television sets.

    1. Re:Global calamity by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 2, Funny

      No Problem... just mine the moon and remove mass to keep it in orbit.

  12. Scotlands cool wave tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Scotland has all sorts of cool wave projects on the go.

    There's a cool sub-sea wave farm which use the pressure changes to drive a generator.
    http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/wave-power-scotland/

    A huge 'snank' made of several sections, there are hydraulic rams between each section, which drive a generator.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4805076.stm

    The Isle wave project which uses wave power at the shoreline. When the wave hits it fills a tank, pushing out air to drive a turbine. The first one worked really well in the 70's but just after it was built there was a bad storm which trashed it!
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1032148.stm

  13. two birds one stone by DMoylan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  14. That's not all by Solandri · · Score: 2, Funny

    It doesn't just slow the moon (causing it to fly further away). It also slows down the earth's rotation until it matches the moon's orbital period! Do we really want to tap a power source which will ultimately result in a day being 709 hours long, if not longer as the moon flies further away? Hmm, I suppose if we don't update our labor laws mandating 8-hour workdays it might not be so bad...

  15. Re:Actually not. by jcr · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most of the wave energy is reflected back into the ocean

    Most?

    Not hardly. If that were the case, the ocean would be a lot rougher than it is. On a sandy or rocky shore, most of the wave's energy grinds the bits of the beach together, creating the sand, and slightly warming the water (which is offset by evaporation). The only places where you get most of the wave returned to the ocean is where it hits sheer, rocky cliffs.

    The ignorance and lack of common sense on Slashdot never ceases to fucking amaze.

    You amaze yourself?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  16. Re:Environmentalists will shut this down by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  17. works like a giant shake-up flashlight... by elyk · · Score: 3, Funny

    saves them work - those things tend to be waterproof already.

    --
    MS-DOS: Most Severe Denial of Service
    Free Online Backup
  18. some wave power devices already "semi" commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
  19. Re:Wave "as good as good as wind" is useless by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hm... I think about a third of our power is provided by wind. The wind farm is on prairie farmland, with crops growing underneath. Wind power is a little more expensive -- we can choose what mix of it we want in with our coal/gas power. I think it costs around 30% more. Several of the malls in the city have stickers on the doors saying that they're wind powered. The city runs the trains off wind as well. Several places in Europe make us look like wind power amateurs.

    Not everywhere has the wind resources we do, but in many places wind power doesn't ruin any land and provides a decent amount of power at not much higher cost than fossil fuels.

  20. There was a google tech talk about this by The+Prognosticator · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's a really interesting Google tech talk about this from a company who has been developing a system to harvest wave energy by placing giant floating "snakes" at the surface. It turns out that they are aiming to harvest in sea depths where the wave energy does not come from the tides, but instead from the wind blowing on the water, so indirectly it's "wind" energy.

    They address optimum places to locate wave farms (sea depth, wind constancy) and even did an environmental impact study. If all the wave energy that is feasible to harvest is harvested, it could completely offset the CO2 emissions from US electricity production.

  21. Re:Actually not. by hador_nyc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is a closed system. Just a lot more complex than you think. Most tsunami energy is refracted around islands but those that visibly hit beaches are reflected back. The wave is less coherent but is still there. The major cause of loss of energy in large open ocean waves is the friction of water and air molecules.
    There's a difference in perspective here. Your perspective is looking at the wave on the macro ocean scale. The people you're arguing with, and the people building this energy plant, are looking at it on a smaller scale. The fact is that they are looking to take some of the energy that is removed from the system by the shoreline, and convert that to electricity. Considering how much energy is in the ocean, and how much is added from solar/tidal forces, I can't believe taking even gigawatts would have any effect on the macro scale at all. Besides, if global warming is going to add energy to the oceans, then this would be a way to take some out that we added, right?
    --
    - Mike
    Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me