Slashdot Mirror
Generating Power From Ocean Buoys and Kites
cheezitmike writes "Researchers at Oregon State University are testing a new type of wave-energy converter to generate electricity from ocean waves: 'Even when the ocean seems calm, swells are moving water up and down sufficiently to generate electricity. ... For decades the challenge has been to build a device that can withstand monster waves and gale-force winds, not to mention corrosive saltwater, seaweed, floating debris and curious marine mammals. ... In the most recent prototypes, a thick coil of copper wire is inside the first component, which is anchored to the seafloor. The second component is a magnet attached to a float that moves up and down freely with the waves. As the magnet is heaved by the waves, its magnetic field moves along the stationary coil of copper wire. This motion induces a current in the wire — electricity.'"
Meanwhile, researchers at Stanford are working to design "turbine kites" that operate at 30,000 feet, where air currents flow much faster than they do close to the ground. Ken Caldeira, a Stanford associate professor, said, "If you tapped into 1% of the power in high-altitude winds, that would be enough to continuously power all civilization."
Can you suggest a source of energy that has no potential downside whatsoever? No? Then, kindly, stop whining.
I swear, this attitude has got to stop. "Oh solution X for problem Y has a (potential) downside, it's clearly unsafe, we should abandon it". Happens every single fucking time power generation comes up on slashdot. Since when did people start thinking like Pierson's Puppeteers?
If a solution to a problem (in this case power generation) offers fewer downsides than the existing solutions (fossil fuels mainly), then please, by all means, implement it. This goes for passive power collection (ground based, sea based or orbital), fusion energy, biomass energy, even fission. Worry about the consequences, but don't let those dangers blind you to the very real danger of staying the course with what we already have.
Zero point energy has no downsides, I'm going to attach one to my flying car when the Government stops suppressing the technology.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
Here in Oregon the greenies have been fighting against the energy buoys for a while. They are concerned that electromagnetic cables on the ocean floor could affect sea life, and that buoys could interfere with whale and fish migration. We've also been tearing down hydroelectric dams because it disturbs the salmon. We got Washington DC jacking up the price of non-enviro friendly electricity on one end and the greenies on the other end kicking the green energy in the balls.
First off these are by no means perfect solutions themselves. They're expensive for the power generated, are subject to the whims of nature and of course, could affect surrounding nature in unforeseen ways. What happens when you cause large dead spots in the ocean or wind currents? Have any real life tests been performed?
Personally I don't like the idea of off shore power generation, I'm sure it would expand and screw up the laws for sailors and the sea. Not to mention the large zones a few miles off shore that would be off limits to the public.
You also forgot to mention nuclear power, which beats everything else atm. If power companies want to experiment with this stuff i say go for it, but to realistically solve power needs with reliability America needs to get its nuclear ass in gear.
Just don't think about transmission losses... Those pesky realities mess up perfectly good theories.
Isn't the ZPE what supports the universe and provides a place for all those little superstrings to play? You might collapse the false vacuum or something. ;-)
"If you tapped into 1% of the power in high-altitude winds, that would be enough to continuously power all civilization."
And if you tapped into 1% of the power in the heat of the earth's core, that would be enough to power all of civilization on Zeti Reticuli, and if you tapped into 1% of the solar output by building a tiny Dyson sphere that would be enough to power all of Known Space. But let's first ask ourselves, is it practical and cost-effective?
Boondoggle: n. work of little or no value done merely to keep or look busy.
Political favor is unfortunately a far more dominant motivation to develop sustainable energy technology than sustainability itself. I've seen too many boondoggle projects get huge grants because they are the most visible, like big wind farms within sight of a large population, in favor of more suitable locations. If we can't implement a centuries-old technology effectively today at ground level, what good is a new technology in one of the most foreign environments known to mankind? Ignorant energy harvesting is what got us in this mess in the first place!
I have a strong respect for academic studies, but minds aimed at sustainable living are wasted on these implausible contrivances. There's enough dorks on Star Trek forums trying to prove useless theories. Don't waste our taxes on them.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
The simplest idea I've seen uses a kite on the end of a tether. The tether is paid out, generating energy, and then pulled back in, requiring energy. By changing the kite's angle of attack during the recovery phase, a net energy output can be obtained.
The energy output is supposed to be around 20kW per square metre... is there any reason why this wouldn't scale to 20GW for square-kilometre kites?
www.win.tue.nl/casa/meetings/special/ecmi08/pumping-kite.pdf
Nonsense. Of you are looking to switch power generation because the current method will kill your grandchildren, then it's perfectly reasonable to point out that the purposed solution will kill your grand children.
There is no reason to switch to something more expensive, complicated, or convoluted if the end result is the same even if just by another means. We are looking to get off fossil fuels because it effects the environment and has the potential of destroying a lot of life, switching to something that does the exact same thing is fucking stupid.
It seems to me that you are getting your panties in a know because someone asked about the effect on the weather. Wouldn't that be the same as worrying about the consequences? Just because you don't see any serious consequences doesn't mean there isn't any or the potential for any. Hell, if they are spotted early, then scams like this kite business can be avoided and money invested into real solutions can be more effective.
Jet Airliners already catch free rides in the jet stream to save fuel,
and as there are thousands of planes up around the world
with likely hundreds of them doing it no problems so far
that we can detect.
Also, there are huge current underwater like the antarctic circumpolar
current that has about 140 times the flow of all the rivers on Earth.
A minor tap on it would power the southern hemisphere most likely.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
The figures for solar are using the average power, but it's worth noting that a number of the places with the highest solar energy are not particularly suited to human habitation. The Sahara desert is 9,000,000km^2. Enough solar energy hits less than 1% of the Sahara to power the entire world.
That's not to say wind power is a waste of time. The nice thing about this idea is that it works at night. Without some very efficient storage system or room-temperature superconductors, it's not feasible to power the whole world with solar energy. It's much easier to take things like this seriously, however, without the needless hyperbole.
[1] Note I'm assuming 100% efficiency here. The original article stated 1% of the energy in the wind, not 1% of the extractable energy, meaning that he was also assuming 100% efficiency. Back in the real world, scale all of the areas up by another order of magnitude or so.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Can you suggest a source of energy that has no potential downside whatsoever?
American Blubber (TM) - very high energy density, suitable for use in conventional power stations. They're gonna die anyway so use it or lose it. Also will result in a significant reduction in Global Stupidity (TM). Unlike Global Warming, there is no doubt that Global Stuipidity (TM) has an anthropogenic origin.
An airliner flying in the jet stream doesn't slow it down significantly. There is a small effect when the airliner enters the jet stream (and accelerates), but I think in cruise flight the effect is very small. A power generating kite extracts energy from the jet stream. The description of enough energy to power civilization is surprising to me (though it may be true), are they sure they have counted that the kites will slow down the jet stream? Also the jet stream moves around and changes direction a lot, it can flow anywhere across the US (I don't know the pattern over the rest of the earth), mostly west to east, but can be due north or south. I don't know how you would move the anchorages for the kites around quickly enough to keep up.
Since when did people start thinking like Pierson's Puppeteers?
Since they became pampered, overfed first world types with a vast environmental footprint? Of the course the fact that vast areas of the planet are populated by people dying early and painfully because they don't aren't allowed to have technologies considered 'environmentally damaging' is conveniently not mentioned.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I think lightning already took care of that.
Consider the effect of coastlines on waves. That should give you a little bit of insight as to why there is no worry at all about consequences. As for the kites, consider the effects of trees mountains and buildings and how they and kites are all tiny specks in comparionson to a high pressure system covering half of the continent of North America. You are quibbling about farts in hurricanes here.
Changing the jet stream by 1% impacting weather? I would put money down that it varies by more than 5% over the course of a year. 1% of anything is RARELY an issue, and I doubt that it will be here.
The problem comes when you depend on one thing and increase the percentage more and more. For example, the world current depends on Coal, oil and natural gas. It is adding FAR more additional CO2 than all the natural processes such as Volcano's, space, etc. Had we added only 1% new CO2, we would not have issues.
In the end, what is needed is a DIVERSIFIED energy matrix from various sources, ideally, geo-thermal, solar, wind, kites, tidal, nukes, etc. Once we no longer depend on one source, then we will not be so insane as to deny actions that are visibly, let alone scientifically, occurring.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
America needs to get its nuclear ass in gear.
You clearly have no idea what fission is so why are you here and who is paying you?
These well-meaning schemes still founder on the basic problems of working in a salt-water environment and the issue of a very dilute energy source.
You can't make a generator that works directly off ocean-swells-- the swells come by so slowly you'd need a coil inductance of about ten thousand Henries.
A simple loop of wire, as postulated, has about a millionth of that.
Plus you need considerable iron to channel the magnetic flux. No way around it.
Regarding the kites, figure out what the very lightest generator weighs, per watt. Hint: not under 30 kilos per KW. Now assume you want to power 100 houses, say 50 KW.
Figure out the size of the kite needed to lift than many tons. Now at a 30 degree kitestring angle, the pull on the string will be twice the weight of the kite. Figure out how
much 60,000 feet of kite string that will take that kind of stress weighs. Now you need another large kite just to hold up the kite string.
And BTW, the "high speed" winds up there are not a panacea. They're high speed but low in density. The energy is, again, very dilute. You need to at least double the size of the kite to get the same amount of lift and pull as you can get at low altitudes.
.
Uh, no. You can't get any energy out of the pressure difference in the atmosphere or ocean. The pressure difference is there because the medium has already adjusted to the lowest energy state. You cant milk any more energy out of a system that is already at lowest equilibrium.
I say we just keep burning old tires to heat our homes and be done with it...
I'm sick of all the bogus reasons people come up with why something isn't going to work when they have no fucking idea what the are talking about.
It's not cost effective - No shit because no one is making 50 million of them yet.
It's going to change the weather - Ahh yeah and so does standing outside on a windy day jackass.
It's going to hurt the sea life - Ahh yeah and so does all the trash we dump in the ocean every day and don't forget about all the dead zones from algae overgrowth caused by fertilizer and raw sewage.
Get some fucking prospective people.. We already are killing the planet.
Step 1 is to learn to kill it sloooower.
Step 2 is improve step on step 1.
Step 3 is to get the fuck out of here.
Step 4 ????
Step 5 Profit FOREVER.
Most large dams are there also for water storage and flood control, to even the supply out over the year, and we really don't have much in the way of alternatives for that.
Oh, for God's sake this neurotic fingernail chewing has to stop. Any energy used to create electricity MUST, by the laws of physics, come from somewhere else. Sorry kiddies, but there is no magic wand to make energy appear without some consequences. Grow up.
By choosing to shoot down any and all alt-energy methods, you thereby choose to continue burning fossil fuels as the major method of electricity generation, which is also the majority source of carbon and old school pollution.
It's time to put on your big-boy pants, recognize we have a problem that needs solutions NOW and be willing to deal with the consequences. The second worst thing we could do, next to "nothing", is pick a single new method to pursue. We need to try them all to see what works, what the problems are, etc.. The answer will probably be a mix of new technologies.
We've become a nation, no a WORLD of spoiled whiners. Man up, take some fucking responsibility and DO something. Spoiled whining children should be spanked.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
The problem comes when you depend on one thing and increase the percentage more and more. For example, the world current depends on Coal, oil and natural gas. It is adding FAR more additional CO2 than all the natural processes such as Volcano's, space, etc. Had we added only 1% new CO2, we would not have issues.
You might want to check the veracity of that statement...
1% of anything is RARELY an issue, and I doubt that it will be here.
You probably also should note that CO2 is 0.0383% of the earth's atmosphere.
Mind the frickin' laser...
that's why I said this "The only way around it is better water management (try to not contaminate sources, make sure the infrastructure isn't leaky, charge a fair but reasonable price for mass water delivery, educate the populations better, etc), better conservation (variety of methods), and *more storage*."
I agree, water delivery, especially to big cities, is way undervalued and cheap. So are most of the other things they need to import. The US in particular has been using the rural "flyover" areas as a form of external exploited colony, that's why there are such wide diverse wage pay scales and cost of living, etc. Food, electricity, water, natgas, etc is all being sold way too cheap and the original owners, where this necessary stuff comes from, have been getting almost bupkis for it, so cheap the big cities waste it constantly and are extravagant with it.
In other words, I'll take the complaints of urbanites about our big trucks and mileage more seriously when I start to see them shut off those ludicrous advertise to the space aliens huge corporate lit up signs at night, and they get real on commuting and let a few million more people stay home to sit in front of a computer screen and work, as opposed to commuting back and forth twice a day to go sit in front of a computer screen in a totally unecessary huge corporate ego "office tower". What a freeking waste of resources and energy. Moving electrons on a data wire is loads cheaper than moving humans all the time. Along with all the wasted water and so on, Ya, golf, if it is a drought, let them play on all sand and dried dirt. When we are shutting down farmland because of lack of irrigation water, but golf courses are being watered, something is just *wrong*.
We also need a national water pipeline "grid", pipelines and deep reservoirs, to help balance out excess water in some areas to lack of water in other areas. As a nation we get enough water, we just don't yet have the means to really shift it around where it is needed better. I would have much rather seen them do something like that rather than bailout the casino bank wealth skimming "industry"