Slashdot Mirror


Electricity From Salty Water

BuzzSkyline writes "It's possible to produce energy by simply mixing fresh and salty water. Although chemists and physicists have long known about the untapped energy available where fresh water rivers pour into salty oceans — it's equivalent to 'each river in the world ending at its mouth in a waterfall 225 meters [739 feet] high' — the technology for exploiting the effect has been lacking. An Italian physicist seems to have solved the problem with the experimental demonstration of a 'salination cell' that creates power given nothing more than input sources of salty and fresh water. The researcher believes that this renewable, environmentally friendly energy source could be deployed in coastal areas and could provide another addition to the green-tech roster. A paper describing the technology is due to be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Physical Review Letters."

301 comments

  1. Quick! Grab all your salt shakers and run to the b by WolphFang · · Score: 5, Funny

    Quick! Grab all your salt shakers and run to the bathtub!

    --
    leather-dog muksihs
    Blog: @muksihs
  2. If only the professor knew. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Funny

    he key ingredient in a salt-water capacitor is "activated carbon," extremely porous carbon made from wood, coal, or coconut shells.

    Gilligan could have lived well on that island.

    1. Re:If only the professor knew. by Bandman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Really???

      You chose to make a coconut joke on slashdot, and DIDN'T include the phrase "it could grip it by the husk"???

      You silly 8-digit UIDs...

      Your mother was a hamster

    2. Re:If only the professor knew. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he key ingredient in a salt-water capacitor is "activated carbon," extremely porous carbon made from wood, coal, or coconut shells.

      Gilligan could have lived well on that island.

      The professor made a device to recharge the batteries in the radio they had...

    3. Re:If only the professor knew. by jd2112 · · Score: 4, Funny

      He probably invented it... Yet he still couldn't fix a hole in a boat.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    4. Re:If only the professor knew. by Zxarr · · Score: 1

      At least now we know how the Professor kept the radio running for so long...

    5. Re:If only the professor knew. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great. There's already an unprecedented amount of activated carbon in the water table from water filters and pissed-out pharmaceuticals. Same blame the carbon levels for allergies which have risen at approximately the same rate faster than previously. Pharmaceutical companies wouldn't take steps to prevent the rise in allergies, would they? Those billions of sales would weigh heavily on their consciences...

    6. Re:If only the professor knew. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      the real stupidity of the Professor was that as a straight guy he wasn't shagging the girls.

    7. Re:If only the professor knew. by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      I figured that he secretly had a thing for Gilligan...

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    8. Re:If only the professor knew. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would he fix the hole in the boat? The only straight, unmarried guy on an island with Ginger and Mary-Ann.

      C'mon, don't say you didn't know with all that "Little Buddy" stuff between the Skipper and Giligan

    9. Re:If only the professor knew. by slindsay · · Score: 1

      don't u get it?; he didn't Want to leave the Island!

      --
      "Whatever you can let be will let you be."
    10. Re:If only the professor knew. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      nah, Gilligan obviously was the Skipper's bitch. And that old upper-crust couple seemed a sham marriage to hide Thurston's homosexuality.

    11. Re:If only the professor knew. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      but attempts to leave were made and to make communication with the outside world. The professor just wasn't good enough at boat building to make a repair that would last for the thousand mile journey, and the waters said to be heavily shark infested for rafts.

    12. Re:If only the professor knew. by SkipFrehly · · Score: 1

      He was just peeved about being tagged as "...and the rest" in the theme music to the later seasons.

      Thank you Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie.

      --
      So long, thanks for all the fish.
  3. Do I get get peak or off-peak rates... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...for pissing in a swimming pool?

    1. Re:Do I get get peak or off-peak rates... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Many people have told me that I have a shocking personality...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  4. Double Duty? by drrck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So can we expect this to work in parallel with existing hydro power generation techniques?

    1. Re:Double Duty? by localman57 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Only if the waterfall is on the edge of the ocean...

    2. Re:Double Duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seem to have missed the day in school where they taught us that rivers end immediately after hydroelectric dams.

    3. Re:Double Duty? by mcgrew · · Score: 1, Interesting

      At first I thought "probably not". Hydroelectric is actually gravity and solar power; you need a waterfall, or a place where the river is channelled into a smaller space (like a dam). Hoover Dam and Tom Sauk come to mind.

      Then I realized that not every river is as big as the Mississippi; Even though most damns are far inland, perhaps you could dam small streams or rivers flowng into the ocean. They dam the big ones bacause the bigger the river, the more power you can get from it.

      What I'd like more explanation of is how this technique works - TFA doesn't say. I got the impression that the writer didn't understand, either. Can any of you chemists/physicists explain this phenomena in layman's terms for us?

    4. Re:Double Duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      in a car analogy please.

    5. Re:Double Duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, we can add salt to the clouds.

    6. Re:Double Duty? by markk · · Score: 1

      Of course. This has nothing to do with dams or tidal power or anything like that. This is about estuaries and deltas. Think about installations in the Nile, or Amazon deltas. Wherever rivers run into the sea actually. That is where you find fresh and salt water together. It could be a limited but useful augment in some coastal areas. If the fresh water is running into the ocean anyhow we can use "concentration potential" to get some power at the end of the cycle. Ultimately this is solar power which came from evaporation which created the freshwater in the first place. It is an interesting idea. The devil will be in the construction details which will determine whether this is scalable.

    7. Re:Double Duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if we had a man-made dam & waterfall at the edge of the ocean? Double dip on the energy production?

    8. Re:Double Duty? by AP31R0N · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since the Earth is flat (with the Sun orbiting around it), this should be a cinch.

      When we find the edge of the Earth we can push all the Darwinists off!

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    9. Re:Double Duty? by Bandman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How do you propose to get the water high enough at that point to fall into the ocean?

    10. Re:Double Duty? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I got the impression that the writer didn't understand, either. Can any of you chemists/physicists explain this phenomena in layman's terms for us?

      Intuitively, anything that happens spontaneously (e.g. water falling down in a gravitational field) must be downwards in free energy or else it wouldn't happen (with any significant probability). So you know that when you pour together your rum and coke into a glass, the final state (uniform mix) must be lower in free energy than the initial state (rum on the bottom, coke on top).

      Slightly less intuitively, you can understand it very simply with a lattice model of solution under the assumption that there are no energetic effects (true to first order). Imagine the solvent as a lattice in which each square/cube (2D or 3D, your choice) can be occupied by solute or not -- now count up the configurations that correspond to a mixed solution versus an unmixed solution. That difference is configurational entropy and drives it to seek the macroscopic state with the most microscopic realizations since, in the absence of significant energetic effects, every microscopic state is equally likely.

      Of course, it's on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_of_mixing

    11. Re:Double Duty? by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      When we find the edge of the Earth we can push all the Darwinists off!

      Should be a cinch to spot from orbit! ... oh wait ...

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    12. Re:Double Duty? by Gerafix · · Score: 1

      I imagine one day this procedure would be accomplished by desalination plants next to the ocean. Then just pumping in ocean water into the desalinated water. At least one day it could conceivably be profitable enough, especially once we use up our groundwater supplies desalination plants will be in high demand.

    13. Re:Double Duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um,....you do realize he said 'LAYMANs' Terms.....waht the eff is 'CONFIGURATIONAL ENTROPY'?

    14. Re:Double Duty? by billybob_jcv · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows the Earth is a disc, balanced on 4 elephants, and all sitting on the back of the Great A'tuin.

    15. Re:Double Duty? by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 1

      really tall levees (sp?) that extend back some hundreds of miles.

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    16. Re:Double Duty? by SBrach · · Score: 4, Funny

      Laymen don't have PhD's in Chemistry anymore?? This country's really going down the shitter.

    17. Re:Double Duty? by cthulu_mt · · Score: 1

      No, its turtles all the way down!

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    18. Re:Double Duty? by StellarFury · · Score: 2, Informative

      Okay, what this means is that the energy contained in a glass of fresh water is higher than the energy of the same amount of water with salt in it.

      Every time you add salt to a glass of water, the temperature of the water increases. Imperceptibly, to most people, but the water actually heats up. That experiment is usually a lab in a physical chemistry/thermodynamics class.

      Where does the energy come from? The fact that having salt in the water is more stable than not having salt in the water. We could actually explain THAT, but then there have to be terms like "configurational entropy" involved.

      The methodology for the cell that actually converts this "mixing energy" is well beyond me. It has something to do with electrostatics related to this entropy of mixing. It's not explained in TFA because TFA-writer probably didn't understand it either. You could go to the original paper, maybe. If you have access.

      So if a car that's made of salt and a car that's made of water crash into each other....

    19. Re:Double Duty? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      So can we expect this to work in parallel with existing hydro power generation techniques?

      Only if the waterfall is on the edge of the ocean...

      So we could put these all along the perimeter of Earth. The only problem would be getting that power back to us.

    20. Re:Double Duty? by amRadioHed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Desalination is extremely expensive, that would be a waste to use a large amount of energy to make fresh water, and then turn around and spoil it to get back a fraction of your original energy.

      On the other hand, desalination plants do create plenty of waste salt, so I wonder if you could get the same effect from the difference in salinity of sea water and the plants extremely salty waste water. You wouldn't make surplus energy, but it could reduce the costs of making fresh water.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    21. Re:Double Duty? by MadnessASAP · · Score: 1

      You could get the water on it's return trip to the ocean after it's been through the waste treatment plant, treated sewer water on one side and the salty waste on the other. Of course you'll still run at a net loss (damn you thermodynamics!) but it could still be better then nothing.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    22. Re:Double Duty? by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

      So can we expect this to work in parallel with existing hydro power generation techniques?

      No, but you can use it in series, downstream from a dam.

    23. Re:Double Duty? by Tweenk · · Score: 4, Informative

      In super-layman terms:
      When you put noodles in hot water, they swell. They want to replace noodles with salt water and capture the energy of swelling.

      In slightly less layman terms:
      Recall the principle of induction charging: you hold a grounded metal plate next to a charged one, disconnect the ground, and then remove the charged plate. Both plates are now charged, even though in the beginning one of them was grounded. The effect exploited in the device is similar, except they use the higher concentration ions in the salty water as the 'charged plate' and flushing with less salty water as the equivalent of 'removing the charged plate'.

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    24. Re:Double Duty? by James+McP · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The article actually has an interesting addendum at the end that explains it, albeit in an interesting vernacular.

      In short, salt water is ionic. A small initial electric charge is given to the two pieces of carbon (one positive, the other negative). The sodium and chlorine ions migrate to the respective carbon and thanks to the very high surface area of activated carbon, you get a very high quantity of ions. The water source then switches to fresh water. Elecrostatic force tries to keep the sodium & chlorine ions near the carbon but diffusion pulls them away. The work done to pull the ions away is what generates the power.

      The inventor that it can generate as much as 1.6KJ / Liter of fresh water. If we diverted 10% of the Missisippi River's outflow into one of these facilities you get ~2.6GW of more or less continuous power. (Mississippi = 572,000 ft^3/s * 28.32 L/ft^3 x 10% x 1.6KJ = 2.6GJ/s = 2.6GW)

      --
      I've been on slashdot so long I'm starting to get out of touch with the cool stuff if it ain't on slashdot.
    25. Re:Double Duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (sp?)

      Grammar and courtesy foul. Go look up the word right now. There's no excuse for this nonsense anywhere, but I just can't stand it on News for Nerds.

    26. Re:Double Duty? by conspirator57 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i wonder if estuary ecosystems depend on this energy TFA proposes we harvest.

      what effect will exploiting the "green" energy have on the environment?

      will it actually be green or is this going to lead to 1000s of mini Aral seas?

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    27. Re:Double Duty? by omnichad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The energy taken to desalinate the water is exactly what you gain back by remixing. Could never conceivably be even logical to do that.
       
      Turning a turbine makes electricity. I know! Let's hook up an electric motor to it to make it spin and generate electricity!
       
      Oh, oh! And let's start using light bulbs to generate solar power!

    28. Re:Double Duty? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Actually, table salt will cause cooling when poured into water. It's still thermodynamically favored because deltaG = deltaH - TdeltaS, so the large increase in entropy overcomes the positive enthalpic change.

    29. Re:Double Duty? by Gerafix · · Score: 1

      The idea is that the materials science will eventually catch up to significantly decrease the amount of energy required to filter the water. Membrane technology has already reduced the energy needed through using reverse osmosis instead of thermal distillation. Carbon nanotube filters would do wonders in that area, and they can't be too far off I imagine.

    30. Re:Double Duty? by Gerafix · · Score: 1

      Since the desalination plant would probably be used for drinking water as well they could conceivably use excess water for energy reclamation. A power source for emergencies perhaps.

    31. Re:Double Duty? by ElectricRook · · Score: 1

      The problem is that most rivers of any size have a large delta area of brackish water, not a thin region of fresh/salt water.

      Environmentalists would have a cow if you tried to put electrolytic plates into either a river or the ocean. They'll probably say it makes the rivers run backwards or the ocean currents to turn 90 degrees or some such thing.

      It is kind of interesting though, even Tesla did some work on "magneto-hydro-dynamics". I read some stuff on thermo-magneto-hydro-dynamics a few years back.

      --
      - High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
    32. Re:Double Duty? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      If they have fresh water to power this whole setup, then I think they'd be better off just purifying the fresh water. Plus, there really is no "excess" water at a desalination plant. It takes an enormous amount of energy to get a small amount of clean water. The only way to get excess clean water is to use a lot more energy.

    33. Re:Double Duty? by Jay+L · · Score: 4, Funny

      So you know that when you pour together your rum and coke into a glass, the final state (uniform mix) must be lower in free energy than the initial state (rum on the bottom, coke on top).

      I donmt understanf i poored five rum nf cokes and this made les ssens each time

    34. Re:Double Duty? by sycodon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Take water from the mouth of the Mississippi, take water from the Gulf, mix it into this device, then dump it right back into the ocean.

      The water you back into the Gulf is exactly the same as the water that just flowed into the Gulf.

      The Gulf doesn't know the difference and the Mississippi doesn't know the difference.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    35. Re:Double Duty? by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

      Which proves that thermodynamics, as cool as it is, sucks balls.

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    36. Re:Double Duty? by skarphace · · Score: 1

      *cough* katrina *cough*

      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    37. Re:Double Duty? by shentino · · Score: 1

      What is A'tuin standing on?

    38. Re:Double Duty? by Adm.Wiggin · · Score: 1

      Did I miss some insightfully hidden sarcasm here? Why is this Insightful instead of Funny? I laughed, but am I missing something besides the obvious humor?

    39. Re:Double Duty? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Jeez, next you'll be telling us that there's no such thing as perpetual motion!

    40. Re:Double Duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Environmentalists would have a cow if you tried to put electrolytic plates into either a river or the ocean. They'll probably say it makes the rivers run backwards or the ocean currents to turn 90 degrees or some such thing.

      Do shut up. You've reached the level of a religious nutcase. You can't conceive that anyone who might want to consider the environmental impact of anything could possibly have a valid opinion; you're detracting from a reasoned debate. You've conjured up a mental monster, the horrible, job-stealing 'environmentalist', and ascribing to it anything you don't like.

      Environmental impact is a cost/benefit analysis, nothing more. If this device killed all life within a thousand miles to provide 1 kW of electricity, that would be bad, no? If it didn't hurt a fly, cured cancer, and powered the Earth for the next nine million years, that would be good? If its cost and benefits fell somewhere in the middle, does it make sense to totally dismiss any environmental concerns, no matter what impact it might have on humanity? Should we arrive at a decision through reasoned debate, or just do it because we can?

      Re-examine your prejudices, sir. Alternately, try being funny. It helps.

    41. Re:Double Duty? by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

      Every time you add salt to a glass of water, the temperature of the water increases. Imperceptibly, to most people, but the water actually heats up. That experiment is usually a lab in a physical chemistry/thermodynamics class.

      Quite the contrary, salt crystals are very ordered systems with low entropy and dissolving them in water thus results in a temperature decrease. This is how cooling packs you find in first aid kits work. They contain a bag of water and pellets of ammonium nitrate salt. When you break the water bag inside the pellets will dissolve in the water causing the pack to cool down. Depending on the salt and amount of water used the temperature drop can be quite large and care must thus be taken so you don't cause frost burn by applying the pack for too long.

    42. Re:Double Duty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Australia, we have a shortage of fresh water, and there are tentative plans for desalination plants that use power to extract the salt from seawater. It's kind of amusing to see that there are places in the world with the reverse problem - so much fresh water that it might be feasible as a source of power.

      Ooh, I know! We can power our desalination plants with this technique, letting the fresh water mix back in with the seawater! There's no physical law against this, right... ? ;)

    43. Re:Double Duty? by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Desalination plants produce brine, though, which has more salt than ocean water, so conceivably you could increase the efficiency by combining seawater and brine.

    44. Re:Double Duty? by BobisOnlyBob · · Score: 1

      It's a turtle. It swims, duh.

    45. Re:Double Duty? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      But at some remote location, I'd hope. Mixing the brine with seawater right there would just make desalination harder. Then again, they would already have had to take care of that.

    46. Re:Double Duty? by Hafnia · · Score: 1

      Wow ..... 2.6 Gigawatts ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnqtXOi1iaY

    47. Re:Double Duty? by ElectricRook · · Score: 1

      You can't conceive that anyone who might want to consider the environmental impact of anything could possibly have a valid opinion
      Here in California, we cannot get a transmission line from a desert solar station to a nearby city.

      --
      - High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
    48. Re:Double Duty? by chudnall · · Score: 1

      going down the shitter.

      Another source of free energy! I'll be installing a generator on my toilet this afternoon.

      --
      Disclaimer: Evolution comes with NO WARRANTY, except for the IMPLIED WARRANTY of FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
    49. Re:Double Duty? by StellarFury · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my bad. Forgot the results of that one experiment - I was just assuming that since dissolution was spontaneous, the process was exothermic. Silly thermodynamics.

      I was never good at Phys Chem anyway. :P

  5. Researcher! by stevey · · Score: 1

    Typo in the summary:

    The reearcher believes that this renewable, environmentally friendly energy source could be deployed in coastal areas and could provide another addition to the green-tech roster

    Obviously that should be "researcher"

    1. Re:Researcher! by socrplayr813 · · Score: 1

      No, he's clearly just become an archer multiple times. Re-archer. Duh.

      --
      The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
    2. Re:Researcher! by SBrach · · Score: 1

      Now that I know what a re-archer is, can you give me the definition of a re-earcher?

    3. Re:Researcher! by jeffshoaf · · Score: 1

      Now that I know what a re-archer is, can you give me the definition of a re-earcher?

      An archer who aims by ear multiple times!

      --
      Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
    4. Re:Researcher! by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      An archer that always aims for the ear?

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
  6. What about the fishies? by hargrand · · Score: 1, Informative

    "The reearcher believes that this renewable, environmentally friendly energy source..."

    Don't bother. PETA and Greenpeace both called and said it'll kill too many endagered fish species.

    1. Re:What about the fishies? by vodevil · · Score: 1

      Would this have a huge impact on fish species? If this is occurring in a natural estuary, there should be minimal environmental impact.

    2. Re:What about the fishies? by localman57 · · Score: 4, Funny

      PETA and Greenpeace both called and said it'll kill too many endagered fish species.

      Dang it! I warned these people. Last month I sent them a letter:
      Dear PETA,
      While I love animals as much as the next guy, I'm sick and tired of your stupid press releases. You do more harm than good by making animal lovers seem rediculous to the general public.

      Therefore, I have no choice but to make you reconsider your PR tactics. Starting next week, any time you issue a press release that does animals more harm than good, I'm going to the pet store, and buying a hampster. Then I'm going to take it out in the parking lot and hit it with a shovel.
      Sincerely,
      LocalMan57

    3. Re:What about the fishies? by man_who_was_thursday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suspect this could have a profound effect on environments where salt and fresh water mix gradually and where the mix changes with tidal flow. I live in Virginia, and I can't imagine this would work without significant environmental challenges to the coastal waterways like those that flow into the Chesapeake Bay.

    4. Re:What about the fishies? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Then we put giant blenders at the openings of each intake pipe.

      "we are not killing any fish, we don't see any fish entering our pipelines."

      see simple solution. and the amount of chum flowing out will make the fish populations thrive.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:What about the fishies? by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      I guess PETA forgot that rivers have been dumping fresh water into the oceans for millions (if not billions) of years now. Maybe their lawyers told PETA that suing a river for damages is sort of difficult.

      Setting up a bunch of energy 'stations' where there is brackish water sounds like a win. The article didn't say anything about damming up the river, or needing to be in deep water. So set these up along the shore where water river cannot go anyway, less blocking of the river, less or no blocking of river traffic, power sent to the people. Really sounds like a win. Lets see what is said when the other shoe drops.

    6. Re:What about the fishies? by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      That may not work. You might have to ramp it up over time. Start with hamsters, sure. Work your way up through cats, dogs, and eventually you can work your way up to seals.

      Personally, I'm going to eat another steak every time they issue a press release. Not sure how effective it'll be, but it's sure tasty.

    7. Re:What about the fishies? by mcgrew · · Score: 0, Troll

      Not every river mouth harbors endangered species.

    8. Re:What about the fishies? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Oh, dude, I could have told you that would backfire! You need to read PETA's website, and on the page where they describe their mission to ensure that all animals are treated ethically, with repsect, and neither harmed nor exploited by humans, go to the bottom and read the fine print where it says "*except for hamsters, because they're dicks."

      Seriously, nobody likes hamsters. They're going to keep issuing these press releases and you're going to be stuck buying a lot of hamsters!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:What about the fishies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok so we shouldn't put any of these power plants near the Chesapeake Bay. But just because we can't use it there doesn't mean we can't use it on any estuary system! Also according to TFA, the output water doesn't have ocean level salinity; instead it is, to use TFA's terms, "slightly brackish". Therefore it should be similar to water found in at least some natural estuaries.

    10. Re:What about the fishies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well, he tried gerbils, but every time he swung the shovel he hit Richard Gere.

    11. Re:What about the fishies? by vodevil · · Score: 1

      That may not work. You might have to ramp it up over time. Start with hamsters, sure. Work your way up through cats, dogs, and eventually you can work your way up to seals.

      Personally, I'm going to eat another steak every time they issue a press release. Not sure how effective it'll be, but it's sure tasty.

      I read this wrong as ramp it over time, so you start by using a shovel, then later on you put down cinder blocks and some plywood, and start jumping a row of hamsters with your monster truck.

    12. Re:What about the fishies? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I love to see people wince when I use the phrase "I clubbed that thing like a baby seal!"

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    13. Re:What about the fishies? by caluml · · Score: 3, Funny

      You start sentences "I clubbed that thing" often enough to "have a saying" for it? :)

    14. Re:What about the fishies? by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 0

      PETA does not stand for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. It stands for People Eating Tasty Animals. They are just trying to keep all the tasty animals for themselves! I am going out to eat a steak before they finish all the cows.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    15. Re:What about the fishies? by radtea · · Score: 1

      If this is occurring in a natural estuary, there should be minimal environmental impact.

      No, no: you have to understand that making up ersatz objections is a mark of sophistication and intelligence amongst the ignorant and uneducated.

      So while your point is valid, it won't sway anyone committed to demonstrating their brilliance by making up objections.

      I think the best answer to your comment is to point out that the energy this device extracts from the mixing process would otherwise be released into the environment, and therefore these devices would result in MASSIVE IRREVERSIBLE COOLING OF THE ESTUARINE ENVIRONMENT! That will kill fish, birds, wildlife!

      That objection makes perfect sense so long as you are completely innumerate, and therefore don't realize that the energy release we are talking about is equivalent to not more than 0.4 C, even at the 1.6 kJ per litre of fresh water that is speculatively suggested as a maximum output for this device.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    16. Re:What about the fishies? by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      Those poor Hamsters, where do you think Ham comes from.... Pigs, LOL, only Pork Sausage and Pork Chops come from pigs. Ham comes from Hamsters.

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    17. Re:What about the fishies? by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't bother. PETA and Greenpeace both called and said it'll kill too many endagered fish species.

      Fish? Oh, you mean sea kittens.

    18. Re:What about the fishies? by jcr · · Score: 1

      making up ersatz objections is a mark of sophistication and intelligence amongst the ignorant and uneducated.

      No kidding. Seems like they swarm /. whenever there's a story about power generation, new space launch techniques, or medical advances.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    19. Re:What about the fishies? by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      Li'l Lisa Fish Slurry! Lumpy(12016) is Mr. Burns!

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    20. Re:What about the fishies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Golfer, I'd guess.

    21. Re:What about the fishies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yet.

    22. Re:What about the fishies? by amoeba1911 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That wont bother PETA at all. They have nothing against killing animals senselessly. They only get angry if you try to justify the death of the animal by using its fur or meat for something useful, but if you just throw it all out it's all good with them. http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

    23. Re:What about the fishies? by James+McP · · Score: 1

      You really want to confuse them, change your phrase to "clubbed *WITH* a wet baby seal!" The double take is well worth it.

      I wish I had the Flash skill to make an animation of an eskimo weilding a pair of baby seals like nunchucks. Possibly to club chickens to death for Colonel Sanders.

      --
      I've been on slashdot so long I'm starting to get out of touch with the cool stuff if it ain't on slashdot.
    24. Re:What about the fishies? by unifyingtheory · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dude, I am totally going to put one of these awesome banners on my site!

    25. Re:What about the fishies? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Where....do hamburgers come from?

    26. Re:What about the fishies? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Actually estuaries are among the most productive of marine environments.

    27. Re:What about the fishies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PETA does not stand for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

      Wouldn't it be hilarious if People Eating Tasty Animals were able to get People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals thrown off of peta.org for cybersquatting.

    28. Re:What about the fishies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A baby seal walks into a bar and has a seat.

      Bartender: So what'll it be?

      Baby Seal: Anything but Canadian Club.

  7. The water battery: now a reality! by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 3, Funny

    I hope the Energizer Bunny owns water fins and a snorkel!

  8. neat by Sir_Real · · Score: 0

    So does this mean the process produces as much electricity as it takes to de-salinate water? Or is it not a two reaction like that?

    1. Re:neat by davegravy · · Score: 1

      Are you looking to build a perpetual motion machine?

    2. Re:neat by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Only if both processes are 100% efficient. Neither can be.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Keep in mind desalination is

      salt_water -> salt + water

      whereas this reaction is

      water + salt_water -> less_salty_water

      You'll note that they're not exactly inverses of each other.

    4. Re:neat by jbeaupre · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It produces less (laws of thermodynamics are a bitch). But you point out an interesting way to describe it to people. i.e. It takes energy to desalinate sea water, this process is sort of like running desalination in reverse to generate energy.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    5. Re:neat by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Technically, they don't have to be for our purposes.

      The fresh water streams exist due to an external power source, Sol.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    6. Re:neat by RKThoadan · · Score: 1

      It certainly seems like it would work just fine to run it on straight salt instead of saltwater though, so the equations still mostly work. The water in saltwater is just serving as a handy salt transport mechanism. I can't imagine a practical application for running it on pure salt, although I suppose some survivalists might be a fan of it for a home generator. It's certainly easier to store salt than most typical fuels.

    7. Re:neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      add a little water to both sides:
      salt_water -> salt + water
      (salt_water + water) -> (salt + water) + water
      less_salty_water -> salt_water + water

    8. Re:neat by Rayban · · Score: 4, Funny

      This would be a great way to power all those desalinization plants on the coast!

      --
      æeee!
    9. Re:neat by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Weirdly, it could power some. Take their example of mixing brackish and salt water to get electricity (or salty with very salty). Use the electricity to desalinate.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    10. Re:neat by mcgrew · · Score: 0, Troll

      The best way to desalinate water is to let it evaporate from the ocean, then catch it when it falls from the sky.

    11. Re:neat by 4181 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Keep in mind desalination is

      salt_water -> salt + water

      Show me a single commercial example where this is the case.

      Desalination is:

      lots of salt_water -> lots of slightly_saliter_water + a little fresh_water

      High rejection ratios help reduce the energy requirements as greater temperatures or pressures (depending on the method) are required for greater salt concentrations.

    12. Re:neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the process it's more like:

      salt water + energy > salt + water

      this reaction is:

      salt water + water > less_salty_water + energy

    13. Re:neat by F-3582 · · Score: 1

      Yup, you could place those facilities at the deltas of rivers for a never-ending supply of fresh water which would otherwise go unused. Only try not to kill too many salmons in the process.

    14. Re:neat by tonyreadsnews · · Score: 1

      Actually that might work out well!
      Think 2 plants both running on solar power during the day.

      At night, the water/salt from plant number 2 are recombined to power plant # 1!!!

    15. Re:neat by almightyon11 · · Score: 1

      Never heard of osmotic pressure? It's not that complicated. (O.P. = iMRT) Just convert that pressure into electric energy...

    16. Re:neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that only works well (is "best") if it falls from the sky near you.

    17. Re:neat by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1

      It produces less (laws of thermodynamics are a bitch). But you point out an interesting way to describe it to people. i.e. It takes energy to desalinate sea water, this process is sort of like running desalination in reverse to generate energy.

      This makes a lot of sense. Much in the same way it takes energy to say... read books for example. If we simply unread lots of books we could actually generate power.

      Looks like US schools are heading up this green initiative.

    18. Re:neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, yes. Desalination plants currently dump waste brine into the ocean. They could put this brine in a forward-osmosis cell with regular seawater and recover a significant portion of the energy.

    19. Re:neat by unifyingtheory · · Score: 1

      less_salty_water is salt_water nonetheless.

    20. Re:neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wait, you mean, we can use a river of fresh water to generate a never-ending supply of fresh water? Brilliant!

    21. Re:neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind desalination is

      less_salt_water -> salty_water + water

      whereas this reaction is

      water + salt_water -> less_salty_water

      You'll note that they're exactly inverses of each other.

      FYP

  9. Urine Powered Society by davegravy · · Score: 5, Funny

    A device that gleans usable energy from the mixing of salty and fresh waters has been developed by University of Milan-Bicocca physicist Doriano Brogioli. If scaled up, the technology could potentially power coastal homes, though some scientists caution that such an idea might not be realistic.

    Forget scaling it up. Put one such device in every fresh water toilet bowl.

    1. Re:Urine Powered Society by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      And tell everyone to drink less water!

      More yellow == more lights!

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    2. Re:Urine Powered Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not funny, it's a good idea. free enegry recovery from relieving ourselves!

  10. Brilliant, Holmes, brilliant! by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 0, Troll

    In a time where there is a huge and rapidly growing potable water crisis, some bozo creates an economic incentive to salinate what precious fresh water there is! By Jove, Holmes, you've done it again!

    Like the whole corn-based ethanol disaster never happened. Jesus H. Christ...

    1. Re:Brilliant, Holmes, brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Hey retard!! Yes, I'm talking to you "Un pobre guey" *MORON*

      You see the rivers going into the oceans? There you go. I'm not even going to try connecting these two dots for you. A drooling moron with single digit IQ probably can do it.

    2. Re:Brilliant, Holmes, brilliant! by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are serious transportation issues with piping potable water from places where it is plentiful to places where it is needed. That's WHY we have a potable water crisis in some areas (especially the American Southwest) while we have no problem whatsoever in others (like the Northeast or the mouth of the Missisippi). In those places there's already huge amounts of water flowing into the ocean. This technology would allow that water that is already being mixed with ocean water to generate electricity in the process.

      Also there are situations where water is not potable due to issues other than salinity, and for the purposes of this process might be considered "fresh" compared to saline water.

      An interesting thing would be if this could be used to provide for cheap solar power - Some of the largest "solar power" we use today are salt concentration ponds - they don't provide electrical power BUT they do provide the function of separating salt from water in large solar ponds. It would be horrendously inefficient per unit of surface area, but the cost is so low that large surface areas could be achieved.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    3. Re:Brilliant, Holmes, brilliant! by mrisaacs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you RTFA (pardon me, I forgot this is SlashDot) the same effect can be gotten by mixing salt water with more highly salinated water (made by evaporating sea water - say, using a solar evaporation pool) or lightly polluted water (non-potable).

      I could also venture a guess, based on the fact this is a solution postulated for coastal locations, that the process could also be sited at or near the mouth of a river - say one the empties into the sea or ocean? In that case only fresh water that was destined to end up mixed into salt water would be used.

      --
      ...carrier dead.....
    4. Re:Brilliant, Holmes, brilliant! by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I guess you don't know about estuaries and their intimate relation with water use, wildlife habitat, etc. I would speculate that you are precisely 17 years old, the age at which a person knows and understands absolutely everything in the world.

    5. Re:Brilliant, Holmes, brilliant! by mcgrew · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      There's no water shortage where I live. Fresh, drinkable water falls from the sky and it's free! The "water shortage" is caused by people stupidly moving to deserts and expecting rain. It isn't a water problem, it's a stupid people problem.

    6. Re:Brilliant, Holmes, brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you like all the desert dweller to move into your back garden though? That might work for e.g. the SW united states moving to Oregon, but if China gets a drought this century, or the monsoon fails and India has to move, you may not like having a billion new neighbours.

    7. Re:Brilliant, Holmes, brilliant! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's not entirely true! Water shortages in the US are also caused by people farming on the prairies and pumping out the aquifers. Water shortages in the Third World typically aren't half so much water-shortages as potable water shortages.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    8. Re:Brilliant, Holmes, brilliant! by mcgrew · · Score: 0

      That's a "people problem", too - overpopulation.

    9. Re:Brilliant, Holmes, brilliant! by mcgrew · · Score: 0

      This technique doesn't require potable water, only salt-free water.

    10. Re:Brilliant, Holmes, brilliant! by T+Murphy · · Score: 4, Funny

      It isn't a water problem, it's a stupid people problem.

      But people are mostly made of water, so now you have a stupid water problem...

    11. Re:Brilliant, Holmes, brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean this really isn't prime beachfront property?!? But what about my ownership of the Golden Gate Bridge?!?

    12. Re:Brilliant, Holmes, brilliant! by spun · · Score: 1

      AC was being a dick, but you just brought up a completely different point. The first issue you mentioned was lack of potable water. The second issue was destruction of estuaries. These two things are not related. While destruction of estuaries is at least possibly an issue (and I'm quite positive you don't know for sure, you just want to seem smart and concerned about the planet, so you bring up anything you think might possibly be an issue, but you are JUST GUESSING,) the idea that we could get fresh water out of estuaries is NOT, as pointed out so eloquently by our dickish AC friend.

      However, this slip is not the most hilarious part of your posts. In order to see what the really, really outrageously funny part is, consider the impact on estuaries of extracting fresh water from them. I'll wait...

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    13. Re:Brilliant, Holmes, brilliant! by jcr · · Score: 1

      This technique doesn't require potable water, only salt-free water.

      Not even salt-free. It requires two sources of water where one is much less salty than the other.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    14. Re:Brilliant, Holmes, brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly do you think is happening to "precious fresh water" as it exits the mouth of a river? That's right - it goes into the ocean. If you're suggesting that MORE rivers will go into the ocean than currently do as a result of this technology, there's no hope for you...

    15. Re:Brilliant, Holmes, brilliant! by Halotron1 · · Score: 1

      FTA: The Mississipi delta, where the freshwater river pours into the salty Gulf of Mexico, would be an enormous source of energy if we could tap it.

      It would be a HUGE bad idea to try to tap into the Great Lakes and try to cart all that water over to the ocean or something.
      Tons of water is already being diverted to dry states like Arizona, and being used on farms and bottled water.

      Seriously though, even though the Mississippi dumps a bunch of freshwater into the gulf, you've gotta think that changing the chemical balance has got to have repercussions.

      Day After Tomorrow anyone?

    16. Re:Brilliant, Holmes, brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Day After Tomorrow, the one where helicopters were suddenly frozen in the sky by currents "from space" and crashed? Whatever. Can I cite C.H.U.D. in a biology discussion?

  11. Economy is a Subset of Ecology by weston · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't bother. PETA and Greenpeace both called and said it'll kill too many endagered fish species.

    While PETA and Greenpeace may have different definitions of "too many" than you do, balancing concern about impacts on fish stocks with concerns about energy is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, given that fish are part of our food supply (and food chain).

    There's also issues like whether or not a given fresh water supply might have better uses.

    1. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by T+Murphy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe a good balance then is to develop solar-powered fish?

    2. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought our food chain was Sun -> Corn -> Cows/Pigs/Chickens -> Cows/Pigs/Chickens -> Dinner.

    3. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a very general sense, I agree with your sentiment.

      However, it should probably be pointed out that PETA do not consider fish a legitimate part of the food chain. To PETA it is unethical to not be a vegitarian.

    4. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought our food chain was Sun -> Corn -> Cows/Pigs/Chickens -> Cows/Pigs/Chickens -> Dinner.

      We have a backup system:

      ??? -> Taco Bell -> Dinner.

    5. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Somewhat inaccurate. They have offered a reward to the first person to make in-vitro meat, where the meat is grown independent of the animal, economically viable. They oppose "unethical treatment," which is defined broadly enough to mean killing or confining an animal for virtually any reason. Bruce Friedrich, a spokesman for PETA, has said that if in-vitro meat were available, he'd eat it in a heartbeat. After all, no animal would have to suffer to provide it. It's a consistent position, which I respect.

      Before anyone starts, I'm aware of hypocrisy in other areas (PETA pet shelters), but I'm addressing only their views on vegetarianism.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    6. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by radtea · · Score: 0

      There's also issues like whether or not a given fresh water supply might have better uses.

      This cracks me up. You're probably too young to remember the "nattering nabobs of negativism", but this is a perfect example.

      You mention two objections to this technology:

      1) We can't do this 'cause it might kill to many fish or whatever

      2) We can't do this because we should shunt that precious fresh water off to some other use (which will also, incidentally, necessarily have far more impact than this technology, which results in mixed salt/fresh water just the way the original river would have!)

      So you have two objections, but your first objection can be levelled FAR MORE DIRECTLY against your second objection than against the original proposal. You're objecting to yourself, and not even aware of it. You may even consider yourself particularly clever because cynicism and negativism pass for intelligence in these degenerate days.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    7. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      The nice thing about free market is that it balances these things out. As fish supplies drop and catches come back smaller then the price goes up and fewer people buy fish.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    8. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by tonyreadsnews · · Score: 1

      Eggs?

    9. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by jameskojiro · · Score: 4, Funny

      And Taco bell is environmentally friendly as they use non-organic material to construct their food out of.

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    10. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by hobbit · · Score: 3, Funny

      Indeed, the free market will sort it out. Like for instance, dodo eggs got really expensive, so the price went up, fewer people bought dodo eggs, so the price went down... um... hang on.

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    11. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      Instead of paying fools to wave picket signs in the streets shouldn't they be hiring scientists who specialize in biotech so they can make vat grown meat a reality????

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    12. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 1

      You have to confine chickens to do it. To my knowledge, they don't care about the egg itself, but the suffering of the hen that lays it.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    13. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the ethanol companies have convinced the politicians that Corn can be turned into fuel and so we'll have NO corn to fee the Cow/Pigs/Chickens and then no Dinner for us!

    14. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 1
      A reasonable argument, if only it were phrased without the surplus of question marks. I doubt they have the finances to pull it off, even if they stopped paying a few protesters (from what I can tell, the protesters are paid a token amount, not enough to drain the accounts). The reward they offer has pure upside potential; as long as they make sure to keep a million in the bank, the options are:
      1. No one creates in-vitro meat: Nothing lost, nothing gained
      2. Viable in-vitro meat is brought to market: They achieved their aim for pennies on the dollar (since it will cost way more than a million to develop, the motivation is more psychological than monetary, much like the Ansari X prize)
      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    15. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      The food chain follows the rules of supply and demand, since when?

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    16. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by EchaniDrgn · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Taco Bell always backs me up...

    17. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, they mostly have fools do that kind of thing for free. The money goes to the administrators, who need those fools out on the street, so that donations will come in to pay their salaries.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And Taco bell is environmentally friendly as they use non-organic material out of which to construct their food.

      There, fixed that for ya.

    19. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by michael_george · · Score: 1

      Not mine. Along with the ducks they lay the eggs wherever they want - causing an easter egg hunt every day.

    20. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Nice try, but he didn't say "we can't do this 'cause it might kill to many fish". He just said that the impact on fish populations is something that should be taken into account when this technology is being considered.

      Now considering that he didn't say #1, your application of it to #2 is also without merit. Fresh water is a very precious resource in many areas. There are various ways we can use it and each use has different costs and benefits that should be weighed carefully. To disregard the environmental impact would be extremely foolhardy.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    21. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 1

      I suspect PETA would still have a problem unless your chickens are free to leave (not just free to walk around). Remember, this is a group that doesn't believe in pet ownership, no matter how well the animals are treated (their argument is more elaborate than I care to go into).

      I personally think that if you have a hard time finding the eggs, you've probably done more than enough to remove any hint of ethical dilemma, but then, I eat steak and wear leather without guilt, so my views aren't exactly in line with PETA's.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    22. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      How do I start my own BS movement so I can sit there like Ingrid Newkirk and pull in a good salary for being a jerkwad.

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    23. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by jameskojiro · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thanks for pointing out my lack of grammar Mr. Commissar.

      It is much being appreciated by me.

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    24. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by amRadioHed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, what happens is the price goes up and that makes the fish an even more attractive target to fisherman. This is an example of the tragedy of the commons, a failure of the free market.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    25. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      But the ethanol companies have convinced the politicians that Corn can be turned into fuel and so we'll have NO corn to fee the Cow/Pigs/Chickens and then no Dinner for us!

      Actually, isn't it the corn companies that have convinced the politicians that they are ethanol companies?

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    26. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      You're objecting to yourself, and not even aware of it. You may even consider yourself particularly clever because cynicism and negativism pass for intelligence in these degenerate days.

      Geez dude, all he said was that there were "issues to consider". Are you proposing that there aren't any issues worth considering? You sound a bit cynical yourself...

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    27. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by AlamedaStone · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      How do I start my own BS movement so I can sit there like Ingrid Newkirk and pull in a good salary for being a jerkwad.

      I think the GOP is looking for some fresh faces, perhaps you could inquire in that direction.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    28. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      The price goes up due to supply side costs, reducing demand. It decreases the profit motive of fishing.

      If it costs me $10 to fish and I sell it for $20 I make $10 profit.
      If it costs me $20 to fish and I sell it for $25 I only make $5 profit.
      It doesn't make the fish more profitable, just more expensive.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    29. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Heh, really? Perhaps I missed your sarcasm tag, but I'd wager sometime around the begging of life. As food supply went up demand would soon follow. As food supply goes down, demand eventually goes down (starvation in the extreme or just reduction in predators over time.)

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    30. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by unifyingtheory · · Score: 1

      ??? -> Taco Bell -> Fourthmeal There, fixed it for you.

    31. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by pluther · · Score: 1

      Because ending a sentence with a preposition is something with up which we cannot put.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    32. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 0

      And Taco bell is environmentally friendly as they use non-organic material out of which to construct their food.

      There, fixed that for ya.

      I used to be like you, until I realized that prescriptive grammarians have no special authority. Languages evolve. This is a well-accepted evolution. I think you need to accept that and worry about more important things in life.

    33. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Well it really depends on how quickly the fish populations fall. Yes, if fish populations fall gradually, then price signal provided by supply costs will reduce fishing in time to save the species. However, that's not how things happen in real fisheries. Real fisheries (like the Grand Banks for cod) tend to collapse suddenly over a year or two - far too little time for the market to adjust.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    34. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      If the price goes up enough then yes, it will reduce the demand substantially. But you're assuming that this will happen before permanent damage to the population has been done. I don't think that's the case, as there have been countless examples of species being hunted to or near the point of extinction.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    35. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      The tragedy of the commons is not a market failure. Markets exist to provide prices, nothing more. It's a failure of resource management, and the standard market-oriented approach to management of resources where excluding people from a specific territory is difficult-to-impossible is to have permit-only resource harvesting with closely watched limits. (Because a market will then develop for the permits, and thus they will be most efficiently allocated among potential fishermen.)

    36. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lets not paint greenpeace or peta as reasonable organizations. PETA is just a joke and I blame Greenpeace for the lack of nuclear power plants, thus the burning of all this coal. Its like the anti-abortion crowd's disapproval of condoms and the pill.

      Neither of these groups express proper concern for anything. They are well-off non-profits riding the donation train. Being shrill and unreasonable equals donations from the nutters of the world.

    37. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      How do I start my own BS movement so I can sit there like Ingrid Newkirk and pull in a good salary for being a jerkwad.

      Apparently writing a crappy science-fiction book works.

    38. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. No one wants ethanol but the agricorps. The eco-nazi* position is that ethanol is a terrible idea. One might even go so far as to say the worst possible option. We're going to ruin ourselves growing corn if we don't knock off the subsidies and price controls.

      * people keep saying "environmentalist" and meaning this.

    39. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by gmrath · · Score: 1

      Why isn't this comment modded up? Maybe it's too far down the thread. . . I'd give it a "insightful" mod point or two.

    40. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, as long as we're telling preposition jokes...

      What did you bring the book that I don't want to be read to out of up for?
      (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22read+to+out+of+up+for%22, I recall it being told to me by my mother.)

      Two women--a Southern belle and a New England Yankee--are on a plane.
      The belle turns to the Yankee and asks, "So, where y'all from?"
      The Yankee turns up her nose and says, "Where I am from, we don't end sentences with prepositions." Without missing a beat, the belle replies, "So, where y'all from, bitch?"
      (Tweaked from http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/04/07/from, though I learned it from the Prairie Home Companion Pretty Good Joke Book.)

      And I also thought of this (which, IIRC, I saw as someone's sig here on Slashdot):
      Take me out of the fridge and cut me up with a sharp knife an apple.

    41. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If it costs me $20 to fish and I sell it for $25 I only make $5 profit. It doesn't make the fish more profitable, just more expensive.

      You can make it proftable. Make it cost $15, sell it for $30. Profit's now gone up to $15.

      All you have to do is pull different figures out of your ass.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    42. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by weston · · Score: 1

      This cracks me up. You're probably too young to remember the "nattering nabobs of negativism", but this is a perfect example.

      I believe I was alive when Agnew said it, but yes, too young, though I'm enough of an amateur student of politics and recent history that I'm familiar with the phrase and its origin and the career of the attached politician.

      You mention two objections to this technology:

      1) We can't do this

      Did I say we couldn't do it? I don't believe I did. I mentioned two concerns that are worth balancing against a need for energy. *You've* transformed that into a dichotomy in which the idea that there might be tension between two valid needs or principles tends to fall by the wayside, but I can assure you, I don't mean it that way at all.

      You may even consider yourself particularly clever because cynicism and negativism pass for intelligence in these degenerate days.

      How clever are *you* feeling now that you realize your basic take on my statement is wrong?

    43. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Lean a little about supply and demand. At $20 you sell $X, at $25 you send $X-$Y, at $30 you make $X-$Z where $Z>$Y. The higher the price the less you sell. Finding the market clearing price is the important part. If it costs $15 to fish and you only sell 3 fish at $30 you're only making $45. If it costs you $15 to fish and you sell 100 at $20 or 1000 at $16 you make more profit. Of course if you fish that much it's going to get harder to catch and cost you more to fill the same orders.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    44. Re:Economy is a Subset of Ecology by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Supply and demand? Does that mean when someone demands proof you supply completely fictitious numbers?

      Your post is all if this, if that. It's all supposition.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  12. Where does the fresh water come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the shortage of fresh water I hope the push will be for using river water already lost to the sea. There's still problems there because you are effectively having to yet again damn rivers for energy which has already caused major environmental problems. It sounds interesting but there may be no practical way to exploit it in any volume to make it worth the problems it will cause.

    1. Re:Where does the fresh water come from? by localman57 · · Score: 1

      You're only thinking in terms of the United States, you insensitive clod! Think about someplace like Bangladesh. They have a hell of a rainy season, and a seacoast. Last I checked, a fresh water shortage wasn't a big problem for them. At least during the rainy season. Potable water? Yes. Unsalted water? No.

    2. Re:Where does the fresh water come from? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      ... I understand people don't read the articles, but did you even bother to read the summary?

      Although chemists and physicists have long known about the untapped energy available where fresh water rivers pour into salty oceans â" it's equivalent to 'each river in the world ending at its mouth in a waterfall 225 meters [739 feet] high'

      It would be impractical to do it anywhere else.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:Where does the fresh water come from? by ivan256 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      He's thinking in terms of the southwestern United States. There are plenty of other areas in the US that have more than enough fresh water. People from the southwest tend to be pretty self-centered when it comes to regional issues, and assume everybody has the same problems. The rest of us tend to ignore them.

    4. Re:Where does the fresh water come from? by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Actually, it doesn't need fresh water, just a saline gradient. So one could easily use brackish->sea water or even sea water->higher salinity water from evaporation ponds.

      Technically, you could even use the "waste" output of a desalination plant, but of course that wouldn't recover anywhere near the energy put in.

    5. Re:Where does the fresh water come from? by rtrickey · · Score: 1

      I hope you're joking about the people from the southwest being self-centered thing, cause otherwise, wow, you need to fucking get out and meet people more.

    6. Re:Where does the fresh water come from? by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      People from California tend to be pretty self-centered when it comes to regional issues

      FTFY

      This is a huge problem for Los Angeles. Ever seen "Chinatown"?

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    7. Re:Where does the fresh water come from? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      that's the thing, most everyplace as 'regional issues'. Though most don't involve basic necessities of life like, ahem, water.

      Having grown up in the Northeast, I'm amazed at the lack of 'natural issues' the Northeast has. Extremely rare tornados, hurricanes and earthquakes. No appreciable landslide risks, forest fires hardly ever happen (i.e. it's wet), no active volcanoes. There's the acid rain thing, but that's manmade.

      Build your house away from trees, with a high sloping roof (snow) and a supply of firewood and there aren't many natural disasters likely to even phase you.

      And yes I've lived in other parts of the US, it's only then that you learn to appreciate the things you took for granted.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    8. Re:Where does the fresh water come from? by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      I hope you're joking about me being joking, 'cause otherwise, wow, you need to get out and experience more of the world.

    9. Re:Where does the fresh water come from? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      ... I understand people don't read the articles, but did you even bother to read the summary?

      I DONT READ THE ANYTHING I JUST POST PANICY THINGS IN THE HOEPS THAT SOMEONE REACTS.

      please justify my existence.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    10. Re:Where does the fresh water come from? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Oh, you don't think people in Arizona and Nevada are just as self-centered when it comes to water usage?

      The correct correction would be "People tend to be pretty self-centered when it comes to regional issues".

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    11. Re:Where does the fresh water come from? by KeithJM · · Score: 1

      I hope you're joking about the people from the southwest being self-centered thing, cause otherwise, wow, you need to get out and meet people more.

      You know, the main point of that post was that water shortages in the US are a regional problem. Interesting that what you got out of it was that it was all about you.

  13. Not so new.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually the technology was already available, and is to be used to power most the majority of homes in the Netherlands, including mine, if the proposal is approved:

    http://ecoworldly.com/2009/03/08/saltwater-power-could-supply-energy-for-most-dutch-homes/

    Or the original publication:

    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es9004224?cookieSet=1

  14. Too late by BrookHarty · · Score: 3, Funny

    Too late, Exxon already bought the patent.

    1. Re:Too late by mcgrew · · Score: 1, Troll

      Too late, Exxon already bought the planet

      There, fixed that for ya...

    2. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too late, Exxon already bought the planet

      There, fixed that for ya...

      not funny, hmm, not insightful... hmmm, not interesting that's for sure (reusing a lame meme), not underrated, what could it be?
      oh -5, lame

    3. Re:Too late by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      So now we know that we will have a new energy source in 20 years (current length of patent). Just when oil is starting to run out. By the way I am still looking for someone to build the super battery from the 1970's since the patent protection ran out in the 1990's.

  15. This could be big for desalinization. by Lordplatypus · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It would be interesting if this could make desalinization more energy efficient. After you finish desalinization you end up with clean water and very salty water. If you mixed the less salty sea water with your now very salty water, could they recover part of the huge amounts of energy that desalinization requires?

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying, 'Nice doggie!' till you can find a rock.-- Wynn Catlin
  16. Install these on Urinals by StaticEngine · · Score: 1

    Clearly, every time I take a leak, I could be generating power from the mixing of my salty urine with clean water during the flush. Also, I should be pissing onto a tiny waterwheel hooked up to an electric generator, and there should be a Francis Turbine on the flush release outflow.

    Next, we'll poop right into a methane extracting farm, and we'll inject pine cones into each person's lungs to extract the exhaled CO2 directly.

    It's perfect!

    1. Re:Install these on Urinals by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      Clearly, every time I take a leak, I could be generating power from the mixing of my salty urine with clean water during the flush. Also, I should be pissing onto a tiny waterwheel hooked up to an electric generator, and there should be a Francis Turbine on the flush release outflow.

      I used to live on a farm. Here's some free advise. NEVER piss on, or in, anything with wires attached (no matter what your older cousin tells you).

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  17. Logan's Run... by Xin+Jing · · Score: 1

    So that's how Farrah powered her blow dryer inside the dome! Identify Logan 5-thousand watts, baby!!

  18. New option for solar power!!! by sliverstorm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is actually really interesting! Think about it. We've been limited to solar cells for a long time for producing electricity, and those have limitations we are constantly struggling against. But... Now, you can make a simple isolated enviroment consisting of water and salt. Design it such that fresh water runs down from a resivoir into a lower resivoir with salt. Expose the lower resivoir to sunlight, and use the greenhouse effect to speed up the evaporation of the water. Direct the vapors up to the upper reservoir, where they precipitate out, and flow back down! Thus, we generate electricity and use the sun to separate the two components to repeat the cycle. (plus if you want, you can capture the heat from the condenser, for even more energy) Not something you could put in your car, but on a large scale I bet this could work. Similar to large steam powered plants.

    1. Re:New option for solar power!!! by hesiod · · Score: 1

      Brilliant: quick, to the Patent Office!

  19. FTA: the real problem by lazn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Brogioli maintains that his salinity cell could be ramped up faster than other salination approaches and could be made as affordable as solar power in a decade or so."

    As affordable as Solar in a decade? Solar's main problem now is it's cost!

    1. Re:FTA: the real problem by jmorris42 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > As affordable as Solar in a decade?

      Exactly. This is yet another high cost attempt to tap a low energy content source. But then that IS the idea behind 'Green Energy'; to make energy expensive enough to force people to do without. Or more bluntly, to create artificial scarcity for the purpose of reshaping society in ways Greens think wiser than the choices people acting in a free market would make.

      Economic growth, i.e. getting out of this recession (and soon to be depression if we keep digging this hole) is going to require MORE productivity, more energy and more wealth creation. I oppose more oil on national security grounds, others oppose it on environmental ones. So lets compromise and BUILD THE CRAP OUT OF NUKE PLANTS. Redirect a big chunk of the 'porkulus' money into it. Besides the primary goal it would actually create a lot of good paying jobs; in other words, stimulus. Make electricity cheap enough and the market will find a way to put it into cars at prices that people will willingly pay instead of being forced into it.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    2. Re:FTA: the real problem by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      You sound like somebody who has never heard of externalities...

    3. Re:FTA: the real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is yet another high cost attempt to tap a low energy content source. But then that IS the idea behind 'Green Energy'; to make energy expensive enough to force people to do without. Or more bluntly, to create artificial scarcity for the purpose of reshaping society in ways Greens think wiser than the choices people acting in a free market would make.

      That's about as accurate as me saying that the idea behind people wanting nuclear power is to ruin the environment to gain wealth and let the next generation deal with the problems. You can twist anything around when you present only one side of an argument. And will always twist it around when you speak for those with whom you disagree.

      Economic growth, i.e. getting out of this recession (and soon to be depression if we keep digging this hole) is going to require MORE productivity, more energy and more wealth creation.

      I'd like to see some supporting facts behind this argument. As people get more wealthy others become poorer and have less to spend.

      Creating more wealth isn't going to fix the economy. Wealthy people stay wealthy because they don't squander their money. Give a wealthy person $100 and his bank account grows by a small amount; give a poor person $100 and it goes straight back into the economy.

      A stimulus to help the economy doesn't equate with (and is often at odds with) building a more intelligent infrastructure and becoming more efficient. A lot of auto workers lost their jobs when machines were heavily introduced at the assembly lines. Granted additional jobs were created, but fewer than the number lost. Productivity and quality were increased, cost was decreased (a few higher paid workers vs a significant number of lower paid workers), but make no mistake it put people out of work. The net result is that the auto manufacturers got more wealthy at the expense of the workers.

      In a stimulus scenario, you're more concerned about the workers rather than having an efficient system. Doing things inefficiently and using those out of work for the labor makes a stimulus package. However that too is at odds with a global economy, where if you produce inefficiently you will simply be undercut.

      As I see it the choice is to 1) become inefficient and put people back to work knowing you will suffer long-term from a global economy or 2) to become more efficient putting even more people people out of work with a longer-term strategy to get those that are out-of-work into those new skilled-labor positions. Pay now or pay later?

      I oppose more oil on national security grounds, others oppose it on environmental ones. So lets compromise and BUILD THE CRAP OUT OF NUKE PLANTS. Redirect a big chunk of the 'porkulus' money into it. Besides the primary goal it would actually create a lot of good paying jobs; in other words, stimulus.

      Until the nuclear reactors are built, then those builders are out of jobs again. Jobs are created to run the nuclear plant, but even more jobs are lost from the existing less efficient power plants that are no longer needed. And the coal miners aren't needed. And the freight companies that hauled the coal aren't needed.

    4. Re:FTA: the real problem by g8oz · · Score: 1

      A quibble with your underlying philosophy.

      Make electricity cheap enough and the market will find a way to put it into cars at prices that people will willingly pay instead of being forced into it.

      And who made the roads those cars will run on? The free market?

      create artificial scarcity for the purpose of reshaping society in ways Greens think wiser than the choices people acting in a free market would make.

      There is no such thing as a purely free market. The government makes decisions that help create the environment that people make choices within. From military expenditures in the Middle East to taxbreaks for home owners, it shapes the market. So why not shape it in a way that encourages sustainable behaviour?

    5. Re:FTA: the real problem by jmorris42 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > You can twist anything around when you present only one side of an argument.

      Actually I'm not twisting anything. I can't help it if you lack the sensory organs or mental ability to LISTEN to Greens. That is all you have to do, LISTEN to them when they think they are talking to others of their kind. They are on the record with the artifical scarcity thing. They are on the record with their desires to eliminate most of H. Sapiens, because we are 'overpopulated.' Their vision is of a drastically reduced human population living a much changed lifestyle more 'in tune' with nature. No suburbs, much smaller cities with a reduced energy lifestyle enforced by law.

      > I'd like to see some supporting facts behind this argument. As people get more
      > wealthy others become poorer and have less to spend.

      Spoken like a product of government schools who has totally drunk the Kool-Aid. No. Wealth is not a zero sum game. One person doesn't become wealthy at the expense of another. Success pulls others UP. Wealth, unlike matter and energy CAN be both created and destroyed as well as transferred. When someone has a new idea the sum total of wealth on the planet increases since someone else doesn't suddenly lose one. As that idea is put into productive use others are benefitted by it. The person who makes the new product benefits. The retailer benefits. And the end consumer benefits, otherwise they wouldn't have spent their dollars on the product.

      As supporting facts I present Western Civilization. No other political or philosophical system has come close to creating the wealth and rise in the standard of living for EVERYONE seen in the last couple of centuries. Where else now or in history have the POOR worried about obesity as their #1 health problem?

      > Creating more wealth isn't going to fix the economy. Wealthy people stay
      > wealthy because they don't squander their money.

      Clueless. Let me guess, college educated?

      What else but creating enough wealth to cancel out the losses from the housing bubble will end the recession? Wealthy people don't stick stacks of bills in Mason jars in their back yards. They are wealthy because they know how to put capital to WORK. The government should be making that easier, not harder. Cut taxes and regulation and let the economy create new wealth. Then tax it, hell we do have a Welfare State to run and two Wars to fight.

      > Until the nuclear reactors are built, then those builders are out of jobs again

      That is the nature of construction jobs. They last until the project is finished. Then you find a new project to work on. And yes we we went whole hog nuke the coal miner are screwed. But that is a dangerous job anyway. Capitalism is about creative destruction, not promising people jobs for life. People who are willing to pay the price for liberty and prosperity and realize it sometimes means being the one innovated out of a job and learning a new skill. Some people can't deal with living in a uncertain world and cry out for someone they can trade their liberty to for security. And wannabe despots like Obama are always ready to take that offer.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    6. Re:FTA: the real problem by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > And who made the roads those cars will run on? The free market?

      Roads are Constitutional at least. I'd argue for less of a Federal role though, but I argue for less Federal Government period. But generally roads are going to require eminent domain to get built so getting the government totally out is impractical. Remember, even us Libertarians (the sane ones anyway) realize Government is an evil we won;t get totally rid of anytime soon. We haven't even developed a philosophical basis for a 100% elimination of government. Much like we hope for a unified field theory for physics we believe the ideal world would lack governments but haven't figured out the details on how that would work.

      > So why not shape it in a way that encourages sustainable behaviour?

      It is (in theory...) a Free country. Argue for it. What I object to the the deception. Don't spout bullpoop about creating "Green Collar Jobs" to replace the ones lost like it would be zero sum at worst and implying a net positive economic effect. Come out and argue for an "Age of Less" to save the environment and if you can convince a majority of voters that is a worthy goal then OK.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    7. Re:FTA: the real problem by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They are on the record with their desires to eliminate most of H. Sapiens, because we are 'overpopulated.'

      What's wrong with phasing out the useless? You don't to have to exterminate them, just don't replace them.

      No other political or philosophical system has come close to creating the wealth and rise in the standard of living for EVERYONE seen in the last couple of centuries. Where else now or in history have the POOR worried about obesity as their #1 health problem?

      I would argue that the ultimate measure of the standard of living is happiness, not physical fitness. Regardless, Americans lose on both counts.

      And wannabe despots like Obama are always ready to take that offer.

      You mean like nearly every president we've ever had? There, fixed that for you :P

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:FTA: the real problem by The_Quinn · · Score: 1

      And who made the roads those cars will run on? The free market?

      Who built the pyramids in ancient egypt?

      Clearly only Totalitarian Theocracies are capable of producing such grand structures, using slave labor.

    9. Re:FTA: the real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually have a theory for an ideal world lacking governments.

      First, assume all people are perfectly spherical...

    10. Re:FTA: the real problem by kmac06 · · Score: 1

      Much like we hope for a unified field theory for physics we believe the ideal world would lack governments but haven't figured out the details on how that would work.

      I disagree. A proper government is much better than no government. You need someone with authority to enforce laws that protect people, provide for the national defense, etc. Pretending we can get rid of unacceptable behavior such as murder, making government unnecessary, is unrealistically optimistic at best.

  20. Some ideas by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One of the best places (potentially) to grow algae for biofuels is in the desert. You could pump seawater inland, and circulate it in pools. If you covered those pools with greenhouses (which could just be big clear balloons... or not-so-big ones, if you use arrays of small pools) and collected water they'd make you some fresh water, which could then be combined with incoming salt water to produce energy to help run the system, whether that would be the pumps, mixing devices which keep the pools circulating, or what ever else have you.

    Another idea for the waste water produced from this process is to pump it inland and use it in the algae pools... so you can have coastal plants whose effluent is used to grow algae for carbon-neutral biofuels, and [optionally] to raise the water table in the desert.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  21. Re:Maybe someday PISSING in the WIND can become by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RANDOM words are CAPITALIZED in your POST ... AWESOME

  22. that's all quite interesting butt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1912448,00.html

    there have been no (as in zero (0)) genuine clouds for several years now. kind of skews the projection about 100% or more.

    sort of the same method used to inform US that we might not all be billyonerrors ever again, or we might not win the increasing # of wars.

  23. I don't get it by Esc7 · · Score: 1

    I looked at the diagram and it showed that it needs to be hooked up to a charge and ground? It looks like they are just transferring the charge into capacitors while using the salt as an electrolyte?

    I'm sure this works, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it seriously, but my primitive mind can't see WHERE the net energy is coming from the salt water.

    Could someone help me out and explain?

    Thanks!

    1. Re:I don't get it by lenehey · · Score: 1

      Conceptually, two substances that are mixed has more entropy than when they are separated, so you can see that energy is available to be extracted in the mixing of the fresh water with the salt water (thereby distributing the salts throughout the mixture).

    2. Re:I don't get it by DomNF15 · · Score: 1

      The diagram alone doesn't explain the whole story - the text it above helps...basically what is happening as a result of electrostatic forces and diffusion of the Sodium and Chlorine ions is that the capacitance of the carbon based electrodes is decreasing.

      Since C = Q/V, or in layman's terms Capacitance = Charge/Voltage, it is easy to see that by reducing the Capacitance under a constant charge, the Voltage (work potential) increases. The net energy gain is the increase in voltage potential.

  24. Whose energy are we stealing? by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Windmills convert wind into electricity. The result...less wind on the far side. That changes climate I'm guessing. Not sure how wind affects things. Hotter animals because of less breeze? Smaller area of seed dispersal? Other things.

    Solar panels take the heat energy out of the sunlight and convert it to electricity. I'd think that would cause the ground to heat up less, but that's probably insignificant compared to the direct change of 'being in the shade' for all the flora and fauna under the solar panels.

    What do the hot/cold water exchange generators do? I would expect that pumping cold water from the ocean warms up the ocean...but that would be putting energy INTO the water instead of extracting it. So I'm a little confused. Lets just say it 'changes the ocean temperature'. That's enough to disrupt the ecosystem.

    With this salty water thing. Whose energy are we stealing? If there's some sort of exothermic reaction going on in all river mouths, there's definitely something that's evolved to take advantage of that. Energy on the planet doesn't just SIT there doing nothing. (cept Oil...nobody uses Oil but us. :) ) What's the result of the environmental impact study? (I don't just mean habitat loss...I want to know who specifically was harvesting that energy.)

    --
    --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
    1. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's osmotic pressure. You have salty water and pure water, and there's a force produced when they contact, because the ions in the saltier water are driven by entropy into the less-salty water.
      The energy you're stealing is solar power: the sun heats the salty water, evaporating out pure water, that goes up into the clouds and then rains, forming the rivers of pure water.
      This is just a convoluted solar power system. But then again, so is everything else: wind, gravity, and more distantly, nuclear and oil.
      The main environmental issue would be interfering with fish migration, for the many (very economically valuable) fish that live in the sea but spawn in rivers, like salmon. Which, by the way, are near miracles from a biochemistry standpoint, since they live part of their lives in the sea, where they're fighting to keep those same ions out of themselves because sea water has about twice the ion concentration as animal tissue so they have to maintain a more pure internal environment, and then they swim into fresh water, where they have to fight to keep from bleeding all their ions out, since many streams have about 1/2 or less the ion concentration as animal tissue. There aren't that many animals that can manage it.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    2. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by Yaur · · Score: 1

      We are talking about a relatively small amount of energy in a very large body of water and we have been undercutting this energy source for a long time. Since it is really solute density that matters not salt density, water pollution is, or should be, reducing how much energy is being released at the interface. From an ecology standpoint the habitat destruction problem is a lot bigger since anything that could do this is likely to significantly drop the salinity of the water in the river mouth and destroy the brackish conditions that a lot of species have developed in not to mention that the water way will need to be completely, or at least mostly, obstructed to prevent water flowing around the system from killing the power output.

    3. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by bpeikes · · Score: 1

      Amen. All this thought of "alternative" engergy is bunk. As far as I know the "you can't create something from nothing" law of the universe still applies. I'm not sure why everyone thinks that new sources are the solution. We need to use less, simple.

    4. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Windmills convert wind into electricity. The result...less wind on the far side.

      True, but the amount of energy in the wind is really big and the amount we are likely to ever take out is small. So I'm not too worried.

      > Solar panels take the heat energy out of the sunlight and convert it to electricity. I'd think that would cause the ground to
      > heat up less, but that's probably insignificant compared to the direct change of 'being in the shade' for all the flora and fauna
      > under the solar panels.

      Yes a solar panel removes heat from the area of the panel. But the electricity it creates must be used and it will end up as heat there. As for the shade effects, yes we will make a few patches of desert cooler to offset the urban heat islands where the energy is being sent. The desert critters will be fine unless we pave the whole fracking thing with collectors. Some new habitats will be created, thus some change in the environment but change is the only constant in nature, the critters will adapt. But there will be no net effect on global temp.

      > Energy on the planet doesn't just SIT there doing nothing. (cept Oil...nobody uses Oil but us. :) )

      True enough. Anything we do changes the environment in some way, exactly like every other creature does simply by living. We are part of nature too. The idea of 'green' energy is a myth because of that. This notion is something Greens disagree with that but f**k em.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    5. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pumping cold water out wouldn't put energy into the system, it would allow the energy that's already there to normalize at a higher temperature due to having to heat up less cold water.

    6. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand the scale of these things. You're not going to warm up the ocean, slow down the wind, or cool off the earth even if we seriously scale up these technologies. The amount of energy we are able to recover from wind, the ocean, or sunlight upon the earth is simply dwarfed by their sheer size.

    7. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by radtea · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Energy on the planet doesn't just SIT there doing nothing.

      Of all the highly concentrated nonsense in your post, this is the highest peak of wrong-headedness.

      Just to take a single example: what is the quantum efficiency of photosynthesis reactions?

      Energy goes to waste all over the place--it would, amongst other things, be impossible to see if it did not! Nature is unbelievably wasteful. The very fact of the existence of oil and coal reserves is testament to this: those beds were all huge amounts of available energy at the time the dead plant matter was deposited. It did indeed "just sit there" on the surface for thousands of years as it accumulated before being buried.

      Energy is "just sitting there" accumulating in peat bogs as I write this, freely available for some magic unicorns or something to come along and use it. I don't see any, do you?

      Finally, your bizarre claim that any change to ocean temperature whatsoever is "enough to disrupt the ecosystem" will stand as a monument to the dangers of innumeracy for generations to come.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    8. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by Late+Adopter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is just a convoluted solar power system. But then again, so is everything else: wind, gravity, and more distantly, nuclear and oil.

      The nuclei involved in fission are produced in supernovae. So, I guess you could include that as solar power, but not the way you'd usually think of it.

    9. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by PieSquared · · Score: 1

      Did you just say gravity is convoluted solar power? Afraid I have to disagree there - to get any power from gravity you have to drop something. To drop something you have to lift it. No net power gained from gravity. So... there wasn't any power to 'come from the sun'.

      As for the other things in the OP... windmills have an insignificant effect on wind. Solar panels have an insignificant effect on heat, especially since they're almost never used in a place where they'll give shade to plants or wildlife (the roofs of buildings, the middle of the desert, etc).

      You seem confused about the source of energy in a heat exchange. The source of energy here isn't temperature, it's temperature *differential* or entropy. You can't generate energy directly from heat, you have to use it to heat *something* where the thing you're heating (obviously) isn't as hot as the thing doing the heating. So, yes, these do discharge some waste heat back into the ocean, but that's because they're not perfect. (Ideally you'd use the 'warm' water in conjunction with more cold water to produce 'lukewarm' water, and repeat this until there was no difference between the 'warm' water and the 'cold' water, but for the same amount of machinery and overhead it's easier to just use 'hot' and 'cold' again as long as you have unlimited sources of both.)

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    10. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by Tweenk · · Score: 1

      There is nothing harvesting this energy, because its release is too disperse to matter. What they intend is essentially an entropy engine.

      In general your sentiment that there is no "unused energy" and we must take it from somewhere is false. Nothing in nature is using the following things:
      1. Uranium, thorium and other nuclear fuels
      2. Fossil fuels
      3. Wind energy
      4. Solar energy in the desert (no plants)
      5. Energy from the oxidation of biomass
      6. Deuterium / tritium in seawater

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    11. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by cfa22 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no way windmills reduce the amount of wind so much as to affect things like seed dispersal. The area perpendicular to the wind velocity is enormous and windmills occupy a very small fraction of that. Windmills siphon a relatively small amount of the air's kinetic energy, most likely smaller than the amount of kinetic energy that ends up does nothing useful whatsoever.

    12. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by Tweenk · · Score: 1

      We need to use less, simple.

      Energy conservation is not an answer, it is douchebaggery.
      1. According to diminishing returns principle, you are best going after the largest energy consumers.
      2. But because energy isn't free, those biggest consumers are already very efficient, because it makes economic sense to invest in efficiency to reduce power bills.
      3. Therefore if your computer goes from 20W to 10W, it *does not matter at all*, because the manufacturing plant near you is already maxed out efficiency-wise and uses 1MW, or 100,000 times more.

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    13. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All the gravity-related sources of energy harvesting currently in use (at least that I'm aware of), which is to say hydroelectric power, rely on the same solar evaporation -> pure water running downstream process. They just extract it directly through turbines rather than through osmotic pressure. But it's still solar energy doing the heavy lifting, so to speak.

      My understanding of the fresh water/salt water system is that there is negligible temperature differential, that they're relying entirely on the entropy of osmotic pressure, so I think the whole discussion of temperature is off-topic. TFA says nothing about temperature differential, only a sort of ion membrane system.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    14. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by DomNF15 · · Score: 1

      Some of the effects you mention are somewhat exaggerated.

      Windmills have a much smaller surface area than say, a line of tall trees. The wind easily goes around the windmills and continues on it's original path.

      Solar panels take the radiation energy from the sun and convert it to electricity. They are not anywhere near 100% efficient, so a lot of the radiation energy is still converted to heat when it heats the non-active portions of the solar panel.

      The water exchangers represent changes so tiny with respect to the whole size of the oceans they cannot possibly have any real impact on ocean temperature (the melting of polar ice has a much more dramatic impact).

      The salt water mixing is going to continue to happen irrespective of our taking advantage of the energy it produces, the same with the wind, and solar energy.

    15. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Energy is "just sitting there" accumulating in peat bogs as I write this, freely available for some magic unicorns or something to come along and use it. I don't see any, do you?

      Actually, we're running out of peat bogs because we've made them all into potting soil and plantable pots. So while your point is well-taken, your example is awful.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 1

      What do the hot/cold water exchange generators do? I would expect that pumping cold water from the ocean warms up the ocean...but that would be putting energy INTO the water instead of extracting it. So I'm a little confused. Lets just say it 'changes the ocean temperature'.

      Yes, it does indeed heat the water. The way a heat engine works is to move heat from a hot reservoir to a cold one, extracting some useful work in the process. For another example, boil some water and use the steam to turn a turbine. What comes out the end is steam or hot water, vs the cold water you put into the system before you boiled it. You can't have a perfectly efficient (no waste heat) heat engine, but the larger the temperature difference the more efficient it is. Running a heat engine backwards is how you do refrigeration. Your AC takes some heat out of your (cold) house, but dumps more than that much heat though the radiator to the (hot) outside air. The extra heat comes from the electricity you used to run the thing. In principle you could run the AC backwards, heating your house and producing electricity (as long as it's hotter outside than inside). This is how the hot/cold water exchange generators work.

      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    17. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Utter crap

      Have you ever heard of entropy ? What were those peat bogs composed of originally ? What has happened to that substance ? How much energy is contained in sandstone ?

      Energy does not just sit there, it is dissipated gradually over time. Ever heard of radiation ? How much energy is there in a lump of lead compared to a lump of uranium ?

      You even say that energy goes to waste all the time, which is the exact point. If it's going to waste it's not just sitting there. How long do your batteries stay fully charged when you don't use them ?

      Idiot. The fact that you have been modded insightful just about sums up this whole forum recently.

    18. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      The main environmental issue would be interfering with fish migration, for the many (very economically valuable) fish that live in the sea but spawn in rivers, like salmon.

      We solved that problem a long time ago since we block entire rivers to generate electricity. Ever heard of salmon elevators?

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    19. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      You're the idiot. While energy gets wasted in nature (such as when fresh water mixes with sea water and no one's making anything out of it), in some other cases energy goes into doing something (such as plants, animals, the cycle of water..) and stays as it is for a while. Forests are energy, you can burn the Amazon to a pile of hashes and harness a lot of energy out of it because burning trees releases the energy built up in wood, you can mix a fresh water lake with some sea to obtain a lot of energy (which comes from the cycle of water, in other words, from the sun evaporating fresh water out of the sea)

      Energy does not just sit there, it is dissipated gradually over time. Ever heard of radiation ? How much energy is there in a lump of lead compared to a lump of uranium ?

      Wow, you're a fucking moron. Of course radioactive stuff loses its energy over time. Oil isn't radioactive, it doesn't lose its energy over time. Same if you keep salt water in a container and fresh water into another, you can mix those after billions of years and all the energy will still be there. Same thing for any fuel and its combustive, you can store the two separately and no energy will be lost.

      How long do your batteries stay fully charged when you don't use them ?

      Either you're one hell of a retard or you're a lousy troll. Oh and this being said, what's your answer to that? I've found batteries fully charged after 20 years of sitting in a closet.

      Idiot. The fact that you have been modded insightful just about sums up this whole forum recently.

      No, not really. The fact that he was modded up and you weren't is actually quite reassuring. Face it, you're a blithering cretin.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    20. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm against hot/cold ocean water mixing. It could change the world, e.g one of the reasons UK is warm but NewYork is not being at similar latitudes is oceans current, el niño-niña are oceans currents.

      But Solar panels don't cause the ground to heat less, in fact they make the contrary, because they absorb a lot of work(that finish as heat)and heat that otherwise would be reflected to space.

    21. Re:Whose energy are we stealing? by PieSquared · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, the OP mentioned temperature differentials as a seperate point that he didn't understand where the power came from.

      And as for hydroelectric... well I'd usually call it "hydroelectric" rather then "gravity", but I suppose it's accurate.

      Which also brings to mind the several tidal power generators which are a more sort of secondary gravity power - power from the moon. For that one you have to get *really* technical to say it's solar power, like on the order of nuclear (well, the radioactive molecules that power nuclear were made in the heart of a star, right?) if not worse.

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
  25. Misleading point in summary by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

    I read this summary extremely skeptical but after reading the article (which is pretty sparse on detail) it sounds simple enough to work. In principle.

    The problem is this sentence:

    Once he jump starts the cell with electric power, all that is required to produce electricity are sources of fresh and salty water and a pump to keep the water flowing.

    Pumping water is a notoriously is a notoriously energy expensive process. That's why we try to use gravity as much as possible to move our water around. The question is if this process produces enough energy to offset the cost of moving in and out of the (presumably) mixing chamber. If the answer is no, then this grinds to a screeching halt right then and there.

    This stuff about X process is equivalent to Y incredibly energetic phenomena is misleading. There's incredible amounts of energy locked up in just about anything. It's just that our technology is such that our extraction processes suck. We're terrible at it. Think about cars. Of all the ways we know of motivating four wheels, we choose to process processed hydrocarbons we dug up from the bottom of the ocean. There's basically an infinite amount of energy in the sky in the form of wind alone. We're just terrible at taking it out.

    So some process that claims to potentially harness some percentage of the electrical energy of a 100 meter waterfall? I'd like to hear about it when they build the thing and it actually lights up a bulb. Till then, it's just a concept.

    1. Re:Misleading point in summary by savanik · · Score: 1

      In the "real world", the pump would be replaced by the river or other source of water. This would be powered by the water cycle, primarily sourced by the sun's evaporation of ocean salt water. Unlike a hydroelectric dam, you don't have to create a huge vertical gradient for it to work well, so building along a coastline with river access should be quite sufficient to create enough water pressure to keep the system moving around.

      The biggest problem I can think of with this concept is the same problem most any coast-based energy generation system has - hurricanes. Experimental technology tends to stand up poorly to 75mph winds.

    2. Re:Misleading point in summary by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The thing is supposed to work by diffusion. According to the article, the salt crystals are forced away by the inrush of fresh water, and this movement is what creates the extra voltage. But if your inrush of water is caused by a pump, I don't care how efficient the pump is, you're still not going to produce enough electricity to power the contraption, let alone to get any energy out of it.

      I'm calling this myth BUSTED!

    3. Re:Misleading point in summary by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

      Here's the problem. At no point in that article does it mention the specifics of how much energy they are getting out of the process. How much of this energy is in say, a cubic meter of water given it's most favorable mixing and efficient generating conditions. Is it enough to move that cubic meter of water up, let's say, one meter? Do you know something about this process other than what's in the article and the first few google hits?

    4. Re:Misleading point in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm calling this myth BUSTED!

      Good thing that in the places where we have fresh water and salt water together, nature's already doing the pumping for us (otherwise I'd hate to be the guy on call when the pump running the Mississippi river breaks down)

      Critical thinking, it hits for twice the damage!

    5. Re:Misleading point in summary by Weedhopper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here's the problem. Gravity is only interested in moving stuff in one direction, down. At some water will have to move against the gradient. Does the process produce enough energy to do that? If it does, how much water do you need in how much space, but just as importantly, what is the rate of production?

      Oh, we'll put it on the coast, people say. Do the mixing reservoirs have access to the ocean? Good luck with the tides.

    6. Re:Misleading point in summary by lusiphur69 · · Score: 1

      River delta, where fresh meets the ocean.

      Efficiency doesnt matter, the pump is natural and you dont capture (or pay) for that loop.

      I dont think you considered this long enough before posting your 'Why It Wont Work' rant.

    7. Re:Misleading point in summary by Weedhopper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you need to consider this more deeply.

      You need two water sources, fresh and salty. The chambers are flushed alternately from each source. The only way this happens naturally is if you use the tides. Which gives you a total of 1 cycle a day.

      Nature is not going to do all of the work. At some point, water needs to be moved against a gradient.

    8. Re:Misleading point in summary by James+McP · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He needs a pump in the lab. If you used a river delta, where there's a natural water flow, you only need a series of diversion gates; one to let fresh water in, one to let seawater in.

      He states that in theory you could capture 1.6KJ/Litre of water. 1 Liter water =~ 1 kg. Assuming you want 1m of elevation difference (it simplifies the math and that much head is a pretty solid flush), that's 9.81 J/liter at 100% pump efficiency. Assuming ~30% total pump efficiency, you're at ~30 J/liter. Now say that he has to pump both fresh and salt water, so it takes a total of 60 J of pumping per liter of fresh water reaction. If his system can reach 50% theoretical efficiency (0.8 KJ/liter) then you'd generate ~0.74 KJ/L of fresh water.

      Using my example above of diverting ~10% of the mississippi river, Mississippi = 572,000 ft^3/s * 28 L/ft^3 x 10% x 0.74 KJ =~ 1.2GJ/s =~ 1.2GW.

      I'd say a 1.2GW power plant is a pretty nifty goal.

      Of course at the moment he's generating 0.00005J/liter in his proof-of-concept unit, so that 50% theoretical may be lofty, but with ~60 J/L of overhead, he starts positive power production at 4% theoretical. Not sure what percentage he needs to produce more power than manufacturing the the carbon and other plant facilities requires.

      --
      I've been on slashdot so long I'm starting to get out of touch with the cool stuff if it ain't on slashdot.
    9. Re:Misleading point in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here is how it would/could work:

      1) dam a river mouth. On one side you now have fresh water and on the other you have sea water

      2) pipe water in from both sides into your contraption from below the low tide level

      3) partially salinated water can be fed into another cycle until the gradient is to small to be useful

      4) exhaust water and any unused fresh water get piped to somewhere far away from your dam to avoid dilution of the sea water side.

    10. Re:Misleading point in summary by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Oh, I thought about it, but it seems silly. If you're not using pumps then you're going to have to dam the river in order to make it work, and if you're damming it anyway why not just use normal hydro-electric generators? Are these more efficient? Less efficient? More cost effective? The article just doesn't provide enough details.

      There may be some places where the process could be useful, but just based on the details which we HAVE been given this seems like nothing more than a gimmick. It's a neat effect to observe, but I doubt it will have any practical applications.

    11. Re:Misleading point in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most places have 2 tides a day.

  26. Now if we get a device to take salt out, by ourcraft · · Score: 1

    And Carbolic acid out too, while producing electricity, then we would have the utopia machine.

  27. Re:Maybe someday PISSING in the WIND can become by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2, Funny

    need new "Missed Funny(+1) By *That* Much" moderation....

    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  28. Environmental impact. by Kaptain+Kruton · · Score: 1

    The article described these things as small environmentally friendly devices. They may not pollute the water and they may be small, but I cannot help but wonder what type of impact they could potentially have. The article states that one of these devices could power small house. However, a lot of homes and buildings exist in places near the joining of rivers to oceans. This would give reason to place a lot of these devices in these deltas. However, to my admittedly limit knowledge on the subject, some animals and plants live in the deltas and typically avoid other areas. If deltas are overrun with these devices, what will the environmental impact be? Are these devices going to greatly change the methods and ways of life for the delta-dwelling creatures when the devices are placed in great numbers throughout the delta? If so, they may not be as environmentally safe as the researcher wants people to believe. Also, if great numbers of these devices are placed in the mouths of rivers and deltas, is the movement of silt into and through the deltas going to be disrupted? I do not know the answers, but these are the questions I have when he claims to have what seems to be a perfect energy source (for certain areas) and then states it is environmentally safe.

  29. My goodness! by Steegest · · Score: 1

    This could spell the condemnation of every species that have evolved to live in brackish water...

  30. Of course with better materials it'll get better by marcosdumay · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nice to see somebody talking about energy from water salinization once in a while, but that is not the first experiment to gather a few microjoules at lab. Up to now, no aparatus could be scaled up, all of them hit that "we just need better materials" barrier. There is a reason for that, because of the way difusion works, each device can create at most 100mV, and that will fall almost exponentially down to near 10mV once one starts gathering more than 5% of the available energy.

    Just put that on the right perspective, there are just a few specialized diodes that will dissipate less than 100mV on the charge going through it. A normal silicon diode will dissipate 700mV, and there is simply no diode that will dissipate less than 10mV. Also, to get some sane amount of power at 10mV one needs quite a big current, the charge is available to extract that current, but the resistence of your circuit (and the capacitor's dieletric is a piece of the circuit) is a huge barrier. To create 1kW, one'd need a total current of 10^5A (of ions flowing into and out of the coal, if not electrons flowiong throug the circuit), with a total resistence of 10^-7 ohms. To reach such small reistences it is normaly needed lots and lots of material, or "just" better material.

  31. Inaccurate story by Otto · · Score: 5, Informative

    There have been other ways to extract salinization energy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_electrodialysis

    These methods are even being used in test sites to generate power. Main problems are that there's a lot of crap in rivers that you need to filter out to get high efficiencies.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Inaccurate story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the application I see:

      You take a black panel solar heater (or any other convenient source of heat) and use it to either boil salt water or evaporate it. (Whether you have room for a steam or Stirling generator coupled to the system is irrelevant, though coupling the system into one would be ideal as you could draw power from two sources.) The purified water is condensed, and recombined with the remaining saline at a constant rate depending on how fast you can evaporate water at a given pressure. (The machine could run under low pressure if that wouldn't interfere with the machine's operation. That would reduce the temperature needed to evaporate the water and increase the rate at which it does evaporate off.) If the hypothetical 1.6 kJ per liter is accurate, being able to cycle even a fraction of that could generate useful power with essentially no moving parts.

      This whole setup reminds me very much of an absorption cooler. Some of them actually run by separating and then recombining salt water. If this discovery is applicable to that same (age-old) technology, you could hypothetically have low-energy power cells that also remove heat from an object. This could be used to accelerate the machine's own processes (by cooling the water vapor to more rapidly condense it) or cool whatever device the cell is powering. The energy could also drive a fan, and combined with the cooling effect already delivered (assuming a chiller can be reconfigured to generate electricity) you could build a 'wireless' cooling unit. (Though, in the absence of solar heat or waste heat, it'd need heat from somewhere.) There's got to be plenty more that I'm missing, but long story short, there's no reason that you shouldn't be able to build a heat-driven closed-loop machine in the absence of a source of running freshwater and a source of saltwater.

      What's going to make or break this technology is whether or not these 'better materials' surface and what they are. This guy's prototype produces only 5 ÂJ a cycle. He's promising up to 1.6 kJ. That's a pretty big leap to make.

  32. The challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The challenge isn't extracting energy from a salt gradient, there are a number of straight forward ways to do that, it is doing so in a practical way. The challenge is coming up with a material that is delicate enough to facilitate energy exchange but durable enough that it won't be destroyed by the sticks, wildlife, and pollution likely to be found in a real life environment.

  33. Re:Quick! Grab all your salt shakers and run to th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quick! Grab all your salt shakers and run to the bathtub!

    just don't get in

  34. Green, renewable power by grasshoppa · · Score: 0

    Nature has been doing this far longer than we have, and as such it is far more efficient at squeezing power out of more systems than we yet realize. As such, any time we find a new source of power, you can damn well bet nature has gotten there first, and that our exploitation of said power will have negative consequences for the species already using it.

    So please, save us the happy happy "Green power" routine.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:Green, renewable power by Tweenk · · Score: 4, Informative

      As such, any time we find a new source of power, you can damn well bet nature has gotten there first, and that our exploitation of said power will have negative consequences for the species already using it.

      This sentiment of yours is dangerous in the sense that it is wrong yet rational enough that too many people could believe it.

      Nothing was using the energy stored in uranium or oil until we got around to using it. And neither us nor any other creature is harnessing e.g. the energy of deuterium and tritium contained in seawater. Nothing is even using the energy of the sun shining on the desert.

      Another problem with your idea: energy cannot be really "used", it can only be directed elsewhere. Sooner or later every form of energy will change into heat. We cannot stop this, but before it takes place we can transform energy into other forms to do something useful. Example: when the sun shines on the desert, it is converted to heat straight away. But when we put solar panels there, we can redirect a part of the energy to our homes and use the energy from the sun there, where in the end it will also be turned into heat.

      I could go on about how humans are not artificial, but part of nature, but the main premise of your post is already invalidated so I'll stop.

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
  35. Power from Salty Chocolate Balls . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    . . . maybe Chef was on to something here . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  36. Re:Quick! Grab all your salt shakers and run to th by Tator+Tot · · Score: 1

    I think the author just got a call from the cold fusion guys...

    --
    To all you virgins: Thanks for nothing.
  37. Mod Up Re:Not so new.. by davidag · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the link to the informative publication.
    I have no mod points :(

  38. Re:Quick! Grab all your salt shakers and run to th by sound+vision · · Score: 0

    I am certain that the energy expended in mining and transporting that salt is orders of magnitude higher that what you could gain in doing that.

  39. Chemistry 101 by Tweenk · · Score: 1

    Carbolic acid: A very old name for phenol. It's toxic, and you do not want this in seawater.
    Carbonic acid: What you get when CO2 dissolves in water. Not harmful, and found in ample quantities in cabonated drinks.

    In chemistry, spelling does matter.

    --
    Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    1. Re:Chemistry 101 by ourcraft · · Score: 1

      Terribly true, near typo rushed and so I stand justly corrected.

    2. Re:Chemistry 101 by ourcraft · · Score: 1
      Separately tweenk, we are getting too much carbonic acid in the seawater:

      Carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere, a large fraction has dissolved into the ocean, increasing the total amount of dissolved inorganic carbon and shifting seawater chemistry toward more acidic conditions. Since the end of the last century, the amount dissolved CO2 gas ([CO2 (aq)], shown as the red line) has increased because of both the rise in inorganic carbon levels and acidification. Simultaneously there is a decrease in the waterâ(TM)s pH (shown as the blue line), indicating rising acidity, and a decrease in the carbonate ion ([CO3 2- ], shown as the green line), the substance that many marine animals use to build their shells. (Figure courtesy of Scott Doney, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

      The article at Woods Hole is in greater detail: http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726

  40. Re:Quick! Grab all your salt shakers and run to th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have another source of salty liquid to use. I also generate quite a lot of it. It isn't exactly water, but my girlfriend sure likes the taste. Ung, ugh, arrrggghhh!

  41. Time by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

    Every process has a time component. That's why it's called a process. Some are fast and some are slow.

    Your input to this otherwise closed system is the sun and hinges on how quickly you can convert the water's state into gas.

    The evaporation of the water is not "sped up" by a greenhouse effect. A greenhouse is a natural consequence of water evaporating in a closed system. If anything, it will slow down as the humidity increases until it reaches an equilibrium with the rate set by how much water you're taking out of the water in the form of precipitation.

    The only way to speed up the process is to add more energy. That's a lot of mirrors.

    1. Re:Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm talking about how hot it can get inside a greenhouse. Perhaps I used the wrong word, but what I mean is trap the energy of the sun so it doesn't reflect away- thus you can capture more of it's energy. You increase the temperature, the evaporation rate speeds up too (because the equilibrium has been shifted). How do you mitigate the effects of equilibrium? Siphon off the damp air. How? I don't know yet, but part of the point is to move the humidity through a condenser somewhere else in the system, extracting it and sending it back to be salinated. Really all I am describing is a basic water cycle, built to extract electricity and also hopefully speed the process up.

  42. Isn't this Blue Energy? by QJB · · Score: 1

    I might be mistaking but this is called Blue Energy. Real world trials are already being build in the Netherlands (finished 2010). KEMA (Dutch institute) has discovered a way make cheap polymer membranes I believe. Dutch source: http://www.energiechannel.nl/nieuws_details.php?nid=44

  43. As affordable as Solar in a decade? by wytcld · · Score: 1

    I read that as "In a decade, as affordable as solar will be then," not "as affordable as solar is now." Most of the projections on solar have it coming into equivalence with natural gas before a decade's out. Coal may still be cheaper, if it's being burned in a grandfathered, totally polluting plant.

    Some of use also prefer cheap, polluted women. Lord knows I do! But my utility gets none of its power from coal. The price is slightly lower than average for here in the Northeast US. Unemployment is lower than the rest of the region too. Obviously it's not killing the economy to source from power suppliers priced higher than the coal generators.

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  44. Shoot yourself by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

    You're right. What's the point of life when we have to steal energy from the Earth in order to live?

    If you truly care about the environment, you'd shoot yourself and return your chemicals back to the planet.

    Don't forget to tell us how works out.

  45. Mod parent up by Tweenk · · Score: 1

    Please mod parent up to at least try to stop the similar nonsensical rambling of fringe environmentalist groups that attempt to induce a sense of guilt in people in order to extort donations.

    Reasonable environmental policies: yes.
    Voluntary human extinction: no.

    --
    Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
  46. And how much energy might we get from this? by downhole · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have mod points here, but I didn't see any other posts addressing this point, so I'll say it instead.

    The big problem with all of these kinda wacky energy schemes (from the perspective of energy independence and global warming advocates who clamor for these things) is that none of them show any potential of producing enough energy to measurably offset the use of any of our major energy sources like oil, gas, coal, and nuclear. It may be cool and there may be a useful niche for it somewhere, but unless you can get at least gigawatts if not tens of gigawatts or more reliably, then it won't have any effect on our importation of fossil fuels or overall global carbon emissions. And there's also the question of how much other environmental damage and disruption would be caused by deploying something like this on a multi-gigawatt scale.

    --
    I don't reply to ACs
  47. More bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG magickl enargee!

    Crock of bastardarseholeshit.

  48. Environmental Impact by cowtamer · · Score: 1

    River deltas house some unique ecosystems. Has anyone done an environmental impact study on using something like this?

    See

    http://www.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/about/habitat_types/selecting_freshwater_ecoregions/habitat17.cfm

  49. Re:Maybe someday PISSING in the WIND can become by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was thinking we need a -1 Timecube Mod...

  50. Is this news? by toblun · · Score: 1

    Is this realy news? there are already a prodjects in Norway and in Dutch where thay are building power plants using this consept More info can be found here: http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Mixing_Sea_and_River_Water Allso there is this post "Russians were First On Oct. 7, 2007, Wesley Bruce wrote: Statkraft's press release is, I believe, incorrect. I believe the Russians have an osmotic power plant running near Vladivostok. The plant may have only been experimental but it did sell power. I saw it on a TV report, Beyond Tomorrow I think, It had a web site in Russian but its since disappeared. Statkraft may be the first big plant but I don't think it counts as the first to sell power. The Russian team may even be working for Statkraft now " from http://pesn.com/2007/10/07/9500451_Statkraft_osmotic_power_plant/

  51. Energy is social justice by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 1

    I hope this can work on a massive scale. Cheap, accessible, green energy available at all income levels will work for social justice. Today, access to massive energy is only available to the wealthy.

  52. Renewable? by X10 · · Score: 0

    How can mixing salt water and fresh water be "renewable"? You can't unmix it without putting in more energy than you got out of it when you mixed it. I take it that they will use this energy for plants that create fresh water from salt water using lots of energy?

    --
    no, I don't have a sig
  53. Let's save energy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The earth is facing shortage of energy. How long can the human exist? It's everyone's responsibility to save energy and earth. Bullet Proof Vest,Body Armor Plate,Bullet Proof Helmet,Bullet Proof Material,Explosion Proof Material,Body Armor China,Body Armor,Bullet Proof Vest,Ballistic Helmet,Armor Plate,Ballistic Material http://www.bodyarmorchina.com