US Uncorks $16M For 17 Projects To Capture Wave Energy

coondoggie writes "The US Energy Department this week said it would spend $16 million for seventeen projects to help research and develop energy generating systems from waves, tides and currents. The energy agency says the US could generate up to 1,400 terawatt hours of potential power per year. One terawatt-hour of electricity is enough to power 85,000 homes, according to the agency."

Comments

Less than $1m each?

[AmiMoJo]

Doesn't seem like a lot of money for tidal power. Scotland is already way ahead and invests more than that.

Still, better than nothing.

Re:Less than $1m each?

[Joce640k]

Doesn't seem like a lot of money for tidal power.

Trillions for wars/spying on the public. Billions for waging a "war on drugs" and the militarization of police forces. $16 million for energy research, something that would fix the economy and kick-start all sorts of amazing technologies.

Re:Less than $1m each?

[supernova87a]

It's a good thing that we fund more alternative energy development projects, especially given the absolute crap kinds of things that we as a country are throwing our tax dollars into recently. However, it is important to be upfront that wave power has among the worst cost effectiveness of any of the alternative energy technologies, i.e. solar, wind, geothermal, etc.

If you look at the LCOE (levelized cost of energy, basically the evened-out cost per energy taking into account installation, operation, transportation, etc), wave energy is an order of magnitude bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Analysis_from_different_sources

That being said, of course any technology needs research to help to bring it down in cost and become a reasonable option. But the current cost also just reflects that there is a portion of cost that cannot be easily reduced, because of the inevitable difficulty of the marine environment, generating power there (maintaining these contraptions), and getting the power to land.

Re:Less than $1m each?

[supernova87a]

And just to follow on -- at a certain point where the technology has gone as far as it can, and still costs this much, you are better off putting those research dollars into other technologies or removing barriers to the ones that are at least affordable in the commercialization stage.

Wee, it's no wonder

[AliasMarlowe]

With $16M spread across 17 projects, it's no wonder that STEM jobs are underpaid. Then again, with all the billions being wasted on spying (on US citizens as well as foreigners), it no wonder there is so little left for projects which might actually benefit mankind.

Re: Wee, it's no wonder

[DigiShaman]

One of two outcomes here:

1. Money is given in phases for each set of completed research goals.

Or

2. It's a scheme to nickle and dime the tax payer with the never ending promise of "we're so close, we just need some more funding" all while on the 10th round of funding already.

Re:Wee, it's no wonder

[letherial]

The sun puts out a million more watts per hour on the surface of earth then USA uses in 1 year.

Oil is energy from the sun at one point. Everything that we do, have, build or create has its roots with the sun. All of life uses solar energy to build itself and survive.

and what are we going to when all the oil is gone genius?

Re: Wee, it's no wonder

[AliasMarlowe]

2. It's a scheme to nickle and dime the tax payer with the never ending promise of "we're so close, we just need some more funding" all while on the 10th round of funding already.

It does sound like a nickel and dime job, except for the lack of a nickel or dime: they're barely willing to spend a cent on it.

Ever get involved with work for Uncle Sam? The paperwork is appalling, starting with all the regulatory compliance issues (as indicated in mveloso's post below). The entire investment would be absorbed by bullshit overhead (project management, budget oversight, regulatory oversight, etc.) before a single STEM worker could get hired to actually do any of the work.

Re:Hope they pay close attention

[flyingfsck]

So what has fracking got to do with tidal power?

Failed technology

[Animats]

Wave power has been talked up for years. No project is beyond the prototype stage, even the one in Scotland, and none of them are profitable. It's just not a very good idea.

Anything with moving parts at the ocean surface is going to be a maintenance headache. "Remember that the free surface is neither ocean nor air and that man cannot walk upon it nor will equipments remain stable in its presence. So design your equipments that they tarry not long and that they need neither servicing nor repair at this unseemly interface." - MIT/U.S. Navy ocean engineering expert. Most wave power schemes involve many big mechanical devices at the ocean surface. Fully submerged equipment or windmills above the ocean work better.

Tidal power is only feasible at a few locations worldwide. I read a study once that found ten potential sites in the world. The ideal site for maximum power output is the Bay of Fundy, but it's a long way from potential loads. Also, the way to get the most power out is to build a dam and hydroelectric plant, which totally changes the ecology in the area.

Re:Failed technology

[MrL0G1C]

No project is beyond the prototype stage, even the one in Scotland, and none of them are profitable. It's just not a very good idea.

You expect a prototype to be more effective than technologies that have had a century of development supporting them, not giving wave technology much of a chance are you.

Wind, Solar, Wave, Geothermal, Tidal, Hydro etc will be around for billions of years, we might as well invest in those because coal, oil and gas won't be around for long relatively speaking.

Money is great, but regulations are the problem

[mveloso]

Get all the money you want, but it's regulatory compliance that's the problem, not the money - at least if this company's experience is any guide.

"Last September, with great fanfare, Ocean Power Technologies began construction on America's first wave-powered utility. Holding the first - and only - wave energy permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, OPT had planned to deploy a test buoy off the coast of Reedsport by spring.

But a year after the permit, regulatory and technical difficulties have all but halted the project. Federal regulators notified the company earlier this year it had violated the license after failing to file a variety of plans and assessments."

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2013/08/oregon_wave_energy_stalls_off.html

One government hand giveth, other hands taketh away.

$16 million? Really?

[Jmc23]

Only 60,000 times smaller than amount spent on military. I wonder if the US citizens will ever revolt?

Re:Causing the eventual distruction of the Earth

[chill]

But think of the profits we can make from harvesting all of the green cheese!

I'm betting "big dairy" will never let this scenario happen.

Re:Causing the eventual distruction of the Earth

[BitterOak]

But that would probably take many decades or even centuries. It may affect our grandchildren or great grandchildren but not us, so it sounds like a good plan for our immediate energy needs.

Re:Causing the eventual distruction of the Earth

[jeffb (2.718)]

Except that increasing tidal drag would actually cause the Moon to move away more quickly. Remember, the Earth rotates faster than the Moon orbits around it.

But yeah, other than being exactly wrong, you're exactly right.

Power vs. energy

[jeffb (2.718)]

Is it really asking so much for a three-sentence summary to address "power" and "energy" correctly and consistently?

Any time someone talks about a power facility in terms of "terawatt-hours per year", they're either confused themselves, or they're trying to confuse you. (Or both.) If they're talking about "terawatt-hours of power", they're the ones who are confused.

Re:Power vs. energy

[somepunk]

There's nothing funny about terawatt-hours per year as a measure of power. It's the average power generated over a year, since tidal power isn't uniform. It's the next sentence mixing up power and evergy that's messed up.

Re:Power vs. energy

[Solandri]

Any time someone talks about a power facility in terms of "terawatt-hours per year", they're either confused themselves, or they're trying to confuse you. (Or both.) If they're talking about "terawatt-hours of power", they're the ones who are confused.

No they're not confused, both terms refer to different things.

Terawatts (or more frequently, megawatts) refers to the so-called nameplate capacity - the peak generating capacity of the plant.

Terawatt-hours per year refers to the actual energy generated over the course of a year.

Basically, TWh per year is (nameplate capacity)*(capacity factor). Capacity factor being the fraction of the nameplate capacity that the plant actually produces on average. Unfortunately, most people don't know the capacity factors for the different technologies off the top of their head (nuclear is around 0.9, coal/oil around 0.6, hydro about 0.4-0.5, offshore wind about 0.3-0.4, onshore wind bout 0.2-0.25, and solar about 0.15).

Dunno what the capacity factor is for wave generation, but in terms of assessing the real capability of a power plant, TWh per year is the more useful figure since it's directly comparable between different technologies (and against power consumption). Nameplate capacity is (ab)used by solar and wind proponents to exaggerate how much those systems actually generate. If you installed 6 kW worth of solar panels in your home, I'm sorry but it doesn't actually generate 6 kW. That's how much it'll generate on a sunny day at noon if the sun happens to be angled perfectly with the panels. On average (after you factor in night, clouds, angle of the sun, etc) it'll generate 1.1 kW if you're in the desert southwest U.S., 870 watts for most of the rest of the country.

Re:Power vs. energy

[R3d M3rcury]

There's nothing funny about terawatt-hours per year as a measure of power.

Agreed.

Re:Power vs. energy

[angel'o'sphere]

Most people don't know "capacity factor" out of their head because they are an artificial invention of american lobbies.

A nuclear plant has no capacity factor of 0.9, you can as well run it at 100%. Why power companies don't do that is left as an exercise for the reader.

Coal has no capacity factor of 0.6 ... that is the most ridiculous ever seen. Most coal plants run at the highest cap they can.

The claim about hydro is the most ridiculous. You run a hydro plant to adjust to load demand. So the power it generates is EXACTLY 100% of what you want.

Offshore wind is usually running all the time, you don't scale it down (and you can't scale it up) over a year you have about 145% "capacity factor" ... as an offshore farm yields much more than name plate.

Same for onshore, usually you are around 80% - 130% nameplate rating.

The term "capacity factor" is a /. or USA invention. No energy company is using it. (And yes: as I pointed out often enough, I worked over 10 years for one of the biggest energy companies in europe. We are not interested in "capacity factor(s)" but in the actual energy produced. This "capacity factor" trash talk is utter nonsense.

1 TeraW per 85,000 homes ?

[Anonymous Coward]

That means almost 12 KW per home.

I wonder if the US Energy Department is aware of the fact that in most of Europe each home gets between 3 and 5 KW. Even at 6 KW (which should be more than enough for the vast majority of homes), that would double the figure, up to 170,000 homes.

Cutting energy use should be targeted, along with new, renewable energy sources...

Re:1 TeraW per 85,000 homes ?

[Bengie]

But once you include transmission losses!.... I don't know, just throwing that possibility into the mix.

Re:Seems technically simple...

[wonkey_monkey]

Doesn't seem like it would have too many moving parts or require elaborate engineering.

That's probably because you've spent a grand total of about two minutes coming up with your idea. The solution to the tidal energy problem is not going to come from a Slashdot AC, sorry.

Re:$16 million? Really?

[EvilSS]

Of course not, the government has a huge fucking military!

Re:Hope they pay close attention

[john.r.strohm]

Yup.

NOBODY wants to talk about this one.

Extract all the energy from the wave, and you have no more wave. There is a HUGE amount of shoreline and shallow-water marine ecology that is critically dependent on wave action. Remove the waves, and you wreck that ecology.

The Environmental Impact Statements for those wave energy plants are gonna be INTERESTING.

Nice, but still the wrong focus

[WindBourne]

We need money in various areas, but 2 biggies that are being missed are geo-thermal along with thorium fission. I would love to see us allocate 1B for each.

Re:Causing the eventual distruction of the Earth

[Joce640k]

Actually I don't see how the Moon can move away. That would require the Moon acquiring energy in the process,

Um, the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a rate of 3.8cm per year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_(astronomy)

Reason why: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12311119

PS: The Earth's rotation is also slowing down...(!)

Stupid numbers.

[mark_reh]

Why say 1400 terawatts, then explain that 1 terawatt is sufficient to power 85,000 homes when you could just as easily say that it generates "1400 terawatts, enough to power 119,000,000 homes"?

Meanwhile ...

[InsGadget]

We spend almost 4 orders of magnitude more on subsidizing the digging of stuff out of the earth, so we can burn it. On subsidizing the most profitable corporations in the history of mankind. Hurray us.

Capacity factor

[Firethorn]

Nuclear plants can be used in a load following mode, but given that they have about the lowest marginal cost per kwh produced*, it makes no sense for them to NOT produce power when they can. Coal is more expensive, but if you really want to you can reach 90% capacity factor with it as well; my base has a coal powered cogeneration plant(electricity + steam heat) that can run all winter long, but in the summer it runs at less than half power, allowing lots of maintenance, but it never really fully shuts off.

The main point about capacity factor for renewable energy is that, for the most part it's not optional. So when you look at nuclear at $3 a watt vs $2 a watt solar, the nuclear is actually cheaper because you can anticipate running it at 90%, vs less than 30% for solar. So solar has to be below $1 a watt for nameplate capacity in order to actually produce the same average amount of power as a nuclear plant.

*Solar technically has a free marginal cost but you don't have a choice on when it generates power, Wind has a measurable cost per kwh because it has physical components that wear out.