Slashdot Mirror


WaveNET – the Floating, Flexible Wave Energy Generator

Zothecula writes: Scotland's Albatern is putting a new, modular spin on renewable energy generation. WaveNET is a scalable array of floating "Squid" generator units that harvest wave energy as their buoyant arms rise and fall with the motion of the waves. Each Squid can link up to as many as three others, effectively creating a large, floating grid that's flexible in every direction. The bigger this grid gets, the more efficient it becomes at harvesting energy, and the more different wave movements it can extract energy from. Albatern's 10-year target is to have 1.25 kilometer-long floating energy farms pumping out as much as 100 megawatts by 2024.

90 comments

  1. Niche energy by amorsen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Median energy density in waves is too low in most places. You need way too large machines to extract useful amounts of power. The few times you get sufficiently powerful waves they tend to rip your equipment to bits.

    Wave energy is one of those ideas which seem really obvious from a distance, so the fact that project after project fails does not seem to dissuade anyone. They were obviously just doing it wrong.

    I really hope that I am wrong and this turns out to be a great success, but I am not holding my breath.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    1. Re:Niche energy by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      For almost everything that works there was a time when it didn't work. Just because others have failed in the past doesn't mean it's impossible.

    2. Re:Niche energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am wondering why you think the energy density is low? I think it is huge, a lot more kinetic energy per square meter than faster moving, but lighter, air.(wind)

    3. Re:Niche energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      those Wright brothers should really stop wasting their time powered flight is a pipe dream

    4. Re:Niche energy by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      We don't really need to have a one-size-fits-all power generation supply. Geothermal is great if you are in Iceland or certain parts of the Ring of Fire, but for the most of the world, it's not an option at all. Solar power is going to work better in places with lots of sunlight, wind power in places with lots of wind, etc.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    5. Re:Niche energy by Legal.Troll · · Score: 0

      Excellent comment, four-digit username, would read again.

      --
      "Outdated business models" is code for "I don't like paying for things, but want them anyway"
    6. Re:Niche energy by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Median energy density in waves is too low in most places.

      Note: "Scotland"

      I don't predict that will be a problem for the locations they're likely to be planning on. :)

    7. Re:Niche energy by Solandri · · Score: 2

      I am wondering why you think the energy density is low? I think it is huge, a lot more kinetic energy per square meter than faster moving, but lighter, air.(wind)

      That's the problem - you can't really tap into the kinetic energy of the wave from the surface. The up-down motion of the wave is just a boundary layer height change due to a transient lateral pressure differential in the water. i.e. The water pressure is higher at this point than at a point 1 meter away, while the air pressure is the same in both spots. So the water is higher at this point, creating the height differential we call a wave. The vast majority of the energy is transmitted under the surface - even if you covered the ocean surface with a solid 100% energy-absorbing material, the wave would still propagate. The amount that'd be lost to the surface (due to harvesting) is just the difference in cross sectional area of the wave front from one end of the harvesting device to the other if the wavefront were allowed to expand upwards. Unless you're in very shallow water, the vast majority of the energy simply passes underneath your device.

      So a floating structure is a terribly inefficient way to extract energy from the wave. It'd be like trying to extract wind energy using balloons which flop around in the wind. A turbine is a much more efficient way to harvest the kinetic energy, except underwater turbines tend not to last very long due to corrosion, biological fouling, and experience higher wear due to the incompressibility of water.

      If you don't believe me, ask yourself why sailing ships were designed to use wind energy instead of wave energy. Waves are more consistent than wind - even when there is no wind there are frequently ocean swells which could've provided energy to propel ships. It's because average wind energy is denser than the fraction of wave energy you can extract from something bobbing on the surface.

    8. Re:Niche energy by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There may be amore important reason to develop wave energy. In most parts of the UK, shoreline erosion is a serious problem. Any technology that saps the energy of incoming waves is a good thing for countries with this problem.

    9. Re:Niche energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This kind of comment is anti-science.

      See also comments about how maybe in the future FTL will be possible. You're rejecting something physically proven and well-understood because you don't like it and prefer your own fantasies. Worse, you're doing it because fundamentally you don't understand what the science is saying, and refuse to educate yourself. This is in my opinion the worst attitude to have about the world.

    10. Re:Niche energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ships have to move are limited in size and shape. Your analogy stinks.

    11. Re:Niche energy by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      The question isn't how much energy is there in a wave. The question is if you can extract enough for it to be worth it. The answer of course is a big yes. That's why so many companies are engaged in this kind of research. Same goes for the wind. A wind turbine only extracts a small portion of the energy that's in the wind but that's irrelevant as long as it can generate enough energy to be worth building and running the damn thing.

    12. Re:Niche energy by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Wrong on all accounts.

      Neither is the energy of waves to low nor do they rip anything apart. And yes, around coasts waves are very common ... no idea why you think waves would not be available at some spots ... sure, big lakes, even the meditarien, might be to small. But oceans always have waves.

      We are talking here about off shore waves, not breakers that ram into a steep coast.

      Wave energy systems we have since decades. But so far they where not economic (durability, maintenance etc. ) feasable.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re:Niche energy by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      ocean swells which could've provided energy to propel ships.
      Energy yes.
      but you are aware that wind and sails are a very simple means to propell a ship without any need to store/convert energy and then use it in a special device likema propeller?

      It's because average wind energy is denser than the fraction of wave energy you can extract from something bobbing on the surface.

      That is nonsense.

      The rest of your post makes not much sense either. Who cares about efficiency? The only things that are relevant are: cost, space, amount of energy/power produced. Who cares if the wave only gives away 10% of their total energy due to that? What has that to do with any rational meams of the term 'efficiency'?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re:Niche energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "David MacKay - How the Laws of Physics Constrain Our Sustainable Energy Options"
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5bVbfWuq-Q

    15. Re:Niche energy by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Human flight is one of those ideas which seem really obvious from a distance, so the fact that project after project fails does not seem to dissuade anyone. They were obviously just doing it wrong.

      With most new tech the R&D happens in a lab out of public view. The numerous failures are hidden from view and you just see the final, working prototype or a finished product. Unfortunately that isn't possible for large projects like this, so they have to do their R&D in public.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:Niche energy by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Which is why Youtube has tons of over unity 'free energy' videos. They say the same thing.

      Its that damn reality that keeps getting in the way!

    17. Re:Niche energy by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      You've not been to Scotland :-)

      The waves don't need to be large or on the surface - most "wave" machines are located underwater and get a steady undulation of water going past them.

      Of course the best thing about this type of renewable is that it generates electricity all the time.

    18. Re:Niche energy by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Who cares about efficiency? The only things that are relevant are: cost, space, amount of energy/power produced.

      I'd say the guy performing the cost estimate, because efficiency at extraction is a key indicator to how much space you'll need to produce your target amount of power(or how much power your limited space can produce), which determines how much equipment you need to do it, which drives cost. That's without considering that if you need to purchase/lease/rent land or area rights there can be a cost there as well.

      But as an executive deciding between different options, you're right.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    19. Re: Niche energy by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Wow that is a ridiculous argument. Ships used wind energy because that was the easiest thing to use with the technology available 3000 years ago (or whenever the first guy to hang a sheet on a boat did so). Harvesting wave energy using ancient technology would have required ridiculous clockwork mechanisms, which would have been extremely expensive for the day, difficult to repair at sea, and probably not reliable either. A piece of cloth attached to 1 or more sticks is far superior in all these practical concerns, and is far more obvious and practical.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    20. Re:Niche energy by Rei · · Score: 1

      A lot of companies are involved in a lot of renewables tech research. That doesn't mean that any particular one is going to be profitable. The vast majority are going to be big failures.

      Wave power's track record so far has been subpar to say the least. And looking at their diagrams, I can't imagine that they're not headed straight for the same fate. Even if we assume that their numbers aren't overly optimistic, their design looks like it would involve several times more steel per nameplate capacity than a wind turbine tower. And they're operating in a much harsher environment. No rotors, but they're dealing with major hydraulic pumping instead. It just doesn't look like a winner to me.

      If it was my job to have a go at wave power, I can't imagine going for anything involving large amounts of structural steel or hydraulic pumping; I'd keep it simple and just go for a grid of cables (potentially a high tensile strength UV-resistant plastic), anchored at the edges to keep tension up across the whole grid, with the only slack available involving the grid pulling on regularly spaced springloaded reels (the rotation thereof generating electricity), with any combination of floats, drag chutes and weighs/anchors to cause the needed tug from the movement of water. No pumps, no hydraulic fluid, no large compressive-loaded structures, just a tensile structure that would be (proportionally) lightweight and easy to deploy.

      But hey, it's not my industry ;)

      --
      Trick People Into Clicking Your Headline With This One Weird Trick!
    21. Re:Niche energy by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I hate this negative attitude that pervades the world these days. It discourages invention and ingenuity by telling people only the ignorant and crazy would even try. Everything we accomplish in the next 50-100 years will be something that reality gets in the way of just now. Most things which are genuinely revolutionary are actually fairly simple twists on existing things.

      There are functional wave powered ocean vessels.

      There is no such thing as 'free energy' in the sense of something from nothing, it has to come from somewhere. But energy isn't exactly in short supply. It's literally everywhere. Everything is made of energy after all and that IS reality.

      This is definitely not the time to make assumptions about what will happen and what will come. There are so many new toys that completely redefine what is possible at play right now and new discoveries happening so fast and yet being made by such a small group of people that there are millions of potential revolutionary applications. There is a massive well of untapped potential that hasn't been explored because the people who know it's there are a small group and because the industries that make advanced technology are economically entrenched in current manufacturing methods.

      One small example was that not too far back an independent inventor finally developed the first real hover board. That wasn't even actually using NEW theory, he cracked out an old understanding of physics and a the flux of a magnetic field repelling a conductor. Looking into this I was able to find lots of people had played with the effect in labs to demonstrate the physics. He didn't disclose what he did but with nothing but a reading of the relevant Wikipedia page and looking at the experimental setups I could find, where 80-90% of the energy consumed was lost to heat. There were definitely some immediate adjustments I could see that could be made to improve that efficiency dramatically. The patent office didn't believe him and he had to travel to Washington D.C. and demonstrate the board in person.

      The patent office was skeptical and expended minimal resources on the claim, making him come to them to prove it. That increases the barrier but at least they gave him a chance to prove he'd successfully invented a science fiction device.

      All the papers are out there, detailing DNA assembly of nanotech devices. That is something you can do in an improvised home lab. You can build metallic nano-structures using relatively inexpensive techniques that can be replicated in a home lab. Lithographic techniques could be utilized with some improvisation and basic electronics know how can be used to build structures out of cheap materials. Relatively simple but completely novel things are being discovered constantly here. You have some disadvantages but also advantages. The techniques you develop will be relatively inexpensive so your work might be inexpensive to replicate and spread commercially if you choose and if you do develop something novel there will likely be a great deal of potential to improve on it. There is a huge amount of potential in optical computing and holography as well. There is a great deal of advanced biology that can be done by an amateur in a home lab. Chemistry and electronics of course are always there as a tool. If you throw the game changer that is quantum physics into the mix who knows what someone using these tools could produce. You wouldn't have to be an expert in all these areas, someone who just picked up enough to be dangerous in several of these areas could accomplish something amazing.

    22. Re:Niche energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If an equipment is easily broken and too expensive to make sturdy enough then the obvious solution is to make it cheap to manufacture and replace.

      Design it efficient even when it fails.

    23. Re:Niche energy by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Oh I'd definitely use hydraulics. I'd probably use long and wide water filled and UV resistant plastic bladders under water. Use some massive cement blocks to anchor to the sea floor and floating turbine buoys on the surface. I'd set one way valves on the lines that connect the bladder to the buoys and an equal number on the bottom of the bladders.

      The force of the wave deforms the bladder which, in still water, has a pressure gradient neutral to that of the surrounding ocean. The deformation will cause a low pressure zone and water will travel upward and blast out the one way valves at the top. That displaced water will be replaced with highly pressurized water by the intake valves at the bottom. The water turns the turbines on the buoys, which would also have blades for wind.

      There is probably a better way to handle the pressurized fluid I just used the wave to pump out of the ocean. A generator in the ocean would be tough to keep from corroding.

    24. Re:Niche energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow ! All that "information" and not a single quote, reference or justification. Do you troll here regularly, or is this just a one-off stunt?

    25. Re:Niche energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'd be surfing ships rather than sailing ship if they were designed to ride the waves - and a lot of Polynesian ship designs are waveriders with sails aswell.

    26. Re:Niche energy by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      No matter how inefficient it is, as long as it's going to produce significant amounts of energy over its lifetime and doesn't pollute then it's worth doing. 20 year payback is fine, as long as the energy is clean.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:Niche energy by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      In most parts of the UK, shoreline erosion is a serious problem.

      [SIGH] [Pulls on hard hat with "Rig geologist" written on the front.]

      There are some fairly small areas where shoreline erosion is a problem. Most of them are on the East coast, south of approximately Humberside. A few problematic spots along the south coast. Or, if you want to look at it another way, in the relatively sheltered parts of the innermost English Channel and Southern North Sea, where the coasts of Holland and France are just a few tens of miles away, greatly reducing wave fetch.

      Of course, due to the location of the capital, people who live in the area around the capital think that that quarter of the country is the only area that matters. Those of us who don't live in that capital, or even in that country of the UK, know differently.

      More generally, managing coastal erosion is a very dodgy subject. Reducing the impact of wave energy on one section of the coast can increase, decrease, or leave little changed the rate of local erosion, as well as having the same range of effects up- and down- coast from the site of the intervention. The golden rule is that there are no golden rules. You have to examine every case on it's own details, and still expect considerable uncertainty of outcome.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Saltwater and MTBF by jgtg32a · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wish them the best of luck but saltwater is particularly nasty stuff over over an extended period of time. Hopefully they can find a cheap way to insulate against it.

    1. Re:Saltwater and MTBF by Spy+Handler · · Score: 3, Funny

      Stop trying to be so nice and polite. What you really meant to say is that this aint ever gonna work because salt water is a crazy fucked up environment. Harebrained schemes like this always fail because seawater is so corrosive that maintenance costs will eat up any and all profits.

      Haven't seen anyone mention it yet, but only a couple months ago there was a Slashdot story about another wave power generation scheme that failed. Cause? Salt water and high maintenance costs.

    2. Re:Saltwater and MTBF by Hillgiant · · Score: 5, Informative

      Cathodic protection is a well understood science. I have seen sub-sea pipeline equipment that had been immersed for 20 years actuate like they are brand new.

      --
      -
    3. Re:Saltwater and MTBF by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And one of these days, they will crack it. It is not far out of reach. It just needs some engineering optimizations. And once the saltwater problem is solved, the solution will benefit other things working in saltwater as well.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Saltwater and MTBF by sperxios10 · · Score: 1

      Even though it is a tough engineering problem, i'm sure that there are solutions out there.

      For instance I have heard many times the nuclear industry to claim that they have solved harder problems with their molten-salt breeder designs.
      So if they have found a way to handle super-heated, radioactively saturated, oxidizing salts, how much difficult would be to handle sea-salts at standard temperatures?

    5. Re:Saltwater and MTBF by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You do know that Scottland and also other european countries have test installations in sea water since over 20 years?

      Ah, you don't ... how smart to point out the obvious. I really wonder why eceryone on /. always think that some random european engineers and companies (especially if it is regarding energy) are idiots?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Saltwater and MTBF by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      Did I say European engineers are idiots? Or any engineers?

      Of course they can make it work, I was saying the project will fail due to economics, not because they can't engineer. Like the Concorde, an engineering marvel but economic failure.

      Here's an earlier Slashdot story and comment that sums it up nicely:

      http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...

    7. Re:Saltwater and MTBF by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

      Rance Tidal Power Station opened in 1966, still going strong, salty water not a problem.

      The UK is planning a large tidal lagoon, backed by Prudential Insurance, they don't seem to be in the slightest bit worried about salty water either. UK Renewables May Be Turning The Tide

      And of course there's a global shipping industry. Coal doesn't go by airplane.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    8. Re:Saltwater and MTBF by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of working schemes:

      Wave Dragon
      Pelamis
      Oyster

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Saltwater and MTBF by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      It's not a question of whether or not it can be handled. Of course it can be handled, you just take the thing out of the water every x hours and repair/clean/repaint/whatever it. The question is, what's the value of 'x', and what's the associated cost, and at what point does that prevent the whole enterprise from being uneconomical?

    10. Re:Saltwater and MTBF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is being attempted here is orders magnitude more difficult than sub-sea pipeline equipment.

      Power generation equipment almost always has to move. Any corrosion, fouling (think barnacles, seaweed, anemones) or contamination inhibits and ultimately stops the working surfaces. You have seals that need to be maintained. And the power generation cycle of the design mandates that this be in the wave zone, precisely where the mechanical forces are strongest. This cannot be changed because it's the mechanical force that generates the power. Storms are a serious threat to the machinery that generates power.

      Your sub-sea pipeline equipment? It's all below the wave zone. The strongest storms in the world have no effect at all below about 100 feet (30 m) in depth.

      This power generation equipment operates where boats operate. When there's a storm the wise captain puts in to port. Where is the port that will protect the power generators? I'll bet there isn't one. When a windmill experiences a storm the props feather and the windmill stops generating power to protect the equipment. You can't do anything like that with floating generators.

      Now, here's something that could be done. If the water was deep enough, voluntarily sink the wave generators. Use ballast tanks like a submarine; that's an old and time-tested technology. You could even automate the system for maximum reliability and protection. Once the storm passes re-surface the system and resume power generation. I'm not sure how an automated system would detect the passing of the storm but that could be worked out. The environment is still a tough one for equipment but at least then, the first bad storm isn't going to trash your power farm.

    11. Re:Saltwater and MTBF by delt0r · · Score: 1

      That does not fix the bio fouling problem and is not maintenance free. You are always stuck with both high capitol costs and high maintenance costs. This translates into expensive power.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    12. Re:Saltwater and MTBF by delt0r · · Score: 1

      There may well be a solution and it may well be more expensive than alternative methods of generating power. By the way the problem of corrosion in molten salt reactors was suggested, but neither tested or qualified. It was also very expensive.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    13. Re:Saltwater and MTBF by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Tidal power is not wave power. It really is quite a different problem.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    14. Re:Saltwater and MTBF by Dusty · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how much longer Pelamis will be around:-

      Wave power firm Pelamis calls in administrators

    15. Re:Saltwater and MTBF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it was tested. Hastelloy with 1.1% niobium was found to be the most performant and exhibited very little cracking over prolonged periods (3000 hours at 700 degrees Celsius) in a liquid fluoride thorium solution containing tellurium (the worst offender for embrittlement). Also tested were solutions containing uranium.

      Now fuck off you useful idiot.

    16. Re:Saltwater and MTBF by delt0r · · Score: 1

      That is not qualified nor properly tested. Pop quiz how many hours in a year. How long do you want your reactor to last?

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  3. much more energy in wind by jclaer · · Score: 1

    energy is mass times velocity squared. Energy flux flowing over a windmill has another velocity, so velocity cubed.

    1. Re:much more energy in wind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better is to apply relativity and consider the wind fixed and the Earth moving with respect to it. Then energy is 1/2 * {mass of the Earth} * {wind speed}^2.

    2. Re:much more energy in wind by rabidMacBigot() · · Score: 1

      Can you expand on this please? Why is the velocity cubed?
      Not that I know anything about this stuff, but it seems like water should have more energy. 1,000Kg/m^3 for water compared to like 1.25Kg/m^3 for air. It seems like the difference in mass would blow away (HURRR) any but the most extreme difference in velocity.

    3. Re:much more energy in wind by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Why don't youndo the math then?
      Energy is m * v ^ 2.

      Obviously doubeling the v goes to the square for total energy, while doubeling the mass only doubles the energy.

      Wind energy increases in a turbine with the speed by the cube because first of all the air follows the same e = m * v ^ 2 ... but on top of that if you double the speed not only do you have (2 * v) ^ 2 but also (2 * m) as in the same time, now twice the mass of air goes through the turbine (twice the mass times twice the speed).

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  4. Interesting... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

    This is one of the more novel designs I've seen. It seems to be scaled to a good size for wave action near the coastline, it's modular and extensible, and it looks like it would allow for small vessels to navigate over the grid, as long as their draft depth is shallow enough. Another advantage is that it doesn't "ruin the skyline" the way a wind farm might do in Massachusetts.Also, the ocean is more "reliable" as an energy source than wind or solar... this method ought to deliver a more "reliable" 24/7 output.

    Sounds like a pretty good deal for certain areas, and I bet those areas will start installing this system (or something like it) in the next few years.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    1. Re:Interesting... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Ona grand scale wind and solar are reliable.
      They are just not dispatchable.

      A huge difference!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would argue that something not dispatchable (unkillable, since to dispatch someone is to kill them) is quite reliable!

  5. I wish they succeed too!!! by sentiblue · · Score: 1

    Agree with you both about two things

    1. Powerful wave movements can rip equipments apart
    2. Salt water is such a damaging factor to the equipments

    So my thought is that not only a power farm is located in a mild whether area... but also weather forecast data should be used to relocate the farm over an enormous area of ocean surface to avoid damage to equipment... and yet that area is still inside the national territory waters of any particular country... Otherwise they'd have to find a way to protect their investments in international waters.

    To get over the damaging nature of salt water... I guess the main materials used to create the farm arms have to be plastic-like... Any metal is such a suicidal design.... particularly iron.

    1. Re:I wish they succeed too!!! by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      We use metal structures that are in contact with the ocean all the time. It's not suicidal in the slightest.

    2. Re:I wish they succeed too!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true, but they tend to be anchored very firmly to the bottom, or else float free and are independently powered. I think there is a good reason nothing big has evolved to live on the surface of the sea, it either lives under it or flies over it. The strain on the parts here will be very considerable over time, and it makes me think of the strain on a ship's anchor cable and the impact waves have on a moored ship as a consequence. It seems to me that the wave power schemes that avoid the surface of the ocean are more likely to prove viable in the long run.

  6. Environmentalist objection by PapayaSF · · Score: 1
    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
  7. Unsolved problems by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Wave energy is one of those ideas which seem really obvious from a distance, so the fact that project after project fails does not seem to dissuade anyone. They were obviously just doing it wrong.

    Do you know how many rockets were unsuccessfully fired before we finally got one safely into space? Do you know how many airplanes were lost before we managed to make flight safe? How many boats were lost crossing the oceans?

    Just because we haven't figured it out yet doesn't mean we won't. Only way to crack the problem is to try.

    1. Re:Unsolved problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may as well wait for a fusion reactor then

      I mean, do you know how many unsuccessful fusion prototypes have been built? ::)

    2. Re:Unsolved problems by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      Add one to that count. I tried building a fusion generator last night when I was drunk. Just like all the other attempts mine didn't work either.

    3. Re:Unsolved problems by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Add one to that count. I tried building a fusion generator last night when I was drunk. Just like all the other attempts mine didn't work either.

      Perhaps you just suck at building fusion generators, like the Apollo 13 astronauts sucked at stirring.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:Unsolved problems by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      Add one to that count. I tried building a fusion generator last night when I was drunk. Just like all the other attempts mine didn't work either.

      Perhaps you just suck at building fusion generators, like the Apollo 13 astronauts sucked at stirring.

      Well, what do you expect, when you send Forrest Gump into space.

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    5. Re:Unsolved problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know. Van Braun had so many of his V1 rockets crash into England before we finally managed to get a rocket into space!

    6. Re:Unsolved problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not half as many as have been de-funded and canned.

    7. Re:Unsolved problems by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      I know. Van Braun had so many of his V1 rockets crash into England before we finally managed to get a rocket into space!

      That's a new one! I only knew about the pulse jet propelled V1s. The only WWII Von Braun rockets most of us had heard of were the V2s.

      As far as is known, no rocket propelled V1s ever crashed into England, or anywhere else for that matter.
      Perhaps they all went into space....

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  8. testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    blah

  9. What's the money for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get it. Slashdot used to run on some Pentium tower in the Geek Compound.

    Now, they need banner ads, _plus_ slashdot deals, _plus_ sponsored stories at the bottom.

    All this, plus they get a lot more traffic now.

    So where's the money going? Obviously the salaries of the people who run the place are higher than the approx.. $0 that Taco et al earned back in the day.

    But with the higher traffic, why aren't the banner ads alone enough to run a site with, by modern standards, fairly minimal traffic?

    SoylentNews has about 1/5 the traffic of slashdot, and they run on peanuts - a few thousand.

    Does Slashdot really need Deals to run? Or is it just an attempt by Dice to get more profit?

    Might we all - dice, slashdot editors, and slashdot readers - be better off if slashdot went back to being a community-run site? Put it in the hands of the current editors (who aren't that bad, really), have banner ads, and see how it goes. Dice can stop trying to get blood from a stone, and everyone else can have a more relaxed, symbiotic relationship.

    How does that sound? What do you think, Timothy?

    1. Re:What's the money for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, should have closed that with a question to Soulskill. Though I'd be interested in what Timothy and the rest of the editors think, as well.

    2. Re:What's the money for? by joh · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, but this is like your employer asking you why you want more pay for your work than necessary to keep you from starving until the next workday... I mean, maybe he doesn't WANT to pay you more than that but you DO want as much as you can get.

      Slashdot is a business, not a public service.

    3. Re:What's the money for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a business now, but it could be a public service. The editors should get a professional salary, but should the whole thing cost more than a half million a year? If it's capped at that, would advertising cover it? My argument is that, if it could be run as a community site, we'd all be better of if it were run that way.

  10. bad idea by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    The alternative to this is one that resides on the ground and it generates the same power no matter what the height of the waves are. That's a lot more logical.

  11. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they build giant wave energy generators on the ocean floor at the coastline instead of on top of the water?

  12. Horrible idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't take energy from a system without affecting the system. A massive wave-energy generator *will* have detrimental effects on the ocean. It's inevitable.

  13. Kevin Costner would approve by sansprivacy · · Score: 2

    The modular design is cool. It's going to come in handy ...

  14. ah yea... by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    This wont work...
    Here's the key piece of their mechanism:
    http://images.gizmag.com/galle...

    It's 25 meters beneath the north sea... in the midst of a spiderweb of steel...
    That joint is most likely to fail during a storm.
    When it does fail, you'd now have a floating buoy dangling a giant steel beam beneath it, riding storm waves...
    and crashing into the rest of the network.

    Storm conditions will prevent you from doing anything about it until the damage is done.

    1. Re:ah yea... by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much effect a storm will have on some equipment 25 metres below sea level?

    2. Re:ah yea... by Required+Snark · · Score: 2
      Yes, Mr. ShashDot Pundit. You're absolutely right.

      You are so smart and they are so dumb. it's guaranteed that they spent no time doing any calculations about this. Every engineer they have has never even seen the ocean, only designed stuff on paper/computers in nice clean rooms. They've never run any simulations, or done any physical testing at all, because all engineers just know that complex new things always work perfectly the first time.

      So just call them and talk to the receptionist, or send them an email and tell them about your brilliant insight. I'm sure that once they hear your detailed criticism it will bring their foolish scheme to a screeching halt. At the very least they will give up, or see the light and appoint you the head honcho. Only your fantastically sharp mind can save them.

      Good luck with your new position.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    3. Re:ah yea... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Really? Wow, good job we had you to warn us that all those marine engineers who designed the thing are idiots. After all, you came to your conclusion from just a photo, so how could they possibly have missed it?!

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:ah yea... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      When that equipment is attached to a floating buoy? Quite a bit.

    5. Re:ah yea... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      You like to use the word "Pundit" in a derogatory manner quite frequently. I think that you've completely misunderstood the entire point of the site you're frequenting. If you don't like punditry, you shouldn't be here. It would be similar to if you left negative commends on Pornhub like "She should put more clothes on!"

    6. Re:ah yea... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Right, because Marine engineers working for an energy company have never built something that could fail during adverse conditions right?
      http://i.imgur.com/rUNFYnD.jpg

      Maritime accidents will happen. It's not a matter of if you can prevent them, you can't. Marine environments are some of the most extreme environments on earth. This will fail... It's a question of what will happen once it does. Given their design, it wont be good.

  15. yes but we're a group of islands in the Atlantic by fantomas · · Score: 1

    This may be so but we (the British Isles) are a group of islands in the Atlantic, we get waves rolling around our coastline 24/7, coming in a long way across open ocean, and we've got a lot of sea. We're a relatively small island and people get protective about windfarms getting built on land. So it's a reliable source of energy to explore in a place not many folk mind too much having installations on, definitely worth researching scaleable solutions here.

  16. What about environmental impact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These things remove energy from the water by reducing churn at the surface. This churn is critical for oxygenation and purification of the water. Have they bothered to study the impact on the habitat of near-surface sea wildlife?

    1. Re:What about environmental impact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. No. No it is not "critical" Deity help us from fake green trolls. I might laugh myself to death.

  17. Horrible idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stealing an infinitesimally small portion of the oceans energy to reign in our MASSIVE dumping of CO2, methane, mercury, lead & other compounds into the atmosphere is a small price to pay. Its not perfect to be sure, but its far better than the status quo.

  18. Re:yes but we're a group of islands in the Atlanti by Gonoff · · Score: 1

    ... people get protective about windfarms getting built on land

    The problem sometimes is that the people from the location are all for it but NIMBYs are brought in specially.

    I Come from further north than Aberdeen. In Orkney, we have had wind turbines for decades but various people would come from central or southern England and try to drum up opposition. I once had some on my (parents) doorstep. They told me about the harm that these things would do to me and how noisy they were. I declined and they moved on. I don't remember a single friend or relative who was interested in their stories.

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.