Erosion has a negative effect on diversity. Habitats are destroyed which may take many years to develop, if erosion rates are higher than the rate at which a habitat can be rebuilt by the plants, and microorganisms which create reefs for example, then the ocean in that region will be rendered largly uninhabited. As a scuba diver - i can tell you that much of the ocean is practicly lifeless - we need a fixed porous obstruction on the seafloor for diversity to occur.
I'm not sure wht you're perversity is, but I doubt erosion benefits anyone - except the neighbors on second street (When first street falls in).
Sure - the energy in waves is constantly being lost as friction, and reinforced by the wind.
As it happens, the propogation of wave in a deep body of water is self-focusing such that it concentrates itself at the surface, where it avoids friction with the bottom. This changes as the depth decreases, but generally, Ocean waves are an intense, and prefocused form of solar energy - ripe for picking.
Apparently you have missed the debate over tidal barriers.
Some exists - they have the problems you mention such as build up of sediment, and some impact on wildlife.
Because of that - tidal is being researched as "zero head hydro" which means free standing propellors - these avoid so much of the problem - that what remains isn't worth mention.
We cannot over consume tidal energy - there is a built in limit of 30% after which the energy simply goes around the device.
Absent a full barrior, the limit is more than adequate to prevent substantial effects on downstream consumers of tidal fluctuations, which will continue to exist in exactly the same volume as previously, the only effect will be to delay the transfer by some imperceptible degree.
Hydrogen might be a good way to store energy to cover seasonal defeciancies. Waves tend to soften up in the summer months when energy demand is highest, hydrogen could be used without much trouble to suppliment the summer demand with unused spring and fall demand. Currently the conversion is not impressively effecient (55%) or so, but if that were to improve to 75 - 85%, then long term storage would be quite viable.
Electricity is a mode of transportation which as you say - is probably more effecient than any other. Burning hydrogen like natural gas might not be a bad idea - we could pump it around, and that might improve the effeciency, rather than burning it into a turbine to generate electric heat.
Using hydrogen in cars is challenging because of the storage problem. if that gets worked out - its a plus, but its not a simple problem.
PV are quite ineffecient. The Ocean may be thought of as a big solar cell, so can the troposphere, and we can plug into these solar cells using energy converters.
As for the math - I'm sure the sun really does generate billions of times the energy we need - sure not all of it comes our way - although we use it on mars, and on the moon as well, what does come our way is more than adequate. Millions of times more? i don't know, but we have enough energy in the waves and hydroplants to cover our current electrical needs. add wind, and we have ample access to the great fusion reactor in the sky.
The cost of nuclear fuel may be more than just the design of the plant.
Think of what happens when nuclear technology is exported to rouge nations?
Is this a cost?
How do we divide the lives and billions we will spend cleaning up N Korea into the KW geneated by the French nuclear industry.
One soldier per megawatt - does that sound "too cheap to meter" to you?
It sounds expensive to me.
Saying nuclear is a cheap way to get energy is like saying "robbing a bank is the cheapest way to get money" It's true, but only in a distorted context in which the real costs of the transaction are convienently ignored.
The full cost of nuclear is a nuclear holocaust - in the form of chernoble, three mile island, or a terrorist in mamnhatten. You simply cannot generate tons of nuclear stuff and not expect some of it to get into the wrong hands - either by accident or malice.
At what point will it be safe to power North Korea with fusion?
Iran needs power as well. Remember we are the follow me state. We built the nuclear plants in France - France has been exporting nuclear "power" to Korea.
Are suggesting that was a good way to power France?
Is a nuclear nutcase worth a few years of marginally safe electricity?
I think the energy from the sun - in the form of solar, wind and waves is a much saner bet for peaceful energy.
Now say the Sudan, Libya, N Korea, Iran, Kyrgistan, Chechnia, and a few other peace-loving states say they would sure love to help save the environment - what do we do?
Send them a fully operational fusion reactor, some plutonium, and say have fun with this?
Nuclear anything is a pretty bad solution to sustaining life.
The Negative externalities of Frances nuclear program include N Koreas Nukes - which was imported under the nonproliferation agreement (ie we won't use it for weapons - WE PROMISESSES)
if we spent half the money we have spent on nuclear, fusion, and wars - on peaceful green energy like solar, wind, wave, tidal, geotherm - we would have sustainable - peaceful energy in the world today.
One use of wave energy is to increase the oxygenation and encourage more fish.
In addition, we often sink ships for the purpose of creating reefs. Fish don't live in the ocean, they live in communities which start by some fixed object which provides anchor for plant life, protection from the surf and predators etc... Putting obstacles in the ocean increases its carrying capacity.
As for the energy - it is currently being absorbed by the beach - often in the form of pulverizing rocks into sand. We don't need this form of energy - it is actually destabizing for all land-based life forms because it works to create a single-oceanic quicksand from what is currently a diverse bioshpere of land and water.
Wave energy has no effect on currents. Tidal turbines can only absorb about 30% of the energy in the currents (or 59% if you prefer the Betz model which is outdated). This effect would seem to have some downstream consequences of an ambiguous nature - but wave energy has positive downstream effect - reduction of coastal erosion - so the concern should be minimal.
The Giga watts are being pulled - in the form of heat and friction agains the shore, we intend to pull the energy out with LESS friction and arbitrage the differance by transporting the energy to people homes, where it will encounter the same friction - heat the earth by the same amount, as if the friction occured in the ocean itself. - and much less pollution and heat total because we reduce our reliance of fossil fuels.
We should not indulge in irrational analysis paralysis when replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. The effect is positive - even if there are minimal negative costs associated - the relative negative externalities are generallly positive (unless we employ dirty fuels as backup) - that is where we should be hyperventilating and searching our souls - not the downstream effect of less coastal erosion.
There is a technology called archemides wave swing, even PowerBuOY (sic) is mostly submerged.
I have just applied for a patent for WaveBlanket, which is inflatable and can rest just below the surface with minimal impact or risk to Kayakers (me), and surfers (not me).
Bear in mind that wave energy is 10 times more concentrated than wind and 100 more than solar - using this math alone, we might conclude that wave energy is the answer to the "least disruption" issue, if sensible emplimented.
Also - Wave energy is close to where people live. Wind farm in minisota might generate a lot of power - but the pollution is concentrated in LA - so the effect is minimized somewhat. Waves on the other hand are available right there off the coast - so the potential exists to mitigate carbon - not merely generate a bit of clean energy.
Wave energy will be focused on the best surf sites (under one assumption which is high energy is best - this might be replaced with constant, timely energy is best, but that is unclear)
In any case - less waves means less surfing, not sure this can be avoided. The nice thing is that surfers will have dedicated places where the sport is preserved, and the wave forecast will be damnably accurate - so these will be hoping joints.
Having lived in Eastern Europe and in Egypt with a very low energy per capita - no car etc... I wholly agree.
It has to do with sharing the fire. Years ago, when we spent energy - we gathered around - now we indulge in isolated consumption - one person per car, two people in a 2000 square foot heated house, one TV per eyeball, (In Egypt the Television is in the local teahouse - and the neighbors gather 'round to watch. Not only is this more fuel effecient - it is SOCIAL, and lowers the incidence of depression.
Isolated consuption is not only unhealthy because of the impact on the environmnet - it is ANTISOCIAL and a menace to health for that reason as well.
The Key is sharing - the problem might be taxation of shared consumption. For example, a restaraunt may be more effecient way to cook food because it can warm the oven once and then cook at full effeciency - but the taxation of restaraunts means it is "cheaper" to cook at home. The same is true of washing the dishes - the more expensive dishwasher might keep a chamber warm for drying, might recycle the wash water, might use a thermal exchange on the rinse water to recapture the heat - but we can't share consumption if we are taxed more for shared consumption than for isolated consumption.
Plus the technology gets exported to nice people like Mr. Kim who wouldn't think of using it to DELIBERATELY cause a melt-down in the form of a nuclear warhead.
We - if we already figured out the life-cycle problems associated with freon - we are struggling to understand the LIFECYCLE risks of nuclear - they are really quite dangerous!.
Compared to Wind - Wave energy will be low impact. Some designs are subsurface.
Most of the energy is focused on the surface of the wave. In any case, the devices will be mostly submerged, and probably not visible from shore.
Compare that to offshore wind, and i think you'll agree Wave energy is a visual bargain - especially since you get 10 times more power per square meter, and the square is lying flat!
Some of the nicer things about sapping the waves is it will reduce coastal erosion, which is a big enough problem to consider passive wave breaks.
Sure it will affect the sedimentary budget - we don't know exactly how, but some wave devices can be moved around periodically to address these concerns.
The beach absorbs the wave energy, and most fish don't hang out in the surf zone of sandy beaches. There is some live on rocky surf zones, but gentle waves would likely be adequate to maintain the species.
Every country at some point exhausts its hydropower potential. Germany has for years. We have exploited most of our easy targets, and its pretty clear we don't intend on flooding the grand canyon to generate a few GWatts.
Whatever is left is probably micro-hydro, and that's not really experimental science.
The DOE needs to let industry take reasonable risks, and focus on the high risk projects - such as wave - which industry cannot afford.
You are leaving out the fact that Uranium is preprocessed. In the Myth of clean Nuclear the article points to dirty coal plants used to process fuel for "clean nuclear".
The net pollution of our nuclear industry is substantial.
That Wave energy is more reliable - and reliable means a lot when you're competing with dispatchable power such as coal - which can be operated and amortized on a 95% utilization schedule. If your wind is only 30% available, and down in the summer when you need it most, you will need back-up generators to make it through the year. That's redundancy - as in twice the cost - twice the pollution etc...
Backup power can pollute more than baseload power (See single cycle vs. combined cycle) and as a result, unreliable green energy may result in dirtier air - this is no a concern in Denmark, which has the highest percentage of Wind - but the dirtiest power scheme of its peers. (France by contrast is mostly nuclear.)
As it happens, the uranium fuel for clean radioactive plants is "processed" in other plants - which are powered by the dirtiest coal in the nation. It is a myth that Nuclear plants are clean. There are merely YET another way for rich states to pollute poor states in order to generate energy.
The southern states generally have become the dumping ground for pullution. Other states are sending their nuclear waste to South "Don't let Blacks marry Whites" Carolina because they are too inbred and busy rehashing the civil "not about slavery" war, and sending their money into Tammy Faye Bakker to pay attention to anything that smacks of the modern world.
To preserve the way of life of Lighthouse hermits, we should provide current lighthouse keepers certificates for operating a lighthouse and receiving a subsidy - only there is no need for the lighthouse - so the lighthouse need not be operated - the certificate is then negotiable as an entitlement subsidy, and can be traded to bankers as a long term income instrument.
I know this makes no sense - except that is exactly what we have done with water rights and sheep farming rights - so why not?
Farmers have more votes than regular ol' people, (see electoral colledge) so why shouldn't they get whatever the hell subsidy they want?
I should think Skywind has feasability studies for water and land - I've seen a 3d mockup circa 1970's of these helicopter things with their own docking buoys floating at sea - i think this has been around a while now. Because of the transmission cable advantage - I'm giving it the edge over the looped laddermill, but also allowing that it requires a great deal of payload in the form of generators. A more material effecient design may actually be clusters of kites on a single tension cable. Whatever force differntial exists between a rising kite and a falling kite can be exploited more easily and effciently on a single oscillating tether than in a looped fashion. Sure you get smoother power out of a loop - but power smoothing is a job for flywheels, not complicated aerodynalic cartwheels.
I think Gyromill intends to be sea based - it is closer to demand centers, and there are redeeming characteristics. Unlike the laddermill, which is in its current form is critically flawed, the Gyromill has the advantage of using the tether to transmit power. I tend to think a cable can transmit more power as current than it can practically as newtons of force.
Big empty areas tend to be far from demand centers so transportation waste becomes an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Erosion has a negative effect on diversity. Habitats are destroyed which may take many years to develop, if erosion rates are higher than the rate at which a habitat can be rebuilt by the plants, and microorganisms which create reefs for example, then the ocean in that region will be rendered largly uninhabited. As a scuba diver - i can tell you that much of the ocean is practicly lifeless - we need a fixed porous obstruction on the seafloor for diversity to occur.
I'm not sure wht you're perversity is, but I doubt erosion benefits anyone - except the neighbors on second street (When first street falls in).
Sure - the energy in waves is constantly being lost as friction, and reinforced by the wind.
As it happens, the propogation of wave in a deep body of water is self-focusing such that it concentrates itself at the surface, where it avoids friction with the bottom. This changes as the depth decreases, but generally, Ocean waves are an intense, and prefocused form of solar energy - ripe for picking.
AIK
Apparently you have missed the debate over tidal barriers.
Some exists - they have the problems you mention such as build up of sediment, and some impact on wildlife.
Because of that - tidal is being researched as "zero head hydro" which means free standing propellors - these avoid so much of the problem - that what remains isn't worth mention.
We cannot over consume tidal energy - there is a built in limit of 30% after which the energy simply goes around the device.
Absent a full barrior, the limit is more than adequate to prevent substantial effects on downstream consumers of tidal fluctuations, which will continue to exist in exactly the same volume as previously, the only effect will be to delay the transfer by some imperceptible degree.
AIK
Did the article discuss a safe way to export nuclear reactors to rouge states - who also need power?
If not - it was just blowing smoke.
France exported a good deal of "safe nuclear reactors" to N Korea - looks like they took some of the safety features out!
AIK
Hydrogen might be a good way to store energy to cover seasonal defeciancies. Waves tend to soften up in the summer months when energy demand is highest, hydrogen could be used without much trouble to suppliment the summer demand with unused spring and fall demand. Currently the conversion is not impressively effecient (55%) or so, but if that were to improve to 75 - 85%, then long term storage would be quite viable.
Electricity is a mode of transportation which as you say - is probably more effecient than any other. Burning hydrogen like natural gas might not be a bad idea - we could pump it around, and that might improve the effeciency, rather than burning it into a turbine to generate electric heat.
Using hydrogen in cars is challenging because of the storage problem. if that gets worked out - its a plus, but its not a simple problem.
AIK
PV are quite ineffecient. The Ocean may be thought of as a big solar cell, so can the troposphere, and we can plug into these solar cells using energy converters.
As for the math - I'm sure the sun really does generate billions of times the energy we need - sure not all of it comes our way - although we use it on mars, and on the moon as well, what does come our way is more than adequate. Millions of times more? i don't know, but we have enough energy in the waves and hydroplants to cover our current electrical needs. add wind, and we have ample access to the great fusion reactor in the sky.
AIK
The cost of nuclear fuel may be more than just the design of the plant.
Think of what happens when nuclear technology is exported to rouge nations?
Is this a cost?
How do we divide the lives and billions we will spend cleaning up N Korea into the KW geneated by the French nuclear industry.
One soldier per megawatt - does that sound "too cheap to meter" to you?
It sounds expensive to me.
Saying nuclear is a cheap way to get energy is like saying "robbing a bank is the cheapest way to get money" It's true, but only in a distorted context in which the real costs of the transaction are convienently ignored.
The full cost of nuclear is a nuclear holocaust - in the form of chernoble, three mile island, or a terrorist in mamnhatten. You simply cannot generate tons of nuclear stuff and not expect some of it to get into the wrong hands - either by accident or malice.
AIK
At what point will it be safe to power North Korea with fusion?
Iran needs power as well. Remember we are the follow me state. We built the nuclear plants in France - France has been exporting nuclear "power" to Korea.
Are suggesting that was a good way to power France?
Is a nuclear nutcase worth a few years of marginally safe electricity?
I think the energy from the sun - in the form of solar, wind and waves is a much saner bet for peaceful energy.
AIK
Say we invent a fusion energy system.
Now say the Sudan, Libya, N Korea, Iran, Kyrgistan, Chechnia, and a few other peace-loving states say they would sure love to help save the environment - what do we do?
Send them a fully operational fusion reactor, some plutonium, and say have fun with this?
Nuclear anything is a pretty bad solution to sustaining life.
The Negative externalities of Frances nuclear program include N Koreas Nukes - which was imported under the nonproliferation agreement (ie we won't use it for weapons - WE PROMISESSES)
if we spent half the money we have spent on nuclear, fusion, and wars - on peaceful green energy like solar, wind, wave, tidal, geotherm - we would have sustainable - peaceful energy in the world today.
AIK
One use of wave energy is to increase the oxygenation and encourage more fish.
In addition, we often sink ships for the purpose of creating reefs. Fish don't live in the ocean, they live in communities which start by some fixed object which provides anchor for plant life, protection from the surf and predators etc... Putting obstacles in the ocean increases its carrying capacity.
As for the energy - it is currently being absorbed by the beach - often in the form of pulverizing rocks into sand. We don't need this form of energy - it is actually destabizing for all land-based life forms because it works to create a single-oceanic quicksand from what is currently a diverse bioshpere of land and water.
Wave energy has no effect on currents. Tidal turbines can only absorb about 30% of the energy in the currents (or 59% if you prefer the Betz model which is outdated). This effect would seem to have some downstream consequences of an ambiguous nature - but wave energy has positive downstream effect - reduction of coastal erosion - so the concern should be minimal.
The Giga watts are being pulled - in the form of heat and friction agains the shore, we intend to pull the energy out with LESS friction and arbitrage the differance by transporting the energy to people homes, where it will encounter the same friction - heat the earth by the same amount, as if the friction occured in the ocean itself. - and much less pollution and heat total because we reduce our reliance of fossil fuels.
We should not indulge in irrational analysis paralysis when replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. The effect is positive - even if there are minimal negative costs associated - the relative negative externalities are generallly positive (unless we employ dirty fuels as backup) - that is where we should be hyperventilating and searching our souls - not the downstream effect of less coastal erosion.
AIK
There is a technology called archemides wave swing, even PowerBuOY (sic) is mostly submerged.
I have just applied for a patent for WaveBlanket, which is inflatable and can rest just below the surface with minimal impact or risk to Kayakers (me), and surfers (not me).
Bear in mind that wave energy is 10 times more concentrated than wind and 100 more than solar - using this math alone, we might conclude that wave energy is the answer to the "least disruption" issue, if sensible emplimented.
Also - Wave energy is close to where people live.
Wind farm in minisota might generate a lot of power - but the pollution is concentrated in LA - so the effect is minimized somewhat. Waves on the other hand are available right there off the coast - so the potential exists to mitigate carbon - not merely generate a bit of clean energy.
AIK
As a surfer - you belong to the endagered class.
Wave energy will be focused on the best surf sites (under one assumption which is high energy is best - this might be replaced with constant, timely energy is best, but that is unclear)
In any case - less waves means less surfing, not sure this can be avoided. The nice thing is that surfers will have dedicated places where the sport is preserved, and the wave forecast will be damnably accurate - so these will be hoping joints.
AIK
Perhaps you are referring to tidal barriers which develop a head by preventingg the free flow of tidal surges.
No one is planning any tidal barriers currently - except artificial free-standing enclosures.
Most modern tidal schemes involve windmills under the water or the like - and these would not have the kinds of effect you imply.
AIK
Having lived in Eastern Europe and in Egypt with a very low energy per capita - no car etc... I wholly agree.
It has to do with sharing the fire. Years ago, when we spent energy - we gathered around - now we indulge in isolated consumption - one person per car, two people in a 2000 square foot heated house, one TV per eyeball, (In Egypt the Television is in the local teahouse - and the neighbors gather 'round to watch. Not only is this more fuel effecient - it is SOCIAL, and lowers the incidence of depression.
Isolated consuption is not only unhealthy because of the impact on the environmnet - it is ANTISOCIAL and a menace to health for that reason as well.
The Key is sharing - the problem might be taxation of shared consumption.
For example, a restaraunt may be more effecient way to cook food because it can warm the oven once and then cook at full effeciency - but the taxation of restaraunts means it is "cheaper" to cook at home.
The same is true of washing the dishes - the more expensive dishwasher might keep a chamber warm for drying, might recycle the wash water, might use a thermal exchange on the rinse water to recapture the heat - but we can't share consumption if we are taxed more for shared consumption than for isolated consumption.
AIK
Right - use nuclear - which in this county involves processing uranium at coal fired plants!
Nuclear is Dirty
Plus the technology gets exported to nice people like Mr. Kim who wouldn't think of using it to DELIBERATELY cause a melt-down in the form of a nuclear warhead.
We - if we already figured out the life-cycle problems associated with freon - we are struggling to understand the LIFECYCLE risks of nuclear - they are really quite dangerous!.
AIK
Compared to Wind - Wave energy will be low impact. Some designs are subsurface.
Most of the energy is focused on the surface of the wave. In any case, the devices will be mostly submerged, and probably not visible from shore.
Compare that to offshore wind, and i think you'll agree Wave energy is a visual bargain - especially since you get 10 times more power per square meter, and the square is lying flat!
AIK
Some of the nicer things about sapping the waves is it will reduce coastal erosion, which is a big enough problem to consider passive wave breaks.
Sure it will affect the sedimentary budget - we don't know exactly how, but some wave devices can be moved around periodically to address these concerns.
The beach absorbs the wave energy, and most fish don't hang out in the surf zone of sandy beaches. There is some live on rocky surf zones, but gentle waves would likely be adequate to maintain the species.
AIK
Every country at some point exhausts its hydropower potential. Germany has for years. We have exploited most of our easy targets, and its pretty clear we don't intend on flooding the grand canyon to generate a few GWatts.
Whatever is left is probably micro-hydro, and that's not really experimental science.
The DOE needs to let industry take reasonable risks, and focus on the high risk projects - such as wave - which industry cannot afford.
AIK
The nice thing about nuclear power is giving it to rouge nations like North Korea.
These people have needs too - do we want them using clean energy?
So we give them the things they need to for energy - and they accidentally use some of it to make bombs.
Yeah - that's not going to screw up the environment!
Because the Axis of evil has some access to nukes - we have to divert 300 Billion away from sane projects to fighting a g-damn oil war -
Wave energy has been on moratorium at the d of renewables. why - no money - why? War - Why? Nuclear energy technology exports.
Imagine if we had instead exported a wave energy device. Can you see Korea threatening the world by saying its going to launch its WaveDragon?
AIK
The Link
You are leaving out the fact that Uranium is preprocessed.
In the Myth of clean Nuclear the article points to dirty coal plants used to process fuel for "clean nuclear".
The net pollution of our nuclear industry is substantial.
AIK
That Wave energy is more reliable - and reliable means a lot when you're competing with dispatchable power such as coal - which can be operated and amortized on a 95% utilization schedule. If your wind is only 30% available, and down in the summer when you need it most, you will need back-up generators to make it through the year. That's redundancy - as in twice the cost - twice the pollution etc ...
Backup power can pollute more than baseload power (See single cycle vs. combined cycle) and as a result, unreliable green energy may result in dirtier air - this is no a concern in Denmark, which has the highest percentage of Wind - but the dirtiest power scheme of its peers. (France by contrast is mostly nuclear.)
AIK
As it happens, the uranium fuel for clean radioactive plants is "processed" in other plants - which are powered by the dirtiest coal in the nation. It is a myth that Nuclear plants are clean. There are merely YET another way for rich states to pollute poor states in order to generate energy.
The southern states generally have become the dumping ground for pullution. Other states are sending their nuclear waste to South "Don't let Blacks marry Whites" Carolina because they are too inbred and busy rehashing the civil "not about slavery" war, and sending their money into Tammy Faye Bakker to pay attention to anything that smacks of the modern world.
AIK
To preserve the way of life of Lighthouse hermits, we should provide current lighthouse keepers certificates for operating a lighthouse and receiving a subsidy - only there is no need for the lighthouse - so the lighthouse need not be operated - the certificate is then negotiable as an entitlement subsidy, and can be traded to bankers as a long term income instrument.
I know this makes no sense - except that is exactly what we have done with water rights and sheep farming rights - so why not?
Farmers have more votes than regular ol' people, (see electoral colledge) so why shouldn't they get whatever the hell subsidy they want?
Enjoy
AIK
I should think Skywind has feasability studies for water and land - I've seen a 3d mockup circa 1970's of these helicopter things with their own docking buoys floating at sea - i think this has been around a while now. Because of the transmission cable advantage - I'm giving it the edge over the looped laddermill, but also allowing that it requires a great deal of payload in the form of generators. A more material effecient design may actually be clusters of kites on a single tension cable. Whatever force differntial exists between a rising kite and a falling kite can be exploited more easily and effciently on a single oscillating tether than in a looped fashion. Sure you get smoother power out of a loop - but power smoothing is a job for flywheels, not complicated aerodynalic cartwheels.
I think Gyromill intends to be sea based - it is closer to demand centers, and there are redeeming characteristics. Unlike the laddermill, which is in its current form is critically flawed, the Gyromill has the advantage of using the tether to transmit power. I tend to think a cable can transmit more power as current than it can practically as newtons of force.
Big empty areas tend to be far from demand centers so transportation waste becomes an issue.
AIK