Wave Energy

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

15 posts / 0 new

I have not spent a lot of time reading about wave energy. They are now testing a prototype in Hawaii and I thought I would post 2 links for you to check out. This certainly can be another game changer with regards to clean energy.

http://energy.gov/eere/articles/innovative-wave-power-device-starts-prod...

http://energy.gov/eere/articles/prototype-testing-could-help-prove-promi...

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

Comments

Here is another link I wanted to post under this topic.

http://energy.gov/eere/water/water-power-program

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

TWO functional links in an opening post!!! Yes!

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I know....LOL.....It happened because I tried something different and it WORKED!

Instead of adding the 2nd link on the 1st box that opened, I opened a 2nd box to place the 2nd link in and it worked. LOL..... who knew that's what you had to do?
I sure didn't. :-)

So what did you think of the sites?

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

wave power is appealing from a transmission distance perspective, but near shore and offshore wind can match that advantage and has fewer complications in terms of maintenance and wear and tear/corrosion. I think intial applications are likely to be in remote very high enrgy cost locations or application specific installations such as seatawer desalinization.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote stwo:

wave power is appealing from a transmission distance perspective, but near shore and offshore wind can match that advantage and has fewer complications in terms of maintenance and wear and tear/corrosion. I think intial applications are likely to be in remote very high energy cost locations or application specific installations such as seatawer desalinization.

Both wind and wave power will experience rusting issues don't you think? I know the turbines have been made out of fiberglass but other parts must be made out of metal.

I still prefer the wave power over wind on our oceans because they won't kill birds and seals and birds might actually use it as a rest stop. LOL.... Now whether or not they will be a reliable source of energy? Only time will tell. It will be interesting to see how the testing is coming along.

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

David MacKay FRS is the Regius Professor of Engineering at the University of Cambridge, his book Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air is internationally renowned analysis of Energy. His chapter on Wave Energy:

http://www.withouthotair.com/c12/page_73.shtml

Even if you covered the entire coastline of Great Britain, a very strong wave energy region, with extreme optimistic assumptions, it could at most supply 4 kwh per day of the 28 kwh per day that is used per person in Britain.

Ocean Power #1: Pelamis Wave energy, not a viable source of energy. EROEI is too low to be practical. Resource is very low:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/25/tcase5/

Ocean Power #2: CETO also not viable:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/04/11/tcase9/

May have some value for desalination.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

I can supply links too.

The Energy Department estimates that there are over 1,170 terawatt hours per year of electric generation available from wave energy off U.S. coasts, although not all of this resource potential can realistically be developed.

That is from The U.S.Department of Energy's own archives from 2012!

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/news_id=20364

To further advance Azura towards commercialization, NWEI recently launched its grid-connected 20-kilowatt demonstration project at WETS. The current phase of in-water testing at the WETS’s 30-meter test berth has already proven valuable in gathering performance and reliability data from the device in deepwater, open-ocean conditions. The data will be used to further optimize Azura’s performance and refine existing wave energy computer simulations, ultimately supporting commercialization of this technology.

The above is from Energy.gov which is the Office of Energy Efficiancy & Renewable Energy

http://energy.gov/eere/articles/innovative-wave-power-device-starts-prod...

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

This is from page 74 off the link you provided.

"The Pelamis is a first prototype; presumably with further
investment and development in wave technology, the weight-to-power ra-
tio would fall."

Which makes me question.....when was this book written?

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

For your further reading......THIS is the wave generator that is being tested in Hawaii so lets stick to this one.

http://azurawave.com/

Unlike other wave energy technologies, Azura extracts energy from both the heave (vertical) and surge (horizontal) motion of the wave, producing power from the relative motion between the hull and float. Since commencing operations in 2010, NWEI and its partners have successfully completed pilot scale projects in New Zealand and Oregon, and NWEI is now conducting a grid connected demonstration project at the US Navy’s Wave Energy Test Site at the Marine Corps Base Hawai’i.

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

Your link actually states:

"...The Energy Department estimates that there are over 1,170 terawatt hours per year of electric generation available from wave energy off U.S. coasts, although not all of this resource potential can realistically be developed...."

In other words pipe dream. Pelamis was completed in 2009 and in 2014 the company went into receivership. There is a whole lot more to a viable energy supply than "estimates" of "potential energy". By that criteria ordinary rock is a vast, immense energy supply because its avg 11 ppm Uranium & Thorium burnt in a MSR ( molten salt reactor) is enought to supply 1170 terawat hours per year of electric generation from a meagre 0.0045 cubic kms. So the rock under my home would supply more energy than all of your wave energy potential. I'd go with that rather than trying to blockade all the coastlines of the USA with massive steel wave generators.

What's the EROEI of wave energy. I bet it is as bad as corn ethanol, less than one. Just a scam & a joke.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

In any engineering idea, you have to swing the bat to hit a homerun. most of the time you strike out but but... every once in a while, you do hit a homerun. Wave generator is just another experiment to see where it can lead.

Another form of this is the tidal power, Koreans have it and so do the Dutch. It may have more promiss.

When you try something bit off the wall or something bit wacky, you might find something very interesting. Splitting of atom at one time was a very wacky idea.

Electric light bulb was wacky and took how many tries before Edison got it right?

smilingcat
Joined:
Sep. 23, 2010 8:14 am

Problem with that is you can't defeat the laws of physics. By your criteria you might as well throw more $trillions down the sewer on every nutty renewable fantasy that comes along. A sure-fire way to make zero progress. To begin with, renewable energy is severely limited by geography, by low energy density, by intermittency and climate variability. These are all severe and pervasive limitations.

Tidal energy is nothing new. It has been tried, really can't compete with conventional hydro. Not a significant energy source. The energy of water is predominantly the potential energy of height. Low height = low energy. Those nasty laws of physics again.

So by your criteria, it makes sense to spend all R&D on tech that has no such inherent limitations, and that is Nuclear. There are at least a couple dozen nuclear fusion methods, a couple dozen nuclear fission methods, a couple dozen nuclear fission-fusion methods and a couple dozen exotic nuclear like zero-point energy, LENR, anti-matter, metallic hydrogen etc that could be silver bullets. All of which could be used anywhere, anytime, no limitations. So logically, that is where all $R&D should be going, especially fringe $R&D that you are advocating.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

We are NOT being told the truth about "renewables", that they are NOT "renewable" & neither are they "green".
These hight tech electric generators are totally dependent upon FOSSIL RESOURCES to manufacture, mantain & repair, they are no more "renewable" than solar panels & wind turbines & all will fade away after the oil age.
So called "green renewables" are just another way of making a PROFIT from OIL!
Don't believe the hype from those who have $$$ in supporting "renewables", most of these devices are made in the dictatorship of communist China & just look at how dirty the process of making these devices is!!
Our air is cleaner because our pollution is now spewing out from China which has much weaker environmental controls than we do.
Not only are these devices not "renewable", their not "green", they cannot power our civilization & they are very expensive.
Sure the costs have gone down, slave labor is cheaper than labor in a country that at least pays a living wage but still, these devices can only be afforded by those with a good income & who own their own homes & that is a small minority of the worlds population.
The cost of OIL will rise again, we MUST have oil for our civilization to function or it will collapse & collapse is certain no matter what we do now because climate change is affecting our agriculture & when that collapses because of expensive oil or climate change, we will be in very deep doo doo!

sheilach2's picture
sheilach2
Joined:
Sep. 28, 2010 10:34 am

EROEI on "green technology" or "reneweable" with exception of bio-fuel, wood, algae... based are far better than coal burning power plants, natural gas, nuclear power.

Thus its called green technology. Everything we manufacture has some energy input. Energy required to make the material to build the "contraption" Thus we have the term EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Investment/Input)

smilingcat
Joined:
Sep. 23, 2010 8:14 am

Impeachment: The Difference Between Nixon & Trump

Thom plus logo There is a very simple reason why some Republicans participated in the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, but none have so far broken ranks against Trump. That reason is the US Supreme Court.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system