Huge swell sinks wave energy generator

[depakid]

The 170-tonne structure was officially launched in March.
-----------

A wave energy generator which was launched off the New South Wales south coast in March, has sunk in rough seas. The 170-tonne structure had been providing electricity to the grid from 150 metres offshore at Port Kembla.

But it broke free from its pylons on Friday afternoon and sank on Saturday. Early efforts to tow the barge to safety were abandoned due to the rough conditions.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Port Kembla Ports Corporation, Dom Figliomeni, says the structure was battered against the break water. He says attempts to retrieve the barge will be made this week. "There's been no impact on the provision of services to shipping and where it is at the moment it's not a navigation hazard," he said. "We will continue to monitor its location."

The generator's Sydney-based developer, Oceanlinx is investigating what happened.

More: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/17/2901059.htm

[Scuba]

1. Red Herring?

So, was this thing developed specifically to fail, and show the world "that won't work".

[depakid]

2. The surf was really hard core

We're 10 minutes walk from the beach, and it was so loud that the dog barked at it all night, thinking it was thunder. You'd think they'd engineer the thing with huge swells in mind- I guess they will next time.

[Scuba]

3. More than would be expected over the production life....

...of the generator? I think tidal energy should be a major focus of our future, but I also just love a good conspiracy theory. Was Big Oil involved in this thing, in any way?

[hunter]

6. Tidal energy is hideous.

Almost as bad as oil spills.

Dams destroy the rarest ecosystems.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. The sea does some really interesting things that engineers can't always account for.

Build something to spec all you want, if the original specifications are wrong, the sea is gonna eat it.
Can't always know until you try, and fail.

Most likely if it can be salvaged, the moorings will be significantly improved. Besides, we don't know what happened yet. Perhaps the lines snapped, perhaps the moorings were yanked right out of the sea floor, maybe a combination of the two.

Rogue wave perhaps?

[Codeine]

5. *facepalm*

[no limit]

8. lol

[Ghost Dog]

4. It would appear that the moorings failed,

rather than there being any problem with the generator assembly itself.

150 metres offshore in a surf-prone area doesn't sound like a very wise choice of location.

[NNadir]

7. God! They must be without power all over New Zealand tonight!!!! n/t

[drm604]

9. No.

According to this article this was a test system.

http://www.powerhomebiz.com/News/052010/tidal-power.htm

So I kinda doubt that it supplies a substantial amount of power to the grid. Even if it did, this was in Australia not New Zealand.

Of course this is something other than nuclear power so of course you would have something negative to say about it, however inaccurate.

[NNadir]

11. Gee, I've been hearing for years how wave power would save us.

I assumed that it had to be a major source of energy, given that dangerous fossil fuel waste is an emergency right now and not in some dreamy future.

You mean I was mistaken? The entire planet isn't running on "renewable energy?"

What a surprise.

[drm604]

12. Where did I or anyone else claim that the entire planet is running on renewable energy?

I also don't see anything in this thread about wave power alone saving us. You're aiming your sarcasm at a strawman.

[FBaggins]

13. It's surely either a strawman or hyperbole, but there's plenty of room

for sarcasm to target.

Kris was insisting just a few weeks ago that wave power is really based on mature well-understood technologies and essentially OTS parts... and that new plants would be popping up with a number of commercially viable options within five years. Insisted that anyone who didn't think so was obviously biased.

This is at least the second example of a new wave-powered generator that didn't last more than a month or two of actual operation.

I'm not saying that this isn't a good idea. I'm all for throwing a BUNCH of money at developing wave power. I'm just far more rational about my expectations. There's quite a bit of "growing pains" like this to go through before it's ready for prime time.

[drm604]

14. Oh, I'm not necessarily defending wave power.

I just get tired of a certain individual's simplistic slamming of everything non-nuclear.

[FBaggins]

15. *I* would.

I love the idea. There's a massive amount of energy there (FAR more dense than wind) and it's comparatively clean and (at least in theory) cheap. It's just an engineering exercises to determine how to get to it.

Unlike wind/solar, it would be available 24/7 and could be extraordinarily scalable.

But it's going to take a good deal of time/effort/expense to get it right.

[depakid]

16. Between wave generation and solar thermal, Australia COULD supply its electrical energy needs

The problem is that coal is too cheap and plentiful, and therefore over utilized.

[kristopher]

17. It is

You wrote, "Kris was insisting just a few weeks ago that wave power is really based on mature well-understood technologies and essentially OTS parts... and that new plants would be popping up with a number of commercially viable options within five years. Insisted that anyone who didn't think so was obviously biased."

That is correct and this project actually is part of what makes the point. If you are claiming that a perfect record of accomplishment is required for a technology to be ready for full scale deployment you are nuts.

Here is the timeline the Ocean Renewable Industry tradegroup sees:

[FBaggins]

18. Lol! A "perfect record" ???

How about getting a few projects in the water to last more than a few weeks before you decide that the technology is ready to go?

Here is the timeline the Ocean Renewable Industry tradegroup sees:

Nope. As always, you seem to selectively read even your own sources.

Particularly laughable is how readily you accept the "industry tradegroup" where a similar label would be proof of error if the results weren't what you wanted. Your keywords for the week are still "confirmation bias" :rofl:

[TommyO]

19. Not surprisingly, this isn't going to contaminate thousands of miles of coastline