Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Groundbreaking Tidal Power Technology to be Tested in Cobscook Bay (Maine)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 08:44 PM
Original message
Groundbreaking Tidal Power Technology to be Tested in Cobscook Bay (Maine)
http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNewsArchive/tabid/181/ctl...

Groundbreaking Tidal Power Technology to be Tested in Cobscook Bay

02/18/2010 Reported By: Anne Mostue

A Portland-based tidal power company unveiled its latest underwater turbine structure today in Bangor. It's the largest ocean energy device to be deployed in U.S. waters, and it will be submerged in Cobscook Bay early next month.



Eastport continues to be the hub for some of the most advanced tidal power research in the country, according to the Portland-based Ocean Renewable Power Company and the University of Maine.

"Cobscook Bay and Western Passage, which are on either side of Eastport, are the best tidal energy resources on the east coast of the U.S., so that's why we're there," says Christopher Sauer, CEO of Ocean Renewable Power Company, which is developing tidal power projects in Maine, Alaska and Florida.

Sauer contracted Stillwater Metalworks of Bangor and Harbor Technologies of Brunswick to build its latest turbine, nicknamed Energy Tide 2 (pictured above). "It's going to be at the end of deployment arms that are at the side of a barge and it's going to be lowered in underneath the barge and it will be about 25 feet below the surface," he says. "And the barge is going to be moored in Cobscook Bay, just off from an area called Shackford Head. So actually, interesting, as you drive into Eastport, at one point as you're coming into town you'll actually be able to look over and see it."

The device is made up of a rectangular framed box containing a 10,000-pound generator and turbine blades. It looks like a giant push-reel lawnmower - 46-feet wide by 11-feet tall, and 14-and-a-half feet deep. "It's the largest Ocean Energy Device ever deployed in U.S. waters," Sauer says. "It's rated, designed for a maximum capacity of 60 kilowatts, so that's the largest yet done in the United States. Now in Europe and other places they have done bigger, but in the U.S. this is the biggest."

...


(Audio available at the link.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. Wow. If we could just install this things in Acadia National Park, we could make the park useful.
It could create Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! and power 20,000 McDonald's.

The great thing is that on top of the platforms we could put huge wind towers which would make great Petrel habitat.

And here we have had people saying that the destruction of coastal nesting grounds in Maine have lead to petrel decline.

There is nothing wrong with bird populations that seaborne lubricants can't solve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-19-10 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Did you have a chance to read this?
since we know that your preposterous claims are made with the sole intent of falsely disparaging renewable energy sources in order to promote the acceptance of nuclear power; this is an on point reply to your central point - namely that nuclear power is preferable to tidal and wind power.


Posted with permission:

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?d...

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobw...


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 26 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.532.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. LOL! Do you know which petrels nest in coastal Maine? Do you know how and where they nest?
Do you know anything AT ALL about seabirds?

Nope

Nope

and

Nope

Do you know that ***submerged*** tidal power arrays would not affect petrels in any way?

Nope

Did you know New Jersey's Oyster Creek nuclear plant kills endangered sea turtles and millions of other marine creatures every year?

Yup

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-19-10 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
3. Company link
http://www.oceanrenewablepower.com/home.htm

There is a drawing on the home page that gives a better understanding of the design.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 18th 2018, 06:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC