Possibly the "perfect" green energy source?

[GSLevel9]

Does it get any better than this?

http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/03/wave-power-device-ready-for-scotland/

[denem]

1. 150 kW of peak output is a bit on the skinny side.

Is this a small prototype?

[GSLevel9]

2. should be soon...

I wish they'd help the promotion of this by installing a 24 hr webcam on the bobbing buoy and a realtime power output reading online.

[GSLevel9]

3. plz check out the related articles:

http://www.earthtechling.com/2010/10/wave-energy-powers-maritime-security/

http://www.earthtechling.com/2010/08/oregon-wave-energy-project-inching-along/

http://www.earthtechling.com/2010/02/wave-power-park-forming-off-coast-of-oregon/

http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/03/oregon-wave-power-start-up-goes-prototype/

[DCKit]

5. Because 150Kw isn't enough for a village in Maine?

Why does every alternative have to be "super-sized" to be acceptable?

Additionally, unlike the usual complaints about solar and wind not providing 24/7/365 power, this concept WOULD cover baseload and negate the biggest concern-troll talking point. They could also be installed in conjunction with windmills (as markers) and boaters would know what areas to avoid.

Further, at 150Kw apiece, providing constant power, how many would be needed along our thousands of miles of coastline to provide even 20% of our needs? Not to mention how many jobs would be created with manufacture, installation, maintenance and support.

Regardless, this thing looks far more durable than the hydraulic caterpillar concept.

[Confusious]

10. well,

The installed base of power in the Untied States is 1,080 GW

20% of power would be 216 GW

216 x 10^9 / 150 x 10^3

1.44 x 10^6

1,440,000 of these to provide 20% of the United States power.

I don't know if people understand the scope of the problem.

[Wilms]

12. Did someone suggest this be installed and operational by Monday morning?

Did someone further suggest that this be the only alternate?

Gee.

[Confusious]

15. Did you not read the response I was replying to?

"Further, at 150Kw apiece, providing constant power, how many would be needed along our thousands of miles of coastline to provide even 20% of our needs? Not to mention how many jobs would be created with manufacture, installation, maintenance and support."

I was giving numbers. Am I not allowed to give out numbers?

I said nothing about "getting it all done tomorrow." I said nothing about "it being the only source of power"

As a matter of fact, if you had read, I gave numbers for 20% of United States power.

Gee, overreact much?

[Wilms]

18. Perhaps. What I was responding to was your comment.

"I don't know if people understand the scope of the problem."

I took that to mean advocates of alternatives, because it's pretty much a given that the general populace has little idea about the scope of the problem.

I got that wrong? If so, I apologize.

[Confusious]

20. No, I advocate alternatives

It just seems some people think it'll be done tomorrow, and won't impact our lives. Generating all the electricity the United States needs from solar would take an area the size of a quarter of Arizona. That's a lot of land.

Mention that and people blow it off. I actually had someone say "That's doable" A million and a half of the tide generators for 20% of power. Just for the United States.

Climate change is getting worse, but some are saying we can wait until 2050 for 100% renewables. Polar caps are melting. I don't think we have that sort of time.

Mention any reality, and people blow it off.

People who advocate for renewables are usually the worst in that respect, the general populace doesn't care. They just want power as cheap as possible, and they don't want to conserve.

I don't expect it to be tomorrow, though it seems some think changing this is like changing your shoes.

[Wilms]

22. Ah. Then I do indeed apologize. And we agree.

I think it's fair to say that it would take quite awhile to be 100% renewable. Though I wonder what it would take to somewhat quickly decommission the unsafest nukes and dirtiest coal-fired plants replacing them with a mixture of renewables and conservation.

I was shocked to learn that TEPCO was forced to shut 17 of it's reactors due to violations some years ago. How did Japan survive that? Did they turn off half of the advertising lighting in Tokyo? If they took those 17 reactors out AND shut half the outdoor signage, would it grind down on the economy? And I'm not even asking to quantify the damage that these plants can do should things with them go awry.

Finally, as such a process continued, there would likely be developments in clean generation and efficiency. A little bit of a cultural shift wouldn't be bad, either. Were we to take it seriously, I find it hard to imagine not having our act much more together in a generation.

[Statistical]

23. How did they survive? Simple they have plenty of spare natural gas turbine capacity.

They built a new LNG terminal and burned billions of tons more natural gas.

[Wilms]

26. Then there's a vote for dimming the lights in Tokyo at night.

To my eye, so much of the aesthetic/commercial lighting is a beacon telling the world, "we don't get it" or "we don't care to". And I don't just mean in Japan.

[Confusious]

28. A shift in peoples views doesn't happen overnight

It takes time. I agree.

Some also seem to overestimate what science can do, aand the time it takes. efficiency of solar is theoreticailly 40%. Nothing ever matches theory 100%.

Most are 20% right now. There are some cells that rise to 40%, but they have multiple gates, which is to say, multiple solar cells in the same spot in the silicon. but the costs to make it are not something that the average person could afford. NASA could though, one the mars rover.

It time, it could be cheaper. But that's not goig to happen until we understand the atomic forces in silicon, something that will take time.

We barely understand how superconductivity works right now, as an example.

[Wilms]

17. Wrong location delete

[DCKit]

19. So it's ~400K units if we're only looking to replace the 20% from nuclear.

And we've got solar, wind, geothermal and biomass to make up the other 80%. We can't possibly do it. :sarcasm:

I love how the numbers get juggled: It's all or nothing, so why bother? Why can't I buy a gigawatt solar panel for my house for $150?

[Statistical]

25. Where do you get 400K from it is 1.4 million.

Of course that ignores capacity factor. Just because the device has 150KW of PEAK power doesn't mean it produces 150KW of continual power.

[DCKit]

27. You don't think 400Gw is a generous 20% share of 150Gw? Check your math.

It's a wave-based. Unless you ascribe to the Bill O'Reilly school of thought, waves will continue to break on our shores, despite the power of Jesus and Mamon.

Please do me a favor and put me on ignore.

[Confusious]

29. where do you get 150GW from

for that matter 400GW?

The installed basse of power in the United States: 1,080 GW. 90% capacity factor is because some plants are down for maintenance. Always going to happen.

1,080 GW * 20% = 216 GW

20% of the United States electricty

216 GW = 216, 000,000,000

Output of the tidal generator

150Kw = 150, 000

Take another look.

[Statistical]

32. Capacity factor for renewables is much lower.

I only found one wave park but it is 20% capacity factor.

The only plants in the US that achieve 90%+ capacity factor are nuclear.

A better approximation. Giving benefit of the doubt for 30% capacity factor.
150kW peak * 0.30 capacity factor * 24 hours * 365 = 394 MWh of annual production.

Total US electrical demand is roughly 4,400 TWh. Thats 4,400,000 GWh or 4,400,000,000 MWh
4,400,000,000 MWh / 394 MWh per unit = ~ 11.2 million units.

To supply 20% of electical demand would be 11.2 * 0.2 = 2,240,000 units.

By just looking at peak power you underestimate the number of units needed by half. The low capacity factor of variable sources (wind, solar, wave) result in much lower power per unit than the peak nameplate rating would first suggest.

[Statistical]

31. While waves conitnue to break waves the energy output won't continually be 100% peak power.

There is variability to waves, just like there is variability to wind. Most windfarms are built in areas where wind blows the overwhelming majority of the time but despite that capacity factor in the 20%-30% range is common. Even wind is blowing it won't produce 100% peak power each time. Even if they did time for maintenance, and repairs reduces capacity factor.

Granted it is only a single data point but this wave farm achieves a 20% capacity factor (150KW average annual output over 750KW peak power)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agu%C3%A7adoura_Wave_Park

---------------------
Developed by the Scottish company Pelamis Wave Power, the Pelamis machine is made up of connected sections which flex and bend relative to one another as waves run along the structure. This motion is resisted by hydraulic rams which pump high pressure oil through hydraulic motors which in turn drive electrical generators. The three machines which made up the Aguçadoura Wave Park were each rated at a peak output of 750kW, giving an installed peak capacity of 2.25MW, enough to meet the average electricity demand of more than 1,500 Portuguese homes.<5> The average output from a Pelamis machine will depend on the wave resource in a particular area. The higher the resource the higher the average output. According to information on the Pelamis web site it appears that the average power output for a Pelamis wave machine is about 150kW. <6>
--------------------

For the sake of argument lets assume this system has 50% higher capacity factor - 0.30
150kW peak * 0.30 capacity factor * 24 hours * 365 = 394 MWh of annual production.

Total US electrical demand is roughly 4,400 TWh. Thats 4,400,000 GWh or 4,400,000,000 MWh
4,400,000,000 MWh / 394 MWh per unit = ~ 11.2 million units.

To supply 20% of electical demand would be 11.2 * 0.2 = 2,240,000 units.

[Confusious]

30. The number was 1.4 million not 400k or 400 thousand.

I'm not juggling numbers, you are.

It's not all or nothing, It's a scope of a problem that needs to be taken are of.

Are we not suppose to talk about it, because it might look bad?

[aikoaiko]

4. How much does 150 kW support?

I don't know how to judge that amount of power.

[DCKit]

6. Enough to power 600, 55", energy hogging plasma TVs...

or 10, 1,500 watt microwaves. All the time.

[Kennah]

8. This comes from the DOE

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html

Looks like as a nation we generate between 300 and 400 terrawatthours.

[Confusious]

11. installed base of power for the United States is

1,080 Gigawatts. 90% capacity factor, meaning it's on 90% of the time.

[jwirr]

7. I have always been in favor of wave power but after this tsunami I

wonder how that would effect it?

[diane in sf]

9. A tsunami may destroy wind generators, but they won't leak nuclear waste!

[jwirr]

13. Yes and that is the point. I lived on the North shore of Lake Superior.

That is where I started wondering if these things would work there.

[backwoodsbob]

14. what part of 1500 microwaves dont you get?

This CAN'T provide enough energy to provide anywhere near our basic needs

[jwirr]

16. I have always thought that there is not going to be any one size fits

all answer to oil depletion. I do not expect one machine to produce energy for everything I have today. Something like this could be a part of the answer.

[DCKit]

24. Hey Bob, do you really run your microwave all the time?

I use mine two to five minutes a day, but only if I'm doing all my cooking in the microwave. Max usage of 125 watt hours/day. Geez, my Mom gets 3 times that off 16 solar panels. She's mostly independent, and we only burned about 10 gallons of gasoline last winter keeping the batteries topped off.

Additionally, you can run a CFL for a month on less energy than it takes to run a microwave oven for an hour.

Think about it Bob.

[txlibdem]

21. Wave power is a great idea

When the technology is fully developed it will generate more power per unit. Just as wind turbines were much less efficient in the early days, now they have ones that generate 7 megawatts peak and Siemens has one in the works that generates 10 megawatts and is less prone to breaking down.

2008, largest was 7 MW -- http://www.metaefficient.com/news/new-record-worlds-largest-wind-turbine-7-megawatts.html
2011, largest is 10 MW -- http://inhabitat.com/norway-to-build-the-worlds-largest-wind-turbine/

I say give it a chance. And thanks for the OP! K&R

[Statistical]

33. I would favor wind over wave.

What advantage does wave provide over wind.

Lower capacity factor?
Higher maintenance costs of dealing with seawater environment?
Hurricane / Tsunami damage risk?
Smaller units meaning more needed for same amount of power (higher maintenance costs)?

Until we tapped the best wind sites I think wind is preferred green tech. Sure build some small scale research wave farms but the big dollars should go to wind. Eventually the best wind corridors will be tapped then looking at wave, tidal, etc for large scale deployment makes more sense.

[OnlinePoker]

34. Here's a planned wave park the company is working on in Oregon

http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/reedsport.htm

...The project is expected to deliver approximately 4,140 megawatt-hours per year to the Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative, which is enough to power 375 homes and displace an estimated 2,110 tons of CO2 on an annual basis.

Can somebody check my math...the article says there will be 10 buoys. If these 10 produce 4140 mwh of power, I calculate each buoy to have a capacity factor of 48 KW(Maximum capacity is said to be 150 KW). (48 kw*24=1.152MW / 1.152MW*365=420.48MW / 420.48MW*10 buoys=4,204 MW). That doesn't sound like a lot to me. In addition, electricity in Oregon costs around 6.5 cents/kwh (not counting service charges). This farm would generate the equivalent of only $269,100 in electricity annually. I can't see a price on the company website for each buoy, but I would think they would be in the millions. It would take years to pay off, not counting the extra costs of maintaining them in the salt water environment.

On edit, I just went in their financial highlights for 3rd quarter, and they say they received funding for one of the buoys from DOE and that cost will be $4.8 million.