Green Energy Now, And On The Tide 577
thpr writes "The Electric Power Research Institute and its partners have completed their Offshore Wave Power Feasibility Demonstration Project, which defined potential wave energy projects off the shores of the United States. This is building off of work already done in Scotland (and elsewhere). San Francisco, New York and other areas are considering trial installations of the technology. It is interesting to note (table 1 in the report) that the energy density (kW/m^2) that can be achieved is much higher than wind or solar. In addition, harnessing 24% of available wave energy near the US at 50% efficiency is equal to all of the hydropower currently generated in the US (~7% of total electricity production). On a separate note, in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's $1.2B 2006 budget the Department of Energy is closing out the Hydropower Technologies Program. Maybe that's why this technology is missing from our National Energy Policy?" Until it reaches maturity, though, U.S. readers can pay for other forms of green energy.
Oh man, this is going to suck (Score:1, Interesting)
Seriously, though, it's a clean source of power, but what kind of impact will it have on coastal areas? No more beach fish spawning, no more killer waves to surf, and the area where these will be deployed will become almost like kiddie pools.
Why call it green energy when... (Score:3, Interesting)
Side effects (Score:3, Interesting)
I hear that you cant put it in densly populated water ways, as it really impeeds boats moving (at least the surface variety, are there deep buried kinds, too ?).
If anyone could comment on the negatives of this, it'd be nice to see the other side. For instance, wind power is usually cited as an eyesore, and solar as having problems w/ where you are located (same w/ wind to some extent).
It takes two sides to make it work... (Score:4, Interesting)
There isn't much I can do for (1). But I can do for (2) by replacing light bulbs with energy saving bulbs (ESBs, or compact fluorescent bulb that fits in an incadescent lamp), turn off the light where not needed, and turn the damned TV when
Re:Side effects (Score:2, Interesting)
mmm... lunch..
Idiocy (Score:4, Interesting)
This is our electricity usage BEFORE we tack on the electricity used to power our hydrogen cars, which will raise our consumption an order of magnitude.
Using algal biodiesel, breeder fission(with development on fusion), and wind where suitable, are the only remotely practical eco-friendly choices that are sustainable - Photovoltaic trumps them all, but to convert even just our current electrical needs to photovoltaic would cost more than we've spent on imported oil since we started importing oil. We could create an infrastructure to supply the entire nation's demand for fuel with algal biodiesel on an amount of money that's similar to what we spend anually on importing oil, which is coincidentally about the same amount of money it would cost to install a single hydrogen pump at every gas station in the US.
Wave power is and has always been a crock as an energy scheme.
whoops, forgot to log in
Interesting points (Score:4, Interesting)
Living here in the post-industrial wonderland of NJ, I find this amusing in a bad way.
The other thing that shocked me was the supposedly "higher" costs for "green" energy. Bad news folks, it's lower than what I pay to Conectiv/Pepco.
And now back to our regular insomnia...
Re:Oh man, this is going to suck (Score:2, Interesting)
This would be one of the largest, if not the largests, enginering projects that mankind has ever done and the production of it would have a negative effect on the environment.
Nuclear power would be much cheaper and less disruptive to the environment.
Re:It takes two sides to make it work... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, one of my favorite things to point out is that if each person in the US just once flipped off their lightbulb for 30 seconds as they left the room for a moment, we'd collectively save enough money to feed a child for a year. Obviously there's a bit of rounding here, since energy prices are different in different places, people have different wattage bulbs, etc., but a little simple math shows you it's in the right ballpark.
So just think, each time you flip the lightswitch when you go to get a drink, you're doing your part to save a kid's life.
Re:Idiocy (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to mention the fact that we'd basically have to pave over New Mexico. Have you ever been out there? It's a desert, but even a desert is prettier than 40,000 square miles of solar cells.
Re:Other green energy sources (Score:5, Interesting)
Sterling claims 100sq miles for all of US (Score:2, Interesting)
Sterling solar which is a thermal solar, rather than PV solar, technology. They say that a mere 100ssquare miles of their concentrators would supply the entire electricity needs of the US.
Nuclear power is greener than most (Score:3, Interesting)
First, there are no CO2 emissions. That's the most important thing. Fossil fuels leave behind CO2 which heats up the planet.
Second, there is no soot and other such trash going to the atmosphere. Third, the amount of radioactive waste is in fact very little compared to the amount of waste produced by other methods.
Yes, the waste is highly toxic. And the acquiring of the uranium leaves waste behind. But even so, nuclear power is cleaner and better than any plant fossil based fuel source (oil, gas).
Even if you are green (I am), get your facts correct and don't think with your emotions in things like these.
Re:Other green energy sources (Score:4, Interesting)
Not sure if Discover/Wired did something on this, but PBS Frontline did an awesome show [pbs.org] on our fear of anything "Nuclear" (IMHO, I think we're only scared of "Nukular" but whatever).
Re:Waves are cool, but don't forget ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Other green energy sources (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Other green energy sources (Score:2, Interesting)
I haven't done the math, but I would bet that the combined land use of buildings + paved areas is a lot greater than that needed by solar power. That and the buildings can usually do both.
Something which always bothered me... (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess the effect is negiligable, but it kind of bothers me that we might be slowly crashing the moon into the Earth or something (which would be slightly worse than a Nuclear accident
Does anyone no where the energy actually comes from for tidal power?
Tidal power (Score:2, Interesting)
Why? Just make a huge circular (or some shape dictated by local streams and wind/wave pattern) concrete-wall "tub" on a shallow part of continental shelf and exploit the differences in water level that occur between the tub and sea. Using ferrocement (naval concrete, used to make ship hulls) and reinforcing columns for construction should do just fine.
Re:Something which always bothered me... (Score:2, Interesting)
The effect of tidal generators on this system is nothing. The effect of tidal generators on oceanic ecosystems is unknown, but is very likely to be substantial, as very many species depend on the tides, and though the Earth as a massive body will not be affected, the oceans themselves will be affected (even little changes will matter to life on Earth).
Hydrogen is an issue by itself (Score:2, Interesting)
I say forget the whole Hydrogen idea! My vote goes to electric power for most anything but autonomous systems. And for them, bio fuels made from biomass grown intensively in hydroponic facilities with assistance of electric power for ilumination, pumping CO2-enriched air into water and for maintainance.
We'll have to catch atmospheric CO2 anyway, so why don't we use the same facilities for both energy storage AND carbon catching (I guess we can carbonize biomass for storage instead of fermenting it into fuel)?
Re:Other green energy sources (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:less, not more (Score:2, Interesting)
Somewhat OT but what were the stats again on how many power plants are needed to run "hibernating" electronics ?
We have the tech now to schedule stuff to power up on state/condition.
A television that learned to turn off in non-viewing periods and come back to "warm" when viewing was likely would save a lot of base load power.
Re:Other green energy sources (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fusion (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, I'd be perfectly willion to spend 0.1% of the world's annual GDP on fusion, since after we solve the world's energy problem, I'd like us to reduce trips to other planets in the solar system to a few days each way. :-)
Re:Other green energy sources (Score:2, Interesting)
for anyone who thinks that large scale solar power generation has anything to do with the dime-sized solar cells you played with in highschool, i invite you to do a quick search for:
"mirrors" "salt" "solar power"
high pollution production for cells that dont work a night?
try concentrated sunlight, heating salt so water can be boiled round the clock.
stable, simple, clean solar collection that works.
http://www.energylan.sandia.gov/sunlab/Snapshot/S
"The plant operated successfully until 1988... operating with 96% availability during its final year. It generated more than 38,000 megawatt-hours during its lifetime and consistently ran at its 10-megawatt rating."
Read the whole page and keep reading more if you want, it really is a sophisticated and inexpensive form of power generation that gave me a quite a 'good vibe' when i first came across it. this kind of simplicity would work so well for developing nations, cant you just imagine plants like this creating jobs and supplying energy to towns the world over.
-yours truly, AC
Re:Other green energy sources (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh man, this is going to suck (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fusion (Score:3, Interesting)
The only reason "old nuclear" has been so expensive is that ever single plant built in the US was designed and built separately. They essentially never got out of the "experimental design" mindset. France has standardized plant design and it's been relatively cheap as a result. The electricity isn't "too cheap to meter", but that line was from a 1950's "atomic energy will save the world" pipe dream anyway.
Re:The PROBLEMS with nuclear (not nukular) (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Solar tower vs PV.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Other green energy sources (Score:2, Interesting)