Wave Powered Generator to Power Homes

Eh-Wire writes "A Scottish company, Ocean Power Delivery (OPD) and it's Norwegian backer, Norsk hydro are set install three wave powered generators 3.5 miles off the north coast of Portugal for the Portuguese renewable energy group Enersis. This will be the world's first commercial wave powered generating system. Providing the initial three generators perform as expected, an additional thirty wave powered generators will be installed by the end of 2006. It's estimated the wave powered generator farm will displace 6000 tonnes of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be emitted from conventional electrical generating plants."

renewable energy sources

[xonen]

The European Union requires 22 percent of electricity consumption to come from renewable energy sources -- such as solar, wind and wave -- by 2010.

i did not know that fact, thought it was 8%-10%, but it's a good goal, although i doubt it will be reached. there is lot of opposition to 'conventional' methods of renewable energy, like wind energy.
here in holland (a windy place) people think they're ugly, noisy and potentionally dangerous. and the same environmental groups that dislikes carbondioxide and nuclear energy als dislike the fact birds may fly into those things. for long time, people have suggested off-shore solutions, like off-shore windmill parks.. but they're expensive.
so, i find it aprticulair interesting that a country like portughal pioneers in those steps, instead of 'hi-tec' countries like holland, germany or france.
guess it's just a matter of oil prices to raise more, so alternative power sources automatically gets economical benefits. after all, the techniques are there, short-view economics and lack of vision is keeping those from being implemented.

Plus ca change

[kiore]

The artificial power sources that led to the first wave (no pun intended) of industralisation were water power ... in the form of mills driven by waterwheels trapping river power.

Then we had steam, and burned fossil fuels to make it. Tearing up the ground, polluting the air, the water, and eventually damaging our whole world.

Finally we return to extracting energy from water. No compaints from me on that score.

Re:renewable energy sources

[FidelCatsro]

The enviromental extremest(I am very much an enviromentalist , but am pragmatic about it) will find any reason to complain , we have heaps of them here in Germany , I often drive past them (well im a passenger) And have never once seen a dead bird laying around at the bottom of them , they are hardly noisy atall and generaly not that much of an eye sore(i kind of like them ).
Its rather insulting to the inteligence of birds , i have yet to see one study that can confirm birds would be that prone to flying into them , People seem to prefer irrational fear to logic .

Re:Wave hello

[FidelCatsro]

And the Oil crissis will hit sooner or later(unless we develop a way of creating natural oil cost effectivly,)
We really need to be focusing on natural renewable energy sources and things like fission and fusion power .
People don't like nuclear power because of incidents like three mile island and Chernobly ,yet more damage is done each year by the cumulitive effects of coal/gas and oil plants.
If Nuclear power had not been stiffeld by protestors and irational worrys then the chances are today we would have nuclear as a far far safer and more productive power source.
Alot of the FUD talk most likely comes not from groups like green.peace but from the oil barons who have far mroe intrest in keeping these things at bay

How much CO2 is really saved?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's estimated the wave powered generator farm will displace 6000 tonnes of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be emitted from conventional electrical generating plants.

And how many thousnands of tons of carbon dioxide were emitted by the factories producing this generator equipment, and the generating plants powering them?

I wonder if large machinery is really the answer to renewable and enviromentally friendly power. Personally, I don't think its likely.

Re:How much CO2 is really saved?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, let me see if I am understanding you correctly.

You are trying to say that the process of building a machine ONCE will generate way more CO2 than a CONTINUING, NEVER-ENDING process of making power?

Are you trolling?

Re:Wave hello

[/ASCII]

Given that most people know someone who died of cancer, and given that pollution from coal/gas/oil powered power plants is one of the large contributors to cancer, I find it surprising that people take the FUD about the dangers of nuclear power from orginizations like Greenpeace at face value. Yes, nuclear power kills people, but far, far, fewer people die for one kWh of nuclear power than from one kWh of coal power

Re:Wave hello

[Peden]

Please be aware the amount of oil it takes to process the uranium ore from the rocks. This is a huge amount! On top of that, uranium is just like oil, there is only so much of it. Wave energy is a good idea, but some research should be put into how this affects the seas. Granted there is a lot of energy in there, but taking some out would probably have some effect?

Re:environmental impact

[Cochonou]

I think it's pretty arrogant to think that "we'll always come up with a solution later. We're clever enough".

Re:renewable energy sources

[xonen]

It may be measured and calculated how many birds got killed by those things.

But at the same time, we forget to calculate the number of animals getting killed by not doing so. Climate changes already lead to the extinsion of several species, the petrochemical industry is far from being environmental friendly. All kinds of indirect effects are not calculated, 'just' to safe a few hundred birds.
And, if animals aren't important enough (...) in holland it is calculated that fine dust, mainly from traffic, reduces the lifes of about 10.000 people with about 10 years. So, there is a serious health aspect by using our current oil-based products for our vehicles and other industry. Hydrogen or electric cars could save us lifes!
The only other solution would be not to use energy, but that for sure would also cost lifes. So, i pity the birds, but in general, windmills are much better for the environment, our health, animals and plants, than not doing so.
In densely-populated holland, we are already facing the serious consequences from pollution for our own health. It is amazing that progress is made so slowly...

Re:More details and animation

[Tim C]

Still, you'd need something lime X000 km^2 to provide all of the UK's electricity this way.

So don't try to produce it all using this, just produce some of it.

Anything that reduces our dependence on fossil fuels, even a little, has to be a good thing.

Re:WHAT?!?

[GrievousMistake]

There are very few plants in service that were built after Chernobyl lost containment, and none of those are in the USA - the "univac mainframe" is what you have.

And it is all we will get if people do not appreciate the differences in security and efficiency between the new designs and the old ones.
Chernobyl made it really difficult to get people to accept the building of new and more secure reactor plants to relieve and eventually replace the old, shoddy ones.

Re:WHAT?!?

[dbIII]

Chernobyl made it really difficult to get people to accept the building of new and more secure reactor plants to relieve and eventually replace the old, shoddy ones.

Simply because it was never supposed to happen according the the "clean" "green" and "safe" rant. Once you lose the trust of people it is very hard to get it back.

Re:How much CO2 is really saved?

[DrXym]

If its comparable to the many thousands of tons of carbon dioxide emitted when building coal / wood power plants, the question is irrelevant.

Re:Wave hello

[Strontium-90]

The most harmful emission produced by burning of any fossil fuel these days is our not-so-good friend CO2. Unless this magic filter turns the CO2 back into oil, it falls way short of 100% removal of emissions. Why is CO2 a bad thing to be putting into the air? Because it's a greenhouse gas. Whether or not you believe in global warming right now, continued emissions of CO2 will result in climate shift in the future.

By contrast, the waste from fission power plants, while not the safest thing in the world, is relatively easily contained and dealt with.

As for the "other options" than fission and coal, every single one has significant drawbacks:

* Wind - Local climate change; can't be used everywhere; damage to wildlife; (and for those of us who care about such things) they destroy natural landscapes and take up large areas of land

* Solar - Inefficient; expensive to produce in large quantities; can't be used everywhere

* Geothermal - Can't be used everywhere; doesn't produce large enough amounts of power

* Hydroelectric (dams) - Ecological damage; requires rivers

* Tidal - Heaven only knows how much ecological damage this could result in

What am I leaving out? I'd like to include Fusion, but it isn't ready for prime time yet. If it was, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because it'd be the hands-down winner.