Harnessing Vertical Sea Temperature Gradient 426
Sterling D. Allan writes "Sea Solar Power Inc., run by three generations of James Hilbert Andersons, has developed a solar power technology that does not fluctuate with the weather, but is available constantly. Their solution is to harness the solar energy stored in the sea by tapping the thermal gradient that exists naturally between the surface and deep waters, using a reverse refrigeration cycle. The modeling and testing done by the Anderson family over three generations since 1962 predicts that the cost of energy generation through this method will be within a price range comparable to nuclear, coal, natural gas, and other contemporary grid power plants. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, or OTEC, was invented in 1881 by a French scientist, Jacques Arsene D'Arsonval. SSP should be ready to build their first full prototype 2-3 years from now."
Unfortunately, it's not a passive energy source (Score:3, Insightful)
Passive solar collection (photovoltaic and otherwise) and wind power are really the only truly "green" power sources.
Re:Solar???? (Score:5, Insightful)
Incidentally, does the thought of messing around with oceanic temperature gradients bother anyone slightly? It's probably not on a scale nearly wide enough to destabilise any currents, but it'd be good to have an oceanographer's opinion on this.
SMAC's Realization (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IANAO (Score:5, Insightful)
The article says that the current world consumption of energy is about 1/300th of the energy available from the oceans in this way. I'm not sure if that's a tiny fraction or not, actually. Local effects on the ecology could be significant for a large power generation facility.
But the article also says that they can produce fresh water as a by-product, and that the process works best in the tropics (i.e. the developing world), so this might have a chance, since it'd probably be better for the environment than more fossil fuel consumption.
Choice of phrase (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, in the last year, I've read about thermal stacks, hydrogen generation using thermal power, horizontally-oriented wind turbines, and probably some other alternative power methods. They're all great ideas, with great possibility, but the summary for every one reads like a sales pitch.
Re:Are there environmental effects to be considere (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm sure someone can go into the math of exactly how much energy the ocean contains by multiplying water's heat capacity to the amount of water in the oean, but I'm too lazy to do that. The fact of the matter is that there is more energy in the ocean than you can possibly imagine, and that even if we changed our entire electrical grid to run off of the ocean energy, it would barely have an effect, even locally.
Re:Solar???? (Score:4, Insightful)
Solar
Nuclear
Stored friction (hot core)
everything is a stored form of something else, and the three above are a stored form of the big bang.
-nB
Re:Unfortunately, it's not a passive energy source (Score:5, Insightful)
With photovoltaic systems you have the nasty chemicals currently associated with manufacture, with wind power you have what some people consider noise and landscape pollution, along with bird strike problems, although this problem is probably over hyped with newer windmill designs.
There is, as they say, no free lunch.
Re:Sound too good to be true? Perhaps it is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Do the math. The entire world's energy budget isn't enough to make even a microscopic change in the thermal gradients of the ocean.
Re:Solar???? (Score:1, Insightful)
Old News (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately, it's not a passive energy source (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately, it's not a passive energy source (Score:5, Insightful)
A very important point to remember is that we will use an increasing amount of energy for the forseable future and that energy will be generated somehow. Coal is the default power technology. Every time a wind / nuclear / tidal / etc power plant doesn't get built another coal plant is built instead. So the question isn't "Is there an environmental impact from this power source?" - we know that answer, there always is - the question is "Is this better than coal?".
In this house we pay attention to carnot (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:waves? (Score:2, Insightful)
This could be built out of sight and away from the vast majority of living sea creatures. You have to build it where the ocean is very deep, namely, away from where most people live.
Re:Unfortunately, it's not a passive energy source (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:waves? (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, if you put your heatsinks below the surface of the water, you don't have to worry so much about storms and such.
--LWM
Re:Sound too good to be true? Perhaps it is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that, but even if the Gulf Stream is not the primary deliverer of heat to northern Europe, the 20-line press release you cited does not claim that Europe's climate will not be affected by a change in thermohaline circulation.
So if you're searching for a thin vine to cling to the increasingly untenable view that carbon-loading of the atmosphere is not a major problem, better not grab too hard on this one.
Re:Unfortunately, it's not a passive energy source (Score:4, Insightful)
The processes to manufacture these are also green? Ever seen a semiconductor fab? Clean? Yes. Green? I dunno, what color is arsine gas? If you smell garlic, it ain't the pizza joint next door.
Under Salt Water (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately, it's not a passive energy source (Score:4, Insightful)
That said if we convert the energy into electricity then use it to power our lights and stuff it will get back into the atmosphere and get radiated away. So the energy is there for the taking.
Re:Unfortunately, it's not a passive energy source (Score:3, Insightful)
This is NOT a myth.
Re:Solar???? (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps it's not a good idea, but if you justify it as cooling down oceans we've already heated up, then it's completely consistent with human history as it relates to science: No matter what we've screwed up, we always think we are, at the moment of thought, smart enough to fix the new problem.
for instance:
Re:IANAO (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like a hoax (Score:4, Insightful)
On top of this, all the equipment must be marine grade (ie., pricey). Power must be transferred to shore. It also must be a functioning ship with all the expense associated with that.
But what makes me most suspect is the claim of making fresh water. Ordinary Rankine Cycle Turbines do produce fresh water via distillation, but the Organic Rankine Cycle is a closed cycle and no fresh water is produced. The only condensation you'll get are hydrocarbons, which are recycled to create more vapour.
Re:Unfortunately, it's not a passive energy source (Score:2, Insightful)
No one is suggesting we power the entire planet with aqua-thermal-gradient plants. The 1/300 number was just an example. You know, an illustration? No need for the tree huggers to intstantly raise a hue and cry.
Re:IANAO (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Evolution in action (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case its survival of the smartest. Maybe the birds around the Altimont Pass are particularly stupid and are doing the rest a favour by removing themselves from the gene pool. If I look at my front window, a quarter mile away is one of the biggest wind turbines I've ever seen. Can't say I've spotted a single bird carcass lying on the ground underneath it.
Personally I don't believe wind turbines kill birds. I call bullshit. The blades just don't turn fast enough. And anyway, birds very quickly get out of the way of fast moving objects. When was the last time you ran over a bird in the road with your car? Drive at 'em as fast as you like. They see you coming and by the time you get there, they've moved.
Re:Unfortunately, it's not a passive energy source (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, atmospheric gases are subsumed into the Earth, and bleed off into space.
I think that everything, with the possible exception of the universe as a whole, is an open system.
-Peter
Re:IANAO (Score:2, Insightful)
What matters is whether or not the change in the world's weather patterns is going to make life on this planet difficult for us humans, and we don't really need a long historical analysis in order to determine that - we just need the short-term data & some decent climate models. And most of our current models are telling us that we're in deep doodoo and digging a hole deeper every day.
I'm not hearing any plans from our so-called leaders about what we are going to do about it - the loudest voices seem to be saying that we shouldn't do squat because they don't want to pay for it.
Even if we are incapable of changing the actual climate, then we should actually have a plan on how we (humanity) can adapt our lives to accomodate the changing conditions, but as far as I can tell the people with power & money are perfectly content to let the poor get fucked over while they (the well-off) are free to move to wherever is most comfortable to live.
Re:IANAO (Score:3, Insightful)
The question that I think you're alluding to, by "we don't know what the hell is happening to the environment" is that there's still a (somewhat) open debate as to whether the warming is caused by anything human beings did, or if it's part of some greater and not-yet-understood climactic cycle.
However in either situation, there are ongoing non-insigificant temperature increases and ice melt occurring, with resulting desalinization of regional oceans. The evidence for this is widespread and not in dispute by any reputable authority. Regardless of whether this is the result of fossil fuel consumption or "just nature," it's still something we're going to have to deal with the consequences of.
This is your problem right here (Score:2, Insightful)
Environmental changes. You can't just assume that those changes are "damage".