Underwater Ocean Kites To Harvest Tidal Energy 203
eldavojohn writes "A Swedish startup has acquired funding for beginning scale model trials of underwater kites, which would be secured to a turbine to harness tidal energy for power. The company reports that the kite device allows the attached turbine to harvest energy at 10 times the speed of the actual tidal current. With a 12-meter wingspan on the kite, the company says they could harvest 500 kilowatts while it's operational. This novel new design is one of many in which a startup or university hope to turn the ocean into a renewable energy source."
Haha (Score:3, Funny)
At first I read "Ocean Kitties" and wanted to see pictures of those...
Re:Haha (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bah, go float a kite.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Up to the highest height?
Up through the atmosphere?
Up where the air is clear?
Re: (Score:2)
Unintended consequences... (Score:5, Funny)
Because of the tides, the Earth's rotational energy is being stolen by the moon, which is using that energy to slowly escape from orbit. (This is a diminishing effect over time, that will eventually reach equilibrium.) But when we leach this energy for our own purposes, we are changing the delicate balance of that equation. ...Siphon off too much energy from the tides, and we could either increase the rate at which the Earth is slowing, bring the moon crashing down upon us, or both!
Won't somebody think of the children? We owe future generations a planet fit to live on and capable of sustaining the future.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose the next question would be, What's the overall supply, and can/should we focus on not depleting it like we have done with hydrocarbons?
Re: (Score:2)
This is an interesting answer to a question I always wanted to ask - how does the first law of Thermodynamics play into harnessing tidal/wave energy?
Exactly as GP described. Well, sort of.
I suppose the next question would be, What's the overall supply
Millions of years.
Re: (Score:2)
We got into all this mess with oil because we didn't think ahead at all; It seems we're doing it all over again, just not as an immediate issue as oil is.
Re:Unintended consequences... (Score:5, Interesting)
well based on what i have read - as the moon/tidal effeects work the earth is slowing down and the moon is gaining potential energy related to earths gravity well by moving farther away - assume this is a colosed energy system..
assume we pull energy out of it.. the moon will come closer to earth (or reduce it's movement away) - so the total energy supply would be the potential energy of the moon in relation to earths gravity well.
PE = m x g x h
m = 7.3477 × 10^22 kg
g = 9.8 m/s2
h = 363,104,000 m (using it's Periapsis)
PE = 2.61461968 × 10^32 Joules
474 × 10^18 = AEC = whole planet annual energy consumption
PE/AEC = 551,607,527,000 years....
so the answer is .. keep current rates.. and assume we could get it all from here.. 550 billion years..
according to this #19
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sun.html [nasa.gov]
"In about 5 billion more years, the useable hydrogen (not all the hydrogen) will have been converted to helium, and the Sun will start burning helium, and become a red giant."
if i remember right.. if it goes red giant it will grow larger than 1 AU so it will engulf earth..
basically.. we could increase energy consumption by a factor of 100 and only then would we be toying with maybe crashing the moon into us before the sun burns us away.
Re:Unintended consequences... (Score:5, Funny)
God, I love reading the comments on this site.
I have no idea if you know what you are talking about, but you better believe I will be pulling this shit out at the next party I go to.
Re:Unintended consequences... (Score:5, Funny)
Won't somebody think of the children? We owe future generations a planet fit to live on and capable of sustaining the future.
Don't worry, it is being developed by a private company. Private industries regulate themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez. I was just gonna suggest that this could disrupt marine life... but you... bravo! -gasps-
You are overlooking the obvious... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, because the rest of us know that Funny gives no karma, so people choose other options.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously a moon energy industry shill. Build a wall of silence around this man!
Re: (Score:2)
Joking aside, and I'm sure you already know this, but the Moon's orbit increases as the Earth's rotation slows.
See: Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered? [cornell.edu]
Re:Unintended consequences... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually this is true, I recently covered this in one of my physics courses. Due to tidal friction the moon is currently receding from the earth at a rate of 4cm a year, about the rate of growth of fingernails or the rate at which continents are drifting apart. Due to conservation of angular momentum, this results in a corresponding decrease in rate of rotation of the earth. Days are actually slowly getting longer and longer. In fact, about 100 million years ago, the dinosaurs experienced a 23 hour day.
You
Re: (Score:2)
WHOOOSH!
sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
now whales can enjoy the "renewable revolution" like migratory birds and bats do with windmills.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the bird:windmill size ratio is much, much smaller than the whale:kite ratio.
I also think that birds move much faster through air than whales move through water.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nuke the Whales!
http://bit.ly/cctrnI [bit.ly]
Stupid question, but one that's always bugged me.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it possible to exhaust the wind or sea's natural momentum, if there is such a thing? Where does the energy ultimately come from? In other words, is it theoretically possible to have so many wind farms (or, in this case, tide farms) that the atmosphere becomes still?
(captcha: "universe". heh.)
Re:Stupid question, but one that's always bugged m (Score:5, Informative)
short answers: No, there is. The sun. No.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The moon is orbiting the earth, i.e. doing nothing but falling. For that to be a source of energy, shouldn't the moon be coming closer and closer to the earth?
Actually what's happening is that the moon is getting farther away from the earth, gaining orbital velocity at the cost of earth's rotational velocity.
The source of energy is actually the earth's rotational energy [wikipedia.org], of which there is quite a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
If moon is doing the tide then how come there's high tide 2 times a month.
So actually sun contributes at least as much as the moon or a bit more.
No, the sun's effect is about half that of the moon. Though that's still significant.
But earths rotation and continents actually make it meaningful.
Earth's rotation is where the energy is actually coming from. It's why the earth is slowly losing rotational velocity to the tune of about ~15 microsecond longer day per year
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not my fault. If you'd power your atomic clock with a renewable energy source, like hamsters or grad students, then you wouldn't have this problem!
Re: (Score:2)
If moon is doing the tide then how come there's high tide 2 times a month.
I assume you meant two times per day? That's because the moon raises tidal bulges on both the near and far sides of the earth. Thus, as the earth turns, you pass under these bulges roughly twice per day. That's essentially the exact definition of a "tidal effect."
It's not like the moon pulls water away on the near side and does nothing on the far side. The tidal effect is caused by the differential of the moon's gravity across the e
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wind farms are unlikely to stop the wind. Wind is a byproduct of temperature differentials, and as such, as long as the earth isn't exactly the same temperature everywhere all the time, there will be wind.
Tidal farms, on the other hand, I don't know. Tides are due to the difference in gravitational fields at different points on the earth. As such, the tidal energy comes from the Sun's and the moon's gravitational field. Since neither the sun nor the moon are losing mass through the use of tide turbines, wha
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is it possible to exhaust the wind or sea's natural momentum, if there is such a thing? Where does the energy ultimately come from? In other words, is it theoretically possible to have so many wind farms (or, in this case, tide farms) that the atmosphere becomes still?
(captcha: "universe". heh.)
I think we're OK for a while. There's many 'renewable' energy sources that can, and are, being tapped, and we're nowhere near extracting any significant fraction of them so far:
1. Tides, as in this article, come from the sun & moon interacting with the earth; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tides [wikipedia.org]
2. Sunlight; there's plenty to spare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy [wikipedia.org] "Solar radiation, along with secondary solar-powered resources such as wind and wave power, hydroelectricity and biomass, account fo
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, the green hysteria machine has a lot to answer for.
Re: (Score:2)
the tides are not caused by the gravity of the moon, exactly, but by the differential of the moons gravity on the near side of the earth vs. the far side of the earth.
Maintenance (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems this would be relatively high maintenance. Anyone who owns a boat knows that stuff can and will grow on it, which will have to be cleaned off eventually, no? Setting aside the initial cost, which isn't mentioned, wouldn't the maintenance be costly?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Keep 'em deep enough, and nothing will grow. (No sunlight)
Corrosion will of course be a problem, as will be keeping the electrical generating and transmission bits nice and watertight.
Re: (Score:2)
As we're finding out, lack of sunlight does not mean lack of life/growth. Animals living on sinking waste, and lifeforms which use chemical-based metabolism (thermal vents), both would remain a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but a much smaller problem. The very great majority of life in the sea (by biomass) is within a hundred feet or so of the surface.
You still need an energy source for life--so long as they install this deep enough so that there is no visible light and no thermal vents are nearby maintenance due to life growing on it shouldn't be too bad. However, there are other factors, such as the acidity of the water and sediment accumulation that will have to be dealt with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Global consequences of tidal energy harvesting (Score:2, Interesting)
So has anyone considered what will happen when we massively start harvesting global tidal energy?
Will it affect global oceanic heat redistribution? (( If the ocean currents slow down then northern Europe reverts to looking like northern siberia. ))
What about the earth/moon relationship that drives the tides? Do we end up sucking more energy out of the moons orbital velocity leading to a decay in the moons orbit?
Environmentally, what happens to the organisms that live in the tidal zone?
Someone should have
Re: (Score:2)
No. Slowing of the Earth's rotation, which is due to drag by Moon, increases the Moon's orbit. The Moon orbits slower than the Earth rotates causing a "gravitational/tidal bulge", or warping of the Earth's shape (the ocean tides are caused by this too). This creates drag on the Earth, slows its rotation and the Moon's orbit increases - du
Re: (Score:2)
synaptik (125) [slashdot.org] (god DAMN that guys old) knew enough to make fun of the concern.
elashish14 (1302231) [slashdot.org] almost got to the environmental concerns.
This guy [slashdot.org] brought up a similar question about natural resources.
gandhi_2 (1108023) [slashdot.org] made a dig against it in reference to bird strikes, even though it's really not a statistical problem.
Heaven knows we don't have enough environmentalists to think about these sort of things.
But are you honestly saying we should NOT have tried to switch f
Re: (Score:2)
Heating in the upper part of the oceans due to global warming is already producing this, as evidenced by their growing dead zones.
Keeping them Up (Score:4, Funny)
If they're anything like my kites, they'll just end up nose-first in the silt.
Re: (Score:2)
If they're anything like my kites, they'll just end up nose-first in the silt.
Charlie Brown! When did you start posting on Slashdot?
(Obligatory: "Rats!")
Another energy-diffuse, capital-intensive system (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Another energy-diffuse, capital-intensive syste (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why, yes, from economic activity derived from burning fossil fuels.
Yes, like essentially everything we do today, no matter if it is something that is trying to get us off of fossil fuels or not. Our economy is based on burning fossil fuels, ergo all economic activity is based on burning fossil fuels.
Spending some of that activity to stop using fossil fuels is, if you consider using fossil fuels bad, what we would call "intelligent".
We should be looking at truly sustainable energy solutions, not scams.
If
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
where does that subsidy come from? Why, yes, from economic activity derived from burning fossil fuels.
I dunno. When Northern Europe is reporting that wind energy significantly cuts the cost of power [wsj.com] I'd guess that the "subsidies" issue is fast disappearing...
Obligatory ... (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome our new Shipstone overlords.
http://www.heinleinsociety.org/concordance/S_HC.htm#shipstone [heinleinsociety.org] "
When one pauses for a Coke, the deal is with Shipstone.
"
Re: (Score:2)
at some point it will make economic sense to evaluate alternatives.
Well some people can see a little further then you and realize this stuff takes time to develop. It's good to have options BEFORE you desperately need them. And I wouldn't want this stuff made in a rush. That would just be bad planning.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I were as wise as ya'll so as to be able to decide which of these great technologies was going to be our best future decision.
The fact is, no one does know, and if they're really sure, they'll invest their own money (ie, buy shares in a company) into it instead of everyone else's (ie, clamoring for energy subsidies).
In general, subsidies have done very poorly at developing practical alternatives and very well at perpetuating inefficient systems that serve as a drag on their economy and real future pr
Re: (Score:2)
And ethanol is a fantastic alternative to farm subsidies.
Re:Another energy-diffuse, capital-intensive syste (Score:2)
It's only fair, since we so heavily subsidize the oil industry.
Or are you one of those people who believe that the cleanup and economic disruption in the Gulf will be eventually paid in full by BP? If so, I have some beachfront property in Prince William Sound I'd like to sell you.
Different tools for different jobs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Like windmills, PV solar (and arguably, thermal solar), this will use a ton of capital (in multiple dimensions -- energetic, costs, and materials) to harvest very diffuse energy.
Kites use two orders of magnitude less material than a turbine of equivalent swept area. Water is two orders of magnitude denser than air.
This is starting to add up to something that doesn't sound so diffuse any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Which means they will never be cost effective.
Clean coal does not exist, cannot exist and will not exist. It is just a marketing phrase.
Re: (Score:2)
I can agree with that except for solar pv. If the economies of scale that take effect so strongly with lithographic processes can be caused by subsidizing solar pv to the point where it becomes competitive, then I'm more than willing to subsidize it. Of course, that's a big if.
Sea kites for space travel (Score:5, Funny)
Next, we use the tide from the sun to travel to Alpha Centauri.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tidal forces are from the moon, and over time the moon is getting farther away.
So far, so good....
Clearly, if we harvest tidal energy we will force the moon away faster as it makes up for the difference.
No. The moon is currently getting farther away because it is stealing energy from the Earth's rotational momentum (with the tides being the mechanism of transference.) If we extract energy from the tides to make electricity, then there is less energy remaining in the Earth-Moon system. So the consequence of our tide leeching will be either (1) the Earth slowing down faster than it already is, or (2) the moon moving away slower, possibly even reversing course and coming closer! Or, s
Explanation video on YouTube (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qCDRj8TE9Y [youtube.com]
Sky Sails work similarly (Score:2)
That's the same system Sky Sails [skysails.info] use (video [youtube.com]). The kite makes, among other manoeuvres, figure 8 loops, and reaches speeds of up to 180 knots (180 nautical miles an hour, 207 mph, 333 kmph) in winds of 3 to 8 Beaufort (10 to 40 knots). It's actually a very similar design, that's also doing its part in reducing fossil fuel consumption.
I hope they manage to balance construction and maintenance costs with profits. It sounds promising, but then so do a lot of things.
10 times speed of tidal current. Units? (Score:2)
What units is that measured in? I'm not making sense of this sentence. Since when did the tidal current harvest energy in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Not gonna work (Score:2)
This is not gonna work. Those kites would be right in the flight path of the rare spotted owl fish. Their mating habits will change and they might rub a dolphin the wrong way.
What about barnacles? (Score:2)
How long would it take barnacles and other creates or plants to start to grow on this thing thereby increasing drag? I don't recall seeing anything growing on the blades of a windmill...
Other unintended consequences (Score:2)
cost efficiency (Score:2)
Step one, lets confine these contraptions to a smaller segment so we don't collide with as many other living things, such as blue whales. That's also got to hurt the kite so it make s economic sense too providing you can steer wildlife around them. We will just have them fly closer together, but th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, power is measured in joules/second. They're both rates. 10x higher speed means 10x higher rate.
It's not the best choice of words, but it works okay I guess. :/
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming the power curve on your generator is linear, which it isn’t.
Re: (Score:2)
Or assuming they're talking about power generated, not angular velocity of the generator.
Re: (Score:2)
I’m assuming they’re talking about the linear “water-speed” of the kite. That makes the most sense to me, at least, after watching the video simulation [ebase.se].
Re: (Score:2)
Well we were making different assumptions then. BTW that link is busted. :/
Re: (Score:2)
My bad. Somehow or other all the spaces got borked and I didn’t notice it in the preview.
http://www.ebase.se/minesto/Animated movie of Deep Green.mov [ebase.se]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, that's pretty neat, though it doesn't exactly answer the question.
Though now that I re-read the sentence in question, it says "capture energy from the tidal currents at ten times the speed of the actual stream velocity", I was missing the "of the actual stream velocity" part. That definitely makes it sound like they're saying the kite (and thus generator) moves at 10x the tidal speed, which for sure doesn't mean an equivalent increase in power generation. Though it can be close.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. A slightly nonlinear relation between the actual speed through the water and the rotational speed of the turbine in the generator, and another slightly nonlinear relation between the speed of the turbine and the power it generates.
Probably still relatively close to linear... but almost certainly not quite linear. That’s not to say that the assumption is far off, only that it is an assumption.
Re: (Score:2)
last i checked power wasn't measured in meters/second.
I'm pretty sure you're right, but I think it's talking about ocean (well, tidal) current, not electrical current.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My impression is that the tethered kite will fly back and forth in the current, allowing the little turbine strapped to the bottom of it to spin faster (10x, per TFA). I guess they'll just go ahead with their trial to see if it all works out, but it seems like it could be a way to make use of the power of the currents without building huge turbines.
Re:dem dang numbers (Score:5, Informative)
Thats not how it works.
The kite is really a steerable sail that moves back and forth across the current, thereby increasing the velocity through the attached turbine.
An animation is available at http://www.ebase.se/minesto/animation.htm [ebase.se]
fava
Re: (Score:2)
"The kite is really a steerable sail that moves back and forth across the current, thereby increasing the velocity through the attached turbine." ...and by increasing the velocity, you increase the volume. More volume, more pressure = more torque to turn a larger turbine.
Increasing the velocity is the key and these guys have taken a time-worn method of making things move faster then the current they are subject to, in particular, the turbine blades in relation to the current. The kite is the key.
A friend an
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The kite is not moving, it is hovering - tethered - and the energy is generated by the turbine attached to the kite. The "flying" is probably just to lift it to optimal position, drag and angle. The energy is generated by water moving HORIZONTALLY in and out of the bay, not UP and DOWN. You don't need a high tide, you need bay with a lot of horizontal water movement.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're not making simplifying assumptions. You are completely misrepresenting the mechanism, and your numbers are meaningless. You are wrong, the posters who called you on your original post are right, and snarky comments about "basic physics" aren't going to cover that up.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks David, for giving us a living example of the lack of knowledge of Physics in the general populance. One learns in first-semester Physics about the equivalence of physical motion and conservation laws. Speeding up the water flow for the turbine is just basic impedance-matching, it's not creating any energy or tapping any hidden font of power.
The basic issues are that there is very limited and diffuse power in tidal flow, and the significant cost and short life of the equipment to capture that energ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:dem dang numbers (Score:4, Informative)
And as with all numbers, the devil is in the detail.
Tide power is generated by water flowing through a turbine. As a result, what matters is the surface of the turbine times the apparent water speed. That gives you a volume over time, which in turn controls how fast the turbine spins. Considering that apparent water speed depends not only on the size of the tide, but the local ocean floor geometry, and the output of the turbines can vary wildly depending on where they're located.
Finally, you made a key mistake in your calculation: a tide turbine doesn't capture the up and down movement of the tide - it captures the horizontal flow of water as it flows from point A to point B. This means that your entire calculation is completely useless. It isn't captured twice a day, it is captured constantly with an oscillating efficiency. The energy captured is only marginally related to a mass of water falling the height of the tide - the falling is translated into horizontal speed, where g is completely overwhelmed by local geometry. And lets not even get into real and apparent water flow, turbine construction, efficiencies, etc...
Really, you could have saved yourself a lot of time and just said "I don't know how this works".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought kite-power dealt with using the rotation of the kites themselves, not from moving the kite up and down, or whatever it is you're talking about with your 10 meters per day...
"Informative" is not nearly as ideal a moderation as "completely wrong" would be.
Some information sources to explain how this concept actually works:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/10/71908 [wired.com]
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/05/06/energy.tidal.power.kite/ [cnn.com]
In case anyone is interested, the second link is in the summar
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know how gravity works. LHC is supposed to provide that answer. But you can imagine it as an exchange of energy, in proportion to the ratio of masses involved. Meaning that the net effect is that Earth expends some kind of energy keeping the moon in orbit. This has been theorized as a exchange of graviphoton, gravitophoton, and other such unproven mechanisms. If you could construct and anti-gravity device (one that blocks or reverses this theoretical exchange) you could harvest energy from the diff
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly. All you have to do is build a gravitational-energy collecting device the size of the oceans.
rj
Re: (Score:2)