Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Australia Power Hardware Technology

Ocean Energy Tech To Be Tested Off Australian Coast 103

Posted by Soulskill
from the wave-of-the-future dept.
cylonlover writes "The researchers at Australia's BioPower Systems evidently looked at kelp, and thought, 'what if we could use that swaying action to generate power?' The result was their envisioned bioWAVE system: 'At the base of each bioWAVE system would be a triangular foundation, keeping it anchored to the sea floor. Extending up from the middle of that foundation would be a central column, topped with multiple blades — these would actually be more like a combination of the kelp's blades and floats, as they would be cylindrical, buoyant structures that just reach to the surface. The column would join the foundation via a hinged pivot, allowing it to bend or swivel in any direction. Wave action (both at the surface and below) would catch the blades and push them back and forth, in turn causing the column to move back and forth relative to the foundation. This movement would pressurize fluid within an integrated hydraulic power conversion module, known as an O-Drive. The movement of that fluid would spin a generator, converting the kinetic energy of the waves into electricity, which would then be delivered to shore via subsea cables.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ocean Energy Tech To Be Tested Off Australian Coast

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Blades? (Score:4, Informative)

    by skids (119237) on Tuesday December 06, 2011 @11:43PM (#38287802) Homepage

    Not blades. RTFA. Or even, just LTFP (look at the fine picture.)

    Have to say my favorite among the wave/tidal is the Pelamis though. Only needs a small mooring and easily towed around from park to park to deal with seasonal demands.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @12:38AM (#38288030)

    I think tides are caused by the moon...waves are caused by wind

  • by dbIII (701233) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @01:29AM (#38288238)

    To be put more bluntly, every single one of these ends with a variation of 'maintenance costs exceeded projections and we're going to hold off on future deployment until the technology improves'.

    To put it more bluntly, you are not aware to the tidal power station that's been running at Le Havre since the 1950s (for example), so I think your blanket generalistion says more about yourself than any of the technologies in question.

  • by Zironic (1112127) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @05:19AM (#38289028)

    Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. I can show you how absurd your argument is by re-framing it.

    All hydro energy is simply water that has rained down. Thus you are capturing energy that was originally rain. For any given number of dollars, you could try to tap this energy source by.

        Placing your device in the air, where all the internal workings are available for inspection and you can choose a location with relatively rare adverse weather events (like the interior of a country away from the coast)

    Placing your device under water, with all the maintenance costs that involves and the need for scuba gear and high $$$ divers to even work on it.

At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer.

Working...