Scotland Building Wave Power Farms 211
eldavojohn writes "Scottish engineers are taking advantage of the huge ocean coast that Scotland enjoys by building a 'wave farm' to harvest electricity from the ocean's powerful waves. These big red tubes have been named the Pelamis System after a sea snake. Max Carcas, the business developer for the firm, says it is 'a bit like a ship at anchor or a flag on a flagpole, it self orientates into the waves ... Waves then travel down the length of the machine and in doing so each of the sections, each of these train carriages, moves up and down and side to side.' These snake-like movements push hydraulic fluid through generators to produce electricity."
Background Information (Score:5, Informative)
If you think this idea is new, it is not. The patents for this technology go all the way back to the 1970s.[1] [uspto.gov] [2] [uspto.gov]
As was noted in the original discussion on this topic, Which explains why you'll see this more and more in the news. Some of the countries in Europe have energy generation from wind & waves up to 10% or 15% but 2010 is getting closer and closer.
Everyone recognizes that it's not smart to put all your eggs in one basket and right now a lot of countries are pretty dependent on oil. With a possible energy crisis or global warming problem, wave power looks like it will be one of the many solutions that each country will develop to mitigate their problems.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Background Information (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There's also... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the oil cartels don't really have much influence. Especially since that the UK has to import
oil from the world markets. Construction of new nuclear reactors is at a standstill until
somewhere can be found to store nuclear waste in the extremely long term. And the financial squabbles with Gazprom over gas prices haven't helped either.
So the only options left at the moment are wind, solar and wave power.
Tidal power is better than wave/wind - here's why. (Score:2, Interesting)
Compare to what's planned for the River Mersey (tidal range 8-10m). This may generate a consistent two gigawatts of electricity - about 3x the requiremen
Power output? (Score:3, Interesting)
Development costs irrelevant to deployment ... (Score:3)
That is an interesting factoid, but irrelevant to the decision of whether or not to deploy. The R&D is a "sunk cost", the money/energy is gone and can not be recovered.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wave systems can be hidden, unlike wind (Score:2)
One thing to consider is that wave based systems could conceivably be hidden, unlike wind based systems. Wind turbine projects in the US are often stalled or canceled because someone's view is going to be affected. Ideally the wave based units would be well below the surface and therefore not a navigational hazard, and therefore deployable over a wider area. In other words, we'll make up for the low output with volume.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're deriving energy from currents, this is true. But if you're getting it from wave action, you want to be as close to the surface as possible, because that's where the greatest amount of available kinetic energy is located - literally at the boundary between water and air.
If you hid the system JUST below the water, that would be okay - but then it would be a hazard to navigation of small craft. S
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
See, that's what I don't get: what's so ugly about a wind farm? Now, I've never actually seen one in person, but they look pretty nice in the pictures...
But think of the dolphins and whales! (Score:2)
I'm just waiting for some environmental group to start whining about these, too. They complain that windmills kill too many birds. I would put money on someone coming forth and claiming one of several detriments, such as the anchor cables are entangling whales, or the anchors and power cables back to shore (shore ties) are destroying habitat, or they might leak oil, or, or....that these things are shielding too much sunlight (blocking photosynthesis in plankton or something).
Honestly, I think it's a g
NIMBY's come from all sides of politics. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure there are plenty of NIMBY's, but they come from all walks of life and politics not just the environmental fringe, for example do you want to live within earshot of a windfarm or do you want it hidden from view by the ocean's horizon?
"They complain that windmills kill too many birds."
Here in Australia the last group to "complain that windmills kill too many birds" was the conservative federal government who put a
Re: (Score:2)
No, old windmills kill too many birds. They keep making the newer ones bigger and bigger, which not only is more efficient, but also causes them to spin slower which, in turn, allows the birds to avoid them.
Re: (Score:2)
An important little factoid that skews a lot of initiatives is threat substitution, i.e. replacing the truthful "Large wind farms will spoil our unspoilt horizon" with an equally truthful "even at 1 fatality per year, it could wipe out the Orange-Bellied Parrot". The first option was the true source of popular c
Ew, artificial scarcity? (Score:2)
Re:Wave systems can be hidden, unlike wind (Score:4, Insightful)
What has allowed us all to overconsume energy is that we are insulated from the real costs and impacts of doing so. We don't care about what blows out of the smokestack if it (mostly) goes elsewhere- for us, those costs are externalized (until we pay our health insurance premiums). We buy gasoline (in the US) that is taxpayer-subsidized, which insulates us from feeling the price pain that would otherwise motivate us to either conserve or switch to an energy source that mitigates these costs.
What makes excessive consumption bad is not that it is excessive; it is that there's a consequence of doing so that is undesirable. Get rid of the undesirable consequences and where's the sin? I don't think there's a value in eyesores; they a) don't really make us conserve, and b) are themselves one of the undesirable consequences we'd all rather be without. In essence, they're a solution that comes with a different set of problems, just like the ones we're trying to solve today.
Cost makes us conserve- pretty much every other factor is secondary. Concern about the environment makes us conserve, when cost doesn't override that concern. We'll tolerate mercury in our food so we can have cheap coal-fired electricity, and government deficits so we can subsidize gas prices. We'll for SURE tolerate eyesores, no sweat. (especially since they'll end up being placed in less-desirable locations- again, a function of cost externalization). In other words, there's virtually zero redeeming value in having your power come from an eyesore, simply because that won't incentivize the sort of low-to-no-negative-impact living you seem to really be interested in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
According to Wikipedia, 0.75 MW/Pelamis Machine (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not entirely sure if the 5MW is per unit but, from the Wikipedia page on wave power [wikipedia.org]:
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Regularly, off the north-west coast of Scotland. These sea snakes are being built in relatively shelterd waters. Not all the world has the mild weather of the south-western US...
Re: (Score:2)
They're not the only ones... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0915/p02s02-usgn.ht
Scotland != Portugal (Score:5, Informative)
In Portugal. From TFA:
Scottish engineers will soon deploy an offshore "wave farm" in Portugal.
They have also signed a deal to build an even larger farm in Scottish waters.
Construction of the wave farm in Portugal has been underway for the past year in a busy shipyard in the Portuguese coastal town of Peniche.
'Bout time... (Score:2, Funny)
I mean, what's it ever done for us? Nothing!
Generating a little electricity will only start repaying what its mother and I have given it over the years.
Now if we could just get it to move out of our basement or start paying rent...
Geez!
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how it compares? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory Quote from a Scottish Engineer (Score:5, Funny)
Additional report from PRI (Score:5, Informative)
Environmental Impact: Scotland the Wave (Score:5, Funny)
Its just like those people who advocate wind power and never consider the impact of slowing down the world's winds, thus reducing the natural spread of wind-bourne seeds and so on...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
IANAS, but (1) there's not enough of these to have any forseeable impact at the moment and (2) ocean movement energy is supplied by the tides, which are powered by gravitational forces between the earth, sun and the moon. So if anything, this is solar power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can indeed run out of wind, slowing it down to nearly nothing with enough windmills. Ditto for "a mill wheel". Each one removes energy from the water, changes the environment up and downstream. With enough of them, the water will practically come to a stop and never reach its destination.
The OP's claims are still bullshit. Using wind-power doesn't mean we need to use 100% of it...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't disappear, of course. It would be trapped upstream, causing plenty of environmental issues there, and completely drying up the river further downstream.
Re: (Score:2)
No it wouldn't; it would have to be let flow downstream or else you aren't getting any power out of the mills. In fact, because of that you realistically couldn't approach using "100%" of the energy in the river anyway. The only real consequence would be that you slowed down the river, which would cause sediment to build up and eventually turn it into a meandering river with a flood plain.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
A much bigger problem is that the waves are generated by the pull from the moon (or so I was told). If we reduce the amount or amplitude of ocean waves, this could have an effect on the moon.
Think about it... just like current can create a magnetic field and a magnetic field can create a current, the gravitational pull from the moon is creating waves.
If we stop these waves, the moon's orbit could change.
We will all die because we wanted to create clean energy.
Let's stop this madness
Re: (Score:2)
Extracting energy does indeed have env. impact (Score:2)
Likewise, wave farms take energy out of waves. Shoreside of a wave farm, wave amplitude will be smaller; the wave farm "stills the waters" to some extent.
These things do indeed have environmental impact. To name an example that the original poster didn't: the reduced-amplitude waves
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Levees, such as those in New Orleans, are built to keep the harsh waves at bay, and something which absorbed them like this would be extremely beneficial. You're building the levee and disrupting marine life anyway, so you may as well do it in a way which reduces your environme
This sounds strangely familiar... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Unresearched side effects. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(-1, "Orientate" isn't a word) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit like saying 'petrol' is a bastardised version of 'gas.' I was always taught to 'orientate' my map. Makes more sense than 'Orient' your map, because then 'Orientation' should be 'Oriention.' Similar word to 'rotate,' you don't just 'rote.' I'm surprised you're getting so upset about this, must be a UK English v US English thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Offshore Platform Levelers (Score:2)
Is there a cheap system (<$100K) I could use for a floating home of my own, even if I have to invent the feedback power system mys
Re: (Score:2)
More British Sea Power (ho ho) (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Neat! (Score:2)
I like metaphor. --The Celts are the first to benefit from 'Wave' energy, eh?
Interesting.
-FL
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it uses hydraulic fluid. Water would corrode the metal parts and would probably leak constantly. Hydraulics require a sealed system and a heavy viscous fluid. If you used a thin fluid like water, it would leak constantly and you'd spend more energy maintaining the hardware than you'd get out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
The system is going to be used in a marine environment. It's going to corrode anyway. Frankly, you could probably do it without metal parts...
I'm not sure who told you that, but they lied. They're using cylinders (presumably) as pumps, and they're running the fluid through turbines. A viscous fluid is easier to utilize under high pressure,
Re: (Score:2)
If they are indeed using something other than water they must be building quite a bit of this system from scratch, since every single commercially available hydraulic fitting design ever come up with leaks. Hydro salesmen will sell you a load of sunshine about leakproofness, but no one believes them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either it's made out of non-corroding materials, or it will corrode. Period.
If you actually knew anything about hydraulics you would know that there is no system that is actually leak-proof. In addition, almost no hydraulic systems are actually ever a completely closed system. They usually have a reservoir with a return and a vent. Moisture contaminates fluid over time
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I don't agree that you were correct. You were in fact incorrect on every single point. But as you are incapable of rational debate, I am unsurprised that you would declare yourself the victor.
And before you make the assertion tha
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking trash to me that would get your Is dotted and your T crossed if you did it in person, but you're so afraid of me that you won't even reveal your identity online, let alone confront me like a man. If you're so concerned about what men do, why don't you act like one?
When I talk trash to someone, I'm easy to locate. Someone could get into an altercation with me. But you're too afraid to allow that to happen.
Mind you, I'
Re: (Score:2)
But those Coastlines have CHANGED since I have been born. Nothing stays the same. Except the amazing willful ignorance of humans.
I grew up in Aptos, CA, near Seacliff Beach. At this beach there is a pier that just during my life has been pretty well trashed
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
For the record; I've seen the storms in Scotland and these things will be ripped to pieces the first time one hits. Going from the way that they're managing the fish farms up there I would guess these will only be semi-permanent structures. There will be some leeway to reel them in before a storm hits. The fish-farms have to pack up shop and move location at the end of each season to prevent excessive impa
Re: (Score:2)
have a potential environmental mess to clean up.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Use a biodegradable oil. (Score:2)
Is it too far out of line to think about using a non-petroleum based oil? They do make special application hydraulic oils made from vegetable/tree oil [usda.gov]. Sure, it's a lot more expensive and maybe a little inferior in comparison to its petroleum equivalent, but it's cheap insurance. That way when does leak or fail, the environmental impact would be much less.
Re: (Score:2)
Just listen to yourself. "much less"
The oceans are DYING. CO2 raising acidity is killing the corals. Pollution of all types is killing oceanic algae, the source of something like 80% of our oxygen (I think more, forget the stat.)
Of course you could make the [specious] argument that container ships flushing hundreds of gallons of bunker fuel (basically a dirtier diesel) into the ocean means that a few gallons of biodegradable hyd
Re: (Score:2)
You know what? I do listen to myself. Did you notice that I said, "much less" instead of "eliminate"? I recognize there are still problems for which solutions need to be found, and some solutions aren't completely ideal, either.
Everything that humans do involves some degree of risk to our surroundings. It is our responsibility to mitigate those risks to the environment as much as possible. I think we can both agree that we would not want to see environmental harm come from devices like this. At the
Re: (Score:2)
The corals are a worry (hey, I'm Australian) but they don't worry me as much as that few centimetres of algae that live on or near the surface of the sea. That's our air supply -- nearly all of it. Kill that and we'll be sucking lemons because they taste like oxygen*.
*Yes, I know. Stop it, I'm attempting irony.
abuse of moderation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cripes, is it too hard to understand that mother nature's mechanisms for fixing things may just kill us?
Cripes, is it too hard to understand that nature as a whole is a chaotic system and that sometimes small inputs have large outputs?
Cripes, is it too hard to believe that I just might have a valid concern here? And that I'm more than willing to be labeled a tree-hugger,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Squawk!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
You'll just have to keep buying foreign oil.
Funny, that is the exact same argument that liberals use when talking about ANWR. Fact is, any energy added to the grid is a good thing, as long as it produces more energy than what you put into it!
Re: (Score:2)
And as long as all externalities are paid for by the people causing them. Which rules out the ANWR, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right - it would most effect Alaskans, particularly the Inuit. Odd how most Alaskans, and north coast Inuit seem to be in favor of ANWR drilling. Oh, well. Let's just import more mid-east oil.
Re: (Score:2)
Odd how Alaskans, who all profit off of oil, would be in favor of something that would give them a bigger government check. Strange how externalities like destruction of habitat impact everyone, not just those living nearby. Weird how little oil there actually is in the ANWR. Bizarre how the only possible alternative to drilling in a wildlife refuge is importing foreign oil.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We are drilling in Prudhoe bay, about 50 miles from ANWR. Is there a "destruction of habitat" there? Nope. The wildlife is actually doing better there. Besides, who's habitat is it if not the Alaskans? Would like Eskimos telling your state where it can build roads or structures?
Wei
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, Alaska is part of America. Here in America, we have this thing called a democratic republic. As part of this whole "democracy" thing, we created the ANWR back in 1960. It is not Alaska's land anymore, sorry. You want to fuck it up now, you ask the US Congress first.
The U.S. Department of Energy's own Energy Information Administration predicts that Arctic Refuge
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the use of 'democrat' as an adjective as in 'the democrat party' is a long-standing republican dig on the dems. i believe it originated as a means to slander them essentially refusing to describe them or their ideas as 'democratic' from some belief that since they're liberal they are anti-democracy.
it would be similar to dems describing the GOP as the "republican't party". 'oops, we just acciden
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no consistency to the wind, either, but it can be adapted. I would imagine that every joint has a piston pump that provides varying spurts of pressure/volume. These could force hydraulic fluid into an accumulator (basically, a pressure tank that is partially filled with a nitrogen gas bladder so that you can "compress" the fluid and keep it under pressure). Inline with the accumulator is a regulator that feeds into a hydraulic motor/turbine, which turns the generator at a relatively constant spe
Re: (Score:2)