Giant Deep Ocean Turbine Trial Offers Hope of Endless Green Power (yahoo.com) 124
"Power-hungry, fossil-fuel dependent Japan has successfully tested a system that could provide a constant, steady form of renewable energy, regardless of the wind or the sun," reports Bloomberg:
For more than a decade, Japanese heavy machinery maker IHI Corp. has been developing a subsea turbine that harnesses the energy in deep ocean currents and converts it into a steady and reliable source of electricity.... Called Kairyu, the 330-ton prototype is designed to be anchored to the sea floor at a depth of 30-50 meters (100-160 feet).
In commercial production, the plan is to site the turbines in the Kuroshio Current, one of the world's strongest, which runs along Japan's eastern coast, and transmit the power via seabed cables.... Japan's New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) estimates the Kuroshio Current could potentially generate as much as 200 gigawatts — about 60% of Japan's present generating capacity....
Japan is already the world's third largest generator of solar power and is investing heavily in offshore wind, but harnessing ocean currents could provide the reliable baseline power needed to reduce the need for energy storage or fossil fuels.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo for sharing the article!
In commercial production, the plan is to site the turbines in the Kuroshio Current, one of the world's strongest, which runs along Japan's eastern coast, and transmit the power via seabed cables.... Japan's New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) estimates the Kuroshio Current could potentially generate as much as 200 gigawatts — about 60% of Japan's present generating capacity....
Japan is already the world's third largest generator of solar power and is investing heavily in offshore wind, but harnessing ocean currents could provide the reliable baseline power needed to reduce the need for energy storage or fossil fuels.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo for sharing the article!
Ocean currents (Score:1)
Disrupt the ocean currents. What could possibly go wrong?
No it won't. (Score:5, Interesting)
The amount of energy humans require is peanuts compared to the amount of kinetic energy in even a single ocean current with trillions of tons of water flowing. You might as well say wind farms disrupt the atmosphere.
However one issue they will have - other than chopping up fish - is that certain types of sea life just loves anything man made that looks like a reef or a rock. Its going to require regular cleaning and in the deep ocean that isn't going to be a simple task.
Re:No it won't. (Score:5, Funny)
However one issue they will have - other than chopping up fish
(resists temptation to make a joke involving sushi bars)
Re: (Score:2)
No you didn't. Which is probably why it got the Funny mod for recursion?
Re:No it won't. (Score:5, Insightful)
However one issue they will have - other than chopping up fish - is that certain types of sea life just loves anything man made that looks like a reef or a rock. Its going to require regular cleaning and in the deep ocean that isn't going to be a simple task.
That was my first thought. Ocean-based equipment (especially ones with moving parts) are susceptible to things that aren't issues on land (barnacles, sea water, sea turtles, whales, kathalu,...).
Also, if you try to filter out fish you'd likely interrupt the current that your power generation is based on. Not to mention (as you said) maintenance and repairs are going to be far more expensive than land-based solutions. Hopefully they nail all that down so we can take advantage of earth's energy sources.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I can imagine giant squids getting entangled in this will be a constant problem.
Re:No it won't. (Score:4, Insightful)
Turns out it's only 30 to 50m down, which is really not very deep at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Turns out it's only 30 to 50m down, which is really not very deep at all.
Maintainable with scuba with a special air mix then. Its like painting the golden gate bridge. Every day paint a small bit and when reaching the far end return and start over. So every day send down a pair of divers with wire brushes to scrape one square meter each. At a moment of slack current of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Might have to disable the turbines while scrubbing/maintaining them.
Well that's one of the benefits of a slack current. It makes the approach and staying on station a bit less complicated. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No it won't. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not (IIUC) a tidal current, hence there is no slack current time.
Re: (Score:2)
Who says you need scuba divers. If you hang the turbine at the right depth with an anchor at the bottom and a buoy on top with a system with pulleys you could easily pull up the turbine and do the maintenance. Makes sense though to have multiple smaller turbines so that whilst it is up the decrease in generated power is a lot less than with just a few large turbines.
Re: No it won't. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That current has no slack, it is a real current, not a tidal current.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect the Japanese will likely develop some robots to do this.
I'm hoping they will be 20 meter tall humanoid articulated ones that can also defend the generators from Kaiju, but even small ROV submarine types could probably do the cleaning job - though taking such a short sighted approach would leave the turbines more vulnerable to attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Underwater turbines rotate so slow, they shop up nothing.
Re: No it won't. (Score:2)
Re:No it won't. (Score:5, Informative)
There is a whole industry dedicated to keeping fish and plant life out of places it is not wanted. Nuclear power plants, for example, need a supply of water for cooling and it's not good if it gets clogged up with plants, algae or fish. It involves UV light, underwater speakers and bubble curtains.
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear power plants, for example, need a supply of water for cooling and it's not good if it gets clogged up with plants, algae or fish. It involves UV light, underwater speakers and bubble curtains.
And yet, zebra mussels [chicagotribune.com] are able to shut down nuclear plants [deseret.com] when the intake pipes get clogged [army.mil].
Re:No it won't. (Score:4, Insightful)
Your articles are all about how an invasive species started causing problems with systems that were not designed with it in mind, and how additional systems are being installed to deal with the problem.
Re:No it won't. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine they would use UV and the fact that stuff can pass through the turbine to their advantage. UV to keep stuff from growing where it can cause problems, larger stuff can pass through. Periodically lift it to the surface for a clean.
Re: No it won't. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
To estimate the energy in the current WIkipedia says its strongest part moves 65 million cubic metres per second. A typical speed is 1 m/s, which makes it 2*10^12 watts. Japan's average power production is 10^11 watts, so converting 5% of this flow energy into electricity would power all of Japan.
Don't worry about chopped fish. (Score:3)
The amount of energy humans require is peanuts compared to the amount of kinetic energy in even a single ocean current with trillions of tons of water flowing.
And it doesn't have to flow very fast at all to have HYSTERICAL amounts of energy in it. Water is about 784 times as dense as sea-level air, and energy of mass through an area goes with mass times the cube of the velocity. So a current with the same amount per cross section to harvest as a 30 MPH wind would be going about .000000062 MPH, about .004
Interesting. That's the same thinking... (Score:2)
that put us where we are: the emissions out of smokestacks and tailpipes is peanuts compared to the atmosphere of the entire planet - so it's clearly fine to run civilization on coal and gasoline...
Engineers and scientists are supposed to use numbers, verifiable data, and repeatable experiments - all other discussions of such things are just opinions, as the old view of coal and gas demonstrate amply.
If we do not KNOW that extracting large amounts of energy from the seas with turbines, making the remaining
Re: (Score:2)
Not everything in the deep ocean is encrusted with muscles and barnacles. Couldn't the turbines be placed at a depth where these creatures are less of a problem? That's assuming there is enough of a current that far down for it to be worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
in the deep ocean that isn't going to be a simple task
I realize a disproportionate number of Slashdotters suffer from thalassophobia, so perhaps to them 30-50 meters depth is indeed the "deep ocean," but it's really not.
Plenty of recreational SCUBA divers go down to 30 meters all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
In shallow water, this is true; less true in deep water, where the lack of sunlight makes life scarcer. That's not to say there isn't any, but compare pictures of Japanese ships sunk in the shallow Truk Lagoon in WWII (like https://blog.flickr.net/en/201... [flickr.net]) with pictures of the Titanic, sunk 30 years earlier (https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-ideas/adventure-travel/ocean-expedition-company-looking-for-mission-specialists-to-dive-titanic). (There's also a temperature difference.)
Now the article talks
Re: No it won't. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, they're feeling self-righteous and smart, while shitting on people accomplishing things.
That said it would make a cool article. Nanomaterials and electric currents both prevent barnacles, so maybe one of those is being used.
Re:Ocean currents (Score:5, Insightful)
Disrupt the ocean currents. What could possibly go wrong?
Two possible solutions:
1. Level one or more undersea MOUNTAIN RANGES that block the currents more than humans could hope to.
2. Improve science and math education so people can understand why this isn't a problem.
Solution #2 is far more cost-effective.
Re: (Score:1)
2. Improve science and math education so people can understand why this isn't a problem.
Solution #2 is far more cost-effective.
Probably won't be a problem for the half of the US population that embraces, or at least recognizes, science and math, instead of treating it like elitist nonsense... On the other hand, that first half is probably already there and on-board.
Re: (Score:2)
But number one is more fun. We blew the top off one under water mountain locally, nothing like letting off 1,270 metric tonnes of Nitramex 2H explosive at once. From wiki,
Re: (Score:2)
2. Improve science and math education so people can understand why this isn't a problem.
Solution #2 is far more cost-effective.
Easy there - if you do this one well enough they'll figure out nuclear power was the correct answer all along. Just don't put the backup generators for cooling in the tsunami basement this time.
Out of sight, out of mind relative to disruption (Score:2)
Disrupt the ocean currents. What could possibly go wrong?
Not just currents but the local eco system as well. When wind turbines kill eagles we see it. When deeps see turbines somehow effect the local ecosystem negatively its not a problem since it is out of sight. Corporations will love this "out of sight" feature.
Re: (Score:1)
Not just currents but the local eco system as well. When wind turbines kill eagles we see it. When deeps see turbines somehow effect the local ecosystem negatively its not a problem since it is out of sight. Corporations will love this "out of sight" feature.
Jesus Christ.... would you please SHUT THE FUCK UP?!?
Nothing worse than eco-morons who don't actually understand ANYTHING about reality.
Really, reality does not say its better for a company to operate its machinery out of sight of the public? Apologies if such inconvenient truths offend your narrow mind.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Disrupt the ocean currents. What could possibly go wrong?
The main problem would actually be from idiots like you. People whose brain apparently isn't developed enough to understand things like SCALE.
That is to say; morons who oppose anything they don't understand.
If you saw a person chipping away at Mt. Everest with a small rock-hammer, would you accuse that person of trying to destroy the entire mountain?
Re: (Score:2)
True, but since it's unlikely to require a Herculean effort...
Re: (Score:2)
If only... (Score:2)
They didn't keep breaking down..
.
Re: If only... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
He is saying that because that is what has happened to many tidal generators in the past. There is one sitting defunct in the Bay of Fundy right now, waiting for someone to remove it (the company that built and installed it has gone bankrupt, so they won't be doing it).
Here is some info on the history of generators at test sites there, taken from ATV News (local Atlantic Canadian news source):
"The Bay of Fundy has been the site for several tidal turbine demonstration projects over the years. In 2009, an in-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If only... (Score:5, Interesting)
I literally gave you three examples, not one. They've been trying this for a long time in the Bay of Fundy, because it's a good site for it: the strongest tides in the world. Tons of energy to be harvested. So far, none of the experiments have worked out: the turbines keep dying after a couple of months. The environment is super hostile to machinery.
I expect at some point this problem will be "solved", for some definition of solved that hopefully has a good ROI.
There's no reason to poo-poo somebody for saying "if only they didn't keep breaking down", because that is EXACTLY the issue, and has been for the last two decades. The history of tidal water power generation is one of broken turbines. The UK is the world leader in the field, and they have had some limited success, but we are still a far cry from having the problems licked. There are extremely difficult engineering problems to be solved, and some of the brightest engineers on the planet have been working hard on them, and still turbines keep dying. You talk as if one of the most difficult engineering feats on the planet is easy stuff that any old designer should be able to predict/solve.
Re: If only... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The environment is super hostile to machinery." I guess that's why no one has ever invented ships.
Yes, there are engineering problems. But they are *engineering* problems, not astrophysics problems.
Horses, 130 years ago (Score:2, Insightful)
:If only they didn't keep breaking down.. .
Said the horse owners about automobiles 130 years ago.
Just came here to say... (Score:2)
... that I am deeply dissapointed with the editors wasting their opportunity to post the same story three times in a row.
Are you sure the processor in these turbines is not an Apple M1 with some security fault just discovered?
Re: (Score:1)
Well its an unannounced Apple Silicon, so NDA (Score:2)
you sure the processor in these turbines is not an Apple M1 with some security fault just discovered?
The turbine manufacturer has not cited what processor they use. Apple still considers that particular Apple Silicon model an announced version and the manufacturer to be under NDA.
Japan will meet its climate goals with nuclear (Score:3, Interesting)
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/n... [japantimes.co.jp]
Now if only Germany could do the same.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Fukushima squashed the nuclear renaissance
Nothing has to be done to squash fantasies. They fade with time, and unfulfillment. Nuclear specializes in both of those things.
but Japan will overcome its nuclear fears and meet its climate goals by restarting all the nuclear plants that were closed.
They have no other practical choice except offshore wind, which they are already doing.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Nothing has to be done to squash fantasies. They fade with time, and unfulfillment. Nuclear specializes in both of those things.
Not really, its more of a political interference. Like when Clinton shut down US nuclear research to say thank you to the "Greens" who supported his campaign. Quid pro quo.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
They have no other practical choice except offshore wind, which they are already doing.
Would that be the same offshore wind turbines that have a capacity factor of about 30%? I'm pretty sure that's the case. That capacity factor is even shown in the fine article. An article I'm quite certain everyone commenting read before posting any comments. (Actually, I quite certain many people have not read the article or seen the graphic showing capacity factors of the different energy sources.)
Back when nuclear power plants were a new technology about 40 or 50 years ago the capacity factor we coul
Re: (Score:3)
You are right. If you look at deaths per terawatt-hour of power generated, nuclear is in a standing all by itself. It should be banned, and we should go back to using lignite coal (as we already burned the good stuff.) Got any real solutions to the energy problem other than coal and oil? No, solar and wind are not it, due to peak/base loads.
You are manufacturing a false dichotomy by employing the base load myth. We need more load-following power, which wind is great for, not more base load power. I see why you are scared to log in, then we'd know you're as dumb as blindseer.
Re: (Score:1)
If we were truly an intelligent species we would actually restructure our society to reduce peak demand. When the sun goes down, lighting accounts for only 15% of the power needed - most of the rest is space heating, cooking and appliances such as washing machines, dryers, etc.
Space heating and water can be made much more efficient with insulation and done during the day with thermal storage for night, but a lot of peak power usage is driven by the timing of when people start and stop work, and hence when t
Re: (Score:2)
If we were truly an intelligent species we would actually restructure our society to reduce peak demand.
We are. You get a discount by using off-peak power, and we have peak load delays that reduce peak demand by staggering motor startups.
Re: (Score:3)
That's one way to spin it. More accurately, Japan doesn't want to restart those reactors (as in the majority of the population are not in favour and it's not a vote winner), but they don't want to import renewable tech either.
It's the same problem they had with cars. Invested in hybrids, only Nissan put much effort into electric, and now they are looking for ways to do something different enough that they can patent it and not rely on importing parts like batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see a citation on where you are seeing a majority of people in Japan in opposition to nuclear power. I did some searches and found the following article.
https://smallcaps.com.au/japan... [smallcaps.com.au]
Battery electric cars won't help much without something to provide the electricity. Japan has been expanding their exploration of the ocean for more natural gas, maybe natural gas cars are where Japan can make up for lost imports of petroleum.
I believe hybrid electric drive systems are the future of nearly ever
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know what you Googled but this was the top result for me: https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Currently the majority of reactors in Japan are being decommissioned.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you Googled but this was the top result for me: https://www.statista.com/stati [statista.com]...
That link to statista.com was not helpful as it is paywalled. It is also from October 2021. The link I gave was from May 2022, and not behind a paywall. How is your link more helpful?
Currently the majority of reactors in Japan are being decommissioned.
That's nice to know but not relevant. The issue was the popularity of nuclear power going forward, not the decommissioning of old nuclear power plants. A majority of Japan's nuclear power plants are small, and very old, and therefore not likely to be profitable if they have to be updated to new safety standards before bein
Re: (Score:2)
Your link doesn't actually have any data on the relative popularity of nuclear power among the Japanese people, as far as I can see. Where is the data and the citation for where it is from?
By the way, I wouldn't take anything World Nuclear says seriously. It's a shill site for the nuclear industry. Look for independent data.
The large number of decommissions means that nuclear power is unlikely to contribute a significant portion of Japan's energy in the future. They would have to build a huge number of new
Re: (Score:2)
Your link doesn't actually have any data on the relative popularity of nuclear power among the Japanese people, as far as I can see. Where is the data and the citation for where it is from?
I have a feeling that whatever link I provide will be insufficient to convince you of anything. How about you go look yourself on how people in Japan feel about nuclear power today. There's been polls done in the last month or so, no need to go back about 9 months for a poll.
By the way, I wouldn't take anything World Nuclear says seriously. It's a shill site for the nuclear industry. Look for independent data.
You don't have to take World Nuclear seriously, but they do cite their sources so check their sources and see if those should be taken seriously.
There's a problem with looking for independent data, nobody but the nuclear power advocat
Re: (Score:1)
Now if only Germany could do the same.
Why would we? Hint: we can't anyway, they are dismantled already.
but Japan will overcome its nuclear fears
Unlikely.
by restarting all the nuclear plants that were closed.
You are out of the loop.
They have already: long ago.
Cost? (Score:5, Interesting)
Read the article? (Score:2)
I think it's worth reading the article.
Where does that energy come from? (Score:1)
The question to ask is where does that energy come from. Of course "from the sun" is correct, but that is also true for fossil fuels. If that ocean-stream has been fueled by the sun for millennia and now contains 10EJ of energy, then tapping 60GW will deplete that storage in about 6 years. That's not "endless green energy".
The problem (I htink) is that nobody knows how much energy is stored in such ocean currents. And even less about how they are fueled by the sun. For all we know, the current was started
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The main cause of the tides is the Moon. Yes, the Sun is much bigger, but it's also farther away, and the tidal force is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, rather than the square.
Re: (Score:1)
The main cause of the tides is the Moon.
That is wrong, Sun and moon have nearly the same effect.
Yes, the Sun is much bigger, but it's also farther away,
Nevertheless, they have the same effect.
and the tidal force is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, rather than the square.
That is wrong, it is square.
Re: (Score:2)
The Sun causes tides just like the moon does, although they are somewhat smaller.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As you can see here [wikipedia.org], the main component of the Earth's tides comes from the Moon, not the Sun.
Yes, but it is nearly the same as the moon ones.
And, if you'll look at the equation here, you'll see that the force is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance,
This is the tidal force, not the gravitational force as you wrote before.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
states that the Sun's contribution to the tide is only 46% of the Moon's.
Correct. And if you are bad in math, then I explain it to you: it is nearly the same. Grasp it? Or not?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So if I owed you $100, you'd be OK with my paying you $46? And as far as my argument making no sense because there are two tide waves, the two of them add together to make the observed tide, with roughly 2/3 of it caused by the Moon.
Re: (Score:2)
You did indeed! My point from the beginning has been that the Moon is responsible for the lion's share of the tide.
Re: (Score:2)
If the two high tides come on the same side (I presume that's what you mean by "overlap.") you get exceptionally large high and low tides. If the two are 90 degrees out of sync, the highs and lows partially cancel each other out, and you get exceptionally small tides. And the fact that we have two high tides and two low every day has nothing to do with having both the Moon and the Sun causing tides. I really do u
Re: (Score:2)
And I served a hitch in Uncle Sam's Navy, including seven months in the Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club back in '72. Your point is? You may know what tides are, but you clearly don't understand the physics behind them, which is why I keep suggesting that you read up on them and learn. Do you even know why there are two high tides and two low every day?
Re: (Score:2)
From all I can tell from your posts, maybe you do. I can also tell that you prefer insult to reasoning. Please note, that you've been arguing simply by assertion while I've been citing facts, giving a source and suggesting that you read up on the subject.
Re: (Score:2)
The smartest thing you've written here. I'm glad you finally figured it out. BTW, what kind of sailing have you done? Is that your profession or just a hobby?
Re: Where does that energy come from? (Score:2)
This isn't tapping tides, but ocean currents.
Re: (Score:2)
The question to ask is where does that energy come from. [...] The problem (I htink) is that nobody knows how much energy is stored in such ocean currents. And even less about how they are fueled by the sun.
We know quite a lot about what drives currents. Earth's rotation, wind, gravity, temperature, and salinity are the primary causes. Temperature is influenced somewhat predictably by insolation, sea ice is also involved and there is the rub because it's going away. As such, ocean currents which depend on it (including "the conveyor [wikipedia.org]", the dominant ocean current) are slowing [aljazeera.com]. The idea that currents are dependable is nonsense. They were, until we perturbed the system egregiously. Now they are in a process of rap
Re: (Score:2)
Deep Ocean? (Score:3)
"The deep ocean is generally defined as the depth at which light begins to dwindle, typically around 200 meters (656 feet)."
https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov... [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, but you're too late - all the promotional materials have already been proofed and sent to the printers. We're just going to have to ride it out...
Another stratagem (Score:2)
Another stratagem in the hope-a-dope way to win eyeballs.
Humans Waste Too Much Power for Any Solution (Score:2)
This is still nascent tech (Score:4, Insightful)
It's still quite a long way between where they are now and that 200 gigawatt dream. From TFA:
"The tests proved the prototype could generate the expected 100 kilowatts of stable power and the company now plans to scale up to a full 2 megawatt system that could be in commercial operation in the 2030s or later."
Giant? (Score:2)
Oh come on... already signs the currents weakening (Score:2)
There are already signs the deep ocean currents are weakening.
So we build all this and then the currents stop (on their own or because we messed up).
That's what they want you to think. (Score:2)
Oh great (Score:2)
330 tons to generate 130 hp (Score:2)
So a thing the size of a small ship produces as much power as your car's engine.