UK's First Wave Farm Project Announced

[trux]

Interesting project, but I wonder what its cost efficiency is. Seeing it has similar output like a wind turbine, and seeing how big and relatively complex in comparison with a wind turbine it is, and also taking in account the agressivity of the salt-water environment and the mechanical load, I wonder if it is efficient at all. Already at wind turbines, the efficiency is not excellent, so I am curious to know what life-span and cost return they expect from this.

I hope at least that the noise, the toxic protective paints, and the emited electromagnetic field won't mess with the fish of our fellow UK spearos in that area:

The Scottish Executive has announced more than £4m funding to enable ScottishPower to build the UK's first wave farm project using Pelamis machines.

The project will be sited at EMEC in Orkney and use four Pelamis machines with a combined output of 3MW.

Ocean Power Delivery Ltd has developed a novel offshore wave energy converter called Pelamis. Building on technology developed for the offshore industry, the Pelamis has a similar output to a modern wind turbine. The first fullscale pre-production prototype has been built and is being tested at the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney.
It is anticipated that future `wave farm' projects would consist of an arrangement of interlinked multi-machines connected to shore by a single subsea cable. A typical 30MW installation would occupy a square kilometre of ocean and provide sufficient electricity for 20,000 homes. Twenty of these farms could power a city such as Edinburgh.

Ocean Power Delivery Limited

Ocean Power Delivery Limited

 

[fcallagy]

always wonder why they have to be wave and not tidal powered surely there are plenty of locations for a tidal station around UK and at least its garunteed

 

[wet]

I'm assuming they use anti-barnacle paint coatings and non-corrosion metals to stay bright, photogenic and operable, otherwise they'd get clogged up and weighted down after awhile I'd expect. I wonder if they've been tested in very bad storms. Might be tricky to cruise around them at night or in fog, if there is a bunch of them floating, what sort of damage from a collision might result...

Some folks want to put a different version here offshore in Nor Cal.

DDeden

 

[Oldsarge]

OTEC has been providing electricity to Hawaii for years, now. The "lower efficiency" of wave/tidal power is simply a refusal to admit that we are subsidising fossil fuel power plants with deferred environmental costs. The price of electricity is going to go up. Too bad. Get even more efficient, reduce your draw by entertaining yourself without electricity and finally admit that there is no free lunch. To me, that means free-divers win.

 

[naiad]

I hadn't thought of it that way - freediving is free entertainment!

 

[podge]

The "lower efficiency" of wave/tidal power is simply a refusal to admit that we are subsidising fossil fuel power plants with deferred environmental costs. The price of electricity is going to go up. Too bad. Get even more efficient, reduce your draw by entertaining yourself without electricity and finally admit that there is no free lunch.

Well said Sarge.

 

[trux]

The "lower efficiency" of wave/tidal power is simply a refusal to admit that we are subsidising fossil fuel power plants with deferred environmental costs.

Do not take me wrong, I am definitely a supporter of all alternative methods, and would support this one too even if it was on the negative side of the efficiency. The research needs to be done, and that's not possible without trying to do it practically, and not only with models. However, I am still quite curious about the efficiency. At wind generators, I often hear that it takes up to 20 years before it starts to produce more energy than was used for its construction and maintenance. I actually think it is less at current systems, but still wonder what is the expected efficiency at the wave generators - and do not mean it in any pejorative way - I simply would like to know it. In comparison to wind turbines, the device looks to be quite giant, complicated, requiring relatively high maintenance, and having short life span. I still believe that there is potential, but would like to know what is the ideal expectancy from it and how it compares to other alternative energy sources.

 

[Shadowkiller]

Oohhh.. I wrote my Elec Eng thesis on renewable power...

Why not tidal? Easy. You need to damn tidal areas, such as rivers, to make tidal energy cost effective, which means major problems with fauna and siltation. Dredging is hugely expensive and destructive, but necessary for tidal energy in a lot of cases.

Wind: Long pay-back time, but potentially turbines can operate for a century. Germany is pushing wind power in a big way.

Wave: Problems with salt-water and transmission, but check this out for a sweet setup: Welcome to Energetech - Sustainable and Innovative Wave Energy
This kind of setup is also great for providing artificial reefs for fish! The Port Kembla station (about 10kms from where I sit) has also created a new surfing break!

Solar: Doesn't work at night when consumer demand peaks, and current solar panels take 10yrs to pay back the energy used to make them. Solar towers such as the one planned for Mildura, here in Oz, have the potential to change the local climate... hmm....

Overall the issue we still have is that renewable energy is commercially immature. Which means its expensive and not able to generate payback quickly enough to pay for the interest on the capital used to buy and install it. I've come to the conlusion that in the medium term (next 5-25 yrs), nuclear power is the best option for reducing green house gas emissions. Its cheaper, environmentally, to bury some waste for 50,000 yrs than to see the sea levels rise a metre or two.

 

[Jee]

Solar can be a very good solution.
I remind you, that it is not only PV, but there is solar heating, which is 1. more effective, 2. not so pollutiing method (building it).

BTW: this 10years of pay back the energy needed - I'm not totaly sure it is true. Count it, and then you will see. (I'm not sure, may be it is true, but as I remember it is not.)

Wind turbines : the blades must be changed not in 100 years, but earlier. Still it worth to buikl them. The pay back time depends on the actual price of the energy (hint: it is rising).

Jee

 

[wet]

Shadowkiller, are you familiar with the Gorlov helical turbine? No dams required, both for tidal and river current energy.

NRDC: OnEarth Magazine, Spring 2005 - Alexander's Marvelous Machine

DDeden

 

[Shadowkiller]

Tidal dams are used to make it more cost effective to use the available power.

Can you imagine the waters under the Golden Gate Bridge (example used in the article), being covered from shore to shore, and surface to bottom, with those turbines? The infrastructure cost to achieve that would be huge!

In engineering you very quickly learn that its one thing to come up with a great idea, its a different matter entirely to get it to function in the real world.

Commercial maturity of a technology is a pain in the butt.

 

[wet]

Tidal dams are used to make it more cost effective to use the available power.

Can you imagine the waters under the Golden Gate Bridge (example used in the article), being covered from shore to shore, and surface to bottom, with those turbines? The infrastructure cost to achieve that would be huge!

Wall to wall turbines is no good, but a limited number in the strongest flow areas might provide significant energy. I don't know the effects on turbidity, could make the water too murky. It works in all directions, that's an advantage over regular turbines, and apparently is more efficient. Maintenance costs might be higher or lower than other systems, not sure.

In engineering you very quickly learn that its one thing to come up with a great idea, its a different matter entirely to get it to function in the real world.

Commercial maturity of a technology is a pain in the butt.

Yup. I haven't heard lately how the Gorlov turbine is doing in that sense.
Here in Calif. solar tech. is strong, some hydrogen work, and solar-stirling engine set-ups pop up now and again. I agree that some nuclear is probably better than too much reliance on fossil fuels.
DDeden

 

[Shadowkiller]

Guess all we can do for now is light our farts to get to the toilet at night... :friday

Slightly off topic: How does California deal with water recycling? Here in Oz the issue of recycled sewage is coming up. No pun intended. Labour wants to build a desalination plant, the Liberals want to recycle sewage, and the Greens want everyone to water the garden less...

I suggested to the local Green candidate that he use less water in his bong, but he scoffed at that... rofl

 

[Oldsarge]

A lot of Calif. water is recycled but not to the drinking stage. We water a lot of our parks and such with it.

One thing that really needs development is dry-rock geothermal. Geothermal plants are the most efficient, durable (over 100 years in the case of Italy) and environmentally sound power you can come up with. What's needed it some way of drilling to hot dry rock. Then, you pump down waste water that flashes into steam and is instantly sterilized and all the nasty industrial waste gets left at the bottom of a multi-mile deep hole. The steam drives the turbines, condenses and gets pumped back down the hole or spread on surrounding farms. And let's face it, we ain't never gonna cool down ol' Mama Earth!

 

[laminar]

Hi guys,

You are saying that these alternative energy technologies are not that efficient when compared to sources of energy (coal, hydro, nuclear, natural gas, etc) and take a long time to pay themselves off because of a relatively high manufacturing cost.

It seems that the following bits have been left out of this conversation so far:

1. The staggering (?) amount of government subsidies that offset the incredibly high costs of setting up coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydro, and other traditional power plants.

2. The environmental impacts of non-renewable energy extraction, shipping, refining, processing, and burning.

3. The sizeable costs of protecting these resources by military and economic means...

4. I'd also like to know how much greenhouse gas and pollution is generated from making solar panels, wind turbines, and other alternative energy generators.

Also, the alternative energy industries are tiny but growing at a increasingly fast rate. I anticipate that with the opportunity to make a profit in the industry, lobbyists will demand more government incentives and tax credits and research and development support, leading to a better industry, more innovation, cheaper products and cheaper energy as traditional energy producers lose their competitive advantage little by little.

There have been considerable advances in alternative energy and energy efficiency. I hope that we will more into a golden age of innovation soon and people will buy less crap and spend more on awesome experiences like going for a freediving session in the ocean.

Hard data anyone?

Pete

 

[josedesucre]

Its cheaper, environmentally, to bury some waste for 50,000 yrs than to see the sea levels rise a metre or two.

To bury? Where?
(Hint: Not In My Back Yard (NYMBY) is the standard answer everywhere in the world. Even here in the US, after the government spent billions of dollars to build a facility several miles under a mountain in Nevada, the state is fighting against it, and they are winning the fight).
Some waste?
Really, how much? It keeps growing and growing!

 

[wet]

My thoughts on commuting vehicles: 1/2 solar electric powered, 1/2 pedal powered aerodynamic cars, human body changes from 100% freight (petro-auto) to 50% engine, far healthier (more fit, less fat), ecologically sensible, safer, able to auto-connect traix cars into commuter trains, runs on "virtual" GPS tracks or independently. (Traix Concept).

Geothermal is great if it's available, not too deep.
Solar is always available somewhere (Siber-Alaskan Solar Pipeline concept)
Nuclear is nasty, but when properly operated doesn't pollute atmosphere like fossil fuels.
IMO, energy conservation is bigger than any one type of tech. solution.
A bit more at my site, just opinions of course, no Perfect Answer.

(I've drifted off topic, no desire to argue socio-political stuff, so I'll hush now)
DDeden

 

[Shadowkiller]

You are saying that these alternative energy technologies are not that efficient when compared to sources of energy (coal, hydro, nuclear, natural gas, etc) and take a long time to pay themselves off because of a relatively high manufacturing cost.

Sorry guys, I tend to interchange energy cost, and dollar terms when refering to renewable" technologies. Should say which one I mean each time.

Dollars aren't real in a physical sense, and government subsidies do not remove the real cost of creating energy, namely the use of energy.

An energy-cost-effective renewable energy would quickly (2-5yrs) recover the energy used to create it, then continue producing "profit" ie clean energy for years to come.

Currently the push for clean energy is being held back by long energy payback times and high dollar costs. Environmentally of course the energy payback time is the critical one.

The figures I know of the top of my head (very lose averages as each design is different)

Wind - 20yrs
Solar- 10 yrs
Wave - 15yrs
Tidal - dont know, havent seen figures.

As for nuclear: If you had the choice between burying a a couple of hundred tonnes of waste (mostly packaging) in a mountain somewhere, or evacuating vast tracts of the Pacific Island chain, which one would you do. Pick one. Now.

 

[Lammy]

All these projects have a serious problem with the size/impact/cost/ego ratio's. Engineers and Scientists (i'm one too) love big plans, big ideas - lots of concrete and steel. Politicians and bankers love big bucks better media payback for Politicos and 1% of a lot of money is 'worth' the investment. A low cost local solution don't make the money.

Lets reduce and recycle before we reinvent the wheel....

 

[fcallagy]

Just wondering froma local point of view what you guys think of wood pellet heating I sell stoves that burn these and the running cost is certainly low the fuel is carbon neutral and comes from managed forests. The irish government is grant ading these and some other "green" products and I intend installing one in my house for next year. We also sell wood stoves and they are a great product if done right. As an aside while certainly not an expert in any of these fields I feel they should be given a chance and more research done on them.
The internal combustion engine is a lot more efficient now than it was when first made and I feel these same technologies will benefit in the same way in the future. the making of stoves certainly uses energy to create them but i can forsee a time when manufacturers have to put a carbon footprint rating on all products similar to an electrical efficiency rating on appliances. ( this may already be happening in some areas ) These are local soloutions not industrial but might mean there is more capacity for industrail if the domestic end was taken care of.