WaveRoller, Using bottom Ocean Swells To Generate Power Now

[IChing]

The WaveRoller is no longer a concept and is generating “bottom wave”
power right now (video). A WaveRoller device is a plate anchored on the
sea bottom by its lower part. The back and forth movement of bottom waves
moves the plate, and the kinetic energy produced is collected by a piston pump
This energy can be converted to electricity by a closed hydraulic system in
combination with a hydraulic motor/generator system.

NOW LOOK AT THE NUCLEAR COMPARISON


Bottom waves are by nature more continuous and predictable than wind.
The reason is ocean swell which travels through ocean and hence
can be forecasted days before it comes to shore. This gives excellent
possibilities for predictable energy generation.

http://www.aw-energy.com/index.html

[sandnsea]

1. The one proposed in my town

I'd sure like an engineer to explain the differences in all these wave projects.

http://www.energetech.com.au/index.htm

[IChing]

2. I read about your concept and I think it is more expensive but

produces more power.

The thing is both of these technologies are avaiable now
and could be installed to help supply power to small towns and cities at
an affordable cost with a quicker payback to the communities.

Now, not in the 4-7 years it takes to build a nuclear plant which
will cost in the mega-millions and require the expertise of
the people that were in Cheney's energy task force (GE).

[sandnsea]

3. It's an actual proposal

It's an actual proposal by Oceanlinx to build a wave farm in the town where I live. So I will be trying to learn about this technology, but I don't think my tired old brain is really up to the challenge. Another aspect is to figure out how you want the thing done. They probably chose our town because we don't have an ocean view from town, it's built back up the river with the river and dunes between us and the ocean. So, do we want to put enough of these contraptions right here, to generate power for the entire coast. Or, do we want the entire coastline dotted with these machines. The only economy we have left is tourism really. Difficult questions to figure out.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. I'm impressed

Partly by the way the you slipped Dick Cheney into a sentence about nuclear power without anybody noticing, but also how you manage to pass off nuclear as costing "mega-millions" when your own graphic shows it's cheaper than the wave power company you're drumming up investment for.

Neat.

[IChing]

7. Yeah, you like that? I don't work for GE or the nuclear industries

The transportation of the waste from this would have to be ship to Yucca mountain.:sarcasm:

You bet, I mention Cheney, GE and the nuclear industry, they have their agenda as do we
for sound energy solutions.

[IChing]

8. I think Nuclear has its place but not with the players that are running it.

Small plants researched correctly and strategically placed are a part of the equation
to the solutions of our energy problems. Iran for example is doing this since they
have no real coastline, uranium mines, and oil reserves being sucked out of the ground
according to CIA report from the late 90s.
India & Pakistan (Cheney) anyone?


Listen, I had a full blooded Navajo uncle in my family, I've seen what uranium mining can do
with the environment surrounding it. I've meet people from the Ukraine.

Nuclear Power can be done, but not with the "players" and the rules we have now.
Non-Proliferation for now, research and development with small working units
to be used in experimental environments , just like this wave machine needs environmental impact

I agree that each can cause a risk. In Denmark, they don't have 'wind farms"
the wind generators are placed on independent farmlands where the farmer
of the soil gets a cut on his bill. Localization of energy is forefront to the solutions
on our energy problems,
be it a man,
a hut,
a village,
a city
a megacity
a nation
or the world.

It first starts with the local (as with politics)

The externalization of our nation's energy solutions caused this war
and you know now......... that it was for greed and not a solution.

[NNadir]

10. Oh please...

You've never seen what coal mining can do?

Nuclear professionals have run the finest energy system on the planet for more than 50 years.

I've met people from New Jersey with mercury poisoining, and I've met people from New York with air pollution induced lung cancer, and I've met people from West Virginia where the mountains have been removed.

So what? All of these people suffered for coal.

Do you think if you say "Navajo" the tens of thousands of coal miners killed in this decade don't count? Do you have any idea how many Navajos were injured by uranium mining. When did they work the mines and when did they die? Have you bothered to look it up?

Let me help you:

We have today registered 2,450 eligible Navajo uranium workers. Eligible meaning that they worked between January 1, 1947 and December 31, 1971. Also we had 412 deceased miners from way back, those that began the mining process. Every month one or two more die.

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/miners.html

It's interesting by the way. In 1993 - the year of this interview - my father died. He also started working in 1947, but not as a uranium miner. Maybe he knew a Navajo though, and thus his death was caused by uranium mining.

How much fucking time have you spent mourning the thousands of Ukrainian coal miners who have died in the last 20 years? More than 50 seconds?

The US is now the safest coal mining country in the world, mostly because of strip mining and mountaintop removal: Here are the statistics for coal mining deaths in the US between 1996 and 2007: http://www.msha.gov/stats/charts/coalbystate.asp

Is there any reason that the Navajos from the 50's and 60's are more important than these people?

Ukraine knows the fucking situation with coal, and in spite of what you think, has just completed 1900 MWe of brand spanking new nuclear power plants, Rovno-4 and Khmelnitsky-2, and connected them to the grid. The government plans 11 new reactors before 2030. I guess they don't give a fuck about the fact that you met some Ukrainians.

[jwirr]

11. The whole four corners was heavily polluted by the mining of uranium.

There are many people, men women and children, who have been the victims. It is no secret. They deserve as much respect as the coal miners.

[Dead_Parrot]

16. A million km2 of permafrost is melting is Siberia

Releasing billions of tons of methane. According to my atlas, that's bigger than the four corners area.

And this time, we all get to be the victims, from Muhammad Ali to Don Goodheart to Paani Laupepa.

Isn't it fun?

[jwirr]

17. Where are you all going to put the nuclear waste? I sure hope you are

planning a site in your own back yard! It does not make any sense to build an answer from a source of power that has already provided us with another big problem, waste disposal. Sooner or later nuclear waste is going to have to be dealt with and making more of it is not really that smart.

Also, the nuclear plant in Tennessee (TVA) has taken 22 years to build and when they were done it was outdated and needed to be redone. One in Texas took 17 years to build with the same results. Unless we find a way to do better than this nuclear power does not seem to be the answer. I do not know if either is actually running even yet.

I do not think there is going to be one big answer for the future. I think instead it will be many sources both public and private (individual) and they will depend on what is available in ones own environment.

I realize we have a terrible emergency on our hands right now and that we may actually have to change the ways we live if we cannot come up with a large source of energy but maybe changing how we live may not be such a bad thing. Our lifestyle is based on bigger, better, more and disposable. We hardly have time to enjoy what we accumulate because we have to work so much to pay for it all.

As for me and my family, we are already changing and going back to a simpler way of life. We would welcome wave energy from some source such as the Great Lakes, wind or solar. But we are fully aware that there is not much we can do to change the direction of big energy. They want to keep the old style. After all, isn't the rapture coming any day to clean up their mess? :sarcasm:

[Dogmudgeon]

19. Nuclear waste ... your backyard ... nuclear waste ... your backyard ...

Well, at least you didn't chant "Cheney ... Chernobyl ... Cheney ... Chernobyl ..."

There is no reason why there has to be ANY nuclear waste, even if we had 10,000 reactors. Nuclear "waste" is a misnomer; it refers to nuclear material that has been through one energy cycle. All such material can be recycled, and in many countries, it already is recycled.

But not in the USA. In the late 1970s, recycling, breeding, and many other processes for nuclear material were outlawed. The pretext was concern about proliferation.

Both the nuclear industry and the anti-nuclear movement supported the law. The industry knew it was cheaper to just use new fuel, and the "activists" wanted more "mind-share" leverage to shut the industry down. It was the proverbial devil's bargain, and it has supported both of the players for nearly 30 years, at the expense of everyone else.

Yet storage of this so-called waste has gone well. In 30 years, no one has been killed. The massive megadeath accidents that the anti-nuclearists were certain were going to happen never materialized. And all that material could still be profitably and beneficially recycled.

Your yearning for a simpler, even Arcadian, lifestyle is fine, and is desirable in many ways. But our energy needs are NOT based on personal greed. They are based on a poorly-thought-out model of industrial, economic, and community development, of which personal greed functions similarly to a surgical anesthetic. The SUVs-and-hamburgers complaints that are so common in the energy/enviro movement are symbolic protests. It is car culture and suburbanization that have led to so many excesses. The focus of social change must deal with basic policies. Sprawl-based community planning and cheap-energy assumptions must end. And this still only addresses the energy part of the problem.

Into that context, yes, nuclear power fits quite well, but it isn't the key to the kingdom. Neither will rejecting it reduce our risks at all. A drastic reduction in available energy would not simplify our lives; it would cause a terminal world-wide crash-and-burn.

My apologies if I have written this overly tersely. It is difficult to condense both replies to misunderstandings about nuclear power AND an overall socioeconomic critique into a few hundred words. But I believe that most of us (myself included) tend to focus on the particulars as the cause of our problems, not the century or more of bad "big picture" decisions. We are riding a big, ugly, and dangerous tiger. And for the first time in history, small solutions will be no better than none at all.

--p!

[Dead_Parrot]

22. Tell you what:

You dump all the nuclear waste in my back yard, I'll dump the corpses from climate change in your back yard, and we'll see you complains first, shall we?

Or course, I could dump all the waste from Minnesota's coal plants in your back yard, but you'd be dead in about 2 minutes.

I do not think there is going to be one big answer for the future.

There's key thing you're missing: It's not "the future", it's been going on for some years and the corpses are piling up now. How many more dead would you like to see before you decide it's time to get serious? Another Hundred? Another Thousand? Another Hundred thousand? More?

How many thousands more children have to die before you realise that you've to stop thinking about micro-power start-up investment opportunities with plans for the future and act, quickly, with whatever you've got ?

[hunter]

18. Four Corners, Eh? What do you suppose this is:

It looks spooky, sort of gangrenous, and it's spreading.

[IChing]

24. You still have never addressed who owns this power that

you propose.

[Dead_Parrot]

25. That rather depends how it's built and funded, don't you think?

The Chinese National Nuclear Corporation is wholly state owned and operated. Ontario Power Generation is state owned, but run as a public company; Eletrobrás and Électricité de France are mainly state owned, but with some private funding; E.ON Kernkraft is a totally private company.
Based on your past posts, I'm now going to sit back and watch you call the Germans a bunch of fascists. :popcorn:

If you don't feel up to that quite yet, maybe you'd now like to address why you believe 6.5 billion people can emit 10 tons of CO₂ each every year without flushing the entire planet down the toilet?

[Dead_Parrot]

12. Define "players and rules"

If you're talking abount US power corps, then fair enough - there's room for improvement at the top, especially with the non-reprocessing stupidity that still hangs around. But if you're including the Finnish government or Areva as "players" I'd be interested to hear what they need to do to meet your standards.

As to what Uranium mining does to the environment, it's peanuts compared to global warming. Countries like Denmark might be look very green and funky with distributed windmills, but when the wind drops they burn gas: Despite their relatively high wind power capacity, they are one of the few countries who top 10 tons of CO₂ per person per year: If everyone on the planet suddenly lived like a Dane, our emissions would treble overnight to 7.5 million tons per hour.

That's not a solution, either.

[IChing]

14. Link please...... on all the studies, histories and data that you exposed upon.

"when the wind drops they burn gas" Oh you are an expert on what Denmark burns?
Your uranium mining experiences comes to mind and
My grandfather who was a coal miner both come to 'mind' also.

To validate your opinion.


The" players" are international corporations
that hold no allegiance except for their shareholders.
including your nuclear industry.

You put a totality of an absolute in your sentence .

"If everyone on the planet suddenly lived like a Dane"-----no data but opinion.

they would use more than an American?

The corporations rule, right? Listen I said that nuclear has a place
and you still want to dominate with your corporate totalitarian bullshit.

If you don't acknowledge the corporate fascist bullshit
that is running this nuclear and energy solution that you expose
then you don't acknowledge the people
that see problems with your industry and philosophies

The technology is there, but we have the same guys
that run the oil industries
running this nuclear program too..

Who are driving this war and making a "killing off of it"

1. no war-no major spike in prices-except for raising labor costs.

2. war- major spikes in prices but not in production-----labor ---who cares?

We are making a Killing

Enron anyone?

[Dead_Parrot]

15. What, were you scared by Google as a child or something?

What Denmark burn is matter of record to anyone with the wit to look it up. So are their CO₂ emissions, as a nation and on a per capita basis: 6.5 billion people times 10 tons of CO₂ per year is not "speculation", it's fairly basic arithmetic. Do you need a calculator? Or do you just not understand what effect the extra CO₂ would have? It's called "climate change", and there are a billion children under 10 years old who might be happier, long term, if you go look it up.

Domestic natural-gas consumption rose by 2.2 per cent in 2006 to 4.8 bn. Nm3. This increase was caused by higher consumption by Danish power plants.

Give it a go, see how long it take you find that article. It shouldn't be too hard, but I'll give a link if you really are stuck... If you really are too dumb to use google, then it's no wonder you think the Finnish government are a bunch of fascists.

The US has a long way to go to get down to that level, naturally. Does that make it acceptable to you? you feel killing the planet Danish-style, rather than American style, is environmentally friendly? I'm pretty damn sure the polar bears don't, but maybe you don't give a shit. Maybe you're too busy jumping around angrily shouting phrases like "totalitarian bullshit" and "fascist bullshit" to learn about any fucking science.

Look, US corporate greed is a concern, and a lot of people share that concern. But it isn't actually worth sacrificing the only planet we have over. Somewhere in the region of 2,000,000,000 people and a third of all species, will die in the next few decades if people don't get to grips with some simple facts.

And if you don't believe me, try googling "Catastrophic climate change", and come back when you understand what keeps me awake at night.

Hint: It's got fuck all to do with Enron's finances.

[jpak]

20. Ummm...when the wind drops in Denmark, they buy hydroelectricity from Norway

Denmark will generate 60% of it's electricity from (primarily) offshore wind by 2030 - sounds like a solution to me.

Also, Finland's new nuclear power plant is one year into construction and nearly a year behind schedule and half a billion over budget - same old, same old....

:evilgrin:

[Dead_Parrot]

21. So, Danish power stations aren't burning more gas?

Be sure to write to the Danish Energy Authority and chide them for making up their figures.
I guess the fossil fuel plant in Norway is a figment of the imagination as well.

[skids]

23. Things to look at...

There are a whole lot of companies trying to get in on this with different technologies, and there are definitely very many ways to skin a cat in this case. Almost all of the designs are very clever. Things to ask about them:

1) Is it a shore-mounted unit or does it float out in the sea, and how deep out into the sea is it designed to float? On the one hand, shore mounted units will be easier to get power cables and maintenance crews to. On the other hand, site licensing for shore mounted units is going to be more expensive as they actually occupy real estate (beachfront), there probably is not enough beachfront available for this purpose to support all the demand for wave power, and the deeper out into the sea a unit can be placed, despite the need to run cables, the less people will care and cause the project developers grief.

2) (For sea-based units) Is it slack moored, or does it require anchoring to the seabed? Slack moored projects IIRC are cheaper to install (and present less of an environmental engineering challenge to avoid damaging the ecosystems during installation.) Moreover they can be bought and sold and moved around from site to site pretty easily, and most can be pulled out of the water for maintenance whereas seabed units might present more of a challenge in that respect.

3) How much does sea water come in contact with the moving parts, and how likely is a giant jellyfish or whatever likely to wedge it up? Most wave systems don't present a danger to marine life, but some may (e.g. low head hydro like the wavedragon). The majority of them try to keep the sea water out of the turbine system by using an air turbine or closed hydrolic system. Exposure of too many of the sensitive parts to sea water probably will mean additional maintenence costs. For example the Finavera AquaBouy uses rubber hoses and sucks sea water in and out of a chamber -- which may be all well engineered to last but we'll have to wait and see what their ongoing maintenance costs actually are.

4) How much of a wave does the unit need to start producing power, at what height does it top out, and does it ever have to shut down in heavy waves? That says a lot about where it can be sited.

5) Finally, the basic questions to be asked about any power generating project: how much does it cost per peak watt, what's a usual capacity factor, annual maintenance costs, how many units can the company currently manufacture per year, etc.

Personally my favorite design so far is the pelamis, but I'm sure more than one of these companies will end up competitive with each other in the long term.

[jwirr]

5. Curious, I live near the Great Lakes. They have a wave action

which I have watched roll into shore. How strong does this wave action have to be? Will it work in areas other than the ocean?

[IChing]

6. There are natural and consistent eddies in the Great Lakes

so I see no reason that this couldn't be applied since it is a bottom energy grabber.

Watch the video......

[philb]

9. Lots of ocean power projects under construction in U.S.

Electric Power Research Institute- ocean power likely cheapest power source soon in coastal areas

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission- 11 ocean power commercial or pilot projects under way and 16 more being permitted

Florida Solar Energy Center- Florida Gulf Stream has enough energy for all of Florida and more

www.flcv.com/OPproj.html

[hunter]

13. These monstrosities won't last long.

They'll become yet another of the mysterious metal ruins one finds along the coast.