From the sea, the new generation that comes in waves (OZ)

[jpak]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/from-the-sea-the-new-generation-that-comes-in-waves/2008/05/17/1210765260622.html

IT HAS been called Australia's first underwater wave farm. The power of the ocean, Bass Strait, to be precise, will be harnessed to provide electricity for 500 homes on King and Flinders islands, with Tasmania and Victoria to follow if all goes well.

The two prototype units will be installed on the seabed near the two islands next year, following an agreement between Hydro Tasmania and Biopower Systems, the Sydney-based developer of the units.

The wave power system will be off King Island, the tidal power one off Flinders Island. Each unit can produce up to 250 kilowatts. The $10.3 million system is half funded by the Australian Government.

Biopower's chief executive, Tim Finnigan, said his company was gearing up for full use of the system.

<more>

[annabanana]

1. I really like this kind of hydropower! Waves are pretty reliable...

(rain & shine, day or night)

[kestrel91316]

2. Oh, give us another 100 years, I figure we can fuck THAT up, too.

[JohnWxy]

3. recommended.

[stuntcat]

4. this should be huge

Nothing beats the sun I guess but the power of the tides is huge. I hope something great comes of it.

[AlecBGreen]

5. heres the catch

ocean currents are going to change as ocean & atmospheric temperatures change. Solar is the way to go.

[kristopher]

8. If they change that much we are already screwed.

Ocean current has vast potential and looks to be an easy step technologically. The lessons learned from wind applied to the high density of water places this technology on the fast track.

Check out the Gulf Stream as it flows between Bermuda and Florida. They could power a good portion of the Southeast out of that one area.

[NickB79]

6. Am I reading that correctly? $20 million per MW?!

Two prototypes, each producing 250 kW for a grand total of 500 kW, and costing a total of $10.3 million dollars.

Doesn't that seem a little expensive to anyone else?

[kristopher]

7. Not for prototype technology.

How much do you think R&D costs? I'd hate to imagine what the number was for the prototype of the first commercial reactor.

[NickB79]

9. Ok, that's reasonable. What do you think the production costs will fall to?

These prototypes cost $20 billion per GW, so if they cut the cost to a fourth of the prototype costs for future large-scale production units they'd still be costing $5 billion per GW.

I did look up the costs of the Shippingport Nuclear Reactor, the world's first commercial reactor. Ground was broken in 1954, and the finished cost at the time was $72.5 million for 60 MW of generating capacity. Putting that number into an online inflation calculator, that comes to $9.2 billion dollars per GW in today's dollars.

I don't know if the $72.5 million dollars was the entire cost with R&D, or only a partial costs. Even if there were another $50 million dollars of R&D costs not included in that figure, that puts the first nuclear reactor on par with this project cost-wise.

I like the idea of tidal power, as it should be closer to a baseload form of energy than wind or solar, but the final costs for this technology really have to fall a lot from what this first installation cost to make it economically feasible.

On edit: what's worrisome is that nuclear power, on a per-GW basis, hasn't even fallen by half since the first reactor was installed (if $72.5 million was the total cost with R&D), and is now back on the upswing. If the same holds true of this tidal power system, the final cost will still be highly prohibitive.

[kristopher]

10. There is no reason price shouldn't fall

It is an item that can be mass produced and installed. This is the same challenge facing wind and solar. The production methods and facilities (both final assembly and components) are only now starting to respond to the demand induced by global warming and rising energy prices. Nuclear power plants aren't a mass production commodity.

I mean, wind and water current are both nothing more than large fans with a transmission. There is no reason we can't get the price down.

[losthills]

11. You're deliberately ignoring the most significant difference

between the two technologies:

Nuclear power requires FUEL, while wave power does not. Acquiring and enriching that fuel requires an ongoing cost (ongoing forever) in dollars, in carbon and in environmental damage.

[losthills]

12. Nuclear Deniers routinely pretend that there is no

continuing cost with providing the reactors with fuel or with dealing with the waste they produce.

Renewable energy is free of these costs, and that is why it has become the logical pathway to the future.

[NickB79]

13. Well, first of all I didn't bring up nuclear power

Kristopher was the first to mention it as an example of the costs of prototype systems vs. full-scale models. I merely expounded upon his comments. You'll notice that at no point did I say "this technology sucks, we should build nuclear reactors", or otherwise endorse more reactors be built.

And perhaps you didn't see where I stated "I like the idea of tidal power, as it should be closer to a baseload form of energy than wind or solar", so I'm hardly a "nuclear denier" or whatever your insult of the week is today.

But thanks for playing.