Plenty of wave energy to be harvested close to shore

[activa8tr]

"SINCE the oil crisis of the 1970s kick-started interest in wave power, it has become received wisdom that only offshore waves are worth tapping into. As a result, the varied designs competing to rule the waves have been banished to distant, deep waters where conditions are rougher and engineering costs highest. Now a reassessment suggests that waves closer to shore are not such puny prospects after all, raising the hope that harvesting energy from waves will become easier and more economical than previously imagined."


http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627595.700-plenty-of-wave-energy-to-be-harvested-close-to-shore.html

[NYC_SKP]

1. K and R.

Off shore renewables have many detractors.

Like any other renewable source, there are pros and cons.

I'm all for research, however, but there are those who oppose even investigating the possibilities, at least here in California.

BTW, Ocean energy is the domain of the MMS.

I attended a public hearing in SF with Salazar, Boxer, Woolsey, and Oregon Governor Ted Kulongosk and others, and many were concerned that offshore development would be too disruptive to the environment, others thought it might be a back door into oil exploration.

I guess coal fired power plants are OK, as long as they aren't in California.

Lots of ignorance out there. Innocent, but still ignorant.

:patriot:

[jwirr]

2. Do the Great Lakes have enough motion to generate energy?

[RedCappedBandit]

3. Sure looks that way sometimes, doesn't it?

I have no idea, though.

[jwirr]

7. I lived on the north shore of Lake Superior and have witnessed waves

17 feet high but that was only during a winter storm. Usually it is much tamer. It would be nice if we could get some energy from them.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. for years now my dream has been

"off shore" wind turbines with wave motion generators tethered to them. That way both sources of energy could share some of the same infrastructure and service employees/equipment.

We could start by placing them in lakes Michigan, Superior and Huron.

[librechik]

4. It's simply not profitable enough

If BP or somebody doesn't get their cut, nothing will happen. The Dutch wind power project has decreased
power costs at least 20 per cent. That's a problem, apparently!

[activa8tr]

5. The Danish are getting almost ALL their electric power from WIND

and have some to sell to Germany. Both Germany and Denmark, as well as Holland can produce much much more... and they WILL within a few years. Even China is doubling their electric power generated by wind each and every year, even as they build coal power plants.

Just sayin

[librechik]

6. yes--and also lowering the price of watts considerably

[hunter]

9. Not even close. Maybe 20%, but honestly, not even that.

The output of wind plants is inconsistent and has to be backed up by conventional power plants.

Wind power plants don't replace fossil fuel or nuclear power plants.

[activa8tr]

10. Actually you might want to review this video...re: "inconsistency" and wind power

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/0/llIbjC49Fjs

Fossil and nuclear plants are ALSO surprisingly "inconsistent"

As for your 20% figure, you MAY BE talking about total power, (Denmark uses fossil fuels for heating and transport)

"In 2020, 30 per cent of Danish energy consumption must be covered by renewable energy. Ensuring that renewable energy, especially from wind turbines, covers almost half of Denmark's electricity consumption could make an important contribution to achieving this objective.

http://www.energinet.dk/en/menu/Climate+and+the+environment/Climate/The+Danish+wind+case/The+Danish+Windcase.htm


http://www.e-pages.dk/energinet/126/

[hunter]

12. Wishful thinking: "In 2020..."

Nope, I'm talking about electricity. If you want to bring heating into the mix, the fraction is even smaller.

I predict that in 2020 wind will be providing less than 20% of Denmark's electricity.

Wind power is a bubble industry.

Would you like to invest in some tulips?

Actually the wind power bubble is more like a rabbit bubble. You can actually eat rabbits and sell the fur. In a similar way wind turbines actually do generate electricity, but it is very expensive electricity. The maintenance costs of wind machinery are high and the quality of the electrical output is low.

[activa8tr]

13. If you had actually read the links I provided, 21% is ALREADY being

generated in Denmark, and more green sourced imported from other nations.

I guess you are a lobbyist for the oil and coal industry, and averse to the facts that Energy Denmark put out, (same for Germany, linked in the video) costs of electricity are DOWN in those nations.

Carry on, I'm sure some stockholders in BP love your comments.

[hunter]

14. You might want to read links like these...

http://www.danishenergyassociation.com/Statistics.aspx

especially this document:

http://www.danishenergyassociation.com/~/media/English_site/Statistics/DE_Statistik_08_UK_net.pdf.ashx


From Danish Electricity Supply ́08:

_{page 10}



Denmark generates increasing amounts of electricity from coal. That's why their electricity costs are DOWN. Coal is cheap, and coal fired power plants are cheap.

Wind power is considerably less than 21% of the energy mix, and usually lumped in with other renewables, mostly hydro.

I'm no friend of fossil fuels. If I was Emperor of Earth, coal mining would be outlawed and huge prison colonies in Greenland would be populated with fossil fuel company executives of all stripes... a few major shareholders of BP too. I'd probably feed them mostly mealworms because thats what lizards eat.

[ThomWV]

11. Do you think you can remove energy from a system without consequences?

Think for a moment what you are saying and while you think about it remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

If you "harvest" energy from near shore what will the consequences be? The one that come immediately to mind is relatively stagnant water along the coastline and the harm that might come with it. To me the idea is just monumentally bad idea, not only for the complexity it would require, or the corrosive environment it would have to survive in, or the variability of conditions of sea-state (particularly in relatively shallow waters) but mostly because there is no community anywhere in the country that would allow it to be built off its coast just because of aesthetics.

[hunter]

15. The ocean eats machines.

Trashing coastal environments with short lived machines doesn't seem like a good idea to me.