Wave-Powered Generators Deployed off Florida Coast

[jpak]

http://www.renewableaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=49562

Silicon Valley-based SRI International, an independent nonprofit research and development organization, announced on Friday the deployment of a prototype buoy-mounted, ocean wave-powered generator off the coast of Florida in the Tampa Bay. SRI will test the wave-powered generator for approximately two weeks.

"In this first application of EPAM to wave-power generation, we are able to demonstrate the feasibility of a new, low-cost and highly efficient technology that can harvest electricity directly from ocean waves." -- Philip von Guggenberg, SRI International, Director of Business Development

The deployment is part of a program sponsored by HYPER DRIVE Corporation, Ltd., a Japanese company focused on development and deployment of wave-powered generators around the world.

SRI's wave-powered generators can be deployed on existing ocean buoys that use batteries as their energy source, use patented electroactive polymer artificial muscle (EPAMTM) technology, and offer a renewable method to continually power ocean buoys. SRI will use instrumentation that allows remote monitoring of the generator's output energy as well as wave height and buoy motion.

<more>

[opihimoimoi]

1. lets all hope it works well enough to reach the next level of mass production and implementation.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Indeed

[kestrel91316]

3. I'm curious how these will hold up in a Cat 5 (or Cat "6") hurricane.........

[Xithras]

4. Fine for buoy power, but not scaleable in an enviro-friendly way.

Wave powered generators have long been derided as environmentally unfriendly. They work by sapping energy from incoming waves, which reduces wave impact on the shorelines, increases shoreline sedimentation, alters beach depositing, and screws up tidepools. Floating units are also a hazard to boats and sea life.


There are ways to pull power from the ocean without destroying coastal ecosystems, but I haven't seen a WAVE powered solution yet that could do so.

[skids]

5. Yeah, uh, that would be a big "not"

...The amount of energy these things can practically remove is probably less than the amount of wave energy that has been added by global warming to date.

http://www.freeenergy.ca/news/123/ARTICLE/1147/2007-02-23.html

...pegs it at about 8% of the energy can be extracted. The rest remains in the waves, as it's not a matter of inefficiency/heat burnoff (kinematic machines are very efficient.) Wave energy is proportional to wave height squared, and the square root of 108% is about 104%. So if global warming has produced a 4% increase in wave height, it's already added all the energy to the waves that these machines will take out. They'll be putting things back more towards normal, not disrupting the ecosystem.

Exact figures on wave heights are hard to come by due to variability of the NAO and regional nature of the data, but there certainly seem to be indications that wave height is increasing at quite a good clip, and the new seismic and satellite data certainly will help clarify the picture over time.

http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/JRD/SAT/Waves/GWC_pt1.htm
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/research/theme4/project_overviews/it1_15.shtml
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=3572&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=Higher%20Ocean%20Waves%20From%20Warming%20&Cache=False
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2006/Dec06/waveheights.html


Boats are a hazard to sea life, and we let people ride out in them for pure fun. They can steer around the bouys, of which we already have many though few are of the energy generating variety. I have a hard time believing are that much of a hazard to sea life compared to a speedboat or normal bouy.

So, I'm not buying your line, sorry.

[Xithras]

6. You want to fuck with the coasts on a "probably"?

Sorry, but the intertidals and coasts are already one of the most endangered ecosystems on the planet. They aren't a place to try out free power experiments.

There would be no "maybe"'s if the increase were anywhere near 4%...the devastating impact that kind of increase would have on coastlines would leave no question as to its presence. Is it possible that global warming is increasing wave heights? Sure. Surface waves are driven by winds, which are themselves driven by temperature variations in the atmosphere. Increase the severity of the temperature variations, and you increase wind speed...and wave height in turn.

But atmospheric temperature hasn't increased 4%. In fact, as a portion of the total potential energy in the atmosphere, the total sum of the anthropogenic warming represents only a fraction of a percent increase in the planets overall temperature. The 1.5 degree global average temperature rise we have experienced over the past century is nowhere near sufficient to induce a 4% increase in global average oceanic surface winds, which would be required to increase waves a like amount.

These types of systems essentially act as porous seawalls, and taking your numbers, drain 8% of the potential energy from the incoming waves. Those waves are essential to the coastal environment, and ANYONE who would claim that reducing wave energy won't impact that environment is simply...well...uninformed. Even a 2 or 3% reduction would have a major impact on an ecosystem that is already teetering on the brink of collapse.

There ARE environmentally friendly ways to tap power from the seas without harming the coasts. SF is experimenting with a deep-channel submerged turbine concept that won't harm sea life. Harnessing surface waves WILL have a severe impact on the coasts...no matter what the corporate owners of this allegedly "green" technology want you to believe.

[One_Life_To_Give]

8. Which part of the waves are important?

Or are all waves created equal when it comes to protecting the Salt Marsh, etc.
Locally here we have tides rangine from -1ft to +13ft and sea range from 1-2ft to 6-10ft and much higher in storms.

Also wondering what affect the cessation of Oil Dumping by ships to calm seas has had.

[skids]

10. We can talk more...

...when you back up your statement that wave bouy systems (not coastal installations) have been "derided" by credible scientists.

Until then, you're in my FUD file.

[Xithras]

11. Remember the D in FUD is for doubt.

Good science is founded in doubt and questioning, not blind hope. Doubt is a good thing. Fear of damaging our already crippled environment is also a good thing. The lack of real research on this certainly intruduces some uncertainty. You want to accuse me of FUD? Fine, I'll wear that badge proudly. There's plenty of common sense problems with this system that are being glossed over, so it's certainly a worthy target for a bit of fud. Until some real research into the long term effects of this technology on the shorelines is completed, NOT ONE should be built. The potential cost is just too high.

And, for what it's worth, I'm not the only one who feels this way. There have been published objections to the concept in the past, but it's a bit late at night for me to be digging up cites. A quick Google did turn this tidbit up though:

CIWEM (UK): http://www.ciwem.org . Wave Power factsheet: http://www.ciwem.org/policy/factsheets/fs7.asp
"Hydrodynamics - effects on wave climates due to conversion facilities may lead to changes in the shore and shallow sub-tidal areas, and subsequently the plants and animals living in the area.

Navigation - the facilities may present navigation hazards to shipping

Noise - there is likely to be a noise impact from conversion facilities. This will be more significant for shoreline devices than those situated offshore.

Installation / Construction - construction of wave energy conversion facilities could lead to the loss of species on the seabed. However, this is not likely to be a long-term impact. "


See, I'm not just a loon who likes to invent problems :D

FWIW, I happen to thing that harnessing energy from the sea is a wonderful idea, I just don't support this particular approach. There are quite a few different methods that have little or none of the impact that offshore buoy systems would create, and I simply want to see more development pushed toward those.

[skids]

12. Oh I have plenty of scientific doubt...

...like the very high level of doubt that this will have any significant effect on a wave climate that regularly sees magnitude 2 variation year over year, and is prone to decade-long sustained changes due to ocean circulation patterns.

And the screaming doubt that even if it did, it would be worse than the impacts of a rising sea level and increased storm intensity.

And the other screaming doubt that unless we utilize every low impact energy resource we can, those sea levels will continue to rise for the forseeable future.

Remember, you're the one that came in here saying this was categorically a bad, bad idea -- with no evidence whatsoever that its impacts would outweigh its benefits. Meanwhile we have ample evidence that doing nothing is indeed harmful.

[jpak]

9. There is very little evidence to support this statement

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46408

Wave Energy Project Gets Environmental OK

The Makah Bay Offshore Wave Energy Pilot Project recently completed the Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA) process. The project, which is being developed through Finavera Renewables' wave energy division and subsidiary AquaEnergy Group Ltd., is expected to deliver 1,500 megawatt hours annually to the Clallam County Public Utility's grid in Washington state by the end of 2006.

The PDEA, completed by a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) qualified assessor, concluded the project would have "no significant environmental effects" on the oceanographic, geophysical and biological conditions of the Makah Bay.

"The successful installation of the proposed offshore energy power plant will herald the beginning of a new renewable energy industry sector, bringing ocean energy one step closer towards generation of clean, competitively priced electricity to commercial and residential consumers in Washington state and other coastal U.S. states," said Alla Weinstein, CEO AquaEnergy and the first President of the European Ocean Energy Association.

<more>

Wave & Tidal Energy Technology

http://www.rnp.org/RenewTech/tech_wave.html

Environmental Impacts

Unlike fossil-fueled power plants, wave and tidal energy facilities generate electricity without producing any pollutant emissions or greenhouse gases. Since the first wave and tidal energy facilities are currently being deployed, the full environmental impacts of wave and tidal power remain uncertain but are projected to be small. Concerns include impacts on marine ecosystems and fisheries. Environmental impact studies are currently underway and several pilot and commercial projects are undergoing environmental monitoring. The East River tidal turbine pilot project includes a $1.5 million sonar system to monitor impacts on fish populations, for example.9 Careful siting should minimize impacts on marine ecosystems, fishing and other coastal economic activities. Wave and tidal facilities also have little or no visual impact, as they are either submerged or do not rise very far above the waterline.

Wave Power: Looking to the Ocean for Electricity in Oregon

http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/wave_energy/welcome.html#answer

Answering the Unknown

While pilot projects around the world have reported little to no environmental impacts, the greatest unknown about wave energy is how a commercial facility will affect the ocean environment.

Researchers from Oregon State University are exploring new and innovative was to harness wave energy. Click image for larger view.

Potential environmental impacts include withdrawal of wave energy on the ecology; interactions with marine life, such as migrating gray whales; any atmospheric and oceanic emissions; noise; bottom impacts from anchors; and visual appearances. Environmental impacts from cable landings are a concern, as are electrical and magnetic energy imparted into sea water. A wave energy facility also could pose a threat to navigation.

Bedard notes that since wave energy facilities are located several miles off shore and have a relatively low profile, facilities will probably have little visual impact. Wave energy produces no air emissions, and would have little to no ocean emissions, depending on the technology and anti-fouling measures used.

Careful site selection, Bedard says, is the key to keeping environmental impacts of wave power systems to a minimum. For instance, sites can be chosen outside whale migratory routes or to avoid areas where sediment flow patterns on the ocean floor would be significantly altered.

<more>

Wave energy Utilization in Europe

www.waveenergy.dk/wave-rapport/2afp_rap/bku_afpr99/EU_WaveEnergy1.pdf

(see Table 1)

If anything, wave energy parks would be de facto "no take" marine sanctuaries and function as artificial reefs.

[wordpix]

14. how about not destroying coastal ecosysstems by not hauling oil in tankers, not drilling for oil on

the continental shelf and not building in coastal flood zones and estuaries? These do a lot more damage than these wave generators ever could, seems to me. As for increasing shoreline sedimentation and screwing up tidepools,land use management and pollution control would go a long way.

[phantom power]

7. Impact on sunlight reaching ocean flora seems like an issue.

[razzleberry]

13. these devices could replace conventional electrical generation

in the US.

power output, 5 watts
power available to the US electrical grid ...
a rather meager, one million megawatts -->

only 200 billion of these devices, would seem to do it.

[philb]

15. There is a more serious pilot being deployed in Gulf Stream off Broward County

by FAU that should be operating in a couple of months. Using Verdant Power turbine, similar to the ones in New York's East River. And other projects are being considered.