Ocean Power May Be Able To Turn The Tide When It Comes To Renewable Energy Technologies
In 1999, assessments 2 showed that Americans consumed 25 percent of the world's oil production, but held less than 3 percent. In 2009, statistics showed that Americans consumed approximately 23% of the world oil production. It is hard to believe that with all of the new changes in energy efficiency and renewable energy technology that has been created and recognized over the last decade that more significant changes in oil dependency has not been achieved. Without more policy that demands the utilization of innovative renewable energy technology and the implementation of energy conservation measures, the country will not be able to steer itself away from oil dependency. This means continued relationships with unreliable foreign sources of oil (threatening our national security), more drilling along our coasts, (threatening our natural habitats and wildlife), and more chances for disasters to occur like the one currently in the Gulf, (ultimately threatening our economy and our way of life).
Ironically, the reduction of oil dependency and enhanced protection of the world's oceans is vital not only to the sustainability of the planet, but also for the preservation of one of our greatest resources of renewable energy that could help solve the energy problem. In essence, we must utilize the very thing we are destroying in order to save ourselves. More specifically, in order to avoid disasters like the Gulf oil spill and save our oceans we must harness the renewable power of... our oceans. (This reminds me of the 1997 quote by our worry free friend Austin Powers, "Allow myself to introduce... myself". If only we had listened then, perhaps we'd be singing a different tune now.)
On a positive note, today there are some organizations and initiatives that target oceanic and marine wildlife preservation. One organization that is trying to connect different groups under the banner of oceanic renewable energy is the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition. The OREC is a national trade association that is "dedicated to promoting marine and hydrokinetic energy technologies from clean, renewable ocean resources." They incorporate over 40 members, all of which work towards these same goals by coming up with ideas and innovations that help build these technologies and put them to realistic use. In fact, some of these organizations are literally "turning the tide" when it comes to renewable energy by using the known green technique of harnessing ocean waves and currents to produce energy:
- Ocean Power Technologies (OPT) is a group that was founded in order to find solutions that could harness the energy that comes from the world's oceans. One way that OPT is doing this is via their PowerBuoy 403 that acts as a "wave energy converter" while submerged. As it bobs in the ocean it works a hydraulic pump that drives a generator that produces up to 40 kilowatts of electricity, which then can be sent to shore via an underwater cable. The electricity that comes from just one clean and safe PowerBuoy 40 has the capability to produce enough power for 20 to 25 homes.
- The Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC) works on breakthrough technologies and environmentally safe projects that use the ocean to produce renewable and clean energy. One of these projects is installing power systems all along the Gulf Stream's ocean currents (which has 21,000 times the energy of Niagara Falls). With the constant flow of the Gulf Stream, if ORPC harnesses just 1/1000 of the Gulf's renewable energy that would still be enough to power up to 7 million homes.
Wave power technology, while underused, has been a known technology, for years. However, a future green application that can boost renewable energy is not the ocean itself, but rather something that can be found within the ocean. Algae sources are considerably new renewable energy options within the ocean that have many believing them to be "the ultimate in renewable energy"4.
Half of algae's weight is based off of oil, which can be made into bio-fuel that could be used on anything from cars to airplanes. Considering that there over 65,000 known algae species this could potentially be a big time future energy source.
Yet, renewable energy from the ocean is only one step towards sustainability. Energy must be used more efficiently. Individual behavior needs to change and become more environmentally conscious. Overconsumption is becoming a big problem in the United States and the unwillingness to give up that way of life is feeding our current dependency on crude oil. Specifically, opting for bigger and better in the auto industry means big engines, lots of horse power and less fuel economy. Recently, we've seen a larger effort by auto manufacturers to deliver hybrid and fully electric vehicles. It is up to the consumer to make the decision to purchase these vehicles and drive demand, pushing manufacturers to produce, compete, and continuously innovate.
In 2007, the U.S. depended on crude oil to meet 39% of the total energy demand with the majority of it (45%) feeding the transportation sector in the form of finished motor gasoline5. It is frustrating to see that with new technology coming out all the time, that as of 2010, approximately 46% (nearly the same amount) of U.S. petroleum consumption is used for finished motor gasoline. If we eliminate the use of petroleum based vehicles and get them running on renewable energy, we could curb nearly half of our petroleum demand. In order to do so, we would need to generate 20% of our total energy demand from other sources (more, actually, because all renewable energy sources are not strictly dedicated to supplying the transportation sector).
In 2007, hydroelectric power supplied only 2.5% of our energy demand6. Renewable sources combined provided only 6.7%. As of July 2009, approximately half the states in the U.S. still had no electric vehicle charging stations7. The other half had less than 10 throughout the entire state with the exception of California, which has become a pioneer in electric vehicle support, supplying over 400 charging stations. Oregon is the runner up with less than 50 (big gap). Therefore, an infrastructure made up of fully electric vehicles 8 recharged by electricity that comes from renewable sources will require a complete overhaul of consumer behavior/demand, manufacturer supply, and energy policy.
Building structures that would also use the oceans (amongst others) renewable energy must be built properly in order to not be wasteful. If buildings are not consciously created to maintain energy and preserve resources then utilizing renewable sources from the ocean becomes a redundant endeavor (as old buildings become less efficient, we waste more energy, etc). This is why it's important that buildings and neighborhoods are developed around the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System9.
According to US Green Building Council, 39% of energy use comes from buildings in the United States alone, but with LEED certified buildings these numbers can allow renewable energy from the ocean to actually have a chance of succeeding and being applicable in the real world. This is why so many companies like Globetrotters Engineering Corporation10 (a Chicago based architecture company founded by Niranjan Shah11 known for building many LEED certified buildings), Wells Fargo (which built an office tower that is not only LEED approved but saves up to 5 million kWh a year), and Kubala-Washatko Architects & Boldt Construction (which actually built the first ever LEED-platinum certified, carbon neutral building12) all incorporate LEED standards into their designs.
Since the inception of LEED certification, it took several years for the first building to reach platinum certification. Now, it is something that architects strive for. For many projects government incentives are available for businesses that reach LEED certification. Niranjan Shah13, realized that the LEED benchmark is the future of architecture and that creating structures that benefit from renewable energy just makes common sense. Hopefully, in upcoming years we'll see LEED platinum certification become the standard.
After the oil spill in the Gulf it's clear to see that now, more than ever, protecting our oceans stands for something much greater. By saving our oceans, we are making a commitment to the preservation of our natural resources, our wildlife, and our humanity. Through the promise and development of a sustainable, renewable energy future, we can follow a new path which will redefine the meaning of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Reference 1. 42,000 gallons a day - Estimated on April 26, 2010. 2. Natural Resources Defense Council - Quoting the Energy Information Administration 1999 Annual Report 3. PowerBuoy 40 - CNN Editorial Feb 26, 2010 4. Algae: "The ultimate in renewable energy" - CNN Tech Editorial 5. Finished Motor Gasoline - EIA Stats from 2010 6. Hydroelectric Resource - EIA statistics from 2007 report 7. Map of Charging Stations - Alternative & Advanced Fuels 8. Fully Electric Vehicle - Nissan Leaf 9. LEED Certification - NRDC Smartgrowth Editorial 10. Globetrotters Engineering Corporation 11. Niranjan Shah - GEC CEO Niranjan Shah Twitter Feed 12. First LEED Platinum Certified Carbon Neutral Building 13. Niranjan Shah - Live Journal
Comments
YES, there is a market niche for several oceanic conversion technologies!!
At the same time I am ready to accept that there are places in this old world of ours where it makes sense, and where efforts by private firms and governments should be made to use as much of it as is economically justifiable.
I agree with Fred that ocean power may be viable in some limited places (like islands) but I think while the technology is very interesting expecting this equipment to last for 30 - 40 years in the corrosive and inhospitable oceans is going to present some big reliability problems. How (for example) would you maintain one of these. For a start the maintenance will be dependent on the weather at sea. Maintenance vessels will be required etc. It is one thing maintaining an electric generator on land - it is a whole other matter doing it in the sea. Maintenance will be a costly affair.
Of all the renewable technologies, ocean power is likely the best case but that just means that all the others are awful.
For continental countries like the USA and Canada, Russia and China nuclear power is the best option and I think Obama shares this view as he just approved loan guarantees for a 2-unit Burke Plant in Georgia with likely more to follow.
I would invest my money in Uranium rather that ocean wave technology.
Malcolm
1 kWh = 3412.14163 BTU.
Let's try to get some experts to comment on this.
Sunday July 11, 2010 09:45
Hello Mr Specker,
Large scale solar generation of electricity may be a fraud, we've been told.
We are not sure if this is true or not.
Mr Rick Shumard gave at presentation behalf of EPRI at REI in Albuquerque on Tuesday April 27, 2010.
Mr Shumard appears to have the EE educational background and information to verify or deny whether large scale solar generation of electricity is a fraud or not.
http://home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/eprishumard/eprishumard.htm
Nuclear?
Go Nukes
By Byron King
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
According to the Times, China's "civilian nuclear power industry" (and rest assured there's a Chinese military nuclear power industry as well) has 11 operating reactors, with as many as 10 new reactors per year planned for the next 15 years. That's 150 new reactors just in China.
So where will the world nuclear industry obtain the uranium fuel for all these new reactors? That's a darn good question. Just in the US, annual uranium use for the nuclear power industry is about 55 million pounds. The US produces less than 4 million pounds of this fuel - about 7% - and imports the rest.
Problems?
When an engineer (particularly a Chemical Engineer) considered a chemical process, a thermodynamic cycle or an engine he made a Heat and Weight Balance. (These days I suppose this expression must be called an energy and mass balance to be pure). Actually it was a bit more complicated than that because often a component balance was also required - that is carbon atoms (or oxygen) IN must equal carbon atoms (or oxygen) OUT
For example, take a diesel engine, (then or now) : The calorific value of the fuel (100%) is, say, accounted for by 34% going to work, 23% going cooling water, 3% going to lube oil, 32% going out the exhaust and 8% being radiated or lost to the surroundings. All expressed in the same units, say BTUs. While I rigged the example numbers to balance exactly, in reality they must balance.exactly. In this case 66% of the energy went to heating up the environment.
Must commend you on a very carefully crafted attempt at deception though, since very few readers would bother to follow such a poorly presented link. Nest time, post links as:
a starting open angle bracket (shift comma), then the letters "a href=" then the link within quotations, then a closing angle bracket (shift period), then the displayed title of the article linked, then an opening angle bracket (shift comma), then the letters "/a" then a closing angle bracket (shift period)
Bill Payne's Ridiculous Attempt to Mislead the Public on Solar Energy
Bill Payne's Ridiculous Attempt to Mislead the Public on Solar Energy
Before giving up as wasting my time I searched for Sargent & Lundy Engineering and got a hit. Oddly their site was boldly titled only Sargent and Lundy, no "engineering" in the name? I happen to know that in Illinois a company cannot use "Engineering" in their name without meeting certain professional engineering licensing rules.
They describe themselves as being a private company exclusively in the energy business, founded in 1891 with 2000 employees with 500 in Chicago and 50+ in Philadelphia. I didn't see where they said where the other 1450 or so were. They featured this statement: " Our record of accomplishment includes the design of 884 power plants totaling 122,149 MW for clients in the public and private sectors ..." (Over the course of 120 years?) 122,149/884=138 MW per power plant. I didn't see where they said how many of these designs were actually built - it would be easy for the casual reader to think they all were built.
Visitors to their home page were advised that in order to access more information about the company they needed to use or get a password. I've never ever run into this before. .
"For nuclear safety-related work, compliance with our nuclear quality assurance program, SL-TR-1A, is also required. This Sargent & Lundy Nuclear Quality Assurance Program is maintained as a Topical Report that is approved by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission."
and
"Owners who are totally engaged in directing company resources in support of client engagements and who are all career power industry professionals. "
I also note that their Career Opportunities webpage offers ONLY positions for professional engineers, specialising in a variety of power industry design spceialties.
You must be REALLY against solar power to attack it by attacking the credentials of a power engineering company with 100 years in the business, especially by pro-rating their installations history evenly back into the 1910's. What was the average size of a typical power generating station in 1910? How often were they being built?
Again, I remind you that nowhere except in your comments do I find the words "Sargent & Lundy Engineering." Quite unlike other companies I have noticed over the years, I see no photos of plants they have built or designed or modernized. I see no mention of any utilities they have built or designed plants for.
Len wrote: "You (me) must be REALLY against solar power to attack it by attacking the credentials of a power engineering company with 100 years in the business, especially by pro-rating their installations history evenly back into the 1910's." Well, first of all, where did I ever say anything to justify your statement that I was REALLY against solar power? (That's a "When did you stop beating your wife statement" and would get a sharp rebuke from a judge.) Secondly, according to their home page it's not a hundred years but about 120 years, and since they only furnished two numbers I could not pro-rate back to the 1910's. I clearly showed with no deception how I got my number.
There are other things that strike me as odd. Their home page does not give their address - one needs to go elsewhere. I didn't see the officers of the company listed, and no indication of their annual business is given. But they seem eager to tell me how many University of Illinois, IIT and Purdue grads they have hired, sort of. They are good at weasel words.
Len, I wonder why you are apparently more interested in being an apologists for Sargen & Lundy than explaining question about them?
"Construction on Byron Nuclear Generating Station began in 1975, at a 1,782-acre (7.2 km²) site, 17 miles (27 km) southwest of Rockford, Illinois, south of the city of Byron in Ogle County.[1] The firm of Sargent and Lundy acted as consulting engineer during construction" - Byron Nuclear Generating Station - wiki
So are you telling me that in Illinois they hire interior decorators or something to design and build their nuclear plants?
Here it is: Trough and Power Tower Solar. Technology Cost and Performance Forecasts. Sargent & Lundy LLC Consulting Group. Chicago, Illinois
Sargent and Lundy is an old line privately held engineering firm. They are not required to publish any information about themselves. Their reputation in the industy is very high and they bid on business just like all engineering firms.
I remember telling my students that Money and Sex can be dashed off as the answer to most questions, but Lies and Stupidity works pretty well too
Example: (Forgive me personal comments.) This evening I prepared a dinner with several choices to accommodate those who don't eat this or don't eat that. At no time was everyone seated at the table at the same time. A TV program in the next room had most all's attention - a teenie program.
There was not one sentence of conversation. None. Yet two (sorta) great grandchildren thanked their Papa, as programmed, for dinner and left for better company and amusement before I had finished eating..
I have always considered a family as a group of people who eat the same food at the same table at the same time. And talk to everyone, and listen to everyone. On this basis I don't see any families today.
Turn the TV off.
Malcolm
Firstly Bill there are actually 61 new reactors under construction worldwide and 438 in operation. Of the 61 that are under construction 24 of those are in China, 11 are in Russia, 6 are in South Korea and 4 are in India. You can go to this link at the European Nuclear Society for more data and an interesting synopsis of the industry.
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm
Your question is a very good one but appears to be based on the theories of the 1972 Club of Rome which promoted the notion of limits to growth. That theory has been completely debunked because it is based on the assumption that we know all the deposits of all materials in the earths crust. Clearly we do not. By that theory we should have run out of most commodities already - the fact that we have not should provide a good indicator to of the validity or otherwise of that theory.
Also, and I am sure Fred will add some useful insight, the amount available is very different from the amount that is economically available. Most people do not understand that Uranium far from being a rare mineral is actually very common in the earths crust. It is present in seawater at .003 ppm. Not very much and not economically extractable at present Uranium prices but the fact is it IS there. It is as common as tin, lead or zinc so not a rare metal at all.
The real question to ask is how much is available at a particular price point. That fact of course is where the nuclear industry scores big time. The output cost of electricity from a nuclear plant is very insensitive to the price of the Uranium input costs simply because the component of the electricity cost that is the fuel is very very small. So the price point of Uranium (spot price of U3O8) doesn't make much difference to the output cost of the electricity. Today U3O8 spot price is $46/lb. It could easily go to $500/lb and not affect the economics of nuclear power very much. What THAT means is that the amount of economically recoverable Uranium at $500/lb is orders of magnitude greater than that recoverable at $46/lb.
So where is all this Uranium? The main producing countries are Australia, Canada, Kazakstan, Namibia and Russia. However you will be pleased to know that the USA also has significant deposits recoverable at current spot prices in Wyoming (Crow Butte) and other locations.
The World Nuclear Association estimates that at current (low) spot prices there are KNOWN Uranium reserves for 80 years at current demand (the 438 reactors operating now). However new discoveries in the Athabaska Basin and the Thelon Basin in Canada and in Kazakstan and Australia as well as Africa (a largely unsurveyed continent) will significantly increase this to approximately 200 years of supply. Cameco, the worlds largest Uranium producer will be doubling its production by 2018.
Malcolm
Now a little bit of nuclear theory. Uranium is NOT the only fuel for nuclear reactors. CANDU reactors designed and built by AECL can operate on Thorium. The Reactor is started conventionally and then supplied with Thorium fuel. The Thorium absorbs a neutron to become Uranium 233 which is the second and largely ignored second fissile isotope of Uranium. However this fuel cycle is not available to PWR or BWR reactors.
Thorium is plentiful in the earths crust but as of now there are very few uses for it so it is not mined extensively. But Thorium on its own represents hundreds of years of fuel supply.
Also, reactor fuel when it comes out of the reactor has only used about 2% of the initial U235 fissile isotope. That means 98% of the input fuel is not used. This fuel can and already is recycled in facilities in France and the UK thus displacing the need for new fuel supply from mines.
And, while I left this one for last, it is likely the most important. I mentioned it in my post above. Fast breeder reactors (FAST = they operate on fast neutrons of 200MeV rather than THERMAL neutrons at 0.025eV: BREEDER = they breed more fuel than they consume) will extend the availability of nuclear fuels indefinitely.
This is because Plutonium produces more than three neutron per fission. One goes to produce the next fission, one is lost by absorption in the surrounding reactor materials leaving one extra for use in a breeding blanket. That breeding blanket is U238 of which enormous quantities are already mined. The neutron converts the U238 to Plutonium 239 which is then recycled back into the reactor. THIS cycle makes nuclear fuels unlimited in supply. Again enough for hundreds of years.
So to answer your question Bill "So where will the world nuclear industry obtain the uranium fuel for all these new reactors?" It will come from existing mines, new discoveries, the sea, fast breeder reactors and Thorium mines. Quite enough to take us from here to the next Millennium.
Please go to the websites of the World Nuclear Association and the International Atomic Energy Agency which have a wealth of data to allay your concerns about nuclear fuel shortages. There is no shortage and neither will there be.
Hope that helps
Malcolm
- Let us make the assumption that costs can be reduced to make the installation of solar PV cells competitive. Say to 3.2 c/kwh.
- Let us further assume that large scale installations are possible even in the cold energy consuming Northern Climates of the US North East Canada Russia and China.
- Let us also make the assumption that large numbers of people will not object to significant acreages of land being used for such installations.
- Let us also make the assumption that weather (snow and ice, clouds, rainstorms, dust storms) does not significantly hamper or reduce the output of solar PV cells.(This is a true assumption at night since output cannot be reduced to less than zero by any weather condition)
- Let us further make the assumption that there is plentiful silver and gold available at cheap prices to coat the contacts of said millions (billions) of solar PV cells so that they will not suffer significant connection losses.
After all these assumptions are made one is still left with a system that cannot operate 100% of the time because its source of power is not available all the time.
It will operate only 50% or less.
This begs the question what does one use at night. Flashlights.
I have it - STARLIGHT and MOONBEAMS
- Let us assume that we can make a solar panel sensitive to catch Starlight and MoonBeams.......
I am sorry Len but this is pie in the sky.
Practical for running a traffic light in the middle of nowhere but to produce the thousands of GigaWatts required now and in the future - not even close to sensible.
Malcolm