US Uncorks $16M For 17 Projects To Capture Wave Energy 132
coondoggie writes "The US Energy Department this week said it would spend $16 million for seventeen projects to help research and develop energy generating systems from waves, tides and currents. The energy agency says the US could generate up to 1,400 terawatt hours of potential power per year. One terawatt-hour of electricity is enough to power 85,000 homes, according to the agency."
Failed technology (Score:5, Informative)
Wave power has been talked up for years. No project is beyond the prototype stage, even the one in Scotland, and none of them are profitable. It's just not a very good idea.
Anything with moving parts at the ocean surface is going to be a maintenance headache. "Remember that the free surface is neither ocean nor air and that man cannot walk upon it nor will equipments remain stable in its presence. So design your equipments that they tarry not long and that they need neither servicing nor repair at this unseemly interface." - MIT/U.S. Navy ocean engineering expert. Most wave power schemes involve many big mechanical devices at the ocean surface. Fully submerged equipment or windmills above the ocean work better.
Tidal power is only feasible at a few locations worldwide. I read a study once that found ten potential sites in the world. The ideal site for maximum power output is the Bay of Fundy, but it's a long way from potential loads. Also, the way to get the most power out is to build a dam and hydroelectric plant, which totally changes the ecology in the area.
Money is great, but regulations are the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Get all the money you want, but it's regulatory compliance that's the problem, not the money - at least if this company's experience is any guide.
"Last September, with great fanfare, Ocean Power Technologies began construction on America's first wave-powered utility. Holding the first - and only - wave energy permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, OPT had planned to deploy a test buoy off the coast of Reedsport by spring.
But a year after the permit, regulatory and technical difficulties have all but halted the project. Federal regulators notified the company earlier this year it had violated the license after failing to file a variety of plans and assessments."
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2013/08/oregon_wave_energy_stalls_off.html [oregonlive.com]
One government hand giveth, other hands taketh away.
Re:Power vs. energy (Score:4, Informative)
There's nothing funny about terawatt-hours per year as a measure of power. It's the average power generated over a year, since tidal power isn't uniform. It's the next sentence mixing up power and evergy that's messed up.
Re:Power vs. energy (Score:5, Informative)
No they're not confused, both terms refer to different things.
Terawatts (or more frequently, megawatts) refers to the so-called nameplate capacity - the peak generating capacity of the plant.
Terawatt-hours per year refers to the actual energy generated over the course of a year.
Basically, TWh per year is (nameplate capacity)*(capacity factor). Capacity factor being the fraction of the nameplate capacity that the plant actually produces on average. Unfortunately, most people don't know the capacity factors for the different technologies off the top of their head (nuclear is around 0.9, coal/oil around 0.6, hydro about 0.4-0.5, offshore wind about 0.3-0.4, onshore wind bout 0.2-0.25, and solar about 0.15).
Dunno what the capacity factor is for wave generation, but in terms of assessing the real capability of a power plant, TWh per year is the more useful figure since it's directly comparable between different technologies (and against power consumption). Nameplate capacity is (ab)used by solar and wind proponents to exaggerate how much those systems actually generate. If you installed 6 kW worth of solar panels in your home, I'm sorry but it doesn't actually generate 6 kW. That's how much it'll generate on a sunny day at noon if the sun happens to be angled perfectly with the panels. On average (after you factor in night, clouds, angle of the sun, etc) it'll generate 1.1 kW if you're in the desert southwest U.S., 870 watts for most of the rest of the country.
Re:Causing the eventual distruction of the Earth (Score:4, Informative)
Actually I don't see how the Moon can move away. That would require the Moon acquiring energy in the process,
Um, the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a rate of 3.8cm per year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_(astronomy) [wikipedia.org]
Reason why: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12311119 [bbc.co.uk]
PS: The Earth's rotation is also slowing down...(!)
Re: Wee, it's no wonder (Score:5, Informative)
2. It's a scheme to nickle and dime the tax payer with the never ending promise of "we're so close, we just need some more funding" all while on the 10th round of funding already.
It does sound like a nickel and dime job, except for the lack of a nickel or dime: they're barely willing to spend a cent on it.
Ever get involved with work for Uncle Sam? The paperwork is appalling, starting with all the regulatory compliance issues (as indicated in mveloso's post below). The entire investment would be absorbed by bullshit overhead (project management, budget oversight, regulatory oversight, etc.) before a single STEM worker could get hired to actually do any of the work.