Scientists: Revolutionary Device Can Harness Ocean Currents To Power The World

A revolutionary device that can harness energy from slow-moving rivers and ocean currents could provide enough power for the entire world, scientists claim.

The technology can generate electricity in water flowing at a rate of less than one knot - about one mile an hour - meaning it could operate on most waterways and sea beds around the globe.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[johnnyjust]

Well, that's certainly grist for the mill.

Wait a minute. Grist. Mill. Water moving a big wheel.

Yup. Pretty revolutionary.

[JuniorNorman]

Lets take the electric energy and produce BROWN"S GAS from water with it. Monatomic HHO called the new propane you can run propane devices off of it. HHO can be mixed with jet fuel to make it burn better. You can run car with it using a propane conveter kit.

[dcicourelh]

I've grown skeptical of these "revolutionary new devices"... I won't get excited until we actually DO something. Big props to the scientists but I'd like to see something like this actually *implemented*.

[KillTheMessenger]

Me too. If I go to the roof of our building, I can see rooftops that could produce hundreds of MW on a sunny day. And all they do is to bleach tar paper in the sun.

:-)

[Yves Papa]

They forget to mention that such a large array of cylinders will cause the currents to divert around them, leaving the generator idle or yielding far less power than the amounts put forth in the article.

[prailey]

Now for another showdown between the enviromentalists and energy companies...

[ftskc]

I saw this technology on European Journal (Deutsche Welle TV, via Link TV, Channel 9410 Dish Network).

The Portugese are already using it, and have ordered more.

Image an underdeveloped country is light years ahead of the US, probably because Portugal does not have auto and oil companies that control their government.

[vinceoffer]

When did Portugal become an "underdeveloped country"?

[T4Obama]

According to the MAMTEES scale Portugal is underdeveloped, so are France, Argentina, Australia and Candada. What is the MAMTEES scale, you ask? The Myopic American Misconception That Everyone Else Sucks scale, of course. You might not be familliar with the organization, but I am quite certain you've heard their slogan; "We live in the greatest country in the world".

[SaltySaltillo]

Apparently the day they decided not to build a domestic auto industry, according to ftskc.
But don't tell him about GALP Energia... it may confuse him/her to learn that Portugal really does have an oil company.

[Doofus]

Ironically, this 'new technology' is pretty damn close (physics-wise) to 'windmills',
also 'waterwheels', which have been around for awhile. 'Newer is better', eh?

[Egalitare]

Everything old is new again.

[Mnemanth]

What's new here? I've read about Japanese research on this same kind of tech for years.
I just read someone's comment on cost effectiveness. Well, for one, this seems like pretty cut and dried tech to me. Low intial cost, low maintenance.
The problem isn't in "cost effectiveness" (our own inability to come to terms with the fact that we define value will be the de@th of us anyway), the problem is competition with current technologies and energy producers.
"Cost effectiveness" is an excuse for the oil lobby (and coal, and nuke, and, and, and...) to keep us under their yoke. "Great idea. Too bad we can't afford it...." Oddly, we can afford to continue subsidizing industries that post absolutely ridiculous profits quarter after quarter, but we can't invest in the development of something new.

[ibsteve2u]

Keep that up, and Big Oil is going to start hiring former Bush Administration Press Secretaries as PR people.

[crablover]

Duh! Where do you think former staffers go after their term is up? The trade associations, think tanks and lobbying firms are jammed with ex-political appointees.

[KillTheMessenger]

"Well, for one, this seems like pretty cut and dried tech to me. Low intial cost, low maintenance. "

Please let us see your detailed calculations (including real quotes from manufacturers) and the test results from your ten years demonstrator and we talk.

[Gib]

Show me. There's far more to getting energy out of the ocean than having things move up and down.

[Lionsden]

Now this sounds cool. They didn't say how big these cylinders are.

This would be something:

""If we could harness 0.1 per cent of the energy in the ocean, we could support the energy needs of 15 billion people. "

Though, I'm with the person who wants to produce power independently, off the grid, I believe all practical paths should be explored.

[45245]

i'll just toss a log on the fire.....for my carbon footprint

[Lionsden]

I like that too!

[tbirdalum]

You know,(My Friends) this is all well and good and I think it would be good to look at harnessing wave and water current power for a future, but when Barack gets into office if he would allow a substantial amount of money such as incentives plus tax credits for each home owner to place grid-tied solar on their homes do you realize the impact this would have on the country? Forget nuclear power plants, increased drilling for oil or natural gas. The solar power from each home could power the batteries of hybrids for each family and any excess power could be pumped back to the grid. Somethink to think about. If the goverment won't help us to achieve this goal, then each of us needs to take it upon ourselves to put our families into this position. Beat big business at their own game.

Yes, We Did, and Yes, We Can, O

[Yves Papa]

i agree. Photovoltaic solar is the ticket. All these weird inventions should not distract us from the prize: cheap, clean, low cost energy, where everyone is a producer and where most is self sufficient.

[crablover]

I agree with the self-sufficiency aspect of power generation. However, the politically entrenched power companies and fossil fuel producers won't allow this to happen.

In the late '90s, I worked as a consultant with a company that developed a residential hydrogen fuel cell that would power a house and return excess power to the grid. The cost was less than $10K per installation and once production ramped up, the price could have dropped to around $7K. As soon as the company went public, they were bought out by a General Motors subsidiary and were never heard from again.

As long as the big corporate interests control Washington, the move to sustainable energy sources will continue to be suppressed.

[rbspickles]

So how will the rich stay rich if we are no longer paying heating, cooling and gas bills? They'll never let that happen. They've been suppressing green technology for 40 years or more now.

[poster1122]

The research sounds interesting, though we should always be mindful of the law of unintended consequences. "Harnessing" the energy of something is a euphemism for taking the energy out of something and putting it into something else. Remember, basic thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

So, if you pull out energy from a waterway, either the water reduces flow or cools down, or some combination of the two. Depending on the amount, that could be quite ecologically destructive on all life forms adapted to the previous environment.

"The chief cause of problems is solutions." -- Eric Sevareid

[KillTheMessenger]

As with any new technology, it is completely non-destructive. It takes the real, irreversible destruction of nature to prove otherwise.

[InspiredByTruth]

Yeah, because this would pull out alot more energy out than say, blocking a major waterway with a hydroelectric dam. And we all know how windmills have eliminated wind over major parts of the country, and solar plants have put huge parts of the globe into eternal darkness (*sarcasm*).Your comment is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how this tech works:

"Michael Bernitsas, a professor of naval architecture at the university, said it was based on the changes in water speed that are caused when a current flows past an obstruction. Eddies or vortices, formed in the water flow, can move objects up and down or left and right. This is a totally new method of extracting energy from water flow," said Mr Bernitsas. "Fish curve their bodies to glide between the vortices shed by the bodies of the fish in front of them. Their muscle power alone could not propel them through the water at the speed they go, so they ride in each other's wake."

The cylinder is placed in a tube, and is then pushed and pulled up and down as water flows past and creates mini-vortexes in the tube, whose mechanical energy is then captured. This is a very noninvasive technology, not to be compared with the dig-and-burn methods of past energy generation. These tubes would be as "destructive" as a large school of fish.

[3dtrix]

Seldom is one persuaded to another's point of view by making him feel small or stupid...

[Doofus]

Well, yeah. With tidal & wave power efficiently harnessed
(as it should be), rotation will slow, days will get longer.
Eventually the earth gets 'tidally locked' so that one side
is always facing the sun, just as the moon is tidally locked
to the earth. That could be most annoying. 'Eventually' is
probably a billion years or so, or even less!

[KillTheMessenger]

Relax... it would take more time to achieve that kind of effect than the Earth has left before the sun turns into a red giant. And for a species that's around for no longer than a million years and can't remember more than the last 8000 or so, a billion years is a LONG period of time.

[Harbinger08]

I don't think you understand the physics at work here. "Harnessing" tidal and wave energy does nothing to alter the Earth's rotation any more than the ocean pounding against the coastlines (and any other thing) does. The Moon's rotation was brought into synchronization with its orbit around the Earth by the Earth's tides. As we all observe, the moon exerts tidal forces on the oceans of Earth, and the resulting drag on the Moon has slowly slowed its rotation until it has become (nearly) in sync. Your dire warning is not a real threat, however distant.

[Palemoon]

Sometimes I think you people play a little too fast and loose with science. Such as your comment about reducing flow of water cools it down. Well, water can freeze sure enough if it's sitting still. But quite alot of rivers have water of the same temp but they don't freeze because the water is in motion. Find something to stir a glass of water constantly and put it in your freezer and see what happens. Eventually you'll get some icy water, but not a solid glass of ice unless you got that thing cranked to the max to the point that anything cold enough will freeze.

Judging by your fast and loose equation, I should be able to get a glass of water, cup one hand over the open end and turn it to steam with a few vigorous shakes.

[PistovAmerican]

Every potential source of energy, especially green sources, should be explored. We should not, however, put the laws of unintended consequeces out of our minds. If we take energy out of a system (flow of a river, for instance) there is a net loss of energy within that system. What consequences might that energy loss have? In a river, perhaps greater silting would occur, or a change in the microorganisms that live in the water, or any number of other microcosmic , unpredicted things that can result in even greater changes, like algea bloom or fish loss. Remember the "butterfly effect".
Regardless of your position on this topic, I am pretty diappointed in the response many have given to the detractors of this program, when many are extending rather practical objections, or are simply questioning the effectiveness of this idea. Isn't science about questioning, about a search for the truth, rather than a swallowing whole of a shiny new idea because we like it? Counter-arguments are the life blood of inquiry, and should be met with well reasoned rebuttals, not insults and personal attacks.

[TheIndependenceParty]

I agreee that the unanticipated consequences were not considered in the past by and large, not because they could not have been in many cases, but becasue the marketplace tended to question the skeptics and their concerns.

We certainly will need energy in the future, but should consider as many sources and aspects as we can that might impact our environment, and the environments from which we extract our energy. We need to review the models carefully in order not to repeat the past. That said, we should wait for the results in Michigan to evaluate this interesting technology.

[darthdarcy]

Having battled Central Hudson in a case back in 1994 here in Ulster County NY I know just how powerful and nefarious these electric companies can be...

I my case they had violated the Public Service Utility Law on by my count 5 counts but without any argument or defense at the very least 3 counts for long term and intentionally without any regard for the harm they had done...

The case went before a judge in Saugerties NY and they had paid him off gotten to him and He too broke the Public service utility law on many counts as well as other legal and even criminal counts and even denied physical evidence and the PSU law itself...

This case had the attention of many at The PSU Commission but also the state Attorney General's office as well...and shortly after this case was squashed the law was rewritten in favor of Central Hudson...so as to codify these abuses in their favor...

I mention this as few of you may know the case that gave Corporations "personhood" was a case involving Central Hudson in Federal Court..maybe a year of two later...

Imagine people here are being gouged with electric bills while we live along side one of America's most powerful rivers The HUDSON...!

[jferguson]

OK, people. It's time to start forgetting about this thing. I've read Parnitsas' paper, tried to find any evidence of peer review.

This project is doomed from the start by the amortization costs of its construction, installation and likely high cost of ongoing maintenance. Parnitsas apparently thinks that maintenance costs will be negligible - but without any references to similar mechanisms in this exposure. There is nothing, yes NOTHING, in his paper addressed to effects of marine growth. There is a single non-committal reference to corrosion. The only peer-review comment I could find raised these questions.

This proposal, despite all the conjecture in this thread, is not a political issue and is not likely to be the victim of an oil-company conspiracy.

Sure, it would work, and likely work well. It has to be cost competitive with other generation schemes with similar ecological benefits. It seems likely to fail the test of cost of maintenance of complex machinery in seawater environment. There are just too many parts.

And one other things about how innocent we all may be about the ecological impact of tide and current machines. These things work by slowing down the flow of tides and currents. If there was a lot of this, what impact could it have on the rotation of the earth?

Remember, people. The reason that so many solutions look so great to you is because you don't really understand the problem.

[pentagonbomber]

I agree, you don't understand the problem or the solutions.

[KillTheMessenger]

He understands it way better than you.

[SomaMinneapolis]

You wrote:
"And one other things about how innocent we all may be about the ecological impact of tide and current machines. These things work by slowing down the flow of tides and currents. If there was a lot of this, what impact could it have on the rotation of the earth?"

A current figure for world hydro power usage is 24% of the the world's electricity:

http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Ge-Hy/Hydroelectric-Power.html

I think if their was a significant effect on the earth's rotation by damming rivers which effect tides we would see something by now.

[jferguson]

"I think if their was a significant effect on the earth's rotation by damming rivers which effect tides we would see something by now."

Agreed that this might have been a bit silly, on the other hand, I question what effect damming rivers has on tides except in estuaries, and maybe not there either. I think you need to look for conditions where tidal flow has been changed by construction. Also,you mention "significant" change. Maybe again being a bit silly, being undetectable doesn't necessarily mean insignificant in effect. Lastly, out and out tide and current machines would have to have direct effect on tides even though it would be miniscule except maybe in aggregate.

[Doofus]

Hydro-power is essentially 'solar power', based on the processes
that produce rainfall. It has nothing to do with tidal effects. The
proposed scheme has nothing to do with tidal effects either,
necessarily, but is also coupled to the same solar power as
hydro. It would presumably also work with tidal currents though.
Which in some ways may also have to do, ultimately, with solar
& geo-thermal energy. It is said, that *all* power ultimately is
derived from solar sources, except maybe nuclear. Arguably,
since fissionable material is most definitely 'star stuff'.

[InspiredByTruth]

The problem with jferguson's post can be summed up with by his comment "These things work by slowing down the flow of tides and currents. If there was a lot of this, what impact could it have on the rotation of the earth?" This comment is beyond ridiculous and I strongly doubt it came from ANY peer review.

These devices DO NOT work by slowing the tide and current, but by utilizing the latent energy in tides and currents. Putting a cylinder in a tube with a spring and mechanism to capture the mechanical energy is very simple (and CHEAP) in terms of construction. This can all be done with commonly available materials and as a result this tech is very cost-competitive with solar, wind, and nuclear power.

[KillTheMessenger]

"These devices DO NOT work by slowing the tide and current"

Where do you think the energy comes from if you do not slow water down? Please apply the law of energy conservation. What exactly do you refer to by "latent energy"?

Your account for the simplicity of the design is naive and simply recounts the inventors exuberant optimism that does nothing to address the reality of the cost.

[KillTheMessenger]

There can be no impact on the rotation of the Earth because of two reasons:

1) The total angular momentum of the planet is completely unchanged by all processes which do not involve another solar system body. This is a trivial application of angular momentum conservation.

2) All changes in the mass distribution of the planet which involve known human technologies are small compared to natural phenomena like the melting of ice caps (even though they may be induced by AGW).

All your other criticisms are very valid.

[jferguson]

Thank you K the messenger. Now that you've explained it, i can see you are right. It's funny that this was actually a concern during the pondering over the Pasamaquoddy tide machine project. thanks again for showing that this was a spurious concern.

[jferguson]

Hold on a minute, K the Messenger. Your item one ignores the effect of mass transfer radially outward in a rotating body. Were there to be such a transfer, wouldn't the rate of rotation decrease?

knowing that this is completely nuts, it still seems possible that interfering with tidal water flow could have that effect although clearly it would be transitory. I agree with your second point although I think it never hurts to ask. Clearly, the Professor's devices would have very very little impact in this area.

regards, jf