iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dr. Reese Halter

GET UPDATES FROM Dr. Reese Halter
 

Public Willing to Pay More for Green Energies

Posted: 07/24/2012 6:56 pm

Harvard and Yale researchers found that the average U.S. citizen was willing to pay $162 a year more to support a national policy requiring 80 percent 'clean' energies by 2035. Nationwide that would represent a 13 percent increase in electric bills.

Respondents categorically defined 'clean' as not including natural gas or nuclear power energies. Rather they favored solar, wind, geothermal and, in the very near future, ocean wave farms.

Worldwide ocean waves provide up to 2 terawatts of instantaneous electricity (1 terawatt equals 1 trillion watts), which is twice the electricity generating capacity currently consumed on planet Earth.

Imagine this wondrous constant ebb and flow of the ocean or an energy-generating source just waiting to be harnessed. And then think of all the green jobs made in America that ocean wave technologies will support.

Entrepreneurs, engineers, physicists, oceanographers and now eager investors are getting behind some truly innovative technologies that are powering homes, factories, universities and hospitals.

Fathom this: wave technology is reducing greenhouse gases and moving society beyond the climate-altering, deleterious fossil fuels.

Over 50 wave technology companies around the globe are using almost 60 years of experience with deep-sea oil platforms as they hurry to deploy wave farms. There are currently more than half a dozen, wave farms generating electricity in Europe and Australia. And at least another dozen -- much larger farms -- will be operational within 24 months.

As any mariner, deep-sea oil driller, rig worker or boat enthusiast knows, the ocean and its environment are rugged and unforgiving.

Wave farms are being located between one and three miles from the shoreline. Utility companies are examining the sea floor, looking for strong wave climates or big consistent waves packed with power. Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and California have hundreds of such strong wave climates. Already, Newport Beach entrepreneurs behind Green Wave Energy Corp. are testing ocean wave-powered turbines near the Wedge -- a legendary Southern Californian bodysurfer destination.

Today, utility companies in California must source 20 percent of their energy from non-fossil fuel technology, and by 2020 they must increase that stake to 33 percent.

Europe has farms positioned off Portugal and Spain with British and Scottish farms under construction. European Union laws require greenhouse gas reductions by 20 percent, beneath the 1990 levels, by 2020.

In Europe, a number of governments have provided substantial funding for wave technologies; as a result, Britain will be the first nation to have a large-scale wave farm operational, shortly.

Wave machines must be resilient enough to survive monster waves and gale force winds at sea. Farms are either anchored to the ocean floor with heavy chains or locked in place with huge concrete and steel piles.

Human ingenuity has created at least four marvelous variations of machines outfitted with turbines and pistons, all with a common goal of capturing the energy of ocean waves and turning it into green electricity.

Scottish engineer and avid seaman Dr. Richard Yemm designed the Pelamis attenuator. It resembles red floating missiles, and this 492-foot-long tube of hollow steel is hinged in three places.

Unlike all the other wave technologies, seawater never comes into direct contact with its turbines (which spin to create electricity); the attenuator mechanics are housed in a sealed joint. As the attenuator bobs in the sea its hydraulic pistons compress, creating energy.

The Wave Dragon is the brainchild of Dane Erik Friis-Madsen. His inspiration came from observing ocean water as it passed through openings in Pacific atolls -- extinct volcanoes just beneath the ocean surface. This 328 foot-long floating barge has two outstretched concrete and steel wings, which contain damming reservoirs. The Wave Dragon mimics an underwater volcano, as waves are pushed up and over a ramp into a man-made lagoon or reservoir. Captured water drains out, passing through about 18 openings outfitted with turbines that create electricity.

The yellow Aquabuoy point absorber was created by a Swedish team lead by Gunnar Fredrikson. The point absorber has a 13-foot-diameter cylinder that occupies a series of pumps that push seawater up the tube and through the turbine mounted at the top. As the seawater retreats the turbine continues to spin.

The Oscillating water column was invented by Australian Tom Denniss, and at first glance it appears like a device straight out of a Dr. Seuss book.

Denniss built this wave farm to mimic the Kiama Blowhole, a 98-foot tall New South Wales (Australia) geyser that shoots from an opening in the ceiling of a sea cave. As waves enter his man-made steel blowhole through a narrow opening at its submerged base, air is pushed through a hole outfitted with a turbine, which spins under pressure. As the waves recede out of the blowhole air is sucked back in the hole also causing the turbine to spin.

These are very exciting, innovative times with Google's multi-billion investment in offshore northeast wind farms. The ocean wave technology race is well underway for each of these magnificent designs and many others to generate jobs and renewable, green electricity. There are no problems that the fertile human mind cannot overcome.

Earth Dr. Reese Halter is an award-winning broadcaster and distinguished biologist. His latest books are: The Incomparable Honeybee and The Insatiable Bark Beetle.

 

Follow Dr. Reese Halter on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrReeseHalter

FOLLOW GREEN
Harvard and Yale researchers found that the average U.S. citizen was willing to pay $162 a year more to support a national policy requiring 80 percent 'clean' energies by 2035. Nationwide that would r...
Harvard and Yale researchers found that the average U.S. citizen was willing to pay $162 a year more to support a national policy requiring 80 percent 'clean' energies by 2035. Nationwide that would r...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:06 PM on 07/25/2012
They don't have to!! Not if we do this right.

If Big Energy dominates the renewables landscape, killing millions of acres of wilderness, avian life, endangered species, marine life, and emitting TONS of GHGs while being frantically greenwashed by groups they are paying off, then yes, everyone will pay a huge amount more, whether they want to or not. And none of the problems will be solved, and a huge number of new ones will be created. Big Energy is a complete LOSER for the economy and our ecology, just as much with Big Solar as with Big Gas.

In stark contrast, feed in tariffs for LOCAL, democratically owned, clean, non-deadly power, sited in the built environment, not only SAVE everyone in the grid a huge amount of money, but also put most of the money straight into regular peoples' pockets, not into offshore accounts of executives and shareholders getting rich off of socializing the costs of their destruction and privatizing the profits. Property values will shoot upwards (this time because actual VALUE has been added, in the form of efficiency upgrades and rooftop panels), millions of jobs will be created (these are good, long-term jobs, paying well over $20/hour plus benefit), and our open spaces and beloved creatures who inhabit them will no longer be slaughtered for greenwashed energy production.

There is a right way and a wrong way to do "renewables." Big Energy is the problem, they will never be the solution.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linus521
In wildness is the salvation of mankind
05:18 PM on 07/25/2012
I wish any conservationist could witness California's fragile desert ecosystems being torn apart, killing vast species of biodiversity for the "sustainable energies". How can these energies be sustainable when they butcher everything that sustains all life on the Earth? I would like this biologist to visit the windmill factory entombing a desert ecosystem that I recently visited. This plot of the living Earth would be no more life giving and sustaining if a giant oil spill was smothering it. Nothing can be sustained on this system but frenetic, biodiversity slicing swords.

In one desert ecosystem in CA, that supported the largest populations of golden eagles in the USA, was butchered for windmills, and these sustainables are slaughtering multi-thousands of these eagles that sustain all life! In another desert ecosystem being raped for "sustainables", they halted the project in Blythe CA because it was making a protected specie of animal biodiversity very ill.

I guess this conservationist didn't know, eco-science claims man is "suicidal" when he kills ecosystems and biodiversity, so do we kill the Earth and all the reasons man breathes and has water to help the climate or do we listen to those scientists who claim "land use changes are more urgent than climate change."

All ecosystems are integrated, and they all have loops and ties to the very climate and the atmosphere. While they butcher our desert ecosystems for the sustainables, they are weakening all ecosystems and the life zone of Earth, the biosphere/ecosphere.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:46 PM on 07/26/2012
As always, Linus, well said and absolutely correct. Even the totally ignorant can understand that a massive die-off of raptors and bats (inevitable in 100% of Big Wind boondoggles, which produce almost NO power!), and spreading distemper in desert kit foxes (as at Blythe) will lead to an equally massive upsurge in disease vectors (rats, mice, squirrels, mosquitos, etc.), and destructive pests that harm agriculture.

Even the most selfish can understand that means massive increases in largely controlled illnesses like the plague (yep, still carried by squirrels), hantavirus, West Nile, Dengue Fever, Malaria, encephalitis, Yellow Fever, etc.), not to mention the huge spike in prices from reduced agricultural output.

So even if you hate nature, love industrial machinery and want a lifetime of Big Energy domination because you have Stockholm Syndrome, you are STILL crazy to support industrialization of open spaces for Big Energy profits because it will impoverish you and eventually make you, a loved one or a pet ill.

Feed in tariffs for rooftop solar and conservation SAVE money while keeping us safe and keeping the web of life in balance.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tamikenn57
Working for a healthy and safe global environment
07:43 AM on 07/25/2012
The direct cost of clean energy is coming down with more research. Subsidizing the research will provide long term benefits more quickly. And subsidies, green or other, should definitely be profit limited. Why are watching billion dollar profits to the carbon industries still being subsidized or receiving tax breaks. If even some basic true subsidized costs were considered the tar sands process would not be profitable.
12:05 AM on 07/25/2012
Oh yeah, they are willing to spend $162 to "support" a national green policy until they find out that it will double their electric and heatings bills.

These kinds of pieces are disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. They prey upon masses of people with good intentions, but no concept of engineering or economics.

Where green technologies are economically viable, they don't need government prodding or subsidies.
They take off because they save money and have a quick Return On Investment.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Claudio Vazquez
Mountaineering - that's a real sport.
08:18 AM on 07/25/2012
You are being disingenuous on all three points.

He talks about a $162 support in the form of an increase in utility costs. Sure, actual costs could fluctuate as they do with the production of fossil fuels. However, the energy source itself will always be free, unlike the price for fossil fuels that can only go up.

Your second point only amounts to fear mongering in an effort to maintain the status quo. Other countries have already proved that these technologies are not only feasible, but also economically viable.

Thirdly, why shouldn't green technologies receive subsidies? All the other ones do, including big oil which is one of the most profitable industries in the land.