Finally, it seems, the realization of potential catastrophic consequences of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases effects on to the climate, the World is awakening to alternative solutions of energy transformation. An interesting piece was broad casted yesterday at NPR.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16713781

Morning Edition (http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=3), December 3, 2007 · In Washington recently, Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne made an announcement that clears the way for a new and largely untapped renewable energy resource — the oceans.
He announced regulations that would "guide the use of wind, wave and current resources on the 1.8 billion acres of Outer Continental Shelf on the coasts of the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coast."
In South Florida, researchers are already working to harness the power of one of the ocean's most energy-dense currents — the Gulf Stream.
The Center of Excellence in Ocean Energy Technology is only a little more than a year old, but it's in a great location. It's just off the beach and, as director Rick Driscoll points out on a map, it is just 15 miles from the Gulf Stream.
"This is actually the closest location of any place on the planet of a major ocean current by a load center that needs the power now," he says. "We have no place to build power plants and yet we're growing. Florida is growing by a thousand people a day."
8 Billion Gallons Per Minute
Driscoll's answer: underwater turbines moored in the heart of the Gulf Stream. He believes that ultimately, the current — which flows at 8 billion gallons per minute — could yield as much energy as several nuclear plants, providing one-third of Florida's power.
Florida Atlantic University established the center last year for one purpose: to explore ways to tap the ocean's potential as a renewable energy resource. It was started with a $5 million grant from the state of Florida.
Inside, the center's offices and workshop area share a common space. Desks and cubicles sit alongside scientific equipment, giant floats, and what looks like a large propeller. It's 10 feet in diameter, but as turbine rotors go, that's actually quite small, Driscoll says.
The full-sized turbines will be much larger — with rotors 100 feet in diameter.
This rotor is for the small prototype Driscoll and his team are building. Pieces of it — the generator, pressure tank and housing — are laid out on the floor. It's nearly ready for testing.
The 'Cuisinart Effect'
Driscoll eventually envisions a field of turbines moored 1,000 feet below the surface, just off the Florida coast in the heart of the Gulf Stream. Dozens of energy companies are developing plans to harness the Gulf Stream, he says. The researchers at the Center of Excellence in Ocean Energy Technology are studying the best ways to do it and looking for possible negative consequences.
"Some of the worst-case things we can see is what people have coined the 'Cuisinart effect' in which fish come through and get chopped up," Driscoll says. "The bait would then attract more fish and you've got a sustaining Cuisinart effect. We don't think that's going to happen, but it's a possibility, and we need to monitor it."
Driscoll says his team is also looking to see what effect the turbines could possibly have on the power and flow of the Gulf Stream. He cites hydrographic data reassuringly, and says it looks unlikely that it will have much of an impact. And even the most optimistic researchers don't hope to extract more than one-third of the Gulf Stream's total energy.
A few steps outside, welders are working on one of the most massive parts of the Gulf Stream turbine. It's a huge steel buoy that, as project director Gabriel Alsenas points out, is shaped like a ship so it remains stable in the current.
The buoy is part of a system — tethered to a 30,000-pound anchor — that Alsenas says will hold the prototype turbine right in the heart of the Gulf Stream. The turbine will be about 30 feet under water, spinning approximately 60 revolutions per minute, he says.
"This gives us a great exercise in figuring out exactly what effects the ocean's going to have on it and what effect this is going to have on the ocean and its environment," Alsenas says.
Other Potential Uses
Weather and federal regulations permitting, researchers hope to begin testing their prototype turbine in January or February. If all goes well, they eventually will develop a full-sized turbine and maintain an area in the Gulf Stream that will be used as a test field.
For Driscoll, the center director, this project is just the beginning of an industry that he believes has great potential not just for Florida, but for the world. Elsewhere, some energy companies have already begun to explore the use of tidal currents as a power source.
Driscoll says his center is beginning to study an even more powerful potential energy source — the large reservoir of cold water deep in the oceans. One obvious use would be to use the cold water in air conditioning.
But there's even greater potential he says, in using the temperature difference between the cold bottom water and the warm surface water to generate electricity.
"That ocean thermal resource is probably the largest renewable energy source available anywhere," he says.
Driscoll says that by investing in ocean energy technology, Florida will do more than just fill its power needs. It will create jobs and make the state a leader in an emerging industry.

I listened to this story on NPR last night, too. Makes interesting science but it'll never happen. Not because I'm a 'flat earther', but because there's no collective will..........:notme:

There are a lot of sea water based systems out there, planned and existing.

Example, Tidal Power (http://www.pugetsoundtidalpower.com/Technology/Turbines.htm) (also see Tidal_power).

And bouy power systems (http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/).

As oil goes away, there won't be any choice other than to tap diverse energy resources.

As oil goes away, there won't be any choice other than to tap diverse energy resources.With massive concern over climate change and the geopolitics of oil getting dirtier and smellier by the day, popular opinion will drive change. Not mentioning the fact that the US$100/barrel threshold will make other energy sources cost effective or attractive.

Call it popular opinion if you like, but it boils down to economics as the driving factor.

I've been talking this for years in my EMS training.

Another major obstacle to overcome are environmentalists with both anti-wind and anti-tidal motion generation agendas. They want to hug a tree and use less oil at the same time, but lets not hurt birds or fish or make unsightly windmills .

Another major obstacle to overcome are environmentalists with both anti-wind and anti-tidal motion generation agendas. They want to hug a tree and use less oil at the same time, but lets not hurt birds or fish or make unsightly windmills. That's a bit of a stretch. As I look around the world, environmentalists have had minor impact vs. damage caused by businesses over the years from poisoned rivers to poisoned cities to destruction of the South American rain forests. As global warming and its potential effects are becoming more evident (whether man-made or natural), environmentalism is only starting to make headway as a significant factor in peoples minds on a large scale.

And environmentalists are a minor aspect compared to economics. Not to mention some environmental aspects should be considered, in my opinion.

There are a lot of wind farms, for example. Environmentalists aren't putting a dent in wind farm developments. Heck, for US$10K you can buy a small wind turbine to put one on your property (not counting where local ordinances prohibit them). I looked into them, but there is no doubt in my mind the city wouldn't allow me to put one up even if I wanted to.

More than environmentalists trying to save birds, suitable locations and cost have been the factors restricting wind farm developments.

I might also add that "unsightly windmills" are not an environmentalist issue. The "unsightly windmills" aspect is mainly people who own very expensive land and don't want their 'view' changed/blocked (completely unrelated to environmental issues). They don't care about birds or fish - They care about what they see when they look out of their window or sit on their balcony or porch. Those are the people who prohibit wind farms more so than environmentalists. They have the money to spend to ensure 'appropriate' legislation is passed to keep such 'unsightly' things out of their view.

I still think solar energy is the cleanest.... the sun is always there and shinning !

Ethanol is an alternative to gasoline, here in Brazil I think about 90% of the cars are manufactured to be able to run on either ethanol or gasoline or any mixture of the two. It´s a cleaner burn, more HP but a little less on the mileage... our ethanol is from sugar cane, which is slowly taking over the pastures used for beef.

There are a lot of sea water based systems out there, planned and existing.

Example, Tidal Power (http://www.pugetsoundtidalpower.com/Technology/Turbines.htm) (also see Tidal_power).

And bouy power systems (http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/).

As oil goes away, there won't be any choice other than to tap diverse energy resources.

There seems to be a recent resurgence in proposing nuclear power. This would make the electric/hybrid gas-electric car more attractive, since conventional electric powered vehicles simply move the pollution up the supply chain.

The whole off shore sea current generation idea seems fraught with problems. Sure it's relatively easy to make a mega-turbine to dangle in the gulf stream, but what about connecting it to the supply grid? Undersea? What about safety and protection against terrorist attacks? They seem to me to be more vulnerable in that respect than land based supplies.

My thoughts are that wind power is the way to go. There are plenty of windy places where only a few people might complain about the view! I wouldn't mind seeing them out of my window, especially if the view is the only environmental impact!

I think there is not just one way to go, but every possibility for natural renewable energy sources must be reviewed locally(see Iceland with geothermal and hydro power, Spain exploring possibilities of harvesting sun light,...). Some areas are prone for wind, others water and again others sun. For example in northern Germany, where the landscape is flat there are a lot of windmills, but people start complaining about the loss of value of the area for vacationers as well as they complain about the flapping noise.
In some areas there might be the possibility to generate more power than needed, but how do we get it to where it is used, because thats where there is usually not enough space to harvest enough power due to development? Power grid would have high losses over long distances? Hydrogen?
One thing that I think is not yet addressed sufficiently is energy supply when there is no wind, sun or current. Do we substitute with fossil or nuclear power? Or are we going to live like in Baghdad with a couple of hours of power each day? I guess that won't do.

And of course most important is conservation in order to get along with renewable energy.

What I find positive :applause: is that it seems ecological thinking becomes more mainstream in the last year since the global warming discussion has moved into the spotlight. So finally I am not a freak anymore for walking for transportation purpose and not just excersise, reducing the amount of lights used in my house (all energy saver), buying local as good as I can and try to avoid the plastic bags, driving a car that gets more than 25 miles per gallon, collect rain water for irrigation, barely fertilize my lawn and leave the clippings, drink water from the faucet instead of bottled, opt out of mass mailing lists, program my thermostat according to my families actual needs,.....

Just my :2cents:

Joachim

I might also add that "unsightly windmills" are not an environmentalist issue. The "unsightly windmills" aspect is mainly people who own very expensive land and don't want their 'view' changed/blocked (completely unrelated to environmental issues). They don't care about birds or fish - They care about what they see when they look out of their window or sit on their balcony or porch. Those are the people who prohibit wind farms more so than environmentalists. They have the money to spend to ensure 'appropriate' legislation is passed to keep such 'unsightly' things out of their view.

I don't want to get into a debate about the "data" in the global warming controversy, but I do agree that it makes sense to be as environmentally neutral as possible (remember I am an avid hunter and fisherman). That said, one of the reasons why we do not have more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is that the Florida powers are worried that the sight of drilling platforms visible from the beaches would drive the tourists away, even if you would have to be >20 stories up to see them. My point is that the same protestations are likely to appear about turbines, bouys, kites, windmills, or anything else that would be visible above the waterline.

There was a show on Discovery yesterday about an awesome offshore race boat that is powered by 2 helicopter turbine engines. The boat was wicked fast, but salt water gave the engines some very expensive problems.

The problem with many of the energy alternatives is that they are going to be several years to develop and implement. Oil is going to continue to be the mainstay for the forseeable future. In my opinion, nuclear is the most proven alternative we have for large-scale energy production, but it is going to be many years until even the recently-applied for plant is up and running.

Ethanol may or may not grow to have an impact. Ted, in Brazil are there major problems with water contaminating ethanol? I have heard that it can be a factor.

When I was on the debate team in high school (ok here come the geek jokes) the topic my senior year was national energy policy. The stock case and plan that year that eventually appeared to be the one the data supported the most as far as cost, environmental impact (usually expressed as number of deaths caused by pollution), and feasability was known as "kill coal, go nukes". In other words, stop burning coal and build light water breeder reactors. This was in 1978-9.

We're still talking....

but lets not hurt birds or fishIsn't that the essence of protecting the environment? There will always be extremists in all aspects of life. We will always have the yes-I-am-for-windmills-but-not-in-my-backyard types. But undoubdetly, the energy matrix of the future should be much more diversified than the current one, and much emphasis put on "clean", renewable sources.

I agree with Sidney, why not have a mix of hydrogen, electric, and biofuel for cars, along with wind, water, and solar for the grid (I left out nuclear because its recyclible but not renewable). In the U.S. I believe that a large obstacle to this are lobbyists for large organizations that donate to candidates to persuade them toward sub-optimal interests. It will take the market forces to drive change. Unfortunately large oil companies are smart enough to allow prices to flectuate enough that oil prices come down just to where the markets will bear it. There's over a trillion dollars left to be made on oil and the companies are already entrenched globally in many countries political systems. I can only cheer for the underdogs!

Marc mentioned personal turbines for homes, does anyone know of any good sites for home electricity producing energy alternatives?

Marc mentioned personal turbines for homes, does anyone know of any good sites for home electricity producing energy alternatives?

I read this article about Jay Leno and his turbine (http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/4216780.html). On the bottom of the page are some links and comments with regards to your question. Maybe it helps.

Joachim

Isn't that the essence of protecting the environment? There will always be extremists in all aspects of life. We will always have the yes-I-am-for-windmills-but-not-in-my-backyard types. But undoubdetly, the energy matrix of the future should be much more diversified than the current one, and much emphasis put on "clean", renewable sources.


Sid....Here I have been in the choir for years and you're preaching to me.

Marc, I've seen windmill farms shut down after raptors (Hawks, Owls and others) or other birds have been found wanked by blades. The right mouthpiece (lawyer) and liberal court can shut down anything if our friends may be endangered....kinda like holding up building overpasses on I-15 for years because of the 4-toed Kangaroo Rat to keep thenm from getting disturbed (but you could turn them into skimmers all day if they got hit on the highway).

The larger windmills (300+ footers) will have slower turning blades enableing them to produce more electricity (DC that is turned into AC)) that will generate less noise and reduce the potential for bird strikes, but they do have a high cost and take up a lot of space.

The verticle blade mills (they look like spirals) can take up less space, but from what I've been told they need to be a bit larger than the standard mills in height to offset differences in performance...I may be wrong here.

There are a lot of wind farms, for example. Environmentalists aren't putting a dent in wind farm developments.

More than environmentalists trying to save birds, suitable locations and cost have been the factors restricting wind farm developments.

I might also add that "unsightly windmills" are not an environmentalist issue. The green movement has put quite a dent in wind farm development in California; arguably one of the best places due to local conditions and local power demand. Despite that facts that windmills kill far fewer birds that housecats.

Now you are talking. Low impact installation and operation of wind farms is cost prohibitive in most cases.

Unsightly windmills are indeed not an environmental issue. They are a land rights issue. Just as most folks don't want a nuke plant in their backyard, most folks don't want a wind farm, either. However, it's far easier to sight a single nuclear plant and generate 7.5 billion kilowatt-hours per year than it is to site the 750,000 square kilometers worth of windmills required to generate an equivalent amount (assuming 100% power production 100% of the time).I still think solar energy is the cleanest.... the sun is always there and shinning !You are only looking at the end result. The large scale production of electricity producing solar panels is a very dirty business with regard to energy usage and hazardous material generation. We must look at the whole cycle when pursuing alternative energy sources. Hydrogen fueled cars are even dirtier than gasoline vehicles if you combine the coal fired electricity used to generate the hydrogen and add in the inefficiencies of each energy transfer system in the cycle.There seems to be a recent resurgence in proposing nuclear power. This would make the electric/hybrid gas-electric car more attractive, since conventional electric powered vehicles simply move the pollution up the supply chain.

My thoughts are that wind power is the way to go. There are plenty of windy places where only a few people might complain about the view! I wouldn't mind seeing them out of my window, especially if the view is the only environmental impact!We definitely need to review nuclear power. Considering technology advances in the last 30 years, a next generation nuke plant should be the cheapest and cleanest way, overall, to generate a significant offset to fossil fuel, IMO.

Your view would change (pun intended), if you had to look at 200+ windmills with huge flashing red lights right out your front door. In addition, the installation of these huge things is problematic in most of the places where the wind will support them. The environmental impact is not insignificant when you see the roadway infrastructure to truck in the site preparation rigs (drilling) and the huge trucks that transport the components.Marc, I've seen windmill farms shut down after raptors (Hawks, Owls and others) or other birds have been found wanked by blades.

The larger windmills (300+ footers) will have slower turning blades enabling them to produce more electricity (DC that is turned into AC)) that will generate less noise and reduce the potential for bird strikes, but they do have a high cost and take up a lot of space.Thanks for the points to support.

Science fiction consideration: Supposing we erect wind farms, solar farms and water power generation to the point that we satisfy the every growing terrestrial energy demands without burning fossil fuels or creating nuclear waste. Could not siphoning off 1,000s of terawatts of solar energy lower global temperatures? What happens to weather patterns if we remove 1,000s of terawatts of wind energy? What if that shiny new 1 TW Gulf Stream plant slows down the normal Atlantic patterns and dramatically alters the weather in Europe, for the worse? If we are going to concede that the human race is causing global warming, we must use this knowledge to make sure that the cure isn't worse than the disease.

Friends,

In my Motherland, we've been harnessing wind power for hundreds of years.
No environmentalist ever complained.

See this link (http://members.tripod.com/~KATSPANJE/windmills.html).

Stijloor.

There is cost associated with energy production. It's a simple, undeniable fact of life. What's needed is to separate the politics from the science as much as possible. The raison d'être for most politicians is polarization of the electorate. Individuals need to familiarize themselves with the relevant science to the extent necessary to make rational decisions and avoid knee-jerking. In any socially significant subject there will be radicals on both ends of the spectrum, and whining about them doesn't help anything. The question is about what we're willing to sacrifice in order to maintain a certain standard of living, because sacrifices must be made. Maybe some birds, or pleasing landscapes, or something on a more personal level, such as limited consumption, but there ain't no free lunch when it comes to producing energy.

We must look at the whole cycle when pursuing alternative energy sources. Hydrogen fueled cars are even dirtier than gasoline vehicles if you combine the coal fired electricity used to generate the hydrogen and add in the inefficiencies of each energy transfer system in the cycle.

YES! One of the things that has me wary of ethanol, at least in the US, is the energy cost of production. Lets look at corn-based ethanol ( a subject near and dear to my heart, but I digress).

First, you plow the land. Then you fertalize the land (remember the energy used to make the fertalizer). Then you plant the land. Then, for corn, you need to apply nitrogen (energy used to produce that, too). Then you have to harvest the land. So far we have been over the land at least 5 times, assuming just one application of nitrogen, and we have used energy to produce the fertalizer and nitrogen, as well as invested in the transportation to get these materials to the farm.

So far, all we have is corn, located at the farm. We still have to get the corn to the still, ferment the corn and distill the alcohol. Then we have to distribute the alcohol.

I have read some articles that say we get more energy back than we invest, and some that say the opposite. To me, when the environmental impact on our land and water is considered, I think we need to look at other alternatives. IMHO, the best method that uses existing technology is kill coal, go nukes, and give me one of those 150 mph electric cars.

YES! One of the things that has me wary of ethanol, at least in the US, is the energy cost of production. Lets look at corn-based ethanol ( a subject near and dear to my heart, but I digress).

First, you plow the land. Then you fertalize the land (remember the energy used to make the fertalizer). Then you plant the land. Then, for corn, you need to apply nitrogen (energy used to produce that, too). Then you have to harvest the land. So far we have been over the land at least 5 times, assuming just one application of nitrogen, and we have used energy to produce the fertalizer and nitrogen, as well as invested in the transportation to get these materials to the farm.

So far, all we have is corn, located at the farm. We still have to get the corn to the still, ferment the corn and distill the alcohol. Then we have to distribute the alcohol.

I have read some articles that say we get more energy than invest, and some that say the opposite. To me, when the environmental impact on our land and water is considered, I think we need to look at other alternatives. IMHO, the best method that uses existing technology is kill coal, go nukes, and give me one of those 150 mph electric cars.

Ethanol is at best a stop-gap measure, and certainly not a panacea. For a reasonably objective overview of the costs incurred, look here (http://www.frostfireseeds.com/the-ethanol-effect-why-corn-based-fuel-isnt-our-miracle-cure-for-oil-dependency).

NOTE: As a 'quality' person, I believe in statistics rather than anecdotal 'evidence' or isolated incidents before I commit to an opinion and action.

I read this article about Jay Leno and his turbine (http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/4216780.html). On the bottom of the page are some links and comments with regards to your question. Maybe it helps. Nice! That type of turbine would probably pass a lot of local zoning laws. A big tower with long blades are a No No in many cities and towns in the US, as are BUGs (Big Ugly Satellite dishes).

Marc, I've seen windmill farms shut down after raptors (Hawks, Owls and others) or other birds have been found wanked by blades. The right mouthpiece (lawyer) and liberal court can shut down anything if our friends may be endangered....kinda like holding up building overpasses on I-15 for years because of the 4-toed Kangaroo Rat to keep thenm from getting disturbed (but you could turn them into skimmers all day if they got hit on the highway). These are isolated incidents. I would bet that the majority of highway overpasses built in the US aren't held up because of 4-toed Kangaroo Rats or other species. I also believe that the majority of the wind turbines out there haven't been shut down because of birds. We can all pick isolated examples and try to ascribe them to describe the 'norm', but it's a false straw man. To evaluate whether these are problems or not we need the statistics. For example, are 5% of all wind turbines built shut down because of birds? Maybe 1%? Maybe 0.1%? Another example - How many overpasses, bridges, etc are built each year vs. the number which were not built because of environmental lawsuits? Without those numbers, we're all simply guessing.

As to 'liberal' courts, I take exception. Unless you can cite statistics you might better just say "courts". What is the definition of a 'liberal' court? What is the definition of a 'conservative' court? How do you know 'conservative' courts won't rule for protecting the 4-toed Kangaroo Rats? My opinion is you really just want to get in a jab at liberals here, and to try to assign a negative label to liberals.

As to "The right mouthpiece (lawyer)", companies and communities have them, too, not just 'tree huggers', so what's the point in bringing that into it? There are lawyers on both sides. Exxon has good lawyers. They still haven't paid for the Alaska spill from how many years ago. Obviously in that case Exxon has better lawyers than the environmentalists (not to mention the State of Alaska, etc), which I suspect is more often the case because big companies can, and do, pay for very good lawyers.

The green movement has put quite a dent in wind farm development in California; arguably one of the best places due to local conditions and local power demand. Despite that facts that windmills kill far fewer birds that housecats. I've read that, but I can't cite any statistics as to how many wind turbines have actually been shut down, or not built, in California because of environmentalist lawsuits or other environmentalist actions vs. Total built. Is this in ALL of California, or just in a few specific areas? With no statistics I can't know if the effect is significant or not.

In all this, one thing I see a lot is where something happens at one place (such as the 4-toed Kangaroo Rat and over-pass cited above) and is reported in the news. From that the perception is spread that this is 'commonly happening' as the opposing side spins the story for their side when in fact it's a relatively rare occurrence. Without statistics we can't do anything but guess and opine.

In my Motherland, we've been harnassing wind power for hundreds of years.Those are nice. They differ dramatically from 240 of these babies - http://elsmar.com/jpg/wind_turbine.jpg surrounding your property. My brother-in-law cannot look out any window in his new house without "viewing" a couple dozen. Personally, at the current land lease rates (or the 5.4 MW-hour per year generation), I wouldn't mind one in my backyard. Of course, like Marc's neighbors, mine would probably be a little upset.There is cost associated with energy production. It's a simple, undeniable fact of life. What's needed is to separate the politics from the science as much as possible...but there ain't no free lunch when it comes to producing energy.Exactly. Well said.IMHO, the best method that uses existing technology is kill coal, go nukes, and give me one of those 150 mph electric cars.We agree on something besides a lack of excitement for LSU football.NOTE: As a 'quality' person, I believe in statistics rather than anecdotal 'evidence' or isolated incidents before I commit to an opinion and action...Without statistics we can't do anything but guess and opine.Marc, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, it often takes an eye-opening anecdote to get the attention of the ignorant (and by that I mean the poorly informed). Also, unfortunately, most of us don't have the research time to become fully informed on an issue. For example, see if you can determine the relative cost benefit from the entire cycle for generating electricity via coal vs. fission over the last 50 years. [My opinion warning] I'd bet that coal is a big loser per megawatt, but nukes get the Three-Mile Island press and it's all over.

It rankles me when someone spouts off "whale-blubber lighting is the answer! (or solar, or hydrogen, or nukes)" without considering all of the ramifications. Some are frightened of the ramifications in excess of the actual danger or unconcerned with the ramifications far below the actual danger.

There was a show on Discovery yesterday about an awesome offshore race boat that is powered by 2 helicopter turbine engines. The boat was wicked fast, but salt water gave the engines some very expensive problems.


:topic:They could minimize the problems and expense if they'd flush the engines after their runs. It's an issue of preventive maintenance.

I have years of hands on with those exact engines...been there, done that.

Those are nice. They differ dramatically from 240 of these babies surrounding your property.

Those look nice too! Can't live in 'm though....:D And no tulips around....

Stijloor.

The UK government has announced an ambitious plan to expand the existing offshore wind turbine farms (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7135299.stm), which are already extensive, to an estimated 7,000 units — two per mile of coastline — enough to generate 20% of the UK's power needs by 2020. The newly green-friendly Conservative opposition party is also backing the scheme. Wonder what they'll make of it in Oregon (http://eecs.oregonstate.edu/wesrf/projects/images/waveenergy-nonumbers.jpg)...

Post by RLewing split off to: Competent Registrar for Major Electrical Components for Wind Turbine Manufacturer (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=28388)

http://www.dnv.com/resources/publications/dnv_forum/2008/forum_3-2008/Impressivetowers.asp

Towering 65 meters above water with a rotor diameter of 80 meters, StatoilHydro’s planned Hywind offshore floating wind turbine – the first ever of its kind – will be impressive in size.
http://www.dnv.com/binaries/Impressive-towers-181-2l_tcm4-343023.jpg
But few people will ever get the chance to admire it in its working life, as it will be towed to a location in the North Sea, 10 km from Karmøy. That is the whole point.
Since so much resistance to wind power has centred on concerns about aesthetics, the need for space and potential environmental concerns, much hope rests on the Hywind project, in which many of these issues are mitigated. There are a declining number of onshore and shallow-water sites available. In addition, there are some areas that have very limited or no shallow shelves to use, such as California, Japan and Norway.
The questions remaining are, ‘Can it be done?’ and more specifically, ‘At what cost?’
That remains to be found out, as the wind turbine is scheduled to run for a two-year trial period.
Worldwide interest
Ms Lycke believes that floating wind turbines can one day be an important source of cost-efficient renewable energy – with parks full of 100 meter tall turbines in oceans across the globe.
“We’ve had a lot of people calling us about the possibility of future offshore wind turbine parks in their countries,” says Ms Lycke.
A delegation from StatoilHydro recently accompanied the king of Norway on an official visit to Portugal, and learned about the innovative Portuguese programmes to support offshore wind development.
“We think this will be a new icon, symbolising our company’s technology, innovation and ability to look in new directions. It is opening up a whole new business area in the world,” she says of the NOK 400 million project. ”It’s easy for us to find partners – and that’s always a good sign”.

The power platform uses a floating structure known from the oil and gas industry, a technology that StatoilHydro has years of experience with secured with three anchors in waters from 100 to 700 meters deep. The sites available for offshore wind parks are thereby multiplied. Although the platform is full size, engineers have settled for a relatively small, conventional turbine.
“We want to test the concept, so we’re using a 2.3 MW Siemens turbine. It’s one
of the world’s most tested turbines, so we’re sure it will work properly,” says Ms Lycke.

A smaller scale model has been tested in a water tank at Marintek in Trondheim. Technip will deliver the sub surface floating element, and Nexans will lay the subsea cable to land. Engineers will be able to control the turbine remotely, adjusting the angle of the rotors in relation to wind and waves. All of the data will be recorded and used in the two-year research project. The electricity generated will be delivered to Haugaland Kraft.

“The interaction between the wind and waves will be exciting to see,” says Ms Lycke. “If it is as successful as we think it will be, there will be no reason why we shouldn’t decide to let it continue to produce electricity after two years have passed.”

The turbine is designed to have a lifespan of 25 years, but already StatoilHydro
is working with partners – among others, DNV – to see how the original design life can be extended.
StatoilHydro already operates an Arctic land-based wind turbine park at Havøy­gavlen in Finnmark, northern Norway, the world’s northernmost wind turbine park. The experience of operating the park for the past six years in harsh weather conditions, including extreme temperatures, has been invaluable. Havøygavlen is jointly owned with the Dutch company Nuon.

The European Union has stated that 20% of its energy should come from renewable sources by 2020. Ms Lycke thinks this will be a challenge. But some European countries, such as the UK, are investing large resources into making this happen. The UK is about to go ahead with a third licensing round for offshore fixed wind turbines, and StatoilHydro is intending to make a bid.
Political goodwill
Before offshore wind energy can really get going, politicians have to make some key decisions.
“There’s a lot of political goodwill in Norway for wind energy, and that’s important. The previous petroleum and energy minister did a good job of promoting Norway, and focusing on the possibilities for becoming a big exporter of renewable energy. But to develop offshore wind you need laws and regulations for it that we don’t have now. We have also asked for a licensing system similar to that used for the oil and gas industry, which would solve some of the usage conflicts,” she says.
The power generated from offshore wind turbines will be more expensive to produce than the current market price.

Ms Lycke expects that state subsidies will be needed to support the greener energy, but how much remains to be seen. If wind parks are built in four North Sea blocks, she says, the energy generated will equal the production from the Ormen Lange field, which produces 22 BCM. That is equal to 20% of the UK’s natural gas consumption. Hydro had 10 years of experience with wind energy before the merger with Statoil.
“Wind energy has really been supported in the new company,” says Ms Lycke. “There’s a real focus on technology and innovation here, and this fits in very well. The combination of Statoil and Hydro has made us stronger in renewable energy. We have a broader portfolio and a more pronounced focus on technology. Our main focus areas are CO2 management, renewable power production and sustainable biofuel.”
StatoilHydro takes part in a wave energy project where three floating test devices off the coast of Portugal use pressure from wave movements to generate electricity. Also, an underwater turbine that harvests tidal energy has been running in Finnmark, north of Norway for five years with good results – owned by Hammerfest Strøm AS where StatoilHydro is main shareholder.
“Commercially, that’s very interesting, since the tide is moving all the time. It’s
a lot easier to sell into the electricity grid, when it’s a stable production,” says Ms Lycke.

How Hywind began
Hywind is a new concept for producing wind power offshore in deep waters. Hydro’s Dag Christensen got the idea when observing a buoy during a sailing regatta in 2001. “If we make that 100 meters tall instead of four, then we could have a windmill tower,” he thought to himself. He discussed the idea with his colleague Knut Solberg, and they drew a sketch on a serviette. He realised that Norway could be a major producer of wind power after calculating that one windmill per km2 in an area of the North Sea of 70 km by 70 km would double the nation’s electricity production. Since 2001 the project has been through various research phases. StatoilHydro announced earlier this year that it will build the world’s first full-scale floating windmill, to be installed in the North Sea outside of Karmøy in the autumn of 2009.

We are having quite a debate going over here in in Scandinavia and Germany too, about where, or rather where not to put up windmills. Safety has turned up as a factor to be considered, and this is one example of why:

tcrO4USqRfo

This is probably the worst breakdown I have seen but in several instances blades have been thrown quite far from the plant.

/Claes

Please note that this failure mode is normally deterred by speed sensors that shut down the turbine when wind speeds are over the safe limit and turn the rotor away from the wind pressure. When I did some work with wind turbines 16 years ago, they had that type of protection already.

The posted video probably shows a unit where the safety devices failed. But, I am sure this is a very rare occurrence. It should give people no second thoughts about this technology.

Friends,

The Dutch do not have any problems with them...for hundreds of years.:agree1:

CEAlvbxpnzc

Stijloor.

http://www.next100.com/2009/04/space-solar-power-the-next-fro.php


Space Solar Power: The Next Frontier?

As part of PG&E's commitment to providing more renewable energy to its customers, the utility has supported a wide range of technologies, including wind, geothermal, biomass, wave and tidal, and at least a half dozen types of solar thermal and photovoltaic power.
Now PG&E is extending that approach to tap renewable energy at an entirely new level: solar power in space.
PG&E is seeking approval from state regulators for a power purchase agreement with Solaren Corp., a Southern California company that has contracted to deliver 200 megawatts of clean, renewable power over a 15 year period.
Solaren says it plans to generate the power using solar panels in earth orbit, then convert it to radio frequency energy for transmission to a receiving station in Fresno County. From there, the energy will be converted to electricity and fed into PG&E's power grid. (See interview with Solaren CEO Gary Spirnak.)

http://www.next100.com/Space%20Solar%20disk-thumb-300x195.jpgWhy would anyone choose so challenging a locale to generate electricity? For one, the solar energy available in space is eight-to-ten times greater than on earth. There's no atmospheric or cloud interference, no loss of sun at night, and no seasons. That means space solar can be a baseload resource (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite), not an intermittent source of power.
In addition, real estate in space is still free (if hard to reach). Solaren needs to acquire land only for an energy receiving station. It can locate the station near existing transmission lines, greatly reducing delays that face some renewable power projects sited far from existing facilities.
While the concept of space solar power makes sense, making it all work at an affordable cost is a major challenge, which Solaren says it can solve.
Solaren's team includes satellite engineers and scientists, primarily from the U.S. Air Force and Hughes Aircraft Company, with decades of experience in the space industry. Its CEO, Gary Spirnak, was a spacecraft project engineer in the U.S. Air Force and director of advanced digital applications at Boeing Satellite Systems, among other positions.
They also have a long history of research to draw upon. The U.S. Department of Energy and NASA began seriously studying the concept of solar power satellites in the 1970s, followed by a major "fresh look" in the Clinton administration.
In 1997, John C. Mankins, manager of NASA's Advanced Projects Office (http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_fresh_look_at_space_solar_power_new_architectures_concepts_and_technologies.shtml), wrote:
Based on the recently-completed "fresh look" study, space solar power concepts may be ready to reenter the discussion. Certainly, solar power satellites should no longer be envisioned as requiring unimaginably large initial investments in fixed infrastructure before the emplacement of productive power plants can begin. Moreover, space solar power systems appear to possess many significant environmental advantages when compared to alternative approaches to meeting increasing terrestrial demands for energy - including requiring considerably less land area than terrestrially-based solar power systems.
The economic viability of such systems depends, of course, on many factors and the successful development of various new technologies - not least of which is the availability of exceptionally low cost access to space. However, the same can be said of many other advanced power technologies options. Space solar power may well emerge as a serious candidate among the options for meeting the energy demands of the 21st century.
In 2007, a major study by the Defense Department's National Security Space Office (http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm)gave the concept another boost, concluding that "there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship . . and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a SBSP capability."
The study group further declared, "Space-Based Solar Power is more technically executable than ever before and current technological vectors promise to further improve its viability."
So much for the concept. Can Solaren really deliver electricity to PG&E customers by 2016, the year it has contracted to begin commercial operation?
If Solaren succeeds, PG&E's customers have a great opportunity to benefit from affordable clean energy. There is no risk to PG&E customers; PG&E has contracted only to pay for power that Solaren delivers.
Solaren will work with citizen groups and government agencies to support the project's development. Solaren is responsible for getting all the necessary permits and approvals from federal, state and local agencies. Among other things, Solaren will have to prove that its technology satisfies all applicable safety standards, an issue that space power enthusiasts have addressed in detail (http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/pdf/safety_paper.pdf), but is nonetheless sure to be controversial.
From PG&E's perspective, as a supporter of new renewable energy technology, this project is a first-of-a-kind step worth taking. If Solaren succeeds, the world of clean energy will never be the same.