16 ms·
Japan tested a giant turbine that generates electricity using deep ocean current
- pfdietz 4y agoSeawater contains about 3 ppb uranium. Fully fissioned w. breeder reactors, the U in a current going at 1 m/s would yield about 400x the kinetic energy of that water.
- Aeolun 4y agoOnly 400x, that’s not bad.
- koheripbal 4y agoThis assumes a perfect and energy free mechanism to collect the uranium.
- pixl97 4y agoSounds like a good job for Maxwells Daemon.
- arcticbull 4y agoLuckily we're on it. [1] [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/uranium-from-seawater https://spectrum.ieee.org/uranium-from-seawater
- pfdietz 4y agoSince it wasn't talking about cost, it makes no assumption that anything is "free". As for perfection, I was assuming the reader could multiply 400 by whatever number < 1 was the actual efficiency. Unstated was whether the difficulty of running breeder reactors makes this unworkable. It very well might, in practice. I will note that the demonstrated U collection techniques (like polyamidoxime adsorbers) seem quite cheap enough for fueling breeder reactors.
- quantified 4y agoHope those don't create whaleburger or giant squidburger. Which will be out-of-sight-out-of-mind unlike the visible bird deaths aboveground.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jacquesm 4y ago> the visible bird deaths aboveground And which have been vastly exaggerated.
- bayesian_horse 4y agoWhales don't usually run into things except on purpose. And even if they do, they aren't as fragile as birds...
- g42gregory 4y agoThe laws of physics would dictate that this energy would come from somewhere. If enough power is generated, it will significantly alter the ocean flows dynamics. Deep ocean flow currents can very much affect the climate. Did anybody researched that this would be Ok?
- samatman 4y agoThis is like worrying that wind turbines will stop the wind. They won't.
- enchiridion 4y agoNo, it’s asking a question about our knowledge of the scale and power of the devices and forces involved. If it is a analog to wind turbines, the math will bear it out, but it’s a perfectly valid question to ask.
- drieddust 4y agoExactly just a few decades ago CFC was a non issue, Lead caused no harm, smoking was good for health, and cocaine was a refreshing drink. Yet here we are again so full of ourselves that asking the question is unsettling.
- politician 4y agoSo we should keep doing the known harmful power generation methods (coal) instead of experimenting with new methods (deep sea turbines) out of a diffuse fear of the unknown consequences? It’s sad that this is such a common argument against progress. Where do people learn to think this way? Does it come from education? Failures in life?
- manigandham 4y agoNobody said that. The concern is that more information should be discovered about the effects, and that is usually done through experimentation. > ”Where do people learn to think this way? ” Where do people learn to create straw man arguments instead of actually replying to what was said?
- windows2020 4y agoDuring onboarding, the CEO told a story about how an employee's logic error caused a manufacturing plant to shutdown for hours. They of course corrected it, and production resumed, but the company was on the hook for millions in lost revenue. Later that evening, the employee got a call from the CEO. "I suppose you're calling to let me go." The CEO replied, "Why would I do that after paying for a million dollar lesson?" That's how I feel about nuclear.
- samwillis 4y agoIn 200 years when the planet is on fire our ancestors will look at us and won't understand how we could have made such bad decisions. Yes, there is a (tiny) risk of nuclear disaster that makes an area uninhabitable, but thats (in my view) better than the whole plant eventually become so. (I very much hope this statement is hyperbolic)
- brazzy 4y agoIt's simply a false dichotomy that we have the choice between committing to nuclear energy generation, or catastrophic climate change. We don't need nuclear energy. We really, really don't.
- bradlys 4y agoIn order to avoid catastrophic climate change (hard to say we even can at this point) - we need anything we can get. Nuclear is part of anything we can get.
- swayvil 4y agoWhat are the upsides/downsides of water currents vs air currents here? Is one more consistent than the other? I imagine that water has more chunks to filter. Water requires a smaller turbine. ..?
- samwillis 4y agoPredictability, with tidal power you know exactly (more or less) how much you will generate every moment of every day.
- Qworg 4y agoWater carries (IIRC) ~375x the energy of air per speed/unit volume. Depending on the turbine design, you don't need to filter anything. The currents (gyre power) are far more consistent than wind turbines. If not for the difficulties of siting, permitting, and maintaining subsea equipment, gyre power systems are far superior.
- zwayhowder 4y agoI've seen companies use wave energy before (1) but not ocean currents, but as someone else pointed out, the currents are a lot more powerful and consistent than winds so it makes sense. I know Carnegie (2) talk up the fact that submerged equipment very rarely gets damaged by storms etc compared to floating or land based systems. (As long as they can keep fishing trawlers away and ban boat anchors in the area.). 1: https://www.offshore-energy.biz/carnegie-preps-new-ceto-design-for-june-wave-tank-tests/ https://www.offshore-energy.biz/carnegie-preps-new-ceto-desi... 2: https://www.carnegiece.com/ https://www.carnegiece.com/
- bobthepanda 4y agoWater is stronger than air. This is a double edged sword; IIRC most tidal power projects have failed because the greater wear and tear is worse than the additional power generated. I would imagine the deep ocean magnifies this problem. Not to mention, we do enough environmental damage to our oceans as it is.
- Gwypaas 4y agoAnother company in a similar space, although focused on tidal currents is Minesto. The problem with wind vs. water is the extreme harshness of the environment. The only industry which has truly manage to tame the ocean is the oil and gas industry, and that at huge costs offset by the high value of what they produce. Not likely we will ever see anything like that in the renewable field. No affiliation but an old colleague works there so see them pop up from time to time https://minesto.com/ https://minesto.com/
- dukeofdoom 4y agoOut of sight, out of mind. The Ocean has been a dumping ground for a long time. Do we know what kind of impact this might be having where this might be built. Close to shore is where most of the Ocean life resides due to more light reaching in the shallow water. There were proposals to build wind turbines in the middle on the Great Lakes. Not sure what happened to those. Maybe it can be done so it improves the environment, but that tends to costs more.
- samwillis 4y agoFor a data point, the UK has a large number of offshore wind farms that contribute 13% of our electricity supply. On shore is 11%. It's proving cost effective and sustainable. In some ways we are fortunate as we have a long history of offshore engendering with North Sea oil, the expertise there has translated well to offshore wind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in...
- jonnycomputer 4y agoOcean currents often carry a lot of life around the ocean (https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(17)30077-5.pdf https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(17)30077...). Hesitation is warranted, imo.
- bayesian_horse 4y agoI don't see any way those turbines could affect marine life more than a ship. Probably less. There's certainly no way to find out without building a turbine farm or two.
- jonnycomputer 4y agoEverything depends on scale.
- mrfusion 4y agoCould this disrupt the migrations of species like clown fish and sea turtles?
- rnjesus 4y agoeven if it does, all they have to do is just keep swimming
- sieabahlpark 4y ago
- e_i_pi_2 4y agoI was also wondering about this and it got me thinking - I'd the turbines would be spinning fairly slowly, and I'm picturing some sort of filtering device behind them that could filter plastics or other pollutants to the ocean. In an ideal setup maybe it can filter stuff out and use that to create more energy Maybe also not what we want, but it could be cool to see if some new ecosystems set up around these structures
- salawat 4y agoFiltering, eh? You volunteering to change the filters? By definition, that's a maintenance task.
- pvaldes 4y ago> Could this disrupt the migrations of species like clown fish and sea turtles? Not, cute cartoons are safe and will live to suffer a sequel. Nemo is now a girl. But will disrupt the migrations of real animals that are endangered, like sharks, eels (most vanished in the last 60 years) and mesopelagic squids and fishes that play main roles in fighting human famine. And the technology will need to find a way avoid getting cluttered by marine snow and filterers settling on it, most probably.
- bayesian_horse 4y agoI wanted to say clown fish don't migrate, but apparently they do.. Those turbines probably move very slowly. Hard to hit or hurt anything at those speeds in the water. Sea life will be more trouble for the turbines than the turbines will be for the Sea life. Noise pollution may be an issue.
- beefman 4y ago330 tons for 100 kW. Assuming it lasts 20 years (and assuming that's short tons), it's about 17 metric tonnes per GWh. Comparisons: http://lumma.org/energy/lca/ http://lumma.org/energy/lca/
- isoprophlex 4y agoSo, slightly better than offshore wind. No bad imo.
- photochemsyn 4y agoThis is such a tediously nonsensical interjection: ...laying the groundwork for a promising new source of renewable energy that isn't dependent on sunny days or strong winds. How many times does it need to be said that any reliable energy system run entirely on sunlight and wind absolutely has to incorporate storage? Storage can be electrical (short-term supercapacitors for buffering high-frequency variations in windfarms), electrochemical (batteries, and since portability is not an issue, there are many options for grid-storage batteries besides lithium), chemical (using electrical current to drive the formation of hydrocarbons from CO2 and water, aka artificial photosynthesis, and similar conversions), or mechanical (pumped water storage, rotating heavy masses, air pressure in caverns, etc.). That about covers the range of storage options I think. I don't know what to think about people that trot that one out over and over again but to be charitable I'll just assume gross ignorance at this point, rather than deliberate deception.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- zdragnar 4y agoBecause incorporating storage into the story also means brining in the cost. Many of the solutions are not cheap, dependent on specific geology, and / or have their own large carbon footprint. The only thing that solar and wind bring to the table is being very cheap, but you need to compare apples to oranges for them to stand up to other solutions. Edit: this is regional specific, but wind and solar are worthless for one to two months a year where I live - rarely much sun or wind. There's simply not enough storage to power much of anything for that long, so even with cheap storage, it's worth having options that don't rely on weather. Of course, we are nowhere even close to an ocean, so this tech isn't it, but keeping exploring options is nice.
- dotopotoro 4y agosolar and air-conditioning. Energy consumption correlates with production. A match made in heaven.
- suyash 4y agoKudos to Japanese scientists, always pushing the boundaries!
- asien 4y agoFrance tried years ago. Incredibly expensive and inefficient. I love the concept but it just cant compete with Solar , Nuclear or Fossil Fuel...
- samwillis 4y agoJust because something has been “tried before” in the past for something as critical as energy sustainability, particularly with the backdrop of climate change, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try it again. If anything it puts us in a better position, with grater knowledge, in order to improve are chances of making it work. As Edison put it about trying to invent the lightbulb: “I haven't failed - I've just found 10,000 that won't work”.
- ErikVandeWater 4y agoExcept in this case we have the light bulb already in nuclear reactors. It's like if Edison threw out the first light bulb that worked because it felt hot to the touch.
- pixl97 4y agoYou hear about that tidal generator that blew up and contaminated 1000 Sq km of land? Ya, I didn't either.
- ErikVandeWater 4y agoActually I have.
- seoaeu 4y agoJust like we already had the “lightbulb” in the form of candles. There are significant downsides to nuclear reactors that other kinds of sustainable power might be able to address
- bayesian_horse 4y agoInterestingly, this whole technology might come to market more quickly than a nuclear reactor in an industrialized country could be build from decision to commercial operation. At best, nuclear power is unwieldy, hard to calculate, needs a vast, highly specialized infrastructure and workforce and leaves you with radioactive waste with no solution realized as of yet. At worst, "impossible" accidents happen, people shoot at your reactor, nation states devolve and use the fuel for dirty bombs, somebody tries to blow the reactor up on purpose...
- mensetmanusman 4y agoThis energy partly comes from moon-earth oscillations.
- nothingisconvex 4y agoThis will be very difficult to maintain. It has gigantic moving parts in salt water under high pressure. Blades would need to be replaced more frequently than wind turbines, which is a serious problem with wind turbines. What’s the plan for that?
- mrexroad 4y agoHmm, a few years late per SeaQuest’s timeline… I just hope we have a SeaQuest 4600 class sub handy to sacrifice in order to plug the lava flow when the turbines cause the ocean floor to break apart! Ironically, in the SeaQuest timeline, SeaQuest DSV itself would have been abducted by an alien ship just a few weeks ago. Maybe there’s still hope that Mark Hamill is actually our first contact with an alien species? Makes me want to go rewatch 90’s sci-fi: Babylon 5, Space Above & Beyond, SeaQuest (season 1 at least), TekWar, TimeTrax, etc.
- xen2xen1 4y agoSpace Above and Beyond is very underrated. Still sad it only got one season. If they wanted to redo something they could chose something much worse. It might be a little too pro-American and pro-military for 2022?
- totetsu 4y agoGuess they couldn't make it to Deepwater Horizon oil spill either.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- gehsty 4y agoThe turbines are very interesting, these demonstrator projects seek to answer questions like how do you even make one, how do you install it and how do you maintain it… a very interesting piece of hardware required to scale this up (in deep water anyway!) is a subsea substation to up the voltage from the array to export voltages…
- cmroanirgo 4y agoThe article mentioned 100-160ft from the surface, so i'm not sure where the "deep" part mentioned in the headlines comes in. Perhaps their ultimate plan is for deep & this demo didn't try to address the deep part? That said, if 100ft below had enough forces to produce 100kw (ecological issues aside) that sounds pretty fantastic, even if just a demo.
- martyvis 4y agoI imagine the "deep" aspect is that it seems to be well below surface waves that seem to reek havoc on other projects. That depth is still pretty difficult to service as install without pretty sophisticated planning I would think.
- bayesian_horse 4y agoThey would be easier to service than off-shore wind turbines. You just need a light cable attached to a buoy, the service ship goes to the boy, pulls up a heavier cable with the light cable, then pull up the whole structure. Come to think of it, the turbine pods may include a ballast tank that can be evacuated, to adjust the height in normal operation or to pull itself up to the surface for maintenance.
- stjohnswarts 4y agounless it's a rigid structure mounted to the ocean floor then it will almost definitely have ballasts
- potatochup 4y agoRelated, underwater tidal turbines in the Cook Straight, NZ https://www.sustainableseaschallenge.co.nz/our-research/energy-from-tidal-currents-kick-starting-a-new-marine-industry-with-huge-potential/ https://www.sustainableseaschallenge.co.nz/our-research/ener...
- stevenjgarner 4y agoDuration : November 2017 – June 2019 Anyone know of an update on this?
- pleb_nz 4y agoDid you follow the links to sumaaries of findings? Not sure if that has what you want https://www.sustainableseaschallenge.co.nz/tools-and-resources/kick-starting-tidal-current-energy-summary/ https://www.sustainableseaschallenge.co.nz/tools-and-resourc...
- stevenjgarner 4y agoYes but then nothing? Maybe I am too impatient, but the (pretty overwhelmingly positive) summary of the findings in the webinar was published to YouTube Feb 2, 2021. Are they looking for funding for "95 turbines spaced 100m apart in two rows ... producing 90 megawatts"? This is extremely exciting and personal to me. I was born in Wellington (on Cook Strait). New Zealand is a country known for self-reliance, blessed by sustainable energy options (especially hydroelectric and geothermal) and with limited indigenous oil and gas (Maui gas field notwithstanding). This could be a moonshot for Aotearoa.
- pvaldes 4y agoProbably the last nail in the coffin of the (much more economically valuable) eels
- cbmuser 4y ago
- bjourne 4y agoDon't know much about this topic but salt water is corrosive and underwater repair is incredibly expensive. 100 kW is about 0.01% of the output of a modern nuclear reactor so the installation probably has to be a few orders of magnitudes larger for the project to be economically feasible.
- angstrom 4y agoVerdant Energy has been using the New York’s East river to test their design since 2012 with multiple iterations. They’ve demonstrated a triangular configuration with 100kwh production tested. They predict the configuration can do 1,050kwh. Not sure how many they would install, but the East river has a very strong tidal current. The original test turbines were damaged by the current. The gen5 were undamaged. https://www.verdantpower.com/projects https://www.verdantpower.com/projects NREL makes the blades https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/articles/milestone-tidal-energy-verdant-power-successfully-retrieves-test-turbine-after https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/articles/milestone-tidal-e...
- xupybd 4y agoI'd love to hear the numbers on these. I'm a fan of nuclear but the up front cost is massive. Smaller more modular production is easier to add incrementally. I would imagine nuclear is a better financial investment over the long term but that is only a guess. Very promising to have a renewable that is more constant than solar or wind.
- aiisjustanif 4y agoThis feels like we will end up with similar issues with wind turbines. Interrupted migration patterns and killing/harming marine animals coming near them.
- bayesian_horse 4y agoNot sure how these turbines would interrupt migration patterns. Noise pollution maybe. But that should be smaller than that of a ship engine. They shouldn't kill any macro fauna. It has to be evaluated in practice of course, but sea animals don't travel at speeds where bumping into something is fatal. If they bump into the blades at all, which move a lot slower than a ship propeller.