YOU!: Fix the US Energy Crisis

russ_watters

Reread post #572, where the originator of the concept quoted you in his introduction of the concept. The fact that it hasn't yet proven to even work reliably after decades of serious attempts should be a clue, but read post #592 where I list four major obstacles to viability that are probably inherrent and likely unfixable. Consider this as an analogy: if the wind were only half as strong as it is, we'd have no wind power because it would be inherrently non-viable. Converseley, if the wind were twice as strong as it is, we wouldn't be having this conversation because wind would already be taking care of most of our energy needs. See, just saying there is enough overall energy in the wind doesn't tell you anything about how viable the recovery of that energy is. So no, the laws of thermodynamics say nothing whatsoever about the ability of this technology to have a "significant impact". You're confusing theoretical possibility with practical reality. No, it isn't. One need not even be associated with the other, as now obviously we use pumped storage a lot, but not wave power. And wave power could be utilized without pumped storage. Until/unless wave power became a large producer of energy, there is no need to associate it with pumped storage: that's why none of the wave power projects yet mentioned have been associated with pumped storage. Again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with wave power, as none of them are powered by waves. That was my objection. Bringing pumped storage into it was a red herring. Again, two completely unrelated issues. It's like saying we're halfway to fusion powered cars because we have cars figured out. Just because it is half of the sentence, doesn't make it half of the problem. Which.Is.The.Entire.Problem! Clearly the concept is simple, yes - but that doesn't mean it has a chance of ever being economically viable. Again, see those 4 objections in post #592 and recognize the density problem discussed above with the analogy to wind.
Ehh - wind power has left the drawing board stage and has potential to make a serious impact, yet this thread exists. You're not the one who originated the idea in this thread, but now you're putting an awful lot of energy into defending it. No, I'm saying until one shows some real results, I'm not interested. My goal in starting this thread was to discuss practical ideas that might have a real shot at making a difference. I included only one research component in my original plan: fusion. Everything else in my plan is doable now. I'm not suggesting anyone abandon anything, but a research project is not a solution. Nuclear power was already plenty viable before Chernobyl.

mheslep

Yes nifty, and that it "Gets around the entire baseload problem"

Feliks

Map wave height: (display region , and period )

http://www.lajollasurf.org/gblpac.html

Andrew

russ_watters

Another important reason why I dislike ideas like tidal power is they are a distraction from solutions that actually are viable. This very example was provided as a counter to the absolutely correct claim that nuclear power must make up the vast majority of the solution to fossil fuel power. Not only is just plain wrong to assert that tidal power could make a substantial impact (given what is currently known), it is a dangerous distraction in a time when we need to be focused. Most people consider the reduction or elimination of fossil fuels to be an issue of extreme importance. But if they see and believe that there is a possibility that something like wave power could have a big impact, it could distract them away from supporting nuclear power, delaying the real solution.

Feliks

Choosing energy solutions should not depend on faith, but from a very rational economic choices, and ensure safety.

Fortunately, people can still create new solutions that could be better than traditional solutions.

Here are some other new solutions are proposed:
Version at the deep end




Version of the shallow water (my propose half- rotate pump)





For achievement in such this collecting tube of flow 1 m3/sec and 10 bar , requirement 12 pump wanted for transport water on according to following specification 100 m height too reservoir.

Pump reconciles, for simplification about normal piston, should have 0,6 m diameter, and 3 m of height. During average jump of rippling 2 m, it will give during one cycle for composite tube 0,5 m3 water pushed (S= 28 dcm2 H= 20 dcm (2 meter) = 560 dcm3 (liter). For set up flow 1 m3, TWO such pumps should pump for collecting tube.
Taking into consideration that the peak of wave used to the work is coming every 6 seconds one should multiply the score through 6
For proper fabrication of pressure on exit of pump ( set up 10 bar ), wanted proper swimmer is.
There is simple account surface of piston of pump will together page (S) x 100 surface of swimmer.
In my example, surface of piston of pump it 28 dcm2, it signifies that swimmer)should have 2800 dcm2. In order to swimmer had such surfaces, it must have 20 m diameter, and definitely 1 m of height. It needs one kit about 12 pumps 12 swimmers 20 m each diameter, or about dimension one swimmer 12 x28 m2= 336 m2.

For behaviour some reasonable spans, it is possible to accept, that for such array for production capacity 1 m3/sec 10 bar, wanted near 700 m2 place rippling sea .

Need for continuous supplying tank for power station theoretically 700 m3/s (716 MW , 100 m height ) requirement 700 x 700m2 = 490000 m2 rippling sea . It is theoretically only 700 m x 700 m !, when 2 m average heights of waves.


Here, mathematical enumeration same only:

To 1m3/ sec
1 m^3/sec 10 bar(H=100m ), 600 mm diameter pipe and piston pump, S= 28 dcm2 Hwave= 20 dcm (2 meter) = 560 dcm3 (litre) for 1 m3 need 2 piece . but period are 6 sec , sum 6x 2 = 12 piece pump .

S pump= 28 dcm2 , 10 bar, F =28 T, Hfloat >1m, S float ~~=2800 dcm2 (28 m2) , D float =~~20m
12 piece x28m2 =336 m2 ~~ =100m x 7m using area =700 m2

700 MW (700 m3/sec), H=100m
700 m2 x 700 MW = 350000 m2 . ~~700m x 700m area of wave with float

Maybe today people are and what they consider the recording and reproducing sound, then the best solution is Edisons Phonograph.

Regards Andrew

mheslep

It seems to me that, especially given the recent short lived and failed attempts of actual wave/tide energy projects, the interesting engineering results lie not in demonstrating the energy output of a given scheme, no matter how elegant and clever. Instead, the interesting results would be in calculating the inevitably high shears and moments on the structure, the chemical affects from salt water, and demonstrating how such a design can tolerate these adverse impacts over long periods of time, using economically viable construction techniques.

Feliks

The chemical affects from salt water -Now we live in the age of polyvinylchloride PVC
The maximum pressure can not exceed 10 bars, which corresponds to a pressure of water at home. Thus, for most of the elements you can use PVC.


In addition, all ships in the world with regóły swim in salt water and somehow cope.

Also, tanks can be built on the very edge of the sea, przz what can be designed with a smaller safety factor, because if failure of the water will run down a short path to the sea. If there will not allow people to stay, nothing anyone can, even during high-accident

And started all of my oscillating dynamo in which the oscillations are due to the use of unidirectional semiconductor diode meets
Here the role of the diode valve to go with a spring water valves .
Now you can see the very first ideas oscillatory dynamo:
background: http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/ph/p/id/133#toc1







This time the mechanic replaced the electronics

Regards Andrew

mheslep

Is the device designed to be rigidly attached to the sea floor? If so what is the maximum depth? What's roughly the maximum sheer moment on the main float-piston shaft? What material must be used to withstand that sheer?

Do you think all the ocean going ship hulls could also be made from PVC?

The 'somehow' includes drydocking ships and resurfacing their hulls, which also mostly don't have exposed moving parts. How easy is that to do (remove and service) with this device that is apparently rigidly anchored to the the sea floor? That degree of difficulty is going to matter, as the device's maintenance costs must be balanced against its output. From some of the wave devices listed above in this thread and on Wiki, a single wave-float pump might be on the order of 100KW with at most a capacity factor of ~40%. Such a device produces approximately $32K worth of electricity per year, and its annual maintenance budget (removal and towed back to shore? resurfaced on location?) must be a fraction of that output.

Feliks

You may need to ask the Japanese how they have managed to corrosion?
http://www.new4stroke.com/salt%20wat...%20storage.pdf

If you want answers to all these questions, you probably need to open a new new academic department.And then you can better edit the Wikipedia .

Until then, with the same idea as myself two years ago, came the Swiss firm, and produced a mobile phone, you do not have to be loaded.
Just hang on a tree growing near you some of these phones and you will have when it will be a little nod from the wind electricity for household
http://www.uncells.com/


Regards Andrew

mheslep

See that's the point, the significance of that article is in the saltwater aspect; there's nothing new about fresh water pumped storage. That pumped storage facility is 31 MW per pump; i.e. it has a relatively high power density. Thus they can afford an expensive corrosion prevention program: stainless or other special steels, active cathodic protection from an external electrical source, and possibly a full time maintenance crew continuously resurfacing the sea side of the system, just as is done for bridges like San Francisco's Golden Gate. These wave energy systems exhibit low power density per device; i.e. it appears some major innovation is required to economically maintain a salt water offshore 31 KW device. Perhaps it can be done, I don't know; certainly the problem is not trivial.

That's why these are the interesting questions(dealing with the marine environment).

AlexES16

Should i go for ME or EE if i want to work with renewable energy? or maybe both? I really would like to be both. I really want to know how energy is produced and how to make it better.

mheslep

Probably English lit, fiction that is, would be best.

Seriously, probably depends on the actual type. Include chemical engineering and molecular biology in the list for the biofuels, and materials science might also be a useful gateway for solar PV. Many of the oil and gas companies seem to be betting large amounts on renewables, so even entering one of them with a petroleum (or chemical) degree and then switching over might be a plan.

Feliks

and some new issue for the new Department:

Mutation pendulum dynamo



Or magnet tooth plate



So far we exploited the energy arising with the help of the pendulum only for stopping him.
Clik on picture, see animation.
http://ultra.ap.krakow.pl/~ogar/elek...tenhofena.html

It is a next mutation of the swaying pendulum around it pivot :



And it is a conception of containing inside box a dozen or so of such pendulums giving the electricity under the influence of moving. Of course completely hermetically sealed box.




Principe oscillating disc dynamo (pendulum)








Regards Andrew

AlexES16

Hhahaha the things is i suck in chemistry xD but love math and physics.

brainstorm

The ironic thing about conservation approaches is that they defy the inverse logic of modernization where technology increases energy-efficiency while consumption-culture intensifies to deplete the surplus. To conserve at the consumption level means moving in the direction of so-called "primitive" people who often use no vehicle, have no climate control besides fire when it's cold, rely very little on commodity shipping, etc. These "primitive" cultures are more energy efficient but they defy the western sense of entitlement to consume more in reward for progress.

The interesting sequel to this discussion would occur after people in the developed world would lower their per capital consumption to match those in the developing world. At that point, we could start talking about ways to increase the energy-efficiency of those processes that supplied large numbers of people with certain basic commodities. That would, in effect, achieve a level of global energy consumption that would be completely sustainable with renewable sources.

For example, a clothing factory could be streamlined by changing clothing designs. Furniture production or building architecture could be streamlined by designing plans that relied on less processed wood and other materials. Eventually, the biggest issue would be heating in cold climates, I believe. This would be solved by creating relatively compact spaces of rest and clothing that would allow people to keep warm with a moderate amount of physical activity. Another option might be for people to migrate by foot each fall to warmer climates for the winter. That may sound ridiculous, but if it could be made economically feasible, it would reduce energy consumption to practically nothing.

Astronuc

Wind Turbine Projects Run Into Resistance
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/bu...nt/27radar.htm

Beware of unintended consequences!

Topher925

Sounds like a bunch of right-wing nonsense to me. All of the issues mentioned can be easily overcome by just knowing where the wind turbines are. This sounds a lot like the "We need to stop making hybrid cars because blind people can't hear them" argument.