Wave energy device is watched for clean power in Hawaii

Wave energy device is watched for clean power in Hawaii

The U.S. government continues its interest in wave energy, saying it is "committed to supporting the growth of this emerging technology." Supporters of wave energy hope that it will one day be an important source of clean energy, providing low-carbon electricity to places.

Marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) technologies, which generate power from waves, tides, or currents, said the Department of Energy, are at an early but promising stage of development.

Why is wave energy still at an early stage? A key factor, among any other challenge, is cost. Wind and solar have grabbed most of the renewable energy headlines in recent years as they got cheaper but, said Matt Dozier, Office of Public Affairs, that didn't happen overnight.

"Decades of research, testing and investment—much of it supported by Energy Department initiatives—have given us more reliable, cost-effective hardware, encouraging more installations and driving down energy prices. The same needs to happen for ."

The question has been how to generate electricity from the sea on a scale that makes economic sense, he wrote. And that is what makes a Hawaii-based project interesting. This is the Wave Energy Pilot Project from Oregon-based Northwest Energy Innovations (NWEI). The project is now at the stage of being grid-connected and is undergoing open-sea pilot testing.

Last month a prototype of their bright-yellow wave energy converter was deployed at a U.S. Navy testing site, on Oahu. It's in a 30-meter test berth.

The Azura device gets support from the Energy Department and the U.S. Navy. It weighs 45 tons but weight is not its outstanding feature. The interesting part is that it can harness movement in 360 degrees. This is special because it represents a shift in how such wave-energy devices operate.

"Waves have both side-to-side and up-and-down motion, but up to this point, almost all designs have been limited to one direction or the other," said Dozier.

Testing of the Azura device will continue for a year, and in 2017 there is potential for a full-scale demo. The Azura is connected to Hawaii's electric grid.

What are observers watching out for during this pilot test? They will monitor and evaluate long-term performance; this is the nation's first grid-connected wave energy converter (WEC) device to be independently tested by a third party (University of Hawaii) in the open ocean.

NWEI said on Wednesday that in addition to evaluating performance, data collected will enable the team to develop a more accurate assessment of the technology's Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), which accounts for capital cost, project development cost, life cycle costs and annual energy production.

What's next: NWEI, with $5 million in additional funding from the Energy Department, will apply lessons learned from this phase to modify design in to improve on efficiency and reliability. NWEI said on Wednesday that the device "will be deployed for 12 months of grid-connected testing as part of a rigorous program to commercialize the Azura technology."

With the improved design, according to the DOE report, NWEI plans on testing with a full-scale device rated between 500 kilowatts and one megawatt at WETS at deeper test berths of 60 meters to 80 meters over the next several years.

In related DOE wave-energy news, Mary Beth Griggs in Popular Science reported earlier this week that the DOE is sponsoring the Wave Energy Prize; registration is now closed and one can expect more interesting ideas to come. The contest is inviting teams to try to build the best wave energy device. The top prize is $1.5 million.

Again, this relates to the challenge of cost in advancing wave energy. "The industry is young and is experiencing many new innovations as evidenced by a sustained growth in patent activity," said the contest notes. "While the private industry is developing these early-concept WEC devices through design and benchtop prototype testing, funding is hard to secure for performance testing and evaluation of WEC devices in wave tanks at a meaningful scale. This is a problem for the industry since scaled WEC prototype tank testing, validation, and evaluation are key steps in the advancement of WEC technologies through the technical readiness levels to reach commercialization. "

It is a 20-month design-build-test competition. There are numerous milestones that teams will need to reach before finalists are identified, said the contest site.

Participants in the contest will design, build, numerically model, and test prototypes of a WEC device at the 1/50th and 1/20th scales.

The Wave Energy Prize has been designed to focus on deep-water devices; it chose wave conditions on the U.S. West Coast due to the large energy resource in this region.


Explore further

Researchers to put cutting edge wave power technology to the test in real ocean conditions

© 2015 Tech Xplore

Citation: Wave energy device is watched for clean power in Hawaii (2015, July 9) retrieved 22 March 2019 from https://techxplore.com/news/2015-07-energy-device-power-hawaii.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
152 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 09, 2015
They better turn us all into Fish using Modern CRISPR Tech!
Once Ocean occupies 4/4 of land instead of current 3-quarters of it due to Global Warming...it will sure help us out. No doubt about it.
Also, Put 2 sets of gills_on_2Butts Too! Seal up the Nostrils...We don't our 2 Lung Bags filled with Sea Water either!
Again, JUST DON'T Forget to put 2 sets of gills_on_2Butts,

Jul 09, 2015
Just Go to GOOGLE IMAGES & Search for Sea Surfing & Be Amazed with Waves!
Right Place for Gills if you happen to fall into the Water.

Jul 09, 2015
I sometimes wonder why they don't try something like the Limpet design off shore
http://nnmrec.ore...egen-owc
As the actual energy producing part is not in the water this might be a lot better in terms of maintenance frequency (and even if maintenance is needed the parts are accessible without any SCUBA gear).

Jul 09, 2015
It seems just another way for disturbing large areas in wildlife's habitats.

Jul 09, 2015
It seems just another way for disturbing large areas in wildlife's habitats.

You mean unlike coal mines, uranium mines, shale gas extraction wastelands, fracking dumping grounds, drilling platforms, leaked oil tankers, nuclear waste disposal sites, toxic fumes from powerplant smokestacks, transport exhaust pipes, .... ?

Yeah. Right.

Jul 09, 2015
Yeah. Right.


Out of the pan and into the flame.

One problem I could see is that harnessing wave energy neceasarily reduces surface waves, which reduces mixing of surface waters, which leads to oxygen depletion deeper down and death of marine life - except of methanogenic bacteria and algae which like oxygen deprived conditions.

Large scale implementation of wave energy techologies therefore have a potential for ecological catastrophe.

Jul 09, 2015
Yeah. Right.

Right.
Like bio-diesel from food crops, which proved more toxic to the environment.
That was pure "genius" from the AGW Cult.

Jul 09, 2015
"Large scale implementation of wave energy techologies therefore have a potential for ecological catastrophe."
-------------------------------

You hope.

Meanwhile, how is Hinkley C coming? What is the projected cost per kWh? Why is is twice the cost of PV, which creates no waste, and needs no special priesthood to watch over it?

Oh, and Willie has abandoned the thread on radiation safety, since he cannot debate it. He has some unanswered questions waiting for him.

Jul 09, 2015
Oops, it is Green Austria which has those questions for the opponents of Alternative Energy. If you are one, go answer them.

Jul 09, 2015
..radiation safety..
..coal mines, uranium mines, shale gas extraction wastelands, fracking dumping grounds, drilling platforms, leaked oil tankers, nuclear waste disposal sites, toxic fumes from powerplant smokestacks, transport exhaust pipes..
It should be included mining pollution of rare-earth metals essential for renewables.

"Mining, refining, and recycling of rare earths have serious environmental consequences .. A particular hazard is mildly radioactive slurry tailings resulting from the common occurrence of thorium and uranium in rare earth element ores. Additionally, toxic acids are required during the refining process."
http://en.wikiped...erations

lithium, trichlorosilane, silicon tetrachloride, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen fluoride, sulfuric acid, phosphine gas, arsine gas, lead.
http://www.solari...mer.html

Jul 09, 2015
According to Greenie, alternative energy power is down to 3.87 cents/kWh!!

How much for nuke power? We are putting $8,300,000,000 of taxpayer guarantees into a set of nukes owned by a company. Why are we doing this?

What will the cost of power be with that kind of upfront cost? How could one ever produce sufficient energy to pay that back?

Jul 09, 2015
Are most folks aware that there is no such thing as a "cold shutdown" of a nuke? It just means they are not intentionally generating heat and power. Instead, megawatts of heat continually have to be removed from idle cores, even shut-down cores, because of the inherent radioactivity. For years.

Jul 09, 2015
This is promising! It is refreshing to see an alternative power article that isn't polluted by AGW propaganda. Some things I wish were mentioned:

1. Power output (even a guesstimate would be cool)
2. Disaster mitigation (storms, massive ocean events, large animals, etc)

Your Master's Degree, please stop with the political hatred. It is lame.

Proven power sources must be used to sustain society until better alternatives are ready to take over. The only people that would disagree with this are those that want to see humanity regress.

Jul 09, 2015
..generating heat and power.. megawatts of heat continually have .. cores, because of the inherent radioactivity. For years.
billion years, Earth's core is naturally radioactive.
"Radioactive decay accounts for half of Earth's heat"
http://physicswor...ths-heat
http://www.scient...core-so/
"The geothermal energy of the Earth's crust originates from the original formation of the planet (20%) and from radioactive decay of materials (80%)."
https://en.wikipe...l_energy
Go to a safer planet.

Jul 09, 2015
The recently shut-down nukes are still manned and still require large amounts of electricity to keep the idle cores from melting down. How much does it cost to care for idle PV or wind generators?

Jul 09, 2015
The only fool bigger than the one that doesn't want alternative power sources is the one that thinks shutting down currently proven power sources is the path to alternative power.

Who knew that waging a war on nuclear power would regress society? Those looking to grow the dependent class, that's who!

Jul 09, 2015
Yeah, "proven" at Chernobyl, SL-1, TMI II, Brown's Ferry, Windscale, Fukushima, Fermi I, and other places.

Jul 09, 2015
Yeah, "proven" at Chernobyl, SL-1, TMI II, Brown's Ferry, Windscale, Fukushima, Fermi I, and other places.
gkam and his mates love to make exceptions to become the rule only for scaremongering sakes to promote their unicorn fart energy through the throats of misinformed taxpayers. But when put per terawatt-hour generated, nuclear is far less impacting than renewables.

Jul 09, 2015

Here are the buddies of denglish and Willie:

http://www.thegua...-funding

Jul 09, 2015
" But when put per terawatt-hour generated, nuclear is far less impacting than renewables."
-----------------------------------

More ignorance. It is dangerous for a quarter-million years!

How much will it cost to keep all life away from your nasty waste for over 200,000 years, Willie? How are you going to guarantee nobody will be killed by it?

Jul 09, 2015
Your Master's Degree, the guardian Newspaper article does not seem to be on topic!

Is Your Master's Degree introducing a Red-Herring to test his subjects?

Your Master's Degree, please tell us more about being an astronaut.

Jul 09, 2015
I already answeredthat. Here it is again:

No, Toots, I was Airman of the Month for the Air force Flight Test Center, which includes the base, the NASA facilities, Test Pilot School, Special Projects (U-2, YF-12, SR-71, XC-142, XV-5, F-111 prototypes, predecessors to the harrier, and other gems).

Our auxiliary airfields included Groom Lake, called "Area 51" by civilian goobers.

If you had the guts to enlist, you might have had the chance to do cool stuff, like I did. Of course, I paid the price in the war, but it was worth it.

Jul 09, 2015
Your Master's Degree, your efforts to create internet credibility by creating a false real life does not seem to be on topic!

Is Your Master's Degree introducing a Red-Herring to test his subjects?

Me like airplanes Your Master's Degree! Your Master's Degree, I can google too! May I do some for you?!?!

Your Master's Degree, please tell us more about being an astronaut. Its a real cool story...bro.

Jul 09, 2015
Sorry, but that is no substitute for discussing the costs of coal and nukes.

Yes, we were training astronauts at Eddie's then, in the Space Trainers, on which I worked. They were F-104s with the original X-15 rocket engines above the jet engine. They could go up until the jet would not work, nor the control surfaces. They had to be controlled with attitude thrusters in the extended nose and wingtips.

Cool stuff. Wait until I tell you about X-15 launches and XB-70 flights.

What did you do?

Jul 09, 2015
Your Master's Degree, your efforts to create internet credibility by creating a false real life does not seem to be on topic!

Is Your Master's Degree introducing a Red-Herring to test his subjects?

Oh, Your Master's Degree, your stories are so good! Tell us the one about your Martian anal probes again, but please this time, can I keep my clothes on?

Jul 09, 2015
Obviously, denglish is a wannabe who has turned into a never-was, which is infuriating to those who just wasted their lives.

But the topic is wave energy and how clean it is, compared to Filthy Fuels.

Jul 09, 2015
How are you going to guarantee nobody will be killed by it?
Renewables kill much more, millions birds and bats, and kill more workers than nuclear per terawatt-hour; it is a proven fact with peer-reviewed data and statistics.
..all life away from your nasty waste for over 200,000 years..
Geological disposal.

Jul 09, 2015
"We are putting $8,300,000,000 of taxpayer guarantees into a set of nukes owned by a company. Why are we doing this? "


You are making a dishonest argument.

Loan guarantees are not money paid unless the company defaults on the loan. Not a single cent of taxpayer money is wasted unless they do, and once the plant has run long enough to pay back the loans, it becomes a profit to the taxpayers as well as the owners.

Renewable subsidies on the other hand are actually paid, for every kWh, at a net loss to the taxpayer because the total cost is greater than the value of the energy.

Jul 09, 2015
"Geological disposal."
-------------------------------

Like at WIPP?

Go look it up. It's closed and contaminated right now, but they PROMISE us (again), it will be "safe".

Jul 09, 2015
"More ignorance. It is dangerous for a quarter-million years!"


Again with the SAME buzzwords and no substance.

"How much will it cost to keep all life away from your nasty waste for over 200,000 years, Willie? How are you going to guarantee nobody will be killed by it?"


This has been discussed at lenght before, and it is neither too costly to bury waste in deep borehole disposal, nor is it reasonable to demand that -nobody- is killed by it when you don't demand the same thing from renewable energies which actually do kill more people than nuclear power.

Jul 09, 2015
"Like at WIPP?"


Like Yucca mountain, which was funded and paid with money taxed from the nuclear industry, but then defunded and shut down by hysterical "environmentalists" in the government after all the money was already spent.

You don't get to whine about WIPP when you're opposing every other nuclear disposal site and method. You HAVE to put the waste somewhere, and the more you oppose nuclear waste disposal and throw sticks in the cogs, the worse it is going to get.

Jul 09, 2015
"Sorry, but that is no substitute for discussing the costs of coal and nukes.

"Yes, we were training astronauts at Eddie's then, in the Space Trainers, on which I worked. They were F-104s with the original X-15 rocket engines above the jet engine. They could go up until the jet would not work, nor the control surfaces. They had to be controlled with attitude thrusters in the extended nose and wingtips.

"Cool stuff. Wait until I tell you about X-15 launches and XB-70 flights."

-Uh huh. So this is where you learned about the costs of coal and nukes? Or did you just see some way of bragging about your alleged and inflated past as a lowly 20yo tech that nobody else is aware of?

WHAT DOES BEING A TECH IN THE AIR FORCE HAVE TO DO WITH NUKES??? you fucking wetbrain

Jul 09, 2015
Gosh, otto, do I have to spell it out for you?

and "You HAVE to put the waste somewhere, and the more you oppose nuclear waste disposal and throw sticks in the cogs, the worse it is going to get."
----------------

Yeah, but why didn't they think about that before they dumped this disaster on us? No matter your glib assurances, nobody has found a way to safely store this nasty stuff for the required periods.

You can't ignore the messes we have made with nuclear materials, which so far we cannot "clean up".

And when we do, "cleaning it up" just means taking it somewhere else, and contaminating that place, too.

Jul 09, 2015
'Gosh, otto, do I have to spell it out for you?"

-Yeah you have to explain WHAT DOES BEING A TECH IN THE AIR FORCE HAVE TO DO WITH NUKES??? you fucking wetbrain

Jul 09, 2015
Sorry, I thought we were still dealing with your screaming over the past few months. It is only pertinent because it happened to the same person, and my experience is important in several respects.

I got a real kick out of having an Industrial Technology degree and a Master of Science in Environmental Management, but got to teach hundreds of engineers for PG&E, and over 30,000 total around the country in basic and finer points of electricity and its effects.

That's why my opinions are more valid than those of otto, a person with no experience or education in this field at all.


Jul 09, 2015
They better turn us all into Fish using Modern CRISPR Tech! Once Ocean occupies 4/4 of land instead of current 3-quarters of it due to Global Warming...it will sure help us out. No doubt about it. Also, Put 2 sets of gills_on_2Butts Too! Seal up the Nostrils...We don't want our 2 Lung Bags filled with Sea Water either! Again, JUST DON'T Forget to put 2 sets of gills_on_2Butts,
Seas could rise 6M even IF governments curb global warming: Study says ocean changes have 'already begun'. Sea levels could rise by at least 6M (20') in the long term, swamping coasts from Florida to Bangladesh, even if governments achieve their goals for curbing global warming. Tracts of ice in Greenland and Antarctica melted when temperatures were around or slightly higher than today in ancient thaws in the past three million years, a U.S.-led international team wrote in the journal Science. And the world may be headed for a repeat even if govts cut greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming.

Jul 09, 2015
Red Rocket will transmit the WIPP Town Hall in one hour. If you are interested in this via internet, look it up, or ask me.

The last meeting was about the damages the government was paying to local agencies as penance for the damage from radioactive contamination.

Jul 09, 2015
"my experience is important in several respects.

"I got a real kick out of having an Industrial Technology degree and a Master of Science in Environmental Management"

-Neither of which qualifies you to make up lies and fabricate facts.

"but got to teach hundreds of engineers for PG&E, and over 30,000 total around the country in basic and finer points of electricity and its effects."

-You delivered presentations prepared by real engineers.

"That's why my opinions are more valid than those of otto, a person with no experience or education in this field at all."

-But this still does not answer the question WHAT DOES BEING A TECH IN THE AIR FORCE HAVE TO DO WITH NUKES??? you fucking wetbrain.

"That's why my opinions are more valid than those of otto"

-But your 'opinions' are confirmed LIES and fabrications. Why cant you understand how obvious this is?

Jul 09, 2015
"You delivered presentations prepared by real engineers."
-------------------------------

No, otto, I wrote the courses, did all the technical drawings and produced them for replication for my lectures. If you remember from my 20 year-old website, I also taught Power Quality, a term for the interactions between complex systems from integration of new technologies into an existing system built for Edison's tungsten filament and Tesla's induction motor.

Jul 09, 2015
They better turn us all into Fish using Modern CRISPR Tech!
Once Ocean occupies 4/4 of land instead of current 3-quarters of it due to Global Warming...it will sure help us out. No doubt about it. Also, Put 2 sets of gills_on_2Butts Too! Seal up the Nostrils...We don't want our 2 Lung Bags filled with Sea Water either! Again, JUST DON'T Forget to put 2 sets of gills_on_2Butts,
Repeating some of the themes of his landmark encyclical "Laudato Si" on the environment last month, Pope Francis said time was running out to save the planet from perhaps irreversible harm to the ecosystem.

Jul 10, 2015
"That's why my opinions are more valid than those of otto, a person with no experience or education in this field at all."


No. That would be a logical fallacy called appeal to authority.

Your PhDs and Masters Degrees in themselves don't lend you ANY credibility or validity to your opinions, because your authority - if any - comes only from your ability to prove your point rather than simply assert it.

All your claimed experience and education amounts to absolutely nothing if you fail on that simple point, which is what you continue to fail to understand.

We didn't believe Einstein because he was Einstein, but because he could put his opinions into mathematical formulas and SHOW that they are valid. You provide no such presentation, and simply flaunt your "experience" as if that were the same thing.



Jul 10, 2015
"I wrote the courses, did all the technical drawings and produced them for replication for my lectures.


And how do we know that what you taught was actually correct and current? You could have been holding bullshit seminars with all your content lifted out of textbooks and diagrams other people did before you.

How can we trust your authority?

To hold an introductory course in some subject, one doesn't need to be any more than barely introduced himself because your students will know even less and can't tell the difference. If the students are interested, they will learn the subject despite of you rather than because of you.

Jul 10, 2015
"Yeah, but why didn't they think about that before they dumped this disaster on us?"


Who didn't? 2/3 of US nuclear waste is from the nuclear weapons program, which was seen necessary at the beginning of the cold war because of Soviet Russia. The rest of the waste from nuclear power reactors is more or less cleanly contained in fuel pools and dry casks, and presents no real hazard to anyone. You're simply making a dishonest argument by conflating the two.

"No matter your glib assurances, nobody has found a way to safely store this nasty stuff for the required periods."


Again, you're begging the question, because you place unreasonable and impossible demands on nuclear waste disposal to make the point. Your whole argument rests on the mere assertion that it is impossible, which you keep chanting like a mantra. It is your religion that nuclear waste is an eternal problem despite what is or could be done with it, and one can't argue against such faith.

Jul 10, 2015
To chant: "Look at Hanford, look at WIPP!" in opposition to nuclear power is dishonest propaganda because Hanford was about developing and producing nuclear weapons, and WIPP is a site dedicated for disposing of that particular waste.

I keep having to repeat that, because gkam keeps "forgetting" that it is so. He is well aware of the fact, but he chooses not to aknowledge it and chooses to continue pushing the same line of argument, which is a testament of his deceitfulness.

gkam: flaunting your degrees around is futile because people catch you lying all the time.

Jul 10, 2015
"And when we do, "cleaning it up" just means taking it somewhere else, and contaminating that place, too."


Why should we care that a lump of rock 5 miles down in the bedrock, or some worms at the bottom of a deep ocean trench get contaminated? Or a piece of desert that nobody lives in anyhow? Why do you care so much about that, when you obviously don't care a rat's ass about the contamination from uranium and thorium, and other heavy metal containing mine tailings from renewable energy construction?


Jul 10, 2015
Why should we care that a lump of rock 5 miles down in the bedrock, or some worms at the bottom of a deep ocean trench get contaminated?

Because it doesn't stay there? When the containers corrode this stuff gets into the groundwater.
Or when the containers down in the oceans corrode you do NOT get the stuff instantly diluted over the entire ocean. Local wildlife can concentrate the stuff in their living tissues, because while they eat that stuff bodies do not have the function to excrete it. So it accumulates. So either we eat those animals directly, or the stuff gets handed up the food chain indirectly (through animals that do eat the local critters which WE then eat).

It's like the climate. Does 2°C warmin mean everywhere on the planet will be exactly 2°C warmer? No. Some places will be colder, and some will be significantly warmer.
Similarly this gunk will hit some people hard and some people not at all.

Jul 10, 2015
"gkam: flaunting your degrees around is futile because people catch you lying all the time."
-------------------------------

Oh, . . . how about my story and photo in the base newspaper? And my pictures on those web sites? And the information on the internet? I identified myself here, Toots, even if you did not. I will not lie, but can catch the rest of you in your games, like those of otto, who actually BRAGGED about it.

The thread is about energy. Got any education or experience in utilities?

And show me one "lie", Eikka. i think you have confused me with denglish.

Jul 10, 2015
Wow. This is all so ridiculous. How does it get so off topic? How does every thread turn into His Master's degree telling everyone how great he is while everyone else tells him he's full of it?

Dang. Get called a donkey enough times, ya oughta turn around and look for a tail.

Jul 10, 2015
No, we were talking about how many kW in a MW, but you wanted to get personal and attack me from lack of ability to debate.

Let's talk abut what technologies are replacing what others. That is the real issue here, isn't it?

How much does it cost for a kWh of nuke power, figuring in the Price-Anderson subsidies and the costs of storing intensely-radioactive waste for over 200,000 years?

How much just to cover the costs of construction and operation? Then, decommissioning?

Jul 10, 2015
Let's talk abut what technologies are replacing what others. That is the real issue here, isn't it?

No.

My OP was that it is great that alternatives are being explored, but lets make sure that we don't turn-off the viable energy sources that will enable the institution of better power sources.

Your OP did not help a person see through some of the questionable judgement in the post that you quoted, instead attacking a nuclear power plant, and then Willie.

So, for some of us, the real issue was celebrating research into a new power source, and for you it was spewing hatred.

If you put away your penchant for hate and put on a desire to teach, you may gain some credibility.

Jul 10, 2015
"No, otto, I wrote the courses, did all the technical drawings and produced them for replication for my lectures"

-And I showed you how PG&E conducts these seminars which are composed by professionals who use techs and temps like yourself to do drafting and similar grunt work.

Why would you think that you could make anyone believe that they would use untrained temps like yourself for this when they have degreed and licensed engineers to do it?

And I also showed you that PG&E only hires degreed and licensed professionals for senior level engineering positions. YOU DONT QUALIFY.

"If you remember from my 20 year-old website"

-I would assume that confirmed LIARS like yourself would fill up personal websites with all sorts of shit.

Why dont you post your entire CV there so everyone can see the dozen or so jobs you lost during your truncated career?

Jul 10, 2015
"Oh, . . . how about my story and photo in the base newspaper? And my pictures on those web sites? And the information on the internet?"

-How do stories and photos and internet info resolve the following bullshit?

"High energy alpha cant penetrate skin.

Fallout is the major cause of lung cancer (not even on the list)

Fukushima H2 explosions can cause dirty molten Pu to prompt criticality and throw macroscopic vessel parts 130km, without leaving a crater, even tho nuke weapons cant.

There is plutonium or americium raining down on idaho.

Dried manure which you mistakenly call 'volatile solids' in many threads, is a major constituent 'high air' pollution in the central valley

Musk is not building commercial powerwalls but he is, but you know hes wasting his time because you were 'in the business'.

Youre an engineer even though you admitted you were not.

Delivering powerpoint presentations prepared by engineers makes you an engineer."

Jul 10, 2015
" . . and throw macroscopic vessel parts 130km, without leaving a crater, even tho nuke weapons cant."
---------------------------------

Show me the crater at Alamogordo. Show me the crater at Hiroshima. Show me the crater at Nagasaki.

otto, you have some kind of perverse fixation on me, and it is not healthy.

Jul 11, 2015
otto, you have some kind of perverse fixation on me, and it is not healthy.

If you put away your penchant for hate and put on a desire to teach, you may gain some credibility.

Jul 11, 2015
How much does it cost to care for idle PV or wind generators?

More than your tiny head can handle.
Hint: Have a gander at the efficiency of wind generators?

Jul 11, 2015
Well, let's look, shall we? What is the thermal efficiency of a conventional coal plant? About the mid-35% range.

What is the thermal efficiency of a nuclear powerplant? A percent in the mid-20's.

"Commercial utility-connected turbines deliver 75% to 80% of the Betz limit of power extractable from the wind, at rated operating speed" - Wiki

Jul 11, 2015
Thanks for confirming my previous fact.
http://www.telegr...med.html

Jul 11, 2015
My god, neither of you understand the difference between efficiency and load factor?


Jul 11, 2015
My God!
I believe you meant to say capacity factor.
Now look again and see how many of those windmills are sitting idle.

Jul 12, 2015
"I believe you meant to say capacity factor."
------------------------------

No, I said Load Factor.

And where are our "windmills"? I know of not a single one in the United States.

Jul 12, 2015
And where are our "windmills"? I know of not a single one in the United States.

Google:

https://en.wikipe...ind_Farm

https://en.wikipe...ind_Farm

https://en.wikipe...ind_Farm

Jul 12, 2015
Thanks for taking the bait. Those are wind turbine generators. Windmills grind grain, and the term is used to separate those who understand the technology from outsiders.

Jul 12, 2015
Those are wind turbine generators. Windmills..
Turbine recall us high power density, which is not the case of wind blades, it is a term more suitable for gas turbine that is really a very powerful technological engine having inner compressor and expander and not exposed slaughtering blades.
"windmill" is a more suitable term for wind energy as it has been used since medieval age. Curiously, middle age "windmills" and "sails", due to intermittency and low power density, were already substituted by fossil engine times ago.


Jul 12, 2015
"Turbine recall us high power density, which is not the case of wind blades, . . . "
-----------------------------------

Ignorance. And poor syntax, as well.

They are wind turbines, Willie. But thanks for revealing your knowledge of the technology.

Jul 12, 2015
While a true gas turbine rotates at 12000 rpm or more, a typical rotation speeds for "windmill" generators are 5-20 rpm, very slow but even so it Eco-friendly can mill/crush/smash a lot of birds and bats in midair.

Jul 12, 2015
It has nothing to do with speed of rotation, it is because it extracts energy from fluid flow with that rotation.

You guys on the sidelines keep on misunderstanding wiki, and screw up the terminology as well as the facts.

Jul 16, 2015
Go here:
http://www.fierce...15-06-18

We will want all non-polluting sources, those without waste.

Jul 16, 2015
Green hypocrisy and vested political interests will win at the end. Luckless birds and bats.
"Germany is burning more fossil fuels and paying more for it because they shut down their nuclear power plants with the false promise that wind and solar will make up the difference. It didn't."

Jul 16, 2015
Those are wind turbine generators
Wrong.

"A wind turbine is a popular name for a device that converts kinetic energy from the wind into electrical power. Technically, there is no turbine used in the design, but the term appears to have migrated from parallel hydroelectric technology (rotary propeller). THE CORRECT DESCRIPTION for this type of machine would be aerofoil-powered generator.
The result of over a millennium of windmill development and modern engineering..."

Gkam the pedant thinks that knowing fashion terms makes him an 'insider' whose bullshit is therefore sacrosanct.

"In Denmark by 1900, there were about 2500 windmills for mechanical loads such as pumps and mills, producing an estimated combined peak power of about 30 MW. The largest machines were on 24-meter (79 ft) towers with four-bladed 23-meter (75 ft) diameter rotors. By 1908 there were 72 wind-driven electric generators operating in the United States from 5 kW to 25 kW."

Jul 16, 2015
Oh, you found some entries with semantic differences with mine?

Do you have a real life?

Jul 16, 2015
Oh, you found some entries with semantic differences with mine?

Do you have a real life?
You were using semantics to try to give the impression that you are an expert in things youre obviously only a self-taught amateur in.

"aerofoil-powered generator"

-Pros with educations would be familiar with the correct term and would also know that 'windmill' is not incorrect, only unpopular.

But not amateur pedants like yourself.

Jul 16, 2015
I love your fascination with me. I like to think of how you see me at night when you close your big, red eyes, and how good it feels to think of us and our relationship online. I understand that by reacting to you, I am giving you the attention you want, but it is just too much fun to see you fall all over yourself to hurt someone else, . . and fail.

This is about a wave energy device. Got any education or experience in generation?

No?

How did we guess?

Jul 16, 2015
My fascination is with science and the truth. And I am obsessed with lying blowhards like you who exhibit no respect for either.

"This is about a wave energy device"

-So why did you turn it into yet another thread about george kamburoff the magnificent? You just waste the peoples time proving you the liar and fabricator of facts once again.

Wind turbines do not contain turbines. Did you know it?

Jul 16, 2015
And where are our "windmills"? I know of not a single one in the United States.

You need to take a drive down I-65, a little north of Lafayette, IN...
"Windmills" also pump water and a variety of other things, including turning a turbine to generate electricity...

Jul 16, 2015
The first part of the Wiki article on Wind Turbines is:

"This article is about wind-powered electrical generators. For wind-powered machinery used to grind grain or pump water, see Windmill and Windpump."

Those of us in the utility biz call them Wind Turbine Generators. You goobers can call them kazoos if you want.

Jul 16, 2015
" including turning a turbine to generate electricity..."
-------------------------------

No, . . the turbines turn generators to do that.

Jul 16, 2015
" including turning a turbine to generate electricity..."
-------------------------------

No, . . the turbines turn generators to do that.

Aren't those generators an inline part of the "turbine"?
(Just a question from a "goober"...)
"turbine" should be considered poorly used in the context of wind generators, anyway...

Jul 16, 2015
""turbine" should be considered poorly used in the context of wind generators, anyway..."

-----------------------------------

In retrospect, yes.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more