Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Ocean Currents May Bring Italy More Tidal Energy

By Jane Burgermeister
December 9, 2008   |   25 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
Because the power generated by tides is predictable, the device can be a reliable form of baseload power for a national grid.
25 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 25
December 9, 2008
This is the path other ocean bounded nations should be taking. Energy is available if we only apply the necessary technology to strong current sites.

I really do not know if conversion into hydrogen is better than sending power to land but if this method becomes practical, having ocean current farms out to sea would be the equivalent of mining clean energy. I think the ideal situation would be to work with strong current sites close to shore so that an economical choice could be made as to producing hydrogen or to sending power to land.

I think more must be said about electric current transmission under the ocean as the above statement

"Using cables to transmit electricity more than 100 meters has proved difficult"

may not be completely accurate. Collecting power from 50 ocean current stations would and inmost likely require cable well over 100 meters in length. By manufacturing by quantity, it is likely that cable costs would go down.

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment
2 of 25
December 10, 2008
What America needs is to become energy independent As we do the happy dance around the lower prices at the pumps OPEC plans to cut production to raise prices again. This past year and the record gas prices played a huge part in our economic meltdown and seriously damaged our society.We keep planning to spend BILLIONS on bailouts and stimulus plans.Bail us out of our dependence on foreign oil. Make electric plug in car technology more affordable. It cost the equivalent of 60 cents a gallon to drive an electric plug in car. The electric could be generated from wind or solar.If all gasoline cars, trucks, and suv's instead had plug-in electric drivetrains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota.
Get with it! Utilize free sources such as wind and solar. Stop throwing away money on things that don't work. Invest in America and it's energy independence. Create cheap clean energy, create millions of badly needed green collar jobs. Put America back to work. It is a win-win situation. We have to become more poractive citizens, educate ourselves and demand our elected officials move this country forward into the era of energy independence. Jeff Wilson's new book The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence NOW outlines a plan for America to wean itself off oil. We need a plan and we need it now! http://www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com
Comment
3 of 25
December 10, 2008
"Using cables to transmit electricity more than 100 meters has proved difficult."

That isn't a typo? The author really means metres and not kilometres? Could somebody please explain what the problem is? Is it because the power that is generated is DC, not AC?
Comment
4 of 25
December 10, 2008
The option to electrolyze and transport the Hydrogen for use as fuel is very well in view of the growing demand for Hydrogen as source for power. Incidentally, the pure Oxygen , created as a by-product, and the Salt that will be another by-product will offer tremendous scope for keeping the Project at economically attractive levels. The processing of salts while at sea will avoid numerous environmental traumas ,which would otherwise arise for a land based alkali unit.

One thing is a bit unclear: Is the option for electrolysis a result of direct power generation being un-viable or insufficient.?A clarification will help much.

If power for electrolysis alone is to be generated, the option of comnbining Wind,Tide and Solar across a small stretch of the Sea surface can be tried out as perhaps a more econmic and less cumbersome model.
Comment
5 of 25
December 10, 2008
A few points

>> Re. "I really do not know if conversion into hydrogen is better than sending power to land"
Far better to use the electricity as electrical power (e.g. for electric transport), than convert it into hydrogen as this will probably loose at least half the useful electrical energy originally captured.
If we try to create a hydrogen economy, particularly for transport, we will probably need to source significantly more primary energy than we currently use not least because of the poor efficiencies of making and transporting hydrogen. However if we go for electric transport, when ever possible, we will need to source significantly less primary energy. Battery electric vehicles have 80% tank to wheel efficiency and the best current hydrogen vehicle technologies can't come close to this, energy transmission efficiencies are also much higher for electricity than hydrogen. Another consequence of 'going electric' is that the reduced primary energy requirement should also mean that we can move to a non fossil fuel economy much quicker.

>>Re. "Using cables to transmit electricity more than 100 meters has proved difficult."
Electricity can be transmitted efficiently 1,000's of kilometers using HVDC technology, about 10% loss for 3,000Km. Some good info on this can be found on the DESERTEC site .
HTSC (high temperature super conductor) transmission is also coming of age which should achieve losses between 10 and 100 times lower than conventional cables. Trial Km sized projects are already operational and long haul is probably 5 to 10years away.

>> Re. "Atlantic can generate as much as 8 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity a year"
This translates to an average power generating capacity of about 1GW, or roughly 2% of UK demand, is this typo?.
Comment
6 of 25
December 10, 2008
P.S.
Link to DESERTEC site seems to have diaspeared from my original comment, it is http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/
Third/forth time lucky, it seems that putting url's in angle brackets makes it disapear
Comment
7 of 25
December 10, 2008
Here's a thought: Why not station the turbine farms and hydrogen power plants in the world's sea lanes to serve as marine "filling stations"? You save enormously on marine fuel, you don't have to transport the electricity or hydrogen back into shore, and you can keep the ocean stations constantly supplied when ships pull up to repower. How long would it take to feed the hydrogen to tanks for marine fuel cells?

You make things much cleaner and simpler and, in the end, cheaper, when you cut out the fossil fuels. Renewables are a constant theme at my blog on climate change for the Foreign Policy Association - (http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/).

By the way, Nick, I love Desertec and the SuperSmart Grid project (http://www.supersmartgrid.net/)
Comment
8 of 25
December 10, 2008
Turbines produce AC power. Transformers are used to produce high voltage AC. High voltage is needed in order to minimize the size of the conductor per watt ( Power = Volts X Current; Ohms Law). High voltage requires high integrity insulation. Long cables require lots of copper. Cable prices will not come down as you think just by increasing volume; in fact, the commodity prices will soar as we've already experienced with China.

The idea of HVDC requires solid state inverters to convert turbine created AC into DC. DC over cables is more efficient than AC because the DC impedance is simply pure resistance of the cable. AC efficiency is lost due to the comlex impedance characteristics of resistance, capacitance and inductance.

Producing hydrogen by electrolysis is not efficient in the conversion. Add to that the power required to compress the gas and transport to market either by tank or pipeline. Combusting hydrogen with oxygen produces water vapor - a significant greenhouse gas! Combusting hydrogen in air produces nitrous oxides among other combinations of hydrogen.

My opinion and suggestion is to capture the variety of nature's energy sources where they are close to the market demands; or move the market users close to the energy source as required. WE NEED TO MINIMIZE WASTED ENERGY DUE TO CONVERSIONS AND TRANSPORT. We should use near shore wave energy for coastal communities; offshore wave energy to compressed hydrogen for ships and aquiculture processing; roof top solar for residential and commercial; windpower for agricultural. And yes, we'll probably still need fossil fuel (coal) for process like smelting metal, etc.
Comment
9 of 25
December 10, 2008
Hi Ronald,

To answer your question:

"Using cables to transmit electricity more than 100 meters has proved difficult."

That isn't a typo? The author really means metres and not kilometres? Could somebody please explain what the problem is? Is it because the power that is generated is DC, not AC?

Yes, 100 meters really is what Göstner said in German. I can ring tomorrow and try to find out what the problem is, and will post up a reply if I get one.

Jane
Comment
10 of 25
December 10, 2008
Hallo C.S. Radhakrishnan,

To respond to your point:

"One thing is a bit unclear: Is the option for electrolysis a result of direct power generation being un-viable or insufficient.?A clarification will help much."

As far as I understand, the option for electrolysis is indeed a result of direct power generation being unviable as you say. The sheer distances that the electricity would have to be transmitted via cables from fleets far out in the ocean back to the mainland would make it impractical.

Jane
Comment
11 of 25
December 10, 2008
Hi Nick,

To get back to you on your query

Re. "Atlantic can generate as much as 8 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity a year"
This translates to an average power generating capacity of about 1GW, or roughly 2% of UK demand, is this typo?.

Apologies! I should have written that more clearly and said....

"Atlantic could supply an average power generating capacity of 8 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity a year, according to one study," ie about a half of the world's total energy needs in 2004.

Just please don't ask me how they came up with that figure!

There're some other interesting figures about ocean wave and tidal power resources in the World Energy Council 2004 Survey of Energy Resources, by the way.

http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/ser2004.pdf

On tidal power....

Site Mean tidal range (m) Barrage length (m) Estimated annual energy production (GWh)
Severn Estuary (UK) 7.0 17 000 12 900
Solway Firth (UK) 5.5 30 000 10 050
Bay of Fundy (Canada) 11.7 8 000 11 700
Gulf of Khambhat (India) 6.1 25 000 16 400

"It would be wrong to consider the tidal resource purely in terms of the maximum spring current. A channel of width 1 km and depth 50 m in which the spring peak is 3 m/s and the neap peak is 1 m/s would experience a maximum energy flux approaching 700 MW."

On wave power...

"The global wave power resource in deep water (i.e. 100 m or more) is estimated to be 1012–1013 W, (Panicker, 1976)."

The global wave power resource in deep water (i.e. 100 m or more) is estimated to be 1012–1013 W, (Panicker, 1976).

The economically exploitable resource varies from 140–750 TWh/yr for current designs of devices when fully mature (Wavenet, 2003a) and could rise as high as 2000 TWh/yr (Thorpe, 1999), if the potential improvements to existing devices are realised."

Jane
Comment
12 of 25
December 10, 2008
Dear Jane Burgermeister,

Wow! You are the first blog author here in AGES to actually respond to commentators! For that, you get a sack full of brownie points!

Ron
Comment
13 of 25
December 10, 2008
Dear Ronald,

Thanks, but I've been remiss myself, I know, about responding to comments and do apologise. But by the time it's noon in the US, it's heading into evening here in Austria and so I lose the thread, you know.

I will ring up, though, and try and get that answer about the 100 metre cable tomorrow. Cheers, Jane
Comment
14 of 25
December 11, 2008
Hi Jane

Much appreciate the response, I was intending to e-mail you direct on this point so you've kindly saved me the time.

Re. 8TWh number:
I have seen figures for total world average power use quoted as 15TW and 13.5TW, so on that basis I should have spotted that the confusion was in the units, as the figure quoted was power the units should be TW not TW-h. Watt-hours are a measure of energy where as power is just measured in Watts. These units are often mixed up in magazine reports, even specialist technical/engineering ones do it. To compare these units to more familiar ones used for cars, Watt is comparable to engine horsepower where as Watt-hours is comparable to fuel consumption, gallons (or litres) per day for example, or more precisely (gallons times calorific) value per day.
To put the 15TW figure into perspective this equates to a power demand of about 2.5KW for every person on the planet, or to put it another way it is equivalent to everyone on the planet (~6Bn) carrying around with them 25 100W light bulbs permanently lit up (24/7), scary!

Re 100 metre cable:
Regarding this other point you have replied to, I have already given some info on this in my previous posting. To expand a little further on this though, I think the 100m should be 100Km (~62miles), which is generally regarded as about the limit for HVAC power transmission. However the transmission characteristics of HVDC are quite different to HVAC and efficient/economic transmission is basically limited on how much you are prepared to spend on copper (or aluminium) for your cables.

Nick
(Electronics Engineer)
Comment
15 of 25
December 11, 2008
Oh Woooow Is this for real?? Just 35kms downriver from me is Youghaal Co Cork with a tide of up to 18knots (times 1.8 to get kms) where the River Blackwater enters the Atlantic. The esturary is about 1km wide and deep enough that Walter Relaigh used to regularly sail sea-going ships up almost up our present house.
Bayliners and such are often seen bouncing along heading up-river at full speed but travelling backwads relative to the shore (the dopes behind the wheels don't know to keep close to shore or wait for the tide to slow.)

Now there's a spot for a tidal power plant !!!
Comment
16 of 25
December 11, 2008
Hi Nick and Ronald,

Just to get back to you both on the query about the 100 meter cable. It should be a 100 MILE cable. An error in translation! My apologies!

This, by the way, is what Werner Ebner said in an email:

"It is correct that over a certain distance the transmission is a problem, but only for more then 100 miles. This is the reason why we talk about the possibility to produce hydrogen on the vessels. As an energy vector hydrogen could be collected and transported to the harbors by tank vessels. In this way we could exploit the energy of flows located far from the shore. At this moment of time hydrogen technology is not ready for commercial use, however in the future it could be an alternative."

Hope that helps! Cheers, Jane
Comment
17 of 25
December 11, 2008
It does help, Jane. Thank you very much. And I hope you did not misunderstand me. I wasn't being flippant in my earlier comment: I really was commending you for responding to people commenting on your blog. Very, very few authors of blogs on RenewableEnergyWorld.com deign to do that.

Yes, 100 miles (160 km) makes a lot more sense than 100 metres -- the length of a football pitch.
Comment
18 of 25
December 12, 2008
Thanks, Ronald.

Agree that exchanging ideas can be of great value and apologise again if I am ever slow in responding to any queries.

Quite a few readers, I'd guess, will appreciate all your comments, ideas and additions more than my report!
Comment
19 of 25
December 12, 2008
Interesting comments, there is a possibility (e.g. Greenpeace Proposal) of a superGrid across the North Sea connecting several countries. 100mile plus is practical on HVDC. I often wonder if there is another way of moving energy? Photonic Laser Energy? It has it's downside though, the laser would slice the tops off any shipping passing through...
Comment
20 of 25
December 14, 2008
In comment #8 Tom La Rovere writes:
"Combusting hydrogen with oxygen produces water vapor - a significant greenhouse gas! "

Water vapor is a significant greenhouse gas, but unlike CO2 and methane, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is readily controlled by a process we call "rain" so we need not be concerned by release of water into the atmosphere. If, for instance, you change the average temperature of the planet, this would change atmospheric water vapor concentrations (and this is one reason why water vapor is a critical component for climate change modeling), but primary production of water vapor is simply not a worry because it has no lasting effect.
Comment
21 of 25
December 15, 2008
In comment #14 Nick Cook writes writes:
" have seen figures for total world average power use quoted as 15TW and 13.5TW, so on that basis I should have spotted that the confusion was in the units..."

and

"To put the 15TW figure into perspective this equates to a power demand of about 2.5KW for every person on the planet, or to put it another way it is equivalent to everyone on the planet (~6Bn) carrying around with them 25 100W light bulbs permanently lit up (24/7), scary!"

The CIA states world electricity consumption in 2005 as 18,580,000,000,000 kWh/year or 18,600 TWh per year. At 365*24 = 8760 hours per year this is a mean power production of about 2.1 TW, not the 15 TW nick quotes. On a per capita basis, using a world population estimate of 6.7 billion, this is about 2800 kWh/year or about 300 W of continuous power--enough for 3 old fashion 100 W light bulbs, not the 25 that Nick worries about.
Comment
22 of 25
December 16, 2008
Re Comment #21 Steven's reply to my comments

Your numbers and calculations I am sure are correct and no doubt more accurate than mine HOWEVER they do not relate to the same data, I was considering "total world average power use", note I did not use the word "electricity", i.e. the 15/13.5TW figures include all the gas coal, oil and even the small amount of renewable's (e.g. African village wood fires), used for heating, cooking, transport, industrial processes etc. This also means it is difficult to be very precise about the actual figures, talking of which 18.56TWh is probably only in regard grid connected supplies that can be easily monitored, stand alone generation, such as fairground use, large ocean ship supplies etc., are probably not included and would be difficult to account for any way. I think, therefore, that relating sizes of renewable energy sources to the total energy use is more meaningful than to a particular form of energy.

Incidentally, in the original article I assumed that the 8TWh should have been 8TW, if 8TWh is what is intended then the contribution is minimal, as I stated originally this represents only about 2% of UK demand. Even at the quoted 10% of world demand ~233GW (10% of 19.9PWh/year / 15TW) this only represents about 1.5% of current usage so although useful it would not have a major impact on our GHG emissions.
Comment
23 of 25
December 16, 2008
Another way to generate hydrogen for shipment is to use solar panels to generate electricity to power water:hydrogen generators on the coastal areas off north west African countries such as Sub-Sarhara, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco.

These solar electric generators can be also used to power hydrogen extraction and liquification in all other desert areas of the world such as the desert like areas of the pacific coast of South America (like northern Peru), northern Australia, etc.

Hydrogen can be shipped from any of these areas where the combination of water and sun are plentiful
Comment
24 of 25
December 16, 2008
Transporting electricity over 3,000Km (~1,900miles) using HVDC cables can be about 90% efficient, conversly converting it to hydrogen and then back to useful forms of energy is probably going to be significantly less than 50%.
For those who believe that the 'water-electrolysis-hydrogen' cycle makes energy-economy sense I would suggest that you take a look at the analysis done by Ulf Bossel (fuel cell expert) in his article "Why a hydrogen economy doesn't make sense" at http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
The free on line book "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" by (Prof) John MacKay is also well worth reading, download from http://www.withouthotair.com

Re. "According to one estimate, the wave and current energy potential that could be tapped could be enough to cover about 10 percent of the world's electricity needs using 2006 consumption levels of 19,900 TWh/yr." To put this into context with other renewable electricity generating schemes, if the Sahara was covered with solar electric generators, operating at ~10% efficiency, these could supply about 10,000% of the world's electricity.
Comment
25 of 25
December 23, 2008
You can't just look at the efficiency of transporting electricity over a distance of 3,000Km ((90% as stated) and compare that to the efficiency of converting electricity to hydrogen and then back into electricity (50% as stated) to conclude that the cable option is better. You have to look at the total cost of each option using present value numbers plus try to quantify the risks of things going wrong with each option.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Second Wind Inc. Talesun Solar RBI Solar Inc. Via Expo Mannvit Zep Solar DNV
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters