Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

"Anaconda" Could Provide up to 20 MW of Wave Energy

July 15, 2008   |   20 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
20 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 20
July 15, 2008
The Anaconda

This type of anaconda is good for you and me,
It lives beneath deep waters where roaming space is free,
It does not eat the creatures or even plankton cells
But feeds on "bulge wave " surges where water currents dwell,
It's coated with a layer of rubber for its skin,
Wave power gets it going, it needs no scale or fin,
A mighty hefty creature, to think it could provide,
'Lectricity from waters moving to and fro inside.

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment
2 of 20
July 15, 2008
The main danger is not a shark, but a big storm. In the past there were attempts to build floating breakwaters. They worked until a big storm came. It is hard to predict how big the wave can be. Sometimes one wave engages with previous and they form " a killer wave", which affect (crusing force) hard to predict. It is know several cases when modern ship meet the "killer wave" and part of their bow was cutoff like by knife. In the past small ship disapeared after meeting the "killer wave".
Comment
3 of 20
July 15, 2008
I love this inventive thinking. The Anaconda could be the next "wave" of renewables, or it could be another blip on the radar of ideas for renewable energy generation. Only time will tell.

One thought I had when reading this article was: What about some type of predator, a shark perhaps, that may think of this "anaconda" as dinner? I guess something that is 100m long and 7m in diameter can be daunting to any creature... but all possible design flaws should be addressed.
Comment
4 of 20
July 15, 2008
That's thinking out of the box !
Comment
5 of 20
July 16, 2008
Its not the technology, it's the business model. $.05/kWh could be extracted from modules employing boring designs, which can be mass produced, and incorporate a proprietary feature or 2, not to mention acumen in manufacturing. Sannerwind@gmail.com
Comment
6 of 20
July 16, 2008
Sounds innovative and exciting. However, waves only appear near shore, not in the middle of an ocean. So this emerging technology needs to address environmental and safety issues if an anaconda farm is to be located near a coast.
Comment
7 of 20
July 16, 2008
I am not clear if this is a surface device or below surface. If it is surface, then I see a huge issue with the shipping industry.
Comment
8 of 20
July 16, 2008
25 yrs in the offshore business as a diver, ROV pilot and 10 as a engineering director in RE tells me that the Anaconda is a serious contender for full scale deployment.
Comment
9 of 20
July 16, 2008
That's an interesting idea. Let's see how it proves out in real-world testing. That will probably give better information as far as real costs and whether the Loch Ness monster finds it an attractive meal, or mate...
Comment
10 of 20
July 16, 2008
@Jeffrey Sneller:
In the UK we pay £.10/.12 per kWh so this would offer parity. Besides, do you think that fossil fuel prices are fixed? They are going up and up - unless you want to continue raping your mountain ranges for their coal.

And the retail price you pay for fossil electricity does not take into account the $$$ you pay in taxes, more and more of which are having to be devoted to environmental measures.

Thinking only of today is exactly what got us into the trouble we're currently in! Both financially (thank you sub-prime) and environmentally. The point is that these things will be expensive in the first place, but the price will come down due to economies of scale, and oil prices will dontinue to rise, meaning that before you realise it, the cost effectiveness will not even be a talking point. I'm not talking specifically about this technology, but all renewables, that work.
Comment
11 of 20
July 16, 2008
I am not sure I understand the point of producing power that is not cost effective just because it is "renewable". In the U.S. retail buyers of power pay the producer .0925 per KWh, on the high side. If it cost the producer 0.12 per KWh and my math is correct, it seems to be a losing proposition.
Comment
12 of 20
July 16, 2008
How can one possibly compute a cost of electrical power from a system that has only been tested "at very small laboratory-scale"?

I do cost models for a living - there are far too many variables to count between a laboratory scale demonstration and a power production system that provides reliable electricity over some assumed length of time.

When you see a figure that is a single number with two digit accuracy for something that is a complete SWAG - silly wild assed guess - you can know that you are not reading a serious piece of science reporting, but a marketing tool that is probably a press release copied almost word for word.
Comment
13 of 20
July 16, 2008
UK Patent No 0812528.8 is a Sea Rotor designed to harness underwater currents. Preferred design is mounted along the edge of an offshore floating platform. This platform would be preferably triangular and costructed of reinforced concrete, with floatation chambers moulded on the underside. The air in the chambers would be refreshed with compressed air. The platform would be large and would be a Combined Renewable Energy Production Platform (CREPP). Wind power would be harnessed by three VAWT's as per UK Patent NO 0811584.2, which incorporate a rotatable deflector shield that prevents the forces of the wind engaging the rotor vanes as they turn into the wind. The wave power would be harnessed by flotation pods mounted on arms along the edges of the CREPP. The energy from the underwater currents would be harnessed by the sea rotor. The sea rotor is powered by a tapered helical screw that partially floats so that it rotates at an angle to the vertical and horizontal. The tapered helical screw would be attached to the vertical drive shaft by a universal joint. The largest part off the taper would be nearest the universal joint.The universal joint would be the only support for the helical screw. The universal joint would allow the helical screw to follow the direction of the currents. The sea rotor would also be eminently suitable in tidal estuary locations because it always follows the flow of the current. The VAWT might be suitable on the top of buildings and also on ocean going ships and tankers. All three sources would be linked on the CREPP by hydraulic motors to one large generator.
persey@upcottfarm.fsnet.co.uk
Comment
14 of 20
July 16, 2008
A great idea. Presumably the turbine will be designed to even-out the intermittence of the thrusts from the wave 'bulges' to provide a consistent supply to the grid.
Comment
15 of 20
July 17, 2008
Yo Jeff,

Not to worry. This is another 'solution' that is five years away.

Aren't they all? Regardless of what year it is? Pacifying the masses' desire for change does not mean you are going to generate electricity. Cost rules.
Comment
16 of 20
July 17, 2008
Natasha Long
You raise many interesting issues but they are all unrelated not inter-related. The mortgage crisis has nothing to do with renewable energy, even though you can and did make the arguement that the connection is really an example of shortsightnedness, vs. long term planning. I disagree, however, with your suggestion that fossil fuel will continue to rise. I think you will find that the price of crude is about to plummet, dramatically. Don't let industry and cartel propoganda fool you. Fossil fuel is not finite, it is infinite and it is not in short supply. Remeber the 70's? The real problem is, it is not clean burning and therefore no longer sexy, as far as the environment is concerned, and most of the world's oil supply is in the hands of people who would like to use the money we pay them to destroy us -- (nothing new about that).

With respect to wave energy, it may prove cost effective over time, but not through economies of scale, it will only be through refinement of the technology, itself. Solar is a very good example. Another is: geothermal, which is 95% efficient, as well as municipal (waste water) hydro, wind, biofules, and let's not forget nuclear, which is far and away the most cost effective and efficient. I wouldn't want to discount any good idea, however. They may all prove to be good solutions in the energy basket. In the meantime, I drive a car and it runs on gasoline. Until we can replace, we need it.
Comment
17 of 20
July 17, 2008
The Waveberg is a light-weight spidery floatation wave-energy converter made of plastic & fiberglass that always faces into the waves. Each of its 3 arms is really a pump-handle, with the pump/pressure chamber making up the central "body" of this water-bug. I hosted a 9' prototype that was real-world tested here in Nova Scotia. It survived a full gale and was subsequently tested in a wave-tank in Newfoundland (where jack-up oil-rigs are tested) for both power production in various wave conditions and survival under severe stress. It passed with flying colors and computer output indicated serious power production potential if unit was scaled up to full-size, about 120'.
www.waveberg.com
Comment
18 of 20
July 18, 2008
Neat to develope, hard to say how effective this Anaconda thing. I thought the "Electric EEL" was a better name. Good luck to the inventers.
Comment
19 of 20
July 18, 2008
Great thinking. Instead of drilling for additional oil off shore in the US, we could use wave action instead to generate our electrical power.
Comment
20 of 20
July 19, 2008
Curious about the statement in comment 16 of fossil fuel supply being infinite. Don't think this is meant literally, but think it is a little misleading nonetheless.

The earth is a closed system except to solar radiation (and maybe the occasional meteor). We must recognize that any product we use has a limited resource base. If we want to exist on this earth more than a few hundred years into the future we must find ways to not only generate energy renewably, but make all consumer products part of renewable cycles. Energy is one of the most prominent examples because it's use emits byproducts that affect climate, but all consumer products cars/lamps/toothbrushes whatever must eventually be designed to be feed back into repeatable cycles at the end of their useful lives, not end up as waste.

Nothing in a closed system has an infinite supply. Energy consumption is currently the headline grabber because we use such copious amounts of it and it has significant negative byproducts. But really all products will eventually have to undergo the same renewable evolution as energy.
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

GoGreenSolar.com American Solar Energy Society Magnum Energy Inc. HelioSage Idaho Department of Commerce OTTI - Ostbayerisches Techn. Transfer Institute Total Energy USA
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