Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Sea Power, Part 1

By Mason Inman
August 3, 2009   |   8 Comments
No, not fleets of warships -- this power comes from warm and cold running water. Part 1 of our 3-part series.

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
But to get much juice out of a system like this requires veritable rivers of both warm and cold water. A 100-megawatt OTEC plant (about one-tenth the size of a typical coal-fired power plant) would need several thousand liters of water flowing through it per second.
8 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 8
August 5, 2009
The sea or at least the salt in the sea may contain a route to a higher energy level within water.
Pressure retarted osmosis for river flow into the sea has a maximum potential of 0.7KWh per M^3 of which about half is obtainable.
A different approach could yield much higher energy densities:

The world needs water as well as energy
Thermal energy (solar or industrial waste ) can be used directly for pumping in a manner that combines energy recovery for reverse osmosis.

The salinity of a concentrate resevoir(s) can be maintained by solar and wind powered desalination and some evaporation

The greater the salinity of these resevoirs the greater the osmotic pressure.
Using an approach for enhanced energy recovery : At 70% efficiency over 4KWh/M^3 could be recovered as water is transfered from sea water into the resevoirs via osmosis.
Arid areas have solar energy and may have some wind & thus could be irrigated and energy crops grown.
It may be worth while for energy utilities to pump salt water freely to consummers to desalinate with renewable energy. The return concentrate being a high density energy source for the ulitily provider.
An infra structure of piped sea water would also enhance the fire fighting capability of such areas. Such a senerio would encourage maximum use of renewable energy for irrigation which in itself would enhance the evironment.
gy.mercer@ntlworld.com
Comment
2 of 8
August 5, 2009
This may be covered in later sections.
Hawaii sits on the edge of a good sea current that flows on both sides
of the islands:
http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=3732
Jacques Cousteau was talking about windmills in the sea for places
like that over 30 years ago.

And eventually we will have to start havesting the plastic and seaweed
that grows in the center of these areas.
Comment
3 of 8
August 6, 2009
What are the environmental consequences of this temperature gradient engine?

The figure i remember reading over a decade ago were efficiencies of ~ 4%

What are the efficiency numbers that are used to questimate 0.22$/KWh

hat about underwater methane crystal fields? Will they be effected and plume into the atmosphere/

What are the global warming scenarios if this happens?

At what level of deployment does this and envirnmental effects kick in?

Why not build power plant waste heat generators with the same length of pipes offshore using the same principle or added to it the fact that heat rises and the pipes could be run along the bottom of the sloping sea floor from land to the edge or beyond of the continental shelf/

build solar towers off shore with heliostats on shore reducing heat load and thus cooling cost and create larger heat gradients to double, triple efficiency levels and thus power outputs per installation and thus improve ROI?

anybody have any answers or informed guesses?
Comment
4 of 8
August 10, 2009
In response to Ron_Davison, Comment 2, please see the article by Chris Barry entitled "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and CO2 Sequestration", along with my comments 10, 11, 14, 19, and 20, at http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/07/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-and-co2-sequestration-52762

In the tropical and subtropical oceans, available Carnot efficiencies range from about 6 to 7%, and achievable net efficiencies are about 2 to 3% and ought to be optimized. However, efficiency is NOT the bottom line, which is energy cost in ¢/kWh.

Although there is no fuel cost, there will be a large capital cost to circulate appreciable amounts of seawater through extensive arrays of heat exchangers. Nevertheless, the Lockheed Martin design team projects that even a first-of-a-kind 100 MWe ocean thermal plant will be commercially viable in many places like Hawaii where oil is presently used to generate electricity.

Info re broad environmental aspects of ocean thermal is in a 1986 NOAA study report, by researchers at NOAA and Argonne National Laboratory, entitled "The Potential Impact of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) on Fisheries at http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/tr40opt.pdf

Since operation of an ocean thermal plant requires the circulation through the plant of a veritable "river of water", there will necessarily be some resulting effect on the local and downstream temperature distribution with depth. Hence much will depend upon properly and responsibly discharging the effluent seawater. Proper design of the discharge process -- how to discharge the "not-so-warm" and "not-so-cold" effluents -- can be dealt with in various ways. The plant operator will avoid perturbing the pre-existing local temperature distribution, since plant economics dictate maximizing the temperature difference between the warm seawater and the cold seawater at depth.

NOAA is the federal agency charged with licensing ocean thermal plants and plantships.
Comment
5 of 8
August 12, 2009
What a silly comment to make "A 100-megawatt OTEC plant (about one-tenth the size of a typical coal-fired power plant) would need several thousand liters of water flowing through it per second." SOOO ???

Excuse me but "Several thousand liters" is just several tons. What's the big deal?? A small (ankle-deep) stream a child can jump across at 1:12 gradient carries about a ton a second. (1000lts).
Lets not sensationalise figures. An oil pipeline carries several thousand liters of water flowing through it per second. We're talking water here people - in the ocean !!
Comment
6 of 8
September 21, 2011
Thank you for responding to my questions.

You did not address the tipping point of hydroxides under pressure with cold temperatures, probably because of my condensed writing style used in comments.

If we where to generate 50% and contrasted to 100% of human energy needs what would be the resulting temperature rise at the depths of these hydrates?

How close or how far would we be with the two %'s to the tipping point of hydrate phase change?

What would be the consequences if this were to happen?

Also if we all ready have fossil fuel powerplants with waste heat being thrown away, why not use this as the high side Th for the heat engine. If the average temperature for Th could be raised 20 C or 40 C what would be the efficiency increase? what would the cost in kW/$ reduction be. How much extra piping would be needed and would this be more or less than the cost reduction kW/$ without this added into the equation?

if this is done offshore it moves and lowers the delta temp near the shoreline that effects fish and marine life. Although it will increase the volume of water that is raised in temperature. Not sure what would be better or worse for marine life.
Comments encouraged from all.
Comment
7 of 8
October 15, 2011
What if you just put the turbines minus all the piping down in the deep ocean currents off of hawaii?
How would the cost/kwh compare?

Again why not just pump up the cold water for lowering the Tc of the working power plants?
What % efficiency increase would this be?
What would be the differential cost/kwh of adding this type of system to the powerplant?
I bet this would double or triple the kwh/$ of any ocean temperature graident system. best to improve what is existing and get the benifit from what has been invested alllready.
In case you did not notice capital darn near extinct around the world with all the deleveraging, so we need to improve and build on present investments as a society.
This will allow for building capital at the fastes rate so we caN DO THE THE CUTTING EDGE STUFF.
This can be used for building a combined plant that can be built out as needed or as capital becomes available If both systems aRE CONSIDERED WHEN DESIGNING THE PIPING AND SYSTEMS THEN IT CAN BE OPTIMZED FOR BOTH TO SOME DEGREE, POSSIBLY WITH LARGE BENIFICAIL OVERLAP IN OPTIMUM DESIGN. iMPROVE THE POWER PLANT FIRST AND BUILD OUT FROM THERE.
Comment
8 of 8
October 15, 2011
I bet this would double or triple the kwh/$ COMPARED TO any ocean temperature graident system. best to improve what is existing and get the benifit from what has been invested alllready.
fIX FOR ABOVE
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

ClearEnergy Inc. ONTILITY Solar Training Solaire Generation WindPole Ventures, LLC 350 Media Endurance Wind Power Zep Solar
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
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 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