Sign-In  or  Create a Free Account
Sign-in with:
 
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
 
Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Scouring the Tropics for Thermal Energy

By Bruce Dorminey, Contributor
May 3, 2012   |   18 Comments

Do you like this news?

 
 
18 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 18
May 3, 2012
Tim Fuhr, Lockheed Martin's Director of Ocean Energy, responded to my request for comment after this story posted.
He writes:

Lockheed Martin is testing critical OTEC technologies at facilities in several locations. We've made some major advancements in both heat exchangers and in the cold water pipe so that they are ready for a large-scale, commercial application. In addition, we have developed an efficient plant design developed around these key technologies.

We have our condenser and evaporator heat exchangers, the parts of the OTEC power plant that evaporate a liquid to drive a turbine-generator and then condenses it back to a liquid, under test at the National Energy Laboratory Hawaii Authority (NELHA). The Lockheed Martin heat exchangers that have been tested are of a similar design as the ones needed to support a 5 to 10 megawatt pilot OTEC plant. The land-based facility does not produce power, but rather provides similar conditions to those that our sea-based design would experience, and we have been very pleased with how our technology has performed.

We believe OTEC is poised to become a leader in reliable, secure and clean energy generation. Lockheed Martin has been focusing on advancing the critical enabling technologies that will make OTEC a real, commercially available power source. Lockheed Martin has developed the design for a sea-based, multi-megawatt OTEC pilot plant, which would use the real technologies that could directly scale up to support a 100 megawatt plant. Putting this system in the water is the next step needed for the path to real OTEC commercialization.
Comment
2 of 18
May 3, 2012
Bruce,

OTEC is poised to join the global renewable energy scale on many different levels, but your article leaves out the biggest OTEC news in the world. Another company already has deals in place to build the first commercial OTEC plants in the Bahamas...

http://www.theonproject.org/2011/the-bahamas-sign-memorandum-of-understanding-to-build-two-otec-plants/?utm_source=renewablenergyworld&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=mscomment

There will be multiple OTEC power plants, and an OTEC sea water district cooling system at a massive resort to run the cleanest air conditioning system in the world today.

Forbes magazine did a write up last month on these OTEC developments...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidferris/2012/03/31/market-for-deep-ocean-energy-starts-to-heat-up/

I hope you'll give the sites a good look over, and maybe provide your readers with an OTEC update on these projects.

Thank you.
Comment
3 of 18
May 4, 2012
Tropical power sounds like a very marginal operation in oceans that are well away from major population centres. Solar PV in northern Australia with 500 million on the northern door step sounds a bit more practical when it comes to electrolysing water to hydrogen for export
Comment
4 of 18
May 4, 2012
'But despite the fact that the idea for the technology is more than a century old; to date, OTEC has only been successfully demonstrated on small scales of less than a quarter of a megawatt (MW) and has yet to produce utility-scale power.'

This may not be a bad thing.

OTEC performance is limited by its Carnot efficiency which means that at these temperature differences the efficiency is only a few percent, probably less than 4%. The main action of this technology is therefore to transfer 95% plus of the heat energy from the surface waters to the deep ocean water, a 1MW output plant would transfer about 19MW+ of power from the surface to the deep ocean. At a utility scale implementation of 100's of MW I would suspect that this level of heat transfer could have massive local, and possibly wider, ecological effects, possibly affecting ocean currents, at least at the local level.

To me this scheme has similarities to ground source heat pumps which rely on the sun heating the ground in the summer which acts as a heat store for extraction in the winter. The amount of heat supplied by the sun doesn’t increase when heat pumps are installed so there has to be a net reduction in ground temperature where they are installed, which in the worst situations causes the ground to freeze and stops the pump from working. By analogy the oceans will not absorb any more solar energy to compensate for the energy extracted but the act of extracting energy is achieved by transferring heat from the surface to the deep ocean. My concern is that this could have substantial environmental impacts if implemented at large scale, the Gulf Stream is already slowing, it doesn’t need any more help.

Before OTEC 'goes large' I think there probably needs to be some serious verified modelling of its environmental affects if implemented at full utility scale because I'm not convinced these will be a 'drop in the ocean'!
Comment
5 of 18
May 4, 2012
'Funding certainly is the biggest obstacle for OTEC,'?? Not really. The biggest hurdle is the poor economics that do not improve much with scale and the massive environmental consequences outlined above by Nick Cook. The climate and oceanic consequences of turning over of the oceans is only the beginning. The procedures (chemicals) needed to control biofouling on the interior of the intake pipes and the heat exchangers may be even worse. The thermal shock to larval and juvenile fish unlucky enough to get sucked into the heat exchangers will be still worse.

With all the relatively benign renewable-energy options we have, it amazes me that we continue to squander tax dollars on OTEC.
Comment
6 of 18
"Customer end user costs for OTEC power in Hawaii are expected to be in the neighborhood of 0.25 to 0.35 cents per kWh which is in line with current residential rates now."

This is easy to match with conventional land based photovoltaics and easy to beat with wind and hydro. OTEC sounds like more trouble than it's worth.
Comment
7 of 18
May 4, 2012
The selling point with OTEC is that it provides base load and backup for intermittent PV and Wind. However this may not be such a big plus as I believe EOS have now started shipping their Zn-Air rechargeable battery technology which, at their stated cost of $160/KWh and a life of 30yrs & 10,000 full cycles works out at only about 1.6¢ per KWh over the life of the cells.
If this is used in conjunction with Green and Gold's SunCube CPV product, producing electricity for a claimed 6.0-8.5¢ (Aus)/KWh (in Australia), then total cost is less than 10¢ per KWh. If land is in short supply on some small Caribbean or Hawaiian islands why not offshore the PV! too!
Comment
8 of 18
May 4, 2012
Baseload and renewable back up are two very different things. With their questionable economics, there is no way an OTEC plant is going to sit around and wait for the wind to die.
Comment
9 of 18
May 4, 2012
re nick - cook
hvac ground sourse heat pumps do provide signifigant savings . and the heat source is from the earth itself . at 4 feet below ground the temperture stays mostly the same year round . providing heating or cooling benefits .the energy exchange to the ground would not be signifigant due to the diameter of the pipe buried in the ground and the lenth itself > . the problem is installation costs verses savings , and i imagine much would be the same using temperture differences in the ocean .
No image available
Comment
10 of 18
Anonymous
May 4, 2012
I'm not a chemist, so I do not even pretend to understand how ammonia can affect it's surrounding environment, but I found this in the Wikipedia article for ammonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia#Toxicity):

"Ammonia even at dilute concentrations is highly toxic to aquatic animals, and for this reason it is classified as dangerous for the environment."

Is anyone else concerned that "several hundred tons of liquid ammonia" would be floating at just one of these plants miles off our coastlines? We know for a fact that major accidents at sea happen at fairly regular intervals. How many times in the last few years has a large ship varied from it's plotted course, causing terrible environmental damage when it runs aground, or into another human-made structure? I've lost track, but a number of cargo ships, super tankers, and cruise ships come to mind. And if a ship where to hit one of these power plants, and the liquid ammonia escapes, because of it's low boiling point, would it stay in the water, enter the atmosphere (or both), choking and killing anyone within a large radius, either because the were aboard the initial vessel, or part of a response crew?

Never mind the economics, this just seems like an environmental disaster waiting to happen.

Matthew
Comment
11 of 18
May 4, 2012
Cliff:
You're right of course and I do appreciate that baseload and renewable backup are quite different, I was considering backup from the overnight perspective when the sun goes down rather than peaking response, OTEC themselves I believe are pushing the baseload angle. There's a free webinar here on OTEC and others on lots of other green technologies.

Richard, Re: 'the heat source is from the earth itself'
With HVAC ground source (GS) heat pumps the heat comes initially from the Sun by heating the ground, this is not to be confused with geothermal (GT) in which the heat is generated within the ground from such mechanisms as radioactive decay or from the Earth's core. Generally GT requires much deeper heat collectors than GS except where the Earth's crust is thin such as in Iceland.

Anonymous:
I would think the risk of catastrophic failure of one of these plants is likely to be very low if they are designed correctly, considering all the modern safety requirements. However, ammonia is very soluble in water so I would expect that the predominant risk is likely to be from leaks; due to failure of seals, valves or container fractures, causing water contamination which is still likely to be pretty serious, although catastrophes probably can?t be ruled out 100%.
Comment
12 of 18
May 4, 2012
Matthew, speaking of storing ammonia, you wrote, "And if a ship where to hit one of these power plants, and the liquid ammonia escapes, because of it's low boiling point, would it stay in the water, enter the atmosphere (or both), choking and killing anyone within a large radius, either because the were aboard the initial vessel, or part of a response crew?"

You bet. In fact it sounds a lot like LNG except for the absence of cryogenic temperatures and the fact that it's use would not add to atmospheric CO2. Given the choice, I'd go for ammonia.
Comment
13 of 18
May 4, 2012
I would caution against prematurely dismissing the idea of ammonia or hydrogen-producing equatorial OTEC plants far from land. Environmental concerns will be addressed on a step by step, case by case basis and as yet haven't been deemed to be insurmountable. Wind and solar advocates are forgetting that both also come with some inherent environmental issues not the least of which is sheer aesthetics. Do we really want to see the Sahara or Nevada's rather pristine high desert turned into one large PV array or wind farm? My larger point is that all these renewable energy sources have merit and should continue to be explored and developed. We can't afford to dismiss any of them out of hand.
Comment
14 of 18
May 4, 2012
Bruce, agreed, the environmental concerns of H2 or NH3 production can be addressed. But the consequences of OTEC operation on the ocean ecosystem is not a risk - its a reality. I see nothing that could be done to mitigate those impacts. I do not see this being something that can be ignored and any state concerned about its marine ecosystem is going to just say no. NOAA fisheries will have their say in this country.

The only way this is going to work is in international waters as rogue industrial operations beyond the the jurisdiction of governments. Then watch out for the Sea Shepherd, Greenpeace, Oceana, etc. It might even draw the attention of the U.N.
Comment
15 of 18
May 4, 2012
to Nick Cook-- re Ground Source Heat Pumps GSHP--Solar penetration of the earth's crust in mid latitudes is around 25 feet. Heat pumps using vertical bores are drawing mostly on earth energy. Heat pumps using horizontal earth loops or ponds, lakes or rivers are mostly drawing on solar warming. In my case I'm drawing from an existing water well at 120 ft. so mostly earth energy. To add to geothermal the Brits are starting to heat large buildings directly from heat at around 5,000 ft. The Germans are doing steam generated electricity and district heating off heat at around 15,000ft. Best Bob Freeston member Intl. Ground Source Heat Pump Assn. (IGSHPA)
Comment
16 of 18
May 7, 2012
ALL research on non-carbon based alternative energy sources should be encouraged. The goal must be to create new energy sources without negatively effecting our home, the planet earth. We can not know in advance what a future breakthrough could mean toward making any given technology viable. In real estate it is commonly known that the three most important factors are location, location and location. For the future of mankind the three most important factors are research, research and research. It amazes me that anyone would suggest that research into extracting energy from the 3/4 of the earth's surface should be ended before we have even done the basic research. Remember, we are currently creating much of the energy we use from burning coal. We must hunt for all possible alternatives and, then, choose the best for mass construction.
Comment
17 of 18
May 7, 2012
David, please don't misinterpret my comments. I'm in favor of research into new sources of renewable energy along with the adoption of already-proven ones. OTEC research began in 1930 and during the 1970s the U.S. government invested $260 million. See: http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/ps_power.html

That coal plant you correctly malign has a thermal efficiency of roughly 30%. OTEC has a thermal efficiency 4% at best and a significant portion of any power it generates is needed to pump vast amounts of water through the system. Such is the physics of the OTEC cycle.

As the map in the article shows, simply based on temperature distribution, OTEC has no chance of contributing to the energy needs of the continental US. Maybe it can make economic sense for the island nations of the western tropical Pacific.
Comment
18 of 18
May 7, 2012
Re energy use in general--We are already building super insulated buildings that are zero net energy users. PV runs ground or air source heat pumps. Ad some more PV for a hybrid or electric vehicle and off you go.
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

Bruce Dorminey

View Bruce Dorminey's Profile
About: Bruce Dorminey is an award-winning science journalist who is a former Hong Kong bureau chief for Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine and a former Paris-ba... more »

Advertise With Us

Sunetric Unirac, Inc. Upsolar Green Power Conferences Arena Solutions Black & Veatch Corporation Trojan Battery Company
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