Jump to content

Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions.

DOE Reports Confirm United States' Immense Wave and Tidal Energy Resources.

wave power tidal power water energy

 
7 replies to this topic

#1 E3 wise

E3 wise

    Shifted

  • Premium Shifter
  • 1,027 posts 286 rep

Posted 05 February 2012 - 09:25 AM

By Jeanne Roberts on January 30, 2012

Reprinted with Permission of EnergyBoom.com- Emerging Energy Section - by E3Wise.

     Two U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports provide back-to-back confirmation that the potential for electricity from coastal wave and tidal stream energy could reach as high as 15 percent of the total of current U.S. electrical demand.

  The first, prepared with the assistance of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), using a specially prepared, 51-month Wavewatch III database developed by NOAA (the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration), estimates wave power along the U.S. continental shelf in kilowatt-hours (kWHs) based on the accepted assumption that wave power densities are aggregated across a unit diameter circle, and mapped out to 50 nautical miles from shore.

Partners in the study/assessment included the Virginia Tech Advanced Research Institute (VT-ARI) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, or NREL (one of 12 labs operated by the DOE, and the only one involved in research, development, commercialization and deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies).

According to the report, the total available wave energy power estimate is 2,640 terawatt hours per year (TWH/yr), with 590 TWH/yr coming from the West Coast, 240 TWH/yr from the East Coast, 80 TWH/yr from the Gulf of Mexico, 1,570 TWH/yr from Alaska, 130 TWH/yr from Hawaii, and 30 TWH/yr from Puerto Rico.

    Of that, less than half is recoverable, but even this 1,170 TWH/yr represents a significant amount (29%) of electricity, compared to total U.S. electricity use of 4,000 TWH/yr. Even after reducing estimates to account for what some critics consider “double-counting,” the resource still represents about 15 percent of U.S. energy use.

  The second report was a cooperative effort between the DOE and Georgia Tech (funded through the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, or EERE), and collates data from ROMS (the Regional Ocean Modeling System) suggesting that – at an assumed extractable level of 15 percent (the exact figure is unknown) – tidal streams in Alaska, Puget Sound, California, Massachusetts and Maine could provide a documented 17 terawatt hours (TWh) of energy per year, the lion’s share of that coming from the Cook Inlet in Alaska.

Tidal power is also available in Washington, Oregon, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, North and South Carolina, Georgia and Florida (in order of potential). In some of the locations, areas called “hotspots” -- measuring a few hundred kilometers square and at depths greater than 100 meters -- power potential is in excess of 8 kilowatts per square meter, and could provide more than adequate reliable supplies of localized electricity.

Both wave energy and tidal energy are emerging renewable energy sources whose technology is only now beginning to catch up to the remarkable energy potential inherent in ocean water. Wave power, as its name suggests, extracts the kinetic energy of ocean waves off the continental shelves in deeper regions of water.

Tidal wave power is a result of the effect of ocean currents on the land, for example during high tides, when ocean water “slips” sideways after reaching the beach or shore.

The first commercial-scale wave power installation in the U.S. was off Reedsport, Oregon, by Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. (NGM: OPTT). This commenced in 2010, which demonstrates just how new the technology is – at least in the U.S (though Europe is not far ahead, having run its first test of a wave power machine in 2004 and commercial deployment in 2008).  

New as these technologies may be, they offer distinct advantages over solar arrays and wind farms located on land – advantages which the UK and other European nations seem bent on harnessing, while the U.S. backs off – presumably as a result of President Barack Obama’s reluctance.

With the exception of the U.S. military, notably the Air Force, which in 2011 demonstrated the tremendous potential of the ocean to generate energy using its research facilities at the Air Force Academy campus in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

    This year, the DOE also plans to release additional program-funded assessments of ocean current and ocean thermal resources.

E3 Wise is sharing this article for educational and informational purposes only. All statements made in the article are the responsibility of the author.

#2 artistry

artistry

    Activist

  • Veteran Shifter
  • 852 posts 62 rep

Posted 05 February 2012 - 10:45 AM

From the reports, it appears that this would a great source of energy for the country. It sounds great, so what I am wondering why President Obama is reluctant to embrace the idea, which seems feasible. Thanks for such a detailed reported.

#3 Shortpoet-GTD

Shortpoet-GTD

    Shifted

  • Validating
  • 8,025 posts 758 rep

Posted 05 February 2012 - 10:58 AM

View Postartistry, on 05 February 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

From the reports, it appears that this would a great source of energy for the country. It sounds great, so what I am wondering why President Obama is reluctant to embrace the idea, which seems feasible. Thanks for such a detailed reported.
Maybe because he knows nothing would pass at the moment, so why bother?

#4 still learning

still learning

    Activist

  • Veteran Shifter
  • 886 posts 162 rep

Posted 07 February 2012 - 12:51 PM

I notice that there is no cost per kilowatt-hour estimate at all.

Without a cost per kwh, nobody can decide how practical wave or tide generated electricity is.

That's the whole reason for funding experimental deployments, to find out how practical the idea is.  If the cost of the equipment is such that the electricity produces costs twice as much as from other renewables, then most people would call it impractical.

Just because there's a lot of wave or tidal energy doesn't mean that it can be captured at a reasonable cost.  Have to find out.

"Sounds great" is premature.

#5 jasserEnv

jasserEnv

    Activist

  • Pro Shifter
  • 406 posts 45 rep

Posted 08 February 2012 - 09:45 AM

Estimates on the production costs of wave energy are projected to be on par with wind energy so that would make the cost about 4-5 cents per kilowatt hour based on my understanding and past readings. Of course how long that takes to get to this cost level is an important consideration. However, with so much of the population living along the coast, this does seem to be a reasonable source of energy and of considerable value to investigate.

At the same time, using underwater compressed air for energy storage would seem to be a reasonable means to smooth out production for time of day utilization.

The attached link talks about some of the costs of wave energy:

http://www.oceanener...ave-Energy.html

#6 E3 wise

E3 wise

    Shifted

  • Premium Shifter
  • 1,027 posts 286 rep

Posted 08 February 2012 - 07:55 PM

You know you bring up the same thoughts I had, first being the cost of the energy at grid parity and then the initial start up cost and of course the environmental impact study and permitting costs.  Florida Atlantic University has been working on these issues for several years and because it is in our own back yard we have tried to keep up on their advances.  Another company  French power equipment giant Alstom and Scottish developer SSE Renewables plan to jointly build a wave-energy farm of up to 200MW in the waters north of Scotland’s Orkney Islands.

   Of course as with any alternative energy project economic feasibility is the first concern.  I know that one of the big hold ups for off shore wind here in the US has been the huge cost of dredging the underwater cables and laying those cables to shore, along with tie in to the grid.

   As a designer, I am always interested in new applications and the ocean is a huge untapped source.  Like everything else this will have greater feasibility in certain areas and I know that here in Florida one of the big issues is where to locate these projects.  My thought has always been to place them on the perimeter of protected water areas and then annex them as part of the protected area so the risk of anchors would be minimized.  The good point would be that the protected area would then benefit from some of the revenue to help maintain the protected area, thereby offering a win, win, for both the electrical provider and the protected waterway.  Yet with this said you have to be very careful.

   In the 1950’s when the bridge was built to Sanibel Island near Fort Myers Florida the oyster population was wiped out.  This had a cascade effect on water quality in the bays around Fort Myers and caused the loss of several other shrimp and fish species, so you have to be very careful to make sure things like this don’t happen.

   Yet when you look at the problem that is occurring with ocean acidification from fossil fuels, doing nothing has its own risks also.  Honestly I just want clean energy that is made in America to keep and create good paying jobs here and money here at home instead of off shoring those to other countries.  Energy independence means money and tax’s stay here and that goes to cities, counties and states for education, healthcare, and infrastructures, which is where we need the money to go, not some other country.

   Thanks for the nice post and your comments and keep them coming.

#7 jasserEnv

jasserEnv

    Activist

  • Pro Shifter
  • 406 posts 45 rep

Posted 09 February 2012 - 09:59 AM

Any project of this scale should be trialed at smaller scale in advance to assess the environmental impacts. That said, the key is keeping those involved accountable for their actions. As compared to the 1950s, there are numerous ways well-known ways to mitigate damage when doing development. The thing that I like about developing such projects in the ocean is that there is potential for these installations to provide waterfront protection from large waves. This in turn can be good for enhancing ecosystems that have to work much harder in the face of strong ongoing waves.

#8 artistry

artistry

    Activist

  • Veteran Shifter
  • 852 posts 62 rep

Posted 11 February 2012 - 08:56 AM

As stated in the report "wave energy and tidal energy are emerging,  renewable energy sources". Should the feasibilitity of this source of energy prove to be viable, hope is never "premature". Cheers.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users