backtop


Print 24 comment(s) - last by Cannyone.. on Jul 27 at 4:32 PM

Project will power 1,200 homes -- cost has not been revealed

While the U.S. has explored the concept of tidal power, little progress has been made in actual commercial deployments, even as projects in Russia and Scotland surged ahead. But tidal energy appears to be taking its first baby step out of the research setting and into the real world of commercial power generation in the U.S.

I. Tidal Energy Could Provide up to 6 Percent of U.S. Power

The new project [press release] will be installed in the Bay of Fundy, also known as the Passamaquoddy Bay, boosting the nation's renewable power hopes.

The bay has some of the world's strongest tides, pouring in and out 2 billion tons of water daily.  The power potential in that bay is estimated to be sufficient for anywhere between 0.8 and 14 gigawatts of energy generation [source].  

Globally, tides are estimated to carry as much as 64 gigawatts of usable energy.  According to a more recent DOE report, the total power generation potential in the U.S. alone could be terawatt-hours annually -- roughly 6 percent of the approximately 4,155 terrawatt hours the U.S. currently consumes a year [source].

Maine and Bay of Fundy

The tantalizing prospect of tapping all that power has been hindered by a variety factors.  Many bays (including the Bay of Fundy) sit along international borders, hence requiring complex agreements to permit construction.

Then there's the issues of environmentalists, land-owners, and native-peoples who fear that undersea turbines could not only harm local wildlife, but also their property values.  Past offshore wind-turbine projects have been plagued by lawsuits.

Last, but not least, there's the brutal nature of the sea.  The rush of corrosive, salty sea-water is hardly a friendly environment for industrial machinery.  Tidal power generators remain largely untested.  While engineers will look to deter barnacles and other harmful growth, the harsh environment raises concerns over maintenance costs.

Bay of Fundy
The Bay of Fundy in the evening [Image Source: ORPC]

With cheaper, more-proven forms of alternative energy -- like nuclear power -- available, the question is whether now is a good time to commercialize.  

II. 3 Megawatt Plant Will be Crucial Test for Tidal

But despite all the concerns Ocean Renewables Power Company (ORPC), a green-energy startup, has partnered with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to deploy an entry-level horizontal turbine installments capable in harnessing 3 megawatts of energy.

TideGen
The new project uses horizontal undersea turbines to capture tidal currents' kinetic energy.
[Image Source: ORPC via Inhabitat]

While just a tiny drop of the total power generating potential of the bay, that project will be enough to power 1,200 homes.

The power will be funneled into the New England area by the Bangor Hydro utility grid.  It will draw power from three installation locations -- Cobscook Bay, at Kendall Head, and in Western Passage.

The effort is dubbed the "TideGen Cobsook Bay Project".

The larger deployment follows six years of research and development by ORPC, including trial deployments.  In 2008 ORPC became the first team to install tidal power generation in the bay.  Then in 2010 they step up their efforts, testing a turbine dubbed TideGen Power System.  The test turbine produced up to 150 kilowatts in a 6-knot tidal current.

TideGen test unit
The TideGen Power System test unit has already seen action.
[Image Source: ORPC via Inhabitat]

ORPC stresses it has tried to engage the community and local leaders to minimize risk to the project from lawsuits.  It comments:

We have continually engaged with the local communities of Lubec and Eastport in a collaborative dialogue about our plans and ideas, and have sought their input and advice at every step of the development process. We have forged strong relationships with City of Eastport and Town of Lubec officials, the Eastport Port Authority, the Cobscook Bay Resource Center, the Cobscook Bay Fisherman’s Association and area fishermen, local harbor pilots, The Boat School, Sunrise County Economic Council, the public and other local organizations, who have all expressed enthusiastic support for our efforts.

The work involved in building installing, testing, and monitoring our power systems has also created local job opportunities, which will significantly increase in the future.

If all goes well the project will be completed in three years, reaching 3-megawatt capacity by 2015.

Note:
A previous version of this story listed Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. (OPTT) as affiliated with the Ocean Renewables Power Company (ORPC).  This was an error, the companies are not affiliated.

Sources: ORPC, DOE



Comments     Threshold


Passamaquoddy ahead ahoy!
By Bad-Karma on 7/26/2012 2:56:55 PM , Rating: 5
Passamaquoddy!!!!!!!!!!!!

This turbine will surely mess with the delicate ecosystem inhabited by Pete's invisible dragon...........




RE: Passamaquoddy ahead ahoy!
By Solandri on 7/26/2012 6:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
That's really the hitch. My rough calcs say the entire bay could generate about 3 gigawatts avg over a 24 hour period, double that if you can harness incoming tides too but I suspect that would mess up the resonance which causes the huge tides and thus destroy the site's value as a tidal power source. (Capturing energy from outgoing tides may mess it up too, I haven't fully thought that through.) To capture all that energy, you have to pretty much dam off the entire bay and run all the exiting water through turbines. Something that sits on the bottom of the ocean, out of sight, trying to capture energy as the water moves by isn't going to come anywhere close to that.

That's not to say this is a bad idea. It's just that we have to decide to completely sacrifice the ocean ecosystem in the area. That could be a worthwhile trade-off. Do note however that the Bay of Fundy is about the same size as the evacuation zone around the Fukushima nuclear plant, which had a nominal generating capacity of about 5 gigawatts. So the normal operation of a Bay of Fundy tidal generation station would permanently impact the environment of a region similar to the temporarily evacuated region around Fukushima after a near-worst-case accident, and still generate less energy.


RE: Passamaquoddy ahead ahoy!
By NellyFromMA on 7/27/2012 10:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
I mean, if we have to sacrifice the ecosystem in the area, doesn't that defeate the whole 'green' part of green energy?

Seems kind of counter productive....


RE: Passamaquoddy ahead ahoy!
By inperfectdarkness on 7/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: Passamaquoddy ahead ahoy!
By Solandri on 7/27/2012 4:44:11 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't get why people are so opposed to renewable energy sources. I'm living in Germany right now, and there's wind-turbines EVERYWHERE.

That's part of the problem. Up to now, most green energy advocates have been looking at renewable energy on a single generator vs. single generator basis. e.g. one wind turbine vs. one nuclear reactor. If you do that, of course the nuclear plant looks bad.

But if you compare them on the basis of the same power output... a 2 GW nuclear plant - two 1 GW reactors - with 0.9 capacity factor puts out 1.8 GW. Wind has about a 0.2-0.25 capacity factor in good locations (i.e. not parking lots). Spain has very strong coastal winds so manages about 0.35-0.4, but for most of the rest of the world it's 0.25 in a good month. So if you're using the newer 2 MW turbines, that means you need 3600-4500 turbines to equal the one nuclear plant.

At a manufacturing cost of about $3.5 million apiece, those turbines will cost $12.6-$15.7 billion - far more than the nuclear plant (about $2-$5 billion for two 1 GW reactors - all figures excluding loan costs). And you end up with wind turbines EVERYWHERE, which incurs higher maintenance and power distribution costs, as well as mars the natural landscape.
http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-win...

I don't say this to put down wind. Aside from hydro (which is about maxed out in developed countries), wind is the alternative energy source whose cost is closest to coal and nuclear, and I fully support R&D; into it to help drive down its cost. But the idealistic vision most environmentally-minded people have of getting all our energy from wind or the sun blissfully ignores some very serious and very real drawbacks.


RE: Passamaquoddy ahead ahoy!
By FITCamaro on 7/27/2012 7:57:48 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe because its insanely expensive and doesn't work all the time? Germany is going in entirely the wrong direction for energy. Shutting down stable, reliable, cheap nuclear plants because of a tsunami in Japan. Maybe I missed something but I'm pretty sure Germany doesn't have issues with earth quakes causing massive tidal waves.


RE: Passamaquoddy ahead ahoy!
By NellyFromMA on 7/27/2012 10:51:35 AM , Rating: 2
Fact is, people don't want to accept the notion that 'renewable energy' likely won't pan out to be quite as 'renewable' when deployed at a scale where we depend on it for a significant portion of our energy resources. There are limitations, like there are with everything. The tide is not infinite and inhibiting it does indeed have ramifications. If windmills are deployed in large concentration, certain the wind will become dragged. Don't we need the wind to maintain our climates and seasonal changes?

I think it would be funny if we caused more environmental 'harm' (because evidentally we equate change with harm) with renewable enrgy sources than we do without it.


RE: Passamaquoddy ahead ahoy!
By Cannyone on 7/27/2012 4:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
The winds that drive our overall "climate" are not "surface winds". They at a higher altitude and thus are not really influenced by what's going on at the surface. Instead its the other way around. High altitude winds tend to precipitate surface winds, which can in fact be influenced by ground objects.

And the only way in which a large group of wind turbines would affect surface winds is to slow them just a bit. And that effect would be nominal for turbines that were close together and "in-line" with the wind direction. Which would be an atypical situation.
_____________________________
Now looking at how these "Tidal Turbines" are constructed I'd say the degree to which they diminish the flow of said Tide is going to be negligible. Provided they aren't set up in a series and there aren't a massive number of them.

But just for arguments sake lets consider what effect "slowing the tidal flow" would have for an area of the bay... The first effect might be an accumulation of silt in those areas downstream of the turbines. Or, just as likely, there would be a redirection of water (trying to go around the turbines) that could increase erosion of the bay's bed. Neither of these scenarios does anything that doesn't happen naturally, over time, other than the fact that it can speed up the process one way or the other.

And personally I'm willing to give the engineers in this case the benefit of the doubt. It seems far more likely that they've considered some of the side effects than not. Because we can be sure that they are at least partially qualified to do "their job", whereas its far less likely that anyone here (including myself) is qualified to nay say the same project from a distance.


RE: Passamaquoddy ahead ahoy!
By NellyFromMA on 7/27/2012 10:45:41 AM , Rating: 2
hahahaha. I just hope it can handle rising sea levels when the 'end times' come as we are so often reminded of.


Lawnmower
By pityme on 7/26/2012 3:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
It looks like the old time lawn mower that I used as a kid. Should be able to find plenty of them in West Virginia yards rusting away. You know, its behind the rusting pickup.




RE: Lawnmower
By thurston2 on 7/26/2012 10:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
Why insult WV? Have you ever been there?


RE: Lawnmower
By Manch on 7/27/2012 2:49:04 AM , Rating: 3
Because it's an easy target...

Why do birds fly upside down over West Virginia?

Because theirs nothing worth $h!tting on!

...

What did the West Virginian girl say after she lost her virginity?

Get off me Pa! Yer crushin my Marlboro Lights!


RE: Lawnmower
By thurston2 on 7/27/2012 7:04:28 AM , Rating: 2
Why is it an easy target,None of your jokes are true? I could easily replace wv with your moms name.


RE: Lawnmower
By Bad-Karma on 7/27/2012 10:19:40 AM , Rating: 2
Sergeant Hulka says: Lighten up, Thurston....


RE: Lawnmower
By StuckMojo on 7/27/2012 11:42:50 AM , Rating: 2
You should turn that into a Camel Crush joke ;)


RE: Lawnmower
By martin5000 on 7/27/2012 5:43:17 AM , Rating: 2
I still use an old style lawn mower, cuts much better than anything else. My lawn is much better than when I had an electric one. And no cables/fuel needed. It's fun to use as well.


Only for tides?
By JediJeb on 7/27/2012 12:09:04 AM , Rating: 2
Could something like this be placed on the bottom of the Ohio or Mississippi River to harness the flow without having to dam up the rivers? There are many towns along those rivers with less than 1200 people who could benefit from something like this.




RE: Only for tides?
By DanNeely on 7/27/2012 1:07:18 AM , Rating: 2
The prototype in river free standing turbines I've seen drawings/renderings of were all a type that looked much more like a windmill than this.


RE: Only for tides?
By Solandri on 7/27/2012 5:11:12 AM , Rating: 3
The problem is one of energy density. The reason you dam up rivers is so you can concentrate the energy. If the river piles up behind the dam to a depth of 1000 feet, then you're getting 1000x the energy per ton of water moving through your hydroelectric turbine as you'd get from this device slowing the water down the equivalent of a 1 foot drop in height (roughly e.g. 7 mph slowed to 4.5 mph). In other words, to collect a similar amount of energy, the moving parts of this device need to be 1000x times larger than the turbine in the hydroelectric dam.

The machinery like this device or a turbine costs a lot more than a concrete wall. So it's much, much cheaper to build a cheap concrete dam to concentrate the energy and run the water through a small expensive turbine, than it is to build lots of really big and expensive turbine-like devices to harvest that same energy in its diffuse un-concentrated form.

(Also, on a technical level, the Mississippi and Ohio carry a lot of silt with them. Their bottoms and shorelines are constantly changing. So any devices like these would become buried in silt and ineffective within a year or two, if not within months. Devices like this are more ideally suited for rocky bottoms and slower water flowrates.)


Clarification needed
By futrtrubl on 7/26/2012 3:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
could be terawatt-hours annually -- roughly 6 percent of the approximately 4.155 terrawatt hours the U.S. currently consumes a year

Even one terrawatt-hour/year would be way more than 6% of 4.155TW/year (24% by my calculation) but the article indicates multiple terrawatt-hours/year by the use of the plural. What gives?




RE: Clarification needed
By Digimonkey on 7/26/2012 4:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently he put in a decimal point where there should've been a comma. It's fixed now.


Many Possibilities...
By Arsynic on 7/26/2012 3:17:06 PM , Rating: 3
They can have a restarant topside that serves fresh sushi daily...




Well its worth a shot
By johnsmith9875 on 7/27/2012 3:58:46 AM , Rating: 2
SOMEBODY has to be the first to try it out.

Personally I think we should go wind and solar. There are parts of the USA that are sunny nearly year round and offshore winds are very strong, and they won't spoil people's precious views of the ocean. Those concept power towers look interesting too....basically a giant tower that air rushes up inside it due to unequal heating.

Not every country has such conveniences.




3 megawatts....
By FITCamaro on 7/27/2012 7:55:57 AM , Rating: 2
And how many tesn or hundreds of millions of dollars will this cost?

I love how people try to make the case that this crap can replace coal for our energy needs. Coal plants that put out 4-500 MW.

You idiots that support this crap are in for a big surprise when your energy bills skyrocket.




"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki