The Wave Dragon wave energy converter

[cheesemongler]

think about what makes waves: wind; why make wave energy coverters when you can make windmills instead? that have several advantages over wave energy convertors such as cost, maintence, the small area of land it uses etc

[scousieg8]

@:41

[JohnCBriggs]

@jwallbanger. The idea that renewable energy is free is either hopelessly optimistic or naive. Renewable energy is usually quite expensive. I have solar panels on my house and can assure you that the electricity comes at a significantly high price.

[jwallbanger]

@JohnCBriggs If someone is actually sending you a bill for the sun's rays that hit your solar panel then I need to know what company that is so I can buy stock. And since you want to split ridiculous hairs like "you object to the oil not the rigs" I'll return the favor and remind you that it's not the solar energy that's expensive it's your solar power equipment.

My point, obviously, is that unlike with unpredictably priced fossil fuels, energy sources like wind, wave and solar are free.

[cheesemongler]

@jwallbanger yes but it produces alot less power than something such as nuclear or coal

[cheesemongler]

@JohnCBriggs the cost of mining fossil fuels is alot more expensive than the equipment for solar energy

[JohnCBriggs]

@jwallbanger. Well to be fair, it is the oil you object to, not the oil rigs.

[jwallbanger]

This is so cool. Simple technology, relatively cheap and vast potential. Supposedly it has a positive environmental impact too do to the reef effect. I expect there will be about a million of these along every continental coast in ten years. It's sad that simple, easy, clean energy generators like this have been ignored in favor of dirty fossil fuels. Personally, I don't get it. In a fossil fuel power plant you have to keep buying the fuel, with wave wind and solar you get the power for free

[tappakeggaday1]

@jwallbanger well i think at "first" the cost should be competitive with other forms of fuel but when the structure is paid off and the company is making an actual return on its investment then the cost of the power being generated should be lowered so it saves the consumers money,oceans are vastly deep,would like to see it go vertically from the bottom that way they can harvest more of the energy,kind of like a clothes line for under water

[jwallbanger]

@tappakeggaday1 well the price will always be what the market can bear not what's fair to the consumer. that's just basic economics. and the wave dragon works by water sloshing over the side when the waves hit it and then running a turbine on it's way out through a hole in the middle. it obviously it can't work underwater.

there is such a thing however as an underwater heat engine that generates energy by taking advantage of the temperature difference between deep water and surface water.

[cheesemongler]

@jwallbanger it does not produce anymore energy than wind energy, and wind energy produces very little energy

[elecii]

sick!

[arcart0]

Probably they should be investigating new ways to save energy before they spend vast amounts of money. A case in point is that in 2005 the Government, Market Transformation Program had tests made on a new type of cleaner that employs Air Recycling Technology. The results show that it could save 1.5 Terawatt (1,500 Gigawatt) each year in the UK alone. Simply by changing the type of cleaner we use in our homes. It was originally designed to remove health hazards inherent in the vacuum cleaner.

[deechr]

Simple and effective as all the best technologies inevitably are. I drove past this installation in the summer and was amazed how little space it takes up. If the costs work out it is definitely a winner

[rock3tcat]

Why not simply just place the turbines horizontally to face the waves directly?

[larsjohnny]

You could, but the turbine would not turn. You need the pressure over the propeller. Mind that wave are not water moving forward. Water in waves move in a slow circular movement. However, near the coast, where waves have lost most of their energy, waves move fort and back. There are some wave technologies with moving "flaps" developed to utilise this.

[macrumpton]

If the device could be built into existing breakwaters then the construction cost would be divided into two functions as well as not needing underwater cables. Even if the efficiency was not quite as good as an offshore unit the combined functions as well as the ease of maintenance might make it worthwhile.

[sonnesama]

How does this system reacts when there is a storm???

[markulevski]

these idea's will help world to have clean and green energy. i vote for this energy.

[dillerfyr]

I love you :-)

[larsjohnny]

You are of course right and we have these figures in our business plan. With the support schemes (there you have the government again...) for wave energy in UK and Portugal we can give our costumers (wave energy farm operators) an competitive ROI (in European terms; generally lower than in the US, in my experience at least). But they'll also have to take a significant risk with a completely new technology.

[bellaggio1770]

Great idea, I hope your invention will become part of the energy generation in the future. However, I am a little intrigued about the size and weight of the product. The test unit looks massive, and produces not that much power after all. Cost vs. energy output comparison might still be necessary for it to be implementable.

[larsjohnny]

True, this pilot plant is large and power output small. But as we scale up (both the physical size and the wave climate) power output growth with the power of 3.5 and construction cost far less. The technology is viable for a wave farm operator (and profitable for) us at a 7MW unit size with the support schemes in UK and Portugal. The weigth would be a problem if built in steel, but we will shift to pre-cast concrete element construction.

[youteletub]

Now imagine a world in which these ugly things dot a once pristine coastline. I live in California. We used to have oil derricks all along the coast. We have now undone that terrible mistake. Even though we could extract an energy source right off the coast, the reality of an untouched, aesthetic, unbroken coastline is more important. This is a real world example of why your solution sucks. Why no consideration for the environment in your solution from the start?

[Hypn0tiK1985]

Now imagine a world without power. k thx

[youteletub]

Congratulations. You think just like the oil companies. "We need power, achieve it at all costs."

[larsjohnny]

I disagree. This technology will be located far from your coast line (minimum of 3-5 miles but probably 10 - 15 miles) and with a freeboard of max 7 meter you'll not be able to see it from the coast. So; we have been thinking of nothing but the environment since the very start our project. I agree that an untouched and unbroken coast line shall be preserved.

[JohnCBriggs]

@youteletub I have never understood this viewpoint.  I have seen oil rigs off the cost of Santa Barbara and they didn't bother me. Off the coast of Boston, I look on the horizon and see large ships bringing goods to port. These don't bother me either. A few windmills or wave power machines are not likely to be a problem either.

[jwallbanger]

@JohnCBriggs Oil rigs do bother me. Even before the BP oil spill I used to fly over the gulf and see mini oil slicks from abandoned drill holes that keep seeping indefinitely. It's just so small that people don't care, but multiply it by thousands and you realize how much oil is spilling into the ocean just from regular underwater drilling. And the biggest head scratcher is why nearly free energy from wind, waves and the sun is not preferable to purchasing coal, oil and gas, it makes no sense.

[cheesemongler]

@jwallbanger Oil, coal, and natrual gas produce more energy than renerable energy equipment

[jwallbanger]

@cheesemongler I'm not sure what you mean by that. What I think you mean is that the cost of producing a wind farm is greater than producing a coal, gas or diesel burning power plant that produces the same amount of energy. And that's true, but what you don't realize is that though the initial cost of wind is higher, in the long run it is more profitable and more financially stable, due to the fact that wind is free and fossil fuels are not and are in fact very unpredictable in price and supply.

[Bosta0102]

Amazing. I hope you can make this work! Why is this superior to a float solution (looks like a plane wing) where waves move the float and let's it generate the power?

[larsjohnny]

I my view wave energy converters that works by the waves moving floaters etc have a number of disadvantages: first they extract energy from extremely power movements and about 5 million times per year. Second they need to be in resonance with waves to work and thus have a relatively narrow bandwidth were it works efficiently. And last but probably most important: when it has to be in resonance to work efficiently it is limited in physical size and thus power output per device.

[taskforcedelta]

@larsjohnny

Maintenance for wave floaters could be a problem, mechanical torsions and many others things, go forward with this project ; )

[larsjohnny]

(continued ...) I doubt not that these technologies will work but I think that O&M cost will be prohibitive. And capital cost, too, with the limited device size profit will be eaten up by investment in subsea cabling and mooring systems.

[larsjohnny]

No I have not provided that kind of information. The main message is that we have succeeded. This prototype has actually been deployed for years. And have performed excellent. You will find a lot of developers of miraculous wave energy converters claiming that they have invented machinery that can produce electricity at a ridiculous low cost of energy. We have openly said that it is an expensive technology, at least for a start. So forget the ROI for a time and be glad that it works.

[Kibblenibbs]

So they are using wave power to fill up a tank to drop water through a turbine... sounds pretty stupid and wasteful to me.

[larsjohnny]

You are welcome to think it's stupid. Compared to river hydro you are right. It makes more sense building a river hydro plant where the water fall 100 m. Lot of energy in that. But out in the sea it makes sense. Most people think at first that it would be natural to try to extract energy from the movement of the waves. Up and down or sideways. But this is actually rather difficult. By using our stupid method we avoid more than 5 million powerful movements per year.

[goodsnservices]

Doesn't look like it would produce much energy...

[larsjohnny]

Correct. The one on the video is just a pilot plant. And a very small one, too. The energy output increases with the power of 3.5 to the physical scaling. So the one we are planning in Wales will be 7MW in max output. As we rely on traditional hydro turbines to convert the energy in the water and only have a very small head in our reservoir we need a lot of water.

[audadvnc]

The Danish version of this apparently didn't hold up to the rigors of sea life, but another one is slated to be tested off of Wales.

[larsjohnny]

Yes, an equipment measuring the forces in the mooring line broke after close to two years testing. Irritating, but we do not consider that a weakness of the technology and are confident that the one in Wales will last longer :-)