Plans for the world's biggest wave farm got the go-ahead from the Scottish government, the BBC reported last week. Exactly how big is the farm? It will create more than twice as much energy as nearby homes will be able to use.
Wave farms are made up of enormous buoys that turn the up-and-down movements of the ocean into electricity that homes and business are able to use. There are many designs being tested all over the world. All promise clean, endless energy, but as a newer technology, they're still working out issues such as financial viability, durability and how to transport the energy from buoy to land.
We'll let the numbers tell the story of the Scotland project, which uses devices from the homegrown company Aquamarine Power, plus other wave energy projects planned for the U.K. and the U.S.
30,000: the number of homes Aquamarine Power's 40-megawatt farm will be able to power
13,200: the number of homes there actually are in the Western Isles, where Aquamarine Power plans to install its Oyster 800 wave energy machines
40 to 50: the number of Oyster 800s that will go into the water
2017: the earliest estimated date when the firm SSE could build the undersea cable required to export excess wave power from the Western Isles to mainland Scotland. The BBC reported this cable could delay Scotland's larger plans for generating wave and tidal power from the rough, energy-filled ocean off the country's northwest coast.
1.6: gigawatts of wave energy Scotland wants to generate by 2020
70,000: the number of homes 1.6 gigawatts are able to power
What about the U.S.? Oregon, which also has big ocean waves, has hosted several wave energy tests over the past few years. However, regulatory and financial hurdles have delayed an installation from one of Oregon's—and the U.S.'—most advanced projects, the Associated Press reported in March. A look at the Department of Energy's marine energy device database shows most U.S. installations are currently inactive.
The installations may be getting held up by lawmakers. In Oregon, at least, politicians took years to hammer out a draft agreement for where companies will be allowed to float their devices once they're ready for commercial use, The Oregonian reported. Fishermen, coastal homeowners and companies all want different restrictions on where the machines appear.
I don't know why environmentalists are fine with wind, hydro and wave power that have been proven to negatively affect their local environment, but aren't OK with modern nuclear power. Yes, there are potential hazards with nuclear, but there are guaranteed hazards with wind hydro and wave power. Hoover Dam essentially destroyed the Colorado River Delta. It was once a lush marshland but is now just a mud patch.
1. Buy a really cool Delorean, check.
2. Install a better clock, that doesn suddenly kick offline, check.
3. Hook up to 1.6 gigawatts of wave generated power, with a really long extension cord, check.
4. Floor the gas and reach 88 mph!!!!!!
Ah, time travel is so COOL!
The same as with wind energy. PopSci talks about “numbers”, which seems to impress those who pretend to understand “science”, then get entranced with the size of total energy in moving water, without realizing the world is a big place and needs a lot done! Face it, if there were such a surfeit of water, or wind, energy, it would show up. As such things go, both are just “getting the job done”, whatever that job is, now. Taking away any of that energy will only result in certain important functions not being met! And “science” devotees will respond in the “scientific” fashion, “Well, then, were is all our free energy going to come from?”, without perceiving that you don't necessarily just get without earning or deserving it. And, yes, that means that, if humanity had truly worked to earn it, God would provide.
Someone had a brainfart here. If a 40MW plant powers 30000 homes (which I am inclined to believe based on average power usage statistics), then please explain to me how 1.6GW, or about 40 times as much, power just a little more than twice that...
Either the 1.6GW number is wrong and the 70k is correct, in which case it would be around 95MW that will be produced by 2020, or the 70k number is wrong, in which case it should be corrected to approximately 1.2 million homes.
there is always a cost attached to like this. We don't usually know all of the costs attached to something like this. Or, we don't usually account for all of the costs. With the power and cost problems, we will making tough choices. Which problems do we rather have? Like making a stealth fighter plane, can we solve all of the problems that can make it possible? We learn about this by trying.
Who knows? perhaps we'll solve pollution and energy problems by someday being able to break apart matter and reorganizing it into something else.
"How to transport the energy from buoy to land"? It's a simple answer but I need to know how far are the buoys from land? I need to know this before I answer the question.