The Wave of the Future!

 The Wave of the Future!

There is enough energy in a 1,000 foot long ground swell to lift a
27,000 ton supper tanker 10'.

Un like the tides that rise and fall every 12 hrs, waves rise and fall
every 30 seconds.
That means there is enough energy in waves to raise and lower a Supper
ship 120 times every hour.

Waves then are a 1000 times  more effective than tides for generating
electricity.

With the new ''Wave Buster'' technology most electricity should come
from the surf.

There is nothing more beautiful than waves crashing on a rocky coast.
but there are 1,000s of places where waves ar not desirable. Waves are
causing erosion in some places, and beauty must be ignored, in favor of
conservation.

It is here where future electricity from the sea will be generated. In
fact the cost of building Wave Buster power plants could be passed on
because of  other needs.

It will be a win win situation for Governments that decide to build
these off shore power plants. Not only can they be used to reduce beach
erosion, They will increase fish population to feed millions, provide
increased recreation, a fishing pear, provide offshore  platforms for
wind generating power plants, and even offshore luxury hotels with boat
slips.

Ane we haven't even mentioned reduce CO² emissions, by reducing the
dependency of coal and using $150 a barrel of imported oil to generate
electricity.

Perhaps $150 a barral oil, will prove to be exactly what the world
needs..

  Leonard Abbott wrote:

I would guess that this is a 10' tall wave. How common are 10' waves?
I just did a quick look at some surf reports and it looks like most of
the waves today are from 2 to 3 feet for the locations I looked at.

Ocean waves may always be present along coasts but their size and
power are clearly highly variable.

How much energy does it take to lift 27,000 tons 10'? 27,000 tons
is about 27,433,266 kg and 10' is roughly 3 meters or 82,299,798
kilogram-meters. Multiply that by 9.8067 to get joules and divide
by 3,600 to get watt-hours or 3,600,000 to get kilowatt-hours.
(82,299,798 x 9.8067 / 3,600,000) 224.2 kWh.

Let's say we do have 10' swells and they're coming at the stated
frequency of twice a minute or 120 an hour. That's about 26,904 kW
continuously.

That's a respectable amount of power but then again, 27,000 ton ships
must be fairly large and expensive and, as previously stated, 10' waves
can't be relied on. Presumably the 2 foot waves are more common and
we wouldn't be able to convert 100% of that energy into anything useful,
like electricity. This means that rather than 27,000 kW, it would be
more like (27,000 kw x 2/10 x .30) 1,600 kW. That's still respectable.

I wonder how much it would cost.

I did find a wiki on this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power

Anthony

 With this new technology all the problems you talk about are easily
overcome..

Like Larry said electric care and wind power is a marriage made in
heaven..
This is also true about wave power.

The need to reduce beach erosions and the need for cheap electricity
along with 4 or 5 other benifits, offset the cost for building ''wave
busters.''

There are 4 or 5 ecological benefits from producing wave power
electricity.and the public wants all 5 of these problems to be solved...

By the way Larry I posted the storey about using Cars and wind power to
solve " brown outs" 15 yrs ago. Don't you remember?

You will never have a "brown out" if wave power becomes a reality.

Good ideas for some reason never catch on. Could it be most of the
people in in these energy DGs really don't want to see success in
solving ecological problems.

lenny.

 

Leonard Abbott wrote:


Another gullible fool, who thinks 'anything' can be fixed if you throw
enough money at it.



Which is complete horse manure if you expect any reasonable kind of battery
life.

Graham

 

   Every attempt that we have made so far to control beach erosion has
ultimately turned out to be an ecological and/or engineering disaster.  The
exact location of coastlines is always variable over time.  The best idea is to
simply not build on the beach and allow nature to take its course.

   It is interesting that those fat cats who do build on the beach want to block
beach access for the rest of us, at the same time that they attempt to pick our
pockets for expensive tax-financed beach control projects.

Vaughn