29 Jan 14
1 edit
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-seafloor-carpet-energy.html
They claim much more energy harvested from this system per square meter much higher than solar. 1 meter squared enough to generate all the energy needs of a single house. 2000 watts presumably. That is more than ALL the energy from the sun on one square meter, ~1300 watts from the sun.
So it would be impossible to even get half that, a kilowatt from solar in one square meter.
I'm guessing it would be using peizoelectric power generation. That would certainly be the simplest way but not sure how efficient they are at generating power.
29 Jan 14
5 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseThat's pretty interesting. Not sure how regular or constant the supply of energy would be from that.
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-seafloor-carpet-energy.html
They claim much more energy harvested from this system per square meter much higher than solar. 1 meter squared enough to generate all the energy needs of a single house. 2000 watts presumably. That is more than ALL the energy from the sun on one square meter, ~1300 watts from the sun.
So it wou ...[text shortened]... hat would certainly be the simplest way but not sure how efficient they are at generating power.
Personally, I am even more interested in marine current power:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_current_power
The great thing about marine current power is that you can extract energy from ocean currents on the sea floor (like the Golf stream ) that are more or less constant and predictable and that gives it a massive advantage over most other renewables but there would still be a need for some albeit reduced off-the-grid energy storage unless the tactic of 'active power control' is used for it instead of off-the-grid storage just like some are now proposing to do using wind power (reminder: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=157655&page=1 ) and thus eliminate any need for ANY off-the-grid storage!
The only current catch with marine current power, and unfortunately it is a big one, is that the initial capital setup costs would currently be just huge because it would involve creating and positioning and anchoring massive turbines in deep ocean -a very expensive proposition! Hopefully, advances in technology would eventually solve that by greatly reducing those costs.
29 Jan 14
Originally posted by humyI think if you were only sucking off a few percent of the power available things would go well, but what if you got to the point where you were getting 10% or more, there might be climate consequences. Just a guess. It is the ocean currents that calms down the severe winters around the coasts of Europe and the US.
That's pretty interesting. Not sure how regular or constant the supply of energy would be from that.
Personally, I am even more interested in marine current power:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_current_power
The great thing about marine current power is that you can extract energy from ocean currents on the sea floor (like the Golf stream ) that ar ...[text shortened]... ! Hopefully, advances in technology would eventually solve that by greatly reducing those costs.
30 Jan 14
Originally posted by humyActive power control does not reduce the need for off-the-grid storage. It does not, in any way, increase the amount of power available but in fact reduces it. I think the purpose is to reduce the amount of possible disruption caused by too much power going onto the grid.
- unless the tactic of 'active power control' is used for it instead of off-the-grid storage just like some are now proposing to do using wind power (reminder: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=157655&page=1 ) and thus eliminate any need for ANY off-the-grid storage!
30 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is highly unlikely there would be more than just local effects on marine life.
I think if you were only sucking off a few percent of the power available things would go well, but what if you got to the point where you were getting 10% or more, there might be climate consequences. Just a guess. It is the ocean currents that calms down the severe winters around the coasts of Europe and the US.
30 Jan 14
4 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
Active power control does not reduce the need for off-the-grid storage. It does not, in any way, increase the amount of power available but in fact reduces it. I think the purpose is to reduce the amount of possible disruption caused by too much power going onto the grid.
Active power control does not reduce the need for off-the-grid storage.
It should reduce the need for off-the-grid storage. The idea is that, instead of building, say, 1000 wind turbines and have them going full power output all the time even when there is more than enough wind energy to meet demand, you instead build extra, say, 2000 wind turbines, but have them only extract a fraction of the wind energy when there is more than enough wind energy to meet demand thus less need for off-the-grid storage for that, but, when there is not enough wind energy to meet demand, have them go full power capacity and, because you have extra of them, they will produce more energy for the grid thus, again, less need for off-the-grid storage to store energy from other renewable sources other than wind in that case.
So, in effect, you are replacing much of the otherwise needed off-the-grid storage with extra wind turbines with those extra wind turbines hopefully being overall cheaper than the extra off-the-grid storage that would otherwise be needed -THAT I would guess is the most significant point of active power control.
It does not, in any way, increase the amount of power available but in fact reduces it.
from, say, each turbine? Or from the generation of the sum of all the turbines including any extra ones built to take greater advantage of active power control to reduce the need for off-the-grid? See my above comments.
I think the purpose is to reduce the amount of possible disruption caused by too much power going onto the grid.
that would be one purpose. See my above comments.