low cost wave energy farming?

Looks like they are talking about a substantial improvement in cost effectiveness for wave energy farming. But can't tell how this new substantial improvement makes the cost effectiveness of wave energy farming compare with the cost effectiveness of various other renewables:

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-gear-technology-energy-farming.html

"...A Swedish company has cracked the challenge of scaling up wave energy, with the help of technology from researchers at KTH Royal Institute of Technology.

CorPower Ocean's new wave energy system, which uses a gearbox design that KTH researchers helped develop, generates five times more energy per ton of device, at one third of the cost when compared to competing state-of-the art technologies. Energy output is three to four times higher than traditional wave power systems.

...

Wave energy has been held back in part because of the cost of electricity generation. The amount of steel and concrete needed in order to produce each MWh has simply been too great to make it into a profitable business. Even still, the power of waves presents a problem with reliability; and because waves vary greatly in height and timing, it's difficult to create a conversion system that functions across the full wave spectrum.

Known in the wave energy industry as a point absorber type system, the CorPower converter consists of a buoy that absorbs energy from the waves, plus a drivetrain that converts the buoy's motion into electricity. ...
...

... the CorPower wave energy converter can manage the entire spectrum of waves, unlike competing systems.

...
...."

Also had a thought:
these farms could be located along coastlines threatened with costly wave erosion so to protect the coasts from the damaging effects of waves. That way, even if it isn't cost effective to put them their for the energy generated alone, they may become cost effective when you take into account the savings in costs from damage done by waves to the coast. Or, thinking about it in another way, if you are going to build expensive coastal defenses anyway, might as well make those expensive coastal defenses be wave farms so you also get the side benefit of some energy generation!
Well, that's how I think about it anyway.

Originally posted by humy
Looks like they are talking about a substantial improvement in cost effectiveness for wave energy farming. But can't tell how this new substantial improvement makes the cost effectiveness of wave energy farming compare with the cost effectiveness of various other renewables:

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-gear-technology-energy-farming.html

"...A Swedish co ...[text shortened]... nergy converter can manage the entire spectrum of waves, unlike competing systems.

...
...."

What effect does it have on the waves? Are waves in the ocean important for anything? If they don't land on shore the way they used to are there any effects?

Originally posted by joe shmo
What effect does it have on the waves?

it reduces their energy and there size.

Are waves in the ocean important for anything?

Like what? I certainly can't imagine what significant harm could possibly come from reducing their strength just before they land on shore.
As for far out at sea, I am sure the waves made smaller is bound to have subtle effects of the air resistance as the wind blows over them. But I can't think of any particular reason to think the slight effect on climate would be 'bad' in particular. I somehow very much doubt we will be anywhere near having enough wave farms to measurably and observably effect climate for the foreseeable future.

If they don't land on shore the way they used to are there any effects?

In this case, yes. If they land on shore with less strength, the most obvious effect would be less coastal erosion. Not sure what other significant effects we should be concerned with if any. There would, I assume, be less sea spray blown over land. Can't think why that might be a problem.

Originally posted by humy
it reduces their energy and there size.

Are waves in the ocean important for anything?

Like what? I certainly can't imagine what significant harm could possibly come from reducing their strength just before they land on shore.
As for far out at sea, I am sure the waves made smaller is bound to have subtle effects of the air resistance a ...[text shortened]... ess coastal erosion. Not sure what other significant effects we should be concerned with if any.

Are they important for coastal oxygenation and the marine habitats?

Originally posted by humy
it reduces their energy and there size.

Are waves in the ocean important for anything?

Like what? I certainly can't imagine what significant harm could possibly come from reducing their strength just before they land on shore.
As for far out at sea, I am sure the waves made smaller is bound to have subtle effects of the air resistance a ...[text shortened]... ere would, I assume, be less sea spray blown over land. Can't think why that might be a problem.

Like what? I certainly can't imagine what significant harm could possibly come from reducing their strength just before they land on shore.
As for far out at sea, I am sure the waves made smaller is bound to have subtle effects of the air resistance as the wind blows over them. But I can't think of any particular reason to think the slight effect on climate would be 'bad' in particular. I somehow very much doubt we will be anywhere near having enough wave farms to measurably and observably effect climate for the foreseeable future.

What about Heat/Mass transfer with the atmoshere. decreased waves, decreased suface area, decreased Heat/mass transfer

Originally posted by joe shmo
Are they important for coastal oxygenation and the marine habitats?

if they are, cannot think why the waves being made smaller in places would significantly reduce oxygenation in particular. Some oxygenation occurs even if there is no waves due to oxygen just defusing from air through the surface of the water. As far as I am aware, coastal areas which already have coastal defenses that reduce wave strength landing on shore are not oxygen-deficient in particular and don't have their wildlife significantly oxygen deprived as a result.
Have you got any sources suggesting the contrary?

If areas of coast with sea defenses that reduced wave strength before wave landing on shore had any significant harmful effects on wildlife, whether through reduced oxygenation or for some other reason, I think we would have all heard of it before because there would be clear and therefore published evidence for this. So I find it strange that I for one have never heard of any such harmful effect!

Originally posted by joe shmo
[quote] Like what? I certainly can't imagine what significant harm could possibly come from reducing their strength just before they land on shore.
As for far out at sea, I am sure the waves made smaller is bound to have subtle effects of the air resistance as the wind blows over them. But I can't think of any particular reason to think the slight effect o ...[text shortened]... ansfer with the atmoshere. decreased waves, decreased suface area, decreased Heat/mass transfer

As I said, I somehow very much doubt we will be anywhere near having enough wave farms to measurably and observably effect climate for the foreseeable future -and that would include Heat/Mass transfer or decreased surface area + Why would an ocean surface with smaller waves have decreased surface area? -I only ask because, although a smaller wave would have less surface area than a larger one, I assume smaller waves means there can be more of them per area of ocean at any given moment of time (there must be a limit to how many there can be per ocean area for a given wave size? ) thus them being smaller doesn't necessarily mean less total surface area of ocean?

Originally posted by humy
if they are, cannot think why the waves being made smaller in places would significantly reduce oxygenation in particular. Some oxygenation occurs even if there is no waves due to oxygen just defusing from air through the surface of the water. As far as I am aware, coastal areas which already have coastal defenses that reduce wave strength landing on shore are ...[text shortened]... ife significantly oxygen deprived as a result. Have you got any sources suggesting the contrary?

I haven't any sources suggesting the contrary...should that matter? Usually study's' like that show up after the new " green" technologies are in place to assess the unforeseen effects from the (unintentionally) poorly modeled system. Moving forward should be done at a slower more digestive pace. My responses are just a brainstorm list of items that should be thoroughly addressed before irreversible actions are taken. If there is anything we should have learned as a species is that seemingly innocuous changes in a system can have drastic effects as the system evolves in time. All of these green energies simply rob energy directly from the energy we wish to preserve, the energy of the climate.

Originally posted by joe shmo
I haven't any sources suggesting the contrary...should that matter? Usually study's' like that show up after the new " green" technologies are in place to assess the unforeseen effects from the (unintentionally) poorly modeled system. Moving forward should be done at a slower more digestive pace. My responses are just a brainstorm list of items that shou ...[text shortened]... rgies simply rob energy directly from the energy we wish to preserve, the energy of the climate.

but what is your reason to think there is a significant probability that just a few wave energy farms (I say "few" because I guess it will be a long time before there is "many"! ) would have significant harmful effects that would offset all the benefits of having such wave energy farms?

+, as I said before, If areas of coast with sea defenses that reduced wave strength before wave landing on shore had any significant harmful effects, I think we would have all heard of it before because there would be clear and therefore published evidence for this. So surely that apparent absence of evidence of such evidence of significant harmful effects, which is difficult to explain if there is significant harmful effects, is itself evidence of no significant harmful effects? -I think so.

Originally posted by humy
As I said, I somehow very much doubt we will be anywhere near having enough wave farms to measurably and observably effect climate for the foreseeable future -and that would include Heat/Mass transfer or decreased surface area + Why would an ocean surface with smaller waves have decreased surface area? -I only ask because, although a smaller wave would have les ...[text shortened]... wave size? ) thus them being smaller doesn't necessarily mean less total surface area of ocean?

A Sphere has a minimum surface area per unit volume. As waves decrease in amplitude the surface approaches that of a sphere, as such the volume remains constant and its surface area decreases.

Originally posted by joe shmo
A Sphere has a minimum surface area per unit volume. As waves decrease in amplitude the surface approaches that of a sphere, as such the volume remains constant and its surface area decreases.

With the cross-section shape staying constant, the surface area of each wave gets less as its size gets less -no argument there. But an ocean surface with smaller but more numerous waves per unit of geographical area (not of the possibly varying surface area of water but the unvarying geographical area as seen from above ) of ocean might have the same surface area of water. If at a given point in time, we have 1000 smaller waves over a square km of ocean rather than 500 larger waves, the surface area of water might be the same depending on how these 'small' and 'large' wave sizes compare.
If each of those small waves have exactly half the surface area as each of those large waves, but there are exactly double the number of small ones than the large ones, then the total surface areas of the two sets of waves are the same.

Originally posted by humy
The surface area of each wave gets less as its volume gets less -no argument there. But an ocean surface with smaller but more numerous waves per unit of geographical area (not of the possibly varying surface area of water but the unvarying geographical area as seen from above ) of ocean might have the same surface area of water. If at a given point in time, we ...[text shortened]... e area of water might be the same depending on how these 'small' and 'large' wave sizes compare.

No, the volume of the ocean is fixed, the surface area of that volume is not. as wave amplitude in general increases, the surface of the ocean deviates from spherical, and hence the surface area per unit volume deviates from minimization! As wave amplitude decreases (ocean surface toward a perfect sphere) surface area approaches a minimum per unit volume... the volume of the ocean didn't change. Also, your whole premise that more small amplitude waves are created is blatantly false (it would be true if surface energy was conserved,but you are capturing it!!! That is what caused the waves to change amplitude in the first place!

Originally posted by joe shmo
No, the volume of the ocean is fixed, the surface area of that volume is not. as wave amplitude in general increases, the surface of the ocean deviates from spherical, and hence the surface area per unit volume deviates from minimization! As wave amplitude decreases (ocean surface toward a perfect sphere) surface area approaches a minimum per unit volume... ...[text shortened]... ut you are capturing it!!! That is what caused the waves to change amplitude in the first place!

No, the volume of the ocean is fixed,

Obviously. That's not what I said.
I also agree that a wave with less amplitude would generally have less surface area -no argument there.

Also, your whole premise that more small amplitude waves are created is blatantly false

How do you know that the effects of wind on the wave-shadow (where the wave amplitudes have been reduced ) of a wave energy farm wouldn't tend to form more small waves than that what the wind would have done if the larger waves were not reduced in amplitude there? -I am not saying that is what tends to happen; I am saying I don't know and so far don't know of any specific reason why that hypothesis is probably true or probably false in particular.

-anyway, even if that hypothesis is false and you are right, we are so far very far indeed from making enough wave energy farms to have credible measurable wide-scale effects on the oceans! For now and the foreseeable future, any measurable effect would be rather local and limited and, excuse the pun, just a drop in the ocean.

Originally posted by humy

No, the volume of the ocean is fixed,

Obviously. That's not what I said.
I also agree that a wave with less amplitude would generally have less surface area -no argument there.

Also, your whole premise that more small amplitude waves are created is blatantly false

How do you know that the effects of wind on the w ...[text shortened]... now of any specific reason why that hypothesis is probably true or probably false in particular.

Your adding more variables to confuse the issue!!!

A surface with waves in a field has a certain surface potential energy. If that potential were to remain fixed (conserved) and the waves amplitude were varied, the frequency would necessarily change (all other variables remaining constant). With said wave machine, energy is not conserved,(you are changing it). Therefore the frequency does not have to respond to a change in amplitude.

Originally posted by humy

No, the volume of the ocean is fixed,

Obviously. That's not what I said.
I also agree that a wave with less amplitude would generally have less surface area -no argument there.

Also, your whole premise that more small amplitude waves are created is blatantly false

How do you know that the effects of wind on the w ...[text shortened]... asurable effect would be rather local and limited and, excuse the pun, just a drop in the ocean.

-anyway, even if that hypothesis is false and you are right, we are so far very far indeed from making enough wave energy farms to have credible measurable wide-scale effects on the oceans! For now and the foreseeable future, any measurable effect would be rather local and limited and, excuse the pun, just a drop in the ocean.

In the future when all your "green" energy methods are scaled up as demand continues to grow (and they will)and they have the same effect as burning fossil fuels what will have been the point?

The reality of what is going to happen to the human race because of these changes may in fact be the best course of action,for both our planet ,and the human race.