cyclonebuster Posted January 25, 2008 Author Report Posted January 25, 2008 290km = 180.197 Miles of underwater cable. The distance across the gulfstream is only 40 miles. This is well within tolerance distance wise! Quote
cyclonebuster Posted January 28, 2008 Author Report Posted January 28, 2008 "However, efficiency decreases as speed increases, so there’s a limit to how much can be gained by this approach. In addition, turbulence issues become more troublesome as speed increases". In this case we don't care about efficency since there is enough Ke in the gulfstream to runs all the worlds power demands. There are many other places on Earth where this can also work. Quote
CraigD Posted January 28, 2008 Report Posted January 28, 2008 In this case we don't care about efficency since there is enough Ke in the gulfstream to runs all the worlds power demands.We care about cost and resource availability. Recall that a ocean current hydroelectric system capable of the US’s current total power needs would require the equivalent of about 10 million turbines each with swept areas around 100 m^2. The ducting scheme you’re proposing could reduce the number of turbines required, but would require more material for the ducting, which would in turn require more material for anchors and anchor cables. The total system must not exceed the resources available for its implementation. These resources include money, fabrication materials, ships and people to build, install, and maintain them. If you examine these numbers, you find some pretty daunting results, such asIf cost could be kept to a very low $1 million/100 m^2 turbine equivalent unit, it will cost $ 10 trillion. If the US were to spend 50% of its roughly $2 trillion/year federal budget on it, it would take 10 years to pay for. If paid for by the 300 million current US citizens, it would cost them each about $33,000.If mass could be kept to a very low 1000 kg/unit, the whole system will mass 10^10 kg. This is about 500 times the mass of every large ship in the current US Navy and merchant marineThe US has about 5,000 large ocean going vessels of all kinds. If ships are required to install the turbines, each would have to install 2,000 unitsFrom this, we can see that such a system must be much less massive and expensive per unit than similar present-day devices. It would be really nice if they could automatically install themselves, and either maintains themselves, or at least periodically move themselves to central maintenance facilities. Even if these engineering goals can be achieved, the financing and project management demands of such a project will still be immense, requiring great efforts and imagination in these disciplines. So the critical engineering issue is not the availability of ocean current energy, but the cost efficiency of the total system, including its creation and deployment. Additionally, the system must not simply be inexpensive enough to be possible, but less expensive than competing technologies, such as nuclear fission. :hihi: A completely fuel-free power generation system is a tremendously good goal. Designing one that can meet the challenges above, and many others, is a tremendous challenge, in which efficiency almost certainly matters. Quote
cyclonebuster Posted January 29, 2008 Author Report Posted January 29, 2008 We care about cost and resource availability. Recall that a ocean current hydroelectric system capable of the US’s current total power needs would require the equivalent of about 10 million turbines each with swept areas around 100 m^2. The ducting scheme you’re proposing could reduce the number of turbines required, but would require more material for the ducting, which would in turn require more material for anchors and anchor cables. The total system must not exceed the resources available for its implementation. These resources include money, fabrication materials, ships and people to build, install, and maintain them. If you examine these numbers, you find some pretty daunting results, such asIf cost could be kept to a very low $1 million/100 m^2 turbine equivalent unit, it will cost $ 10 trillion. If the US were to spend 50% of its roughly $200 billion/year federal budget on it, it would take 100 years to pay for. If paid for by the 300 million current US citizens, it would cost them each about $33,000.If mass could be kept to a very low 1000 kg/unit, the whole system will mass 10^10 kg. This is about 500 times the mass of every large ship in the current US Navy and merchant marineThe US has about 5,000 large ocean going vessels of all kinds. If ships are required to install the turbines, each would have to install 2,000 unitsFrom this, we can see that such a system must be much less massive and expensive per unit than similar present-day devices. It would be really nice if they could automatically install themselves, and either maintains themselves, or at least periodically move themselves to central maintenance facilities. Even if these engineering goals can be achieved, the financing and project management demands of such a project will still be immense, requiring great efforts and imagination in these disciplines. So the critical engineering issue is not the availability of ocean current energy, but the cost efficiency of the total system, including its creation and deployment. Additionally, the system must not simply be inexpensive enough to be possible, but less expensive than competing technologies, such as nuclear fission. :) A completely fuel-free power generation system is a tremendously good goal. Designing one that can meet the challenges above, and many others, is a tremendous challenge, in which efficiency almost certainly matters. Since you need volume to get your answer, I made the assumption that the water is also 100 ft long. Kinetic Energy equals (1/2)m*v^2 so we got .5*299,025,900,000kg*(8.941 m/s)^2 = 149,512,950,000kg*79.941(m^2/s^2) = 11,952,214,735,950 joules. BTW, thats for the entire 100 ft. So over the 100 ft, your 100 ft tall and 20 mile wide wall of water exerts nearly 12 trillion joules. If you want watts find out how long it took to go that 100 ft in seconds and devide the joules by that time. Then you have joules/second which equals watts. And watts can easily be converted into mega watts. 3.050 Million MWs Quote:Originally Posted by cyclonebuster Kinetic Energy equals (1/2)m*v^2 so we got .5*299,025,900,000kg*(8.941 m/s)^2 = 149,512,950,000kg*79.941(m^2/s^2) = 11,952,214,735,950 joules.… I’m still unclear precisely what sort of power generating devices you’re describing here, or where you’re getting figures like 8.841 m/s. That is the velocity of the water through the venturi section of the tunnel which is 100 feet long. Quote
CraigD Posted January 29, 2008 Report Posted January 29, 2008 Since you need volume to get your answer, I made the assumption that the water is also 100 ft long. Kinetic Energy equals (1/2)m*v^2 so we got .5*299,025,900,000kg*(8.941 m/s)^2 = 149,512,950,000kg*79.941(m^2/s^2) = 11,952,214,735,950 joules.…3.050 Million MWsWhat you’ve calculated is the energy you’d extract by halting a body of mass 299,025,900,000 kg moving at speed 8.941 m/s. If this energy were extracted at a constant rate over a period of about 3.92 sec, the resulting power is [math]3.05 \times 10^{12} \,\mbox{W}[/math] This is not how water turbines extract energy. They don’t bring the water that contacts them to a halt, only slow it slightly. The calculations for such systems are much more complicated than the simple kinetic energy calculation above. You could extract energy from water in the way you describe, but it would require a mechanically unusual system. The system would somehow have to catch a volume of water, perhaps in a bucket-like container, and bring it to a halt via a transmission connected to some sort of power generating device, release the now stationary water, then repeat the cycle, continuously. It would be interesting to design such a system, but I doubt the result would approach that of conventional water turbine generators in efficiency – either mechanical, or the critical cost efficiency I discussed in my previous thread. There’d be a lot of complicated details to consider, such as the mechanical transmission of the system, and what to do with its low-speed water exhaust (if you dump large amounts of it near the device, you’ll get a “bubble” of current-less water, isolating it from its power source). :QuestionM Cyclonebuster, perhaps you should make and post a sketch of the system you have in mind. I’m still having difficulty imagining it. Quote
cyclonebuster Posted January 29, 2008 Author Report Posted January 29, 2008 What you’ve calculated is the energy you’d extract by halting a body of mass 299,025,900,000 kg moving at speed 8.941 m/s. If this energy were extracted at a constant rate over a period of about 3.92 sec, the resulting power is [math]3.05 times 10^{12} ,mbox{W}[/math] This is not how water turbines extract energy. They don’t bring the water that contacts them to a halt, only slow it slightly. The calculations for such systems are much more complicated than the simple kinetic energy calculation above. You could extract energy from water in the way you describe, but it would require a mechanically unusual system. The system would somehow have to catch a volume of water, perhaps in a bucket-like container, and bring it to a halt via a transmission connected to some sort of power generating device, release the now stationary water, then repeat the cycle, continuously. It would be interesting to design such a system, but I doubt the result would approach that of conventional water turbine generators in efficiency – either mechanical, or the critical cost efficiency I discussed in my previous thread. There’d be a lot of complicated details to consider, such as the mechanical transmission of the system, and what to do with its low-speed water exhaust (if you dump large amounts of it near the device, you’ll get a “bubble” of current-less water, isolating it from its power source). :QuestionM Cyclonebuster, perhaps you should make and post a sketch of the system you have in mind. I’m still having difficulty imagining it. Think of a Archimeds screw in the venturi section 100 foot long. A lot more KE would be imparted on the screw than just your average water turbine blade.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Archimedes-screw_one-screw-threads_with-ball_3D-view_animated_small.gif/180px-Archimedes-screw_one-screw-threads_with-ball_3D-view_animated_small.gif Not good at sketches want to help with one here? Quote
cyclonebuster Posted January 30, 2008 Author Report Posted January 30, 2008 Even though the director at the Hurricane Research Center in Coral Gables Florida told me 20,000 tunnels could be built for 20 billion not 10 trillion to weaken a hurricane. The advantage would be to prevent the 9 trillion in damages in the future caused by global warming. Heck one storm can cause over 20 billion today. Andrew and Katrina proved that.Global warming will cost world $9 trillion: report. 30/10/2006. ABC News Online Quote
freeztar Posted January 30, 2008 Report Posted January 30, 2008 Something that has not been mentioned (that I recall) is the effect on the gulf stream.How would it affect water temperatures abroad? How will it affect the local ecology? etc. Quote
cyclonebuster Posted January 30, 2008 Author Report Posted January 30, 2008 Something that has not been mentioned (that I recall) is the effect on the gulf stream.How would it affect water temperatures abroad? How will it affect the local ecology? etc. The oceans are to hot. Check out coral bleaching. Example here: 2005 a deadly year for Caribbean coral The "TUNNELS" can also regulate SSTs to save our environment and reverse man made global warming. Also, sea life thrives around structures like the oil wells in the GOM! Quote
freeztar Posted January 30, 2008 Report Posted January 30, 2008 The oceans are to hot. Check out coral bleaching. Example here: 2005 a deadly year for Caribbean coral So you're saying the tunnels would cool the water? How so?In any case, I was referring to the fact that the gulfstream gives western Europe its favorable climate. Disrupting the natural flow could transform this. The Gulf Stream influences the climate of the east coast of North America from Florida to Newfoundland, and the west coast of Europe. The "TUNNELS" can also regulate SSTs to save our environment and reverse man made global warming. What does SST stand for? Also, sea life thrives around structures like the oil wells in the GOM! Do you have a link for this? I would think it would be hard to thrive inside a turbine. This is the reason that hydroelectric dams build fish ladders and other ways for fish to safely pass. Otherwise, they get shredded. Quote
cyclonebuster Posted January 30, 2008 Author Report Posted January 30, 2008 So you're saying the tunnels would cool the water? How so? They create upwelling if needed and when wanted based on what computers will tell us when cooling is warrented. "In any case, I was referring to the fact that the gulfstream gives western Europe its favorable climate. Disrupting the natural flow could transform this." Earth is to massive for this to occur. What does SST stand for? SST = Sea Surface Temperatue. Also, sea life thrives around structures like the oil wells in the GOM! Do you have a link for this? I would think it would be hard to thrive inside a turbine. This is the reason that hydroelectric dams build fish ladders and other ways for fish to safely pass. Otherwise, they get shredded. LOUISIANA OFFSHORE RIG FISHING how to catch fish Sport Fishing - Down the Tubes: Deep-Dropping Gulf Oil Rigs ESPN - Action at Alabama oil rigs Note all sea life can be screened out before entering the water turbine generator such as they do in modern day power plants. Quote
CraigD Posted January 30, 2008 Report Posted January 30, 2008 Even though the director at the Hurricane Research Center in Coral Gables Florida told me 20,000 tunnels could be built for 20 billion not 10 trillion to weaken a hurricane.I’m unfamiliar with this proposal. Cyclonebuster, can you provide have any links to it? :QuestionMSomething that has not been mentioned (that I recall) is the effect on the gulf stream.How would it affect water temperatures abroad? How will it affect the local ecology? etc.As the energy needs of even the entire US are a minute fraction (I’ve not calculated how minute, but am confident that the fraction is very small) of the total energy of a major ocean current, a ocean current-driven hydroelectric system would effect the current hardly at all. Likewise, the heat output of such a system is minute compared to the solar heat input of even a small body of water, so it would have a negligible effect on ocean temperatures. The greatest impact, I think, based on our experience with tidal and river hydroelectric systems, is to marine life. Although steps can be taken to minimize it, nearly any efficient generator involves mechanical parts dangerous to submarine life. However, since such systems do not block entire migratory paths, I suspect this effect would be ecologically acceptable – though careful study would be necessary to assess the precise effect, not only of injuring or killing large numbers of marine life, but of what ecosystems might arise in these abnormally nutritionally rich “killing zones”.The "TUNNELS" can also regulate SSTs to save our environment and reverse man made global warming.How? Simply connecting two bodies of water with a tube, or tunnel, doesn’t cause a flow of heat. Transferring heat requires energy. Even the modest amounts of heat transferring needed to air condition homes and refrigerate goods consumes a significant fraction of the total US power budget. Refrigerating oceans would require huge amounts of power, huge reverse heat engines, and raise the difficult problem of where one could harmlessly dispose of the heat. Reducing the use of power generation systems that generate warming-causing waste – primarily [ce]CO2[/ce] – seems a sensible and practical approach to reducing global warming, in which it seems ocean current hydroelectric power generation can play a role. Directly refrigerating the oceans is, I think, not. Quote
cyclonebuster Posted January 30, 2008 Author Report Posted January 30, 2008 I’m unfamiliar with this proposal. Cyclonebuster, can you provide have any links to it? :QuestionMAs the energy needs of even the entire US are a minute fraction (I’ve not calculated how minute, but am confident that the fraction is very small) of the total energy of a major ocean current, a ocean current-driven hydroelectric system would effect the current hardly at all. Likewise, the heat output of such a system is minute compared to the solar heat input of even a small body of water, so it would have a negligible effect on ocean temperatures. The greatest impact, I think, based on our experience with tidal and river hydroelectric systems, is to marine life. Although steps can be taken to minimize it, nearly any efficient generator involves mechanical parts dangerous to submarine life. However, since such systems do not block entire migratory paths, I suspect this effect would be ecologically acceptable – though careful study would be necessary to assess the precise effect, not only of injuring or killing large numbers of marine life, but of what ecosystems might arise in these abnormally nutritionally rich “killing zones”.How? Simply connecting two bodies of water with a tube, or tunnel, doesn’t cause a flow of heat. Transferring heat requires energy. Even the modest amounts of heat transferring needed to air condition homes and refrigerate goods consumes a significant fraction of the total US power budget. Refrigerating oceans would require huge amounts of power, huge reverse heat engines, and raise the difficult problem of where one could harmlessly dispose of the heat. Reducing the use of power generation systems that generate warming-causing waste – primarily [ce]CO2[/ce] – seems a sensible and practical approach to reducing global warming, in which it seems ocean current hydroelectric power generation can play a role. Directly refrigerating the oceans is, I think, not. How? Pascal and Bernoulli had it figured out long ago and we just never figured out how to apply their principles untill now. From: EDITED>Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 6:13 PM>To: Pat McNulty>Subject: Re: Scoops( Under water Tunnels)>Hugh,>I bet those tunnels are cost effective now???? ANY THOUGHTS? As I wrote earlier, the loop current is hundreds of kilometers across and its position varies greatly from year to year. What makes the scoops not completely nuts as a proposal is the narrowness and fixed position of the Gulf Stream in the Straits and off Florida's SE coast. In terms of climatology, Greater Miami is the most vulnerable major city in the US. Only Miami has the configuration of a deep "western boundary" current directly offshore. Thus this scheme, if it proves feasible, would work only for Miami and only for Andrew-like storms. The city would remain vulnerable to late season storms, which approach from the SW, like WILMA hew hew stands for Hugh Willoughby at FIU he was the director at the Hurricane Research Center. You can e-mail him at FIU I am sure he would assit you.http://www.fiu.edu/~willough/PUBS/HEW_VITABREV.pdf [email protected] Or even Frank Marks current director at the Hurricane Research Center may assit you. [email protected] Quote
cyclonebuster Posted January 30, 2008 Author Report Posted January 30, 2008 "I’m unfamiliar with this proposal. Cyclonebuster, can you provide have any links to it?" Do e mails count? Quote
freeztar Posted January 31, 2008 Report Posted January 31, 2008 So you're saying the tunnels would cool the water? How so? They create upwelling if needed and when wanted based on what computers will tell us when cooling is warrented.Ok, I see. But according to the gulf stream wiki:Typically, the Gulf Stream is 80–150 km wide and 800–1200 m deep. The current velocity is fastest near the surface, with the maximum speed typically about 2.5 m/s[6] (approx. 4.9 knots). Since the current is fastest towards the surface, it would be a trade-off between cooler waters and more power-generating velocities. Also take into account how large the fins are in comparison to the temperature gradient, does it produce much mixing? "In any case, I was referring to the fact that the gulfstream gives western Europe its favorable climate. Disrupting the natural flow could transform this." Earth is to massive for this to occur.You're probably right, but without any supporting evidence, I'm skeptical. Note all sea life can be screened out before entering the water turbine generator such as they do in modern day power plants. I see your point, but I would caution against the use of the word "all". ;) Dams directly and indirectly affect aquatic communities in various ways. Direct effects include entrainment and fish mortalities in hydroelectric turbines, and blockage of movement of aquatic organisms. Fish mortalities occur in all types of hydroelectric turbines and spillways across dams, and they often occur in significant quantities. Fish entrainment and mortality has been found to be a problem at the three hydroelectric dams on the Muskegon River. Total annual entrainment at the three dams is currently estimatedat 301,583 fish and 79% of these are game fish. Total annual mortality is 44,042 fish, with 31,055 (70%) game fish and 12,987 (30%) nongame fish killed (Table 16).http://www.ci.big-rapids.mi.us/pdfs/Impact_of_Dams.pdf Of course, certain measures can reduce the casualties.Information Bridge: DOE Scientific and Technical Information - Sponsored by OSTI Thanks for the links btw. Makes me want to go fishin. :) Ecologically speaking, it's important to consider the similarities and differences between oil rig latticed-support structures and giant turbines. How would the turbine setup be similar in this regard, and how would it be different? Quote
cyclonebuster Posted January 31, 2008 Author Report Posted January 31, 2008 Ecologically speaking, it's important to consider the similarities and differences between oil rig latticed-support structures and giant turbines. How would the turbine setup be similar in this regard, and how would it be different? The key word in all of this is structure. Fish are known to congregate around structure. Whenever I go fishing I look for submerged structure. Also, the velocities associated with hydroelectric dams allow for more fish kill. The tunnels water velocities are much slower but have more volume. They can swim back out before the screen and venturi section of the tunnel and will not get stuck against the screen as the velocities are still slow at this point. If they do get stuck against the screen because they are weak or become injured for some reason the traveling screen rotates up to the surface where they are washed back off the screen into a trough where they are returned back to the ocean outside of the tunnel. They use traveling screens today in most all power plants fossil and nuclear. Beaudrey USA - TRAVELING SCREENShttp://www.usfilter.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Product_Lines/Headworks/Brochures/ZP-Intake-BR-0406.pdf Quote
cyclonebuster Posted January 31, 2008 Author Report Posted January 31, 2008 Climate Change May Cost $20 Trillion UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Global warming could cost the world up to $20 trillion over two decades for cleaner energy sources and do the most harm to people who can least afford to adapt, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warns in a new report. The Associated Press: UN: Climate Change May Cost $20 Trillion Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.