Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Ocean Power Can Be a Global Warming Cure

By Neil Peirce, Stateline.org. Posted August 9, 2006.


Why is the government still looking to spend billions on new coal-fired power plants when clean energy sources are at our fingertips?
Advertisement

How shall we ever slake our ever-growing demand for electricity? Even as concerns about global warming escalate, are we doomed to create more of the same old polluting, coal- and oil-dependent power plants? Or can common sense -- and some radically new technologies -- serve us better?

There’s much talk of wind and solar power. But how about the oceans and their massive tidal and current patterns? Driven by the gravitational force of the sun and the moon, tides and currents represent a source that’s as infinite and everlasting as any force on earth.

A major pilot demonstration seems ready to launch in San Francisco Bay, where an immense tidal flow enters and exits every day at a narrow point of the Golden Gate. A gigantic energy-collection device vaguely reminiscent of a Ferris wheel, with a number of fins (or “wings”) to capture the power of the rapidly passing tides, will be lowered from a barge anchored in the narrows. Using maglev technology, it will produce electrical energy that can then be transmitted to shore by cable.

If the San Francisco experiment works, the way could be opened to vast “farms” of underwater energy generators, operating below the ocean surface off Florida’s Atlantic Coast and along such shorelines as New England and the Pacific Northwest. A major early target could be in the Gulf Stream as it flows between Florida and Bermuda, where the 6.1-mile-per-hour current is 23,000 times the magnitude of the river flow at Niagara Falls.

Dan Power, the former Air Force engineering officer who is president of Oceana Energy, a firm recently organized to develop tidal current power systems, says it’s too early to project the percentage of power needs the new technology could deliver. But along America’s heavily populated coasts, tidal currents could, he believes, become “a major future power source.”

First comes the next year focused on the San Francisco experiment, as Oceana works with engineers of the U.S. Navy’s Hydromechanics Directorate, local utilities and governments to model, test and install the pioneering generator at the Golden Gate.

Contrast that with last week’s estimate that over 150 coal-powered power plants, most powered by dirty, last-generation technologies, are now being planned by U.S. energy companies. The estimate, by U.S. PIRG, the national association of state Public Interest Research Groups, is based chiefly on information from the U.S. Energy Department. Already, quantities of the coal-fired plants are being announced, including 11 by TXU Corp. in Texas alone.

What will be the impact of all the new plants? A stunning 10 percent increase in U.S. global warming emissions, U.S. PIRG estimates -- at the very moment the United States, now responsible for over 30 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, should be reversing course, leading rather than hindering worldwide efforts to avert potentially catastrophic global climate change in this century.

Yet applying the same $137 billion the energy companies plan for coal-fired plants to energy conservation, U.S. PIRG calculates, would reduce our energy demand by 19 percent in 2025 -- obviating the need for all the new plants. Comparable investment in wind farms or solar power could also go far to obviate the need for the new coal plants (only 16 percent of which are projected to use new coal gasification technology).

But now comes ocean tidal power recovery -- a technology that Power claims is so benign it wouldn’t even impact fish life.

In one sense the idea of tapping tidal energy isn't new; even Ben Franklin, on his trans-Atlantic voyages, noticed the current and speculated on converting its power for human purpose. But not until recent advances in magnets as well as plastics that can protect underwater metal devices from corrosion has the technology become feasible.

Enter the 20-year-old Climate Institute, an early truth-teller on the perils of global warming. Several of its leaders -- Dan Power, President John Topping, environmentalist and businessman William Nitze, and former steel company executive Joe Cannon -- decided the institute’s powerful research and advocacy weren’t enough, that there was no substitute for real-world, economically feasible alternatives to fossil fuels. And that ocean tidal power, the hydraulic energy in the globe's waters, constituted a massive untapped potential.

So in 2005, they formed the for-profit Oceana Energy to do the hard work -- gathering new scientific data, pushing the engineering, recruiting capital and enlisting allies -- to harvest the freely flowing hydraulic energy in the globe’s waters.

One is tempted to liken energy competition to a David and Goliath story -- new upstarts, struggling for capital and market acceptance, against the entrenched fossil-fuel industries whose political clout delivers them more than $25 billion in federal subsidies each year.

With the new truths of global warming transforming the human environment and economics, the Davids will eventually triumph. But soon enough?

Digg!

Neil Peirce is a member of the Washington Post Writers Group and is the founder of the Citistates Reports.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
obsolete
Posted by: rsaxto on Aug 9, 2006 4:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They are planning all these obsolete coal power plants because most American CEOs are jerks without any sense of how to build a decent future. That they brought the Bushies into power is all the proof we need to verify the truth of that statement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Those who have the gold make the rules
Posted by: shangrilalad on Aug 9, 2006 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think for a moment about the advantages of everlasting ocean generated electrical power compared to the dwindling supply and ever increasing cost of oil and gas. If we had invested one tenth of our tax dollars into ocean energy research and development instead of giving “the entrenched fossil-fuel industries whose political clout delivers them more than $25 billion in federal subsidies each year.”

The plutocracy have the gold and make the rules and they mean to fight all new technology to protect their golden egg producing goose. Most Republican political leaders and many Democrats will protect the status quo, no matter the cost to the rest of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I AM SCARED
Posted by: dadanbetty on Aug 9, 2006 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
REALLY......I AM SCARED.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Simple Answers
Posted by: beylehey on Aug 9, 2006 7:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The answer to "why" not deploy resources to bring new technologies into play to resolve problems of energy demand is the same as the answer to "why" build coal-fired power plants that do more damage to the earth and all inhabitants - greed, power, and control.

I know the knowledge of these new technologies cannot be destroyed, this was the genius of David, but the wisdom to actually deploy them in a responsible way requires destruction of the Goliath of greed. The problem with this metaphor is that it seems Goliath, in this case, is going to commit suicide, and represents a good portion of the population, and David is preparing for the fall, his stone and sling being rigtheous hope in the truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We Already Have the Technologies.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Aug 9, 2006 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article:
"One is tempted to liken energy competition to a David and Goliath story -- new upstarts, struggling for capital and market acceptance, against the entrenched fossil-fuel industries whose political clout delivers them more than $25 billion in federal subsidies each year."

Yep – and this is the reason we have made no progress on energy independence in 30 years. President Carter undrstood this problem 'way back then – and was portrayed by corporate powers-that-be and their media outlets as a nut. And we already have the technologies we need to solve much of our energy problem. One case in point few people know about:

Right now there exists a crystaline material developed by scientists which, when applied as a coating, will convert the narrow wavelength light of a light emitting diode (LED) to full-spectrum white light. Considering the fact that LEDs use less than 1/10th the energy of incandescent bulbs to produce light, and over 20% of our energy use is to illuminate the inside of buildings (with free sunlight pouring down from above, no less!), much our energy problem could be improved by this technology alone. Anyone care to guess when we will see it in wide use? I'll be dead by then.

In virtually every entrenched industry which might be threatened by new developments from elsewhere, the Bush administration says that "we need more research." That's government's way of saying "f**k you." Forget about our corporate-owned government leading anything; we need to lead them. We have just seen in Connecticut with the defeat of "corporate Joe" Lieberman that a grassroots campaign can succeed (talk about David and Goliath!). We need to get smart and informed (in spite of the Bushwhackers trying to denegrate science), and DEMAND change to a sustainable future if our "leaders" want to keep their cushy jobs. Otherwise, we won't have a future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why do they continue to dig coal and drill for oil?
Posted by: Pirate1 on Aug 9, 2006 10:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Capitalism, or what BushCo would call "Freedom". Because so many of the people who are wealthy in the world today are so because their family invested in coal and oil generations back and they won't switch to anything else as long as there is still plenty of what they know best left in the ground... even if using what is left changes the conditions on the planet for life itself as we know it to exist. These materials have made many fairly faceless people more powerful than kings and emperors of old and that's pretty much all they care about. Their comfort and convemience.
We need a renegade son or daughter to see the light and invest their fortune in developement of the many new ways to do things that already exist and to research and develope others... or we need to change from capitalism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ocean power
Posted by: willymack on Aug 9, 2006 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
San Fran bay is OK. Unless I'm wrong the Bay of Biscay already has one such device, and has for some time. I think it's been a success. The Bay of Fundy would be a better place in my opinion. With a 55 foot tidal bore, that's a tremendous amount of energy to tap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ocean power Posted by: Snail
who is 'we"?
Posted by: coldeye on Aug 9, 2006 5:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I assume the author speaks of Americans. Yet the vast majority of the world live in the Third World. Personally, I don't care if they all disappear tomorrow. But if you are a LIBERAL or a humanist, like Corliss Lamont, Neddie's great grand uncle and an ikon of the humanist and Stalinist Left of the 20th century, you would want these overpopulated masses to have a "decent" standard of living. So they need electricity you white, racist, phony hypocrite liberals!iriciycoant. you ha la Lp[eosonEsin emri

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Who is you? Posted by: stevepasek
tanstaafl?
Posted by: michaeljdelaware on Aug 9, 2006 5:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Respecting the good intentions of everyone looking for alternate power sources -- the "(almost) free energy" song has been sung before for many sources -- fusion, fission, dams, oil, coal. In the end, thermodynamics brings the closed cycle that matters back into our faces for any source that scales up to rising global demand, and any energy flow redirection winds up raising the overall temperature of the process's heat sink.

Honestly, the thought of letting BP or Enron loose to extract energy from the Gulf Stream gives me the shivers. Of course they won't disturb the titanic flow that feeds millions of habitats and stabilizes ocean temperatures from the Canaries to Wales! certainly, corporate leaders will of course agree (under strong community pressure) to adequate safeguards ... just as they did in Appalachia and Alaska.

The only nation that seems likely to benefit on any useful scale from ocean current power is the one that wastes most of what we have. Before chasing new energy sources, we should make sure that we don't just feed that addiction could just make the situation worse in the long run.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch ... and free lunches are not what most overweight Americans need these days.

Michael Johnson
Wilmington, Delaware USA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Force the issue! Take Action NOW
Posted by: Concerned_Mum on Aug 9, 2006 7:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GLOBAL PETITION TO MITIGATE CLIMATE CHANGE

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/737214963

The petition above is worded to ensure that our energy dollars are invested into a sustainable future. With this petiton, we can force our elected "repesentatives" to acutally represent our wishes. The words were collated from many groups and individuals from across the global internet and originated via the climate change action group. http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateChangeAction/

They came about because i am greatly concerned for the future of my children and for the future of the planet that they will inherit from us. Please forward the address on to all of your associates.

Alone, i am but one, together, we can do anything.
The fate of the earth is in your hands.

Anne Goddard

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Taming hurricanes...
Posted by: tuxperger on Aug 11, 2006 3:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's missing from this article (and the comments) is the mention of OTEC, OceanThermal Energy Conversion. That's a pity, because it's the biggest of all theseocean energy sources, and relatively mature.In the tropical waters, with surface temperatures over 27 centigrade, energy can beextracted by a Carnot heat engine exploiting the temperature difference with deep waterat 5 centigrade. The engine is highly inefficient at this temperature difference, but there is so much water that it doesn't matter. The technique was already proposed in1881 by the French engineer Jacques Arsene d'Arsonval, who speculated that futuregenerations would mine the oceans for heat like present ones the land for coal... inthe early 20th centrury, test installations were built in Ivory Coast and Cuba.The US could use this on the Gulf coast, California and Hawaii (where there is a testinstallation already). One beauty of this technique is that it is preferentiallyavailable to the tropical countries where most of the future population growth andindustrialization is going to happen.Also, the hot tropical ocean water is an incubator for hurricanes. By extracting thisheat, one is quite literally "taming hurricanes for fun and profit"!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]