climate change cure.

[garygee]

I have been following the fortunes of a company called Carnegie P/L who specialize in technologye to turn wave energy into electric energy. I had a search around and found tons of this technology all over the world. My question would be why has this been buried? The technology is available fot developemrnt and would help climate change as well as lessen our dependence on the middle east. Something smells in Denmark.

 

[Long Live HFC]

if it exists all over the world how has it been buried? i would guess its cost is not yet where it can compete.

a quick google:

Despite this list of advantages, there are a number of disadvantages to tidal energy. Tidal energy development is hampered by high upfront costs. For example, one study noted that ocean power generation can cost more than $400 per MWH compared to other renewable energy sources, such as wind, biomass, hydroelectric and geothermal energy, that cost about $150 per MWH.

There are also limited suitable locations for tidal energy. A suitable location must have sizable tides to justify the cost of constructing a power plant. Environmentalists are concerned that tidal energy can be detrimental to marine life. Power plants can disrupt the movements and migration of fish and other marine life in the oceans. Fish can also be killed by the turbines.

Tidal energy can only be captured during the tides, so it is an intermittent energy source. Because tides occur two times a day, in order for tidal energy to reach its full potential, it must be paired with an efficient energy storage system.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/tidal-energy-advantages-and-disadvantages.html

 

[LanceRomance]

I think it has potential to be used as part of a raft of measures to provide green energy

lol raft.

also, not sure the fishies will like it all that much.

 

[garygee]

if it exists all over the world how has it been buried? i would guess its cost is not yet where it can compete.

a quick google:



http://study.com/academy/lesson/tidal-energy-advantages-and-disadvantages.html

I was talking about wave enerrgy not tidal.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I was talking about wave enerrgy not tidal.

oh ok. could you tell us more about it?

 

[skilts]

A mate of mine who lives nearby heads an Australian company which is developing wave energy off the coast of Ireland. No hope of this happening here in the current climate. Oooh. look, an execrable pun. Wait, there are two of them. Bows proudly, as if it matters.

 

[Scotland]

The only 'cure' for climate change is to stop burning fossil fuels at an unsustainable rate.

Even that probably isn't enough.

 

[little graham]

The only 'cure' for climate change is to stop burning fossil fuels at an unsustainable rate.

Even that probably isn't enough.

We should stop calling it climate change and find a term that better describes western civilization as the joke it is..

 

[garygee]

oh ok. could you tell us more about it?

The company concerned uses buoys that are chaired to the ocean floor. These buoys pump seawater (converting waves to up and down movement) onland and through turbines to produce electricity. Great, simple idea.

 

[Lester Burnham]

What could possibly go wrong?

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2193950/photos-port-wave-generator-removal-in-doubt/

 

[Schache It Off]

Climate change - The official new religion for the left.

 

[Lebbo73]

Climate change - The official new religion for the left.

I wouldn't call it new though!

 

[swingdog]

I have been following the fortunes of a company called Carnegie P/L who specialize in technologye to turn wave energy into electric energy. I had a search around and found tons of this technology all over the world. My question would be why has this been buried? The technology is available fot developemrnt and would help climate change as well as lessen our dependence on the middle east. Something smells in Denmark.

Is this the one they're trialling off Fremantle?

 

[Power Raid]

I have been following the fortunes of a company called Carnegie P/L who specialize in technologye to turn wave energy into electric energy. I had a search around and found tons of this technology all over the world. My question would be why has this been buried? The technology is available fot developemrnt and would help climate change as well as lessen our dependence on the middle east. Something smells in Denmark.

wave technology is my personal favourite renewable technology given my marine science background.

But it also happens to be the most expensive and Carnegie's technology is as close to how not to do it.

Something fishie in Denmark? Funny you should say that as a Danish design is the best yet but still way too expensive to be commercial.


But give it 30 years it will be amazing

 

[swingdog]

wave technology is my personal favourite renewable technology given my marine science background.

But it also happens to be the most expensive and Carnegie's technology is as close to how not to do it.

Something fishie in Denmark? Funny you should say that as a Danish design is the best yet but still way too expensive to be commercial.


But give it 30 years it will be amazing

What's the problem with their technology? This is one area of renewables I don't know much about.

 

[garygee]

Is this the one they're trialling off Fremantle?

It could be. I know that this is running an Australian military base and has been sold to a couple of countries.Nevertheless this doesn't change the fact that this technology is out there and has been for some time. A quick web search will turn up many different examples of this.idea.
This is such a good idea why can't we leave the fossils in the ground.

 

[Power Raid]

What's the problem with their technology? This is one area of renewables I don't know much about.

1 a number of problems exist but all can be fixed with time. the Carnegie design is flawed as you have to predict the size of wave you wish to harness the energy from.......big buoys for big waves or smaller buoys for smaller waves. A better design would capture the maximum amount of energy regardless of wave size.

2 A smaller issue is the weight required to anchor or moor the infrastructure in place. This is just a cost issue and a carbon sunk cost.

3 A bigger issue is the materials to be used need to handle salt water, sea fowling, the sun and the odd stray boat.

4 The final issue that is worth mentioning, is the infrastructure needs to be set up close to populations who have competing uses for the inshore areas.

The Danish design has dealt with 1 and 2 by using side ways movement of waves rather than the vertical movement. This means no buoys, rather it uses paddle arms along a hydraulic rod. The sideways movement is not only the push at the front of a wave but also generates a push at the back of the wave meaning the net energy along a 300m rod is 90% balanced meaning a smaller anchoring and simpler mooring system is required.

The design is still in prototype stage and issue 3 will be resolved by utilising existing military and O&G material technologies. but just a little too expensive for prototype phases to bother with now.




The positive is waves are for more regular is "some" places than wind and has the benefit over solar as it can operate at night. I think I'll support the Danes financially but it will be decades before, if ever, I'll see a return.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

Nuclear Fusion is the answer. But not for Australia, I doubt we could barely even start talking about the n word in this country.

 

[WA ROO]

Nuclear Fusion is the answer. But not for Australia, I doubt we could barely even start talking about the n word in this country.

You could
For about 12 seconds until someone screams Chernobyl,Three Mile Island,Fukushima and something about nuclear explosions

 

[Seeds]

I have been following the fortunes of a company called Carnegie P/L who specialize in technologye to turn wave energy into electric energy. I had a search around and found tons of this technology all over the world. My question would be why has this been buried? The technology is available fot developemrnt and would help climate change as well as lessen our dependence on the middle east. Something smells in Denmark.

Bought up their stocks about 10 years ago. Then two years later watched their share price crash because they forgot to fill out a form which would of given them a massive grant from the government for nothing. Bunch of morons running that company.

 

[Power Raid]

Nuclear Fusion is the answer. But not for Australia, I doubt we could barely even start talking about the n word in this country.

Nuclear Fission will be the answer for most of the world within 30 years. China is leading the way but the list of nations building reactors is large and will only increase over the next decade.

Fission itself will take the price volatility out of energy production and cease the need for energy wars or political meddling as well as produce low CO2 reliable safe base load.

 

[garygee]

Climate change - The official new religion for the left.

y

Climate change - The official new religion for the left.

you're not seriously going to deny climate change are you?

 

[Power Raid]

y

you're not seriously going to deny climate change are you?

I think the change of name from global warming to climate change was a really important one for the "religious" and political aspect. The science will continue and at some stage we will have a better understanding of our impact on climate and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing.

Personally, I would like us to reduce our pollution footprint rather than focus on some narrow band which seems to resonate so much with some people.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I think the change of name from global warming to climate change was a really important one for the "religious" and political aspect.

haha. so right and so wrong all at the same time.

The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation...

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ans-climate-change-global-warming-yale-report

a brief history on the use of both terms FYI:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming-basic.html

The science will continue and at some stage we will have a better understanding of our impact on climate and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing.

looks like luntz had it/you pegged, hey?

 

[Power Raid]

Please feel free to revert to global warming then