The technology can generate electricity in water flowing at a rate of less than one knot – about one mile an hour – meaning it could operate on most waterways and sea beds around the globe.
Existing technologies which use water power, relying on the action of waves, tides or faster currents created by dams, are far more limited in where they can be used, and also cause greater obstructions when they are built in rivers or the sea. Turbines and water mills need an average current of five or six knots to operate efficiently, while most of the earth’s currents are slower than three knots.
The new device, which has been inspired by the way fish swim, consists of a system of cylinders positioned horizontal to the water flow and attached to springs.
As water flows past, the cylinder creates vortices, which push and pull the cylinder up and down. The mechanical energy in the vibrations is then converted into electricity.
Cylinders arranged over a cubic metre of the sea or river bed in a flow of three knots can produce 51 watts. This is more efficient than similar-sized turbines or wave generators, and the amount of power produced can increase sharply if the flow is faster or if more cylinders are added.
A “field” of cylinders built on the sea bed over a 1km by 1.5km area, and the height of a two-storey house, with a flow of just three knots, could generate enough power for around 100,000 homes. Just a few of the cylinders, stacked in a short ladder, could power an anchored ship or a lighthouse.
Here’s another article on the technology.
Cost to benefit ratio not feasible and maintenance costs are in the stratosphere.
“A “field” of cylinders built on the sea bed over a 1km by 1.5km area, and the height of a two-storey house, with a flow of just three knots, could generate enough power for around 100,000 homes.”
Too costly and inefficient. You can buy a maintenance free power plant that measures about 100′ X 50′ that produces as much energy and costs of hell of a lot less.
two comments of “too costly” …
but cost estimates in the article are 5.5 cents/kwh.
did you even RTFA? or just assume that size and scale dictate cost?
Excellent research.
As usual, the conservative feeble minds in here pooh pooh anything that is unique, different or does not involve digging for oil.
I applaud researchers to continue their quest for energy Independence with renewable resources. If this technology is only useful for isolated or narrow application use and not to feed the grid, that is fine with me.
Continue to the research and ignore the negative sally’s that will always be there with lots of criticism and no new ideas – your typical conservative republican.
Well, SOB! I had this idea 20 years ago. If only I had patented it I wouldn’t be on the blog talking to you losers 🙂
Interesting that the same technique is used for those shakeable flashlights — magnet, coil of copper wire, mixed with a little motion and voila! Electricity!
# 3 moondawg said, “two comments of “too costly” … but cost estimates in the article are 5.5 cents/kwh.”
[The scientists behind the technology,… say that generating power in this way would potentially cost only around 3.5p per kilowatt hour,]
“Potentially”. This ONE guy doesn’t know the actual cost…
ALL NEW TECHNOLOGIES ARE COSTLY IN THE BEGINNING. So stop bitching that it’s too expensive to be feasible. Everybody said it about solar power and wind power when scientists were experimenting with them.
These might replace those reefs they’re ripping out with deep sea trawlers. Groovy.
# 7 Angel H. Wong said, “So stop bitching that it’s too expensive to be feasible. Everybody said it about solar power and wind power when scientists were experimenting with them.”
News flash. Those are still too expensive to replace existing base energy production tech.
Paddy==if Obama made you Energy Czar==what would you recommend the USA energy policy be?
# 10 bobbo said, “Paddy==if Obama made you Energy Czar==what would you recommend the USA energy policy be?”
Go visit France. It is simple.
#9 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>News flash. Those are still too expensive to
>>replace existing base energy production tech.
News flash. EVERYTHING is too expensive to replace existing technology when it first gets underway. Heck, the first computers cost a million bucks and took up a whole room. Now, even a counter clerk at Radio Shack like yourself can afford a cheap, portable laptop with far greater power.
The more we dilly-dally in improving these new energy technologies, the longer the delay until they’re economically feasible.
#11–Paddy. Darn, I missed that one. Figures a rightwingnut’s alternative energy program would be Big Nuke.
So consistent.
Bless your pointed little head.
#6, obviously, you have better information than we do. what DOES this engergy cost, pray tell?
Please be specific… tell us the expensive materials and construction techniques that drive the cost of this application.
Retard.
# 13 bobbo said, “#11–Paddy. Darn, I missed that one. Figures a rightwingnut’s alternative energy program would be Big Nuke.”
Sorry, nothing to do with politics. It is simple math. Solar & wind are still too expensive to replace coal or nuke as a source of base power generation.
If you don’t like it, get the laws of the physical universe changed.
BAH! SCIENTIFIC BABBLE!
Drill baby drill!
More nuclear plants!
Invade those arabs who get in the way of our oil!
Paddy–the core idea here is to switch from non-renewable to renewable energy. Scott has gone around this issue with you many times about the “life time cost” of Big Nuke. I would add Nukes provide too big a target for terrorists. No safe storage of waste etc.
If you spent One Billion on Nukes for X energy and Y jobs would you still be for it if the same Billion got you the same X energy BUT gave you 10Y jobs, and was distributed, clean, and safe?
Lots of issues all pointing to the future of green, not the stogy old dangerous consolidated concentrated tax supported notion of Big Nuke.
Guess we have to wait for the next generation.
Its really good to see techs like this getting coverage. The future of energy really lies in a myriad small local systems rather than monolithic power stations. Sure, you may still need a big mofo plant or two to maintain base load (an assumption – I’m no expert), but smaller local generation can be efficient, clean and creates employment.
Of course, the existing energy industry corporations will fight tooth and nail for their monopolies, which are easier to hang on to with monolithic infrastructure. I cant help thinking that all the renewable energy naysayers are largely slaves to this ‘corporate power’ (pardon the pun) ideology.
#18–Hugh==you are right on the money. Sad part is though that very few people actually benefit from such “power” positions.
The great majority of republicans are more like Joe the Plumber. Power Player wanna-be’s who vote against their own actual real interest in the fantasy that they are someone they will never be==and that someone with their boots on their own necks.
Unbelievable, until you see Paddy (and most repugs) posting as he does.
#15 I now see where you went wrong.
Nobody is talking about wholesale ‘replacing’ of energy sources. The idea is to augment with clean, renewable sources. The US has a multitude of resources unavailable to the French. This includes effective and practical Wind and Solar harnessing parts of the country, hydro water and geothermal for starters.
While I agree that nuclear is a great source of energy, there are reasons why it’s not the only source of energy here in the US.
The french are not only nuclear but I agree some 90% is nuclear. What do they do with the nuclear waste? They put save it in barrels “hoping” something comes along in the future to deal with it. That is not a strategy I want to saddle my future generations with.
Given that republicans like to push terrible burdens like debt to our children, I suppose this is why you like a nuclear only option too.
#2, Cow-Paddy, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath and Retired Mall Rent-A-Cop,
You can buy a maintenance free power plant that measures about 100′ X 50′ that produces as much energy and costs of hell of a lot less.
Most of us would love to have one of these “free power plants” you so brazenly refer to. BUT, being the ignorant shit talking sociopath you are, you never cite your claims. Well, … until post #6 where you do claim that someone else’s numbers are wrong.
As Dallas and Angel put it, it won’t be cheap initially, but the idea shows potential.