Comments on: Why Wave and Tidal Power Are Lost At Sea — It’s Darn Expensive http://earth2tech.com/2009/06/08/why-wave-and-tidal-power-are-lost-at-sea-darn-expensive/ Helping the Earth with Technology Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:33:04 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Wave Power Funding: Ireland’s Wavebob Raises Interim Round http://earth2tech.com/2009/06/08/why-wave-and-tidal-power-are-lost-at-sea-darn-expensive/#comment-39268 Wave Power Funding: Ireland’s Wavebob Raises Interim Round Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:01:14 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=33610#comment-39268 <p>[...] power is managing to float forward during the recession, thanks in large part to government programs and to a lesser extent, private funding. The latest example is 10-year-old wave power company [...]</p> [...] power is managing to float forward during the recession, thanks in large part to government programs and to a lesser extent, private funding. The latest example is 10-year-old wave power company [...]

]]> By: The Daily Five: Thursday, 25 June, 2009 | EcoTech Daily http://earth2tech.com/2009/06/08/why-wave-and-tidal-power-are-lost-at-sea-darn-expensive/#comment-33642 The Daily Five: Thursday, 25 June, 2009 | EcoTech Daily Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:00:52 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=33610#comment-33642 <p>[...] Tidal and wind power is incredibly expensive. There is a good reason why tidal and wave power has not taken off like solar and wind - it’s too expensive. A report by infrastructure consulting firm Black and Veatch says that wave and marine current power generation can cost as much between $410 - $445 per megawatt-hour, while other renewables like wind, solid biomass, hydroelectric and geothermal have costs nearing $150 per megawatt-hour. [...]</p> [...] Tidal and wind power is incredibly expensive. There is a good reason why tidal and wave power has not taken off like solar and wind – it’s too expensive. A report by infrastructure consulting firm Black and Veatch says that wave and marine current power generation can cost as much between $410 – $445 per megawatt-hour, while other renewables like wind, solid biomass, hydroelectric and geothermal have costs nearing $150 per megawatt-hour. [...]

]]> By: Renewables Offshore » Blog Archive » What’s the Prognosis for Marine Renewables? http://earth2tech.com/2009/06/08/why-wave-and-tidal-power-are-lost-at-sea-darn-expensive/#comment-33364 Renewables Offshore » Blog Archive » What’s the Prognosis for Marine Renewables? Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:23:45 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=33610#comment-33364 <p>[...] that at present, marine renewables are also more expensive than other more mature renewables. The Earth 2 Tech blog references a study developed last year by consulting firm Black and Veatch (B&V) for the [...]</p> [...] that at present, marine renewables are also more expensive than other more mature renewables. The Earth 2 Tech blog references a study developed last year by consulting firm Black and Veatch (B&V) for the [...]

]]> By: Why Wave and Tidal Power Are Lost At Sea — It’s Darn Expensive | TechTwist http://earth2tech.com/2009/06/08/why-wave-and-tidal-power-are-lost-at-sea-darn-expensive/#comment-32682 Why Wave and Tidal Power Are Lost At Sea — It’s Darn Expensive | TechTwist Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:09:59 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=33610#comment-32682 <p>[...] the original post: Why Wave and Tidal Power Are Lost At Sea — It’s Darn Expensive Share and [...]</p> [...] the original post: Why Wave and Tidal Power Are Lost At Sea — It’s Darn Expensive Share and [...]

]]> By: Ingo Ratsdorf http://earth2tech.com/2009/06/08/why-wave-and-tidal-power-are-lost-at-sea-darn-expensive/#comment-32628 Ingo Ratsdorf Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:39:03 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=33610#comment-32628 <p>Here in NZ we had big headlines in the newspaper yesterday about water being spilled from hydrolakes as demand has decreased and we had too much rainfall. "During May, the inflows into South Island hydro lakes were among the highest recorded and storage nationally was 1.36 times the historical mean". Still, we are paying the usual prices and the gas fires are still running......</p> Here in NZ we had big headlines in the newspaper yesterday about water being spilled from hydrolakes as demand has decreased and we had too much rainfall.
“During May, the inflows into South Island hydro lakes were among the highest recorded and storage nationally was 1.36 times the historical mean”.
Still, we are paying the usual prices and the gas fires are still running……

]]> By: Making Waves: Why Getting Power from the Ocean Is So Tough - Environmental Capital - WSJ http://earth2tech.com/2009/06/08/why-wave-and-tidal-power-are-lost-at-sea-darn-expensive/#comment-32625 Making Waves: Why Getting Power from the Ocean Is So Tough - Environmental Capital - WSJ Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:33:05 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=33610#comment-32625 <p>[...] energy is also a lot more expensive than other energy sources, even other alternative energy sources such as wind power or solar power. [...]</p> [...] energy is also a lot more expensive than other energy sources, even other alternative energy sources such as wind power or solar power. [...]

]]> By: John Bonitz http://earth2tech.com/2009/06/08/why-wave-and-tidal-power-are-lost-at-sea-darn-expensive/#comment-32581 John Bonitz Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:34:17 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=33610#comment-32581 <p>Biomass electricity is also constant, so does not require any fossil-fired backup. As a baseload source, biopower is also cost-competitive with new coal, and less expensive than new nuclear.</p> <p>Where I live in the Southeast, we have massive potential for renewable electricity from biomass. This must be why the utilities are fighting it so hard: It directly threatens their existing business model of very large, highly centralized new coal and nuclear plants.</p> <p>Read more about how biomass electricity can be beneficial here: http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php?/Learn-About-Detail.html?form_id=52&item_id=28</p> Biomass electricity is also constant, so does not require any fossil-fired backup. As a baseload source, biopower is also cost-competitive with new coal, and less expensive than new nuclear.

Where I live in the Southeast, we have massive potential for renewable electricity from biomass. This must be why the utilities are fighting it so hard: It directly threatens their existing business model of very large, highly centralized new coal and nuclear plants.

Read more about how biomass electricity can be beneficial here:
http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php?/Learn-About-Detail.html?form_id=52&item_id=28

]]> By: Ingo Ratsdorf http://earth2tech.com/2009/06/08/why-wave-and-tidal-power-are-lost-at-sea-darn-expensive/#comment-32562 Ingo Ratsdorf Tue, 09 Jun 2009 04:18:38 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=33610#comment-32562 <p>"wave and tidal CAN cost as much as". There are no commercial scale plants yet just a few test stations, we are just at the beginning of this technology. Ocean currents are constant, so it could meet peak demand.</p> “wave and tidal CAN cost as much as”. There are no commercial scale plants yet just a few test stations, we are just at the beginning of this technology. Ocean currents are constant, so it could meet peak demand.

]]> By: Tidal and wave power is expensive | http://earth2tech.com/2009/06/08/why-wave-and-tidal-power-are-lost-at-sea-darn-expensive/#comment-32560 Tidal and wave power is expensive | Tue, 09 Jun 2009 02:48:28 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=33610#comment-32560 <p>[...] and wave power remains a pricey way of creating power. The ocean is a rough place to site energy generation, and then there’s the question of [...]</p> [...] and wave power remains a pricey way of creating power. The ocean is a rough place to site energy generation, and then there’s the question of [...]

]]> By: Paheja Siririka http://earth2tech.com/2009/06/08/why-wave-and-tidal-power-are-lost-at-sea-darn-expensive/#comment-32523 Paheja Siririka Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:17:42 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=33610#comment-32523 <p>but are there any other alternatives or ways which we can use or carry out rather than using those conventional energy source, i actually thought for a developing country like namibia its very good to have those rather than asking for help from our fellow counterparts.</p> but are there any other alternatives or ways which we can use or carry out rather than using those conventional energy source, i actually thought for a developing country like namibia its very good to have those rather than asking for help from our fellow counterparts.

]]> By: kent beuchert http://earth2tech.com/2009/06/08/why-wave-and-tidal-power-are-lost-at-sea-darn-expensive/#comment-32522 kent beuchert Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:04:06 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=33610#comment-32522 <p>Anyone who accepts this table on face value is foolish. Many, if not most, of these technologies have severe side effect costs associated with them. Nor are the prices pricing equally valued power units. Variable inputs, like wind and solar, have associated costs in terms of being "tracked" by fossil fuel generators, which expend extra eneergy in that effort. I seriously doubt that the folks who drew up this table were even remotely compehensive in their analysis. A megawatthour via biomass is controllable, reliable and able to meet peak demand and replace fossil fuel generators. Wind, solar and water can do none of these things, yet the comparison is based on sheer costs of - exactly what? The cost to produce after taking into acount those obvious issues, like direct Fed subsidies and tax depreciations, etc? In the following years, as demand grows and fossil fuel plants shut down, unreliable renewables like solar and wind have zero abilities to meet peak demand (as a general rule) which means that SOME kind of reliable plant will have to be built. THAT friends, is a side effect cost - the cost due to the fact that most renewables have really crappy characteristics. Stupid Californians have been brainwashed into worrying about nuclear accidents that will never happen and instead create their own exorbitantly expensive and brainless "renewable"system. And the best renewable they have, by far, is the one pumping out millions of tons of emissions into the California skies! No wonder the state is fiscally bankrupt. It's been that way, intellectually, for years. I also notice no mention of the costs of having those monster wind machines across an otherwise pristine landscape or making the land they sit on of no value for anyhting other than growing grass. The Chinese are building one new nuclear plant every 2 months for the next 20 years and each can produce more 12 times more power at a cost 10th as much as that boasted-about 1310 megawatt solar farm (it realy produces about 300 megawatts, but don't tell those California buffoons paying for it). No wonder the Chinese are cleaning California's clock. They hold, by the way, a trillion dollars worth of US Treasuries and could destroy our economy in an instant unless we do what they say. THEY now have the economy every company in the world wants to trade in.</p> Anyone who accepts this table on face value is foolish. Many, if not most, of these technologies have severe side effect costs associated with them.
Nor are the prices pricing equally valued power units.
Variable inputs, like wind and solar, have associated costs in terms of being “tracked” by fossil fuel generators, which expend extra eneergy in that effort. I seriously doubt that the folks who drew up this table were even remotely compehensive in their analysis. A megawatthour via biomass is controllable, reliable and able to meet peak demand and replace fossil fuel generators. Wind, solar and water can do none of these things, yet the comparison is based on sheer costs of – exactly what? The cost to produce after taking into acount those obvious issues, like direct Fed subsidies and tax depreciations, etc? In the following years, as demand grows and fossil fuel plants shut down, unreliable renewables like solar and wind have zero abilities to meet peak demand (as a general rule) which means that SOME kind of reliable plant will have to be built. THAT friends, is a side effect cost – the cost due to the fact that most renewables have really crappy characteristics. Stupid Californians have been brainwashed into worrying about nuclear accidents that will never happen and instead create their own exorbitantly expensive and brainless “renewable”system. And the best renewable they have, by far, is the one pumping out millions of tons of emissions into the California skies! No wonder the state is fiscally bankrupt. It’s been that way, intellectually, for years. I also notice no mention of the costs of having those monster wind machines across an otherwise pristine landscape or making the land they sit on of no value for anyhting other than growing grass. The Chinese are building one new nuclear plant every 2 months for the next 20 years and each can produce more 12 times more power at a cost 10th as much as that boasted-about 1310 megawatt solar farm (it realy produces about 300 megawatts, but don’t tell those California buffoons paying for it). No wonder the Chinese are cleaning California’s clock. They hold, by the way, a trillion dollars worth of US Treasuries and could destroy our economy in an instant unless we do what they say. THEY now have the economy every company in the world wants to trade in.

]]> By: Green Ink: Oil Spikes and Peak Coal - Environmental Capital - WSJ http://earth2tech.com/2009/06/08/why-wave-and-tidal-power-are-lost-at-sea-darn-expensive/#comment-32518 Green Ink: Oil Spikes and Peak Coal - Environmental Capital - WSJ Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:34:58 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=33610#comment-32518 <p>[...] up its permitting process, at Scientific American. Pity that ocean and tidal energy projects are so terribly expensive, at [...]</p> [...] up its permitting process, at Scientific American. Pity that ocean and tidal energy projects are so terribly expensive, at [...]

]]>