Log in

View Full Version : Energy's Future: Energy Islands



ÑóẊîöʼn
7th November 2008, 01:24
I thought I'd start posting a series of topics here in S&E, based around what seems to be a favourite topic of posters to S&E; Energy. This series intends to explore a wide variety of energy schemes, with an eye towards technology based solutions, whether based on new versions of old technologies/proposals, or right at the bleeding edge of scientific knowledge.

Starting with this article on energy islands:

Energy Islands (http://www.orbitalvector.com/Power/Energy%20Islands/ENERGY%20ISLANDS.htm)




http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3044/3009443380_1d169bdf7d_o.jpg

Energy Islands


Tech Level: 12



As the world grows ever more energy-hungry, and the need for alternate power sources become paramount, a new proposal has come along that combines a number of emerging technologies into a single structure.
At the heart of this new system is a process called Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, or OTEC. The original idea is credited to 19th century architect Jacques-Arsene d’Arsonval, who envisioned using variations in ocean temperatures to create electricity. Today, a modern, expanded version also includes supplementary solar-electric, wind, tide, and wave generators at the same site to produce electricity.
The extreme differences in water temperature between the surface and a kilometer cab reach up to 24 degrees Celsius in tropical waters. Ammonia or other working fluid with a low vapor point is used. The ammonia is gaseous at surface temperatures and used to drive electrical turbines. Cooler water from the depths, typically around 5 degrees, is then used to recondense the ammonia and send it back into the system to be reused. This constant cycling of the ammonia vapor drives an electrical generator.
Even though its energy conversion efficiency is relatively low, about 3% at best, a full-scale OTEC plant could generate about 250 megawatts, or the equivalent of a quarter of an average fossil fuel power plant.
The OTEC generator would only be part of the energy island, however. Solar cells, multi-tiered wind turbines, wave actuators around the rim of the island, and tidal generators below the surface all combined would provide an additional 73 MW to add to the OTEC plant’s 250 MW. Estimates state that it may take between 4 to 8 energy islands to replace one nuclear power plant, or half that to replace a conventional fossil-fuel plant. Some 53,000 would be needed to supply the world’s current energy needs. But as they would have to be widely spread over the tropics of three ocean to be maximally effective, even this number would only have minimal effect on navigation and the environment.
One advantageous side-product of the OTEC process is desalinated water from the evaporation and condensation of the water pumping through the system. The island would produce several tons per day, and can be used for export to agricultural concerns on land, or even be used to cultivate hydroponic farms on the lower levels of the island. Using electrolysis on the steam from the evaporator could also yield a cheap and plentiful supply of hydrogen for various energy and commercial uses.
But the biggest advantage with energy islands, of course, is that all the energy it produces comes from 100% renewable, non-polluting sources. They would utilize deep-ocean artificial island techniques such as those used for oil drilling platforms, but expanded to accommodate a much larger surface area.
The biggest obstacle to creating these energy islands is mostly economic. Most agree that OTEC technology could become commercially viable if given the proper funding and time for research, something that most organizations until recently have been very unwilling to do. However, with oil prices rising alongside environmental concerns, OTEC and energy islands are currently being actively researched by the governments of Japan, Taiwan, India, South Africa, the Philippines and the United States.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3200/3009443388_6e46d59d5e_o.jpg


FURTHER INFORMATION

http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/02/11/artificial-energy-islands-to-produce-energy-and-meet-water-requirements-of-the-world/
http://shamcher.wordpress.com/otec-history/
http://www.gizmag.com/energy-island-otec/8714/
http://www.nrel.gov/otec/what.html
http://www.orbitalvector.com/Megastructures/Artificial%20Islands/ARTIFICIAL%20ISLANDS.htm
I've gotta say, I like the cellular construction the first picture implies - producing such things in premade sections will make construction and placement of these Energy Islands much easier and more routine than oil wells, which are designed and built on an individual basis if I remember correctly. Once Energy Island cell manufacturing is fully tooled up and in place, the ease of adding and/or replacing cells could mean that Energy Islands in a post-oil world might approach nuclear power plants in competitiveness.

Lynx
7th November 2008, 04:32
I can't help but like this idea :)
I had envisioned rugged solar cells floating on the ocean but this is better.

JorgeLobo
8th November 2008, 16:16
Don't see how energy will be transmitted to user efficiently and reliably.

ÑóẊîöʼn
8th November 2008, 17:04
Don't see how energy will be transmitted to user efficiently and reliably.

Undersea cables would be my guess. Compared to laying cable across the Atlantic, running them the relatively short distance from the energy islands to the shore would be a doddle.

JorgeLobo
8th November 2008, 17:31
Sure - real easy - "a doddle" no doubt.
Transatlantic communications cable are not valid surrogates for transmitting power efficiently. This is remains a significant challenge now for land-based power generation. More likely the reason they weren't mentioned is that technology element has not been resolved at this point and there is alot of work going on to that very element as we speak.

ÑóẊîöʼn
8th November 2008, 18:47
Sure - real easy - "a doddle" no doubt.
Transatlantic communications cable are not valid surrogates for transmitting power efficiently.

And I never said they were. Pay attention.


This is remains a significant challenge now for land-based power generation.Sorry, that's complete rubbish.

High-Voltage Direct Current (wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current)


The longest HVDC link in the world is currently the Inga-Shaba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inga-Shaba) 1700 km (1056 mile) 600 MW link connecting the Inga Dam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inga_Dam) to the Shaba copper mine, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Congo).

...

The controllability of current-flow through HVDC rectifiers and inverters, their application in connecting unsynchronized networks, and their applications in efficient submarine cables mean that HVDC cables are often used at national boundaries for the exchange of power. Offshore windfarms also require undersea cables, and their turbines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbine) are unsynchronized. In very long-distance connections between just two points, for example around the remote communities of Siberia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia), Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada), and the Scandinavian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia) North, the decreased line-costs of HVDC also makes it the usual choice. Other applications have been noted throughout this article.
More likely the reason they weren't mentioned is that technology element has not been resolved at this point and there is alot of work going on to that very element as we speak.Or perhaps because it's already been technically solved, as I noted above. Considering the ranges HVDC is typically used for, energy islands potentially have a lot of room to play with.

JorgeLobo
8th November 2008, 18:58
"a doddle" - understsand please that your trivial vocabulary communicates poorly.

Prove it is "rubbish" (or does that have a special meaning as well?).

Glad you can cut and paste from the internet and really happy you can repeat acronyms about which you know little. This article hardly proves little to the application- pay attention.

ÑóẊîöʼn
8th November 2008, 19:28
"a doddle" - understsand please that your trivial vocabulary communicates poorly.

Do you you not think that laying and maintaining cable across transoceanic distances is a far greater technical challenge than connecting these energy islands via HVDC cables to the shore, which is hardly likely to be thousands of kilometres away?


Prove it is "rubbish" (or does that have a special meaning as well?).How about you try actually reading what I gave you?


Glad you can cut and paste from the internet and really happy you can repeat acronyms about which you know little. This article hardly proves little to the application- pay attention.Jesus tapdancing Christ, do I have to connect the dots for you?

HVDC cable is already used in applications where submarine power transmission is required, and is proven to work over distances in excess of 1000Km. Therefore the engineers responsible for connecting energy islands to the mainland will already have the knowledge they need readily to hand, and will have considerable leeway in where to place them.

Clear?

JorgeLobo
8th November 2008, 19:41
Please speak to subjects about which you know something (anything).

I appreciate your offering the article (and hope that it one day finds reality) but wonder at your bruised ego in having a question offered to the fantasy.

ÑóẊîöʼn
8th November 2008, 20:05
Please speak to subjects about which you know something (anything).

Unless you're a qualified engineer and can demonstrate it, you've got just as much standing in the debate as I have.


I appreciate your offering the article (and hope that it one day finds reality) but wonder at your bruised ego in having a question offered to the fantasy.A question which I answered in a perfectly satisfactory manner, after correcting your misconceptions about my arguments.

So I'm not an expert on electrical engineering - that doesn't matter one iota. I demonstrated that laying undersea electrical transmission cables is perfectly possible today, and instead of attempting to prove me wrong, you proceeded to engage in an ad hominem, attacking my lack of credentials. Which has no bearing on my argument.

That's on the same level as not believing that we can build structures over 500m tall, and then after I point you to the Burj Dubai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Dubai) wiki page and provide a cut & paste with the relevant details, you accuse me of not being able to speak on the subject because I'm not a structural engineer.

Piffle!

butterfly
9th November 2008, 05:30
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article NoXion, thankyou.
I had yet to be introduced to OTEC, let alone a single structure which has the capacity to harness multiple sources of energy.
For a climate nutter, it's very uplifting:)

ÑóẊîöʼn
9th November 2008, 05:59
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article NoXion, thankyou.
I had yet to be introduced to OTEC, let alone a single structure which has the capacity to harness multiple sources of energy.
For a climate nutter, it's very uplifting:)

For a continent of only 20 million people, Australia is ridiculously blessed with energy - not just the uranium deposits, but the vast stretches of desert are ideal for constructing vast solar farms something which Europe is already considering putting in North Africa (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/02/renewableenergy.solarpower). Not to mention also that Energy Islands would be able to supply both the East, North and West coasts.

If you don't join us willingly, the Eurasian Technate might well have to invade you! :lol:

mikelepore
9th November 2008, 10:49
Can anyone explain to me why the wind turbines made to date have very thin blades that allow most of the wind to slip through without coming into contact with them? It would be much more efficient if the surface that catches the wind were to cover the entire available area, as the sail of a ship does. Try making the sail of a ship like a thin ribbon and then see how far the ship goes.

ÑóẊîöʼn
9th November 2008, 19:50
Can anyone explain to me why the wind turbines made to date have very thin blades that allow most of the wind to slip through without coming into contact with them? It would be much more efficient if the surface that catches the wind were to cover the entire available area, as the sail of a ship does. Try making the sail of a ship like a thin ribbon and then see how far the ship goes.

Because if they made the blades wider, then they would be heavier and you would get less energy out of it. Add too many blades and and you either have to make them really thin (which compromises their stiffness) or suffer further decreases in efficiency.

You can't really compare sailing ships and wind turbines. Both of them use the wind as a source of power, but they use it differently - the sail almost instantly creates linear movement, while a wind turbine uses the wind to create angular movement which turns a dynamo, which produces electricity which has to be sent through various transformers and stuff to the local energy grid.

Dr Mindbender
9th November 2008, 20:00
i've always like the 'artificial island' design not for solar energy but to provide a launch platform for space vehicles to be used by nations and space programs that suffer from a shortage of locations near the equator that are appropriate for such endeavours.

mikelepore
10th November 2008, 23:50
Because if they made the blades wider, then they would be heavier and you would get less energy out of it.

I still don't get it. If we compare a system of two turbines to a system of one turbine, and then we compare a system with twice the surface area to a system with the original surface area, in both cases we have doubled the moment of inertia, and we have also doubled the torque. But it's a win situation to do the first thing, use more turbines, but a no-win situation to do the latter? I must be overlooking another variable.

ÑóẊîöʼn
11th November 2008, 00:45
I still don't get it. If we compare a system of two turbines to a system of one turbine, and then we compare a system with twice the surface area to a system with the original surface area, in both cases we have doubled the moment of inertia, and we have also doubled the torque. But it's a win situation to do the first thing, use more turbines, but a no-win situation to do the latter? I must be overlooking another variable.

I think it's a matter of distribution. Rather than doubling the mass on a single turbine, you spread the mass over two, which recieves pretty much the same amount of wind if they are close to each other.

butterfly
16th November 2008, 03:52
Wind is generated by the variations in temperature, which originate from the poles.
I thought it interesting that we may actually be seeing a decrease in the velocity as the poles melt, though scientists have yet to link this with anthropogenic climate change.
http:// http:// www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL033614.shtml