In the past, efficient and reliable conversion of kinetic energy from water has proven elusive, but with

recent advances in technology, rising fuel costs, and a growing demand for renewable energy, the potential for hydropower using new technologies is on the rise. An Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI) study estimated the potential for wave and current power in our nation's oceans to be over 350 billion kilowatt hours per year, which would equal the output of traditional hydropower in its most productive years. In other words, ocean-based hydropower using new technologies could double hydropower production going from 10 to 20% of the national total. At present, however, the development and commercialization of the new technologies are just beginning. The wave energy technologies include a range of designs including buoys, barge-like devices, and small floating reservoirs. Designs for harnessing tidal and current energy generally are variations on traditional turbines, often using underwater "propellers." In both cases, the energy of the moving water or wave is converted into electricity within each unit, making each device a small powerhouse. The current stage of technological development ranges from concept sketches to pilot demonstration projects. tidal plants built at the mouths of estuaries use tidal fluctuations to drive turbines that generate electricity With waves in the sea can be compared with the movement of a skipping rope. As one end is waggled, a wave form travels to the otherbut the rope itself does not advance. Tidal power plants consist of a high-capacity dam built across an estuary to hold back the water at high tide. At low tide sluice gates in the dam are opened to release a cascade of water that drives a turbine to generate electricity. Chambers that capture wave energy The world's oceans could provide a limitless source of energy, according to Indian chemist Madanjeet Singh, an international authority on the subject exploiting ocean energy is no simple matter, if only because the possibilities of doing so differ from region to region. Few applications of these technologies are currently in use, but their number could increase in the coming centuriesif they attract investment on a massive scale.

Clean and Inexhaustible Energy Source

Ocean tides constitute a clean and inexhaustible energy source free from the climatic irregularities which are a constraint on wind and solar power But places suitable for exploiting them are few and far between, for if a tidal power plant is to operate efficiently certain conditions must be met

A river estuary where the difference between high and low tide is at least five metres is necessary It must be possible to construct a dam, and there must be a nearby source of electricity supply to make up for the intermittence of power production linked to the times of high and low tides EXAMPLE: One of the world's most suitable sites is the estuary of the river Rance, in western France, where the difference between high and low tides averages 8.17 metres, peaking at 13.5 metres during the equinoxes The world's first tidal power plant began operating there in 1966. It is still the biggest, with a capacity of 240 megawatts (MW) In China, says Singh, "there are eight plants with a total capacity of 6,210 kilowatts exploit tidal energy." There is a 20MW plant at Annapolis in Canada. construction costs are considered too high, especially as hydroelectric power is plentiful and cheaper Tidal power plants are planned on Russia's White Sea and on the Severn and Mersey estuaries in the United Kingdom (UK) which combined could produce about 1/3 of Britain's yearly energy consumption. In 1945, Japan became the first country to consider using sea waves as an energy source, followed by Norway and the UK. The first power plant to use wave power, OSPREY (Ocean Swell Powered Renewable Energy), began operating in northern Scotland at the beginning of August 1995. A 2MW facility, OSPREY was designed along the following lines: waves entering a kind of submerged chamber open at the base pushed air into turbines to generate electricity sent via an underwater cable to the shore about 300 meters away. Plants can be damaged by the waves and then destroyed by storms or other natural events. Other than this, there is very little or no maintenance. The engineers who designed OSPREY it did not give up, however, and a cheaper and more efficient version is being developed to supply small islands with much-needed electricity and to power a seawater desalinization plant. POINT: Tidal and wave power is an extremely renewable resource and as better methods are designed for the capture of this energy more energy can be used in the larger countries. At the time being however tidal and wave power are the least funded of all of the renewable resources and realistically only serve to as power sources of islands such as the Maldives or Malaysian islands where it is practical enough to rely on the sources of energy

and very close to the initial source of energy; decreasing installation fees for electricity lines that lead to other cities or such. But according to Scottish engineer S.H. Salter, the most promising device is a "tapering channel", invented by a Norwegian, Even Mehlum. As Singh describes it, "The waves are funnelled into a tapered natural or artificial channel. The water level rises and the water eventually spills into an elevated reservoir behind the narrow end of the channel. The water then flows back to the sea through a turbine, generating electricity in the process." This reliable, low-cost system is already operating in Norway and Java. Potential, not just at sea but ALL OVER THE WORLD: In Egypt, water running through an underground canal linking the Mediterranean to the El-Qattara depression could be used to generate electricity. In Israel, the same principle could be used in a canal between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea which would gradually descend 400 meters. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------David Ross: the energy from ocean waves will soon be producing large amounts of electricity for maritime countries. He explains that despite the potential of the sea to destroy wave-energy stations, several nations have made progress in designing indestructible small-scale stations. These stations use waves to run a turbine, which produces electricity. David Ross is author of several books on wave energy, including Energy from the Waves, Power from the Waves, and Scuppering the Waves. POINT: Wave energy has been hailed as the most promising renewable source for maritime countries. This fact and as of current technologies in the field restrict it almost completely to water bound cities. However over half of the world's population lives 100km or less to the ocean and about another 30% live 100km away from rivers leaving this technology relatively viable for nearly 90% of the world's population and transportation of the energy to the other 10+%. It does no environmental damage and is inexhaustiblethe waves go on for ever. It is invariably popular with the public, which has a sentimental love of the sea. The potential resource is vast. It is usually estimated as being of the order of 2,000 gigawatts (GW), though UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization] has put it at roughly double that amount. Currently producing 1/474th of the world's energy and on the rise. EXAMPLE: Yoshio Masuda, from Japan, invented the oscillating water column (OWC) effectively a chimney which stands on the seabed and admits the waves through an opening near to its base. As they rise and fall in the open sea outside, the height of the column of water inside rises and falls too. As the water level rises, air is forced up and out through a turbine which spins and drives the generator. As it falls again, air is sucked back in from the atmosphere to fill the resulting vacuum and once again the turbo-generator is activated.

Professor Alan Wells of Queen's University, Belfast, greatly improved the efficiency of the invention by devising a turbine which spins in the same direction regardless of whether the air is being pushed out or sucked back into the chimney. Professor Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University has contributed the most intellectual invention. Salter's Duck, as it is called, looks charming and popularized the idea of wave power. Because of the solid construction it has very little potential to be damaged and very few repairs needed. Small-scale wave power initiativesfrom 100 kilowatts (kW) to 2 megawatts (MW)are now going ahead in more than a dozen countries. The technical problems have been steadily overcome in only the first 10 years of the energy being popular but the only practical applications have been on a small scale. Wave energy has the potential for 2,000MW power stations in the deep ocean. The big hurdle is financial. Wave energy was not devised to save money but to save the world. Early researchers used to say optimistically that the energy was free because the gods provided the waves. Wave energy is a capital-intensive technology, where most of the expenditure is during construction and are long term investments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Energy Regulations Can Adapt to Ocean Power Technologies

New technologies, including wave and tidal power, could increase hydropower energy production in the United States to 20 percent; however, the commercial development of these new energy technologies is in its infancy whereas other renewable resources have had centuries to develop into practical technologies wave energy has had only a few decades. Hydropower is an essential part of the Nation's energy mix and offers the benefits of an emission-free, renewable, domestic energy source with public and private capacity together totaling about ten percent of U.S. capacity. The development of a new source of hydropower (wave/tidal power) has the potential to add a substantial amount of power to the nation's generation capacity, particularly in the area of renewable energy. CON: Wave energy can be harnessed in locations that range from at the shoreline to many miles off shore, while tidal energy is limited to tidal rivers and narrows associated with coastal bays and estuaries, and ocean currents are located mainly in offshore locations such as the Gulf Stream. Tidal power has substantial hourly variations during the day but the pattern tends to be very predictable across seasons and years, while wave power is much steadier on an hourly basis but shows more seasonal variation.

Ultimately, whether the source is wave, tide, or current, it likely will take clusters or fields of devices to generate utility-scale power from the new technologies. The electricity from the devices will in most cases be connected by an underwater cable to the shore and then continue onshore to connect with the interstate transmission grid. JOBS: Along with the short term building of the power station, jobs through wave energy could include monitoring/maintenance of station, additional power grids and operators, production of parts for the power station, engineers designing the projects, and/or scientists studying the effects and processes of wave energy in order to better understand it. _______________________________________________________________________ Although wave and tidal power have the potential to generate a sizeable percentage of needed electricity, this new technology must overcome significant hurdles to become commercially viable. In fact, few wave and tidal power designs have actually been tested. While the time from prototype to commercial use has been shorter than the development time of wind power, wave and tidal power is still an immature industry, and start-up costs remain high. In addition, the marine environment is harsh, which has led to delays and high maintenance costs. The most significant challenge, however, is environmental. To ensure that marine life will be protected from turbine blades, companies must spend money to gather data on the potential impacts of projects. Interest in the nascent ocean industry nevertheless continues. Ocean powera resource often located near large population centerscould ultimately generate 25 percent of today's total electricity usage, said report co-author Travis Bradford, president of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development. In the next six years, electricity production from the ocean could swell from just 10 megawatts now to 1 gigawatt a year, a $500 million market. Before ocean power becomes an economic reality, however, there are huge hurdles to overcome, including too many competing turbine designs, lengthy environmental permitting, costly installation, and, in many cases, a harsh working environment at sea. Research in ocean energy is active, with most of it done in the U.K. [United Kingdom]. There are a number of pilot projects in the works which, if completed, would total 650 megawatts of electricity production. That's roughly the size of one coal or natural gas power plant. But charting the course from prototype to grid-connected generator has proven tricky, according to a number of speakers at an [October 2008] event hosted by the UK Trade and Investment initiative, Flagship Ventures, and Greentech Media. "The challenges have been greater and the timelines have all slipped. It hasn't been an easy ride so far," said Andrew Mill, CEO of the U.K.'s New and Renewable Energy Center (NaREC). "Most of the devices to date haven't actually reached the water."

Many wave power machines are designed to capture the energy of the wave's motions through a bobbing buoy-like device. Another approach is a Pelamis wave generator, now being tested in Scotland and in Portugal, which transfers the motion of surface waves to a hydraulic pump connected to a generator. Tidal power typically uses underwater spinning blades to turn a generator, similar to how a wind turbine works. Because water is far more dense than air, spinning blades can potentially be more productive than off-shore wind turbines for the same amount of space. Because it's an immature industry, ocean power is more expensive than other renewables.

Renewable, but Expensive

In addition to being renewable, another key advantage of ocean power is that it's reliable and predictable, said Daniel Englander, an analyst at Greentech Media. Although they can't generate power on-demand like a coal-fired plant, the tides and wave movements are well understood, giving planners a good idea of energy production over the course of a year. Because it's an immature industry, ocean power is more expensive than other renewables. In the coming years, the costs are projected to go down to about the range of wind and solar today, according to Greentech Media. "But the fact that you know when the generator is going to spin gives you a lot more value," Englander said.

Developing Ocean vs. Wind Energy

Many people consider ocean energy to be roughly at the same stage that wind power was at in early 1980s: there were a number of competing turbine and blade designs, and the cost of wind power was far higher than it is now. As the number of ocean generator types consolidates and components become standardized as has happened in wind powerthe costs of ocean power devices should go down. There has been about $500 million invested in ocean power since 2001, mostly in the form of government research and some venture capital, according to Greentech Media. That's tiny compared to wind or solar; several solar start-ups have individually raised more than that in the past year [October 2007-October 2008]. The report's authors predict that venture capitalists will be investing in ocean power as they seek new green-technology areas. Big energy companies have dabbled in ocean power as well. General Electric purchased a stake in Pelamis Wave Power, while Chevron and Shell have invested in ocean companies through their venture capital arms, Englander said.

One positive sign is that ocean power appears to be developing quicker than wind, said John Cote, a vice president at General Electric's financial services arm. "The wind industry, their Valley of Death (from product prototype to commercialization) was much longer," Cote said. "The development of standards is happening much quicker in the marine industry."

Tough Sailing
But despite the optimism, life on the water is tough, according to executives at ocean power companies. With almost no infrastructure around the industry, companies need to build a lot of their own equipment. To install and test devices, they have to hire expensive vessels, typically used for offshore drilling. Ocean Renewable Power is testing two of its horizontal turbine design tidal machines in Maine and Alaska. It's working on a new design that uses composite materials instead of steel, which it hopes to finish by the end of year [2008] and test extensively next year. While working in freezing temperatures and 30-mile-per-hour winds in the Bay of Fundy off the Maine coast, it found that "everything that can go wrong, will go wrong," said Ocean Renewable Power CEO Chris Sauer. Most of the failures were related to weather and marine conditions and equipment problems. "As a start-up, we have to make our own instrumentation systems put together on the cheap," he said. New York City's East River, meanwhile, is the test site for another tidal power installation being led by Verdant Power, which makes underwater turbines that get energy from changing currents. In the space of three weeks, all six turbines being tested failed the same waya mechanical problem in the connections point between the blade and hubs, said Ronald Smith, Verdant Power's CEO. Another big potential cost for ocean power devices is operations and maintenance.

Environment, Operations, and Maintenance

But the biggest hurdles with the project have been environmental concerns, he said. Regulators want to make sure that fish, or other marine life, will not be killed in the blades. The company has equipped its devices with acoustic and other sonar devices to gather data for regulators, Smith said.

Another big potential cost for ocean power devices is operations and maintenance. Simply getting vesselsand staffto service machines can be expensive, making the "survivability" of ocean energy gear a top priority. Executives at the panel predicted that ocean power installations in the future will be several units, rather than one large device. For example, Ocean Renewable Power's 250-kilowatt modules can be stacked on top of each other, so if one machine fails, the entire operation isn't taken offline. Even relatively successful companieslike Wavebob, which is set to build a 250megawatt ocean power installation in Irelandare doing software simulations, environmental reviews, and additional engineering to increase the odds of success. "We're stopping on the edge of commercialization and taking two steps backward," said Derek Robertson, the general manager of the company's North American business. "We're investing in detailed operations and systems engineering process to retire risk."

The Environmental Impact of Wave Energy Remains Unknown

Wave and Tidal Power , 2011 listen -

Michelle Ma is a staff reporter for the Seattle Times. The rush to convert energy from ocean waves to electricity has slowed, primarily due to concerns about the environmental impacts of wave energy devices. For example, wave energy buoys could alter ecosystems or disrupt whale and fish migration. The fishing industry fears that wave and tidal projects could further reduce access to fishing grounds. Still others fear that without adequate study beforehand, the use of such devices could change the character of U.S. coasts. Despite these concerns, however, in the Pacific Northwest, researchers from the University of Washington and Oregon State University are studying the cost effectiveness and environmental suitability of potential sites for the production of wave and tidal energy. What started out as a mad dash to extract energy from the ocean's waves and tides has slowed to a marathoner's pacecomplete with a few water breaks and sprained ankles along the way. In the past three years [since 2005], more than 100 preliminary permits have been issued nationally for wave- and tidal-energy projects, and nearly 100 more are pending approval.

But only one has won a license to operatea small wave-energy development off Washington's northwest coast. That project is still awaiting state and federal permits, and its British Columbia-based developer, Finavera Renewables, doesn't know when the first devices will go in the water. It doesn't help that a wave-power buoy the company was testing off the Oregon coast unexpectedly sank [in November 2007]. No one knows exactly how the technologies will behave in the water, whether animals will get hurt, or if costs will pencil out.

An Unknown Technology
Tapping the power of waves and tidal currents to generate electricity is promoted as one of many promising alternatives to the fossil fuels that contribute to global warming. But no one knows exactly how the technologies will behave in the water, whether animals will get hurt, or if costs will pencil out. The permitting process is expensive and cumbersome, and no set method exists for getting projects up and running. "The industry is really young, and everything is hodgepodged right now," said Jim Thomson, an oceanographer at the University of Washington's Applied Physics Lab who is involved in tidal research. A new report that collected findings from dozens of scientists raises concerns about the impact wave-energy developments could have on the ocean and its critters. Wave-energy buoys could alter the food chain or disrupt migrations, the report says. Still, developers, regulators and researchers are moving forward. A 2.25-megawatt project off the coast of Portugal went on line [in fall 2008], becoming the world's first commercial wave-energy development in operation. It can supply 1,500 households with electricity. The first commercial wave-energy park in the U.S. could go in off Reedsport, Ore., within the next two years. Tidal energy has yet to go commercial, but devices have been tested in Ireland and Canada. Turbines have been placed in New York's East River, and a demonstration project is planned for the Bay of Fundy off the Northeastern U.S. In the Northwest, the Snohomish County [Washington] Public Utility District (PUD) has narrowed its search for tidal-power sites in Puget Sound, although the PUD doesn't expect to have a test project in the water for another two years.

The Race to Develop

Dozens of developers have staked claim to plots in the ocean and in waterways that could provide wave and tidal energy. But despite the jostle for space, getting projects off dry land has proved difficult. Wave-power generators use the up-and-down motion of the ocean's swells to produce electricity. Tidal generators act like underwater windmills, spinning as the tides move in and out. To get small projects in the water quicker federal regulators recently created a five-year pilot license for tidal and wave developments. That's meant to help developers gather data they need to launch future projects, said Federal Energy Regulatory Commission spokeswoman Celeste Miller. Yet even with a more streamlined process, no one has applied for the pilot license, Miller said. Finavera received its license for the 1-megawatt Makah Bay [Washington] wave project before this option became available. Given the unknowns in a young industry, it's not surprising projects are taking longer than some developers would like, said Myke Clark, senior vice president of business development for Finavera. His company encountered another hurdle when Pacific Gas and Electric's agreement to buy power from a planned Finavera wave-energy project off California was rejected [in October 2008] by the state's Public Utilities Commission. Regulators said the rates were too high and the buoy technology not yet ready. Clark said the decision wouldn't affect Finavera's Makah Bay project. The environmental effects of wave and tidal energy are largely unknown and require more studies.

Research Is Under Way

Researchers from the University of Washington [UW] and Oregon State University [OSU] hope that a new national marine renewable-energy research center in the Northwest will help answer questions about tidal and wave energy. A federal grant provides $1.25 million annually for up to five years. The UW will continue research on tidal energy in Puget Sound, while OSU will focus on wave energy. "The feeling is that a lot of questions being asked now are only questions that can be answered with a responsible pilot [project]," said Brian Polagye, who is pursuing his doctorate in mechanical engineering at the UW.

Locally, researchers want to see where marine life in Puget Sound congregates and to create a standard way to evaluate sites around the country to determine which would be good candidates for tidal-energy projects. Admiralty Inlet, between Whidbey Island and Port Townsend, is the likely spot for the Snohomish County PUD's small test project set to launch at least two years from now [in 2010-11], said Craig Collar, the PUD's senior manager of energy-resource development. The inlet's tides are strong, and the area is large enough to accommodate a tidal project without interfering with other activities such as diving and ferry traffic. Finavera wants to install four wave-energy buoys in Makah Bay in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary to test its technology. Developers also plan to monitor the project for effects on wildlife and shoreline habitat, keeping an eye on federally listed species such as the marbled murrelet, a small bird that dives for food. Finavera doesn't intend to continue the project after its five-year license expires. Still, if the company can negotiate a purchasing agreement with the Clallam County Public Utility District, homes in the area could use the wave-generated power while the project is in the water, Clark said. The Makah Nation wants to see what effect the project might have on the environment before deciding whether wave energy is a viable long-term option, said Ryland Bowechop, tourism and economic-development planner for the tribe. The buoys would sit just offshore from the tribal headquarters in Neah Bay. "We are always concerned because our livelihood is the ocean," Bowechop said.

Concerns Linger
The environmental effects of wave and tidal energy are largely unknown and require more studies, dozens of scientists concluded after meeting a year ago at OSU's Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport, Ore. The group was concerned that electromagnetic cables on the ocean floor could affect sea life, and that buoys could interfere with whale and fish migration. Fishermen have their own worries. They fear that wave and tidal projects could further reduce access to fishing grounds. Large buoys might actually attract more fish, but the marine ecosystem could be altered if more predators move in. Buoys also could disrupt natural currents and change how sediment is moved. Shorelines might be affected as energy is taken from the waves.

Even if environmental concerns are checked, costs to extract the power remain high. Wave energy costs at least 20 cents per kilowatt hour to generate, compared with 4 cents per kilowatt hour for wind power, said Annette von Jouanne, leader of OSU's wave-energy program. Wind energy used to be much more expensive 20 years ago. In comparison, coal-generated power costs about 5 cents per kilowatt hour, and power from dams can be as low as 3 cents, said Roger Bedard, ocean-energy leader with the nonprofit Electric Power Research Institute. Tidal-energy costs are harder to determine because there aren't any projects trying to sell electricity, Bedard said. Fishermen have their own worries. They fear that wave and tidal projects could further reduce access to fishing grounds, said Dale Beasley, a commercial fisherman in Ilwaco, Pacific County, and president of the Columbia River Crab Fisherman's Association. "There's so many things coming at the ocean right now," he said. Beasley says the industry wants a say in how wave- and tidal-energy projects are developed. "Coastal communities are going to have to figure out a way to deal with this, and if they don't, the character of the coast will change dramatically," he said.

Active Sonar May Help Monitor the Impact on Marine Mammals

Wave and Tidal Power , 2011 listen -

Lesley Riddoch is a Scottish broadcaster, journalist, and commentator who runs an independent radio and podcast company from Abertay University in Dundee, Scotland. She also is a weekly columnist for the Scotsman, a Scottish daily newspaper. Monitoring marine mammals to determine whether tidal power turbines pose a serious threat is costly. At present, operators of turbines look for marine life from the turbine bridge or by using sonar at the stern of turbines. If such observers spot a seal, they turn off the turbines. Unfortunately, distinguishing seals from seaweed and other objects can be difficult, and sometimes the turbines are needlessly shut down. Launching the fledgling tidal power industry will be difficult until less costly monitoring methods can be found. Active sonar may be the answer. Once active sonar is trained to differentiate seals from

other objects, it may reveal what seals actually do near turbines. If seals recognize the danger and swim away, tidal turbine power can then proceed without costly monitoring. Active sonar is being 'trained' to identify sea mammals in a bid to cut the costs of monitoring tidal turbines and speed up the development of marine energy in Britain. The sonar is just one part of the technological response to a very humanand animal problem. Will underwater turbines harm seals, dolphins and seabirds? And how would we know if they did? The world's largest environmental marine-energy monitoring project in Northern Ireland has not found that tidal turbines are having a measurable impact on seals, dolphins and seabirds after three years of a five-year study. But, while marine biologists say it could take a decade to be sure, developers say more expensive monitoring could cripple the fledgling tidal energy industry. Academics are hoping technology might offer a compromise.

Costly Marine Mammal Monitoring

Bristol-based tidal energy developer Marine Current Turbines (MCT) has already spent 3m [3 million pounds Sterling] on detailed monitoring work around its twin-turbine SeaGen device, installed [in 2008] in Strangford Lough near Belfast. The monitoring work was agreed with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency to ameliorate the impact of locating turbines in a national nature reserve with nine EU [European Union] habitat and wildlife designations and an established seal colony, and it is largely visual in its method. A marine mammal observer stands on SeaGen's bridge, ready to hit an 'off' button if a seal appears within 50m [50 meters]. A colleague sits in the stern using sonar to spot seals underwater, although it's hard to distinguish the sonar signals created by a seal pup from those created by a clump of seaweed. Meanwhile, experts from the St Andrews-based Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) have attached transmitters to the hair on seals' heads to help track their movements. The devices which use mobile phone technologycome off when the animals moult. Finally, biologist Daryl Birkett has conducted eight surveys a month for the past three years from a grassy knoll opposite SeaGen, using range-finding binoculars to note every sea mammal, seabird, or human movement in the Narrows. Queens University marine biologist Graham Savidge says the half million movements recorded so far suggest turbines and seals avoid one another: "Few seals are found in the fast currents that turbines needon the surface at least. The majority prefer the lower water speeds of the lough's margins." The sonar's primary use is to see what animals actually do near turbines. It's quite possible seals may be attracted, get close and then swim safely away.

Conflicting Reports
Martin Wright, managing director of MCT is "profoundly pleased and relieved" the turbines have not had any measurable impact on Strangford wildlife, but says the cost of proving that has been onerous. "There will be no further tidal projects with this level of monitoring. Tidal energy will not happen if an embryonic industry is made to carry such burdens...." Professor Ian Boyd of SMRU disagrees: "The effect of turbines on sea mammals will only become apparent over a period of ten years. We know that porpoises, for example, are already spending less time in the Strangford narrows and there may be other effects that are not measurable using current methods. So monitoring must continueat test sites and at sea. The marine [energy] industry is not viable unless it can carry these costs." No seal appears to have been injured by the turbines, fishing boats, yachts or the Portaferry-Strangford ferry, which makes 64 crossings per day. But common seal numbers around Britain are 30-40 per cent down in a decade, so just one turbine-related death would be serious for tidal developers, because EU rules ban developments that pose new threats to endangered species.

Active Sonar Tracks

St Andrews-based SMRU believes the solution could be the development of active sonar, as [it] is already used to find undersea objects such as pipelines, in naval tracking and in ultrasound for expectant mothers. But none of the sonar kits currently in use offer all the features needed to monitor a tidal turbine. So SMRU and the Orkney-based European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) are 'training' DT-X sonar technology from Seattle-based BioSonics, using 'spotter' sightings to corroborate and improve recognition. This summer [2009] marine biologists will collect data on the swimming and diving behaviour of marine mammals. This will provide the basis for Biosonics' engineering staff to program their classification software to differentiate between swimming animals and other targets such as seaweed or submerged logs. They will use 'detection matrices' software processes that try to classify moving blobs on a sonar screen into categories such as 'marine mammal', 'debris', or 'seabird', based on factors such as its acoustic target strength, size, swimming speed and diving behaviour. It's hoped that this will allow the sonar to automatically detect and track animals in 3D around tidal turbines. But Wright at turbine company MCT questions the utility of 'seal sonar'. "Seals are high-order predators adapted to their environment, a bit like taxis in central London, which come within inches of passers-by but there are no body bags at the end of

the day. Seals appear to understand the tidal turbines and if there is no measurable impact then no further mitigationhuman monitoring or sonarshould be needed." If [tidal power] devices are always shut down when animals are sighted, we will never know what seals do next. The sonar will help us find out. Jenny Norris from EMEC believes seal sonar will be helpful to those who believe seals aren't at risk from turbines at all. "The sonar's primary use is to see what animals actually do near turbines. It's quite possible seals may be attracted, get close and then swim safely away, without any physical interaction," she says. "If devices are always shut down when animals are sighted, we will never know what seals do next. The sonar will help us find out and that's why it will probably trigger an alarmnot go for automatic shutdown." An EU marine research project could help settle the issue. Equimar involves 61 scientists, developers, engineers and conservationists from 11 European countries finding ways to measure and compare tidal- and wave-energy devices so governments can back the best models. According to its Edinburgh-based coordinator, Dr David Ingram: "Early devices need extensive tests and test sites should be as highly instrumented as possible. But if tests demonstrate turbines have no measurable impact on sea mammals, then the monitoring and observation burden for future projects has to be much lower. If 'seal sonar' works, our protocols could require its use in test sitessonar wouldn't then be needed for successfully tested devices at sea." Wright may take some convincing: "Computers are not good at pattern recognitionI fear that if sonar is made compulsory for tidal turbines at sea it will cause shutdowns all the time. No human surveillance will be possible there. So monitoring will cause chaos when we deploy arrays of turbines to generate substantial tidal energy." Professor Boyd concedes active sonar is sensitive to air bubbles in the water column and doesn't currently work as well near the surface. But since tidal devices are underwater, sonar is most accurate where seals might be in most danger of collision. "I hope by next year, accurate sonar at 15,000 per turbine will be on the market ... for marine developers that isn't going to break the bank."

Federal and State Governments Should Support Tidal Power

Wave and Tidal Power , 2011 listen -

Larry Eisenstat is the head of the energy practice of Dickstein Shapiro LLP, a corporate law firm. Bethany Dukes is an associate at Dickstein Shapiro LLP. If tidal power is to become a viable commercial alternative energy resource, federal and state governments must provide the same kind of economic stimulation once used to support wind and nuclear power and fossil fuels. Tidal power is emission-free, predictable, and renewable. Although an untested industry, tidal power nevertheless shows promise, despite skepticism that it is not competitive with other energy resources. Federal and state funding would give this fledgling industry a chance to prove itself. Indeed, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has helped by expediting permit procedures to lessen some of the burden faced by new tidal power projects. Hydrokinetic power harnesses the motion of waves or the flow of tides, ocean currents or inland waterways to generate electricity without the impoundments or diversions used in traditional hydropower. Its proponents are quick to extol its many apparent virtues. Like other renewable power sources, hydrokinetic projects are renewable, emission-free and virtually silent. They create green jobs for local communities and decrease reliance on oil and natural gas. Unlike most intermittent resources, waves and tides are predictable. Many projects could be sited near load centers and integrated into the existing electrical system without major expansions. Some East Coast projects might even unload certain transmission facilities, reduce congestion and alleviate part of the need for future transmission lines. And, if offshore, they would be virtually invisible from the mainland. While many of the more impressive tidal ranges are located abroad, some speculate that the United States alone has enough wave and tidal resource potential to meet about 10 percent of its energy demand. Finally, the technical risk is becoming increasingly acceptable. The United Kingdom has been promoting hydrokinetic power for some time and in May 2008 connected the first tidal turbine to its grid. The results to date are encouraging. There also is considerable skepticism [about] whether hydrokinetic power could be costcompetitive and developed on a scale necessary to significantly contribute to the U.S. energy portfolio. Developers first must be willing to sign on to a technology that, while showing significant promise, has yet to be tested over multiple years. Scarce operational data exist concerning its performance, environmental impacts and costs. On its face, it would appear to entail potentially complex installation and maintenance issues. It is reasonable to assume that permitting would be just as lengthy and uncertain, and the difficulties in raising capital would be at least as large, as those faced by more conventional power technologies. Perhaps this is why only two projects have been successfully licensed in the United States.

Federal and state governments must continue providing to hydrokinetic power development the same degree of seed money and other economic stimuli used to advance wind, nuclear, oil and gas.

A Bright Future
Things might be changing, however. While the first federally licensed hydrokinetic project in the United States commenced commercial operation on Aug. 20, [2009,] other projects successfully have completed the demonstration phase and are nearing full-scale implementation, and new projects continue to be developed. More than 140 preliminary permits have been issued for projects that potentially could produce thousands of megawatts. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has further contributed by developing expedited procedures to lessen the burden on pilot projects seeking these preliminary permits. Together with the Department of the Interior's Mineral Management Service (MMS), it recently streamlined the process of obtaining FERC licenses and leases from MMS for projects on the outer continental shelf. Likewise, states are beginning to coordinate their permitting and leasing processes with the federal licensing process. Future prospects also appear bright. Arizona Sen[ator] Jeff Bingaman's energy bill provides funding for hydrokinetic energy research and development. In August [2009], the Department of Energy selected several national laboratory-led advanced water power projects to receive up to $11 million in funding, and in September it announced an additional $14.6 million for 22 projects to promote advanced hydropower technologies. In June, President Barack Obama established an interagency Ocean Policy Task Force to develop a cohesive national policy and coordinate state and federal efforts for the nation's oceans. One must look only to the 1980's wind power development to see why hydrokinetic power is far from dead in the water and what this nascent technology requires to attain the commercial viability and public support that wind power enjoys today. In light of its technical promise and today's environmental and national security imperativesand until further development would not make sensethe federal and state governments must continue providing to hydrokinetic power development the same degree of seed money and other economic stimuli used to advance wind, nuclear, oil and gas in the form of direct grants, tax incentives, geologic and meteorologic research or set asides.

Wave Energy Projects Should Consider the Views of the Surfing Community
Wave and Tidal Power , 2011 listen -

Peter M. Connor is a renewable energy policy professor at the University of Exeter in Cornwall, England. When seeking approval for wave energy projects such as the proposed Wave Hub off the coast of Cornwall, England, developers should include all stakeholders, including members of the surfing community, in the process. The wave energy potential that attracts those who hope to turn wave power into electricity is also what attracts surfers. Unfortunately, the results of studies about the impact of wave energy technology vary, and their interpretation by the media has in some cases been misleading. While some high-profile surfers oppose the Wave Hub, most surfers generally support environmental concerns. Indeed, many surfers support wave power projects as a renewable energy resource. Thus, to gain surfers' trust, developers should consult with them during the approval process and should share the best available research regarding the impacts of the use of such technology. Wave Hub is a sub-sea electrical grid connection point proposed for installation on the seabed 15-20km [kilometers] off the north coast of Cornwall, in the southwest of the UK [United Kingdom]. If planning approval is granted then the Wave Hub will provide a direct connection to the UK distribution network. It will be initially capable of transmitting up to 20MW [megawatts] of power, with the potential to be upgraded to 40MW if demand is sufficient. The site is intended to allow demonstration phase wave energy generating devices to connect to the grid, thus allowing direct sales of any electricity generated. Local government support from the SW Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) effectively acts to assume some of the risk of capital investment in grid connection in exchange for site rental, whilst also allowing sales of electricity and Renewables Obligation Certificates. SWRDA is also hopeful that the location of the Wave Hub, combined with other initiatives may act to attract new industry to the SW peninsula. As well as attempting to push forward the commercialisation of wave energy technology, the site will see the operation of multiple arrays of wave energy devices in a relatively small area, only 1km x 3km (with an additional 500m [meter] exclusion boundary, for a total area of 2km x 4km). This close proximity of devices is unusual in devices already installed around the world, allowing data to be collected as to how this impacts on overall performance of multiple device types. The Hub thus offers potential for stimulating new research, for opportunities to advance the operational characteristics of wave energy technology and for capture of socioeconomic benefits to the investing region.... [One] source of [wave] resource conflict ... stems from the surf sector.

Competing for Wave Resources

Whilst it is possible to identify multiple potential benefits of the development of the Wave Hub to the southwest region of the UK, including local economic and social benefits, as

well as wider environmental and technological gains, the Cornish coast, as with the rest of the UK are already subject to a wide range of uses. There are two main areas of resource conflict arising from the siting of the Wave Hub. Firstly, the fishing industry is a significant source of employment in Cornwall and reductions in available area for exploitation are potentially controversial. The relatively small size of the area which will be off limits to shipping, including the fishing fleet, as a result of the Wave has not so far led to any notable controversy. The second source of resource conflict ... stems from the surf sector. Surfing has grown to be a major leisure activity in the southwest of England, with Cornwall being the location of many of the UK's leading surf beaches. Surfing has been estimated to bring a direct spend of 21 million (31 million) annually to the county. Surfing in the UK, with very limited exceptions, relies on the delivery of wave energy at the shoreline with surfers utilising waves up to a maximum of a few hundred metres from the shore. Given the direction of the swells at the Wave Hub location any wave energy devices installed at the Wave Hub will draw power from waves which are incident on the section of the north Cornish coast. This stretch of coastline is approximately 35km long and includes a number of popular surf beaches including the town of Newquay, a tourist town which relies for much of its popularity on surfing. It is the uncertainty over [wave impact] figures that is the source of conflict with regard to the Wave Hub [wave energy project] and the surf community. Since wave energy is proportional to the square of wave height, it is readily apparent that exploitation of wave energy for electrical generation will act to deplete the waves immediately beyond a wave energy device. What is not certain is how far this effect will extend beyond the deviceor array of devicesand what will be the extent of the effect over distance from the devices. It is the uncertainty over these figures that is the source of conflict with regard to the Wave Hub and the surf community.

The Impacts on Shoreline Wave Height

Two published attemptsthe first by the South West Regional Development Agency, the second by [D.L. Millar, H.C.M. Smith, and D.E. Reeve (2007)]have tried to model the impacts of the Wave Hub on shoreline wave climate, neither of which can be regarded as being definitive. The reports take a different approach to modelling and problems can be identified with each. The first of the two to be published was a report carried out on behalf of the South West Regional Development Agency, by the consultancy group Halcrow, as part of its assessment of the Wave Hub and the range of potential impacts. It concluded that there would be a measurable impact on shoreline wave climate along the section of Cornish coast from St Ives Bay to Harlyn Bay, with variations in the level of impact over the range of locations, and with different sea conditions.... The second published set of models was produced by Millar et al., and despite a publication date in 2007 became publicly available around September 2006. Employing a potentially more complex model, though with different input criteria, the results of this

work suggested somewhat lesser impacts than those produced by the Halcrow model. Millar et al. employ data to more closely reflect actual wave behaviour off Cornwall rather than the idealised 'surfer's wave' situation. Thus they attempt to take into account both swell and wind waves. Shoreline effects of energy device installation at the Wave Hub are modelled for multiple values of energy absorption.... It is clear that there is a need for further work to be carried out to understand the impacts operational wave energy devices have on local wave climate. This is necessary both generally and in the specific instance of the Wave Hub. Prior to that however, then decisions must either be deferred or made based on the available information.

Interpretation by the Press

Despite the relatively small number of models and the relatively low levels of impact they predict on the shoreline wave climate, there have been a much wider range of figures propagated in the public domain. Some of these seem to have come from the published reports, albeit often stripped of context, while others have no readily identifiable source. The publication by Halcrow of data concerning potential shoreline impacts stemming from the Wave Hub was picked up by some elements of the UK national and regional press. A Sunday Times article in July 2006 was one of the first to mention the potential shoreline effects of the Wave Hub, it began with the statement 'The 20m [million] offshore chain of pumps and turbines will affect a 20-mile stretch of beaches, reducing the height of the waves by more than 10%', but made no further attempt to add any clarification as to the context in which these circumstances might occur. The figure appears to have been taken from the Halcrow report, though there it is made clear that it will occur only in rare conditions. The remainder of the article is primarily concerned with outlining the economic and social implications of the stated drop in wave height, and of the conflict between the Cornish surf economy and community on one side and the Wave Hub developers on the other. The Sunday Times article was picked up by the regional press and other news outlets. Regional newspapers including the West Briton and the Western Morning News ran articles in the days following the Sunday Times article that appeared to be based largely around the information made available in the Sunday Times, with the 11% reduction in wave height at the shoreline being repeated. The BBC's news website commented on the conflict, quoting a representative of the pro-Wave Hub Surfers Against Sewage as saying the effect of the Wave Hub on shoreline wave climate "would be an 11% reduction in surf height at most", this qualification of the 11% figure was relatively uncommon. The same figure, again without any of the situation-specific context of the Halcrow report, reached the Scottish national press in 2007 via [news service] Reuters. From July 2006 onwards, the issue of Wave Hub impacts on shoreline wave climate and potential implications for surfers began to attract more attention in the surf community, though it is certainly possible that it was members of the surf community opposed to the

Wave Hub who had brought the attention of the national and regional press to the issue in July 2006.

Vocal Opponents
One of the most vocal opponents of the Wave Hub based on its perceived potential impacts on shoreline waves has been John Baxendale. Baxendale, a surf enthusiast and current member of the executive board of the British Surfing Association (BSA) operates a surf forecasting company in Cornwall. Baxendale formerly acted as webmaster for the website 'A1 surf', popular amongst the surf community for weather and surf reports and for surf related news. Baxendale initiated a petition on the A1 surf site which attracted 600+ signatures asking for further consultation with surfers before Wave Hub construction be initiated. This petition was submitted to the Department of Trade and Industry [DTI]the government department responsible for supporting efforts in wave energyas part of a review initiated by the DTI to investigate Wave hub impacts. Other representatives of the BSA also appear to oppose the Wave Hub. A statement purporting to represent the position of the BSA was produced on August 8th 2006 by Ben Farwagi, a member of the Executive Board of the BSA. The statement employs the outlying 13% figure likely to come from the Halcrow report. However, Farwagi makes two further propositions, firstly that the Wave Hub could have a potential 30% reduction on wave height at the shoreline, and implicitly that this might apply in all conditions with commensurate negative implications for surf quality. The 30% figure appears to be pure hypothesis on behalf of Farwagi and the BSA, and the assumption does not attempt to take into account the variation in impacts dependent on wave height assumed by modellers. The BSA, claiming 10,000 members, is the closest thing to a national body representing the interests of surfers in the UK. If it is able to leverage its access to these surfers then it has the potential to use them to support its policy positions. Following a further report from Black in 2007 which suggested similar results to Halcrow, though with the potential for greater reductions in wave height in somerelatively rare conditions, the Environment Committee of the BSA released a statement accepting the installation of the Wave Hub provided that it was monitored for effect as recommended within Black's report and on the basis that future developments would also be subject to stakeholder consultation.

The Position of the Surf Community

While there appears to have been assumptions on the part of much of the press that surfers are against the development of the Wave hub, this is not necessarily the case. The position of the surf community in Cornwall with regard to the Wave Hub is not homogeneous. The national surf body, the British Surf Association (BSA) appears to oppose the Wave Hub or at least has been represented as such by its officers. The environmentally leaning Surfers Against Sewage (SAS) supports the development of the Wave Hub and wave energy generally. The division also extends to the UK surf press, with Carve magazine taking an

editorial perspective opposing the Wave Hub, while Drift magazine has broadly supported it and the editor of Surfer's Path magazine has gone on record with concerns that opposition to the Wave Hub will damage the reputation of surfers with regard to environmental concern. The [Wave Hub power project] issue could almost be designed for creating division in the surf community. The issue could almost be designed for creating division in the surf community. Surfing in the UK and elsewhere has a history of pro-environmental activity. The NGO [nongovernmental organization] Surfers Against Sewage (SAS) have taken a very active role in campaigning for improved water quality around the UK coast over the last two decades, as well as actively addressing other environmental issues. SAS have issued a number of statements in support of the Wave Hub, emphasising the issue of global warming and emissions relating to fossil fuel energy use. They have taken particular care to emphasise the particular published results relating to shoreline wave modelling. The SAS position can be regarded as reflecting a worldview amongst many surfers that is generally protective of the environment. The Wave Hub, however, offers a potential conflict between this perspective and a perceived threat to the basic resource necessary for surfers. This conflict is at the heart of the divide over the Wave Hub issue. If surfers are to be a key stakeholder group impacting on the approval process of the Wave Hub then it is important that as a group they are basing their position on the best available information. The balance of opinion is likely to correlate with both the quality of information available but also with the access to information that members of the stakeholder community have. This increases the importance of both producing accurate information and of ensuring its wider dissemination.

The Implications for Wave Energy

Some degree of conflict over resources that might be useful to renewable energy generation as well as to other uses may be inevitable. It may be possible to resolve conflict with good will, however, the nature of conflict between different parties within society, the ways in which opinions are formed, means to produce the most optimal outputs that the positions that are taken by the various stakeholders must be rooted in information that is as accurate as possible. This is true from both perspectives in the case of wave energy. Models which predict impacts markedly less than actually occur may result in decisions with more significant ecological and social impacts than would otherwise have been acceptable, perhaps sufficient to have disallowed installation if presented prior to approval. Equally, informationor misinformationexaggerating the impacts of wave energy devices or arrays could attract greater opposition to proposed installations.... There is a need for wave energy developers ... to be vigilant about the interaction of wave energy deployment with the opinions of ... specific stakeholder groups.

There is a need for wave energy developers now and into the future to be vigilant about the interaction of wave energy deployment with the opinions of the general public and of specific stakeholder groups. It is important not to assume that moving renewable energy offshore guarantees that conflict will automatically be averted. Action must be taken to identify potential sources of conflict as early as possible and to move to come to mutually agreeable solutions which both recognise the needs of established stakeholders as well as allowing the increased deployment of renewable energy technologies with the potential for environmental and other benefits they offer. Lessons may be learned from some of the work that has been done concerning inclusion of different stakeholders and public accountability with regard to other renewable energy technologies, most notably onshore wind energy. There is considerable work to be done in assessing the ways in which groups and individuals form opinions of wave energy and its potential future role within society.

Putting Results in the Proper Context

There is a need for both greater research into the full impacts of wave energy devices and efforts to more widely promulgate results in the proper context. While environmental impacts are not fully understood either qualitatively or quantitatively then there is potential for gaps in knowledge to be exploited by opponents of the technology or of its particular use. Work needs to be carried out to increase the accuracy of models for impacts of wave energy devices, including at the shoreline, but data alone do not resolve issues of public opinion and public acceptability. There is considerable work to be done in assessing the ways in which groups and individuals form opinions of wave energy and its potential future role within society. This will need to take place within the greater debate as to how nations address climate change. It will need to be informed by more advanced and complex models for assessment of the physical impacts of wave energy installations as well as of the social and economic implications, both positive and negative. It has become apparent from research in the acceptability of onshore wind energy that much can be done to increase stakeholder trust by inclusion of key representatives at all stages of projects with potential impacts on a stakeholder group. While lessons may be learned from the ways in which support for social and cultural impacts has been applied to other renewable energy technologies, but the particularities of wave [energy technology] would best be served by specific consideration as well as these general conclusions.

Electricity generation from hydropower and other renewable sources, 1990-2030

Energy , 2010 listen -

Electricity generation from hydropower and other renewable sources, 1990-2030

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/VideosDetailsPage/VideosDetailsWindow? total=2&query=BS+wave+energy&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&mode=view&li miter=AC+y&displayGroupName=Videos&currPage=1&sortBy=relevance %2Cdescending&action=e&catId=&view=docDisplay&documentId=GALE| CT3208621043

Tidal or Wave Power

Environmental Science , 2009

listen -

Introduction
Large amounts of energy are involved in the motions of ocean water. These motions include steady ocean currents, the repetitive motions of the tides, and the irregular motions of surface waves. For decades, machines have been in development to harvest energy in the form of electricity from these motions. Although a few projects have been in operation since the 1960s, a commercial market for ocean-power harvesting devices has only opened up in the early 2000s. Ocean power is poised to make a significant contribution to a future portfolio of renewable energy sources that will also include wind and solar power.

Historical Background and Scientific Foundations

Twice a day, over much of the world, sea level rises and falls, anywhere from a few inches to 56 ft (a few centimeters to 17 m). The most extreme variation occurs at the Bay of Fundy in coastal Canada. This rise and fall entails the movement of trillions of tons of water, involving an immense amount of energy. Tidal energy ultimately derives from the Earth-moon system: The energy dissipated as friction by the tides is subtracted from Earths rotational kinetic energy, slowing the planets spin. Because of the tides, Earths day is getting longer at the rate of about 0.0017 seconds per century. Earths seas also circulate in currents and are covered everywhere by the short-lived, smallscale, up-and-down motions of waves. Some of the energy in currents and waves is derived from the tides, but most is from the sun, which drives air and ocean movements around the planet by heating it unevenly. French engineer Pierre Girard (17651836) patented an early device for gathering wave power in 1799. In the centuries since this time, many schemes have been proposed for harvesting tidal and wave power, but until the second half of the twentieth century none produced large amounts of power. Development efforts are underway to find less expensive means of harvesting these energy flows. Challenges remain, but commercial sales of a variety of sea-power systems were ongoing in the early 2000s, and coming decades may see greatly increased output from ocean energy. Tidal and Current Power In some locations, bays are connected to the open ocean through narrow openings, forcing tidal waters to flow back and forth like a reversing river. Energy is particularly easy to gather in such locations: all that is needed is to place a windmill-like turbine or other energy-capturing device in the tidal current. A prototype of this kind of device was installed near Hammerfest, Norway, in 2003, generating 300 kilowatts (300,000 watts, 300

kW), with the Norwegian government planning to install a larger facility after gaining experience with the prototype. In April 2008, a similar but larger system was installed in Strangford Lough, Ireland, a SeaGen dual-turbine device capable of generating a peak power output of 1.5 megawatts (1.5 million watts, five times more than the Hammerfest system). The SeaGen machine consists of an anchored column tall enough to protrude from the seas surface with two wing-like underwater supports, one on each side, each supporting a two-bladed turbine resembling a windmill. Each turbine is 50 ft (15 m) in diameter. The system, due to begin producing power later in 2008, was to be monitored by an independent team of government scientists to see what effects it had on seals, fish, and other aspects of the local environment. The blades turn too slowly to be a threat to most marine life.

WORDS TO KNOW
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Energy that can be naturally replenished. In contrast, fossil fuel energy is nonrenewable. Such systems involve little modification of coastlines and are therefore environmentally relatively low-impact. A larger, but higher-impact, type of system is the tidal dam. A tidaldam energy project has been operating at La Rance, France, since 1966, generating a round-the-clock average of 65 MW (240 MW peak). At La Rance, the rising tide is allowed to fill a reservoir behind a dam; when the tide begins to fall, floodgates are closed and the water in the reservoir is allowed to run out through turbines, generating electricity. Such systems will probably never be built in large numbers, both because of their great expense and because they involve large-scale modifications of coastlines. Another low-impact system is the hydrofoil or pulse generator. A hydrofoil is a wing-like object designed to experience an up or down force when water flows over it. Hydrofoil generators being tested in the early 2000s were large structures that sat on the ocean floor with a 33-ft (10-m) hydrofoil blade held out on a horizontal arm. The current flowing over the hydrofoil forced it up and down, like the handle on a car jack or a dolphins tail being wagged. This motion operated a water pump, and water pressurized by the pump flowed through a generator, producing electricity. In April 2008, the government of the United Kingdom, a world leader in tidal and wave-power research, gave its go-ahead for the installation of a 0.1-MW pulse generator supplying power to the national grid (network of power lines supplying homes and businesses with electricity). Experience in operating the prototype would, if all went according to plan, lead to the design and installation of units 10 times larger. Wave Power Tidal power has the advantage of being completely predictable: The tides occur with perfect regularity every day. In contrast, waves vary in strength, from a mere ripple to large storm waves. Yet sites with deep, concentrated tidal currents are not common, and waves wash all shores. There are at least six different technologies for harvesting wave power:

1. Attenuator: Long, tubelike floats linked end-to-end by flexible hoses rock as waves pass under them. The motion pressurizes oil, which drives generators. The worlds first commercial wave-power farm, along the coast of Portugal, uses this technology and was being installed as of mid-2008. 2. Point absorber: A float bobs up down on the surface of the waves. A vertical shaft is worked by the motion, pressurizing generators. 3. Oscillating wave surge converter: A buoylike arm is tethered to the bottom and waved back and forth like an upside-down pendulum as waves surge past. 4. Oscillating water column: A sealed column with water in its lower portion and air in its upper portion is connected to the sea. Wave action causes the water part of the column to rise and fall, raising and lowering the air and causing air-driven turbines to rotate. 5. Overtopping device: Waves slosh over the top of a barrier and the water flows back to the sea through a turbine. 6. Submerged pressure differential: A drum or tube along which a piston moves is anchored to the ocean floor not far below the surface. Water pressure on the piston varies as waves pass above, causing it to move back and forth in the shaft.

Impacts and Issues

Why not put up windmills instead of tidal and wave power machines? There are two answers. First, windmills produce power irregularly, only when the wind blows. Tidal machines produce it on a reliable schedule, and even though waves are also irregular, they are easier to predict than winds. Second, water is 800 times denser than air (i.e., each cubic foot of water weighs 800 times as much as a cubic foot of air). This means that even at lower velocities, intercepting a relatively small amount of water in motion can yield a large amount of energy. Tidal and wave machines should, therefore, be able to harvest more energy for their size than wind machines, and so ultimately compete with them in cost. However, wind power will never be displaced by sea power. Winds blow over continental interiors, far from the ocean, and are a very large, well-distributed energy resource. Also, windmills face fewer mechanical design challenges, due in part to the low density of air: They are subject to less extreme forces (for example, during storms). Also, sea-power systems are more difficult to access for maintenance and must survive immersion in a metal-corroding salt solution, namely seawater. It is likely that in the long term, renewableenergy systems harvesting energy from many sources, including geothermal, photovoltaic, solar thermal, passive solar, tidal and wave, wind, and other, will be used to supply some or all of societys energy needs. Wave power can also be used to drive oceangoing ships, gathering energy by using horizontal fins that rock up and down as the vessel encounters waves. A vessel demonstrating the technology set out from Hawaii in March 2008, bound for Japan. By mid-May 2008, it had reached the halfway point to its destination. listen -

Wave power refers to the use of the energy that is carried in waves that move along the ocean surface. Typically, the energy is converted into electrical energy. The use of wave power to generate energy has been exploited for centuries. Still, as of 2010, the technology is more of a niche activity than a widely-used form of energy generation. The oceans are an enormous reservoir of energy. The energy in waves is derived from the wind energy that generates them. Since wind currents are produced by solar energy, wave energy is a renewable source of energy. Humans have invented devices for capturing the power of waves at least as far back as the time of Leonardo da Vinci. The first modern device for generating electricity from wave power was patented by two French scientists in 1799. In the United States, more than 150 patents for wave power machines have been granted. The first commercial wave power installation is the Aguadoura Wave Farm, which commenced operations on September 23, 2008, off the coast of Portugal. Harnessing the energy of wave motion presents many practical problems. For example, while the total amount of wave energy in the oceans is very great, the quantity available at any one specific point is usually quite small. For purposes of comparison, a wave that is 8

feet (2.4 m) tall contains the same potential energy as a hydroelectric dam 8 feet high. Finding a way to magnify the energy of waves in an area can be challenging. A second problem is to design a machine that will work efficiently with waves of different sizes. Over a period of days, weeks, or months, a region of the sea may be still, it may experience waves of moderate size, or it may be hit by a huge storm. A wave power machine has to be able to survive and to function under all these conditions. A device that has proven its worth, and which is being used in the Potugal facility and elsewhere, is known as the Pelamis device. It consists of a series of cylindrical pieces that are connected to each other by hinged links. The sections are partially submerged. As they move with the motion of the waves, they push against hydraulic cylinders that are connected to an electrical generator. In this way, the motion of the Pelamis semisubmerged cylinders generates electricity. Wave power has been seriously studied as an alternative energy source in the United States since the early 1970s. An experimental device constructed at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, for example, consisted of a buoy to which was attached a long pipe with a trap near its top. As the buoy moved up and down in the waves, water entered the pipe and was captured in the trap. After a certain number of waves had occurred, enough water had been captured to drive a small turbine and electrical generator. Wave power has many obvious advantages. The raw materials (water and wind) are free and abundant, no harmful pollutants are released to the environment, and land is not taken out of use. There may be positive or negative impacts on marine habitat (depending on the nature of additional submerged surfaces). Potential drawbacks include release of toxic materials from leaks or accidental spills of liquids in systems using hydraulic fluids. Additionally there are visual and noise impacts and potential conflict with other users of the sea space, especially recreational boating and fishing. Despite the potential of research at Scripps and elsewhere in the United States, American research on wave power essentially died out in the early 1980s, as did research on most other forms of alternative energy sources. Research continued in other countries, however, especially in Japan, Great Britain, and Norway. The Norwegians have had the greatest success. By 1989, they had constructed two prototype wave machines on the coast west of Bergen. The machines were located on the shore and operated by using air pumped into a large tower by the rise and fall of waves. The compressed air was then used to drive a turbine and generator. Unfortunately, one of the towers was destroyed by a series of severe storms in December 1989. Great Britain has moved to develop wave power in the late twentieth century. One of the most ambitious wave machines, known as Salter's Duck, was first proposed in the early 1970s. In this device, the riding motion of waves is used to force water through small pipes. The high-pressure water is then used to drive a turbine and generator. The British government was so impressed with the potential of wave power that it outlined plans in April 1976 for a 2,000-megawatt station. Only six years later, the government abandoned

all plans to use wave power and returned to reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear power. But, in 1989, a new British government announced a new review of the potential of wave power with the possibility of constructing plants off the British coast. One of the designs tested was a modification of a Norwegian device, the Tapchan (tapered channel). The Tapchan, is designed to be installed on a shoreline cliff, where waves can flow into a large chamber filled with air. As waves enter the chamber, they compress the air, which then flows though a valve and into a turbine. The compressed air rotates the turbine and drives a generator. The prototype for this machine was installed at Islay, Scotland, in the early 1990s, and continues operation (as of 2010). Another wave power device that has been tested at the Islay location is known as an oscillating water column. It is positioned on a beach. Incoming water enters the column and forces air in the column past a turbine. As the wave retreats, the air moves past the turbine in the other direction. The system is designed so that the turbine moves in the same direction when the air is incoming or outgoing, and is connected to an electrical generator. A wave roller device was installed on the coast of Scotland at Orkney. This design of wave power device consists of a platform on the sea bottom to which are attached vertical plates. The back-and-forth movement of the plates with the passage of wave generates kinetic energy that is collected and converted to electrical energy. The Wave Dragon is a device that raises the passing wave to a higher level. When the contained water is allowed to pass out through turbines, electricity can be generated, similar to the operation of a land-based dam. Finally, a design called the Archimedes Wave Swing consists of a lower cylinder that is anchored to the sea bottom and an upper cylinder that moves up and down with the wave action. As the top cylinder moves, magnets fixed to its inner wall move past a coil, generating electricity. Newer designs are being tested in Japan, Australia, and in the Bay of Fundy between the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The latter location is particularly promising, since the bay experiences the highest tides in the world; the movement of kitelike devices anchored to the sea bed in response to the 100 billion tons of seawater that passes in and out of the Bay of Fundy daily could theoretically generate enough electricity to supply 20 percent of the power demands of Nova Scotia. The first of the devices is scheduled to be submerged in the Bay of Funday in the fall of 2010.

A swell chance to harness wave energy

The Australian (National, Australia) , April 18, 2012 listen -

Byline: JAMES MADDEN A green loan will keep the benefits of vital technology at home, says a power pioneer ALI Baghaei looks at the surf differently from most Australians. For the 55-year-old industrialist whose Sydney-based company is at the forefront of wave energy technology, a generous 2m swell prompts thoughts of business ahead of pleasure. Having spent $80 million over the past 15 years on research and development to harness wave energy into electricity, Mr Baghaei's Oceanlinx is on the cusp of launching its core patented technology, the Oscillating Water Column, on the global market. But to make the final step to commercialisation the company is going to apply for funding through the federal government's $10 billion clean energy loan scheme. "The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is a huge step in the right direction for those involved in renewable technologies, as well as associated manufacturing and engineering industries," Mr Baghaei said. "If this country is serious about supporting research and development, and seeing it through to commercialisation, then we need to assist companies who are seeking to be pioneers of industry." Mr Baghaei said that in recent years Australia had let valuable intellectual property regarding renewable technologies slip through its fingers. "The timing of financial support for renewable technology projects is critical. It's not an industry where you can sit on your hands and wait patiently for a green light," Mr Baghaei said. "Australia was too slow off the mark when it came to financially supporting wind farms, and that intellectual property went overseas. Hopefully, we have now learned our lesson." Mr Baghaei said of the $80m spent by Oceanlinx on its Oscillating Water Column technology, about 80 per cent of the funds had come from foreign investment. "That just shows how much potential that small companies like ours can have on the global market, and it also shows how valuable renewable technologies are thought to be," he said. Three years ago, the Labor government gave Oceanlinx a $2.9m federal grant, which enabled the company to develop a test platform for its wave energy technology at Port Kembla, south of Sydney. Further support in the form of a loan through the CEFC would assist the company's aim to have its technology available to the market ahead of schedule.

"We are almost at the pinnacle of our achievement. We just need that final push to help us reach that final target," Mr Baghaei said.

Renewable Energy
Energy , 2007 listen -

What Is Renewable Energy?

Imagine energy sources that use no oil, produce no pollution, create no radioactive waste, cannot be affected by political events and cartels, and yet are economical. Although it sounds impossible, some experts claim that technological advances could make wide use of renewable energy sources possible within a few decades. They may become substantially better energy sources than fossil fuels and nuclear power. Renewable energy is naturally regenerated. Sources include the sun (solar), wind, water (hydropower), vegetation (biomass), and the heat of the earth (geothermal).

A Historical Perspective
Before the eighteenth century, most energy came from renewable sources. People burned wood for heat, used sails to harness the wind and propel boats, and installed waterwheels on streams to run mills that ground grain. The large-scale shift to nonrenewable energy sources began in the 1700s with the Industrial Revolution, a period marked by the rise of factories, first in Europe and then in North America. As demand for energy grew, coal replaced wood as the main fuel. Coal was the most efficient fuel for the steam engine, one of the most important inventions of the Industrial Revolution. Until the early 1970s most Americans were unconcerned about the sources of the nation's energy. Supplies of coal and oil, which together provided more than 90% of U.S. energy, were believed to be plentiful. The decades preceding the 1970s were characterized by cheap gasoline and little public discussion of energy conservation. That carefree approach to energy consumption ended in the 1970s. An oil crisis, caused in part by the devaluation of the dollar, but largely by an oil embargo by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, made Americans acutely aware of their dependence on foreign energy. Throughout the United States, people waited in line to fill their gas tanks in some places gasoline was rationedand lower heat settings for offices and homes were encouraged. In a country where mobility and convenience were highly valued, the oil crisis was a shock to the system. Developing alternative sources of energy to supplement and perhaps eventually replace fossil fuels became suddenly important. As a result, the

administration of President Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) encouraged federal funding for research into alternative energy sources. In 1978 Congress passed the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PL 95-617), which was designed to help the struggling alternative energy industry. The act exempted small alternative producers from state and federal utility regulations and required existing local utilities to buy electricity from them. The renewable energy industries grew rapidly, gaining experience, improving technologies, and lowering costs. This law was the single most important factor in the development of the commercial renewable energy market. In the 1980s President Ronald Reagan favored private-sector financing, so he proposed the reduction or elimination of federal expenditures for alternative energy sources. Although federal funds were severely cut, the U.S. Department of Energy continued to support some research and development. President Bill Clinton's administration reemphasized the importance of renewable energy and increased funding in several areas. The administration of President George W. Bush supported funding for research and development of renewable technologies and tax credits for the purchase of hybrid and alternative-fuel cars.

Domestic Renewable Energy Usage

In 2004 the United States consumed approximately 6.1 quadrillion Btu of renewable energy, about 6% of the nation's total energy consumption. (See Table:

and Figure:

.) Biomass sources (wood, waste, and alcohol) contributed 2.8 quadrillion Btu, while hydroelectric power provided 2.7 quadrillion Btu. Together, biomass and hydroelectric power provided more than 90% of renewable energy in 2004. Geothermal energy was the third-largest source, with about 0.3 quadrillion Btu. Solar power contributed 0.06 quadrillion Btu, and wind provided 0.1 quadrillion Btu.

Biomass Energy
Biomass refers to organic material such as plant and animal waste, wood, seaweed and algae, and garbage. The use of biomass is not without environmental problems. Deforestation can occur from widespread use of wood, especially if forests are clear-cut, which can result in soil erosion and mudslides. Burning wood, like burning fossil fuels, also pollutes the environment. Biomass can be burned directly or converted to biofuel by thermochemical conversion and biochemical conversion.

Direct Burning
Direct combustion is the easiest and most commonly used method of using biomass as fuel. Materials such as dry wood or agricultural wastes are chopped and burned to produce steam, electricity, or heat for industries, utilities, and homes. Industrial-size wood boilers are operating throughout the country. The burning of agricultural wastes is also becoming more widespread. In Florida, sugarcane producers use the residue from harvested cane to generate much of their energy. Residential use of wood as fuel generated 332 trillion Btu in 2004, considerably less than the 860 trillion-940 trillion Btu generated in homes in the 1980s (Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2004, 2005).

Thermochemical Conversion
Thermochemical conversion involves heating biomass in an oxygen-free or low-oxygen atmosphere, which transforms the material into simpler substances that can be used as fuels. Products such as charcoal and methanol are produced this way.

Biochemical Conversion
Biochemical conversion uses enzymes, fungi, or other microorganisms to convert highmoisture biomass into either liquid or gaseous fuels. Bacteria convert manure, agricultural wastes, paper, and algae into methane, which is used as fuel. Sewage treatment plants have used anaerobic (oxygen-free) digestion for many years to generate methane gas. Smallscale digesters have been used on farms, primarily in Europe and Asia, for hundreds of years. Biogas pits (a biomass-based technology) are a significant source of energy in China. Another type of biochemical conversion, fermentation, uses yeast to decompose carbohydrates, yielding ethyl alcohol (ethanol), a colorless, nearly odorless, flammable liquid, and carbon dioxide. Most of the ethanol manufactured for use as fuel in the United States is derived from corn, wood, and sugar. Ethanol is mixed with gasoline to create gasohol, which is sold in three blends: 10% gasohol, which is a mixture of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline; 7.7% gasohol, which is at least 7.7% ethanol but less than 10%; and 5.7% gasohol, which is at least 5.7% ethanol but less than 7.7%. The Federal Highway Administration estimated that in 2003 Americans used about 20.5 billion gallons of 10% gasohol, up from 16.3 billion gallons in 2000. In 2003 Americans used slightly more than 12 billion gallons of less-than-10% gasohol.

The use of ethanol is expected to increase. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (PL 109-58) required fuel suppliers to nearly double their use of ethanol by 2012 to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign fuel sources. Fuel distributors are also being required by several major cities and more than twenty-five states to remove the additive methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, from gasoline. MTBE is known to contaminate groundwater. Many suppliers are replacing the additive with ethanol. Automobiles can be built to run directly on ethanol or on any mixture of gasoline and ethanol. However, ethanol is difficult and expensive to produce in bulk. Development of this fuel source may depend more on the political support of legislators from farming states and a desire for energy independence than on savings at the gas pump. Some scientists have suggested that ethanol made from refusefor example, corncobs and rice hullscould liberate the alcohol fuel industry from its dependence on food crops, such as corn and sugarcane, and make the fuel cheaper. Worldwide enough corncobs and rice hulls are left after crop production to produce more than 40 billion gallons of ethanol. Other scientists argue that wood-derived ethanol could eventually create a sustainable liquid fuel industry. If new trees were planted to replace those that were cut for fuel, they say, those trees would not only be available for harvesting years later but, in the meantime, would also alleviate global warming by processing carbon dioxide. Other scientists counter with the warning that an increased demand for wood for transportation fuels might accelerate the destruction of old-growth forests and endanger ecosystems. Another alternative fuel is ethanol-85 (E-85), which is a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% unleaded gasoline. In 2006 there were approximately 1.5 million automobiles on U.S. roads capable of using E-85 as a fuel. Such vehicles are called "flex-fuel" vehicles because they can run on E-85, gasohol, or gasoline. Methanol (methyl alcohol) fuels have also been tested successfully. Using methanol instead of diesel fuel virtually eliminates sulfur emissions and reduces other environmental pollutants usually emitted from trucks and buses. Producing methanol is costly, however. Burning biofuels in vehicle engines is part of the "carbon cycle," in which vegetation makes use of the products of automobile combustion. (See Figure:

.) Automobile exhaust generated from fossil fuels, however, contains pollutants. In addition, generating excessive amounts of carbon dioxide from either fossil fuels or biofuels is thought to add to global warming because it traps heat in the atmosphere.

Municipal Waste Recovery

Each year millions of tons of garbage are buried in landfills and city dumps. This method of disposal is becoming increasingly costly, and many landfills across the nation are near capacity. Some communities discovered that they could solve both problemscost and capacityby constructing waste-to-energy plants. Not only is the garbage burned and reduced in volume by 90%, energy in the form of steam or electricity is also generated in a cost-effective way. Use of municipal waste as fuel has increased steadily since the 1980s. According to the Annual Energy Review 2004, municipal waste (including landfill gas, sludge waste, tires, and agricultural by-products) generated 22.7 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2004,

up from 0.1 billion kilowatt-hours in 1982. (See Table:

.) Mass Burn Systems. Most waste-to-energy plants in the United States use the mass burn system (also called direct combustion). Because the waste does not have to be sorted or prepared before burningexcept for removing obviously noncombustible, oversized objectsthe system eliminates expensive sorting, shredding, and transportation machinery that may be prone to break down. The waste is simply carried to the plant in trash trucks and dropped into a storage pit. Overhead cranes lift the garbage into a hopper that controls the amount of waste that is fed into the furnace. The burning waste produces heat, which is used to produce steam. The steam can be used directly for industrial needs or can be sent through a turbine to power a generator to produce electricity. Refuse-Derived Fuel Systems. At refuse-derived fuel plants, waste is first processed to remove noncombustible objects and to create homogeneous and uniformly sized fuel. Large items such as bedsprings, dangerous materials, and flammable liquids are removed by hand. The trash is then shredded and screened to remove glass, rocks, and other material that cannot be burned. The remaining material is usually sifted a second time with an air separator to yield fluff, which is placed in storage bins. It can also be compressed into pellets or briquettes for long-term storage. This fuel can be used by itself or with other fuels, such as coal or wood. Performance of Waste-to-Energy Systems. Most waste-to-energy systems can produce two to four pounds of steam for every pound of garbage burned. A 1,000-ton-per-day mass burn system usually converts an average of 310,250 tons of trash each year and recovers 2 trillion Btu of energy. In addition, the plant will emit 96,000 tons of ash (32% of waste input) for landfill disposal. A refuse-derived fuel plant produces less ash but sends almost the same amount of waste to the landfill because of the noncombustibles that are removed from the trash before it is burned. Disadvantages of Waste-to-Energy Plants. The major problem with increasing the use of municipal waste-to-energy plants is their effect on the environment. The emission of particles into the air is partially controlled by electrostatic precipitators, and many gases can be eliminated by proper combustion techniques. However, large amounts of dioxin (a dangerous air pollutant) and other toxins are often emitted from these plants. Noise from trucks, fans, and processing equipment can also be unpleasant for nearby residents.

Landfill Gas Recovery

Landfills contain a large amount of biodegradable matter that is compacted and covered with soil. Methanogens, which are anaerobic microorganisms, thrive in this oxygen-

depleted environment. They metabolize the biodegradable matter in the landfill, producing methane gas and carbon dioxide as by-products. In the past, as landfills aged, these gases built up and leaked out, which prompted some communities to drill holes in landfills and burn off the methane to prevent dangerously large amounts from exploding. The energy crisis of the 1970s made landfill methane gas an energy resource too valuable to waste. The first landfill gas recovery site was built in 1975 at the Palos Verdes Landfill in Rolling Hills Estates, California. By December 2005, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 395 landfill gas energy sites were operating in the United States and another 600 landfill sites had been identified for potential development (http://www.epa.gov/lmop/proj/index.htm). The EPA estimated that landfill gas generated about 9 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year. In a typical operation, garbage is allowed to decompose for several months. When a sufficient amount of methane gas has developed, it is piped to a generating plant, where it is used to create electricity. In its purest form, methane gas can be used like natural gas. Depending on the extraction rates, most sites can produce gas for about twenty years. Besides the energy provided, tapping the methane reduces landfill odors and the chances of explosions.

Hydropower
In the past, flowing water turned waterwheels of mills to grind grain; today hydropower plants convert the energy of flowing water into mechanical energy, turning turbines to create electricity. Hydropower is the most widely used renewable energy source in the

world. In the United States it provided 75% of all electricity produced from renewable

sources in 2004. (See Table:

.)

Advantages and Disadvantages of Hydropower

Today hydropower is the only means of storing large quantities of energy for almost instant use. Water is held in a large reservoir behind a dam, with a hydroelectric power plant below. The dam creates a height from which water can flow at a fast rate. When it reaches the power plant, it pushes the turbine blades attached to the electrical generator. Whenever power is needed, the valves are opened, the moving water spins the turbines, and the generator quickly produces electricity. Nearly all the best sites for large hydropower plants are being used in the United States. Small hydropower plants are expensive to build but may eventually become economical because of their low operating costs. One of the disadvantages of small hydropower generators is their reliance on rain and melting snow to fill reservoirs; drought conditions can affect the water supply. Additionally, environmental groups strongly protest the construction of new dams, pointing to ruined streams, dried up waterfalls, and altered aquatic habitats.

The Future of Hydropower

The last federally funded hydropower dam, completed by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1986, was the Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake on the Savannah River, which forms the border between South Carolina and Georgia. Since then, local governments have been required to contribute half the cost of any new dam proposed in the United States. While expansion and efficiency improvements at existing dams offer significant potential for additional energy, hydropower's future contribution to U.S. energy generation should remain relatively constant. Additional supplies of hydroelectric power for the United States will likely come from Canada. Most of the new development in hydropower is occurring in developing nations, which see it as an effective method of supplying power to growing populations. These massive public-works projects usually require huge amounts of moneymost of it borrowed from the developed world. Hydroelectric dams are considered worth the cost and potential environmental threats because they bring cheap electric power to the citizenry. In May 2006 the Chinese government announced that construction was completed on the world's largest dam, the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River in Hubei province, China (http://english.gov.cn/2006-05/20/content_286525.htm). Five times the size of the Hoover Dam in the United States, the dam is 185 meters (607 feet) tall and 2,309 meters (7,575 feet, or 1.4 miles) in length. It is scheduled to begin generating power in 2009, after its twenty-six generators have been installed and water has filled the giant reservoir. Once operational, the dam is expected to produce 84.7 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year.

Geothermal Energy
Although bubbling hot springs became public baths as early as ancient Rome, using hot water and underground steam to produce power is a relatively recent development. Electricity was first generated from natural steam in Italy in 1904. The world's first natural steam power plant was built in 1958 in a volcanic region of New Zealand. A field of twenty-eight geothermal power plants covering thirty square miles in northern California was completed in 1960.

What Is Geothermal Energy?

Geothermal energy is the natural, internal heat of Earth trapped in rock formations deep underground. Only a fraction of it can be extracted, usually through large fractures in Earth's crust. Hot springs, geysers, and fumaroles (holes in or near volcanoes from which vapor escapes) are the most easily exploitable sources. (See Figure:

.) Geothermal reservoirs provide hot water or steam that can be used for heating buildings and processing food. Pressurized hot water or steam can also be directed toward turbines, which spin, generating electricity for residential and commercial customers.

Types of Geothermal Energy

Like most natural energy sources, geothermal energy is usable only when it is concentrated in one spotin this case, in what is known as a "thermal reservoir." There are four types of reservoirs, including hydrothermal reservoirs, dry rock reservoirs, geopressurized reservoirs, and magma. Most of the known reservoirs for geothermal power in the United States are located west of the Mississippi River, and the highest-temperature geothermal resources occur for the most part west of the Rocky Mountains.

Hydrothermal Reservoirs. Hydrothermal reservoirs are underground pools of hot water covered by a permeable formation through which steam escapes under pressure. Once at the surface the steam is purified and piped directly to the electrical generating station. These systems are the cheapest and simplest form of geothermal energy. The Geysers thermal field, ninety miles north of San Francisco, California, is the world's largest source of geothermal power. According to the Web site of Calpine Corporation, which operates nineteen of the twentyone power generating plants at the site, as of 2006 The Geysers generated enough electricity to satisfy the power needs of a city the size of San Francisco and provided nearly 60% of the electricity used in the region extending northward from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Oregon border (http://www.geysers.com/). Dry Rock. These formations are the most common geothermal sources, especially in the West. However, reservoirs of this type are typically more than 6,000 feet below the surface, which poses numerous difficulties. To tap them, water is injected into hot rock formations that have been fractured, and the resulting steam or water is collected. Hot dry rock technologies were developed and tested at New Mexico's Fenton Hill plant, which operated between 1970 and 1996. Geopressurized Reservoirs. These sedimentary formations contain hot water and methane gas. Supplies of geopressurized energy remain uncertain, and drilling is expensive. Scientists are developing new technology to exploit the methane content in these reservoirs. Magma. This molten or partially liquefied rock is found from 10,000 to 33,000 feet below Earth's surface. Because magma is so hot, ranging from 1,650 to 2,200 Fahrenheit, it is a good geothermal resource. Extracting energy from magma is still in the experimental stages.

Domestic Production of Geothermal Energy

In 2004 geothermal energy produced 14.4 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, or 4% of the 358.8 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity produced by renewable energy sources in the

United States. (See Table: .) According to the International Geothermal Association, at the end of 2003 the United States had 24% of the installed geothermal generating capacity of the world and the largest installed generating capacity of any single country. However, most of the easily exploited geothermal reserves in the United States have already been developed. Continued growth in the U.S. market depends on the regulatory environment, oil price trends, who pays for the new plants, and the success of new technologies to exploit previously inaccessible reserves.

International Production of Geothermal Energy

According to the International Geothermal Association, nearly 8,000 megawatts of geothermal electrical generating capacity was present in more than twenty countries in 2000. By 2004, according to John W. Lund of the Geo-Heat Center at the Oregon Institute of Technology, the worldwide installed capacity of direct geothermal utilization was 9,047 megawatts distributed among thirty-eight countries. This output is considered only a small fraction of the overall potential: Many countries are believed to have in excess of 100,000 megawatts of geothermal energy available. As with other fuel sources, however, world geothermal reserves are unevenly distributed. They occur mostly in seismically active areas at the margins or borders of the planet's nine tectonic plates. Areas rich in geothermal reserves include the west coasts of North and South America, Japan, the Philippines, and Indonesia.

Disadvantages of Geothermal Energy

Geothermal plants, which are not very efficient, must be built near a geothermal source, so they are not accessible to many consumers. They also produce unpleasant odors when sulfur is released during processing and generate considerable noise. Environmental concerns have been raised about potentially harmful pollutants, such as ammonia, arsenic, boron, hydrogen sulfide, and radon, that are often found in geothermal waters. Other concerns are the collapse of the land from which the water is being drained and water shortages from massive withdrawals.

Wind Energy
Winds are created by the uneven heating of the atmosphere by the sun, the irregularities of Earth's surface, and the rotation of the planet. They are strongly influenced by bodies of water, weather patterns, vegetation, and other factors. When "harvested" by turbines, wind can be used to generate electricity. Early windmills produced mechanical energy to pump water and grind grain in mills. By the late 1890s, Americans had begun experimenting with wind power to generate electricity. Their early efforts produced enough electricity to light one or two modern light bulbs. Beginning in the late twentieth century, industrial and developing countries alike started using wind power on a significant scale to complement existing power sources and to bring electricity to remote regions. Wind turbines cost less to install per unit of kilowatt capacity than either coal or nuclear facilities. After installing a windmill, there are few additional costs. Compared with the pinwheel-shaped farm windmills that still dot rural America, today's state-of-the-art wind turbines look more like airplane propellers. Their sleek fiberglass design allows them to generate an abundance of mechanical energy, which can be converted to electricity. The most favorable locations for wind turbines are in mountain passes and along coastlines, where wind speeds are generally highest and most consistent. Of all the places in the world, Europe has the greatest coastal wind resources. Western Europe and the United States accounted for nearly 90% of all new wind energy installations in 2003 (International Energy Outlook 2005, Energy Information Administration, 2005). As of 2004, electricityproducing wind turbines operated in ninety-five countries.

Domestic Energy Production by Wind Turbines

The U.S. wind energy industry began in California in 1981 with the installation of 144 relatively small turbines with a combined capacity of 7 megawatts of electricity. Within a year the number of turbines had increased ten times and by 1986 a hundred times.

During 1998 and 1999, wind farm activity expanded into other states, motivated by financial incentives (such as tax credits for wind energy production), regulatory incentives, and state mandates (in Iowa and Minnesota). In 1999 Iowa, Minnesota, and Texas added capacity exceeding 100 megawatts each. In 2003 the total installed generating capacity of the United States was 6,374 megawatts, and wind power plants operated in thirty-two states. (See Figure:

.) By 2004, according to the American Wind Energy Association, twelve states California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Wyomingcontained 94% of the U.S. wind energy capacity.

In Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (2006), the Energy Information Administration projected that wind power capacity in the United States would triple from 2004 to 2030. Refinements in wind-turbine technology would drive some of the increase. Government encouragement would also be important, however. Wind Powering America, an initiative announced in June 1999 by the U.S. Department of Energy, sought to have 80,000 megawatts of generation capacity in place by 2020 and to have wind power provide 5% of the nation's electricity. In addition, the Wind Energy Development Program, announced in 2005 by the Bureau of Land Management (part of the Department of the Interior), focused on development of wind energy on public lands in eleven western states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming (http://windeis.anl.gov/documents/docs/WindPEISROD.pdf).

International Development of Wind Energy

During the decade following the 1973 oil embargo, more than 10,000 wind machines were installed worldwide, ranging in size from portable units to multimegawatt turbines. In China, for example, small wind turbines allow people to watch their favorite television shows, an activity that has increased wind energy demand. In fact, in 2001 China was the world's largest manufacturer of small wind turbines. According to the Global Wind Energy Council, global wind-power-generating capacity was 47,000 megawatts in 2004, up from 3,531 megawatts in 1994 (http://www.gwec.net/fileadmin/documents/GWEC_Brochure.pdf). Europe accounted for 72% of the global wind power in 2004. The World Wind Energy Association projected in 2004 that global wind-power capacity would top 100,000 megawatts by 2008. Interest in wind energy has been driven, in part, by the declining cost of capturing wind energy. For new turbines at sites with strong winds, prices declined from more than $0.38 per kilowatt-hour in 1980 to about $0.04 per kilowatt-hour in 2002 (Lester R. Brown, "Wind Power Set to Become World's Leading Energy Source," Earth Policy Institute, 2003). Decreasing costs could make wind power competitive with gas and coal power plants, even before considering wind's environmental advantages.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Wind Energy

The main problem with wind energy is that the wind does not always blow. In addition, some people find the whirring noise of wind turbines annoying and object to clusters of wind turbines in mountain passes and along shorelines, where they interfere with scenic views. Environmentalists also point out that wind turbines are responsible for the loss of thousands of endangered birds that inadvertently fly into the blades. Birds frequently use windy passages in their travel patterns. However, wind farms do not emit climate-altering carbon dioxide and other pollutants, respiratory irritants, or radioactive waste. Because wind farms do not require water to operate, they are especially well suited to semiarid and arid regions.

Solar Energy

Solar energy, which comes from the sun, is a renewable, widely available energy source that does not generate huge amounts of pollution or radioactive waste. Solar-powered cars have competed in long-distance races, and solar energy has been used for many years to power spacecraft. Although many people consider solar energy a product of the space age, architectural researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology built the first solarheated house in 1939. Solar radiation is nearly constant outside Earth's atmosphere, but the amount of solar energy reaching any point on Earth varies with changing atmospheric conditions, such as clouds and dust, and the changing position of Earth relative to the sun. In the United States, exposure to the sun's rays is greatest in the Southwest, although almost all regions have

some solar resources. (See Figure:

.)

Passive and Active Solar Systems

Passive solar energy systems, such as greenhouses or windows with a southern exposure, use heat flow, evaporation, or other natural processes to collect and transfer heat. (See

Figure:

.) They are considered the least costly and least difficult solar systems to implement. Active solar systems require collectors and storage devices as well as motors, pumps, and valves to operate the systems that transfer heat. (See Figure:

.) Collectors consist of an absorbing plate that transfers the sun's heat to a working fluid (liquid or gas), a translucent cover plate that prevents the heat from radiating back into the atmosphere, and insulation on the back of the collector panel to further reduce heat loss. Excess solar energy is transferred to a storage facility so it may provide power on cloudy days. In both passive and active systems, the conversion of solar energy into a form of power is made at the site where it is used. The most common and least expensive active solar systems are used for heating water.

Solar Thermal Energy Systems

In a solar thermal energy system, mirrors or lenses constantly track the sun's position and focus its rays onto solar receivers that contain water or other fluids. The fluid is heated to more than 750 Fahrenheit; that heat is used to power an electric generator. In a distributed solar thermal system, the collected energy powers irrigation pumps, provides electricity for small communities, or captures normally wasted heat from the sun in industrial areas. In a central solar thermal system, the energy is collected at a central location and used by utility networks for a large number of customers. Other systems include solar ponds and trough systems. Solar ponds are pools filled with water and salt. Because saltwater is denser than freshwater, the saltwater on the bottom absorbs the heat, which is trapped by the freshwater on top. Trough systems use U-shaped mirrors to concentrate the sunshine on water or on oil-filled tubes.

Photovoltaic Conversion Systems

The photovoltaic cell system converts sunlight directly into electricity without the use of mechanical generators. Photovoltaic cells have no moving parts, are easy to install, require little maintenance, and can last up to twenty years. The cells are commonly used to power small devices, such as watches or calculators. On a larger scale they provide electricity for rural households, recreational vehicles, and businesses. Solar panels using photovoltaic cells have generated electricity for space stations and satellites for many years. The cells produce the most power around noon, when sunlight is the most intense. They are usually connected to storage batteries that provide electricity during cloudy days and at night. A backup energy supply is usually required. The use of photovoltaic cells is expanding around the world. Because they contain no turbines or other moving parts, operating costs are low, and maintenance is minimal. Above all, the fuel source (sunshine) is free and plentiful. The main disadvantage of photovoltaic cell systems is the high initial cost, although prices have fallen considerably. While toxic materials are often used in the construction of the cells, researchers are investigating new materials, recycling, and disposal.

Solar Energy Usage

Use of solar energy is difficult to measure because it is rarely connected to any kind of metered grid. However, shipments of solar equipment can be used as an indicator of use. According to the Annual Energy Review 2004, total shipments of solar thermal collectors peaked in 1981 at more than 21 million square feet, fell to 6.6 million square feet in 1991,

and rose again to more than 11 million square feet in 2001 through 2003. (See Figure:

.) In 2003 most solar thermal collectors were sold for residential purposes in Sunbelt states, usually to heat water for swimming pools. (See

Figure:

and Figure:

.) The market for solar energy space heating has virtually disappeared. Only a small proportion of solar thermal collectors are used for commercial purposes, although some state and municipal power companies have solar energy systems they can use for additional power during peak hours.

Solar Power as an International Rural Solution

Getting electricity to rural areas has long been more expensive than serving cities. In the United States most farmers did not receive electrical power until 1935, when the Rural Electrification Administration provided low-cost financing to rural electric cooperatives. In places such as western China, the Himalayan foothills, and the Amazon basin today, the cost of connecting new rural customers to electricity grids remains very high. While rural families may not have access to electrical grid systems, they do have sunlight: In most tropical countries, considerable sunlight falls on rooftops. Photovoltaic cells can be installed on them to run water pumps, lights, refrigerators, and communications equipment. Electricity produced by photovoltaic cells was initially too expensiveas much as a thousand times more than electricity produced by conventional power plantsbut prices have continually fallen, making solar energy a competitive choice in some areas.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Solar Energy

The primary advantage of solar energy is its inexhaustible supply. It is especially useful in rural or remote areas that cannot be easily connected to an electrical power grid. Although solar power still costs more than three times as much as fossil fuel energy, utilities often turn to solar energy to provide "peaking power" on extremely hot or cold days. Building solar energy systems to provide peak power capacity is often cheaper than building the backup diesel generators that are often used. Solar power's primary disadvantage is its reliance on a consistently sunny climate, which is possible in limited areas. It also requires a large amount of land for the most efficient collection of solar energy by electricity plants.

Power from the Ocean

Oceans are not as easily controlled as rivers or water directed through canals into turbines, so unlocking their potential power is far more challenging. Three ideas undergoing experimentation are tidal plants, wave power, and ocean thermal energy conversion.

Tidal Power
Tidal plants use the movement of water as it ebbs and flows to generate power. A minimum tidal range of three to five yards is generally considered necessary for an economically feasible plant. (The tidal range is the difference in height between consecutive high and low tides.) The largest existing tidal facility is the 240-megawatt plant at the La Rance estuary in northern France, built in 1965. Canada built a smaller 40-

megawatt unit at the Bay of Fundy, which has a fifteen-yard tidal range, the largest in the world. A larger plant for that site is under consideration. Russia has a small 400-kilowatt plant near Murmansk, close to the Barents Sea. The world's first offshore tidal turbine, in the ocean about a mile from Devon, England, began producing energy in 2003.

Wave Energy
One type of wave power plant is the oscillating water column; the first significant examples were built at Toftestallen, on Norway's Atlantic coast. In this system, the arrival of a wave forces water up a hollow 65-foot tower, displacing the air in the tower. The air rushes out the top through a turbine, whose rotors spin, generating electricity. When the wave falls back and the water level falls, air is sucked back in through the turbine, again generating electricity. Similar systems have been tested in China, India, Japan, Portugal, and Scotland. A second type of wave power plant uses the overflow of high ocean waves. As the waves splash against the top of a dam, some of the water goes over and is trapped in a reservoir on the other side. The water is then directed through a turbine as it flows back to the sea.

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion

Ocean thermal energy conversion uses the temperature difference between warm surface water and the cooler water in the ocean's depths to produce heat energy, which can power a heat engine to produce electricity. The systems can be installed on ships, barges, or offshore platforms with underwater cables that transmit electricity to shore.

Hydrogen: A Fuel of the Future?

Hydrogen, the lightest and most abundant chemical element, is the ideal fuel from the environmental point of view. Its combustion produces only water vapor, and it is entirely carbon free. Three-quarters of the mass of the universe is hydrogen, so in theory the supply is ample. However, the combustible form of hydrogen is a gas and is not found in nature. The many compounds containing hydrogenwater, for examplecannot be converted into pure hydrogen without the expenditure of considerable energy. Usually, the amount of energy required to make hydrogen gas is equal to the amount of energy obtained by the combustion of that gas. Therefore, with today's technology, little or nothing could be gained from an energy point of view. Hydrogen fuel cells are similar to batteries, but they use hydrogen as a fuel. They can be used to produce electricity and heat and to power cars. Their development is also in experimental stages. Research into the use of hydrogen as a fuel got a boost when President George W. Bush announced a hydrogen fuel initiative in his 2003 State of the Union Address. Congress appropriated $159 million for hydrogen and fuel cell research and development in fiscal year 2004; $223 million in fiscal year 2005; and $243 million in fiscal year 2006. Goals of the initiative include reducing the cost of hydrogen fuel to make it comparable to gasoline,

resolving issues for safe in-vehicle storage of reserve fuel, and lowering the cost of hydrogen power systems to compete with internal combustion engines. Researchers project that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles could reduce U.S. demand for oil by about eleven million barrels per daythe amount the United States now imports"by 2040 (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/presidents_initiative.html).

Future Trends in U.S. Renewable Energy Use

In its Annual Energy Outlook 2006, the Energy Information Administration forecasted that total renewable fuel consumption, including ethanol for transportation, would increase from 6 quadrillion Btu in 2004 to 9.6 quadrillion Btu in 2030. About 60% of the projected demand would be for electricity generation. Renewable fuel is expected to remain a small contributor to overall electricity generation, rising slightly from 9% of the total generation in 2004 to 9.4% in 2030. Hydropower is expected to remain the largest source of renewable electricity generation through 2030, but its share of total generation will fall from 6.8% in 2004 to 5.1% in 2030.

The production of other renewables should increase steadily. (See Figure:

.) The largest source of renewable generation after hydropower is biomass, which is projected to more than double from 2004 to 2030. (See Figure:

.) The agency projected that wind power would increase from 0.4% of total generation i 2004 to 1.1% in 2030 and that high-output g Energy production from municipal solid waste and landfill gas is expected to stay static from 2004 to 2030, remaining at 0.5% of total generation. Solar energy is not expected to contribute much to the total of centrally generated electricity.

"Climate Jobs" and the Limits of Growth

Synthesis/Regeneration , Spring 2011 listen -

The Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union Group (CACCTU) has published a revised second edition of its One million climate jobs pamphlet. This is a response by a group of trade union and climate activists to challenge the multiple crises in a constructive way. The pamphlet, which is aimed at activists, is backed by serious research. It is informative about the sources of greenhouse gas emissions and issues around renewable energy based on wind, wave, tide and solar power. The campaign proposes creating a National Climate Service (NCS) in Britain which will hire 1 million public sector workers within 12 months in climate jobs producing renewable energy, renovating buildings, improving public transport infrastructure, industry and education. The ultimate aim is to cut emissions by 80% in 20 years. The action plan is dynamic and involves retraining the climate workers to convert Britain into a zero-carbon economy. The campaign insists that these jobs should be government jobs, arguing that subsidies to encourage private industry will be inefficient, slow and insufficient. The financing of NCS is realistically discussed based on taxation measures, with proposals including an extra 5% tax on the richest 1% of the population, a "Robin Hood" tax on financial transactions, closing tax loopholes, borrowing and monetary expansion. One reference point is the bank bailouts of 2008-09, where massive amounts of funds were mobilized in a short time span to rescue private banks, which were "too big to fail." If the planet is too big to fail, then mobilizing [pounds sterling]52 billion a year for an NCS should be feasible. Further positive economic spill-over effects of an NCS are shown rigorously: indirect and induced employment associated with climate jobs, a decrease in unemployment and thus lower benefit payments and higher tax revenues. This is predicted to save [pounds

sterling]34 billion a year. Thus the report claims that an NCS and 1 million climate jobs would only cost the government [pounds sterling]18 billion per year. Ecological limits? In the next stage, two related challenges are awaiting the campaign, which are so far not addressed in either edition of the pamphlet. These are the rebound effects and the ecological limits to global growth and climate justice. First, if the campaign achieves its aim of increased efficiency in renewable energy, this may radically reduce the share of expenditures on energy in the household budget. This is the rebound effect, which has been ignored in the pamphlet. This works as an increase in the real income of households, and triggers additional expenditure in non-energy consumption, which again increases greenhouse gas emissions. Second, we cannot seriously solve the problem of climate change unless we face the limits to global growth (1): if the use of environmental resources is to maintain a certain "sustainable" level, global economic growth in the long term has to be zero or low, i.e. equal to the growth rate of "environmental productivity". Furthermore, advanced capitalist countries like Britain need to degrow (slow down) to create space for development in the global South as part of a broader strategy of climate justice. This type of zero-growth or even degrowth, however, has nothing to do with the disastrous recession caused by the crisis. This is a managed zero-growth path in the long run that redistributes existing wealth in accordance with the needs of the majority. The latter aspect of redistribution distinguishes us from those ecological economists who are concerned only with limits to growth without sufficiently challenging unequal income and wealth distribution. If we accept the scientifically well-established ecological limits to growth, we need to broaden the main aim of the campaign as "the reconciliation of decent work and life with zero growth and a low carbon economy." This brings extra dimensions to the campaign in addition to an NCS and climate jobs--so far the only focus of the campaign. The first of these is creating more labor-intensive jobs in social services such as education, child care, nursing homes, health, community and social services. By increasing employment in these services we can create decent jobs for a lower rate of growth. The need for social services is not met under the present circumstances, where they are provided either at very low wages (to ensure an adequate profit) or as a luxury service for the upper classes or via invisible unpaid female labor within the gendered division of labor in the private sphere. Thus there is massive scope for new jobs. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Second, to maintain full employment without growth, a substantial shortening of working time in parallel with the historical growth in productivity is required. Reduction in weekly

working hours should take place without loss of wages for the majority of the wage earners, which means an increase in hourly wages. Again this is not unrealistic: compared to the 19th century, we are all working part-time today. However, it does challenge the logic of profit maximization. The minimum wage should also be adjusted upwards to a living wage level. Similarly, at the top of the wage distribution, a cap on top salaries and redistribution via radically progressive income taxes is required: this not only provides funds for an NCS and social spending but also cuts conspicuous consumption and consumerism in a more equal society. Once conspicuous consumption is overcome and most of the socially desirable services such as child care, education, health care, housing, transport and communication are supplied as free or affordable and old age pensions and care are freed from market uncertainty, the ideology and the illusion among working people of the need for growth and ever-increasing incomes break down. CACCTU has started out with a very constructive proposal of climate jobs, and now it has to walk the rocky road of challenging the growth myth and the logic of capitalism. Dr. Ozlem Onaran is Senior Lecturer at Middlesex University, Britain. She has articles in journals and books on globalization, crisis, distribution, employment, investment, development, and gender. This article was originally published in Socialist Resistance, No. 63, p. 29.

Lessons from Europe: funding for research into new technology is key
The American Prospect , April 2009 listen -

While the U.S. can learn much from European strategies to promote renewable energy, it must also be cautious. The International Energy Agency (IEA) review says that a major failure of the European Union's green-energy policy is a dearth of investment in research and development of new green technologies, which, the agency says, will be crucial in providing abundant and inexpensive clean energy. Just a few promising new technologies include wave buoys that convert sea-wave energy into electricity, cellulosic biofuels, dye-sensitized solar cells, and even third-generation photovoltaic (PV) modules that could bring the price of solar energy down to less than 20 cents per watt. Because the EU is still too reliant on a narrow range of relatively inefficient technologies, the proportion of renewable energy used in Europe today is only marginally higher than in

the United States and Australia, which have not implemented any renewable-energy policy. Moreover, most of the green energy in Europe still comes from hydropower, which has been around for centuries. To maximize the United States' chances of creating a thriving, clean-energy economy by finding green innovations, Washington should make it a priority to pour money into its country's strong civilian and military research institutions. Thanks to a deep pool of technical and scientific knowledge, the U.S. is in a good position to find the next generation of solar- and other renewable-energy technologies that could allow not just it but the entire world to switch over to clean energy inexpensively and efficiently. The mainstay of Europe's renewable-energy policy continues to be the feed-in tariff system, which guarantees payment for anyone feeding solar PV, wind, or hydro energy into the national grid. The feed-in tariff has been credited with developing a large manufacturing base for the solar industry. However, critics say that the wafer-based solarcell technology being produced is out of date, inefficient, and expensive. As a result, Germany's solar industry produces only about 1 percent or 2 percent of the nation's electricity but costs billions of euros every year. Because the German solar industry spends only about 200 million euros a year on research into new technology, there is little prospect of a future PV-export hit coming from Germany that is able to compete with expected breakthroughs from the generously funded research programs in China or the United Arab Emirates. The IEA review also criticized the EU as a whole for spending as little as 200 million euros a year on green research and development in its research program. Because the EU's FP7 research framework program runs until 2013, substantially more money for vital greentechnology research and development is unlikely for four years, by which time Europe could have fallen so far behind that it will have to import the next generation of clean technology from countries that have invested in innovation, the IEA warns in its review. In addition, the IEA criticized the European Union's failure to make energy-saving measures mandatory and therefore put a brake on the runaway carbon emissions coming from the lightly regulated transport sector, which contributed to the overall increase in greenhouse gases in the EU last year. The European Union's recent push to tighten its controversial "cap and trade" carbon scheme to reduce greenhouse gases also suffered a setback in December when most of Germany's heavy industries were exempted from the obligation to pay for permits until 2013. Indeed, some critics argue that the current system might even allow polluting industries to make an additional profit even if they do not undertake any steps to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions simply by trading the free permits handed to them by the European Union, paid for by the taxpayer, for real cash. On the plus side, the European Union has a highly interconnected electricity grid, with the United Kingdom and Spain among the few remaining "electrical islands." Plans are

currently underway to extend the grid to the sun-rich desert regions of North Africa, allowing Europe to potentially access solar-thermal energy produced there in the future. The continent's vast grid also acts as a storage facility for renewable energy, allowing it to overcome difficulties that arise from the intermittent nature of green-energy production. The United States' national electrical grid, on the other hand, needs a great deal of investment before it can absorb large amounts of renewable energy and still supply baseload power. President Barack Obama's recent announcement of substantial investment in a new "smart" grid as part of a stimulus package could be a first step. The bottom line is that the U.S. should focus on research to bring the next generation of renewable energy, particularly solar, to market rather than overinvesting in soon-to-be outdated technology; it also needs to push ahead with the most viable current renewableenergy projects to reduce pressure on the environment. Jane Burgermeister is the European correspondent of www.renewableenergyworld.com. She lives in Vienna, Austria. Tidal power, sometimes called tidal energy, is a form of hydropower that exploits the rise and fall in sea levels due to the tides, or the movement of water caused by the tidal flow. Because the tidal forces are caused by interaction between the gravity of the Earth, Moon, and Sun, tidal power is essentially inexhaustible and classified as a renewable energy source. In fact though, the ultimate energy source is the rotational energy of the Earth, which will not run out in the next four billion years, although the Earth's oceans may boil away in two billion years. Although not yet widely used, tidal power has great potential for future electricity generation and is more predictable than wind energy and solar power. In Europe, tide mills have been used for nearly a thousand years, mainly for grinding grains. Tidal power can be classified into two types,

Tidal stream systems make use of the kinetic energy from the moving water currents to power turbines, in a similar way to underwater wind turbines. This method is gaining in popularity because of the lower ecological impact compared to the second type of system, the barrage. Barrages make use of the potential energy from the difference in height (or head) between high and low tides, and their use is better established. These suffer from the dual problems of very high civil infrastructure costs and environmental issues.

Modern advances in turbine technology may eventually see large amounts of power generated from the oceans using the tidal stream designs. Arrayed in high velocity areas where natural flows are concentrated, such as the west coast of Canada, the Strait of Gibraltar, the Bosporus, and numerous sites in south east Asia and Australia. Such flows

occur almost anywhere where there are entrances to bays and rivers, or between land masses where water currents are concentrated. A factor in human settlement geography is water. Human settlements have often started around bays, rivers, and lakes. Future settlement may be concentrated around moving water, allowing communities to power themselves with non-polluting energy from moving water.

Artist's impression of the Severn Barrage and road link proposed in 1989. The scheme would have generated 6 percent of the UK's electricity supply

Contents
[hide]

1 Barrage tidal power o 1.1 Ebb generation o 1.2 Flood generation o 1.3 Pumping o 1.4 Two-basin schemes o 1.5 Environmental impact 1.5.1 Turbidity 1.5.2 Salinity 1.5.3 Sediment movements 1.5.4 Pollutants 1.5.5 Fish 2 Tidal stream power o 2.1 Prototypes o 2.2 Energy calculations 3 Shrouded turbines 4 Variable nature of power output 5 Mathematical modeling of tidal schemes 6 Energy efficiency 7 Global environmental impact 8 Resource around the world o 8.1 Operating tidal power schemes o 8.2 Tidal power schemes being considered 9 Notes

10 References 11 External links 12 Patents 13 Credits

Barrage tidal power

Rance tidal power plant

An artistic impression of a tidal barrage, including embankments, a ship lock and caissons housing a sluice and two turbines. The barrage method of extracting tidal energy involves building a barrage and creating a tidal lagoon. The barrage traps a water level inside a basin. Head (a height of water pressure) is created when the water level outside of the basin or lagoon changes relative to the water level inside. The head is used to drive turbines. The largest such installation has been working on the Rance river, France, since 1967, with an installed (peak) power of 240 MW, and an annual production of 600 GWh (about 68 MW average power) The basic elements of a barrage are caissons, embankments, sluices, turbines, and ship locks. Sluices, turbines, and ship locks are housed in caisson (very large concrete blocks). Embankments seal a basin where it is not sealed by caissons.

The sluice gates applicable to tidal power are the flap gate, vertical rising gate, radial gate and rising sector. Barrage systems are sometimes affected by problems of high civil infrastructure costs associated with what is in effect a dam being placed across two estuarine systems, and the environmental problems associated with changing a large ecosystem.

Ebb generation
The basin is filled through the sluices until high tide. Then the sluice gates are closed. (At this stage, there may be "Pumping" to raise the level further.) The turbine gates are kept closed until the sea level falls to create sufficient head across the barrage, and then are opened so that the turbines generate until the head is again low. Then the sluices are opened, turbines disconnected and the basin is filled again. The cycle repeats itself. Ebb generation (also known as outflow generation) takes its name because generation occurs as the tide ebbs.

Flood generation
The basin is filled through the turbines, which generate at tide flood. This is generally much less efficient than ebb generation, because the volume contained in the upper half of the basin (which is where ebb generation operates) is greater than the volume of the lower half (and making the difference in levels between the basin side and the sea side of the barrage), less than it would otherwise be. This is not a problem with the "lagoon" model; the reason being that there is no current from a river to slow the flooding current from the sea.

Pumping
Turbines are able to be powered in reverse by excess energy in the grid to increase the water level in the basin at high tide (for ebb generation). This energy is more than returned during generation, because power output is strongly related to the head.

Two-basin schemes
With two basins, one is filled at high tide and the other is emptied at low tide. Turbines are placed between the basins. Two-basin schemes offer advantages over normal schemes in that generation time can be adjusted with high flexibility and it is also possible to generate almost continuously. In normal estuarine situations, however, two-basin schemes are very expensive to construct due to the cost of the extra length of barrage. There are some favorable geographies, however, which are well suited to this type of scheme.

Environmental impact
The placement of a barrage into an estuary has a considerable effect on the water inside the basin and on the fish. A tidal current turbine will have a much lower impact.

Turbidity
Turbidity (the amount of matter in suspension in the water) decreases as a result of smaller volume of water being exchanged between the basin and the sea. This lets light from the Sun to penetrate the water further, improving conditions for the phytoplankton. The changes propagate up the food chain, causing a general change in the ecosystem.

Salinity
As a result of less water exchange with the sea, the average salinity inside the basin decreases, also affecting the ecosystem. "Tidal Lagoons" do not suffer from this problem.

Sediment movements
Estuaries often have high volume of sediments moving through them, from the rivers to the sea. The introduction of a barrage into an estuary may result in sediment accumulation within the barrage, affecting the ecosystem and also the operation of the barrage.

Pollutants
Again, as a result of reduced volume, the pollutants accumulating in the basin may be less efficiently dispersed, so their concentrations may increase. For biodegradable pollutants, such as sewage, an increase in concentration is likely to lead to increased bacteria growth in the basin, having impacts on the health of the human community and the ecosystem.

Fish
Fish may move through sluices safely, but when these are closed, fish will seek out turbines and attempt to swim through them. Also, some fish will be unable to escape the water speed near a turbine and will be sucked through. Even with the most fish-friendly turbine design, fish mortality per pass is approximately 15 percent (from pressure drop, contact with blades, cavitation, and so forth.). This can be acceptable for a spawning run, but is devastating for local fish who pass in and out of the basin on a daily basis. Alternative passage technologies (fish ladders, fish lifts, and so forth) have so far failed to solve this problem for tidal barrages, either offering extremely expensive solutions, or ones which are used by a small fraction of fish only. Research in sonic guidance of fish is ongoing.

Tidal stream power

A relatively new technology tidal stream generators draw energy from currents in much the same way as wind turbines. The higher density of water, some 832 times the density of air, means that a single generator can provide significant power.

Even more so than with wind power, selection of location is critical for a tidal stream power generator. Tidal stream systems need to be located in areas with fast currents where natural flows are concentrated between obstructions, for example at the entrances to bays and rivers, around rocky points, headlands, or between islands or other land masses. The following potential sites have been suggested:

The Pentland Firth in Scotland The Channel Islands in the United Kingdom The Cook Strait in New Zealand The Strait of Gibraltar The Bosporus in Turkey The Bass Strait in Australia The Torres Strait in Australia The Strait of Malacca between Indonesia and Singapore The Bay of Fundy in Canada.

Prototypes
Several commercial prototypes have shown promise. Trials in the Strait of Messina, Italy, started in 2001[1] and an Australian company, Tidal energy, undertook successful commercial trials of highly efficient shrouded turbines on the Gold Coast, Queensland, in 2002, that was followed by successful joint venture commercial trials by Canada by Quantum Hydro Power in 2005-2006, using the Gorlov Helical Turbine on the Canadian West Coast where water speeds have been measured up to 16 knots.

The SeaGen rotors in Harland and Wolff, Belfast, before installation in Strangford Lough During 2003, a 300 kW Periodflow marine current propeller type turbine was tested off the coast of Devon, England, and a 150 kW oscillating hydroplane device, the Stingray, was tested off the Scottish coast. Another British device, the Hydro Venturi, is to be tested in San Francisco Bay.[2] Although still a prototype, the world's first grid-connected turbine, generating 300 kW, started generation November 13, 2003, in the Kvalsund, south of Hammerfest, Norway, with plans to install a further nineteen turbines.[3]

A commercial prototype "open turbine" design will be installed by Marine Current Turbines Ltd in Strangford Lough in Northern Ireland in September 2007. The turbine could generate up to 1.2MW and will be connected to the grid.

Energy calculations
The energy available from these kinetic systems can be expressed as:

P = Cp x 0.5 x x A x V3

Where: Cp is the turbine coefficient of performance P = the power generated (in kW) = the density of the water (seawater is 1025 kg per cubic meter (CM)) A = the sweep area of the turbine (in m2) V3 = the velocity of the flow cubed (that is, V x V x V)

Relative to an open turbine in free stream where typical turbine efficiency has been measured at around 22 percent. Shrouded turbines are capable of higher efficiencies as much as 4 times the power of the same turbine in open flow. An Australian shrouded turbine has achieved 384 percent more energy when placed in a shroud.[4]

Shrouded turbines
A shroud or duct that houses the turbine and can produce up to four times the energy output of the same turbine for little extra project cost has been proven by prototype tests in Australia in 2002 and 2005. Considered to be the next generation of water turbines, they are an advancement over technology that has been relatively stagnant since the middle ages when the windmill was invented. Shrouded turbines can produce the same energy from a much smaller turbine while larger turbines if housed in a shroud have significant attraction to commerce where "Rate Of Return" on investment may be up to fifteen years on some sites where open turbines are used. Commercial trials undertaken on shrouded turbines in 2006, along the Canadian west coast will eventually see mass production and roll out over multiple sites where there are some of the fastest flows ever recorded of up to 16 knots, or about 8.5 m/s. A one meter (m) square open turbine in this flow could produce around 0.5 megawatt (MW), while a shrouded turbine nearly 2 MW. Average flows are somewhat less around 6 to 10 knots or about 3-5 m/s.

Variable nature of power output

Tidal power schemes do not produce energy all day. A conventional design, in any mode of operation, would produce power for 6 to 12 hours in every 24 and will not produce power at other times. As the tidal cycle is based on the rotation of the Earth with respect to the moon (24.8 hours), and the demand for electricity is based on the period of rotation of the earth (24 hours), the energy production cycle will not always be in phase with the demand cycle. However, the tides are relatively reliable and more predictable than other alternative energy sources, such as wind.

Mathematical modeling of tidal schemes

In mathematical modeling of a scheme design, the basin is broken into segments, each maintaining its own set of variables. Time is advanced in steps. Every step, neighboring segments influence each other and variables are updated. The simplest type of model is the flat estuary model, in which the whole basin is represented by one segment. The surface of the basin is assumed to be flat, hence the name. This model gives rough results and is used to compare many designs at the start of the design process. In these models, the basin is broken into large segments (1D), squares (2D), or cubes (3D). The complexity and accuracy increases with dimension. Mathematical modeling produces quantitative information for a range of parameters, including:

Water levels (during operation, construction, extreme conditions, and so forth) Currents Waves Power output Turbidity Salinity Sediment movements

Energy efficiency
Tidal energy has an efficiency of 80 percent in converting the potential energy of the water into electricity. It is thus very efficient, compared to other energy resources such as solar power or fossil fuel power plants.

Global environmental impact

A tidal power scheme is a long-term source of electricity. A proposal for the Severn Barrage, if built, has been projected to save 18 million tons of coal per year of operation. This decreases the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

If fossil fuel resource is likely to decline during the twenty-first century, as predicted by Hubbert peak theory, tidal power is one of the alternative source of energy that will need to be developed to satisfy the human demand for energy.

Resource around the world

Operating tidal power schemes

The first tidal power station was the Rance tidal power plant built over a period of 6 years from 1960 to 1966, at La Rance, France. It has 240MW installed capacity. The first (and only) tidal power site in North America is the Annapolis Royal Generating Station, Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia, which opened in 1984, on an inlet of the Bay of Fundy.[5] It has 20MW installed capacity. A small project was built by the Soviet Union at Kislaya Guba on the Barents Sea. It has 0.5MW installed capacity. China has apparently developed several small tidal power projects and one large facility in Jiangxia. China is also developing a tidal lagoon near the mouth of the Yalu.[6] Scotland has committed to having 18 percent of its power from green sources by 2010, including 10 percent from a tidal generator. The British government says this will replace one huge fossil fueled power station. South African energy parastatal Eskom is investigating using the Mozambique Current to generate power off the coast of KwaZulu Natal. Because the continental shelf is near to land it may be possible to generate electricity by tapping into the fast flowing Mozambique current.[7]

Tidal power schemes being considered

In the table, "-" indicates lack of information, "?" indicates information which has not been determined. Country Argentina Australia Canada Place San Jose Secure Bay Cobequid Cumberland Shepody Passamaquoddy Kutch Cambay Garolim Cheonsu Rio Colorado Mean tidal range (m) 5.9 10.9 12.4 10.9 10.0 5.5 5.3 6.8 4.7 4.5 6-7 Area of basin (km) 240 90 115 170 1970 100 Maximum capacity (MW) 6800 ? 5338 1400 1800 ? 900 7000 480 ?

India Korea Mexico

Tiburon Severn 7.8 Mersey 6.5 United Kingdom Strangford Lough Conwy 5.2 Passamaquoddy Bay, 5.5 Maine Knik Arm, Alaska 7.5 United States Turnagain Arm, Alaska 7.5 Golden Gate, ? California[8] Mezen 9.1 Russia[1] Tugur Penzhinskaya Bay 6.0 Mozambique Channel ? South Africa

450 61 5.5 2300 ?

? 8640 700 33 ? 2900 6501 ? 19200 8000 87000 ?

Notes
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Geothermal_power http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hydroelectricity http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Biomass http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Biofuel http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Windmill http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Solar_cell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power