Comments on: Wave Energy Generator Pumps Power to Scotland

By: soundwash

soundwash — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:10:52 +0000

in an odd way, the only one whose head is not in a box is #16 Lunatic Fringe..

some anti-gravity devices use gravity as an energy source and even produce cold “excess” energy as a by-product

-similar to Searl effect Generators (SEG’s)

This ocean wave stuff is a waste of time.

we’ve had the ability to produce basically zero footprint energy since Tesla’s time.

The only thing people should march on Washington for is the release of the thousands of energy patents that prove this.

Here is a collection of [re]verified research on various technologies from a 2007 energy conference..some with 2000% efficiency.

(“quick someone yell QUACK” -idiots)

http://tinyurl.com/ya5n489

The Russians, and possibly the Belgians or Bulgarians will probably end up releasing this tech way before we ever even admit it exists.

*Our* laws of physics are obviously incomplete and need a complete re-write.

(Clue: man-made climate change is not the only “science” that has been hoaxed)

I fail to see why we still pussyfoot around with all this inefficient BS.

-s

By: seapilot

seapilot — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:11:51 +0000

Surfers are already preparing a protest march. There will always be opponents.

PETA will join when the first harbor seal is smacked.

By: Oklahoma Generator

Oklahoma Generator — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:54:50 +0000

we should always think about the ecosystem first always, in that way we will know the answers

By: ikapuza89

ikapuza89 — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:57:47 +0000

#17 onanymouse:

“‘… is now working on a second-generation device.’

hmmm. Not sure if they mean an additional “generation device” or a they mean a next generation device.”

Second-generation device=next generation device
Second generation device=additional generation device

I think…

By: deowll

deowll — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:55:17 +0000

#2 Who says it has no impact on the environment?

If it is cost effective and the impact is minimal it’s fine with me.

The problem with green energy is the cost is often not competitive and the units mess up something or get in the way of something.

One obvious problem is these things are going to have to stand up to major storms and might get in the way of shipping.

By: JimR

JimR — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:39:21 +0000

Just wave to a pump and make electricity. Spooky.

By: ±

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32:52 +0000

#16 —- the moon has been flying of into space for 100s of millions of years. When the moon was first captured it loomed HUGE in the sky. Eventually on some unknown future day, the moon will fly off tangent to it’s much receded orbit of the future and anything left on earth will view a moonless sky thereafter. But you know that, so this is for others. When the moon was first captured, tides were 250 feet or so, twice a day.

So I say, steal the energy of the earth moon system, and FÜCK the future.

By: supercujo

supercujo — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32:31 +0000

What an excellent idea.

By: onanymouse

onanymouse — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:28:14 +0000

“… is now working on a second-generation device.”

hmmm. Not sure if they mean an additional “generation device” or a they mean a next generation device.

By: Lunatic Fringe

Lunatic Fringe — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:05:32 +0000

Doesn’t anyone else see that by extracting wave energy what we really are extracting is gravity- specifically the pull of the moon against the earth. If we take away the energy the moon will fly off into space.

By: honeyman

honeyman — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:53:21 +0000

#14 MikeN

I think the figure for LA is 6 gigawatts (6,000 megawatts).

One of these things could theoretically power 1600 homes.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:23:31 +0000

Smitty if peak is 2 megawatts, then LA needs 3 of these.

>An inexpensive, renewable resource that causes minimal inconvenience and no damage to the environment.

It emits no CO2, but I’m not convinced that taking away wave power from the oceans does no damage to the environment, or less damage than taking coal and oil out of the ground.

By: innuendo

innuendo — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:23:15 +0000

“Los Angeles requires about 6,000 kilowatts at peak use so it would only take 3,000 of these things (they look to be about 70 feet long by about 40 feet deep). It would only cover about 50 miles of coastline.”

“The peak power output of the Oyster 1 is about two megawatts, ”

Emphasis on the mega

By: bobbo, running out of energy himself

bobbo, running out of energy himself — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:21:31 +0000

These things are mostly “too small” for mass production. Best for small localized usuage. Need to multi-task them to get multiple returns like artificial reef constructs and what not.

The “Huge” energy reserve of the ocean is extracting energy from the thermal clime. Several test facilities producing power for the last few years. Don’t know why there is not more news on these. I assume the energy/oil cabal wants only red herrings for public consumption for now.

By: chris

chris — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:11:01 +0000

Considering that most of the domestic population is close to the coast I can’t see how this is a bad idea!

An, imperfect, knowledge of geography also suggests to me that most huge cities are near bodies of water.

This is where the burst usage capacity is. A series of generators tied to batteries should save energy generated during tides that isn’t helpful during times of peak usage.

Why not?