Ocean Wave Hydrokinetics May Be Drying Up
Here’s an idea for converting ocean wave energy to electricity that a fellow in New York sent me this morning. This is near the bottom of the scale of the ideas I receive, as it:
1) Invokes a technology that probably won’t work at all
2) Certainly won’t do so cost-effectively
3) Hasn’t been tested in the real world to try to disprove #1 and #2
4) Looking for capital from investors, which, due to the above, isn’t going to happen.
Even before I laid eyes on this one, I harbored the belief that ocean wave hydrokinetics is ultimately going to play a very small role in our clean energy future. And apparently, I’m not the only one with this idea. Up until a few years ago there was a wonderful annual Ocean Energy conference, normally held in really cool areas that I greatly enjoyed (see pic). Guess what: It’s gone. There was so little to discuss and get excited about that the whole thing disappeared.
I do, however, predict that ocean current and run-of-river will make minor contributions in isolated areas that have terrific hydro resources and extremely expensive competitive energy sources.
Hi Craig.
R.I.P – Ocean Wave Hydrokinetics (now who on earth saw that coming?)
Ocean Wave Hydrokinetics is a perfect example of one of the many boutique “new energy technology stars” of the last decade moving inevitably and inexorably towards oblivion, and unfortunately at a very high cost (with zero public gain) to ordinary tax payers through government funded research grants and overly generous taxation concessions for all those involved.
There were many authoritative and experienced voices speaking out against (tax payers funding) this technology development at its inception but they were roundly condemned as “renewable energy naysayers” rather than professional commentators, and their opinions were drowned out by the seeming hysteria surrounding everything and anything labelled renewable energy oriented technology.
In hindsight, one could argue that all of the vociferous and blindly ideological supporters and proponents of Ocean Wave Hydrokinetics this last 10 years (now certainly chastened) should be man enough to apologise to the tax payers of the world for their industries ineptitude right across the board. But that won’t happen (nudge nudge – wink wink) as those proponents are rapidly decamping and turning their attention to other “new energy technology stars”.
Taxpayers should note that many other taxpayers funded so called “new energy technology stars” will continue to steadily be exposed as “commercially unviable” and follow the demise of Ocean Wave Hydrokinetics. So what’s next you ask? The “global future energy needs technologies pyramid” deals with and answers that question.
Unfortunately there will be another trillion or so dollars required to be wasted on “commercially unviable” nonsense energy technology ideas that are totally irrelevant to our future global energy needs but are trotted out as being “a great idea at the time”, before we will see the hysteria subside and visionary global energy needs policies finally overtake the current populist energy debate.
But on the other hand, maybe we shouldn’t be concerned by “commercial reality and future global energy needs technologies”. After all its just money really, and we can simply print some more to finance any fanciful “great idea at the time” devoid of any accountability to anyone, or ramifications for an industry wide failure, just like the Ocean Wave Hydrokinetics industry.
Lawrence Coomber
Government spending in general is a subject that seems to gather a wide divergence of opinion. Our present congress seems to feel that the government that governs least governs best. Like this there are many who feel that the government should not be in the business of research and development. “Government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers with taxpayer money,” they claim.
Others would point out that there is a great deal that has come from our national labs and from research grants to various universities and even private companies. On this side is the counter argument that government is exactly the right body to fund research that is so risky that no one individual would attempt the challenge. Along with this attempt to forge a path into the unknown there will definitely be many failures. It is hoped that the few successes will outweigh those efforts that have gone down in flames.
Perhaps a stronger argument against government spending could be made out of concern for funding “Unkle Jim’s turkey plucking machine” because he needs the money and has contributed to the re-election campaign.
Sometimes the world conditions are not right for the research. Underwater currents research may someday find an application if we someday start building settlements on the ocean floor. In that event, someone may someday look back and say, “hey wasn’t there a government study that looked into the kind of energy that we find at our doorstep?” So perhaps we need a watchdog that looks into a near term application for the funds or a very large future payoff for long term research.
But I am fairly sure that calling something “stupid” making wisecracks and snide remarks are not what I would consider a serious discussion of the advantages and problems associated with research and government spending.
@Breath
Breath I was commenting on the impending demise of Ocean Wave Hydrokinetics technology that Craig spoke of, and more specifically how tax payer funding (huge amounts globally) found its way into what is now proving to be commercially non-viable energy technology.
Regarding technology research and development Breath, the simple premise is that if a development project proves to have failed at its conclusion as not commercially viable, it is axiomatic that given the appropriate due diligence at its inception, it would become apparent that it should not proceed, and particularly through public funding programs.
Public funded policy initiatives should never resemble a drunken sailor on shore leave in Las Vegas.
No degree of “diverging opinion” which you seem to value highly can alter the simple truth, that the collective global investment by tax payers in the development of this energy technology format has been wasted. It can’t be both a successful investment in our global energy future and an unsuccessful investment in our global energy future; it is either one or the other. There is no such concept of energy technology sitting comfortably somewhere in the middle between successful and non-successful.
Your quote that it might not have necessarily been wasted tax payer funding: “if we someday start building settlements on the ocean floor”!! is meaningless, to the point that I don’t think you really believe it or would expose yourself to ridicule by repeating it elsewhere.
I operate on a simple premise that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then for my money it’s a duck, and no degree of diverging opinion, no matter how well articulated or cleverly constructed, will move me.
We should all be demanding of the efficacy and expertise of our leaders Breath. It is not beyond us to exercise due diligence of the highest order at the government level when evaluating future needs in all subject areas and map out the pathways milestones and fiscal imperatives to get to where all people need to be over time.
If we become accepting and forgiving of less than the highest standards deliverable by our leaders in all deliberations and decision making (including spending tax payers money) then my suggestion is: “last one to step off the cliff into the abyss – please don’t forget to switch off the light”.
Lawrence Coomber
Hi Craig.
Just to add to your views on the future merits of “run-of-river” generation technologies; I developed new run-of-river generation technology and hold a patent for a unique format since 2012. My company has a prototype trial in service in the Condamine river since 2015 and I am extremely optimistic about run-of river technology going forward. We are in the process of scaling it up at the moment, and everything is looking positive.
Lawrence Coomber
For a bit more info (not much though) try Googling: Rivergen Electrical Energy Plant
Lawrence, the opposing view, if you are perfectly clear on the goal and the results expected, and a reasonable chance for success then perhaps, is that this is a place for private not public funding. Public funding in that case is just getting tax payers to pay for your project. That might make a good business plan but not the best public policy.
But where the results, goal or chance of success is unclear then this is not something that looks like a great investment opportunity. Private funding is far less likely to be available. For some that is right place for our collective aspiration.
For more specific examples compare run of the river energy to a probe to Europa. Because when you start with knocking down anything that is not goal oriented, measuring the chance of success based upon return on investment then you are beginning to nail up the very portal of exploration and discovery, art, culture, and history and education.
As previously mentioned, some energy efforts may not have any present useful applications. Sometimes there is value in the effort alone, sometimes an application will reveal itself over time. I can appreciate that your business acumen does not extend into these areas, but it is a somewhat unenlightened thinker who says that because they cannot see or understand then no one should be able. Lack of understanding is frequently accompanied by mockery as if to humiliate any who do not agree with the opinion.
Mockery then gives me pause and suggests that a childish tactic at manipulation is at play. Certainly we need your business expertise, but that is no reason that the world is not large enough for other perspectives.
Laurence and Breath – Nice Heady Exchange – you both make good points
Re the demise of Wave Kinetic technology – some things may not just work out seems to be the verdict at this point in time.
Speaking Broadly I think the technology or some version of it may just need to rest in energy Technology Purgatory for a time , cooling off period.
In respect to your comments on whether or not the FEDs should fund R & D and have technology incubation programs , taxpayer investments etc.
I say Yes and it has worked Far better than the Empty Deafening Echo Chamber of the Vast anti government conspirators !
I strongly believe in the DOE’s Energy and other Research programs in many areas – the progress of Humanity has been greatly improved by the Government funding programs. The market place and the frenzied quest for profit limits the R & D efforts that once were the essence and Crown Jewels of Industry 40 years ago. Now the drivers are CEO compensation , quarterly profits and pumping and dumping stock values limits long term thinking or efforts. Points for thought.
For example the internet came out of military communications systems
Most of the Dot Com Technology boom can be traced back into the FEDs spending money ( like NASA ) and the output years later is commercial technology that is changing the entire World
here is Excerpt
Winners & losers
In all, U.S. taxpayers have paid about $2.32 billion under the DOE’s loan program to support 1,500 MW of utility scale solar projects, five concentrating solar power projects, a cellulosic biofuel plant, construction of two nuclear reactors, and further development of electric vehicles.
In the fossil sector, DOE has spent $1.1 billion on its FutureGen and CCPI projects and has two nearly completed projects to show for it, Kemper and Petra Nova, both of which could demonstrate the viability of commercializing clean coal technology, but they could be difficult to replicate at current oil prices.
DOE and GAO audits and reports on the entire program show better results than knee jerk over reactions can fathom perhaps. But it takes serious reading and exploring and in the field doing.
Along this line of thought here is some factual defense of the DOE’s energy subsidy / loan programs . This is from Top Floor Power by Peter Maloney Oct 25th ( timely article) Great breakdown of the DOE programs both before and during the ARRPA Recovery Act.
Bear in mind the DOE spread the money around and they gave Clean Coal, R E and even Nukes money. Fair and balanced as one of the right wing echo chambers claims !
So for those anti government types who rail against government R & D efforts perhaps you should take note.
Of the 4 nukes being built in the US , 2 took funds from DOE Loan .
1 other was built with tax payer funds the TVA . It is ready to begin running soon. About $6,000 per kw not counting the Billion or so that was paid out over 20 years ago.
So Brother Lawrence perhaps you should temper somewhat your rant against all this wasteful government spending etc. etc . You shoot at and create Collateral Damages to your favorite technology my 2 Green Energy Colleague.
If there is a winner in this debate, it would be hard to decide based on costs and technological viability without having a view on policy issues such the impact of climate change, the social value of incumbent technologies, or the need for government stimulus to support innovative technologies.
As with any investments in any industry, it seems inevitable that there will be losers and winners. But there is a theory that an informed decision based on a full reading of the facts makes for better policy.
So hopefully DOE did not spend too much money on Wave Kinetics as it no look good right now. But DOE and other agencies have done market transformation work that has resulted in close to 275,000 jobs in solar and wind and the entire supply chain value is in the Trillions of $ .
So there is some Gold in these programs and its all out there to count if one wants to be objective and Holistic about these issues.
Breath I seriously doubt that folks will go live under water but I am a Mountain View kinda guy.
Economics Competition – Wave Kinetic systems face price competition from Off Shore Wind systems whose capabilities Increased ! and prices are going down as the technology is reaching critical mass in all phases.
Technologies compete against each other on price output and not just Formats. Advancements in Off Shore wind has much to do w the early demise of wave kinetic energy formats .
Lawrence thank you for your Kind words in the other topic recently. I do appreciate your positions and your professional Passion as well. You been in the field and have seen the mis fires , foolishness etc and it is just a example of our flawed system of doing things .
My take peace
Nicely done Silent. You have spelled out details for some of the arguments I have implied. The general issue remains. Sometimes we don’t know when a bit of knowledge might be useful.
We are told Europa is a moon with a liquid ocean. It is unlikely that someone traveling there would have access to much solar or wind energy. Ocean currents however might be a possibility if we knew how to use them or as a result of a bit of study totally eliminate them as a reasonable possibility.
Today on Earth, not too many people envision using the land at the bottom of the ocean. After mining what could you grow there? Mushrooms? But energy can be found there and someday someone may find another reason to work and live there.
Putting research into some sort of priority allocation sounds like a serious consideration. Mocking something that has no present value doesn’t.
BTW here is an article I received today about the first wave generator connected to the grid. At least this is more than can be said about Solar up-draft generator towers. https://solarthermalmagazine.com/2016/10/25/first-connection-of-a-wave-energy-converter-to-an-electric-grid/