theAneja, I don't care how old the vid is. It is, as you say, an excellent, very clear and concise explanation of the wave-driven power generator system. I am grateful you took the time to share it, and I use it in my classes along with other videos on alternative power-generation. BTW, Don't worry about the whiners....they usually don't contribute anything except useless noise.
As I understand it, the main problem is cost. That large concrete structure costs a lot, especially using specialised equipment to construct it in an environment with big waves. On top of that you have high design costs for one-off developments. There is hope that as the design matures, the design costs will drop and efficiency will rise, so that this will eventually compete with other renewable energy sources.
When I was a kid, I saw this technology in a popular science magazine. At the time they said if we did this with just 7% of the oceans, we could power the world. I keep trying to explain this to people and find good demonstrations of it (Thank you for this) I have no idea why this is never part of the discussion.
@Chris C: Thank you for your comment. This technology is still very new. There is a lot of research and development in this field. For harvesting the wave energy, the waves have to possess a lot of kinetic energy, which is not the fact everywhere globally.
1. The video declares that a Voith Wave Power Station was setup as of 2009 when the video was published on RUclips, yet it makes no mention of exactly how much power that station produced. This is a concern. 2. The video makes no mention of tidal sea level changes - the station in the video shows no ability to traverse up or down to match the vertical delta of 5-10 feet (1.5-3 m), which means max power happens at high tide and min at low tide. 3. The video mentions that "tidal power" represents 700 nuclear plants - but fails to point out that this would require every linear foot of coastline be covered with wave power stations. The video does not give any realistic estimates of how many power stations would be required to power, say, New York City. 4. It's been 11 years - where is this technology today?
Here's the wikipedia entry regarding the wave power project: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavegen It notes that "In March 2013 Voith Hydro decided to close down Wavegen choosing to concentrate on tidal power projects." So much for wavegen power stations.
@@RobbyBoy167 Yup, because air is compressible, and the volume between the water and the turbine is large... I wonder though, if we could improve it by moving the turbine in the vertical water column. Sure, it would still be intermittent, uncontrollable, and not very effective, and it would need a lot of maintenance due to the salty water. I just wonder if it could be more efficient than what is presented here.
@@jm56z43 the maintenance has to be high. You'd have to have a diver to go in to clean it from debris and junk. Also you'd have to have a special medal or plastic turbines. That's a lot of cost for how much electricity?
@@christianlw5252 I never said I supported the idea. I was just wondering how much more power it could output - without even hoping for any efficiency.
This was a pioneering technology that was built and commissioned in around 2001 on the island of Islay. It worked and there have been many improvements since by other companies
They probably have that sorted out with alloys or special coating. Warships last a fair bit in sea after all, so maintaining a few turbine blades shouldn't be a problem.
@@Cam-sv3hj Possibly, since it's supposed to come into contact with air mostly, perhaps some sea water mist. Perhaps some textile reinforced plastic/resin based composites for the blades, or practically any other non-corroding material could be used.
I'd be interested in know the maintenance demands for this generator. Specifically with effects of corrosion from constant moisture and sea salt exposure.
@J Will. Thank you for your comment. We are working at the moment on video about Mutriku Commercial Wave Power Plant, which was opened in 2011. We hope that we will get some real data about maintenance costs.
Great idea...I’ve been following wave and water flow turbines using natural rise and fall of coastal sea and river levels. Never thought about creating air flows from wave action.
the quality is pretty good for a vid that is over a decade old, I am having more fun with this than the other informative videos, it's like the cartoon about pulleys I watched, it's so satisfying
How many of these would be needed to replace “700 to 800” nuclear plants? What are the ramifications of a large hurricane striking these units(time to get back online, ecological damage)? Do you have actual photos of what a unit looks like, showing the impact on the scenery? Are there geographical restrictions on where these are useful?
Say it is USA: 2400 dams produced 7% of the national electricity power while 60 nuclear plants producing 20 precent national electricity power. Obviously there is a significant gap but if you consider the levelized cost quantity might make a difference
@@MrJamdes Not every single inch of Japan (one of the most active seismic regions on the planet) is affected my earthquakes. Plus the IPCC already has said nuclear energy is key for reducing CO2 (and at the same time provide large amount of energy with a lower cost, just ook at Germany, the Champion of green energy and his overpriced energy bill). You know, even Arabs are building GenIV nuclear plants... Europe and EEUU are are digging their grave with this sentimental backwards policies based on populism (yeah, close Germany's nuclear plants because Fukushima... Very intellligent, we all know it was because of the Green Party).
@ChillyCloth Quite easy to explain: The military needs the nuclear power plant technology because of the plutonium used/needed in nukes. So green / CO2-free technology will never have this status. And: I don't think that this is garbage. In my opinion it has only two additional problems: a) The power is made were its not need (means on the coast). b) "Pumping/sucking" air in and out is loud. Both "issues" are easy solvable.
@@v.gedace1519 that is just dumb. the world doesn't constantly consume fissile materials for nuclear weapons. Nuke aren't ordinary artillery shells. when was the last time a nuke was used in conflict? the nuclear material currently deployed on missile are infinitely recyclable once their delivery vehicle (ballistic missiles, cruise missiles etc) is decommissioned due to old age. if the time comes that we need more nuke warhead, it means apocalypse has already transpired. and we wont be needing nukes for the handful of humans scurrying upon the ruins of our cities.
@@juliosunga3530 You should read comments carefully. In particular, mine. I wrote about the nuclear power plant technology. The military has an interest to keep the technology alive. Regardless of the reason it seems to be needed. (Aka replacing decayed plutonium, adding new (types of) nuclear weapons to the arsenal or whatever the military can think of ...) Because otherwise they would not design, build and run special nuclear power plants that provides more weapons grade plutonium than the "standard" nuclear power plants. From a military point of view, there is always a reason to keep the technology and with it the "business" alive, in order to get weapons grade plutonium quickly (and as cheap as possible).
@@v.gedace1519 You're a moron. > The military has an interest to keep the technology alive. Regardless of the reason it seems to be needed. Do you *seriously* believe that nuclear technology will somehow be "lost" if companies stop building commercial power plants? > Aka replacing decayed plutonium, adding new (types of) nuclear weapons to the arsenal or whatever the military can think of... Nuclear waste can't be used in nuclear weapons. In fact, the material that comes out of a power plant is *LESS* suitable for nukes than the material that went in. > Because otherwise they would not design, build and run special nuclear power plants that provides more weapons grade plutonium than the "standard" nuclear power plants. The "special" plants you're talking about have a name. They're called "Nuclear Enrichment Facilities". And, in fact, it is *highly illegal* to build or operate such a plant, precisely *BECAUSE* the material they produce can be used in nuclear weapons. In fact, if you'd pay attention to the real world instead of whatever fantasy you've constructed in your head, you'd see that a lot of power companies *and* environmentalist groups are lobbying the government to allow commercial enrichment facilities, because they provide a simple and effective way to recycle nuclear waste (as opposed to the current plan of burying it and hoping). But the answer has always been "no", because nukes. (Edit: well, it seems there was one commercial enrichment facility built in 2009 as a pilot project. It's right when the military is *reducing* their stockpile of nukes, though, so somehow, I still highly doubt that it's being used to create nuclear weapons.) > From a military point of view, there is always a reason to keep the technology and with it the "business" alive, in order to get weapons grade plutonium quickly (and as cheap as possible). And again we come back to the twin delusions that commercial power plants somehow produce weapons-grade plutonium, and that it's possible to "lose" the technology to produce it if companies stop building commercial nuclear power plants. Unbelievable.
@ChrisZAUR: Hi Chris, thank you for your question. This technology is still in its early stages. Nevertheless, a wave power plant with this technology went into operation in 2011. It is in the town of Mutriku, in the Basque Country in Spain. You can also visit this facility (www.mutriku.eus/en/tourism/mutriku/olatu-planta). There is a lot of research going on in this area, but it takes time.
It's easy to see that the airflow this contraption would create wouldn't be powerful enough to do anything with. Plus the salty environment would destroy any metal/electrical structures within months.
The power plant visualized in this movie was in operation between 2008 and 2018 on Island Islay and was primarily an R&D site. It had two turbines with 500kW each. There is a Wave Power Plant in Mutriku, Basque Land in Spain. It is built into the wave breaker. It was commissioned in 2011. It is designed for 295 kW with 16 turbines. You can also visit it. They do a lot of R&D in this field (also offshore).
The physics of this idea would really be more applicable at very small scales. Like drinking straw sizes. There just isn’t enough time between waves for a highly compressible media like air to get a continuous drive going.
The thing here is a large concrete structure and would be very expensive. You can make these things cheaper. Imagine for example using standard POM tubing mounted vertical in the shore line with a turbin higher up in a a venturi constriction. This would be fare less expensive and space effective.
Everyday it amazes how every smartass on youtube is an impolite bastard. I totally agree that the concept is probably not much worth but didn't your mama teach you manners
Good job by the animators "i-explain". As soon as I saw the "lay of the land" with the isolated houses and their building features I thought it reminded me a lot of the north of Scotland. I will look up this turbine design about that bidirectional power flow.
Of course, I assume this is a very simplified model to make it very easy for anyone to understand, good job.👍👍👍 Because sea = corrosion. Such turbines have to be very well protected, for sure...among other details... 👍👍👍
This is not at all what I was expecting... I was expecting something to do with water pressure, but instead I got an explanation for what's basically an inferior wind turbine. I like the idea of the technology, but depending on weather conditions(which are an insurmountable variable), both land, construction and maintenance would cost far too much for the fact that the facility wouldn't really work at low tide, and even if you peaked out some kind of super-battery, the biggest problem is the fall and winter seasons, where you're pretty much always at low tide. It's ultimately inferior to solar power and nuclear energy(I support both). There are other problems, but I will say this, since some in the comments aren't very kind: The idea is worth a shot as an additive source of electrical power. If one lives on on the coast and not in a commercial district, it would be worth having that extra source of energy. You could probably use it to supplement power outages as a back-up generator. It'd be grossly inefficient for a rural area, but if you own seaside property, and are keen to remove the beach, this is an option available to a select few.
Not enough and too much. Its essentially a much less efficient wind turbine, except exposed to salty and corrosive sea breeze 24/7. They say "if fully exploited it could cover 40% of the global energy needs", but full exploitation means covering literally every inch of the worlds coastline with them. Then you need to factor the constant maintenance and repair which is much more than simple wind turbines simply because of the environment that its in.
@@tjwoosta It doesn't need to cover the entire world's energy needs to make sense. It is a fairly simplistic design and therefore relatively cheap to build, the salt water is a concern but not one that is impossible to overcome as we have done it with ships and off shore wind turbines. It's probably a good idea in any place with fairly violent coastal waves even if it's just a small thing.
@@hedgehog3180 Cheap to build is the wrong variable. Yes concrete is cheap, but releases CO2 at a 1:1 ratio with it's weight. Terrible. If you don't get MW from it that is, like with reglar hydro. So the big question is, when taking everything to account, what is the payoff time when looking at CO2? Just based on my shallow understanding of fluid dynamics and turbine engineering, I can't see it winning over regular wind turbine and regular hydro.
@@lumina115 There is always a cost benefit calculation. If it takes more CO2 to build and maintain them than it saves in CO2 over its lifetime, then should we really build them? The "costs" in CO2 is massive, hence the gains in MW should be equally massive. Nuclear is a good example, or regular hydro. Massive amounts of concrete, but it pays of in the long run with CO2 free MWh for decades and decades. Since that post was made, I've started to dislike wind more and more. The short life span and most parts not been recycled at all sours the experience. And the amount you need to cover just one reactor. Also it never works when you needed the most, ie during harsh winter.
While I like the "free" energy aspect of this idea, the air mass is small and the turbine blades of the Wells turbine have high drag, making this a very inefficient power source.
The only downsides were the civil works in constructing it - rock blasting and temporary walls etc. kinda like a makeshift drydock. Long as the parts used are suitable for a marine environment, and the wells turbine isn't very efficient by design. But once it's up and running it's minimal maintenance and the entire electrical side is in the chambers and easy to access, instead of on the sea bed etc.
@thepoppunx no, a wells trubine is a fixed wing turbine. That is the genius part of the turbine, it uses a symmetric wing design to rotate the same way regardless of the wind direction.
Love the engineering concept. I'm curious how does this system accommodate for tidal changes in water levels? Water levels can vary by as much as 30 or 40 ft from high to low tide along the Bay of Fundy, could this be adapted?
@@devanshtrivedi3905 anybody who lives near the ocean knows the corrosive properties of airborne seawater droplets. From rusted cars to rusted doorknobs. From brick cancer to sticky crotch.
Just replace the air with a low volatility and immiscible fluid with a different density than seawater. The slug of immiscible fluid flows back and forth through the generator instead of air. You would also have an immiscible fluid interface with air on the land side of the power generator station. Salt, a polar compound, would not traverse through the non-polar immiscible fluid from either direction and the corrosion issue goes away. You would need to change the flow channels and generator design to work with the viscosity of the immiscible fluid.
Besides all the other comments about the reasons why this isnt widely used such as the energy vs cost ratio. One of the biggest cons has to do with the fact that ocean/water real estate tends to be the most important and valuble land...especially if in area that allows water access such as a beach. For economic (shipping and water access is limited for most counties), aesthetic (no one is going to want their million dollar view blocked by a concrete bunker), and environmental (beach areas are critical parts of ecosystems) reasons placing large amounts of these structures along most countries shorelines will be seen as a non starter. Perhaps if they could be built on cliff faces or more under ground/water it could be viable but those all will just increase the costs of building it so makes it less attractive.
Tim Schutte Actually it's about politics. It's always about politics. There are millions of miles of coast line that are uninhibited and the land is cheap, but the politics still won't allow this. Coastal habitat, like any non human habitat, has an elevated importance in politics, and is worship by many environmentalists. Here in the states we have dozens of overlapping burocrocies to protect, reclaim, regulat, design, study, and install "natural coastal habitat". And to be fair, some form of regulation is needed. Yes. I know. How can installed habitat be natural? It's the government. It doesn't have to make sense. My basic piont is that there is an army of greenies fully committed to stop this or any other type of green energy that could have any negative impact in the immediate area of the energy source or transmission of that energy product.
Вот именно. Что бы воздух начал крутить турбину, давление воздуха должно быть существенным а сопротивление турбины при вращении, минимальным. Но это значит и минимальные вырабатываемые токи. Скорее как забавная и дорогостоящая игрушка получается. А точнее некий обман людей, показывая доступность энергии, но не показывая бесполезность такой затеи.
koo koo investment to profit ratio in such projects are very low and also the energy output is not that lucrative as compared to wind and solar. A medium sized solar project which took 7 - 10 years in the past for the recovery of the investment. Now takes 3 - 4 years. Thus killing of this method for time being. But I do think that when we come to practical saturation point for the renewables we'll come back to this method.
At Sea level air is 784 times less dense than water. Even with the increased mechanical stress and greater corrosion issues, wouldn't it be far more efficient to place the turbines inside the water?
And what happens to the wind turbine when a storm blows in and the waves start crashing over the shoreline? How would that wind turbine fare when sea water starts surging through it? What sort of pollution would it give off and what would be the cost to rebuild or replace it every time a storm blows through?
Its not a wromg phrase.... what u r referring to is manufacturing energy which is impossible.... i think energy can be generated but mot mamufactured.. ur physics teacher would not kill you for this...
Interesting idea and only shows given funding that engineers can develop all sorts of alternate forms of energy. This along with solar and wind power should provide most of the energy we need.
here's an idea , use x2 turbines designed for optimum efficiency , use large 1 way flap valves (carbon fiber) for one way airflow into each turbine . Use semiconductors to disconnect the load from each generator , when the flaps are closed. Add a few batteries so the transient outputs can be smoothed out , for connection to the grid.
Hello Livi! Thank you so much for your comment. We are very honored that the students like yours find it interesting enough to watch it. At the moment we are working on further videos which will explain the "Oscillating Water Column" concept more in detail as well as the explanation of the Wells Turbine. Also, the explanation of further (mostly unknown) kinds of sustainable technologies are in the pipeline. Unfortunately, the production of this kind of 3D explainer videos is very difficult and time-consuming, but we will do our best to publish the videos as soon as possible.
This is one of the best ideas I've seen so far for using wave energy to produce energy, it seems very uninvent to the environment and easily maintainable,
@Kevin Stroup: Thank you for your comment. Please watch our second movie, there you will find additional information. ruclips.net/video/kXfSrCWA7qA/видео.html We are not the producers or vendors of this technology, so we can't give you the costs. You can find more scientific information about the plant in Mutriku and further developments here: opera-h2020.eu/
Some Comments on this Video talk about "Energy Change Issues", but the “Cost” of not “Going Green” is far more “Expensive” than the Dollar Cost of all the Issues combined.♻️
Interesting but I have a lot of questions. -Have the environmental costs of all the concrete required to make thousands of these been looked at? -How many KWh can one of these produce on average in reasonable conditions? -The footprint on the shore is substantial so have there been studies on marine life loss due to affected beach and tidepools? -How will you get the power to cities and towns farther from shore without substantial parasitic losses in transit? -What is the expected response to pushback from beachfront property owners and basic public outcry due to the appearance? I could go on but this is a start...
@ PlanktoniusRex : Thank you for your questions. The power plant visualized in this movie was in operation between 2008 and 2018 on Island Islay and was primarily an R&D site. There is a Wave Power Plant in Mutriku, Basque Land in Spain. It is built into the wave breaker. It was commissioned in 2011. The plant has a capacity of 296 kW from 16 turbo generator sets. The study of the impact on the nature was made for the wavebreaker. For further information please visit the plant or opera-h2020.eu/.
well this is just an example, I believe it could be scaled in such way, to prevent this. Like if it was 30 feet high above the sea or if the whole thing was made water resistant. which nowadays isn't such a big problem.
Hi, and thank you for sharing such great ideas, now this Scottish Island Eyler...? I was not able to find it on google maps, and would love to see the real thing. Any links, or advise on locating this island? thanks again.
By separating the turbine from direct contact with the ocean, it is protected to some extent from corrosion and from some of the highest mechanical loads from waves e.g. turbulent flows or even "slamming" when the wave breaks right on top of you.
there are other devices that directly use the movement of waves to generate electricity, there is the buoyancy unit and the line absorber, since they are mid ocean, maintenance is an issue, they require high pressure flow lines/underwater powerlines and they can also be easily damaged due to the strength of the waves
erik dee salt spray in air is more corrosive than submersion in salt water. Pumping air is less efficient than water as pumped air has thermal losses Since air heats up when it is compressed. But I suspect that the elasticity of air does serve to protect the equipment from severe forces. However you could also just have blow off valves it would be held close by gravity and would pop open to relieve excess pressure
Would have been nice to address how much power this generates. Also, what happens when the waves are larger and get sucked into generator? Will generator work with air and water movement or does the flap in front close?
@John Jerrehian: Thank you for your question. This wave power station on Island Islay was in operation between 2000 and 2018. The 2 Wells turbines generated 500 kW. The wave power plant in Mutriku (Spain) has a total capacity of 296 kW with 16 Wells turbines. Because this plant is also an R&D plant, not all turbine slots are equipped with the Wells turbine all the time.
@@IdeasfortheGreenPlanet Thank you for your reply. So 500kW per day, (24 or 12 hour period). Any plans on producing more? Lastly, how has the salt water affected the Wells turbines over the 18 years of use. This may be appropriate of some of the islands in the Caribbean.
it's basically the higher or lower it goes the more the turbine spins, one of these maybe able to power a house or two but line them up on the coastline and you can power a city maybe even a state, I don't know the energy potential though if it's even enough
cmb271 If they increase the propeller size and then decrease the channel through which the water flows, more air is being forced through in a the same amount of time, so you'd have a faster turbine and a higher output.
wouldn't the decreasing the size of the channel reduce the ability for the air pressure to flow in and out, the properties of fluid dynamics would cause it to flow to the point of least resistance and decreasing the channel will increase the resistance to the point where the water will simply find a lower pressure point.
Oh, good point. I didn't think about how there would be less in it, I assumed that the same amount would be forced through. Perhaps we should increase the size of the channel, then make the turbine smaller?
That could possibly work, it would spin it at a faster RPM but would result in lower torque so less ability to spin a large scale generator, you got to engineer it to have enough force to drive the turbine at a decent speed and not burn up the components to quickly, remember these should be a low maintenance type deal so less power but higher reliability is key assuming it's generating enough energy. The problem is humanity as a whole is wasteful with energy because it's abundant, for this to work we'd need to change our habits and the only way for that to happen is government policy (please no) or a community of sorts whos main goal is to reduce there footprint while living under most social norms.
Why choose an air turbine generator instead of a hydro turbine? water is 800 times denser than air. You could make generators smaller but just as powerful and thus cutting cost even more
Because hydro-electric turbines usually require dams...dams that are hugely damaging to the surrounding eco-system. The name of the game right now is not total power output, but more about efficiency, being as green as possible and not damaging even further our landscapes. Now the last thing I would want to see is entire coastlines barraged by a parade of these, but they certainly can be strategically placed and not nearly as impactful. Not to mention we would still need to use a mix of all other kinds of renewables like solar and wind to really meet demand. Energy sources like coal, nuclear or even hydro-electric are a thing of the past, while the wind, solar or even tidal and geothermal need to be the future and I think 'wave' fits right in with that.
this oscillating water column is just one of the many devices invented to exploit wave energy, so if there was more funds into researching this renewable source than we could possibly work our way around the issues presented
Is there any video where is explained the princip of turbine rotating in the same direction while the air flows in both direction forward and backward?
@Кајмакам Ефенди: Thank you for your question. The turbine is called Wells turbine. You can see the explanation here: Harvesting the Wave Energy: The Function of Wells Turbine (ruclips.net/video/kXfSrCWA7qA/видео.html)
@marthale7 But the energy will be greatly reduced in low tide. If you are capturing water to spin turbines that's not a lot of water. If you are just using the same machine as the video, the ability to compress air has been greatly reduced at low tide. If you move the machine down at low tide then you have potentially more failure points. You also have to figure out how to move it back up. Either way this video is good for almost nothing. You would need to see a working demo of the machine with more information.
@marthale7 ok, you can't think that. I would like to think that as well but you can only capture so much water. You are limited by the tide height and how much water your intake can support. Either way you are still loosing power. Storing water also comes at it's own cost. Depending on where you live the range is 4 to 10 ft. Are you moving the structure 4 ft or are you dealing with a loss of pressure. If you are storing water you can store between 3 and 8 ft of water. That's at an incline so the further you want to store water away the less water you can store. If the tide does not dip below your output you can't generate any power. Clean "free" sources of energy are great but they have problems.
@marthale7 This is a great setup but as the video states it's all about location. They have massive changes in there elevation. You cannot do the same thing with the thing in the video. The technologies are completely different. That being said was a good video thanks for sharing.
![Ocean Wave Energy: Wave Power Station [Wells Turbine]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/K83bqvXlHI8/mqdefault.jpg)
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
theAneja, I don't care how old the vid is. It is, as you say, an excellent, very clear and concise explanation of the wave-driven power generator system. I am grateful you took the time to share it, and I use it in my classes along with other videos on alternative power-generation.
BTW, Don't worry about the whiners....they usually don't contribute anything except useless noise.
Thank you so much for your encouraging words!
I second that. The naysayers usually have IQs of 80 or lower.
Not sure of my IQ, but it seems insane that this tech is not more popular / commercial. What is the problem? Why such low market acceptance??
As I understand it, the main problem is cost. That large concrete structure costs a lot, especially using specialised equipment to construct it in an environment with big waves. On top of that you have high design costs for one-off developments. There is hope that as the design matures, the design costs will drop and efficiency will rise, so that this will eventually compete with other renewable energy sources.
David Schmidt good
Woah Yt , it seriously took you 11 yrs to recommend this.
Yea me too.
Right?
Yes
yea.. youtube sucks
Ya
Even after 11 years, he's still liking comments. Bravo!
but he still hasn't liked yours RIP
The channel is liking comments eleven years after posting the video, that is one hell of a dedicated person(s) behind the channel.
it is a bot
When I was a kid, I saw this technology in a popular science magazine. At the time they said if we did this with just 7% of the oceans, we could power the world. I keep trying to explain this to people and find good demonstrations of it (Thank you for this) I have no idea why this is never part of the discussion.
@Chris C: Thank you for your comment. This technology is still very new. There is a lot of research and development in this field. For harvesting the wave energy, the waves have to possess a lot of kinetic energy, which is not the fact everywhere globally.
Thats why we will never see it.
1. The video declares that a Voith Wave Power Station was setup as of 2009 when the video was published on RUclips, yet it makes no mention of exactly how much power that station produced. This is a concern.
2. The video makes no mention of tidal sea level changes - the station in the video shows no ability to traverse up or down to match the vertical delta of 5-10 feet (1.5-3 m), which means max power happens at high tide and min at low tide.
3. The video mentions that "tidal power" represents 700 nuclear plants - but fails to point out that this would require every linear foot of coastline be covered with wave power stations. The video does not give any realistic estimates of how many power stations would be required to power, say, New York City.
4. It's been 11 years - where is this technology today?
Here's the wikipedia entry regarding the wave power project: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavegen
It notes that "In March 2013 Voith Hydro decided to close down Wavegen choosing to concentrate on tidal power projects."
So much for wavegen power stations.
Looking at this simulation alone you know the efficiency is crap
@@RobbyBoy167 Yup, because air is compressible, and the volume between the water and the turbine is large...
I wonder though, if we could improve it by moving the turbine in the vertical water column. Sure, it would still be intermittent, uncontrollable, and not very effective, and it would need a lot of maintenance due to the salty water. I just wonder if it could be more efficient than what is presented here.
@@jm56z43 the maintenance has to be high. You'd have to have a diver to go in to clean it from debris and junk. Also you'd have to have a special medal or plastic turbines. That's a lot of cost for how much electricity?
@@christianlw5252 I never said I supported the idea. I was just wondering how much more power it could output - without even hoping for any efficiency.
This was a pioneering technology that was built and commissioned in around 2001 on the island of Islay. It worked and there have been many improvements since by other companies
how did they get past just the basic corrosive nature of salty sea water?
It's been 11 years since this amazing video uploaded and today I was just recommended :(
Metal components of turbine: “ahhh energy production!”
Salt corrosion from saltwater: “am I a joke to you”
They probably have that sorted out with alloys or special coating. Warships last a fair bit in sea after all, so maintaining a few turbine blades shouldn't be a problem.
@@durt214 high quality plastics maybe?
@@Cam-sv3hj Possibly, since it's supposed to come into contact with air mostly, perhaps some sea water mist. Perhaps some textile reinforced plastic/resin based composites for the blades, or practically any other non-corroding material could be used.
@@computercrazies I'm fairly certain the thousands of engineers already have all that covered and have thought about using these new materials xd
316l grade stainless can work
I'd be interested in know the maintenance demands for this generator. Specifically with effects of corrosion from constant moisture and sea salt exposure.
Ever heard of a boat? Just look up there.
@J Will. Thank you for your comment. We are working at the moment on video about Mutriku Commercial Wave Power Plant, which was opened in 2011. We hope that we will get some real data about maintenance costs.
Turbine (alloys like stainless steel)
The body (Coatings, etc)
@@marcboutilier7044 Yes, there 2 that I know of, MP-39-N and MP-59-N I believe developed by the US Navy and produced by Carpenertown Steel.
@@davidschwartz5127 sweet
Great idea...I’ve been following wave and water flow turbines using natural rise and fall of coastal sea and river levels. Never thought about creating air flows from wave action.
Recommendations after 11 years but still worth watching.
Was lucky enough to see the station before it was decommissioned and demolished... The noise was incredible!
It can be used not only to generate electricity but also as a wave breaker to prevent coastal erosion.
broooooooooooooooooofucking legend
Straight to the point, explained very clearly, and no bla bla bla bla bla of 20 minutes. Thank you!
the quality is pretty good for a vid that is over a decade old, I am having more fun with this than the other informative videos, it's like the cartoon about pulleys I watched, it's so satisfying
How many of these would be needed to replace “700 to 800” nuclear plants? What are the ramifications of a large hurricane striking these units(time to get back online, ecological damage)? Do you have actual photos of what a unit looks like, showing the impact on the scenery? Are there geographical restrictions on where these are useful?
You are asking just the right questions, I wanted to know the same, especially the first one
Say it is USA:
2400 dams produced 7% of the national electricity power while 60 nuclear plants producing 20 precent national electricity power. Obviously there is a significant gap but if you consider the levelized cost quantity might make a difference
Bla bla bla hurricanes... Talk about Fukushima....kkkk
@@MrJamdes Not every single inch of Japan (one of the most active seismic regions on the planet) is affected my earthquakes. Plus the IPCC already has said nuclear energy is key for reducing CO2 (and at the same time provide large amount of energy with a lower cost, just ook at Germany, the Champion of green energy and his overpriced energy bill).
You know, even Arabs are building GenIV nuclear plants... Europe and EEUU are are digging their grave with this sentimental backwards policies based on populism (yeah, close Germany's nuclear plants because Fukushima... Very intellligent, we all know it was because of the Green Party).
After 10 years.. In my recommendation 😂
True
What's wrong with that?
You are approaching the end of the Internet....
The power of internet, what we say or do stays for ever! Warning!
After 11
11 years ago: "this will revolutionize the future!"
today: "still garbage"
amaizing
@ChillyCloth Quite easy to explain: The military needs the nuclear power plant technology because of the plutonium used/needed in nukes. So green / CO2-free technology will never have this status.
And: I don't think that this is garbage.
In my opinion it has only two additional problems:
a) The power is made were its not need (means on the coast).
b) "Pumping/sucking" air in and out is loud.
Both "issues" are easy solvable.
@@v.gedace1519 that is just dumb. the world doesn't constantly consume fissile materials for nuclear weapons. Nuke aren't ordinary artillery shells. when was the last time a nuke was used in conflict? the nuclear material currently deployed on missile are infinitely recyclable once their delivery vehicle (ballistic missiles, cruise missiles etc) is decommissioned due to old age. if the time comes that we need more nuke warhead, it means apocalypse has already transpired. and we wont be needing nukes for the handful of humans scurrying upon the ruins of our cities.
@@juliosunga3530 You should read comments carefully. In particular, mine.
I wrote about the nuclear power plant technology. The military has an interest to keep the technology alive.
Regardless of the reason it seems to be needed.
(Aka replacing decayed plutonium, adding new (types of) nuclear weapons to the arsenal or whatever the military can think of ...)
Because otherwise they would not design, build and run special nuclear power plants that provides more weapons grade plutonium than the "standard" nuclear power plants.
From a military point of view, there is always a reason to keep the technology and with it the "business" alive, in order to get weapons grade plutonium quickly (and as cheap as possible).
@@v.gedace1519 You're a moron.
> The military has an interest to keep the technology alive. Regardless of the reason it seems to be needed.
Do you *seriously* believe that nuclear technology will somehow be "lost" if companies stop building commercial power plants?
> Aka replacing decayed plutonium, adding new (types of) nuclear weapons to the arsenal or whatever the military can think of...
Nuclear waste can't be used in nuclear weapons. In fact, the material that comes out of a power plant is *LESS* suitable for nukes than the material that went in.
> Because otherwise they would not design, build and run special nuclear power plants that provides more weapons grade plutonium than the "standard" nuclear power plants.
The "special" plants you're talking about have a name. They're called "Nuclear Enrichment Facilities". And, in fact, it is *highly illegal* to build or operate such a plant, precisely *BECAUSE* the material they produce can be used in nuclear weapons. In fact, if you'd pay attention to the real world instead of whatever fantasy you've constructed in your head, you'd see that a lot of power companies *and* environmentalist groups are lobbying the government to allow commercial enrichment facilities, because they provide a simple and effective way to recycle nuclear waste (as opposed to the current plan of burying it and hoping). But the answer has always been "no", because nukes. (Edit: well, it seems there was one commercial enrichment facility built in 2009 as a pilot project. It's right when the military is *reducing* their stockpile of nukes, though, so somehow, I still highly doubt that it's being used to create nuclear weapons.)
> From a military point of view, there is always a reason to keep the technology and with it the "business" alive, in order to get weapons grade plutonium quickly (and as cheap as possible).
And again we come back to the twin delusions that commercial power plants somehow produce weapons-grade plutonium, and that it's possible to "lose" the technology to produce it if companies stop building commercial nuclear power plants. Unbelievable.
This is amazing why has this not been more widely used in the past 11 years????
@ChrisZAUR: Hi Chris, thank you for your question. This technology is still in its early stages. Nevertheless, a wave power plant with this technology went into operation in 2011. It is in the town of Mutriku, in the Basque Country in Spain. You can also visit this facility (www.mutriku.eus/en/tourism/mutriku/olatu-planta). There is a lot of research going on in this area, but it takes time.
this is working ACTUALLY just like this in Mutriku, Euskadi
Yes, you are right!
They should implement this in most of the coastal cities. It doesn't even look complicated to build.
It would probably be useful in areas with hurricanes too
Scienctist found that it's impossible to get energy out of this method and have abandond it, it's explained indepth as to the reason why.
It's easy to see that the airflow this contraption would create wouldn't be powerful enough to do anything with. Plus the salty environment would destroy any metal/electrical structures within months.
The power plant visualized in this movie was in operation between 2008 and 2018 on Island Islay and was primarily an R&D site. It had two turbines with 500kW each. There is a Wave Power Plant in Mutriku, Basque Land in Spain. It is built into the wave breaker. It was commissioned in 2011. It is designed for 295 kW with 16 turbines. You can also visit it.
They do a lot of R&D in this field (also offshore).
The problem is this need a high wave to push the air to make the plan efficient, which is usually come with strong wind. And wind turbine is better.
Brilliant idea... Applicable in every coastal areas, India should also try this.
This is the reason why I'm studying mechatronics engineering.
Wish me luck and success for the future!
Best of luck for everything!
@ M. Catalina Romero : All the best for you! 👏
It doesn´t matter the video is from 2009. The idea is great anyway. But it seems Voith Hydro does prefer tidal power stations now.
joe; couldn't imagine it to be incredibly expensive.
The physics of this idea would really be more applicable at very small scales. Like drinking straw sizes. There just isn’t enough time between waves for a highly compressible media like air to get a continuous drive going.
The thing here is a large concrete structure and would be very expensive.
You can make these things cheaper. Imagine for example using standard POM tubing mounted vertical in the shore line with a turbin higher up in a a venturi constriction. This would be fare less expensive and space effective.
Everyday it amazes how every smartass on youtube is an impolite bastard. I totally agree that the concept is probably not much worth but didn't your mama teach you manners
i totally see the irony that my comment itself is not very polite
Absolutely beautiful and practical concept. A true celebration of science and engineering.
June 23, 2009? Now already August 18, 2019. It's already more than 10 years. Why is it taking you so long to give me this recommendation, youtube?
A new video about the functional statement of the Wells Turbine is in progress
it's a very helpful video: it really helps to have a clear idea of how energy is produced thanks to the waves. thank you so much!!
Good job by the animators "i-explain". As soon as I saw the "lay of the land" with the isolated houses and their building features I thought it reminded me a lot of the north of Scotland. I will look up this turbine design about that bidirectional power flow.
Dear Charlie Ross, thank you for your kind words. We appreciate it very much.🤩
Been waiting for this... for decades.
great idea, but the cost of construction verses the relatively low power output yield probably is the reason it was abandoned ... great video!
I didn't knew I would find this video again cause I just watched this before. A long time ago and then got recommended back to me that's like crazy
Of course, I assume this is a very simplified model to make it very easy for anyone to understand, good job.👍👍👍
Because sea = corrosion. Such turbines have to be very well protected, for sure...among other details... 👍👍👍
This is not at all what I was expecting... I was expecting something to do with water pressure, but instead I got an explanation for what's basically an inferior wind turbine. I like the idea of the technology, but depending on weather conditions(which are an insurmountable variable), both land, construction and maintenance would cost far too much for the fact that the facility wouldn't really work at low tide, and even if you peaked out some kind of super-battery, the biggest problem is the fall and winter seasons, where you're pretty much always at low tide. It's ultimately inferior to solar power and nuclear energy(I support both).
There are other problems, but I will say this, since some in the comments aren't very kind:
The idea is worth a shot as an additive source of electrical power. If one lives on on the coast and not in a commercial district, it would be worth having that extra source of energy. You could probably use it to supplement power outages as a back-up generator. It'd be grossly inefficient for a rural area, but if you own seaside property, and are keen to remove the beach, this is an option available to a select few.
Would be interesting how much energy you get out of this and how much it costs to build this
Not enough and too much. Its essentially a much less efficient wind turbine, except exposed to salty and corrosive sea breeze 24/7. They say "if fully exploited it could cover 40% of the global energy needs", but full exploitation means covering literally every inch of the worlds coastline with them. Then you need to factor the constant maintenance and repair which is much more than simple wind turbines simply because of the environment that its in.
@@tjwoosta It doesn't need to cover the entire world's energy needs to make sense. It is a fairly simplistic design and therefore relatively cheap to build, the salt water is a concern but not one that is impossible to overcome as we have done it with ships and off shore wind turbines. It's probably a good idea in any place with fairly violent coastal waves even if it's just a small thing.
@@hedgehog3180 Cheap to build is the wrong variable. Yes concrete is cheap, but releases CO2 at a 1:1 ratio with it's weight.
Terrible. If you don't get MW from it that is, like with reglar hydro.
So the big question is, when taking everything to account, what is the payoff time when looking at CO2?
Just based on my shallow understanding of fluid dynamics and turbine engineering, I can't see it winning over regular wind turbine and regular hydro.
@@lumina115 There is always a cost benefit calculation.
If it takes more CO2 to build and maintain them than it saves in CO2 over its lifetime, then should we really build them?
The "costs" in CO2 is massive, hence the gains in MW should be equally massive.
Nuclear is a good example, or regular hydro. Massive amounts of concrete, but it pays of in the long run with CO2 free MWh for decades and decades.
Since that post was made, I've started to dislike wind more and more. The short life span and most parts not been recycled at all sours the experience.
And the amount you need to cover just one reactor. Also it never works when you needed the most, ie during harsh winter.
While I like the "free" energy aspect of this idea, the air mass is small and the turbine blades of the Wells turbine have high drag, making this a very inefficient power source.
WOW! this is a genius way to greatly minimize contact with corrosive salt water.
Corrosion is one of the major challenges of harnessing Wave Power.
The only downsides were the civil works in constructing it - rock blasting and temporary walls etc. kinda like a makeshift drydock. Long as the parts used are suitable for a marine environment, and the wells turbine isn't very efficient by design. But once it's up and running it's minimal maintenance and the entire electrical side is in the chambers and easy to access, instead of on the sea bed etc.
I don't know why youtube recommended this to me but I like it.
How does the fan blades go the same way with either direction of the air??
This is a special turbine named Wells turbine.
its changes the wings angle
thepoppunx how bro?
@thepoppunx no, a wells trubine is a fixed wing turbine. That is the genius part of the turbine, it uses a symmetric wing design to rotate the same way regardless of the wind direction.
Daniel Rose even i got to know when I did a small project on it btw thx for reply
Love the engineering concept. I'm curious how does this system accommodate for tidal changes in water levels? Water levels can vary by as much as 30 or 40 ft from high to low tide along the Bay of Fundy, could this be adapted?
Yes it should be ok. The under water inlet opening would be at the lowest possible water level.
That “wave air” contains salt. How would they prevent the turbine from seizing up?
No mate water vapour don't contain salt
@@devanshtrivedi3905 anybody who lives near the ocean knows the corrosive properties of airborne seawater droplets. From rusted cars to rusted doorknobs. From brick cancer to sticky crotch.
Just replace the air with a low volatility and immiscible fluid with a different density than seawater. The slug of immiscible fluid flows back and forth through the generator instead of air. You would also have an immiscible fluid interface with air on the land side of the power generator station. Salt, a polar compound, would not traverse through the non-polar immiscible fluid from either direction and the corrosion issue goes away. You would need to change the flow channels and generator design to work with the viscosity of the immiscible fluid.
I've never seen this type of wave engergy creation.... Why are we not doing this? Genius idea!
@dthamilton79 : It was implemented in Wave Power Plant in Mutrku/Spain/Europe. There is also a R&D station.
WOW, more than 10 years this presentation is online. Great !
clear and concise.
this cleared my doubts
thank you sir!
Besides all the other comments about the reasons why this isnt widely used such as the energy vs cost ratio. One of the biggest cons has to do with the fact that ocean/water real estate tends to be the most important and valuble land...especially if in area that allows water access such as a beach. For economic (shipping and water access is limited for most counties), aesthetic (no one is going to want their million dollar view blocked by a concrete bunker), and environmental (beach areas are critical parts of ecosystems) reasons placing large amounts of these structures along most countries shorelines will be seen as a non starter. Perhaps if they could be built on cliff faces or more under ground/water it could be viable but those all will just increase the costs of building it so makes it less attractive.
Beaches in new england would be perfect for this. Rocky and cold.
Hm, make concrete look like the beach itself and build a free real estate on top of it with lots of noice isolation. Done.
Jonathan Pascus basically about money, it's always about money.
mankind's biggest downfall, GREED.!!!
Tim Schutte Actually it's about politics. It's always about politics. There are millions of miles of coast line that are uninhibited and the land is cheap, but the politics still won't allow this.
Coastal habitat, like any non human habitat, has an elevated importance in politics, and is worship by many environmentalists. Here in the states we have dozens of overlapping burocrocies to protect, reclaim, regulat, design, study, and install "natural coastal habitat". And to be fair, some form of regulation is needed.
Yes. I know. How can installed habitat be natural? It's the government. It doesn't have to make sense.
My basic piont is that there is an army of greenies fully committed to stop this or any other type of green energy that could have any negative impact in the immediate area of the energy source or transmission of that energy product.
Jonathan Pascus , or design tubes that lead up to a plant instead of the plant being directly on the ocean. your correct, it's all about money
Each one delivers about 34kw during 1800 hours a year. A single windmill can deliver up to 2000kw during 3000 hours a year.
source ?
The idea is very nice. I am doing research on producing electricity from waves.
@The Beacon: Great. The more people spread different ideas for using energy from the waves, the better! :)
Oh this is quite interesting alternative to other wave power that directly rely on the waves and water motion rather than air pressure.
Air is compressible.so it wont rotate the turbine unless the air pressure is very high.
Better connect a reciprocating piston with a fluid medium.
@Sho Yu Weeni what if u make the turbines smaller?
heck why not just ditch the air thing and dunk the whole system under water? waves still go up'n down right?
@@phoboss950 correct. A different wave-action generator would be way better.
Вот именно. Что бы воздух начал крутить турбину, давление воздуха должно быть существенным а сопротивление турбины при вращении, минимальным. Но это значит и минимальные вырабатываемые токи.
Скорее как забавная и дорогостоящая игрушка получается. А точнее некий обман людей, показывая доступность энергии, но не показывая бесполезность такой затеи.
This vedio uploaded in 2009 .. now it's 2017 . Still this technology under paper ?? Hmm must have some inefficiency
koo koo investment to profit ratio in such projects are very low and also the energy output is not that lucrative as compared to wind and solar. A medium sized solar project which took 7 - 10 years in the past for the recovery of the investment. Now takes 3 - 4 years. Thus killing of this method for time being. But I do think that when we come to practical saturation point for the renewables we'll come back to this method.
or some politics involved lol
Scotland has continued to build new wave energy devices. It's not just "under paper".
Salt?
Eyesore
This advert hides how much energy is generated which means not much power is generated from this turbine.
Plus the moist salty air will eat that turbine in about a year. This is just a way to get quick green bucks, without any care for longevity.
At Sea level air is 784 times less dense than water. Even with the increased mechanical stress and greater corrosion issues, wouldn't it be far more efficient to place the turbines inside the water?
And what happens to the wind turbine when a storm blows in and the waves start crashing over the shoreline? How would that wind turbine fare when sea water starts surging through it? What sort of pollution would it give off and what would be the cost to rebuild or replace it every time a storm blows through?
1:42 did he say: generate energy? My physic teacher would kill me for this
Its not a wromg phrase.... what u r referring to is manufacturing energy which is impossible.... i think energy can be generated but mot mamufactured.. ur physics teacher would not kill you for this...
well energy can only be transformed not created
@@LeonOcean_ yup
The colloquial use of the phrase is fine, just like when even your very own physics teacher talks about sunrise and sunset.
It appears very environmentally friendly! What is your power output?
500KW
Not bad. Not bad.
MegaOcean22 It needs numbers yes
Richard Clutterbuck so it can be made out of composites then. No big deal.
Peak power, continuous power, rated power?
Approximately after 10 years in my recommendation can somebody tell me what is going on.
A new video about the functional statement of the Wells Turbine is in progress
RUclips is promoting green energy schemes to viewers because they politically support the climate crisis nonsense in the media.
Didn't catch the religious comment? "Harmful greenhouse gasses."
Studied this over 25 years ago. Very expensive, useful gadget. Problem is you won't see ocean power in any touristy beachside.
Interesting idea and only shows given funding that engineers
can develop all sorts of alternate forms of energy. This along
with solar and wind power should provide most of the energy
we need.
@A7ty34g: Thank you for your comment. You are absolutely right! The mix of solar, wind and wave energy could be the solution.
yes Best project for marine areas in India ... i was try to recommend this PROJECT
here's an idea , use x2 turbines designed for optimum efficiency , use large 1 way flap valves (carbon fiber) for one way
airflow into each turbine . Use semiconductors to disconnect the load from each generator , when the flaps are closed.
Add a few batteries so the transient outputs can be smoothed out , for connection to the grid.
I thought i am watching this for the first time when I found this video has already been liked
I love this video my class and I watched this to learn about Energy good job you got a class of 23 students to watch your video!
Hello Livi! Thank you so much for your comment. We are very honored that the students like yours find it interesting enough to watch it. At the moment we are working on further videos which will explain the "Oscillating Water Column" concept more in detail as well as the explanation of the Wells Turbine. Also, the explanation of further (mostly unknown) kinds of sustainable technologies are in the pipeline. Unfortunately, the production of this kind of 3D explainer videos is very difficult and time-consuming, but we will do our best to publish the videos as soon as possible.
Ideas for the Green Planet we are now working on sustainable energy! So this could be a good help
This is one of the best ideas I've seen so far for using wave energy to produce energy, it seems very uninvent to the environment and easily maintainable,
These would be great... Imagine if they had a mechanism that could also pull and clean litter and plastic debris from the shoreline too!
Ryan Lloyd you should check About seabim
Seabin
Yay! And a special chamber for adopting seal pups who've lost their mommies. Aww..
- So you prefer water or air for the power station?
- Yes
Wtf just today my lecturer thought me this
And this video came in my recommendation today itself
Big tech is listening your phone mic .. key words are constantly recorded and processed by algorithms .
This concept 11 years ago. Where are all the Wave Power Stations?
How much power does it generate? At what cost to build? How reliable and steady is the electricity? NONE of this was mentioned.
@Kevin Stroup: Thank you for your comment. Please watch our second movie, there you will find additional information. ruclips.net/video/kXfSrCWA7qA/видео.html
We are not the producers or vendors of this technology, so we can't give you the costs. You can find more scientific information about the plant in Mutriku and further developments here: opera-h2020.eu/
We all need this types of system of power generation.
No, inferior and inconsistent
Some Comments on this Video talk about "Energy Change Issues", but the “Cost” of not “Going Green” is far more “Expensive” than the Dollar Cost of all the Issues combined.♻️
No. An asteroid or super volcano will come along, and non of this green shit will matter.
The Earth is doomed. Time to move to better planets.
Your Comment is “Clean & Renewable” & Fossil Fuel based "Mental Residue"
cannot “Muddy the Water”
"If fully exploited"
What does that mean, exactly? Have these things all along every coast in the world?
yes
Interesting but I have a lot of questions.
-Have the environmental costs of all the concrete required to make thousands of these been looked at?
-How many KWh can one of these produce on average in reasonable conditions?
-The footprint on the shore is substantial so have there been studies on marine life loss due to affected beach and tidepools?
-How will you get the power to cities and towns farther from shore without substantial parasitic losses in transit?
-What is the expected response to pushback from beachfront property owners and basic public outcry due to the appearance?
I could go on but this is a start...
@ PlanktoniusRex : Thank you for your questions. The power plant visualized in this movie was in operation between 2008 and 2018 on Island Islay and was primarily an R&D site. There is a Wave Power Plant in Mutriku, Basque Land in Spain. It is built into the wave breaker. It was commissioned in 2011. The plant has a capacity of 296 kW from 16 turbo generator sets. The study of the impact on the nature was made for the wavebreaker. For further information please visit the plant or opera-h2020.eu/.
I am very sorry for the family living in the house near by.
The sound of that system must be horrible.
What if the chamber fills with water
thought the same thing
well this is just an example, I believe it could be scaled in such way, to prevent this. Like if it was 30 feet high above the sea or if the whole thing was made water resistant. which nowadays isn't such a big problem.
Tributary House Ltd. Thought the same thing :)
That is not possible due to physics
Water level sensors to close the upper vent and create an airlock?
Hi, and thank you for sharing such great ideas, now this Scottish Island Eyler...? I was not able to find it on google maps, and would love to see the real thing. Any links, or advise on locating this island? thanks again.
It is Scottisch Island Islay.
thank you.
just put this numbers in google map and you will see it
55°41'25.6"N 6°31'20.1"W
Islay, where some of the world’s best scotch comes from...
55.690414, -6.522126
Indonesia is a nation filled with islands. This power plant surely will be very useful.
Xendra Ferdanz Ocean realestate is too desirable so Indonesia is doing this: www.power-technology.com/news/
Indonesia has lots of volcanoes. It should use Geothermal if possible.
How's it handle tides? Is the chamber deep enough? How does the shaft length affect the energy yield?
What keeps a rising tide from flooding the electronics of the turbine?
We are in a world of renovations, keep it up guys!
Background reminds me Windows Xp Classic Wallpaper BTW Video is quite Informative Great Work
...
...so why don't you just use the movement of the water? I mean directly?
By separating the turbine from direct contact with the ocean, it is protected to some extent from corrosion and from some of the highest mechanical loads from waves e.g. turbulent flows or even "slamming" when the wave breaks right on top of you.
there are other devices that directly use the movement of waves to generate electricity, there is the buoyancy unit and the line absorber, since they are mid ocean, maintenance is an issue, they require high pressure flow lines/underwater powerlines and they can also be easily damaged due to the strength of the waves
erik dee salt spray in air is more corrosive than submersion in salt water. Pumping air is less efficient than water as pumped air has thermal losses Since air heats up when it is compressed. But I suspect that the elasticity of air does serve to protect the equipment from severe forces. However you could also just have blow off valves it would be held close by gravity and would pop open to relieve excess pressure
after 12 years this pops up in my recommendations. best gift of 2021, so far
Would have been nice to address how much power this generates. Also, what happens when the waves are larger and get sucked into generator? Will generator work with air and water movement or does the flap in front close?
@John Jerrehian: Thank you for your question. This wave power station on Island Islay was in operation between 2000 and 2018. The 2 Wells turbines generated 500 kW. The wave power plant in Mutriku (Spain) has a total capacity of 296 kW with 16 Wells turbines. Because this plant is also an R&D plant, not all turbine slots are equipped with the Wells turbine all the time.
@@IdeasfortheGreenPlanet Thank you for your reply. So 500kW per day, (24 or 12 hour period). Any plans on producing more? Lastly, how has the salt water affected the Wells turbines over the 18 years of use. This may be appropriate of some of the islands in the Caribbean.
Hey! Firstly this is awesome! Secondly, I'd like to ask a question: Are bigger waves producing more energy or something?
it's basically the higher or lower it goes the more the turbine spins, one of these maybe able to power a house or two but line them up on the coastline and you can power a city maybe even a state, I don't know the energy potential though if it's even enough
cmb271 If they increase the propeller size and then decrease the channel through which the water flows, more air is being forced through in a the same amount of time, so you'd have a faster turbine and a higher output.
wouldn't the decreasing the size of the channel reduce the ability for the air pressure to flow in and out, the properties of fluid dynamics would cause it to flow to the point of least resistance and decreasing the channel will increase the resistance to the point where the water will simply find a lower pressure point.
Oh, good point. I didn't think about how there would be less in it, I assumed that the same amount would be forced through.
Perhaps we should increase the size of the channel, then make the turbine smaller?
That could possibly work, it would spin it at a faster RPM but would result in lower torque so less ability to spin a large scale generator, you got to engineer it to have enough force to drive the turbine at a decent speed and not burn up the components to quickly, remember these should be a low maintenance type deal so less power but higher reliability is key assuming it's generating enough energy.
The problem is humanity as a whole is wasteful with energy because it's abundant, for this to work we'd need to change our habits and the only way for that to happen is government policy (please no) or a community of sorts whos main goal is to reduce there footprint while living under most social norms.
Why choose an air turbine generator instead of a hydro turbine? water is 800 times denser than air. You could make generators smaller but just as powerful and thus cutting cost even more
Because hydro-electric turbines usually require dams...dams that are hugely damaging to the surrounding eco-system. The name of the game right now is not total power output, but more about efficiency, being as green as possible and not damaging even further our landscapes. Now the last thing I would want to see is entire coastlines barraged by a parade of these, but they certainly can be strategically placed and not nearly as impactful. Not to mention we would still need to use a mix of all other kinds of renewables like solar and wind to really meet demand. Energy sources like coal, nuclear or even hydro-electric are a thing of the past, while the wind, solar or even tidal and geothermal need to be the future and I think 'wave' fits right in with that.
man I love this comment section everyone is so smart
this oscillating water column is just one of the many devices invented to exploit wave energy, so if there was more funds into researching this renewable source than we could possibly work our way around the issues presented
Michael C. Daniels lol, dude, OP is asking why not use sea water rather than the air as the working fluid, not suggesting to build a dam instead
There are other kinds of water and ocean based power turbines. This is just one of them.
after 11 year old video but amazing animation
Is there any video where is explained the princip of turbine rotating in the same direction while the air flows in both direction forward and backward?
@Кајмакам Ефенди: Thank you for your question. The turbine is called Wells turbine. You can see the explanation here: Harvesting the Wave Energy: The Function of Wells Turbine (ruclips.net/video/kXfSrCWA7qA/видео.html)
I was sent here by my school book, but amazing explanation and video 😊
RUclips recommendation huddle. Sup guys.
sup,
LOW TIDE POWER OUTAGES, THAT SOUNDS LIKE FUN
@marthale7 But the energy will be greatly reduced in low tide. If you are capturing water to spin turbines that's not a lot of water. If you are just using the same machine as the video, the ability to compress air has been greatly reduced at low tide. If you move the machine down at low tide then you have potentially more failure points. You also have to figure out how to move it back up.
Either way this video is good for almost nothing. You would need to see a working demo of the machine with more information.
@marthale7 ok, you can't think that. I would like to think that as well but you can only capture so much water.
You are limited by the tide height and how much water your intake can support.
Either way you are still loosing power. Storing water also comes at it's own cost.
Depending on where you live the range is 4 to 10 ft. Are you moving the structure 4 ft or are you dealing with a loss of pressure.
If you are storing water you can store between 3 and 8 ft of water. That's at an incline so the further you want to store water away the less water you can store.
If the tide does not dip below your output you can't generate any power.
Clean "free" sources of energy are great but they have problems.
@marthale7 This is a great setup but as the video states it's all about location. They have massive changes in there elevation. You cannot do the same thing with the thing in the video. The technologies are completely different.
That being said was a good video thanks for sharing.
Is nobody gonna mention that our powerplants are now breathing?!
Excellent ! So simple and brilliant 😀
But what happens during a storm and the water rises enough to run into the turbine?
This is great video.. please keep on posting updates..
Crazy how watching Dr.Stone makes YT recommend you videos about generating energy ...
Recommended in 2019?
Me🙋♂
2020 now
Finally got this topic..
Many educational sites wr lacking this topic. THANXXXXXXX a lottttt☺️☺️☺️☺️
why not two directional and more efficient turbines, one in each direction in alternating operation (with directione valves of course)?
VOITH IS IN MY TOWN
how well does it work?
@@Bushy_P good