Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Water Now More Awesome Than Previously Thought

Posted by samzenpus on Wed May 25, 2005 07:33 PM
from the it's-like-you-can't-live-without-it dept.
Dan writes "Wired has a great article about a guy who thinks we can provide unlimited energy , accelerate crop growth, desalinize and purify drinking water, obtain health benefits and provide air conditioning, all by pumping up water from the depths of the ocean."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by coop0030 (263345) * on Wednesday May 25 2005, @07:34PM (#12640467) Homepage
    This is a fantastic idea, except for one flaw. This would only work for cities near the coast. Where I'm from (Minnesota) I don't see how this could possibly work (Lake Superior is very cold though, that is a possibility).

    I like how he irrigates the farms. The sweating of the pipes below ground is a great idea. It seems much more efficient than spraying water everywhere, and having a lot of it evaporate.

    He may be a nut (or not, I'm not a good judge of character), but he does have a great way of looking at his environment.
  • by CypherXero (798440) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @07:37PM (#12640494) Homepage
    "You see, I apply cold temperatures to different parts of my body in three bastings. The third is the most complicated - I ice the terminuses of my lymphatic system. My body heals itself. Look at these hands," he says, opening and closing his fists. "I have no joint pain of any kind!"

    You're just numbing the pain. Idiot.
    • Amateur. (Score:5, Funny)

      by JonTurner (178845) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @07:50PM (#12640604) Journal
      I've been applying icy cold beverages (usually beer) to the INSIDE of my body for years, and let me tell ya what, after a six'er, let me assure you I'm feeling no joint pain at all. I do tend to have a headache the next day though...
        • by JonTurner (178845) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @08:46PM (#12640958) Journal
          Sort of like the old phrase "no pain, no gain" eh? Well, we all know that beer makes the drinker smarter and I believe the headache problem is the drinker's awareness of the weak brain cells dying off. In the interests of science and a higher IQ, I'm prepared to work through the pain and set my sights on the lofty goals beyond. After a few keggers, I shall be left with only the smartest, most capable neurons and without those inferior, weak brain cells to get in the way, I will undoubtedly be the smartest person I know.

          That little headache problem was due to my prematurely stopping the drinking cycle too early, causing pain. Well, friend, I won't make that mistake again. I pledge to you that I will drink, nonstop, from here on.

          Slashdot, I salute you!
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25 2005, @07:50PM (#12640607)
      Seriously, cooling parts of yourself with ice causes the body to react and change bloodflow to the cooled area, usually increasing it markedly. The extra circulation does help healing.

      Funny thing is, heat kinda does the same thing, albeit not as effectively. Most folks don't like the ice and go for the heat for injuries, though, because heat "feels better". Icing an injury can actually be painful - drop a sprained ankle into a large bucket of ice and water for ten or twenty minutes and the first minute or so will have you twisting and turning and writhing as your foot hurts like hell from the cold water. The pain does go away though after a minute or two.

      Heat won't cause that pain. But heat will increase the internal bleeding from an injury if it's not fully healed yet, making the injury worse. Icing an injury will help stop any internal bleeding.

      At least that's what my college football trainer told me one time as I was sitting waist-deep in a whirlpool of ice and water to treat a pulled groin muscle. Talk about having your balls shrivel up...
      • by lax-goalie (730970) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @11:03PM (#12641800)
        Well, yes. Yes I have,,,

        The poster's exactly right. Applying both ice and heat to an injury manage the circulation to the area.

        When you have an acute injury, say, a sprained ankle, you get an inflammatory response -- swelling. That's nature's way of splinting and immobilizing the injury. That problem is that all that swelling later turns to scar tissue, in essence, crippling you afterwards.

        What you're trying to do is to use cold to decrease circulation during the acute phase of an injury (to reduce swelling), and to use heat and motion to increase circulation during the chronic phase (to help break up scarring and create new muscle and bone). The rule of thumb is ice for the first three days, then heat, but really, you want to ice as long as there's heat coming off the injury.

        Both ice and heat will make you feel better. In my experience, ice is initially less comfortable, but WAY more effective in the end. And, ice combined with Aleve is even better. :-)

        As an aside, ultrasound therapy works the same way as heat, albeit in a more focused and comfortable way. You never want to use it acutely, but for things like old hamstring injuries, it's the freaking bomb.

        During rehab, (and frankly, if you're playing competitively, you're ALWAYS in rehab) you end up using both heat and cold. Usually, that's heat beforehand (to increase flexibility and circulation) and cold afterwards (to reduce inflamation from the trauma to old injuries). After a while, you just get used to the routine -- although spending a half hour with your balls in an ice whirlpool is never any fun.

        No, I'm not a doctor or a physical therapist, but after a broken leg, a blown hamstring, one remaining ligament between two ankles, twenty five years in the cage, and a trip playing in the World Games, you get to know these things...
  • by B00yah (213676) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @07:37PM (#12640496) Homepage
    That /. would post a story on the awesomeness of water shortly after ThinkGeek begins selling a Water Powered Clock [thinkgeek.com] and a Mini Water Dispenser [thinkgeek.com]

    Stupid planted articles...I'll buy what I want!...oooh...clock...
  • by mindaktiviti (630001) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @07:38PM (#12640505)
    Best. Headline. Ever.
    • I see a flaw. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by tehdely (690619) <usemike@spamblocked.com> on Wednesday May 25 2005, @07:40PM (#12640518) Journal
      Doesn't pumping up water from the ocean consume lots of energy?
      • Re:I see a flaw. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25 2005, @08:00PM (#12640676)
        I think he is counting on inertia, or some more subtle effect I can't think of.

        The articale mentions that once the system is primed, it takes very little energy to keep pumping.

        Think about it. You're not pumping water up into the air, you're pumping water above other water. Without any pumping, the water will automatically lift the water to, you guessed it, sea level. You only neet to lift it the extra 30 feet to your beach side farm.

        Getting the system started probably takes a lot of power as you have to get all the water in your pipe moving fast enough so the water won't warm up by exchanging heat with the outside water, but one it's moving, inertia will help you keep going. You only need to make up for friction, and for the fact that cold water is slightly less dense.

        Then again the article mentions that the pipe acts like a siphon, so maybe there is some other effect I can't think of. Maybe the decreased pressure because of the pump makes water freeze and therefore rise? dunno.
      • Re:I see a flaw. (Score:5, Informative)

        by peacefinder (469349) * <alan@dewitt.gmail@com> on Wednesday May 25 2005, @08:07PM (#12640718) Journal
        That's what I assumed at first, too. But according to TFA it allegedly sustains itself like a siphon. It's mostly a one-time problem to get the flow started, I guess... then the siphon does most of the work. (Presumably with some level of ongoing pump assistance.)

        If true, that is a truly neat hack.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25 2005, @07:40PM (#12640517)
    Be careful! Dihydrogen Monoxide [dhmo.org] can be a dangerous thing! Spread the word.
  • ocean temperatures? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by victorl19 (879236) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @07:40PM (#12640519)
    Wouldnt excessive use of this method perhaps alter ocean temperatures?

    Maybe it will turn out like windmills- they take negligible energy out of the wind.
    • by werdnapk (706357) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @07:57PM (#12640655)
      Hydrothermal events (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent [wikipedia.org]) exist in the oceans and pump out water at temperatures very close to, if not, at boiling temperatures. Pumping warm water back into the ocean is not going to make that much of a difference on the oceans.
      • by fireduck (197000) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @08:21PM (#12640806)
        Pumping warm water back into the ocean is not going to make that much of a difference on the oceans.

        Perhaps. Perhaps not. In Huntington Beach, California, for the past several years, the beaches have had to be closed during the summer due to bacterial pollution. The obvious cause was the wastewater treatment plant dumping partially treated sewage 7 miles off shore, and that was somehow coming back onshore. Models, however, demonstrated that this was very unlikely because of water column stratification based on temperature (colder water, more dense, can't come up).

        One factor not included in the models was an electrical generator station on the beach that drew in ocean water for cooling. It would discharge the warm water back to the ocean. However, it discharged the warm water at depth. Warm water, being less dense, rose to the surface, creating a nice thermal pump that would carry with it the colder water at that depth, some of which was certainly co-mingled with the discharged sewage. (this wasn't the entire reason for the beach pollution, but certainly was a contributing cause.)

        So, yes, discharging warm water back into the ocean can have unintended effects.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25 2005, @09:22PM (#12641226)
          Us out here in the east coast know this problem pretty well, and when i was in highschool i was part of a research program that went out onto the ocean water and collected samples.

          Turns out the problem is when it rains, the sewage treatment plants reach compacity and dump untreated sewage into the ocean(this is pretty prevalent in the long island sound and would happen anywhere there is sewage treatment facilities and rain).

          Overflow spillage happens much closer to shore usually than any pipe they send out and 7 miles seems way excessive as the outflows i visited were at best 3 miles from the plant, most much much closer, like 4 - 8 hundred yards.

          The algae bloom and nitrate concentration near these pipes was insane. In fact in the long term this increases algae so much surface algae becomes so thick once vibrant life deeper down gets no light, dies, creates more bacteria and it can become a run away reaction. Eventually the algae bloom can cause massive amounts of fish to die, then mammals and so on.. quite nasty.

          But the problem happens without any warm water being added back into the ocean. Likely its just not understanding that its compeltely raw sewage overflowing because the plant cannot handle rain load and sewage load at the same time.

    • by Kafka_Canada (106443) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @08:05PM (#12640705)
      Oceans are big - really big - you just won't believe how vastly, hugely mind-bogglingly big they are. You may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to oceans.

      (ref. [brainyquote.com])
  • dude (Score:5, Funny)

    by thesalodonkey (855820) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @07:40PM (#12640528)
    it's way more awesome than you even know... now where did i put my bong... what? no way! that uses water too! sweeeet!
  • by G4from128k (686170) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @07:48PM (#12640585)
    The efficiency of these system is extremely low because the temperature difference is so miniscule. For thermodynamic efficiency purposes temperatures are measured in Kelvin and temperature differences are only a few percent. The maximum efficiency of these plants in an ideal world is only 6%. When you account for the very large amounts of energy needed to pump huge volumes of water, the real efficiency is only 2-3%. This FAQ covers this and other issues. [poemsinc.org]

    Yes, you can get energy, but not much.
    • by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @08:27PM (#12640841) Homepage Journal
      But since you're not paying for the heat, the only effect efficiency has on the economics is the cost of the plumbing.

      What scares me is the environmental impact. These plants will pump a lot of bottom water back out near the surface. Because of the low efficiency, it will be a huge amount of water compared to the capacity of the power plant. Water near the bottom is oxygen poor because nothing can photosynthesize in the abyssal dark. It's nutrient rich because there's a steady rain of dead things from above. Dump that into hot oxygenated surface water and you're making an ecological change, which means the results are unpredictable. If you're lucky you get better fisheries from a fertilizing effect.
    • by bcrowell (177657) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @08:27PM (#12640843) Homepage
      The maximum efficiency of these plants in an ideal world is only 6%. When you account for the very large amounts of energy needed to pump huge volumes of water, the real efficiency is only 2-3%.
      A 2% efficiency isn't a problem. Efficiency tells you the ratio of the energy you can sell to the energy you put in. But if the energy you put in costs zero, then efficiency is an utterly unimportant number.

      What's more relevant is to compare the cost of building the plant to the money you can make by running the plant over its planned lifetime. That's the relevant figure of merit for a nuclear power plant, and I think it's the relevant one for an OTEC plant as well.

      The problem is that fossil fuels are artificially subsidized. Say I increase my energy use, and use an extra megajoule of energy derived from burning coal or gasoline. Well, I don't pay anything extra for the damage I'm doing with global warming, and I also don't pay enything extra for all the wars in the Middle East that the U.S. keeps getting into.

    • There are several factors that make up for the inefficiency in power generation:

      1. the "fuel" is free.
      2. the water is used at least twice, which decreases the relative pumping costs
      3. power generation is just a positive side effect of supplying fresh water.

      Places like Saudi Arabia and Chile, which have lots of sun and salt water, but almost no fresh water, should jump on this. Saudi Arabia in particular, which has all the power it needs, could really benefit.

  • by dacarr (562277) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @07:53PM (#12640634) Homepage Journal
    He's 80, so he can't be lasting very long from here on out. I hope he wrote something down then.
  • by ScentCone (795499) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @07:58PM (#12640666)
    Check out 'Blind Man's Bluff', which is about the post-WWII craziness that was Cold War submarine espionage. This guy is smart, smart, smart.
  • by Locke2005 (849178) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @08:00PM (#12640680)
    Conventional wisdom is that exposure to cold water causes arthritis, not cures it! Having worked one summer in a fish packing plant, I can attest that people do in fact hurt very much after spending 8 hours working with cold water...

    In theory cold-water energy works; anytime you have a temperature differential it can be harnessed to create energy according to the laws of thermodynamics. In practice, I'd question whether the constant pumping and maintenance (saltwater is highly corrosive) wouldn't require more energy than you get out of this system.

    One more thing: it's all fun and games until you suck a whale into the input pipe! But seriously, if you pump up nutrient-rich soup from the deep, in a few years your pipe is going to be so clogged up with marine critters that your flow rate is going to tend towards zero...

    • by Altima(BoB) (602987) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @08:47PM (#12640968)
      One more thing: it's all fun and games until you suck a whale into the input pipe! But seriously, if you pump up nutrient-rich soup from the deep, in a few years your pipe is going to be so clogged up with marine critters that your flow rate is going to tend towards zero...

      Not to mention it'll be damn traumatic for anyone who digs out some of the deep sea's scarier denizens [oceans.gov.au] from those pipes...
  • by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @08:12PM (#12640747)
    Water is way more awesome than most people realize - because of hydrogen bonding -

    It is a key component in life; it's solvency and structure are what makes biochemistry work.

    It has about the widest range of temperature as a liquid of any simple material - making life possible over the face of the earth.

    It is the closest thing to a universal sovent we will ever see.

    Since it expands on freezing ice floats - just think what a mess the oceans would be if they were made of something that shrank when it froze, and the ice sank. The planet would have much wider extremes in temperature just because of that small fact.

    Wate has an immense heat capacity compared to other liquids... moderating our weather

    The beat goes on; it's unique chemistry and physics are whe we live off of every day.

  • Cold Shower (Score:5, Funny)

    by Adam Avangelist (808947) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @08:17PM (#12640784)
    No wonder my girlfriend always tell me to take a cold shower.

    Faster growing fruit + unlimited energy + free air-conditioning = multiple orgasms (profit!!!)
  • by limabone (174795) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @08:30PM (#12640853)
    There are several office buildings in downtown Toronto that are cooled via cold water pumped from lake Ontario. http://www.enwave.com/enwave/view.asp?/dlwc/energy [enwave.com]
    • by Omkar (618823) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @07:40PM (#12640527) Homepage Journal
      Do you have any idea how much water there is in the ocean? And what the specific heat of water is? By the time we're pulling enough energy to make a difference, we'll have colonies in multiple solar systems.
        • Yes and by screwing with the oceans themodynamics we will have finally ruined earth as a livable habitat

          Ok, take a deep breath, and try to develop a sense of proportion. Oceans are big. Very, very big. We're talking miles deep, and thousands of miles across.

          Ocean thermal plants will work with pipes that are very, very small in proportion. Even 100-meter diameter pipes raising cold water from the deep, will have an effect that's just about immeasurable.

          Ocean thermal energy poses no more hazard of disrupting ocean currents, than windmills do of stopping the wind.

          -jcr

    • by dacarr (562277) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @07:55PM (#12640644) Homepage Journal
      Lessee, water converts to steam and might break down, but odds are will recondense into... water. So where are we depleting this source? And if it's temperature, remember that heat rises, so by default (and by convection) this water is its own heat sink.
    • Re:Good, but... (Score:5, Informative)

      If this technology is going to be so successful why isn't being tried all over the place?

      Because there are only a few islands throughout the world where it's practical. If you have a continental shelf, it ain't gonna work.
      • Re:Good, but... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ultramk (470198) <ultramk@noSpAm.pacbell.net> on Wednesday May 25 2005, @09:18PM (#12641199)
        Well, there are some other places... for example the Monterey Bay submarine canyon (bigger than the Grand Canyon, all underwater.). Fantastic place for deep-sea ROVs to explore.

        The biggest problem that I see is one of location. For a lot of this stuff to work, you need a few different things:
        1. Cold, deep water.
        2. Warm surface water.
        3. Warm, humid air.

        So you're limited to equatorial regions with available deep water. The UK won't be using this.

        m-
    • by pla (258480) on Wednesday May 25 2005, @07:57PM (#12640661) Journal
      Luckily it's pure grade-A horse poop.

      Er, no, not really. Granted, this particular guy sounds a few gallons short of a hogshead, but deriving useable energy from cooling things off works exactly the same way as by heating them up - Namely, we can use the transfer of energy from the warmer side to the colder side to perform useful work (such as generating electricity). The absolute temperatures involves don't particularly matter.

      So why do virtually all human-created energy extraction technologies use warmer than ambient going to ambient as the two sides? Simple... We humans have enjoyed, at least for the past few millenia, a really easy way to get things hot (ie, fire and a supply of fuel that literally grows on (as?) trees). We have not had a convenient way of making something colder-than-ambient, except very recently (within the past century), and even then only by using the hot-to-ambient conversion to get electricity to do the ambient-to-cold conversion - Sort of trading one for the other, with a net loss in both conversions.

      Deep ocean water, however, provides exactly that - A nearly limitless supply of something colder than ambient, with a high enough specific heat that the energy we can extract from the temperature gradient FAR exceeds the energy needed to pump it in the first place.


      Imagine the climactic effects, and effects on the oceans ecosystems

      Now, here you make a good point. In the short term, or on a small scale, I would tend to say that we couldn't even come close to the natural processes that mix the oceans. But then, people thought the same about burning wood and later oil, until just the past few decades.
    • by ultramk (470198) <ultramk@noSpAm.pacbell.net> on Wednesday May 25 2005, @08:03PM (#12640696)
      It's not untouched by man. From shipwrecks to dumping of garbage to all the usual pollutants, the deep-ocean is most certainly affected by our presence already. Of course, there's nothing new about this, it's just harder to tell when you can't actually visit most of this stuff in person, and have to send ROVs.

      As far as benthic thermal pollution, it already exists in the form of deep ocean thermal vents. Of course these are natural, even though they spew vast amounts of sulphur etc. I would suspect the ecosystem down there would handle this pretty well, since by the time the warm water got back down it would be nearly the same temperature as the surrounding water.

      Of course, it would be wise to run a full-scale test for a few years to determine the localized impact on the biosphere,(before widely deploying it) but I wouldn't jump to any conclusions until we see the findings.

      m-
    • Re:P.H.D. (Score:5, Informative)

      by jcr (53032) <jcr@ma c . c om> on Wednesday May 25 2005, @09:23PM (#12641232) Journal
      I have never heard of an "ocean engineer," as opposed to chemical engineer or electrical engineer.

      Ocean Engineering is a field of civil engineering, which is concerned with construction on coasts or under water. Offshore oil rigs are designed by Ocean Engineers, for example.

      -jcr