Green Energy From Manhattan's East River 316
circletimessquare writes "New York City's waterways are geographically unique in that they force tides from Long Island Sound down the East River in one of the most concentrated, powerful flows on the East Coast. If all goes as planned, a company called Verdant Power will build a $20 million, 10 megawatt underwater turbine field there by late 2005. The turbines spin slowly enough so that they pose no threat to wildlife (har har), are placed in spots where they do not interfere with commercial shipping, and are deep enough to not interfere with recreational boating. About the only drawback to the scheme are the supply shortage periods when the tides are slack. The New York Times has the scoop."
Very impressive (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Very impressive (Score:2)
--
3 new Gmail invitations availiable [retailretreat.com]
funny you should mention that (Score:2)
they have been getting their water supply straight from the hudson river for decades, no problems!
read all about it [pokwater.com]
What was it? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What was it? (Score:3, Funny)
Thats because you came during the day, stop by at night, the green stuff will be glowing then.
I don't know about 'green' (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't know about 'green' (Score:5, Interesting)
Check this article entitled San Francisco-area garbage generates energy [enn.com].
Green Energy? (Score:4, Funny)
Materials (Score:5, Funny)
fusion (Score:5, Funny)
wild life friendly turbine? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:wild life friendly turbine? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:wild life friendly turbine? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:wild life friendly turbine? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:wild life friendly turbine? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:wild life friendly turbine? (Score:2)
How about the people in Manhattan (or wherever!) could get a big class action law suit going against the people who polluted upstream? What's wrong with that scenario?
Re:wild life friendly turbine? (Score:2)
Re:wild life friendly turbine? (Score:2)
I just now tried this on my younger brother and sure enough, his arm didn't come off till I swung the sword real hard!
at 30 rpm? (Score:2)
for us it would be like running through a rotating lawn sprinkler and avoiding getting wet
Re:wild life friendly turbine? (Score:2)
For the sarcasm impaired: that's the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard.
thats nothing (Score:2)
10MW (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:10MW (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, it'll make a dent. Small dent, yes, but so what?
Even a Dubya fanboy like me knows that we need to diversify, instead of bleat and whine.
Re:10MW (Score:3, Insightful)
Tim
Re:10MW (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a lot of pizza
Re:10MW (Score:2)
Cars, trucks, etc are the big users of oil for energy!
Re:10MW (Score:3, Informative)
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/234
Re:10MW (Score:2)
Actually, about 1% seems about right. A lot of nuclear reactors appear to be capable of just below or at 1GW.
Re:10MW (Score:5, Funny)
wbs.
But 10 Mw for 20 M$ is a good price. (Score:2)
But $2/watt is a good price. Last time I looked solar panels were going for about $10/watt.
Also: Around here solar panels generate the equivalent of about 5 hours worth of their rating per day and I bet a tidal generator would do significantly more than that.
What's (24 / PI) * integral[0 = x pi] (sin(x)**3)? It should beat that because it would flat-to
Re:10MW (Score:5, Informative)
So, power generation in Manhattan doesn't need to be super cheap or super high capacity, it really just needs to be low-pollution and moderately inexpensive. They're not competing with nuclear or coal or large hydro, they're competing with on-demand natural gas, which is nowhere near as cheap.
Reminds me of (Score:5, Informative)
10MW (Score:2, Redundant)
Green Indeed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Green Indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Green Indeed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Green Indeed (Score:2, Insightful)
And the idea of green energy is impossible - wind and solar take up too much space to be viable. Ireland is converting as much area as possible into wind power and they are going to generate 10%. To have enough solar power to replace all energy needs we would need to cover someplace the size of Colorado with panels, and replace an area the size of New Jersey every year. All hydroelectric is already in use.
Re:Green Indeed (Score:3, Informative)
Many green energy solutions can be implemented in a decentralized manner, instead of in huge projects like you mention. Installing them in this manner could make use of space that could not otherwise be used for energy generation.
Covering your house's shingles with solar panels would be expensive, but this could provide for [nrel.gov] much of the electrical needs [exeloncorp.com] of your household. For about $14,000, you can buy 24 165w Sharp 1575mm x 826mm solar panels [solar-electric.com], and save about $500 a year on electricity.
A 20m tower with a [bergey.com]
Re:Green Indeed (Score:5, Informative)
The Price-Andersen Act simply allows the government to act as an insurance broker for nuclear power plants. The plants PAY for the insurance, and it only covers small accidents-- maximum liability for the government is something like $10 million. Furthermore, the act allows for priave companies to step in to take over the insurace after a period of some years-- something that private companies have indeed done. (The PA Act has actually made taxpayers money, as plants have paid out more than they have received, just like any successful insurance company. So it doesn't count as subsidy at all.)
As for the "$66 billion" figure, that's even worse. They mean, "The military has spent $66 billion researching nuclear reactors for their own use between 1948 and 1998."
Nuclear power does receive some subsidies, but not many-- especially compared to wind and solar, which are absolutely not cost effective. Coal, the second cheapest method of generating electricity (next to nuclear, unremarkably), receives over a billion dollars a year from the federal government just to support miners who have developed black lung disease. Oil receives billions as well. In fact, anything you can name receives more money than nuclear.
Nuclear power is not popular, and politicians know it. If nuclear power really received these nefarious subsidies, every senator in Congress would be biting at it so s/he could claim to be "fighting for safer power." Do you really think any member of Congress could pass up the chance to guarantee re-election?
(PS-- solar has some nasty hazardous waste products. The panels themselves are about as toxic as cyanide, as measured by LD50, and generous amounts of arsenic are produced as a result of the doping process of the silicon panels. Furthermore, when solar panels electromigrate, that's it-- if you try to recycle them, you end up using more energy than you got out of the panel in the first place. Those shiny toxic squares have to be thrown away.)
IANANT,BIASTGMOLAARR (Not a nuclear technician, but I am studying to get my operator's license at a research reactor.)
Re:Green Indeed (Score:3, Informative)
It would be nice it you got your facts straight... Most of your statements are outright lies !!
"The Price-Andersen Act simply allows the government to act as an insurance broker for nuclear power plants. The plants PAY for the insurance, and it only covers small accidents-- maximum liability for the government is something like $10 million. Furthermore, the act allows for private companies to step in to take o
Re:Green Indeed (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't the east coast... (Score:2)
I'm thankful all the time that I live in British Columbia, with our abundant hydroelectric power.
Re:Isn't the east coast... (Score:2)
The East Coast of the US also imports a whole lot of power from Quebec. I would assume this is mostly hydroelectric.
We import power in BC all the time... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's right, we're power importers in BC. We're just lucky that BC Hydro can literally turn on and off the generators with next to no cost. This lets them, and eventually us, benefit from high priced exports when there's peak power demand elsewhere, balanced against larger amounts of relatively cheap imported power at off-peak times.
I guess my point would be, don't be too proud of power being mostly "clean" hydro - it ma
So much... (Score:2)
Re:We import power in BC all the time... (Score:2)
Re:Green Indeed (Score:2)
Question about New York water salinity (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm making a radio broadcasting book, and I had a question about the New York water system that I never quite addressed.
It's on this picture: http://www.usinternet.com/users/kyledrake/newyork- radio.jpg [usinternet.com]
It's an old field strength determination from the 1920s. See the water area below the taller buildings with the '20' strength? Is that water salty, fresh, or a mix of both (salty-leaning, or fresh-leaning even)? The reason I ask, is because if it is salty, it shows with more signifigance the blocking ability of structures (as salt water is very conductive).
Thank you!
that's salty, definitely (Score:5, Informative)
on the right is the east river, which leads to long island sound (all ocean) and behind you, from the picture's perspective, is the atlantic ocean (all ocean)
that spot you are talking about is between the tip of manhattan and governor's island, al ocean water, all the time
Re:Question about New York water salinity (Score:2)
Re:Question about New York water salinity (Score:5, Interesting)
For very high frequencies, like Wi-Fi, the groundwave is considerably less important. With Wi-Fi, the line-of-sight is the most important factor. So you're right if you're thinking about higher frequencies, which are where most of the modern radio systems are operating. My book is about mediumwave (AM band) broadcasting however, so concepts like groundwave still play a pretty important part.
Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Usine Maremotice de la Rance is based on the French equivalent of the St Lawrence Bay. This is a place where the tide amplitude is one of the highest in the world.
At low tide, the sea truly is miles away from the shore. I have been there, and it's amazing how far away the ocean can go... and how fast it can come back. Saint Malo, the nearest city, was actually (a few centuries ago) an island at high tide, and people had to wait for the low tides to cross over the sand to the city.
The 'Usine' itself has been pretty successful, and provides 'clean', tide-based electricity to Saint Malo and other cities, but its ecological impact has been underestimated: the Rance, which used to be a clean river is now severely clogged with mud and silt that are not evacuated by the tide, to the detriment of wildlife. Many bird and fish species have left the river for others or have died off completely.
I hope the company that will build the New York project has taken this data into account for its project (which seems to be the case).
Look a little closer to home (Score:5, Informative)
It puts out 20 MW, and is on the Bay of Fundy, where you will find the truly highest tides in the world.
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
Don't you mean the Bay of Fundy? [bayoffundy.com]
Highest tides (Score:3, Informative)
very close to st malo is the ras de sein, which can lay claim to having some of the fastest tidal currents on earth, eg 9+ knots (real fun in a 30 foot sailing boat with a max hull speed of 7 knots, even more fun when wind and tide oppose each other... lol
the bristol tides run up the severn,
Attack of the nit-picker (Score:2, Funny)
At low tide, the sea truly is miles away from the shore.
And how, pray tell, is this feat accomplished?
Actually this reminds me of one of the stupid practical jokes the more experienced hands would pull on the 'boots' (newcomers, green-behind-the-ears, etc) when I was in the Coast Guard. They were so used to finding various lines (ropes) for different things-- anchor lines, mooring lines, whatever, that when told to go find a shore line, they'd start looking for rope. The laughter would always come
Great Idea, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
None of the green energy sources can provide the reliable energy that modern society demands. While this one will at least be very predictable, it will only be able to generate power when the tides are right, and that has no relation to peak power usage times. Sometimes the timing will be right, but the rest is wasted.
This will probably get me mod'd Troll, but nuclear power is the best available option, and since we cut research into making it better, we are now behind France (the horror) in nuclear technology.
Despite all the concerns, nuclear is the best choice we have until we can finally find a more efficient way to generate electricity without using steam.
Re:Great Idea, but.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Great Idea, but.. (Score:2)
You mean radioactivity? Yeah, because we know coal power doesn't produce any of that. Oh wait, it does [ornl.gov].
Power Caching (Score:2)
That said, I totally agree with you about nuclear power. Modern reactors are much safer and produce much less waste than reactors of the past. Some reactors can use weapons-grade plutonium, which provides an easy solution to the problem of decomi
Re:Great Idea, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
but just think for a moment--solar still generates SOME power on cloudy days. turbines can produce some energy as well on the days that arent ideal. i dont know at what point turbines become useless, but it has to be a pretty calm day.
The point is it mitigate your resources in many locations. if every roof had had solar panels over their shingles, and every telephone/power pole had a mini turbine ontop of it, then i ask you--how often is it pitch black and dead calm out EVERYWHERE--night time?--even then the clam is usually localised.
clouds move, and so do wind patterns. energy can be shipped from the sunny spots to the cloudy, and so on and so forth.
Excess energy from all of those turbines and roofs---well if we ever get to a hydrogen economy--there wont be such a thing--it will go toward electrolosis for hydrogen production.
speratic nuclear plants can pickup the energy needs of nighttime hours and such--hell if it was a true hydrogen economy, people would just use some hyrdogen to make their electricity, also, maybe we'd see an end to the excessive use of streetlights littering towns and cities. Their great untill about 10:00 pm, but cmon, after that its an annoyance.
nuclear has and will continue to have its place, but in my opinion it should be used as a backup for when the more "green" methods cant put out enough juice.
Re:Great Idea, but.. (Score:2)
Excess energy [...] will go toward electrolosis for hydrogen production.
That's called peak shaving. BTW, isn't the FA about tidal power? When was the last time the tides failed to come in (or go out)?
Re:Great Idea, but.. (Score:2)
The fact is, nuclear power can and will solve all our our energy problems. The problem of nuclear power is merely one of "waste" and what to do with it. The upside to this is that with the power of nuclear energy, we could be launching waste out of the planet within a decade.
Non-renewable resources drying up should *not* be an issue, but they are because of the fear o
There is one but... (Score:2)
Hydroelectric power aka dam power.
And while these typically need speical circumstances to be viable, they are one of the ways that you can have green reliable power.
But like most people here I agree that nuclear is the way to go in the long run. The Japanese have that neat little one that's about the size of a large bus if I remember correctly. Perfect for small towns.
Re:Great Idea, but.. (Score:2)
Why would we care about generating electricity without steam? It's not like we're going to run out of it.
Re:Great Idea, but.. (Score:2, Interesting)
If you are more interested in having energy decentralised, with millions of potential islands instead of a few hundred, with the costs (and profits) decen
Re:Great Idea, but.. (Score:2)
Real life provides few magic bullet solutions. Coal/Oil/Nuclear base load units all have the problem that they only work well with sustained static loads with the same power factor, so compromises are used there too. It may surprise you that such things as pump storage hydro are mainstream solutions to using that base load when it is not in demand, and giving that extra burst of power when it is needed. In
The USA is in deep energy doo-doo.. (Score:2)
This is something that needs to be underscored; what is even worse is the magnitude to which green energy sources fall short. It's a myth; it's outright LIES at worst. Hydrogen is not an en
Re:Great Idea, but.. (Score:2)
10 MW and all the trouble with salt water. (Score:5, Informative)
sell even bigger ones (4.5MW I believe.)
These turbines takes a lot of manpower to keep running. Stuff needs to be repaired every month or so. I can't start to imagine the problems one would have when trying to put them down into the salty waters of East River!
But then again: One have to try and get the technology running. That was how the windturbine-buisness got started, too, and that is big buisness these days.
high maintenance turbines (Score:2)
East River (Score:3, Funny)
NTITE
Note to self: (Score:2)
I wonder why they went that far for testing anyway?
Somewhere in Pakistan.. (Score:3, Funny)
what about the dead bodies? (Score:2)
Other benefits (Score:3, Funny)
Green Energy? (Score:2)
Cost of saving electricity compared to making it. (Score:5, Insightful)
There isn't *ANY* power generation system that doesn't have some kind of impact. The issue is whether this has a more acceptable impact than the other ways to get that much power.
The problem I have with these projects is that if you spent the same amount of money on energy saving plans, you'd end up with the same results - but with LESS environmental impact - not more.
For example, I live in Texas where a large fraction of everyone's electricity bill is paying for airconditioning and heating. By spending about an extra 5% on the price of my house, I ended up with about three times better thermal insulation factor compared to a typical Texas home. As a result (since A/C and Heat are such large fraction of electric bills here), it's no suprise that my electric bills are about half what my friends and neighbours are getting for similar sized houses. (My house is built with this stuff: http://oikos.com/companies/grnblock.html)
Crunching the numbers, my additional 5% up-front cost is repayed in about 5 years...and the house should last at least 25 years so this is a really good deal.
However, getting people to pay that 5% up-front cost is HARD. (Why else would so few houses be built that way?)
But what if the government or the electricity generation companies paid you to add that extra insulation and took the cost of it back from your fuel bill savings in the form of a tax of some kind? An initial outlay of $20M would halve the electicity consumption of about 5,000 houses like mine. That's about the same as building a 3.5MW powerstation. Not as good as the 10MW one that they are planning to build in NY for $20M - but mine lasts for 25 years without maintenance, labor, etc - has not technical risk and has a really GOOD effect on the environment by reducing the net amount of electricity that has to be generated.
That's just one example - I'm sure there are others.
TANSTAAFL (Score:4, Insightful)
Also known as conservation of energy.
The wind-turbine people said "oh, it couldn't possibly make any difference." Now - surprise - there's some evidence wind power screws with wind patterns.
The tidal-power people are saying "it couldn't possibly make any difference" and give figures like "the entire planet's energy needs could be filled twice over by the ocean's tides". Except that actually getting that much energy out of the ocean would involve, oh, stopping the tides, and I don't think anyone's claimed that won't cause serious problems.
So this generator produces 10MW, does it? Where's the power coming from? Answer: it's slowing down the river. Will this cause future problems? I have absolutely no idea, but it's something that would be nice to find out.
Whenever someone comes up with a source of untapped power, think for a second and figure out where the energy is actually coming from.
Good luck stopping tides. (Score:2)
I'm curious what evidence you have that wind power 'screws with wind patterns'?
Re:Good News (Score:5, Interesting)
The only problem is that because the source is tidal, the availability of the power cycles around the clock once per orbit of the moon. Depending on the tides, the power may or may not be available during periods of peak demand, so you still need either an alternative source of power or a means of storing the power until it's needed.
good points, except... (Score:4, Informative)
but wait there's more: as mentioned in the article, the turbines swivel on their base and face the incoming tides, then swivel on their base and face the outgoing tides... so really, that's FOUR TIMES per every 25 hour tidal cycle, so that's 6 hours 15 minutes between high and low tide, the vast middle period of which the turbines are cranking away
as mentioned in the article, there's only roughly 6 hours every day when the turbines aren't moving... and those 6 hours are cut up into 4 equal pieces, equally spaced apart, in a 25 hour cycle, which means that every day, the slack periods shift an hour
so the devil's in the details, but it certainly means that this power source isn't as transitory as you initially described it, although it is still most definitely cyclical, just on a much tighter schedule than it originally appears to be
Re:good points, except... (Score:2)
What? That doesn't make sense. If the tide comes in for 12.5 hours and then goes out for 12.5 hours, you get TWO cycles. The swiveling of the generator doesn't make the
you don't understand tides (Score:2)
so that's 1. coming in, 2. going out, 3. coming in, 4. going out... every 25 hours, all of which the turbines harvest
there is only one moon, but there is a tidal bulge facing the moon, and an equally large bulge on the other side of the planet
why this is so is beyond the scope of this post, but if you just gis for tides, you'll see that i am right
Re:you don't understand tides (Score:2)
Aha. I'm with ya' now. Here [noaa.gov] is a nice graph that lays it out pretty clearly.
tides are really weird (Score:2)
on top of that, you have spring and neap tides... spring where the sun magnifies the moons effect by 20-30% when it is parallel to it, and neap when the sun reduces the moons effect by the same amount because it is perpendicular
so if we lost the moon, we'd still have tides from the sun, only 1/3 the size
there's also
Re:Good News (Score:3, Interesting)
I recently read a book about the 1968 power outage in NY, and back then they had 6 lines w/ about 500 megawatts each (or thereabouts). I imagine it might be somewhat more now, but that gives you an idea.
Re:Good News (Score:3, Informative)
According to Business Council of New York [bcnys.org], they have 35,847 megawatts, but need another 9,000 megawatts. So make that 45,000 kilowatts in total.
Re:Good News (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Good News (Score:2)
Uhm Ok! (Score:2)
Slashdot is reminding more and more of a bunch of stupid people in a stupid scene of this stupid movie (who's name escapes me) where people went to a book club to discuss a book without actua
Re:from the pcb-heaven dept???? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:from the pcb-heaven dept???? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:from the pcb-heaven dept???? (Score:5, Interesting)
just so you know, PCB's often build up on road surfaces, having been expelled in small quantities from vehicle exhaust.
That gets washed into the surrounding drainages
In Victoria BC, environmentalists are trying to sue the city for allowing PCB's to enter the surrounding ocean. Victoria doesn't dump PCB's. The source was found to be the runoff from roads.
Victoria isn't even a big city.
It's progress-Silver bullet. (Score:2)
People expect a "silver bullet" solution. One energy source that'll solve all their problems. However a wise energy policy is a distributed, varied enery policy. From green generation, to efficient homes, and businesses.
The humour... (Score:2)
Re:Humans More Important Than Animals (Score:2)
Give a choice between the welfare of people and the welfare of animals, why choose animals? Would they sacrifice themselves to protect us?
It's wrong to think of humans as anomalies in an otherwise pure and pristine natural setting.
the difference is like this: (Score:5, Insightful)
liberals tell you what to do with your money (fiscal liberals), but they don't tell you how you should live your life
so liberals lose monetarily, and conservatives lose socially
and therefore, liberals are friends of the poor, whie conservatives are friends of the rich
it's a choice you make, which hypocrisy bothers you less, and frankly, i like people who tell me what to do with my wallet a lot more than i like people who tell me how to behave in the bedroom
Re:the difference is like this: (Score:2)
Personally I dislike both about equally, with a slightly greater aversion to seeing "wallet bosses" get into power. Government has a much easier time getting away with taking our money than it does dictating our morals, so I tend to prefer the fools who attempt the latter rather than the former. The ideal solution when you only have two sets of fools to choose from is a nice even mix c