we just wanted to know if you can supply us singlephase kilowatt hourmetres?

Regards

kato ronnie paul.

I think you should write a Book or a bunch of publishable Articles on this if you are so sure it is the most viable answer (Deep Geothermal makes sense to me) — Hey, this is a long way from XML related documents. What are you doing nowadays?

TGGary

How about an article comparing the lifetime costs of energy generation for “immense, consistent and price-stable” sources? Start with the delivered product (electrical or heat energy) and move backward in the development timeline, showing waste handling, maintenance, safety, security, operating costs (fuel sourcing, generation mechanics, maintenance), plant construction, siting, environmental impacts, capital investment, technology readiness, promotion. Like hydro, wind and solar, deep geothermal can produce forever. Unlike them, its fuel is “immense, consistent and price-stable” and the environmental impact is much lower.

From the article: … “they still have to set up a power plant or a heating system, which requires big up-front costs and multiple wells. Glaspey estimates that it costs “$3.5 million to $4 million per megawatt” to build a geothermal power station.

“In addition, geothermal power plants have energy efficiencies of just 8 to 15 percent, less than half that of coal plants. High up-front expenses plus relatively low efficiency makes the cost of geothermal electricity about double that of coal, which sells for around five cents per kilowatt-hour.”

BUT Coal plants have identical upfront costs; nuclear, astronomical. Meanwhle a boiler/generator is a boiler / generator. Coal plants have a huge waste-stream of ash and CO2 — a sequestration plant costs much more than a new geothermal plant! Once you finish with the geothermal plant, it’s done. It requires no inputs (a mile-long train of coal a day, mining devastation, tons of nuclear fuel, etc.) other than those required by any other electrical generation system and … there is NO waste.

DISCOVER covers geothermal! We’re interested in all promising energy technologies.

Here’s an article from last April titled The Great Forgotten Energy Source: Geothermal. And 80beats covers the geothermal news as it happens.

The deeper one goes below the surface of the earth, the hotter it gets. About 10 miles down — everywhere on earth! — the temperature is 1000°F. Everywhere on the way is warmer and warmer. The geothermal plant described in US Patent 7251938 has a surface footprint of as small as 40 acres. Conservatively, it could power 135,000 homes … all by itself … and feed the existing electrical power grid.

Discover features the longest tunnels, the deepest mines, and the latest, most complex nuclear technology. Is simple too boring? Halliburton, Exxon, BP and T. Boone are ready to go with it … it’s been right under their noses everywhere they drill. Use the heat.

Deep geothermal uses only local and natural “ingredients” — virtually perpetual and constant heat; its technology is safer, more familiar and cleaner than nuclear, oil or coal-fired plants, and it produces NO waste by-products. Its energy source is all local. No carbon, no radiation, no CO2, no waste. None! The patent referenced above describes why production facilities are ideally located entirely underground. Its life-time ROI/cost/benefit humble the cost-benefit of coal, carbon-scrubbing and sequestration, any type of nuclear, and is competitive with wind and solar — without the surface mess. Smaller footprint than a windfarm. 24-hour a day, consistent production of electricity (or delivery of heat!), conventional technology, “drill ready”. Drill, Baby, Drill! (see http://thnktnk.net/drill.html for some research links).

We have harbors, marinas, oil platforms, cruise ships, nuclear subs with sonar that is capable of killing a man, we dump mercury in them, spill oil, over-fish, in the U.A.E. they built an island in the Persian Gulf by pumping in sand from another spot in the ocean, we have a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico from all the fertilizer runoff, we have floating islands of plastic debris, but nooooo, we better not use the oceans for energy, that would just be wrong.

I think amphiox made a good point with his allusion to the growing population, but in that case, it wouldn’t be our infringing on the ocean’s that’s the problem, that would simply be the effect of the overpopulation which is already taking its toll.
The beast has already been awakened……on the silver screen that is. Has anyone seen Cloverfield? Oh, the prophecy…….

First of all, there could be unintended environmental impact. I’m no marine biologist, I couldn’t tell you how much the ocean depends on the movement caused by waves.

I bring this up as it should be obvious to anyone that these devices would cause a dampening effect on the waves.

I’d also expect they’d be more difficult to work on then a wind tower, for one being underwater is a huge consideration and 2, 650ft long moving assembly.

But my dessention aside I do like the attempt at creating a cleaner source of power.

However I am still sceptical. Almost all “wave energy” systems, in my opinion, drastically underestimate the harshness of the environment they are subject to. Salt water is their medium, as a rule. The wave zone is extremely energetic and variable too. The upper end of the energy scale is the biggest problem as your energy harvesting system has to be able to withstand major storms. Life abounds in the inter-tidal zones so marine fouling is going to be an issue (mussels, barnacles, sea weed, anemones, that kind of thing). These species are appropriately tough for their environment, which happens to mean that removing them from your wave energy design is also tough.

Anyone who has a boat knows that you essentially have to maintain the thing constantly. These wave energy systems are big, heavy, permanent immersion designs as a rule. So simple is good but… is this one simple enough?

Oh, and I just saw a commercial proposal for one of these go before an investor review board. One of the reviewers pointed out that government approvals would be required for this. While our current government may be a little more motivated to move forward… again, how long would an investor have to wait? You’re talking about installing a permanent feature, so navigation charts need to be updated, environmental reviews need to be conducted. The commercial and recreational boating communities need to be consulted. The Coast Guard and Navy may well need to be involved at some point.

The overall success factors are pretty daunting.

There are a number of things that could go wrong if one or several of these breaks mooring in storm conditions and that is something to think about. Particularly since Checkmate doesn’t address the subject except to say that they would be situated in deep water well off shore. Not a bit of which mitigates those hazards. It’s rather easy to see one of these taking out several of its neighbors in a domino fashion. A 650 foot long loose cannon in a medusa’s nest.

Were it to sink, it could do some serious damage to ocean floor communities as well.