Ocean Energy - Wave Power Station 

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

Yea me too.

Right?

Yes

yea.. youtube sucks

Ya

but he still hasn't liked yours RIP

@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.

it is a bot

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

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.

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

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

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.

broooooooooooooooooofucking legend

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).

A new video about the functional statement of the Wells Turbine is in progress

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

Dear Charlie Ross, thank you for your kind words. We appreciate it very much.🤩

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).

@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.

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.

Best of luck for everything!

@ M. Catalina Romero : All the best for you! 👏

@A7ty34g: Thank you for your comment. You are absolutely right! The mix of solar, wind and wave energy could be the solution.

@dthamilton79 : It was implemented in Wave Power Plant in Mutrku/Spain/Europe. There is also a R&D station.

Big tech is listening your phone mic .. key words are constantly recorded and processed by algorithms .

source ?

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

@Ric Nyc : Thank you for your comment. The power plant visualized in this movie was in operation between 2008 and 2018 on Island Islay. Well, it didn't look lovely. There is a Wave Power Plant in Mutriku, Basque Land in Spain. It works on the same principle - the "Oscillating Water Column". It is built into the wave breaker. It was commissioned in 2011. You can also visit it.

No, inferior and inconsistent

@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.

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.

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”

Ryan Lloyd you should check About seabim

Seabin

Yay! And a special chamber for adopting seal pups who've lost their mommies. Aww..

No poor idea, do to efficiently and the amount of energy you use to make it that you will never get back.

@CarroGarÇom : There is a power plant using this technology built into a breakwater. In the year 2011, the Basque Energy Agency commissioned it in the bay of Mutriku in the Bay of Biscay. It is the world's first breakwater wave power plant with a multiple turbine arrangement. The plant has a capacity of 296 kW from 16 turbo generator sets.

sup,

A new video about the functional statement of the Wells Turbine is in progress

RU-vid 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."

@The Beacon: Great. The more people spread different ideas for using energy from the waves, the better! :)

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

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?

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.

مرحبا، هل يمكنني سؤالك من فضلك؟

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.

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

@Winter Star: I don't know if you are serious or not. This kind of wave energy converters are build into wave-breaker, like wave power station in Mutriku/Spain/Europe.

@@IdeasfortheGreenPlanet Serious about what? About spreading word of what look like good tech, that might help people? About educating others of better ways to save energy, or live lighter? Then, yes. Been doing things to save anergy and live lighter, for probably several more decades than you've been alive. I've never seen this kind before. It's frustrating to learn that good tech has been being implemented in certain locations, but the information never spread anywhere else! [due to a number of reasons...greedy industries being a huge impediment!] Only ever saw the propeller ones that are submerged underwater, that harvest energy from currents flowing. Or those giant propellers or eggbeaters that are costly to maintain.

at the same time, it can also damage the community nearby :/

Dont coastlines naturally erode

If so why does coastline erosion matter...

Skylar T because people die and homes are lost when cliff faces collapse?

No way! that's natural.

Uh Uh. The world will be fine, it'll be just the world less one species after we're gone.

@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.

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

@WotS Wung? : This oscillating water column principle was first used for whistling buoy. In 1885 Scientific American reported that 34 of the whistling buoys were operating of the coast of the USA.

@@IdeasfortheGreenPlanet I guess there well be a big problem during stormy day and no tides. Shortage of power to the demand. Welp conteneu for search on sustainable energy. Dem nuclear hard to mine and rare 😅

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.

There are many ways to generate energy from the power of the waves. The Wells Turbine shown here is just one of them - but it has been proven for years and is currently in continuous use in Mutriku.

That's what I thought

Wells turbine!

Water blows air out and suck back the air but I wonder how the turbine will keep turning in one direction

Because you guys are not engineers.

Its work on chopper blades principal. You can checks aerodynamics of this.

The first barrier to ocean power is cost of transmission. The second is cost of generation. We're focused on solving both and the tech is finally coming online. Our tech is barely in it's infancy, but our predictions show total generation and transmission costs below 25% of the current average.

@ElectroFish: It is great that you are working on this issue! Keep on!

@@IdeasfortheGreenPlanet We've now posted our provisional patents and we're submitting our preliminary work for academic review. darkskyinnovation.com/patents.html

Yes it should be ok. The under water inlet opening would be at the lowest possible water level.