Comments on: Wave Of The Future: Electricity From Water

CBS Evening News: Companies That Sell Water Generated Energy Are Competing With Traditional Power Plants

[runningralph]

I was wrong in my previous post. The $5,400,000/yr is for 50 turbines. 30 turbines would generate $3,240,000/yr. Still, I think it should be a money maker. Maybe someone with a better perspective can enlighten me more.

[runningralph]

At $300/mo, 30 homes expend $9000/mo, or $108,000/yr for electricity. According to this article''s estimate that is the output for 1 turbine. If the turbines are installed 30 at a time the cost of per turbine installation would be reduced. An onshore substation would distribute power to the existing grid cheaply. I disagree with the 50 year payback. 30 machines would generate $5,400,000/yr. At that rate I would estimate 3-5yr payback. Maintenance costs are not mentioned here but if the machines are well designed and installed maintenance would be low. I am a technician and not a financier but I don see why this type of project should not be a money maker.

[honestabe8]

"Water speed is measured in knots..."

Only to keep the ocean tied..or tide

[eliasnews]

Whadabout da fish?
Whadabout consequence of the slowed water? more gunk deposited in stream? more dredging required?

Posted by jackobyte at 01:55 AM : Dec 15, 2008

The East River (it''s not really a river) and Hudson do no silt up. The Hudson is getting deeper because of the additional building along its banks. The turbines will slightly increase the flow of water around them. Same water moving through less space. The turbines are supposed to turn at 32rpm. I don''t know how fast the propellers from the ferries and tugs turn. This is a prototype testing thingy. Let''s take a look at it. If it''s viable we''ll build more and cut down on some pollution and save some fuel. If it''s not we''ll have to try something else.

[nirpinder]

I wholly agree with Whitewolf60 and CaribouBarbi. I lived in the USA for about eleven years. The amount of electricity that is utilized there still amazes me. In India we are hard pressed to light all of our streets at night and to find electricity for 20 hour home lighting. It is difficult to imagine how we would cope if we had the same density of air conditioners, escalators and other electricity operated gadgets as the States. It is indeed time to promote renewable energy since it is a lot cleaner and more efficient.

[skeezix06]

Jackobyte said what I was thinking.

[whitewolf60]

I have to agree with you, Centerfall94.... Maybe not so much "removing the republicans excuse for war", although THAT would be great, but we need to break our dependence on oil, PERIOD. There''s MANY other ways we can generate energy that wouldn''t destroy Mother Earth. I also think that these huge windmills that they are starting to use are the right way to go. T. Boone Pickens was right. Solar power is also WAY underused. I personally think that the cost of Solar cells is being ARTIFICIALLY kept high - c''mon, that''s at least a 20-year old technology. Let''s GET WITH THE PROGRAM when it comes solar energy. As someone who is mostly Native American, I say we had better start healing Mother Earth or she might just turn on us!

[rf35]

In a related note, Scottish Power is often ranked as the lowest cost electricity provider in the UK. They also operate the largest on-shore wind farm in Europe.

[centerfall94]

The cost of the turbine, installation and maintenance to power 30 homes would take 50 years of use to recover the investment.

Posted by BRdeckard at 12:38 AM : Dec 15, 2008

Even if this were true, which I''m not sure it is, I don''t know what the point is. We need to stop our reliance on oil; we need to remove the republicans excuse for war.

[jackobyte]

Whadabout da fish?
Whadabout consequence of the slowed water? more gunk deposited in stream? more dredging required?