Wave Of The Future: Electricity From Water

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

(CBS)  Currently, 19 percent of the world's electricity comes from water. But with two-thirds of water resources untapped, an enormous power plant has used coal and natural gas to provide power to New York City for decades. But now, under the waters of the East River, just yards away, a new technology is taking aim at the giant, armed with metal wings.

"We laughingly refer to this as our flight at Kitty Hawk," says Trey Taylor, founder of Verdant Power

Verdant is the first company to sell clean energy generated by water, reports CBS News correspondent Priya David.

"Here in the East River we get up to 5 nauts on a good day," says Jaime, a Verdant engineer. "Around 40 kilowatts of electricity per turbine."

That's enough to power about 30 houses a year, David reports. Windmill like structures churn underwater with the river's current, pumping electricity through cables that connect to an energy grid on shore.

For now, the turbines power the lights in a parking garage, and a supermarket on Roosevelt Island.

"I wish I could get it in my house," says Luis Bueno, a manager at the Gristedes grocery that gets its power from Verdant's turbines. "I pay so much money for gas and electricity. That's a great idea."

But great ideas take time to develop into working models. At first Verdant underestimated the river's power and the blades kept breaking down. Now, this third generation is re-tooled and more durable.

"We will be filing for a commercial license with the regulatory commission to put in 30 turbines and the field has a potential for 300," says Taylor. "There's where the MTA has expressed interest in harvesting that power."

By the end of the year, Verdant plans to unveil its biggest project yet. It will power an entire subway station - the lights, the escalators - using just turbine power. They dream of the day they can power the trains too, here in New York, and around the globe.

"A lot of the world is water," says Michael Russell, Scottish Minister of Environment. "A lot of that water moves and a lot of that water moves very fast. It's also entirely predictable."

Russell came to see New York's progress with tidal turbines. Scotland uses a different method to capture energy from waves and its abundant coastline powers entire communities.

"It's wonderful to see it going on in the center of one of the great cities of the world," Russell says.

The technology is also catching on in smaller towns, David reports. From the coast of Maine to Washington's Puget Sound, alternative energy companies are competing to become serious hydro-power players.

"Now we're off and running," Taylor says. "And boy we're going to run hard."

[DrPeterLGriffiths]

And there's more good news about using water to generate electricity.
The Future Is Electricity From Water

Can there be a Clean Energy Race Winner?
The RE<c [renewable energy cheaper than coal] puzzle posed by Google.org has been solved!

The future now is the ?Electricity From Water? discovery, a real game changer. Read about it at this blog http://www.climatecleanup.net/blog/the-future-is-electricity-from-water


The breakthrough discovery website estimates capital costs also 90% lower giving hope to low cost electricity for billions of the world's population refer http://www.cleanelectricitycompany.com/



http://www.climatecleanup.net/blog/the-future-is-electricity-from-water

[pat1967-2009]

ne_patriot7

The problem with the salmon fisheries has as much if not more to do with over-fishing as it does with the dams. If you think putting a turbine under the surface of a river or in a tidal flow wont have an impact on maring life, you''ve got a thing or two coming. Any time you extract energy from a system you change the nature of the system involved. Big turbine blades spinning under water is essentially the same thing as a dam. As the article indicates, the energy/turbine effiency is fairly low, requiring many turbines to match the output of single turbine at Grand Coulee Dam.

[ne_patriot7]

Oh really? We here in the Pacific Northwest have been utilizing clean energy from water for many, many years.

Posted by pat1967 at 10:12 AM : Dec 15, 2008

But this is utilizing the NATURAL movement of water, not the artificial movement of water as is present when you construct multi billion dollar dams that permanently screw up the ecosystem..

[nordeck52]

If the concept of making electricity from water comes as a surprise to you, then where have you been all your life? Water is the most powerful natural force on earth.

[roghil]

The new method I heard of is putting plastic strips in rivers that create electricity by the current flowing over them. No danger to fish at all.

[debinok1]

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.
Posted by Whitewolf60
**************
You would be suprised how many people in the past have tried to use solar and wind power, regardless of the cost. The problem comes in when incorporated townships make deals with the electric companies that forbid "individuals" to use them, they do this by making the city regulations so strick that it is impossible to use them. And petitioning the cities to allow them on a case by case basis is very time consuming and expensive. Get rid of the blocks against them and you would see more of them.

[ofbyfor3]

I was wondering if tidal flow could be put to the same use and then saw this:
''Russell came to see New York''s progress with tidal turbines. Scotland uses a different method to capture energy from waves and its abundant coastline powers entire communities.''

If tiny little Scotland can do it, why can''t we?

[photon816]

This water thingy is a great idea! These people are geniuses. Where have the American people been all this past century, as they allowed certain private groups to become politically powerful billionaires, profiting from barrels-full of black slimy yuckie oil to burn? The people let the auto industry become based on oil and its refinement into gasoline. Baroom baroom as you step on the GAS pedal.
How''s THIS for an idea?? Instead of submerging turbines underwater, how about making big paddle-wheels that just dip into the rivers, and turn with all that leverage behind them? That would produce a lot of electricity with zero pollution.
Oh, never mind. The OIL Conglomerates would never allow that to happen, or to be improved upon. There''s too much money to be made in oil, and the people have allowed their legal rulers and decision-makers to be "elected" by whichever candidates have the most money to finance their campaigns. The American People have been brainwashed to believe that they have no more to say about anything until the next "election".
Still, giant paddle-wheels, dipping into the rivers with huge leverage, look to me like "The Wave of the Future". (Perhaps we''re 100 years too late to choose that direction. After all, we need black, slimy, gunky OIL to lubricate the gears.)

[pat1967-2009]

Verdant is the first company to sell clean energy generated by water, reports CBS News correspondent Priya David.

Oh really? We here in the Pacific Northwest have been utilizing clean energy from water for many, many years. The Public Utility District (PUD) in my county has some of the cheapest electricity in the country. Oh, and by the way... Water turbines are nothing new. The young, don''t know how to research, idiot reporters today look upon old technology as if it were new simply because they haven''t seen it before in their limited experience.

[quickly101]

We are living in the infancy of clean energy, years from now people will take it for granted like we do oil, coal, and natural gas today. I just hope the planet will recover from years of global warming, but unfortunately I won''t be here to see if it does or doesn''t.

[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?