CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Renewable Energy Sources
Which is the best renewable energy resources. Some examples are wind, solar, wave, biomass, geothermal, tidal, hydro-electirc, etc. It doesn't have to be listed...if it is renewable go for it.
I have always been a huge fan of Algae Biofuel. The advantages are staggering. Algae doesn't cut into existing food supply, it uses extremely little land to grow, it yields very high energy output (about 4 to 10 times as much as corn ethanol), doesn't require pesticides or fertilizers, it can be grown just about anywhere, it doesn't produce greenhouse gases but actually absorbs existing CO2. The only real downsides are that it uses a lot of water and light to grow and the technology is not yet fully developed.
They're developing artificial photosynthesizers right now, and the generated energy would be direct too. The only real problem is getting past the 30% efficiency limit, but I'm sure they'll find the right compounds soon.
Not fully developed? This idea has been around since the 60's, no? Boy, have we got our priorities sorted.
Well, if we end all government subsidization and regulation, the evil, greedy corporate war-mongers will just use the blood of the innocent... along with oil... that's not subsidized...
I don't know why more investments aren't being made into this. Over 70% of the earth is water, yet no one has considered harboring it's power. Almost 1,000,000,000 people love near a coastline. Wave energy is the future!
Turbines in the water that turn with the flow of water. There are very few drawbacks (the most significant being noise).
Sure, until a great white bites into a turbine and is struck by lighting during a storm and mutates into a super shark which breads with narwhal and the hordes of offspring learn to walk with hybrid water/oxygen lungs and take over the earth... fuck that. I don't want work in a Great White Narwhal mine digging up their precious nephrite and jadeite just so they can use it as conductors in their human mutation experiments creating an army of zombies with the sole purpose of eating our brains when we don't dig up their nephrite and jadeite fast enough. Zombie or slaving away in Great White Narwhal mines Apollo, which part of wave energy do you like better? Because that's what you're trying to damn humanity to ._.
"I don't know why more investments aren't being made into this."
Simple, its a massive risk that isn't worth taking for most investors.
"Over 70% of the earth is water, yet no one has considered harboring it's power."
No, many people have been considering harnessing it's power for a long time, as with all issues of this nature it is highly complex, nuanced, and cannot be expounded by resorting to simple either/or propositions.
The incentive to develop wave energy (thoroughly) just doesn't exist yet, even in my country (which has considerable wave energy harnessing potential) money is being poured into wind because the technology is mature, and if exploited correctly is proven to provide a highly favourable energy balance. This cannot yet be said of wave energy.
"Almost 1,000,000,000 people love near a coastline"
It doesn't matter how many live near the coastline, the infrastructure has been designed to accomodate those people, it hasn't been designed to accomodate wave energy.
"Wave energy is the future!"
Maybe, it's definitely part of the future (i.e. it will inevitably be part of the fuel mix used to satisfy future demand), and it will inevitably start to play a much bigger part in powering society as the technology matures, but the jury is still out.
I think it will be a long time before it becomes one of the more commonly exploited forms of RE, if ever.
"Turbines in the water that turn with the flow of water."
Actually, the best mechanism (referred to as as the power take off system) for extracting KE and producing mechanical power is (still!!!) up for debate. It isn't like wind energy in which a concensus has been achieved on it's optimum design. Standardisation is one of the most important steps in making a technology commercially viable.
"There are very few drawbacks (the most significant being noise)."
There are many drawbacks, most notably with O & M which raises a plethora of technical issues which all serve to increased the the risk asscoiated in investing in the technology.
If you like I'd be happy to discuss further the relative merits and demerits of the technology.
Simple, its a massive risk that isn't worth taking for most investors.
And this is true for most other renewable sources, as well.
The incentive to develop wave energy (thoroughly) just doesn't exist yet
And this is true for most other renewable sources, as well.
money is being poured into wind
And I don't understand why considering how expensive it is compared to coal/nat gas, etc.
It doesn't matter how many live near the coastline, the infrastructure has been designed to accomodate those people, it hasn't been designed to accomodate wave energy.
And this is true for most other renewable sources, as well.
I think it will be a long time before it becomes one of the more commonly exploited forms of RE, if ever.
I meant that more as a personal hope than a declarative statement.
Standardisation is one of the most important steps in making a technology commercially viable.
I believe this will have to change if we are to optimize energy production. Diversification of sources is almost inevitable, in my opinion.
There are many drawbacks, most notably with O & M which raises a plethora of technical issues which all serve to increased the the risk asscoiated in investing in the technology
This is because of a lack of research and investment, not limits of the technology itself.
"And this is true for most other renewable sources, as well."
Not to the same extent, the uncertainty with payback and ROI is far greater with wave energy than most forms of RE.
"And this is true for most other renewable sources, as well."
Again, not true, the threat posed by dwindling fossil fuels and anthropogenic warming has brought the need for clean energy technology to the forefront, while also making increased energy efficiency of the utmost importance. Wave energy hasn't been utilised on the same scale as wind, solar, biomass, etc., precisely because the technology isn't as reliable.
"And I don't understand why considering how expensive it is compared to coal/nat gas, etc."
I could go into some of the reasons if you like but they will take a while to hammer out, I can explain exaclty why with regard to my own country,the short answer is with regard to the US, China, Russia coal/nat. gas/oil is still king, I'm surpised you don't know that.
"And this is true for most other renewable sources, as well."
Well, yes, this is sort of comparable with the others, but wave energy represents the greatest challenge in this regard, I can't think of any other as inflexible as wave on this point.
"I meant that more as a personal hope than a declarative statement."
That wasn't at all clear.
"This is because of a lack of research and investment, not limits of the technology itself."
No, this is actually more do with the limits of the technology itself, I mean if you really want to get down to the minutia of the minutia on everything then yes you have point, obviously if the worlds best researchers drop whatever it is they're doing and start working exclusively on wave energy technology, then a viable solution will result pretty quickly, the fact is, it is the physical limitations of the technology which result from trying to the extract energy from such a harsh and chaotic environment, obviously investment helps, but that can be said of any technology that hasn't matured.
Not to the same extent, the uncertainty with payback and ROI is far greater with wave energy than most forms of RE.
And this is only the case because it is not as matured as other energy sources. The POTENTIAL for growth is MUCH greater with wave energy than say...solar or wind. If I had money (one day...) I would put my money in wave energy. The potential for growth is there.
Wave energy hasn't been utilised on the same scale as wind, solar, biomass, etc., precisely because the technology isn't as reliable.
Again. This is because the technology hasn't been developed.
with regard to the US, China, Russia coal/nat. gas/oil is still king, I'm surpised you don't know that.
That is my point. Not only is the infrastructure for coal/nat gas already in place, it is much cheaper than solar and wind alternatives. Considering that, I don't understand why those expensive technologies are being invested in.
Well, yes, this is sort of comparable with the others, but wave energy represents the greatest challenge in this regard, I can't think of any other as inflexible as wave on this point.
In fact, I would argue the opposite. It's proximity to large population centers would significantly reduce the amount of energy infrastructure needed to go from source to consumer. Also. Nuclear, Biofuel, Geo-thermal, hydro-electric, etc. all require vast amounts infrastructure in place to even produce energy. In that regard, solar and wave, (and wind to an extent) provide a unique opportunity in that very little is required (one turbine) to begin energy production (well, technically energy transformation).
obviously if the worlds best researchers drop whatever it is they're doing and start working exclusively on wave energy technology
Well, not to that extreme, but yes. That is my point. After the invention of the first computer, if we had ignored the concept and declared the "uncertainty with payback and ROI" too great, and that "the technology isn't as reliable," we would never have progressed. With wave (like with the early computer), the potential is there. It simply isn;t be developed. With solar this is not true. The current technology has reached its limit. Unless the whole design is radically changed, I doubt there will be much growth.
"And this is only the case because it is not as matured as other energy sources."
No, I've already stated this, when I said not to the same extent I really meant it. Investors make financial decisions based on the computed price cost probabilities, most forms of RE have tolerable levels of risk relative to wave.
"The POTENTIAL for growth is MUCH greater with wave energy than say...solar or wind."
Wind has matured, but this isn't necesarily true of solar.
"If I had money (one day...) I would put my money in wave energy."
Well if you did it right now it would be an exceptionally stupid decision.
"The potential for growth is there."
As was said in my first comment, but short of some kind of a breakthrough in the development of the technology, this will take a lot of time to realise.
"Not only is the infrastructure for coal/nat gas already in place, it is much cheaper than solar and wind alternatives."
Well, thats kind of obvious, it's obvious by the nature of the source of energy.
"Considering that, I don't understand why those expensive technologies are being invested in."
Recognition of the need to diversify the fuel mix and reduce reliance on finite resources, RE technology should have been invested in back in the 70's, our survival on this planet is in a lot of danger.
I'll respond to the other two points at a later date, I'm sleepy.
Well, you'd be wrong to do so, I'm quite knowlegeable on this subject, I've studied wave energy in college and one of my master's degree's is in sustainable energy engineering. I don't claim to be an expert, but relative to you I am.
"It's proximity to large population centers would significantly reduce the amount of energy infrastructure needed to go from source to consumer."
It really isn't as simple as that, firstly, this would only serve as an advantage to those centers located near the coastline, secondly, it would only be an advantage to coastline areas that are geologically and topographically suited to wave energy exploitation, and let me say (without going into too much detail on the matter) that these areas ( for a variety of reasons e.g. technical, environmental , social, heritage, conservation etc.) are not half as plentiful as one might think. That effectively leaves us in a position where in order to get the most out of the technology we have to go out to sea (which incidentally is where most of the experimentation is being conducted), this is very often the case anyway if high energy yields are to be captured.
"Also. Nuclear, Biofuel, Geo-thermal, hydro-electric, etc. all require vast amounts infrastructure in place to even produce energy. I"
I don't mean to sound insulting, and please don't be offended, but you clearly don't know what you are talking about. I have some figure's for the state of the technology in the third quarter of 2009 in terms if its nominal "levelised and normalised" cost of electricity, Tidal and Marine generated wave energy is of the order of 250-400 $/MWh, this is puts in the "most expensive" bracket with regard to RE generated electricity. The only other technologies that approach this are crystalline solar PV's and CPV tracking system solar PV's.
"In that regard, solar and wave, (and wind to an extent) provide a unique opportunity in that very little is required (one turbine) to begin energy production (well, technically energy transformation)."
You might think what you're saying is extremely sensible, but you're overlooking at lot of technical issue's you simply aren't aware of by virtue of the fact that you haven't studied engineering in college, I don't think you've even given any consideration to the problem of intermittency which is at the core of wave, wind, solar, and others. I can assure you of one thing from studying this stuff in depth, there is no silver bullet solution, virtually all of the technolgies have their merits and demerit's, but the challenge facing wave is (currently) far greater than many of the others.
"fter the invention of the first computer, if we had ignored the concept and declared the "uncertainty with payback and ROI" too great, and that "the technology isn't as reliable," we would never have progressed."
You don't seem to have any appreciation for the way markets function, people predict mathematically the potential rewards of pouring more funding into research, this is all about weighing up risk vs. reward, the risk with wave is currently far too great. Incidentally "payback","ROI", and "LCCA" are the means by which projects are financially appraised, this is the way it is done.
"With wave (like with the early computer), the potential is there."
The analogy is very weak.
"With solar this is not true. The current technology has reached its limit."
Actually, between lab and industry there is a discrepanacy if 25% in the achieved level of efficiency.
A good book iassuming you haven't heard of it is called "sustainable energy without the hot air", by the Professor of Natural Philosophy at University of Cambridge David McKay, and currently the chief scientific advisor to the UK's Department of Energy and Climate Change. It's very good book, many college engineering degree courses use it in their first year as an introduction to the subject, it was written for the well read layman but has technical chapters at the back futher explaining certain concepts. The back of an evelope calculation's presented in it are very good at giving the reader an idea of scale, I still remember being given excercise's to copy his calcultions but apply them to my own country (he does them with england in mind). It's also very well written, he tries to write it in the style of the novel and not as a scientific text so as to attract a greater readership, and its very accessible to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of high school physics and maths, it's free online if you're interested.
one of my master's degree's is in sustainable energy engineering
Best not get into that then...but I do wonder why, despite the reasons I mentioned, that energy transportation is less feasible for wave energy.
this would only serve as an advantage to those centers located near the coastline
That would be 1/7 of world's population. I never insinuated that we should rely ONLY on wave energy. In fact, I stated the opposite. We need to diversify our energy sources. Wave energy is simply my favorite.
, it would only be an advantage to coastline areas that are geologically and topographically suited to wave energy exploitation
Depending on the design. I have seen several. The damn-like contraption, a simple turbine, fin attached to ocean bottom, a snake-like contraption, etc. Regardless, each could be optimized and deployed for each environment. All ocean coastlines are affected by tides and wind so all have the potential for energy conversion. Obviously, some locations are better than others, but regardless, with new research, I am confident further innovations will occur.
That effectively leaves us in a position where in order to get the most out of the technology we have to go out to sea
Depending on which type of energy-capturing device is used.
the problem of intermittency which is at the core of wave, wind, solar
To different extents. Wind being the smallest intervals, solar, and wave (assuming tidal energy) would have moon cycles to adjust to. But if we step back, the sun disappears, wind may stop blowing, but the tides will always ebb and flow. Granted at very different rates, but the point remains.
idal and Marine generated wave energy is of the order of 250-400 $/MWh
I would have expected higher considering the technology available. I have said this all along. As it stands today, wave energy is impractical; I am talking about its potential. As I assume you know, solar was even more inefficient in its early years. I am basing my argument on wave's unexplored (relatively) potential.
I can assure you of one thing from studying this stuff in depth, there is no silver bullet solution
Something I agree with and have said all along.
between lab and industry there is a discrepanacy if 25% in the achieved level of efficiency
Total efficiency (in which case I think your numbers are BS) or as a percentage of current achieved efficiency?
A good book iassuming you haven't heard of it is called "sustainable energy without the hot air", by the Professor of Natural Philosophy at University of Cambridge David McKay
Well, thank you for the suggestion. I will be use to check it out.
Sorry for the late reply. I wasn't going to bother but I feel there are a few more points worth addressing, plus, this topic really interests me.
"Best not get into that then...but I do wonder why,"
I hope you don't think I'm think trying to brag or anything like that, I just want you to realise I have a lot more expertise than you do.
"despite the reasons I mentioned, that energy transportation is less feasible for wave energy."
Well, the infrastructure for transporting energy for onshore wave isn't so much less feasilble as it is less flexible, as I said, this is due to a variety of reasons. Offshore wave is less feasilble as the electricity needs to be piped to shore, and then connected to a power line in order to be transported to a substation i.e. significant investment is required in transporting electricity under water, this is due primarily to the corrosivity of the environment.
"I never insinuated that we should rely ONLY on wave energy. In fact, I stated the opposite."
I never said you did, I give you more credit than that, the main point of contention originally was the fact that you couldn't figure out why people aren't currently investing more in the technology. Without getting into the nitty gritty details, I feel I've gone some of way to explaining why, wave energy technology is simply not currently at the same level of many other RE technologies.
"Wave energy is simply my favorite."
I can understand why, but you should be aware of the inherent limitation's of the current state of the technology.
"a snake-like contraption,"
Yes, the PELAMIS sea snake and the aquamarine oyster are currently among the most promising wave technologies, but again, I feel I should emphasise, each technology is in too early a stage of it's development to predict which (or what mix of technologies) will be the most prevalent in its future commercialisation. Wave energy technology is probably where wind was back in the late 70s or early 80s.
"Regardless, each could be optimized and deployed for each environment."
Markets don't work like that, and for good reason, you see, although diversity in technology is nesscessary in deploying it in differing environmental conditions, in optimising the technolgy, the level of diversity needs to be minimised in order for the technology to be thoroughly refined at the least possible cost. When the technology finally becomes fully commercalised many of the designs you mentioned will end up being almost completely discarded.
"All ocean coastlines are affected by tides and wind so all have the potential for energy conversion."
Beleive me, if coastline's were as fruitful from an energy harnessing perspective as you seem to think, then the majority of the research wouldn't be conducted out at sea on offshore wave energy technology like it currently is, and like I said previously.
"but regardless, with new research, I am confident further innovations will occur."
The thing about about offshore wave (the return from onshore wave just isn't significant enough) is, there are a number of quite critical stumbling blocks currently holding it back from becoming commercialised. O & M is a serious difficulty because of the way the national grid functions, again I can see myself going further and futher into detail, so I'll just leave it at this: If viable solution's can be found to these problem's then wave will become commercialised quite quickly because it will become an attracted investment opportunity.
"Depending on which type of energy-capturing device is used."
No, again, your lack of knowledge and expertise in this letting you down, the amount of energy that can be successfully captured from onshore wave just isn't large enough (proportionally) to contribute significantly to the fuel used to satisfy overall demand. This has very little to do with the type of device.
"As it stands today, wave energy is impractical;"
That doesn't concord with your original statement: "I don't know why more investments aren't being made into this."
"As I assume you know, solar was even more inefficient in its early years."
The problems with each technolgy are to dissimilar qualitatively to make a viable comparison.
"Something I agree with and have said all along."
This wasn't explicit in any of your previous statements, I suppose you sort of alluded to it when you wrote: "Diversification of sources is almost inevitable, in my opinion."
"Total efficiency (in which case I think your numbers are BS) or as a percentage of current achieved efficiency?"
Total efficiency of course, or to be more accurate the sunlight to electricity conversion efficiency, with is called the cell efficiency for short, and to be honest, 25% is actually a conservative estimate. Crystalline silicon modules and panels that employ thin-film solar cells currently dominate the market (1). They have average efficiencies of 20-24% (24% is actually quite generous), but have much cheaper production processes, this is partly to do to the material, but scalability is the primary factor as the materials can always be made cheaper once a cost effective production process has been found.
As I said, there is an appreciable difference in efficiency between lab and plant, 25% is actually a conservative estimate i.e.
"The Spectrolab scientists also predict that with theoretical efficiencies of 58% in cells with more than three junctions using improved materials and designs, concentrator solar cells could achieve efficiencies of more than 45% or even 50% in the future(2)"
significant investment is required in transporting electricity under water, this is due primarily to the corrosivity of the environment.
No doubt the cost per mile will be more expensive, but there will be significantly fewer miles to cover. Would there not?
each technology is in too early a stage of it's development to predict which (or what mix of technologies) will be the most prevalent in its future commercialisation. Wave energy technology is probably where wind was back in the late 70s or early 80s.
Which is why I remain hopeful.
Markets don't work like that
Well the government sent market adoption to hell when it began artificially subsidizing clean energy. I'm not saying that is bad, but what the market deems viable is irrelevant if the government chooses to invest in it.
if coastline's were as fruitful from an energy harnessing perspective as you seem to think, then the majority of the research wouldn't be conducted out at sea on offshore wave energy technology like it currently is
Perhaps I have been reading one two many issues of Popular Science/Mechanics.
That doesn't concord with your original statement: "I don't know why more investments aren't being made into this."
I don't see the conflict. Investments improve the technology and eventually may yield commercial viability.
The problems with each technolgy are to dissimilar qualitatively to make a viable comparison.
But both faced challenges (fabrication costs, material purity for adequate electron flow, energy storage, sunlight absorption, etc.).
Total efficiency of course
That can't be possible. To my knowledge, the efficiency of commercially available cells was around 12-16%. The lab cells can't possibly be three times as efficient considering there haven't been any major breakthroughs. That would make solar the most cost effective source of energy, which doesn't seem possible.