Searaser floating pump will use the ocean's waves to generate power
By Joseph L. Flatley 
posted Nov 19th 2008 10:42PM
posted Nov 19th 2008 10:42PM
A twist on the idea of the underwater turbine, the Searaser also uses the motion of the ocean to generate power. The device consists of two independent floats that move with the waves, pumping out seawater as they do. The water can then be pumped inland for hydroelectric power, irrigation, or to hilltop reservoirs for later use. One unit should be able to power 470 homes, and a six-month preproduction trial is currently being planned. You know, as quirky energy solutions go, this one doesn't actually seem all that far-fetched. At the very least, it seems better than going Micro-Nuclear.
[Via The Times]
[Via The Times]
We'll never see this. It'll be another one of those amazing ideas that just get thrown away.
I heard of something called a wave duck... I have heard it on science class in Grade 6, and it was thrown away because of some concerns about marine damage.
like the unicorn
Exactly like the Unicorn.
Nein.
http://www.oceanlinx.com/Currentprojects.asp
Heart progress, it hearts you.
The real reason is that the oil companies pay these guys off or lobby to somehow kill off the project.
Now that'd be a boner!
We have just about as much chance of seeing this as we have of Snow Leopard being "innovative", or "groundbreaking".
Mac tie in for the Fail?
My heart says yes, balls concur; brain altogether scoffs.
I dunno it gets points for originality, but it just doesn't grab me. it could work though.
Misplaced commenting for the fail?
I think I have a mini one of these in my toilet tank.
we might not see them in the US, but I would not be surprised if they popped up in the UK or various private islands. The utility of it would be rather interesting for creating artificial hydroelectric, though someone is bound to find a drawback of pumping seawater up onto dry land.
Just make sure you jiggle the handle on the way out...
Ill take Vaporware for $100.
I'll take the-rapists for 4000 Alex
and you wager...Texa$ with a dollar sign???
Yeah well, why don't you give me, ah.. why don'tcha give me Ape Tit for $200.
ill uh take anal bum cover
While this one specifically may be, wave power in general is not. Excellent reliable energy source.
Never going to happen.
What the fu*k is with you, man?!
maybe if we all report him he wil be baned?
1,2,3 EVERYBODY REPORT UPP!!!
if its cost efficient then it has a great chance of coming true, or if the cost is as expensive as solar energy, then you might as well go back to fossil fuel
Totally disagree - the micro-nuclear idea is much more practical. First, there's the complexity of working underwater - very similar to working in space, actually. Second, moving parts. More moving parts, more breakdowns. Third, proximity. While lots of folks live close to the ocean, a good lot of us don't. The micro-reactors look cheap, reliable, and will definitely be tested rigorously before deployment. Plus they're frickin' NUCULAR, baby.
Dude if your going to try to post an intelligent response, you at least have to spell nuclear right. ESPECIALLY if you capitalize it.
You should consider obtaining a sense of humor. It's free and it's fun!
I fail to see how this is a better idea than the mini nuclear reactor. I'm not joking; nuclear power is the way of the future.
Um, no radioactive waste maybe??
"I fail"
there's your problem
Well for one thing, as mentioned above, proximity is a HUGE issue. These things are only good for those living near the ocean (no, lake/river waves do NOT have enough energy to do anything...it will all be lost in transmission).
The "waste" produced by the micro reactors is tiny compared to these things. As also mentioned above, they have moving parts, which means [much] more failures, and therefore more waste. The reactors last 10 years before needing to be refueled (and it's a tiny amount of fuel). Don't bring up the whole "leaky barrels" of nuclear waste bs....there have never been any leaky barrels....it's a scary story people tell you to brainwash you...I challenge anyone to prove it is true!
The cost of nuclear is FAR FAR FAR cheaper than this could ever be! The efficiency of a system like this would have to be among the lowest of any energy technologies.
The mini reactors power 10,000 homes each. The toilet plungers power 470 homes each. That's a ratio higher than 21! That means it would take 21 of these plungers to equal a single mini reactor! Remember, the mini reactors are about the size of a hot tub (much smaller than the plungers, which must reach the ocean floor). This amounts to a humungous environmental impact to achieve any useful amount of energy. Someone mentioned above the only prospect I see for this tech: small islands. In fact, it's a pretty good idea for them, as long as it doesn't destroy the beauty of the seascape or impact the coral reefs too much (big ifs there).
@Mike,
when you consider the cost of nuclear power compared to this, are you taking into account the 100,000 years of storage of the waste?
Nuclear is the wrong answer. end of story. nothing says fuck you to the generations of the future better than a nuclear waste storage facility.
also what you apparently fail to understand is that there isnt a one solution fits all answer. things like this will be good for coastal areas. Other areas people will live not far from a desert, or a windy range, or geothermal activity or a combination of all four. There will be advancements in transmission tech so we can transfer further for less loss. and there will be other advancments in 'battery' tech so energy can be stored chemically and reproduced.
some business and governments might want nuke power, so they can continue to mine and and sell a commodity for energy. but the people dont want it(near them) and it would be grossly irresponsible unless we figure out something better to do with the waste than bury it.
First of all, that's the OLD nuclear. Yes it was extremely dirty, and had lots of waste. Today's nuclear facilities are able to process more of the radioactive material, and even use the waste to continue the reaction.
But this would be a good power source for a carbon-neutral deep sea facility.
Johnny:
You are wrong on many points and chastise me with a point I made myself.
First, the point I made myself that you flamed about: this technology will have its uses in a few [very limited] locations. I said that too....reread.
On to the points you're wrong about: nuclear is by far the cheapest, even considering storage. Look it up! The storage "facilities" you speak of aren't like auto salvage yards. They are limestone "caves" very deep below mountains. Build it, put the stuff in it, seal it off, and forget about it. It won't budge before the radioactivity is gone, I promise (reprocessing can reduce the lifetime to 300 years). Today's nuclear technology is extremely efficient. The amount of waste actually produced is miniscule! To put it in perspective, the US has accumulated a TOTAL of about 50,000 tons of nuclear waste....that's TOTAL, and nuclear power efficiency has improved drastically since most of our current reactors went online....we could do so much better than we are now even! US annual battery waste (which includes mercury, cadmium, and lead) is about 146,000 tons. That's per year! According to a Scientific American article, coal waste is up to 100 times more radioactive than nuclear waste. The worst component is called fly ash. As of 2005, U.S. coal-fired power plants reported producing 71.1 million tons of fly ash, of which 29.1 million tons was reused in various applications. That leaves 42,000,000 tons that is put in.....wait......this gets good.........LANDFILLS.
You also have a very poor grasp of electrical transmission (I worked briefly for a power company) and energy storage technology advancement in general. First of all, there will be no advancements in electrical transmission that will "save" us as you unfortunately believe. The laws of electromagnetism (which I teach) simply do not allow it. Even if we develop microwave transmission (I do radar research too), there will be huge losses. It ain't gonna happen.....ever (not even in 1,000 years or whatever your idea of the "distant" future is). Furthermore, advancements in chemical batteries are painfully slow. On top of that, chemical batteries are nearing "perfection" and won't advance a whole heck of a lot further. You are wrong about these wonderful chemical-based storage techs of the future. If anything, supercapacitors is the only future storage tech that will improve our current efficiency appreciably, unless some completely revolutionary idea comes along (neither capacitor nor chemical battery). But what? Gravity? There aren't a whole lot of choices....chemical, electrical (capacitors), physical (gravity), um....anything else?
Nice, I saw this on a Discovery show featuring new environmental technology; it's nice to see they've overcome some of the earlier problems with the implementation.
Yeah, exactly, nuclear power is far better than this.
Yah
We actually have a better chance of seeing Micro Nuclear, because well, the technology has been proven in the research environment. Bringing to the Consumer ( which will more then likely be industry rather then residential) is a matter of getting approval. The nice thing is that the NGNP project is doing the hard work in approving the advanced materials and the fuel for such a reactor.
Wrong.
http://www.ceto.com.au/news/milestones.php?milestone=milestones/Deployment-and-Operation-of-First-CETO-2/article.php
I really hope this makes it to the market... but will it work on rivers, too? or just oceans?
Or go nuclear and build a line of plants that can provide 24/7 cheap power that can ramp up to meet demand within hours.
Harnessing the waves will affect the tides and throw the moon out of orbit. We need to get Martin Landau on the moon quick.
Well, consider all the waves that a boat makes traveling though a channel. If you could capture 100% of that wave energy, you'd only get whatever the boat expend in gasoline. Even though waves may seem to be big, you only get what was put in. Harvesting water energy is done much better with turbines.
The real trick is going to be using seawater for irrigation...Plants crave electrolytes!
Is anyone else uneasy about the idea of removing energy from the tidal system?
I know it's a massive system and small human intervention is unlikely to have any effect but that's what we thought about Dodos, the Tasmanian Tiger and Co2 in the atmosphere.
Oregon State University has had multiple successful tests already and is continuing to push wave technology. http://eecs.oregonstate.edu/wesrf/
Great idea, pump that seawater inland...... wait. Thats salt water.
I doubt that's what it does, but by your summary, thats my understanding.
Agreed...I seriously doubt the efficacy of irrigation using seawater, given its high salt content.
Now if we're looking to create another dustbowl....
Is anyone else a little uneasy about a device whose name implies erasing the sea?
There's already a technology thats makes energy out of waves. And it's actually already in use, in the northeast of Brazil. You can have a better look here: http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/2325/54/
A commercial-sized version of this was recently demonstrated in Perth, Western Australia and seemed to have much thought put into it.
The moving parts are large and simple and all the complicated turbines, etc are on the shore, where it's easy to work on them.
Desalination is possible using high-pressure seawater (reverse osmosis), so it can be used for fresh-water generation as well as power.
As others have said, why limit ourselves to only one method of generating electricity? Use wind where it's windy, solar where it's sunny, wave/tidal where it's wet, and geothermal where it's shaky!