Wave Power Delivers Electricity to US Grid For First Time

by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY on 09.28.10
Science & Technology (alternative energy)

photo: Ocean Power Technologies

While wave power often seems like the poor cousin of the renewable energy world, and frankly doesn't have the practical potential of wind or solar power, tapping the power of the sea does have its place and this next one is worth a bit of hand clapping: One of Ocean Power Technologies' PowerBuoys can claim to be the first wave power device to deliver electricity to the US grid.

As Renewable Energy World reports:


OPT's PB40 PowerBuoy was hooked up to the grid at the Marine Corps Base Hawaii as part of the firm's program with the US Navy to test wave energy technology. The connection demonstrates the device's ability to produce utility-grade renewable energy that can be transmitted to the grid according to international and national standards, says the firm.

The PowerBuoy was deployed three-quarters of a mile off the coast of Oahu last year and has produced power for more than 4,400 hours of operation. As for environmental impact, independent evaluation has found the PowerBuoy to have no significant impact. All good news, if a small step forward.


If you're unfamiliar with how the OPT's PowerBuoy's work, this passage from 2008 here on TreeHugger will fill in some of the knowledge gap:


While most tidal power uses a underwater mounted turbine of some sort the Power Buoy relies instead on the rising and falling of the waves to generate power. Power is transmitted to the shore via underwater cable. OPT says that the a 10 MW power station using this technology would occupy 12.5 hectares of ocean. Theoretically the technology is scalable to 100 MW power stations, according to OPT's website.

Royal Society's climate change guide cuts confusion out of the hard science

UK's 'definitive voice of science' hopes guide will counter confusion and bogus claims about man-made global warming
Duncan Clark guardian.co.uk, Thursday 30 September 2010 00.01 BST

The Royal Society, the UK's leading scientific establishment, today publishes its own layman's guide to the science of climate change, in the hope of countering the confusion and inaccurate claims that continue to surround the topic.

The new guide – Climate Change: A Summary of the Science – seeks to cut through the confusion by summarising the degree of consensus and depth of understanding surrounding different aspects of the science of global warming caused by human activity.

The report, written by a panel of prominent scientists and chaired by Professor John Pethica, Royal Society vice president, breaks down the subject into three sections: aspects on which there is "wide agreement", "a wide consensus but continuing debate and discussion" and those which are "not well understood".

The document entirely supports the mainstream scientific view of man-made climate change as summarised by the UN's climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In previous years, the Royal Society has lent its weight to joint communiqués on climate change issued by leading science academies around the world, and these have even extended to making policy suggestions, such as calling on world leaders to agree emission reductions at the climate change summit held in Copenhagen in December.

The Royal Society's new report, by contrast, limits itself entirely to the physical science of climate change, and it is careful to lay out every qualification and uncertainty. But Pethica stresses that this approach does not signify an acceptance of criticisms that scientists had overstated their case in the past. "If the report sounds cautious, that's because the IPCC is cautious … There is no change in the science."

Solitaire Townsend, the communication specialist in sustainable development, said: "The Royal Society has for hundreds of years been the definitive voice of science – and unlike the IPCC it is not a politically appointed body. The new guide should have a strong impact on the UK, where policymakers, business leaders and others do pay attention to Royal Society briefings. However, it's less likely to change views in China, America and elsewhere."

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute, described the new guide as "excellent" and "an authoritative summary of the current state of knowledge". However, he stressed concern that two of the Royal Society fellows listed as contributors to the early stages of the report are also involved with Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation, which, Ward claims, "campaigns against climate researchers and promotes inaccurate and misleading information about climate change".

Although public concern about the impacts of global warming remains high in the UK, several polls taken in the past year have suggested a rise in number of people who are uncertain or sceptical about the scientific basis of man-made global warming.

This shift in opinion could be related to a range of factors, including the very cold winter, the Climategate affair involving leaked emails from scientists at the University of East Anglia, and one well-publicised error in the most recent scientific assessment by the IPCC.

Free solar panels may not be the bargain that they appear to be

Energy companies' offer of free solar panel systems may sound attractive but consumers could save thousands of pounds even if they took a loan to buy their own kit

Rebecca Smithers guardian.co.uk, Thursday 30 September 2010 07.00 BST

The rash of free solar panel offers being promoted to householders aren't quite the financial bargain they first appear to be, a consumer rights group warns today.

Using figures from the Energy Saving Trust, Which? reveals that consumers could save as much as £10,500 over 25 years – depending on where in the UK they live – by taking out a loan to buy their own system.

Even in the UK's sunniest region, the maximum consumers could save is £412 a year from their electricity bill, compared with the £1,313 that free solar panel companies such as British Gas and Isis Solar will collect from the feed-in tariffs (FITs), the government' incentive scheme that pays for small-scale renewable energy generation.

Which? says that consumers would be much better off paying to install their own system and keeping the lucrative FIT income. The Guardian came to a similar conclusion last month, showing that householders could save thousands of pounds by buying their own panels rather than "renting their roof".

Most companies that Which? spoke to value the free systems at about £19,000 so the initial cost of installing panels could be off-putting. The best rate loans start at 7.8% over five years, but even with a higher-interest, longer-term loan, buying your own system is still likely to work out cheaper. Consumers are urged to use the Energy Saving Trust's online Cashback Calculator to work out how much could be saved.

Ever since the Labour government announced the introduction of FITs in February, City investors and at least one hedge fund have been looking at ways to cash-in on the deals that have transformed solar take-up in other parts of Europe. This is now happening in Britain where a clutch of companies are vying to install a complete electricity-generating system on your home either free or for a £500 payment. In return for electricity exported to the national grid from the photovoltaic cells on your roof the companies would receive FITs worth £900 to £1,450 a year .

Simon Osborn, the principal policy adviser for environment at Which?, said: "If you have the means to pay for solar panels yourself, then you may well be better off arranging to have them installed yourself."

The group's chief executive, Peter Vicary-Smith, added: "With energy prices as high as they are many people will jump at the offer of 'free' solar panels. Whilst they will save you money, you'd be better off in the long run if you bought your own solar panels, even if you have to take out a loan to cover the initial outlay."