DiggJoin DiggAbout
See the original image at telegraph.co.uk —

Ocean currents can power the world, say scientists

telegraph.co.uk — A revolutionary device can harness energy from slow-moving rivers and ocean currents could provide enough power for the entire world.

made popular 40 days ago

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community.Take the Tour to learn more.

Related by Keyword BETA!

President Bush to protect ocean reefs, fish and volcanoes

  • 705 diggs
  • Made popular 2 days ago
  • 213
  • www.telegraph.co.uk

Garage Invention Could Turn Restaurants into Power Plants

  • 460 diggs
  • Made popular 11 hr 43 min ago
  • 66
  • blog.wired.com

BIOWAVE: Biomimicry Solution for Ocean Power

  • 507 diggs
  • Made popular 237 days ago
  • 29
  • www.inhabitat.com

How are these related stories? Tell us!

show profanity settings
expand all
  • thejoshuablog, on 11/30/2008, -4/+69Wow. This is really cool.
    • zjbird, on 11/30/2008, -31/+3***** you.
    • JohanMarcusGuy, on 11/30/2008, -3/+5Digg,
      Please disregard this message.

      Thanks,
      Johan Marcus Guy

      @"Vanessa"
      I know you're reading this right now, you wouldn't stop your compulsive behavior if someone's life should depend on it, I should know that by now. All you've done is take, take, take. I given you everything; a life, a career, money, my dodge neon sports edition to drive to work... And what have you given me? Agony.

      I don't suppose you'd care though, your heart is so calloused, i'm surprised they didn't operate on it first. You said we'd be together forever, but I didn't give you my kidney and that goes right out the window? What a perfect coincidence that we were a "match" in more ways than one.

      But don't think i'll take this in stride, Jordan -- after all, that is your real name isn't it? Remember when you were getting dressed one morning and I walked in on you? You probably thought it was a close call, but I saw your man-parts, I saw it. I didn't care though, because I knew what we had is special. Not anymore.

      If you care to come back to my apartment for your stuff, you may see a picture of yourself on a few posters exposing you for the lie you really are.

      Oh, and I took the liberty of taking my car back, looks like you'll be walking to work.

      Goodbye forever,
      Johan Marcus Guy
      • toetagger, on 11/30/2008, -2/+1Is it getting better
        Or do you feel the same
        Will it make it easier on you now
        You got someone to blame
        You say...

        One love
        One life
        When it's one need
        In the night
        One love
        We get to share it
        Leaves you baby if you
        Don't care for it

        Did I disappoint you
        Or leave a bad taste in your mouth
        You act like you never had love
        And you want me to go without
        Well it's...

        Too late
        Tonight
        To drag the past out into the light
        We're one, but we're not the same
        We get to
        Carry each other
        Carry each other
        One...
        Have you come here for forgiveness
        Have you come to raise the dead
        Have you come here to play Jesus
        To the lepers in your head

        Did I ask too much
        More than a lot
        You gave me nothing
        Now it's all I got
        We're one
        But we're not the same
        Well we
        Hurt each other
        Then we do it again
        You say
        Love is a temple
        Love a higher law
        Love is a temple
        Love the higher law
        You ask me to enter
        But then you make me crawl
        And I can't be holding on
        To what you got
        When all you got is hurt
        One love
        One blood
        One life
        You got to do what you should
        One life
        With each other
        Sisters
        Brothers
        One life
        But we're not the same
        We get to
        Carry each other
        Carry each other

        One...life

        One
  • Siraris, on 11/30/2008, -9/+117It seems that every other week, we have a new form of energy that is going to save the world, and then it vanishes as soon as it appears. If it's as good as the article paints it out to be, I want to see it in the ocean by 2010.
    • Paulorific, on 11/30/2008, -5/+5I have to disagree. Every other week we have some variation of an already existing technology that will save the world. Normally we see new efficiencies for solar or some new kind of turbine, but this is a whole new idea, as far as I know, and it's a pretty good one.
    • sarcasm, on 11/30/2008, -3/+3I think it's because none of this ***** actually works as-described yet. I'm not saying it won't ever work, just that it doesn't yet. How many years were people hearing about airplanes before there were any that worked reasonably well at long distances, and then how long after that before the average consumer had access to them? A lot of new technologies are written about before there is even a working prototype or funding to build one or even a completed plan to make one. Since new technologies are often exciting, the story spreads quickly. After that, you don't hear about it for a long time because it isn't going to be newsworthy again until something concrete actually happens with it.
      • solarweasel, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2simple economics:

        we will not transition to these other sources of energy until it is economically beneficial for us to do so. that is, electricity supplied to our existing fossil-fuel-powered grid is far cheaper than any form of 'green' energy. these technologies are all in the research and development pipeline and will continue to be improved upon and reanalyzed year after year until they are economical. until then the investments will simply not be made.

        the t boone pickens plan is something of a foreshadow of what's to come
    • cyrix, on 11/30/2008, -3/+20Ok, I'm going to go out on a limb here... I'm no expert by any standard AT ALL. In fact I'm pretty much a retard in regards to understanding the complex physics regarding the following statement.

      I think that the surge for "green" energy is great. I'm all for it. But if we were to harness all of the oceans power to actually power ourselves I for some reason see negative side effects. When a wave crashes it puts out a certain amount of water upon the beach it hits, which in turn rolls back into the ocean as energy to help further the energy of the wave behind it and the ocean as a whole. It's not a massive amount at all, but it does significantly matter (I think.) So if we were to completely rely on the ocean waves as our source of energy wouldn't be be sucking out a massive amount of energy from the oceans that cannot be returned, and in essence be altering the ocean's basic physics greatly? Like I said, I'm all for green alternatives, but I think the best idea is to spread it around from wind/solar/wave/um....clowns?

      Seriously, if someone has some good insight into this please please PLEASE correct or inform me. I've done some searching for answers and haven't found much. Bury me if you want, but to me this is something of great interest.
      • dacheetah, on 11/30/2008, -1/+16Why are people digging cyrix down? It's good to see people thinking critically. Rather than digging these people down, let them know why they are wrong (if they are wrong).

        From my understanding of the mechinisms that "power" the ocean, waves (at least normal waves, tsunami's are different) are mostly created by tidal forces, which are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon, which is a virtually unlimited source of energy (it'd take alot of power to pull the moon out of it's orbit.) While there could well be side effects, I don't think we are drawing energy that is otherwise needed, as it is mostly lost when the wave crashes on the beach, and new energy formed from the pull of the moon. (Also, I am not a marine scientist, nor an expert in fluid dynamics, I'm quite prepared to be wrong myself.)
      • cyrix, on 11/30/2008, -0/+4Thanks dacheetah.

        I don't mind at all if I'm wrong. In fact I welcome it because it would enlighten me on a subject of science that I don't 100% comprehend. If I'm wrong then good because it means this idea is far more efficient than I initially thought, and it has great potential. If I'm right then my notion of spreading out our green tech is valid as well. I'd love for us all to live off of free and plentiful energy to be honest.
      • RealJimShady, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2Hi Cyrix, I'm about as retarded on this subject as you are. However I *think* you've underestimated the sheer power and quantity of ocean currents we have available to us. We have a hydro-electric plant near us that just runs off a river. It is enough to power 200,000+ homes. (bit of a guess on numbers there). I couldn't even fathom the energy as a result of the inertia (hmm... momentum?) of billions of liters of ocean water. It would be unstoppable. My only concern this that ocean currents are.. subject to change. If we keep ***** the ice-caps up, the anatomy of the ocean could be very different...
      • fungie5, on 11/30/2008, -0/+6I'm surprised people were digging you down for your comment. At least, you demonstrated that you were thinking of possible consequences of this new approach. In truth, our science has largely avoided looking at environmental consequences until recently. I, for one, believe that the greatest challenge for us as a species this century is to adapt our science so that it becomes harmonious with the world's ecosystems.

        As far as this new technology goes, we don't need to worry about the possibility of draining the ocean of its energy.

        Consider this - Hurricanes are powered by energy released at the surface of the oceans and then releases this energy into the atmosphere. Scientists at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research estimate that a tropical cyclone releases heat energy at the rate of 50 to 200 exajoules (1018 J) per day, equivalent to about 1 PW (1015 watt). This rate of energy release is equivalent to 70 times the world energy consumption of humans and 200 times the worldwide electrical generating capacity, or to exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes. And that's just from ONE storm. We normally have dozens per year, and the world's ocean's average temperature doesn't even change as a result of it. So i think it's safe to conclude that this type of power supply is a VERY rich source of energy, now that we've managed to produce a technology efficient enough to take advantage of it.
      • theOster, on 11/30/2008, -4/+5would you please keep all thoughtful conversations off of digg? thank you.
      • aflury, on 11/30/2008, -0/+3Minor correction to some of the comments above -- most waves, such as the ones you see crashing on the beach, being surfed on, etc. are purely caused by wind, not currents. Currents are caused by a variety of forces such as salinity/temperature of the water in different locations/depths in the oceans, wind, and the gravitational pull of the moon. Tides are simply the changes of water levels due to the moon's gravitational pull. These are all interconnected to some extent, of course, but it's a common misconception that regular waves that we see at the beach are caused by the moon's gravity.

        But to the main point, all "renewable" energy sources have some impact on the environment, it's just a matter of how much. Enough wind turbines could decrease the amount of wind and mess with climates. Enough solar panels could absorb too much of the sun's heat and cause global cooling. You get the idea. Most of these (including the ocean currents/tides/waves discussed in the article) have such miniscule impacts that they're worthwhile alternatives to, say, fossil fuels.

        EDIT: I'm not an expert either, so correct me if any of this was wrong.
      • aflury, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2@myself, come to think of it, too many solar panels wouldn't really cause global cooling (the energy/heat would be released when it's used). It could still cause climate changes due to the energy/heat being moved from its source to destination locations... basically heat redistribution. I think there are a lot of small consequences that aren't fully understood or easily foreseeable, but again they would most likely cause much less damage than burning fossilized plants/animals. But this is going a bit off-topic. :)
      • kublerross, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1to shady and all saying cyriz cant be right.

        I remember a time not too long ago when people said 'pollution, hah, the atmosphere is so big burning all this coal and gas will never have a significant effect'
      • recruz, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1As the article was stating, if we were able to harness 0.1% of the ocean's energy, we would have enough power to support 15 billion people. There are 6.6 billion people in the world right now, so I don't see us even needing to capture enough energy to suck the waves out of the ocean.

        Although, you could compare it to getting drunk ... 0.08% BAC and that's over the legal limit. From an alcohol stat sheet, 0.50% is the published overdose level leading to death and 0.74% is the highest recorded BAC at a hospital, which also means the highest BAC ever could still have been higher.

        So I think we have some room to work with ...
      • iDealL, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1From the article, if we could harvest .1% of the energy in the ocean it would power the entire world. The ocean is a huge place, it would take a field of these things the size of a continent and probably a mile tall to even make any sort of noticeable change in global currents. And that right there is insanity. You are forgetting that the ocean is a gargantuan place.
      • notwizt, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1The simple error in your hypothesis is that you think that the energy in the ocean somehow will "disappear". As you might know, energy never disappears, it's just transformed into something else. Energy is also added to the ocean all the time by gravity, temperature shifts, etc.
      • aflury, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2@notwizt

        I don't think the concern was that the energy would "disappear". Rather that it would be removed from the oceans to be used elsewhere. Granted, the amount of energy required would be so small that it would probably have no noticeable impact.

        As to cyrix's point, I do agree that we should spread around our energy sources. Build lots of wind turbines, fields of solar panels, various forms of hydro-electric, hell even nuclear. All of these are better than continuing to burn coal like there's no tomorrow.
      • cyrix, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1notwizt: I don't think the energy will disappear at all... My concern is only that we'd be changing a part of the equation and we don't know what the outcome will be as of now.
      • supermanKD, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2@theoster
        would you please go back to youtube
      • diggaPLE4SE, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1there is a lot of "I'm not an expert; in fact, i'm a retard" going on in this thread.
    • Tahiri, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2The moon powers the oceans, as long as it's there, they will have energy
      • cyrix, on 11/30/2008, -2/+6I know the moon affects the oceans, but it isn't 100% responsible for the ocean's phsyics. Though even if it were I still wonder what effects sucking that much energy from the oceans would cause. The moon is a solid mass with a given weight/magnetic property/etc.... If we suck a bunch of energy from the oceans it's not as if the moon could compensate for that subtraction of energy from the ocean. I saw I was buried already by one person and that's fine. I just want to really know what long term effect it would have.
    • decimatedburito, on 11/30/2008, -1/+2Ok, the scientists in a brand new area of technology will have it in the ocean within an totally artificial deadline of 13 months just to satisfy your skepticism. You have some strange ego, and apparently not a lot of intelligence in regards to science. Imagine, all areas of scientific research abandoned if able to provide operational technologies within 13 months. You might as well abandon science all together. And what's with all you people digging this comment up? Are you part of the Sarah Palin "science" brigade?
      • RealJimShady, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1Maybe he's ambitious, but you get "***** of the year" award... congrats!
    • NekroJesus, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2Then don't just sit there and wait for it to happen. Get involved somehow.
    • oldgal, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2A big problem is the expense of being an early adopter. You pay a lot more than later users and are the first to become obsolete.
    • theOster, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1one year? are you kidding?
    • csarak, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1I understand your frustration but clearly you do not understand the difference between 'science' and 'engineering.' Sure, science tells us we could do this, but it's going to take a hell of a lot more than a year to design a robust system for deployment in the ocean, never mind one large enough to produce a significant difference. Also, don't forget about the lack of economic motivation to do this; it may come some day, but companies are not just going to go out and install this 'just because', when it's significantly cheaper to buy their energy from existing sources.
  • KenLark, on 11/30/2008, -5/+30cheap electricity and guaranteed health care, welcome to the 21st century
    • Paulorific, on 11/30/2008, -0/+7If only.
    • rexical, on 11/30/2008, -0/+8are we there yet....?
    • oboshoe, on 11/30/2008, -2/+12"Energy so cheap, they won't bother metering it"

      That was the original promise of "clean nuclear energy"

      Energy will never be cheap, because there is way to much wealth to be made from it.
      • Paulorific, on 11/30/2008, -0/+10Unless it becomes easy enough to make at home. Ideal world would have everyone living off the electrical grid.
      • smurfsahoy, on 11/30/2008, -0/+10theres a lot of money to be made in small parts manufacturing too. Yet somehow zippers don't cost 20 dollars each.
      • bungtheforeman, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1then what about water?
    • jakem1, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2Many of us have had guaranteed healthcare for most of the last century as well. I'd welcome free/cheap electricity though.
    • MotoFly, on 11/30/2008, -0/+5Installing massive farms of machines the size of buildings, on the ocean floor. Sounds real cheap.
  • ArrenV, on 11/30/2008, -10/+17Genius, I wonder if that will work in cars too? Do they have ocean currents in cars? :)
    • booksnmore4you, on 11/30/2008, -1/+10No, but we do have sailboats. :-D
      • cyrix, on 11/30/2008, -0/+8IT'S NOT A SAILBOAT!!! It's a schooner.
    • howsyamaschooks, on 11/30/2008, -0/+4That'd be a long trip to the shops!
    • Paulorific, on 11/30/2008, -0/+11I hope you're just joking. If not, tune in next week for information on "batteries".
    • Gemfinder, on 11/30/2008, -0/+7Indirectly, it would.
      Wave power generators feed an electrical grid which hybrid vehicles can tap into for recharging.
    • demoneye, on 11/30/2008, -0/+7Ubiquitous energy will make the issue of powering electric cars a lot less of a problem. :)
      • Myztry, on 11/30/2008, -1/+5Until we consume (degrade) all the rare materials used to make the batteries...
        And have a chemical compound shortage, instead of oil.
      • ikzeidegek, on 11/30/2008, -0/+4Ubiquitous clean and cheap energy will make the issue of filling Digg somewhat of a problem though.
    • TheOneTrueGod, on 11/30/2008, -0/+4Currently only Billy Ocean.
  • wtobie, on 11/30/2008, -1/+5Could this put oil under $20 dollars a barrel and gasoline under a dollar? We will probably continue to subsidize (sp) the oil industry.
    • Gemfinder, on 11/30/2008, -2/+1One of the first rules of good business is to diversify your portfolio. Smart businesspeople are already tapping into alternative energies; Warren Buffett, T. Boone Pickens, BP, Shell Oil, those are just the ones we keep tabs on. There are more and more jumping ships every day, because they know oil's day is coming to a close.

      Some people won't trade in their petro-burning auto, for whatever reasons. Whatever floats their boat. If those of us who are ready to step over to bio, hydro, electric and solar do so in droves, we'll more than make up for those stuck in the Roaring '20s.
  • wtobie, on 11/30/2008, -2/+3How would this affect our economy and jobs?
    • oboshoe, on 11/30/2008, -3/+7cheap energy is a boon to any economy.

      Green is a positive that will help with acceptance and has its own inherent benefits, however it won't make an economic difference. IMO most of the "greenspeak" being done by corporations nowadays is simply an extension of their marketing departments.
      • Samej82, on 11/30/2008, -0/+3I agree a lot of green talk is a marketing ploy. I think the jobs created with a large scale project would be a great asset to an ailing economy. I really hope this kind of a project gets to Capitol hill, but I have a feeling the coal lobby will continue to push a "clean coal" agenda.
      • VanishingLex, on 11/30/2008, -1/+1no economic difference? are you kidding?
        you don't think the price of oil and global warming would effect the economy?
    • DigitalisAkujin, on 11/30/2008, -0/+4Cheap energy = more money for payroll
    • demoneye, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2Not to mention even these facilities will need operators. It's not like they set up current-powered generators and say "Ok, you're on your own!"

      Machines always need love. :)
    • PingoLingo, on 11/30/2008, -1/+1In a manufacturing sense, reduced production costs increase the profit margins and after awhile, markets would adjust. What would be interesting (to me at least) is to see how each segment responds... heavily saturated markets would prolly turn to competitive pricing while larger monopolistic ones would use that new found $$ to increase market share... and maybe we'd see a resurgence in railway transportation. After that, it's just a matter of time until we enter the age of unicorns, gumdrops and rainbows...
  • booksnmore4you, on 11/30/2008, -2/+44We shall one day look back and judge the era of dirty energies as an insanity.
    • KingHarvest00, on 11/30/2008, -4/+6probably not
    • Paulorific, on 11/30/2008, -0/+16More like necessity. It's been a necessary evil in the progression of our civilization; in a couple of decades hopefully it'll be mostly gone.
      • booksnmore4you, on 11/30/2008, -0/+7To a point.

        It was once cutting edge, the new thing going, and for a season it became mere necessity.

        However, the country rejected an earlier bridge because oil interests made it so.

        I we had followed Carter's well-reasoned admonitions in the 70s, we would have then begun our energy revolution, and we would have transformed the globe by the Reagan era. From then till now would be the insanity given what we have done absent the revolution.
      • funknjunk, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2Too hopeful you are
    • CriX, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2No we won't. We'll look back and see a typical evolutionary progress of a technology. Harnessing electricity from any source initially was paramount. Then making it cheaper and more readily distributable came next. Making it cleaner is the next logical step.
    • TheOneTrueGod, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1There will be a time when we judge the intention to use nuclear power on Earth as insanity. Not because of the waste but rather because we need the damn uranium for the space-age!
    • bungtheforeman, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2the standard of living enabling you to spend time commenting on digg is only possible because of dirty energy.
  • oboshoe, on 11/30/2008, -19/+4Will be killed by enviro nazis

    For the most fanatical, there is NO energy source green enough. They'll keep projects like this locked up in EPA approval processs for decades.
    • mooseontheloose, on 11/30/2008, -2/+8yeah how dare people want to know the effects of undertaking a major potential global climate change that will affect every living species on earth. DAMN ENVIRO NAZIS! I love my CFCs! Only libruls would dare take them from me!
      • oboshoe, on 11/30/2008, -4/+4(that didn't take long)

        Yea, your right. Lets keep burning dirty coal for the next 30 years while we study the mating habits of plankton.
      • diggaPLE4SE, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1plankton porn :)
    • Paulorific, on 11/30/2008, -0/+7Really? Pretty sure the Green Team will be alright with this. Although I do agree some can be stupidly obsessive, this is a 100% "green" technology and is great for the environment.
      • oboshoe, on 11/30/2008, -2/+3Dugg for optimism.

        But the skeptic in me thinks that it'll be a good 30 years before this is implemented within the US.
      • Gemfinder, on 11/30/2008, -1/+1The Green Team, absolutely.
        It's whackos like the Sea Shepherd Society and the Earth Liberation Front that'll try to put the kibosh to it.
  • HimThatSpeaks, on 11/30/2008, -3/+14Big oil and others will fight it.
    • DigitalisAkujin, on 11/30/2008, -3/+8They lost their power in the last elections. :P
      • Gareth321, on 11/30/2008, -1/+1snap!
      • Myztry, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2Some. You do realize they don't don't replace the whole government. Just a select few overall.
      • subliminalurge, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1"They lost their power in the last elections."

        Nope, they didn't. They still have the same vast mountains of cash to pay their lobbyists.

        Get a little older, watch the world for a few more decades, and you'll come to realize that the man in the Oval Office is, for the most part, just a figurehead. The real power, the stuff that happens behind the scenes that never makes it to the news, doesn't change just because we had an election.
  • ianenos03, on 11/30/2008, -1/+13Here's hoping that our legislature here in Michigan stays friendly to green energy. Ideas like this are exactly what we all need right now.
    • krnldmp, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1Actually what we need is 25 dollar a pound polysilicon.
  • D4M4N, on 11/30/2008, -9/+7This is slightly in accurate, as the same could be said for wind energy. The problem is that the currents could change, and even a slight change could upset our Eco system. Wind power can also change global wind patterns. if all of these are done at a large scale around the world it could kill millions of animals, and weather patterns.
    • sbgskl, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2Any citations? The troposphere extends about 7 miles (35,000 feet) above the surface, and that's where weather occurs. Wind turbines, even megawatt-class, are only at most 1,000 feet tall, affecting a fraction of the atmosphere in the few locations on earth where they're installed. I can't see them significantly affecting weather.
    • Myztry, on 11/30/2008, -0/+3Could also improve things. Cause the water to cool, and thus the climate, etc.
      Change doesn't mean better or worse, just different...
    • diggaPLE4SE, on 12/05/2008, -1/+1ecosystem is one word. Credit lost!
  • blinkatron, on 11/30/2008, -0/+7This should be all over the MSM. If these work as the article described, then we could solve a lot of our energy problems in the next few years. Please god let this be real and viable.
    • jwolcott, on 11/30/2008, -1/+2"Fish curve their bodies to glide between the vortices shed by the bodies of the fish in front of them. Their muscle power alone could not propel them through the water at the speed they go, so they ride in each other's wake."

      Uhm, what propels the first fish then? Unless they're going in circle's, I smell something fishy here.
      • blinkatron, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1the fish propel themselves with their own energy to start, what this energy source is based on is a secondary technique the fish have to make their movements more efficient. By harnessing the extra power found inherent in the water, they can reach faster speeds, and we are using that extra power found exclusively in the water (the fish have nothing to do with this other than using an already natural source). There is nothing fishy going on here noob. L2 think.
  • t3rmv3locity, on 11/30/2008, -9/+3I've always thought that any advanced alien civilization (much more advanced then our own) would have some list of the 'great accomplishments'. Now I know the first 4:
    1. Fire
    2. The Wheel
    3. The Digital Computer, and
    4. The Vivace
  • akchrs, on 11/30/2008, -10/+2It looks like it would work well but wait until the environmental extremists find out it hurts a piece of plankton and then the relentless lawsuits will get it shut down.
    • opmike, on 11/30/2008, -0/+8Hurting plankton is generally a bad idea.
      • Kyan, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2though is certain cases it is the correct thing to do. It all depends on the plankton in question. If it's a perverted plankton, better to get rid of it right away.
      • Gareth321, on 11/30/2008, -1/+0I knew this plankton once, he had a real foul mouth. You know, f*** this and f*** that. He liked it rough... I always thought his type were better off gone... if you know what I mean.
  • Junior612, on 11/30/2008, -9/+11Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Removing energy from one system only puts it into another. Removing energy from ocean currents may be the worst thing that we could ever do. On par with diluting oceans with fresh water melt from glaciers. These ocean currents dictate weather patterns.

    Think about it this way: When a projectile is slingshotted around a celestial body in an orbit that makes use of it's gravity, that projectile picks up speed. At the same time the celestial body will rotate imperceptibly slowly, but more slow none the less.
    • t3rmv3locity, on 11/30/2008, -1/+7Keep in mind though that they energy taken could just cool the water, not slow it down. We already are heating up the oceans and melting the ice caps, we might as well try something different.

      If it's broke and you don't know how to fix it...it's time to experiment...
    • fungie5, on 11/30/2008, -0/+7You need some perspective.

      Consider this - Hurricanes are powered by energy released at the surface of the oceans and then releases this energy into the atmosphere. Scientists at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research estimate that a tropical cyclone releases heat energy at the rate of 50 to 200 exajoules (1018 J) per day, equivalent to about 1 PW (1015 watt). This rate of energy release is equivalent to 70 times the world energy consumption of humans and 200 times the worldwide electrical generating capacity, or to exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes. And that's just from ONE storm. We normally have dozens per year, and the world's ocean's average temperature doesn't even change as a result of it. So i think it's safe to conclude that this type of power supply is a VERY rich source of energy, now that we've managed to produce a technology efficient enough to take advantage of it.
  • Jo9100, on 11/30/2008, -2/+6Indeed, but now that we take our power from the ocean, how will we power the ocean?
    • oboshoe, on 11/30/2008, -0/+19The moon will just have to work a little harder.
      • wontstoptalking, on 11/30/2008, -0/+5But as the moon gets further away by 4 cm a year, what will power the moon to stay close enough to power the ocean currents to power the world?
      • oboshoe, on 11/30/2008, -0/+10@wontstop

        4cm? bah. We'll just get one of the Chinese Astronauts to jump and up and down a few times once they get up there. That should knock it down a few cm.
      • t3rmv3locity, on 11/30/2008, -0/+61000 * (4cm / 1year) = 4000cm / 1000years = 40meters over 1000 years
        yeah were screwed
      • MrNewbie, on 11/30/2008, -4/+5The issue of the moon's effect on the Earth as it slowly drifts away was discussed recently on the Science Channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4
    • akchrs, on 11/30/2008, -3/+9Diesel generators.
  • madmage816, on 11/30/2008, -6/+0This worries me.
    We already occupy nearly all the land on this planet. Images of man made islands in the ocean just popped into my head. This is just a first reaction. Barely a theory.
    • drapelyk, on 11/30/2008, -0/+3http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=man%20made ...

      Cue apocalyptic music...
    • blinkatron, on 11/30/2008, -0/+3you did read the article right? it says we would only need to use .1 percent of the oceans to create enough energy for 15 billion people. That is not a lot at all.
    • BoneheadFarker, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1You're first reaction is also lacking in rational thinking, not to mention that theories generally start out as hypothesis and are tested extensively before even being considered a theory.

      We do NOT occupy nearly all the land on this planet. There are vast areas of land completely void of humans in North American alone. And exactly how bad would a man-made island be compared to the huge plastic blob that sits in the Pacific? Especially if it were used to clean up the garbage. And wouldn't it be nice to shut down the current coal plants, old nuclear plants, and every other way of creating dirty energy?

      For someone who seems to be concerned about the environment, you have a very funny way of showing it...
  • zjbird, on 11/30/2008, -7/+3Digg has a new energy source make front page everyday..what makes this one any different?
    • Kyan, on 11/30/2008, -1/+1Don't knock it - at least it ain't Palin.
  • TaylorHelferty, on 11/30/2008, -1/+9I keep reading about all these amazing new innovations, but when will they be implemented?? We need to stop being scared, and definitely stop letting those big oil companies keep these things in the dark. This is not some "enviro nazi" *****, we cannot continue to shove this stuff aside. We will crumble if we don't get rid of our dependence on fossil fuels, and not just in the environmental sense.
    • fungie5, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2I agree. I think that clean energy has become a necessity - without it we risk creating a world that can no longer sustain our vast numbers.
  • krnldmp, on 11/30/2008, -0/+11It all comes from the sun. You heard it here first.
    • Observer001, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1Right, the good bit comes in when you consider that all the water and air's functioning as a big solar absorptive cell we don't have to build.

      Current-based power always makes me worry that we'll slow or alter the currents in some way if it achieves widespread implementation. It may not be rational, it's just a worry.
  • INTERNETMASTER, on 11/30/2008, -0/+4that is awesome
  • jeremyosborne81, on 11/30/2008, -12/+2So, they're going to put something, let's say a wheel, into a current of water, which will make the wheel spin. Then they will harness that energy and make it work for them.

    Didn't somebody do something like this a couple hundred years ago?

    Here's a hint: WATER WHEEL!
    • ingoldsby, on 11/30/2008, -0/+3Um. No.
    • stuffradio, on 11/30/2008, -0/+6RTFA

      "The new device, which has been inspired by the way fish swim, consists of a system of cylinders positioned horizontal to the water flow and attached to springs."
    • Gemfinder, on 11/30/2008, -0/+3That could do for the rivers (with an upgrade in materials).

      Hey, why not? The Space Shuttle is really just a souped-up, cherry, electronically-loaded aeroplane with life support systems built in, and except for an upgrade in fuel injection/air intake and on-board computers, automobiles haven't fundamentally changed a whole lot since the Model T.
  • Riggs, on 11/30/2008, -0/+9I wish I'd see stuff like this more in mainstream news so people are aware of the current scientific advancements that are going on ...
  • Samej82, on 11/30/2008, -1/+3This is amazing tech. I wish the MSM would pick this up quick and get more public attention to this.
    • gord, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1Seriously. Like vofuse said. Daily Telegaph. UK's biggest-selling quality daily newspaper. MSM enough for you?
  • drapelyk, on 11/30/2008, -0/+5They have a website http://www.vortexhydroenergy.com/
  • ingoldsby, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcyM3c5ylSU

    Repost?
    • comeanon, on 11/30/2008, -0/+0thanks the video really cleared up the concept for me
  • sbgskl, on 11/30/2008, -3/+5GO BLUE!
  • spyd3rweb, on 11/30/2008, -4/+4This can't possibly have any negative effects on the ocean, all the animals in the ocean, and our weather...
  • phillythekid, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2This article just makes me smile, and for some reason my last breath just felt cleaner.
  • suntzusputnik, on 11/30/2008, -1/+1does that mean that the world can power ocean currents?
  • Alheithinn, on 11/30/2008, -1/+1If the oil companies had figured out a way to make money out of this, we'd have all heard about it already.
  • lilricky, on 11/30/2008, -4/+1The problem with water current power generation in the oceans of the world(where we could get enough power for the world) is that the currents are not stable, they move, speed up, speed down, etc. Its just not economically feasible to build something like this and not have it give us the power to justify the cost.
  • richirwin, on 11/30/2008, -0/+5But if we remove the energy from the currents, doesn't that CHANGE the currents and, as a result, affect something else?

    Seriously. You can't remove energy from something with impact.
    • profgiles, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1To all of you who are trying to denigrate this idea by saying it takes energy out of the system, harmful, blah, blah, blah .... do you have an alternative suggestion? I mean, aside from burning fossil fuels????
  • Grumps, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2Will these propeller affect the sea and will it indirectly affect our ecosystem in terms of how the world's sea current works?
    • Soleanthia, on 11/30/2008, -0/+0It depends on how many of these things that will be made. Very little of the ocean's energy is needed to power a large amount of people. So a few here and there probably will not cause extreme changes. But then again, I'm no scientist, and I hope others do extensive testing and studies to make sure it will be safe for our environment. Going green is great, and I'm all for it, but only if the cost isn't too high.
  • heyitsguay, on 11/30/2008, -2/+3As some posters said, taking energy from the ocean currents in any sort of commercially viable way would be damaging. The energy we would take out would come at the expense of ocean temperatures and current velocity. Every system on earth, whether geological or biological derives its energy ultimately from the sun (well, there are a few that don't, but that's beside the point). We're best off looking for ways to efficiently harvest solar energy directly, going through something like the ocean currents loses efficiency due to an intermediary and also effects everything that's dependent on the intermediate system. Granted, even solar energy is not without impact, as every watt we take is a watt not being absorbed by plants or the ground or whatever, but it's probably the best we'll be able to do in the foreseeable future.
  • lmbb20, on 11/30/2008, -1/+1Yay!! no power bills, but higher taxes!
  • AsylumAleikum, on 11/30/2008, -2/+1Another day, another "revolutionary device". Yawn.
  • Dangbe, on 11/30/2008, -1/+0SouthLand Tales anybody? All about how harnessing the oceans power will destroy the world. A great movie by the guy who made Donnie Darko
  • LMAOzedong, on 11/30/2008, -2/+0This is the way the world ends. Not with a whimper, but with a bang.
  • mrzack, on 11/30/2008, -2/+2Wonderful news, and Obama isn't even officially president yet. 09-2013 gonna be good years.
  • brandospeed, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2problem solved!
  • Ouchimoo, on 11/30/2008, -1/+1Wow awesome advances in alternative energy!

    Wait, UK . . oh that explains it.
    • Diganta, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1You didn't read the article did you? The technology was developed in the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, MI, USA. The newspaper reporting it is the Telegraph a UK paper.

      I guess I asking to much for people to read the article people Digging or commenting on DIgg.
  • Flamesniper, on 11/30/2008, -3/+2there would be adverse effects to the ocean's ecosystem; construction would get rid of mating rounds for countless fish

    taking energy out of currents would harm the distribution of heat and energy throughout the world

    ex. the gulf stream supplies europe with warmth and heat, at the same latitudes as polar bears roam in canada, if this were to stop; Europe would spend much more on heating, farming would be non-existent, many ecosystems up in Europe would be whiped out. European countries would lose tourism revenue and people would migrate to milder regions.
  • jasdf, on 11/30/2008, -1/+11km x 1.5km sounds awfully huge to power 100,000 homes.
  • qhawk, on 11/30/2008, -2/+1Simply amazing. And amazing they were able to keep their funding during the bush years. The only way that could have happened is if i he didn't known about it...ok, so that's less amazing.
  • junkneo, on 11/30/2008, -0/+3Digg also needs an 'Energy' section.
  • Cartograffer, on 11/30/2008, -2/+2Not enough available power:

    This is unlikely to be useful on a macro level because there is not enough available power in ocean currents. The reason that more effort goes into wind power is that the power depends on the cube of the fluid speed times the density times the cross-section area. That speed-cubed trumps everything else.

    The calculations aren't hard; (some of) you can do them yourself during a boring lecture.

    Also, the currents balance each other. Weakening one will cause its neighbor to push farther. E.g., the UK might not like the US getting power from the Gulf Stream. A few years back, the Pentagon did a study about the effects of a weakened Gulf Stream, It wasn't pretty.
  • audiogeek5, on 11/30/2008, -3/+0we're all doomed.

    Andromeda Strain, guys. Andromeda Strain.

    Other than that, this is super cool.
    • BoneheadFarker, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2Ah...what does an extra-terrestrial virus have to do with ocean currents?
  • Cartograffer, on 11/30/2008, -2/+1The calculations aren't hard. The average power consumption of the world is 15TW. If the current's speed is 1m/s, then you'd have to extract all the kinetic energy from a cross-section of 3e4 km2, or a feasible fraction of the energy from a cross-section of current of one hundred thousand square km. There are not many ocean currents that are 10km deep and 10000 km wide. In fact, I can't offhand think of any.
    • mamboboy, on 11/30/2008, -1/+1Yer
    • comeanon, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2BTW there are a whole lot of currents and rivers, I haven't ran any infallible calculations of my own, but I'm gonna guess we won't need a single current to handle the whole job
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.