Whoops, I don't think it should have done that

It will make a nice reef

So it was Launched in March and now it is off it's pylons.
Poor design....? Ya think

There is a company that are developing and up-scaling a wave power generator set-up off Fremantle that seem to be having early stage success.
After talking with one of the engineers involved in the project it sounds as though they may well be on the right track in that their "pumps" are on the sea bed and rely on the wave power (which is greatest up to about 3 ?? metres below the surface) to move a pump vertically up and down to then drive a generator either nearby or in a remote area.
At the moment they are in relatively sheltered water where the swell rarely gets above a couple of metres and their next plant will be in deeper water on the lee side of Garden Island off Fremantle and they are similarly expecting good results.
It's all quite interesting and as part of the trials obviously reliability and longevity are important so I think the trials will be going on for quite a few years yet although the number of actual moving parts in the plant don't seem to be too great so maybe this one may have an advantage .....

Good luck to them I say !!

Possibly but fire was the down-fall of that one not getting pushed around by wind or waves........

Blow Out Preventers with holes in them are as useful as condoms with more than one prick in them...

Thanks for the input Mathew, but I am afraid it is a little misguided.

Noone has said that Oil Rigs or boats do not use electricity!!! That seems to be a comment of your own making. It doesnt detract from the fact that electrics and salt water are mortal enemies. The part of an oil rig that generates and utilises electricity are all well clear of the ocean. Similarly boats inevitibly have electrical issues, I have seen many yachts require rewiring because of corrrosion.

Floating production platforms have their own motive power, and can and do disconnect during heavy storms. If they disconnect they use their own motive power to keep station. There are many cases where even after disconnection the storage platform has been damaged by the storm requiring it to return to a dockyard for maintenence. They do not stay put.

And Yes - Underwater wave generators exist. The device you referenced is not a wave device at all (and the SEAGEN device will never pay for itself - it is expected to make 20 pounds an hour profit!!!!)
All underwater devices have the same issues as surface generators, and they have the added complication that the wave action DECREASES with depth - so they are located in parts of the wave field with diminished potential. Yes - they have an easier time of it, but they generate less energy too. Seabed devices are the equivalent of saying that if coal burning power stations burn less coal they will have less emissions. There is always a payback.

I am as enthusiastic as anyone about green energy, but wave energy like solar or wind has its limitations, many of which are engineering issues. With time and technology advances they may be overcome to the point that ocean energy becomes commercially viable.

JB

"you did read pweedas comment did you?" - Apologies if I overlooked something, but I cannot see where Pweedas says that Offshore platforms do not use electricity!

I also fail to see the relevance of Basslink. It is a cable lying on the bottom of the ocean and not subjected to wave action. Basslink is nothing special, there have been cables dropped all over the oceans for many many years - first one commissioned in 1902 if I remember correctly.

Posting links to pictures of floating oil production platforms does not support your statement that they stay put. Having actually spent a little time on one, I can say categorically that they can and do disconnect from risers when the weather forecast gets bad enough. In fact it is something that is practiced and drilled regularly (if you pardon the pun).
news.alibaba.com/article/detail/energy/100101492-1-philippines%2527-galoc-oil-output-resumes.html
www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/mtaofsa2003528/s10.html
from which
"FPSO" (short for Floating Product, Storage and Offtake) means a ship that is:
(a) constructed or modified to accept petroleum, directly or indirectly, from a sub#8209;sea well or pipeline; and (b) capable of storing the petroleum and delivering it to another ship or pipeline; and (c) capable of modifying the petroleum while in storage on the ship to suit it for transport or to fit it for the commercial requirements of consignees; and (d) designed to be disconnected from its mooring during bad weather, operational emergencies, or for the purposes of maintenance or survey; but does not include a facility that is designed to remain permanently moored for the production life of the related petroleum field.

SeaGen at 20 pounds an hour profit is hardly enough incentive for anyone to invest. If an investor cannot get a viable rate of return they will not inject money. It also requires a current of 5kts to be viable!! It is a niche product that will not be the saviour of the world, and is not a wave energy device anyway!

Finally "who cares if they produce less energy". Everyone does. If a seabed device only produces 20% of the energy of a surface device then you need 5 times the infrastructure. That means that electricity will cost five times more! Would you pay five times the going rate for electricity?

Mathew - we may have to agree to disagree on this subject I am afraid.

once a power station starts up its usually a combination of long term price contracts and short term spot market buying, most explorers (except one or two ) need a high price in long term contract prices to be feasible..

current price for uranium is 60 dollars for long term contracts and 43 dollars for the spot market. (thats 60 or 40 dollars per lb not in kg)



heres some info on uranium and cost per unit of power compared to cost per kg of uranium.

"
Current estimates of “economically recoverable” reserves apply an upper price/cost limit of $135/kg for uranium ore. This price cutoff does not sufficiently appreciate the lack of effect that ore cost has on power cost. It corresponds to a power price increase of only ~0.25 cents/kW-hr, versus today’s [Oct 2004] $40/kg ore price. Uranium sources that cost up to $500, and perhaps even ~$1000/kg (which would increase nuclear power’s cost by 1-2 cents/kW-hr) can still be economic, especially in a CO2-emission-constrained world, and/or a world where gas and oil have started to run out. Even at $1000/kg, advanced nuclear plants should be able to produce power at ~6 cents/kW-hr or less. The cost of power from post-production-peak gas or oil plants, or from coal plants with full CO2 sequestration, is likely to be higher than this. Finally, it should be noted that (as discussed later), at a uranium price of $500-1000/kg, breeder reactors become economical, and the uranium supply effectively becomes infinite"

my point is anyhow that at todays uranium price its not feasible for many explorers to become miners until long term contract prices kick up, but as stated this price increase is very small to the end user than say coal , oil or gas. the low price means there is very little investment in exploration for uranium deposits even when considering uranium is more abundant but at a lower concentrate than silver.