Home Facebook RSS Newsletter Twitter IBM Ziff Davis Enterprise

TECHNOLOGY FOR CHANGE

    Reader Comments

  • POST COMMENT NOW>>
  • Right Solution Wrong ProblemPosted on: 06-29-10 | By: JBWhile there are certainly going to be locations where this is viable without large ecological impacts it will only be one part of the energy mix using fresh water. The real potential that has not been mentioned is for storage. If this process is efficient then there should be the potential to concentrate sea water and use this more concentrated solution with either fresh water or sea water as energy storage. If massive desalination is needed for the world going forward to have clean water in major urban populations this more concentrated sea water will already be a byproduct from which energy should be recovered. If the process is efficient enough desalinating water for this process could serve as a massive storage solution just due to the nearly limitless supply of seawater and space available at sea. We have plenty of resources for renewable energy as wind and solar are ramped up. Storage is what is needed to allow us to use it.
  • Stable Output?Posted on: 12-03-09 | By: Dave M.I think the stable output statement is also a bit overblown. Presumably a large scale osmotic process is somewhat dependant on fresh water volume. Since that volume isn't really stable over time, I would expect that the power output would also fluctuate.
  • Osmotic Power Could Eventually Be CompetitivePosted on: 12-01-09 | By: R. Colin JohnsonStatKraft claims that it has plans to improve the efficiency of the its plants by five times during this testing period, which it claims will make osmotic power costs comparable to those from other renewable sources.
  • A user comment on this articlePosted on: 12-01-09 | By: Anonymous$7M for only 10kW, or $700 per watt, that's too much, and far far away from practical usage. Photovoltaic system is only $5 ~ $7 per watt or less nowadays, which is still expensive. A new nuclear power plant costs up to $3.5 per watt, while a new fossil fuel power plant is about $1.3 per watt.
  • "Game changer?"Posted on: 11-30-09 | By: Anonymous"The _global_ production potential of osmotic power could exceed 1,600 TWh, or the equivalent to half of _Europe's_ entire energy demand." So it takes the entire osmotic production capability of the whole world to equal half of Europe's energy demand? I think that might put it in the category of "interesting," but I'm not sure that changes the game -- whatever the game is.
  • A user comment on this articlePosted on: 11-27-09 | By: K.S.SidhuIt does not sound to be viable & practical proposition though theoretically it is OK.
  • Stream has to be CleanPosted on: 11-26-09 | By: Gray KFor reverse osmosis to work, or at least for the membrane to last very long, the salt water must be free of silt or other dirt. Most water flowing to the sea is not. You may be able to pre-filter the water, but I expect this will be expensive. The whole process reminds me of my years as a solar engineer. Ten time more energy falls on a home than is necessary to run the home, but it is so diffused that it is very difficult to capture. Osmotic energy is a weak, diffused energy and may be way too diffused to be economically useful.