Skip navigation
11comments
Share conversation: Share via:

B W

Jun 25, 2015
04:06

Member


1 |
Share via:
I beleive the inability to connect to proposals from other areas is a glitch that needs some serious attention. We should definitely be able to pull from other areas because linking ideas together should not be based on the premise of a singularly vague category. Hope this is fixed in a timely manner.

B W

Jun 25, 2015
04:19

Member


2 |
Share via:
*Believe. Had to type fast. Apologies.

James Lau

Dec 9, 2015
11:26

Member


3 |
Share via:

I want to direct you to my proposal "Cost effective OTEC Power Plant" in the MIT alumni proposal group. Ocean thermal energy is the most abundant stored renewable on earth. Solar radiation arrive on earth at the rate 5000 times human need. The stored ocean thermal energy is more than two years of solar radiation intercepted by earth. One degree Celsius temperature increase in water has as much energy as the sane amount of water moving at 90 meters/second (200 mph). This basic thermal mechanical conversion factor clearly suggested that ocean thermal energy is the most abundant ocean energy. Tide, wave and current can never hope to compete against OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion).

The Paris climate meeting cannot hope to get useful result because they practically ignore OTEC. Global energy solution by using more fossil fuel apparently already stabilize the energy cost. However, the situation make global warming problem more serious. We probably still has about 10 years' window before OTEC needs to come to the rescue. 


James Lau

Dec 11, 2015
01:27

Member


4 |
Share via:

I received two no-reply emails in my inbox but was not able to respond. I prefer direct email address for the ability to have substantial communication. If you need my email address it is jameslau2@gmail.com. You proposal is much more extensive than most proposal in these MIT contest groups. Global warming is an extensive problem that need extensive effort. The age of twitter with 140 character limit is only good for slogans.


James Lau

Mar 7, 2016
07:53

Member


5 |
Share via:

I am surprised to find that the two comments I wrote for a different contest entry (ocean tide energy) appear in this proposal. I am happy about the situation but I cannot take credit for the two previous comments in this discussion. In my previous comments, it is clear I think of ocean thermal energy as the most abundant and important renewable energy resource on earth.

I am against combining ocean energy technologies in the energy island concept at this time. Combination of different technologies should be done after each of the technologies has reliable cost estimate. These technologies also need to be compatible and combination is able to reduce the overall cost. My opinion (or judgment) is OTEC by itself will be far most cost effective than any other marine renewable energy technology and the most cost effective OTEC design will be basically submerged (island may not be the right word). More analysis will not support energy island proposal.

 


Stevie Harison

Mar 15, 2016
12:36

Catalyst


6 |
Share via:

This idea is amazing, Manaugh & Majdi !

Surprisingly, I come from Indonesia, the world's largest archipelago.

which lying between Indian ocean and Pacific ocean.

The idea of Energy Island is very potential to be implemented here,

so I encourage you to propose it to our government as well. So bright prospect !

All the best for your proposal !

 


Thomas Manaugh

Mar 25, 2016
08:04

Catalyst


7 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Stevie,

I am sorry to have been slow to respond to your comment. Said and I have been busy with efforts to implement another proposal -- one which might help make progress toward providing clean energy to the world and cutting back emissions ASAP. That proposal is shown at https://www.climatecolab.org/contests/2015/global-climate-action-plan/c/proposal/1324201. Potentially, it would allow Indonesia and every other nation in the world to join in a serious effort to combat climate change.


Perry Grossman

May 23, 2016
01:43

Catalyst


8 |
Share via:

Hi,

Thanks for your proposal. Looks interesting. Sorry I don’t have enough technical knowledge to provide great comments. Just a few notes:

  • It seems good to have multiple energy sources to help balance generation.

  • I am concerned about the energy that can be obtained from the wave generators and tidal currents. Can you provide more information on the effectiveness of that?

  • Good job citing other water-based energy sources, but I can’t help but worry about 1) construction costs, 2) maintenance costs (corrosion, distance, etc.).

  • You address distance from population centers:

    • “An Energy Island can be located in an offshore area that is near to most major population centers. Close proximity allows reduced capital costs for transmission lines and minimizes energy losses that occur when electricity is transmitted from one location to another.”

    • “Located some distance from shore, wind turbines on Energy Island will present little danger to birds and bats; and no nearby neighbors will complain about noise or visual pollution.”

    • But I can’t help be concerned that distance might be an issue; either too far from population; or too close-- interfering with human activities. Could you provide more detail addressing that?

  • Could you respond to James Lau’s comment(s) on ocean thermal and how that might fit or not fit with your solution.

  • Compressed air energy storage (CAES) looks interesting. I was glad to learn about that.

Thanks, good luck,

Perry


Perry Grossman

Jun 10, 2016
10:04

Catalyst


9 |
Share via:

Congratulations on making the semi-finals!

What would be the minimally viable product (MVP) for testing this? What would the cost and timeline be?

Who do you plan to ask for funding of this solution?

 

Regards,

Perry 


Thomas Manaugh

Jun 22, 2016
10:16

Catalyst


10 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Perry,

Thank you for the questions you asked and the concerns you expressed. I suggest that you can find much detailed information relevant to your concerns by reading the materials that are listed in our reference section. Your last question about a minimally viable product for testing the Energy Island concept is interesting to us because we are considering what it might take to provide proof of concept. Perhaps a scaled-down version of one Energy Island module would be adequate to use for testing the concept of co-locating various energy-tapping devices along with CAES. A small model, however, would not allow proof about certain claimed benefits that come from the large size of Energy Island -- e.g., stability, safety, and economies and efficiencies of scale. Perry,   Thank you for the questions you asked and the concerns you expressed. I suggest that you can find much detailed information relevant to your concerns by reading the materials that are listed in our reference section. Your last question about a minimally viable product for testing the Energy Island concept is interesting to us because we are considering what it might take to provide proof of concept. Perhaps a scaled-down of one Energy Island module would be adequate to use for testing the concept of co-locating various energy-tapping devices along with CAES. A small model, however, would not allow proof about certain claimed benefits that come from the large size of Energy Island -- e.g., stability, safety, and economies and efficiencies of scale.

Dave Finnigan

Jun 22, 2016
04:50

Member


11 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

How about using this system as a possibly even less damaging bladeless wind generator? http://www.upworthy.com/try-not-to-jiggle-while-watching-these-amazing-bladeless-wind-turbines?g=2&c=upw1

ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.
Click on the box