Ocean Mechanical Thermal Energy Conversion

[@elaadt]

2 years after the video upload, can we get an update on where this project stands. Sounds very interesting.

[@tuulikk2]

I agree. Just got this in my feed. I will look for a update soon, but will probably get disappointed.

[@trueriver1950]

I would say that about many of the technologies covered

[@Known-unknowns]

The most significant update is that with the success of nuclear fusion many of the green technologies will be redundant. In hindsight we may look back and realise they were stepping stones to putting the sun in a bottle here on Earth 🌏. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for renewables. However, many countries around the world are pumping tens of Billions into fusion because they know that’s the future of energy.

[@ufukanilufukanilufuk]

I got a tweet about this video in my feed , being a subscriber, I did not watched this from 3 years ago. Curious indeed for an update.

[@redpike2973]

I went back to school at the age of 40 to get my Bachelor of Engineering, with a double major in Marine Engineering and Naval Architecture, because I wanted to design and build OTEC power plants and plantships. I graduated in 2000, and no jobs were available to do this work, so I sailed on commercial and government ships for the next 20 years. I now teach Marine Engineering at the US Merchant Marine Academy, and would be intereestd in getting in touch with Patrick McNulty and working to move this technology forward.

[@TheTEDfan]

Interesting concept. Couple tips: work out the LCOE asap. The world is not short of ways to generate renewable power. There are many competing technologies for both storage and generation. The one that will win is the lowest cost option. See the Lazard studies. For indicative costs look at structures of similar size, weight and complexity. E.g. Offshore platforms, FPSOs. Offshore everything is 2 to 5 times more expensive than onshore. Include the cost of bringing power to shore. At long distances you will need HVDC cables and related equipment. Include annual running costs of 2-4% of the investment. Mixing warm surface water and colder deeper water will result in a net reduction of heat radiation into space. So while you do cool the surface, the total planetary energy balance is negatively affected. Competitiveness of offshore wind is to a large extent driven by the length of power cables to shore. Nothing lasts forever at sea. After 25-35 years the whole thing needs expensive redevelopment or decommissioning. Those costs need to be included. To get cold water to the surface more effectively you could explore gas lift. In your current layout cold water flow will be a constraint. The density of the cold water and drag in the pipe/filters and heat exchanger may be too high. Cold water does not want to flow up. Current speed varies with depth. The bigger the pipe the larger the mechanical loads. With waves at surface the ship will want to push/pull the 600m pipe. The inertia of the pipe will result in huge structural(fatigue) forces. You may need a spar design or tension legs. But do the economics first. It has to compete on discounted lifecycle costs with other co2 neutral base load power and or variable power and storage concepts.

[@TheTEDfan]

@Tony Wilson Indeed HVDC is expensive. The shorter the distance the better. For anything you want to combine the synergies of perhaps 50% may not offset the factor 5 times higher cost for going far offshore.

[@TheTEDfan]

@Tony Wilson I fully agree with you Tony. And to add to that, we don't need to wait until we have the perfect solution at the absolute lowest cost. The result (less carbon and stopping climate change) is important enough to accepts some inefficiencies. Governments should simply start forcing the change. While we are doing that some mistakes will be made but the course will be corrected. Inaction is the biggest danger.

[@e1buno]

Live on the ocean as in Kevin Costner's Water World.

[@e1buno]

@Tony Wilson Grow a pair of gills and hide under water as in Kevin Costner in Kevin Costner's Water World. After the scary storm has left, swim back to the couch and watch Netflix.

[@e1buno]

@Tony Wilson Will sea sheep do? It's water world after all.

[@gdltito]

Oh 2019 the good times. (From 2020)

[@MrBizteck]

Danmit I just thought the same !

[@nikoladd]

He thought 2019 was scary. bwahahaha

[@Youbetternowatchthis]

Sucks being us future humans. At least it’s not 2021 yet 😜

[@UnwittingSweater]

Yeah that intro did not age well.

[@henrypotter3024]

Yep

[@manfredstrata5395]

This process was used during WW2 off the coast of Africa to power radio transmitters for navigation.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

Do you have any articles on this? I would love to read some historical accounts of the technology.

[@macrumpton]

2020 laughs fiendishly at 2019's "looming calamities".

[@irri3191]

Oh hindsight you silly knowledge.

[@nidavis]

*2022 has entered the chat*

[@Hovado_Lesni]

That water splashing is killing my ears.

[@ոakedsquirtle]

Yeah its basically an eareape minecraft splash sound

[@ReplicateReality]

its the best part of the video lol

[@V3racious3]

Ok, snowflake.

[@symphantic4552]

Ok boomer

[@ronkirk5099]

I'm a retired mechanical engineer and find this very interesting. We're going to have to combat global warming on many fronts simultaneously and this could just be a great source of green energy. Please keep these great videos coming education is the key to solving problems.

[@Cyclonebuster]

Well we will see what happens with this... Thanks..

[@poesypoet]

Deception all around us and no one seems to care Lies are truth's and Truth's are lies lying every where Science isn't Science a religion it has become Go against the doctrine and you'll surely starve my son Sadistic as it sounds these words give me no pleasure The poor get poorer when they implement their austerity measures The poor and middle class will pay for all of it And as the rich get richer down upon us they will spit We're worthless dirty vermin that need to die you know This world is just not big enough unless it's you who holds the dough The taxes they impose on us To clean the mess they made Now they tell us take a bus So our carbon footprints fade This weaponized religion Known as climate change Is all about your money I know it sounds deranged The economy's of the world are about to crash So they implemented austerity measures To inject it with your cash It's not about pollution Or save the planet see It all about enslavement Of Humanity Children they will use To drive the message home How Dare our future you abuse Dig's deep down to the bone People now they panic they believe the government Their fate they seal upon themselves and the rich they just lament They didn't start it sooner It's going oh so well The piper leading all the rat's To the gates of hell

[@Snugggg]

@@Cyclonebuster have there been any new developments? has politics killed this one too?

[@tomhall7633]

The clarity and concision of your content is refreshing. There is a growing supply of idle capital globally that rivals the accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. The expression of this poverty of imagination for risk taking or social responsibility is evidenced in rising rents, predatory usury, monopolization of basic industries, privatization of public assets, and the presumptive insanity that the retiring of stock shares enhances wealth in the real world. Eventually this capital will begin to flow into the most promising technologies to address the unfolding human caused environmental crisis (most promising for immediate return on investment and least threatening to established economic interests, not necessarily most promising for making progress on solving the problem). Only through government as an expression of our collective will can the locked up capital in our constipated ruling classes be redeployed along with the near boundless potential of human capital to address what could be the existential climax that will postpone the epilogue of human civilisation. There is no guarantee of success but our current course documents that glaciers are melting faster than our willingness to address these issues which gives new irony to the expression "glacial change". Thanks for your indulgence.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Tom. Thanks for your comment. Erudite and articulate as always. Let's hope some of that idle capital finds it's way to this project. All the best. Dave

[@patrickmcnulty848]

Thank you Tom. You are correct eventually it at all comes to a head where action has to be taken.. Preferably before the summertime Arctic Sea Ice is gone...

[@aion2177]

Oh wow. Problems.. more problems.. what's the solution? More government!! More capital!! Oh, how clueless. How hopelessly clueless.

[@moltoniron633]

@@JustHaveaThink hi there. Is there a working prototype.

[@corgraveland4874]

Well, the basic concept might be known following a refrigerator with condensor, evaporators and the suitable refrigerant fluid etc. But to build it in a marine vessel this way, use the speed of the gulfstream (up to 6 mph or close to 10 km/h is significant) and to add the venturi with turbine are all excellent. Thanks for sharing. Look forward to learn what next steps are. If needed can help to make some calculations. All together, wonderful OTEC system and credits to the designers! 🌍💧⚡💡👌

[@patrickmcnulty848]

Correct and OMTEC is much more efficient then current OTEC systems..

[@ShurahanaYume]

What impact does this have on wildlife and ecosystems?

[@jimgraham6722]

Thankyou for this item. The Hawaiian OTEC system near Kona started with much the same fanfare but reality caught up. All systems that take a low grade heat source and try to make high grade energy suffer similar problems of low efficiency and low output relative to capital expense. I am sure this proposal is well intentioned but it somewhat smacks of desperation. We need to get focused on developing real solutions (these are mostly known) to the huge challenge of powering the world in post green house gas environment.

[@patrickmcnulty848]

OMTEC is much more efficient then OTEC. :)

[@Paul.Gallant]

I remember a similar projet that doesn't use freon. Instead, the turbine is working in vacuum. It's the temperature difference in vacuum that creates a vapor flow that runs the turbine. The byproduct is fresh water. Probably less efficient but, it's a simpler design that does not require refrigerant.

[@gdltito]

Also warm parts of the ocean are less productive than colder parts because the less dense warm water does not keep nutrients very well. The nutrients have a tendency to sink because the water with phosphorus, nitrogen, etc is heavier. And in warm, less dense, waters this effect is more pronounced. By taking this cold nutrient rich water in to the surface this contraption will very likely increase the amount of plankton and have and even greater ecologic effect.

[@gdltito]

There is a very interesting video of the youtuber "Atlas Pro" Called "Oceans are deserts" kzbin.info/www/bejne/g4WVaZqjbqiBq6s

[@dogphlap6749]

Decades ago there was an OTEC system off Hawaii (the sea gets deep close to land there so the power cable to deliver the energy back to land was short). The problem was the ocean currents vary with depth and the shear force exerted on the long vertical tube to the cold deep water was too much for the reinforced concrete it was built with. Sorry but this latest attempt looks like a nonstarter to me. Just how far out to sea is this thing going to be located ? The water off Miami is shallow so the power cable back to shore will be long, just how long is not specified on the video which makes me think this scheme is not practicable and the instigators know it but prefer to pretend the obvious problems don't exist. One decent storm would wipe this out. As to dropping the surface temperature of the gulf to de-fuel hurricanes, good luck with that. Oh and the 'Chemical Demilitarization Program' is actually a thing (does not sound like a real thing but it is). This from a country that is happy to use depleted uranium munitions (and don't be fooled by the word 'depleted', still 70% as radio active as naturally occurring uranium with a half life of 4.5 billion years for U-238 and 700 million years for U-235).

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Dogphlap. Thanks for your comments. All feedback is very welcome and especially important at such an early stage of a scheme like this. I'm pretty sure Mr McNulty is intending a more modern, stronger material for the pipes but I will certainly convey your concerns to him, and I'll update you on his response. All the best. Dave

[@JustHaveaThink]

By the way, Makai are still out there in Hawaii, working on their standard OTEC system... www.makai.com

[@dogphlap6749]

@@JustHaveaThink Thank you David for such a kind response to a very negative comment. I can't believe there was anything novel in my criticism, still I would be interested in hearing his response to what I imagine he would have heard many times before.

[@dogphlap6749]

@@JustHaveaThink Thank you for the link. I learned the Hawaiian OTEC (which is the same one I read about in 1974) is now hooked up to the grid and producing 0.105MW which does not seem a lot after 44 years of development (the company also has one in Japanese waters producing 0.1MW). They are using ammonia as the working fluid. Thank you for an interesting video. I feel bad knocking these well intentioned efforts to provide a clean base load electrical supply but I remain sceptical.

[@derekturnswood]

My reaction on watching this was similar concerns, but more along the lines of how will this stay afloat, and how will it react in a storm? Then I started pondering how much energy is going into making this huge beast, compared to how much energy it might deliver over its lifetime, which for an untested system may be hard to determine.

[@lucasbronstein8165]

I'm in college studying engineering. I'd be happy to hear about any developments on this cool technology!

[@patrickmcnulty848]

Show your Professor.. :)

[@cautiousoptimist]

This was brilliant. I can't believe it took almost 2 years for me to stumble across it... :-) I am now subscribed... :-)

[@patrickmcnulty848]

Dave does great work... :)

[@albertmiller8220]

same I joined yesterday

[@elizabethhobson6958]

Thank you! You give me hope for our future!!!!! I'm already about 80% to my goal of eliminating single use plastics and my next car WILL be electric. I'm trying to convert family and friends but they are not listening very well....so.... I gave them each a box of compostable/biodegradable garbage bags to try. It appears that they'll use them as long as I buy them. :/ I will persevere on.... happily! :)

[@DrJohnnyJ]

I never heard the words, "Cost effective" mentioned. It sounds expensive.

[@piccalillipit9211]

It looks excessively complicated compared to say a turbine on a cable anchored to the sea floor and turning 24 hours a day in the 6mph water...

[@realvanman1]

Wow, there’re all kinds of hidden gems in this channel.

[@mski435]

Just a thought but with so many exhausted oil rigs along our coasts seems like they could be re-purposed to accommodate this concept. But I am sure this has been considered. By the way love your channel.

[@moltoniron633]

We have OPEC now and we will have OTEC in the future.

[@lisaclausen8304]

I absolutely love this idea!!! It makes sense. It is incredible!

[@JustHaveaThink]

Thanks Lisa. I'm sure Patrick will be delighted to hear your support for his invention. He runs a couple of Facebook forums - the one about OMTEC is called Ocean Tunnels - you can catch him there if you have more questions. All the best. Dave

[@patrickmcnulty848]

Yes thank you Lisa for the kind words..

[@blue280485]

@@JustHaveaThink Hi I love this idea specially using the Venturi Syphon to 'pump' water up to the surface from 1000m deep, you get higher energy than what you put in 👏👍 I would like to suggest, instead of freon working fluid based binary cycle power conversation, why not use a Low Temperature Difference Sterling Engine, which works with a temperature difference as low as 5 degree C, wouldn't that be better, what do you think 🤔 Keep up the good work.

[@wlhgmk]

A similar system could be used for seasteading - that is to say, floating communities, probably located in the center of the world's gyres. The deep water is not only cold but nutrient rich. This gives it a couple of uses. It can be expelled from the top of the system into ponds made from membranes and kept inflated by having the level of water in the ponds a little above the surrounding sea level. Plankton will bloom in these ponds and forms the ideal food for mussels and oysters. Voila, you have an export product with a great marketing story. The cold water can also be used to produce fresh water by having the ambient air which is pretty close to 100% humidity, passing over condensers that have this cold water flowing through them. As for pumping, all that is necessary is a one way valve in the pipe and the rising and falling of the floats due to wave action will pump the water through the pipe.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi William, Thanks so much for your comment. I am going to post your suggestion onto the Facebook site that Patrick McNulty operates for this project. It is called Ocean Tunnels. I'm sure Patrick will be extremely interested to read this. All the best. Dave

[@vincentanguoni8938]

So refreshing to hear about positive developments rather than doom and gloom.... Gracias!

[@boomshotta]

This seems very promising. Any updates as we go into 2021?

[@DavideOccello]

It sounds like a really interesting concept, with lots of cross-linkages. Would love to help!

[@Apaxcad]

Makai’s Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) Power Plant, Hawaii, produces a lot of condensation, thats fresh water as a bye product. You also have the nutrient rich cold water that is used for high value marine farming to consider in any cost its a change in mind set, pump cold water to produce energy, fresh water and marine agriculture.

[@Amalfian]

This was incredibly fascinating to watch and learn about. I simply love the concept and potential this sort of energy generation has, especially for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and generating clean energy, all provided naturally by the planet. If I may ask however, given that the OMTEC 'ships' are constantly in motion, how will the energy be transmitted back to the surface / mainland? Will there be energy storage solutions like batteries implemented on board? Or is it going to be a case of undersea cabling (which may also limit the distance the ships can travel)? It would also be cool if the ship could carry the USVs on board like a sort of 'mothership', where it can be charged and re-deployed as needed, where energy availability allows of course! Many thanks for the great presentation. Graphics were top quality too, really appreciated those!

[@miles2378]

The Ship/platform would be Stationary and conected to shore the gulf stream curent would move the water through the ship and using the Temp/presure diference to move water through the heat exchanger.

[@snaglet2284]

Remarkable

[@patrickmcnulty848]

Thanks snaglet.

[@drmosfet]

The complexity of this type of system has increased greatly from decades ago when I first heard about this, it kinda sounds like it's almost as difficult as trying to harvest earth rotational energy.

[@patrickmcnulty848]

It harvests some of Earths rotational velocity energy and Eckman Transport energy but mostly solar energy from the Ocean..

[@brotherjohn8411]

If you are drawing cold water up through a warmer fluid, then the hydrostatic pressure will vary differently inside the tube to outside of it, making it more difficult to draw up. If the cold water was 10 degrees drawn up through 20 degree water, this would generate about 15Pa of stack pressure per meter that would need to be overcome to draw it through the system. Depending on the depth, this could prove a significant barrier to the 'natural' flow of water that is intended to be induced

[@anguscampbell1533]

I have a question for you. If you use liquid Ammonia as a refrigerant to drive the turbines via a phase change motor or a "turbine" could that Ammonia be used as a source of H2 after it is passed through the "turbine" and then that same H2 be used to drive a Fuel Cell which also produces electricity? The reason I ask is there is a lot of hype about H2 lately and Liquid Ammonia in pressurized vessels is often tossed around as a storage medium. Since it boils at -33C it could be produced by intermittent wind or solar, stored onboard temporally as a liquid in specific pressurized tanks and then released to drive the phase change "turbines" as power is needed but with a reconfigured system to eliminate the condenser and use in a fuel cell after which the resultant gases are vented to the atmosphere. Is this feasible? Is it economical? Does it produce enough extra electricity to justify such a system? I now working on a gravitational storage system and I am hoping to incorporate OTEC since the structure could easily accommodate such a system.

[@patrickmcnulty848]

Actually, it can crack hydrogen and oxygen from the sea water around it.

[@christianheichel]

Never seen your channel before this movie. This movie got me to subscribe. Good content 👍

[@patrickmcnulty848]

Yep Dave is fantastic..

[@Wol747]

Brilliant explanation and graphics.

[@Robert-08542]

Any chance of you doing an update on this project? Thanks for the great job on this one!!!

[@symphantic4552]

Neat... welcome back freon!

[@michaelhayes7849]

The study of marine engineering options for CDR, water, energy and nutrients has been an area of interest for me for some time. I have 2 observation to offer. 1) The Perpertual Salt Fountain can move the water up without pumps, however, pumps are not a limiting factor as there are many low coat marine options which quickly pay for themselves. 2) As to surface layer cooling, cold water sinks as opposed to staying on the surface. This artifical sinking current, or downwelling, can have some carbon sequestration benefits and has been discussed by others. In conclusion, much can be done to economize marine operations while expanding end products and services. Creating tech baskets, as opposed to focusing upon single techs, may be a more productive strategy.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Michael. Many thanks for your feedback. Very well considered and presented. These are important findings. I will be collating all comments from this program into a document that Patrick will use to discuss potential barriers and issues with developers. All the best. Dave

[@reverands571]

Just how difficult will it become for the water in the various pipes to flow through as barnicles accumulate. Most boat bottoms are sanded and recoated every two years. The surface pipes might also face rapid slime build-up. I live on a boat---lol. Gives me another perspective.

[@michaelhayes7849]

@@reverands571, high density polyethylene does not biofoul and NASA tested it out on a marine biomass operation a number of years ago. That big tube being used in the Ocean trash collector is HDPE. We can make HDPE using algae oil and up to 40% waste plastic. Also, if these HDPE pipes are made out in the Ocean, they can be made huge, far beyond anything built on land by simply using buoyancy bags and robotic tractors. Once built, they should last for an indefinite time. We need infrastructure which can last for generations with little to no maintenance. Finally, there is a way to grow the equvilant of coral rock, this is called biorock and dates back to the 70s, and this coral rock can provide armor in critical areas such as docking ports.

[@Fs0n1ine]

What are the advantages of OMTEC (and OTEC) over just using the tidal turbines off-shore like the Scottish ones featured on the Fully Charged channel?

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Frithjof. The advantages of basic OTEC over the latest tidal turbines may be smaller now that tidal turbines can automatically turn to harness the tide in both directions. But OMTEC does far more than provide electrical energy - in fact that's almost a by product of the main function, which is to bring cold water up from the deep to reduce surface temperature. In areas like the gulf, where Patrick McNulty envisages these units being deployed, the hurricanes get much of their energy from ocean temps, so if they can be reduced by a degree or so, that's a massive amount of energy taken away from these destructive forces.

[@dsthorp]

Patrick McNulty, Thank you!

[@patrickmcnulty848]

Thank you. Still trying to get a University to study concept..

[@livingladolcevita7318]

great idea hope it comes off. Not sure what the flow rate would be but perhaps we could let the fish be syphoned into tanks through the intake and take out the viable ones and let the smaller ones back into the oceans getting rid of the bycatch issue

[@peterchennakkaden7436]

Interesting What strikes me is 6DegC of water which is available. This temperature can be used for HVAC systems and reduce power emissions along with it carbon emissions along the costal cities. If you are interested in a system please contact

[@patrickmcnulty848]

It sure can..

[@andrewdoesyt7787]

Why don’t we just circulate a gas around the bottom then use the cooled gas to liquify the freon at the top, wouldn’t that save energy compared to pumping the liquid?

[@carldoering2960]

Hello thanks for a very good KZbin channel. Which raises very important issues and techniques. Would love to see a section on tides and ocean currents. How we can extract energy from these. With inventions such as Minesto's deep branch power plant for example.

[@tedrees5989]

Let's make an estimate of the thermal power available. From the link, I see a peak flow rate of 1.7 meters/sec. I estimate the river cross section at 50m deep x 15Km wide or 750,000 square meters. So the flow rate of warm water is about 1.3 million cubic meters/sec. Let's use the 22C and 6C temperatures mentioned before, and we get an energy difference of 67MJ/cubic meter. But, a heat engine will likely only produce 2.7% efficiency with that low temperature difference. So the energy extraction density from the engine would be 1.8 MJ/cubic meter. Multiply by the flow rate, and we get a power of 2.3TW. Total US electrical power consumption is about 0.47 TW. So the heat engine would provide enough electrical power for the US as of 2016. The heat engine would need to cover the 750,000 square meter cross section. And of course it would likely kill the gulf stream, destroying civilization. Maybe instead of using the gulf stream, which really doesn't contribute much power to the system, locate it out where the surface is hot and any cooling or pumping action doesn't affect the AMOC?

[@mpetersen6]

Even if this was not used to feed power to the grid what about using this to run desalination plants off shore. Additionally why not just take advantage of the 10kph current in the gulf stream to run tidal turbines.

[@patrickmcnulty848]

OMTEC can power all technologies for civilization.

[@darrishawks6033]

Would this mess with the Gulf stream?

[@crhu319]

Yes. That's the downside, cools it considerably

[@yvanpimentel9950]

This reck exist is call Tregeneracion is applied at any steam base generating plant ,dead stem is the medium to extract energy with a differential over 70celcius

[@137bob3d]

here in colorado the Arkansas river flows 150+/- miles from Leadville 10000' elev to Pueblo 4500' without one single dam or electric generator to capture some of the same sort of kinetic energy the Gulf Stream carries.

[@lohphat]

That's like pissing in the ocean to make it saltier. The sheer volume of the world's ocean is no match for puny ships. Do the math. The volume of water needing cooling is so large this will not scratch the surface.

[@BlackheartCharlie]

Agree - someone needs to check their math. NASA says "during its life cycle a hurricane can expend as much energy as 10,000 nuclear bombs..." It would take a LOT of these puny little platforms to even begin to put a tiny dent in that much thermal energy!

[@patrickmcnulty848]

The volume of water passing through the devices has the needed kinetic energy and heat energy to power civilization many times over... :)

[@robertwalsh5461]

Interesting concept and generally very well thought out. However, you are missing something big.... If done in the Caribbean or off of the eastern coast of Florida on the massive scale you alluded to... this has the potential to STALL the Gulf Stream which would have a bevy of unforeseen consequences. The most obvious of which is a frozen England every winter and a collapse of the British costal fishing industry.

[@patrickmcnulty848]

Can't happen as long as Earths rotational velocity is there and as long as Eckman Transport exists.

[@tuulikk2]

@@patrickmcnulty848 But it would still get colder?

[@louiscypher4186]

@@tuulikk2 unlikely the gulf stream itself is massive and that is fed by the great ocean conveyor belt, large scale cooling of the gulf stream would require deployment of these things at a crazy scale. There's actually a greater problem that's not considered here and that is the formation of a localized cold blob. If significant enough this could create a localized Gyre which would create a corresponding low pressure system above it. Evaporating water from the warmer currents in the surrounding ocean would then condense their forming cloud banks making storms more frequent in the area.

[@patrickmcnulty848]

@@tuulikk2 Which is what is needed now. How much cooling computers can tell us.. :)

[@robertwalsh5461]

Just again pointing out that if anything is done on enormous enough scales it could have unforeseen consequences. England enjoys warm coastal water and excellent fishing largely because of the warm Caribbean waters carried to it by the Gulf Stream. Fuck with that enough and some people are going to cry.

[@mikepeine3898]

the up and down motion of waves can pump your water

[@patrickmcnulty848]

Unless seas are calm.

[@mikepeine3898]

@@patrickmcnulty848 40% of ocean waves never stop as long as the Earth spins

[@patrickmcnulty848]

@@mikepeine3898 Anything that makes OMTEC run more efficient is worth the effort. There are some wave generators that make over 1MW these days. So yes even if you can get power while the waves are there..

[@mikepeine3898]

@@patrickmcnulty848 the HVDC energy grid transmits electricity 4times further than the old HVAC with only 7% energy loss .

[@patrickmcnulty848]

@@mikepeine3898 Yes they have come a long way with HVDC these days. A generator in Miami may push HVDC all along the entire Eastern Seaboard...

[@moseschan3915]

One of the major benefits (and I think the most important benefit), is that by bringing deep nutrient rich water up to the surface where photosynthesis can happen, the nutrients can then be utilized by the phytoplankton. This will cause an increase in the overall biomass of the ocean, which can help increase fish populations and feed people. The second major benefit is that this will sequester CO2 in the ocean by converting it into biomass. The reason why the biomass benefit is more important than the electricity is because this electricity will most likely be more expensive than solar, therefore making it not economically viable for power generation. However, the electricity could still be sold to subsidize or maybe even break even on the costs. Therefore, it is better to utilize OTEC for ocean and fisheries management, and a method of fighting climate change. These two purposes are very worthwhile, and OTEC could be sold on that basis.

[@Cyclonebuster]

OMTEC and that would be correct.

[@infopackrat]

Why are there so few likes? This is AMAZING!

[@SweBeach2023]

It exist so many problems with this concept it's not even funny.

[@pandakees]

Wow Dave, I don't know if this comment will still reach you, but I just watched this episode again (after seeing Joe Scott's latest), and I noticed that there is way to little attention for this potential grounbreakig, awesome, paradigma shifting technology. And how bizarre that, what was it, only 2K people or so have seen this brilliant episode? I mean, come on, that's absurd ! Is there any way that you repost this in 2020, or even better, do an update on it? People around the world should be talking about this, right? And we can all use such a massive boost of good news, that's one thing for sure. So please!

[@pandakees]

Oh well, it was 12 K people... But still !

[@arthurniblock2776]

Why not just use large under water turbines attached to the bottoms of large anchored flat topped platforms which could also be covered with solar panels. Maintenance of the turbines ,when necessary could be carried out directly on the floating platforms. This idea would also avoid cooling down the Gulf stream. (Which might be problematic when operated on a very large scale).

[@Chimel31]

Cool. Literally. Plus, with enough of these platforms alongside the Gulf Stream, you could jump your way from Florida to Kerry. Any update on this project one year later? Actually, a very short anniversary update segment in all of your videos about the videos from the previous 1, 2, 3... years would be great. Or maybe even better, a separate update video, so we can link all videos about a given tech.

[@eyemoeba]

there's some impressive minds working out there. excellent effort on these videos dave. they are informative, interesting and clear (even if the physics is less easy to follow - more of a music/erotica man myself), and your etiquette in the threads is immaculate. man's struggle with power has necessarily had to accommodate the turbulence of the industrial years, which has buffeted us into the problems we have today. it seems obvious to us now that harnessing nature's forces is likely to be the most efficient way to power our lives, and it is our duty as a race to keep striving towards the perfect systems. people say time is running out, but no-one really knows, and so even if it's the last and only thing we do as a species beyond this point, surely that's where we'd want to head. irrespective of whether this generation fails to survive to see it, to leave behind such systems of self sufficiency would be a heartening legacy, a blueprint of our endeavours. keep up the good work.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Afternoon my dear old friend. Really good to hear from you, and thank you for your feedback. You and I will both be hitting the half century mark in a couple of months, and if my maths is correct, at that point we will have been sharing ideas, concepts, philosophy, music and many of life's other great gifts on and off for about 36 years! How time flies. As you rightly point out, there is free energy everywhere you look on this planet, and in almost infinite abundancy, thanks to the enormous nuclear fusion reactor in the sky. Our species just needs to get extremely busy on solving our current crisis and then move on to a newer paradigm where renewable and sustainable energies and technologies are simply taken for granted.

[@Gkuljian]

I was expecting to see a video on removal of CO2. Energy conversion won't solve global warming. In fact, until we address the greenhouse gasses, reducing the aerosol masking effect will only exacerbate the situation. I suggest you have another think.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi G. Thanks for your comments. All views welcome here, as you know. Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) is indeed going to be crucial for our survival. You are absolutely right to point that out, as have I on a couple of occasions in previous videos. And I will certainly be producing a video all about this in the near future. The idea though, if I may say so, that we address one thing at a time sequentially and ignore anything that is not a holistic 'cure-all' plan, is most assuredly not going to work. We need to be researching and developing every single possible technology, all over the world, all at the same time all with as much resource as possible, so that we have the greatest chance of getting one or more of them to work. OMTEC is one of those technologies, and it stands a good chance of making a big difference. At the start of the seventies, during the oil crisis, the British government were offered the opportunity to develop wind power as an alternative to fossil fuels. Given that we are the windiest country in Europe the proposal was not an unreasonable one. But wind power was in it's infancy back then and the British government rejected the idea as an incomplete, and therefore bad, solution. Denmark, by contrast, embraced the concept, threw the idea out to all the farmers and small holders in their country, set up a centre of excellence in Copenhagen and allowed everyone to develop different ideas and share best practice. As a result Denmark cornered a market worth many billions of dollars and laid the foundations of the enormous wind power industry we see today. In essence, G, one thing I have learnt in my career as a Project Manager, is that a 100% guarantee of failure can be reached by sitting around talking about what cannot be achieved, rather than getting on with finding out what can be achieved. Notwithstanding that, debate is good. we need more (as I said to Stephen Mason earlier) so thanks again for your input. All the best.Dave

[@Gkuljian]

@@JustHaveaThink Thanks for your reply! It's going to be "exciting" to see what transpires in the ensuing few years. And by few I mean we are really out of time. I saw this coming 45 years ago, and have been very stressed since the moment it all came to me. Albedo loss; Methane emission possibly already going exponential... It's a big task. And we're bringing a 1/4 million new people to the planet every day.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Very true. It certainly won't be a dull few years, that's for sure!

[@michaelhayes7849]

Many different acronyms have been developed over the last 10 years for carbon removal and utilization tech. The IPCC settled on BioEnergy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration, or BECCS, this last year. I've watched the backroom debates over that time. I made a strong case for Marine BECCS to a senior IPCC member before they published. Marine BECCS is my field. I expect that their next publication will promote Marine BECCS. The Marine biomass issue does not have the limiting factors that terrestrial BECCS has. We can grow only so many crops on land and land BECCS will compete with food crops. Keep in mind we need to place under management a minimum of 6 GtC/y...at a minimum. That is huge yet doable with Marine BECCS. We will struggle doing that on land. Also, the IPCC wants to couple the UN Sustainable Development Goals with BECCS. Marine BECCS operations will potentially be able to support many millions of displaced persons for generations while providing vast amounts of clean water, energy and nutrients for the global market.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Michael. Again, extremely interesting. It's exciting to learn that we have someone with your expert knowledge contributing to the comments thread here. I have seen some articles on ocean based BECCS. I did see some objections to it based around acidification and risks to sealife through anoxic conditions caused by large algal blooms. Are these genuine concerns? Is there some mitigation planning to avoid this? It does seem to me that we have generally ignored the immense amount of capacity and energy in our oceans and my view would be that there should be a really concerted and coordinated effort by all research participants to pursue all options.

[@n1mbusmusic606]

Dave thank you this was extraordinary. thank you so much. wow, a little hope maybe!

[@markbondurant6434]

Torque from currents and especially during storms. Salt water and critters eating things up. Clogged pipes. How do you drydock it? How do you get the energy to shore? The Gulf Stream is shifting. How do you keep them on station? The filters will clog and clog. New cold water on the surface will sink with unpredictable results. And even rogue waves.

[@mixergyltd6286]

Really fascinating! - would be great to understand a couple of points if someone close to the project can answer ... 1) given the available temperature differences, am I right in thinking the max theoretical efficiency is around 5% (i.e Carnot limit) ? and if so 2) there is a vast amount of heat transfer that you're undertaking here so actually 5% of a big number is still significant?! and 3) given that this is primarily about cooling the ocean surface to lessen the impact of hurricanes etc - the electricity generated is sort of a bonus of the scheme rather than its primary economic rationale? -

[@milestaylor7096]

There might be another benefit they're missing. The cool water hefted up to the surface will be nutrient rich. Mixed with warm water and, crucially, sunlight, plankton growth will be massive and consequently overall ecosystem productivity would increase. A lot of CO2 would be drawn down from the atmosphere and seawater to feed all that new growth.

[@Iridehier]

The venturi differential is not step enough , intermediate heat/pressure exchangers would increase the gradient. Horizontal expansion on the suface with graduated application to the column would be a method of compensation. good luck

[@kennethferland5579]

Main issue is the low conversion efficiency. Using endothermic reversible 1 - sqroot( hot / cold ) yields efficiency of only 2.75%. With at 10m diameter pipe in the gulfstream your ingesting ~200 m^3 of water per second (78.5 m^2 opening with 2.68 m/s speed), at 4.2 J/g/degree C, and a16 degree differential and 2.75% efficiency this all comes out to ~370 Mw from thermal differences alone and before the loss due to raising the cold water mass. The kinetic energy of the same ingested water stream is 700 Kw which is quite low compared to the thermal energy.

[@Mickeycuatropatas]

Look st Georges Claude's OTEC issues in Cuba. Jacque Cousteau had a similar idea with generating power in the Straights of Gibraltar where opposite currents take place at different depths.

[@billconley2599]

This sounds promising but at what cost. By now one thing should be clear. Any potential solutions to CC must cost the same (or preferably less) than the fossil fuel alternatives. Few can or will pay more to “save the planet” or impact their lifestyles in any meaningful or long term manner. So it does not matter if a tech can supply lots of energy if it cannot do it at a viable price.

[@patrickmcnulty848]

This powers CC..

[@billconley2599]

Patrick McNulty - Not sure what this statement even means.

[@patrickmcnulty848]

@@billconley2599 It powers various technologies that change climate back to what it was during the pre industrial revolution..

[@reverands571]

Does anyone realize that we are trying to maintain the planet at its "un-natural" temperature?? Geologically, it is 10° C warmer 80 to 90 percent of its history.

[@Meowbay]

@@reverands571 Hardly true. It's been in a climatic equilibrium state pretty much for the last 10000 years, and before that it has been trying to find that equilibrium state for about 15 million years. It's been evolving and progressing towards those states, it's not like those 80% of its history where it was warmer should be 'default' states. The Sun wasn't hot enough for 99% of its history too. That's no argument to not try and desire its current state.

[@YodaWhat]

The use of Gulf Stream kinetic energy shown in this video is questionable in multiple ways. First, the Gulf Stream is not in a perfectly fixed location, but wanders around somewhat. That will be a problem for barges anchored in place against the force of stream flow. Then the deep current is much slower than the surface current, so creating the needed cold flow will require more pressure difference to be created by the venturi. That, in turn, will reduce the surface flow inside the system. If deployed on a large scale, the surface temperatures will indeed be reduced, and that will hurt performance of the units installed downstream from the first row. But most importantly, the surface cooling will further impede the Global Thermohaline Cycle (aka Ocean Conveyor), which is already compromised by the influx of meltwater from arctic glaciers. Further reductions in that flow will make weather events more extreme, as the atmosphere will be forced to transport energy that is presently carried by the Gulf Stream. Nor is external kinetic energy really necessary to achieve the desired 'self pumping' of deep, cold water. I worked one out some years ago, called IceOTEC.

[@patrickmcnulty848]

The Gulfstream between Miami and the Bahama bank is in a fixed location..

[@Andytlp]

Yeah maybe we should simulate this entirely before messing with the planet.

[@KGopidas]

The generator is mobile is it not?

[@f.osborn1579]

Please more info I’m a mechanical engineering student studying renewable energy tech.

[@patrickmcnulty848]

Show your Professor. :)

[@TracyMachete]

don't know much but my first thought was what is running the pumps and then you explained that, and then my second thought is could bringing all that cold water from the bottom and releasing it to the top actually have a negative effect especially if this is done in a multitude larger scale

[@dallastaylor5479]

Interesting. I still, just intinctively, think it is just buying time. The root cause of climate change and resource depletion comes down to over population. That is the problem that needs solving so any other solution has a chance.

[@stephenmason5827]

Marcia W we are trying to put right the last problem we made by creating even more problems. This will not work. We need to open our eyes and understand we are part of the web of life not gods who play with it. Humanity cannot put itself first all the time and survive. I give us 2 to 3 decades before thing become really unpleasant for life on Earth. That's if we don't get any positive feedbacks kicking in like a large methane release and Brazils new president doesn't cut down the Amazon Rainforest for industry

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Marcia. Thanks, as always, for your comments. You're quite right that this, and other technologies, only buy us time. But my view would be that any extra time is worth having. Statistically (assuming we survive this century), the human population is set to be 11 Billion by 2100. That number of people would still just about fit, standing side by side, on New Zealand. So I think the time that these technologies buy us is time we need to use to get people off of fossil fuels and away from such profligate consumption of meat, and red meat in particular. Having said that, I accept that anything we try now has, frankly, got a less than 50-50 chance of nailing the problem, but I think we do still need to shoot for these things. If we don't give it a go, then we'll never know, and I for one would like to go to my grave at least knowing that I did everything in my power to change things. Difficult times indeed :-(

[@mikeharrington5593]

The Malthusian argument about bare population numbers doesn't stack up when balanced against resource-stripping populations. For example, Is having 3 children in the USA better or worse for the planet than having 3 kids in, say, Southern Sudan? I believe the reality is the Sudanese are at least an order of magnitude less damaging to the planet in terms of resource depletion & burning or consuming fossil fuel products. The Sudanese also have a much shorter life expectancy in which to compound their planetary impact, because of course their local environment (food, water, health) cannot sustain the numbers being born there.

[@dallastaylor5479]

@@stephenmason5827 well put Stephen. Agree!!!

[@STROONZONY]

Environmental destruction root cause is the inequality of the (over)population. Third world countries mined and logged for first world countries.

[@Campaigner82]

Well Done! How is this project going?

[@benpaynter]

What a great idea!

[@DavidKD2050]

Massive up front costs. Like astronomical costs. If just producing energy is considered on land solar or wind is going to be far more economical. But really cool tech. I do love it.

[@EdFrench_uk]

Moorings are needed (to get a reaction against the current). Mooring in deep seas is very expensive sadly (it was a big problem for early wave energy converters). Add to that the structural challenges...

[@radguitar1]

Imho, hands down, biggest problem will be maintaining the intake screens. Next would be physically maintaining the location; those little animated cables are cute😅

[@itsrachelfish]

Omg the splash sound effect at 2:26 😂🤣

[@blue280485]

@Just Have a Think Hi I love this idea specially using the Venturi Syphon to 'pump' water up to the surface from 1000m deep, you get higher energy than what you put in 👏👍 I would like to suggest, instead of freon working fluid based binary cycle power conversation, why not use a Low Temperature Difference Sterling Engine, which works with a temperature difference as low as 5 degree C, wouldn't that be better, what do you think 🤔 Keep up the good work.

[@charliedevine6869]

Binary cycle is a continuous system: better for large scale.

[@miles2378]

Can a Sterling engine be scaled up to multy megawat outpute levels?

[@paulusaurelius5021]

I agree that it will stop the gulf stream if you remove all that heat. It will disrupt all the life in the north.

[@gailselleg622]

Great ideas!

[@nell8290]

A 10 meter diameter tube at the bottom taking in "Force 1" can not push a column of water vertically that is 10 meters x 600 meters long. It wouldn't even make it half way up. At the very least the horizontal tunnel at the sea floor would need to be much larger with at least a substantial narrowing to create a venturi effect to try and push the water further up the column.

[@crhu319]

This potential is incredible but to really work you need some kind of thermal superconductor to move the heat or a thermocouple to generate current without moving water.

[@absolomtoili8119]

I was thinking of ways of getting temperature differences. What I have understood here, from 600 metres deep, temperature is about 6 degrees celsius, and at the surface it is about 20. I was suggesting something else optional or additional to the 600metres pipe.

[@littlecoloreddots]

If running cables to the shore is a pain, consider using the power to generate hydrogen through electrolysis. There is already a market for hydrogen and it could be huge in the future.

[@philiprogers5772]

you haven't mentioned the energy payback. How long would it have to run to generate the energy it took to build it?

[@patrickmcnulty848]

5 years about the same time it would take to restore the Arctic Sea Ice..

[@philiprogers5772]

@@patrickmcnulty848 compared to 3 months for an offshore wind turbine.

[@patrickmcnulty848]

@@philiprogers5772 The problem is windmills are not 24/7/365. Ocean Mechanical Thermal Energy Conversion is.. Great for base loading..

[@pierrearmand6590]

The obvious question is how does this complex system handle large waves and storms. Also keeping Freon as a liquid would allow more power through the generators. I’m not a representative for big oil but I heard of a project called net zero where they generate electricity from natural gas, using compressed co2 instead of water to run the electricity generation. This would be way cheaper than your ocean electricity generator.

[@urbancarlson7642]

Interesting idea. I suppose the vessel needs to be anchored to the bottom with a cable or similar?

[@johnbinnie5697]

Best of luck!

[@mikepict9011]

Nutrient rich deep water could spawn algae blooms as well

[@patrickmcnulty848]

Yes OMTEC can be used as platform to increase algae blooms...

[@ajayvee6677]

But algal blooms could be a positive feature if they are directed into a sequence of marine farms that turn phytoplankton into zooplankton, then small fish then into harvestable larger fish.

[@mikepict9011]

@@ajayvee6677 yeah , it actually would happen on its own as the ocean became more acidic and more void of large life , the slime would rise and consume carbon. It that would mess up the beaches so sometimes they pour bleach , and sometimes ozone depletion caused uva radiation to not get filtered , destroying simple phytoplankton in the process . But yes you are correct. The earth does want to heal and maintain homeostasis too .

[@DrSirmacek]

Please show the forces on this long pipe and explain me how it will not be broken within the first 10 minutes of execution. Thanks for your courage to dream.

[@tedrees5989]

Let's say you take the same ocean surface area that is covered by the OMTEC system, and simply float solar panels on the ocean. Panels get about 20% efficiency, and produce about 700 WH per square meter per day. Will the ocean tunnel generate that much energy per day?

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Ted. Many thanks for your comments. All feedback is very welcome on this channel and especially at such an early stage of a new initiative such as this. Energy production levels from OMTEC need to be established. That's why there is now a concerted outreach for scientific research and analysis. I would say though that each of the four generators in the animated model is roughly equivalent in size to the generators currently in use at the Hoover Dam, so the aspiration is for very significant power generation from each platform. In addition, Patrick has spent significant time discussing the principles with Hugh Willoughby at the Florida Hurricane Centre and the view from there is that there is a good case for this technology. To your point about solar panels. You will hopefully have noticed that solar panels are installed on the roof of the main building, which is about two thirds of the entire surface area of the platform, so we are already getting the benefit of well protected panels without the complications involved in floating them. Having said that, solar panels are indeed being floated in some parts of the world like China. They will work extremely well on relatively calm, ringfenced water. They are high maintenance though. In addition they do not provide a platform for other technologies in the way that OMTEC does (e.g. microbubbles). In essence, I think it is fair to say that we have reached a point where ALL potential mitigation technologies need to be immediately and robustly researched and developed, with significant commercial and/or government backing in combination with an open-minded approach from the scientific community. If I could go one step further, I would also add that arguably the most important overriding principle with all renewable technologies is that they are aimed at displacing fossil fuels as rapidly and comprehensively as humanly possible. The fossil fuel heirarchy will be delighted to see disagreement and dissent amongst the scientific community because that buys them more and more time to entrench their position and open as many new drilling and mining opportunities as possible, some of which are in extremely deep water or up in the Arctic. All the best. Dave

[@YouAskedForThis563]

Reducing the surface water temperature will reduce the productivity of the ocean's photosynthetic zone, causing poverty and starvation. Rather than inventing new means of ruining the environment, promote old architectural designs that eliminate the need for global warming air conditioning systems.

[@MrMartinNeumann]

Actually bringing up colder more nutrient-rich water from the bottom will increase the number of nutrients available in the surface water increases productivity. Temperature is not much of a factor for the algae growth, after all the oceans close to the poles are some of the most productive on the planet in that regard.

[@lumtavon1952]

Would welcome an update on the many "in development ideas" looking to economic deployment . Now the focus should move to technologies which help governments to deliver their reduction targets and hopefully more. Great video 👍

[@IonStorland]

Look forward to see this principle to function in real world ☺️🌍

[@mathieulamaure1487]

It's all nice and dandy on a 3d model. But how do you service the pumps , the evaporators and the condensers underwater in real life?

[@hart3105]

i used to work at MIT. i bet they'd be interested, if not the faculty... the students.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi David. Thanks for your feedback. That's an extremely interesting potential avenue of investigation. Can you recommend an appropriate email address or contact there that we may be able to get in touch with? My channel email is [e-mail], if this forum is not the right place to share such information.

[@Mickeycuatropatas]

First principles of physics (echoes of Elon Musk) comes to mind and the limitations of the Carnot cycle (33%) and the delta Temperature (somewhere around 20°C maximum) will yield low efficiencies as mentioned in other comments. The venturi effect to create lower pressure to lift 600m of denser water with a 6 knot velocity seems qualitatively/intuitively not possible (some simple calculations could easily prove this). Cold water and freeze desalination is a marriage made in heaven - starting temperature is 4° and freeze desalination is much more energy efficient than partial vacuum thermal desalination. Impingement/entrainment issues are a real concern here in respect to maintenance and environmental impacts. Think Google's cheaper than coal mantra awhile back (renewable energy < coal or RE

[@patrickmcnulty848]

As long as Force 1 tunnel inlet is greater then Force 2 tunnel outlet flow occurs no matter the depth. Energy is conserved along the entire inside length of the tunnel...

[@eMeeuwEngineering]

@@patrickmcnulty848 sadly this is not true, because the water in the tube going up is dense water from the bottom, so there must be a significant over pressure at the bottom to force all this extra mass upwards.

[@patrickmcnulty848]

@@eMeeuwEngineering Sorry.. F1 > F2...

[@rastakax2185]

If you draw the Gulf Stream on too much energy, Europe will have an ice age.

[@tuulikk2]

I almost want one. It would probably take a lot to change the temperature. Just doing enough of this to affect temperature in Europe will probably be at a colossal scale.

[@CharlieSolis]

Sounds about what happened just after the fall of Atlantis... 😂😂😂

[@Kiyarose3999]

How many billions would this cost?, I would rather save all the Mining and manufacturing using toxic chemicals etc. And spend the money on reforesting deserts etc, then you help sequester vast amounts of CO2 while creating wildlife habitats!

[@HarryJMac]

A good idea but this bumps into the Carnot law and Carnot cycle. Basically getting a decent theoretical efficiency for a heat engine depends on having a large temperature difference between the hot end and the cold end and this scheme has a very small difference. In terms of absolute temperature the hot end is 293°K and the cold 297°K This means that the maximum theoretical efficiency, i.e. assuming all losses are zero, is 6% (1 - 279/297) So basically you need a lot of machinery for a relatively small output. Good luck if you can get it to be economic. I hope you can.

[@CooperCarr]

Is this a proven concept in any way? Looks to be just a rendering? Were there any models done?