This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

10,243 Members

Post

The Energy/Environment Algorithm

Webster defines an algorithm as a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end, especially by a computer.

Increasingly the global economy, which is the production, distribution, or trade, and consumption of goods and services is being governed by these programs which as Kevin Slavin points out in his excellent TED talk are shaping our world. They establish stock prices but not satisfied with speculating on tangible assets, the latest craze is to make the algorithm itself a proof of work that purportedly has intrinsic value.

Surely there are enough real-world problems requiring solutions for which funds now being pyramided on speculation schemes would be better put to work and to that end the following algorithm is submitted.

The Legend for the energy/environment algorithm is:

Footnotes:  
1Singularity University   
2Bloomberg     
3National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

 

The first line of this algorithm relates to the current mix of primary energy sources now dominated by fossil fuels.

The second line relates to the nominal value of energy1 and introduces the environmental cost of business2 that is the fossil fuel discount mandated by the negative environmental implications of this form of energy production. Whereas gross domestic product counts the total value of goods and services, the true value of energy is its net benefit and since we need to be weaned off fossil fuels by the end of the century, its total value is estimated at $207 trillion.

The third line estimates the planetary consequences of fossil fuels which have been estimated at 335 terawatts3 a year, escalating to 640 terawatts by the end of the century in a business as usual scenario.

The next line shows the temperature of the Earth’s surface prior to the industrial revolution, the current temperature, the annual increase, the estimated temperature by 2100, average temperature at the North Pole, the estimate at the pole by 2100, the average at the equator, the temperature of a 1000 meter long column of ammonia reaching into the ocean, the ocean temperature at 1000 meters, the Carnot efficiency of a heat engine moving surface heat to 1000 meters, the parasitic losses of the system modeled and the net Carnot efficiency which may range between 4 and 7.5 percent. The essence of the model is; heat removed from a tropical ocean surface to deeper water is unavailable to produce polar ice melt or tropical storms.

The sequestered heat will be replaced by heat from outside the tropics which will lead to an overall cooling of the surface. Some suggest that such a scheme would melt the deep ocean clathrates but the more sensitive climate models predict that methane hydrates at greater water depths than 500 meters are not threatened by warming of 3 degrees of warming. These however suggest that warming of only 1oC along the continental margins and in the Arctic would melt the clathrates, which is a consequence avoided by the conversion and sequestration of the heat of warming to productive energy.

Line 5 calculates the economic benefit of converting warming heat to productive energy. At a conversion of 7.344%, the current ocean heat accumulation rate of 335 terawatts would produce 24.6 terawatts or about 70% more energy than we now derive from fossil fuels while avoiding their environmental cost of business.

The ocean is essentially a thermal battery. Like all batteries, it has a negative and a positive terminal and in this model a heat conduit through which heat flows to the deep and through a turbine to produce power. With a conventional battery, a chemical reaction causes a movement of electrons through a circuit and the ultimate discharge of the battery. The ocean surface too losses some of its charge producing energy which is replaced by heat from beyond the tropics. Once we stop producing greenhouse gases, the 1.2 degrees of warming we have experienced to date could then be drawn on to produce power. Heat however rises. The heat moved to a depth of 1000 meters is therefore back at the surface in about 250 years and becomes a new energy input for another energy cycle.

Essentially the ocean battery is self-charging and therefore can produce power for as long as it takes to convert the heat of warming to useful work. So regardless of the efficiency of the conversion, the ocean produces the same total amount of power, with the only variable being the amount of energy produced annually, at a minimum 13.4 terawatts, and the number of years the energy is available, which may vary from between 3,400 to 6,250 years.

The bottom line is: ocean heat can produce 137 times more energy than fossil fuels and do it at least 40 times longer.

The viability of the approach is confirmed by the following schedule that compares the cost of a 200 megawatt OTEC system with current North American nuclear and hydroelectric undertakings.

The savings are between 35 and 147 percent.

Instead of trying to pull of money out of thin air with our algorithms, we need blockchains that use these procedures to their greatest economic and social effect.

Environmentally sustainable energy can be a force multiplier that resolves the next great needs of mankind, water, food, environment, poverty, terrorism and war, disease, education, democracy and population growth.

This iteration of the energy/environment algorithm is subject to improvement and further development but the current computer model is available upon request.

Jim Baird's picture

Thank Jim for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

Discussions

Sean OM's picture
Sean OM on Dec 29, 2017 9:22 pm GMT

Makai, is still saying it is roughly 20c/kwh levelized cost for their OTEC technology. Maybe Puerto Rico needs a system, and Makai has made some improvements to their system to help knock costs down a bit.

Alistair Newbould's picture
Alistair Newbould on Dec 31, 2017 2:08 am GMT
Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on Dec 31, 2017 6:30 am GMT

Two things stand out.

First, you ignore the massive pollution actual ocean environmentalists warn of. They are picking plastic garbage off beaches and finding plastic in sea animal carcasses. They are pulling choking algae from coral beds. Why in God’s name don’t we hear fake climate scientists screaming to stop this ocean dumping of persistent waste?? Science fact, clean water evaporates when warmed, providing rain to California.

Here in Minnesota it sounds like waste to energy plants are finally given priority over landfills. Maybe a good idea for the UN climate crowd to consider.

Second, I can’t remember, or don’t want to bother, except I’m very impressed with my new toy, FreeDOS. FreeDOS is a replica of old MSDOS, and I believe has profound value for industrial automation and production efficiency. Why re-invent the algorithm wheel??

Hops Gegangen's picture
Hops Gegangen on Jan 1, 2018 12:16 pm GMT

I see the BOM for the hardware, but what about project management, labor, a factory to amortize, transportation of materials? What would the maintenance be like? Also, what about transmission lines?

Jim Baird's picture
Jim Baird on Jan 1, 2018 2:47 pm GMT

Hops, a Pen State article – http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.529.7924&rep=re... – says half of the construction cost is assumed to be absorbed by shipyard labor. It also estimates the cost of a double hulled, 45,000 dwt crude/product tanker, at $68,000,000. So at 36,500 tonnes the cost of the design modeled is very conservative. It is assumed that the operation and
maintenance costs are the same for OTEC and conventional plants of the same power capacity and the plant converts offshore power to an energy carrier like hydrogen or ammonia so there are no transmission lines, but there are bulk carriers.

Jim Baird's picture
Jim Baird on Jan 1, 2018 3:33 pm GMT
Jim Baird's picture
Jim Baird on Jan 10, 2018 4:57 pm GMT

The third line contains a typo. RF is shown as 2.6 watts per meter squared when it should read 1.6 watts per meter squared. My apologies.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »