Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Underwater suspension tunnels  (Read 24776 times)

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Underwater suspension tunnels
« on: July 20, 2015, 10:46:18 PM »
« Last Edit: July 21, 2015, 01:16:50 PM by Neven »

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7682
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2015, 01:18:50 PM »
Patrick, I've removed the Caps Lock from the title. I'd appreciate it if you'd explain your idea a bit or copy text form the piece you refer to, rather than just dump a link.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2015, 03:40:26 PM »
Sure Neven a short snippet of what they are and what they can do. The Gulfstream is known to have enough heat energy in it to power the ENTIRE industrialized world over 100X. Set enough of these in the Gulfstream and they only need to convert 1% of that heat energy into electrical energy to put ALL fossil and NUCLEAR fuel in the ground forever for as long as Earth spins. They can make electrical power 24/7/365 directly with Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) and or with the kinetic energy in the stream directly or make hydrogen with hydrolyzers to make electrical power via combustion turbines (CT's). In other words they can power EVERYTHING on Earth and recharge ALL batteries for electrical cars like Tesla's EV's anywhere on Earth. By doing so ZERO GHG's are made from burning fossil fuels. So how do we get the Co2, Methane and NOX back out of the atmosphere which will stay a long time afterwards so that Earth temperatures will fall again so more summertime ice will form in the Arctic? The hydrogen they make can run CT's anywhere on Earth that power such machines that remove the CO2, Methane and NOX.. This means as temperatures fall ice will rebuild in the arctic and Albedo will increase so more incoming solar energy will be reflected back out to space thus cooling Earth more... So what happens if we overshoot and start to cool to much with them? They each have a 3 way temperature control valve built in that can regulate the temperature exiting each tunnel. Computer modeling of them can tell us what set point they should be set at... I predict and computers will show that once they are placed into operation our Arctic Ice summertime extent could return to 1979 levels in 5 to 10 years if not sooner. This is energy conversion at its finest... Basically they use some of Earths gravitational potential energy, heat energy and kinetic energy in the gulfstream or other Western boundary currents as our new energy source...
« Last Edit: July 21, 2015, 03:48:26 PM by 12Patrick »

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7682
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2015, 03:48:40 PM »
Thanks, Patrick. Sounds interesting.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2015, 03:59:14 PM »
If you would like Neven you can do a write up on them also like Sam Carana did. I need to get the word out there that their is hope for our Arctic Ice... You can also join my Facebook page Restore Northern Summertime Arctic Ice Now if interested...
« Last Edit: July 23, 2015, 08:35:45 AM by 12Patrick »

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3448
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 639
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2015, 04:05:49 PM »
Note: the following is from a company website...
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
Quote
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion technology, known as OTEC, uses the ocean’s natural thermal gradient to generate power. In geographical areas with warm surface water and cold deep water, the temperature difference can be leveraged to drive a steam cycle that turns a turbine and produces power. Warm surface sea water passes through a heat exchanger, vaporizing a low boiling point working fluid to drive a turbine generator, producing electricity.
...
Lockheed Martin Ocean Systems Division, based in Sunnyvale, California, developed a mini OTEC plant, which ran for three months and successfully generated 50 kilowatts of electricity.

Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7682
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2015, 04:09:58 PM »
I don't know, Patrick. It's difficult for me to assess the technical aspects and feasability of your idea, and I don't like to write about things I don't know anything about. Furthermore, the Arctic Sea Ice blog is mainly about Arctic sea ice and the potential consequences of its loss, but this is about solutions to the AGW problem, and Arctic sea ice restoration is just a small aspect of your idea's advantages.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2015, 04:33:47 PM »
Correct Neven but if you ask most climatologist they will say the climate starts in the Arctic. In other words the Arctic is a great indicator as to what is happening to Earths climate.. That is huge and one of the the main reasons I formulated my idea... If the arctic is warming then so is Earth globally. If the arctic is cooling then so is Earth Globally... Anyways, your are correct it is a AGW problem that does need solutions. Glad you have the solution topic here... We must take care of our Arctic it is as important as our rain forests...

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2076
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2015, 04:54:49 PM »
As an engineer who has studied these things I can tell you that massive underwater infrastructure is far too cost and maintenance heavy to make it worthwhile.  consider wave energy which is available and prolific all over the globe.  It is simply too expensive, the energy extraction too light to justify the cost.  Even tidal energy projects in places like the Bay of Fundy have yet to be developed due to the technical and costly designs/maintenance  http://energy.novascotia.ca/renewables/marine-renewable-energy

It is getting harder and harder to beat solar with battery storage as least-cost renewable energy generation. 
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2015, 05:20:33 PM »
As an engineer who has studied these things I can tell you that massive underwater infrastructure is far too cost and maintenance heavy to make it worthwhile.  consider wave energy which is available and prolific all over the globe.  It is simply too expensive, the energy extraction too light to justify the cost.  Even tidal energy projects in places like the Bay of Fundy have yet to be developed due to the technical and costly designs/maintenance  http://energy.novascotia.ca/renewables/marine-renewable-energy

It is getting harder and harder to beat solar with battery storage as least-cost renewable energy generation.


Don't know about that. Lockheed Martin is building OTEC projects now plus my idea makes them more efficient 24/7/365...... http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/lockheed-martin-wants-to-pull-electricity-from-the-oceans-heat-27449215/?no-ist , http://blogs.rollcall.com/energy-xtra/ocean-thermal-gets-a-second-chance/?dcz=
« Last Edit: July 21, 2015, 05:27:04 PM by 12Patrick »

Xulonn

  • New ice
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #10 on: July 22, 2015, 01:05:17 AM »
This idea has been bandied about since 2007 by Patrick McNulty (Patrick12 here and Cyclonebuster at Wunderground).  I mention his name, because today he has been bugging the regulars at Dr. Ricky Rood's Weather Underground climate blog to help him identify Neven by his full name, found it, and published it.  He claims it is important to know a blogger's full name.  I think he is trying to get you to "promote his idea."

From my perspective, I cannot see that the infamous Cyclonebuster "tunnels" idea has merit at this time.  He spammed Dr.Rood's blog with it many times, and is no longer allowed to do that.  In eight years, there have been no engineering studies, feasibility studies or anything else that could remotely be referred to as rigorous research and analysis. 

The only "testing" of the concept was a simplistic "prototype" gadget with a few PVC pipes in a local creek.  ()  Yet it is touted as "THE SOLUTION" to global warming.  The purveyor of this primitive and untested scheme gets upset when challenged and asked for more information or evidence of serious development.  After eight years, it is still at ground zero. 

I see underwater suspension tunnels as an interesting basic principle, but its feasibility is supported only by an extremely primitive prototype.  Such a large marine geoengineering project based on a floating monstrosity in the Gulf Stream would be massive, complex and expensive, and require constant expensive maintenance.  I cannot see it surviving major hurricanes.  No real engineer seems interested in pursuing it after eight years of promotion on blogs. 

Below is the only graphic of the proposal - the only document that goes beyond generalized  discussions of the concept.  I am not aware of any additional "engineering" for this proposal which is touted as a sure way to reverse global warming: 

If anyone sees merit in this "tunnels"proposal, I will listen to any rational and logical arguments. 
« Last Edit: July 22, 2015, 02:20:05 AM by Xulonn »

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #11 on: July 22, 2015, 01:14:54 AM »
Here is one F1 > F2.. To clarify F1 is pressure at tunnel inlet and F2 is pressure at tunnel outlet. So is F1 greater than F2?  Yes or NO?
« Last Edit: July 22, 2015, 01:33:10 AM by 12Patrick »

OldLeatherneck

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #12 on: July 22, 2015, 02:20:20 AM »
This idea has been bandied about since 2007 by Patrick McNulty (Patrick12 here and Cyclonebuster at Wunderground).  I mention his name, because today he has been bugging the regulars at Dr. Ricky Rood's Weather Underground climate blog to help him identify Neven by his full name, found it, and published it.  He claims it is important to know a blogger's full name.  I think he is trying to get you to "promote his idea."

From my perspective, I cannot see that the infamous Cyclonebuster "tunnels" idea has merit at this time.  He spammed Dr.Rood's blog with it many times, and is no longer allowed to do that.  In eight years, there have been no engineering studies, feasibility studies or anything else that could remotely be referred to as rigorous research and analysis. 

The only "testing" of the concept was a simplistic "prototype" gadget with a few PVC pipes in a local creek.  (LINK to YouTube video.)  Yet it is touted as "THE SOLUTION" to global warming.  The purveyor of this primitive and untested scheme gets upset when challenged and asked for more information or evidence of serious development.  After eight years, it is still at ground zero. 

I see underwater suspension tunnels as an interesting basic principle, but its feasibility is supported only by an extremely primitive prototype.  Such a large marine geoengineering project based on a floating monstrosity in the Gulf Stream would be massive, complex and expensive, and require constant expensive maintenance.  I cannot see it surviving major hurricanes.  No real engineer seems interested in pursuing it after eight years of promotion on blogs. 

Below is the only graphic of the proposal - the only document that goes beyond generalized  discussions of the concept.  I am not aware of any additional "engineering" for this proposal which is touted as a sure way to reverse global warming: 

If anyone sees merit in this "tunnels"proposal, I will listen to any rational and logical arguments. 


I concur with Xullon wholeheartedly.  I first saw this cartoon concept on the Wunderground in 2012.  Having spent much of my career in shipyard construction environments and at sea facing the elements, I decided to identify the many flaws to the initial concept as well as the potential development costs and numerous regulatory hurdles.  Having worked on $100M+ proposals for both the Department of Defense and NASA, I felt I was giving "12Patrick" or "Cyclonebuster" my professional opinion.  Assuming the concept was scientifically sound, which  I  doubt, getting a prototype built and approved for at-sea testing would take a minimum of 5 years and well in excess of $150M.  My opinions, nor those of other, were not listened to.  I could go on, but this idea has been debunked for years.
"Share Your Knowledge.  It's a Way to Achieve Immortality."  ......the Dalai Lama

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #13 on: July 22, 2015, 03:08:51 AM »
Again it is as simple as this.. Is force 1 at tunnel inlet greater than force 2 at tunnel outlet??? If yes then it works if no then it doesn't work... Of course all first prototypes are expensive at first. Check my linkedin profile I have worked in the power generation field for my whole career mostly in the control room where the power is made for over 30 years..... https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=145875768&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2076
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #14 on: July 22, 2015, 09:22:48 PM »
Quote
force 1 at tunnel inlet greater than force 2 at tunnel outlet??? If yes then it works

There is a reason that one doesn't build solar farms in the middle of a forest.  Is there light there?  will it produce electricity???  yes.

same with wind, you don't put a windmill in the middle of a desert with hot still days and nights.

will they generate electricity? yes.  will it justify the costs? no.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #15 on: July 22, 2015, 09:55:55 PM »
The idea taps into an energy supply that can power the ENTIRE industrialized world over 100X and that is just in the Gulfstream alone. They only need 1% of that heat energy to do it. There are two other deep western boundary currents on Earth that will do the same thing. You are comparing apples to oranges... The energy potential is enormous and even if they were to cost 100 billion dollars to power ALL of Earth for as long as Earth spins that is still a lot cheaper then the damage climate change will do by 2050... That bill is projected to cost 60 TRILLION dollars by then... The idea prevents that bill which will be the precursor to the collapse of society.... So yes they do justify the cost and they do save the Arctic Ice.....
« Last Edit: July 22, 2015, 10:05:59 PM by 12Patrick »

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7682
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #16 on: July 22, 2015, 10:01:40 PM »
Patrick, is it possible that someone would already have come up with this idea if it were feasible and profitable (more profitable than other renewables)? Because it sounds really simple.

What is the calculated EROEI for instance? Like jai says, massive underwater infrastructure is very costly and maintenance heavy.

In what way is it better than solar panels? Mind you, every hour the sun beams onto Earth more than enough energy to satisfy global energy needs for an entire year. That's a lot better than your 1%. And the energy can be produced in a decentralised way, which is much better for society than huge power plants that can only be bought by the powers that be.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

ghoti

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #17 on: July 22, 2015, 10:45:18 PM »

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #18 on: July 22, 2015, 10:54:26 PM »




Patrick, is it possible that someone would already have come up with this idea if it were feasible and profitable (more profitable than other renewables)? Because it sounds really simple.

What is the calculated EROEI for instance? Like jai says, massive underwater infrastructure is very costly and maintenance heavy.

In what way is it better than solar panels? Mind you, every hour the sun beams onto Earth more than enough energy to satisfy global energy needs for an entire year. That's a lot better than your 1%. And the energy can be produced in a decentralised way, which is much better for society than huge power plants that can only be bought by the powers that be.
I came up with my idea many years ago back in the late 80's as a means of modifying hurricanes and it has evolved to this now.. Remember 1% is all we need now but they have the ability to do many times that if population explodes. The biggest advantage is 24/7/365 power generation and control of the climate meaning they have the ability to hold arctic ice extent at a constant  by regulation of SST's if we want them to ... Solar panels can't do that...

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #19 on: July 22, 2015, 10:57:51 PM »
You mean something like this being tested off of Australia?

http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/17/underwater-aussie-wave-farms-pump-both-power-and-water/

Similar but not exactly these just generate power from wave motion my idea uses some of the gravitational potential energy. heat energy and kinetic energy in the Gulfstream 24 /7/365...

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7682
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #20 on: July 22, 2015, 11:02:55 PM »
I came up with my idea many years ago back in the late 80's as a means of modifying hurricanes and it has evolved to this now.. Remember 1% is all we need now but they have the ability to do many times that if population explodes. The biggest advantage is 24/7/365 power generation and control of the climate meaning they have the ability to hold arctic ice extent at a constant  by regulation of SST's if we want them to ... Solar panels can't do that...

Again, it sounds so easy. Why hasn't it been done or put forward by more people?
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #21 on: July 22, 2015, 11:09:51 PM »
I came up with my idea many years ago back in the late 80's as a means of modifying hurricanes and it has evolved to this now.. Remember 1% is all we need now but they have the ability to do many times that if population explodes. The biggest advantage is 24/7/365 power generation and control of the climate meaning they have the ability to hold arctic ice extent at a constant  by regulation of SST's if we want them to ... Solar panels can't do that...

Again, it sounds so easy. Why hasn't it been done or put forward by more people?

My thoughts are because they want every last bit of oil out of the ground before something like this is done... Same goes for solar panels and wind energy... Those are by far the most easy and look at the long hard road they have traveled...

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #22 on: July 23, 2015, 01:11:54 AM »
Sure would be nice to get some fine university to computer model my idea with me....

mati

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 268
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2015, 12:35:08 AM »
i saw a great idea for water injection into a gasoline motor that increased mileage by 100 percent.

I'm sorry 12patrick... your idea does not hold water, and i think it's time for you to invent a new idea :)
and so it goes

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #24 on: July 24, 2015, 01:18:19 AM »
Care to elaborate mati? Pretty lame explanation there...

icefest

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #25 on: July 24, 2015, 02:48:05 AM »
You keep mentioning this 1%,  is this like the wind energy thing where you can only extract roughly 63%of the energy?

Other than the poly pipe model you made, have you built a small scale system and run it for a few days/weeks while measuring the electricity output in order to prove efficiency?

If you can show costs of half that of solar with your small model in sure you'd get further than by posting on blogs.
Open other end.

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #26 on: July 24, 2015, 03:21:02 AM »
I am looking for a university to computer model the concept first before building a small model. I already know it will work based on what I know already about Commercial fossil fuel and nuclear power plants...

icefest

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #27 on: July 24, 2015, 04:16:59 AM »
Have you written a basic model that you can run on a current computer?

Open other end.

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #28 on: July 24, 2015, 04:50:25 AM »
Wish I could that is not my expertise..I would think a university would already have a computer model set up to do this already...

icefest

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2015, 10:56:24 AM »
So you have an theoretical system that will cost billions of dollars which has never been computer modeled nor built to scale,and you want other people to design this for you for free? At this stage you don't even know if current materials engineering can create a structure that would be strong enough.

When you compare it to solar (where current technology already makes it cheaper in some places than FF), do you think the research costs  will make it a financially sound investment?
Open other end.

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #30 on: July 27, 2015, 12:47:23 PM »
Dr. Hugh Willoughby at FIU worked out that 20,000 of them at a cost of 20 billion could weaken a Cat. 5 Hurricane headed towards Miami from the East like Andrew 2 categories prior to landfall. He gave me the size of them also. They are better than wind or solar because they operate 24/7/365.

icefest

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #31 on: July 28, 2015, 02:18:20 AM »
So you expect them to cost roughly 100,000 each? What output in kw would that supply?

Solar PV has a capacity factor of between 10 and 30% (seasonally, EIA 2011-2013), wind between 20-40% (also seasonally, opposite to PV, EIA 2011-2013).

This means your cost per kwh needs to be less than that of what solar or wind will cost in 10 years.


Open other end.

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #32 on: July 28, 2015, 02:51:31 AM »
So you expect them to cost roughly 100,000 each? What output in kw would that supply?

Solar PV has a capacity factor of between 10 and 30% (seasonally, EIA 2011-2013), wind between 20-40% (also seasonally, opposite to PV, EIA 2011-2013).

This means your cost per kwh needs to be less than that of what solar or wind will cost in 10 years.

Well so since Lockheed Martin is currently designing and building 100 MW OTEC units now it would be feasable to place one 100 mw unit on each of the 20,000 tunnels.  http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2013/april/lockheed-martin-and-reignwood-group-to-develop-ocean-thermal-ene.html It may be possible to fit 4 on each tunnel. That can sure charge a lot of batteries for Tesla's EV's and the battery pack they make for homes and they produce a lot of hydrogen with hydrolyzers to power Earth... Not including the kinetic energy in the gulfstream which can also make electrical power.... Lockheed Martin may already have the cost per kw/hr.. Anyways the advantage is power generation 24/7/365 like they mention iin the article... Even if the whole project cost 100 billion they are far worth it...
« Last Edit: July 28, 2015, 02:57:56 AM by 12Patrick »

OldLeatherneck

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #33 on: July 28, 2015, 03:06:14 PM »
So you expect them to cost roughly 100,000 each? What output in kw would that supply?

Solar PV has a capacity factor of between 10 and 30% (seasonally, EIA 2011-2013), wind between 20-40% (also seasonally, opposite to PV, EIA 2011-2013).

This means your cost per kwh needs to be less than that of what solar or wind will cost in 10 years.

It is ludicrous to think that a 400 foot long structure that is meant to survive 24/7 in a marine environment can be built for $100,000.  A simple 50-60 foot motor home costs more than $300K.  Sailboats built for offshore cruising easily have more than $50K worth of marine electronics.

Remember also that these must be built in a shipyard that has either drydock or wetdock facilities that can can handle a 400 foot vessel.  The small commercial yards do not have those facilities.

Don't forget that each of these will need crew berthing, a galley and a desalinization plant.

Then there is the matter of towing one of these structures from the shipyard to it's destination in the Gulf Stream.  Ocean going tugs charge about $75K/day.

Your looking at closer to $50 Million per structure when you take all of the requirements into account.
"Share Your Knowledge.  It's a Way to Achieve Immortality."  ......the Dalai Lama

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #34 on: July 28, 2015, 04:29:56 PM »
So you expect them to cost roughly 100,000 each? What output in kw would that supply?

Solar PV has a capacity factor of between 10 and 30% (seasonally, EIA 2011-2013), wind between 20-40% (also seasonally, opposite to PV, EIA 2011-2013).

This means your cost per kwh needs to be less than that of what solar or wind will cost in 10 years.

It is ludicrous to think that a 400 foot long structure that is meant to survive 24/7 in a marine environment can be built for $100,000.  A simple 50-60 foot motor home costs more than $300K.  Sailboats built for offshore cruising easily have more than $50K worth of marine electronics.

Remember also that these must be built in a shipyard that has either drydock or wetdock facilities that can can handle a 400 foot vessel.  The small commercial yards do not have those facilities.

Don't forget that each of these will need crew berthing, a galley and a desalinization plant.

Then there is the matter of towing one of these structures from the shipyard to it's destination in the Gulf Stream.  Ocean going tugs charge about $75K/day.

Your looking at closer to $50 Million per structure when you take all of the requirements into account.

Even if the 20,000 of them cost 1 trillion dollars it is still better than paying the 60 trillion dollar bill by 2050 in disasters climate change is going to bring us.. These are well worth the investment to avert that and have the ability to restore the Arctic Ice for as long as Earth spins. They are good for the environment and place all fossil fuel that will be burned and nuclear fuel in the ground FOREVER...

OldLeatherneck

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #35 on: July 28, 2015, 06:53:13 PM »
So you expect them to cost roughly 100,000 each? What output in kw would that supply?

Solar PV has a capacity factor of between 10 and 30% (seasonally, EIA 2011-2013), wind between 20-40% (also seasonally, opposite to PV, EIA 2011-2013).

This means your cost per kwh needs to be less than that of what solar or wind will cost in 10 years.

While I firmly believe that there  is no  merit to your assertions that your tunnels will restore Arctic ice, that is merely intuitive on my part.  What is not intuitive, after 33 years in the Defense Industry, is the knowledge of the US Government's Procurement Process and Naval Shipyard capabilities.

I've taken classes and attended seminars on "How Washington Works", I've written specifications for Target Simulators, I've conducted Critical and Preliminary Design Reviews
It is ludicrous to think that a 400 foot long structure that is meant to survive 24/7 in a marine environment can be built for $100,000.  A simple 50-60 foot motor home costs more than $300K.  Sailboats built for offshore cruising easily have more than $50K worth of marine electronics.

Remember also that these must be built in a shipyard that has either drydock or wetdock facilities that can can handle a 400 foot vessel.  The small commercial yards do not have those facilities.

Don't forget that each of these will need crew berthing, a galley and a desalinization plant.

Then there is the matter of towing one of these structures from the shipyard to it's destination in the Gulf Stream.  Ocean going tugs charge about $75K/day.

Your looking at closer to $50 Million per structure when you take all of the requirements into account.

Even if the 20,000 of them cost 1 trillion dollars it is still better than paying the 60 trillion dollar bill by 2050 in disasters climate change is going to bring us.. These are well worth the investment to avert that and have the ability to restore the Arctic Ice for as long as Earth spins. They are good for the environment and place all fossil fuel that will be burned and nuclear fuel in the ground FOREVER...

While I sincerely doubt that there is any merit to your claim that your tunnels will restore the Arctic Ice Cover in 5-10 year, that is merely intuitive on my part.  What is not intuitive, after 33 year in the Defense Industry, is my understanding of the US Government's Procurement Processes as well as Naval Shipyard Facilities and Production Processes.

I've taken classes on "How Washington Works".  I've worked on programs from initial concept, strategeic planning, through various design reviews, proposal development, prototype development and testing, limited rate production to full -rate production.  From initial concept until a project like this passes all reviews and is deemed ready for full-rate production is about 12-15 years.  Remember, Congress will only approve funding incrementally for each stage of this process.

Secondly, after having worked for almost 20 years, in shipyard environments worldwide, there are limits as to how fast these could be produced.  In the 15 years since I was active in that arena, I know that some shipyards have closed.  At best, there are probably only 10 shipyards with the drydock capabilities to build your tunnels, of which I'm only certain that 5 are still active.  Keeping in mind that these same shipyards will be building new warships and refurbishing old warships for the US Navy, there are limits to how many tunnel systems could be built each year.  It is unlikely that you get 10 shipyards activated and producing 10 tunnels per shipyard per year.  Very unlikely.  But even if you could eventually get to that production rate, it would take 200 years to produce 20,000 tunnel systems.

This concept is not feasible technically, practically or economically.

FORGET IT!!
"Share Your Knowledge.  It's a Way to Achieve Immortality."  ......the Dalai Lama

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #36 on: July 28, 2015, 08:48:24 PM »
So you expect them to cost roughly 100,000 each? What output in kw would that supply?

Solar PV has a capacity factor of between 10 and 30% (seasonally, EIA 2011-2013), wind between 20-40% (also seasonally, opposite to PV, EIA 2011-2013).

This means your cost per kwh needs to be less than that of what solar or wind will cost in 10 years.

While I firmly believe that there  is no  merit to your assertions that your tunnels will restore Arctic ice, that is merely intuitive on my part.  What is not intuitive, after 33 years in the Defense Industry, is the knowledge of the US Government's Procurement Process and Naval Shipyard capabilities.

I've taken classes and attended seminars on "How Washington Works", I've written specifications for Target Simulators, I've conducted Critical and Preliminary Design Reviews
It is ludicrous to think that a 400 foot long structure that is meant to survive 24/7 in a marine environment can be built for $100,000.  A simple 50-60 foot motor home costs more than $300K.  Sailboats built for offshore cruising easily have more than $50K worth of marine electronics.

Remember also that these must be built in a shipyard that has either drydock or wetdock facilities that can can handle a 400 foot vessel.  The small commercial yards do not have those facilities.

Don't forget that each of these will need crew berthing, a galley and a desalinization plant.

Then there is the matter of towing one of these structures from the shipyard to it's destination in the Gulf Stream.  Ocean going tugs charge about $75K/day.

Your looking at closer to $50 Million per structure when you take all of the requirements into account.

Even if the 20,000 of them cost 1 trillion dollars it is still better than paying the 60 trillion dollar bill by 2050 in disasters climate change is going to bring us.. These are well worth the investment to avert that and have the ability to restore the Arctic Ice for as long as Earth spins. They are good for the environment and place all fossil fuel that will be burned and nuclear fuel in the ground FOREVER...

While I sincerely doubt that there is any merit to your claim that your tunnels will restore the Arctic Ice Cover in 5-10 year, that is merely intuitive on my part.  What is not intuitive, after 33 year in the Defense Industry, is my understanding of the US Government's Procurement Processes as well as Naval Shipyard Facilities and Production Processes.

I've taken classes on "How Washington Works".  I've worked on programs from initial concept, strategeic planning, through various design reviews, proposal development, prototype development and testing, limited rate production to full -rate production.  From initial concept until a project like this passes all reviews and is deemed ready for full-rate production is about 12-15 years.  Remember, Congress will only approve funding incrementally for each stage of this process.

Secondly, after having worked for almost 20 years, in shipyard environments worldwide, there are limits as to how fast these could be produced.  In the 15 years since I was active in that arena, I know that some shipyards have closed.  At best, there are probably only 10 shipyards with the drydock capabilities to build your tunnels, of which I'm only certain that 5 are still active.  Keeping in mind that these same shipyards will be building new warships and refurbishing old warships for the US Navy, there are limits to how many tunnel systems could be built each year.  It is unlikely that you get 10 shipyards activated and producing 10 tunnels per shipyard per year.  Very unlikely.  But even if you could eventually get to that production rate, it would take 200 years to produce 20,000 tunnel systems.

This concept is not feasible technically, practically or economically.

FORGET IT!!

So lets make 100 shipyards producing 10 per day and in ten years we get 10,000 tunnels and in 20 years we get the 20,000 we need.. Even if that cost another trillion it is worth it. By then the summertime ice would be restored to 1979 values by the tunnels that are already placed in operation... I have 32 years combined experience in the control room both in commercial fossil fuel power plants as a control room operator at numerous locations for Florida Power and Light company now (FPL Group) and at the Anniston Army Demil. Facility (ANCDF) ridding our nation of chemical weapons for Westinghouse and URS Corp.... How stuff works I already know...
« Last Edit: July 28, 2015, 09:42:49 PM by 12Patrick »

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #37 on: July 29, 2015, 02:23:18 PM »
I guess the biggest question is preventing an ice free arctic worth 500 billion dollars to keep it ice free for as long as Earth spins???

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2016, 01:36:35 AM »
OCEAN TUNNELS GROUP now open on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1548937018758434/ Feel free to join and participate in restoring Arctic Ice extent.. Thank you..

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #39 on: January 13, 2016, 01:53:33 PM »
Sure would be nice to get some fine university to computer model my idea with me....

may i say that reading thought this the word "my" idea and "me" occur a bit often and if the topic wouldn't be apparently "nice" one could easily see a certain tendency to sell (find support for) something and that each input that questions the somehow naive simplicity is replied to with a somehow opinionated "base tenor"?

this is something interesting to discuss but then there were many good arguments to question the feasibility and cost efficiency. i would even support solution that are NOT cost efficient in favor of reaching long term goals, after all governments spend a lot of money for non-cost efficient stuff, why not for something like this. the point that i can filter from all the statements is that there are easier, cheaper and existing technologies that would do the job were they sufficiently supported, which they're not as long as easy profits can be made with less sustainable technologies.

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #40 on: January 13, 2016, 02:43:39 PM »
Sure would be nice to get some fine university to computer model my idea with me....

may i say that reading thought this the word "my" idea and "me" occur a bit often and if the topic wouldn't be apparently "nice" one could easily see a certain tendency to sell (find support for) something and that each input that questions the somehow naive simplicity is replied to with a somehow opinionated "base tenor"?

this is something interesting to discuss but then there were many good arguments to question the feasibility and cost efficiency. i would even support solution that are NOT cost efficient in favor of reaching long term goals, after all governments spend a lot of money for non-cost efficient stuff, why not for something like this. the point that i can filter from all the statements is that there are easier, cheaper and existing technologies that would do the job were they sufficiently supported, which they're not as long as easy profits can be made with less sustainable technologies.
  Problem is none of those other methods get it done in timely manner to save the ice but  these do... It would take a world wide effort though to get it done... Anyways feel free to join..

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #41 on: May 25, 2016, 04:35:34 AM »
New acronym for the idea. Ocean Mechanical Thermal Energy Conversion otherwise known as "OMTEC" ends it.. Join "Ocean Tunnel" group here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1548937018758434/?ref=bookmarks

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #42 on: June 21, 2016, 11:44:45 PM »
Build "Ocean Tunnels" or lose ALL summertime Arctic Ice... https://www.facebook.com/groups/1548937018758434/?ref=bookmarks

OldLeatherneck

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #43 on: June 22, 2016, 12:25:12 AM »
Changing the name of a bad idea does not make if a good idea.  It's kind of like wrapping a dog turd in gold foil and calling it a candy bar!!
"Share Your Knowledge.  It's a Way to Achieve Immortality."  ......the Dalai Lama

Xulonn

  • New ice
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #44 on: June 22, 2016, 03:58:39 AM »
Changing the name of a bad idea does not make if a good idea.  It's kind of like wrapping a dog turd in gold foil and calling it a candy bar!!

This promotion of this 15-year old pipe-dream (gulf stream underwater suspension tunnels), which has zero engineering to support it, and has received no interest or support from the scientific and engineering communities, is nothing more than Duning-Kruger-based blather from a layperson.  The promoter of the "idea" has been thankfully been permanently banned from Dr. Ricky Rood's climate science blog at Weather Underground where he used the handle "cyclonebuster."   He complains about his Wunderground perma-ban on his Facebook page, but there he is free to babble as much as he likes about how humanity is destroying the biosphere because they will not listen to him. 

I know that over the past couple of years, OLN, you and I tried to engage him in discussions and prod him to support his idea with logic and engineering at Dr. Rood's blog.  Your challenges to his ideas are here in this thread for all to see.  Unfortunately, we never seemed to get anything in response except superficial comments and attempted put-downs for our failure to recognize his brilliance.  I hope he doesn't focus his monomania on this forum now, but it's likely that we will only see an occasional pop-up promo for his Facebook group.

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #45 on: June 22, 2016, 08:40:33 PM »
"Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion" or "OTEC" for short is already in place and working now folks don't let these distractors fool you... My idea is basically the same except I combined mechanical energy into the equation with them making the Tunnel idea "Ocean Mechanical Thermal Energy Conversion" or OMTEC. Here is a nice video of how "OTEC" already works... OLN and Xulonn don't know how to combine energy technologies to make things more efficient...

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #46 on: June 24, 2016, 11:31:43 PM »
Business as usual or do YOU want it back????

98% of the 5M Arctic Sea Ice is gone now...
97% of the 4M Arctic Sea ice is gone now...
80% of the 3M Arctic Sea Ice is gone now...

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictnnowcast.gifhttp://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictnnowcast.gif

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #47 on: June 26, 2016, 08:41:50 PM »
"Ocean Tunnels" anyone???
Red 5 meter ice 98% gone.
Orange to Yellow 4 meter ice 95% gone.
Green 3 meter ice 85 % gone.
Sky Blue 2 meter ice 50% gone.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictnnowcast.gif

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7682
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #48 on: June 26, 2016, 11:09:40 PM »
How about blocking Bering Strait with an underwater suspension tunnel?

Just trying to kill two birds with one rock here.  ;)
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

12Patrick

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« Reply #49 on: June 27, 2016, 09:18:09 PM »
Actually, not a bad idea Neven. I am sure the current in that location is very strong and so a lot of green energy could be produced with them in that location...The Bering Strait is a natural venturi so to say.... They would have to be left in non-cooling phase of operation since the water in that location is to cold to boil ammonia hydroxide the same refrigerant in the OTEC units...... If many units were stretched across the entire width of the strait that would slow down the warm water from the Pacific entering the Arctic somewhat which would melt less ice in the Arctic especially in the summertime..
How about blocking Bering Strait with an underwater suspension tunnel?

Just trying to kill two birds with one rock here.  ;)