This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Osmotic power article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I erased the russian part. probably nonsense. I also erased the part about salinity gradient heat ponds, this has nothing to do at all with the title of the article. third, I erased the piece about polyethylene. Such a(personal!!) argument has no place here. 194.53.253.51 ( talk) 14:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
In the 'method' sectioon, the third method (Russian) quotes "Russia produces 4V of energy per year or 0.15 kWh/m3, though the system can theoretically produce close to 0.7 kWh/m3." There needs to be a citation for this and the units need to be made clearer - either power (0.15 kW/m3?) or energy (0.15 kWh/m3/year?). Also energy cannot be measured in Volts - I presume this is what 4V means?? ( TomStroud ( talk) 08:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
This article mixes up two different technologies under the title Blue Energy. Two technologies that might be referred to as "Blue Energy" are muddled up together in this article. There are (at least?) two different technologies involved in "Blue Energy". One is RED (reverse electrodialysis), the other is PRO (pressure retarded osmosis). RED creates energy due to a chemical process, the chemical potential difference over a semi-permeable membrane generates a voltage. PRO utilises the pressure difference that exists between the two liquids to drive a turbine.
I have removed the self referencing of RED in the first paragraph and inserted an external reference to the relevant page in a specialist group at an official University site, and have made numerous smallerv edits, requesting references, correcting text to diambiguate the two concepts within the text and to make further research simpler for a reader.
I suggest that the entry for "Blue Energy" be changed to provide links to the technologies that could be being referred to under this catch phrase. RED and PRO would then become separate articles, to reflect their entirely different bases (one is concerned with harnessing mechanical energy and the other with chemical energy). There may also be other technologies that would fit under the catch phrase. LookingGlass 11:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Fixed some of the mix up. But not fuly done yet User: Jbontes2000 —Preceding comment was added at 00:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
But 3,300 MWh is not a power! Should this be 3300 MW? And "seems reasonable" doesn't sound like an encyclopedia.
131.111.79.111 ( talk) 18:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC) djcmackay
"In the Netherlands, for example, more than 3,000 m³ fresh water runs into the sea per second on the average. Theoretically the output is 2.5 MJ or 0.5 kWh/m³. This corresponds to about 3,000 MW, ..."
1 Watt (W) is defined as 1 Joule (J) per second. Thus, 1 kWh is 3.6 MJ (Megajoules). 0.5 kWh (kilowatt-hour) is exactly 1.8 MJ, rather a long way from 2.5 MJ. And, 1.8 MJ/m³ X 3000 m³ / second = 5400 MJ / second = 5400 MW; using the 2.5 MJ/m³ figure would give an even larger 7500 MW figure.
As I don't know what the original source for this information was (I didn't see these numbers in the references listed), I'm not in a position to know which (if any) of the numbers in the main article was/were correct; so, I have not edited the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DStein ( talk • contribs) 04:48, 22 June 2006
In the Netherlands, for example, more than 3,000 m3 fresh water runs into the sea per second on the average. Theoretically the output is 2.5 MJ or 0.5 kWh/m3. This corresponds to about 3,000 MW, which is about one-third of the national electricity consumption ( 2005).
What is missing from this discussion is the water potential of the osmosis. the Norwegian Statkraft page gives a figure of 26 bars, corresponding to a hydraulic head of 270 metres. It would be thus trivial to calculate the energy potential. -- Petri Krohn 15:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The question is what is the definition of a fuel cell ? is a unit with in the middle a membrane an anode or a kathode in each of the compartiments to create an electrical output a fuel cell ? (like in the EN version of the article) Mion 07:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Internet definition : A Static device that converts the chemical energy through an electrochemical process. Thats sounds better, lets try to find another one. Mion 07:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Definition of: fuel cell
A pollution-free electricity generation technology that is expected to compete with traditional methods of creating and distributing electricity. It is also expected to be used in electrically powered cars, trucks and buses. On-the-road testing began with prototype vehicles at the end of the 20th century. Self-contained fuel cell systems are also expected to power individual homes within 20 years. [ [2]]
Burning of the fuel isn't required. Mion 07:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
(start on 7 April 2006 ) Mion 08:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This definition is wrong in itself: http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/basics.html Basics
A fuel cell uses the chemical energy of hydrogen to cleanly and efficiently produce electricity, with water and heat as by products. (How much water?) Fuel cells are unique in terms of the variety of their potential applications; they can provide energy for systems as large as a utility power station and as small as a laptop computer.
Not all fuel cells are hydrogen fuel cells. reg. Mion 08:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• noun a cell producing an electric current direct from a chemical reaction. Oxford dictionary: [ [3]]
Lets turn it around Per WP:V and WP:RS , where is your reference for this statement? Mion 09:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Considder the fact that you migh be wrong ? Mion 09:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gents, I have been asked to give some opinions regarding your stalemate in discussion. I am not an expert in Hydrogen but I have a good grounding in Biology and Environmental Science. Blue energy did not strike me immediately as a topic which is a standard fuel cell, more like a related one. Mion has been working very hard on the Hydrogen category and I do not believe comments like "that your efforts on Hydrogen technologies are a potential damage to Wikipedia" are constructive or in harmony with the concept of Wikilove.
I am well aware of osmosis from my bio background and is related to diffusion across a membrane, which I would not generally have considered to be a chemical reaction.
It would appear to me, without getting involved in the technicalities of definition however, there are a number of similarities to fuel cells. I would suggest that Blue energy is a closely related subject but not a fuel cell in its strictest sense. Alex 11:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
ok, thanks, restoring original definition of fuel cell is done, Mion 13:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
can someone have a look at Blue Energy Tidal power [5]. ? "The vertical axis turbine technology, which has been around since the 1920's, but held back for political reasons,?" However, i would like an advise on the statements made by this CA company, question is related to the naming of the article Blue energy. thanks. Mion 08:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Its the size of a shipping container: is that a 10ft, 20ft or 40ft container? Tabby 13:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone interested in writing an article about the "Blue Energy" hoax involving the Indonesian president & a university? It's a biiiiig case in Indonesia at the moment! Just use google "blue energy hoax" or "blue energy indonesia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.66.137 ( talk) 01:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we change the title to Salinity gradient power, so it sounds more like a power source, and is more in line with the other ocean power sources (wave power, tidal power, etc) ?
Dialectric ( talk) 10:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
KEMA's blue energy membrane can be named. See http://www.kema.com/nl/consulting_services/power_generation/sustainable_and_distributed_energy/be/ Also, parts of the dutch wikipedia article should be copied. Use google translate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.189.98 ( talk) 08:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This article includes salinity gradient power yet fails to mention electricity generated in river estuaries through the direct interaction of salt and fresh water. [1] [2] Estuaries are natural sites in which salt and fresh water are in abundant proximity, with no need for evaporation to increase salinity as claimed necessary in this article.
There are 10,800 Google items that mention both "salinity gradient power" and estuaries. That indicates that estuary power is undoubtedly notable. I will merge this information into the article soon after giving editors a chance to reply. David spector ( talk) 14:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Per the article title renaming proposals expressed above, eventually Osmotic power (in general) and Salinity gradient power (or Estuary power) will probably need to be separate, related articles. I do not offer a specific proposal since there is no rush. David spector ( talk) 15:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is factually wrong and needs to be thoroughly revised by someone who understands the physics. For example, the sentence "All energy that is proposed to use salinity gradient technology relies on the evaporation to separate water from salt" is incorrect, as it just takes roughly 3 kJ/l to desalinate seawater by pressing it through a membrane while it requires roughly 2300 kJ/l to desalinate it by evaporating seawater. Consequently, at most 3 kJ/l of power can be generated by mixing seawater with freshwater, not 2300 kJ/l. Pia novice ( talk) 14:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Osmotic power article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I erased the russian part. probably nonsense. I also erased the part about salinity gradient heat ponds, this has nothing to do at all with the title of the article. third, I erased the piece about polyethylene. Such a(personal!!) argument has no place here. 194.53.253.51 ( talk) 14:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
In the 'method' sectioon, the third method (Russian) quotes "Russia produces 4V of energy per year or 0.15 kWh/m3, though the system can theoretically produce close to 0.7 kWh/m3." There needs to be a citation for this and the units need to be made clearer - either power (0.15 kW/m3?) or energy (0.15 kWh/m3/year?). Also energy cannot be measured in Volts - I presume this is what 4V means?? ( TomStroud ( talk) 08:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
This article mixes up two different technologies under the title Blue Energy. Two technologies that might be referred to as "Blue Energy" are muddled up together in this article. There are (at least?) two different technologies involved in "Blue Energy". One is RED (reverse electrodialysis), the other is PRO (pressure retarded osmosis). RED creates energy due to a chemical process, the chemical potential difference over a semi-permeable membrane generates a voltage. PRO utilises the pressure difference that exists between the two liquids to drive a turbine.
I have removed the self referencing of RED in the first paragraph and inserted an external reference to the relevant page in a specialist group at an official University site, and have made numerous smallerv edits, requesting references, correcting text to diambiguate the two concepts within the text and to make further research simpler for a reader.
I suggest that the entry for "Blue Energy" be changed to provide links to the technologies that could be being referred to under this catch phrase. RED and PRO would then become separate articles, to reflect their entirely different bases (one is concerned with harnessing mechanical energy and the other with chemical energy). There may also be other technologies that would fit under the catch phrase. LookingGlass 11:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Fixed some of the mix up. But not fuly done yet User: Jbontes2000 —Preceding comment was added at 00:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
But 3,300 MWh is not a power! Should this be 3300 MW? And "seems reasonable" doesn't sound like an encyclopedia.
131.111.79.111 ( talk) 18:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC) djcmackay
"In the Netherlands, for example, more than 3,000 m³ fresh water runs into the sea per second on the average. Theoretically the output is 2.5 MJ or 0.5 kWh/m³. This corresponds to about 3,000 MW, ..."
1 Watt (W) is defined as 1 Joule (J) per second. Thus, 1 kWh is 3.6 MJ (Megajoules). 0.5 kWh (kilowatt-hour) is exactly 1.8 MJ, rather a long way from 2.5 MJ. And, 1.8 MJ/m³ X 3000 m³ / second = 5400 MJ / second = 5400 MW; using the 2.5 MJ/m³ figure would give an even larger 7500 MW figure.
As I don't know what the original source for this information was (I didn't see these numbers in the references listed), I'm not in a position to know which (if any) of the numbers in the main article was/were correct; so, I have not edited the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DStein ( talk • contribs) 04:48, 22 June 2006
In the Netherlands, for example, more than 3,000 m3 fresh water runs into the sea per second on the average. Theoretically the output is 2.5 MJ or 0.5 kWh/m3. This corresponds to about 3,000 MW, which is about one-third of the national electricity consumption ( 2005).
What is missing from this discussion is the water potential of the osmosis. the Norwegian Statkraft page gives a figure of 26 bars, corresponding to a hydraulic head of 270 metres. It would be thus trivial to calculate the energy potential. -- Petri Krohn 15:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The question is what is the definition of a fuel cell ? is a unit with in the middle a membrane an anode or a kathode in each of the compartiments to create an electrical output a fuel cell ? (like in the EN version of the article) Mion 07:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Internet definition : A Static device that converts the chemical energy through an electrochemical process. Thats sounds better, lets try to find another one. Mion 07:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Definition of: fuel cell
A pollution-free electricity generation technology that is expected to compete with traditional methods of creating and distributing electricity. It is also expected to be used in electrically powered cars, trucks and buses. On-the-road testing began with prototype vehicles at the end of the 20th century. Self-contained fuel cell systems are also expected to power individual homes within 20 years. [ [2]]
Burning of the fuel isn't required. Mion 07:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
(start on 7 April 2006 ) Mion 08:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This definition is wrong in itself: http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/basics.html Basics
A fuel cell uses the chemical energy of hydrogen to cleanly and efficiently produce electricity, with water and heat as by products. (How much water?) Fuel cells are unique in terms of the variety of their potential applications; they can provide energy for systems as large as a utility power station and as small as a laptop computer.
Not all fuel cells are hydrogen fuel cells. reg. Mion 08:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• noun a cell producing an electric current direct from a chemical reaction. Oxford dictionary: [ [3]]
Lets turn it around Per WP:V and WP:RS , where is your reference for this statement? Mion 09:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Considder the fact that you migh be wrong ? Mion 09:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gents, I have been asked to give some opinions regarding your stalemate in discussion. I am not an expert in Hydrogen but I have a good grounding in Biology and Environmental Science. Blue energy did not strike me immediately as a topic which is a standard fuel cell, more like a related one. Mion has been working very hard on the Hydrogen category and I do not believe comments like "that your efforts on Hydrogen technologies are a potential damage to Wikipedia" are constructive or in harmony with the concept of Wikilove.
I am well aware of osmosis from my bio background and is related to diffusion across a membrane, which I would not generally have considered to be a chemical reaction.
It would appear to me, without getting involved in the technicalities of definition however, there are a number of similarities to fuel cells. I would suggest that Blue energy is a closely related subject but not a fuel cell in its strictest sense. Alex 11:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
ok, thanks, restoring original definition of fuel cell is done, Mion 13:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
can someone have a look at Blue Energy Tidal power [5]. ? "The vertical axis turbine technology, which has been around since the 1920's, but held back for political reasons,?" However, i would like an advise on the statements made by this CA company, question is related to the naming of the article Blue energy. thanks. Mion 08:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Its the size of a shipping container: is that a 10ft, 20ft or 40ft container? Tabby 13:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone interested in writing an article about the "Blue Energy" hoax involving the Indonesian president & a university? It's a biiiiig case in Indonesia at the moment! Just use google "blue energy hoax" or "blue energy indonesia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.66.137 ( talk) 01:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we change the title to Salinity gradient power, so it sounds more like a power source, and is more in line with the other ocean power sources (wave power, tidal power, etc) ?
Dialectric ( talk) 10:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
KEMA's blue energy membrane can be named. See http://www.kema.com/nl/consulting_services/power_generation/sustainable_and_distributed_energy/be/ Also, parts of the dutch wikipedia article should be copied. Use google translate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.189.98 ( talk) 08:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This article includes salinity gradient power yet fails to mention electricity generated in river estuaries through the direct interaction of salt and fresh water. [1] [2] Estuaries are natural sites in which salt and fresh water are in abundant proximity, with no need for evaporation to increase salinity as claimed necessary in this article.
There are 10,800 Google items that mention both "salinity gradient power" and estuaries. That indicates that estuary power is undoubtedly notable. I will merge this information into the article soon after giving editors a chance to reply. David spector ( talk) 14:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Per the article title renaming proposals expressed above, eventually Osmotic power (in general) and Salinity gradient power (or Estuary power) will probably need to be separate, related articles. I do not offer a specific proposal since there is no rush. David spector ( talk) 15:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is factually wrong and needs to be thoroughly revised by someone who understands the physics. For example, the sentence "All energy that is proposed to use salinity gradient technology relies on the evaporation to separate water from salt" is incorrect, as it just takes roughly 3 kJ/l to desalinate seawater by pressing it through a membrane while it requires roughly 2300 kJ/l to desalinate it by evaporating seawater. Consequently, at most 3 kJ/l of power can be generated by mixing seawater with freshwater, not 2300 kJ/l. Pia novice ( talk) 14:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)