Comments on: America’s Premiere Wave Power Farm Sets Sail

By: drkatherineaaron

drkatherineaaron — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:56:47 +0000

You guys have to remember that ALL new technologies come with hefty price tags. Remember when personal computers first came out people said the same thing you guys are saying, “oh, this is too expensive. Personal computing will never be feasible because of the cost.” I remember those days! Seriously, you have to look at renewable energy technologies as a NEW technology and remember that the more who buy them, the price goes down.

We are the generation making the choice that affects our children’s children. Do we have the courage to boldly take on that responsibility or do we leave behind more Fukushimas, Chernobyls and Three Mile Islands…not to mention the tons of radio active waste being trucked in everyday to my state for storage.

By: tim bastable

tim bastable — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:12:16 +0000

if the buoys are 4 million each and there are ten in total project cost should be 40 million dollars – where does the discrepancy come from? And absolutely agree with the other comments – this is prohibitively expensive technology – with huge embedded energy costs too – 1 single 3 mW windturbine would more than power 400 homes

By: Bryan

Bryan — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 22:37:32 +0000

I think that wave technology is likely to be one of the most important sources of alternative energy. Think about how many buoys could go in the Atlantic Ocean without disturbing too much of the wildlife.

By: Narasimha 239

Narasimha 239 — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:02:29 +0000

Some will prove viable after the technology has improved; others never will. That is true in electronics, pharmacology, transportation or any other industry or area of study.

The fact that people will benefit immediately from the first to market prototypes is a success. They won’t recoup their costs and make profits, but it will minimize their losses as they develop more and more things.

The cost seems prohibitive but future scaled-up project will in a short time be cost effective. prototypes are padded usually with more redundancies therefore the cost hike.

By: Electric

Electric — Sat, 01 May 2010 07:08:29 +0000

Ocean power is the wave of the future and the next microsoft!! Costs are high now in everything once mastered and mass developed it will be cheaper than wind with the bonus that the ocean never stops moving “24″ “7″ this is the time to get in before its to late ! “strong buy” visit their web site and you will learn about there projects! That should give you enough info! GLTA

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:30:55 +0000

If you think $150,000 per household is expensive for a new technology, you should calculate the trillions (!) of dollars since World War II that have been put into nuclear energy research, technical development and implementation — which does not include the “unfunded mandate” that we all (including our children and grandchildren many times over) still face, that of finding a safe way to store nuclear waste for the next half billion years.

While I agree that $150,000 per household is not commercially viable, that’s always the case with new technology. Some will prove viable after the technology has improved; others never will. That is true in electronics, pharmacology, transportation or any other industry or area of study.

By: Just me

Just me — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 06:03:08 +0000

OK, the tie to the wars is unnecessary. All new technologies cost money, that’s why they’re called investments. The “purchase” is buying down risk and/or developing technology so that one day we can buy them as disposables. Compare the brick cell-phones of the 80’s to today’s cellphones, or even the personal computer. The fact that people will benefit immediately from the first to market prototypes is a success. They won’t recoup their costs and make profits, but it will minimize their losses as they develop more and more things.

By: Nii Laye

Nii Laye — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:18:32 +0000

The cost seems prohibitive but future scaled-up project will in a short time be cost effective. prototypes are padded usually with more redundancies therefore the cost hike.
better design emerge with study and testing. by the way it is cheaper than the cost of the wars in iraq or afghanistan.

By: John Bergdoll

John Bergdoll — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:14:06 +0000

Wave energy holds tremendous potential. I agree that in time it has the potential to compete with other renewable energy resources which, by the way, were also very expensive in their early development stages. The learning curve is expensive now but with experience, experimentation and lessons learned we will all benefit form it.

Twitter @JohnBergdoll

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:42:56 +0000

Perhaps, the potential is there, but the cost is just outrageous. As someone else said it is nice to see people trying new things, but perhaps this money would be better spent going into a wind farm off the coast?

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:23:55 +0000

If the first buoy cost $4 million, then how does an additional 9 cost $60 million?

By: Phil

Phil — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:46:58 +0000

I agree with locojhon:

I did the sum too and it just doesn’t work financially, $150000 per household over a 25 year period works out to $6000 per year and thats without interest.

@4%
Minimum monthly repayments $791.76
Total you will pay $237,526.58

“The Oregon wave power farm is being funded by several sources, including Oregon tax credits, Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative and the U.S. Department of Energy.”

Where is this technology going? It could only be justified as a pilot. What is the financial thinking here.

Personally I would get grumpy about an energy bill of $800 a month

By: Cal

Cal — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:03:03 +0000

60 million dollars for 400 homes? That’s $150,000 per household. That’s more than 3 times the average American household income.

By: John Bamberger

John Bamberger — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:26:18 +0000

This is not a bad idea – sounds like an expensive project for only a few hundred homes. I sort of pictured capturing the back and forth motion of the waves closer to shore.

I can really see people complaining about how those buoys ruin the view from prime beachfront property or resort – the same thing as the windmills off Cape Cod.

By: locojhon

locojhon — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:31:39 +0000

Nice pipe dream for 400 houses, perhaps.
But at a cost of $150,000 per house?
Imo, that’s crazy expensive, and if $5000 were spent on winterization/greater efficiency/individual solar systems instead, 12,000 homes would benefit, 300 times that of the original wave project.
Something does not add up here…others?
locoto

By: slick

slick — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:25:53 +0000

Always glad to see pioneers trying things.