Talk:Osmotic power

Erase

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)

Units

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))

As far as I can tell from the citation that DOES exist, this information has been copied pretty much verbatim (including the terse nature), out of context from some random paper (http://waderllc.com/2284-2287.pdf) on the general SGP subject. But that section itself, despite starting with an introductory background from a credible-sounding "Weinstein and Leitz, "Electric Power from Differences in Salinity: the Dialytic Battery," Science, 1976, vol. 191, pp. 557-559", loses a bit of credibility when it gets to the quoted section. The part about the power generation figures? "Valerii Knyazhev, pers. comm. 2003". Wow. Some russian person gave us some numbers, no citations, explanation, exposition or independent backup. Brilliant. So we have no way of knowing WTF is going on there or what the truth is without tracking him/her (Russian names confuse me sometimes) down and screwing a bit more solid information out of them. Or independently googling for it. Perhaps we should just erase it for now?

(Also from seeing that quote in context, they're some fairly unrelated numbers that make a bit more sense when seen with the rest of the original article instead; the setup is generating electricity at a line tension of 4V, presumably charging batteries in parallel that can be later used in series, or driving some kind of inverter to step up the voltage; and its efficiency per cubic metre of water is as stated. But the actual power is not mentioned, nor even the water flow rate and actual surface area of generating cells from which this can be calculated.) 193.63.174.10 (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Mixed up facts

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)

Netherlands potential

• "So the power 3,300 MWh seems reasonable"

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

• The numbers in this paragraph in the article are not consistent (and the inconsistencies are significant):

"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

Source: in Dutch [1]

Exactly its 3300 m3/sec fresh water and 2,5MJ(or 0,5 Kwh pro M3. reg Mion 09:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

energiepotential max is 3300 MW, if you calculate on 1 MW pro m3 fresh water /sec. 13.200 containers should do. Mion 09:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference is the theoratical output minus 30 or 40 % to get the system on a 60 % efficiency. The expected efficiency in the future,

from the frontpage

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).

0.5 KWh/m³ ... IN WHAT TIMESCALE? Or did you mean 0.5 KW/m³? (IE only 1.5MW...) And the country really only uses an average of 9GW? For a population of some 16-million-plus, that's awfully sparing. The GLOBAL per capita average is supposed to be 2.2kW (inclusive of everything - street lighting, governments, the lot); do the math. Even with the best will in the world, and using non-electrical sources for as much stuff as possible, a ~560W average is incredibly good for a developed country. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Water potential

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)

Fuel cell or not

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)

Mion, asking this question, and giving a wrong answer, only raises my fears that your efforts on Hydrogen technologies are a potential damage to Wikipedia.

A fuel cell is a an electrochemical cell burning (i.e. oxidizing) fuel.

Pjacobi 07:22, 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)

Per WP:V and WP:RS please use reliable sources. For articles on topics of science and engineering this are text books used at universities and other books by scholars in the field and publications in peer-reviewed journals. For easy stuff, the summary that governments agency and other educations site provide, aren't bad either. Please have a look at:

*http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/basics.html

Haha, yes i know and you a are right about reliable sources if you take a reference dictionary its normally, the Duden or Oxford, i took the Chemical dictionary, my point of view is that the dictionaries are not up to date with the definition, progress in technologies are the reason. Mion 08:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Our own article fuel cell isn't bad either. Did you read it?

Pjacobi 07:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

And did i read fuel cells ? have a look at the edits on it. Mion 08:31, 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)

• Not all fuel cell are hydrogen fuel cells but all fuel cells work by oxidizing. Osmosis cells aren't fuel cells.

Wrong: fuel cell

• noun a cell producing an electric current direct from a chemical reaction. Oxford dictionary: [[3]]

• Dictionaries and other encyclopedias are typically not valid sources for an encyclopedia.

Dictionaries are NOT encyclopedias, and dictionaries are even referenced on in Law.Mion 09:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sady, I know of several cases, where editing an article didn't imply that the article was read.

Pjacobi 09:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Which in this case was not the case.Mion 09:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry the defintion in the OED is obviously wrong. --Pjacobi 09:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Ironically, even the OED defintion, which is much too broad, doesn't group the "Blue energy" cell as fuel cell, as no chemical reaction is occuring in an osmosis cell. --Pjacobi 10:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

read the article in english, is exchanging ions between two fluids a chemical reaction ? Mion 11:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No. --Pjacobi 11:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

NO ? ION EXCHANGE CHEMISTRY AND OPERATION Ion exchange is a reversible chemical reaction wherein an ion (an atom or molecule that has lost or gained an electron and thus acquired an electrical ...[[4]]. Mion 12:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You got it wrong. What you are citing has no direct relation to osmosis, which is a purely physical process. In osmosis the ions don't lose or gain an electron.

As already said: Taking your unfamiliarity with basic facts of chemistry as a measure, you shouldn't be too bold in editing articles on chemistry.

--Pjacobi 13:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Like i said, read the article, its main part is about reverse electro dialysis not osmosis.Mion 13:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

electro dialysis isn't a chemical reaction either. --Pjacobi 13:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

its reverse electro dialysis, not electro dialysis.Mion 13:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Heck, this obviously apply to both normal and reverse electrodialysis! If a process doesn't involve a chemical reaction, It should be quite clear, that the same holds of the reverse process. --Pjacobi 13:58, 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)

What part of "not a fuel cell" in that opinion did you not understand? Related technologies are being discussed in appropriate places. There is no reason that the term "fuel cell" need be hijacked by these technologies. Consensus is clearly against you on this. Chris Cunningham 14:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats was to hasty, on 09:54, 11 September 2006 i changed the definition of fuel cell trying to include Blue energy and similar into it, consensus on this page states 2 against redefining. so i restored the definition back to its original state.

Now by reverted it again you are restoring it to its incorrect version. Mion 14:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I'm an idiot. Sorry about that. Restored now. Chris Cunningham 14:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Alex, for giving your opinion. --Pjacobi 13:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome! Glad I helped--Alex 15:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC) And stop being grumpy you lot!--Alex 15:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Blue Energy

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)

This is not the place to propose new articles unrelated to the topic of this article. I do agree that ocean wave power is notable. David spector (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Size

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)

We have one, Hydrogen fuel enhancement, instead of using liquid waste you get from oil drilling its premixing with pure hydrogen (like HCNG) and according to this article there is plenty of hydrogen in production [6]. Mion (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Stupid hoax to use the drill blur waste stream instead of the hydrogen waste Mion (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

We should change the title to "Osmotic power" which is a much more common name for this than "Salinity gradient power". Charvest (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the title should be "Osmotic power", at least that's the name used by Statkraft Statkraft Osmotic Power Page which is one of the main developers MarianneHolmen (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marianne Holmen (talk • contribs)

Support. Added a request to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Beagel (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

KEMA membrane

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)

Estuary electric power

This article includes salinity gradient power yet fails to mention electricity generated in river estuaries through the direct interaction of salt and fresh water. 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)

New or split article will be needed

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)

Physics need to be revised

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)