Proposal: Convert Abandoned Deep Water Oil Platforms Into OTEC Energy Islands

I know I'm hardly the first to propose this; studies for it go back to at least the early 1990s. However, in the wake of the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and deep water drilling technology still fresh in the public's mind, this may be the most receptive environment for this idea in many years, even with the current economic turmoil.

OTEC stands for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. More information on the technology can be found HERE. Basically, it uses large differences in temperatures between surface water and the sea depths to drive a working fluid such as ammonia to turn electric turbines. A full-scale OTEC plant is estimated to be able to produce up to 250 megawatts under optimal conditions, about a quarter of the average fossil-fuel power plant. The technology is still officially in development, but seems poised to becoming a fully viable power generation resource in the near future.

When an oil drilling platform runs dry, its usually a fairly costly procedure to decommission and dismantle the platform itself. This is especially true of deep water rigs, and usually just the structures near the surface are removed.

One the biggest cost headaches in producing practical OTEC plants is the building and establishment of deep water platforms. Ideally these are envisioned as expansive, consolidated 'energy islands' that would combine OTEC with other types of power production, such as solar, wind, tidal, and wave generators. However, OTEC is always envisioned as the heavy lifter, producing three times as much as those other types of generators combined. So having an energy island with just an OTEC generator would still be potentially profitable. The only real limiting factor (for the US, at least) is that OTEC generators must be located in waters that are relatively warm year round, which for the US would mean the Gulf of Mexico and the waters off of Florida and Hawaii.

The proposal is straightforward: as deep water rigs have their wells run dry and are decommissioned, instead of spending money to have it dismantled, they can be sold or leased to alternative energy interests for conversion into OTEC facilities. This would mitigate one of the biggest upfront costs of an OTEC plant--creating the deep-ocean platform necessary for the technology to work. Major investment would still be necessary, especially laying the long power cables needed to transfer the current to shore along the seabed. However, once set up, the OTEC facility could produce power indefinitely, long beyond the handful of years the drilling platform would produce crude oil.

OTEC technology has proven itself experimentally and could be fully commercially developed in the near term with enough investment. But the biggest roadblock to this idea may be political rather than technical or economic. The large oil and energy companies that build the drilling platforms have traditionally been hostile to alternate energy technologies and may not want to give a promising new source of power for fear of the competition, even if they may mean additional revenue in place of a tapped out well.

I always thought this was a foolish and short-sighted position. The transition to renewable, alternative forms of energy is already underway, and while fossil fuels will be part of the energy landscape for many decades yet, their dominance will slowly fade. Rather than trying to block alternatives and only delaying the inevitable, the big energy companies should start wholly investing them, and get ahead of the curve. This way, they will not only be helping society through a very necessary and beneficial transition, they will ensure their own long-term solvency by adapting themselves to the changing technological landscape.

The REAL Dead-End Energy Technology

A few weeks ago I was watching a debate on the Newshour on the local PBS station involving alternative energy technologies in the wake of the catastrophic BP spill. They had a proponent of alternative energy technologies, so called 'green' technologies, and a representative championing more oil drilling by oil companies.

I try not to wax political here or on the main site, but the pro-oil company guy was both obnoxious and belligerent, and worst of all, just plain wrong about a lot of points. Especially egregious was his repeatedly calling solar and wind power 'dead end' technologies. His skewed logic relied on the fact was that the basic ideas of solar and wind power were proposed a century or so ago, but their development has only been limited since.

Of course, such thinking is completely spurious, and shows ignorance of how technologies actually develop. Gunpowder, for example, was invented about a thousand years before reliable gunpowder weapons were finally developed. But if one asked a scholar in about 1000 AD if gunpowder was a 'dead end' technology based on what was available then, they'd probably say yes. And be completely wrong.

Most technologies don't explode onto the scene all at once, but rather go through a long period of slow but gradual development, and come to the fore only when there is a clear need for them. Steam engines were around as early as 1698 (or the 1st century AD, depending on your definition), but didn't catch on as a popular technology until 1800s. Rockets took a thousand years to go from fireworks to moon shots. Even the internal combustion engine, the killer app oil needed to become profitable, took decades to evolve into its industrial form.

The past decade, when dependence on the oil economy has led to numerous wasteful wars, environment-destroying oil spills, and a roller coaster of prices at the gas pump, has shown the pressing need for reliable, renewable energy technologies. In fact, if you keep up with the technology news, there has been a veritable explosion of so-called 'green' energy technologies, refinements and breakthroughs both. Solar energy cells dramatically increasing in efficiency and decreasing in price, wind farms and geothermal taps popping up everywhere, wave and tidal power projects grabbing a number of headlines.

Now I like to be realistic, and I realize that the world will be dependent on oil for energy for many decades yet. But ultimately, there is only a limited supply. It may last for a number of decades yet, maybe even into the next century, but it will eventually run out. Oil, not wind or solar or nuclear or tidal or geothermal or alternate fuels, is the REAL dead end energy technology. The sooner we begin switching over to alternatives, the less our economies and power grids and wallets will need to be at the mercy of a very volatile world market in oil.

And ironically, it is the resource-rich oil and energy companies like Exxon and Shell and BP who are in the best position to lead the large-scale conversion to these new technologies, and insure their long-term solubility and profitability in the process. But apparently they only care about short-term numbers and have to resort to tactics like propping up shallow, belligerent shills on news programs to spread misinformation. Its a shame, really.

Powering The World With Solar Panels

CLICK HERE to link to a very interesting graphic showing how much of the world's total surface area would have to be covered in solar cells in order to supply all of Earth's current energy needs.

I don't know the map's ultimate source, but it looks legitimate enough. And even if not completely accurate, it does provide plenty of food for thought. I'm guessing the chart is assuming present-day efficiency with solar cells (the best current commercial models are about 42% efficient); future versions of the technology could greatly improve on efficiency, and require less surface area to produce the same amount of power.

The problem with all of this, though, is cost. Look at the figures; 495,805 square kilometers = 496,805,000,000 square meters. The cost of commercial solar cells today is about $1000 per square meter, so putting up enough solar cells to meet projected 2030 demands would cost $496 trillion--over 30 times the current yearly output of the entire United States economy. Assuming very optimistic cost reductions from mass production in quantity and more advanced, lighter, and cheaper-to-produce solar cells that could reduce costs 100 fold, the total would still hover around $5 trillion dollars. Spread out over 20 years, that's $250 billion a year.

That might seem to some to be a small price to pay for powering the entire world CO2 free, but try convincing any current politician or economist of that, especially with so many more pressing economic issues today.