Page 1
OTEC AFF
Epigraph
“I owe all to the ocean; it produces electricity, and electricity gives heat, light, motion, and, in a
word, life to the Nautilus.” –Jules Verne, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
Page 2
FYI: What is OTEC?
FYI: README: This is how OTEC works:
Marti et al., 2010 (Jose, president, Offshore Infrastructure Assoc., Manuel A.J. Laboy, VP and Dir. of Offshore
Infrastructure Assoc., and Orlando Ruiz, Asst. Prof @ U of Puerto Rico,
Commercial Implementation Of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, “Commercial Implementation Of Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion,” Sea Technology Magazine, p. http://www.sea-technology.com/features/2010/0410/thermal_energy_conversion.html)
Basic Principles OTEC plants are heat engines that convert heat into work by exploiting the
energy gradient between a “source” and a “sink.” This is similar to a steam engine, although in
the case of OTEC, the temperature gradient is much smaller. This makes OTEC plants larger
than steam plants of comparable capacities. ¶ OTEC has three basic modalities: closed, open
and hybrid cycles. In the closed cycle, the temperature difference is used to vaporize (and
condense) a working fluid (e.g., ammonia) to drive a turbine generator to produce electricity.
In the open cycle, warm surface water is introduced into a vacuum chamber where it is flashvaporized. This water vapor drives a turbine generator to produce electricity. The remaining
water vapor (essentially distilled water) is condensed using cold sea water, and this
condensed water can either return to the ocean or be collected as potable water. The hybrid
cycle combines characteristics of the closed and open cycles and has great potential for
applications requiring higher efficiencies for the coproduction of energy and potable water. In
all three cycles, cold ocean water, normally available at depths of 1,000 meters, where the
water temperature remains constant at around 4° C, is required to condense the working
fluid.
FYI this is how OTEC works (Science Rules!)
Friedman 14 (Becca, Harvard Ocean Energy Council member, “examining the future of ocean thermal energy conversion”
http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/)
French physicist George Claude first explored the science of OTEC in the early twentieth
century, and he built an experimental design in 1929. Unfortunately for Claude, the high maintenance needed
for an OTEC plant, especially given the frequency of storms in tropical ocean climates, caused him to abandon the project.
his work demonstrated that the difference in temperature between the surface
layer and the depths of the ocean was enough to generate power, using the warmer water as
the heat source and the cooler water as a heat sink. OTEC takes warm water and pressurizes it
so that it becomes steam, then uses the steam to power a turbine which creates power, and
completes the cycle by using the cold water to return the steam to its liquid state.
Nevertheless,
Page 3
1AC
Page 4
Observation 1: Inherency
First, OTEC could cut fossil fuel consumption but a lack of government support
and capital investment have stalled efforts.
Friedman, 2012 (Becca, Harvard Political Review, “Examining the Future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” Ocean
Energy Council, March 20, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/)
Although it may seem like an environmentalist’s fantasy, experts in oceanic energy contend that the
technology to
provide a truly infinite source of power to the United States already exists in the form of Ocean
Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). Despite enthusiastic projections and promising prototypes, however, a lack of
governmental support and the need for risky capital investment have stalled OTEC in its research and
development phase.¶ Regardless, oceanic energy experts have high hopes. Dr. Joseph Huang, Senior Scientist at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and former leader of a Department of Energy team on oceanic energy, told the HPR, “If
we can use one percent of the energy [generated by OTEC] for electricity and other things, the
potential is so big. It is more than 100 to 1000 times more than the current consumption of
worldwide energy. The potential is huge. There is not any other renewable energy that can compare
with OTEC.”¶ The Science of OTEC¶ French physicist George Claude first explored the science of OTEC in the early twentieth
century, and he built an experimental design in 1929. Unfortunately for Claude, the high maintenance needed for an OTEC plant,
especially given the frequency of storms in tropical ocean climates, caused him to abandon the project. Nevertheless, his work
demonstrated that the
difference in temperature between the surface layer and the depths of the
ocean was enough to generate power, using the warmer water as the heat source and the
cooler water as a heat sink. OTEC takes warm water and pressurizes it so that it becomes steam, then uses the steam to
power a turbine which creates power, and completes the cycle by using the cold water to return the steam to its liquid state.¶ Huge
Capital, Huge Risks¶ Despite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet to be developed. The
high costs of
building even a model pose the main barrier. Although piecemeal experiments have proven the effectiveness of
the individual components, a large-scale plant has never been built. Luis Vega of the Pacific International Center for High Technology
Research estimated in an OTEC summary presentation that a commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from 80 to 100
million dollars over five years. According to Terry Penney, the Technology Manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
the combination of cost and risk is OTEC’s main liability. “We’ve talked to inventors and other constituents
over the years, and it’s still a matter of huge capital investment and a huge risk, and there are many [alternate forms of energy] that
are less risky that could produce power with the same certainty,” Penney told the HPR.¶ Moreover, OTEC is highly vulnerable to the
elements in the marine environment. Big storms or a hurricane like Katrina could completely disrupt energy production by mangling
the OTEC plants. Were a country completely dependent on oceanic energy, severe weather could be debilitating. In addition, there
is a risk that the salt water surrounding an OTEC plant would cause the machinery to “rust or corrode” or “fill up with seaweed or
mud,” according to a National Renewable Energy Laboratory spokesman.¶ Even environmentalists have impeded OTEC’s
development. According to Penney, people do not want to see OTEC plants when they look at the ocean. When they see a disruption
of the pristine marine landscape, they think pollution.¶ Given the risks, costs, and uncertain popularity of OTEC, it
seems
unlikely that federal support for OTEC is forthcoming. Jim Anderson, co-founder of Sea Solar Power Inc., a
company specializing in OTEC technology, told the HPR, “Years ago in the ’80s, there was a small [governmental] program for OTEC
and it was abandoned…That philosophy has carried forth to this day. There
are a few people in the Department of
Energy who have blocked government funding for this. It’s not the Democrats, not the
Republicans. It’s a bureaucratic issue.”¶ OTEC is not completely off the government’s radar, however. This past
year, for the first time in a decade, Congress debated reviving the oceanic energy program in
the energy bill, although the proposal was ultimately defeated. OTEC even enjoys some support on a state
level. Hawaii ’s National Energy Laboratory, for example, conducts OTEC research around the islands. For now, though, American
interests in OTEC promise to remain largely academic. The Naval Research Academy and Oregon State University are conducting
research programs off the coasts of Oahu and Oregon , respectively.
Page 5
Plan:
The United States federal government should substantially increase it’s non-military
development of the Earth’s oceans by streamlining the regulatory framework applicable to
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion by returning all regulatory oversight to the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Funding and enforcement through normal
means. We reserve the right to clarify.
Page 6
Observation 2: A New Hope
First, congressional action that makes NOAA a “one stop shop” for regulatory
power would spur development—it reduces costs and encourages deployment
of OTEC in the Earth’s oceans.
Griset, 2011 (Todd J., associate at Preti Flaherty’s Energy and Telecommunications group, where he represents renewable
energy firms, “Harnessing the Ocean’s Power: Opportunities in Renewable Ocean Energy Resources,” Ocean and Coastal Law Journal
16 [2011]: 395, l/n)
¶ Regulatory regimes applicable to renewable ocean energy continue to¶ evolve as well. For example, the decision of the
Massachusetts DPU to¶ approve Cape Wind’s power purchase agreement with National Grid, and¶ the FERC order approving the
concept of a multi-tiered avoided cost rate¶ structure under which states may establish a higher avoided cost rate for¶ mandated
renewable power, both represent an evolution in the traditional¶ regulation of public utilities. In both cases, regulatory policy has
shifted¶ to favor renewable energy production even though it may initially bear a¶ higher cost than production from fossil fuel-based
resources. These¶ shifts may continue to bring renewable ocean energy closer to cost competitiveness¶ or cost-parity with
traditional resources. Time will tell¶ whether the trend toward greater ocean energy development will rise and¶ fall like the tides, as
has the trends responsible for the initial enactment¶ of the OTEC Act, subsequent removal of NOAA’s regulations, and the¶ current
resurgence of interest in OTEC, or whether these shifts represent¶ definite progress toward a new form of energy production.¶
Furthermore, clarification
and simplification of the patchwork of¶ regulatory regimes governing
renewable ocean energy projects will bring¶ about additional reductions in the cost of energy
from the sea. As a¶ general principle, uncertainty or inconsistency of regulation tends to¶ deter
development and investment.227 Unknown or shifting regulatory¶ regimes add risk to the development of any given
project.228 Indeed, in¶ the context of ocean energy, regulatory uncertainty has been called ““the¶
most significant non-technical obstacle to deployment of this new¶ technology.””229 Consistent
government commitment and the¶ simplification of licensing and permitting procedures, rank
among the¶ ¶ ¶ hallmarks of a well-planned system for developing ocean renewable¶ energy.230¶
Arguably, such a system has not yet been fully realized. Some¶ observers believe that the MOU between MMS
and FERC has ““resolved¶ the uncertainty”” over the jurisdictional question, and by extension, over¶ the question of which set of
regulations a developer of a project on the¶ OCS must follow.231 On the other hand, the dual process created by the¶ MOU under
which MMS/BOEMRE must first approve a site and issue a¶ lease, after which FERC may issue a license or exemption, may lead to¶
delays in the development of hydrokinetic energy resources on the¶ OCS.232 Nevertheless, the agencies have committed
themselves to¶ cooperate and have issued guidance suggesting that where possible, the¶ agencies will combine their National
Environmental Policy Act¶ processes.233¶ At the same time, technologies
such as OTEC remain under the¶
jurisdiction of NOAA. As noted above, a host of other federal agencies¶ retain authority to regulate
various aspects of renewable ocean energy¶ projects. The nation’s regulatory program for
ocean energy projects thus¶ lacks a single ““one-stop shop”” approach for project licensure, site¶
leasing, and other required permitting. Project developers must not only¶ obtain permits from a variety of federal and state entities,
but moreover¶ face uncertainty as to which permits may be required. The net impact of¶ this regulatory patchwork is to place a
chilling effect on the¶ comprehensive development of the nation’’s renewable ocean energy¶ resources.¶ Moreover, few renewable
ocean energy projects have been fully¶ permitted. Indeed, the Cape Wind project represents the first¶ commercial-scale offshore
wind project to complete its permitting and¶ licensing path.234 Although each future project’’s details and regulatory¶ ¶ path may
be unique, the success of the first United States offshore wind¶ project to go through the public regulatory process provides
subsequent¶ developers with valuable insight into challenges, procedures, and¶ provides an understanding of how to apportion
permitting and¶ development costs with greater certainty.235 However, because that path¶ took nine years to navigate, and
because many of the regulatory shifts¶ described herein occurred during that time, project developers today will¶ face a different
regulatory structure than that faced by Cape Wind.¶ Moreover, depending on the technology involved, site-specific issues,¶ and the
regulatory environment of each state, each project must in¶ essence forge its own path forward toward complete regulatory
approval.¶ Congressional
action could further streamline the regulatory framework applicable to
renewable ocean energy projects. Providing a stable structure for the development of the oceans' renewable energy
potential would reduce the capital cost required to develop a given project. By providing a clear and consistent legal
path for project developers to follow, such legislation would enable the best ocean energy
projects to become more cost-competitive. This in turn could provide benefits along the lines of those
cited by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities in approving the Cape Wind power purchase agreement: economic
Page 7
development, a diversified energy policy, greater energy independence, and reduced carbon
emissions. The states' role in such a regulatory framework should be respected. While renewable power benefits the region, the
nation, and the world at large, most of the negative impacts of a given project are felt locally. Establishing a clear
regulatory framework including appropriate federal agencies as well as state authority could
empower greater development of ocean energy resources without sacrificing values such as
navigational rights, fisheries and wildlife, aesthetic considerations, and states' rights. Our oceans
hold vast promise. The opportunity to transform that potential into usable energy is significant.
Whether developing that potential into commercial-scale energy production is a reasonable
choice remains to be seen. If renewable ocean energy resources are to be developed,
promoting regulatory certainty would do much to promote their cost-effective development.
Second, OTEC is technically feasible—the U.S. has led technological R&D since
video killed the radio stars.
Marti et al., 2010 (Jose, president, Offshore Infrastructure Assoc., Manuel A.J. Laboy, VP and Dir. of Offshore
Infrastructure Assoc., and Orlando Ruiz, Asst. Prof @ U of Puerto Rico,
Commercial Implementation Of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, “Commercial Implementation Of Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion,” Sea Technology Magazine, p. http://www.sea-technology.com/features/2010/0410/thermal_energy_conversion.html)
The nearly 80 years of studies and designs since Claude’s first attempt to demonstrate OTEC technology in Cuba in
1930 and the investment of more than $500 million in R&D and engineering during the mid-1970s to the
early 1990s—in the United States alone—have provided sufficient data to build commercial-scale OTEC
plants at the present time, given the proper economic conditions and the right markets. ¶ In 1980, a report prepared by
the RAND Corp. (Santa Monica, California) for the U.S. Department of Energy found that power systems and
platforms required for OTEC plants were within the state of the art. Subsequent work, such as
designs developed by APL in 1980 and GE in 1983, addressed other issues like the cold-water
pipe and the cable used to transport electricity to shore.¶ Substantial additional progress has
occurred since then. For example, submarine cables capable of serving the needs of OTEC plants have been
developed and are in use for other applications. Techniques for fabricating and installing large-diameter
pipes and immersed tubes developed for other applications, such as offshore oil, ocean outfalls and channel crossings, are
adaptable to OTEC. ¶ The APL and GE designs, as well as the one developed in 1994 by the Tokyo Electric Power Services Co.
for its 10-megawatt-electrical closed-cycle plant to serve the Republic of Nauru, are all based on the use of commercially available
components and techniques. ¶ Offshore
Infrastructure Associates Inc. (OIA) has developed configurations for
commercial-scale OTEC plants based on available technologies in widespread use for other
applications. In addition to general design, work has centered on process optimization and system integration, with the dual
objectives of minimizing parasitic power consumption and reducing overall capital cost. Suppliers for plant components have been
identified. In summary, OIA has verified conclusions reached by previous investigators: Commercial
OTEC plants are
technically feasible today.
Third, we have terminal solvency—like Bruce Willis, OTEC averts the
Armageddon.
Potomac 10 (Paul, NASA engineer, “American Energy Policy V -- Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion” 12/15/2010 at 08:17:01
oped news. http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/American-Energy-Policy-V--by-Paul-from-Potomac-101214-315.html)
(OTEC) is by far the most balanced means to face the challenge of global warming. It is also the
It is a most intriguing answer that can save us
from Armageddon. The Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University was one of its earliest proponents, whose
one that requires the greatest investment to meet its potential.
team was led by Gordon Dugger (see photo below). Given modern materials and design techniques, we should be able to build
grazing OTEC plants that may become economical with just a few production units, based upon anhydrous ammonia as the
hydrogen carrier. The grazing OTEC plants would produce anhydrous ammonia while surfing the oceans for hot spots to curry heat
for their power plants. (BTW there are ammonia pipelines in Indiana and other midwest states today for fertilizer distribution).
Ammonia is the second-most predominant chemical manufactured in the world. Since the volumetric energy density of ammonia is
three times that of liquid hydrogen, and ammonia combustion can be exceptionally efficient (about the same as burning diesel fuel
in turbodiesels), it may be true that a hydrogen economy based upon OTEC and ammonia may be close at hand.
The overall
Page 8
replacement of transportable carbon fuels by OTEC-based ammonia is estimated at 100
million barrels of oil per day equivalent over about 40 years if we move to a hydrogen
economy. Along with other technologies, carbon fuels could be replaced in roughly 80% of all
applications. OTEC is a true triple threat against global warming. It is the only technology that
acts to directly reduce the temperature of the ocean (it was estimated one degree Fahrenheit
reduction every twenty years for 10,000 250 MWe plants in '77), eliminates carbon emissions,
and increases carbon dioxide absorption (cooler water absorbs more CO2) at the same time. It
generates fuel that is portable and efficient, electricity for coastal areas if it is moored, and possibly food
from the nutrients brought up from the ocean floor. It creates jobs, perhaps millions of them,
if it is the serious contender for the future multi-trillion-dollar energy economy. In concert with wind and solar power, OTEC will
complete the conversion of the human race to a balance with Nature. We need only choose
life over convenience. Some folks know that I've been a proponent of ocean power since the late '70s. Rummaging through
old stuff on the internet, I found this ancient photo of me in Miami in 1977, on a panel discussing OTEC. This may have been the first
time that OTEC was discussed in public in terms of global warming. Oddly enough, the concern was that we might cause an Ice Age!
Here is the document, which describes the technology quite well at that point in time, more than 30 years
ago: otec_liaison_1_613.pdf We should be more worried about global warming upsetting the
ocean currents by overheating the ocean, which is now happening at an alarming rate. The latest guess is
+5C (9F) by 2100! This technology may be deployed as a means to bring the ocean back into
balance, not to upset it.
Page 9
Advantage 1: The Day After Tomorrow
First, demand for energy is growing—new renewable resources are key.
Glickman 2013 (Robert L., Maurice C. Shapiro Prof. of Env. Law @ GWU Law School, “Balancing Increased Access to
Nontraditional Power Sources with Environmental Protection Policies,” 34 Pub. Land & Resources L. Rev. 1, l/n)
As Professor Alexandra Klass has noted, "there is a general consensus that more transmission is needed in
the United States to maintain grid reliability, meet growing demand, and integrate more renewable energy
into the grid." n48 Demand for electricity in the U.S. is rising, having increased by 25 percent
from 1990 to the early 2010s. During the same time, however, construction of transmission
facilities fell by thirty percent. According to Professor Klass, "this deficit of transmission
capacity combined with the aging infrastructure is leading to [*14] an increase in blackouts
and brownouts, costing the U.S. economy $ 150 billion annually." n49 Demand for renewable
energy is also being driven by state renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that require
electricity providers to supply at least a specified minimum percentage of their output from
renewable resources, whose production and consumption produces lower levels of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions than fossil fuels.
Second, this demand increases fossil fuel consumption.
Cusick 2013 (Daniel, E&E Reporter, Global demand for fossil fuels continues to rise, E&E News,
October 25, http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059989393)
Despite concerted global efforts to reduce carbon emissions through the expansion of clean and
renewable energy resources, fossil fuels continued to dominate the global energy sector in 2012,
according to new figures released yesterday by the Worldwatch Institute.¶ Coal, natural gas and oil
accounted for 87 percent of the world's primary energy consumption last year, the group
reported in a new "Vital Signs Online" report.¶ "The relative weight of these energy sources keeps shifting,
although only slightly," states the report by researchers Milena Gonzalez and Matt Lucky, members of the
Worldwatch Institute's climate and energy team.¶ While the U.S. boom in shale gas helped push the
fossil fuel's share of total global energy consumption from 23.8 to 23.9 percent, coal also
increased its share, from 29.7 to 29.9 percent, as demand for coal-fired electricity remained strong
across much of the developing world, including China and India, and parts of Europe.¶ As such, coal is
expected to surpass oil as the most consumed primary energy source in the world, the report
said. In 2012, China alone accounted for more than half the world's total coal consumption, mostly for
electric power generation.
Third, the plan is a game changer—causes a shift away from fossil fuels.
Friedman, 2012 (Becca, Harvard Political Review, “Examining the Future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” Ocean
Energy Council, March 20, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/, nr)
Were its vast potential harnessed, OTEC could change the face of energy consumption by
causing a shift away from fossil fuels. Environmentally, such a transition would greatly reduce
g reen h ouse g as emissions and decrease the rate of global warming . Geopolitically, having
an alternative energy source could free the United States , and other countries, from foreign
oil dependency. As Huang said, “We just cannot ignore oceanic energy, especially OTEC, because
the ocean is so huge and the potential is so big… No matter who assesses, if you rely on fossil energy
for the future, the future isn’t very bright…For the future, we have to look into renewable energy,
look for the big resources, and the future is in the ocean.” •
Page 10
Fourth, that’s good—OTEC’s produces zero-emission energy that dissipates
warming. That could halt climate change.
Baird, 2013 (Jim, engineer, inventor, and consultant at Lockheed-Martin, “OTEC can be a big Climate Influence, The Green
Energy Collective, September 3 http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/267576/otec-can-be-big-global-climate-influence)
OTEC uses the temperature difference between cooler deep and warmer surface ocean waters
to run a heat engine and produce useful work, usually in the form of electricity.¶ It too can
have a big influence on global climate because it converts part of the accumulating ocean heat
to work and about twenty times more heat is moved to the depths in a similar fashion to how Trenberth suggests the globalwarming hiatus has come about.¶ The more energy produced by OTEC – done properly the potential is 30 terawatts - the more the entire
ocean will be cooled and that heat converted to work will not return as will be the case when
the oceans stop soaking up global-warming’s excess.¶ Kevin Trenberth estimates the oceans will eat global warming for the next 20 years.¶ Asked
if the oceans will come to our climate rescue he said, “That’s a good question, and the answer is maybe partly yes, but maybe partly no.” The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat. Some goes into the deep
oceans where it can stay for centuries. But heat absorbed closer to the surface can easily flow back into the air. That happened in 1998, which made it one of the hottest years on record. Since then, the ocean has
mostly been back in one of its soaking-up modes.¶ “They probably can’t go for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in
global-warming needs to be put on a
permanent hiatus and the world needs more zero emissions energy.¶ OTEC provides both.
temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,” Trenberth says. ¶ The bottom line is
Fifth, we have to reverse the trend now. Runaway warming will destroy all life
on earth.
Ahmed 2010 (Nafeez, Prof. of IR @ Brunel University and the University of Sussex, “Globalizing Insecurity: The Convergence
of Interdependent Ecological, Energy, and Economic Crises,” Spotlight on Security, Volume 5, Issue 2 Spring/Summer 2010)
Perhaps the most notorious indicator is anthropogenic global warming. The
landmark 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of
the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – which warned that at then-current rates of increase
of fossil fuel emissions, the earth’s global average temperature would likely rise by 6°C by the end of the 21st century
creating a largely uninhabitable planet – was a wake-up call to the international community.[v] Despite the
pretensions of ‘climate sceptics,’ the peer-reviewed scientific literature has continued to produce
evidence that the IPCC’s original scenarios were wrong – not because they were too alarmist, but on the contrary,
because they were far too conservative. According to a paper in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, current CO2 emissions are worse than all six scenarios contemplated by
the IPCC. This implies that the IPCC’s worst-case six-degree scenario severely underestimates the most probable climate
trajectory under current rates of emissions.[vi] It is often presumed that a 2°C rise in global average temperatures under an
atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses at 400 parts per million (ppm) constitutes a safe upper limit – beyond which
further global warming could trigger rapid and abrupt climate changes that, in turn, could tip the
whole earth climate system into a process of irreversible, runaway warming .[vii] Unfortunately, we
are already well past this limit, with the level of greenhouse gasses as of mid-2005 constituting 445 ppm.[viii] Worse still, cuttingedge scientific data suggests that the safe upper limit is in fact far lower. James Hansen, director
of the NASA Goddard
Institute for Space Studies, argues that the absolute upper limit for CO2 emissions is 350 ppm:
“If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding
irreversible catastrophic effects.”[ix] A wealth of scientific studies has attempted to explore the role of
positive-feedback mechanisms between different climate sub-systems, the operation of which could intensify the
warming process. Emissions beyond 350 ppm over decades are likely to lead to the total loss of
Arctic sea-ice in the summer triggering magnified absorption of sun radiation, accelerating warming; the
melting of Arctic permafrost triggering massive methane injections into the atmosphere,
accelerating warming; the loss of half the Amazon rainforest triggering the momentous release of
billions of tonnes of stored carbon, accelerating warming; and increased microbial activity in the
earth’s soil leading to further huge releases of stored carbon, accelerating warming; to name just a few.
Each of these feedback sub-systems alone is sufficient by itself to lead to irreversible,
catastrophic effects that could tip the whole earth climate system over the edge.[x] Recent
studies now estimate that the continuation of business-as-usual would lead to global warming of three to four
Page 11
degrees Celsius before 2060 with multiple irreversible,
by the end of the century – a situation endangering
catastrophic impacts; and six, even as high as eight, degrees
the survival of all life on earth.[xi]
Page 12
Advantage 2: Water World
First, water demand is increasing—will skyrocket by 2050
Ingham & Lucas 2014 (RICHARD INGHAM, ANTHONY LUCAS, AGENCE FRANCE
PRESSE)“The World's Water Scarcity Problem Is Bad And Getting Worse”
http://www.businessinsider.com/map-the-worlds-water-scarcity-problem-is-bad-and-gettingworse-2014-5#ixzz37UtjMJcy MAY 13, 2014
Already today, around 768 million people do not have access to a safe, reliable source of water and
2.5 billion do not have decent sanitation. Around a fifth of the world's aquifers are depleted.
Jump forward in your imagination to mid-century, when the world's population of about 7.2
billion is expected to swell to around 9.6 billion. By then, global demand for water is likely to
increase by a whopping 55 percent, according to the United Nations' newly published World Water Development
Report. More than 40 percent of the planet's population will be living in areas of "severe" water
stress, many of them in the broad swathe of land that runs along north Africa, the Middle East and western South Asia.
Second, the energy industry is the culprit—growth in the energy sector has
caused water consumption to skyrocket. Fracking for shale oil is a primary
culprit.
Chilcoat 2014 (Colin, MA, Energy Politics in Eurasia, “Climate Assessment touches on grid
modernization and oil production,” Penn Energy,
http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2014/05/energy-news-climate-assessment-effects-gridmodernization-and-oil-production.html)
Water remains the driving force behind nearly every significant economic sector as well as life on Earth for that matter.
Increasing pressure on supply looks to become a world-defining problem with or without
extreme climate change impacts. Nationally, per capita water use has actually declined since 1980 thanks to
efficiency measures and appropriate pricing strategies. However, socioeconomic conditions as well as
regional climate changes over the next half-century will impact demand tremendously; the
NCA projects a rise in demand of up to 50% over 2005 levels in the Southwest and Great
Plains. The U.S. Drought Monitor has already classified these regions as in severe to exceptional droughts –
classifications that connote long-term impacts on agricultural lands and hydrological systems. Moreover, decreased soil
The
energy sector dominates water use in the U.S; unlike municipal use, water consumption for
energy production has been increasing. Upstream, onshore oil production requires
approximately eight barrels of water for every barrel of oil brought to the surface. Further from
the source, energy, in all its forms, is responsible for 27% of total water consumption outside the
agricultural sector. Water use is often highlighted when discussing the shale gas revolution and the now widespread
moisture, groundwater levels, snowpack, and precipitation pose significant threats to the way we use water. ¶
use of hydraulic fracturing, but often unfairly so or out of context. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, actually uses less
water than most conventional energy sources. Shale gas production consumes between 0.6 and 1.8 gallons per MMBtu
compared with 1-8 gal/MMBtu for coal and 1-62 gal/MMBtu for onshore oil production. Biofuels like corn-based ethanol
consume on average a staggering 1,000 gal/MMBtu. Fracking is not entirely guilt-free however, and still presents unique
The water-use profile for fracking tends to differ from more
conventional wells; fracking jobs require large volumes of water upfront and for each
subsequent fracking treatment, instead of spread out over the life span of the well. This places
incredible pressure on local water systems, many of which are already thinly stretched
between municipal and agricultural uses. Where fracking actually occurs only compounds matters. In fact, in
water and land use problems.¶
the US and Canada more than 55 percent of fracked wells in 2011-2013 were completed in drought stricken areas.
Moreover, 36 percent of wells were drilled in areas with significant groundwater depletion. The water stress is greatest in
Texas, California, and Colorado – where a majority of the nation’s fracking occurs. With fracking-related water use
expected to double in some regions water sourcing and management becomes an even more critical issue not only for oil
and gas companies, but also municipalities and even individuals.¶ Mitigating climate change impacts will not be cheap;
clean energy infrastructure, smart grids, and an increased share of renewables in the energy mix will require significant
upfront capital costs – costs consumers have been unwilling to bear in the past. Simply put, money today is worth more
Page 13
than money tomorrow. The equation becomes more difficult when dealing with abstract potential savings, both monetary
and environmental. The recent climate assessment attacks this prevailing idea and attempts to move climate change
issues to the present, where they realistically belong. The fact is onshore wind and solar photovoltaics are competitive
now, without incentives. A great deal of positive work has already been accomplished and greenhouse gas emissions are
at a 20-year low. The Obama administration has pledged greater federal leadership, but compliance and trendsetting
begins with oil and gas producers and utilities providers. As such,
the energy industry is in a privileged
position to lead by example.
Third, Water scarcity breeds conflict
Velasquez-Manoff, 2009 (Moises, Staff Writer, Christian Science Monitor, “Could water scarcity cause international
conflict?,” Christian Science Monitor, October 26, http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1026/could-waterscarcity-cause-international-conflict)
In reporting a recent story on a fight over water between residents of a small Colorado town and Nestlé Waters North America, a
bottled water company, I learned much about water scarcity around the world, and the sense — also growing — that shortages
of water could spark much future conflict.¶ In recent years, there's been a proliferation of books on the world's present
and future water woes, from Maude Barlow's Blue Covenant to Robert Glennon's Unquenchable.¶ Many, including the authors
mentioned above, argue that water must be viewed as a human right, not solely as a market commodity.¶ That's been the United
Nations' position for years – not least because a lack of access to clean water constitutes a huge health problem in much of the
developing world. About
1 billion people don't have potable water.¶ Another reason: water scarcity's
potentially destabilizing effects. Many view the conflict in Darfur, for example, as partly
motivated by a growing population and a shrinking supply of water.¶ It's not as though conflicts over
water are an entirely new phenomenon. The Pacific Institute keeps a running list of water conflicts [PDF] that stretches back 5,000
years. The first human-on-human conflict over water occurred around 2500 BC in Mesopotamia, according to the list.¶ A
Mesopotamian city state, Lagash, diverted water from its neighbor, Umma. The most recent water conflict: In 2008, the Taliban
threatened to blow up Pakistan's Warsak Dam. (The list hasn't been updated for a year.)¶ Some
see evidence of
increased risk of conflict in a warming world where some regions are drying.¶ A report titled “Rising
Temperatures, Rising Tensions: Climate change and the risk of violent conflict in the Middle East,” which was released earlier this
year by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, found that after
the 2007-'08 drought in Syria,
residents abandoned 160 villages.¶ Rainfall in the area has diminished markedly in the past 50 years, probably due to
global warming. In Syria alone, some 300,000 farmers and herders abandoned their homes, families in tow, for urban camps because
of the drought. Around 800,000 lost their livelihoods entirely¶
Fourth, OTEC could eradicate this problem—it provides continuous energy
supplies and produces potable water.
Websdale, 2014 (Emma, environmental journalist and senior communication specialist at Ocean Thermal Energy
Corporation, “5 Reasons Why Hundreds of People Think OTEC Is a Smart Investment,” Empower the Ocean, January 27,
http://empowertheocean.com/otec-a-smart-investment/)
By using the temperature differential between warm ocean surface water and cold deep water as a renewable energy source,
OTEC can generate two of humanity’s most fundamental needs—clean drinking water and
renewable baseload (24/7) energy. Each OTEC plant is capable of producing voluminous amounts
of drinkable water (a 10-MW OTEC plant can produce as much as 75 million liters of fresh drinking water a day). Thus, the
technology can directly relieve serious water shortage issues globally by meeting domestic and
agricultural freshwater demands both now and sustainably in the future.¶ OTEC’s unique symbiosis
between clean baseload renewable energy and potable water production is a natural fit. The combination addresses
existing global factors that could precipitate a humanitarian crisis: the growing global need for
potable water as the world’s population grows exponentially, the lack of available freshwater sources, the
increased concentration of populations in coastal regions, and rising energy prices.
Fifth, water conflicts lead to war
Ingham & Lucas 2014 (RICHARD INGHAM, ANTHONY LUCAS, AGENCE FRANCE
PRESSE)“The World's Water Scarcity Problem Is Bad And Getting Worse”
http://www.businessinsider.com/map-the-worlds-water-scarcity-problem-is-bad-and-gettingworse-2014-5#ixzz37UtjMJcy MAY 13, 2014
Page 14
Citing a 2012 assessment by US intelligence agencies, the US State Department says: "Water
is not just a human
health issue, not just an economic development or environmental issue, but a peace and
security issue." Rows over water between nations tend to be resolved without bloodshed, often using international
fora, says Richard Connor, who headed the UN water report. However, " you can talk about conflict in which
water is the root cause, albeit usually hidden," he told AFP. "It can lead to fluctuations in
energy and food prices, which can in turn lead to civil unrest. In such cases, the 'conflict' may
be over energy or food prices, but these are themselves related to water availability and
allocation."
Sixth, these water wars cause nuclear conflict—terminal impact is extinction
NASCA 04 (“Water shortages – only a matter of time,” National Association for Scientific and
Cultural Appreciation, http://www.nasca.org.uk/Strange_relics_/water/water.html)
Water is one of the prime essentials for life as we know it. The plain fact is - no water, no life!
This becomes all the more worrying when we realise that the¶ worlds supply of drinkable water will soon
diminish quite rapidly. In fact a recent report commissioned by the United Nations has emphasised that by the year¶ 2025
at least 66% of the worlds population will be without an adequate water supply. As a disaster in the making water shortage ranks in
the top category.¶ Without
water we are finished, and it is thus imperative that we protect the
mechanism through which we derive our supply of this life¶ giving fluid. Unfortunately the exact
opposite is the case. We are doing incalculable damage to the planets capacity to generate water and this will have far ranging
consequences for the¶ not too distant future. The
United Nations has warned that burning of fossil fuels is the
prime cause of water shortage. While there may be other reasons such as increased solar activity it is¶ clear that this
is a situation over which we can exert a great deal of control. If not then the future will be
very bleak indeed! Already the warning signs are there. The last year has seen¶ devastating heatwaves in many parts of the
world including the USA where the state of Texas experienced its worst drought on record. Elsewhere in the United States forest
fires raged out of¶ control, while other regions of the globe experienced drought conditions that were even more severe. Parts of
Iran, Afgahnistan, China and other neighbouring countries experienced their worst¶ droughts on record. These
conditions
also extended throughout many parts of Africa and it is clear that if circumstances remain
unchanged we are facing a disaster of epic proportions.¶ Moreover it will be one for which there is no easy
answer. The spectre of a world water shortage evokes a truly frightening scenario. In fact the United Nations¶ warns
that disputes over water will become the prime source of conflict in the not too distant future.
Where these shortages become ever¶ more acute it could forseeably lead to the brink of
nuclear conflict. On a lesser scale water, and the price of it, will acquire an importance somewhat like the current¶ value
placed on oil. The difference of course is that while oil is not vital for life, water most certainly is!
It seems clear then that in future years countries rich in water will¶ enjoy an importance that
perhaps they do not have today. In these circumstances power shifts are inevitable, and this
will undoubtedly¶ create its own strife and tension. In the long term the implications do not look encouraging. It
is a two edged sword. First the shortage of water, and then the increased stresses this ¶ will impose
upon an already stressed world of politics. It means that answers need to be found immediately .
Answers that will both ameliorate the damage to the¶ environment, and also find new sources
of water for future consumption. If not, and the problem is left unresolved there will
eventually come¶ the day when we shall find ourselves with a nightmare situation for which
there will be no obvious answer.
Page 15
Advantage 3: Get off the Rock
First, the threat of a cataclysmic asteroid impact is imminent. We need to get
off the rock.
Tyson 12(Neil deGrasse, Astrophysicist, Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetariuml.
Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier. W.W. Norton and Company, New York: 2012. p.
45-46)
The chances that your tombstone will read “KILLED BY ASTEROID” are about the same as
they’d be for “KILLED IN AIRPLANE CRASH.” Only about two dozen people have been killed by falling asteroids in
the past four hundred years, while thousands have died in crashes during the relatively brief history of passenger air travel. So how
can this comparative statistic be true? Simple. The
impact record shows that by the end of ten million years,
when the sum of all airplane crashes has killed a billion people (assuming a death-by-airplane rate of a hundred per year), an
asteroid large enough to kill the same number of people will have hit Earth. The difference is that
while airplanes are continually killing people a few at a time, that asteroid might not kill anybody for millions of years. But when it
does hit, it will take out a billion people: some instantaneously, and the rest in the wake of global climatic upheaval. The
combined impact rate for asteroids and comets in the early solar system was frighteningly
high. Theories of planet formation show that chemically rich gas cooled and condensed to form molecules, then particles of dust,
then rocks and ice. Thereafter, it was a shooting gallery. Collisions served as a means for chemical and gravitational forces to bind
smaller objects into larger ones. Those objects that, by chance, had accreted slightly more mass than average had slightly higher
gravity, attracting other objects even more. As accretion continued, gravity eventually shaped blobs into spheres, and planets were
born. The most massive planets had sufficient gravity to retain the gaseous envelope we call an atmosphere.
Second, OTEC is a miracle technology—it will feed the world’s entire
population, enable space colonization, and ensure human survival.
The Millineal Project, 2010 (“Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” The Millenial Project 2.0,
http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/OTEC)
Savage also realized that there are many other side-benefits of OTEC that also require a marine colony to host their facilities. In
operation, OTECs
function like miniature upwelling zones bringing up nutrient-rich deep seawater
and discharging it after its use as a heat-sink is complete, much like natural upwelling zones
which are responsible for many of the world’s greatest coastal fisheries. In fact, this actually gives
OTECs great potential as a carbon sequestration method because salps (an algaevore that excretes
carbon at great depths) and algae growth would both be much increased at the outer perimeter of
this upwelling plume –a phenomenon already being exploited for this purpose using solarpowered floating seawater pump stations. By using this huge volume of discharge water as the source nutrient
supply of a poly-species network of mariculture founded on algeaculture, extremely vast industrial mariculture systems could be
developed producing vast quantities of food with no overhead in feed stock and minimal environmental impact. Proportional to the
scale of OTEC power production, such mariculture facilities could easily become a major source of food on the global scale –which,
of course, needs shipping facilities to distribute it just as the packaged energy does. Given
full-scale deployment over
the Aquarius phase, such marine colony food production could easily become one of the
single-greatest food sources on the entire planet, thus this, in combination with the encouraged conversion of
global energy reliance to renewable energy, has become a key factor in Savage’s original plan for using the Aquarius phase as a
means of ameliorating much of the socioeconomic strife world-wide, creating a global
sociopolitical climate more amenable to human progress and the advance to concerted space
development.¶ Thus we can see how OTEC has the potential to be one of the most significant
technologies in the entire 21st century. A world-transforming technology if appropriately and
fully implemented in concert with marine colonization. For centuries people have fantasized about living on
the sea but there has never truly be an entirely practical reason for that. But with OTEC we have reasons so
practical –so vital– they may determine the very survival of human civilization and its ability
to expand into space.
Page 16
Third, there is no time—we must begin a movement to space
Savage, 1992 (Marshall T., n/c, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy
Steps. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 18-19)
For better or worse, Life has evolved Homo sapiens as the active agent of her purpose. We are the sentient
tool-users. Perhaps Life should have bet on the dolphins. But, she put her money on us, and there is no time left
for second guesses. Life has endowed us with the power to conquer the galaxy, and our destiny awaits
us there, among the powdery star-fields of deep space. Now we must spring from our home planet and carry the living flame into the sterile wastes. It
is time to return the gift of Prometheus to the heavens. ¶ To fulfill our cosmic destiny and carry Life to the stars, we
must act quickly.
The same unleashed powers that enable us to enliven the universe are now, ironically, causing
us to destroy the Earth. The longer we delay, the further we may slip into a pit of our own
digging. If we wait too long, we will be swept into a world so poisoned by pollution, so
overrun by masses of starving people, so stripped of surplus resources, that there will be no
chance to ever leave this planet. Thus far, we have failed to use our new powers for the ends they were intended. The result is an
accelerating slide toward disaster. ¶ The litany of eco-crisis is numbingly familiar—like a Gregorian chant of doom: the ozone hole, the greenhouse
effect, deforestation, desertification, overpopulation. Woe, lamentation, and gnashing of teeth. If you are still aware of the emergency, you must
already live on Mars. ¶ The crisis is driven by the exponential explosion of human numbers. A
hundred million new people enter
the world each year. A new population the size of Iran every five months. Where will all of these new
people live? What Will they eat? What prospect for the future do they have? There is no way, short of nuclear war, plague,
or famine, to prevent human numbers from doubling. The parents of tomorrow have already been born, and when
they bear children of their own, the global population will surge. ¶ Our situation is analogous to yeast in a bottle. The
yeast cells will double their number every day until the bottle is full—then they will all die. If the
yeast die on the 30th day, then on what day is the bottle half full? The 29th day. We are in the 29th day of
our history on Earth. We must do something now, or face extinction. ¶ The obvious answer is to blow the lid
off this bottle! We need to rupture the barriers that confine us to the land mass of a single planet.
By breaking out, we can assure our survival and the continuation of Life.
Fourth, space colonization prevents every future extinction scenario.
Huang 5 (Michael Huang, editor of Spaceflight or Extinction, April 11, 2005, “The top three
reasons for humans in space,” online:http://www.thespacereview.com/article/352/1)
Humankind made it through the 20th century relatively well, but there were close calls: the Cuban Missile Crisis almost began a
total war between nuclear-armed superpowers. The 21st century has presented its own distinct challenges.
Nuclear and biological weapon technologies are spreading to many nations and groups. Progress
in science and technology, while advancing humankind, will also lead to the development
of more destructive weapons and possibly other unintended consequences. In addition to these manmade
threats, natural threats such as epidemics and impacts from space will continue to be with us. The
most valuable part of the universe is life: not only because life is important, but because life appears to be extremely
rare. The old saying, “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket”, advises that valuable things should be
kept in separate places, in case something bad happens at one of the places. This advice is more familiar to investors in
the guise of “diversify
area declines disastrously.
your portfolio” and “spread your risk”: one should invest in many different areas in case one
The same principle applies to the big picture. The most valuable part of the universe
is life : not only because life is important, but because life appears to be extremely rare. Life and humankind are
presently confined to the Earth (although we have built habitats in Earth orbit and ventured as far as the moon). If we
were throughout the solar system, at multiple locations, a disaster at one location would not end
everything. If we had the technologies to live in the extreme environments beyond Earth, we would
be able to live through the extreme environments of disaster areas and other regions of hardship.
Page 17
Advantage 4: Fracking
First, fracking is on the rise now—new technologies make it increasingly
popular
New American, 2014 (Thanks to Fracking, U.S. Will Pass Saudi Arabia In Oil Production, March 12,
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/17834-thanks-to-fracking-u-s-will-pass-saudi-arabia-in-oil-production)
Thanks to the success of U.S. oil companies engaged in hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” — a process used to extract
oil trapped in shale formations — the United States will soon pass Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest oil
producer. Both Saudi Arabia and the United States passed Russia for the top spot in recent years.¶ The Economist reported on
February 15 that U.S. oil production reached a peak of 9.6 million barrels per day (bpd) in 1970, then
declined to less than five million bpd in 2008. About that time, independent oil producers began adapting
the new technologies of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) and horizontal drilling (which had previously been used to tap natural
gas found in shale) to reach shale oil. ¶ Since fracking was introduced, U.S. oil production has risen to 7.4
million bpd and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts that U.S. production will return to 1970 levels by
2019. ¶ The International Energy Agency has issued projections that the United States will displace Saudi Arabia
as the world’s largest oil producer by 2015. By 2020, notes a report in Investing Daily, the United States will
produce 11.6 million barrels a day. During the same period, Saudi Arabia’s output is expected to fall from 11.7 million bpd to 10.6
million bpd.¶ In “America’s Energy Edge,” an essay in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs (the journal of the Council on Foreign
Relations), Robert D. Blackwiil and Meghan L. O’Sullivan noted that during
the past five years U.S. energy
producers have taken advantage of two new technologies: “horizontal drilling, which allows wells to
penetrate bands of shale deep underground, and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which uses the injection of high-pressure fluid to
release gas and oil from rock formations.”
Second, the plan trades off with hydraulic fracturing—removes financial
incentives.
Frome Standard, 2013 (“Business case for fracking is hardly worth the energy,” The Frome Standard (UK), August 29,
http://www.fromestandard.co.uk/Business-case-fracking-hardly-worth-energy/story-19723468-detail/story.html)
the current media hype, especially the broadcasting media about fracking, all lambasting the
protesters, glibly ignoring the reasons why there is this government's mad panic dash for a finite
fossil fuel and 19th and 20th-century technology.¶ ¶ It being we are all in this last-minute panic to stop the lights going out, to
use a well-worn media phase, because of lack of foresight of previous governments with the standard
short-term planning, and not funding research and development into such renewables as
"Osmosis" Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion or "Vortex" among other systems from the waves, plus wind
and solar – 21st-century technology.¶ ¶ If they had we would be way ahead now and be independent of
being held to ransom by overseas suppliers and having to go to war to gain access to finite
fossil fuels or future damaging our environment, the Europeans are getting on with it.¶ ¶ The
public who aren't familiar with the technology and history of such energy producing systems are being
led further astray by the pro-fracking media, with claims that in the US fracking is bringing the prices of
energy down and preventing the more polluting coal burning systems being used.
¶ For example
Third, that’s good—fracking causes species loss
Center for Biological Biodiversity 2014 (“Fracking threatens America’s Air, Water, and
Climate”) http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/fracking/index.html
Fracking comes with intense industrial development, including multi-well pads and massive
truck traffic. That’s because, unlike a pool of oil that can be accessed by a single well, shale formations are typically
fractured in many places to extract fossil fuels. This requires multiple routes for trucks, adding more
pollution to the air and more disturbance of wildlife habitat.
Fish die when fracking fluid
contaminates streams and rivers. Birds are poisoned by chemicals in wastewater ponds. And
Page 18
the intense industrial development that accompanies fracking pushes imperiled animals out of
the wild areas they need to survive. In California, for example, more than 100 endangered and
threatened species, including the San Joaquin kit fox and California condor, live in the counties
where fracking is set to expand
Fourth, species loss causes extinction.
Diner, 94 (David, Ph.D., Planetary Science and Geology, "The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who's Endangering
Whom?," Military Law Review, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161)
To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew 74 could save [hu]mankind may be difficult for
some. Many, if not most, species are useless to[hu]man[s] in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may
be critical in
an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively . In a
closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. 75 Moreover,
as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species
increases dramatically. 4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than
simplicity. 77 As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity
generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by
reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. 78 [*173] Biologically diverse ecosystems are
characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable
than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which
each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of
threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." 79 By
causing widespread extinctions, humans have
artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of
ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are
relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant
extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem
collapse and human extinction . Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a
mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 [hu]mankind may be
edging closer to the abyss.
Page 19
Extensions
Page 20
Ob 1: Inherency
Page 21
Energy Demand is Growing
Demand for ocean renewables is growing
Griset, 2011 (Todd J., associate at Preti Flaherty’s Energy and Telecommunications group, where he represents renewable
energy firms, “Harnessing the Ocean’s Power: Opportunities in Renewable Ocean Energy Resources,” Ocean and Coastal Law Journal
16 [2011]: 395, l/n)
Oil and natural gas are not the only energy resources held by our oceans; the
Earth's oceans contain vast stores of
energy, much of which can be harnessed to create usable power in the form of electricity.
Beyond these hydrocarbon mineral resources, the ocean offers great potential for the extraction of renewable energy. Analyses of
the renewable energy generation potential of the oceans suggest harnessable energy far in excess of global electricity demands.
Moreover, it is estimated that more than half of the population of the United States lives near or on the coast. n3 This fact of
geography and demography points to the great potential for using ocean energy resources to provide useful power to society. As
the United States moves toward an increased reliance on lower-carbon fuels and the production of renewable
energy, demand for renewable ocean energy resources is growing. These resources include the
generation of electricity from offshore wind, tides, currents and waves, as well as capturing usable power from ocean
thermal energy gradients.
Page 22
Fossil Fuels Now
Despite an abundance of ocean energy resources, the US remains locked into
fossil fuels
Griset, 2011 (Todd J., associate at Preti Flaherty’s Energy and Telecommunications group, where he represents renewable
energy firms, “Harnessing the Ocean’s Power: Opportunities in Renewable Ocean Energy Resources,” Ocean and Coastal Law Journal
16 [2011]: 395, l/n)
Energy is a major industry in the United States, with over one third of total energy consumption taking the form of electric power. n4
The United States generates a significant amount of electricity. n5 In 2009, net generation totaled 3,950 million megawatt-hours
(MWh). n6 Currently,
the United States electric power industry generates the majority of its electricity from
fuels. n7 In 2009, 44.5 percent of the United States' electric power
industry's net generation came from coal, with another 23.3 percent coming from natural gas.
n8 Nuclear power provided 20.2 percent of 2009's net generation. n9¶ [*398] By contrast, renewable
generation made up just 10.6 percent of net United States power generation in 2009. n10 This
thermal power plants relying on fossil
fraction was composed primarily of riverine hydroelectric generation (accounting for 6.9 percent of net United States power
generation), land-based wind (1.9 percent), and biomass (0.9 percent). n11 The renewable component of electricity generation has
risen significantly in recent years, particularly from new sources other than hydroelectricity; since 1998, the share of generation
coming from non-hydro renewables has increased 86.6 percent. n12 Thanks to the value of renewable generation, policies favoring
the diversification of energy sources as well as state legislative mandates to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other
combustion byproducts from the electric power industry, this growth of the renewable power sector is predicted to continue; for
example, looking at terrestrial wind alone, an additional 11,560 megawatts of nameplate capacity is reported as being planned for
the period 2010-2014. n13¶ Distilled to their essence, all ocean energy resources represent systems from which humans have
identified extractable energy. In all cases, this energy is stored within one or more of the oceans' dynamic systems such as marine
winds, currents, tides, and temperature gradients. Yet looking deeper, ocean energy resources are not monolithic in nature. The
array of physical and natural systems that comprise the Earth's oceans contains harnessable
energy in a variety of formats. These include mechanical energy stored in moving air (ocean wind) and
moving water (marine hydrokinetic), as well as thermal energy stored in the waters as heat. For winds,
some currents, and temperature gradients, the ultimate source of this energy is the Sun; for tidal power, the Moon's gravitational
pull provides the energy input. n14 Each of these resource types is treated below in turn.
Page 23
Legal Regs Stop OTEC Now
Patchwork legal regulations make offshore renewables expensive, prevent
development
Griset, 2011 (Todd J., associate at Preti Flaherty’s Energy and Telecommunications group, where he represents renewable
energy firms, “Harnessing the Ocean’s Power: Opportunities in Renewable Ocean Energy Resources,” Ocean and Coastal Law Journal
16 [2011]: 395, l/n)
A developer of an offshore renewable energy project faces a relatively complex patchwork of
legal regimes. Although this regulatory structure has recently been partially clarified and streamlined, the
determination of which substantive and procedural regulations apply remains dependent on
where the project will be located. Even after this regulatory reform, the complexity of the
regulatory regimes applicable to renewable energy projects may not prove optimal for the
cost-effective development of such resources.
3 barriers to OTEC: up-front capital, regulatory uncertainty, technological risk
Griset, 2011 (Todd J., associate at Preti Flaherty’s Energy and Telecommunications group, where he represents renewable
energy firms, “Harnessing the Ocean’s Power: Opportunities in Renewable Ocean Energy Resources,” Ocean and Coastal Law Journal
16 [2011]: 395, l/n)
Interest in OTEC in the late 1970s resulted in the enactment on August 3, 1980, of the Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion Act of 1980 (OTEC Act). n184 Shortly after the enactment of the OTEC Act, NOAA promulgated proposed
regulations to implement the OTEC Act, n185 and published final regulations in July 1981. n186 While these
regulations were designed to attract investment in and development of OTEC projects, OTEC's
technological and financial challenges resulted in minimal activity under NOAA's regulations.
Indeed, fifteen years after their publication, NOAA had not received any applications for licenses of commercial OTEC facilities or
plantships. n187 NOAA characterized its activity under the OTEC Act as merely "a low level" n188 and "limited to responding to
occasional requests for OTEC related technical and regulatory information." n189 To explain this unexpected lack of interest in
developing our OTEC resources, NOAA pointed to "the availability and relatively low price of fossil fuels, coupled with the risks to
potential investors" as having "limited the interest in the commercial development of OTEC projects." n190 Following President
Clinton's March 1995 Regulatory Reform Initiative, which directed all agencies to undertake an [*427] exhaustive review of their
regulations and to eliminate those which were obsolete or otherwise in need of reform, NOAA withdrew its Part 981 regulations
altogether. n191 While NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management remains responsible for licensing OTEC projects
pursuant to the OTEC Act, NOAA intends to rebuild its OTEC licensing capacity when commercial interest in the technology returns
as oil prices increase again. n192¶ Because
OTEC projects are highly capital-intensive, the economics of
commercial OTEC projects has been called the "main question" associated with the
commercialization of OTEC technologies. n193 In 1985, capital cost estimates for even small OTEC plants, sized
between 10 megawatts and 200 megawatts, ranged from $ 150 million to as high as $ 1 billion (in 1985 dollars), far higher than
conventional resources on a cost per unit power basis. n194 Compounding
the financial challenges of an OTEC
project is the fact that OTEC is still considered a risky technology when compared to more
established electricity generation technologies such as natural gas combined cycle projects or coal
gasification, both in terms of technological capabilities and regulatory regimes. n195 Regulatory certainty is viewed as
essential for projects to secure financing; to lend or invest capital, bankers must have some
degree of certainty that their investment will be secure against production interruptions due
to legal interference. n196 While the OTEC Act did clarify that NOAA-licensed project developers have certain rights,
including the right not to have adjacent projects interfere with their power production, the fact remains that commercial-scale OTEC
has not yet gained the widespread confidence of investors.
Current regulations create uncertainty, chilling ocean renewable projects
Griset, 2011 (Todd J., associate at Preti Flaherty’s Energy and Telecommunications group, where he represents renewable
energy firms, “Harnessing the Ocean’s Power: Opportunities in Renewable Ocean Energy Resources,” Ocean and Coastal Law Journal
16 [2011]: 395, l/n)
Page 24
The history of federal regulation of ocean renewable power projects has involved regulation
and assertions of jurisdiction by a wide variety of federal agencies. Depending on the technologies
involved in a given project, as well as the proposed location of the project, project developers have been required to seek out a
variety of permits from numerous federal agencies. Indeed,
federal law governing which agencies may issue
permits for ocean renewable energy projects has been variable and inconsistent over time.
This has led to regulatory uncertainty, which in turn has imposed increased costs, a decreased
ability of project developers to secure project financing, and an overall chilling effect on the
development of the nation's marine renewable power resources. While the current regulatory status quo
is more favorable to project development than previous regimes were, federal regulation of renewable ocean energy production
continues to lack a holistic regulatory scheme.
Despite regulatory reforms, OTEC lisences have stalled.
Griset, 2011 (Todd J., associate at Preti Flaherty’s Energy and Telecommunications group, where he represents renewable
energy firms, “Harnessing the Ocean’s Power: Opportunities in Renewable Ocean Energy Resources,” Ocean and Coastal Law Journal
16 [2011]: 395, l/n)
These regulatory reforms did little to affect OTEC, which remains subject to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) licensure pursuant to the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act of 1980 (OTEC
Act). n113 The OTEC Act was enacted both to "establish a legal regime which will permit and encourage the development of ocean
thermal energy conversion as a commercial energy technology" n114 and to:¶ [A]uthorize and regulate the construction, location,
ownership, and operation of ocean thermal energy conversion facilities connected to the United States by pipeline or cable, or
located in whole or in part between the highwater mark and the seaward boundary of the territorial sea of the United States
consistent with the Convention on the High Seas, and general principles of international law. n115¶ [*414] Under
the OTEC
Act, the NOAA Administrator is authorized to issue licenses to United States citizens for the
ownership, construction, and operation of an ocean thermal energy conversion facility or
plantship. n116 The OTEC Act designates NOAA as a one-stop shop for OTEC licensure:¶ An application filed with the
Administrator shall constitute an application for all Federal authorizations required for ownership, construction, and operation of an
ocean thermal energy conversion facility or plantship, except for authorizations required by documentation, inspection, certification,
construction, and manning laws and regulations administered by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating. n117¶ Procedurally, license issuance, transfers, or renewals may only be granted by the NOAA Administrator after public
notice, opportunity for comment, and public hearings both in the District of Columbia and in any adjacent coastal state to which a
facility is proposed to be directly connected. n118 To reduce regulatory costs and ensure a timely review of applications, the OTEC
Act provides that "[a]ll public hearings on applications with respect to ocean thermal energy conversion plantships shall be
concluded no later than 240 days after notice of the application has been published." n119¶ Following the OTEC Act, NOAA
attempted to create a friendly regulatory environment for project proposals. NOAA promulgated
proposed regulations to implement the OTEC Act, and published final regulations in July 1981. n120 A lack of applications
or other regulatory activity under NOAA's regulations led to the agency's ultimate withdrawal
of the regulatory provisions, as is discussed further herein.
Page 25
Now k/ time
Now is the key time for OTEC—gas prices, climate change, and water scarcity
have created conditions ripe for tech development
Marti et al., 2010 (Jose, president, Offshore Infrastructure Assoc., Manuel A.J. Laboy, VP and Dir. of Offshore
Infrastructure Assoc., and Orlando Ruiz, Asst. Prof @ U of Puerto Rico,
Commercial Implementation Of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, “Commercial Implementation Of Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion,” Sea Technology Magazine, p. http://www.sea-technology.com/features/2010/0410/thermal_energy_conversion.html)
What Happened?¶ At
one point, the U.S. federal government contemplated building several 40megawatt-electrical OTEC plants as commercial demonstration units. Proposals were submitted, but, despite this
extensive work, OTEC was not implemented. A major reason was that government funding for the larger
plants never materialized. During the 1980s, federal energy funding tended to favor nuclear
energy and shifted away from renewable energy. However, there was a general loss of interest in OTEC in other
countries as well, largely due to the fact that after the energy crisis of the 1970s, oil supplies stabilized. Eventually a
production glut caused prices to drop to unprecedented lows, with the average cost per barrel of imported
oil reaching $11.18 in 1998. ¶ In addition, during this period there was a general lack of awareness about the potential effects of
fossil fuel combustion on climate at a global level. These events conspired to make renewable energy in general, and OTEC in
particular, become less attractive. ¶ Why Now?¶ Recent world
events have created a new interest in OTEC.
price of oil has increased vertiginously, reaching as high as $148 per barrel in 2008. There are
also serious concerns about the stability of oil production in conflictive areas such as the Middle East
First of all, the
and the possibility of world oil production peaking, which some commentators believe began in the period between 2000 and 2010.
History shows that increases in the cost of oil invariably result in increases in demand for and cost of other fuels such as coal and
natural gas. ¶ More importantly, there
is now a general awareness about the potential contribution to
global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions from combustion of fuels (from renewable or
nonrenewable sources). Both the United States and the European Union have seriously discussed the imposition of taxes on
greenhouse gas emissions. ¶ Another
significant issue is the “energy-water nexus” created by
conventional power facilities like coal and nuclear: To produce energy, large quantities of
water are required, and to produce and distribute water, large quantities of energy are
required. OTEC is the only technology for baseload power generation that not only does not consume water, but can also be
used to produce potable water. ¶ All of these factors have revived interest in OTEC. For the first time,
the high cost of oil and its volatility and fluctuations in the world market, together with
concern about the environmental effects of fossil fuels, have created conditions that can make
OTEC plants commercially viable without the need for government subsidies.
As we run low on petroleum it would be a good idea to switch to OTEC
Vega 12, (Luis A. Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, School of Ocean And Earth Science And Technology, University
of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA)"Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion." N.p., Aug. 2012. Web. 14 July 2014.
http://hinmrec.hnei.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/OTEC-Summary-Aug-2012.pdf)
At first, OTEC plantships providing electricity, via submarine power cables, to shore stations could be implemented. This would be
followed, in 20 to 30 years, with OTEC factories
deployed along equatorial waters producing energyintensive products, like ammonia and hydrogen as the fuels that would support the post–
fossil fuel era [2]. Apparently, there are sufficient petroleum resources (≈1400 billion barrels) to meet
worldwide current demand (>30 billion barrels/year) for almost 50 years. Production, however, is
peaking and humanity will face a steadily diminishing petroleum supply and higher demand
due to emerging economies like China, India, and Brazil. Coal and natural gas resources 7296 O Ocean
Thermal Energy Conversion could meet current worldwide demand for 100 to 120 years,
respectively. It seems sensible toconsider OTEC as one of the renewable energy technologies
of the future.
Page 26
Page 27
No OTEC Now
No support for OTEC now
Friedman 14 (Becca, Harvard Ocean Energy Council member, “examining the future of ocean thermal energy conversion”
http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/)
experts in oceanic energy contend that the
technology to provide a truly infinite source of power to the United States already exists in
the form of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). Despite enthusiastic projections and promising prototypes,
however, a lack of governmental support and the need for risky capital investment have stalled
OTEC in its research and development phase.
Although it may seem like an environmentalist’s fantasy,
OTEC has been on the radar since the 80s but no support
Friedman 14 (Becca, Harvard Ocean Energy Council member, “examining the future of ocean thermal energy conversion”
http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/)
Despite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet to be developed. The high costs of building even a model pose
the main barrier.
Although piecemeal experiments have proven the effectiveness of the individual
components, a large-scale plant has never been built. Luis Vega of the Pacific International Center for High
Technology Research estimated in an OTEC summary presentation that a commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from
According to Terry Penney, the Technology Manager at the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the combination of cost and risk is OTEC’s main
liability. “We’ve talked to inventors and other constituents over the years, and it’s still a
matter of huge capital investment and a huge risk, and there are many [alternate forms of energy] that are less risky
80 to 100 million dollars over five years.
that could produce power with the same certainty,” Penney told the HPR. Moreover, OTEC is highly vulnerable to the elements in
the marine environment. Big storms or a hurricane like Katrina could completely disrupt energy production by mangling the OTEC
plants. Were a country completely dependent on oceanic energy, severe weather could be debilitating. In addition, there is a risk
that the salt water surrounding an OTEC plant would cause the machinery to “rust or corrode” or “fill up with seaweed or mud,”
according to a National Renewable Energy Laboratory spokesman. Even environmentalists have impeded OTEC’s development.
According to Penney, people do not want to see OTEC plants when they look at the ocean. When they see a disruption of the
Given the risks, costs, and uncertain popularity of OTEC, it seems
unlikely that federal support for OTEC is forthcoming. Jim Anderson, co-founder of Sea Solar Power Inc., a
company specializing in OTEC technology, told the HPR, “Years ago in the ’80s, there was a small
[governmental] program for OTEC and it was abandoned…That philosophy has carried forth to
this day. There are a few people in the Department of Energy who have blocked government
funding for this. It’s not the Democrats, not the Republicans. It’s a bureaucratic issue.” OTEC is
not completely off the government’s radar, however. This past year, for the first time in a
decade, Congress debated reviving the oceanic energy program in the energy bill, although the
pristine marine landscape, they think pollution.
proposal was ultimately defeated. OTEC even enjoys some support on a state level. Hawaii ’s National Energy Laboratory, for
example, conducts OTEC research around the islands.
For now, though, American interests in OTEC promise
to remain largely academic. The Naval Research Academy and Oregon State University are conducting research programs
off the coasts of Oahu and Oregon , respectively.
Page 28
No Gov Funding Now
Lack of government funding has stalled OTEC development
Friedman 2014 (Becca, Ocean Energy Council, “EXAMINING THE FUTURE OF OCEAN
THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION”, March)
http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/
Although it may seem like an environmentalist’s fantasy, experts in oceanic energy contend
that the technology to provide a truly infinite source of power to the United States already
exists in the form of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). Despite enthusiastic projections
and promising prototypes, however, a lack of governmental support and the need for risky
capital investment have stalled OTEC in its research and development phase.¶ Regardless,
oceanic energy experts have high hopes. Dr. Joseph Huang, Senior Scientist at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and former leader of a Department of Energy team
on oceanic energy, told the HPR, “If we can use one percent of the energy [generated by OTEC]
for electricity and other things, the potential is so big. It is more than 100 to 1000 times more
than the current consumption of worldwide energy. The potential is huge. There is not any
other renewable energy that can compare with OTEC.”
Page 29
Ob 2: Solvency
Page 30
OTEC Solves Energy Demand
OTEC will provide power for 3 billion people—hundreds of perspective sites
Websdale, 2014 (Emma, environmental journalist and senior communication specialist at Ocean Thermal Energy
Corporation, “5 Reasons Why Hundreds of People Think OTEC Is a Smart Investment,” Empower the Ocean, January 27,
http://empowertheocean.com/otec-a-smart-investment/)
Globally, over
a hundred countries and territories in the tropics and subtropics have been
identified as having conditions favorable for potential OTEC facilities. With many of these areas offering
multiple locations to install OTEC plants, there are hundreds of prospective OTEC sites in the tropics and
sub-tropics, where approximately 3 billion people live. OTEC’s global capacity is reflected by data from the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) of the United States Department of Energy (DOE), which lists at least 68
countries and 29 territories as potential candidates for OTEC plants. Furthermore, a study performed by
Dunbar identified 98 territories with access to the OTEC thermal resource (a temperature differential between warm surface water
and deep cold ocean water of at least 20°C), making
both floating and land-based plants possible in vast
areas of the globe.
OTEC solves energy dependence, small scale generators prove
Hawkes 2011 (Head Researcher at NOC, National Oceanography Centre, “Science At Sea, Improving the World; PollutionFree Power Multiple Benefits”) https://noc.ac.uk/people/jah1g09
The seas are ripe for power generation when the water at the surface is at least 36 degrees
warmer than the icy depths. Scientists have known this about ocean water for at least 100 years and given the process a
name: ocean thermal energy conversion, or OTEC.¶ Although small-scale ocean thermal generators have shown
that the concept works, the world has yet to see a commercially viable plant. Feakins is out to change that. ¶ Feakins, 57, has
rounded up investors who believe the prospect of higher oil prices and a growing demand for clean energy is finally making OTEC
financially feasible. They founded Ocean Thermal Energy Corporation, bought a controlling interest in a Honolulu-based engineering
company developing OTEC technology and landed an order to build a plant on a Caribbean island, the name of which Feakins
declined to disclose. A $100 million financial package is in place, and Feakins expects the contract to be inked in coming weeks. ¶
"They want to wean themselves off fossil fuels," he said of the island's power utility. "As the Minister of
Energy said to me, 'I want to release my nation from the tyranny of oil.'"¶ If Feakins has made
the right call and OTE Corp., headquartered at 800 S. Queen St., achieves the growth he is
projecting, then landlocked Lancaster might someday become synonymous with ocean thermal
energy conversion, proof positive that some things are beyond prediction.
The plan is better than other renewables—consistent OTEC baseloads are
better than intermittent renewables
Websdale, 2014 (Emma, environmental journalist and senior communication specialist at Ocean Thermal Energy
Corporation, “5 Reasons Why Hundreds of People Think OTEC Is a Smart Investment,” Empower the Ocean, January 27,
http://empowertheocean.com/otec-a-smart-investment/)
Due to the unlimited availability of the ocean’s thermal resource –the fuel that powers OTEC –
this technology is built to produce clean energy 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. For as long as the sun
heats our oceans surface waters every day, OTEC will generate baseload (24/7) clean energy providing a great
advantage over intermittent (albeit important) renewable technologies such as solar and wind.OTEC also
can shrug off the storage problems that are often associated with clean energy. Due to its ability to produce a range of
secondary services, the surplus energy generated by an OTEC plant can be diverted to power
desalination plants (removing salt and other minerals to produce drinking water). This flexibility ensures that OTEC-produced energy never
goes to waste. It also makes OTEC more dependable as an investment and means greater financial
returns for investors, as OTEC’s clean energy and fresh water are in constant supply.
Page 31
OTEC could satisfy the worldwide demand for energy
Dworksy, 2006 (Rick, environmental conservationalist, and government advisor, “A Warm Bath of Energy: Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion,” Energy Bulletin, June 5, p. http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-06-05/warm-bath-energy-ocean-thermalenergy-conversion)
Indeed, the
Earth has an enormous natural solar collector - the tropical oceans. "On an average
day, 60 million square kilometers (23 million square miles) of tropical seas absorb an amount of solar
radiation equal in heat content to about 250 billion barrels of oil." [1] Energy "equivalent to at
least 4000 times the amount presently consumed by humans." [2] If we can tap into this renewable source,
considering thermodynamics and entropy, approximately 1% of it could provide the entire current
worldwide demand for energy. More than enough energy is available, we only need a way to get it - in a practical, costeffective, ecologically safe and sustainable way.¶ Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) is a technology that can extract
useful work from solar energy stored in the sea. Since the sea IS the energy storage medium, OTEC offers 'always
on' baseline supply -- during bright clear days and dark nights, in still air and ferocious wind storms -- without the expense and
complications of artificial energy storage systems.¶ In 1881, eleven years after Verne -- 125 years ago -- Jacques Arsene d'Arsonval, a
French physicist, conceived OTEC. It operates on the temperature differences between warm surface and cold deep waters - using a
heat engine built for the purpose. Wherever a 20 degree Centigrade (36 degree Fahrenheit) difference or greater is readily
obtainable between warm surface and cold deep waters, the process can be put to work. In 'Open Cycle' systems, lowering the
pressure above warm water turns it into a vapor, effectively 'steam', which runs a turbine before it is recondensed by cold water. In
'Closed Cycle' systems and hybrids, the water heats and cools - vaporizes and recondenses - an intermediary fluid/gas that powers a
turbine within a closed sub-system, which enables much larger energy outputs. Basic heat engine physics. The concept, at least, for
OTEC had arrived. But the idea preceded the materials technology and manufacturing methods required to make it, and further,
make it competitive with fossil fuels.¶ In 1930 Georges Claude, d'Arsonval's student, built the first experimental OTEC system in
Cuba. It produced a gross output of 22 kilowatts (kW) of electricity. Five years later he built a floating OTEC generator in Brazil. Both
of these pioneering efforts were destroyed by weather and high seas. High capital investment costs and cheap fossil fuels prevented
the further development of OTEC until fairly recently. In 1979, off the coast of Hawai'i, a tiny OTEC generator produced, for the first
time, a net output - of 18 kW. A system efficient enough to meet the power requirements of its pumping systems and provide
additional useable energy had been created. A plant which continuously produced more than 50 kW soon followed.
Marine hydropower is abundant—increases U.S. power output by 50%
Griset, 2011 (Todd J., associate at Preti Flaherty’s Energy and Telecommunications group, where he represents renewable
energy firms, “Harnessing the Ocean’s Power: Opportunities in Renewable Ocean Energy Resources,” Ocean and Coastal Law Journal
16 [2011]: 395, l/n)
While offshore wind projects capture energy from winds located over the ocean's waters, marine
hydrokinetic
technologies capture energy from moving water itself. United States offshore hydrokinetic energy
resources have the potential to provide a significant amount of power. These resources include the
harnessable power of ocean currents, tides, and waves.¶ Tidal and marine current power projects use the mechanical energy of
moving water to generate electricity. n35 Because water is
approximately 835 times denser than air, a
given flow of water contains a great deal more energy than the same volume of air flowing at
the same speed. Humans have long recognized the power of tides to perform useful work; as early as AD 1066, tidal energy
was used mechanically to power grist mills in England. n36 This technology crossed the Atlantic shortly after European colonists; by
1640, Captain William Traske had developed a "tyde mill" near the mouth of the North River in Salem, Massachusetts to grind corn.
n37 These historical tidal projects generally incorporated moving gates that allowed water to flow in during high tides; after the tide
dropped, the impounded water was allowed to flow [*402] out through a water wheel or similar device to convert the power to
usable mechanical energy. n38¶ Similar to conventional hydroelectric dams, modern
barrage-based tidal projects
rely on an improved version of the ancient tide mill technology, impounding water at high tide
behind a barrage or dam and allowing it to flow through turbines to generate electricity. n39 For
example, the Rance Tidal Power Plant was constructed in France in 1966 and has a generating capacity of 240 megawatts. n40 In
North America, the Annapolis Royal Generating Station--built by then-Crown corporation Nova Scotia Power Corporation in the Bay
of Fundy in the Province of Nova Scotia, Canada, in 1984--has 20 megawatts of installed capacity. Despite the proven success of such
technologies, barrage-based tidal projects have not been widely developed, partly because barrages affect other uses of coastal
areas such as navigation, fisheries, and habitat for wildlife.¶ Other tidal energy projects do not use dams, but instead use other
technology to convert the mechanical energy of moving water into electrical energy. n41 Tidal
in-stream energy
conversion devices generate power without impoundments, generally with blades similar to
windmills or revolving doors. n42 A preliminary evaluation of the potential tidal in-stream generation capacity
in only part of the nation's coastlines suggests an average annual power potential of at least 1,600
Page 32
megawatts. n43 In-stream tidal energy conversion has great potential, but is not widely deployed in the United States; indeed,
commercial-scale projects do not exist. In 2010, Maine-based Ocean Renewable Power Company installed a 60 kilowatt tidal turbine
in Cobscook Bay to provide power for a United States Coast Guard search and rescue boat. n44 As of February 2011, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) had issued [*403] twenty-six preliminary permits for tidal hydrokinetic projects with a total
projected capacity of approximately 2,292 megawatts. n45¶ Marine
currents similarly contain harnessable
power. Through technology akin to tidal in-stream energy conversion, the kinetic energy of
water flowing in a current can be used to generate electricity. The total worldwide power
embodied in ocean currents is estimated to be about 5,000 gigawatts, n46 with perhaps 70
gigawatts of potential capacity in the United States. n47¶ In addition to the energy embodied in water flowing
due to tides and currents, power can be extracted from moving water in the form of waves . Looking
strictly at coastal regions with a mean wave power density greater than 10 kilowatts per meter, the United States may have a
total wave power flux of 2,100 terawatt-hours per year. n48 This figure is more than half of the
entire United States electric power industry's recent annual generation. n49 Unfortunately, practical
considerations significantly limit the ability to extract usable power from wave energy. For example, more than half of this estimated
total wave power flux falls on the southern coast of Alaska and the Aleutian island chain, areas generally remote from significant
load centers. n50 Given current electricity transmission technology and cost, the remoteness of this portion of the nation's wave
energy resource makes its commercial-scale development unlikely. Furthermore, wave power devices fall short of 100 percent
efficiency. n51 However, extracting just 15 percent of this total flux and converting the power to electricity with an efficiency of 80
percent would yield 252 terawatt-hours per year, about 6 percent of the nation's current electricity consumption. n52 As of
February 2011, FERC had issued ten preliminary permits for marine wave hydrokinetic projects [*404] with a total projected
capacity of 3,446 megawatts. n53 Although wave energy is an immature technology, the sheer magnitude of energy embodied in
waves nevertheless offers great potential as a future electricity resource.
OTEC will provide the US with 20X its needed energy
Renewable energy institute 14 (“Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion” EcoGeneration Solutions, LLC.
http://www.cogeneration.net/ocean_thermal_energy_conversion.htm)
oceans cover a little more than 70 percent of the Earth's surface. This makes them [are] the world's largest solar
energy collector and energy storage system. On an average day, 60 million square kilometers
(23 million square miles) of tropical seas absorb an amount of solar radiation equal in heat
content to about 250 billion barrels of oil. If less than one-tenth of one percent of this stored
solar energy could be converted into electric power, it would supply more than 20 times the
total amount of electricity consumed in the United States on any given day. Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion, or "OTEC," is an energy technology that converts solar radiation to electric power. OTEC systems use the
ocean's natural thermal gradient—the fact that the ocean's layers of water have different temperatures—to drive a
The
power-producing cycle. As long as the temperature between the warm surface water and the cold deep water differs by about 20°C
(36°F), an OTEC system can produce a significant amount of power. The oceans are thus a vast renewable resource, with the
potential to help us produce billions of watts of electric power.
This potential is estimated to be about 1013
watts of baseload power generation, according to some experts. The cold, deep seawater
used in the OTEC process is also rich in nutrients, and it can be used to culture both marine
organisms and plant life near the shore or on land.
OTEC alone can meet the world’s energy demand
Hossain 13 (Hossain, A et. Al. “Ocean thermal energy conversion: The promise of a clean future”
Inst. of Technol., Univ. Teknol. Malaysia (UTM) http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/icp.jsp?arnumber=6775593)
it is obvious that in this 21 st century the
conventional resources of energy such as oil, coal and uranium become unreliable. The
obvious alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal power are
considerable solutions to this problem. However in comparison to all these alternatives, ocean
thermal energy is highly abundant, very stable and easily applicable in many industrial fields.
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) is a marine renewable energy technology utilizing the temperature
difference between deep cold ocean water and warm ocean surface water and generates
electricity. Fig. 1 illustrates the global primary sources of energy in perspectives [1]. It is clear from Fig. 1, OTEC alone can
Considering the growing world population and environmental problems,
Page 33
meet the world energy demand, as observed from the world energy used in the year 2010. According to L.A. Vega
(2003), the amount of solar energy absorbed by the oceans in a year is equivalent to at least
4000 times the amount currently consumed on earth. For an OTEC efficiency of 3 %, in
converting ocean thermal energy to electricity, we would need less than 1 % of this.
OTEC is key to solving energy dependence
Kubota 2011 (reporter for The Honolulu Star-Adviser, “State seeks input on wind energy plan”
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20110131_State_seeks_input_on_wind_energy_plan.html?id=114919504
Jan. 31--State and federal officials are holding public meetings starting tomorrow on an environmental study of the proposed
The project could cost $1 billion, officials
environmental group Life of the Land said government officials should be looking
instead at generating electricity through ocean thermal energy conversion. ¶ "OTEC would
transmission of wind energy from Maui County to Oahu by undersea cable.
estimate.¶ But the
cost less ," said Henry Curtis, executive director of Life of the Land.¶ The study, funded with up to $2.9 million in federal
stimulus money, is intended to help the state meet its 2030 goal of providing 40 percent of its net
electricity sales through locally generated renewable energy.¶ The plan is to have wind energy provide up to
400 megawatts of electricity via undersea cable.¶ State official Allen Kam said wind energy transmitted by undersea cable is one of a
variety of options using alternative energy technologies to meet the state's renewable-energy goal.¶ He said preliminary studies show
Maui County has "world-class winds."¶ "The wind is strong, steady ... and pretty much always on," said Kam, a manager with the
Hawaii Interisland Renewable Energy Program, part of the state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism.¶
OTEC tops wind and solar.¶ OTEC uses the temperature
differential between cold, deep seawater with warm surface water to generate power
through the transfer of heat. In the 1980s and 1990s, an experimental plant at Keahole Point on the Big Island accessed
Curtis, however, said that in terms of reliability,
deep water just offshore through a pipe, but the project was dropped because it was too costly compared to cheap oil.
OTEC is the world’s new energy
Nikkei, 11/06/2010 (The Nikkei Weekly, “Ocean thermal energy conversion”)
http://www.xenesys.com/english/press_release/2010.html
OTEC technology exploits the difference in temperature between shallow and deep ocean
waters to generate electricity. ¶ During the oil crisis years of the 1970s OTEC was the subject of
much research in Japan and the West, but interest waned from the 1990s. One place where research continued was
Saga University, and a pivotal event occurred in 1994 when former Prof. Haruo Uehara developed what came to
be known as the Uehara Cycle using ammonia steam. That set the stage for Saga University today to operate an
actual pilot plant. ¶ The energy of the ocean can be tapped in other ways to generate electricity. Examples include wave power, tidal
power generation using the temperature differences of ocean
water is the nearest to practical application. Research in this field is also being carried out in
the West, and now India and other countries of Asia also have begun technology
development.
power and differences in ocean salinity. But
OTEC is extremely efficient and also continuous
Kempenar & Neumann ’14 (Ruud, postdoctoral research fellow in the Belfer Center's
Energy Research, Development, Demonstration & Deployment, Frank, IMIEU Director Institute
for Infrastructure, Environment and Innovation, June 2014, “OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY
CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY BRIEF”,
http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/Ocean_Thermal_Energy_V4_web.pdf)
This small temperature difference is converted into usable electrical power through heat exchangers and turbines. First, through a heat exchanger or a
flash evaporator (in the case of an open cycle turbine) warm seawater is used to create a vapour pressure as a working fluid. The vapour subsequently
drives a turbine-generator producing electricity. At the outlet of the turbine, the working fluid vapour is cooled and condensed back into liquid by
colder ocean water brought up from the depth. Again, a heat exchanger is used for this process. The temperature difference, before and after the
turbine, is needed to create a difference in vapour pressure in the turbine. The cold seawater used for condensation cooling is pumped up from below
and can also be used for air-conditioning purposes or to produce fresh drinking water (through condensation). The auxiliary power required for the
pumps is provided by the gross power output of the OTEC power generating system. The
advantages of OTEC include being
Page 34
able to provide electricity on a continuous (non-intermittent) basis, while also providing
cooling without electricity consumption. The capacity factor of OTEC plants is around 90%95%, one of the highest for all power generation technologies. Although the efficiency of the Carnot cycle is very
low (maximum 7%), this does not impact on the feasibility of OTEC as the fuel is ‘free’. The energy losses due to pumping are around 20%-30%.
The mechanics of OTEC allow it to produce an abundance of energy
Mero &
Rafferty
14
John Lawrence
John P.
, July, 12, 20
(John Lawrence Mero is the president of Ocean Resources
Inc.,La Jolla, California and also is the author of The Mineral Resources of the Sea. John P. Rafferty is the associate editor for
Earth and Life Sciences- he received his PhD In geography from the University of Illinois and also holds an M.S. in
environmental science and policy from the University of Wisconsin and B.S. in environmental science from St. Norbert College.
He served previously as a professor in the biology department of Lewis University, where he taught courses in organismal
biology, environmental science, ecology, and earth science. He has also held teaching positions at Roosevelt University and the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.) Britannica Academic Edition;
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/424415/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-OTEC/
ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC), form of energy conversion that makes use of the
temperature differential between the warm surface waters of the oceans, heated by solar
radiation, and the deeper cold waters to generate power in a conventional heat engine. The
difference in temperature between the surface and the lower water layer can be as large as 50 °C (90 °F) over vertical distances of as little as 90 metres (about 300 feet) in some ocean areas. To
be economically practical, the temperature differential should be at least 20 °C (36 °F) in the first 1,000 metres (about 3,300 feet) below the surface. In the first decade of the 21st century, the
The OTEC concept was first proposed
in the early 1880s by the French engineer Jacques-Arsène d’Arsonval. His idea called for a
closed-cycle system, a design that has been adapted for most present-day OTEC pilot plants.
Such a system employs a secondary working fluid (a refrigerant) such as ammonia. Heat
transferred from the warm surface ocean water causes the working fluid to vaporize through
a heat exchanger. The vapour then expands under moderate pressures, turning a turbine
connected to a generator and thereby producing electricity . Cold seawater pumped up from
the ocean depths to a second heat exchanger provides a surface cool enough to cause the
vapour to condense. The working fluid remains within the closed system, vaporizing and
reliquefying continuously. Some researchers have centred their attention on an open-cycle OTEC system that employs water vapour as the working fluid and dispenses
with the use of a refrigerant. In this kind of system, warm surface seawater is partially vaporized as it is
injected into a near vacuum. The resultant steam is expanded through a low-pressure steam
technology was still considered to be experimental, and thus far no commercial OTEC plants have been constructed.
turbogenerator to produce electric power . Cold seawater is used to condense the steam, and a vacuum pump maintains the proper system
pressure.
Hybrid systems , which combine elements of closed-cycle and open-cycle systems, also
exist . In these systems, steam produced by warm water passing through a vacuum chamber
is used to vaporize a secondary working fluid that drives a turbine. During the 1970s and ’80s the United States, Japan, and
several other countries began experimenting with OTEC systems in an effort to develop a viable source of renewable energy. In 1979 American researchers put into operation the first OTEC plant
able to generate usable amounts of electric power—about 15 kilowatts of net power. This unit, called Mini-OTEC, was a closed-cycle system mounted on a U.S. Navy barge a few kilometres off
the coast of Hawaii. In 1981–82 Japanese companies tested another experimental closed-cycle OTEC plant. Located in the Pacific island republic of Nauru, this facility produced 35 kilowatts of
net power. Since that time researchers have continued developmental work to improve heat exchangers and to devise ways of reducing corrosion of system hardware by seawater. By 1999 the
Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (NELHA) had created and tested a 250-kilowatt plant.
The prospects for commercial application of
OTEC technology seem bright, particularly on islands and in developing countries in the
tropical regions where conditions are most favourable for OTEC plant operation. It has been
estimated that the tropical ocean waters absorb solar radiation equivalent in heat content to
that of about 250 billion barrels of oil each day. Removal of this much heat from the ocean
would not significantly alter its temperature, but it would permit the generation of tens of
millions of megawatts of electricity on a continuous basis. Beyond the production of clean power, the OTEC process
also provides several useful by-products. The delivery of cool water to the surface has been
used in air-conditioning systems and in chilled-soil agriculture (which allows for the
Page 35
cultivation of temperate-zone plants in tropical environments). Open-cycle and hybrid processes have been used in
seawater desalination, and OTEC infrastructure allows access to trace elements present in deep-ocean
seawater. In addition, hydrogen can be extracted from water through electrolysis for use in fuel cells. OTEC is a relatively expensive technology, since the construction of costly OTEC
plants and infrastructure is necessary before power can be generated. However, once facilities are made operational, it may be
possible to generate relatively inexpensive electricity .
OTEC creates net energy.
Savage, 1992 (Marshall T., n/c, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy
Steps. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 33)
Most power generating facilities conform to the zero-sum rules. They consume more energy than they
produce. A typical nuclear power plant consumes 3000 calories of energy for every 1000 it
produces. This is not unlike the thermodynamics of a cow show consumes three pounds of grain for every pound of milk she
produces. Unlike conventional power plants, OTECs are net energy producers. An OTEC consumes
only 700 calories of energy for every 1000 it produces. ¶ This is a characteristic that OTECs share with most
solar powered devices, including green plants. The OTEC consumes no fuel, so the only energy the system
requires is that needed to construct and operate it. By virtue of its ability to absorb solar energy, and to use that
energy to impose higher states of order on the materials in its environment, the OTEC, like a living plant, is able to operate in
defiance of the second law of thermodynamics. Of course, the law is not violated in the broader universe, since the sun is providing
the energy, and it is running down, just as the law demands. But it will be a long time before we have to include the fusion engine of
the sun in our calculations of local entropy. For the time being, we can consider sunlight as a free good, outside the limits of our
earthbound system of energy accounting.
Harnessing of OTEC key to solving US energy dependence
Hamiltion, 04/19/2010 (Tyler, energy and environmental columnist, “Harnessing the energy
in oceans and lakes Oceans a deep well of thermal energy”)
http://www.thestar.com/business/tech_news/2010/04/19/hamilton_harnessing_the_energy_in
_oceans_and_lakes.html
We can harness
mechanical energy from moving water, be it the flow of a river or ocean tide, the drop from
Niagara Falls, or the up and down motion of ocean waves.
It's well understood that oceans, lakes and rivers hold tremendous potential as a renewable energy source.
But in addition to mechanical energy,
there is also a tremendous amount of thermal energy in our
oceans. In fact, when light from the sun hits the Earth, about 80 per cent of this solar energy ends up getting stored in our oceans particularly in the upper layers around the tropics.
The idea of tapping into that heat to produce electricity has been around for more than a century. Serbian-American engineer Nikola
Tesla proposed the concept in an essay published in 1931, though he wasn't convinced at the time that so-called ocean thermal energy
conversion (OTEC) could ever be practical.
Technology and time, however, have a way of surprising us. For the past several decades,
researchers have been making incremental improvements to the process. Among them are
scientists at advanced technology and defence company Lockheed Martin, who in the 1970s
built a small OTEC system that ran for several months and generated enough electricity to
power 20 homes.
Page 36
OTEC Solves Energy Crisis
OTEC is effective and solves energy crisis
Fujitaa et. el. ’12 (Rod, Alexander C. Markhama, Julio E. Diaz Diazb, Julia Rosa Martinez Garciab, Courtney Scarboroughc,
and Stacy E. Aguileraf, “Revisiting ocean thermal energy conversion,” Marine Policy, Volume 36, Issue 2, March 2012, Pages 463–
465, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.05.008)-mikee
Ocean waves, currents, and offshore winds tend to provide power more continuously than
wind over land; unsteady supply and storage issues continue to constrain wind farms [2].
Steadier still is Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC), which conceptually can provide base-load power
almost continuously [4] and [5]. OTEC converts the difference in temperature between the surface and deep layers of the ocean into
electrical power. Warm surface water is used to vaporize a working fluid with a low boiling point, such as ammonia, and then the
vapor is used to drive a turbine and generator. Cold water pumped from the deep ocean is then used to re-condense the working
fluid [6] and [7]. The temperature differential must be greater than approximately 20 °C for net power generation [8]. Such
differentials exist between latitudes 20° and 24° north and south of the equator (e.g. tropical zones of the Caribbean and the Pacific)
[8]. The global distribution of temperature gradients between these latitudes is shown in Fig. 1. The
actual distribution of
feasible sites for OTEC will depend on other factors as well, such as proximity to shore and the
potential to increase the temperature gradient by other means (e.g., by applying waste heat from other
industrial facilities). OTEC may have numerous other advantages in addition to stability of power
supply. OTEC power production potential should be the highest during the summer months in
warm latitudes, when demand is typically also at a maximum in the tropics due to air
conditioning [9]. At the pilot scale, OTEC plants have produced significant amounts of freshwater
(through condensation on the cold water pipes) with very little power consumption and without producing
brine or other pollution [6]. OTEC has also provided refrigeration and air conditioning without
much additional power consumption, replacing much more energy-intensive air conditioning
and refrigeration systems [10]. Moreover, several kinds of valuable aquaculture crops including lobsters, abalone, and
microalgae for the production of nutritional supplements have been produced in the effluent of pilot OTEC plants, potentially
improving OTEC's economic feasibility [11]. While OTEC sounds like a panacea, clearly it is not – there may be serious environmental
risks associated with OTEC, and there are certainly significant technical and economic obstacles that stand in the way of further
progress. However, increasing fossil fuel prices, increasing demand for clean and renewable energy, and the
potential for
OTEC to help alleviate increasingly urgent food and water security issues suggests that the
time may be right to revisit OTEC. Much has changed since 1881, when this technology was first conceived of by
French physicist Jacques-Arsène d'Arsonva, and later advanced by George Claude during the 1930s [6]. Claude attempted to
construct an OTEC plant in Cuba in the 1930s, but abandoned the effort due to technology and infrastructure constraints [6]. In the
late 1970s, joint ventures between the United States Department of Energy (DOE), the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii, and
various private companies resulted in a “mini-OTEC” barge deployed off Hawaii and also a land-based OTEC plant on Hawaii. These
produced net power of 18 and 103 kW, respectively [6]. Also notable are the joint ventures by private Japanese companies and the
Tokyo Electric Power Company, which resulted in an OTEC plant on the Pacific island of Nauru, generating 120 kW of gross power
[12] and 30 kW of net power. This plant was used to power a school and other buildings on Nauru [13]. The majority of these
projects have been considered successful because they generated significant amounts of net power. Although these plants can be
considered “proofs of concept”, they did not generate enough operational data to enable a scale up to a commercial plant [6].
Efforts to scale up OTEC stalled in the 1970s in large part because the cost competitiveness of OTEC relative to fossil fuel combustion
was low due to the relatively low prices of oil and other fuels and the large capital costs of OTEC. Several technological and
deployment failures also impeded progress [6] and [14]. However, recent
increases in fossil fuel costs and
technological improvements to OTEC that promise to reduce costs and increase efficiency may
be changing the economics of energy production in favor of OTEC.
OTEC has the potential to supply world energy.
The Toronto Star, 2010 (“Harnessing the energy in oceans and lakes Oceans a deep well of
thermal energy.” The Toronto Star. 19 Apr. L/N)
But in addition to mechanical energy, there is also a tremendous amount of thermal energy in our oceans.
In fact, when light from the sun hits the Earth, about 80 per cent of this solar energy ends up getting stored in
our oceans - particularly in the upper layers around the tropics. The idea of tapping into that heat to produce
Page 37
electricity has been around for more than a century. Serbian-American engineer Nikola Tesla proposed the
concept in an essay published in 1931, though he wasn't convinced at the time that so-called ocean thermal energy conversion
(OTEC) could ever be practical. Technology and time, however, have a way of surprising us. For the past several decades, researchers
have been making incremental improvements to the process. Among them are scientists at advanced technology and defence
company Lockheed Martin, who in the 1970s built a small OTEC system that ran for several months and generated enough electricity
an OTEC pilot
plant off the coast of Hawaii that will be capable of generating 10 megawatts of clean baseload
electricity. The company hopes to have that pilot plant in operation in 2013, possibly earlier. By 2015 it figures it can
build commercial-sized plants, about 100 megawatts or greater. "I dream of thousands of floating
OTEC ships roaming the seas of the world providing an inexhaustible supply of clean energy and fuel and
water for all people of the world," says Ted Johnson, director of alternative energy development at Lockheed.
to power 20 homes. More recently, Lockheed is thinking big. It is in the final design stage for construction of
OTEC is effective and solves energy crisis
Fujitaa et. el. ’12 (Rod, Alexander C. Markhama, Julio E. Diaz Diazb, Julia Rosa Martinez Garciab, Courtney Scarboroughc,
and Stacy E. Aguileraf, “Revisiting ocean thermal energy conversion,” Marine Policy, Volume 36, Issue 2, March 2012, Pages 463–
465, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.05.008)-mikee
Ocean waves, currents, and offshore winds tend to provide power more continuously than
wind over land; unsteady supply and storage issues continue to constrain wind farms [2].
Steadier still is Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC), which conceptually can provide base-load power
almost continuously [4] and [5]. OTEC converts the difference in temperature between the surface and deep layers of the ocean into
electrical power. Warm surface water is used to vaporize a working fluid with a low boiling point, such as ammonia, and then the
vapor is used to drive a turbine and generator. Cold water pumped from the deep ocean is then used to re-condense the working
fluid [6] and [7]. The temperature differential must be greater than approximately 20 °C for net power generation [8]. Such
differentials exist between latitudes 20° and 24° north and south of the equator (e.g. tropical zones of the Caribbean and the Pacific)
[8]. The global distribution of temperature gradients between these latitudes is shown in Fig. 1. The
actual distribution of
feasible sites for OTEC will depend on other factors as well, such as proximity to shore and the
potential to increase the temperature gradient by other means (e.g., by applying waste heat from other
industrial facilities). OTEC may have numerous other advantages in addition to stability of power
supply. OTEC power production potential should be the highest during the summer months in
warm latitudes, when demand is typically also at a maximum in the tropics due to air
conditioning [9]. At the pilot scale, OTEC plants have produced significant amounts of freshwater
(through condensation on the cold water pipes) with very little power consumption and without producing
brine or other pollution [6]. OTEC has also provided refrigeration and air conditioning without
much additional power consumption, replacing much more energy-intensive air conditioning
and refrigeration systems [10]. Moreover, several kinds of valuable aquaculture crops including lobsters, abalone, and
microalgae for the production of nutritional supplements have been produced in the effluent of pilot OTEC plants, potentially
improving OTEC's economic feasibility [11]. While OTEC sounds like a panacea, clearly it is not – there may be serious environmental
risks associated with OTEC, and there are certainly significant technical and economic obstacles that stand in the way of further
progress. However, increasing fossil fuel prices, increasing demand for clean and renewable energy, and the
potential for
OTEC to help alleviate increasingly urgent food and water security issues suggests that the
time may be right to revisit OTEC. Much has changed since 1881, when this technology was first conceived of by
French physicist Jacques-Arsène d'Arsonva, and later advanced by George Claude during the 1930s [6]. Claude attempted to
construct an OTEC plant in Cuba in the 1930s, but abandoned the effort due to technology and infrastructure constraints [6]. In the
late 1970s, joint ventures between the United States Department of Energy (DOE), the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii, and
various private companies resulted in a “mini-OTEC” barge deployed off Hawaii and also a land-based OTEC plant on Hawaii. These
produced net power of 18 and 103 kW, respectively [6]. Also notable are the joint ventures by private Japanese companies and the
Tokyo Electric Power Company, which resulted in an OTEC plant on the Pacific island of Nauru, generating 120 kW of gross power
[12] and 30 kW of net power. This plant was used to power a school and other buildings on Nauru [13]. The majority of these
projects have been considered successful because they generated significant amounts of net power. Although these plants can be
considered “proofs of concept”, they did not generate enough operational data to enable a scale up to a commercial plant [6].
Efforts to scale up OTEC stalled in the 1970s in large part because the cost competitiveness of OTEC relative to fossil fuel combustion
was low due to the relatively low prices of oil and other fuels and the large capital costs of OTEC. Several technological and
deployment failures also impeded progress [6] and [14]. However, recent
increases in fossil fuel costs and
Page 38
technological improvements to OTEC that promise to reduce costs and increase efficiency may
be changing the economics of energy production in favor of OTEC.
OTEC solves energy crisis-Hawaii proves
Glinow 13 (Kiki Von, Huffington Post Reporter, “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Could
Power All of Hawaii’s Big Island.” The Huffington Post. 16 Sept 2013.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/16/ocean-thermal-energy-conversionhawaii_n_3937367.html )
With an energy crisis looming on Hawaii's Big Island -- gas prices and electricity costs are
among the highest in the United States -- the solution may lie in the ocean. The vast difference in the
ocean's temperatures, from the warmer surface to the very cold deep waters, has the potential to create energy through what is
called ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC). Hawaii
has long been the most desired face of OTEC because of
the vast water temperature disparities in the region -- "the Hawaiian islands could produce 15 percent more
energy than traditional OTEC plants," according to Inhabitat. So how exactly do two extreme water temperatures meet
to create energy? Tubes of ammonia are warmed in the surface water to produce steam, which drives a land planted turbine and
creates electricity. The gas is then passed through cold water that is pumped up from the depths of the ocean to turn it back into a
useable liquid. Makai Ocean Engineering's current plant is 100 kilowatts and hopes to install its turbine next spring. The
ultimate goal is to create a 100 megawatt plant, which could provide enough power for the
entirety of the Big Island. The 100 megawatt plant would live on an offshore platform and
could cost upwards of $1 billion.
Page 39
OTEC Increase Capacity
In the Status Quo there only smaller, 1MW plants, but we can already build up
to 10MW plants exponentially increasing capabilities
Kempenar & Neumann ’14 (Ruud, postdoctoral research fellow in the Belfer Center's
Energy Research, Development, Demonstration & Deployment, Frank, IMIEU Director Institute
for Infrastructure, Environment and Innovation, June 2014, “OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY
CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY BRIEF”,
http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/Ocean_Thermal_Energy_V4_web.pdf)
Other components of the OTEC plant consists of the platform (which can be land-based, moored
to the sea floor, or floating), the electricity cables to transfer electricity back to shore, and the
water ducting systems. There is considerable experience with all these system components in
the offshore industry. The technical challenge is the size of the water ducting systems that need
to be deployed in large scale OTEC plants. In particular, a 100 megawatt (MW) OTEC plant
requires cold water pipes of 10 metres diameter or more and a length of 1000 meters, which
need to be securely connected to the platforms. So far, only OTEC plants up to 1 MW have
been built. Although it is technically feasible to build 10 MW plants using current design,
manufacturing, deployment techniques and materials, actual operating experiences are still
lacking. It is therefore important to learn and share the experience from the 10 MW plants
under construction to ensure continuous and accelerated deployment.
OTEC’s release of DSW can generate large amounts of electricity.
A.Hossain, 2013 (Hossain is a scientist for the Malaysia Japan International Institute of
Technology, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia; “ Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion: The Promise of
a Clean Future” ; 2013 IEEE Conference on Clean Energy and Technology;
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6775593)
OTEC makes it possible not only to produce electricity but allows the release of massive
amount of Deep Sea Water (DSW) which is rich in minerals and is highly applicable in several
industries including pharmaceuticals, aquaculture (mariculture), cosmetics and mineral water
production . The obvious alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal power are considerable solutions to this
problem. However in comparison to all these alternatives,
ocean thermal energy is highly abundant, very stable
and easily applicable in many industrial fields . Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) is a
marine renewable energy technology utilizing the temperature difference between deep cold
ocean water and warm ocean surface water and generates electricity. The main components
are evaporator, condenser, turbine, power generator and pump. These components are
connected via pipes that contain working fluids, typically ammonia. The liquid working fluid is
sent to the evaporator with a pump which is heated by the hot surface water of 25 to 30°C,
and evaporated to vapour. The vapour then turns the turbine and activates the power
generator, thereby generating electricity. The used vapour leaving the turbine is then
condensed to liquid by the cold deep seawater of 4 to 10°C inside the condenser, and then
recycled back into the evaporator. The process is thus repeated in order to maintain
continuous electricity production. This is basically how a typical closed-cycle OTEC system works. 2013 IEEE Conference on
Clean Energy and Technology (CEAT) 978-1In an open-cycle OTEC system, the warm seawater is used as the working fluid. The warm seawater
Page 40
is flash evaporated in a vacuum chamber and
steam is produced. The steam expands through a low-pressure
turbine that is coupled to a generator to produce electricity.
The steam leaving the turbine is then condensed
by cold deep seawater through a cold water pipe. If a surface condenser is used in the system, the condensed steam remains separated from the
cold seawater and provides a supply of desalinated water. DSW
is referred to ocean water from a depth of 200
meters or below sea level and accounts for 95% of all seawater. It has cold temperature, is
abundant in minerals and is pathogen free and stable. DSW is referred to ocean water from a depth of 200
meters or below sea level and accounts for 95% of all seawater. It has cold temperature, is abundant in minerals and
is pathogen free and stable.
Page 41
OTEC Solves—Secondary Benefits
OTEC provides other benefits other than power gen.
Magesh ’10 (Associate with Coastal Energen Pvt. Lmt. Indian power supply company, Proceedings of the World Congress on
Engineering 2010 Vol II WCE 2010, 7/2)
Apart from power generation, an OTEC ¶ plant can also be used to pump up the cold deep sea
water for ¶ air conditioning and refrigeration, if it is brought back to ¶ shore. In addition, the
enclosed sea water surrounding the ¶ plant can be used for aquaculture. Hydrogen produced
by ¶ subjecting the steam to electrolysis during the OTEC process ¶ can fuel hybrid
automobiles, provided hydrogen can be ¶ transported economically to sea shore. Another undeveloped ¶ opportunity is the
potential to mine ocean water for its 57 ¶ elements contained in salts and other forms and
dissolved in ¶ solution. The initial capital cost of OTEC power station would ¶ look high, but an OTEC plant would
not involve the waste-treatment or atronomical decommissioning costs of a nuclear facility.
Also, it would offset its expense through the sale of desalinated water.
OTEC has secondary services that are net beneficial to other renewables—
SWAC, desal, irrigation, and aquaculture
Websdale, 2014 (Emma, environmental journalist and senior communication specialist at Ocean Thermal Energy
Corporation, “5 Reasons Why Hundreds of People Think OTEC Is a Smart Investment,” Empower the Ocean, January 27,
http://empowertheocean.com/otec-a-smart-investment/)
Another major competitive benefit of OTEC is its range of secondary services. Besides producing electricity and fresh drinking water,
OTEC can support agriculture and aquaculture industries, reducing local demand on water
supplies. OTEC can also slash electricity consumption and associated energy costs of air
conditioning in many tropical and sub-tropical regions by using a portion of the cold deep
ocean water for Sea Water Air-Conditioning (SWAC). These environmentally friendly air-conditioning systems
decrease electricity usage by an amazing 80-90%, offering enormous reductions in carbon
emissions.
3 advantages of OTEC: baseload power, no fuel, no pollution—makes it a
commercially viable energy source.
Marti et al., 2010 (Jose, president, Offshore Infrastructure Assoc., Manuel A.J. Laboy, VP and Dir. of Offshore
Infrastructure Assoc., and Orlando Ruiz, Asst. Prof @ U of Puerto Rico,
Commercial Implementation Of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, “Commercial Implementation Of Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion,” Sea Technology Magazine, p. http://www.sea-technology.com/features/2010/0410/thermal_energy_conversion.html)
When OTEC is compared to other energy technologies, three basic aspects must be considered. One is capacity factor. OTEC
generates power continuously, with an estimated capacity factor of 85 percent or more,
comparable only to combustibles and nuclear power. Capacity factors of other renewable technologies are
typically in the 25 to 40 percent range. Even conventional hydropower seldom has capacity factors of more than 60 percent, due to
flow variations. ¶ The second important aspect is that OTEC does not require any fuel. Energy is generated from purely
local sources. This makes it attractive to locations that depend on imported fuels, which are highly vulnerable to volatility in prices
and to events affecting world energy markets. ¶ The third important aspect is environmental. OTEC
does not generate
emissions of conventional air pollutants, uses no nuclear materials, does not generate solid or
toxic wastes and produces effluents similar to the water it receives. The environmental
impacts of OTEC are much lower than those of most technologies capable of baseload power
generation. ¶ The overall impact of these aspects is that OTEC is a realistic option for many
locations that presently rely on fossil fuels for their energy needs. Still, for the technology to be
commercially viable, plant output must be sold at prices that will cover costs and provide a reasonable return to investors. Economic
viability is the key to OTEC commercialization.
Page 42
OTEC is commercially viable—reduces the cost of energy and provides a stable
supply
Marti et al., 2010 (Jose, president, Offshore Infrastructure Assoc., Manuel A.J. Laboy, VP and Dir. of Offshore
Infrastructure Assoc., and Orlando Ruiz, Asst. Prof @ U of Puerto Rico,
Commercial Implementation Of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, “Commercial Implementation Of Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion,” Sea Technology Magazine, p. http://www.sea-technology.com/features/2010/0410/thermal_energy_conversion.html)
OIA estimates that power
from an OTEC plant can be sold to consumers at $0.18 per kilowatt-hour
or less. More importantly, the price will be stable. ¶ For comparison purposes, the average price
of electricity in Hawaii in October 2009 was $0.2357 per kilowatt-hour, and it had reached levels as
high as $0.3228 per kilowatt-hour the previous October due to record high oil prices in the preceding months. ¶ In
locations such as smaller Caribbean or Pacific islands that presently use small diesel plants for
power—and that rely on desalination for potable water production—the economics of OTEC are even more
attractive. If renewable energy credits or other incentives are available, the economics of OTEC could be even
more favorable in these areas and perhaps beyond. In addition, there would be significant
benefits to the environment, since the air pollutants and greenhouse gases resulting from fuel
combustion would not occur.
OTEC benefits; laundry list
Renewable energy institute 14 (“Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion” EcoGeneration Solutions, LLC.
http://www.cogeneration.net/ocean_thermal_energy_conversion.htm)
OTEC's economic benefits include these: Helps produce fuels such as hydrogen, ammonia, and
methanol Produces baseload electrical energy Produces desalinated water for industrial,
agricultural, and residential uses Is a resource for on-shore and near-shore mariculture
operations Provides air-conditioning for buildings Provides moderate-temperature
refrigeration Has significant potential to provide clean, cost-effective electricity for the future.
OTEC's noneconomic benefits, which help us achieve global environmental goals, include
these: Promotes competitiveness and international trade Enhances energy independence and
energy security Promotes international sociopolitical stability Has potential to mitigate
greenhouse gas emissions resulting from burning fossil fuels In small island nations, the
benefits of OTEC include self-sufficiency, minimal environmental impacts, and improved
sanitation and nutrition, which result from the greater availability of desalinated water and
mariculture products.
OTEC has laundry list of benefits
Yoshino 11/15/2010 (Mayumi, staff writer “Clean, green power from ocean water
temperature differentials”) http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/tech/ocean-energy
A new technology for a renewable, clean and cheap power source is nearing the practical
stage of development. The concept behind the technology, known as ocean thermal energy conversion, is not exactly new.
The waters of the ocean are warmer at the surface than they are at depth, and this
temperature difference can be exploited to generate electricity. ¶ The oceans cover roughly
70% of the surface of Earth, and tapping ocean energy this way is an extremely environmentfriendly way to generate power. Moreover, the deep water that is brought up for the OTEC
process brings with it many useful materials, including nutrients that can help revitalize fishing
grounds, and lithium, which can be recovered and used for batteries.
Page 43
OTEC Solves—Revenue
Long-term profits outweigh short-term expenses—OTEC will generate revenue
from energy, hydrogen, ethanol, fisheries, and water.
Friedman, 2012 (Becca, Harvard Political Review, “Examining the Future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” Ocean
Energy Council, March 20, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/)
Oceanic energy advocates insist that the
long-term benefits of OTEC more than justify the short-term
expense. Huang said that the changes in the economic climate over the past few decades have increased OTEC’s viability.
According to Huang, current economic conditions are more favorable to OTEC. At $65-70 per barrel, oil is roughly six
times more expensive than in the 1980s, when initial OTEC cost projections were made. Moreover, a lower
interest rate makes capital investment more attractive.¶ OTEC plants may also generate
revenue from non-energy products. Anderson described several additional revenue streams, including natural
by-products such as hydrogen, ethanol, and desalinated fresh water. OTEC can also serve as a
form of aquaculture. “You are effectively fertilizing the upper photic zone…The fishing around
the sea solar power plants will be among the best fishing holes in the world naturally,” Anderson
said. And, he added, these benefits are not limited to the United States . “Look at Africa , look at South America , look at the Far East
. It is a gigantic pot of wealth for everybody… People are crying for power.”
OTEC is a giant pot of wealth for everyone (long-term economic
benefits)
Friedman 14 (Becca, Harvard Ocean Energy Council member, “examining the future of ocean thermal energy conversion”
http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/)
Oceanic energy advocates insist that the long-term benefits of OTEC more than justify the
short-term expense. Huang said that the changes in the economic climate over the past few
decades have increased OTEC’s viability. According to Huang, current economic conditions are
more favorable to OTEC. At $65-70 per barrel, oil is roughly six times more expensive than in
the 1980s, when initial OTEC cost projections were made. Moreover, a lower interest rate
makes capital investment more attractive. OTEC plants may also generate revenue from nonenergy products. Anderson described several additional revenue streams, including natural byproducts such as hydrogen, ethanol, and desalinated fresh water. OTEC can also serve as a
form of aquaculture. “You are effectively fertilizing the upper photic zone…The fishing around
the sea solar power plants will be among the best fishing holes in the world naturally,”
Anderson said. And, he added, these benefits are not limited to the United States . “Look at
Africa , look at South America , look at the Far East . It is a gigantic pot of wealth for
everybody… People are crying for power.” In fact, as the U.S. government is dragging its feet,
other countries are moving forward with their own designs and may well beat American
industry to a fully-functioning plant.
OTEC is cost effective—it generates power on a continuous baseload, requires
no fuel, and has minimal environmental impact
Marti et al., 2010 (Jose, president, Offshore Infrastructure Assoc., Manuel A.J. Laboy, VP and Dir. of Offshore
Infrastructure Assoc., and Orlando Ruiz, Asst. Prof @ U of Puerto Rico,
Commercial Implementation Of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, “Commercial Implementation Of Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion,” Sea Technology Magazine, p. http://www.sea-technology.com/features/2010/0410/thermal_energy_conversion.html)
Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) is
a renewable energy technology applicable to tropical and
subtropical areas that works by recovering solar energy absorbed by the ocean. As opposed to other renewable technologies,
such as solar and wind, OTEC generates power on a continuous (baseload) basis. In addition, if desired,
Page 44
OTEC can coproduce potable water through desalination—up to two million liters per day can
be produced for each megawatt of electricity generated. ¶ OTEC requires no fuel; thus, the cost of
producing electricity and water is not susceptible to the volatility that affects other energy
sources like petroleum, coal and natural gas. It generates energy from purely local sources at a cost
that is essentially fixed and predictable. Furthermore, since no fuels or radioactive materials are used, the
environmental impacts (including greenhouse gas generation) are much less than those of conventional
methods of power generation.
OTEC invites investments respond to a global market and generates global self
empowerment
Websdale, 2014 (Emma, environmental journalist and senior communication specialist at Ocean Thermal Energy
Corporation, “5 Reasons Why Hundreds of People Think OTEC Is a Smart Investment,” Empower the Ocean, January 27,
http://empowertheocean.com/otec-a-smart-investment/)
Global commercialization of SWAC systems and OTEC plants will provide hundreds of
communities with the self-empowerment tools they need to shape a sustainable future. As
countries develop clean energy, they can step away from volatile and expensive fossil fuels
and move closer to long-term energy independence.¶ By sustainably providing abundant
supplies of humanity’s most basic necessities -fresh water and plentiful clean energy for
economic development -OTEC can meet these global core markets, and thereby offer
enormous business investment opportunities as well as a vision of community independence
around the globe.
OTEC is a game changer—becomes cost competitive in 5 years.
Griset, 2011 (Todd J., associate at Preti Flaherty’s Energy and Telecommunications group, where he represents renewable
energy firms, “Harnessing the Ocean’s Power: Opportunities in Renewable Ocean Energy Resources,” Ocean and Coastal Law Journal
16 [2011]: 395, l/n)
Recent developments may be changing the game for OTEC. Due to factors including an increase in the price
of oil, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory now predicts that OTEC may become costcompetitive within five-to-ten years in markets including the small island nations in the South Pacific and the island
of Molokai in Hawaii, Guam and American Samoa, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian
Oceans. n203 In
2006, a project developer announced plans to construct a 1.2 megawatt OTEC
plant at the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority in Kona, as well as a subsequent 13
megawatt plant "to be built at an undisclosed ocean location for U.S. military forces." n204 The project developer
predicted net power production from the Kona facility of 800 kilowatts, at a cost of $ 10 million to $ 15 million, and commercial
operations by 2008. n205 Nevertheless, five years later, this project remains undeveloped.¶ In
2008, Hawaii Governor
Linda Lingle announced "a 10-megawatt ocean thermal energy conversion pilot plant, through a
partnership between the Taiwan Industrial Technology Research Institute and Lockheed Martin Corp." n206 Also that year,
Lockheed Martin won a $ 1.2 million contract from the United States Department of Energy to
[*429] demonstrate OTEC technologies in Hawaii, n207 followed by an award of $ 8.12 million
in 2009 from the United States Navy to develop critical OTEC system components and pilot
project designs. n208 OTEC may thus be experiencing a renaissance, as technological improvements drive renewed interest in
developing OTEC projects. Indeed, recent interest has led NOAA's Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management office to begin rebuilding its OTEC licensing capacity. n209 Nevertheless, OTEC projects
must be cost-competitive or otherwise mandated by law to succeed on a commercial scale in the United States.
Page 45
OTEC Solves—Island Econs
OTEC increases SIDS GDP
Magesh ’10 (Associate with Coastal Energen Pvt. Lmt. Indian power supply company, Proceedings of the World Congress on
Engineering 2010 Vol II WCE 2010, 7/2)
The economies and social structure of the vast majority of ¶ what is now considered Small
Island Developing States
(SIDS)¶ were developed under colonial rule. When the majority of ¶ these countries became independent nations in
the later half of ¶ the twentieth century, they inherited economies that were ¶ based
principally on providing commodities to the former ¶ ruling nations. This relationship remained in place
until the ¶ advent of the World Trading Organization (WTO) in 1994. ¶ Under the WTO global rules
for “fair” trade, there would no ¶ longer be continuation of preferential markets for the ¶
commodities from these former colonies beyond an agreed ¶ period of time. After that period,
between 5 to 10 years in most cases, these former small colonies had to compete with other ¶
international producers. As a result of the coming into force of ¶ WTO rules, Less Developed
Countries and SIDS have ¶ experienced loss of preferential access for their exports to ¶
developed country’s markets. The increase in the cost of ¶ conventional fuel makes it difficult
to run their power plants ¶ thereby leading to heavy power deficit. Ever increasing Power ¶ deficit
severely affects the growth of the Industrial and ¶ Agriculture sectors in these nations
resulting in the Decline of Domestic Food production and Increasing Imports. Inability to ¶
compete with the international challenge leads to Loss of ¶ Market and Declining Value of
Traditional Exports in SIDS. ¶ Geographical isolation and lack of basic facilities in SIDS has
made it Difficult for them to attract Foreign Direct Investment ¶ (FDI). ¶ The GDP Real Growth
rate (%) in vast majority of these ¶ countries has seen a decline in the past three years (2007-¶
2009), due to lack of electric power and fresh water for ¶ industrial and irrigation purpose.
OTEC of 5 MW capacity ¶ would be a better option to be installed in the SIDS and other ¶ less
developed countries having Ocean thermal resources in ¶ their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
for fulfilling the power ¶ and fresh water demands. Table II shows the less developed ¶ Countries with adequate
Ocean Thermal Resources 25 ¶ Kilometers or less from the shore
Page 46
OTEC Solves Environment
OTEC solves for environment
Binger 13(Alfred, Science and Policy Advisor at the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre. He is member of the
Technical Group of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Group on Sustainable Energy for All and has been Senior Advisor at the
Alliance of Small Island States. Binger is a research scientist with almost 30 years experience in diverse scientific areas, including
chemical engineering, biophysics, agronomy, renewable energy and climate change. From 1997-2005, he was Professor and Director
for the University of the West Indies Centre for Environment and Development.,“Sustainable Energy
for All is maybe
the only thing that can save the younger generation.” MakingIt Magazine. 17 June 2013,
http://www.makingitmagazine.net/?p=6748)
Ocean thermal energy conversion is probably the oldest of renewable technologies. Of course, people also had windmills long ago.
In 1881, I believe, a French scientist by the name of Jacques Arsene d’Arsonval published the first paper on ocean thermal energy
conversion. Interestingly it started in the decade of the 1880s where the industrial revolution started with the first thermal plant. So
OTEC is not a rocket-science technology. When you look at it, it is a really simple technology, more like refrigeration than anything
else. In your air condition unit you use electricity, create cold and discharge heat. OTEC just reverses that cycle. The OTEC plant is a
piping system from the ocean with a warm-water pipe, a cold-water pipe and a returning pipe. It takes the warm part of the ocean
to vaporize the ammonia, or whatever it is from liquid to gas, which increases its volume tremendously because of the transition
into a gaseous state. So, it has the ability to work. It runs a turbine, which in turn runs a generator and we have electricity. The
exhaust from the turbine is then cooled in the depths of the ocean at about 1,000 metres, with water temperatures around 4 to 6
degrees Celsius, which condense back the ammonia and close the cycle. It
changes nothing in the environment,
except from removing heat from the ocean, which is something we really want to get rid of
anyway. The thing we like about OTEC is that it has a number of other options and renewable
energy sources. One, it provides you with desalinated water. As you are dealing with warm surface water with lots of
dissolved gases, you need to remove them because they make heat exchange inefficient. For that you use the same technology as to
concentrate orange juice: flash evaporation – putting it under vacuum. When you put things under vacuum, they boil at a much
lower temperature. So you pull off the oxygen, nitrogen and a lot of water vapour. Then, with some of the cold water, you can
condense the water vapour and get desalinated water. OTEC
is the cheapest method of desalination.
Desalination, usually by membrane separation, is very energy-intensive. Only OTEC gives us
freshwater as a product. For many islands, fresh water is one of the biggest problems. Most of
us, particularly Pacific islands, depend on a very thin lens of fresh water and two things are
happening to that lens. One, sea level is rising, so the hydraulic head is changing and salt is intruding. Second, rainfall is not
as abundant as it used to be and therefore the lens is under pressure. We need to augment the water. Third, the cold water
that we bring up is nutrient-rich. So, we can produce a lot of fish. Because the ocean temperature is
getting warmer, fish are moving away from the shore, which is a problem because it is there there they usually breed and our little
canoes cannot go that far out to catch the fish. Therefore fisher folk are having a terrible time in most island economies. With
OTEC, we can do a lot of mariculture and produce very expensive things like abalone (large
edible sea snails), lobsters and oysters, because we have the water at the right temperature
continuously. There a lots of industries that can use this cold water.
Page 47
Economic Viability
OTEC Economically Viable- Quick 2013
(Darren, Director at Hawk Security & Surveillance System) “World’s largest OTEC power plant
planned for China” http://www.gizmag.com/otec-plant-lockheed-martin-reignwood-china/27164/
4/18/2013
Lockheed Martin and Reignwood will begin concept design of the sea-based prototype plant
this year with construction due to begin next year. Once it is up and running, the two companies plan to use the knowledge and
experience gained over the course of the project to improve the design of additional commercial-scale plants. The companies claim
each 100 MW OTEC
facility could produce the same amount of energy in a year as 1.3 million
barrels of oil and decrease carbon emissions by half a million tons. Assuming oil trading at
near US$100 a barrel, they estimate fuel savings from one plant could exceed $130 million a
year.
Page 48
Empirical Solvency
OTEC creates plentiful energy, demonstration plant proves
India Energy News 2011 (“OTEC International LLC Chosen for Hawai’I OTECH Demonstration”)
http://www.oteci.com/press-releases/otec-international-llc-chosen-for-hawai‘i-otec-demonstration
OTEC uses vast solar energy stored in the upper ocean to vaporize ammonia, producing
electricity via a turbine and generator. Deep water cools the ammonia to liquid to be heated
again in a 24/7 cycle, making it baseload or firm power. The demonstration plant is slated for
the NELHA's Hawai'i Ocean Science and Technology (HOST) Park, in Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i Island. The
demonstration will integrate the complete power system on a smaller scale to reduce risk for its first full-scale commercial project.
Barry Cole, OTI's executive VP, is director of technology development
Page 49
Regulations Solve
OTEC Effluent Regulated
Cole 2012 ( Barry, Executive Vice President OTEC International, LLC) “Draft Environmental
Assessment OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT
AND DEMONSTRATION FACILITY KE‘AHOLE, NORTH KONA, HAWAI`I” 7/11/2012
http://www.oteci.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Draft_EA-071012_reduced.pdf
uploads/2012/07/Draft_EA-071012_reduced.pdf
In general, regulatory limits relevant to OTEC disposal at the HOST Park are imposed in
reference to Water Quality Standards (WQS) established under §11-54-6(d) HAR. Coastal waters in the region
surrounding most of the Big Island are designated Class AA and extend to the limit of “open coastal waters”, which are defined in
HAR §11-54-6(b)(1) as, “marine waters bounded by the 183-meter or 600-foot (100-fathom) depth contour and the shoreline.” The
region offshore of Keahole Point is more narrowly defined in §11-54-6(d)(1) to include “all areas from the shoreline at mean lower
low water to a distance 1000 m seaward.” Thus, the absolute distance from the shoreline, rather than the 100-fathom depth contour
determines the extent of Class AA waters off of the HOST Park. According to DOH Water Quality Standards: “It is the objective of
class AA waters that these waters remain in their natural pristine state as nearly as possible with an absolute minimum of pollution or
alteration of water quality from any human-caused source or actions” (HAR§11-54- 03(c)(1)). Section 11-54-6(d)(1)(i) establishes
water quality criteria for waters having a salinity greater than 32.00 parts per thousand (ppt), including a table of geometric mean
criteria values that define the acceptable
concentrations of regulated parameters (Total Dissolved
Nitrogen, Ammonia Nitrogen, Nitrate + Nitrite, Total Dissolved Phosphorus, Phosphate,
Chlorophyll a, and Turbidity. Limits are defined for each parameter as acceptable geometric
mean concentrations or units.
Page 50
Self-Sufficiency
OTEC plants are self-sufficient.
Michaelis and Chadwick 08(Dominic and Alex, Trevor Copper-, Dominic Michaelis is an architect and engineer. He
and his architect son Alex are developing the energy island concept with Trevor Cooper-Chadwick of Southampton University,
“Could Sea Power Solve the Energy Crisis.” The Telegraph. 8 Jan 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/sciencenews/3320901/Could-sea-power-solve-the-energy-crisis.html)
In fact, there is no need to stop at OTEC as the sole technology. If you are going to build an offshore platform, it
makes sense
to harness its space to create an "energy island" - a facility that uses a variety of alternative energies, such as wind, wave
and solar, to generate enough power to pump the huge quantities of water from the sea and run
the vacuum pumps of the OTEC plant. Not only would these "islands" be self-sufficient, but
several could be linked to generate energy outputs of around 1,000MW, rivalling the output of
a typical nuclear plant. The cost, according to our models, would be roughly double that of a nuclear power station. This
might seem expensive, but an OTEC plant would not involve the waste-treatment or astronomical
decommissioning costs of a nuclear facility. Also, it would offset its expense through the sale
of the desalinated water.
There is a laundry list of things that OTEC can solve for including energy selfsuffiency
OTEC Foundation 12 January 16 2012 Retrieved from http://www.otecfoundation.org/otec/benefits on July 12th
th
2014 The OTEC foundation is a non-profit organization with the purpose to educate the public about Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion, raise global awareness and to accelerate OTEC development and implementation. Officially founded in 2011, the
OTEC foundation is a collaborative effort and aims to team up with OTEC initiatives around the world.
OTEC has the potential to contribute to the future energy mix offering a sustainable electricity
production method. Unlike many other renewable energy technologies that are intermittent, OTEC has the
potential to provide baseload electricity, which means day and night (24/7) and year-round. This is a big advantage
for instance tropical islands that typically has a small electricity network, not capable of handling a lot of intermittent power. Next to
producing electricity, OTEC also offers the possibility of co-generating other beneficial products, like fresh water, nutrients for
enhanced fish farming and seawater cooled greenhouses enabling food production in arid regions. Last but not least, the cold water
can be used in building air-conditioning systems. Energy savings of up to 90% can be realized. The
vast baseload OTEC
resource could help many tropical and subtropical (remote) regions to become more energy
self-sufficient.
Page 51
OTEC solves baseload
OTEC uniquely creates baseload renewable energy that can mitigate global
warming
Rapier 08 Robert Rapier February 28 2008, Energy Trends Insider Retrieved from
th
http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2008/08/22/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/ on July 12th 2014 Energy plays a critical role
in all of our lives, and yet people are frequently uninformed or misinformed about the world’s energy systems and realities. As
the name suggests, the mission of Energy Trends Insider is to explore trends and market drivers affecting the industry. Along with
our sister publications and consulting group, we provide timely, impartial, and relevant information and analysis on current and
emerging technology, investment, and policy trends across the energy spectrum. We aim to address and correct misconceptions,
and to actively engage readers and exchange ideas. We try to emphasize the various trade-offs that are made in exchange for our
various energy supplies so that hopefully informed decisions can be made about how to best meet our complex and changing
demand for energy. Unlike most renewable
energy options, ocean thermal energy conversion
(OTEC) technology is a “baseload” (continuous) renewable energy source that potentially can
provide a substantial portion of global energy needs. As such, it is worthy of ample national attention and R&D
funding. Yet today, OTEC technology is largely unknown to the public and has become an “orphan technology” that is being widely
overlooked and left out of the public discussion on energy. Renewable energy technologies are often lumped together and dismissed
as serving only nîche or boutique markets. However, OTEC technology is likely to be an exception, assuming that baseload OTEC
electricity—harvested aboard factory “plantships” grazing on the high seas—can be converted at sea to viable energy carriers that
can economically and competitively deliver those products to markets ashore. Promising candidates for OTEC energy carriers include
hydrogen or, more likely, ammonia (as a hydrogen carrier, fuel for combustion or use in fuel cells, or for end-uses like fertilizer). By
employing such energy carriers or energy-intensive products as an “energy bridge” to shore, OTEC has the potential to become a
major global source of renewable energy. From the standpoint of national security and energy security, achieving the goal of
importing substantial amounts of renewable ocean thermal energy—harvested in international waters by a fleet of domesticallyowned OTEC plantships—would be in marked contrast to importing oil from foreign, often hostile, sources. At the same time, OTEC
can become an attractive means for mitigating global warming
Page 52
US k/ OTEC
US key to OTEC—we have the design and material systems to produce a viable
platform. It’s already used aboard US naval vessels
Dworksy, 2006 (Rick, environmental conservationalist, and government advisor, “A Warm Bath of Energy: Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion,” Energy Bulletin, June 5, p. http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-06-05/warm-bath-energy-ocean-thermalenergy-conversion)
Design and material advances have now reduced the capital investment costs of OTEC to a
competitive position in suitable locations, given the expected price of oil over a minimum 25
year life cycle. OTEC facilities can probably be maintained - sustained - far longer than that, perhaps
'forever' - if we reserve enough surplus bio-mass to replace ingredients currently made from
petroleum, such as fiberglass resins (synergy with OTEC would return better ERoEI than burning). Currently the Indian
Ocean, Caribbean, South Pacific and Hawaiian regions present cost-effective scenarios for landed OTEC facilities. If a major
OTEC industry develops, costs are expected to fall low enough to justify implementation world
wide - at least wherever the process will work - an ocean belt spanning approximately 20 degrees to the north and south of the
equator. Land-based plants are contracted or under construction in the Cayman Islands and
Mauritius. A Japanese company built a 1 megawatt plant in India. Hawai'i has a leading edge
OTEC laboratory where working models have been proven, a deep cold water pipe is already
in place - better funding could be put to good use.¶ Large floating OTEC platforms have been
designed which would drift and 'graze' warm tropical seas, harvesting the energy, using it to
extract hydrogen from sea water, to be picked up by transport vessels and delivered where it
is needed. Ammonia, methanol and other compounds could also be produced. At the moment
however, only terrestrial and undersea cable transmission of electricity is cost effective - limiting OTEC to land and near shore
installations close to waters with sufficient temperature differences.¶ In
no case would critical working parts need
to be exposed directly to the ravages of the sea - high and dry on land or safe above sea level on floating
platforms larger than super tankers, only the tubes to draw in water would need to endure the difficult ocean environment. The
United States has already completed design, production and testing of the required durable cold
water intake tubes and their attachment to vessels. The U.S. Navy has proven the use of OTEC
generators shipboard.
US is best location for OTEC
Shikina 08/8/2010 (Rob, UH professor, “Findins are useful for future power projects”)
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20100808_For_oceans_energy_look_leeward.html?id=1002
14959
Nihous, who has been studying OTEC since the 1980s, said cost has been a factor in the lack of new facilities, but that an investment
must be made for future generations before resources run out. He believes Hawaii is the best place for the technology in the U.S.¶
"We have all the ingredients here. We have the temperature, we have the steep submarine
slopes, we also have an isolated power grid," he said.¶ OTEC technology dates back more than a half-century.¶ In
1974, Hawaii lawmakers created the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii to support research on OTEC technologies. In 1979,
its cost, OTEC
remains an attractive renewable energy source because it can be sustained continuously,
unlike other renewable energy sources that are limited by the availability of sun, wind, or
waves. Lockheed Martin is working on a pilot OTEC project that could be running in a few years in Hawaii, Nihous said.¶ OTEC
captures energy through a floating engine turbine that is turned by a fluid changing from a
liquid to a vapor and back to a liquid, like most power plants.
NELH ran the world's first energy-producing OTEC system, based at the Big Island's Keahole Point.¶ Despite
Page 53
US Government Interest for OTEC is high.
Blanchard 11(Whitney, Energy Specialist Contractor with NOAA, “Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion Contribution to Energy”. StakerForum.
2011.http://www.stakeholderforum.org/fileadmin/files/EnergyOTEC%20Contribution%20to%20Energy.pdf)
Where there is not a commercial facility in the world, there have been OTEC developments in the U.S. since
the 1970s. The U.S. OTEC research and development includes two offshore demonstrations in 1978 and 1980 and an onshore
test facility in the 1990s at Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority. There has been a recent wave of OTEC
interest from the U.S. Federal Government. The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy
Efficiency & Renewable Energy has designated nation marine renewable energy centers to
facilitate research and development for ocean energy technologies. The Hawaii National Marine
Renewable Energy Center at the University of Hawaii and the Southeast National Marine Renewable Energy Center at Florida
Atlantic University have OTEC within their energy portfolio.
Page 54
Ad 1 CC Extensions
Page 55
Climate Change Now
Extreme Climates ComingIngham & Lucas 2014 (RICHARD INGHAM, ANTHONY LUCAS, AGENCE FRANCE
PRESSE)“The World's Water Scarcity Problem Is Bad And Getting Worse”
http://www.businessinsider.com/map-the-worlds-water-scarcity-problem-is-bad-and-gettingworse-2014-5#ixzz37UtjMJcy MAY 13, 2014
As a very general rule, wet countries will get wetter and dry countries will get drier , accentuating
risk of flood or drought, climate scientists warn. But whether people will heed their alarm call is a good question. "When
seismologists talk about an area at risk from an earthquake, people generally accept what they say and refrain from
building their home there," says French climatologist Herve Le Treut. "But when it comes to drought or flood, people tend
to pay less attention when the warning comes from meteorologists." Water squabbles in the hot, arid sub-tropics have a
long history. In
recent years, the Tigris, Euphrates and Nile have all been the grounds for verbal
sparring over who has the right to build dams, withhold or extract "blue gold" to the possible
detriment of people downstream. "There will clearly be less water available in sub-tropical
countries, both as surface water and aquifer water, and this will sharpen competition for
water resources," says Blanca Jimenez-Cisneros, who headed the chapter on water for the big IPCC report.
Warming is real and its anthropogenic
Baird, 2013 (Jim, engineer, inventor, and consultant at Lockheed-Martin, “OTEC can be a big Climate Influence, The Green
Energy Collective, September 3 http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/267576/otec-can-be-big-global-climate-influence, nr)
According to the forthcoming U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, the
measured rate of warming
during the past 15 years was about 0.09°F per decade, which is a decline of over 40 percent
from the 1901-2012 average which saw the planet warm by 1.6°F or .145°F per decade.¶ Since carbon dioxide concentrations
in the atmosphere have increased from 370 ppm to 400 ppm during the same period, the so called global warming hiatus has been
seized on by climate change skeptics as evidence the climate system is less sensitive to increasing amounts of greenhouse gases than
previously was thought.¶ Xie said in the LiveScience piece, "In
our model, we were able to show two forces:
anthropogenic forces to raise global average temperature, and equatorial Pacific cooling,
which tries to pull the temperature curve down, almost like in equilibrium,"¶ The effect is similar to
the El Niño and La Niña cycles, which are parts of a natural oscillation in the ocean-atmosphere system that occur every three to four
years, and can impact global weather and climate conditions, Xie explained.¶ El Niño is characterized by warmer-than-average
temperatures in the waters of the equatorial Pacific Ocean, while La Niña typically features colder-than-average waters.¶ While
global surface temperatures have not warmed significantly since
1998, other studies have shown that Earth's climate
system continues to warm, with emerging evidence indicating that the deep oceans may be
taking up much of the extra heat.
Page 56
OTEC Solves Fossil Fuel
OTEC is a game changer—causes a shift away from fossil fuels.
Friedman, 2012 (Becca, Harvard Political Review, “Examining the Future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” Ocean
Energy Council, March 20, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/, nr)
Were its vast potential harnessed, OTEC could change the face of energy consumption by
causing a shift away from fossil fuels. Environmentally, such a transition would greatly reduce
g reen h ouse g as emissions and decrease the rate of global warming . Geopolitically, having
an alternative energy source could free the United States , and other countries, from foreign
oil dependency. As Huang said, “We just cannot ignore oceanic energy, especially OTEC, because
the ocean is so huge and the potential is so big… No matter who assesses, if you rely on fossil energy
for the future, the future isn’t very bright…For the future, we have to look into renewable energy,
look for the big resources, and the future is in the ocean.” •
OTEC is the ONLY Viable Way to get Rid of Fossil Fuels
Cole 2012 ( Barry, Executive Vice President OTEC International, LLC) “Draft Environmental
Assessment OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH,
DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION FACILITY KE‘AHOLE, NORTH KONA, HAWAI`I”
7/11/2012
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) offers a sustainable alternative to fossil fuel-based
technologies presently driving Hawai‘i’s energy economy. Unlike most of the renewable energy systems constructed and
contemplated for deployment in Hawai‘i, OTEC is a base load, or firm power technology, producing
electricity 24 hours a day, every day. Each megawatt of distributed OTEC power completely
displaces equivalent power generated by fossil fuels, thereby precluding the need to import
oil and coal that are both economically and environmentally costly. By contrast, non-firm
power renewable technologies such as wind and solar photovoltaic do not eliminate the need
to maintain fossil-fueled spinning reserve capacity for those times when wind and solar energy sources are absent or reduced.
OTEC power facilities may be located in close proximity to major coastal cities with access to deep water. Unlike geothermal power
in Hawai‘i, whose resources are restricted to certain areas of the Big Island, OTEC facilities would not require expensive inter-island
cable systems to transmit power to load centers.
OTEC could be used for our post fossil fuels future
Vega 12, Luis A. (Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, School of Ocean And Earth Science And Technology, University
of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA)"Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion." N.p., Aug. 2012. Web. 14 July 2014.
http://hinmrec.hnei.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/OTEC-Summary-Aug-2012.pdf)
The following Development Schedule (Table 10) can be used as an outline of the activities required
to implement ocean thermal resources as a major source of energy for our post-fossil-fuels
future. A pre-commercial plant would be implemented with government funding. The plant
would be operational (supplying electricity to the distribution grid) within 5 years and would be
operated for a few years to gather technical, as well as environmental impact information.
Some of the valid questions regarding potential environmental impacts to the marine environment can only
be answered by operating plants that are large enough to represent the commercial-size plants of the future.
The design of the first commercial plant sized at 50–100 MW would be completed and optimized
after the first year of operations with the pre-commercial plant. This would be followed, for
example, with the installation of numerous plants in Hawai’i and US Insular Territories for a
cumulative total of about 2,000 MW over 15-years. As indicated in Table 10, the design of the grazing
factory plantships that would produce the fuels of the future (e.g., hydrogen and ammonia) could
be initiated as early as 15-years after the development program is implemented.
Page 57
Page 58
OTEC Solves Global Warming
GW: The plan saves the environment—removes 80k tons of CO2 and provides
power for 10k people
Websdale, 2014 (Emma, environmental journalist and senior communication specialist at Ocean Thermal Energy
Corporation, “5 Reasons Why Hundreds of People Think OTEC Is a Smart Investment,” Empower the Ocean, January 27,
http://empowertheocean.com/otec-a-smart-investment/)
More than 70% of the earth’s surface is covered by water, and over 80% of the sun’s energy is stored and replenished every day
within surface waters -the equivalent of 4,000 times the energy used in the world per day. In
just one 24-hour period,
tropical ocean waters absorb solar radiation equal to the energy produced by 250 billion
barrels of oil.¶ OTEC’s ability to help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels –one of the largest humaninduced contributors to climate change – is enormous . Just one 10-MW OTEC plant has been estimated to
provide reliable clean energy for approximately 10,000 people and to replace the burning of
50,000 barrels of oil and release of 80,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year into the
atmosphere. When the collective benefits of numerous OTEC plants worldwide are calculated, this technology will clearly play a
huge role in helping the global community fight pollution-related climate change.
OTEC could halt global warming
Baird, 2013 (Jim, engineer, inventor, and consultant at Lockheed-Martin, “OTEC can be a big Climate Influence, The Green
Energy Collective, September 3 http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/267576/otec-can-be-big-global-climate-influence)
Professor James Moum, physical oceanography, Oregon State University, commenting in LiveScience on the recently published study
in the journal Nature Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling by Yu Kosaka & Shang-Ping Xie said,
“Scientists have known that the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean takes in a significant amount of heat from the atmosphere, but this
new study suggests this
small portion of the world's oceans could have a big influence on global
climate.Ӧ As shown in the following diagram, this is the same area, which covers only about 8 percent of the globe's
surface, with the greatest difference between surface water temperatures and those at a depth
of 1000 meters and accordingly it is the best area for producing power by the process of ocean thermal
energy conversion or (OTEC), which could replicate the surface cooling effect identified in the study
that has caused the so called global warming hiatus of the past 15 years.
GW: OTEC can offset warming—moves surface heat to deep water
Baird, 2013 (Jim, engineer, inventor, and consultant at Lockheed-Martin, “OTEC can be a big Climate Influence, The Green
Energy Collective, September 3 http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/267576/otec-can-be-big-global-climate-influence)
The study estimates the
0 – 2000 meter layer of the World Oceans have warmed 0.09 C and if all of
that heat was instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would
result in a volume mean warming of 36 C.¶ Conversely a significant amount of surface heat can be
moved to the deeper ocean with OTEC without causing an undue increase in the temperature
of the deep water.¶ Kevin Trenberth and colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric Research reanalyzed ocean
temperature records between 1958 and 2009 and found that about 30 percent of the extra heat has been absorbed by the oceans
and mixed by winds and currents to a depth below about 2,300 feet.¶ Oceans
are well-known to absorb more than
90 percent of the excess heat attributed to climate change, but its presence in the deep ocean
"is fairly new, it is not there throughout the record," Trenberth said during a teleconference with NBC
reporters in April.
OTEC solves global warming, 2 mechanisms: zero energy emissions, ocean heat
dissipation
Baird, 2013 (Jim, engineer, inventor, and consultant at Lockheed-Martin, “OTEC can be a big Climate Influence, The Green
Energy Collective, September 3 http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/267576/otec-can-be-big-global-climate-influence)
Page 59
OTEC uses the temperature difference between cooler deep and warmer surface ocean waters
to run a heat engine and produce useful work, usually in the form of electricity.¶ It too can
have a big influence on global climate because it converts part of the accumulating ocean heat
to work and about twenty times more heat is moved to the depths in a similar fashion to how Trenberth suggests the globalwarming hiatus has come about.¶ The more energy produced by OTEC – done properly the potential is 30 terawatts - the more the entire
ocean will be cooled and that heat converted to work will not return as will be the case when
the oceans stop soaking up global-warming’s excess.¶ Kevin Trenberth estimates the oceans will eat global warming for the next 20 years.¶ Asked
if the oceans will come to our climate rescue he said, “That’s a good question, and the answer is maybe partly yes, but maybe partly no.” The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat. Some goes into the deep
oceans where it can stay for centuries. But heat absorbed closer to the surface can easily flow back into the air. That happened in 1998, which made it one of the hottest years on record. Since then, the ocean has
mostly been back in one of its soaking-up modes.¶ “They probably can’t go for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in
global-warming needs to be put on a
permanent hiatus and the world needs more zero emissions energy.¶ OTEC provides both.
temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,” Trenberth says. ¶ The bottom line is
OTEC solves Global Warming and Drought
Magesh ’10 (Associate with Coastal Energen Pvt. Lmt. Indian power supply company, Proceedings of the World Congress on
Engineering 2010 Vol II WCE 2010, 7/2)
Scientists all over the world are making ¶ predictions about the ill effects of Global warming
and its ¶ consequences on the mankind. Conventional Fuel Fired Electric ¶ Power Stations
contribute nearly 21.3% of the Global Green ¶ House Gas emission annually. Hence, an
alternative for such ¶ Power Stations is a must to prevent global warming. One fine ¶ alternative that
comes to the rescue is the Ocean thermal energy ¶ conversion (OTEC) Power Plant, the complete
Renewable Energy ¶ Power Station for obtaining Cleaner and Greener Power. Even ¶ though the concept is simple and
old, recently it has gained ¶ momentum due to worldwide search for clean continuous energy ¶
sources to replace the fossil fuels. The design of a 5 Megawatt ¶ OTEC Pre-commercial plant is clearly portrayed to brief
the ¶ OTEC technical feasibility along with economic consideration ¶ studies for installing OTEC across the world. OTEC plant
can be ¶ seen as a combined Power Plant and Desalination plant. ¶ Practically, for every
Megawatt of power generated by hybrid ¶ OTEC plant, nearly 2.28 million litres of desalinated
water is ¶ obtained every day. Its value is thus increased because many ¶ parts of the globe are facing absolute water
scarcity. OTEC could ¶ produce enough drinking water to ease the crisis drought-stricken ¶ areas.
The water can be used for local agriculture and industry, ¶ any excess water being given or
sold to neighboring communities.
OTEC solves warming-cools oceans
Baird 13 (Jim Owner Global Warming Mitigation Method Company “OTEC Can Be a Big Global Climate Influence” 2013 Energy
Collective http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/267576/otec-can-be-big-global-climate-influence)
Professor James Moum, physical oceanography, Oregon State University, commenting in LiveScienceon the recently published
study in the journal Nature Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling by Yu Kosaka & Shang-Ping
Xie said, “Scientists have known that the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean takes in a significant amount of heat from the atmosphere,
but this new study suggests this small portion of the world's oceans could have a big influence on global climate.” As shown in the
following diagram, this is the same area, which covers only about 8 percent of the globe's surface, with the greatest difference
between surface water temperatures and those at a depth of 1000 meters and accordingly it is the best area for producing power by
(OTEC), which could replicate the surface cooling effect
identified in the study that has caused the so called global warming hiatus of the past 15
years. According to the forthcoming U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, the measured rate of warming
the process of ocean thermal energy conversion or
during the past 15 years was about 0.09°F per decade, which is a decline of over 40 percent from the 1901-2012 average which saw
the planet warm by 1.6°F or .145°F per decade. Since carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased from 370
ppm to 400 ppm during the same period, the so called global warming hiatus has been seized on by climate change skeptics as
evidence the climate system is less sensitive to increasing amounts of greenhouse gases than previously was thought. Xie said in the
LiveScience piece, "In our model, we were able to show two forces: anthropogenic forces to raise global average temperature, and
The effect is similar
to the El Niño and La Niña cycles, which are parts of a natural oscillation in the oceanatmosphere system that occur every three to four years, and can impact global weather and
climate conditions, Xie explained. El Niño is characterized by warmer-than-average temperatures in the waters of the
equatorial Pacific cooling, which tries to pull the temperature curve down, almost like in equilibrium,"
Page 60
equatorial Pacific Ocean, while La Niña typically features colder-than-average waters. While global surface temperatures have not
warmed significantly since 1998, other studies have shown that Earth's climate system continues to warm, with emerging evidence
indicating that the deep oceans may be taking up much of the extra heat. The following diagrams is from a paper World ocean heat
content and thermosteric sea level change (0 – 2000 m), 1955 – 2010 by S. Levitus et al. The study estimates the 0 – 2000
meter layer of the World Oceans have warmed 0.09 C and if all of that heat was instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the
global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of 36 C. Conversely a
significant amount of surface heat
can be moved to the deeper ocean with OTEC without causing an undue increase in the
temperature of the deep water. Kevin Trenberth and colleagues at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research reanalyzed ocean temperature records between 1958 and 2009 and
found that about 30 percent of the extra heat has been absorbed by the oceans and mixed by winds
and currents to a depth below about 2,300 feet. Oceans are well-known to absorb more than 90 percent of
the excess heat attributed to climate change, but its presence in the deep ocean "is fairly new, it is
not there throughout the record," Trenberth said during a teleconference with NBC reporters in April. To find out why, Trenberth’s
team used a model that accounts for variables including ocean temperature, surface evaporation, salinity, winds and currents, and
"It turns out there is a spectacular change
in the surface winds which then get reflected in changing ocean currents that help to carry
some of the warmer water down to this greater depth," Trenberth said. "This is especially true in the tropical
tweaked the variables to determine what causes the warming at depth.
Pacific Ocean and subtropics." The change in winds and currents, he added, appears related to a pattern of climate variability called
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which in turn is related to the frequency and intensity of the El Niño/La Niña phenomenon, which
impacts weather patterns around the world. The oscillation shifted from a positive stage to a negative stage at the end of the
extraordinarily large El Niño in 1997 and 1998. The negative stage of the oscillation is associated more with La Niñas, which is when
the tropical Pacific Ocean is cooler and absorbs heat more readily, Trenberth explained. "So, some of this heat may come back in the
next El Niño event … but some of it is probably contributing to the warming of the overall planet, the warming of the oceans. … It
means that the planet is really warming up faster than we might have otherwise expected," he said. Even with this slowed rate of
warming, the first decade of the 21st century was still the warmest decade since instrumental records began in 1850. Susan
Solomon, a climate scientist at MIT, commenting on the Kosaka/Xie study said with respect to the prospect of less future warming
due to lower climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases, “this is the least consistent prospect with observations, not just of the past
OTEC uses the temperature difference between cooler deep and
warmer surface ocean waters to run a heat engine and produce useful work, usually in the
form of electricity. It too can have a big influence on global climate because it converts part of
the accumulating ocean heat to work and about twenty times more heat is moved to the
depths in a similar fashion to how Trenberth suggests the global-warming hiatus has come about. The more energy
produced by OTEC – done properly the potential is 30 terawatts - the more the entire ocean
will be cooled and that heat converted to work will not return as will be the case when the
oceans stop soaking up global-warming’s excess. Kevin Trenberth estimates the oceans will eat global
decade, but the previous 40 years."
warming for the next 20 years. Asked if the oceans will come to our climate rescue he said, “That’s a good question, and the
answer is maybe partly yes, but maybe partly no.” The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat. Some goes into the deep oceans
where it can stay for centuries. But heat absorbed closer to the surface can easily flow back into the air. That happened in 1998,
which made it one of the hottest years on record. Since then, the ocean has mostly been back in one of its soaking-up modes.
“They probably can’t go for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end
of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new
level and you never go back to that previous level again,” Trenberth says. The bottom line is
global-warming needs to be put on a permanent hiatus and the world needs more zero
emissions energy. OTEC provides both.
OTEC can help solve global warming.
Baird 13(Jim, Patented Subductive Waste Disposal Method claimed by some the state-of-the-art and most viable solution to
the problem of nuclear waste, “OTEC can be a Big Global Climate Influence.” TheEnergyCollective. 3 Sept 2013,
http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/267576/otec-can-be-big-global-climate-influence)
While global surface temperatures have not warmed significantly since 1998, other studies
have shown that Earth's climate system continues to warm, with emerging evidence indicating that the deep
oceans may be taking up much of the extra heat. The following diagrams is from a paper World ocean heat content and thermosteric
sea level change (0 – 2000 m), 1955 – 2010 by S. Levitus et al. The study estimates the 0 – 2000 meter layer of the World Oceans
have warmed 0.09 C and if all of that heat was instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a
volume mean warming of 36 C. Conversely a
significant amount of surface heat can be moved to the
Page 61
deeper ocean with OTEC without causing an undue increase in the temperature of the deep
water. Kevin Trenberth and colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric Research reanalyzed ocean temperature records
between 1958 and 2009 and found that about 30 percent of the extra heat has been absorbed by the oceans and mixed by winds
and currents to a depth below about 2,300 feet. Oceans
are well-known to absorb more than 90 percent of
the excess heat attributed to climate change, but its presence in the deep ocean "is fairly new,
it is not there throughout the record," Trenberth said during a teleconference with NBC reporters in April. To find out
why, Trenberth’s team used a model that accounts for variables including ocean temperature, surface evaporation, salinity, winds
and currents, and tweaked the variables to determine what causes the warming at depth.
OTEC solves for warming and renewables.
Baird 13(Jim, Patented Subductive Waste Disposal Method claimed by some the state-of-the-art and most viable solution to
the problem of nuclear waste, “OTEC can be a Big Global Climate Influence.” TheEnergyCollective. 3 Sept 2013,
http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/267576/otec-can-be-big-global-climate-influence)
Kevin Trenberth estimates the oceans will eat global warming for the next 20 years. Asked if the oceans will come to our climate
rescue he said, “That’s a good question, and the answer is maybe partly yes, but maybe partly no.” The
oceans can at times
soak up a lot of heat. Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries. But heat
absorbed closer to the surface can easily flow back into the air. That happened in 1998, which made it one of the hottest years on
record. Since then, the ocean has mostly been back in one of its soaking-up modes. “They probably can’t go for much longer than
maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole
new level and you never go back to that previous level again,” Trenberth says. The
bottom line is global-warming
needs to be put on a permanent hiatus and the world needs more zero emissions energy.
OTEC provides both.
OTEC solves energy and climate change.
Baird 13(Jim, Patented Subductive Waste Disposal Method claimed by some the state-of-the-art and most viable solution to
the problem of nuclear waste, “OTEC and Energy Innovation: The Willie Sutton Approach” TheEnergyCollective. 15 May 2013,
http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/221801/energy-willie-suttonwill-rogers-approach)
Richard Smalley, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, estimated a population of 10 billion by the year
2050 will require as much as 60 terawatts to meet its needs, including massive desalination. To produce this
60 terawatts with either fission or fusion an additional 120 terawatts of waste heat would be
produced, most of which would end up in the ocean, exacerbating thermal expansion and accelerating the
collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Solar panels, wind and hydro do not produce waste heat but
neither do they remedy sea level rise, thermal runaway or our dying oceans. Only one energy
source, Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) converts accumulating ocean heat to
energy, produces renewable energy 24/7, eliminates carbon emissions, and increases carbon
dioxide absorption (cooler water absorbs more CO2).
Page 62
OTEC decreases CO2
OTEC Turns CO2 to FuelCole 2012 (Barry, Executive Vice President OTEC International, LLC) “Draft Environmental
Assessment OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT
AND DEMONSTRATION FACILITY KE‘AHOLE, NORTH KONA, HAWAI`I” 7/11/2012
http://www.oteci.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Draft_EA-071012_reduced.pdf
MELE has a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the Naval
Research Laboratory (NRL) to work on a Synthetic Fuel Process System. The synthetic fuel process system is
comprised of two major units (each with a number of components). The first unit is a carbon capture skid that is
designed to extract CO2 gas from seawater and generate hydrogen gas. The H2 and CO2 are
used in the second unit (synthetic fuel processing) which consists of two significant closed
components (chemical process reactors) in series. By 2014 the proponent hopes to have scaled-up a seawater CO2
extraction skid for co-location on site with the one (1) MW OTI OTEC process. The skid will be about 5’ high x 10’ wide x 10’ deep and it will use about
150,000 gallons per day of seawater, about 15,000 gallon/day freshwater, and 25 kilowatts hours per day of electricity. The freshwater will be created
from seawater by an evaporative process or through condensation. About 10 gallons of synthetic fuel will be produced per day. To produce this amount of
fuel 230m3/day of H2 and about 75m3/day of CO2 is needed. If temporary storage of CO2 and H2 gases is needed, the gases will separately be
compressed slightly and stored in gas tanks until used in the fuel conversion process. The processed fuel will be temporarily stored in an above ground
500 gallon tank. The fuel will be trucked to another site for use or the fuel will be used to run auxiliary equipment.
OTEC aids in energy savings, and reduce carbon footprint
SBI, 2009 (Ocean Energy Technologies World Wide “Ocean energy technologies &
component worldwide”; June 1,2009; http://www.sbireports.com/ocean-energytechnologies-1928480/)
Researchers at NELHA propose that the
cold seawater collected from deep ocean depths be used as the
chiller fluid in air conditioning systems. Because the deep ocean water does not need to be
cooled by the system,
there is
ample opportunity for energy savings and carbon footprint
reduction. One estimate from the NELHA suggests that it would require only 360kW of pumping power to
cool 5800 average sized rooms with cold ocean water. A conventional AC system would use
5000kW. Given the energy costs in Hawaii, such an AC system would offer substantial savings
and a relatively quick return on investment of perhaps just 3 to 5 years.
OTEC can solve for CO2.
Barry 08(Christopher B., a naval architect and co-chair of the Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers ad hoc panel on ocean renewable energy, Works for the Coast Guard. “Ocean
Thermal Energy Conversion and CO2 Sequestration.” Renewable Energy World .Com. 1 July
2008. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/07/ocean-thermalenergy-conversion-and-co2-sequestration-52762)
However, deep cold water is laden with nutrients. In the tropics, the warm surface waters are lighter than the cold water and act as
a cap to keep the nutrients in the deeps. This is why there is much less life in the tropical ocean than in coastal waters or near the
poles. The tropical ocean is only fertile where there is an upwelling of cold water. One such upwelling
is off the coast of Peru, where the Peru (or Humboldt) Current brings up nutrient laden waters. In this area, with lots of solar energy
and nutrients, ocean
fertility is about 1800 grams of carbon uptake per square meter per year,
compared to only 100 grams typically. This creates a rich fishery, but most of the carbon eventually
sinks to the deeps in the form of waste products and dead microorganisms. This process is nothing
new; worldwide marine microorganisms currently sequester about forty billion metric tonnes of
carbon per year. They are the major long term sink for carbon dioxide. In a recent issue of Nature, Lovelock and
Rapley suggested using wave-powered pumps to bring up water from the deeps to sequester
Page 63
carbon. But OTEC also brings up prodigious amounts of deep water and can do the same thing.
In one design, a thousand cubic meters of water per second are required to produce 70 MW of net output power. We can make
estimates of fertility enhancement and sequestration, but a guess is that an
OTEC plant designed to optimize
nutrification might produce 10,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration per year per
MW. The recent challenge by billionaire Sir Richard Branson is to sequester one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide
per year in order to halt global warming, so an aggressive OTEC program, hundreds of several
hundred MW plants might meet this. In economic terms, optimistic guesses at OTEC plant costs are in the range of a
million dollars per MW. Since a kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated by coal produces about a kilogram of carbon dioxide, a
carbon tax of one to two cents per kWh might cover the capital costs of an OTEC plant in carbon credits alone. The equivalent in
gasoline tax would be ten to twenty cents per gallon. With gasoline above three dollars per gallon and electricity above ten cents per
kilowatt, these are not entirely unreasonable charges.
Page 64
OTEC reduces GHGs
OTEC could minimize greenhouse gas emissions
Vega 12, Luis A. (Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, School of Ocean And Earth Science And Technology, University
of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA)"Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion." N.p., Aug. 2012. Web. 14 July 2014.
http://hinmrec.hnei.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/OTEC-Summary-Aug-2012.pdf)
The vast size of the ocean thermal resource and the baseload capability of OTEC systems
remain very promising aspects of the technology for many island and coastal communities
across tropical latitudes. For example, OTEC plants could supply all the electricity and potable
water consumed in the State of Hawaii throughout the year and at all times of the day. This is
an indigenous renewable energy resource that can pro- vide a high degree of energy security
and minimize green house gas emissions . This statement is also applicable to all US Insular
Territories (e.g., American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico).
With the development of electric vehicles, OTEC could also supply all electricity required to support
land transportation. The resource is plentiful enough to meet additional electricity demand
equivalent to several times present consumption. Please see section “Site Selection Criteria for
OTEC Plants” for further information.
Page 65
OTEC Solves Diesel
OTEC could be a great alternative to diesel imports
Kempenar & Neumann ’14 (Ruud, postdoctoral research fellow in the Belfer Center's
Energy Research, Development, Demonstration & Deployment, Frank, IMIEU Director Institute
for Infrastructure, Environment and Innovation, June 2014, “OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY
CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY BRIEF”,
http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/Ocean_Thermal_Energy_V4_web.pdf)
The economic potential for OTEC is not only determined by the quality of the OTEC resources,
but also on the needs from the different countries. Many island states are dependent on diesel
imports for electricity generation, which has an important impact on their economies and
results in electricity generation prices of more than USD 0.30/kWh. For these countries, OTEC makes
for an attractive alternative especially if it can be combined with freshwater production. At the
same time, many island states are isolated and have limited logistical access to the rest of the world. Shipping of components and construction
personnel might increase costs and result in construction delays. For industrialized countries and for countries with rapidly increasing electricity
demand, the scaling of OTEC plants become an important parameter. Feasibility studies suggest that there are considerable economies of scale,
however building OTEC plants beyond 10 MW has yet to be tried.
Page 66
Ad 2 Water War Extensions
Page 67
Now k/ time
We are at the brink of collapse for food and energy.
Savage, 1992 (Marshall T., n/c, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy
Steps. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 25-26)
The primary commodities that support mankind are food and energy. So far, we have always
obtained these staples at the expense of the environment. Originally, we got food by hunting
animals and gathering plants directly from the food chain. This was so destructive of
resources, however, that we could sustain ourselves only through nomadic wandering. Our
numbers eventually grew so large that we could no longer wander freely enough to allow nature time to heal. We
settled in fixed places and used agriculture to increase food production enough to keep pace with our expanding population. But
agriculture demanded that we bend the environment to our will. We cleared forests and put grasslands to
the plow. We appropriated the grazing for our hers and we exterminated the predators that preyed on them. We dammed rivers,
flooded valleys, and ran irrigation networks across the landscape. In so doing, we
changed utterly and forever the
face of the earth. ¶ Energy is much like food. We have always supplied most of our growing
needs for energy by burning organic fuels. (Renewable hydro-power and nuclear energy have made contributions in
the past, but in the future these will be relatively small, and not without cost to the environment. Hydro dams dramatically alter the
landscape, and nuclear power produces poisons of such lethality and longevity that they will still be deadly 20,000 years from now.)
Wood is a historic mainstay of human energy consumption, but
the effect of strip-mining this resource beyond
its sustainable yield is fatal. The biggest problem, of course, is with fossil fuels. The industrial
exhalations of acids and carbon dioxide produced by burning these fuels have already done
substantial harm to the world’s environment. Acid rain is increasingly killing the forests of the North, and
accumulating CO2 may be pushing us into an uncharted realm of higher global temperatures.
If we try to supply the energy needs of 10 billion people—all desiring comfort, mobility, and sustenance—by
burning the remaining stocks of fossil fuels, we surely face an environmental catastrophe. The
planet simply can’t stand 10 billion people all burning coal and gasoline like Americans. ¶ We are perilously close to
toppling the delicate balance of life already. If we destroy what little remains of the natural
biosphere to support ourselves, we will surely push this planed over the brink. If we continue to rip
resources from the Earth at the expense of the biosphere—essentially tearing them out of Mother Earth’s hide—then the rise in our
numbers and living standards will inevitably destroy the planet’s viability as a human habitat.
We Must Make Changes In Our H20 Use
Ingham & Lucas 2014 (RICHARD INGHAM, ANTHONY LUCAS, AGENCE FRANCE
PRESSE)“The World's Water Scarcity Problem Is Bad And Getting Worse”
http://www.businessinsider.com/map-the-worlds-water-scarcity-problem-is-bad-and-gettingworse-2014-5#ixzz37UtjMJcy MAY 13, 2014
Failing a slowdown in population growth or a swift solution to global warming, the main answers for addressing
the water crunch lie in efficiency.In some countries of the Middle East, between 15 and 60 percent of water
disappears through leaks or evaporation even before the consumer turns the tap. Building desalination plants on
coasts in dry regions may sound tempting, "but their water can cost up to 30 times more than
ordinary water," notes Jimenez-Cisneros. Efficiency options include smarter irrigation, crops
that are less thirsty or drought-resilient, power stations that do not extract vast amounts of
water for cooling, and consumer participation, such as flushing toilets with "grey" water,
meaning used bath or shower water. Above all, the message will be: don't waste even a single
drop.
Page 68
UQ: Water Scarcity
Water Scarcity NowIngham & Lucas 2014 (RICHARD INGHAM, ANTHONY LUCAS, AGENCE FRANCE
PRESSE)“The World's Water Scarcity Problem Is Bad And Getting Worse”
http://www.businessinsider.com/map-the-worlds-water-scarcity-problem-is-bad-and-gettingworse-2014-5#ixzz37UtjMJcy MAY 13, 2014
By the end of this century, billions are likely to be gripped by water stress and the stuff of life
could be an unseen driver of conflict. So say hydrologists who forecast that on present trends,
freshwater faces a double crunch -- from a population explosion, which will drive up demand
for food and energy, and the impact of climate change. "Approximately 80 percent of the
world's population already suffers serious threats to its water security, as measured by indicators
including water availability, water demand and pollution," the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) warned in a landmark report in March.
Water Demand Will Soar By Mid-CenturyIngham & Lucas 2014 (RICHARD INGHAM, ANTHONY LUCAS, AGENCE FRANCE
PRESSE)“The World's Water Scarcity Problem Is Bad And Getting Worse”
http://www.businessinsider.com/map-the-worlds-water-scarcity-problem-is-bad-and-gettingworse-2014-5#ixzz37UtjMJcy MAY 13, 2014
Already today, around 768 million people do not have access to a safe, reliable source of water and
2.5 billion do not have decent sanitation. Around a fifth of the world's aquifers are depleted.
Jump forward in your imagination to mid-century, when the world's population of about 7.2
billion is expected to swell to around 9.6 billion. By then, global demand for water is likely to
increase by a whopping 55 percent, according to the United Nations' newly published World Water Development
Report. More than 40 percent of the planet's population will be living in areas of "severe" water
stress, many of them in the broad swathe of land that runs along north Africa, the Middle East and western South Asia.
Water Scarcity NowIngham & Lucas 2014 (RICHARD INGHAM, ANTHONY LUCAS, AGENCE FRANCE
PRESSE)“The World's Water Scarcity Problem Is Bad And Getting Worse”
http://www.businessinsider.com/map-the-worlds-water-scarcity-problem-is-bad-and-gettingworse-2014-5#ixzz37UtjMJcy MAY 13, 2014
By the end of this century, billions are likely to be gripped by water stress and the stuff of life
could be an unseen driver of conflict. So say hydrologists who forecast that on present trends,
freshwater faces a double crunch -- from a population explosion, which will drive up demand
for food and energy, and the impact of climate change. "Approximately 80 percent of the
world's population already suffers serious threats to its water security, as measured by indicators
including water availability, water demand and pollution," the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) warned in a landmark report in March.
Water Disappearing Faster than Waldo
Pickens ‘10 T. Boone Newsweek cover American business magnate and financier. Pickens chairs the hedge fund BP Capital
Management. He was a well-known takeover operator and corporate raider during the 1980s. http://www.fewresources.org/waterscarcity-issues-were-running-out-of-water.html.
Page 69
By 2025, 1.8 billion people will experience absolute water scarcity, and 2/3 of the world will
be living under water-stressed conditions . Scarcity can take two forms: there is an important distinction drawn in
this discussion between Physical Water Scarcity and Economic Water Scarcity By 2030, almost half the world will live under
conditions of high water stress. One of the more frequently cited statistics in discussions of water availability is the fact that
only
around 2.5% of the Earth's water is freshwater . The overwhelming amount of water is saline or salt water,
mostly found in the oceans.
non-ocean life,
Of the 2.5%
of freshwater available for the support of human life, agriculture, and most forms of
30.1% is groundwater . Groundwater is the water stored deep beneath the Earth's surface in underground
aquifers. Another
68.6%
freshwater on Earth is
in
of all freshwater
is stored in glaciers and polar caps . That leaves only 1.3%
surface water sources such as
of the total
lakes, rivers, and streams . But it is surface water
humans and other species rely upon for their biological needs.
Even the bulk of surface water on Earth is
found in snow and ice - approximately 73.1%. Surface water found in lakes, rivers and streams accounts for just over another 20%.
And yet, when we (humans) think about our needs for water we spend most of our time thinking about the surface water found in
lakes and rivers and the vast watersheds within which they and their tributaries are found. It is on the basis of a consideration of
such a narrow set of all freshwater resources that we plan the location of our cities, derive most of our drinking water, build
waterways for transporting people and goods, pipe vast quantities very long distances for agricultural purposes (e.g., from Lake
Mead to the California Central Valley), and worry most focally about whenever we do pause to worry about water pollution and
water-related environmental degradation. Groundwater is the hidden resource behind what is visible in any ordinary landscape.
Groundwater located in shallow and deep aquifers feeds the lakes and streams. Rainwater infiltrates the subsoil and replenishes
groundwater supplies. Just how much replenishment of aquifers within the normal operation of the hydrologic cycle depends on a
number of variables.
Some precipitation evaporates, especially under arid and hot conditions.
Some water flows into streams and rivers but does not infiltrate deeply. It becomes runoff
that moves directly into the ocean, taking a greater part of the available water from the
hydrologic cycle that might have remained within the stock of available freshwater .
Two major
sources of disruption of the hydrological cycle are warming produced by climate change and features of the "built environment" that
induce more runoff. When climate change results in hotter, more arid surface conditions it prevents both infiltration needed for
replenishment of deep reserves and reduces the surface water available for immediate uses such as agriculture or filling reservoirs
for drinking water. Changes in the built environment, such as the creation of mass concentrations of "hardscape" - asphalt and
concrete - as well as the destruction of watershed timberlands, marshes, and wetlands, ease the path for more rapid runoff such
that more rainfall end up going straight to the sea. Things are changing globally. On the one hand, there is good news. As the
discusion below on the 7th Millenium Goal indicates, fewer people globally lack access to potable water than they did 30 years ago.
Indeed, the percentage was cut in half. On the other hand, long term trends are not encouraging. The most recent WHO/UNICEF
Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (JMP) biennial report on the progress towards the drinking-water and
sanitation target under Millennium Development Goal 7 - halving the proportion of the population without sustainable access to
safe drinking water and basic sanitation between 1990 and 2015 - . was met in 2010, five years ahead of schedule. However,
estimated 780 million [people]
still
an
lacked safe drinking water in 2010 , and the world is unlikely to
meet the MDG sanitation target. The consensus is that there will be more or less the same aggregate available water resources in
2050 as there was in 2007, but there will be far more people on the planet. As the maps projecting through 2025 indicate, the
reduced availability of freshwater for all uses will not be distributed equally across the globe. The main areas to face greater losses
are the Equatorial regions, which are already among the most water stressed areas. These areas tend to be the parts of the world
most dependent on rainfall rather than irrigation as the basis for agriculture. Rain dependent agricultural areas are at much greater
risk of crop failure. They are among the least productive farmlands in the world. According to the FAO, irrigation increases yields of
most crops by 100 to 400 percent, and irrigated agriculture currently contributes to 40 percent of the world's food production. The
hottest, driest regions of the world, then, are already at a significant disadvantage in the efforts to meet their own food needs, but
even as early as 2020, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts yields from rain-dependent agriculture could be
down by 50 percent. Discussions of water scarcity, water stress, or other ways of accounting for future challenges are not as
straightforward as they might appear. The distinction between economic and physical scarcity is one important factor to keep in
mind. Here are some other important observations by Frank R. Rijsberman of the International Water Management Institute:"What
is water scarcity? When an individual does not have access to safe and affordable water to satisfy her or his needs for drinking,
washing or their livelihoods we call that person water insecure. When a large number of people in an area are water insecure for a
significant period of time, then we can call that area water scarce. It is important to note, however, that there is no commonly
accepted definition of water scarcity. Whether an area qualifies as “water scarce” depends on, for instance: a) how people’s needs
are defined – and whether the needs of the environment, the water for nature, are taken into account in that definition; b) what
fraction of the resource is made available, or could be made available, to satisfy these needs; c) the temporal and spatial scales used
Page 70
to define scarcity."You can read his intriguing and illuminating paper, "Water Scarcity: Fact or Fiction?" from the website of the 4th
International Crop Science Congress. " Water
scarcity is among the main problems to be faced by many
societies and the World in the 21st century. Water use has been growing at more than twice
the rate of population increase in the last century,
increasing number of regions are chronically short of water."
and, although there is no global water scarcity as such, an
Water scarcity is both a natural and a human-
made phenomenon. There is enough freshwater on the planet for six billion people but it is
distributed unevenly and too much of it is wasted, polluted and unsustainably managed ." A
2012 study of global groundwater depletion published in Nature demonstrates how some of the planet's largest underground
aquifers are now being depleted by irrigation and other uses faster than they can be replenished by rainwater. The Abstract of the
paper, "Water balance of global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint," summarizes the key finding: "Most assessments of
global water resources have focused on surface water, but
unsustainable depletion of groundwater has
recently been documented on both regional and global scales . It remains unclear how the rate of global
groundwater depletion compares to the rate of natural renewal and the supply needed to support ecosystems. Here we define the
groundwater footprint (the area required to sustain groundwater use and groundwater-dependent ecosystem services) and show
that humans are overexploiting groundwater in many large aquifers that are critical to agriculture, especially in Asia and North
America. We estimate that the size of the global groundwater footprint is currently about 3.5 times the actual area of aquifers and
that about 1.7 billion people live in areas where groundwater resources and/or groundwater-dependent ecosystems are under
threat. That said, 80 per cent of aquifers have a groundwater footprint that is less than their area, meaning that the net global value
is driven by a few heavily overexploited aquifers." Our modern industrial system of agriculture poses still further challenges both
because of its impact on our ability to meet our needs for freshwater and because it is in itself an increasingly carbon-intensive
enterprise. The use of fertilizers and pesticides that has been largely responsible for the massive increase in yield per acre since
WWII, but it requires far more water per acre than traditional forms of agriculture. The FAO estimates that
70% of the
world's water is used for agricultural purposes . The graphic on the right shows that it takes approximately
15,000 litres of water to produce one kilogram of meat. That compares to approximately 1,500 litres to produce a kilogram of
wheat.
Approximately 3,000 litres per day are needed to satisfy a person's daily nutritional
needs
- that estimate, of course, depends on the foods that are used to meet those needs. One recent study suggests that in
some places
energy production may be overtaking agriculture as the primary user of water . Burning
Our Rivers: The Water Footprint of Electricity, a 2012 report by River Network attempts to summarize what is known about the
water footprint of various modes of electrical power production. Here are some of their findings in the US setting. One striking
conclusion is that in the US "electricity production by coal, nuclear and natural gas power plants is the fastest-growing use of
freshwater in the U.S.,
accounting for more than about ½ of all fresh, surface water withdrawals
from rivers and lakes . This is more than any other economic sector, including agriculture."
Page 71
Link: OTEC solves Water Wars
OTEC provides potable water for billions—and it’s cost effective
Websdale, 2014 (Emma, environmental journalist and senior communication specialist at Ocean Thermal Energy
Corporation, “5 Reasons Why Hundreds of People Think OTEC Is a Smart Investment,” Empower the Ocean, January 27,
http://empowertheocean.com/otec-a-smart-investment/)
Over the last two decades, OTEC’s
electricity pricing has become increasingly competitive, particularly
imported fossil fuels have raised the price of electricity to the range of
$0.30-$0.60/kWh. OTEC’s capacity for producing enormous quantities of potable water as another
revenue stream substantially improves the economic attractiveness of this technology.
in tropical island countries where
OTEC is a boon—creates potable water, sustains aquaculture, nourishes ag
lands, and could generate enormous amounts of energy
Griset, 2011 (Todd J., associate at Preti Flaherty’s Energy and Telecommunications group, where he represents renewable
energy firms, “Harnessing the Ocean’s Power: Opportunities in Renewable Ocean Energy Resources,” Ocean and Coastal Law Journal
16 [2011]: 395, l/n)
Unlike the previous technologies which capture kinetic energy embodied in a moving fluid, ocean thermal energy conversion
(OTEC) uses temperature gradients within ocean waters to generate usable power . In essence, OTEC
harnesses the solar energy stored in the ocean's waters by using the temperature difference between warm surface water and cold
deep water to spin a turbine and generator. n54 OTEC systems can be divided into two categories: open systems and closed
systems. In a closed OTEC system, warm surface water is used to boil a working fluid within a closed loop of pipes. n55 Because the
working fluid must have a low boiling point, project designs typically use ammonia as the working fluid. n56 The vapor produced is
used to generate electricity by spinning a turbine connected to a generator. n57 After the vaporized working fluid passes through
the turbine, it flows into a condenser cooled by cold water from deeper in the water column. n58 The re-condensed working fluid
can then be reused by sending it back to the warmer surface waters.¶ In an open OTEC system, sea water itself is used as the
working fluid. n59 Warm surface water is sent into a series of evaporators, where it is turned into steam. n60 As in a closed OTEC
system, the steam is used to produce electricity by spinning a turbine and generator, after which the steam is condensed by contact
with cold, deeper water. n61 The re-condensed water can either be recycled in the system, or can be diverted to other uses. n62
Because the evaporation process leaves salts and other [*405] solutes behind, open
OTEC systems can operate as
desalination plants; the re-condensed water can be used for irrigation, potable water supply,
or other freshwater uses such as aquaculture, n63 providing an additional useful product from
open OTEC systems beyond electricity. For example, the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (NELHA)
operates a 210 kilowatt (gross) capacity open OTEC system between 1992 and 1998 by at Keahole Point in Hawaii. After deducting
the power needed to pump cold, deep seawater ashore, NELHA's system produced a maximum net power of 103 kilowatts, as well
as approximately six gallons per minute of desalinated water. n64 OTEC
systems can also be used to provide
space cooling; for example, although Keahole Point does not currently have an operating OTEC plant, its OTEC system provides
about fifty tons of air conditioning by pumping cold seawater ashore, offsetting approximately 200 kilowatts of peak electrical
demand. n65
OTEC solves potable water crisis
Celestopea 99 (Celestopea, “Ocean Thermal Energy Converter” 2014
http://www.celestopea.com/OTEC.htm)
OTEC's will also be used to desalinate sea water, to produce completely pure drinking water. OTEC's
set up off the coast of Africa, Australia and the Middle East can provide copious amounts of fresh water. Not
only will this allow deserts to blossom as roses, but it will also remove scarce water supplies
as a thorn of contention among nations. A 2 megawatt (net) OTEC will produce 4300 cubic meters of
desalinated water each day by condensing the spent steam created in the electrical generation process on the cold sea
water intake pipes.
OTEC creates water—and the US is a leader in the field
SBI, 2009 (Ocean Energy Technologies World Wide “Ocean energy technologies & component
worldwide,” Available online in PDF).
Page 72
Both the open and hybrid OTEC cycles can be used to produce ample amounts of pure, potable
water. Island communities and nations would benefit the most from OTEC desalination by cutting
down on the cost of accessing, transporting or desalinating potable water. The U.S. Navy is actively pursuing the
benefits of OTEC desalination at the Navy Support Facility Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. They estimate
that a 7 MW OTEC plant will produce 1.25 million gallons of potable water per day.
OTEC technology desalinates water, creating drinking water for
communities
SBI, 2009 (Ocean Energy Technologies World Wide “Ocean energy technologies &
component worldwide” June 1,2009; http://www.sbireports.com/ocean-energy-technologies1928480/)
Both the open and hybrid OTEC cycles can be used to produce ample amounts of pure, potable
water. Island communities and nations would benefit the most from OTEC desalination by
cutting down on the cost of accessing, transporting or desalinating potable water. The U.S.
Navy is actively pursuing the benefits of OTEC desalination at the Navy Support Facility Diego
Garcia in the Indian Ocean. They estimate that a 7 MW OTEC plant will produce 1.25 million
gallons of potable water per day.
OTEC solves hunger and water crises
Thomas 13 (G.P., Editor-in-Chief of AZoM and AZoMining. Graduated from the University of
Manchester with a first-class honours degree in Geochemistry and a Masters in Earth Sciences.
“Ocean Thermal Energy: An Untapped Resource.” The A to Z of Clean Technology. 12 Dec 2013.
http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=252)
There are several great advantages to ocean thermal energy. Perhaps the most important of these is that it
produces fresh water as a by-product. In an open-cycle system, when the surface water is vaporised, it precipitates
out all of its salt, so once the vapour is condensed again it is drinkable. This could potentially solve many water
shortage crises in communities across the planet. The cold water pipes can also be beneficial
to agriculture, as the temperature difference between warm plant leaves and cool roots produced by the cold pipe passing
through the soil leads to temperate plants thriving in the subtropics. Aquaculture is yet another important byproduct. As nutrient-rich deep water is brought to the surface, it fertilises the ocean via
artificial upwelling. This can lead to a thriving ecosystem around the conversion plant, and
farmable fish can also be introduced into areas that they would not have previously survived
in. Air conditioning can also be produced from the system, as the cold water taken from depth can be directly input into an air
conditioning unit. Furthermore, it is a renewable energy, and one that never stops producing energy,
unlike wind for example.
Not only is OTEC great for energy efficiency, but can solve for hunger and global
warming through carbon sequestration.
Christopher Barry, 2008. (Christopher Barry is a naval architect and co-chair of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers ad hoc panel on ocean renewable energy.; “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and CO2 Sequestration,”;
renewenergy.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-and-co2-sequestration/.)
Page 73
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) extracts solar energy through a heat engine operating
across the temperature difference between warm surface water and cold deep water. In the
tropics, surface waters are above 80°F, but at ocean depths of about 1,000 meters,
water temperatures are just above freezing everywhere in the ocean. This provides a 45 to 50°F
temperature differential that can be used to extract energy from the surface waters. Of course,
with such a low differential, the Carnot efficiencies of such a scheme are very low;
for a system operating between 85°F and 35°F the maximum theoretical efficiency is
only 9.2% and real efficiencies will be less.
Regardless , OTEC has been demonstrated
as a technically feasible method of generating energy. There are a number of different
concepts for the heat engine including low temperature difference Stirling cycle
engines and direct use of water vapor derived from the surface waters that is
condensed with the cold water, but most concepts have a Rankine cycle using a fluid
with a low boiling point. It works like this: Warm water is used to heat a fluid such
as ammonia to vapor. The vapor then runs through a turbine to generate power and
the cold water is used to condense it. Let’s use ammonia as an example. Ammonia
boils at 85°F and 166 psi and condenses at 35°F and 66 psi. This gives us 100 psi to
run a turbine.
However the big advantage is that OTEC is a solar power system with no
collector — the ocean itself is the collector. This means it also is available constantly.
However, deep cold water is laden with nutrients. In the tropics, the warm surface
waters are lighter than the cold water and act as a cap to keep the nutrients in the deeps. This
is why there is much less life in the tropical ocean than in coastal waters or near the
poles. The tropical ocean is only fertile where there is an upwelling of cold water. We can make
estimates of fertility enhancement and sequestration, but a guess is that an OTEC plant
designed to optimize nutrification might produce 10,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide
sequestration per year per MW. The recent challenge by billionaire Sir Richard Branson
is
to sequester one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year in order to halt global warming, so
an aggressive OTEC program, hundreds of several hundred MW plants might meet this. There
might be an additional benefit: Another saying is “ we aren’t trying to solve world hunger,”
but we may have. Increased ocean fertility may enhance fisheries substantially. In addition, by
using OTEC energy to make nitrogen fertilizers, we can improve agriculture in the developing
world. OTEC fertilizer could be sold to developing countries at a subsidy in exchange for using
the tropic oceans. If we can solve the challenges of OTEC, especially carbon sequestration, it
would seem that the Branson Challenge is met, and we have saved the earth, plus solving world
hunger.
OTEC creates both power and drinking water.
Michaelis and Chadwick 08(Dominic and Alex, Trevor Copper-, Dominic Michaelis is an architect and engineer. He
and his architect son Alex are developing the energy island concept with Trevor Cooper-Chadwick of Southampton University,
“Could Sea Power Solve the Energy Crisis.” The Telegraph. 8 Jan 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/sciencenews/3320901/Could-sea-power-solve-the-energy-crisis.html)
The "open cycle" version offers the added benefit of producing drinking water as a by-product. Warm
seawater is introduced into a vacuum chamber, in which it will boil more easily, leaving behind salt and generating steam to turn a
turbine. Once it has left the turbine,
the steam enters a condensing chamber cooled by water from the
depths, in which large quantities of desalinated water are produced - 1.2 million litres for
every megawatt of energy. A 250MW plant (a sixth of the capacity of the new coal-fired power station that has just
won planning permission in Kent) could produce 300 million litres of drinking water a day, enough to fill
a supertanker. Using electrolysis, it would also be possible to produce hydrogen fuel.
Page 74
OTEC key to lithium extraction and water conversion
Sugimori (Jun, staff writer, “Power from the sea a step closer”)
http://www.arcadis.nl/pers/Large_scale_generation_of_tidal_energy_in_China_edges_closer_wit
h_ARCADIS_help.aspx
Technology developed in Japan is now able to generate electricity and produce fresh water
from seawater more efficiently and at a lower cost than before, edging the technology closer
to practical use.¶ Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC)--although currently cost-ineffective--is expected to be
not only a source of renewable energy, but a way to collect lithium from the sea. ¶ Former Saga
University President Haruo Uehara, a pioneer in the OTEC field, has created the Uehara cycle, a technological discovery that may
have opened the door to practical use of OTEC. ¶ The
Uehara cycle generates energy by making use of the
difference in temperature between deep and shallow seawater. Warm, surface seawater about 25 C is
used to vaporize a fluid with a low boiling point, often ammonia, which turns a turbine to generate electricity. Then, cold seawater-about 5 C--from 800 meters below the surface is used to condense the vapor back into a liquid. ¶ The system was conceived more than
130 years ago by a French scientist. Since then, a Japanese electricity company has succeeded in generating power using OTEC on a
small scale, but has found it difficult to commercialize due to inefficiency. ¶ Uehara, 70, has researched OTEC since
1973.¶ "There're places in the world with no water or electricity. I wanted to do something
good for other people," Uehara said.
Page 75
Impact: Water Wars
Water Scarcity Causes War
Eckstein ’09 (Gabriel, Professor of Law, the George W. McCleskey Chair in Water Law, and Director of
the Center for Water Law & Policy at the Texas Tech University School of Law, “WATER SCARCITY,
CONFLICT, AND SECURITY IN A CLIMATE CHANGE WORLD: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY,” 2009.http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/)
Although based more on his personal experience rather than historical analysis, Ismail Serageldin, former vice president
"If the wars of this
century were fought over oil, the wars of the next century will be fought over water." Philip
of The World bank and first chair of the Global Water Partnership, bluntly declared in 1995 that
Hirsch, Governing Water as a Common Good in the Mekong River Basin: Issues of Scale, Transforming Cultures eJournal
104 (2006), http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/TfC/article/vie w/256/254; see also Michel, supra note 73, at
76 (quoting former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali when he was yet Egypt's Minister of State for Foreign
Affairs as stating that "the next war in the Middle East will be fought over water, not politics" ).In
that same address, during a UN Security Council debate on the impact of climate change on peace and security, the
Secretary General also offered "alarming, though not alarmist" examples in which climate change could have implications
for peace and security and risk possible conflict:
Water Scarcity results in social unrest and conflict
Hernandez 12 (Nelson E. Hernandez, Colonel of the El Salvador Air Force, Chief Planner of
Multinational Force in Iraq 2005, and Action officer in the combined planning roup (CCJ5/CPG), “Water
security conflicts: a regional perspective” Small Wars Journal, September 28, 2012,
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/water-security-conflicts-a-regional-perspective)
CONCLUSIONS Water
scarcity disputes and tensions, if left unaddressed or unsuccessfully resolved, may lead to
increased levels of violence and armed conflict that undermine intrastate, interstate, regional, and
international peace and security. The successful management of water scarcity is a leadership problem of strategic import and, as
such, demands that civilian and military senior leaders include water management as a key component of a country’s national security and military
strategies. This explicit recognition of the importance of water scarcity should be followed by the adoption of appropriate policies, plans, and programs
enabling a country to responsibly manage its own water resources as well as its relations regarding water scarcity issues with other countries. When
not appropriately managed by national leaders ,
water shortages can be expected to result in increased food and
water prices, diminished access to affordable food and water by indigenous populations, and
increased anti-government sentiments. These events may trigger political and social unrest
and increase economic imbalances that escalate into armed conflict at the local, regional, national,
regional, and global levels. It is not axiomatic that water shortages and resulting high food prices, in and of themselves, may be the cause
of intrastate and/or interstate armed conflict but rather whether, and how competently, governments manage their water scarcity challenges. In fact,
governments have demonstrated that their interventions in domestic water production and consumption patterns, along with diplomatic moves to
generate economic alliances that ensure access to water and food for the people, may diffuse underlying tensions that otherwise would lead to
violence and in many instances armed conflict. It is unfortunate that some governments may attempt to use a water scarcity crisis for their parochial
political purposes. Leaders of such governments may view such a crisis as an opportunity to lay blame on the political opposition. Political opposition
leaders themselves may attempt to exploit such a crisis to underscore their long-standing political, economic, and social grievances to exacerbate
unrest and provoke anti-government protests, rebellions, and other anti-government behavior.
Water scarcity turns armed conflicts into full on war
Solomon ’98 (Hussein, Research Manager at the African Centre for the Constructive Resolution
of Disputes, “From the Cold War to Water Wars: Some reflections of the changing global
security agenda- A view from the South,”
http://www.wcainfonet.org/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet?filename=1070020014294_WAR.
pdf&refID=125884 )
The changes in the theoretical discourse, of course, reflected the tectonic shifts in the post-Cold War global security landscape. Freed from the
straitjacket of global bipolarity, international politics is following a more turbulent trajectory. Nowhere is the saliency of this observation more
One such potential conflict area is scarce fresh water
resources. That this is so is hardly surprising. Within the context of the developing world, water availability determines the sustainability
clearly reflected than in the area of resource-based conflict.
of economic development. According to Anthony Turton even in countries where the industrial sector is weak, water consumption in the
water security does not simply
translate into economic development but also food security and the very survival of states
and their citizens. Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the World Commission on the Environment and Development
agricultural sector can be as much as 80 percent. Thus within the context of the South,
Page 76
such resource conflicts “… are likely to increase as the resources become
scarcer and competition over them increases”. It has been estimated that over 1.7 billion people spread
over eighty countries are suffering water shortages. Available evidence also suggest that
such water shortages, and conflicts over water, will intensify over the coming years. Various
reasons account for this. Firstly, greater levels of pollution of our existing fresh water resources as a result of
(WCED) has concluded that
the intensification of industrialisation in the South where environmental standards tend to be weak or not implemented. Second, as a result of
population growth with its concomitant increase in demand for more water. Consider the following in this regard: The world’s population stood
at 5,3 billion in 1990, is expected to pass the 6,2 billion mark this year and reach 8,5 billion by the year 2025. The twist in the tale lies in the fact
that those population growth levels are fundamentally uneven. Little of the projected population growth will take place in the North. The
developed industrialised states’ share of the world’s population is decreasing dramatically. In 1950 it was 22 percent, 15 percent in 1985, and is
projected to be a minuscule 5 percent by the year 2085. Conversely, much of the projected population growth will take place in the countries of
the South. For instance, Ethiopia’s population is expected to increase from 47 million in 1990 to 112 million by 2025; Nigeria’s from 113 million
to 301 million; Bangladesh’s from 116 million to 235 million; and India’s from 853 million to 1,446 million4. The
ramification of
this is the further escalation of conflict potential over scarce water resources in the
developing world. A third and relatively recent factor contributing to water scarcity is the impact of the El Nino/
Southern Oscillation weather phenomenon that causes dry conditions, particularly in SubSaharan Africa5. Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that a report of the African Development Bank
concluded as follows: “Current calculations are that by 2000, South Africa will suffer water stress, Malawi will have moved into absolute
water scarcity and Kenya will be facing the prospect of living beyond the present water barrier. By 2025, Mozambique, Tanzania
and Zimbabwe will suffer water stress, Lesotho and South Africa will have moved into absolute
water scarcity, and Malawi will have joined Kenya living beyond the present water barrier …
Competition for scarce water resources will intensify”. This competition for scarce water resources takes on ominous
proportions if one considers that of the 200 first-order river systems, 150 are shared by 2 nations; and 50 by 10 nations all in all supporting
conflicts over
scarce fresh waters have already occurred. Consider here those conflicts between: • Turkey, Syria and Iraq
around the waters of the Euphrates river; • The dispute between Egypt and Ethiopia over the waters of the
Nile; • The tensions concerning the sharing of the waters of the Colorado river between the United States and Mexico; and • The
dispute between Botswana and Namibia over the waters of the Okavango Delta. The above,
of course, should not lead one to the erroneous conclusion that water scarcity equals armed conflict
as if nothing can be done about the situation. Various measures can be implemented at various
levels to ameliorate tensions arising from water scarcity.
approximately 40 percent of the world’s population, two-thirds of whom are located in developing countries. Indeed,
Water Conflicts Lead to War
Ingham & Lucas 2014 (RICHARD INGHAM, ANTHONY LUCAS, AGENCE FRANCE
PRESSE)“The World's Water Scarcity Problem Is Bad And Getting Worse”
http://www.businessinsider.com/map-the-worlds-water-scarcity-problem-is-bad-and-gettingworse-2014-5#ixzz37UtjMJcy MAY 13, 2014
Citing a 2012 assessment by US intelligence agencies, the US State Department says: " Water is not just a human
health issue, not just an economic development or environmental issue, but a peace and
security issue." Rows over water between nations tend to be resolved without bloodshed, often using international
fora, says Richard Connor, who headed the UN water report. However, " you can talk about conflict in which
water is the root cause, albeit usually hidden," he told AFP. "It can lead to fluctuations in
energy and food prices, which can in turn lead to civil unrest. In such cases, the 'conflict' may
be over energy or food prices, but these are themselves related to water availability and
allocation."
Page 77
Advantage 3: Space Colonization
Page 78
Link: OTECH K/ Space
The road to the galaxy involves the sea.
Savage, 1992 (Marshall T., n/c, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy
Steps. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 20-21)
The message of this book is a simple one: the stars are within our reach. We now have the capacity,
economically and technically, to leave this planet and begin the infinite task of enlivening the
universe. We can accomplish our ends in eight easy steps: First, we will lay the Foundation, uniting ourselves
around the green banner of Cosmic destiny. Then we will grow a crystalline city, floating on the waves of the
sea. With power from the ocean, we will launch ourselves into space, propelled aloft by a
rainbow-hued array of lasers. In orbit above the Earth, we will inflate gleaming golden bubbles to shelter our new
generation of space dwelling people. On the face of the Moon, we will cap the craters wit glistening
domes, each sheltering a green oasis of life. Mars will be transformed into a glorious gem of
blue oceans and swirling white clouds, vibrant and alive as Gaia herself. Among the asteroids we will
strew a spreading ring-cloud of billions of billions of bubbles of life, shimmering like a galaxy of golden sparks. Finally, in the latter
half of the millennium, space arks will carry human colonists across the interstellar gulfs to inseminate new worlds with the
chartreuse elixir of Life. By
millennium’s end the night sky will twinkle with a handful emerald stars—
the initial scattering of our celestial seeds. From this first planting will spring a growing forest of living solar
systems. Life will explode through the star clouds like beryllian fire through flash powder. Within a thousand millennia,
the whole majestic pinwheel of the Milky Way, will be saturated with the lush aquamarine
light of a hundred billion living suns. We will have created a living galaxy—seed of a living universe. Then animate
flame will leap the firebreak between galaxies and ignite new blazes among the great star clusters in the outer universe. The process
will continue, unremitting, for the eternal lifetime of the Cosmos. (But of this I do not speculate. I am just a simple home-boy, and
take no great interest in anything much beyond the Magellanic Clouds.)
The ocean is the best place to begin colonization.
Savage, 1992 (Marshall T., n/c, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy
Steps. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 23-24)
It is our destiny to colonize space. Eventually we will spread our civilization among the stars, but our first step is
to build space colonies on Earth. ¶ At first glance the Earth may seem a little over-crowded for colonization. But really,
three-quarters of this planet’s surface—the oceans—are virtually uninhabited. Colonizing the oceans will be like
discovering three new planets the size of Earth. ¶ Our first space colonies will be floating
islands, grown organically from the lambent waters of the tropical seas. There are four
principal reasons why our first step toward space should take us to sea: ¶1. If we are going to
colonize space, it is best to colonize the easiest space first. The most accommodating space in
this universe is right here on Earth. The tropical oceans are womb-like: warm, hospitable,
nourishing, and wet. We will never find a better place to gestate our embryonic pan-galactic empire than right here on the
mellow seas of Earth. ¶ 2. Living in colonies at sea will teach us many crucial lessons about life in
space. The isolation, self-sufficiency, and political autonomy of sea colonies are the same as
those of space colonies. Both types will impose many of the same requirements on their inhabitants. While the external
environments of sea and space colonies are as different as tropical islands from lunar craters, the internal social and personal
environments are identical. Space colonization’s hardware problems—questions of tool design—are easy to solve; the software
problems—questions of social and individual evolution—are much tougher. We
need to learn to live together in a
colony environment long before we need to worry about how to live in the space
environment. The Moon is a harsh mistress; we would be wise to learn these early lessons
while still in Earth’s gentle lap. ¶3. Before we go gallivanting off to populate the galaxy, we had
better save the planet we’re already on. The sea colonies can go for toward rescuing the
Earth, producing enough food and energy to meet the needs of billions, without damaging the
Page 79
planetary ecosphere. The sea colonies can even repair some of the damage already done. ¶4.
Getting into space requires enormous power; both physical power that flares out of a rocket,
and financial power that flares out of a bank account. The sea colonies will produce both kinds
in abundance: enough raw electrical power to blast us into space, and enough raw financial
power to pay the fare.
Page 80
Link: Marine Colonies Good
We need to solve all Earth’s problems before colonization and the ocean is
where they’re solved.
Savage, 1992 (Marshall T., n/c, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy
Steps. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 24-25)
Our direst problems face us right here on Earth; and it is here we must solve them. Our future lies
in space, but Earth is the womb of life, and it will be a long time before we can cut our umbilical cord. The
new worlds we wish to create can survive their infancy only if the Mother of Life (Gaia) is here
to nourish them. If we are to fulfill our Cosmic destiny as the harbingers of Life, we must first insure survival of
the home planet. ¶ The world’s immediate problem is that there are too many demands on too
few resources. There is simply not enough “stuff” to go around. This creates many attendant
problems: Subsistence farmers, in quest of land, slash and burn tropical forests, ravaging the lungs
of the world. The poor, in search of jobs, flood urban areas, engorging these already bloated tumors. The rich, in
pursuit of ‘the good life,’ suck up the last vestiges of vanishing resources, spewing out mountains of
garbage and rivers of toxins in exchange. Our rapacious demands are overtaxing the ability of
Gaia to regenerate herself. The result is a dying planet. ¶ We must find a way to avert this
catastrophe. From Gaia’s perspective, the answer to this disaster is a species-specific plague to
wipe us out—AIDS perhaps, or maybe something even worse. While this might save the Earth, it is hardly an
agreeable solution from our point of view. A viable answer must meet the needs of both the
planet and the people: it must reduce or halt the destruction of Gaia’s ecological tissues; it must
decrease or eliminate the production of pollutants; it must be implemented without depleting
scarce resources; and, at the same time, it must satisfy the food and energy needs of ten
billion hungry humans. A solution which can fulfill all these requirements might seem impossible, but the answer is
at hand—Aquarius, and her thousand sister sea colonies.
Marine Colonies have the potential to solve.
Savage, 1992 (Marshall T., n/c, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy
Steps. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 28)
Every marine colony will annually generate commodities which would otherwise require 50
million barrels of oil to produce. The world presently consumes the energy equivalent of 60 billion
barrels of oil per year. Twelve hundred marine colonies could produce an equivalent flow of
energy in the forms of electricity, hydrogen, distilled water, and food. ¶A single marine colony
will produce 300 million lbs. of protein annually, saving vast amounts of fossil energy. To supply
the same protein from feedlot beef would require 28 million barrels of oil. If the same protein were extracted from the sea in the
form of commercially netted fish, it would require 82 million barrels of oil. If this protein were produced by Zebu cattle, the only
other protein producers which approach phytoplankton in energy efficiency, it would require 440 million acres of African grazing
land—an area three times the size of Kenya. If the protein is produced by a Millennial colony floating in the open ocean, instead of
by vast herds of cattle on the African plains, 700,000 square miles of Earth’s surface can be spared the ravages of overgazing.
When a thousand marine colonies are operating, they will produce as much protein as could
be gleaned from 240 million square miles of prime range land—an area four times the land
surface of the Earth. A protein supply of this magnitude could relieve many of the terrible burdens man places on the land.
Marine colonies, especially with OTEC technology, are key to stopping
catastrophe.
Savage, 1992 (Marshall T., n/c, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy
Steps. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 29)
Page 81
Mankind uses a lot of energy; the equivalent of around 166 million barrels of oil per day. A
barrel of oil is the energy equivalent of 700 kilowatt hours of electricity. A single sea colony will produce 3.6
terawatt hours of net electrical power annually—equivalent to five million barrels of oil. To
replace all the oil burned in the world today would require 4300 marine colonies; replacing all coal would require 3000; replacing
natural gas would require 2100 more. With
9400 sea colonies we could completely replace fossil fuels.
Ten thousand colonies would produce the direct energy equivalent of 50 billion barrels of oil
annually. This level of energy production is well within the world’s ultimate projected ocean
thermal energy capacity of 65 billion barrels. There is ample room on the tropical seas for ten
thousand marine colonies. If we built that many, each would be surrounded by seven
thousand square miles of open ocean. ¶ If the sea colonies are to replace coal and oil, we must convert electricity
into some form of fuel. Hydrogen is the perfect fuel; abundant as sea water and clean as sunlight. It can be extracted from water,
and when burned exhausts only steam. When liquefied, hydrogen can be transported long distances economically. Every day, each
colony could produce 67 million ft3 of liquid hydrogen. ¶ Numerous
collateral benefits would include acid rain
reduction, fewer oil spills, lower Middle Eastern induced world tensions, and reduced
pollutants like ozone, methane, and carbon monoxide. With enough marine colonies, we can
tip the ecological balance from catastrophe to sustainability. At little or no cost to the planet’s base
metabolism, the marine colonies can provide the critical margin of survival. By reducing pollution we can reverse
the forces now pushing the planet over the brink. The marine colonies may be the straw (bale perhaps) which
saves the camel’s back. They will, at the very least, delay the planet’s decline long enough for us to get a permanent toe-hold in
space. ¶ A thousand sea colonies will, of course, have some environmental impact. There is no way to do anything inside a closed
ecosphere—even one as large as the Earth—without impacting its environment. The sea colonies will inevitably change their local
environments. With thousands of them in operation they may change the global environment. Compared to burning coal or splitting
atoms, however, the OTECs of Aquarius are benign—even beneficial.
Marine colonies solve CO2 crisis.
Savage, 1992 (Marshall T., n/c, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy
Steps. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 31)
Marine colonies may offer one of the only practical ways to absorb carbon dioxide. It is often
suggested that excess carbon dioxide could be absorbed by planting more trees. Unfortunately,
appealing as this idea is, it won’t work. The problem is that trees, being terrestrial plants, must
eventually decay, and when they do they release their carbon back to the atmosphere. To
remove CO2 from the atmosphere permanently, the carbon sink must be outside the active
bio-cycle. Allowing the marine colony’s algae crop to sink unharvested is really just a means to
augment the process Gaia uses to maintain the atmosphere’s carbon balance.
OTEC fuels plant growth for marine colonies.
Savage, 1992 (Marshall T., n/c, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy
Steps. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 42)
Another prominent upwelling zone occurs in the waters around Antarctica. The cold waters around the Southern Continent do not
‘upwell’ so much as ‘outcrop’. The oceans are stratified in layers by temperature, just like layers of sedimentary rock. These layers of
water are most numerous and thickest a the equator, where there is a wide variation between temperatures at the surface and at
depth. Near the poles, however, there is no such difference. The
surface waters are almost as cold and almost
as rich in nutrients as the deep waters. This happy circumstance leads to one of the richest
concentrations of life on the planet: vast shoals of Antarctic krill, and the flocks of penguins and pods of whales who
feed on them. ¶ The OTECs of Aquarius will create an artificial upwelling zone by bringing a river of
nutrient-rich cold water to the surface. When the nutrient-rich broth of deep sea water (see Appendix 1.7) is
exposed to sunlight, there will be an explosion of plant growth comparable to that obtained when
fertilizers are sprayed on land crops. Since the growth of phytoplankton is almost always limited by the availability of
one or more vital nutrients, bringing up deep water to the surface will provide the raw material for
algal growth. The addition of nitrogen to the surface waters will enhance primary productivity
by 160 times.
Page 82
Internal Link: Marine Colonies K/ Space
Marine colonies key to launching colonization spacecraft.
Savage, 1992 (Marshall T., n/c, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy
Steps. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 99)
The ultimate purpose of this Project is to spark a human migration into space. Aquarius
will buy us enough time and
resources to make this possible. To actually get mankind off the planet, we will need to build a
highway to heaven that is simple, reliable, and cheap. ¶ We will build our own version of the mythic Bifrost
Bridge. The Bridge’s design is extremely simple: A launch capsule is accelerated to high speed
inside a vacuum tube by means of electromagnetic levitation. When the capsule emerges from
the end of the launch tube, atop a high equatorial mountain, it is propelled on into orbit by an
array of lasers. The Bridge will be built with revenues and powered with electricity from
Aquarius and her sister colonies. Once constructed, The Bifrost Bridge will provide a path into space broad and smooth
enough to make large-scale colonization feasible.
Page 83
Impact: Space Good
Space colonization key to survival, Stephen Hawking proves.
Kazan 09 (Casey, editor@dailygalaxy.com, “Planet's Experts on Space Colonization -Our Future
or Fantasy?”Daily Galaxy. 16 April 2009,
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/04/space-colonizat.html)
Humans have always been fascinated by the idea of space travel. Some even believe that colonizing new planets our
best hope for the future. The popular idea is that we’ll eventually need some fresh, unexploited new worlds to inhabit. In a
recent Galaxy post we wrote that Stephen Hawking, world-celebrated expert on the cosmological
theories of gravity and black holes who holds Issac Newton's Lucasian Chair at Cambridge
University, believes that traveling into space is the only way humans will be able to survive in
the long-term. "Life on Earth," Hawking has said, "is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped
out by a disaster such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus
or other dangers ... I think the human race has no future if it doesn't go into space." Another of his
famous quotes reiterates his position that we need to get off the planet relatively soon. "I don't think the human race
will survive the next 1,000 years unless we spread into space." The problems with Hawking’s solution is
that while it may save a “seed” of human life- a few lucky specimens- it won’t save Earth’s inhabitants. The majority of Earthlings
would surely be left behind on a planet increasingly unfit for life.
Colonization saves humanity and doesn’t affect toehrs
Globus 13(Dr. Ruth, Ph.D. in endocrinology UCSF, Co-Director of the Bone and Signaling Lab at
NASA. “Space Settlement Basics,” NASA. 23 April 2013,
http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/Basics/wwwwh.html)
Survival Someday the Earth will become uninhabitable. Before then humanity must move off the
planet or become extinct. One potential near term disaster is collision with a large comet or asteroid. Such a collision
could kill billions of people. Large collisions have occurred in the past, destroying many species. Future collisions are inevitable,
although we don't know when. Note that in July 1994, the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 (1993e) hit Jupiter If
there were a
major collision today, not only would billions of people die, but recovery would be difficult
since everyone would be affected. If major space settlements are built before the next
collision, the unaffected space settlements can provide aid, much as we offer help when
disaster strikes another part of the world. Building space settlements will require a great deal of material. If NEOs
are used, then any asteroids heading for Earth can simply be torn apart to supply materials for building colonies and saving Earth at
the same time. Power and Wealth Those that colonize space will control vast lands, enormous amounts of electrical power, and
nearly unlimited material resources. The societies that develop these resources will create wealth beyond our wildest imagination
and wield power -- hopefully for good rather than for ill. In
the past, societies which have grown by
colonization have gained wealth and power at the expense of those who were subjugated.
Unlike previous colonization programs, space colonization will build new land, not steal it
from the natives. Thus, the power and wealth born of space colonization will not come at the
expense of others, but rather represent the fruits of great labors.
We need to colonize space or we will go extinct.
Savage, 1992 (Marshall T., n/c, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy
Steps. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 17-18)
Now is the watershed of Cosmic history. We stand at the threshold of the New Millennium. Behind us yawn the chasms of the
primordial past, when this universe was a dead and silent place; before us rise the broad sunlit uplands of a living cosmos. In
next few galactic seconds, the fate of the universe will be decided. Life—the ultimate
experiment—will either explode into space and engulf the star-clouds in a fire storm of
the
Page 84
children, trees, and butterfly wings; or Life will fail, fizzle, and gutter out, leaving the universe
shrouded forever in impenetrable blankness, devoid of hope. ¶Teetering here on the fulcrum of destiny
stands our own bemused species. The future of the universe hinges on what we do next. If we take up the sacred fire, and stride
forth into space as the torchbearers of Life, this universe will be aborning. If we carry the green fire-brand from star to star, and
ignite around each conflagration of vitality, we can trigger a Universal metamorphosis. Because of us, the barren dusts of a million
billion worlds will coil up into the pulsing magic forms of animate matter. Because
of us, landscapes of radiation
blasted waste, will be miraculously transmuted: Slag will become soil, grass will sprout, flower
will bloom, and forests will spring up in once sterile places. Ice, Hard as iron will melt and trickle into pools
where starfish, anemones, and seashells dwell—a whole frozen universe will thaw and transmogrify, from howling desolation to
blossoming paradise. Dust into Life; the very alchemy of God. ¶If
we deny our awesome challenge; turn our
backs on the living universe, and forsake our cosmic destiny, we will commit a crime of
unutterable magnitude. Mankind alone has the power to carry out this fundamental change in the universe. Our
failure would lead to consequences unthinkable. This is perhaps the first and only chance the universe will ever
have to awaken from its long night and live. We are the caretakers of this delicate spark of Life. To let it flicker and die
through ignorance, neglect, or sheer lack of imagination is a horror to great to contemplate.
Space colonization must be a first priority to save humankind.
Falconi 81 (Oscar, BS degree in Physics from M.I.T. and a physicist and consultant in the
computer and electro-optical fields, http://www.oscarfalconi.com/space/) OP
As the years pass, it has become more and more apparent that intelligent life on this earth has very little
time remaining, and that we're about to experience a terrifying, unpreventable holocaust! No, this
conclusion isn't reached by religious Armageddon-type considerations. Not at all. All life on earth is
threatened by political and environmental problems that are quickly coming to a climax: World War III,
nuclear wastes, atmospheric pollution, and many more, each by itself able to put an end to man. This
book frankly examines these many causes of our destruction and gives incisive and logical arguments that will convince the reader
that the colonization of space must be our generation's very first priority and must be undertaken
immediately in order to save our fine civilization and to preserve our culture. The fact that the
colonization of space is the only way to save our civilization is an important concept. In this book it is shown
that mankind is very possibly alone in the universe. We therefore have an enormous responsibility to prevent our
destruction. This can only be done by colonizing space with self-sufficient backup civilizations, a task we
are presently quite capable of accomplishing, both technically and financially, within the next 55 years.
Space colonization solves environmental problems.
Engdahl 2008 (Sylvia Engdahl has written many non-fiction books on space exploration and
development. November 5, 2008. http://www.sylviaengdahl.com/space/survival.htm) hss
The emerging nations’ need for power must be balanced against potential environmental
damage from such dangers as fossil fuel emissions (if there were enough fuel available), which could be greater
than nuclear energy risks. Currently, the United States annually consumes approximately 3 trillion Kwh’s of electrical energy and, if
this rate grows at only 2% per year, by 2050 United States power requirements will be around 9 trillion Kwh’s per year. Total world
needs, assuming a very low use by developing nations (not a conservative estimate) easily exceeds an estimated 20 trillion Kwh’s by
2050. Even with an attendant tripling of non-nuclear systems, such as hydroelectric to avoid fossil fuel
depletion, nuclear power system generation would have to increase by a factor of 6 to meet
requirements. This increase in nuclear energy production flies in the face of a rising discontent with
adverse environmental effects of nuclear waste disposal, where some plants are being converted to utilize fossil
fuels. A clean renewable source of energy must be found and implemented. Space Colonization can lead
to solutions to this problem.
Page 85
Colonization of Space would become self-sustaining and result in the eventual
colonization of the galaxy
North American AstroPhysical Observatory 2006 (NAAPO) Last modified: May 13, 2006.
http://www.bigear.org/CSMO/PDF/CS08/cs08p10.pdf
The next step would be in the future, with the development of small self-supporting colonies in space. This
seems highly speculative now, but much technological progress can be expected on a 1,000 year time scale, which is short compared
to the scope of this essay. In space, solar energy would be readily available, and sufficient sources of raw
materials would probably be found in asteroids and planetary satellites. The development of this type of
economy would be significant, since if it was successful in being self-sustaining, then it could eventually
result in units leaving the solar system under thermonuclear power, and slowly moving out to colonize
the galaxy, over a period of 1 million years or so. There are about 100 billion stars in the galaxy, and there are probably planetary
systems near a large fraction of them that are a source of raw materials, with the star available for energy, so in this sense the long
term limits to growth would be pushed back far beyond the present ones. The percentage annual growth rate of the total human
population even with space colonization is never likely to be as large as the current rate of about 2 percent (unless almost all of the
human population is wiped out and the growth starts from a low base level again). The reason is that according to the laws of
physics it would be impossible for a wave of colonizing spacecraft to move out through the galaxy faster than the speed of light.*
(*Assuming colonies produced a uniform population density in the galaxy, the fractional increase per unit time of volume of space
populated by a wave of colonizers moving at the speed of light (c) is equal to 4πr 2 c/(4/3)or 3 = 3c/r where r is the radius of the
volume colonized. Thus, the fractional rate would be 2 percent per year when r equals 150 light-years, but less than 2 percent if r is
greater. Furthermore, actual velocities would be well below the speed of light reducing the rate even more. Thus, it seems that the
current human population increase rate is unlikely to be ever again attained. At 1 percent of the speed of light, a few million years
would suffice to complete the colonization.) Of course, it is quite possible that humans would not be the only intelligent species
colonizing the galaxy in this way. In that case growth of a different sort — intellectual growth above that developed
by just being in space — would very likely result from the meeting of the two cultures — even if the population
and economic growth were thereby limited. Thus, the effort to establish habitations in space should
be encouraged. Even
though the cost of putting man in space is significant, so was the cost to the European courts of the 15th
and 16th centuries of sending Columbus (and others) out to explore the western Atlantic. We cannot expect to predict the most
important benefits that would accrue from a prolonged effort in establishing man in space. Some less important ones would be
a
great advance in understanding the nature of the universe, of which the phenomena on earth
are only an insignificant part; the tapping of new energy sources, possibly including the
production and controlled feeding of miniature black holes; and a new realization of the vast
range of capabilities of human beings to live satisfying lives in unconventional environments.
While we would not expect the colonization of space to have an immediate effect on the pressure of population against resources
back on earth, in the long term it probably would be beneficial as new technology developed in space was
applied back on earth. This sort of transfer between colonies and parent societies has been a pattern during the last million
years. Surely we owe to future generations this opportunity for future growth and development of the human species.
Page 86
Moon Colonization key to protecting and sustaining life.
Savage, 1992 (Marshall T., n/c, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy
Steps. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 223)
Above all else, the lunar craters will be ecological preserves, providing refuges for Life. In a
multitude of special biomes, we can preserve the precious storehouse of Life’s genetic diversity. On the
Moon, Life will be safe from possible calamities which threaten the Earth—environmental,
nuclear, or meteoric. Unlike the vulnerable Earth, there are few conceivable disasters which could wipe out all
the lunar ecospheres. Even a giant comet crashing into the moon would destroy only a few
lunar biomes. The same disaster could utterly annihilate Life on Earth. As for man-made threats, it would be a very bad idea to
attack the Moon. Positioned on the high-ground, and armed with electromagnetic launchers and the powerful lasers of Excalibur,
the Lunatics will be virtually unassailable.¶ The
Moon will be the ultimate safe-deposit vault, securing and
protecting the genetic wealth of the universe. The lunar ecospheres will act as living seed
banks. Withdrawals could be made if needed for the rehabilitation of a damaged Earth, for the terraformation of Mars, or for the
eventual dissemination of Life among the stars.
Space travel utilizes a laser propulsion system.
Savage, 1992 (Marshall T., n/c, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy
Steps. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 108)
Unlike a conventional rocket, which can be extremely complicated (see Appendix 2.1), a laser
propelled rocket is the soul of simplicity: a beam of light and a block of ice. The ice, when
heated by the laser, serves as the propellant. The laser strikes the ice block, and the water—
super-heated to 10,000˚C.—flashes to steam. The superheated steam expands at 10,000
meters per second, propelling the space capsule with a specific impulse of 1000 seconds. The
beauty of this system, in addition to producing a high specific impulse, is that it has no moving
parts. ¶ Lasers, among their many other miraculous properties, enable us to beam energy across
space. With a laser propelled rocket we can leave the fuel and engines on the ground where
they belong.
Space colonization helps the economy.
Engdahl 2008 (Sylvia Engdahl has written many non-fiction books on space exploration and
development. November 5, 2008. http://www.sylviaengdahl.com/space/survival.htm) hss
There are also many sociological benefits of Space Colonization. We must remember that such an endeavor cannot
be implemented by one any agency or single government. A world policy would be needed. In the United States, the combined
efforts of NASA, DOE, DOI, DOT, DOC, and others would be focused in addition to our broad industrial base and the commercial
world. It should be noted that the eventual space tourism market (tapping in to the world annual $3,400 billion
market or the United States $120 billion per year “adventure travel” market) (Reichert, 1999) will not be based on the work
of isolated government agencies but, rather, evolve from a synergistic combination of government , travel
industry, hotel chains, civil engineering, and, yes, a modified version of industry as we know it today. The change in emphasis
from our present single-objective missions to a broadband Space Colonization infrastructure will create
employment here on Earth and in space for millions of people and will profoundly change our daily life
on Earth. This venue, initiated by short suborbital followed by short orbital and then orbital hotel stays (Collins, 2000) has
already begun with brief visits to the ISS. Once systems evolve that can reduce the cost of a “space
ticket” to some $10,000 to $50,000 US, the market will grow.
Page 87
Govt Axn K/
Government action key to space exploration.
Wagstaff 12(Keith, Writer at the Time’s Techland. “Neil deGrasse Tyson on the Future of U.S.
Space Exploration After Curiosity,” Time. 1 Aug 2012,
http://techland.time.com/2012/08/01/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-the-future-of-u-s-spaceexploration-after-curiosity/)
The people who say that all we need is private space travel are simply delusional. My book on space, Space Chronicles: Facing the
Ultimate Frontier, was originally titled Failure to Launch: The Dreams and Delusions of Space Enthusiasts. Space enthusiasts are the
most susceptible demographic to delusion that I have ever seen. Private
enterprise can never lead a space
frontier. It’s not possible because a space frontier is expensive, it has unknown risks and it has
unquantified risks. Historically, governments have done this. They have drawn the maps, they
have found where the trade winds are, they have invented the new tools to go where no one
has gone before. Then, when the routines are set up, you cede that to private enterprise. That’s why I don’t know what
they’re thinking. The first colony on Mars is not going to be built by a private company. How are
you going to make money? You’re not. Look what’s going on now. Private enterprise is giving us access to low-Earth
orbit for less than what NASA was providing. That should have been happening decades ago. Why is that happening now? Because
low-Earth orbit is no longer the frontier. NASA has been going in and out of low-Earth orbit since 1962. I see private enterprise as a
fundamental part of creating a space industry, but there
will always be the frontier.
Page 88
Advantage 4: Fracking
Page 89
Fracking Bad: Laundry List
Fracking has a laundry list of impacts
Center for Biological Biodiversity 2014 (“Fracking threatens America’s Air, Water, and
Climate”) http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/fracking/index.html
About 25 percent of fracking chemicals could cause cancer, scientists say. Others harm the skin
or reproductive system. Evidence is mounting throughout the country that these chemicals —
as well as methane released by fracking — are making their way into aquifers and drinking
water.¶ Fracking can release dangerous petroleum hydrocarbons, including benzene and
xylene. It also increases ground-level ozone levels, raising people’s risk of asthma and other
respiratory illnesses.¶ Wildlife is also in danger. Fish die when fracking fluid contaminates
streams and rivers. Birds are poisoned by chemicals in wastewater ponds. And the intense
industrial development accompanying fracking pushes imperiled animals out of wild areas
they need to survive. In California, for example, more than 100 endangered and threatened
species live in the counties where fracking is set to expand.
Dangers of Fracking
Murdoch ’11 Sierra Crane February 21, 2011 Investigative Reporting Fellow at the University of California, Berkeley
http://www.dangersoffracking.com/
Each gas well requires an average of 400 tanker trucks to carry water and supplies to and from the site. It takes 1-8 million gallons of
water to complete each fracturing job. The water brought in is mixed with sand and chemicals to create fracking fluid .
Approximately 40,000 gallons of chemicals are used per fracturing. Up to 600 chemicals are
used in fracking fluid, including known carcinogens and toxins such as radium , methanol,
hydrochloric acid, formaldehyde,
lead, uranium, mercury,
gallons of chemicals needed to run our current gas wells.
and ethylene glycol. 72 trillion gallons of water and 360 billion
During this process, methane gas and toxic
chemicals leach out from the system and contaminate nearby groundwater. Methane
concentrations are 17x higher in drinking-water wells near fracturing sites than in normal
wells . Contaminated well water is used for drinking water for nearby cities and towns. There have been over 1,000
documented cases of water contamination next to areas of gas drilling as well as cases of
sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water . Only
30-50% of the fracturing fluid is recovered, the rest of the toxic fluid is left in the ground and
is not biodegradable. The waste fluid is left in open air pits to evaporate, releasing harmful
VOC’s
(volatile organic compounds )
into the atmosphere, creating contaminated air, acid rain, and
ground level ozone.
Numerous detrimental impacts to fracking
By SUSAN L. BRANTLEY and ANNA MEYENDORFF Published: March 13, 2013 Susan Brantley is distinguished
professor of geosciences and director of the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at Pennsylvania State University, and a
member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Anna Meyendorff is a faculty associate at the International Policy Center of the
Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan, and a manager at Analysis Group.
OPPOSITION to fracking has been considerable, if not unanimous, in the global green community, and
in Europe in particular. France and Bulgaria, countries with the largest shale-gas reserves in
Page 90
Europe, have already banned fracking. Protesters are blocking potential drilling sites in Poland
and England. Opposition to fracking has entered popular culture with the release of “The Promised Land,” starring Matt
Damon. Even the Rolling Stones have weighed in with a reference to fracking in their new single, “Doom and Gloom.” Related
There is no doubt that natural gas extraction does sometimes have negative consequences for the
local environment in which it takes place, as does all fossil fuel extraction. And because
fracking allows us to put a previously inaccessible reservoir of carbon from beneath our feet
into the atmosphere, it also contributes to global climate change. But as we assess the pros and cons,
decisions should be based on existing empirical evidence and fracking should be evaluated relative to other available energy sources.
What exactly is fracking, or more formally hydraulic fracturing? Many sandstones, limestones and shales far below ground contain
natural gas, which was formed as dead organisms in the rock decomposed. This gas is released, and can be captured at the surface
for our use, when the rocks in which it is trapped are drilled. To increase the flow of released gas, the rocks can be broken apart, or
fractured. Early drillers sometimes detonated small explosions in the wells to increase flow. Starting in the 1940s, oil and gas drilling
companies began fracking rock by pumping pressurized water into it. Approximately one million American wells have been fracked
since the 1940s. Most of these are vertical wells that tap into porous sandstone or limestone. Since the 1990s, however, gas
companies have been able to harvest the gas still stuck in the original shale source. Fracking shale is accomplished by drilling
horizontal wells that extend from their vertical well shafts along thin, horizontal shale layers. This horizontal drilling has enabled
engineers to inject millions of gallons of high-pressure water directly into layers of shale to create the fractures that release the gas.
Chemicals added to the water dissolve minerals, kill bacteria that might plug up the well, and insert sand to prop open the fractures.
Most opponents of fracking focus on potential local environmental consequences. Some of these are specific to the new fracking
technology, while others apply more generally to natural gas extraction. The
fracking cocktail includes acids,
detergents and poisons that are not regulated by federal laws but can be problematic if they
seep into drinking water. Fracking since the 1990s has used greater volumes of cocktail-laden
water, injected at higher pressures. Methane gas can escape into the environment out of any
gas well, creating the real though remote possibility of dangerous explosions. Water from all gas
wells often returns to the surface containing extremely low but measurable concentrations of
radioactive elements and huge concentrations of salt. This brine can be detrimental if not
disposed of properly. Injection of brine into deep wells for disposal has in rare cases triggered
small earthquakes. In addition to these local effects, natural gas extraction has global
environmental consequences, because the methane gas that is accessed through extraction
and the carbon dioxide released during methane burning are both greenhouse gases that
contribute to global climate change. New fracking technologies allow for the extraction of
more gas, thus contributing more to climate change than previous natural gas extraction. As
politicians in Europe and the United States consider whether, and under what conditions, fracking should be allowed, the experience
of Pennsylvania is instructive. Pennsylvania has seen rapid development of the Marcellus shale, a geological formation that could
contain nearly 500 trillion cubic feet of gas — enough to power all American homes for 50 years at recent rates of residential use.
Some of the local effects of drilling and fracking have gotten a lot of press but caused few problems, while others are more serious.
For example, of the tens of thousands of deep injection wells in use by the energy industry across the United States, only about eight
locations have experienced injection-induced earthquakes, most too weak to feel and none causing significant damage. The
Pennsylvania experience with water contamination is also instructive. In Pennsylvania, shale gas is accessed at depths of thousands
of feet while drinking water is extracted from depths of only hundreds of feet. Nowhere in the state have fracking compounds
injected at depth been shown to contaminate drinking water. In one study of 200 private water wells in the fracking regions of
Pennsylvania, water quality was the same before and soon after drilling in all wells except one. The only surprise from that study was
that many of the wells failed drinking water regulations before drilling started. But trucking
and storage accidents
have spilled fracking fluids and brines, leading to contamination of water and soils that had to
be cleaned up. The fact that gas companies do not always disclose the composition of all
fracking and drilling compounds makes it difficult to monitor for injected chemicals in streams
and groundwater. Pennsylvania has also seen instances of methane leaking into aquifers in regions where shale-gas drilling is
ongoing.
Page 91
Fracking Bad: Climate Change
Fracking creates drastic climate change
Center for Biological Biodiversity 2014 (“Fracking threatens America’s Air, Water, and
Climate”) http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/fracking/index.html
Fracking releases large amounts of methane, a dangerously potent greenhouse gas. Fracked
shale gas wells, for example, may have methane leakage rates as high as 7.9 percent, which would
make such natural gas worse for the climate than coal. But fracking also threatens our climate in another
way.¶ To prevent catastrophic climate change, we must leave about 80 percent of proven
fossil fuel reserves in the ground. Fracking takes us in the opposite direction, opening up vast
new deposits of fossil fuels.¶ If the fracking boom continues, oil and gas companies will light
the fuse on a carbon bomb that will shatter efforts to avert climate chaos.
Page 92
Fracking = Ecocide
Fracking causes oppression in the short-term and in the long run leads to
ecocide
Brighton ’13 (Nikki, Writer for River Walks, River Walks, “Fracking is Ecocide,” 09/18/13).
Pandora Long will be with us in spirit as we walk the Lion’s River. She is very distressed by the threat of mining and fracking and wrote the following:
For me fracking is akin to raping the earth – it is going to take more than just saying No. Those that are proposing to frack SA, both politicians and oil
company directors, need to have criminal charges laid against them in terms of NEMA (you are not allowed to harm the environment) and our
constitution (everyone has the right to a healthy environment) We
need to look at fracking ‘at a local level’ and gather
stories that break the veneer of ‘respectability’ around what is being proposed and reveal
fracking for what it truly is, ‘an onslaught and enslavement of people and place’ in the short
term, and ecocide in the long term.
How would you feel if an oil company came onto your beloved land to start fracking? What if
your homestead was barely 100m from where the well was to be sunk and that it was your land, but you had no say in stopping them. Maybe they
choose a site only 20m from where you know the otters’ burrow is. What if one day you have to watch while the bulldozers come in through virgin land
to create new roads and start erecting the well-head? And the heavy tracks cut through the little seeps and springs that you know trickle in spring and
after only a few days, the compressed earth cracks, no longer able to act as a sponge. r stream How will you feel when the first mechanical activity of
arriving machines starts to cut through the peace and tranquillity of your beloved place and continue incessantly day after day as they gauge the earth
and send the drill deeper and deeper beneath its surface? Who will be there to console you as the first tankers of arsenic and toxic chemicals start to
arrive? Can you imagine your little river when they start taking millions and millions of litres of water out of the catchment, every day, and no-one
wants to listen as you tell them that all the aquatic life below the extraction point no longer have pools of water to sustain them and that the river is
dying. What about that first day that they pressurise the earth with millions of litres of toxic water and you feel the earth tremble beneath your feet?
How do you feel when the shout goes up and thousands of litres of toxic water streams back up the well to lie spent in muddy pools and puddles
around the base of the drilling rig? Do you cry when it starts to rain and the once clean river turns yellow with slime? How do you feel when your
favourite stream is smothered in fines and the river bed can no longer breathe oxygen and it starts to stifle and stagnate and life cannot continue?
What do you do when you know that there are chemicals in the water but no-one can test for them? When, no longer able to contain itself, the slimes
dams slips and bursts through the drainage line and into the stream? What do you do when no-one can drink from the stream anymore? r laila drinking
The above scenario is not entirely out of my imagination. In the case of the quarry that was established on the Mpushini river - the land belonged to the
NPA, replace the toxic chemicals with diesel and dynamite, the millions of litres was thousands (maybe millions!) held back in a farm dam, substitute
fracking with blasting, the surge of water is dust and fly rock, the muddy pools and puddles, yellow river, slimes dams - is all true and when you add
sewage from Lynnfield park and chemical contamination from Rainbow chickens and other industrial activities higher upstream, this is the life story of
this little river. And this little river fares better than many!! We cannot possibly let pristine Berg streams become contaminated and the earth beneath
them shattered. r streams in forest Alistair McIntosh is a Scottish academic and activist who went up against a huge international quarrying consortium
that wanted to decimate a local area – and won. In this interview he is talking about Climate Change http://www.dolectures.com/speakers/alastairmcintosh/ – in it he explains how one can take action ‘without action’ in the face of something that seems impossible to accomplish and that somehow
everything conspires to assist in achieving that goal. I think we need to ask him to come and help us.
Page 93
Fracking = Species Loss
Fracking hurts animals resulting in still births and a decrease in population
EcoWatch January 30, 2014 (“How fracking hurts animals”)
http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/30/5-ways-fracking-hurts-animals/
A study by two Cornell University researchers indicates the process of hydraulic fracturing
deep shale to release natural gas may be linked to shortened lifespan and reduced or mutated
reproduction in cattle—and maybe humans.¶ Without knowing exactly what chemicals are being used, and in
what quantities, it is difficult to perform laboratory-style experiments on, say lab rats. But farm animals are captive,
when fracking wastewater is spilled across their
pasture and into their drinking water, and they start dying and birthing dead calves, one can
become suspicious that there is a connection.¶ Which is what the Cornell researchers found during a yearsurrounded by electric and barbed wire fences.¶ And
long study of farm animals, based primarily on interviews with animal owners and veterinarians in six states: Colorado,
“Animals can nevertheless serve as sentinels for
human health impacts,” the report, Impacts of Gas Drilling on Human and Animal Health, notes. “Animals,
particularly livestock, remain in a confined area and, in some cases, are continually exposed to
an environmental threat.”
Louisiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.¶
Fracking irreparably destroys the environment
Franco & Feodoroff ’13 (Jennifer, member of the College of Humanities and Development (COHD) at the China Agricultural
University, Timothé, BA in International Studies from the University of Montreal, “Old Story, New Threat: Fracking and the global land grab”).
With demand still growing for land-based resources, including from the energy sector, what is now referred to as the global land grab continues to have
momentum. Land and watergrabbing involves the capturing of control of land and other associated resources like water and underground material, and
most significantly, of the power to decide how they will be used, for what purposes and who will reap the benefits. Powered by transnational capital
and its desire for profit, a wave of enclosures has been undermining peoples’ democratic control of their environment in many parts of the world. Now
this trend is expanding its reach further, this time, through unconventional gas development. One form of this new threat is called fracking, the
common term for hydraulic fracturing, a fast spreading technology for extracting unconventional, hard-to-access natural gas. Fracking is increasingly
portrayed as a not-to-be-missed innovative opportunity to achieve national energy security. But the
‘fracking revolution’
represents a profoundly harmful new step in the old story of the corporate takeover of
natural resources because of what it targets: extraction of hard-to-reach unconventional gas
deposits. While fracking allegedly produces cheaper natural gas, it entails irreparable
environmental destruction and the loss of community control of land and especially water
resources to major companies in the oil and gas industry, especially through water diversion,
depletion and contamination. Today’s boom in fracking is therefore undermining the power of
citizens and communities to determine how land and water is to be used and how the
environment is to be managed.
Fracking kills animals instantly
EcoWatch January 30, 2014 (“How fracking hurts animals”)
http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/30/5-ways-fracking-hurts-animals/
In one case, an accidental release of fracking fluids into a pasture adjacent to a drilling
operation resulted in 17 cows dead within an hour . Exposure to fracking fluids running onto
pastures or into streams or wells also reportedly led to pregnant cows producing stillborn
calves, goats exhibiting reproductive problems and other farm animals displaying similar
problems. Farmers reported effects within one to three days of animals consuming errant
fracking wastewater.¶ “Of the seven cattle farms studied in the most detail, 50 percent of the
herd, on average, was affected by death and failure of survivors to breed,” the researchers noted.¶
Other examples seem to confirm animal health problems after exposure to fracking wastewater. Animals exposed to it
have the problems; animals separated from it—most of them, anyway, do not.¶ The report points out a major difference
Page 94
between company and non-company observers. Area residents and conservation groups look at the existing evidence and
try to err on the side of “let’s be careful, here.”
Fracking liquids spread to aquatic species , wiping out entire populations
EcoWatch January 30, 2014 (“How fracking hurts animals”)
http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/30/5-ways-fracking-hurts-animals/
State and federal scientists found that the toxic fracking waste ”killed virtually all aquatic
wildlife in a significant portion of the fork.” The dead and distressed fish had developed gill
lesions and suffered liver and spleen damage.¶ The lead USGS scientist in the investigation stated: “Our
study is a precautionary tale of how entire populations could be put at risk even with smallscale fluid spills.Ӧ One of the things that bothers Mall the most about this case is that the scientists had been alerted
to the fish kill “by a local resident.” All spills are supposed to be reported—by the oil and gas company—to the National
Response Center.¶ You know how companies have been telling the public for years that frack fluid is mostly water and safe
ingredients that are found in your home? Many people have been saying for years that, even diluted, the frack fluid
ingredients can be very harmful to health, and this case is just additional evidence. Thanks
to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for enforcing the law and levying the largest fine ever for a violation of the
ESA in Kentucky. While the fine was only $50,000, it is larger than many other fines paid by
the oil and gas industry. Regulators should be imposing the highest penalties allowed under
the law to start to create an incentive for the oil and gas industry to stop violating regulations
Fracking is killing livestock, aquatic animals, and possibly humyns
Cohen et al ’14 (Steven, executive director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute, Sandra
Steingraber, Ph.D., recipient of the Rachel Carson Leadership Award, Mary Anne Hitt, director of
the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, “How Fracking Hurts Animals”).
Many people know the issues with fracking when it comes to water and air pollution, but
animals are also at risk. Two studies in the last two years, show how farm animals and aquatic life are impacted by fracking. Farm
Animals A study by two Cornell University researchers indicates the process of hydraulic
fracturing deep shale to release natural gas may be linked to shortened lifespan and reduced
or mutated reproduction in cattle—and maybe humans. Without knowing exactly what chemicals are being used, and
in what quantities, it is difficult to perform laboratory-style experiments on, say lab rats. But farm animals are captive, surrounded by electric and
barbed wire fences. And when
fracking wastewater is spilled across their pasture and into their drinking
water, and they start dying and birthing dead calves, one can become suspicious that there is a connection. Which is
what the Cornell researchers found during a year-long study of farm animals, based primarily on interviews with animal owners and veterinarians in six
states: Colorado, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. “Animals
can nevertheless serve as sentinels for
human health impacts,” the report, Impacts of Gas Drilling on Human and Animal Health, notes. “Animals, particularly
livestock, remain in a confined area and, in some cases, are continually exposed to an
environmental threat.” The report has been produced by Robert E. Oswald, a biochemist and Professor of Molecular Medicine at Cornell
University, and Michelle Bamberger, a veterinarian with a master’s degree in pharmacology. In one case, an accidental release of
fracking fluids into a pasture adjacent to a drilling operation resulted in 17 cows dead within
an hour. Exposure to fracking fluids running onto pastures or into streams or wells also
reportedly led to pregnant cows producing stillborn calves, goats exhibiting reproductive
problems and other farm animals displaying similar problems. Farmers reported effects within one to three days
of animals consuming errant fracking wastewater. “Of the seven cattle farms studied in the most detail, 50 percent of the herd, on average, was
affected by death and failure of survivors to breed,” the researchers noted. Other examples seem to confirm animal health problems after exposure to
fracking wastewater. Animals exposed to it have the problems; animals separated from it—most of them, anyway, do not. The report points out a
major difference between company and non-company observers. Area residents and conservation groups look at the existing evidence and try to err on
the side of “let’s be careful, here.” Aquatic Life According to Natural Resources Defense Council’s Amy Mall, scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a peer-reviewed journal article that discusses the results of the investigation into a 2007 fracking
wastewater spill in Kentucky. Fracking wastewater that was being stored in open air pits overflowed into Kentucky’s Acorn Fork Creek and left an
orange-red substance, contaminating the creek with hydrochloric acid, dissolved minerals and metals, and other contaminants. Prior to this pollution,
the creek was so clean that it was designated an Outstanding State Resource Water. The Creek provides excellent habitat for the Blackside dace, a small
colorful minnow protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because it is a threatened species. State and federal scientists found that the toxic
fracking waste ”killed virtually all aquatic wildlife in a significant portion of the fork.” The
Page 95
dead and distressed fish had developed gill lesions and suffered liver and spleen damage. The
lead USGS scientist in the investigation stated: “Our study is a precautionary tale of how entire populations could be put at risk
even with small-scale fluid spills.” One of the things that bothers Mall the most about this case is that the scientists had been
alerted to the fish kill “by a local resident.” All spills are supposed to be reported—by the oil and gas company—to the National Response Center. You
know how companies have been telling the public for years that frack fluid is mostly water and safe ingredients that are found in your home? Many
people have been saying for years that, even diluted, the frack fluid ingredients can be very harmful to health, and this case is just additional evidence.
Thanks to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for enforcing the law and levying the largest fine ever for a violation of the ESA in Kentucky. While the fine
was only $50,000, it is larger than many other fines paid by the oil and gas industry. Regulators should be imposing the highest penalties allowed under
the law to start to create an incentive for the oil and gas industry to stop violating regulations.
Fracking will hurt the environment and the economy
Gallay 2012(Paul, New York State’s Attorney General and Department of Environmental
Conservation, “Fracking—A Bad Bet for the Environment and Economy”, 1/6/12, EcoWatch)
http://ecowatch.com/2012/01/06/fracking-a-bad-bet-for-the-environment-and-economy/
As New York considers new hydrofracking regulations that would allow companies to drill an
estimated 48,000 gas wells across the rural countryside, many see the pitched battle over the
state’s fracking plan as a tug-of-war between the environment and the economy. In reality, both
will suffer if the frackers get their way.¶ Riverkeeper, the organization I lead, is devoted to
protecting the Hudson River and the drinking water supply for nine million New Yorkers. We
originally engaged with this issue to protect New York City’s drinking water, but the risks go far
beyond one watershed, even one so important it serves the nation’s largest city.¶ The risks
posed by hydrofracking are dead serious. Those YouTube clips that show people lighting their
drinking water on fire? They’re not isolated cases: Duke University recently proved that drinking
water wells near hydrofracking sites have 17 times more methane than wells not located near
fracking. Fracking operations have generated billions of gallons of radiation-laced toxic
wastewater that we can’t manage properly and forced families to abandon their homes
because of dangerous levels of arsenic, benzene and toluene in their blood. Fracking’s caused
earthquakes in Ohio and Oklahoma, ozone in Wyoming that out-smogs L.A. and a 200 percent
increase in childhood asthma in parts of Texas. A top federal scientist admits we just don’t
know enough about all the different ways fracking can make us sick.¶ Given this parade of
horribles, it’s no surprise that environmentalists aren’t alone in warning against New York’s rush
to frack—dozens of counties and towns in the Empire State have imposed moratoriums or bans
on fracking. It’s also no surprise that only 13 percent of New Yorkers polled by Quinnipiac
College believe that fracking is safe for the environment. Yet, the frackers are still icing
champagne, in anticipation of a thumbs-up later this year. They know that a whopping 30
percent of all New Yorkers are so worried about the economy they want fracking to happen
whether or not it’s safe for the environment.¶ You’ve got to wonder what those folks would say
if they knew that fracking has so many drawbacks it would leave New York in worse economic
shape, not better.¶ Road maintenance alone will cost communities up to $375 million,
according to a draft report by the state Department of Transportation, since each well
generates about 4,000 extra heavy truck trips. Many local officials and businesspeople warn
that fracking will erode New York’s all-important tourism sector, by “creating an industrial
landscape that far outlives the profitability of gas extraction.” Studies show that drill-friendly
communities do worse than others in personal income, employment growth, economic
diversity, educational attainment and ability to attract investment. Then there are the risks to
private property and real estate. Several major national lenders refuse to grant mortgages to
homeowners with gas leases; fracking puts as much as $670 billion in secondary mortgage debt
at risk.¶ What’s truly scary is that state officials have ignored all this evidence about
hydrofracking’s potential to ruin our economy. The state did prepare an Economic Assessment
Report on fracking, with the help of a consultant. But, it appears that the consultant was asked
Page 96
to study only the economic benefits of fracking, as the report spends a scant seven pages
dismissing concerns about fracking’s negative economic impact, in terms so superficial they’d
make a booster blush, while devoting 250 pages to fracking’s supposed benefits.¶ New York is
one of the few states yet to give in to the frackers. That could change within months—unless
Gov. Andrew Cuomo pays heed to the tens of thousands of his constituents who have already
spoken out against fracking, and the tens of thousands more who are expected to do so before
the public comment period closes Jan. 11.¶ If Gov. Cuomo does give fracking the green light,
watch out. The drillers are going to have one hell of a party, and we New Yorkers will end up
with the hangover. However, if our famously rational governor thinks this one through, he can
avoid disaster. The facts show that hydrofracking doesn’t just destroy air and water quality,
undermine community character and make people sick. Fracking would also do serious harm to
New York’s economy. Net-net, fracking is simply a bad bet.¶ No question that America needs a
sustainable energy plan, but fracking is neither safe nor sustainable nor good for the economy.
Those who say it is are selling snake oil, not natural gas.
Page 97
Fracking = Bad for Econ
Economic disparity is the cherry on the cake for problems with fracking
Stop Drilling Go Clean, NO DATE
http://stopdrillinggoclean.org/economics/
The industry itself has been shown to be subject to a boom-bust economy of fossil fuel
extraction, according to a study by Cornell University. Currently the costs of natural gas have
dropped from approximately $15.00 per unit to $4.00 per unit due to the new technology in
answer to horizontal drilling for natural gas. This reduction in price has dramatically affected the
advancement of renewable energy sources in New York State. The lower return is also causing
companies to cut corners in the production of gas in Pennsylvania. Real Estate values have
dropped where drilling has taken place and buyers are unable to secure bank mortgages in
many drilled regions. New York attorneys are warning land owners about the danger to their
property values by signing gas drilling leases.¶ Our nation and our future generations are at
serious risk due to lobbyists, political contributions, and massive propaganda by fossil fuel
giants such as Exxon Mobil. Hydrofracking and horizontal drilling drives out many other
productive industries, destroys the economic quality of life, and turn areas into industrial
zones. According to a study by Cornell University, the economies of drilled areas are subject to
boom-bust economy of fossil fuels. Urban areas are vulnerable to the negative health impacts
of hydrofracking, which is why many cities have banned hydrofracking and why DEC has
prohibited hydrofracking in Syracuse and New York City’s watersheds. All of New York State
needs protection from this harmful practice.
Fracking will hurt the environment and the economy
Gallay 2012(Paul, New York State’s Attorney General and Department of Environmental
Conservation, “Fracking—A Bad Bet for the Environment and Economy”, 1/6/12, EcoWatch)
http://ecowatch.com/2012/01/06/fracking-a-bad-bet-for-the-environment-and-economy/
As New York considers new hydrofracking regulations that would allow companies to drill an
estimated 48,000 gas wells across the rural countryside, many see the pitched battle over the
state’s fracking plan as a tug-of-war between the environment and the economy. In reality, both
will suffer if the frackers get their way.¶ Riverkeeper, the organization I lead, is devoted to
protecting the Hudson River and the drinking water supply for nine million New Yorkers. We
originally engaged with this issue to protect New York City’s drinking water, but the risks go far
beyond one watershed, even one so important it serves the nation’s largest city.¶ The risks
posed by hydrofracking are dead serious. Those YouTube clips that show people lighting their
drinking water on fire? They’re not isolated cases: Duke University recently proved that drinking
water wells near hydrofracking sites have 17 times more methane than wells not located near
fracking. Fracking operations have generated billions of gallons of radiation-laced toxic
wastewater that we can’t manage properly and forced families to abandon their homes
because of dangerous levels of arsenic, benzene and toluene in their blood. Fracking’s caused
earthquakes in Ohio and Oklahoma, ozone in Wyoming that out-smogs L.A. and a 200 percent
increase in childhood asthma in parts of Texas. A top federal scientist admits we just don’t
know enough about all the different ways fracking can make us sick.¶ Given this parade of
horribles, it’s no surprise that environmentalists aren’t alone in warning against New York’s rush
to frack—dozens of counties and towns in the Empire State have imposed moratoriums or bans
Page 98
on fracking. It’s also no surprise that only 13 percent of New Yorkers polled by Quinnipiac
College believe that fracking is safe for the environment. Yet, the frackers are still icing
champagne, in anticipation of a thumbs-up later this year. They know that a whopping 30
percent of all New Yorkers are so worried about the economy they want fracking to happen
whether or not it’s safe for the environment.¶ You’ve got to wonder what those folks would say
if they knew that fracking has so many drawbacks it would leave New York in worse economic
shape, not better.¶ Road maintenance alone will cost communities up to $375 million,
according to a draft report by the state Department of Transportation, since each well
generates about 4,000 extra heavy truck trips. Many local officials and businesspeople warn
that fracking will erode New York’s all-important tourism sector, by “creating an industrial
landscape that far outlives the profitability of gas extraction.” Studies show that drill-friendly
communities do worse than others in personal income, employment growth, economic
diversity, educational attainment and ability to attract investment. Then there are the risks to
private property and real estate. Several major national lenders refuse to grant mortgages to
homeowners with gas leases; fracking puts as much as $670 billion in secondary mortgage debt
at risk.¶ What’s truly scary is that state officials have ignored all this evidence about
hydrofracking’s potential to ruin our economy. The state did prepare an Economic Assessment
Report on fracking, with the help of a consultant. But, it appears that the consultant was asked
to study only the economic benefits of fracking, as the report spends a scant seven pages
dismissing concerns about fracking’s negative economic impact, in terms so superficial they’d
make a booster blush, while devoting 250 pages to fracking’s supposed benefits.¶ New York is
one of the few states yet to give in to the frackers. That could change within months—unless
Gov. Andrew Cuomo pays heed to the tens of thousands of his constituents who have already
spoken out against fracking, and the tens of thousands more who are expected to do so before
the public comment period closes Jan. 11.¶ If Gov. Cuomo does give fracking the green light,
watch out. The drillers are going to have one hell of a party, and we New Yorkers will end up
with the hangover. However, if our famously rational governor thinks this one through, he can
avoid disaster. The facts show that hydrofracking doesn’t just destroy air and water quality,
undermine community character and make people sick. Fracking would also do serious harm to
New York’s economy. Net-net, fracking is simply a bad bet.¶ No question that America needs a
sustainable energy plan, but fracking is neither safe nor sustainable nor good for the economy.
Those who say it is are selling snake oil, not natural gas.
Economic disparity is the cherry on the cake for problems with fracking
Stop Drilling Go Clean, NO DATE
http://stopdrillinggoclean.org/economics/
The industry itself has been shown to be subject to a boom-bust economy of fossil fuel
extraction, according to a study by Cornell University. Currently the costs of natural gas have
dropped from approximately $15.00 per unit to $4.00 per unit due to the new technology in
answer to horizontal drilling for natural gas. This reduction in price has dramatically affected the
advancement of renewable energy sources in New York State. The lower return is also causing
companies to cut corners in the production of gas in Pennsylvania. Real Estate values have
dropped where drilling has taken place and buyers are unable to secure bank mortgages in
many drilled regions. New York attorneys are warning land owners about the danger to their
Page 99
property values by signing gas drilling leases.¶ Our nation and our future generations are at
serious risk due to lobbyists, political contributions, and massive propaganda by fossil fuel
giants such as Exxon Mobil. Hydrofracking and horizontal drilling drives out many other
productive industries, destroys the economic quality of life, and turn areas into industrial
zones. According to a study by Cornell University, the economies of drilled areas are subject to
boom-bust economy of fossil fuels. Urban areas are vulnerable to the negative health impacts
of hydrofracking, which is why many cities have banned hydrofracking and why DEC has
prohibited hydrofracking in Syracuse and New York City’s watersheds. All of New York State
needs protection from this harmful practice.
Fracking—A Bad Bet for the Environment and Economy
Gallay ‘12 Paul January 6, 2012 http://ecowatch.com/2012/01/06/fracking-a-bad-bet-for-the-environment-and-economy/
New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation, Riverkeeper’s President, graduate of Williams College and Columbia Law
School and has held a number of teaching positions, including a Visiting Professorship in Environmental Studies at Williams.
As New York considers new hydrofracking regulations that would allow companies to drill an estimated 48,000 gas wells across the
rural countryside, many see the pitched battle over the state’s fracking plan as a tug-of-war between the environment and the
economy. In reality, both will suffer if the frackers get their way. Riverkeeper, the organization I lead, is devoted to protecting the
Hudson River and the drinking water supply for nine million New Yorkers. We originally engaged with this issue to protect New York
City’s drinking water, but the risks go far beyond one watershed, even one so important it serves the nation’s largest city.
The
risks posed by hydrofracking are dead serious . Those YouTube clips that show people lighting their drinking
water on fire? They’re not isolated cases:
Duke University recently proved that drinking water wells near
hydrofracking sites have 17 times more methane than wells not located near fracking .
Fracking operations have generated billions of gallons of radiation-laced toxic wastewater
that we can’t manage properly
benzene and toluene in their blood.
and forced families to abandon their homes because of dangerous levels of arsenic,
Fracking’s caused earthquakes in Ohio and Oklahoma, ozone in
Wyoming that out-smogs L.A. and a 200 percent increase in childhood asthma in parts of
Texas. A top federal scientist admits we just don’t know enough about all the different ways
fracking can make us sick . Given this parade of horribles, it’s no surprise that environmentalists aren’t alone in warning
against New York’s rush to frack— dozens
of counties and towns in the Empire State have imposed
moratoriums or bans on fracking . It’s also no surprise that only 13 percent of New Yorkers
Quinnipiac College
polled by
believe that fracking is safe for the environment . Yet, the frackers are still icing champagne,
in anticipation of a thumbs-up later this year. They know that a whopping 30 percent of all New Yorkers are so worried about the
economy they want fracking to happen whether or not it’s safe for the environment. You’ve got to wonder what those folks would
say if they knew that fracking has so many drawbacks it would leave New York in worse economic shape, not better.
Road
maintenance alone will cost communities up to $375 million , according to a draft report by the state
Department of Transportation ,
since each well generates about 4,000 extra heavy truck trips . Many local
officials and businesspeople warn that fracking will erode New York’s all-important tourism sector, by “creating an industrial
landscape that far outlives the profitability of gas extraction.”
Studies show that drill-friendly communities do
worse than others in personal income, employment growth, economic diversity, educational
attainment and ability to attract investment . Then there are the risks to private property and real estate.
Several major national lenders refuse to grant mortgages to homeowners with gas leases;
Page 100
fracking puts as much as $670 billion in secondary mortgage debt at risk.
What’s truly scary is that
state officials have ignored all this evidence about hydrofracking’s potential to ruin our
economy . The state did prepare an Economic Assessment Report on fracking, with the help of a consultant. But, it appears that
the consultant was asked to study only the economic benefits of fracking , as the report spends a
scant seven pages dismissing concerns about fracking’s negative economic impact, in terms so superficial they’d make a booster
blush, while devoting 250 pages to fracking’s supposed benefits. New York is one of the few states yet to give in to the frackers. That
could change within months—unless Gov. Andrew Cuomo pays heed to the tens of thousands of his constituents who have already
spoken out against fracking, and the tens of thousands more who are expected to do so before the public comment period closes
Jan. 11. If Gov. Cuomo does give fracking the green light, watch out. The drillers are going to have one hell of a party, and we New
Yorkers will end up with the hangover. However, if our famously rational governor thinks this one through, he can avoid disaster.
The facts show that
hydrofracking doesn’t just destroy air and water quality, undermine
community character and make people sick.
net ,
fracking is simply a bad bet.
Fracking would also do serious harm to New York’s economy. Net-
No question that America needs a sustainable energy plan, but
fracking is
neither safe nor sustainable nor good for the economy. Those who say it is are selling snake
oil, not natural gas.
Page 101
Fracking = Quakes
Fracking causes seismic swarms that have increased earthquakes in Oklahoma by over 2000%
Lepisto 7/8/14 (Christina, Writer, “Oklahoma has more earthquakes than California, and a
few bad fracking reinjection wells may be to blame,” http://www.treehugger.com/corporateresponsibility/oklahoma-has-more-earthquakes-california-and-few-bad-fracking-reinjectionwells-may-be-blame.html)
Oklahoma experienced just two earthquakes of magnitude 3 or greater from 1978 through
2008. In 2013, it was 109. There have been 145 through May 2 of this year already. Almost half
(45%) of the earthquakes of magnitude 3 or greater in the central and eastern U.S. occurred in
the frack-happy state of Oklahoma. The suspicion that fracking may be behind a sudden
increase of earthquakes in Oklahoma is not new. But a study just released in Science magazine
by University of Cornell researchers enhances the evidence that reinjection can cause seismic
swarms. There is good news: the earthquakes appear to be related to a small minority of reinjection wells. During hydraulic facturing, known as
fracking, large volumes of fluid are pumped underground to pressurize and break rock, thereby releasing trapped natural gas. This "fracking water"
becomes contaminated during the process and cannot be released back into surface waters, so it is reinjected, often at high pressures and volumes. Dr.
Katie Keranen, of Cornell University, notes that Four of the highest-volume disposal wells in Oklahoma (~0.04% of wells) are capable of triggering ~20%
of recent central US earthquakes in a swarm covering nearly 2000 square kilometers. Only 4 out of 10,000 of wells causing half of the problems. This
could explain why industry representatives continue to protest that fracking and reinjection has been proven safe. More importantly, the the bad
actors can be identified and shut down, hopefully significantly minimizing the negative impacts of man-made earthquakes on residents of areas where
fracking growth has been embraced for creating jobs and energy independence. Once the earthquake problem is solved, we can go back to worrying
about the potential risk for groundwater pollution. A separate study at Cornell University recently identified yet another mechanism increasing the risk
of carrying contaminants from the path of the fracking fluids into clean groundwater reservoirs: the same properties that make the fluids effective at
fracking help fracking fluids dissolve contaminants like heavy metals that up until now have clung safely to soils in the form of colloids. This first
principle of risk management requires us to understand the risks so we can maximize the benefits while reducing negative impacts. Fast growing new
technologies like fracking often outpace the science needed to ensure safe implementation of the technology. The fracking backers should support this
good science more than the TreeHuggers do; it is their best hope to fend off the next NIMBY (not in my back yard) revolution.
Page 102
Add-on Advantages
Page 103
Aquaculture Add-on
OTEC Key to aquaculture
Environmental Defense Fund 13 (Environmental Defense Fund “OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY
AND ITS POSSIBILITES” June 13 http://earthtechling.com/2013/06/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-technology-and-itspossibilites/)
Because the deep ocean water pumped up to the OTEC facility is rich in nutrients and free of
pathogens, it can be used to raise fish or to grow marine organisms like, microalgae for
nutritional supplements. Doing this could actually reduce the environmental impact of OTEC,
since the cold water is allowed to warm up and the nutrients and carbon dioxide can be
removed by the farmed organisms.
OTEC solves hunger and BioD loss
Celestopea 99 (Celestopea, “Ocean Thermal Energy Converter” 2014
http://www.celestopea.com/OTEC.htm)
Inexhaustibly renewable, pollution free energy is merely the beginning of the benefits of
Celestopean OTEC's. Tropical oceans are nearly devoid of life. Because growing conditions are so
ideal, the algae's which are the base of the food chain, bloom in explosive growths that
quickly consume all nutrients. They then die and fall to the ocean depths leaving the surface
fairly empty of life. The cold, nitrogen and nutrient-rich water pulled up from the ocean
depths will seed a bloom of new life in the tropical ocean deserts. The resulting micro algae
and phytoplankton growth will nourish a tremendous increase in many types of fish and
higher forms of marine life. The algae will also be farmed both on the open sea and in large
shallow containment ponds. The combination of tropical sun, perfect water temperature and
nitrogen, nutrient laden water, will produce millions of tons of high quality protein each year.
As additional Celestopean cities and OTEC's begin to be created in the worlds oceans, the protein produced from our
sea farms will make a significant dent in the worldwide problem of hunger and malnutrition.
According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, an adult person should receive a minimum of 35 grams of
Each day, each 100 megawatt OTEC will pump up 6 billion gallons of deep ocean
water rich in nitrogen, the food of phytoplankton. A gallon of seawater contains 1.7 to 1.8 milligrams of
nitrogen. Phytoplankton, one of the most highly efficient organisms, will convert 78-80% of the
nitrogen into protein. The nitrogen in the daily pumped water of a single OTEC, will be
converted by the phytoplankton into over 8 tons of protein each day, of which 65% will be
high quality protein. If this high quality protein were harvested and manufactured into a pleasant consumable form, it
would be enough to feed almost 150,000 people each day. The 40 degree deep ocean water can be mixed
protein every day.
with warm surface water in any proportion to produce greenhouse and sea farm environments in temperature ranges between 45 -
This allows mini ecosystems to be created that can grow virtually all fruits and
vegetables from any continental climate. In addition to tropical fish, the sea farms will also
raise many types of cold water fish and shellfish such as salmon, lobster, abalone, trout, oysters and clams, that
90 degrees.
would normally not survive in warm tropical waters.
Page 104
Biodiversity
OTEC solves hunger and BioD loss
Celestopea 99 (Celestopea, “Ocean Thermal Energy Converter” 2014
http://www.celestopea.com/OTEC.htm)
Inexhaustibly renewable, pollution free energy is merely the beginning of the benefits of
Celestopean OTEC's. Tropical oceans are nearly devoid of life. Because growing conditions are so
ideal, the algae's which are the base of the food chain, bloom in explosive growths that
quickly consume all nutrients. They then die and fall to the ocean depths leaving the surface
fairly empty of life. The cold, nitrogen and nutrient-rich water pulled up from the ocean
depths will seed a bloom of new life in the tropical ocean deserts. The resulting micro algae
and phytoplankton growth will nourish a tremendous increase in many types of fish and
higher forms of marine life. The algae will also be farmed both on the open sea and in large
shallow containment ponds. The combination of tropical sun, perfect water temperature and
nitrogen, nutrient laden water, will produce millions of tons of high quality protein each year.
As additional Celestopean cities and OTEC's begin to be created in the worlds oceans, the protein produced from our
sea farms will make a significant dent in the worldwide problem of hunger and malnutrition.
According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, an adult person should receive a minimum of 35 grams of
Each day, each 100 megawatt OTEC will pump up 6 billion gallons of deep ocean
water rich in nitrogen, the food of phytoplankton. A gallon of seawater contains 1.7 to 1.8 milligrams of
nitrogen. Phytoplankton, one of the most highly efficient organisms, will convert 78-80% of the
nitrogen into protein. The nitrogen in the daily pumped water of a single OTEC, will be
converted by the phytoplankton into over 8 tons of protein each day, of which 65% will be
high quality protein. If this high quality protein were harvested and manufactured into a pleasant consumable form, it
would be enough to feed almost 150,000 people each day. The 40 degree deep ocean water can be mixed
protein every day.
with warm surface water in any proportion to produce greenhouse and sea farm environments in temperature ranges between 45 -
This allows mini ecosystems to be created that can grow virtually all fruits and
vegetables from any continental climate. In addition to tropical fish, the sea farms will also
raise many types of cold water fish and shellfish such as salmon, lobster, abalone, trout, oysters and clams, that
90 degrees.
would normally not survive in warm tropical waters.
Page 105
Rare Earth Metals
OTEC key to rare earth elements
Celestopea 99 (Celestopea, “Ocean Thermal Energy Converter” 2014
http://www.celestopea.com/OTEC.htm)
Many minerals and chemicals can also be derived as byproducts of OTEC operation from the 57
elements dissolved in solution in seawater. Besides the fuels hydrogen, oxygen and methanol, other
byproducts include ammonia, salt, chlorine and eventually gold, platinum and other rare and
precious elements. Past corporate analysis has always shown such ventures to be unprofitable because of the cost of
pumping the large volume of water necessary to extract significant amounts of minerals. This main stumbling block is overcome as
The necessary mining technology is
leaping forward as well. The Japanese have recently been experimenting with extraction of
uranium from seawater and found pending technology in material sciences is making mining
minerals from seawater feasible.
the OTEC's will already be pumping vast quantities of water for other purposes.
Page 106
Jobs Add-On
OTEC has the potential to cover US electricity supply and create jobs.
Blanchard 11(Whitney, Energy Specialist Contractor with NOAA, “Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion Contribution to Energy”. StakerForum. 2011.
http://www.stakeholderforum.org/fileadmin/files/EnergyOTEC%20Contribution%20to%20Energy.pdf)
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) is a marine renewable energy technology that
harnesses the solar energy absorbed by the oceans. OTEC is an attractive technology with the potential to
provide baseload electricity unlike other ocean renewable that are intermittent (e.g., wind, wave, and tidal energy). The technology
uses the temperature differences between the deep cold and relatively warmer surface waters of the ocean to generate electricity
and it
is potentially viable in over eighty countries, primarily in equatorial areas where the
year-round temperature differential is at least 20 degrees Celsius. A preliminary global OTEC
power resource assessment is estimated to be 5 terawatts (i.e., one million megawatts)(Nihous 2007). In
comparison, the United States generating capacity in 2010 was less than 1.13 terawatts (EIA
2011) and in 2006, the global electricity generating capacity was just over 4 terawatts (2008). Most electricity production
is generated from fossil fuels (e.g., petroleum and coal) or nuclear power. OTEC has the
potential to contribute to the future energy mix offering more sustainable electricity
production. An OTEC industry would require a new supply chain creating employment. Each commercial-scale OTEC
facility is anticipated to create approximately 4,000 new jobs spanning one to four years (Lockheed 2011).
OTEC has the potential to cover US electricity supply and create jobs.
Blanchard 11(Whitney, Energy Specialist Contractor with NOAA, “Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion Contribution to Energy”. StakerForum. 2011.
http://www.stakeholderforum.org/fileadmin/files/EnergyOTEC%20Contribution%20to%20Energy.pdf)
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) is a marine renewable energy technology that
harnesses the solar energy absorbed by the oceans. OTEC is an attractive technology with the potential to
provide baseload electricity unlike other ocean renewable that are intermittent (e.g., wind, wave, and tidal energy). The technology
uses the temperature differences between the deep cold and relatively warmer surface waters of the ocean to generate electricity
and it
is potentially viable in over eighty countries, primarily in equatorial areas where the
year-round temperature differential is at least 20 degrees Celsius. A preliminary global OTEC
power resource assessment is estimated to be 5 terawatts (i.e., one million megawatts)(Nihous 2007). In
comparison, the United States generating capacity in 2010 was less than 1.13 terawatts (EIA
2011) and in 2006, the global electricity generating capacity was just over 4 terawatts (2008). Most electricity production
is generated from fossil fuels (e.g., petroleum and coal) or nuclear power. OTEC has the
potential to contribute to the future energy mix offering more sustainable electricity
production. An OTEC industry would require a new supply chain creating employment. Each commercial-scale OTEC
facility is anticipated to create approximately 4,000 new jobs spanning one to four years (Lockheed 2011).
Page 107
World Hunger
OTEC helps solve world hunger.
Barry 08(Christopher B., a naval architect and co-chair of the Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers ad hoc panel on ocean renewable energy, Works for the Coast Guard. “Ocean
Thermal Energy Conversion and CO2 Sequestration.” Renewable Energy World .Com. 1 July
2008. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/07/ocean-thermalenergy-conversion-and-co2-sequestration-52762)
There might be an additional benefit: Another saying is "we aren't trying to solve world hunger," but we may have. Increased
ocean fertility may enhance fisheries substantially. In addition, by using OTEC energy to make
nitrogen fertilizers, we can improve agriculture in the developing world. OTEC fertilizer could
be sold to developing countries at a subsidy in exchange for using the tropic oceans. If we can
solve the challenges of OTEC, especially carbon sequestration, it would seem that the Branson Challenge is met, and we have saved
the earth, plus solving world hunger. Since President Jimmy Carter originally started OTEC research in the '70's, he deserves the
credit. I'm sure he will find a good use for Sir Richard's check.
OTEC can help produce food for the world.
Savage, 1992 (Marshall T., n/c, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy
Steps. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 34)
In the process of producing power, the OTECs pump vast quantities of cold water up from the depths.
This deep water is saturated with nitrogen and other nutrients. When this nutrient-rich water
hits the warm sunlit surface, algae populations explode. The algae are cultivated in broad shallow
containment ponds that spread out around the central island of Aquarius like the leaves of a water lily. The algae soak in the
tropical sun, absorbing the rich nutrient broth from the depths and producing millions of tons
of bacteria ¶ Aquarius will be the first of the new cybergenic life forms, but by no means the last. Once we have grown
ten thousand of these colonial super-organisms, we will culture and harvest enough proteinrich algae to feed every hungry human on Earth. We will generate enough electrical power—
converted into clean-burning hydrogen—to completely replace all fossil fuels. We will build
enough living space to house hundreds of millions of people in self-sufficient, pollution-free,
comfort. We will learn the harsh lessons of space colonization in the mellow school of a tropical paradise. And, we will unleash a
torrential cash flow—large enough to underwrite any adventures in space we care to imagine.
OTEC SOLVES WORLD HUNGER
Barry 08’, Christopher D. "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and CO2
Sequestration." Renewable Energy World. N.p., 1 July 2008. Web. 12 July 2014.
<http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/07/ocean-thermal-energyconversion-and-co2-sequestration-52762>.
An OTEC plant optimized for ocean fertility will also probably be different than one
optimized to generate power, so any OTEC-based carbon scheme has to include transfer
payments of some sort — it won't come for free. Finally, who owns the ocean thermal
resource? Most plants will be in international waters, though these waters tend to be off the
coasts of the developing world. Saving the World There might be an additional benefit:
Another saying is "we aren't trying to solve world hunger," but we may have. Increased
ocean fertility may enhance fisheries substantially. In addition, by using OTEC energy to
make nitrogen fertilizers, we can improve agriculture in the developing world. OTEC
fertilizer could be sold to developing countries at a subsidy in exchange for using the tropic
Page 108
oceans. If we can solve the challenges of OTEC, especially carbon sequestration, it would
seem that the Branson Challenge is met, and we have saved the earth, plus solving world
hunger. Since President Jimmy Carter originally started OTEC research in the '70's, he
deserves the credit. I'm sure he will find a good use for Sir Richard's check.
The sea solves both hunger and energy crises.
Savage, 1992 (Marshall T., n/c, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy
Steps. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 26-27)
There is a source from which we can get both the food and the energy we need to survive,
without devouring or poisoning the planet. It is no coincidence that the original source of all life should in the end
be our salvation. Just as she gave us birth in the beginning, now she will save us in the end. She is our original mother and our
ultimate savior—the
sea. ¶ The global ocean can provide enough energy and nutrients for us to
survive detonation of the population bomb. The warm surface waters of the sea hold and inexhaustible charge of
solar energy. The oceans of the world function as gigantic solar collectors. The sun transmits to earth 18,000 times
as much energy as mankind uses. An enormous amount of this radiant flux is stored in the surface of the oceans.
Each ton of sea water contains as much energy as two pounds of gasoline. The energy
contained in the world’s sea water is equivalent to filling the ocean basins twenty feet deep in
high-octane fuel. Altogether, the world’s oceans contain 5 X 1021 BTU of potential energy—an
amount equal to a million billion barrels of oil. There is enough latent energy in the oceans to
supply the entire world power demand for 25,000 years. And it is renewable. ¶ The world’s oceans
contain 550 billion metric tons of nitrates. This is 36 times more nitrogen than is held in the planet’s entire biomass. In 1986 the U.S.
used 20 million tons of fertilizers; the nitrogen in the oceans could supply this demand for 27,000 years. These reserves of oceanic
nutrients are the yolk of our planetary egg. To survive this embryonic phase of our species’ development we need only tap the
oceanic yolk sac. ¶ Healing Gaia¶ The
resources we need can be produced at virtually no cost to the
Earth’s failing ecosystem. The sea colonies can help solve the world’s energy and food crises
without exacerbating its environmental crisis. The sea colonies can double the world’s supply
of energy, and do it without increasing carbon dioxide or acid rain, without disturbing an acre
of ground, and without depleting any limited resources. Marine colonies, will, like all space colonies, make
use of space which is now ecologically barren. The open oceans are largely lifeless due to a lack of nutrients. The marine
colonies will therefore displace no pre-existing ecosystems.
OTEC SOLVES WORLD HUNGER
Barry 08’, Christopher D. "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and CO2
Sequestration." Renewable Energy World. N.p., 1 July 2008. Web. 12 July 2014.
<http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/07/ocean-thermal-energyconversion-and-co2-sequestration-52762>.
An OTEC plant optimized for ocean fertility will also probably be different than one
optimized to generate power, so any OTEC-based carbon scheme has to include transfer
payments of some sort — it won't come for free. Finally, who owns the ocean thermal
resource? Most plants will be in international waters, though these waters tend to be off the
coasts of the developing world. Saving the World There might be an additional benefit:
Another saying is "we aren't trying to solve world hunger," but we may have. Increased
ocean fertility may enhance fisheries substantially. In addition, by using OTEC energy to
make nitrogen fertilizers, we can improve agriculture in the developing world. OTEC
fertilizer could be sold to developing countries at a subsidy in exchange for using the tropic
oceans. If we can solve the challenges of OTEC, especially carbon sequestration, it would
Page 109
seem that the Branson Challenge is met, and we have saved the earth, plus solving world
hunger. Since President Jimmy Carter originally started OTEC research in the '70's, he
deserves the credit. I'm sure he will find a good use for Sir Richard's check
Page 110
Fisheries Add-on
The renewable energy produced by OTEC processes can support marine fisheries
Golemen 05
Lars G.
, 20
(Lars Golemen is a scientist for the Norwegian Institute for Water Research; World Renewable
Energy Congress (WREC 2005); “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and the Next Generation Fisheries” ;
http://www.rundecentre.no/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Article-OTEC-NGF-WREC-conference-2005.pdf)
The world’s fisheries are in decline and so are also the reservoirs of fossil fuels. OTEC (Ocean
Thermal Energy Conversion) is a process that can harness vast amounts of renewable thermal
energy from the ocean and convert it to electricity. OTEC prototypes of the order of 1 MW have been tested, and GW-size floating
plants have been designed. Work is now in progress in the USA, Japan and Norway to design OTEC plants that are combined with large-scale fish farming. Nutrientrich deep ocean water used by the OTEC process would be applied to produce phytoplankton
which, in turn, would be consumed by zooplankton and thus provide feed for fish . The Next Generation
Fisheries (NGF) design as presented here is different, and will have minimal or no negative environmental impact. Additionally, excess renewable
energy that is produced that can be converted into useful products, or exported to the
onshore power grid. OTEC produces electricity from a heat engine driven by the temperature difference between warm surface ocean water and cold deep
ocean water (Avery and Wu, 1994). The most favourable conditions are found in the tropical and sub-tropical regions, and usually the concept is envisioned as a floating plant in
ocean waves
and tides, OTEC is a base load renewable, available 24 hours a day due to the large heat
resource available in the ocean. The 1973 ‘oil shock’ fostered intense interest in renewables as an alternative to fossil fuels. Most OTEC
plants are based on the Rankine cycle or its variants, i.e., they operate by heating and
evaporating a working fluid in a boiler/evaporator, then expanding the vapour produced
through a turbine before condensing the low-pressure vapour in a condenser. Heat is extracted from the
deep water, but it can also be installed on land, near-shore. Unlike other renewable energy systems utilizing nonsteady sources like wind, solar PV,
warm surface water and rejected into cold sea water brought up from depths below the thermocline. A minimum temperature difference of about 20°C is needed in order to
Closed cycle OTEC (CC-OTEC) utilizes pressurized working fluids with low boiling
points such as ammonia, refrigerants, and some hydrocarbons. The small operating temperature range, which is
generate net power.
established by the temperature difference between the surface and deep sea water, complicates heat transfer in the evaporator and condenser and generally requires large
reducing the cost and improving the performance of heat exchangers
remain the primary focus of CC-OTEC development. Still, industry claims that present available technology can be applied to the
heat transfer surface areas. As a result,
construction of modular Closed Cycle OTEC plants with generating capacity of hundreds of MW (Gautier et al., 2001). Open cycle OTEC (OC-OTEC) uses seawater as the working
fluid. The system is operated under partial vacuum to allow flash evaporation of the warm sea water. While direct contact heat exchangers can be employed in the OC-OTEC
process, which represent a major cost savings over CC-OTEC, this cycle has its distinct technical challenges such as maintaining vacuum and eliminating non-condensable gases
. One
advantage of OCOTEC that has been routinely touted is that it can be configured directly to
produce potable water as a by-product. On this basis, there is capacity for sustainable energy production of about 12 TW, which is about twice
the current global demand for primary energy. In the short-to-medium term, floating OTEC plants of a few hundreds
of MW capacity could supply a significant amount of electricity in subtropical areas with direct
access to the deep cold water resource. OTEC systems could also be configured to produce
energy carriers, such as ammonia or hydrogen (Gauthier et al., 2001) or other marketable byproducts such as potable water. Figure 1
shows a number of commodities that could be generated by a multi-product OTEC system. Recent studies by a number of organizations, including the Food and
that evolve from the sea water at low pressure. Furthermore, the low density steam requires very large turbines to produce any significant levels of power
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the Pew Ocean Commission, have
concluded that the world’s commercial marine fisheries are currently fully exploited,
overexploited, or depleted . While traditional fish farming can, up to a point, fulfill the demand, it relies heavily on feed made from fish and other
marine species. This serves to contribute to the decimation of the natural marine protein..
From a feeding perspective, fish farming can
be very efficient . To circumvent this barrier without applying additional pressure to increasingly vulnerable marine environment, an alternative approach has
been proposed to enhance natural fish stocks locally. The key factor for feed production in NGF is the utilisation of
nutrient rich Deep Ocean Water (DOW) that has been pumped to the surface for use as a
Page 111
thermal sink in OTEC. After passing through the OTEC system, the DOW will be warmed by 5-10°C. Typically, this still cold water is mixed with the effluent
warm surface water before being discharged below the surface to minimize thermal pollution. Since the effluent DOW has high nutrient
content (nitrates, phosphates and silicates) compared to surface waters, it has great
potential for enhanced production of biomass by photosynthesis. DOW fertilization is the
same mechanism that drives new production following natural, winddriven ocean upwelling
that occurs along the continental margins, which enhances primary production that sustains
fisheries (e.g., offshore Chile). In fact, DOW from OTEC is expected to have higher nutrient levels
than the naturally upwelled water that originates from shallower depths corresponding to the thermocline. The rationale of integrating OTEC
and mariculture is that the OTEC cycle can provide the power required to bring up large
volumes of DOW with a net surplus of electricity which can, in turn, be sold or used for other
fisheries operations or to produce marketable by-products. Zooplankton will feed on the
algae, and in turn become feed for herbivorous fish downstream in the plant. Herbivorous
fish (like tilapia) can feed directly on the algae. Alternatively, the algae biomass can be
converted by biodegradation to useful products like methane. The NGF concept has been studied for some time, and
designs have been proposed (Takahashi 2004). In October, 2004, the Japanese Ministry of fisheries hosted a meeting on NGF between representatives from Japan, USA and
Norway, with the aim to boost development of the NGF concept, preferrably in several countries. The meeting set up the priorities for further development, where the Pacific
International Center for High Technology Research (PICHTR) in Hawaii may become the coordinator. Priority number one is to secure funding for a joint, multilateral project
involving the present
Page 112
2AC Answers
Page 113
AT: Case Args
Page 114
AT: Case Turns (Generic)
No negative effects from OTEC
Dept. Energy Efficiency and Renewables 2013 (“Ocean Thermal Energy conversion
Basics”) http://energy.gov/eere/energybasics/articles/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-basics
In general, careful site selection is key to keeping the environmental effects of OTEC minimal.
OTEC experts believe that appropriate spacing of plants throughout tropical oceans can nearly
eliminate any potential negative effects on ocean temperatures and marine life.¶ OTEC power
plants require substantial capital investment upfront. OTEC researchers believe private sector
firms probably will be unwilling to make the enormous initial investment required to build largescale plants until the price of fossil fuels increases dramatically or national governments provide
financial incentives. Another factor hindering the commercialization of OTEC is that there are
only a few hundred land-based sites in the tropics where deep-ocean water is close enough to
shore to make OTEC plants feasible.
The problems involved with OTEC are easily overcome
Kempenar & Neumann ’14 (Ruud, postdoctoral research fellow in the Belfer Center's
Energy Research, Development, Demonstration & Deployment, Frank, IMIEU Director Institute
for Infrastructure, Environment and Innovation, June 2014, “OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY
CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY BRIEF”,
http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/Ocean_Thermal_Energy_V4_web.pdf)
Another environmental aspect to be considered is fish entrapment although, this could be
resolved by fencing. Some of the problems can be solved by locating the larger installations
farther off the coast. The US Department of Energy (DOE) has recently brought out a more detailed study regarding the ecological aspects
of OTEC (DOE, 2012). This study, which is based on computational models, suggests that OTEC plants with discharge at 70 meters of depth or more
have no effect on the upper 40 meters of the ocean’s surface, and that the effect on picoplankton in the 70-110 meter depth layer is well within
naturally occurring variability. The third challenge is from a financial/planning perspective. Large scale OTEC plants require high up-front capital costs,
and the current prices per kWh are not competitive with other mainland energy generation technologies. A new development is that some companies
are now offering bankable turnkey projects (Brochard, 2013; Johnson, 2013). Land planning issues may also create a problem. On the positive side,
however, OTEC
could be used as flexible base-load in a system with a large amount of
intermittent renewables. A combination of different renewables in hybrid technologies can have positive impacts on the investment
prospects.
Page 115
AT: Feasibility (Tech/Timeframe)
OTEC is market ready—offshore oil and marine engineering tech platforms
already exist. It’s only a question of funding
Cohen 2012 (Robert, OTEC consultant and advisor to Lockheed-Martin, “OTEC could soon be used: the technology in the
midst of the international,” Marine Energy Times. October 2012. Page http://www.marineenergytimes.com/could-otec-soon-beused-partii-in-the-midst-of-international-competition.html)
RC : Ocean
thermal is the only remaining vast, untapped source of renewable energy, and is
now ripe for commercialization. The near market-readiness of this technology is largely
attributable to the remarkable ocean-engineering innovations and successful experience of
the offshore oil industry during the past thirty years in developing, investing in, and
introducing mammoth floating platforms. That achievement has inadvertently satisfied ocean
thermal’s key operational requirement, for a large, stable, reliable ocean platform capable of
operating in storms, hurricanes and typhoons.¶ ¶ Consequently, adaptations of those offshoreocean-platform designs can be spun-off to supply the proven ocean-engineering framework
on which to mount the specialized ocean thermal plant and plantship heat exchangers, turbomachinery, cold
water pipe (CWP) system, and other components and subsystems. Those offshore engineering
achievements have greatly reduced the real and perceived risks of investing in ocean thermal
plants.¶ ¶ Most of the required ocean thermal sub-systems and components are now marketready, having reached technological maturity and availability. However, one technological challenge unique to offshore ocean
thermal power systems remains:¶ The development of technically and economically viable offshore technology needed to design,
deploy, and operate survivable large-diameter, commercial-scale CWPs (cold water pipe approx. length 1000 meters; approx.
diameter 10 meters)
Now is the key time—we already have the tech to begin an OTEC platform
Cohen 2012 (Robert, OTEC consultant and advisor to Lockheed-Martin, “OTEC could soon be used: the technology in the
midst of the international,” Marine Energy Times. October 2012. Page http://www.marineenergytimes.com/could-otec-soon-beused-partii-in-the-midst-of-international-competition.html)
RC : The Lockheed
Martin (LM) company began rebuilding its ocean thermal engineerring team in 2007.
That year the team began developing CWP technology for commercial ocean thermal plants ,
and during the next four years has made considerable progress toward that goal. LM’s impressive 2011 report to DOE on that progress, entitled “OTEC
Advanced Composite Cold Water Pipe: Final Technical Report”, can be downloaded from a DOE Web site. Completion
of engineering
development of commercial-size CWP technology can be conducted in parallel with successful
demonstration of an offshore, utility-scale, multi-megawatt ocean thermal pilot plant.¶ ¶ Thus
the time is ripe for addressing and surmounting an initial two-step technical, economic, and financing
hurdle:¶ ¶ Step 1) Obtaining data from the successful operation of a multi-megawatt, utility-scale demonstration ocean thermal power plant, in
parallel with additional CWP development, which can be completed by year 2016; ¶ ¶ Step 2) Using those data as a basis for designing and operating the
first-of-a-kind commercial plant (ca. 100 MWe) by year 2020, whose electricity is expected to be cost-competitive with oil-derived electricity at many
island locations.¶ ¶ With production-economies, innovation, and experience from subsequent commercial power plants, there will be continuing
decreases in plant capital cost.
Neg: Renewable energy CP: Wave/Tidal/Current power will create the tech
needed to make OTEC feasible—the CP is a prerequisite. Prefer our reluctant
testimony—it’s from an OTEC advocate.
Cohen 2012 (Robert, OTEC consultant and advisor to Lockheed-Martin, “OTEC could soon be used: the technology in the
midst of the international,” Marine Energy Times. October 2012. Page http://www.marineenergytimes.com/could-otec-soon-beused-partii-in-the-midst-of-international-competition.html)
RC : The
fact that ocean thermal’s three sister ocean energy technologies¶ (to harness waves, currents, and
tides) are already progressing toward becoming significant commercial energy sources is , I believe,
helping pave the way for ocean thermal technology to enter the commercial arena. That is because
Page 116
all four of these ocean energy technologies share certain technical requirements , especially their
need to convey their “stranded” electrical power from the ocean to the people, either via cable, or through storage in some other
form prior to shipment of the product.¶ ¶ Likely sea-to-shore transfer techniques include submarine electric cables, pipelines, and
ocean tankers. Besides electricity, candidate ocean energy products for on-board manufacture include energy-carriers/fuels (such as
hydrogen and ammonia),¶ energy-intensive products (such as ammonia for fertilizer), and fresh water. Ocean
thermal
designs and development will benefit in these areas from some of the prior technology and
experience resulting from the commercial development of the other three ocean energy
technologies.
OTEC works despite low efficiency.
Savage, 1992 (Marshall T., n/c, The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy
Steps. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. p. 35)
In the tropical seas, surface waters, bathed in the intense light of the equatorial sun, are heated to 80˚+ F. (26.6˚ C.); deep waters,
condemned to centuries in utter darkness, are cooled to 40˚F (4.44˚C.). This difference in temperature is enough to run a thermal
engine, albeit at low efficiency. (The greater the difference in temperature, the more efficient the engine.)¶
A typical fossil
fuel plant will convert 40% of the energy available in the fuel to electricity. An OTEC, will
convert only 2.5% of the available energy to electricity. Usually, this would seem a ridiculously
low level of efficiency not warranting any consideration as a realistic source of energy—but there is nothing usual
about the sea. At sea, even very low levels of thermal efficiency are rendered practical by the
sheer size of the available resource.
OTEC is technologically feasible, support now
SBI, 2009 (Ocean Energy Technologies World Wide “Ocean energy technologies &
component worldwide”; June 1,2009; http://www.sbireports.com/ocean-energytechnologies-1928480/)
terminator devices can be built with existing breakwater technology. The
most common terminator device used is an oscillating water column (OWC) used in an onshore
or near-shore structure. These devices use a combination of pneumatic energy and
Similar to attenuators,
mechanical energy to generate power. As water enters the water column through a
subsurface opening, it exerts pressure on the air above it.
The subsequent wave motion then acts as a piston,
. Energetech has been testing a full-scale,
at Port Kembla, Australia and is developing another OWC project for Rhode Island.
moving the air up into a turbine that rotates and generates electricity
500kW OWC
OTEC used now to solve for energy dependence
McClatchy July 16, 2011 (Tribune Buisness News, “OTEC remains a promising option”)
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorials/20110716_OTEC_remains_a_promising_option.html?id=125678823
July 16--OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION -- the technology known better as OTEC that more than 30 years ago was
viewed as the great hope for this oil-dependent state -- gradually lost some of the cachet it had among funders of research. Now it's
beginning to make a comeback, and that ought to be applauded by anyone concerned about Hawaii's energy future. ¶ Although OTEC
last week a demonstration project using the
technology was launched on a barge off Hawaii's Kona Coast, at the Natural Energy Laboratory
of Hawaii.¶ Its sponsors at Makai Ocean Engineering say the project's roughly $6 million in federal funds
underwrite a search for ways to make a commercial project more viable. The primary cost
hurdles are the heat exchanger that enables electrical generation and the system of pipes that
circulate the seawater.¶ Hawaii is suited to OTEC because it has both warm and cold seawater within
fairly easy reach. The heat from the surface water is used to generate steam from a fluid with a low
boiling point, ammonia in this case. The steam drives the turbine and the cold, deep water is
used to chill and re-liquefy the ammonia for reuse.
is a long way from becoming a commercial power source,
Page 117
Page 118
AT: Security
OTEC enhances global security
Websdale, 2014 (Emma, environmental journalist and senior communication specialist at Ocean Thermal Energy
Corporation, “5 Reasons Why Hundreds of People Think OTEC Is a Smart Investment,” Empower the Ocean, January 27,
http://empowertheocean.com/otec-a-smart-investment/)
Investments of over US$260m (£168m) into research and development funds (R&D) for Ocean
Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) have made harvesting this renewable energy immediately
achievable. OTEC’s ability to simultaneously produce voluminous quantities of fresh drinking
water and baseload renewable energy will be a substantial factor in reducing global waterstress conflict and safeguarding international security.
OTEC Key to Energy SecurityCole 2012 (Barry, Executive Vice President OTEC International, LLC) “Draft Environmental
Assessment OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT
AND DEMONSTRATION FACILITY KE‘AHOLE, NORTH KONA, HAWAI`I” 7/11/2012
http://www.oteci.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Draft_EA-071012_reduced.pdf
Following stabilization, OTI will continue to produce electricity, running the plant constantly
to emulate a floating OTEC platform supplying electricity to a utility grid. OTI will moderate
power output to mimic peak load, nominal load and off-peak (minimum) load. The load bank
assures that the plant can continue to operate even if the HELCO grid fails. Because the load bank is
water-cooled, electrical energy is converted to heat and put back into the water being discharged from the plant. A sub-stream of DSW
leaving the power block could be be routed to the load banks cooling pool and then discharged to the injection wells. In the instance of
water- cooled load banks, the volume of water to be used is unknown, but only a small fraction of the total discharge stream,
Mixing the load bank water discharge with the total discharge stream would mask temperature differences at the injection
well head. Air-cooled load banks are being considered and an economical alternative to water-cooled system.
Page 119
AT: Weather Interruptions
Your hurricane claims are laughable. 25 years of Hawaiian OTEC proves that
storms and hurricanes don’t interrupt facilities.
Websdale, 2014 (Emma, environmental journalist and senior communication specialist at Ocean Thermal Energy
Corporation, “5 Reasons Why Hundreds of People Think OTEC Is a Smart Investment,” Empower the Ocean, January 27,
http://empowertheocean.com/otec-a-smart-investment/)
The OTEC demonstration plant, built in Hawaii in the 1990s, bears witness to OTEC’s reliability
against tropical storms and hurricanes. With twenty uninterrupted years of cold deep ocean
water flowing through its pipes, the facility proves that climate-driven weather events pose
minimal threat to OTEC’s functional components. This makes OTEC technology one of the most stable
foundations on which to build a future of clean global energy.
Page 120
AT: Reliability
OTEC is a dependable energy source, Sri Lanka proves
Sri Lankan Newspaper 11/14/2012 (The Island website, “Sri Lanka mulls ocean thermal
conversion for renewable energy”) http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/news/sri-lanka-mullsocean-thermal-energy-option/878753267
Sri Lanka is considering OTEC, or ocean thermal energy conversion, in the eastern deep-water harbour of Trincomalee as
part of a renewable energy drive, Minister of Power and Energy Champika Ranawaka said. ¶ "We're trying to promote
renewable energy," he told a forum of exporters organized by the National Chamber of Exporters to discuss the island's
future power plans. "Trincomalee is one of the best places for OTEC and we're now exploring its
possibilities," Ranawaka said.¶ OTEC is an energy technology that converts solar radiation to
electric power using the ocean's natural "thermal gradient" - temperature differences
between different layers of water in the sea - to generate power.¶ Tropical waters close to the
equator with narrow continental shelves and steep offshore slopes and relatively smooth sea
floors are considered good locations for OTEC.¶ Trincomalee, a natural harbour with a deep
trench, has long been considered a potential site for OTEC but the island's 30-year ethnic war
which ended last year had held up plans to exploit its potential.
OTEC operates a higher percentage of the time than other ocean renewables.
Blanchard 11(Whitney, Energy Specialist Contractor with NOAA, “Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion Contribution to Energy”. StakerForum.
2011.http://www.stakeholderforum.org/fileadmin/files/EnergyOTEC%20Contribution%20to%20Energy.pdf)
A unique feature of an OTEC facility is the cold water pipe which must be constructed to withstand ocean conditions. In
order to
obtain the temperature differential required for a 100 megawatt facility, a 10 m diameter pipe
must be able to withdraw water at a 1000 m depth. Most offshore OTEC development is designed as a closedcycle facility where warm and cold seawater pass through heat exchangers in contact with a working fluid with a low boiling point
(i.e., ammonia). Once the seawater has passed through the heat exchanger, it is discharged back into the ocean. The working fluid
goes through cycles of vaporization (heat transferred from the warm water) and condensation (heat transferred to the cold water)
which drives a turbine generator to produce electricity. OTEC
facilities are projected to operate 85-95% of the
time (Avery and Wu 1994) which is a greater capacity factor than intermittent ocean renewable
technologies. An OTEC facility continuously requires large volumes of both warm and cold water to generate electricity and for
every net megawatt of electricity produced, approximately 3 m3/s of cold water is needed (Nibhous 2010). A 100 megawatt facility
would require at least 600 m3/s of combined warm and cold seawater which is greater than any existing industry that uses cooling
water (e.g., costal nuclear power plants). The environmental impacts from OTEC operations, including from the water intakes and
discharge, are not well studied or understood.
Page 121
AT: Timeframe
After passing the plan we could have OTEC in as little as five years
Vega 12, Luis A. (Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, School of Ocean And Earth Science And Technology, University
of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA)"Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion." N.p., Aug. 2012. Web. 14 July 2014.
http://hinmrec.hnei.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/OTEC-Summary-Aug-2012.pdf)
In discussing OTEC’s potential, it is important to remember that implementation of the first plant
would take about 5-years after order is placed . This is illustrated with the baseline schedule shown
in Table 9. Completion of the engineering design with specifications and shop drawings would
take 1-year. Presently, it is estimated that the licensing and permitting process through NOAA
(in accordance with the OTEC Act) would take at least 1 year for commercial plants with the
provision of exemptions from the licensing process for plants considered to be test plants
because of the limited duration of the operational phase.
Page 122
AT: OTEC Hurts Environment
No environment effects—OTEC has built-in safety measures
Dworksy, 2006 (Rick, environmental conservationalist, and government advisor, “A Warm Bath of Energy: Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion,” Energy Bulletin, June 5, p. http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-06-05/warm-bath-energy-ocean-thermalenergy-conversion)
OTEC can be built with non-exotic materials which do not require expensive secure disposal. While some designs (Uehara Cycle)
require titanium, it has also been shown in other designs that the heat exchangers can be made of common aluminum without
excessive corrosion problems.¶ At this time OTEC
appears to offer an environmentally neutral energy
source. The intermittent injection of minimal amounts of chlorine to prevent bio-fouling of the warm
water intakes, and the leaching of metal particles and other materials via erosion/corrosion would probably be
environmentally insignificant. Large storage tanks for chlorine would not be necessary - small amounts could be
generated 'live' as required to manage the danger to personnel. No bio-fouling within the cold water intake tube has occurred.
Although a 100% kill rate for small organisms such as phytoplankton that get drawn into the warm
water intakes is probably inevitable, it is believed that this can be mitigated by the pumped
'upwelling' of cold deep fertile waters and the outfall effluent. Only extensive monitoring of an installed
mid-size test facility can enable a comprehensive environmental assessment, and find the balance point between bloom and bust.
Adjustments of the outfall depth may be necessary, according to local conditions. It may well be the case that OTEC
can target
some of the energy that causes damaging and catastrophic storms and redirect it into useful
work, if large mobile floating platforms become a reality. We should carefully consider when a location can host the process and
remain within its normal temperature gradient range, this would be similar to concerns about the energy absorption effects of solar
panels and windmills. OTEC
appears to be a vast, renewable, sustainable, safe, 'always on' energy
source that does not emit CO2 or nuclear waste.
OTEC is Resistant to Corrosion
Cole 2012 ( Barry, Executive Vice President OTEC International, LLC) “Draft Environmental Assessment
OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION
FACILITY KE‘AHOLE, NORTH KONA, HAWAI`I” 7/11/2012 http://www.oteci.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/07/Draft_EA-071012_reduced.pdf uploads/2012/07/Draft_EA071012_reduced.pdf
OTEC evaporators transfer solar thermal energy stored in warm surface ocean waters to liquid
ammonia causing it to boil, producing a working, pressurized vapor sufficient to power a
turbine- generator. At the condenser side of the OTEC cycle, residual thermal energy in the ammonia vapor transfers to cold
deep-sea water, and the working fluid returns to its liquid phase, ready to re-enter the power cycle. Large volumes of both warm
surface and cold deep-sea water must be supplied continuously to provide the needed energy source and sink for the OTEC process.
NELHA installed the 55-inch pumping station in 2001 for the purpose of actualizing the installation of a 1MW OTEC demonstration
plant at the research and development facility. OTI will not exceed a maximum draw of 40,500 gpm of SSW and 27,000 gpm of
DSW. OTI will be able to draw up to 45,000 gpm of SSW and 30,000 gpm provided they submit for review to NELHA documentation
from the pipe manufacturer that the pipe will not fail at these levels and obtain prior written approval from NELHA to increase the
volumes.¶ The pipeline design capacities were estimated to be the required flow for a 1MW (gross electrical output) OTEC plant
which was to be built by KAD Partners to support its development of an aquarium, lobster farm and visitor center. The pumping
capacity and the 1MWe OTEC facility were assessed in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Development of
Land Exchange Parcel, State of Hawai‘i, Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawai‘i Authority, September 1992 (GK & Assoc., 1992).
These facilities were never developed due to financial constraints. Demand from the 55-inch pumping station is considerably less than
the existing capacity. The current demand for DSW and SSW from existing HOST Park tenants is approximately 14,000gpm (J. War,
pers. comm.).¶ OTI proposes to utilize the 55-inch pumping station at its design capacity less the requirements of existing tenants and
has developed a resource utilization plan that is responsive to all stakeholders. Specifically, OTI proposes to acquire and install new
mixed flow wet pit discharge pumps: one 27,000gpm DSW pump and one 40,500gpm SSW pump. The existing pumps are not made
of corrosion resistant materials, operate on only 480VA and have less than ten years of service life. The
pumps that OTI will
supply, at no cost to NELHA, will be made of corrosion resistant materials wherever there is a
seawater interface, will operate on 4160VA, and will have a design service life of 25 years or
more. The pumps will be installed with Variable Frequency Drives (VFD) so that as demand
fluctuates, flows can be controlled accordingly.
Page 123
OTEC Will Be Outfitted With Biofiltration Systems
Cole 2012 (Barry, Executive Vice President OTEC International, LLC) “Draft Environmental
Assessment OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT
AND DEMONSTRATION FACILITY KE‘AHOLE, NORTH KONA, HAWAI`I” 7/11/2012
http://www.oteci.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Draft_EA-071012_reduced.pdf
The temperature exiting the OTEC evaporators will be nearly the ideal temperature for
growing abalone without the delicate and deliberate task of mixing DSW and SSW to obtain
the correct temperature. DSW and SSW from the OTEC plant will be returned to the NLEHA-owned distribution system
for use by Big Island Abalone and future tenants in the HOST Park. The post -OTEC distribution system will be established
with a chemistry monitoring and alarm and activation system connected to diverter valves each side of the
OTEC plant. OTI’s resource utilization plan provides for diversion of 6,000gpm of SSW from the input stream to the OTEC process
in the event of an ammonia leak resulting in an ammonia concentration above 70 ppb. Of the remaining 34,800gpm that
flows through the OTEC evaporator, a substantial portion is likely to be provided to the kelp and algae farming component of the
abalone company, as the
possible traces of ammonia will be a welcome addition to the plant culture
medium. OTI has met with principals of the abalone farm and the NELHA staff to plan the downstream use of effluent OTEC
water to the maximum benefit of other tenants and the future expansion of the HOST Park
Plant Discharge SafeCole 2012 ( Barry, Executive Vice President OTEC International, LLC) “Draft Environmental
Assessment OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT
AND DEMONSTRATION FACILITY KE‘AHOLE, NORTH KONA, HAWAI`I” 7/11/2012
http://www.oteci.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Draft_EA-071012_reduced.pdf
uploads/2012/07/Draft_EA-071012_reduced.pdf
The discharge from the process will consist of processed seawater and a portion of the
freshwater totaling 110 gallons per minute. The discharge will have a pH of 7 and salinity
slightly higher than seawater. The discharge will be mixed with the much larger volume OTEC
seawater discharge of 20,000 gallons per minute, so immediate dilution and mixing will take
place prior to disposal in the injection wells. No chemicals are expected to be discharged with
the effluent. The CO2 processing system will not generate significant amounts of air pollutants, but the precise quantity and
characteristics of air emissions are not known at this time. All appropriate Clean Air Act, and other permits will be completed prior to
construction and installation of the R&D equipment.
Effluent Poses NO Risk to the EnvironmentCole 2012 (Barry, Executive Vice President OTEC International, LLC) “Draft Environmental
Assessment OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT
AND DEMONSTRATION FACILITY KE‘AHOLE, NORTH KONA, HAWAI`I” 7/11/2012
http://www.oteci.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Draft_EA-071012_reduced.pdf
The transects established and monitored by Dollar offer clear evidence of both groundwater input adjacent to an undeveloped region
and rapid natural mixing and dispersion of introduced physical and chemical signals within a short distance from the shoreline.
Additional studies (Dollar and Atkinson, 1992) have demonstrated the influence of coastal morphology on nutrient flux and ecosystem
response, leading to an understanding of the greater mixing and dispersion potential of open coastal as opposed to embayment
systems. Dollar’s
data indicate that mixing and dispersion effectively resolve perturbations of
seawater components due to high-nutrient groundwater input at the shoreline, and virtually
all of the parameters are in equilibrium with prevailing oceanic levels by a distance of 50m
offshore. Although there was some variability between transects, the prevailing trends held consistently for those parameters most
closely associated with groundwater. Analyses of samples along identical transects collected during 19911992 gave comparable results (Dollar, 2008), indicating an absence of any long-term changes
in natural coastal water quality.
Page 124
Animal Life Won’t DieCole 2012 (Barry, Executive Vice President OTEC International, LLC) “Draft Environmental
Assessment OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT
AND DEMONSTRATION FACILITY KE‘AHOLE, NORTH KONA, HAWAI`I” 7/11/2012
http://www.oteci.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Draft_EA-071012_reduced.pdf
The deep water pipeline and intake was designed and installed by NELHA in 1995 and has operated successfully since that period.
Marine organisms may be impinged on screens or entrained in the seawater flowing through the heat exchangers. At full operational
Animals
large enough to be impinged on the screen plates, including larger fish, sea turtles or monk
seals routinely inhabit regions with current regimes well in excess of this speed and are
capable of much higher swimming speeds. Thus, impingement of large marine animals at the
warm water intake is not expected to be a concern. Occasionally fish or other nekton are
expected to appear in the pump vaults. These can be easily removed and returned using nets.
pumping, flow rates of SSW at the surface of the intake screens are calculated to be just under 1 fps, or about 0.6 knots.
Phytoplankton Impact MinimalCole 2012 (Barry, Executive Vice President OTEC International, LLC) “Draft Environmental
Assessment OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT
AND DEMONSTRATION FACILITY KE‘AHOLE, NORTH KONA, HAWAI`I” 7/11/2012
http://www.oteci.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Draft_EA-071012_reduced.pdf
The mortality rate for phytoplankton ranges from 7 to 10%. For microzooplankton the range is from 3 to 10%
(Heinbokel, 1978), and for macrozooplankton, the figures are 1 to 7% (Kremer and Nixon, 1978). Thus, plankton biomass losses due
to seawater withdrawal and processing through the OTI OTEC facility represent a very small increase over rates of natural mortality.
Such a loss would not be detectable, because the water withdrawn by NELHA is continuously
replenished by surrounding unperturbed water. As part of the RD&D activities OTI will
sponsor research into plankton avoidance, and mortalities resulting from physical trauma, temperature shock
and pressure changes within various stages of the plant. Data from this work will be used to model potential
biological impacts associated with larger commercial plants as well as multiple OTEC facilities
that may be co-located at some time in the future.
Effluent Is Thermo-Chemically Similar to H20 Around Discharge Site
Cole 2012 (Barry, Executive Vice President OTEC International, LLC) “Draft Environmental
Assessment OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT
AND DEMONSTRATION FACILITY KE‘AHOLE, NORTH KONA, HAWAI`I” 7/11/2012
http://www.oteci.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Draft_EA-071012_reduced.pdf
The facility will then return seawater that is substantially unchanged to a layer of the ocean
which is thermally similar to its characteristics upon exiting the plant. This seawater is
expected to be chemically unchanged on its path through the plant. The high volume flow of deep
seawater from the proposed action poses a potential threat to ecosystem stability of shallow, productive surface waters, due to the
elevated concentrations of dissolved nutrients and depressed temperatures in DSW (Table 8). The principal goals for a successful
seawater return design must be to protect the pristine quality of the coastal ocean environment by avoiding thermal or nutrient
contamination of ocean water resources on which NELHA depends for its research and commercial operations. The NELHA Seawater
Return System Management Recommendations emphasize these goals explicitly: It is critically important to offshore ecosystems and
facilities uses that discharge from tenant operations not degrade the quality of coastal waters. To
avoid degradation of the
receiving waters, a successful seawater return system must be engineered to: 1) discharge the
effluent into rapidly mixing and transiting ocean water masses in order to spread the effluent
over as wide an area as possible, which ensures a high initial dilution at the point of effluent
entry into the receiving waters, and; 2) avoid impacts to sensitive systems such as intertidal
nearshore waters and anchialine ponds.
Page 125
Effluent So Diluted There’s No Ecological ImpactCole 2012 (Barry, Executive Vice President OTEC International, LLC) “Draft Environmental
Assessment OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT
AND DEMONSTRATION FACILITY KE‘AHOLE, NORTH KONA, HAWAI`I” 7/11/2012
http://www.oteci.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Draft_EA-071012_reduced.pdf
Based on previously accepted modeling results and physical data, the OTI seawater return
system is designed to: 1) discharge the effluent into rapidly mixing and, transiting ocean water
masses, spreading the effluent over as wide an area as possible, which ensures a high initial
dilution at the point of effluent entry into the receiving waters, and;¶ 2) avoid impacts to
sensitive systems such as nearshore waters and anchialine ponds.¶ NELHA’s previous analysis of various
methods of seawater return identified deep injection wells as the method involving the least environmental impact (MCM Planning,
1987). In their section summarizing alternatives the EIS states: As proposed, the deep injection wells would provide the greatest
residence time for discharged waters, about three months, and would create seepage ¶ 65Draft EA OTI RD&D Facility¶ through the
bottom between -300 and -400 feet depths.
OTEC has laundry list of benefits
OTEC Foundation 2012 http://www.otecfoundation.org/otec/resource
OTEC has the potential to contribute to the future energy mix offering a sustainable electricity
production method. Unlike many other renewable energy technologies that are intermittent,
OTEC has the potential to provide baseload electricity, which means day and night (24/7) and
year-round. This is a big advantage for instance tropical islands that typically has a small
electricity network, not capable of handling a lot of intermittent power.¶ Next to producing
electricity, OTEC also offers the possibility of co-generating other beneficial products, like
fresh water, nutrients for enhanced fish farming and seawater cooled greenhouses enabling
food production in arid regions. Last but not least, the cold water can be used in building airconditioning systems. Energy savings of up to 90% can be realized.¶ The vast baseload OTEC
resource could help many tropical and subtropical (remote) regions to become more energy
self-sufficient.
Page 126
AT: Hurts Currents
Not only is OTEC by far the best ocean energy potential, but it would also have
little to no impact on the ocean’s thermal structure
Kempenar & Neumann ’14 (Ruud, postdoctoral research fellow in the Belfer Center's
Energy Research, Development, Demonstration & Deployment, Frank, IMIEU Director Institute
for Infrastructure, Environment and Innovation, June 2014, “OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY
CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY BRIEF”,
http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/Ocean_Thermal_Energy_V4_web.pdf)
With an estimated 300 exajoules (EJ) per year or 90% of the global ocean energy potential,
OTEC has the largest potential of the different ocean energy technologies (Lewis, et al., 2011).
Extracting this energy would have no impact on the ocean’s thermal structure. The total
estimated available resource for OTEC could be up to 30 terawatt (TW) and deployments up to
7 TW would have little effect on the oceanic temperature fields (Rajagopalan and Nihous, 2013). Resources
are widespread. At least 98 nations and territories have been identified with access to OTEC
thermal resources within their 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. The African and Indian coast,
the tropical west and south-eastern coasts of the Americas, and many Caribbean and Pacific islands have sea surface temperature of 25°C to 30°C (Vega
2012). More spe- cifically, most Caribbean and Pacific countries have the required temperature degrees between 1-10 kilometres of their coast-line.
Similarly, many African countries have viable OTEC resources within less than 25 kilometres of their coast-line (NREL 2004) and a
potential study identified high potential for OTEC.
recent
Page 127
Off-Case Args
Page 128
AT: Hege/Leadership
The plan will gain the U.S. diplomatic prestige—and financial gain
Cohen 2012 (Robert, OTEC consultant and advisor to Lockheed-Martin, “OTEC could soon be used: the technology in the
midst of the international,” Marine Energy Times. October 2012. Page http://www.marineenergytimes.com/could-otec-soon-beused-partii-in-the-midst-of-international-competition.html)
RC : There is
a large early market eagerly awaiting such plants; namely, at island locations
around the world where electricity generated by even the first-of-a-kind commercial ocean thermal plants will likely be costcompetitive with oil-derived electricity. That early global market to displace oil can probably quickly absorb an initial ocean thermal
capacity of 2,000 MWe or more just in Hawaii and Puerto Rico , amounting to a total investment of around $20 B in U.S. plants
alone.¶ The
commercial prize awaiting the first industrial nation to lead in achieving the above
will be to favorably position it to launch mammoth new ocean and power industries. In addition,
that nation will gain considerable diplomatic prestige , because it will be able to provide
commercial ocean thermal technology to about 80 countries -- most of which are developing nations –
that have good ocean thermal resources adjacent to their shores and who want to reduce
their dependence on oil imports.
US Navy supports OTEC
Pipkin 08/12/2010 (Whitney, Free lance writer covering environment, “Janicki lands contract
with Lockheed Martin”) http://www.goskagit.com/news/janicki-lands-contract-with-lockheedmartin/article_d7d5c897-ce24-5ed3-ad6c-bc51828ea511.html
Aug. 12--Janicki Industries has landed a contract with Lockheed Martin to help fabricate cold water pipes for a process that can
generate electricity in the middle of the ocean, the Sedro-Woolley company announced today. ¶ The
U.S. Navy awarded
Lockheed Martin $8 million in 2009 to further develop technology for its Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion Program (OTEC). The OTEC process generates electricity by using the
temperature difference between warm surface water and deep cold water.¶ The only fully
functioning energy unit of this type is located in Hawaii, Janicki spokeswoman Kathleen Olson said in an e-mail. She said the task of
creating a pipe robust enough to do the job -- the piece of the project on which Janicki will focus -- has stumped engineers for
years.¶ The cold water pipes are used to transport water from more than a half mile below to
the floating OTEC plant on the surface. Janicki currently is fabricating several major components of the unit, which
will be tested at Lockheed Martin's facility in Sunnyvale, Calif.
Page 129
AT: Renewables CP
OTEC most potent renewable
Friedman 14
(Becca, Harvard Ocean Energy Council member, “examining the future of ocean thermal energy conversion”
http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/)
Dr. Joseph Huang, Senior Scientist at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and former leader of a Department of Energy team
on oceanic energy, told the HPR, “If we can use one percent of the energy [generated by
OTEC] for electricity and other things, the potential is so big. It is more than 100 to 1000 times
more than the current consumption of worldwide energy. The potential is huge. There is not
any other renewable energy that can compare with OTEC.”
Regardless, oceanic energy experts have high hopes.
OTEC more efficient than wind and solar energy
Potomac 10 (Paul, NASA engineer, “American Energy Policy V – Oc
OTEC is better than other forms of alterative energy
Curto ’10 (Dr. Paul, former NASA Chief Technologist, “American Energy Policy V -- Ocean
Thermal Energy Conversion,” 12/15/2010, http://www.opednews.com/articles/AmericanEnergy-Policy-V--by-Paul-from-Potomac-101214-315.html)-mikee
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) is by far the most balanced means to face the
challenge of global warming. It is also the one that requires the greatest investment to meet
its potential. It is a most intriguing answer that can save us from Armageddon. The Applied
Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University was one of its earliest proponents, whose team
was led by Gordon Dugger (see photo below). Given modern materials and design techniques,
we should be able to build grazing OTEC plants that may become economical with just a few
production units, based upon anhydrous ammonia as the hydrogen carrier. The grazing OTEC
plants would produce anhydrous ammonia while surfing the oceans for hot spots to curry heat
for their power plants. (BTW there are ammonia pipelines in Indiana and other midwest states
today for fertilizer distribution). Ammonia is the second-most predominant chemical
manufactured in the world. Since the volumetric energy density of ammonia is three times
that of liquid hydrogen, and ammonia combustion can be exceptionally efficient (about the
same as burning diesel fuel in turbodiesels), it may be true that a hydrogen economy based
upon OTEC and ammonia may be close at hand. The overall replacement of transportable
carbon fuels by OTEC-based ammonia is estimated at 100 million barrels of oil per day
equivalent over about 40 years if we move to a hydrogen economy. Along with other
technologies, carbon fuels could be replaced in roughly 80% of all applications.
OTEC has the best potential of any ocean energy technology
Kempenar & Neumann ’14 (Ruud, postdoctoral research fellow in the Belfer Center's
Energy Research, Development, Demonstration & Deployment, Frank, IMIEU Director Institute
for Infrastructure, Environment and Innovation, June 2014, “OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY
CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY BRIEF”,
http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/Ocean_Thermal_Energy_V4_web.pdf)
OTEC has the highest potential when comparing all ocean energy technologies, and as many as
98 nations and territories have been identified that have viable OTEC resources in their
exclusive economic zones. Recent studies suggest that total worldwide power generation
capacity could be supplied by OTEC, and that this would have no impact on the ocean’s
Page 130
temperature profiles. Furthermore, a large number of island states in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean have OTEC resources within 10
kilometres (km) of their shores. OTEC seems especially suitable and economically viable for remote islands in tropical seas where generation can be
combined with other functions e.g., air-conditioning and fresh water production. The existing barriers are high up-front capital costs, and the lack of
experience building OTEC plants at scale. Most funding still comes from governments and technology developers, but for large scale deployment
suitable finance options need to be developed to cover the upfront costs. From an environmental perspective, OTEC plants at scale will require large
pipes to transport the volumes of water required to produce electricity, which might have an impact on marine life, as well as the infrastructures to
transfer the water (for land-based systems) or electricity (for off-shore systems) to and from the coast line. Also because it is not a tried and tested
technology at large scale, there are unknown risks to marine life at depth and on the seabed where there is large scale upward transfer of cold water
with high nutrient content. From a technical perspective, the large-scale pipes, bio-fouling of the pipes and the heat exchangers, the corrosive
environment, and discharge of seawater are still being researched.
ean Thermal Energy Conversion” 12/15/2010 at 08:17:01 oped news. http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/American-EnergyPolicy-V--by-Paul-from-Potomac-101214-315.html)
OTEC ships have features that are quite innovative and cost effective. Estimates range
The capacity
factor should be close to 100%, especially with the modular designs for the power modules. This means that
OTEC annual power production will average three times that of solar and wind per unit of
power capacity. Gulf plants may be moored in deep water and connected directly to the grid, bypassing the ammonia step.
Tropical ships may graze from site to site and perform stationkeeping to stay in place when it's
advantageous to do so. One design called for neutrally buoyant hulls to allow for submerging
the ship in the event of any major storm to levels below the wave action zone. The major expenses
he designs for these
from $3000 to $6000 per kWe installed in 2010 dollars, depending on the configuration and proximity to shore.
are for the heat exchangers (titanium alloys or aluminum), cold water pipe, and ammonia production/electrical generation and
transmission facilities.
OTEC is better than other forms of alterative energy
Curto ’10 (Dr. Paul, former NASA Chief Technologist, “American Energy Policy V -- Ocean
Thermal Energy Conversion,” 12/15/2010, http://www.opednews.com/articles/AmericanEnergy-Policy-V--by-Paul-from-Potomac-101214-315.html)-mikee
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) is by far the most balanced means to face the
challenge of global warming. It is also the one that requires the greatest investment to meet its
potential. It is a most intriguing answer that can save us from Armageddon. The Applied Physics
Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University was one of its earliest proponents, whose team was led by Gordon Dugger (see photo
below).
Given modern materials and design techniques, we should be able to build grazing OTEC
plants that may become economical with just a few production units, based upon anhydrous
ammonia as the hydrogen carrier. The grazing OTEC plants would produce anhydrous ammonia
while surfing the oceans for hot spots to curry heat for their power plants. (BTW there are ammonia
pipelines in Indiana and other midwest states today for fertilizer distribution). Ammonia is the second-most predominant chemical
manufactured in the world. Since
the volumetric energy density of ammonia is three times that of liquid
hydrogen, and ammonia combustion can be exceptionally efficient (about the same as burning diesel fuel in
turbodiesels), it may be true that a hydrogen economy based upon OTEC and ammonia may be
close at hand. The overall replacement of transportable carbon fuels by OTEC-based ammonia is
estimated at 100 million barrels of oil per day equivalent over about 40 years if we move to a
hydrogen economy. Along with other technologies, carbon fuels could be replaced in roughly 80% of all
applications.
OTEC would be able to compete with other forms of energy
Vega 12, Luis A. (Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, School of Ocean And Earth Science And Technology, University
of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA)"Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion." N.p., Aug. 2012. Web. 14 July 2014.
http://hinmrec.hnei.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/OTEC-Summary-Aug-2012.pdf)
An analytical model is available to assess scenarios under which OTEC might be competitive
with conventional technologies [12]. First, the capital cost for OTEC plants, expressed in $/kW-net, is estimated.
Subsequently, the relative cost of producing electricity ($/kWh) with OTEC, offset by the desalinated
water production revenue, is equated to the fuel cost of electricity produced with
Page 131
conventional techniques to determine the scenarios (i.e., fuel cost and cost of fresh-water production)
under which OTEC could be competitive. For each scenario, the cost of desalinated water produced from seawater via
reverse osmosis (RO) is estimated to set the upper limit of the OTEC water production credit. No attempt is made at speculating about
the future cost of fossil fuels. It is
simply stated that if a location is represented by one of the scenarios,
OTEC could be competitive.
OTEC is The Best Form of Renewable EnergyCole 2012 (Barry, Executive Vice President OTEC International, LLC) “Draft Environmental
Assessment OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH,
DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION FACILITY KE‘AHOLE, NORTH KONA, HAWAI`I”
7/11/2012 http://www.oteci.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Draft_EA-071012_reduced.pdf
uploads/2012/07/Draft_EA-071012_reduced.pdf
The Abell Foundation, Inc. (Abell) of Baltimore Maryland is the principal member and sponsor of OTI. Abell originally established
Sea Solar Power International LLC, the precursor of OTI, in 2001 with a goal of bringing pioneering OTEC research by J. Hilbert
Anderson and his son, James Anderson to technological and commercial maturity. To Abell’s knowledge, no other private
organization has devoted more capital and human resources to the objective of commercializing OTEC technology than Abell and
OTI, and
no other alternative energy has as great a near term promise for solving the base load
energy needs of coastal countries and communities of the world in tropical and semi-tropical
zones.¶ Abell and OTI’s approach to OTEC leverages the more than 40 years of research and engineering by the Andersons on
optimizing the OTEC cycle and its key components. Abell also is the exclusive worldwide licensee of the Andersons’ work with
OTEC, and the Abell portfolio of OTEC innovation includes substantial know-how, four patents issued and seven pending patents
filed within the last two years.’
Page 132
AT: Consult CP
AT: Consult CP: they will say no—there’s simply too much international
competition to produce the first OTEC platform
Cohen 2012 (Robert, OTEC consultant and advisor to Lockheed-Martin, “OTEC could soon be used: the technology in the
midst of the international,” Marine Energy Times. October 2012. Page http://www.marineenergytimes.com/could-otec-soon-beused-partii-in-the-midst-of-international-competition.html)
There have been discussions between governments about international coöperation on ocean thermal
such as between Japan and the United States. Although some bilateral agreements
have been reached, I am unaware of any significant ocean thermal development that has so
far resulted from international coöperation .¶ ¶ From 1990 to 2003 there was, however, a significant effort to promote international coöperation, thanks to
RC :
development,
the establishment by Taiwan's Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) of the International OTEC/DOWA Association (IOA). The acronym “DOWA” stands for “Deep Ocean Water Applications”. IOA’s efforts
have been strongly supported by Michel Gauthier of the French oceanic research organization IFREMER. M. Gauthier is a pioneering advocate of ocean thermal who was Acting Chairman of IOA from its inception
until it was disbanded in 2003. [Taiwan has long been actively interested in utilizing the good ocean thermal resources along its east coast. However, those resources are in a seismic area, hence those locations
could pose a mooring problem.]¶ ¶ The IOA was a transnational, apolitical organization of professionals dedicated to the full utilization of the renewable and non-polluting ocean thermal and deep ocean water
resources. During IOA’s active years, its activities were chronicled in a valuable, comprehensive series of 78 newsletters, which are still available, thanks to M. Gauthier, on a French Web site belonging to the Club
There is currently the possibility of a competition among industrial nations (especially France,
to be the first to successfully demonstrate the viablity of generating electricity
from ocean thermal energy aboard a utility-scale, multi-megawatt pilot plant. However, it is likely that any such
des Argonautes.¶ ¶
China, Japan, and the USA)
competition will be between private investors rather than between governments. Once such an ocean thermal pilot plant is deployed and successfully generates net power, operational data from that plant can be
quickly incorporated into the design of an initial tranche of commercial plants, probably sized at around 100 MWe.
We Already Consult a Variety of Agencies on OTEC- Look to Bottom
Cole 2012 (Barry, Executive Vice President OTEC International, LLC) “Draft Environmental Assessment
OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION
FACILITY KE‘AHOLE, NORTH KONA, HAWAI`I” 7/11/2012
http://www.oteci.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/07/Draft_EA-071012_reduced.pdf
Throughout the project design and development process, OTI has relied heavily on the prior experience and expertise of NELHA
During the
development of the DEA the proponent consulted a wide range of agencies, officials and
interested parties to assess their concerns regarding the environmental and economic impacts
of the proposed action. These agencies, organizations and individuals and others were
consulted for scoping the assessment, and will be provided copies of the Draft Environmental
Assessment for review and comment: 1.3.1
Federal Agencies¶ Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
operations staff to help identify logistic and management concerns arising from implementation of the OTEC facility.
and Atmospheric Administration Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX¶ U.S. Navy SUBPAC Committee¶ 1.3.2 State Agencies¶ Tim
O’Connell, USDA/ Rural Development Andrea Gill, HI DBEDT, Energy Office NELHA Board of Directors Gary Gill, State Dept. of
Health¶ Richard Lim, DBEDT Mark Glick, DBEDT Energy Office Maria Tome, DBEDT Energy Office Chris Pointis, DOH Clean
Water Branch Staff Engineer, DOH Safe Drinking Water Branch Cameron Black. DBEDT Energy Office Sam Lemmo, DLNR Office
of Conservation and Coastal Lands John Nakagawa, Office of Planning CZM Section David Hind, Kona International Airport¶ 1.3.3
Public Officials¶ Lt. Governor Brian Schatz, State of Hawai‘i Delbert Nishimoto, US Senator Daniel Inouye’s Office Gilbert Kahele,
HI State Senator Denny Coffman, HI State Representative Mike Gabbard, HI State Senator¶ 1.3.4 County of Hawai‘i¶ June Horike,
County of Hawai‘i Dept. of Research and Development Vivian Landrum, Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Dominic Yagong,
Hawai‘i County Council Donald Ikeda, Hawai‘i County Council¶ J Yoshimoto, Hawai‘i County Council Dennis Onishi, Hawai‘i
County Council¶
Page 133
AT: States CP
The patchwork regulatory environment among the states chills ocean
renewable projects
Griset, 2011 (Todd J., associate at Preti Flaherty’s Energy and Telecommunications group, where he represents renewable
energy firms, “Harnessing the Ocean’s Power: Opportunities in Renewable Ocean Energy Resources,” Ocean and Coastal Law Journal
16 [2011]: 395, l/n)
In addition to this complex web of federal regulation, states
retain considerable authority regarding offshore
renewable energy projects in their adjacent waters. Each state has broad discretion to regulate
such projects; the resulting lack of uniformity of state regulation adds yet another layer of
regulatory risk to projects.¶ Reflecting federalism-- the balance between states' rights and
federal rights-- the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) n124 requires applicants for federal
licenses or permits affecting a state's costal zone to obtain a state certification that a
proposed project is consistent with that state's coastal zone management program. n125 If a state
refuses to issue such a consistency certification, the Secretary of Commerce may overrule the state and authorize the issuance of a
permit only if the Secretary concludes after a notice and comment period that the proposed activities are either consistent with the
objectives of the [*416] CZMA, or are "otherwise necessary in the interest of national security." n126 Thus, the CMZA provides
states with a powerful tool in deciding whether to allow the development of offshore renewable energy projects.¶
Furthermore, electricity generated by an offshore project--even one sited in federal waters-must generally be transmitted to shore for distribution and consumption. In practical terms,
this requires crossing state-jurisdictional coastal zones. n127 This creates a significant role for states in
reviewing and permitting the transmission cables needed to carry the power produced at sea to consumers on land, both in leasing
subsurface rights for laying cable and in reviewing the utility aspects of the proposed transmission infrastructure. Even where a
state's authority is limited to reviewing the onshore transmission development associated with an offshore energy project, in
practice, states' evaluations of these transmission aspects are often informed by the understanding that the transmission and
generation components are each integral to the fate of the project. n128¶ States
may also affect the fate of projects
through their regulation of utility activities. Through the exercise of their rights to regulate
utilities and establish utility retail rates, states generally have jurisdiction to approve power
purchase agreements between offshore energy project developers and utilities. Securing approval of
such power purchase agreements is a critical step in any project's successful development, as developers are generally reluctant to
incur the major capital costs required to develop an offshore project without the certainty of an offtake agreement for the power to
be produced. n129 While such state review is generally conducted by public utilities commissions or their analogues, experience has
shown that issues beyond utility ratemaking, such as aesthetics or environmental considerations, often end up being raised in these
utility forums. For example, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities heard extensive testimony on such issues in the
context of its review of the proposed power purchase agreement between the utility provider National Grid and Cape Wind. n130
Because of [*417] the power reserved to states, such issues may play a large role in the
ultimate success of renewable ocean energy projects. This state regulatory role rests on top of
the multiple layers of federal regulation described above, adding another layer of regulatory
complexity.
Page 134
AT: International Agent CP
Japan, India, and the Phillipines have already begun work on OTEC—makes
them a better actor.
Friedman, 2012 (Becca, Harvard Political Review, “Examining the Future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” Ocean
Energy Council, March 20, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/)
In fact, as
the U.S. government is dragging its feet, other countries are moving forward with their
own designs and may well beat American industry to a fully-functioning plant. In India , there has
been significant academic interest in OTEC, although the National Institute of Ocean Technology project has stalled due to a lack
of funding. Japan , too, has run into capital cost issues, but Saga University ’s Institute of Ocean Energy has recently won prizes
for advances in refinement of the OTEC cycle. Taiwan and various European nations have also explored OTEC as part of their longterm energy strategy. Perhaps the most interest is in the Philippines , where the Philippine Department of Energy has
worked with Japanese experts to select 16 potential OTEC sites.
Page 135
OTEC Neg
Neg: Inh Ocean tech is already a government priority
SBI, 2009 Ocean Energy Technologies World Wide “Ocean energy technologies & component
worldwide”
President Barack Obama has
pledged to invest $150 billion in alternative energy technology over
the next ten years. While some of this investment may go toward clean-coal and solar technology, ocean energy
technology figures in his alternative energy plans as well.¶ Obama’s appointment of the Nobel laureate
Steven Chu as the nation’s energy secretary indicates a new approach to guiding the nation’s energy department. Chu is not an
industry executive, but a scientist who specializes in global warming and alternative energy technology. While Chu’s work has
focused on biofuels and solar energy, by
December 2008, Chu and President Obama had already met
with a consortium of companies and institutions interested promoting the benefits of ocean
energy technology.
Ocean energy is far more consistent versus traditional renewable energy power
SBI, 2009 (Ocean Energy Technologies World Wide “Ocean energy technologies &
component worldwide” ; June 1,2009; http://www.sbireports.com/ocean-energytechnologies-1928480/)
the United States is second only to China in renewable energy production, renewable
energy accounts for only 7% of U.S. energy production. The majority of the U.S. renewable
energy is from hydroelectric power, which accounts for 36% of the renewable energy, and wind energy, which is just
Though
above 5% of the renewable energy used. Wind generated electricity increased by 21% from 2006 to 2007 due to new construction;
however, during that same period hydroelectric power decreased by 14%, primarily due to environmental factors reducing the amount
of snow and rainfall in watersheds.¶ Both
wind and hydroelectric power are susceptible to environmental
conditions that can reduce their available energy. Ocean energy, however, is far more
predictable the wind power and far less environmentally damaging than conventional
hydroelectric power, nevertheless, ocean energy technology has been slow to develop in the
United States, and the country now finds itself lagging behind the UK (namely Scotland), Japan and New Zealand in the
development of commercially viable ocean energy power plants.
Despite popular claims, the oceans are not warming
MacRae, 01/14/2012 (Paul, BA in Sociology from the University of Toronto in 1970 and an MA in English from the
University of Victoria in 2005) “Oceans no warming, despite climate claims” http://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/globalwarming
The oceans aren't warming at the moment. The British Meteorological Office issued a press release in August 2011
that noted: "The upper 700 metres of the global ocean has seen a rise in temperature since
reliable records began in the late 1960s. However, there has been a pause in this warming
during the period from 2003 to 2010."¶ In other words, the oceans have not warmed for most of
the past decade - the opposite of what promoters of global warming fears have been telling the public.¶ Second, Baird offers
no details on how much ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) will cost, and how this cost would compare to the currently used
fossil fuels.¶ My guess: otec will be considerably more expensive than natural gas and oil, as are all the other "sustainable" energy
sources (wind, solar, etc.).¶ Eventually, OTEC and other forms of alternative energy may be able to compete in price with fossil fuels.
Until then, if we want to keep driving our cars, heating our homes, and running our businesses, we will need the Northern Gateway
pipeline.
Page 136
OTEC is too expensive and timely
McClatchy July 16, 2011 (Tribune Buisness News, “OTEC remains a promising option”)
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorials/20110716_OTEC_remains_a_promising_option.html?id=125678823
Progress is being made already toward an improved model, one that resists corrosion and replaces costly titanium components with
other metals. But with
no other OTEC plants in operation, it could be years before investors are
convinced the financial risks have been managed and are willing to underwrite development.¶
This is why the state must pursue the more mature technologies -- primarily wind, solar and
geothermal -- that can deliver commercial power from a "green" source and help Hawaii meet
its goals of reducing reliance on fossil fuels. The Clean Energy Initiative, which former Gov. Linda Lingle signed
with the U.S. Department of Energy, aims to improve Hawaii's clean-energy picture by 2030, reducing energy use by 30 percent and
increasing to 40 percent the share of the portfolio coming from locally generated renewable sources. To
reach those
ambitious benchmarks, the state can't afford to wait until OTEC comes up to speed.¶ But
that doesn't mean this alternative should be shelved. Everyone agrees that, despite the
cyclical changes in the oil market, the long-range trend is not coming down. And that suggests
that Hawaii will need a full menu of renewable options, each one shifting in relative importance as
technological advances make one system or another more advantageous.
Nothing can solve the current energy crisis.
Tverberg 13 (Gail, Gail Tverberg is a casualty actuary whose prior work involved
forecasting and modeling in the insurance industry. Besides writing on her own blog,
Our Finite World, she is also an editor at The Oil Drum, “Two Views of Our Current
Economic and Energy Crisis,” TheEnergyCollective. 17 Oct 2013.
http://theenergycollective.com/gail-tverberg/289341/two-views-our-current-economicand-energy-crisis)
The Predominant View appears to fall very wide of the mark.
Limits on oil and on other resources are a signal
that Nature is really in charge, not humans. We can’t escape these limits. If we try to mitigate
climate change by using more renewables, we hit a different kind of limit–high-priced
electricity, and the problems it brings. Potential collapse seems to be directly in front of us.
The Republican solution of more oil drilling will lead us in the direction of collapse, just as will
the Democratic solution of increased debt and more emphasis on low-carbon fuels,
particularly for electricity. The limits are just on different axes of the production function. Whether or not we humans
would like to be in charge, Nature is in fact in charge. Nature determines timeframes. The timeframe could be very close. It is
even possible that the current government shutdown/debt ceiling problems will ultimately
lead to US collapse, and perhaps even world collapse. The current Predominant View of our situation is one
that puts humans, and in particular current governmental officials, in charge. Historically, governments have had close ties with
religion, using religion to further their own purposes. Now, government and religion have almost been fused into one. Perhaps this
close tie is the reason why it is so difficult to get a well-reasoned story about our current predicament from those in charge, and why
so many people are willing to believe the story we are being told. One thing that the Predominant View misses is the fact that we
live in a finite world. This means that growth must at some point slow, and ultimately be reversed. The world operates in
cycles; we can’t really change this. Nothing is permanent. The species that are dominant change, perhaps even humans. The climate
changes, although perhaps not as fast as it is currently. Another thing that the Predominant View misses is the fact that energy
of the right kinds is absolutely essential for the functioning of the economy. The view that there will
be a substitute is more “faith-based” than it is based on objective facts. The Predominant View also misses the point that the
substitute needs to be cheap; high-priced energy is terribly bad for the economy–it can easily push the economy
into Stage 3 of the production function. The fact that high-priced oil is likely to lead to a debt unwind is likely to make the situation
worse than it otherwise would be.
Page 137
We cannot slowly transition to renewables.
Tverberg 13 (Gail, Gail Tverberg is a casualty actuary whose prior work involved
forecasting and modeling in the insurance industry. Besides writing on her own blog,
Our Finite World, she is also an editor at The Oil Drum, “Two Views of Our Current
Economic and Energy Crisis,” TheEnergyCollective. 17 Oct 2013.
http://theenergycollective.com/gail-tverberg/289341/two-views-our-current-economicand-energy-crisis)
We can think that the growth of human systems, including the economy, will go on forever, but we are almost certainly kidding
ourselves. At some point, when Nature decides, new species will dominate–perhaps plants that can use more CO2. The transition
will be the transition Nature dictates. We
are kidding ourselves if we think that we can decide to slowly
reduce oil and fossil fuel usage over the next 40 or more years. If oil prices drop to, say, $30
barrel because of debt defaults, oil production will drop very quickly–not based on some slow
decline curve. Natural gas and coal prices will drop dramatically too, essentially putting an end
to their production. Jobs will disappear with the lack of fossil fuels. Eighty or ninety percent of
us will again need to work in manual food production without fossil fuels. Education,
government, and services of all kinds will shrink rapidly. Nature is deciding for us right now what is ahead. We
likely will have little choice in the matter. If we do have a choice at all, it is likely to be in the direction of serious back-pedaling, in
terms of population, and in terms of learning to live essentially without fossil fuels. The future is likely to be very different from the
past.
Renewable Energy doesn’t solve warming or energy
Tverberg 13 (Gail, Gail Tverberg is a casualty actuary whose prior work involved
forecasting and modeling in the insurance industry. Besides writing on her own blog,
Our Finite World, she is also an editor at The Oil Drum, “Two Views of Our Current
Economic and Energy Crisis,” TheEnergyCollective. 17 Oct 2013.
http://theenergycollective.com/gail-tverberg/289341/two-views-our-current-economicand-energy-crisis)
The shift toward renewables has several difficulties: Renewables are an order of magnitude less
efficient in producing electricity than the fossil fuels they replaced, when the energy cost of mitigating
intermittency in included in the calculation (Weissbach et al. 2013). EROI comparisons are distorted, because they do not reflect this
cost. Renewables
tend to use fossil fuels heavily at the beginning of their life cycle, so do not
really reduce fossil fuel use unless at some point in the future, we greatly reduce the amount
of renewables we produce (and perhaps not even then, if the intermittency cost is as high as indicated in Item 1). The
shift toward renewables in electricity production acts very much like the push toward high-priced oil, in terms of pushing the
economy toward Stage 3 of the production function (in Figure 1), only on a different axis than oil. The view that the economy is
hurtling toward climate change is based on the view that the economy will in fact continue to grow and will continue to extract fossil
fuels for the foreseeable future. If oil and debt are limits that we are hitting right now, we may very well encounter economic
collapse in the near future. Such a collapse will likely cut fossil fuel use of all kinds very quickly, because of low prices and disruption
to systems. If, in fact, we
do hit collapse, renewables will not operate the electric grid without fossil
fuels, because we need fossil fuels to keep transmission lines repaired, to create and transport
replacement parts, and to allow customers to have jobs to pay for the electricity. Thus,
without fossil fuels in the future, our investment in renewables is of no long-term value. (And
EROI estimates are vastly overstated.)
OTEC still needs to be proven on the large scale.
Blanchard 11(Whitney, Energy Specialist Contractor with NOAA, “Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion Contribution to Energy”. StakerForum.
2011.http://www.stakeholderforum.org/fileadmin/files/EnergyOTEC%20Contribution%20to%20Energy.pdf)
Page 138
Despite ongoing efforts, OTEC has not yet been demonstrated at a commercial scale worldwide. The
Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition released a “U.S. Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology Roadmap” (OREC 2011) describing the
issues for the industry and the path to commercialization by 2030. While OTEC is not specifically mentioned as a marine and
hydrokinetic energy, the
key factors to commercialization are the same: 1. Technology research and
development 2. Policy Issues 3. Sitting and permitting 4. Environmental Research 5. Market
development 6. Economic and financial issues 7. Grid Integration 8. Education and workforce
training. The roadmap suggests a phased approach to commercialization beginning with demonstration and pilot projects which
are pre-commercial and grid connected moving towards commercialization. OTEC has remained in the
demonstration phase. The onshore experimental in the 1990s produced 215 kilowatts of net electricity (Vega 2002/2003);
however, commercial-scale facilities are designed at 100 megawatts (i.e. 100,000 kilowatts). There is a need of a pilot project to
validate OTEC technology developments. OTEC
technology is feasible at this scale (e.g., less than 10
megawatts) using current designs, materials, manufacturing, and development techniques;
however, there is a need for further research, development, testing and evaluation for the
commercial-scale OTEC facility (CRRC 2009). OTEC designers, future customers, financiers, and regulators need
validation of the economic models, technical performance, and environmental performance from a pilot plant prior to commercial
scale development (Bedard R. 2010). The cost is what remains a challenge; for example, the Lockheed Martin 10 megawatt pilot
plant is estimated to cost $230-$250 million (Lockheed 2011)
OTEC has ocean temperature requirements.
Estioko, 2013 (Ovric P., BS in Biology at the University of the Philipines Los Banos, “OCEAN
ENERGY AS AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF ENERGY:A SOLUTION TO THE ENERGY CRISIS IN
MINDANAO.” University of the Philippines. Feb 23.,2013
http://www.academia.edu/2915019/Ocean_Energy_as_an_Alternative_Source_of_Energy_A_S
olution_to_the_Energy_Crisis_in_Mindanao_A_Library_Research_Paper_ )
The thermal energy from the ocean can be generated to electricity by means of the Ocean
Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). OTEC produces electricity from the thermal energy of the ocean by means of
driving a turbine by created steam from the heat that is stored in the warm surface of the water. Cold, deep water is pumped to the
surface during the process to bring back the steam through condensation. The use of OTEC
is only viable to countries in
the tropical areas wherein there is at least 22 ⁰ C thermal gradient between the surface of the
ocean and the ocean depth of about 1000 m (Pelc & Fujita, 2002). Basing on the figure about Ocean Temperature
Differences between Surface and 1,000 Meters deep by Etemadi, Emdadi, AsefAfshar andEmami (2011), the Philippines is suitable
for the use of the OTEC since the ocean that surroundsthe Philippines has a temperature difference of 22 ⁰ C to 24 ⁰ C, which meets
the requirement of theOTEC usage.
OTEC WON’T Work in the US- Quick 2013
(Darren, Director at Hawk Security & Surveillance System) “World’s largest OTEC power plant
planned for China” http://www.gizmag.com/otec-plant-lockheed-martin-reignwood-china/27164/
4/18/2013
Tropical regions are considered the only viable locations for OTEC plants due to the greater
temperature differential between the shallow and deep water. Unlike wind and solar power, OTEC can
produce electricity around the clock, 365 days a year to supply base load power. OTEC plants also produce cold water as a by-product
that can be used for air conditioning and refrigeration at locations near the plant. Despite such advantages, and even though
demonstration plants were constructed as far back as the 1880s, there
are still no large-scale commercial OTEC
plants in operation. This is largely due to the costs associated with locating and maintaining
the facility off shore and drawing the cold water from the ocean depths.
Colonization of Mars will happen within the next century.
Fallows 13 (James, National Correspondent for The Atlantic, “The Coming of Age of Space
Colonization,” The Atlantic. 20 Mar 2013,
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/the-coming-age-of-spacecolonization/273818/)
Page 139
In the next generation or two—say the next 30 to 60 years—there will be an irreversible
human migration to a permanent space colony. Some people will tell you that this new colony will be on the
moon, or an asteroid—in my opinion asteroids are a great place to go, but mostly for mining. I think the location is likely
to be Mars. This Mars colony will start off with a few thousand people, and then it may grow over 100 years to a few million
people, but it will be there permanently. That should be really exciting, to be alive during that stage of humanity's
history. JF: I have to ask—really? This will really happen? EA: I really do believe it will. First of all, the key to making it
happen is to reduce the cost of transportation into space. My colleague Elon Musk is aiming to get the cost of
a flight to Mars down to half a million dollars a person. I think that even if it costs maybe a few million dollars a person to launch to
Mars, a colony could be feasible. To me the
question is, does it happen in the next 30 years, or does it
happen in the next 60 to 70 years? There's no question it's going to happen in this century,
and that's a pretty exciting thing.
Fracking Isn’t All That Bad Y’all
BRANTLEY ‘13 SUSAN L. and ANNA MEYENDORFF March 13, 2013 Susan Brantley is distinguished professor of geosciences
and director of the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences. Anna Meyendorff is a faculty associate at the International Policy Center of the Ford School of Public Policy at
the University of Michigan, and a manager at Analysis Group. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/opinion/global/the-facts-onfracking.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
As politicians in Europe and the United States consider whether, and under what conditions, fracking should be allowed, the
experience of Pennsylvania is instructive. Pennsylvania has seen rapid development of the Marcellus shale, a geological formation
that could contain nearly 500 trillion cubic feet of gas — enough to power all American homes for 50 years at recent rates of
residential use. Some of the local effects of drilling and fracking have gotten a lot of press but caused few problems, while others are
more serious. For example,
of the tens of thousands of deep injection wells in use by the energy
industry across the United States, only about eight locations have experienced injectioninduced earthquakes, most too weak to feel and none causing significant damage.
Pennsylvania experience with water contamination is also instructive. In Pennsylvania ,
The
shale gas is accessed at depths
of thousands of feet while drinking water is extracted from depths of only hundreds of feet.
Nowhere in the state have fracking compounds injected at depth been shown to contaminate
drinking water . In one study of 200 private water wells in the fracking regions
of Pennsylvania ,
water quality was the same before and soon after drilling in all wells except one. The only
surprise from that study was that many of the wells failed drinking water regulations before
drilling started . But trucking and storage accidents have spilled fracking fluids and brines, leading to contamination of water
and soils that had to be cleaned up. The fact that gas companies do not always disclose the composition of all fracking and drilling
compounds makes it difficult to monitor for injected chemicals in streams and groundwater. Pennsylvania has also seen instances of
methane leaking into aquifers in regions where shale-gas drilling is ongoing. Some of this gas is “drift gas” that forms naturally in
deposits left behind by the last glaciation. But sometimes methane leaks out of gas wells because, in 1 to 2 percent of the wells,
casings are not structurally sound. The casings can be fixed to address these minor leaks, and the risk of such methane leaks could
further decrease if casings were designed specifically for each geological location. The disposal of shale gas brine was initially
addressed in Pennsylvania by allowing the industry to use municipal water treatment plants that were not equipped to handle the
unhealthy components.
Since new regulations in 2011 , however, Pennsylvania companies now recycle
90 percent of this briny water by using it to frack more shale.
In sum, the experience of fracking in
Pennsylvania has led to industry practices that mitigate the effect of drilling and fracking on the local environment. And
while
the natural gas produced by fracking does add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere through
leakage during gas extraction and carbon dioxide release during burning, it in fact holds a
significant environmental advantage over coal mining . Shale gas emits half the carbon
dioxide per unit of energy as does coal, and coal burning also emits metals such as mercury
Page 140
into the atmosphere that eventually settle back into our soils and waters . Europe is currently
increasing its reliance on coal while discouraging or banning fracking. If we are going to get our energy from hydrocarbons, blocking
fracking while relying on coal looks like a bad trade-off for the environment. So,
should the United States and
Europe encourage fracking or ban it? Short-run economic interests support fracking . In the
experience of Pennsylvania,
natural gas prices fall and jobs are created both directly in the gas
industry and indirectly as regional and national economies benefit from lower energy costs .
Europe can benefit from lessons learned in Pennsylvania, minimizing damage to the local environment. The geopolitical shift that
would result from decreasing reliance on oil, and more specifically on Russian oil and gas, is one that European politicians might not
want to ignore. And
if natural gas displaces coal, then fracking is good not only for the economy
but also for the global environment . But if fracked gas merely displaces efforts to develop cleaner, non-carbon,
energy sources without decreasing reliance on coal, the doom and gloom of more rapid global climate change will be realized.
Fracking no risk to drinking water
Levant 14 (Ezra, Journalist. “Not one drop of poisoned water” May 2014 National Post
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/13/ezra-levant-not-one-drop-of-poisoned-water/)
The Ground Water Protection Council, a non-profit organization whose membership consists of state-level
groundwater regulators and whose very purpose is to "promote the protection and conservation of ground water resources for all
beneficial uses, recognizing ground water as a critical component of the ecosystem," issued
a report in 2011 that
reviewed fracking in Texas and Ohio. The study covered 16 years of activity, during which more
than 16,000 horizontal hydraulic-fracking shalegas wells were completed in Texas alone. In
neither state did regulators identify "a single groundwater contamination incident resulting
from site preparation, drilling, well construction, completion, hydraulic fracturing stimulation
or production operations at any of these horizontal shale gas wells." Not only have regulatory
investigations everywhere across the United States found not a single drop of drinking water
contaminated by fracking, but it isn't actually physically possible for something like that to
happen. Why? Because in not one single case does a hydraulic fracture even come near the water table. See, all of this
fracturing is happening at nearly a mile, or deeper, below the Earth - that's where the shale
gas is. Water wells don't go nearly that deep. Typically a well goes down several dozen feet, or maybe even a
couple of hundred feet if the water table is exceptionally deep. America's biggest hand-dug well, the Big Well in Greensburg, Kansas,
dug in 1887, goes down 109 feet; the Well of Joseph in Cairo's Citadel, in the Egyptian desert, goes down 280 feet. Those are deep
wells, because they're built over deep watertables. Water aquifers are often deeper: - they average around 500 feet below the
ground. But fracking? That happens thousands of feet below the surface - typically between 6,000 and 10,000 feet underground.
For the gas or the fracking fluid to get into the water table, or even an aquifer, from that kind
of depth, they would have to pass upward through millions of tons of rock - like passing
through a mountain. In the Barnett Shale, for instance, even the shallowest fractures are roughly a mile below the surface thousands of feet below any aquifer or water table. These facts have been on the record far longer than the media and activists had
even heard of the term "fracking." In 1995, the EPA under the Clinton administration - who were no slouches, either, when it came
"there is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing ... has
resulted in any contamination or endangerment of underground sources of drinking water
(USDW)." The EPA had been studying fracking in Alabama as far back as 1989. "Moreover, given
the horizontal and vertical distance between the drinking water well and the closest methane gas production wells, the possibility
to environmental restrictions - declared that
of contamination or endangerment of USDWs in the area is extremely remote." That was Carol Browner writing, the
environmentalist lawyer who served as EPA administrator under Bill Clinton and later became the director of the White House Office
of Energy and Climate Change Policy under the Obama administration. The New York Times recently featured a letter from Yoko
Ono, representing her group Artists Against Fracking, in which she repeated the lie: "Industry documents show that 6% of the wells
leak immediately and that 60% leak over time, poisoning drinking water and putting the powerful greenhouse gas methane into our
atmosphere," she wrote. "We need to develop truly clean energy, not dirty water created by fracking." Industry documents show no
such thing. Statistics from environmental regulators show no such thing.
Nowhere, anywhere, does any credible
scientific evidence exist that fracking has made a single drinking water source "dirty." On the
contrary, a review of tens of thousands of wells, in state after state, and by the most rigorous
Page 141
federal environmental regulators, has turned up a complete blank on any fracking-related
drinking-water contamination. It is no overstatement to say that fracking has proven 100% safe
for drinking water in the United States - making fracking probably one of the few resourcebased industries on Earth that can actually boast such a statistic. How galling it is, then, that so
much of the anti-frackingmovement relies on spreading the opposite of that fact - on spreading
an outright lie.