What's an OTEC? 



Who? — The U.S. government is funding ocean 

 thermal energy conversion (OTEC) research 

 through private industries, universities and non- 

 profit organizations. Among the OTEC questions 

 being examined are: legal ramifications, feasibility, 

 costs and financing, environmental impact, heat 

 exchangers, physical plant, by-products, biofouling 

 of the equipment, transmission of electricity 

 through cables to the mainland, heat loss, cold- 

 water pipe technology and marketability. 



What? — Proposed 500 megawatt plants are esti- 

 mated in 1975 dollars to cost between $300 and 

 S900 million each after the government picks up 35 

 percent of the tab. The price includes the cost of 

 secondary production facilities (for ammonia for 

 fertilizer or perhaps liquid hydrogen) which are 

 proposed to increase investment and profit possi- 

 bilities. 



The plants are based on the theory that the 

 oceans collect and store solar radiation as heat 

 energy in the upper surface layer. And the differ- 

 ence between this upper water temperature and 

 the cooler temperature at deeper reaches is large 

 enough for a working fluid, perhaps ammonia or 

 propane, to be vaporized at the higher temperature 

 and condensed at the lower temperature. The 

 working-fluid vapor turns a turbine, which drives 

 a generator to produce electricity. 



Why? — Because the government has determined 

 that by the year 2020 combined solar sources must 

 meet 25 percent of the nation's energy needs. 

 OTEC is one of about nine proposed approaches — 

 both land and sea based — to capturing solar 

 energy. 



When? — By 1977, the Energy Research and De- 

 velopment Administration plans to select a site for 

 its first OTEC demonstration plant. Full commer- 

 cialization is not anticipated until the turn of the 

 century. 



Where? — Various proposals locate OTECs (several 

 of the plants will be required) in the Gulf of Mexi- 

 co; off the coast of Brazil; in the Gulf Steam per- 

 haps off Charleston, S.C. (though the Gulf Stream 

 is considered an unstable resource); the Carribean; 



The University of North Carolina Sea Grant Program 

 N'ewsletter is published monthly by the University of North 

 Carolina Sea Grant Program, 1235 Burlington Laboratories, 

 Yarborough Dr., North Carolina State University. Raleigh, 

 N-C. 27607. Vol. 3, No. 3. March, 1976. Dr. B. J. Copeland, 

 director. Written and edited by Dixie Berg and Karen 

 lurgensen. Second-class postage paid at Raleigh. N.C. 

 27611. 



Hawaii; or southern California. 



How? — OTEC components would be constructed 

 generally on land and then towed out to the site 

 where the pieces would then be assembled. One 

 proposal calls for a facility reaching deeper than 

 1,500 feet (that's five football fields) below the 

 surface. Others are based on more of a huge plat- 

 form or ship-like design. 



Some problems 



— Cost seems to be a major problem with OTEC. 

 This is being tackled from a number of angles. One 

 is having the components — heat exchangers, plant, 

 cold-water pipe — owned by different companies. 

 Another possibility is to produce marketable sub- 

 stances — such as ammonia for fertilizer, edible 



(See "More," page 4) 



Scientists are 



Twice before this country has shifted its primary 

 forms of energy. In the 19th century, the switch 

 was from wood to coal; and in this century, to oil 

 and gas. Each time the changeover has taken about 

 60 years. The government says the country can't 

 afford to spend 60 years this time — fossil fuels 

 won't last that long. 



Such a dramatic change does take time though. 

 And the frustrations expressed by scientists at a 

 recent conference on energy from the oceans point 

 up some of the problems the country faces in the 

 scramble for energy self-sufficiency. 



Dr. Abrahim Lavi, professor of engineering at 

 Carnegie Mellon University and supporter of ocean 

 thermal energy conversion (OTEC), complained 

 that the government hasn't been able to make up 

 its mind about OTEC. There has been, he said, "a 

 measure of timidity" on the part of the government. 



The idea, he said, is being doomed on the basis 

 of unnecessarily high cost estimates while the 

 purportedly low cost of nuclear power is rising. 

 And, Lavi said, despite increasing disappointment 

 with nuclear power plants, industry is pushing 

 that option "because they want to present us with 

 a fait accompli." 



Of the energy crisis in general, he said, "We have 

 not responded to it in this country in the way that 

 it is a crisis." The political problems, he said, 

 "seem to be far more overwhelming than the tech- 

 nical problems." 



And another, Professor William E. Heronemus, 

 Department of Civil Engineering, University of 



(More problems, continued from page 3) 



foods, liquid hydrogen — as a concurrent process. 

 And a third is simply to justify the high initial 

 cost as a trade-off for not having recurring fuel 



costs. 



Backers also point out that using cheaper ma- 

 terials^ — where feasible — would reduce costs. And, 

 once the technology is perfected and performance 

 of components improved, they say costs will surely 

 drop. 



— Possible environmental consequences re- 

 searchers have identified for OTEC vary from the 

 impact of onshore shipyards to build the things; to 

 the receiving plants for the cables; to the possible 

 cumulative loss of heat in the ocean and threat to 

 the resource itself as well as to the ocean's eco- 

 system; to raising the temperature of the water 

 nearest the plant and adversely affecting living 

 organisms. 



people, too 



Massachusetts — who has studied both wind power 

 and OTEC extensively — echoed: "It's high time 

 we start looking very seriously at energy from the 

 sea . . . We ought to get on with this ... I don't 

 think we're headed on the right track at the na- 

 tional level . . . absolutely not." 



He noted, too, the difficulties in getting research 

 money and interesting power companies which are 

 reluctant to invest in the unproven OTECs. 



Professor S. H. Salter, the English wave expert, 

 said that "from our side, we are astonished about 

 the money . . . you can spoil a project by having too 

 much money." And, he added, to a certain extent, 

 he had done better before the British government 

 stepped in with funding of his own project. 



But others were not so pessimistic. Michael Mc- 

 Cormick, an Energy Research and Development 

 Administration (ERDA) consultant, said he was 

 encouraged by the amount of interest shown by 

 individuals who took the time either to write 

 ERDA or drop in with proposals. These, he said, 

 were the impetus behind the search for alternative 

 energy sources. 



And Frederick E. Naef, who presented Lock- 

 heed's proposed OTEC facility, admitted that plans 

 could be speeded up if someone would decide to 

 take the risk. But, he said, he felt the key was that 

 "We're beginning to identify options to the use 

 of nonrenewable resources. . . Possibly some time 

 in the future we are going to need these options." 

 Given time, he said, the options can be developed. 



N.C. Companies 



Remain 



Doubtful 



All the talk of energy from the seas is, of course, 

 rather theoretical at this point. Private investors 

 are still largely dedicated to fossil fuels and the 

 development of nuclear power. The electric com- 

 panies that serve North Carolina are not ruling 

 out energy from the oceans, but neither are they 

 dashing out to get in on the ground floor. 



At Carolina Power and Light (CP&L), spokes- 

 man Sid Linton says the company has no formal 

 policy on energy from the oceans. In the near 

 future, CP&L will concentrate on coal and nuclear 

 power. And long-term research for CP&L and 

 other major power companies, says Linton, is 

 being done at the industry-sponsored Electric 

 Power Research Institute (EPRI). 



EPRI's planning for the year 2000 and beyond 

 includes both solar and nuclear energy. As of De- 

 cember, 1975, the institute was funding 478 re- 

 search and development projects in 31 program 

 areas at an estimated cost of over $400 million. 



Bill Burton, spokesman for Duke Power Com- 

 pany, says they are "watching all developments in 

 exotic forms of power ... at the present stage it 

 does not appear practical to get energy from the 

 ocean." Tides are not good on the North Carolina 

 coast, he says. 



And, although "in theory, you could use (ocean 

 thermal energy conversion), there are a lot of 

 practical problems that have not gotten to the 

 laboratory stage yet." Among those problems, he 

 mentions footings for the heavy weight of the plant, 

 maintenance and corrosion of equipment, wear on 

 the turbines and equipment in general. Burton 

 doesn't expect to see power from the ocean before 

 the year 2000. 



Duke's planning through the 1980s, Burton says, 

 includes the only conventional, available sources — 

 coal and uranium. "As supplies of coal and urani- 

 um are used up," he says, industry, with the help 

 of EPRI, will have to go elsewhere for energy. But, 

 he adds, it would "be foolish if we did not continue 

 to develop better means to utilize existing sources." 



Virginia Electric Power Company — Vepco, as 

 it's called — serves about 10 northeastern North 

 Carolina counties. Vepco spokesman Doug Coch- 

 rane says the company itself is involved in no 

 particular research efforts. But cooperative re- 

 search with other companies involves tides and 

 wind, along with other forms of solar and geo- 

 thermal energy. 



