• Pipeline and Irrigation Systems referred to as HUG
• Innovative damless Hydro Electrical Power Systems referred to as HUG
• Fresh Water Transfer Pipeline System referred to as HUG
• HUG Wave Energy System
• HDPE HUG Lining to Rehabilitate Corroded Oil and Gas Pipelines*
As Company Presidents of:
HUG ENERGY Inc.
Living Water Is Corporation
Living Water MicroFinance Inc.
With Additional Business Interests in:
• Tele-Health Services in Africa
• Micro Finance for women farmers in Uganda, Kenya , Tanzania and Togo
• AgriGrowth Farming: Organic or Natural Agriculture in Africa
• Business Investment Fund: Next6
Renewable energy companies are increasingly interested in converting the energy of California’s ocean waters into electricity. Wave Energy Conversion Technology is evolving and the need for renewable energy is clear.
THE idea of extracting energy from an ocean wave and turning it into electricity is an alluring one. It has the potential to fill in the gaps that are left by wind and sun power plants when it is calm and dark.
We calculate that the cost of producing electricity from the HUGwill be around $0 .003 kilowatt hour. That compares with 16 cents a kilowatt hour for offshore wind farms, six cents for the onshore variety and a grid-connected fossil-fuel power station at five cents or more.
HUG Wave Energy Systemsare ultra-simple, only three moving parts: the helical turbine, the submersible pump and the electric generator (which is accessible and kept dry). The simple HUG design will operate for decades with no more maintenance than an occasional scrub to remove accumulated barnacles.
The HUG uses higher waves to fill a higher reservoir to a greater water level than the surrounding ocean. The lower Pump HUG has a helical turbine, which engages a submersible pump in order to send water up a HUG pipeline to a second Funnel HUGabove the water line on its own barge where its second helical turbine engages an electric generator in a dry environment.
The real advantage of the HUG is POWER from the action of the vortex in the HUG and the Venturi effect created by the shape of the HUG:
Green energy is the way of the future. Look at the Fossil Fuel and Renewable Energy Subsidies.
Coal, natural gas, and oil accounted for 87 percent of global primary energy consumption in 2012.
Our energy needs are growing to such an extent that we are forced to use whatever we have at our disposable without looking at the cost/damage. We are so dependent on conventional sources that the need to change often isn’t there.
Fossil fuel subsidies reached $90 billion in the OECD and over $500 billion globally in 2011. Renewable energy subsidies reached $88 billion in 2011. The IMF estimates that for 2015 the economic cost of energy subsidies worldwide will amount to US$5.3 trillion. This is not to be confused with actual amount of subsidies which are projected to amount to around US$333 billion for 2015. Without fossil fuel subsidies, the price of electricity by about 1.2 cents per kilowatt-hour.
There is no such thing as clean coal, it’s a lie. If you think coal is great, why don’t you go live in Beijing and soak up some of that super clean air.
Hydroelectric energyThis form uses the gravitational potential of elevated water that was lifted from the oceans by sunlight. At this time, most of the available locations for hydroelectric dams are already used in the developed world. Hydroelectric energy SUBSIDIES receive $0.01/ kWh.
Energy from wave energy, tides, the oceans and hot hydrogen fusion are other forms that can be used to generate electricity. These energy sources are often non-centralized, leading to greater consumer control and involvement.
The $6.5-billion Romaine ” big hydro” development in Quebec, Canada will produce 1,550 MW: $4200/kW. British Columbia’s plan to build a new $8.8-billion hydro project on the Peace River for 1,100-megawatt: $8,000/kW. Manitoba may be in the worst shape of all: it has green-lighted the $6.5-billion, 700-megawatt Keeyask dam: $9286/kW (9 cents per kilowatt-hour).
The average cost of electricity from a hydro station larger than 10 megawatts use to be $1,000-$5,000/kW (3 to 5 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour). The HUG: $954/kW
There are additional indirect costs: damming interrupts the flow of rivers and can harm local ecosystems, and building large dams and reservoirs often involves displacing people and wildlife.
Cheap and abundant U.S. natural gas, with its lighter (than coal) carbon footprint, is eating Canadian hydro’s lunch. Export prices averaged 6.5 cents per kw/h in 2008. By 2012, that was down to 3.1 cents per kw/h – far below the production costs of any new hydro projects being built now.
Comparisons of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions or global warming, which uses the global warming potential unit, the Carbon dioxide equivalent(CO2e)/kWh: 400 for natural gas and 700 to 1000 (without scrubbing) for coal.
By 2040, world energy demand is expected to dramatically increase (in 25 years)
Worldwide energy usage is on track to increase by roughly 40% in the next 20 years and to nearly double by 2050. Carbon emissions still have to be cut 84% by 2050, yet almost 70% of the kilowatt-hours of electricity consumed today comes from coal or natural gas. Electricity has to be the dominant energy form used in the future.
The allure is irresistible. A wave energy system that could harness an inexhaustible, nonpolluting source of energy and be deployed economically in sufficient numbers to generate significant amounts of electricity—that would be a feat for the ages.
Climate change is the most difficult problem the world has ever faced: it is huge in its global scope and they are the biggest challenge of the century. We have far more oil, coal and gas than we can safely burn. We can only avoid devastating damage if most of the world’s coal, oil and gas are left in the ground. We can’t burn them if we care about climate change. Is this the Burning Question?
Here is the problem: even if we gave up on all the obscure and unconventional fossil fuel resources that companies are spending billions trying to access and just burned the “proven” oil, coal and gas reserves – the ones that are already economically viable – we would emit almost 3 tons of carbon dioxide. No one can say exactly how much warming that would cause, but it is overwhelmingly likely that we would shoot well past 2 C degree and towards 3 C degree or even 4 C degree of warming.
The book, Burning Question reveals climate change to be the most fascinating scientific, political and social puzzle in history. It shows that carbon emissions are still accelerating upwards, following an exponential curve that goes back centuries.
The simple truth is that tackling global warming will mean persuading the world to abandon oil, coal and gas. For all the uncertainty about the detail, every science academy in the world accepts the mainstream view of man-made global warming.Continue reading The Burning Question→
The secret to low energy costs is to keep the Breakwater cost low: build a road-worthy seawall from the shore so that trucks can haul stone works more economically than by barge.
Building a Breakwater from the Shore
A major part of the breakwaters constructed in the world are the so-called conventional ruble mound breakwaters, which consist of a core, a filter layer and a heavy armor layer. An alternative to the conventional ruble mound breakwater is a berm breakwater.
When there is a rock quarry, relatively close to the construction site, which is dedicated to the breakwater project, the Icelandic type has proven to be very attractive economically. The basic reason for that is that unlike the other types the Icelandic type utilizes the quarry 100%.
The smaller armor stones are then placed rather deep where the influence of the wave attack is less, as well as on the rear end of the structure, while the largest stones are placed where the largest wave attack is expected.
The key to the use of the Icelandic berm breakwater design is in its ability to match the predicted quarry yields of the potential quarries.
The equipment park used by the contractor consists of 4 backhoe excavators 110, 75, 50 and 25 tons, three front loaders 75 and two 45 tons, three dumpers, a split barge of 250 m3 capacity and three drilling rigs. They used a large excavator both in sorting the largest stones and placing them on the breakwater.
One other solution is a breach of the dam. A breach allows part of the dam to be removed. The process is usually done to allow fish passage and keep the dam’s value as a monument to human ingenuity. They have such amazing demolition tools these days. That hydraulic jackhammer and that claw & bucket are really impressive and innovative.
The amount of sediment in the riverbed may be too great for dredging to be effective, Sediment may cover over 50% of the reservoir, causing a rise in surface water level in the reservoir.
Replacing the power produced at the dam would cost an average of $271 million per year, a number that is larger than the $217 million estimate of what it costs to keep the dams. Enter the HUG that can continue to power the dam!
HUG (Helical Unique Generation) is a New Good, an Innovative Hydro Electric Power System which has never been seen before; it substantially deviates from any other good or service produced before. Over the past decades, no major breakthroughs have occurred in the basic machinery of utilities.
We have developed the proprietary HUG, based on the physics of the vortex, which will revolutionize hydroelectric energy. This new damless development of a submerged helical pathway is capable of extracting hydro-electric power from rivers, rapids or small waterfalls at low cost.Continue reading HUGE HUG INNOVATION→
This “one inventive idea” is not like a grand idea similar to wind turbines, that started small and developed into 150,000 MW globally. Each new development of wind turbines was an improvement on what worked well in the first place. The grand idea of the wind turbine was something to work toward, but the grand idea had to come first.
Inventions whose ideas remain in the Box, which are only a slight change to present ideas have never succeeded in the last 30 years. Each country knows that it must find more sources of sustainable energy. The Department of Energy from each country turns to the engineering departments of universities — almost in desperation. Under extreme anxiety, the staff comes up with an idea, but the idea come from inside the Box. Often the government throws millions of dollars at that “one inventive idea“.
The wave energy industry is in its infancy, with no commercial-scale facilities operating anywhere in the world. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a London-based researcher, in August said the evolution of marine-energy systems is taking longer than expected and costing more than forecast. BNEF lowered its capacity forecast for wave power by 2020 to 21 megawatts, 72 percent less than its original estimate. It stated large amounts of money will be required for wave power to catch up with wind and solar.
A theme among wave power experts is that wave energy is where wind energy was three decades ago. It will likely require the participation of some large companies, such as GE or Siemens.
Many wave energy inventions are unsatisfactory because they are huge and heavy and would require expensive regular maintenance. Many of these inventions have a lot of moving parts that can wear out in a harsh environment, especially in the agitated salt-water, which can do a lot of corrosive damage.
Pelamis Wave Power Ltd., a U.K. maker of a very heavy wave energy system, was worth €8.2m for the initial pre-commercial phase. In September 2008, they were not able to raise the money neededto continue development despite years of work by a plethora of start-ups and many millions of dollars in government support. The cost was becoming too high related to the small amount of energy produced.
Cost is the number one disadvantage of wave energy. The possibilities of the proper technology is so varied: many innovators grope for different solutions to this very high potential, and research can be directed aimlessly in many directions. This is the reason why some companies have gone out of business as their technology failed in actual field tests. These many approaches lead to speculation on innovation and the costs are high only because of the wrong initial path.
In the absence of information on how projects operate in real-world conditions and how they affect the environment in which they operate, ocean energy developers cannot attract capital because of low power density of many wave energy inventions.
Wave Energy is only a niche renewable energy technology. While other forms of alternative energy like solar, wind and biomass see hundreds of billions of dollars in investment each year, wave energy does not see even $1 billion in investment globally.
The solution to finding the best wave energy solution has nothing to do with troubles to jump starting any new industry. You can’t start to develop word processing starting with a manual typewriter.The wave technology is so different that it requires an entirely new perspective. What is required is an idea that comes out of the Box. The jet engine was an idea that came out of the Box of all propeller-driven engines.