> Under these conditions, the system could reach "up to 90.71% of theoretical maximum absorbed power by an axisymmetric point absorber under a certain wave period."
It's telling that they don't mention any wattage figures.
It's telling that they don't mention any wattage figures.
Let's also assume this ship has decided they will position themselves in the most violent position possible on "rough" seas[2]. These crew member & cargo are getting thrown up and down 3 meters every 10s[3] -- think of the bridge of the Star Trek USS Enterprise.
Let's assume the weight is 30m wide, 10m tall, 30m long, and full of water. That's 900000kg. Running the math... and that gives us 2.6MW of power generated. That's assuming perfect efficiency, assuming everything is in the best case scenario (aka worst case for safety).
At the same time, the engines on the same ship are rated at 60MW total. 4% fuel savings.
Assuming the crew is not suicidal, they will try and face the ship into the waves as much as they can. I can't be bothered to calculate 366m ship and 80m wavelength, but let's say half a meter of up and down motion? Comes out to 440kW, or 0.7% of rated power.
Will this complex system ever be able to pay itself off with that kind of savings?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_E-class_container_ship [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_state [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_wave
I think that's missing one order of magnitude: 30m * 30m * 10m = 9,000 m^3; at a density of 1t/m^3 that's 9,000,000 kg.
I think the idea is still sound though. there is so much loss (4m waves ≠ 3m height change; rocking motion is not up-down motion) that these wattage numbers would in practice reduced by orders of magnitude.
Would a ship keep its engines constantly running at max output?