by ian807 » Sat 18 Jul 2009, 11:54:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbrovont', 'W')arm water is denser than cool water, thus the pumping to exchange them will expend energy. In order to exchange enough water to alter surface temperatures enough to remove the energy that drives a hurricane, you'd have to expend roughly the same amount of energy to overcome the difference in buoyancy...unless the atmospheric conditions were cool enough you didn't need to...in which case they wouldn't support a hurricane anyway.
How much oil would we have to burn to equal the energy released during Katrina anyway? Or is the idea to deploy nuclear powered ships to an explosive hot zone for treacherous seas?
Fault me if I'm wrong here, please. Otherwise this seems like a contender for a complete waste of time. Why not just stop building where hurricanes are apt to make landfall? Seems like that would be a lot cheaper.
If you build ocean based stirling engines which actually take advantage of the temperature differential between surface and deep water, you actually
generate energy. In fact, enough of these things would reduce the temperature differential AND generate power simultaneously. No additional power source needed.
The problem I have with this idea is ecological. A lot of organisms require a balance of light, salinity and temparature. Disturb this and you have a die-off of microorganisms with unpredictable consequences.