Description cont.
At full capacity, 80% of the machine's throughput is into the lowest zone and it is shifting more than 1TeraWatt of heat, equivalent to the output of 500 central power stations.

In addition to transferring heat, the HWC also transfers oxygen to deeper ocean levels, helping to prevent the anoxic conditions which are predicted as one of the by-products of Global Warming.

It should be appreciated that although the great ocean currents (eg the North Atlantic Conveyor) move vastly more water, the temperature difference is minimal, since the surface water has to cool to almost 0ºC before it can descend by natural convection. Thus a few HWC machines will move an equivalent amount of heat on an annual basis.

The HWC will be anchored and allowed to rotate to maintain a slight angle to the prevailing waves. It will be located where:

• Ocean surface is hot and salty
• Thermocline is not too deep
• Deep currents exist to diffuse the warm plume

ie. in conditions typical for the Pacific ocean at 20ºN

Impact

• Each machine redistributes 160km3 of water per year equivalent to 500 GigaWatts continuous
• 800 such machines could mitigate our current Global Warming excess (400 TeraWatts)
• 100 years of heat burial would raise mean ocean temperatures by less than 0.25ºC.

Practically

• A ‘slow-tech’ design would encompass low speeds and a 200-year life.
• Reinforced Concrete (RC) is used extensively as construction material, because of its cost, strength and durability.
• Building such machines would be viable for the existing offshore industry.
• The technology is easily transferable to less-developed countries.
• A low-maintenance design allows for minimal upkeep cost.

Environmentally

• The pump is enhancing ocean circulation which is threatened by Global Warming.
• The HWC is totally wave-powered using renewable energy.

Socially/ Politically

• The entire machine could be organised as a habitat. Island people would inhabit it, caring for the machinery as part of their lifestyle.
• Such projects could be financed by a Carbon Tax; ideally through a “World Carbon Bank”
• Governments could buy in to such schemes; it’s jobs for their industry and a way to be seen to be doing something!

Economically

• Development costs are estimated at €30 million
• A working prototype would cost approx €80 million
• India could subsequently build a full-size machine for €300 million.
• Payback time for investors = 5 years (195 years profit)
• GW costs us some $500bn annually.
  Payback time for the Global Community = 6 months!!