Talk:Wave power/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The formula shown for power seems suspect to me. I'm not an expert, but the referenced articles, if i am reading them right, say this is the power per wave. --agr 19:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It must be power continuously, not per wave. One may speak of work per wave, not power per wave. Please don't change the formula casually.Anthony717 01:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Anon

If we observe the wave, it is unidirectional. I am having a Idea to run a Rotor with blades(Turbine) over the Sea Surface. If any one have any Experience share the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.1.222.210 (talk • contribs)

What? -- Ec5618 13:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The article states that the largest waves (not including storm-induced)reach 15 meters. Dont you mean feet?? 15 meters is a tsunami at work, and could crush a 3 story building. Does that need correcting??189.169.84.33 17:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Jenny

A fully developed sea with persistent 50 knot winds will have 15 meter waves.Anthony717 20:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

HOW about like the gorges dam

The effects of tapping this power?

The article is lacking a discussion of the effects of tapping the wave power. The energy has to come from somewhere; very probably, the effect of the floaters is to damp the waves. If they are incoming coastal waves, that will mean that vast tracts of shoreline will have less waves. Does that matter? There should be some discussion, or at least a mention of the problem. David Olivier 14:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wave energy is absorbed by the shore, whether or not wave power devices are present. Waves erode the shoreline and provide sport for surfers. Unless someone can point to some biological process that requires waves, this is non-issue.Anthony717 20:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought this was a benefit, not a problem; surely a lot of what is spent on coastal defence would be saved in a wave power system. In fact coastal defence alone might justify the cost of a scheme, with the power as a by-product (I don't know the costs involved, I'm just speculating; I'd be interested if anyone has the answer to that). Moonraker12 14:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
There isn't a huge amount of research available into the effects of wave energy on the sea state after interaction with wave energy devices, largely due to the lack of practical experience with devices in situ. Some models have been applied but considerably more work is needed. There is some evidence of shoreline effects from models carried out in connection with the Wave Hub development in Cornwall, with estimations of a 1-3% reduction in wave height at the shore (based on 20MW of generator, 15km offshore). The impacts of this on shoreline marine life has not been investigated to my knowledge. It's not impossible that there could be some impact as there is evidence that even slight variations in sea state can lead to evolutionary differences amongst similar species with only slight geographical separations. biffa 11:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cost?

What would Wave Power cost to use and install at home? -Jallero 06:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A lot. I read an estimate that one wave bearing costs $50,000 because of the salt water environment. 199.125.109.108 07:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Then there is the cost of the canal... Moonraker12 14:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate template

The template:renewable energy sources has been vandalized to change it to say "Energy development" instead of "Renewable energy" which is what it should say. Nuclear power also needs to be deleted. Very few people think that nuclear power is "renewable energy". Template has been restored and protected for one week.199.125.109.108 07:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to include wave power in project physics? 199.125.109.84 18:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The costs of manufacturing wave buoy's

http://www.phenolics.org/products/PhenolicNL.htm

I was reading this article and have some knowledge of advanced materials and metallurgy and was impressed that the design could be constructed with Bakelite, MOST IMPORTANTLY the section in the article that says that initial designs will be over-engineered, corrode, etc;

There is a couple ways to make Bakelite but similar to boat hulls made with fiberglass a form is used, But I want to point out that Bakelite is HEATED and CURED where simple fiberglass is not!

Manufacturing could create large Bakelite Buoys that would be tensile strength strong enough and corrosion resistant.

Ohh, the phenoyl would be a by-product of ethanol produiction in B20 etc;

I would like more information on the pump design and some pictures of the power train of these systems.

If there was a real market today, I could bid Bakelite as a material and win the contract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.116.163 (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


As I understand it most of the serious wavepower manufacturers plan to use concrete as the structural material with as much as possible of the other equipment enclosed and protected. But maybe bakelite has some applications. CostelloWaves 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Salter's Duck

Prior to my edit:

"According to sworn testimony before the House of Parliament, The UK Wave Energy program was shut down on March 19, 1982, in a closed meeting[1], the details of which remain secret. The members of the meeting were recruited largely from the nuclear and fossil fuels industries, and the wave programme manager, Clive Grove-Palmer, was excluded."

The source in question:

"I do not know if any peer review process was involved but I expect that everything was decided by ETSU and the Department of Energy, with long range control of a committee known as ACORD that was recruited largely from the nuclear and the depletable energy industries. It has not been possible to get minutes of their meeting of 19 March 1982 from which the wave programme manager, Clive Grove-Palmer, was excluded and at which it was decided to close the UK wave programme."

Here are the claims in the article text:

  1. "According ... Parliament," - Supported, but leads to a sinister assumption. Removed.
  2. "shut down on March 19, 1982," - Supported.
  3. "in a closed meeting[1], the details of which remain secret." - Not supported. The modifier "closed" assumes such meetings are usually "open". They are not. No assertion was made that the details were or are secret.
  4. "The members of the meeting were recruited largely from the nuclear and fossil fuels industries," Not supported. The source "do(es) not know" and says it was probably ETSU and the Dept. of Energy . . . with long range control of ACORD (which was recruited kind of from the sources indicated)
  5. "and the wave programme manager, Clive Grove-Palmer, was excluded." Supported.

Resulting text:

"The UK Wave Energy program was shut down on March 19, 1982, in a meeting from which wave programme manager, Clive Grove-Palmer, was excluded.[1]"

Mdbrownmsw 17:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is starting to become a linkfarm

Unless anyone truly objects with a valid reason all those companies should be at the bottom of the page, I am going to do a bit of spring cleaning on this article. The external links are a mess in my opinion. spryde | talk 12:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support - Looking at the scroll bar, the Article is 2/3rds links out. Let's start a new list of external links here, put in an excerpt for justification, and then transplant. As a newcomer, these are the sites I found useful, either through WP or googling:
  • Archimedes Wave Swing (AWS) http://www.awsocean.com/technology.html - Extracts energy from vertical motion from submerged gas-filled buoys. These buoys are actually pistons filled with gas that undergo a compression cycle based on the height of the water column that applies a downward force, F = mgh, where h and m, height and mass, respectively, fluctuate under gravitation (constant, g) as tides and waves pass over these fully submersed pistons.
  • Permanent Magnet Linear Generator Buoy - http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~prudell/index_files/WE_Brochure.pdf - Oregon State University has developed three direct-drive prototype buoys designed to be anchored 1-2 miles offshore, in typical water depths of greater than 100 feet, where the buoys will experience gradual, repetitive ocean swells. Wave motion causes electrical coils to move through a magnetic field, inducing voltages and generating electricity.
  • US Patent 6,194,815 - A piezoelectric generator comprises one or more inner hubs, an outer, stationary support, and a plurality of strap-like piezoelectric power generating elements mounted between the hubs and the outer support. The hubs are mounted for relative rotation on a first shaft mounted eccentrically on a second shaft having an axis of rotation coincident with central axis of the outer support. Rotation of the eccentric first shaft causes the hubs to follow a circular path around the outer support axis but without rotation of the hub around its own axis. The movements of the hubs cause alternate straining and destraining of the piezoelectric elements for generating electrical energy. For obtaining high energy conversion efficiency, the elements are arranged in groups of three or more substantially identical elements which are identically strained but symmetrically out-of-phase with one another.
  • US Patent Application 20040217597 - An elongated cylinder is fully submerged, in vertical orientation, just below the mean water level of, e.g., and ocean, and of a length, dependent upon surface waves of preselected wavelength, such that the top of the cylinder experiences relatively large pressure variations in response to over passing waves while the bottom of the cylinder experiences an almost steady pressure substantially independent of the over passing waves. The pressure differential over the length of the cylinder is used for causing relative movements between the cylinder and adjoining water, and such relative movements are used for driving a piston of an energy converter. The cylinder can be hollow and in fixed location for causing water movements through the cylinder, or the cylinder can move through the water relative to a fixed transducer. In one version of the movable cylinder, the transducer is fixedly mounted on a fixed in place float disposed within the movable cylinder. In a second version, the transducer is fixedly mounted beneath the movable cylinder on the ocean floor, and the cylinder is coupled to the transducer.

(We also need something easier to find than Tester et alia for Wave Power Equations, with a clear definition of whether KE, PE, both, experimental value, etc. is the criterion for what is being called energy.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nukeh (talk • contribs) 02:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 100TWdoug (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

the technology

The descriptions of the technology are deficient, IMO. A good description of a piece of technology ought to supply enough information to mentally picture the basic workings of the device. From the description of the buoy method, for example, I can envision three different ways the device could be generating power -- four, if I pair buoys. The information provided ought to discuss the options and make clear what is actually being done.Dismalscholar (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

More articles and devices needed

More devices need to be mentioned that exist to harness wave energy. A list on what devices to add can be found here. Add them to the article. Also, perhaps the Salter duck-article might be created (so the entire text does not need to stay on this article about the duck-question). Cheers guys,

KVDP (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wave powered boat - any details?

Hi, found something about a wave-powered boat http://www.tsuneishi.co.jp/english/horie/about.html Mentioned briefly on Wikipedia:Kenichi Horie. It doesn't give many details. Anybody knows something about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.36 (talk) 16:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Restored sections

The following sections:
100 Terawatt GEWP Calculations
More 100 Terawatt GEWP Calculations
Potential
Animated Maps for Forecast Wave Height and Period
Request to Google Reneweables for Confirmation of 100 TW Calculation
Adoption or Joint Venture?

Have been deleted, apparently without discussion

There are also substantial changes within the sections, which make it difficult to follow the discussion. Does anyone know why?

Anyway I’ve restored what I can find.

Moonraker12 (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


100 Terawatt GEWP Calculations

Crowsnest has called the reference to this entry a "hoax" and has deleted it twice. If it is a hoax, then there would be a very clear item of misinformation, a bad calculation, or something Crowsnest should be able to point out that is clearly inconsistent with science and engineering. The single sentence characterizing the GEWP calculation and proposal has been deleted twice by Crowsnest without discussion. Where is Crowsnest evidence of a hoax? Why would another WP editor, namely myself, place a material that references a hoax in a WP article? That suggests vandalism. I am not a vandal. The real vandal is anyone or any entity that would seek to supress the GEWP calculation. Candidates include the USA Department of Energy and people who are directly affected by the calculation in terms of their financial livelihood or their stated public position.Nukeh (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I‘m having trouble with this
The article says 5,000 km of coastline is required to yield 50 GW (50,000 MW), though, to be fair, that claim isn't referenced; This claims that GEWP refers to a scheme to produce 100 TW (100 million MW)!.
It does this by using 100,000 floats the size of the Exxon Valdez ( that’s a total of 20,000 million tons of floating steel)
Also, the GEWP website is only a week old, and refers back to here.
What does anyone else think?
Moonraker12 (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding calling the GEWP energy device claims a hoax: my apolagies, if it is not.
Regarding your contributions to this article and talk page, and elsewhere on Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not the place to present original research, nor is this talk page a forum for (at length) discussing original research, see WP:NOT#OR. So I suggest Nukeh to search outside Wikipedia for presenting his research and claims, as well as for asking validation of these claims and for obtaining advice on water wave dynamics, ship hydrodynamics and wave energy. Which I expect not to be difficult, regarding Nukeh's professional background and contacts.
Crowsnest (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

More 100 Terawatt GEWP Calculations

Global Wattage / Wolf Creek Wattage = 100 million MW / 1,000 MW = 1014 / 109 = 100,000 nuclear reactors (although Wolf Creek is a high record holder). If the GEWP calculations are correct, would it be better to have one Valdez-sized ocean-based generator riding on waves, or one new land-based nuclear reactor? Nukeh (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is one of the calculations from GEWP.org:


Estimate of total world energy use: 1014 W = 100 terawatts

5 x 1015 ft·lbf/min

5 x 1014 ft·gal/min

(Assume unidirectional wave motion of 15 ft / min and a mechanical-to-electrical conversion efficiency of 30%)

1014 gal of displacement in such motion

1013 cubic feet

1012 square feet of a 10 foot thick slab

106 ft x 106 ft x 10 ft displaced slab

200 mile x 200 mile x 10 foot slab

What part of this calculation constitutes a "hoax"? Nukeh (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... That's the size of Iceland; maybe that's where the "hoax" idea comes from, Hmm? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's also half the size of Kansas. But, for the moment, let's assume size doesn't matter. I'd still like to know if the physics is correct. Once that is confirmed, then it is highly appropriate to challenge the materials science, engineering scale, cost, environmental impact, geopolitical compensatory benefits (avoiding buzz words, here), other remedies for greenhouse, etc.Nukeh (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Potential

I've moved this:-
"A 100 terawatt plan — exceeding total human energy use — has been proposed using buoyant vessels [1] tethered to the ocean floor with a distributed displacement volume of 200 miles (320 km) by 200 miles x 10 feet (3.0 m)."
as it 's disputed (see discussion above). Please do not replace it until there is consensus on it. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We should also question the 100TW number in reference to http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/graphic_data_world.html -see their Figure 8, in spreadsheet form, from their Figure 8. "World Marketed Energy Consumption, 1980-2030 Quadrillion Btu"

Here are my notes on the conversion to Watts, which I continue to revise between these formatting lines (if that is OK under WP rules):

Year Quadrillion BTU

1980 283.4

1985 308.6

1990 347.3

1995 365.6

2000 399.6

2004 446.7

2010 511.1

2015 559.4

2020 607.0

2025 653.6

2030 701.6

1 Watt is approximately 3.41 BTU/hr

Quadrillion may mean either of the two numbers (see long and short scales for more detail):

   1,000,000,000,000,000 (one thousand million million; 1015; SI prefix peta) - increasingly common meaning in English language usage. 

   1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1024; SI prefix yotta) - increasingly rare meaning in English language usage.

Year 2010: 511.1 x 1015 BTU

divide by 3.41 (1 watt is approximately 3.41 BTU/h) and divide by 8760 (hours per year) to get

5 x 1012 Watts

Perhaps DOE data is in BTU / day, then yielding 120 TW: 511.1 x 1015 BTU, divide by 3.41, divide by 365; DO NOT divide by 24.

Nukeh (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for one of the other WP to contact roger.c.prince@exxonmobil.com (and colleagues) via email to verify these energy units and conversion factors, and then post here? Please note that I / we simply want to make WP entires consistent in terms of world energy quotes and conversion factors that are already referenced on WP. As I understand the WP rules 'original research' is a no no. However, quotes and conversion factors, especially if cited in the wrong units, are editorial jobs that can be performed at a textbook level using internal WP references. It would be a HUGE JOB for a WP editor to go through the entire website and look for errors in the plethora of citations on energy and power units! Once bad numbers get out, they are hard to recall, because WP is often viewed as authoritative by students and readers.Nukeh (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Director Chu at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory is also aware of this calculation 'SChu@lbl.gov'. Perhaps another editor can get him to confirm the calculation or to refer us to the appropriate DOE publication. Also, there is work at OSU funded by DOE that is already referenced on WP.Nukeh (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Another person that might be able to confirm the calculation is the current chair of UN-Energy, Mats Karlsson, of the World Bank. Nukeh (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Animated Maps for Forecast of Wave Height and Period

[1] - 0 to 168 hour forecast in 6 hour intervals, with a color-coded scale from 0 to 75 feet. Just South of New Zealand looks like a wild place!

[2] is a possibility for the main article. It has a nice user interface with 22 buttons for views x 2 options for either wave period or wave height, and a drop down menu for forecast time, including an animated gif. This entry reformatted and resigned by Nukeh (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Nukeh (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to Google Renewables for confirmation of 100 TW Calculation

renewables@google.com 100 terawatt calculation

Google,

Please see www.gewp.organd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wave_power .

The calculation on ocean waves (naturally wind-powered) has been up 10 days.

The total platform now looks more like 100 x 100 miles x 10ft displacement for 100 terawatts, equal to current world power.

Using freshman-college-level physics, and the references on GEWP, someone in your organization should be able to confirm the calculation with about one hour of work. I would ask you to place the confirmation statement on the WP Talk: Wave Power page, using a well-established user name. Otherwise, WP will think the confirmation is coming from a sock puppet.

No one at DOE, Exxon, academia, etc. has touched that talk page in a substantial manner since my calculation went up on March 1, 2008, despite repeated requests from me to old colleagues via email and a lot of targeted “advertising” using Google AdWords.

I conclude that the calculation is probably correct, but that the topic is hotter than Cold Fusion.

Respectfully,

Doug Youvan 1-808-783-0180 Nukeh (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Adoption or Joint Adventure?

After 2 weeks on Wave Power, it is fairly clear that page is very important to Alternative Energy and it needs to be re-written to bring it up to speed and exceed the Discovery Channel. No joke, I just added 2 patents to the main article, tracked the assignee, and saw their work on a Discovery clip. Fabulous stuff. Given that I am conflicted with www.gewp.org , what can we (mouse in my pocket) / I do to help re-write the article and push it up in importance in the appropriate portals? Not only am I conflicted with gewp, but I am running Google Adwords on the keywords "alternative energy" and "wave power", world-wide. That's half my income, so you might be able to see that I am very serious about doing anything I can to head off (buzz words deleted) over energy.Nukeh (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you just say that you have a financial interest in seeing this article's position in search engine's improved, and that is your motivation for editing it in a certain way? I just want to be clear on that. Please clarify --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am financially conflicted in the opposite manner as normally encountered: My work for gewp.org is pro bono and gewp.org itself places all new technology into the public domain, creating a patent bar immediately upon publication. My payment for AdWords is a charitable contribution to gewp, and gewp is a 501(c)3 nonprofit in formation. I do this as an experienced inventor in biotechnology, having ~600 uspto.gov patent references. One of my patents was litigated through three levels of court up to the CA Supreme Court in 2006, and the award was a record: $34.5M. I also figure the US government has ~ $50M in me via grants and training over a 30 year period. Given the status of energy in our world, and some of the obvious consequences for the future (war, stagflation, greenhouse, nuclear proliferation, etc.), I feel that I have no choice but to act in a charitable manner as an inventor. My affiliations are exclusively to www.gewp.org, and other charitable organizations, having retired from all other work years ago. I have no financial interest in anything except blinded CA State bonds which are the current source of my charitable giving.Nukeh (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, you have, as you say, a vested interest in pushing certain things up in importance in appropriate portals; which to me means that your editing is based on search engine hits and NOT on producing the best encyclopedia. That is a conflict of interest of the WORST kind, regardless of whatever financial stake you have in the matter. The fact remains that you aren't interested in creating balanced, neutral, or accurate articles, only in playing the Google game. That is directly counter to Wikipedia's core mission. You should seriously reconsider your motivation here at Wikipedia... Your actions will likely get you into trouble. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If the wave power article is not as current as a Discovery program, and someone has blanketed the article with wave gizmos that consist of 404's and "contact the company for more information", why would you question my philanthropic motives? Every day, I am bidding directly against Chevron and others to increase traffic on keywords such as "alternative energy".

We are all in trouble: The fact of the matter is that it is now feasible to convert either to solar or wave power for a Hydrogen economy. The references are on www.gewp.org. These references need to be on WP, because WP is seen as more authoritative than gewp.

Here is another problem: It appears that there is no legitimate purpose for new nuclear plants if solar and/or wave is adequate. If that becomes both USA domestic and foreign policy, then we are in a strong position to deter nuclear proliferation via reactors constructed on the premise of energy supply. However, to say that solar and / or wave power is adequately sufficient to power all of mankind at 100 terawatts is also to say that the oil industry is condemned.

Please direct me to the appropriate WP rules for a sole inventor, sole source, philanthropist who wishes to contribute to articles. Nukeh (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You are argueing like I care about the specifics of the situation. As a Wikipedia administrator, I am officially neutral on those issues, and take the official position of not caring at ALL about this information. However, you REALLY should read WP:COI and take it to heart, because it clearly looks like you have a conflict of interest in the articles in question...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. WP:COI is a specific instruction that I will read and follow. Nukeh (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC) I should add that I am potentially conflicted by [3], too. Nukeh (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read conflict of interest:

Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. They do this in various ways. Many Wikipedians show their allegiances and affiliations on their user pages. You may choose to reveal something about yourself in a talk page discussion. Disclaimer: Wikipedia gives no advice about whether or how to use its pages to post personal details. This guideline only raises some pros and cons.
Advantages:
By declaring an interest, you pre-empt anyone outing you or questioning your good faith.
Most editors will appreciate your honesty.
You lay the basis for requesting help from others to post material for you, or to review material you wish to post yourself.

So, I believe I am in compliance, and no one seems to understand: "requesting help from others to post material for you". Nukeh (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm not really interested in posting the material for you. Try the talk page of the relevent articles. Someone there may be able to vett the information you wish to add, and be willing to help out. I'm just not that interested myself... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, moved to article discussion Nukeh (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a copy-paste from my Adwords ~ 1 week timescale:

Keyword Status Current Bid Max CPC Show Settings Hide Settings Sort by: Bid | URL Clicks Impr. CTR Avg. CPC Cost Avg. Pos

 Alternative Energy Active  $1.11 Settings

$1.11 Max CPC http://www.gewp.org [ Edit ] 280 18,612 1.50% $0.94 $262.85 4.4

 Wave Power Active  $0.40 Settings

$0.40 Max CPC http://www.gewp.org [ Edit ] 4 460 0.86% $0.37 $1.46 2.0

 Department of Energy Deleted      3  1,761  0.17%  $0.50  $1.50  1.3  
 Tidal Energy Deleted      16  1,175  1.36%  $0.19  $2.99  2.3  
 Wave Energy Deleted      20  984  2.03%  $0.18  $3.54  2.4  
 wave power Deleted      0  122  0.00%  -  -  1.3  
 tidal power Deleted      0  121  0.00%  -  -  1.4  
 "wave power" Deleted      0  24  0.00%  -  -  1.5  
 Clinton Energy policy Deleted      1  6  16.66%  $0.50  $0.50  2.0  
 McCain Energy policy Deleted      0  4  0.00%  -  -  2.3  
 Obama Energy policy Deleted      0  2  0.00%  -  -  2.0  
 Obama energy Deleted      0  2  0.00%  -  -  3.0  
 Hilary Clinton energy Deleted      0  1  0.00%  -  -  2.0  
 Hilary Clinton energy policy Deleted      0  1  0.00%  -  -  2.0  
 alternative energy policy Deleted      0  1  0.00%  -  -  6.0  
 Content network total   Off        266 149,983 0.17%  $0.55 $145.80 3.5 
 Search total On Default   $0.40 [Edit]   324 23,276 1.39%  $0.84 $272.84 3.9 
 All sources total       590 173,259 0.34%  $0.71 $418.64 3.6

Nukeh (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone finds this interesting: The gewp.org $1.11 bid per click is currently outbid by two Chevron ads, GE, and a book ad for Earth the Sequel. Nukeh (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving?

If these discussions (above) are complete, we could archive them; does anyone know where things are up to? Moonraker12 (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that everything can be archived. Relevant to leave here or copy back: #This is starting to become a linkfarm. Crowsnest (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.