overview: epri ocean energy...

1© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Overview: EPRI Ocean Energy Program

Roger Bedard /EPRI

Duke Global Change CenterSeptember 14, 2006


Outline

Two Years of EPRI Feasibility Studies Completed- Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) and - Tidal In Stream Energy Conversion (TISEC)

Over the Next Two Years We See an Increasing Number of Wave and Tidal Pilot Demonstration Projects – New EPRI Feasibility Studies

Environmental and Regulatory Situation

A Sustainable Electricity Generation Energy Supply Portfolio and How We Transition To It

SF Tidal

Resource

Motivation

Technology

EPRI Com’l Plant Design

Cost of Electricity

SF Wave

Resource

Motivation

Technology

EPRI Com’l Plant Design

Cost of Electricity


EPRI Ocean Energy Feasibility Assessments

• Motivation– A diversity and balance of energy sources is the foundation of a reliable

electrical system– North America has significant ocean energy resources– Technologies able to exploit these resources are becoming available

• Objective– Evaluate for adding to the North American energy supply portfolio

• Approach– Perform techno economic feasibility studies, and if a compelling case

for investment in ocean energy can be made; then• Stimulate feasibility demonstrations in North America; and • Accelerate sustainable commercialization of the technology, and• Facilitate public/private collaborative partnership between coastal states,

involving state agencies, utilities, device develops, interested third-parties, and the DOE


Impacts – July 2006

Our Ocean Energy Feasibility Studies are having an effect. In the past couple of months, we have seen:

1. Private investors have filed 26 applications for preliminary permits with FERC for tidal projects based on our studies

2. NSPI has announced a multi M$ pilot tidal plant project based on our study

3. A private investor filed with FERC for the 1st US commercial wave plant; a 50 MW plant at Reedsport OR, the site we selected and performed a feasibility study for in 2004.

4. Lincoln County Oregon has applied for a FERC preliminary permit for multiple wave plants along their coast

5. Expect a few more commercial wave power plant site applications to FERC soon

May 16, 2006 Halifax Chronicle


Wave and Tidal Energy Resources


Global Solar Energy Distribution

Highest annual average solar energy flux on the

Earth’s surface is about 300 watts/m2


Global Wind Energy Distribution


Wave Energy Conversion Basics

Waves are a concentrated form of solar energy

Technology to convert wave energy to electrical energy is real and practical


Earth-Moon-Sun Tidal Forces

The solar tidal bulge is only 46% as high as the lunar tidal bulge. While the lunar bulge migrates around the Earth once every 27 days; the solar bulge migrates around the Earth once every 365 days. As the lunar bulge moves into and out of phase with solar bulge, this gives rise to spring and neap tides.


Definition of Wave Power in kW/m of Wave Crest Length


Tidal Power Flux (kW/m2) and Wave Power Flux (Kw/m)

Tacoma

Narrows

1.7 kW/m2

Golden

Gate

3.2 kW/m2

Minas

Passage

4.5 kW/m2

Western

Passage

3.0 kW/m2


ME NH MA RI NY NJ

110 TWh/yr

WA OR CA440

TWh/yr

Southern AK1,250 TWh/yr

Northern HI300 TWh/yr

ME NH MA RI NY NJ

110 TWh/yr

WA OR CA440

TWh/yr

Southern AK1,250 TWh/yr

Northern HI300 TWh/yr

Many Sites > 100 MW Bay

of Fundy extractable

Many more smaller (1 –100 MW) in

Bay of Fundy and

Maine

Wave and Tidal Resource

1 Site at Knik Arm Cook Inlet

17 MW avgextractable

Total Wave Energy Resource Easy to Calculate – Total Tidal Resource Difficult to Calculate

Total US flux into all regions with avg. wave power density >10 kW/m is ~2,100 TWh/yr

1 Site in TacomaNarrows

16 MW avgextractable

1 Site in Golden Gate 35 MW

avg extractable

Total US Tidal Energy Resource is Low –– Canada Tidal Resource is much Higher than US


Wave Climate Summary

Hawaii California Oregon Washington Maine Mass.

15.2 kW/m 20 kW/m 21.2 kW/m 26.5 kW/m 4.9 kW/m 13.8 kW/m

05

10152025303540

Jan

Feb Mar AprMay Ju

n Jul

AugSep Oct NovDec

Wav

e Po

wer

Den

sity

kW

/m

West Coast (Oregon) East Coast (Mass)

Hawaii


Tidal Climate Summary

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 10 20 30 40

Time (hours)

Pow

er (k

W/m

^2)

05

101520

2530354045

0 5 10 15 20

Time (days)

Pow

er (k

W/m

^2)

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

0 10 20 30 40

Time (hours)

Pow

er (k

W/m̂

2)

Golden Gate, California

Western Passage, Maine

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 5 10 15 20

Time (days)

Pow

er (kW/m̂

2)

California Maine

Power Density (kw/m2)d 3.2 2.9

Available Power (MW) 237 104

Extractable Power (MW) 35.5 15.6


Electricity Supply – Big Picture

• US Total Electricity Consumption = 4,000 TWh/yr (source EIA 2004)

• US primary energy required = 12,000 TWh/yr (assumes 33% energy conversion efficiency)

• Total Annual US Wave Energy Resource =2,100 TWh/yr (calculated by EPRI) or 1/6 of current energy req’d

• 25% at 50% Efficiency = 262 TW/h

• Harnessing 25% of offshore wave energy resource at 50% efficiency would be comparable to all US conventional hydro generation in 2003 - It’s Significant

Fuel Type %

Coal 50%

Nuclear 20%

Natural Gas 18%

Hydroelectric 7%

Fuel Oil 2%

Biomass 2%

Geothermal 1%

Wind <1/2%

Solar PV <1/20%


Motivation

Wave Key Attributes• High power density• Forecastable to many

hours or even days• Minimize aesthetic

issues – far out and low freeboard

• Large resource

Tidal Key Attributes• High power density• Predictable• Minimize aesthetic issues –

submersed• Small resource in lower 48

but potentially large in AK and Canada

Wave and Tidal Benefits

• Create Jobs – improve local economy

• No emissions – relatively environmentally benign

• Reduces dependence of foreign supplies – hedge against future fuel prices


Wave and Tidal Energy Conversion


4 Primary Types of Wave Energy Conversion

Reservoir

Wavesovertopping

the ramp

Attenuator

Point Absorber

Overtopping

Terminator- Oscillating Water Column


Examples of Wave Energy Devices (WECs)

PointAbsorber(OceanPowerTechnologiesPowerBuoyTM)

Attenuator (OPD Pelamis) Overtopping (Wave Dragon)

Terminator (EnergetechOscillating Water Column)


Four Primary Types of In Stream Tidal Flow Energy Conversion Devices (TISECs)

Venturi

Vertical Axis Turbine

OscillatoryTurbine

Secondary Water System

Horizontal Axis Turbines


Examples of Tidal Stream Technology

Horizontal Axis - Marine Current Turbines SeaGen

Oscillatory - EngineeringBusiness Stingray

Vertical Axis - Gorlov

Venturi


Technology

Offshore WEC Devices• Handful of engineering units

tested for a few years• 1st commercial sale

occurred last year (sort of) –OPD Pelamis in Portugal –contains an early 3 unit qualification

TISEC Devices• Many barge and towed tests of devices but

only one seabed fixed test (MCT SeaFlow )• Technology leverages learning experiences

of wind turbines• 1 MW class non surface piercing systems

required for many sites, but, testing of the 1st

(Lunar 1 MW) is still a year away or so –MCT 2nd Gen submersible > 2 years

• Verdant East River Project - 1st Array and Environmental Testing

OPD Pelamis MCT SeaFlow Verdant Power


Ocean Power Delivery Pelamis – Currently the most technologically mature WEC device


Wave and Tidal Power Plant Design, Performance Cost and Economics


Tidal Site Survey Elements

• Tidal channel with annual avg speed of tidal current peaks (ebb and flood) V 1.54 m/s (3 knots); equiv 1.9 kW/m2

• Large Cross Section Area “A” (P = 0.5 A V3)• Suitable onshore grid interconnection point/substation

– Close proximity to site to reduce transmission cost– Existing grid capable of handling an additional 1 MW or so nominal

demonstration project) and commercial plant sized for site)

• Environmental concerns/Showstoppers (e.g., dredged channel, beach ice, etc)

• Local public and political support• Nearby harbor to support deployment and servicing

– Fabrication infrastructure: large open spaces for staging materials, incoming rail line, cranes, dry dock or graving dock, slipways

– Home-ported tugs or workboats– Ongoing shipbuilding and repair activities– Local economic development incentives


Site Survey Elements (continued)

• Navigation channels– Sufficient channel width or depth for

safe clearance between vessels and project– Away from small boat mooring areas

• Excluded areas– Marine protected areas– Active channel maintenance dredging

• Tidal channel bathymetry/geotechnical conditions for setting of anchors/foundations

• Unique opportunities to minimize pilot plant costs and/or attract supplemental funding

– Existing easement which can be used to route power cable and shore crossing (telecomm cable corridor, effluent outfall, bridge)

– Plans for a roadway/railway bridge to cross a tidal channel yielding the opportunity to integrate and “buy down” cost of civil works

– Local public advocacy for project and highly-visible public education or workforce training opportunity

– International collaborative project potential (channel on political boundary)

15 m foroceangoing

5 m forcoastal


EPRI San Francisco Wave and Tidal Plant Designs

Ocean Beach WEC Plant• Sized for 300,000 MWh/yr Output

– 106 MW rating/ 33 MW avg– 25,000 homes– 152 Energetech Devices or

213 Pelamis Devices

Golden Gate TISEC Plant• Sized to extract 15% of the

available kinetic energy – no noticeable ecological effect – 106 MW rating – 35 MW average annual – 27,000 homes

but site length and existing devices limit it to 7% - 16.5 MW and 12,800 homes – 80 - 18 m diameter turbines

11 km

1.8 km

400 m

MCT 2nd Gen Lunar 1 MW


Cost of Electricity – San Francisco Example

1.00

10.00

100.00

100 1000 10000 100000

Installed Capacity (MW)

CO

E (c

ents

/kW

h)

Wave Low Bound Wave Upper Bound Wind

Actual Wind COE History

Projected Wave Upper and Lower COE

1st Tidal Plant Golden Gate16.5 MW avg

5 – 9.5 cents/kWh

1st Wave Plant Ocean Beach

33 MW avg

8 – 16 cents/kWh

2005$

Utility Ownership

Assumes same Incentives as Wind Technology

Wind (class 3 - 6) = 4.5 – 6.5 cents/kWh

Solar Trough = 18 cents/kWh

Coal PC USC = 4.2 cents/ kWh - 1, 760 CO2 lbs/MWh

NGCC ($7/MMBTU) = 6.4 cents/kWh – 860 CO2 lbs/mWh

Wave and tidal COE ranges represent an early stage in product life cycle

and preliminary costing


Coal, Wave & Wind in 2010 Time Period

4

5

6

7

8

0 10 20 30 40 50Cost of CO2, $/metric ton

Levelized Cost of Electricity, $/kWh 2005$, W/O Incentives

Wind After 50 GW@42%CF

13

1st 100 MW Wave Plant in Pacific Northwest@33% CF

CoalWind after 50 GW@29%CF


Coal, Wave & Wind in 2020 Time Period

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


Levelized Cost of Electricity, $/kWh, 2005$, w/o Incentives

Wind after 100 GW@42%CF

11

Coal

Wave after 50 GW inPac NW @33% CF

Wind after 100 GW@29%CF


Coal, Tidal and Wind in 2010 Time Period

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


Levelized Cost of Electricity, $/kWh, 2005$, w/o Incentives

Wind after 50 GW@29% CFTidal@3 kW/m2 - Golden Gate CA

11

[email protected] kW/m2 – Tacoma Narrows WA

Coal

Tidal@ 4.5 kW/m2 – Minas Passage NS

Wind after 50 GW@42% CF


North America Wave and Tidal Projects

Environmental and Regulatory Issues


North America Wave Energy Projects

HI, OahuKaneohe

WAMakah Bay

RIPoint Judith

ORReedsport

ORLincoln Ct

OPT County

Filed with FERC

8/23/06

Filed with FERC

07/14/06

250kWPowerBuoy

50 MW

50 m4 km

Developer Ocean Power Tech AquaEnergy Energetech

Development Stage

Deployed June 04 – 8 Mo of

Tests –Redeploying late

2006

Permitting since 2002

DOI submitted to FERC Feb 2005 – Ruling

Oct 2005

Device Power BuoyTM Aqua BuOYTMOscillating

Water Column (OWC)

Size

Single buoy40 kW

Buildout to 1 MW

4 buoys1 MW

Single OWC500kW

Water Depth/ Distance from Shore

30 m1 km

50 m6 km

2 m2 km

From EPRI Feasibility Study Northern CA Not yet a project


North America Tidal Energy Projects

MAAmesbury

NYNY, East

River

BCRace

Rocks

NSMinas

Passage

WATacomaNarrows

Developer Masstech/Verdant

NYSERDAVerdant

ENCANA/CleanCurrent

NovaScotiaPower

NSPIplanning Phase 2

TBD

TBD

TBD

TacomaPower

Development Stage

2 Month Test

Complete

In Con-struction

Beingdeployed

Tacoma Power

Filed for permit with

FERC

Device Verticalaxis

Horizontalaxis open

rotor

H - axis ductedrotor

TBD

Size1m X 2.5

m1 unit

5 m diameter6 units

? Dia 1 unit TBD

Power (kW) at Max Speed (m/s)

0.8 kW @ 1.5m/s

34 kW @ 2.1 m/s ? TBD

From EPRI Feasibility Study

WAAdmiralty

Straits

CAGolden

Gate

SNOPUD Oceana

Filed with FERC06/06

Rec’dFERCprel

permit10/05

TBD TBD

TBD TBD

TBD TBD


Frequently Asked Questions

Will these devices affect the environment?The Environmental Issueso Withdrawal of wave and tidal flow energy on the ecology o Interactions with marine life (fish and mammals)o Atmospheric and oceanic emissionso Visual appearanceso Conflicts with other uses of sea space (fishing, boating, shipping,

clamming, crabbing, etc)o Installation and decommissioning

Wave Energy Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)o Belt Collins EIS for Navy Hawaii WEC Project - FONSIo Devine Tarbell EIS for AquaEnergy Makah bay WA Projecto Many European EISs


Pelamis Visual Appearance


Frequently Asked Questions

• Will the regulatory authorities grant a permit for this offshore wave power and tidal power plants

• Will these devices survive storms and the hostile marine environment?


Pelamis Survivability


Regulatory and Environmental Summary

Wave Energy• Federal Jurisdiction

– Plant > 3 miles = MMS/FERC– Plant < 3 miles = FERC– Plant > 3 miles in marine

sanctuary = FERC/NOAA

• State Jurisdiction – CA Dept of State Lands

• Env Issues– Reduced wave height– Interactions with marine life– Conflicts of sea space

Tidal Energy• Federal Jurisdiction

– Com’l Plant < 3 miles = FERC

• State Jurisdiction –– CA Dept of State Lands

• Env Issues– Fish endangerment– Ecological effects


Proposed New Feasibility Studies:

River In StreamHybrid Offshore Wind - Wave


Hydrokinetic River Energy Conversion

Present State– Present day run of river hydro plants are low-head, no-storage plants– They involve diverting a portion of the river thru hydroelectric turbines

Desired State – No dams– No diversionary flows– No aesthetic concerns– Environmentally benign

River Tidal StreamFlow Unidirectional BiWater Fresh SaltVariability Yearly Diurnal

Cycle CycleThreshold* ? 2.5 kw/m2

* Min required average yearly power density for economic feasibility


Hybrid Offshore Wind-Wave Energy Conversion

Present State– Present day European offshore wind plants are in shallow water close to shore– Deeper water further offshore wind plants are less visually intrusive– Cost of near shore wind systems is greater than onshore and cost of far offshore

wind system is greater than near shore wind– Offshore wave is an emerging technology with 1st commercial sale (25 MW

plant) in 2005 in Portugal announced by Ocean Power Delivery of the UK– Hybridization of the two technologies produces lowest cost of electricity (COE)

then either system alone, however, advancements needed in floating platforms and operation and maintenance technologies.

Desired State – Avoid “Cape Wind” Aethestic

Issues– Leverage the synergies for reduced

CoE and reduced resource variability

HOW-WEC


More Advanced Hybrid Wind – Wave Design Concepts


A small investment today might stimulate a worldwide industry which may employ thousands of people and generate billions of dollars of economic output while using an abundant and clean natural resource. It is worth taking a serious look at whether this technology should be added to our portfolio of energy supply options.

EPRI Perspective

• Wave and In Stream Tidal Energy and Other Ocean Energy Sources are potentially important energy sources and should be evaluated for adding to our energy supply portfolios– Indigenous– keep the wealth at home and increase energy

security• A balanced and diversified portfolio of energy supply options is

the foundation of a reliable and robust electrical system• Clean, no greenhouse gases and no aesthetic issues• Economics appear to be close to other options


Economics and Local Job Creation – San Francisco Wave Plant - 106 MW Rating

• Engineering and Construction – EPRI analysis shows about 300 jobs during construction period– Direct– Indirect– Induced

• Operation and Maintenance - EPRI analysis shows that – A crew of 6 people are required to operate the needed

vessels– a crew of 18 people are required to operate and

maintain a 180 unit Pelamis Wave Plant (about 100 MW rating)


The Government says “We are here to help you”

The primary barriers to wave and tidal energy technology are not technical but political:

– No U.S. Government RD&D Funding Support

– No U.S. Government production subsidies

– U.S. Government regulatory uncertainty.


How Could the Government Help?

1. Provide leadership and funding of an ocean energy RD&D program 2. Provide funding for national ocean energy test center 3. Develop design and testing standards for ocean energy devices4. Join the International Energy Agency Ocean Energy Systems

Implementing Agreement to collaborate RD&D activities, and appropriate ocean energy policies with other governments and organizations

5. Study provision of production tax credits, renewable energy credits, and other incentives to spur private investment in ocean energy technologies and projects, and implementing appropriate incentives to accelerate ocean wave energy deployment

6. Lead activities to streamline the process for licensing, leasing, and permitting renewable energy facilities in U.S. waters

7. Ensure that the public receives a fair return from the use of ocean energy resources

8. Ensure that development rights are allocated through a transparent process that takes into account state, local, and public concerns.


Example of Government help

In 2004 the Portuguese Government offered a dedicated marine energy tariff

The UK has a long history of support for the Marine Energy Industry

• Established the “European Marine Energy Centre” in Orkney, Scotland. • Launched the “Carbon Trust, Marine Energy Challenge”• Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has awarded over £25 M to support

the ongoing development of marine energy devices• Launched a £50M support fund which earmarks £8M direct funding for EMEC

and the Wave Hub initiative with the remaining £42M available to support demonstration projects

• Wave Hub, will offer a “plug in” facility with all the necessary permits etc to allow “next generation” multi device demonstrationprojects to negate the cost of grid connection.


Summary

EPRI Ocean Energy Program is for the Public BenefitAll Technical Work Totally Transparent and Available:

www.epri.com/oceanenergy/

(1) EPRI TP-001-NA, TISEC Resource/Device Performance Estimation Methodology

(2) EPRI TP-002-NA, TISEC Economic Assessment Methodology

(3) EPRI TP-003-MA, Massachusetts Site Survey

(4) EPRI TP-003-ME, Maine Site Survey

(5) EPRI TP-003-NB, New Brunswick Site Survey

(6) EPRI TP-003-MA, Nova Scotia Site Survey

(7) EPRI TP-004-NA, TISEC Device Survey and Characterization

(8) EPRI TP-005-NA, System Design Methodology

(9) EPRI TP-006-AK, Alaska System Level Design Study

(10) EPRI TP-006-WA, Washington System Level Design Study

(11) EPRI TP-006-CA, California System Level Design Study

(12) EPRI TP-006-MA, Massachusetts System Level Design Study

(13) EPRI TP-006-ME, Maine System Level Design Study

(14) EPRI TP-006-NB, New Brunswick System Level Design Study

(15) EPRI TP-006-NS, Nova Scotia System Level Design Study

(16) EPRI TP-007-NA, North America Environmental and Regulatory Issues

(17) EPRI TP-008-NA, Final Summary Report

(1) EPRI WP-001-US, WEC Device Performance Estimation Methodology

(2) EPRI WP-002-US, WEC Economic Assessment Methodology

(3) EPRI WP-003-HI, Hawaii Site Survey

(4) EPRI WP-003-ME, Maine Site Survey

(5) EPRI WP-003-OR, Oregon Site Survey

(6) EPRI WP-003-WA, Washington Site Survey

(7) EPRI WP-004-NA, TISEC Device Survey and Characterization

(8) EPRI WP-005-US, System Design Methodology

(9) EPRI WP-006-HI, Hawaii System Level Design Study

(10) EPRI WP-006-ME, Maine System Level Design Study

(11) EPRI WP-006-MA, Massachusetts System Level Design Study

(12) EPRI WP-006-SFA, SF California System Level Design Study - Pelamis

(13) EPRI WP-006-SFB, SF California System Level Design Study - Energetech

(14) EPRI WP-007-US, Environmental Issues Study

(15) EPRI WP-008-USA, Regulatory Issues Study

(16) EPRI WP-009-US, Final Summary Report

Wave Energy Tidal Energy


A Sustainable Electricity Generation Energy Supply Portfolio and How We Transition to It


Decision Making in a Highly Uncertain World

• Investment decisions are being made today about the next generation of electricity supply are complicated by at least four major uncertainties:– Future cost of CO2– Future price of natural gas– Storage of spent nuclear fuel– The capture and storage of CO2

• Prudent investment decisions will assume that carbon constraints are coming

• R&D can make a big difference


Comparative Cost of 2010 Generating Options


Comparative Generation Cost in 2020


Conclusions

• By opening up the possibility of CO2 capture and sequestration, the entire portfolio becomes relatively insensitive to the future costs of carbon constraints

• The U.S. has an opportunity to put a low carbon portfolio in place by 2020

• Without advances in technology, the cost of electricity rise steeply for carbon based technologies

• Electricity generation costs for all options can be improved substantially over the next 10 years, putting the entire portfolio in the “affordable” range –below 7 cents/kWh – regardless of CO2 costs


Importance of Technology Policy

• Advanced technology is a prerequisite for meeting our energy andenvironmental needs of the future because, economic efficiency – that is, achieving our environmental goals at least cost – is critically important

• Technology advances are central to controlling the cost of climate change

• Even a policy that with stringent near term limits or one that leads to an economically efficient price on carbon emissions is unlikely, by itself, to produce the needed technology breakthroughs – may only discourage development of better existing technologies

• R&D must be increased substantially now to– ensure widespread deployment of advanced emission reduction

technologies– stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases


Backup Charts

EPRI Feasibility Study Approach

EPRI Projects

Project Participants

Review of Power and Energy Relationships

Photos of Wave and Tidal Energy Conversion Devices


EPRI Feasibility Study Approach

Site Survey003 Reports

Available Power001 Report

Extracted Power001 Report

Maximum Annual Output on001 Report

Actual Annual Output001 Report

Final Design and Economic

Assessment Reports 006 Report

Cost and Economics

Methodology002 Report

Device Survey 004 Report

Power Resource

Extraction Efficiency

Power Chain Efficiency

Availability

O&M Costs

Capital Costs

SystemDesign

Methodology005 Report

MethodologyReports

Survey Report Design and Economics Reports

Env and Reg Issues 007 Report


EPRI PROJECTEPRI

M. PrevisicDevine Tarbell

Global Energy PartnersDOE/NREL

Va TechUniv of WA

Participants

Federal (4)Federal (4)U.S. DOE and NREL

BPA and ACOA

Utilities (21)Utilities (21)Bangor HydroCentralCentral Maine Power

National Grid & NSTARNB Power

Saint John ElectricNS Power

Chugach & Anchorage Tacoma Power

Puget Sound EnergySeattle City and Light

Snohomish PUDCentral Lincoln PUD

Douglas Electric Co-opPortland General

PacificorpHECO and KIUC

PG&E

State/City Agencies State/City Agencies (10)(10)

Maine Tech InitiativeMass Tech Collaborative

New Brunswick DOENova Scotia Ministry

Alaska Energy AuthorityWashington CTED

Oregon DOECEC, San Francisco &

Oakland CA

Technology Companies Technology Companies (>30)(>30)

Wave & Tidal Power Developers

Institutes (3)es (3)Bedford Oceanography

Univ of Maine, Orono

Univ of Washington


Projects

Phase 1Project Definition

Study

2004 2005

WEC

Completed

In-progress

Future2006 2007

Tidal In-Stream Energy Conversion (TISEC)

2008


Study

Phase 2Design,

Permitting, & Financing


Study

River In-Stream Energy Conversion (RISEC)

Phase 2Design, Permitting, & Financing

NS, Tacoma, SNOPUD, ME and SF

CA Phase 1.5Pre- Implementation

Planning

Wave Energy Conversion (WEC)

CA Phase 2Design, Permitting, &

Financing

Reedsport, Oregon Phase 2Detailed Design and Permitting

OR Phase 1.5 Pre-Implementation

Planning


Review of Ocean Energy and Power Relationships

ENERGY IS THE ABILITY TO DO WORKWork (W) = Force (F) x Distance (d)

(lbs – ft) or (newton – meter)

Potential Energy - energy stored in an object= Mgh = (lbs – ft) or (newton – meter)

Kinetic Energy - energy associated with moving object = ½ MV2 (lbs – ft) or (newton – meter)

POWER IS THE RATE OF WORKPower (P) = Energy / Time)

(lbs-ft)/sec or (newton-meter)/sec

M MFd

Mh

VA

d

g

(P/A)flow = 0.5 density V3(P/L)wave = 0.42 Hs2 Tp

TpHsL


More Examples of WECs

Point Absorber TeamWorkArchimedes Wave Swing Point Absorber

AquaEnergyAquaBuOY

Point Absorber OSU PM Direct Drive

After Deployment

Before Deployment


North America Wave Energy Projects Kaneohe HI – OPT PowerBuoy


North America Wave Energy Projects Makah Bay, WA – AquaEnergy AquaBuOY


North America Wave Energy Projects GreenWave Pt Judith RI – Energetech


Appendix D - Two General Types of TISEC Devices

• Horizontal Axis• Vertical Axis

• Many variations includingducts, blade design, etc


US-Based Verdant Power and GCK

East River, New York, NY GCK Gorlov Turbine barge-mounted testing on Merrimack River, MA

Verdant Horizontal Axial Turbine GorlovVertical-Axis

Turbine


Golden Gate, San Francisco, CA

Golden Gate Bridge

View from BakerBeach

Avg Power Available = 237 MW

AvgPower Extractable = 35.5 MW

Tech Constrained Power = 16.5 MW

No of Homes Powered = 12,80

Example Plants:


Other US Tidal Flow Devices

• Underwater Electric Kite * Gorlov Turbine (UEK) Test Unit


Two UK Tidal Flow Demonstrations

Marine Current Turbines Engineering Business Stingray


Swedish Vertical Axis Device - Seapower


UK In-Stream Device - SMD Hydrovision


UK In-Stream Device – Lunar Energy

overview: epri ocean energy...

Documents