overview: epri ocean energy program the...

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

Overview: EPRI Ocean Energy ProgramThe Possibilities in California

Roger Bedard /EPRI

Ocean Energy 2006June 22, 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

Perspectives

SF Tidal

Resource

Tech Motivation

Technology

EPRI Com’l Plant Design

Cost of Electricity

SF Wave

Resource

Tech Motivation

Technology

EPRI Com’l Plant Design

Cost of Electricity


EPRI Ocean Energy Feasibility Assessments

• Motivation– A diversity 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– Feasibility demonstration in North America– Accelerate sustainable commercialization of the technology

• Approach– Facilitate public/private collaborative partnership between coastal

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


Site Survey and Characterization

Feasibility Study Approach

Energy Conversion Technology Assessment

Select Site/Technology Combinations

Preliminary DesignPerformance and Cost

Pilot Scale

Preliminary DesignPerformance and Cost

Commercial Scale

Calculate Levelized Cost of Electricity


EPRI PROJECTEPRI

M. PrevisicDevine Tarbell

GlobalDOE/NREL

Va TechUniv of WA

Participants

Federal (4)U.S. DOE and NREL

BPA and ACOA

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 (9)

Maine Tech InitiativeMass Tech Collaborative

New Brunswick DOENova Scotia Ministry

Alaska Energy AuthorityWashington CTED

Oregon DOESan Francisco &

Oakland CA

Technology Companies (>30)

Wave & Tidal Power Developers

Institutes (3)Bedford Oceanography

Univ of Maine, Orono

Univ of Washington


Four Projects

Phase 1Project Definition

Study

Phase 1.5Pre-

Implementation Planning

Phase 2Design,

Permitting, & Financing

Phase 3Construction

Phase 4Operation & Evaluation

Wave Energy Conversion (WEC)

2004 2005

CompletedIn-progressFuture

2006 2007 2008

Tidal In-Stream Energy Conversion (TISEC)

2005 2006 2007 2009

Phase 3Construction

Phase 4Operation & Evaluation


Study

Hybrid Offshore Wind-Wave Energy Conversion (HOW-WEC)


Study

Phase 2Design,



Study

River In-Stream Energy Conversion (RISEC)

Phase 2Design,



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

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/yrHarnessing 20% of offshore wave energy resource at 50% efficiency would be comparable to all US conventional hydro generation in 2003.

1 Site in Tacoma Narrows

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


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


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


EPRI Coml SF Plant Design Points

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 Gate 16.5 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


North America Wave Energy Projects

HI, OahuKaneohe

WAMakah Bay

RIPoint Judith

OR Gardiner

CASan Fran

Oregon State

University (OSU)

?

OSU Seeking funding

TBD

TBD -RD&D Center

TBD

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 BuOYTM

Oscillating 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 Not yet a project


North America Tidal Energy Projects

MAAmesbury

NYNY, East

River

BCRace

Rocks

NSMinas

Passage

WATacoma Narrows

Developer Masstech/Verdant

NYSERDAVerdant

ENCANA/Clean Current

Nova Scotia Power

NSPI planning Phase 2

TBD

TBD

TBD

Tacoma Power

Development Stage

2 Month Test

Complete

In Con-struction ?

Tacoma Power

Filed for permit with

FERC

Device Vertical axis

Horizontal axis open

rotor? TBD

Size1m X 2.5

m1 unit

5 m diameter6 units

? 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 ?

SNOPUD filing with

FERC

TBD

TBD

TBD

Not yet a project


Regulatory and Environmental Summary

Wave Energy• Federal Jurisdiction

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

sanctuary = NOAA/FERC

• State Jurisdiction –– Ca - Coastal Comm– OR – Energy or State Lands– Etc

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

Tidal Energy• Federal Jurisdiction

– Com’l Plant < 3 miles = FERC– Pilot Plant < 3 miles with no

grid connection – USACOE/ FERC

• State Jurisdiction –– Ca Coastal Comm– NY – Dept Env Conservation– Etc

• Env Issues– Fish endangerment– Ecological effects


Hydrokinetic River Energy Conversion

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

Desired State – River hydrokinetic

energy generation is creating jobs, improving our economy, reducing our dependence on foreign fuels and increasing the reliability and robustness of the electrical system

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 – Offshore energy generation is

creating jobs, improving our economy, reducing our dependence on foreign fuels and increasing the reliability and robustness of the electrical system

HOW-WEC


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


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


Backup Charts

• Wave Power Flux• Photos of Wave and Tidal Energy Conversion Devices


Wave Power Flux


4 General Types of Wave Energy Devices

Point Absorber

Oscillating Water Column

Attenuator

Overtopping


More Examples of WECs

Point Absorber TeamWorkArchimedes Wave Swing Point Absorber

Ocean PowerDeliveryPowerBuoy

Point Absorber OSU PM Direct Drive

After Deployment

Before Deployment


US Tidal Flow Demonstrations

East River, New York, NY Golden Gate Bridge, SF, Ca

Verdant Horizontal Axial Turbine Tacoma Narrows


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 program the...

Documents