WAVEPlam_2009_state of the art report

Coordinator:

Partners:

Supported by:

State of the Art Analysis

A Cautiously

Optimistic Review of

the Technical Status

of Wave Energy

Technology

[STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]

February 2009

i

INDEX

PREFACE .................................................................................................................................... ii

ACRONYMS................................................................................................................................ v

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1

2. THE RECOMMENDED PRACTICES.............................................................................. 3

2.1. The European Dimension.......................................................................................... 3

2.2. The Irish Experience .................................................................................................. 5

2.3. The International Perspective ................................................................................... 8

2.4. Qualification Procedures ......................................................................................... 10

3. PROMISING TECHNOLOGIES ..................................................................................... 11

3.1. Leading Technologies.............................................................................................. 11

3.2. Successive Devices ................................................................................................. 12

3.3. WEC Review ............................................................................................................. 13

4. FUNDING & RESEARCH................................................................................................ 17

4.1. Funding Structure ..................................................................................................... 17

4.2. Research Programmes............................................................................................ 19

4.2.1. WAVEPLAM ...................................................................................................... 20

4.2.2. FP7; Energy: CORES ...................................................................................... 20

4.2.3. FP7; Energy: EquiMar...................................................................................... 21

4.2.4. UK; EPSRC: Supergen Marine....................................................................... 22

4.2.5. FP7; People RTN: Wavetrain II ...................................................................... 23

5. SEA TRIAL FACILITIES .................................................................................................. 24

BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 42

APPENDIX................................................................................................................................. 43

A.1. Leading Technologies...................................................................................................... 43

A.2. Successive Devices .......................................................................................................... 60


February 2009

i

Acknowledgements

WAVEPLAM is a project funded under the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme.

Contract number: EIE/07/038/SI2.466832

Legal Disclaimer

The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not

necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Communities. The European Commission is not

responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.


February 2009

ii

PREFACE The purpose of this review is to provide technical information that should assist policy makers, investors, project developers and other interested stakeholders to make informed decisions regarding the scheduling of wave power into future energy plans and portfolios. Many estimates have already been declared in a variety of prediction documents but they are usually based on energy market forces rather than technology readiness assessment (TRA) of the devices.

It is widely accepted that wave power has the potential to become a significant contributor to the world’s (clean) energy supply needs, as shown by the differing forecasts listed in Table 1. However, it is also the case that in the 1980s WE was expected to be commercial within 5-7 years. This same lead time was further endorsed in 2000 when a new generation of devices were under development. These ambitious time frames have lead to the contradictory perceptions that either the industry is more advanced than it actually is, or it is not really progressing. The true situation is somewhere in-between, so the following device based report should enable more appropriate introduction dates to be specified. Once established it ought to be only the time targets, not the power targets, that may be difficult to achieve.

It is further hoped that the TRA approach will assist in focusing future product funding programmes since the correct support mechanisms are essential if even modified delivery dates are to be met. The device development recommended requirements are summarised in Table 4.1. The actual details of current and required future fiscal policies to stimulate and accelerate project progress are covered in separate Waveplam studies. Here only the on-going principal European and national research projects are described.

To help achieve the objectives, particularly funding packages, a structured device development programme is proposed and this is used as the foundation for setting the machine evolution status. The technical information is presented in the Appendix as developer based specification sheets. This approach will enable the information to be easily updated and expanded as required. The data is summarised in Tables 3.1 & 3.2. The key facts being the Phase (or technology readiness level) column which is an indication of the time still required to reach the commercialisation level. The technology development times being experienced by a selection of leading companies are summarised in Figure 1. The graph illustrates the different approaches that can be followed and the consequences of certain decisions.

It will be seen from the device tables that there are a large and varied number of machines undergoing testing. To-date no one type of technology has demonstrated a clear advantage over the others. However, only one has actually reached prototype scale so there is limited economic data on which to predict accurate electricity


February 2009

iii

production costs. This section has, therefore, been omitted from this edition of the report. A supplement will be added later in the project should such information become available. At present the best guestimate for electricity production will be in the range €0.05-€0.50/kWh.

This document, therefore, concentrates on describing the devices that are the most advanced technically and approaching the economic demonstration phase of their development.

The structure of the report is as follows;

• Chapter 1: Brief introduction and device evaluation criteria • Chapter 2: Technology readiness level methodology • Chapter 3: Leading devices, including summary statistics • Chapter 4: Current funding and research projects • Chapter 5: Infrastructure support and sea trial facilities • Technical appendix

Report Countries 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Scenario A (EU-27) 8 20 66 124 EU SET Plan 2009

Scenario B (EU-27) 12 68 124

Moderate (Global) 1 17 44 98 194 NEEDS Report 2008

Optimistic (Global) 1 20.4 61 149 309

Reference (BAU) (Global) 2 3 4 4 EREC/Greenpeace, 2007

Alternative (+2°) (Global) 2 14 28 46 63

Reference (BAU) (Global) 2 4 7 9 EREC/Greenpeace, 2008

Alternative (+2°) (Global) 0.9 17 44 98 194

Reference (BAU) (Europe1) 0.2 1.8 3.3 4.5 5.1

EREC/Greenpeace, 2008 Alternative (+2°) (Europe

1) 0.3 1.5 4.8 10.3 15.4

Global 0.015 Douglas Westwood, 2008

Europe 0.007

Carbon Trust, 2006 United Kingdom 0.1 2.5

MI & SEI, 2005 Rep. Ireland 0.005 0.2

DEMNR, 2008 Rep. Ireland 0.0752 0.5

Table 1 Wave/Ocean Energy Installed Capacity [GW]

1 OECD Europe: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,

Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom. 2 OEDU mandate of interim target for 2012


February 2009

iv

During the information search a note was taken of less advanced devices that exhibit some interesting, unique features that separated them from being simply adaptations of existing wave energy converters. Of particular merit are the units designed around new materials. All pioneering converters are solid constructions that must withstand, to differing degrees, the extreme wave loadings encountered in exposed ocean deployment sites. There are now appearing compliant type units made of rubber and polymers that can flex and bend with the waves rather than repel and resist them. The progress of these will be reported in an update of the document towards the conclusion of the project in two years time. Certain learned authorities predict that when wave energy emerges as a proven economical alternative energy supply devices will be considerably different from those pioneering the industry.

1

2

3

4

5

0 5 10 15 20

Accumulated Years

TR

L P

hase

CETO

Wavedragon

Pelamis

Oceanlinx*

OE Buoy

AquaBuoy

AWS

OPT

Fig. 1 Device TRL Accumulated Years Testing

• * floating device developed from fixed machine

• durations include project financing delays


February 2009

v

ACRONYMS AWS Archimedes Wave Swing BAU Business As Usual BERR Dept. for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (formally DTI) BIMEP Biscay Marine Energy Platform CORES Components for Ocean Renewable Energy Systems DECM Direct Energy Conversion Method DG TREN Directorate-General Energy & Transport DMI Danish Maritime Institute DNV Det Norske Veritas DTI Department of Trade & Industry DTU Technical University of Denmark EACI Executive Agency for Competitiveness & Innovation EMEC European Marine Energy Centre EPSRC Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council EQUIMAR Equitable Testing and Evaluation of Marine Energy Extraction Devices in terms of Performance, Cost and Environmental Impact EU European Union EVE Ente Vasco de la Energia FP7 Seventh Framework Programme FWEPS Floating Wave Electric Power Station HMRC Hydraulics & Maritime Research Centre IEA-OES International Energy Association – Ocean Energy Systems IEC International Electrotechnical Commission IEE Intelligent Energy Europe INCO International Scientific Cooperation Activities INRI Independent Natural Resources Incorporated KSRI Krylov Shipbuilding Research Institute kW Kilo-Watts (1,000 Watts) MI Marine Institute MRC Multi-Resonant Chambers MRDF Marine Renewables Deployment Fund MW Mega-Watt (1,000,000 Watts) NAREC New & Renewable Energy Centre NEL National Engineering Laboratory NRC National Research Council OPT Ocean Power Technologies OWC Oscillating Water Column OWEC Offshore Wave Energy Converter OWEL Offshore Wave Energy Ltd. People RTN People Research Training Networks PTO Power Take-Off REH Renewable Energy Holdings SEEWEC Sustainable Economically Efficient Wave Energy Converter SEI Sustainable Energy Ireland SINTEF Foundation for Scientific & Industrial Research SME Small-Medium Enterprise


February 2009

vi

SSG Seawave Slot-cone Generator STREP Specific Targeted Research Projects TRA Technology Readiness Assessment TRL Technology Readiness Level TWEC Tunnelled Wave Energy Converter UCC University College Cork WAVEPLAM Wave Energy Planning & Marketing WE Wave Energy WEC Wave Energy Converter WECA Wave Energy Conversion Activator WP Workpackage WS Workstream


February 2009

1

1. INTRODUCTION Ocean Energy, and in particular wave energy, extraction has captured the interest and imagination of inventors and engineers in the same way early flight and cotton manufacturing did in the last century. Perhaps, now that it is a media discussed topic connected to climate change and security of supply issues, even more so. Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, most of the schemes and designs will not advance beyond the drawing board and concept validation phase. Impartial, balanced and equitable due diligence to evaluate the potential of such devices is important, even essential, if the limited commercial resources available to wave energy convertor (WEC) development are to be used efficiently. To advance, the wave energy industry will require focused effort and support for the current vanguard SME’s who have proven they have machines that possess a chance of success and continued operation in the harsh environment these units must reside in.

Over recent years there have been several European and national reviews of the range of wave energy (and tidal energy) devices being investigated at any particular point in time. Reference to them shows how the interest changes from one period to another, despite the belief in each unit at the time. Unlike the wind industry, which quite quickly converged on one model of air turbine, the horizontal axis type, there is no single unit, or even generic type, of WEC that is proving more successful than another. This statement, however, requires clarification, since it depends on how the machines are classified. Most rely on the physics of two inertial masses reacting against each other in such a way that power can be generated between the opposing forces. It is actually only the size, shape, colour and components that differ. This is even the case if one of the inertial masses is fixed, usually to the seabed.

The power take-off utilising the imbalance between the masses is a variable but to date only six options exist:

• Air turbines (Figure 1.1)

• Close circuit oil hydraulics (Figure 1.2)

• Direct (linear generator) drive (Figure 1.3)

• Low head water turbine (Figure 1.4)

• Water Pump (Figure 1.5)

• Open circuit water hydraulics (e.g. Hose Pump) (Figure 1.6)


February 2009

2

Fig. 1.1 Fig 1.2 Fig 1.3

Fig. 1.4 Fig 1.5 Fig 1.6

There is a higher potential for variation in the mooring arrangement and it is possible that non-conventional type anchorage systems will suit some, or all, of the prototype devices. It is also probable that different configurations will match individual buoyant wave energy devices.

This report will therefore not attempt to classify the different devices described in the Appendices but rather regard then all as similar units capable of wave energy conversion. In addition, since the document is charged with describing the current state of the art with regard to wave energy extraction it will not be simply a list of ephemeral devices currently being proposed and investigated at various stages of their development. Rather, a set of criteria was agreed by which a device would qualify for inclusion in the review.

The rationale placed on the study was to identify units with a real potential for pre-production activity in the near future. After informed discussion between the Waveplam partners the two primary requirements for qualifications to the first group were:

• The device had to have achieved sea trials, at least at a large scale (circa λλλλ > 1:4)

• The company must have followed and exhibited evidence of a structured development programme prior to sea deployment.


February 2009

3

Depending on the stage of development, a follow up group are also reported based on adherence to the second specification. As can be seen from the information sheets in the Appendix some flexibility was necessary for almost all devices and the caveat relaxed. It is expected that this document will be updated over the duration of the Waveplam project but the same qualifying criteria will still be applied.

The first condition was easy to observe and verify. For the second the soon to be introduced International Energy Agency ~ Ocean Energy Systems (IEA-OES) Development & Evaluation Protocol was employed.

2. THE RECOMMENDED PRACTICES When the European Union, through its operating Commission, took over responsibility for ocean energy research from the UK, who had terminated their programme in circa 1990, several preliminary actions were instigated. From these the first inclusion of ocean energy in a Framework Programme, JOULE II, evolved. Within this instrument was a two-year project assigned with drawing up a European ocean energy development strategy, the Offshore Wave Energy Converter Project, (OWEC I). One section of OWEC I was dedicated to constructing a programme for device development that would be seen by the SME’s as fair, unbiased, impartial and independent.

2.1. The European Dimension Following consultation with active WE device group’s of the time for background information reference was made to existing development programmes for format. In particular NASA’s Technology Readiness Level (TRL) approach was adopted and adapted to suit marine energy engineering and became the core of the protocol. Additional information was taken from test programme documentation such as the International Towing Tank Conference Guidelines. This fact finding led to a recommendation for a five phase approach that would mitigate financial and technical risk during the development programme of an ocean energy device. Figure 2.1 shows a flow diagram at the various stages of the progress, from initial concept to final pre-production demonstration of a machine.


February 2009

4

Fig. 2.1 Development Phases of the Protocol

The rationale behind the approach can further be explained by Figure 2.2. This shows graph lines of the time and cost investment during the various phases and how these can assist by decreasing the number of design options at each stage. The proportional cost breakdown is also shown to emphasise the logic of complying with such a scheme. Anecdotal experience from certain developers has shown that one day lost in the later phases due to incomplete early testing will cost more than the entire previous phase and have a higher time delay penalty.

PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5

CostOptionsTime

LOW

HIGH

PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5

CostOptionsTime

LOW

HIGH

Fig. 2.2 Cost Breakdown of the Protocol Phases

Although well received at the time of publication (1996) no affirmative action to implement the development schedule was taken, rather application was left to individual device teams. (NB: it is perhaps strong justification for the recommended


February 2009

5

approach that all the current leading companies did follow the design path or a variant of it)

2.2. The Irish Experience In 2002, the Irish funding agents charged with progressing ocean energy prospects requested a document that could be used to appraise the numerous project proposals they were receiving with increasing regularity. The Marine Institute (MI) have stewardship of marine technology matters and Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI) oversee all energy research including renewables, as alternative sources.

As with the EU requirements, the proposed methodology had to be transparent and balanced and seen by the industry as equitable, independent and unbiased. The original Commission Joule II protocol was taken as the foundation for the Irish Ocean Energy Development and Evaluation Protocol.

There were two main advancements made to the former document. Firstly, the details of the procedures and specific areas to investigate at each phase were included. These tactics were based on the best practices known at the time, with many being acquired from other disciplines, especially the offshore engineering industry. Figure 2.3 shows a general overview of the whole development programme with a summary of activities at each phase.

The exact timeline to complete the schedule from concept to market is not yet known since no device has reached the commercialisation stage. What has become apparent from experiences of the device front-runners is that it will take longer than originally perceived. Figure 2.4 encapsulates early thinking when months rather than years were regarded as the route to success. This underestimation of the challenges faced has produced a perception that progress has been disappointing. It should be remembered however that it is over-ambitious targets and intermittent funding that has mainly delayed advancement.

Table 2.4 shows a sample of device development paths and the time frames required to progress successfully through the various TRL.

It should also be noted that in the intervening period, considerable knowledge and experience has been gained by both the research community and the nascent industry. Current devices approaching Phase 4, solo prototype testing and Phase 5, small array demonstration, have a better chance of succeeding than the units from whence they have evolved. Success in this instance is defined not only as survival for an extended period but also that acceptable performance figures are obtained.

6

PHASE 1: Validation Model (lab) PHASE 3: Process Model DEVELOPMENT Concept Performance Optimisation

PHASE 2: Design Model (lab) Lab. Tests Sea Trials

PHASE 4: Prototype

PHASE 5: Demonstration

Objectives / Investigations

Op. Verification Design Variables Physical Process Validate/Calibrate Maths Model Damping Effect Signal Phase

Real Generic Seas Design variables Damping PTO Natural Periods Power Absorption Wave to Devise Response Phase

Hull Geometry Components Configurations Power Take-Off Characteristics Design Eng. (Naval Architects)

Final Design Accurate PTO [Active Control] Mooring system Survival Options Power Production Added mass

Scale effects of Overall Performance PTO Method Options & Control Environmental Influences & Factors Inst. Power Absorption Characteristics Electricity Production & Quality Mooring & Anchorage Security

Ops Procedures Electrical Quality Grid Supply PTO Performance Control Strategy Survival

Grid Connection Array Interaction Maintenance Service Schedules Component Life Economics

Output/ Measurement

Vessel Motion Response Amplitude Operators & Stability Pressure / Force, Velocity RAO’s with Phase Diagrams Power Conversion Characteristic Time Histories Hull Seaworthiness; Excessive Rotations or Submergence Water Surface Elevation Abeam of Devices

Motion RAO’s Phase Diagrams Power v Time Wave Climates @ head, beam, follow

Incident Wave Field 6 D of F Body Motion & Phase PTO Forces & Power Conversion Seaworthiness of Hull & Mooring [Survival Strategies]

Full On-Board Monitoring Kit for Extended Physical Parameters

Service, Maintenance & Production Monitor, Telemetry for Periodic checks & Evaluation

Primary Scale ( λλλλ) λ = 1 : 25 - 100 (∴ λt = 1 : 5 - 10) λ = 1 : 10 - 25 λ = 1 : 10 - 15 λ = 1 : 3 - 10 λ = 1 : 1 - 2 λ = Full size

Tank 2D Flume or 3D Basin 3D Basin 3D Basin Benign Site Exposed Site Open Location

Duration –inc Analysis

1-3months 1-3months 1-3 months 6 – 12 months 3 – 6 months 6 – 18 months 12 – 36 months 1 – 5 years

Typical No. Tests 250 - 750 250 - 500 100 - 250 100 - 250 50 - 100 50 - 250 Continuous Statistical Sample

Budget (€’000) 1 – 5 25-75 25-50 50 - 250 500 – 1,000 1,000 – 2,500 5,000 – 10,000 2,500 – 7,500

Model Idealised with Quick Change Options Simulated PTO (0-∞ Damping Range) Std Mooring & Mass Distribution

Distributed Mass Minimal Drag Design Dynamics

Final design (internal view) Mooring Layout

Advanced PTO Simulation Special Materials

Full Fabrication True PTO & Elec Generator

Grid Control Electronics Emergency Res

First Fully Operational Device

Excitation / Waves Monochromatic Linear (10-25∆ƒ) (25-100 waves)

Panchromatic Waves (20min scale) +ve 15 Classical Seaways Spectra Long crested Head Seas

Deployment -Pilot Site Sea Spectra Long, Short Crested Classical Seas Select Mean wave Approach Angle

Extended Test Period to Ensure all Seaways inc.

Full Scatter Diagram for initial Evaluation Continuous Thereafter

Specials DoF (heave only) 2-Dimentional Solo & Multi Hull

Short Crest Seas Angled Waves As Required

Storm Seas (3hr) Finite Regular As required

Power Take-Off Bench Test PTO & Generator

Device Output Repeatability Survival Forces

Salt Corrosion Marine Growth Permissions

Quick Release Connections Service Ops

Solo or Small Array (Up-grade to Generating Station)?

Maths Methods (Computer)

Hydrodynamic, Numerical Frequency Domain to Solve the Model Undamped Linear Equations of Motion

Finite Waves Applied Damping Multi Freq Inputs

Time Domain Response Model & Control Strategy Naval Architects Design Codes for Hull, Mooring & Anchorage System. Economic & Business Plan

Array Interaction Economic Model Electrical Stab.

Int Market Projection for Devise Sales

EVALUATION (Decision Gate) Absorbed Converted

Power (kW)

Mass, (t) Manufacturing Cost (€)

Capture (kW/t) or [kW/m^3])

[200 – 50 m^3]

Production (c/kW) < 25 €c / kW ≤ 15 €c / kW ≤ 10 €c / kW ≤ 5 €c / kW Fig. 2.3 Details of the Irish Development & Evaluation Protocol


February 2009

7

COST

TIME

RESOURCES

COST

TIME

RESOURCES

Fig. 2.4 Conceptualisation of Early Thinking

The first section of the protocol was included primarily for the benefit of the developers, especially those with limited experience of product advancement. The second expansion of the protocol was the introduction of stage-gate evaluation during each phase of activity. These decision criteria would be applied by the company but provided a standard set of assessment parameters that could be reviewed for each proposal. It was also intended that the schedule facilitated assessment of which stage any particular device had achieved and to what level it could be justifiably supported by public funds for the next phase of progress.

Table2.4 Device TRL Duration

When presented in this logical, sequential way the TRL approach may seem obvious but review of the field soon indicates how often it is not followed.


February 2009

8

The underlying mantra of the protocol was “Always have a plan, but be willing to improvise”. The protocols primary purpose can be summarised by Figure 2.5.

Fig. 2.5

2.3. The International Perspective In the last few years, the interest in development schedules, evaluation plans and progress programmes has grown, including at an international level, and particularly through the International Energy Agency – Ocean Energy Systems group. Through its instrument of the Implementing Agreement of Annex II, an understanding has been reached by which guidelines for the development and testing of ocean energy systems will soon be introduced. This will then formalise an agreed standard set of procedures and best practices that will be applied internationally.

The IEA-OES is not the only body becoming involved in ocean energy planning as Figure 2.6 shows.

Fig. 2.6 Other Ocean Energy Standards & Practices


February 2009

9

In the United Kingdom, the Carbon Trust and DNV have already issued important contributions on design and operation matters. Meanwhile the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) has been engaged by BERR (formerly DTI) to produce 13 Standards for the Marine Renewable Energy Industry. A short list of other groups involved is shown in Figure 2.7.

Technical Committee 114: Technical Committee 114: Technical Committee 114: Technical Committee 114: Marine Energy Marine Energy Marine Energy Marine Energy –––– Wave & Tidal Energy ConvertersWave & Tidal Energy ConvertersWave & Tidal Energy ConvertersWave & Tidal Energy Converters

Annex II: Development of Recommended Practices for Testing Annex II: Development of Recommended Practices for Testing Annex II: Development of Recommended Practices for Testing Annex II: Development of Recommended Practices for Testing & Evaluating Ocean Energy Systems& Evaluating Ocean Energy Systems& Evaluating Ocean Energy Systems& Evaluating Ocean Energy Systems

Development & Evaluation Protocol for Development & Evaluation Protocol for Development & Evaluation Protocol for Development & Evaluation Protocol for Ocean Energy Devices Ocean Energy Devices Ocean Energy Devices Ocean Energy Devices

Standards for the Marine Standards for the Marine Standards for the Marine Standards for the Marine Renewable Energy IndustryRenewable Energy IndustryRenewable Energy IndustryRenewable Energy Industry

Guidelines on Design & Operation of Guidelines on Design & Operation of Guidelines on Design & Operation of Guidelines on Design & Operation of Wave Energy Converters Wave Energy Converters Wave Energy Converters Wave Energy Converters

Tidal Current Energy Device Tidal Current Energy Device Tidal Current Energy Device Tidal Current Energy Device Development & Evaluation ProtocolDevelopment & Evaluation ProtocolDevelopment & Evaluation ProtocolDevelopment & Evaluation Protocol

Fig. 2.7 Bodies Engaged in Drafting Standards & Protocols

The culmination of all this independent, but co-operative activity will be manifested through the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), who has established the Technical Committee 114, Marine Energy – Wave and Tidal Energy Converters. Under this group the current best practice guidelines and recommended procedures will become standards for the industry.

Other interested organisations are also vigorously following research programmes in order to influence the final outcome of the work. Figure 2.8 shows the European dimension to this activity, which includes current EU FP7 contracts.

IEAIEAIEAIEA----OESOESOESOES

Energy Technology InstituteEnergy Technology InstituteEnergy Technology InstituteEnergy Technology Institute

SEI SEI SEI SEI

BERRBERRBERRBERR

Carbon TrustCarbon TrustCarbon TrustCarbon Trust

CACACACA----OEOEOEOE

SuperGenSuperGenSuperGenSuperGen

WavePLAMWavePLAMWavePLAMWavePLAM, FP6, IEE/EACI, FP6, IEE/EACI, FP6, IEE/EACI, FP6, IEE/EACI

EquiMar, FP7, Energy: PreEquiMar, FP7, Energy: PreEquiMar, FP7, Energy: PreEquiMar, FP7, Energy: Pre----

normative research for normative research for normative research for normative research for

OEOEOEOE

EMECEMECEMECEMEC

British Wind Energy AssociationBritish Wind Energy AssociationBritish Wind Energy AssociationBritish Wind Energy Association

European Wind Energy AssociationEuropean Wind Energy AssociationEuropean Wind Energy AssociationEuropean Wind Energy Association

Renewable Energy AssociationRenewable Energy AssociationRenewable Energy AssociationRenewable Energy Association

UKERCUKERCUKERCUKERC

EUEUEUEU----OEAOEAOEAOEA

Fig. 2.8 Concerned Groups Utilising these Protocols


February 2009

10

2.4. Qualification Procedures Although introduced at a time when general guidance was required to facilitate the progress of wave energy device development, a new but equally important raison d’être has evolved for these instruments being in place. For whatever the reasons, commercial extraction of wave energy has been sluggish, although measured would be a more favourable description. However, a mood of impatience and over confidence may be appearing. Governments and their funding agents want to see machines out at sea to the extent that phases of the proven successful development schedule could be skipped. The consequence of hurried engineering is shown in Figure 2.9.

Fig. 2.9 Devices With Known Survival Issues; Osprey, Kvaerner, and TapChan

History has already shown what the consequences of such an imprudent attitude can be and such action should be discouraged. Unrealistic claims or goals could damage the progress of device development whilst reasonable patience should have its rewards.

There is no substitute for due diligence being performed on products and projects before they advance to sea trials in order to reduce the risk and conjecture from this uncompromising phase. The open ocean is not the place to be conducting extensive development work, rather this should have been done in the controlled environment of a test centre or benign site. Figure 2.10 shows some less successful projects that could have been identified prior to expensive sea trials.

Fig. 2.10 Unproductive Devices; Mighty Whale, Vizhinjam OWC and Kaimei


February 2009

11

All the devices described below have followed a defined structured development path to some degree and are at sea for valid and justifiable reasons.

3. PROMISING TECHNOLOGIES The rationale for how the following devices were selected for inclusion into the most promising section was outlined above. Other units are at earlier phases of development and some that may approach the initial sea trial phase before the conclusion of the Waveplam project have been listed in Table 3.2 in the following section.

The first generation of device that are experiencing sea time and offer the potential of being the vanguard of a commercially viable wave energy industry are all heavy steel or concrete units. Such machines must withstand large forces, especially due to breaking waves during storm conditions found where the generation parks will be located. Of particular interest to the future are the more compliant type structures that are under investigation, such as the Anaconda, which is constructed from soft pliable material, i.e. rubbers, so should not experience these worst case scenarios. A particular watch will be kept on such units for the State of the Art update towards the end of the project.

3.1. Leading Technologies More than a thousand ideas for wave energy converters have been patented over recent years but at the present time only fifteen have reached a stage of large scale sea trials. Of these only one has currently registered any hours of operation at prototype scale, but eight have achieved long term testing at large scale (λ > 1:4). Table 3.1 below summarises the situation. (NB. devices are in no priority order]

Reference to the Corporate Information Sheets found in the Appendices show that the progress paths of some of the devices have sometimes deviated from the Protocol and jumped across the boundaries between Phases. On some occasions, this has been to confirm a particular situation discovered at a larger scale but on others, it has been an attempt to cut short the development path. As the evidence and experience shows, this quick-fix approach has rarely been successful and resulted in loss of time and resources rather than gains. These experiences should further reinforce the standard Development & Evaluation Protocol approach.

NB. 5 of the units achieve large capacity rating by clustering smaller individual converters onto a single frame or floating structure. These tend to be tested with a reduced number of converters to verify solo PTO performances. To achieve a full generation park all WEC will be deployed on wider array configurations so the Prototype Rating quoted below represents a single unit or cluster.


February 2009

12

COUNTRY COMPANY DEVICE TYPE PROTOTYPE

RATING

PHASE

(TRL) SCALE

TEST

RATING

UK Aquamarine

Power Oyster Inertia 500 kW 3-4 1:1 500 kW

Finland AW Energy Oy WaveRoller Inertia 5*15 kW 3 1:1 15 kW

UK AWS Ocean

Energy

Wave

Swing Inertia 2 MW 3 1:1.75 250kW

Canada Finavera AquaBuOY Inertia 250 kW 3 1:2 25 kW

Norway Fred Olsen FOBOX3 Inertia 2.5 MW 3 1.3 50 kW

Ireland Ocean Energy OE Buoy Floating

OWC 2 MW 3 1:4 15 kW

Australia Oceanlinx Oceanlinx Floating

OWC 2 MW 3 1:3 45 kW

USA OPT PowerBuoy Inertia 150 kW 3 1:1.5 40 kW

UK Pelamis Wave

Power Pelamis Inertia 750 kW 4-5 1:1 750 kW

Australia Seapower

Pacific CETO Inertia 180 kW 3

1:6

(1:3) 10 kW

Denmark Wave Dragon Wave

Dragon

Floating

Overtopping 7 MW 3 1:5.2 20 kW

Ireland Wavebob Wavebob Inertia 2 MW 3 1:4 15 kW

UK Wavegen Limpet Fixed OWC 500 kW 4 1:1 500 kW

Norway WAVEnergy SSG Fixed

Overtopping 150 kW 2 1:1 150 kW

Denmark WavePlane WavePlane Floating

Overtopping 500 kW 3-4 1:1-2 250 kW

Denmark Wavestar Wavestar Inertia 5 MW 3 1:10 5.5 kW

Table 3.1 Leading Technologies

3.2. Successive Devices Prior knowledge and the specific Waveplam research and literature review revealed a further ten WEC’s at advanced development phases as shown in Table 3.2. Four of these devices have been deployed at sea for short periods but performances were disappointing and resulted in further tank trials become necessary. Once completed it can be expected that units that have looped back in the development path in this way will move through subsequent stages much faster than those experiencing the scale increase for the first time.

The literature review also identified groups that had attempted to begin the device development path beginning at TRL 3. Theses are not included in the tables for two reasons. Firstly, it meant they did not satisfy the two qualification criteria set for this report. Secondly, results from some of these trials tended to be sketchy and unreliable.


February 2009

13


RATING

Netherlands Ecofys Wave Rotor Lift 500 kW

UK Embley Energy Sperboy Floating OWC 2 MW

USA INRI Seadog Inertia 33 kW

UK OreCon MRC Floating OWC 1.5 MW

UK OWEL OWEL Pneumatic 12 MW

Sweden Seabased Seabased Inertia 20-50 kW

UK Trident Energy DECM Inertia 1 MW

UK UMIP Manchester

Bobber Inertia 12 MW

USA Waveberg

Development Waveberg Inertia 100 kW

Canada WET WET EnGen Inertia 200 kW

Table 3.2 Successive Devices

3.3. WEC Review As can be seen from the probable and possible WEC tables, although most (80%) devices work on the same fundamental principle there are many adaptations of the same physical equations. A summary and description of all the devices is given in the appendices together with details of the company developing each machine.

The device review shows the following situation may describe the current status of general technology readiness factors.

FACTOR VERIFIED PART VERIFIED NOT VERIFIED

Conversion Efficiency

Operational Longevity

Solo Economics

Array Economics

Table 3.3 Technology Readiness Levels

The data from the Tables 3.1 & 3.2 are presented in graphical form in Figures 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 showing the number of devices being developed by rated power, type of unit and country of ownership.


February 2009

14

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7N

umbe

r

0kW-100kW

100kW-250kW

250kW-500kW

500kW-1 M

W

1MW

- 2.5MW

> 2.5MW

Device Power Output

Leading Tech. Successive Devices

Fig. 3.1 Technology Power Ratings

The classification by output size seems to support the school of thought that if an ocean energy industry is to become commercially viable it must be capable of supplying large amounts of quality electricity to the energy trading markets.

There is a Scandinavian counter argument to this hypothesis that small is beautiful. The premise behind this suggestion is that forces are reduced proportionately to the physical dimensions of a machine which, therefore, consumes less material in manufacturing and requires smaller service vessels to deploy, operate and maintain an electricity generation park. The contradiction in this philosophy is that many units are required to construct a reasonable sized (circa 500 MW) power station.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Num

ber

OWC Overtopping Floating Inertia Fixed Inertia

Device Type


Fig. 3.2 Device Division by Type


February 2009

15

The offshore wind industry probably offers guidance in this matter, where project developers have pursued larger and larger solo turbines and nacelles. Discussion with a random sample of the developers concluded that the ocean energy supply business would have to be of a sufficient scale to support a full service industry. This would including extensive infrastructure ranging from proximity harbours, specialised deployment and maintenance vessels, available distribution or transmission grid connections and, most importantly, the trained personnel to operate all the tools required to safely keep the converters on stream and productive.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Num

ber

UK Denmark

Australia

Ireland

Norway

Canada

USAFinland

Netherlands

Sweden

Country


Fig. 3.3 Technology Breakdown by Country

In Europe, the primary function of wave energy converters has been for electricity generation. In other parts of the world where water is in short supply, the possibility of using the device motion to pump water has been considered. All WEC’s can be used for this but certain device constructions suit the process better than others. Today some devices are specifically designed around an open circuit, low pressure sea water pump to supply brine to osmotic desalination plants, either housed on-board the machine or ashore at the end of supply pipes. The Swedish Hose Pump (Figure 3.4) was one of the first devices to attempt to use water hydraulics, which are usually regarded as too inefficient for closed circuit use. This system was later incorporated into the AquaBuOY for further development, but still primarily for electricity generation via an impulse hydro-generator.


February 2009

16

Fig. 3.4 Swedish Hose Pump, 1984

The McCabe Wave Pump, shown in Figure 3.5, under development by Hydam Technology in Ireland was one of the first to consider deck mounted reverse osmosis units with the over spill of water going to electricity production. The natural wave induced motion of the pontoons suited this purpose.

Fig. 3.5 McCabe Wave Pump, 2003

As can be seen from Figure 3.6 more units are now pursuing this alternative use with some being exclusively designed for the purpose.


February 2009

17

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Num

ber

Elec. Gen And/Or Desalination

Generation Type


Fig. 3.6 WEC Primary Function

4. FUNDING & RESEARCH Although general awareness of wave energy activity and its potential to contribute to national power supplies has increased in recent years the full picture of the state of the nascent technology is still not clearly described. Most media reports tend to either undersell the engineering achievements or oversell the business plans! During the extensive information search to produce this report it became quiet obvious how the focus of media, and perhaps political, attention and interest had changed from the actual devices to concentrate on the commercial aspirations of the developers. Investor due diligence now evaluates the companies projected sales portfolio rather than the device operation and productivity. The authors would feel this is something in error at this stage of progress since, as yet, no prospective device has actually been proven sufficiently to validate full generation station economics (See Table 3.3).

4.1. Funding Structure The problem with inaccurately stating the TRL is that funding programmes become mismatched to the actual requirement. This is perhaps best illustrated by two examples of national funding. In 2002, the Portuguese authorities announced a support scheme to accelerate wave energy introduction into that country. The basis of the scheme was a special guaranteed feed-in tariff for the sale of electricity to the utility. This was guaranteed at 25 €cent/kW. The introduction created much excitement in the industry but during the time it ran, no device developer was ever in the position to take it up. A similar situation was experienced in the UK when BERR (formally DTI) launched the impressive Marine Renewable Deployment Fund (MRDF) in 2004 at a budget of €50 (£42) million. To a large degree the structure of the scheme


February 2009

18

was similar to the Portuguese model, and incorporated a high feed-in tariff. Caveats were included to qualify for the fund but they could not be described as extensive or demanding. Once again, in the five years the fund has been active, not one machine has been able to qualify to apply.

The very important lesson that must be learned from this process is that it is not just a case of making moneys available to assist the under resourced industry but that the mechanisms or instruments to distribute the funds must be of the correct format. The right support at the wrong time will assist no-one and lead to growing disillusionment of the decision makers.

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 43 Phase 5

Duration [months] 3-9 6-12 6-36 24-36 24-60

Cost4 [€,000] 5-125 50-250 500-2,500 5,000-15,000

Funding [%] 100-50 100-50 75-50 75-25 0

Grant Type Capital Capital Capital Capital

+Feed In Tariff

Investment

+Feed In Tariff

Table 4.1 Device Planning and Budgets*

* figures averaged but weighted towards large scale (>1MW) converters * smaller devices (<500kW) may require reduced support

To a degree this premature, well intended support problem was also reflected in the FP6 DG TREN demonstration call at the end of 2006 under the STREP funding instrument. Six advanced wave energy demonstration projects were agreed. These involved the following projects:

• ALDA: Demonstration plant of a tunnelled OWC

• AquaBuOY: AquaBuOY Demonstration Offshore Wave Energy Plant

• AWS-MkII: Deployment, monitoring and evaluation of a prototype advanced wave energy device

• BREAKWAVE: OWC in Breakwater Douro, Porto, Portugal

• NEREIDA MOWC: OWC integration in the new Mutriku Breakwater

• WaveStar: High efficient, low weight, pile supported 500kW WEC

DGRes also supported two wave energy device development projects under FP6. One moved quickly and successfully forward whilst the other stalled due to non-technical issues.

3 Assumes use of established grid connected test facility, i.e. EMEC, BIMEP, etc

4 The above cost includes all development activities, not just testing, i.e. Naval Architect Services, etc


February 2009

19

For differing and understandable reasons, only two, possibly three, have proceed to the contract stage and construction.

These situations do not help to dispel the often directed comment that the wave energy community has been investigating the technology since the 1970’s but no device has yet proven successful enough for mass production – or even continued operation. Such an opinion is difficult to discredit but it overlooks three undisputable important facts:

• if high investment had been made available 15-20 years ago there would probably be no prospects for wave energy today since the devices would most certainly have failed and attention focused on other forms of renewable energy to stabilise electricity prices and offer security of supply. These units, and more importantly the scientists, inventors and engineers who worked on them, however, created the foundation (or anchors) on which a future could be continued.

• in the intervening years the amount of knowledge that has been amassed should not be underestimated. Many of the known unknowns have been solved and some of the unknown unknowns discovered and addressed. It should be expected that there will be other drawbacks to encounter before an expansive supply network can be in place.

• devices that are now approaching full sea trial status do have reasonable prospects to not only survive the harsh environment in which they must operate but be economic in the process. However, progressive caution is required rather than unnecessary haste if the industry is to achieve its full potential in the shortest time possible.

This aspect of support, either as capital grants or revenue support is an essential fillip for the industry but such subsidies will not achieve all the desired objectives. Research must also be supported. As stated in the Preface, details of the current industrial support mechanisms are covered in other sections of the Waveplam project.

4.2. Research Programmes The intermittent funding flow which has retarded device developer’s progress has also delayed the full potential of the research efforts over the past 20 years. Despite this disjointed stop-start support, many successes can be claimed. The situation has improved since the launch of Framework Programme 7 and the following outlines the main active projects currently underway in Europe. It should be noted that there are many more small studies in progress but this document has concentrated only on the large budget projects.


February 2009

20

4.2.1. WAVEPLAM

WAVe Energy PLAnning &

Marketing

€1M @ 3yrs

Collect Data

The project began in November 2007 and is coordinated by Ente Vasco de la Energia (EVE) from the Basque Country of Spain. There are eight partners from 7 EU states engaged on this project. Although not one of the larger studies underway at this time, the project deserves mention because it is supported under the influential Intelligent Energy for Europe Agency (IEE) [now the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (eaci)]. It is also one of the only pan – European projects specifically tasked with assessing the non-technical barriers that wave energy expansion may encounter once devices are ready for extended deployment.

Besides collection and collation of cross border information about the current status of wave energy, a main objective of the project is to establish networking links that will efficiently disseminate the important facts outside of the ocean energy community to a wider audience, including stake holders, decision makers, investors and the general public.

The project is designed around 6 Workpackages;

• WP1: Co-ordination

• WP2: State of the Art, Assessment & Mitigation of Non-technical Barriers

• WP3: Basic Guidelines for Promoters of Wave Energy Projects

• WP4: Networking

• WP5: Dissemination Activity

• WP6: Common Dissemination

4.2.2. FP7; Energy: CORES

Components for Ocean Renewable

Energy Systems

€4M @ 3yrs

Create Data

CORES is a technically based project designed to address the issues and knowledge gaps in specific critical components required for successful deployment of wave energy converters (WEC’s). The activities concentrate particularly around pneumatic devices [oscillating water columns (OWC)] but it is expected that the data created during the project will be useful to all types of devices.


February 2009

21

Thirteen partners from seven member states are engaged on the European Commission project, which will run for 36 months from April 2008. The project is coordinated by the Hydraulics & Maritime Research Centre, University College Cork, Ireland.

Four main Workpackages have been identified, which are:

• WP1: Power Take-Off (Air Turbine)

• WP2: Electrical Components

• WP3: Mooring & Umbilical

• WP4: System Integration & Sea Trials

4.2.3. FP7; Energy: EquiMar

Equitable Testing and Evaluation of

Marine Energy Extraction Devices in

terms of Performance, Cost and

Environmental Impact

€5.5M @ 3yrs

Collate Data

EquiMar is part of the pre-normative section of the FP7 Theme, Energy. Twenty four partners from eleven member states form the group who are carrying out the work on the European Commission contract. The duration is 36 months from April 2008. The project is coordinated by Edinburgh University, Scotland.

The project is constructed to produce impartial guidelines and procedures for ocean energy development together with recommending best practice to follow that will mitigate technical and financial risk during the various stages of that development of wave and tidal energy extraction machines.

There are ten Workpackages, including the administration of the project. These are:

• WP1: Summary of Situation to Date

• WP2: Produce Wave & Tidal Data Repository & Evaluate for Operator Usage

• WP3: Physical Scale Model Testing Procedures

• WP4: Sea Trial Schedules

• WP5: Generating Park Performance Matrices

• WP6: Legislative Requirements

• WP7: Economic Methodologies

• WP8: Collection of Project Results & Dissemination

• WP9: Website


February 2009

22

• WP10: Administration

As with the Waveplam project a key feature of EquiMar is the communication with industry and other stakeholders. If the recommendations from the various studies are to be implemented without legislation, then the industry must be persuaded to accept them. For this reason, several of the partners are from device development companies.

4.2.4. UK; EPSRC: Supergen Marine

SuperGen Marine

£7.8M @ 4yrs

Create Data

The Engineering and Physical Science Research Council constructed the funding mechanism “Sustainable Power Generation & Supply Initiative” in 2003. Part of this funding went to the ocean energy sector under the SuperGen Marine Energy Consortium.

In October 2007, the successful first phase of the project was extended for a further four years. Five UK universities form the consortium together with six affiliates and seven overseas partners. An important aspect of the SuperGen Marine research programme is the inclusion of Doctorates and training courses.

Formal Courses;

• Wave & Tidal Current Hydrodynamics

• Physical Test Skills

• Reliability

• Economic Principals

• Power Systems & Network Integration

• Commercialisation, IP, Patent Law, Marketing, Management etc

Workstreams:

• WS1: Numerical and physical convergence

• WS2: Optimisation of collector form & response


February 2009

23

• WS3: Combined wave and tidal effects

• WS4: Arrays, wakes and near field effects

• WS5: Power take-off and conditioning

• WS6: Moorings and positioning

• WS7: Advanced control/network integration

• WS8: Reliability

• WS9: Economic analysis of variability and penetration

• WS10: Dissemination of Results

4.2.5. FP7; People RTN: Wavetrain II

Initial Training Network for

Wave Energy Research

Professionals

€3.5M @ 3¾y

Convey Data

Wavetrain 2 is a European Commission sponsored graduate and post-graduate training scheme similar to its predecessor, Wavetrian I, which emerged from the Marie Curie programme. As such, it is a support network for the SuperGen I and II programmes.

These training projects are of particular importance because not only are they the education house for the next generation of wave energy personnel, they are also, for the first time, producing people tutored in all aspects of ocean energy technology. A principal mechanism for this is the opportunity for these students to function with experienced experts who can, not only pass on the knowledge, but also the valuable experiences gained over many years of activity.

The start date for Wavetrain II is October 2008. Recruiting has already been underway for some time and appointments will be made at the beginning of October. A total of 16-20 students will be engaged over the duration of the scheme that may be located at any of the thirteen partner’s establishments or seconded to a selection of 17 associated partners for short, specialist experience.

Thirteen courses have been arranged to take place over the duration of the project.

• Wave energy fundamentals

• Numerical modelling techniques

• Tank testing & instrumentation

• Survival course


February 2009

24

• Pilot plant monitoring & data collection

• 6a. Hydraulic & pneumatic power take-off

• 6b. Electrical power take-off issues

• 7. Grid connection, storage & electrical components

• 8. Offshore operations & mooring issues

• 9. Project management

• 10. Socio-economic & market issues

• 11. EIA, licensing & environmental issues

• 12. Entrepreneurship & IPR

In addition, there are ten research Workpackages incorporated into the programme:

• WP1: Non-linear & survival hydrodynamic modelling

• WP2: Online control strategies & components

• WP3: Design of electrical underwater connections & substations

• WP4: Analysis & development of new & improved concepts & components

• WP5: Engineering, analysis & monitoring of full scale & prototype plants

• WP6: Offshore & naval aspects

• WP7: wave resource & forecasting

• WP8: Tank testing

• WP9: Public policies & socio-economic & environmental impacts

• WP10: Management & network-wide training implementation

5. SEA TRIAL FACILITIES In addition to direct support, or revenue subsidies, some countries have also provided a marine energy infrastructure that device companies and researchers can use at different stages of the development process. Indoor tank testing facilities, which already existed in many countries, assist in the early small and medium scale model testing, Phase 1 and 2 of the Development & Evaluation Protocol referenced earlier. However, there were no established Phase 3 benign sites for large scale sea trials and certainly no Phase 4 exposed locations for full scale prototype operation.

In the early days of the UK wave energy programme some Phase 3 type trials had been conducted in lakes and Queens University Belfast, Northern Ireland built a 75 kW test bed OWC on the island of Islay in Scotland, shown in Figure 5.1


February 2009

25

Figure 5.1 Islay 75kW Test Bed OWC

Other outdoor sea trials took place in Denmark off a stone pier in the north of the country at Hanstholm in 1988. This site in the North Sea was adjacent to a Renewable Energy Office and so became the first un-official Wave Energy test site of a member state.

More formally, a benign location in Nissum Bredning was established in 1990 for North Sea wave climate ¼ scale testing of wave energy converters. A limited amount of facilities were provided, including a low power grid connection, deployment jetty and control cabin.

Open ocean stations were still selected on an ad hoc basis, usually dictated by where a particular project was taking place. Around 2001, Teamwork Technology established a 2MW supply cable in northern Portugal as a full size test centre for a solo version of the AWS device, shown in Figure 5.2. In 2003 however, the UK government and Scottish Executive formalised the situation by investing £15M in a dedicated sea trial facility based in Orkney, Scotland. The European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) accommodates both wave and tidal prototype machines offering several medium power grid connected berths. The site is shown in Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.2 AWS in Viana, Portugal Figure 5.3 EMEC in Orkney, Scotland


February 2009

26

Since early 2000, other countries have now established recognised pilot plant test sites of differing scales and services. The real advantage of these locations, each of which does not suit all developers, is that permits, licenses and consents have been obtained, which eliminates these non-technical negotiations. Development groups who are perusing a private location report protracted dialogue is required, which can be very time consuming and delay projects considerably. This has certainly been the experience of Wave Dragon who is to test a full sized overtopping device in Wales at a bespoke location off the Pembroke coast. These consultations with various concerned pressure groups are required even when the local authorities support a particular deployment project.

A list of all the established and proposed pilot plant test zones are shown in Table 5.1 together with the basic details of each zones specification accompanied by a map detailing the locations in Figure 5.3. A visual and plan for each site is also presented.

27

Country Location Name Est’d Seabed

Area

Water

Depth

Energy

Flux

Shoreline

Distance

Port/Harbour

Distance

Phase Grid

Connection

Facilities Devices

A Scotland

Orkney Island EMEC 2003 5 km2 35m – 75m 40 kW/m 2 km Edinburgh, 430 km

Invarness, 200 km

Stromness, 8 km

4 4 Berths

11kV Grid Con.

Monitoring

Station,

Wave Buoys

Pelamis

Waveroller

Oyster

B Portugal

Pico Is. Azores Pico Test

Plant

1999 -- 7m 30 kW/m -- Peniche, 1600 km

Horta, 16km

3/4 15kV Grid Con. 1 Substation Air Turbines

C Portugal

Figueira da Foz Portuguese

Pilot Zone

2007 320 km2

30m – 100m 40 kW/m 4 km Leixoes, 148 km

Peniche, 63 km

Fig. da Foz, 37 km

4 2 Berths Floating

D Portugal

Agucadoura

(Commerical)

(AWS)

Pelamis

Array

(2002)

2007

km2

40m 40 kW/m 5 km Peniche, 240 km

Leixoes, 32 km

Monserrate, 25 km

5 3 Berths Wave Buoys

Substation

Pelamis

E Denmark

Nissum Bredning Danish

Benign Test

Site

1990

km2 6m <1 kW/m 200m Thyboron, 7.5 km 3 Pier,

Monitoring

Station

Wave Dragon

Wavestar

F Denmark

Roshage Pier,

Hanstholm

Danish

Exposed Test

Site

1988 km2 12m 7-11 kW/m 200m Hanstholm, 1.5 km 3/4 Pier Waveplane

Wavestar

G Ireland

Galway Bay 2005 0.37 km2 20m -25m 3 kW/m 1 km Killybegs, 300 km

Foynes, 150 km

Galway City, 15 km

3 -- Wave Buoys OE Buoy

Wavebob

H England

St. Ives Bay,

Cornwall

Wavehub 2010 8 km2 50m – 65m 11 km Plymouth, 160 km

Falmouth, 100 km

St. Ives, 9 km

4/5 4 Berths

Max. 20MW

33kV Grid Con.

2-4 Wave Buoys Orecon

OPT, Pelamis

Fred Olsen

I Ireland

Frenchport, Co.

Mayo

Irish Open

Ocean Test

Site

2009 21 km2 40m – 120m 50 kW/m 7 km Galway City, 190km

Killybegs, 125 km

4/5 2 Berths Wavebob

OE Buoy

J Spain

Armintza,

Basque Country

BIMEP 2010 8 km2 50m – 90m 21 kW/m 750 m Bilbao, 24 km

4/5 4 Berths with

13 kV Line, 30kV

line

Wave Buoys

K Spain

Mutriku,

Basque Country

Mutriku

Breakwater

2009 273 m2 7m 7 kW/m -- Bilbao, 64 km

San Sebastian, 32 km

4/5 16 x 18.5 kW OWC

L Spain

Santona, Basque

Country

Iberdrola,

Santona

2008 1 km2 50m 27 kW/m 4 km Bilbao, 32 km

Santona, 4km

4/5 1 x 40 kW

PowerBuoy

9 x 150 kW

M France

Pays de la Loire 2010 St. Nazaire, 30km

Nantes, 75km

4/5 Wave Buoys Searev

Table 5.1 European Test Sites

28

Fig. 5.2. European Test Site Locations

29

A. EMEC, Scotland

30

B. Pico Island, Azores, Portugal

31

C. Portuguese Pilot Zone

32

D. Agucodoura, Portugal

Agucadoura Site

33

E. Nissum Bredning, Denmark

34

F. Hanstholm, Denmark

35

G. Galway Bay, Ireland

36

H. Wavehub, England

37

I. Frenchport, Ireland

38

J. BIMEP, Spain

39

K. Mutriku, Spain

40

L. Santona, Spain

41

M. Pays de la Loire, France


February 2009

42

BIBLIOGRAPHY Holmes, B, Development & Evaluation Protocol for Ocean Energy Devices, HMRC, SEI, MI, 2003

IEA-OES, Development of Recommended Practices for Testing and Evaluating Ocean Energy Systems, Annex II Report, Implementing Agreement on Ocean Energy Systems, 2003

EREC, Renewable Energy Scenario to 2040, 2004

Dept. Communications, Marine & Natural Resources, Ocean Energy In Ireland, 2005

Marine Institute & Sustainable Energy Ireland, Ocean Energy: Analysis of the Potential Economic Benefits of Developing Ocean Energy in Ireland, 2005

Carbon Trust, Future Marine Energy¸ Entec UK Ltd, 2006

Carbon Trust, Cost Estimation Technology¸ Entec UK Ltd, 2006

Dept. of the Taoiseach, Programme for Government, 2007

EREC, Greenpeace, Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook, 2007

EREC, Renewable Energy Technology roadmap: Up to 2020, 2007

EU, 2007, A European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET Plan) Technology Map, Commission of the European Communities

Douglas Westwood, The World Wave & Tidal Market Report, 2008

EREC, Greenpeace, Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook, 2008

EREC, Renewable Energy Technology Roadmap: 20% by 2020, 2008

NEEDS, Report on Technical Specification of Reference Technologies (Wave & Tidal Power Plant), SPOK, 2008

Soerensen, H.C., Weinstein, A., 2008, Ocean Energy: Position Paper for IPCC, IPCC Scoping Conference on Renewable Energy, Lubeck, Germany

EU-OEA, Ocean Energy SET Plan, 2009


February 2009

43

APPENDIX

DEVICE DEVELOPER PROFILES

A.1. Leading Technologies


RATING

PHASE

(TRL) SCALE

TEST

RATING

UK Aquamarine

Power Oyster Inertia 500 kW 3-4 1:1 500 kW

Finland AW Energy Oy WaveRoller Inertia 15 kW 4 1:1 15 kW

UK AWS Ocean

Energy

Wave

Swing Inertia 2 MW 3 1:1.75 250kW

Canada Finavera AquaBuOY Inertia 250 kW 3 1:2 25 kW

Norway Fred Olsen FOBOX3 Inertia 2.5 MW 3 1.3 50 kW

Ireland Ocean Energy OE Buoy Floating

OWC 2 MW 3 1:4 15 kW

Australia Oceanlinx Oceanlinx Floating

OWC 2 MW 3 1:3 45 kW

USA OPT PowerBuoy Inertia 150 kW 3 1:1.5 40 kW

UK Pelamis Wave

Power Pelamis Inertia 750 kW 4-5 1:1 750 kW

Australia Seapower

Pacific CETO Inertia 180 kW 3

1:6

(1:3) 10 kW

Denmark Wave Dragon Wave

Dragon

Floating

Overtopping 7 MW 3 1:5.2 20 kW

Ireland Wavebob Wavebob Inertia 2 MW 3 1:4 15 kW

UK Wavegen Limpet Fixed OWC 500 kW 4 1:1 500 kW

Norway WAVEnergy SSG Fixed

Overtopping 150 kW 3-4 1:1 150 kW

Denmark WavePlane WavePlane Floating

Overtopping 500 kW 3-4 1:1-2 250 kW

Denmark Wavestar WaveStar Inertia 5 MW 3 1:10 5.5 kW


February 2009

44

Current Corporate ProfileCurrent Corporate ProfileCurrent Corporate ProfileCurrent Corporate Profile

Device Device Device Device Oyster CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany

FoundedFoundedFoundedFounded 2005

CountryCountryCountryCountry Scotland

Main Investors/Main Investors/Main Investors/Main Investors/

Project PartnersProject PartnersProject PartnersProject Partners

Sigma Capital Group

Scottish & Southern

Energy

EU EU EU EU & State & State & State & State SupportSupportSupportSupport

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial

SummarySummarySummarySummary www.aquamarinepower.com Price/kWhPrice/kWhPrice/kWhPrice/kWh

• Concept originated from Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland

• Prototype sea trials scheduled for EMEC, 2009

• Also developing tidal energy device (Neptune)

Device Technology SpecificationDevice Technology SpecificationDevice Technology SpecificationDevice Technology Specification

CategoryCategoryCategoryCategory Power TakePower TakePower TakePower Take----OffOffOffOff Mooring ConfigurationMooring ConfigurationMooring ConfigurationMooring Configuration

Surge Inertia Low Head Hydro-Turbine Gravity Hinge

PrototypePrototypePrototypePrototype RatingRatingRatingRating Water DepthWater DepthWater DepthWater Depth Primary ProductionPrimary ProductionPrimary ProductionPrimary Production

18m x 12m x 2m

? tonnes

350 kW 10m - 15m Electricity Generation

Fresh Water Desalination

Unique FeaturesUnique FeaturesUnique FeaturesUnique Features

• Surface piercing flap

• Open circuit water hydraulics

• Modular construction

•

Device Development StrategyDevice Development StrategyDevice Development StrategyDevice Development Strategy

PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DatDatDatDateeee

1 1:40 Queen’s Uni., Belfast, N.I. -- 2003-2005

2 1:20 Queen’s Uni., Belfast, N.I. -- 2003-2005

3

4 1:1(PTO) NaREC, UK 170 kW 2009

4* 1:1 EMEC, Scotland 300 kW 2009 * Proposed

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 4

Device Evaluation StatusDevice Evaluation StatusDevice Evaluation StatusDevice Evaluation Status

• Small scale and Medium scale testing successfully completed

• Large scale facility testing not to be conducted

• PTO Dry Test Rig Built


February 2009

45


Device Device Device Device

CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany

AW Energy Oy FouFouFouFoundedndedndednded 2002

CountryCountryCountryCountry Finland

Main Investors/Main Investors/Main Investors/Main Investors/

Project PartnersProject PartnersProject PartnersProject Partners

Venture Capital/

Private Holding

EU EU EU EU & State & State & State & State

SupportSupportSupportSupport

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial

SummarySummarySummarySummary www.aw-energy.com Price/kWhPrice/kWhPrice/kWhPrice/kWh

• Over €2m capital raised with a further €6-8m required

• Joint venture with Lena Group to develop 1MW plant in Portugal

€0.50



Surge Inertia Closed Circuit Hydraulics Bottom Mounted


3.5m x 4.5m x 6m(footprint)

20 tonnes

15 kW

(array deployment)

10m - 20m Electricity Generation


• Fully submerged flap

• Closed circuit hydraulics

• Modular construction

• 5 flaps per module


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate

2/3 1:3 Gulf of Finland -- 2003

1/2 Helsinki University, Finland -- 2004

3 1:3 Ecuador -- 2005

3 1:3 EMEC, Scotland -- 2005

4 1:1 Peniche, Portugal 2 x 15 kW 2007-2008

1* 2009 *Proposed

Phase 1/2 Phase 3 (EMEC) Phase 4

Device Evaluation StaDevice Evaluation StaDevice Evaluation StaDevice Evaluation Statustustustus

• Plan to develop a 1 MW plant in Portugal by 2010


February 2009

46


Device Device Device Device WaveSwing CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany

FoundedFoundedFoundedFounded (2004)


Main Investors/Main Investors/Main Investors/Main Investors/ Project PartnersProject PartnersProject PartnersProject Partners

Shell Technology

Ventures

EU EU EU EU & State & State & State & State SupportSupportSupportSupport FP6 DG TREN

CommercialCommercialCommercialCommercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.waveswing.com

Price/kWhPrice/kWhPrice/kWhPrice/kWh

• Technology concept purchased from Teamwork Technology

• Company relocated to Inverness, Scotland



Submerged Inertia Oil Hydraulics Gravity


m x ∅ m, tonnes 250 kW 50m – 75m Electricity Generation


• Fully submerged

• Articulate compliant mooring

• Sea state tuneable

• Active control


PhasePhasePhasePhase ScScScScale ale ale ale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 2 1:20 Delft, The Netherlands -- 1996

1 1:50 HMRC, UCC, Ireland -- 1996-1998

3

4 1:1 Aguadoura, Portugal 2 MW 2004

1 1:60 HR Wallingford -- 2007

4* 1:1 EMEC, Scotland 250 kW 2010 *Proposed



• Deployment difficulties lead to uncompleted prototype phase

• Redesign of concept 2007/2008


February 2009

47


Device Device Device Device AquaBuOY CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany


CountryCountryCountryCountry Canada


AquaEnergy EU EU EU EU & State & State & State & State

SupportSupportSupportSupport

FP6 TREN € 2M

SEI €100,000

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.finavera.com/en/wave


• AquaEnergy merged with Finavera Renewables in 2006

• Full scale trials postponed

• **DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STALLED AT PRESENT**



Floating Inertia Hosepump Float/Sinker


35m x ∅6m

tonnes

250 kW

75 - 100m Electricity Generation


• Seawater hydraulics

• Deep draft

• Impulse Turbine PTO

• Elegant end-stop solution


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1 1:50 Aalborg Uni, Denmark HMRC, UCC, -- 2005

1 1:50 Ireland -- 2007

2 1:10 Nissum Bredning -- 2007

3 1:2 Newport, Oregon, USA 20-50 kW 2007

1:2(PTO) NEL, Glasgow, Scotland -- 2007

4

Phase 1 Phase 2 (PTO) Phase 3


• Small scale testing completed

• Medium scale testing incomplete due to structural damage

• Large scale testing terminated due to flooding of floatation unit


February 2009

48


Device Device Device Device FO3 CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany


CountryCountryCountryCountry Norway


Bonheur ASA

Ganger Rolf ASA

EU EU EU EU & State & State & State & State SupportSupportSupportSupport FP6

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary

www.seewec.org

www.fredolsen.no


• Development Research undertaken through FP6 SEEWEC project

• SEEWEC Project coordinated by Ghent University, Belgium



Floating Body Inertia Direct Drive Permanent Magnet TLP


36m x 36m x 25m

1150 tonnes

2.5 MW 30m Electricity Generation


• Tension Leg Platform • Optimised Shaped Float in Cluster


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FFFFacilityacilityacilityacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1

2 1:20 SINTEF, Trondheim , Norway -- 2004

3 1:3(PTO) SINTEF, Trondheim , Norway -- 2004

3 1:3 Karmoy, Norway 40 kW 2005-2008

4* 1:1 Wavehub, UK 2.5 MW 2010 *Proposed


DeviDeviDeviDevice Evaluation Statusce Evaluation Statusce Evaluation Statusce Evaluation Status

• Floating platform incorporates well established offshore oil and gas technology

• Some results of SEEWEC will be for Public Dissemination

• Participant in Wavehub project


February 2009

49


Device Device Device Device OE Buoy

“Seileán”



CountryCountryCountryCountry Ireland


Private EU EU EU EU & State & State & State & State SupportSupportSupportSupport MI & SEI

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.oceanenergy.ie


• Fully privately held company

• Product Development in conjunction with University College Cork



Floating OWC Air Turbine 3 point Catenary


30m x 10m x 10m

400 tonnes

2 MW 50m – 75m Electricity Generation

Unique FeatUnique FeatUnique FeatUnique Featuresuresuresures

• Shallow Draft

• Decoupled PTO

• Barge type structure

• Low Mooring Forces


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1 1:50 HMRC, UCC, Ireland -- 2002-2003

2 1:15 ECN, Nantes, France -- 2004

3 1:4 (Hull) Galway Bay, Ireland 20 kW 2006-2008

3 1:4 (PTO) Galway Bay, Ireland 20 kW 2008-2009

4



• Upgrade to air turbine and control system currently being tested

• 18 month hull and mooring sea trial monitoring

• Prototype unit being developed for Full Scale grid connected test site


February 2009

50


Device Device Device Device OWES CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany


CountryCountryCountryCountry Australia


Venture Capital EU EU EU EU & State & State & State & State SupportSupportSupportSupport Australian Govn.

$2,950,000

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.oceanlinx.com


• Multi-million international capital venture funding achieved

• Formally, Energetech Australia Pty. Ltd.

• Cancelled Wavehub deployment due to funding of Australian project

Device TechnologyDevice TechnologyDevice TechnologyDevice Technology Specification Specification Specification Specification


Floating OWC Air Turbine Catenary Moored


25m x 35m

tonnes

1.5 MW

30 m Electricity Generation


• Dennis-Auld Turbine • Shallow or Deep Water Deployment


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1 1:40 Maritime College, Tasmania -- 1990-2000

1 1:7 (PTO) Uni. of Sydney, Australia 1990-2000

2

4 1:1 Port Kembla, Australia 500 kW 2005-2006

3 1:3 Port Kembla, Australia 2007

1 1:40 HMRC, UCC, Ireland -- 2008

2

3



• Concept redesign from shallow water device with focusing arms to deep water chamber hull.


February 2009

51


Device Device Device Device PB150 CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany


CountryCountryCountryCountry USA


US Navy, Total SA

Iberdrola SA

EUEUEUEU & State & State & State & State SupportSupportSupportSupport Carbon Trust

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.oceanpowertechnologies.com


• Multiple active projects in Scotland, Spain, Hawaii and Australia



Floating Inertia Direct Drive Compliant Mooring


20m x ∅7m

60 tonnes

40, 150 kW

30-50m Electricity Generation


• PTO Lock for survival • Deep Draft


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1 --

2

3 1:1.5 New Jersey, USA 40 kW 2004-2007

3 Oahu, Hawaii

4 1:1 Santona, Cantabria, Spain 40 kW 2009

4 1:1* EMEC, Scotland 150 kW 2009 *Proposed



• Over 40 patents filed to date

• Originally designed to power underwater sensors for US Navy


February 2009

52


Device Device Device Device Pelamis P1-A CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany



Main InMain InMain InMain Investors/vestors/vestors/vestors/ Project PartnersProject PartnersProject PartnersProject Partners

Norsk Hydro

Technology Ventures


Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.pelamiswave.com


• Formally Ocean Power Delivery Ltd

• Over 70 employees

• Current Development Delays due to Partner Bankruptcy (Babcock & Brown)



Body-Body Inertia Oil Hydraulics Tether Latch Assembly


150m x ∅3m

859 tonnes

750 kW

(3 x 250 kW)

50m – 70m Electricity Generation


• Shallow Draft • Low Freeboard Survival Profile


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1 1:80 Edinburgh Uni. Scotland -- 1998-2001

2 1:35 Edinburgh Uni. Scotland -- 1999-2001

3 1:7 ECN, Nantes, France -- 2001-2003

3 1:7 Firth of the Forth, Scotland -- 2001-2003

4 1:1 EMEC, Scotland 750 kW 2004-2007

5 1:1 Agucadoura, Portugal 3 x 750 kW 2008-2009



• Worlds first wave energy grid connected commercial array

• Redesign of Power Modules, due to excessive wear, results in 50m extension to length of device

• Recently cancelled participation in Wavehub deployment to concentrate on testing


February 2009

53


Device Device Device Device CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany Seapower Pacific

Pty Ltd FoundedFoundedFoundedFounded 1999

CountryCountryCountryCountry Australia


EDF EN


Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.ceto.com.au


• Parent Company is Carnegie Corporation

• Carnegie Corp will own and run Southern Hemisphere Wave Parks, REH and

EDF will operate Northern Hemisphere wave parks.

• Projects planned for Australia (2) and Bermuda (1)

•



Body Inertia water turbine Bottom Fixed


21m x ∅7m

100 tonnes

100 kW

25m Water Desalination

Electricity Generation


• Fully submerged instillation

• Water pumped ashore

• Wave activated water pump

• Submerged active float


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1 Maritime College, Australia 1999-2003

3 1:6 Fremantle, Australia (CETO I) 2003-2006

3-4 1:6 Fremantle, Australia (CETO II) 2007-2008

4* 1:1 CETO III * Proposed



• Large scale sea trials conducted on CETO I

• Technology changed to CETO II & bench testing of new pump conducted

• Large scale sea trials resumed on CETO II small array


February 2009

54


Device Device Device Device Wave Dragon CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany


CountryCountryCountryCountry Denmark


ESB International

Niras AS

EU EU EU EU & State & State & State & State SupportSupportSupportSupport SME/CRAFT

FP6: DGRes €2.4M


www.wavedragon.net; www.wavedragon.co.uk;

www.tecdragon.pt


• Pre-commercial Demo, Wales, EU Objective One, Welsh Assembly fund £5M

• Deployment and Monitoring scheduled for 2009-2012, Pembroke coast


CategoryCategoryCategoryCategory Power TakePower TakePower TakePower Take----OffOffOffOff Mooring ConfigurationMooring ConfigurationMooring ConfigurationMooring Configuration Floating Overtopping Low-Head Hydro-turbines CALM ~ Slack moored


300 x 170 x 17.5m

33,000 tonnes

7 MW

(20 x 400 kW)

25m Electricity Generation


• Energy Storage Reservoir

• Energy Enhancement Reflectors

• Sea State Tuning

• Active PTO Control


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1 1:45 HMRC, UCC, Ireland -- 1997

1 1:50 Aalborg Uni., Denmark -- 1998-2001

2 (PTO) 1:4.5 Uni. of Munich, Germany 2.3 kW 1998-2000

3 1:4.5 Nissum Bredning, Denmark 20 kW 2003-2005

2006-2008

2008, 2009*

4 *Proposed



• Sea trails conducted at two quarter scale Nissum Bredning sites.

• Device washed ashore in 2005 due to failed mooring.

• Pre-production prototype planned for Milford Haven, Wales.

• Reflecting arm options introduced.


February 2009

55


Device Device Device Device Wavebob CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany


CountryCountryCountryCountry Ireland


Chevron

Vattenfall

EU EU EU EU & State & State & State & State SupportSupportSupportSupport MI & SEI

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.wavebob.com


• Vattenfall acquired 51% of Wavebob Ltd

• Open a US office in 2008



Floating Body Inertia Oil Hydraulic 3 Point Catenary


m x ∅20m

tonnes

2 MW 75m – 100m Electricity Generation


• Deep Draft • Tunable


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1 1:50 HMRC, UCC, Ireland --

2 1:10 Hamburg, Germany --

3 1:4 Galway Bay, Ireland 15 kW 2007-2008

4



• Quarter scale device sank in May 2007 in severe weather

• Currently at second stage of large scale testing at Galway Bay


February 2009

56


Device Device Device Device Turbines CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany




Voith Siemens EU EU EU EU & State & State & State & State SupportSupportSupportSupport JOULE II

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.wavegen.co.uk


• Originally Applied Research & Technology Ltd

• Developed and Built LIMPET Shoreline OWC

• Builds and Supplies Turbines for Wave Energy Projects

• Acquired by Voith Siemens Hydro in 2005



Shoreline OWC Air Turbine N/A


m x m

tonnes

18.5-500kW 15m Electricity Generation


• Fixed Pitch Blades • No gearbox


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 4 1:1 Dounreay, Orkneys, Scotland 2MW 1995

1

2

3 1:1.75 Islay, Scotland. 75kW 1988-1999

4 1:1 Islay, Scotland. 500 kW 1998-2007

5* 1:1 Mutriku, Spain 16x18.5kW 2008- * Proposed



• Project Management and Turbine Developer for OWC Breakwater Installations

• Mutriku breakwater to be commissioned during start 2009

• Scottish government granted consent for Siadar Wave Energy Project


February 2009

57


Device Device Device Device SSG CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany


CountryCountryCountryCountry Norway


Private Venture Capital EU EU EU EU & State & State & State & State SupportSupportSupportSupport FP6 Energy

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.wavenergy.no


• Founders have Extensive Oil Industry background

• Received €1m EU funding in 2005 for full scale demonstration



Shoreline Overtopping Multi-Stage Turbine N/A


10m x 22m x 9m

tonnes

20 MW shoreline Electricity Generation


• Stepped Reservoir Format

•

• Single Shaft PTO

•


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1a 1:60 Aalborg University, Denmark -- 2003-2005

1b 1:25 Aalborg University, Denmark -- 2003-2005

2 1:15 Aalborg University, Denmark 2003-2005

3 1:4 (PTO) NTNU, Norway 2005-2006

4

Phase 1a Phase 1b Phase 3


• Proposed 150 kW Demonstration Plant for West coast of Norway

• Proposed demonstration project at Hanstholm, Denmark


February 2009

58


Device Device Device Device Waveplane CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany




LD (Danish Gov) EU EU EU EU & State & State & State & State SupportSupportSupportSupport


www.waveplane.com

www.asolutioninvent.com/wpp/


• First patent filed in 1991

• Waveplane A/S bought the rights to the device in 2006


CategCategCategCategoryoryoryory Power TakePower TakePower TakePower Take----OffOffOffOff Mooring ConfigurationMooring ConfigurationMooring ConfigurationMooring Configuration Floating Overtopping Hydro-turbine Catenary Moored

PrototypePrototypePrototypePrototype RatingRatingRatingRating Water DepthWater DepthWater DepthWater Depth Primary ProductionPrimary ProductionPrimary ProductionPrimary Production 22m x 22m

90 tonnes

100 kW 15m Electricity Generation

Water Oxidation


• Light weight

• Turbine only moving part

• Survivability via submersion

•


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1 1:10 HMRC, UCC, Ireland -- 1996

2 1:18 HMRC, UCC, Ireland -- 1996

2 1:20 DTU, Denmark -- 1997

2 1:20 DMI, Denmark -- 1998

3 1:2.5 Nissum Bredning, Denmark 4 kW 1999

3 1:2.5 DMI, Denmark 4 kW 1999

3 1:2.5 Copenhagen, Denmark 4 kW 2000

4 1:1 Hanstholm, Denmark 100 kW 2008



• Grid connected prototype installed at Hanstholm, December 2008

• Device ran aground due to failed moorings in rough seas and experienced extensive damage.

• Commercialisation expected in 3-5 years


February 2009

59


Device Device Device Device Wavestar CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany

FoundFoundFoundFoundedededed 2003



Privately held EU EU EU EU & State & State & State & State SupportSupportSupportSupport FP6 DG TREN

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.waveplane.com


• In development stage for Horns Rev project


CategoryCategoryCategoryCategory Power TakePower TakePower TakePower Take----OffOffOffOff Mooring CoMooring CoMooring CoMooring Configurationnfigurationnfigurationnfiguration Fixed Body Inertia Oil Hydraulics Platform

PrototypePrototypePrototypePrototype RatingRatingRatingRating Water DepthWater DepthWater DepthWater Depth Primary ProductionPrimary ProductionPrimary ProductionPrimary Production 10m x 240m

tonnes

6 MW

(40 x 150 kW)

20m Electricity Generation


• Segmented operation

•

• Survivability Mode

Device Development SDevice Development SDevice Development SDevice Development Strategytrategytrategytrategy

PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1 1:40 Aalborg University, Denmark --

1 1:40 Aalborg University, Denmark -- 2004-2005

2

3 1:10 Nissum Bredning, Denmark 5.5 kW 2006-2008

4


DevDevDevDevice Evaluation Statusice Evaluation Statusice Evaluation Statusice Evaluation Status

• Scalable, modular design

•


February 2009

60

DEVICE DEVELOPER PROFILES

A.2. Successive Devices


RATING

Netherlands Ecofys Wave Rotor Inertia 500 kW

UK Embley Energy Sperboy Floating OWC 2 MW

USA INRI Seadog Inertia 33 kW

UK OreCon MRC Floating OWC 1.5 MW

UK OWEL OWEL Floating OWC 12 MW

Sweden Seabased Seabased Inertia 20-50 kW

UK Trident Energy DECM Inertia 1 MW

UK UMIP Manchester

Bobber Inertia 12 MW

USA Waveberg

Development Waveberg Inertia 100 kW

Canada WET WET EnGen Inertia 200 kW


February 2009

61


Device Device Device Device Wave Rotor CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany


CountryCountryCountryCountry Netherlands


EConcern

TOTAL

EU EU EU EU & State & State & State & State SupportSupportSupportSupport FP6

Carbon Trust

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.ecofys.com


• Collaboration of Two Energy Extraction Devices



Hydrodynamic Lift Turbine Generator Mono-pile


∅30m

200tonnes

500 kW 15-25m Electricity Generation


• Combined Darrieus and Wells type rotors • Combines extraction of Wave and Tidal


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1

2 Nissum Bredning -- 2002

2 1:10 NaREC, UK -- 2004

2 1:10 IFREMER, France 2007

3 1:2 Borssele, Netherlands 30 kW 2008

Phase Phase 2 Phase 4


• NaREC & IFREMER testing conducted under Carbon Trust’s Marine Energy Challenge Programme


February 2009

62


Device Device Device Device Sperboy CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany Embley Energy


CountryCountryCountryCountry UK


EU EU EU EU & State & State & State & State SupportSupportSupportSupport JOULE III

Carbon Trust

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.sperboy.com


• Fully privately held company



Floating OWC Air Turbine Slack Moored


50m x ∅30m

3500 tonnes

2MW 50-100m Electricity Generation


• Concrete Construction • Unique Mooring


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1 1:50 Uni Plymouth & HMRC -- 1999-2001

2

3 1:5 Plymouth Sound 2001

4

1 1:100 HMRC, Cork 2007



• Original concept based on multi-resonant behaviour

• Computer Modelling prompted change from multi-chamber to single chamber design


February 2009

63


Device Device Device Device Seadog CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany

FoundedFoundedFoundedFounded

CouCouCouCountryntryntryntry USA


Venture Capital


Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.inri.us Price/kWhPrice/kWhPrice/kWhPrice/kWh

• Privately Held Company based in Texas, USA.


CategoryCategoryCategoryCategory Power TakePower TakePower TakePower Take----OffOffOffOff Mooring CMooring CMooring CMooring Configurationonfigurationonfigurationonfiguration

Floating Inertia Water Hydraulics Bottom Standing


48m x 10m

tonnes

33 kW 25m Electricity Generation

Seawater Desalination


• Surface Float • Rigid Frame

Device Development Device Development Device Development Device Development StrategyStrategyStrategyStrategy

PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1 INRI --

2 1:32 Texas University, USA -- 2003

3 1:4 Gulf of Mexico 12-18g/min 2006

3 1:4 Gulf of Mexico 2007

4



•


February 2009

64

CCCCurrent Corporate Profileurrent Corporate Profileurrent Corporate Profileurrent Corporate Profile

Device Device Device Device MRC CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany




Advent Ventures EU EU EU EU & State & State & State & State SupportSupportSupportSupport

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.orecon.com


• University of Plymouth spin-off company

• Formally part of SperBoy Project



Floating OWC Air Turbine Tension Moored


m x ∅40m

tonnes

1.5MW 50-100m Electricity Generation

Unique Unique Unique Unique FeaturesFeaturesFeaturesFeatures

• Multi-resonant chambers • Modular Turbine Cassettes


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1 1:50 HMRC, UCC -- 1999-2001

2

3 1:5 Plymouth Sound (Sperboy) 2001

4

2 1:12 IFREMER, Brest, France 2001

3



• Contracted for Berth at Wavehub

• Turbines will be Designed & Supplied by Dresser-Rand


February 2009

65


Device Device Device Device Grampus CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany





Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary owel.co.uk


•



Floating OWC Air Turbine

PrototypePrototypePrototypePrototype RatingRatingRatingRating Water DepthWater DepthWater DepthWater Depth Primary ProducPrimary ProducPrimary ProducPrimary Productiontiontiontion

200m x 200m x 30m

24000 tonnes

12MW 40m Electricity Generation


• Shallow Draft

• Modular Design

• Amplifies Trapped Air Pressure


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1 1:100 Southampton Institute, UK -- 2001-2002

2 1:10 NaREC, UK -- 2004-2005

1* 1:50 HMRC, UCC, Ireland -- 2009 *Proposed



• Currently optimising performance and investigation structural and mooring requirements

•


February 2009

66


Device Device Device Device Direct Drive

Linear Generator



CountryCountryCountryCountry Sweden


Uppsala University EU EU EU EU & State & State & State & State SupportSupportSupportSupport

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.seabased.com


• Start-up Company from Uppsala University



Fixed Inertia Direct Drive Linear Generator Gravity Base


8m x 3m x 3m

45tonnes

20-50kW 25m Electricity Generation


• Surface Float • Array Deployment


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1

2 1:2(PTO) Angstrom, Uppsala University 10kW 2003-2004

3 1:2 Lysekil, Sweden 10x10kW 2005-

4 1:1 Lysekil, Sweden 10x10kW 2005

Phase 2 Phase 3 (Float) Phase 3 (Base)


• Device designed for low wave climate areas

• Conducting parallel environmental impact study with Swedish Marine Biological Research Centre


February 2009

67


Device Device Device Device DECM CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany





Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.tridentenergy.co.uk


•

Device TechnologyDevice TechnologyDevice TechnologyDevice Technology Specification Specification Specification Specification


Fixed Inertia Tubular Linear Generator TLP


m x m

tonnes

1 MW 50m Electricity Generation


• Only one moving part • Self protecting retractable float


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1 In-house Facility --

2

2 1:3 (PTO) NaREC, UK -- 2005-2006

3 1:3 (PTO) NaREC, UK 2007

3 1:3 Lowestoft, UK 20 kW 2009

4

Phase 2 (PTO) Phase 3 Phase 3


• Will start sea trials in 2009 on the east coast of the UK in the North Sea


February 2009

68


Device Device Device Device

CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany Uni. Manchester

IP Ltd (UMIP) FoundedFoundedFoundedFounded 2004


Main IMain IMain IMain Investors/nvestors/nvestors/nvestors/ Project PartnersProject PartnersProject PartnersProject Partners

Burntisland Fabrication

Ltd

ABB


Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.manchesterbobber.com


• University Based Commercial Business


CategoryCategoryCategoryCategory Power TakePower TakePower TakePower Take----OffOffOffOff Mooring ConfiguratioMooring ConfiguratioMooring ConfiguratioMooring Configurationnnn

Floating Inertia Induction Generator with Flywheel TLP


m x ∅m

tonnes

12 MW

(24 x 500kW)

20-40m Electricity Generation


• Closely Spaced Array of Floats • Gearbox part of Drive Train

DDDDevice Development Strategyevice Development Strategyevice Development Strategyevice Development Strategy

PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 1 1:100 Uni. Manchester, UK -- 2004

2 1:10 NaREC, UK -- 2005

1 (Array) 1:70 Uni. Manchester, UK -- 2007-2008

2 (Array) Uni. Manchester, UK -- 2008

3

4

Phase 1 Phase 1 (Array) Phase 2 (Array)


• Currently extending the testing on larger arrays (5x5)

• Currently generating investment for sea trials


February 2009

69


Device Device Device Device Waveberg CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany Waveberg

Development Ltd FoundedFoundedFoundedFounded 1979

CountryCountryCountryCountry USA


Venture Capital EU EU EU EU & State & State & State & State SupportSupportSupportSupport

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.waveberg.com


• Currently seeking investment for large scale sea trials


CategorCategorCategorCategoryyyy Power TakePower TakePower TakePower Take----OffOffOffOff Mooring ConfigurationMooring ConfigurationMooring ConfigurationMooring Configuration

Floating Inertia Water Hydraulics


50m x 50m

tonnes

100kW m Electricity Generation

Seawater Desalinisation


• Light-weight • Low Profile

Device DeDevice DeDevice DeDevice Development Strategyvelopment Strategyvelopment Strategyvelopment Strategy

PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatingRatingRatingRating DateDateDateDate 3a 1:5 San Francisco Bay, California 1988

2a 1:16 NRC Canada 1990-1991

3b Lunenburg, Nova Scotia 1992

3c 1:4 Cape Canaveral, Florida 1996

2b 1:10 Cape Canaveral, Florida 2000

1 1:50 HMRC, Ireland -- 2006

2c 1:25 HMRC, Ireland -- 2007

Phase 2a Phase 3b Phase 1


•

•


February 2009

70


Device Device Device Device EnGen CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany


CountryCountryCountryCountry Canada

Main Investors/Main Investors/Main Investors/Main Investors/ Project PartneProject PartneProject PartneProject Partnersrsrsrs

Private Investment EU EU EU EU & State & State & State & State SupportSupportSupportSupport

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial SummarySummarySummarySummary www.waveenergytech.com


• Currently Investigating Deployment Projects Worldwide



Fixed Inertia Direct Drive Compliant Gravity Based


m x m

tonnes

200 kW 20-40m Electricity Generation

Seawater Desalination


• Smart Float TM •


PhasePhasePhasePhase Scale Scale Scale Scale (circa)(circa)(circa)(circa) FacilityFacilityFacilityFacility RatRatRatRatinginginging DateDateDateDate 1 2004-2005

2 NRC, Canada 2006

3 Sandy Cove, Nova Scotia 20kW 2006-2007

3 Sandy Cove, Nova Scotia 40kW 2008



•

•

WAVEPlam_2009_state of the art report

Documents