OES Annual Report 2012 - Ocean Energy Systems
OES Annual Report 2012 - Ocean Energy Systems OES Annual Report 2012 - Ocean Energy Systems
125 05 / DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL OCEAN ENERGY INDUSTRY: PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS AND COST REDUCTIONS RENEWABLE POWER SOURCE Wind Power per m 2 of input wind at 12m/s (typical rated velocity of an offshore wind turbine) POWER DENSITY 1,100 W Tidal Power per m 2 of input water current at 2.4m/s (typical rated velocity of a tidal turbine to achieve >30% capacity factors) Wave Energy flux per m 2 of seastate Hs = 6m, T z = 8s sea state (typical rated sea state for wave energy converters to achieve >30% capacity factors) 7,000 W 9,400 W (average in upper 10m of sea) TABLE 8: Power Flux from different renewable sources of power through a vertical 1m 2 reference area. Reference wind velocity, current velocity and sea state are chosen as typical rated values that would be sufficient to achieve capacity factors of >30% at suitable sites. most part, more subjective than that of TRLs. ESB believe that technology developers will have a firmer understanding of costs and performance once TRL8 is achieved. In the meantime, there are other cost indicators which may be used to inform economic competitiveness. These ‘cost indicators’ at a pre TRL7 phase include: ÌÌ Tons of steel per MW Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Wetted surface area and working surface area (e.g. blade area, rotor swept area, and float size) Ì Foundation or mooring concept Ì Mechanical complexity of overall system and PTO Ì MW rating for single unit Ì Type of WEC and PTO Ì Construction, installation, and maintenance concepts Other than the basic costs of the converter hardware itself there are other cost risks to projects which are outlined briefly below. If the focus is solely on reducing the cost of wave or tidal energy converters, design changes could introduce other non-core cost risks to a project. These risks include; ÌÌ Device rating – Most wave and tidal energy converters are currently rated at around 1MW. By increasing the MW rating of devices, there can be a significant reduction in other parts of the Capex such as electrical infrastructure, installation and foundations/moorings, consistent with the experience of offshore wind. Also increasing the unit rating may reduce the Capex per MW of the converter itself, although this has remained relatively constant for offshore wind. ÌÌ Capacity factor – The capacity factor has a direct impact on the productivity per MW installed and this is reflected clearly in acceptable cost and performance envelopes (Tables 1-3). However, the electrical system must also be rated for the maximum output power and a lower capacity factor means a low utilisation of this expensive infrastructure. Low capacity factors can result in significantly increased downstream per MW infrastructure costs. In wind energy, optimal capacity factors are higher than for onshore wind as a result of the cost of offshore electrical balance of plant (35-40% offshore as opposed to 25-30% onshore). ÌÌ Insurance – Insurance is a critical part of the viability of a project and it is likely that in early stage wave and tidal farms this will contribute significantly to Opex. In-service data, certification, and warrantees will go some way towards reducing the insurance costs and managing the safety critical risks to the satisfaction of utility investors. Conclusions and Perspective The above assessment shows a challenging but realistic view of the market for ocean energy. In some jurisdictions the market conditions exist to allow investment in pre-commercial Phase 1 small array projects. These projects will begin the process along the cost reduction trajectory presented. Supplementing offshore wind with wave or tidal stream energy as large scale sources of renewable generation will only occur when costs are competitive. ESB believe that ocean energy can develop towards sustainable and competitive projects. This trajectory is achievable, based on economies of scale and learning rates, but consistent supports and long term policy are
126 required to deliver a bridging market to cost competitive ocean energy. Technology developers that focus on delivering technology within realistic economic constraints are likely to be successful in the long term. References [1] “Offshore Wind Forecasts of future costs and benefits” – Renewable UK, June 2011 [2] J. Fitzgerald, B. Bolund. “Technology Readiness for Wave Energy Projects; ESB and Vattenfall classification system”. International Conference on Ocean Energy 2012 – Dublin [3] J. Weber. “WEC Technology Readiness and Performance Matrix – finding the best research technology development trajectory”. International Conference on Ocean Energy 2012 – Dublin [4] RenewableUK – “Challenging the Energy- A Way Forward for the UK Wave & Tidal Industry Towards 2020.” October 2010. [5] “Future Marine Energy - Results of the Marine Energy Challenge: Cost competitiveness and growth of wave and tidal stream energy” The Carbon Trust, 2006. [6] “A Guide to an Offshore Wind Farm” – The Crown Estate, 2011. “FROM TURBINE PROTOTYPE TO PROTOTYPING AN INDUSTRY: A CRITICAL CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVE” Chris M Campbell and Elisa Obermann – Marine Renewables Canada Tracey Kutney – CanmetENERGY, Natural Resources Canada Over the course of 2012, there have been signals that the global marine renewable energy industry focus has evolved from a technology commercialization paradigm to a focus on demonstrating a clean power industry option. This shift has been recognized by both Canada and the UK, as the immediate goal sought by both countries has become demonstration of multiple devices – “arrays” - to create utility-scale power plants. Prototyping an Industry The focus on array-scale development is evident in many of the recent Canadian and UK initiatives. With both countries viewed as global leaders in this industry, it is very telling of where the sector is going and what is needed to achieve a sustainable industry. Canada’s strategy to date has been focused on the end-game and the steps to demonstrate a marine power industry solution, with an assumption that technology would advance to meet its needs. The 2011 Canadian Marine Renewable Energy Technology Roadmap 1 focused primarily on solving the challenges of transitioning from the technology development phase to the array or power plant phase—and highlighted the technical and business opportunities this transition would present. A central tenet of the roadmap strategy was that a broader suite of innovation must be launched urgently, effectively and efficiently. The roadmap identifies pioneer prototype power plants as the incubators for this critical transition. Even as the first single device deployments were still only planning initiatives, Nova Scotia’s Fundy Ocean Research Center for Energy (FORCE) made a commitment to develop the offshore interconnectors for four pilot tidal power plants – arrays of devices with capacity outputs of 16 MW each, totaling 64 MW. This action was based on the idea that the demonstration needed to convince the power industry and its financiers was not simply that a tidal generator can produce significant amounts of electricity, but the critical step was going to be showing the availability and reliability of electricity generated from a marine power plant. That same perspective is seen in the UK’s most recent strategic support initiatives. The Marine Energy Array Demonstrator scheme overtly targets two such pilots – at least three devices and preferably in the 5-10MW capacity range 2 . The Marine Renewables Commercialization fund is focused on levering two or more such projects ahead in Scotland, to prove: 1 http://www.marinerenewables.ca/technology-roadmap/ ANNUAL REPORT 2012
- Page 83 and 84: 74 A new R&D project on wave energy
- Page 85 and 86: 76 The Oceanic Platform of the Cana
- Page 87 and 88: 78 ITALY Gerardo Montanino GSE INTR
- Page 89 and 90: 80 Participation in Collaborative I
- Page 91 and 92: 82 Administration (Regione Sicilian
- Page 93 and 94: 84 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Governmen
- Page 95 and 96: 86 producers of electricity from bi
- Page 97 and 98: 88 Blue Energy Blue Energy is an in
- Page 99 and 100: 90 renewable energy technologies, i
- Page 101 and 102: 92 REPUBLIC OF KOREA Keyyong Hong K
- Page 103 and 104: 94 Relevant Documents Released The
- Page 105 and 106: 96 The HyTide 110-5.3 horizontal ax
- Page 107 and 108: 98 Functional Zoning (2011-2020) wo
- Page 109 and 110: 100 TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION Operat
- Page 111 and 112: 102 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Governme
- Page 113 and 114: 104 FRANCE Georgina Grenon 1 and Ya
- Page 116 and 117: 05/ DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNATIONA
- Page 118 and 119: 109 05 / DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNA
- Page 120 and 121: 111 05 / DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNA
- Page 122 and 123: 113 05 / DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNA
- Page 124 and 125: 115 05 / DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNA
- Page 126 and 127: 117 05 / DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNA
- Page 128 and 129: 119 05 / DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNA
- Page 130 and 131: 121 05 / DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNA
- Page 132 and 133: 123 05 / DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNA
- Page 136 and 137: 127 05 / DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNA
- Page 138 and 139: 129 05 / DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNA
- Page 140 and 141: 131 05 / DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNA
- Page 142 and 143: 133 05 / DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNA
- Page 144 and 145: 135 05 / DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNA
- Page 146 and 147: 06/ STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF OCEAN E
- Page 148 and 149: 139 06 / STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF OC
- Page 150 and 151: 141 06 / STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF OC
- Page 152 and 153: 143 06 / STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF OC
- Page 154 and 155: 145 06 / STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF OC
- Page 156 and 157: 147 06 / STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF OC
- Page 158: OCEAN ENERGY SYSTEMS (OES) www.ocea
125<br />
05 / DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL<br />
OCEAN ENERGY INDUSTRY: PERFORMANCE<br />
IMPROVEMENTS AND COST REDUCTIONS<br />
RENEWABLE POWER SOURCE<br />
Wind Power per m 2 of input wind at 12m/s<br />
(typical rated velocity of an offshore wind turbine)<br />
POWER DENSITY<br />
1,100 W<br />
Tidal Power per m 2 of input water current at 2.4m/s (typical rated<br />
velocity of a tidal turbine to achieve >30% capacity factors)<br />
Wave <strong>Energy</strong> flux per m 2 of seastate Hs = 6m, T z = 8s<br />
sea state (typical rated sea state for wave energy converters<br />
to achieve >30% capacity factors)<br />
7,000 W<br />
9,400 W<br />
(average in upper 10m of sea)<br />
TABLE 8: Power Flux from different renewable sources of power through a vertical 1m 2 reference area. Reference wind velocity, current<br />
velocity and sea state are chosen as typical rated values that would be sufficient to achieve capacity factors of >30% at suitable sites.<br />
most part, more subjective than that of TRLs. ESB believe that technology developers will have a firmer<br />
understanding of costs and performance once TRL8 is achieved. In the meantime, there are other cost<br />
indicators which may be used to inform economic competitiveness. These ‘cost indicators’ at a pre TRL7<br />
phase include:<br />
ÌÌ<br />
Tons of steel per MW<br />
Ì<br />
Ì<br />
Ì<br />
Ì<br />
Ì<br />
Ì<br />
Ì Wetted surface area and working surface area (e.g. blade area, rotor swept area, and float size)<br />
Ì Foundation or mooring concept<br />
Ì Mechanical complexity of overall system and PTO<br />
Ì MW rating for single unit<br />
Ì Type of WEC and PTO<br />
Ì Construction, installation, and maintenance concepts<br />
Other than the basic costs of the converter hardware itself there are other cost risks to projects which are<br />
outlined briefly below. If the focus is solely on reducing the cost of wave or tidal energy converters, design<br />
changes could introduce other non-core cost risks to a project. These risks include;<br />
ÌÌ<br />
Device rating – Most wave and tidal energy converters are currently rated at around 1MW. By increasing<br />
the MW rating of devices, there can be a significant reduction in other parts of the Capex such as electrical<br />
infrastructure, installation and foundations/moorings, consistent with the experience of offshore wind. Also<br />
increasing the unit rating may reduce the Capex per MW of the converter itself, although this has remained<br />
relatively constant for offshore wind.<br />
ÌÌ<br />
Capacity factor – The capacity factor has a direct impact on the productivity per MW installed and this is<br />
reflected clearly in acceptable cost and performance envelopes (Tables 1-3). However, the electrical system<br />
must also be rated for the maximum output power and a lower capacity factor means a low utilisation of<br />
this expensive infrastructure. Low capacity factors can result in significantly increased downstream per MW<br />
infrastructure costs. In wind energy, optimal capacity factors are higher than for onshore wind as a result of<br />
the cost of offshore electrical balance of plant (35-40% offshore as opposed to 25-30% onshore).<br />
ÌÌ<br />
Insurance – Insurance is a critical part of the viability of a project and it is likely that in early stage wave<br />
and tidal farms this will contribute significantly to Opex. In-service data, certification, and warrantees will<br />
go some way towards reducing the insurance costs and managing the safety critical risks to the satisfaction<br />
of utility investors.<br />
Conclusions and Perspective<br />
The above assessment shows a challenging but realistic view of the market for ocean energy. In some jurisdictions<br />
the market conditions exist to allow investment in pre-commercial Phase 1 small array projects. These projects<br />
will begin the process along the cost reduction trajectory presented. Supplementing offshore wind with wave or<br />
tidal stream energy as large scale sources of renewable generation will only occur when costs are competitive.<br />
ESB believe that ocean energy can develop towards sustainable and competitive projects. This trajectory is<br />
achievable, based on economies of scale and learning rates, but consistent supports and long term policy are