North America In Stream Tidal Power Feasibility Study: Final ......State Site AK AK WA CA CA TISEC...
Transcript of North America In Stream Tidal Power Feasibility Study: Final ......State Site AK AK WA CA CA TISEC...
Knik Arm AK
Tacoma Narrows WA
Golden Gate SF CA
Minas Passage NS
Western Passage ME
MuskegetChannel MA
Head Harbor Passage NB
West Coast StatesRoger Bedard EPRI Ocean Energy Leader
April 26, 2006
North America In Stream Tidal Power Feasibility Study: Final Briefing
Agenda – West Coast Tidal Feasibility Study9:00 – 9:15 Introductions Roger Bedard
9:15 – 9:30 Welcome Gary Armfield/Steve Klein
9:30 – 10:15 Overview Summary Roger Bedard
Break
10:30 – 11:00 Resource and Performance Methodology Brian Polagye
11:00 – 11:30 Technology Development Mirko Previsic
11:30 – 12:00 Alaska Design Brian Polagye
12:00 – 1:00 Lunch/Mixer All
1:00 – 1:30 California Design Mirko Previsic
1:30 – 2:00 Washington Design Brian Polagye
2:00 – 2:30 Environmental and Regulatory Issues Andre Casavant
2:30 – 3:00 Economic Methodology Assessment, Roger Bedard
Conclusions and Recommendations
3:00 – 3:45 Discussion of Path Forward All
3:45 – 4:00 Wrap Up Mike Robinson
4:00 – 5:30 Field Trip – Pt Evans Site Optional
3
EPRI North American Tidal In-Stream Energy Conversion Feasibility Demonstration Project
$6-8 M
5 - 7 Yrs Total
50% DOE50% EPRI
$100K-250K
Additional cost due to RD&D needs
1-2 YearsPhase IV -Evaluation
Private Owner or collaborative financing
$100K-250K
Plant O&M costs 1-2 YearsPhase IV -Operation
Private Owner or collaborative
$5 M-$7M
1 MWe Pilot Demonstration Plant at 30% capacity factor)
12 - 18 Months
Phase III -Construction
Private Owner or collaborative
$500K-
$1.0M
System Design, permitting and financing - 1 Site – Device
12-18 Months
Phase II –System Design
Maine Massachusetts New BrunswickNova ScotiaDOE NRELEPRISan FranciscoAlaskaWashington
$390K Cash plus In
kind funds
Site survey & characterization;Technology / device survey;System Level Feasibility-Study design, performance analysis, life-cycle cost estimate and economic assessment;Environmental, regulatory and permitting issues
April 2005 to
May 2006
Phase I –Project FeasibilityDefinition Study
Funding CostKey ActivitiesDurationPhase
ObjectiveTo demonstrate the feasibility of tidal in-stream power to provide efficient, reliable, environmentally friendly and cost-effective electrical energy
To create a push towards the development of a commercial market for this technology.
4
Why is EPRI Interested?
• We believe that a balanced and diversified portfolio of energy supply sources is the foundation of a reliable and robust electrical system
• Tidal In Stream Energy Conversion (TISEC) deserves to be looked at as one of our energy supply portfolio options. TISEC– High Power Density – Predictable – ease of integrating into the grid– Avoids aesthetic issues by being submerged
• In addition, TISEC provides the full suite of benefits inherent with sustainable indigenous renewable energy– Jobs and economic development– No emissions and environmentally benign compared to other
electricity generation technologies– Reduces dependency on foreign supplies
• We want to help answer the key question - what are the TISEC economics for North America ?
5
Earth-Moon-Sun Tidal Forces
The solar tidal bulge is only 46% as high as the lunar tidal bulge. While the lunar bulge migrates around the Earth once every 27 days; the solar bulge migrates around the Earth once every 365 days. As the lunar bulge moves into and out of phase with solar bulge, this gives rise to spring and neap tides.
6
Tidal Power Feasibility Study Approach
Site Survey003 Reports
Available Tidal Current Power
001 Report
Extracted Power001 Report
Maximum Annual Output on001 Report
Actual Annual Output001 Report
Final Design and Economic
Assessment Reports 006 Report
Cost and Economics
Methodology002 Report
Device Survey 004 Report
Tidal Current Power Resource
Extraction Efficiency
Power Chain Efficiency
Availability
O&M Costs
Capital Costs
System Design
Methodology005 Report
MethodologyReports
Survey Report Design and Economics Reports
Env and Reg Issues 007 Report
7
Participants
Federal (3)U.S. DOE
NREL
Bonneville Power
Utilities (11)Bangor Hydro
Central Maine PowerNational Grid
NSTARNB PowerNS Power
Anchorage MuniChugach
Tacoma PowerPuget Sound Energy
PG&E
Provincial/State/City Agencies (8)
Maine Tech InitiativeMass Tech CollaborativeNew Brunswick Ministry
Nova Scotia MinistryAlaska Energy Authority
Washington CTEDSan Francisco & Oakland
CA
Tidal Power Developers (8)
GCKLunar Energy
Marine Current TurbinesOpen HydroSeapower
SMD HydrovisionUEK
Verdant
Institutes (3)Virginia Tech ARI
Bedford Oceanography
EPRI
EPRI PROJECTEPRI
M. PrevisicGlobal Energy Partners
Devine TarbellNREL
Va TechUniv of WA
8
Site Summary
AK WA CA MA ME NB NS
Cross-section Area (m2) 71,780 62,600 74,700 17,500 36,000 24,000 225,000
Power Density - Depth Averaged (kW/m2)
1.6 1.7 3.2 0.95 2.9 0.94 4.5
Avg Annual Power Available (MW)
116 100 237 13.3 104 23 1,013
Avg Annual Power Available (MW) Extractable (15%) (MW
17.4 16 35.5 2 15.6 3.5 152
No of Homes Powered (1.3 kW/Avg US home –source IEA 2003) & 90% conversion efficiency
12,000 11,100 27,300 1,500 12,000 2,700 117,000
9
Does anyone know what this is?
10
TISEC Devices
• GCK (Gorlov)
• Lunar Energy
• Marine Current Turbines
• Open Hydro
• SeaPower
• SMD Hydrovision
• UEK
• Verdant
11
UK-Based Lunar Energy
12
UK-Based Marine Current Turbines
Marine Current Turbines300 kW SeaFlow
Marine Current Turbines1.2 – 2.5 MW SeaGen
13
UK-Based SMD Hydrovision
14
Swedish-Based Seapower
15
US-Based Underwater Electric Kite (UEK) and Open Hydro
Open Hydro
UEK
16
US-Based Verdant Power & GCKEast River, New York, NY GCK Gorlov Turbine barge-
mounted testing on Merrimack River, MA
Verdant Horizontal Axial Turbine GorlovVertical-Axis
Turbine
17
Design PerformanceState Site AK AK WA CA CA
TISEC Device Lunar MCT MCT Lunar MCTRated Power– Single Unit Pilot Plant (MW)
1.1 0.8 0.7 1.3 1.1
# of Units – Com’lPlant
69 66 64 50 42
Avg/Max Yrly Power – Com’l Plant (MW)
11 75
14.6 50
13.7 46
13.6 65
15.5 21
1) Design reference points: RT2000 Lunar and 18 m dual rotor MCT SeaGen
2) Development Status: Lunar RTT 1000 is in first commercial prototype design for system testing at EMEC in 2007. Lunar RTT2000 is a scale up of the RT1000 design. The RT1000 and 2000 are fully submerged and rests on the sea bed
3) MCT Development Status: 16 and 18 m dual rotor surface piercing SeaGen commercial prototypes are designed. The 16m version is in fabrication for installation at Strangford in 2006. The non surface piercing MCT 2nd Generation machine will use the same blades and power train and will be designed after reliability demonstration of SeaGen.
4) Extraction limit is 35.5 MW. Shortness of Golden Gate passage and existing machines limit the extraction to about 15 MW
18
Design Basis for Independent Cost Estimates - MCT 16m Dual Rotor SeaGen Fabrication – May 2006
Interface with pileGeotechnical
testing at Strangford
Gearbox
Turbine Blade Mold
19
Cost (M$) – Based on MCT SeaGen (18 m dual)
AK WA CA
Pilot Plant Cap Cost 4.7 4.1 5.6
Commercial Plant (# of Units) 66 64 42Avg Yearly Power (MW) 17 13.7 15.5Commercial Plant Cap Cost
Power Conversion 32.9 30.2 32.0
Structural Elements 41.0 38.7 29.9
Subsea Cables 1.6 0.8 3.0
Turbine Installation 21.1 20.6 14.4
Subsea Cable Install 10.7 9.5 10.5
Onshore Interconnect 0.2 0.5 0.5
TOTAL 107.4 100.5 90.2
Yearly O&M and Insurance 4.0 3.8 3.6
20
Agenda
9:00 – 9:15 Introductions Roger Bedard
9:15 - :9:30 Welcome Gary Armfield
9:30 – 10:00 Overview Summary Roger Bedard
10:00 – 10:30 Resource and Performance Methodology Brian Polagye
10:30 – 11:00 Device Technology Mirko Previsic
11:00 – 11:30 Plant Design/Cost Methodology Mirko Previsic
11:30 – 12:00 Alaska Design Brian Polagye
12:00 – 1:00 Lunch/Mixer All
11:00 – 12:00 California Design Mirko Previsic
1:00 – 2:00 Washington Design Brian Polagye
2:00 – 2:30 Environmental and Regulatory Issues Andre Casavant
2:30 - 3:00 Economic Methodology Assessment, Roger Bedard
Conclusions and Recommendations
3:00 – 3:45 Discussion of Path Forward All
3:45 – 4:00 Wrap Up Mike Robinson
4:00 – 5:00 Field Trip – Pt Evans Site Optional
21
Resource and Performance Methodology
April 26, 2006Brian Polagye
22agenda,04-26-06,PM.ppt
Agenda
• Resource Methodology
• Performance Methodology
23101,04-26-06,PM.ppt
Tidal action is driven by gravitational interaction of water with sun and moon
Source of Tidal Energy- Overview - ResourceResource
• Gravitational mass of sun and moon pull on earth’s oceans
• Causes water to rise and fall • Greatest range occurs when sun and moon pull in same direction (spring tide)
• Weakest when sun and moon in opposition (neap tide)
24105,04-26-06,PM.ppt
The influence of the alignment of moon and sun is clear from the periodic nature of current velocity
Current Velocity- Time Varying Profile - ResourceResource
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
1-Feb 6-Feb 11-Feb 16-Feb 21-Feb 26-Feb
Date
Cur
rent
Vel
ocity
(m/s)
Neap Tides
Spring Tides
25106,04-26-06,PM.ppt
Some sites show a high diurnality – strong tide followed by weak
Current Velocity- Diurnality - ResourceResource
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
1-Feb 6-Feb 11-Feb 16-Feb 21-Feb 26-Feb
Date
Cur
rent
Vel
ocity
(m/s)
26110,04-26-06,PM.ppt
Power is proportional to the cube of velocity
Power Flux- Overview - ResourceResource
Velocity
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
1-Feb 3-Feb 5-Feb 7-Feb 9-Feb
Date
Cur
rent
Vel
ocity
(m/s)
Power
0
5
10
15
20
25
1-Feb 3-Feb 5-Feb 7-Feb 9-Feb
DatePo
wer
Flu
x (k
W/m
2 )
3
21 VP ρ=
27101,04-26-06,PM.ppt
The elevation difference between mouth and end of estuary gives rise to a velocity gradient
Tides in Estuaries- Velocity Source - ResourceResource
Seabed
Estuary Inlet
Estuary BasinFlood
tide
Estuary Inlet
• Slack water―Constant water height―No velocity
• Flood Tide―Water higher at inlet than
in main basin―Water flows into estuary
• Ebb Tide―Water higher in main basin
than at inlet―Water flows out of estuary
Ebb Tide
Estuary Inlet
28103,04-26-06,PM.ppt
Tidal streams have two kinds of energy – potential and kinetic
Tidal EnergiesResourceResource
• Energy embodied by height of water
Potential Energy Kinetic Energy
• Energy embodied by velocity of water
[ ]mHeight smGravity
s
kgFlow Mass
Power Potential
2 x
x
⎥⎦⎤
⎢⎣⎡
⎥⎦⎤
⎢⎣⎡
=2
smVelocity
skgFlow Mass
21
Power Kinetic
⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛⎥⎦⎤
⎢⎣⎡
⎥⎦⎤
⎢⎣⎡
=
xx
• Extraction of potential energy is the principle behind tidal barrages
• Extraction of kinetic energy is the principle behind in-stream tidal
In general, Potential Energy much greater than Kinetic EnergyIn general, Potential Energy much greater than Kinetic Energy
29104,04-26-06,PM.ppt
Kinetic energy flux is greatly enhanced by constrictions. Potential energy is converted to kinetic.
Constriction Effect- Example - ResourceResource
Solve Equations
222111 ByUByU =
Top View
3000 m (B1) 1500 m (B2)
Side View
60 m (y1)
? (y2)
10 m (z2)
Velocity (U2) = ?
Velocity (U1) = 2 m/s
22
22
1
21
22zy
gU
yg
U++=+
U2 = 4.9 m/s y2 = 49 m
Potential and Kinetic Energy Exchange
KineticPotential
Total
Position 1 Position 20.7 GW 4.4 GW
216.8 GW 213.1 GW
217.5 GW 217.5 GW
Constriction gives 15x increase in kinetic power flux (GW/m2)
Constriction gives 15x increase in kinetic power flux (GW/m2)
Area
Kinetic Flux180,000 m2 73,500 m2
4.1 kW/m2 60 kW/m2
30112,04-26-06,PM.ppt
Channel power calculation combines estimates for power flux and area
Resource Methodology- Channel Power - ResourceResource
Kinetic Power Flux (kW/m2)
Channel Area (m2) =x Channel Power (kW)
Need velocity and area data to calculate resource
31108,04-26-06,PM.ppt
There are several sources of velocity data – each with strengths and weaknesses
Channel Velocity- Sources - ResourceResource
Data SourceData Source AdvantagesAdvantages DisadvantagesDisadvantages
ADCP(Acoustic Doppler Current Profiling)
CFD(Computational Fluid
Dynamics)
NOAA Predictions
• Measurements reflect actual site conditions
• Flow field fully specified
• Data not available for all sites
• Flow field fully specified • Data not available for all sites• Models may be too coarse• Numerical errors
• Good data availability • Requires assumptions for horizontal and vertical profiles
• Prediction for single point
32100,04-26-06,PM.ppt
CFD models may not accurately resolve bathymetric features
PRISM Model- Bathymetry and Power - ResourceResource
PRISM Bathymetry PRISM Depth Averaged Power
Solve Navier-Stokes equations for mass
and momentum subject to estuary inlet tidal range Maximum Power
Actual bathymetry much more
complex?
33107,04-26-06,PM.ppt
Velocity decreases with depth. We have assumed an idealized 1/10th velocity profile for all sites and that velocity is uniform across the channel.
Velocity Profile- Assumptions - ResourceResource
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Velocity (m/s)
Dep
th (m
)Waterline
101
⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛=
oo z
zuu
Assumed Uniform Profile Real Flow Conditions
34109,04-26-06,PM.ppt
NOAA Current Predictions- Approach - ResourceResource
Raw Data
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
1-Feb 3-Feb 5-Feb 7-Feb 9-Feb
DateC
urre
nt V
eloc
ity (m
/s)
Sinusoidal Fit
1,2, slackslack ttT −=
-4-3-2-10123
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Current Velocity
Slack 2 Slack 3
Slack 1
Max Flood
Max Ebbt1
t2
( ) ⎟⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛=
TtUtu πsinmax
Time
35111,04-26-06,PM.ppt
Channel cross-sectional area is estimated using mean lower low water (MLLW) as a reference
Channel Area- Overview - ResourceResource
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Distance (m)
Depth (m)
Waterline
Baseline: Channel area at mean lower low water (MLLW)
Lower than MLLW: Subtract rectangular prism from channel area
Higher than MLLW: Add rectangular prism to channel area
36
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Channel Power Extraction Limit
Ave
rage
Pow
er (M
W)
113,04-26-06,PM.ppt
Only a fraction of the channel power is available for extraction
Energy Extraction- Limits - ResourceResource
Environmental extraction limited to 15% average
resource
37agenda,04-26-06,PM.ppt
Agenda
• Resource Methodology
• Performance Methodology
38
05
1015202530354045
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Velocity (m/s)
Dep
th (m
)
Waterline
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
0.1 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.7
Surface Velocity (m/s)
Freq
uenc
y
006,04-26-06,PM.ppt
The first step is to adjust surface velocities to the hub height
Performance Methodology- Velocity Profile to Power Output - PerformancePerformance
Step 1: Surface Velocity Histogram
• Assume surface currents representative of entire turbine transect
• Detailed design will require on-site measurements
Step 2: Adjust Velocity Profile to Hub Height
• Assume 1/10th power law to model turbulent velocity profile
• Input turbine hub height, depth, and surface velocity to calculate hub-height velocity
101
⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛=
oo z
zuu
39
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
0.09 0.64 1.19 1.75 2.3 2.85 3.4
Hub-Height Velocity (m/s)
Freq
uenc
y
007,04-26-06,PM.ppt
Power at the hub height is related to velocity by a cube law
Performance Methodology- Velocity Profile to Power Output - PerformancePerformance
Step 3: Hub-Height Velocity Histogram Step 4: Hub Height Flow Power
Area Turbine Density Velocity21Power 3 xx=
010002000300040005000600070008000
0 1 2 3 4
Hub-Height Velocity (m/s)H
ub-H
eigh
t Pow
er (k
W)
40008,04-26-06,PM.ppt
Extracted and electric power depend on device ratings and component efficiencies
Performance Methodology- Velocity Profile to Power Output - PerformancePerformance
Step 5: Power Extracted Step 6: Electric Power
0200400600800
1000120014001600
0 1 2 3 4
Hub-Height Velocity (m/s)
Pow
er E
xtra
cted
(kW
)
I II III
• Region I: velocity below cut-in― Rotor does not turn― No power extracted
• Region II: velocity above cut-in― Power extracted = Flow Power x
Rotor Efficiency• Region II: velocity above rated
― Power extracted = Rated power
0200400600800
1000120014001600
0 1 2 3 4
Hub-Height Velocity (m/s)
Ele
ctri
c Po
wer
(kW
)• Electric Power = Extracted Power x
Power Take Off Efficiency ― Gearbox― Generator
• Same shape as extraction curve
41009,04-26-06,PM.ppt
Performance Methodology
The final step is to use the distribution of velocities to calculated averages
- Velocity Profile to Power Output - PerformancePerformance
Step 7: Average Performance
• Current velocity
• Extracted power
• Electric Power
• Capacity Factor
• Annual energy generated
0200400600800
1000120014001600
0 1 2 3 4
Hub-Height Velocity (m/s)
Ele
ctri
c Po
wer
(kW
)
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
0.09 0.64 1.19 1.75 2.3 2.85 3.4
Hub-Height Velocity (m/s)
Freq
uenc
y
42
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
001,04-26-06,PM.ppt
The electric power produced is only a small fraction of the kinetic energy passing across the device rotor
Turbine Performance- Flow Power to Electric Power - PerformancePerformance
Flow Power
= Power Flux (kW/m2) x Rotor Area (m2)
Extraction Loss
Extracted Power
= Flow Power (kW) x Rotor Efficiency
Gearbox Loss
Generator Loss
Electric Power
= Extracted Power (kW) x Gearbox Efficiency x Generator Efficiency
Power(kW)
620
371
249
57 15 177
Maximum Rotor Efficiency = 59%
43002,04-26-06,PM.ppt
Component efficiencies are not constant, but rather scale with load
Component Efficiency- Load Curves - PerformancePerformance
Overall Efficiency = Rotor Efficiency x Gearbox Efficiency x Generator EfficiencyOverall Efficiency = Rotor Efficiency x Gearbox Efficiency x Generator Efficiency
Developed using wind
turbine performance
analogues and manufacturer
data
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Device Load (% rated power)
Com
pone
nt E
ffici
ency
RotorGeneratorGearbox
44003,04-26-06,PM.ppt
Power produced and power available in the flow diverge beyond rated power
Power Curve- Device Output - PerformancePerformance
Rated power chosen to minimize cost of energyRated power chosen to minimize cost of energy
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Current Velocity (m/s)
Pow
er (k
W)
Fluid Power
Electric Power
45004,04-26-06,PM.ppt
As a result, electric power production does not track fluid power over the tidal cycle
Device Output- Comparison to Power Flux - PerformancePerformance
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
0:00 2:24 4:48 7:12 9:36 12:00 14:24 16:48 19:12 21:36 0:00
Time
Pow
er (k
W)
Fluid Power
Electric Power
46005,04-26-06,PM.ppt
Device Electric Output
Turbine output shows significant short term variability, but consistent average power over the course of a year
PerformancePerformance
0200400600800
10001200
0:00 4:48 9:36 14:24 19:12 0:00
Time
Pow
er (k
W)
Annual Average = 177 kW
Single Day
0200400600800
10001200
2/1 2/3 2/5 2/7 2/9 2/11 2/13 2/15
Time
Pow
er (k
W)
Tidal Cycle
0
100
200
300
400
500
1/1 2/20 4/11 5/31 7/20 9/8 10/28 12/17
Date
Ave
rage
Pow
er (k
W)
Daily Average
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov Dec
Month
Ave
rage
Pow
er (k
W)
Monthly Average
47
In Stream Tidal Energy Conversion Device and System Design Technology
April 26, 2006Mirko Previsic
EPRI Design Task Lead
48
Outline• Lunar Energy
– Performance– Evolution– Installation– Operation and Maintenance
• Marine Current Turbines– Performance– Evolution– Installation– Operation and Maintenance
• Plant System Design
• Electrical Interconnection
• Cost Model
49
UK-Based Lunar Energy
50
Lunar Energy RTT 2000 Device Specifications
Seabed
Inlet Diameter21 m
Surface
Surface Clearance 15 m (min)
Hub Height20.5 m Seabed Clearance
10 m
Device Characteristics
• Hydraulic gearbox• Induction generator• Gravity Foundation• Device weight: 2383 t
— Structural steel: 1085 t— Concrete and Aggregate: 1299 t
Device Performance
• Cut-in speed: 1.0 m/s• Rated Speed: chosen for min COE• Availability: 95%• Transmission Losses: 2%
51
Lunar Energy Device Spacing
Downstream Spacing10 x Rotor Diameter(210 m from end of duct)
Lateral Spacing½ x Rotor Diameter(10.5 m)
Seabed
18 m
10.5m
Surface
21m
Turbine Wake
52
Lunar Energy Device Performance
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Flow Speed (m/s)
Power (kW)
Fluid PowerElectric Power
02000400060008000
100001200014000160001800020000
216 220 224 228 232 236 240 244 248 252
Time (hours)
Pow
er (k
W)
Flow PowerLunar Turbine Power
53
Lunar Energy Device Evolution and Installation
54
UK-Based Marine Current Turbines (MCT)
Marine Current Turbines300 kW SeaFlow
Marine Current Turbines1.2 – 2.5 MW SeaGen
55
MCT SeaGen Device Specifications
Seabed
Rotor Diameter18 m
Surface
10 m
Seabed Penetration18-30 m
OD pile foundation3.5 m
Surface Clearance (commercial)15 m (min)
Hub Height17 m
Tip-to-Tip Separation46 m
Seabed Clearance8 m
Device Characteristics
• Planetary gearbox• Induction generator• Monopile foundation• Device weight: 290 t
— Monopile: 213 t— Crossbar: 77 t
Device Performance
• Cut-in speed: 0.7 m/s• Rated Speed: chosen for min COE• Availability: 95%• Transmission Losses: 2%
Pile Length68 m
56
MCT Spacing
Seabed
18 m
9 m
Surface
10 m
Downstream Spacing10 x Rotor Diameter(180 m)
Turbine Wake
Lateral Spacing½ x Rotor Diameter(9 m)
57
MCT SeaGen Performance and Evolution
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Flow Speed (m/s)
Power (kW)
Fluid PowerElectric Power
02000400060008000
1000012000140001600018000
216 220 224 228 232 236 240 244 248 252
Time (hours)
Pow
er (k
W)
Flow PowerMCT Turbine Power
58
MCT SeaGen Installation
59
MCT SeaGen MaintenanceOperation Maintenance
60
Pilot Demonstration PlantSurface
Seabed
61
Plant DesignCommercial Scale
Seabed
15 m (minimum)
Surface
3.5m OD pile foundation
62
Costing Model• Cost Drivers
– Design Current Speed– Velocity Distribution– Seabed Composition– Number of Installed Units
• Power Conversion Train based on Wind Cost Study by NREL with necessary adjustments for water turbines
• Structural Steel Elements weight based on load analysis and costs on rule of thumb cost per ton guidelines
• Subsea Cable costs based on vendor quotations
• Installation estimates based communications with the marine construction industry
63
Summary – Accuracy Range for Cost Data
Cost Estimate Rating
A Mature
B Commercial
C Demonstration
D Pilot
E Conceptual
(Idea or Lab)
A. Actual 0 - - - - B. Detailed -5 to +5 -10 to +10 -15 to +20 - - C. Preliminary -10 to +10 -15 to +15 -20 to +20 -25 to +30 -30 to +50 D. Simplified -15 to +15 -20 to _20 -25 to +30 -30 to +30 -30 to +80 E. Goal - -30 to +70 -30 to +80 -30 to +100 -30 to +200
A – Actual – Data on detailed process and mechanical designs with historical data from existing unitsB – Detailed – Detailed process and mechanical design and cost estimate but no historical dataC – Preliminary – Preliminary process and mechanical designD- Simplified - Simplified process and mechanical designE – Goal – Technical design/cost goal or cost estimate developed from literature data
See EPRI TP 002 NA Economic Assessment Methodology Report
64
Cairn Point AnchorageIn-Stream Tidal Power Plant Feasibility Study
Design Performance and Cost
April 26, 2006Brian Polagye
EPRI Design Task Lead
65agenda,04-26-06,AK.ppt
Agenda
• Site Data
• Device Selection
• Pilot Plant
• Commercial Plant
66agenda,04-26-06,AK.ppt
Agenda
• Site Data― Site Overview― Currents and Power― Seabed― Electrical Interconnection
• Device Selection
• Pilot Plant
• Commercial Plant
67001,04-26-06,AK.ppt
Knik Arm is the northernmost branch of Cook Inlet
SiteSite
Port of Anchorage
Port MacKenzie
Knik Arm- Site Overview -
Elmendorf AFB
Point MacKenzie
Cairn PointArray Site
68
-60-50
-40-30-20-10
010
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500Distance (m)
Dep
th (m
- M
LL
W)
202,04-26-06,AK.ppt
Cairn Point has been selected as the feasibility study site due to resource and depth considerations
Site Overview- Cairn Point - SiteSite
Cairn Point
NW of Cairn Point2490 m
Power Density(Depth Average)
1.6 kW/m2
Avg. Power Available 116 MW
Avg. Power Extractable(15% extraction)
17 MW
Number of Homes (1.3 kW per home)
12,0000%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
0.1 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.7Surface Velocity (m/s)
Freq
uenc
y
Max Depth = 59 m
Avg Depth = 29 m
NE of Cairn Point
Array Site
69006,04-26-06,AK.ppt
Cairn Point is one of only a few deep water sites in all of Knik Arm
Bathymetry- Cairn Point Transect - SiteSite
Knik Arm<00-55-1010-1515-2020-2525-3030-3535-4040-4545-5050-5555-6060-6565+
MLLW Depth (m)
Cairn Point
Array Site
Ebb Eddies
Flood Eddies
70007,04-26-06,AK.ppt
The seabed at the site is dense sand. Seabed movement is a significant concern.
Seabed- Cairn Point Transect - SiteSite
Movement study required• Identify low-movement
areas• Design foundations in
expectation of movement?
Dense sand seabed• Some cobbles• Standard penetration test in
excess of 100 blows per foot• Geotechnical data from
proposed bridge crossing
71008,04-26-06,AK.ppt
Interconnection to Anchorage via Elmendrof Air Force Base
Interconnection- Cairn Point Transect -
SiteSite
Elmendorf AFB • Until recently, Elmendrof AFB
managed generation and grid on base – interconnection expertise
• Pilot interconnection at 12 kV
Power Take-off
Overbuild line to Anchorage (5.4 miles) • Commercial interconnection at
115 kV – requires overbuild of 35 kV back to Anchorage
72009,04-26-06,AK.ppt
Despite a strong resource, construction of a pilot or commercial plant at Cairn Point faces a number of serious obstacles
Other Site Specific Issues- Cairn Point Transect -
SiteSite
Pt. Evans channel marker
• Concern over turbine interaction with marine mammals and fish―Beluga whales in Cook Inlet are critically endangered―Multiple species of salmon
• Possible expansion of shipping traffic to Port MacKenzie if bridge built
• Eddies off Cairn Point during ebb and flood
• Extremely high degree of sedimentation in water
• Seasonal ice pack from late November until mid March―70% ice cover in Knik Arm for 3-4 months―Large bodies of beach ice from upper Knik Arm (sediment and ice, up to 12m thick)―Frazil ice below main pack
• Cairn Point in firing fan of old gunnery range – possible UXO
73agenda,04-26-06,AK.ppt
Agenda
• Site Data
• Device Selection
• Pilot Plant
• Commercial Plant
74010,04-26-06,WA.ppt
Device DevelopersDeviceDevice
GCK (Gorlov)
Lunar Energy
Marine Current Turbines
Open Hydro
SeaPower
SMD Hydrovision
UEK
Verdant
Next Generation
• A number of devices were not considered due to unresolved design issues (too far from pilot)―Maintenance―Foundation―Power train
• Due to ice pack and beach ice clearance, only deep water, fully submerged systems possible
75101,04-26-06,WA.ppt
Due to ice and sedimentation considerations, only Lunar RTT 2000 or fully submerged MCT array would be suitable for deployment
Device Selection- Cairn Point Transect - DeviceDevice
• Testing of scaled down version planned at EMEC in 2007
Lunar RTT 2000
• Next-generation design• Fully submerged
―Requires new support structure and lifting mechanism
―Same power train and foundation as SeaGen• Requires further development prior to
deployment
Fully Submerged MCT
Neither device ready for immediate pilot testing
76102,04-26-06,AK.ppt
Device selection is intended to address site specific concerns. Some concerns at Cairn Point unique for study and may not have easy solutions.
Device Selection- Driving Factors -
DeviceDevice
CategoryCategory IssueIssue Design ApproachDesign Approach
Marine Ecosystem • Endangered Beluga whales• Multiple species of salmon
• Screening of rotors may be possible if high sedimentation reduces bio-accumulation rates
• Substantial downstream, lateral, seadbed, and overhead clearances for unrestricted passage
Shipping Traffic • Potential increase in shipping traffic to Port MacKenzie
• Turbine deployment at edge of possible shipping lane• 12m (LAT) overhead clearance planned
Eddies and Turbulence
• Eddies and large-scale turbulence degrade turbine operation and shorten life
• Eddies on both sides of channel
• No turbine deployment in suspected eddy regions
Sedimentation • High levels of suspended sediment
• No divers for installation or maintenance• May require ROV maintenance to clean duct
Seasonal Ice Pack • No access to turbines in winter• Beach ice and frazil ice
• Fully submerged turbines with 12m (LAT) overhead clearance to avoid “interaction” with ice
• Devices which do not require frequent intervention
77agenda,04-26-06,AK.ppt
Agenda
• Site Data
• Device Selection
• Pilot Plant― Design― Cost
• Commercial Plant
78107,04-26-06,AK.ppt
The pilot plant would be located as close to shore as clearance considerations allow
Pilot Plant Design- Layout - PilotPilot
Description of Pilot
• Single turbine • Lunar RTT 2000• Fully submerged MCT
• Installation in 40 m water
Key Aspects of Pilot Test
• Installation in dense sand• Verify performance predictions• Monitor bio-accumulation rates• Monitor turbine impact on
ecosystem (e.g. marine mammal interaction)
• Monitor ice depth
• Electrical cable rated to 13.5kV trenched back to shore
79106,04-26-06,AK.ppt
Estimated cost for the pilot is $4.7M – split evenly between equipment, installation, and grid interconnection.
Pilot Plant Design- Capital Cost - PilotPilot
Not Included in Cost Estimate
• Permitting and regulatory costs• Detailed engineering design (and associated surveys)• Monitoring equipment to satisfy regulatory concerns
$/kWComponent $/Turbine %
• Power Conversion System• Structural Steel Elements• Turbine Installation
• Subsea Cable Cost• Subsea Cable Installation• Onshore Grid Interconnection
$1428$839
$1899
$60$1,198
$790
$1,083,885$636,784
$1,442,000
$45,600$909,605$600,000
23%14%31%
1%19%13%
$6214 $4,717,874 100%Total Installed Cost
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
$4.5
$5.0
Cap
ital C
ost (
$ M
M)
Equipment
Installation
Electrical Connection
31%
33%
37%
Cost Chain Project Cost BreakdownMCT ArrayMCT Array
80agenda,04-26-06,AK.ppt
Agenda
• Site Data
• TISEC Device
• Pilot Plant
• Commercial Plant― Design― Performance― Cost― Economic Assessment
81200,04-26-06,AK.ppt
The commercial plant would be sited in deep water channel near Cairn Point
Commercial Plant Design- Layout - CommercialCommercial
Turbine
Electrical Cable
Lunar ArrayLunar Array
Infrastructure
• Deploy 69 RTT 2000 turbines— Fully submerged— Arranged in 6 transects— 48 m average installation depth
• 11,600 m of subsea cable— Array operates at 33 kV— Ring connections for redundancy
• Trench 2800 m and directionally drill 950 m
— Trench into seabed between transects
— Directionally drill to shore— Multiple cables per trench
Performance
• Extracts, on average, 17 MW from tidal stream
— 15% of average channel power
• On average, generates 11 MW electric power
— Peak power of 75 MW— Sufficient to power 9,100 homes— Capacity factor of 15%— 99,300 MWh annual generation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1/1 2/20 4/11 5/31 7/20 9/8 10/28 12/17
Date
Ave
rage
Pow
er (M
W)
Daily Average Electric Power
82201,04-26-06,AK.ppt
The MCT array would be deployed in the same area
Commercial Plant Design- Layout - CommercialCommercial
Turbine
Electrical Cable
MCT ArrayMCT ArrayInfrastructure
• Deploy 66 dual-rotor turbines— Fully submerged— Arranged in 7 transects— 46 m average installation dept— 19,700 tons of equipment
• 13,800 m of subsea cable— Array operates at 33 kV— Ring connections for redundancy
• Trench 2700 m and directionally drill 950 m
— Trench into seabed between transects
— Directionally drill to shore— Multiple cables per trench
Performance
• Extracts, on average, 17 MW from tidal stream
— 15% of average channel power
• On average, generates 14.6 MW electric power
— Peak power of 50.1 MW— Sufficient to power 11,200 homes— Capacity factor of 29%— 128,100 MWh annual generation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1/1 2/20 4/11 5/31 7/20 9/8 10/28 12/17
Date
Ave
rage
Pow
er (M
W)
Daily Average Electric Power
83104,04-26-06,AK.ppt
The installed cost of a commercial array would be around $100MM. Per turbine costs are lower than for the pilot due to economies of scale.
Commercial Plant Design- Capital Cost -
CommercialCommercial
$/kWComponent $/Turbine %
• Power Conversion System• Structural Steel Elements• Turbine Installation
• Subsea Cable Cost• Subsea Cable Installation• Onshore Grid Interconnection
$657$817$422
$32$213
$4
$498,512$620,469$320,216
$24,059$161,696
$3030
31%38%20%
2%10%0%
$2144 $1,627,982 100%Total Installed Cost
$0.0
$0.2
$0.4
$0.6
$0.8
$1.0
$1.2
$1.4
$1.6
$1.8
Cap
ital C
ost (
$ M
M)
Equipment
Installation
Electrical Connection
20%
12%
69%
$/Array
$32,901,792$40,950,960$21,134,248
$1,587,920$10,671,914
$200,000
$107,446,835
Cost Chain Project Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost Uncertainties
• Cost estimate based on unscreened SeaGen installation in 30 m water―Proxy for next-generation fully submerged turbine―Does not include effect or cost of screening rotor (if necessary)
• Limited local experience with projects of this type and scope―Assumes long distance directional drilling from bluffs to array possible
MCT ArrayMCT Array
84105,04-26-06,AK.ppt
The operating cost for a commercial array is approximately $4MM per year.
Commercial Plant Design- Operating Cost -
CommercialCommercial
$/kWComponent $/Turbine %
• Operations and Maintenance• Insurance
$49$32
$36,885$24,420
60%40%
$81 $61,305 100%Total Operating Cost
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
Ope
ratin
g C
ost (
$ 00
0)
Insurance
Scheduled and Unscheduled Maintenance
60%
40%
$/Array
$2,434,438$1,611,703
$4,046,141
Cost Chain
Project Cost Breakdown
Operating Cost Uncertainties
• Cost estimate based on unscreened SeaGen installation in 30 m water―Proxy for next-generation fully submerged turbine―Assuming maintenance costs will be similar for fully submerged turbine―Assumes screening will not introduce additional maintenance requirements
MCT ArrayMCT Array
85
Cairn Point Tidal Plant Design, Performance, Cost and Economics Report (EPRI TP 006-AK) is in Draft Form
Final Report will be posted on http://www.epri.com/oceanenergy/
May 2006 Time Period
86
Golden Gate San Francisco In Stream Tidal Power Plant Feasibility Study
Design Performance and Cost
April 26, 2006Mirko Previsic
EPRI Design Performance and Cost Task Lead
87
Outline
• Site Data– The Tidal Current Resource– Grid Interconnection and nearby Port Facilities – Bathymetry and Seabed Composition– Navigation and Other Site Considerations
• Pilot and Commercial Scale Design
• Pilot and Commercial Scale Plant Cost
88
Site Location
TISEC Site
12.6 kV Pilot Interconnection
Embarcadero Substation
Hunters Point Shipyard
Subsea Cable
89
Plant Designs
90
Site Tidal Current Velocity Source
Ref Station: at Transect B
Location: 0.5 km east of bridge
Latitude: 37o 17 09’ N
Longitude: 122o 32’ 40’ W
Extrapolated velocity profile to from B to A
Transect A Width : 1,380 m
Transect A Mean Depth: 54 m
Transect B Width 2,190 m
Transect B Mean Depth 64 m
Area Ratio of B to A: 1.87
91
Site Velocity Distribution
Golden Gate Site Potential
Power Density(Depth Averaged)
3.2 kW/m2
Avg. Power Available 237 MW
Avg. Power Extractable(15% extraction)
35.5 MW
Number of Homes (1.3 kW per home)
27,300
Velocity (m/s)
92
Site Velocity Distribution
-5-4-3-2-1012345
0 5 10 15 20
Time (days)
Velo
city
(m/s
)
05
101520
2530354045
0 5 10 15 20
Time (days)
Pow
er (k
W/m
^2)
-2.5-2
-1.5-1
-0.50
0.51
1.52
2.53
0 10 20 30 40
Time (hours)
Vel
ocity
(m/s
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 10 20 30 40
Time (hours)
Pow
er (k
W/m
^2)
93
Bathymetry
94
Sedimentation
95101,04-26-06,WA.ppt
• Testing of scaled down version planned at EMEC in 2007
Lunar RTT 2000
• Next-generation design• Fully submerged
―Requires new support structure and lifting mechanism
―Same power train and foundation as SeaGen• Requires further development prior to
deployment
Fully Submerged MCT
Neither device ready for immediate pilot testing
Suitable Technology
96
Technology extraction limitMCT Lunar
Turbine Diameter 2 x 18m 21m
Device Width 46m 21m
Device Spacing 9m 10.5m
Channel width per device 55m 31.5m
Downstream Spacing 185m 235m
Useful Channel Length 400m 400m
Useful Channel Width 790m 790m
# of Turbines per Row 14 25
# of Rows 3 2
Total # of Turbines deployable 42 50
Average Power Extracted per Turbine 369kW 273kW
15% Extraction Limit 35.5MW 35.5MW
Technology Specific Extraction Limit 15.5MW 13.6MW
97
Pilot Plant Cost $/kW $/Turbine in % Power Conversion System $1,428 $1,589,000 28.1%Structural Steel Elements $746 $831,000 14.8%Subsea Cable Cost $103 $115,000 2.0%Turbine Installation $1,295 $1,442,000 25.7%Subsea Cable Installation $1,295 $1,430,000 25.7%Onshore Electric Grid Interconection $180 $200,000 3.6% Total Installed Cost $5,048 $5,619,000 100.0%
- Single SeaGen unit installed in close proximity to Golden Gate Bridge- Only capital cost is evaluated, operational, consenting and other costs are additional
98
Commercial Plant Cost $/kW $/Turbine $/Farm in % Ref Power Conversion System $718 $799,712 $31,988,000 35% 1Structural Elements $671 $747,281 $29,891,000 33% 2Subsea Cable Cost $67 $74,592 $2,984,000 3% 3Turbine Installation $322 $358,862 $14,354,000 16% 4Subsea Cable Installation $236 $262,299 $10,492,000 12% 5Onshore Electric Grid Interconection $11 $12,500 $500,000 1% 6 Total Installed Cost $2,026 $2,255,246 $90,209,000 100% O&M Cost $50 $55,316 $2,212,644 62% 7Annual Insurance Cost $30 $33,829 $1,353,174 38% 8 Total annual O&M cost $80 $89,145 $3,565,792 100%
99
Summary
San Francisco Tidal Plant Design, Performance, Cost and Economics Report (EPRI TP 006-SF) is in Draft Form
Final Report will be posted on – www.epri.com/oceanenergy/
May 2006 Time Period
100
Golden Gate San Francisco In Stream Tidal Power Plant Feasibility Study
Design Performance and Cost
April 26, 2006Mirko Previsic
EPRI Design Performance and Cost Task Lead
101
Outline
• Site Data– The Tidal Current Resource– Grid Interconnection and nearby Port Facilities – Bathymetry and Seabed Composition– Navigation and Other Site Considerations
• Pilot and Commercial Scale Design
• Pilot and Commercial Scale Plant Cost
102
Site Location
TISEC Site
12.6 kV Pilot Interconnection
Embarcadero Substation
Hunters Point Shipyard
Subsea Cable
103
Plant Designs
104
Site Tidal Current Velocity Source
Ref Station: at Transect B
Location: 0.5 km east of bridge
Latitude: 37o 17 09’ N
Longitude: 122o 32’ 40’ W
Extrapolated velocity profile to from B to A
Transect A Width : 1,380 m
Transect A Mean Depth: 54 m
Transect B Width 2,190 m
Transect B Mean Depth 64 m
Area Ratio of B to A: 1.87
105
Site Velocity Distribution
Golden Gate Site Potential
Power Density(Depth Averaged)
3.2 kW/m2
Avg. Power Available 237 MW
Avg. Power Extractable(15% extraction)
35.5 MW
Number of Homes (1.3 kW per home)
27,300
Velocity (m/s)
106
Site Velocity Distribution
-5-4-3-2-1012345
0 5 10 15 20
Time (days)
Velo
city
(m/s
)
05
101520
2530354045
0 5 10 15 20
Time (days)
Pow
er (k
W/m
^2)
-2.5-2
-1.5-1
-0.50
0.51
1.52
2.53
0 10 20 30 40
Time (hours)
Vel
ocity
(m/s
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 10 20 30 40
Time (hours)
Pow
er (k
W/m
^2)
107
Bathymetry
108
Sedimentation
109101,04-26-06,WA.ppt
• Testing of scaled down version planned at EMEC in 2007
Lunar RTT 2000
• Next-generation design• Fully submerged
―Requires new support structure and lifting mechanism
―Same power train and foundation as SeaGen• Requires further development prior to
deployment
Fully Submerged MCT
Neither device ready for immediate pilot testing
Suitable Technology
110
Technology extraction limitMCT Lunar
Turbine Diameter 2 x 18m 21m
Device Width 46m 21m
Device Spacing 9m 10.5m
Channel width per device 55m 31.5m
Downstream Spacing 185m 235m
Useful Channel Length 400m 400m
Useful Channel Width 790m 790m
# of Turbines per Row 14 25
# of Rows 3 2
Total # of Turbines deployable 42 50
Average Power Extracted per Turbine 369kW 273kW
15% Extraction Limit 35.5MW 35.5MW
Technology Specific Extraction Limit 15.5MW 13.6MW
111
Pilot Plant Cost $/kW $/Turbine in % Power Conversion System $1,428 $1,589,000 28.1%Structural Steel Elements $746 $831,000 14.8%Subsea Cable Cost $103 $115,000 2.0%Turbine Installation $1,295 $1,442,000 25.7%Subsea Cable Installation $1,295 $1,430,000 25.7%Onshore Electric Grid Interconection $180 $200,000 3.6% Total Installed Cost $5,048 $5,619,000 100.0%
- Single SeaGen unit installed in close proximity to Golden Gate Bridge- Only capital cost is evaluated, operational, consenting and other costs are additional
112
Commercial Plant Cost $/kW $/Turbine $/Farm in % Ref Power Conversion System $718 $799,712 $31,988,000 35% 1Structural Elements $671 $747,281 $29,891,000 33% 2Subsea Cable Cost $67 $74,592 $2,984,000 3% 3Turbine Installation $322 $358,862 $14,354,000 16% 4Subsea Cable Installation $236 $262,299 $10,492,000 12% 5Onshore Electric Grid Interconection $11 $12,500 $500,000 1% 6 Total Installed Cost $2,026 $2,255,246 $90,209,000 100% O&M Cost $50 $55,316 $2,212,644 62% 7Annual Insurance Cost $30 $33,829 $1,353,174 38% 8 Total annual O&M cost $80 $89,145 $3,565,792 100%
113
Summary
San Francisco Tidal Plant Design, Performance, Cost and Economics Report (EPRI TP 006-SF) is in Draft Form
Final Report will be posted on – www.epri.com/oceanenergy/
May 2006 Time Period
114
Point Evans Tacoma In-Stream Tidal Power Plant Feasibility Study
Design Performance and Cost
April 26, 2006Brian Polagye
EPRI Design Task Lead
115agenda,04-26-06,WA.ppt
Agenda
• Site Data
• Device Selection
• Pilot Plant
• Commercial Plant
116agenda,04-26-06,WA.ppt
Agenda
• Site Data― Site Overview― Currents and Power― Seabed― Electrical Interconnection
• Device Selection
• Pilot Plant
• Commercial Plant
117001,04-26-06,WA.ppt
Tacoma Narrows connects the main and southern basins of Puget Sound
SiteSite
Port of Tacoma
Tacoma Narrows Bridge
Point Evans Commercial Plant
Pilot Plant
Tacoma Narrows- Site Overview -
118
-70-60-50-40-30-20-10
010
0 500 1000 1500Distance (m)
Dep
th (m
- M
LL
W)
200,04-26-06,WA.ppt
Site Overview
Point Evans is the site of the strongest in-stream resource in Tacoma Narrows and has been chosen as the site for this feasibility study
- Point Evans - SiteSite
Point Evans
Commercial Plant
Pilot Plant0.1 mi E of Pt. Evans
1490 m
Max Depth = 68 m
Avg Depth = 42 m
Power Density(Depth Average)
1.7 kW/m2
Avg. Power Available 106 MW
Avg. Power Extractable(15% extraction)
16 MW
Number of Homes (1.3 kW per home)
11,0000%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
0.1 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.7Surface Velocity (m/s)
Freq
uenc
y
119008,04-26-06,WA.ppt
Interconnection will be on the west side of the Narrows at Point Evans – easy access and pilot/commercial interconnection options
Interconnection- Point Evans Transect -
SiteSite
Pt. Evans channel marker
• Tacoma Power has a right of way (ROW) running south along the bluffs from the channel marker
Tacoma Power ROW
12.47kV distribution line(Penlight)
• Pilot interconnection proposed to Peninsula Power and Light (Penlight) 12.47 kV distribution line
115kV cable crossing towers
115kV transmission line(Tacoma Power)
• Commercial interconnection proposed to Tacoma Power 115kV transmission line
120009,04-26-06,WA.ppt
There are other site specific issues that influence system design
Other Site Specific Issues- Point Evans Transect -
SiteSite
Pt. Evans channel marker
• Tacoma Narrows is a biologically active tidal estuary―Kelp: floating and understory―Barnacles―Marine mammals and fish (e.g. primitive shark near seabed)
• Shipping traffic―Deep draft container vessels bound for Olympia―15m maximum draft―Conventional shipping lane occupies width of bridge caissons (850m)
• Eddies and turbulence―Eddies at Point Evans during ebb and flood―Strong turbulent motions in northern Narrows due to Point Defiance
• Tacoma Narrows is a recreational area―Boating, diving, swimming―Sport fishing south and north of Point Evans in eddies
121agenda,04-26-06,WA.ppt
Agenda
• Site Data
• Device Selection
• Pilot Plant
• Commercial Plant
122010,04-26-06,WA.ppt
Device DevelopersDeviceDevice
GCK (Gorlov)
Lunar Energy
Marine Current Turbines
Open Hydro
SeaPower
SMD Hydrovision
UEK
Verdant
Design Device
• A number of devices were not considered due to unresolved design issues (too far from pilot)―Maintenance―Foundation―Power train
• Of the remaining devices, Marine Current Turbines fit the site best
123101,04-26-06,WA.ppt
Variations on a single device have been chosen for the pilot and commercial plant
Device Selection- Point Evans Transect - DeviceDevice
• SeaGen―Dual-rotor―Surface piercing
• Ready for deployment in short-term
Pilot Plant
• Next-generation design• Fully submerged
―Address navigation channel concerns―Requires new support structure and lifting
mechanism―Same power train and foundation as SeaGen
• Requires further development prior to deployment
Commercial Plant
124025,04-26-06,WA.ppt
Device selection is intended to address site specific concerns
Device Selection- Driving Factors -
DeviceDevice
CategoryCategory IssueIssue Design ApproachDesign Approach
Biological Activity • Kelp wrapped around rotors• Bio-accumulation on rotor and
support structure• Marine mammals and fish
• Rope cutters at base of hub• Use of glass-based anti-fouling paints to prevent
bio-accumulation without introducing toxins to ecosystem
• Pilot testing required to verify low-impact
Shipping Traffic • Array footprint overlaps with conventional shipping lane
• 15m LAT (lowest astronomical tide) overhead clearance for fully submerged turbines
• Pilot at edge of shipping lane
Eddies and Turbulence
• Eddies and large-scale turbulence degrade turbine operation and shorten life
• Eddies from bridge and points
• Far enough north of bridge to avoid caisson wake• Far enough offshore to be out of Point Evans eddy• Far enough south for Point Defiance turbulence to
dissipate
Recreational Use • Swimming, diving, fishing all take place in Tacoma Narrows
• May require exclusion zone around turbine array (< 10% total surface area). Enforceable?
• Sport fishing lines unlikely to effect rotors
125agenda,04-26-06,WA.ppt
Agenda
• Site Data
• TISEC Device
• Pilot Plant― Design― Cost
• Commercial Plant
126018,04-26-06,WA.ppt
The surface-piercing pilot turbine would be installed due east of Point Evans
Pilot Plant Design- Layout - PilotPilot
Point Evans
13.5kV cable, trenched or anchored
Trenched overland cable
Description of Pilot
• Single dual-rotor turbine (SeaGen)
• Installation in 35 m water• 716 kW rated power
Key Aspects of Pilot Test
• Installation in hardpan• Verify performance predictions• Monitor bio-accumulation rates• Monitor turbine impact on
ecosystem (e.g. marine mammal interaction)
Pilot Turbine
• Electrical cable rated to 13.5kV trenched or anchored on route back to shoreShipping: 850 m
127019,04-26-06,WA.ppt
Estimated cost for the pilot is $4.1M – split evenly between equipment, installation, and grid interconnection.
Pilot Plant Design- Capital Cost - PilotPilot
Not Included in Cost Estimate
• Permitting and regulatory costs• Detailed engineering design (and associated surveys)• Monitoring equipment to satisfy regulatory concerns
$/kWComponent $/Turbine %
• Power Conversion System• Structural Steel Elements• Turbine Installation
• Subsea Cable Cost• Subsea Cable Installation• Onshore Grid Interconnection
$1428$865
$2014
$25$944$419
$1,022,050$618,934
$1,442,000
$18,240$675,842$300,000
25%15%35%
0%17%7%
$5695 $4,077,066 100%Total Installed Cost
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
$4.5
Cap
ital C
ost (
$ M
M)
Equipment
Installation
Electrical Connection
35%
24%
40%
Cost Chain Project Cost Breakdown
128agenda,04-26-06,WA.ppt
Agenda
• Site Data
• TISEC Device
• Pilot Plant
• Commercial Plant― Design― Performance― Cost― Economic Assessment
129102,04-26-06,WA.ppt
The commercial plant would be sited in deep water east of Point Evans
Commercial Plant Design- Layout - CommercialCommercial
Turbine
Electrical Cable
Infrastructure
• Deploy 64 dual-rotor turbines— Fully submerged— Arranged in 5 transects— 56 m average installation depth— 18,500 tons of equipment
• 7400 m of subsea cable— Array operates at 33 kV— Ring connections for redundancy
• Trench 1700 m and directionally drill 400 m
— Trench into seabed between transects
— Directionally drill to shore— Multiple cables per trench
Performance
• Extracts, on average, 16 MW from tidal stream
— 15% of average channel power
• On average, generates 13.7 MW electric power
— Peak power of 45.8 MW— Sufficient to power 10,500 homes— Capacity factor of 30%— 120,000 MWh annual generation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1/1 2/20 4/11 5/31 7/20 9/8 10/28 12/17
Date
Ave
rage
Pow
er (M
W)
Daily Average Electric Power
130023,04-26-06,WA.ppt
The installed cost of a commercial array would be around $100MM. Per turbine costs are lower than for the pilot due to economies of scale.
Commercial Plant Design- Capital Cost -
CommercialCommercial
$/kWComponent $/Turbine %
• Power Conversion System• Structural Steel Elements• Turbine Installation
• Subsea Cable Cost• Subsea Cable Installation• Onshore Grid Interconnection
$660$845$450
$18$208$11
$472,665$605,062$322,406
$12,699$149,093
$7813
30%39%20%
1%10%1%
$2193 $1,569,737 100%Total Installed Cost
$0.0
$0.2
$0.4
$0.6
$0.8
$1.0
$1.2
$1.4
$1.6
$1.8
Cap
ital C
ost (
$ M
M)
Equipment
Installation
Electrical Connection
20%
12%
69%
Cost Chain
$/Array
$30,250,532$38,723,977$20,633,956
$812,705$9,541,696
$500,000
$100,463,138
Project Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost Uncertainties
• Cost estimate based on SeaGen installation in 30 m water―Proxy for next-generation fully submerged turbine
• Limited local experience with projects of this type and scope―Deep water drilling required―Assumes directional drilling from bluffs to array possible
131024,04-26-06,WA.ppt
The operating cost for a commercial array is approximately $4MM per year.
Commercial Plant Design- Operating Cost -
CommercialCommercial
$/kWComponent $/Turbine %
• Operations and Maintenance• Insurance
$49$33
$35,313$23,546
60%40%
$82 $58,859 100%Total Operating Cost
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
Ope
ratin
g C
ost (
$ 00
0)
Insurance
Scheduled and Unscheduled Maintenance
60%
40%
Cost Chain
$/Array
$2,260,052$1,506,947
$3,766,999
Project Cost Breakdown
Operating Cost Uncertainties
• Cost estimate based on SeaGen installation in 30 m water―Proxy for next-generation fully submerged turbine―Assuming maintenance costs will be similar for fully submerged turbine
132
Tacoma Narrows Tidal Plant Design, Performance, Cost and Economics Report (EPRI TP 006-WA) is in Draft Form
Final Report will be posted on http://www.epri.com/oceanenergy/
May 2006 Time Period
133
Instream Tidal Power Plant Feasibility Study
General Environmental and Federal Permitting Issues
April 26, 2006
Andre Casavant
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
134
Potential Effects - Installation & Decommissioning
Aquatic Life
•Benthos - likely include physical disturbance and temporary effects with redistribution of fine sediment.
–Barge anchoring – damage from chain sweep.
–Pile driving – dredge spoils may degrade benthic habitat.
–HDD – does not expose the surface of seabed, minimizes erosion and suspension of sediment.
–Jet plow – limited duration similar to a storm event, would increase suspended sediment load. Some shellfish have the ability to move away. Clams have the ability to close and survive such events.
135
Potential Effects - Installation & Decommissioning
Aquatic Life (cont’d)
•Sediment disturbance - potential effects to nursery grounds (fish larvae and eggs), however, direct mortality of juvenile and adult fish is not expected.
•Noise and Vibration – may result in marine mammals, fish, and birds avoiding the area and disrupt feeding, migration, and breeding.
136
Potential Effects - Installation & Decommissioning
Water Quality•Construction equipment could release oils or hydraulic fluids.
•Activities could suspend sediment, increase turbidity, disperse contaminated sediment.
•Grouting and cementing may present a concern.
•Comparison to fish trawling – typically short term and localized.
137
Potential Effects - Installation & Decommissioning
Terrestrial Life
•Typical construction activities related to installing shore station, access roads, parking area, staging area, and ROW for grid connection.
•Potential for disturbing wetlands.
•Permanent removal or conversion of terrestrial habitat and cover-type.
•Typically – only temporary effects during construction period with main goal being to avoid altering hydrology of wetlands in order to not permanently affect groundwater discharge, sediment stabilization or other localized wetland functions.
138
Potential Effects - Installation & Decommissioning
Marine/Land Uses
–Commercial fishing
–Recreation access
–Boat traffic
–Road construction and heavy equipment
Cultural/Historic
Tidal region – unlikely
Land components – need to be considered.
139
Potential Effects - Operation & Maintenance
Aquatic Life – Mechanical or Flow Related Injuries (conventional hydro comparison)
-No physical blockages to inhibit fish movement.
-Possibility of fish attraction to accelerated flows.
-Rotor and blade tip speeds are much slower
-Turbine solidity is less – lower strike probability
-Open design limits potential injuries due to pinching or grinding
-Changes in water pressure are significantly less
-No draft tubes or wicket gates
-Minimal turbulence, effect on water temp, and dissolved gases.
-No change in habitat associated with inundating terrestrial areas.
-Minimal visual effects for submerged design.
140
Potential Effects - Operation & Maintenance
Aquatic Life – Habitat
-Colonization by marine life on pilings is likely.
-Structures or cover are typically sought by fish from predators (Vindeby offshore wind farm study).
-Fishing/trawling exclusion zone for commercial-size projects combined with “artificial reef” effect of project structures, may benefit fish stocks and aquatic community.
-Maintenance activities can result in habitat disturbances similar to those experienced during installation.
141
Potential Effects - Operation & Maintenance
Aquatic Life – Entanglement/Entrapment
-Not expected from turbine, however entrapment is possible for cables installed above seabed. Options:
-Install below seabed if possible.
-Anchor in a manner to provide maximum contour.
142
Potential Effects - Operation & Maintenance
Aquatic Life – Noise, Vibrations & EMR
-Not quantified from a TISEC project but expected to be relatively low.
-Excessive vibration could cause marine mammals, fish and birds to avoid project area.
-EMR diminish rapidly in size with distance from source and electric fields can be shielded or attenuated by objects.
143
Potential Effects - Operation & Maintenance
Water Quality
-TISEC units may contain minor amounts of petroleum based substances which have the potential to release.
-Ambient contaminants in the sediment could become re-suspended due to operation.
-Anti-fouling paints may need to be applied to portions of the turbine.
144
Potential Effects - Operation & Maintenance
Hydrodynamics
•Changes in tidal energy
–Erosion, sedimentation patterns, suspended sediment–Creation of turbulence and velocity shadows–Reflection or diffraction of waves
•Alteration of substrate type
•Scour around structures
•Changes in vertical mixing (possible implications to plankton)
145
Potential Effects - Operation & Maintenance
Marine Uses
•Fishing exclusion zone will be required to protect the project.
•Extend zone for transmission cable not buried as it presents an entanglement hazard to anchors and fishing gear.
•Subsurface design should have minimal consequential visual effects in sensitive areas.
•Project features could represent navigation obstacles depending on clearance –boating exclusion zone may be required.
146
Federal Permitting
Hydroelectric projects•Since 1920, U.S. government has asserted jurisdiction as lead agency.
•Construction and operation of non-federal hydroelectric projects requires a license under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), in accordance with Section 23(b) of Federal Power Act.
•FERC regulates development with both preliminary permits and licenses.
147
FERC – Verdant
April 14, 2005 FERC order (111 FERC ¶ 61,024) regarding permitting of six tidal turbines by Verdant Power - FERC licensing not required if:
• Technology is experimental;
• Proposed facilities to be used for short period for purpose of conducting studies supporting preparation of license application; and
• Power generated from test project not to be transmitted into or displace power from the grid.
148
July 27, 2005 FERC Order (112 FERC ¶ 61,143) - Verdant
• In its request for clarification, Verdant asserted that the induction generators it proposes to test must be connected to the grid.
• First 2 criteria of April 14 are met (experimental and short term for purposes of licensing).
• Provide power at no charge and compensate Consolidated Edison (make whole) eliminating any impacts on interstate commerce.
• FERC determines that under the conditions set forth in April 14 Order, as clarified in this order Verdant may test facilities without a license.
149
Preliminary Permit
• Purpose is to maintain the permittee’s priority of application for license
• There are opportunities for competition, however if both or neither applicants are either a municipality or a state, FERC will favor earliest applicant.
• Term is for up to 3 years
• If application for a preliminary permit proposes to use the same water resource as an accepted application for a license, FERC will take action on an accepted license application first.
150
Declaration of Intent
• Purpose is to obtain a FERC determination as to whether the project is FERC jurisdictional.
• Provides an opportunity for the applicant to make a case that the project is not subject to FERC jurisdiction.
• Typically includes a detailed description of the project and a compilation of references to other orders and FERC decisions.
• Proceeding without DOI may result in significant delays if the project is determined to be FERC jurisdictional at a later date.
151
ILP Flowchart
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/indus-act/flowchart.pdf
152
• The USCE is required to review all work or the placement of structures in or affecting navigable waterways.
• To date, until FERC becomes engaged in the licensing process, the USCE often takes the lead federal role in permitting test units in support of FERC license application.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCE) -Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 189933 U.S.C. 403
153
SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACTTITLE 33 - NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS CHAPTER 26 - WATER POLLUTION
PREVENTION AND CONTROLSUBCHAPTER IV - PERMITS AND LICENSES
Sec. 1344. Permits for dredged or fill material
(a) Discharge into navigable waters at specified disposal sites
• The Secretary may issue permits, after notice and opportunity for public hearings for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites.
• For Verdant, USCE determined that installing 6 monopoles meets the definition of “fill”, therefore the project is under USCE jurisdiction.
154
Section 401 CWA – Water Quality Certificate (WQC)
• Any activity requiring a federal action that may result in a discharge into navigable waters is required to obtain certification from the applicable state(s) that any such discharge will comply with respective water quality standards.
• TISEC facility will require a section 401 WQC for USCE permit and/or FERC license.
155
Endangered Species Act
• Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure the permitted or licensed activity does not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify critical habitat.
• USFWS for inland and NOAA Fisheries for marine species.• If agency determines proposed action “may affect” listed species, Section 7
consultation required.– Biological Assessment– Biological Opinion
• Incidental Take Statement• Reasonable and Prudent Measures
156
Other Applicable Regulations
• Coastal Zone Management Act
• National Historic Preservation Act
• Marine Mammal Protection Act
• Migratory Bird Protection Act
• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Act
157
NEPA Review
Under NEPA, federal agencies are required to prepare environmental analyses, with input from the state and local governments, Indian Tribes (First Nation), the public, and other federal agencies, when considering a proposal for a major federal action.
159
Agenda
9:00 – 9:15 Introductions Roger Bedard
9:15 - :9:30 Welcome Gary Armfield
9:30 – 10:00 Overview Summary Roger Bedard
10:00 – 10:30 Resource and Performance Methodology Brian Polagye
10:30 – 11:00 Device Technology Mirko Previsic
11:00 – 11:30 Plant Design/Cost Methodology Mirko Previsic
11:30 – 12:00 Alaska Design Brian Polagye
12:00 – 1:00 Lunch/Mixer All
11:00 – 12:00 California Design Mirko Previsic
1:00 – 2:00 Washington Design Brian Polagye
2:00 – 2:30 Environmental and Regulatory Issues Andre Casavant
2:30 - 3:00 Economic Methodology Assessment, Roger Bedard
Conclusions and Recommendations
3:00 – 3:45 Discussion of Path Forward All
3:45 – 4:00 Wrap Up Mike Robinson
4:00 – 5:00 Field Trip – Pt Evans Site Optional
160
Boat at Low Tide – 9 Steps Each 1 Foot Apart
Difference between high and low tide is 5 Ft. How many steps show at High Tide?
161
Economic Assessment Methodology
• Three Ownership Models– Utility Generator (ie, IOU such as PG&E)– Municipal Generator (eg, Tacoma Power)– Non Utility Generator (ie, IPP such as Calpine)
• Inputs to the Models– Plant Capital and O&M Costs– IOU, Muni and IPP capital structure and equity/debt rates– Fed and State by State Tax Rates and Accelerated
Depreciation– Fed and State by State Incentives (ITC, PTC, REPI and
REC)– IPP Selling Price (Avoided Cost - proxy of wholesale price
state by state) and price forecast model from the DOE EIA)See EPRI TP 003 Rev 1 Report at www.epri.com/oceanenergy/ under Tidal Page
162
Cost of Electricity (Levelized – Busbar)
where:• TPI = Total Plant Investment• FCR = Fixed Charge Rate (percent)• O&M = Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost• LO&R = Periodic Levelized Overhaul and Replacement Cost• AEP = Annual Energy Production at Busbar
AEPRLOMOTPIxFCRCOE )&()&()( ++
=
For IPPs:
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is defined as the discount rate that sets the present worth of the net cash flows over the service life equal to the equity investment at the commercial operating date.
163
Capital Structure and Equity/Debt Rates
Percent Nominal Rate
Real Rate(1)
Capital Structure (%) Common Equity Preferred Equity Long-Term Debt
52 13 35
13.0 % 10.5 % 7.5 %
9.7 % 7.3 % 4.4 %
Income Tax Rates Federal State (generic @ 4.0%) Composite (21)
35.0 % 4.0 % 37.6 %
35.0 % 4.0 % 37.6 %
Discount Rate (before tax)(3) 10.75 % 7.5 % Discount Rate (after tax) (4) 9.72 % 6.5 %
Percent Rate Nominal
Rate Real
Capital Structure (%) Equity Debt
30 70
17.0 % 8.0 %
13.60 %
4.9 % Income Tax Rates Federal State (generic @ 4.0%) Composite
35.0 % 4.0 % 37.6 %
35.0 % 4.0 % 37.6 %
Discount Rate (before tax) 10.7 % 7.5 % Discount Rate (after tax) 8.5 % 5.3 %
IOU
Muni
IPP
100% Debt at 5% Nominal – 2% Real Cost of Capital and not subject to US /State Taxes
164
US and State Income Tax Rates
AK WA CA
Fed Tax 35 35 35State Tax 9.4 0 8.84
REC Fed PTC (1) State ITC State PTC
AK None 1.8¢ (2005%) per kWh for the first 10 years
None None
WA None and an EPRI assumed escalation of
None Sales and Use Tax Exemption
CA None 3% per year The lesser of 7.5% or $4.50/ watt of peak gen capacity
Ignored (SEP) Sup Energy Payments
US and State Incentives – assume same as for Wind
1) Assume PTC Use - No double dipping with Fed ITC and PTC
165
IPP Selling Price
• DOE EIA Electricity Price Forecast
AK WA CAAvg Industrial Rate from EIA (cents/kWh)
8.63 3.86 8.15
• Assumed IPP Selling Price – Wholesale Rate Proxy
166
Commercial Plant COE and IRR
AK
Real-Nominal
WA
Real-Nominal
CA
Real-Nominal
Utility Generator COE (cents/kWh)
8.1 – 9.5 8.8 – 10.3 7.5 – 8.8
Non Utility Generator IRR (%)
17% None 12.5%
Muni Generator COE (cents/kWh
7.0 – 8.2 7.0 – 8.0 5.9 – 6.8
Financial incentives equal to wind energy technology
See EPRI TP 002 for Fed and State Tax Rates, MACRS Depreciation, Financing Assumptions and Avoided Costs by State
167
Economic Comparisons (2005$)
(1) All costs in 2005$(2) 600 MW Plant, Pittsburgh #8 Coal
(3) GE 7 F machine or equivalent(4) 85% removal
(1) All costs in 2005$(2) 600 MW Plant, Pittsburgh #8 Coal
(3) GE 7 F or equivalent(4) 85% removal
(1) 600 MW Plant, Pittsburgh #8 Coal; (2) GE 7 F machine or equivalent
Capacity Factor (%)
Capital Cost ($/kW)
COE (cents/kWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
Tidal In Stream 29 - 33 2,000 5 - 9 None
Wind 30 - 42 1,150 4.7- 6.5 None
Solar Thermal Trough 33 3,300 18 None
Coal PC USC (Note 1) 80 1,275 4.2 1,760
NGCC @ $7/MMBTU (2) 80 480 6.4 860
Nuclear Evol (ABWR) 85 - 90 1,660 4.7 - 5.0 None
168
Commercial Plant Economics
• Tidal In Stream Technology has benefited from the Wind Technology Learning Curve– First 50MW Peak
Capacity TISEC Plant COE is 6 - 10 cents/kWhr
– Wind at 100 MW was over 20 cents/kWhr(2005$)
• Future Cost Reductions Expected through Value Engineering and Economies of Scale
Historical Wind Plant Data
Wind early 1980s - 2004
In Stream Tidal Entry Point
100 1,000 10,000 100,000
1
5
10
20
100
COE - 2005$ (cents/kWh)
2
50
Cumulative Production Volume
169
Sensitivity Studies (WA Example)
5.05.56.06.57.07.58.08.59.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Installed Turbines
COE (cents/kWh)
Design Value
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
0.79 0.84 0.89 0.94 0.99Availability
COE (cents/kWh)
Design Value
170
(cont)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0Average Power Flux (turbine hub height - kW/m2)
COE (cents/kWh)
Design Value
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0%Real Fixed Charge Rate (FCR)
COE (cents/kWh)
Design Value
171
(cont)
4.04.55.05.56.06.57.07.58.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%Production Credits (% Base Case)
COE (cents/kWh)
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0Design Velocity (m/s)
COE (cents/kWh)
Rated Speed
Maximum Site Speed
172
Environmental and Regulatory Issues
• Given proper care in siting, TISEC promises to be one of the most environmentally benign electricity generation technologies
• EPRI designs limit energy extraction to 15% to preclude any significant ecological effects
• MCT has received consents for a highly environmentally sensitive site in the UK
• U.S. Regulatory Jurisdiction– FERC has asserted jurisdiction and has set a precedent of waiving
license for Verdant pilot demonstration testing– Many federal, state and local agencies involved (see EPRI TP 007
Env and Reg Issues Report)• Pilot demonstration projects must include environmental monitoring
and a commitment to cease operation if any environmental issues arise• Early dialogue with local stakeholders is key
173
EPRI Conclusions• TISEC is Emerging Technology which
– Shows significant promise as an energy supply option for Knik Arm, AK, San Francisco, CA and Tacoma Narrows, WA• Good energy resource• Interconnection is easily managed• Major port facilities• Need for additional supply (SF and WA – YES; AK - ?)• High avoided cost of electricity (SF and AK – YES; WA - NO)• Help meet State RPS standards (SF and WA – YES; AK - ?)
– Still has many unanswered questions which requires pilot demonstration testing• What technology type optimum size will be most cost effective?• What will it cost, particularly installation and O&M cost?• Will dispatchers be able to use its predictability?• Will regulators license in stream plants?
174
EPRI Recommendations• Build Collaboration within States and with other States/Provinces/Federal
Government– Form electricity stakeholder group– Join Working Group to be formed by EPRI (“OceanFleet”)
• Encourage R&D at Universities
• Initiate a Phase II Detailed Design and Permitting Project– Owner and applicant for permit– Velocity profiling survey (ADCP with CFD)– High resolution bottom bathymetry survey– Geotech survey– Detail design using above data– System/Device procurement strategy and specifications– Environmental impact report– Public outreach– Implementation planning for construction and operation and update
proforma costs– Financing/incentive requirements study
175
EPRI Recommendations
Encourage State and Federal government support of RD&D• Implement a national tidal energy program at DOE• Operate a national tidal energy test facility• Promote development of industry standards• Continue membership in the IEA Ocean Energy Program• Clarify and streamline federal permitting processes• Study provisions for tax incentives and subsidies• Ensure that the public receives a fair return from the use of
ocean tidal energy resources• Ensure that development rights in state waters are allocated
through a fair and transparent process that takes into accountstate, local, and public concerns
176
SummaryEPRI Ocean Energy Program is for the Public Benefit
All Technical Work Totally Transparent
All Reports Available to General Public:
Project Reports – www.epri.com/oceanenergy/
Monthly Progress Reports – email request to [email protected]
U.S. is a Member of International Energy Agency (IEA) Ocean Energy Systems (OES) Program - Reports are available at
www.iea-oceans.org
177
A small investment today might stimulate an industry which may employ thousands of people and generate billions of dollars of economic output while using an abundant and clean natural resource. I think it is worth taking a serious look at whether this technology should be added to our portfolio of energy supply options. Roger Bedard
EPRI Perspective• In Stream Tidal Energy is a potentially important energy source and should be
evaluated for adding to SF, WA and AK energy supply portfolios– Indigenous– keep the wealth in the state and increase energy security
• A balanced and diversified portfolio of energy supply options is the foundation of a reliable and robust electrical system
• Clean, no greenhouse gases and no aesthetic issues
• Economics appear to be comparable to other options
• Except for a few large tidal energy resource sites, such as Minas Passage, TISEC is in the grey zone between central and distributed power applications. Typical DG motivations are:
– Delay T&D Infrastructure Upgrade– Voltage Stability – Guaranteed Power– Displace Diesel Fuel– Hedge volatility of fossil fuel prices