1 | program name or ancillary texteere.energy.gov water power peer review m3 wave energy systems...
TRANSCRIPT
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov
Water Power Peer Review
M3 Wave Energy Systems(TRL 1 2 3 System)
PI: Mike Morrow
M3 Wave Energy Systems LLCEmail:[email protected] (541) 602-4160November, 2011
M3 Wave’s DMP: Simple, Scalable, and Submerged
Water Power 2010 project to advance DMP technology from TRL2 to TRL3+
2 | Wind and Water Power Program eere.energy.gov
Purpose, Objectives, & Integration
Project Purpose: Determine commercial potential of DMP Submerged WEC.
Expected performance Estimated Cost per kWh including first pass LCOE model Explore Design concepts and Methods for fabrication, operations,
maintenance, deployment Strategy: Minimize system cost/kWh instead of merely pushing on
nameplate rating or efficiency.
Relation to Program Objectives: A commercially viable stationary, submerged WEC technology would
provide additional portfolio options for harnessing wave energy and improving the energy independence of the US with reduced stakeholder impact.
Identifying methods for fabrication, O&M, and deployment early in the design cycle will reduce cost and decrease risk and time to market for a new technology.
3 | Wind and Water Power Program eere.energy.gov
Technical Approach
Technical Approach: Identify representative sites and characterize the wave resource in the mid-shore region of
the Oregon Coast (relatively little data existed on this region). Scientists at Oregon State University’s Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center
(NNMREC) applied SWAN modeling to site bathymetry:
Develop computer model of WEC device NNMREC scientists and M3 Wave engineers independently developed CFD and
numerical models and cross-validated the resulting output.
Sample Sites
Predicted Wave ConditionsWave spectra vs depth
Oscillating Air Column CFD modelPressure Response Curves
4 | Wind and Water Power Program eere.energy.gov
Technical Approach
Technical Approach (cont): Construct and test 1:50 scale model device
A 1m long scale model was designed, constructed, and tested using representative materials, methods, and procedures.
Key investigations using this device included: Impact of bag size and orientation on relative efficiency Impact of water depth on device performance Impact of system pressure on device performance
Tsunami test
5 | Wind and Water Power Program eere.energy.gov
Technical Approach
Key/remaining issues:• Methods for fabrication and O&M to reduce levelized cost of energy
– Working with barge manufacturers, raw material suppliers, and marine engineering firms to develop optimum solutions.
• Instrumentation– Measuring relatively low velocity bi-directional flow in small diameter pipe turned out
to be challenging. New methods being developed and refined
• Complex Bag FEA/modeling– Bag response during operation ended up being more complex than original model
capability. Currently developing empirical linkages where possible. Bag modeling will be key to sizing device output and optimizing conversion efficiency
• Refining Levelized Cost of Energy Model incorporating unique aspects of device (essentially an “area absorber”) and ability to dense pack arrays.
To be investigated on subsequent projects pending Go/no-go:
Sediment transport, biofouling, benthic ecosystem impact, more detailed LCOE model inputs.
6 | Wind and Water Power Program eere.energy.gov
Plan, Schedule, & Budget
Schedule• Initiation date: Nov 1, 2010• Planned completion date: Oct 31, 2011• Milestones:
– Wave and system model (June 2011)– Completion of scale model testing (Sept 2011)– Final roll-up of LCOE model (Oct 2011)
• GO-NO GO decision points: – Viable, data-supported cost/Kw: estimate by end of Oct 2011– Scale factor match predictions: 1:6 scale testing end of FY11– Open Water Pilot test (FY12-FY13): pending funding secured FY12
Budget: • As of Sept 1, 2011, M3 has expended $184,121.80 of the entire budget of $299,972.39, or 61.4%
of entire budget. In the last 2 months we expect the majority of subcontract dollars to be invoiced and monthly labor hours to increase due to final integration and report writing.
• In general, budget is on track. The largest variance is that we are over budget by 120 hours on grant administration. This was due to underestimating the tasks required for adherence to DOE requirements, this being our first DOE grant. This has been offset by being under budget in hardware costs for both wave flume modification and device fabrication.
Budget History
FY2010 FY2011
DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share
$0 $5374.74 $149,359.22 $29,387.84
7 | Wind and Water Power Program eere.energy.gov
Technical Approach
DevelopOAC Mass
measurementTechnique
2) 50:1 scale deviceOAC mass flow from test
Estimated full scale OAC air
mass flowValidation
CAN HYDRODYNAMIC DEVICE REACH UTILITY SCALE POWER ?
PROJECTEDDEVICE FULL
SCALEPOWER OUTPUT
Research
Testing
Modeling
Three main thrusts:1) Model idealized device air mass flow.2) Compare modeled output to scaled testing results for validity.3) Refine model based on possible component properties (especially- bag).
Identify preferred COTS Turbine
Representative wave data via NOAA Buoy
Wave data corrected for Device Depth (via
NNMREC Swan Model)
Gross Device geometries
3) Refined FEA Model of System
Scale device, wave tank modifications
Frame/casing interactions
Industry research on key system components
First Pass System Model
INITIAL COST/KW ESTIMATE
Bag materials Investigation
Bag materials Testing
WHAT IS COST/KW (initial estimate) ?
1) Idealized Oscillating Air Column Mass Flow Rate Model
CompletedAs of 9/19/2011
Project Roadmap (from original proposal)