Feasibility Study

Solent Ocean Energy Centre

The case for establishing an evaluation and research centre for ocean energy technologies

on the Isle of Wight

Report prepared for the Isle of Wight Council

December 2006

Marine and Technical Marketing Consultants (MTMC) Unit 28, Medina Village

Bridge Road Cowes

Isle of Wight PO31 7LP, UK

Tel. / Fax: +44 (0) 1983 294684

E-mail: icampbell@mtmc.fslife.co.uk

2

Table of Contents Foreword Executive Summary 1. Introduction

1.1 Energy targets 1.2 The Isle of Wight as a Centre for Marine Energy 1.3 Solent Ocean Energy Centre

1.3.1 National Significance 1.3.2 Regional Significance 1.3.3 Local Significance

2. Vision and Objectives

2.1 Mission of the Solent Ocean Energy Centre 2.2 Proposed Milestones

2.2.1 Objectives for 2007 2.2.2 Longer Term Timescales and Key Events

3. Marine Energy Extraction

3.1 Introduction 3.2 Tidal Stream Energy

3.2.1 Devices for Tidal Energy Extraction 3.2.2 Tidal Device Developers

3.3 Wave Energy 3.3.1 Devices for Wave Energy Extraction 3.2.2 Wave Device Developers

4. Test Facility Requirements 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Expected Range of Work 4.3 Facility Options and Availability

4.3.1 Towing Tank 4.3.2 Circulating Water Channel 4.3.3 Deep Tank 4.3.4 Sheltered Marine Test Site 4.3.5 Offshore Marine Test Site

4.4 Conclusions and Recommendations for Test Facilities

5. Instrumentation Requirements

5.1 Dynamometer 5.2 General Instrumentation 5.3 Work Boats and Crane Barge 5.4 Electrical Load / Electricity Network Connection 5.5 Conclusions and Recommendations for Instrumentation

3

6. Marine Tidal Test Sites

6.1 Introduction 6.2 Requirements for Inshore, Sheltered Site 6.3 Inshore Site Selection and Ranking Methodology 6.4 Candidate Inshore Sites 6.5 Conclusions and Recommendations from Inshore Site Ranking 6.6 Requirements for Deep, Offshore Site 6.7 Offshore Site Selection 6.8 Candidate Offshore Sites 6.9 Conclusions and Recommendations for Offshore Site

7. Proposed Commercial Structure of the Centre

7.1 Business Model 7.2 Technical Support Structure 7.3 Technical Work Management

8. Collaboration

8.1 Strategy for Collaboration 8.2 Potential collaborators 8.3 Networks

9. Regional Infrastructure of Resources Available to the Test and Evaluation Centre

9.1 Introduction 9.2 Intellectual Resource Requirements 9.3 Organisations with Offerings for the Centre 9.4 Descriptions of the Organisations

9.4.1 ABPmer (Marine Environmental Research) 9.4.2 British Maritime Technology (BMT) 9.4.3 Wolfson Unit for Marine Technology and Industrial Aerodynamics (WUMTIA) 9.4.4 HR Wallingford 9.4.5 National Oceanographic Centre 9.4.6 QinetiQ Haslar 9.4.7 Other Organisations

9.5 Individuals and Small Companies with Offerings for the Centre 9.5.1 Small Consultancies 9.5.2 Small Engineering Companies

9.6 Benefits of the Regional Infrastructure 9.7 Conclusions and Recommendation

10. The Case for a Solent Ocean Energy Centre

10.1 Introduction 10.2 Overview of the UK Marine Renewable Energy Market

4

10.3 Financial Drivers 10.4 Environmental and Political Drivers 10.5 Global Tidal Energy Sector 10.6 UK Tidal Energy Sector 10.7 Client Base and Value of Work 10.8 Centre Costs

10.8.1 Capital Cost Breakdown 10.8.2 Capital and Set-up Costs of the Inshore Marine Test Site 10.8.3 Cost of the Offshore Marine Test Site 10.8.4 Overhead / Running Costs

10.9 Funding Sources 10.9.1 Public Sector Funding 10.9.2 Private Sector Funding

10.10 Conclusions and Recommendations

11. Conclusions from this Study 11. Recommendations

Appendices

Appendix 1. Consents Procedure

Appendix 2: Options for Capital Expenditure on Test Equipment

5

Foreword Marine and Technical Marketing Consultants (MTMC) has been commissioned by the Isle of Wight Council to conduct a Feasibility Study into the establishment of the Solent Ocean Energy Centre - an evaluation and research centre for marine energy technologies on the Isle of Wight. Funding for the study has been provided by the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA). Those constituent elements, which would be necessary for the successful establishment of such a Centre, were identified in the initial project proposal, presented to the Isle of Wight Council in February 2006. The objective of the Feasibility Study is to expand comprehensively upon those elements, in order to provide a detailed overview of the resources and facilities that would be available to the Centre for its effective and profitable operation. MTMC was established in 1992 and acts as an umbrella company for a number of individual consultants and small businesses who frequently work together. Providing an integrated technical and commercial service to clients, the company specialises in marine performance evaluation and the design of specialist instrumentation for hydrodynamic testing.

6

Executive Summary The government has set ambitious targets for generation of electricity from renewable sources, in order to fulfil its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. This report sets out the result of a study to explore the feasibility of establishing a Centre for evaluation and research into marine renewable energy technologies on the Isle of Wight, which will underpin the achievement of those targets. The Centre will also contribute to several targets within the SEEDA Regional Economic Strategy, by promoting the Region’s knowledge in marine renewable energy, assisting the development of business consortia for the marine renewables sector and providing infrastructure to maintain international economic competitiveness in the marine industry. The Centre will provide integrated business support, particularly for micro-businesses, which are the core of its recommended business model. It will build on the local strength of marine-related companies on the Isle of Wight (and surrounding SEEDA region), potentially transforming the current low-wage economy into a technology and knowledge-based economy. A comprehensive review of the current state of wave and tidal stream technologies (in which the UK is a world leader) is presented in this report, together with a list of marine energy device developers categorised according to their location in the south of England, elsewhere in the UK or elsewhere in the world. Interviews with a number of these developers confirmed that there is a need for the proposed Centre in the SEEDA region. Cost-effective test facilities are required at all stages of device development, from proof-of-concept, through design optimisation to full prototype demonstration. Facilities for testing and development of ancillary equipment and of installation, maintenance and decommissioning procedures are also needed. Sufficient facilities exist already in the SEEDA region for laboratory testing of small-scale marine energy devices. A key facility is the GKN towing tank in East Cowes on the Isle of Wight, which will support model tests of both wave and tidal generators. A desirable addition would be the upgrading and relocation of a circulating water channel that is currently mothballed on the site of QinetiQ Haslar in Gosport. Some investment in instrumentation will be necessary, but most may be hired and charged to projects. Four candidate sites on the north and east shores of the Isle of Wight have been studied and ranked according to their suitability for a sheltered marine tidal test facility. Further investigations are recommended, prior to final site selection. Two potential deep offshore sites for testing prototype tidal stream generators with grid connection have been identified. Further investigations and consultations are recommended, to select the most appropriate site and to ensure that the application for consents will run smoothly. The cost of site construction and a grid connection for demonstrator devices would have to be

7

met from the public purse, which can be justified in terms of strategic government support for development of a predictable form of renewable energy that will contribute to the UK energy targets and security of energy supply. Once established, the offshore site would be financially self-supporting. The commercial structure proposed for the Centre is based on a successful model developed by an informal grouping of Isle of Wight companies, to provide an integrated technical and commercial service to clients. It will only be necessary to establish an office facility with a technical and administrative manager, who could either work from a remote office or could be located centrally on the Island. Administrative services such as website design and publicity will be outsourced. This report demonstrates that there is a wealth of technical expertise residing in companies based on the Isle of Wight and in the surrounding SEEDA region. For each project conducted through the Centre, a group of companies will be selected from this technical resource and subcontracted to deliver the customer’s requirements. The proposed Centre is seen to be complementary to other UK marine energy test centres, such as NaREC, EMEC and Wavehub and there is potential for informal partnering arrangements with these establishments. An overview of the global marine renewable energy market and of financial, environmental and political drivers in the UK demonstrates the commercial opportunities presented by the sector. The UK has a competitive advantage based on its world-leading position in tidal energy technologies, a plentiful tidal resource and strong existing offshore skills. However, there are three main hurdles to achieving the full potential of marine energy generation, namely financing, grid access and planning / permitting. The proposed offshore test site will alleviate the latter two of these problems. Economic analysis shows that it is feasible for the Centre to commence operating immediately, using existing laboratory facilities, with an initial investment of £74k for the first year’s set-up and overhead costs and a desirable investment of £50k for instrumentation. It is recommended that the concept is taken forward at the earliest opportunity and that public funding is sought for the development of an inshore marine test site. Further investigations should be conducted to examine the feasibility of an offshore, grid-connected test site south of St Catherine’s Point on the Isle of Wight.

8

1. Introduction This paper sets out the results of a study to establish the feasibility of an evaluation and research Centre for tidal stream and other marine energy generating devices on the Isle of Wight, which will underpin regional targets for electricity generation from renewable sources and will form the focus for a new marine energy industry in the SE region. The Centre will facilitate investment and innovation in an emerging market sector, helping businesses to seek out new opportunities and new markets. 1.1 Energy Targets Through the Kyoto Protocol, the UK has a legally binding target to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 12.5% below 1990 levels in the period 2008 – 2012. The government has also set a domestic goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2010. The Energy White Paper published in February 2003 contains a long-term goal for a 60% reduction in the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, with real progress made by 2020. In line with these goals, the government has set national targets to meet 10% of UK electricity generation from renewable sources by 2010 and 15% by 2015. There is a further aspiration to increase this figure to 20% by 2020. The corresponding targets for electricity generation from all appropriate renewable sources in the SE Region1 are 620 MW (5.5%) installed capacity by 2010 and 895 MW (8%) by 2016. The energy potential of fast-flowing tidal currents around the British Isles was the subject of a study2 by the energy consultancy Black and Veatch in 2005. The report concluded that the UK’s tidal stream resource is equivalent to 12 TWh and could supply up to 5% of the UK's electricity requirement. More recently, Prof Ian Bryden from Edinburgh University has argued that the figure may be as high as 60TWh. The advantage of this form of renewable energy over other technologies such as wind and solar is that it is entirely predictable – the expected times and strengths of tidal currents are routinely published in nautical almanacs. A further advantage is its high energy density: since water is 830 times denser than air, water flow contains 830 times more energy than wind blowing at the same speed. The DTI’s atlas of UK Marine Energy Resources3 shows the potential for large scale, commercial exploitation of the energy for export to the national grid from several tidal races along the south coast of England, such as the St 1 Harnessing the Elements: Supporting Statement to the Proposed Alterations to Regional Planning Guidance, South East – Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Report by the South East England Regional Assembly, May 2003 ISBN 1-904664-01-6 2 The UK Tidal Stream Resource and Tidal Stream Technology. Report prepared for the Carbon Trust Marine Energy Challenge, Black and Veatch, 2005 3 Atlas of UK Marine Renewable Energy Resources. DTI, Report No R1106 Dec 2004

9

Catherine’s race off the Isle of Wight and the Dover Straits off South Foreland. The extractable energy is on the order of tens of MW, with the advantage that the time of maximum tidal flow at subsequent coastal locations is sequential, thus “smoothing” the intermittency of the tidal energy resource. Small-scale tidal stream devices, which will operate in shallow water, are also evolving and these have the potential to service compact waterside residential or industrial development. Further research will illustrate how such devices can contribute to the energy requirements of waterside developments in the SE region. 1.2 The Isle of Wight as a Centre for Marine Energy The tidal regime around the Isle of Wight has some unique features that make it especially suitable for demonstrating the concept of tidal stream energy. One of these is a result of its location along the English Channel, at a position where interference between diurnal and semi-diurnal tides creates a long dwell at high water and a short dwell at low water. This results in two periods of strong tidal stream (on falling and rising tides), with a fairly short temporal separation between them. The geography and bathymetry around the Island produce a number of local eddies and races during these periods, resulting in very strong streams at a number of locations The Island's technical, industrial, and scientific infrastructure is substantial - particularly in areas associated with marine technology. A small number of large, high-technology companies are based on the Island. Generally, these companies trace their origins through many metamorphoses back to famous technology names, such as Plessey Radar, FBM Marine Ltd, Saunders-Roe, GKN-Westland Aerospace and the British Hovercraft Corporation. Each metamorphosis of these companies has spawned the creation of a few very small, very highly-specialised, technically competent businesses. MTMC is one such business, others range from Strainstall (specialists in marine structure and strain monitoring), through Physe (specialists in provision of MetOcean data and analysis to offshore oil contractors), down to one-man businesses with unique specialised engineering skills. Many operate in informal or formal clusters, such as Vectis Energy. The Island is unique in the amount of data, and the level of understanding, of local coastal processes, because it has its own Centre for the Coastal Environment. The existence of such a specialist centre is a direct consequence of the unique complication of the Island's coastal regime and also of its geology and susceptibility to coastal erosion. Much of this information is properly managed and catalogued at the Coastal Visitor Centre in Ventnor. This situation is in marked contrast with many other coastal areas in the region and nationally, where information is fragmented and neither centrally held nor centrally managed.

10

There are also many regional centres of associated expertise. Academic centres concerned with the marine environment are based at Southampton, Bournemouth and Portsmouth Universities, and include the National Oceanographic Centre at Southampton. Southampton Solent University has a strong role in maritime operations research and training. A number of government (or quasi-government) laboratories exist outside the universities and specialise in a wide range of marine technologies, most linked to the Royal Navy, but with mission statements that include targets for "technology transfer" to civil applications. The region's industrial base includes businesses ranging from Naval Shipbuilders through Marina Developers to constructors of small leisure and working craft. The marine industry is one of the few buoyant sectors of UK manufacturing and enjoys substantial export success. All of these regional resources will support, and be supported by, the proposed marine energy centre. The Isle of Wight Council has recently reiterated its support for the development of tidal energy close to the Island in the 2006 Renewable Energy Action Plan. The Council recognises the potential for the Island to accelerate the UK marine energy industry by enhancing the Island’s established marine technology infrastructure to fit the needs of this burgeoning international market. 1.3 Solent Ocean Energy Centre This study examines the feasibility of establishing a centre for evaluation and research into marine energy technologies on the Isle of Wight: the Solent Ocean Energy Centre (SOEC). The longer-term aim of the Centre is to facilitate the achievement of local, regional, and national targets for renewable energy generation, through exploitation of the regional tidal energy resource. 1.3.1 National Significance The UK government set four goals in the 2003 Energy White Paper for the country’s energy policy:

• To put ourselves on a path to cut the UK’s CO2 emissions by some 60% by about 2050, with real progress by 2020

• To maintain the reliability of energy supplies • To promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond, helping to raise

the rate of economic growth and to improve productivity • To ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated.

In the long term, marine renewables can contribute significantly to the first two of these goals, by meeting 15-20% of current UK electricity demand. The Carbon Trust’s Marine Energy Challenge4 estimates that 3 GW of wave and

4 The UK Tidal Stream Resource and Tidal Stream Technology. Report prepared for the Carbon Trust Marine Energy Challenge, Black and Veatch, 2005

11

tidal stream capacity could be installed by 2020, representing 2.1% of electricity supply in that year. The UK has established a leading position in the development of marine renewable energy devices (see Sections 3.2.2 and 3.3.2) and it is important to develop an infrastructure to support this embryonic industry, in order that the global competitive advantage is maintained (third goal of the energy policy). The proposed Solent Ocean Energy Centre will form a key component of that infrastructure by providing services for:

1. Evaluation of initial designs using a standard procedure, whereby the most promising may be selected for further development

2. Validation of the performance of prototype energy extraction devices in the marine environment, to attract private investment and assist commercialisation

3. Assessment of environmental impacts of marine energy devices, to inform the national planning and consents procedure

1.3.2 Regional Significance By establishing the Solent Ocean Energy Centre, SEEDA will demonstrate that it competes at the forefront of technology, concentrating on prototyping and development rather than mature manufacturing markets. The proposed Centre sits comfortably within the objectives set out in SEEDA’s Regional Economic Strategy (RES). It will promote the region’s knowledge base in the field of marine renewables, both nationally and internationally (Target 2), assist development of business consortia for the marine renewables sector (Target 3) and provide infrastructure to maintain international economic competitiveness in the marine industry (Target 4). The RES aims (Target 5) to provide integrated business support, particularly for micro-businesses, and the latter form the core of the business model and Technical Support Structure of the Centre set out in Section 6 of this report. Further synergies with the RES arise through the targets and aims related to Sustainable Prosperity, whereby business opportunities arising from energy policy will be promoted and exemplar projects for local energy supply will be conducted. Promoting the integration of tidal stream energy micro-generation within waterside residential and industrial developments, which has been recommended as a core activity for the Centre (see Section 2.1), will support high visibility projects that encourage the public to embrace the concept of local electricity generation from renewable sources. Under pressure to meet energy targets, local and regional regulators may find themselves unable to properly evaluate the claims of competing marine renewable energy device suppliers and installation companies. They may even be persuaded to approve schemes that claim to contribute to achievement of energy targets, but are suspected to be detrimental in other respects.

12

The centre will provide local authorities and regulators with knowledgeable and impartial advice to inform their decisions, whilst also providing reputable companies with the means to substantiate their claims and to optimise their designs. 1.3.3 Local Significance The Centre and it’s proposed business model will build on the local strength of small marine-related companies on the Isle of Wight and surrounding region, whereby the current “low-wage” economy has real potential for transformation to a technology and knowledge-based economy. If the test and evaluation facility is established locally, the financial value of testing and consultancy work for regional companies and authorities will be retained within the region. Conversely, the financial value of work for companies from outside the region may be imported. It is also important that devices from developers in the SEEDA region are tested here, in order to prevent drift of regional expertise abroad. Conversely, attracting evaluation work from outside the region effectively imports experience and knowledge at no financial cost. The presence of a national R&D Centre on the Isle of Wight will encourage participation from the higher education sector, bringing benefits to the Island’s social make-up and providing aspirational models for young people.

13

2. Vision and Objectives 2.1 Mission of the Solent Ocean Energy Centre A fitting Mission Statement for the Solent Ocean Energy Centre is: “To develop a Centre for evaluation and research of marine energy technologies in the SEEDA region, which will be the location of choice for the testing of scale model and demonstrator generating devices by device developers in Europe and will be the focus of related marine renewable energy initiatives and applications” It is envisaged that the Centre will underpin developments of tidal stream and other marine renewable energy generation initiatives in the SEEDA region by:

• Providing world class test and evaluation facilities alongside a technical and logistical support structure, for model and small scale prototype marine renewable energy generating devices

• Promoting the integration of tidal stream energy micro-generation within waterside residential and industrial developments (such as the Cowes Waterfront and Woolston Riverside projects), through information dissemination, technical advice and practical assistance

• Supporting local industry involvement in tidal stream energy technologies, by provision of the infrastructure for an industry network which will be a resource for technical information and client opportunities

• Encouraging and supporting innovative concepts for the generation of energy from tidal stream and other marine energy resources, through mentoring of inventors and collaboration with local Institutes of Higher Education

2.2 Proposed Milestones In order to progress the concept, MTMC has identified feasible objectives for 2007 and proposes longer term timescales for key events. 2.2.1 Objectives for 2007

• Formalise the business plan for the Centre • Appoint part-time technical and administration manager • Contract agency to prepare PR material and design website. • Formal launch of the Centre • Perform a comprehensive survey of inshore sites identified in this study

as having potential for field testing of tidal stream energy generators and their ancillary equipment / deployment procedures.

• Select site and initiate permit applications • Survey the existing local and regional capabilities with potential for

contributing to the Centre and create a directory or database

14

• Engage with EMEC, Wavehub and NaREC, with a view to formal or informal collaboration.

• Develop and agree a protocol for validation of device performance • Aim to contract 3 clients for testing a marine RE device in the existing

towing tank / wave tank facilities. • Form a regional business network for companies with skills and

expertise relating to marine renewable energy.. • Engage with organisations such as Institutes of Higher Education and

Marinetech South regarding new marine energy technologies and concepts.

• Identify suitable waterside sites for tidal stream micro-generation and initiate discussions with stakeholders.

• Engage with development companies, to progress the concept of incorporating tidal stream micro-generation into waterside developments.

2.2.2 Longer Term Timescales and Key Events Year Event 2007 Launch of the Solent Ocean Energy Centre

Permit applications for inshore marine test site 2008 Permit applications for demonstration tidal stream micro-generation

project at a waterside development Permit for inshore marine test site granted First field test at inshore site: aim for120 days utilisation in first year Investigate offshore tidal stream demonstrator test site Site selection and permit application for offshore site

2009 Installation of demonstration tidal stream micro-generation project Further projects tested at inshore site: aim to maintain 120 days p.a. Permit for offshore tidal stream demonstrator site granted

2010 Monitor and refine demonstration micro-generation project Further projects tested at inshore site: aim for increased usage Installation of first offshore tidal generator commences

2011 Further installations of tidal stream micro-generation projects Installation of offshore tidal generator complete Generation commences: aim for 4 total

15

3. Marine Energy Extraction 3.1 Introduction The UK possesses some 35% of Europe’s wave energy resource and 50% of its tidal resource. According to data from the Carbon Trust’s Marine Energy Challenge5, 3GW of wave and tidal energy capacity could be installed in the UK by 2020, generating approximately 8 TWh per annum (2.1% of the UK’s electricity demand in that year). In the long term, marine renewable energy could meet 15 – 20% of the UK’s current demand for electricity. The potential for this level of deployment gives wave and tidal energy strategic importance as a contributor to the UK’s aspiration of supplying 20% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and intention to reduce carbon emissions by 60% in 2050. 3.2 Tidal Stream Energy Tidal energy originates from the gravitational pull of the moon – and to a lesser extent of the sun – on the waters of the world’s oceans. As the earth rotates, it presents an ever-changing face to the moon, which in turn attracts the oceanic waters, first in one direction and then the other, in an oscillatory motion. The sun increases the amplitude of this oscillation when it is in conjunction with the moon (i.e. on the same side of the earth) or in opposition (i.e. on the opposite side of the earth). The resultant large tides are known as spring tides and occur about every 14 days. The lesser tides, known as neap tides, occur when the sun and moon are out of phase, midway between the occurrence of subsequent spring tides. The associated horizontal movement of water, or tidal streams, are insignificant in the deep ocean when compared with major ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream. They become significant only when they reach the relatively shallow water of the continental shelf and increase still further when the cross-sectional area available for the flow is reduced by surrounding landmasses and geographical obstructions, such as headlands and islands. It is the favourable geography of its coastline that results in the British Isles possessing 50% of Europe’s tidal resource and 10 – 15% of the known global resource. The key advantages of tidal stream energy over other forms of renewable energy are:

• High energy density – since water is 830 times denser than air, flowing water contains 830 times more energy than wind blowing at the same speed. However, the exploitable range of wind speeds is much higher

5 The UK Tidal Stream Resource and Tidal Stream Technology. Report prepared for the Carbon Trust Marine Energy Challenge, Black and Veatch, 2005

16

than tidal flows, and power is proportional to the cube of speed, so on average the energy density of tidal stream flows is about 4 times greater than that of wind. This means that the rotors can be smaller (and hence cheaper) than those of a typical wind turbine.

• Predictable energy resource – the amount of energy and the exact time when it will be available is totally predictable, because the times of high and low water and the tidal range are routinely and accurately predicted for the use of seafarers worldwide. This overcomes the problem of intermittency encountered with many sources of renewable energy.

• The times of maximum flowrate (and hence maximum energy resource) are sequential along the coast of the English Channel, which improves the continuity of electricity supply.

• Low visual impact – most, if not all, of the generation equipment is located underwater.

3.2.1 Devices for Tidal Energy Extraction It is possible to exploit the height difference between high and low water by building a tidal barrage such as the structure across the mouth of the River Rance in Dinard, Northern France. Barrages may have significant visual and environmental impacts that are difficult to deconstruct, should their negative impacts be found to outweigh the advantages of renewable energy generation. Tidal stream generators, which are devices for extracting energy from the flow of water in a tidal stream and converting it into electricity, form a viable and attractive alternative to such permanent structures. This Section of the report summarises the current state of tidal stream technologies. The main components of a tidal stream generator are:

1. The prime mover, which extracts energy from the moving water. It may be a rotor of some sort, or an oscillating foil

2. Foundations, which hold the prime mover in the flow and react the hydrodynamic loads to the seabed. Foundations may work on gravity, through a pile or via anchors

3. The powertrain, which consists of a gearbox and electricity generator 4. The power-take-off system, for exporting electrical power to a shore

station. The prime movers would be the components most frequently tested in the laboratory facilities of the proposed Solent Ocean Energy Centre and are worthy of further consideration. They may be conveniently categorised as follows.

17

Horizontal Axis Turbine The rotors of horizontal axis turbines are similar to those of conventional wind turbines. The number and shape of the blades differ according to the specific design and as the name suggests, the blades rotate in a vertical plane, about an axis in the horizontal plane.

Figure 3.1 Twin rotor horizontal axis turbine The twin rotor horizontal axis turbine designed by Marine Current Turbines (MCT) shown in Fig 3.1 is mounted on a pile driven into the seabed. The twin rotor concept maximises use of the expensive pile-driving operation and will be employed in MCT’s Seagen project for a 1 MW tidal stream generator currently under construction in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland. The cross beam supports the rotors in the middle of the water column where tidal flow is maximum. It is mounted on a collar around the pile and can therefore be raised above the surface of the water to facilitate maintenance operations. The alternative of deploying divers or Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) for underwater maintenance in a fast-flowing tidal stream is a hazardous operation. Seagen is a development from the Seaflow project, which is a 300 kW single rotor turbine installed in 2003 off the coast of Lynmouth in the Bristol Channel.

18

Seaflow utilises the same maintenance procedure, by raising the rotor above the surface, as shown in Fig 3.2.

Figure 3.2 Seaflow turbine, with rotor raised for maintenance Vertical Axis Turbine A representative vertical axis turbine designed by Blue Energy Canada is shown in Figure 3.3. Four hydrofoil-shaped blades are mounted at the ends of support arms on the rotor, which drives the gearbox and generator assembly. The latter sit above the surface of the water, where they are accessible for maintenance and repair. The foundation is a heavy concrete caisson, which anchors the unit to the seabed. There is a duct surrounding the rotor (not shown in the cross section view) which directs water flow through the rotor The system can be sized to produce between tens of kW for domestic (micro-power) consumption, up to hundreds of kW for waterside communities or industrial sites. For large-scale power production with national grid connection, multiple turbines would be used. To date, Blue Energy claims to have built and tested six prototypes under the auspices of the National Research Council of Canada.

19

Figure 3.3 Vertical axis turbine designed by Blue Energy, Canada Cycloidal Turbine The Cycloidal turbine works on a principle similar to the Voigt Schneider propeller. The rotor consists of a baseplate upon which several blades are perpendicularly mounted. The blades articulate as the rotor revolves, presenting an ever-changing aspect to the flow.

Figure 3.4 Rotor of a Cycloidal turbine The concept is illustrated in Figure 3.4, where the top blade presents a flat face (with maximum drag) to the flow, which causes the flow to push the blade and top section of the rotor from left to right. Movement of the opposite blade opposes the flow and it is feathered to produce minimum drag. The orientation of blades in between is constantly changed so that each one works as a hydrofoil, generating a lift force at right angles to the flow – downwards on the right hand section of the baseplate, upwards on the left.

20

This innovative concept may be less attractive than more basic designs because it requires energy input during operation, to control the angle of the blades. Helical Turbine A helical turbine for tidal stream generation (shown in Figure 3.5) is under development at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts.

Figure 3.5 Helical turbine rotor The blades run in a helix pattern around a virtual cylindrical surface and rotate around a central shaft. This design is claimed to develop high torque when driven by relatively slow water flows.

Figure 3.6 Helical turbine trials in the Uldolmok Strait

21

Several advantages over a more conventional “propeller-type” turbine have been cited. Slow rotational speeds avoid cavitation and the associated problems of vibration and fatigue. The rotor can be oriented vertically or horizontally, it can operate in shallow water and exhibits unidirectional rotation, regardless of the direction of the water flow. This design was first tested in 1996, in the Cape Cod Canal near Boston. The Korean Ocean Research and Development Institute has subsequently conducted trials in the Uldolmok Strait: see Figure 3.6. Oscillating Foil Hydrodynamicists have long been intrigued by the apparent efficiency with which marine mammals use the energy from their tail fins to propel themselves through the water. Oscillating foil tidal generators operate on a similar principle, but with energy transfer in the opposite sense. Instead of transferring energy from the oscillations of the fish’s tail into the water, the energy from flowing water forces a hydrofoil to oscillate up and down and the resultant mechanical energy is transformed into electrical energy by the generator. Figure 3.7 Oscillating foil tidal stream generator Figure 3.7 is an artist’s impression of Stingray, a tidal generator that was developed by the Engineering Business with substantial DTI funding at the beginning of the present decade. It consists of a hydrofoil whose angle of attack relative to the approaching water stream is varied by a simple mechanism. This causes the supporting arm to oscillate, which in turn forces hydraulic cylinders to extend and retract. High-pressure oil is produced and is used to drive a generator. Development of Stingray was put on hold in 2004 for financial reasons. A similar device called the Pulse Generator is now being taken forward by a consortium lead by IT Power, for shallow water applications and field trials are to be conducted in the River Humber.

22

3.2.2 Tidal Device Developers The UK has established itself as an early market leader in tidal technologies. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate that over 30 developers are headquartered in the UK, compared to about 15 in the rest of the world (Table 3.3). In addition, the UK has pioneered the establishment of shared facilities for testing both wave and tidal devices, such as the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) in Scotland and Wavehub in SW England. During the course of this study, four local tidal device developers were interviewed face-to-face and a further four from the south of England were interviewed on the telephone (a total of eight interviews). Six of these were at an early (conceptual) stage of advancement and had not tested their devices under rigorous laboratory conditions. All but one expressed great interest in using the test facilities on the Isle of Wight, although it was not clear whether they had access to funds for this activity. Their testing requirements are discussed more fully in Section 4.2. The exception was a developer who stated that he had investigated use of the GKN tank on the Osborne site, but he needed deeper water for his device and was considering alternatives such as the tank owned by the Seafish Authority at Hull. The conversation with more advanced developers provided useful insight into the need for a relatively sheltered and accessible marine site with high tidal flows, for short term device testing in a more aggressive environment than the laboratory, as well as for trials of ancillary equipment, such as foundations and moorings. This site would also be useful for demonstration and refinement of deployment and maintenance procedures. One developer has identified a suitable site in Scotland, but would prefer to use more local facilities in the south of England, if they were available.

23

Table 3.1: Tidal Device Developers in the South of England Company Website Location Comments DeviceSubsea Turbines www.subseaturbines.com Bath The SST is rated at 1 MW. Ducted horizontal axis turbines. Seabed

mounted. MCT www.marineturbines.com Bristol 1 MW pre-commercial demonstrator in

Strangford Lough. Twin horizontal axis turbines, pile-mounted

Tidal Generation Ltd * www.tidalgeneration.co.uk Bristol CEO used to work for MCT. Broke away to form TGL

Deep-gen: bottom-mounted, horizontal axis

Aquascientific www.aquascientific.com Devon Connected with Exeter Uni. Consortium lead by IT Power

Combined lift and drag turbine. Plan to test off the back of a boat in the River Exe

QinetiQ Winfrith www.qinetiq.com Dorset Concept study: CFD and physical modelling

Cycloidal vertical axis design

Susgen www.susgen.com nowunavailable

Dorset Collaboration with Southampton University was claimed in 2004

The turbine and generator are positioned in the mid-section of concrete box-shaped base, with flared ends to funnel the water.

Hales Energy * www.hales-turbine.co.uk East Sussex Vertical axis, flat tipping blade(?) Crystal Consultants ** Isle of Wight Director used to work at Kilowatt Whale. Improved version of the Kilowatt Whale

device Kilowatt Whale Ltd ** Isle of Wight Venturi device

WaB Energy SystemsLtd **

Isle of Wight Shallow water vertical axis device

RVG ** Isle of Wight At early stage of development Current to Current UKLtd

Kent Very strong design and management team. DTI Consortium with Cambridge Uni

Deep-water application. Innovation is gearbox with toroidal drive for high torque at low rpm

Tidal Stream Partners*

www.tidalstream.co.uk London Very strong partnership with Rolls Royce and Oxford University

System for supporting axial turbines in deep-water locations. Testing at Haslar.

Hydroventuri www.hydroventuri.com London A working model (0.6m aperture system) has been tested successfully in Grimsby

Rochester venturi - awaiting tests at EMEC

Table 3.1 (cont): Tidal Device Developers in the South of England Company Website Location Comments DeviceSouthampton University

www.soton.ac.uk Southampton 25 cm diameter prototype has been tested in University ship tank

Shallow water, horizontal axis device. Works with flow in either direction

Cormorant Ltd Surrey DTI Consortium with Plymouth and Bristol Universities

Contra-rotating design. Looking to deploy a 50kW prototype

McMenemie device Sussex Inventor wishes to involve someone better qualified to optimise for testing.

Tidal/sea current energy device

Loadpoint ** Swindon, Wilts. Bath Uni is involved on the electrical side. Device has been tested in the Thames

Based on Savonius rotor. Works with flow in either direction

Key: * Company interviewed face-to-face during this study ** Company interviewed by telephone during this study

25

Table 3.2: Tidal Device Developers elsewhere in UK

Company Website Location Comments DeviceLunar Energy www.lunarenergy.co.uk East Yorkshire Rotech owns the technology. It's not

clear how well advanced this is Rotech Tidal Turbine: bottom-mounted, ducted rotor

Neptune Renewable Energy Ltd

www.neptunerenewableenergy.com East Yorkshire Working with University of Hull and Dunstan Ship Repair.

Ducted turbines, mounted under a barge

Pulse Generation www.pulsegeneration.co.uk Hull Testing in the Humber, with DTI support. IT Power and BMT renewables in consortium.

A flappy device - I suspect not very efficient

Blue Energy UK Ltd www.bluenergy.com Inverness-shire May be an attempt by Blue Energy Canada to access DTI money. Two partners are start-up companies

Tidal turbine "fence" based on Darieus turbines (vertical axis, according to EMEC)

Open Hydro www.openhydro.com N Ireland Technology developed in US. Operations in Florida and Ireland

Bottom-mounted paddlewheel with permanent magnet in outer rim of rotor, surrounded by a duct

SMD Hydrovision www.smdhydrovision.com Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Testing 1 MW unit at EMEC in 2006 Twin contra-rotating turbines mounted on a crossbeam

Engineering Business

www.engb.com Northumberland Project on hold since 2004 Stingray: oscillating foil device

Scotrenewables (Marine Power) Ltd

www.scotrenewables.com Orkney Testing 1/40th scale model at Haslar, inc. mooring system

Combined tidal current and wave. Floating, horizontal axis. Next plan is 1MW demo

RTVL: (Renewable Technology Ventures Ltd

Scotland To be built at EMEC with £2m from DTI and £650k from the Scottish Exec.

Project Neptune: pile-mounted, horizontal axis. RTVL is owned by Scottish and Southern

Overberg Ltd www.overberg.co.uk Tyne and Wear Funded by OneNorthEast. DTI Consortium with NaREC

Deep water, floating, tethered

Edinburgh University

www.mech.ed.ac.uk University of Edinburgh

Polo: Vertical axis with ring cam hydraulics

26

Table 3.2 (cont): Tidal Device Developers elsewhere in UK

Company Website Location Comments DeviceSwanturbines www.swanturbines.co.uk Wales 1m diameter prototype was tested

by towing from University Research Vessel, 'Noctiluca'.

Horizontal axis rotor with gearless low speed generator. Seabed mounted on gravity base with yawing mechanism.

Tidal Hydraulic Generators Ltd

Wales? Successful pilot scheme in Milford Haven. Babtie are involved.

Bottom-mounted, horizontal axis

27

Table 3.3: Tidal Device Developers outside UK

Company Website Country Comments DeviceKarnauchow Turbine

Australia Suitable for shallow water. Vertical axis turbine with upper and lower hinged power blades

Tyson Turbine Australia Invented by an Australian farmer. First marketed in November 1992.

A propeller-like water wheel is suspended in a river between two pontoons

Woodshed Technologies Pty

www.woodshedtechnologies.com.au Australia Tidal Delay: exploits tidal phase differences across e.g. a peninsula

Hydro-Gen www.hydro-gen.fr France Concept only: developed by 2 former navy officers

Horizontal axis floating paddle wheel

Ponte di Archimede International

www.pontediarchimede.com Italy Enermar project - testing in Straits of Jintang.

Kobold Turbine: vertical axis

Swingcat Netherlands The vessel sheers on the anchor cable, due to tidal current-generated lift forces on its keels

Hammerfest Strom

www.e-tidevannsenergi.com Norway Pre-commercial demo phase. Commercially-advanced system: horizontal axis, bottom-mounted

Seapower International AB

www.seapower.se Sweden Has been tested at laboratory scale. A Joint Venture was established on the Shetland Isles in 2000.

Vertical axis, Savonius rotor

Encore Clean Energy

www.encorecleanenergy.com USA Riverbank Hydro Turbine: Vertical axis rotor, with opening and closing shutters

Gorlov Turbine USA Field trials in Cape Cod Canal, 1996-9. Testing by Korean Ocean R & D Institute, 2002

Helical turbine, vertical axis (similar to Darrieus)

UEK www.uekus.com USA Has tested in the Chesapeake Bay "Underwater electric kite". Positively buoyant, bottom-moored. Horizontal axis ducted turbine

28

Table 3.3 (cont): Tidal Device Developers outside UK Company Website Country Comments DeviceUnderwater Electric Kite Corp

www.uekus.com USA A 40-foot wide twin-turbine is intended for deployment in the Gulf Stream off Florida.

Ducted horizontal axis turbines. The design features a self-contained moderately buoyant turbine-generator suspended like a kite within the tidal stream.

Verdant Power www.verdantpower.com USA Tested in Chesapeake Bay. 6-unit pilot in East River (pending)

Small scale, inshore units. Bottom-mounted, horizontal axis

Water Wall Turbine

www.wwturbine.com USA 6 paddle water wheel, horizontal axis on water surface

29

3.3 Wave Energy The marine wave energy resource is a concentrated form of solar energy. Winds generated by the differential heating of the earth interact with the surface of the oceans, transferring some of their energy to form waves. Power at the initial solar power level of about 100 W/m2 is concentrated to waves with average power levels of 70kW per meter of crest length, winter averages of 170 kW per meter and storm levels of over 1 MW per meter of crest length6. Wave size is determined by wind speed and fetch (the distance over which the wind interacts with the waves) and by the depth and topography of the seafloor (which can focus or disperse the energy of the waves). The offshore wave energy resource is less location-specific than tidal stream energy and therefore more abundant worldwide. However, despite improvements in the reliablitiy of short-term metocean forecasting, waves are less predictable than tides with respect to size and availability of the energy resource. 3.3.1 Devices for Wave Energy Extraction The waters around the Isle of Wight do not possess a significant wave resource and it is not envisaged that wave energy generators will be field tested at the proposed Solent Ocean Energy Centre. However laboratory testing of small scale models in the GKN towing tank with wavemakers is quite possible. Therefore the technology of wave energy devices will be discussed here, but in less detail than the technology of tidal energy devices. A wave energy converter (WEC) captures the energy from waves and converts it into electricity. A WEC must resist the motion of the waves in order to generate power. There are four main types, which are described below and examples of each type are presented. Buoyant moored device A buoyant moored device floats on or just below the surface of the water and is moored to the sea floor. The mooring is static and is arranged in such a way that the motion of the waves will move one part of the machine relative to another part. The motion induced by the waves may be horizontal (surge), vertical (heave) or rotational (pitch), or some combination of the three. Examples of this technology include Pelamis (shown in Figure 3.8), the Archimedes Wave Swing (AWS) and the Manchester Bobber.

6 Technology Status Report: Wave Energy. A report by ETSU as part of the DTI’s New and Renewable Energy Programme, 2000.

Figure 3.8 The Pelamis wave energy device Ocean Power Delivery, the manufacturer of Pelamis, has been contracted by the Portuguese government to deploy three 750 kW machines in a commercial wave farm off the coast of Portugal. Hinged Flap device A hinged flap device is bottom mounted. The movement of the waves causes the buoyant paddle to oscillate, forcing hydraulic fluid through hydraulic pumps to generate electricity. This concept has been exploited to develop AW Energy’s WaveRoller (Figure 3.9).

Figure 3.9 WaveRoller concept A 1/3 scale prototype of WaveRoller was successfully field-tested at EMEC (the European Marine Energy Centre) in Orkney in 2005. Oscillating water column An oscillating water column (OWC) is a partially submerged, hollow structure. It is open to the sea below the water line, enclosing a column of air on top of a column of water. Waves cause the water column to rise and fall, which in turn compresses and decompresses the air column. This trapped air is allowed to

31

flow to and from the atmosphere via a Wells turbine, which has the ability to rotate in the same direction regardless of the direction of the airflow. The rotation of the turbine is used to generate electricity. The Limpet unit on the shore of Islay, which was the first commercial wave generator in the UK, has an inclined OWC. The unit’s performance has been optimised for annual average wave intensities of between 15 and 25kW/m. The water column feeds a pair of counter-rotating turbines, each of which drives a 250kW generator, giving a nominal rating of 500kW. Other devices utilising this technology include OREcon, currently being developed as a 1.5 MW prototype: see Figure 3.10.

Figure 3.10 Oscillating water column wave generator OREcon Overtopping device This type of device relies on physical capture of water from waves which is held in a reservoir above sea level, before being returned to the sea through conventional low-head turbines which generate power. The earliest example of this technology was the “Tapchan” system pioneered in Norway. The Wave Dragon pre-commercial demonstrator is another example of an overtopping device with a rated capacity of 7MW, which will be moored off Milford Haven on the Pembrokeshire coast. A 1:4.5 scale prototype of Wave Dragon has been deployed in Denmark since 2003. 3.3.2. Wave Device Developers The UK is a market leader in wave energy technologies, with Scottish-based Ocean Power Delivery contracted to deliver three of its Pelamis machines to Portugal for the world’s first commercial wave farm near Povoa de Varzim. This farm will produce 2.25 MW of electricity, sufficient to power 1,500 homes through the national grid. The pioneering work on wave power by Stephen Salter in the early 80s has led to a more diverse and global spread of the industry than for tidal technologies. No attempt is made in this report to identify all the wave energy

32

projects either locally or worldwide. Tables 3.4 and 3.5 give examples of twenty-one established developers headquartered in the UK, which may be compared to about eleven in the rest of the world (Table 3.6). Since it is not envisaged that any additional facilities (apart from those already available on the Isle of Wight) will be procured by the Test Centre for testing wave devices, only two local developers were interviewed. One of these was at an early stage of advancement, having tested a small model of his device in shoreside waves. He expressed interest in using the GKN tank with wave-making facilities, although his funding situation is precarious. The second developer interviewed is more advanced, with a test programme already in place. Testing requirements for wave devices are discussed more fully in Section 4.2.

33

Table 3.4: Wave Device Developers in the South of England Company Website Location Comments DeviceEmbley Energy www.sperboy.com/ Bristol Completed Carbon Trust "Marine

Energy Challenge" Floating point-absorber; works through an oscillating water column

Offshore Wave Energy Ltd**

www.owel.co.uk Cornwall Has received DTI Smart award and Carbon Trust support. Have tank tested at NaREC, plan sea trials at EMEC

Grampus: Oscillating water column device

Trident Energy Essex 1/5 and full scale prototypes have been tested. Testing at NaREC in October 2005 was successful

The up and down motion of the buoy drives a linear generator.

Wavestore** Hants Concept developed by 2 marine engineers - has been on hold since 2003

Wavestore device - has been tested for concept in shallow water

AquaEnergy Group Ltd

www.aquaenergygroup.com London It does not appear that a device or model has been built yet

AquaBuOY combines elements of proven technology: the IPS Buoy and the Swedish Hose-pump

ORECON Ltd www.orecon.com Plymouth Want 12 month sea trials OWEC with novel energy converter C-Wave www.cwavepower.com Southampton Has received Carbon Trust funding

and funding from Business Angels C-Wave - a buoyant moored device where floating walls are forced to move relative to one another through the action of waves

Ocean Power Technologies Ltd (OPT)

www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/ Warwick Full scale (40kW) device deployed off New Jersey. Other contracts around the world.

PowerBuoy: Central spar, fixed in relation to seabed. Buoy moves up and down around the spar with wave motion and pumps hydraulic fluid through a turbine

Key: ** Company interviewed by telephone during this study

Table 3.5: Wave Device Developers elsewhere in UK

Company Website Address 3 Comments DeviceOcean Power Delivery Ltd (OPD)

www.oceanpd.com/ Edinburgh Have tested at EMEC. First commercial plant commissioned off Portugal

Pelamis: floating "hinged sausage" device

Caley Ocean Systems Ltd

www.caley.co.uk Glasgow Want to get the modelling capability of TUV NEL

Mid-water vertical axis turbine

Wavegen www.wavegen.com Inverness Wavegen owns it's own wave tank Limpet (a shore device) has been operating on Islay for several years. OWC with Wells turbine PTO

Lancaster University www.engineering.lancs.ac.uk Lancaster Selected by Carbon Trust for Marine Energy Challenge. Have done tank tests in Lancaster wave tank. Looking to develop a 1/5 scale sea-going prototype.

PS Frog Mk 5: floating point-absorber; waves act on a buoyant paddle attached to an integral ballasted handle which provides the reaction

Ocean WaveMaster Ltd: Manchester Uni/ Alex Southcombe

www.oceanwavemaster.com Manchester 3m model tested at Manchester and Newcastle Unis. 20m model was constructed by Bendalls and tested at NaREC. No news since.

Submerged platform with 2 linked chambers, one at high pressure beneath the wave crest, the other at low pressure beneath the trough

UMIST www.manchesterbobber.com Manchester Reported to be in the early prototype phase in November 2005. 1/10 scale trials were due to begin at NaREC

Bobber consists of a partially submerged float attached to a pulley via a cable, which turns a shaft as the float bobs up and down

Innova Ltd None Northumberland Developing concept with Robert Gordon Uni, which has a wave tank. Note email address!

Dive bobber is at initial numerical modelling and first experimental modelling stage

AWS Ocean Technology

www.waveswing.com Ross-shire Developing pre-production prototype. Testing off the coast of Portugal

Archimedes Wave Swing: Telescopic cylinder attached to the seabed

Ocean Power Technologies Ltd

www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/ Warwick Full scale (40kW) device deployed off New Jersey. Other contracts around the world.

PowerBuoy: Central spar, fixed to seabed. Buoy moves up and down around the spar pumping hydraulic fluid through a turbine

35

Table 3.6: Wave Device Developers outside UK

Company Website Country Comments DeviceEnergetech www.energetech.com.au Australia During July 2006 the device operated

successfully in the open ocean at Port Kembla. 80% efficiency is claimed

Parabolic wall focuses the waves and an OWC drives an air turbine

Wave Dragon www.wavedragon.net Denmark Large commercial plant to be installed off Pembrokeshire

Over-topping device, the head of water drives a small turbine

Wave Star Energy www.wavestarenergy.com Denmark 1:10 Scale model in operation in Nissum Bredning

20 floats at the base of a hydraulic cylinder are lifted sequentially by the waves. The floats force oil into the machine’s common transmission system that drives a hydraulic motor.

WavePlane Production A/S

www.waveplane.com Denmark WavePlane has been deployed at sea for 3 years

The device has submerged damping plates that reduce its motion relative to the surrounding water. Water from waves is led through ducts into a flywheel

AW Energy www.aw-energy.com Finland Has been tested at EMEC Waveroller: hinged-flap device Clear Power www.clearpower.ie Ireland Wave Bob Ecofys www.ecofys.com Netherlands Has been tested a Strathclyde Uni,

Danish Hydraulic Institute and NaREC. Sea trials at Nissum Bredning in Denmark

Wave Rotor: Utilises both wave and tidal current water motions. Has vertical axis (Darrieus) and horizontal axis (Wells) blades.

Wave energy AS www.waveenergy.no Norway Project in cooperation with the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and supported by the Norwegian Research Council.

Seawave Slot Cone Generator (SSG): water is captured in several reservoirs placed one above ten other. The captured water runs through a multi-stage turbine

SeaVolt www.seavolt.com USA One third scale model tests have been performed in a tank. May be based on Wave Rider wave measurement buoy.

Wave Rider: Point absorber buoy system designed for water depths greater than 50m

36

4. Test Facility Requirements 4.1 Introduction In this section of the report, we examine the equipment to which the Solent Ocean Energy Centre needs access and the extent to which it is already available within the SEEDA region. In order to do this, it is first necessary to identify the range of technical work that the centre must be capable of executing. Then the possible methods of execution must be examined in the context of the facilities that are already available, the facilities that can justifiably be developed, and the facilities available elsewhere. Having established the work requirements, methods, and facilities of the centre, the necessary instrumentation, data acquisition, and analysis equipment can be identified and its availability can be determined. 4.2 Expected Range of Work The range of work that the Centre may be required to execute can be conveniently divided into immediate, mid term, and long-term requirements. A survey of potential clients has shown that many are in the very early stages of development and evaluation of design concepts. In some cases the concepts, although undeveloped, are for complete systems including the prime movers, electrical machinery, control, and interface to the electricity distribution networks. One of the Centre’s first objectives will be to persuade this group of clients to deconstruct from this, and to concentrate their resources on evaluation of just the novel features of their concepts. This will allow the novel features of a concept to be evaluated without any pre-commitment to particular implementations of the non-novel features, but may result in the centre effectively intervening in clients’ design processes to recommend effective combinations of design elements from different clients. Particular novel features have been identified in the concepts of the group of potential clients, including:

1. New, unusual, flow direction insensitive, or mechanically simple turbines.

2. Unusual support structures, some requiring active control systems, such as depth regulating submerged rafts.

3. Electrical machines with large numbers of pole pairs, particularly suited to 50Hz generation at low rotational speeds.

4. Innovative ways of combining multiple machines into arrays. This group of potential clients are at an early stage of development and are either self-funding or are virtually unfunded. The immediate requirement is therefore to evaluate concepts to a sufficient extent that they can either be

eliminated from further development, or they can become the subject of formal funding bids (to either governmental or commercial sources of finance) with adequate supporting data and documentation. The information that is likely to be required at this early stage includes:

1. An authoritative estimate of device efficiency, including an assessment of the way in which efficiency varies with input conditions and device design parameters.

2. Identification of key engineering features, such as moving parts carrying exceptionally high loads, or parts that must move under the influence of very low flows over the lifetime of the device, in the presence of fouling, etc.

3. Characterisation of the affects of the device on the surrounding flow regime, to inform assessments of environmental impact and for engineering purposes, such as to inform estimates of the performance of arrays of machines.

4. Initial assessments of the stability of supporting structures, the controllability of non-gravity supporting structures, anchor system loads, etc.

The mid term requirement will arise when potential clients have obtained funding for development of their concepts. It is likely to include the same requirements as those listed above, but to higher levels of detail and accuracy; plus the acquisition of engineering data to inform detailed engineering design of prototype systems. The short term facilities and equipment may need enhancement for this work. At this stage it will be necessary to collect detailed data in order to optimise designs and arrays to particular applications. Marine sites and facilities in which installation and maintenance procedures can be tested in relative safety and under observation would also be desirable. The long term requirement is for the field evaluation of prototype versions of total systems. In the case of marine systems, this will include a field test facility in an area of strong tidal resource, close to a potential connection into the electrical distribution network, where the uncertain environmental impact of prototype devices is acceptable and can be monitored, where existing uses (such as shipping channels) are not compromised, where all necessary consents can be obtained, and where access is such that all aspects of performance can be monitored and any necessary maintenance or repair work is possible. A secondary requirement for this group of potential clients will be the provision of data on their target sites for eventual deployment of their devices as functioning contributors to the UK electricity supply network. This will be necessary, if only so that the conditions of the test deployment can be related to the conditions that the devices will face in long term service. The required data will include environmental information, data on the magnitude, range, and extent of the tidal resource, and information on the proximity and capacity

38

of local connections to the electricity supply network. Contractors with the expertise to provide this information have been identified within the SEEDA region and will be invited to join the Centre’s commercial structure. 4.3 Facility Options and Availability The range of facilities to which the centre will require access follows naturally from the range of methodology statements that must be executed. Even before the methodologies are fully established, it is clear that the principal requirement is for facilities in which devices (or scale models of devices) can be subjected to controlled flows (in the case of tidal stream devices and micro-hydro generators), controlled variations of depth (in the case if devices utilising potential energy, such as tidal barrage devices and large scale hydro power installations) and controlled waves (in the case of wave energy devices). The current existence and availability of such facilities within the SEEDA region is discussed below, within the context of their incorporation within the Solent Ocean Energy Centre. For the early-stage work of the Centre (i.e. for the first group of clients), the requirement is likely to be for numerical or scale-model facilities. Many device developers consulted during the course of the present study highlighted the cost and accessibility of test facilities that already exist in the region as barriers to progressing their inventions. The role of the Centre will therefore be to provide the required access to testing and to take devices through a standard, cost-effective programme of testing and evaluation. The existing facilities on the Isle of Wight will meet most of the requirements of the first and second group of clients, although modest investment in updating and minor enhancements may be desirable. For the second group of clients they should be supplemented by an enclosed full-scale facility (a “deep tank”) in which diving operations, device deployment and maintenance procedures can be developed and practiced in safety. At least two suitable deep tanks have been identified in the region, although again some modest investment may be necessary to bring one of them into productive use. The third group of clients require at-sea facilities in which procedures developed in the deep tank can be refined and tested in a realistic marine environments and short-term testing of moorings, foundations and devices may be conducted. Extended tests on full-scale devices or arrays of devices over a naturally-occurring range of environmental conditions is also desirable. In our view, this requires two facilities. The first is a relatively unexposed site for procedure development and short-term tests. The second is a site for long-term deployment and monitoring of devices under representative “tide farm” conditions. No suitable facilities have been found to exist in the region, although they exist elsewhere in the UK, as discussed in Sections 4.3.4 and 4.3.5

39

4.3.1 Towing Tank A type of facility that can be used for testing in flow and for testing in waves is called a towing tank. This is very long tank of water with a fairly large cross-section and a depth that is typically about half its width. At one end is a wave making machine that can produce long-crested regular or random waves. Spanning the width of the tank is a carriage that runs on rails along the length of the tank. Test objects mounted under the carriage are therefore towed through the water at the speed of the carriage and the water can be either calm or have waves propagating through it. Objects can be tested at any depth and at any speed from zero up to the maximum carriage speed. There are some limitations to the use of such a facility. The most important, particularly for tidal stream devices, is that when objects are tested by towing them through the water the duration of tests is limited by the speed and the finite length of the towing tank. Steady-state tests of an extended duration are not possible. Another limitation, affecting only wave power devices, is that although both regular and random waves are possible, wave energy is concentrated in a single direction of propagation and lacks the directional spread typical of a real sea. In spite of these, and a number of other important issues, a towing tank remains an ideal facility for a wide range of test methodologies. There are three towing tanks in the SEEDA region.

1. A large facility (270 m long, 12 m wide and 5.5 m deep, 12.25 m/s maximum speed)) at QinetiQ in Gosport, which is expensive (~£2,200 per day) and relatively inaccessible, because MoD usage takes priority over commercial work.

2. A smaller facility (60 m long, 3.7 m wide, 1.8 m deep, maximum speed 4.0 m/s) at Southampton Solent University, where student usage takes priority and the short length of run severely limits test duration.

3. A high-speed facility (200m long, 5 m wide, 1.7 m deep, maximum speed 15 m/s) at GKN Aerospace, Osborne site in East Cowes on the Isle of Wight, which would be available at competitive daily rates (~£1,000 per day) for use by the Centre.

4.3.2 Circulating Water Channel A circulating water channel (CWC) is rather like a wind tunnel (with which most people are familiar) filled with water. It can be used for tests similar to those described above for the towing tank. The CWC has four advantages and one disadvantage when compared with a towing tank for the type of work envisaged by the centre. The advantages are:

1. Devices and models are mounted in a fixed location and the water moves past them, as they would be in a real application. In a towing tank, devices must be towed through still water. Viewing, observation,

40

video recording, and measuring (particularly measuring using optical methods such as laser-Doppler velocimetry) are much easier when all the equipment is stationary and the water moves, than when the water is stationary and all the equipment has to move.

2. The duration of tests is unlimited. In a towing tank, the length of tank and the speed of the carriage limit test durations. This has implications for the cost and duration of a test programme. As an example, consider the task of plotting the velocity field of efflux from a device. In a CWC, a single velocity sensor can be used to “scan” the efflux. In a towing tank, either an array of sensors must be used, or many runs must be taken in the tank

3. The flow is naturally turbulent in a CWC, like the flow through a device in a real installation

4. Operating a CWC and conducting a test in it are usually one-person tasks. Two or three people are needed to perform the same tasks in a towing tank

The disadvantage is that the cross-section of the flow is usually smaller, and often that the maximum flow speed is less. There are only two CWCs of significant size in the UK. One is in the region, at QinetiQ in Gosport, but it is currently mothballed. The other is at Liverpool University. The two facilities are virtually identical, having a flow cross-section of 1.4m width and 0.4m maximum depth. The maximum flow speed is about 6m/s (12knots), but speeds above 3.5m/s (7knots) present some practical difficulties. These speeds are more than adequate for the testing of tidal energy devices. 4.3.3 Deep Tank The third facility is required by potential clients in what we have called group 2. One of the requirements of these clients is a facility in which installation and maintenance procedures can be developed and verified, best described as a deep tank. It consists essentially of a deep, but not very extensive, tank of water that can be kept clean and reasonably warm, in which divers can work with moderately large items of equipment in much greater safety than is possible in real marine trials. The tank needs a supporting infrastructure heavily biased towards ensuring the safety of users, and operations will be very much easier if the tank is housed within a building. There are a number of candidate facilities in the SEEDA region, of which two stand out as being particularly appropriate. The first of these is owned and operated by QinetiQ in Gosport. It is 5.5m deep, and is equipped with (rather obsolete) wave making machines. Its enormous size (120m by 60m in plan) is, if anything, a disadvantage as it makes access difficult and has some safety implications. Although intended for model-testing of submarines, it has been used for diver training and ROV testing – mostly for defence rather than commercial applications.

41

The second tank is in private ownership at Bembridge on the Isle of Wight. Known as the “Thorneycroft Tank”, it was constructed for testing model ships some time before the QinetiQ facility was built. It is also 5.5m deep, with a plan area about 20m by 10m (not rectangular, curvilinear). This smaller size is an advantage for the applications envisaged for the Solent Ocean Energy Centre. 4.3.4 Sheltered Marine Test Site MTMC’s contacts with potential clients have identified the need for two different field test facilities for the Centre and have incidentally identified sites at which permanent tidal power installations might be viable. The first facility will be an extension of the deep tank (described above) into a real, but relatively benign, marine environment. In this environment, installation, retrieval, and maintenance procedures will be developed, using divers, ROV’s, crane barges etc, under conditions that may be typical of those at permanent installations. These conditions are certain to include strong tidal streams, are likely to include a range of turbidity levels, will involve cold water and will present all the “real site” frustrations, such as occasional storms. There may be a requirement for different types of sea bed, from muddy through to rocky, for some applications – e.g. for testing the installation, performance, and maintenance of mooring systems, gravity bases, ground anchors and other similar equipment. For safety reasons, the site must be reasonably enclosed and very accessible, particularly to emergency services. Procedures and equipment developed in the deep tank will subsequently be subjected to these aspects of a real environment in this first type of marine facility. Another use for this site will be short-term trials for prototype tidal energy devices. It is envisaged that small devices would be temporarily mounted on an existing structure (e.g. a pier), or on purpose-built platforms (e.g. a moored raft) for their proof of concept in a real marine environment. A small number of suitable facilities exist already in the UK, the most notable being the diver training centres in Loch Linnhe in Scotland and in Plymouth Sound, but no suitable facility has been identified in the SEEDA region. The region does, however, have potentially suitable sites in the waters adjacent to the Isle of Wight that are fully described in Section 6 of this report. 4.3.5 Offshore Marine Test Site The second facility will be a suitable site for long-term deployment and monitoring of prototype devices under realistic in-service conditions. It follows that this facility should probably be sited in an area in which an operational “tidal energy farm” may eventually be located. In the SEEDA region, the candidate areas are the Straits of Dover, North Foreland, St Catherine’s and the Western Solent. Of these, St Catherine’s has a good tidal resource, is

42

clear of major shipping routes and is also close to the other facilities of the centre. We have established that the Isle of Wight’s electricity network could absorb up to 7MW of power from external sources, of which about 5MW could be absorbed in the Ventnor area (Ventnor is the nearest significant town to St Catherine’s). This area is very clearly the front-running site for an operational tide farm in the region. A test site for marine trials of tidal devices exists at the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) in the Orkney Islands. A site off St Catherine’s would have significant advantages over EMEC including:

• A strong electricity network and substantial demand for electricity • Less aggressive wave environment, permitting longer windows for

deployment and maintenance • Good national and international travel access • Milder climate and longer daylight hours in Winter

However, we envisage some synergy between the two sites, in that developers may wish to test prototypes at St Catherine’s in order to gain confidence in their survivability for future deployment in the harsh environment at EMEC. 4.4 Conclusions and Recommendations for Test Facilities

1. Steps should be taken to secure the future of the towing tank at GKN Engineering Services on the Isle of Wight. The only other viable facility, at QinetiQ Haslar, is safeguarded by its status as a strategic facility for the Ministry of Defence, but this status also limits its attraction and availability for non-defence work. The GKN tank will be safeguarded if the Centre’s towing tank operations are concentrated there.

2. Steps should be taken to prevent the destruction of the circulating

water channel (CWC) at QinetiQ Haslar, which is currently mothballed because of low demand. This facility is potentially very useful for early-stage development and testing of new tidal turbine designs, offering both convenience and economy in the conduct of qualitative and early quantitative experiments. Reinstatement of the CWC will be less expensive than purchase and construction of an equivalent new facility.

3. If the circulating water tunnel is reinstated, consideration should be

given to co-locating it with the GKN towing tank.

4. An agreement should be negotiated with the owner of the Thorneycroft Tank at Bembridge, guaranteeing its availability in the event of its suitability for any of the Centre’s projects. Reinstatement as a working facility should form part of the costing calculations for the Centre.

5. Recommendations for the marine test site are presented in Section 6.

43

5. Instrumentation Requirements Most of the facilities described in Section 4 have much of the necessary associated equipment already installed or available. In this section, we consider other testing equipment that may be necessary, and its likely cost. Most of this equipment is portable (i.e. it could be moved between facilities if required). 5.1 Dynamometer By far the most important item of new equipment, needed for tests in either the towing tank or the CWC, is a dynamometer. A dynamometer can best be described as a calibrated brake with integral measuring equipment. Its use for the Solent Ocean Energy Centre will be as a controllable load on rotating machines, such as models of tidal stream turbines. The brake is connected to the turbine output shaft and applied progressively while the shaft speed and torque are measured. The product of speed and torque is the power being delivered by the turbine to the dynamometer. It is impossible at this stage to specify this dynamometer, because the range of turbine types for assessment is not known in sufficient detail. It is probable that two dynamometers (high speed, low torque and low speed, high torque) will be required. The best estimate of cost is of the order of tens of thousands of pounds. 5.2 General Instrumentation Velocimeters are devices for measuring the speed at which water flows. For this application, it will be necessary to measure flow profiles through cross-sections of the flow in both the inflow and the efflux of the devices. This implies that either a single sensor will be used to “scan” the flow, or multiple sensors will be used (either a small number scanned as an array or a large number covering the entire cross-section), or it will be necessary to use a device that can measure profiles directly. All these things are possible, ranging from simple miniature impeller meters, through arrays of pitot tubes, to laser-Doppler velocimeters, to particle image velocimetry. It is not appropriate here to describe and discuss all of these methods and equipment in detail. However, it is probable that the most cost-effective method will be to use an array of fairly widely spaced pitot tubes, and to enhance spatial resolution by “stepping” the array through a number of displaced positions in the cross-section of the flow. The cost of such a system will be similar to the cost of the dynamometer(s), and both are essential to the centre. A range of pressure transducers, wave probes, thermometers, video cameras and other instruments will also be needed. Individually, these items cost from a few pounds for a calibrated thermometer to a few hundred pounds for a wave probe.

44

Data from experiments will need to be acquired and analysed, and video will need to be digitised, edited, rendered, and transferred to DVD (or some other appropriate medium). For this the Centre will need some fairly powerful computers (already available within the manpower resources that the Centre will call on), with a range of data acquisition cards, equipment, and software (that may need to be purchased specially). 5.3 Work Boats and Crane Barge If the Centre develops its own marine field site(s), frequent access to a small workboat, especially one equipped for diving and ROV (remotely operated vehicle) operations, will be required. The boat will be used during deployment, maintenance and monitoring work on test installations. A small crane barge will carry out deployment and recovery of devices under test and of other equipment such as power cables connecting devices to the shore. A second boat of similar size may be used to collect detailed survey and environmental data in both the marine test site and in target sites for permanent installations. This vessel will need to carry survey equipment such as accurate echo sounders, differential GPS (global positioning system) receivers, transponders and underwater video equipment. Specialist environmental monitoring equipment such as turbidity meters and chemical probes will also be required. It is envisaged that contractors to the Centre, such as the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, would provide suitably equipped boats for these tasks. 5.4 Electrical Load / Electricity Network Connection The marine test sites will need an electrical load in order that devices are tested under realistic output, as well as input, conditions. The smaller of the two sites can probably be served by a simple resistive load, such as a water-cooled heating element. Electrical output from devices under test here may be only a few tens of kilowatts and tests will be intermittent rather than continuous. The load could be submerged close to the device under test, eliminating the need for shoreside buildings and facilities altogether, although this implies the use of either diver-retrieved submerged instrumentation and data acquisition, or a communications buoy with telemetry link to shore. Communications buoys can introduce difficulties – they are often “salvaged” by local fishermen and others (even when they are not adrift). A complete design appraisal for the small marine site is outside the scope of the present study, but it is clear that there are enough design options for the site to be feasible at a moderate, cost.

45

The larger site will benefit from a connection to the local electricity distribution network. This is likely to consist of a power cable from device to shore, an inverter / interface to the shore power system, and a connection from the location of the interface to the nearest suitable network connection point. The device to shore cable can also bring signals from device instrumentation ashore, so the interface housing can be combined with a housing for data acquisition equipment. The housing will need to be secure, as will the transition of the cable through the surf zone and over the beach. In this context, it has been determined that the 11kV distribution network on the Isle of Wight can absorb an additional 7MW, of which 5MW could be absorbed by a connection made in the Ventnor area. This is more than sufficient capacity for a large test site offshore at St Catherine’s and indicates the size of permanent offshore tide farm that could be placed there without major changes to the local network. (Incidentally, the local 11kV network’s capacity to absorb 7MW, if continuous, represents about 11% of the Isle of Wight’s projected electricity demand in 2010. The local network appears to be just capable of absorbing the target level for renewable contribution without recourse to the higher voltage networks). 5.5 Conclusions and Recommendations for Instrumentation The test centre needs a small capital inventory of instrumentation and test equipment, some of which is already available. The main items for this inventory are:

• A dynamometer / balance specifically designed for testing various types of hydrodynamic turbine

• A system for flow velocity measurements

46

6. Marine Tidal Test Sites 6.1 Introduction In this section of the report, we examine the potential for establishing test sites for tidal energy devices in the waters adjacent to the Isle of Wight. Section 4 identified the need for two sites – one at an inshore, sheltered location and a second site offshore, in deep waters. Since the two sites have different requirements they will be considered separately. 6.2 Requirements for Inshore, Sheltered Site Interviews with potential clients for the Centre established a need for a marine test site where strong tidal currents occur, but which is easily accessible by a small boat or rib, is located in shallow water and is relatively sheltered from waves. The combination of the requirements for strong tidal streams, shelter from the worst weather, accessibility, and a reasonable degree of enclosure limit the range of suitable sites. In particular, sites along exposed coastline are far less suitable than sites that are enclosed - for example within bays, harbours, estuaries, and around the Solent. Harbour and estuary sites are generally disadvantaged by concentration of vessel traffic through restricted areas and complicated local variations of flow. Unfortunately most bays provide shelter from tidal streams as well as from extreme weather conditions and bad weather running into bays can set up rip currents that contaminate the otherwise predictable tidal flows. These considerations eliminate almost all areas other than the Solent and its adjacent waters, which is where the search for suitable sites was focused. The primary requirements for this site are:

• Relatively strong peak tidal flow - a minimum cut-off value of 1.25 m/s (2.5 knots) was chosen

• Depth between 10 and 30 m (the minimum depth being governed by a requirement for useful demonstration of installation and operational methods, the maximum by decompression times for divers on normal air-breathing apparatus)

• Avoidance of commercial shipping Secondary site requirements were identified as:

1. Shelter from wind and waves 2. Proximity to harbour facilities 3. Proximity to area for shore base, accessible by road 4. Existing structure (e.g. pier) to carry power cable through surf zone 5. Avoidance of marine leisure activities (the Solent being a playground

for wealthy and influential boat owners and a centre for high profile yachting events such as Skandia Cowes Week)

47

6. Avoidance of activities by other marine stakeholders, such as the fishing and dredging industries

7. Avoidance of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and other environmentally constrained areas

Although this is not listed as a requirement, an existing structure protruding into the maximum tidal flow (such as a long pier) to which test devices could be attached would be highly desirable. It should be noted that final site selection and approval would be subject to consenting arrangements as explained in the DTI guidance handbook7. The secondary requirements set out above are in part a first stage to achieving compliance with the DTI arrangements, but the establishment of full compliance is beyond the scope of the present study. 6.3 Inshore Site Selection and Ranking Methodology Candidate sites with strong tidal flows were initially selected by reference to the Admiralty Small Craft Folio of charts for the Solent and Approaches (SC 5600). Spring and neap rates and directions of tidal streams at specific locations around the Isle of Wight (marked by ‘tidal diamonds’) are conveniently tabulated on each chart, in hourly intervals referred to high water at Portsmouth. This source of information permitted an overview of tidal velocities in the area of interest, from which sites with peak rates less than 1.25 m/s were eliminated. The remaining candidate sites were scrutinised for conformity with the other primary requirements of depth and avoidance of commercial shipping. A further check of tidal rates was then conducted, using detailed information in the relevant Admiralty Tidal Stream Atlas8 and the tidal charts published by the renowned Solent yachtsman and navigator, Cmdr Peter Bruce RN9. The candidate inshore sites that remained after the initial screening described above were scored on a scale of 1 to 5 against the secondary criteria listed in Section 6.2. The resultant matrix was used to rank the sites in order of merit. Although this methodology is purely subjective, a more detailed assessment is outside the scope of the present study. 6.4 Candidate Inshore Sites The initial sift of tidal diamond data revealed eleven sites in the waters adjacent to the Isle of Wight (mostly in the western or central Solent) that 7 Planning and consents for marine renewables: Guidance on consenting arrangements in England and Wales for a pre-commercial demonstration phase for wave and tidal stream energy devices (marine renewables). DTI, November 2005 8 Admiralty Tidal Stream Atlas: the Solent and Adjacent Waters. NP 337, Hydrographic Office 9 Solent Tides, Peter Bruce. ISBN 1-871680-05-0

48

match the criteria of peak tidal rates greater than 1.25 m/s. Of these, seven were discarded because of their proximity to commercial shipping channels. The depth criteria could be met in part by all the remaining candidate sites (referred to as A,B, C and D), three of which are located in the western Solent and one at the eastern end of the Isle of Wight. The site locations are illustrated in Figure 6.1 and the site attributes are described below.

Figure 6.1 Candidate Inshore and Offshore Sites Site A: Bembridge (see Figure 6.2) Location: SE of Bembridge point, inshore of Bembridge Ledge and W Princessa cardinal buoys Peak tidal stream rate: 1.35 m/s (2.7 kts) Area: 0.3 x 1.0 square nm (nautical miles) Depth: shelving, 50% less than 10 m, 50% 10 – 20 m Shelter: Good shelter in winds from the W round clockwise to the NE. Exposed in winds from the E round clockwise to SW Harbour access: 2 nm from Bembridge Harbour entrance Nearest shore: Foreland Coast Guard station 0.5 nm, accessible by road. No pier. Other criteria: No known conflict with other marine stakeholders. Commercial shipping passes to the E of W Princessa and Bembridge Ledge buoys. The latter is generally a mark of the course, to be passed on the eastern side, for offshore yacht races. The area is not a designated SAC and no other environmental constraints are marked on the Admiralty chart

49

Figure 6.2 Location of Site A Site B: Gurnard (see Figure 6.3) Location: SW and inshore of Gurnard Ledge buoy Peak tidal stream rate: 1.75 m/s (3.5 kts) Area: 0.1 x 0.53 square nm Depth: Steeply shelving at NE end, from 0 – 20m Even bottom (18 – 20 m depth) at SW end. Shelter: Good in all but SW winds. Harbour access: 1.5 nm from Cowes Harbour entrance Nearest shore: Gurnard Bay 0.5 nm, accessible by road and with possible slipway facilities. No pier. Other criteria: The fast tidal streams in this area make it less popular for yachting activities than the Eastern Solent, although the site is close to Gurnard Sailing Club. There may be some conflict because top Solent racing navigators like to pass inside Gurnard Ledge in order to dodge a foul tide. The area is not a designated SAC and no other environmental constraints are marked on the Admiralty chart.

50

Figure 6.3 Location of Site B Site C: Fort Victoria (see Figure 6.4) Location: NW of Fort Victoria Country Park, inshore of Sconce buoy and near Hurst Narrows Peak tidal stream rate: 2.1 m/s (4.2 kts) Area: 0.08 x 0.4 square nm Depth: shelves steeply from 10 – 25 m Shelter: Good in all but SW or W winds Harbour access: 1 nm from Yarmouth Harbour entrance Nearest shore: Sconce Point 0.1 nm, with road access and a pier Other criteria: although this site is inshore of a cardinal navigation buoy (Sconce), it is close to the marine traffic choke point of Hurst Narrows. The area is not a designated SAC and no other environmental constraints are marked on the Admiralty chart. Synergies between tidal energy and the Marine Aquarium and Planetarium at the onshore Victoria Country Park can be identified. Site D: Fort Albert (see Figure 6.4) Location: SW of Fort Albert point, outside Hurst Narrows and inshore of the line between Sconce and Warden navigation buoys Peak tidal stream rate: 1.9 m/s (3.8 kts) Area: 0.12 x 0.55 square nm Depth: 5 – 10 m at NE end, 10 – 15 m at SW end Shelter: Good shelter in winds from the N round clockwise to the S. Exposed in winds from the SW round clockwise to NW Harbour access: 2 nm from Yarmouth Harbour entrance Nearest shore: Fort Albert 0.25 nm, with road access and a pier

51

Figure 6.4 Location of Sites C and D Other criteria: although this site is inshore of the Sconce and Warden cardinal navigation buoys, it is close to the marine traffic choke point of Hurst Narrows. However Colwell Bay, inshore of the site, is marked as “foul” on the Admiralty chart and is therefore unsuitable for all but the most shallow draft marine leisure craft, such as Jet Skis and small fishing vessels. The area is not a designated SAC and no other environmental constraints are marked on the Admiralty chart. .6.5 Conclusions and Recommendations from Inshore Site Ranking

Criteria Site A Site B Site C Site D Tidal stream 2 3 5 4 Depth profile 4 2 3 3 Shelter 2 4 3 3 Harbour proximity 4 4 5 4 Nearest shore 3 3 5 4 Structure for power cable 3 0 4 3 Marine Traffic 5 3 3 4 Other stakeholders ? ? ? ? Environmental issues 5 5 5 5 Bonus 2

(Planetarium)

Total 28 24 35 30 Table 6.1: Ranking matrix for candidate inshore test sites

52

The matrix in Table 6,1 suggests that a site just offshore of Fort Victoria and near Hurst Narrows would be the most suitable site for inshore field tests, followed by a site off Fort Albert, outside Hurst Narrows. A site at the Eastern end of the Isle of Wight, near Bembridge Point is third in the ranking and the site at Gurnard is fourth. However the ranking criteria are not weighted and some will undoubtedly be more important than others when considered in greater depth. It is therefore recommended that the suitability of these sites for field testing of marine renewable energy devices and associated equipment are investigated in more detail. The investigation should include:

• Profile of tidal stream velocity with depth over a full tidal cycle at spring and neap tides and at a number of locations across the site

• Bathymetric and benthic surveys • Engagement with relevant marine and land-based stakeholders

(bathers, divers, leisure boat users, fishing, commercial shipping etc) to establish areas of potential conflict for permits and consents10

• Research into existing infrastructures on land which might facilitate the establishment of the site

It should also be noted that a number of existing marine structures, e.g. Ryde and Totland piers, might be available for testing small devices without recourse to official permits or additional infrastructure. Unfortunately such sites are not located in areas of good tidal resource, but at maximum spring tidal flows they would serve to give an indication of device performance and survivability. It is recommended that an audit of such structures and their ownership is conducted. 6.6 Requirements for Deep, Offshore Site A number of developers consulted during the course of this study expressed interest in a test site for demonstrating a full scale tidal device, located near the south coast of England. They were aware of the test site at EMEC in Orkney but their preference was for a site that would offer:

• Easier travel for engineering personnel • Fewer restrictions to device access post deployment, as caused by

short daylight hours or by inclement weather • Strong tidal currents in a less aggressive wave environment

The primary criteria for this site are:

1. Strong peak tidal flow - a minimum cut-off value of 1.75 m/s (3.5 knots) was chosen

10 Planning and consents for marine renewables: Guidance on consenting arrangements in England and Wales for a pre-commercial demonstration phase for wave and tidal stream energy devices (marine renewables). DTI, November 2005

53

2. Depth greater than 20 m 3. For purposes of grid connection, maximum 5 miles from land 4. Avoidance of commercial shipping lanes 5. Avoidance of physical / geographical constraints 6. Avoidance of conflict with other marine industry and conservation

stakeholders, represented by statutory consultees, in order to comply with the guidelines set out in the DTI handbook for consents11.

It is not within the scope of the present study to investigate compliance with the guidelines for marine consents, therefore selection of the deep-water test site has been based on Criteria 1- 5 only. 6.7 Offshore Site Selection The present study has established that the Island’s electricity network could absorb up to 7MW of power from external sources, of which about 5MW could be absorbed in the Ventnor area (Ventnor is the nearest significant town to St Catherine’s). The authors are aware that a number of device developers, including one major utilities company, have conducted initial desk studies of the tidal resource in the area to the south of the Isle of Wight. Therefore the search for a suitable offshore site was focussed in the same area and candidate sites were selected by reference to the Admiralty Small Craft Folio of charts for the Solent and Approaches (SC 5600). Note that the stipulated depth (greater than 20 m) precludes all sites - apart from commercial shipping channels - inside the Solent. The tidal diamonds on Admiralty Charts 5600.1: Outer Approaches to the Solent and 5600.2: Western Solent permitted an overview of tidal velocities in the area of interest, from which sites with peak rates less than 1.75 m/s were eliminated from selection. The tidal resource is concentrated at St Catherine’s Point and all inshore areas to the west and east have lower peak tidal rates. Two of the remaining sites stood out for conformity with the requirements of criteria 2-4 (depth greater than 20m, less than 5 miles from land and avoidance of commercial shipping lanes). A further check of tidal rates at these sites was then conducted, using detailed information in the relevant Admiralty Tidal Stream Atlas12 6.8 Candidate Offshore Sites The locations of the two potential deep water, offshore sites are illustrated in Figures 6.1 and 6.5, and the site attributes are described below.

11 Planning and consents for marine renewables: Guidance on consenting arrangements in England and Wales for a pre-commercial demonstration phase for wave and tidal stream energy devices (marine renewables). DTI, November 2005 12 Admiralty Tidal Stream Atlas: the Solent and Adjacent Waters. NP 337, Hydrographic Office

54

Figure 6.5 Location of Sites E and F Site E: St Catherine’s Deep (see Figure 6.5) Location: At western extremity of St Catherine’s Deep, approximately 1 mile south of St Catherine’s Point Peak tidal stream rate: 1.9 m/s (3.8 kts) Area: 1.75 x 1.0 square nm Depth: very uneven, varying between 18 and 42 m Nearest shore: St Catherine’s Point – 1 nm Other comments: Leisure boating activities are minimal in this area since small craft tend to avoid the overfalls in St Catherine’s Race and pass further offshore. The exception occurs during the renowned “Round the Island Race”, when keen racers will navigate right inshore along the rocks off the point (and inshore of this site), in order to dodge foul tidal streams. There may be some conflict with commercial shipping, which requires investigation.

55

One advantage of this site is its proximity to shore, which reduces the cost of underwater cabling and burial. The site is 2 nm to the west of the disused explosives dumping ground in St Catherine’s Deep, where the charted depth is between 42 and 68 m. The area between the dumping ground and Site E has uneven bottom topography, with depths as shallow as 15m in places. Hence drift of items from the dumping ground into the tidal site is not thought to constitute a hazard. Furthermore, the response to a parliamentary question in 1996 by the Secretary of State for Defence stated that the munitions dump in St Catherine’s Deep may have had limited or emergency use, if at all, and that current scientific evidence indicates that munitions dump sites present no significant risk to safety, human health or the marine environment, if left undisturbed. However, further investigations using modern surveying equipment would be advisable at this site. The South Wight Maritime Area has been recommended as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), because of reefs and vegetated sea cliffs. This does not necessarily preclude the installation of marine energy extraction devices, but close consultation and cooperation with Natural England is recommended. Site F: St Catherine’s Race (see Figure 6.5) Location: 3.5 miles south of St Catherine’s Point Peak tidal stream rate: 2.25 m/s (4.5 kts) Area: 5 x 2 square nm Depth: Gently shelving in the SE section, between 20 and 36 m. The NW section is less even but with a similar range of depths. Nearest shore: St Catherine’s Point – 3.5 nm Other comments: This site is still within the area of overfalls off St Catherine’s Point and therefore conflict with small craft is unlikely. There may be some conflict with commercial shipping, which requires investigation. The site is 2 miles to the north of an area marked Submarine Exercise Area on the Admiralty Charts. The boundaries of this exercise area are not delineated and early consultation with the MoD / Royal Navy is recommended. Conflict with the South Wight Maritime Area SAC described under Site E is less likely for Site F, which is further from the cliffs and littoral reefs. The other advantages of Site F over Site E are the more even bottom topography and a stronger tidal resource. The disadvantage is the distance from shore, which increases costs of underwater cabling and cable burial. 6.9 Conclusions and Recommendations for Offshore Site An initial investigation indicates that there are two potential sites near St Catherine’s Point that could provide a deep-water test facility for tidal stream

56

devices. Neither site is ideal, being close to a marine Special Area of Conservation, although conservationists may support the installation of an unobtrusive marine energy device that would shield the seabed from more damaging activities such as dredging. Further investigations are required in order to establish whether the potential obstacles cited above in Section 6.8 would preclude the sites from the envisaged development. Stages of the official consents procedure are summarised in Appendix 1. The following actions are recommended, prior to final selection of the offshore site location and initiation of the consents procedure:

• Side scan sonar survey of bottom topography, especially of the ammunition dump in St Catherine’s Deep

• Profile of tidal stream velocity with depth over a full tidal cycle at spring and neap tides and at a number of locations across the sites

• Geological investigation of the sites • Detailed investigation and comparison of cabling and grid connection

costs for the two sites. • Consultation with:

o Ministry of Defence, with regard to the ammunition dump and the submarine exercise area off St Catherine’s Point

o Isle of Wight Coastal Centre in Ventnor o Other marine stakeholders and statutory consultees (see

Appendix 1)

57

7. Proposed Commercial Structure of the Centre 7.1 Business Model The commercial structure proposed for the Solent Ocean Energy Centre, certainly during the initial phases of its development, is based on a successful model developed by an informal grouping of Isle of Wight companies, to provide an integrated technical and commercial service to clients of the Centre. Coincidentally, the areas of expertise within the current grouping replicate for the most part those that would be required to support the operation of the Centre. It will only be necessary to establish an office facility for the Centre, for administration and marketing. Initially the office complement would consist of one technical and administrative manager, who could either work from a remote office or could be located centrally (e.g. at the St Cross development) on the Island. Expansion in both personnel numbers and associated facilities can be undertaken as income and demand dictate. The tasks of the manager would include:

• Marketing strategy and publicity • Client liaison • Coordination of the respective contributions of external contractors to

specific projects • Government liaison • Writing proposals for Centre funding • Initial consultations for permits and site licenses • Coordination of detailed work for permits and site licenses • Management of special projects for the Centre (e.g. environmental

monitoring programmes) and initiatives (e.g. micro-tidal generation at waterside developments)

All other administrative tasks (e.g. website design and maintenance, and direct marketing) would be subcontracted. The commercial structure proposed will deliver key benefits to the Centre, particularly during the initial phase of its operation:

- No requirement for extensive premises or costly numerous staff.

- No necessity for major capital investment in fixed technical facilities.

- No immediate requirement to recruit specialist staff.

- Administration costs and overhead minimised.

58

7.2 Technical Support Structure Technical and physical inputs to meet the Centre’s customer requirements will be delivered by a group of companies linked to the Centre. The degree of formality of this linkage would be a matter for the sponsors of the Centre to decide. Those companies who have already expressed interested in supporting the proposed Centre in the manner defined are – Marine and Technical Marketing Consultants Cowes Isle of Wight Physical modelling, data analysis, marine consents, on shore connections. HR Wallingford Wallingford Oxfordshire Hydraulic research: coastal and tidal flow modelling, device testing. GKN Aerospace Engineering Services East Cowes Isle of Wight Hydrodynamic and tidal device test facilities. Carisbrooke Engineering (IW) Ltd Carisbrooke Isle of Wight Electrical and mechanical design and manufacture to scale and full scale. Datum Electronics Ltd East Cowes Isle of Wight Specialist instrumentation packages FB Fabrications Ltd Cowes Isle of Wight Large and small fabrications in steel, stainless steel and aluminium J T Mackley and Co Ltd (Mackley Construction) Southampton Hants Marine civil engineers

59

South Eastern Hydraulics Ltd Redhill Surrey Fluid power engineers - custom hydraulic system design, fluidics Walcon Marine Ltd Fareham Hants Marine civil engineers: pontoons and seabed gravity structures RPS Energy Woking Surrey Environmental impact assessment, geotechnical surveys, planning and consents The above list is not intended to be exhaustive, and it may well be necessary to introduce additional sources of specific expertise to meet a particular customer requirement. The regional infrastructure available to support the centre in this way is more fully described in Section 9. 7.3 Technical Work Management MTMC currently manages work using a system of experiment specification designed to conform to the quality assurance standard series ISO9000. This management method, which has been successfully applied in other large research organisations, is adaptable to, and will be particularly appropriate for, the proposed Centre. Apart from ensuring that all technical requirements are properly addressed, the management system deals with other statutory requirements such as health and safety. The system consists of a standard form of experiment specification. It starts with a statement of objectives, followed by a methodology statement and an overall project plan. There are sections on all individual elements of the project , such as:

• Instrumentation • Facility requirements • Model build • Human resources • Safety

The project plan shows how individual elements interact with each other and identifies (in a similar manner to a critical path analysis) how deliverables from

60

one feeds into others. The individual or organisation responsible for delivery of a particular element signs off the section that deals with it. The signature acknowledges responsibility for delivery (to specification, to time and to cost) of that element. An option allows the client for the work to sign final approval of the document as a whole, or the project manager may sign on the client’s behalf.

This technical management system is especially concerned with ensuring that lines of responsibility and individual obligations to the total project are clearly defined and accepted by all participants. This last feature is particularly important in a “virtual company” structure where responsibility for delivery of the whole project may be diffused over a number of separate organisations and/or individuals.

61

8. Collaboration 8.1 Strategy for Collaboration The business model for the Centre proposed in Section 7, with groups of companies linked to the centre that provide technical and physical support for clients, is in itself a type of collaborative venture. More formal collaboration might be considered in the case of organisations offering expertise that is complimentary to the Centre. Examples of beneficial collaboration include situations where:

a) Joint offerings are likely to win work that neither partner would win separately

b) A “package” is more attractive than tasks performed by separate contractors.

c) Some specialist expertise is not available through the groups of companies linked to the Centre

8.2 Potential Collaborators Three significant marine renewable test facilities (NaREC, EMEC and WaveHub) are known to exist in the UK, but the proposed Centre on the Isle of Wight will be complementary to, rather than competitive with, these. NaREC and Wavehub offer marine sites with a significant wave resource, which is not available in the waters around the Isle of Wight, or indeed in the coastal waters of the SEEDA region. Therefore wave devices that have been laboratory tested in a tank at the proposed Centre would be passed to NaREC or to Wavehub for field tests. EMEC offers an extremely aggressive marine environment for testing tidal energy devices and many developers would welcome the opportunity to test devices initially in the more benign and accessible conditions of the English Channel, before exposing them to the harsh environment in the Fall of Warness in Orkney. The possibility of formal or informal partnering arrangements with one or more of these organisations should be explored. 8.3 Networks A number of networking organisations and industrial “clusters” for the marine sector exist within the SEEDA region. These include Wight Energy, Vectis Energy, Cowes Marine Cluster, MareNet and Marine South East. Opportunities for marketing and recruitment of contractors will arise through the Centre’s engagement with these organisations.

62

9. Regional Infrastructure of Resources Available to the Marine Energy Technology Evaluation and Research Centre. 9.1 Introduction. In this section, we describe some of the intellectual resources available to the Centre. We do not attempt to identify all the resources available in the region; indeed we may well have omitted some large and important organisations and some valuable people. Our objective is to show that all the Centre’s resource requirements can be met – in some cases many times over - and hence demonstrate the Centre’s feasibility. 9.2 Intellectual Resource Requirements. MTMC has been active in the field of hydrodynamics research and testing for the last ten years, so that the centre’s intellectual resource requirements mirror those of MTMC. In general, external resources are necessary for one of two reasons:

1. Some particular, specialised and detailed knowledge is required to deal with a detailed aspect of a project.

2. A particular, specialised, facility is required and a specialist is required to operate or use it.

Association with a particular renewable energy device effectively disqualifies some of the specialist resources that might otherwise be co-opted by the Centre. For example, clients may be reluctant to have Southampton University involved in “independent” assessment of their devices, since Southampton University is actively promoting a competing device of its own. 9.3 Organisations with Offerings for the Centre. Within the region there are at least six large organisations that offer specialist intellectual services in the general field of marine hydrodynamics. They are: ABP Marine Environmental Research. (www.abpmer.co.uk) British Maritime Technology. (www.bmt.org) H R Wallingford. (www.hrwallingford.co.uk) National Oceanography Centre. (www.soc.soton.ac.uk) QinetiQ, Haslar. (www.qinetiq.com) Other organisations offer elements of specialised knowledge useful to the centre, within a wider range of offerings. Examples include: Bomel / Noble Denton Consultants. (www.bomelconsult.com) (www.nobledenton.co.uk) RPS Group (www.rpsgroup.com) W S Atkins. (www.atkinsglobal.com) Isle of Wight Coastal Centre. (www.coastalwight.gov.uk)

63

MTMC holds files of detailed information on these organisations, indicating the areas in which each of them is capable of supporting the centre. General information is available on their websites, and will not be duplicated here, except from one brief extract from the Bomel website: “Bomel provides a responsive and seamless extension to clients’ in-house capability” – exactly in line with the business model presented for the Solent Ocean Energy Centre. Section 9.4 presents a brief history of the antecedents of these companies and an indication of their specialisations. 9.4 Description of Organisations 9.4.1 ABPmer (Marine Environmental Research) ABPmer is the scientific service group of Associated British Ports. ABP operate a number of commercial ports, including the Port of Southampton (which includes much of the western Solent). The research group works on almost every aspect of science connected with port operations, from environmental impacts, through emergency management systems (such as oil spill containment), to the manoeuvring of ships through confined channels in the presence of waves and currents. In many ways, ABPmer is very similar to H R Wallingford in its range of expertise, but tends to be committed to a narrower client base – much of its work being generated from within ABP. This organisation was one of the principal contributors to the DTI’s project to map the wave and tidal energy resources around the UK coastline13 9.4.2 British Maritime Technology (BMT) British Maritime Technology is a research organisation that has developed from a merger between the privatised Ship Division of the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) and the British Ship Research Association (BSRA). BMT operates in a number of divisions specialising in all aspects of maritime science, from predicting the performance of future ships to producing a world atlas of wave statistics. BMT is based in Teddington, Middlesex, but the divisions specialising in work areas appropriate to the proposed Centre are located in the Gosport / Fareham/ Southampton area. Unfortunately, within the BMT Group, BMT Renewables is a partner in the Pulse Generation tidal power project, which somewhat compromises the impartiality of the organisation when testing or assessing competing technologies. 8.4.3 Wolfson Unit for Marine Technology and Industrial Aerodynamics A smaller organisation, that is rather similar to the part of BMT that specialises in predicting ship performance, is the Wolfson Unit for Marine Technology

13 Atlas of UK Marine Renewable Energy Resources. DTI Report No R1106 Dec 2004

64

and Industrial Aerodynamics (WUMTIA), located within Southampton University. It is a commercial consultancy and independent from the University Department that is developing a tidal energy device. Both BMT and the Wolfson Unit (like MTMC) are regular users of the towing tank at GKN. 9.4.4 H R Wallingford H R Wallingford traces its history back to the British Civil Service in India during the days of the Empire, when British scientists and engineers developed vast irrigation and flood control schemes, and initiated early work on hydro-electricity, linked to India’s large river systems. On their return to Britain, these engineers formed the Hydraulics Research Station, which was privatised by the government in 1982 and is now known as H R Wallingford. It is based at Wallingford in Oxfordshire. HRW specialises in all aspects of the behaviour of water that has a free surface (as opposed to water flows within closed, full pipes). Of the organisations described so far, ABP, BMT, and WUMTIA are concerned with predicting the performance of ships and maritime structures, and in particular with the effect of the maritime environment (wind, waves, currents, deep/shallow water, etc) on their performance. H R Wallingford, on the other hand, is concerned more with the effect of ships and structures on the maritime environment. 9.4.5 National Oceanographic Centre The National Oceanography Centre – formerly known as the Southampton Oceanography Centre - was formed by merging the Oceanography Department of Southampton University with the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO). Its interests cover the full range of ocean sciences including marine biology, geology, climate, and physics. It has inherited from its former constituent organisations a very strong “outreach” culture and is very accessible, particularly to other educational institutions. NIO was previously located at Wormley in Surrey and brought in some satellite divisions, of which the most useful to the Solent Ocean Energy Centre will be the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory. This is located on the Wirral, and its former names of “Liverpool Tidal Institute” and “Institute of Coastal Oceanography and Tides” better indicate its particular specialisations. The Proudman Laboratory was another of the principal contributors to the DTI Atlas of UK Marine Renewable Energy Resources14. 9.4.6 QinetiQ Haslar QinetiQ, Haslar developed from the original Admiralty Experiment Works, established in the late 19th Century. A series of mergers resulted in AEW

14 Atlas of UK Marine Renewable Energy Resources. DTI Report No R1106 Dec 2004

65

becoming part of the Admiralty Research Establishment, the Defence Research Agency and now (after a pseudo-privatisation) QinetiQ. AEW was founded by William Froude, a contemporary of I K Brunel and the originator of the technique of using scale models to predict the performance of future ships and marine structures. Haslar is, in many ways, the parent establishment without which ABPmer, BMT, WUMTIA, and H R Wallingford would not exist. QinetiQ has already featured in this report as the owner of facilities at Haslar that may be used by the centre. However, in this section we add the information that, as the largest scientific research organisation in Europe (and possibly in the world), QinetiQ employs specialists in every imaginable branch of science and engineering. (In fact, since QinetiQ is very heavily geared towards military R&D, it also employs specialists in a few unimaginable branches as well). Unfortunately, the military specialisation and the culture inherited by a business that was, until recently, an integral agency of the Ministry of Defence makes the structure of QinetiQ almost opaque and their wealth of specialist capability almost impossible to access. The authors of this report have, over many years, learned how to navigate the impenetrable jungle of QinetiQ and can confirm their ability (at a high price and over an extended timescale) to deal with almost any technical problem in any scientific discipline. 9.4.7 Other Organisations Other exemplary organisations include:

• Bomel - specialising in fixed maritime structures, such as design, construction, installation, and removal of offshore oil installations

• Noble Denton - specialising in marine logistics and marine risk assessment

• RPS Group - providing a wide range of services, principally in legal, environmental, and geotechnical specialisations, to an impressive list of clients in the field of renewable energy. Given that the Solent Ocean Energy Centre proposes independent tests employing similar methodologies on different devices from different developers, RPS has the expertise to conduct peer reviews and to offer clients independent advice on further development of their devices. They should also be able to advise clients on the mechanics of full-scale site selection and installation

• W S Atkins - a large international engineering consultancy with capabilities including maritime engineering, but otherwise spread fairly thin over a wide range of applications

• IoW Coastal Centre is the Island Council’s centre for information about, and management of, the island’s coastline.

66

9.5 Individuals and Small Companies with Offerings for the Centre. A feature of the coastal area of the SEEDA region is that it contains a wealth of expertise and economic activity that is invisible and unquantified. The Isle of Wight, in particular, is home to a large number of one-person consultancy or contracting businesses that have the potential to strengthen the Centre’s offering to clients. Although there are informal networks, it is impossible to quantify the total resource without conducting a formal capability audit. One of our recommendations to SEEDA is that such audits should be conducted for local areas throughout the region. The majority of these small businesses have arisen in two distinct ways. The first type is a result of early retirements of (often very experienced) technical specialists from public sector organisations that were being streamlined prior to privatisation. Generally, it was felt that older staff were expensive and unable to adapt to change, and would therefore make the organisation unattractive as a privatisation candidate. Staff were often shed on a voluntary basis. The volunteers included a few that were determined to live the rest of their days in leisure and a large number who felt able to survive outside the public sector. Those who were confident of survival have mostly set up their own successful consultancies but are almost completely invisible because they have as much work as they need, without advertising. The second type is a result of the metamorphosis of some of the larger technical companies in the area. Particular examples are Plessey Radar, which passed through intermediate business structures to become part of BAe Systems, Saunders-Roe, which is currently GKN Aerospace Services, and FBM Marine, which eventually became absorbed into the company that now manages Rosyth dockyard. Staff casualties at every stage of these metamorphoses have spawned successful small businesses in the area – the most productive of which was probably the demise of the British Hovercraft Corporation. Just as there are two ways in which most of these small businesses were formed, so there are two distinct ways in which they provide services. 9.5.1 Small Consultancies MTMC provides a good example of the first type of service provider. MTMC is a virtual company that acts as a network and umbrella for a number of individuals who frequently work together. To a client, the virtual company looks just like any conventional business, but internally there are no employees. MTMC consultants are only paid for time spent working productively on client projects. The productive work produces advice, not goods.

67

MTMC consultants include three with backgrounds in public sector research (of whom one specialises in marine renewable energy), four from senior management positions in shipbuilding and marine industry, one construction engineer specialising in energy conservation and one whose specialisation is defence procurement. The company also has access to a large network of similar organisations; many of which regularly switch between the roles of collaborator on some projects and client on others. Organisations like MTMC provide both consultancy, mentoring services and act as conduits for transfer of technology and knowledge from one generation to the next. 9.5.2 Small Engineering Companies Carisbrooke Engineering provides a good example of the second type of service provider. Structured in almost exactly the same way as MTMC (as a virtual company), the individuals who work together under the Carisbrooke Engineering letterhead produce equipment, or install equipment for others. The equipment is usually produced as a one-off or in very small production runs. They are able to work from the sketchiest of briefs to design and produce all sorts of engineered items, including small mechanical components of the model boats and ships that are tested by MTMC. 9.6 Benefits of the Regional Infrastructure The combined capability of two businesses such as MTMC and Carisborooke Engineering is easily capable of constructing and instrumenting models of devices for extraction of hydrodynamic energy, testing them in flowing water, and reporting and interpreting the results – all without the involvement of any employees and with very low overheads. All of the organisations mentioned in Sections 9.4 and 9.5, with the exception of Noble Denton located on the edge of the City of London, are based in the SEEDA region or have departments in the region They are not the only organisations in the region that can contribute intellectual resources into the Centre (by acting effectively as sub-contractors). They are described here as examples of the wealth of relevant capability that exists in the region and as an illustration of our reason for arguing that the Centre does not need to recruit a large number of specialist employees in order to have access to the range of expertise that it requires. We consider this to be a major benefit of locating the centre in the SEEDA region. By contrast, an organisation like EMEC that is located on a remote island of Scotland without a wide local R&D base, must import all the specialists that it needs and may have to recruit them as company employees in order to attract them.

68

9.7 Conclusions and Recommendation. The SEEDA region undoubtedly contains all the knowledge, intellectual capacity and support services that the Solent Ocean Energy Centre is likely to require. Some of it is concentrated among a few large organisations that operate on principles that interface well with the business model proposed for the Centre. Others are small informal networks of self-employed engineers and consultants. These networks come together, on a project-by-project basis, to form teams with the necessary mix of capabilities. Members of the latter group benefit from very low costs, but do not normally own extensive capital facilities. It is recommended that SEEDA should instigate local capability audits, to create “capability directories” that will foster and formalise the formation of capability networks throughout the region.

69

10. The Case for the Solent Ocean Energy Centre 10.1 Introduction In this section we discuss the drivers behind the renewable energy industries, with particular focus on marine energy. The client base for the Solent Ocean Energy Centre and the potential value of work is reviewed, together with opportunities to obtain strategic funding from both the public and private sectors. Options for procuring a number of necessary and desirable facilities at the Centre are presented. In some scenarios, it is possible to justify the Capex involved in terms of commercial viability. Other facilities will require support for Capex from the public purse, which may be justified in terms of their strategic importance for the government’s renewable energy targets and for future security of the UK’s energy supply. 10.2 Overview of the UK Marine Renewable Energy Market Marine renewable energy has the potential to contribute significantly to the UK government’s goals for production of clean energy and security of energy supply. The UK possesses about 35% of Europe’s wave resource and 50% of its tidal resource. Data from the Carbon Trust’s Marine Energy Challenge (MEC)15 suggests that 3 GW of wave and tidal generating capacity could be installed in the UK by 2020, which would generate approximately 8TWh of electricity per year, accounting for 2.1% of the UK’s electricity supply in that year. In the long term, marine renewable energy could meet 15 – 20% of current UK electricity demand. The marine energy industry is developing quickly but the technology is at an early stage and most designs are some way from commercial deployment. The proposed Centre will help drive forward that commercialisation. 10.3 Financial Drivers The UK is a market leader in marine renewables, with over forty developers of wave and tidal generators based in the UK (see Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5). The establishment of shared test facilities, such as NaREC and the WaveHub for wave devices, has been a key factor and has attracted interest from overseas. Private sector interest in the industry is increasing, with the involvement of major utility companies such as E.ON and offshore developers such as Ocean Prospect. Leading industrial manufacturers have entered the sector, for example Voigt Siemens recently acquired the wave energy systems company Wavegen. One wave device developer (OPT) was floated on the American AIM stock market in 2003.

15 Future Marine Energy. Carbon Trust, 2006

70

The Renewables Obligation (RO) has helped to drive the development of renewable energy in the UK. The Obligation requires power suppliers to derive a specified proportion of their electricity from renewable sources, initially 4.3% in 2003/4 and gradually rising to 15.4% in 2015. Eligible renewable generators receive Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) for each MWh generated, which can then be sold to suppliers, to allow them to fulfil their obligation. Suppliers must either present certificates to cover their required percentage of output, or pay a “buyout” price for any shortfall. Increased awareness of climate change and its economic impacts16, plus the demand for “green” energy from businesses because of the Climate Change Levy, (a tax on business energy use, from which electricity supplied from renewable sources is exempt) further fuels the growth of the renewables industry. A government consultation is currently underway regarding the introduction of banded ROCs (more ROCs or a higher ROC price per MWh) for certain renewable technologies in need of extra support. This promises to promote rapid development in the marine sector. 10.4 Environmental and Political Drivers Resource depletion of fossil fuels and the impending arrival of “Peak Oil” have forced the UK government to develop a portfolio of alternative energy options. Carbon dioxide reduction targets under the Kyoto Treaty (a reduction of 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2012 has been agreed) are leading the UK government to support the development of renewable energy technologies. Financial and market-based mechanisms have been put in place, including the DTI’s Technology Programme, the Marine Renewable Deployment Fund (MRDF) and ROCs. In the specific context of marine energy, it is noteworthy that installations such as wind farms often meet strong public resistance because of their visual impact, whereas the visual impact of marine energy devices is minimal or zero. 10.5 Global Tidal Energy Sector Tidal technologies include tidal barrages (which rely on the static pressure differential created by the rise and fall of tides) and tidal stream technologies (which utilise the flow of water generated by the change of tidal height). The technology for barrages is mature, being similar to conventional hydropower, and examples include the barrage across the estuary of the River Rance in Brittany and the Annapolis Royal tidal barrage in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Barrages have many undesirable environmental impacts, including upstream sedimentation, downstream coastal erosion and

16 STERN REVIEW: the Economics of Climate Change. 30 October 2006

71

deterioration of water quality, while the energy cost of construction is enormous. Tidal stream technologies are less detrimental to the environment and have the advantage that they can be removed with relative ease if the impacts are found to be intolerable. The global marine current resource is difficult to quantify, but has been estimated by Blue Energy of Canada at 450 GW or more. There are many sites world-wide where tidal stream velocities exceed 2.5 m/s, including Canada, the USA, China, Japan, Ireland and the UK. Tidal streams generally reverse direction approximately every six hours, but there are some locations where water flows continuously in one direction. For example the Gulf Stream moves approximately 80 million cubic metres of water per second17 northwards along the East Coast of the USA and a constant flow of water passes from the Atlantic into the Mediterranean Sea through the Straits of Gibraltar. Tidal stream generators are under development in Canada, the USA, Australia, Ireland and Scandinavia, but a recent report by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) of the USA stated that the UK, with particular mention for MCT and Lunar Energy, leads the field. 10.6 UK Tidal Energy Sector The potential level of marine energy deployment cited in Section 10.2 gives tidal energy a strategic importance in meeting the UK’s aspiration of supplying 20% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and the intention to reduce carbon emissions by 60% in 2050. The Carbon Trust has stated that UK plc has the opportunity and potential to create a competitive global position in all areas of design, manufacture, installation and operation of marine renewables18. A recent estimate suggests that the value of worldwide electricity revenues from wave and tidal projects will lie between £60 billion and £190 billion19. The UK’s competitive advantage is based on:

• A world-leading position in tidal energy technologies • A plentiful tidal resource – 50% of the available resource in Europe • Strong existing offshore skills in engineering, fabrication, deployment

and maintenance of installations in the marine environment However, a recent BWEA study20 identified a number of hurdles to achievement of this potential, namely:

• Financing • Grid access • Planning and permitting

17 Helical Turbine as Undersea Power Technology. Gorlov A and Rogers K. (1997) 18 Building Options for Renewable Energy. Carbon Trust (2003) 19 Future Marine Energy. Carbon Trust (2006) 20 The Path to Power. BWEA, June 2006

72

The proposed offshore test site for the Solent Ocean Energy Centre will alleviate two of these hurdles, by providing onshore grid access for demonstration projects and a pre-permitted test site. 10.7 Client Base and Value of Work As has already been stated in Section 4, a number of potential clients fall into a group with little or no funding, and their need is to obtain just enough data to support a funding bid with some chance of success. They need to obtain this data quickly and economically, but the data must be sufficiently authoritative to be credible to the agencies. Only two of this group admitted access to funds, one putting a total limit of £75K on his ability to self-fund work. We therefore propose that a standard test procedure should be developed, for rapid and cost-effective assessment of initial device designs, which will fulfil the needs of the above (Group 1) clients. Funding of ~£60k for developing this procedure will be sought from a source such as the Carbon Trust Marine Accelerator Fund. An indicative price for standard device assessment (testing, analysis and reporting) would be £15k per device. We believe that Table 3.1: “Tidal Device Developers in the South of England” and Table 3.4: “Wave Device Developers in the South of England” represent the potential client base for this standard assessment. Early stage developers elsewhere in the UK are likely to use local facilities (e.g. at a university). Our estimate for income from the standard assessment is therefore based on six early stage tidal devices and 3 early stage wave devices. A smaller number of potential clients belong to a second group, with funding available for optimisation of their device designs using laboratory facilities, and / or for the development of full-scale installation and maintenance procedures. They are neither ready, nor funded, for long-term testing at sea. We understand that one client’s funding is of the order of £200K and that a realistic budget for comprehensive laboratory testing would be £75k, with a further £50k for design optimisation work. As the requirements of this group can be met with the same laboratory facilities as are required for Group 1 (with the possible addition of a small, deep, “diving” tank), the “Group 2” work has an important impact on the centre’s capital investment appraisals. We believe that the potential client base for advanced laboratory testing and design optimisation will be drawn from the whole of the UK (Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5), although the number of clients with devices that pass the first hurdle of delivering credible performance data in order to obtain public funding will be limited. The estimate for income from Group 2 laboratory testing is therefore based on six clients. The estimated total income for projects using laboratory facilities is presented in Table 10.1. The Group 2 clients may also have funds for short-term field trials of devices, foundations and moorings, or for developing installation, maintenance and

73

decommissioning procedures. These are potential clients for the inshore marine test site and / or for the deep tank, for which we believe a reasonable charge would be £1k per day. Estimated usage is 60 days per year for the deep tank and 120 days per year for the inshore test site. The estimated income is also presented in Table 10.1. It should be noted that this income is for projects conducted through the Centre. If the proposed business model for the Centre is implemented, the revenue to the Centre will be a percentage overhead (15 – 20%) charged on each project. Facility Test Type Price

(£k) Client No

Income (£k)

2007 2008 2009 Laboratory Methodology

Development 60 1 60

Laboratory Standard assessment

15 9 30 60 45

Laboratory Device optimisation

125 6 125 250 375

Deep tank Procedure development

£1k / day

6 60 60

Inshore marine site

Field trials £1/day 6 120 120

TOTAL INCOME 215 490 600 Table 10.1. Estimated income for Centre projects. The clients for the offshore test site will come from Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. Market forces and the political climate will dictate how many devices are taken forward to a commercial demonstration phase, while the remainder are deemed to be unviable and will disappear. These clients will have substantial funding available from the Marine Renewable Development Fund (MRDF) or similar, for long-term trials on deployed prototypes. The total value of work available from such clients is estimated to be of the order £10M and some of this work is likely to go to EMEC because of the favourable funding regime that has been established by the Scottish Assembly. However, many of the potential clients consider EMEC to be too remote and to offer too extreme an environment. Income from the sale of electricity will be generated from the offshore site. It is beyond the scope of this study to evaluate this income, but for comparative purposes, the summary business case for Wavehub21 (a field test site off the north Cornwall coast for wave devices) states that revenue from wave device developers will cover operating costs once the project is established (after 4 years). There will also be an income from berth rental. The charge at EMEC for a device up to 1 MW (including grid connection) is £150k per annum. 21 Wave Hub: Summary Business Case. Report to SWERDA by Arthur D Little, 10th February 2005

74

10.8 Centre Costs 10.8.1 Capital Cost Breakdown Detailed arguments in support of the recommended laboratory facilities and equipment to be used by the Centre are presented in Appendix 2. Our estimates of the consequent capital costs are presented in Table 10.2. Facility Location Modification Comments Cost (£k) Towing Tank GKN Osborne

Site Use as existing

0

Liverpool Use as existing

0 Circulating Water Channel

Gosport Update and resite on IoW

Desirable 500

Gosport Use as existing

0 Deep tank

Bembridge Inspect, fill, provide safety equipment

Desirable 15

Dynamometer GKN Osborne site

Purchase probably necessary

50

Other instrumentation

GKN Osborne site

Purchase (or hire possible)

250

Work boats and equipment

Hire and charge to projects

0

TOTAL CAPEX FOR LABORATORY FACILITIES 815 Table 10.2. Capital cost estimates for laboratory facilities. The above Table includes options for using existing facilities remote from the Isle of Wight. This has the advantage that the Centre would commence operations without a large capital outlay. The disadvantage is that it would detract from the identity of the Centre as a one-stop-shop for tidal energy device evaluation and research. 10.8.2 Capital and Set-up Costs of the Inshore Marine Test Site Since the location of the inshore marine test site remains to be defined, the capital and set-up costs are difficult to estimate. Items for consideration include:

• Scoping study and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) • Geological assessment • Permits and marine consents

75

• Seabed rental • Navigational buoyage and lights • Temporary (or rented) shoreside station

Budgetary estimates for these items are presented in Table 10.3.

Item Budgetary Estimate (£k) Scoping Study and EIA 25 Geological assessment 5 Tidal stream velocity profile survey (2 sites) 5 Permits and marine consents 4 Seabed rental (pa) 0.1 Navigational buoyage and lights 10 Shoreside station 3.5

TOTAL 52.6 Table 10.3. Budgetary estimates for inshore marine site costs It is anticipated that the human resource for developing the site – final site selection, stakeholder consultation, permit applications, site construction / buoyage management etc – will be fulfilled by the Centre Manager. It is recommended that the manager should conduct further investigations, as recommended in Section 6.5, in order to select the most appropriate inshore testing site. It will then be possible to provide a more accurate and detailed cost breakdown. 10.8.3 Cost of the Offshore Marine Test Site The case for establishing an offshore marine test facility cannot be made in commercial terms. Set-up and capital costs would have to be provided by the public purse although, as explained in Section 10.7, it is anticipated that the revenue from test devices and berth rental would offset the operating costs once the Centre is established. Some additional income will be generated by environmental monitoring projects on behalf of government bodies, which need such information to inform the consents and permitting process for commercial arrays of tidal generators. Funding decisions must therefore be made on the basis of national and regional economic and energy strategies. The significance of the proposed Centre at National, Regional and Local levels is set out in Section 1.3. The offshore test site will constitute a key strategic facility to promote the commercialisation of tidal energy, as a contributor to the UK government’s energy targets, in particular:

• To put ourselves on a path to cut the UK’s CO2 emissions by some 60% by about 2050, with real progress by 2020

• To maintain the reliability of energy supplies

76

All potential users recognise the practical advantages of a test site in the south of England, in contrast to the difficulties of testing under harsh environmental conditions at EMEC in the Orkney Islands. However, it should be noted that the public funding regime at EMEC is very favourable when compared with the Isle of Wight. The main cost for a fully-equipped test site will be the provision of a seabed electrical socket, into which devices can be plugged to connect them into the electrical distribution network. Such a socket (the Wavehub) is planned off the coast of North Cornwall to provide a test site for wave energy devices, at an estimated cost of £10.2M for the electrical side (cable cost, laying, subsea transformers, switchgear etc), £1.9M for construction and £1.42M for project development22. Assuming that the shorter distance to shore at St Catherine’s could half the cost of cabling, which may be an optimistic assumption, and that development costs can be reduced, the capital cost of the Isle of Wight facility will be about £8M. We believe that the actual costs for Wavehub will be higher than those estimated and that £10M should be budgeted for the St Catherine’s test site. If such funding cannot be justified in strategic terms, two options remain.

1. Provide clients with services up to this point and then pass them on to EMEC for long-term test deployments. As a general solution, this option is attractive, but it lacks logic if applied to candidate devices for a tidal energy farm at St Catherine’s or elsewhere in the SEEDA region. It would also detract from the identity of the Centre as a one-stop-shop for tidal energy device evaluation and research, as previously mentioned in relation to laboratory facilities.

2. Consider each test as a one-off, stand-alone experiment. Provide a site

with outline consents, and possibly the onshore components of a connection to the electricity distribution network, in place and ready for one-off device installations. No permanent infrastructure or facility would be installed. To invoke this option, test devices would have to be delivered complete with their own submarine cable connection to the shore, and with integral monitoring equipment and all other components required for the tests. In effect, this transfers the capital cost of a permanent facility into an increased running cost for any and each device test. It reduces the centre’s exposure to financial risk by transferring that risk to the centre’s clients.

If the cable, interface, and data acquisition systems are treated as part of each device tested (Option 2 above), the bulk of capital investment for the offshore site will be in the administrative cost of obtaining all the necessary approvals and consents and the associated Environmental Impact Assessment (£60 – 85k for the latter). The cost of onshore connection to the distribution network will also be substantial. This should be treated as a capital investment, because it will need to be amortised over several testing projects.

22 Wave Hub: Summary Business Case. Report to SWERDA by Arthur D Little, 10th February 2005

77

We recommend that the Centre Manager should engage with the relevant marine stakeholders and statutory consultees, conduct further geological, tidal and topographical investigations and compare cabling and grid connection costs (as outlined in Section 5.9), in order to select the best option for the offshore test site. A more precise and detailed costing of the selected site will inform a decision whether the concept of an offshore test site should be progressed. 10.8.4 Overhead / Running Costs The “virtual company” structure that is now quite common among small business can be used to establish nearly all of the services required by device developers in a way that is likely to be commercially viable. Establishment of the centre with a conventional business structure (own offices, employees with the required range of knowledge, skills and experience, dedicated facilities etc) will result in an organisation with unnecessary overhead costs. We propose that the Centre will be run by a half-time technical / administrative manager, who would work remotely from a “virtual” office, or from a location providing office support facilities (telephone answering, photocopying, meeting rooms etc). The role and main tasks performed by the manager are detailed in Section 7.1. When a client approaches the Centre, the manager will bring together an appropriate team of experts and technical providers from the regional infrastructure of resources described in Section 9, to conduct the project in question. The technical work will be managed either by the Centre manager or by another suitably qualified person, according to the procedure described in Section 7.3. A percentage overhead (15 – 20%) will be added to the project cost (see Table 10.1), to cover the Centre’s expenses. Administrative services that are outside the expertise of the manager will be provided by local contractors. A budget for these overhead costs is presented in Table 10.4.

Item Budget (£k) Centre Manager: half time @ £350 / day 40.25 Corporate image and website design 2.5 Website implementation and maintenance 2.5 Marketing and publicity 12.0 Postage, telephone and internet 5.0 Stationary and printing 2.0 Publications and subscriptions 3.0 Travel and subsistence 5.0 Accountancy fees 1.5 Office rental at St Cross (if deemed necessary) 9.0

TOTAL 73.75 (+9?) Table 10.4. Budget for Centre Overheads

78

Public funding is likely to be required for the Centre’s first year of operation, when the manager will be employed conducting tasks that do not generate revenue (such as permit applications). However, we anticipate that the Centre will become self-supporting once it is established, through revenue generated from overheads on device testing and development and through other marine renewable energy services offered to clients and special projects. 10.9 Funding Sources There is a need to apply for public and / or private funding, to support the Centre during the initial set-up period and thereafter to boost the income potential of the Centre through its regular activities of device evaluation and design optimisation. Potential sources of such funds are outlined in the following sections. 10.9.1 Public Sector Funding With the current political concerns surrounding security of energy supply and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, there are a number of government funding sources – both national and regional - for renewable energy initiatives.

• £8 million of the government’s Marine Renewable Demonstration Fund has been put aside to support ‘infrastructure” projects – a category into which the Centre will fall.

• Device developers who are potential customers for the centre can apply to the DTI Technology Programme for financial support of their projects, including the cost of testing. An indicative £7m of the Programme’s funding has been allocated in the current round for projects in renewables, including wave and tidal stream energy.

• Inventors who are classed as SMEs may apply for a DTI grant administered by SEEDA, for either R&D of a particular technology, or for development of a pre-production prototype. In both cases the cost of testing qualifies.

• Support for the marine industry is a high priority for SEEDA, from whom direct funding for the Centre should be sought.

• Direct financial support for the Centre may also be sought from Agencies such as the Energy Savings Trust and the Carbon Trust’s recently announced Marine Energy Accelerator

• Opportunities may be available through the European Union's "CORDIS" 7th framework funding round which is scheduled to start in April 2007

• The Centre will be eligible for the EU Programme “Transnational Access to Hydrolab Major Research Infrastructures” – an initiative whereby researchers may apply to use participating hydrodynamic test facilities and the costs are paid by the EU

79

10.9.2 Private Sector Funding We anticipate that there will be funding opportunities for the Solent Ocean Energy Centre through the Energy Technologies Institute, which is a new public – private partnership initiative. Its objectives include:

• To deliver R&D that facilitates the rapid commercial deployment of cost-effective, low carbon energy technologies

• To build R&D capacity in the UK in the relevant technical disciplines to deliver the UK’s policy goals.

Shell, EDF Energy, BP and E.ON UK have already committed as contributing industrial partners – E.ON has a particular focus on marine renewable energy. The are a number of other competitive funding sources available through the private sector, such as the Renewable Energy Foundation, the Shell Springboard competition and the N-Juice Fund. The environmentally aware sailing community based upon the Isle of Wight may offer private financial or in-kind support. Opportunities to form alliances with major regatta organisers, with the high-profile campaigns of Mike Golding (Ecover) and Ellen McArthur (Offshore Challenges) and with the Peter Harrison Foundation should be explored. One of the consultants within MTMC has excellent contacts within this community. 10.10 Conclusions and Recommendations Enormous potential exists for marine companies on the Isle of Wight and in the SEEDA region to become part of the burgeoning marine renewable energy industry, where the UK is a world leader. The proposed Solent Ocean Energy Centre will be the focus through which this can occur. The economic analysis presented in Section 10 shows that it is feasible for the Centre to commence operating immediately, using existing laboratory facilities, with an initial investment of £74k for overhead costs and a desirable initial investment of £50k for instrumentation. It is recommended that the concept is taken forward at the earliest opportunity and that public funding is sought for the development of an inshore marine test site. Further investigations should be conducted to examine the feasibility of an offshore, grid-connected test site, south of St Catherine’s Point on the Isle of Wight.

80

11. Conclusions from this Study Marine energy has potential to contribute to the UK government’s energy targets of meeting 15% of electricity generation from renewable sources by 2015 and of maintaining security of energy supply. The waters around the Isle of Wight contain a major tidal energy resource that can help meet the SE Region target of 895 MW (8%) of electricity generation from renewable sources by 2016. There is a strong infrastructure of expertise in marine technology and a number of hydrodynamic test facilities on the Isle of Wight and in the SEEDA region, from which resources to support the proposed Solent Ocean Energy Centre could be drawn. The Centre will contribute to several targets within the SEEDA Regional Economic Strategy, by promoting the Region’s knowledge in marine renewable energy, assisting the development of business consortia for the marine renewables sector and providing infrastructure to maintain international economic competitiveness in the marine industry. Interviews with a number of marine energy device developers have confirmed that there is a need for such a Centre in the SEEDA region. Cost-effective test facilities are required at all stages of device development, from proof-of-concept, through design optimisation to full prototype demonstration. Facilities for testing and development of ancillary equipment and of installation, maintenance and decommissioning procedures are also needed. In particular we have established the need for a standard test methodology that can be applied to all early-stage devices. This must provide basic data either to support a formal funding bid to governmental or commercial sources of finance, or to eliminate a device from further development. Economic analysis shows that it is feasible for the Centre to commence operating immediately, using existing laboratory facilities, with an initial investment of £74k for the first year’s set-up and overhead costs and a desirable initial investment of £50k for instrumentation. 12. Recommendations The concept of the Solent Ocean Energy Centre on the Isle of Wight should be progressed at the earliest opportunity. The following initial steps are recommended:

1. Seek funding of £75k to support set-up and overhead costs for the first year of operation

2. Appoint a part-time technical and administrative manager 3. Commence publicity and marketing of the Centre 4. Seek funding of £50k for a dynamometer to be used for model testing

of tidal energy generation devices

81

5. Apply to the Carbon Trust’s Marine Accelerator Fund for £60k, to develop a standard test methodology for early stage devices

6. Seek £52.5k funding to progress development of a shallow water marine test site

7. Conduct further investigations of a deep-water site for testing prototype tidal generators in the waters to the south of St Catherine’s Point on the Isle of Wight.

82

Appendix 1. Consents Procedure. The lease and consents procedure for all small-scale demonstration devices for marine energy generation in English and Welsh territorial waters is set out in a DTI guidance document23. Decisions on site leases are entirely separate from decisions on individual consents applications submitted to the regulatory bodies. Consent applications are subject to a minimum of 28 days public consultation and assessed in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment that an applicant must undertake. Consenting requirements for a generating station less than 1 MW are:

• A site licence or lease from Crown Estate • A licence under the Food and Environmental Protection Act (FEPA)

1985 • A licence under the Coastal Protection Act (CPA) from Defra • Consent under the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) 1990,

either from DTI or from the relevant local authority, for associated onshore works

• Approvals for the laying of electricity export cables from the Environment Agency and Port Authorities (may be required)

To ensure that the application proceeds smoothly, early consultation should take place with marine stakeholders, such as:

• Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) • Trinity House • Ministry of Defence • Natural England

Demonstration projects are subject to the requirements of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations and the Habitats Directive Regulations, where applicable. An adequate EIA must accompany any consent application and a preliminary study will be necessary to determine the scope of the EIA. Conditions will be attached to the consents and licences, requiring environmental monitoring of demonstration devices to be conducted. The DTI must also be satisfied that appropriate planning and funding arrangements are in place to decommission demonstration devices at the end of their working life.

23 Guidance on consenting arrangements in England and Wales for a pre-commercial demonstration phase for wave and tidal stream energy devices (marine renewables). DTI, November 2005

83

Appendix 2: Options for Capital Expenditure on Test Equipment 1. Towing Tank During the course of this study, MTMC has obtained a price quotation for the construction of a new towing tank, against the specification of the tank that already exists at GKN Engineering Services on the Isle of Wight. The quotation has been obtained, not to determine the investment necessary in a new towing tank, but to determine the investment that can be avoided by safeguarding one of the existing tanks. There are two significant towing tanks in the SEEDA region. A small number of other tanks exist, but these are unsuitable, either on grounds of inadequate size and performance; and/or on grounds of being operated by proponents of one of the wave or tidal power devices, and therefore not independent if used to evaluate competing designs. Both of the tanks are capable of towing devices through the water at speeds up to about 12m/s (24knots). This is well above the speed of any tidal stream in the region. One of the tanks is 200m long and the other is 270m, but the shorter tank has better acceleration and stopping distances, so that test durations are similar in both tanks. The longer tank has a width of 12m and a depth of about 5.5m, against 4.6m by 1.7m for the shorter tank. However, the longer tank has been identified as a “strategic facility” by the Ministry of Defence – a designation that minimises its availability and maximises its cost. The total cost of using the smaller tank (excluding the cost of staff) is about £1000 per day. The larger tank is much more expensive to hire, and its size makes it more expensive to use. A new tank to the specification of the smaller tank would cost approximately £3M to construct today, of which £1,086,861 is the (accurately known) cost of mechanical engineering. The remainder of the cost is an estimate for site value, civil engineering, and the administrative costs (such as obtaining planning consent). The depreciation charge alone on a new tank would therefore be of about the same order as the total cost of using the existing facility, and it is not possible to make a commercially viable investment case for its construction. Securing the future of the smaller tank, which is located at GKN Engineering Services on the Isle of Wight, is therefore a high priority objective of the centre. At present, the tank has an adequate workload from other sources (including other MTMC projects) to ensure its retention, but not to ensure its upgrading or repair in the event of a major breakdown. It is most unlikely that the Solent Ocean Energy Centre would generate sufficient income on its own to secure the future of the facility, but the Centre income added to the existing income should do so. This illustrates how the “virtual company” business structure can minimise the capital requirements of the Centre in addition to minimising its staff costs.

84

Although in principle the daily charge for the facility could be reduced in response to the additional workload generated by the Centre, in practice GKN would probably maintain the existing charge rate and use the extra income to service the cost of some enhancements and replacement of old equipment in the facility. 2. Circulating Water Channel Daily hire charges for such facilities are usually well below £1000 per day. Staff costs are negligible because they can usually be operated by the person running the tests, instead of requiring trained operators. They are simple facilities with easy access, so that their cost of use is much cheaper overall than is a towing tank. The QinetiQ facility is mothballed because the Ministry of Defence has NOT identified it as a strategic facility and QinetiQ is reluctant to invest in, or operate, facilities that are subject to all the commercial risks that are avoided by designation. QinetiQ consider that the rather dated electrical systems of their facility no longer comply with their own safety regulations and will therefore not allow the facility to be operated without complete electrical refurbishment. The Liverpool facility is available at a price of about £1000 per day, including the assistance of a technician / operator. The issues for the Solent Ocean Energy Centre are therefore (a) can it justify the capital cost of setting up its own facility against a likely daily income of around £700 ex staff costs? (b) as an alternative, can it justify contributing to the cost of reinstating the QinetiQ facility against a similar daily cost and the risk associated with being just another customer? Or (c) can it cope with the logistical costs and inconvenience of taking work to Liverpool? A new CWC would cost £1,561,744, installed in a pre-existing building. The building would be much less expensive than a towing tank (because a CWC is a much smaller facility) so that using an existing CWC instead of constructing a new one would probably avoid a capital investment of around £2M. As with the towing tank, it is not possible to make a commercial capital investment case for a new facility, based on the projected value of the Centre’s workload. Unfortunately, unlike the towing tank operated by GKN, the CWC operated by QinetiQ is never likely to be commercially viable on its present site, owing to the management culture of QinetiQ, which is inherited from its former status as a research establishment of the Ministry of Defence. Even a private commercial operator (or owner) will be obliged to operate the facility in accordance with QinetiQ’s procedures and would be charged a site fee based on QinetiQ’s commercially bizarre accounting policies, for as long as the facility is located on a QinetiQ site. The facility was transferred to QinetiQ from the Ministry of Defence. It was therefore originally a public investment and it follows that QinetiQ are under a moral, if not a legal, obligation not to destroy it, if it can be put to a publicly valuable use. This is an important point because QinetiQ will not want to see the facility moved to one of their competitors and they do not see MTMC as being in competition with them.

85

It is possible to estimate the cost of relocating the QinetiQ CWC, because £100K of the cost of a new CWC is the installation cost. Relocation of the existing facility is therefore likely to cost around £200K, as it involves dismantling as well as reassembly. Allowing £400K-£500K for providing a suitable building and making a provision for updating some aspects of the electrical installation, safeguarding the future of the existing CWC would probably require a capital investment of around £750K. This is a considerable saving on the £2M cost of a new facility, but does not establish a commercial case for relocation, as opposed to using the identical facility at Liverpool University. This case will depend partly on workload, and partly on availability (which we have been unable to establish) and hire terms for the facility at Liverpool University. The preservation of the facility at QinetiQ in Gosport is therefore a priority for the centre, at least until the options of refurbishment and/or relocation have been fully evaluated. An obvious site for relocation is alongside the GKN towing tank, but a CWC has many educational applications, so MTMC would want to investigate relocation to an organisation such as the Isle of Wight College. We believe that relocation to another educational institution, such as the University of Southampton, would be unacceptable to QinetiQ on competition grounds. 3. Deep Tank Like their towing tank, the deep tank or so-called Manoeuvring Basin at QinetiQ Haslar suffers from the drawbacks (for commercial users) of its designation as a strategic facility by the Ministry of Defence. Hire charges are typically of the order £5000 per day, because the entire facility must be hired even if only a small area is actually used (unless some informal arrangement is made with the facility manager). The cost of working in such a large facility is high, and compliance with many onerous QinetiQ safety and operating procedures is both mandatory and expensive. The privately owned deep tank at Bembridge is currently empty, but preserved in reasonable condition because of its historical importance. MTMC visited the site some time ago, to discuss getting the tank back into productive use. The visit pre-dated this study, but the possible use of the tank for “diver training” had occurred to the owner and he was enthusiastic to pursue it. Very little capital would be required to put the tank back into working order, and its volume of only 3% of the volume of the QinetiQ tank will obviously result in lower operating costs. 4. Dynamometer and General Instrumentation The total cost of all the ancillary equipment described in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, which will fully equip the towing tank and the CWC, could be £250 – 300k. However virtually all of the equipment can be hired when needed, obviating the requirement for capital purchase.

86

5. Work Boats and Small Crane Barge There will be no capital purchase requirement in the case of the boats mentioned in Section 5.3. Access to a wide variety of suitable craft is available throughout the region, especially in the general area around the east and west Solent. The many diving contractors and marine installation specialists operating in the area, who are likely to become sub-contractors to the Centre, also usually operate their own craft. Neither is it envisaged that the Centre will need to purchase any of the related boat-borne equipment, as it is assumed that specialists brought in to undertake diving and survey work will equip themselves for the tasks.

87