north america in stream tidal power feasibility study: final ......state site ak ak wa ca ca tisec...

Knik Arm AK

Tacoma Narrows WA

Golden Gate SF CA

Minas Passage NS

Western Passage ME

MuskegetChannel MA

Head Harbor Passage NB

West Coast StatesRoger Bedard EPRI Ocean Energy Leader

April 26, 2006

North America In Stream Tidal Power Feasibility Study: Final Briefing

Agenda – West Coast Tidal Feasibility Study9:00 – 9:15 Introductions Roger Bedard

9:15 – 9:30 Welcome Gary Armfield/Steve Klein

9:30 – 10:15 Overview Summary Roger Bedard

Break

10:30 – 11:00 Resource and Performance Methodology Brian Polagye

11:00 – 11:30 Technology Development Mirko Previsic

11:30 – 12:00 Alaska Design Brian Polagye

12:00 – 1:00 Lunch/Mixer All

1:00 – 1:30 California Design Mirko Previsic

1:30 – 2:00 Washington Design Brian Polagye

2:00 – 2:30 Environmental and Regulatory Issues Andre Casavant

2:30 – 3:00 Economic Methodology Assessment, Roger Bedard

Conclusions and Recommendations

3:00 – 3:45 Discussion of Path Forward All

3:45 – 4:00 Wrap Up Mike Robinson

4:00 – 5:30 Field Trip – Pt Evans Site Optional

3

EPRI North American Tidal In-Stream Energy Conversion Feasibility Demonstration Project

$6-8 M

5 - 7 Yrs Total

50% DOE50% EPRI

$100K-250K

Additional cost due to RD&D needs

1-2 YearsPhase IV -Evaluation

Private Owner or collaborative financing

$100K-250K

Plant O&M costs 1-2 YearsPhase IV -Operation

Private Owner or collaborative

$5 M-$7M

1 MWe Pilot Demonstration Plant at 30% capacity factor)

12 - 18 Months

Phase III -Construction

Private Owner or collaborative

$500K-

$1.0M

System Design, permitting and financing - 1 Site – Device

12-18 Months

Phase II –System Design

Maine Massachusetts New BrunswickNova ScotiaDOE NRELEPRISan FranciscoAlaskaWashington

$390K Cash plus In

kind funds

Site survey & characterization;Technology / device survey;System Level Feasibility-Study design, performance analysis, life-cycle cost estimate and economic assessment;Environmental, regulatory and permitting issues

April 2005 to

May 2006

Phase I –Project FeasibilityDefinition Study

Funding CostKey ActivitiesDurationPhase

ObjectiveTo demonstrate the feasibility of tidal in-stream power to provide efficient, reliable, environmentally friendly and cost-effective electrical energy

To create a push towards the development of a commercial market for this technology.

4

Why is EPRI Interested?

• We believe that a balanced and diversified portfolio of energy supply sources is the foundation of a reliable and robust electrical system

• Tidal In Stream Energy Conversion (TISEC) deserves to be looked at as one of our energy supply portfolio options. TISEC– High Power Density – Predictable – ease of integrating into the grid– Avoids aesthetic issues by being submerged

• In addition, TISEC provides the full suite of benefits inherent with sustainable indigenous renewable energy– Jobs and economic development– No emissions and environmentally benign compared to other

electricity generation technologies– Reduces dependency on foreign supplies

• We want to help answer the key question - what are the TISEC economics for North America ?

5

Earth-Moon-Sun Tidal Forces

The solar tidal bulge is only 46% as high as the lunar tidal bulge. While the lunar bulge migrates around the Earth once every 27 days; the solar bulge migrates around the Earth once every 365 days. As the lunar bulge moves into and out of phase with solar bulge, this gives rise to spring and neap tides.

6

Tidal Power Feasibility Study Approach

Site Survey003 Reports

Available Tidal Current Power

001 Report

Extracted Power001 Report

Maximum Annual Output on001 Report

Actual Annual Output001 Report

Final Design and Economic

Assessment Reports 006 Report

Cost and Economics

Methodology002 Report

Device Survey 004 Report

Tidal Current Power Resource

Extraction Efficiency

Power Chain Efficiency

Availability

O&M Costs

Capital Costs

System Design

Methodology005 Report

MethodologyReports

Survey Report Design and Economics Reports

Env and Reg Issues 007 Report

7

Participants

Federal (3)U.S. DOE

NREL

Bonneville Power

Utilities (11)Bangor Hydro

Central Maine PowerNational Grid

NSTARNB PowerNS Power

Anchorage MuniChugach

Tacoma PowerPuget Sound Energy

PG&E

Provincial/State/City Agencies (8)

Maine Tech InitiativeMass Tech CollaborativeNew Brunswick Ministry

Nova Scotia MinistryAlaska Energy Authority

Washington CTEDSan Francisco & Oakland

CA

Tidal Power Developers (8)

GCKLunar Energy

Marine Current TurbinesOpen HydroSeapower

SMD HydrovisionUEK

Verdant

Institutes (3)Virginia Tech ARI

Bedford Oceanography

EPRI

EPRI PROJECTEPRI

M. PrevisicGlobal Energy Partners

Devine TarbellNREL

Va TechUniv of WA

8

Site Summary

AK WA CA MA ME NB NS

Cross-section Area (m2) 71,780 62,600 74,700 17,500 36,000 24,000 225,000

Power Density - Depth Averaged (kW/m2)

1.6 1.7 3.2 0.95 2.9 0.94 4.5

Avg Annual Power Available (MW)

116 100 237 13.3 104 23 1,013

Avg Annual Power Available (MW) Extractable (15%) (MW

17.4 16 35.5 2 15.6 3.5 152

No of Homes Powered (1.3 kW/Avg US home –source IEA 2003) & 90% conversion efficiency

12,000 11,100 27,300 1,500 12,000 2,700 117,000

9

Does anyone know what this is?

10

TISEC Devices

• GCK (Gorlov)

• Lunar Energy

• Marine Current Turbines

• Open Hydro

• SeaPower

• SMD Hydrovision

• UEK

• Verdant

11

UK-Based Lunar Energy

12

UK-Based Marine Current Turbines

Marine Current Turbines300 kW SeaFlow

Marine Current Turbines1.2 – 2.5 MW SeaGen

13

UK-Based SMD Hydrovision

14

Swedish-Based Seapower

15

US-Based Underwater Electric Kite (UEK) and Open Hydro

Open Hydro

UEK

16

US-Based Verdant Power & GCKEast River, New York, NY GCK Gorlov Turbine barge-

mounted testing on Merrimack River, MA

Verdant Horizontal Axial Turbine GorlovVertical-Axis

Turbine

17

Design PerformanceState Site AK AK WA CA CA

TISEC Device Lunar MCT MCT Lunar MCTRated Power– Single Unit Pilot Plant (MW)

1.1 0.8 0.7 1.3 1.1

# of Units – Com’lPlant

69 66 64 50 42

Avg/Max Yrly Power – Com’l Plant (MW)

11 75

14.6 50

13.7 46

13.6 65

15.5 21

1) Design reference points: RT2000 Lunar and 18 m dual rotor MCT SeaGen

2) Development Status: Lunar RTT 1000 is in first commercial prototype design for system testing at EMEC in 2007. Lunar RTT2000 is a scale up of the RT1000 design. The RT1000 and 2000 are fully submerged and rests on the sea bed

3) MCT Development Status: 16 and 18 m dual rotor surface piercing SeaGen commercial prototypes are designed. The 16m version is in fabrication for installation at Strangford in 2006. The non surface piercing MCT 2nd Generation machine will use the same blades and power train and will be designed after reliability demonstration of SeaGen.

4) Extraction limit is 35.5 MW. Shortness of Golden Gate passage and existing machines limit the extraction to about 15 MW

18

Design Basis for Independent Cost Estimates - MCT 16m Dual Rotor SeaGen Fabrication – May 2006

Interface with pileGeotechnical

testing at Strangford

Gearbox

Turbine Blade Mold

19

Cost (M$) – Based on MCT SeaGen (18 m dual)

AK WA CA

Pilot Plant Cap Cost 4.7 4.1 5.6

Commercial Plant (# of Units) 66 64 42Avg Yearly Power (MW) 17 13.7 15.5Commercial Plant Cap Cost

Power Conversion 32.9 30.2 32.0

Structural Elements 41.0 38.7 29.9

Subsea Cables 1.6 0.8 3.0

Turbine Installation 21.1 20.6 14.4

Subsea Cable Install 10.7 9.5 10.5

Onshore Interconnect 0.2 0.5 0.5

TOTAL 107.4 100.5 90.2

Yearly O&M and Insurance 4.0 3.8 3.6

20

Agenda

9:00 – 9:15 Introductions Roger Bedard

9:15 - :9:30 Welcome Gary Armfield



10:30 – 11:00 Device Technology Mirko Previsic

11:00 – 11:30 Plant Design/Cost Methodology Mirko Previsic






2:30 - 3:00 Economic Methodology Assessment, Roger Bedard





21

Resource and Performance Methodology

April 26, 2006Brian Polagye

22agenda,04-26-06,PM.ppt

Agenda

• Resource Methodology

• Performance Methodology

23101,04-26-06,PM.ppt

Tidal action is driven by gravitational interaction of water with sun and moon

Source of Tidal Energy- Overview - ResourceResource

• Gravitational mass of sun and moon pull on earth’s oceans

• Causes water to rise and fall • Greatest range occurs when sun and moon pull in same direction (spring tide)

• Weakest when sun and moon in opposition (neap tide)

24105,04-26-06,PM.ppt

The influence of the alignment of moon and sun is clear from the periodic nature of current velocity

Current Velocity- Time Varying Profile - ResourceResource

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

1-Feb 6-Feb 11-Feb 16-Feb 21-Feb 26-Feb

Date

Cur

rent

Vel

ocity

(m/s)

Neap Tides

Spring Tides

25106,04-26-06,PM.ppt

Some sites show a high diurnality – strong tide followed by weak

Current Velocity- Diurnality - ResourceResource

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

1-Feb 6-Feb 11-Feb 16-Feb 21-Feb 26-Feb

Date

Cur

rent

Vel

ocity

(m/s)

26110,04-26-06,PM.ppt

Power is proportional to the cube of velocity

Power Flux- Overview - ResourceResource

Velocity

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

1-Feb 3-Feb 5-Feb 7-Feb 9-Feb

Date

Cur

rent

Vel

ocity

(m/s)

Power

0

5

10

15

20

25


DatePo

wer

Flu

x (k

W/m

2 )

3

21 VP ρ=

27101,04-26-06,PM.ppt

The elevation difference between mouth and end of estuary gives rise to a velocity gradient

Tides in Estuaries- Velocity Source - ResourceResource

Seabed

Estuary Inlet

Estuary BasinFlood

tide

Estuary Inlet

• Slack water―Constant water height―No velocity

• Flood Tide―Water higher at inlet than

in main basin―Water flows into estuary

• Ebb Tide―Water higher in main basin

than at inlet―Water flows out of estuary

Ebb Tide

Estuary Inlet

28103,04-26-06,PM.ppt

Tidal streams have two kinds of energy – potential and kinetic

Tidal EnergiesResourceResource

• Energy embodied by height of water

Potential Energy Kinetic Energy

• Energy embodied by velocity of water

[ ]mHeight smGravity

s

kgFlow Mass

Power Potential

2 x

x

⎥⎦⎤

⎢⎣⎡

⎥⎦⎤

⎢⎣⎡

=2

smVelocity

skgFlow Mass

21

Power Kinetic

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛⎥⎦⎤

⎢⎣⎡

⎥⎦⎤

⎢⎣⎡

=

xx

• Extraction of potential energy is the principle behind tidal barrages

• Extraction of kinetic energy is the principle behind in-stream tidal

In general, Potential Energy much greater than Kinetic EnergyIn general, Potential Energy much greater than Kinetic Energy

29104,04-26-06,PM.ppt

Kinetic energy flux is greatly enhanced by constrictions. Potential energy is converted to kinetic.

Constriction Effect- Example - ResourceResource

Solve Equations

222111 ByUByU =

Top View

3000 m (B1) 1500 m (B2)

Side View

60 m (y1)

? (y2)

10 m (z2)

Velocity (U2) = ?

Velocity (U1) = 2 m/s

22

22

1

21

22zy

gU

yg

U++=+

U2 = 4.9 m/s y2 = 49 m

Potential and Kinetic Energy Exchange

KineticPotential

Total

Position 1 Position 20.7 GW 4.4 GW

216.8 GW 213.1 GW

217.5 GW 217.5 GW

Constriction gives 15x increase in kinetic power flux (GW/m2)

Constriction gives 15x increase in kinetic power flux (GW/m2)

Area

Kinetic Flux180,000 m2 73,500 m2

4.1 kW/m2 60 kW/m2

30112,04-26-06,PM.ppt

Channel power calculation combines estimates for power flux and area

Resource Methodology- Channel Power - ResourceResource

Kinetic Power Flux (kW/m2)

Channel Area (m2) =x Channel Power (kW)

Need velocity and area data to calculate resource

31108,04-26-06,PM.ppt

There are several sources of velocity data – each with strengths and weaknesses

Channel Velocity- Sources - ResourceResource

Data SourceData Source AdvantagesAdvantages DisadvantagesDisadvantages

ADCP(Acoustic Doppler Current Profiling)

CFD(Computational Fluid

Dynamics)

NOAA Predictions

• Measurements reflect actual site conditions

• Flow field fully specified

• Data not available for all sites

• Flow field fully specified • Data not available for all sites• Models may be too coarse• Numerical errors

• Good data availability • Requires assumptions for horizontal and vertical profiles

• Prediction for single point

32100,04-26-06,PM.ppt

CFD models may not accurately resolve bathymetric features

PRISM Model- Bathymetry and Power - ResourceResource

PRISM Bathymetry PRISM Depth Averaged Power

Solve Navier-Stokes equations for mass

and momentum subject to estuary inlet tidal range Maximum Power

Actual bathymetry much more

complex?

33107,04-26-06,PM.ppt

Velocity decreases with depth. We have assumed an idealized 1/10th velocity profile for all sites and that velocity is uniform across the channel.

Velocity Profile- Assumptions - ResourceResource

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Velocity (m/s)

Dep

th (m

)Waterline

101

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛=

oo z

zuu

Assumed Uniform Profile Real Flow Conditions

34109,04-26-06,PM.ppt

NOAA Current Predictions- Approach - ResourceResource

Raw Data

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4


DateC

urre

nt V

eloc

ity (m

/s)

Sinusoidal Fit

1,2, slackslack ttT −=

-4-3-2-10123

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Current Velocity

Slack 2 Slack 3

Slack 1

Max Flood

Max Ebbt1

t2

( ) ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛=

TtUtu πsinmax

Time

35111,04-26-06,PM.ppt

Channel cross-sectional area is estimated using mean lower low water (MLLW) as a reference

Channel Area- Overview - ResourceResource

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Distance (m)

Depth (m)

Waterline

Baseline: Channel area at mean lower low water (MLLW)

Lower than MLLW: Subtract rectangular prism from channel area

Higher than MLLW: Add rectangular prism to channel area

36

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Channel Power Extraction Limit

Ave

rage

Pow

er (M

W)

113,04-26-06,PM.ppt

Only a fraction of the channel power is available for extraction

Energy Extraction- Limits - ResourceResource

Environmental extraction limited to 15% average

resource

37agenda,04-26-06,PM.ppt

Agenda

• Resource Methodology

• Performance Methodology

38

05

1015202530354045

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Velocity (m/s)

Dep

th (m

)

Waterline

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

0.1 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.7

Surface Velocity (m/s)

Freq

uenc

y

006,04-26-06,PM.ppt

The first step is to adjust surface velocities to the hub height

Performance Methodology- Velocity Profile to Power Output - PerformancePerformance

Step 1: Surface Velocity Histogram

• Assume surface currents representative of entire turbine transect

• Detailed design will require on-site measurements

Step 2: Adjust Velocity Profile to Hub Height

• Assume 1/10th power law to model turbulent velocity profile

• Input turbine hub height, depth, and surface velocity to calculate hub-height velocity

101

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛=

oo z

zuu

39

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

0.09 0.64 1.19 1.75 2.3 2.85 3.4

Hub-Height Velocity (m/s)

Freq

uenc

y

007,04-26-06,PM.ppt

Power at the hub height is related to velocity by a cube law


Step 3: Hub-Height Velocity Histogram Step 4: Hub Height Flow Power

Area Turbine Density Velocity21Power 3 xx=

010002000300040005000600070008000

0 1 2 3 4

Hub-Height Velocity (m/s)H

ub-H

eigh

t Pow

er (k

W)

40008,04-26-06,PM.ppt

Extracted and electric power depend on device ratings and component efficiencies


Step 5: Power Extracted Step 6: Electric Power

0200400600800

1000120014001600

0 1 2 3 4


Pow

er E

xtra

cted

(kW

)

I II III

• Region I: velocity below cut-in― Rotor does not turn― No power extracted

• Region II: velocity above cut-in― Power extracted = Flow Power x

Rotor Efficiency• Region II: velocity above rated

― Power extracted = Rated power

0200400600800

1000120014001600

0 1 2 3 4


Ele

ctri

c Po

wer

(kW

)• Electric Power = Extracted Power x

Power Take Off Efficiency ― Gearbox― Generator

• Same shape as extraction curve

41009,04-26-06,PM.ppt

Performance Methodology

The final step is to use the distribution of velocities to calculated averages

- Velocity Profile to Power Output - PerformancePerformance

Step 7: Average Performance

• Current velocity

• Extracted power

• Electric Power

• Capacity Factor

• Annual energy generated

0200400600800

1000120014001600

0 1 2 3 4


Ele

ctri

c Po

wer

(kW

)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

0.09 0.64 1.19 1.75 2.3 2.85 3.4


Freq

uenc

y

42

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

001,04-26-06,PM.ppt

The electric power produced is only a small fraction of the kinetic energy passing across the device rotor

Turbine Performance- Flow Power to Electric Power - PerformancePerformance

Flow Power

= Power Flux (kW/m2) x Rotor Area (m2)

Extraction Loss

Extracted Power

= Flow Power (kW) x Rotor Efficiency

Gearbox Loss

Generator Loss

Electric Power

= Extracted Power (kW) x Gearbox Efficiency x Generator Efficiency

Power(kW)

620

371

249

57 15 177

Maximum Rotor Efficiency = 59%

43002,04-26-06,PM.ppt

Component efficiencies are not constant, but rather scale with load

Component Efficiency- Load Curves - PerformancePerformance

Overall Efficiency = Rotor Efficiency x Gearbox Efficiency x Generator EfficiencyOverall Efficiency = Rotor Efficiency x Gearbox Efficiency x Generator Efficiency

Developed using wind

turbine performance

analogues and manufacturer

data

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Device Load (% rated power)

Com

pone

nt E

ffici

ency

RotorGeneratorGearbox

44003,04-26-06,PM.ppt

Power produced and power available in the flow diverge beyond rated power

Power Curve- Device Output - PerformancePerformance

Rated power chosen to minimize cost of energyRated power chosen to minimize cost of energy

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Current Velocity (m/s)

Pow

er (k

W)

Fluid Power

Electric Power

45004,04-26-06,PM.ppt

As a result, electric power production does not track fluid power over the tidal cycle

Device Output- Comparison to Power Flux - PerformancePerformance

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

0:00 2:24 4:48 7:12 9:36 12:00 14:24 16:48 19:12 21:36 0:00

Time

Pow

er (k

W)

Fluid Power

Electric Power

46005,04-26-06,PM.ppt

Device Electric Output

Turbine output shows significant short term variability, but consistent average power over the course of a year

PerformancePerformance

0200400600800

10001200

0:00 4:48 9:36 14:24 19:12 0:00

Time

Pow

er (k

W)

Annual Average = 177 kW

Single Day

0200400600800

10001200

2/1 2/3 2/5 2/7 2/9 2/11 2/13 2/15

Time

Pow

er (k

W)

Tidal Cycle

0

100

200

300

400

500

1/1 2/20 4/11 5/31 7/20 9/8 10/28 12/17

Date

Ave

rage

Pow

er (k

W)

Daily Average

0

50

100

150

200

250

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov Dec

Month

Ave

rage

Pow

er (k

W)

Monthly Average

47

In Stream Tidal Energy Conversion Device and System Design Technology

April 26, 2006Mirko Previsic

EPRI Design Task Lead

48

Outline• Lunar Energy

– Performance– Evolution– Installation– Operation and Maintenance

• Marine Current Turbines– Performance– Evolution– Installation– Operation and Maintenance

• Plant System Design

• Electrical Interconnection

• Cost Model

49

UK-Based Lunar Energy

50

Lunar Energy RTT 2000 Device Specifications

Seabed

Inlet Diameter21 m

Surface

Surface Clearance 15 m (min)

Hub Height20.5 m Seabed Clearance

10 m

Device Characteristics

• Hydraulic gearbox• Induction generator• Gravity Foundation• Device weight: 2383 t

— Structural steel: 1085 t— Concrete and Aggregate: 1299 t

Device Performance

• Cut-in speed: 1.0 m/s• Rated Speed: chosen for min COE• Availability: 95%• Transmission Losses: 2%

51

Lunar Energy Device Spacing

Downstream Spacing10 x Rotor Diameter(210 m from end of duct)

Lateral Spacing½ x Rotor Diameter(10.5 m)

Seabed

18 m

10.5m

Surface

21m

Turbine Wake

52

Lunar Energy Device Performance

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Flow Speed (m/s)

Power (kW)

Fluid PowerElectric Power

02000400060008000

100001200014000160001800020000

216 220 224 228 232 236 240 244 248 252

Time (hours)

Pow

er (k

W)

Flow PowerLunar Turbine Power

53

Lunar Energy Device Evolution and Installation

54

UK-Based Marine Current Turbines (MCT)

Marine Current Turbines300 kW SeaFlow

Marine Current Turbines1.2 – 2.5 MW SeaGen

55

MCT SeaGen Device Specifications

Seabed

Rotor Diameter18 m

Surface

10 m

Seabed Penetration18-30 m

OD pile foundation3.5 m

Surface Clearance (commercial)15 m (min)

Hub Height17 m

Tip-to-Tip Separation46 m

Seabed Clearance8 m

Device Characteristics

• Planetary gearbox• Induction generator• Monopile foundation• Device weight: 290 t

— Monopile: 213 t— Crossbar: 77 t

Device Performance

• Cut-in speed: 0.7 m/s• Rated Speed: chosen for min COE• Availability: 95%• Transmission Losses: 2%

Pile Length68 m

56

MCT Spacing

Seabed

18 m

9 m

Surface

10 m

Downstream Spacing10 x Rotor Diameter(180 m)

Turbine Wake

Lateral Spacing½ x Rotor Diameter(9 m)

57

MCT SeaGen Performance and Evolution

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Flow Speed (m/s)

Power (kW)

Fluid PowerElectric Power

02000400060008000

1000012000140001600018000

216 220 224 228 232 236 240 244 248 252

Time (hours)

Pow

er (k

W)

Flow PowerMCT Turbine Power

58

MCT SeaGen Installation

59

MCT SeaGen MaintenanceOperation Maintenance

60

Pilot Demonstration PlantSurface

Seabed

61

Plant DesignCommercial Scale

Seabed

15 m (minimum)

Surface

3.5m OD pile foundation

62

Costing Model• Cost Drivers

– Design Current Speed– Velocity Distribution– Seabed Composition– Number of Installed Units

• Power Conversion Train based on Wind Cost Study by NREL with necessary adjustments for water turbines

• Structural Steel Elements weight based on load analysis and costs on rule of thumb cost per ton guidelines

• Subsea Cable costs based on vendor quotations

• Installation estimates based communications with the marine construction industry

63

Summary – Accuracy Range for Cost Data

Cost Estimate Rating

A Mature

B Commercial

C Demonstration

D Pilot

E Conceptual

(Idea or Lab)

A. Actual 0 - - - - B. Detailed -5 to +5 -10 to +10 -15 to +20 - - C. Preliminary -10 to +10 -15 to +15 -20 to +20 -25 to +30 -30 to +50 D. Simplified -15 to +15 -20 to _20 -25 to +30 -30 to +30 -30 to +80 E. Goal - -30 to +70 -30 to +80 -30 to +100 -30 to +200

A – Actual – Data on detailed process and mechanical designs with historical data from existing unitsB – Detailed – Detailed process and mechanical design and cost estimate but no historical dataC – Preliminary – Preliminary process and mechanical designD- Simplified - Simplified process and mechanical designE – Goal – Technical design/cost goal or cost estimate developed from literature data

See EPRI TP 002 NA Economic Assessment Methodology Report

64

Cairn Point AnchorageIn-Stream Tidal Power Plant Feasibility Study

Design Performance and Cost



65agenda,04-26-06,AK.ppt

Agenda

• Site Data

• Device Selection

• Pilot Plant

• Commercial Plant


Agenda

• Site Data― Site Overview― Currents and Power― Seabed― Electrical Interconnection


• Pilot Plant


67001,04-26-06,AK.ppt

Knik Arm is the northernmost branch of Cook Inlet

SiteSite

Port of Anchorage

Port MacKenzie

Knik Arm- Site Overview -

Elmendorf AFB

Point MacKenzie

Cairn PointArray Site

68

-60-50

-40-30-20-10

010

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500Distance (m)

Dep

th (m

- M

LL

W)

202,04-26-06,AK.ppt

Cairn Point has been selected as the feasibility study site due to resource and depth considerations

Site Overview- Cairn Point - SiteSite

Cairn Point

NW of Cairn Point2490 m

Power Density(Depth Average)

1.6 kW/m2

Avg. Power Available 116 MW

Avg. Power Extractable(15% extraction)

17 MW

Number of Homes (1.3 kW per home)

12,0000%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

0.1 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.7Surface Velocity (m/s)

Freq

uenc

y

Max Depth = 59 m

Avg Depth = 29 m

NE of Cairn Point

Array Site

69006,04-26-06,AK.ppt

Cairn Point is one of only a few deep water sites in all of Knik Arm

Bathymetry- Cairn Point Transect - SiteSite

Knik Arm<00-55-1010-1515-2020-2525-3030-3535-4040-4545-5050-5555-6060-6565+

MLLW Depth (m)

Cairn Point

Array Site

Ebb Eddies

Flood Eddies

70007,04-26-06,AK.ppt

The seabed at the site is dense sand. Seabed movement is a significant concern.

Seabed- Cairn Point Transect - SiteSite

Movement study required• Identify low-movement

areas• Design foundations in

expectation of movement?

Dense sand seabed• Some cobbles• Standard penetration test in

excess of 100 blows per foot• Geotechnical data from

proposed bridge crossing

71008,04-26-06,AK.ppt

Interconnection to Anchorage via Elmendrof Air Force Base

Interconnection- Cairn Point Transect -

SiteSite

Elmendorf AFB • Until recently, Elmendrof AFB

managed generation and grid on base – interconnection expertise

• Pilot interconnection at 12 kV

Power Take-off

Overbuild line to Anchorage (5.4 miles) • Commercial interconnection at

115 kV – requires overbuild of 35 kV back to Anchorage

72009,04-26-06,AK.ppt

Despite a strong resource, construction of a pilot or commercial plant at Cairn Point faces a number of serious obstacles

Other Site Specific Issues- Cairn Point Transect -

SiteSite

Pt. Evans channel marker

• Concern over turbine interaction with marine mammals and fish―Beluga whales in Cook Inlet are critically endangered―Multiple species of salmon

• Possible expansion of shipping traffic to Port MacKenzie if bridge built

• Eddies off Cairn Point during ebb and flood

• Extremely high degree of sedimentation in water

• Seasonal ice pack from late November until mid March―70% ice cover in Knik Arm for 3-4 months―Large bodies of beach ice from upper Knik Arm (sediment and ice, up to 12m thick)―Frazil ice below main pack

• Cairn Point in firing fan of old gunnery range – possible UXO


Agenda

• Site Data


• Pilot Plant


74010,04-26-06,WA.ppt

Device DevelopersDeviceDevice

GCK (Gorlov)

Lunar Energy

Marine Current Turbines

Open Hydro

SeaPower

SMD Hydrovision

UEK

Verdant

Next Generation

• A number of devices were not considered due to unresolved design issues (too far from pilot)―Maintenance―Foundation―Power train

• Due to ice pack and beach ice clearance, only deep water, fully submerged systems possible

75101,04-26-06,WA.ppt

Due to ice and sedimentation considerations, only Lunar RTT 2000 or fully submerged MCT array would be suitable for deployment

Device Selection- Cairn Point Transect - DeviceDevice

• Testing of scaled down version planned at EMEC in 2007

Lunar RTT 2000

• Next-generation design• Fully submerged

―Requires new support structure and lifting mechanism

―Same power train and foundation as SeaGen• Requires further development prior to

deployment

Fully Submerged MCT

Neither device ready for immediate pilot testing

76102,04-26-06,AK.ppt

Device selection is intended to address site specific concerns. Some concerns at Cairn Point unique for study and may not have easy solutions.

Device Selection- Driving Factors -

DeviceDevice

CategoryCategory IssueIssue Design ApproachDesign Approach

Marine Ecosystem • Endangered Beluga whales• Multiple species of salmon

• Screening of rotors may be possible if high sedimentation reduces bio-accumulation rates

• Substantial downstream, lateral, seadbed, and overhead clearances for unrestricted passage

Shipping Traffic • Potential increase in shipping traffic to Port MacKenzie

• Turbine deployment at edge of possible shipping lane• 12m (LAT) overhead clearance planned

Eddies and Turbulence

• Eddies and large-scale turbulence degrade turbine operation and shorten life

• Eddies on both sides of channel

• No turbine deployment in suspected eddy regions

Sedimentation • High levels of suspended sediment

• No divers for installation or maintenance• May require ROV maintenance to clean duct

Seasonal Ice Pack • No access to turbines in winter• Beach ice and frazil ice

• Fully submerged turbines with 12m (LAT) overhead clearance to avoid “interaction” with ice

• Devices which do not require frequent intervention


Agenda

• Site Data


• Pilot Plant― Design― Cost


78107,04-26-06,AK.ppt

The pilot plant would be located as close to shore as clearance considerations allow

Pilot Plant Design- Layout - PilotPilot

Description of Pilot

• Single turbine • Lunar RTT 2000• Fully submerged MCT

• Installation in 40 m water

Key Aspects of Pilot Test

• Installation in dense sand• Verify performance predictions• Monitor bio-accumulation rates• Monitor turbine impact on

ecosystem (e.g. marine mammal interaction)

• Monitor ice depth

• Electrical cable rated to 13.5kV trenched back to shore

79106,04-26-06,AK.ppt

Estimated cost for the pilot is $4.7M – split evenly between equipment, installation, and grid interconnection.

Pilot Plant Design- Capital Cost - PilotPilot

Not Included in Cost Estimate

• Permitting and regulatory costs• Detailed engineering design (and associated surveys)• Monitoring equipment to satisfy regulatory concerns

$/kWComponent $/Turbine %

• Power Conversion System• Structural Steel Elements• Turbine Installation

• Subsea Cable Cost• Subsea Cable Installation• Onshore Grid Interconnection

$1428$839

$1899

$60$1,198

$790

$1,083,885$636,784

$1,442,000

$45,600$909,605$600,000

23%14%31%

1%19%13%

$6214 $4,717,874 100%Total Installed Cost

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

$4.0

$4.5

$5.0

Cap

ital C

ost (

$ M

M)

Equipment

Installation

Electrical Connection

31%

33%

37%

Cost Chain Project Cost BreakdownMCT ArrayMCT Array


Agenda

• Site Data

• TISEC Device

• Pilot Plant

• Commercial Plant― Design― Performance― Cost― Economic Assessment

81200,04-26-06,AK.ppt

The commercial plant would be sited in deep water channel near Cairn Point

Commercial Plant Design- Layout - CommercialCommercial

Turbine

Electrical Cable

Lunar ArrayLunar Array

Infrastructure

• Deploy 69 RTT 2000 turbines— Fully submerged— Arranged in 6 transects— 48 m average installation depth

• 11,600 m of subsea cable— Array operates at 33 kV— Ring connections for redundancy

• Trench 2800 m and directionally drill 950 m

— Trench into seabed between transects

— Directionally drill to shore— Multiple cables per trench

Performance

• Extracts, on average, 17 MW from tidal stream

— 15% of average channel power

• On average, generates 11 MW electric power

— Peak power of 75 MW— Sufficient to power 9,100 homes— Capacity factor of 15%— 99,300 MWh annual generation

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1/1 2/20 4/11 5/31 7/20 9/8 10/28 12/17

Date

Ave

rage

Pow

er (M

W)

Daily Average Electric Power

82201,04-26-06,AK.ppt

The MCT array would be deployed in the same area


Turbine

Electrical Cable

MCT ArrayMCT ArrayInfrastructure

• Deploy 66 dual-rotor turbines— Fully submerged— Arranged in 7 transects— 46 m average installation dept— 19,700 tons of equipment

• 13,800 m of subsea cable— Array operates at 33 kV— Ring connections for redundancy




Performance



• On average, generates 14.6 MW electric power

— Peak power of 50.1 MW— Sufficient to power 11,200 homes— Capacity factor of 29%— 128,100 MWh annual generation

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1/1 2/20 4/11 5/31 7/20 9/8 10/28 12/17

Date

Ave

rage

Pow

er (M

W)


83104,04-26-06,AK.ppt

The installed cost of a commercial array would be around $100MM. Per turbine costs are lower than for the pilot due to economies of scale.

Commercial Plant Design- Capital Cost -

CommercialCommercial




$657$817$422

$32$213

$4

$498,512$620,469$320,216

$24,059$161,696

$3030

31%38%20%

2%10%0%


$0.0

$0.2

$0.4

$0.6

$0.8

$1.0

$1.2

$1.4

$1.6

$1.8

Cap

ital C

ost (

$ M

M)

Equipment

Installation


20%

12%

69%

$/Array

$32,901,792$40,950,960$21,134,248

$1,587,920$10,671,914

$200,000

$107,446,835

Cost Chain Project Cost Breakdown

Capital Cost Uncertainties

• Cost estimate based on unscreened SeaGen installation in 30 m water―Proxy for next-generation fully submerged turbine―Does not include effect or cost of screening rotor (if necessary)

• Limited local experience with projects of this type and scope―Assumes long distance directional drilling from bluffs to array possible

MCT ArrayMCT Array

84105,04-26-06,AK.ppt

The operating cost for a commercial array is approximately $4MM per year.

Commercial Plant Design- Operating Cost -



• Operations and Maintenance• Insurance

$49$32

$36,885$24,420

60%40%

$81 $61,305 100%Total Operating Cost

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

Ope

ratin

g C

ost (

$ 00

0)

Insurance

Scheduled and Unscheduled Maintenance

60%

40%

$/Array

$2,434,438$1,611,703

$4,046,141

Cost Chain

Project Cost Breakdown

Operating Cost Uncertainties

• Cost estimate based on unscreened SeaGen installation in 30 m water―Proxy for next-generation fully submerged turbine―Assuming maintenance costs will be similar for fully submerged turbine―Assumes screening will not introduce additional maintenance requirements

MCT ArrayMCT Array

85

Cairn Point Tidal Plant Design, Performance, Cost and Economics Report (EPRI TP 006-AK) is in Draft Form

Final Report will be posted on http://www.epri.com/oceanenergy/

May 2006 Time Period

86

Golden Gate San Francisco In Stream Tidal Power Plant Feasibility Study



EPRI Design Performance and Cost Task Lead

87

Outline

• Site Data– The Tidal Current Resource– Grid Interconnection and nearby Port Facilities – Bathymetry and Seabed Composition– Navigation and Other Site Considerations

• Pilot and Commercial Scale Design

• Pilot and Commercial Scale Plant Cost

88

Site Location

TISEC Site

12.6 kV Pilot Interconnection

Embarcadero Substation

Hunters Point Shipyard

Subsea Cable

89

Plant Designs

90

Site Tidal Current Velocity Source

Ref Station: at Transect B

Location: 0.5 km east of bridge

Latitude: 37o 17 09’ N

Longitude: 122o 32’ 40’ W

Extrapolated velocity profile to from B to A

Transect A Width : 1,380 m

Transect A Mean Depth: 54 m

Transect B Width 2,190 m

Transect B Mean Depth 64 m

Area Ratio of B to A: 1.87

91

Site Velocity Distribution

Golden Gate Site Potential

Power Density(Depth Averaged)

3.2 kW/m2



35.5 MW


27,300

Velocity (m/s)

92


-5-4-3-2-1012345

0 5 10 15 20

Time (days)

Velo

city

(m/s

)

05

101520

2530354045

0 5 10 15 20

Time (days)

Pow

er (k

W/m

^2)

-2.5-2

-1.5-1

-0.50

0.51

1.52

2.53

0 10 20 30 40

Time (hours)

Vel

ocity

(m/s

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 10 20 30 40

Time (hours)

Pow

er (k

W/m

^2)

93

Bathymetry

94

Sedimentation

95101,04-26-06,WA.ppt


Lunar RTT 2000




deployment

Fully Submerged MCT


Suitable Technology

96

Technology extraction limitMCT Lunar

Turbine Diameter 2 x 18m 21m

Device Width 46m 21m

Device Spacing 9m 10.5m

Channel width per device 55m 31.5m

Downstream Spacing 185m 235m

Useful Channel Length 400m 400m

Useful Channel Width 790m 790m

# of Turbines per Row 14 25

# of Rows 3 2

Total # of Turbines deployable 42 50

Average Power Extracted per Turbine 369kW 273kW

15% Extraction Limit 35.5MW 35.5MW

Technology Specific Extraction Limit 15.5MW 13.6MW

97

Pilot Plant Cost $/kW $/Turbine in % Power Conversion System $1,428 $1,589,000 28.1%Structural Steel Elements $746 $831,000 14.8%Subsea Cable Cost $103 $115,000 2.0%Turbine Installation $1,295 $1,442,000 25.7%Subsea Cable Installation $1,295 $1,430,000 25.7%Onshore Electric Grid Interconection $180 $200,000 3.6% Total Installed Cost $5,048 $5,619,000 100.0%

- Single SeaGen unit installed in close proximity to Golden Gate Bridge- Only capital cost is evaluated, operational, consenting and other costs are additional

98

Commercial Plant Cost $/kW $/Turbine $/Farm in % Ref Power Conversion System $718 $799,712 $31,988,000 35% 1Structural Elements $671 $747,281 $29,891,000 33% 2Subsea Cable Cost $67 $74,592 $2,984,000 3% 3Turbine Installation $322 $358,862 $14,354,000 16% 4Subsea Cable Installation $236 $262,299 $10,492,000 12% 5Onshore Electric Grid Interconection $11 $12,500 $500,000 1% 6 Total Installed Cost $2,026 $2,255,246 $90,209,000 100% O&M Cost $50 $55,316 $2,212,644 62% 7Annual Insurance Cost $30 $33,829 $1,353,174 38% 8 Total annual O&M cost $80 $89,145 $3,565,792 100%

99

Summary

San Francisco Tidal Plant Design, Performance, Cost and Economics Report (EPRI TP 006-SF) is in Draft Form

Final Report will be posted on – www.epri.com/oceanenergy/


100

Golden Gate San Francisco In Stream Tidal Power Plant Feasibility Study



EPRI Design Performance and Cost Task Lead

101

Outline

• Site Data– The Tidal Current Resource– Grid Interconnection and nearby Port Facilities – Bathymetry and Seabed Composition– Navigation and Other Site Considerations

• Pilot and Commercial Scale Design

• Pilot and Commercial Scale Plant Cost

102

Site Location

TISEC Site

12.6 kV Pilot Interconnection

Embarcadero Substation

Hunters Point Shipyard

Subsea Cable

103

Plant Designs

104

Site Tidal Current Velocity Source

Ref Station: at Transect B

Location: 0.5 km east of bridge

Latitude: 37o 17 09’ N

Longitude: 122o 32’ 40’ W

Extrapolated velocity profile to from B to A

Transect A Width : 1,380 m

Transect A Mean Depth: 54 m

Transect B Width 2,190 m

Transect B Mean Depth 64 m

Area Ratio of B to A: 1.87

105


Golden Gate Site Potential

Power Density(Depth Averaged)

3.2 kW/m2



35.5 MW


27,300

Velocity (m/s)

106


-5-4-3-2-1012345

0 5 10 15 20

Time (days)

Velo

city

(m/s

)

05

101520

2530354045

0 5 10 15 20

Time (days)

Pow

er (k

W/m

^2)

-2.5-2

-1.5-1

-0.50

0.51

1.52

2.53

0 10 20 30 40

Time (hours)

Vel

ocity

(m/s

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 10 20 30 40

Time (hours)

Pow

er (k

W/m

^2)

107

Bathymetry

108

Sedimentation

109101,04-26-06,WA.ppt


Lunar RTT 2000




deployment

Fully Submerged MCT


Suitable Technology

110

Technology extraction limitMCT Lunar

Turbine Diameter 2 x 18m 21m

Device Width 46m 21m

Device Spacing 9m 10.5m

Channel width per device 55m 31.5m

Downstream Spacing 185m 235m

Useful Channel Length 400m 400m

Useful Channel Width 790m 790m

# of Turbines per Row 14 25

# of Rows 3 2

Total # of Turbines deployable 42 50

Average Power Extracted per Turbine 369kW 273kW

15% Extraction Limit 35.5MW 35.5MW

Technology Specific Extraction Limit 15.5MW 13.6MW

111

Pilot Plant Cost $/kW $/Turbine in % Power Conversion System $1,428 $1,589,000 28.1%Structural Steel Elements $746 $831,000 14.8%Subsea Cable Cost $103 $115,000 2.0%Turbine Installation $1,295 $1,442,000 25.7%Subsea Cable Installation $1,295 $1,430,000 25.7%Onshore Electric Grid Interconection $180 $200,000 3.6% Total Installed Cost $5,048 $5,619,000 100.0%

- Single SeaGen unit installed in close proximity to Golden Gate Bridge- Only capital cost is evaluated, operational, consenting and other costs are additional

112

Commercial Plant Cost $/kW $/Turbine $/Farm in % Ref Power Conversion System $718 $799,712 $31,988,000 35% 1Structural Elements $671 $747,281 $29,891,000 33% 2Subsea Cable Cost $67 $74,592 $2,984,000 3% 3Turbine Installation $322 $358,862 $14,354,000 16% 4Subsea Cable Installation $236 $262,299 $10,492,000 12% 5Onshore Electric Grid Interconection $11 $12,500 $500,000 1% 6 Total Installed Cost $2,026 $2,255,246 $90,209,000 100% O&M Cost $50 $55,316 $2,212,644 62% 7Annual Insurance Cost $30 $33,829 $1,353,174 38% 8 Total annual O&M cost $80 $89,145 $3,565,792 100%

113

Summary

San Francisco Tidal Plant Design, Performance, Cost and Economics Report (EPRI TP 006-SF) is in Draft Form

Final Report will be posted on – www.epri.com/oceanenergy/


114

Point Evans Tacoma In-Stream Tidal Power Plant Feasibility Study




115agenda,04-26-06,WA.ppt

Agenda

• Site Data


• Pilot Plant



Agenda

• Site Data― Site Overview― Currents and Power― Seabed― Electrical Interconnection


• Pilot Plant


117001,04-26-06,WA.ppt

Tacoma Narrows connects the main and southern basins of Puget Sound

SiteSite

Port of Tacoma

Tacoma Narrows Bridge

Point Evans Commercial Plant

Pilot Plant

Tacoma Narrows- Site Overview -

118

-70-60-50-40-30-20-10

010

0 500 1000 1500Distance (m)

Dep

th (m

- M

LL

W)

200,04-26-06,WA.ppt

Site Overview

Point Evans is the site of the strongest in-stream resource in Tacoma Narrows and has been chosen as the site for this feasibility study

- Point Evans - SiteSite

Point Evans

Commercial Plant

Pilot Plant0.1 mi E of Pt. Evans

1490 m

Max Depth = 68 m

Avg Depth = 42 m

Power Density(Depth Average)

1.7 kW/m2



16 MW


11,0000%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

0.1 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.7Surface Velocity (m/s)

Freq

uenc

y

119008,04-26-06,WA.ppt

Interconnection will be on the west side of the Narrows at Point Evans – easy access and pilot/commercial interconnection options

Interconnection- Point Evans Transect -

SiteSite


• Tacoma Power has a right of way (ROW) running south along the bluffs from the channel marker

Tacoma Power ROW

12.47kV distribution line(Penlight)

• Pilot interconnection proposed to Peninsula Power and Light (Penlight) 12.47 kV distribution line

115kV cable crossing towers

115kV transmission line(Tacoma Power)

• Commercial interconnection proposed to Tacoma Power 115kV transmission line

120009,04-26-06,WA.ppt

There are other site specific issues that influence system design

Other Site Specific Issues- Point Evans Transect -

SiteSite


• Tacoma Narrows is a biologically active tidal estuary―Kelp: floating and understory―Barnacles―Marine mammals and fish (e.g. primitive shark near seabed)

• Shipping traffic―Deep draft container vessels bound for Olympia―15m maximum draft―Conventional shipping lane occupies width of bridge caissons (850m)

• Eddies and turbulence―Eddies at Point Evans during ebb and flood―Strong turbulent motions in northern Narrows due to Point Defiance

• Tacoma Narrows is a recreational area―Boating, diving, swimming―Sport fishing south and north of Point Evans in eddies


Agenda

• Site Data


• Pilot Plant


122010,04-26-06,WA.ppt

Device DevelopersDeviceDevice

GCK (Gorlov)

Lunar Energy

Marine Current Turbines

Open Hydro

SeaPower

SMD Hydrovision

UEK

Verdant

Design Device

• A number of devices were not considered due to unresolved design issues (too far from pilot)―Maintenance―Foundation―Power train

• Of the remaining devices, Marine Current Turbines fit the site best

123101,04-26-06,WA.ppt

Variations on a single device have been chosen for the pilot and commercial plant

Device Selection- Point Evans Transect - DeviceDevice

• SeaGen―Dual-rotor―Surface piercing

• Ready for deployment in short-term

Pilot Plant


―Address navigation channel concerns―Requires new support structure and lifting

mechanism―Same power train and foundation as SeaGen

• Requires further development prior to deployment

Commercial Plant

124025,04-26-06,WA.ppt

Device selection is intended to address site specific concerns

Device Selection- Driving Factors -

DeviceDevice

CategoryCategory IssueIssue Design ApproachDesign Approach

Biological Activity • Kelp wrapped around rotors• Bio-accumulation on rotor and

support structure• Marine mammals and fish

• Rope cutters at base of hub• Use of glass-based anti-fouling paints to prevent

bio-accumulation without introducing toxins to ecosystem

• Pilot testing required to verify low-impact

Shipping Traffic • Array footprint overlaps with conventional shipping lane

• 15m LAT (lowest astronomical tide) overhead clearance for fully submerged turbines

• Pilot at edge of shipping lane

Eddies and Turbulence

• Eddies and large-scale turbulence degrade turbine operation and shorten life

• Eddies from bridge and points

• Far enough north of bridge to avoid caisson wake• Far enough offshore to be out of Point Evans eddy• Far enough south for Point Defiance turbulence to

dissipate

Recreational Use • Swimming, diving, fishing all take place in Tacoma Narrows

• May require exclusion zone around turbine array (< 10% total surface area). Enforceable?

• Sport fishing lines unlikely to effect rotors


Agenda

• Site Data

• TISEC Device

• Pilot Plant― Design― Cost


126018,04-26-06,WA.ppt

The surface-piercing pilot turbine would be installed due east of Point Evans

Pilot Plant Design- Layout - PilotPilot

Point Evans

13.5kV cable, trenched or anchored

Trenched overland cable

Description of Pilot

• Single dual-rotor turbine (SeaGen)

• Installation in 35 m water• 716 kW rated power

Key Aspects of Pilot Test

• Installation in hardpan• Verify performance predictions• Monitor bio-accumulation rates• Monitor turbine impact on

ecosystem (e.g. marine mammal interaction)

Pilot Turbine

• Electrical cable rated to 13.5kV trenched or anchored on route back to shoreShipping: 850 m

127019,04-26-06,WA.ppt

Estimated cost for the pilot is $4.1M – split evenly between equipment, installation, and grid interconnection.

Pilot Plant Design- Capital Cost - PilotPilot

Not Included in Cost Estimate

• Permitting and regulatory costs• Detailed engineering design (and associated surveys)• Monitoring equipment to satisfy regulatory concerns




$1428$865

$2014

$25$944$419

$1,022,050$618,934

$1,442,000

$18,240$675,842$300,000

25%15%35%

0%17%7%


$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

$4.0

$4.5

Cap

ital C

ost (

$ M

M)

Equipment

Installation


35%

24%

40%

Cost Chain Project Cost Breakdown


Agenda

• Site Data

• TISEC Device

• Pilot Plant

• Commercial Plant― Design― Performance― Cost― Economic Assessment

129102,04-26-06,WA.ppt

The commercial plant would be sited in deep water east of Point Evans


Turbine

Electrical Cable

Infrastructure

• Deploy 64 dual-rotor turbines— Fully submerged— Arranged in 5 transects— 56 m average installation depth— 18,500 tons of equipment

• 7400 m of subsea cable— Array operates at 33 kV— Ring connections for redundancy




Performance



• On average, generates 13.7 MW electric power

— Peak power of 45.8 MW— Sufficient to power 10,500 homes— Capacity factor of 30%— 120,000 MWh annual generation

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1/1 2/20 4/11 5/31 7/20 9/8 10/28 12/17

Date

Ave

rage

Pow

er (M

W)


130023,04-26-06,WA.ppt

The installed cost of a commercial array would be around $100MM. Per turbine costs are lower than for the pilot due to economies of scale.

Commercial Plant Design- Capital Cost -





$660$845$450

$18$208$11

$472,665$605,062$322,406

$12,699$149,093

$7813

30%39%20%

1%10%1%


$0.0

$0.2

$0.4

$0.6

$0.8

$1.0

$1.2

$1.4

$1.6

$1.8

Cap

ital C

ost (

$ M

M)

Equipment

Installation


20%

12%

69%

Cost Chain

$/Array

$30,250,532$38,723,977$20,633,956

$812,705$9,541,696

$500,000

$100,463,138


Capital Cost Uncertainties

• Cost estimate based on SeaGen installation in 30 m water―Proxy for next-generation fully submerged turbine

• Limited local experience with projects of this type and scope―Deep water drilling required―Assumes directional drilling from bluffs to array possible

131024,04-26-06,WA.ppt

The operating cost for a commercial array is approximately $4MM per year.

Commercial Plant Design- Operating Cost -



• Operations and Maintenance• Insurance

$49$33

$35,313$23,546

60%40%

$82 $58,859 100%Total Operating Cost

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

Ope

ratin

g C

ost (

$ 00

0)

Insurance

Scheduled and Unscheduled Maintenance

60%

40%

Cost Chain

$/Array

$2,260,052$1,506,947

$3,766,999


Operating Cost Uncertainties

• Cost estimate based on SeaGen installation in 30 m water―Proxy for next-generation fully submerged turbine―Assuming maintenance costs will be similar for fully submerged turbine

132

Tacoma Narrows Tidal Plant Design, Performance, Cost and Economics Report (EPRI TP 006-WA) is in Draft Form

Final Report will be posted on http://www.epri.com/oceanenergy/


133

Instream Tidal Power Plant Feasibility Study

General Environmental and Federal Permitting Issues

April 26, 2006

Andre Casavant

Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.

134

Potential Effects - Installation & Decommissioning

Aquatic Life

•Benthos - likely include physical disturbance and temporary effects with redistribution of fine sediment.

–Barge anchoring – damage from chain sweep.

–Pile driving – dredge spoils may degrade benthic habitat.

–HDD – does not expose the surface of seabed, minimizes erosion and suspension of sediment.

–Jet plow – limited duration similar to a storm event, would increase suspended sediment load. Some shellfish have the ability to move away. Clams have the ability to close and survive such events.

135


Aquatic Life (cont’d)

•Sediment disturbance - potential effects to nursery grounds (fish larvae and eggs), however, direct mortality of juvenile and adult fish is not expected.

•Noise and Vibration – may result in marine mammals, fish, and birds avoiding the area and disrupt feeding, migration, and breeding.

136


Water Quality•Construction equipment could release oils or hydraulic fluids.

•Activities could suspend sediment, increase turbidity, disperse contaminated sediment.

•Grouting and cementing may present a concern.

•Comparison to fish trawling – typically short term and localized.

137


Terrestrial Life

•Typical construction activities related to installing shore station, access roads, parking area, staging area, and ROW for grid connection.

•Potential for disturbing wetlands.

•Permanent removal or conversion of terrestrial habitat and cover-type.

•Typically – only temporary effects during construction period with main goal being to avoid altering hydrology of wetlands in order to not permanently affect groundwater discharge, sediment stabilization or other localized wetland functions.

138


Marine/Land Uses

–Commercial fishing

–Recreation access

–Boat traffic

–Road construction and heavy equipment

Cultural/Historic

Tidal region – unlikely

Land components – need to be considered.

139

Potential Effects - Operation & Maintenance

Aquatic Life – Mechanical or Flow Related Injuries (conventional hydro comparison)

-No physical blockages to inhibit fish movement.

-Possibility of fish attraction to accelerated flows.

-Rotor and blade tip speeds are much slower

-Turbine solidity is less – lower strike probability

-Open design limits potential injuries due to pinching or grinding

-Changes in water pressure are significantly less

-No draft tubes or wicket gates

-Minimal turbulence, effect on water temp, and dissolved gases.

-No change in habitat associated with inundating terrestrial areas.

-Minimal visual effects for submerged design.

140


Aquatic Life – Habitat

-Colonization by marine life on pilings is likely.

-Structures or cover are typically sought by fish from predators (Vindeby offshore wind farm study).

-Fishing/trawling exclusion zone for commercial-size projects combined with “artificial reef” effect of project structures, may benefit fish stocks and aquatic community.

-Maintenance activities can result in habitat disturbances similar to those experienced during installation.

141


Aquatic Life – Entanglement/Entrapment

-Not expected from turbine, however entrapment is possible for cables installed above seabed. Options:

-Install below seabed if possible.

-Anchor in a manner to provide maximum contour.

142


Aquatic Life – Noise, Vibrations & EMR

-Not quantified from a TISEC project but expected to be relatively low.

-Excessive vibration could cause marine mammals, fish and birds to avoid project area.

-EMR diminish rapidly in size with distance from source and electric fields can be shielded or attenuated by objects.

143


Water Quality

-TISEC units may contain minor amounts of petroleum based substances which have the potential to release.

-Ambient contaminants in the sediment could become re-suspended due to operation.

-Anti-fouling paints may need to be applied to portions of the turbine.

144


Hydrodynamics

•Changes in tidal energy

–Erosion, sedimentation patterns, suspended sediment–Creation of turbulence and velocity shadows–Reflection or diffraction of waves

•Alteration of substrate type

•Scour around structures

•Changes in vertical mixing (possible implications to plankton)

145


Marine Uses

•Fishing exclusion zone will be required to protect the project.

•Extend zone for transmission cable not buried as it presents an entanglement hazard to anchors and fishing gear.

•Subsurface design should have minimal consequential visual effects in sensitive areas.

•Project features could represent navigation obstacles depending on clearance –boating exclusion zone may be required.

146

Federal Permitting

Hydroelectric projects•Since 1920, U.S. government has asserted jurisdiction as lead agency.

•Construction and operation of non-federal hydroelectric projects requires a license under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), in accordance with Section 23(b) of Federal Power Act.

•FERC regulates development with both preliminary permits and licenses.

147

FERC – Verdant

April 14, 2005 FERC order (111 FERC ¶ 61,024) regarding permitting of six tidal turbines by Verdant Power - FERC licensing not required if:

• Technology is experimental;

• Proposed facilities to be used for short period for purpose of conducting studies supporting preparation of license application; and

• Power generated from test project not to be transmitted into or displace power from the grid.

148

July 27, 2005 FERC Order (112 FERC ¶ 61,143) - Verdant

• In its request for clarification, Verdant asserted that the induction generators it proposes to test must be connected to the grid.

• First 2 criteria of April 14 are met (experimental and short term for purposes of licensing).

• Provide power at no charge and compensate Consolidated Edison (make whole) eliminating any impacts on interstate commerce.

• FERC determines that under the conditions set forth in April 14 Order, as clarified in this order Verdant may test facilities without a license.

149

Preliminary Permit

• Purpose is to maintain the permittee’s priority of application for license

• There are opportunities for competition, however if both or neither applicants are either a municipality or a state, FERC will favor earliest applicant.

• Term is for up to 3 years

• If application for a preliminary permit proposes to use the same water resource as an accepted application for a license, FERC will take action on an accepted license application first.

150

Declaration of Intent

• Purpose is to obtain a FERC determination as to whether the project is FERC jurisdictional.

• Provides an opportunity for the applicant to make a case that the project is not subject to FERC jurisdiction.

• Typically includes a detailed description of the project and a compilation of references to other orders and FERC decisions.

• Proceeding without DOI may result in significant delays if the project is determined to be FERC jurisdictional at a later date.

151

ILP Flowchart

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/indus-act/flowchart.pdf

152

• The USCE is required to review all work or the placement of structures in or affecting navigable waterways.

• To date, until FERC becomes engaged in the licensing process, the USCE often takes the lead federal role in permitting test units in support of FERC license application.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCE) -Section 10 of the Rivers and

Harbors Act of 189933 U.S.C. 403

153

SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACTTITLE 33 - NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS CHAPTER 26 - WATER POLLUTION

PREVENTION AND CONTROLSUBCHAPTER IV - PERMITS AND LICENSES

Sec. 1344. Permits for dredged or fill material

(a) Discharge into navigable waters at specified disposal sites

• The Secretary may issue permits, after notice and opportunity for public hearings for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites.

• For Verdant, USCE determined that installing 6 monopoles meets the definition of “fill”, therefore the project is under USCE jurisdiction.

154

Section 401 CWA – Water Quality Certificate (WQC)

• Any activity requiring a federal action that may result in a discharge into navigable waters is required to obtain certification from the applicable state(s) that any such discharge will comply with respective water quality standards.

• TISEC facility will require a section 401 WQC for USCE permit and/or FERC license.

155

Endangered Species Act

• Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure the permitted or licensed activity does not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify critical habitat.

• USFWS for inland and NOAA Fisheries for marine species.• If agency determines proposed action “may affect” listed species, Section 7

consultation required.– Biological Assessment– Biological Opinion

• Incidental Take Statement• Reasonable and Prudent Measures

156

Other Applicable Regulations

• Coastal Zone Management Act

• National Historic Preservation Act

• Marine Mammal Protection Act

• Migratory Bird Protection Act

• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Act

157

NEPA Review

Under NEPA, federal agencies are required to prepare environmental analyses, with input from the state and local governments, Indian Tribes (First Nation), the public, and other federal agencies, when considering a proposal for a major federal action.

158

Thanks

Andre Casavant

Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.

207-775-4495

[email protected]

159

Agenda

9:00 – 9:15 Introductions Roger Bedard

9:15 - :9:30 Welcome Gary Armfield



10:30 – 11:00 Device Technology Mirko Previsic

11:00 – 11:30 Plant Design/Cost Methodology Mirko Previsic






2:30 - 3:00 Economic Methodology Assessment, Roger Bedard





160

Boat at Low Tide – 9 Steps Each 1 Foot Apart

Difference between high and low tide is 5 Ft. How many steps show at High Tide?

161

Economic Assessment Methodology

• Three Ownership Models– Utility Generator (ie, IOU such as PG&E)– Municipal Generator (eg, Tacoma Power)– Non Utility Generator (ie, IPP such as Calpine)

• Inputs to the Models– Plant Capital and O&M Costs– IOU, Muni and IPP capital structure and equity/debt rates– Fed and State by State Tax Rates and Accelerated

Depreciation– Fed and State by State Incentives (ITC, PTC, REPI and

REC)– IPP Selling Price (Avoided Cost - proxy of wholesale price

state by state) and price forecast model from the DOE EIA)See EPRI TP 003 Rev 1 Report at www.epri.com/oceanenergy/ under Tidal Page

http://www.epri.com/oceanenergy/

162

Cost of Electricity (Levelized – Busbar)

where:• TPI = Total Plant Investment• FCR = Fixed Charge Rate (percent)• O&M = Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost• LO&R = Periodic Levelized Overhaul and Replacement Cost• AEP = Annual Energy Production at Busbar

AEPRLOMOTPIxFCRCOE )&()&()( ++

=

For IPPs:

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is defined as the discount rate that sets the present worth of the net cash flows over the service life equal to the equity investment at the commercial operating date.

163

Capital Structure and Equity/Debt Rates

Percent Nominal Rate

Real Rate(1)

Capital Structure (%) Common Equity Preferred Equity Long-Term Debt

52 13 35

13.0 % 10.5 % 7.5 %

9.7 % 7.3 % 4.4 %

Income Tax Rates Federal State (generic @ 4.0%) Composite (21)

35.0 % 4.0 % 37.6 %

35.0 % 4.0 % 37.6 %

Discount Rate (before tax)(3) 10.75 % 7.5 % Discount Rate (after tax) (4) 9.72 % 6.5 %

Percent Rate Nominal

Rate Real

Capital Structure (%) Equity Debt

30 70

17.0 % 8.0 %

13.60 %

4.9 % Income Tax Rates Federal State (generic @ 4.0%) Composite

35.0 % 4.0 % 37.6 %

35.0 % 4.0 % 37.6 %

Discount Rate (before tax) 10.7 % 7.5 % Discount Rate (after tax) 8.5 % 5.3 %

IOU

Muni

IPP

100% Debt at 5% Nominal – 2% Real Cost of Capital and not subject to US /State Taxes

164

US and State Income Tax Rates

AK WA CA

Fed Tax 35 35 35State Tax 9.4 0 8.84

REC Fed PTC (1) State ITC State PTC

AK None 1.8¢ (2005%) per kWh for the first 10 years

None None

WA None and an EPRI assumed escalation of

None Sales and Use Tax Exemption

CA None 3% per year The lesser of 7.5% or $4.50/ watt of peak gen capacity

Ignored (SEP) Sup Energy Payments

US and State Incentives – assume same as for Wind

1) Assume PTC Use - No double dipping with Fed ITC and PTC

165

IPP Selling Price

• DOE EIA Electricity Price Forecast

AK WA CAAvg Industrial Rate from EIA (cents/kWh)

8.63 3.86 8.15

• Assumed IPP Selling Price – Wholesale Rate Proxy

166

Commercial Plant COE and IRR

AK

Real-Nominal

WA

Real-Nominal

CA

Real-Nominal

Utility Generator COE (cents/kWh)

8.1 – 9.5 8.8 – 10.3 7.5 – 8.8

Non Utility Generator IRR (%)

17% None 12.5%

Muni Generator COE (cents/kWh

7.0 – 8.2 7.0 – 8.0 5.9 – 6.8

Financial incentives equal to wind energy technology

See EPRI TP 002 for Fed and State Tax Rates, MACRS Depreciation, Financing Assumptions and Avoided Costs by State

167

Economic Comparisons (2005$)

(1) All costs in 2005$(2) 600 MW Plant, Pittsburgh #8 Coal

(3) GE 7 F machine or equivalent(4) 85% removal

(1) All costs in 2005$(2) 600 MW Plant, Pittsburgh #8 Coal

(3) GE 7 F or equivalent(4) 85% removal

(1) 600 MW Plant, Pittsburgh #8 Coal; (2) GE 7 F machine or equivalent

Capacity Factor (%)

Capital Cost ($/kW)

COE (cents/kWh)

CO2 (lbs/MWh)

Tidal In Stream 29 - 33 2,000 5 - 9 None

Wind 30 - 42 1,150 4.7- 6.5 None

Solar Thermal Trough 33 3,300 18 None

Coal PC USC (Note 1) 80 1,275 4.2 1,760

NGCC @ $7/MMBTU (2) 80 480 6.4 860

Nuclear Evol (ABWR) 85 - 90 1,660 4.7 - 5.0 None

168

Commercial Plant Economics

• Tidal In Stream Technology has benefited from the Wind Technology Learning Curve– First 50MW Peak

Capacity TISEC Plant COE is 6 - 10 cents/kWhr

– Wind at 100 MW was over 20 cents/kWhr(2005$)

• Future Cost Reductions Expected through Value Engineering and Economies of Scale

Historical Wind Plant Data

Wind early 1980s - 2004

In Stream Tidal Entry Point

100 1,000 10,000 100,000

1

5

10

20

100

COE - 2005$ (cents/kWh)

2

50

Cumulative Production Volume

169

Sensitivity Studies (WA Example)

5.05.56.06.57.07.58.08.59.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Installed Turbines

COE (cents/kWh)

Design Value

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

0.79 0.84 0.89 0.94 0.99Availability

COE (cents/kWh)

Design Value

170

(cont)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0Average Power Flux (turbine hub height - kW/m2)

COE (cents/kWh)

Design Value

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0%Real Fixed Charge Rate (FCR)

COE (cents/kWh)

Design Value

171

(cont)

4.04.55.05.56.06.57.07.58.0

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%Production Credits (% Base Case)

COE (cents/kWh)

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0Design Velocity (m/s)

COE (cents/kWh)

Rated Speed

Maximum Site Speed

172

Environmental and Regulatory Issues

• Given proper care in siting, TISEC promises to be one of the most environmentally benign electricity generation technologies

• EPRI designs limit energy extraction to 15% to preclude any significant ecological effects

• MCT has received consents for a highly environmentally sensitive site in the UK

• U.S. Regulatory Jurisdiction– FERC has asserted jurisdiction and has set a precedent of waiving

license for Verdant pilot demonstration testing– Many federal, state and local agencies involved (see EPRI TP 007

Env and Reg Issues Report)• Pilot demonstration projects must include environmental monitoring

and a commitment to cease operation if any environmental issues arise• Early dialogue with local stakeholders is key

173

EPRI Conclusions• TISEC is Emerging Technology which

– Shows significant promise as an energy supply option for Knik Arm, AK, San Francisco, CA and Tacoma Narrows, WA• Good energy resource• Interconnection is easily managed• Major port facilities• Need for additional supply (SF and WA – YES; AK - ?)• High avoided cost of electricity (SF and AK – YES; WA - NO)• Help meet State RPS standards (SF and WA – YES; AK - ?)

– Still has many unanswered questions which requires pilot demonstration testing• What technology type optimum size will be most cost effective?• What will it cost, particularly installation and O&M cost?• Will dispatchers be able to use its predictability?• Will regulators license in stream plants?

174

EPRI Recommendations• Build Collaboration within States and with other States/Provinces/Federal

Government– Form electricity stakeholder group– Join Working Group to be formed by EPRI (“OceanFleet”)

• Encourage R&D at Universities

• Initiate a Phase II Detailed Design and Permitting Project– Owner and applicant for permit– Velocity profiling survey (ADCP with CFD)– High resolution bottom bathymetry survey– Geotech survey– Detail design using above data– System/Device procurement strategy and specifications– Environmental impact report– Public outreach– Implementation planning for construction and operation and update

proforma costs– Financing/incentive requirements study

175

EPRI Recommendations

Encourage State and Federal government support of RD&D• Implement a national tidal energy program at DOE• Operate a national tidal energy test facility• Promote development of industry standards• Continue membership in the IEA Ocean Energy Program• Clarify and streamline federal permitting processes• Study provisions for tax incentives and subsidies• Ensure that the public receives a fair return from the use of

ocean tidal energy resources• Ensure that development rights in state waters are allocated

through a fair and transparent process that takes into accountstate, local, and public concerns

176

SummaryEPRI Ocean Energy Program is for the Public Benefit

All Technical Work Totally Transparent

All Reports Available to General Public:

Project Reports – www.epri.com/oceanenergy/

Monthly Progress Reports – email request to [email protected]

U.S. is a Member of International Energy Agency (IEA) Ocean Energy Systems (OES) Program - Reports are available at

www.iea-oceans.org

177

A small investment today might stimulate an industry which may employ thousands of people and generate billions of dollars of economic output while using an abundant and clean natural resource. I think it is worth taking a serious look at whether this technology should be added to our portfolio of energy supply options. Roger Bedard

EPRI Perspective• In Stream Tidal Energy is a potentially important energy source and should be

evaluated for adding to SF, WA and AK energy supply portfolios– Indigenous– keep the wealth in the state and increase energy security

• A balanced and diversified portfolio of energy supply options is the foundation of a reliable and robust electrical system

• Clean, no greenhouse gases and no aesthetic issues

• Economics appear to be comparable to other options

• Except for a few large tidal energy resource sites, such as Minas Passage, TISEC is in the grey zone between central and distributed power applications. Typical DG motivations are:

– Delay T&D Infrastructure Upgrade– Voltage Stability – Guaranteed Power– Displace Diesel Fuel– Hedge volatility of fossil fuel prices

north america in stream tidal power feasibility study: final ......state site ak ak wa ca ca tisec...

Documents