Overview: EPRI Ocean Energy Program

Wind

Wave
In Stream
Tidal

International Energy Agency – Ocean Energy Systems

November 16, 2005
Presented by: Roger Bedard /EPRI

1
 Outline

• Introduction / Participants

• The U.S. Ocean Wind, Wave and Tidal Resource

• EPRI/DOE/EPRI Wave and In-Stream Tidal North American Collaborative Projects

• U.S. Wave and In Stream Tidal Energy Projects

2
 EPRI Ocean Energy Feasibility Assessments

• Motivation
– A diversity of energy sources is the foundation of a reliable electrical
system
– North America has significant wave and tidal in-stream energy
resources
– Technologies able to exploit these resources are becoming available
• Objective
– Feasibility demonstration in North America
– Accelerate sustainable commercialization of the technology
• Approach
– Facilitate public/private collaborative partnership between coastal
states, involving state agencies, utilities, device develops, interested
third-parties, and the DOE

3
 The Big Picture

• US Total Electricity Consumption = 3.7 TWh/yr

(source EIA)
• US primary energy required = 11.2 TWh/yr FUEL TYPE
Coal 50%
(assumes 33% energy conversion efficiency)
Nuclear 20%
• Total Annual US Wave Energy Resource = 2.1 TWh/yr
Natural Gas 18%
(calculated by EPRI) Hydroelectric 7%
• Extractable energy is less but significant Fuel Oil 2%
Biomass 2%
Benefits of Ocean Energy
Geothermal 1%
• Diversify energy sources to improve energy security
Wind <1/2%
• Zero emission and with low environmental impact PV <1/20%
• Minimizes not in my back yard issues
• Economics look attractive (at significant scale)
• Reduces dependence on foreign energy supplies
• Job creation and local economic development
4
 Participants Technology Companies
(30) Utilities (19)
Bangor HydroCentral
State/City Agencies Wave & Tidal Power
Developers Maine Power
(9)
National Grid
Maine Tech Initiative
NSTAR
Mass Tech Collaborative NB Power
New Brunswick Ministry NS Power
Nova Scotia Ministry Chugach
Alaska Energy Authority EPRI PROJECT Tacoma Power
EPRI
Washington CTED EPRI Solutions Puget Sound Energy
Oregon DOE M. Previsic Seattle City and Light
Devine Tarbell
San Francisco & Oakland NREL Snohomish PUD
CA Va Tech Bonneville Power
Univ of WA
Federal (2) OSU Central Lincoln PUD
UMASS Douglas Electric Co-op
U.S. DOE MIT
Portland General
NREL
Pacificorp
Institutes PG&E
HECO and KIUC
Bedford Oceanography
Alexandria Research
5
 U.S. Offshore Wind Resource

GW by Depth (m)
Region 0-30 30-60 60-900 >900
North East 10.3 43.5 130.6 0.0
Mid-Atlantic 64.3 126.2 45.3 30.0
Great Lakes 15.5 11.6 193.6 0.0
California 0.0 0.3 47.8 168.0
Pacific NW 0.0 1.6 100.4 68.2
Total 90.1 183.2 517.7 266.2

(Source: Walt Musial/DOE NREL “Offshore Wind Energy Potential for the United
States” May 19, 2005 Wind Powering America- Annual State Summit, Colorado

6
 Hawaii Offshore Wind Resource

7
 U.S. Offshore Wave Energy Resource

WA OR
Southern AK CA
1,250 TWh/yr ME NH MA RI NY
440
NJ
TWh/yr
110 TWh/yr

Northern HI
300 TWh/yr

Total flux into all regions

with avg. wave power density
>10 kW/m is ~2,100 TWh/yr

Harnessing 20% of offshore wave energy resource at 50% efficiency

would be comparable to all US conventional hydro generation in 2003.

8
 Wave Climate Summary

Hawaii California Oregon Washington Maine Mass.

15.2 kW/m 20 kW/m 21.2 kW/m 26.5 kW/m 4.9 kW/m 13.8 kW/m

West Coast (Oregon) East Coast (Mass)

40

Wave Power Density kW/m

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

l
ay
ar

ov
ug

ct
b

n
pr

p
n

ec
Ju
Ja

Ju
Fe

Se

O
M

D
A
Hawaii

9
 North American Tidal Stream Resource

Aleutian Islands
Straits and Bay of
Passes Cook Inlet Fundy

Cobscook
Bay

Alexander Archipelago Cape Cod

Canal
Vancouver Island
Strait of Georgia
Puget
Sound
San
Francisco
Bay

10
 Resource Comparison

Solar CSP Wind Wave Tidal Current

Development Early
Commercial Pre-Commercial Pre-Commercial
Status Commercial

Uneven solar Wind blowing over Gravity of moon &

Source Sun
heating water sun
5-10 kW/m2
200-300 400-600 20-25 kW/m
Annual (Alaska, Bay of
watts/m2 watts/m2 (US West Coast) 5-
Average Power Fundy)
(southern & (US Great 15 kW/m
Density 1-2 kW/m2
western US) Plains) (US East Coast)
(Seattle, SF)
Atmospheric
Day-night; Sea (local winds) Diurnal and semi-
fronts and
Intermittency clouds, haze, and swell (from diurnal (advancing
storms (local
and humidity distant storms) ~50 min./day)
winds only)

Predictability Minutes Hours Days Centuries

11
 Three EPRI/DOE/NREL Projects Completed
In-progress
Future
Offshore Wave Energy Conversion (OWEC)
Phase 1.5 Phase 2
Phase 1 Phase 4
Pre- Design, Phase 3
Project Definition Operation &
Implementation Permitting, & Construction
Study Evaluation
Planning Financing

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Tidal In-Stream Energy Conversion (TISEC)

Phase 2
Phase 1 Phase 4
Design, Phase 3
Project Definition Operation &
Permitting, & Construction
Study Evaluation
Financing
2005 2006 2007 2009

Hybrid Offshore Wind-Wave Energy Conversion (HOW-WEC)

Phase 1
Project Definition Study

2006
12
 Project Definition Phase

Technology Assessment Site Assessment

Select Site/Technology Combinations

Conceptual Design Conceptual Design

Performance and Cost Performance and Cost
Pilot Scale Commercial Scale

Calculate Levelized Cost

13
 Wave Project Phase Duration Key Assumptions Cost Funding
Phase I – Project 1 Year Evaluate 5 Site- Phase I EPRI State Energy
OBJECTIVES Definition Study Device options $240K Agencies/Trusts
(including site and Two site-device Phase I.5 - Utilities
Demonstrate the feasibility of wave power to device selection) options OR - $40K DOE & Others
provide efficient, reliable, environmentally friendly Phase 1.5 1 Year
and cost-effective electrical energy Phase II – Design, 12 – 18 Design 1 Site – $500-800K Private owner or
Create a push towards the development of a Permitting and Months Device option collaborative
sustainable commercial market for this Financing financing
technology. Phase III – 12 -18 500 KW Plant $1,500 Private Owner or
Construction Months 2,5000K Collaborative
WHY financing
Wave Energy is an Phase IV -Operation 2 Years Plant O&M costs $100-250K Private Owner or
energy resource that collaborative

is too important to Phase IV – 2 Years Additional cost $100-250K 50% DOE

overlook Evaluation due to RD&D 50% EPRI
Total 5 1/2 - 7 $2.5 –4.1 M
Yrs
FUNDERS
Phase/Task CY 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
9Hawaii –HECO & KIUC (in-kind)
Start - Jan 1, 2004
9Washington State –Snohomish PUD and Seattle Phase IA Concept Level Study

City Light (In-kind) 1.1. Site Selections (6)

1.2. Device Selection

9Oregon – Bonneville Power, Central Lincoln PUD,
1.3. Performance & Cost Estimate
PGE and Pacificorp
1.4. Environmental Effects
9California – SF PUC and City of Oakland, PG&E 1.5. Permitting Issues
(In-kind) Phase 1.5 Fill the Gap
Phase II Go - No Go Decision
9Maine – MTI, CMP (In-kind) and Bangor Hydro Phase II Design, Permits & Financing
Electric (In-kind) Phase III Go - No Go Decision
Phase III. Construction
9Massachusetts - MassTech Phase IV Go - No Go Decision 2 Yr s
Phase IV Operation and Evaluation
9DOE/NREL (Cash and In-kind) and EPRI – SS&T
14
 2004 Wave Project Achievements
• Developed standardized methodologies for estimating power
production and performing economic assessments
• Surveyed, characterized potential North American Wave Farm
sites
• Surveyed, characterized, and assessed energy conversion
technology available for developers worldwide
• Established 5 Conceptual Designs for Pilot and Commercial Sized
Plants
• Performed an independent cost and economic assessment for the
commercial scale plants
• 2004 studies made a compelling case for investing in wave
energy technology.

15
 North America Wave Energy Projects

HI, Oahu WA RI CA, San OR

Kaneohe Makah Bay Point Judith Francisco Gardiner

Ocean Oregon State

Developer AquaEnergy Energetech SFPUC
Power Tech University

OSU
Permitting SF Seeking
Development Deployed Permitting Seeking
since Feb funding for
Stage June 04 since 2002 funding for
2005 permitting
permitting

Power Aqua Pelamis

Device OWC TBD
BuoyTM BuOYTM (tentative)

Single buoy Single Unit

40 kW 4 buoys Single OWC TBD - RD&D
Size 750 kW
1 MW 500kW Buildout to Center
Buildout to
1 MW Com’l Plant

Water Depth/ 30 m 50 m 2m 30 m
Distance from TBD
Shore 1 km 6 km 2 km 15 km

16
 EPRI North American Tidal Flow Power
Feasibility Demonstration Project
Phase Duration Key Assumptions Cash Expected Cash
OBJECTIVES
Cost Funding
Demonstrate the feasibility Phase I – 1 Year Five site survey and $350K Full
of tidal flow power to provide Scoping or characterizations; Device With $60K Maine
efficient, reliable, Project survey and characterization; Prob $50K Mass
environmentally friendly and Feasibility Eight system level design, Factor $60K Washington
$60K New Brunsw
cost-effective electrical Definition performance analysis, cost +
$60K Nova Scotia
energy Study estimate and economic $150K $10K DOE
assessment; environmental, In – Design Only
Create a push towards the regulatory and permitting kind $40K San Fran
development of a issues Cont $40K Alaska
sustainable commercial
market for this technology. Phase II – 12-18 System Design, permitting and $500- Private Owner
System Design Months financing - 1 Site – Device 1,000 or collaborative
WHY K
Tidal Flow Energy is Phase III - 12 - 18 1,500 MWe per year Plant $1,500 Private Owner
an energy resource Construction Months (500 kW at 40% capacity - or collaborative
that is too important factor) 2,700
to overlook K
Phase IV - 1-2 Years Plant O&M costs $100- Private Owner
Operation 250K or collaborative
financing
Phase IV - 1-2 Years Additional cost due to RD&D $100- 50% DOE
Evaluation needs 250K 50% EPRI
Total 5 - 7 Yrs $3-5
M

17
 No. American Tidal Flow Resources in EPRI
Feasibility Study

NB NS

Eastport
Knik Arm
Western
Cook Inlet
Passage, ME
Cape Cod
Tacoma Canal, MA
Narrows
Puget Sound
Golden Gate
Entrance SF
Bay

Total and Extractable Resource

Estimation is On Going

18
 North America Tidal Energy Projects
NY BC CA, SF WA
MA DE Indian
NY, East Race Golden River Inlet Tacoma
Amesbury
River Rocks Gate Narrows

Clean Tacoma
Developer Verdant Verdant SFPUC UEK
Currents Power

Tacoma
Development 2 Month Test Power Filed
Construction NA Formative Permitting
Stage Complete for permit
with FERC

Horizontal Horizontal
Device Vertical axis NA TBD TBD
axis axis

3m
1m X 2.5 m 5 m diameter
Size NA TBD diameter TBD
1 unit 6 units
25 units
Power (kW) at
0.8 kW @ 34 kW @ 400 kW @
Max Speed NA TBD TBD
1.5m/s 2.1 m/s 3 m/s
(m/s)

19
 Summary

EPRI Ocean Energy Program is for the Public Benefit

All Technical Work Totally Transparent
All Reports Available:
Project Reports - www.epri.com/oceanenergy/
Monthly Progress Reports - rbedard@epri.com

20
 4 General Types of Wave Energy Devices
Attenuator
Point
Absorber

Terminators
Oscillating Water Column Overtopping

21
 More Examples of WECs
Point Absorber TeamWork
Archimedes Wave Swing Point Absorber
Before Deployment Ocean Power
Delivery
PowerBuoy

Point Absorber OSU PM Direct Drive

After Deployment

22
 Three US Tidal Flow Demonstrations
East River, New York, NY Golden Gate Bridge, SF, Ca

Verdant Horizontal Axial Turbine Tacoma Narrows

23
 Other US Tidal Flow Devices

• Underwater Electric Kite * Gorlov Turbine

(UEK) Test Unit

24
 Two UK Tidal Flow Demonstrations
Marine Current Turbines Engineering Business Stingray

25
 Swedish Vertical Axis Device - Seapower

26
 UK In-Stream Device - SMD Hydrovision

27
 UK In-Stream Device – Lunar Energy

28