Coal, Tidal and Wind in 2010 Time Period
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 10 20 30 40 50Cost of CO2, $/metric ton
Levelized Cost of Electricity, $/kWh, 2005$, w/o Incentives
Wind after 50 GW@29% CFTidal@3 kW/m2 - Golden Gate CA
11
[email protected] kW/m2 – Tacoma Narrows WA
Coal
Tidal@ 4.5 kW/m2 – Minas Passage NS
Wind after 50 GW@42% CF
North America Wave and Tidal Projects
Environmental and Regulatory Issues
North America Wave Energy Projects
HI, Oahu
Kaneohe
WA
Makah Bay
RI
Point Judith
OR
Reedsport
OR
Lincoln Ct
DeveloperOcean Power Tech
AquaEnergy
Energetech
OPT County
Development Stage
Deployed June 04 – 8 Mo of Tests
– Redeploying
late 2006
Permitting since 2002
DOI submitted to FERC Feb 2005 – Ruling Oct 2005
Filed with
FERC 07/14/06
Filed with
FERC 8/23/06
DevicePower BuoyTM
Aqua BuOYTM
Oscillating Water
Column (OWC)
250kW PowerBu
oy
Size
Single buoy
40 kW
Buildout to 1 MW
4 buoys
1 MW
Single OWC
500kW50 MW
Water Depth/ Distance from Shore
30 m
1 km
50 m
6 km
2 m
2 km
50 m
4 km
From EPRI Feasibility Study Northern CA Not yet a project
North America Tidal Energy Projects
MA
Amesbury
NY
NY, East River
BC
Race Rocks
NS
Minas Passa
ge
WA
Tacoma Narrow
s
DeveloperMasstec
h/Verdant
NYSERDAVerd
ant
ENCANA/
Clean Curren
t
Nova Scotia Power
Tacoma Power
Development Stage
2 Month Test
Complete
In Con-struction
Being deploy
ed
NSPI plannin
g Phase
2
Tacoma Power
Filed for permit with
FERC
DeviceVertical
axis
Horizontal axis open rotor
H - axis
ducted rotor
TBD TBD
Size1m X 2.5 m
1 unit
5 m diamete
r
6 units
? Dia 1 unit
TBD TBD
Power (kW) at Max Speed (m/s)
0.8 kW @
1.5m/s
34 kW @ 2.1 m/s
? TBD TBD
From EPRI Feasibility Study
WA
Admiralty Straits
CA
Golden Gate
SNOPUDOcean
a
Filed with FERC
06/06
Rec’d FERC prel
permit 10/05
TBD TBD
TBD TBD
TBD TBD
Frequently Asked Questions
Will these devices affect the environment?The Environmental Issueso Withdrawal of wave and tidal flow energy on the ecology o Interactions with marine life (fish and mammals)o Atmospheric and oceanic emissionso Visual appearanceso Conflicts with other uses of sea space (fishing, boating, shipping,
clamming, crabbing, etc)o Installation and decommissioning
Wave Energy Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)o Belt Collins EIS for Navy Hawaii WEC Project - FONSIo Devine Tarbell EIS for AquaEnergy Makah bay WA Projecto Many European EISs
Frequently Asked Questions
• Will the regulatory authorities grant a permit for this offshore wave power and tidal power plants
• Will these devices survive storms and the hostile marine environment?
Regulatory and Environmental Summary
Wave Energy• Federal Jurisdiction
– Plant > 3 miles = MMS/FERC– Plant < 3 miles = FERC– Plant > 3 miles in marine
sanctuary = FERC/NOAA
• State Jurisdiction – CA Dept of State Lands
• Env Issues– Reduced wave height– Interactions with marine life– Conflicts of sea space
Tidal Energy• Federal Jurisdiction
– Com’l Plant < 3 miles = FERC
• State Jurisdiction – – CA Dept of State Lands
• Env Issues– Fish endangerment– Ecological effects
Proposed New Feasibility Studies:
River In Stream
Hybrid Offshore Wind - Wave
Hydrokinetic River Energy Conversion
Present State– Present day run of river hydro plants are low-head, no-
storage plants– They involve diverting a portion of the river thru
hydroelectric turbinesDesired State – No dams– No diversionary flows– No aesthetic concerns– Environmentally benign
River Tidal Stream
Flow Unidirectional Bi
Water Fresh Salt
Variability Yearly Diurnal
Cycle Cycle
Threshold* ? 2.5 kw/m2
* Min required average yearly power density for economic feasibility
Hybrid Offshore Wind-Wave Energy Conversion
Present State– Present day European offshore wind plants are in shallow water close to shore– Deeper water further offshore wind plants are less visually intrusive– Cost of near shore wind systems is greater than onshore and cost of far
offshore wind system is greater than near shore wind– Offshore wave is an emerging technology with 1st commercial sale (25 MW
plant) in 2005 in Portugal announced by Ocean Power Delivery of the UK– Hybridization of the two technologies produces lowest cost of electricity (COE)
then either system alone, however, advancements needed in floating platforms and operation and maintenance technologies.
Desired State – Avoid “Cape Wind” Aethestic Issues
– Leverage the synergies for reduced CoE and reduced resource variability
HOW-WEC
More Advanced Hybrid Wind – Wave Design Concepts
A small investment today might stimulate a worldwide industry which may employ thousands of people and generate billions of dollars of economic output while using an abundant and clean natural resource. It is worth taking a serious look at whether this technology should be added to our portfolio of energy supply options.
EPRI Perspective• Wave and In Stream Tidal Energy and Other
Ocean Energy Sources are potentially important energy sources and should be evaluated for adding to our energy supply portfolios– Indigenous– keep the wealth at home 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 close to other options
Economics and Local Job Creation – San Francisco Wave
Plant - 106 MW Rating• Engineering and Construction – EPRI analysis shows about 300 jobs during construction period– Direct– Indirect– Induced
• Operation and Maintenance - EPRI analysis shows that – A crew of 6 people are required to operate the needed
vessels– a crew of 18 people are required to operate and maintain
a 180 unit Pelamis Wave Plant (about 100 MW rating)
The Government says “We are here to help you”
The primary barriers to wave and tidal energy technology are not technical but political:
– No U.S. Government RD&D Funding Support
– No U.S. Government production subsidies
– U.S. Government regulatory uncertainty.
How Could the Government Help?
1. Provide leadership and funding of an ocean energy RD&D program 2. Provide funding for national ocean energy test center 3. Develop design and testing standards for ocean energy devices4. Join the International Energy Agency Ocean Energy Systems
Implementing Agreement to collaborate RD&D activities, and appropriate ocean energy policies with other governments and organizations
5. Study provision of production tax credits, renewable energy credits, and other incentives to spur private investment in ocean energy technologies and projects, and implementing appropriate incentives to accelerate ocean wave energy deployment
6. Lead activities to streamline the process for licensing, leasing, and permitting renewable energy facilities in U.S. waters
7. Ensure that the public receives a fair return from the use of ocean energy resources
8. Ensure that development rights are allocated through a transparent process that takes into account state, local, and public concerns.
Example of Government help
In 2004 the Portuguese Government offered a dedicated marine energy tariff
The UK has a long history of support for the Marine Energy Industry
• Established the “European Marine Energy Centre” in Orkney, Scotland. • Launched the “Carbon Trust, Marine Energy Challenge”• Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has awarded over £25 M to
support the ongoing development of marine energy devices• Launched a £50M support fund which earmarks £8M direct funding for
EMEC and the Wave Hub initiative with the remaining £42M available to support demonstration projects
• Wave Hub, will offer a “plug in” facility with all the necessary permits etc to allow “next generation” multi device demonstration projects to negate the cost of grid connection.
Summary
EPRI Ocean Energy Program is for the Public BenefitAll Technical Work Totally Transparent and Available:
www.epri.com/oceanenergy/ (1) EPRI TP-001-NA, TISEC Resource/Device Performance Estimation Methodology
(2) EPRI TP-002-NA, TISEC Economic Assessment Methodology
(3) EPRI TP-003-MA, Massachusetts Site Survey
(4) EPRI TP-003-ME, Maine Site Survey
(5) EPRI TP-003-NB, New Brunswick Site Survey
(6) EPRI TP-003-MA, Nova Scotia Site Survey
(7) EPRI TP-004-NA, TISEC Device Survey and Characterization
(8) EPRI TP-005-NA, System Design Methodology
(9) EPRI TP-006-AK, Alaska System Level Design Study
(10) EPRI TP-006-WA, Washington System Level Design Study
(11) EPRI TP-006-CA, California System Level Design Study
(12) EPRI TP-006-MA, Massachusetts System Level Design Study
(13) EPRI TP-006-ME, Maine System Level Design Study
(14) EPRI TP-006-NB, New Brunswick System Level Design Study
(15) EPRI TP-006-NS, Nova Scotia System Level Design Study
(16) EPRI TP-007-NA, North America Environmental and Regulatory Issues
(17) EPRI TP-008-NA, Final Summary Report
(1) EPRI WP-001-US, WEC Device Performance Estimation Methodology
(2) EPRI WP-002-US, WEC Economic Assessment Methodology
(3) EPRI WP-003-HI, Hawaii Site Survey
(4) EPRI WP-003-ME, Maine Site Survey
(5) EPRI WP-003-OR, Oregon Site Survey
(6) EPRI WP-003-WA, Washington Site Survey
(7) EPRI WP-004-NA, TISEC Device Survey and Characterization
(8) EPRI WP-005-US, System Design Methodology
(9) EPRI WP-006-HI, Hawaii System Level Design Study
(10) EPRI WP-006-ME, Maine System Level Design Study
(11) EPRI WP-006-MA, Massachusetts System Level Design Study
(12) EPRI WP-006-SFA, SF California System Level Design Study - Pelamis
(13) EPRI WP-006-SFB, SF California System Level Design Study - Energetech
(14) EPRI WP-007-US, Environmental Issues Study
(15) EPRI WP-008-USA, Regulatory Issues Study
(16) EPRI WP-009-US, Final Summary Report
Wave Energy Tidal Energy
A Sustainable Electricity Generation Energy Supply Portfolio and How We Transition to
It
Decision Making in a Highly Uncertain World
• Investment decisions are being made today about the next generation of electricity supply are complicated by at least four major uncertainties:– Future cost of CO2– Future price of natural gas– Storage of spent nuclear fuel– The capture and storage of CO2
• Prudent investment decisions will assume that carbon constraints are coming
• R&D can make a big difference
Comparative Cost of 2010 Generating Options
Comparative Generation Cost in 2020
Conclusions
• By opening up the possibility of CO2 capture and sequestration, the entire portfolio becomes relatively insensitive to the future costs of carbon constraints
• The U.S. has an opportunity to put a low carbon portfolio in place by 2020
• Without advances in technology, the cost of electricity rise steeply for carbon based technologies
• Electricity generation costs for all options can be improved substantially over the next 10 years, putting the entire portfolio in the “affordable” range –below 7 cents/kWh – regardless of CO2 costs
Importance of Technology Policy
• Advanced technology is a prerequisite for meeting our energy and environmental needs of the future because, economic efficiency – that is, achieving our environmental goals at least cost – is critically important
• Technology advances are central to controlling the cost of climate change
• Even a policy that with stringent near term limits or one that leads to an economically efficient price on carbon emissions is unlikely, by itself, to produce the needed technology breakthroughs – may only discourage development of better existing technologies
• R&D must be increased substantially now to– ensure widespread deployment of advanced emission reduction
technologies– stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
Top Related