California Wave Power Demonstration Project

Transcription

1 California Wave Power Demonstration Project Bridging the Gap Between the Completed Phase 1 Project Definition Study and the next Phase Phase 2 Detailed Design and Permitting Eureka Fort Bragg Bodega Bay San Francisco Half Moon Bay Project: California Offshore Wave Power Feasibility Demonstration Project Phase: 1.5 Bridging the Gap to Phase 2 Detailed Design and Permitting Report: EPRI WP 011 CA Authors: Mirko Previsic and Roger Bedard Date: December 31, 2007

2 DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES This document was prepared by the organizations named below as an account of work sponsored or cosponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute Inc. (EPRI). Neither EPRI, any member of EPRI, any cosponsor, the organization (s) below, nor any person acting on behalf of any of them: (A) Makes any warranty or representation whatsoever, express or implied, (I) with respect to the use of any information, apparatus, method, process or similar item disclosed in this document, including merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, or (II) that such use does not infringe on or interfere with privately owned rights, including any parties intellectual property, or (III) that this document is suitable to any particular user s circumstance; or (B) Assumes responsibility for any damages or other liability whatsoever (including any consequential damages, even if EPRI or any EPRI representative has been advised of the possibility of such damages) resulting for your selection or use of this document or any other information, apparatus, method, process or similar item disclosed in this document. Organization(s) that prepared this document Electric Power Research Institute RE vision consulting Organizations that sponsored the study that resulted in this document San Francisco Public Utility Commission (SFPUC) Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Electric Power Research Institute 2

3 Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Summary... 5 Scope of Work... 5 Result Summary... 6 Status of Wave Energy... 7 Next Steps in California Frequently Asked Questions What is ocean wave energy? How can wave energy be harnessed? Will these systems survive storms and hostile marine environments? Will wave power plants affect the environment? Will the regulatory agencies grant permit for offshore wave power plants? Will offshore wave power be reliable and cost effective? What is installed capacity and expected growth? What other introductory information is it important to know? Wave Energy Resource Statistical Analysis US Wave Energy Data Sources Global and US Wave Energy Resource California Wave Energy Resource Performance Prediction Methodology Wave Energy Conversion Device Developers and Test Centers Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) System Developers and Devices European Marine Energy Center US Wave Energy Test Center in the Pacific NorthWest UK Wave Hub Siting Studies Performance Cost and Economic Issues Infrastructure Considerations Grid Infrastructure Port Infrastructure Regional offshore construction and operational capabilities Device Construction Electric Power Research Institute 3

4 Wave Power Device Operation and Maintenance Requirements Mooring Installation Device Device Deployment/Recovery Maintenance Siting alternatives in proximity to San Francisco Northern California Wave Energy Sites Outside of San Francisco Bodega Bay Eureka...58 Fort Bragg Half Moon Bay Morro Bay Overall Review of these sites in Northern California Environmental Issues & Permitting Existing Environmental Studies Environmental Benefits of Ocean Energy Recommended Next Steps Regulatory Issues Chronological of Licensing Offshore Wave Energy Plants in the U.S Wave Projects Permitted and in Licensing Process Public Outreach Fort Bragg Resolution and Town Hall Meeting Port Liaison Project (PLP) Societal Costs of Electric Power Generation EPRI Perspective, Conclusions and Recommendations EPRI Perspective EPRI Conclusions EPRI Recommendations References Appendix A Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) Device Fact Sheets Appendix B Wave Energy Conversion Test project Status Appendix C San Francisco Ocean Beach Wave Plant Design Fact Sheet Appendix D White Paper: Seeking Public Support for a Fort Bragg Wave Energy Project Appendix E Fort Bragg Advocate Newspaper Article Appendix F Fort Bragg Resolution Appendix G - Wave Energy Pilot Plant in California: Matrix of Interested Parties Electric Power Research Institute 4

5 California Wave Energy Feasibility Demo Project Bridging the Gap to Phase 2 Design and Permitting 1. Introduction and Summary The purpose of this report is to describe and document the project work accomplished by EPRI in 2006 in helping the state of California move forward in the emerging technology of offshore wave energy conversion. At the end of 2004, EPRI had studied the Ocean Beach, San Francisco California site for locating a first pilot and/or commercial scale offshore wave power plant in the state. At that point, neither an owner for the plant nor funding was available to progress from the Phase 1 Feasibility Definition Study to a Phase 2 Detailed and Permitting Phase. EPRI undertook a project, called Phase 1.5 Bridging the Gap to the Phase 1 Feasibility Study to Phase 2 Detailed Design and Permitting, in order to help create a push towards moving a wave demonstration project from paper to hardware in the water. On Dec 6, 2006, Aqua Energy, a division of Finevera Renewables Ltd, filed an application for a preliminary permit with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a wave power plant in Humboldt County California. This is the first filing in California. The offshore portion of the project would be located in the Pacific Ocean west of Humboldt County, California and north-west of the City Trinidad, CA. The site is situated within federal and state waters in the open ocean about 2-4 miles from shore in water depths that range from 20 to 40 fathoms (120 to 240 feet). The approximate size of the proposed site is 8 square miles with dimensions of 2 miles predominantly in the east-west direction and 4 miles predominantly in the north-south direction. The final installed wave park will require a significantly smaller project area (between 2 and 3 square miles) than that proposed in this application. The power capacity would be between 40 and 300 MW. Scope of Work The scope of work for this project phase was to address critical technical siting issues, provide updated information on wave power technologies under development and review the regulatory framework in the State of California. Initial efforts focused on the evaluation of sites in close proximity to San Francisco. As the project progressed, this scope was expanded to include all of Northern California to get a sense for where an optimal first of a kind wave power conversion site should be located in California. The work addresses offshore operational considerations for Electric Power Research Institute 5

6 the installation and maintenance of wave power conversion machines, port infrastructure considerations, wave climate, bathymetry, cost and economic implications. The ideal site would allow for the establishment of a small testing facility, while allowing for subsequent build-out into a decent sized commercial plant with attractive economics. Result Summary Northern California has an excellent wave climate, with wave power densities in suitable locations between 20 kw/m and 35 kw/m. An average of 37,000 MW of energy dissipates on California s 1,200 km of coastline. Using present-day technology, a maximum of about 20% of that energy could be converted into useful electricity. This yields an average power of about 5,500 MW or an annual electrical energy output of 48,000 GWh. As a point of comparison, it would take about 18,000MW of installed wind power capacity to generate the equivalent amount of electricity and it is enough to meet 23% of California s electricity needs. Performance, cost and economic models show that a commercial-scale wave power plant s economic viability would depend largely on the wave power density at the deployment location. Subsea cabling cost has only a minimal impact at a 100MW+ scale for most locations considered. On the contrary, the cost for a small demonstration site, where the first few devices could be tested, is heavily dependent on electrical interconnection costs. A second important consideration is the availability of good local port infrastructure. Given that such a wave power site is likely to be a first of a kind in California, it is important to plan for the unforeseen. Many ports in Northern California are small fishing ports with harbor entrances that are only dredged to about 4m and some of them without any breakwater, making navigation in and out of the port difficult when large waves are present. A third consideration is the availability of good local grid infrastructure, which would allow a significant amount of electricity to be fed into the grid. Most coastal towns in Northern California are connected by 60kV transmission links and usually offer no more then about 50MW of available capacity. A request for information was sent out to all known wave power conversion device developers. A total of 14 responses were received and are shown in the Appendix A. An overview of the status of ocean wave energy is contained in the following paragraph. Electric Power Research Institute 6

7 Status of Wave Energy As part of the scope of work, a review of worldwide activities in ocean wave power conversion was done. The following section is a high level summary of important wave energy related highlights as of December 31, Installed Capacity Planned projects (US only R Bedard/EPRI estimate) Technology Readiness <4 MW worldwide None on the United States mainland 0.75 MW OPD Pelamis at EMEC, Orkney, Ireland 1.0 MW WaveSwing at Lexious, Portugal 0.5 MW Energetech at Port Kembla, Australia 0.04 MW Ocean Power Technology at Oahu, Hawaii 0.1 MW WaveBob (R.Bedard/EPRI estimate) 0.3 MW Fred Olsen (R Bedard/EPRI estimate) 0.1 MW Renewables Holding CETO (R. Bedard/EPRI estimate) 1.0 MW ORECon (R. Bedard/EPRI estimate which assumes their test is full scale) 2007 = 0 MW 2008 = 3 MW (1 MW AquaEnergy Washington and 2 MW Energetech RI projects) 2009 = 7 MW (1 MW OSU Oregon, 2 MW OPT Oregon and 4 MW California) 2010 = 48 MW (50 MW OPT Oregon project) 2011 = 116 MW (40 MW AquaEnergy California, 40 MW Lincoln County Oregon and 40 MW Hawaii projects) Ocean Power Delivery (UK), Ocean Power Technology (USA), WaveDragon (Denmark), WaveSwing (Netherlands), Fred Olson (Norway), WaveBob (Ireland), ORECon (UK), Renewable Energy Holdings (UK) and Energetech (Australia) prototype WEC devices were tested at sea in the past year. The first commercial plant was announced in May 2005 by Ocean Power Delivery of Scotland and a Portuguese consortium led by Enersis SPGS Power Company. The original contract is for $6.25 million to build a three (3) Pelamis 750 kw generator plant (2.25 MW). The hardware has been delivered in Portugal and dockside assembly is underway as of December 1, The project will order 30 more Pelamis generators if the initial phase is successful. The plant will be located 5 km off Portugal s northern coast. Finevera announced a 40 MW plant to be build in South Africa by 2009 and submitted the first full application for license to build and operate a 1 MW wave power plant at Makah Bay, WA in November, Wave Dragon announced a Wales UK single floating 4 7 MW rated capacity Pre- Commercial Demonstrator Project. The UK Wave Hub selected Ocean Power Delivery, Ocean Power Technology and Fred Olsen as the suppliers of WEC devices for the UK wave hub in 2006 Seven applications for preliminary permits to build wave power plants in the US Electric Power Research Institute 7

8 were filed with FERC in 2006: o Reedsport, Douglas County, Oregon 50 MW plant, OPT o Douglas Country, Oregon (excluding above area) Douglas County o Lincoln County, Oregon Lincoln County o Bandon, Oregon MW plant, Finevera o Eureka, California MW plant, Finevera AquaEnergy o Coos Bay, Oregon - MW plant, OPT o Newport, Oregon - MW plant OPT The Energetech GreenWave project in Point Judith, RI has completed a non-ferc licensing process as an air driven power system, however, a 2006 ruling by FERC denied the classification of this air turbine system as an air driven system and classified it as a hydropower system and under their jurisdiction. Energetech has yet to display any interest in going through the FERC licensing process and furthermore, will not accept FERC s offer of waiving a license for this experimental plant because of FERC s condition that Energetech does not get revenue from the electricity generated and most reimburse the local utility for the electricity that they do not generate and sell. On February 27, 2007, Pacific gas and Electric (PG&E) files applications for preliminary permits for 40 MW WaveConnect plants in Mendocino County and Humboldt County, California Economic Status Environmental Impact Regulatory Status AquaEnergy filed a full license application to FERC in November 2006 for the 1 MW Makah Bay Washington project, the first full wave license submitted to FERC. First commercial sale announced in Portugal 2005 made possible by significant feed in tariffs. First commercial plant announcement in Reedsport Oregon made possible by incentives in the state and on the federal level. Given proper care in siting, installation, operation and decommissioning, ocean wave energy technology promises to be one of the more environmentally benign electricity generation technologies. Any potential negative environmental effects most likely can be minimized and in some cases eliminated by diligent attention to the environmental effects. Further study and pilot demonstration projects are needed. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has asserted jurisdiction over ocean energy under the Federal Power Act (FPA). FERC has determined that a wave energy buoy is a hydro project with a power house that uses water to generate electric power. If the electric power will be sold onto the grid, this is another jurisdictional area for FERC. The 2005 Energy Bill gives the Mineral Management Service (MMS) of the Department of Interior (DOI) the power to lease lands on the outer continental shelf (OCS), that is, 3 to 200 nm offshore, but does not eliminate other federal jurisdiction. Many regulatory barriers in the US make it most difficult to license an ocean wave energy pilot or commercial scale project. EPRI believes that a fundamental change in the regulatory arena is required; a new process designed specifically for the Electric Power Research Institute 8

9 Trends to Watch unique attributes of wave power. EPRI believes that strong public support is required to overcome the inertia that many federal, state and local regulatory agencies will bring to the permitting process. Continued technology funding in European countries and Australia. A US DOE funded ocean energy RD&D program starting in FY Individual demonstration projects and early commercialization projects, including multi-megawatt wave farms over the next decade, in Europe, the US and Australia. Next Steps in California With the December 2006 filing by Finevera AquaEnergy and the February 2007 filing by PG&E, the State of California is substantially closer to a wave energy plant now than it was at the beginning of 2006 and is on the right path to making this dream become a reality in the near future. The next steps are for FERC to grant the preliminary permits and then for Finevera AquaEnergy and PG&E to work towards a full license application. Finevera AquaEnergy was the first applicant to FERC in the U.S. for a wave power plant with their December 2006 full license application for the Makah Bay, Washington pilot wave power demonstration plant. PG&E is the largest independently owned utility in the U.S. EPRI will continue to help the electric utility industry develop and demonstrate a new renewable option for diversifying and balancing their generation portfolios and will continue to work to knock down the barriers that are impeding the investigation of this renewable generation option. We have a dream of an affordable, efficient and reliable power supply and transmission system that is environmentally responsible and provides for a strong economy. This electricity system is supported by an effective regulatory system that fosters the application of the best electricity generation technology for the good of society as a whole. EPRI will continue working to try to make this dream become a reality. Electric Power Research Institute 9

10 Frequently Asked Questions What is ocean wave energy? Ocean waves are generated by the influence of wind on the ocean surface as depicted in Figure 1 Ripples on the surface create a steep slope against which the wind can push and cause waves to grow. In deep water, waves can travel for thousands of miles until their energy is dissipated on distant shores. Thus wave energy produced anywhere in an ocean basin ultimately arrives at its continental shelf margins, virtually undiminished until it reaches ~200 m depths. Individual waves represent an integration of all winds encountered as they travel over the ocean surface. As a result, ocean waves are consistent, and sea states can be accurately predicted more than 48 hours in advance. This predictability would allow time for other generation resources to be brought online to compensate for low-energy sea states. However, the characteristic of wave energy that makes it especially attractive for electricity generation is its high power density compared to the power density of solar and wind energy. Ocean waves are composed of orbiting particles of water. Near the surface, the orbits are the same size as the wave height. Orbit amplitude decreases exponentially with depth, such that 95% of the wave energy is stored between the surface and a depth equal to a quarter of the wavelength. Figure 2 shows particle orbits for different water depths. Figure 1 - Wind Wave Generation Process Electric Power Research Institute 10

11 Figure 2 - Particle Motion in Different Water Depths How can wave energy be harnessed? Wave energy extraction is complex and many device designs have been proposed. For understanding the device technology, it is helpful introduce these in terms of their physical arrangements and energy conversion mechanisms. Distance from shore Wave energy devices may convert wave power at the shoreline, near to the shore (defined as shallow water where the depth is less than one half of the wavelength) or offshore. Bottom mounted or floating Wave energy devices may be either bottom-mounted or floating. Wave energy devices can be classified by means of the type of displacement and reaction system employed. Various hydraulic or pneumatic power take off systems are used and in some cases the mechanical motion of the displacer is converted directly to electrical power (direct-drive) Four of the most well-known device concepts are introduced below and their principle of operation illustrated. Symmetrical point absorber (Figure 3) A bottom mounted or floating structure that absorbs energy. The power take-off system may take a number of forms, depending on Electric Power Research Institute 11

12 the configuration of displacers/reactors. The key characteristic of a point absorber is that it can absorb more energy then available within the devices width if the device is tuned (I.e. it s natural resonance frequency matches the incident wave frequency). Oscillating Water Column (OWC) (Figure 4) Nearshore or offshore, this is a partially submerged chamber with air trapped above a column of water. As waves enter and exit the chamber, the water column moves up and down and acts like a piston on the air, pushing it back and forth. The air is forced through a turbine/generator to produce electricity. Overtopping terminator (Figure 5) A floating reservoir structure with a ramp over which the waves topple and hydro turbines/generators through which the water returns to the sea. Attenuator (Figure 6) One form of the attenuator principle is a long floating structure which is orientated parallel to the direction of the waves. The structure is composed of multiple sections which rotate in pitch and yaw relative to each other. That motion is then converted to electricity using an electro-hydraulic power conversion machine. Figure 3 Two Point absorber designs The illustration on the left shows a floating buoy and the illustration on the right shows a bottom standing device; a completely submersed point absorber, with a linear direct generator to convert the oscillatory motion into electricity. The upper floater traps air inside, forming an effective Electric Power Research Institute 12

13 spring element. Pressure differences on the top of the float (created by surface wave action), will set the top floater into motion and the system starts to oscillate. The main characteristic of a point absorber is that it can absorb power from waves wider then it s physical with if the devices natural resonance frequency is tuned to the wave frequency. A typical example is the Archiedes Wave Swing (submersed) or Wavebob (surface piercing). Figure 4 The Oscillating Water Column As the water enters or leaves, the level of water in the chamber rises or falls. A column of air, contained above the water level, is alternately compressed and decompressed by this movement to generate an alternating stream of high velocity air in an exit blowhole. If this air stream is allowed to flow to and from the atmosphere via a pneumatic turbine, energy can be extracted from the system and used to generate electricity. Reservoir Waves overtopping the ramp Figure 5 Floating Overtopping Terminator Electric Power Research Institute 13

14 A floating structure that moves at or near the water surface, has both a ramp and a reservoir, so that as waves arrive, they overtop the ramp and enter the reservoir. The head of collected water drives low-head turbines as it flows back out to sea. These turbines in turn are coupled to a generator, generating electricity. The WaveDragon is a typical example of such a device. Figure 6 Floating hinged contour device Pelamis A hinged contour device (such as OPD s Pelamis) consists of multiple floating sections. As the waves move through, the individual sections move relative to each other. A hydraulic power conversion system can then convert that movement into electricity. There is almost an infinite number of variations and concepts. However the outlined ones are representative of technology that is reaching maturity and has undergone in-ocean testing. Will these systems survive storms and hostile marine environments? Yes. Today s wave energy conversion technology is the result of many years of testing, modeling and development by many developer organizations. Full scale prototype have been continuously operating and providing electricity into an electric grid in the UK since the summer of The core theme of many of the current design concepts is survivability. Electric Power Research Institute 14

15 Will wave power plants affect the environment? Yes. All electricity generation systems affect the environment. Given proper care in site planning, however, offshore wave power promises to be one of the most environmentally benign electrical generation technologies. We recommend that early demonstration and commercial offshore wave power plants include rigorous monitoring of the environmental effects of the plant and similarly rigorous monitoring of a nearby undeveloped site in its natural state (so that natural affects can be separated from induced effects in long terms trends). Will the regulatory agencies grant permit for offshore wave power plants? The novelty of the technology at the federal, state and local level will likely trigger conservative evaluations and extensive approval processes. The 2005 Energy Bill signed by President Bush was interpreted by the Mineral Management Service (MMS) of the Department of the Interior (DOI). as assigning primary responsibility for leasing lands for ocean energy projects in federal waters (3 to 200 miles) to the MMS. It appears that FERC does not interpret the 2005 Energy Bill in the same way as MMS and they continue to assert jurisdiction over all wave projects regardless of whether they are in state or federal waters Permitting a wave power plant presents a significant barrier to the development of wave energy technology and to commercial use of the technology. The primary reasons are: There is a wide variety of regulations and agencies involved. The process is complex and each state and project is unique. Which agency has jurisdiction is in dispute. There is no precedence upon which a regulator can base an approval decision The only FERC processes available were created to manage the impacts of conventional hydropower facilities with impoundments and with 30 to 50 year cycles. Those processes are both lengthy (5 to 8 years) and costly (way beyond what the fledgling wave energy industry device industry can afford unless it finds another government agency to pay the costs) No specific fast-track regulations have been developed for short-term non-commercial ocean energy demonstration projects. No accountability for acts of omission and a built-in bias for delay - People in the system can be and are generally held accountable for acts of commission (taking action) and not Electric Power Research Institute 15

16 for acts of omission (doing nothing). Without an accountability for omission the default is more study and no actions Opponents of a particular ocean energy project can use regulatory uncertainty to their advantage to oppose a project Lack of regulatory standards makes it impossible to predict whether or not and on what terms a permit will be issued and at what costs, thus deterring private investors from funding projects Nevertheless, we believe that, with strong public support and the positive experiences in the UK and other countries, the federal, state and local agencies will permit this emerging technology to go forward. We believe that three key elements are necessary; namely: 1. Adaptive management (initial plants are installed at a small size with environmental monitoring and the plant is allowed to from as long as it adapts to the environment) 2. Conditional (licenses are conditional and can be revoked if unacceptable environmental impacts are observed) 3. Creation of decommissioning fund (to enable paying for decommissioning if environmental impacts are not noticed until the cumulative effect of large plants have evolved over a substantial period of time) Will offshore wave power be reliable and cost effective? Yes. Once WEC technology has achieved a cumulative production experience of about 25,000 MW or about one-half of existing on shore wind technology as of the end of 2006 (50,000 MW), it will provide a cost of electricity equivalent or lower than that produced by on shore wind technology. What is installed capacity and expected growth? The EPRI estimate of offshore wave capacity (in MW rated capacity) that could come on line (i.e., commissioned and providing electricity into the grid) in the U.S. over the years of 2007 though 2011 is. It assumes that a permitting process will be designed to allow projects to move through the permitting phase at a similar pace as onshore wind at present. Electric Power Research Institute 16

17 Table 1 - US Projects under Development and estimated capacity Developer Project Name- Site Finavera (1) Makah Bay, WA 1 Energetech (2) Point Judith, RI 2 Ocean Power Technology (3) Reedsport, OR 2 48 TBD (4) Lincoln County OR 40 OSU (5) Lincoln County OR RD&D Facility 1 TBD Northern California 4 40 TBD Hawaii 40 Total (1) Finavera, an Irish Company, bought AquaEnergy. I am told by the principals of the company that an application for a license will be submitted in October, I will make the assumption that they will get this pilot plant funded but it will not be built out into a commercial plant as the demand does not exist locally and the transmission to get the power to Seattle does not exist. (2) Assumes that FERC allows Energetech to sell electricity from the pilot plant and does not make them reimburse Narragansett Electric for electricity that they do not generate and sell and then that the plant does not get built out to a commercial plant because the economics for such a poor wave climate is not attractive (3) Assumes that OPT will be able to leverage off the system environment work done by Finavera and overseas and will be able to get a license without a pilot plant (4) Lincoln County has filed an application with FERC for a half dozen offshore wave plants in their coastal state waters (5) Assumes that OSU is successful at getting the funding for a wave energy RD&D plant at Newport OR and that the plant typically has about 1 MW of devices operating at any one time Installed capacity to date is about 4 MW worldwide. Most of the devices are engineering prototypes. The first shore-based grid-connected wave power unit was deployed in Scotland in July 2000 and has since operated successfully. The first offshore grid-connected wave power unit was deployed at the European Marine Energy Center (EMEC) in the Orkneys in July 2004 and testing is still ongoing. Based on the successful EMEC testing, the first commercial sale of an offshore wave power plant was announced in May In addition, a number of demonstration projects are ongoing and planned in Portugal, China, Japan, Australia, and the United States. If these early demonstration schemes prove successful, medium-size wave farms up to MW in capacity could be deployed within the next five to eight years. In general, the industry Electric Power Research Institute 17

18 expects that wave energy will experience a growth rate similar to that of wind during the last decade, although these predictions depend largely on government support and incentives for the emerging wave energy industry. What other introductory information is it important to know? The energy content of waves is a function of wave height and wave period. Sea state Data for a particular site can be summarized on a scatter diagram, which is a record of the wave motions, showing the number of occurrences of particular combinations of H s (significant wave height equal to the average of the third highest waves) and Tp (peak wave time period). Each combination of H s and Tp is referred to as a sea state. Wave energy generation devices Efficiency This can be defined in several different ways. A simple view is to consider resource-to-wire or wave-to-wire efficiency: the ratio of the energy a device actually captures to the energy that is available to be captured. Availability The proportion of time a device is ready to generate, irrespective of whether the resource is suitable for generation. Capacity factor The energy produced during a one year period divided by the energy that would have been produced had the device been running continually and at maximum rated output during that year. Ocean wave energy is one of the most concentrated and widely available forms of renewable energy in coastal areas. The World Energy Council estimates that about 10% of worldwide electric energy demand could be met by ocean wave energy. The current installed electric capacity is about 3.5 TW (1 TW = 10 6 MW). The fact that 37% of the world s population lives within 60 miles of a coastline establishes a good match between resource and demand and could facilitate widespread adoption of emerging technologies that generate electricity from ocean waves. Electric Power Research Institute 18

19 2. Wave Energy Resource A number of sources provide wave data for assessing potential sites, including in situ measurements, satellite measurements, wind-wave models and visual observations. When assessing a specific site, a suitable primary data source is typically chosen and then verified by other methodologies to confirm accuracy. In order to properly identify inter-annual variations and long-term trends, data sets should cover 5 to 10 years. In situ measurements for ocean waves have been conducted in many locations worldwide. Industrialized nations often have extensive historical data sets, which can be used to derive useful statistics for site assessments. These measurements are normally performed by small floating measurement buoys, which derive statistical parameters such as significant wave height, wave period, and direction from the buoys accelerations. In addition, satellites deployed by NASA and the ESA perform altimetry measurements and by interpreting radar response signals from the satellites, wave height can be analyzed. Because these measurements are unable to detect wave direction and period, they are typically used as a secondary source of information. Wind-wave models calculate wave data from a wind-field input. This methodology has been well refined over the last decade and modern third-generation models yield very accurate long-term statistics (up to 50 years). Model predictions are especially useful where in situ measurements are not available for sufficiently long periods of time. Visual observations are performed from merchant and other ships, and programs to collect such data have been in place for over 50 years. The observations are considered to be good long-term indicators of wave patterns. However, because ships tend to avoid stormy seas, the data sets tend to miss extreme events. In shallow waters (depth < ½ of the wave length or about 50 to 100 m), the influence of the ocean floor generally reduces wave power levels. Submerged features such as canyons can also focus energy, leading to hot spots in close proximity to shore. A number of shallow-water wave Electric Power Research Institute 19

20 transformation models take into account the bathymetry to calculate near-shore wave data. The accuracy of such models depends largely on the accuracy and resolution of the local bathymetry data. Statistical Analysis Statistical parameters derived from the wave energy spectrum are used to describe sea states and determine their characteristics relevant to wave energy utilization. Sea states are often characterized by wave height, period, and direction parameters. The variation in sea states during a period of time (e.g., month, season, year) can be represented by a scatter diagram, which indicates how often a sea state with a particular combination of H s and T p occurs. The following figure shows an example of such a scatter diagram. Figure 7 - Statistical Wave Distribution Matrix (scatter diagram) Wave energy density can be expressed in kw per m wave front. It can be calculated as a function of the significant wave height (Hs), the dominant wave period (Tp) and a spectral factor as shown in the equation below. Electric Power Research Institute 20

21 J = 0.42 x (H s) 2 x T p (Equation 1) The 0.42 multiplier in the above equation is exact for any seastate that is well represented by a two-parameter Bretschneider spectrum, but it could range from 0.3 to 0.5, depending on the relative amounts of energy in sea and swell components and the exact shape of the wave spectrum. Although such an estimate, based solely on the parameters H s and T p, is not exact, it was deemed adequate for this initial specification. For further information on resource assessment and wave power conversion device performance estimates, please consult the EPRI report WP-001-US Wave Energy Conversion Power production Methodology downloadable for free at US Wave Energy Data Sources The two largest inventories of long-term measured wave data in the United States are maintained by the National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( and by the Coastal Data Information Program (CDIP) of Scripps Institution of Oceanography ( NDBC data buoys are equipped with accelerometers for measuring wave conditions derived from buoy heave response. Statistical parameters such as Significant Wave height (Hs) and Dominant Wave Period (TP) are computed from 20-minute time-series measurements of sea surface elevation changes, and then stored or transmitted back to shore in real-time. Global and US Wave Energy Resource The power of ocean waves is expressed in kw per meter wave crest front as shown in Figure 8. Annual averages range from 10 kw to 100 kw/m wave front depending on the site location around the globe. For example, northern California averages 40 kw/meter wave crest peaks to over 1 MW/m wave crest during storms. In comparison, wind energy averages about 800 W per square meter of swept area and solar energy about 300 W per square meter. Electric Power Research Institute 21

22 Figure 8 - Wave and solar power flux comparison The following figure, shows annual average wave energy densities worldwide and is a useful high-level indicator of the potentially attractive deployment sites for wave energy systems. For detailed economic assessments, additional statistical parameters such as directionality and variability should be considered. Figure 9 - Annual Wave Power Averages Worldwide in kw/m Wave Front The U.S. regional wave regimes and the total annual incident wave energy for each of these regimes is shown in Figure 10. The total U.S. available incident wave energy flux is about 2,100 TWh/yr. The DOE Energy Information Energy (EIA) estimates 2003 hydroelectric generation to Electric Power Research Institute 22

23 be about 270 TWh which is a little more than a tenth of the yearly offshore wave energy flux into the U.S Southern AK 1,250 TWh/yr Northern HI 300 TWh/yr WA OR CA 440 TWh/yr ME,NH,MA,RI,NY,NJ 120 TWh/yr. Figure 10 The US Wave Energy Resource California Wave Energy Resource The following chart shows the near-shore wave climate for the State of California. It shows the annual average energy flux (red), The mean dominant wave period (green) and the mean significant wave height (blue). It shows that south of Point Conception there is a sharp drop-off in the energy density and a general trend of higher energy wave power densities in the north then the south. What it doesn t show is that wave power densities in far offshore (100 s of miles) is very uniform (Including southern California). This is important especially when looking at the long-term potential of wave energy conversion in southern California, where the channel islands and the directional change of the coastline limits the near-shore wave energy resource. However there are many potential deployment options further out at sea (in suitable water depths), which could be accessed if the transmission infrastructure were to be put in place. Electric Power Research Institute 23

24 Figure 11 - California wave climate summary (Source: California Energy Commission) Wave power can make an important contribution towards the California 2020 Renewable Portfolio (RPS) goals (33% by 2020). The annual average deep water wave power along the California coast is of the order of 27,600 MW. Technical limits will restrict the convertible potential to electricity to about 20% of the primary resource, yielding an average power of 5,500MW or 48,000 GWh. As a point of comparison, it would take about 18,000MW of installed wind capacity to generate the equivalent amount of electricity. Electric Power Research Institute 24

25 3. Performance Prediction Methodology Published data on Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) devices seldom provide sufficient detail to assess the accuracy of power production claims. The offshore wind energy industry routinely publishes turbine performance data in the form of curves and/or tables depicting generated power as a function of wind speed (see General Electric 3.6 MW turbine at or Vestas 2.0 MW turbine at for examples), yet wave energy developers rarely provide similar data on generated power as a function of sea state. This lack of documentation also makes it difficult to compare the likely performance of different WEC devices in a given wave climate, particularly when different underlying assumptions and simulation or model test methods have been used to generate their power production estimates. Finally, without such documentation, it is impossible to establish a baseline performance against which industry improvements can be benchmarked. In order to overcome these hurdles and enable a performance comparison of technologies, EPRI developed a Guidelines of Preliminary Estimation of Power Production by Offshore Wave Energy Conversion Devices (Reference 1, EPRI WP-001-US is available for public download at our website The capture width ratio of a device for a particular sea state is calculated as the absorbed power (before losses in conversion to electric power) resulting from a particular sea state numerical simulation (or random wave model test) divided by the product of the incident wave power for that simulation (or test) and the width of the simulated device (or model). Thus if capture width ratio is symbolized as CWR, then the equation is: CWR = P abs / (J x D y ) Where CWR is the capture width ratio (dimensionless no units), P abs is the absorbed power in simulated or modelled sea state (e.g. in kw/), J is the incident power in simulated or modelled sea state (e.g. in kw/m), and D is the cross-wave dimension of the simulated Electric Power Research Institute 25

26 device or test model (e.g. in m), which would be the diameter of a cylindrical buoy or beam of a rectangular raft. For example, consider the numerical simulation results published by the wave energy research group at the Norwegian Institute of Technology (NTH), University of Trondheim for a slackmoored, heaving-cylinder device with phase control (Reference 2, which can be downloaded at The wave energy absorber is a cylindrical spar buoy, 3.3 m in diameter, having a molded depth of 5.1 m. A reaction plate, 8 m in diameter, is suspended from the buoy, in line with a double-acting hydraulic cylinder. The reaction plate is submerged 10 m below the sea surface, and relative motion between the buoy and plate strokes the cylinder, absorbing wave energy by converting work done on the buoy and plate by waves into fluid work. This is a useful example because it illustrates how to handle the mismatch that occurs when device performance data are based on simulated or test sea states characterized by mean zerocrossing period (T z ) rather than the peak period characterization (T p ) that is used in this specification. It also illustrates how to extrapolate a limited set of simulation or test results to H s - T p sea state bins that have not been simulated or tested. On page 17 of the above NTH paper, Table 9 lists the following results for numerical simulations of Pierson-Moskowitz (P-M) spectra, based on a 100-second steady-state simulation. The P-M spectrum is a special case of the Bretschneider spectrum, in which T p = T z / (Equation 3) This equation should be used to convert T z -based simulation or test results from P-M spectra to T p for calculating the incident wave power during the simulations or test runs. The P-M spectrum simulation results are tabulated below. The top row indicates the mean-zero crossing period (T z ), and the second row indicates the associated peak period (T p ) calculated by Equation 3. The third row indicates the significant wave height (H s ), the fourth row indicates the absorbed power result (P abs ), and the fifth row indicates the incident wave power (J) calculated Electric Power Research Institute 26

27 by Equation 1. Based on the buoy s diameter of 3.3 m, the last row of the table indicates the capture width ratio (C) in each sea state, as calculated by Equation 2. Table 2 - NTH Simulation Results for Slack-Moored Heaving Buoy in P-M Wave Spectra T z (sec) T p (sec) H s (m) P abs (kw) J (kw/m) C The next step is to map these capture width ratio results into the appropriate H s - T p bins of the 85% rectangular section of the wave energy scatter diagram, which is done for the Hawaii station in the table below. Table 3 - Capture Width Ratio's for Hawaii Wave Energy Scatter Diagram Hs Tp (sec) (m) Note that only five of the NTH results (shaded in black and white print and yellow-shaded bins, red font in color print) map into the H s - T p distribution where 85% of the incident wave energy occurs in Hawaii. In a case such as this, the developer must either conduct new simulations targeted at the remaining 31 bins in the above table, which is the preferred approach, or the developer can fit a capture width ratio function to existing results that fall outside the 85% rectangular section, yielding CWR as a function of H s and T p and applying this function to the empty bins. For example, in Reference 2, P abs is shown to be linearly proportional to H s. Since J is proportional to (H s ) 2, it follows that CWR can be extrapolated according to the ratio 1/( H s ). This factor has been used to fill in the missing CWR values in the first four columns of the above table (italicized blue font). CWR as a 2nd-order polynomial function of T p for a given H s can then be fitted to the first four elements in each row, enabling extrapolation of CWR values into Electric Power Research Institute 27

28 the last five columns (bold italicized green font). Multiplying the CWR in each bin by the incident wave energy (kwh/m/yr) in that same bin yields the annual amount of energy absorbed from seastates in that bin per meter of buoy diameter. Summing these products across all 36 bins shows that this device would absorb 12.3% of the wave energy in the entire section. For each state in which developers want to predict the performance of their WEC device, they should enter their performance data into a table with the same number of columns and rows as the highlighted 85% rectangular section in the wave energy scatter diagram for the sea state of their choice. Each cell in this table should contain a developer s best estimates of the capture width ratio (CWR) of the device when operating in a random seaway having the same H s and T p as the midpoints of the sea state bin associated with that cell. Developers also should document how they obtained the absorbed power results (P abs ) used to calculate CWR, as well as providing the cross-wave dimension (D y ) of their full-scale device. The documentation supplied depends on whether the absorbed power results are from numerical model simulations or physical wave tank testing of scale models. (a) For numerical simulation results, the following information is required: i. Time domain or frequency domain? ii. Spectrum formula used (P-M, Bretschneider, JONSWAP, etc.) iii. Duration of simulations (steady-state portion from which results derived) iv. At what model or prototype scale has numerical simulation been physically validated? v. Validation results: How well does numerical simulation predict measured physical model or prototype output? (b) For physical model test results, the following information is required: i. Dimensions of model or prototype ii. Dimensions (length, width, depth) of model test tank (or water depth and distance from shore for prototypes) iii. Spectrum formula used (P-M, Bretschneider, JONSWAP, etc.) iv. Duration of measurements (steady-state portion from which results derived) Electric Power Research Institute 28

29 4. Wave Energy Conversion Device Developers and Test Centers Wave power research programs in industry, government and at universities have established an important foundation for the emerging wave power industry over the last half a dozen or so years. In the 1970s, the UK regarded wave power as an alternative to nuclear generation and had the most aggressive R&D program in the world. Although the program contributed to important basic research on optimal control and tuning of wave power conversion devices, it ultimately stalled as oil prices dropped and, as a result, government funding stopped. In the past decade, continuing research in wave powered generation and advances in the offshore industry have led to new designs, some of which have been tested at sea and connected to the grid. Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) System Developers and Devices Today, a number of small companies backed by government organizations, private industry, utilities, and venture capital are leading the commercialization of technologies to generate electricity from ocean waves. In late 2006, EPRI requested information from all WEC device developers known to EPRI, which are listed in Table 5 below: One-page fact sheets for the following selected devices are contained in Appendix A. The status of testing these devices is summarized in Appendix B. EPRI makes no evaluation of development status; for each of these developers we do state whether or not in ocean testing has been conducted and whether that testing was grid connected (shown in table 4). Fact sheets were prepared for companies that were responsive to our request for information. Table 4 Devices with One-Page Fact Sheets in Appendix A Developer Device Name In ocean testing in last 10 years Able Technologies Electricity Generation Wave Pump AquaEnergy Group, Finevera AquaBuOY AWS Energy Archimedes Wave Swing 700 kw in ocean grid connected Ecofys Wave Rotor 1:10 subscale in ocean and grid connected Energetech Uiscebeathe 500 kw in ocean grid connected Fred Olsen FO Research Rig Buldra 1:3 subscale in ocean not grid connected Independent Natural Resources Inc SeaDog TM Electric Power Research Institute 29

30 Ocean Power Delivery Pelamis 750 kw in ocean grid connected Ocean Power Technologies PowerBuoy 40 kw in ocean, not grid connected Renewable Energy Holdings Cylindrical Energy? kw in ocean, not grid connected Transfer Oscillator (CETO) Wavebob Ltd Wavebob WEC? kw in ocean? grid connected Wave Dragon Ltd Wave Dragon 1:4.5 subscale in ocean grid connected Wave Energy AS Sea Wave Slot-Cone Generator (SSG) Wave Star Energy Wave Star 1:10 subscale in ocean and grid connected Table 5 Listing of Wave Energy Conversion Device Developers Worldwide Device Developer (1) Website Address Device Name Contact Able Technologies abletechnologiesllc. com 330 Audubon Road Englewood, NJ 07631, USA Wave Pipe Stan Rutta srutta@yahoo.com Energy Division of Finavera Renewables Limited AW Energy P.O. Box 1276 Mercer Island WA 98040, USA 16 (Terra Building) FI Espoo Finland AquaBuOY WaveRoller Alla Weinstein Lars Sonckin kaari Tel/Fax info@aw-energy.com AWS Energy BioPower C-Wave Limited m College of the North Atlantic Ecofys Reashank House Alness Pt Business Park, Alness Rossshire IV17OUP UK Suite 145 National Innovation Centre, Eveleigh, NSW 1430 Australia Bldg 27, Univ of Southampton, SO017 1 BJ UK Box 370 Burin Bay Arm NL A0E 1G RK Utrecht Kanaalweg 16-G Netherlands Archimedes Wave Swing biowave TM C-Wave Wave Pump Waverotor Simon Grey simon.grey@awsocean.com 44 (0) Tom Finnegan tfinnegan@biopowersystems.com 61 (0) Giles Ewavepower.com dwards Giles.edward Michael Graham Mike.Graham@cna.nl.ca Peter Scheijgrond p.scheijgrond@ecofys.nl 31 (0) Electric Power Research Institute 30

31 Energetech au 7/12 Lord St Botany 2019 New South Wales Australia Uiscebeatha Tom Engelsman Tom.Engelsman@Energetec h.com.au Energiesysteme GmbH Bitburger Str 42-44, Berlin Germany ECOWAS III Paul Link MAMOEnergy@aol.com Fred Olsen Ltd NO-0156 Oslo, Norway Buldra Tore Gulli Tore.Gulli@fredolsen.no Independent Natural Resources Manchester Univ of Ocean Energy Ltd Ocean Power Delivery Ocean Power Technologies nologies.com Ocean Wave Energy Company Ocenergy OreCON Ltd Oregon State Univ Minnesota, USA The Fairbairn Building PO Box 88 Manchester M60 1QD 3 Casement Square Cobh, Cork Ireland 104 Commercial St. Edinburgh,EH6 6NF, UK 1590 Reed Road Pennington, NJ 08534, USA Bristol, Rhode Island, USA 54 Beach Rd, Norwalk, CT, USA Tamar Science Park, Derriford Plymouth, PL6 8BX UK Corvallis, OR SEADOG water pump Bobber Ocean Energy Buoy (OEBuoy) Pelamis PowerBuoy Ocean Wave Energy Converter Wave Pump MRC1000 Various direct drive buoys Mark Thomas mark@inri.us Margaret M Lewis Tel: margaret.lewis@umip.com John McCarthy oceanenergy@dol.le Des McGinnes enquiries@oceanpd.com George Taylor gtaylor@oceanpowertech.co m Foerd Ames Peter Grueterich peter@ocenegy.com Frasier Draper contact@orecon.com Dr. Annette von Jouanne avj@ece.orst.edu Renewable Energy Holdings Ioma House Hope St, Douglas Im1-1AP, Isle of Man UK CETO Mike Proffitt Renewable Energy Wave Pump 8037 Trevor Place Vienna VA REWP Shamil Ayntrazi sayntrazi@hotmail.com Electric Power Research Institute 31

32 SeaPower Group Essingeringen 72C Stokhom Sweden Floating Wave Power Vessel Inge Pettersson Sieber Energy SyncWave Energy m SyncWave TM Nigel Protter nprotter@gmail.com Vortex Hydro Energy / rgy.com/ Waveberg No known website Wavebob Ltd 4870 West Clark Rd, Suite 108 Ypsilanti, MI 48197, USA 3920 Goldfinch Street, San Diego, CA USA NI Science Park Queens Island Belfast, BT9 3DT Ireland VIVACE Water Pump Wavebob Tad Dritz tadcaspian@columbus.rr.com Paul Wegnerer pwegnerer@epitomepharm.c om William Dick william.dick@wavebob.com Wave Dragon ApS Wave Energy AS Wave Gen Wave Power Plant Blegdamsvej 4 1 st Floor, DK-2200 Copenhagen, Denmark Opstadveien AS 4330 Aalgaard, Norway 50 Seafield Road, Longman Industrial Estate, Inverness IV1 1Lz, UK 2563 Granite park Dr, Lincoln, CA USA Wave Dragon SSG (Seawave Slot Cone Generator) Offshore OWC Sea Gate-1 Lars Christiansen info@wavedragon.net Monika Bakke Monika.bakke@waveenergy.no David Langston Ghazi Khan ghazikhan4@yahoo.com Wave Star Energy com Maglemosevej 61 DK-2920 Charlottenlund Denmark Wave Star Per Resen Steenstrup prs@wavestarenergy.com (1) This list excludes individual inventors who have contacted EPRI over the past year because of the large number of such inventions Electric Power Research Institute 32

33 European Marine Energy Center The European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) shown in Figure 12, established by Highlands and Islands Enterprise and its funding partners in the United Kingdom, aims to stimulate and accelerate the development of marine power devices, initially through the operation of a testing center in Orkney, UK. The center s facilities include four test berths situated along the 50 m water depth contour off Billia Croo on the Orkney mainland (approximately 2 km offshore). Armored cables link each berth to a substation onshore. These cables link to an 11kV transmission cable connecting to the national grid and to a data/communications center located in nearby Stromness. The main elements of the facility are: Four Test Berths: Four individual armored cables (electrical conductor rated at 11kV/2.5- MW, two fiber-optic cables, and two control wires) connected to the onshore substation. The first wave energy device installed was the OPD Pelamis in 2005 and the next device planned for deployment is the Archimedes Wave Swing in 2008 Substation: Containing switchgear, metering equipment, power factor correction equipment, communications equipment, emergency generator, and the grid isolator. Observation Point: Containing two video cameras and a wireless communication link to the test site, linked back to the Value Center. Weather Station: Stand-alone solar-powered meteorological station linked to the Data Center. The center became operational at the end of Additional information is available at Electric Power Research Institute 33

34 Figure 12 - European Marine Energy Center (EMEC) US Wave Energy Test Center in the Pacific NorthWest Oregon State University announced in August 2005 that they will seek to develop a national offshore research development and demonstration facility off the Coast of Lincoln County, Oregon, in proximity to the OSU Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport, Oregon. OSU has a track record of successful wave energy technology research and has developed three direct drive prototype buoys designed to be anchored 1-2 miles offshore, in typical water depths of greater than 100 feet, where the buoys will experience gradual, repetitive waves. OSU s Permanent Magnet Linear Generator Buoy prototype is shown in Figure 13 along with the research team that developed the technology. OSU s research team continues to pursue optimum wave energy topologies and have also developed a Permanent Magnet Rack and Pinion Generator Buoy; and a Contact-less Force Transmission Generator Buoy. The long term vision of OSU is depicted in the Figure 13 depicts an array or park of direct drive buoy modules. Electric Power Research Institute 34

35 Figure 13 - OSU PM Linear Generator a Conceptual Wave Park Vision UK Wave Hub The South West of England Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) is developing the Wave Hub project to provide the electrical infrastructure necessary to support and encourage developers of wave energy converter devices (WECs) to generate electricity from wave energy. Wave Hub will facilitate WEC development through final demonstration and precommercialization development stages by allowing developers to install, operate and monitor commercial-scale WECs in realistic offshore marine conditions over a number of years. In this respect, Wave Hub will perform the function of a WEC proving zone for the efficient delivery of power derived from renewable wave energy. Wave Hub supports the UK government s energy policy by contributing towards the UK s drive to meet the challenges and achieve the goals of the new energy policy including a 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050; and the South West region s commitment to encouraging technologies for renewable energy generation that will contribute to the region's renewable energy target of 11% - 15% of electricity production by Wave Hub will be based onshore at Hayle, Cornwall. The offshore elements of Wave Hub, including the WECs, will be situated in approximately situated some 10 nautical miles out to sea off St Ives Head and its layout is conceptually illustrated in Figure 14. Electric Power Research Institute 35

36 Figure 14 - Wave hub Area (left), Wave hub Concept (right) Electric Power Research Institute 36

37 5. Siting Studies The SFPUC (San Francisco Public Utility Commission) and City of Oakland contracted with EPRI in 2004 for a Phase 1 design feasibility study at a specific Ocean Beach San Francisco site. That site was selected by the San Francisco Department of the Environment (SFE) and offered many benefits including: Pilot plant in an exclusionary zone from the marine sanctuary Wastewater plant has an existing environmental program Existing outflow pipe out into the exclusionary zone The results of the feasibility showed this to be an excellent site for a pilot project, however, presented some difficulties relative to build out to a first California commercial scale plant. The major factors include: High transmission and distribution upgrade cost to get the power to the load in the east side of the City Low wave energy climate relative to other potential sites in Northern California Water depths found within the exclusion zone (up to 32m) would have required the adoption of a special mooring arrangements and are not ideal. Based on the findings of this study, this phase 1.5 study expands the geographic area considered for a site that could be used for co-locating a pilot plant and a commercial plant. These characteristics will eventually allow a pilot plant to be built-out into a commercial scheme allowing for a process that minimizes environmental, regulatory and commercial risks. The following sections address some of the critical issues in respect to siting a wave farm. Electric Power Research Institute 37

38 Performance Cost and Economic Issues The cost and economic design base-line of the 2004 phase I study was used and numbers extrapolated to look at the various sites relative attractiveness in terms of incremental costs for pilot and commercial designs. The purpose of such comparison was not to establish exact cost parameters, but to provide a sense of how the choice of different sites would affect a plants performance, cost and economic attractiveness. In order to do so cost and performance results previously published in report EPRI WP 006 SFA and SFB available at and summarized in the Fact Sheet contained in Appendix C were used as a baseline and a few simplifying assumptions were put in place to extrapolate to other sites. 1. Capital cost of the device and mooring system would stay fixed 2. Operation and Maintenance cost per machine would stay fixed 3. The fixed charge rate used for the calculation of the COE would stay fixed The only two variables evaluated were the wave climate and grid interconnection cost as they were the 2 variables that would have the biggest impact on the cost and economic attractiveness of a particular site for a test site and a commercial plant. The wave climate in Northern California is very similar in deep waters offshore and as a result wave periods and spectral distributions are very similar from site to site. In order to evaluate the impact of the wave energy resource on the wave energy density, a number of representative measurement locations in Northern were chosen, the device performance calculate for each one of the site and the resulting Cost of Electricity calculated using the previously established fixed charge rate, capital and O&M cost parameters. The result showed a good correlation between cost of electricity (COE) and wave power density at the site. The following chart shows the results. The initial point design that was used to extrapolate data from is shown as well. Electric Power Research Institute 38

39 25 COE (cents/kwh) Real $ SF Commercial Design Point Wave Power Density (kw/m) Figure 15 Impact of wave energy density on the Cost of Electricity (COE) The second consideration for the evaluation of the commercial attractiveness of different sites in Northern California was the distance to shore and related susbea cabling costs required to interconnect the offshore wave farm to a coastal substation. Previous assessments of the base-case data revealed that the impact of the grid interconnection capital cost on the cost of electricity of a large commercial plant may be minimal. The following chart shows a breakdown of the relative contribution of various cost centers to the cost of electricity. It shows that the subsea cables would make a less then 2% contribution to the cost of electricity at the site considered initially offshore San Francisco. Electric Power Research Institute 39

40 10-year Refit 4% Onshore Trans & Grid I/C 0% Subsea Cables 1% Mooring 5% Power Conversion Modules 28% Annual O&M 40% Construction Loan 3% Construction Management 2% Facilities 3% Installation 3% Concrete Structural Sections 11% Figure 16 Levelized contribution to COE of different cost-centers of a 300,000MWh/yr Pelamis wave farm located near San Francisco While this comparison is a good indicator of the commercial competitiveness of a particular site in Northern California, initial deployments will require a much higher price support level for various technical and economic reasons. This low percentage impact on the cost of electricity is despite the fact that the distance to shore of the reference plant is about 17miles, significantly farther out at sea then many locations in Northern California. It is important to understand that these costs only include cable costs, not their installation. Electric Power Research Institute 40

41 In order to evaluate the electrical interconnection costs for various sites along the coastline a simplified parametric cost model for a 10MW and a 100MW subsea transmission infrastructure was created by extrapolating cost parameters from reference subsea cable installations. The following assumptions were taken: Voltage levels remain below 40kV Single cable for 10MW pilot plant and Multiple Cables for 100MW commercial plant 3 phase XLPE cables are used in all applications Seabed consisting of sand and mud allowing burial using a plough Cable can be laid in a straight line from point A to Point B It is important to understand that in reality deviations from the base-case are likely as different local site requirements will drive costs, which have not necessarily been considered in this model. In addition, recent raw material and subsea cable manufacturing option shortages have driven up cost for such cables significantly, creating uncertainties for various cost parameters used. The added cost of subsea transmission was then taken into consideration to calculate a composite cost of electricity, considering all costs to the grid interconnection point. Infrastructure Considerations Next to a good wave resource in close proximity to shore, which has large impact on the economic feasibility of a any particular site, siting considerations are largely driven by the available infrastructure s capabilities to support a wave energy project. On a high level, these include the following considerations: Nearby Grid Infrastructure Nearby Port Infrastructure to support O&M activities Regional offshore construction and operational capabilities Regional heavy industry capabilities for the construction of wave power conversion devices Electric Power Research Institute 41

42 Handling wave power conversion devices in the harsh US west-coast wave climate sets demanding requirements on the equipment used to deploy and recover wave power conversion machines. During winter storms, such equipment may be inaccessible due to wave and visibility concerns. Unlike regions in Europe where many of these devices are being developed, the US west coast lacks a sophisticated offshore construction industry, which has been created in large parts as a direct response to the demanding requirements of the offshore oil & gas industry, moving into deeper water and harsher environments. This sets limitations to the deployment of such devices offshore. In order to properly understand these limitations, this study reviews the critical issues associated with the development of offshore wave farms. Grid Infrastructure The grid infrastructure in California s coastal regions tends to be weak as these coastal communities are typical at the end of the transmission system. They are not setup to accommodate large generation capacities in these locations. Most coastal towns in Northern California are connected to the electric transmission system by 60kV substations, many of them within 1-5 miles from the coast. Most of these substations offer a feed-in capacity of between 30 and 50 MVA. While building new transmission capacity is costly and requires long-term strategic planning (typical transmission projects have a lead-time of 10-years), upgrade options to existing capabilities do exist, which could be used to increase the coastal grid capacity. Port Infrastructure There are a total of 10 ports along the California coast. In Northern California there are 2 ports that have deep water channels (San Francisco and Eureka). The remaining ports are small fishing harbors. Electric Power Research Institute 42

43 Humboldt Bay Noyo Harbor Bodega Bay SF Bay Area Half Moon Bay Monterrey Bay Morro Bay Santa Barbara Los Angeles San Diego Figure 17 - Ports in California Regional offshore construction and operational capabilities Offshore construction companies mobilize most large vessels such as derrick barges and tugs along the North American west coast from Alaska to Central America and Hawaii Electric Power Research Institute 43

44 within a few days. While mobilization from the Gulf of Mexico is possible, it is rather costly to do so. Most marine construction projects on the US west coast are carried out within sheltered waters. Typical activities are related to the installation and maintenance of harbors, piers and bridges. As a result, equipment typically used in the offshore oil &gas industry is not readily available. Most construction activities are carried out using a combination of tugs, barges, derrick-barges and support vessels as depicted in the following figure. When evaluating wave energy technologies, it is important to put them into the context of US west coast contractor capabilities. Technology that requires specialized equipment for installation and maintenance will have it s own price tag as this typically means inflated prices as there is limited competition by contractors allowing for cost reductions. Figure 18 Marine Construction Vessels The following shows a list of construction companies active in the area. Their respective websites list their capabilities and most of them have an overview of their inventory online. Electric Power Research Institute 44

45 Table 6 - Major Marine Construction Companies active in California Company Manson Construction American Marine General Construction (owned by Kiewit Pacific) Crowley Maritime Foss Maritime Traylor Pacific Website Device Construction Most prototypes and early commercial devices will be built entirely in steel, while in the longer term alternative materials such as pre-stressed concrete and composite materials will likely become a means to lower capital costs, while increasing durability and reliability. Construction of the devices does not have to be carried out on-site since devices can be easily shipped over long distances at marginal costs. It is important to remember that it is easier to transport large machines (such as a wave power conversion machine) on the water then on land. Because of the relative flexibility of device construction options (locations), no further elaboration on this topic is included here as they have only a marginal impact on choosing a device deployment location. Wave Power Device Operation and Maintenance Requirements Europe (and in particular the UK) is pushing the development of wave power conversion technologies with an aggressive R&D program, public funding for technology development companies and by providing early adopter markets allowing for the deployment of full-scale systems. As a result of this favorable environment, most wave power technology developers are located in Europe, where the offshore oil & gas industry has very sophisticated vessels available that can be used for the deployment and recovery of wave power conversion devices. In contrast, the US west-coast does not have an offshore oil & gas industry and as a result, vessels lack the sophistication commonly found in Europe. In fact, most construction activities on the US west coast is found in protected waters for projects such as port modifications, building of bridges and piers. Electric Power Research Institute 45

46 There are very few wave power device developers that have experience with handling full-scale devices in the ocean and as a result, there is a lack of understanding the operational requirements in full. At present, most procedures and vessels used come from experience in the offshore oil & gas sector, which has a tremendous amount of experience with construction and operation in heavy seas. Unfortunately most of these technologies have been developed with little regard to cost implications and are expensive. However trends indicate that companies are trying to come up with simpler and therefore cheaper ways of installing and operating their wave power conversion devices using small vessels and specialized equipment. Oftentimes this means re-design of the device and its mooring system to allow for simplified operation and handling. As an example, Ocean Power Delivery installed their first Pelamis device using a sophisticated offshore anchor handling tug (AHATS) with dynamic positioning and other sophisticated features. A picture of the vessel is shown below. Figure 19 AHATS class vessel used for deployment of Pelamis However, more recently the company has modified their design in such a way that it requires a much smaller vessel, and as a result operational cost is reduced. Below is a picture of a Multi-Cat vessel the company envisions using to install wave Pelamis devices in the future. Electric Power Research Institute 46

47 Figure 20 Type of vessel envisioned for future operation In the long-term it is likely that small vessels (such as fishing boats) could be modified to carry out many of the maintenance tasks required to operate offshore wave farms and larger vessels may be only needed to be mobilized for initial installation tasks. In order to determine what kind of port and device infrastructure is required to deploy, recover and operate these devices, a review of the handling requirements for some of the more mature devices under development was carried out. The responses from Ocean Power Technologies, Ocean Power Deliver, Wavebob and Energetech have been analyzed to evaluate the suitability of the available equipment. The categories considered include installation of moorings, device deployment and recovery and annual operation and maintenance. The following table provides a summary of likely required parameters for the various technology options under consideration. It is important to understand that the presented data points are just the starting point. Most designs and deployment/recovery procedures can be modified to match local conditions. Table 7 Draft of Full-Scale Commercial Prototype WEC Devices (of technically matured devices) Device Developer Device Draft during towing operation (m) Device Width during towing (m) AWS WaveSwing 8-10m NA Energetech 5m 10m Ocean Power Delivery 4m 5m Ocean Power Technology (P-150) 6m 11m Wavebob 5m 15m WaveDragon 7m 97m Electric Power Research Institute 47

48 Mooring Installation The installation of a devices mooring system is usually carried out in Europe by sophisticated AHATS Vessels, which have sufficient deck space available to accommodate moorings and a crane to efficiently handle moorings. In the US, such installation activities will likely need to be carried out from a crane-barge or a rigged-up tug-boat. Device Deployment/Recovery The device deployment requires the device to be launched from a pier, rail-type system or slipway, towed to the deployment site and connected to it s mooring system. The device also needs to be connected electrically using a riser cable. Shipping devices over long distances, can oftentimes offset higher construction costs and it is not unheard of that towing (or shipping on a barge) is done over thousands of miles to take advantage of lower cost economies construction activities. Connecting the device to its mooring and riser cable normally requires some lifting capabilities using an onboard crane or winch. If the platform from which the operator works from is not stable (i.e. under heavy wave conditions), the crane will require some sort of heave compensations. This can drive the requirements for heavy and sophisticated vessels and equipment which in turn drives up cost. In response to these issues, some manufacturers have started to redesign their devices to reduce or eliminate such vessel capabilities and therefore drive down cost. It is important to remember that the industry at large is still in its infancy, especially as it pertains to operational considerations. Oftentimes installation and operational considerations are only marginally being considered (and understood) in the initial phases of device development and changes are incorporated in second or third generation engineering prototypes that have operated at sea. Maintenance Once the device is deployed and operational out at sea, the device needs to be maintained. Different device developers pursue different maintenance strategies. Devices that require sophisticated equipment to deploy and recover them are trying to reduce the number of times the device needs to be recovered and instead pursue strategies to carry out most of the maintenance tasks onboard. Other devices that can be easily Electric Power Research Institute 48

49 towed (such as the OPD Pelamis) carry out as many maintenance as possible in sheltered waters at the dockside. In the case where only personnel and small equipment pieces need to be moved between the device and the shore, a simple RIB (Rigid Inflatable Boat) or a modified fishing vessel may be sufficient. Such vessels only need a small harbor to be launched from. The illustration below shows a RIB used by rescue teams. Figure 21 Rigid Inflatable Boat (RIB) used by rescue personnel The critical driver for either strategy is maximizing the devices accessibility (and carry out maintenance tasks) in order to reduce downtime in case of a failure, while reducing cost. Accessibility can be hindered or prohibited by large waves or fog, wind and heavy rain. With the advent of radar, Global Positioning Systems and other sophisticated instrumentation, navigational factors (such as fog) have become less of a concern. Wave conditions remain a critical issue in determining a vessels ability to carry out certain operations. The type of vessel and the sophistication of it s navigation and stationkeeping capabilities have a critical impact on improving what kind of conditions are still acceptable to carry out the operation in a safe manner. In addition, not only the vessels ability to operate in heavy seas, but also the vessels interaction with the wave power conversion device needs to be considered. Operational capabilities of a vessel are typically defined as a function of significant wave height. However, wave steepness and wave periods have a critical impact on operational Electric Power Research Institute 49

50 capabilities. In order to determine what proportion of the year (or month) operations can be carried out safely annual and monthly exceedance functions can be derived. Exceedence functions define during what portion of the year a certain wave height is exceeded. For the purpose of this report, exceedance functions were generated for 2 reference stations. The first measurement station has an annual average wave power density of 37kW/m and is located in Northern California (NDBC station Eel River in 500m water depth), while the second reference station is located in proximity to San Francisco (NDBC station San Francisco in 52m water depth), representing a wave power density of 21kW/m. These two locations can be considered as a good representative range for other sites in Northern California. Discussions with the contractors on the US west coast indicated that for operational activities such as laying subsea cables and installation of anchors, a significant wave height (Hs) of 2m would be a good cut-off proxy operational considerations. Applying this 2m limitation to the following exceedance statistic in the following figure shows that close to measurement buoy CDIP (San Francisco) wave conditions would prevent installation activities during 30% of the time over the period of a year. For locations close to CDIP (Eureka area) 60% of the time could not be used for construction activities. Electric Power Research Institute 50

51 120.0% 100.0% CDIP CDIP % Exceedance 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% Hs (m) Figure 22 Exceedance Statististic for CDIP (21kW/m) and CDIP (37kW/m) While this data provides a good idea for the range of conditions that can be found in Northern California, it does not provide much information on seasonal variability. Construction activities are likely carried out during summer periods, when weather conditions are relatively calm. The following figure shows excceedance plots for September (the calmest month during the year) and December (The stormiest month) for the measurement buoy (CDIP 46026) in San Francisco. Considering the same operational limitation will provide a downtime of about 10% (90% availability) for September and 60% for December. As a proxy, discussions with construction companies revealed that during summer months, they would consider a operational availability of about 80%, which corresponds well with the presented results. Electric Power Research Institute 51

52 120.0% 100.0% Sept Dec 80.0% Exceedance 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% Hs (m) Figure 23 Seasonal exceedance graphs for CDIP In reality, the weather window length, the wave period and the wave steepness to carry out a certain operational needs also must be taken into consideration. This will in turn lower the accessibility, which is reflected in the difference between using a purely statistical model based on wave height and using at sea experience. In addition to a vessel s offshore operational capabilities, the port s accessibility needs to be taken into account when developing and optimizing an operational strategy for a wave farm. During winter storms, ports can be inaccessible for periods of days or weeks, because of waves breaking at or close to the harbor entrance. This means that a device may be inaccessible during periods of the year. This is mostly true for some of the smaller ports in California. A typical example is Noyo Harbor in Fort Bragg, where the channel entrance is oriented in such a way that waves break right at the harbor entrance, making entering and leaving the port a dangerous and at times, an impossible, undertaking. Most other ports have deeper channel entrances and/or a breakwaters allowing vessels to navigate even in heavy seas. NOAA s office of coast survey maintains and coordinates Electric Power Research Institute 52

53 some data on navigational issues for the ports under consideration. Further information can be found on Siting alternatives in proximity to San Francisco Before evaluating sites outside of the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF), EPRI first looked at the other options available for grid interconnection within CCSF. For each alternative interconnection point shown in Figure 24, we: Identified feed-in limits at suitable substations Estimated required upgrade costs at various scalability levels between 5MW and 100MW Estimate landfall, connection and sub sea cabling costs for 5MW, 20MW, 50MW and 100MW Identified a scalable approach that minimizes upfront cost and scale-up cost Used existing easements where possible Identified incremental cost of going further out to sea to tap into more energetic wave energy resource The following provides an overview of the findings of these studies. As shown in the figure 24, the principal wave direction is coming from the north-west. Point Reyes as well as the Farralones islands are blocking some of the wave energy to the south. A review of some wave measurement buoy showed that the deep water wave energy potential is roughly 35kW/m, while in the vicinity of San Francisco, this drops off to about 21kW/m. A second consideration is the bathymetry in close proximity San Francisco. In order to get to a suitable deployment depth of more then 50m for deep water wave energy conversion devices, deployment sites are located more then 20km out at sea, making subsea transmission a key driver for the cost of a deployment site. Electric Power Research Institute 53

54 33kW/m 35kW/m 21kW/m Principal Wave Direction 11kW/m Figure 24 - Bathymetry and wave power density overview map. 50m contour line shown in red As a result of these restraints a few potential deployment sites were chosen to evaluate the impact on the cost of electricity for a commercial (100MW) plant and the impact on the cost of installing a single subsea cable. The chosen locations are shown in the map of Figure. The dotted red, green and blue lines show the potential subsea cable routes that were evaluated for their respective cost impacts. Electric Power Research Institute 54

55 Figure 25 - Evaluated subsea cabling and grid interconnection options in the San Francisco area. Water depth shown in fathom The following table shows the location of the various sites and their impacts on subsea cabling costs. As a reference, the impact of the subsea cable on the cost of electricity from a wave power plant with a nominal rated capacity of 100MW was determined as well. The model used to estimate subsea cabling costs, was based on supply-chain costs of Since then, commodities such as copper have increased drastically. In addition, there is a a worldwide shortage of subsea cable manufacturing capacity, leading to drastic increases in cost. Such effects have not been taken into consideration for this study and will need to be studied further. The study showed that while deep water sites in vicinity of San Francisco hold tremendous potential and the impact of going further out to sea on the cost of electricity for commercial sized plants is marginal. However, for smaller deployment sizes, subsea cabling cost is a dominant factor. While this is true for most infrastructure projects, this is a more dominant consideration for this particular sites, because the sites are far out at sea. Finding a suitable combination of site attributes leading to a low cost site for early adopter (smaller scale) and large-scale commercial build-out is therefore difficult. Electric Power Research Institute 55

56 Table 8 Subsea cabling options for Sites in proximity to San Francisco Substation Estimated Substation Capacity Site Cable Landing Easement Subsea Distance Overland Distance Ocean Beach 8 MVA Site1 (51m) Yes 27km 0.5 km Ocean Beach 8 MVA Site2 (32m) Yes 11 km 0.5 km Portrero 150 MVA Site1 (51m) No 41 km 0.5 km Portrero 150 MVA Pt. Reyes No 65 km 0.5 km Pacifica 60 MVA Site1 No 33 km 1.5 km Pacifica 60 MVA Site2 (32m) No 11 km 1.5 km Pacifica 60 MVA Site3 (50m) No 19 km 1.5 km Pacifica 60 MVA Pt. Reyes No 56 km 1.5 km Ocean wave power holds tremendous potential to supply the county and city of San Francisco in the long term. Space for over 1,000MW of installed wave power capacity could be accessed in deep water offshore to the North of San Francisco and interconnected in the San Francisco bay area, directly, supplying the city with renewable energy. The Port of San Francisco (or Oakland) could be used for servicing the offshore renewable power infrastructure. About 370MW available grid capacity could be accessed in the City of San Francisco alone. However, the sites in the vicinity of San Francisco would require the installation of long distance sub sea transmission cables, making the sites only attractive if the scale of the development is large enough (i.e. >100MW). Northern California Wave Energy Sites Outside of San Francisco EPRI next evaluated suitable sites in Northern California with the potential of meeting the criteria for a good pilot plant site with a good potential for build out to a commercial scale plant at that same site. In alphabetical order, the sites evaluated were: Bodega Bay Eureka Fort Bragg Half Moon Bay Morro Bay This section summarizes the pilot to commercial plant scale ability study for the abovementioned five (5) sites. Electric Power Research Institute 56

57 Bodega Bay Bodega Bay is a city of about 1,000 people on the California Coast about 1 hour north of San Francisco. The locations of a potential wave plant deployment site, the port and the substation are shown in the map below in Figure 26, which includes bathymetry,and the Bodega Bay harbor is shown in Figure 27. Substation Deployment Site Dock Facilities US Davis Marine Biology Center Figure 26 Bodega Bay overview map (Water depth in fathom) Electric Power Research Institute 57

58 Figure 27 - Bodega Bay Harbor Eureka Eureka is a city with a population about 25,000 people and located on the Northern California coast in Humboldt County. The locations of a wave plant deployment site, the port and the substation are shown in the map below in the following maps and figures. Electric Power Research Institute 58

59 Deployment Sites Deepwater channel Substation Figure 28 Eureka Bathimetry map NDBC Buoy 37kW/m Figure 29 - Eureka Nautical Chart (Water depth in fathom) Electric Power Research Institute 59

60 Deployment Sites Pipe Outfall Substation Figure 30 - Eureka Nautical Chart (Water depth in fathom) Figure 31 - Eureka Port North portion of map Electric Power Research Institute 60

61 Figure 32 - Eureka Port South portion of map Fort Bragg Fort Bragg is City of population of about 7,000 people located on the coast in Mendocino County, California. A Georgia Pacific lumber mill operated in Fort Bragg in the past. The mill site occupied about 600 acres of land that occupied nearly the entire coastline of the City of Fort Bragg. The Georgia Pacific mill is now closed and the reuse of the mill site property represents the single largest potential development opportunity to the City of Fort Bragg. The City has a plan to reuse the mill site and that plan includes a Marine Science Institute and the City has expressed interest in a wave park. The locations of a wave plant deployment site, the port and the substation are shown in the map below. Electric Power Research Institute 61

62 Deployment Site Substation Noyo Harbor Figure 33 - Fort Bragg Bathimetry Pipe Outfall Noyo Harbor Figure 34 - Fort Bragg Nautical Charts (Water depth in fathom) Electric Power Research Institute 62

63 Figure 35 - Noyo Harbor (Water depth in fathom) Half Moon Bay Half Moon Bay is a coastal city in California with a population of approximately 13,000 people. It is located approximately 28 miles south of San Francisco and lies within the westernmost portion of San Mateo County. Half Moon Bay The locations of a wave plant deployment site, the port and the substation are shown in the map below in Figure which includes bathymetry Electric Power Research Institute 63

64 Small Port 60kV Substation Deployment Site Figure 36 - Half Moon bay to Monterey bay bathymetry A nautical map showing the area offshore of half Moon Bay is shown in Figure 37 The Half Moon Bay harbor and the room needed to service a 160 m long wave energy device is shown in Figure 38. Electric Power Research Institute 64

65 Half Moon Bay Substation (60kV) Wave plant site 60 m depth Figure 37 Half Moon Bay Nautical Chart (Water depth in fathom) 1000 m Figure 38 - Half Moon Bay Port (Water depth in feet) Electric Power Research Institute 65

66 Morro Bay Morro Bay is a coastal city in California with a population of about 10,000 people. It located on the Pacific Coast of California about half way between San Francisco and Los Angeles near Hearst Castle and the Big Sur Coast in San Luis Obispo County. Deployment Sites Substation >100 MVA Small Port Figure 39 - Morro Bay bathymetry overview Figure Electric Power Research Institute 66

67 Small Port Substation > 100MVA Deployment Sites Figure 40 - Morro Bay Nautical Map (Water depth in fathom) Figure 41 - Morro Bay Port Electric Power Research Institute 67

68 Overall Review of these sites in Northern California Sites north of San Francisco (at suitable water depths) have higher energy density, then south of San Francisco. This in turn has an impact on the cost of electricity from a commercial-scale wave power plant. Good port infrastructure in Northern California is scarce. Only San Francisco and Eureka have ports with sufficient infrastructure to be used as a staging areas for installation activities. Some of the smaller ports (such as Fort Bragg and Bodega Bay) could potentially be used as a base for servicing offshore wave farms. This will require a device developers pursue operation and maintenance strategies that do not require large vessels. In respect to the installation of a first of a kind wave power demonstration site it is better to err on the side of caution and stay close to a port that has ample capabilities. The cost of doing business in the San Francisco Bay area is expensive and therefore may even have a further impact on the cost of electricity, because it drives up operation and maintenance cost. For further considerations, the top four choices in no order of priority are outlined further in the following paragraphs. Eureka offers a good combination of a high energy wave resource and a good port infrastructure, though at times, inaccessible due to winter storms. However grid capacity to feed power back into the grid is likely limited and as a result it is questionable as to the growth potential of a wave farm in this location. It would however make an ideal location for being an early adopter site that could be built-out into a small commercial scheme. Fort Bragg offers an a good combination of grid infrastructure and wave resource. However the port infrastructure is not very sophisticated and the port is inaccessible during periods in winter. Also, the entrance channel is only dredged to 4m depth, making it difficult to operate more sophisticated vessels from that port. Bodega Bay features and excellent wave climate. However the grid infrastructure is relatively weak and the local fishing port is only dredged to about 4m water depth. Electric Power Research Institute 68

69 Half Moon Bay features a more moderate wave climate (20kW/m +). However it s close proximity to the San Francisco / Bay area makes it easy to mobilize larger vessels and support installation and operational considerations. A 60kV substation could handle about 50MW of new capacity. The following table summarizes these considerations. Table 9 - Summary table of major sites Site Subsea Cable Length Substation Distance from Shore Estimated available Grid Capacity Wave Power Density (kw/m) Scaled COE (1) Port Infrastructure Half Moon Bay 11 km 1.5 km < 50 MW Good Pacifica 11 km 1.5 km < 50 MW Good SF (51m) 27 km (3) 0.5 km 150 MW (2) Good Pt Reyes 65 km 0.5 km 150 MW (2) Good Bodega Bay 2.4 km 2 km 20 MW Medium Morro Bay 4.8 km < 0.5 km > 100 MW Medium Fort Bragg 1.6 km < 1km 100 MW Poor Eureka 6.4 km 0.5 km NA Good (1) Refers to a scaled 100MW commercial reference design. For background on that design please refer to Reference 13. (2) Potrero Substation only. Other substations on the SF Peninsula could add up to 370MW. Further capacity exists in the east bay. Estimate depends heavily whether or not other generation projects come online (3) Distances for SF depend which site and which substation is chosen. Depending on these choices the relative interconnection distance is between 11-65km. Table 8 in this report shows the various options available for San Francisco. Electric Power Research Institute 69

70 7. Environmental Issues & Permitting For over three years, EPRI has worked to identify the wave energy environmental issues, their possible impacts and mitigation strategies. The conclusions that we have drawn can be summarized in four statements: 1. All energy producing technologies, and for that matter, all human endeavors in general, and ocean energy conversion in specific, have the potential to produce unacceptable environmental impacts 2. Given proper care in siting, installation, operation and decommissioning, ocean energy technology promises to be one of the more environmentally benign electricity generation technologies. Most known negative environmental effects can be minimized and in some cases eliminated by diligent attention to the environmental effects. 3. The environmental effects discussion to date in this country has focused on identifying potential negative consequences, however, has mostly omitted the discussion of the positive environmental consequences of the displacing of fossil based energy supplies. 4. In many cases, analytical models of the complex environmental interactions do not exist and therefore pilot plant demonstrations are required. Unlike large hydroelectric projects, the 21 st century ocean energy technologies are modular and can be removed if serious environmental effects are noticed. While the question of what kind of impacts can be expected from these sort of technologies is clear, it remains to be seen as to what extent such impacts will manifest in real world situations. It is widely accepted by the environmental community that only real in-ocean projects, combined with well designed environmental monitoring programs can provide the knowledge to further quantify environmental effects and improve the current understanding of such. Such an environmental monitoring program should include quantifying before and after control impacts (BACI) and monitoring a test and a control site in parallel to properly identify technology related impacts. This section summarizes the wave energy projects that have been permitted for construction and operation worldwide, summarizes and gives links to major environmental issues and impact Electric Power Research Institute 70

71 assessments reports published and lastly describes the key environmental issues and a suggested research program for addressing those issues. Existing Environmental Studies A summary of the key environmental issues and possible impacts is described in the following table. Table 10 - Summary table of Wave Energy related Environmental Impacts Wave Issue Impact(s) Mitigation Withdrawal of Wave Energy changes to sediment transport patterns Interactions with Marine Life, Seabirds and Benthic Ecosystems Atmospheric and Oceanic Emissions Visual Appearance and Underwater Noise Conflicts with other uses of Sea Space Interfering with the migration marine mammals such as gray whales Lowering of wave energy levels reaching the coast may reduce longshore sediment transport and possible reduce erosion in the vicinity of the site and increase erosion down coast May provide artificial haul-out space for pinnepeds, enabling larger populations to exist than would otherwise be possible. Submerged components such as anchors and cables may provide substrates for colonization by algae and invertebrates creating artificial reefs. Applies to devices with closed circuit hydraulic systems where working fluid (which may be biodegradeable) may leak or spill during transfers The aesthetic affect of visually affecting the pristine coast, although this only applies to coastal and near shore systems as offshore systems will not be visible from the coast. Significant underwater noise levels could have adverse effects on marine mammals Potential conflicts with recreational uses (i.e., surfing), commercial shipping, commercial fishing, crabbing and kelp farming, dredge solid disposal and other activities which should be avoidable given early dialogue with stakeholders. Any underwater cables can lead to fishing gear snags and gear loss. Large offshore wave energy conversion device arrays have the potential to interfere with the migratory patterns of marine mammals. For example in California, grey whales use the sea space off the California coast for their annual migration from Alaska to the Baja. A web of cables could pose a hazard to migrating marine mammals. If down coast erosion takes place, either wave farm dispersion and/or groins may be required Design the devices to minimize haul out space for pinnepeds and birds (for example, a conical hat on point absorbing buoys. Do not employ seawater based systems. Use only bio degradable fluids Do not employ coastal or near shore wave power plants. Hold siting, design and installation, operation and procedure with all local stakeholders prior to making final plant detail design decisions Installation activities should be planned for the summer months when the seas are the calmest and when the whales are not migrating. Cables should be minimized and buried or rock bolted to the seabed Electric Power Research Institute 71

72 The following list of studies can provide further background on existing environmental impact reports and studies. 1. EPRI Wave Energy Conversion Environmental Issues. See EPRI Report WP-007-US under the Wave Page at 2. DOE Environmental Effects Workshop Report: Workshop Proceedings: See Hydrokinetic & Wave Workshop Proceedings (FINAL) ( 1.4MB PDF) at 3. Environmental Assessment Report OPT Hawaii Wave Energy Project: A CD containing a very lengthy Environmental Impact Assessment Report is available from the US Navy. EPRI has requested and received a copy. 4. Makah Bay AquaEnergy Wave Energy project EIR: An Environment Assessment Report was submitted to FERC in mid-october, That report is available from the FERC website. 5. EMEC Pelamis: If requested, EPRI will strive to obtain a copy of the Environmental Assessment Report prepared for this project. 6. Portugal Pelamis Wave Energy Commercial Project Environnemental Assessment Report : If requested, EPRI will strive to obtain a copy of the Environmental Assessment Report prepared for this project. 7. UK Wave Hub: Environmental Assessment reports and other related documents can be downloaded from their project website at A description of the project follows below. The British government has announced it will provide roughly $8.5 million toward installation of a first-of-its kind electricity socket on the sea floor off the coast of southwest England to feed power from wave energy devices to the nation s grid. Up to four wave energy machines could plug into the so called Wave Hub, which would transmit electricity via a 10- mile-long subsea cable to a grid interconnection on the mainland at Hayle in Cornwall. The Wave Hub, which has a total estimated installation cost of about $18 million is Britain s most ambitious project to boost innovative marine energy technology designed to produce electricity from wave action. If approved, the project is expected to be operational in Officials at the regional development agency say that, so far, no show-stopping environmental issues have been found for Wave Hub. We have looked at environmental issues from almost every angle, ranging from potential impacts on marine life, the fishing industry and seabirds right through to wave height, protected wrecks and even the potential effects of electromagnetic fields on basking sharks, said Electric Power Research Institute 72

73 Nick Harrington, Wave Hub project manager at the development agency, in a June 20 press release. What the studies have shown us is that Wave Hub would have very little impact on the environment during its construction and operation, which gives us confidence in applying to the government for planning permission. The regional development agency has contributed $4.7 million toward the project and earlier this year picked three companies as development partners for Wave Hub. They are UK-based Ocean Prospect Ltd. and Ocean Power Technologies and Fred. Olsen Ltd. of Norway. Environmental Benefits of Ocean Energy Ocean wave energy is clean renewable energy. A section which discusses the environmental benefits and costs is provided in Section 10 of this report. Recommended Next Steps The most pressing need in our view is pilot demonstration testing with full environmental monitoring to determine environmental effects and issues related to ocean wave energy systems. The key needed research areas include: Assess and minimize the environmental impacts on; a. Fish and mammals (i.e., grey whale migration) b. Pinneped and bird haul out space c. Effect of anchors and mooring on the benthic life d. Shoreline dynamics and ecology We also recommend workshops with ocean users, environmentalists and regulatory agencies early in the process to flush out the key environmental issues. To be fair, we should pay those stakeholders who are not compensated to attend and participate in the workshop (e.g., fisherman and crabbers are not being paid when they are not fishing and crabbing). We assume that the government, regulatory, utility and maybe some environmentalist staff are paid by their employer to attend such a workshop. Electric Power Research Institute 73

74 8. Regulatory Issues Chronological of Licensing Offshore Wave Energy Plants in the U.S. Before going forward with licensing the first wave energy power plant in California, we recommend that a potential wave project developer become generally familiar with the history of licensing wave power plants in the U.S. That history is summarized chronologically below. 1970s Oil embargos and inflationary conditions led Congress to enact the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OREC) Act. NOAA developed a one-stop-shopping licensing regime. OTEC projects did not materialize AquaEnergy filed a declaration of intent (DOI) with FERC concerning a proposed 1- MW Makah Bay Wave project FERC asserted jurisdiction over this proposed AquaEnergy Project 2003 Navy Offshore Wave Project in Hawaii o Funded by Office of Naval Research (through an earmark) o 300 page EIS prepared by Belt Collins using public monies o Received a FONZI o ONR streamlined licensing process through USACOE o Neither MMS nor FERC was not involved Energetech filed a DOI with FERC concerning a proposed 500 KW Oscillating Water Column project called GreenWave in waters less than 3 miles from shore 2005 FERC asserted jurisdiction over this proposed Energetech and is not crediting the over two years work with the CMRC The Mineral Management Service (MMS), part of the Department of Interior, is empowered by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to assume authority for renewable projects, such as wave, wind or solar power on offshore lands (>3 miles to OCS except National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Marine Sanctuary System or National Monument (The Makah Bay project, being in a National Marine Sanctuary, does not fall under MMS jurisdiction and remains under FERC) MMS decides to develop a programmatic Environmental Impact Assessment funds Argonne National Laboratory Electric Power Research Institute 74

75 2006. Public scoping meetings are the first step in the preparation of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the nation s Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Renewable Energy and Alternate Use Program July 14, OPT stated that they have generated power for 8 of the 24 months with mechanical problems being fixed in the interim months. Performance models were verified. Modified design will be deployed in Hawaii in late summer 2006 Dec 6, FERC holds public testimony. FERC asserts that EPACT 2005 does not give MMS jurisdiction over ocean energy projects in Federal Waters as interpreted by MMS. The planned MMS speaker did not attend as scheduled. The Opening Statement by Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher at FERC public testimony on December 6 th, 2006 is as follows: Good Afternoon. Welcome to the Commission s annual hydropower conference. This conference is different from those of recent years. In the past, we have focused on licensing proceedings that have experienced significant delays. We examined the causes of delays, and concluded that in most cases delays result from failure of state agencies to issue clean water act permits in a timely manner. This conference is different. It is the first Commission conference to examine new hydroelectric technologies, namely technologies that would utilize ocean waves, tides, and currents and from free-flowing rivers. Over the past year we have seen increasing interest in these technologies as evidenced by numerous articles in the news media and by a surge in applications for preliminary permits here at the Commission. Last month, we received the very first license application for a wave energy project off the coast of Washington. Staff has issued 11 preliminary permits; three are for proposed tidal energy projects (in New York, Washington, and California), and eight are for proposed ocean current energy projects (off the coast of Florida). Approximately 40 preliminary permit applications for ocean projects are currently before the Commission, all of which have been filed since March of this year. Given this increased activity in non-conventional hydropower technologies, we are convening this conference to learn more about these technologies from representatives of industry, other state and federal agencies, NGOs, and members of the public. These technologies have significant potential. Today, we expect to hear how these technologies can fit within the national energy infrastructure in terms of the amount of potential energy that can be developed and its reliability, environmental and safety implications, and commercial viability. In particular, there are three areas that we want to examine: the environmental effects of developing this new infrastructure; financial issues having to do with the costs of research, development, and build-out; and regulatory processes that may affect the Electric Power Research Institute 75

76 ability of this new industry to succeed. This conference will provide a better understanding of these technologies and enable us to formulate prudent next steps in our regulation of this nascent industry. I look forward to hearing the views of the panelists. Wave Projects Permitted and in Licensing Process Worldwide wave energy projects permitted to date are: LIMPET, WaveGen OWC, Portugal Wave Dragon, Norway - June 2003 OPT PowerBuoy in Navy waters, Hawaii March 2004 Pelamis, Ocean Power Delivery, EMEC UK - August 2004 AWS Energy, Wave Swing, Portugal - October 2004 Energetech, Port Kemble, Australia - March 2005 Wavebob, Ireland Renewable Holdings, CETO, Australia Ocean Power Delivery, Portugal Wave Hub, UK, OPD, OPT and Fred Olsen Wave projects in licensing process are: Eight applications for wave plant preliminary permits have been submitted to FERC: o Reedsport, Douglas County, Oregon OPT o Douglas Country, Oregon (excluding above area) Douglas County o Lincoln County, Oregon Lincoln County o Bandon, Oregon, AquaEnergy Finevera o Eureka, California AquaEnergy Finevera o Mendocino County PG&E o Humboldt County PG&E Numerous applications have been files in other countries including the UK, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, France, and South Africa. Three US wave projects have completed environmental impact assessment processes Hawaii Ocean Power Technology (PowerBuoy TM ) o Wave project licensed (by US Navy) and installed o Environmental assessment stated Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Electric Power Research Institute 76

77 o Installed in June Only environmental impact noticed to date is fish habitat creation The Energetech GreenWave project in Point Judith, RI has completed a non-ferc licensing process as an air driven power system, however, a 2006 ruling by FERC denied the classification of this air turbine system as an air driven system and classified it as a hydropower system and under their jurisdiction. Energetech has yet to display any interest in going through the FERC licensing process and furthermore, will not accept FERC s offer of waiving a license for this experimental plant because of FERC s condition that Energetech does not get revenue for the electricity generated and most reimburse the local utility for the electricity that they do not generate and sell. Makah Bay, Washington - AquaEnergy o Wave project with full license application submitted to FERC o Environmental assessment stated FONSI o Full license application to build and operate the Makah bay plant (4 X 250 kw AqueBuOYs) was submitted to FERC in November, 2006 At the time of this writing, MMS is preparing a programmatic environmental impact statement that will focus on generic impacts from each industry sector based on global knowledge, and identify key issues that subsequent, site-specific assessments will consider. The programmatic EIS will focus on the environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic impacts associated with establishing a national alternative energy program and rules.\ As part of this EIS, three study areas for the State of California were defined. Maps of these areas, showing jurisdictional boundaries can be downloaded from A draft EIS and draft rules are scheduled to be published February 2007 and final rules in the late summer of MMS will coordinate with other agencies in the permitting of offshore renewable energy projects. At the time of this writing, it is not certain how this new program for ocean energy developments will affect the licensing and permitting process for offshore wave power plants. For further information on the EIS and rulemaking process please visit Electric Power Research Institute 77

78 9. Public Outreach Fort Bragg Resolution and Town Hall Meeting In the summer of 2006, EPRI was contacted by local leaders in the town of Fort Bragg to discuss the potential of including a wave energy plant in the plans for the reuse of the closed Georgia Pacific Lumber mill site. In July 2006, EPRI made a visit to the town and met with the Mayor, the City Manager and other officials, visited the mill site and Noyo harbor, and agreed to come back and give a town hall meeting to test the support of the citizens of the Fort Bragg. EPRI with support from PG&E gave a town hall meeting in Fort Bragg in August, A white paper was prepared and distributed to those who attended (over 100 citizens attended). The citizens in general were very supportive of the concept of a wave power plant off their shore with the reservation that it is done without affecting those who make their living on the ocean (the fisherman, crabbers and kelp farmers) and with full environmental consciousness; a particular concern about not affecting the grey whale migration was expressed. As a result of this meeting, the City Council passed a resolution requesting EPRI to help attract a wave power plant to Fort Bragg - The white paper requesting town support is contained in Appendix D - A newspaper article about town hall meeting is contained in Appendix E - The Resolution passed by the City Council is contained in Appendix F Port Liaison Project (PLP) One of the conclusions of the Fort Bragg town hall meeting was that any ocean wave energy power plant planning off Fort Bragg should be done with the full involvement of the local citizens and in particular, those who make their living on the ocean (the fisherman, crabbers and kelp farmers). As a first step to satisfying this requirement, EPRI successfully proposed a Port Liaison Project (PLP) to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Electric Power Research Institute 78

79 This Port Liaison Project (PLP) reimburses fisherman, crabbers and kelp farmers to work with the engineering and scientist team to identify the issues relative to siting, design, installation and operation of a Fort Bragg and Eureka offshore wave power plant. The first PLP workshop was held in Fort Bragg on January 31, The goal of the PLP was to help build bridges / relationships between researchers and the fishing community that will last long after the PLP is done. In other words, the PLP is not about pulling researchers and fishermen together so that the fishermen can become informed on the research. Rather, it is about the researchers and fishermen exchanging knowledge, informing each other and finding solutions / resolutions wherever possible to improve the research. The meeting was well attended. The top ten (10) significant highlights that were archived going forward are as follows: 1. EPRI charts showing potential areas of future wave power plants, and particularly those near harbors, should include navigation channels designed into the layout and those channels shall accommodate multiple entry and exit angles 2. When EPRI talks about the City of Fort Bragg s request to help attract wave power to Fort Bragg, the caveat that only with no negative environmental effects and only with stakeholder support needs to be made up front and clear 3. A general concern for everyone to keep up front is that we (our federal and state level regulatory agencies) need to assure that we have a process that does not allow a private developer to come in and steamroll power plants with unacceptable consequences through (in other words, try to make sure that no one is able to circumvent the work we are doing to try to find a way to live together in the ocean). 4. Wave energy, when combined with the needs of Noyo Harbor for breakwater extension, is a twofor (two for one) that may provide a higher priority into the Corps of Engineers construction priorities. R. Bedard took the action to contact the appropriate Corps office and make sure that they are aware of this twofor 5. If wave power plants go forward, the need for accurate predictive data from NDBC data buoys is yet another reason for keeping the NDBC program well funded. Furthermore, Electric Power Research Institute 79

80 wave predictability with high accuracy is limited to about 18 hours and this may beg for more and better data buoys 6. The fisherman, crabbers and kelp farmers use all the seabed in the Fort Bragg area (Point Arena to Cape Mendocino). Any yielding of seabed real estate away from this activity must be a negotiated with the people that make their living on the ocean and should also be done in light of expected 2008 NOAA marine protection area (MPA) zones. Furthermore, boat traffic in this area all converges on Noyo Harbor. In any case, the fisherman community needs to know the intended scope and size of future wave power parks before an assessment of potential losses can be made. 7. In addition to loss of seabed real estate, another major issue for fisherman is interference with the boat traffic, impending safest navigation routes to home or safe harbor and associated loss of revenue. Fort Bragg s economy is based on commercial and recreational fishing. A related concern is what this would do to the whale-watching industry and to the whales themselves (entanglement, etc) 8. Noyo harbor does not meet the requirements for deployment of wave power plants and it is questionable whether Noyo Harbor could be used for any required maintenance activities other than docking of vessels for activities performed out in the ocean. 9. Two of the concepts which are generally applicable (however, may not hold for a small pilot plant) are: 1) put the commercial size plant where there is no port and put them in MPAs (to be designated at a later time). The point was also made to stay away from the mouth of the Eel River 10. It may be wise for the fishing community to get onboard with wave power sooner than later. Al Pazar from the Oregon fishing community made the point that it is coming and it is better to work with it than fight it. Others made the point that fighting it could lead to being steamrolled by it in unacceptable ways in the future. Others stated that the fishing community needs to think about the parameters necessary to assure that this does not become a gold rush Electric Power Research Institute 80

81 10. Societal Costs of Electric Power Generation Electricity is a critical backbone in sustaining the Nation s economic growth and development and the well-being of its inhabitants. Nearly 70% of the U.S. electricity is generated using fossil fuels. Electric power plants that burn fossil fuels emit several pollutants linked to environmental problems such as acid rain, urban ozone, and global climate change. The economic damages caused by these emissions are viewed by many economists as "negative externalities" and an inefficiency of the market when electricity rates do not reflect, nor ratepayers directly pay, the associated societal costs. There is much debate about the true value of these costs, but certainly the cost is greater than the zero cost currently applied by our society. Renewable power production from solar, wind, wave and tidal usually have a lower environmental impact which represents a societal benefit over more traditional fossil fuel generation options. For planning new power generation, should regulators favor technologies with lower capital cost but higher emissions than technologies with higher capital cost and no emissions? We will NOT attempt to answer that question, however, we will present data that will enable the reader to be able to weigh the costs, both capital and emission cost, of alternative electricity generation technologies. At the end of the day, society, through its politicians and regulators representing the will of the people, will answer this question. Over two decades ago, as wind technology was beginning its emergence into the commercial marketplace, the CoE was in excess of 20 cents/kwhr (in 2006$). The historical wind technology CoE as a function of cumulative production is shown in Figure 7. Over 75,000 MW of wind has now been installed worldwide and the technology has experienced an 82% learning curve (i.e., the cost is reduced by 18% for each doubling of cumulative installed capacity) and the CoE is about 6 cents/kwhr (in 2006$ with no incentives) for a average 30% capacity factor plant. Wave energy technology today is about where wind was twenty years ago; just starting its emergence as a commercial technology. There are only a few MWs of wave energy capacity installed worldwide and the first commercial plant is being installed in Portugal at the 30 MW size and is receiving a feed in tariff of about 40 cents/kwh. The EPRI estimate for Electric Power Research Institute 81

82 wave energy CoE in the Pacific Northwest, after applying a production tax credit (PTC) equal to that of wind energy is shown in Figure C0E (cents/kwh), 2006 dollars, No incentives 1 st Wave Plant 30 MW Historical Wind Avg CF 30% GW GW EPRI Wave Estimate Pacific NW ,000 10, ,000 Cumulative Installed Capacity (MW) Figure 42. Actual Wind and Projected Wave Energy Cost of Electricity (after PTC) EPRI wave energy feasibility studies performed in 2004/2005 showed that wave energy will enter the market place at a lower entry cost than wind technology did and will progress down a learning curve that is similar to that of wind energy. A challenge to the wave industry at the very high installed capacities will be to assure that the inherently higher cost of offshore O&M compared to on-land wind O&M allows the wave technology total capital plus O&M CoE to be economically viable. In order to quantity the monetary value of the emissions displaced by using wave energy instead of coal (whether wave will displace coal, gas or some other fuel is a question whose answer is site specific and one for which we have no answer today), we take the pragmatic Electric Power Research Institute 82

83 approach of monetizing SOx, NOx, Mercury, and CO2 coal emissions at rates being paid in some areas). How much is being paid to avoid emissions provides an imperfect, but explainable approach in estimating how great a harm the emissions are causing. The value of avoided emissions is shown in Table 10. Table 10 Emissions Avoided CO2 $/ton SOx $/ton NOx $/ton Mercury $/lb Value ,000 3,000-4,000 10,000-25,000 For a standard 500MW pulverized coal (PC) plant, monetizing the SOx, NOx and Mercury emissions above would increase the COE from the 4.8 cents/mwh CoE of that standard PC plant to about 5.0 cents/mwh. Adding $15/ton CO2 would increase the COE of the plant from the 5.0 cents/mwh to 6.2 cents/mwh. The avoided emissions at a deployment level of 4 GW of wave plants operating at 40% capacity factor, using a proxy coal fired plant with emissions at the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) limit of what can be permitted (actual plants may be less), is shown in Table 11 (note that the emissions rate for mercury is for Bituminous coal and the NSPS for mercury varies with coal type). Table 11. Emissions Avoided Pollutant Emissions Rate (lbs/mwhr) 4,000 MW Wave Plant (tons/year) SOx ,000 NOx 1.0 7,000 CO2 1,600 11,000,000 Mercury 2.1 X Particulates 0.2 1,400 Electric Power Research Institute 83

84 11. EPRI Perspective, Conclusions and Recommendations EPRI Perspective A balanced and diversified portfolio of energy sources is the foundation of a reliable electrical system. Using wave energy to generate electricity will increase supply options, improve the reliability of the electrical system and provide many other far-reaching benefits. The construction, operation, and maintenance of wave power plants will create jobs, promote economic development, and improve the state s and nation s energy self-sufficiency. In addition, there are other compelling arguments for investing in the development of offshore wave energy technology. With proper siting, deployment, operation and decommissioning, converting ocean wave energy to electricity is believed to be one of the more environmentally benign ways to generate electricity. Offshore wave energy offers a way to minimize the aesthetic issues that plague many energy infrastructure projects, from nuclear to coal and wind power. Since wave energy conversion devices have a very low profile and are located at a distance from the shore, they are generally not visible from the shore. Offshore wave energy is more predictable (longer time horizon and greater accuracy) than direct solar or wind energy, and therefore can be more easily integrated into the overall electricity grid for providing reliable power. Wave energy is an important energy source that should be investigated for generating electricity in Northern California because: There are many coastal cities which have the expertise, port, manufacturing and grid infrastructure needed to construct, operate and maintain offshore wave power plants The wave energy climate in Northern California is excellent promising potentially attractive cost of electricity levels and a long coastline The cost of electricity is high in California (highest on the U.S. mainland) California has a tradition of leading the nation in adopting clean energy technologies Electric Power Research Institute 84

85 Our perspective on the regulatory situation was expressed by Mr. John Novak, Executive Director in the EPRI Generation and Environment Sectors, who was a panelist in the FERC December 6, 2006 Environment Panel and his remarks are summarized below: The U.S. must keep all of its energy options open to meet the energy, economic and environmental challenges in the future. For electricity, this means building and sustaining a robust portfolio of clean, affordable options for the future ensuring the continued use of the big five : coal, nuclear, gas, renewables, and end-use energy efficiency. R&D can and will make a big difference. With sustained levels of R&D, the costs of these five electricity options can be substantially reduced over the next decade. For renewable energy, the R&D priorities include: Integration of large intermittent resources, including power electronics. Interconnection, communication and control of distributed generation Cost-effective energy storage technology, and Demonstration of ocean renewable wave, tidal and river in-stream and wind-wave hybrid concepts for power generation. North America has significant ocean energy resources and technologies able to exploit these resources are becoming available. EPRI has put together a program to evaluate the feasibility of adding ocean energy to the North American energy supply portfolio. To evaluate ocean energy s potential, EPRI s approach has been to facilitate public/private collaborative partnership between coastal states, involving state agencies, utilities, device developers, interested third-parties, and the DOE to perform technologic and economic feasibility studies to investigate if a compelling case for investment in ocean energy can be made; and if so, stimulate feasibility demonstration in North America, and accelerate sustainable commercialization of the technology. The EPRI Ocean Energy Program a public benefit program and all technical work is available at There are currently 16 reports on Wave energy and 17 reports on Electric Power Research Institute 85

86 Tidal energy, including a report on the environmental impacts of tidal energy, and one on wave energy. Our Ocean Energy Feasibility Studies are having an effect. In the past couple of months, Private investors have filed 32 applications for preliminary permits with FERC for tidal projects based on our studies Nova Scotia Power Inc has announced a multi M$ pilot tidal plant project based on our study A private investor (Ocean Power Technology) filed with FERC for the 1st US commercial wave plant; a 50 MW plant at Reedsport OR, the site we selected and performed a feasibility study for in Lincoln and Douglas Counties, Oregon have applied for a FERC preliminary permit for multiple wave plants along their coast And, we expect a few more commercial wave power plant site applications to FERC soon. By adding ocean energy as an option to meet our nation s energy mix we can avoid CO2 emissions from electricity generated from new coal and natural gas plants. Although it is believed that the environmental impacts of ocean energy will be minimal and manageable, our knowledge of the environmental impacts is limited by the low number of actual projects. As mentioned earlier, to evaluate ocean energy s potential EPRI believes that multiple demonstrations in different locations are needed to obtain performance data and to assess environmental impacts and we are working with others to take steps to promote these demonstrations. A permitting process that facilitates these demonstrations will accelerate the collection of this important information. The information gathered from these demonstrations can then be used to evaluate the permitting process over the longer term. FERC is being called on to learn about and regulate new emerging wave and tidal energy technology in a different way that it has regulated conventional hydropower over many decades a faster, better, cheaper way. This Commission is being asked to innovate in ways that it never has had to before. And, the future of clean renewable ocean energy in the U.S. will depend on their success. Electric Power Research Institute 86

87 The prospective of the EPRI Ocean Energy Leader, Roger Bedard, on the regulatory situation is as follow: The primary barrier to the development of tidal in-stream and wave energy in the U.S. is regulatory in nature. The regulatory process being applied today was designed over a half century ago for conventional hydroelectric plants and does not fit for the characteristics of today s wave and tidal in-stream energy conversion technology [11]. Extensive regulation applies to even small pilot projects whose purpose is to investigate the interactions between the energy conversion devices and the environment in which they operate. The impacts of these pilot demonstration projects are expected to be minimal given the small size of the projects. Developers cannot gather data on potential impacts through installation and operation of a short-term pilot demonstration project without going through the same license process that applies to 30 to 50 year licenses for major conventional impoundment or dam-type hydro projects. There is a provision whereby FERC will waive the requirement for a license for a small, experimental, short term pilot plant as long as the developer does not realize revenue for the electricity that is generated and pays the local utility for the electricity that they do not generate; a condition which many developers find unacceptable. In addition, licenses are still required from many other regulatory agencies In the absence of information on how projects operate in real-world conditions and how they affect the environment in which they operate, ocean energy developers cannot attract capital. This existing regulatory situation is hampering and will continue to hamper the progress of the ocean energy industry in the U.S. The cost of these delays to American business is significant. While many countries in the world move forward with this technology, the U.S. remains on the sidelines neither benefiting its own industry nor benefiting itself in taking the steps necessary to overcome its addition to fossil fuel-based energy. While no technology barriers are evident, further technology advances are essential to achieving reductions in electricity cost from wave power plants. No U.S. Government R&D Electric Power Research Institute 87

88 funding also a barrier, but this is offset by substantial funding from other Governments and from private investors. Once regulatory barriers are removed, the next largest barrier may be the leveling of the playing field for ocean energy vis-à-vis fossil fuel and those renewable technologies that rely on government incentives. It is very difficult for a new technology to overcome market introduction barriers compared to established technologies even with a level playing field. The playing field is not level compared to fossil fuel generation technologies because these technologies are not made to account for negative externalities. The playing field is not level compared to wind and solar generation technologies because these technologies are the sole renewable recipients of tax credits. An uneven playing field slanted away from ocean energy will hamper the progress of the ocean energy industry in the U.S. EPRI will continue to work to help the electric utility industry develop and demonstrate new renewable options for diversifying and balancing their generation portfolios and will continue to work to knock down the barriers that are impeding the investigation of these renewable generation options. We have a dream of an affordable, efficient and reliable power supply and transmission system that is environmentally responsible and economically strong. This electricity system is supported by an effective regulatory system that fosters the application of the best electricity generation technology for the good of society as a whole. EPRI will continue working to try to make this dream a reality. As we in North America live in an increasingly global society, it is up to us, each and every one of us, to work together, not only to dream about our desired energy future, but to actively work together to make it happen. Electric Power Research Institute 88

89 EPRI Conclusions The wave energy potential off the coast of the California is significant. In 2002 and 2003, the California Energy Commission (CEC) sponsored a study to look at generation of electricity from ocean waves in California. The results of this study were presented by the Director of the Public Interest Energy research (PIER) program at a conference in San Diego in California features a high energy wave climate and a fast dropping ocean floor, resulting in deep water close to shore and an excellent wave power resource that is located close to shore and major coastal population centers (i.e., energy demand). These are all indicators that ocean waves could make an attractive economic case to supply renewable energy to the state of California. Most of the wave energy incident upon California s shoreline originates from storms in the Northern Pacific Ocean. There are two distinctively different wave climates within California. They are divided at Point Conception. Southern California s lower energy wave climate can be attributed mainly to the abrupt change of the coastline to a south-east facing coastline south of Point Conception and the shadowing effects of the Channel Islands located off the Santa Barbara County coast. Northern California has no such shadowing effects and as a result has higher energy levels as shown in figure 43. California s coastline is about 1,200 km long with average deep water densities in the range of 20kW/m 37 kw/m. The total average deep water wave power meeting these shores is about 37,000MW. Using present technology choices a maximum of about 20% of that energy could be converted into useful electricity. This yields an average power of about 5,500 MW or a annual electrical energy output of 48,000 GWh. As a point of comparison, it would take about 18,000MW of installed wind power capacity to generate the equivalent amount of electricity or enough to meet 23% of California s electricity needs. In reality however land-use and environmental and electrical grid related considerations will likely further limit the amount of energy that can be withdrawn. Electric Power Research Institute 89

90 Figure 43 - California s Wave Energy Resource A study carried out by EPRI in 2004 (Reference 13 and 14) came to the conclusion that ocean wave energy will become cost competitive with other energy options due to learning curve cost reductions from cumulative production once about 20,000 MW has been installed. As with any energy generation technology, it will however require government incentives in the initial phases of market adoption. Offshore wave energy technology is an emerging technology and is now ready for pilot scale demonstration testing and continuing development testing in the US. Since the technology is still at the emerging stage, however, many important questions about the application of offshore wave energy to electricity generation remain to be answered, such as: What type and size will yield optimal economics? Given a device type and rating, what capacity factor is optimal for a given site? Will the installed cost of wave energy conversion devices realize their potential of being much less expensive on a cost of electricity basis than solar or wind? Will the performance, cost and reliability projections be realized in practice once wave energy devices are deployed and operated? Electric Power Research Institute 90

91 One of the core objectives of this Phase 1.5 study was to characterize and evaluate the best wave power sites in Northern California. Performance, cost and economic models show that a commercial-scale wave power plant s economic viability will depend largely on the wave power density at the deployment location. Sub sea cabling cost will have a minimal impact at a 100MW+ scale for most locations considered. However, the cost for a small demonstration site, where the first few devices could be tested is heavily dependent on electrical interconnection costs. A second very important consideration which is more difficult to quantify in economic terms is the availability of good local port infrastructure. Given that such a wave power site is likely to be a first of a kind in California, it is important to plan for the unforeseen. Many ports in Northern California are small fishing ports with harbor entrances that are only dredged to about 4 m and some of them without any breakwater, making navigation in and out of the port difficult when large waves are present. A third consideration is the availability of good local grid infrastructure, which would allow a significant amount of electricity to be fed into the grid. Most coastal towns in Northern California are connected by 60kV transmission links and usually offer no more then about 50MW of available capacity. A request for information was sent out to all known wave power conversion device developers. A total of 14 responses were received and are shown in the Appendix A. The review showed that wave energy conversion device developers continue to make progress developing their devices. It also shows that there is an abundance of concepts, but only a few devices that are nearing commercial status. Since EPRI initiated its collaborative efforts with feasibility studies in ocean wave energy in 2004, California has moved on a path to adopt a first demonstration plant in California. In December, 2006, Finevera AquaEnergy filed an application for a preliminary permit for a site in Humboldt County, California. The EPRI team will continue to assist moving wave power projects forward towards implementation by providing unbiased technical expertise, facilitating collaboration among stakeholders and involving the community at large. EPRI s experience shows that the adoption of new energy generation technology options requires stamina, vision and a solid technical Electric Power Research Institute 91

92 foundation. EPRI has the experience and is committed to excellence in supporting interested California stakeholders in this oftentimes challenging process. EPRI Recommendations While the long-term potential for wave energy in California is promising, it is important to understand that many issues remain to be resolved in order for wave energy to become a commercially power generation option. The challenges to be addressed include; technology options are still in an immature stage, uncertainty of environmental impacts and a seemingly unworkable regulatory framework. It is EPRI s belief that these issues need to be addressed using a twofold strategy; targeted research and development (R&D) and in-ocean testing. Targeted R&D will be required to focus all parties onto the process of creating the most cost effective technology options for the State of California by feeding local requirements back into the development process and provide a solid understanding of the fundamental drivers of economic competitiveness and answer the question of; How can cost of electricity be driven down to become competitive with other generation alternatives. This will require a solid fundamental understanding of the technologies involved and the ability to model the performance, survivability, operational requirements, cost and economics of various technologies. A heavy focus on R&D is typical for early adoption of technology in the market place. While it is unlikely that California based technology developers can compete with European wave power technology companies in the near future, research should focus on how European technology can best be implemented in California by providing a solid fundamental understanding of the economic drivers. Such integrated techno-economic modeling in the area of ocean wave energy has been pursued by EPRI for a number of years. There is no substitute for Hardware on the Ground or in the wave energy case Anchored to the Seabed. Support of early adoption in the market place in form of price support will focus technology developers on building the most cost effective power conversion machines for California. In addition, it will focus environmental groups, policy makers and R&D to find solutions to the real challenges. The most cost-effective way to enable early implementations (First 10-50MW) is to establish a site in a favorable California location that can be used by multiple developers to test their machines and build-out into small commercial schemes. By Electric Power Research Institute 92

93 providing a deployment site that is already permitted and has infrastructure in place to interconnect with the electrical grid and available local marine infrastructure to support deployment, operation and maintenance, the burden on device developers is lowered and as a result, they can focus on technology instead of site-development. Results of in-ocean testing can then be fed back into the R&D program. A successful example for such a shared infrastructure approach has been developed with the Wave Hub in South West of England that aims to create the UK's first offshore facility for the demonstration and proving of the operation of arrays of wave energy generation devices. Further information on this facility can be found at This approach would also contain development activities to a particular area and provide a framework to study environmental impacts and establish regulatory confidence. If successful, the technology can be adopted along California s coastline. The above two focus areas should be supported by further study in the areas such as environmental impacts, permitting & consenting, grid interconnection studies and detailed resource assessment. These key areas are outlined below: As with most novel technology, environmental impacts are at present uncertain and will need to be assessed as a parallel effort to technology deployments. The permitting process in the Federal Government is seemingly unworkable and the process in California is untested. This situation provides significant hurdles to any project developer in California. Development of sensitive processes that allow for technology deployment, while ensuring the protection of California s coastlines will be a critical step to move forward. Starting with a single test-site, in-ocean testing is required to enable environmental organizations and regulators to become familiar with the real issues involved. Detailed resource assessment. While there is plenty of information available for the deepwater wave energy resource available off the California coast, the wave climate in suitable deployment locations is not always well understood. Further modeling could greatly enhance the understanding of the wave energy resource in the most suitable deployment locations. Most of these modeling efforts could be carried out using computational modeling. Electric Power Research Institute 93

94 Further study of grid-interconnection limitations. Many load centers in California are located near-shore (i.e. San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc.); however, the shoreline population is typically at the end of the electric transmission infrastructure therefore limiting how much energy can be fed back into the grid. In addition, the best wave energy deployment sites can be found in Northern California, which has a relatively low population density and the electric transmission infrastructure has been designed to deliver power to the end, not feed power back into the grid. The permitting presently applied to ocean wave energy projects was developed for hydropower which is radically different from ocean wave power conversion technologies. EPRI encourages the development of a new, streamlined, fair and transparent, licensing process that fits the needs of the new emerging wave energy conversion technologies, while protecting the interests of the public. In particular the process should allow for adaptively managed project development (i.e. licenses that are conditional on having no significant ecological impact). Electric Power Research Institute 94

95 Section 12. References EPRI Wave Power (WP) Reports are available on our website 1. WP-001-US Guidelines of Estimation of Power Production by Wave Energy Conversion Devices 2. WP-002-US Rev 4 Cost of Electricity Assessment Methodology for Offshore WEC Devices 3. WP-003-HI Results of Survey and Assessment of Potential Wave Energy Sites in Hawaii 4. WP-003-WA Results of Survey and Assessment of Potential Wave Energy Sites in Washington 5. WP-003-OR Results of Survey and Assessment of Potential Wave Energy Sites in California 6. WP-003-ME Results of Survey and Assessment of Potential Wave Energy Sites in Maine 7. WP-004-US Rev 1 Assessment of Offshore Wave Energy Conversion Devices 8. WP-005-US Methodology, Guidelines and Assumptions for the Conceptual Design of Offshore Wave Energy Power Plants (Farms) 9. WP-006-HI System Level Design, Preliminary Performance and Cost Estimate Hawaii 10. WP-006-OR System Level Design, Preliminary Performance and Cost Estimate California 11. WP-006-ME System Level Design, Preliminary Performance and Cost Estimate Maine 12. WP-006-MA System Level Design, Preliminary Performance and Cost Estimate Mass 13. WP-006-SFa System Level Design, Preliminary Performance and Cost Estimate San Francisco, California Pelamis Offshore Wave Power Plant 14. WP-006-SFb System Level Design, Preliminary Performance and Cost Estimate San Francisco Energetech Offshore Wave Power Plant 15. WP-007-US Identification of Environmental Issues 16. WP-008-US Identification of Permitting Issues 17. Wind Energy Costs NWCC Wind Energy Series, Jan 1997, No Regulating Innovation: Permitting and Licensing New York City s East River Kinetic Hydropower Project, Ron Smith, CEO Verdant Power LLC, presented at Powergen RE, March 2004 Electric Power Research Institute 95

96 Section 13. Useful Internet Links EPRI: European Wave Energy Thematic Network: Department of Transportation and Industry (UK): Australian Renewables including Wave Energy: Danish Wave Energy: European Commission 'Thermie' wave energy site: European Wave Energy Research Network (EWERN): European Wave Energy Thematic Network: Japan Marine Science & Technology Center, JAMSTEC: Norwegian Wave Energy Site: Open University, UK: World Wave Atlas: Resource: Electric Power Research Institute 96

97 APPENDIX A Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) Device Fact Sheets Electric Power Research Institute 97

98 Survey of Offshore Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) Devices - Fall 2006 Able Technologies Electricity Generation Wave Pump (EGWAP) Principle of Operation: The EGWAP incorporates a perforated, hollow, non corroding pipe with a total height from the ocean floor to above the highest wave peak. The pipe is anchored securely beneath the ocean floor. When the water level in the pipe rises due to wave action, a float rises and a counterweight descends. This action turns a main drive gear and other gearings to turn a generator to produce electricity. The mechanism also insures that either up or down movement of the float will turn the generator drive gear in the same direction. Electrical output of the generator is fed into a transmission cable. The EGWAP tube is mounted in a concrete base. Development Milestones and Status: 2002 Theoretical modeling and analysis completed and patent granted 2003 Subscale working prototype completed 2006 Modifications under development 2007 Readiness for wave tank testing at Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, N.J. pending funds Sea trials (subscale) to be sited at Tuckerton, N.J. under the auspices of Rutgers University Marine and Coastal Science Division pending funds Specifications: (Prototype) Diameter: approx. 4 m Rated power output: 200kW (based on Gulf of Maine - NDBC median seastate 1.5 Hs and 6 Tp Average power output: 66kW with average 12.4kW/m wave climate Weight: 70 tons. (Modified Design) Deployment depth: between : 8m to 25m Height of the structure: 2-3 m above high tide / high wave criteria. Note: Specs subject to revision based on location and current developments. Company Profile: Company founded in 2002 Six figures invested to date 4 employees at end of 2006 Contact: Stan Rutta, CEO srutta@yahoo.com

99 Survey of Offshore Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) Devices - Fall 2006 AquaEnergy Group Ltd., an Ocean Energy division of Finavera Renewables AquaBuOY Principle of Operation: AquaBuOY is a floating point absorber vertical axis two-body wave energy converter: 1) the buoy and acceleration tube assembly and 2) the piston, together with the water inside the acceleration tubes. As the buoy moves up and down on the surface of the waves, hose-pumps connected to the piston and the ends of the acceleration tube expand and contract, resulting in a respective increase and decrease of the hose-pump internal volume, thus creating a pressurized water flow. The pumped water is directed into a conversion system consisting of a turbine driven generator. Each AquaBuOY is tethered by tension cable to surface floats that are connected to subsurface mooring buoys and to vertical load anchors. Specifications (Makah Bay configuration: Diameter: 6 m Draft: 30 m Average power output: 56 kw (based on an average 28 kw/m wave resource) Max rated power: 250 kw Depth: nominally 50 m Development Status: 1970 s IPS and Svenska Ship Yard successfully demonstrated buoy and hose-pump operation in Europe Feb 2001 AquaEnergy Group Ltd. (AEG) is formed in the US. Apr 2002 AEG Initiates Makah Bay WA wave project. Dec 2003 Economics of wave farm configuration completed. Mar slack mooring studies and wave tank testing completed in Denmark. Mar 2005 Finavera Renewables (FVR) invests $1 million in AEG. Jun 2006 AEG awarded EU grant for a 2MW pilot project in Portugal. Jun 2006 FVR acquires AEG that becomes an Ocean Energy division of FVR. Jul 2006 AEG completes ¼ scale dynamic hosepump testing, confirms hose-pump efficiency of 80% Sep FVR announces 20 MW plant in South Africa within 5 years. Nov 2006 AEG submits license application, including a Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment with a finding of no significant Company Profile: Company founded in February 2001 $6M invested to date 10 employees at end of 2006 Contact: Alla Weinstein aweinstein@finavera.com

100 Survey of Offshore Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) Devices - Fall 2006 AWS Ocean Energy Archimedes Wave Swing (AWS) Principle of Operation: The AWS is a seabed point absorbing wave energy converter with a large air-filled cylinder which is submerged beneath the waves. As a wave crest approaches, the water pressure on the top of the cylinder increases and the upper part or 'floater' compresses the air within the cylinder to balance the pressures. The reverse happens as the wave trough passes and the cylinder expands. The relative movement between the floater and the fixed lower part is converted directly to electricity by means of a linear power takeoff. The machine is floated to the deployment site on a pontoon, is sunk (as shown above) and sits on the bottom of the seabed. Development Status: 1994 AWS was invented by Fred Gardner. Various design, analytical and subscale test activities took place through Oct The AWS full scale pilot plant exported power to the electricity grid in Portugal becoming the most powerful grid-connected offshore wave energy generator in the world ( a rated capacity of 700kW) Dec The complete system has been tested at full-scale via a pilot plant that is installed off the coast of Portugal Current - Engineering for the MK II precommercial unit is now ongoing with a planned deployment in 2008 at EMEC, Orkney. Specifications: MK I Eng Prototype) Diameter: 9.5 m Stroke: 7 m nominal; 9 m max Rated power output: 700kW (based on Hs = 6m) Weight: 420 ton displacement Depth: 43 m Company Profile: Company founded in May 2004, $4M USD invested since employees at end of 2006 Contact: Simon Grey simon.grey@awsocean.com 44 (0)

101 Survey of Offshore Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) Devices - Fall 2006 Ecofys Wave Rotor Principle of Operation: The Wave Rotor operates on principles of hydrodynamic lift and can tap both the kinetic energy in waves and tidal currents. Circulating currents in waves exert forces on a set of blades which turn the rotor in one direction irrespective of wave or current direction. The device consists of a vertical axis with both slanted blades (Darrieus type rotor) and horizontal blades (Wells type rotor) fixed to the same axis. The waves turn the rotor which turns the shaft which is coupled to a generator through a gear box. Apart from the rotor there are no other moving parts in the water. Bearings and power take off are placed some 10 m above water level. The Wave Rotor is monopile mounted. Specifications (full scale): Device diameter: m Average power: 250 kw ( with average at 20-30kW/m wave resource Max rated power: 500 kw Structural Steel Weight: 200 tons Deployed Water Depth: 15 to 25 m Development and Milestone Status: < > One tenth subscale wave tank testing at NaREC in Blyth in 2004 and at grid connected open sea tests at Nissum Bredning at the Danish Wave Energy Centre in Currently - engineering a full-scale prototype for sea-trials Preparation for testing at IFREMER facilities for combined wave and tidal flows early 2007 Company Profile: Company Ecofys was founded in 1984 Wave division since 1995 $ invested to date (not disclosed) +6 wave employees at end of 2006 Contact: Peter Scheijgrond p.scheijgrond@ececofys.nl 31 (0)

102 Survey of Offshore Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) Devices - Fall 2006 Energetech Uiscebeatha Principle of Operation: Uiscebeatha, a three-sided oscillating water column (OWC) chamber, is positioned over the focal region of wave reflecting parabolic wings and converts the wave energy into pneumatic energy. Static pressure in the chamber is converted to kinetic in a converging/ diverging duct that houses a bidirectional turbine and generator unit. The turbine blade pitch and rotor speed are actively controlled to maximize the power conversion during each wave cycle as the air flow changes speed and direction. The Port Kembla (PK) prototype unit is mounted on the seabed, however, future units will be slack moored floating units with heave plates. Development and Milestone Status: 1990 to 2000 subscale tank testing and development of variable pitch Denniss- Auld air turbine 2001 Energetech forms a US company, Energetech America LLC and initiates work towards establishing a demonstration site at Point Judith, RI Oct Completed installation of a 500 kw prototype at Port Kembla Australia Energetech begins development of a slack moored floating version of the PK prototype with an expected completion of the first project utilising the floating technology in Q Specifications: (Eng Prototype) Size: 25 x 35 m Average power: 500 kw ( at an average wave resource of 35 kw/m) Max rated power 1.5 MW Structural Steel Weight: 150 ton Deployed Water Depth: 30 m Company Profile: Company founded in 1997 $22 million invested to date 12 employees at end of 2006 Contact: Tom Engelsman, CEO Tom.Engelsman@Energetech.com.au.

103 Survey of Offshore Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) Devices - Fall 2006 Fred Olsen Ltd FO 3 ( Research rig: Buldra ) Principle of Operation: The FO 3 is a multiple point-absorber system for energy extraction from the waves. A number of floating buoys (the egg shaped objects between the legs of the platform) are attached to a light and stable floating platform manufactured from composite materials. These are moved up and down by the waves, and the energy captured is converted into electricity thru a electrohydraulic system. The principle is being tested onboard the purpose built research platform Buldra A approximate 1:3 scale rig with 40 KW installed capacity. The rig is not grid connected Specifications: Size: 16 X 16 X 14.5 m Average power: kw ( with an average wave resource of 16 kw/m) (data available on request to Fred Olsen) Max rated power: 2520 kw Displaced Weight: 1150 tons Deployed Water Depth: 30 to 100 m Development and Milestone Status: Performed 1:20 and 1:3 scale tests in wave tank in order to verify survivability and Began manufacturing of a 1:3 scale research platform shown above and to the left > Performed sea testing with the research platform Buldra with the overall purpose of a) demonstrate stability of power production, B) measure loads etc for design purpose C) system tuning 2005 Received first consent for a 10MW grid connected wave farm in Norway 2006 Selected as participant to the Wave Hub project development in the UK Current engineering the first full-size platform-based wave-power plant Company Profile: Company founded before 1950 Significant amount invested to date 20 persons involved in the project at end of 2006 Contact: Tore Gulli Tore.Gulli@fredolsen.no

104 Survey of Offshore Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) Devices - Fall 2006 Independent Natural Resources Inc (INRI) SEADOG TM Principle of Operation: The SEADOG wave pump is a point absorber that converts wave energy to mechanical energy by using a moving volume of water to pump gas, liquid or combinations thereof. A buoyancy block (filled with air) floats within a buoyancy chamber, moving up and down in relation to waves. The buoyancy block is connected to a piston shaft, which in turn moves the piston in a cylinder. The downward movement draws water into the cylinder through an intake valve. As the next wave lifts the buoyancy block, the water is compressed within the cylinder and expelled through an exhaust valve. Each cycle of the piston causes the water to be pumped from the piston cylinder in a regular manner. Ultimately, water is pumped to an elevated reservoir and then released to flow down from the elevated reservoir to drive a turbine that generates electrical power. Development and Milestone Status: October 2003 INRI built and tested a 1/32-scale prototype that was tested by November Texas A&M University tested and independently verified the energy production capability of the lab model Current INRI is building a full scale prototype for installation and testing in Eureka starting in early Specifications: Device diameter: 25 Foot Device length: 128 Feet high Average power: 33.5 kw (with average wave height of 5 ft low, 9 ft average, 21 ft high) Max rated power: 33.5 kw Structural Steel Weight: tons Deployed Water Depth: 60 feet Company Profile: Company founded in 01/08/2002 $4,000,000 invested to date 3 employees at end of 2006 Contact: Mark A. Thomas mark@inri.us

105 Survey of Offshore Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) Devices - Fall 2006 Ocean Power Delivery Pelamis Principle of Operation: The OPD wave energy converter is a freely floating hinged contour device. The device consists of four tubular sections, connected by three hinged modules. The four tubular sections move relative to each other and the hinges convert this motion by means of a hydraulic power conversion system in each of three power conversion modules; one between each set of sections. The design has inherent survivability with a very small frontal area subjected to the hydrodynamic forces of large waves. The Pelamis is slack moored with a mooring configuration that points the device into the waves. Development and Milestone Status: Aug 2004 OPD s Pelamis installed at the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) in Orkney and successfully supplied electricity to the UK grid Sep May 2005 OPD secures first order for Pelamis Wave Energy Converters from Portugal 2006 OPD delivers first three Pelamis devices to Portugal. Specifications: Diameter: 3.5 m Length: 150 m Average power output: kw based on an average kw/m wave resource (available upon request to OPD) Rated power: 750 kw Structural steel Weight: 380 tons Depth: nominally 50 m Power Take Off: Hydraulic using biodegradable fluids Company Profile: Company founded in 1998 $30 million invested to date About 70 employees at end of 2006 Contact: Des McGinnis des@oceanpd.com

106 Survey of Offshore Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) Devices - Fall 2006 Ocean Power Technologies PowerBuoy Principle of Operation: The PowerBuoy system consists of a floating buoylike device that is loosely moored to the seabed so that it can freely move up and down in response to the rising and falling of the waves, as well as a power take off device, an electrical generator, a power electronics system and a control system, all of which are sealed in the unit. The power take off device converts the mechanical stroking created by the movement of the unit caused by ocean waves into rotational mechanical energy, which, in turn, drives the electrical generator. The power electronics system then conditions the output from the generator into usable electricity. The operation of the PowerBuoy is controlled by a customized control system. Specifications (40 kw Unit): Diameter: 5 m Stroke: 3 m Weight: 26 tons Deployment Depth: 35 to 60 m Power Take Off: Hydraulic using biodegradable fluids Milestones & Development Status: Oct 2003 Publicly traded on LSE: AIM market. Jun 2004 OPT announces that it has installed one of its 40 kw PowerBuoy TM units near Kaneohe Bay in the State of Hawaii. Aug OPT announces a project in Spain Jun 2005 OPT signs an agreement with Total and Iberdrola for a wave power plant in France Feb 2006 OPT is selected to occupy a position at the UK Wave Hub (5 MW) Jul 2006 OPT announces a filing with FERC for application for a preliminary permit for a 50 MW wave plant in Oregon USA Jul 2006 OPT announces the signing of the next phase of wave project in Spain October 2006 Completed 12 months successful testing of a PB40 PowerBuoy built for NJBPU off coast of NJ November 2006 OPT files S-1 with SEC to raise up to $100M in US market. Company Profile: OPT is the world s first publicly traded wave power company Company commenced operations in 1994 $30M invested to date (July 2006) 35 employees at end of 2006 Contact: Dr. George Taylor gtaylor@oceanpowertech.com

107 Survey of Offshore Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) Devices - Fall 2006 Renewable Energy Holdings CETO (Cylindrical Energy Transfer Oscillator) Principle of Operation: CETO is an oscillating wave pump which pumps high pressure seawater through a pipe to carry it ashore to either turn a turbine to produce electricity, or to a reverse osmosis filter to produce fresh water, or a combination of both. CETO wave energy converters are anchored permanently on the sea floor. They are also self-tuning to tide, sea state and wave pattern. CETO is built of steel and rubber. The CETO concept pictured above is implemented in a demonstration phase (CETO II) comprising up to 9 units in a 3 x 3 array at the shallow water Fremantle test site. The commercial demonstration version (CETO III) will be deployed at commercial sites with 100 s of units in an array. Development Status & Milestones: Aug 2003 Renewable Holding began detailed design of CETO I. May 2005 CETO was towed out to sea and successfully sunk and ballasted. Operation began. Jun 2006 One year of CETO I tests completed. Nov CETO I re floated and salvaged. March 2007 CETO II units deployed at Fremantle test site. Commercial demonstration projects based on CETO III to follow in 2008 after completion of CETO II trials. Company expects that commercial units will be available for deployment about 2010 Forecasted CETO III Specifications: Device Width: 7m Device Height: From seabed to within 1-2 m of water surface Average power output: 100kW per unit (based on wave resources at sites surveyed) Max rated power: 180 kw per unit Weight: 12 tons pump and float; 100 ton with clump anchors Deployment Depth: 15 to 100 m Company Profile: Company founded in 2004 $5 million invested to date 9 employees involved in CETO development at end of 2006 Contact: Mike Proffitt address

108 Survey of Offshore Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) Devices - Fall 2006 Wave Dragon Ltd Wave Dragon Principle of Operation: Wave Dragon is an overtopping device, which combines a double curved overtopping ramp and two reflector arms, which are used to focus energy onto the overtopping basin. Multiple variable speed propeller turbines are used to convert this low pressure head into electricity using direct-drive permanent magnet generators. Device output depends on the wave climates and is in the range of 2-12MW. It is today, the largest device (by rated capacity and physical size) under development. The device is slack-moored and is able to swivel in order to always face the wave direction. Company Profile: Wave Dragon Ltd is partly funding the development towards commercialization by use of venture capital prior to a foreseen IPO. Company founded in 1998 $ 15 million invested to date 6 employees at end of 2006 (Product development in close cooperation with universities and several industry partners in total person working in year ) Contact: Lars Christensen , info@wavedragon.net Development and Milestone Status: Dec 2005 Wave Dragon announces a Wales UK single floating 4 7 MW rated capacity Pre-Commercial Demonstrator Project. Apr 2006 Resumed optimization testing of an upgraded 1:4.5 scale prototype Jan Completed testing of the 1:4.5 scale prototype deployed in Denmark since 2003 where reliable power production was demonstrated Mar Prototype deployed in Nissum Bredning for an at-sea grid connected testing program. The 57 meter wide prototype is an exact replica of a 260 wide device intended for 24kW/m seas Extensive wave tank testing and validation of numerical models and survivability in 100-year storm waves Developed and tested an axial hydro turbine with fixed blades. besides the rotor and at scale (1:3.5) Specifications: Device Width: 170m 390m Reservoir size: 1,500m 3-13,000m 3 Water Depth: >15m Centerline Device Spacing: m System Weight: 7,000 54,000 tons (primarily steel reinforced concrete) Rated Power: 2-12 MW (depending on wave climate)

109 Survey of Offshore Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) Devices - Fall 2006 Wave Energy AS Sea wave Slot-Cone Generator (SSG) Principle of Operation: Development Status: The SSG concept is based on storing the potential energy of the incoming waves in several reservoirs placed one above the other. The amount of reservoirs and the crest height on these will be dictated by the sea state at the location. The water in the reservoirs will run through a patented multi stage turbine, which is able to utilize multiple heads of water on one turbine wheel. The SSG is built as a robust concrete structure with the turbine shaft as virtually the only moving part of the mechanical system. The total device size is scalable as the WEC is made up of one or more modules. The module length is typically 10 meters wide. Specifications: Device Diameter: Device height will depend on sea state. Full scale pilot consists of one module that is 10m wide, 17m deep and 7m high (19kW/m sea state) Structural Weight: Approx 500 tons Rated Power: 200 kw for one module as described above Deployed Water Depth: NA Power Take Off: Direct turbine to electric generator Subscale testing in wave tank at Aalborg University completed. Detailed engineering to be finished March Full-scale prototype design for construction and turbine/generator, control system to be finished March Start construction of full-scale pilot plant April Installation of pilot plant on site august Detailed design of a full-scale prototype is performed under a contract supported by the European Unions research program, and a full-scale prototype of one module (200 kw) will be deployed in 2007 at the coast of Norway. Company Profile: Company founded in April ,0million $ invested to date capital to fully finance building and testing secured 1 employee at end of 2006 Contact: Monika Bakke Monika.bakke@waveenergy.no /

110 Survey of Offshore Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) Devices - Fall 2006 Wave Star Energy Wave Star Principle of Operation: The Wave Star machine cuts in at right angles to the direction of the wave and the waves run through the length of the machine. On either side of the oblong machine there are 20 hemisphere-shaped floats which are partially submerged in the water. When a wave rolls in, the first float is lifted upwards, and then the second and so on, until the wave subsides. The floats are each positioned at the base of their own hydraulic cylinder. When a float is raised, a piston in the cylinder presses oil into the machine s common transmission system. The pressure drives a hydraulic motor, which is connected to the generator, which produces the electricity. As the machine is several wave lengths long, the floats will work continuously to harness energy. The device sits on piles like an offshore structure and the floats are raised above the waves for survivability. Specifications: The 1:10 model at Nissum Bredning has 40 hemisphere-shaped floats, each with a diameter of 1 m. The model has a 5.5 kilowatt generator. 1,8 Hs = 0,5 m A large-scale model will use floats of 10 m diameter and a 6 MW generator. 6,0 Hs = 5,0 m in 43 kw / m climate Development Status: The commercialization of the Wave Star concept will begin as soon as the ½ scale 500 Hs = 2,5 m machine in 3,8 kw/m, which is currently under development, has produced satisfactory results in the North Sea. According to the plan this should be in the course of 2009/ _ - Wave Star plans on testing the half-scale model at Horns Rev in the North Sea On going testing of 1:10 scale model at sea April :10 model was installed and testing operations began in Nissum Bredning. At the end of 2006 it has been in operation for more than ours producing electricity to the grid. Company Profile: Company founded in October million $ invested to date 5 employees at end of more will join early part of Contact: Per Resen Steenstrup prs@wavestarenergy.com

111 Survey of Offshore Wave Energy Conversion (WEC) Devices - Fall 2006 Wavebob Ltd Wavebob WEC Principle of Operation: The 'Wavebob' is designed to harness ocean wave energy. It can be moored, and maintained, in large multi megawatt arrays offshore. Each device will be rated at over 1MW and is designed to remain on-station for over 20 years. Wavebob is a freely floating and self-reacting axi-symmetric point absorber that is tuned to the incident wave action using a proprietary system to change the device s natural resonance frequency, without changing the float s draught. In addition, a digitally controlled power take off allows the device to dynamically change the damping, which can be used to further tune the system in real-time. Specifications: Following re-engineering and design studies undertaken as part of the Carbon Trust s Marine Energy Challenge, a full engineering specification was developed for an array of Wavebob WEC s The specifications are commercially sensitive and are shared with the potential partners for developing the initial Wavebob wave farms. Development Status & Milestones: 2004 Subscale wave tank testing complete Carbon Trust Marine Energy Challenge - Performance figures verified - a full engineering specification, - detailed capital and operational cost models for viable Wavebob farms - development road-maps for performance enhancements and cost reduction Prototype sea trials - incorporates a fully instrumented hydraulic power take-off system and control system. - built at the Harland & Wolff shipyard in Belfast Detailed design and development of the first 1MW Wavebob will progress throughout 2007 and build on the results from the prototype device Sea trials and further performance verification of this commercial scale device is planned for 2008/09 Company Profile: The company development efforts have been ongoing since The small group of connected shareholders includes the inventor, a private Fred Olsen company, an offshore O&M business and a leading hydraulic engineering company. Wavebob Limited is in the process of securing funding to continue with the commercialization programme. This will proceed through a series of planned development stages and the work will:- Accelerate engineering testing and prototype demonstration - demonstration and certification of generation performance characteristics - developing track records of survivability & reliability Maintain strong focus on cost reduction - Design studies, Research & Development - Industry collaboration

112 APPENDIX B Wave Energy Device Test Project Status Electric Power Research Institute 98

113 Wave Energy Device Test Project Status - December, 2006 Device/Project Name Wave Dragon Wave Swing PowerBuoy Pelamis Energetech OWC AquaBuOY GreenWave Pelamis Device Developer/Country Test Site Wave Dragon Denmark Denmark AWS Ocean Energy Scotland Lexious, Portugal Ocean Power Tech, NJ Kaneohe Bay, HI Ocean Power Delivery, UK EMEC Orkney Scotland Energetech Australia Port Kembla, Australia AquaEnergy Washington Energetech Australia OPD Portugal Makah Bay, WA Point Judith RI NW Portugal Date Initial Op Cap May-06 May-06 Jun-04 Aug-04 Oct-05 Resource Avg 36 kw/m (1) Annual Power Flux 30kW/m Portugal kw/m 35 kw/m 7.6 kw/m 28kW/m North Atlantic 1:4.5 Scale Single Wave Device Wave Dragon Swing Expect similar to Port Kembla 35 kw/m Single Buoy Single Pelamis Single OWC Four AquaBuOYs Single OWC 3 - Pelamis Device Size 57m long by 27 m long 9.5 dia by 9m max stroke 5 dia by 15 m depth 3.5 dia by 120 m long 36 by 35 by 18 m 6m dia, 30m acceleration tube 3.5 dia by 120 m 40 by 35 by 18 m long Rated Power 20 kw 1 MW 40 kw 750 kw 500 kw 1MW 500 kw 750 kw Predicted Annual Energy Production 1.65 GWh for pilot in 46kW/m waves 2.7 Gwh in 55 kw/m waves 500 MWh 1500MWh 500 MWh Com'l Sensitive Depth of Water 6 m 43 m from MLLW 30 m 50 m 9 m 50 m 9 m 50 m Distance from Shore Mooring Cable Landing Grid Connection 0.4 km 6 km 1 km 2 km 400 m 3.2 miles 1.2 miles 6 km Floating slack moored Yes - 230/400 VAC/50Hz Bottom Sitter Dug a trough in the beach - 2m below surface Yes - 15kV, 4.8 MVA Single point column connected to clump anchor above ground to preserve environment To be connected to Marine base - HECO grid Floating slack moored Underground Yes Four legs and stab w mooring cables On top of jetty Yes - 11 kv cable Floating slack moored on shore at existing utility pole To be - Existing Utility Pole at Makah Beach Four legs and stab w mooring cables Directional drilling in CRMC To be - Narragansett Electric Utility Pole Floating slack moored Underground To be connected Project Status Deployed and tested. Full scale system being prepared Deployed and tested. Next system is being prepared 1st installed in 6/04-8 mo of test data to date - redeployed 07 Installed in Aug, 2004 Installed in Oct PDEA/FERC Lic Application Completed In Permitting Installation phase under way Date Terminated See note 2 March 2005 as planned Ongoing n/a Roger Bedard 1/11/ of 2

114 Permitting Wave Dragon Wave Swing PowerBuoy Pelamis Wave Plant System Status Approving Authority Environmental Impact Report Permitted Danish Coastal & Energy Agencies Permitted Portaria Portugal Yes Permitted with FONSI US Navy Yes - On file at EPRI Permitted Marine Consents and Env Unit Energetech OWC AquaBuOY GreenWave Pelamis FERC asserted Permitted FERC review of jurisdicton in Oct license application will waive license for demo Minister of I/S Planning Yes - on file at EPRI US FERC PDEA filed RI CMSC key local regulatory agency EIR Report Date 1/1/2003 Test Results Duration of Testing Performance Lessons Learned Effects of Sea Environment What's Next Actual 28 months See Note 5 and articles published on web site See articles published on company web site Very effective anti biofouling coating of turbines tested. Announced a 7 MW project off the coast of Wales 6 months total with 2 operational testing Power output confirmed to 50% full power. See at website Dynamic stability analysis recommended for installation process Yes. No negative effects noted Announced funding to fab Mk II wil install at EMEC in 08 8 months from Jun May 2006 Power output conformed to predictive models Shock absorbers need toi be improved No problems. Fish and other sea life flourished Ongoing Power output confirmed. See power diagram at website Build time longer that planned due to supplier delays 27 months in sea; no corrosion/fouling issues Aug-03 See Web Site 2 days, with an extended period of testing imminent Initial but short testing verified performance. See website None to share at this point Too early to tell anything 10/6/ years - IPS buoy; 1/4 scale hose-pump - 4 mnths See Note 6 1st phase of com'l installation Com'l Sensitive Market initiation does work! MW Plant Com'l Sales Phase 2-20 MW Notes 1. First offshore wave energy device (1/4 scale) to supply electricity to the grid in a large inlet in Denmark with wave power (0.4 kw/m) for quarter scale. Purpose is to establish the background for optimizing the design of the structure and regulation of the power take-off system 2. January 2005 Mooriong transducer failue. Second Generation being developed for a more severe wave climate 3 Efficiency calculation do not give a good reflection of the device perforance, because the input power is free. A 1 % efficiency device can be the most cost effective device of them all. 4. The PowerBuoy has generated electricity which was released as heat to the ocean. The device has not been connected to the cable Roger Bedard 1/11/ of 2

115 Wave Energy Device Test Project Status Device/Project Name Wavehub Wavehub Wavehub NW Scotland EGWAP SSG WSE 1:10 Device Developer/Country OPT Fred. Olsen Test Site Prospect/Eon (Using OPD Pelamis (Using Opd pelamis technology) ABLE USA Wave Energy Norway UK UK UK UK USA Norway Wave Star Energy / DK Nissum Bredning Denmark Date Initial Op Cap ~ / /6/2006 Resource Avg Annual Power Flux 16 KW/m 35kw 19kW/m 0,03 kw / m Device 1 7@ Pelamis 5@Pelamis One module fullscale WSE scale 1:10 1-2X 2,52 MW test 40kW WEC's WEC's Device Size Will be optimised L:10m, D:17m, 36x36x14,5 m TBA closer the time H:7m 24 m long x 6 m Rated Power 1.39 MW 2,52 MW 200kW 5,5 kw (1,8 kw) Predicted Annual Energy Production 3,341 MWh Pavg = 424kW kWh Depth of Water 50 m 60 m 50m plus 50m plus approx. 8m NA Distance from Shore Mooring 16 kms Less than 1km Onshore Compliant, slack moored Compliant, slack moored Cable Landing test setup NA Grid Connection no 2008 Project Status solid in process NA Constuction start spring 2007, installation late summer Grid connection MWh 3,5 m 300 m Sits on steel piles above the water line On a pier Yes - 3 x 230V Installed in April Put into round the clock operation July Date Terminated ongoing Aug-08 Roger Bedard 1/11/ of 4

116 Permitting Wavehub Wavehub Wave Plant System Status Wavehub SE EGWAP Wave Energy Permitted. Installation 2007 Wave Star Energy Ongoing Approving Authority Kystdirektoratet Environmental Impact Report Yes EIR Report Date?? Test Results Duration of Testing 1 yr. Minimum 2 years As expected Performance Lessons Learned Effects of Sea Environment TBD TBD Hs = 0,5 m Detail counts in all aspects of the design -for good reliablity. No corrosion or fouling issues. 9 months at sea. What's Next Notes Continue trials. Roger Bedard 1/11/ of 4

117 1:2 WSE Wave Star Energy / DK Horns Rev Denmark ,8 kw / m WSE scale 1:2 125 m long x30m 500 kw MWh 10 m 15 km Sits on steel piles above the water line Underground Yes - 34 kv Testing of major components starts in Construction in Installation First commersial unit Roger Bedard 1/11/ of 4

118 Wave Star Energy Sea trail of main components 2007 Kystdirektoratet Yes?? Commersial unit Design criteria 500 Hs = 2,5 m Commercial sale Roger Bedard 1/11/ of 4

119 APPENDIX C San Franciso Ocean Beach Wave Plant Design Fact Sheet Electric Power Research Institute 99

120 Ocean Beach, San Francisco, CA, Wave Power Plant Preliminary Design Fact Sheet Com l Plant Site and NDBC Example Plant Designs 213 MCT 2 nd SeaGen Turbines or 152 Energetech Turbines 1.8 km Exclusion Zone, Pilot Plant Site and Outflow Pipe 11 km 400 m COE (cents/kwh) Wave Low Bound Wave Upper Bound Wind m m Projected Upper Wave Wave Upper Estimate and Lower COE Lower Wave Estimate Installed Capacity (MW) Actual Actual Wind Wind COE Histor y Example Plant Design Paramters Plants sized for 300,000 MWh/yr electrical energy output 106 MW Power rating/33 MW Avg 25,000 Homes Powered (1.3 kw/ avg U.S. Home

121 APPENDIX D Fort Bragg White Paper Electric Power Research Institute 100

122 Seeking Public Support for an Wave Energy Power Plant Offshore Fort Bragg, Ca Seeking Public Support for an Wave Energy Demonstration and Commercial Power Plant Offshore Fort Bragg California Roger Bedard, Ocean Energy Leader Electric Power Research Institute August 14, 2006 Purpose of This Paper To inform Fort Bragg electricity stakeholders about the possibilities of generating electricity from the wave power offshore the coast of the Georgia Pacific lumber mill, Fort Bragg, California and to get public support to explore this possibility. Wave Power Plant Wave plant not visible from shore Have you ever watched the swell of an ocean wave surging towards the shore, perhaps carrying a surfer, and pondered its enormous strength? The power of ocean waves is truly awesome. Aside from thrilling surfing enthusiasts and enthralling beachgoers, their destructive potential has long earned the respect of generations of fishermen, boaters, and other mariners who encounter the forces of the sea. Now consider today s rising fuel prices, at home and at the pump. Think about the all too familiar headlines you read every day about our country s dependence on fossil fuel, including foreign oil, and its implications for the environment and our national security. Wouldn t it be wonderful if the power of ocean waves could somehow be harnessed into useful energy to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel? Instead of burning depleting fossil fuel reserves that pollute the air and water, wouldn t it be wonderful to obtain energy from a resource as clean, pollution free, and abundant as ocean waves? Is this idea the stuff of science fiction? The technology, though young, exists today to convert the power of ocean waves into electricity. So what is needed to make wave energy a reality offshore the coast of Fort Bragg? The author believes that with enough public will and cooperation between government agencies and other stakeholders, Fort Bragg can attract a wave power plant to its City. The Benefits to Fort Bragg Using wave energy to generate electricity would provide many far-reaching benefits to the City of Fort Bragg and its citizens. The construction, operation, and maintenance of wave power plants would create jobs and promote economic development. The jobs created would be working class jobs which would enable workers to buy homes and raise families. There are other compelling arguments for offshore wave energy in Fort Bragg. The reuse of the Georgia Pacific mill site property shown below represents a unique and wonderful opportunity to the City of Fort Bragg. The wave energy resource off this coastline is an indigenous resource that may be used in a clean and environmentally benign way to develop the economic potential of Fort Bragg and to redefine the City s image in the post-timber era. Figure 1. Georgia Pacific Mill Site 1

123 Seeking Public Support for an Wave Energy Power Plant Offshore Fort Bragg, California With proper siting, converting ocean wave energy to electricity is believed to be one of the most environmentally benign ways to generate electricity. Furthermore, the coastal view shed is both pristine and precious; offshore wave energy offers a way to minimize the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) issues that plague many energy infrastructure projects, from nuclear to coal and to wind generation. Since wave energy conversion devices have a very low profile and are located at a distance from the shore, they are generally not visible. In addition, wave energy is more predictable than direct solar or wind energy, and therefore can be more easily integrated into the overall electricity grid for providing reliable power. Fort Bragg has an opportunity to help itself and become a leader in the application of this emerging technology, within California, the U.S. and the world. Tourism opportunities are certainly within reason as demonstrated by offshore wind power tourism in Europe. Description of Wave Energy Conversion Technology The Ocean Power Delivery (OPD) Pelamis wve energy conversion device, shown below in Figure 2 is the most technologically mature device available today. It consists of 4 cylindrical steel sections that are connected by 3 joints. The total length of the device is about 400 ft (120m) and the device diameter is about 15 ft (4.6m). The wave-induced motion of these joints is resisted by hydraulic rams which pump high-pressure oil through hydraulic motors via smoothing accumulators. The hydraulic motors drive electrical generators to produce electricity. Power from all 3 joints is fed down a single umbilical cable to a junction on the sea bed. absorbers as represented by the PowerBuoy and AquaBuOY systems (both from the U.S.) shown in Figure 3, the oscillating water column of Energetech from Australia, the Wave Swing from Ireland, the overtopping Wave Dragon from Denmark and the Fred Olson from Norway. Figure 3. Ocean Power Technology PowerBuoy and AquaEnergy AquaBuOY The first commercial wave power plant was announced in the fall of 2005; an Enersis OPD Pelamis 30 MW plant off the northwest coast of Portugal. The dockside assembly for deployment of the first Pelamis units in the summer of 2006 is shown below in figure 4. Figure 4. First Commercial Pelamis Units EPRI Feasibility Study The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) conducted a feasibility definition study in 2004 which resulted in making a compelling case for an offshore wave power plant in nearby San Francisco, California. Figure 2. Ocean Power Delivery Pelamis Other wave energy conversion technologies that are close behind the OPD technology are point Pilot and commercial scale plants were designed by the EPRI team for an Ocean Beach San Francisco wave plant site; a site and plant design fairly representative of a Fort Bragg site and therefore summarized in this section. The illustration in figure 5 shows a farm or wave 2

124 Seeking Public Support for an Wave Energy Power Plant Offshore Fort Bragg, California park out a few miles off the coastline. The schematic in Figure 5 shows the footprint required for a plant with a rated capacity of 90 MW and a submerged transmission cable using an easement of an existing wastewater outflow pipe. A submarine cable would be buried in the seafloor sediments from the deployment site until it enters (or is buried alongside) the outflow pipe, and then would run inside (or alongside) the pipe until it is connected to a feeder station on land and then connected to the PG&E. Because the seabed off Fort Bragg is much steeper than off San Francisco, the plant will be much closer to shore; probably 2 to 3 miles or so. Fort Bragg and its grid interconnection, the PG&E substation on Walnut Street, is shown in Figures 6 and 7. A nominal 90 MW commercial scale wave energy plant offshore Fort Bragg will provide 300,000 MWh per year of energy (an average power output of 34,000 kw or enough power for 34,000 homes). This plant will be about 2.25 miles long by 1.8 miles wide and will be 2 to 3 miles from the shore. Figure 6. Fort Bragg Figure 7. Fort Bragg Electrical Grid Interconnect Ocean Shoreline Land Why Fort Bragg? Fort Bragg meets all required site attributes. In addition to an excellent wave energy resource, a grid connection that requires only minimal upgrading, and local marine infrastructure at Noyo Harbor, it has an existing outflow pipe which offers a unique opportunity for reducing the cost of a pilot demonstration plant. Does Fort Bragg have a consensus among its citizens that a wave energy plant is a desired future possibility for the City? Figure 5. Site and Plant Layout 3