The Contribution of Environmental Siting and Permitting Requirements to the Cost of Energy for Wave Energy Devices

Copping, Andrea; Geerlofs, Simon H.; Hanna, Luke A.

doi:10.2172/1171904

Cited by 7 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…where C d is the viscous drag coefficient, A D is the characteristic area, and V0 is the undisturbed flow velocity. However, the viscous damping coefficient for the device needs to be carefully selected [4,5]. In this study, a drag coefficient of 8 was selected for the flap [8] and a drag coefficient of 4 was used for the heave motion of the plate [9], which was attached to the frame.…”

Section: Time-domain Numerical Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several wave energy conversion systems that utilize the surge motion of waves to generate electrical power have been proposed by manufacturers, including Oyster, EB-Frond, WaveRoller, and Langlee. Because of the potential risk of permitting and regulation issues at near-shore shallow water regions [4] and the better wave resource at deep water sites [5], the study was focused on deep-water (50 m-100 m) surge designs, where the devices were moored to the seabed.…”

Section: Device Design Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From the power generation performance point of view, the bottomfixed OSWEC designs also have greater power generation performance, as shown in the results presented in the previous section. However, the design was changed to a floating system before significant engineering or cost analysis was conducted, based on concerns raised by the environmental assessment [4].…”

Section: Figure 9 Aep To Characteristic Mass Ratio For Selected Oswec Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Design and Analysis for a Floating Oscillating Surge Wave Energy Converter

Hallett

et al. 2014

Volume 9B: Ocean Renewable Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a recent study on the design and analysis of an oscillating surge wave energy converter (OSWEC). A successful wave energy conversion design requires balance between the design performance and cost. The cost of energy is often used as the metric to judge the design of the wave energy conversion (WEC) system, which is often determined based on the device’s power performance; the cost of manufacturing, deployment, operation, and maintenance; and environmental compliance. The objective of this study is to demonstrate the importance of a cost-driven design strategy and how it can affect a WEC design. A set of three oscillating surge wave energy converter designs was analyzed and used as examples. The power generation performance of the design was modeled using a time-domain numerical simulation tool, and the mass properties of the design were determined based on a simple structure analysis. The results of those power performance simulations, the structure analysis, and a simple economic assessment were then used to determine the cost-efficiency of selected OSWEC designs. Finally, we present a discussion on the environmental barrier, integrated design strategy, and the key areas that need further investigation.

show abstract

Section: Time-domain Numerical Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Device Design Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figure 9 Aep To Characteristic Mass Ratio For Selected Oswec Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Design and Analysis for a Floating Oscillating Surge Wave Energy Converter

Hallett

et al. 2014

Volume 9B: Ocean Renewable Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During this phase of the project, environmental implications (such as site characterization or permitting) and social implications (such as stakeholder engagement processes, infrastructure planning, or site selection) are necessary to the project, and can be achieved through coordinated efforts between offshore wind and wave energy developers. Although not all costs can be shared (for example, different permitting might exist for a bottom-mounted WEC than a fixed-bottom offshore wind turbine), many of the most expensive components [15] can be shared. Similarly, social factors that can halt a project [16], [17] (for instance, due to unsuccessful stakeholder engagement, or inability to finalize a Power Purchase Agreement) are often common between offshore wind and wave energy projects.…”

Section: A Opportunities For Shared Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analytical Cost Modeling for Co-Located Wind-Wave Energy Arrays

Clark¹,

DuPont²

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Offshore wind and wave energy are co-located resources, and both the offshore wind and wave energy industries are driven to reduce costs while maintaining or increasing power production within developments. Due to the maturity of offshore wind technology and continued growth of both offshore floating wind and wave energy converter (WEC) technology, there is new opportunity within the offshore renewable energy sector to combine wind and wave technologies in the same leased ocean space through co-located array development. Combining wind and wave energy technologies through co-location is projected to have synergistic effects that reduce direct and indirect costs for developments. While several of these effects have been quantified, many have not been related to cost, and there is currently no cost model that incorporates all of these effects. Further, in areas where fixed-bottom offshore wind structures are infeasible, floating offshore wind platforms could provide access to plentiful resource further offshore. In this paper, we develop a cost model that represents co-located array developments, particularly for floating offshore wind and wave energy converter technology, and identify research gaps and uncertainties to be minimized in future work.

show abstract

“…Scoping appropriate deployment locations, collecting pre-installation (baseline) and post-installation data all add to the cost of developing Marine Hydro-Kinetic (MHK) projects, and hence to the levelized cost of energy. The logic models that describe studies and processes for environmental siting and permitting are detailed within [8,29]. The logic models and all costing information are separated into four stages: regulatory and administrative processes, siting and scoping, pre-installation assessment, and post-installation monitoring.…”

Section: Environmental Compliancementioning

confidence: 99%

Levelized cost of energy for a Backward Bent Duct Buoy

Bull

Jenne

Smith

et al. 2016

International Journal of Marine Energy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Reference Model Project, supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, was developed to provide publically available technical and economic benchmarks for a variety of marine energy converters. The methodology to achieve these benchmarks is to develop public domain designs that incorporate power performance estimates, structural models, anchor and mooring designs, power conversion chain designs, and estimates of the operations and maintenance, installation, and environmental permitting required. The reference model designs are intended to be conservative, robust, and experimentally verified. The Backward Bent Duct Buoy (BBDB) presented in this paper is one of three wave energy conversion devices studied within the Reference Model Project. Comprehensive modeling of the BBDB in a Northern California climate has enabled a full levelized cost of energy (LCOE) analysis to be completed on this device.

show abstract

The Contribution of Environmental Siting and Permitting Requirements to the Cost of Energy for Wave Energy Devices

Cited by 7 publications

References 3 publications

Design and Analysis for a Floating Oscillating Surge Wave Energy Converter

Design and Analysis for a Floating Oscillating Surge Wave Energy Converter

Analytical Cost Modeling for Co-Located Wind-Wave Energy Arrays

Levelized cost of energy for a Backward Bent Duct Buoy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About