backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 133 comment(s) - last by randomly.. on Sep 29 at 3:32 PM


Pelamis Wave Power Limited, based in Scotland, manufacturers 750 kW wave generators, pictured here during a test deployment. Their first commercial plant, located off the coast of Portugal, just opened, ushering in a new era of wave power.  (Source: Pelamis Wave Power Limited)

The PWEC generators undergo construction at a dock in Portugal.  (Source: Pelamis Wave Power Limited)

The finished generators are now active, providing 2.25 MW of power to Portugal, at a modest price tag of $13.1M USD.  (Source: Pelamis Wave Power Limited)
New "sea snake" wave plant will carry a price tag of around $13.1M USD and will generate 2.25 MW

With the rush of alternative energy interest, initial enthusiasm has been directed largely towards wind and solar power, while other more exotic forms were left unnoticed.  All of that is starting to change though, with alternative alternative energy finally being looked at in depth.  Google has taken the lead in exploring non-conventional energy sources, championing geothermal power and tidal power.

And now another piece of major good news for non-mainstream alternative energy.  The world's first wave power plant opened this week, off the coast of Portugal.  The new plant cost only $13.1M USD to deploy, but will offer a capacity of around 2.25 MW.  This already beats current solar offerings, for example its over twice as efficient as the Oregon Road project which is creating 104 kW for $1.3M USD.

The most promising part about the new plant is that its potential is largely untapped.  While solar has seen years of refinement, interest in wave power is just picking up.  This should help it be a competitive alternative to nuclear power in the near future, allowing for a variety of options.

The heart of the new plant is Pelamis Wave Energy Converters (PWEC).  Designed by Pelamis Wave Power Limited, a Scottish engineering firm, these converters sit three milles off the coast of Agucadoura in north Portugal and provide power 24-7.  Each converter has a modest output of 750 kW, and together three compose the 2.25 MW plant. 

A second phase of the plant, contingent upon its success, is planned, which will expand the plant with 25 additional reactors, bringing the capacity to 21 MW.  This would be enough energy to power 15,000 homes.  The project is a joint venture between a Babcock and Brown Ltd., a global specialist asset manager, Energias de Portugal (EDP),Portuguese energy group EFACEC, and Pelamis Wave Power Limited.

The new generators were named after the sea snake Pelamis.  They measure 3.5 m in diameter and are 140 m long.  They float partiall submerged on the ocean's surface.  Babcock and Brown's Anthony Kennaway explains the operation of the PWEC stating, "Effectively what you have is four long sections making up one machine. Between those sections are three small generating motors.  The four sections are all joined by hydraulic rams. As the waves run through the machine it pushes the rams in and out. The action of the rams going to-and-fro pushes hydraulic fluid into a high pressure reservoir. That high pressure reservoir then releases the fluid at a steady rate through a generating motor."

Much of the project's costs are not in the generators themselves, but in the undersea cable, which links the generators' output to a substation on shore, which then converts it into usable electricity and puts it on Portugal's grid.

Like solar cells, wave power is reliant on the weather.  However, it should be a steadier power source, producing power even at night.  Over a year, its expected to average around 20-40 percent of its peak capacity.  According to the plant owners, once the 25 additional generators are in place, a savings of 60,000 tons of CO2 yearly will be gained.  British scientists say that wide adoption of wave power could save 1-2 billion tons of CO2 yearly.

Ian Fells, emeritus professor of energy conversion at Newcastle University, UK says the new project is exciting, but he warns of one possible pitfall.  He states, "It's extraordinarily difficult to design a machine that will cope with the extreme violence of waves. Some wave machines are under the surface all the time -- but they are not as well developed as yet. Pelamis lies in the surface and it remains to be seen how successful it will be.  It's extraordinarily difficult to design a machine that will cope with the extreme violence of waves. Some wave machines are under the surface all the time -- but they are not as well developed as yet. Pelamis lies in the surface and it remains to be seen how successful it will be."

While affordable, challenges to wave power remain.  As Professor Fells raises, there's the issue of longevity and survival in extreme storms.  As the technology is very new, there's few reliable estimates on how long the best-designed wave generators could operate.  Further, it would take over 6,500 of the generators to equal the output of one nuclear power plant.  This would yield a cost of $21B USD, which does not compare favorably with construction cost of equivalent output modern nuclear plants, which typically run around $6 to $8B USD.

Still, as the tech is developed more, capacities should increase, endurance improve, and costs drop.  The future is looking bright for wave power. 


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

As usual, it boils down to cost
By masher2 (blog) on 9/24/2008 11:01:43 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The new plant cost only $13.1M USD to deploy, but will offer a capacity of around 2.25 MW. This already beats current solar offerings
At almost $6 per installed watt, it certainly beats solar. It is, however, about 2-3 times more expensive than clean-coal or nuclear technologies. And given the record of tidal power generators which experience less stress than these wave generators -- I'll bet anything the operating & maintenance costs are going to be much higher as well.




RE: As usual, it boils down to cost
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 9/24/2008 11:15:58 AM , Rating: 3
I don't think they are doing the math on this correctly.

It is $13.5M to deploy these first three, but how much can be saved by consolidating the cables to shore? Most of the cost is in the cable and the shore plant.

I am presuming, anyway, that as you aggregate these things, the costs start to drop off to the point where another unit becomes nominal.


RE: As usual, it boils down to cost
By masher2 (blog) on 9/24/2008 11:43:22 AM , Rating: 2
Twice the output means twice the cable capacity required. Furthermore, these generators can't be sited right on top of each other; they have to be spread out over a substantial rea. So you might save a little from aggregation, but not much. There's a large amount of resources involved in building these massive pontoons...I don't see the costs ever getting to the point of "nominal".


RE: As usual, it boils down to cost
By 67STANG on 9/24/2008 1:45:34 PM , Rating: 3
For once, I agree with masher on a renewable power issue. The cost of $13,000,000.00 for 2.25MW is a horrible value.


RE: As usual, it boils down to cost
By SiliconJon on 9/24/2008 2:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget about maintenance and operation cost savings, and externalities such as the security and cleanliness. The cost to build a nuclear reactor completely ignores the cost to run it and then deal with that, oh just so slightly toxic, nuclear waste. What does that cost in immediate dollars alone?

Durability is important, though...hopefully this thing doesn't de-lego itself during every major oceanic event across it.

Let us also not forget this is essentially an R&D prototype which is always outside the production possibilities curve due to its immense initial development & deployment cost.


RE: As usual, it boils down to cost
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2008 3:13:28 PM , Rating: 5
You don't think these things are going to require maintenance? The ocean is not a technology friendly place. Seaweed can drift in. Algae can grow. And you still need people monitoring the output at the point where all the cable connect to the grid.

The cost to run a nuclear power plant in terms of staff shouldn't be much more than that of a coal plant. You need some extra security and nuclear engineers. And the waste is a non-issue if modern reactors are used and reprocessing is used. We need to break this state of perpetual fear around nuclear power and all it to be all it can be. I mean c'mon do you really want to let the French keep showing us up in the realm of energy production? They're not afraid of the massive use of nuclear power. Why should we be?


By Oregonian2 on 9/24/2008 5:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
They're also mechanical with moving parts sitting in salt water (unlike the solar installation compared to that's right on an interstate highway in terms of access if needed). Long term maintenance costs may be higher. Wonder if there's any problems of ships running into them or things like that.


By Indianapolis on 9/25/2008 1:42:46 AM , Rating: 4
Don't forget about barnacles!


RE: As usual, it boils down to cost
By Samus on 9/25/2008 6:01:12 AM , Rating: 3
As with all other forms of hydroelectric power, maintenance costs will be substantial. In the 70's Jamaica switched from a very productive hydroelectric grid to coal, and even with soaring costs, has still saved compared to hydroelectric. It would fail constantly causing power outages, and it was especially unreliable during stormy season.


RE: As usual, it boils down to cost
By willssi on 9/24/2008 6:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
Twice the output doesn't necessarily mean twice the cable capacity, especially if they planned additional generators.

As for the resources involved; a few miles of cable and a substation are actually not bad. Gas / oil pipelines are very unwieldy, requiring thousands of miles of pipe and intermittent pump stations. It's unfair to deride these new technologies for their cost or logistics and ignore all the resources that were sunk into infrastructure for current generation energy.


RE: As usual, it boils down to cost
By mdogs444 on 9/24/2008 6:53:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's unfair to deride these new technologies for their cost or logistics and ignore all the resources that were sunk into infrastructure for current generation energy.

Its completely fair to do so. Lets face it - concrete, steel, copper, and cables are not scarce resources. They are a plenty today, and will be a plenty tomorrow. Therefore, cost, logistics, output, and efficiency should be the only thing that matters when comparing energy sources.


By farsawoos on 9/25/2008 10:51:08 AM , Rating: 3
Hey guys and gals!

I'm just throwing this out as food for thought. More than a few people seem to - understandably - stick to the idea that because of the sheer vastness of current building materials (as someone said, copper, concrete, etc.), our analysis of new and generally undeveloped energy technologies *should* be based solely on the cost of construction, general efficiency, and what basically amounts of a Return on Investment.

But one caveat I would give to this mentality is that it is often very narrow; narrow here is not synonomous with "shallow." If one gets hung up entirely on the ROI of a technology, or any product for that matter, then one loses the ability to see what opportunities the simple construction, or time invested in research, can afford. Sometimes it isn't the finished product that matters, it's the technologies and science learned in the *making* of that product that have the greatest impact on things in the long-term.

There are a lot of valid concerns here, and I certainly raise the question of the long-term effectiveness of such a system. I do, however, like to keep in mind for myself just how badly we as a race need progress in this field. Even if our supplies of concrete and copper and other precious metals and materials were literally infinite - which they, despite their vastness, are most certainly not - why is that an excuse to sit on our haunches and continue depending on them? It's just like fossil fuels; the fact they're running out now, at this point in our history, is irrelevant. Even if our fossil fuel supplies were infinite, we would still have no excuse not to try to advance to the next better, cleaner, cheaper energy source.

Just my $.02, before inflation makes it completely worthless. :D


By masher2 (blog) on 9/24/2008 7:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "Twice the output doesn't necessarily mean twice the cable capacity"

Of course it does, if that cable is connected to generators in the same area (and thus with their output in sync). Furthermore, cabling laid in a harsh undersea environment has much higher maintenance costs than one on dry land.

> "Gas / oil pipelines are very unwieldy, requiring thousands of miles of pipe "

The primary difference is that a pipeline -- or a power cable from a coal or nuclear plant -- can run at close to 100% capacity continually. A cable from an intermittent source like solar, wind, or tidal power has to be sized to carry peak capacity, but most of the time is only carring 20-40% of that load.

That's why programs like the Pickens Plan would require tens of billions of dollars for new power lines, even excluding the (much larger) cost of the wind turbines themselves.


By MonkeyPaw on 9/24/2008 10:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a few miles of cable and a substation are actually not bad.


Actually, a few miles of cable can become rather expensive. To give you a frame of reference, in terrestrial power line construction, it costs about 10 times more to build a distribution line underground as opposed to overhead. Much of that cost is in the cable itself. Most new overhead construction uses aluminum conductor with a steel center. Underground conductor is a heavily insulated and shielded cable, typically all-copper. Just looking at a cross-section of each type will give you an idea of the differences in cost. Sea cable is probably even more expensive than underground conductor, as it not only has to be shielded, but it also has to be resistant to the abuse of sea water and tides. Depending on how much cable is needed, these lines can get expensive. I'm sure installation isn't exactly a snap, either.

However, the cost of the facility's substation is moot, as all generating facilities typically have a substation to step up voltages to transmission levels in order to get the electricity to the demand efficiently. The larger the capacity of the generating plant, the larger the substation. One of these plants would require a relatively small sub, so this cost may not be that bad. However, you might need several small subs in an area to create a viable amount of MW.


By randomly on 9/27/2008 2:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
Twice the cable capacity does not imply twice the cost though. A large fraction of the cost is in laying the cable, not the cost of the cable itself. Also a cable with twice the capacity is not necessarily twice as expensive per foot.

Clearly this particular implementation is not economically feasible, but like early wind power and solar installations it will be a valuable learning tool of a real world implementation.


RE: As usual, it boils down to cost
By ArcliteHawaii on 9/24/2008 8:17:47 PM , Rating: 2
Also, I'd like to point out that economies of scale come into effect as mass production is implemented. They cost $13m now (I'm assuming hand made), but how much when they're making them by the 1000s in huge automated factories?


RE: As usual, it boils down to cost
By Ringold on 9/24/2008 8:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
I have to be a little incredulous about this. Boats are still fairly expensive, and are massed produced. Aircraft are generally mass produced, but still very expensive. I think the light aircraft market is the model I think wave power would end up at. Somewhat mass produced, but still large enough and complicated enough that prices never approach what one would otherwise think. C172? 200k. Mid-size sedan? 30k. Thousands are made of one, millions of the other. One has to deal with an extreme variation in environments safely, the other has to merely survive the summer-winter transition close to sea-level.

Surely they'll become cheaper, but don't look for the mythical "economies of scale" to save the day in every situation. The scale required can be large, and maintenance can't be scaled away.


<