Technology survey for renewable energy

Integrated to bridge constructions

Wave and tidal energy

Statens vegvesens rapporter Nr. 109

SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden

April 2012
 NPRA reports
Statens vegvesens rapporter Norwegian Public Roads Administration

Tittel Title
Technology survey for renewable energy Technology survey for renewable energy
Integrated to bridge constructions Integrated to bridge constructions
Undertittel Subtitle
Wave and tidal energy Wave and tidal energy

Forfatter Author
Daniel Vennetti, SP Daniel Vennetti, SP

Avdeling Department
Trafikksikkerhet, miljø- og teknologiavde- Traffic Safety, Environment and Technology
lingen
Seksjon Section

Prosjektnummer Project number

603360 603360
Rapportnummer Report number
Nr. 109 No. 109
Prosjektleder Project manager
Hoseini Mohammed Hoseini Mohammed
Godkjent av Approved by

Emneord Key words

Sammendrag Summary

Antall sider 286 Pages 286

Dato April 2012 Date April 2012
 Wave and Tidal Energy Technology
Survey for Ferry Free E39 Project
Daniel Vennetti
SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden

SP Structural and Solid Mechanics

SP Arbetsrapport :2012:06
 2

Wave and Tidal Energy Technology

Survey for Ferry Free E39 Project
Daniel Vennetti

SP Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut

SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden

SP Arbetsrapport :2012:06
ISBN
ISSN 0284-5172
Borås 2012-04-05
 3

Table of contents
Executive summary 6

1 Introduction 8

2 Energy from the tides 9

2.1 How tides are generated 9
2.2 Tidal range energy conversion 9
2.3 Tidal current energy conversion 11

3 Tidal in-stream conversion technology request for

information 12
3.1 General information 12
3.2 Device classification 12
3.2.1 General device classification information 13
3.2.2 Device type 13
3.2.3 Method to fix the device 15
3.3 Technology status 16
3.3.1 Development status 16
3.3.2 Description of testing activities 17
3.3.3 Next development steps 18
3.3.4 Environmental impact studies 18
3.3.5 Technical publications 18
3.3.6 Estimated date commercially available 18
3.4 Operational characteristics 18
3.4.1 General operational characteristics 18
3.4.2 Installation requirements 19
3.4.3 Performance characteristics 19
3.4.4 Economic characteristics 19
3.5 Relevance to Ferry Free E39 19
3.6 List of developers 19

4 Tidal energy conversion technology state of the art

summary 20

5 Energy from the waves 21

5.1 How waves are generated 21
5.2 Wave energy conversion 21

6 Wave energy conversion technology request for

information 23
6.1 General information 23
6.2 Device classification 23
6.2.1 General device classification information 23
6.2.2 Device type 24
6.2.3 Device survivability 26
6.3 Technology status 26
6.4 Operational characteristics 27
6.4.1 General operational characteristics 27
 4

6.4.2 Installation requirements 27

6.4.3 Performance characteristics 27
6.4.4 Economic characteristics 27
6.5 Relevance to Ferry Free E39 27
6.6 List of developers 28

7 Wave energy conversion technology state of the art

summary 29

8 Crossing locations 30

9 Bridging technologies 31
9.1 Suspension bridge 31
9.2 Floating bridge 31
9.3 Submerged floating tunnel 31

10 Determining tidal energy potential 33

10.1 Tidal resources 33
10.2 Combining tidal energy conversion devices with bridging
technologies 35
10.2.1 Concepts 35
10.2.2 Advantages 35
10.2.3 Disadvantages 36
10.2.4 Requirements and limitations 37
10.2.4.1 Downstream direction 37
10.2.4.2 Cross-stream direction 37
10.2.4.3 Bridge type specific limitations 38
10.2.4.4 Energy extraction 43
10.3 Tidal energy conversion device output 43
10.3.1 Detailed method for device output calculations 44
10.3.2 Simplified method for device output calculations 45
10.3.3 Calculated device output 46
10.4 Tidal energy recommendations 47

11 Determining wave energy potential 49

11.1 Wave resources 49
11.2 Combining wave conversion devices with bridging
technologies 50
11.2.1 Concepts 50
11.2.2 Advantages 51
11.2.3 Disadvantages 51
11.2.4 Requirements and limitations 51
11.2.4.1 Downstream direction 51
11.2.4.2 Cross-stream direction 52
11.2.4.3 Bridge type specific limitations 52
11.3 Wave energy conversion device output 53
11.3.1 Detailed method for device output calculations 53
11.3.2 Simplified method for device output calculations 54
11.3.3 Calculated device output 54
11.4 Wave energy recommendations 55
 5

12 Combining multiple renewable energy technologies 57

13 Summary and conclusions 58

14 References 59

Appendix 1: TISEC device request for information 61

Appendix 2: TISEC device list of developers 70

Appendix 3: TISEC device responses 73

Appendix 4: WEC device request for information 158

Appendix 5: WEC device list of developers 166

Appendix 6: WEC device responses 170

Appendix 7: Fjord crossing locations 268

Appendix 8: Calculations of the number of TISEC devices 273

Appendix 9: Calculations of the energy from TISEC devices 277

Appendix 10: Calculations of the number of WEC devices 279

Appendix 11: Calculations of the energy from WEC devices 286

 6

Executive summary
E39 is a road that is located on the west coast of Norway and extends from
Kristiansand in the south to Trondheim in the north. Currently, a number of ferry
crossings are required to traverse its entire length. The Transport Ministry has given
a mandate for the project “Ferry Free E39” to assess the technological solutions for
the crossing of eight large fjords without ferries. The fjords crossings range from 1.5
km to 25 km in length and have depths up to 1300 m. Proposed solutions for the
crossings that are under consideration consist of suspension bridges, floating bridges
and submerged floating tunnels. Part of the project is to consider how the
construction of the crossings can be combined with devices that produce energy from
waves, tides, wind and the sun. The idea is that, by using the bridge construction as
part of the facility, the costs of the renewable energy power plants could be reduced
and therefore be more competitive.

SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden has been commissioned by the

Norwegian Public Roads Administration to perform a technology survey and
generate a summary of the current state of the art wave and tidal energy conversion
technologies. Requests for information were sent to the majority of the active
developers in order to obtain the most up to date information about the current
technology status, performance data and conditions of functionality for each of the
devices. The thoughts behind the questions asked in the requests for information and
the results of this technology survey are presented herein.

Additionally, SP has been commissioned to make rough estimations of the potential

energy that could be obtained from each fjord crossing by employing wave and tidal
energy conversion technologies and to recommend the most suitable technology for
integration with each fjord crossing concept. The methods behind the estimations of
potential energy from each crossing and the background for the recommendations
that are made are presented herein.

Unfortunately, a lack of tidal and wave energy resource data at the fjord crossing
locations made it impossible to utilize the detailed calculation method that was
described and a simplified calculation method was used to calculate rough estimates
of the energy potential from the different devices. When the estimates were
compared to previous studies it showed that the estimates based on the simplified
approach were non-conservative. Source of non-conservatism in the calculations
were discussed and it was concluded that the next stage of the study should
concentrate on obtaining reliable data about the tidal and wave energy resources for
the different fjord crossing locations. The data should be obtained over a significant
period of time to ensure that the effects of seasonal variations in the resources are
captured.

Once tidal and wave resources data is available, more realistic calculations of the
potential energy production can be completed. At that point, comparisons of the
performance of the difference technologies can be made.

From that point, more detailed studies should be undertaken where the concepts for
combining the devices with the bridging technologies are optimized. This
optimization should include actions such as loads analysis, structural strength
 7

calculations, reliability and fatigue performance evaluations and detailed cost

estimates.
 8

1 Introduction
E39 is a road that is located on the west coast of Norway and extends from
Kristiansand in the south to Trondheim in the north. Currently, a number of ferry
crossings are required to traverse its entire length. The Transport Ministry has given
a mandate for the project “Ferry Free E39” to assess the technological solutions for
the crossing of eight large fjords without ferries. The fjords crossings range from 1.5
km to 25 km in length and have depths up to 1300 m. Proposed solutions for the
crossings that are under consideration consist of suspension bridges, floating bridges
and submerged floating tunnels. Part of the project is to consider how the
construction of the crossings can be combined with devices that produce energy from
waves, tides, wind and the sun. The idea is that, by using the bridge construction as
part of the facility, the costs of the renewable energy power plants could be reduced
and therefore be more competitive.

SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden has been commissioned by the

Norwegian Public Roads Administration to perform a technology survey and
generate a summary of the current state of the art wave, tidal, wind and solar energy
conversion technologies. For the wave and tidal energy conversion technologies,
requests for information were sent to the majority of the active developers in order to
obtain the most up to date information about the current technology status,
performance data and conditions of functionality for each of the devices. The
thoughts behind the questions asked in the requests for information and the results of
the technology survey for the wave and tidal energy conversion technologies are
presented herein.

Additionally, SP has been commissioned to make rough estimations of the potential

energy that could be obtained from each fjord crossing by employing wave, tidal,
wind and solar energy conversion technologies and to recommend the most suitable
technology for integration with each fjord crossing concept. The methods behind the
estimations of potential energy for the wave and tidal energy conversion devices and
the background for the recommendations that are made are presented herein.
 9

2 Energy from the tides

2.1 How tides are generated
Tidal energy is a unique form of renewable energy. While other renewable energies
are either directly or indirectly derived from solar energy, tidal energy is generated
by the orbital characteristics of the Earth-Moon-Sun system [1]. The gravitational
attractions between the Earth, the Sun and the Moon and the orbital nature of the
system cause the ocean to bulge in different locations on the Earth at different times.
As these bulges in the ocean rotate around the Earth, the water level seen from a
specific location will rise and fall [2]. The main periods of the tides are called the
diurnal (~24 hours) and the semidiurnal (12 hours 25 min) [3]. Throughout the year,
the relative position of the two planets and the sun changes, causing the magnitude of
the tides to vary. When the gravitational effects of the Sun and Moon are acting in
the same direction, this is referred to as a spring tide and the difference in water
height between high tide and low tide is above average. When the gravitational
effects of the Sun and Moon are separated by 90°, this is referred to as a neap tide,
and the tidal conditions are less extreme. A figure showing the types of tides caused
by the relative location of the Earth, Moon and Sun is shown as Figure 1.

Figure 1 Tidal variation schematic.

The change in water height due to this rising and falling motion is referred to as tidal
range. The rising and falling movement of the water also results in horizontal water
motions which are called tidal currents. Because the tides are a result of the periodic
variations of the Earth-Moon-Sun system, the tidal energy is more predictable than
other renewable energy sources. Because generation and consumption across the
electrical grid must be constantly balanced, this predictability is seen as a major
advantage of tidal energy when compared to other renewable energy sources.

2.2 Tidal range energy conversion

The idea of extracting energy from the tidal range has existed for many centuries. It
is documented that farmers in the middle ages (1200-1500 AD) would capture waters
in mill ponds as the tides rose and use this stored potential energy to run tide mills as
the tide level dropped [4]. It is even suggested that people may have been using tide
mills as far back as Roman times [5]. An image of a more modern tidal mill is shown
as Figure 2.
 10

Large scale utilization of tidal range energy to generate electricity was first
accomplished in 1966 by La Rance power facility near St. Malo in Brittany, France.
This power station consists of a retaining basin, a barrage and sluices. The plant
produces electricity in both ebb and flood flows using twenty-four turbines. The
plant has a peak generating capacity of 240 MW and annually produces
approximately 480 GWh to France’s national electricity grid [7]. The global tidal
energy range potential is estimated at 3 TW of which 1 TW is available in relatively
shallow waters [3].

Despite the fact that there is such a great energy potential from the tidal range and the
fact that La Rance has been successfully operated for over four decades, there have
been very few major tidal barrages built.

Figure 2 Tidal mill at Olhão, Portugal [6].

One reason for this is the limited number of sites that have a significant tidal range.
The tidal range of a particular location is largely affected by the shape of the
shoreline and ocean floor. Features, such as estuaries, can also have a significant
impact on the tidal range. While some locations such as the Bay of Fundy in Canada,
where the height of the tide can reach 16 m, possess significant tidal range resources,
the average tidal range of all oceans around the globe is 1 m [8]. With a significant
tidal range required for a tidal barrage to be considered viable, the global number of
potential sites is rather limited.

Another negative aspect of the tidal barrage is the potential for disturbance in the
electrical grid control that can be associated with the large variation in the energy
generation. During neap tides at La Rance power facility about 80,000 MWh/day is
generated, while during an equinoctial spring tide 1,450,000 MWh/day are generated
[1].

One more reason why so few tidal barrages have been built is the high construction
costs associated with such structures. Because tidal barrages require large quantities
of materials to be able to withstand the loads created by storing significant amounts
of water, it is often times not economically viable to build these types of structures.
 11

However, possibly the greatest disadvantage of tidal barrages is the potential for
negative environmental impacts [7]. When a dam is built across an estuary, the
currents into and out of the area inherently change which can have an effect on the
natural balance within the estuary. As a result of all of these negative aspects, by the
early 1990s much of the focus for extracting the energy from the tides shifted from
tidal range conversion technologies to tidal current conversion technologies [4].

2.3 Tidal current energy conversion

Technologies that convert the kinetic tidal current energy are referred to as tidal in-
stream conversion (TISEC) devices [9], marine current energy converters (MCECs)
[10] or marine current turbines.

These types of devices were first conceived in the 1970s during the oil crisis [11].
Because they do not incorporate tidal barrages, they have been shown to have far less
negative impacts on the local environment than the tidal range energy conversion
devices [12]. While there is a broad range of concepts at this point, many of the
designs are very similar to the wind turbine. Because the density of water is over 800
times greater than that of air, the power intensity in water currents is much higher
than that of airflows. This means that a water current turbine can be built much
smaller than a wind turbine to get the same power output, or that the water speeds
can be significantly slower than wind speeds while generating the same amount of
power for a similarly sized device. The optimum current speed for most technologies
is between 1.5-3.5 m/s [13].

Because there are many sites globally with currents in the optimum range for these
technologies, recent studies have indicated that marine currents could potentially
supply a significant fraction of the future global energy needs. In Europe alone, the
potential for MCECs is estimated to exceed 12,000 MW of installed capacity [3].

In two studies of the Norwegian coast, rough estimates of the technical tidal current
energy resources have been calculated. The technical resource takes into account the
amount of kinetic energy that can be extracted without creating a negative ecological
impact or a reduction in the current speed (often referred to as the significant impact
factor (SIF) [14]. The studies estimated the annual technical resource in Norway to
be between 0.55 TWh to greater than 1 TWh [15] [16]. The broad range is largely
due to the uncertainty in the SIF. Both studies also addressed Norway’s economical
tidal current energy resource, which takes into account the fact that there may be
technical or economic factors that would limit the site availability. The annual
estimations for the economical resource were between well below 1 TWh to 1 TWh
[15][16]. These estimates take into account Norway’s total economical tidal current
energy resource and are therefore expected to be greater than the energy potential
from just the fjord crossing locations of the Ferry Free E39 project.
 12

3 Tidal in-stream conversion technology

request for information
Because the tidal in-stream conversion industry is still in its infancy, it is in a
constant state of change. Because many developers are using all of their available
time and resources for further developing their technologies, much of the most up to
date information is not available in published literature or even on homepages. With
that in mind, it was decided that the best way of ensuring that the most relevant
information was obtained from each technology developer was to send out a request
for information (RFI). This method has proved to be an effective way of obtaining
relevant information and to be able to form contacts with the actual tidal in-stream
conversion technology developers [9].

The contacts that were made through the RFI process could also be used to inform
the technology developers, stakeholders and research groups about the upcoming
workshop/conference.

The RFI questions were formulated in an attempt to gain concise and relevant
information which can be broken up into five basic categories: general information,
device classification, technology status, operational characteristics, and relevance to
the Ferry Free E39 project.

In the RFI it was stated that if any of the requested information was currently
unavailable that the technology provider could simply state that in their reply. A
sample reply was also generated for a fictional device in an attempt to give some
guidance as to the desired style and format of the responses. The RFI that was sent to
the TISEC device developers and the sample reply are included as Appendix 1.

3.1 General information

The general information questions were generated in large part to ensure that we
have all of the necessary information to be able to distinguish the different
technologies from one another and to ensure that we have appropriate ways to find
information about the developer and technology in the future. The requested general
information is as follows: company name, country, web address, technology name,
figures/photographs of the device.

3.2 Device classification

Unlike many mature industries, the TISEC industry has not converged to a narrow
band of solutions. Currently the range of solutions is extremely broad and there are
new patents being granted all the time for novel approaches to solving the challenge
of converting tidal current energy into something useful. With that in mind, it is
extremely important to gain enough information about the design of the devices so
that we can make relevant comparisons based on a classification scheme. The
following sections describe the RFI questions that are meant to gain information
about the classification of the devices.
 13

3.2.1 General device classification information

The general device classification questions allowed the developer to discuss the
unique idea behind their technology. The developer was asked to briefly explain the
features and design principle of their technology. Additionally, information about the
power train type and whether or not power was generated during ebb (when water
height is decreasing) and flood (when water height is increasing) flows was requested
of the developer.

3.2.2 Device type

While there is an extremely broad range of solutions, there are four basic design
principles that many technology providers have utilized [17]. In the RFI, the
developers were asked to identify if their device utilized one of those four basic
design principles, or if it was a novel design. The four basic design principles are
shown in Figure 3 through Figure 6.

The first common design principle is the horizontal axis turbine, or axial flow
turbine. These devices are very similar to typical wind turbines. The flow moves
parallel to the axis of the turbine and energy from the flowing water is converted to
rotation of the turbine as the water passes the blades. Figure 3 shows a typical
horizontal axis turbine.

Figure 3 Horizontal axis or axial flow turbine design principle [18].

The second common design principle is the cross-axis or cross flow turbine. For
these devices, the flow moves perpendicular to the axis of the turbine. The kinetic
energy from the water is again converted to rotation of the turbine as the water passes
the blades. This design type encompasses devices where the turbine axis is mounted
both vertically and horizontally. The horizontal axis cross-axis turbine can even be
used in shallow water. The cross-axis design principle is shown in Figure 4.
 14

Figure 4 Cross-axis or cross flow turbine design principle [18].

The next common design principle is the oscillating hydrofoil. These devices
incorporate a hydrofoil which is mounted to an arm. As water flows past the
hydrofoil lift is generated and the arm moves in one direction, as the hydrofoil
reaches the limit of its movement in the one direction the orientation of the hydrofoil
is changed, causing the lift force of the hydrofoil to move the arm in the opposite
direction. This process is repeated causing the arm to oscillate as the flow moves past
the device. Figure 5 shows an example of an oscillating hydrofoil.

Figure 5 Oscillating hydrofoil design principle [18].

The last common design principle is the enclosed tips (Venturi) type. This design is
based on the Venturi effect, which is the reduction in fluid pressure that results when
a fluid flows from a larger area pipe to a smaller area pipe. With this type of design, a
funnel-like device is used to concentrate the flow past a turbine or the resulting
pressure differential can be used to drive an air turbine. One such device is shown as
Figure 6.
 15

Figure 6 Enclosed tips (Venturi) design principle [19].

If the design did not fit into one of those four categories, it was considered a unique
design principle, which was labelled “other designs”.

3.2.3 Method to fix the device

Another way of classifying the different devices is to look at how the devices are
held in place. There are four main methods to fix the devices, and the technology
providers were asked to identify which methods could be used for their particular
technology [17].

The first is the seabed mounted / gravity base. With this method, the device is
attached to the bottom directly, or is heavy enough that it is held in place by the static
friction force generated by its own weight.

Pile mounted devices consist of a pole that penetrates the ocean floor. Some
technologies use piles to allow the device to align with the flow and others use the
pile to allow the devices to be raised out of the water for maintenance.

The third classification of fixing applies to devices that are floating. This
classification has three subdivisions. Floating devices can be fixed by flexible
mooring, which means that the device is tethered to the seabed and has significant
freedom of movement. Alternatively, if less freedom of movement is desired, a rigid
mooring can be used. The last subdivision for a floating device is the floating
structure, which allows for several devices to be mounted to the floating platform.

The last main fixing method is using a hydrofoil attached to the device. As flow
passes the hydrofoil, a downward force is induced, resulting in a static friction force
 16

that keeps device in place. As the flow speed increases, the downward force
increases, meaning that the fixing force, to some degree, self-adjusts to the flow
conditions.

3.3 Technology status

Because so few tidal in-stream conversions technologies are to the commercial phase
at this point, understanding how far a technology has come in the development
process is important to capture in the technology survey. The next set of questions in
the RFI were aimed at developing a picture of the current status of the device and
determining how long it will take before the technology is to a stage where it could
be utilized on a larger scale.

3.3.1 Development status

The U.S. department of energy (DOE) has adopted a set of technology readiness
levels (TRLs) in the area of marine and hydrokinetic technology industry.
Technology readiness levels were originally used by that National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) and are used to assess how mature evolving
technologies are. The technology developers were asked to classify the TRL of their
technology according to the following criteria which are directly taken from the DOE
website [18]:

TRL 1-3: Discovery / Concept Definition / Early Stag Development, Design and
Engineering
• TRL 1-2: These are the lowest levels of technology readiness. Scientific
research begins to be translated into applied research and development where
basic principles are observed and reported. Technology concept and application
are formulated and investigated through analytic studies and in-depth
investigations of principal design considerations. This stage is characterized by
paper studies, concept exploration, and planning.
• TRL 3: In this stage, active research is initiated, including engineering studies
and laboratory studies to physically validate analytical predictions of separate
elements of the technology.
The purpose of this stage is to evaluate, insofar as possible, the scientific or technical
merit and feasibility of ideas that appear to have commercial potential.

TRL 4: Proof of Concept

• In this stage basic technological components of a sub-scale model are integrated
to validate design predictions and system level functionality. The models, or
critical subsystems, are tested in a laboratory environment.
This TRL represents early stage proof-of-concept system or component development,
testing and concept validation. In this stage, critical technology elements are
developed and tested in a laboratory environment. It is envisioned that scale models
will be at 1:10 scale or smaller.

TRL 5/6: System Integration, and Technology Laboratory Demonstration

 17

• TRL 5: At this level, basic technological components are fabricated at a scale

relevant to full scale and integrated to establish and verify subsystem and
system level functionality and preparation for testing in a simulated
environment.
• TRL 6: At this level, representative model or prototype system at a scale
relevant to full scale, which is beyond that of TRL 5, is tested in a relevant
environment. This stage represents a major step up in a technology's
demonstrated readiness and risk mitigation and is the stage leading to open
water testing.
At this stage device, system, and subsystem level interfacing/integration testing
represent a vital stage in technology development, and must be demonstrated.
Models should be at a relevant scale (1:1 – 1:5) to reflect the challenges and realities
of the full scale (1:1) system. Model testing is to be performed in a test facility
capable of producing simulated waves/currents and other operational conditions
while monitoring device response and performance. Furthermore, the devices
foundation concept shall be incorporated and demonstrated.

TRL 7/8: Open Water System Testing, Demonstration, and Operation

• TRL 7: At this level, the prototype scale components and subsystems are
fabricated and integrated to establish and verify subsystem and system level
functionality and preparation for testing in an open water operational
environment to verify expected operation and fine tune the design prior to
deployment in an operational demonstration project.
• TRL 8: At this level, the prototype in its final form (at or near full scale) is to be
tested, and qualified in an open water environment under all expected operating
conditions to demonstrate readiness for commercial deployment in a
demonstration project. Testing should include extreme conditions.
At this stage, the device model scale is expected to be at or near full scale (1:1 – 1:2).
Testing may be initially performed in water at a relatively benign location, with the
expectation that testing then be performed in a fully exposed, open water
environment, where representative operating environments can be experienced. The
final foundation/mooring design shall be incorporated into model testing at this stage.

DOE TRL 9: Commercial-Scale Production / Application

• At this stage, the actual, commercial-scale system is proven through successful
mission operations, whereby it is fielded and in-use in commercial application.
This stage represents an in-service application of the technology in its final form and
under mission condition

3.3.2 Description of testing activities

Prototype testing of these devices is an extremely important part of proving that that
they will function in real world conditions. It is therefore important to understand the
amount of testing that has been performed on each device. The technology providers
were asked to describe all of their prototype testing activities including the scale of
the test, test facility or location of the testing, the dates and the hours of operation
 18

during the testing. All of those parameters should give a good understanding of how
much testing is complete, and how much testing needs to be done before the device
can be declared a success or not.

3.3.3 Next development steps

The technology developers were asked to briefly describe their next development
steps. This question was intended to give us an understanding what coming tasks the
developer has judged to be the most important next phase of development for their
particular technology.

3.3.4 Environmental impact studies

Several reports exists where the potential environmental impacts of TISEC devices
has been explored. Such studies generally look into installation, operation and
decommissioning and how these activities affect the surrounding environment. While
the impact is in many cases presumed to be small, there is little long term data from
actual installations because the technology is still in such an early development stage
[12]. The environmental impacts will often times depend on the specific technology
and the location of the installation. With that in mind, one of the questions for the
request for information was to describe if the developer had performed any
environmental impact studies for their specific technology.

3.3.5 Technical publications

The developers were also asked to list any technical publications that contain data
about their technology. At a later stage in the project, where more detailed
information about the technology is needed, technical publications could be useful
for helping understanding the details of the concept better or for understanding the
methods used to generating vital performance data. Having technical publications
also shows that the developer has incorporated an academic aspect in their
development plan.

3.3.6 Estimated date commercially available

The developers were asked to estimate a date when the technology would be
commercially available. The answer to this question will be used to determine if it is
feasible that the technology will be ready for large scale utilization within an
acceptable timeframe for the Ferry Free E39 project.

3.4 Operational characteristics

The next category of questions was developed to gain information about the
operational characteristics of the technologies.

3.4.1 General operational characteristics

The general operational characteristics of the device include information about the
dimensions, area of current flow used by the device, weight of super structure and
weight of power conversion equipment. When the locations of the crossings are
determined, this information could be useful in determining how many TISEC
devices would be able to fit in the crossing. This information is also useful for
determining some of the additional loads that the bridging structure will need to
withstand as a result of adding the TISEC devices.
 19

3.4.2 Installation requirements

Information about the installation requirements of the technologies is critical in
determining whether or not the individual devices could be used for the different
crossings. The minimum installation depth and maximum installation depth were
requested. Additionally, the lowest flow speed in which the device can be utilized
(cut in speed) and the maximum allowable flow speed were also requested.

3.4.3 Performance characteristics

The technology developers were asked to identify the rated flow speed and the rated
power of their devices. Additionally, information was requested about the estimated
power outputs at various current speeds. Because the tidal flows vary drastically
throughout the various stages of the tidal cycles, in order to estimate power
production over a longer period it is necessary to understand how the devices behave
over a broad range of flow speeds.

3.4.4 Economic characteristics

To facilitate cost comparisons of the various devices in the future, information was
requested about the costs of the devices. Because it is assumed that the devices will
be past the research and development phase by the time they will be utilized for the
Ferry Free E39 project, the requested cost was for a production level device.
Additionally, information about the design lifetime was requested in order to be able
to determine the long term economic feasibility of the devices.

3.5 Relevance to Ferry Free E39

The last type of questions gave the technology developers the chance to explain how
their particular devices could specifically be utilized for the Ferry Free E39 project.
The developers were asked if and how their device could be combined with a
suspension bridge fjord crossing, a floating bridge fjord crossing and a submerged
floating tunnel fjord crossing. Other questions asked them to explore the possible
advantages and disadvantages of combining their device with such structures.
Because the technology developers know the strengths and limitations of their
devices best, it was decided that this was an effective way of determining how
feasible it is to combine these types of devices with infrastructure, and what the
advantages and disadvantages are.

3.6 List of developers

Table A2:1 shows the technology developers with whom contact was attempted. All
contact information was found on the developer’s homepages. If the “Confirmed
contact” column is green, it means that a response to the initial contact was received.
This response could have been in the form of an automatically generated email,
personal email, or telephone call. If the “Confirmed contact” column is red, it means
that no response to the initial contact was received or that the email address that was
used led to a failed email notification. If the “Responded to RFI” column is green,
this means that the developer responded to the request for information. If this column
is red, it means that for whatever reason, no response was received from that
particular developer.
 20

4 Tidal energy conversion technology state

of the art summary
Table A3:1 shows some basic information about the technologies that responded to
the RFI. There were a total of 19 technology developers who responded to the RFI.
Several of the developers were unable to reply to the RFI or limited their response
due to the fact that the information was going to be distributed beyond our
organization. Several companies were unable to respond because of limited time or
personnel resources. The complete responses from all of the developers who
responded to the RFI are included in Appendix 3.
 21

5 Energy from the waves

5.1 How waves are generated
Wave energy is a renewable energy source that indirectly originates from solar
energy. Due to the complexities of the Earth’s surface and the relative location of sun
to the different locations on Earth, the Sun causes the Earth to be heated unevenly.
As air gets heated up, it becomes less dense and tends to rise. As the warmer air rises,
this leaves room for denser colder air to take its place. As the warmer and colder air
shift locations, wind is generated.

As the wind blows across the ocean surface, the friction between the wind and the
water surface creates ripples which grow until waves are produced. Waves that are
generated from wind have a very high energy concentration. Wind waves are a
natural storage of wind energy and can travel thousands of kilometres with little
energy losses [3]. A diagram depicting a typical wind wave generation scenario is
shown as Figure 7.

Figure 7 Wind wave generation [3].

5.2 Wave energy conversion

Much like with tidal energy, extracting energy from the waves is not a new idea. The
first patent on wave energy conversion was issued as early as 1799 [20].

Much like the tidal current energy conversion devices, the first real interest in large
scale wave energy conversion (WEC) devices came as a result of the oil crisis in the
1970s. However much of the funding did not last past the early 1980s and focus
shifted away from the WEC development [21].

In 1991, the European Commission included wave energy in their research and
development program for renewable energies. Since that time, many new
breakthroughs have been made and a wide range of technologies have been
developed. The first experimental wave farm was opened in Portugal at the
Aguçadoura Wave Park in 2008.
 22

Although there is a broad range of estimates of the global wave energy resources,
most agree that wave power is one of the most abundant sources on earth [22]. Siegel
et al. have made a powerful comparison between the World Energy Council’s
estimate of the global annual amount of wave power energy of 17.5 PWh (Peta Watt
hours = 1012 kWh) with the currently estimated annual worldwide electric energy
consumption of 16 PWh.

In one study, it was estimated that around 600 TWh of total wave energy reached the
Norwegian coast per year [16]. When one accounts for the efficiency of the energy
conversion and the amount of coast that is acceptable to develop for wave energy, the
estimated contribution of wave energy to the Norwegian energy portfolio could reach
between 12 to 30 TWh per year [16].
 23

6 Wave energy conversion technology

request for information
As the WEC technology industry is also in a very early stage of development, it was
again decided that the best method for ensuring that the most relevant information
was obtained for the technology survey was to send out an RFI to the technology
developers.

The RFI process could again be used to establish contact with the developers and to
inform the developers, stakeholders and research groups about the Ferry Free E39
workshop/conference.

While the formatting of the RFI that was sent to the WEC device developers was
intentionally kept similar to the RFI that was sent to the TISEC device developers,
many updates were made in order for the questions to be more relevant to these types
of devices. Although several of the questions are different, the RFI for WEC device
developers can again be broken up into the same five basic categories: general
information, device classification, technology status, operational characteristics, and
relevance to the Ferry Free E39 project.

Again, the technology providers were informed that if any of the requested
information was currently unavailable that they could simply state that in their reply.
A fictional sample reply was again provided in an attempt to give some guidance as
to the desired style and format of the responses. The RFI that was sent to the WEC
device developers and the sample reply are included as Appendix 4.

6.1 General information

The general information questions for the WEC device developers are identical to
those for the TISEC device developers described in section 3.1

6.2 Device classification

WEC devices are much like the TISEC devices in that they have a very wide range of
solutions currently under consideration. The device classification questions of the
WEC RFI are meant to gain an understanding of what makes the particular
technologies unique, and at the same time allowing for relevant comparisons to be
made between the different devices.

6.2.1 General device classification information

Again, the general device classification questions allow the developer to discuss what
makes their concept unique. The developer was asked to explain the basic features
and design principle that their technology employs. Additionally, the developer was
asked to describe the method in which the energy is converted from the waves into a
more usable form of energy. This system is commonly referred to as the power take-
off (PTO) system.
 24

6.2.2 Device type

There are six basic design principles that can be used to describe the majority of the
WEC devices [17]. In the RFI, the WEC device developers were asked to classify
their device according to those principles or to state that it was a unique concept that
did not fall into one of those categories. The six basic design principles are shown in
Figure 8 through Figure 12.

The first design principle is referred to as an attenuator. An attenuator is a

multisegmented floating device that is able to ride over the waves. The working
direction is parallel to the wave travel. Movements along the length of the attenuator
cause the device to flex where the segments connect and this flexing motion is used
to convert the wave energy into useful energy via hydraulic pumps or other
converters. As these types of devices ride over the waves and have a relatively
smaller area parallel to the waves, they do not need to be designed to withstand the
level of loads that some of the other device types experience. Figure 8 shows the
basic attenuator design principle.

Figure 8 Attenuator design principle [18].

A floating point absorber is a floating structure that is capable of absorbing wave

energy from all directions. The overall dimensions of the point absorber are typically
relatively small when compared to the wavelength and this type of device can
capture energy from a wave that is larger than the dimensions of the device [18]. As
a wave reaches the floating point absorber, the float moves relative to other device
structures. This relative motion is converted to energy via electromechanical or
hydraulic energy converters.

The submerged pressure differential device is similar to the floating point absorber. It
is also a point absorber in that the overall dimensions are smaller than the wavelength
and that it can capture energy from a wave that is larger than the dimensions of the
device. The main difference is that this device does not float on the surface, but
rather floats under the surface. Instead of capturing the energy by floating up and
down on top of the waves, the submerged pressure differential device captures the
energy of the oscillating pressure increase and reduction that results from the waves
passing over the device. Again the relative motion between the point absorber and
the rest of the structure is used to convert the wave energy into more useful forms of
energy. Both the floating point absorber and the submerged pressure differential
design principles are shown in Figure 9.
 25

Figure 9 Floating point absorber and submerged pressure differential design

principles [18].

Oscillating wave surge converter devices are used at the shoreline or for near-shore
applications. These devices consist of an arm, flap, float or membrane that is capable
of rotating about a fixed point or axis. As the water particles in the wave surges move
back and forth, the arm, flap, float or membrane oscillates about the rotation centre
and this relative motion is converted into useful energy. One example of an
oscillating wave surge converter is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10 Oscillating wave surge converter design principle [18].

An oscillating water column device consists of a partially submerged structure that

encloses a column of air above the waterline and is open to the sea below the
waterline. As a wave passes the device, the water column rises and falls, leading to a
corresponding pressure increase and decrease in the air column. As the pressure
changes in the air column, the air is pushed and pulled through a turbine, which
converts the energy in the airflow into rotation of the turbine blades, which is then
converted into electricity. These devices can be utilized as floating devices or as
shore-based devices. The basic principle of the oscillating water column is shown in
Figure 11.
 26

Figure 11 Oscillating water column design principle [18].

An overtopping/terminator device consists of a partially submerged structure that is

formed to allow water from waves to travel up a ramp and into a water reservoir that
is above the waterline. As gravity causes the water to return to sea-level, it passes
through conventional low-head turbines, which are used to generate power. These
devices can also be utilized as floating devices or as shore-based devices. A simple
schematic of the overtopping design principle is given as Figure 12.

Figure 12 Overtopping design principle [18].

If the design did not fit into one of the six aforementioned categories, the technology
was listed as “other designs”.

6.2.3 Device survivability

Because of the extremely hostile environment that WEC devices must be able to
endure in storm conditions, one key aspect of classifying the devices is how
survivability has been addressed by the developer. The technology developers were
asked to give a brief description of the survivability strategy of their device and
whether or not the survivability system had been tested.

6.3 Technology status

The questions of the RFI that was sent to the WEC technology providers relating to
the technology status were again focused around the development status, description
of testing activities, next development steps, environmental impact studies, technical
publications and estimated date the technology would be commercially available. For
a detailed description of those questions, the reader is referred to section 3.3.
 27

6.4 Operational characteristics

The operational characteristics of the WEC devices are important when considering
if it is possible to incorporate the devices into the design of the bridging structures at
each of the crossing.

6.4.1 General operational characteristics

The questions about the general operational characteristics of the device are meant to
obtain information about the dimensions, weight of super structure and weight of
PTO system. Additionally, information was requested about how far apart the
devices should be spaced if multiple devices were to be used. When the locations of
the crossings are determined, this information could be useful in determining how
many WEC devices would be able to fit in the crossing. This information is also
useful for determining additional loads that the WEC devices will exert on the
bridging structures.

6.4.2 Installation requirements

Information about the installation requirements of the technologies makes it possible
to determine which devices could potentially be utilized at the different crossings.
The minimum installation depth and maximum installation depth were requested.

6.4.3 Performance characteristics

The WEC device developers were asked to identify the rated power of their
technology. Additionally, wave energy absorption performance as a function of
significant wave height and peak wave period was requested. In order to accurately
calculate the energy absorption of a WEC device, this performance matrix can be
compared with the wave resource data for a specific location, which has also been
quantified according to significant wave height and peak wave period [23]. Because
this performance matrix is so vital to determining accurate estimations of energy
absorption, the source of this data is also important. The developers were asked
whether this information was generated from numerical simulations or random wave
model tests.

6.4.4 Economic characteristics

Because cost comparisons of these devices will be relevant at a later stage of the
Ferry Free E39 project, information was again requested about the costs of a
production level devices and the design lifetime of the technologies.

6.5 Relevance to Ferry Free E39

The developers were finally asked whether or not it was possible to combine their
device with a fjord crossing that implements a suspension bridge, floating bridge or
submerged floating tunnel and to explain how their device could possibly be
combined with these types of structures. Initial investigations showed that many of
the WEC devices were designed specifically for offshore wave environments.
Because this stage of the project is intended to survey the entire WEC industry, it
was decided that the developers should be encouraged to respond even if they
currently did not envision their technology being compatible with a bridging
 28

structure in the fjords. With this in mind, it was stated in the RFI that if their device
is best suited for offshore applications that the possibility to install the device in other
locations such as offshore would be considered.

6.6 List of developers

Table A5:1 shows the WEC technology developers with whom contact was
attempted. All contact information was found on the homepages of the specific
developers. The same colour coding that was described in section 3.6 is used for
Table A5:1.
 29

7 Wave energy conversion technology state

of the art summary
Some basic information obtained from the WEC device RFI is shown in Table A6:1.
There were a total of 31 responses to the RFI received (one developer submitted
responses for three different technologies). Several of the developers were unable to
reply to the RFI or limited their response due to the fact that the information was
going to be distributed beyond our organization. Several companies were unable to
respond because of limited time or personnel resources. The complete responses
from all of the developers who responded to the RFI are included in Appendix 6.
 30

8 Crossing locations
Because the potential energy output from wave and tidal energy conversion devices
is extremely dependent on the wave and tidal resources at the specific installation
location of the device, one of the first steps towards estimating the potential output is
to determine where the devices will be installed. For the Ferry Free E39 project, eight
fjord crossings need to be considered:
• Kanestraum-Halsa (Halsafjord)
• Vestnes-Molde (Moldefjord)
• Festøy-Solavågen (Storfjord)
• Volda-Folkestad (Voldafjord)
• Anda-Lote (Nordfjord)
• Opedal-Lavik (Sognefjord)
• Sandvikvågen-Halhjem (Bjørnafjord)
• Mortavika-Arsvågen (Boknafjord)

As energy production is just one aspect of the Ferry Free E39 project, it is unlikely
that the location of the crossings will be decided solely based on the best location for
energy production. With spans of up to 25 km in fjords with depths up 1300 m, the
bridging technologies will be impressive engineering feats in of themselves. In all
likelihood, because of the challenges that the designers face to simply construct
bridges that will function in these locations, some of the crossings may even
intentionally be situated in areas where the tides and waves are not most energetic.

When determining a location for the crossings, a host of other factors including
location of existing infrastructure, conflicts with business interests and environmental
concerns must also be considered. Because the relative importance each of these
variables is currently unknown, at this point it was decided, a good first
approximation is to assume that the crossings are based on the shortest distance in the
area near the current ferry route. By decreasing the length of the crossing, costs can
be significantly reduced. Additionally, by choosing the shortest crossings, the wind
and tidal current resources are also typically maximized.

Figures of each of the eight crossings are shown below as Figure A7:1 through
Figure A7:8. The proposed crossings are shown in red and the current ferry route is
shown in blue.

The approximate lengths of the proposed crossing locations are shown in Table 1.
For Bjørnafjord, the two different proposed crossings are labelled Bjørna a and
Bjørna b for the southern crossing and the northern crossing respectively. The
crossings are each given a unique crossing number, which is used in some of the
tables shown later in the report.
Table 1 Proposed crossing information.
Bjørna Bjørna
Halsa Molde Stor Volda Nord Sogne Bokna
a b
Crossing # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7a 7b 8
Length (m) 1829 8034 3400 2014 1700 3810 1600 5732 8416
 31

9 Bridging technologies
Because the designs of the bridges are still undetermined at this point, the all of the
different bridging technologies must be considered when making estimates of the
energy production potential at the different fjord crossing locations. There are three
types of bridging technologies that are currently under consideration for the different
crossings: suspension bridges, floating bridges, and submerged floating tunnels.

9.1 Suspension bridge

The suspension bridge is a traditional bridging technology. The bridge typically has
towers with suspension cables that run through the towers and are anchored to land.
Vertical suspender cables or rods connect the suspension cables to the deck, which is
the load-bearing portion of the roadway. A concept for a suspension bridge
technology used for the Sognefjord crossing from the Norwegian Public Roads
Administrations feasibility study is shown as Figure 13 [25].

Figure 13 Suspension bridge example [25].

9.2 Floating bridge

A floating bridge, or pontoon bridge, is a bridging technology that incorporates
floating pontoons that have enough buoyancy to support the deck, service loads, and
any dynamic loads the bridge may experience. An example of a floating bridge
concept with an opening for ship passage from the Sognefjord crossing feasibility
study is shown as Figure 14 [25].

9.3 Submerged floating tunnel

The submerged floating tunnel concept is an innovative bridging technology that
takes advantage of the inherent buoyancy of tunnels that are under the surface of the
water which house the road surface. By calculating the weight of the displaced fluid
and matching the weight of the tunnel to that, the tunnel is approximately neutrally
buoyant. The tunnel is then either anchored to the seafloor, shore or to pontoons
floating on the surface. Images of a submerged floating tunnel concept from above
 32

the water surface and below the water surface are shown respectively as Figure 15
and Figure 16.

Figure 14 Floating bridge example [25].

Figure 15 Submerged floating tunnel seen from above the water surface [25].

Figure 16 Submerged floating tunnel seen from below the water surface [25].
 33

10 Determining tidal energy potential

The first step in determining if it is feasible to use tidal energy conversion devices in
combination with the bridging structures is to quantify the tidal resources at the
specific fjord crossings. If the tidal current flow rates in the areas of interest are not
significant, the devices will operate at low efficiencies and very little energy will be
produced. The next step is to look closer at the specific technologies that convert
kinetic tidal energy. The possibility of combining the specific devices with the
different bridging technologies is investigated and estimations of the potential
number of devices that can be utilized at each of the fjord crossing locations are
made. Rough calculations of the annual energy production from the different devices
are presented and recommendations are made about what the next steps should be
when considering combining tidal energy conversion devices with the fjord
crossings.

10.1 Tidal resources

Because the tidal currents vary with time and location, in order to accurately
determine the total tidal resources of a particular location the annual distribution of
water velocities must be known. Typically data from at least a single year is required
to ensure that seasonal differences in the energy flux are accounted for.

It is a well-known fact that there are variations in the flow field near a solid boundary
due to boundary layer effects. The no slip condition between fluid and the boundary
means that the flow near the edges of the crossings and at the seabed is lower than it
is in the middle of the channel. Because knowing the actual flow characteristics
across the channel requires a detailed analysis of the flow and the bathymetry of the
channel, typically assumptions are made about the variations in the flow field in
order to account for variations in the flow speed as a function of depth and cross-
channel location.

In order to take into account variations in the speed as a function of depth, the 1/10th
power law approximation is commonly used [26]. This 1/10th power law is used to
determine the flow velocity throughout the depth of the flow and can be represented
as follows:
𝑧 1/10
𝑢 (𝑧) = 𝑢𝑜 � �
𝑧𝑜

where u(z) is the velocity at depth z, and uo is the reference velocity at the reference
depth zo. Depth is measured relative to the seabed, where z is equal to 0. Using this
approximation, a depth-averaged current velocity distribution can be determined
from current velocity data that is typically measured at the surface. The annual
distribution of the depth averaged velocities can be broken up into bins and the
frequency of the velocities in each bin can be plotted as shown in Figure 17.
 34

1000
900
800
Frequency (hrs per year)

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9
Depth-Averaged Velocity (m/s)

Figure 17 Fictional example of annual depth-averaged velocity distribution.

Once the depth-averaged current velocity is determined, an assumption has to be

made about the cross channel variation. For feasibility level studies, a common
assumption is that there is no variation in the flow across channel [26]. While this
overestimates the available resource, it is often a necessary approximation in the
absence of other data.

With these assumptions, the annual total tidal energy resource (Eannual) can be
expressed by the following equation:
𝑛
1
𝐸𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 = 𝜌 ∙ 𝐴 � 𝑓𝑖 𝑢𝑖 3
2
𝑖=1

where ρ is the density of seawater (1025 kg/m3), A is the cross-sectional area of the
channel, fi is the annual frequency (hours/year) of the current velocity ui and n is the
total number of velocity bins.

Unfortunately, very little current velocity data is currently available in the regions
where the fjord crossings are proposed. In a draft report released to the investigators,
the authors concluded that there were very little tidal resources in the following fjord
locations [27]:
• Kanestraum-Halsa (Halsafjord)
• Festøy-Solavågen (Storfjord)
• Opedal-Lavik (Sognefjord)
• Sandvikvågen-Halhjem (Bjørnafjord)

For the following proposed crossing locations, no detailed information about the tidal
current velocities was available at the time the feasibility study was concluded:
• Vestnes-Molde (Moldefjord)
• Volda-Folkestad (Voldafjord)
• Anda-Lote (Nordfjord)
 35

• Mortavika-Arsvågen (Boknafjord)

Because the tidal currents depend so strongly on the bathymetry of the specific
location, it is feasible that there are significant tidal resources at the fjord crossing
locations where we have no data despite the fact that the other fjord crossing
locations did not have very promising tidal resources. However, with no detailed
information available, it was not possible to calculate the available tidal resources for
the fjord crossing locations. When more tidal resource data is available, the methods
described above can be used to determine the tidal resource available for the
proposed fjord crossing locations.

10.2 Combining tidal energy conversion devices

with bridging technologies
The main goal of this part of the project is to reduce the cost of the renewable energy
plant by combining the technologies with bridging structures for the different fjord
crossings. The developers were asked in the RFI to discuss potential ways in which
their technology could be combined with a suspension bridge, floating bridge, or
submerged floating tunnel. The developers were also asked to explain the advantages
and disadvantages of combining their devices with the different bridging
technologies. The responses to these questions are discussed in this section.
Additionally limitations and requirements which can be used to determine the
number of devices that can be utilized at each location are investigated.

10.2.1 Concepts
Many of the developers responded positively when asked if their devices could be
combined with the different bridging technologies. The full responses of the
developers are given in Appendix 3. The different concepts for combining the devices
with the bridge technologies can be summarized as follows:
• Suspending the TISEC devices from the bridge structure using inverted
pylons
• Suspending the TISEC devices from the bridge using a rigid frame
• Attaching the TISEC devices to the bridge piles or foundations
• Mooring the TISEC device directly to the bridge
• Connecting the TISEC devices to floating platforms which are moored to the
bridge
• Integrating the TISEC device into the bridge structure itself
• Mounting the devices directly to the submerged floating tunnel (either above
or below)

10.2.2 Advantages
The developers were asked to discuss the possible advantages of combining their
device with the bridging structures. Many of the concepts are applicable for all three
of the different bridging technologies.

The main advantages were focused on the cost savings that can be generated by
combining the technologies with the bridging structures. The most common mention
of costs savings was related to installation and maintenance. By having the devices
 36

integrated into the infrastructure, the required time for vessels and divers is
significantly reduced or even eliminated, which can amount to a huge cost savings
over the lifetime of the device. Additionally, cost savings could be realized by using
the bridge structure as part of the foundation instead of having individual foundations
for each device. By mooring devices directly to the bridge structure, mooring line
lengths are reduced, which also reduces costs. Lastly, the costs associated with cables
are reduced because of the possibility of shorter and more effective cable runs.

The other advantages were focused on increases in performance that can be realized
by combining the devices with the bridge structures. With the faster currents closer to
the surface, having the bridge as an attachment point means that the device
installation depth can be better optimized regardless of the depth of the fjord.
Another advantage of combining the devices with the bridging technologies is that
the shape of bridge structure itself could be used to increase the flow rate to the
devices, leading to higher energy output. It was also mentioned that the blockage
effect of multiple turbines could create a small pressure head difference across the
devices, further increasing their performance.

10.2.3 Disadvantages
The disadvantages of combining the devices to the bridge structures were also
discussed.

One of the major disadvantages of attaching device to any of the bridging

technologies is the additional horizontal and torsional loads that will be induced into
the structure. As mentioned previously, in several locations, the design of the bridges
themselves are a significant challenge. The spans of some of the crossings could
reach record lengths for some of the bridging techniques. Adding additional loads to
the structure by attaching the TISEC devices makes the challenge even more
difficult.

One concept for alleviating this problem is to take advantage of the overcapacity that
is built into the bridge design. Because the bridges have to be designed for severe
loads that result from storm conditions, there is an inherent overcapacity of the
structure under normal operating conditions. One could determine a maximum
allowable operating current speed which the TISEC devices could be used for. This
current speed could be calculated so that the additional loads resulting from the
TISEC devices were a safe level below the bridge’s overcapacity. If the current speed
were to exceed the maximum allowable speed, the devices could automatically be
converted to standby mode. The loads on the bridge would then be reduced until the
current speed dropped below the maximum allowable flow rate. Of course the
maximum allowable speed will depend on the overcapacity of the bridge, the number
and location of the TISEC devices as well as the operational characteristics of the
TISEC devices. As the final bridge designs are unknown at this point, calculations of
the maximum allowable current speeds are outside the scope of this project and it is
assumed that the additional loads on the bridge construction are not a limiting factor
for the calculations of potential energy output.

Another disadvantage discussed was the potential for increased dynamic loads that
could result from attaching the devices to the structures. While this could be true in
some situations, configurations could be envisioned where the addition of support
 37

structures for the devices could actually increase the stiffness or damping of the
bridging structures, leading to more desirable dynamic characteristics.

The last disadvantage that was mentioned was that attaching the devices to the
bridging structures could be a health and safety risk to passing vessels. As personal
safety is of utmost importance, this clearly has to be addressed. There must be well
marked areas where safe passage is possible and warnings or restraint systems
installed to ensure that risks are minimized for passing vessels. This topic is further
explored in the separate risk analysis report [28].

10.2.4 Requirements and limitations

When determining the total potential energy output from the TISEC devices, one
important part is determining the number of devices that can be utilized for each of
the locations. Several requirements and limitations must be considered.

10.2.4.1 Downstream direction

The first requirement is that the concept for generating energy from the tides should
incorporate the bridge construction itself, in order to reduce the cost of the renewable
power plant. This requirement inherently places a limitation on the number of
devices that can be utilized in the downstream direction. Initial investigations of
TISEC device farms have used a rule of thumb for downstream device spacing of 10
times the diameter of the device [26]. This spacing is required in order to avoid
negative effects on the performance of the downstream device caused by flow
disruptions from the upstream device. The number of rows of devices that will fit in
the downstream direction is therefore a function of the total width of the bridging
structure and the size of the device itself. One can imagine configurations where long
mooring lines are attached to the bridge and used to hold floating platforms in place
relatively far upstream and downstream of the bridge, but in order to really take
advantage of the bridge structure to reduce the costs of the plant, the practical
number of rows in the downstream direction is limited by the width of the bridging
structure. While the actual required spacing between rows could be different for
some technologies, the required fluid flow calculations or testing goes beyond the
scope of the present study. With that in mind, a minimum downstream device
spacing of 10 times the diameter for horizontal axis or cross-axis turbines and 10
times the width of the device perpendicular to the flow for other types of devices was
used for the present study.

10.2.4.2 Cross-stream direction

Another limitation on the number of devices that can be utilized for each crossing is
associated with the number of devices that can be placed in the cross-stream
direction. In order to avoid negative performance effects on adjacent TISEC devices,
a suggested rule of thumb for horizontal axis turbines is to have a 1/2 diameter gap
between devices [26]. The rule of thumb is generalized in the present study so that
the minimum device spacing is equal to 1/2 the diameter for horizontal axis or cross-
axis turbines or 1/2 the width of the device perpendicular to the flow for other types
of devices.

Another requirement to be considered is the fact that there must be a location in the
bridging structure that is totally free from TISEC devices so that ships can pass the
crossing. Using information from one concept of a floating bridge for the Bjørnafjord
 38

as a reference, it was decided that all crossings will incorporate a 200 m wide
passage for ships which will be free of TISEC devices [29].

When determining the number of devices that fit across the channel, we have taken
into account the fact that the flow is lower near the edges and implemented a zone of
100 m from either edge of the crossing where no TISEC devices will be placed.

Additionally, there is a minimum depth in which most TISEC devices can be used.
Once the bathymetry of the actual crossing location is known, the number of devices
in the cross-stream direction can be reduced if there are areas of the crossing where
the minimum depth requirements were not fulfilled. Information about the depth
requirements of the specific devices are given in the responses to the RFI. Where no
information about the minimum depth requirement is given in the response to the
RFI, the minimum allowable depth can be set to equal 1.5 times the height of the
device, which is an assumption that has been used in other similar studies [15].

10.2.4.3 Bridge type specific limitations

Upon review of the proposed concepts for combining the renewable energy power
plants with the bridge designs, it was noted that there were very few bridge type
specific limitations on the number of devices that could be utilized. Though the
geometries of the bridge structures vary greatly, with the aid of relatively simple
additional structures, the number of devices that could be utilized for the three bridge
types is very similar.

All three bridge types could have the same usable width in the downstream direction
by adding trusses or wider floating platforms with mooring lines attached to the
bridge deck. While these additional structures will naturally increase the cost of the
construction, when compared to a TISEC device farm not utilizing infrastructure, the
cost of the plant is still significantly reduced and can therefore be considered a viable
option at this point.

While there are many possible configurations, some basic concepts that show how
the usable width of the different bridges could be equal are shown in Figure 18
through Figure 23. Views are given from both under the water surface and from the
side in order to show the details of the basic concepts.
 39

Figure 18 Concept for using truss structures and pontoons to allow for additional
rows of TISEC devices in the downstream direction for a suspension
bridge (seen from below).

Figure 19 Concept for using truss structures and pontoons to allow for additional
rows of TISEC devices in the downstream direction for a suspension
bridge (seen from the side).

Figure 20 Concept for using truss structures to allow for additional rows of TISEC
devices in the downstream direction for a floating bridge (seen from
below).
 40

Figure 21 Concept for using truss structures to allow for additional rows of TISEC
devices in the downstream direction for a floating bridge (seen from the
side).

Figure 22 Concept for using truss structures and pontoons to allow for additional
rows of TISEC devices in the downstream direction for a submerged
floating tunnel (seen from below).

Figure 23 Concept for using truss structures and pontoons to allow for additional
rows of TISEC devices in the downstream direction for a submerged
floating (seen from the side).

The number of rows of devices in the downstream direction (Ndown) that can be
utilized regardless of bridging technology type is expressed by the following
equation
 41

𝑊𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑔𝑒
𝑁𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛 = 1 + − 0.5
𝑊𝑑𝑒𝑣 ∙ 10

where Wbridge is the width of the bridging structure and Wdev is the diameter for
horizontal axis or cross-axis turbines and the width of the device perpendicular to the
flow for other types of devices.

The result of the equation for Ndown should be rounded to the nearest whole number.
A Wbridge of 70 m was chosen for all bridging structures. This value corresponds to
the width of the pontoon used in the floating bridge concept for the Bjørnafjord
crossing [29]. Although this value was somewhat arbitrarily chosen, it was decided
that 70 m gives a good estimate of a reasonable width for such a structure. Using this
value, some of the smaller technologies will be able to utilize several rows of devices
in the downstream direction with the help of the additional structures.

In the cross-stream direction, additional structures could again be utilized to ensure

that the maximum number of devices that can be utilized is relatively unaffected by
the choice of bridge type.

For the submerged floating tunnel design, there are some additional limitations that
affect the number of devices that can be utilized in the cross-stream direction. These
potential limitations are strongly dependent on the details of the bridge design and
the bathymetry of the crossing and are therefore hard to quantify at this point in the
project. For the submerged floating tunnel design, most of the TISEC devices could
be incorporated into the structure either above or below the tunnel. If the devices are
to be located above the tunnel, the tunnel would have to be far enough under the
surface of the water to ensure that the minimum installation depth was observed. If
however the floating tunnel is designed to be located closer to the surface, then the
devices will need to be positioned under the tunnel. If the devices are under the
tunnel, then the distance between the bottom of the tunnel and the seabed must meet
minimum installation depth, meaning that the depth of the crossing will in some
cases be more limiting for the submerged floating tunnel design.

The submerged floating tunnel design has additional structures that could also limit
the number of TISEC devices that could be installed in the cross-stream direction. In
deeper water, the tunnels are typically anchored to pontoons floating on the surface
of the water. If the TISEC devices are to be located above the tunnel, the structures
attaching the pontoons to the tunnel will limit the space available for the devices. A
sketch of the basic concept for a submerged floating tunnel with the TISEC devices
located above the tunnel is shown as Figure 24. In the figure, one can see that the
number of devices is limited due to the pontoon attachment structures.
 42

Figure 24 Sketch showing how the number of TISEC devices in the cross-stream
direction can be limited by additional structures for a submerged
floating tunnel.

For shallower crossings, the tunnels may be anchored to the bottom of the fjord using
mooring lines. If the TISEC devices are positioned below the tunnel, these mooring
lines could limit the number of devices that can be utilized. Because there are so
many unknowns about the final designs of the bridges at this point, a constant
reduction factor was assumed for all crossing locations so that the number of TISEC
devices that could be utilized in the cross-stream direction is 15% less for a
submerged floating tunnel design when compared to the suspension bridge or
floating bridge designs.

Sketches of basic concepts for using truss structures to increase the potential number
of TISEC devices in the cross-stream direction for the suspension bridge and floating
bridge are shown as Figure 25 and Figure 26. From these figures, one can see that
many limitations on the number of devices in the cross-stream direction can be
eliminated with the use of some additional structures.

Figure 25 Concept for using truss structures to increase the number of TISEC
devices that can be utilized for a suspension bridge.
 43

Figure 26 Concept for using truss structures to increase the number of TISEC
devices that can be utilized for a floating bridge.

The maximum number of devices in the cross-stream direction (Ncross) can be

expressed by the following equation

𝐿𝑡𝑜𝑡 − 𝐿𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ − 𝐿𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝 − 2 ∙ 𝐿𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 − 𝑊𝑑𝑒𝑣

𝑁𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 = �� � ∙ (1 − 𝑅)� − 0.5
𝐿𝑑𝑒𝑣 + 𝑊𝑑𝑒𝑣 /2

where Ltot is the total length of the crossing, Ldepth is the total length of all of the
sections in the crossing where the minimum depth requirement is not met, Lship is the
length of the shipping passage (200m), Ledge is the distance from the edge of the
crossing to the location where devices are first utilized due to reduced flow near the
boundaries (100 m), Ldev is the length of the device in the cross-stream direction (this
value can be different than Wdev for cross-axis devices) and R is a reduction factor
equal to 0.0 for suspension bridge and floating bridge designs and 0.15 for the
submerged floating tunnel design. The result of the equation for Ncross should be
rounded to the nearest whole number

The total maximum number of devices that can be utilized for each crossing for each
bridge type (Ntot) can be calculated by simply multiplying Ndown by Ncross.

10.2.4.4 Energy extraction

Another limitation on the number of devices that can be utilized that needs to be
considered is the actual amount of energy that can safely be extracted from the flow
without creating a negative ecological impact or reducing the current speed. This
value is often referred to as the extractable resource and is calculated by multiplying
the total resource for a given location by the significant impact factor (SIF). The SIF
therefore represents the percentage of the total resource that can be safely extracted
[14]. Typical values for SIF are 10% to 20%.

10.3 Tidal energy conversion device output

With no available data for the fjord crossings where current velocities are in the
usable range, it was not possible to perform detailed potential energy output
 44

calculations at this phase of the project. However, a method for accurate calculations
is presented which can be used when the appropriate data is available.

Additionally a greatly simplified method is presented, which is used to give a rough

idea of potential annual energy outputs for the different technologies at the different
fjord locations if it is found that the fjord crossings have significant tidal resources.

10.3.1 Detailed method for device output calculations

An accurate method to determine the potential energy output of a TISEC device
requires that the annual distribution of velocities at the height of the device is known.
The same 1/10th power law that was described in section 10.1 can be used to convert
data that was taken at the surface to velocity information at the height of the device.
This data is often simplified to a single location at the centre of the device, which is
referred to as a hub-height approximation [26]. The annual distribution of the hub-
height velocities can be broken up into bins and the number of hours that the flow
exhibits each velocity per year can be plotted. The result is a figure that looks very
similar to Figure 17.

The device developers were asked to share a curve of electric power output as a
function of current speed. This includes information such as the cut in speed, electric
output up to the cut out speed, cut out speed and the maximum flow speed. The cut in
speed is the minimum flow velocity where the device can generate power. The cut
out speed is the speed at which the power output levels out. For flows above the cut
out speed, the power output will remain constant until the flow reaches the maximum
flow speed. When the maximum flow speed is reached, the devices will go into
survival mode and not generate power. The advantage of obtaining this information
from the developer is that all of the efficiencies of the device, including the drive
train, generator and power conditioning are already taken into account when using
this information. By simply taking the number of hours per year at a given flow
speed from the annual hub-height velocity distribution and determining the electric
power output at that flow, the energy (in watt hours per year) for each velocity bin
can be determined. By adding the resultant energy output for all of the bins, the
annual energy production from each device is determined (assuming that the device
is operated year round).

Several of the device developers were unable to share their electric power output as a
function of current speed curve. Some of the developers are at an early enough stage
where this information is unknown, while other developers consider this information
proprietary, and are not able to share it with the general public. At a later stage of the
project, when more detailed energy estimates are required for the individual
technologies, it may be necessary to sign non-disclosure agreements with the
developers in order to gain access to proprietary information.

The next step is to determine the number of devices that can be utilized for the
particular fjord crossing locations. This can be done using the methods described in
section 10.2.4. As we have assumed that the cross-channel variations in the flow is to
be ignored at this point, the maximum annual energy output for the fjord crossing can
be determined by multiplying the number of devices by the annual energy production
from each device. This maximum annual energy output assumes that the devices are
operated year round and with no losses due to transmission effects.
 45

With the maximum annual energy output for the fjord crossing determined, the next
step is to determine the extracted annual resource and compare that to the annual
extractable resource limit. The annual extracted energy can be calculated by dividing
the maximum annual energy output by the efficiency of the power take-off system.
The power take-off system efficiency includes efficiency from the drivetrain,
generator and the power conditioning. A suggested power take-off system efficiency
is 90% [26]. In cases where the extracted resource exceeds the extractable resource
limit for the fjord crossing using an SIF of 10-20%, the number of devices should be
reduced until the extractable resource limit is not exceeded.

Down time for maintenance and additional losses due to transmission effects should
also be considered when trying to determine realistic annual energy production. One
study suggests that availability for these devices should be 95% and the efficiency
due to transmission effects should be around 98% [26]. By multiplying the maximum
annual energy output by 0.98 and 0.95 an accurate estimate of the annual energy
production for the specific crossing location is determined.

10.3.2 Simplified method for device output calculations

As there is currently no flow velocity data available for the four fjord crossings
which could potentially utilize TISEC devices, a much simpler approach was used to
estimate the potential annual energy production for these devices.

A common measure of system performance in the power production industry is the

capacity factor. The capacity factor is the ratio of the actual output of the power plant
over a period of time divided by its potential output if it had operated at its full rated
capacity over the entire period. In the wind power industry, capacity factors are
between 25-30% [15]. It has been suggested that in order for TISEC devices to be
competitive with the wind power industry, these devices will have to reach capacity
factors of up to 40% [15]. While combining these technologies with infrastructure
will reduce the cost of the power plant, thereby reducing the required capacity factor,
because the other technologies considered in this feasibility study will also be
utilizing the infrastructure to reduce costs, it was decided that 40% is a good estimate
of the required capacity factor for the TISEC devices.

As a simple approach to determining an approximate annual energy production

where the resources are currently unknown, it was decided that the annual energy
production for the remaining fjord crossings would be calculated utilizing the
assumed capacity factor of 40%. Using the methods described in section 10.2.4, the
number of devices was determined for each of the four fjord crossings and for each
of the three fjord crossing technologies. The total annual energy production was then
determined using the following equation:

ℎ𝑟 𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝐸𝑇𝐼𝑆𝐸𝐶 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 = 𝑁𝑡𝑜𝑡 ∙ 𝑃𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 ∙ 𝐶𝑃 ∙ 24 ∙ 365
𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟

where Prated is the rated capacity of the device and CP is the capacity factor.

This estimate does not give any information about whether or not the power plant is
in fact viable at the different locations. This estimate simply shows that, if future
studies show that the tidal resources for the given fjord crossing is significant enough
 46

for a TISEC device plant to be viable, the approximate annual energy production
should be on this order of magnitude. This calculation also gives a good idea of the
relative amount of energy that the individual technologies might be able to produce.

10.3.3 Calculated device output

Using the fjord crossing lengths shown in Table 1 for the Moldefjord, Voldafjord,
Nordfjord and Boknafjord, the number of devices that can be utilized for each
crossing was calculated. The results are shown in Table A8:1, where Ntot_sus/float is the
total number of devices that can be utilized for a suspension bridge or a floating
bridge and Ntot_SFT is the total number of devices that can be utilized for a submerged
floating tunnel. The reader is referred to Appendix 8 for the full details of the
calculations. The values shown in the table do not take into account fjord specific
depth limitations (Ld=0). Where the technology developer did not supply device
dimensions, it was not possible to calculate the number of devices that could be
utilized.

Using the rated power for each device and the number of devices that can be utilized,
the estimated annual energy production was determined for the different
technologies, fjord crossing locations and bridging technologies using the assumed
capacity factor of 40%. The results are shown in Table A9:1, where Esus/float is the
annual energy production for a suspension bridge or floating bridge in GWh/yr and
ESFT is the annual energy production for a submerged floating tunnel in GWh/yr. At
the bottom of the table, the minimum, maximum and average estimated annual
energy production for the different technologies is shown. Where the technology
developer did not supply device dimensions or the rated power of the device, no
calculation of the annual energy production was performed.

One can see from the table that there is a large range of estimated annual energy
production from the different technologies. This is in large part due to the variation
in the different technology types, sizes of the devices and the flow speed in which the
devices are rated. Because of the number of unknowns about the tidal resources, a
rough approximation of the annual energy production can be determined by using the
average of the different estimates. Using this method, we obtain approximate annual
energy productions in (GWh/yr) from suspension bridges or floating bridges of 2875,
603, 486 and 3019 for the Moldefjord, Voldafjord, Nordfjord and Boknafjord
respectively. For the submerged floating tunnels, we obtain approximate annual
energy productions of 2444, 512, 412 and 2566 for the Moldefjord, Voldafjord,
Nordfjord and Boknafjord respectively. If it is assumed that all four of the fjord
crossing locations have significant tidal resources the calculations show that the total
annual energy production from the TISEC devices is between 5.9 and 7.0 TWh/yr
(depending on the bridge designs).

When the calculated values are compared to previous estimations of the annual
economical resource in Norway, we see that there is a large discrepancy. The two
previously mentioned studies estimated that the maximum total economical resource
was around 1TWh/yr for the entire country [15] [16]. Additionally, they had
considered that the majority of the tidal resources were further north than the fjord
crossings that are being considered for the Ferry Free E39 project.

With the presented calculations grossly overestimating the energy production when
compared to previous studies, it can be concluded that at least one of the assumptions
 47

made in the calculations is non-conservative. The first potentially erroneous

assumption is the fact that the number of devices could be maximized without
exceeding reasonable significant impact factors. With no data available for
determining the total resources, it was not possible to determine what the significant
impact factors of the proposed configurations are. If too many devices are utilized,
too much of the energy can be extracted, leading to negative environmental
consequences. Another potentially incorrect assumption is that averaging the
calculated annual energy production from the different devices would produce a
good estimation. With such a large variation in the rated power and rated flow speed
of the different technologies and with such a large range of technology readiness
levels, it could be that taking the average value of all of the devices leads to non-
conservative results. The last potentially non-conservative assumption is the fact that
the resources are significant enough to reach a capacity factor of 40%. Again with no
tidal resource data for the fjords of interest available it is not possible to know what
accurate capacity factors of the different devices are.

10.4 Tidal energy recommendations

The lack of tidal current velocity data makes it impossible to know what the actual
potential energy output is from combining TISEC devices with the fjord bridging
technologies. Because the different technologies are optimized for different flow
conditions, it is not possible to know which technologies would actually provide the
most energy for the different crossing locations based on the results shown in the
previous section.

It is therefore recommended that the next stage of the study concentrates on

obtaining more tidal resource data for the following fjord crossing locations:

• Vestnes-Molde (Moldefjord)
• Volda-Folkestad (Voldafjord)
• Anda-Lote (Nordfjord)
• Mortavika-Arsvågen (Boknafjord)

Initially the resource data could be obtained from models to see if current levels are
significant enough to be considered further. The optimum current speed for most
technologies is between 1.5-3.5 m/s [13]. If the models show that there is a
significant number of hours with current speeds close to this range, then
experimental data should be gathered to verify the predictions from the models. This
experimental data should be gathered over a significant period of time in order to
verify that the models are accurate enough to account for seasonal variations in the
flow.

Once detailed information about the annual distribution of current velocities is

available, the detailed method for device output calculations described in section
10.3.1 can be used to determine realistic estimates of energy production from the
different technologies. For some of the technology developers, it may be necessary to
sign non-disclosure agreements in order to gain access to proprietary information
about the performance of the TISEC devices. It is recommended that these
agreements are signed in order to ensure that all of the options are considered.
 48

Once estimates of energy production are generated for all devices under
consideration, comparisons between costs and energy output can be made. These
comparisons will give a better basis for making recommendations about whether or
not the TISEC device power plant is viable and, if it is viable, which technology or
combination of technologies should be utilized for the different fjord crossing
locations.
 49

11 Determining wave energy potential

The possibility of combining wave energy conversion devices with bridging
technologies at the different fjord crossings is explored in the following section.
When determining whether or not it is feasible to use such devices, the wave
resources for the specific fjord crossings must be determined. If the wave resources
are not sufficient, the devices will produce very little energy. The next step is to look
closer at the specific technologies that convert the wave energy into more useful
forms of energy. The possibility of combining the specific devices with the different
bridging technologies is explored. Estimations of the potential number of devices that
can be utilized at each of the fjord crossing locations are also made. Rough
calculations of the annual energy production from the different devices are presented
and recommendations about what the next steps should be are made.

11.1 Wave resources

Much like tidal currents, waves vary with time and location. Wave energy scatter
diagrams typically contain information about annual distribution of the significant
wave height (Hs in m), and the peak wave period (Tp in sec). Data from at least a
single year is required to ensure that seasonal differences in the energy flux are
accounted for. The annual distribution of the significant wave height and peak wave
period is usually displayed as a matrix similar to the one shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Fictional example of annual wave data where values have units of
hours/year.
Tp (s)
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
3 0.7 20.1 50.3 99.6 44.9 33.8 39.6 44.1 21.3
Hs (m)

2.5 39.9 124.4 243.7 271.9 89.4 83.3 103.0 100.0 48.7
2 298.9 347.5 589.7 549.8 174.9 210.3 270.0 239.6 103.4
1.5 393.1 365.1 623.9 523.9 215.2 282.9 329.3 309.2 155.5

where the values in the matrix are the number of hours per year that the waves
exhibit the specific Hs and Tp.

Once the annual distribution of the sea state is known, the incident wave power
density for each bin must be determined. The equation

𝐽 = 0.42 ∙ 𝐻𝑠 2 ∙ 𝑇𝑝

can be used to calculate the incident wave power density in kW per meter width for
each bin assuming that the seastate is well represented by a two-parameter
Betschneider spectrum [23]. If the relative amounts of energy in sea and swell
components or the shape of the wave spectrum is different than that of the two-
parameter Beschneider spectrum, the 0.42 multiplier can vary between 0.3 to 0.5
[23]. The incident wave power density for each bin is multiplied by the number of
hours per year in the annual distribution. The sum of these values is the annual
incident wave energy density in kWh/m-yr. To determine the annual average incident
 50

wave power density at the location (in kW/m), annual incident wave energy density
can be divided by the number of hours in the year.

Once the annual incident wave energy density is known, an assumption has to be
made about the cross channel variation. For feasibility level studies, it can be
assumed that there is no variation in the wave resources across the channel. While
this overestimates the available resource, it is often a necessary approximation in the
absence of other data.

With this assumption, the annual wave resource (in kWh/year) can be calculated by
multiplying the annual incident wave energy density by the width of the channel.
Unfortunately, very little wave resource data is currently available in the regions
where the fjord crossings are proposed. An investigation into the reasons for this lack
of data revealed that modelling of waves in the fjord is a difficult task and experts in
the field claim that it is a very time consuming and expensive process. This is
partially due to the fact that the swells usually must be accounted for in addition to
wind waves and that the geography of the specific site is very important.
Additionally there is less satellite data near shore, and not very many in situ buoys,
which makes validation of models very difficult.

With no reliable data available, it was not possible to calculate the available wave
resources at the fjord crossing locations at this time. When more wave resource data
is available, the method described above can be used to determine the wave available
for the proposed fjord crossing locations.

11.2 Combining wave conversion devices with

bridging technologies
The developers were asked in the RFI to discuss whether or not their technology
could be combined with a suspension bridge, floating bridge, or submerged floating
tunnel. The responses to these questions are discussed in this section. Limitations and
requirements which can be used to determine the number of devices that can be
utilized at each location are investigated.

11.2.1 Concepts
While some of the developers did not see a possibility to combine their devices with
the bridging structure, several of the developers did respond positively when asked if
their devices could be combined with the different bridging technologies. The full
responses of the developers are given in Appendix 6. The basic concepts for
combining the WEC devices with the different bridging technologies are described
below:
• Integrating the WEC device into the bridging structure
• Integrating just the power take-off of the device into the bridging structure
• Mooring the WEC device directly to the bridging structure
• Integrating the WEC device into a floating platform, which is then moored to
the bridging structure
• Using the WEC as a breakwater that is installed adjacent to the bridging
structure
 51

• Replacing a typical mooring line with a lever arm that can be directly
attached to the bridging structure

11.2.2 Advantages
Many of the advantages of combining the WEC devices with the bridging structures
are similar to those discussed for the TISEC devices in section 10.2.2. Costs savings
related to installation and maintenance are again a great advantage of combining the
devices with the bridging structures. By using the bridging structures as attachment
points for the mooring lines, or as part of the device structure, savings on materials
can be realized. The lengths of cable or pipe runs can also be reduced as a result of
using the bridging structure as part of the installation which will also reduce costs.

Some of the WEC devices can be used as breakwaters, which could help reduce the
loads from waves on the bridging structure themselves.

11.2.3 Disadvantages
One disadvantage of combining the WEC devices with the bridge structures is the
fact that location of the installation is in an area where the wave resources are
reduced when compared to offshore installations. The depths of the water in the
fjords could also pose some limitations on the size of the devices. Several device
manufacturers are however able to optimize the parameters of their devices for
different locations and wave climates, meaning that the performance of the devices
will not necessarily be negatively affected as a result of being located in the fjords.

As discussed in section 10.2.2 for the TISEC devices, one disadvantage with
combining the devices with the bridging structures is the additional loads that are
induced into the structure. The same concept of using the overcapacity of the bridge
during normal operating conditions could again be employed for the WEC devices so
that this problem is alleviated.

It can also be envisioned that attaching the WEC devices to the bridging structures
will introduce the possibility of a health and safety hazard to passing vessels. The
reader is again referred to the risk analysis report for more information about how
this problem can be alleviated [28].

11.2.4 Requirements and limitations

To determine the total potential energy output from the WEC devices, the number of
devices that can be utilized for each of the crossing locations must be determined. As
was the case for the TISEC devices, several requirements and limitations must be
considered.

11.2.4.1 Downstream direction

The number of devices must be limited in the downstream direction in order to fulfil
the requirement that devices must be combined with the bridging structure. The
device developers were asked to provide a centreline device spacing for multiple
devices. For most device types, the provided centreline spacing was used as the
spacing in both the downstream direction and the cross-stream direction. However,
for devices which are much longer in the downstream direction, the number of
devices in the downstream direction was limited based on the device’s length.
 52

Unfortunately the design of many devices is strongly dependent on the wave climate
where the device will be installed. Several of the technology developers failed to
provide information about the device spacing requirements due to the lack of
available wave resource data. For technology developers that did not supply a device
spacing requirement, it is currently not possible to determine the number of devices
that could be utilized for the different fjord crossings.

11.2.4.2 Cross-stream direction

In order to determine the number of devices that can be utilized in the cross stream
direction, the developer provided centreline spacing was used for all devices. Again a
200 m wide passage was left free of devices in order to allow for the passage of ships
[29], and a 100 m distance from each shoreline was left free from devices due to the
potential for reduced resources close to the shore.

Additionally, there is a minimum depth in which most WEC devices can be used
which should be addressed once the bathymetry of the actual crossing locations is
known. The depth requirements of the specific devices are discussed in the responses
to the RFI.

11.2.4.3 Bridge type specific limitations

It was again noted that the proposed concepts for combining the WEC devices with
the bridging structures had very few bridge type specific limitations on the number of
devices that could be utilized. Though the geometry of the bridge structures vary
greatly, by adding some relatively simple additional structures like the ones that were
discussed in section 10.2.4.3, the number of devices that could be utilized for the
three bridge types is very similar.

The number of rows of devices in the downstream direction (Ndown) that can be
utilized regardless of bridging technology type is expressed by the following
equation

𝑊𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑔𝑒
𝑁𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛 = 1 + − 0.5
𝑊𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒

where Wbridge is the width of the bridging structure and Wspace is the developer
provided centreline device spacing.

The result of the equation for Ndown should be rounded to the nearest whole number.
A Wbridge of 70 m was again chosen for all bridging structures. Due to the proposed
lengths of the devices, the number of devices that can be utilized in the downstream
was forced to equal one for the following devices:
• MotorWave group (90-300 m long)
• Sea Power Ltd (140 m long)
• Vigor Wave Energy AB (200 m long)
• Waveenergyfyn (80 m long)
• WavePiston ApS (300 m long)

In the cross-stream direction, additional structures could again be utilized to ensure

that the choice of bridge type leads to a minimal effect on the number of devices that
can be utilized. The concepts discussed in section 10.2.4.3 are also valid for the WEC
 53

devices. As a rough approximation, the same 15% reduction was used when
determining the number of WEC device that could be used with the submerged
floating tunnel bridge design. The maximum number of devices in the cross-stream
direction (Ncross) can thus be calculated using the following equation

𝐿𝑡𝑜𝑡 − 𝐿𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ − 𝐿𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝 − 2 ∙ 𝐿𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 − 𝑊𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒

𝑁𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 = �� � ∙ (1 − 𝑅)� − 0.5
𝑊𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒

The result of the equation for Ncross should be rounded to the nearest whole number.
The total maximum number of WEC devices that can be utilized for each crossing
for each bridge type (Ntot) can be calculated by multiplying Ndown by Ncross.

11.3 Wave energy conversion device output

With no wave data currently available for the fjord crossing locations, it was not
possible to perform detailed potential energy output calculations at this phase of the
project. A method for accurate calculations is again presented which can be used
when the appropriate data becomes available.

The simplified method discussed in section 10.3.2 can be applied to the WEC
devices in order to get a rough idea of the potential annual energy outputs for the
different technologies at the different fjord locations if the wave data collection
shows that the fjord crossings have significant wave resources.

11.3.1 Detailed method for device output calculations

In order to accurately determine the potential output of the WEC device, the
approximate annual distribution of the significant wave height, and the peak wave
period must be known for the specific location of interest.
The device developers were asked to provide a matrix showing the wave power
absorption performance (in kW before losses in conversion to electric power) as a
function of significant wave height and peak wave period. By multiplying the matrix
of the annual distribution of the resources by the matrix of the wave power
absorption performance, the total annual absorbed energy (in GWh/yr) can be
calculated by summing all of the bins.

The individual device maximum annual energy output can then be calculated by
multiplying the total annual absorbed energy by the efficiency of the power take-off
system. The power take-off system efficiency includes efficiency from the drivetrain,
generator and the power conditioning. The efficiency of the power take-off system is
highly dependent on the actual design, and should be based on manufacturer supplied
data.

The next step is to determine the number of devices that can be utilized for the
particular fjord crossing locations. The methods described in section 11.2.4 can be
used to determine the number of devices that can be used for each fjord crossing and
each bridge type. By assuming that the cross-channel variations in the waves is to be
ignored at this point, the maximum annual energy output for the fjord crossing can be
determined by multiplying the number of devices by the annual energy production
from each device.
 54

The down time for maintenance and additional losses due to transmission effects
must be included when determining a realistic annual energy production estimate.
Using the same assumptions made for the TISEC devices, the annual energy
production for the specific crossing location can be determined by multiplying the
maximum annual energy output for the fjord crossing by 0.98 (for transmission
effects) and 0.95 (for availability).

11.3.2 Simplified method for device output calculations

With no wave resource data for the crossings, the simplified approach described in
section 10.3.2 was used for the WEC devices. This method again does not give any
information about whether or not the power plant is in fact viable at the different
locations, but it simply gives an approximate annual production that could be
expected if the future data collection reveals that the wave energy resources are
significant at the various fjord crossing locations. It also gives a good idea about the
amount of energy that the different technologies might be able to produce relative to
one another.

A 40% capacity factor was assumed for the WEC device calculations. For developers
where it was not envisioned that their device could be combined with a bridging
structure, no calculations were performed. The following manufacturers did not see
the possibility of combining their devices with any of the bridging technologies in
their response to the RFI:
• AW-Energy Oy
• Resolute Marine Energy, Inc.
• Shamil Ayntrazi
• Waveberg Development

It is also noted that some developers responded more generally about their design
due to the lack of available wave data. As many devices can be optimized to suit the
wave climate, there was some uncertainty in the device size, spacing, and rated
power for some of the devices. Where this was the case, best judgements were made
based on the available data from the RFI responses. As the estimates calculated at
this point in the project are very rough, this approach was deemed acceptable.

11.3.3 Calculated device output

Using the fjord crossing lengths shown in Table 1, the number of devices that can be
utilized for each crossing was calculated. The total number of devices that can be
utilized for the suspension bridge or floating bridge (Ntot_sus/float) for the different
crossings and technologies are shown in Table A10:1, where the different fjord
crossings are represented by the crossing number shown in Table 1. The total number
of devices that can be utilized for the submerged floating tunnel design (Ntot_SFT) was
also calculated for the different fjord crossing locations and the results are shown in
Table A10:2. Where the technology developer did not supply the requested device
spacing, it was not possible to calculate the number of devices that could be utilized.

The reader is referred to Appendix 10 for the more details about the calculations. The
values shown in the table do not take into account fjord specific depth limitations
(Ld=0).
 55

Using the rated power for each device and the number of devices that can be utilized,
the estimated annual energy production was determined for the different
technologies, fjord crossing locations and bridging technologies using the assumed
capacity factor of 40%. The results shown in Table A11:1 show the annual energy
production in (GWh/year) for the suspension bridge or floating bridge designs
(Esus/float) and the results shown in Table A11:2 show the annual energy production
for the submerged floating tunnel design (ESFT). The different fjord crossings are
represented by the crossing number shown in Table 1. Where the technology
developer did not supply device spacing requirements or the rated power of the
device, no calculation of the annual energy production was performed.

Table A11:1 and Table A11:2 show that there is a large range of estimated annual
energy production from the different technologies. This is in large part due to the
variation in the different technology types, sizes of the devices and the wave
resources in which the devices are rated. Because there is no available information
about the wave resources, a rough approximation of the annual energy production is
again determined using the average of the different estimates. Assuming all of the
fjord crossing locations have significant tidal resources it can be estimated that the
total annual energy production from the WEC devices is between 9.3 and 11.0
TWh/yr (depending on the bridge designs).

When the calculated values are compared to previous annual estimations of the
resource in Norway, we see that there is a discrepancy. The previously mentioned
study estimated that the maximum total economical resource was around 30 TWh/yr
for Norway [16]. Though the presented calculations do not exceed this estimate, the
estimate considers offshore locations, where resources are likely greater than they are
at the fjord crossing locations of interest.

With the presented calculations overestimating the energy production when

compared to previous studies, it can be concluded that at least one of the assumptions
made in the calculations is non-conservative. The first potentially non-conservative
assumption is that the average of the calculated annual energy productions from the
different devices would be representative of the actual possible energy production.
As for the TISEC devices, the WEC devices have a large spread in their rated power
and the sea state for which they are rated. Also the devices are all at different
technology readiness levels causing there to be different levels of uncertainty in their
estimated performance. The other potentially non-conservative assumption is that the
WEC devices will be able to achieve capacity factors of 40% in the locations of the
fjord crossings. Unfortunately with no wave resource data for the fjords of interest
available it is not possible to estimate what accurate capacity factors of the different
devices are.

11.4 Wave energy recommendations

Without wave resource data for the particular locations of the proposed fjord
crossings, it is not possible to calculate realistic estimates of what the potential
energy output is from combining the WEC devices with the bridging technologies.
Additionally, with no available wave resource data, the WEC developers did not
have the possibility to optimize their devices according to the wave conditions for the
particular fjord crossing locations. This means that it is not possible to use the results
from the previous section when making recommendations about which technologies
 56

would provide the most energy for the crossing locations. It is therefore
recommended that the next step is to obtain more wave resource data for all of the
fjord crossing locations.

The wave resource data could initially be obtained from models, which should be
able to provide accurate enough information to see if the wave resources at the
particular fjord crossing location are significant enough to be considered further. If
the models show that the wave resources are significant, then experimental data
should be gathered at the fjord crossing locations in order to verify the results from
the models. Data should include both the significant wave height and the peak wave
period. Again, the experimental data should be gathered over a significant period of
time to ensure that the models reliably take into account seasonal variations in the
wave resources.

With detailed information about the annual distribution of the significant wave height
and the peak wave period available, the developers should be contacted and asked to
optimize the designs of their devices according to the wave resources at the fjord
crossing locations of interest. At that point any necessary non-discloser agreements
should be signed in order to gain access to proprietary information about the
performance of the WEC devices.

Once the designs have been optimized and updates have been made to the wave
power absorption performance matrices, the calculation methods described in section
11.3.1 can be utilized to determine realistic estimates of the energy production for the
different technologies. Using this detailed information, comparisons can be made
between the different technologies, and recommendations can be made. The
recommendations can include information about whether or not the WEC device
power plants are viable and about which technology, or combination of technologies
will be most effective for the different fjord crossing locations if the power plants are
viable.
 57

12 Combining multiple renewable energy

technologies
Within the Ferry Free E39 project, several different renewable energy technologies
are being simultaneously considered. This report discusses the potential of
combining tidal and wave energy conversion devices with the bridging technologies
at the various fjord crossing locations. Because both the tidal and wave energy
conversion devices need access to the water in the area surrounding the bridge
structure, there will likely be conflicts over the available area around the structure.
More than likely compromises will need to be made and bridges will not be able to
utilize both tidal and wave energy conversion devices in the same sections of the
bridge. When the wave and tidal resources are better known, optimal solutions can be
better determined.

When considering combining wave or tidal energy conversion devices with wind and
solar energy conversion technologies, both conflicts and synergy effects can be
envisioned. The reader is refered to SP’s Solar and Wind energy technology surveys
for the Ferry Free E39 project, which give detailed information about how solar and
wind energy conversion devices can be combined with the bridging structures [30]
[31]. If it is decided to use additional structures to increase the number of potential
tidal or wave energy conversion devices in the downstream direction, then the
available area for solar cells can be greatly increased. The additional structures could
even be formed to help increase the wind velocity seen by the wind conversion
technologies. Of course the optimization of the designs will depend on the relative
available resources at each of the different locations and goes beyond the scope of
the present study.
 58

13 Summary and conclusions

In order to determine the feasibility of combining the proposed fjord crossing
solutions for the Ferry Free E39 project with renewable energy power plants, the
current state of the art of the renewable energy technologies must be reviewed and
realistic estimations of the potential energy that could be obtained from the fjord
crossings must be made. This report describes the background of the project and the
requests for information questionnaires that were developed and sent to the tidal and
wave energy technology developers. The result of survey is a comprehensive and up
to date collection of information about the tidal and wave energy technology
developers who are are potential partners for later stages in the Ferry Free E39
project. The information is presented in table format allowing for comparisons to be
easily made between the different technologies.

This report also describes the concepts that developers suggested for how their
devices could be attached to the different bridging structures and the advantages and
disadvantages of the different concepts. Additionally, concepts were presented which
allow the number of devices that can be utilized at the various fjord crossings to be
maximized. Methods to calculate the energy that could be obtained by employing
wave and tidal energy conversion technologies are also discussed.

Unfortunately, a lack of tidal and wave energy resource data at the fjord crossing
locations made it impossible to utilize the detailed calculation method that was
described and a simplified calculation method was used to calculate rough estimates
of the energy potential from the different devices. When the estimates were
compared to previous studies it showed that the estimates based on the simplified
approach were non-conservative. Source of non-conservatism in the calculations
were discussed and it was concluded that the next stage of the study should
concentrate on obtaining reliable data about the tidal and wave energy resources for
the different fjord crossing locations. The data should be obtained over a significant
period of time to ensure that the effects of seasonal variations in the resources are
captured.

Once tidal and wave resources data is available, more realistic calculations of the
potential energy production can be completed. At that point, comparisons of the
performance of the difference technologies can be made.

From that point, more detailed studies should be undertaken where the concepts for
combining the devices with the bridging technologies are optimized. This
optimization should include actions such as loads analysis, structural strength
calculations, reliability and fatigue performance evaluations and detailed cost
estimates.
 59

14 References
[1] Zabihian F, Fung AS. Review of marine renewable energies: Case study of
Iran. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2011;15:2461-2474.
[2] Yun Seng. Lim and Siong Lee. Koh (2009). Marine Tidal Current Electric
Power Generation: State of Art and Current Status, Renewable Energy, T J
Hammons (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-7619-52-7, InTech, Available from:
http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/marine-tidal-current-electric-
power-generation-state-of-art-and-current-status
[3] Comission, E., Ocean energy conversion in Europe: Recent advancements and
prospects. 2006, Centre for Renewable Energy Sources: Pikermi, Greece.
[4] Fujita Research - Wave and tidal power.
http://www.fujitaresearch.com/reports/tidalpower.html. Retrieved February 15,
2012.
[5] Spain R. A possible Roman Tide Mill. Paper 005. Kent Archaelological
Society 2002.
[6] Ryckaert M. Olhao Tide Mill.jpg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Olhao_Tide_Mill.jpg. Retrieved February 15,
2012. Under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. More
information on this license is available at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.
[7] Rourke FO, Boyle F, Reynolds A. Tidal energy update 2009. Applied Energy
2010;87:398-409.
[8] The original Bay of Fundy website. http://bayoffundy.com/about/highest-
tides/. Retrieved February 15, 2012.
[9] Bedard R. Survey and characterization - tidal in stream energy conversion
(TISEC) devices. EPRI TP-004 NA; November 2005.
[10] Bahaj AS, Myers L. Analytical estimates of the energy yield potential from the
Alderney Race (Channel Islands) using marine current energy converters.
Renewable Energy 2004;29:1931-1945.
[11] T. J. Hammons (2009). Tidal Energy Technologies: Currents, Wave and
Offshore Wind Power in the United Kingdom, Europe and North America,
Renewable Energy, T J Hammons (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-7619-52-7, InTech,
Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/tidal-energy-
technologies-currents-wave-and-offshore-wind-power-in-the-united-kingdom-
europe-and-nor
[12] Grabbe M, Lalander E, Lundin S, Leijon M. A review of the tidal current
energy resource in Norway. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
2009;13:1898-1909.
[13] Johnson JB, Pride DJ. River, Tidal, and Ocean Current Hydrokinetric Energy
Technologies: Status and Future Opportunities in Alaska. 2010, Alaska Center
for Energy and Power.
[14] UK, Europe and global tidal stream energy resource assessment. Black
Veatech Ltd.; September 2005.
[15] Fröberg E. Current Power Resource Assessment - A study of selected sites in
Sweden and Norway. Master's thesis. Uppsala University; September 2006.
[16] Potensialstudie av havenergi i Norge. SWECO Grøner. Report 154650-2007.1,
Enova SF; October 2007.
[17] The European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) Ltd website.
http://www.emec.org.uk/. Retrieved February 15, 2012.
 60

[18] The U.S. Department of Energy - Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology

Database website.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/water/hydrokinetic/default.aspx. Retrieved
February 15, 2012.
[19] Lunar Energy official website.
http://www.lunarenergy.co.uk/productOverview.htm. Retrieved February 15
2012.
[20] Rahm M. Ocean Wave Energy - Underwater Substation System for Wave
Energy Converters. PhD thesis. Uppsala University; March 2010.
[21] de O. Falcão AF. Wave energy utilization: A review of the technologies.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2010;14(3):899-918.
[22] Siegel SG, Fagley C, Römer M, Mclaughlin, TE. Experimental Wave
Cancellation using a Cycloidal Wave Energy Converter. Proceedings of the 9th
European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Southampton, UK, 5th-9th
September 2011.
[23] Hagerman G, Bedard R. Guidelines for Preliminary Estimation of Power
Production by Offshore Wave Energy Conversion Devices. E2I EPRI-WP-US-
001; December 2003.
[24] Google Mpas. http://maps.google.com. Retrieved March 9, 2012.
[25] Mulighetsstudie – Kryssing av Sognefjorden – oppsummering etter idéfasen,
Statens vegvesen Region vest, Versjon 23.03.2011.
[26] Bedard R, Previsic M. Methodology for Estimating Tidal Current Energy
Resources and Power Production by Tidal In-Stream Energy Conversion
(TISEC) Devices. EPRI TP-001 NA Rev 3; September 2006.
[27] Gjevik B, Gundersen E, Sandbo H. Vudering av potensialet for
kraftproduksjon i forbindelse med bruer langs ferjefri E39. Arbeidsutkast,
2012-03-14.
[28] Lindberg U, Probability estimate of ship collision with planned E39 bridges,
SSPA Report No.:20126158, SSPA Sweden AB, March 5, 2012.
[29] Ferjefri E39 – bru over Bjørnafjorden, Jan Soldal/Akvator AS, Multiconsult
AS, LMG Marin AS, Sintef/Marintek, February 2012.
[30] Kovacs P, Wahlgren P, Solar energy technology survey for Ferry Free E39
project, SP, Borås Sweden, March 2012.
[31] Åkesson L, Wind energy technology survey for Ferry Free E39 project, SP,
Borås Sweden, March 2012.

Appendices

1. TISEC device request for information

2. TISEC device list of developers
3. TISEC device responses
4. WEC device request for information
5. WEC device list of developers
6. WEC device responses
7. Fjord crossing locations
8. Calculations of the number of TISEC devices
9. Calculation of the energy from TISEC devices
10. Calculations of the number of WEC devices
11. Calculation of the energy from WEC devices
 61

Appendix 1: TISEC device request for

information
 62

Dear Sir or Madam:

SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden has been commissioned by the

Norwegian Public Roads Administration in a project that will potentially utilize a
large number of tidal in stream energy conversion devices. We are currently in the
process of performing a technology survey to determine the capabilities and
characteristics of the different devices that are being developed. Upon review of the
information available on the internet it seems that your technology is potentially
promising for our application. We have developed a short questionnaire that we are
asking all companies of interest to fill out in order to have an up-to-date basis for
comparison of the different technologies. We would appreciate it if you could take
the time to fill out the table below and send it back to me before 2012-01-31. If any
of the information is not currently available then simply state that in your reply. A
fictional sample reply is provided for your convenience and more information about
some of the questions is given in the information below. I have also attached a copy
of the questionnaire in excel format if you have any problems with the formatting of
the table in the email when you reply.

For more information about the background of the project itself, please see the
information below*. The results of this technology survey will be presented as part
the workshop/conference scheduled for April 2012 (probably in Trondheim,
Norway).

If you have any questions about the questionnaire or if you would like more detailed
information about the project then feel free to contact me by replying to this email or
calling at the number given below.

Best regards,

Daniel

Daniel Vennetti

SP Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut

SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden
Byggnadsteknik och Mekanik/Buildning Technology
and Mechanics
Box 857, SE-501 15 Borås, Sweden
Tel: +46 (0)10 516 50 00, (direct) +46 (0)10 516 57 83
E-post: daniel.vennetti@sp.se
Internet: www.sp.se
 63

Fictional Sample Reply

Company SP - Technical Research Institute of Sweden
Country Sweden
Web address http://www.sp.se/en/Sidor/default.aspx
Technology Name SP Tidal Technology
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
B) Cross-Axis Turbine
A
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs
Method to fix the device **
i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base
ii) Pile Mounted
iii (Flexible mooring)
iii) Floating (Flexible Mooring, Rigid
Mooring, or Floating structure)
iv) Hydrofoil Inducing Downforce
Is power generated during ebb and flood flows Yes
SP Tidal Technology has three unshrouded
horizontal axis turbines that are attached to
a floating platform that has a flexible
mooring system. The flexible mooring
Features / Design principle
allows the platform to swing as the tidal
direction changes so that power is generated
with equal efficiency in both ebb and flood
flows.
Development status ***
TRL7/8
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 or TRL 9

A 1:10 scale proof-of-concept model was

tested at SP's wave laboratory in Borås
Sweden 2007-10.

A 1:5 scale model including the floating

platform and flexible mooring devices was
tested at SP's Big wave test facility in
Description of any and all prototypes
Borås, Sweden 2009-11.
(including test facility used or location of
testing, dates, and hours of operation)
A full scale model is currently being tested
including the floating platform and flexible
mooring system in the SP slow fjord in
Borås, Sweden which has maximum flow
speed of 1.5 m/s. The full scale model was
deployed 2010-06 and has been generating
power to the grid for over 4000 hours.
 64

We have a spot reserved at the SP fast fjord

test facility in Borås, Sweden
Next development steps
which has a maximum flow speed of 3.0
m/s. Testing is expected to begin in 2012-07
Power train type Direct drive generator
Each of the three turbines has 2 rotors with
a 20 m diameter. The floating platform itself
Dimensions is 100 m wide x 100 m deep and has a
height of 3 m. the bottom 1 m of the
platform will be under the water level.
Area of current flow used by the device (m2)
Shroud inlet area for an enclosed tips turbine
Swept area of the turbine blades for an 942
unshrouded turbine
Plan form area for a vertical axis turbine
Weight of super structure (ton) 75
Weight of power take off equipment (ton) 100
Min installation depth (m) 30
Max installation depth (m) 100
Design lifetime (years) 15
Cut in speed (m/s) 0.7
Rated flow speed (m/s) 3
Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed 4000
Maximum flow speed (m/s) 3.5
Current speed (m/s) vs electric power output
See below
(kWe) data points
Estimated date commercially available 2015-01
Estimated production cost per rated unit
5.00E+06
(EUR)
Have environmental impact studies been
Yes
performed
Vennetti D. Power predictions of the SP
Tidal Technology,. Renewable Energy
Review 2007;5(5)20-50.
Technical publications
Vennetti D. SP Tidal Technology
Environmental Impact Study,. Environment
Magazine 2011;2(20)15-35.
Figures/photographs of device have been Yes (not actually true for this fictional
attached to reply example)
Yes, the mooring lines could be attached to
an overhanging suspension bridge.
Could the device be combined with a
suspension bridge fjord crossing / how?
This configuration was tested with the 1:5
scale model described above.
 65

For a deep water fjord, connecting the

mooring lines to an overhanging bridge
would be an advantage because the main
limitation on the depth of the design is due
to a maximum permissible length of the
mooring lines. Using an overhanging
bridge, the fjord could be infinitely deep.

Another advantage of attaching the mooring

Advantages / disadvantages of combining the
lines to an overhanging bridge would be
device with a suspension bridge fjord crossing
that the attachment point could be designed
into the bridge structure, which saves time
and money that is spent in a traditional
installation attaching the mooring lines to
the seabed.

One disadvantage is the additional

horizontal load on the bridge structure from
reacting the force absorbed by the device.
Yes, the mooring lines could be attached to
the overhanging bridge assuming that there
Could the device be combined with a floating
is enough clearance between the pontoons
bridge fjord crossing / how?
for the platform to turn around when the
tides change direction.
Based on the clearance between the
pontoons, a special device may need to be
designed that allows the platform to rotate
when the tides change direction.

The effects of the pontoons on the flow

characteristics around the device would
Advantages / disadvantages of combining the
have to be evaluated to ensure that the
device with a floating bridge fjord crossing
device performance is not negatively
affected.

A disadvantage would again be the

additional horizontal load on the bridge
structure from reacting the force absorbed
by the device.
Yes, depending on the submerged depth of
the floating tunnel, our platform should be
Could the device be combined with a
able to be combined to a submerged floating
submerged floating tunnel fjord crossing /
tunnel because it in principle would be the
how?
same as attaching the mooring lines to the
ocean floor.
 66

The main advantage is that it would be

cheaper to install the device because an
attachment point could be designed into the
tunnel geometry, which saves time and
money that is spent in a traditional
Advantages / disadvantages of combining the
installation attaching the mooring lines to
device with a submerged floating tunnel fjord
the seabed.
crossing
The disadvantage again would be the
additional horizontal load on the supporting
structure caused by reacting the force
absorbed by the device.

Current Speed Electric Power

(m/s) Output (kWe)
0.7 59
0.8 89
0.9 125
1 172
1.1 219
1.2 285
1.3 362
1.4 475
1.5 611
1.6 759
1.7 910
1.8 1080
1.9 1214
2 1416
2.1 1524
2.2 1735
2.3 2029
2.4 2304
2.5 2605
2.6 2930
2.7 3135
2.8 3497
2.9 3614
3 4000
3.1 4000
 67

3.2 4000
3.3 4000
3.4 4000
3.5 4000

* Project Background
E39 is a road that is located on the west coast of Norway and extends from
Kristiansand in the south to Trondheim in the north. Currently, a number of ferry
crossings are required to traverse its entire length. The Transport Ministry has given
a mandate for the project “Ferry Free E39” to assess the technological solutions for
the crossing of eight large fjords without ferries. The fjords crossings range from 1.5
km to 25 km in length and have depths up to 1300 m. Proposed solutions for the
crossings that are under consideration consist of suspension bridges, floating bridges,
submerged floating tunnels, and sub-sea rock tunnels. Part of the project is to
consider how the construction of the crossings can be combined with devices that
produce energy from waves, tides, wind and the sun. The idea is that by using the
bridge construction as part of the facility, the costs of the renewable power plants
could be reduced and therefore be more competitive with non-renewable energy
sources.

Questionnaire Information
** Device Type and Method to fix the device
More information about the classification of device types and methods to fix the
device can be found at the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) website at the
following address:

http://www.emec.org.uk/tidal_devices.asp

*** Development status

The development status of the project should be classified using the following
technology readiness levels, which were obtained from the U.S. department of
energy website at the following address:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/water/hydrokinetic/usingDB.aspx

TRL 1-3: Discovery / Concept Definition / Early Stage Development, Design and
Engineering

TRL 1-2: These are the lowest levels of technology readiness. Scientific research
begins to be translated into applied research and development where basic principles
are observed and reported. Technology concept and application are formulated and
investigated through analytic studies and in-depth investigations of principal design
considerations. This stage is characterized by paper studies, concept exploration, and
planning.

TRL 3: In this stage, active research is initiated, including engineering studies and
laboratory studies to physically validate analytical predictions of separate elements of
the technology.
 68

The purpose of this stage is to evaluate, insofar as possible, the scientific or technical
merit and feasibility of ideas that appear to have commercial potential.

TRL 4: Proof of Concept

In this stage basic technological components of a sub-scale model are integrated to
validate design predictions and system level functionality. The models, or critical
subsystems, are tested in a laboratory environment.

This TRL represents early stage proof-of-concept system or component development,

testing and concept validation. In this stage, critical technology elements are
developed and tested in a laboratory environment. It is envisioned that scale models
will be at 1:10 scale or smaller.

TRL 5/6: System Integration, and Technology Laboratory Demonstration

TRL 5: At this level, basic technological components are fabricated at a scale

relevant to full scale and integrated to establish and verify subsystem and system
level functionality and preparation for testing in a simulated environment.

TRL 6: At this level, representative model or prototype system at a scale relevant to

full scale, which is beyond that of TRL 5, is tested in a relevant environment. This
stage represents a major step up in a technology's demonstrated readiness and risk
mitigation and is the stage leading to open water testing.

At this stage device, system, and subsystem level interfacing/integration testing

represent a vital stage in technology development, and must be demonstrated.
Models should be at a relevant scale (1:1 – 1:5) to reflect the challenges and realities
of the full scale (1:1) system. Model testing is to be performed in a test facility
capable of producing simulated waves/currents and other operational conditions
while monitoring device response and performance. Furthermore, the devices
foundation concept shall be incorporated and demonstrated.

TRL 7/8: Open Water System Testing, Demonstration, and Operation

TRL 7: At this level, the prototype scale components and subsystems are fabricated
and integrated to establish and verify subsystem and system level functionality and
preparation for testing in an open water operational environment to verify expected
operation and fine tune the design prior to deployment in an operational
demonstration project.

TRL 8: At this level, the prototype in its final form (at or near full scale) is to be
tested, and qualified in an open water environment under all expected operating
conditions to demonstrate readiness for commercial deployment in a demonstration
project. Testing should include extreme conditions.

At this stage, the device model scale is expected to be at or near full scale (1:1 – 1:2).
Testing may be initially performed in water at a relatively benign location, with the
expectation that testing then be performed in a fully exposed, open water
environment, where representative operating environments can be experienced. The
final foundation/mooring design shall be incorporated into model testing at this stage.
 69

DOE TRL 9: Commercial-Scale Production / Application

At this stage, the actual, commercial-scale system is proven through successful

mission operations, whereby it is fielded and in-use in commercial application.
This stage represents an in-service application of the technology in its final form and
under mission condition
 70

Appendix 2: TISEC device list of developers

 71

Table A2:1 TISEC device developers.

Confirmed Responded
Technology Developer
Contact to RFI
Alstom Hydro 1 0
Aquantis Inc 0 0
Atlantis Resources Corp 1 1
Atlantisstrom 0 0
Aquascientific 0 0
BioPower Systems Pty Ltd 1 1
Blue Energy 1 0
Bluewater 0 0
Bourne Energy 0 0
Cetus Energy 0 0
Clean Current Power
0 0
Systems
Current2Current 0 0
Current Power AB 1 0
Ecofys 0 0
Firth Tidal Energy 0 0
Flumill 0 0
Free Flow 69 0 0
Free Flow Power
0 0
Corporation
GCK Technology 0 0
Greener Works Limited 0 0
Hales Energy Ltd 1 1
Hammerfest Strom 1 1
Hydra Tidal Energy
1 0
Technology AS
Hydro Green Energy 1 0
Hydro-Gen 1 1
Hydrokinetic Laboratory 0 0
Hydrovolts Inc 1 0
Kepler Energy 1 1
Lucid Energy
0 0
Technologies
Lunar Energy 1 0
Magallanes Renovables 0 0
Marine Current Turbines 0 0
Minesto 1 0
Natural Currents 0 0
Nautricity Ltd 1 1
Neptune Renewable
1 1
Energy Ltd
New Energy Corp. 1 0
Norwegian Ocean Power 1 1
Ocean Flow Energy 1 1
Ocean Renewable Power
1 1
Company
 72

Oceana Energy Company 0 0

Offshore Islands Ltd 1 0
OpenHydro 0 0
Ponte di Archimede 1 0
Pulse Tidal 1 0
Scotrenewables 0 0
SMD Hydrovision 0 0
Swanturbines Ltd. 0 0
Tidal Electric 1 0
Tidal Energy Ltd 0 0
Tidal Energy Pty Ltd 1 1
Tidal Generation Limited 1 1
Tidal Sails 1 1
TidalStream 0 0
Tide Tec AS 1 1
Tideng 1 1
Tocardo BV 1 1
UEK Corporation 1 0
Verdant Power 1 1
VerdErg 0 0
Voith Hydro 1 1
Vortex Hydro Energy 0 0
Water Wall Turbine 0 0
 73

Appendix 3: TISEC device responses

 74

Table A3:1 TISEC device basic information.

Technology Technology Device Rated Power
Country
Developer Name Type (kW)
Atlantis Resources AR series / AS UK /
A 1000
Corp series Singapore
BioPower Systems
bioSTREAM C Australia 250
Pty Ltd
Hales Tidal
Hales Energy Ltd E UK -
Stream Turbine
Hammerfest Strom - A Norway 300-1000
HPS AS Tideng B/E Denmark 1000
Hydro-Gen Hydro-gen A France 40
Kepler Energy THAWT B UK 4600
Nautricity Ltd CoRMaT A UK 500
Neptune Renewable
- B UK 400
Energy Ltd
Norwegian Ocean
Pulsus Turbine E Norway 600-2500
Power
Ocean Flow Energy
Evopod A UK 35-1000
Limited
Ocean Renewable TidGen™,
B USA 180
Power Company OCGen™
Tidal Energy Pty
DHV Turbine B/D Australia 120-5500
Ltd
Tidal Generation TGL 1MW
A UK 1000
Limited Turbine
Tidal Sails AS TidalSails E Norway 10000
TideTec
Tide Tec AS energibru D Norway -
konsept
Tocardo BV T100, T200 A Netherlands 43-174
Verdant Power KHPS A USA 56-500
Voith Hydro HyTide A Germany 1000

In the table, the device types are identified as follows: A= Horizontal axis turbine,
B=Cross-axis turbine, C= Oscillating hydrofoil, D=Enclosed Tips (Venturi) and E =
Other designs.
 75

Company Atlantis Resources Corporation ("Atlantis")

Country United Kingdom HQ/Singapore HQ
Web address www.atlantisresourcescorporation.com
Technology Name AR™ series and AS™ series tidal power turbines
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
B) Cross-Axis Turbine
A
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs
(i), (ii) or (iii). Atlantis has experience of gravity
based foundations (for the AR1000™ at EMEC),
Method to fix the device ** piled foundations (at our test site in San Remo,
i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base Australia) and floating systems from our tow tests of
ii) Pile Mounted the AS™ series turbines in Singapore and Australia.
iii) Floating (Flexible Mooring, Rigid Atlantis believes that the foundation solution should
Mooring, or Floating structure) be selected according to the unique site conditions
iv) Hydrofoil Inducing Downforce and our portfolio of technology allows us to retain
this flexibility of approach with respect to final
foundation design .
Is power generated during ebb and
Yes
flood flows
The AR™ series turbines are open ocean devices,
designed for robust and reliable performance in wind
and wave swept sites. The turbines are open,
unshrouded horizontal axis devices with three mono-
directional blades and a 180o yawing capability for
ebb and flood generation and seasonal heading
optimisation. Fixed pitch rotors with winglets to
reduce tip losses deliver reliable performance across
the flow velocity distribution of a given site and an
active pitch system is used for tubrine survival mode
to reduce overall system loading. The AR series
tubrines use a Permanent Magnet Generator with a
Features / Design principle
single stage gearbox to maximise efficiency and
reliability.These devices are typically seabed
mounted, either on piled or gravity foundations.

The AS™ series turbines are more suited to

sheltered locations as they incorporate a shroud
structure to reduce tip losses from the rotor blades
and increase the velocity flow of water through the
three bladed turbine. The blades are bi-directional in
design and so this device incorporates no rotate
(yaw) function and is well suited for integration in
permanent civil engineering structures.
Development status ***
AR™ series: TRL 8
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8
AS™ series: TRL 7
or TRL 9
 76

The AR1000™ was connected to grid at the

European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) in August
2011. This is a full depth, open ocean site in the
North Sea, representative of the most challenging
conditions to which turbines will be subjected in
commercial arrays. The turbine is the first full scale
1 MW turbine (rated at 2.65 m/s) to be connected at
such an open ocean site in Scottish waters.

In 2008 the AS400™ was extensively tow tested in

Australia and Singapore and the high efficiencies
were independently verified by Black and Veatch.
The AS™ series control system and operating
methodology has much in common with the
AR1000™ system as tested at EMEC.

ARC has been selected as the technology provider of

choice in both of the world's largest tidal power
projects, including the Pentland Firth 400MW
Description of any and all prototypes
flagship project, MeyGen and the Gulf of Kutch
(including test facility used or
250MW flagship project, Mundra Tidal Power. The
location of testing, dates, and hours of
AR series tubrine systems have been selected by
operation)
governments in Asia, Nth America and Europe as
the platform for full scale demonstration programs.

Of particular note, Atlantis is the technology partner

of the Clearwater Consortium, a consortium of
predominentaly Dutch companies including Royal
Haskoning, IHC Merwede & Ballast Nedham who
are working on developing a similar project in the
Amsterdam Surge Barrier, the Oosterscheldte
(Eastern Scheldt Barrier) in the Zeeland Province,
Holland. This group of experienced hydro/civil
engineers and technology companies possess a
particularly relevant set of skills in the design,
integration, manufacture and installation of a hydro-
kinetic solution in combination with planned civil
infrastructure. We would be delighted to offer you
more information on the skills, service and product
offerings of the Clearwater Consortium upon
request.
The AR1000 will be the first full scale system to be
tested at the UK's National Renewable Energy
Centre (NaREC) in 2012. Due to customer demand,
Atlantis will commence detailed design on a 1.5MW
and 2.0MW drive train system for the AR series
Next development steps
turbines during 2012, due for open ocean testing in
2013. A berth has been awarded to ARC at the
Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy in Canada
which we seek to develop in 2012/13, and other full
scale demonstration projects are planned in Italy,
 77

China and the Netherlands. These form an integral

part of ARC's path to a warranted commercial
product.
The ARC turbines are currently fitted with single
stage gearboxes connected to a PMG. The single
stage gearbox is used to to step up the rotational
speed for the permanent magnet generator. The
current systems is rated at 1.0 MW @ 2.65 m/s. A
full study is underway to evaluate the relative costs
and benefits of transitioning to a direct drive system
with some of the world's leading developers of
Power train type Direct Drive PMGs. Atlantis has already
commenced work on offering the AR drive train
platform in 1.5 MW & 2.0 MW configurations
which will be capable of being adjusted to rated
velocity or rotor diameter, depending on the
bathymetry and flow velocity distribution profile at
each particular project site. The current AR1000
Mark 1 EMEC tubrine is a 1MW drive train rated at
2.65 m/s.
The optimal turbine rotor size is chiefly dependent
on water depth and flow regime, and so is selected
according to the specific site conditions. The 1MW
AR1000™ EMEC turbine has an 18m rotor diameter
Dimensions
and is typically positioned at least 5m above the
seabed to avoid the slow moving boundary layer.
The EMEC AR1000 turbine has a total height of 23
meters once mounted on its gravity base structure.
Area of current flow used by the
device (m2)
Shroud inlet area for an enclosed tips
As discussed, turbine diameter can be varied to suit
turbine
site conditions. The AR1000™ has a swept area of
Swept area of the turbine blades for
254m2.
an unshrouded turbine
Plan form area for a vertical axis
turbine
Total Turbine System weight 1500T including
Gravity Base and Ballast
Weight of super structure (ton)
Gravity Base structure - 180T
Turbine Super structure - 80T
Weight of power take off equipment
40T
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 25
60
Max installation depth (m) (This is a maximum submersion rather than a
limiting total water depth)
Design lifetime (years) 20
Cut in speed (m/s) 0.65
Rated flow speed (m/s) 2.65
 78

1000* (*1.5MW drive train system to ve available in

Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed
2013)
Survival Condition - 4.3m/s peak tidal flow
Maximum flow speed (m/s) combined with 10.2m Hmax wave
(5.2m/s combined with 13.5 Hmax as of 2013)
Cut out speed (m/s) 3.4 (4.5 as of 2013)
Current speed (m/s) vs electric power
See below for AR1000™
output (kWe) data points
Estimated date commercially
2013-01 (9 month delivery time on long lead items)
available
Estimated production cost per rated
3.40E+06
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies Yes. No negative impact has been recorded on local
been performed flora and fauna for any ARC installation.
PCT/AU2004/001281, PCT/AU2008/001737,
PCT/AU2010/000618, PCT/AU2009/000457,
PCT/AU2009/000458, PCT/IB2010/001364,
Technical publications
PCT/AU2010/001161,PCT/AU2010/001427,
PCT/IB2010/001346,PCT/AU2010/001426,
PCT/AU2011/001009, 2011901759
Figures/photographs of device have Yes (in addition - footage of onshore/offshore/sub-
been attached to reply sea operations can be found at the Atlantis website)
Atlantis technologies are designed for deployment
flexibility, and can be matched to most installation
scenarios. Integrating the turbines with civil
structures would require close collaboration with the
Could the device be combined with a bridge design team to establish the most cost
suspension bridge fjord crossing / effective method of securing the turbine.
how?
In the most simple scenario the turbine could be
suspended from the bridge platform using a rigid
frame, such as that used in tow testing of the AS™
series turbines.
Raising and lowering of the frame would allow for
easy access to the device for maintenance and the
bridge itself provides an ideal corridor for routing of
power export cables. Vessel costs for both
installation and maintenance would be substantially
reduced in comparison to a gravity base or piled
foundation. The sophisticated proprietary Atlantis
Advantages / disadvantages of control and power conditioning equipment could be
combining the device with a housed either on the bridge or onshore to reduce
suspension bridge fjord crossing installed cost per MW, improve access and reduce
intervention (maintenance) costs as well as
maximise overall yield through the reduction of
system losses.

If the turbine is not bottom mounted, then the depth

of water is no longer a limiting factor for installation
as the submersion depth can be optimised from the
 79

surface.

Wave and current action on the device will create

horizontal and vertical loads which would be
transmitted to the bridge structure. The horizontal
loads are likely to prove the greater challenge for
bridge designers but could, if necessary, be reduced
through ancillary structures.
Yes. As pontoon bridges are usually only
practicable in relatively sheltered waters, the AS™
device is likely to offer a good solution in this
Could the device be combined with a
instance. As it is fitted with bidirectional blades
floating bridge fjord crossing / how?
there is no requirement for a yawing function, and
this facilitates permanent integration into the bridge
structure.
As with a suspension bridge, the pontoon bridge
provides a platform for turbine access and cable
routing, again reducing installation and maintenance
expenditure.

Depending on the requirement for the passage of

Advantages / disadvantages of marine traffic, the pontoon structures could be
combining the device with a floating designed to effectively channel flow through the
bridge fjord crossing inter-pontoon turbines, thus increasing energy
output.

As before, the effect of the turbines will be to

increase the overall drag on the structure. The
design of the anchor layout can be adapted to ensure
that this is adequately resisted.
Yes. As with the floating bridge, this is likely to be
practicable only in a relatively benign flow regime,
and so a shrouded turbine, the AS™ series, is
Could the device be combined with a recommended to maximise energy output. This
submerged floating tunnel fjord could be affixed directly to the seabed as part of the
crossing / how? anchoring system for the tunnel, or attached to the
tunnel itself, most probably beneath the tunnel. The
optimal solution would depend on, among other
factors, the water depth.
As with the other options, the tunnel provides a
useful passageway for cables, though it is likely that
these would run along the exterior walls as the
watertight integrity of the tunnel itself will be
absolutely paramount. This means that access for
Advantages / disadvantages of
maintenance is unlikely to be as substantially
combining the device with a
enhanced as for the bridge structures.
submerged floating tunnel fjord
The tunnel itself will present an obstruction to the
flow which, if profiled appropriately, could increase
the flow directed through the turbines, thus
increasing energy output.
 80

However, if the turbines are attached solely to the

tunnel they will again serve to create horizontal
loading which must be resisted by the anchor spread.

Electric Power
Current Speed (m/s) Output (kWe)
0.65 15
0.7 19
0.8 28
0.9 40
1 55
1.1 73
1.2 95
1.3 120
1.4 150
1.5 185
1.6 224
1.7 269
1.8 319
1.9 376
2 438
2.1 507
2.2 583
2.3 666
2.4 757
2.5 856
2.6 963
2.65 1000
2.7 1000
2.8 1000
2.9 1000
3 1000
3.1 1000
3.2 1000
3.3 1000
3.4 1000
81
 82

Note – The remainder of the details of the response from BioPower Systems Pty Ltd
are not to be distributed to the general public.

Company BioPower Systems Pty Ltd

Country Australia
Web address www.biopowersystems.com
Technology Name bioSTREAM
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
B) Cross-Axis Turbine
C
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs
Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed 250
 83

Company Hales Energy Ltd

Country UK
Web address www.halesenergy.com
Technology Name HALES TIDAL STREAM TURBINE
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
(E) The Hales Turbine design is a Side Drive
B) Cross-Axis Turbine
Turbine that can operate ducted or open stream. see
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil
website www.halesenergy.com
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs
Method to fix the device **
i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base
ii) Pile Mounted
iii) Floating (Flexible Mooring, Rigid
Mooring, or Floating structure) i) Gravity Base ii) Pile Mounted iii) Floating
iv) Hydrofoil Inducing Downforce structure
Is power generated during ebb and
YES
flood flows
The patented Hales Turbine design is a vertical
axis tidal stream or ROR water turbine that is
modelled on the primary principle of a standard
Features / Design principle
water wheel but with special engineering adaptions
to allow full rotation under high torque loading
while totally immersed.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRH 5/6
or TRL 9
A 1metre capture area Hales Turbine prototype is at
present under trial on the River Thames,
England, The test site has tidal flows on the Ebb up
Description of any and all prototypes
to 1.0 m/s. This prototype is housed in a venturi
(including test facility used or
form ducting with a mouth entry area of 3.2 metres.
location of testing, dates, and hours of
This prototype will form the basis for a modular for
operation)
of ducted Hales turbine that can be scaled up as
requires and sited in many river or shallow tidal
locations.
Further test tank design work is programmed at
UCL university , London by a Masters student,
sponsored by Hales Energy Ltd and also a
Next development steps
programmed test tank biuld and test pregramme to
scale up the design for large MW sized units
deployed by a gravity weighted system.
Power train type PM generator driven through Epicylic gearbox
Present test pontoon on River Thames is 7.5m x 4m
and has an all up weight with ducting of approx 2.5
Dimensions
metric tonne. (the Hales Turbine prototype has an
approx weight of 54 Kg).
 84

Area of current flow used by the

device (m2)
Shroud inlet area for an enclosed tips
turbine
UNDER DEVLOPMENT
Swept area of the turbine blades for
an unshrouded turbine
Plan form area for a vertical axis
turbine
Weight of super structure (ton) UNDER DEVELOPMENT
Weight of power take off equipment
UNDER DEVELOPMENT
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) UNDER DEVELOPMENT
Max installation depth (m) UNDER DEVELOPMENT
Design lifetime (years) 25
Cut in speed (m/s) 0.4
Rated flow speed (m/s) UNDER DEVELOPMENT
Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed UNDER DEVELOPMENT
Design will allow all water flow speeds to be farmed
Maximum flow speed (m/s)
by simple blade changes
Current speed (m/s) vs electric power
UNDER DEVELOPMENT
output (kWe) data points
Estimated date commercially
2013
available
Estimated production cost per rated
UNDER DEVELOPMENT
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
in process ( expect it to be zero)
been performed
Technical publications Nil
Figures/photographs of device have
attached to email
been attached to reply
Yes, A ducted version of the Hales Turbine is a
Could the device be combined with a
modular unit which is avaiiable for various forms of
suspension bridge fjord crossing /
fixing, only dependent on postion of PM generator
how?
which must remain above water and accessable.
Advantages / disadvantages of
No problems foreseen, more a case of designing
combining the device with a
deployment systems to take modular units.
suspension bridge fjord crossing
Could the device be combined with a
As above
floating bridge fjord crossing / how?
Advantages / disadvantages of The Hales Turbine design is happy to work in
combining the device with a floating turbulant and shallow water so most locations could
bridge fjord crossing be used.
Could the device be combined with a
submerged floating tunnel fjord See above
crossing / how?
 85

The main advantage is that it would be cheaper to

install the device because an attachment point could
be designed into the tunnel geometry, which saves
Advantages / disadvantages of time and money that is spent in a traditional
combining the device with a installation attaching the mooring lines to the
submerged floating tunnel fjord seabed.
The disadvantage again would be the additional
horizontal load on the supporting structure caused by
reacting the force absorbed by the device.
 86

Company Hammerfest Strøm

Country Norway
Web address www.hammerfeststrom.com
Technology Name
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
B) Cross-Axis Turbine
A
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs
Method to fix the device **
i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base
ii) Pile Mounted
i)(Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base)
iii) Floating (Flexible Mooring, Rigid
Mooring, or Floating structure)
iv) Hydrofoil Inducing Downforce
Is power generated during ebb and
Yes
flood flows
Features / Design principle Ref to attached technical description
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 9
or TRL 9
Description of any and all prototypes
(including test facility used or
Ref to attached technical description
location of testing, dates, and hours of
operation)
Next development steps Ref to attached technical description
Power train type Direct connected generator
Dimensions Ref to attached technicla description
Area of current flow used by the
device (m2)
Shroud inlet area for an enclosed tips
turbine
To be kept from public acess
Swept area of the turbine blades for
an unshrouded turbine
Plan form area for a vertical axis
turbine
Weight of super structure (ton) Ref ta attached technical description
Weight of power take off equipment
Ref ta attached technical description
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 40
Max installation depth (m) 100
Design lifetime (years) 25
Cut in speed (m/s) HS300: 0,9 and HS1000: 1,1
Rated flow speed (m/s) HS300: 1,7 and HS1000: 2,7
Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed HS300: 300KW and HS1000: 1MW
Maximum flow speed (m/s) To be kept from public acess
 87

Current speed (m/s) vs electric power

To be kept from public acess
output (kWe) data points
Estimated date commercially
Per to-day
available
Estimated production cost per rated
To be kept from public acess
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
Yes, continuous
been performed
Technical publications None
Figures/photographs of device have
Ref to our webside
been attached to reply
Could the device be combined with a
Technical feasible, depending of the high from the
suspension bridge fjord crossing /
bridge to the sea level.
how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
combining the device with a
suspension bridge fjord crossing
Could the device be combined with a
Technical feasible provided strong enough velocity
floating bridge fjord crossing / how?
Advantages / disadvantages of Have not carried out any study of this solution, but
combining the device with a floating avoiding of substrcture and subsea caples and
bridge fjord crossing simple maintenance can be an advantages.
Could the device be combined with a
submerged floating tunnel fjord Technical feasible
crossing / how?
A sensible advantage/disadvantage is difficult to
Advantages / disadvantages of
give because we haven't investigated this mentioned
combining the device with a
combinations, but technical feasible, depending on
submerged floating tunnel fjord
the high from the bridge to the sea level.
88
89
90
91
92
93
 94

Company HPS AS
Country Denmark
Web address www.hps.as
Technology Name Tideng
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
B) Cross-Axis Turbine
B or E
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs
Method to fix the device **
i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base
ii) Pile Mounted i)Gravity Base
iii) Floating (Flexible Mooring, Rigid ii) Pile Mounted
Mooring, or Floating structure)
iv) Hydrofoil Inducing Downforce
Is power generated during ebb and
Yes
flood flows
Tideng is a tidal stream and river current energy
converter.
It is composed by a cross-flow turbine with
horizontal axis, supported by a base structure placed
on the bottom of the sea. The base, besides
providing the necessary stability to the device,
enhances the incoming flow speed towards the rotor,
which converts the kinetic energy of the flow into
electricity.
The space is used in an optimal way, making the
device a modular unit which can be deployed in
arrays or individually. The rotor is the innovative
and novel aspect of the device. The blades are
connected at both ends to the fixed part of the hub
by a joint which is moving along a path grooved in
Features / Design principle it. This path is designed so that, during the rotation,
the blades are forced to move alternatively in and
out of the rotor.
Tideng is a tidal stream and river current energy
converter.
It is composed by a cross-flow turbine with
horizontal axis, supported by a base structure placed
on the bottom of the sea. The base, besides
providing the necessary stability to the device,
enhances the incoming flow speed towards the rotor,
which converts the kinetic energy of the flow into
electricity.
The space is used in an optimal way, making the
device a modular unit which can be deployed in
arrays or individually. The rotor is the innovative
and novel aspect of the device. The blades are
 95

connected at both ends to the fixed part of the hub

by a joint which is moving along a path grooved in
it. This path is designed so that, during the rotation,
the blades are forced to move alternatively in and
out of the rotor.
Tideng is a tidal stream and river current energy
converter.
It is composed by a cross-flow turbine with
horizontal axis, supported by a base structure placed
on the bottom of the sea. The base, besides
providing the necessary stability to the device,
enhances the incoming flow speed towards the rotor,
which converts the kinetic energy of the flow into
electricity.
The space is used in an optimal way, making the
device a modular unit which can be deployed in
arrays or individually. The rotor is the innovative
and novel aspect of the device. The blades are
connected at both ends to the fixed part of the hub
by a joint which is moving along a path grooved in
it. This path is designed so that, during the rotation,
the blades are forced to move alternatively in and
out of the rotor.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8
or TRL 9
Description of any and all prototypes
Model of device in scale 1:20 has been tested at
(including test facility used or
SINTEF 2007. CDF modeling has been performed
location of testing, dates, and hours of
by Aalborg University 2010.
operation)
Awaiting investors to implement full scale test of
Next development steps
100 kW device.
Power train type Either direct drive or with gearbox.
Dimensions Various depending on size of generator up to 3 MW.
Area of current flow used by the
device (m2) 396 sqm. The Tideng machine can be deployed in
Shroud inlet area for an enclosed tips different scale. The 1 MW device can have a base 11
turbine meter high including 3 meter rotor blades; Blades 6
Swept area of the turbine blades for meter in diameter and width 32 meter; this giver at a
an unshrouded turbine peak velocity of the stream of 4 m/sec a 1MW
Plan form area for a vertical axis device with a yearly production of 8.15 GWh
turbine
Weight of super structure (ton) TBD
Weight of power take off equipment
TBD
(ton)
Is depending on size but absolutely min is double the
Min installation depth (m)
depth of device, in the example above 22 meter
Max installation depth (m) no max
Design lifetime (years) 50 years
 96

Cut in speed (m/s) NA, but very low

Rated flow speed (m/s) 4m/sec in a tidal cycle
Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed 1MW / 8.15 GWh
Maximum flow speed (m/s) NA
Current speed (m/s) vs electric power
NA
output (kWe) data points
Estimated date commercially
2013
available
Estimated production cost per rated
0.09 €/kWh
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
Yes
been performed
Power Production and Economical Feasbility of
Tideng Tidal Stream Power Converter; DCE
Technical publications
Technical report no. 81 Aalborg University by S.
Parmeggiani, P. Frigaard, et. al.
Figures/photographs of device have
yes
been attached to reply
Could the device be combined with a
suspension bridge fjord crossing / any place upstream
how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
Could be part of release system for pillows and cable
combining the device with a
land fall could be much easier
suspension bridge fjord crossing
Could the device be combined with a
floating bridge fjord crossing / how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
Mooring block of the Tideng could be integrated in
combining the device with a floating
the mooring of the floating bridge
bridge fjord crossing
Could the device be combined with a
submerged floating tunnel fjord Yes could be mounted on top of the tunnel
crossing / how?
Advantages / disadvantages of Mooring block of the Tideng could be integrated in
combining the device with a the mooring of the floating bridge; cable land fall
submerged floating tunnel fjord could be easier
97
 98

Company Hydro-Gen
Country France
Web address http://www.hydro-gen.fr
Technology Name Hydro-Gen technology
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
B) Cross-Axis Turbine
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs A)
Method to fix the device **
i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base
ii) Pile Mounted
iii) Floating (Flexible Mooring, Rigid
Mooring, or Floating structure)
iv) Hydrofoil Inducing Downforce iii) (Flexible mooring)
Is power generated during ebb and
flood flows Yes
A floating catamaran barge supporting one or two
rotating turbines, so that it can be put easily outside
Features / Design principle
the water for maintenance, cleaning, check,
evolution, neutralisation, etc
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8
or TRL 9 TRL7/8 but limited to 20 kw power
Description of any and all prototypes Several floating turbines prototypes (20 kw) have
(including test facility used or been tested at sea since 5 years, including paddel
location of testing, dates, and hours of wheeels, sliding turbine, etc. Tests are conducted by
operation) campaigns of few days or one week.
To have a fully operationnal current turbine in an
Next development steps emerging country (Congo, or Madagascar, or
French Guyana)
Power train type Direct drive generator
Dimensions on demand and adapted to each situation and site.
Area of current flow used by the
device (m2)
Shroud inlet area for an enclosed tips
turbine
Swept area of the turbine blades for
an unshrouded turbine
Plan form area for a vertical axis
turbine 10
Weight of super structure (ton) 0.6 (600 kg) for a 20 kw turbine
Weight of power take off equipment
(ton) it depends
Min installation depth (m) 4
 99

1000, but to discuss, as it is just a question of

Max installation depth (m)
mooring line (id to offshore industry)

Design lifetime (years) 30

Cut in speed (m/s) 0.5
Rated flow speed (m/s) 4
Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed 40 kw on the 20 kw protoype
Maximum flow speed (m/s) 4
Current speed (m/s) vs electric power
output (kWe) data points P=150SV3
Estimated date commercially
available 2012
Estimated production cost per rated : 0,12 euros/kwh with amortization of the device
unit (EUR) over 30 years
Have environmental impact studies
not formally, let say just experimentally.
been performed
Technical publications a couple of
Figures/photographs of device have
been attached to reply Yes
Could the device be combined with a
suspension bridge fjord crossing /
how? Yes
There are advantages if it is possible to attach the
device to the bridge structure, as it allows to save the
mooring line expense (of course we know the
F=f(V) graph in order to study the impact). Another
Advantages / disadvantages of solution is to integrated the rotating turbine to the
combining the device with a bridge posts or structure so that there is no need for
suspension bridge fjord crossing floats or turbine barge. It saves 2/3 of the total
turbine expense.

If the above cannot be done, I see it as neutral, as far

as I understand the question.
Could the device be combined with a It can possibly be docked to the bridge posts or the
floating bridge fjord crossing / how? structure like a barge at pier.
See above, mainly saving money and using the
Advantages / disadvantages of hydrodynamics of the structure (flow put aside but
combining the device with a floating the structure) to increase the current captured by the
bridge fjord crossing current turbine (with a power by 3 for the power
output).
Could the device be combined with a
I don't see any reason to state No, but it needs to be
submerged floating tunnel fjord
studied on drawings etc,
crossing / how?
See above, and all comments related to combine
Advantages / disadvantages of
strengths, structures and capturing of the current put
combining the device with a
aside by an obstacle put in the flow. Clearly it must
submerged floating tunnel fjord
be studied on the projects design.
100
 101

Company Kepler Energy Ltd

Country UK
Web address www.keplerenergy.co.uk
Technology Name THAWT
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
B) Cross-Axis Turbine
Transverse Horizontal Axis
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs
Method to fix the device **
i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base
ii) Pile Mounted
I or ii
iii) Floating (Flexible Mooring, Rigid
Mooring, or Floating structure)
iv) Hydrofoil Inducing Downforce
Is power generated during ebb and
yes
flood flows
Features / Design principle See website
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 Moving to 5
or TRL 9
Description of any and all prototypes
(including test facility used or A 1:10 scale proof-of-concept model was tested at
location of testing, dates, and hours of Newcastle flume in 2011
operation)
Next development steps Build, install and operate a full size protype
Power train type May be direct drive
Can be manufactured in a variety of diameters up to
Dimensions about 10m. Length would then be 60m, and each
unit will have two rotors (to one generator).
Area of current flow used by the
device (m2)
Shroud inlet area for an enclosed tips
turbine
2X600m for a 10m diameter rotor machine
Swept area of the turbine blades for
an unshrouded turbine
Plan form area for a vertical axis
turbine
Weight of super structure (ton) tbd
Weight of power take off equipment
tbd
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) in theory, very low limit
Up to about 20-30m. Blockage ratio needs to be
Max installation depth (m)
about 0.5 to 0.6 which then determines the depths.
Design lifetime (years) 20
Cut in speed (m/s) ?
Rated flow speed (m/s) 2m/sec
 102

4600 for 10m diameter machine at 2 m/sec. (This is

Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed
not a prcatical joke!)
Maximum flow speed (m/s) Currently about 2.5m/sec
Current speed (m/s) vs electric power
n/a publicly
output (kWe) data points
Estimated date commercially
2014
available
Estimated production cost per rated
Very competitive!
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
No
been performed
Technical publications See below
Figures/photographs of device have
No but see publications
been attached to reply
Could the device be combined with a
suspension bridge fjord crossing / Yes
how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
combining the device with a Need to be aware of blockage effect
suspension bridge fjord crossing
Could the device be combined with a
Too early to tell
floating bridge fjord crossing / how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
combining the device with a floating Too early to tell
bridge fjord crossing
Could the device be combined with a
submerged floating tunnel fjord Too early to tell
crossing / how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
combining the device with a Too early to tell
submerged floating tunnel fjord
 103

McAdam, R.A., Houlsby, G.T., Oldfield, M.L.G., 2011, “Structural and

Hydrodynamic Model Testing of the Transverse Horizontal Axis Water Turbine”,
Proceedings of the 9th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, University
of Southampton, 5-9 September 2011.
Draper, S., Houlsby, G.T., Oldfield, M.L.G. and Borthwick, A.G.L., 2010,
“Modeling Tidal Energy Extraction in a Depth Averaged Domain”, IET Renew.
Power Gener., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 6, pp. 545–554. doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2009.0196
(Also in Proceedings of the 8th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference,
Uppsala, Sweden, 7-10 September 2009).
McAdam, R.A., Houlsby, G.T., Oldfield, M.L.G. and McCulloch, M.D., 2010,
“Experimental Testing of the Transverse Horizontal Axis Water Turbine”, IET
Renew. Power Gener., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 6, pp. 545–554. doi: 10.1049/iet-
rpg.2009.0196 (also in Proceedings of the 8th European Wave and Tidal Energy
Conference, Uppsala, Sweden, 7-10 September 2009).
Rawlinson-Smith, R., Bryden, I., Folley, M., Martin, V., Stallard, T., Stock-
Williams, C. and Willden, R.,2010, “The PerAWaT project: Performance
Assessment of Wave and Tidal Array Systems”. In Proc. 3rd International
Conference on Ocean Energy (ICOE), Bilbao, Spain.
Consul, C.A. & Willden, R.H.J. 2010,.”Influence of Flow Confinement of the
Performance of a Cross-Flow Turbine”. In Proc. 3rd International Conference on
Ocean Energy (ICOE), Bilbao, Spain.
Belloni, C. & Willden, R.H.J. , 2010. “A computational study of a bi-directional
ducted tidal turbine”. In Proc. 3rd International Conference on Ocean Energy
(ICOE), Bilbao, Spain.
Consul, C.A., Willden, R.H.J., Ferrer, E. & McCulloch, M.D. , 2009,. “Influence
of Solidity on the Performance of a Cross-Flow Turbine”. In Proc. 8th European
Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Uppsala, Sweden.
Houlsby, G.T., Draper, S. and Oldfield, M.L.G., 2008, “Application of Linear
Momentum Actuator Disc Theory to Open Channel Flow” Oxford University
Dept. Engineering Science Report No. OUEL 2296/08
Houlsby, G.T., Oldfield, M.L.G. and McCulloch, M.D., 2008, “Water Turbine”,
British Patent WO/2008/145991 “Water Turbine” filed on 30 May 2007 and
published on 04.12.2008.

Source – www.keplerenergy.co.uk
 104

Company Nautricity Limited

Country United Kingdom
Web address http://www.nautricity.com
Technology Name CoRMaT
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
B) Cross-Axis Turbine
A
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs
Method to fix the device **
i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base
ii) Pile Mounted
III
iii) Floating (Flexible Mooring, Rigid
Mooring, or Floating structure)
iv) Hydrofoil Inducing Downforce
Is power generated during ebb and
Yes
flood flows
The CoRMaT next generation tidal turbine uses two
contra-rotating rotors to directly drive a flooded
contra-rotating permanent magnet generator. It’s
neutral buoyancy enables it to be mounted mid water
Features / Design principle column in the highest flow velocities with minimum
wave interference. Using a flexible tensioned
mooring for station keeping enables the device to be
deployed in any depth of water, up to typically
500m.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 7/8
or TRL 9
A 1:15 scale proof of concept device was tested in
the University of Strathclyde’s large tow tank, UK
2005.
Description of any and all prototypes A 1:7 Scale device was tested in the River Clyde
(including test facility used or estuary, UK 2007.
location of testing, dates, and hours of A prototype system was tested and generated
operation) electricity in the Sound of Islay of the West Coast of
Scotland, UK 2008.
A full scale device is currently in build and due for
deployment in the UK late summer 2012.
Development of a 3 MW commercial array to be
Next development steps deployed on sea bed we have secured at the Mull of
Kintyre, in the summer of 2014.
Power train type Direct Drive contra-rotating PMG
Each of the turbine’s rotors have a 14m diameter
Dimensions
and is rated at 500 kW in flow velocities of 2.5 m/s
 105

Area of current flow used by the

device (m2)
Shroud inlet area for an enclosed tips
turbine
154
Swept area of the turbine blades for
an unshrouded turbine
Plan form area for a vertical axis
turbine
Weight of super structure (ton) 15
Weight of power take off equipment
30
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 30
Max installation depth (m) 500
Design lifetime (years) 20
Cut in speed (m/s) 1
Rated flow speed (m/s) 2.5
Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed 500
Maximum flow speed (m/s) 3.5
Current speed (m/s) vs electric power
See below
output (kWe) data points
Estimated date commercially
2013-04
available
Estimated production cost per rated
Unit size and volume dependent
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
Yes
been performed
Many technical publications have been produced, a
couple of these include:
- J A Clarke, G Connor, A D Grant, C M Johnstone
and S Ordonez-Sanchez 'Analysis of a Single Point
Tensioned Mooring System for Station Keeping of a
Contra-rotating Marine Current Turbine' Journal of
Renewable Power Generation, IET, UK, December
Technical publications
2010.
- J A Clarke, G Connor, A D Grant, C M Johnstone
and S Ordonez-Sanchez ‘Contrarotating Marine
Turbines: Single Point Tethered Floating System –
Stability and Performance’ Proceedings of the 8th
European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference,
Uppsala, Sweden, September 2009
Figures/photographs of device have
Yes
been attached to reply
Could the device be combined with a
suspension bridge fjord crossing / Yes, from cables between the supports.
how?
 106

Attaching the mooring lines to an overhanging

bridge would allow the attachment points to be
designed into the bridge structure, which saves time
Advantages / disadvantages of and money that is spent in a traditional installation
combining the device with a attaching the mooring lines to the seabed.
suspension bridge fjord crossing
One disadvantage is the additional horizontal thrust
load on the bridge structure from reacting the force
absorbed by the device.
Yes, mooring lines could be attached between the
Could the device be combined with a pontoons or to the overhanging bridge assuming that
floating bridge fjord crossing / how? there is enough clearance to turn around when the
tides change direction.
Yes, mooring lines could be attached between the
pontoons so long as there is sufficient clearance
between the pontoons.

The effects of the pontoons on the flow

Advantages / disadvantages of characteristics around the device would have to be
combining the device with a floating evaluated. These could have a positive effect by
bridge fjord crossing focusing and accelerating the flow, thus improving
power capture.

A disadvantage would again be the additional

horizontal load on the supporting structure from the
thrust load on the device.
Could the device be combined with a Most definitely. Irrespective of depth, The mooring
submerged floating tunnel fjord system would be secured to the tunnel in the same
crossing / how? way as attaching the mooring line to the ocean floor
The big advantage is that it would be cheaper to
install the device because an attachment point could
be designed into the tunnel geometry, which saves
time and money that is spent in a traditional
Advantages / disadvantages of
installation attaching the mooring lines to the
combining the device with a
seabed.
submerged floating tunnel fjord
The disadvantage again would be the additional
horizontal load on the supporting structure from the
thrust load on the turbine.

Electrical Power
Current Speed (m/s)
Output (kWe)
0.7 -
0.8 -
0.9 -
1 32
1.1
 107

1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5 106
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2 252
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5 500
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3 600
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5 600

Source - http://www.nautricity.com
 108

Company Neptune REnewable Energy Ltd

Country UK
Web address www.neptunerenewableenergy.com
Technology Name
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
B) Cross-Axis Turbine
B
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs
Method to fix the device **
i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base
ii) Pile Mounted
iii
iii) Floating (Flexible Mooring, Rigid
Mooring, or Floating structure)
iv) Hydrofoil Inducing Downforce
Is power generated during ebb and
Yes
flood flows
Each NP1200 has a three blades cross flow vertical
axis rotor 10 D x 7.2m H driving gearbox and
Features / Design principle
400kW AC generator on a floating pontoon structure
designed for estuarine sites
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 7/8
or TRL 9
Description of any and all prototypes
(including test facility used or Full scale prototype deployed on the North Bank of
location of testing, dates, and hours of the Humber Estuary and grid connected
operation)
Next development steps Production
Power train type gearbox and generator
pontoon 11m x 11m
Dimensions
turbine 10m (diam) x 7.2m (H)
Area of current flow used by the
device (m2)
Shroud inlet area for an enclosed tips
turbine 72/device
Swept area of the turbine blades for 360 / 2MW pod of 5
an unshrouded turbine
Plan form area for a vertical axis
turbine
Weight of super structure (ton) 40T
Weight of power take off equipment
12T
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) none
Max installation depth (m) none
Design lifetime (years) 20
Cut in speed (m/s) 0.5 m/s
 109

Rated flow speed (m/s) 5 m/s

Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed 400 kW
Maximum flow speed (m/s) tops out at 5 m/s
Current speed (m/s) vs electric power
Richards curve, asympotopic at 400kW at 5 m/s
output (kWe) data points
Estimated date commercially
2012
available
Estimated production cost per rated
commercial in confidence
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
yes and approved
been performed
Hardisty J (The University of Hull). The tidal stream
Technical publications power curve: A case study. A paper for Energy and
Power Engineering v06
Figures/photographs of device have
see web site
been attached to reply
Could the device be combined with a
suspension bridge fjord crossing / yes, moored between piles etc
how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
combining the device with a
suspension bridge fjord crossing
Could the device be combined with a
floating bridge fjord crossing / how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
combining the device with a floating
bridge fjord crossing
Could the device be combined with a
submerged floating tunnel fjord
crossing / how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
combining the device with a
submerged floating tunnel fjord
 110

Source - www.neptunerenewableenergy.com
 111

Company Norwegian Ocean Power AS

Country Norway
Web address norwegianoceanpower.com
Technology Name Pulsus turbine
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
B) Cross-Axis Turbine
E) Darieus turbine vertical axis
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs
Method to fix the device **
i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base
ii) Pile Mounted i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base
iii) Floating (Flexible Mooring, Rigid (ii) pile mounted is fully conceivable)
Mooring, or Floating structure)
iv) Hydrofoil Inducing Downforce
Is power generated during ebb and
Yes
flood flows
The Pulsus turbine is a very rugged design, it is
designed for produsing power at lower flow speeds
and it only has one moving part. The pulsus turbine
Features / Design principle
is designed from a financial viability standpoint and
has long maintenance & free operating intervalls -
typical 10 years between service
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 6
or TRL 9
Description of any and all prototypes
The turbine has been in development for almost 10
(including test facility used or
years and we have carried out exstensive simulation
location of testing, dates, and hours of
and modeling,
operation)
currently we are building a 1:8 scale turbine for
dynamic load testing that we will conduct this
Next development steps
summer. A pilot powerplant with gridd connection is
the next step after this summers test
Power train type Direct drive generator
The turbines blades covers a sylindrical area, the
Dimensions cylinder diameter and hight varies after the intended
maksimum power produktion at peek flow
Area of current flow used by the
device (m2)
Shroud inlet area for an enclosed tips
turbine Cross section area varies with powerplant size
Swept area of the turbine blades for (600KW) 160 m2 (2,5MW) of 500m2
an unshrouded turbine
Plan form area for a vertical axis
turbine
Weight of super structure (ton) 10-30 ton
Weight of power take off equipment 15-50 ton
 112

(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 17 - 34 meter
Max installation depth (m) any dept if flow conditions are favorable
Design lifetime (years) 30
Cut in speed (m/s) 0.5
Rated flow speed (m/s) 2.6
Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed 600-2500
Maximum flow speed (m/s) 3.6
Current speed (m/s) vs electric power
output (kWe) data points
Estimated date commercially
2014-05
available
Estimated production cost per rated
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
NO
been performed
STUDY OF NORWEGIAN OCEAN POWER
Technical publications VERTICAL AXIS HELICAL BLADES HYDRO
TURBINE Dr. Ion Paraschivoiu
IOPARA Inc.
Figures/photographs of device have
full scale
been attached to reply
Could the device be combined with a
suspension bridge fjord crossing / yes it could be suspended from the bridge
how?
Suspending the turbine from the bridge would
replace the normal seabed floor mooring. The
turbine flow direction is omnidirectional. Simply
Advantages / disadvantages of
suspending it into the water would be sufficient for
combining the device with a
operations. The mooring could be surface based,
suspension bridge fjord crossing
seafloore based or sideways. The turbine spins in the
same direction regardless of flow direction and is
very tolerant of turbulence.
Could the device be combined with a
Same as above
floating bridge fjord crossing / how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
combining the device with a floating Same as above
bridge fjord crossing
Could the device be combined with a Yes - the total available water depth only needs to be
submerged floating tunnel fjord large enough to accomodate the turbine. (larger than
crossing / how? turbine height)
An advantage is that devices positioned deeper will
Advantages / disadvantages of have positive effects on costs, since the
combining the device with a environmental conditions are much more reliable.
submerged floating tunnel fjord A disavantage is that current is often stronger at the
surface.
113
 114

Company Oceanflow Energy Limited

Country UK
Web address www.OceanflowEnergy.com
Technology Name Evopod
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
B) Cross-Axis Turbine
A
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs
Method to fix the device **
i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base
ii) Pile Mounted iii) Floating with flexible mooring (catenary or
iii) Floating (Flexible Mooring, Rigid tension tether)
Mooring, or Floating structure)
iv) Hydrofoil Inducing Downforce
Is power generated during ebb and
Yes
flood flows
Evopod consists of a patented low-motion semi-
submerged floating platform which is modular in
that it can be adapted to support multiple
unshrouded turbine nacelles.

The platform geometry that supports mono or twin

turbines is tethered by a four point spread mooring.
Each fixed pitch turbine is coupled through a step-up
epicyclic gearbox to a variable speed induction or
PM generator controlled by an inverter drive system
to smooth the output power. The four line catenary
mooring system allows the device to swing around
with the tidal stream such that it is always facing
into the flow. The mooring swivel incorporates a
slipring for power export. The mooring lines are
fixed to the seabed by pin pile or gravity anchors.
Features / Design principle
This Evopod solution has been developed for open
sea conditions where the flood and ebb tidal streams
are not perfectly in parallel.

Oceanflow’s multi-turbine support platform for

more sheltered estuarine conditions adopts the same
semi-submerged platform design principles as
Evopod but is moored fore and aft as the current
direction reversals are constrained to 180 degrees by
the geometry of the estuary or channel. The power
train is the same as for Evopod only a full reversing
pitch turbine is incorporated as the platform is
moored on a fixed heading. The platform layout
allows for access and removal of individual turbines
for maintenance. The platform is moored fore and
aft to the seabed by multi-line mooring system.
 115

Either catenary or tension tether mooring solutions

can be employed. Tension tethers have the
advantage of constraining platform motions but
require larger capacity pile anchors to resist uplift
forces.
Development status *** Turbine generator system: TRL 7
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 Evopod mono-turbine support platform: TRL 7
or TRL 9 Multi-turbine support platform: TRL 3
1:40 scale models of the mono and twin turbine units
have undergone performance, mooring and
survivability tests at Newcastle and Strathclyde
Universities flume and wave tanks between 2006
and 2009.
Description of any and all prototypes
(including test facility used or
A 1:10 scale fully functional device, including the
location of testing, dates, and hours of
full mooring system, has been in field testing in the
operation)
tidal flows of Strangford Narrows, Northern Island,
since 2008. The device is now grid-connected. The
unit has also been used by Queen’s University
Belfast and Edinburgh University for turbine wake
field analysis trials since 2009.
A 1:4 scale device is under construction for
deployment in 2012 in Sanda Sound, South Kintyre,
Scotland including grid connection. This unit has a
rated output of 35kW and is termed our E35 unit.
This is an open-ocean site, so the full effects of
waves and storms will form part of the device testing
Next development steps
phase.

A full scale 1MW turbine is also being designed for

deployment in a scaled up Evopod platform. This
unit is expected to be under test at a site in Scottish
waters by 2014.
Turbine is coupled through a step-up epicyclic
Power train type gearbox to a variable speed induction or PM
generator controlled by an inverter drive.
Evopod E35, the 1:4 scale prototype, has a single
nacelle and a turbine of 4.5m diameter. Its linear
dimensions are length: 13m, beam: 4.5m, height:
Dimensions
8m, displacement: 13 tonnes. The 4-point spread
mooring has anchor points on the seabed at each
corner of an approximate 300m x 50m rectangle
Area of current flow used by the
device (m2)
Shroud inlet area for an enclosed tips
turbine
Swept area of the turbine blades for Dimensions given below are for E35 unit and E1000
an unshrouded turbine unit
Plan form area for a vertical axis
turbine 20.3 / 201
 116

Weight of super structure (ton) 10.4 / 65

Weight of power take off equipment
2.6 / 8
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 16 / 50
Max installation depth (m) No limit
Design lifetime (years) 20
Cut in speed (m/s) 0.7
Rated flow speed (m/s) 2.3 / 3.6
Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed 35 / 1000
Maximum flow speed (m/s) 3.2 / 4.1
Current speed (m/s) vs electric power
See below
output (kWe) data points
Estimated date commercially
available 2012 (for 35kW unit) / 2014 (for 1MW unit)
Evopod estimated unit costs quoted below include
cost of device, moorings, power export and control
systems, grid connection and total system
installation
Estimated production cost per rated
• €5000/kW installed (single unit rated at 35kW)
unit (EUR)
• €2500/kW installed (multiple units each rated at
1MW for a 50MW farm)
• €1200/kW installed (Costs of 1MW turbines and
power generation nacelle only for integration into an
available support structure for fjord crossing
Yes

An Assessment of Significance of Environmental

Impact was carried out by an independent body for
the Strangford Narrows deployment prior to
obtaining approval to deploy from the Northern
Have environmental impact studies
Ireland Environmental Agency.
been performed
An Environmental Impact Assessment has been
submitted to the Scottish regulatory authority
(Marine Scotland) for the Sanda Sound deployment.
Environmental baseline surveys have been carried
out and post installation monitoring will be ongoing.
Development of Evopod Tidal Stream Turbine, G
Technical publications Mackie, RINA Marine Renewable Energy
Conference, London November 2008.
Figures/photographs of device have
Embedded in this document
been attached to reply
No, as the normal height of a suspension bridge
above the waterline would make it a health and
Could the device be combined with a
safety risk to passing vessels if mooring lines
suspension bridge fjord crossing /
attached to turbine units were deployed from the
how?
suspension bridge to the waterline. In addition the
lateral loads transmitted by the not insignificant drag
 117

forces of the turbine would change the design basis

for a typical box girder suspension bridge by
introducing excessive lateral loads.

See H&S risk referred to above. Also significant

Advantages / disadvantages of capital would need to be spent to reinforce an
combining the device with a existing bridge, or upgrade plans for a proposed
suspension bridge fjord crossing bridge, in order to cope with the drag force imposed
on the structure by the Evopod platform.
Yes, this is a preferred solution.
Oceanflow’s multi-turbine support platform could be
used as the support structure for a roadway. The
semi-submerged turbine support platform with its
streamline vertical struts would be an ideal structure
for spanning a fjord. The platforms would be tension
tethered to the seabed (see illustration). The turbines
Could the device be combined with a operate in channels between the vertical struts and
floating bridge fjord crossing / how? can be removed for maintenance without disrupting
the use of the roadway. The semi-submerged
platform can be constructed in steel or reinforced
concrete. It would be feasible to incorporate a
section without turbines and with raised bridges to
allow small vessels to pass through. The pictures
below are for a floating river bridge crossing but
could be adapted for a longer fjord crossing.
 118

Advantages:

A floating bridge structure, being close to the

waterline, is ideal for reacting the drag loads from a
submerged tidal turbine.

It is possible that flow speed could be higher in the

areas between the bridge support structure, therefore
enhancing the power density of the tidal stream at
these locations. The blockage effect of multiple
turbines could also create a small pressure head
difference across the turbines which would increase
energy recovery. This could make a floating bridge
more attractive economically, because the power
Advantages / disadvantages of rating of each device could be higher for a given
combining the device with a floating cross sectional area of water.
bridge fjord crossing
The bridge structure simplifies machinery access and
power export.

Disadvantages:
The turbines will increase the drag load on the
floating bridge and will thus necessitate stronger
moorings. However the facility will exist to park the
turbine blades, which would significantly reduce
turbine drag forces and could be used to limit
mooring loadings under extreme environmental
conditions.
Yes, provided the design of the tunnel was such that
the drag force would not compromise the safety of
the tunnel.
Could the device be combined with a Yes, provided the design of the tunnel was such that
submerged floating tunnel fjord the drag force would not compromise the safety of
crossing / how? the tunnel.
In an area where the tidal flow is sufficiently strong
to make power generation attractive it will also be
the case that the drag on a submerged tunnel will be
very significant and will most likely rule out this
option as a fjord crossing.
Advantages / disadvantages of
combining the device with a
It would be feasible to tie-off Evopod units to a
submerged floating tunnel fjord
submerged tunnel structure, effectively using the
tunnel structure as an artificial seabed. The tunnel
submergence would have to be sufficient so that it
did not disturb the flow feeding into the tidal
turbine.

35kW unit rated for 1000kW unit rated

Current Speed (m/s) a flow speed of for a flow speed of
2.3m/s 3.6m/s
 119

Electric Power Electric Power

Output (kWe) Output (kWe)
0.6 0 (insufficient flow) 0 (insufficient flow)
0.7 1 12
0.8 1.5 18
0.9 2.1 26
1 2.9 36
1.1 3.8 48
1.2 4.9 62
1.3 6.3 79
1.4 7.8 99
1.5 10 122
1.6 12 148
1.7 14 177
1.8 17 210
1.9 20 247
2 23 289
2.1 26 334
2.2 30 384
2.3 35 439
2.4 39 499
2.5 45 564
2.6 50 634
2.7 32 710
2.8 36 792
2.9 40 880
3 44 974
3.1 49 1074
3.2 53 1182
0 (turbine shut
3.3 1296
down)
3.4 0 1418
3.5 0 889
3.6 0 962
3.7 0 1044
3.8 0 1131
3.9 0 1222
4 0 1319
4.1 0 1420
 120

0 (turbine shut
4.2 0
down)
121
 122

Company Ocean Renewable Power Company

Country United States
Web address www.orpc.co
Technology Name TidGen™, OCGen™
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
B
B) Cross-Axis Turbine
(Turbine is a cross flow tubine, with the axis
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil
oriented horizontally)
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs
Method to fix the device **
i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base
ii) Pile Mounted
(i)TidGen™ (iii) OCGen™
iii) Floating (Flexible Mooring, Rigid
Mooring, or Floating structure)
iv) Hydrofoil Inducing Downforce
Is power generated during ebb and
Yes
flood flows
ORPC's TidGen technology involves ORPC's
patented TGU and a bottom support frame which
provides structural support and holds it in place
above the sea floor. The TGU is comprised of two
Features / Design principle
proprietary advanced design crossflow turbines that
drive a permanent magnet generator on a common
drive shaft with equal efficiency on ebb and flood
tides.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TidGen™- TRL 7/8, OCGen- TRL4
or TRL 9
1:30 scale models (multiples) tested in University of
Maine tow tank

1:10 scale model was tested during the ORPC

Description of any and all prototypes
Demonstration Project
(including test facility used or
location of testing, dates, and hours of
1:3 scale model tested during ORPC Beta TGU
operation)
Project

A full scale unit is now being installed in Lubec,

Maine, USA
Commercial deployment of TidGen™ Device in
Next development steps
Eastport, Maine in March 2012.
Power train type Direct drive generator
Dimensions
The overal length of the unit is 33m, height of 10m.
 123

Area of current flow used by the

device (m2)
Shroud inlet area for an enclosed tips
turbine
Swept area of the turbine blades for
an unshrouded turbine
Plan form area for a vertical axis
turbine
Weight of super structure (ton) 80
Weight of power take off equipment
34.5
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) None
Max installation depth (m) 45/
Design lifetime (years) 20
Cut in speed (m/s) 0.5
Rated flow speed (m/s) 3.0
Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed 180kW
Maximum flow speed (m/s) 4.0
Current speed (m/s) vs electric power
n/a publicly
output (kWe) data points
Estimated date commercially
2012
available
Estimated production cost per rated
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
Yes
been performed
Viehman, H. (2011, November). Field evaluation of
fish interactions with a commercial scale marine
hydrokinetic device.
Siegel, E. (2011, November). Using a forward
looking acoustic doppler current profiler for turbine
optimization and control.
Maynard, M. (2011, November). The complexity of
seabed investigations and foundation selection for
high tidal energy environments: a case study from
the ORPC Cobscook Bay TidGen™ Power System
Project.
Technical publications
Urbina, R. (2011, November). Modeling and
validation of a cross flow turbine using free vortex
model and modified dynamic stall model.
Laoulache, R. (2011, November). Analysis of a
vertical axis turbine using computational fluid
dynamics at low and high solidities.
Viehman, H., and G. Zydlewski, J. McCleave, and
G. Staines (2012, January). Fishes and tidal power
development in Cobscook Bay. Paper presented at
2012 Research Forum: Atlantic Salmon and Their
Ecosystems, Bangor, ME.
Figures/photographs of device have Yes
 124

been attached to reply

Could the device be combined with a
suspension bridge fjord crossing / Potentially in between the foundation piles
how?
The design of the bridge is a permitted structure
which may not allow for attachement of additional
structures.

The addition of turbine loads to a suspension bridge

Advantages / disadvantages of is novel. Dynamic loads on suspension bridges are
combining the device with a potentially important. Resonance of the bridge
suspension bridge fjord crossing structure is an issue. Turbuelence induced loads on
the turbine may incite oscillating loads on the bridge
structure.
ORPC is unclear as to how this project will receive a
permit and who will perform the structural
calculations for the bridge
Could the device be combined with a
See above
floating bridge fjord crossing / how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
combining the device with a floating See above
bridge fjord crossing
Yes.
Could the device be combined with a
The addition of a fixed bottom mounted structure is
submerged floating tunnel fjord
more analytical tractable than a floating or
crossing / how?
suspension bridge.
The main advantage is that it would be cheaper to
install the device because an attachment point could
be designed into the tunnel geometry, which saves
time and money that is spent in a traditional
Advantages / disadvantages of
installation attaching the mooring lines to the
combining the device with a
seabed.
submerged floating tunnel fjord
The disadvantage again would be the additional
horizontal load on the supporting structure caused by
reacting the force absorbed by the device.
 125

Source - www.orpc.co
 126

Company Tidal Energy Pty Ltd

Country AUSTRALIA
Web address http://tidalenergy.com.au/
Technology Name Davidson-Hill Venturi Turbine
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
B) Cross-Axis Turbine
Cross-Axis Venturi Turbine
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs
Method to fix the device **
i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base Seabed
ii) Pile Mounted Pile
iii) Floating (Flexible Mooring, Rigid Floating
Mooring, or Floating structure) Site dependent
iv) Hydrofoil Inducing Downforce
Is power generated during ebb and
Yes
flood flows
One (1) shrouded turbine
with a single rotor efficiency of
60% water to wire conversion
Features / Design principle
- world record holder. Swivel base
allows generation on
flood/ebb/river or ocean currents.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 Commencing mass production
or TRL 9
Proof of Concept - passed
Description of any and all prototypes
Small prototype - passed
(including test facility used or
Commercial scale up - passed
location of testing, dates, and hours of
Canada "BETA" tested - passed
operation)
All reports available upon request.
Development complete - mass
Next development steps production phase set to
commence 2012.
Power train type Shaft/rim or direct drive
1.5 x 1.5 m rotor (up to 120kW*)
2.4 x 2.4 m rotor (up to 300kW*)
5 x 5 m rotor (up to 1.3 MW*)
Dimensions
7 x 7 m rotor (up to 2.7 MW*)
10 x 10 m rotor (up to 5.5 MW*)
* 6m/s velocity
Area of current flow used by the
device (m2)
Shroud inlet area for an enclosed tips As above
turbine
Swept area of the turbine blades for
 127

an unshrouded turbine
Plan form area for a vertical axis
turbine

Weight of super structure (ton) varies

Weight of power take off equipment
varies
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 2 x rotor diameter
Max installation depth (m) >100m
Design lifetime (years) 25 years
Cut in speed (m/s) immediate start from standstill
Rated flow speed (m/s) up to 12 m/s
Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed as above
Maximum flow speed (m/s) up to 12 m/s
Current speed (m/s) vs electric power
http://tidalenergy.com.au/faq.html
output (kWe) data points
Estimated date commercially
2012
available
Estimated production cost per rated
from AU$125,000 (100kW)
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
Supported by QLD Australia EPA
been performed
Technical publications Available upon request
Figures/photographs of device have
http://tidalenergy.com.au/faq.html
been attached to reply
Could the device be combined with a
suspension bridge fjord crossing / Possibly
how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
combining the device with a
suspension bridge fjord crossing
Could the device be combined with a Cantilever or cable to the
floating bridge fjord crossing / how? shore
Advantages / disadvantages of
combining the device with a floating Pure speculation
bridge fjord crossing
Could the device be combined with a
submerged floating tunnel fjord As above
crossing / how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
combining the device with a Unknown
submerged floating tunnel fjord
 128

Source - http://tidalenergy.com.au/
 129

Company Tidal Generation Limited

Country UK
Web address www.tidalgeneration.co.uk
Technology Name TGL 1MW Turbine
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
B) Cross-Axis Turbine
A)
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs
Method to fix the device **
i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base
ii) Pile Mounted
i)
iii) Floating (Flexible Mooring, Rigid
Mooring, or Floating structure)
iv) Hydrofoil Inducing Downforce
Is power generated during ebb and
Yes
flood flows
Upstream rotor, three variable pitch blades, yaws to
face the tide, outputs grid compliant power.
Features / Design principle
Buoyant nacelle for rapid low cost deployment.
Lightweight tripod foundation pinned to seabed
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL6
or TRL 9
500kW concept demonstrator installed at EMEC
Description of any and all prototypes (European Marine Energy Centre) in September
(including test facility used or 2010 and exported 215 MWh to the grid up to
location of testing, dates, and hours of March 2012. Achieved extended periods (up to 4
operation) weeks) of continuous automated and remote
controlled operation.
1MWe device is under construction at present and
due for deployment in Q3 2012. It will then undergo
a 2 year test programme gathering device and
environmental impact data. This device will achieve
Next development steps
TRL7. Beyond this TGL are negotiating to install a
small demonstration array of 5 or more 1MWe
devices and these will be under pre-commercial
terms and deliver TRL8.
Power train type Step-up gearbox and induction generator
Turbine nacelle is 20.5m long, 3.5m diameter, 5.3m
Dimensions high (max. dimension) with 18.2m blade swept
diameter. Structure is 16m high.
Area of current flow used by the
device (m2)
Shroud inlet area for an enclosed tips
254m2
turbine
Swept area of the turbine blades for
an unshrouded turbine
 130

Plan form area for a vertical axis

turbine

Weight of super structure (ton) 100 approx.

Weight of power take off equipment
150
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 40
Max installation depth (m) 80
Design lifetime (years) 30
Cut in speed (m/s) 1.0
Rated flow speed (m/s) 2.7
Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed 1,000
5.0 m/s (site and wave dependent, may be lower than
Maximum flow speed (m/s)
this)
Current speed (m/s) vs electric power
output (kWe) data points
Estimated date commercially
2016
available
Estimated production cost per rated
N/A
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
In progress at EMEC
been performed
Technical publications N/A
Figures/photographs of device have
Refer to TGL website
been attached to reply
Could the device be combined with a
The current TGL device is not suited to this
suspension bridge fjord crossing /
requirement.
how?
The TGL device is designed to be mounted on a
rigid structure attached to the sea bed. It has a
deployment and retrieval method based on a buoyant
nacelle which again assumes a structure that is
Advantages / disadvantages of
underneath the turbine. To allow the turbine to be
combining the device with a
suspended from a bridge would require considerable
suspension bridge fjord crossing
modification. In fact there may well be other
technical solutions that would make the turbine
lower cost as the turbine could be “hung” under a
rigid support from a suspension bridge.
Could the device be combined with a The current TGL device is not suited to this
floating bridge fjord crossing / how? requirement.
The TGL device is designed to be mounted on a
rigid structure attached to the sea bed. It has a
deployment and retrieval method based on a buoyant
Advantages / disadvantages of
nacelle which again assumes a structure that is
combining the device with a floating
underneath the turbine. To allow the turbine to be
bridge fjord crossing
suspended from a bridge would require considerable
modification. In fact there may well be other
technical solutions that would make the turbine
 131

lower cost as the turbine could be “hung” under a

rigid support connected to a floating bridge.

Could the device be combined with a

The current TGL device could be adapted to this
submerged floating tunnel fjord
requirement.
crossing / how?
The TGL device is designed to be mounted on a
rigid structure attached to the sea bed. It has a
deployment and retrieval method based on a buoyant
Advantages / disadvantages of nacelle which again assumes a structure that is
combining the device with a underneath the turbine. A submerged floating tunnel
submerged floating tunnel fjord could be treated as the “sea bed” and a structure
could be designed to which the TGL turbine could
be attached. The turbine would need to be above the
bridge rather than below.

Source - www.tidalgeneration.co.uk
 132

Company Tidal Sails AS

Country Norway
Web address www.tidalsails.com
Technology Name TidalSails
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
B) Cross-Axis Turbine
E
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs
Method to fix the device **
i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base
ii) Pile Mounted
iii
iii) Floating (Flexible Mooring, Rigid
Mooring, or Floating structure)
iv) Hydrofoil Inducing Downforce
Is power generated during ebb and
flood flows
Linearly moving sail profiles travelling a triangular
track
Features / Design principle with several hundred meter legs, attached to a rope
belt
rotating large sheaves driving generators.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8
or TRL 9
Several prototypes tested in Haugesund since 2007,
Description of any and all prototypes
Balder Demonstration via Eurostars project fall of
(including test facility used or
2011,
location of testing, dates, and hours of
Full skale engineering ongoing for deployment
operation)
primo 2013
Tidal Sails Ocean Energy Test Center,
Next development steps Skjoldastraumen in Tysvær, up to 3m/s 30 minutes
east of Haugesund
Power train type Direct PMG 3-10MW
Dimensions Up to 500 meter legs, up to 500 sails, 10 x1m
Area of current flow used by the
device (m2)
Shroud inlet area for an enclosed tips
turbine
Up to 10 000
Swept area of the turbine blades for
an unshrouded turbine
Plan form area for a vertical axis
turbine
Weight of super structure (ton) Up to 200
Weight of power take off equipment
Up to 100
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 10 (Floating version)
 133

Max installation depth (m) Unlimited, Max for Tidal Sails Vertical: 500m
Design lifetime (years) 20 plus
Cut in speed (m/s) 1
Rated flow speed (m/s) 2
Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed 10000
16, Of course with much smaller sails and shorter
Maximum flow speed (m/s)
legs!!! 1
Current speed (m/s) vs electric power
output (kWe) data points
Estimated date commercially
Late fall of 2013
available
Estimated production cost per rated
M6-10€
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
Yes
been performed
Technical publications DnV
Figures/photographs of device have
been attached to reply
Could the device be combined with a
Yes, the standing configuration shown in the figure
suspension bridge fjord crossing /
could be mounted to a floating bridge fjord crossing
how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
Nice view with LED lights on each sail from the
combining the device with a
deep;-)
suspension bridge fjord crossing
Could the device be combined with a Yes, the standing configuration shown in the figure
floating bridge fjord crossing / how? could be mounted to a floating bridge fjord crossing
Advantages / disadvantages of
combining the device with a floating ?
bridge fjord crossing
Could the device be combined with a
Yes, the standing configuration shown in the figure
submerged floating tunnel fjord
could be mounted to a floating bridge fjord crossing
crossing / how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
combining the device with a ?
submerged floating tunnel fjord

Electric Power
Current Speed (m/s) Output (kWe)
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1 1000
1.2
1.3 5000
1.4
 134

1.5 8000
1.6
1.7 10000
1.8
1.9
2 10000
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
 135

Company TideTec AS
Country Norway
Web address wwe.tidetec.no
Technology Name TideTec energibru konsept
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
B) Cross-Axis Turbine D) Turnable Kaplan-type turbine patented by
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil TideTec
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs
Method to fix the device **
i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base
Turbine mounted in bridge structure that are seabed
ii) Pile Mounted
mounted, but turbines may also be mounted in
iii) Floating (Flexible Mooring, Rigid
floating bridge.
Mooring, or Floating structure)
iv) Hydrofoil Inducing Downforce
Is power generated during ebb and
Yes
flood flows
Turnable +/- 180 degrees around the vertical axis.
According to University of Liverpool report: This
provides up to 56% added power production
compared to traditional single-direction Kaplan
turbines. Pre-fabricated seabed mounted concrete
Features / Design principle sections makes the foundation for bridge and
turbines and focuses the tidal currents into the
turbines. An option for wave energy on the same
turbines is also patented. See:
http://tidetec.com/?page_id=180

Development status ***

TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL3- 4
or TRL 9
Description of any and all prototypes
Planned TRL4-5 project for testing and proof of
(including test facility used or
concept in Narvik. See attached note "Energibru
location of testing, dates, and hours of
Narvik"
operation)
Testing scale model in laboratory. Modelling and
Next development steps calculating of costs etc. Se attached note: "Energibru
Narvik"
Power train type Mechanical gear to high speed standard generator
Turbine diameter adjusted for locations but normal
Dimensions
diameter beetween 5-10 meters
Area of current flow used by the
device (m2)
Shroud inlet area for an enclosed tips
turbine Depends on the locations. See example Narvik
Swept area of the turbine blades for
an unshrouded turbine
Plan form area for a vertical axis
 136

turbine

Weight of super structure (ton)

Weight of power take off equipment
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) approx. 8-10 m
Seabed mounted bridge: Not yet decided. Floating
Max installation depth (m)
bridge: unlimited.
Design lifetime (years)
Cut in speed (m/s)
Rated flow speed (m/s)
Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed
Maximum flow speed (m/s)
Current speed (m/s) vs electric power
output (kWe) data points
Estimated date commercially
available
Estimated production cost per rated
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
yes
been performed
Technical publications see attached "høringsuttalelse fra Tidetec…"
Figures/photographs of device have
see attached "høringsuttalelse fra Tidetec…"
been attached to reply
Could the device be combined with a
suspension bridge fjord crossing / no
how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
combining the device with a
suspension bridge fjord crossing
Could the device be combined with a
yes
floating bridge fjord crossing / how?
Advantages / disadvantages of This is an interesting possibility, but much testing
combining the device with a floating and proofing remains. Especially interesting to
bridge fjord crossing combine TideTec turbines with waves.
Could the device be combined with a
submerged floating tunnel fjord no
crossing / how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
combining the device with a
submerged floating tunnel fjord
137
 138

Tocardo International BV - Hydropower from

Company
Holland
Country Netherlands
Web address www.tocardo.com
Technology Name Tocardo T100, Tocardo T200
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
B) Cross-Axis Turbine Free flow, horizontal axes, direct drive generator,
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil fixed pitch (bi-directional) blades.
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs
Method to fix the device **
Multiple ways:
i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base
- Floating (flexible or rigid moored platform)
ii) Pile Mounted
- Bottom mounted (gravity based, pile based)
iii) Floating (Flexible Mooring, Rigid
- Retro fitted to existing structures (bridges,
Mooring, or Floating structure)
barrages, dames, tunnels etc.)
iv) Hydrofoil Inducing Downforce
The turbines can be equipped with (patented) bi-
Is power generated during ebb and directional blades which will automatically (without
flood flows the use of a pitching mechanism) flip when the flow
reverses.
Tocardo offers turbines with a rated power of 50,
100, 200 and 500 kW. The 100 and 200 kW turbines
are commercially available.
The focus of the design is on kWh. This means the
turbines are built to be robust and thus need very
Features / Design principle little maintenance. The bi-directional blade enables
the turbines to operate in bi-directional flows
without the need of vulnerable pitching mechanisms.
The turbines are designed to be attached to any kind
of structure, ranging from bridges, barrages, floating
platforms to bottom mounted.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 Commercially available
or TRL 9
A Tocardo T100 has been installed in Den Oever,
Description of any and all prototypes the Netherlands since 2008 and has been grid
(including test facility used or connected (and delivering power) since then. This is
location of testing, dates, and hours of a demo project which proofs the technology. The
operation) T200 turbine is an up-scaled copy of the T100 using
the same technologies.
Tocardo started to roll out commercial activities and
is now involved in setting up projects in:
- UK
- Scotland
Next development steps
- Canada
- Japan
- USA
- Korea
 139

Power train type Direct drive generator

T100
Turbine:
- Rotor diameter: 6.4 m
- Total length of turbine(incl rotor): 4.38 m
- Nacelle diameter: 1.03 m
Foundation:
- Foundation size depends on the foundation type,
location and the number of turbines attached.
Power cabinet:
- 2.0 x 0.8 x 2.3 m (WxDxH)
Dimensions
T200
Turbine:
- Rotor diameter: 9.2 m
- Total length of turbine(incl rotor): 6 m
- Nacelle diameter 1.40 m
Foundation:
- Foundation size depends on the foundation type,
location and the number of turbines attached.
Power cabinet:
- 2.0 x 1.0 x 2.3 m (WxDxH)

Area of current flow used by the

device (m2)
Shroud inlet area for an enclosed tips
turbine T100 - 32.2 m2
Swept area of the turbine blades for T200 - 66.5 m2
an unshrouded turbine
Plan form area for a vertical axis
turbine
Total weight incl rotor:
Weight of super structure (ton) T100 - 4925 kg
T200 - 11400 kg
Weight of power take off equipment
600 kg
(ton)
Minimum nacelle depth:
Min installation depth (m) T100 - 3.7 m
T200 - 5.1 m
Max installation depth (m) Maximum nacelle depth: 25 m
Design lifetime (years) 20
Cut in speed (m/s) 0.4 m/s
Rated flow speed (m/s) 2 - 4 m/s (adjustable with blade size)
T100 - 43 kW
Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed
T200 - 87 kW
Maximum flow speed (m/s) 4 m/s (survival speed)
Current speed (m/s) vs electric power Please see Appendix for a power curve and rated
output (kWe) data points power table.
 140

Estimated date commercially T100 and T200 are commercially available. Delivery
available time 6-7 months.
T100 - € 242.100
T200 - € 424.600
Estimated production cost per rated
Single turbine, incl rotor and control/electro cabinet,
unit (EUR)
excl foundation/installation cost, FOB Port of
Rotterdam.
A preliminary fish impact study has been done in
Den Oever. No deaths or injuries were recorded
caused by the turbine.
Tocardo is preparing a project in the Oosterschelde
Have environmental impact studies
storm barrage in the south of the Netherlands. All
been performed
(environmental) permits for this project have been
approved by the responsible authorities. An impact
study was done as a basis for the environmental
permits.
No technical publications, as Tocardo is a
Technical publications
commercial company, not a research company.
Figures/photographs of device have
Yes, see rest of the document
been attached to reply
Yes. Turbines van be directly attached to the bridge
pillars or a platform can be attached to the bridge.
Tocardo works together with partners for foundation
Could the device be combined with a
and installation solutions. Tocardo’s partners are:
suspension bridge fjord crossing /
- Rambol
how?
- RES
- SMT
Strukton
Disadvantage:
- Restriction in numbers when attached to pilars (if
pilars are in the water)
- Extra load on bridge pilars or bridge deck. As the
bridge pilars are the strongest parts, the extra load is
neglectible.
Advantages / disadvantages of Advantages:
combining the device with a - Low cost when attached to pilars (foundation is
suspension bridge fjord crossing allready there)
- Connecting to the pilars or the deck can be
included in the bridge design, reducing costs
- No extra space is used for a floating platform when
attached to the pilars
- Easy and cheap connection to the grid using bridge
structure
Yes. Turbines can be (retro) fitted to a floating
bridge. Either by directly attaching them to the parts
of the bridge that are submerged or by mooring a
Could the device be combined with a
platform to the bridge.
floating bridge fjord crossing / how?
Tocardo’s partner, SMT (Sustainable Marine
Technologies), are experts in engineering floating
solutions.
 141

Disadvantage:
- When using a special platform this is more
expensive
- Additional load on the bridge
Advantages / disadvantages of
Advantage:
combining the device with a floating
- The floating parts of the bridge can be used as
bridge fjord crossing
foundation (cost reduction)
- The grid connection can be realized using the
bridge, cost reduction
No extra space is used when attaching to the bridge
Could the device be combined with a Yes, depending on the depth (max 25 m). Turbines
submerged floating tunnel fjord can be directly attached to the tunnel or attached
crossing / how? with mooring lines to a floating platform.
Disadvantage:
- Extra load on the tunnel
- Restrction of depth for the tunnel
Advantages / disadvantages of Advantage:
combining the device with a - When directly attached to the tunnel no extra
submerged floating tunnel fjord foundation is necessary
- Grid connectioncan be realized using the tunnel
The energy generated can be used to supply power
to the tunnel
142
143
144
145
146
147
 148

Company Verdant Power, Inc.

Country U.S. (also Canada, UK & Hong Kong)
Web address www.verdantpower.com
Technology Name Kinetic Hydropwer System (KHPS)
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
B) Cross-Axis Turbine
A
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs
Method to fix the device **
i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base
ii) Pile Mounted i) (gravity and hybrid designs) and ii) (not surface-
iii) Floating (Flexible Mooring, Rigid piercing)
Mooring, or Floating structure)
iv) Hydrofoil Inducing Downforce
Is power generated during ebb and
Yes
flood flows
The KHPS uses a yawing turbine with a fixed-pitch
3 bladed rotor that is scalable from 50 to 500kW,
Features / Design principle
and can be mounted individually on piles, gravity
bases or triframes of 3 turbines.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 7/8
or TRL 9
1/6 scale rotor design tests at US Navy David Taylor
1981, 1982.

3m diameter rotor vessel drag tests in Chesepeake

Description of any and all prototypes and New York East River in 2001 - 2003.
(including test facility used or
location of testing, dates, and hours of 5m diameter rotor; dynamometry and entire turbine
operation) system tests in East River at RITE Project, 2006-
2008, 2.5m/s max.

Grid-connected five-turbine array >70MWh (TRL

7/8)
Testing at our RITE project site in New York City of
the Gen5 commercial turbines in 2012, then buildout
Next development steps to 30 turbines under FERC license.

Scale Gen5 to the 10m-class site-suitedsm systems.

Induction generator - direct grid connection; future
Power train type
direct drive option
Test turbines have 5m diameter rotors, designs to
Dimensions 11m. TriFrame mounting structure starts at 2m
high, 15m x 10m
 149

Area of current flow used by the

device (m2)
Shroud inlet area for an enclosed tips
turbine
19.63m2 (5m) to 78.54m2 (10m)
Swept area of the turbine blades for
an unshrouded turbine
Plan form area for a vertical axis
turbine
Weight of super structure (ton) 50mt to 200mt (TriFrame mounting)
Weight of power take off equipment
4.7mt to 14.1 mt (each turbine)
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 8 to 16
Max installation depth (m) 50
Design lifetime (years) 20
Cut in speed (m/s) 0.9 to 0.7
Rated flow speed (m/s) site dependent: 2 to 4
Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed 56kW to 500kW
Maximum flow speed (m/s) site dependent: 2 to 4
Current speed (m/s) vs electric power
see below for 5m dia. and 10m dia. Turbines
output (kWe) data points
Estimated date commercially
2013
available
Estimated production cost per rated
€ 657,165 initial single unit cost for 10m
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
Yes
been performed
Publications can be found at:
www.theriteproject.com
Technical publications
Complete publication list available.
Photos available for download at:
Figures/photographs of device have
www.verdantpower.com and
been attached to reply
www.theriteproject.com
Could the device be combined with a
suspension bridge fjord crossing / Yes, with inverted pylon assembly.
how?
Potential advantages: Avoids bottom charcteristics
and slope issues; potential positioning in most
Advantages / disadvantages of
desirable height in the water column.
combining the device with a
suspension bridge fjord crossing
Potential disadvatages: Coupling of both weight and
drag loads to the bridge; modal stability issues; ice.
Yes, possibly. With a combined floating platform
Could the device be combined with a mount, the bridge would take only extra drag forces,
floating bridge fjord crossing / how? not support the turbine(s) weight. Possible use of
added guys.
 150

Potential advantages: Avoids bottom charcteristics

and slope issues; potential positioning in most
Advantages / disadvantages of
desirable height in the water column.
combining the device with a floating
bridge fjord crossing
Potential disadvatages: Coupling of drag loads to the
bridge; modal stability issues; ice.
Could the device be combined with a
Yes, if the structure is capable of supporting the
submerged floating tunnel fjord
turbine(s) using appropriate adaption.
crossing / how?
Potential advantages: Combined econimics of
sharing other structure; avoids bottom charcteristics
and slope issues; potential positioning in most
Advantages / disadvantages of
desirable height in the water column; convenient
combining the device with a
cabling.
submerged floating tunnel fjord
Potential disadvatages: Coupling of drag loads to
the bridge; modal stability issues; corrosion issues.

Electric Power
Output (kWe) (per
Turbine)
Current Speed (m/s) 5m 10m
0.7 0 5
0.8 2 7
0.9 3 11
1 4 14
1.1 5
1.2 6
1.3 8
1.4 10
1.5 12 49
1.6 15
1.7 18
1.8 21
1.9 25
2 29 115
2.1 33
2.2 38
2.3 44
2.4 50
2.5 56 225
2.6 63
2.7 71
2.8 79
2.9 85
3 85 389
 151

3.1 85 429
3.2 85 472
3.3 85 500
3.4 85 500
3.5 85 500

Source - www.verdantpower.com
 152

Voith Hydro Ocean Current Technologies GmbH &

Company
Co. KG
Country Germany
Web address http://www.voithhydro.com
Technology Name HyTide
Device Type **
A) Horizontal Axis Turbine
B) Cross-Axis Turbine
A
C) Oscillating Hydrofoil
D) Enclosed Tips (Venturi)
E) Other Designs
Method to fix the device **
i) Seabed Mounted/Gravity Base
Device can be intergrated in several types of
ii) Pile Mounted
foundation. Experience so far with monopile and
iii) Floating (Flexible Mooring, Rigid
gravity
Mooring, or Floating structure)
iv) Hydrofoil Inducing Downforce
Is power generated during ebb and
Yes
flood flows
The Voith HyTide is designed under the main
principle of robustness and simplicity. The
technology needs to provide a low-maintenance
plant in order to minimize expensive offshore
operations for maintenance and repair work.
Therefore the basic principle is to keep complex
systems and components out of the turbine and to
focus on simple, robust and reliable technology. To
address this challenge the consortium has selected
the Voith Hy Tide 1000 turbine with the following
key-features:
1. Direct drive, gearbox-free coupling and a
generator with permanent magnet excitation
2. Three-bladed rotor with symmetric blades and
variable speed for operation in the two main
Features / Design principle directions of the tidal flow, avoiding failure-prone
pitch and yaw requirements
3. Elimination of grease through seawater
lubrication bearing technology, ensuring
environmentally friendly operation

The small number of components lead to a robust

turbine and thus to presumably lower life cycle costs
of a tidal power plant consisting of multiple of these
turbines.

The Voith Hy-Tide 1000 Turbine generator works as

an electrical motor to start the turbine from a defined
minimum of the tidal speed and as well as the
turbine brake. The bearings need no sealing against
the external medium sea water. Instead it uses sea
 153

water itself for setting up a lubricating

hydrodynamic film. Thus complex measures for
sealing and periphery such as leakage water pumps
are not required. The machine is protected by proven
protective coatings and sacrificial anodes from
corrosion and maritime fouling.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 7/8
or TRL 9
In early 2011 Voith Hydro Ocean Current
Technologies GmbH has successfully installed, grid-
connected, commissioned and tested a prototype
scale tidal turbine at Jindo in South Korea. The 1:3
scale prototype has a rated power of 110 kW and is
fixed on a concrete gravity based foundation.

Parallel to this prototype development Voith Hydro

has started to develop a 1 MW full scale pre
commercial test device which will be ready for
installation in late summer 2012. The monopile
foundation has been installed already in summer
2011 at the European Marine Energy Center, using a
revolutionary environmental friendly subsea drilling
technology. The drill unit has been operated from a
Description of any and all prototypes special offshore construction vessel that is using
(including test facility used or Voith Schneider propulsion units to keep in position.
location of testing, dates, and hours of In early 2011 Voith Hydro Ocean Current
operation) Technologies GmbH has successfully installed, grid-
connected, commissioned and tested a prototype
scale tidal turbine at Jindo in South Korea. The 1:3
scale prototype has a rated power of 110 kW and is
fixed on a concrete gravity based foundation.

Parallel to this prototype development Voith Hydro

has started to develop a 1 MW full scale pre
commercial test device which will be ready for
installation in late summer 2012. The monopile
foundation has been installed already in summer
2011 at the European Marine Energy Center, using a
revolutionary environmental friendly subsea drilling
technology. The drill unit has been operated from a
special offshore construction vessel that is using
Voith Schneider propulsion units to keep in position.
Next step will be to test the technology in a
Next development steps park/array configuration with several units of at least
3
Power train type Direct drive generator
1MW unit:
Length of nacelle 17 m
Dimensions
Rotor diameter varaing according to flow
caracteristics from 13-16 m
 154

Area of current flow used by the

device (m2)
Shroud inlet area for an enclosed tips
turbine
201
Swept area of the turbine blades for
an unshrouded turbine
Plan form area for a vertical axis
turbine
Weight of super structure (ton) 90 (1MW)
Weight of power take off equipment
200 (1MW)
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 25 (absolute min 20 for smaller rotor) (1MW)
Max installation depth (m) 60 (1MW)
Design lifetime (years) 20 (1MW)
Cut in speed (m/s) 1
Rated flow speed (m/s) 2.9
Rated power (kW) at rated flow speed 1000
Maximum flow speed (m/s) 5
Current speed (m/s) vs electric power
See below
output (kWe) data points
Estimated date commercially
2012-08
available
Estimated production cost per rated
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
Yes
been performed
Tidal Current Energy Converter: On the challenge of
effective and comprehensive characterization of
complex met-ocean conditions and combinations
thereof in a Basis of Design, Hydrovision,
Sacramento, California, USA
2011 Arlitt, R.: Third Party Verification:
Assessments, Certification, Classification and
Marine Warranty Survey of a Tidal Project,
Hydrovision, Sacramento, California, USA
2011 Arlitt, R.: Tidal Current Energy Projects Due
Diligence: Energy Extraction Modelling, All-
Energy, Aberdeen, UK
Technical publications
2011 Biskup F., Daus P., Arlitt R., Auslegung und
Evaluierung eines Rotordesigns für
Gezeitenströmungsanlagen, 5. Deutsche
Meeresenergieforum, Dresden
2011 Daus P., Sepri M., Biskup F., Arlitt R.,
Methoden zur Ermittlung und Bewertung von
Standortdaten für die Nutzung der
Gezeitenströmungsenergie, 5. Deutsche
Meeresenergieforum, Dresden
2010 Arlitt, R.: Meeresenergie – Energieformen,
Stand der Technologie, Entwicklungsperspektiven,
„ENERGIE“, Vortragsreihe Thema Energie des
 155

Studiengangs Bauingenieurwesen
2010 Arlitt R.: A New Case Study in Tidal Current
Resource Monitoring, Analysis and Modelling, 4th
International Tidal Energy Summit & Awards,
London
2010 Arlitt R.: How to Overcome Real Tidal
Technology and Engineering Challenges, Panelist,
4th International Tidal Energy Summit & Awards,
London
2010 Arlitt R., Argyriadis K.: Certification of Tidal
Current Power Plants, International Conference on
Ocean Energie 2010, Bilbao
2010 Arlitt R.: Resource Assessment of Tidal
Current Flows and its consequences on power plant
technology, Hydro Vision 2010, Charlotte
Convention Center – Charlotte, NC USA

2010 Arlitt R.: Fortschritte in der Nutzung der

Wellen- und Gezeitenströmungsenergie, Vorlesung
Meeresenergien, Hochschule Biberach, Biberach
2010 Arlitt R.: Meeresenergieprojekte bei Voith
Hydro, 3. Deutsches Meeresenergieforum, 25-26.
März 2010, Haus der Wissenschaften, Bremen
2010 Arlitt R.: Wellenenergie,
Gezeitenströmungsenergie, Lecture Ocean Energies,
TU Hamburg-Harburg

2009 Arlitt R.: Resources Assessment of Tidal

Current Flows and implications to tidal current
power plants, 33rd International Association of
Hydraulic Engineering & Research (IAHR) Biennial
Congress, Vancouver, British-Columbia, Canada
Figures/photographs of device have
Yes
been attached to reply
Could the device be combined with a
Yes - has to be discussed in detail. Especially on
suspension bridge fjord crossing /
acceptable loads on the bridge crossing.
how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
double use of supoprt structure, accessability and
combining the device with a
ease of cabling and grid connection
suspension bridge fjord crossing
Could the device be combined with a
Yes.
floating bridge fjord crossing / how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
See above on the fixed bridge crossing combination.
combining the device with a floating
Needs investigations in detail.
bridge fjord crossing
Could the device be combined with a
submerged floating tunnel fjord Yes
crossing / how?
Advantages / disadvantages of
See above on the fixed bridge crossing combination.
combining the device with a
Needs investigations in detail
submerged floating tunnel fjord
 156

Electric Power
Current Speed (m/s)
Output (kWe)
0.05 0
0.15 0
0.25 0
0.35 0
0.45 0
0.55 0
0.65 0
0.75 0
0.85 0
0.95 0
1.05 0
1.15 59
1.25 76
1.35 96
1.45 119
1.55 145
1.65 175
1.75 209
1.85 247
1.95 289
2.05 336
2.15 387
2.25 444
2.35 506
2.45 573
2.55 646
2.65 725
2.75 810
2.85 902
2.95 1000
3.05 1000
3.15 1000
3.25 1000
3.35 1000
3.45 1000
3.55 1000
3.65 1000
3.75 1000
3.85 1000
3.95 1000
4.05 1000
4.15 1000
4.25 1000
4.35 1000
4.45 1000
4.55 1000
 157

4.65 1000
4.75 1000
4.85 1000
4.95 1000
5.05 1000
 158

Appendix 4: WEC device request for

information
 159

Dear Sir or Madam:

SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden has been commissioned by the

Norwegian Public Roads Administration in a project that will potentially utilize a
large number of wave energy conversion devices. We are currently in the process of
performing a technology survey to determine the capabilities and characteristics of
the different devices that are being developed. Upon review of the information
available on the internet it seems that your technology is potentially promising for
our application. We have developed a short questionnaire that we are asking all
companies of interest to fill out in order to have an up-to-date basis for comparison
of the different technologies. We would appreciate it if you could take the time to fill
out the table below and send it back to me before February 3, 2012. If any of the
information is not currently available then simply state that in your reply. A fictional
sample reply is provided for your convenience and more information about some of
the questions is given in the information below. I have also attached a copy of the
questionnaire in excel format if you have any problems with the formatting of the
table in the email when you reply.

For more information about the background of the project itself, please see the
information below*. The results of this technology survey will be presented as part
the workshop/conference scheduled for April 2012 (probably in Trondheim,
Norway).

If you have any questions about the questionnaire or if you would like more detailed
information about the project then feel free to contact me by replying to this email or
calling at the number given below.

Best regards,

Daniel

Daniel Vennetti

SP Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut

SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden
Byggnadsteknik och Mekanik/Buildning Technology
and Mechanics
Box 857, SE-501 15 Borås, Sweden
Tel: +46 (0)10 516 50 00, (direct) +46 (0)10 516 57 83
E-post: daniel.vennetti@sp.se
Internet: www.sp.se
 160

Fictional Sample Reply

Company SP - Technical Research Institute of Sweden
Country Sweden
Web address http://www.sp.se/en/Sidor/default.aspx
Technology Name SP Wave Technology
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
A
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs

SP Wave Technology has three platforms

that are attached with hinges and hydraulic
cylinders both above and below the
Features / Design principle
platforms. The up and down motion of the
waves results in high pressure sea water,
which turns a generator.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 or TRL TRL 7/8
9

A 1:10 scale proof-of-concept model was

tested at SP's wave laboratory in Borås
Sweden 2007-10.

A 1:5 scale model including the proposed

mooring system was tested at SP's Big wave
Description of any and all prototypes laboratory in Borås, Sweden 2009-11.
(including test facility used or location of
testing, dates, and hours of operation) A full scale model is currently being tested
including a new and improved mooring
system off the east coast of Borås, Sweden
which has an avg annual wave power density
of 15 kW/m. The full scale model was
deployed 2010-06 and has been generating
power to the grid for over 4000 hours.

We have a spot reserved off the west coast of

Borås, Sweden
Next development steps which has an avg annual wave power density
of 30 kW/m. Testing is expected to begin in
2012-07

Power take off Hydraulic using sea water

 161

Each of the three sections is 10 m wide and

Dimensions has a length of 100 m, for a total length of
300 m.
Centerline device spacing for multiple
75
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) 200
Weight of power take off equipment (ton) 50
Min installation depth (m) 50
Max installation depth (m) 150
Design lifetime (years) 15
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit 1000
Wave energy absorption performance (kW)
(before losses in conversion to electric
See below
power) as a function of significant wave
height and peak wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption
performance (numerical simulations or Numerical simulations
random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially available 2015-01
Estimated production cost per rated unit
5.00E+06
(EUR)
Have environmental impact studies been
Yes (see publications)
performed
The device equipped with a remote operated
survival system. When a storm is
approaching, the device automatically will
detect that it should go into survival mode
Discuss the survivability of the device and
and will be filled with water so that it
whether or not it has been tested.
submerges until the storm has passed. This
system has been tested in the full scale model
that is currently being off the east coast of
Borås Sweden and has worked flawlessly.

Vennetti D. Power predictions of the SP

Wave Technology,. Renewable Energy
Review 2007;5(5)20-50.
Technical publications
Vennetti D. SP Wave Technology
Environmental Impact Study,. Environment
Magazine 2011;2(20)15-35.
Figures/photographs of device have been Yes (not actually true for this fictional
attached to reply example)
Is it possible to combine this device with a
This device is best suited for offshore
fjord crossing that implements a suspension
applications and it would be very difficult to
bridge, floating bridge, or submerged
combine with a fjord crossing structure.
floating tunnel. If so, how?
 162

Fictional Sample Reply

Wave energy conversion absorption performance (kW) as a function of significant
wave height (Hs) and peak wave period (Tp)

Tp (s)
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1000 964 789 822 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1000 900 821 844 700 635 0 0 0 0
Hs (m)

5.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 950 846 856 709 643 533 0 0 0 0

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1000 858 854 708 643 532 525 440 0 0 0
4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1000 845 834 693 631 520 509 425 399 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 821 777 780 659 605 499 481 452 377 315 263 0 0
3.5 0 0 0 0 0 769 757 669 561 525 440 416 347 288 261 219 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 560 565 556 492 457 441 367 305 277 231 192 160 133 0
2.5 0 0 0 0 550 456 468 427 365 307 280 232 193 160 133 112 100 0
2 0 0 0 0 350 320 300 273 260 216 180 149 124 103 85 72 57 0
1.5 0 0 0 250 231 215 191 172 147 121 101 84 69 57 48 40 27 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Your Reply
Wave energy conversion absorption performance (kW) as a function of significant
wave height (Hs) and peak wave period (Tp)

Tp (s)
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
Hs (m)

5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0.13
 163

* Project Background
E39 is a road that is located on the west coast of Norway and extends from
Kristiansand in the south to Trondheim in the north. Currently, a number of ferry
crossings are required to traverse its entire length. The Transport Ministry has given
a mandate for the project “Ferry Free E39” to assess the technological solutions for
the crossing of eight large fjords without ferries. The fjords crossings range from 1.5
km to 25 km in length and have depths up to 1300 m. Proposed solutions for the
crossings that are under consideration consist of suspension bridges, floating bridges,
submerged floating tunnels, and sub-sea rock tunnels. Part of the project is to
consider how the construction of the crossings can be combined with devices that
produce energy from waves, tides, wind and the sun. The idea is that by using the
bridge construction as part of the facility, the costs of the renewable power plants
could be reduced and therefore be more competitive with non-renewable energy
sources. If it is not possible to combine certain technologies with the actual bridge
construction, the possibility will also be considered to install the devices in other
locations, such as offshore.

Questionnaire Information

** Device Type

More information about the classification of device types can be found at the
European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) website at the following address:

http://www.emec.org.uk/wave_energy_devices.asp
 164

*** Development status

The development status of the project should be classified using the following
technology readiness levels, which were obtained from the U.S. department of
energy website at the following address:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/water/hydrokinetic/usingDB.aspx

TRL 1-3: Discovery / Concept Definition / Early Stage Development, Design and
Engineering

TRL 1-2: These are the lowest levels of technology readiness. Scientific research
begins to be translated into applied research and development where basic principles
are observed and reported. Technology concept and application are formulated and
investigated through analytic studies and in-depth investigations of principal design
considerations. This stage is characterized by paper studies, concept exploration, and
planning.

TRL 3: In this stage, active research is initiated, including engineering studies and
laboratory studies to physically validate analytical predictions of separate elements of
the technology.

The purpose of this stage is to evaluate, insofar as possible, the scientific or technical
merit and feasibility of ideas that appear to have commercial potential.

TRL 4: Proof of Concept

In this stage basic technological components of a sub-scale model are integrated to

validate design predictions and system level functionality. The models, or critical
subsystems, are tested in a laboratory environment.

This TRL represents early stage proof-of-concept system or component development,

testing and concept validation. In this stage, critical technology elements are
developed and tested in a laboratory environment. It is envisioned that scale models
will be at 1:10 scale or smaller.

TRL 5/6: System Integration, and Technology Laboratory Demonstration

TRL 5: At this level, basic technological components are fabricated at a scale

relevant to full scale and integrated to establish and verify subsystem and system
level functionality and preparation for testing in a simulated environment.

TRL 6: At this level, representative model or prototype system at a scale relevant to

full scale, which is beyond that of TRL 5, is tested in a relevant environment. This
stage represents a major step up in a technology's demonstrated readiness and risk
mitigation and is the stage leading to open water testing.

At this stage device, system, and subsystem level interfacing/integration testing

represent a vital stage in technology development, and must be demonstrated.
Models should be at a relevant scale (1:1 – 1:5) to reflect the challenges and realities
of the full scale (1:1) system. Model testing is to be performed in a test facility
 165

capable of producing simulated waves/currents and other operational conditions

while monitoring device response and performance. Furthermore, the devices
foundation concept shall be incorporated and demonstrated.

TRL 7/8: Open Water System Testing, Demonstration, and Operation

TRL 7: At this level, the prototype scale components and subsystems are fabricated
and integrated to establish and verify subsystem and system level functionality and
preparation for testing in an open water operational environment to verify expected
operation and fine tune the design prior to deployment in an operational
demonstration project.

TRL 8: At this level, the prototype in its final form (at or near full scale) is to be
tested, and qualified in an open water environment under all expected operating
conditions to demonstrate readiness for commercial deployment in a demonstration
project. Testing should include extreme conditions.

At this stage, the device model scale is expected to be at or near full scale (1:1 – 1:2).
Testing may be initially performed in water at a relatively benign location, with the
expectation that testing then be performed in a fully exposed, open water
environment, where representative operating environments can be experienced. The
final foundation/mooring design shall be incorporated into model testing at this stage.

DOE TRL 9: Commercial-Scale Production / Application

At this stage, the actual, commercial-scale system is proven through successful

mission operations, whereby it is fielded and in-use in commercial application.
This stage represents an in-service application of the technology in its final form and
under mission condition

**** Wave energy absorption performance

The wave energy absorption performance should be based on numerical simulation

or random wave model tests. Useful information about how to convert data that is
characterized by mean zero-crossing period to peak period characterization and how
to extrapolate simulated or tested performance data to other sea states is discussed on
pages 9 and 10 in the EPRI Guidelines for Preliminary Estimation of Power
Production by Offshore Wave Energy Conversion Devices. This can be found at the
following address:

http://oceanenergy.epri.com/attachments/wave/reports/001_WEC_Power_Production
.pdf
 166

Appendix 5: WEC device list of developers

 167

Table A5:1 WEC device developers.

Confirmed Responded
Technology Developer
Contact to RFI

Able Technologies L.L.C. 0 0

AeroVironment Inc 0 0
AlbaTERN 0 0
Applied Technologies
1 1
Company Ltd
Aquamarine Power 0 0
Aquagen Technologies 1 1
Aqua-Magnetics Inc 0 0
Atargis Energy
1 1
Corporation
Atmocean 1 1
AW Energy 1 1
AWS Ocean Energy 0 0
BioPower Systems Pty
1 1
Ltd
Bourne Energy 0 0
Brandl Motor 1 0
Carnegie Wave Energy
0 0
Limited
Checkmate Seaenergy
0 0
UK Ltd.
Columbia Power
0 0
Technologies
Dartmouth Wave Energy 0 0
DEXA WAVE Energy
0 0
Aps
Ecofys 0 0
Ecomerit Technologies 0 0
Embley Energy 0 0
ETYMOL 0 0
Euro Wave Energy 0 0
Float Inc. 0 0
Floating Power Plant A/S 0 0
Fred Olsen Ltd 0 0
GEdwardCook 0 0
Grays Harbor Ocean
0 0
Energy Company
Green Ocean Wave
0 0
Energy
 168

Greencat Renewables 0 0
Hann-Ocean 1 1
HidroFlot SA 0 0
Indian Wave Energy
0 0
Device
Instituto Superior Tecnico 0 0
Intentium AS 1 0
Interproject Service (IPS)
0 0
AB
Kinetic Wave Power 0 0
Langlee Wave Power 0 0
Leancon Wave Energy 0 0
Motor Wave 1 1
Navatek Ltd 0 0
Neptune Renewable
0 0
Energy Ltd
Nodding Beam = Power 0 0
Ocean Energy Industries,
1 1
Inc.
Ocean Energy Ltd 0 0
Ocean Harvesting
1 1
Technologies
Ocean Motion
0 0
International
Ocean Power
0 0
Technologies
Ocean Wave Energy
1 1
Company
Oceanlinx 1 1
Offshore Islands Limited 0 0
Offshore Wave Energy
0 0
Ltd
Ocean Wave and Wind
Energy (OWWE) - 1 1
INNOVAKO
OWC Power 1 0
Pelagic Power AS 0 0
Pelamis Wave Power 1 0
PerpetuWave Power Pty
1 1
Ltd
Pontoon Power 0 0
Protean Energy Limited 0 0
Renewable Energy
1 1
Pumps
Resolute Marine Energy,
1 1
Inc
Sara Ltd 0 0
 169

SDE 1 0
Seabased AB 0 0

SeaNergy 1 0

Sea Power Ltd 1 1

Seatricity 1 1
Seawood Designs Inc 1 1
Straumekraft AS 0 0
Swell Fuel 1 1
Trident Energy Ltd,
1 1
Direct Thrust Designs Ltd
Vigor Wave Energy AB 1 1
Voith Hydro Wavegen 1 1
Wave Dragon 1 0
Wave Energy AS 0 0
Wave Energy Fyn 1 1
Wave Energy
0 0
Technologies Inc.
Wave Star Energy ApS 1 1
Waveberg Development 1 1
WaveBob Limited 0 0
WavePiston 1 1
Waves4Power 1 1
Wello OY 1 1
Weptos 0 0
 170

Appendix 6: WEC device responses

 171

Table A6:1 WEC device basic information.

Rated
Technology Device
Technology Name Country Power
Developer Type
(kW)
Applied
10-
Technologies Float Wave Electric Power Station G Russia
12000
Company Ltd
AquaGen
SurgeDrive B Australia 40000
Technologies
Atargis Energy
Cycloidal Wave Energy Converter G USA 5000
Corporation
Wave Energy/Sequestration
Atmocean B USA 1000
Technology ("WEST")
AW-Energy Oy WaveRoller C Finland 500
BioPower
Systems Pty bioWAVE C Australia 1000
Ltd
Hann-Ocean
Drakoo G Singapore 4-1000
Energy Pte Ltd
MotorWave Hong
MotorWave G 16
group Kong
Ocean Energy 0.5-
WaveSurfer B USA
Industries, Inc. 10000
Ocean
Harvesting 100-
Ocean Harvester B Sweden
Technologies 150
AB
OWWE -
Floating Bridge - Norway -
INNOVAKO
OWWE -
OWWE-Rig E Norway 5000
INNOVAKO
OWWE -
Wave Pump-Rig B Norway -
INNOVAKO
OWECO Ocean
OWEC® Ocean Wave Energy 30-
Wave Energy B USA
Converter 2150
Company
500-
Oceanlinx Ltd greenWAVE/ogWAVE/blueWAVE D Australia
2500
PerpetuWave 850-
Wave Harvester A/B Austrailia
Power Pty Ltd 1500
RESEN
LOPF wave energy buoys B Denmark 300
ENERGY
Resolute
Marine Energy, SurgeWECTM C USA 30
Inc
Sea Power Ltd Sea Power Platform A Ireland 3750
Seatricity Oceanus A/B UK 30-300
Seawood
SurfPower B Canada 300
Designs Inc
 172

Shamil Wind, Wave, Tidal and Deep Sea

G USA 90
Ayntrazi Water Air Conditioning
Trident Energy
Wave Energy technology A UK 40-150
Ltd
Vigor Wave 3-
Vigor Wave Energy Converter G Sweden
Energy AB 100000
Voith Hydro 18.5-
- D Scotland
Wavegen 132
Waveenergyfyn Crestwing G Denmark 200
Wavestar A/S Wave Star B Denmark 600
Waveberg
Waveberg A USA 125
Development
WavePiston 30-
WavePiston G/A Denmark
ApS 1000
W4P
Waves4Power WaveEL-buoy B Sweden 250
AB
Wello Ltd. Penguin G Finland 1000

In the table, the device types are identified as follows: A= Attenuator, B=Floating
point absorber, C=Oscillating wave surge converter, D=Oscillating water column, E
= Overtopping/terminator, F=Submerged pressure differential and G=Other designs.
 173

Company Applied Technologies Company Ltd

Country Russia
Web address www.atecom.ru
Float Wave Electric Power Station
Technology Name
(FWEPS)
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
G: Matched Load
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
The FWEPS concept uses the
advanced approach when the process
of energy conversion is based on
efficient interaction of wave energy
source and oscillatory loading
mechanism intrinsic for the case. The
module of FWEPS is a vertically
oriented, oblong axisymmetrical
capsule‐float located on sea surface.
Inside the capsule there are a
mechanical converter consisting of an
oscillatory system and drive; an
electric generator and energy
accumulator. Under waves effect the
capsule‐float and inner oscillatory
system of a mechanical converter are
Features / Design principle
in continuous oscillatory motion,
while the drive engaged with the
system provides a continuous spin‐up
of an electric generator. Owing to its
peculiarity, the device is matchable
with outer wave space that gives
the most effective mode for energy
taking‐off and sustainable operation
at varying wave harsh conditions.
Depending on the mission it is
possible to develop both a single
modular FWEPS for output power up
to 50 kW and multi‐modular plant
designed for the total electric power
of the order of some dozens of
megawatts.
Development status ***
TRL 4
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 or TRL 9
 174

FWEPS scaled models were tested in

the laboratory and seakeeping basin.
The research has shown that:
• FWEPS using an oscillatory drive as
the main unit enables to be considered
a perspective device for wave energy
conversion to electricity and owing to
its features and arrangement
advantages it can secure the best
condition for effective wave energy
taking‐off.
• The mechanical actuator with an
Description of any and all prototypes (including test
oscillatory system being one of its
facility used or location of testing, dates, and hours
main parts can be effectively used as
of operation)
a drive for an electric generator in the
given type of energy converter.
• The study of FWEPS model
irregular‐sea behavior at Sea States
4…5 numbers performed in the sea
keeping basin with wavemaker has
demonstrated the device survivability
in stormy condition. As a whole the
research has shown that the device is
basically serviceable for effective
wave energy conversion and
survivable in stormy condition.
Phase 1: Development of full scaled
10…50 kW FWEPS module (2.0 ÷
2.5 years).
Next development steps Phase 2: Development of
multimodule grid installation of not
less than two megawatt output power
(3 ÷ 4 years).
Power take off Oscillatory drive‐actuator
The 10 kW FWEPS module of
Dimensions cylindrical shape is of 2.5 m in
diameter and 12 m in length.
It depends on rated power of module
Centerline device spacing for multiple devices (m)
and multimodule installation capacity.
For the 10 kW module: 20 (mainly
Weight of super structure (ton) ballast of metal products waste
dominantly)
Weight of power take off equipment (ton) For the 10 kW module: 2
Min installation depth (m) 40
Max installation depth (m) No limitation.
Design lifetime (years) 20…30
Depending on the mission it is
possible to develop both a single
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit
modular FWEPS for output power up
to 50 kW and multi‐modular plant
 175

designed for the total electric power

of the order of some dozens of
megawatts.
Wave energy absorption performance (kW) (before
losses in conversion to electric power) as a function
See below
of significant wave height and peak wave period
****
Source of wave energy absorption performance Numerical simulations and wave
(numerical simulations or random wave model tests) model tests
Estimated date commercially available 2015‐01
The cost of power units will be not
Estimated production cost per rated unit (EUR) more than 2500 EUR/kW, depending
on place and conditions of operation.
Yes, preliminary. Wide application of
FWEPS will facilitate the removal of
reasons aggravating the hotbed and
Have environmental impact studies been performed
climate warming up effects, thus
promoting the environment
rehabilitation and life improvement.
The study of FWEPS model irregular‐
sea behavior at Sea States 4…5
numbers performed in the sea keeping
basin with wavemaker has
demonstrated the device survivability
Discuss the survivability of the device and whether
in stormy condition. One of FWEPS
or not it has been tested.
competitive advantages is reliability
and long useful life because of
waterproof capsulefloat protects
elements of the device from corrosive
attack of sea water and its vapour.
Technical publications See Below
Figures/photographs of device have been attached to Yes photographs of device are given
reply in Appendix.
Is it possible to combine this device with a fjord This device is best suited for offshore
crossing that implements a suspension bridge, applications and it is possible to
floating bridge, or submerged floating tunnel. If so, combine it with a fjord crossing
how? structure.
176
177
 178

1. Temeev A.A. High Efficient Ecologically Pure Wave Electric Power Stations and
Its Applications, Proceedings of the 32‐th Intersociety Energy Conversion
Engineering Conference. 1997. Vol.3, p.2001‐ 2004, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
2. Temeev A.A. and Sorokodoum E.D.. Unsteady Effects in Oscillatory Body –
Water Interaction. Proceedings of the Conference the 4‐th European Wave Energy
Conference, December 4–6, 2000, Aalborg, Dk.
3. Temeev A.A., Antufyev B.A., Temeev S.A. Simulation of Oscillatory Drive for
Float Wave Energy Converter. Proceedings of the Fifth European Wave Energy
Conference, September 17th‐20th 2003, Cork, Ireland.
4. Temeev A.A., Belokopytov V.P., Temeev S.A. Floating Wave Energy Converter
and Electrolytic Hydrogen Production Integrated System. Proceedings of the World
Renewable Energy Congress VIII, 29 August – 3 September, 2004. Denver,
Colorado, USA.
5. Alexander A. Temeev, Victor P. Belokopytov, Sergey A. Temeev. An Integrated
System of Floating Wave Energy Converter and Electrolytic Hydrogen Producer.
Journal Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 225‐239, © Elsevier Ltd.
6. Alexander Temeev, Oleg Sladkov, Sergey Temeev. Dynamic model of oscillatory
drive for Floating Wave Energy Converter. Proceedings of the tenth World
Renewable Energy Congress, 19‐25 July 2008, Glasgow, Scotland.
7. Temeev A.A., Sladkov O.S., Temeev S.A. Dynamic Model of a Float Waves
Energy Converter // Thermal Engineering, 2008, Vol. 55, No. 12, pp. 1017–1025.
ISSN 0040‐6015, © Pleiades Publishing, Inc.

Company AquaGen Technologies

 179

Country Australia
Web address www.aquagen.com.au
Technology Name SurgeDrive
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
B
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
As waves pass the buoyancy units of a SurgeDrive®
wave farm, they move in oscillation and the system
transfers the pure wave forces out of the water, via
tension transfer elements. From there, the energy
conversion module is able to use these forces to
generate electricity or desalinated water, using an
innovative mixture of design and 'off the shelf'
components. This dramatically simplifies the
Features / Design principle capture of wave energy because most components
are above water and underwater components are
minimised and simplified. This leads to a significant
reduction in capital expenditure (less expensive,
corrosion resistant materials required), maintenance
(hence lower electrical / desal generation costs)
whilst also enabling the flexibility for the system to
not only survive storms but to continue to generate
during them.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 7/8
or TRL 9
Description of any and all prototypes 1. Small scale wave flume model testing, 2009/10,
(including test facility used or Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
location of testing, dates, and hours of 2. Demonstration Trial of 1.5kw unit on Lorne pier,
operation) Victoria, Australia Nov 2010
Currently raising capital for next stage of
development - a Full-Scale (limited expension) pilot
Next development steps demonstration. This will finalise and test the final
full scale coponentry prior to the first large scale
commercial wave farm.
Hydraulic/Electric or Hydraulic/Desalinated water
Power take off
options
full size buoyancy units are 6m diameter each.
100's of these are tethered back to a central platform,
Dimensions a purpose-built pier or straight back to land to
generate megawatts of electricity or gigalitres of
desalinated water.
Centerline device spacing for multiple
15m between buoyancy units in 20m water depth
devices (m)
 180

depends on number of buoyancy units tying into

Weight of super structure (ton)
Energy Conversion Module
Weight of power take off equipment depends on number of buoyancy units tying into
(ton) Energy Conversion Module
Min installation depth (m) 10
Max installation depth (m) 50
Design lifetime (years) 25
40000kw or 40Mw for 400 buoyancy units in
45kw/m wave region
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit
This is just an example as it depends on local wave
resource and marine area available.
Wave energy absorption performance
(kW) (before losses in conversion to The energy output of our technology is very high but
electric power) as a function of is not publically available at this stage but can be
significant wave height and peak disclosed privately under an NDA.
wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption
performance (numerical simulations scale model tests.
or random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially
2014-01
available
Estimated production cost per rated
USD $50 million for the rated 40Mw nameplate unit
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
Yes, for our Lorne Pier Demonstration
been performed
During extreme storm conditions, the SurgeDrive®
Discuss the survivability of the device control system automatically pulls the buoyancy
and whether or not it has been tested. units under the water to avoid storm damage and yet
enable the continued generation of power.
N.Boyd, 'The Development of Wave Energy as a
Viable Renewable Source', All-Energy Conference
Technical publications
and Exhibition, Oct 2011
EcoGen 2011, Sept 2011
Figures/photographs of device have
Yes
been attached to reply
Is it possible to combine this device This technology is suited to applications where there
with a fjord crossing that implements is an existing waterbourne strucutre such as a pier or
a suspension bridge, floating bridge, bridge, provided that there are ocean waves passing
or submerged floating tunnel. If so, close to that structure as it is not a tidal but a wave
how? energy device.
181
 182

Company Atargis Energy Corporation

Country USA
Web address www.atargis.com
Technology Name Cycloidal Wave Energy Converter
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter G. Lift based, fully submerged wave termination
D) Oscillating Water Column device with direct wave-to-shaft power conversion
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
two hydrofoils that rotate around a shaft alinged with
Features / Design principle the wave crests and operated under feedback control
achieve wave termination
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 3 with TRL 4 work in progress
or TRL 9
Description of any and all prototypes A 1:300 scale model was tested in a wave flume in
(including test facility used or 2010-2011. Presently, a 1:10 scale model is being
location of testing, dates, and hours of tested in a 3D wave basin advancing this technology
operation) to TRL 4
TRL 5 work will start in the second half of 2012,
Next development steps and open ocean 1/4 scale tests are planned for mid-
2013
Generator, either with gear box or low speed direct
Power take off
drive
wave climate dependent, invisicid optimal diameter
Dimensions is about 30% of a wave length. Power output
increases linearly with hydrofoil span
Centerline device spacing for multiple
0
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) 75
Weight of power take off equipment
45
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 25
Max installation depth (m) 100
Design lifetime (years) 20
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit 5000
Wave energy absorption performance The data requested in the wave performance tab is
(kW) (before losses in conversion to currently unpublished and proprietary. We have
electric power) as a function of published an efficiency of >70% at the design point
significant wave height and peak including viscous losses, and an invisicd efficiency
wave period **** of >95% which is experimentally confirmed.
Source of wave energy absorption
performance (numerical simulations Both
or random wave model tests)
 183

Estimated date commercially

2016
available
Estimated production cost per rated 5-10M Euro for a 5MW unit depending on site
unit (EUR) specifics, deployed
Have environmental impact studies
No
been performed
The CycWEC can be feathered in a storm, as well as
Discuss the survivability of the device be submerged deeper into the ocean to prevent storm
and whether or not it has been tested. damage. This will be experimentally demonstrated
in TRL5
See publication list at:
Technical publications
http://atargis.com/MoreInfo.html
Figures/photographs of device have
No, please refer to above web site
been attached to reply
Is it possible to combine this device
with a fjord crossing that implements
Yes, the CycWEC can be attached to the
a suspension bridge, floating bridge,
substructure of a bridge if desired
or submerged floating tunnel. If so,
how?

Source - www.atargis.com
 184

Company Atmocean, Inc.

Country USA
Web address www.atmocean.com
Technology Name Wave Energy/Sequestration Technology ("WEST")
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
B (array)
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
Hydraulic system. Onshore generators. Patent-
pending variable sea anchors suspended beneath
each pump provide the resistance against buoy
rising, to create the pressure fed into lateral pressure
line. This means the pumps do not need individual
moorings - a big cost saving. By operating in low
Features / Design principle
waves (under 1m), annual availability is above 90%
most locations. To prevent overstressing, above
3.5m wave the forces are capped. Designed for low
cost - containerized for shipping - deployed from
moving vessel no undersea operations needed - array
moorings at each end.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 5/6 or 7/8
or TRL 9
We have conducted 22 ocean tests of subsystems.
Description of any and all prototypes
Most recent sea trial at California Polytechnic State
(including test facility used or
University 4 months 1/2 scale system, characterize
location of testing, dates, and hours of
input/output, evaluate durability, gain data on
operation)
biofouling.
We are now completing the full-scale design
drawings which are getting cost quotes from
suppliers. We expect to initiate our environmental
impact study in July 2012 by Rutgers University
Coastal Ocean Observing Laboratory. This will be a
Next development steps
3 month analysis using a 10-pump moored array in
the Atlantic 60km east of Tuckerton NJ. This system
will generate power locally (on a small barge or raft)
since transmitting the hydraulic pressure 60km to
shore is not feasible for this pilot scale unit.
Power take off Hydraulic using seawater
 185

Each WEST unit is 20m deep, weighing about 1.5

metric tons excluding connecting hose. Adjacent
WEST units are spaced 30m apart. A one MW array
comprises 50 connected units. The connecting hose
Dimensions depth is ~10m. At end of array, the hose is allowed
to sink to the seafloor where it extends (not buried)
to shoreline. Beach crossing is a rigid pipe. The
pressure line is then brought to the Power house
Pelton motor connected to generator.
Centerline device spacing for multiple
30m preliminary
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) 0.5 metric tons approx.
Weight of power take off equipment
onshore Pelton motor weight tbd
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 30m preliminary
Max installation depth (m) 200m preliminary
overall 20 years. Some parts require periodic
Design lifetime (years)
refurbishing each 1 to 5 years.
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit one MW per array of 50 pumps
Wave energy absorption performance
(kW) (before losses in conversion to
electric power) as a function of See output page
significant wave height and peak
wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption
Numerical calculations supported by Cal Poly sea
performance (numerical simulations
trial data
or random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially
2013
available
Under US $ one million per MW (50 pumps,
Estimated production cost per rated connecting hoses, moorings, assembly, deployment,
unit (EUR) and Pelton motor but not shipping costs, onshore
generator or power conditioning)
Have environmental impact studies
Upcoming this summer-fall
been performed
The system automatically submerges in waves above
about 3.5m, to protect against storm damage and
Discuss the survivability of the device
ensure stress limits are not exceeded. No external
and whether or not it has been tested.
signal or forecast is needed. This function has not
yet been tested.
Technical publications None
Figures/photographs of device have
Yes
been attached to reply
Yes. The fjord crossing can act as one end of the
Is it possible to combine this device
array mooring, so it is simple to extend the array
with a fjord crossing that implements
outward from the crossing and install a seabed
a suspension bridge, floating bridge,
mooring for the other end of the array. If a floating
or submerged floating tunnel. If so,
bridge or submerged tunnel, our hydraulic pressure
how?
line could be run adjacent to this structure rather
Wave energy conversion absorption performance (kW) as a function of significant wave height (Hs ) and peak wave period (Tp )
We calculate the volume pumped per wave based on the cylinder dimension of 0.2m diameter, by 2.5m height, giving a useful volume of 0.0785 cubic meters per full stroke.
In waves less than 2.5 m height, the volume pumped will be proportional to this cylinder volume.
Tp (s)
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10.0 55 41 33 27 24 21 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 9 8
9.5 55 41 33 27 24 21 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 9 8
9.0 55 41 33 27 24 21 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 9 8
8.5 55 41 33 27 24 21 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 9 8
8.0 55 41 33 27 24 21 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 9 8
7.5 55 41 33 27 24 21 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 9 8
7.0 55 41 33 27 24 21 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 9 8
6.5 55 41 33 27 24 21 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 9 8
6.0 55 41 33 27 24 21 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 9 8
5.5 55 41 33 27 24 21 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 9 8
5.0 55 41 33 27 24 21 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 9 8

Hs (m)
4.5 55 41 33 27 24 21 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 9 8
4.0 55 41 33 27 24 21 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 9 8
3.5 55 41 33 27 24 21 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 9 8
3.0 55 41 33 27 24 21 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 9 8
186

2.5 54.95 41.21 32.97 27.48 23.55 20.61 18.32 16.49 14.99 13.74 12.68 11.78 10.99 10.30 9.70 9.16 8.68 8.24
2.0 43.96 32.97 26.38 21.98 18.84 16.49 14.65 13.19 11.99 10.99 10.14 9.42 8.79 8.24 7.76 7.33 6.94 6.59
1.5 32.97 24.73 19.78 16.49 14.13 12.36 10.99 9.89 8.99 8.24 7.61 7.07 6.59 6.18 5.82 5.50 5.21 4.95
1.0 21.98 16.49 13.19 10.99 9.42 8.24 7.33 6.59 5.99 5.50 5.07 4.71 4.40 4.12 3.88 3.66 3.47 3.30
0.5 10.99 8.24 6.59 5.50 4.71 4.12 3.66 3.30 3.00 2.75 2.54 2.36 2.20 2.06 1.94 1.83 1.74 1.65
0.1 2.75 2.06 1.65 1.37 1.18 1.03 0.92 0.82 0.75 0.69 0.63 0.59 0.55 0.52 0.48 0.46 0.43 0.41

Average wave steepness (m/s)

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
2.5 0.83 0.63 0.50 0.42 0.36 0.31 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.13
2.0 0.67 0.50 0.40 0.33 0.29 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.10
1.5 0.50 0.38 0.30 0.25 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08
1.0 0.33 0.25 0.20 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05
0.5 0.17 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
0.1 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
than lie on the seafloor.
 187

diameter 0.2 m height 2.5 m

volume pumped per
2.5m wave 0.0785 m^3

kW = liters per minute * pressure (in

bar)/600
pressure designed for
21 bar
We base our nominal output on 2.5 wave @ 8 seconds )shown in bold large
font in the table).
Our seatrials conducted at California Polytechnic State University last summer
demonstrated needed.
that average wave steepness of 0.1 m/s is required to produce
the pressure rise
Therefore, in the chart below we exclude kW output for average
steepness below 0.1 m/s.

Atmocean WEST Nominal Output:

Hs from 0.5m to 2.5m
(above 2.5m same as 2.5m by design)
60 2.5
50 2
40
kW

30 1.5
20
10 1
- 0.5
3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
Period (Tp - sec)
188
 189

Company AW-Energy Oy
Country Finland
Web address www.aw-energy.com
Technology Name WaveRoller
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
C.
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
WaveRoller sits invisible on the
seabed. All techic is inside the foundation under
Features / Design principle
water, only electical cable come to the shore.
Though, grid connection equipment are on shore
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL7 soon
or TRL 9
Description of any and all prototypes
Many small units in the seawater 2001 - 2005,
(including test facility used or
Prototype in Portugal in 2007 and 2008, power
location of testing, dates, and hours of
production 10 kW,
operation)
Grid connected demonstration
Next development steps
unit into the water in April 2012.
Power take off Hydraulic
Dimensions 26 m wide,12 high, 15 m long
Centerline device spacing for multiple
50 m
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) 100 t
Weight of power take off equipment
5t
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 10 m
Max installation depth (m) 15 m
Design lifetime (years) 20 a
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit 500 kW

The efficiency of the hydraulic system is about 60 %

Wave energy absorption performance (depends of operating point), so 500 kWe unit
(kW) (before losses in conversion to absorbs about 830 kW from the waves.
electric power) as a function of
significant wave height and peak Our flap is controlled all the time wave after wave
wave period **** control loops control the PTO every second and
changes the controller output every second

Source of wave energy absorption

performance (numerical simulations Simulations and teank tests
or random wave model tests)
 190

Estimated date commercially

June 2015
available
Estimated production cost per rated
3 Meur
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
Yes
been performed
There are no large waves (freaks)
Discuss the survivability of the device in the depth of 12 m, a flap moves with the wave, the
and whether or not it has been tested. system can be but put into free wheeling mode, if
needed.
Technical publications
Figures/photographs of device have
Yes
been attached to reply
Is it possible to combine this device
with a fjord crossing that implements
a suspension bridge, floating bridge, No
or submerged floating tunnel. If so,
how?
 191

Note – The remainder of the details of the response from BioPower Systems Pty Ltd
are not to be distributed to the general public.

Company BioPower Systems Pty Ltd

Country Australia
Web address www.biopowersystems.com
Technology Name bioWAVE
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
C
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit 1000
 192

Company Hann-Ocean Energy Pte Ltd

Country Singapore
Web address www.hann-ocean.com
Technology Name Drakoo
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
G) Twin-Chamber Water Column
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
Drakoo is a patented twin-chamber wave energy
convertor that captures both kinetic and potential
water energy carried within incident ocean waves
using non-return checkerboard valves and then
Features / Design principle converts this energy to electricity by a hydro-turbine.
Single directional and continuous flow of water goes
through the hydro-turbine during entire wave period
and drives the linked permanent magnetic
generator/alternator to produce stable electricity.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 7/8
or TRL 9
A 1:20 scale model Darkoo-II was tested at NTU's
wave flume in Aug-Sep 2010 for 5 days. Three
Description of any and all prototypes
1:20 scale models were tested at Changi Beach of
(including test facility used or
Singapore in 2009-2010. A full scale prototype was
location of testing, dates, and hours of
tested at Tuas View sea of Singapore in May 2011
operation)
for 14 days and Narec's 8m deep wave flume in July
2011 for 6 days.
We are conducting a 16kW Drakoo Type-B full
scale prototyping supported by Singapore
governmental grant followed by further developing a
Next development steps 96kW Drakoo wave farm at Tuas View sea of
Singapore. The 1st prototype is expected to be
deployed in July 2012 and the wave farm is expected
to be completed in mid 2013.
Kaplan hydro turbine with single/double regulated
Power take off
impeller
Drakoo Type-B: 3mx2.5mx2.5m (4kW); Drakoo
Dimensions
Type-R: Dia22mx11m (1MW)
Centerline device spacing for multiple
3/50
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) 3.08/250
Weight of power take off equipment
0.12/5
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 1.35/12
Max installation depth (m) 300
 193

Design lifetime (years) 20

Rated power (kW) of commercial unit 4/1000
Wave energy absorption performance
(kW) (before losses in conversion to
See Power Output Scatter Diagrams projected based
electric power) as a function of
on Narec test results
significant wave height and peak
wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption
performance (numerical simulations Narec wave flume tests
or random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially
Sep 2012
available
Estimated production cost per rated
20,000(4kW)/1,800,000(1MW)
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
Yes
been performed
A stress-relieving design allows the water to simply
overtop into or overflow from the device. Drakoo
therefore does not try to stand against the incident
waves or to withhold high internal hydrostatic
pressure. Additionally, Drakoo’s structure makes use
of unique flexible valves instead of mechanical
hinges structure and is thereby less susceptible to
breakdowns. The probability of breakdowns is
further limited, as the many of the components
integrated into the Drakoo system are readily
available in the market and therefore have a track
record of performance. Drakoo is designed as a
Discuss the survivability of the device modular system bringing together standard parts and
and whether or not it has been tested. subsystems from mature industries. Not the
components used to build Drakoo are unique, but
rather the combination. This allows for a tremendous
reduction in cost, while at the same time ensuring a
high quality standard. For instance, Drakoo’s
impeller is a turbine type that has been used in hydro
power plants for decades. Its gearbox and generator
mirror those used in wind turbines. Additionally, the
negative impact of a breakdown, should it occur, is
limited by Drakoo’s Plug-n-Run concept. This
concept allows the major components, such as the
power take-off system and the Checkerboard Valves,
to be replaced within a very short time span.
Conference paper in International Symposium on
Technical publications Low Carbon & Renewable Energy Technology 2011
in Korea
Figures/photographs of device have
Yes
been attached to reply
Is it possible to combine this device Yes. Drakoo utilises a twin chamber principle and
with a fjord crossing that implements does not have any moving parts outside its body.
a suspension bridge, floating bridge, The Drakoo 'box' can therefore simply be attached to
 194

or submerged floating tunnel. If so, other marine structures. Hann-Ocean is currently

how? conducting a prototyping for total 75m floating jetty
with 24 Drakoo Type-B cells (4kW each).

Technical Specification
Product Type Type-B
Product Model No. B0004
Dimensions 3m x 2.7m x 2.4m
Peak Power Output 4 kW
Gross Weight 3.2 t
Power Take-off System Kaplan Turbine

Wave energy conversion absorption performance (kW) as a function of significant wave height (Hs) and peak wave period (Tp)

Wave Height Hs \
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Period Tp
1.3 0 1.25 5.83 8.61 8.60 6.78 4.92 3.23 0
1.2 0 1.25 5.83 8.61 8.60 6.78 4.92 3.23 0
1.1 0 1.25 5.83 8.61 8.60 6.78 4.92 3.23 0
1 0 1.25 5.83 8.61 8.60 6.78 4.92 3.23 0
0.9 0 1.01 4.73 6.97 6.96 5.49 3.98 2.61 0
0.8 0 0.80 3.73 5.51 5.50 4.34 3.15 2.07 0
0.7 0 0.61 2.86 4.22 4.21 3.32 2.41 1.58 0
0.6 0 0.45 2.10 3.10 3.09 2.44 1.77 1.16 0
0.5 0 0.31 1.46 2.15 2.15 1.70 1.23 0.81 0
0.4 0 0.20 0.93 1.38 1.38 1.08 0.79 0.52 0
0.3 0 0.11 0.53 0.77 0.77 0.61 0.44 0.29 0
0.2 0 0.05 0.23 0.34 0.34 0.27 0.20 0.13 0
Capture Width Ratio
0.0% 25.5% 79.6% 88.1% 70.4% 46.3% 28.8% 16.5% 0.0%
(CWR)

All rights reserved by Hann-Ocean Energy Pte Ltd

 195

Company MotorWave group

Country Hong kong
Web address www.motorwavegroup.com
Technology Name MotorWave
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
D) Oscillating Water Column G
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs

Features / Design principle MotorWave is composed of modules made of 2

floats.the up and down are transferred to a central
shaft that combines ennergy of all
modules.transformation is made by hydrolic
converting into compressed air
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 8
or TRL 9
Description of any and all prototypes 1;1 scale model for 50cm wave was tested in HK
(including test facility used or harbor in 2005 1:1 scale for 20cm wave was tested
location of testing, dates, and hours of in HKU lab in 2005,1:1 scale model for 1m wave
operation) was tested at sea in hong Kong in 2006
Next development steps waiting for orders
Power take off Hydrolic using sea water
Dimensions each module is (for 2m) waves 6 m wide and 3 m
long.the final length is between 90 to 300 m
Centerline device spacing for multiple
1m
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) 2
Weight of power take off equipment
1
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) floating
Max installation depth (m) floating
Design lifetime (years) 50years or more
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit 16Kw per module for 2m wave .81Kw for 3m wave
Wave energy absorption performance
(kW) (before losses in conversion to
electric power) as a function of N(number of modules)H(wave height)*4/P(period)
significant wave height and peak
wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption
performance (numerical simulations test in wave tank in university
or random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially
6 month after order
available
 196

Estimated production cost per rated for 2m wave approx 20 000 Euro per module. For
unit (EUR) 3m wave approx 30 000 Euro per module.for 5m
Have environmental impact studies
NO
been performed
Discuss the survivability of the device the system is floating and design to take high energy
and whether or not it has been tested. wave
Technical publications see our website
Figures/photographs of device have
been attached to reply
Is it possible to combine this device
with a fjord crossing that implements
Motorwave can be attached to any structure or
a suspension bridge, floating bridge,
anchor to any sea bed by cables
or submerged floating tunnel. If so,
how?

Source - www.motorwavegroup.com
 197

Company Ocean Energy Industries. Inc.

Country USA
Web address http://www.oceanenergyindustries.com
Technology Name WaveSurfer
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
B
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
WaveSurfer consists of two bodies, a
buoyant body that floats on the surface
of water and a submerged body
Features / Design principle suspended from the buoyant body. The
submerged body consists of electric
generators and horizontally-aligned
rotors.
Development status ***
TRL9
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 or TRL 9
Description of any and all prototypes (including Full scale models are in commercial use
test facility used or location of testing, dates, and for several years at locations around the
hours of operation) world
Next development steps Optimization
Power take off Rotation
Variety of models and configurations.
Dimensions At least 5 basic models of different
sizes.
Centerline device spacing for multiple devices (m) Vary
Weight of super structure (ton) Vary
Weight of power take off equipment (ton) Vary
Min installation depth (m) 25
Max installation depth (m) no strict max
Design lifetime (years) Min 30
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit From 0.5kW to 10MW
Wave energy absorption performance (kW)
(before losses in conversion to electric power) as a
Vary
function of significant wave height and peak wave
period ****
Source of wave energy absorption performance
(numerical simulations or random wave model real life tests
tests)
Estimated date commercially available 2006
Estimated production cost per rated unit (EUR) US $2,000 per kW capacity
Have environmental impact studies been
yes
performed
 198

WaveSurfer's main power conversion

and generation parts are completely
submerged at a depth where water is not
affected by the waves. No matter how
significant is a wave action on the water
surface, at the same time the water is
Discuss the survivability of the device and whether calm at a depth of around one-half
or not it has been tested. wavelength of the prevailing waves in
the region.
This design results in amazing
survivability of each unit during
extreme storms without any damage
that would affect the unit's
performance.
Technical publications None
Figures/photographs of device have been attached
None
to reply
Can't be combined structurally.
Is it possible to combine this device with a fjord However the WaveSurfer device(s) can
crossing that implements a suspension bridge, be installed in vicinity of the crossing if
floating bridge, or submerged floating tunnel. If so required. Are there any waves in the
so, how? fjord? Basically WaveSurfer is a deep,
open water system.
 199

Source - http://www.oceanenergyindustries.com
 200

Company Ocean Harvesting Technologies AB

Country Sweden
Web address www.oceanharvesting.com
Technology Name Ocean Harvester
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
B
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
The Ocean Harvester captures energy from the rise
of each wave with the use of a winch system, which
provides sufficient length of stroke for the largest
wave on the selected site. A patented mechanical
PTO with a counterweight efficiently converts the
highly fluctuating energy that is absorbed from the
waves into a smooth power and force through
Features / Design principle
system. This way the PTO and power electronics can
be sized for the average energy instead of the peak
energy. The key advantage with this is considerable
reduction in the cost of the PTO, as well as high
efficiency and load factor of the generator and power
electronics, all together resulting in low cost of
energy.
Development status ***
TRL 4, design of 1/2 model of a 100 kW unit is
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8
completed, manufacturing will start in may 2012.
or TRL 9
Several scale 1:40 tests of simplified models have
been performed in a water laboratory at DHI in
Hörsholm Denmark 2009 - 2011.

Description of any and all prototypes A 1:10 scale prototype of the PTO and control
(including test facility used or system has been tested in a test rig setup running
location of testing, dates, and hours of irregular waves. Power smoothing capabilities has
operation) been demonstrated with very promising results.
Karlskrona Sweden 2009-2011.

A 1:2 Scale sea trial model design of the Ocean

Harvester is completed.
Manufacturing of the 1:2 scale model will start in
Q2 2012 and sea trials is planned in 2013 at Risör in
co-operation with Fobox AS / Fred Olsen Ltd.
Next development steps
The design work for scaling up the system to full
scale (100 kW) will be started in Q3 2012.
Patented mechanical PTO using a counterweight for
Power take off
powersmoothing.
 201

The buoy of the 1:2 scale model is 12x5,6x1,4

(LWH).
Dimensions
The estimated size of the full scale model is thus
24x11,2x2,8 (LWH).
Centerline device spacing for multiple
Approx. 50
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) Approx. 85
Weight of power take off equipment
Approx. 25
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) Approx. 20
Max installation depth (m) Approx. 100
Design lifetime (years) 20
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit Approx. 100-150
An unlimited power matrix has been provided in the
wave performance tab. The device rated power is
selected close to the most frequent sea state at the
installation site rather than less frequent and more
energetic sea state. This is done in order to increase
the electrical efficiency and load factor of the power
electronics, as well as reducing the cost of power
electronics and cabling. The device rated power can
be maintained in stronger sea states with the use of a
clutch that operates in a way that limits the energy
capture.
Wave energy absorption performance
(kW) (before losses in conversion to
It should be noted that one of the main challenges
electric power) as a function of
with wave power is to achive high efficiency in the
significant wave height and peak
process of converting the highly fluctuating energy
wave period ****
absorbed from the wave motion into electricity.

Numerical modeling of the Ocean Harvester

efficiency have been done and shows that approx.
75% mechanical efficiency, 90% electrical
efficiency and 60% load factor as an annual average
on a site with good wave conditions.

Please provide wave data for a more detailed

analysis of the device performance at the intended
installation site.
Source of wave energy absorption
Numerical simulations and random wave model
performance (numerical simulations
tests.
or random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially
2016
available
Estimated production cost per rated Levelized cost of Energy presented as a learning
unit (EUR) curve included in the attached presentation.
Have environmental impact studies
No
been performed
 202

Winch systems reduce structural strain (end limits

are never reached). The counterweight limits the
mechanical peak loads/torque in the system in all
Discuss the survivability of the device wave conditions. The Power take-off can be
and whether or not it has been tested. disengaged to put the wave energy converter in
standby/failsafe mode to survive the roughest sea
states. Position moorings (secondary moorings) are
used to keep the position.
Technical publications
Figures/photographs of device have
Yes
been attached to reply
Mentioned submerged structures could be used as
anchoring points for standalone units, reducing the
cost of anchoring for the WEC array installation.

The PTO solution developed by OHT could also be

integrated into structures near the surface. This could
Is it possible to combine this device
make possible energy absorption in both rising and
with a fjord crossing that implements
descending wave, which is an advantage compared
a suspension bridge, floating bridge,
to a stand-alone unit that only absorbs energy in the
or submerged floating tunnel. If so,
rising wave.
how?
OHT is open for discussion regarding both stand-
alone units and integration of the WEC system into
support structures located near the surface. We need
more information about the structures in order to
present how this could be done in more detail.

Source - www.oceanharvesting.com
Wave energy conversion absorption performance (kW) as a function of significant wave height (Hs) and peak wave period (T p )
Tp (s)
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 869 814 749 665 576 509 452 407 370 339 313 291 271 255 240 226 214 204
9.5 822 770 709 629 545 481 428 385 350 321 296 275 257 241 227 214 203 193
9 775 726 668 593 514 454 404 363 330 303 279 259 242 227 214 202 191 182
8.5 728 682 628 557 482 426 379 341 310 284 262 244 227 213 201 190 180 171
8 681 638 587 521 451 399 355 319 290 266 245 228 213 199 188 177 168 160
7.5 634 594 547 485 420 371 330 297 270 248 229 212 198 186 175 165 156 149
7 587 550 506 449 389 344 306 275 250 229 212 196 183 172 162 153 145 138
6.5 540 506 465 413 358 316 281 253 230 211 195 181 169 158 149 141 133 126
6 493 462 425 377 327 289 257 231 210 192 178 165 154 144 136 128 122 115
5.5 446 418 384 341 295 261 232 209 190 174 161 149 139 131 123 116 110 104
5 399 374 344 305 264 234 208 187 170 156 144 133 125 117 110 104 98 93

Hs (m)
4.5 352 330 303 269 233 206 183 165 150 137 127 118 110 103 97 92 87 82
4 305 286 263 233 202 179 159 143 130 119 110 102 95 89 84 79 75 71
3.5 258 242 222 197 171 151 134 121 110 101 93 86 81 75 71 67 64 60
3 211 198 182 161 140 123 110 99 90 82 76 71 66 62 58 55 52 49
2.5 164 153 141 125 109 96 85 77 70 64 59 55 51 48 45 43 40 38
2 117 109 101 89 77 68 61 55 50 46 42 39 36 34 32 30 29 27
1.5 70 65 60 53 46 41 36 33 30 27 25 23 22 20 19 18 17 16
203

1 23 21 20 17 15 13 12 11 10 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5
0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 204

Company OWWE - INNOVAKO

Country Norway
Web address www.owwe.net
Technology Name Floating Bridge
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
INNOVAKO has a floating bridge concept which
can be of interest for Norwegian authorities.
A flexible joint can solve the problems of long
distance floating bridges.
In principle there is no limit in length and the
problem to solve is how long the sections between
the flexible joints can be.
In addition to the flexible joint the bridge are
Features / Design principle
anchored in the same way as floating quays.
If a floating bridge moves sideways the flexible joint
open at one of the sides and the force to keep the
bridge straight increase.
From 0 to 160 tons (the joint shown) when the
flexible joint open to its maximum of 1 m, which
means an angle of 2.5 degrees.
Perhaps it is favorable to start with some stretch.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 1
or TRL 9
Description of any and all prototypes
(including test facility used or
location of testing, dates, and hours of
operation)
Next development steps
Power take off
Dimensions
Centerline device spacing for multiple
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton)
Weight of power take off equipment
(ton)
Min installation depth (m)
Max installation depth (m) Swell is a bigger problem than depth.
Concrete can stay at sea for a long time and quality
Design lifetime (years)
of the concrete decides how long.
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit
 205

Wave energy absorption performance

(kW) (before losses in conversion to
electric power) as a function of
significant wave height and peak
wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption
performance (numerical simulations
or random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially
available
Estimated production cost per rated
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
been performed
Discuss the survivability of the device
and whether or not it has been tested.
Technical publications
Figures/photographs of device have
2 figures (jpg) is attached.
been attached to reply
Is it possible to combine this device
with a fjord crossing that implements
a suspension bridge, floating bridge,
or submerged floating tunnel. If so,
how?
 206

Company OWWE - INNOVAKO

Country Norway
Web address www.owwe.net
Technology Name OWWE-Rig
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
E
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
The main structure is a float with several basins.
The float can be trimmed and the height above sea
desired the water pressure at the turbines.
OWWE-Rig can be equipped with hinged walls to
Features / Design principle
make it more efficient.
OWWE-Rig is constructed as a hybrid wind and
wave energy converter.
The wind-turbines are of the type in normal use.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 2
or TRL 9
Description of any and all prototypes
A 1:20 scale model was made in 2005.
(including test facility used or
The model has not been tested, due to lack of
location of testing, dates, and hours of
founding.
operation)
In search for funding the company participates at
Next development steps conferences, and the next is the wave energy
conference in Dublin 17th to 19th of October.
Low head turbines normally used in hydro electric
Power take off
power plants.
The wave conditions will desired the dimensions,
Dimensions and as a first step INNOVAKO seek founding for a
North Sea Demonstrator of 110m.
Centerline device spacing for multiple Multiple OWWE-Rigs will be placed along a line(50
devices (m) km from coast)
Weight of super structure (ton) Not calculated
Weight of power take off equipment
Not calculated
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 20m
Max installation depth (m) No limit
If concrete can be used as construction material it
Design lifetime (years) can be at sea for a long period, depending on the
quality of the concrete.
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit 5000(North Sea Demonstrator)
Wave energy absorption performance North Sea Demonstrator in 30 kW/m wave climate
(kW) (before losses in conversion to and 1 MW wind turbine and 0,3 power take of: 1300
 207

electric power) as a function of kW

significant wave height and peak
wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption
performance (numerical simulations
or random wave model tests) No data
Estimated date commercially
Depends on founding.
available
Estimated production cost per rated
6.00E+06
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
No
been performed
The main target for the North Sea Demonstrator is
testing of survivability.
Discuss the survivability of the device OWWE-Rig is an overtopping technology as Wave
and whether or not it has been tested. Dragon.
Wave Dragon has been tested as a
1 : 4,5 prototype in sea condition with good results.
Technical publications www.owwe.net
Figures/photographs of device have Abstract sent for the Dublin conference in October is
been attached to reply attached (pdf).
The force in waves is a problem for floating bridges
and should therefore be placed at places with no
swell.
Is it possible to combine this device In fjords the wind climate is not the best and
with a fjord crossing that implements therefore INNOVAKO is not in favor of combining
a suspension bridge, floating bridge, either wave or wind technology with floating
or submerged floating tunnel. If so, bridges.
how? INNOVAKO has a floating bridge concept where a
flexible joint is the key element.
I therefore attached papers showing INNOVAKO`s
floating bridge.
 208

Company OWWE - INNOVAKO

Country Norway
Web address www.owwe.net
Technology Name Wave Pump-Rig
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
B
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
Wave Pump-Rig is a pneumatically stabilized float
with 16 cylinders open to the sea.
12 of the cylinders house a wave pump which pumps
Features / Design principle
seawater to a reservoir where the turbine is placed.
The cylinder in each corner is for stabilization
purposes.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 2
or TRL 9
Description of any and all prototypes
(including test facility used or No scale model has been built and no tests have been
location of testing, dates, and hours of done.
operation)
In search for funding the company participates at
Next development steps conferences, and the next is the wave energy
conference in Dublin 17th to 19th of October.
Turbines normally used in hydro electric power
Power take off
plants.
 209

Dimensions The wave conditions will determine the dimensions.

Centerline device spacing for multiple Multiple Wave Pump-Rigs can be placed along the
devices (m) coastline or at open sea.
Weight of super structure (ton) Not calculated
Weight of power take off equipment
Not calculated
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 20m
Max installation depth (m) No limit
Design lifetime (years) Not calculated
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit Depends of sea climate and the size of the rig built.
Wave energy absorption performance
(kW) (before losses in conversion to
electric power) as a function of Not calculated
significant wave height and peak
wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption
performance (numerical simulations No data
or random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially
Depends on founding
available
Estimated production cost per rated
Not calculated
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
No
been performed
Air moves freely inside a pneumatically stabilized
platform and big waves will therefore have less
Discuss the survivability of the device impact at the construction than an ordinary floats.
and whether or not it has been tested. Active wave pumps decide the impact.
Each corner must have a unit with sufficient bouncy
for stabilizing the rig.
Technical publications www.owwe.net
Figures/photographs of device have Abstract sent for the Dublin conference in October is
been attached to reply attached (pdf).
The force in waves is a problem for floating bridges
and should therefore be at a place with no swell.
Is it possible to combine this device
INNOVAKO is not in favor of combining either
with a fjord crossing that implements
wave or wind technology with floating bridges.
a suspension bridge, floating bridge,
INNOVAKO has a floating bridge concept where a
or submerged floating tunnel. If so,
flexible joint is the key element.
how?
I therefore attached papers showing INNOVAKO`s
floating bridge.
210
 211

Company OWECO Ocean Wave Energy Company

Country USA
Web address http://www.owec.com
Technology Name OWEC® Ocean Wave Energy Converter
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
B
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
Any number of self-referencing, scalable modules
form submerged open truss arrays permitting wave
regeneration there between. Reciprocation of
modules' three large buoys/drive shafts counter-
Features / Design principle rotate generator components to increase relative
speed/electrical output. Several quick-connected
modules' output is additively combined and
terminates at load. Arrays provide high
module/mooring ratio.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 5/6; new PTO: TRL 3/4
or TRL 9
Three modules produced 4 hours electricity during
1982-05 tank tests at MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.

One smallest, full scale (for 1m wave H)

Description of any and all prototypes linear/rotary converter and flywheel generator
(including test facility used or produced 3 days electricity during 1990-
location of testing, dates, and hours of 05 "breadboard" tests at OWECO facility,
operation) Pawtucket, RI, USA.

Scaled experiments/virtualization are completed and

planned at the OWECO facility in Portsmouth, RI,
USA.
Construct, and test experimental CR counter rotating
generators, adjustable ballast, and sensor control
Next development steps
system. Construct and test 6 or 10 connected
modules in waves to SS5.
Direct drive linear/rotary converter additively
combines buoyancy/gravity forces in counter
Power take off
rotating generators. Proprioceptive PTO control is
managed via multi-module sensor inputs.
 212

Excluding largest modules for sea state 9, three sizes

are scaled correspondent to regional average annual
maximum sea state- significant wave height. Further
power detail is required for CR generator.

OWEC® size 1 2
Dimensions 3
Sea State (SWH) 0-4 5-6
7-8
Width 5.5 10.9
21.9
Height 7.9 15.8
31.7
Centerline device spacing for multiple
5.51 10.93 22
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) TBD- variable accordant with materials
Weight of power take off equipment
TBD- variable accordant with materials
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 15
Max installation depth (m) 6400
20-30/module. Unlimited for arrays via scheduled
Design lifetime (years)
module service/replacement swap.
1 2 3
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit
average/module 30 250 2150
Wave energy absorption performance
(kW) (before losses in conversion to
electric power) as a function of See below
significant wave height and peak
wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption
performance (numerical simulations Numerical simulations partially based on tests
or random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially
available
Estimated production cost per rated
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
Yes (empirical). Detailed study required.
been performed
The device is equipped with a remote operated
survival system. When a storm is approaching, the
device automatically will detect that it should go into
survival mode and portions will be filled with water
Discuss the survivability of the device
so that they more deeply submerge until the storm
and whether or not it has been tested.
has passed. Other portions will be electronically
locked in extended positions that assist flotation of
the device, at greater depth, while also prohibiting
catastrophic sinking.
Numerous general readership publications beginning
Technical publications 1981. Infra-academic engineering reports published
at various France universities, 2002 - 2006.
 213

Figures/photographs of device have

No. Images/descriptions available via web address.
been attached to reply
Is it possible to combine this device
with a fjord crossing that implements While this device is best suited for offshore
a suspension bridge, floating bridge, applications, it may be linearly deployed as
or submerged floating tunnel. If so, breakwater adjacent to crossing structure.
how?

Source - http://www.owec.com
Theoretical wave energy conversion absorption performance (kW) of one OWEC® size 2 module as function of significant wave height (Hs) and peak wave period (T p ).
Typical three module OWEC® triads produce triple as shown.
Tp (s)
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 318 297 279 262 249 234 223
6.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 298 277 258 242 227 214 204 195
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 298 275 255 240 223 213 198 187 180
5.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 297 272 249 233 218 204 194 181 172 165
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 272 249 231 214 200 187 177 167 157 150

Hs (m)
4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 269 243 223 205 192 179 167 157 149 141 134
4 0 0 0 0 0 298 264 238 216 198 183 173 159 149 141 132 126 120
3.5 0 0 0 0 299 263 231 208 189 173 160 150 139 130 123 116 110 104
3 0 0 0 298 255 223 198 180 162 150 137 128 120 112 105 100 94 89
2.5 0 0 294 246 210 184 165 147 134 123 113 105 98 92 87 82 78 74
2 0 297 239 198 170 148 132 119 108 99 92 85 79 75 70 66 63 59
214

1.5 297 222 178 149 127 111 99 89 81 75 69 64 60 55 53 50 47 45

1 194 145 127 96 83 74 65 58 53 49 45 42 39 37 34 31 30 29
0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 215

Company Oceanlinx Ltd

Country Australia
Web address www.oceanlinx.com
Technology Name greenWAVE/ogWAVE/blueWAVE
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
D
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
greenWAVE is a bottom mounted 1MW device.
ogWAVE is a floating deepwater 500kW single
Features / Design principle
chamber device, blueWAVE is a large deepwater
floating with rated capacity of our 2.5 MW device.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL7/8
or TRL 9
Description of any and all prototypes Oceanlinx have been using the Australian Maritime
(including test facility used or College, Southampton UK and other global facilities
location of testing, dates, and hours of for over 10 years to conduct trials at their large wave
operation) tank facilities.
Commercial projects in Australia, Hawaii and
Next development steps
Portugal
Power take off airWAVE turbine
greenWAVE 20m x 20m x20m, ogWAVE 16m x
Dimensions 19m x 18m, blueWAVE 100m x 35m x 20m
(Approx.)
Centerline device spacing for multiple
varies, site specific
devices (m)
greenWAVE 2000t, ogWAVE 350t, blueWAVE
Weight of super structure (ton)
2000t (Approx.)
Weight of power take off equipment
35
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) greenWAVE 10m, ogWAVE & blueWAVE 40m
Max installation depth (m) greenWAVE 15m, ogWAVE & blueWAVE 200m
Design lifetime (years) 25
greenWAVE 1000kW, ogWAVE 500kW,
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit
blueWAVE 2500kW
Wave energy absorption performance
(kW) (before losses in conversion to
electric power) as a function of Commercially sensitive
significant wave height and peak
wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption
Numerical simulations & random wave model tests
performance (numerical simulations
 216

or random wave model tests)

Estimated date commercially

2012
available
Estimated production cost per rated
Commercially sensitive
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies Extensive environmental monitoring will be
been performed conducted during the first commercial project
Discuss the survivability of the device all devices are designed and tested in full size or
and whether or not it has been tested. scaled trials to design wave
Technical publications
Figures/photographs of device have
see email attachments
been attached to reply
Is it possible to combine this device
with a fjord crossing that implements The greenWAVE device can be incorporated into
a suspension bridge, floating bridge, the structure much like it would be incorporated into
or submerged floating tunnel. If so, a breakwater.
how?

Source - www.oceanlinx.com
 217

Source - www.oceanlinx.com

Source - www.oceanlinx.com
 218

Company Perpetuwave Power Pty Ltd

Country Australia
Web address www.perpetuwavepower.com
Technology Name Wave Harvester
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
A,B
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
The Perpetuwave Wave Harvester technology is
based on a floating platform, with the elongated
Hybrid Float design incorporated beneath the deck.
The Hybrid elongated floats operate from trailing
arms offering the most robust and light weight
design possible. The key technical benefits of the
Hybrid float design are,
• The elongated floats are rectangular in shape with
the long side being parallel to the wave fronts. This
offers the highest possible buoyancy loading
possible as the length of the float is immersed in a
wave front at once and is then moved up over the
wave. This design also offers the lightest weight
floats possible with a working buoyancy load to
float/ trailing arm weight ratio of 4:1, which is much
higher than any other design can offer.

• The angular motion of the floats offered by the

Features / Design principle trailing lever arm is in the direction of wave travel as
well as upwards. This also captures the substantial
horizontal directional component of the wave energy
(the direction of wave travel) as well as the typically
converted vertical energy component. Extracting the
horizontal directional energy component also
minimises wave reflection, reduces impact loads of
breaking waves on to the floats and structure, and
allows a series of floats to be placed one behind
another in a commercially viable array.

• The trailing lever arm design which the floats are

attached, and move from is by far the most robust
design available. The specific design criteria is are
similar to the case of a wheel of a moving vehicle
that hits a pot hole. It is no coincidence then that
nearly all vehicle suspension systems around the
world use a similar trailing arm system. It is the
most robust design possible.
 219

• The elongated floats easily extend wider to capture

more energy in the same vein as wind turbines
increase blade length to increase capacity, with no
extra componentry required.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 6 completed, 7/8 planned
or TRL 9
A 1/3 scale proof of concept prototype was tested in
the ocean off of Redcliffe between September 2005
and January 2009. The prototype included a
complete direct drivetrain and generator so real
performance (electricity produced) could be
accurately measured. In first testing the prototype
proved actual electricity production to be slightly
below expectations but considering the state of the
development at the time, was extremely
encouraging. A 60 % increase in electricity
production was achieved over the course of the
testing campaign with a number of improvements
being trialled during the period.
Description of any and all prototypes
A 1/8 scale model was tested in a wave tank at The
(including test facility used or
University of Queensland between April and June of
location of testing, dates, and hours of
2010. Again a high level of authentication was
operation)
sought with a complete direct drivetrain and
generator installed so real performance (electricity
produced) could be accurately measured and
averaged over a window of time for average
electricity production. A number of further
improvements were trialled during the programme
with a doubling of electricity production being
achieved by the end of the of the test program. At
the end of the test programme average electricity
production readings of between 20% & 40%
extraction/ conversion efficiency were recorded over
a range of wave height conditions.

The next stage in our development

commercialisation pathway is to develop and test a
20kW Pilot Demonstration version of our Wave
Harvester technology in the open ocean. The main
outcomes of this are to;
• Authenticate the performance projections for
commercially sized units operating in the real case
Next development steps
environment of the open ocean which is expected to
move the credibility of the technology towards
bankable feasibility status.
• Manage the technical risk of the larger Stage 4
commercial demonstration vessel by using a
stepping stone incremental increase in the size of the
Wave Harvester units. Feedback from the smaller
 220

version will be designed into the larger unit to

ensure full risk management of this process.

direct drive system, all components housed in a

Power take off
sealed environment for low O&M costs.
Dimensions An 850kW unit will be approximately 40m wide
100m apart for singluar units, if the units are placed
Centerline device spacing for multiple
side by side for a floating bridge design would make
devices (m)
them 40m apart
Weight of super structure (ton) 580 ton
Weight of power take off equipment
100 ton
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 5m
yet to be determined, but using the experience of the
Max installation depth (m) offshore oil and gas platforms, this could be
thousands of metres.
Design lifetime (years) 30
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit 850kW before a 1,500kW unit is developed
Initial numerical simulations were based on force
Wave energy absorption performance over distance theory as this was considered to be
(kW) (before losses in conversion to much more accurate than other forms of wave theory
electric power) as a function of which have historically been shown to be very
significant wave height and peak inaccurate in predicting electricity produced. This is
wave period **** eveidenced in the EPRI reports that investigate both
the Pelamis and Energetec designs.
Source of wave energy absorption Our wave energy absorption performance is based
performance (numerical simulations on actual mean electricity production over a window
or random wave model tests) of time to establish real conversion efficiency.
Estimated date commercially
Jul-15
available
Estimated production cost per rated
$Euro 4.5M
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
No, planned for the next stage of development
been performed
 221

The Perpetuwave Wave Harvester technology is

based on a floating platform which has proved to be
be one of the most survivable designs known due to
the extensive history and experience of the offshore
oil and gas indsutry. A 1/4 scale prototype has been
extensively tested in severe storm conditions in the
Discuss the survivability of the device ocean in Moreton Bay, Queensland Australia. The
and whether or not it has been tested. unit operated perfectly. A survival mode is planned
to be tested in the next stage of development which
will raise the floats from the water and for them to
be secured fast against the upper deck. Minimal
frontal area, and minimal wave impact area of the
floating platform design are key features that the
design the most survival design ever produced.
Report prepared by Uniquest for The University of
Queensland titled 'Tank Testing of the Perpetuwave
Technical publications
Wave Harvester technology' by Associate Professor
Tom Baldock.
Figures/photographs of device have
please see attached
been attached to reply
Yes, it is very possible to combine the device with a
fjord crossing that implements a floating bridge or
submerged tunnel, but not for a suspension bridge
unless the suspension bridge was positioned much
closer to the water than convenional suspension
Is it possible to combine this device bridges to minimuise exaggeration of forces tha
with a fjord crossing that implements occur with having an excessive radius arm(height of
a suspension bridge, floating bridge, the bridge above the water). In the case of the
or submerged floating tunnel. If so, floating bridge, the energy extraction floats would be
how? operated from the underside of the bridge, in the
same manner as we have currently developed the
technology to operate from the underside of the
platform. In the case of a submerged floating tunnel
the floating platform design would offer the
buoyancy for the tunnel if required.
222
Wave energy conversion absorption performance (kW) as a function of significant wave height (Hs) and peak wave period (T p)
Tp (s)
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5

H s (m)
4.5
4
3.5
3 90.72 169.344 211.68 254.016 296.352 338.688 381.024 423.36 465.696 435.456 471.744 423.36 453.6 387.072 411.264 326.592 344.736 241.92
2.5 63 117.6 147 176.4 205.8 235.2 264.6 294 323.4 302.4 327.6 294 315 268.8 285.6 226.8 239.4 168
2 40.32 75.264 94.08 112.896 131.712 150.528 169.344 188.16 206.976 225.792 209.664 188.16 201.6 172.032 182.784 145.152 153.216 107.52
1.5 22.68 42.336 52.92 63.504 74.088 84.672 95.256 105.84 116.424 127.008 117.936 105.84 113.4 96.768 102.816 81.648 86.184 60.48
223

1 18.816 23.52 28.224 32.928 37.632 42.336 47.04 51.744 56.448 52.416 47.04 50.4 43.008 45.696 36.288 38.304 26.88
0.5 4.704 5.88 7.056 8.232 9.408 10.584 11.76 12.936 14.112 13.104 11.76 17.64 10.752 11.424 9.072 9.576 6.72
0.125

The projected values of converted electricity are shown in the table above. The cut off after 3m is based on a floating bridge design. Electricity is expected to be normally produced past 5m wave height but
this requires automation equipment that would not be suited to a floating bridge design.
 224

Company RESEN ENERGY

Country Denmark
Web address www.Resen.dk and www.ResenWaves.com
Technology Name LOPF wave energy buoys
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
B
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
The Lever Operated Pivoting Float LOPF buoy is
characterised by low weight, simple design with few
moving parts, direct electric drive output, unique
pivoting float action which streamlines the float
during storms when there is excessive pull in the
Features / Design principle
mooring line and which limits the mooring line
forces. --Not the least, the LOPF buoys are already
commercial in small scale because it is affordable.
+10 buoys have been sold already. Small buoys can
be ordered today with a lead time of 5 months.
Development status ***
TRL 7/8 of small commercial 2 and 5 kW grid
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8
conected buoys
or TRL 9
Scale 1:25 fully instrumented LOPF buoy with
power take off and measurement of mechanical and
electric production in real time in North Sea wave
conditions of 16 kW/m was tested at Aalborg
University in December 2011. Grid connected 2
Description of any and all prototypes and 5 kW buoys are available for open sea operation
(including test facility used or during 2012. A full
location of testing, dates, and hours of scale LOPF buoy of 300 kW for North Sea
operation) Operation in 16 kW/m with 720.000 kWh/y (with
60% electric conversion efficiency)will be available
in 2014 -15, depending on customer demand. 10 to
50 kW LOPF buoys are expected to be available in
2013. The activity will grow organically depending
on customer demand.
We have test sites in Øresund and Nissum Bredning
Next development steps and planned North Sea site in Hanstholm for late
2012
Power take off Direct electric drive -No hydraulics
Full scale 300 kw buoy for North Sea is 15m x 20m
Dimensions
x2
Centerline device spacing for multiple
60 m , depends on actual water depth
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) 50 to 80
 225

Weight of power take off equipment

10
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 20 m
Max installation depth (m) 100 m, depends on weight of mooring line
Design lifetime (years) 20
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit 300 kW for North Sea
Wave energy absorption performance
(kW) (before losses in conversion to
30% effiency measured in scale 1:25. Good
electric power) as a function of
absorption in regular as well as irregular waves
significant wave height and peak
wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption Both. Absorption efficiency is only used as a guide
performance (numerical simulations line. We are manily focused on wave to electric
or random wave model tests) efficiency.
Estimated date commercially Available now as small 2 and 5 kW units for open
available sea operation
Estimated production cost per rated
unit (EUR) 1,1 million €
Have environmental impact studies
Yes, and also based on 3 years of sea operation
been performed
The very nature of the Lever Operated Pivoting
Float LOPF buoy concept was developed by trial
and error tests of small buoy models in the sea. First
after test model # 55 the test buoy survived storms
and the LOPF concept was born. The key feature,
which is also covered by patents in many countries,
is that the taut moored buoy can pivot and streamline
Discuss the survivability of the device it self if exposed to big forces from waves. The
and whether or not it has been tested. system also produces electricity during storms. -
During 2012 we will operate 2 and 5 kW buoys in
the open sea and our goal is to ruggedise and make
real time measurements on the buoys. When the
reliabilty is as expected we will use this experience
in the future designs of bigger buoys. The 2 and 5
kW systems will be sold in quantities of hundreds
and will build up a big knowledge base.
Wave Power Lever Operated Pivoting Float LOPF
Technical publications study from Aaalborg University will be available
shortly
Figures/photographs of device have
Yes and early day video can be found on YouTube
been attached to reply
Yes. We can imagine different ways of how the
Is it possible to combine this device buoys can be integrated with floating structures. The
with a fjord crossing that implements lever arm is attached directly to the floating structure
a suspension bridge, floating bridge, instead of a mooring line. For submerged tunnels the
or submerged floating tunnel. If so, mooring line is attched to the tunnel and feeds
how? electricity into the tunnel. - Details have to be
discussed
226
 227

Company Resolute Marine Energy, Inc.

Country USA
Web address www.resolutemarine.com
Technology Name SurgeWECTM
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
C
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
Features / Design principle Bottom-mounted hinged flap.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 6
or TRL 9
Description of any and all prototypes A scale-model prototype was tested in the BOEM
(including test facility used or wave tank (Ohmsett) June 2011. A scale-model
location of testing, dates, and hours of prototype was tested in the ocean at Jennette's Pier in
operation) North Carolina in December 2011.
We are planning two more rounds of ocean trials,
both involving a full-scale prototype, in 2012. The
Next development steps
latter of the two trials will incorporate the power
takeoff system we have been developing in parallel.
Power take off Hydraulic using bio-degradeable hydraulic fluid
The paddle of the full-sized SurgeWEC will be
Dimensions
roughly 4m wide by 3m high.
Centerline device spacing for multiple
N.A.
devices (m)
The tested prototype was appriximately 2 tons
Weight of super structure (ton)
including ballast.
Weight of power take off equipment
Not known.
(ton)
For full-scale device - preferrably no less than 5
Min installation depth (m)
meters
For full-scale device - preferrably no more than 8
Max installation depth (m)
meters
Design lifetime (years) 20
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit 30
Wave energy absorption performance
(kW) (before losses in conversion to
Tests have shown an average of 40% at 80% water
electric power) as a function of
column coverage.
significant wave height and peak
wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption
performance (numerical simulations Wave tank tests.
or random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially 2013
 228

available
We're estimating about $5,000/kW for first
Estimated production cost per rated
commercial prototype trending downwards as
unit (EUR)
manufacturing at scale begins.
Have environmental impact studies Not yet - but are planned for next round of ocean
been performed trials.
Survivability has not been specifically tested yet but
it is important to note that bottom-mounted OWSC
are not subject to loading conditions present at the
Discuss the survivability of the device
surface. In addition, to a degree not yet tested,
and whether or not it has been tested.
OWSC naturally shed excessive energy when the
angular displacement of the paddle becomes
extreme.
We have not published results as yet other than in
Technical publications our quarterly reports to the U.S. Department of
Energy
Figures/photographs of device have
Yes
been attached to reply
SurgeWEC is designed to be bottom-mounted which
Is it possible to combine this device
means: a) it is not dependant upon another structure
with a fjord crossing that implements
for stability; and b) it is designed to be deployed
a suspension bridge, floating bridge,
near-shore in shallow water (it is actuated by
or submerged floating tunnel. If so,
shallow-water waves) . Conversely, since it is fully
how?
submerged, SurgeWEC has no effect on view sheds.
 229

Company Sea Power Ltd.

Country Ireland
Web address www.seapower.ie
Technology Name Sea Power Platform
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
A) Attenuator
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
The Sea Power Platform consists of 2 pontoons -
Forward and Main Pontoon. The Main pontoon
consists of two floats joined by fixed beams that
work primarily in pitch mode. The forward pontoon
consists of a single float which is acts primarily in
Features / Design principle heave mode. see www.seapower.ie for animation of
fullscale device. The pontoons are designed to
oscillate at resonant frequency relative to each other.
This motion drives a syatem of a sea water pumps
(C pumps) controlled by a Sea Power designed
linear damping system.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 3/4
or TRL 9
A 4m (1:36) model has been built with a power take
off system which includes a scaled down C pump
and stepped linear damping system. A fullscale
design concept has been developed. Tank testing in
Description of any and all prototypes Strathclyde in Mar 2010 indicated substantial power
(including test facility used or outputs. A full-scale numerical model has been
location of testing, dates, and hours of developed and fully validated by tank testing in the
operation) Hydraulic and Maritime Research Center in Cork
Ireland. The power output matrix shows a device
capable of developing close to 4mw of power in the
Belmullet test site off the coast of Ireland with an
average annual power output in excess of 700kW.
The next devdelopment phase is to build a an
approximately 1:9 scale device which will be
aqpproximately 15 meters long. This device will be
Next development steps used to validate the substatial power matrix
developed at the 4m scale, to test the sub systems,
test the mooring design and carry out feasibility
testing.
Power take off
A totla length of 140m and a width of 29m - see
Dimensions animation of a fullscale device on our website
www.seapower.ie
 230

Centerline device spacing for multiple

approximately 400m-500m
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) 8500 Tonne Mostly concrete
Weight of power take off equipment
Estimate of 500 Tonne
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 25m
Max installation depth (m) 200m
Design lifetime (years) 25
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit 3.75MW
Wave energy absorption performance
(kW) (before losses in conversion to
electric power) as a function of
significant wave height and peak
wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption Numerical Modelling (Simulation) validated by tank
performance (numerical simulations testing of a 4m device with a scaled Power Take Off
or random wave model tests) and damping system.
Estimated date commercially
2017
available
Estimated production cost per rated
12m
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
None
been performed
Discuss the survivability of the device Basic survivability testing of the 4m device has been
and whether or not it has been tested. carried out.
Technical publications None
Copy of animation of the fullscale device and video
Figures/photographs of device have
of the device being tested in the HMRC in Cork
been attached to reply
Ireland.
The device has a draft of approximately 4.5m so the
Is it possible to combine this device
minimum fjord depth is critical.1. Suspension
with a fjord crossing that implements
Bridge - yes - all the device needs is mooring points.
a suspension bridge, floating bridge,
2. Floating bridge - depends on whether mooring
or submerged floating tunnel. If so,
points are available. 3. Submerged Floating Tunnel -
how?
depends on the availability of mooring points.
 231

Sea Power Platform

Power Matrix - Physical Modelling

wave period - Tp (sec)
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

2 41 112 183 255 280 299 297 269 240

3 99 253 408 562 616 658 653 591 528
4 199 454 709 964 1059 1133 1123 1017 911
5 372 720 1067 1414 1569 1690 1674 1516 1359
6 625 1051 1477 1904 2136 2317 2294 2079 1863
7 971 1451 1931 2410 2740 2997 2964 2686 2409
8 1427 1921 2416 2911 3359 3708 3665 3322 2980
wave height - Hs (metres)

Power Matrix - Numerical Modelling

wave period - Tp (sec)
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1
2 34 65 144 248 318 322 312 297 268
3 74 140 311 537 690 703 683 652 590
4 129 239 531 917 1,183 1,210 1,178 1,129 1,026
5 201 365 808 1,395 1,798 1,843 1,798 1,726 1,572
6 289 515 1,133 1,952 2,517 2,585 2,527 2,431 2,220
7 392 686 1,500 2,581 3,327 3,426 3,355 3,234 2,962
8 509 876 1,905 3,271 4,217 4,353 4,272 4,126 3,791
9 - - - - - - - - -
wave height - Hs (metres) - - - - - - - - -
 232

Company Seatricity Ltd

Country UK
Web address www.seatricity.net
Technology Name Oceanus
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
Attenuator/point absorber
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
Arrays of buoy actuated reciprocating pumps
produce hugh pressure seawater which is then
Features / Design principle
transmitted ashore by pipeline and fed to a
hydroelectric turbine.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 7/8
or TRL 9
Description of any and all prototypes
A full size prototype has been tested at sea in
(including test facility used or
Antigua for 2 years. A 1 megawatt demonstration is
location of testing, dates, and hours of
to be deployed at EMEC in May this year.
operation)
We are developing a project to deploy a 10 MW
Next development steps
wave farm off the UK coast in 2013
Power take off Hydraulic, seawater
Dimensions Arrays of individual buoys, each 4.8 m dia.
Centerline device spacing for multiple
30
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) 1.2 ton
Weight of power take off equipment
0.5 ton
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 30 m
Max installation depth (m) 100 m
Design lifetime (years) 20
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit 30 kW per unit, 300 kW per sub array
Wave energy absorption performance
(kW) (before losses in conversion to
electric power) as a function of Information can be provided under NDA
significant wave height and peak
wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption
performance (numerical simulations Prototype monitoring
or random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially
2012/13
available
 233

10c to 25c per kWh depending on wave climate,

Estimated production cost per rated
distance from shore, infrastructure requirements,
unit (EUR)
cost of capital
Have environmental impact studies
been performed
Discuss the survivability of the device The devices have limited buoyancy and submerge in
and whether or not it has been tested. storm conditions
Documents can be provided subject to signing NDA.
Technical publications
Patents have been granted for the technology.
Figures/photographs of device have
See website
been attached to reply
Is it possible to combine this device
It is likely that a bridge crossing a Fjord would be
with a fjord crossing that implements
constructed inshore from the most energetic wave
a suspension bridge, floating bridge,
conditions, but it could be feasible in certain
or submerged floating tunnel. If so,
conditions.
how?

Source - www.seatricity.net
 234

Company Seawood Designs Inc

Country Canada
Web address seawood@shaw.ca
Technology Name SurfPower
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
B) Point Absorber
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
Employs a rectangular buoyant wing that is
anchored by a long stroke seawater pump. The
system is designed to withstand rogue waves by
submergence up to a depth of 10 m. Further,
Features / Design principle
horizontal structural loading under storm conditions
can be reduced to 25% of the normal operating
conditions (this is an important consideration for
bridge/tunnel mounting).
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 4/5
or TRL 9
Description of any and all prototypes A 1:10 scale model was tested at the Canadian
(including test facility used or National Research Council's Institute for Ocean
location of testing, dates, and hours of Technology located at Memeorial University, St.
operation) Johns, Newfoundland, Canada.
Seawood Drsigns Inc. is a member of a proposed
program lead by the University of Victoria called
"The West Coast Wave Initiative" that is tasked with
refining current knowledge of the wave resource off
Next development steps the west coast of Vancouver Island and conducting
studies as to how best to integrate wave energy
devices. Seawood Designs plans to install a
demonstration system in one of the areas under
study on completion of the program.
High pressure seawater driving a pelton turbine on
shore. Operating pressure is constant at 70 bar. The
Power take off turbine and alternator operate at constant speed
thereby allowing for direct connection to the power
grid.
Dimensions Length 24.36 m, Width 6.7 m, Height 0.74 - 0.9 m.
Centerline device spacing for multiple
32 m
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) 21 metric tons
Weight of power take off equipment
not available
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 15 m
Max installation depth (m) 25 m
 235

Design lifetime (years) 50 years

Rated power (kW) of commercial unit 300 kW
See Executive Summary Seawood Designs uses real
Wave energy absorption performance time data to forecast energy recovery. We believe
(kW) (before losses in conversion to this is the most accurate approach as opposed to
electric power) as a function of using modelled seastate conditions. In the event you
significant wave height and peak wish to evaluate SurfPower further we would be
wave period **** pleased to use real time data for your sites to predict
annual performance.
Source of wave energy absorption
performance (numerical simulations See executive Summary
or random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially
2015
available
Estimated production cost per rated
Under development
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
No
been performed
The survivability of SurfPower has not been tested.
Seawood Designs inc. believes Surfpower is highly
unique in this regard. The system is designed to
withstand total submergence to a depth of 10 m. It
Discuss the survivability of the device has the ability to cope with unexpected rogue waves
and whether or not it has been tested. by submergence. Further, the system has the ability
to adopt a storm mode of operation that greatly
reduces storm structural loading and power. This is
the subject of patentable concepts and therefore can
not be communicated at this time.
See Executive Summary Report Attached. Seawood
Designs Inc. has contracted extensively with
Dynamic Systems Analysis (Victoria, British
Columbia) who have produced a number of reports
Technical publications
that are confidential and the National Research
Council of Canada has also produced a report that is
confidential. These can all be made available should
the need arise.
Figures/photographs of device have
See Executive Summary
been attached to reply
SurfPower is ideally suited for mounting on a
submerged floating tunnel. High pressure seawater is
bumped down a hollow piston rod that would deliver
the flow to the tunnel through a connection on the
Is it possible to combine this device
roof of the tunnel or at each side of the tunnel if the
with a fjord crossing that implements
tunnel is wide enough to support a system on each
a suspension bridge, floating bridge,
side. The system could also be adapted for
or submerged floating tunnel. If so,
mounting on a floating bridge. The system cost
how?
would be reduced somewhat in that an allowance in
pump stroke for tide would not be required. Also the
pump could be anchored in a different way to make
bridge mounting more cost effective.
236
 237

Company Shamil Ayntrazi

Country USA
Web address www.renewableenergypumps.com
Wind, Wave, Tidal and Deep Sea Water Air
Technology Name
Conditioning
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
G
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
A Float following wave undulations transfers
buoyant uplift to:Drive a pump to pump a small
quantity of water to high head; collect and feed it to
Features / Design principle
a hydro-turbo generator; Drive an electric “Isosync”
VSG Generator precluding the need for
rectifiers/chargers and invertors.
Development status ***
No Prototype is made as testing must be in the sea at
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8
site, using a "Construction Unit"
or TRL 9
Description of any and all prototypes
Simple Engineering Principles are used that can be
(including test facility used or
easily verigied. All equipment are on the market and
location of testing, dates, and hours of
of best manugacture with proven performance.
operation)
Next development steps Depends upon Client Site requirements
Power take off Direct Drive
Dimensions Construction Unit measure 22x22.5 m
Centerline device spacing for multiple
CU at 25 m centerline
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) 40 Tons
Weight of power take off equipment
5
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 15
Max installation depth (m) 100+
Design lifetime (years) 20
Per Construction Unit: Wind 1.5 MW, Wave 350
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit
KW, Tidal 90 KW, Solar 118.8 KW
Wave energy absorption performance
(kW) (before losses in conversion to
electric power) as a function of Table Below
significant wave height and peak
wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption
performance (numerical simulations Numerical simulations
or random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially Immediate
 238

available
Estimated production cost per rated
EU 1,500 per KW
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
No Exceptional Impact
been performed
Discuss the survivability of the device The Construction Unit is anchored to the sea bed and
and whether or not it has been tested. can resist severe storms.
Technical publications Search the Internet for Shamil Ayntrazi
Figures/photographs of device have
Yes in attached files
been attached to reply
Is it possible to combine this device
with a fjord crossing that implements
a suspension bridge, floating bridge, NO
or submerged floating tunnel. If so,
how?

Table – 1 COEE ENERGY EXTRACTION per Kilometers

Present Wind Turbines Diam - m Wind V -m/s KW/Unit No/C.U. C.U./Km No/Km Total MW/Km
Wind Turbine 126 14 20,691 N/App N/App 4 82.77
Wind Turbine Actual Output According to Nameplate 20

COEE System
Wind Turbine 34 14 1,277 1 44 44 56.18
Wave Energy, Float 2m Diam, Wave No of P or KW/Set of Sets of C.Units Set/Km
4P or G
1m Hi Hight m G/Set 4 /C. Unit per Km
Wave Energy 4 4 35.02 10 44 44 15.41

Tidal Turbines TT Dia. m Shroud D m V/sec m KW/TT No./C.U No/Km Total MW/Km
Tidal Turb. No Shroud 2 0 2 15 6 264 3.91
TT/Shroud - Recomend 2 6 2 133 6 264 35.23
TT With Shroud ?? 20 2 1,483 1 44 65.24

Solar Energy Area m2 E'gy KW/m2 Ex KW/m2 KW/C.U. C.U./Km No/Km Total MW/Km
Solar Energy 495 1.368 0.240 118.8 44 44.0 5.2272

System MW/Km KW-H/Km

Power 5 MW Wind Turbines 82.77 40,000,000 Name Plate 4x5 MW each WT (20MWx2,000H/Year)
Wind Turbine 56.18 112,359,392
Wave Power 15.41 42,793,256
Tidal Turbine 35.23 257,194,800 Highest due to availablity 20/24 hours per day
Solar MW 5.23 15,263,424
Total COEE KW-Hour/Km 112.05 427,610,872
As Compared to Wind Turbine 82.77 40,000,000
 239

Table – 2 COEE WAVE GEAR DRIVE PERFORMANCE

Total REWGD-P System Effi'cy 65% Total REWGD-G System Efficiency 90%
Wave Water Pumped / 4 Energy Extr'd Energy Extr'd Extraction Pow er Gen c/o Pow er Gen c/o Wave Wave Energy Gen'd /
Heit m Pumps cm @ 65 m TDH /4-Pump Kg-m /4-Pump KW Ef f iciency % Pumps &HT KW Generator KW Energy Duration Const'n Unit
Total Avge Avge Avge Avge Avge Avge Avge Avge 1-Set of 4 Units 10 Sets per CU 2-m
162 360 162 360 162 360 162 360 Pumps Gener Pumps Gener KW Hour/Y KWH / Year
8.00 0.769 0.4855 0.22 31,555 14,200 308.75 138.94 53.60 24.12 90.31 125.04 903.10 1,250 576.00 2.60 3,251
7.00 0.631 0.3951 0.18 25,678 11,555 251.26 113.06 56.97 25.64 73.49 101.76 734.92 1,018 441.00 9.10 9,260
6.00 0.494 0.3056 0.14 19,862 8,938 194.34 87.46 59.98 26.99 56.85 78.71 568.46 787 324.00 27.40 21,566
5.00 0.358 0.2179 0.10 14,165 6,374 138.61 62.37 61.60 27.72 40.54 56.14 405.42 561 225.00 141.30 79,319
4.00 0.227 0.1359 0.06 8,836 3,976 86.46 38.91 60.04 27.02 25.29 35.02 252.90 350 144.00 610.40 213,740
3.00 0.125 0.0727 0.03 4,726 2,127 46.24 20.81 57.08 25.69 13.52 18.73 135.25 187 81.00 1,965.60 368,090
2.00 0.054 0.0284 0.01 1,847 831 18.07 8.13 50.20 22.59 5.29 7.32 52.86 73 36.00 3,494.20 255,728
1.00 0.012 0.0036 0.00 232 105 2.27 1.02 25.27 11.37 0.67 0.92 6.65 9 9.00 2,345.80 21,611
0.75 0.006 0.0013 0.00 85 38 0.83 0.37 16.43 7.39 0.24 0.34 2.43 3 5.06 2.60 9
Avg Pow er/Km "CU" 1-m w ave 0.41 MW Total Generated per Year per Construction Unit - KWH 972,574
Avg Pow er/Km "CU" 4-m w ave 15.41 MW Total Pumps or Generators/CU 40 Generation by 2,3,4 m waves 86%
Avg Pow er/Km "CU" 8-m w ave 55.02 MW Foot Print per CU 22x22.5 m @ 2 m spacing
 240

Company Trident Energy Limited

Country UK
Web address http://www.tridentenergy.co.uk
Technology Name Wave Energy technology
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
A
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
Linear generator and integrated into a PowerPod
product. Powerpods can be attached (co-located)
onto a range of fixed marine structures
(platforms)above the water. The PowerPod
Features / Design principle
generator is driven by floats riding waves on the
surface of the water. The linear generators convert
the movement directly into electricity without
additional gearboxes or hydralics.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL5/6
or TRL 9
Two 1:6 scale model tests in wave tank at Narec in
Description of any and all prototypes
Blyth UK. 8 full scale generators built and fully test
(including test facility used or
on-shore. Tests have validated performance to
location of testing, dates, and hours of
system model. Planning sea trials in 2012 linked to
operation)
off-shore wind turbine structure.
We are looking for partners to collaborate with us to
Next development steps
complete sea trials.
Power take off Low cost, patented, direct drive linear generator.
Tailored to suit wave climate. Hydrodynamic toolkit
developed (wave to wire system model) to optimise
Dimensions
product sizing and system to maximise efficiency,
cost profile and IRR.
Centerline device spacing for multiple
N/A
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) N/A as typically Co-located technology
Weight of power take off equipment Configuarion dependent - more data available upon
(ton) specific request.
Min installation depth (m) N/A
Max installation depth (m) N/A
Design lifetime (years) 25
PowerPod is available in three sizes; 40, 80 and
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit
150Kw per unit.
 241

Site and PowerPod configuration dependent - more

detailed information available upon request/specific
RFI

From the report, the annual mean significant wave

height ranges from 1.6 to 2.6m (Fig 3.1), annual
wave power from 15 to 50kW/m (Fig 3.5) and
annual mean wave energy period from 6.5 to 9s (Fig
3.7). This represents a large range of available wave
power for which we would need to use different
sizes of PowerPod depending on the specific site.

Given that your intention is to install the wave

energy converters in fjords which are presumably
relatively sheltered we assume that the available
wave power is most likely to be at the lower end of
this range. We therefore estimate that our 80kW
Wave energy absorption performance
model would be most suitable.
(kW) (before losses in conversion to
electric power) as a function of
Trident Energy is developing the PowerPod
significant wave height and peak
technology through a rigorous R&D programme
wave period ****
involving numerical modelling, prototype
construction and testing in laboratory and
operational conditions. Given our current level of
understanding, we estimate that our 80kW
PowerPod device would capture approximately
230MWh/yr in wave climates at the lowest end of
the range, increasing with the available resource.
Our 150kW PowerPod would be suited to sites in the
medium to upper end of the stated range, capturing
up to 770MWh/yr. We understand that you are
exploring the potential for co-locating renewable
energy generation on highway infrastructure. We
would expect that many PowerPods could be
deployed on such infrastructure at a packing density
of around one every 10metres. Hence, the total
energy yield per year needs to be multiplied up by
the number of PowerPods deployed.
tested in sinusoidal and polychromatic wave.
Source of wave energy absorption
Electromagnetic PTO enables dynamic device
performance (numerical simulations
tuning to increase power conversion efficiency
or random wave model tests)
profile.
Estimated date commercially
2014
available
Estimated production cost per rated
€2mil per MW
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
Yes
been performed
Patented self protection system. Linear generaor is
Discuss the survivability of the device
used to automatically lift floats out of the water.
and whether or not it has been tested.
The self protection system has been tested
 242

successfully at full scale.

Technical publications N/A

Figures/photographs of device have Yes (attached to wind turbine are schematic
been attached to reply drawings)
Is it possible to combine this device
with a fjord crossing that implements
Yes - keen to engage with technical knowledge
a suspension bridge, floating bridge,
transfer under NDA
or submerged floating tunnel. If so,
how?
 243

Company Vigor Wave Energy AB

Country Sweden
Web address www.vigorwaveenergy.com
Technology Name Vigor Wave Energy Converter
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
G
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
The main component is a floating hose which
follows the movements of the ocean waves. Letting
in water and air into the hose creates batches that
“surf” inside the hose. The batches’ movements
Features / Design principle
create energy in the form of pressure. At the end of
the hose, the water is pushed through a turbine,
driving a generator that converts the pressure into
electrical energy.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL4
or TRL 9
Small scale test were done in 2005.

Description of any and all prototypes A CFD analysis follow up of these was done on a
(including test facility used or larger scale model.
location of testing, dates, and hours of
operation) A 1/8 scale model is being developed in our wave
tank facility at Vigor Wave Energy Wave Lab in
Gothenburg.
We have started to look for a installation location to
Next development steps test a 1/4 size prototype. Testing is exptect to begin
in 2013/2014
Electrical turbine powerd by pressuriezd water and
Power take off
air.
The hose for the 1/4 size prototype is going to be
Dimensions 200 meter long, the conversion unit is about 8 cubic
meters.
Centerline device spacing for multiple
100
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) 20
Weight of power take off equipment
5
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 20
Max installation depth (m) 200
Design lifetime (years) 20
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit From 3 up to 100 MW
 244

Wave energy absorption performance

(kW) (before losses in conversion to The effeciency is so not interresting for us, we want
electric power) as a function of to produce high amounts of energy at low costs.
significant wave height and peak Contact us for more information.
wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption
performance (numerical simulations CFD analysis and numerical simulation/calculation
or random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially
2016
available
Estimated production cost per rated
200000 - 800000
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
Initial brief studies have performed
been performed
The device equiped with a remote operated survival
system. When a storm is approaching, the device
Discuss the survivability of the device automatically will detect that it should go into
and whether or not it has been tested. survival mode and will be filled with water so that it
submerges until the storm has passed. This system
has not been tested.
Thorbergsson E. Modeling and simulation of the
Vigor Wave Energy Converter,. University of
Gothenburg, Göteborg 2009

Thorbergsson E. Vigor Wave Energy Converter,

Energy Output Estimation,. Vigor Wave Energy AB,
Göteborg 2010

Eskilsson C. CFD simulering av ett Vigor

Technical publications vågkraftverk med circular tvärsektion,. Chalmers
teknikska högskola, Göteborg 2010

Alfredson H. Tryckfall i rörsegment Vigor Wave

Energy,. Epsilon Utvecklingscentrum Väst AB,
Göteborg 2010

Stensson C. Vigor Pressure drop calculations,.

Epsilon Utvecklingscentrum Väst AB, Göteborg
2011
Figures/photographs of device have
Yes
been attached to reply
Is it possible to combine this device
with a fjord crossing that implements
It should be possible to combine this device to a
a suspension bridge, floating bridge,
fjord crossing.
or submerged floating tunnel. If so,
how?
 245

Source - www.vigorwaveenergy.com
 246

Company Voith Hydro Wavegen

Country Scotland
Web address www.wavegen.com
Technology Name
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
D
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
Nearshore fixed structure Oscillating Water Column
Features / Design principle
with Wells Turbine power take-off
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 9
or TRL 9
in 2000 Wavegen built the LIMPET facility on the
Scottish Island of Islay. Full scale prototype devices
have been tested and proven here delivering
electricity to the National Grid for more than 70,000
Description of any and all prototypes turbine operating hours.
(including test facility used or
location of testing, dates, and hours of In November 2011 the Mutriku wave energy plant
operation) was handed over to the Basque Energy Board (EVE)
in Spain. THis plant contains 16 turbines and was
the first commercially sold and operated wave
energy plant in the world and the only multi-unit
plant operating in the world.
Voith Hydro Wavegen are developing the Siadar
project on the Scottish island of Lewis. This is an up
Next development steps
to 30MW project of which 4MW is currently fully
consented.
Wells Tubrine (Bi-directional air flow, single
Power take off
direction of rotation) air turbine
Depends upon plant capacity which depends upon
Dimensions
available wave resource at choisen location
Centerline device spacing for multiple
As above
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) As above
Weight of power take off equipment
As above
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) ≈7m
Max installation depth (m) N/A
Design lifetime (years) 25 years
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit 18.5kW / 132kW
 247

I have specifically not completed the wave

performance table. We are aware these tables are
used by some developers to describe the
performance of their device however it is not an
Wave energy absorption performance
approach we have utilised ourselves for a number of
(kW) (before losses in conversion to
technical reasons (our Chief Technical Officer could
electric power) as a function of
explain more if required). We do however hope that
significant wave height and peak
our proven track record and our ability to
wave period ****
demonstrate annual energy yield (which is of far
more importance to a project) would provide far
more information than could be obtained from
completing this table.
Source of wave energy absorption
performance (numerical simulations Proven deployment
or random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially
Now
available
Estimated production cost per rated
N/A
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
Yes, for all deployments
been performed
Discuss the survivability of the device Limpet has operated for over 11 years and has
and whether or not it has been tested. suffered no damage from severe weather.
Wavegen's Chief Technical Officer Dr Tom Heath
Technical publications has published many technical papers in the 20 years
he has worked for Wavegen - too many to list
Figures/photographs of device have
Yes
been attached to reply
Is it possible to combine this device
with a fjord crossing that implements
This device is best integrated into a civil engineering
a suspension bridge, floating bridge,
structure
or submerged floating tunnel. If so,
how?
 248

Company Waveenergyfyn
Country Danmark
Web address http://www.Waveenergyfyn.dk
Technology Name Crestwing
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
D) Oscillating Water Column G
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G)atmospheric-suction pontoon
absorber
The WEC has two pontoons which are fixed with
hinges and the mechanical power take-off system is
located above the hinge (PTO). During the up and
Features / Design principle down movement of the pontoons the potential
atmospheric pressure will be utilized through the
PTO system which generates electricity by a
generator.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 7/8
or TRL 9
1:30 scale proof-of-concept model was tested at
AAU's wave laboratory in Ålborg Danmark 2008-9.
1:20 scale proof-of-concept including the proposed
Description of any and all prototypes
mooring system and PTO system model was tested
(including test facility used or
at DHI's wave laboratory in Hørsholm Danmark
location of testing, dates, and hours of
2010-11.
operation)
1:5 scale model including the proposed mooring and
PTO system is tested off- shore in Frederikshavn,
Danmark 2011-12
A full scale model is will be tested on the west coast
Next development steps
of Jutland , Hanstholm Danmark 2012-15.
Power take off Mechanical power take off
Each of the two full scale sections is 13,5 m wide
Dimensions
and has a length of 40 m, for a total
Centerline device spacing for multiple
20 -40
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) 70
Weight of power take off equipment
6
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 10
Max installation depth (m) 150
Design lifetime (years) 20 - 30
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit 200
 249

Wave energy absorption performance

(kW) (before losses in conversion to
electric power) as a function of 40% - 45%
significant wave height and peak
wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption
performance (numerical simulations irregular 3D waves
or random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially
2017-01
available
Estimated production cost per rated
5.00E+05
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
no
been performed
The mooring system has gone through long-term test
on DHI wave laboratory in Hørsholm Denmark
Discuss the survivability of the device 2010-11 and anchoring forces are tested under all
and whether or not it has been tested. possible conditions. The forces in the anchor chain
of a North Sea installations will from Hs = 2m not
be increasing with wave height.
Technical publications There are published seven reports of Test procedures
Figures/photographs of device have
been attached to reply
Is it possible to combine this device
with a fjord crossing that implements
Very possible but energy content must remain at a
a suspension bridge, floating bridge,
reasonable level
or submerged floating tunnel. If so,
how?

Source - http://www.Waveenergyfyn.dk
 250

Company Wavestar A/S

Country Denmark
Web address www.wavestarenergy.com
Technology Name wave star
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
B
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
20 buoys fixed on rotated arms, based on a structure
upside to the water line. The up and down movement
Features / Design principle
of the buoys is transformed in high hydraulic
pressure and turns a generator
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 7/8-9
or TRL 9
1:40 scale tested at AAU in 2004 1:10 (ø1m
Description of any and all prototypes
flyder) scale installed at Nissum Bredning in 2006
(including test facility used or
2xø5 m flyder scale installed at Hanstholm in 2009
location of testing, dates, and hours of
(part of the full scale model) 20xø6m flyder scale
operation)
full C6 section to be installed at Horn Reef 2 in 2014
development and construction of the full version to
Next development steps
HR2
Power take off hydraulic
Dimensions 80x17x5
Centerline device spacing for multiple
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) 1600
Weight of power take off equipment
40
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 10
Max installation depth (m) 30
Design lifetime (years) 20
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit 600 kW
Wave energy absorption performance
(kW) (before losses in conversion to
electric power) as a function of 40-50%
significant wave height and peak
wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption
numerical simulation and reallife test results from
performance (numerical simulations
protype in Hanstholm
or random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially
2014
available
Estimated production cost per rated 7 mio €
 251

unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
no
been performed
automatic detcetion of storm by wave measurement,
Discuss the survivability of the device data from StormGeo, the system lift automatically
and whether or not it has been tested. the buoys and arm and the all platform to the storm
protection level (patented system)
Rico Hansen/Morten Kramer, Modelling and control
of the Wavestar prototype, EWTEC 2011. Morten
Kramer, Peter Frigaard, Laurent
Marquis,Performance evaluation of the Wavestar
Technical publications
prototype, EWTEC 2011. Laurent Marquis,
Morten Kramer, Peter Frigaard,First production
figures from the Wavestar Roshage Wave energy
converter, ICOE 2010.
Figures/photographs of device have
yes
been attached to reply
Is it possible to combine this device
with a fjord crossing that implements the device can be used as a breakwater on coast line,
a suspension bridge, floating bridge, or in a cobination with wind turbine inside wind
or submerged floating tunnel. If so, farm
how?

Source - www.wavestarenergy.com
Reply Wavestar C6 machine
Wave energy conversion absorption performance (kW) as a function of significant wave height (Hs) and peak wave period (T p )

Harvested power [kW]

Hm0
Hm0 [m] Wave period T0,2 [s]
range [m]
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 12 12 - 13 13 - 14 14 - 15 15 - 16
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5
0.0 - 0.5 0.25 0.0 0.7 4.9 14.8 28.8 43.6 54.0 55.3 55.2 55.3 52.8 50.6 48.3 45.5 44.3 42.3
0.5 - 1.0 0.75 0.0 5.9 43.7 133.2 241.1 275.2 273.7 254.6 236.1 218.5 202.9 189.3 178.8 168.1 160.0 152.0
1.0 - 1.5 1.25 0.0 16.3 121.3 368.1 554.5 574.2 530.7 485.3 439.1 401.6 369.8 344.0 322.9 303.6 287.1 271.6
1.5 - 2.0 1.75 0.0 32.0 237.7 698.9 931.1 906.8 819.2 731.9 659.4 598.3 550.0 509.8 476.5 446.5 421.6 397.9
2.0 - 2.5 2.25 0.0 52.8 393.0 1097.8 1344.0 1262.5 1125.8 998.8 893.4 809.5 740.3 683.5 637.2 595.8 561.1 530.3
2.5 - 3.0 2.75 0.0 78.9 587.0 1557.6 1787.1 1640.7 1452.3 1280.4 1140.3 1028.4 937.9 865.2 805.4 752.4 707.3 666.0
3.0 - 3.5 3.25 0.0 110.2 819.9 2054.9 2262.2 2041.1 1796.4 1574.4 1398.7 1258.3 1145.1 1048.9 978.0 912.8 857.7 807.1
3.5 - 4.0 3.75 0.0 146.7 1091.6 2593.0 2759.4 2464.2 2152.4 1886.3 1667.0 1490.0 1355.7 1244.6 1156.0 1077.6 1011.1 950.2
4.0 - 4.5 4.25 0.1 188.5 1401.9 3157.0 3282.9 2901.1 2521.1 2203.4 1940.9 1732.7 1573.4 1442.3 1337.2 1245.1 1166.9 1095.9
4.5 - 5.0 4.75 0.1 235.4 1751.6 3761.2 3815.1 3353.5 2908.7 2528.4 2223.9 1985.0 1795.6 1642.8 1521.4 1414.8 1325.0 1243.9

remark: harvested energy of ø6mx20 (all C6 machine) floats including float interaction
252
 253

Company Waveberg Development

Country USA
Web address www.waveberg.com
Technology Name Waveberg
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
A
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
Waveberg is an asymmetrical series of hinged floats
driving pumps, which pressurize seawater for
Features / Design principle delivery to shore via flexible pipes. The overall
triangular shape in plan view assures each portion of
the device receives fresh wave crest.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 5/6
or TRL 9
1:15 scale model in tank tests, NRC Canada
Newfoundland.
Same model in sea trials for 14 months, scaled
equivalent 6 years.
Description of any and all prototypes
(including test facility used or
1:4 model tested in Florida waters, survived storm.
location of testing, dates, and hours of
Model was sabotaged.
operation)
1:32 model tested at HMRC in 2006, 2007 and 2009
in several configurations. The data from the latest is
used for the rest of this presentation.
Seeking investment. Until EUR 2,300,000 is raised,
Next development steps no further steps. Following investment, two years to
completion of full-scale test at EMEC.
Power take off Hydraulic using sea water
Dimensions Triangle 53 m base by 53 m lengtht.
Centerline device spacing for multiple
100m
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) 15
Weight of power take off equipment
1
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 15
Max installation depth (m) none
Design lifetime (years) 12
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit 125
Wave energy absorption performance
varies, typical 30% of wave energy absorbed across
(kW) (before losses in conversion to
frequencies.
electric power) as a function of
 254

significant wave height and peak

wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption
performance (numerical simulations Regular wave tests converted to outputs in real seas.
or random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially
3 yr after funded
available
Estimated production cost per rated
EUR 280000
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
none
been performed
Storm survival is assured by low weight and draft
Discuss the survivability of the device
not engaging the wave and by releasing the PTO
and whether or not it has been tested.
from shore, so floats can move freely.
Technical publications none
Figures/photographs of device have
See website.
been attached to reply
Is it possible to combine this device
with a fjord crossing that implements
a suspension bridge, floating bridge, No
or submerged floating tunnel. If so,
how?

Source - www.waveberg.com
Wave energy conversion absorption performance (kW) as a function of significant wave height (Hs) and peak wave period (T p )
Tp (s)
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10 125 125 125 125 113 113 88 88 88
9.5 125 125 125 125 125 110 110 86 86 86
9 125 125 125 125 125 107 107 84 84 84
8.5 125 125 125 125 125 125 102 102 80 80 80
8 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 96 96 75 75 75
7.5 125 125 125 125 125 125 119 90 90 70 70 70
7 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 110 83 83 65 65 65
6.5 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 100 75 75 59 59 59
6 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 90 68 68 53 53 53
5.5 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 111 79 60 60 47 47 47
5 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 112 121 87 62 47 47 37 37 37

Hs (m)
4.5 125 125 125 125 125 125 116 102 111 79 57 43 43 34 34 34
4 125 125 125 125 125 105 99 90 97 70 50 38 38 29 29 29
3.5 125 125 125 125 125 114 113 110 119 85 61 46 46 36 36 36
3 118 125 125 125 106 101 111 121 125 94 67 51 51 40 40 40
2.5 117 125 125 125 94 82 90 84 91 65 47 35 35 28 28 28
2 86 121 115 96 81 67 57 54 58 42 30 23 23 18 18 18
1.5 67 125 88 67 47 36 30 25 27 20 14 11 11 8 8 8
255

1 38 85 48 34 22 15 12 9 10 7 5 4 4 3 3 3
0.5 9 20 13 9 5 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.125 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Note: values for long wave, > 25 sec. are crudely interpolated here. No values for waves <5 secs done in tank tests.
 256

Company WavePiston ApS

Country Denmark
Web address http://www.wavepiston.dk
Technology Name WavePiston
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter Multiple attenuators mounted on the same string.
D) Oscillating Water Column G with strong elements of A
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
Wavepiston is a long (several wavelengths) load-
bearing structure whereupon a large number of
vertical plates are mounted. The vertical plates are
forced into horizontal movement by of the
oscillating wave movement.
The most important feature of the WavePiston
system is the employment of force cancellation. As
the elongated structure have a length of several
wavelengths, each plate in the structure will be
subjected to a different load due to the stochastic
nature of wave movement. Depending on the phase
of the waves acting on the individual plates the force
will either be in the direction of the waves or against
the direction of the waves. Thus, the sum of the
forces acting on all plates will be relatively small, as
the force on counter-moving plates will tend to
Features / Design principle
cancel each other out.
To satisfy the need for robustness every sub-system
in the WavePiston concept has been constructed
with simplicity and robustness in mind. A prime
example on this design philosophy is the power-
takeoff system. Although a system employing linear
generators might prove more efficient, the power-
takeoff system of WavePiston is based on simple,
reliable and rugged hydraulics operated at low
pressure. This solution is cheap, robust and
completely impervious to ingress of seawater, hence
promising a long lifetime without maintenance.
An important additional benefit of having a very
long device is that large waves will only hit a small
part of the structure at a time. Therefore this device
has an intrinsic ability to handle freak waves.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 5/6
or TRL 9
 257

A 1:30 prototype has been extensively tested at the

University of Aalborg, the leading Danish authority
Description of any and all prototypes
within the field of wavepower. The scale was given
(including test facility used or
by the depth of the test bassin, since a simulated
location of testing, dates, and hours of
water depth of 30 meters was the goal of the test.
operation)
The testing was highly successful and resulted in a
subsequent M.Sc. project.
Currently negotiations are carried out between
WavePiston ApS and GEDI, the leading Chinese
authority on design of power systems. GEDI will
probably deploy a 1:1 prototype of the WavePiston
system off the Chinese coast in 2012 or early 2013.
Next development steps WavePiston is also negotiating with a (anonymous)
Chinese producer of GFRP to start a joint
development of a complete energy producing system
using WavePiston technology. If this collaboration is
fruitful it will be possible to buy a plug'n play
system directly from the producer.
Hydraulic, using sea-water as working fluid.
Seawater is environmentally neutral. If sea-water is
Power take off pumped to a reservoir instead of direct power
production, this will allow for efficient storage until
the power is needed.
A very important advantage of the WavePiston
principle is the complete flexibility to tailor the
system to any sea condition. The only dimension
which is fixed is the length of the main string which
should be at least one wavelength and preferably >2
wavelengths in order to take full advantage of the
patented force cancellation principle. A fair guess on
a system suitable for your purpose is strings having a
length of 300 m fitted with 15 pumps each.
Dimensions
As for the width of the system, there is no real limit.
The system can be a narrow as one string and as
wide as the entire cost-line if enough strings are
placed side by side.
Note that the system operates almost fully
submerged and will be virtually invisible from the
coast. If the limited visibility is a problem the buoys
placed in the end of the strings can be configured
with a high visible cross-section.
The spacing between individual strings is dependent
on the wanted efficiency of the system. For a high
efficiency system (40-50%) the strings will be
placed with a distance of 20m. A low efficient, low
Centerline device spacing for multiple
impact system having an efficiency of about 20%
devices (m)
will have a string spacing of 50m. Note that the high
efficiency system will comprise guidelines and side
anchors to prevent clashing of the strings in erratic
wave conditions.
 258

No superstructure, system operating fully

Weight of super structure (ton)
submerged. Generator is placed onshore.
Depends again on the rated power of the system. For
Weight of power take off equipment
a 1MW system the estimated weight of turbine +
(ton)
generator is 2 metric tonnes.
Min installation depth (m) Outside surf-zone.
No limitations, however anchoring in very deep
Max installation depth (m)
waters might render the concept to costly.
Depends on design. 15 or 20 years is realistic for
fully developed system. WavePiston relies on
Design lifetime (years) standard mooring techniques developed for off-shore
applications. The pumps will need service during the
20 years lifespan.
The unit currently developed in collaboration with
WavePiston and an (anonymous) Chinese producer
is intended for off-grid applications and have a
rating of 30 kW. The design philosophy of
WavePiston is that systems should be specifically
designed to the waters where it is depolyed, taking
into account the locale wave climate. Due to the
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit modularity of the WavePiston system this
customized design is extremely simple and will
always result in the most cost efficient solution.
WavePiston systems comprises a multitude of
strings all coupled to the same turbine/generator. For
a grid-connected energy harvesting park a sensible
unit size will be 1MW. (Unit = turbine/generator +
10 strings)
No definite numbers can be given here as the
performance depends (among other things) on the
dimensions of the plates, the density of pumps, the
operating pressure of the system and the length of
the strings which are all freely selectable.
As a rule of thumb the design study of the
WavePiston system made for the North Sea has an
Wave energy absorption performance
average efficiency of 30%, where the efficiency @
(kW) (before losses in conversion to
lower wavestates is > 60% and the efficiency at high
electric power) as a function of
wavestates is < 20%. The wavestate dependent
significant wave height and peak
efficiency is a very desireable feature since this
wave period ****
allows some water movement in the waters behind
the system since minimizing the environmental
impact of the wave power system. Also, a 100%
efficiency at high wavestates would mean that the
PTO system would be very expensive as it should be
able to handle very high energies for comparably
small periods of time.
 259

2D wave experiments was carried out by

WavePiston ApS as well as by staff at the University
of Aalborg. The measurements has formed the basis
for a thesis on WavePiston. The thesis can be sent to
you upon request.
Subsequently to the experiments WavePiston has
Source of wave energy absorption refined the (1D)numerical methods originally
performance (numerical simulations devised by Niras (Report can be found in the
or random wave model tests) document section of the WavePiston wavesite)
The (1D)numerical method will form the basis for
any initial design, however there is currently no
substitute to wave-tank experiments if detailed
performance in real 2D waves is wanted.
The claimed efficiencies is based on experimental
measurements.
Autumn 2013, however blueprints exist and work on
Estimated date commercially
first prototypes could start within 2 months from
available
decision.
Estimated production cost per rated 1 EUR / installed watt, excluding grid connction.
unit (EUR) Thus, a 1 MW system would cost 1 MEUR
No, but there is really no reason that the system
would have any environmental impact since this is a
Have environmental impact studies
floating structure shunting some (but not all) of the
been performed
wave energy. The amount of shunted wave-energy is
a design parameter and can be chosen freely.
 260

The WavePiston concept was specifically designed

with survivability in mind, using the inventors
profound knowledge on offshore requirements.
The WavePiston system is very long. Hence a freak
wave hitting the system will only affect a small part
of the system at the same time. Consequently, the
WavePiston system is immune to freak-waves which
is the biggest threat to this type of systems.
The systems comprises pressure compensators
which double as swim bladders. Upon filling the
swim bladders with water the system can avoid
storms by submerging. The submerging system also
allows ships to sail over the system. Every exposed
component of the WavePiston system is kept simple
and waterproof.
Discuss the survivability of the device
The survivability has NOT been tested in real sea
and whether or not it has been tested.
conditions.
The very concept has been designed with
survivability in mind, by off-shore engineers for an
off-shore environment. First of all the elongated
structure of the strings spanning over several
wavelengths make the system intrinsically resistant
to freak waves (rouge waves). In fact, any structure
other than elongated structures will always be very
vulnerable to these waves.
Is a storm rises the system is designed to submerge
and hence run away from large waves.
Due to the modularity of the system a pump may fail
without compromising the function of a string. A
string may fail without compromising the function
of the whole system (a system comprises one
turbine/generator unit and several strings)
Experimental Study on the WavePiston Wave
Energy Converter. / Pecher, Arthur ; Kofoed, Jens
Peter ; Angelelli, E..Aalborg : Aalborg University.
Department of Civil Engineering, 2010. 28 p. (DCE
Contract Reports; 73).
Experiments on the WavePiston, Wave Energy
Converter
Technical publications Angelelli, E., Zanuttigh, B. et al.
9th ewtec 2011 University of Southampton 2011

Title: Robustness and Force Cancellation - the Keys

to Commercial Wave Power Generation
Dr.Kristian Glejbol, Founding Parterners,
WavePiston ApS, Denmark
LCES, Dalian 2011
Figures/photographs of device have
Please see our homepage www.wavepiston.dk
been attached to reply
 261

This device is superbly fitted to attach to a

Is it possible to combine this device
suspension bridge or a floating bridge, where the
with a fjord crossing that implements
bridge can act as superstructure for the
a suspension bridge, floating bridge,
generator/turbine system.
or submerged floating tunnel. If so,
This device could be fitted to a submerged floating
how?
tunnel hereby reducing the mooring costs.

Source - http://www.wavepiston.dk
 262

Company W4P Waves4Power AB

Country Sweden
Web address www.waves4power.com
Technology Name WaveEL-buoy
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
B
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
The WaveEL works by principle of a two body
oscillating system. The buoy with the characteristic
long vertical acceleration tube below and the water
column in the tube. The movement of a the water
column is dampened by a water piston which is
connected to a hydraulic piston in a cylinder. By
Features / Design principle loading the hydraulic piston the relative motion
between the wave induced heave of the buoy/tube
and the large water mass – that is still and not
affected by the wave motion – is dampened and a
gigantic hydraulic pump is created which pumps oil
to a hydraulic motor which in turn rotates a
generator.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 7/8
or TRL 9
Smaller scale IPS-buoys were tested in the mid
1970-1980 by sister company IPS InterProject
Service. First fullscale test by IPS in 1980-81 west
Description of any and all prototypes
of Vinga. Waves4Power have tested a new full scale
(including test facility used or
version of an improved IPS-buoy - now called
location of testing, dates, and hours of
WaveEL-buoy - in the summer of 2010. W4P is now
operation)
preparing tests of a third generation full scale buoy
and the building of a small grid connected pilot plant
on the Swedish west coast.
A pilot plant off the coast of Bohuslän with 4 grid
connected buoys and the testing of a larger buoy off
Next development steps
the coast of Norway or Portugal in the next two
years.
Power take off Oil hydraulic
Buoy diameter 4-10 meters. Acc. Tube 20 - 35
Dimensions
meters deep.
Centerline device spacing for multiple
35
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) 45
Weight of power take off equipment
5
(ton)
 263

Min installation depth (m) 50

Max installation depth (m) 150
Design lifetime (years) 25
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit 250kW
Wave energy absorption performance As the device dimensions will be optimized for the
(kW) (before losses in conversion to prevailing wave state, there is no relevant way to fill
electric power) as a function of the Wave Performance sheet without having access
significant wave height and peak to a scatter diagram for the particular site for which
wave period **** the device is to be used.
Source of wave energy absorption
performance (numerical simulations Numerical simulations
or random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially
2018
available
Estimated production cost per rated
200kEUR
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
No
been performed
The device has been ocean tested but not in at
hurricane level. The device is by its axisymmetric
shape and small dimensions in relation to the wave
length in which it operates gives it an inherent great
Discuss the survivability of the device survivability. Mooring systems have been tested in
and whether or not it has been tested. wave tank, computer simulated and ocean tested but
not in hurricane winds. The system is considered
safe. The buoy has a patented overload feature that
prevents the energy conversion system from pushing
beyond its limits even in extreme waves.
There are more than a dozen independent white
papers written on the IPS-buoy principle when used
with different power take off systems, most well-
Technical publications known are the works of Prof. Antonio Falcao at
Institute Superior Technology in Lissabon and also
work by B-O Sjöström at the department of Civil
Engineering (Väg och Vatten Byggnad) at CTH.
Figures/photographs of device have
been attached to reply
Is it possible to combine this device
with a fjord crossing that implements The WaveEL-buoy is free floating and can be
a suspension bridge, floating bridge, moored to a floating or fixed structure as long as the
or submerged floating tunnel. If so, water depth is sufficient for the acceleration tube.
how?
 264

Source - www.waves4power.com
 265

Company Wello Ltd.

Country Finland
Web address http://www.wello.eu/
Technology Name Penguin
Device Type **
A) Attenuator
B) Point Absorber
C) Oscillating Wave Surge Converter
G
D) Oscillating Water Column
E) Overtopping/Terminator Device
F) Submerged Pressure Differential
G) Other Designs
The Penguin is fully sealed floating generator
platform with all moving parts inside the platform.
Features / Design principle Wave energy is converted directly to electricity
inside the floating equipment and connected to
national electricity network.
Development status ***
TRL 1-3, TRL 4, TRL 5/6, TRL 7/8 TRL 7/8
or TRL 9
A 1:18 scale tested both in wave tank and at
Description of any and all prototypes
sea,Helsinki University of Technology 2008-11. A
(including test facility used or
1:8 scale model storm survivability tested in sea
location of testing, dates, and hours of
condition at Baltic Sea 2011. Full scale tests starting
operation)
spring 2012 in Orkney, Scotland.
Full scale device installation ongoing in Orkney,
Next development steps
Scotland.
Power take off Direct from motion to generator
length 30m, width 15m, draught 7m and above water
Dimensions
1,8m.
Centerline device spacing for multiple
100
devices (m)
Weight of super structure (ton) 1400
Weight of power take off equipment
65, included to superstructure
(ton)
Min installation depth (m) 50
Max installation depth (m) 150 (- - 1500, adjusted mooring)
Design lifetime (years) 25
Rated power (kW) of commercial unit 1000
Wave energy absorption performance
(kW) (before losses in conversion to
electric power) as a function of See below
significant wave height and peak
wave period ****
Source of wave energy absorption
Random wave model tests and numerical
performance (numerical simulations
simulations
or random wave model tests)
Estimated date commercially 2012-10
 266

available
Estimated production cost per rated
5,000,000
unit (EUR)
Have environmental impact studies
Yes
been performed
Discuss the survivability of the device Mooring arrangement is verified by DNV. 1:8 scale
and whether or not it has been tested. model has survived 100-years storm
Technical publications Multiple patent applications
Yes, see also:
Figures/photographs of device have
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlCXnCUis8g,
been attached to reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iljClsPvigs
Is it possible to combine this device
with a fjord crossing that implements This device is best suited for offshore applications.
a suspension bridge, floating bridge, Combining might be usefull for cable routing to ease
or submerged floating tunnel. If so, grid connection.
how?
Wave energy conversion absorption performance (kW) as a function of significant wave height (Hs) and peak wave period (T p ). Only tested values shown.
Tp (s)
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
10
9.5
9
8.5
Not tested
8
7.5
7
6.5 846 778
6 929 780 717
5.5 961 855 716 658
5 941 870 773 648 596

Hs (m)
4.5 808 850 785 697 584 536 Not tested - most likely similar values as T7-T11,
4 652 716 755 698 620 520 478 design can be further optimized to specific wave
3.5 575 629 662 611 542 454 417 spectrum
3 373 491 532 562 520 462 387 356
2.5 311 408 441 470 440 394 329 301
2 243 326 358 377 349 310 260 239
1.5 197 206 225 214 194 161
267

1
0.5
0.125
 268

Appendix 7: Fjord crossing locations

 269

Figure A7:1 Proposed crossing for Halsafjord [24].

Figure A7:2 Proposed crossing for Moldefjord [24].

 270

Figure A7:3 Proposed crossing for Storfjord [24].

Figure A7:4 Proposed crossing for Voldafjord [24].

 271

Figure A7:5 Proposed crossing for Nordfjord [24].

Figure A7:6 Proposed crossing for Sognefjord [24].

 272

Figure A7:7 Proposed crossings for Bjørnafjord a and Bjørnafjord b [24].

Figure A7:8 Proposed crossing for Boknafjord [24].

 273

Appendix 8: Calculations of the number of

TISEC devices
 274

Table A8:1 Number of TISEC devices for the different fjord crossing locations.
Moldefjorden Voldafjord Nordfjord Boknafjord
(Crossing # 2) (Crossing # 4) (Crossing # 5) (Crossing # 8)
Wdev Ldev Ntot_ Ntot_ Ntot_ Ntot_S Ntot_ Ntot_S Ntot_ Ntot_
Technology
(m) (m) sus/float SFT sus/float FT sus/float FT sus/float SFT
Atlantis Resources
18 18 282 239 59 50 47 40 296 251
Corp
BioPower Systems Pty
17 17 298 253 62 53 50 42 313 266
Ltd
Hales Energy Ltd - - - - - - - - - -
Hammerfest Strom
20 20 253 215 53 45 42 36 266 226
Small
Hammerfest Strom
21 21 241 205 50 42 40 34 253 215
Large
HPS AS 6 32 434 370 90 78 72 62 456 388
Hydro-Gen *) 3.57 3.57 2850 2422 600 510 484 410 2992 2544
Kepler Energy 10 120 60 51 12 10 10 8 64 54
Nautricity Ltd 14 14 362 308 76 64 61 52 381 323
Neptune Renewable
11 11 462 392 97 82 78 66 485 412
Energy Ltd
Norwegian Ocean
12.65 12.65 401 341 84 71 67 57 421 358
Power Small *)
Norwegian Ocean
22.36 22.36 226 192 47 40 38 32 238 202
Power Large *)
Ocean Flow Energy
5.08 5.08 2000 1700 420 358 338 288 2100 1784
Limited Small *)
Ocean Flow Energy
16.0 16.0 317 269 66 56 53 45 333 283
Limited Large *)
Ocean Renewable
10 33 200 170 42 35 33 28 210 179
Power Company
Tidal Energy Pty Ltd 1 1.5 1.5 16960 14415 3580 3045 2885 2450 17810 15135
Tidal Energy Pty Ltd 2 2.4 2.4 6357 5403 1341 1140 1080 918 6678 5676
Tidal Energy Pty Ltd 3 5 5 2034 1728 428 364 344 292 2136 1814
Tidal Energy Pty Ltd 4 7 7 1452 1234 306 260 246 208 1524 1296
Tidal Energy Pty Ltd 5 10 10 508 432 106 90 86 73 533 453
Tidal Generation
18.2 18.2 278 237 58 49 46 39 292 249
Limited
Tidal Sails AS 10 10 508 432 106 90 86 73 533 453
Tide Tec AS 10 10 508 432 106 90 86 73 533 453
Tocardo BV 1 3.2 3.2 4767 4053 1005 855 810 687 5007 4254
Tocardo BV 2 6.4 6.4 1588 1350 334 284 268 228 1668 1418
Tocardo BV 3 4.6 4.6 2210 1878 466 396 374 318 2322 1972
Tocardo BV 4 9.2 9.2 552 469 116 98 93 79 580 493
Verdant Power Small 5 5 2034 1728 428 364 344 292 2136 1814
Verdant Power Large 10 10 508 432 106 90 86 73 533 453
Voith Hydro Small 13 13 390 332 82 69 66 56 410 348
Voith Hydro Large 16 16 317 269 66 56 53 45 333 283
*) Wdev and Ldev are approximated from the supplied data
275
276
 277

Appendix 9: Calculations of the energy from

TISEC devices
 278

Table A9:1 Annual energy production for the different technologies and bridging
structures for the different fjord crossing locations.
Moldefjorden Voldafjord Nordfjord Boknafjord
(Crossing # 2) (Crossing # 4) (Crossing # 5) (Crossing # 8)
Esus/float ESFT Esus/float ESFT Esus/float ESFT Esus/float ESFT
Prated
Technology (GWh/ (GWh/ (GWh/ (GWh/ (GWh/ (GWh/ (GWh/ (GWh/
(kW)
yr) yr) yr) yr) yr) yr) yr) yr)
Atlantis Resources
1000 988 837 207 175 165 140 1037 880
Corp
BioPower Systems Pty
250 261 222 54 46 44 37 274 233
Ltd
Hales Energy Ltd - - - - - - - - -
Hammerfest Strom
300 266 226 56 47 44 38 280 238
Small
Hammerfest Strom
1000 844 718 175 147 140 119 887 753
Large
HPS AS 1000 1521 1296 315 273 252 217 1598 1360
Hydro-Gen 40 399 339 84 71 68 57 419 357
Kepler Energy 4600 967 822 193 161 161 129 1032 870
Nautricity Ltd 500 634 540 133 112 107 91 668 566
Neptune Renewable
400 648 549 136 115 109 93 680 577
Energy Ltd
Norwegian Ocean
600 843 717 177 149 141 120 885 753
Power Small
Norwegian Ocean
2500 1980 1682 412 350 333 280 2085 1770
Power Large
Ocean Flow Energy
35 245 208 52 44 41 35 258 219
Limited Small
Ocean Flow Energy
1000 1111 943 231 196 186 158 1167 992
Limited Large
Ocean Renewable
180 126 107 26 22 21 18 132 113
Power Company
Tidal Energy Pty Ltd 1 120 7131 6061 1505 1280 1213 1030 7489 6364
Tidal Energy Pty Ltd 2 300 6682 5680 1410 1198 1135 965 7020 5967
Tidal Energy Pty Ltd 3 1300 9265 7871 1950 1658 1567 1330 9730 8263
Tidal Energy Pty Ltd 4 2700 13737 11675 2895 2460 2327 1968 14418 12261
Tidal Energy Pty Ltd 5 5500 9790 8326 2043 1734 1657 1407 10272 8730
Tidal Generation
1000 974 830 203 172 161 137 1023 872
Limited
1000
Tidal Sails AS 17800 15137 3714 3154 3013 2558 18676 15873
0
Tide Tec AS - - - - - - - - -
Tocardo BV 1 86 1437 1221 303 258 244 207 1509 1282
Tocardo BV 2 43 239 203 50 43 40 34 251 214
Tocardo BV 3 174 1347 1145 284 241 228 194 1416 1202
Tocardo BV 4 87 168 143 35 30 28 24 177 150
Verdant Power Small 85 606 515 127 108 102 87 636 540
Verdant Power Large 500 890 757 186 158 151 128 934 794
Voith Hydro Small 1000 1367 1163 287 242 231 196 1437 1219
Voith Hydro Large 1000 1111 943 231 196 186 158 1167 992
Min Energy
- 126 107 26 22 21 18 132 113
(GWh/yr)
Max Energy
- 17800 15137 3714 3154 3013 2558 18676 15873
(GWh/yr)
Average Energy
- 2875 2444 603 512 486 412 3019 2566
(GWh/yr)
1000s of Homes
- 575 489 121 102 97 82 604 513
Powered
 279

Appendix 10: Calculations of the number of

WEC devices
 280

Table A10:1 Number of WEC devices for the different fjord crossing locations for
a suspension bridge or floating bridge design (Ntot_sus/float).
Wspace
Technology 1 2 3 4 5 6 7a 7b 8
(m)
Applied Technologies
Varies - - - - - - - - -
Company Ltd
AquaGen Technologies 15 470 2535 995 530 425 1130 395 1770 2665
Atargis Energy Corporation 0 - - - - - - - - -
Atmocean 30 138 759 297 156 126 336 117 528 798
BioPower Systems Pty Ltd 100 13 75 29 15 12 33 11 52 79
Hann-Ocean Energy Pte Ltd 50 54 302 118 62 50 134 46 210 318
MotorWave group *) 7 203 1089 427 229 184 486 170 760 1144
Ocean Energy Industries, Inc. ? - - - - - - - - -
Ocean Harvesting Technologies
50 54 302 118 62 50 134 46 210 318
AB
OWWE - INNOVAKO
? - - - - - - - - -
Floating Bridge
OWWE - INNOVAKO
Varies - - - - - - - - -
OWWE-Rig
OWWE - INNOVAKO Wave
Varies - - - - - - - - -
Pump-Rig
OWECO Ocean Wave Energy
5.51 3354 17992 7059 3783 3042 8021 2808 12558 18889
Company 1
OWECO Ocean Wave Energy
10.93 903 4879 1911 1022 819 2170 756 3402 5124
Company 2
OWECO Ocean Wave Energy
22 252 1384 540 288 232 616 212 964 1452
Company 3
Oceanlinx Ltd Varies - - - - - - - - -
PerpetuWave Power Pty Ltd 40 68 378 148 78 62 168 58 264 398
RESEN ENERGY 60 44 252 98 50 40 110 38 174 264
Sea Power Ltd 450 2 15 5 2 1 6 1 10 16
Seatricity 30 138 759 297 156 126 336 117 528 798
Seawood Designs Inc 32 129 711 276 147 117 315 108 495 747
Trident Energy Ltd Varies - - - - - - - - -
Vigor Wave Energy AB 100 13 75 29 15 12 33 11 52 79
Voith Hydro Wavegen Varies - - - - - - - - -
Waveenergyfyn 30 46 253 99 52 42 112 39 176 266
Wavestar A/S ? - - - - - - - - -
WavePiston ApS 35 39 217 84 45 36 96 33 151 228
W4P Waves4Power AB 35 117 651 252 135 108 288 99 453 684
Wello Ltd. 100 13 75 29 15 12 33 11 52 79
*) Wdev and Ldev are approximated from the supplied data
 281

Table A10:2 Number of WEC devices for the different fjord crossing locations for
a submerged floating tunnel design (Ntot_SFT).
Wspace
Technology 1 2 3 4 5 6 7a 7b 8
(m)
Applied Technologies
Varies - - - - - - - - -
Company Ltd
AquaGen Technologies 15 400 2155 845 450 360 960 335 1505 2265
Atargis Energy Corporation 0 - - - - - - - - -
Atmocean 30 117 645 252 132 105 285 99 450 678
BioPower Systems Pty Ltd 100 11 64 24 12 10 28 9 44 67
Hann-Ocean Energy Pte Ltd 50 46 256 100 52 42 114 38 178 270
MotorWave group *) 7 172 926 363 195 157 413 144 646 972
Ocean Energy Industries, Inc. ? - - - - - - - - -
Ocean Harvesting Technologies
50 46 256 100 52 42 114 38 178 270
AB
OWWE - INNOVAKO
? - - - - - - - - -
Floating Bridge
OWWE - INNOVAKO
Varies - - - - - - - - -
OWWE-Rig
OWWE - INNOVAKO Wave
Varies - - - - - - - - -
Pump-Rig
OWECO Ocean Wave Energy
5.51 2847 15288 5993 3224 2587 6825 2392 10673 16055
Company 1
OWECO Ocean Wave Energy
10.93 770 4144 1624 868 700 1848 644 2891 4354
Company 2
OWECO Ocean Wave Energy
22 216 1176 460 244 196 520 180 820 1232
Company 3
Oceanlinx Ltd Varies - - - - - - - - -
PerpetuWave Power Pty Ltd 40 58 322 124 66 52 142 48 224 338
RESEN ENERGY 60 38 214 82 44 34 94 32 148 224
Sea Power Ltd 450 1 13 4 2 1 5 1 9 14
Seatricity 30 117 645 252 132 105 285 99 450 678
Seawood Designs Inc 32 111 603 234 126 99 267 93 420 636
Trident Energy Ltd Varies - - - - - - - - -
Vigor Wave Energy AB 100 11 64 24 12 10 28 9 44 67
Voith Hydro Wavegen Varies - - - - - - - - -
Waveenergyfyn 30 39 215 84 44 35 95 33 150 226
Wavestar A/S ? - - - - - - - - -
WavePiston ApS 35 33 184 72 38 30 81 28 128 193
W4P Waves4Power AB 35 99 552 216 114 90 243 84 384 579
Wello Ltd. 100 11 64 24 12 10 28 9 44 67
*) Wdev and Ldev are approximated from the supplied data
282
283
284
285
 286

Appendix 11: Calculations of the energy from

WEC devices
 287

Table A11:1 Annual energy production for the different fjord crossings for a
suspension bridge or floating bridge design (Esus/float).
Prated
Technology 1 2 3 4 5 6 7a 7b 8
(kW)
Applied Technologies
10-12000 - - - - - - - - -
Company Ltd
AquaGen Technologies 100 165 888 349 186 149 396 138 620 934
Atargis Energy Corporation 5000 - - - - - - - - -
Atmocean 20 10 53 21 11 9 24 8 37 56
BioPower Systems Pty Ltd 1000 46 263 102 53 42 116 39 182 277
Hann-Ocean Energy Pte Ltd 1000 189 1058 413 217 175 470 161 736 1114
MotorWave group 16 11 61 24 13 10 27 10 43 64
Ocean Energy Industries,
0.5-10000 - - - - - - - - -
Inc.
Ocean Harvesting
150 28 159 62 33 26 70 24 110 167
Technologies AB
OWWE - INNOVAKO
- - - - - - - - - -
Floating Bridge
OWWE - INNOVAKO
5000 - - - - - - - - -
OWWE-Rig
OWWE - INNOVAKO
- - - - - - - - - -
Wave Pump-Rig
OWECO Ocean Wave
30 353 1891 742 398 320 843 295 1320 1986
Energy Company 1
OWECO Ocean Wave
250 791 4274 1674 895 717 1901 662 2980 4489
Energy Company 2
OWECO Ocean Wave
2150 1898 10427 4068 2170 1748 4641 1597 7262 10939
Energy Company 3
Oceanlinx Ltd 500-2500 - - - - - - - - -
PerpetuWave Power Pty
850 203 1126 441 232 185 500 173 786 1185
Ltd
RESEN ENERGY 300 46 265 103 53 42 116 40 183 278
Sea Power Ltd 3750 26 197 66 26 13 79 13 131 210
Seatricity 30 15 80 31 16 13 35 12 56 84
Seawood Designs Inc 300 136 747 290 155 123 331 114 520 785
Trident Energy Ltd 40-150 - - - - - - - - -
Vigor Wave Energy AB 100000 4555 26280 10162 5256 4205 11563 3854 18221 27682
Voith Hydro Wavegen 18.5-132 - - - - - - - - -
Waveenergyfyn 200 32 177 69 36 29 78 27 123 186
Wavestar A/S 600 - - - - - - - - -
WavePiston ApS 100 14 76 29 16 13 34 12 53 80
W4P Waves4Power AB 250 102 570 221 118 95 252 87 397 599
Wello Ltd. 1000 46 263 102 53 42 116 39 182 277
Min Energy (GWh/yr) - 10 53 21 11 9 24 8 37 56
Max Energy (GWh/yr) - 4555 26280 10162 5256 4205 11563 3854 18221 27682
Average Energy (GWh/yr) - 456 2571 998 523 419 1136 384 1786 2705
1000s of Homes Powered - 91 514 200 105 84 227 77 357 541
 288

Table A11:2 Annual energy production for the different fjord crossings for a
submerged floating tunnel design (ESFT).
Prated
Technology 1 2 3 4 5 6 7a 7b 8
(kW)
Applied Technologies
10-12000 - - - - - - - - -
Company Ltd
AquaGen Technologies 100 140 755 296 158 126 336 117 527 794
Atargis Energy Corporation 5000 - - - - - - - - -
Atmocean 20 8 45 18 9 7 20 7 32 48
BioPower Systems Pty Ltd 1000 39 224 84 42 35 98 32 154 235
Hann-Ocean Energy Pte Ltd 1000 161 897 350 182 147 399 133 624 946
MotorWave group *) 16 10 52 20 11 9 23 8 36 54
Ocean Energy Industries, Inc. 0.5-10000 - - - - - - - - -
Ocean Harvesting
150 24 135 53 27 22 60 20 94 142
Technologies AB
OWWE - INNOVAKO
- - - - - - - - - -
Floating Bridge
OWWE - INNOVAKO
5000 - - - - - - - - -
OWWE-Rig
OWWE - INNOVAKO Wave
- - - - - - - - - -
Pump-Rig
OWECO Ocean Wave Energy
30 299 1607 630 339 272 717 251 1122 1688
Company 1
OWECO Ocean Wave Energy
250 675 3630 1423 760 613 1619 564 2533 3814
Company 2
OWECO Ocean Wave Energy
2150 1627 8860 3465 1838 1477 3917 1356 6178 9281
Company 3
Oceanlinx Ltd 500-2500 - - - - - - - - -
PerpetuWave Power Pty Ltd 850 173 959 369 197 155 423 143 667 1007
RESEN ENERGY 300 40 225 86 46 36 99 34 156 235
Sea Power Ltd 3750 13 171 53 26 13 66 13 118 184
Seatricity 30 12 68 26 14 11 30 10 47 71
Seawood Designs Inc 300 117 634 246 132 104 281 98 442 669
Trident Energy Ltd 40-150 - - - - - - - - -
Vigor Wave Energy AB 100000 3854 22426 8410 4205 3504 9811 3154 15418 23477
Voith Hydro Wavegen 18.5-132 - - - - - - - - -
Waveenergyfyn 200 27 151 59 31 25 67 23 105 158
Wavestar A/S 600 - - - - - - - - -
WavePiston ApS 100 12 64 25 13 11 28 10 45 68
W4P Waves4Power AB 250 87 484 189 100 79 213 74 336 507
Wello Ltd. 1000 39 224 84 42 35 98 32 154 235
Min Energy (GWh/yr) - 8 45 18 9 7 20 7 32 48
Max Energy (GWh/yr) - 3854 22426 8410 4205 3504 9811 3154 15418 23477
Average Energy (GWh/yr) - 387 2190 836 430 352 963 320 1515 2295
1000s of Homes Powered - 77 438 167 86 70 193 64 303 459
SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden
Our work is concentrated on innovation and the development of value-adding technology.
Using Sweden's most extensive and advanced resources for technical evaluation,
measurement technology, research and development, we make an important contribution to
the competitiveness and sustainable development of industry. Research is carried out in close
conjunction with universities and institutes of technology, to the benefit of a customer base of
about 9000 organisations, ranging from start-up companies developing new technologies or
new ideas to international groups.

SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden SP Structural and Solid

Box 857, SE-501 15 BORÅS, SWEDEN Mechanics
Telephone: +46 10 516 50 00, Telefax: +46 33 13 55 02 SP Arbetsrapport :2012:06
E-mail: info@sp.se, Internet: www.sp.se ISBN
www.sp.se ISSN 0284-5172

More information about publications published by SP: www.sp.se/publ

 Statens vegvesen
Vegdirektoratet
Publikasjonsekspedisjonen
Postboks 8142 Dep
0033 OSLO
Tlf: (+47 915) 02030
publvd@vegvesen.no

ISSN: 1893-1162