B

Interim Letter Report

NRC ASSESSMENT OF MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC ENERGY TECHNOLOGY: INTERIM LETTER REPORT

Released on July 12, 2011

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences Board on Energy and Environmental Systems    500 Fifth Street,NW
Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202 334 3344
Fax: 202 334 2019

July 12, 2011

Dr. Henry Kelly
Acting Assistant Secretary

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20585

RE: NRC Assessment of Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technology: Interim Letter Report

Dear Dr. Kelly:

The Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Wind and Water Power Program requested that the National Research Council (NRC) provide an evaluation of the detailed assessments being conducted by five individual resource assessment groups for the DOE, estimating the amount of extractable energy from U.S. marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) resources.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 117
B Interim Letter Report NRC ASSESSMENT OF MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC ENERGY TECHNOLOGY: INTERIM LETTER REPORT Released on July 12, 2011 Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences 500 Fifth Street, NW Board on Energy and Environmental Systems Ninth Floor Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202 334 3344 Fax: 202 334 2019 July 12, 2011 Dr. Henry Kelly Acting Assistant Secretary Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20585 RE: NRC Assessment of Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technology: Interim Letter Report Dear Dr. Kelly: The Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Wind and Water Power Pro- gram requested that the National Research Council (NRC) provide an evaluation of the detailed assessments being conducted by five indi- vidual resource assessment groups for the DOE, estimating the amount of extractable energy from U.S. marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) resources. 117

OCR for page 117
118 APPENDIX B In response, the NRC formed the Committee on Marine and Hydro­ kinetic Energy Technology Assessment, which has begun its review of the resource assessments. In this letter report, the committee responds to its charge of writing an interim report assessing the methodologies, technologies, and assump- tions associated with the wave and tidal energy resource assessments. The DOE specifically requested that these two MHK resource assessments be evaluated in the interim report and that the committee’s final report also cover the three other assessments—those on free-flowing water in rivers and streams, on marine temperature gradients, and on ocean currents. Attachment A contains the committee’s statement of task. Attachment B presents biographical information on the committee members. The committee presents this letter report, in accord with the statement of task, as its preliminary assessment of methodologies and assump- tions used in the estimation of wave and tidal resources. The commit- tee’s review is based on the presentations that it received from the wave resource assessment group (which consists of the Electric Power Research Institute [EPRI] working with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University [Virginia Tech] and National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL]) and the tidal resource assessment group (consisting of Georgia Institute of Technology [Georgia Tech] working with Oak Ridge National Laboratory [ORNL]). These presentations were made at the committee’s first two meetings, in November 2010 and February 2011. The committee also received presentations from the DOE as well as written information submitted by all five of the resource assessment groups. Although the wave resource and tidal resource assessment groups will eventually release final reports, their reports were not available for the development of this interim report. Thus, the committee believes that it is important to complete its interim letter report at this point, not only for the letter report’s potential impact with respect to the wave resource and tidal resource assessments, but also to provide timely feedback to the other assessment groups. The committee will continue to review the methodologies and assumptions that are used in all five of the assess- ments, as it completes its study and writes its final report (currently scheduled for completion in the spring of 2012). In the sections that follow, the committee first describes the motivation for and purpose of this report. It then presents the conceptual framework of the overall MHK resource assessment process that it developed in order to have a consistent, clear set of definitions and a framework for assessing the approaches of the individual groups. The committee’s evaluation of the wave resource assessment and of the tidal resource assessment is presented in the next two sections, with conclusions and recommendations in each. A final section on overarching conclusions completes the body of the report.

OCR for page 117
APPENDIX B 119 As elaborated on in the sections that follow, the committee concludes that the overall approach taken by the wave resource and tidal resource assessment groups is a useful contribution to understanding the distribu- tion and possible magnitude of energy sources from waves and tides in U.S. waters. However, the committee has concerns regarding the useful- ness of aggregating the analysis to produce a “single number” estimate of the total national or regional theoretical and technical resource base (defined in the section below entitled “Conceptual Framework”) for any one of these sources. The committee also has some concerns about the methodologies and assumptions, as detailed in the sections below. For the wave resource assessment, the committee is particularly concerned with the extension of the analysis into shallow depths, where the modeling is most inaccurate. One important issue for the tidal resource assessment is the lack of clarity on how the assessment group will incorporate any sort of technological considerations into its resource assessment. The committee is also concerned about the limited scope of the assessments’ validation exercises. These issues are discussed further below. MOTIVATION FOR AND PURPOSE OF THE INTERIM REPORT Marine and hydrokinetic resources are increasingly becoming part of energy regulatory, planning, and marketing activities in the United States and elsewhere. In particular, state-based renewable portfolio stan- dards and federal production and investment tax credits have led to an increased interest in the possible deployment of MHK technologies. This interest is reflected in the number of requests for permits for wave, cur- rent, tidal, and river-flow generators that have been filed recently with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); at the end of 2010 FERC had issued preliminary permits for 110 projects and had another 12 preliminary permits pending. It should be noted that although permit activity is a measure of the potential interest in MHK resource develop- ment, it is not a reliable predictor of the future development of hydro­ kinetic resources because developers apply for permits before planning the facility or obtaining financing. In order to assess the overall potential for U.S. MHK resources and technologies, the DOE is funding the following: (1) detailed resource assessments for estimating what the DOE terms the “potential extractable energy” for each resource and (2) projects for generating the technology- related data necessary for estimating the expected performance of the wide variety of technology designs currently under consideration (DOE, 2010; Battey, 2010, 2011). The objective of the DOE’s work in the area of MHK resource assessments is to help the DOE prioritize its overall port­olio f of future research, increase the understanding of the potential for MHK

OCR for page 117
120 APPENDIX B resource development, and direct MHK device and/or project develop- ers to locations of greatest promise (Battey, 2011). In terms of resource assessments, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) directed the DOE to estimate the size of the MHK resource base. Earlier estimates (EPRI, 2005, 2007) of the amount of energy that could be extracted from MHK resources are based on limited and possibly inaccurate data regard- ing the total resource size and on potentially dated assumptions related to the amount of each resource that might ultimately prove extractable. To improve these estimates, the DOE contracted with the five assessment groups referred to above to conduct separate estimates of the extractable energy from five categories of MHK resources: waves, tidal currents, ocean currents, marine temperature gradients, and free-flowing water in rivers and streams (DOE, 2010). Performing these assessments requires that each group estimate the average power density of the resource base, as well as the basic technology characteristics and spatial and temporal constituents that convert power into electricity for that resource. Each assessment group is using distinct methodologies and assumptions. This NRC committee is tasked with evaluating the detailed assessments pro- duced for the DOE, reviewing estimates of extractable energy (typically represented as average terawatt-hours [TWh] per year)1 and technology specifications, and accurately comparing the results across resource types. In reviewing the initial methodologies from the five U.S. MHK resource assessment groups contracted by the DOE, the committee observed that the groups all employed different terminology to describe similar results. Thus, besides providing its review comments on each individual assessment, the committee is also taking on the role of provid- ing a forum for comparing and contrasting the approaches taken by the respective assessment groups. To that end, the committee developed the conceptual framework of the overall MHK resource assessment process, presented in the section below, in order to help develop a common set of definitions and approaches. 1  Note that terawatt-hours per year can be translated into units of power, such as g ­ igawatts, and used to represent the average power generation over the time period indi- cated. However, a unit such as terawatt-hours per year (or, as shown in an electricity bill, kilowatt-hours per month) is a standard unit for the electricity sector. Energy units such as kilowatt-hours or terawatt-hours measure the commodity that is generated by power plants and sold to consumers. For example, the Energy Information Agency’s table of total electricity generation (see http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_8.pdf) is given in billions of kilowatt-hours per year.

OCR for page 117
APPENDIX B 121 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK In order to develop its approach to the study task and to review the individual resource assessments, the committee developed a conceptual framework (Figure 1) for visualizing the processes used to develop the assessment results requested by the DOE. This framework establishes a set of three terms—theoretical resource, technical resource, and practical resource—and their definitions, provided below, to clarify elements of the overall resource assessment process as described by each assessment group and to allow for a comparison of different methods, terminology, and processes among the five assessment groups. The committee recog- nizes that communities involved with other energy types, such as wind and fossil fuels, use different terms to describe their resource bases (i.e., “resources,” “proven reserves”). It has instead chosen to follow emerg- ing trends in terminology for MHK resources as used in the European marine energy community, including the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC; http://www.emec.org.uk/standards.asp). The EMEC terminol- ogy has been submitted to the International Electrotechnical Commission for consideration as the basis of an international standard. In addition to employing terminology used in the European marine energy community, the committee developed Table 1 as a common source of definitions and units used in this report. FIGURE 1  Conceptual framework developed by the committee for marine and hydrokinetic resource assessments. NOTE: GIS, Geographic Information System; TBD, to be determined.

OCR for page 117
122 APPENDIX B TABLE 1  Definitions Used by Department of Energy Marine and Hydrokinetic Resource Assessment Groups and National Research Council (NRC) Committee Term to be Quantified Definition Units Notes General Energy The capacity to do work Joules (J) Power Energy per time Watts (W) = joules per second Resource Average annual power Terawatt- Representing a hours (TWh) potential energy per year resource base for (1 TWh/yr = the electricity 114 megawatts sector in [MW]) terawatt-hours. Waves Wave power Power of waves per unit Watts per Horizontal density crest length based on meter energy flux (Mei, 1989) (power density); Pvector = ρg Σ S(f,θ)cg df applies to a single device. Wave power Power of waves per unit Watts per Horizontal density circle based on meter energy flux; (Electric Power applies to a Research Pscalar = ρg ΣΣ S(f,θ)cg df dθ single device. Institute [EPRI]) Total regional Based on annual average Terawatt- Overestimates wave resource sum of wave power density hours per the total (EPRI) along a line defining a year resource by region of coastline, such as a (= 114 MW) including energy bathymetric contour. flux along the line. Pcoast = Σ Pscalar dl Total regional Based on annual average Terawatt- Remains wave resource sum of wave power density hours per approximately (recommended crossing perpendicular to year constant as by this a line defining a region (= 114 MW) waves travel committee) of coastline, such as a shoreward from bathymetric contour. deep water. Pcoast = Σ Pvector cosθ dl

OCR for page 117
APPENDIX B 123 TABLE 1 Continued Tides Tidal power Power of horizontal tidal Watts per Horizontal density currents flowing through a square meter kinetic energy vertical plane of unit area. (W/m2) flux; applies to a single device. P = ½ρu3 Total regional Based on annual average Terawatt- Maximum tidal resource power available from a tidal hours per power (Garrett and bay or channel year obtainable with Cummins, 2008) (= 114 MW) a complete tidal Pmax = 0.22ρgaQmax fence; equivalent to a barrage. NOTE: List of variables: ρ = water density g = gravitational acceleration S = wave spectrum (sea-surface height variance, per frequency and direction) cg = wave group speed f = wave frequency θ = wave direction l = length of coastline, depth contour, or other region u = tidal current speed a = tidal amplitude (half of tidal range) Qmax = maximum horizontal tidal volume flux (over tidal cycle) The theoretical resource, shown in the left column of the conceptual framework in Figure 1, is defined as the average annual energy produc- tion for each source of hydrokinetic energy. Determining the theoretical resource requires a series of inputs (including methods, models, assump- tions, and data and observations) for each source of hydrokinetic energy (e.g., waves, tides). In response to the original DOE request, some, but not all, of the assessment groups have identified paths designed to pro- duce two key outputs for the theoretical resource: (1) overall regional or national numbers for the U.S. theoretical resource, expressed as an average annual energy resource (typically in terawatt-hours per year); and (2) a Geographic Information System (GIS) database that represents the spatial variation in average annual power density in units appropri- ate for each source (i.e., watts per meter for waves or watts per square meter for tides). The technical resource (center column in Figure 1) is defined as the portion of the theoretical resource that can be captured using a specified technology. For each resource, there are technological constraints that

OCR for page 117
124 APPENDIX B represent how much of the theoretical resource can actually be extracted. The committee conceptualizes these constraints as “extraction filters” con- sisting of physical and technological constraints, including back effects2 and technological characteristics associated with one or more energy- extraction devices (representing factors such as device efficiency, device spacing requirements, and cut-in and cut-out parameters).3 Some of these filters are resource-specific; others are applicable across all of the MHK types. During presentations made to the committee and from its discus- sion with the DOE and the assessment groups, it became clear that each group offers a different interpretation of what types of constraints need to be included among its extraction filters. However, it is clear to the com- mittee that estimating the technical resource from the theoretical resource requires filters that represent physical and technological constraints asso- ciated with energy-extraction devices. Outputs related to the technical resource include an estimate of the energy resource and a GIS represent- ing spatial and temporal variation in the resource associated with various technologies. In the committee’s view, the assessment groups determined that reporting the technical resource represented the completion of their projects. Some of the assessment groups recognized that, beyond the extrac- tion filters, there were additional filters influencing when and where devices could be placed. The practical resource (right-hand column in Figure 1), is defined as that portion of the technical resource available after consideration of all other constraints. In the conceptual framework, these constraints are captured in socioeconomic filters. For example, the fi ­ lters involving logistical and economic considerations include costs of raw materials and maintenance, resources associated with transmission and distribution, electricity demand, and the cost of electricity. Environ­ mental and use constraints include issues relating to a variety of impacts on the environment (e.g., protecting threatened species or ecologically sensitive areas), sea-space conflicts (e.g., involving shipping channels, navigation, protected areas), and multiple- or competing-use issues (e.g., fisheries, viewshed impacts, recreation, national security). Such filters are, by nature, specific to and critical at the local sites where decision making related to marine and hydrokinetic projects will occur. A determination of the practical resource is beyond the scope of the resource assessment groups’ tasks as defined by the DOE. However, 2  A back effect refers to the modification of an energy resource owing to the presence of an extraction device. In the case of turbines in a river or tidal channel, the back effect is the modification of currents in the whole cross section of the channel, particularly the reduction in the volume flux through the channel. 3  In some cases, such as for tidal resources or steady currents, the estimation of the theo- retical resource requires allowance for back effects.

OCR for page 117
APPENDIX B 125 the committee sees the constraints represented by the socioeconomic filters as being among the most important set of considerations influencing future investments in marine and hydrokinetic energy. The socioeconomic filters are also the most important set of considerations if one is to develop an assessment of what might ultimately be considered the maximum estimate of MHK resources that could be used to generate electricity. An approach for assessing these socioeconomic considerations might be to merge the GIS databases resulting from the theoretical and technical resources with existing spatial information about other economic and ecological uses of the ocean and coast, such as shipping channels and areas associated with critical habitats and species. Although such information would be helpful in highlighting potential multiple-use conflicts, it will not be sufficient for quantifying the practical resource base. The quantification of the practi- cal resource could be done as part the planning processes for site-specific management or for local, state, or regional management. As discussed below, the wave and tidal resource assessment groups employ different GIS platforms to display their results. Given that one of the DOE’s objectives is to be able to compare the various resource types with one another, this lack of coordination among the assessment groups precludes the easy integration of all resource assessments into a single database and seems counterproductive to the ultimate DOE goals. Moreover, this same coordination and consistency would, if present, help the five resource assessment groups develop resource assessments that are easily comparable and that could be easily integrated into a common platform. Given that many of the extraction and the socioeconomic filters might be similar across the assessment groups, coordination would also help in the development of a GIS database useful to policy makers and developers. The DOE requested that the assessment groups determine the “maxi­ mum practicable, extractable energy.” Although maximum practicable, extractable energy could possibly refer to the practical resource in the conceptual framework shown in Figure 1, discussion with the DOE and the assessment groups led the committee to conclude that the term is instead equivalent to the technical resource in the conceptual framework. It was also made clear that the assessment effort did not include incor- porating site-specific information that would be required to define the practical resource base. Additionally, there is a lack of clarity on the geographic scope for the estimate of maximum practicable, extractable energy. It is unclear from discussions with the DOE and the assessment groups whether the estimate is to be a national, regional, or local resource estimate. The committee finds that the resource estimates, especially the resource base aggregated to a regional or national level, have both limited utility and

OCR for page 117
126 APPENDIX B potential for misuse. Although such estimates might provide broad order- of-magnitude estimates of which resources have the greatest potential, the conceptual framework shown in Figure 1 clearly illustrates that there are many extraction filters needed to determine the technical resource. The assessment groups can only assess a few of these filters, and many of the filters require assumptions about which particular MHK technologies will be used. Moreover, a wide array and diversity of socioeconomic filters ultimately limit only a portion of this technical resource base to be repre- sentative of what the maximum practicable, extractable energy might be from MHK resources. WAVE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Introduction Power in ocean waves originates as wind energy that is transferred to the sea surface when wind blows over large areas of the ocean. The resulting wave field consists of a collection of waves at different frequen- cies traveling in various directions, typically characterized by a direc- tional wave spectrum. These waves travel efficiently away from the area of generation across the ocean to deliver their power to nearshore areas. Wave power density is usually characterized as power per length of wave crest; it represents all the energy crossing a vertical plane of unit width per unit time. This vertical plane is oriented along the wave crest and extends from the sea surface down to the seafloor. To capture this orientation, wave power is expressed as a vector quantity, and accurate representation of its magnitude and direction requires the consideration of the full directional wave spectrum. Note that the wave energy conver- sion devices currently under development are designed to operate at different locations in the water column, and only a portion of this overall wave power may be available to these devices (e.g., devices that respond only to heave motions associated with the waves). As noted in the discus- sion above of the committee’s conceptual model, the considerations of the amount of power that can be extracted by specific wave power devices are incorporated in the estimation of the technical resource. Because wave energy travels in a particular direction, care must be taken when interpreting maps that show wave power density as a func- tion of location but do not indicate predominant wave directions. It also must be recognized that if the energy is removed from the wave field at one location, by definition less energy will be available in the shadow of the extraction device. It would not be expected that a second row of wave energy extraction devices would perform the same as the first row of devices that the wave field encountered, because any recovery of the

OCR for page 117
APPENDIX B 127 wave field due to additional wind input (if present) would occur over distances much larger than the spacing between rows of wave energy extraction devices that are currently under consideration. This shadow- ing effect implies that it is erroneous to estimate the theoretical resource as the sum of the wave power density over an area as one might do for solar energy. Note that the magnitude of this shadowing effect is likely to be highly dependent on the specific characteristics of the device (e.g., size, efficiency). Although there are some initial publications with rigorous analytical approaches for quantifying the effect of an arbitrary array of point absorbers devices (e.g., Garnaud and Mei, 2010), shadowing effects due to realistic devices are a topic of active research. The planning of any potential large-scale deployment of wave power devices would require sophisticated, site-specific field and modeling analysis of the devices’ interactions with the wave field. One approach to interpreting wave power density maps correctly is to evaluate the wave energy traveling shoreward across a line parallel to the coastline (perhaps located on a bathymetric contour). This is shown in Table 1 as the “total regional wave resource” assessment recommended by the committee. Provided that the selected line is on the continental shelf, it is reasonable to assume that the winds do not add significant energy to the wave field after the waves cross this line. In this case, the wave power density across such a line provides a reasonable approximation to the theoretical resource that represents the wave energy available to nearshore wave energy devices in a region. To do this estimate properly, wave direction information, in addition to the wave frequency spectrum, must be known. Description of Wave Resource Estimate The wave resource assessment group was tasked with producing estimates of the theoretical and technical resource in U.S. coastal regimes. In order to obtain estimates of the theoretical wave resource (left column in Figure 1), the wave resource assessment group utilizes a hindcast of wave conditions that was assembled by the National Oceanic and Atmo- spheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) using its wave-generation and -propagation model WAVEWATCH III. The hindcast generally provides wave parameters over a 4’ x 4’ grid, although the resolution is coarser in a few areas (Alaska, for example, is gridded at 4’ x 8’) (Jacobson et al., 2010). Thus the resolution is generally on the order of many kilometers, whereas the shelf bathymetry can vary rapidly over a few hundred meters. The assessment and valida- tion groups first resolve several potential issues related to the available hindcast (i.e., a short data record of only 51 months, a lack of full spectral

OCR for page 117
APPENDIX B 133 well as information about expected extreme conditions. In its final report, the committee will also consider how information on the MHK resource base might be overlaid on other ocean uses (e.g., fishing grounds, naviga- tional concerns, recreation areas) to make an assessment of the practical resource base. Recommendations: The committee recommends that the wave resource assessment group’s approach to estimating the theoretical resource base acknowledge that the energy flux (power density) of waves is a direc- tional quantity, and it recommends that the approach consider only the component of the wave power density vector that is perpendicular to the line of interest. Hence, as indicated in Table 1, rather than summing over a collection of cylinders, a simple line integral should be computed. The committee also recommends that strong caveats accompany the estimates of the total theoretical and technical resources. The wave resource assessment group should be very cautious in presenting information for shallow-water environments, where its approach is most inaccurate. There has been a recent trend to envision wave energy extraction farther offshore, in deep water, to avoid some ecological and other impacts. However, some potential projects are still seeking shallow-water siting for the closer proximity to transmission and other logistical requirements. Shallow-water sites also generally have lower construction and maintenance costs. Given that the actual place- ment of devices may occur in such shallow-water areas, the committee recommends that any siting considerations be accompanied by a model­ ing effort that resolves the bathymetric variability on the inner shelf and accounts for the physical processes that dominate in shallow waters (e.g., refraction, diffraction, shoaling, wave dissipation due to bottom fric- tion and wave breaking). The wave resource assessment group should provide to any potential developers and to other users guidance in the application of this assessment in shallow-water areas. For example, some virtual stations could be established where the full directional spectrum would be available for potential users. A developer or coastal engineer could then perform high-resolution simulations and the necessary field- work to develop local fields using a shallow-water model such as SWAN combined with an accurate bathymetry. Additionally, the committee recommends that the wave resource assessment group clearly define the GIS outputs. The full directional wave energy spectrum should be included in order to retrieve the directionality and the time series of the wave parameters, which would allow the GIS data to be used either as input for a more detailed analysis in shallow water or as an informative wave climate geographic tool. Simple sum- mary plots would be convenient to give an overview of the wave climate

OCR for page 117
134 APPENDIX B as wave power roses (diagrams showing the distribution of wave height and direction), probability distribution of wave parameters, wave power monthly average time series, and Gumbel distribution of the extreme events. TIDAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Introduction Ocean tides are a response to gravitational forces exerted by the Moon and the Sun. They include the rise and fall of the sea surface and the associated horizontal currents. The potential of tidal power for human use has traditionally led to proposals that envision a barrage across the entrance of a bay that has a large range between low and high tides. A simple operating scheme is to release water trapped behind the barrage at high tide through turbines, generating power as is done in a traditional hydropower facility. In recent years, considerable attention has been paid to the direct exploitation of tidal currents using in-stream turbines rather than a bar- rage, in a manner similar to the way that wind turbines work. By way of scale comparison, even a strong current of 3 m/s (~10 ft/s) is equivalent to a hydraulic head of only 0.5 m (~1.6 ft), which is considerably less head than a typical tidal range. As the power produced by a turbine is related to the product of the head and the flow rate, it is clear that capturing tidal currents is considerably less effective than capturing the hydraulic head associated with a modest tidal range. The upper bound on the power from such an in-stream turbine is shown in Table 1 and is expressed by the Lanchester-Betz limit of 0.3rAu3, where r is water density, u is current speed, and A is the cross-­ sectional area across the blades (also referred to as the swept area).4 The L ­ anchester-Betz limit shows that the turbine power is related to the cube of the current and demonstrates the advantage of deploying turbines in regions of strong current. As an example, if the cross section area A is 100 m2 (~1,075 ft2) and the current speed u is 3 m/s, the upper bound on the power from a turbine is 0.8 MW. The average power over a tidal cycle is, of course, considerably less than that obtainable at the maximum current. 4  TheLanchester-Betz limit applies to a turbine in an unbounded flow. If a turbine array occupies a significant fraction of the channel cross section, it can create a sufficient blockage and build up a large head, and more power can be obtained. This could ultimately approach the power from a barrage, if the array blocks the entire channel cross section (Garrett and Cummins, 2007).

OCR for page 117
APPENDIX B 135 Project Description The tidal resource assessment group conducted its tidal energy assess- ment study by developing a set of models to simulate all U.S. coastal regions and to estimate the maximum tidal energy based on predicted tidal currents (Georgia Tech Research Corporation, 2010; Haas et al., 2010; Georgia Tech Research Corporation, 2011; Haas et al., 2011). The model used in the study was the three-dimensional Regional Ocean Model- ing System (ROMS),5 which is often used in model studies of coastal oceanography and tidal circulation. The model was configured with eight l ­ayers and set up for 51 domains, with grid resolutions in the range of 200 to 500 m. Each domain included a section of coast or a particular bay, with offshore boundaries that included part of the adjacent continental shelf. The models were forced at their offshore boundaries by predicted tidal constituents, using the Advanced Circulation Model (ADCIRC) tidal database6 for the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico regions and the TPXO database7 for the West Coast region. River inflows and atmospheric forc- ing (such as wind) were not considered, and stratification and density- induced currents were not simulated. The landward model boundaries and bathymetry were defined using coastline data from NOAA’s National Ocean Service and digital sounding data from NOAA’s National Geo- physical Data Center. The effect of tidal flats was initially evaluated but not considered in the final model runs. The tidal resource assessment group calibrated the tidal models by adjusting the single friction coefficient to improve the comparison among model results, NOAA predictions of tidal elevation and currents, and limited observations of depth-averaged tidal currents. Model validation performed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory was done by comparing model predictions with observed tidal elevations and currents at selected stations that were not included in the calibration exercises (ORNL, 2011; Neary et al., 2011). Model skills and error statistics were generated in this validation. Model output was used (1) to provide an upper bound, Pmax , of the power available from in-stream turbines for each bay and (2) to create a web-based GIS interface of quantities such as the local average power density (watts per square meter) in a vertical plane perpendicular to the average current at each model grid cell. Visualizations of average power density could, in principle, be used to estimate the power available from a single turbine or a few turbines (an array small enough not to have 5   ee http://www.myroms.org/; accessed June 21, 2011. S 6   ee http://www.unc.edu/ims/ccats/tides/tides.htm; accessed June 21, 2011. S 7  See http://www.esr.org/polar_tide_models/Model_TPXO71.html; accessed June 21, 2011.

OCR for page 117
136 APPENDIX B a significant back effect on the currents). The tidal resource assessment group used ArcView GIS software. The GIS developed by the group was well designed and executed, and it allowed for downloading of the tidal modeling results for further analysis by a variety of knowledgeable users. Based on the assessment group’s last presentation to the committee (Haas et al., 2011), the committee concluded that the resource assessment will not produce estimates of the total theoretical energy resource or incor- porate technology characteristics to estimate the technical resource base. Comments on Methodology ROMS is a structured-grid, open-source coastal ocean model. It has performed well in the prediction of coastal circulation and tides in a large number of applications (e.g., Warner et al., 2005; Patchen, 2007; NOAA, 2011). Finer grid resolution may be needed to represent bathymetry accu- rately in high tidal current regions. Increasing the grid resolution in local areas of a ROMS model often results in a significant increase of the total model grid size, owing to the structured-grid framework. In contrast, unstructured-grid models, which have greater flexibility for high grid resolution in complex waterways, could provide an alternative choice, especially for areas of complex geometry with high tidal energy (see, e.g., Patchen, 2007). An evaluation of the effect of grid resolution in high tidal energy regions is necessary for future studies. The location of the offshore boundary, partway out onto the continen- tal shelf, is adequate for this effort, assuming that only a single turbine or a limited number of turbines is represented. Extension to the shelf edge may be necessary in the future if models are rerun with representations of a large turbine array that would be extensive enough to have a back effect on offshore tides. Estimates of available power may not be accurate without considering the effect of the locations of open boundaries. This question could be evaluated in follow-on studies. According to the materials provided to the committee, the model tends to reproduce observed tidal elevations well. This is essential for the accurate prediction of the currents, but it may not be sufficient. It is possible for a model to reproduce tidal elevations well but still to have incorrect current patterns. Comparisons between predicted and observed currents indicated that errors associated with predicted currents may be 30 percent or more (Neary et al., 2011). It could be useful to consider more conventional model evaluation skill metrics used in the ocean-modeling field (Warner et al., 2005; Patchen, 2007; NOAA, 2011). Because power is related to the cube of current speed, errors of 100 percent or more occur in the prediction of tidal power density in many model regions. It is unclear whether model calibration through the adjustment of the single

OCR for page 117
APPENDIX B 137 friction coefficient is more appropriate than adjustment or improvement of other factors, such as offshore boundary values, model bathymetry, or grid resolution. As noted by the tidal resource assessment group, errors in currents may be a consequence of inadequate model resolution rather than a consequence of an erroneous friction coefficient or uncertain forc- ing from the open boundary. Comments on the Estimate of Available Tidal Power One principal result of the tidal resource assessment is the maximum power, Pmax, extractable from the tidal currents in a bay. Pmax is the basis for the theoretical resource shown in the left column of Figure 1. Pmax would result from the use of a complete “fence” of turbines across the entrance to the bay, but it is not the horizontal kinetic energy flux 0.5ru3 times the area of the vertical cross section of the entrance to the bay (e.g., Garrett and Cummins, 2007, 2008). Instead, as stated in Table 1 of this ­letter report, Pmax is given to a reasonable approximation by Pmax = 0.22 gr a Qmax, where g is gravity, a is tidal amplitude (the height of high tide above mean sea level), and Qmax is the maximum volume flux into a bay in the natural state without turbines. Pmax increases with the tidal amplitude, a, and the surface area of the bay. This result is for a single tidal constituent. If the dominant tide is the twice-a-day lunar tide, Pmax is equivalent to the provision from each square meter of the bay’s surface of 0.3a2 W if a is in meters. For example, a tidal amplitude of 1 m (3.28 ft) would require more than 300 square kilometers (over 110 square miles) to produce 100 MW as an absolute maximum. In an area with multiple tidal constituents, the potential power is greater than that available from the dominant tide alone (see, e.g., Garrett and Cummins, 2005). In the assessment, Pmax was based on all constituents that were extracted for each site. The result makes it clear why serious consideration of tidal power is generally limited to regions with a large tidal range. As reviewed by Garrett and C ­ ummins (2008), this formula for Pmax is also a reasonable approximation for the power available from a tidal fence across a channel that connects two large systems in which the tides are not significantly affected. In this case, a is the amplitude of the sinusoidal difference in tidal elevation between the two systems. In the Pmax scenario, the fence of turbines is effectively acting as a bar- rage, and therefore Pmax is essentially the power available when all water entering a bay is forced to flow through the turbines. Pmax is thus likely to be a considerable overestimate of the practical extractable resource once

OCR for page 117
138 APPENDIX B other considerations, such as the extraction and socioeconomic filters shown in Figure 1, are taken into account. Lesser but still useful amounts of power could be obtained from turbines that are deployed in regions of strong current without greatly impeding a bay’s overall circulation. As mentioned earlier, a single tur- bine can extract no more than the Lanchester-Betz limit. A total power P requires a volume flux through the cross-sectional area of the turbines of P/(0.3ru2), so that even with a current speed of 3 m/s, the volume flux required for a power of 100 MW is nearly 40,000 m3/s (~1.4 million ft3/s). Delivering such a flux would require a large number of turbines (for example, 120 turbines if each had a cross-sectional area of 100 m2, or 24 turbines with 25 m diameter if full-scale turbines were employed). Many more turbines would be needed for more typical, smaller, average currents. Deploying an extensive array of turbines would impact other marine resource uses, such as other sea-space uses and ecological services, and would necessitate extensive, site-specific planning efforts. More importantly, a single turbine or a small number of turbines would not significantly affect pre-existing tidal currents, but an array large enough to generate tens of megawatts would have back effects that reduced the current that each individual turbine experienced. In theory, this back effect is allowed for in a complete tidal fence considered in the calculation of Pmax. However, allowing for the back effects of an in-stream turbine array in a confined region requires further, extensive numerical modeling that was not undertaken in the present tidal resource assess- ment study and is in its early stages elsewhere (see, e.g., Shapiro, 2011). Other than for the case of a complete tidal fence, which estimates something close to the theoretical resource base, the tidal resource group’s assessment cannot be used to estimate directly the potential power of strong currents in specific bays if more than a few turbines are considered. Nonetheless, an early group presentation to the committee (Haas et al., 2010) attempted to evaluate the technical resource based on Pk, the power that could be obtained if turbines of a specific swept area and efficiency were deployed at a specified spacing in regions satisfying specified mini- mum average current and minimum water-depth criteria, while making the assumption that any back effects on the currents would be small. This assumption is likely to be false, particularly if Pk is a significant fraction of Pmax. In that case, the turbines would have an effect on currents through- out the bay, and Pk would be an overestimate of the power available from the turbine array. If Pk is not a significant fraction of Pmax, circulation in other areas of the bay might not be greatly impacted, but local reductions in the currents would still be likely and could again cause Pk to be an over- estimate. The group could consider choosing the lesser of Pk and Pmax as an estimate of the technical resource base. However, the committee notes

OCR for page 117
APPENDIX B 139 that the tidal resource assessment group abandoned Pk , and thus any evaluation of the technical resource, because of the major uncertainties inherent in specifying parameters (personal communication to the com- mittee from Kevin Haas, Georgia Institute of Technology, March 18, 2011). Conclusions and Recommendations The assessment of the tidal resource assessment group is valuable for identifying geographical regions of interest for the further study of poten- tial tidal power. However, although Pmax may be regarded as an upper bound to the theoretical resource, it is an overestimate of the technical resource because one must assume a complete fence of turbines across the entrance to a bay, a situation that is unlikely to occur. Thus, Pmax over­ estimates what is realistically recoverable, and the group does not pres- ent a methodology for including the technological and other constraints necessary to estimate the technical resource base. The power density maps presented by the group are primarily appli- cable to single turbines or to a limited number of turbines that would not result in major back effects on the currents. Additionally, errors of up to 30 percent for estimating tidal currents translate into potential errors of a factor of more than two in the estimate of potential power. Because the cost of energy for tidal arrays is very sensitive to resource power density, this magnitude of error is quite significant from a project-planning stand- point. The limited number of validation locations and the short length of data periods used lead the committee to question whether the model was properly validated in all 51 model domains, as well as in the vertical struc- ture. Further, the committee is concerned about the potential for misuse of power density maps by end users, as calculating an aggregate number for the theoretical U.S. tidal energy resource is not possible from a grid summation of the horizontal kinetic power densities obtained using the model and GIS results. Summation across a single-channel cross section also does not give a correct estimate of the available power. Moreover, the values for the power across several channel cross sections cannot be added together. Recommendations: The tidal resource assessment is likely to highlight regions of strong currents, but it includes large uncertainties in its char- acterization of the resource. Thus, developers would have to perform further fieldwork and modeling, even for planning small projects with only a few turbines. The committee recommends that follow-on DOE work for key regions should take into account site-specific studies and existing data from other researchers. If regions are identified in which utility-scale power (greater than 10 MW) is thought to be available, fur-

OCR for page 117
140 APPENDIX B ther modeling will need to include the representation of an extensive array of turbines in order to account for changes in the tidal and current flow regime at local and regional scales. For particularly large projects, the model domain extent will require expansion, probably to the edge of the continental shelf (see, e.g., Garrett and Greenberg, 1977). As will be discussed in the committee’s final report, further DOE work on tidal assessments might include additional filters to progress from theoretical resource estimates to estimates of the technical and practical resource bases. Given that the DOE’s objective for the resource assessments is to produce estimates of the maximum practicable, extract- able energy, it is clear that estimates of the practical resource base need to incorporate additional filters beyond the first column of the committee’s conceptual framework (Figure 1). As a way to investigate estimates of maximum practicable, extractable energy, one might consider a region of strong tidal currents in which there is also a large tidal range, such as Cook Inlet. Such an example might consider a comparison of an in-stream tidal power scheme with a tidal power scheme involving a barrage across the head of a bay or involving a lagoon enclosing a coastal area. The reasons for this include the following: (1) as noted above, even a current of 3 m/s is equivalent to a head of only 0.5 m, much less than would be available with a barrage or lagoon; (2) the construction of a lagoon should be much simpler than the installation of a large number of in-stream tur- bines in a region of strong currents; and (3) it is possible that the overall environmental impact of a lagoon might be less than that of an array of turbines producing the same average power. OVERARCHING CONCLUSIONS Use of Resource Assessments On the basis of the information that it reviewed, the committee con- cludes that the overall approach taken by the wave resource and tidal resource assessment groups is a useful contribution to the understanding of the distribution and possible magnitude of energy sources from waves and tides in the United States. The models, data sources, and visual dis- play technologies, provided they are conveyed with appropriate caveats and documented assumptions, should aid planners and those interested in potentially developing marine and hydrokinetic energy sources. The committee has some individual concerns about the methodolo- gies and the communication of these methodologies that are detailed above. Moreover, the committee has a concern regarding the usefulness of aggregating the analysis to produce a “single-number” estimate of the total national or regional theoretical and technical resource base for any

OCR for page 117
APPENDIX B 141 one of these energy sources. Based on the information presented to the committee by the wave resource and tidal resource assessment groups, the methods and level of detail in these studies will not be able to provide a defensible estimate of the resources that might be practically extractable from each of the resource types. The committee concludes that developing an estimate of the practical resource would require reaching the bottom of the third column in its conceptual framework (Figure 1). As discussed in the sections reviewing the wave resource and tidal resource assessments, the groups have had varying degrees of success getting to the technical resource base, the bottom of the second column in Figure 1. Although the DOE may desire these overall numbers for some general purposes, such as comparing the sizes of individual MHK resources with one another or comparing the MHK resource base with other renewable resources, a single number is of limited value for understanding the potential con- tribution of MHK resources to U.S. electricity generation, which must ultimately be assessed from the bottom up on a site-by-site basis. The tapping of wide swaths of ocean or coastal straits and embayments for harvesting a significant portion of their tidal and/or wave energy runs into insurmountable barriers of other ocean uses in addition to technology and materials limits. Furthermore, attempting to develop such a national- level assessment requires that the assessment groups expend effort and resources in locations of lower power density that may divert the groups from doing a thorough assessment in locations with high resource poten- tial. However, the committee recognizes that one of the objectives of this study could be not only to advise developers of areas of high energy, but also to inform decision makers, within a common platform, with an understanding of areas in which there is limited resource potential. Therefore, the assessment groups’ confirmation of the spatial variability for wave and tidal resources is useful for a number of interested parties. The committee’s final report will consider types of information that might be needed and follow-up studies that might be done to help esti- mate the maximum practicable, extractable resource base. Included might be the detailed assessments of specific sites, including investigations where the deployment of MHK devices might be promising and might possibly serve an additional purpose, as well as where the use of MHK resources might serve remote locations with difficult access to other elec- tricity supplies. The final report will also further consider the source and magnitude of the uncertainties in the resource estimates. Coordination Among GIS Products A lesser overarching concern than those summarized above is the inconsistency across the implementation of GIS databases for presenting

OCR for page 117
142 APPENDIX B power density results. Continuing the committee’s warnings on total resource numbers, the local results and spatial distribution of power densities are agreed to be the primary utility of the resource studies. For this reason, it would be best to have the GIS products coordinated and readily able to be integrated across the resource assessment groups. This was not included in the DOE tasking of the groups and has not been done spontaneously by them. Additionally, there is a concern that the databases will not be maintained after the performance period of the DOE con- tracts. Finally, the committee concludes that caveats and warnings need to accompany the GIS products so that users are not tempted to sum over, or extrapolate from, the power density maps. Sincerely, Paul Gaffney, Chair Committee on Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technology Assessment Attachments A Statement of Task B Biographies of the Committee Members REFERENCES Battey, H. 2010. U.S. Department of Energy Water Power Program. Presentation at the First Meeting of the Committee on Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technology Assess- ment. November 15, Washington, D.C. Battey, H. 2011. U.S. Department of Energy Water Power Program. Presentation at the Second Meeting of the Committee on Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technology Assessment. February 8, Washington, D.C. Chawla, A., H.L. Tolman, J.L. Hanson, E.-M. Devaliere, and V.M. Gerald. 2009. Validation of a Multi-Grid WAVEWATCH III Modeling System. 11th Waves Forecasting and Hind- casting Workshop, Halifax, Nova Scotia. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2010. Short Summaries of DOE’s Marine and Hydro­ kinetic Resource Assessments. Washington, D.C. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2005. Final Summary Report, Project Definition Study, Offshore Wave Power Feasibility Demonstration Project. Washington, D.C. EPRI. 2007. Assessment of Waterpower Potential and Development Needs. Washington, D.C. EPRI. 2010. Wave Energy Resource Assessment and GIS Database for the U.S. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. Palo Alto, Calif. EPRI. 2011. Wave Energy Resource Assessment, Appendix A: Terminology and Equations. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. Palo Alto, Calif.

OCR for page 117
APPENDIX B 143 Garnaud, X., and C.C. Mei. 2010. Bragg scattering and wave-power extraction by an array of small buoys. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., A 466 (2113): 79-106. Garrett, C., and P. Cummins. 2005. The power potential of tidal currents in channels. Proc. Roy. Soc. A 461: 2563-2572. Garrett, C., and P. Cummins. 2007. The efficiency of a turbine in a tidal channel. J. Fluid. Mech., 588: 243-251. Garrett, C., and P. Cummins. 2008. Limits to tidal current power. Renew. Energ. 33: 2485-2490. Garrett, C., and D.A. Greenberg. 1977. Predicting changes in tidal regime: The open bound- ary problem. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 7: 171-181. Georgia Tech Research Corporation. 2010. Assessment of Energy Production Potential from Tidal Streams in the United States. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. Atlanta, Ga. Georgia Tech Research Corporation. 2011. Assessment of Energy Production Potential from Tidal Streams in the United States. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. Atlanta, Ga. Haas, K., Z. Defne, H. Fritz, L. Jiang, S. French, and B. Smith. 2010. Assessment of Energy Production Potential from Tidal Streams in the United States. Presentation at the First Meeting of the Committee on Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technology Assess- ment. November 15, Washington, D.C. Haas, K., Z. Defne, H. Fritz, and L. Jiang. 2011. Assessment of Tidal Stream Energy Potential for the United States. Presentation at the Second Meeting of the Committee on Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technology Assessment. February 8, Washington, D.C. Hagerman, G., and P. Jacobson. 2011. Meaning and Value of U.S. Wave Energy Resource Assessments. Presentation at the Second Meeting of the Committee on Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technology Assessment. February 8, Washington, D.C. Jacobson, P., G. Hagerman, and G. Scott. 2010. Assessment and Mapping of the U.S. Wave Energy Resource. Presentation at the First Meeting of the Committee on Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technology Assessment. November 15. Washington, D.C. Komar, P. 1998. Beach Processes and Sedimentation, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall. Mei, C. C. 1989. The Applied Dynamics of Ocean Surface Waves. Singapore: World Scientific. Neary, V., K. Stewart, and B. Smith. 2011. Validation of Tidal Current Resource Assessment. Presentation at the Second Meeting of the Committee on Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technology Assessment. February 8, Washington, D.C. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2011. The Tampa Bay Opera- tional Forecast System (TBOFS): Model Development and Skill Assessment. NOAA Technical Report NOS CS 17. Sliver Spring, MD. ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). 2011. Validation of Tidal Current Resource Assess- ment Model. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. Oak Ridge, Tenn. Patchen, R. 2007. Establishment of a Delaware Bay Model Evaluation Environment. In Estuarine and Coastal Modeling, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference, Malcolm L. Spaulding (ed.). Nov. 5-7, 2007, Newport, Rhode Island. Scott, G. 2011. Validation and Display of Wave Energy Resource Estimates. Presentation at the Second Meeting of the Committee on Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technology Assessment. February 8, Washington, D.C. Shapiro, G.I. 2011. Effect of tidal stream power generation on the region-wide circulation in a shallow sea. Ocean Sci. 7: 165-174. Virginia Tech University. 2010. Methodology for Estimating Available Wave Energy Resource. ­ Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. Blacksburg, Va. Warner, J.C., W.R. Geyer, and J.A. Lerczak. 2005. Numerical modeling of an estuary: A com- prehensive skill assessment. J. Geophys. Res. 110, C05001, doi:10.1029/2004JC002691.