State of the Art Analysis - Reveiw of Wave Energy

Document Sample
State of the Art Analysis - Reveiw of Wave Energy Powered By Docstoc
					               State of the Art Analysis




Coordinator:




Partners:




                                   A Cautiously
                               Optimistic Review of
                               the Technical Status
                                 of Wave Energy
                                   Technology
Supported by:
                        [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                                                     February 2009



INDEX


PREFACE.................................................................................................................................... ii
ACRONYMS................................................................................................................................ v
1.      INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
2.      THE RECOMMENDED PRACTICES.............................................................................. 3
     2.1.      The European Dimension.......................................................................................... 3
     2.2.      The Irish Experience .................................................................................................. 5
     2.3.      The International Perspective................................................................................... 8
     2.4.      Qualification Procedures ......................................................................................... 10
3.      PROMISING TECHNOLOGIES ..................................................................................... 11
     3.1.      Leading Technologies.............................................................................................. 11
     3.2.      Successive Devices ................................................................................................. 12
     3.3.      WEC Review ............................................................................................................. 13
4.      FUNDING & RESEARCH................................................................................................ 17
     4.1.      Funding Structure ..................................................................................................... 17
     4.2.      Market & Technology Projects in Europe ............................................................. 19
        4.2.1.        WAVEPLAM ...................................................................................................... 20
        4.2.2.        FP7; Energy: CORES ...................................................................................... 21
        4.2.3.        FP7; Energy: EquiMar...................................................................................... 21
        4.2.4.        UK; EPSRC: Supergen Marine....................................................................... 22
        4.2.5.        FP7; People RTN: Wavetrain II ...................................................................... 23
5.      SEA TRIAL FACILITIES .................................................................................................. 25
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 42
APPENDIX................................................................................................................................. 43
     A.1. Leading Technologies...................................................................................................... 43
     A.2. Successive Devices .......................................................................................................... 60




                                                                                                                                   i
               [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                     February 2009




Acknowledgements

WAVEPLAM is a project funded under the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme.
Contract number: EIE/07/038/SI2.466832




Legal Disclaimer

The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not
necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Communities. The European Commission is not
responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.


                                                                                      i
              [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                 February 2009


PREFACE
The purpose of this review is to provide technical information that should assist policy
makers, investors, project developers and other interested stakeholders to make
informed decisions regarding the scheduling of wave power into future energy plans
and portfolios. Many estimates have already been declared in a variety of prediction
documents but they are usually based on energy market forces rather than technology
readiness assessment (TRA) of the devices.

It is widely accepted that wave power has the potential to become a significant
contributor to the world’s (clean) energy supply needs, as shown by the differing
forecasts listed in Table 1. However, it is also the case that in the 1980s WE was
expected to be commercial within 5-7 years. This same lead time was further
endorsed in 2000 when a new generation of devices were under development. These
ambitious time frames have lead to the contradictory perceptions that either the
industry is more advanced than it actually is, or it is not really progressing. The true
situation is somewhere in-between, so the following device based report should enable
more appropriate introduction dates to be specified. Once established it ought to be
only the time targets, not the power targets, that may be difficult to achieve.

It is further hoped that the TRA approach will assist in focusing future product funding
programmes since the correct support mechanisms are essential if even modified
delivery dates are to be met. The device development recommended requirements are
summarised in Table 4.1. The actual details of current and required future fiscal
policies to stimulate and accelerate project progress are covered in separate
Waveplam studies. Here only the on-going principal European and national research
projects are described.

To help achieve the objectives, particularly funding packages, a structured device
development programme is proposed and this is used as the foundation for setting the
machine evolution status. The technical information is presented in the Appendix as
developer based specification sheets. This approach will enable the information to be
easily updated and expanded as required. The data is summarised in Tables 3.1 &
3.2. The key facts being the Phase (or technology readiness level) column which is
an indication of the time still required to reach the commercialisation level. The
technology development times being experienced by a selection of leading companies
are summarised in Figure 1. The graph illustrates the different approaches that can be
followed and the consequences of certain decisions.

It will be seen from the device tables that there are a large and varied number of
machines undergoing testing. To-date no one type of technology has demonstrated a
clear advantage over the others. However, only one has actually reached prototype
scale so there is limited economic data on which to predict accurate electricity

                                                                                 ii
                       [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                                           February 2009

production costs. This section has, therefore, been omitted from this edition of the
report. A supplement will be added later in the project should such information become
available. At present the best guestimate for electricity production will be in the range
€0.05-€0.50/kWh.

This document, therefore, concentrates on describing the devices that are the most
advanced technically and approaching the economic demonstration phase of their
development.

The structure of the report is as follows;

       •    Chapter 1: Brief introduction and device evaluation criteria
       •    Chapter 2: Technology readiness level methodology
       •    Chapter 3: Leading devices, including summary statistics
       •    Chapter 4: Current funding and research projects
       •    Chapter 5: Infrastructure support and sea trial facilities
       •    Technical appendix


               Report                          Countries                    2010       2020        2030       2040       2050
                                      Scenario A (EU-27)                                8           20         66        124
EU SET Plan 2009
                                      Scenario B (EU-27)                                            12         68         124
                                      Moderate (Global)                       1          17         44         98        194
NEEDS Report 2008
                                      Optimistic (Global)                     1         20.4        61        149        309
                                      Reference (BAU) (Global)                           2           3          4          4
EREC/Greenpeace, 2007
                                      Alternative (+2°) (Global)              2          14         28         46         63
                                      Reference (BAU) (Global)                           2           4          7          9
EREC/Greenpeace, 2008
                                      Alternative (+2°) (Global)             0.9         17         44         98        194
                                                                 1
                                      Reference (BAU) (Europe )              0.2        1.8         3.3        4.5        5.1
EREC/Greenpeace, 2008                                           1
                                      Alternative (+2°) (Europe )            0.3        1.5         4.8       10.3       15.4
                                      Global                            0.015
Douglas Westwood, 2008
                                      Europe                            0.007
Carbon Trust, 2006                    United Kingdom                      0.1    2.5
MI & SEI, 2005                        Rep. Ireland                      0.005    0.2
                                                                              2
DEMNR, 2008                           Rep. Ireland                      0.075    0.5
                                                               Table 1 Wave/Ocean Energy Installed Capacity [GW]




1
  OECD Europe: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom.
2
    OEDU mandate of interim target for 2012


                                                                                                                       iii
                         [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                      February 2009

During the information search a note was taken of less advanced devices that exhibit
some interesting, unique features that separated them from being simply adaptations of
existing wave energy converters. Of particular merit are the units designed around
new materials. All pioneering converters are solid constructions that must withstand, to
differing degrees, the extreme wave loadings encountered in exposed ocean
deployment sites. There are now appearing compliant type units made of rubber and
polymers that can flex and bend with the waves rather than repel and resist them. The
progress of these will be reported in an update of the document towards the conclusion
of the project in two years time. Certain learned authorities predict that when wave
energy emerges as a proven economical alternative energy supply devices will be
considerably different from those pioneering the industry.




                     5



                                                                                    CETO
                     4                                                              Wavedragon
                                                                                    Pelamis
         TRL Phase




                                                                                    Oceanlinx*
                     3                                                              OE Buoy
                                                                                    AquaBuoy
                                                                                    AWS
                     2                                                              OPT




                     1
                         0         5                    10        15           20
                                              Accumulated Years


                                 Fig. 1 Device TRL Accumulated Years Testing
   •   * floating device developed from fixed machine
   •   durations include project financing delays




                                                                                                 iv
             [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                             February 2009


ACRONYMS
AWS              Archimedes Wave Swing
BAU              Business As Usual
BERR             Dept. for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (formally DTI)
BIMEP            Biscay Marine Energy Platform
CORES            Components for Ocean Renewable Energy Systems
DECM             Direct Energy Conversion Method
DG TREN          Directorate-General Energy & Transport
DMI              Danish Maritime Institute
DNV              Det Norske Veritas
DTI              Department of Trade & Industry
DTU              Technical University of Denmark
EACI             Executive Agency for Competitiveness & Innovation
EMEC             European Marine Energy Centre
EPSRC            Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council
EQUIMAR          Equitable Testing and Evaluation of Marine Energy Extraction
Devices in terms of Performance, Cost and Environmental Impact
EU               European Union
EVE              Ente Vasco de la Energia
FP7              Seventh Framework Programme
FWEPS            Floating Wave Electric Power Station
HMRC             Hydraulics & Maritime Research Centre
IEA-OES          International Energy Association – Ocean Energy Systems
IEC              International Electrotechnical Commission
IEE              Intelligent Energy Europe
INCO             International Scientific Cooperation Activities
INRI             Independent Natural Resources Incorporated
KSRI             Krylov Shipbuilding Research Institute
kW               Kilo-Watts (1,000 Watts)
MI               Marine Institute
MRC              Multi-Resonant Chambers
MRDF             Marine Renewables Deployment Fund
MW               Mega-Watt (1,000,000 Watts)
NAREC            New & Renewable Energy Centre
NEL              National Engineering Laboratory
NRC              National Research Council
OPT              Ocean Power Technologies
OWC              Oscillating Water Column
OWEC             Offshore Wave Energy Converter
OWEL             Offshore Wave Energy Ltd.
People RTN       People Research Training Networks
PTO              Power Take-Off
REH              Renewable Energy Holdings
SEEWEC           Sustainable Economically Efficient Wave Energy Converter
SEI              Sustainable Energy Ireland
SINTEF           Foundation for Scientific & Industrial Research
SME              Small-Medium Enterprise

                                                                           v
           [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]             February 2009

SSG          Seawave Slot-cone Generator
STREP        Specific Targeted Research Projects
TRA          Technology Readiness Assessment
TRL          Technology Readiness Level
TWEC         Tunnelled Wave Energy Converter
UCC          University College Cork
WAVEPLAM     Wave Energy Planning & Marketing
WE           Wave Energy
WEC          Wave Energy Converter
WECA         Wave Energy Conversion Activator
WP           Workpackage
WS           Workstream




                                                         vi
                [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                 February 2009


1.       INTRODUCTION
Ocean Energy, and in particular wave energy, extraction has captured the interest and
imagination of inventors and engineers in the same way early flight and cotton
manufacturing did in the last century. Perhaps, now that it is a media discussed topic
connected to climate change and security of supply issues, even more so.
Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, most of the schemes and designs will not advance
beyond the drawing board and concept validation phase. Impartial, balanced and
equitable due diligence to evaluate the potential of such devices is important, even
essential, if the limited commercial resources available to wave energy convertor
(WEC) development are to be used efficiently. To advance, the wave energy industry
will require focused effort and support for the current vanguard SME’s who have
proven they have machines that possess a chance of success and continued operation
in the harsh environment these units must reside in.

Over recent years there have been several European and national reviews of the range
of wave energy (and tidal energy) devices being investigated at any particular point in
time. Reference to them shows how the interest changes from one period to another,
despite the belief in each unit at the time. Unlike the wind industry, which quite quickly
converged on one model of air turbine, the horizontal axis type, there is no single unit,
or even generic type, of WEC that is proving more successful than another. This
statement, however, requires clarification, since it depends on how the machines are
classified. Most rely on the physics of two inertial masses reacting against each other
in such a way that power can be generated between the opposing forces. It is actually
only the size, shape, colour and components that differ. This is even the case if one of
the inertial masses is fixed, usually to the seabed.

The power take-off utilising the imbalance between the masses is a variable but to date
only six options exist:

     •   Air turbines (Figure 1.1)

     •   Close circuit oil hydraulics (Figure 1.2)

     •   Direct (linear generator) drive (Figure 1.3)

     •   Low head water turbine (Figure 1.4)

     •   Water Pump (Figure 1.5)

     •   Open circuit water hydraulics (e.g. Hose Pump) (Figure 1.6)




                                                                                   1
               [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                 February 2009




           Fig. 1.1                       Fig 1.2                       Fig 1.3




           Fig. 1.4                       Fig 1.5                       Fig 1.6



There is a higher potential for variation in the mooring arrangement and it is possible
that non-conventional type anchorage systems will suit some, or all, of the prototype
devices. It is also probable that different configurations will match individual buoyant
wave energy devices.

This report will therefore not attempt to classify the different devices described in the
Appendices but rather regard then all as similar units capable of wave energy
conversion. In addition, since the document is charged with describing the current
state of the art with regard to wave energy extraction it will not be simply a list of
ephemeral devices currently being proposed and investigated at various stages of their
development. Rather, a set of criteria was agreed by which a device would qualify for
inclusion in the review.

The rationale placed on the study was to identify units with a real potential for pre-
production activity in the near future. After informed discussion between the Waveplam
partners the two primary requirements for qualifications to the first group were:



   •   The device had to have achieved sea trials, at least at a large scale (circa
       λ > 1:4)

   •   The company must have followed and exhibited evidence of a structured
       development programme prior to sea deployment.



                                                                                  2
              [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                 February 2009

Depending on the stage of development, a follow up group are also reported based on
adherence to the second specification. As can be seen from the information sheets in
the Appendix some flexibility was necessary for almost all devices and the caveat
relaxed. It is expected that this document will be updated over the duration of the
Waveplam project but the same qualifying criteria will still be applied.

The first condition was easy to observe and verify. For the second the soon to be
introduced International Energy Agency ~ Ocean Energy Systems (IEA-OES)
Development & Evaluation Protocol was employed.


2.     THE RECOMMENDED PRACTICES
When the European Union, through its operating Commission, took over responsibility
for ocean energy research from the UK, who had terminated their programme in circa
1990, several preliminary actions were instigated. From these the first inclusion of
ocean energy in a Framework Programme, JOULE II, evolved. Within this instrument
was a two-year project assigned with drawing up a European ocean energy
development strategy, the Offshore Wave Energy Converter Project, (OWEC I). One
section of OWEC I was dedicated to constructing a programme for device development
that would be seen by the SME’s as fair, unbiased, impartial and independent.



2.1.   The European Dimension
Following consultation with active WE device group’s of the time for background
information reference was made to existing development programmes for format. In
particular NASA’s Technology Readiness Level (TRL) approach was adopted and
adapted to suit marine energy engineering and became the core of the protocol.
Additional information was taken from test programme documentation such as the
International Towing Tank Conference Guidelines.         This fact finding led to a
recommendation for a five phase approach that would mitigate financial and technical
risk during the development programme of an ocean energy device. Figure 2.1 shows
a flow diagram at the various stages of the progress, from initial concept to final pre-
production demonstration of a machine.




                                                                                 3
              [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                          February 2009




                         Fig. 2.1 Development Phases of the Protocol


The rationale behind the approach can further be explained by Figure 2.2. This shows
graph lines of the time and cost investment during the various phases and how these
can assist by decreasing the number of design options at each stage. The proportional
cost breakdown is also shown to emphasise the logic of complying with such a
scheme. Anecdotal experience from certain developers has shown that one day lost in
the later phases due to incomplete early testing will cost more than the entire previous
phase and have a higher time delay penalty.




                                                               Cost
                                                               Options
                         HIGH
                                                               Time




                          LOW

                                PHASE 1   PHASE 2   PHASE 3   PHASE 4    PHASE 5



                       Fig. 2.2 Cost Breakdown of the Protocol Phases


Although well received at the time of publication (1996) no affirmative action to
implement the development schedule was taken, rather application was left to
individual device teams. (NB: it is perhaps strong justification for the recommended
                                                                                         4
              [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                 February 2009

approach that all the current leading companies did follow the design path or a variant
of it)



2.2.   The Irish Experience
In 2002, the Irish funding agents charged with progressing ocean energy prospects
requested a document that could be used to appraise the numerous project proposals
they were receiving with increasing regularity. The Marine Institute (MI) have
stewardship of marine technology matters and Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI)
oversee all energy research including renewables, as alternative sources.

As with the EU requirements, the proposed methodology had to be transparent and
balanced and seen by the industry as equitable, independent and unbiased. The
original Commission Joule II protocol was taken as the foundation for the Irish Ocean
Energy Development and Evaluation Protocol.

There were two main advancements made to the former document. Firstly, the details
of the procedures and specific areas to investigate at each phase were included.
These tactics were based on the best practices known at the time, with many being
acquired from other disciplines, especially the offshore engineering industry. Figure
2.3 shows a general overview of the whole development programme with a summary of
activities at each phase.

The exact timeline to complete the schedule from concept to market is not yet known
since no device has reached the commercialisation stage. What has become apparent
from experiences of the device front-runners is that it will take longer than originally
perceived. Figure 2.4 encapsulates early thinking when months rather than years were
regarded as the route to success. This underestimation of the challenges faced has
produced a perception that progress has been disappointing. It should be remembered
however that it is over-ambitious targets and intermittent funding that has mainly
delayed advancement.

Table 2.4 shows a sample of device development paths and the time frames required
to progress successfully through the various TRL.

It should also be noted that in the intervening period, considerable knowledge and
experience has been gained by both the research community and the nascent industry.
Current devices approaching Phase 4, solo prototype testing and Phase 5, small array
demonstration, have a better chance of succeeding than the units from whence they
have evolved. Success in this instance is defined not only as survival for an extended
period but also that acceptable performance figures are obtained.




                                                                                 5
                                                                                     PHASE 2:
                                    PHASE 1: Validation Model (lab)                                           PHASE 3: Process Model               PHASE 4:             PHASE 5:
DEVELOPMENT                                                                          Design Model
                                                                                                                                                   Prototype           Demonstration
                            Concept           Performance           Optimisation     (lab)                    Lab. Tests         Sea Trials
Objectives /           Op. Verification     Real Generic         Hull Geometry      Final Design          Scale effects of Overall             Ops Procedures       Grid Connection
Investigations         Design Variables Seas Design              Components         Accurate PTO          Performance                          Electrical Quality   Array Interaction
                       Physical Process variables                Configurations     [Active Control]      PTO Method Options & Control         Grid Supply          Maintenance
                       Validate/Calibrate Damping PTO            Power Take-Off     Mooring system        Environmental Influences & Factors   PTO                  Service Schedules
                       Maths Model          Natural Periods      Characteristics    Survival Options      Inst. Power Absorption               Performance          Component Life
                       Damping Effect       Power Absorption Design Eng.            Power Production      Characteristics                      Control Strategy     Economics
                       Signal Phase         Wave to Devise       (Naval Architects) Added mass            Electricity Production & Quality     Survival
                                            Response Phase                                                Mooring & Anchorage Security
Output/                Vessel Motion Response Amplitude Operators & Stability Motion RAO’s                Incident Wave Field                  Full On-Board        Service, Maintenance
Measurement            Pressure / Force, Velocity RAO’s with Phase Diagrams         Phase Diagrams        6 D of F Body Motion & Phase         Monitoring Kit for   & Production Monitor,
                       Power Conversion Characteristic Time Histories               Power v Time          PTO Forces & Power Conversion        Extended             Telemetry for Periodic
                       Hull Seaworthiness; Excessive Rotations or                   Wave Climates @       Seaworthiness of Hull & Mooring      Physical             checks & Evaluation
                       Submergence                                                  head, beam, follow    [Survival Strategies]                Parameters
                       Water Surface Elevation Abeam of Devices
               λ
Primary Scale (λ)                   λ = 1 : 25 - 100 (∴ λt = 1 : 5 - 10)                λ = 1 : 10 - 25    λ = 1 : 10 - 15   λ = 1 : 3 - 10       λ=1:1-2                λ = Full size
Tank                                     2D Flume or 3D Basin                            3D Basin             3D Basin        Benign Site        Exposed Site          Open Location
Duration –inc              1-3months           1-3months           1-3 months         6 – 12 months         3 – 6 months     6 – 18 months      12 – 36 months           1 – 5 years
Analysis
Typical No. Tests           250 - 750           250 - 500           100 - 250            100 - 250            50 - 100          50 - 250          Continuous          Statistical Sample
Budget (€’000)                1–5                 25-75               25-50              50 - 250           500 – 1,000      1,000 – 2,500      5,000 – 10,000          2,500 – 7,500
Model              Idealised with Quick Change Options Distributed Mass            Final design         Advanced PTO       Full Fabrication    Grid Control       First Fully Operational
                   Simulated PTO (0-∞ Damping Range) Minimal Drag                  (internal view)      Simulation         True PTO &          Electronics        Device
                   Std Mooring & Mass Distribution        Design Dynamics          Mooring Layout       Special Materials Elec Generator       Emergency Res
Excitation / Waves Monochromatic        Panchromatic Waves (20min scale)           Deployment -Pilot Site Sea Spectra      Extended Test       Full Scatter Diagram for initial Evaluation
                   Linear (10-25∆ƒ)     +ve 15 Classical Seaways Spectra           Long, Short Crested Classical Seas      Period to Ensure    Continuous Thereafter
                   (25-100 waves)       Long crested Head Seas                     Select Mean wave Approach Angle         all Seaways inc.
Specials           DoF (heave only) Short Crest Seas Storm Seas (3hr)              Power Take-Off       Device Output      Salt Corrosion      Quick Release        Solo or Small Array
                   2-Dimentional        Angled Waves      Finite Regular           Bench Test PTO & Repeatability          Marine Growth       Connections          (Up-grade to
                   Solo & Multi Hull    As Required       As required              Generator            Survival Forces Permissions            Service Ops          Generating Station)?
Maths Methods      Hydrodynamic, Numerical Frequency Finite Waves                  Time Domain Response Model & Control Strategy               Array Interaction    Int Market Projection
(Computer)         Domain to Solve the Model              Applied Damping          Naval Architects Design Codes for Hull, Mooring &           Economic Model       for Devise Sales
                   Undamped Linear Equations of           Multi Freq Inputs        Anchorage System. Economic & Business Plan                  Electrical Stab.
                   Motion
EVALUATION (Decision Gate)
Absorbed       Power
Converted      (kW)
Mass, (t)
Manufacturing Cost
(€)
Capture (kW/t) or
[kW/m^3])               [200 – 50 m^3]
Production (c/kW)       < 25 €c / kW                                                ≤ 15 €c / kW                                                ≤ 10 €c / kW         ≤ 5 €c / kW
                                                             Fig. 2.3 Details of the Irish Development & Evaluation Protocol
                                                                                                                                                                               6
               [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                   February 2009




                                         COST
                                         TIME
                                         RESOURCES



                          Fig. 2.4 Conceptualisation of Early Thinking



The first section of the protocol was included primarily for the benefit of the developers,
especially those with limited experience of product advancement. The second
expansion of the protocol was the introduction of stage-gate evaluation during each
phase of activity. These decision criteria would be applied by the company but
provided a standard set of assessment parameters that could be reviewed for each
proposal. It was also intended that the schedule facilitated assessment of which stage
any particular device had achieved and to what level it could be justifiably supported by
public funds for the next phase of progress.




                                Table2.4 Device TRL Duration



When presented in this logical, sequential way the TRL approach may seem obvious
but review of the field soon indicates how often it is not followed.

                                                                                    7
              [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                February 2009

The underlying mantra of the protocol was “Always have a plan, but be willing to
improvise”. The protocols primary purpose can be summarised by Figure 2.5.




                                          Fig. 2.5



2.3.   The International Perspective
In the last few years, the interest in development schedules, evaluation plans and
progress programmes has grown, including at an international level, and particularly
through the International Energy Agency – Ocean Energy Systems group. Through its
instrument of the Implementing Agreement of Annex II, an understanding has been
reached by which guidelines for the development and testing of ocean energy systems
will soon be introduced. This will then formalise an agreed standard set of procedures
and best practices that will be applied internationally.

The IEA-OES is not the only body becoming involved in ocean energy planning as
Figure 2.6 shows.




                     Fig. 2.6 Other Ocean Energy Standards & Practices



                                                                               8
              [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                                  February 2009

In the United Kingdom, the Carbon Trust and DNV have already issued important
contributions on design and operation matters. Meanwhile the European Marine
Energy Centre (EMEC) has been engaged by BERR (formerly DTI) to produce 13
Standards for the Marine Renewable Energy Industry. A short list of other groups
involved is shown in Figure 2.7.

                                      Development & Evaluation Protocol for
                                      Ocean Energy Devices

                                           Standards for the Marine
                                           Renewable Energy Industry

                              Guidelines on Design & Operation of
                              Wave Energy Converters


                                                    Tidal Current Energy Device
                                                    Development & Evaluation Protocol

                              Annex II: Development of Recommended Practices for Testing
                              & Evaluating Ocean Energy Systems



                        Technical Committee 114:
                        Marine Energy – Wave & Tidal Energy Converters

                  Fig. 2.7 Bodies Engaged in Drafting Standards & Protocols



The culmination of all this independent, but co-operative activity will be manifested
through the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), who has established the
Technical Committee 114, Marine Energy – Wave and Tidal Energy Converters. Under
this group the current best practice guidelines and recommended procedures will
become standards for the industry.

Other interested organisations are also vigorously following research programmes in
order to influence the final outcome of the work. Figure 2.8 shows the European
dimension to this activity, which includes current EU FP7 contracts.



                                              EMEC
                                  British Wind Energy Association
                                 European Wind Energy Association
                                    Renewable Energy Association
                                             UKERC
                                              EU-
                                              EU-OEA

                            CA-
                            CA-OE
                                                              IEA-OES
                                                              IEA-
                           SuperGen
                                                      Energy Technology Institute
                    WavePLAM,
                    WavePLAM, FP6, IEE/EACI
                                                                 SEI
                                            Pre-
                     EquiMar, FP7, Energy: Pre-
                                                                BERR
                       normative research for
                                                             Carbon Trust
                                OE


                     Fig. 2.8 Concerned Groups Utilising these Protocols

                                                                                                 9
               [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                        February 2009

2.4.   Qualification Procedures
Although introduced at a time when general guidance was required to facilitate the
progress of wave energy device development, a new but equally important raison
d’être has evolved for these instruments being in place. For whatever the reasons,
commercial extraction of wave energy has been sluggish, although measured would be
a more favourable description. However, a mood of impatience and over confidence
may be appearing. Governments and their funding agents want to see machines out at
sea to the extent that phases of the proven successful development schedule could be
skipped. The consequence of hurried engineering is shown in Figure 2.9.




           Fig. 2.9 Devices With Known Survival Issues; Osprey, Kvaerner, and TapChan


History has already shown what the consequences of such an imprudent attitude can
be and such action should be discouraged. Unrealistic claims or goals could damage
the progress of device development whilst reasonable patience should have its
rewards.

There is no substitute for due diligence being performed on products and projects
before they advance to sea trials in order to reduce the risk and conjecture from this
uncompromising phase. The open ocean is not the place to be conducting extensive
development work, rather this should have been done in the controlled environment of
a test centre or benign site. Figure 2.10 shows some less successful projects that
could have been identified prior to expensive sea trials.




           Fig. 2.10 Unproductive Devices; Mighty Whale, Vizhinjam OWC and Kaimei


                                                                                        10
               [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                 February 2009

All the devices described below have followed a defined structured development path
to some degree and are at sea for valid and justifiable reasons.


3.     PROMISING TECHNOLOGIES
The rationale for how the following devices were selected for inclusion into the most
promising section was outlined above.       Other units are at earlier phases of
development and some that may approach the initial sea trial phase before the
conclusion of the Waveplam project have been listed in Table 3.2 in the following
section.

The first generation of device that are experiencing sea time and offer the potential of
being the vanguard of a commercially viable wave energy industry are all heavy steel
or concrete units. Such machines must withstand large forces, especially due to
breaking waves during storm conditions found where the generation parks will be
located. Of particular interest to the future are the more compliant type structures that
are under investigation, such as the Anaconda, which is constructed from soft pliable
material, i.e. rubbers, so should not experience these worst case scenarios. A
particular watch will be kept on such units for the State of the Art update towards the
end of the project.

3.1.   Leading Technologies
More than a thousand ideas for wave energy converters have been patented over
recent years but at the present time only fifteen have reached a stage of large scale
sea trials. Of these only one has currently registered any hours of operation at
prototype scale, but eight have achieved long term testing at large scale (λ > 1:4).
Table 3.1 below summarises the situation. (NB. devices are in no priority order]

Reference to the Corporate Information Sheets found in the Appendices show that the
progress paths of some of the devices have sometimes deviated from the Protocol and
jumped across the boundaries between Phases. On some occasions, this has been to
confirm a particular situation discovered at a larger scale but on others, it has been an
attempt to cut short the development path. As the evidence and experience shows,
this quick-fix approach has rarely been successful and resulted in loss of time and
resources rather than gains. These experiences should further reinforce the standard
Development & Evaluation Protocol approach.

NB. 5 of the units achieve large capacity rating by clustering smaller individual
converters onto a single frame or floating structure. These tend to be tested with a
reduced number of converters to verify solo PTO performances. To achieve a full
generation park all WEC will be deployed on wider array configurations so the
Prototype Rating quoted below represents a single unit or cluster.



                                                                                  11
                [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                          February 2009

                                                        PROTOTYPE     PHASE               TEST
COUNTRY     COMPANY          DEVICE       TYPE                                 SCALE
                                                        RATING         (TRL)              RATING
            Aquamarine
UK
            Power
                             Oyster       Inertia       500 kW         3-4     1:1        500 kW

Finland     AW Energy Oy     WaveRoller   Inertia       5*15 kW          3     1:1        15 kW
            AWS      Ocean   Wave
UK
            Energy           Swing
                                          Inertia       2 MW             3     1:1.75     250kW

Canada      Finavera         AquaBuOY     Inertia       250 kW           3     1:2        25 kW
Norway      Fred Olsen       FOBOX3       Inertia       2.5 MW           3     1.3        50 kW
                                          Floating
Ireland     Ocean Energy     OE Buoy
                                          OWC
                                                        2 MW             3     1:4        15 kW
                                          Floating
Australia   Oceanlinx        Oceanlinx
                                          OWC
                                                        2 MW             3     1:3        45 kW

USA         OPT          PowerBuoy        Inertia       150 kW           3     1:1.5      40 kW
            Pelamis Wave
UK
            Power
                         Pelamis          Inertia       750 kW         4-5     1:1        750 kW
            Seapower                                                           1:6
Australia
            Pacific
                         CETO             Inertia       180 kW           3     (1:3)
                                                                                          10 kW
                         Wave             Floating
Denmark     Wave Dragon
                         Dragon           Overtopping
                                                        7 MW             3     1:5.2      20 kW

Ireland     Wavebob      Wavebob          Inertia       2 MW             3     1:4        15 kW
UK          Wavegen          Limpet       Fixed OWC     500 kW           4     1:1        500 kW
                                          Fixed
Norway      WAVEnergy        SSG
                                          Overtopping
                                                        150 kW           2     1:1        150 kW
                                          Floating
Denmark     WavePlane        WavePlane
                                          Overtopping
                                                        500 kW         3-4     1:1-2      250 kW

Denmark     Wavestar         Wavestar     Inertia       5 MW             3     1:10       5.5 kW
                                                                    Table 3.1 Leading Technologies



3.2.      Successive Devices
Prior knowledge and the specific Waveplam research and literature review revealed a
further ten WEC’s at advanced development phases as shown in Table 3.2. Four of
these devices have been deployed at sea for short periods but performances were
disappointing and resulted in further tank trials become necessary. Once completed it
can be expected that units that have looped back in the development path in this way
will move through subsequent stages much faster than those experiencing the scale
increase for the first time.

The literature review also identified groups that had attempted to begin the device
development path beginning at TRL 3. Theses are not included in the tables for two
reasons. Firstly, it meant they did not satisfy the two qualification criteria set for this
report. Secondly, results from some of these trials tended to be sketchy and unreliable.



                                                                                           12
                  [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                      February 2009

                                                                                PROTOTYPE
COUNTRY                 COMPANY           DEVICE            TYPE
                                                                                RATING
Netherlands             Ecofys            Wave Rotor        Lift                    500 kW
UK                      Embley Energy     Sperboy           Floating OWC             2 MW
USA                     INRI              Seadog            Inertia                  33 kW
UK                      OreCon            MRC               Floating OWC            1.5 MW
UK                      OWEL              OWEL              Pneumatic               12 MW
Sweden                  Seabased          Seabased          Inertia                20-50 kW
UK                      Trident Energy    DECM              Inertia                  1 MW
                                          Manchester
UK                      UMIP                                Inertia                  12 MW
                                          Bobber
                        Waveberg
USA                                       Waveberg          Inertia                  100 kW
                        Development
Canada                  WET               WET EnGen         Inertia                  200 kW
                                                                       Table 3.2 Successive Devices



3.3.     WEC Review
As can be seen from the probable and possible WEC tables, although most (80%)
devices work on the same fundamental principle there are many adaptations of the
same physical equations. A summary and description of all the devices is given in the
appendices together with details of the company developing each machine.

The device review shows the following situation may describe the current status of
general technology readiness factors.

FACTOR                             VERIFIED            PART VERIFIED           NOT VERIFIED
Conversion Efficiency

Operational Longevity

Solo Economics

Array Economics
                                                             Table 3.3 Technology Readiness Levels


The data from the Tables 3.1 & 3.2 are presented in graphical form in Figures 3.1, 3.2,
and 3.3 showing the number of devices being developed by rated power, type of unit
and country of ownership.




                                                                                           13
               [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                                                            February 2009


                                                        Device Power Output
                                                    Leading Tech.      Successive Devices

                                7

                                6

                                5
                       Number




                                4

                                3

                                2

                                1

                                0
                                    0k



                                                10



                                                             25



                                                                           50



                                                                                        1M



                                                                                                      >
                                                                                                       2.
                                      W



                                                  0k



                                                               0k



                                                                             0k




                                                                                          W




                                                                                                         5M
                                      -1




                                                    W



                                                                 W



                                                                               W




                                                                                              -2
                                        00




                                                    -2



                                                                  -5



                                                                               -1




                                                                                                           W
                                                                                                .5
                                          kW



                                                      50



                                                                    00




                                                                                   M




                                                                                                  M
                                                        kW



                                                                      kW




                                                                                    W




                                                                                                  W
                                          Fig. 3.1 Technology Power Ratings


The classification by output size seems to support the school of thought that if an
ocean energy industry is to become commercially viable it must be capable of
supplying large amounts of quality electricity to the energy trading markets.

There is a Scandinavian counter argument to this hypothesis that small is beautiful.
The premise behind this suggestion is that forces are reduced proportionately to the
physical dimensions of a machine which, therefore, consumes less material in
manufacturing and requires smaller service vessels to deploy, operate and maintain an
electricity generation park. The contradiction in this philosophy is that many units are
required to construct a reasonable sized (circa 500 MW) power station.

                                                              Device Type
                                                    Leading Tech.      Successive Devices

                       10
                        9
                        8
                        7
                        6
              Number




                        5
                        4
                        3
                        2
                        1
                        0
                                    OWC             Overtopping            Floating Inertia           Fixed Inertia


                                               Fig. 3.2 Device Division by Type




                                                                                                                            14
               [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                                                                  February 2009

The offshore wind industry probably offers guidance in this matter, where project
developers have pursued larger and larger solo turbines and nacelles. Discussion with
a random sample of the developers concluded that the ocean energy supply business
would have to be of a sufficient scale to support a full service industry. This would
including extensive infrastructure ranging from proximity harbours, specialised
deployment and maintenance vessels, available distribution or transmission grid
connections and, most importantly, the trained personnel to operate all the tools
required to safely keep the converters on stream and productive.

                                                                 Country
                                                  Leading Tech.          Successive Devices
                        10
                        9
                        8
                        7
                        6
               Number




                        5
                        4
                        3
                        2
                        1
                        0
                             U


                                  D


                                            A


                                                       Ire


                                                                 N


                                                                           Ca


                                                                                     U


                                                                                          Fi


                                                                                                     N


                                                                                                                 Sw
                             K


                                  en


                                            us




                                                                  or




                                                                                     SA




                                                                                                     et
                                                                                             nl
                                                          la




                                                                             na




                                                                                                                     ed
                                                                                                        he
                                                                     w
                                              tra




                                                                                               an
                                    m




                                                            nd




                                                                                da




                                                                                                                       en
                                                                     ay




                                                                                                           rla
                                      ar




                                                                                                 d
                                                 lia
                                        k




                                                                                                              nd
                                                                                                                 s




                                 Fig. 3.3 Technology Breakdown by Country


In Europe, the primary function of wave energy converters has been for electricity
generation. In other parts of the world where water is in short supply, the possibility of
using the device motion to pump water has been considered. All WEC’s can be used
for this but certain device constructions suit the process better than others. Today
some devices are specifically designed around an open circuit, low pressure sea water
pump to supply brine to osmotic desalination plants, either housed on-board the
machine or ashore at the end of supply pipes. The Swedish Hose Pump (Figure 3.4)
was one of the first devices to attempt to use water hydraulics, which are usually
regarded as too inefficient for closed circuit use. This system was later incorporated
into the AquaBuOY for further development, but still primarily for electricity generation
via an impulse hydro-generator.




                                                                                                                                  15
              [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                              February 2009




                           Fig. 3.4 Swedish Hose Pump, 1984


The McCabe Wave Pump, shown in Figure 3.5, under development by Hydam
Technology in Ireland was one of the first to consider deck mounted reverse osmosis
units with the over spill of water going to electricity production. The natural wave
induced motion of the pontoons suited this purpose.




                           Fig. 3.5 McCabe Wave Pump, 2003


As can be seen from Figure 3.6 more units are now pursuing this alternative use with
some being exclusively designed for the purpose.




                                                                             16
               [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                          February 2009


                                             Generation Type
                                         Leading Tech.   Successive Devices



                        20
                        18
                        16
                        14
                        12
               Number




                        10
                        8
                        6
                        4
                        2
                        0
                             Elec. Gen                        And/Or Desalination


                                 Fig. 3.6 WEC Primary Function




4.     FUNDING & RESEARCH
Although general awareness of wave energy activity and its potential to contribute to
national power supplies has increased in recent years the full picture of the state of the
nascent technology is still not clearly described. Most media reports tend to either
undersell the engineering achievements or oversell the business plans! During the
extensive information search to produce this report it became quiet obvious how the
focus of media, and perhaps political, attention and interest had changed from the
actual devices to concentrate on the commercial aspirations of the developers.
Investor due diligence now evaluates the companies projected sales portfolio rather
than the device operation and productivity. The authors would feel this is something in
error at this stage of progress since, as yet, no prospective device has actually been
proven sufficiently to validate full generation station economics (See Table 3.3).



4.1.   Funding Structure
The problem with inaccurately stating the TRL is that funding programmes become
mismatched to the actual requirement. This is perhaps best illustrated by two
examples of national funding. In 2002, the Portuguese authorities announced a
support scheme to accelerate wave energy introduction into that country. The basis of
the scheme was a special guaranteed feed-in tariff for the sale of electricity to the
utility. This was guaranteed at 25 €cent/kW. The introduction created much
excitement in the industry but during the time it ran, no device developer was ever in
the position to take it up. A similar situation was experienced in the UK when BERR
(formally DTI) launched the impressive Marine Renewable Deployment Fund (MRDF)
in 2004 at a budget of €50 (£42) million. To a large degree the structure of the scheme
                                                                                          17
                         [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                                               February 2009

was similar to the Portuguese model, and incorporated a high feed-in tariff. Caveats
were included to qualify for the fund but they could not be described as extensive or
demanding. Once again, in the five years the fund has been active, not one machine
has been able to qualify to apply.

      The very important lesson that must be learned from this process is that it
      is not just a case of making moneys available to assist the under resourced
      industry but that the mechanisms or instruments to distribute the funds
      must be of the correct format. The right support at the wrong time will
      assist no-one and lead to growing disillusionment of the decision makers.



                                                                                                               3
                                  Phase 1              Phase 2             Phase 3             Phase 4           Phase 5
Duration [months]                   3-9                 6-12                6-36                24-36             24-60
    4
Cost [€,000]                       5-125               50-250             500-2,500          5,000-15,000
Funding [%]                       100-50               100-50               75-50               75-25               0
Grant Type                        Capital              Capital             Capital              Capital        Investment
                                                                                            +Feed In Tariff  +Feed In Tariff
                                                                                      Table 4.1 Device Planning and Budgets*
* figures averaged but weighted towards large scale (>1MW) converters
* smaller devices (<500kW) may require reduced support

To a degree this premature, well intended support problem was also reflected in the
FP6 DG TREN demonstration call at the end of 2006 under the STREP funding
instrument. Six advanced wave energy demonstration projects were agreed. These
involved the following projects:

        •    ALDA: Demonstration plant of a tunnelled OWC

        •    AquaBuOY: AquaBuOY Demonstration Offshore Wave Energy Plant

        •    AWS-MkII: Deployment, monitoring and evaluation of a prototype advanced
             wave energy device

        •    BREAKWAVE: OWC in Breakwater Douro, Porto, Portugal

        •    NEREIDA MOWC: OWC integration in the new Mutriku Breakwater

        •    WaveStar: High efficient, low weight, pile supported 500kW WEC

DGRes also supported two wave energy device development projects under FP6. One
moved quickly and successfully forward whilst the other stalled due to non-technical
issues.

3
    Assumes use of established grid connected test facility, i.e. EMEC, BIMEP, etc
4
    The above cost includes all development activities, not just testing, i.e. Naval Architect Services, etc

                                                                                                                         18
               [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                   February 2009

For differing and understandable reasons, only two, possibly three, have proceed to the
contract stage and construction.

These situations do not help to dispel the often directed comment that the wave energy
community has been investigating the technology since the 1970’s but no device has
yet proven successful enough for mass production – or even continued operation.
Such an opinion is difficult to discredit but it overlooks three undisputable important
facts:

   •   if high investment had been made available 15-20 years ago there would
       probably be no prospects for wave energy today since the devices would most
       certainly have failed and attention focused on other forms of renewable energy
       to stabilise electricity prices and offer security of supply. These units, and more
       importantly the scientists, inventors and engineers who worked on them,
       however, created the foundation (or anchors) on which a future could be
       continued.

   •   in the intervening years the amount of knowledge that has been amassed
       should not be underestimated. Many of the known unknowns have been solved
       and some of the unknown unknowns discovered and addressed. It should be
       expected that there will be other drawbacks to encounter before an expansive
       supply network can be in place.

   •   devices that are now approaching full sea trial status do have reasonable
       prospects to not only survive the harsh environment in which they must operate
       but be economic in the process. However, progressive caution is required
       rather than unnecessary haste if the industry is to achieve its full potential in the
       shortest time possible.

This aspect of support, either as capital grants or revenue support is an essential fillip
for the industry but such subsidies will not achieve all the desired objectives. Research
must also be supported. As stated in the Preface, details of the current industrial
support mechanisms are covered in other sections of the Waveplam project.



4.2.   Market & Technology Projects in Europe
The intermittent funding flow which has retarded device developer’s progress has also
delayed the full potential of the market oriented and technical research efforts over the
past 20 years. However, despite this disjointed stop-start support, many successes
can be claimed. The situation has improved since the launch of Framework
Programme 7 and the resurgence of interest in the UK. The following outlines the main
active projects currently underway in Europe. It should be noted that there are many



                                                                                    19
              [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                 February 2009

more small studies in progress but this document has concentrated only on the large
budget projects.

Of particular interest is Waveplam which to date is the only market oriented project
supported by the European Commission. Other projects include specific aspects of
economic, legislative, environmental and social issues connected to marine energy
exploitation.

4.2.1. WAVEPLAM
                                                                         €1M @ 3yrs
                                         WAVe Energy PLAnning &
                                               Marketing
                                                                         Collect Data


The project began in November 2007 and is coordinated by Ente Vasco de la Energia
(EVE) from the Basque Country of Spain. There are eight partners from 7 EU states
engaged on this project. Although not one of the larger studies underway at this time,
the project deserves mention because it is supported under the Intelligent Energy for
Europe Agency (IEE) [now the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation
(eaci)] and focuses on non technical barriers that may influence the growth of a wave
energy industry in the future. It is also one of the only pan – European projects
specifically tasked with assessing the non-technical barriers that wave energy
expansion may encounter once devices are ready for extended deployment.

Besides collection and collation of cross border information about the current status of
wave energy, a main objective of the project is to establish networking links that will
efficiently disseminate the important facts outside of the ocean energy community to a
wider audience, including stake holders, decision makers, investors and the general
public.

The project is designed around 6 Workpackages;

   •   WP1: Co-ordination
   •   WP2: State of the Art, Assessment & Mitigation of Non-technical Barriers
   •   WP3: Basic Guidelines for Promoters of Wave Energy Projects
   •   WP4: Networking
   •   WP5: Dissemination Activity
   •   WP6: Common Dissemination




                                                                                  20
              [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                               February 2009

4.2.2. FP7; Energy: CORES
                                                                        €4M @ 3yrs
                                  Components for Ocean Renewable
                                  Energy Systems
                                                                        Create Data


CORES is a technically based project designed to address the issues and knowledge
gaps in specific critical components required for successful deployment of wave energy
converters (WEC’s). The activities concentrate particularly around pneumatic devices
[oscillating water columns (OWC)] but it is expected that the data created during the
project will be useful to all types of devices.

Thirteen partners from seven member states are engaged on the European
Commission project, which will run for 36 months from April 2008. The project is
coordinated by the Hydraulics & Maritime Research Centre, University College Cork,
Ireland.

Four main Workpackages have been identified, which are:

   •   WP1: Power Take-Off (Air Turbine)
   •   WP2: Electrical Components
   •   WP3: Mooring & Umbilical
   •   WP4: System Integration & Sea Trials


4.2.3. FP7; Energy: EquiMar
                                  Equitable Testing and Evaluation of   €5.5M @ 3yrs
                                  Marine Energy Extraction Devices in
                                  terms of Performance, Cost and
                                  Environmental Impact                  Collate Data


EquiMar is part of the pre-normative section of the FP7 Theme, Energy. Twenty four
partners from eleven member states form the group who are carrying out the work on
the European Commission contract. The duration is 36 months from April 2008. The
project is coordinated by Edinburgh University, Scotland.

The project is constructed to produce impartial guidelines and procedures for ocean
energy development together with recommending best practice to follow that will
mitigate technical and financial risk during the various stages of that development of
wave and tidal energy extraction machines.

There are ten Workpackages, including the administration of the project. These are:


                                                                               21
              [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                               February 2009

   •   WP1: Summary of Situation to Date
   •   WP2: Produce Wave & Tidal Data Repository & Evaluate for Operator Usage
   •   WP3: Physical Scale Model Testing Procedures
   •   WP4: Sea Trial Schedules
   •   WP5: Generating Park Performance Matrices
   •   WP6: Legislative Requirements
   •   WP7: Economic Methodologies
   •   WP8: Collection of Project Results & Dissemination
   •   WP9: Website
   •   WP10: Administration


As with the Waveplam project a key feature of EquiMar is the communication with
industry and other stakeholders. If the recommendations from the various studies are
to be implemented without legislation, then the industry must be persuaded to accept
them. For this reason, several of the partners are from device development
companies.



4.2.4. UK; EPSRC: Supergen Marine
                                                                    £7.8M @ 4yrs

                                        SuperGen Marine
                                                                    Create Data


The Engineering and Physical Science Research Council constructed the funding
mechanism “Sustainable Power Generation & Supply Initiative” in 2003. Part of this
funding went to the ocean energy sector under the SuperGen Marine Energy
Consortium.

In October 2007, the successful first phase of the project was extended for a further
four years. Five UK universities form the consortium together with six affiliates and
seven overseas partners. An important aspect of the SuperGen Marine research
programme is the inclusion of Doctorates and training courses.

Formal Courses;

   •   Wave & Tidal Current Hydrodynamics
   •   Physical Test Skills

                                                                              22
               [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                              February 2009

   •   Reliability
   •   Economic Principals
   •   Power Systems & Network Integration
   •   Commercialisation, IP, Patent Law, Marketing, Management etc


Workstreams:

   •   WS1: Numerical and physical convergence
   •   WS2: Optimisation of collector form & response
   •   WS3: Combined wave and tidal effects
   •   WS4: Arrays, wakes and near field effects
   •   WS5: Power take-off and conditioning
   •   WS6: Moorings and positioning
   •   WS7: Advanced control/network integration
   •   WS8: Reliability
   •   WS9: Economic analysis of variability and penetration
   •   WS10: Dissemination of Results


4.2.5. FP7; People RTN: Wavetrain II
                                        Initial Training Network for   €3.5M @ 3¾y
                                        Wave       Energy   Research
                                        Professionals                  Convey Data


Wavetrain 2 is a European Commission sponsored graduate and post-graduate
training scheme similar to its predecessor, Wavetrian I, which emerged from the Marie
Curie programme. As such, it is a support network for the SuperGen I and II
programmes.

These training projects are of particular importance because not only are they the
education house for the next generation of wave energy personnel, they are also, for
the first time, producing people tutored in all aspects of ocean energy technology. A
principal mechanism for this is the opportunity for these students to function with
experienced experts who can, not only pass on the knowledge, but also the valuable
experiences gained over many years of activity.



                                                                              23
              [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                 February 2009

The start date for Wavetrain II is October 2008. Recruiting has already been underway
for some time and appointments will be made at the beginning of October. A total of
16-20 students will be engaged over the duration of the scheme that may be located at
any of the thirteen partner’s establishments or seconded to a selection of 17 associated
partners for short, specialist experience.

Thirteen courses have been arranged to take place over the duration of the project.

   •   Wave energy fundamentals
   •   Numerical modelling techniques
   •   Tank testing & instrumentation
   •   Survival course
   •   Pilot plant monitoring & data collection
   •   6a. Hydraulic & pneumatic power take-off
   •   6b. Electrical power take-off issues
   •   7.     Grid connection, storage & electrical components
   •   8.     Offshore operations & mooring issues
   •   9.     Project management
   •   10.    Socio-economic & market issues
   •   11.    EIA, licensing & environmental issues
   •   12.    Entrepreneurship & IPR


In addition, there are ten research Workpackages incorporated into the programme:

   •   WP1: Non-linear & survival hydrodynamic modelling
   •   WP2: Online control strategies & components
   •   WP3: Design of electrical underwater connections & substations
   •   WP4: Analysis & development of new & improved concepts & components
   •   WP5: Engineering, analysis & monitoring of full scale & prototype plants
   •   WP6: Offshore & naval aspects
   •   WP7: wave resource & forecasting
   •   WP8: Tank testing
   •   WP9: Public policies & socio-economic & environmental impacts
   •   WP10: Management & network-wide training implementation



                                                                                  24
               [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                  February 2009


5.     SEA TRIAL FACILITIES
In addition to direct support, or revenue subsidies, some countries have also provided
a marine energy infrastructure that device companies and researchers can use at
different stages of the development process. Indoor tank testing facilities, which
already existed in many countries, assist in the early small and medium scale model
testing, Phase 1 and 2 of the Development & Evaluation Protocol referenced earlier.
However, there were no established Phase 3 benign sites for large scale sea trials and
certainly no Phase 4 exposed locations for full scale prototype operation.

In the early days of the UK wave energy programme some Phase 3 type trials had
been conducted in lakes and Queens University Belfast, Northern Ireland built a 75 kW
test bed OWC on the island of Islay in Scotland, shown in Figure 5.1




                            Figure 5.1 Islay 75kW Test Bed OWC



Other outdoor sea trials took place in Denmark off a stone pier in the north of the
country at Hanstholm in 1988. This site in the North Sea was adjacent to a Renewable
Energy Office and so became the first un-official Wave Energy test site of a member
state.

More formally, a benign location in Nissum Bredning was established in 1990 for North
Sea wave climate ¼ scale testing of wave energy converters. A limited amount of
facilities were provided, including a low power grid connection, deployment jetty and
control cabin.

Open ocean stations were still selected on an ad hoc basis, usually dictated by where a
particular project was taking place. Around 2001, Teamwork Technology established a
2MW supply cable in northern Portugal as a full size test centre for a solo version of the
AWS device, shown in Figure 5.2. In 2003 however, the UK government and Scottish
Executive formalised the situation by investing £15M in a dedicated sea trial facility
based in Orkney, Scotland.          The European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC)


                                                                                   25
               [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                    February 2009

accommodates both wave and tidal prototype machines offering several medium power
grid connected berths. The site is shown in Figure 5.3.




       Figure 5.2 AWS in Viana, Portugal           Figure 5.3 EMEC in Orkney, Scotland
Since early 2000, other countries have now established recognised pilot plant test sites
of differing scales and services. The real advantage of these locations, each of which
does not suit all developers, is that permits, licenses and consents have been obtained,
which eliminates these non-technical negotiations. Development groups who are
perusing a private location report protracted dialogue is required, which can be very
time consuming and delay projects considerably. This has certainly been the
experience of Wave Dragon who is to test a full sized overtopping device in Wales at a
bespoke location off the Pembroke coast. These consultations with various concerned
pressure groups are required even when the local authorities support a particular
deployment project.

A list of all the established and proposed pilot plant test zones are shown in Table 5.1
together with the basic details of each zones specification accompanied by a map
detailing the locations in Figure 5.3. A visual and plan for each site is also presented.




                                                                                     26
    Country     Location          Name          Est’d   Seabed     Water       Energy     Shoreline    Port/Harbour          Phase    Grid             Facilities    Devices
                                                        Area       Depth       Flux       Distance     Distance                       Connection
A   Scotland   Orkney Island      EMEC         2003     5 km2      35m – 75m   40 kW/m   2 km         Edinburgh, 430 km      4       4 Berths         Monitoring     Pelamis
                                                                                                      Invarness, 200 km              11kV Grid Con.   Station,       Waveroller
                                                                                                      Stromness, 8 km                                 Wave Buoys     Oyster
B   Portugal   Pico Is. Azores    Pico Test    1999     --         7m          30 kW/m   --           Peniche, 1600 km       3/4     15kV Grid Con.   1 Substation   Air Turbines
                                  Plant                                                               Horta, 16km

C   Portugal   Figueira da Foz    Portuguese   2007     320 km2    30m – 100m 40 kW/m    4 km         Leixoes, 148 km        4       2 Berths                        Floating
                                  Pilot Zone                                                          Peniche, 63 km
                                                                                                      Fig. da Foz, 37 km
D Portugal     Agucadoura         (AWS)        (2002)   km2        40m         40 kW/m   5 km         Peniche, 240 km        5       3 Berths         Wave Buoys     Pelamis
               (Commerical)       Pelamis      2007                                                   Leixoes, 32 km                                  Substation
                                  Array                                                               Monserrate, 25 km
E   Denmark    Nissum Bredning    Danish      1990      km2        6m          <1 kW/m   200m         Thyboron, 7.5 km       3                        Pier,          Wave Dragon
                                  Benign Test                                                                                                         Monitoring     Wavestar
                                  Site                                                                                                                Station
F   Denmark    Roshage Pier,      Danish       1988     km2        12m         7-11 kW/m 200m         Hanstholm, 1.5 km      3/4                      Pier           Waveplane
               Hanstholm          Exposed Test                                                                                                                       Wavestar
                                  Site
G Ireland      Galway Bay                      2005     0.37 km2   20m -25m    3 kW/m    1 km         Killybegs, 300 km      3       --               Wave Buoys     OE Buoy
                                                                                                      Foynes, 150 km                                                 Wavebob
                                                                                                      Galway City, 15 km
H England      St. Ives Bay,      Wavehub      2010     8 km2      50m – 65m             11 km        Plymouth, 160 km       4/5     4 Berths         2-4 Wave Buoys Orecon
               Cornwall                                                                               Falmouth, 100 km               Max. 20MW                       OPT, Pelamis
                                                                                                      St. Ives, 9 km                 33kV Grid Con.                  Fred Olsen
I   Ireland    Frenchport, Co.    Irish Open   2009     21 km2     40m – 120m 50 kW/m    7 km         Galway City, 190km     4/5     2 Berths                        Wavebob
               Mayo               Ocean Test                                                          Killybegs, 125 km                                              OE Buoy
                                  Site
J   Spain      Armintza,          BIMEP        2010     8 km2      50m – 90m   21 kW/m   750 m        Bilbao, 24 km          4/5     4 Berths with    Wave Buoys
               Basque Country                                                                                                        13 kV Line, 30kV
                                                                                                                                     line
K   Spain      Mutriku,           Mutriku      2009     273 m2     7m          7 kW/m    --           Bilbao, 64 km          4/5                                     16 x 18.5 kW OWC
               Basque Country     Breakwater                                                          San Sebastian, 32 km

L   Spain      Santona, Basque    Iberdrola,   2008     1 km2      50m         27 kW/m   4 km         Bilbao, 32 km          4/5                                     1 x 40 kW
               Country            Santona                                                             Santona, 4km                                                   PowerBuoy
                                                                                                                                                                     9 x 150 kW
M France       Pays de la Loire                2010                                                   St. Nazaire, 30km      4/5                      Wave Buoys     Searev
                                                                                                      Nantes, 75km

                                                                         Table 5.1 European Test Sites


                                                                                                                                                                     27
Fig. 5.2. European Test Site Locations


                                         28
A. EMEC, Scotland

                    29
B. Pico Island, Azores, Portugal

                                   30
C. Portuguese Pilot Zone

                           31
Agucadoura Site




                  D. Agucodoura, Portugal

                                            32
E. Nissum Bredning, Denmark

                              33
F. Hanstholm, Denmark

                        34
G. Galway Bay, Ireland

                         35
H. Wavehub, England

                      36
I. Frenchport, Ireland

                         37
J. BIMEP, Spain

                  38
K. Mutriku, Spain

                    39
L. Santona, Spain

                    40
M. Pays de la Loire, France

                              41
              [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                               February 2009




BIBLIOGRAPHY
Holmes, B, Development & Evaluation Protocol for Ocean Energy Devices, HMRC,
SEI, MI, 2003

IEA-OES, Development of Recommended Practices for Testing and Evaluating Ocean
Energy Systems, Annex II Report, Implementing Agreement on Ocean Energy
Systems, 2003

EREC, Renewable Energy Scenario to 2040, 2004

Dept. Communications, Marine & Natural Resources, Ocean Energy In Ireland, 2005

Marine Institute & Sustainable Energy Ireland, Ocean Energy: Analysis of the Potential
Economic Benefits of Developing Ocean Energy in Ireland, 2005

Carbon Trust, Future Marine Energy¸ Entec UK Ltd, 2006

Carbon Trust, Cost Estimation Technology¸ Entec UK Ltd, 2006

Dept. of the Taoiseach, Programme for Government, 2007

EREC, Greenpeace, Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook, 2007

EREC, Renewable Energy Technology roadmap: Up to 2020, 2007

EU, 2007, A European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET Plan) Technology Map,
Commission of the European Communities

Douglas Westwood, The World Wave & Tidal Market Report, 2008

EREC, Greenpeace, Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook, 2008

EREC, Renewable Energy Technology Roadmap: 20% by 2020, 2008

NEEDS, Report on Technical Specification of Reference Technologies (Wave & Tidal
Power Plant), SPOK, 2008

Soerensen, H.C., Weinstein, A., 2008, Ocean Energy: Position Paper for IPCC, IPCC
Scoping Conference on Renewable Energy, Lubeck, Germany

EU-OEA, Ocean Energy SET Plan, 2009




                                                                               42
                [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                        February 2009




APPENDIX

                             DEVICE DEVELOPER PROFILES

                              A.1. Leading Technologies


                                                        PROTOTYPE   PHASE               TEST
COUNTRY     COMPANY          DEVICE       TYPE                               SCALE
                                                        RATING       (TRL)              RATING
            Aquamarine
UK
            Power
                             Oyster       Inertia       500 kW       3-4     1:1        500 kW

Finland     AW Energy Oy     WaveRoller   Inertia       15 kW         4      1:1        15 kW
            AWS      Ocean   Wave
UK
            Energy           Swing
                                          Inertia       2 MW          3      1:1.75     250kW

Canada      Finavera         AquaBuOY     Inertia       250 kW        3      1:2        25 kW
Norway      Fred Olsen       FOBOX3       Inertia       2.5 MW        3      1.3        50 kW
                                          Floating
Ireland     Ocean Energy     OE Buoy
                                          OWC
                                                        2 MW          3      1:4        15 kW
                                          Floating
Australia   Oceanlinx        Oceanlinx
                                          OWC
                                                        2 MW          3      1:3        45 kW

USA         OPT              PowerBuoy    Inertia       150 kW        3      1:1.5      40 kW
            Pelamis Wave
UK
            Power
                             Pelamis      Inertia       750 kW       4-5     1:1        750 kW
            Seapower                                                         1:6
Australia
            Pacific
                             CETO         Inertia       180 kW        3      (1:3)
                                                                                        10 kW
                             Wave         Floating
Denmark     Wave Dragon
                             Dragon       Overtopping
                                                        7 MW          3      1:5.2      20 kW

Ireland     Wavebob          Wavebob      Inertia       2 MW          3      1:4        15 kW
UK          Wavegen          Limpet       Fixed OWC     500 kW        4      1:1        500 kW
                                          Fixed
Norway      WAVEnergy        SSG
                                          Overtopping
                                                        150 kW       3-4     1:1        150 kW
                                          Floating
Denmark     WavePlane        WavePlane
                                          Overtopping
                                                        500 kW       3-4     1:1-2      250 kW

Denmark     Wavestar         WaveStar     Inertia       5 MW          3      1:10       5.5 kW




                                                                                         43
                    [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                             February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                                Device            Oyster            Country          Scotland
                                       Founded           2005

Main Investors/              Sigma Capital Group         EU & State Support
Project Partners             Scottish & Southern
                             Energy
Commercial                                                                                  Price/kWh
                                    www.aquamarinepower.com
Summary
      •    Concept originated from Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland
      •    Prototype sea trials scheduled for EMEC, 2009
      •    Also developing tidal energy device (Neptune)

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                                Mooring Configuration
Surge Inertia                         Low Head Hydro-Turbine             Gravity Hinge
Prototype                    Rating                Water Depth           Primary Production
18m x 12m x 2m                   350 kW               10m - 15m          Electricity Generation
? tonnes                                                                 Fresh Water Desalination
Unique Features
  •       Surface piercing flap                            •    Modular construction
  •       Open circuit water hydraulics                    •

Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                             Rating         Date
                                                                                             Date
   1                  1:40            Queen’s Uni., Belfast, N.I.                  --        2003-2005
   2                  1:20            Queen’s Uni., Belfast, N.I.                  --        2003-2005
   3
   4                  1:1(PTO)        NaREC, UK                                    170 kW    2009
   4*                 1:1             EMEC, Scotland                               300 kW    2009
* Proposed




                Phase 1                              Phase 2                             Phase 4

Device Evaluation Status
   •       Small scale and Medium scale testing successfully completed
   •       Large scale facility testing not to be conducted
   •       PTO Dry Test Rig Built


                                                                                                    44
                    [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                             February 2009


Current Corporate Profile
Company                                 Device                               Country          Finland
                     AW Energy Oy       Founded
                                        Founded         2002


Main Investors/       Venture Capital/        EU & State
Project Partners      Private Holding         Support
Commercial                                                                                    Price/kWh
                              www.aw-energy.com
Summary
   • Over €2m capital raised with a further €6-8m required                                    €0.50
   • Joint venture with Lena Group to develop 1MW plant in Portugal

Device Technology Specification
Category                          Take-
                            Power Take-Off                                 Mooring Configuration
Surge Inertia                         Closed Circuit Hydraulics            Bottom Mounted
Prototype                        Rating                  Water Depth          Primary Production
3.5m x 4.5m x 6m(footprint)          15 kW                  10m - 20m         Electricity Generation
20 tonnes                        (array deployment)
Unique Features
  •      Fully submerged flap                              •      Modular construction
  •      Closed circuit hydraulics                         •      5 flaps per module

Device Development Strategy
Phase        Scale (circa) Facility                                            Rating          Date
   2/3                  1:3           Gulf of Finland                             --           2003
   1/2                                Helsinki University, Finland                --           2004
   3                    1:3           Ecuador                                     --           2005
   3                    1:3           EMEC, Scotland                              --           2005
   4                    1:1           Peniche, Portugal                           2 x 15 kW    2007-2008
   1*                                                                                          2009
*Proposed




               Phase 1/2                       Phase 3 (EMEC)                            Phase 4

                  Status
Device Evaluation Status
   •        Plan to develop a 1 MW plant in Portugal by 2010

                                                                                                       45
                    [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                                February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                                Device             WaveSwing          Country           Scotland
                                       Founded            (2004)

Main Investors/              Shell Technology             EU & State Support FP6 DG TREN
Project Partners             Ventures
Commercial                                                                                     Price/kWh
                                    www.waveswing.com
Summary
   •        Technology concept purchased from Teamwork Technology
   •        Company relocated to Inverness, Scotland

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                                  Mooring Configuration
Submerged Inertia                     Oil Hydraulics                       Gravity

Prototype                    Rating               Water Depth              Primary Production
m x ∅ m, tonnes                 250 kW                  50m – 75m          Electricity Generation

Unique Features
  •     Fully submerged                                     •    Sea state tuneable
  •     Articulate compliant mooring                        •    Active control

Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale
           Scale (circa) Facility                                               Rating          Date
   2                  1:20            Delft, The Netherlands                          --        1996
   1                  1:50            HMRC, UCC, Ireland                              --        1996-1998
   3
   4                  1:1             Aguadoura, Portugal                             2 MW      2004
   1                  1:60            HR Wallingford                                  --        2007

   4*                 1:1             EMEC, Scotland                                  250 kW    2010
*Proposed




                Phase 1                                Phase 2                             Phase 4

Device Evaluation Status
   •        Deployment difficulties lead to uncompleted prototype phase
   •        Redesign of concept 2007/2008

                                                                                                       46
                   [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                            February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                              Device           AquaBuOY               Country        Canada
                                     Founded          2001

Main Investors/           AquaEnergy                  EU & State                FP6 TREN € 2M
Project Partners                                      Support                   SEI €100,000
Commercial                                                                                  Price/kWh
                                   www.finavera.com/en/wave
Summary
   •     AquaEnergy merged with Finavera Renewables in 2006
   •     Full scale trials postponed
   •     **DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STALLED AT PRESENT**

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                               Mooring Configuration
Floating Inertia                   Hosepump                             Float/Sinker

Prototype                 Rating                Water Depth             Primary Production
35m x ∅6m                      250 kW              75 - 100m            Electricity Generation
tonnes
Unique Features
  •    Seawater hydraulics                               •   Impulse Turbine PTO
  •    Deep draft                                        •   Elegant end-stop solution

Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                             Rating        Date
   1                1:50           Aalborg Uni, Denmark HMRC, UCC,               --         2005
   1                1:50           Ireland                                       --         2007
   2                1:10           Nissum Bredning                               --         2007
   3                1:2            Newport, Oregon, USA                          20-50 kW   2007
                    1:2(PTO)       NEL, Glasgow, Scotland                        --         2007
   4




             Phase 1                          Phase 2 (PTO)                            Phase 3

Device Evaluation Status
   •     Small scale testing completed
   •     Medium scale testing incomplete due to structural damage
   •     Large scale testing terminated due to flooding of floatation unit


                                                                                                   47
                    [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                               February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                   Device                        FO3                 Country           Norway
                                      Founded           2001

Main Investors/              Bonheur ASA                EU & State Support FP6
Project Partners             Ganger Rolf ASA
Commercial                          www.seewec.org                                            Price/kWh
Summary                             www.fredolsen.no
   •        Development Research undertaken through FP6 SEEWEC project
   •        SEEWEC Project coordinated by Ghent University, Belgium

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                                 Mooring Configuration
Floating Body Inertia                 Direct Drive Permanent Magnet       TLP

Prototype                    Rating               Water Depth             Primary Production
36m x 36m x 25m                   2.5 MW             30m                  Electricity Generation
1150 tonnes
Unique Features
  •     Tension Leg Platform                               •   Optimised Shaped Float in Cluster


Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                               Rating         Date
   1
   2                   1:20           SINTEF, Trondheim , Norway                  --           2004
   3                   1:3(PTO)       SINTEF, Trondheim , Norway                  --           2004
   3                   1:3            Karmoy, Norway                              40 kW        2005-2008
   4*                  1:1            Wavehub, UK                                 2.5 MW       2010
*Proposed




                Phase 1                         Phase 2 (PTO)                            Phase 3

Device Evaluation Status
Device
   •        Floating platform incorporates well established offshore oil and gas technology
   •        Some results of SEEWEC will be for Public Dissemination
   •        Participant in Wavehub project



                                                                                                    48
                 [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                              February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                                Device        OE Buoy             Country          Ireland
                                                     “Seileán”
                                       Founded       2002
Main Investors/          Private                     EU & State Support MI & SEI
Project Partners
Commercial                                                                                Price/kWh
                                   www.oceanenergy.ie
Summary
   •    Fully privately held company
   •    Product Development in conjunction with University College Cork

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                              Mooring Configuration
Floating OWC                       Air Turbine                         3 point Catenary

Prototype                Rating                  Water Depth           Primary Production
30m x 10m x 10m                 2 MW               50m – 75m           Electricity Generation
400 tonnes
       Features
Unique Features
  •    Shallow Draft                                     •   Barge type structure
  •    Decoupled PTO                                     •   Low Mooring Forces

Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                           Rating         Date
   1               1:50            HMRC, UCC, Ireland                            --        2002-2003
   2               1:15            ECN, Nantes, France                           --        2004
   3               1:4 (Hull)      Galway Bay, Ireland                           20 kW     2006-2008
   3               1:4 (PTO)       Galway Bay, Ireland                           20 kW     2008-2009
   4




            Phase 1                               Phase 2                            Phase 3

Device Evaluation Status
   •    Upgrade to air turbine and control system currently being tested
   •    18 month hull and mooring sea trial monitoring
   •    Prototype unit being developed for Full Scale grid connected test site




                                                                                                49
                [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                              February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                             Device           OWES                Country         Australia
                                    Founded          1997

Main Investors/           Venture Capital            EU & State Support Australian Govn.
Project Partners                                                        $2,950,000
Commercial                                                                      Price/kWh
                                  www.oceanlinx.com
Summary
   •    Multi-million international capital venture funding achieved
   •    Formally, Energetech Australia Pty. Ltd.
   •    Cancelled Wavehub deployment due to funding of Australian project

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                              Mooring Configuration
Floating OWC                       Air Turbine                         Catenary Moored

Prototype                 Rating                 Water Depth           Primary Production
25m x 35m                      1.5 MW              30 m                Electricity Generation
tonnes
Unique Features
  •    Dennis-Auld Turbine                                •   Shallow or Deep Water Deployment

Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                          Rating          Date
   1               1:40            Maritime College, Tasmania                  --         1990-2000
   1               1:7 (PTO)       Uni. of Sydney, Australia                              1990-2000
   2
   4               1:1             Port Kembla, Australia                      500 kW      2005-2006

   3               1:3             Port Kembla, Australia                                  2007
   1               1:40            HMRC, UCC, Ireland                          --          2008
   2
   3




            Phase 1                               Phase 3                            Phase 1

Device Evaluation Status
  • Concept redesign from shallow water device with focusing arms to deep water chamber hull.


                                                                                                  50
                    [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                            February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                                 Device            PB150               Country       USA
                                        Founded           1994


Main Investors/       US Navy, Total SA           EU & State Support Carbon Trust
Project Partners      Iberdrola SA
Commercial                                                                  Price/kWh
                               www.oceanpowertechnologies.com
Summary
  • Multiple active projects in Scotland, Spain, Hawaii and Australia

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                                 Mooring Configuration
Floating Inertia                       Direct Drive                       Compliant Mooring

Prototype                     Rating                  Water Depth         Primary Production
20m x ∅7m                       40, 150 kW              30-50m            Electricity Generation
60 tonnes
Unique Features
  •    PTO Lock for survival                                •    Deep Draft

Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                              Rating         Date
   1                                                                              --
   2
   3                  1:1.5            New Jersey, USA                            40 kW       2004-2007
   3                                   Oahu, Hawaii
   4                  1:1              Santona, Cantabria, Spain                  40 kW       2009
   4                  1:1*             EMEC, Scotland                             150 kW      2009
*Proposed




                Phase 1                                Phase 3                          Phase 4

Device Evaluation Status
   •        Over 40 patents filed to date
   •        Originally designed to power underwater sensors for US Navy




                                                                                                     51
                 [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                               February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                              Device             Pelamis P1-A       Country         Scotland

                                     Founded            1998
      Investors/
Main Investors/            Norsk Hydro                  EU & State Support
Project Partners           Technology Ventures
Commercial                                                                                 Price/kWh
                                   www.pelamiswave.com
Summary
   •    Formally Ocean Power Delivery Ltd
   •    Over 70 employees
   •    Current Development Delays due to Partner Bankruptcy (Babcock & Brown)

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                                Mooring Configuration
Body-Body Inertia                   Oil Hydraulics                       Tether Latch Assembly

Prototype                  Rating               Water Depth              Primary Production
150m x ∅3m                      750 kW                50m – 70m          Electricity Generation
859 tonnes                 (3 x 250 kW)
Unique Features
  •    Shallow Draft                                      •    Low Freeboard Survival Profile


Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                             Rating            Date
   1                1:80            Edinburgh Uni. Scotland                       --            1998-2001
   2                1:35            Edinburgh Uni. Scotland                       --            1999-2001
   3                1:7             ECN, Nantes, France                           --            2001-2003
   3                1:7             Firth of the Forth, Scotland                  --            2001-2003
   4                1:1             EMEC, Scotland                                750 kW        2004-2007
   5                1:1             Agucadoura, Portugal                      3 x 750 kW        2008-2009




            Phase 2                                  Phase 4                           Phase 5

Device Evaluation Status
   •    Worlds first wave energy grid connected commercial array
   •    Redesign of Power Modules, due to excessive wear, results in 50m extension to length of device
   •    Recently cancelled participation in Wavehub deployment to concentrate on testing

                                                                                                     52
                   [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                                February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company     Seapower Pacific Device                                          Country          Australia
            Pty Ltd          Founded                      1999

Main Investors/                                           EU & State Support
Project Partners
                            EDF EN
Commercial                                                                                    Price/kWh
                                        www.ceto.com.au
Summary
   •      Parent Company is Carnegie Corporation                                                 •
   •      Carnegie Corp will own and run Southern Hemisphere Wave Parks, REH and
          EDF will operate Northern Hemisphere wave parks.
   •      Projects planned for Australia (2) and Bermuda (1)

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                                  Mooring Configuration
Body Inertia                            water turbine                      Bottom Fixed

Prototype                   Rating                  Water Depth            Primary Production
21m x ∅7m                       100 kW                  25m                Water Desalination
100 tonnes                                                                 Electricity Generation
Unique Features
  •      Fully submerged instillation                         •   Wave activated water pump
  •      Water pumped ashore                                  •   Submerged active float

Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                              Rating          Date
   1                                    Maritime College, Australia                            1999-2003
   3                  1:6               Fremantle, Australia (CETO I)                          2003-2006
   3-4                1:6               Fremantle, Australia (CETO II)                         2007-2008
   4*                 1:1               CETO III
* Proposed




               Phase 1                            Phase 3 (PTO)                           Phase 3

Device Evaluation Status
   •      Large scale sea trials conducted on CETO I
   •      Technology changed to CETO II & bench testing of new pump conducted
   •      Large scale sea trials resumed on CETO II small array

                                                                                                     53
                    [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                               February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                                  Device          Wave Dragon           Country        Denmark

                                         Founded         1997

Main Investors/                ESB International    EU & State Support SME/CRAFT
Project Partners               Niras AS                                   FP6: DGRes €2.4M
Commercial                            www.wavedragon.net; www.wavedragon.co.uk; Price/kWh
Summary                            www.tecdragon.pt
   •        Pre-commercial Demo, Wales, EU Objective One, Welsh Assembly fund £5M
   •        Deployment and Monitoring scheduled for 2009-2012, Pembroke coast

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                                 Mooring Configuration
Floating Overtopping                    Low-Head Hydro-turbines           CALM ~ Slack moored
Prototype                      Rating               Water Depth           Primary Production
300 x 170 x 17.5m                  7 MW               25m                 Electricity Generation
33,000 tonnes                  (20 x 400 kW)
Unique Features
  •    Energy Storage Reservoir                             •   Sea State Tuning
  •    Energy Enhancement Reflectors                        •   Active PTO Control

Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                               Rating         Date
   1                   1:45             HMRC, UCC, Ireland                           --        1997
   1                   1:50             Aalborg Uni., Denmark                        --        1998-2001
   2 (PTO)             1:4.5            Uni. of Munich, Germany                      2.3 kW    1998-2000
   3                   1:4.5            Nissum Bredning, Denmark                     20 kW     2003-2005
                                                                                               2006-2008
                                                                                               2008, 2009*
   4
*Proposed




                Phase 1                            Phase 2 (PTO)                         Phase 3

Device Evaluation Status
   •        Sea trails conducted at two quarter scale Nissum Bredning sites.
   •        Device washed ashore in 2005 due to failed mooring.
   •        Pre-production prototype planned for Milford Haven, Wales.
   •        Reflecting arm options introduced.


                                                                                                    54
                 [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                                February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                   Device                       Wavebob             Country          Ireland
                                    Founded            1999

Main Investors/            Chevron                     EU & State Support MI & SEI
Project Partners           Vattenfall
Commercial                                                                                  Price/kWh
                                  www.wavebob.com
Summary
   •    Vattenfall acquired 51% of Wavebob Ltd
   •    Open a US office in 2008

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                                Mooring Configuration
Floating Body Inertia               Oil Hydraulic                        3 Point Catenary

Prototype                  Rating               Water Depth              Primary Production
m x ∅20m                      2 MW                   75m – 100m          Electricity Generation
tonnes
Unique Features
  •    Deep Draft                                         •   Tunable


Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                            Rating          Date
   1                1:50            HMRC, UCC, Ireland                           --
   2                1:10            Hamburg, Germany                             --
   3                1:4             Galway Bay, Ireland                          15 kW       2007-2008
   4




             Phase 1                                Phase 2                            Phase 3

Device Evaluation Status
   •    Quarter scale device sank in May 2007 in severe weather
   •    Currently at second stage of large scale testing at Galway Bay




                                                                                                      55
                   [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                                 February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                                 Device              Turbines             Country       Scotland
                                        Founded             1990

Main Investors/               Voith Siemens                 EU & State Support JOULE II
Project Partners
Commercial                                                                                     Price/kWh
                                    www.wavegen.co.uk
Summary
   •      Originally Applied Research & Technology Ltd
   •      Developed and Built LIMPET Shoreline OWC
   •      Builds and Supplies Turbines for Wave Energy Projects
   •      Acquired by Voith Siemens Hydro in 2005
Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                                    Mooring Configuration
Shoreline OWC                          Air Turbine                           N/A

Prototype                     Rating                 Water Depth             Primary Production
mxm                              18.5-500kW               15m                Electricity Generation
tonnes
Unique Features
  •      Fixed Pitch Blades                                     •   No gearbox

Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                                  Rating        Date
   4                  1:1              Dounreay, Orkneys, Scotland                   2MW         1995

   1
   2
   3                  1:1.75           Islay, Scotland.                               75kW      1988-1999
   4                  1:1              Islay, Scotland.                               500 kW    1998-2007
   5*                 1:1              Mutriku, Spain                              16x18.5kW    2008-
* Proposed




               Phase 1                                Phase 4                               Phase 5
Device Evaluation Status
   •      Project Management and Turbine Developer for OWC Breakwater Installations
   •      Mutriku breakwater to be commissioned during start 2009
   •      Scottish government granted consent for Siadar Wave Energy Project

                                                                                                        56
                 [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                             February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                   Device                    SSG                  Country         Norway
                                   Founded          2004

Main Investors/     Private Venture Capital EU & State Support FP6 Energy
Project Partners
Commercial                                                            Price/kWh
                            www.wavenergy.no
Summary
  • Founders have Extensive Oil Industry background
  • Received €1m EU funding in 2005 for full scale demonstration

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                              Mooring Configuration
Shoreline Overtopping              Multi-Stage Turbine                 N/A

Prototype                Rating               Water Depth              Primary Production
10m x 22m x 9m                  20 MW         shoreline                Electricity Generation
tonnes
Unique Features
  •     Stepped Reservoir Format                         •   Single Shaft PTO
  •                                                      •

Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                            Rating        Date
   1a               1:60           Aalborg University, Denmark                  --         2003-2005
   1b               1:25           Aalborg University, Denmark                  --         2003-2005
   2                1:15           Aalborg University, Denmark                             2003-2005
   3                1:4 (PTO)      NTNU, Norway                                            2005-2006
   4




            Phase 1a                           Phase 1b                               Phase 3

Device Evaluation Status
  • Proposed 150 kW Demonstration Plant for West coast of Norway
  • Proposed demonstration project at Hanstholm, Denmark




                                                                                                57
                 [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                                 February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                              Device           Waveplane            Country           Denmark
                                     Founded          1994

Main Investors/            LD (Danish Gov)            EU & State Support
Project Partners
Commercial                        www.waveplane.com                                          Price/kWh
Summary                           www.asolutioninvent.com/wpp/
   •    First patent filed in 1991
   •    Waveplane A/S bought the rights to the device in 2006

Device Technology Specification
Category
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                               Mooring Configuration
Floating Overtopping                Hydro-turbine                       Catenary Moored

Prototype                  Rating             Water Depth               Primary Production
22m x 22m                     100 kW                15m                 Electricity Generation
90 tonnes                                                               Water Oxidation
Unique Features
  •    Light weight                                       •   Survivability via submersion
  •    Turbine only moving part                           •

Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                            Rating           Date
   1               1:10             HMRC, UCC, Ireland                           --           1996
   2               1:18             HMRC, UCC, Ireland                           --           1996
   2               1:20             DTU, Denmark                                 --           1997
   2               1:20             DMI, Denmark                                 --           1998
   3               1:2.5            Nissum Bredning, Denmark                     4 kW         1999
   3               1:2.5            DMI, Denmark                                 4 kW         1999
   3               1:2.5            Copenhagen, Denmark                          4 kW         2000
   4               1:1              Hanstholm, Denmark                           100 kW       2008




            Phase 1                             Phase 3                               Phase 4

Device Evaluation Status
   •    Grid connected prototype installed at Hanstholm, December 2008
   •    Device ran aground due to failed moorings in rough seas and experienced extensive damage.
   •    Commercialisation expected in 3-5 years


                                                                                                     58
                [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                             February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                            Device          Wavestar           Country           Denmark
                                   Founded
                                   Founded         2003




Main Investors/   Privately held           EU & State Support FP6 DG TREN
Project Partners
Commercial                                                           Price/kWh
                          www.waveplane.com
Summary
  • In development stage for Horns Rev project

Device Technology Specification
Category                           Take-
                           Power Take-Off                                    Configuration
                                                                    Mooring Configuration
Fixed Body Inertia         Oil Hydraulics                           Platform
Prototype                Rating              Water Depth            Primary Production
10m x 240m                   6 MW               20m                 Electricity Generation
tonnes                   (40 x 150 kW)
Unique Features
  •   Segmented operation                             •   Survivability Mode
  •

                     Strategy
Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa)   Facility                                      Rating          Date
  1               1:40            Aalborg University, Denmark                  --
  1               1:40            Aalborg University, Denmark                  --        2004-2005
  2
  3               1:10            Nissum Bredning, Denmark                     5.5 kW    2006-2008
  4




             Phase 1                           Phase 1                              Phase 3

Device Evaluation Status
Device
  •    Scalable, modular design
  •



                                                                                              59
              [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                         February 2009




                       DEVICE DEVELOPER PROFILES

                              A.2. Successive Devices


                                                                PROTOTYPE
COUNTRY         COMPANY            DEVICE        TYPE
                                                                RATING
Netherlands     Ecofys             Wave Rotor    Inertia        500 kW
UK              Embley Energy      Sperboy       Floating OWC   2 MW
USA             INRI               Seadog        Inertia        33 kW
UK              OreCon             MRC           Floating OWC   1.5 MW
UK              OWEL               OWEL          Floating OWC   12 MW
Sweden          Seabased           Seabased      Inertia        20-50 kW
UK              Trident Energy     DECM          Inertia        1 MW
                                   Manchester
UK              UMIP                             Inertia        12 MW
                                   Bobber
                Waveberg
USA                                Waveberg      Inertia        100 kW
                Development
Canada          WET                WET EnGen     Inertia        200 kW




                                                                         60
                 [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                            February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                              Device         Wave Rotor           Country        Netherlands
                                     Founded        1984


Main Investors/       EConcern                 EU & State Support FP6
Project Partners      TOTAL                                       Carbon Trust
Commercial                                                               Price/kWh
                             www.ecofys.com
Summary
  • Collaboration of Two Energy Extraction Devices

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                              Mooring Configuration
Hydrodynamic Lift                   Turbine Generator                  Mono-pile

Prototype             Rating                   Water Depth             Primary Production
∅30m                       500 kW                 15-25m               Electricity Generation
200tonnes
Unique Features
  •    Combined Darrieus and Wells type rotors          •    Combines extraction of Wave and Tidal


Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                          Rating         Date
   1
   2                                 Nissum Bredning                           --           2002
   2                1:10             NaREC, UK                                 --           2004
   2                1:10             IFREMER, France                                        2007
   3                1:2              Borssele, Netherlands                     30 kW        2008




             Phase                               Phase 2                            Phase 4

Device Evaluation Status
   •    NaREC & IFREMER testing conducted under Carbon Trust’s Marine Energy Challenge Programme




                                                                                                61
                 [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                             February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company      Embley Energy Device                     Sperboy            Country         UK
                           Founded                    1998

Main Investors/                           EU & State Support JOULE III
Project Partners                                             Carbon Trust
Commercial                                                           Price/kWh
                            www.sperboy.com
Summary
  • Fully privately held company

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                              Mooring Configuration
Floating OWC                        Air Turbine                        Slack Moored

Prototype                  Rating                 Water Depth          Primary Production
50m x ∅30m                     2MW                  50-100m            Electricity Generation
3500 tonnes
Unique Features
  •    Concrete Construction                            •     Unique Mooring


Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                          Rating          Date
   1               1:50             Uni Plymouth & HMRC                        --         1999-2001
   2
   3               1:5              Plymouth Sound                                        2001
   4

   1               1:100            HMRC, Cork                                             2007




            Phase 1                                Phase 3                            Phase 1

Device Evaluation Status
   •    Original concept based on multi-resonant behaviour
   •    Computer Modelling prompted change from multi-chamber to single chamber design




                                                                                                  62
                   [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                             February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                                 Device            Seadog             Country
                                                                             Country       USA
                                        Founded


Main Investors/                               EU & State Support
Project Partners     Venture Capital
Commercial
                            www.inri.us                                                    Price/kWh
Summary
  • Privately Held Company based in Texas, USA.

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                                        Configuration
                                                                         Mooring Configuration
Floating Inertia                       Water Hydraulics                  Bottom Standing
Prototype                     Rating              Water Depth            Primary Production
48m x 10m                       33 kW                25m                 Electricity Generation
tonnes                                                                   Seawater Desalination
Unique Features
  •    Surface Float                                       •   Rigid Frame

Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                             Rating        Date
   1                                   INRI                                      --
   2                   1:32            Texas University, USA                     --         2003
   3                   1:4             Gulf of Mexico                         12-18g/min    2006
   3                   1:4             Gulf of Mexico                                       2007
   4




             Phase 2                                Phase 2                            Phase 3

Device Evaluation Status
  •


                                                                                                   63
                [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                             February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                            Device           MRC                 Country         UK
                                   Founded          2002

Main Investors/       Advent Ventures       EU & State Support
Project Partners
Commercial                                                                              Price/kWh
                             www.orecon.com
Summary
  • University of Plymouth spin-off company
  • Formally part of SperBoy Project

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                             Mooring Configuration
Floating OWC                      Air Turbine                         Tension Moored

Prototype                Rating                 Water Depth           Primary Production
m x ∅40m                    1.5MW                 50-100m             Electricity Generation
tonnes
Unique Features
  •    Multi-resonant chambers                        •     Modular Turbine Cassettes


Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                         Rating          Date
   1              1:50            HMRC, UCC                                   --          1999-2001
   2
   3              1:5             Plymouth Sound (Sperboy)                               2001
   4

   2              1:12            IFREMER, Brest, France                                  2001
   3




            Phase 1                              Phase 3                            Phase 2

Device Evaluation Status
   •    Contracted for Berth at Wavehub
   •    Turbines will be Designed & Supplied by Dresser-Rand


                                                                                                 64
                    [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                             February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                                 Device           Grampus             Country         UK
                                        Founded          2001


Main Investors/                                          EU & State Support
Project Partners
Commercial                                                                                   Price/kWh
                                    owel.co.uk
Summary
  •

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                                  Mooring Configuration
Floating OWC                           Air Turbine

Prototype                     Rating                 Water Depth                   Production
                                                                           Primary Production
200m x 200m x 30m               12MW                   40m                 Electricity Generation
24000 tonnes
Unique Features
  •     Shallow Draft                                        •   Amplifies Trapped Air Pressure
  •     Modular Design

Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                               Rating         Date
   1                  1:100            Southampton Institute, UK                   --         2001-2002
   2                  1:10             NaREC, UK                                   --         2004-2005

   1*                 1:50             HMRC, UCC, Ireland                          --          2009
*Proposed




                Phase 1                               Phase 1                            Phase 2

Device Evaluation Status
   •        Currently optimising performance and investigation structural and mooring requirements
   •




                                                                                                      65
                   [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                         February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                                Device         Direct      Drive Country         Sweden
                                                      Linear Generator
                                       Founded

Main Investors/             Uppsala University        EU & State Support
Project Partners
Commercial                                                                              Price/kWh
                                     www.seabased.com
Summary
   •     Start-up Company from Uppsala University

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                             Mooring Configuration
Fixed Inertia                        Direct Drive Linear Generator    Gravity Base

Prototype                   Rating               Water Depth          Primary Production
8m x 3m x 3m                      20-50kW          25m                Electricity Generation
45tonnes
Unique Features
  •    Surface Float                                     •   Array Deployment


Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                         Rating          Date
   1
   2                   1:2(PTO)      Angstrom, Uppsala University               10kW    2003-2004
   3                   1:2           Lysekil, Sweden                            10x10kW 2005-
   4                   1:1           Lysekil, Sweden                            10x10kW 2005




                Phase 2                       Phase 3 (Float)                    Phase 3 (Base)

Device Evaluation Status
   •     Device designed for low wave climate areas
   •     Conducting parallel environmental impact study with Swedish Marine Biological Research Centre




                                                                                               66
                  [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                                February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                                 Device          DECM                Country          UK
                                        Founded         2003


Main Investors/                                         EU & State Support
Project Partners
Commercial                                                                                   Price/kWh
                                   www.tridentenergy.co.uk
Summary
  •

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                                 Mooring Configuration
Fixed Inertia                       Tubular Linear Generator              TLP

Prototype                  Rating               Water Depth               Primary Production
mxm                              1 MW               50m                   Electricity Generation
tonnes
Unique Features
  •      Only one moving part                             •    Self protecting retractable float


Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                               Rating         Date
   1                                In-house Facility                              --
   2
   2                 1:3 (PTO)      NaREC, UK                                      --          2005-2006
   3                 1:3 (PTO)      NaREC, UK                                                  2007
   3                 1:3            Lowestoft, UK                                  20 kW       2009
   4




           Phase 2 (PTO)                          Phase 3                                Phase 3

Device Evaluation Status
  • Will start sea trials in 2009 on the east coast of the UK in the North Sea




                                                                                                    67
                   [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                               February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                     Device                                         Country           UK
            Uni. Manchester
              IP Ltd (UMIP) Founded                   2004

      Investors/
Main Investors/             Burntisland Fabrication EU & State Support
Project Partners            Ltd
                            ABB
Commercial                                                                                   Price/kWh
                           www.manchesterbobber.com
Summary
  • University Based Commercial Business

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                                        Configuration
                                                                         Mooring Configuration
Floating Inertia                     Induction Generator with Flywheel TLP

Prototype                   Rating              Water Depth              Primary Production
m x ∅m                          12 MW              20-40m                Electricity Generation
tonnes                      (24 x 500kW)
Unique Features
  •    Closely Spaced Array of Floats                      •   Gearbox part of Drive Train


Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                             Rating          Date
   1                1:100            Uni. Manchester, UK                         --           2004
   2                1:10             NaREC, UK                                   --           2005
   1 (Array)        1:70             Uni. Manchester, UK                         --           2007-2008
   2 (Array)                         Uni. Manchester, UK                         --           2008
   3
   4




               Phase 1                        Phase 1 (Array)                         Phase 2 (Array)

Device Evaluation Status
   •     Currently extending the testing on larger arrays (5x5)
   •     Currently generating investment for sea trials



                                                                                                    68
                   [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                             February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                     Device                        Waveberg            Country      USA
               Waveberg
                            Founded                       1979
            Development Ltd

Main Investors/     Venture Capital          EU & State Support
Project Partners
Commercial                                                                                 Price/kWh
                           www.waveberg.com
Summary
  • Currently seeking investment for large scale sea trials

Device Technology Specification
Category
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                                 Mooring Configuration
Floating Inertia                       Water Hydraulics

Prototype                     Rating               Water Depth            Primary Production
50m x 50m                       100kW                 m                   Electricity Generation
tonnes                                                                    Seawater Desalinisation
Unique Features
  •     Light-weight                                        •   Low Profile


       Development
Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                              Rating       Date
   3a                  1:5             San Francisco Bay, California                        1988
   2a                  1:16            NRC Canada                                           1990-1991
   3b                                  Lunenburg, Nova Scotia                               1992
   3c                  1:4             Cape Canaveral, Florida                              1996
   2b                  1:10            Cape Canaveral, Florida                              2000
   1                   1:50            HMRC, Ireland                              --        2006
   2c                  1:25            HMRC, Ireland                              --        2007




             Phase 2a                               Phase 3b                            Phase 1

Device Evaluation Status
   •
   •




                                                                                                    69
                   [STATE OF THE ART ANALYSIS]                                     February 2009

Current Corporate Profile
Company                               Device            EnGen       Country        Canada
                                      Founded

Main Investors/       Private Investment        EU & State Support
        Partners
Project Partners
Commercial                                                                         Price/kWh
                              www.waveenergytech.com
Summary
  • Currently Investigating Deployment Projects Worldwide

Device Technology Specification
Category                         Take-
                           Power Take-Off                         Mooring Configuration
Fixed Inertia                        Direct Drive                 Compliant Gravity Based

Prototype                   Rating                  Water Depth   Primary Production
mxm                           200 kW                  20-40m      Electricity Generation
tonnes                                                            Seawater Desalination
Unique Features
  •      Smart Float
                       TM
                                                          •

Device Development Strategy
Phase      Scale (circa) Facility                                     Rating
                                                                      Rating         Date
   1                                                                                 2004-2005
   2                                 NRC, Canada                                     2006
   3                                 Sandy Cove, Nova Scotia              20kW       2006-2007
   3                                 Sandy Cove, Nova Scotia              40kW       2008




                Phase 2                              Phase 3                   Phase 3

Device Evaluation Status
   •
   •




                                                                                            70

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Ocean Energy - Wave Energy - Rewable Energy -