Presentation on theme: "1 | Program Name or Ancillary Texteere.energy.gov Water Power Peer Review M3 Wave Energy Systems (TRL 1 2 3 System) PI: Mike Morrow M3 Wave Energy Systems."— Presentation transcript:
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Texteere.energy.gov Water Power Peer Review M3 Wave Energy Systems (TRL System) PI: Mike Morrow M3 Wave Energy Systems LLC (541) November, 2011 M3 Wave’s DMP: Simple, Scalable, and Submerged Water Power 2010 project to advance DMP technology from TRL2 to TRL3+
2 | Wind and Water Power Programeere.energy.gov Purpose, Objectives, & Integration Project Purpose: Determine commercial potential of DMP Submerged WEC. Expected performance Estimated Cost per kWh including first pass LCOE model Explore Design concepts and Methods for fabrication, operations, maintenance, deployment Strategy: Minimize system cost/kWh instead of merely pushing on nameplate rating or efficiency. Relation to Program Objectives: A commercially viable stationary, submerged WEC technology would provide additional portfolio options for harnessing wave energy and improving the energy independence of the US with reduced stakeholder impact. Identifying methods for fabrication, O&M, and deployment early in the design cycle will reduce cost and decrease risk and time to market for a new technology.
3 | Wind and Water Power Programeere.energy.gov Technical Approach Technical Approach: Identify representative sites and characterize the wave resource in the mid-shore region of the Oregon Coast (relatively little data existed on this region). Scientists at Oregon State University’s Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center (NNMREC) applied SWAN modeling to site bathymetry: Develop computer model of WEC device NNMREC scientists and M3 Wave engineers independently developed CFD and numerical models and cross-validated the resulting output. Sample Sites Predicted Wave Conditions Wave spectra vs depth Oscillating Air Column CFD model Pressure Response Curves
4 | Wind and Water Power Programeere.energy.gov Technical Approach Technical Approach (cont): Construct and test 1:50 scale model device A 1m long scale model was designed, constructed, and tested using representative materials, methods, and procedures. Key investigations using this device included: Impact of bag size and orientation on relative efficiency Impact of water depth on device performance Impact of system pressure on device performance Tsunami test
5 | Wind and Water Power Programeere.energy.gov Technical Approach Key/remaining issues: Methods for fabrication and O&M to reduce levelized cost of energy –Working with barge manufacturers, raw material suppliers, and marine engineering firms to develop optimum solutions. Instrumentation –Measuring relatively low velocity bi-directional flow in small diameter pipe turned out to be challenging. New methods being developed and refined Complex Bag FEA/modeling –Bag response during operation ended up being more complex than original model capability. Currently developing empirical linkages where possible. Bag modeling will be key to sizing device output and optimizing conversion efficiency Refining Levelized Cost of Energy Model incorporating unique aspects of device (essentially an “area absorber”) and ability to dense pack arrays. To be investigated on subsequent projects pending Go/no-go: Sediment transport, biofouling, benthic ecosystem impact, more detailed LCOE model inputs.
6 | Wind and Water Power Programeere.energy.gov Plan, Schedule, & Budget Schedule Initiation date: Nov 1, 2010 Planned completion date: Oct 31, 2011 Milestones: –Wave and system model (June 2011) –Completion of scale model testing (Sept 2011) –Final roll-up of LCOE model (Oct 2011) GO-NO GO decision points: –Viable, data-supported cost/Kw: estimate by end of Oct 2011 –Scale factor match predictions: 1:6 scale testing end of FY11 –Open Water Pilot test (FY12-FY13): pending funding secured FY12 Budget: As of Sept 1, 2011, M3 has expended $184, of the entire budget of $299,972.39, or 61.4% of entire budget. In the last 2 months we expect the majority of subcontract dollars to be invoiced and monthly labor hours to increase due to final integration and report writing. In general, budget is on track. The largest variance is that we are over budget by 120 hours on grant administration. This was due to underestimating the tasks required for adherence to DOE requirements, this being our first DOE grant. This has been offset by being under budget in hardware costs for both wave flume modification and device fabrication. Budget History FY2010FY2011 DOECost-shareDOECost-share $0$ $149,359.22$29,387.84
7 | Wind and Water Power Programeere.energy.gov Technical Approach Completed As of 9/19/2011 Project Roadmap (from original proposal)