Techno-Economic Related Metrics for a Wave Energy Converters Feasibility Assessment
2.1. Device Specifications
2.2. Techno-Economic Model
- Power matrices are scaled with the Froude scale (further explained below).
- For all ratings, the device is in survival mode in sea states where Hs > 10 m.
- No interaction effects are considered among devices (q factor = 1).
- CAPEX is scaled based on the following equation:
- 1st OPEX calculation approach:For the sake of simplicity, and due to the absence of adequate O&M data for wave energy converters, OPEX is calculated as a percentage of the CAPEX. O’Connor et al.  showed different figures of OPEX calculated as a percentage of CAPEX. In this case, following Guanche et al. , it was assumed that the initial OPEX was 8% of CAPEX.
- 2nd OPEX calculation approach:As a second approach, OPEX is calculated based on the real cost of the repair actions through the life-cycle of the device. The assumption of one major repair being performed every two years is used. Costs are based on consultations with a vessel company in Orkney. It is assumed that the same type of vessel is used for the repair action, independently of the rating of the device.
- For both OPEX approaches it is assumed that OPEX is the same for all locations.
- The same level of availability is assumed for all locations, and is taken to be 95% based on Guanche et al. .
- It is assumed that the wave energy farm is designed for a 20-year life-cycle.
- A discount rate of 8% has been chosen following Guanche et al. .
- A feed in tariff of 375 Eur/MWh has been selected, as this is the current feed in tariff in the United Kingdom for wave and tidal projects.
- It is assumed that this will be the first 20 MW farm developed and so the selection of interest rate, availability, and OPEX has been made with this in mind.
- A learning rate is applied to CAPEX due to bulk production. In this case, as the first units produced, a factor of 0.82 is selected as suggested as an optimistic scenario in Guanche et al. . For OPEX, a learning rate of 0.92 is applied (normally OPEX shows slower learning than CAPEX).
2.4. Power Matrix Scaling Methodology
2.5. CAPEX Scaling
4.1. The 20 MW Farm Analysis
4.2. Sensitivity Analysis: CAPEX and OPEX
4.3. Metrics Comparison among Devices
5. Relation of LCOE to Other Indicators
Conflicts of Interest
- SI Ocean (Strategic Initiative for Ocean Energy). Ocean Energy: State of the Art; SI Ocean: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Azzellino, A.; Conley, D.; Vicinanza, D.; Kofoed, J.P. Marine renewable energies: Perspectives and implications for marine ecosystems. Sci. World J. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gunn, K.; Stock-Williams, C. Quantifying the global wave power resource. Renew. Energy 2012, 44, 296–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacGillivray, A.; Jeffrey, H.; Hanmer, C.; Magagna, D.; Raventos, A.; Badcock-Broe, A. Ocean Energy Technology: Gaps and Barriers; SI Ocean: Brussels, Belgium, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Farrell, N.; O’Donoghue, C.; Morrissey, K. Quantifying the uncertainty of wave energy conversion device cost for policy appraisal: An Irish case study. Energy Policy 2015, 1, 62–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Connor, M.; Lewis, T.; Dalton, G. Operational expenditure costs for wave energy projects and impacts on financial returns. Renew. Energy 2013, 50, 1119–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guanche, R.; de Andrés, A.D.; Simal, P.D.; Vidal, C.; Losada, I.J. Uncertainty analysis of wave energy farms financial indicators. Renew. Energy 2014, 68, 570–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The European Offshore Wind Industry. Key Trends and Statistics 1st Half 2015; European Wind Energy Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- MacGillivray, A.; Jeffrey, H.; Winskel, M.; Bryden, I. Innovation and cost reduction for marine renewable energy: A learning investment sensitivity analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 87, 108–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IEA (International Energy Agency). Projected Costs of Generating Electricity; IEA: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- De Andres, A.; Guanche, R.; Vidal, C.; Losada, I.J. Adaptability of a generic wave energy converter to different climate conditions. Renew. Energy 2015, 78, 322–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Andres, A.; MacGillivray, A.; Cuanche, R.; Jeffrey, H. Factors Affecting LCOE of Ocean Energy Technologies: A Study of Technology and Deployment Attractiveness. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Ocean Energy, Halifax, NS, Canada, 4–6 November 2014.
- Chozas, J.F.; Kofoed, J.P.; Jensen, N.E.H. User Guide—COE Calculation Tool for Wave Energy Converters: Ver. 1.6—April 2014 1st; DCE Technical Reports; No. 161; Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University: Aalborg, Denmark, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- O’Connor, M.; Lewis, T.; Dalton, G. Techno-economic performance of the Pelamis P1 and Wavestar at different ratings and various locations in Europe. Renew. Energy 2013, 50, 889–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babarit, A. A database of capture width ratio of wave energy converters. Renew. Energy 2015, 80, 610–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babarit, A.; Hals, J.; Muliawan, M.J.; Kurniawan, A.; Moan, T.; Krokstad, J. Numerical benchmarking study of a selection of wave energy converters. Renew. Energy 2012, 41, 44–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guanche, R.; de Andrés, A.; Losada, I.J.; Vidal, C. A global analysis of the operation and maintenance role on the placing of wave energy farms. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 106, 440–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, J. WEC Technology Readiness and Performance Matrix—Finding the best research technology development trajectory. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Ocean and Energy, Dublin, Ireland, 17–19 October 2012.
- Pascal, R.; Torres, A.; Gonzalez, A. Going Further Than the Scatter Diagram: Tools for Analysing the Wave Resource and Classifying Sites. In Proceedings of the 11th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Nantes, France, 6–11 September 2015.
- US Department of Energy. Wave Energy Prize Rules; US Department of Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
|Module & Parts||Scale Parameter|
|M7_6 Control & Power_Electronics||3.5|
|M8_Software & Communications||1|
|M9_PTO frame, boxes and routing||2|
|M24_Umbilical & connectors||1|
|Weighted Scale Coefficient||2.39|
|Location||Mean Power||Waver Depth Range||Distance to Shore|
|EMEC (United Kingdom)||28.5 kW/m||12–50 m||1–2 km|
|Wavehub (United Kingdom)||16 kW/m||50–60 m||16 km|
|Bimep (Spain)||21 kW/m||50–90 m||1.7 km|
|Yeu Island (France)||26 kW/m||---------||----------|
|DK, North Sea point 2 (Denmark)||12 kW/m||31 m||100 km|
|Scale Parameter||EMEC||Wavehub||Bimep||Yeu||DKNorth Sea Point 2|
|Scale Parameter||EMEC||Wavehub||Bimep||Yeu||DKNorth Sea Point 2|
|RST (m)||Width (m)||Surface Area (m2)||Capture Width Ratio (%)||kWh/kg||MWh/m2||ACE (m/M€)|
|Small bottom-ref heaving buoy||0.094||3||42||4.1||0.92||0.68||6.44|
|Bottom-ref. submerged heave-buoy||0.115||7||220||13||0.97||0.88||7.38|
|Floating two-body heaving converter||0.342||20||2120||36||0.3||0.79||2.04|
|Bottom-fixed heave-buoy array||0.0468||17||4350||17||1.5||0.56||2.93|
|Floating heave-buoy array||0.140||18||4750||11||0.67||0.79||0.61|
|Bottom-fixed oscillating flap||0.239||26||2020||72||1||1.9||7.99|
|Floating three-body oscillating flap||0.095||25||2160||20||0.69||0.46||5.00|
|CorPower 250 kW||0.029||8.54||328.03||37||9.05||2.21||25.92|
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
De Andres, A.; Maillet, J.; Hals Todalshaug, J.; Möller, P.; Bould, D.; Jeffrey, H. Techno-Economic Related Metrics for a Wave Energy Converters Feasibility Assessment. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1109. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111109
De Andres A, Maillet J, Hals Todalshaug J, Möller P, Bould D, Jeffrey H. Techno-Economic Related Metrics for a Wave Energy Converters Feasibility Assessment. Sustainability. 2016; 8(11):1109. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111109Chicago/Turabian Style
De Andres, Adrian, Jéromine Maillet, Jørgen Hals Todalshaug, Patrik Möller, David Bould, and Henry Jeffrey. 2016. "Techno-Economic Related Metrics for a Wave Energy Converters Feasibility Assessment" Sustainability 8, no. 11: 1109. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111109