Coal, Tidal and Wind in 2010 Time Period

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 10 20 30 40 50Cost of CO2, $/metric ton

Levelized Cost of Electricity, $/kWh, 2005$, w/o Incentives

Wind after 50 GW@29% CFTidal@3 kW/m2 - Golden Gate CA

11

Tidal@1.5 kW/m2 – Tacoma Narrows WA

Coal

Tidal@ 4.5 kW/m2 – Minas Passage NS

Wind after 50 GW@42% CF

North America Wave and Tidal Projects

Environmental and Regulatory Issues

North America Wave Energy Projects

HI, Oahu

Kaneohe

WA

Makah Bay

RI

Point Judith

OR

Reedsport

OR

Lincoln Ct

DeveloperOcean Power Tech

AquaEnergy

Energetech

OPT County

Development Stage

Deployed June 04 – 8 Mo of Tests

– Redeploying

late 2006

Permitting since 2002

DOI submitted to FERC Feb 2005 – Ruling Oct 2005

Filed with

FERC 07/14/06

Filed with

FERC 8/23/06

DevicePower BuoyTM

Aqua BuOYTM

Oscillating Water

Column (OWC)

250kW PowerBu

oy

Size

Single buoy

40 kW

Buildout to 1 MW

4 buoys

1 MW

Single OWC

500kW50 MW

Water Depth/ Distance from Shore

30 m

1 km

50 m

6 km

2 m

2 km

50 m

4 km

From EPRI Feasibility Study Northern CA Not yet a project

North America Tidal Energy Projects

MA

Amesbury

NY

NY, East River

BC

Race Rocks

NS

Minas Passa

ge

WA

Tacoma Narrow

s

DeveloperMasstec

h/Verdant

NYSERDAVerd

ant

ENCANA/

Clean Curren

t

Nova Scotia Power

Tacoma Power

Development Stage

2 Month Test

Complete

In Con-struction

Being deploy

ed

NSPI plannin

g Phase

2

Tacoma Power

Filed for permit with

FERC

DeviceVertical

axis

Horizontal axis open rotor

H - axis

ducted rotor

TBD TBD

Size1m X 2.5 m

1 unit

5 m diamete

r

6 units

? Dia 1 unit

TBD TBD

Power (kW) at Max Speed (m/s)

0.8 kW @

1.5m/s

34 kW @ 2.1 m/s

? TBD TBD

From EPRI Feasibility Study

WA

Admiralty Straits

CA

Golden Gate

SNOPUDOcean

a

Filed with FERC

06/06

Rec’d FERC prel

permit 10/05

TBD TBD

TBD TBD

TBD TBD

Frequently Asked Questions

Will these devices affect the environment?The Environmental Issueso Withdrawal of wave and tidal flow energy on the ecology o Interactions with marine life (fish and mammals)o Atmospheric and oceanic emissionso Visual appearanceso Conflicts with other uses of sea space (fishing, boating, shipping,

clamming, crabbing, etc)o Installation and decommissioning

Wave Energy Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)o Belt Collins EIS for Navy Hawaii WEC Project - FONSIo Devine Tarbell EIS for AquaEnergy Makah bay WA Projecto Many European EISs

Frequently Asked Questions

• Will the regulatory authorities grant a permit for this offshore wave power and tidal power plants

• Will these devices survive storms and the hostile marine environment?

Regulatory and Environmental Summary

Wave Energy• Federal Jurisdiction

– Plant > 3 miles = MMS/FERC– Plant < 3 miles = FERC– Plant > 3 miles in marine

sanctuary = FERC/NOAA

• State Jurisdiction – CA Dept of State Lands

• Env Issues– Reduced wave height– Interactions with marine life– Conflicts of sea space

Tidal Energy• Federal Jurisdiction

– Com’l Plant < 3 miles = FERC

• State Jurisdiction – – CA Dept of State Lands

• Env Issues– Fish endangerment– Ecological effects

Proposed New Feasibility Studies:

River In Stream

Hybrid Offshore Wind - Wave

Hydrokinetic River Energy Conversion

Present State– Present day run of river hydro plants are low-head, no-

storage plants– They involve diverting a portion of the river thru

hydroelectric turbinesDesired State – No dams– No diversionary flows– No aesthetic concerns– Environmentally benign

River Tidal Stream

Flow Unidirectional Bi

Water Fresh Salt

Variability Yearly Diurnal

Cycle Cycle

Threshold* ? 2.5 kw/m2

* Min required average yearly power density for economic feasibility

Hybrid Offshore Wind-Wave Energy Conversion

Present State– Present day European offshore wind plants are in shallow water close to shore– Deeper water further offshore wind plants are less visually intrusive– Cost of near shore wind systems is greater than onshore and cost of far

offshore wind system is greater than near shore wind– Offshore wave is an emerging technology with 1st commercial sale (25 MW

plant) in 2005 in Portugal announced by Ocean Power Delivery of the UK– Hybridization of the two technologies produces lowest cost of electricity (COE)

then either system alone, however, advancements needed in floating platforms and operation and maintenance technologies.

Desired State – Avoid “Cape Wind” Aethestic Issues

– Leverage the synergies for reduced CoE and reduced resource variability

HOW-WEC

More Advanced Hybrid Wind – Wave Design Concepts

A small investment today might stimulate a worldwide industry which may employ thousands of people and generate billions of dollars of economic output while using an abundant and clean natural resource. It is worth taking a serious look at whether this technology should be added to our portfolio of energy supply options.

EPRI Perspective• Wave and In Stream Tidal Energy and Other

Ocean Energy Sources are potentially important energy sources and should be evaluated for adding to our energy supply portfolios– Indigenous– keep the wealth at home and increase

energy security

• A balanced and diversified portfolio of energy supply options is the foundation of a reliable and robust electrical system

• Clean, no greenhouse gases and no aesthetic issues

• Economics appear to be close to other options

Economics and Local Job Creation – San Francisco Wave

Plant - 106 MW Rating• Engineering and Construction – EPRI analysis shows about 300 jobs during construction period– Direct– Indirect– Induced

• Operation and Maintenance - EPRI analysis shows that – A crew of 6 people are required to operate the needed

vessels– a crew of 18 people are required to operate and maintain

a 180 unit Pelamis Wave Plant (about 100 MW rating)

The Government says “We are here to help you”

The primary barriers to wave and tidal energy technology are not technical but political:

– No U.S. Government RD&D Funding Support

– No U.S. Government production subsidies

– U.S. Government regulatory uncertainty.

How Could the Government Help?

1. Provide leadership and funding of an ocean energy RD&D program 2. Provide funding for national ocean energy test center 3. Develop design and testing standards for ocean energy devices4. Join the International Energy Agency Ocean Energy Systems

Implementing Agreement to collaborate RD&D activities, and appropriate ocean energy policies with other governments and organizations

5. Study provision of production tax credits, renewable energy credits, and other incentives to spur private investment in ocean energy technologies and projects, and implementing appropriate incentives to accelerate ocean wave energy deployment

6. Lead activities to streamline the process for licensing, leasing, and permitting renewable energy facilities in U.S. waters

7. Ensure that the public receives a fair return from the use of ocean energy resources

8. Ensure that development rights are allocated through a transparent process that takes into account state, local, and public concerns.

Example of Government help

In 2004 the Portuguese Government offered a dedicated marine energy tariff

The UK has a long history of support for the Marine Energy Industry

• Established the “European Marine Energy Centre” in Orkney, Scotland. • Launched the “Carbon Trust, Marine Energy Challenge”• Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has awarded over £25 M to

support the ongoing development of marine energy devices• Launched a £50M support fund which earmarks £8M direct funding for

EMEC and the Wave Hub initiative with the remaining £42M available to support demonstration projects

• Wave Hub, will offer a “plug in” facility with all the necessary permits etc to allow “next generation” multi device demonstration projects to negate the cost of grid connection.

Summary

EPRI Ocean Energy Program is for the Public BenefitAll Technical Work Totally Transparent and Available:

www.epri.com/oceanenergy/ (1) EPRI TP-001-NA, TISEC Resource/Device Performance Estimation Methodology

(2) EPRI TP-002-NA, TISEC Economic Assessment Methodology

(3) EPRI TP-003-MA, Massachusetts Site Survey

(4) EPRI TP-003-ME, Maine Site Survey

(5) EPRI TP-003-NB, New Brunswick Site Survey

(6) EPRI TP-003-MA, Nova Scotia Site Survey

(7) EPRI TP-004-NA, TISEC Device Survey and Characterization

(8) EPRI TP-005-NA, System Design Methodology

(9) EPRI TP-006-AK, Alaska System Level Design Study

(10) EPRI TP-006-WA, Washington System Level Design Study

(11) EPRI TP-006-CA, California System Level Design Study

(12) EPRI TP-006-MA, Massachusetts System Level Design Study

(13) EPRI TP-006-ME, Maine System Level Design Study

(14) EPRI TP-006-NB, New Brunswick System Level Design Study

(15) EPRI TP-006-NS, Nova Scotia System Level Design Study

(16) EPRI TP-007-NA, North America Environmental and Regulatory Issues

(17) EPRI TP-008-NA, Final Summary Report

(1) EPRI WP-001-US, WEC Device Performance Estimation Methodology

(2) EPRI WP-002-US, WEC Economic Assessment Methodology

(3) EPRI WP-003-HI, Hawaii Site Survey

(4) EPRI WP-003-ME, Maine Site Survey

(5) EPRI WP-003-OR, Oregon Site Survey

(6) EPRI WP-003-WA, Washington Site Survey

(7) EPRI WP-004-NA, TISEC Device Survey and Characterization

(8) EPRI WP-005-US, System Design Methodology

(9) EPRI WP-006-HI, Hawaii System Level Design Study

(10) EPRI WP-006-ME, Maine System Level Design Study

(11) EPRI WP-006-MA, Massachusetts System Level Design Study

(12) EPRI WP-006-SFA, SF California System Level Design Study - Pelamis

(13) EPRI WP-006-SFB, SF California System Level Design Study - Energetech

(14) EPRI WP-007-US, Environmental Issues Study

(15) EPRI WP-008-USA, Regulatory Issues Study

(16) EPRI WP-009-US, Final Summary Report

Wave Energy Tidal Energy

A Sustainable Electricity Generation Energy Supply Portfolio and How We Transition to

It

Decision Making in a Highly Uncertain World

• Investment decisions are being made today about the next generation of electricity supply are complicated by at least four major uncertainties:– Future cost of CO2– Future price of natural gas– Storage of spent nuclear fuel– The capture and storage of CO2

• Prudent investment decisions will assume that carbon constraints are coming

• R&D can make a big difference

Comparative Cost of 2010 Generating Options

Comparative Generation Cost in 2020

Conclusions

• By opening up the possibility of CO2 capture and sequestration, the entire portfolio becomes relatively insensitive to the future costs of carbon constraints

• The U.S. has an opportunity to put a low carbon portfolio in place by 2020

• Without advances in technology, the cost of electricity rise steeply for carbon based technologies

• Electricity generation costs for all options can be improved substantially over the next 10 years, putting the entire portfolio in the “affordable” range –below 7 cents/kWh – regardless of CO2 costs

Importance of Technology Policy

• Advanced technology is a prerequisite for meeting our energy and environmental needs of the future because, economic efficiency – that is, achieving our environmental goals at least cost – is critically important

• Technology advances are central to controlling the cost of climate change

• Even a policy that with stringent near term limits or one that leads to an economically efficient price on carbon emissions is unlikely, by itself, to produce the needed technology breakthroughs – may only discourage development of better existing technologies

• R&D must be increased substantially now to– ensure widespread deployment of advanced emission reduction

technologies– stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases