solent ocean energy centre - dec 2006 - iwc report

8/7/2019 Solent Ocean Energy Centre - Dec 2006 - IWC report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solent-ocean-energy-centre-dec-2006-iwc-report 1/87

Feasibility Study

Solent Ocean Energy Centre

The case for establishing an evaluation andresearch centre for ocean energy technologies

on the Isle of Wight

Report prepared for the Isle of Wight Council

December 2006

Marine and Technical Marketing Consultants (MTMC)Unit 28, Medina Village

Bridge RoadCowes

Isle of Wight

PO31 7LP, UK

Tel. / Fax: +44 (0) 1983 294684

E-mail: [email protected]



2



Table of Contents

Foreword

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

1.1 Energy targets1.2 The Isle of Wight as a Centre for Marine Energy1.3 Solent Ocean Energy Centre

1.3.1 National Significance1.3.2 Regional Significance1.3.3 Local Significance

2. Vision and Objectives

2.1 Mission of the Solent Ocean Energy Centre 2.2 Proposed Milestones

2.2.1 Objectives for 20072.2.2 Longer Term Timescales and Key Events

3. Marine Energy Extraction3.1 Introduction3.2 Tidal Stream Energy

3.2.1 Devices for Tidal Energy Extraction

3.2.2 Tidal Device Developers3.3 Wave Energy3.3.1 Devices for Wave Energy Extraction3.2.2 Wave Device Developers

4. Test Facility Requirements

4.1 Introduction4.2 Expected Range of Work4.3 Facility Options and Availability

4.3.1 Towing Tank

4.3.2 Circulating Water Channel4.3.3 Deep Tank4.3.4 Sheltered Marine Test Site4.3.5 Offshore Marine Test Site

4.4 Conclusions and Recommendations for Test Facilities

5. Instrumentation Requirements

5.1 Dynamometer5.2 General Instrumentation5.3 Work Boats and Crane Barge

5.4 Electrical Load / Electricity Network Connection5.5 Conclusions and Recommendations for Instrumentation

3



6. Marine Tidal Test Sites

6.1 Introduction6.2 Requirements for Inshore, Sheltered Site6.3 Inshore Site Selection and Ranking Methodology

6.4 Candidate Inshore Sites6.5 Conclusions and Recommendations from Inshore SiteRanking6.6 Requirements for Deep, Offshore Site6.7 Offshore Site Selection6.8 Candidate Offshore Sites6.9 Conclusions and Recommendations for Offshore Site

7. Proposed Commercial Structure of the Centre

7.1 Business Model

7.2 Technical Support Structure7.3 Technical Work Management

8. Collaboration

8.1 Strategy for Collaboration8.2 Potential collaborators8.3 Networks

9. Regional Infrastructure of Resources Available to the Test andEvaluation Centre

9.1 Introduction9.2 Intellectual Resource Requirements9.3 Organisations with Offerings for the Centre9.4 Descriptions of the Organisations

9.4.1 ABPmer (Marine Environmental Research)9.4.2 British Maritime Technology (BMT)9.4.3 Wolfson Unit for Marine Technology and IndustrialAerodynamics (WUMTIA)9.4.4 HR Wallingford

9.4.5 National Oceanographic Centre9.4.6 QinetiQ Haslar9.4.7 Other Organisations

9.5 Individuals and Small Companies with Offerings for the Centre9.5.1 Small Consultancies9.5.2 Small Engineering Companies

9.6 Benefits of the Regional Infrastructure9.7 Conclusions and Recommendation

10. The Case for a Solent Ocean Energy Centre

10.1 Introduction10.2 Overview of the UK Marine Renewable Energy Market

4



10.3 Financial Drivers10.4 Environmental and Political Drivers10.5 Global Tidal Energy Sector10.6 UK Tidal Energy Sector10.7 Client Base and Value of Work

10.8 Centre Costs10.8.1 Capital Cost Breakdown10.8.2 Capital and Set-up Costs of the Inshore Marine TestSite10.8.3 Cost of the Offshore Marine Test Site10.8.4 Overhead / Running Costs

10.9 Funding Sources10.9.1 Public Sector Funding10.9.2 Private Sector Funding

10.10 Conclusions and Recommendations

11. Conclusions from this Study

11. Recommendations

Appendices

Appendix 1. Consents Procedure

Appendix 2: Options for Capital Expenditure on Test Equipment

5



Foreword

Marine and Technical Marketing Consultants (MTMC) has beencommissioned by the Isle of Wight Council to conduct a Feasibility Study intothe establishment of the Solent Ocean Energy Centre - an evaluation and

research centre for marine energy technologies on the Isle of Wight. Fundingfor the study has been provided by the South East England DevelopmentAgency (SEEDA).

Those constituent elements, which would be necessary for the successfulestablishment of such a Centre, were identified in the initial project proposal,presented to the Isle of Wight Council in February 2006. The objective of theFeasibility Study is to expand comprehensively upon those elements, in orderto provide a detailed overview of the resources and facilities that would beavailable to the Centre for its effective and profitable operation.

MTMC was established in 1992 and acts as an umbrella company for anumber of individual consultants and small businesses who frequently worktogether. Providing an integrated technical and commercial service to clients,the company specialises in marine performance evaluation and the design ofspecialist instrumentation for hydrodynamic testing.

6



Executive Summary

The government has set ambitious targets for generation of electricity fromrenewable sources, in order to fulfil its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.This report sets out the result of a study to explore the feasibility of

establishing a Centre for evaluation and research into marine renewableenergy technologies on the Isle of Wight, which will underpin the achievementof those targets.

The Centre will also contribute to several targets within the SEEDA RegionalEconomic Strategy, by promoting the Region’s knowledge in marinerenewable energy, assisting the development of business consortia for themarine renewables sector and providing infrastructure to maintaininternational economic competitiveness in the marine industry.

The Centre will provide integrated business support, particularly for micro-businesses, which are the core of its recommended business model. It willbuild on the local strength of marine-related companies on the Isle of Wight(and surrounding SEEDA region), potentially transforming the current low-wage economy into a technology and knowledge-based economy.

A comprehensive review of the current state of wave and tidal streamtechnologies (in which the UK is a world leader) is presented in this report,together with a list of marine energy device developers categorised accordingto their location in the south of England, elsewhere in the UK or elsewhere inthe world. Interviews with a number of these developers confirmed that there

is a need for the proposed Centre in the SEEDA region. Cost-effective testfacilities are required at all stages of device development, from proof-of-concept, through design optimisation to full prototype demonstration. Facilitiesfor testing and development of ancillary equipment and of installation,maintenance and decommissioning procedures are also needed.

Sufficient facilities exist already in the SEEDA region for laboratory testing ofsmall-scale marine energy devices. A key facility is the GKN towing tank inEast Cowes on the Isle of Wight, which will support model tests of both waveand tidal generators. A desirable addition would be the upgrading andrelocation of a circulating water channel that is currently mothballed on the

site of QinetiQ Haslar in Gosport. Some investment in instrumentation will benecessary, but most may be hired and charged to projects.

Four candidate sites on the north and east shores of the Isle of Wight havebeen studied and ranked according to their suitability for a sheltered marinetidal test facility. Further investigations are recommended, prior to final siteselection.

Two potential deep offshore sites for testing prototype tidal stream generatorswith grid connection have been identified. Further investigations andconsultations are recommended, to select the most appropriate site and to

ensure that the application for consents will run smoothly. The cost of siteconstruction and a grid connection for demonstrator devices would have to be

7



met from the public purse, which can be justified in terms of strategicgovernment support for development of a predictable form of renewableenergy that will contribute to the UK energy targets and security of energysupply. Once established, the offshore site would be financially self-supporting.

The commercial structure proposed for the Centre is based on a successfulmodel developed by an informal grouping of Isle of Wight companies, toprovide an integrated technical and commercial service to clients. It will onlybe necessary to establish an office facility with a technical and administrativemanager, who could either work from a remote office or could be locatedcentrally on the Island. Administrative services such as website design andpublicity will be outsourced.

This report demonstrates that there is a wealth of technical expertise residingin companies based on the Isle of Wight and in the surrounding SEEDA

region. For each project conducted through the Centre, a group of companieswill be selected from this technical resource and subcontracted to deliver thecustomer’s requirements.

The proposed Centre is seen to be complementary to other UK marine energytest centres, such as NaREC, EMEC and Wavehub and there is potential forinformal partnering arrangements with these establishments.

An overview of the global marine renewable energy market and of financial,environmental and political drivers in the UK demonstrates the commercialopportunities presented by the sector. The UK has a competitive advantagebased on its world-leading position in tidal energy technologies, a plentifultidal resource and strong existing offshore skills. However, there are threemain hurdles to achieving the full potential of marine energy generation,namely financing, grid access and planning / permitting. The proposedoffshore test site will alleviate the latter two of these problems.

Economic analysis shows that it is feasible for the Centre to commenceoperating immediately, using existing laboratory facilities, with an initialinvestment of £74k for the first year’s set-up and overhead costs and adesirable investment of £50k for instrumentation.

It is recommended that the concept is taken forward at the earliest opportunityand that public funding is sought for the development of an inshore marinetest site. Further investigations should be conducted to examine the feasibilityof an offshore, grid-connected test site south of St Catherine’s Point on theIsle of Wight.

8



1. Introduction

This paper sets out the results of a study to establish the feasibility of anevaluation and research Centre for tidal stream and other marine energygenerating devices on the Isle of Wight, which will underpin regional targets

for electricity generation from renewable sources and will form the focus for anew marine energy industry in the SE region. The Centre will facilitateinvestment and innovation in an emerging market sector, helping businessesto seek out new opportunities and new markets.

1.1 Energy Targets

Through the Kyoto Protocol, the UK has a legally binding target to reduceemissions of greenhouse gases by 12.5% below 1990 levels in the period2008 – 2012. The government has also set a domestic goal to cut carbondioxide emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2010. The Energy WhitePaper published in February 2003 contains a long-term goal for a 60%reduction in the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, with real progressmade by 2020.

In line with these goals, the government has set national targets to meet 10%of UK electricity generation from renewable sources by 2010 and 15% by2015. There is a further aspiration to increase this figure to 20% by 2020. Thecorresponding targets for electricity generation from all appropriate renewablesources in the SE Region1 are 620 MW (5.5%) installed capacity by 2010 and895 MW (8%) by 2016.

The energy potential of fast-flowing tidal currents around the British Isles wasthe subject of a study2 by the energy consultancy Black and Veatch in 2005.The report concluded that the UK’s tidal stream resource is equivalent to12 TWh and could supply up to 5% of the UK's electricity requirement. Morerecently, Prof Ian Bryden from Edinburgh University has argued that the figuremay be as high as 60TWh.

The advantage of this form of renewable energy over other technologies suchas wind and solar is that it is entirely predictable – the expected times andstrengths of tidal currents are routinely published in nautical almanacs. A

further advantage is its high energy density: since water is 830 times denserthan air, water flow contains 830 times more energy than wind blowing at thesame speed.

The DTI’s atlas of UK Marine Energy Resources3 shows the potential for largescale, commercial exploitation of the energy for export to the national gridfrom several tidal races along the south coast of England, such as the St

1 Harnessing the Elements: Supporting Statement to the Proposed Alterations to Regional Planning

Guidance, South East – Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Report by the South East EnglandRegional Assembly, May 2003 ISBN 1-904664-01-62

The UK Tidal Stream Resource and Tidal Stream Technology. Report prepared for theCarbon Trust Marine Energy Challenge, Black and Veatch, 2005 3 Atlas of UK Marine Renewable Energy Resources. DTI, Report No R1106 Dec 2004

9



Catherine’s race off the Isle of Wight and the Dover Straits off South Foreland.The extractable energy is on the order of tens of MW, with the advantage thatthe time of maximum tidal flow at subsequent coastal locations is sequential,thus “smoothing” the intermittency of the tidal energy resource.

Small-scale tidal stream devices, which will operate in shallow water, are alsoevolving and these have the potential to service compact waterside residentialor industrial development. Further research will illustrate how such devicescan contribute to the energy requirements of waterside developments in theSE region.

1.2 The Isle of Wight as a Centre for Marine Energy

The tidal regime around the Isle of Wight has some unique features that makeit especially suitable for demonstrating the concept of tidal stream energy.

One of these is a result of its location along the English Channel, at a positionwhere interference between diurnal and semi-diurnal tides creates a longdwell at high water and a short dwell at low water. This results in two periodsof strong tidal stream (on falling and rising tides), with a fairly short temporalseparation between them. The geography and bathymetry around the Islandproduce a number of local eddies and races during these periods, resulting invery strong streams at a number of locations

The Island's technical, industrial, and scientific infrastructure is substantial -particularly in areas associated with marine technology. A small number oflarge, high-technology companies are based on the Island. Generally, thesecompanies trace their origins through many metamorphoses back to famoustechnology names, such as Plessey Radar, FBM Marine Ltd, Saunders-Roe,GKN-Westland Aerospace and the British Hovercraft Corporation.

Each metamorphosis of these companies has spawned the creation of a fewvery small, very highly-specialised, technically competent businesses. MTMCis one such business, others range from Strainstall (specialists in marinestructure and strain monitoring), through Physe (specialists in provision ofMetOcean data and analysis to offshore oil contractors), down to one-manbusinesses with unique specialised engineering skills. Many operate in

informal or formal clusters, such as Vectis Energy.

The Island is unique in the amount of data, and the level of understanding, oflocal coastal processes, because it has its own Centre for the CoastalEnvironment. The existence of such a specialist centre is a directconsequence of the unique complication of the Island's coastal regime andalso of its geology and susceptibility to coastal erosion. Much of thisinformation is properly managed and catalogued at the Coastal Visitor Centrein Ventnor. This situation is in marked contrast with many other coastal areasin the region and nationally, where information is fragmented and neithercentrally held nor centrally managed.

10



There are also many regional centres of associated expertise. Academiccentres concerned with the marine environment are based at Southampton,Bournemouth and Portsmouth Universities, and include the NationalOceanographic Centre at Southampton. Southampton Solent University has astrong role in maritime operations research and training. A number of

government (or quasi-government) laboratories exist outside the universitiesand specialise in a wide range of marine technologies, most linked to theRoyal Navy, but with mission statements that include targets for "technologytransfer" to civil applications.

The region's industrial base includes businesses ranging from NavalShipbuilders through Marina Developers to constructors of small leisure andworking craft. The marine industry is one of the few buoyant sectors of UKmanufacturing and enjoys substantial export success. All of these regionalresources will support, and be supported by, the proposed marine energycentre.

The Isle of Wight Council has recently reiterated its support for thedevelopment of tidal energy close to the Island in the 2006 Renewable EnergyAction Plan. The Council recognises the potential for the Island to acceleratethe UK marine energy industry by enhancing the Island’s established marinetechnology infrastructure to fit the needs of this burgeoning internationalmarket.

1.3 Solent Ocean Energy Centre

This study examines the feasibility of establishing a centre for evaluation andresearch into marine energy technologies on the Isle of Wight: the SolentOcean Energy Centre (SOEC). The longer-term aim of the Centre is tofacilitate the achievement of local, regional, and national targets for renewableenergy generation, through exploitation of the regional tidal energy resource.

1.3.1 National Significance

The UK government set four goals in the 2003 Energy White Paper for thecountry’s energy policy:

• To put ourselves on a path to cut the UK’s CO2 emissions by some60% by about 2050, with real progress by 2020

• To maintain the reliability of energy supplies

• To promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond, helping to raisethe rate of economic growth and to improve productivity

• To ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated.

In the long term, marine renewables can contribute significantly to the first twoof these goals, by meeting 15-20% of current UK electricity demand. TheCarbon Trust’s Marine Energy Challenge4 estimates that 3 GW of wave and

4 The UK Tidal Stream Resource and Tidal Stream Technology. Report prepared for theCarbon Trust Marine Energy Challenge, Black and Veatch, 2005

11



tidal stream capacity could be installed by 2020, representing 2.1% ofelectricity supply in that year.

The UK has established a leading position in the development of marinerenewable energy devices (see Sections 3.2.2 and 3.3.2) and it is important to

develop an infrastructure to support this embryonic industry, in order that theglobal competitive advantage is maintained (third goal of the energy policy).The proposed Solent Ocean Energy Centre will form a key component of thatinfrastructure by providing services for:

1. Evaluation of initial designs using a standard procedure, whereby themost promising may be selected for further development

2. Validation of the performance of prototype energy extraction devices inthe marine environment, to attract private investment and assistcommercialisation

3. Assessment of environmental impacts of marine energy devices, to

inform the national planning and consents procedure

1.3.2 Regional Significance

By establishing the Solent Ocean Energy Centre, SEEDA will demonstratethat it competes at the forefront of technology, concentrating on prototypingand development rather than mature manufacturing markets.

The proposed Centre sits comfortably within the objectives set out in SEEDA’sRegional Economic Strategy (RES). It will promote the region’s knowledgebase in the field of marine renewables, both nationally and internationally(Target 2), assist development of business consortia for the marinerenewables sector (Target 3) and provide infrastructure to maintaininternational economic competitiveness in the marine industry (Target 4).

The RES aims (Target 5) to provide integrated business support, particularlyfor micro-businesses, and the latter form the core of the business model andTechnical Support Structure of the Centre set out in Section 6 of this report.Further synergies with the RES arise through the targets and aims related toSustainable Prosperity, whereby business opportunities arising from energy

policy will be promoted and exemplar projects for local energy supply will beconducted. Promoting the integration of tidal stream energy micro-generationwithin waterside residential and industrial developments, which has beenrecommended as a core activity for the Centre (see Section 2.1), will supporthigh visibility projects that encourage the public to embrace the concept oflocal electricity generation from renewable sources.

Under pressure to meet energy targets, local and regional regulators may findthemselves unable to properly evaluate the claims of competing marinerenewable energy device suppliers and installation companies. They mayeven be persuaded to approve schemes that claim to contribute to

achievement of energy targets, but are suspected to be detrimental in otherrespects.

12



The centre will provide local authorities and regulators with knowledgeableand impartial advice to inform their decisions, whilst also providing reputablecompanies with the means to substantiate their claims and to optimise theirdesigns.

1.3.3 Local Significance

The Centre and it’s proposed business model will build on the local strength ofsmall marine-related companies on the Isle of Wight and surrounding region,whereby the current “low-wage” economy has real potential for transformationto a technology and knowledge-based economy.

If the test and evaluation facility is established locally, the financial value oftesting and consultancy work for regional companies and authorities will beretained within the region. Conversely, the financial value of work for

companies from outside the region may be imported.

It is also important that devices from developers in the SEEDA region aretested here, in order to prevent drift of regional expertise abroad. Conversely,attracting evaluation work from outside the region effectively importsexperience and knowledge at no financial cost.

The presence of a national R&D Centre on the Isle of Wight will encourageparticipation from the higher education sector, bringing benefits to the Island’ssocial make-up and providing aspirational models for young people.

13



• Engage with EMEC, Wavehub and NaREC, with a view to formal orinformal collaboration.

• Develop and agree a protocol for validation of device performance

• Aim to contract 3 clients for testing a marine RE device in the existingtowing tank / wave tank facilities.

• Form a regional business network for companies with skills andexpertise relating to marine renewable energy..

• Engage with organisations such as Institutes of Higher Education andMarinetech South regarding new marine energy technologies andconcepts.

• Identify suitable waterside sites for tidal stream micro-generation andinitiate discussions with stakeholders.

• Engage with development companies, to progress the concept ofincorporating tidal stream micro-generation into watersidedevelopments.

2.2.2 Longer Term Timescales and Key Events

Year Event2007 Launch of the Solent Ocean Energy Centre

Permit applications for inshore marine test site2008 Permit applications for demonstration tidal stream micro-generation

project at a waterside developmentPermit for inshore marine test site granted

First field test at inshore site: aim for120 days utilisation in first yearInvestigate offshore tidal stream demonstrator test siteSite selection and permit application for offshore site

2009 Installation of demonstration tidal stream micro-generation projectFurther projects tested at inshore site: aim to maintain 120 days p.a.Permit for offshore tidal stream demonstrator site granted

2010 Monitor and refine demonstration micro-generation projectFurther projects tested at inshore site: aim for increased usageInstallation of first offshore tidal generator commences

2011 Further installations of tidal stream micro-generation projectsInstallation of offshore tidal generator complete

Generation commences: aim for 4 total

15



3. Marine Energy Extraction

3.1 Introduction

The UK possesses some 35% of Europe’s wave energy resource and 50% of

its tidal resource. According to data from the Carbon Trust’s Marine EnergyChallenge5, 3GW of wave and tidal energy capacity could be installed in theUK by 2020, generating approximately 8 TWh per annum (2.1% of the UK’selectricity demand in that year).

In the long term, marine renewable energy could meet 15 – 20% of the UK’scurrent demand for electricity. The potential for this level of deployment giveswave and tidal energy strategic importance as a contributor to the UK’saspiration of supplying 20% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 andintention to reduce carbon emissions by 60% in 2050.

3.2 Tidal Stream Energy

Tidal energy originates from the gravitational pull of the moon – and to alesser extent of the sun – on the waters of the world’s oceans. As the earthrotates, it presents an ever-changing face to the moon, which in turn attractsthe oceanic waters, first in one direction and then the other, in an oscillatorymotion.

The sun increases the amplitude of this oscillation when it is in conjunctionwith the moon (i.e. on the same side of the earth) or in opposition (i.e. on the

opposite side of the earth). The resultant large tides are known as spring tidesand occur about every 14 days. The lesser tides, known as neap tides, occurwhen the sun and moon are out of phase, midway between the occurrence ofsubsequent spring tides.

The associated horizontal movement of water, or tidal streams, areinsignificant in the deep ocean when compared with major ocean currentssuch as the Gulf Stream. They become significant only when they reach therelatively shallow water of the continental shelf and increase still further whenthe cross-sectional area available for the flow is reduced by surroundinglandmasses and geographical obstructions, such as headlands and islands.

It is the favourable geography of its coastline that results in the British Islespossessing 50% of Europe’s tidal resource and 10 – 15% of the known globalresource.

The key advantages of tidal stream energy over other forms of renewableenergy are:

• High energy density – since water is 830 times denser than air, flowingwater contains 830 times more energy than wind blowing at the samespeed. However, the exploitable range of wind speeds is much higher

5 The UK Tidal Stream Resource and Tidal Stream Technology. Report prepared for theCarbon Trust Marine Energy Challenge, Black and Veatch, 2005

16



than tidal flows, and power is proportional to the cube of speed, so onaverage the energy density of tidal stream flows is about 4 timesgreater than that of wind. This means that the rotors can be smaller(and hence cheaper) than those of a typical wind turbine.

• Predictable energy resource – the amount of energy and the exact time

when it will be available is totally predictable, because the times of highand low water and the tidal range are routinely and accuratelypredicted for the use of seafarers worldwide. This overcomes theproblem of intermittency encountered with many sources of renewableenergy.

• The times of maximum flowrate (and hence maximum energy resource)are sequential along the coast of the English Channel, which improvesthe continuity of electricity supply.

• Low visual impact – most, if not all, of the generation equipment islocated underwater.

3.2.1 Devices for Tidal Energy Extraction

It is possible to exploit the height difference between high and low water bybuilding a tidal barrage such as the structure across the mouth of the RiverRance in Dinard, Northern France. Barrages may have significant visual andenvironmental impacts that are difficult to deconstruct, should their negativeimpacts be found to outweigh the advantages of renewable energygeneration.

Tidal stream generators, which are devices for extracting energy from the flowof water in a tidal stream and converting it into electricity, form a viable andattractive alternative to such permanent structures. This Section of the reportsummarises the current state of tidal stream technologies.

The main components of a tidal stream generator are:

1. The prime mover, which extracts energy from the moving water. It maybe a rotor of some sort, or an oscillating foil

2. Foundations, which hold the prime mover in the flow and react thehydrodynamic loads to the seabed. Foundations may work on gravity,

through a pile or via anchors3. The powertrain, which consists of a gearbox and electricity generator4. The power-take-off system, for exporting electrical power to a shore

station.

The prime movers would be the components most frequently tested in thelaboratory facilities of the proposed Solent Ocean Energy Centre and areworthy of further consideration. They may be conveniently categorised asfollows.

17



Horizontal Axis Turbine

The rotors of horizontal axis turbines are similar to those of conventional windturbines. The number and shape of the blades differ according to the specificdesign and as the name suggests, the blades rotate in a vertical plane, about

an axis in the horizontal plane.

Figure 3.1 Twin rotor horizontal axis turbine

The twin rotor horizontal axis turbine designed by Marine Current Turbines(MCT) shown in Fig 3.1 is mounted on a pile driven into the seabed. The twinrotor concept maximises use of the expensive pile-driving operation and willbe employed in MCT’s Seagen project for a 1 MW tidal stream generatorcurrently under construction in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland. The crossbeam supports the rotors in the middle of the water column where tidal flow ismaximum. It is mounted on a collar around the pile and can therefore beraised above the surface of the water to facilitate maintenance operations.The alternative of deploying divers or Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) forunderwater maintenance in a fast-flowing tidal stream is a hazardousoperation.

Seagen is a development from the Seaflow project, which is a 300 kW singlerotor turbine installed in 2003 off the coast of Lynmouth in the Bristol Channel.

18



Seaflow utilises the same maintenance procedure, by raising the rotor abovethe surface, as shown in Fig 3.2.

Figure 3.2 Seaflow turbine, with rotor raised for maintenance

Vertical Axis Turbine

A representative vertical axis turbine designed by Blue Energy Canada isshown in Figure 3.3. Four hydrofoil-shaped blades are mounted at the ends ofsupport arms on the rotor, which drives the gearbox and generator assembly.The latter sit above the surface of the water, where they are accessible formaintenance and repair.

The foundation is a heavy concrete caisson, which anchors the unit to theseabed. There is a duct surrounding the rotor (not shown in the cross sectionview) which directs water flow through the rotor

The system can be sized to produce between tens of kW for domestic (micro-power) consumption, up to hundreds of kW for waterside communities orindustrial sites. For large-scale power production with national gridconnection, multiple turbines would be used. To date, Blue Energy claims tohave built and tested six prototypes under the auspices of the NationalResearch Council of Canada.

19



Figure 3.3 Vertical axis turbine designed by Blue Energy, Canada

Cycloidal Turbine

The Cycloidal turbine works on a principle similar to the Voigt Schneiderpropeller. The rotor consists of a baseplate upon which several blades areperpendicularly mounted. The blades articulate as the rotor revolves,presenting an ever-changing aspect to the flow.

Figure 3.4 Rotor of a Cycloidal turbine

The concept is illustrated in Figure 3.4, where the top blade presents a flatface (with maximum drag) to the flow, which causes the flow to push the bladeand top section of the rotor from left to right. Movement of the opposite bladeopposes the flow and it is feathered to produce minimum drag. The orientationof blades in between is constantly changed so that each one works as ahydrofoil, generating a lift force at right angles to the flow – downwards on theright hand section of the baseplate, upwards on the left.

20



This innovative concept may be less attractive than more basic designsbecause it requires energy input during operation, to control the angle of theblades.

Helical Turbine

A helical turbine for tidal stream generation (shown in Figure 3.5) is underdevelopment at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts.

Figure 3.5 Helical turbine rotor

The blades run in a helix pattern around a virtual cylindrical surface and rotatearound a central shaft. This design is claimed to develop high torque whendriven by relatively slow water flows.

Figure 3.6 Helical turbine trials in the Uldolmok Strait

21



Several advantages over a more conventional “propeller-type” turbine havebeen cited. Slow rotational speeds avoid cavitation and the associatedproblems of vibration and fatigue. The rotor can be oriented vertically orhorizontally, it can operate in shallow water and exhibits unidirectionalrotation, regardless of the direction of the water flow.

This design was first tested in 1996, in the Cape Cod Canal near Boston. TheKorean Ocean Research and Development Institute has subsequentlyconducted trials in the Uldolmok Strait: see Figure 3.6.

Oscillating Foil

Hydrodynamicists have long been intrigued by the apparent efficiency withwhich marine mammals use the energy from their tail fins to propelthemselves through the water. Oscillating foil tidal generators operate on a

similar principle, but with energy transfer in the opposite sense. Instead oftransferring energy from the oscillations of the fish’s tail into the water, theenergy from flowing water forces a hydrofoil to oscillate up and down and theresultant mechanical energy is transformed into electrical energy by thegenerator.

Figure 3.7 Oscillating foil tidal stream generator

Figure 3.7 is an artist’s impression of Stingray, a tidal generator that wasdeveloped by the Engineering Business with substantial DTI funding at thebeginning of the present decade. It consists of a hydrofoil whose angle ofattack relative to the approaching water stream is varied by a simple

mechanism. This causes the supporting arm to oscillate, which in turn forceshydraulic cylinders to extend and retract. High-pressure oil is produced and isused to drive a generator.

Development of Stingray was put on hold in 2004 for financial reasons. Asimilar device called the Pulse Generator is now being taken forward by aconsortium lead by IT Power, for shallow water applications and field trials areto be conducted in the River Humber.

22



3.2.2 Tidal Device Developers

The UK has established itself as an early market leader in tidal technologies.Tables 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate that over 30 developers are headquartered in theUK, compared to about 15 in the rest of the world (Table 3.3). In addition, the

UK has pioneered the establishment of shared facilities for testing both waveand tidal devices, such as the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) inScotland and Wavehub in SW England.

During the course of this study, four local tidal device developers wereinterviewed face-to-face and a further four from the south of England wereinterviewed on the telephone (a total of eight interviews). Six of these were atan early (conceptual) stage of advancement and had not tested their devicesunder rigorous laboratory conditions. All but one expressed great interest inusing the test facilities on the Isle of Wight, although it was not clear whetherthey had access to funds for this activity. Their testing requirements are

discussed more fully in Section 4.2.

The exception was a developer who stated that he had investigated use of theGKN tank on the Osborne site, but he needed deeper water for his device andwas considering alternatives such as the tank owned by the Seafish Authorityat Hull.

The conversation with more advanced developers provided useful insight intothe need for a relatively sheltered and accessible marine site with high tidalflows, for short term device testing in a more aggressive environment than thelaboratory, as well as for trials of ancillary equipment, such as foundations andmoorings. This site would also be useful for demonstration and refinement ofdeployment and maintenance procedures. One developer has identified asuitable site in Scotland, but would prefer to use more local facilities in thesouth of England, if they were available.

23



Table 3.1: Tidal Device Developers in the South of England

Company Website Location Comments Device

Subsea Turbines www.subseaturbines.com Bath The SST is rated at 1 MW. Ducted homounted.

MCT www.marineturbines.com Bristol 1 MW pre-commercial demonstrator inStrangford Lough.

Twin horiz

Tidal Generation Ltd * www.tidalgeneration.co.uk Bristol CEO used to work for MCT. Broke awayto form TGL

Deep-gen

Aquascientific www.aquascientific.com Devon Connected with Exeter Uni. Consortiumlead by IT Power

Combinedoff the bac

QinetiQ Winfrith www.qinetiq.com Dorset Concept study: CFD and physicalmodelling

Cycloidal v

Susgen www.susgen.com nowunavailable

Dorset Collaboration with SouthamptonUniversity was claimed in 2004

The turbinthe mid-sebase, with

Hales Energy * www.hales-turbine.co.uk East Sussex Vertical axCrystal Consultants ** Isle of Wight Director used to work at Kilowatt Whale. Improved

device

Kilowatt Whale Ltd ** Isle of Wight Venturi de

WaB Energy SystemsLtd **

Isle of Wight Shallow w

RVG ** Isle of Wight At early st

Current to Current UKLtd

Kent Very strong design and managementteam. DTI Consortium with CambridgeUni

Deep-wategearbox wlow rpm

Tidal Stream Partners*

www.tidalstream.co.uk London Very strong partnership with RollsRoyce and Oxford University

System fowater loca

Hydroventuri www.hydroventuri.com London A working model (0.6m aperture system)has been tested successfully in Grimsby

Rochester

http://www.subseaturbines.com/

http://www.marineturbines.com/

http://www.tidalgeneration.co.uk/

http://www.aquascientific.com/

http://www.qinetiq.com/

http://www.hales-turbine.co.uk/

http://www.tidalstream.co.uk/

http://www.hydroventuri.com/

http://www.hydroventuri.com/

http://www.tidalstream.co.uk/

http://www.hales-turbine.co.uk/

http://www.qinetiq.com/

http://www.aquascientific.com/

http://www.tidalgeneration.co.uk/

http://www.marineturbines.com/

http://www.subseaturbines.com/



Table 3.1 (cont): Tidal Device Developers in the South of England


SouthamptonUniversity

www.soton.ac.uk Southampton 25 cm diameter prototype has beentested in University ship tank

Shallow wwith flow in

Cormorant Ltd Surrey DTI Consortium with Plymouth andBristol Universities

Contra-rot50kW prot

McMenemie device Sussex Inventor wishes to involve someonebetter qualified to optimise for testing.

Tidal/sea c

Loadpoint ** Swindon, Wilts. Bath Uni is involved on the electricalside. Device has been tested in theThames

Based on either dire

Key: * Company interviewed face-to-face during this study ** Company interviewed by telephone

25

http://www.soton.ac.uk/

http://www.soton.ac.uk/



Table 3.2: Tidal Device Developers elsewhere in UK


Lunar Energy www.lunarenergy.co.uk East Yorkshire Rotech owns the technology. It's notclear how well advanced this is

Rotech ducted

Neptune RenewableEnergy Ltd

www.neptunerenewableenergy.com East Yorkshire Working with University of Hull andDunstan Ship Repair.

Ducted

Pulse Generation www.pulsegeneration.co.uk Hull Testing in the Humber, with DTIsupport. IT Power and BMTrenewables in consortium.

A flappyefficient

Blue Energy UK Ltd www.bluenergy.com Inverness-shire May be an attempt by Blue EnergyCanada to access DTI money. Twopartners are start-up companies

Tidal tuturbinesEMEC)

Open Hydro www.openhydro.com N Ireland Technology developed in US.Operations in Florida and Ireland

Bottom-perman

surrounSMD Hydrovision www.smdhydrovision.com Newcastle-

upon-TyneTesting 1 MW unit at EMEC in 2006 Twin co

on a cro

EngineeringBusiness

www.engb.com NorthumberlandProject on hold since 2004 Stingray

Scotrenewables(Marine Power) Ltd

www.scotrenewables.com Orkney Testing 1/40th scale model atHaslar, inc. mooring system

CombinFloating1MW de

RTVL: (RenewableTechnologyVentures Ltd

Scotland To be built at EMEC with £2m fromDTI and £650k from the ScottishExec.

Project horizonScottish

Overberg Ltd www.overberg.co.uk Tyne and Wear Funded by OneNorthEast. DTIConsortium with NaREC Deep w

EdinburghUniversity

www.mech.ed.ac.uk University ofEdinburgh

Polo: Vhydraul

26

http://www.lunarenergy.co.uk/

http://www.openhydro.com/

http://www.smdhydrovision.com/

http://www.engb.com/

http://www.scotrenewables.com/

http://www.overberg.co.uk/

http://www.mech.ed.ac.uk/

http://www.mech.ed.ac.uk/

http://www.overberg.co.uk/

http://www.scotrenewables.com/

http://www.engb.com/

http://www.smdhydrovision.com/

http://www.openhydro.com/

http://www.lunarenergy.co.uk/



Table 3.2 (cont): Tidal Device Developers elsewhere in UK


Swanturbines www.swanturbines.co.uk Wales1m diameter prototype was testedby towing from University

Research Vessel, 'Noctiluca'.

Horizospeed ggravity

Tidal HydraulicGenerators Ltd

Wales? Successful pilot scheme in MilfordHaven. Babtie are involved.

Bottom

27

http://www.swanturbines.co.uk/

http://www.swanturbines.co.uk/



Table 3.3: Tidal Device Developers outside UK

Company Website Country Comments Device

KarnauchowTurbine

Australia Suitable for shallow water. Vertical axispower blade

Tyson Turbine Australia Invented by an Australian farmer.First marketed in November 1992.

A propeller-river betwee

WoodshedTechnologies Pty

www.woodshedtechnologies.com.au Australia Tidal Delayacross e.g.

Hydro-Gen www.hydro-gen.fr France Concept only: developed by 2former navy officers

Horizontal a

Ponte diArchimedeInternational

www.pontediarchimede.com Italy Enermar project - testing in Straitsof Jintang.

Kobold Turb

Swingcat Netherlands The vessel

tidal current

HammerfestStrom

www.e-tidevannsenergi.com Norway Pre-commercial demo phase. Commerciabottom-mou

SeapowerInternational AB

www.seapower.se Sweden Has been tested at laboratory scale.A Joint Venture was established onthe Shetland Isles in 2000.

Vertical axis

Encore CleanEnergy

www.encorecleanenergy.com USA Riverbank Hwith opening

Gorlov Turbine USA Field trials in Cape Cod Canal,

1996-9. Testing by Korean OceanR & D Institute, 2002

Helical turbi

UEK www.uekus.com USA Has tested in the Chesapeake Bay "Underwatebottom-moo

28

http://www.woodshedtechnologies.com.au/

http://www.hydro-gen.fr/

http://www.pontediarchimede.com/

http://www.e-tidevannsenergi.com/

http://www.encorecleanenergy.com/

http://www.encorecleanenergy.com/

http://www.e-tidevannsenergi.com/

http://www.pontediarchimede.com/

http://www.hydro-gen.fr/

http://www.woodshedtechnologies.com.au/



Table 3.3 (cont): Tidal Device Developers outside UK


UnderwaterElectric Kite Corp

www.uekus.com USA A 40-foot wide twin-turbine is

intended for deployment in the

Gulf Stream off Florida.

Ducted horifeatures a s

turbine-genethe tidal stre

Verdant Power www.verdantpower.com USA Tested in Chesapeake Bay. 6-unitpilot in East River (pending)

Small scalehorizontal a

Water WallTurbine

www.wwturbine.com USA 6 paddle wasurface

29

http://www.uekus.com/

http://www.verdantpower.com/

http://www.wwturbine.com/

http://www.wwturbine.com/

http://www.verdantpower.com/

http://www.uekus.com/



3.3 Wave Energy

The marine wave energy resource is a concentrated form of solar energy.Winds generated by the differential heating of the earth interact with thesurface of the oceans, transferring some of their energy to form waves. Power

at the initial solar power level of about 100 W/m2

is concentrated to waveswith average power levels of 70kW per meter of crest length, winter averagesof 170 kW per meter and storm levels of over 1 MW per meter of crest length6.

Wave size is determined by wind speed and fetch (the distance over whichthe wind interacts with the waves) and by the depth and topography of theseafloor (which can focus or disperse the energy of the waves).

The offshore wave energy resource is less location-specific than tidal streamenergy and therefore more abundant worldwide. However, despiteimprovements in the reliablitiy of short-term metocean forecasting, waves are

less predictable than tides with respect to size and availability of the energyresource.

3.3.1 Devices for Wave Energy Extraction

The waters around the Isle of Wight do not possess a significant waveresource and it is not envisaged that wave energy generators will be fieldtested at the proposed Solent Ocean Energy Centre. However laboratorytesting of small scale models in the GKN towing tank with wavemakers isquite possible. Therefore the technology of wave energy devices will bediscussed here, but in less detail than the technology of tidal energy devices.

A wave energy converter (WEC) captures the energy from waves andconverts it into electricity. A WEC must resist the motion of the waves in orderto generate power. There are four main types, which are described below andexamples of each type are presented.

Buoyant moored device

A buoyant moored device floats on or just below the surface of the water and

is moored to the sea floor. The mooring is static and is arranged in such a waythat the motion of the waves will move one part of the machine relative toanother part. The motion induced by the waves may be horizontal (surge),vertical (heave) or rotational (pitch), or some combination of the three.Examples of this technology include Pelamis (shown in Figure 3.8), theArchimedes Wave Swing (AWS) and the Manchester Bobber.

6 Technology Status Report: Wave Energy. A report by ETSU as part of the DTI’s New andRenewable Energy Programme, 2000.



Figure 3.8 The Pelamis wave energy device

Ocean Power Delivery, the manufacturer of Pelamis, has been contracted bythe Portuguese government to deploy three 750 kW machines in acommercial wave farm off the coast of Portugal.

Hinged Flap device

A hinged flap device is bottom mounted. The movement of the waves causesthe buoyant paddle to oscillate, forcing hydraulic fluid through hydraulicpumps to generate electricity. This concept has been exploited to develop AWEnergy’s WaveRoller (Figure 3.9).

Figure 3.9 WaveRoller concept

A 1/3 scale prototype of WaveRoller was successfully field-tested at EMEC(the European Marine Energy Centre) in Orkney in 2005.

Oscillating water column

An oscillating water column (OWC) is a partially submerged, hollow structure.It is open to the sea below the water line, enclosing a column of air on top of a

column of water. Waves cause the water column to rise and fall, which in turncompresses and decompresses the air column. This trapped air is allowed to

31



flow to and from the atmosphere via a Wells turbine, which has the ability torotate in the same direction regardless of the direction of the airflow. Therotation of the turbine is used to generate electricity.

The Limpet unit on the shore of Islay, which was the first commercial wave

generator in the UK, has an inclined OWC. The unit’s performance has beenoptimised for annual average wave intensities of between 15 and 25kW/m.The water column feeds a pair of counter-rotating turbines, each of whichdrives a 250kW generator, giving a nominal rating of 500kW.

Other devices utilising this technology include OREcon, currently beingdeveloped as a 1.5 MW prototype: see Figure 3.10.

Figure 3.10 Oscillating water column wave generator OREcon

Overtopping device

This type of device relies on physical capture of water from waves which isheld in a reservoir above sea level, before being returned to the sea throughconventional low-head turbines which generate power. The earliest exampleof this technology was the “Tapchan” system pioneered in Norway.

The Wave Dragon pre-commercial demonstrator is another example of anovertopping device with a rated capacity of 7MW, which will be moored offMilford Haven on the Pembrokeshire coast. A 1:4.5 scale prototype of Wave

Dragon has been deployed in Denmark since 2003.

3.3.2. Wave Device Developers

The UK is a market leader in wave energy technologies, with Scottish-basedOcean Power Delivery contracted to deliver three of its Pelamis machines toPortugal for the world’s first commercial wave farm near Povoa de Varzim.This farm will produce 2.25 MW of electricity, sufficient to power 1,500 homesthrough the national grid.

The pioneering work on wave power by Stephen Salter in the early 80s has

led to a more diverse and global spread of the industry than for tidaltechnologies. No attempt is made in this report to identify all the wave energy

32



projects either locally or worldwide. Tables 3.4 and 3.5 give examples oftwenty-one established developers headquartered in the UK, which may becompared to about eleven in the rest of the world (Table 3.6).

Since it is not envisaged that any additional facilities (apart from those already

available on the Isle of Wight) will be procured by the Test Centre for testingwave devices, only two local developers were interviewed. One of these wasat an early stage of advancement, having tested a small model of his device inshoreside waves. He expressed interest in using the GKN tank with wave-making facilities, although his funding situation is precarious. The seconddeveloper interviewed is more advanced, with a test programme already inplace.

Testing requirements for wave devices are discussed more fully in Section4.2.

33



Table 3.4: Wave Device Developers in the South of England


Embley Energy www.sperboy.com/ Bristol Completed Carbon Trust "MarineEnergy Challenge"

Floatinan osci

Offshore WaveEnergy Ltd**

www.owel.co.uk Cornwall Has received DTI Smart award andCarbon Trust support. Have tanktested at NaREC, plan sea trials atEMEC

Grampdevice

Trident Energy Essex 1/5 and full scale prototypes havebeen tested. Testing at NaREC inOctober 2005 was successful

The updrives a

Wavestore** Hants Concept developed by 2 marineengineers - has been on hold since2003

Wavesconcep

AquaEnergy Group

Ltd

www.aquaenergygroup.com London It does not appear that a device or

model has been built yet

AquaB

technoSwedis

ORECON Ltd www.orecon.com Plymouth Want 12 month sea trials OWEC

C-Wave www.cwavepower.com Southampton Has received Carbon Trust fundingand funding from Business Angels

C-Wavwhere relativeof wave

Ocean PowerTechnologies Ltd(OPT)

www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/ Warwick Full scale (40kW) device deployedoff New Jersey. Other contractsaround the world.

PowerBrelationdown aand puturbine

Key: ** Company interviewed by telephone during this study

http://www.sperboy.com/

http://www.owel.co.uk/

http://www.aquaenergygroup.com/

http://www.orecon.com/

http://www.cwavepower.com/

http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/


http://www.cwavepower.com/

http://www.orecon.com/

http://www.aquaenergygroup.com/

http://www.owel.co.uk/

http://www.sperboy.com/



Table 3.5: Wave Device Developers elsewhere in UK

Company Website Address 3 Comments Dev

Ocean PowerDelivery Ltd (OPD)

www.oceanpd.com/ Edinburgh Have tested at EMEC. First commercialplant commissioned off Portugal

Peldev

Caley OceanSystems Ltd

www.caley.co.uk Glasgow Want to get the modelling capability ofTUV NEL

Mid

Wavegen www.wavegen.com Inverness Wavegen owns it's own wave tank LimopeOW

Lancaster University www.engineering.lancs.ac.uk Lancaster Selected by Carbon Trust for MarineEnergy Challenge. Have done tanktests in Lancaster wave tank. Lookingto develop a 1/5 scale sea-goingprototype.

PS wavattahan

Ocean WaveMasterLtd: ManchesterUni/ AlexSouthcombe

www.oceanwavemaster.com Manchester 3m model tested at Manchester andNewcastle Unis. 20m model wasconstructed by Bendalls and tested atNaREC. No news since.

Subchabenlow

UMIST www.manchesterbobber.com Manchester Reported to be in the early prototypephase in November 2005. 1/10 scaletrials were due to begin at NaREC

Bobsubvia floa

Innova Ltd None Northumberland Developing concept with RobertGordon Uni, which has a wave tank.Note email address!

Divmomod

AWS Ocean

Technology

www.waveswing.com Ross-shire Developing pre-production prototype.

Testing off the coast of Portugal

Arc

cyliOcean PowerTechnologies Ltd

www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/ Warwick Full scale (40kW) device deployed offNew Jersey. Other contracts aroundthe world.

Powseaarofluid

35

http://www.oceanpd.com/

http://www.caley.co.uk/

http://www.wavegen.com/

http://www.engineering.lancs.ac.uk/

http://www.oceanwavemaster.com/

http://www.manchesterbobber.com/

http://www.waveswing.com/



http://www.waveswing.com/

http://www.manchesterbobber.com/

http://www.oceanwavemaster.com/

http://www.engineering.lancs.ac.uk/

http://www.wavegen.com/

http://www.caley.co.uk/

http://www.oceanpd.com/



Table 3.6: Wave Device Developers outside UK


Energetech www.energetech.com.au Australia During July 2006 the device operatedsuccessfully in the open ocean at PortKembla. 80% efficiency is claimed

Parabolic wall fOWC drives an

Wave Dragon www.wavedragon.net Denmark Large commercial plant to be installed offPembrokeshire

Over-topping dedrives a small tu

Wave Star Energy www.wavestarenergy.com Denmark 1:10 Scale model in operation in NissumBredning

20 floats at the are lifted sequefloats force oil intransmission symotor.

WavePlaneProduction A/S

www.waveplane.com Denmark WavePlane has been deployed at sea for3 years

The device has that reduce its m

surrounding wathrough ducts in

AW Energy www.aw-energy.com Finland Has been tested at EMEC Waveroller: hing

Clear Power www.clearpower.ie Ireland Wave Bob

Ecofys www.ecofys.com Netherlands Has been tested a Strathclyde Uni,Danish Hydraulic Institute and NaREC.Sea trials at Nissum Bredning in Denmark

Wave Rotor: Utcurrent water m(Darrieus) and hblades.

Wave energy AS www.waveenergy.no Norway Project in cooperation with the NorwegianUniversity of Science and Technologyand supported by the NorwegianResearch Council.

Seawave Slot Cis captured in seabove ten otherthrough a multi-

SeaVolt www.seavolt.com USA One third scale model tests have beenperformed in a tank. May be based onWave Rider wave measurement buoy.

Wave Rider: Podesigned for wa

36

http://www.energetech.com.au/

http://www.wavedragon.net/

http://www.waveplane.com/

http://www.aw-energy.com/

http://www.clearpower.ie/

http://www.ecofys.com/

http://www.seavolt.com/

http://www.seavolt.com/

http://www.ecofys.com/

http://www.clearpower.ie/

http://www.aw-energy.com/

http://www.waveplane.com/

http://www.wavedragon.net/

http://www.energetech.com.au/



4. Test Facility Requirements

4.1 Introduction

In this section of the report, we examine the equipment to which the Solent

Ocean Energy Centre needs access and the extent to which it is alreadyavailable within the SEEDA region.

In order to do this, it is first necessary to identify the range of technical workthat the centre must be capable of executing. Then the possible methods ofexecution must be examined in the context of the facilities that are alreadyavailable, the facilities that can justifiably be developed, and the facilitiesavailable elsewhere.

Having established the work requirements, methods, and facilities of thecentre, the necessary instrumentation, data acquisition, and analysisequipment can be identified and its availability can be determined.

4.2 Expected Range of Work

The range of work that the Centre may be required to execute can beconveniently divided into immediate, mid term, and long-term requirements.

A survey of potential clients has shown that many are in the very early stagesof development and evaluation of design concepts. In some cases theconcepts, although undeveloped, are for complete systems including the

prime movers, electrical machinery, control, and interface to the electricitydistribution networks. One of the Centre’s first objectives will be to persuadethis group of clients to deconstruct from this, and to concentrate theirresources on evaluation of just the novel features of their concepts.

This will allow the novel features of a concept to be evaluated without any pre-commitment to particular implementations of the non-novel features, but mayresult in the centre effectively intervening in clients’ design processes torecommend effective combinations of design elements from different clients.

Particular novel features have been identified in the concepts of the group of

potential clients, including:

1. New, unusual, flow direction insensitive, or mechanically simpleturbines.

2. Unusual support structures, some requiring active control systems,such as depth regulating submerged rafts.

3. Electrical machines with large numbers of pole pairs, particularly suitedto 50Hz generation at low rotational speeds.

4. Innovative ways of combining multiple machines into arrays.

This group of potential clients are at an early stage of development and are

either self-funding or are virtually unfunded. The immediate requirement istherefore to evaluate concepts to a sufficient extent that they can either be



eliminated from further development, or they can become the subject of formalfunding bids (to either governmental or commercial sources of finance) withadequate supporting data and documentation.

The information that is likely to be required at this early stage includes:

1. An authoritative estimate of device efficiency, including an assessmentof the way in which efficiency varies with input conditions and devicedesign parameters.

2. Identification of key engineering features, such as moving partscarrying exceptionally high loads, or parts that must move under theinfluence of very low flows over the lifetime of the device, in thepresence of fouling, etc.

3. Characterisation of the affects of the device on the surrounding flowregime, to inform assessments of environmental impact and forengineering purposes, such as to inform estimates of the performance

of arrays of machines.4. Initial assessments of the stability of supporting structures, the

controllability of non-gravity supporting structures, anchor systemloads, etc.

The mid term requirement will arise when potential clients have obtainedfunding for development of their concepts. It is likely to include the samerequirements as those listed above, but to higher levels of detail andaccuracy; plus the acquisition of engineering data to inform detailedengineering design of prototype systems. The short term facilities andequipment may need enhancement for this work.

At this stage it will be necessary to collect detailed data in order to optimisedesigns and arrays to particular applications. Marine sites and facilities inwhich installation and maintenance procedures can be tested in relative safetyand under observation would also be desirable.

The long term requirement is for the field evaluation of prototype versions oftotal systems. In the case of marine systems, this will include a field testfacility in an area of strong tidal resource, close to a potential connection intothe electrical distribution network, where the uncertain environmental impact

of prototype devices is acceptable and can be monitored, where existing uses(such as shipping channels) are not compromised, where all necessaryconsents can be obtained, and where access is such that all aspects ofperformance can be monitored and any necessary maintenance or repairwork is possible.

A secondary requirement for this group of potential clients will be the provisionof data on their target sites for eventual deployment of their devices asfunctioning contributors to the UK electricity supply network. This will benecessary, if only so that the conditions of the test deployment can be relatedto the conditions that the devices will face in long term service. The required

data will include environmental information, data on the magnitude, range,and extent of the tidal resource, and information on the proximity and capacity

38



of local connections to the electricity supply network. Contractors with theexpertise to provide this information have been identified within the SEEDAregion and will be invited to join the Centre’s commercial structure.

4.3 Facility Options and Availability

The range of facilities to which the centre will require access follows naturallyfrom the range of methodology statements that must be executed. Evenbefore the methodologies are fully established, it is clear that the principalrequirement is for facilities in which devices (or scale models of devices) canbe subjected to controlled flows (in the case of tidal stream devices and micro-hydro generators), controlled variations of depth (in the case if devicesutilising potential energy, such as tidal barrage devices and large scale hydropower installations) and controlled waves (in the case of wave energydevices).

The current existence and availability of such facilities within the SEEDAregion is discussed below, within the context of their incorporation within theSolent Ocean Energy Centre.

For the early-stage work of the Centre (i.e. for the first group of clients), therequirement is likely to be for numerical or scale-model facilities. Many devicedevelopers consulted during the course of the present study highlighted thecost and accessibility of test facilities that already exist in the region asbarriers to progressing their inventions. The role of the Centre will therefore beto provide the required access to testing and to take devices through astandard, cost-effective programme of testing and evaluation.

The existing facilities on the Isle of Wight will meet most of the requirementsof the first and second group of clients, although modest investment inupdating and minor enhancements may be desirable. For the second group ofclients they should be supplemented by an enclosed full-scale facility (a “deeptank”) in which diving operations, device deployment and maintenanceprocedures can be developed and practiced in safety. At least two suitabledeep tanks have been identified in the region, although again some modestinvestment may be necessary to bring one of them into productive use.

The third group of clients require at-sea facilities in which proceduresdeveloped in the deep tank can be refined and tested in a realistic marineenvironments and short-term testing of moorings, foundations and devicesmay be conducted. Extended tests on full-scale devices or arrays of devicesover a naturally-occurring range of environmental conditions is also desirable.In our view, this requires two facilities. The first is a relatively unexposed sitefor procedure development and short-term tests. The second is a site for long-term deployment and monitoring of devices under representative “tide farm”conditions. No suitable facilities have been found to exist in the region,although they exist elsewhere in the UK, as discussed in Sections 4.3.4 and4.3.5

39



4.3.1 Towing Tank

A type of facility that can be used for testing in flow and for testing in waves iscalled a towing tank. This is very long tank of water with a fairly large cross-section and a depth that is typically about half its width. At one end is a wave

making machine that can produce long-crested regular or random waves.Spanning the width of the tank is a carriage that runs on rails along the lengthof the tank. Test objects mounted under the carriage are therefore towedthrough the water at the speed of the carriage and the water can be eithercalm or have waves propagating through it. Objects can be tested at anydepth and at any speed from zero up to the maximum carriage speed.

There are some limitations to the use of such a facility. The most important,particularly for tidal stream devices, is that when objects are tested by towingthem through the water the duration of tests is limited by the speed and thefinite length of the towing tank. Steady-state tests of an extended duration are

not possible. Another limitation, affecting only wave power devices, is thatalthough both regular and random waves are possible, wave energy isconcentrated in a single direction of propagation and lacks the directionalspread typical of a real sea. In spite of these, and a number of other importantissues, a towing tank remains an ideal facility for a wide range of testmethodologies.

There are three towing tanks in the SEEDA region.

1. A large facility (270 m long, 12 m wide and 5.5 m deep, 12.25 m/smaximum speed)) at QinetiQ in Gosport, which is expensive (~£2,200per day) and relatively inaccessible, because MoD usage takes priorityover commercial work.

2. A smaller facility (60 m long, 3.7 m wide, 1.8 m deep, maximum speed4.0 m/s) at Southampton Solent University, where student usage takespriority and the short length of run severely limits test duration.

3. A high-speed facility (200m long, 5 m wide, 1.7 m deep, maximumspeed 15 m/s) at GKN Aerospace, Osborne site in East Cowes on theIsle of Wight, which would be available at competitive daily rates(~£1,000 per day) for use by the Centre.

4.3.2 Circulating Water Channel

A circulating water channel (CWC) is rather like a wind tunnel (with whichmost people are familiar) filled with water. It can be used for tests similar tothose described above for the towing tank. The CWC has four advantagesand one disadvantage when compared with a towing tank for the type of workenvisaged by the centre.

The advantages are:

1. Devices and models are mounted in a fixed location and the water

moves past them, as they would be in a real application. In a towingtank, devices must be towed through still water. Viewing, observation,

40



video recording, and measuring (particularly measuring using opticalmethods such as laser-Doppler velocimetry) are much easier when allthe equipment is stationary and the water moves, than when the wateris stationary and all the equipment has to move.

2. The duration of tests is unlimited. In a towing tank, the length of tank

and the speed of the carriage limit test durations. This has implicationsfor the cost and duration of a test programme. As an example, considerthe task of plotting the velocity field of efflux from a device. In a CWC, asingle velocity sensor can be used to “scan” the efflux. In a towing tank,either an array of sensors must be used, or many runs must be taken inthe tank

3. The flow is naturally turbulent in a CWC, like the flow through a devicein a real installation

4. Operating a CWC and conducting a test in it are usually one-persontasks. Two or three people are needed to perform the same tasks in atowing tank

The disadvantage is that the cross-section of the flow is usually smaller, andoften that the maximum flow speed is less.

There are only two CWCs of significant size in the UK. One is in the region, atQinetiQ in Gosport, but it is currently mothballed. The other is at LiverpoolUniversity. The two facilities are virtually identical, having a flow cross-sectionof 1.4m width and 0.4m maximum depth. The maximum flow speed is about6m/s (12knots), but speeds above 3.5m/s (7knots) present some practicaldifficulties. These speeds are more than adequate for the testing of tidalenergy devices.

4.3.3 Deep Tank

The third facility is required by potential clients in what we have called group2. One of the requirements of these clients is a facility in which installation andmaintenance procedures can be developed and verified, best described as adeep tank. It consists essentially of a deep, but not very extensive, tank ofwater that can be kept clean and reasonably warm, in which divers can workwith moderately large items of equipment in much greater safety than ispossible in real marine trials.

The tank needs a supporting infrastructure heavily biased towards ensuringthe safety of users, and operations will be very much easier if the tank ishoused within a building. There are a number of candidate facilities in theSEEDA region, of which two stand out as being particularly appropriate.

The first of these is owned and operated by QinetiQ in Gosport. It is 5.5mdeep, and is equipped with (rather obsolete) wave making machines. Itsenormous size (120m by 60m in plan) is, if anything, a disadvantage as itmakes access difficult and has some safety implications. Although intendedfor model-testing of submarines, it has been used for diver training and ROV

testing – mostly for defence rather than commercial applications.

41



The second tank is in private ownership at Bembridge on the Isle of Wight.Known as the “Thorneycroft Tank”, it was constructed for testing model shipssome time before the QinetiQ facility was built. It is also 5.5m deep, with aplan area about 20m by 10m (not rectangular, curvilinear). This smaller size isan advantage for the applications envisaged for the Solent Ocean Energy

Centre.

4.3.4 Sheltered Marine Test Site

MTMC’s contacts with potential clients have identified the need for twodifferent field test facilities for the Centre and have incidentally identified sitesat which permanent tidal power installations might be viable.

The first facility will be an extension of the deep tank (described above) into areal, but relatively benign, marine environment. In this environment,installation, retrieval, and maintenance procedures will be developed, using

divers, ROV’s, crane barges etc, under conditions that may be typical of thoseat permanent installations. These conditions are certain to include strong tidalstreams, are likely to include a range of turbidity levels, will involve cold waterand will present all the “real site” frustrations, such as occasional storms.

There may be a requirement for different types of sea bed, from muddythrough to rocky, for some applications – e.g. for testing the installation,performance, and maintenance of mooring systems, gravity bases, groundanchors and other similar equipment. For safety reasons, the site must bereasonably enclosed and very accessible, particularly to emergency services.Procedures and equipment developed in the deep tank will subsequently besubjected to these aspects of a real environment in this first type of marinefacility.

Another use for this site will be short-term trials for prototype tidal energydevices. It is envisaged that small devices would be temporarily mounted onan existing structure (e.g. a pier), or on purpose-built platforms (e.g. a mooredraft) for their proof of concept in a real marine environment.

A small number of suitable facilities exist already in the UK, the most notablebeing the diver training centres in Loch Linnhe in Scotland and in Plymouth

Sound, but no suitable facility has been identified in the SEEDA region. Theregion does, however, have potentially suitable sites in the waters adjacent tothe Isle of Wight that are fully described in Section 6 of this report.

4.3.5 Offshore Marine Test Site

The second facility will be a suitable site for long-term deployment andmonitoring of prototype devices under realistic in-service conditions. It followsthat this facility should probably be sited in an area in which an operational“tidal energy farm” may eventually be located. In the SEEDA region, thecandidate areas are the Straits of Dover, North Foreland, St Catherine’s and

the Western Solent. Of these, St Catherine’s has a good tidal resource, is

42



clear of major shipping routes and is also close to the other facilities of thecentre.

We have established that the Isle of Wight’s electricity network could absorbup to 7MW of power from external sources, of which about 5MW could be

absorbed in the Ventnor area (Ventnor is the nearest significant town to StCatherine’s). This area is very clearly the front-running site for an operationaltide farm in the region.

A test site for marine trials of tidal devices exists at the European MarineEnergy Centre (EMEC) in the Orkney Islands. A site off St Catherine’s wouldhave significant advantages over EMEC including:

• A strong electricity network and substantial demand for electricity

• Less aggressive wave environment, permitting longer windows fordeployment and maintenance

• Good national and international travel access

• Milder climate and longer daylight hours in Winter

However, we envisage some synergy between the two sites, in thatdevelopers may wish to test prototypes at St Catherine’s in order to gainconfidence in their survivability for future deployment in the harsh environmentat EMEC.

4.4 Conclusions and Recommendations for Test Facilities

1. Steps should be taken to secure the future of the towing tank at GKNEngineering Services on the Isle of Wight. The only other viable facility,at QinetiQ Haslar, is safeguarded by its status as a strategic facility forthe Ministry of Defence, but this status also limits its attraction andavailability for non-defence work. The GKN tank will be safeguarded ifthe Centre’s towing tank operations are concentrated there.

2. Steps should be taken to prevent the destruction of the circulatingwater channel (CWC) at QinetiQ Haslar, which is currently mothballedbecause of low demand. This facility is potentially very useful for early-stage development and testing of new tidal turbine designs, offering

both convenience and economy in the conduct of qualitative and earlyquantitative experiments. Reinstatement of the CWC will be lessexpensive than purchase and construction of an equivalent new facility.

3. If the circulating water tunnel is reinstated, consideration should begiven to co-locating it with the GKN towing tank.

4. An agreement should be negotiated with the owner of the ThorneycroftTank at Bembridge, guaranteeing its availability in the event of itssuitability for any of the Centre’s projects. Reinstatement as a workingfacility should form part of the costing calculations for the Centre.

5. Recommendations for the marine test site are presented in Section 6.

43



5. Instrumentation Requirements

Most of the facilities described in Section 4 have much of the necessaryassociated equipment already installed or available. In this section, weconsider other testing equipment that may be necessary, and its likely cost.

Most of this equipment is portable (i.e. it could be moved between facilities ifrequired).

5.1 Dynamometer

By far the most important item of new equipment, needed for tests in eitherthe towing tank or the CWC, is a dynamometer. A dynamometer can best bedescribed as a calibrated brake with integral measuring equipment. Its use forthe Solent Ocean Energy Centre will be as a controllable load on rotatingmachines, such as models of tidal stream turbines. The brake is connected tothe turbine output shaft and applied progressively while the shaft speed and

torque are measured. The product of speed and torque is the power beingdelivered by the turbine to the dynamometer.

It is impossible at this stage to specify this dynamometer, because the rangeof turbine types for assessment is not known in sufficient detail. It is probablethat two dynamometers (high speed, low torque and low speed, high torque)will be required. The best estimate of cost is of the order of tens of thousandsof pounds.

5.2 General Instrumentation

Velocimeters are devices for measuring the speed at which water flows. Forthis application, it will be necessary to measure flow profiles through cross-sections of the flow in both the inflow and the efflux of the devices. Thisimplies that either a single sensor will be used to “scan” the flow, or multiplesensors will be used (either a small number scanned as an array or a largenumber covering the entire cross-section), or it will be necessary to use adevice that can measure profiles directly.

All these things are possible, ranging from simple miniature impeller meters,

through arrays of pitot tubes, to laser-Doppler velocimeters, to particle imagevelocimetry. It is not appropriate here to describe and discuss all of thesemethods and equipment in detail. However, it is probable that the most cost-effective method will be to use an array of fairly widely spaced pitot tubes, andto enhance spatial resolution by “stepping” the array through a number ofdisplaced positions in the cross-section of the flow. The cost of such a systemwill be similar to the cost of the dynamometer(s), and both are essential to thecentre.

A range of pressure transducers, wave probes, thermometers, video camerasand other instruments will also be needed. Individually, these items cost from

a few pounds for a calibrated thermometer to a few hundred pounds for awave probe.

44



Data from experiments will need to be acquired and analysed, and video willneed to be digitised, edited, rendered, and transferred to DVD (or some otherappropriate medium). For this the Centre will need some fairly powerfulcomputers (already available within the manpower resources that the Centre

will call on), with a range of data acquisition cards, equipment, and software(that may need to be purchased specially).

5.3 Work Boats and Crane Barge

If the Centre develops its own marine field site(s), frequent access to a smallworkboat, especially one equipped for diving and ROV (remotely operatedvehicle) operations, will be required. The boat will be used during deployment,maintenance and monitoring work on test installations. A small crane bargewill carry out deployment and recovery of devices under test and of otherequipment such as power cables connecting devices to the shore.

A second boat of similar size may be used to collect detailed survey andenvironmental data in both the marine test site and in target sites forpermanent installations. This vessel will need to carry survey equipment suchas accurate echo sounders, differential GPS (global positioning system)receivers, transponders and underwater video equipment. Specialistenvironmental monitoring equipment such as turbidity meters and chemicalprobes will also be required.

It is envisaged that contractors to the Centre, such as the NationalOceanography Centre in Southampton, would provide suitably equippedboats for these tasks.

5.4 Electrical Load / Electricity Network Connection

The marine test sites will need an electrical load in order that devices aretested under realistic output, as well as input, conditions.

The smaller of the two sites can probably be served by a simple resistive load,such as a water-cooled heating element. Electrical output from devices undertest here may be only a few tens of kilowatts and tests will be intermittent

rather than continuous. The load could be submerged close to the deviceunder test, eliminating the need for shoreside buildings and facilitiesaltogether, although this implies the use of either diver-retrieved submergedinstrumentation and data acquisition, or a communications buoy withtelemetry link to shore. Communications buoys can introduce difficulties – they are often “salvaged” by local fishermen and others (even when they arenot adrift).

A complete design appraisal for the small marine site is outside the scope ofthe present study, but it is clear that there are enough design options for thesite to be feasible at a moderate, cost.

45



The larger site will benefit from a connection to the local electricity distributionnetwork. This is likely to consist of a power cable from device to shore, aninverter / interface to the shore power system, and a connection from thelocation of the interface to the nearest suitable network connection point.

The device to shore cable can also bring signals from device instrumentationashore, so the interface housing can be combined with a housing for dataacquisition equipment. The housing will need to be secure, as will thetransition of the cable through the surf zone and over the beach.

In this context, it has been determined that the 11kV distribution network onthe Isle of Wight can absorb an additional 7MW, of which 5MW could beabsorbed by a connection made in the Ventnor area. This is more thansufficient capacity for a large test site offshore at St Catherine’s and indicatesthe size of permanent offshore tide farm that could be placed there withoutmajor changes to the local network.

(Incidentally, the local 11kV network’s capacity to absorb 7MW, if continuous,represents about 11% of the Isle of Wight’s projected electricity demand in2010. The local network appears to be just capable of absorbing the targetlevel for renewable contribution without recourse to the higher voltagenetworks).

5.5 Conclusions and Recommendations for Instrumentation

The test centre needs a small capital inventory of instrumentation and testequipment, some of which is already available. The main items for thisinventory are:

• A dynamometer / balance specifically designed for testing varioustypes of hydrodynamic turbine

• A system for flow velocity measurements

46



6. Marine Tidal Test Sites

6.1 Introduction

In this section of the report, we examine the potential for establishing test sites

for tidal energy devices in the waters adjacent to the Isle of Wight. Section 4identified the need for two sites – one at an inshore, sheltered location and asecond site offshore, in deep waters. Since the two sites have differentrequirements they will be considered separately.

6.2 Requirements for Inshore, Sheltered Site

Interviews with potential clients for the Centre established a need for a marinetest site where strong tidal currents occur, but which is easily accessible by asmall boat or rib, is located in shallow water and is relatively sheltered fromwaves.

The combination of the requirements for strong tidal streams, shelter from theworst weather, accessibility, and a reasonable degree of enclosure limit therange of suitable sites. In particular, sites along exposed coastline are far lesssuitable than sites that are enclosed - for example within bays, harbours,estuaries, and around the Solent. Harbour and estuary sites aregenerally disadvantaged by concentration of vessel traffic through restrictedareas and complicated local variations of flow. Unfortunately most baysprovide shelter from tidal streams as well as from extreme weather conditionsand bad weather running into bays can set up rip currents that contaminate

the otherwise predictable tidal flows. These considerations eliminate almost allareas other than the Solent and its adjacent waters, which is where the searchfor suitable sites was focused.

The primary requirements for this site are:

• Relatively strong peak tidal flow - a minimum cut-off value of 1.25 m/s(2.5 knots) was chosen

• Depth between 10 and 30 m (the minimum depth being governed by arequirement for useful demonstration of installation and operationalmethods, the maximum by decompression times for divers on normal

air-breathing apparatus)• Avoidance of commercial shipping

Secondary site requirements were identified as:

1. Shelter from wind and waves2. Proximity to harbour facilities3. Proximity to area for shore base, accessible by road4. Existing structure (e.g. pier) to carry power cable through surf zone5. Avoidance of marine leisure activities (the Solent being a playground

for wealthy and influential boat owners and a centre for high profile

yachting events such as Skandia Cowes Week)

47



6. Avoidance of activities by other marine stakeholders, such as thefishing and dredging industries

7. Avoidance of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and otherenvironmentally constrained areas

Although this is not listed as a requirement, an existing structure protrudinginto the maximum tidal flow (such as a long pier) to which test devices couldbe attached would be highly desirable.

It should be noted that final site selection and approval would be subject toconsenting arrangements as explained in the DTI guidance handbook7. Thesecondary requirements set out above are in part a first stage to achievingcompliance with the DTI arrangements, but the establishment of fullcompliance is beyond the scope of the present study.

6.3 Inshore Site Selection and Ranking Methodology

Candidate sites with strong tidal flows were initially selected by reference tothe Admiralty Small Craft Folio of charts for the Solent and Approaches (SC5600).

Spring and neap rates and directions of tidal streams at specific locationsaround the Isle of Wight (marked by ‘tidal diamonds’) are convenientlytabulated on each chart, in hourly intervals referred to high water atPortsmouth. This source of information permitted an overview of tidalvelocities in the area of interest, from which sites with peak rates less than1.25 m/s were eliminated.

The remaining candidate sites were scrutinised for conformity with the otherprimary requirements of depth and avoidance of commercial shipping. Afurther check of tidal rates was then conducted, using detailed information inthe relevant Admiralty Tidal Stream Atlas8 and the tidal charts published bythe renowned Solent yachtsman and navigator, Cmdr Peter Bruce RN9.

The candidate inshore sites that remained after the initial screening describedabove were scored on a scale of 1 to 5 against the secondary criteria listed inSection 6.2. The resultant matrix was used to rank the sites in order of merit.

Although this methodology is purely subjective, a more detailed assessment isoutside the scope of the present study.

6.4 Candidate Inshore Sites

The initial sift of tidal diamond data revealed eleven sites in the watersadjacent to the Isle of Wight (mostly in the western or central Solent) that

7 Planning and consents for marine renewables: Guidance on consenting arrangements in England and Wales for a pre-commercial demonstration phase for wave and tidal stream

energy devices (marine renewables). DTI, November 2005 8 Admiralty Tidal Stream Atlas: the Solent and Adjacent Waters. NP 337, Hydrographic Office 9 Solent Tides , Peter Bruce. ISBN 1-871680-05-0

48



Figure 6.2 Location of Site A

Site B: Gurnard (see Figure 6.3)

Location: SW and inshore of Gurnard Ledge buoyPeak tidal stream rate: 1.75 m/s (3.5 kts)Area: 0.1 x 0.53 square nmDepth: Steeply shelving at NE end, from 0 – 20mEven bottom (18 – 20 m depth) at SW end.

Shelter: Good in all but SW winds.Harbour access: 1.5 nm from Cowes Harbour entranceNearest shore: Gurnard Bay 0.5 nm, accessible by road and with possibleslipway facilities. No pier.Other criteria: The fast tidal streams in this area make it less popular foryachting activities than the Eastern Solent, although the site is close toGurnard Sailing Club. There may be some conflict because top Solent racingnavigators like to pass inside Gurnard Ledge in order to dodge a foul tide. Thearea is not a designated SAC and no other environmental constraints aremarked on the Admiralty chart.

50



Figure 6.3 Location of Site B

Site C: Fort Victoria (see Figure 6.4)

Location: NW of Fort Victoria Country Park, inshore of Sconce buoy and nearHurst NarrowsPeak tidal stream rate: 2.1 m/s (4.2 kts)Area: 0.08 x 0.4 square nmDepth: shelves steeply from 10 – 25 mShelter: Good in all but SW or W windsHarbour access: 1 nm from Yarmouth Harbour entranceNearest shore: Sconce Point 0.1 nm, with road access and a pierOther criteria: although this site is inshore of a cardinal navigation buoy(Sconce), it is close to the marine traffic choke point of Hurst Narrows. Thearea is not a designated SAC and no other environmental constraints aremarked on the Admiralty chart. Synergies between tidal energy and theMarine Aquarium and Planetarium at the onshore Victoria Country Park canbe identified.

Site D: Fort Albert (see Figure 6.4)

Location: SW of Fort Albert point, outside Hurst Narrows and inshore of theline between Sconce and Warden navigation buoysPeak tidal stream rate: 1.9 m/s (3.8 kts)Area: 0.12 x 0.55 square nmDepth: 5 – 10 m at NE end, 10 – 15 m at SW endShelter: Good shelter in winds from the N round clockwise to the S. Exposedin winds from the SW round clockwise to NWHarbour access: 2 nm from Yarmouth Harbour entrance

Nearest shore: Fort Albert 0.25 nm, with road access and a pier

51



The matrix in Table 6,1 suggests that a site just offshore of Fort Victoria andnear Hurst Narrows would be the most suitable site for inshore field tests,followed by a site off Fort Albert, outside Hurst Narrows. A site at the Easternend of the Isle of Wight, near Bembridge Point is third in the ranking and the

site at Gurnard is fourth.

However the ranking criteria are not weighted and some will undoubtedly bemore important than others when considered in greater depth.

It is therefore recommended that the suitability of these sites for field testing ofmarine renewable energy devices and associated equipment are investigatedin more detail. The investigation should include:

• Profile of tidal stream velocity with depth over a full tidal cycle at springand neap tides and at a number of locations across the site

• Bathymetric and benthic surveys• Engagement with relevant marine and land-based stakeholders

(bathers, divers, leisure boat users, fishing, commercial shipping etc) toestablish areas of potential conflict for permits and consents10

• Research into existing infrastructures on land which might facilitate theestablishment of the site

It should also be noted that a number of existing marine structures, e.g. Rydeand Totland piers, might be available for testing small devices withoutrecourse to official permits or additional infrastructure. Unfortunately such

sites are not located in areas of good tidal resource, but at maximum springtidal flows they would serve to give an indication of device performance andsurvivability. It is recommended that an audit of such structures and theirownership is conducted.

6.6 Requirements for Deep, Offshore Site

A number of developers consulted during the course of this study expressedinterest in a test site for demonstrating a full scale tidal device, located nearthe south coast of England. They were aware of the test site at EMEC inOrkney but their preference was for a site that would offer:

• Easier travel for engineering personnel• Fewer restrictions to device access post deployment, as caused by

short daylight hours or by inclement weather

• Strong tidal currents in a less aggressive wave environment

The primary criteria for this site are:

1. Strong peak tidal flow - a minimum cut-off value of 1.75 m/s (3.5 knots)was chosen

10

Planning and consents for marine renewables: Guidance on consenting arrangements in England and Wales for a pre-commercial demonstration phase for wave and tidal stream energy devices (marine renewables). DTI, November 2005

53



2. Depth greater than 20 m3. For purposes of grid connection, maximum 5 miles from land4. Avoidance of commercial shipping lanes5. Avoidance of physical / geographical constraints6. Avoidance of conflict with other marine industry and conservation

stakeholders, represented by statutory consultees, in order to complywith the guidelines set out in the DTI handbook for consents11.

It is not within the scope of the present study to investigate compliance withthe guidelines for marine consents, therefore selection of the deep-water testsite has been based on Criteria 1- 5 only.

6.7 Offshore Site Selection

The present study has established that the Island’s electricity network couldabsorb up to 7MW of power from external sources, of which about 5MW could

be absorbed in the Ventnor area (Ventnor is the nearest significant town to StCatherine’s).

The authors are aware that a number of device developers, including onemajor utilities company, have conducted initial desk studies of the tidalresource in the area to the south of the Isle of Wight. Therefore the search fora suitable offshore site was focussed in the same area and candidate siteswere selected by reference to the Admiralty Small Craft Folio of charts for theSolent and Approaches (SC 5600). Note that the stipulated depth (greaterthan 20 m) precludes all sites - apart from commercial shipping channels -inside the Solent.

The tidal diamonds on Admiralty Charts 5600.1: Outer Approaches to theSolent and 5600.2: Western Solent permitted an overview of tidal velocities inthe area of interest, from which sites with peak rates less than 1.75 m/s wereeliminated from selection. The tidal resource is concentrated at St Catherine’sPoint and all inshore areas to the west and east have lower peak tidal rates.

Two of the remaining sites stood out for conformity with the requirements ofcriteria 2-4 (depth greater than 20m, less than 5 miles from land andavoidance of commercial shipping lanes). A further check of tidal rates at

these sites was then conducted, using detailed information in the relevantAdmiralty Tidal Stream Atlas12

6.8 Candidate Offshore Sites

The locations of the two potential deep water, offshore sites are illustrated inFigures 6.1 and 6.5, and the site attributes are described below.

11 Planning and consents for marine renewables: Guidance on consenting arrangements in

England and Wales for a pre-commercial demonstration phase for wave and tidal stream energy devices (marine renewables). DTI, November 2005 12 Admiralty Tidal Stream Atlas: the Solent and Adjacent Waters. NP 337, Hydrographic Office

54



Figure 6.5 Location of Sites E and F

Site E: St Catherine’s Deep (see Figure 6.5)

Location: At western extremity of St Catherine’s Deep, approximately 1 milesouth of St Catherine’s PointPeak tidal stream rate: 1.9 m/s (3.8 kts)Area: 1.75 x 1.0 square nmDepth: very uneven, varying between 18 and 42 mNearest shore: St Catherine’s Point – 1 nm

Other comments:

Leisure boating activities are minimal in this area since small craft tend toavoid the overfalls in St Catherine’s Race and pass further offshore. Theexception occurs during the renowned “Round the Island Race”, when keenracers will navigate right inshore along the rocks off the point (and inshore ofthis site), in order to dodge foul tidal streams.

There may be some conflict with commercial shipping, which requiresinvestigation.

55



devices. Neither site is ideal, being close to a marine Special Area ofConservation, although conservationists may support the installation of anunobtrusive marine energy device that would shield the seabed from moredamaging activities such as dredging. Further investigations are required inorder to establish whether the potential obstacles cited above in Section 6.8

would preclude the sites from the envisaged development.

Stages of the official consents procedure are summarised in Appendix 1. Thefollowing actions are recommended, prior to final selection of the offshore sitelocation and initiation of the consents procedure:

• Side scan sonar survey of bottom topography, especially of theammunition dump in St Catherine’s Deep

• Profile of tidal stream velocity with depth over a full tidal cycle at springand neap tides and at a number of locations across the sites

• Geological investigation of the sites

• Detailed investigation and comparison of cabling and grid connectioncosts for the two sites.

• Consultation with:o Ministry of Defence, with regard to the ammunition dump and

the submarine exercise area off St Catherine’s Pointo Isle of Wight Coastal Centre in Ventnoro Other marine stakeholders and statutory consultees (see

Appendix 1)

57



7. Proposed Commercial Structure of the Centre

7.1 Business Model

The commercial structure proposed for the Solent Ocean Energy Centre,

certainly during the initial phases of its development, is based on a successfulmodel developed by an informal grouping of Isle of Wight companies, toprovide an integrated technical and commercial service to clients of theCentre. Coincidentally, the areas of expertise within the current groupingreplicate for the most part those that would be required to support theoperation of the Centre.

It will only be necessary to establish an office facility for the Centre, foradministration and marketing. Initially the office complement would consist ofone technical and administrative manager, who could either work from aremote office or could be located centrally (e.g. at the St Cross development)on the Island. Expansion in both personnel numbers and associated facilitiescan be undertaken as income and demand dictate.

The tasks of the manager would include:

• Marketing strategy and publicity

• Client liaison

• Coordination of the respective contributions of external contractors tospecific projects

• Government liaison

• Writing proposals for Centre funding

• Initial consultations for permits and site licenses

• Coordination of detailed work for permits and site licenses

• Management of special projects for the Centre (e.g. environmentalmonitoring programmes) and initiatives (e.g. micro-tidal generation atwaterside developments)

All other administrative tasks (e.g. website design and maintenance, anddirect marketing) would be subcontracted. The commercial structure proposed

will deliver key benefits to the Centre, particularly during the initial phase of itsoperation:

- No requirement for extensive premises or costly numerous staff.

- No necessity for major capital investment in fixed technical facilities.

- No immediate requirement to recruit specialist staff.

- Administration costs and overhead minimised.

58



7.2 Technical Support Structure

Technical and physical inputs to meet the Centre’s customer requirements willbe delivered by a group of companies linked to the Centre. The degree offormality of this linkage would be a matter for the sponsors of the Centre to

decide. Those companies who have already expressed interested insupporting the proposed Centre in the manner defined are –

Marine and Technical Marketing ConsultantsCowesIsle of Wight

Physical modelling, data analysis, marine consents, on shore connections.

HR WallingfordWallingford

Oxfordshire

Hydraulic research: coastal and tidal flow modelling, device testing.

GKN Aerospace Engineering ServicesEast Cowes Isle of Wight

Hydrodynamic and tidal device test facilities.

Carisbrooke Engineering (IW) LtdCarisbrookeIsle of Wight

Electrical and mechanical design and manufacture to scale and full scale.

Datum Electronics LtdEast CowesIsle of Wight

Specialist instrumentation packages

FB Fabrications LtdCowesIsle of Wight

Large and small fabrications in steel, stainless steel and aluminium

J T Mackley and Co Ltd (Mackley Construction)SouthamptonHants

Marine civil engineers

59



South Eastern Hydraulics LtdRedhillSurrey

Fluid power engineers - custom hydraulic system design, fluidics

Walcon Marine LtdFarehamHants

Marine civil engineers: pontoons and seabed gravity structures

RPS EnergyWokingSurrey

Environmental impact assessment, geotechnical surveys, planning andconsents

The above list is not intended to be exhaustive, and it may well be necessaryto introduce additional sources of specific expertise to meet a particularcustomer requirement. The regional infrastructure available to support thecentre in this way is more fully described in Section 9.

7.3 Technical Work Management

MTMC currently manages work using a system of experiment specificationdesigned to conform to the quality assurance standard series ISO9000. Thismanagement method, which has been successfully applied in other largeresearch organisations, is adaptable to, and will be particularly appropriate for,the proposed Centre. Apart from ensuring that all technical requirements areproperly addressed, the management system deals with other statutoryrequirements such as health and safety.

The system consists of a standard form of experiment specification. It starts

with a statement of objectives, followed by a methodology statement and anoverall project plan.

There are sections on all individual elements of the project , such as:

• Instrumentation

• Facility requirements

• Model build

• Human resources

• Safety

The project plan shows how individual elements interact with each other andidentifies (in a similar manner to a critical path analysis) how deliverables from

60



one feeds into others. The individual or organisation responsible for delivery ofa particular element signs off the section that deals with it. The signatureacknowledges responsibility for delivery (to specification, to time and to cost)of that element.

An option allows the client for the work to sign final approval of the documentas a whole, or the project manager may sign on the client’s behalf.

This technical management system is especially concerned with ensuring thatlines of responsibility and individual obligations to the total project are clearlydefined and accepted by all participants. This last feature is particularlyimportant in a “virtual company” structure where responsibility for delivery ofthe whole project may be diffused over a number of separate organisationsand/or individuals.

61



8. Collaboration

8.1 Strategy for Collaboration

The business model for the Centre proposed in Section 7, with groups of

companies linked to the centre that provide technical and physical support forclients, is in itself a type of collaborative venture.

More formal collaboration might be considered in the case of organisationsoffering expertise that is complimentary to the Centre. Examples of beneficialcollaboration include situations where:

a) Joint offerings are likely to win work that neither partner would winseparately

b) A “package” is more attractive than tasks performed by separatecontractors.

c) Some specialist expertise is not available through the groups ofcompanies linked to the Centre

8.2 Potential Collaborators

Three significant marine renewable test facilities (NaREC, EMEC andWaveHub) are known to exist in the UK, but the proposed Centre on the Isleof Wight will be complementary to, rather than competitive with, these.

NaREC and Wavehub offer marine sites with a significant wave resource,

which is not available in the waters around the Isle of Wight, or indeed in thecoastal waters of the SEEDA region. Therefore wave devices that have beenlaboratory tested in a tank at the proposed Centre would be passed to NaRECor to Wavehub for field tests.

EMEC offers an extremely aggressive marine environment for testing tidalenergy devices and many developers would welcome the opportunity to testdevices initially in the more benign and accessible conditions of the EnglishChannel, before exposing them to the harsh environment in the Fall ofWarness in Orkney.

The possibility of formal or informal partnering arrangements with one or moreof these organisations should be explored.

8.3 Networks

A number of networking organisations and industrial “clusters” for the marinesector exist within the SEEDA region. These include Wight Energy, VectisEnergy, Cowes Marine Cluster, MareNet and Marine South East.

Opportunities for marketing and recruitment of contractors will arise throughthe Centre’s engagement with these organisations.

62



9. Regional Infrastructure of Resources Available to theMarine Energy Technology Evaluation and Research Centre.

9.1 Introduction.

In this section, we describe some of the intellectual resources available to theCentre. We do not attempt to identify all the resources available in the region;indeed we may well have omitted some large and important organisations andsome valuable people. Our objective is to show that all the Centre’s resourcerequirements can be met – in some cases many times over - and hencedemonstrate the Centre’s feasibility.

9.2 Intellectual Resource Requirements.

MTMC has been active in the field of hydrodynamics research and testing for

the last ten years, so that the centre’s intellectual resource requirementsmirror those of MTMC. In general, external resources are necessary for one oftwo reasons:

1. Some particular, specialised and detailed knowledge is required to dealwith a detailed aspect of a project.

2. A particular, specialised, facility is required and a specialist is requiredto operate or use it.

Association with a particular renewable energy device effectively disqualifiessome of the specialist resources that might otherwise be co-opted by the

Centre. For example, clients may be reluctant to have Southampton Universityinvolved in “independent” assessment of their devices, since SouthamptonUniversity is actively promoting a competing device of its own.

9.3 Organisations with Offerings for the Centre.

Within the region there are at least six large organisations that offer specialistintellectual services in the general field of marine hydrodynamics. They are:

ABP Marine Environmental Research. (www.abpmer.co.uk)British Maritime Technology. (www.bmt.org)

H R Wallingford. (www.hrwallingford.co.uk)National Oceanography Centre. (www.soc.soton.ac.uk) QinetiQ, Haslar. (www.qinetiq.com)

Other organisations offer elements of specialised knowledge useful to thecentre, within a wider range of offerings. Examples include:

Bomel / Noble Denton Consultants. (www.bomelconsult.com) (www.nobledenton.co.uk)

RPS Group (www.rpsgroup.com)W S Atkins. (www.atkinsglobal.com)

Isle of Wight Coastal Centre. (www.coastalwight.gov.uk)

63

http://www.hrwallingford.co.uk/

http://www.bomelconsult.com/

http://www.nobledenton.co.uk/

http://www.nobledenton.co.uk/

http://www.bomelconsult.com/

http://www.hrwallingford.co.uk/



and Industrial Aerodynamics (WUMTIA), located within SouthamptonUniversity. It is a commercial consultancy and independent from the UniversityDepartment that is developing a tidal energy device.

Both BMT and the Wolfson Unit (like MTMC) are regular users of the towing

tank at GKN.

9.4.4 H R Wallingford

H R Wallingford traces its history back to the British Civil Service in Indiaduring the days of the Empire, when British scientists and engineersdeveloped vast irrigation and flood control schemes, and initiated early workon hydro-electricity, linked to India’s large river systems. On their return toBritain, these engineers formed the Hydraulics Research Station, which wasprivatised by the government in 1982 and is now known as H R Wallingford. Itis based at Wallingford in Oxfordshire. HRW specialises in all aspects of the

behaviour of water that has a free surface (as opposed to water flows withinclosed, full pipes).

Of the organisations described so far, ABP, BMT, and WUMTIA areconcerned with predicting the performance of ships and maritime structures,and in particular with the effect of the maritime environment (wind, waves,currents, deep/shallow water, etc) on their performance. H R Wallingford, onthe other hand, is concerned more with the effect of ships and structures onthe maritime environment.

9.4.5 National Oceanographic Centre

The National Oceanography Centre – formerly known as the SouthamptonOceanography Centre - was formed by merging the OceanographyDepartment of Southampton University with the National Institute ofOceanography (NIO). Its interests cover the full range of ocean sciencesincluding marine biology, geology, climate, and physics. It has inherited fromits former constituent organisations a very strong “outreach” culture and isvery accessible, particularly to other educational institutions.

NIO was previously located at Wormley in Surrey and brought in some

satellite divisions, of which the most useful to the Solent Ocean Energy Centrewill be the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory. This is located on the Wirral,and its former names of “Liverpool Tidal Institute” and “Institute of CoastalOceanography and Tides” better indicate its particular specialisations. TheProudman Laboratory was another of the principal contributors to the DTIAtlas of UK Marine Renewable Energy Resources14.

9.4.6 QinetiQ Haslar

QinetiQ, Haslar developed from the original Admiralty Experiment Works,established in the late 19th Century. A series of mergers resulted in AEW

14 Atlas of UK Marine Renewable Energy Resources. DTI Report No R1106 Dec 2004

65



becoming part of the Admiralty Research Establishment, the DefenceResearch Agency and now (after a pseudo-privatisation) QinetiQ. AEW wasfounded by William Froude, a contemporary of I K Brunel and the originator ofthe technique of using scale models to predict the performance of future shipsand marine structures. Haslar is, in many ways, the parent establishment

without which ABPmer, BMT, WUMTIA, and H R Wallingford would not exist.

QinetiQ has already featured in this report as the owner of facilities at Haslarthat may be used by the centre. However, in this section we add theinformation that, as the largest scientific research organisation in Europe (andpossibly in the world), QinetiQ employs specialists in every imaginable branchof science and engineering. (In fact, since QinetiQ is very heavily gearedtowards military R&D, it also employs specialists in a few unimaginablebranches as well).

Unfortunately, the military specialisation and the culture inherited by a

business that was, until recently, an integral agency of the Ministry of Defencemakes the structure of QinetiQ almost opaque and their wealth of specialistcapability almost impossible to access. The authors of this report have, overmany years, learned how to navigate the impenetrable jungle of QinetiQ andcan confirm their ability (at a high price and over an extended timescale) todeal with almost any technical problem in any scientific discipline.

9.4.7 Other Organisations

Other exemplary organisations include:

• Bomel - specialising in fixed maritime structures, such as design,construction, installation, and removal of offshore oil installations

• Noble Denton - specialising in marine logistics and marine riskassessment

• RPS Group - providing a wide range of services, principally in legal,environmental, and geotechnical specialisations, to an impressive list ofclients in the field of renewable energy. Given that the Solent OceanEnergy Centre proposes independent tests employing similarmethodologies on different devices from different developers, RPS hasthe expertise to conduct peer reviews and to offer clients independent

advice on further development of their devices. They should also beable to advise clients on the mechanics of full-scale site selection andinstallation

• W S Atkins - a large international engineering consultancy withcapabilities including maritime engineering, but otherwise spread fairlythin over a wide range of applications

• IoW Coastal Centre is the Island Council’s centre for information about,and management of, the island’s coastline.

66



9.5 Individuals and Small Companies with Offerings for the Centre.

A feature of the coastal area of the SEEDA region is that it contains a wealthof expertise and economic activity that is invisible and unquantified. The Isleof Wight, in particular, is home to a large number of one-person consultancy

or contracting businesses that have the potential to strengthen the Centre’soffering to clients. Although there are informal networks, it is impossible toquantify the total resource without conducting a formal capability audit. One ofour recommendations to SEEDA is that such audits should be conducted forlocal areas throughout the region.

The majority of these small businesses have arisen in two distinct ways.

The first type is a result of early retirements of (often very experienced)technical specialists from public sector organisations that were beingstreamlined prior to privatisation. Generally, it was felt that older staff were

expensive and unable to adapt to change, and would therefore make theorganisation unattractive as a privatisation candidate. Staff were often shedon a voluntary basis.

The volunteers included a few that were determined to live the rest of theirdays in leisure and a large number who felt able to survive outside the publicsector. Those who were confident of survival have mostly set up their ownsuccessful consultancies but are almost completely invisible because theyhave as much work as they need, without advertising.

The second type is a result of the metamorphosis of some of the largertechnical companies in the area. Particular examples are Plessey Radar,which passed through intermediate business structures to become part of BAeSystems, Saunders-Roe, which is currently GKN Aerospace Services, andFBM Marine, which eventually became absorbed into the company that nowmanages Rosyth dockyard. Staff casualties at every stage of thesemetamorphoses have spawned successful small businesses in the area – themost productive of which was probably the demise of the British HovercraftCorporation.

Just as there are two ways in which most of these small businesses were

formed, so there are two distinct ways in which they provide services.

9.5.1 Small Consultancies

MTMC provides a good example of the first type of service provider. MTMC isa virtual company that acts as a network and umbrella for a number ofindividuals who frequently work together. To a client, the virtual companylooks just like any conventional business, but internally there are noemployees. MTMC consultants are only paid for time spent workingproductively on client projects. The productive work produces advice, notgoods.

67



MTMC consultants include three with backgrounds in public sector research(of whom one specialises in marine renewable energy), four from seniormanagement positions in shipbuilding and marine industry, one constructionengineer specialising in energy conservation and one whose specialisation isdefence procurement. The company also has access to a large network of

similar organisations; many of which regularly switch between the roles ofcollaborator on some projects and client on others.

Organisations like MTMC provide both consultancy, mentoring services andact as conduits for transfer of technology and knowledge from one generationto the next.

9.5.2 Small Engineering Companies

Carisbrooke Engineering provides a good example of the second type ofservice provider. Structured in almost exactly the same way as MTMC (as a

virtual company), the individuals who work together under the CarisbrookeEngineering letterhead produce equipment, or install equipment for others.The equipment is usually produced as a one-off or in very small productionruns. They are able to work from the sketchiest of briefs to design andproduce all sorts of engineered items, including small mechanical componentsof the model boats and ships that are tested by MTMC.

9.6 Benefits of the Regional Infrastructure

The combined capability of two businesses such as MTMC and CarisborookeEngineering is easily capable of constructing and instrumenting models ofdevices for extraction of hydrodynamic energy, testing them in flowing water,and reporting and interpreting the results – all without the involvement of anyemployees and with very low overheads.

All of the organisations mentioned in Sections 9.4 and 9.5, with the exceptionof Noble Denton located on the edge of the City of London, are based in theSEEDA region or have departments in the region

They are not the only organisations in the region that can contributeintellectual resources into the Centre (by acting effectively as sub-

contractors). They are described here as examples of the wealth of relevantcapability that exists in the region and as an illustration of our reason forarguing that the Centre does not need to recruit a large number of specialistemployees in order to have access to the range of expertise that it requires.

We consider this to be a major benefit of locating the centre in the SEEDAregion. By contrast, an organisation like EMEC that is located on a remoteisland of Scotland without a wide local R&D base, must import all thespecialists that it needs and may have to recruit them as company employeesin order to attract them.

68



9.7 Conclusions and Recommendation.

The SEEDA region undoubtedly contains all the knowledge, intellectualcapacity and support services that the Solent Ocean Energy Centre is likely torequire. Some of it is concentrated among a few large organisations that

operate on principles that interface well with the business model proposed forthe Centre. Others are small informal networks of self-employed engineersand consultants. These networks come together, on a project-by-projectbasis, to form teams with the necessary mix of capabilities. Members of thelatter group benefit from very low costs, but do not normally own extensivecapital facilities.

It is recommended that SEEDA should instigate local capability audits, tocreate “capability directories” that will foster and formalise the formation ofcapability networks throughout the region.

69



10. The Case for the Solent Ocean Energy Centre

10.1 Introduction

In this section we discuss the drivers behind the renewable energy industries,

with particular focus on marine energy. The client base for the Solent OceanEnergy Centre and the potential value of work is reviewed, together withopportunities to obtain strategic funding from both the public and privatesectors.

Options for procuring a number of necessary and desirable facilities at theCentre are presented. In some scenarios, it is possible to justify the Capexinvolved in terms of commercial viability. Other facilities will require support forCapex from the public purse, which may be justified in terms of their strategicimportance for the government’s renewable energy targets and for futuresecurity of the UK’s energy supply.

10.2 Overview of the UK Marine Renewable Energy Market

Marine renewable energy has the potential to contribute significantly to the UKgovernment’s goals for production of clean energy and security of energysupply. The UK possesses about 35% of Europe’s wave resource and 50% ofits tidal resource. Data from the Carbon Trust’s Marine Energy Challenge(MEC)15 suggests that 3 GW of wave and tidal generating capacity could beinstalled in the UK by 2020, which would generate approximately 8TWh ofelectricity per year, accounting for 2.1% of the UK’s electricity supply in that

year. In the long term, marine renewable energy could meet 15 – 20% ofcurrent UK electricity demand.

The marine energy industry is developing quickly but the technology is at anearly stage and most designs are some way from commercial deployment.The proposed Centre will help drive forward that commercialisation.

10.3 Financial Drivers

The UK is a market leader in marine renewables, with over forty developers ofwave and tidal generators based in the UK (see Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5).

The establishment of shared test facilities, such as NaREC and the WaveHubfor wave devices, has been a key factor and has attracted interest fromoverseas.

Private sector interest in the industry is increasing, with the involvement ofmajor utility companies such as E.ON and offshore developers such as OceanProspect. Leading industrial manufacturers have entered the sector, forexample Voigt Siemens recently acquired the wave energy systems companyWavegen. One wave device developer (OPT) was floated on the AmericanAIM stock market in 2003.

15 Future Marine Energy. Carbon Trust, 2006

70



The Renewables Obligation (RO) has helped to drive the development ofrenewable energy in the UK. The Obligation requires power suppliers toderive a specified proportion of their electricity from renewable sources,initially 4.3% in 2003/4 and gradually rising to 15.4% in 2015. Eligiblerenewable generators receive Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) for

each MWh generated, which can then be sold to suppliers, to allow them tofulfil their obligation. Suppliers must either present certificates to cover theirrequired percentage of output, or pay a “buyout” price for any shortfall.

Increased awareness of climate change and its economic impacts16, plus thedemand for “green” energy from businesses because of the Climate ChangeLevy, (a tax on business energy use, from which electricity supplied fromrenewable sources is exempt) further fuels the growth of the renewablesindustry.

A government consultation is currently underway regarding the introduction of

banded ROCs (more ROCs or a higher ROC price per MWh) for certainrenewable technologies in need of extra support. This promises to promoterapid development in the marine sector.

10.4 Environmental and Political Drivers

Resource depletion of fossil fuels and the impending arrival of “Peak Oil”have forced the UK government to develop a portfolio of alternative energyoptions. Carbon dioxide reduction targets under the Kyoto Treaty (a reductionof 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2012 has been agreed) are leading the UKgovernment to support the development of renewable energy technologies.Financial and market-based mechanisms have been put in place, includingthe DTI’s Technology Programme, the Marine Renewable Deployment Fund(MRDF) and ROCs.

In the specific context of marine energy, it is noteworthy that installations suchas wind farms often meet strong public resistance because of their visualimpact, whereas the visual impact of marine energy devices is minimal orzero.

10.5 Global Tidal Energy Sector

Tidal technologies include tidal barrages (which rely on the static pressuredifferential created by the rise and fall of tides) and tidal stream technologies(which utilise the flow of water generated by the change of tidal height).

The technology for barrages is mature, being similar to conventionalhydropower, and examples include the barrage across the estuary of theRiver Rance in Brittany and the Annapolis Royal tidal barrage in the Bay ofFundy, Canada. Barrages have many undesirable environmental impacts,including upstream sedimentation, downstream coastal erosion and

16 STERN REVIEW: the Economics of Climate Change. 30 October 2006

71



deterioration of water quality, while the energy cost of construction isenormous.

Tidal stream technologies are less detrimental to the environment and havethe advantage that they can be removed with relative ease if the impacts are

found to be intolerable. The global marine current resource is difficult toquantify, but has been estimated by Blue Energy of Canada at 450 GW ormore. There are many sites world-wide where tidal stream velocities exceed2.5 m/s, including Canada, the USA, China, Japan, Ireland and the UK.

Tidal streams generally reverse direction approximately every six hours, butthere are some locations where water flows continuously in one direction. Forexample the Gulf Stream moves approximately 80 million cubic metres ofwater per second17 northwards along the East Coast of the USA and aconstant flow of water passes from the Atlantic into the Mediterranean Seathrough the Straits of Gibraltar.

Tidal stream generators are under development in Canada, the USA,Australia, Ireland and Scandinavia, but a recent report by the Electric PowerResearch Institute (EPRI) of the USA stated that the UK, with particularmention for MCT and Lunar Energy, leads the field.

10.6 UK Tidal Energy Sector

The potential level of marine energy deployment cited in Section 10.2 givestidal energy a strategic importance in meeting the UK’s aspiration of supplying20% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and the intention to reducecarbon emissions by 60% in 2050. The Carbon Trust has stated that UK plchas the opportunity and potential to create a competitive global position in allareas of design, manufacture, installation and operation of marinerenewables18. A recent estimate suggests that the value of worldwideelectricity revenues from wave and tidal projects will lie between £60 billionand £190 billion19.

The UK’s competitive advantage is based on:

• A world-leading position in tidal energy technologies

• A plentiful tidal resource – 50% of the available resource in Europe

• Strong existing offshore skills in engineering, fabrication, deploymentand maintenance of installations in the marine environment

However, a recent BWEA study20 identified a number of hurdles toachievement of this potential, namely:

• Financing

• Grid access

• Planning and permitting

17 Helical Turbine as Undersea Power Technology. Gorlov A and Rogers K. (1997)18

Building Options for Renewable Energy. Carbon Trust (2003)19 Future Marine Energy. Carbon Trust (2006)20 The Path to Power. BWEA, June 2006

72



The proposed offshore test site for the Solent Ocean Energy Centre willalleviate two of these hurdles, by providing onshore grid access fordemonstration projects and a pre-permitted test site.

10.7 Client Base and Value of Work

As has already been stated in Section 4, a number of potential clients fall intoa group with little or no funding, and their need is to obtain just enough data tosupport a funding bid with some chance of success. They need to obtain thisdata quickly and economically, but the data must be sufficiently authoritativeto be credible to the agencies. Only two of this group admitted access tofunds, one putting a total limit of £75K on his ability to self-fund work.

We therefore propose that a standard test procedure should be developed, forrapid and cost-effective assessment of initial device designs, which will fulfilthe needs of the above (Group 1) clients. Funding of ~£60k for developing this

procedure will be sought from a source such as the Carbon Trust MarineAccelerator Fund. An indicative price for standard device assessment (testing,analysis and reporting) would be £15k per device.

We believe that Table 3.1: “Tidal Device Developers in the South of England”and Table 3.4: “Wave Device Developers in the South of England” representthe potential client base for this standard assessment. Early stage developerselsewhere in the UK are likely to use local facilities (e.g. at a university). Ourestimate for income from the standard assessment is therefore based on sixearly stage tidal devices and 3 early stage wave devices.

A smaller number of potential clients belong to a second group, with fundingavailable for optimisation of their device designs using laboratory facilities,and / or for the development of full-scale installation and maintenanceprocedures. They are neither ready, nor funded, for long-term testing at sea.We understand that one client’s funding is of the order of £200K and that arealistic budget for comprehensive laboratory testing would be £75k, with afurther £50k for design optimisation work. As the requirements of this groupcan be met with the same laboratory facilities as are required for Group 1(with the possible addition of a small, deep, “diving” tank), the “Group 2” workhas an important impact on the centre’s capital investment appraisals.

We believe that the potential client base for advanced laboratory testing anddesign optimisation will be drawn from the whole of the UK (Tables 3.1, 3.2,3.4 and 3.5), although the number of clients with devices that pass the firsthurdle of delivering credible performance data in order to obtain public fundingwill be limited. The estimate for income from Group 2 laboratory testing istherefore based on six clients.

The estimated total income for projects using laboratory facilities is presentedin Table 10.1.

The Group 2 clients may also have funds for short-term field trials of devices,foundations and moorings, or for developing installation, maintenance and

73



decommissioning procedures. These are potential clients for the inshoremarine test site and / or for the deep tank, for which we believe a reasonablecharge would be £1k per day. Estimated usage is 60 days per year for thedeep tank and 120 days per year for the inshore test site. The estimatedincome is also presented in Table 10.1.

It should be noted that this income is for projects conducted through theCentre. If the proposed business model for the Centre is implemented, therevenue to the Centre will be a percentage overhead (15 – 20%) charged oneach project.

Facility Test Type Price(£k)

ClientNo

Income (£k)

2007 2008 2009Laboratory Methodology

Development60 1 60

Laboratory Standardassessment

15 9 30 60 45

Laboratory Deviceoptimisation

125 6 125 250 375

Deep tank Proceduredevelopment

£1k / day

6 60 60

Inshoremarine site

Field trials £1/day 6 120 120

TOTAL INCOME 215 490 600

Table 10.1. Estimated income for Centre projects.

The clients for the offshore test site will come from Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3.Market forces and the political climate will dictate how many devices are takenforward to a commercial demonstration phase, while the remainder aredeemed to be unviable and will disappear.

These clients will have substantial funding available from the MarineRenewable Development Fund (MRDF) or similar, for long-term trials ondeployed prototypes. The total value of work available from such clients isestimated to be of the order £10M and some of this work is likely to go to

EMEC because of the favourable funding regime that has been established bythe Scottish Assembly. However, many of the potential clients consider EMECto be too remote and to offer too extreme an environment.

Income from the sale of electricity will be generated from the offshore site. It isbeyond the scope of this study to evaluate this income, but for comparativepurposes, the summary business case for Wavehub21 (a field test site off thenorth Cornwall coast for wave devices) states that revenue from wave devicedevelopers will cover operating costs once the project is established (after 4years). There will also be an income from berth rental. The charge at EMECfor a device up to 1 MW (including grid connection) is £150k per annum.

21 Wave Hub: Summary Business Case. Report to SWERDA by Arthur D Little, 10th February 2005

74



10.8 Centre Costs

10.8.1 Capital Cost Breakdown

Detailed arguments in support of the recommended laboratory facilities andequipment to be used by the Centre are presented in Appendix 2. Ourestimates of the consequent capital costs are presented in Table 10.2.

Facility Location Modification Comments Cost (£k)Towing Tank GKN Osborne

SiteUse asexisting

0

Liverpool Use asexisting

0CirculatingWater Channel

Gosport Update andresite on IoW

Desirable 500

Gosport Use asexisting

0Deep tank

Bembridge Inspect, fill,providesafetyequipment

Desirable 15

Dynamometer GKN Osbornesite

Purchaseprobablynecessary

50

Other

instrumentation

GKN Osborne

site

Purchase (or

hire possible)

250

Work boatsand equipment

Hire andcharge toprojects

0

TOTAL CAPEX FOR LABORATORY FACILITIES 815

Table 10.2. Capital cost estimates for laboratory facilities.

The above Table includes options for using existing facilities remote from theIsle of Wight. This has the advantage that the Centre would commenceoperations without a large capital outlay. The disadvantage is that it would

detract from the identity of the Centre as a one-stop-shop for tidal energydevice evaluation and research.

10.8.2 Capital and Set-up Costs of the Inshore Marine Test Site

Since the location of the inshore marine test site remains to be defined, thecapital and set-up costs are difficult to estimate. Items for considerationinclude:

• Scoping study and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

• Geological assessment

• Permits and marine consents

75



• Seabed rental

• Navigational buoyage and lights

• Temporary (or rented) shoreside station

Budgetary estimates for these items are presented in Table 10.3.

Item Budgetary Estimate (£k)Scoping Study and EIA 25Geological assessment 5Tidal stream velocity profile survey (2 sites) 5Permits and marine consents 4Seabed rental (pa) 0.1Navigational buoyage and lights 10Shoreside station 3.5

TOTAL 52.6

Table 10.3. Budgetary estimates for inshore marine site costs

It is anticipated that the human resource for developing the site – final siteselection, stakeholder consultation, permit applications, site construction / buoyage management etc – will be fulfilled by the Centre Manager. It isrecommended that the manager should conduct further investigations, asrecommended in Section 6.5, in order to select the most appropriate inshoretesting site. It will then be possible to provide a more accurate and detailedcost breakdown.

10.8.3 Cost of the Offshore Marine Test Site

The case for establishing an offshore marine test facility cannot be made incommercial terms. Set-up and capital costs would have to be provided by thepublic purse although, as explained in Section 10.7, it is anticipated that therevenue from test devices and berth rental would offset the operating costsonce the Centre is established. Some additional income will be generated byenvironmental monitoring projects on behalf of government bodies, whichneed such information to inform the consents and permitting process forcommercial arrays of tidal generators.

Funding decisions must therefore be made on the basis of national andregional economic and energy strategies. The significance of the proposedCentre at National, Regional and Local levels is set out in Section 1.3. Theoffshore test site will constitute a key strategic facility to promote thecommercialisation of tidal energy, as a contributor to the UK government’senergy targets, in particular:

• To put ourselves on a path to cut the UK’s CO2 emissions by some60% by about 2050, with real progress by 2020

• To maintain the reliability of energy supplies

76



All potential users recognise the practical advantages of a test site in thesouth of England, in contrast to the difficulties of testing under harshenvironmental conditions at EMEC in the Orkney Islands. However, it shouldbe noted that the public funding regime at EMEC is very favourable whencompared with the Isle of Wight.

The main cost for a fully-equipped test site will be the provision of a seabedelectrical socket, into which devices can be plugged to connect them into theelectrical distribution network. Such a socket (the Wavehub) is planned off thecoast of North Cornwall to provide a test site for wave energy devices, at anestimated cost of £10.2M for the electrical side (cable cost, laying, subseatransformers, switchgear etc), £1.9M for construction and £1.42M for projectdevelopment22. Assuming that the shorter distance to shore at St Catherine’scould half the cost of cabling, which may be an optimistic assumption, andthat development costs can be reduced, the capital cost of the Isle of Wightfacility will be about £8M. We believe that the actual costs for Wavehub will be

higher than those estimated and that £10M should be budgeted for the StCatherine’s test site.

If such funding cannot be justified in strategic terms, two options remain.

1. Provide clients with services up to this point and then pass them on toEMEC for long-term test deployments. As a general solution, thisoption is attractive, but it lacks logic if applied to candidate devices for atidal energy farm at St Catherine’s or elsewhere in the SEEDA region.It would also detract from the identity of the Centre as a one-stop-shopfor tidal energy device evaluation and research, as previouslymentioned in relation to laboratory facilities.

2. Consider each test as a one-off, stand-alone experiment. Provide a sitewith outline consents, and possibly the onshore components of aconnection to the electricity distribution network, in place and ready forone-off device installations. No permanent infrastructure or facilitywould be installed. To invoke this option, test devices would have to bedelivered complete with their own submarine cable connection to theshore, and with integral monitoring equipment and all othercomponents required for the tests. In effect, this transfers the capital

cost of a permanent facility into an increased running cost for any andeach device test. It reduces the centre’s exposure to financial risk bytransferring that risk to the centre’s clients.

If the cable, interface, and data acquisition systems are treated as part ofeach device tested (Option 2 above), the bulk of capital investment for theoffshore site will be in the administrative cost of obtaining all the necessaryapprovals and consents and the associated Environmental ImpactAssessment (£60 – 85k for the latter). The cost of onshore connection to thedistribution network will also be substantial. This should be treated as a capitalinvestment, because it will need to be amortised over several testing projects.

22 Wave Hub: Summary Business Case. Report to SWERDA by Arthur D Little, 10th February 2005

77



We recommend that the Centre Manager should engage with the relevantmarine stakeholders and statutory consultees, conduct further geological, tidaland topographical investigations and compare cabling and grid connectioncosts (as outlined in Section 5.9), in order to select the best option for the

offshore test site.

A more precise and detailed costing of the selected site will inform a decisionwhether the concept of an offshore test site should be progressed.

10.8.4 Overhead / Running Costs

The “virtual company” structure that is now quite common among smallbusiness can be used to establish nearly all of the services required by devicedevelopers in a way that is likely to be commercially viable. Establishment ofthe centre with a conventional business structure (own offices, employees

with the required range of knowledge, skills and experience, dedicatedfacilities etc) will result in an organisation with unnecessary overhead costs.

We propose that the Centre will be run by a half-time technical / administrativemanager, who would work remotely from a “virtual” office, or from a locationproviding office support facilities (telephone answering, photocopying, meetingrooms etc). The role and main tasks performed by the manager are detailed inSection 7.1. When a client approaches the Centre, the manager will bringtogether an appropriate team of experts and technical providers from theregional infrastructure of resources described in Section 9, to conduct theproject in question. The technical work will be managed either by the Centremanager or by another suitably qualified person, according to the proceduredescribed in Section 7.3. A percentage overhead (15 – 20%) will be added tothe project cost (see Table 10.1), to cover the Centre’s expenses.

Administrative services that are outside the expertise of the manager will beprovided by local contractors. A budget for these overhead costs is presentedin Table 10.4.

Item Budget (£k)Centre Manager: half time @ £350 / day 40.25

Corporate image and website design 2.5Website implementation and maintenance 2.5Marketing and publicity 12.0Postage, telephone and internet 5.0Stationary and printing 2.0Publications and subscriptions 3.0Travel and subsistence 5.0Accountancy fees 1.5Office rental at St Cross (if deemed necessary) 9.0

TOTAL 73.75 (+9?)

Table 10.4. Budget for Centre Overheads

78



Public funding is likely to be required for the Centre’s first year of operation,when the manager will be employed conducting tasks that do not generaterevenue (such as permit applications). However, we anticipate that the Centrewill become self-supporting once it is established, through revenue generatedfrom overheads on device testing and development and through other marine

renewable energy services offered to clients and special projects.

10.9 Funding Sources

There is a need to apply for public and / or private funding, to support theCentre during the initial set-up period and thereafter to boost the incomepotential of the Centre through its regular activities of device evaluation anddesign optimisation. Potential sources of such funds are outlined in thefollowing sections.

10.9.1 Public Sector Funding

With the current political concerns surrounding security of energy supply andreduction of greenhouse gas emissions, there are a number of governmentfunding sources – both national and regional - for renewable energy initiatives.

• £8 million of the government’s Marine Renewable Demonstration Fundhas been put aside to support ‘infrastructure” projects – a category intowhich the Centre will fall.

• Device developers who are potential customers for the centre canapply to the DTI Technology Programme for financial support of their

projects, including the cost of testing. An indicative £7m of theProgramme’s funding has been allocated in the current round forprojects in renewables, including wave and tidal stream energy.

• Inventors who are classed as SMEs may apply for a DTI grantadministered by SEEDA, for either R&D of a particular technology, orfor development of a pre-production prototype. In both cases the costof testing qualifies.

• Support for the marine industry is a high priority for SEEDA, from whomdirect funding for the Centre should be sought.

• Direct financial support for the Centre may also be sought fromAgencies such as the Energy Savings Trust and the Carbon Trust’s

recently announced Marine Energy Accelerator• Opportunities may be available through the European Union's

"CORDIS" 7th framework funding round which is scheduled to start inApril 2007

• The Centre will be eligible for the EU Programme “TransnationalAccess to Hydrolab Major Research Infrastructures” – an initiativewhereby researchers may apply to use participating hydrodynamic testfacilities and the costs are paid by the EU

79



10.9.2 Private Sector Funding

We anticipate that there will be funding opportunities for the Solent OceanEnergy Centre through the Energy Technologies Institute, which is a newpublic – private partnership initiative. Its objectives include:

• To deliver R&D that facilitates the rapid commercial deployment ofcost-effective, low carbon energy technologies

• To build R&D capacity in the UK in the relevant technical disciplines todeliver the UK’s policy goals.

Shell, EDF Energy, BP and E.ON UK have already committed as contributingindustrial partners – E.ON has a particular focus on marine renewable energy.

The are a number of other competitive funding sources available through theprivate sector, such as the Renewable Energy Foundation, the ShellSpringboard competition and the N-Juice Fund.

The environmentally aware sailing community based upon the Isle of Wightmay offer private financial or in-kind support. Opportunities to form allianceswith major regatta organisers, with the high-profile campaigns of Mike Golding(Ecover) and Ellen McArthur (Offshore Challenges) and with the PeterHarrison Foundation should be explored. One of the consultants within MTMChas excellent contacts within this community.

10.10 Conclusions and Recommendations

Enormous potential exists for marine companies on the Isle of Wight and inthe SEEDA region to become part of the burgeoning marine renewableenergy industry, where the UK is a world leader.

The proposed Solent Ocean Energy Centre will be the focus through whichthis can occur. The economic analysis presented in Section 10 shows that it isfeasible for the Centre to commence operating immediately, using existinglaboratory facilities, with an initial investment of £74k for overhead costs and adesirable initial investment of £50k for instrumentation.

It is recommended that the concept is taken forward at the earliest opportunityand that public funding is sought for the development of an inshore marinetest site. Further investigations should be conducted to examine the feasibilityof an offshore, grid-connected test site, south of St Catherine’s Point on theIsle of Wight.

80



11. Conclusions from this Study

Marine energy has potential to contribute to the UK government’s energytargets of meeting 15% of electricity generation from renewable sources by2015 and of maintaining security of energy supply. The waters around the Isle

of Wight contain a major tidal energy resource that can help meet the SERegion target of 895 MW (8%) of electricity generation from renewablesources by 2016.

There is a strong infrastructure of expertise in marine technology and anumber of hydrodynamic test facilities on the Isle of Wight and in the SEEDAregion, from which resources to support the proposed Solent Ocean EnergyCentre could be drawn.

The Centre will contribute to several targets within the SEEDA RegionalEconomic Strategy, by promoting the Region’s knowledge in marinerenewable energy, assisting the development of business consortia for themarine renewables sector and providing infrastructure to maintaininternational economic competitiveness in the marine industry.

Interviews with a number of marine energy device developers have confirmedthat there is a need for such a Centre in the SEEDA region. Cost-effective testfacilities are required at all stages of device development, from proof-of-concept, through design optimisation to full prototype demonstration. Facilitiesfor testing and development of ancillary equipment and of installation,maintenance and decommissioning procedures are also needed.

In particular we have established the need for a standard test methodologythat can be applied to all early-stage devices. This must provide basic dataeither to support a formal funding bid to governmental or commercial sourcesof finance, or to eliminate a device from further development.

Economic analysis shows that it is feasible for the Centre to commenceoperating immediately, using existing laboratory facilities, with an initialinvestment of £74k for the first year’s set-up and overhead costs and adesirable initial investment of £50k for instrumentation.

12. Recommendations

The concept of the Solent Ocean Energy Centre on the Isle of Wight shouldbe progressed at the earliest opportunity. The following initial steps arerecommended:

1. Seek funding of £75k to support set-up and overhead costs for the firstyear of operation

2. Appoint a part-time technical and administrative manager3. Commence publicity and marketing of the Centre4. Seek funding of £50k for a dynamometer to be used for model testing

of tidal energy generation devices

81



5. Apply to the Carbon Trust’s Marine Accelerator Fund for £60k, todevelop a standard test methodology for early stage devices

6. Seek £52.5k funding to progress development of a shallow watermarine test site

7. Conduct further investigations of a deep-water site for testing prototype

tidal generators in the waters to the south of St Catherine’s Point on theIsle of Wight.

82



Appendix 1. Consents Procedure.

The lease and consents procedure for all small-scale demonstration devicesfor marine energy generation in English and Welsh territorial waters is set outin a DTI guidance document23. Decisions on site leases are entirely separate

from decisions on individual consents applications submitted to the regulatorybodies. Consent applications are subject to a minimum of 28 days publicconsultation and assessed in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessmentthat an applicant must undertake.

Consenting requirements for a generating station less than 1 MW are:

• A site licence or lease from Crown Estate

• A licence under the Food and Environmental Protection Act (FEPA)1985

• A licence under the Coastal Protection Act (CPA) from Defra

• Consent under the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) 1990,either from DTI or from the relevant local authority, for associatedonshore works

• Approvals for the laying of electricity export cables from theEnvironment Agency and Port Authorities (may be required)

To ensure that the application proceeds smoothly, early consultation shouldtake place with marine stakeholders, such as:

• Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA)

• Trinity House• Ministry of Defence

• Natural England

Demonstration projects are subject to the requirements of EnvironmentalImpact Assessment (EIA) Regulations and the Habitats Directive Regulations,where applicable. An adequate EIA must accompany any consent applicationand a preliminary study will be necessary to determine the scope of the EIA.

Conditions will be attached to the consents and licences, requiringenvironmental monitoring of demonstration devices to be conducted.

The DTI must also be satisfied that appropriate planning and fundingarrangements are in place to decommission demonstration devices at the endof their working life.

23 Guidance on consenting arrangements in England and Wales for a pre-commercial demonstration

phase for wave and tidal stream energy devices (marine renewables). DTI, November 2005

83



Appendix 2: Options for Capital Expenditure on Test Equipment

1. Towing Tank

During the course of this study, MTMC has obtained a price quotation for the

construction of a new towing tank, against the specification of the tank thatalready exists at GKN Engineering Services on the Isle of Wight. Thequotation has been obtained, not to determine the investment necessary in anew towing tank, but to determine the investment that can be avoided bysafeguarding one of the existing tanks.

There are two significant towing tanks in the SEEDA region. A small numberof other tanks exist, but these are unsuitable, either on grounds of inadequatesize and performance; and/or on grounds of being operated by proponents ofone of the wave or tidal power devices, and therefore not independent if usedto evaluate competing designs.

Both of the tanks are capable of towing devices through the water at speedsup to about 12m/s (24knots). This is well above the speed of any tidal streamin the region. One of the tanks is 200m long and the other is 270m, but theshorter tank has better acceleration and stopping distances, so that testdurations are similar in both tanks. The longer tank has a width of 12m and adepth of about 5.5m, against 4.6m by 1.7m for the shorter tank. However, thelonger tank has been identified as a “strategic facility” by the Ministry ofDefence – a designation that minimises its availability and maximises its cost.The total cost of using the smaller tank (excluding the cost of staff) is about£1000 per day. The larger tank is much more expensive to hire, and its sizemakes it more expensive to use.

A new tank to the specification of the smaller tank would cost approximately£3M to construct today, of which £1,086,861 is the (accurately known) cost ofmechanical engineering. The remainder of the cost is an estimate for sitevalue, civil engineering, and the administrative costs (such as obtainingplanning consent). The depreciation charge alone on a new tank wouldtherefore be of about the same order as the total cost of using the existingfacility, and it is not possible to make a commercially viable investment casefor its construction.

Securing the future of the smaller tank, which is located at GKN EngineeringServices on the Isle of Wight, is therefore a high priority objective of thecentre. At present, the tank has an adequate workload from other sources(including other MTMC projects) to ensure its retention, but not to ensure itsupgrading or repair in the event of a major breakdown. It is most unlikely thatthe Solent Ocean Energy Centre would generate sufficient income on its ownto secure the future of the facility, but the Centre income added to the existingincome should do so. This illustrates how the “virtual company” businessstructure can minimise the capital requirements of the Centre in addition tominimising its staff costs.

84



Although in principle the daily charge for the facility could be reduced inresponse to the additional workload generated by the Centre, in practice GKNwould probably maintain the existing charge rate and use the extra income toservice the cost of some enhancements and replacement of old equipment inthe facility.

2. Circulating Water Channel

Daily hire charges for such facilities are usually well below £1000 per day.Staff costs are negligible because they can usually be operated by the personrunning the tests, instead of requiring trained operators. They are simplefacilities with easy access, so that their cost of use is much cheaper overallthan is a towing tank.

The QinetiQ facility is mothballed because the Ministry of Defence has NOTidentified it as a strategic facility and QinetiQ is reluctant to invest in, or

operate, facilities that are subject to all the commercial risks that are avoidedby designation. QinetiQ consider that the rather dated electrical systems oftheir facility no longer comply with their own safety regulations and willtherefore not allow the facility to be operated without complete electricalrefurbishment. The Liverpool facility is available at a price of about £1000 perday, including the assistance of a technician / operator. The issues for theSolent Ocean Energy Centre are therefore (a) can it justify the capital cost ofsetting up its own facility against a likely daily income of around £700 ex staffcosts? (b) as an alternative, can it justify contributing to the cost of reinstatingthe QinetiQ facility against a similar daily cost and the risk associated withbeing just another customer? Or (c) can it cope with the logistical costs andinconvenience of taking work to Liverpool?

A new CWC would cost £1,561,744, installed in a pre-existing building. Thebuilding would be much less expensive than a towing tank (because a CWC isa much smaller facility) so that using an existing CWC instead of constructinga new one would probably avoid a capital investment of around £2M. As withthe towing tank, it is not possible to make a commercial capital investmentcase for a new facility, based on the projected value of the Centre’s workload.

Unfortunately, unlike the towing tank operated by GKN, the CWC operated by

QinetiQ is never likely to be commercially viable on its present site, owing tothe management culture of QinetiQ, which is inherited from its former statusas a research establishment of the Ministry of Defence. Even a privatecommercial operator (or owner) will be obliged to operate the facility inaccordance with QinetiQ’s procedures and would be charged a site fee basedon QinetiQ’s commercially bizarre accounting policies, for as long as thefacility is located on a QinetiQ site. The facility was transferred to QinetiQ fromthe Ministry of Defence. It was therefore originally a public investment and itfollows that QinetiQ are under a moral, if not a legal, obligation not to destroyit, if it can be put to a publicly valuable use. This is an important point becauseQinetiQ will not want to see the facility moved to one of their competitors and

they do not see MTMC as being in competition with them.

85



It is possible to estimate the cost of relocating the QinetiQ CWC, because£100K of the cost of a new CWC is the installation cost. Relocation of theexisting facility is therefore likely to cost around £200K, as it involvesdismantling as well as reassembly. Allowing £400K-£500K for providing asuitable building and making a provision for updating some aspects of the

electrical installation, safeguarding the future of the existing CWC wouldprobably require a capital investment of around £750K. This is a considerablesaving on the £2M cost of a new facility, but does not establish a commercialcase for relocation, as opposed to using the identical facility at LiverpoolUniversity. This case will depend partly on workload, and partly on availability(which we have been unable to establish) and hire terms for the facility atLiverpool University.

The preservation of the facility at QinetiQ in Gosport is therefore a priority forthe centre, at least until the options of refurbishment and/or relocation havebeen fully evaluated. An obvious site for relocation is alongside the GKN

towing tank, but a CWC has many educational applications, so MTMC wouldwant to investigate relocation to an organisation such as the Isle of WightCollege. We believe that relocation to another educational institution, such asthe University of Southampton, would be unacceptable to QinetiQ oncompetition grounds.

3. Deep Tank

Like their towing tank, the deep tank or so-called Manoeuvring Basin atQinetiQ Haslar suffers from the drawbacks (for commercial users) of itsdesignation as a strategic facility by the Ministry of Defence. Hire charges aretypically of the order £5000 per day, because the entire facility must be hiredeven if only a small area is actually used (unless some informal arrangementis made with the facility manager). The cost of working in such a large facilityis high, and compliance with many onerous QinetiQ safety and operatingprocedures is both mandatory and expensive.

The privately owned deep tank at Bembridge is currently empty, but preservedin reasonable condition because of its historical importance. MTMC visited thesite some time ago, to discuss getting the tank back into productive use. Thevisit pre-dated this study, but the possible use of the tank for “diver training”

had occurred to the owner and he was enthusiastic to pursue it. Very littlecapital would be required to put the tank back into working order, and itsvolume of only 3% of the volume of the QinetiQ tank will obviously result inlower operating costs.

4. Dynamometer and General Instrumentation

The total cost of all the ancillary equipment described in Sections 5.1 and 5.2,which will fully equip the towing tank and the CWC, could be £250 – 300k.However virtually all of the equipment can be hired when needed, obviatingthe requirement for capital purchase.

86



5. Work Boats and Small Crane Barge

There will be no capital purchase requirement in the case of the boatsmentioned in Section 5.3. Access to a wide variety of suitable craft is availablethroughout the region, especially in the general area around the east and west

Solent. The many diving contractors and marine installation specialistsoperating in the area, who are likely to become sub-contractors to the Centre,also usually operate their own craft.

Neither is it envisaged that the Centre will need to purchase any of the relatedboat-borne equipment, as it is assumed that specialists brought in toundertake diving and survey work will equip themselves for the tasks.

solent ocean energy centre - dec 2006 - iwc report

Documents