MHK Industry Reference Models for Cost Assessment and Innovation Opportunities

1. Water Power Peer Review Richard Jepsen Sandia National Labs rajepse@sandia.gov; 505-284-2767 November 2, 2011 [Title of larger project, if applicable] Reference Model Development

2. Purpose, Objectives, & Integration Goal: Develop a representative set of Reference Models (RM) for the MHK industry to develop baseline cost of energy (COE) and evaluate key cost component/system reduction pathways. Motivation: Need for COE targets with regard to technology type. Identify future innovation opportunities to prioritize research and cost reduction pathways • Promote and assist a vibrant and cost effective MHK industry • Develop and disseminate system design tools and/or MHK models for the development of advanced MHK designs (DOE Goal – 10 platforms)

3. Water Power Program Chart

4. Purpose, Objectives, & Integration Reference Models Integrate WP Program Technology Research NMRECs, Nat’l Labs, Research Inst’s, Industry Device Development MHK Industry Reference Models Environmental Studies NMRECs,Nat’l Labs, Research Inst’s, Industry Cost Assessment DOE, Nat’l Labs, Industry

5. Project Team and Organization: FY11

6. Technical Approach • These reference models focus on simple, robust designs and tools for each market technology. In this way, reference models and established site parameters or inputs can be used as well understood, conservative benchmarks for laboratory, industry and university users to validate their computational tools. • Furthermore, industry users could utilize the reference model results for benchmarking and comparing the performance, loads and cost of new concepts and components. • Each reference model will be validated with experimental results from subscale and full-scale prototypes. • The outcome will be such that users can compare more exotic and complex designs, model approaches and results with others of known accuracy that have been validated by testing and reviewed by subject matter experts.

7. Plan, Schedule, & Budget Schedule • Initiation date: May, 2010 • Planned completion date: September 30, 2013 • The following are the major Milestones for this project: • Final report on first three Reference Models (Tidal Turbine, River Turbine, and Point Absorber WEC). September 30, 2011 • Final report on next three Reference Models (Ocean Current Turbine, Oscillating Water Column WEC, and Surge Type WEC). September 30, 2012 • Final report on final three Reference Models (Model devices TBD). September 30, 2013 Budget: • There are no variances from the planned budget. • 85% of the budget has been invoiced *SNL budget only for direct costs and contracts to Re Vision and university partners. Does not include funding (~$700k) to other National Labs

8. Accomplishments and Results • Although just begun in May 2010: • Performance and cost results for 1st three models • Have demonstrated that a techno-enviro-economic model makes sense and can: • Provide a synergistic purpose • Suggest focal points for cost reduction • Create an ability to compare and contrast radically different devices • Design methods have been implemented and improved • NREL led workshops on modeling/analysis and test instrumentation • Generated interest among US developers, both to validate and improve performance and to act as a credential for investors • DOE-funded development leverages new data from device design and demonstration • Final reports for 1st three models scheduled for November 2011 (due to DOE on 9/30/11)

9. First Three Reference Models RM#2 River Turbine RM#3 WEC Point Absorber RM#1 Tidal Turbine

10. Development and Applicationof Analysis Tools Pressure (Pa) STAR CCM+ CACTUS (Code for the Analysis of Cross and axial-flow TUrbine Simulation) Vorticity iso-surface

11. Point Absorber Survivability: Tank Test & Analysis UC Berkeley Wave Tank Test (H=2m to H=20m) CFD simulation – NREL- STAR CCM • 5th-order Stokes waves • wave height H=4 m; wave period T=10sec) Wave height H=6 m & wave period T=10sec (full scale)

12. Impact on COE Cost Drivers Effects of Device Size Effects of Power Density

13. Accomplishments and Results • Accomplishments • Validation testing for WEC model • Preliminary report on first three models • Includes performance and COE estimates • Already demonstrating areas for future improvements/investments • Upcoming Milestones and Products • Final Report for Version 1 of first three models (Sept. 2011) • Initiated designs and concepts for next three models (2 WECs and 1 Turbine) due at end of FY12 • Validation testing for turbine models 1 and 2

14. Challenges to Date The largest challenge was defining and coordinating a relatively large project amongst several National Labs, universities and industry. This was compounded by having a mid-year start and maintaining an accelerated schedule. There were challenges for all contributors to assign appropriate staffing and other resources to meet the aggressive goals. The project team worked well to support each other for various project components. Some staffing reorganization was required by National Lab participants and university support was solicited and acquired to meet the projects’ objectives. These challenges were met successfully and the project remained on budget and on schedule.

15. Next Steps • FY12 Plans • Final Report for Version 1 of first three models (Sept. 2011 to DOE, Nov/Dec Public Release) • Initiated designs and concepts for next three models (2 WECs and 1 Turbine) due at end of FY12 • Validation testing for turbine models 1 and 2 The results of this work will impact DOE investment decisions for future research and industry support. The work could be expanded to allow for future iterations of each reference model as test data becomes available and model refinements improve predictions and uncertainties

16. Next Three Models