Thursday, January 12, 2017

Swansea Bay - greenish light at the end of the tunnel

Exciting news as it appears that the Government is leaning towards the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon.

Rated at 320MW, the lagoon isn't a silver bullet for the UK's energy mix and carbon targets but it does offer a means of demonstrating the (already well-established) technology in the UK.

There's talk of a strike price for a CfD of around £90/MWh, which makes the power cheaper than Hinckley point, and the technology is expected to operate for 120 years (and leave no nuclear waste!).

The company website states that the project will generate >530 GWh/yr and has installed capacity of 320 MW.  This indicates a capacity factor of 18.9% (see for the company's data).  As a capacity factor, this isn't high: onshore wind aims for 30%+ in England and up to 50% in Scotland, but ultimately it's the cost per MWh that counts.

The technology has been well proven in any number of dams but also at La Rance tidal power station in France.  La Rance, according to Wikipedia, has been in operation since 1966 - 50 years - and produces an average 57MW against installed capacity of 240 MW - 24% capacity factor).

One concern we've heard voiced about tidal schemes in the Bristol Channel is that they could interfere with the resonant nature of the tidal movement in the area.  Think of the water in the Bristol Channel as a tuning fork, but vibrating back and forth every tidal cycle and with the rotation of the earth providing a regular push to keep the system vibrating.  By changing the volume of water, the resonance of the system could change and if the resonant frequency moved far enough from the frequency of the push, the whole system could break down.

In the case of the Swansea Bay project, this seems unlikely, as the proportion of the volume of water in the lagoon compared to the Bristol Channel upstream of the site is very small.  We guestimate the surface area of the lagoon to be around 2 square miles and the area of the Bristol Channel upstream to be approximately 600 square miles.  So even as an area proportion, the lagoon is 0.3% of the total.  In terms of volume, it will be even lower as the average depth of the Bristol Channel is greater than the average depth in the lagoon.  If the average depth is three times as much, the volume of water in the lagoon is 1/1000 or 0.1% of the total.  It's hard to see that affecting the resonant frequency very much.  Imagine trimming 1/10 of a millimetre off the tines of a tuning fork - the frequency it generates isn't going to change much.

It's a different story for a tidal barrage, of course, where much greater volumes are affected, and even the Cardiff project, which has an area of 70 km2 might be getting large enough to have an effect.  We'll try to look at this more in the coming weeks.

Monday, January 09, 2017

GE Oceade development suspended - opportunities at Raz Blanchard?

According to a report in Tidal Energy Today ( and other, mainly French, press), GE has given up on the development of its 1.4 MW Oceade turbine and redeployed around 40 staff onto other projects (reportedly offshore wind).

This is a blow for the Raz Blanchard project, to the West of the Cotentin peninsula, where Engie had planned to deploy 4 of the units.  As a result, it is reported that Engie has shelved the project.

GE's Oceade technology, acquired as part of its acquisition of Alstom, who got it from Tidal Generation Limited, had proven its technical potential at EMEC.

I suppose there may be an IP acquisition opportunity or the chance for another supplier to get in front of Engie to try to resurrect the project.  OpenHydro are already planning deployment at Raz Blanchard, and Atlantis might look to step in with their own, or Andritz, turbines.

Tuesday, January 03, 2017

Revisiting the Marine Current Turbines capacity factor

Some while ago, in this blog post we calculated an apparent capacity factor for Marine Current Turbine's SeaGen in Strangford Narrows of 38%.

We've been rooting around in OFGEM's ROC database to see if there's further information available on SeaGen's performance.

Looking at the ROC register, which reports the number of MWh generated for ROC-accredited projects, it seems that the SeaGen achieved monthly average capacity factors of up to 58% in its best years.

This analysis is based on SeaGen having a capacity of 1.2 MW and is consistent with another blog analysis we did of the capacity factor of the technology.

This analysis begs some other questions though - what went wrong in 2011?  and has the technology been abandoned since 2014? It also seems that the capacity factor was pretty variable, pointing to a lack of reliability - fair enough in a prototype technology.

We'll be using this approach  to look at other technologies too, in the upcoming Redfield review of tidal technologies and its companion volume - Redfield review of wave technologies.  Contact us for details: info(at)

Monday, November 28, 2016

LCOE and Excel

Here's a funny thing that people might be interested to know. I was building a model in Excel to play around with LCOE calculation - a topic to which I'll be returning - and I found out some interesting things about the Excel NPV function. I found that if you're asking the NPV function to calculate the net present value of a sequence of cells, if there's an empty cell, the NPV function ignores the empty cells and moves on to the next occupied one. This can mean that late years are under-discounted if you've got empty cells. Filling the cells with zeros or a formula returning zero fixes the problem. I spent a while chasing this down, so hope this is useful. I'm sure readers who have got this far know that Excel effectively assumes payments at the end of each year (i.e. the first year is discounted by a full year's discount rate). You may wish to correct for mid year cashflows, or even more precisely if your cashflows are well constrained in time. The reason I've been doing this is that I'm looking hard at the LCOE function - which I'm not sure fairly evaluates long term projects, or projects with variable risk. More on this over the next few weeks.

Monday, November 21, 2016


When we looked away from the wave and tidal marine energy sector in 2009, we were monitoring around 60 tidal energy and 60 wave energy conversion devices. We're now re-engaging with the sector and undertaking our initial screening research. Many of the devices we were watching in 2009 are still around, and some have made significant progress. Sad to say, some have gone by the wayside. But what's really got our attention is the multiplication of devices in the sector. We can now see around 130 tidal energy devices and more than 300 wave devices. We've undertaken our initial screening of the tidal devices to identify the top 20 or so, and are just beginning to do the same for the wave sector. As a sneak peek, the shortlisted 24 tidal devices and companies include Atlantis, Andritz, Clean Current Power Systems, Flumill, Mako, OpenHydro, Scotrenewables, Tocardo and Verdant. In coming weeks, we will be undertaking our objective scoring to determine our views on technical and commercial feasibility for these devices and plan to publish the new Redfield Marine Renewables Review in early 2017. It's going to be in two volumes: tidal and wave. We're looking forward to visiting the International Tidal Energy Summit in London later this week, and will report back with our impressions after that.