Upload
phungkien
View
220
Download
7
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Comparative Life Cycle Analysis of
Wave and Tidal Energy Devices
Stuart Walker
Supervised by Dr. Rob Howell
Marine Energy
The UK has marine energy resources equivalent
to 20% of our electricity use*
* Future Marine Energy - Carbon Trust 2006
Tidal• Extract energy from the
tidal stream (in and out)
• Tides are caused by
astronomical movement,
predictable
• Devices resemble an
underwater wind turbine
Wave vs. Tidal
Wave• Extracts energy from the
movement of the waves
• Waves are caused by
wind, unpredictable
• Devices comprise a fixed
base and a moving
component
Project Aim
To compare the lifetime CO2 and
energy performance of Wave and
Tidal marine energy devices
Life Cycle Assessments (LCA):
Wave – Conducted in this project
Tidal – Based on previous work
Tidal Device LCA: SeaGen
SeaGen LCA data was taken
from a study carried out at the
University of Edinburgh.
This study was based on the
test installation in Strangford
Lough, Northern Ireland.
SeaGen Device:
Rated power: 1.2MW
Energy payback: 14 months
CO2 payback: 8 months.
Wave Device LCA: Oyster
Aquamarine Power “Oyster 1”
Test device installed at EMEC in 2008
Rated Power: 315kW
Oyster LCA: Methodology
Transport
Installation
Maintenance
Materials
Decommissioning
OutputOYSTER
MaterialsEnergy and carbon intensities were calculated for major materials
Total Mass = 159 tonnes
Total Energy = 4091 GJ
Total CO2 = 310 tonnes
Material Mass (kg) Carbon (kgCO2) Energy (MJ)
Mild Steel 149,700 264,984 3,652,887
Iron (Ductile) 708 1352 17,700
Iron (Cast) 1058 2020 26,450
Copper 700 2107 29,750
Stainless Steel 6370 39,178 361,202
Plywood 263 213 3942
Materials
Transport
Transport distances of materials and complex components from their
manufacture location to the EMEC site were used to calculate energy, cost and CO2
InstallationOyster installation at EMEC was a complex process:
• Install pipe into hole
• Connect pipe at both ends
• Installation of Containers
• Crane containers into position
• Fix container position
• Connect containers together
• Connect containers
• Drill Pile Holes
• Place piles by crane
• Grout piles in place
• Install flanges onto piles
• Crane Oyster into position
• Installation of Pipeline
• Directionally drill pipeline
Total installation cost:
£2.7 million
MaintenanceAnnual maintenance costs were calculated
based on 4 people travelling 500km by car and ferry, 3 times a year. Spare parts and equipment transport were also included in the spreadsheet.
Decommissioning & RecyclingAs in the SeaGen study, decommissioning data was based on a reversal of relevant installation processes. ICE data was used to calculate the
difference between recycled and primary materials, and the resulting energy and carbon.
Recycling resulted in overall carbon and energy savings, but a net cost of £830,000.
Used Saved
Energy 489 GJ 2,110 GJ
Carbon 36 tonnes 172 tonnes
Cost £864,600 £34,100
OutputBased on a lifetime of 15 years, the Oyster has embodied CO2 of 560 tonnes, embodied energy of 5.4 TJ, and costs
£3.8 million. Output was then calculated.
Using the Oyster power matrix and wave data for the EMEC site it was estimated that the
Oyster would produce 173kW per year.
Oyster LCA
-10,000,000
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
90,000,000
In Out In Out In Out
Energy (MJ) Carbon (kgCO2) Cost (£)
Decomissioning
Maintenance (life)
Installation
Transport
Materials
Lifetime Energy: 76 TJ
Lifetime CO2: 11,800 tonnes
Lifetime Cost: £1.1 million
Oyster vs. SeaGenDue to differences in rated size, Oyster and SeaGen devices were compared in terms of
Energy and CO2 intensity:
And Energy and Carbon payback periods:
Oyster SeaGen Wind Turbine Fossil Fuels
Carbon (gCO2/kWh) 25 15 ~10 400 - 1000
Energy (kJ/kWh) 236 214 ~200
(Months) Oyster SeaGen
Carbon 8 8
Energy 12 14
Further Work• Oyster and SeaGen appear to exhibit good energy
and carbon intensities, and good payback periods.
• Both devices are currently in their infancy so these
are likely to improve further during development.
• Further work is required related to device
survivability and reduce costs.
• Wave device output is unpredictable, so cannot
currently be relied upon to supply grid base load.
Questions?
SLIDES WITHOUT BACKGROUND
Comparative Life Cycle Analysis of
Wave and Tidal Energy Devices
Stuart Walker
Supervised by Dr. Rob Howell
Marine Energy
The UK has marine energy resources equivalent
to 20% of our electricity use*
* Future Marine Energy - Carbon Trust 2006
Tidal• Extract energy from the
tidal stream (in and out)
• Tides are caused by
astronomical movement,
predictable
• Devices resemble an
underwater wind turbine
Wave vs. Tidal
Wave• Extracts energy from the
movement of the waves
• Waves are caused by
wind, unpredictable
• Devices comprise a fixed
base and a moving
component
Project Aim
To compare the lifetime CO2 and
energy performance of Wave and
Tidal marine energy devices
Life Cycle Assessments (LCA):
Wave – Conducted in this project
Tidal – Based on previous work
Tidal Device LCA: SeaGen
SeaGen LCA data was taken
from a study carried out at the
University of Edinburgh.
This study was based on the
test installation in Strangford
Lough, Northern Ireland.
SeaGen Device:
Rated power: 1.2MW
Energy payback: 14 months
CO2 payback: 8 months
Wave Device LCA: Oyster
Aquamarine Power “Oyster 1”
Test device installed at EMEC in 2008
Rated Power: 315kW
Oyster LCA: Methodology
Transport
Installation
Maintenance
Materials
Decommissioning
OutputOYSTER
MaterialsEnergy and carbon intensities were calculated for major materials
Total Mass = 159 tonnes
Total Energy = 4091 GJ
Total CO2 = 310 tonnes
Material Mass (kg) Carbon (kgCO2) Energy (MJ)
Mild Steel 149,700 264,984 3,652,887
Iron (Ductile) 708 1352 17,700
Iron (Cast) 1058 2020 26,450
Copper 700 2107 29,750
Stainless Steel 6370 39,178 361,202
Plywood 263 213 3942
Materials
Transport
Transport distances of materials and complex components from their
manufacture location to the EMEC site were used to calculate energy, cost and CO2
InstallationOyster installation at EMEC was a complex process:
• Install pipe into hole
• Connect pipe at both ends
• Installation of Containers
• Crane containers into position
• Fix container position
• Connect containers together
• Connect containers
• Drill Pile Holes
• Place piles by crane
• Grout piles in place
• Install flanges onto piles
• Crane Oyster into position
• Installation of Pipeline
• Directionally drill pipeline
Total installation cost:
£2.7 million
MaintenanceAnnual maintenance costs were calculated
based on 4 people travelling 500km by car and ferry, 3 times a year. Spare parts and equipment transport were also included in the spreadsheet.
Decommissioning & RecyclingAs in the SeaGen study, decommissioning data was based on a reversal of relevant installation processes. ICE data was used to calculate the
difference between recycled and primary materials, and the resulting energy and carbon.
Recycling resulted in overall carbon and energy savings, but a net cost of £830,000.
Used Saved
Energy 489 GJ 2,110 GJ
Carbon 36 tonnes 172 tonnes
Cost £864,600 £34,100
OutputBased on a lifetime of 15 years, the Oyster has embodied CO2 of 560 tonnes, embodied energy of 5.4 TJ, and costs
£3.8 million. Output was then calculated.
Using the Oyster power matrix and wave data for the EMEC site it was estimated that the
Oyster would produce 173kW per year.
Oyster LCA
-10,000,000
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
90,000,000
In Out In Out In Out
Energy (MJ) Carbon (kgCO2) Cost (£)
Decomissioning
Maintenance (life)
Installation
Transport
Materials
Lifetime Energy: 76 TJ
Lifetime CO2: 11,800 tonnes
Lifetime Cost: £1.1 million
Oyster vs. SeaGenDue to differences in rated size, Oyster and SeaGen devices were compared in terms of
Energy and CO2 intensity:
And Energy and Carbon payback periods:
Oyster SeaGen Wind Turbine Fossil Fuels
Carbon (gCO2/kWh) 25 15 ~10 400 - 1000
Energy (kJ/kWh) 236 214 ~200
(Months) Oyster SeaGen
Carbon 8 8
Energy 12 14
Further Work• Oyster and SeaGen appear to exhibit good energy
and carbon intensities, and good payback periods.
• Both devices are currently in their infancy so these
are likely to improve further during development.
• Further work is required related to device
survivability and reduce costs.
• Wave device output is unpredictable, so cannot
currently be relied upon to supply grid base load.
Questions?