JVining MastersThesis

OCEAN WAVE ENERGY CONVERTERS:
OVERVIEW, LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS,

AND DIRECT-DRIVE POWER TAKE-OFF
by
Jennifer Guinevere Vining
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
(Electrical Engineering)
at the
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON
January 2007
i
Abstract
Ocean energy conversion has been of interest for many years. Recent
developments such as concern over global warming have renewed interest in the topic.
Part 1 focuses on wave energy converters (WEC) as opposed to ocean current energy
converters. The point absorber and oscillating water column WEC devices are addressed
with regards to commercial prospects, environmental concerns, and current state-of-the
art. Part 1 also provides an overview of the energy found in ocean waves and how each
type of device utilizes the available ocean wave energy.
Part II of the study focuses on wave energy business and legal jurisdiction issues
as there is no clear economic model or legal process for developers to follow. These
issues are addressed with regards to siting license dilemmas, which government agencies
may assert jurisdiction, economic / business incentives for renewables, and wave energy
economic factors. Part II also investigates regulatory actions and incentive programs
needed to promote wave energy conversion technology. All topics are discussed from the
view point of an engineer on the subject of making emerging technologies such as wave
energy converters successful.
In Part III, the various direct-drive (linear) generators are assessed. These
generators are evaluated based on their shear stress density, cogging, power factor, cost,
manufacturability, etc. Linear generator design factors, power conditioning techniques,
Jennifer Guinevere Vining, January 2007

ii
and control strategies are also discussed. The merits of each model are considered and
with each other, concluding with recommendations for future wave energy converters.

iii
Acknowledgement
I owe so much to my advisor, Professor Annette Muetze, who led me to so many
interesting topics that I would not have found myself. Her guidance and dedication has
helped me understand the material and overcome the roadblocks that popped up along the
way. I am so grateful to have had her support.
I also owe a huge thanks to the Wisconsin Electrical Machines and Power
Electronics Consortium (WEMPEC) for taking me in and showing me the world of
power in a whole new light. My collaboration with the professors and staff has taught
me more than I could imagine. I realize that I still have a lot to learn from them.
My family is most special in many ways. They have always encouraged me to
accomplish my goals, and they helped me through all my schooling in a way that only
family can. As the years pass, they keep asking me when I will be done, but learning is
lifelong. I am lucky that they understand and come to visit often.
I have met so many great people in Madison, and I am appreciative of their
kindness, generousity, and fun spirit. Without them, the days would not have passed so
quickly and joyously. I will forever remember the enjoyable times together. Thanks to
all those who shared these times with me.
The great research environment at UW, coupled with all the knowledgeable
people in WEMPEC have made this a truly extraordinary experience. I feel fortunate

iv
every day that I have had the opportunity to learn and study at UW. I am greatly
indebted to the College of Engineering and the ECE Claude & Dora Richardson
Fellowships for the funding that made my research on wave energy converters possible.

ii
Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................i
Acknowledgement ..........................................................................iii
Table of Contents ............................................................................ii
List of Figures................................................................................ ix
List of Tables.................................................................................. xi
Chapter 1 Ocean Energy Resources .......................................... 13
1.1 ......Ocean Currents ..........................................................................................13
1.2 ......Ocean Waves .............................................................................................14
1.3 ......Wave Climate ............................................................................................15
Chapter 2 Wave Energy Calculations........................................ 17
2.1 ......Wave Energy and Power............................................................................17
2.1.1 Energy and Power Density ............................................................18
2.1.2 Power Per Meter of Wave Front ....................................................20
2.2 ......Energy Conversion in Point Absorber .......................................................21

iii
2.2.1 Float Type ......................................................................................21
2.2.2 Tube Type ......................................................................................22
2.3 ......Energy Conversion in an Oscillating Water Column ................................23
Chapter 3 Ocean Wave Energy Commercialization.................. 24
Chapter 4 Fundamental Wave Energy Converter (WEC)
Classifications .............................................................................. 26
4.1 ......Turbine Type..............................................................................................27
4.1.1 Oscillating Water Column (OWC) Wave Energy Converter ........27
4.1.1.1 OWC Design.......................................................................... 28
4.1.1.2 OWC Placement: Near Shore vs. Shoreline ......................... 29
4.1.2 Overtopping Wave Energy Converter ...........................................30
4.2 ......Buoy Type..................................................................................................31
4.2.1 Tube Type ......................................................................................31
4.2.2 Float Type ......................................................................................32
4.3 ......Other Forms Worthy of Notice..................................................................35
4.4 ......Important Design Parameters.....................................................................36
Chapter 5 State of the Art .......................................................... 37
5.1 ......Oscillating Water Column .........................................................................37

iv
5.1.1 Air Pressure and Flow Control ......................................................38
5.1.2 Turbine Design ..............................................................................39
5.1.3 Moorings and Installation ..............................................................40
5.2 ......Point Absorber ...........................................................................................41
5.2.1 Control Techniques........................................................................41
5.2.2 Power Take-Off Methods ..............................................................42
5.2.2.1 Hydraulic System................................................................... 43
5.2.2.2 Linear Generator .................................................................... 44
5.2.2.3 Magnetohydrodynamic Generator ......................................... 47
5.2.2.4 Contact-Less Force Transmission System............................. 47
Chapter 6 Proposed Future Research Focus for All WECs....... 49
Chapter 7 Environmental Impact............................................... 51
Chapter 8 Governing Bodies Involved in Wave Energy Licensing
54
8.1 ......Governmental Agencies and Their Regulations ........................................55
8.2 ......State vs. Federal Jurisdiction .....................................................................57
8.3 ......Future Recommendations ..........................................................................58

v
Chapter 9 Installation Process for Wave Energy Converters ... 59
9.1 ......Siting Issues ...............................................................................................59
9.2 ......Recommended Siting Process Improvements............................................60
Chapter 10 Licensing Process Comparison: Wave vs. Wind
Energy 61
10.1 ....Wind Installation Process ..........................................................................61
10.2 ....Wave Energy Installation Process .............................................................62
10.3 ....Future Licensing Needs .............................................................................64
Chapter 11 Renewable Energy Incentives ................................... 65
11.1 ....Renewable Energy Program Classifications..............................................65
11.2 ....Description of Incentive Types..................................................................67
11.2.1 Customer Choice Incentives ........................................................68
11.2.1.1 Renewables Portfolio Standard – Tradable Renewable
Energy Credits 68
11.2.1.2 Utility Green Pricing Program............................................. 69
11.2.2 Direct Cash Incentive...................................................................70
11.2.2.1 Fixed Tariffs ........................................................................ 70
11.2.2.2 Direct Production Incentive ................................................. 71
11.2.2.3 Direct Investment Incentive................................................. 71

vi
11.2.3 Indirect Cash Incentive ................................................................72
11.2.3.1 Production Tax Credit.......................................................... 72
11.2.3.2 Investment Tax Credit ......................................................... 72
11.2.3.3 State and Local Sales Tax Reduction .................................. 73
11.2.3.4 Property Tax Reduction ....................................................... 73
11.2.3.5 Accelerated Depreciation Schedule ..................................... 74
11.2.4 Low-Cost Debt Financing............................................................75
11.2.4.1 Government Subsidized Loans ............................................ 75
11.2.4.2 Project Loan Guarantees...................................................... 75
11.3 ....Summary of Renewable Energy Incentives...............................................76
Chapter 12 Cost Factors.............................................................. 78
Chapter 13 Overall Economic Analysis ....................................... 80
Chapter 14 Types of Linear Generators ...................................... 83
14.1 ....Direction of PM Magnetization in the Tubular Linear Generator .............92
14.1.1 Axial.............................................................................................92
14.1.2 Radial ...........................................................................................93
14.1.3 Halbach ........................................................................................93
14.2 ....General Notes on PM Linear Generators...................................................93

vii
Chapter 15 Linear Generator Design Parameters and Challenges
94
15.1 ....Sizing the Linear Machine.........................................................................94
15.2 ....Power Rating..............................................................................................95
15.3 ....Induced Voltage and Pole Number............................................................95
15.4 ....Magnetic Flux Path....................................................................................96
15.5 ....Cogging (Ripple) Torque...........................................................................99
15.5.1 Causes and Features of Cogging Torque .....................................99
15.5.2 Minimizing Cogging Torque .....................................................100
Chapter 16 Power Conditioning................................................ 102
16.1 ....Control Strategy.......................................................................................102
16.1.1 Outer-Loop Control ...................................................................102
16.1.2 Control State Variables..............................................................103
16.1.3 Inner-Loop Control Techniques.................................................103
16.2 ....Power Converter ......................................................................................104
16.2.1 Sizing the Power Converter .......................................................104
16.2.2 Power Converter Operation .......................................................105
Chapter 17 Conclusions ............................................................ 107
Bibliography............................................................................... 109

viii
Appendix A1: Wave Energy Companies ..................................... 118
Appendix A2: Comparison of Offshore Ocean and Wind Energy
Installations in the U.S................................................................ 126
Appendix A3: Federal Government Renewable Energy Programs129

ix
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Approximate global distribution of wave power levels (kW/m

of wave front) T. W. Thorpe, ETSU, November 1999 [11]............15
Figure 2.1 Wave Nomenclature [19] .....................................................................18
Figure 2.2 Wave Power Density ............................................................................19
Figure 2.3 Power Per Meter of Wave Front...........................................................20
Figure 4.1 Oscillating Water Column Device based on [9]..................................28
Figure 4.2 Overtopping WEC based on [22] ........................................................31
Figure 4.3 Below Surface Point Absorber based on [4] .......................................34
Figure 4.4 Hose Pump based on [9]......................................................................35
Figure 4.5 The Pelamis WEC [25]........................................................................36
Figure 5.1 Uni-directional Wells Turbine [8]........................................................40
Figure 5.2 TFPM Machine with Flux Concentration and Stationary

Magnets [4] ......................................................................................46
Figure 5.3 Contact-Less Force Transmission System [26]...................................48
Figure 14.1 Axial Cross-Section of Double-Sided Induction Linear

Generator [4] ....................................................................................84
Figure 14.2 Axial Cross-Section of Double-Sided Switched Reluctance

Linear Generator [4].........................................................................85
Figure 14.3 General Tubular Linear Generator Form [81]...................................86
Figure 14.4 Air-Cored Tubular Linear Generator with Axially Aligned

PM [87] ............................................................................................86

x
Figure 14.5 Tubular Linear Generator with Radially Aligned PM [88]...............87
Figure 14.6 Tubular Linear Generator with Axially Aligned PM [88] .................87
Figure 14.7 Tubular Linear Generator with Halbach Aligned PM [88] ................87
Figure 14.8 Axial Cross-Section of Double-Sided Longitudinal Flux

Linear Generator [5].........................................................................89
Figure 14.9 3-D View of Double-Sided Longitudinal Flux Linear

Generator [64] ..................................................................................89
Figure 14.10 Radial Cross-Section of Eight-Sided Longitudinal Flux

Linear Generator [64].......................................................................90
Figure 14.11 Transverse Flux Linear Generator with Moving Magnets [4] ........91
Figure 14.12 Transverse Flux Linear Generator with Stationary Magnets

[4] .....................................................................................................91
Figure 15.1 Axial Cross-Section of the Flux Path in a LFPM with Surface
Mounted Magnets [76].....................................................................97
Figure 15.2 Axial Cross-Section of the Flux Path in a Tubular Machine

with Axially Magnetized PM [79] ...................................................98
Figure 15.3 Radial Cross-Section of the Flux Path in the VHPM Machine
(Translator Movement is In/Out of the Page) [84]...........................98
Figure 15.4 Radial Cross-Section of the Flux Path in the TFPM Machine
[5] .....................................................................................................99
Figure 16.1 Power Converter [84] ......................................................................104
Figure 16.2 Available Wave Power at One Location Over 8 Minutes [89] .......106
Figure 16.3 Combined Output Power from 64 Uncorrelated Devices [89]........106

xi
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Wave Nomenclature as used in Figure 1.2 and Section 2 ....................18
Table 4.1 Ocean Energy Converter Classifications ..............................................26
Table 4.2 Important Design Parameters for OWCs and Point Absorbers .............36
Table 6.1 Wave Energy Research Topics.............................................................50
Table 7.1 Environmental Impact of Wave Energy Converters.............................52
Table 8.1 List of Abbreviations Used in Part II....................................................54
Table 8.2 Roles of Government Agencies in Licensing and Operating ...............56
Table 11.1 Renewable Energy Incentive Classifications......................................67
Table 11.2 Description of Incentive Programs .....................................................76
Table 13.1 Cost Comparison of Energy Sources..................................................81
Table 14.1 Description of Linear Generator Types ..............................................84
Table 15.1 Methods to Minimize Cogging Torque ............................................100
Table 16.1 Inner-Loop Control Techniques .......................................................103

xii
PART I

13
Chapter 1 Ocean Energy Resources
Ocean energy comes in a variety of forms such as marine currents, tidal currents,
geothermal vents, and waves. All are concentrated forms of solar or gravitational energy
to some extent. Moreover, wave energy provides “15-20 times more available energy per
square metre than either wind or solar” [16]. The most commercially viable resources
studied so far are ocean currents and waves.
Some research has been conducted on constructing a heat cycle based on
geothermal vents, but this work has led to the conclusion that geothermal vents are not
commercially viable [11]. On the other hand, ocean current and wave energy has already
undergone limited commercial development and is therefore of more interest.
1.1 Ocean Currents
Two main types of ocean currents exist: marine currents and tidal currents. Both
types are influenced by the rotation of the Earth and are highly predictable. Marine
currents such as the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic originate from differences in water
temperature within the ocean. When water at the Equator warms up, it moves towards
the poles then cools, sinks, and flows back towards the Equator. The speed with which
this water conveyor belt moves is cyclic in that it speeds up and slows down over about a
ten year period [21].

14
Tidal currents occur in a very different manner than marine currents. The tides
transpire as a result of the Moon’s gravitational pull on the ocean. Depending on location
and geography, tidal currents come in half-day (semi-diurnal), daily (diurnal), and 14-day
cycles [9]. Instead of a constant flow in one direction as with marine currents, tidal
currents flow in one direction at the beginning of the cycle and reverse directions at the
end of the cycle.
Estimates conclude that marine and tidal currents combined contain about 5 TW
[9] of energy, which is on the scale of the world’s total power consumption. Prototypes
of marine current generators have been deployed in both Europe and the US. The
technology used to harbor this type of energy is similar to hydroelectric, and some
models may even be described as looking like underwater wind turbines.
1.2 Ocean Waves
Ocean waves arise from the transfer of energy from the sun to wind then water.
Solar energy creates wind, which then blows over the ocean, converting wind energy to
wave energy. Once converted, this wave energy can travel thousands of miles with little
energy loss. Most importantly, waves are a regular source of power with an intensity that
can be accurately predicted several days before their arrival [20]. Furthermore, wave
energy is more predictable than wind or solar energy. Figure 1.1 depicts wave power
levels in kW/m of wave crest, the typical units for measuring wave energy.

15
Figure 1.1 Approximate global distribution of wave power levels (kW/m of wave front) T. W. Thorpe,
ETSU, November 1999 [11]
There is approximately 8,000 – 80,000 TWh/yr or 1 – 10 TW of wave energy in
the entire ocean [9], and on average, each wave crest transmits 10 – 50 kW per meter.
The energy levels depicted in Figure 1.1 are important to keep in mind when designing
any sort of wave power take-off device, but it should also be noted that wave power
decreases closer to the shore because of frictional losses with the coastline.
1.3 Wave Climate
In order to assess an area for wave energy development, the wave climate must be
defined. The wave climate describes an area’s wave height distribution, wave length
distribution, and total mean water depth. From these parameters, one can compute wave
power levels. A significant piece of data to gather from Figure 1.1 is that the waves
present on the western edge of the continents contain more energy because of the west-

16
to-east winds. An important fact not shown in Figure 1.1 is that average wave power is
cyclical with winter bringing energy levels up to six times greater than summer [13].

17
Chapter 2 Wave Energy Calculations
“The utilization factor for wave power – the ratio of yearly energy
production to the installed power of the equipment – is typically 2 times
higher than that of wind power. That is whereas for example a wind power
plant only delivers energy corresponding to full power during 25% of the
time (i.e. 2,190 h out of the 8,760 h per year) a wave power plant is
expected to deliver 50% (4,380 h/year).” [14]
While we know that wave power is more energy dense than wind power and
produces power for a larger percentage of the year, we still do not know how to calculate
the power available from a wave. This is important for the design process of a wave
energy converter. First, the power and forces acting on the device should be assessed,
then the device may be sized for the desired energy output. The next sections explain
how to calculate the wave energy and power and how to size point absorbers and
oscillating water columns for a given power level. More information on these wave
energy converters can be found in section 4.
2.1 Wave Energy and Power
The following analysis describes a wave’s energy and power characteristics.

Table 1.1 complements Figure 1.2’s depiction of the variables used in Section 3’s wave
energy analysis with units.

18
Table 2.1 Wave Nomenclature as used in Figure 1.2 and Section 2
Variables
SWL mean seawater level (surface)
Edensity wave energy density [J/m2]
Ewavefront energy per meter wave front [J/m]
Pdensity wave power density [W/m2]
Pwavefront power per meter wave front [W/m]
h depth below SWL [m]
ω wave frequency [rad/sec]
λ (or L) wavelength [m] = gT2/(2π)
ρwater seawater density [1000 kg/m3]
g gravitational constant [9.81 m/s2]
A wave amplitude [m]
H wave height [m]
T wave period [s]
C celerity (wave front velocity) [m/s]
Figure 2.1 Wave Nomenclature [19]
2.1.1 Energy and Power Density
The energy density of a wave, shown in equation 1, is the mean energy flux

19
crossing a vertical plane parallel to a wave’s crest. The energy per wave period is the
wave’s power density. Equation 2 shows how this can be found by dividing the energy
density by the wave period [18, 19]. Figure 2.2 illustrates how wave period and
amplitude affect the power density.
Edensity = ρwatergH2/8 = ρwatergA2/2 (1)

Pdensity = Edensity/T = ρwatergH2/(8T) = ρwatergA2/(2T) (2)
Figure 2.2 Wave Power Density

20
2.1.2 Power Per Meter of Wave Front
A wave resource is typically described in terms of power per meter of wave front
(or wave crest). This can be calculated by multiplying the energy density by the wave
celerity (wave front velocity) as equation 3 demonstrates [19]. Figure 2.3 characterizes
an increase in the amplitude and period of a wave increases the power per meter of wave
front.
Pwavefront = C*Edensity = ρwaterg2H2/(16ω) = ρwaterg2A2/(4ω) (3)
Figure 2.3 Power Per Meter of Wave Front

21
3.1.3 Energy at Varying Depths

To properly size an underwater wave energy converter, the wave power at the
operating depth must be known. In general, the wave power below sea level decays
exponentially by -2πd/λ where d is the depth below sea level. This property is valid for
waves in water with depths greater than λ/2. Equation 4 gives the relationship between
depth and surface energy [1].
E(d) = E(d=SWL) * e-2πd/λ (4)
2.2 Energy Conversion in Point Absorber
The equations governing the float and tube type point absorber presented below
are different yet work on the same principle. As previously mentioned, more information
on these wave energy converters is presented in section 4.
2.2.1 Float Type
The float on this point absorber bobs up and down with the change in mass above
it. As a wave crest approaches, the water mass increases above the float, thus pushing it
down. The forces acting on the float may be modeled via Newton’s equation, F=ma,
which is shown in equation 5.
The mass of water is taken to be ρwaterHAfloat, and gravity is the accelerating force.
To calculate the power transferred to the float in equation 6, Fwater is multiplied by the
velocity of the float, where the velocity is the stroke length divided by half the wave
period. These equations may be used for sizing the float and reactionary forces required
in the generator.

22
Fwater = (ρwaterHAfloat)g (5)
Pgenerated = Fwater(2Lstroke/T) (6)
Where:
Fwater ≡ force of water mass on the float [N]
Afloat ≡ area of float [m2]
Pgenerated ≡ generated system power [W]
Lstroke ≡ length of float stroke [m]
2.2.2 Tube Type
The tube type point absorber equations can be more complicated than the float
type if calculated using Bernoulli’s theory for unsteady flow. An easier method of
evaluating the power for the tube type point absorber is found by calculating the force on
the piston within the tube based on how much power is to be developed and how long the
piston stroke is. By dividing the generated force from equation 7 by the pressure
difference across the tube, the area of the piston may be determined in equation 8.
Fgenerated = PdesiredT/(2Lstroke) (7)
Apiston = Fgenerated/pdiff (8)
Where:
Fgenerated ≡ force of water pressure on the piston [N]
Pdesired ≡ desired system power [W]
Lstroke ≡ length of piston stroke [m]
Apiston ≡ area of piston [m2]

23
pdiff ≡ pressure difference across tube [Pa = N/m2]
2.3 Energy Conversion in an Oscillating Water
Column
The oscillating water column (OWC) energy equations are similar to those used
for wind turbines. Equation 9 [18] expresses the power available from the airflow in the
OWC’s chamber. The air flow kinetic energy term, vair3Aductρair/2, is common to wind
turbine analysis but the air pressure term, pairvairAduct, is unique to this application. From
equation 9, it can be seen that the size of the duct and the air flow through the duct play a
significant role in an OWC.
POWC = (pair + ρairvair2/2) vairAduct (9)
Where:
POWC ≡ power available to turbine in OWC duct [W]
vair ≡ airflow speed at the turbine [m/s]
Aduct ≡ area of turbine duct [m2]
pair ≡ pressure at the turbine duct [Pa = N/m2]
ρair ≡ air density [kg/m3]

24
Chapter 3 Ocean Wave Energy

Commercialization
“The footprint of a 100MW conventional power plant

superstructure, including surrounding grounds, fuel unloading areas, waste
settling ponds, and additional facilities can require up to 2 square miles of
valuable real estate. A comparable OPT power plant would occupy less
than 1 square mile of unused ocean surface out of sight from the shore.”
[17]
The above quote along with the fact that over 30 percent of the human population
lives within 60 miles of the coastline [15] explains why wave energy has entered the
commercial market. Commercialization of wave energy converters has mostly occurred
in the U.S. with several installations planned along the coasts. Europe still regards this
technology to be in the research stage even though at least two designs have been
incorporated by European utilities for prototyping purposes. China, India, and Japan are
also involved in wave energy; however, their involvement is mostly institutional and
focused on oscillating water column devices. The U.S. has seen an explosion of growth
in the number of companies offering wave energy devices with 25 or more at the end of
2005. Europe has almost as many companies with the majority residing in the U.K.
Both American and European companies depend heavily on government subsidies to
continue operations until prototypes are ready for major installations. Appendix A1
offers an overview of companies around the world involved in ocean energy but does not

25
claim to be complete.

26
Chapter 4 Fundamental Wave Energy

Converter (WEC) Classifications
Patents relating to wave energy extraction date back to the 1920s in the U.S. and
even further elsewhere. Those devices are predecessors of the modern-day oscillating
water column (OWC) as well as the float-type point absorber. Unlike the goal of today’s
wave energy converters, the first devices were meant to compress air or pump water.
Recent technological improvements have enabled engineers to use the compressed air in
an OWC device to drive a turbine and the water pumped by a point absorber to run a
generator. Table 4.1 breaks down the different ocean energy conversion devices into two
main categories.
Table 4.1 Ocean Energy Converter Classifications

Ocean Flow Energy Converter Ocean Wave Energy Converter
Tidal Flow Ocean Currents Turbine -type Buoy-type
Tidal Lagoon Bi-Directional Turbine Oscillating Water Column (OWC) Tube type
Tidal Dam Uni-Directional Turbine Overtopping Wave Energy Converter Float type
This report does not intend to focus on ocean current energy converters because
their technology is already mature compared to wave energy conversion. Additionally,
the negative environmental impact of ocean current converters is likely to be greater than
wave energy converters. The main reasons for this impact are that current converters

27
have more moving parts that may injure sea life and some converters require currents to
be funneled into turbines thereby blocking sections of water flow. One may relate this
situation to hydroelectric dams in that the natural sedimentation process is disrupted with
unnatural barriers that also block migration paths for some species.
As seen from Table 4.1 there are two fundamental types of Wave Energy
Converters (WEC), although some authors have broken down these types into even more
classifications based on their orientation and functionality. The first type of WEC to get
attention from the research community is the turbine-type while buoy-type converters are
a newer idea. Both have operational prototypes, some of which have even been
commercialized.
4.1 Turbine Type
The turbine-type wave energy converter employs a turbine as an energy
conversion device. These come in many different forms, the most prominent being the
oscillating water column. The other type of device is described as an overtopping WEC.
4.1.1 Oscillating Water Column (OWC) Wave
Energy Converter
The oscillating water column (OWC) as illustrated in Figure 4.1 operates much
like a wind turbine via the principle of wave induced air pressurization. Some sort of
closed containment housing (air chamber) is placed above the water and the passage of
waves changes the water level within the housing. If the housing is completely sealed,
the rising and falling water level will increase and decrease the air pressure respectively

28
within the housing. With this concept in mind, we can place a turbine on top of the
housing through which air may pass into and out of. Air will flow into the housing
during a wave trough and will flow out of the housing during a wave crest. Because of
this bidirectional air flow, the turbine must be designed to rotate in only one direction no
matter the direction of air flow. The Wells Turbine was designed for this type of
application and is used in most OWC devices today; however, Energetec is working on a
new bidirectional turbine for their OWCs [9].
Direction of
Bidirectional Air Flow
Air Turbine
Bypass
Valves
Parabolic Housing
Reflector Oscillating (Chamber)
Water Column
Anchoring
Waves System Waves
Figure 4.1 Oscillating Water Column Device based on [9]
4.1.1.1 OWC Design
The air chamber within the OWC housing must be designed with the wave period,
significant wave height, and wave length characteristics of the local ocean climate in
mind. If the housing is not sized correctly, waves could resonate within the air chamber.
This resonating effect causes a net zero passage of air through the turbine. Ideally, the air
chamber dimensions will be designed to maximize energy capture in the local wave
climate while research has shown that the generator design (generator size and generator

29
coefficient) is almost completely independent of wave climate such that only areas of
extreme wave energy benefit from larger generators and only marginally so [2].
In addition to sizing the air chamber with respect to the wave climate, the air
chamber must also be conducive to air flow through the turbine. This is best achieved
with a funnel shaped design such that the chamber narrows from the water surface level
to the turbine. This will concentrate the air flow through the turbine.
4.1.1.2 OWC Placement: Near Shore vs. Shoreline
OWC devices are placed on the shoreline or near the shore. The shoreline
devices are placed where the waves break on the beach and are known to be noisy. The
near shore devices are fixedly moored to the ocean bottom in that same manner as
offshore wind turbines or slack moored so as to respond to changes in mean water level,
i.e. tides. The housing is placed just above the water surface.
Both near shore and shoreline placements have their pros and cons. Of foremost
concern is that the wave energy is greater offshore than at the shoreline, so more energy
is available for capture in a near shore OWC. Wave energy concentration near shore
through natural phenomena such as refraction or reflection can compensate for some or
all of this energy dissipation, but there are few areas where this occurs. The con to being
offshore is that installation and maintenance costs increase. Both the near shore and
shoreline OWCs are eye sores since they are visible over the ocean surface, hence both
will experience public resistance to their installation. Then again, the shoreline device
will interfere with beachgoers more directly and will therefore be met with the most

30
public resistance. With the need for public acceptance and decent available energy, one
may conclude that the near shore OWC is the better device.
The changing mean ocean surface level accompanying tides may pose problems
for a fixedly moored OWC. Nonetheless, a fixedly moored device maintains its position
better than a slack moored device so as to provide more resistance to incoming waves
and therefore produce more energy. Another tradeoff between the fixedly and slack
moored OWC is that while the fixedly moored OWC collects more energy, the slack
moored OWC provides some flexibility in rough seas which might damage a fixedly
moored device. Also, the installation costs of a slack moored device are less than a
fixedly moored device because a rigid foundation does not need to be constructed.
4.1.2 Overtopping Wave Energy Converter
The overtopping wave energy converter works in much the same way a
hydroelectric dam works. Waves roll into a collector which funnels the water into a
hydro turbine as depicted in Figure 4.2. The turbines are coupled to generators which
produce electricity. After the waves flow through the turbines, they continue through the
ocean. A mesh grid functions to extract trash and marine debris before the waves pour
into the turbine. The overtopping WEC can be placed on the shoreline or near shore but
are more commonly placed at a near shore location. As with the OWC, the overtopping
WEC may be slack moored or fixedly moored to the ocean bottom, and the issues
associated with these mooring options are the same as with the OWC. It should be noted
that overtopping wave energy converters are not as common as OWCs.

31
Overtopping
Wave Waves
Reservoir
Turbine
Outlet Waves
Anchoring System
Figure 4.2 Overtopping WEC based on [22]
4.2 Buoy Type
The buoy type wave energy converter is also known as a “point absorber”
because it harvests energy from all directions at one point in the ocean. These devices
are placed at or near the ocean surface away from the shoreline. They may occupy a
variety of ocean depths ranging from shallow to very deep water depending on the WEC
design and the type of mooring used. There are several types of point absorbers with the
most common being the hollow tube type and the float type, although there are other
forms.
4.2.1 Tube Type
This type of WEC consists of a vertically submerged, neutrally buoyant (relative
to its position just below the mean ocean surface level) hollow tube. The tube allows
water to pass through it, driving either a piston or a hydro turbine. The piston power
take-off method is better suited for this application because the rate of water flowing
through the tube is not rapid [1]. There are two tube arrangements such that one end may
be closed and the other open or both open. With both ends closed, no water flows and

32
the device becomes the float type.
The hollow tube type WEC works on the concept that waves cause pressure
variations at the surface of the ocean. The long, cylindrical tube experiences a pressure
difference between its top and bottom, causing water to flow into and out of the open
end(s) of the tube. When a wave crest passes above a tube, water will flow down the
tube, and when a wave trough passes above the tube, water will flow up the tube. This
flow will push a piston, which may either power a drive belt, a hydraulic system, or a
linear generator.
In the case of the drive belt, the piston is connected to a belt, which turns at least
one gear. The gear may be connected to a gear box to increase the speed of rotation of
the shaft which turns the rotor of an electric generator. With a hydraulic system, the
piston pumps hydraulic fluid through a hydraulic motor which is coupled to an electric
generator. The hydraulic system is preferred over the drive belt due to maintenance
issues [1]. Also, multiple WECs may be connected to one electric generator through a
hydraulic system. When the piston is connected to a linear generator, it bypasses the
hydraulics process and the gear box of a drive belt. Power take-off with this method is a
result of the up and down movement of the linear generator’s translator (in the case of
linear generators, the rotor is referred to as a translator), which is directly coupled to the
piston.
4.2.2 Float Type
As mentioned above, the float-type WEC is some sort of sealed tube or other type

33
of cavity. It will most likely be filled with air or water or a mix of the two. In order to
make the sealed cavity positively buoyant so that it floats on top of the ocean surface, it
should contain some air. If the cavity is to be just below the surface, it should contain
water at the pressure of the depth it is placed thus making it neutrally buoyant with
respect to its depth. The behavior of the float may be altered by varying the pressure
within the cavity.
The float type WEC in Figure 4.3 operates with several different power take-off
methods. The floater will move in different directions relative to wave motion depending
on its location above or below the water. If the floater is on the surface, it will move up
and down with the wave. This poses control problems because the wave height may
exceed the WEC’s stroke length (how far up and down the floater is permitted to move
by design). The worst possible outcome could be damage to the WEC during a storm
when wave heights are extreme. The solution to this problem of limited stroke length is
to place the tube under water as described above.

34
Neutrally
Buoyant
Float
Power
Take-Off
Anchoring
System
No Wave Wave Trough Wave Crest
Figure 4.3 Below Surface Point Absorber based on [4]
Figure 4.3 illustrates the motion of a below surface point absorber relative to
wave motion. When a wave crest passes overhead, the extra water mass pushes the float
down, and when a wave trough passes, the absence of water mass pulls the float up since
it becomes lighter than the water overhead. A control system can pump water and/or air
into the float to vary buoyancy and thus restrain the float if large wave heights are
experienced. Moreover, if a rough storm occurs, the entire system will be underwater
and out of harm’s way.
As with the tube type point absorber, the up and down motion of the floater
relative to some stationary foundation will act on a piston. This piston can be connected
to a generator using any of the methods described earlier. With a float instead of a tube,
other conversion mechanisms may be utilized.
Rather than a piston, the float may act on what is called a “hose pump” as seen in
the Figure 4.4. It is similar to a hydraulic system in that the hose pressurizes seawater

35
which drives a generator. The difference with the hose pump system is the method of
pressurization. A long flexible hose is attached to a float and a stationary reaction plate.
The float moves relative to the reaction plate, stretching and constricting the hose. When
the hose is stretched, it pulls in seawater, and when the hose is constricted, pressurized
water is pushed out to a generator.
Float
Hosepump High Pressure

Seawater to
Generator
Reactionary
Plate
Anchoring
System
Figure 4.4 Hose Pump based on [9]
4.3 Other Forms Worthy of Notice
The Pelamis in Figure 4.5 is unique among wave energy converters. Although it
also employs the use of a hydraulic system, it is not driven by the up and down motion of
a float. The Pelamis, with its linked chain of cylindrical sections, looks like a snake
floating on the ocean surface. The cylindrical sections are held together by hinged joints
whose heave and sway motion pumps high pressure hydraulic oil. The mooring system
allows the Pelamis to retain its position but is flexible enough to swing head-on into
oncoming waves [25].

36
Figure 4.5 The Pelamis WEC [25]
4.4 Important Design Parameters
There are numerous factors that affect the design of both the OWC and point
absorber type of wave energy converters. Table 4.2 lists some of the most useful design
parameters. The design of both device types depends heavily on the wave height, length,
and period. The designer must know the wavelength of the longest wave to be utilized in
an efficient manner in order to size the device properly. The distribution of a wave
climate’s wave period and height will aid a designer in choosing the proper control
techniques and generator. The wave climate will directly affect the other design
parameters even if the device is not being tailored to one specific wave climate because
the device must react to the physical stresses exerted on it by its surroundings.
Table 4.2 Important Design Parameters for OWCs and Point Absorbers
OWC Point Absorber
Wave height, length, and period Wave height, length, and period
Chamber dimensions Total mean water depth
By-pass valve control Depth of device below water
Length and diameter of float, tube, and/or pump
Stroke length

37
Chapter 5 State of the Art
The recent signing of the Kyoto Treaty has sparked a renewed emphasis on
research into clean alternative energy worldwide. With continued research into the field
of wave energy converters, there are many new design developments and enhancements.
Europe has made many major contributions to the area, but the US, Australia, and others
have also introduced new technology. A discussion of the state of the art in wave energy
converters can be divided into the two sections, OWCs and point absorbers, both of
which have different subtopics of interest.
5.1 Oscillating Water Column
The OWC design is the most mature wave energy collector in terms of the
number and duration of “in-sea” prototypes tested to date. Research on OWCs started in
the 1980s in conjunction with their installation in countries such as Japan [9]. The first
research topics included air flow control, new turbine designs and turbine control of wave
energy absorption, hydrodynamic characteristics, overall design methods, moorings and
foundation, and system resonance. These topics still remain at the forefront of OWC
research with air flow control and turbine design being the most published.

38
5.1.1 Air Pressure and Flow Control
A bypass valve is of utmost importance in controlling an OWC application. The
bypass valve serves to release extra air pressure caused by waves whose amplitude
exceeds normal operating conditions. If this surplus pressure were not released, the
turbine would stall. In addition to avoiding stalling, the bypass valve acts to control the
rotational speed of the turbine by limiting the flow of air through the turbine. This
functionality is similar to blade pitch control for a wind turbine. Moreover, it seems
reasonable that pitch control may accompany bypass valves in the future as a method of
controlling the turbine speed and excessive air pressure conditions within the chamber,
although this idea has not been published.
Typically in research, bypass valves are assumed to allow linear air flow with
infinite pressure release ability [23]. In practice, bypass valves are not linear due to air
flow turbulence. They also have an upper air flow limit that restricts the rate at which
pressure may be released [2]. These assumptions are acceptable within limits but will not
hold in extreme conditions, which are likely to be encountered in an ocean environment.
The best way to overcome these limits will be to install valves with larger capacity or
multiple smaller valves.
For the sake of analysis, the response time of bypass valves is assumed to be
infinitesimal [2]. In reality, the time it takes the valve to respond cannot be neglected.
Not only does the valve itself take time to smooth transients, the valve control system
takes time to react to changing conditions. The topic of improved response time has not
received much attention while control techniques of bypass valves have. Unfortunately,

39
the control method depends on the air chamber dimensions, the turbine and valves used,
and wave climate.
The aim of air pressure and flow control should be to improve response time and
maximize energy capture. This goal may be achieved using bypass valves but
researchers may benefit by looking to the wind energy industry for motivation and new
ideas. Ultimately, a universal pressure control technique should be constructed that
applies to all OWC applications.
5.1.2 Turbine Design
For the past twenty years, most OWC research has focused on the Wells Turbine,
pictured in Figure 5.1, as the solution to bidirectional flow. Even though this turbine is
not outdated, it may be advantageous to investigate new schemes. Energetech Australia
Pty Limited has taken the lead by exploring a new turbine design [9]. While the energy
capture efficiency of a rotor prop cannot exceed the theoretical maximum Betz limit of
16/27 or roughly 52% [24], there is room to improve a bidirectional turbine since studies
have shown that rotor blade sections specially designed for a Wells Turbine increases the
efficient operating range [23]. Once again, the procedures for wind turbine blade design
in a variable speed environment may be cross-applied to this situation.

40
Figure 5.1 Uni-directional Wells Turbine [8]
5.1.3 Moorings and Installation
As wave energy advocates should know, the potential locations for shoreline
OWCs are limited. This opens the door to deep water or near shore OWC installations.
The restricting factor in this case is that the installation of such devices is complex and
expensive [9]. Special moorings (foundations) are needed to keep the device safely
situated during the worst weather conditions. The foundation must provide the proper
balance between slack and rigidity so that the OWC is not jerked around but may also
move in response to intense wave crests so as to dissipate the impact [9, 11]. At the same
time, the cables used to attach the OWC to the foundation must be sturdy and impervious

41
to the harsh underwater climate. These issues should be faced with an emphasis on
economical solutions so that an effective and less costly installation process is developed.
5.2 Point Absorber
The point absorber idea has been around as long as the OWC but has received
less attention until now. Actually, the point absorber has overtaken the OWC as a
commercial device in the US [17]. Many of the same problems that the OWC encounters
are also seen with the point absorber such as moorings and foundations. The point
absorber must also cope with a control strategy to bring the device’s motion in resonance
with the waves so as to maximize energy capture while limiting movement when
encountering extreme wave conditions [11]. Akin to the need for new bidirectional
turbine designs for the OWC, new power take-off methods for the point absorber need to
be studied. Both the power take-off and control strategies have garnered considerable
research interest recently.
5.2.1 Control Techniques
The control strategy employed depends heavily on the type of device being
operated, yet the same methods and principles underlie all device types. The device
should oscillate with the same frequency as the over passing waves through some means
of damping. The damping may come from buoyancy tanks or the physical resistive force
of a generator [1, 3]. The methods for controlling generator damping are well known, but
the methods for controlling the oscillation of a point absorber by means of buoyancy
tanks calls for improvement. The main problem with buoyancy control is the time

42
required to either pump air or seawater into tanks as is conventionally done to alter the
buoyancy of underwater devices [19]. To overcome these time constraints, the point
absorber should predict future wave conditions rather than react to present conditions.
This would require predictive algorithms based on data collected from sensors
strategically placed around the point absorbers. Current research has focused on solving
these types of prediction problems [20]. The obstacles facing researchers are breaking
down the three dimensional nature of wave movement and applying it to control of the
point absorber. In practice, the buoyancy tanks should be used for large scale oscillation
control while generator damping could counteract transient forces [3, 4].
The use of meteorological data from an organization such as the National
Weather Service could be used in conjunction with the sensors to prepare the point
absorbers for severe weather as well. In the case of dangerous weather, the point
absorbers may be sunk to a safe depth to ride out a storm. On the other hand, if damage
to the point absorber is not expected, the damping may be increased to limit stroke length
– the distance the point absorber pumps up and down – during a storm.
5.2.2 Power Take-Off Methods
Designers face the task of selecting a power take-off method to convert the linear
motion of a point absorber to electrical energy. The conversion method must take into
account that the linear forces transferred to the point absorber can exceed 1 MN with
velocities of 2.2 m/s [3]. Typically, this conversion process involves some intermediary
to convert linear motion to the rotary motion needed to run a conventional electric

43
generator. The most popular and widely-used intermediary is a hydraulic system.
Conversely, linear generators or magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) generators can directly
convert the point absorber’s linear motion to electrical energy. Another power take-off
approach involves a contact-less force transmission system. There is no consensus on
which method is best, and each has its pros and cons based on the designer’s criteria.
5.2.2.1 Hydraulic System
The hydraulic system in a point absorber consists of a piston, a hydraulic pump,
and a hydraulic motor. The linear wave motion acts to move the piston up and down
which pumps pressurized hydraulic fluid through the hydraulic pump. The pump then
feeds the hydraulic motor. This motor creates the rotary motion needed to drive a
standard electric generator, and by coupling the hydraulic motor to a generator, the
conversion process is complete.
Hydraulic systems have advantages and disadvantages. The hydraulic power
take-off method is mechanically inefficient [9]. Because the conversion process is
indirect, losses occur during pumping and turning the hydraulic motor in addition to the
losses present in the generator and inverter. Another problem is the many moving parts
of a hydraulic system. More moving parts means more maintenance issues, and the
WECs should be as maintenance-free as possible since access for maintenance will be
difficult. Although not all of the hydraulics-based point absorbers use oil as the
hydraulic fluid (some use seawater), it should be well noted that a broken seal or valve
could leak oil. Also, hydraulic systems are designed to work at speeds lower than those

44
experienced by a WEC which are typically on the order of 2 m/s [5].
Some companies prefer hydraulics over direct drive systems. A central reason is
that hydraulic systems have a proven track record and most engineers are well versed in
their use as opposed to direct drives. Furthermore, hydraulic systems are usually less
expensive to design and build than direct drives [11]. If hydraulics are to succeed,
research should be undertaken to improve efficiency and performance at low speeds and
to develop better hydraulic fluids for undersea use.
5.2.2.2 Linear Generator
Linear generators are like conventional rotary generators in that they convert
mechanical energy to electrical energy; however, the rotor in a linear generator – usually
referred to as a ‘translator’ in this application [4] -- moves in an up and down fashion as
opposed to the rotational motion of a traditional generator’s rotor. The benefit of the
linear generator is that it directly converts wave motion into electricity rather than relying
on gearboxes and hydraulics as intermediaries. Thus, it has fewer moving parts and is
more efficient than a hydraulic system. The drawback to using a linear generator is that
it must be specially tailored to fit the specifications of a WEC and so is not something
that can be bought off-the-shelf like a hydraulics-based system. This makes using linear
generators a more expensive option. Nevertheless, costs can be minimized through mass
production.
There has been a bustle of activity surrounding linear generators for WEC
applications in the past few years. The main topic is dedicated to analyzing different
linear generator topologies to classify the ones best suited for a point absorber. A cursory

45
comparison has been made between

● permanent magnet (PM) synchronous
● induction
● switched reluctance
● longitudinal flux PM (LFPM)
● and transverse flux PM (TFPM)
machines [4, 5]. For a WEC application, there are several criteria that differentiate these
machines from each other. One of the more important criteria is the amount of shear
stress that the machine can provide to offset the high forces at low speeds experienced by
direct drives in WECs, and by virtue of design, a physically large machine is needed [4].
The reciprocating force of a machine is coupled to its size, which should be minimized
while providing the necessary force. Other comparative criteria include cost, efficiency,
and durability.
Out of all the machines listed, the TFPM pictured in Figure 5.2 is considered the
most suitable for the direct drive of a point absorber [4, 5]. It has the best efficiency and
is also the smallest because of its high shear stress density. The PM synchronous
machine may also be considered as an alternative to the TFPM, but the TFPM is
considerably more efficient [4]. While a TFPM is costly, it is still slightly cheaper than
the PM synchronous.

46
Figure 5.2 TFPM Machine with Flux Concentration and Stationary Magnets [4]
Despite the advantages of using TFPMs in point absorbers, they have a few setbacks that
will need further research consideration. As mentioned, the TFPM supplies more shear
stress than the other machines listed, with levels ranging from 20 – 40 kN/m2, and so can
provide 1 MN of reactionary force [4]. The problem with providing so much shear stress
by means of neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) permanent magnets is the substantial
attractive forces between the stator and translator. The bearings suffer dangerous loads
as a result and thus become a maintenance concern. To balance the attractive forces
between the stator and translator, a double-sided stator may be used – as opposed to a
single-sided stator where the windings are placed on one side [4, 5]. Despite better
balance with a double-sided stator, deviations in the air gap still occur with the
consequence of severe bearing loads. It may be beneficial to look into triple or
quadruple-sided stator windings for the TFPM to alleviate these problems.

47
5.2.2.3 Magnetohydrodynamic Generator
The magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) generator is also a direct drive
mechanical/electrical converter. To date, there is only one company, Scientific
Applications & Research Associates (SARA) Inc., employing this method, and
depending on their success, others may follow suit. Unlike other MHD generators,
SARA’s MHD generator works on the principle that flowing seawater can conduct
electric current in the presence of a strong magnetic field. Over passing waves induce
seawater to flow through a hollow tube with flared inlet and outlet sections which boost
water velocity by means of the Bernoulli principle. Electromagnets or other mechanisms
such as super conductors generate a magnetic field perpendicular to the flow of water.
The strong magnetic field stimulates an electric current in the passing seawater which is
collected by electrodes placed in the tube [12].
This conversion method is highly desirable due to the lack of moving parts. It
may be harder to sell industry on the MHD idea since it has not been extensively used or
studied. Consequently, SARA Inc. is working to create a 50 – 100 kW MHD unit with
the help of money from the US Dept. of Energy.
5.2.2.4 Contact-Less Force Transmission System
The contact-less force transmission system (CFTS) proposed by Oregon State
University is one solution to the problem of designing a system that can withstand severe
weather since there is no mechanical link between the float and the power take-off. In
this buoy type system, pictured in Figure 5.3, a magnetic field between the piston’s

48
permanent magnets and the iron cylinder attached to the float acts as the intermediary,
creating a reluctance force. The difference between the CFTS and a linear generator is
the use of a ball screw and ball screw nut combination to convert the linear motion of the
piston containing the permanent magnets to rotary motion for use in a rotary generator.
The current prototype can produce 50 W of peak power [26].
Figure 5.3 Contact-Less Force Transmission System [26]

49
Chapter 6 Proposed Future Research

Focus for All WECs
Some areas of research would benefit all WEC types. For example, developing
high pressure underwater electrical cables with improved flexibility and strength would
increase the reliability of every wave and offshore wind energy farm. With regards to
power electronics, constructing an inverter especially for WEC applications would
enhance operation. Since waves are irregular in direction and size, induced voltages in
the generator vary in magnitude and frequency. Thus, the power developed by any of the
wave energy converters will be irregular. For this reason, an inverter is needed to smooth
the output power and correct the power factor. Current research simply states that
voltage source inverter control surpasses current source inverter control for better
efficiency and power factor [3]. In addition to maximizing power output and stabilizing
grid connections with the inverter, the WEC might require a bidirectional inverter to
provide power back into the machine for electrical damping. The damping supplied will
allow operation closer to the resonant wave frequency [5].
Another area of interest is the hydrodynamic response of wave energy converters
and their influence on the surroundings. When laying out a wave energy farm, how the
wave climate changes when the WECs are introduced and how the WECs affect each
other will need further investigation. This type of research is currently being undertaken

50
[27] with the conclusion that such simulations require significant computational effort.
Table 6.1 summarizes other research topics needed in the field of wave energy.
Table 6.1 Wave Energy Research Topics
Wave Energy Research Topics

Mechanical Electrical Other Areas
Hydrodynamic characteristics Direct power take-off methods Weather forecasting for
Indirect power take-off methods Power conversion real-time wave behavior
Mechanical reliability Power controls Navigating around devices
Long term fatigue of: Power transmission Standardized testing of devices
● Moorings Electrical reliability Cost effective:
● Foundation Electrical maintenance ● Waterproofing
● Anchorage Grid connection requirements ● Corrosion resistant materials
Mechanical maintenance ● Offshore access
Installation

51
Chapter 7 Environmental Impact
There are several environmental consequences to weigh before installing wave
energy converters. Each type of WEC poses different environmental risks as seen in
Table 7.1. The main difficulties involve the consequences to sea life and ship navigation
[10]. Wave energy developers will need to address methods to mitigate as many of the
negative environmental impacts before wave energy is an acceptable method of energy
production. Additionally, governments should develop a standard procedure to assess
any proposed wave energy farms

52
Table 7.1 Environmental Impact of Wave Energy Converters

Environmental Impact
(X = possible impact, XX = more impact than other device)
Point
Problem Area Impacts OWC
Absorber
Animals Underwater noise emissions X X
Above water noise emissions X
Accidents:
● Animal collisions with device X X
● Animals swept into chambers X
Food chain changes due to change in environment X X
Electromagnetic fields and vibrations affect mammal sonar
and fish reproduction X X
Sedimentation and turbidity around device affects fish
reproduction X XX
Unnatural reef (possibly desirable) X X
Fauna and Seabed Loss of seabed due to cabling and structural foundation X XX
Sedimentation structural changes X XX
Fauna changes due to foundation/hard substrates X XX
Fauna influenced by electromagnetic fields X X
Coastline Current and sediment changes for shoreline devices X
Decreased shoreline wave intensity due to offshore devices
(possibly desirable) X X
Visual Impact Above water visual intrusion X
Pollution Oil leakage X X
Debris from ship collisions X X

53
Part II

54
Chapter 8 Governing Bodies Involved

in Wave Energy Licensing
Table 8.1 List of Abbreviations Used in Part II
Acronym Definitions
Acronym Definition
ACoE Army Corps of Engineers
AMT Alternative Minimum Tax
DOC Dept. of Commerce
DOI Dept. of Interior
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FERC Federal Energy Regulator Commision
MACRS Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System
MMS Minerals Manangement Service
NARUC National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
PUC Public Utility Commission
ROC Renewables Obligation Certificate

55
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RTO Regional Transmission Organizations
TREC Tradable Renewable Energy Credit
WEC Wave Energy Converter
Wave energy is a newly emerging industry, and as such, does not have a clearly
defined process to cut through the bureaucratic red tape. At this point, there is no central
licensing agency to direct the disparate other agencies and no licensing exemptions for
pilots or prototypes, although the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has tried to
assert jurisdiction over all offshore ocean energy projects, citing them as “power houses”
within Federal waters under the Federal Power Act [28, 29]. Future legislation will be
needed to assign tasks to individual government agencies without stifling over-regulation
or conflicting regulatory policies, which will suppress wave energy development. These
agencies will handle all aspects of the installation and maintenance process. The next
section mentions many of the agencies currently involved and describes their
involvement.
8.1 Governmental Agencies and Their Regulations
Several Federal and State agencies will be involved over the lifetime of a wave
energy park. The expected roles of these agencies is to:
1) Lease/permit/site offshore land
2) Provide environmental review and ongoing inspection
3) Insure safety of installation
4) Regulate energy markets

56
5) Handle legal disputes (i.e. siting disputes or challenges to right-of-way)

Table 8.2 outlines some of the major agencies involved and gives a brief
description of their role
Table 8.2 Roles of Government Agencies in Licensing and Operating
Government Agencies Involved in WEC Installation Process
Agency Role
Holds jurisdiction under the authority of the Federal Power Act to

issue licenses for up to 50 years for non-federal hydrokinetic and
ocean technologies, and can provide limited waivers from
licensing to developers of pilot projects. Oversees generation,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
state grid interconnection, and interstate electric transmission.
(FERC)
(Also: Oversees issuance of stock and debt securities for energy
companies. Reviews officer and director positions held jointly
between utility companies and firms with which they conduct
business. Sets wholesale electricity rates.) [30]
Energy Policy Act of 2004 gives MMS the power to distribute

Minerals Management Service under ocean floor space through least or rent payments to the federal
Dept. of the Interior (DOI: MMS) ** government. The Federal Government would share this revenue
with the nearest State. MMS also leads the NEPA review [31].
Provides environmental assessment or impact statement and

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACoE)
issues permits to construct facilities on federal lands. [31]
Supplies environmental information and ensures ocean/coastal

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
activity does not threaten the ecosystem. Ensures sustainable use
Administration under Dept. of
of resources. May allocate wave energy rights in the future. [28,
Commerce (DOC: NOAA)
29]
Ensures safety of shipping routes around marine installations.

U.S. and State Coast Guards
[32]
National Association of Regulatory Provides indirect jurisdiction through each State Public Utility
Utility Commissioners (NARUC) Commission. [33]
Provides jurisdiction over construction and maintenance of state

State Public Utility Commission (PUC)
utilities (water, electricity, communications) [33]
State agency responsible for land and

Siting and project land use planning [34]
natural resources

57
Siting and project land use planning (states have jurisdiction on

State agencies responsible for coastal
land up to 3 miles from shore under the Submerged Lands Act
zones
[31]) **
**Exception: Texas entered the nation as a sovereign state and retained title to lands 10.36 miles from
shore. Thus, Texas may control offshore leasing as opposed to MMS [35].
8.2 State vs. Federal Jurisdiction
In the United States, both Federal and State agencies oversee the installation of
electrical facilities with State jurisdiction varying from state to state. This situation
mirrors the layout present in the European Union between the EU and member [36].
While states own offshore lands up to three miles from shore under the Submerged Lands
Act [31], the Federal government owns all lands beyond that. However, the federal
government reserves the right to develop water power in state waters under the
Submerged Lands Act as well. States maintain control over construction of new
generation and transmission by issuing certificates of public necessity and convenience,
yet FERC may preempt the State by issuing a hydro license [31].
The level of State or Federal interaction with developers depends on many
factors, and in most cases, roles at the State and Federal level overlap. For example, the
Federal government oversees environmental impact assessments under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) while approximately twenty states have their own
“little NEPA” programs [37]. Generally, Federal interaction occurs when electricity is
crossing state boundaries, when federal lands are used or affected, when federally
regulated natural resources are involved, or when the project site overlaps an endangered
species habitat/migration corridor [34].

58
State jurisdiction:
1) Environmental assessment
2) Siting (varies from state to state – sometimes siting regulation is local instead of
state headed which involves county commissions, planning and zoning boards, or
other local government departments responsible for conditions of approval)
3) Safety: Construction and Maintenance
4) Laying of transmission cables
Federal jurisdiction:
1) Environmental assessment if project overlaps endangered species habitat
2) Interstate transmission
3) Approval of wholesale electricity rates
Proposed additional regulatory agencies recommended by the FERC [30]:

1) Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO)
2) Generator Interconnection Group
8.3 Future Recommendations
Given the fact that offshore wind energy penetrated the energy market some time
ago but has no clearly defined bureaucratic process yet, improving government regulation
is an ongoing issue. For example, Cape Wind project has seventeen Federal and State
agencies reviewing it since the agencies involved are not accustomed or properly
prepared to process this type of permitting request. One would expect that fewer
agencies will be involved when the process is streamlined. At the present rate of pace,
this may take years to accomplish.

59
Chapter 9 Installation Process for

Wave Energy Converters
Current wave energy conversion siting processes have been heavily influenced by
the government’s direct involvement in the projects. At the time this report was written,
there were only two operable, commercial wave energy installations in the U.S., both of
which are licensed as prototypes and contracted to Ocean Power Technologies through
the government – one through the Navy in Hawaii and the other through the New Jersey
Board of Public Utilities. Even so, both projects had to meet economic and
environmental criteria.
9.1 Siting Issues
As mentioned previously, the process for siting a WEC installation varies from
state to state. Each state – and local government – has its own distinctive rules and
regulations. For instance, some states require that the state public utility commission
issue a certificate of need before the project may begin. Common site review and
permitting issues include:
1) Energy transmission (new transmission lines and interconnections)
2) Resource assessments (logical place for such an installation)
3) Permitting processes (agencies involved)
4) Study of the population(s) affected (creation of local jobs, community benefits,
hazards, public acceptance/opposition, etc.)
5) Resource rights (ocean waves in this case, wind in the case of wind energy)

60
6) Environmental laws
9.2 Recommended Siting Process Improvements
Suggestions for improving/streamlining the siting process:

1) Clearly defined laws
- Federally mandated state-level siting statutes (create laws with project
requirements)
- State mandated local government siting rules (state may create model
ordinances that local governments can implement)
2) Set time frame
- Reasonable public comment period
- Limit amount of time to issue permits
- Expedite the judicial review process when siting decisions are contested
3) Appoint one state agency to coordinate all state agencies involved in the siting
process

61
Chapter 10 Licensing Process

Comparison: Wave vs. Wind
Energy
The process for permitting a wave energy farm should be similar to the current
process for offshore wind installations. A key difference between the two is public
acceptance due to the visibility factor. Whereas a wave farm constructed of underwater
buoys or floating water column devices will not be highly visible from the shore, an
offshore wind facility will create a noticeable eye-sore. Along these lines, the offshore
wind farms must meet FAA airspace requirements unlike wave energy farms.
Nevertheless, each company must face the arduous Federal, State, and local licensing
processes. Appendix A2 gives a comparison of offshore wind and wave energy
installations planned in the U.S. with key licensing issues.
10.1 Wind Installation Process
Galveston, Texas: The state of Texas is eager to be the first with an offshore
wind energy installation. They own OCS land out to 10 miles but still have to obtain a
permit to install from the ACoE. The fact that Texas has a central agency dealing with
this installation speeds up the process and lowers the associated legal/permitting cost.
Having one agency deal with the process also ensures that certain tasks are not completed

62
twice by different agencies [35].
Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts: Cape Wind, which has not begun installation,
has been in the litigation process since 2004 due to endless public and Federal legal
proceedings against the project. This public outcry has led to a mounting number of legal
issues, in addition to expenses, that Cape Wind must deal with. This process can become
unduly cumbersome and overwhelm new companies with experimental technologies.
The process is even more confusing for wave energy companies because no one has gone
through the entire procedure before – the two operating facilities are merely prototypes
not connected to the grid and thus have not completed the process. No Federal or State
agency has a clear cut role; however, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has
taken the lead in asserting authority – as mentioned in Section 8 and further in this
section – over licensing in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers while the Dept.
of the Interior, specifically the Minerals Management Service, has taken over leasing the
land [38].
10.2 Wave Energy Installation Process
A power struggle has taken hold at the Federal level, and confusion still exists as
to which agency has jurisdiction over what. The companies Energetech, Aqua Energy
Group, and Verdant Power have petitioned FERC saying that FERC does not have
jurisdiction but to no avail [29]. FERC justifies their jurisdiction by stating that ocean
energy converters constitute “power houses” under the Federal Energy Act. They also
state that a non-Federal hydroelectric project must be licensed if it occupies lands or

63
navigable waters of the United States, utilizes surplus water or waterpower from a
government dam, is located on a body of water over which Congress has Commerce
Clause jurisdiction, and affects the interests of interstate or foreign commerce [28].
Verdant was granted a temporary license by FERC because
1) The devices will not supply electricity to the grid.
2) The installation will have little effect on interstate commerce (Verdant may not
sell electricity during the test period).
3) The technology being tested is experimental.
4) The duration of their initial test installation is short and meant only to prepare
them for the full FERC license application process.
A search through FERC documents shows no correspondence with Ocean Power
Technologies. So it seems they have bypassed the FERC process for now, a big boon for
them in terms of fewer initial costs in deploying their prototype for testing purposes.
Whenever it is possible to bypass the Federal level in any licensing, the cost is
dramatically less. Nevertheless, they will have to deal with FERC once they are ready to
sell electricity.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACoE) will conduct an environmental
assessment of each offshore project (wind and wave), and the Minerals Management
Service (MMS) will oversee the implementation of NEPA regulations regardless of
whether FERC is involved. Hence, the duties of the MMS and ACoE overlap in this
case, creating extra strain on new offshore wind and wave energy developers. This
process is intensive, consequently AquaEnergy had to hire an outside contractor to

64
prepare a Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment document [32], adding to their
installation costs. Another case of overlapping duties is the separate public comment
periods carried out by both the ACoE and FERC [39, 40], which partly determines each
agency’s course of licensing actions.
Whereas it is important to provide a comprehensive environmental review before
installing an offshore ocean energy device, this type of review may prove to be too much
for the prototyping phase now occurring in the ocean energy community. When Ocean
Power Technologies went public with their plan to install a prototype off the coast of
New Jersey, the public struck back with an accusation that there was not enough
regulatory oversight to the project, especially since New Jersey Gov. Codey had imposed
a 15-month moratorium on offshore wind turbines [41]. Thanks to New Jersey’s Dept. of
Environmental Protection, Ocean Power Technologies was able to proceed.
10.3 Future Licensing Needs
The treatment of similar ocean projects by government agencies, such as FERC,
has not been uniform. The licensing process has caused confusion, and each company
has gone through a different process as policies regarding ocean energy development
have changed with new legislation and policy decisions (e.g. recently giving offshore
land leasing power to the Interior Department). Undoubtedly, new rules and policies
must be instituted to aid the licensing process for both offshore wind and wave power
installation.

65
Chapter 11 Renewable Energy

Incentives
Renewable energy projects would not exist if it were not for government
subsidies. If no incentives existed, the most economically viable renewable energy
would probably be wind energy, but this technology depended on incentives to stay
commercially active not long ago. The fact of the matter is that all forms of energy are
subsidized in the U.S. It is no surprise that renewable energy will continue to receive
government support from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 even though most of the $80
billion dollars goes to oil, coal, and nuclear [42]. And with the passage of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, wave energy may now receive the same benefits as other renewable
energy technologies. Appendix A3 identifies current official Federal strategies to support
renewables.
11.1 Renewable Energy Program Classifications
How renewable energy incentives are rated depends on the desired outcome of the
incentive distributor. If the incentive program is meant to increase renewable energy
production, then the implementation method would differ from that of an incentive meant
to introduce new technologies. In order to begin an analysis, one must know the base
case without any incentives. This is used for comparison against models where

66
incentives are added. In reality, there are many incentives, and their individual effects
cannot be easily identified but rather must be analyzed as a whole. Based on this, the
following section compares and contrasts many incentive programs.
The types of programs may be classified in many ways:

1) Market push or pull policies
2) Direct or indirect cash assistance
3) Low-cost debt financing
4) Customer choice
Market push and pull policies provide an umbrella for classifications 2-4 to be
placed into. With that in mind, a program is categorized as either a market push or pull
policy. Market push policies create a market for renewables and directly reduce the cost
of renewable energy for the customer. Market pull policies reduce renewables
development costs or increase revenue. Whether a program provides direct/indirect cash
assistance, low-cost debt financing, or customer choice is independent of its market
push/pull classification.
An indirect cash incentive would take the form of a tax incentive whereby the
operator’s tax burden is lowered. The direct cash incentive provides cash subsidies or
price support payments to the wave energy developer. The direct cash incentive is more
desirable from the standpoint that investors may not be able to fully absorb all tax
incentives due to their alternative minimum tax (AMT) obligation. The AMT weakens
the effectiveness of tax incentives since it requires the financier to have a sufficient tax
load.

67
Low-cost debt financing programs decrease costs incurred by project financiers to
acquire capital usually by means of loan strategies. Customer choice programs involve
the rights of the customer to purchase electricity generated by renewable sources.
Table 11.1 illustrates possible renewable energy incentives [36, 43-55] as further
described in the next section.
Table 11.1 Renewable Energy Incentive Classifications

Direct Indirect Low-Cost
Renewable Energy Market Push/ Cash Cash Debt Customer
Incentive Market Pull Incentive Incentive Financing Choice
Accelerated Depreciation Schedule X X
Direct Investment Incentive
X
(Grants)
Direct Production Incentive X
Fixed Tariff (German) Market Pull X
Government Subsidized Loans X
Investment Tax Credit X
Production Tax Credit X
Project Loan Guarantees X
Property Tax Reduction X
Renewables Portfolio Standard --
via Tradable Renewable Energy X
Credits Market Push
Sales Tax Reduction X
Utility Green Pricing Program X
11.2 Description of Incentive Types
Table 11.1 illustrates many renewable energy incentives possibilities. These are
categorized by how they operate. This report uses four categories: customer choice,
direct cash incentives, indirect cash incentives, and low-cost capital programs.

68
11.2.1 Customer Choice Incentives
11.2.1.1 Renewables Portfolio Standard – Tradable Renewable Energy
Credits
Tradable renewable energy credits (TREC) are allocated to renewable energy
suppliers for each kWh generated. Renewable energy suppliers may sell TRECs separate
from the power itself. The TREC plays the key role in instituting the Renewables
Portfolio Standard (RPS) that is becoming popular among several states at increasing
renewables. While the RPS may be implemented without TRECs, it would be much
more difficult for energy suppliers to guarantee that their product came from a certified
renewable generation facility. Electricity providers would have to buy/lease a renewable
energy facility, provide a distinctive path for the renewable-generated electricity, and
match the variable energy profile of renewables to customers’ load profiles. With
TRECs, these transaction barriers are lifted, and the cost of complying with the RPS and
selling renewable energy on the market decreases [48]. And in the spirit of capitalism,
TRECs depend on the private market for their realization [47]. As such, market forces
will theoretically provide competition and deliver renewable energy at the lowest price;
however, the inherent instability in the energy markets will cause the prices of TRECs to
fluctuate and may also cause instability in the TREC market.
A considerable advantage of tradable credits is that they may be sold in both the
regulated and deregulated energy markets. This is a valuable property, which will bridge
the gap in market structures. Not only that, any individual customer can purchase TRECs

69
no matter who their electricity provider is. In the U.S., more than 20 companies actively
market TRECs [44]. TRECs have also become popular with nonresidential customers.
For example, Whole Foods market purchased enough RECs to supply all their stores and
offices with renewable energy.
11.2.1.2 Utility Green Pricing Program
Utility green pricing programs are closely linked with the RPS and TRECs. As
many states push for the RPS, utilities are required to provide a certain amount of their
electricity from renewable sources, which may be obtained through TRECs. It has been
shown that the effectiveness of utility green pricing is independent of utility ownership
(private vs. public) once size is controlled for [45]. Although this type of scheme usually
refers to pricing of renewables in noncompetitive, i.e. traditionally regulated, electricity
markets, it may be extended to the deregulated market. In some of the deregulated retail
electricity markets, customers may switch providers to obtain their electricity from green
sources, but again, the term ‘utility green pricing program’ does not necessarily apply to
the deregulated market.
The number of participants in green pricing programs grows each year and as of
2005, these programs sell approximately 2.7 billion kWh annually [56]. There are
several pricing methods for these programs. The majority of larger programs offer fixed
pricing schemes for the customers, where the customer signs a contract to purchase the
renewable energy for a fixed price over a fixed period of time [57]. On the business side
of things, this helps finance renewable energy installations because the price paid for

70
each kW may be fixed by the utility company with which the renewable generator has a
contract with or is owned by, thereby enabling the renewable energy company to obtain
financing since they can plan their balance sheets ahead of time and show evidence to the
lender that the project is profitable. NREL estimates that more than 520 MW of new
renewable capacity was installed as of 2004 as a result of these programs [58].
11.2.2 Direct Cash Incentive
11.2.2.1 Fixed Tariffs
Fixed tariffs require utility providers to purchase renewable energy at fixed
prices, set by some regulating agency. A case study between Germany and U.K. shows
that the fixed tariff structure in Germany created more renewable energy capacity and
generation than the U.K.’s Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROC), similar to the
RPS, even though the U.K. has better resources [36]. One may question whether the
ROC was well managed since the RPS has been successful in the U.S. This also brings
up the argument that the tariffs do not expose project developers to price competition,
and it is assumed that renewable energy is not provided at the lowest possible price in
Germany [36]. Nevertheless, fixed tariffs enable newer technologies to compete on a
level playing field for the meantime. A reasonable solution to this problem may be to
switch over to TRECs from fixed tariffs after a predetermined time period, thus allowing
the renewable generating company to become settled before being introduced to market
pressures. This will help the company secure debt financing in order to begin operations
and purchase capital but then introduce it to a dose of market competition.

71
11.2.2.2 Direct Production Incentive
The direct production incentive provides renewable generators with cash
payments based upon the amount of electricity generated by the facility [54]. This
promotes renewable energy facilities that perform well (i.e. they produce reasonable
amounts of electricity). Unlike fixed tariffs, this money is provided by the government
rather than the utility provider. A government subsidy of this sort allows renewable
generators to compete with traditional electricity providers without losing money.
Customers will not directly pay more for renewable energy with this incentive, but they
will pay more indirectly through government taxes [53]. Since the direct production
incentive is like cash, it increases revenue directly and helps the renewables company
sustain lower-cost debt [47], a valuable feature for such capital intensive projects. The
problem with implementing a production incentive is the complexity involved in
documenting the amount of electricity produced and distributing benefits annually.
11.2.2.3 Direct Investment Incentive
A direct investment incentive is much like a grant in that a generator receives
cash for investing in renewable energy [47], which effectively reduces the capital cost of
the renewable energy project. From the vantage point of the investor, a direct investment
incentive is highly desirable due to the large up-front costs of installing a renewable
generating facility. Conversely, investment incentives do not ensure that the facility
performs well like the production incentive does [53]. This drawback may be overcome
by combining investment and production incentives into one package. Then again, the

72
investment incentive is preferred over the production incentive because the one-time
payment of the investment incentive is easier to implement than the ongoing yearly
payments of the production incentive.
To recap, the investment incentive works to increase renewable generation
capacity while the production incentive rewards facilities that produce more electricity.
If a policymaker’s goal is to increase both the capacity and electrical output of renewable
energy sources, then a mixture of the two incentives should be implemented.
11.2.3 Indirect Cash Incentive
11.2.3.1 Production Tax Credit
The production tax credit operates similar to the direct production incentive. The
main difference between the two is that the direct production incentive provides cash
while the production tax credit acts to lower taxes [59]. In this scheme, the renewable
facility receives an annual tax credit linked to the amount of electricity produced. The
main shortcoming of the tax credit when compared to the direct incentive is the
alternative minimum tax (AMT) requirement. The AMT causes the investor to not fully
absorb the credit if they do not have a sufficient tax load – the baseline tax load [47].
Another limitation is that nontaxable entities may not use the tax credit. As with the
direct production incentive, the production tax credit rewards facilities that perform well.
11.2.3.2 Investment Tax Credit
Investment tax credits work the same way as direct investment incentives;

73
however, financiers receive tax credits for investments rather than cash. This benefits
equity investors who receive a tax credit for their capital investment in renewable energy
facilities [47]. The same tax credit drawbacks mentioned with regards to the production
tax credit exist for the investment tax credit. Along the same lines as direct production
and investment incentives, the investment tax credit increases renewable generation
capacity but does not guarantee electrical output as the production tax credit does. Also,
investment tax credits are easier to implement than production tax credits since the
investment tax credit is a one-time deal while the production tax credit must be
administered annually. This may be why the investment tax credit has historically been
one of the leading methods to stimulate renewable energy development [47].
11.2.3.3 State and Local Sales Tax Reduction
Reducing sales tax on the components of a renewable energy facility reduces the
installation and overall levelized cost of the project [44]. Given that renewable energy
projects have high capital costs, it makes sense to decrease sales tax on the materials.
This places renewable energy on a level playing field with traditional facilities since
fossil fuels are typically exempt from sales taxes [47]. A reduction in sales tax will also
help increase renewable energy capacity
11.2.3.4 Property Tax Reduction
Property taxes are usually imposed as a percentage of the assessed value of a
facility and can be more significant than sales taxes. Therefore, property tax
exemptions/reductions may be more effective than sales tax reductions [47]. Whether or

74
not reducing property tax affects wave energy developers depends on how the Minerals
Management Service (MMS) regulates offshore land leasing. If the MMS decides to
merely demand rent or lease payments, reducing property taxes would not be a viable
option. Regardless of how the MMS implements its land leasing system, simply
reducing the amount of money paid to use offshore land will decrease operating costs and
likely increase renewable energy capacity.
11.2.3.5 Accelerated Depreciation Schedule
Depreciation in the U.S. tax code allows companies to claim the loss of asset
value as a noncash expense, which may be deducted from taxable income and thus
decrease annual income tax. The method of depreciation in the U.S. is known as the
Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS). MACRS sets the time period
over which an asset is depreciated and the percent of depreciation per year. A
nonrenewable power facility typically falls into either the 15- or 20-year depreciation
schedule [47], but with accelerated depreciation, the assets of a renewable energy facility
may be placed on the 5-year schedule where tax benefits occur earlier in the project
lifetime [54]. This is favorable to investors because of the time value of money
associated with inflation where an after-tax dollar is worth more today than in the future.
Accelerated depreciation can make a large difference on income tax since federal income
tax rates for corporations run at about 35% [47]. As with tax credits, the AMT may
decrease the effectiveness of accelerated depreciation.

75
11.2.4 Low-Cost Debt Financing
11.2.4.1 Government Subsidized Loans
The cost of debt, in the form of interest, is a significant portion of the levelized
cost of renewable energy installations because of the excessive loans needed to cover
high capital costs. Interest on these loans tend to be higher due to the fact that banking
institutions view renewable energy as a risky investment [47]. Without a secure stream
of revenue, as is the case with renewable energy, simply obtaining mortgage-style debt is
difficult. A government-subsidized loan would assist project developers finance their
project with lower interest rates. The major obstacle to implementing subsidized loans is
that the government assumes a level of risk that the project will default on the loan. The
government also has to take on the role of lender and all the overhead of administering
the loans.
11.2.4.2 Project Loan Guarantees
Project loan guarantees are an alternative to subsidized loans. Rather than
administering the loans directly, the government instead guarantees that the loan will be
repaid to the lender [55]. This helps new-technology such as wave energy obtain debt
financing. In addition, the time-honored procedures used by commercial and investment
banks to ensure project viability may be applied by the lender. This eliminates the
government loan review needed for government-subsidized loans, but all the risk is still
shifted from the project financiers and lender to the government [55].

76
11.3 Summary of Renewable Energy Incentives
Table 11.2 on the next page provides a brief description of each incentive
mentioned in this section. Out of all these incentives, four are actually currently
available: the direct production incentive (Section 11.2.2.2), production tax credit
(Section 11.2.3.1), accelerated depreciation (Section 11.2.3.5), and government loan
guarantee (Section 11.2.4.2) – see Appendix A3 for contact information on these
incentive programs. The success of any of these depends on many factors such as the
market price of power, the stability and length of time the incentive is available, and the
magnitude of the incentive. In general, renewable developers should not depend on these
incentive programs because some are subject to annual appropriations [54] or have a low
level of permanency.
Table 11.2 Description of Incentive Programs

Overview of Incentive Programs
Incentive Category Incentive Brief Description
Renewables Portfolio Standard TRECs are allocated to renewable

(RPS) – Tradable Renewable energy suppliers for each kWh generated
Energy Credits (TREC) and may be used to fulfill the RPS
Customer Choice Incentives
A special pricing program for

Utility Green Pricing Program
renewables as provided by utilities
Requires that utility providers purchase

Fixed Tariffs renewable energy at fixed prices, set by
some regulating agency
Direct Cash Incentive
Provides renewable generators with cash
Direct Production Incentive payments based upon the amount of
electricity generated by the facility.

77
Much like a grant in that a generator

Direct Investment Incentive receives cash for investing in renewable
energy
Provides an annual tax credit linked to

Production Tax Credit
the amount of electricity produced
Provides a one-time tax credit for

Investment Tax Credit
renewable energy investments
Reducing sales tax on the components of

State and Local Sales Tax a renewable energy facility reduces the
Reduction installation and overall levelized cost of
Indirect Cash Incentive the project
Reduces the price paid for land used in a
Property Tax Reduction
renewable energy installation
Allows companies to claim the loss of

Accelerated Depreciation asset value as a noncash expense which
Schedule may be deducted from taxable income
and thus decrease annual income tax
Assists project developers finance their

Government Subsidized Loans
project with lower interest rates
Low-Cost Debt Financing
The government guarantees that a loan
Project Loan Guarantees
will be repaid to the lender

78
Chapter 12 Cost Factors
The largest shortcoming of wave energy is its cost compared with conventional
sources. The Economist claims that wave power costs at least 18 or 20 cents per kWh
while conventional sources range between 3 and 5 cents per kWh [60]. Maturation of
wave energy conversion and economies of scale will alter this in the future with prices
projected to fall.
Several factors weigh in on the costs of developing a wave farm. These costs will
vary by region and wave energy converter topology, making analysis dynamic and
complex. The following is an enumeration of a few cost factors associated with a wave
farm.
1) Siting and permitting
2) Components: initial and ongoing capital costs
3) Installation
4) Operation and Maintenance
5) Taxes
6) Depreciation schedule
7) Financing costs: debt management (interest on loans which is tax deductible)
8) Project life time
9) Average annual energy production: capacity factor of individual technology in a
particular wave climate
Probably the most important factors have to do with the comparative weight of
project costs (installation, financing, operation, etc.) per kWh to the average annual

79
energy production. If the annual energy sales offset costs so as to be profitable over the
project lifetime, the project will be successful. The next section compares the capital and
operating costs of different technologies.

80
Chapter 13 Overall Economic

Analysis
“Moderately good wave climates should produce power using first

generation systems at a cost of around 10 cents US per kWh, and ideal
sites at a cost around 5 cents. Over time, on moderately good sites, with
capital cost savings from second generation designs, we can see the
technology regularly delivering electricity at around 4 cents US kWh.” –
Energetech America L.L.C. [61]
This statement from 2006 expounds on the benefits of the economies of scale
associated with mass production of wave energy devices and should hold true. With
increased fuel costs and fluctuating energy prices, a stable source of electricity such as
wave energy should become popular and thus increase demand. With conventional
supply versus demand analysis, this should bring about more wave power.
Each wave energy company has quoted different prices for their installed systems.
Differences are most likely due to the cost of the components and the various installation
methods. Seeing as how this technology is so new, the quoted price per installed kWh is
merely a good estimate. Table 13.1 includes a comparison of operating costs and
installation costs for various energy sources as presented to the Senate by Ocean Power
Technologies in 2001 [62]. An important point to be drawn from this information is that
the cost of wave energy is competitive with other sources when used as a primary power
source.

81
Table 13.1 Cost Comparison of Energy Sources

Installation / Capital Cost Comparison Between
Renewable Energy Sources (2001 $/kW) [62]
Cost as Primary Cost as Secondary
Energy Source Source (100 MW) Source (1 MW)
Coal Plant 1,500 - 3,500 n/a
Fuel Cells n/a 5,000
Wind/Solar 4,000 8,000
Wave 2,300 6,200
Operating Cost Comparison with Traditional Power

Sources (2001 ¢/kWh) [62]
Cost as Primary Cost as Secondary
Energy Source Source (100 MW) Source (1 MW)
Photovoltaic (Solar) 10-15 25-50
Diesel n/a 12-100
Wind 5-6 10
Fossil Fuel 3-5 n/a
Wave 3-4 7-10
In-depth analysis of wind energy reveals that there is no single price for wind
energy, but a range of prices depending primarily on the wind resource (capacity factor),
the location (transmission line losses and cost of infrastructure), and cost of components.
This holds true for wave energy as well, the difference in this case being the capital cost
and the capacity factor associated with the wave climate. These variables cannot predict
the entire economic profile of wave energy because individual business models – how a
company operates – yield different results.

82
Part III

83
Chapter 14 Types of Linear

Generators
As mentioned in Part I, linear generators are favorable for direct power take-off in
the “point absorber” wave energy converter. Part III introduces the various linear
generators with their design parameters and control techniques.
There are many linear generator possibilities that have been investigated for wave
energy conversion as well as other applications such as the emergency power in a Maglev
train. Table 14.1 summarizes the many types with a listing of pros, cons, details, and
illustrations. In the following, PM will refer to “Permanent Magnet”.

84
Table 14.1 Description of Linear Generator Types
Induction Linear Generator
Figure 14.1 Axial Cross-Section of Double-Sided Induction Linear Generator [4]
Description Advantages Disadvantages

• A large airgap and low • Robust • Poor performance [4]
speed are most likely • When constructed with • Difficult to regulate
the cause for poor pure copper bars in the since the high currents
performance [4] translator (no iron), this (di/dt) necessary for
machine has no cogging control will collapse the
[4] terminal voltage [84]

85
Switched Reluctance Linear Generator
Figure 14.2 Axial Cross-Section of Double-Sided Switched Reluctance Linear Generator [4]

• Ratio of stator teeth to • Ease of four quadrant • Has nonlinear
rotor teeth in generator operation [74] characteristics:

is less than one. This • Simple, solid structure nonlinear inductance
configuration does not with windings only in paths and nonlinear
work for motor stator or translator [74] power converter
operation [4] • High fault tolerance and topology [74]
• Outperforms the linear high reliability when
induction machine and compared to other linear
the longitudinal flux drives [74]
machine with airgap
winding (no iron in
translator) [4]

86
Tubular PM Linear Generator
Figure 14.3 General Tubular Linear Generator Form [81]
Figure 14.4 Air-Cored Tubular Linear Generator with Axially Aligned PM [87]

87
Figure 14.5 Tubular Linear Generator with Radially Aligned PM [88]
Figure 14.6 Tubular Linear Generator with Axially Aligned PM [88]
Figure 14.7 Tubular Linear Generator with Halbach Aligned PM [88]

88

• May use radial (Figure • These machines have a • Difficult construction of
14.5), axial (Figure higher force-to-weight circular stator [64]

14.6), or Halbach ratio than the flat linear • Expense of construction
(Figure 14.7) aligned topology [82]

PMs in the translator. • High thrust force
The merits of each density and high

configuration are efficiency [63]
discussed later. • No end windings [63]
• The armature/stator may • Has zero net attractive
be air-cored (Figure radial force between the

14.4) or iron-cored stator and translator [63,
(Figure 14.3) [63, 81, 64]
87]
• The air-cored stator has
a high power factor but

low shear stress due to
lack of iron in the stator
[87]

89
Longitudinal Flux PM (LFPM) Linear Generator
Figure 14.8 Axial Cross-Section of Double-Sided Longitudinal Flux Linear Generator [5]
Figure 14.9 3-D View of Double-Sided Longitudinal Flux Linear Generator [64]

90
Figure 14.10 Radial Cross-Section of Eight-Sided Longitudinal Flux Linear Generator [64]

• The stator may have two • An airgap winding (no • Construction is
(Figure 14.8, Figure iron in the translator) complex, especially

14.9), four, six, or eight may be used to threading the windings
(Figure 14.10) sides eliminate magnetic [64]
which mimic the attraction between stator • High cost due to
circular structure of the and translator at the complexity but probably

tubular generator. expense of low shear less than tubular [64]
• Flux runs through the stress and cost • Large attractive forces
stator core in the axial efficiency exist between the

direction. • Easier construction than translator and the stator,
tubular generator contributing to cogging
• Many-sided stators [5]
reduce leakage
inductances at the edge
of the stator

91
Variable Reluctance PM (VRPM) Linear Generator

Includes the Transverse Flux PM (TFPM) and the Vernier Hybrid PM (VHPM)
Figure 14.11 Transverse Flux Linear Generator with Moving Magnets [4]
Figure 14.12 Transverse Flux Linear Generator with Stationary Magnets [4]

92

• Flux runs through the • The shear stress density • Has large leakage flux
iron u-cores, situated of conventional and therefore low power

radially machines range between factor.
2
• The magnets may be 20-40 kN/m , but the • Low power factor
stationary (Figure TFPM produces requires the use of an

14.12) or moving significantly more [4] overrated power
(Figure 14.11). • Are more efficient and converter [4]
• Stationary magnets are slightly less expensive • Large attractive forces
preferred because: (1) than the LFPM. exist between the

improved structural translator and the stator,
integrity; (2) reduced contributing to cogging
magnet material – stator [5]
is shorter than translator
[4]
14.1 Direction of PM Magnetization in the Tubular
Linear Generator
There are three different PM magnetization orientation possibilities in a tubular
linear generator: axial, radial, and Halbach. These were introduced in Table 14.1 and are
described in more detail below.
14.1.1 Axial
• The translator core is not needed for the flux path, so titanium may be used as a
support as done in [75]. This adds to structural integrity.
• Axially magnetized tubular generators have higher force density for the same outer
radius of armature windings [88].

93
• This requires more PM material than Halbach or radial magnets, an expense for
higher force density [88].
14.1.2 Radial
• Radial magnet flux eliminates flux density concentration at the magnet edge, which in
turn reduces the cogging force [80].
• The flux changes better compared to the axial alignment, thus the induced voltage
with radially magnetized PMs is higher [80].
14.1.3 Halbach
• Eliminates force ripple/cogging due to the nature of the curved flux path through the
magnet [88].
• Since the Halbach magnet is novel and less widely available, it is relatively expensive
[88].
14.2 General Notes on PM Linear Generators
Synchronous PM linear generators require a large number of winding turns to
obtain an acceptable induced voltage because of slow translator velocity [64, 84]. This
results in a large machine inductance, which causes low power factor and poor machine
regulation. However, since magnets in a PM machine add to the effective airgap, PM
machines have smaller cogging forces [87].

94
Chapter 15 Linear Generator Design

Parameters and Challenges
The design of a linear generator is complicated with many trade-offs, in that some
machine characteristics provide both beneficial and negative behavior. This section
briefly goes over linear machine design and techniques to minimize cogging, one of the
main problems in linear machines.
15.1 Sizing the Linear Machine
For all linear machines, the translator/piston should be longer than the stator.
Otherwise, the stator coils not overlapping the translator would cause extra losses not
used for energy generation [64]. With this in mind, the translator and stator size is set
based on the desired reaction force as specified in Part I. The reaction force is a function
of the shear force density of the generator (see Table 14.1) and the machine dimensions.
After defining the size, the translator speed may be derived from the buoy system’s force
equations. If the speed is undesirable, the size of the generator may be altered. The
speed should be chosen with the wave climate in mind since it has been shown that a
linear generator ceases to transfer power when the translator speed is lower than a chosen
threshold [79].

95
15.2 Power Rating
The power rating is directly correlated to the size of the generator and its reaction
force. Again, it is important to design for the specific wave environment for maximum
efficiency as an overrated generator can degrade performance because the shear force
provides too much resistance to translator movement.
The real power output of the machine is also dependent on the power factor of the
machine. Due to the large inductance in linear generators, the power factor is low. A
power factor closer to unity is desired to obtain the maximum power output and
efficiency. As a control parameter, the power factor may be optimized to the wave
climate [64]. Well-known techniques such as parallel compensation capacitors [78] or
active rectifiers may be used to correct the power factor. The problem with such a low
power factor is that the converter must be overrated. For example, in [4], their 0.31
power factor linear generator requires a converter overrated by a factor of three.
15.3 Induced Voltage and Pole Number
Part of the reason for the low power factor is due to the slow translator velocity –
the other is the large leakage inductance in some of the machine topologies. According
to Faraday’s Law of Induction, a change in magnetic flux induces voltage; however, a
slow moving translator causes slow flux change and low induced voltage. Therefore,
more poles (on the order of 500-900) and winding turns are necessary to elevate the
induced voltage to a desired level. This increases the machine inductance and thus
lowers the power factor [64].

96
Overall, the increased operating frequency is favorable in that it increases the
induced voltage, which in turn decreases the dimensions of the generator [77, 83]. On
the other hand, more poles and the associated increase in operating frequency lead to
higher iron losses [75].
15.4 Magnetic Flux Path
The following four figures illustrate the flux paths for the machines of most
interest in Table 14.1. It is apparent that the flux paths in the LFPM and tubular machine,
Figure 15.1 and Figure 15.2 respectively, are similar in that the flux flows in the axial
direction when it reaches the stator core back. In contrast, the flux path in the two
VRPM machines, Figure 15.3 and Figure 15.4, flow in a circle around the machine’s
axial direction. This flux path topology may be superior based on current research
indicating that the VRPM machines provide greater shear stress [4, 84]

97
Figure 15.1 Axial Cross-Section of the Flux Path in a LFPM with Surface Mounted Magnets [76]
Translator Aligned on Stator q-axis

98
Translator Aligned on Stator d-axis

Figure 15.2 Axial Cross-Section of the Flux Path in a Tubular Machine with Axially Magnetized PM [79]
Figure 15.3 Radial Cross-Section of the Flux Path in the VHPM Machine (Translator Movement is In/Out
of the Page) [84]

99
Figure 15.4 Radial Cross-Section of the Flux Path in the TFPM Machine [5]
15.5 Cogging (Ripple) Torque
Cogging torque is a major concern in a long machine of this sort since it can exert
hundreds of kN [76] of force on the bearings, especially with stronger magnets and larger
generators [76, 87]. This not only interferes with starting since it opposes movement of
the translator [63], it also causes major mechanical problems such as vibration, which can
damage the bearings and warp the airgap. And while a larger airgap is less sensitive to
wear caused by ripple torque, it imparts poor electrical efficiency.
15.5.1 Causes and Features of Cogging Torque
• Cogging is mainly caused by a magnetic attraction between the stator teeth and the
translator permanent magnets [63, 80]. More specifically, the magnet and teeth edges
repel/attract each other due to abrupt changes in permeance as the translator passes,
thus producing ripple torque [76].

100
• Transverse (lateral) laminations in the stator increase the cogging force in machines
using permanent magnets [79]. The effect of laminations on cogging force should be
weighed against their ability to reduce eddy-current losses.
• Slotless iron-cored machines experience less cogging torque than slotted machines,
but slotted machines have greater force density [4, 63, 87].
15.5.2 Minimizing Cogging Torque
An easy method to minimize cogging torque is to use a machine in which either
the stator or translator has no iron parts, yet these machines have low shear stress [4]. In
order to aid the design of other machines, Table 15.1 outlines several alternatives for
reducing cogging. Again, this is an important design factor since the reduction of
cogging yields significant structural savings [87] and decreases power fluctuation.
Table 15.1 Methods to Minimize Cogging Torque

Method Description
• Well know method to reduce cogging and
Pitched windings
unwanted harmonics in traditional machines

• For best performance, the number of slots per
Distributed windings
pole and phase needs to be a rational number
• Best to use a large number of slots per pole and
phase [76]

Slot structure: shape and size
• Skewed slots [76]
• Pole shaping [64]
• Changing magnet shape and size on the mm
scale can make a significant impact on the flux

Magnet structure: shape and size path and overall performance [85]
• Shape the magnet edges so that the airgap flux
density is more sinusoidal [76, 85, 86]

101
• Sloping the magnet edges not only decreases

cogging but can also increase the induced
voltage [86]
• Use appropriate ratio of magnet to stator slot
width [76]
• Design magnet ends to cancel cogging
contributions from neighboring magnets [76]
• Skew the magnets [76]
• Use buried magnets as opposed to surface
magnets [79]
• Amplitude and phase control of the stator
Control stator currents current can be used to reduce cogging effects
[76, 84]

102
Chapter 16 Power Conditioning
Due to the cyclic nature of a linear generator, its power fluctuates at twice the
mechanical frequency, with the effect of cogging torque imposed on that. The power
generated during each of the two half cycles is likely to differ as well since the heave
force in the upward direction will differ from the downward [77]. For these reasons, a
power conditioner is needed. The role of the power conditioner is to reduce output power
ripple, extract the maximum power from the generator, inject power to the mains at the
required frequency and voltage, and protect the generator. This section covers these
topics and introduces implementation methods.
16.1 Control Strategy
Controlling the linear generator is imperative not only to protect it from operating
extremes but also to extract the maximum power. In order to do this, the wave climate
must be known so that the system may be tuned for the average, maximum, and
minimum expected wave forces.
16.1.1 Outer-Loop Control
The buoy force equations are the central point of a control strategy for the linear
generator and thus constitute the outer-loop control. Consequently, control should be

103
proportional to the translator motion via a PI controller. With this control scheme,
translator acceleration, velocity, and displacement would represent effective device mass,
damping, and stiffness respectively [5].
16.1.2 Control State Variables
Based on the outer-loop requirements just presented, translator position feedback
is necessary. The position state variable could also be used for disturbance rejection via a
look-up table to find position-dependant EMF or inductance. All these would combine to
provide the optimal generator reaction force. This force command would then feed into a
current-controlled inner-loop, which would provide a stator current or voltage command.
16.1.3 Inner-Loop Control Techniques
There are several methods to control machines. Table 16.1 describes three
methods used in recent studies.
Table 16.1 Inner-Loop Control Techniques

Control Technique Description of Implementation
• Good for non-linear control [74]
• The closed-loop fuzzy logic algorithm is
“trained” on the output power [74]
• Input control parameters are the
Fuzzy Logic
instantaneous deviation from the average
output current and voltage [74] which
together define the instantaneous
deviation from the average power
• Sets the optimal load impedance equal to
the complex conjugate of the intrinsic
Complex-Conjugate Control (Reactive impedance [79]
Control) • Requires knowledge of machine
impedance as a function of translator
position

104
• Mechanical reactive power (capacitance)

is required [79]
• The load and control machinery must be
able to return energy to the buoy [79]
• The reference signal is the optimal force
[79]
• Controls the phase current by controlling
the phase angles of the induced voltage
[79]
Field Oriented Control (Current
• Requires knowledge of induced voltage
Regulator)
as a function of translator position [79]
• Examples: hysteresis band controller or
PI controller in a fixed frame
16.2 Power Converter
The power converter is a rectifier connected in series to an inverter through a
shared dc-link. A simplified version of this is shown in Figure 16.1.
Figure 16.1 Power Converter [84]
16.2.1 Sizing the Power Converter
The power converter buffers power fluctuations through energy storage in the dc-

105
link. Since linear generators experience large power fluctuations, a capacitor much larger
than what is used for conventional machines is required for energy storage [84]. The
necessary amount of energy storage is a function of the generator power rating, the
cyclical frequency of the generator, the average dc-link voltage, and the dc-link voltage
ripple [84]. These factors may be used to calculate the dc-link shunt capacitance and the
rating of power converter; however, a low power factor requires the power converter be
oversized [4, 5, 84].
16.2.2 Power Converter Operation
To maximize power output, the controller will ensure that the induced voltage in
the generator is in phase with its output current. This can be done via an active rectifier
on the generator output, which compensates for the high reactive power
requirement. The dc-link voltage (on the capacitor between the rectifier and the inverter)
absorbs power fluctuation from the generator so that the output power from the inverter is
relatively constant. The inverter uses the mains voltage to regulate the DC link voltage
since the mains voltage is permanent and predictable. With independent inverter and
rectifier operation and a DC link energy buffer, dc-link voltage error is used to control
the phase and magnitude of the inverter current [84]. The bidirectional nature of this
converter allows operation in all four quadrants [5].
Strain on the dc-link voltage may be alleviated if the wave energy converters are
strategically placed so that the overall system has lower power ripple. Salter presents
data showing this in Figure 16.2 and Figure 16.3.

106
Figure 16.2 Available Wave Power at One Location Over 8 Minutes [89]
Figure 16.3 Combined Output Power from 64 Uncorrelated Devices [89]

107
Chapter 17 Conclusions
Considering the pros and cons of all wave energy conversion methods, both the
OWC and point absorber design have promise. The point absorber may be less obtrusive
since it resides below the ocean surface. For the same reason, the point absorber is less
likely to be damaged during a storm. Future research may improve the durability of
offshore OWCs so that their resilience to storms improves. Regardless, both of these
devices continue to improve, and some predict the amount of ocean energy utilized will
increase dramatically with recent developments in ocean energy extraction as discussed
above [9, 11].
There are several questions as to the proper way to promote commercialized wave
energy. Wave energy developers face a myriad of obstacles to obtain licensing and
financing. Licensing woes are due to the legal requirements of the many government
agencies involved. Streamlining the licensing/permitting process by assigning certain
government agencies with clearly defined functions closest to their historical jurisdiction
may solve these legal problems and will ease the transition each government agency has
as it begins to handle wave energy technology.
Time will show whether or not investors’ opinion that wave energy is a high-risk
new technology is true. Existing Federal assistance programs may help ease the financial
impediments faced by developers, yet the process for claiming benefits takes a significant

108
amount of effort since wave energy developers must prove that their technology qualifies
for assistance. Even so, the demand for more electricity worldwide will drive
development.
Many of the effects of programs/regulations presented are mere speculation. The
best course of action to take now is to implement them and study their effects. Thus, the
ones with the best effects will be identified and promoted.
Lastly, weighing the merits of all the direct-drive linear generators leads to the
conclusion that the transverse flux permanent magnet (TFPM) generator is superior due
to its high shear stress density, but it also suffers from low power factor like most of the
other linear generators. If the TFPMs are strategically placed, it could be economical to
operate the costly – due to overrating – power conditioner that is needed to both smooth
the output power and correct for the low power factor. More research into the
aforementioned linear generator topologies or new configurations may yield different
results.

109
Bibliography
[1] C. Carroll and M. Bell, Wave Energy Converters Utilizing Pressure Differences,
US Patent 6,933,623, to Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., Patent and Trademark
Office, Washington, D.C., 2004.
[2] A. Sarmento, A. Melo, and M. Pontes, “The Influence of the Wave Climate on the
Design and Annual Production of Electricity by OWC Wave Power Plants,”
Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME, vol. 125, May
2003, pp. 139-144.
[3] H. Polinder, M. Damen, and F. Gardner, “Linear PM Generator System for Wave
Energy Conversion,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 19, no. 3,
Sept. 2004.
[4] H. Polinder, B. Mecrow, A. Jack, P. Dickinson, and M. Mueller, “Conventional

and TFPM Linear Generators for Direct-Drive Wave Energy Conversion,” IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 20, no. 2, June 2005.
[5] M. Mueller, “Electrical Generators for Direct Drive Wave Energy Converters,”
IEE Proceedings – Generation, Transmission, Distribution, vol. 149, no. 4, July
2002.
[6] “Wave Energy,” World Energy Council, http://www.worldenergy.org (current 1

Dec. 2005).
[7] K. Thorburn, H. Bernhoff, and M. Leijon, “Wave Energy Transmission System

Concepts for Linear Generator Arrays,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 31, 2004.
[8] J. F. Childs, “The Role of Converters & Their Control in the Recovery of Wave
Energy,” The Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE), 1997.
[9] Richard Boud, “Status and Research and Development Priorities, Wave and
Marine Current Energy,” UK Dept. of Trade and Industry (DTI), DTI Report #
FES-R-132, AEAT Report # AEAT/ENV/1054, United Kingdom, 2003.
[10] H. C. Soerensen, L. K. Hansen, and R. Hansen, “Environmental Impact,”

110
European Thematic Network on Wave Energy, tech. report NNE5-1999-00438

WP 3.3, Jan. 2003.
[11] “Options for the Development of Wave Energy in Ireland, A Public Consultation
Document,” Marine Institute; Sustainable Energy Ireland, Ireland, Nov. 2002.
[12] T. M. Rynne, Ocean Wave Energy Conversion System, US Patent 5,136,173, to

Scientific Applications & Research Associates, Inc., Patent and Trademark Office,
Washington, D.C., 1991.
[13] Teresa Hansen, “Catching a Wave,” Power Engineering,

http://pepei.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=Articles&ARTIC
LE_ID=238327&VERSION_NUM=2&p=6 (current 1 Dec. 2005).
[14] “Bringing Ocean Power to the World,” Seabased Energy AB,

http://www.seabased.com, (current 1 Dec. 2005).
[15] “Reliable Resourceful Renewable,” SeaVolt Technologies,

http://www.seavolt.com, (current 1 Dec. 2005).
[16] “Electric Power from Ocean Waves,” Wavemill Energy Corp.,

http://www.wavemill.com, (current 1 Dec. 2005).
[17] “The Power of Waves. The Future of Energy.” Ocean Power Technologies,
http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com, (current 1 Dec. 2005).
[18] Univ. of Michigan: College of Engineering, “Wave Energy Conversion,”

Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering,
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/name/research/projects/wave_device/wave_devi
ce.html, (current 1 Dec. 2005).
[19] “Archimedes Wave Swing: Theory,” Ocean Power Technologies,

http://www.waveswing.com, (current 1 Dec. 2005).
[20] “Waves and Swell,” NOAA Library’s Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences,
http://www.lib.noaa.gov/docs/windandsea6.html#waves, (current 1 Dec. 2005).
[21] Chris Carroll, “In Hot Water,” National Geographic, vol. 208, no.2, Aug. 2005,
pp. 72-85.
[22] “Marine Energy Challenge,” The Carbon Trust, http://www.thecarbontrust.co.uk,

(current 1 Dec. 2005).
[23] A. Brito-Melo, L.M.C. Gato , A.J.N.A. Sarmento, “Analysis of Wells turbine

111
design parameters by numerical simulation of the OWC performance,” Ocean

Engineering, vol. 29, Aug. 2002.
[24] J.F. Manwell, J.G. McGowan, A.L. Rogers, Wind Energy Explained: Theory,
Design, and Application. John Wiley & Sons Inc., England, 2002.
[25] “The Pelamis Wave Energy Converter,” Ocean Power Delivery, http://
www.oceanpd.com, (current 1 Dec. 2005).
[26] E. Agamloh, A. Wallace, and A. von Jouanne, “A Novel Direct-Drive Ocean

Wave Energy Extraction Concept with Contact-less Force Transmission System,”
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, preprint.
[27] E. Agamloh, A. Wallace, A. von Jouanne, “Application of Fluid-Structure

Interaction Simulation of an Ocean Wave Energy Extraction Device,” American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, preprint.
[28] J.D. Morgan, Director of FERC Division of Hydropower Administration and

Compliance, “Energetech America L.L.C. - Order Ruling on Declaration of
Intention and Finding Licensing Required,” Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Ruling: Docket No. DI05-3-000, Washington, D.C., Oct. 2005.
[29] C. Elefant, S. O’Neill, “Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition Waiver Petition,”

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Memorandum Re: Docket No. DI05-3-
000, Washington, D.C., Dec. 2005.
[30] “Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,” May 2006,

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric.asp.
[31] Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “Company Plans Large Wind
Plant Offshore of Galveston, Texas,” 2 Nov. 2005,
http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/state_news_detail.cfm/news_id=9502/state=TX
.
[32] United States Coast Guard, “United States Coast Guard Homepage,” May 2006,
http://www.uscg.mil/USCG.shtm.
[33] “National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Homepage,” May

2006, http://www.naruc.org.
[34] National Wind Coordinating Committee, “State Siting and Permitting of Wind
Energy Facilities,” May 2006, http://www.nationalwind.org.
[35] Renewable Energy Access, “Texas Bid Could be First U.S. Offshore Wind Farm,”

112
October 31, 2005,

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story;jsessionid=a_k8H962P-
z4?id=38618.
[36] L. Butler, K. Neuhoff, “Comparison of Feed in Tariff, Quota and Auction

Mechanisms to Support Wind Power Development,” University of Cambridge
Dept. of Applied Economics, CMI Working Paper 70, May 2003.
[37] American Bar Association, “Environmental Impact Assessment,” May 2006,

http://www.abanet.org/environ/committees/environimpactassess/home.html.
[38] “Minerals Management Service to Hold Oil and Gas Lease Sale in New Orleans,”
US Fed News Service, 26 Jan. 2006.
[39] AquaEnergy Group Ltd., “Makah Bay Offshore Wave Energy Pilot Project –
Scoping Document,” Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Scoping Document:
Docket No. DI02-3-002, Washington, D.C., July 2003.
[40] Cape Wind, “Energy for Life,” May 2006, http://www.capewind.org.
[41] T. Bates, “Project to Use Wave Energy Offshore to Generate Power,” Ashbury
Park Press, 13 Mar. 2005.
[42] “Department of Energy FY 2006 Congressional Budget Request: Budget

Highlights,” Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO, Report:
DOE/ME-0053, Feb. 2005.
[43] National Wind Coordinating Committee, “Guidelines for Assessing the Economic
Development Impacts of Wind Power,” NWCC Economic Development Working
Group, October 2001.
[44] L. Bird, B. Parsons, T. Gagliano, M. Brown, R. Wiser, M. Bolinger, “Policies and

Market Factors Driving Wind Power Development in the United States,” National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Report: NREL/TP-620-34599, Task No.
WER3.3010, July 2003.
[45] R. Wiser, S. Olson, L. Bird, B. Swezey, “Utility Green Pricing Programs: A

Statistical Analysis of Program Effectiveness,” National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Report: LBNL-54437 and NREL/TP-620-35609, Feb. 2004.
[46] National Renewable Energy Laboratory, “Projected Benefits of Federal Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs: FY 2006 Budget Request,” U.S.
DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office, Report: NREL/TP-620-
37931, Mar. 2005.

113
[47] N. Rader, R. Wiser, “Strategies for Supporting Wind Energy: A Review and
Analysis of State Policy Options,” National Wind Coordinating Committee,
Copyright: National Conference of State Legislatures, 1999.
[48] E. Blank, L. Bird, B. Swezey, “A Certificate-Based Approach to Marketing Green

Power and Constructing New Wind Energy Facilities,” American Wind Energy
Association Windpower 2002 Conference, Portland, Oregon, 2-5 June 2002.
[49] L. Bird, B. Swezey, J. Aabakken, “Utility Green Pricing Programs: Design,

Implementation, and Consumer Response,” National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Report: NREL/TP-620-35618, Feb. 2004.
[50] L. Bird, B. Swezey, “Green Power Marketing in the United States: A Status
Report, 7th Edition,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Report: NREL/TP-
620-36823, Sept. 2004.
[51] P. Mozumder, A. Marathe, “Gains from an integrated market for tradable

renewable energy credits,” Ecological Economics, vol. 49, pp. 259-272, 2004.
[52] D. Berry, “The market for tradable renewable energy credits,” Ecological
Economics, vol. 42, pp. 369-379, 2002.
[53] K. Palmer, D. Burtraw, “Cost-Effectiveness of Renewable Electricity Policies,”

Energy Economics, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 873-894, Nov. 2005.
[54] “Renewable Energy Incentives,” May 2006,

http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/genericfederal.cfm?CurrentPageID-
1&state=us&ee=0&re=1.
[55] J. Herrick, “Federal Project Financing Incentives for Green Industries: Renewable
Energy and Beyond,” National Resources Journal, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 77-109,
Winter 2003.
[56] “Participation in Green Power Purchases Exceeds 13%,” Refocus Weekly, 22 Mar.
2006,
http://www.sparksdata.co.uk/refocus/showdoc.asp?docid=70524233&accnum=1&
topics=.
[57] U.S. Dept. of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “Top Ten
Utility Green Power Programs,” May 2006,
http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/resources/tables/topten.shtml.
[58] L. Bird, K. Cardinal, “Trends in Utility Green Pricing Programs (2003),” National

114
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Report: NREL/TP-620-36833, Task No.

ASG4.1003, Sept. 2004.
[59] J. Motavalli, “Catching the Wind,” E: the Environmental Magazine, vol. 16, issue
1, pp. 26-39, Jan./Feb. 2005.
[60] “Sunrise for Renewable Energy?,” The Economist, vol. 377, issue 8456, p. 19,
London, 10 Dec. 2005.
[61] Energetech America, “Energetech Homepage,” May 2006,

http://www.energetech.com.au/.
[62] Ocean Power Technologies, “Commercialization of Wave Energy,” presented to

the U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, Washington
D.C., 30 May 2001.
[63] A.N. Eid, Ki-Young Suh, Kwang-Ju Choi, Ho-Dong Han, Hyun-Woo Lee, and M.
Nakaoka, “A unique starting scheme of linear-engine tubular PM linear generator
system using position feedback controlled PWM inverter,” in 37th IEEE Power
Electronics Specialists Conference, 18-22 June 2006, pp. 1-5.
[64] I.A. Ivanova, O. Agren, H. Bernhoff, and M. Leijon, “Simuation of Wave-Energy

Converter with Octagonal Linear Generator,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic
Engineering, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 619-629, July 2005.
[65] A. Weinstein, CEO of AquaEnergy Group Ltd., “Makah Bay Wave Energy Pilot
Project - Progress Report #4,” Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Report:
Docket No. DI02-0-002-Washington, Washington, D.C., Nov. 2005.
[66] S. Zeller, “Cape Wind Fear,” CQ Weekly, vol. 63, no. 47, p. 3236, 5 Dec. 2005.
[67] Long Island Power Authority, “Offshore Wind Park Permitting Process,” May
2006, http://lipower.org/cei/offshore.html.
[68] AquaEnergy Group, “AquaEnergy Homepage,” May 2006,

http://www.aquaenergygroup.com/.
[69] Ocean Power Technologies, “Projects and Major Milestones,” May 2006,
http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/.
[70] Verdant Power, “Verdant Power Homepage,” May 2006,

http://www.verdantpower.com.
[71] J. Gibson, “Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy Project – 2006 Study Activities,”

115
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Memorandum: Docket No. P-12611-

000, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2006.
[72] K. Kispert, “Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy Project – Phase II, Test Field 6-pack,”
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Submittal: Docket No. P-12178-000,
Washington, D.C. Sept. 2005.
[73] AquaEnergy Group Ltd., “AquaEnergy Group’s Request for Expedited Rehearing
of Order Finding Jurisdiction and Revisions to Project Description,” Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission Report: Docket No. DI02-003, Washington,
D.C., Nov. 2002.
[74] H. Chen and X. Ju, “Fuzzy logic control for switched reluctance variable speed
linear generator system,” in IEEE Transmission and Distribution Conference and
Exhibition, 15-18 August 2005, pp. 1-4.
[75] P. Zheng, A. Chen, P. Thelin, W.M. Arshad, and C. Sadarangani, “Research on a

Tubular Longitudinal Flux PM Linear Generator Used for Free-Piston Energy
Converter,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 447-449, January
2007.
[76] I.A. Ivanova, O. Agren, H. Bernhoff, and M. Leijon, “Simulation of cogging in a

100 kW permanent magnet octagonal linear generator for ocean wave
conversion,” in IEEE International Symposium on Underwater Technology, 2004,
pp. 345-348.
[77] M. Leijon, H. Bernhoff, O. Agren, J. Isberg, J. Sundberg, M. Berg, K.E. Karlsson,

and A. Wolfbrandt, “Multiphysics Simulation of Wave Energy to Electric Energy
Conversion by Permanent Magnet Linear Generator,” IEEE Transactions on
Energy Conversion, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 219-224, March 2005.
[78] Lu Wang, Min Chen, and Dehong Xu, “Increasing inductive power transferring
efficiency for Maglev emergency power supply,” in 37th IEEE Power Electronics
Specialists Conference, 18-22 June 2006, pp. 1-7.
[79] P. Cancelliere, F. Marignetti, V. Delli Colli, R. Di Stefano, and M. Scarano, “A

tubular generator for marine energy direct drive applications,” in IEEE
International Conference on Electric Machines and Drives, 15-18 May 2005, pp.
1473-1478.
[80] K.M. Nor, H. Arof, and Wijono, “Design of a 5 kW tubular permanent magnet
linear generator,” in 39th IEEE International Universities Power Engineering
Conference, 6-8 Sept. 2004, vol. 2, pp. 528-532.

116
[81] H. Arof, Wijono, and K.M. Nor, “Linear generator: design and simulation,” in
Proceedings of IEEE National Power Engineering Conference, 15-16 December
2003, pp. 306-311.
[82] V. Delli Colli, P. Cancelliere, F. Marignetti, R. Di Stefano, M. Scarano, “A

Tubular-Generator Drive for Wave Energy Conversion,” IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 1152-1159, June 2006.
[83] A. Wolfbrandt, “Automated Design of a Linear Generator for Wave Energy

Converters – A Simplified Model,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 42, no.
7, pp. 1812-1819, July 2006.
[84] P.R.M. Brooking and M.A. Mueller, “Power conditioning of the output from a
linear vernier hybrid permanent magnet generator for use in direct drive wave
energy converters,” in IEE Proceedings of Generation, Transmission, and
Distribution, 9 September 2005, vol. 152, no. 5, pp. 673-681.
[85] O. Danielsson, M. Leijon, and E. Sjostedt, “Detailed Study of the Magnetic

Circuit in a Longitudinal Flux Permanent-Magnet Synchronous Linear
Generator,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 2490-2495,
September 2005.
[86] H. Arof, A.M. Eid, and K.M. Nor, “Cogging force reduction using special magnet
design for tubular permanent magnet linear generators,” in 39th IEEE
International Universities Power Engineering Conference, 6-8 September 2004,
vol. 2, pp. 523-527.
[87] N.J. Baker, M.A. Mueller, and E. Spooner, “Permanent magnet air-cored tubular
linear generator for marine energy converters,” in 2nd IEEE International
Conference on Power Electronics, Machines, and Drives, 31 March-2 April 2004,
vol. 2, pp. 862-867.
[88] J. Wang, G.W. Jewell, and D. Howe, “Design Optimisation and Comparison of
Tubular Permanent Magnet Machine Topologies,” IEE Proceedings in Electric
Power Applications, vol. 148, no. 5, pp. 456-464, September 2001.
[89] S. Salter, “World Progress in Wave Energy – 1988,” in Journal of Ambient

Energy, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 3-24, 1988..

117
APPENDIX

118
Appendix A1: Wave Energy Companies
Company
Product Special Notes Base Location Projects Website
Name
374's Electric
Power Ocean Surf www.374electric.
Corporation Energy Systems Stoughton, MA com/welcome.htm
Small water
generators (micro- Alternative energy and remote Residential
ABS Alaskan hydro turbines) power products Fairbanks, AK consumers www.absak.com
1MW Power Plant -
"AquaBuOY" Point-absorber incorporating a Clallum County
Aqua Energy Wave Energy hose-pump which uses water as Mercer Island, Public Utility www.aquaenergyg
Group, Ltd. Converter the hydraulic fluid WA (Makah Bay, WA) roup.com
"Pneumatically Floating Ocean Real Estate - uses
Float Stabilized an OWC to extract energy from
Incorporated Platform" (PSP) waves San Diego, CA www.floatinc.com
Florida Hydro
Power and Offshore Gulf
Light Stream Current www.floridahydro
Company Energy Palatka, FL .com
Power take-off for ocean and tidal
GCK currents: rotates in same direction
Technology, "Gorlov Helical regardless of water flow direction, www.gcktechnolo
Inc. Turbine" received Edison Patent Award San Antonio, TX gy.com/GCK
Ocean Thermal
Energy www.hawaii.gov/
Hawaii Conversion 5MW Pre- dbedt/ert/bib/bib_
Energy Dept. (OTEC Energy) Honolulu, HI Commercial Plant otec.html
Tidal current electrical generation:
no moving mechanical or
electrical parts underwater, water
flow pressure reduction brings in
"Rochester air which is used to generate San Francisco, 60kW Demo Unit www.hydroventur
HydroVenturi Venturi" electricity CA North of England i.com
Independent 1/32-scale prototype
Natural Point-absorber incorporating a was tested in the
Resources, piston for pumping water or air wave tank of Texas
Inc. (INRI) "SEADOG Pump" into a turbine Eden Prairie, MN A&M University www.inri.us
"Hydrokinetic Tidal current energy: meant for
Kinetic Generator", flood and ebb tides, 600kW with
Energy "KESC Bowsprit products ranging 35%-65% www.kineticenerg
Systems Generator", efficiency Ocala, FL ysystems.com

119
"KESC Tidal
Generator"
Project RATAK: 5-
10 MW OTEC for
the Gov't of the
Marshall Islands;
OTEC Development
Plan Review for
Gov't of Taiwan;
Assessment for
Marine Philippine Gov't;
Development MDA's Island www.marinedevel
Associates, Nation OTEC opmentinc.com/oc
Inc. OTEC Saratoga, CA Program ean_energy.htm
Marine
Innovation & Ocean Current www.minifloat.co
Technology Farm Berkeley , CA m/ocean.htm
Mo-T.O.P.S
Oceanic
Power
Systems "Wind Goose" OTEC variant Del Rio, TX www.isfind.com
OCEES,
International-
Ocean
Engineering www.ocees.com/
and Energy mainpages/otec.ht
Systems OTEC Honolulu,HI ml
Functioning 1/20th
scale model of new
OMI WavePump
design is unveiled in
Dana Point, CA
(June 2002); OMI
submits application
to Hawaii
Renewable RFP
(April 2004),
submits application
to present
investment
Point absorber array whose buoys opportunity at the
Ocean Motion pump seawater through a hydro- November 2003
International turbine generator as it descends in Colorado and NREL Industry www.oceanmotio
LLC (OMI) "WavePump" a wave trough Oregon Growth Forum n.ws
Near Shore Wave Energy Point Partnering with
Absorber: passed the rigorous Iberdrola S.A. in
Environmental Assessment Spain and Total in
process to install units in Hawaii, France; Partnering
Ocean Power Initial Public Offering (IPO) AIM West Trenton, with US Navy in
Technologies, Market of the London Stock NJ; VIC, Hawaii; Contracts www.oceanpowert
Inc. "PowerBuoy" Exchange (“AIM-OPT”) on Australia with Lockheed echnologies.com

120
October 31, 2003 Martin Corp. and

New Jersey Board of
Public Utilities
Completed bench top trials with

full size components under a
Ocean Wave "Ocean Wave Small Business Innovation
Energy Energy Research contract from the US
Company Converter" Coast Guard Bristol, RI www.owec.com
Near Shore,
Offshore Wave
Energy for
Hydrogen www.ocenergy.co
Ocenergy Production Norwalk, CT m
ReEnergy Uses wave power generation Contracts in Mexico,
Group PLC technology as a cost effective UK (US: San California, Peru and www.renergypacif
(“ReEnergy”) "Oases" method for desalination Diego, CA) Morocco ic.com
Near Shore Point Absorber: uses DOE contract Phase
Scientific a Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) II SBIR Program:
Applications Point Absorber Generator; Almost no moving design, construct,
& Research with parts. No gears, no levers, no and demonstrate a
Associates Magnetohydrodyn turbines, no drive belts, no Huntington 50-100 kW MHD www.sara.com/en
(SARA) Inc. amic Generator bearings, etc. Beach, CA unit ergy/WEC.html
University of Maryland tests
Sea Solar confirm heat transfer with 3.4%
Power total cycle efficiency (perfect www.seasolarpow
International OTEC Carnot Cycle efficiency is 7.4%) Baltimore, MD er.com
SeaVolt Near Shore Point Absorber: uses
Technologies "Wave Rider" hydraulics for power take-off Berkeley, CA www.seavolt.com
60 MW Swansea
Uses a rubble mound Bay project, UK:
impoundment structure and low- measures 5 km2 in
head hydroelectric generating area and about a
equipment situated a mile or more mile offshore;
offshore in a high tidal range area. West Simsbury, project agreement
Tidal Electric, Shallow tidal flats provide the CT; Anchorage, with Liaoning www.tidalelectric.
Inc. Tidal Lagoons most economical sites AK; London, UK Province, China com
DOE contract
SBIR/DOE DE-
FG02-00ER82930;
Contract with
Hydro kinetic turbines for Current, Ontario Power
Tidal, OWC Energy; no dams or Generation to test
UEK "Underwater impoundments required since no the hydro kinetic
Corporation Electric Kite" foundation is necessary Annapolis, MD 'Twin Turbines' uekus.com

121
In conjunction with
GCK Technology,
1MW Tidal Site at
Merrimack River,
MA. Uses GCK's
Gorlov Helical
Turbine; Testing in
the Potomac River,
Instream Energy Carderock, MD;
Generation Tidal Current Energy: free-flow Prototype in New
Verdant Technology hydropower technology or kinetic York City's East www.verdantpow
Power (IEGT) hydro energy systems Arlington, VA River er.com
Hydrocratic Laguna Beach, www.waderllc.co
Wader, LLC Generator Salinity Gradient Energy CA m
Seapower
Pacific Pty.
Ltd.
(Shareholders
: Renewable
Energy
Holdings Plc
(REH) - UK;
Pacific Hydro
Ltd. -
Australia; Near Shore Point Absorber: wave www.carnegiecor
Carnegie crests depress a disk which p.com.au/Operatio
Corporation delivers pressurized water to shore West Perth, ns/Renewable_Wa
Ltd. - "CETO" Wave where energy conversion takes Western 100kW in-sea ve_Energy_Projec
Australia) power converter place Australia prototype, 2005 t_2004.html
Proof of Concept Review: US
The Davis Army Corps of Engineers, the Proposed tidal
Turbine (Vertical National Research Council of energy project for
Blue Energy Axis Turbine for Canada, et al - RW Beck Scotland's Pentland www.bluenergy.c
Canada Tidal Currents) (Engineering) Inc., Sept 2005 Alberta, Canada Firth om
Oscillating Water Column (OWC)
for shoreline and near shore Dartmouth August 2001: scaled
Wavemill applications with patented suction (Halifax), Nova model of the ESW www.wavemill.co
Energy Corp. "Wavemill" chamber and enclosed, surge wall Scotia, Canada Wavemill® m
CNE is a non-profit research
network founded by Guangzhou
Institute of Energy Conversion,
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Tidal Energy, while jointly under the direction
Ocean Current, of State Ministry of Science &
China New Wave Energy, Technology, State Economic & www.newenergy.
Energy Thermal Energy, Trade Commission and Chinese Guangzhou, org.cn/english/oce
(CNE) Salinity Gradients Academy of Sciences China an/index.htm
Overtopping wave energy January 2005: 20
converter uses large collector arms kW Wave Dragon
to funnel water to a Kaplan prototype taken
turbine which turns a PM København, offline after one year www.wavedragon
Wave Dragon "Wave Dragon" generator Denmark and nine months of .net

122
continuous real sea

testing
September 2002 to
April 2003:
WavePlane
WavePlane Overtopping wave energy underwent 3:10 sea
Production converter uses a fly-wheel-tube Gentofte, tests in Japan by www.waveplane.c
A/S "WavePlane" for power take-off Denmark NKK om
"WECA" (Wave
Energy
DAEDALUS Conversion
Informatics Activator) 20kW OWC device Athens, Greece www.daedalus.gr
Point absorber with two
rectangular steel pontoons which
move in relation to a stationary
Hydam central raft. The hinges of the Has received
Technologies "McCabe Wave pontoons drive a hydraulic power funding from the
Ltd. Pump (MWP)" take-off system. Kerry, Ireland Irish Marine Institute n/a
1/50th and 1/20th
scale tests conducted
at the Hydraulics
and Maritime
Self-reacting point absorber that Research Centre
Clearpower extracts power from the relative (UCC, Cork) and the
Technology movement of two floating bodies large wave channel
Ltd. (also that have different heave of the German
listed as frequency responses. This Coastal Defence
Wavebob Ltd. property enables the Wavebob to Centre (Hanover
and duQuesne utilize energy from more wave University and the
Environmenta frequencies than conventional Technical University www.clearpower.i
l Ltd.) "Wavebob" single buoy point absorbers. Dublin, Ireland of Braunschweig) e
1/13 prototype gives
air power / wave
National power conversion
Institute of above 60% (started
Ocean "Backward Bent Dec. 1990 with
Technology Ducted Buoy OWC device with variable Vizhinjam, improvements added www.niot.res.in/m
(NIOT) (BBDB)" resistance induction generator Kerala (India) over time) 1/Wave.htm
Israeli government
has authorized
S.D.E. to produce
and sell 4MW of
electricity for 20
OWC / Overtopping device works years, at 5.25 cents
by forcing waves into cavity per kWh. Project is
separated from hydraulic oil by approved with
membrane. Incoming waves partial financing by
S.D.E. Energy Offshore wave pressurize the oil which drives a the Chief Scientist of
Ltd. energy hydraulic generator. Tel Aviv, Israel Israel. www.sde.co.il

123
28 March 1998:
deployment of 110
kW prototype at
Gokasho Bay, Japan
funded by Japan's www.jamstec.go.j
OWC device with three induction Science and p/jamstec/MTD/
JAMSTEC "Mighty Whale" generators Yokosuka, Japan Technology Agency Whale
Oct. and Nov. 2004:
1/10 scale model
Orbital currents in waves and tidal tested at NaREC in
currents induce hydrodynamic lift Blyth (0.5 MW
which turns a set of blades around Utrecht, The model to be installed
Ecofys "Wave Rotor" a vertical axis Netherlands in UK) www.ecofys.com
Uses a 20 m diameter
Magnetohydrodyn superconducting magnet solenoid
amic (MHD) (SMES) which produces a
generator in a magnetic field strength of 5 Tesla
buoy wave energy with energy content ~100 GJ. The
converter and tidal generator can deliver 4 MW
Neptune tidal current power installed at a 3 m/s tidal Breda, The www.neptunesyst
Systems energy converter current velocity. Netherlands ems.net
25 Sept. 2005, 'The
Blue Concept'
project: prototype
installed at
Underwater turbine props similar Kvalsundet www.e-
Hammerfest to wind turbine props collect tidal Hammerfest, producing 21 GWh tidevannsenergi.co
Stroem AS "Tidekraft" current energy Norway per year m
Absorbs energy from vertical,
pivotal, horizontal backwards and
Ing Arvid forwards (to-and-fro) motion via a
Nesheim Point absorber hydraulics system Vollen, Norway www.anwsite.com
Has received
funding from the
European
Commission FP-6-
2004-Energy-3 (7
Apr. 2005) and the
Norwegian Research
"Seawave Slot- Overtopping wave energy Council to develop
WAVEenergy Cone Generator converter with multi-stage turbine the MST turbine (25 www.waveenergy.
AS (SSG)" (MST) Norway Jan. 2005) no/index.htm
Made from cheap recycled plastic
Sea Electrical (polyethylene, polypropylene),
Generators, meant to be replaced every five easy-
Ltd. Point absorber years Russia energy.iatp.org.ua
Vortex
Oscillation
Technology,
Ltd. in 2004: 5 MW www.vortexosc.co
partnership Oscillating wings extract energy installation off the m/index.php,
with The "Stingray" from tidal currents Moscow, Russia coast of Scotland www.engb.com

124
Engineering
Business Ltd.
(Northumberl
and, England)
"Sea Wave Wave oscillation generator with
Energy Converter capacity from kilo to megawatt www.rvf.ru/engl/e
Yakov Kolp (SWEC)" range Russia xpo-yakor.php
Working with the
Linear permanent magnet Division for
generator with large number of Electricity and
Point Absorber poles and NdFeB magnets that Lightning Research
Seabased with Linear allow for high magnetic excitation at Uppsala www.seabased.co
Energy AB Generator with smaller magnets Uppsala, Sweden University, Sweden m
Sea Power
International Overtopping wave Stockholm,
AB energy converter Near shore WEC Sweden www.seapower.se
www.dalgaenerjisi
.com/ana-
english.asp,
www.wipo.int/pct
db/en/fetch.jsp?L
ANG=ENG&DBS
ELECT=PCT&SE
RVER_TYPE=19
&SORT=1149288
-
KEY&TYPE_FIE
LD=256&IDB=0
&IDOC=630415
&ELEMENT_SE
T=IA,WO,TTL-
EN&RESULT=1
&TOTAL=1&ST
ART=1&DISP=2
5&FORM=SEP-
0/HITNUM,B-
ENG,DP,MC,PA,
Naturalist Waves rotate joints of chassis ABSUM-
Wave Power Hydraulic-based which pressurizes mineral oil. ENG&QUERY=
Plant AB offshore WEC This drives a hydraulic generator. Ankara, Turkey wo%2f02075151
Air-filled, submerged point 24 May 2004: 2MW www.awsocean.co
absorber uses a linear generator. installation of m,
AWS Ocean "Archimedes Wave crests depress the device, Ross-shire, prototype off of www.waveswing.
Energy Ltd. Wave Swing" and troughs force it upwards. England Portugal com
The Carbon Trust is
evaluating the info@sperboy.co
Floating buoy with multiple Sperboy through m,
oscillating water columns of their Marine Energy www.thecarbontru
Embley different lengths to utilize a larger Challenge st.co.uk/ctmarine2
Energy Ltd. "Sperboy" range of wavelengths England programme /Page1.htm

125
31 May 2003: The

Carbon Trust
sponsors
construction of a
Marine 300kW experimental
Current turbine 3km offshore www.itpower.co.u
Turbines, Ltd. "SEAFLOW" Tidal currents drive two blades from Lynmouth, k,
(MCT) and marine current around a horizontal axis like an Devon, 2003-3-122- www.marineturbi
IT Power turbine underwater wind turbine Hampshire, UK 1-2 nes.com
2.25MW Prototype:
three Pelamis P-750
Near shore cylindrical structure machines located
Ocean Power whose hinges drive hydraulic Edinburgh, 5km off the www.oceanpd.co
Delivery, Ltd. "Pelamis" motors as the power-take off Scotland, UK Portuguese coast m
June 2005: FEED
for a 2MW pre-
ORECon Ltd. "MRC" System Multiple oscillating water column Plymouth, UK production prototype www.orecon.com
Long inlets trap and compress the
Offshore air in wave troughs. Reservoirs Future project: tank-
Wave Energy accumulate the compressed air testing 18 metre long
Ltd. (OWEL) "Grampus" which drives a turbine. Portsmouth, UK physical model www.owel.co.uk
The Wave Salter's Duck project
Power Group no longer funded,
at the "Salter's Duck" Sloped IPS Buoy www.mech.ed.ac.
University of and "Sloped IPS Both are point absorbers using Edinburgh, applying for EPSRC uk/research/wavep
Edinburgh Buoy" hydraulics power take-off Scotland, UK programme funding ower/index.htm
June 2004: first
generation of
Breakwater Turbine
Northumberland, installed on the www.wavegen.co.
Wavegen "LIMPET" Shoreline OWC England Limpet plant uk

126
Appendix A2: Comparison of Offshore

Ocean and Wind Energy
Installations in the U.S.
Offshore Wind Installations

Project Siting / Permitting Process
Company Location Device Description (date of inception) Notes
There are seventeen Federal and State
agencies reviewing Cape Wind in A complicating factor
468MW, addition to a drawn-out public is that some members
130 General Several groups comment period with significant of Congress want to
Electric advocate the wind litigation. The MMS is conducting a delay decisions on the
3.6MW farm, but opposition NEPA review while the ACoE has project until
turbines remains. The project issed a Draft Envinronmental Impact regulations governing
(turbine is slated to produce Statement and will issue a Final offshore wind
5.2 miles tower is an average of Environmental Impact Statement later. development have
from the 247' tall 170MW, which will The U.S. Coast Guard is currently been completed [66].
Cape WindTM closest shore with a base provide about 75% of reviewing Cape Wind for maritime Cape Wind claims that
Associates in Horseshoe 16' in the 230 MW average safety. In Massachusetts, the this wind project has
L.L.C., under Shoal in diameter demand for Cape Executive Office of Environmental received more scrutiny
Energy Nantucket and a blade Cod and the Islands Affairs is conducting an than any of New
Management Sound, radius of of Martha's Vineyard environmental review, which overlaps England's fossil fuel
Inc. [40] Massachusetts 170') and Nantucket. that of the MMS. plants.
The initial permit to the ACoE has
been accepted with the public
comment period having ended. The
comments will determine whether an
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement must
8 square miles be completed for the ACoE. Other
of land permits and approvals must come
FPL Energy southeast of from the NY State Department, NY
under the Jones Beach 144MW, 40 LIPA plans for the State Office of Parks, Recreation, and There has been less
direction of State Park and General Long Island Offshore Historic Preservation, U.S. Federal public scrutiny in the
the Long southwest of Electric Wind Park to be Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. public comment period
Island Power Robert Moses 3.6MW developed, built, and Coast Guard, U.S. MMS, U.S. Fish for this project
Authority State Park, turbines operated by FPL and Wildlife Service, and the National compared to the Cape
(LIPA) [67] NY [31] Energy. Marine Fisheries Service. Wind project.
Galveston- 7 miles off the 50 wind Construction could Due to its sovereignty over all Texas believes it is in

127
Offshore coast of turbines to take as long as 5 submerged lands in the Gulf of a good position to have
Wind L.L.C., Galveston produce an years to complete. Mexico out to 10.36 miles, Texas the first U.S. offshore
a division of Island, Texas expected believes it will be able to bypass much wind farm
Wind Energy 150 MW of the Federal permitting processes.
Systems The project will still need U.S. Coast
Technology Guard and USACE permits to
[35] continue, however, offshore land
leasing will be through the state rather
than the MMS. At the state level,
Texas has streamlined the process by
giving jurisdiction to one agency, the
Texas General Land Office (GLO).
The GLO will coordinate with the
USACE and the Texas Coastal
Coordination Council.
Offshore Ocean Wave Installations

Project
Company Location Device Description Siting / Permitting Process Notes
GreenWave Rhode
Approximatel Island is a not-for-
y 1.2 miles off profit pilot project in
of Point Judith 500kW conjunction with
Harbor of Oscillating three state renewable
Refuge in the Water energy programs Permitting has involved the RI Coastal
Town of Column (Rhode Island, Resource Management Council, RI Began surveying the
Narragansett, (100' long X Connecticut and Dept. of Environmental Management, installation area in
Energetech Washington 120' wide X Massachusetts) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and 2003 and the
America County, 40' above the University of FERC. There was a public comment permitting process
L.L.C. [61] Rhode Island water level) Rhode Island (URI). period. [28, 65] with FERC in 2005
AquaEnergy has received permits from
NOAA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and is
Team members for currently proceeding through FERC’s
marine, mechanical, Alternative License Process to obtain
or electrical research the required NEPA and SEPA reviews.
on the Project An environmental analysis insured
include: University compliance with the U.S. Clean Water
Water depths of Washington, Act and Coastal Zone Management
of about 150 1MW Oregon State Act, and Washington State Shorelines
feet, (multiple University, Management Act and Hydraulic Code.
approximately devices) Northwest National This led to regulatory approval from
3.2 nautical AquaBuOY Lab, Battelle Marine Washington State Departments of
miles (or 3.7 hose-pump Sciences Lab, Evans- Ecology, Washington Department of Has been embattled
statute miles) type point Hamilton, Inc., Fish and Wildlife, and Washington with FERC since 2002
off of Hobuck absorber Parametrix, Inc., Department of Natural Resources. and plans to be
Beach in (625' long X Thales GeoSolutions Rather than obtain a lease from the delivering power to
AquaEnergy Makah Bay, 450' wide, (Pacific), Inc., Sound MMS (DoI), a Washington State the Clallum County
Group, Ltd. Washington below and Sea Department of Natural Resources Public Utility's grid by
[68] State water) Technologies. (DNR) Aquatic Lands Lease was the end of 2006.

128
obtained. Other agencies involved

include the Makah Tribal Council,
Washington State University Energy
Program, Clallam County Economic
Development Center, Clallam County
Public Utility District (PUD), and WA
Public Utility Districts Association.
[39, 73]
An Environmental Assessment (EA)
was completed by the Office of Naval
Research (ONR). The National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and
Modularized The official customer US Fish and Wildlife Service
Water depths for up to of this project is the (USFWS) concurred with the Navy's
of 30 meters, 1MW, U.S. Navy for the Finding of No Significant Impact
Ocean Power 1-3 miles off PowerBuoy Marine Corps Base (FONSI). U.S. Army Corps of Installation was
TM
Technologies of Kaneohe point on the island of Engineers issued a water permit to operational as of June
[69] Bay, Hawaii absorber Oahu. deploy the system. 2004.
The official customer
of this project is the
New Jersey Board of
Water depths Public Utilities under NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection Installation was
of 18 meters, 40kW (one the Renewable to issue a state waterfront development operational as of Oct.
1-3 miles off device), Energy and permit, U.S. Coast Guard for maritime 2005 and has since
Ocean Power of Atlantic PowerBuoy Economic navigation, NJ Board of Public withstood the wind
TM
Technologies City, New point Development Utilities Renewable Energy and and wave forces of
[70] Jersey absorber program. Economic Development Hurricane Wilma.
Roosevelt Island
Tidal Energy Project
(RITE): Verdant has
worked with the
Massachusetts
Up to Technology
10MW of Collaborative, New
free-flow York Power
horizontal Authority (NYPA), After Verdant successfully completed
axial New York the study scoping process at the Joint Verdant received a
turbines, University (NYU), Agency/Public Meetings and Site Visit temporary license
each 5m New York State in Dec. 2003 and the Public Study waiver from FERC for
Tidal region of long at Energy Research and Scoping Meeting and Site Visit in June testing purposes in
East River, 35kW, to Development 2004, the New York State Department 2005 but will have to
New York collect tidal Authority of Environmental Conservation complete the
along the east energy (the (NYSERDA), submitted its permits for Verdant traditional licensing
Verdant shore of array spans Consolidated Edison, power project to FERC in Oct. 2005. process after the
Power L.L.C. Roosevelt 77' wide X and the U.S. Dept. of The U.S. Coast Guard has permitted preliminary period
[71] Island 217' long) Energy. the installation as well. [71, 72] [28].

129
Appendix A3: Federal Government

Renewable Energy Programs
Federal Government Funded Renewable Energy Programs

Legislative
Name of Incentive Renewable Energy Coverage and
Description Website
Incentive Type Sources Covered Applicable
Effective Dates
REPI offers 1.5 cents per kWh
produced (1993 dollars,
indexed for inflation annually)
to not-for-profit electrical
cooperatives, Indian tribal
governments, state & local
Solar thermal electric,
governments, commonwealths 42 USC § 13317 as
photovoltaics, landfill
Renewable & territories & possessions of amended in 2005
gas, wind, biomass, http://www.eere.
Energy Direct the U.S., and municipal from the original 1993
geothermal electric, energy.gov/wip/
Production Production utilities for a ten-year period. version
livestock methane, tidal program/repi.ht
Incentive Incentive Funding is subject to annual
energy, wave energy, ml
(REPI) appropriations in each Federal Effective: fiscal years
ocean thermal, fuel cells
fiscal year. If funding is 2006 - 2026
with renewable fuels.
insufficient, 60% of
appropriated funds go to solar,
wind, ocean, geothermal, or
closed-loop biomass while the
other 40% goes to other
projects.
Solar water heat, solar
Modified This corporate depreciation
space heat, solar thermal 26 USC § 168
Accelerated Accelerated program under MACRS
electric, solar thermal http://www.irs.g
Cost Recovery Depreciation provides a five-year
process heat, Effective: 1986 and ov
System Schedule accelerated depreciation
photovoltaics, wind, on
(MACRS) schedule.
geothermal electric.

130
1.9 cent credit: wind,

closed-loop biomass, and
REPC gives commercial and geothermal.
26 USC § 45 (2005),
Renewable industrial corporations a tax
Energy Policy Act of
Electricity credit (1.9 cents or 0.9 cents 0.9 cent credit: open- http://www.irs.g
Production 2005: Section 1301
Production per kWh generated in 2005 loop biomass, small ov/pub/irs-
Tax Credit
Tax Credit dollars, indexed for inflation irrigation hydroelectric pdf/f8835.pdf
Effective: 8/8/2005 –
(REPC) annually) over a ten-year (150 kW - 5 MW),
1/1/2008
period. landfill gas, municipal
solid waste resources,
and hydropower.
SBA's 7(a) Loan Program
To be eligible, the
provides a maximum loan of
business must meet SBA
$2 million dollars but will
Small size standards, be for- The Investment
only guarantee $1.5 million to
Business profit, use proceeds Company Act of 1958
Small lenders. The guarantee covers
Administration according to SBA established the Small http://www.sba.g
Business up to 85% on loans $150,000
7(a) Loan standards, not already Business Investment ov/financing/sba
Loan and less, and up to 75% on
Guaranty have internal resources Company (SBIC) loan/7a.html
Guarantee loans above $150,000.
Program (SBA (business or personal) to Program, under which
Working capital is eligible for
7(a) Loan) provide financing, and be the SBA is licensed.
loan periods up to 10 years
able to demonstrate
while fixed asset loans are
repayment.
extended up to 25 years.

131

JVining MastersThesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JVining MastersThesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OCEAN WAVE ENERGY CONVERTERS:

OVERVIEW, LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS,

Jennifer Guinevere Vining

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

with regards to commercial prospects, environmental concerns, and current state-of-the

type of device utilizes the available ocean wave energy.

energy converters successful.

manufacturability, etc. Linear generator design factors, power conditioning techniques,

Jennifer Guinevere Vining, January 2007

Jennifer Guinevere Vining, January 2007

I owe so much to my advisor, Professor Annette Muetze, who led me to so many

way. I am so grateful to have had her support.

Electronics Consortium (WEMPEC) for taking me in and showing me the world of

My family is most special in many ways. They have always encouraged me to

lifelong. I am lucky that they understand and come to visit often.

I have met so many great people in Madison, and I am appreciative of their

all those who shared these times with me.

Jennifer Guinevere Vining, January 2007

Jennifer Guinevere Vining, January 2007

Table of Contents ............................................................................ii

Chapter 1 Ocean Energy Resources .......................................... 13

1.1 ......Ocean Currents ..........................................................................................13

1.2 ......Ocean Waves .............................................................................................14

1.3 ......Wave Climate ............................................................................................15

Chapter 2 Wave Energy Calculations........................................ 17

2.1 ......Wave Energy and Power............................................................................17

2.1.1 Energy and Power Density ............................................................18

2.1.2 Power Per Meter of Wave Front ....................................................20

2.2 ......Energy Conversion in Point Absorber .......................................................21

Jennifer Guinevere Vining, January 2007

2.2.1 Float Type ......................................................................................21

2.2.2 Tube Type ......................................................................................22

2.3 ......Energy Conversion in an Oscillating Water Column ................................23

Chapter 3 Ocean Wave Energy Commercialization.................. 24

Chapter 4 Fundamental Wave Energy Converter (WEC)

4.1 ......Turbine Type..............................................................................................27

4.1.1 Oscillating Water Column (OWC) Wave Energy Converter ........27

4.1.1.1 OWC Design.......................................................................... 28

4.1.1.2 OWC Placement: Near Shore vs. Shoreline ......................... 29

4.1.2 Overtopping Wave Energy Converter ...........................................30

4.2 ......Buoy Type..................................................................................................31

4.2.1 Tube Type ......................................................................................31

4.2.2 Float Type ......................................................................................32

4.3 ......Other Forms Worthy of Notice..................................................................35

4.4 ......Important Design Parameters.....................................................................36

Chapter 5 State of the Art .......................................................... 37

5.1 ......Oscillating Water Column .........................................................................37

Jennifer Guinevere Vining, January 2007

5.1.1 Air Pressure and Flow Control ......................................................38

5.1.2 Turbine Design ..............................................................................39

5.1.3 Moorings and Installation ..............................................................40

5.2 ......Point Absorber ...........................................................................................41

5.2.1 Control Techniques........................................................................41

5.2.2 Power Take-Off Methods ..............................................................42

5.2.2.1 Hydraulic System................................................................... 43

5.2.2.2 Linear Generator .................................................................... 44

5.2.2.3 Magnetohydrodynamic Generator ......................................... 47

5.2.2.4 Contact-Less Force Transmission System............................. 47

Chapter 6 Proposed Future Research Focus for All WECs....... 49

Chapter 7 Environmental Impact............................................... 51

Chapter 8 Governing Bodies Involved in Wave Energy Licensing