August 2, 2004
Catching the wave | A conversation with Roger Bedard, who's conducting a feasibility study to see if Maine can harness the energy produced by its waves
By Alan Elliott
It's an awesome arrangement: Solar energy jets from the sun to earth in six minutes, sending spirals of warm air and water vapor skyward from the equator. The spinning planet divides the updraft into northerly and southerly flows. As the flows cool, countless tons of atmosphere drop earthward near the mid-latitudes, powering the global engines of weather, wind and waves that continually stir life as we know it along the Maine coast.
In January, Roger Bedard began taking a close look at ways to tap that energy. A mechanical engineer who has spent 35 years developing everything from rocket propulsion to deep space robotics, he is currently concentrating on converting the ocean's wave energy to electricity. His work in Maine, funded by a $60,000 Maine Technology Institute grant, is part of a six-state study being conducted through the Palo Alto, Calif.-based Electricity Power Research Institute, a collaborative research and development group funded by energy industry companies.
In June, Bedard presented his preliminary findings on potential wave energy power sites between Kittery and Machiasport. In July, MTI advisors approved Old Orchard Beach as a theoretical location, allowing Bedard's team to prepare a proposal for a demonstration generation facility. Mainebiz caught up with him over the phone in Palo Alto to discuss that proposal and the potential for wave-generated electricity in Maine.
Mainebiz: How about a quick primer on wave generation technology ˆ how far along is it? How far has it come?
Bedard: The bottom line is it is still an immature technology. There are literally thousands of patents [issued] over the last couple of hundred years on wave energy conversion devices. But it really didn't start seriously until the 1970s.
It was Europe and Japan who [initially] went after wave energy conversion devices. The U.S. put all of its money into what is called ocean thermal energy conversion in a project off Hawaii [in the 70s]. It used the temperature difference between the warm equatorial waters and the colder currents underneath them. It was a big dollar thing, funded by the [Department of Energy] through contractors like Lockheed Martin. But they were aerospace contractors, and it didn't turn out very good.
Nor did the work in Europe and Japan. They built a couple of prototypes, but they weren't designed well enough and didn't survive storms, so wave energy got a black eye. And of course there was [already] the black eye for any offshore technology, because it is thought to be expensive, and a difficult environment to work in and to get to.
Your report names a number of potential sites: Kittery, Portland, Bath, East Boothbay, Rockland and Machiasport. It details a range of information, from undersea topography to the communities themselves. What does this all tell us?
Three locations must actually be chosen for an installation: There is the site where you build it, and there is the site where you put it in the water. And there is a third site, which is where you'd connect it to the grid. The long discussions in the report are about the harbor and the infrastructure for where you would build the device. We recommended, and the MTI advisors agreed, that the best infrastructure to build a large machine in Maine was at Portland Harbor.
We now have sites, harbors and devices selected by four states. We are now working on system-level designs, power production performance estimates and cost of electricity analyses. EPRI is going to have a big shindig for those states here in Palo Alto in the middle of September to present the results to the funders. [MTI is the sole funder in Maine.] Then we basically ask the big question: Do you want to move forward from this phase-one project definition study to phase two, which is to do the detailed design, to get a permit to build a pilot plant and to get the construction financing to build it? If all four states want their own, we'll be glad to support them.
Your report listed several distribution substations, where a generator could connect to the grid near Portland Harbor. What makes Old Orchard Beach the best candidate?
That specific substation was recommended by Maine-based consultants and Central Maine Power representatives because plans are in place there to install a 115-kilovolt line. If our pilot project evolves into a commercial scale plant, you need to have a 115 kV line to provide a big enough pipe to flow the electrons through to the rest of the grid. Another factor were the islands to the northeast of Portland, which would have reduced the wave energy at the other sites.
How much would an initial project in Maine cost?
We're sizing the whole project, from when we started last January all the way through to two years of testing and evaluation, in the $4 [million] to $5 million range. That's without any unique opportunities; we have found a number of unique situations where a pilot plant could be built for much, much less.
In California, for example, there are some offshore oil platforms that are going to be deactivated in the next year or so. They have a transmission cable we could use to bring power from a wave device back to land, and the permitting is probably not as big a deal because the floating platform is already there.
What kinds of unique opportunities might there be in Maine?
I didn't find any so far in Maine. We tried one area, the old Cutler naval base. We thought maybe the Navy did sonar testing, or had a range out there that they ran power to. But I called the Cutler economic development agency three times and didn't get a call back.
What would be the generation capacity of the pilot project equipment?
We think a reasonable size for a pilot plant would be a facility whose output would be about 1,500 megawatt hours in one year. The 1,500 megawatt hours per year would be the equivalent of a 500 kilowatt plant. [By contrast,] the yearly output of a 300 megawatt gas plant running at 100% would be 300 megawatts times 8,760 hours per year.
So the demonstration plant is going to be relatively small.
Right. The purpose is to demonstrate the feasibility of the technology. There are two big concerns relative to wave energy: surviving storms and the cost. We think this 500 kilowatt plant is big enough that we could get a feel for what it would cost, and we can reduce the uncertainties, so that a private investor would be able to base benefit/risk decisions on that kind of data. We're trying to stimulate a network of companies and, hopefully, private investors that will invest in this technology.
What are the principles used to convert wave energy?
There are four basic principles. The simplest is called heave. In a wave, the water particles are going around, up and down and back and forth, in a circle. The heave device uses the up-and-down [motion]. It is basically a navigation or weather buoy. There is a piston, and as the buoy moves up and down, it compresses hydraulic fluid. The compressed fluid is forced through a turbine which turns a generator.
Surge devices use the back-and-forth motion of the water particle. They typically look like a snake and have multiple sections. Those sections move in a pitch-and-yaw manner, and the movement drives pistons which create hydraulic pressure to turn a turbine and a generator.
The most mature wave energy device that exists today uses the surge principle. It's called the Pelamis device, made by Ocean Power Delivery in Edinburgh, Scotland.
There are also overtopping devices and oscillating water columns. Overtopping devices are huge steel reservoirs, designed so that the tops of waves splash into the reservoir. As that water drains out, it turns a turbine.
Oscillating water columns use a kind of air motion created in seaside caves: When a wave hits the cave, it forces air out. When the water recedes, it draws air back into the chamber. These devices are artificial chambers that use that air motion in both directions to turn a turbine.
And the MTI advisors settled on Pelamis as the most practical option?
It has the highest probability of being offered for commercial sale by the end of 2005-2006, when we would need it for pilot demonstration. It is four sections, each section about 40 meters long, of steel tubes that are about four-and-a-half meters in diameter. It could be built in Portland, with Ocean Power Delivery acting as the project's general contractor.
How does Maine's wave energy stack up against other states?
With regard to offshore waves, Maine has two big negatives compared to the West Coast. Global winds blow from west to east, so storms in the Gulf of Alaska and off the Sea of Japan build up nice waves that hit the West Coast. Lots of wave energy hits the West Coast.
The East Coast has its nor'easters, which give it really good wave energy in the wintertime. But you've probably looked at the ocean in the summer and noticed there's just not a whole lot of waves there. So the available wave energy in Maine is about one half of what it is in Oregon.
Another thing is the bathymetry. The dropoff of the sea floor is a lot steeper off the West Coast than off of Maine, and you want to get these devices into deep water. When you get to shallow water, the waves start to dissipate energy through friction with the ocean floor. You want these in 200 to 300 feet of water, so that you don't lose energy. The continental shelf off Maine, unfortunately, is way out there.
So Maine's got a couple of problems relative to offshore wave energy. As a matter of fact, next year, we are going to start another project which I think will probably turn out to be better for Maine, called a tidal flow project. Instead of using a dam or a barrage [a barrier to channel water flow] on a tidal inflow, these are devices that would be under the water and would use the horizontal flow of the tides to generate electricity.
What set the stage for you to come to Maine?
After the earlier problems, interest in the technology was revived in Europe and Australia three or four years ago. The governments there began spending quite a bit of money to subsidize a number of companies to develop the technology. Just this year, there have been four installations and one or two more coming for full-scale sea trials.
So there are a number of devices being put to sea now in Europe and Australia, and it just seemed to me like the time was right ˆ the stars were aligned in such a way that now was the time for the U.S. to jump in and get a part of this emerging market.
So I put together a project plan, then called our member utilities and a number of state energy agencies in states that have good wave regimes. I called eight states. Six of them were interested. So I started a collaborative program late last year and got letters of intent from six states.
Maine, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington are the four states that came up with dollar bills. The other two, Massachusetts and California, are stuck in bureaucratic malaise.
What kind of overall budget are you working with?
It's about $175,000 in cash and maybe another $100,000 in in-kind services. The biggest [contributor of in-kind services] is the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab. We asked the DOE for money and they said, "Gee, we're broke, but we're interested and will give you some free support."
So the director of the National Wind Technology Center in Golden, Colo. and his team have been looking at the environmental and permitting issues around siting offshore wind facilities for the past two or three years. There is lots of synergy between the environmental and permitting issues in offshore wind and offshore wave generators. They are performing a study as part of this phase to assess those jurisdictional issues.
The issues of who has jurisdiction over a wave power system offshore is so complicated that you wouldn't believe it. There is no one agency that has jurisdiction.
Is there any other environmental risk tied to the technology?
There may be, but I've been working on it for nine months and haven't found one yet. There usually is, but we're not far enough along to know.
Have the installations overseas run into any political or community-level resistance?
That is one of the beauties of these things compared to wind. [Wave energy facilities don't tend to create] the "not in my backyard" issues because you generally don't see these things. Some of these devices sit a little above the water. In some cases you don't see them at all; they are totally submerged. But you have to work with local fishermen, because these things have anchors and mooring lines.
You have managed Air Force technology systems and designed solid fuel rockets for Hercules Corp. It's quite a leap from there to renewable energy systems. Was there some sort of epiphany involved?
No, I just followed the government pendulum. When Nixon was president there was lots of [Department of Defense] work. Jimmy Carter became president and said we have a goal of 20% solar by the year 2000. He didn't really put up the money to get there, but he started a substantial solar technology program.
I got to manage one of the three leading [solar] technologies, the point focus distributive receiver. The one I installed was outside Palm Springs, Calif., in the 1970s and early 1980s. It demonstrated 29% peak efficiency, solar to electricity, the highest that's ever been demonstrated ˆ even today.
After Reagan came in with his Star Wars program, the company I was working for, Accurex Solar, was bought by Phillips Petroleum. Two years later they pulled the plug. I went to work for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, where I managed a $7 million-a-year program for the Mars Rover. I also worked on the Star Wars initiative with the DOD.
Then a friend of mine started a robotics company based on the Rover technology. We landed an $8 million Department of Energy contract to build a large robot to clean out a series of million-gallon storage tanks in Hanford, Wash., where there is nuclear waste leaking into the Columbia River. We bet everything on it. Three months later, the DOE reprioritized its funding, terminated the contract and shot us right out of the water.
And now wave energy generators ˆ not exactly a conservative bet. Would you call yourself an idealist?
Absolutely. The glass is always half full. I really care about those two billion people out there who have absolutely no access to electricity. It's just a recipe for disaster in this world. There are just too many have-nots. They want to be haves, they are going to start burning coal and, unless they do it in a clean way, pollution is going to cover this whole planet.
What is your assessment, then, of the actual potential for a wave generation facility along the Maine coast?
There is no doubt that it will become a reality, but it's a function of time. Whether it will become a reality in the next 10 years or not, there are certainly huge doubts there. But if our race continues to live on this planet, we will at some point use up all our expendable energy sources. And there will be really only two things left: nuclear and renewable, sustainable technologies.
In January, Roger Bedard began taking a close look at ways to tap that energy. A mechanical engineer who has spent 35 years developing everything from rocket propulsion to deep space robotics, he is currently concentrating on converting the ocean's wave energy to electricity. His work in Maine, funded by a $60,000 Maine Technology Institute grant, is part of a six-state study being conducted through the Palo Alto, Calif.-based Electricity Power Research Institute, a collaborative research and development group funded by energy industry companies.
In June, Bedard presented his preliminary findings on potential wave energy power sites between Kittery and Machiasport. In July, MTI advisors approved Old Orchard Beach as a theoretical location, allowing Bedard's team to prepare a proposal for a demonstration generation facility. Mainebiz caught up with him over the phone in Palo Alto to discuss that proposal and the potential for wave-generated electricity in Maine.
Mainebiz: How about a quick primer on wave generation technology ˆ how far along is it? How far has it come?
Bedard: The bottom line is it is still an immature technology. There are literally thousands of patents [issued] over the last couple of hundred years on wave energy conversion devices. But it really didn't start seriously until the 1970s.
It was Europe and Japan who [initially] went after wave energy conversion devices. The U.S. put all of its money into what is called ocean thermal energy conversion in a project off Hawaii [in the 70s]. It used the temperature difference between the warm equatorial waters and the colder currents underneath them. It was a big dollar thing, funded by the [Department of Energy] through contractors like Lockheed Martin. But they were aerospace contractors, and it didn't turn out very good.
Nor did the work in Europe and Japan. They built a couple of prototypes, but they weren't designed well enough and didn't survive storms, so wave energy got a black eye. And of course there was [already] the black eye for any offshore technology, because it is thought to be expensive, and a difficult environment to work in and to get to.
Your report names a number of potential sites: Kittery, Portland, Bath, East Boothbay, Rockland and Machiasport. It details a range of information, from undersea topography to the communities themselves. What does this all tell us?
Three locations must actually be chosen for an installation: There is the site where you build it, and there is the site where you put it in the water. And there is a third site, which is where you'd connect it to the grid. The long discussions in the report are about the harbor and the infrastructure for where you would build the device. We recommended, and the MTI advisors agreed, that the best infrastructure to build a large machine in Maine was at Portland Harbor.
We now have sites, harbors and devices selected by four states. We are now working on system-level designs, power production performance estimates and cost of electricity analyses. EPRI is going to have a big shindig for those states here in Palo Alto in the middle of September to present the results to the funders. [MTI is the sole funder in Maine.] Then we basically ask the big question: Do you want to move forward from this phase-one project definition study to phase two, which is to do the detailed design, to get a permit to build a pilot plant and to get the construction financing to build it? If all four states want their own, we'll be glad to support them.
Your report listed several distribution substations, where a generator could connect to the grid near Portland Harbor. What makes Old Orchard Beach the best candidate?
That specific substation was recommended by Maine-based consultants and Central Maine Power representatives because plans are in place there to install a 115-kilovolt line. If our pilot project evolves into a commercial scale plant, you need to have a 115 kV line to provide a big enough pipe to flow the electrons through to the rest of the grid. Another factor were the islands to the northeast of Portland, which would have reduced the wave energy at the other sites.
How much would an initial project in Maine cost?
We're sizing the whole project, from when we started last January all the way through to two years of testing and evaluation, in the $4 [million] to $5 million range. That's without any unique opportunities; we have found a number of unique situations where a pilot plant could be built for much, much less.
In California, for example, there are some offshore oil platforms that are going to be deactivated in the next year or so. They have a transmission cable we could use to bring power from a wave device back to land, and the permitting is probably not as big a deal because the floating platform is already there.
What kinds of unique opportunities might there be in Maine?
I didn't find any so far in Maine. We tried one area, the old Cutler naval base. We thought maybe the Navy did sonar testing, or had a range out there that they ran power to. But I called the Cutler economic development agency three times and didn't get a call back.
What would be the generation capacity of the pilot project equipment?
We think a reasonable size for a pilot plant would be a facility whose output would be about 1,500 megawatt hours in one year. The 1,500 megawatt hours per year would be the equivalent of a 500 kilowatt plant. [By contrast,] the yearly output of a 300 megawatt gas plant running at 100% would be 300 megawatts times 8,760 hours per year.
So the demonstration plant is going to be relatively small.
Right. The purpose is to demonstrate the feasibility of the technology. There are two big concerns relative to wave energy: surviving storms and the cost. We think this 500 kilowatt plant is big enough that we could get a feel for what it would cost, and we can reduce the uncertainties, so that a private investor would be able to base benefit/risk decisions on that kind of data. We're trying to stimulate a network of companies and, hopefully, private investors that will invest in this technology.
What are the principles used to convert wave energy?
There are four basic principles. The simplest is called heave. In a wave, the water particles are going around, up and down and back and forth, in a circle. The heave device uses the up-and-down [motion]. It is basically a navigation or weather buoy. There is a piston, and as the buoy moves up and down, it compresses hydraulic fluid. The compressed fluid is forced through a turbine which turns a generator.
Surge devices use the back-and-forth motion of the water particle. They typically look like a snake and have multiple sections. Those sections move in a pitch-and-yaw manner, and the movement drives pistons which create hydraulic pressure to turn a turbine and a generator.
The most mature wave energy device that exists today uses the surge principle. It's called the Pelamis device, made by Ocean Power Delivery in Edinburgh, Scotland.
There are also overtopping devices and oscillating water columns. Overtopping devices are huge steel reservoirs, designed so that the tops of waves splash into the reservoir. As that water drains out, it turns a turbine.
Oscillating water columns use a kind of air motion created in seaside caves: When a wave hits the cave, it forces air out. When the water recedes, it draws air back into the chamber. These devices are artificial chambers that use that air motion in both directions to turn a turbine.
And the MTI advisors settled on Pelamis as the most practical option?
It has the highest probability of being offered for commercial sale by the end of 2005-2006, when we would need it for pilot demonstration. It is four sections, each section about 40 meters long, of steel tubes that are about four-and-a-half meters in diameter. It could be built in Portland, with Ocean Power Delivery acting as the project's general contractor.
How does Maine's wave energy stack up against other states?
With regard to offshore waves, Maine has two big negatives compared to the West Coast. Global winds blow from west to east, so storms in the Gulf of Alaska and off the Sea of Japan build up nice waves that hit the West Coast. Lots of wave energy hits the West Coast.
The East Coast has its nor'easters, which give it really good wave energy in the wintertime. But you've probably looked at the ocean in the summer and noticed there's just not a whole lot of waves there. So the available wave energy in Maine is about one half of what it is in Oregon.
Another thing is the bathymetry. The dropoff of the sea floor is a lot steeper off the West Coast than off of Maine, and you want to get these devices into deep water. When you get to shallow water, the waves start to dissipate energy through friction with the ocean floor. You want these in 200 to 300 feet of water, so that you don't lose energy. The continental shelf off Maine, unfortunately, is way out there.
So Maine's got a couple of problems relative to offshore wave energy. As a matter of fact, next year, we are going to start another project which I think will probably turn out to be better for Maine, called a tidal flow project. Instead of using a dam or a barrage [a barrier to channel water flow] on a tidal inflow, these are devices that would be under the water and would use the horizontal flow of the tides to generate electricity.
What set the stage for you to come to Maine?
After the earlier problems, interest in the technology was revived in Europe and Australia three or four years ago. The governments there began spending quite a bit of money to subsidize a number of companies to develop the technology. Just this year, there have been four installations and one or two more coming for full-scale sea trials.
So there are a number of devices being put to sea now in Europe and Australia, and it just seemed to me like the time was right ˆ the stars were aligned in such a way that now was the time for the U.S. to jump in and get a part of this emerging market.
So I put together a project plan, then called our member utilities and a number of state energy agencies in states that have good wave regimes. I called eight states. Six of them were interested. So I started a collaborative program late last year and got letters of intent from six states.
Maine, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington are the four states that came up with dollar bills. The other two, Massachusetts and California, are stuck in bureaucratic malaise.
What kind of overall budget are you working with?
It's about $175,000 in cash and maybe another $100,000 in in-kind services. The biggest [contributor of in-kind services] is the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab. We asked the DOE for money and they said, "Gee, we're broke, but we're interested and will give you some free support."
So the director of the National Wind Technology Center in Golden, Colo. and his team have been looking at the environmental and permitting issues around siting offshore wind facilities for the past two or three years. There is lots of synergy between the environmental and permitting issues in offshore wind and offshore wave generators. They are performing a study as part of this phase to assess those jurisdictional issues.
The issues of who has jurisdiction over a wave power system offshore is so complicated that you wouldn't believe it. There is no one agency that has jurisdiction.
Is there any other environmental risk tied to the technology?
There may be, but I've been working on it for nine months and haven't found one yet. There usually is, but we're not far enough along to know.
Have the installations overseas run into any political or community-level resistance?
That is one of the beauties of these things compared to wind. [Wave energy facilities don't tend to create] the "not in my backyard" issues because you generally don't see these things. Some of these devices sit a little above the water. In some cases you don't see them at all; they are totally submerged. But you have to work with local fishermen, because these things have anchors and mooring lines.
You have managed Air Force technology systems and designed solid fuel rockets for Hercules Corp. It's quite a leap from there to renewable energy systems. Was there some sort of epiphany involved?
No, I just followed the government pendulum. When Nixon was president there was lots of [Department of Defense] work. Jimmy Carter became president and said we have a goal of 20% solar by the year 2000. He didn't really put up the money to get there, but he started a substantial solar technology program.
I got to manage one of the three leading [solar] technologies, the point focus distributive receiver. The one I installed was outside Palm Springs, Calif., in the 1970s and early 1980s. It demonstrated 29% peak efficiency, solar to electricity, the highest that's ever been demonstrated ˆ even today.
After Reagan came in with his Star Wars program, the company I was working for, Accurex Solar, was bought by Phillips Petroleum. Two years later they pulled the plug. I went to work for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, where I managed a $7 million-a-year program for the Mars Rover. I also worked on the Star Wars initiative with the DOD.
Then a friend of mine started a robotics company based on the Rover technology. We landed an $8 million Department of Energy contract to build a large robot to clean out a series of million-gallon storage tanks in Hanford, Wash., where there is nuclear waste leaking into the Columbia River. We bet everything on it. Three months later, the DOE reprioritized its funding, terminated the contract and shot us right out of the water.
And now wave energy generators ˆ not exactly a conservative bet. Would you call yourself an idealist?
Absolutely. The glass is always half full. I really care about those two billion people out there who have absolutely no access to electricity. It's just a recipe for disaster in this world. There are just too many have-nots. They want to be haves, they are going to start burning coal and, unless they do it in a clean way, pollution is going to cover this whole planet.
What is your assessment, then, of the actual potential for a wave generation facility along the Maine coast?
There is no doubt that it will become a reality, but it's a function of time. Whether it will become a reality in the next 10 years or not, there are certainly huge doubts there. But if our race continues to live on this planet, we will at some point use up all our expendable energy sources. And there will be really only two things left: nuclear and renewable, sustainable technologies.
Mainebiz web partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
Comments