UK government looks to fund new marine power technology
Share
Up to £20m of government money will go to funding new marine power technology, the climate change minister announced today.
The funds from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) are designed to help two wave or tidal devices progress from current large-scale prototypes to bigger installations in the sea.
But industry bodies have argued that the money isn’t enough to help Britain secure a world-leading position in the field and doesn’t make up for funds withdrawn earlier this year.
Climate change minister Greg Barker said: ‘Marine power has huge potential in the UK not just in contributing to a greener electricity supply and cutting emissions, but in supporting thousands of jobs in a sector worth a potential £15 billion to the economy to 2050.
‘Britain can be a world leader as we have decades of expertise in offshore industries and the most advanced devices are already being developed here.
‘Our geography gives us access to rich marine resources that act as a natural laboratory to test and run devices in realistic conditions, especially in Scotland and the South West where innovative work is already being carried out.’
The Renewable Energy Association’s (REA) head of marine renewables, Dr Stephanie Merry, said: ’The REA is pleased that DECC has allocated £20 million from its budget for low carbon technologies specifically for the demonstration of arrays of wave and tidal stream energy devices, but let’s not forget it that last March it took £42 million away when it closed the Marine Renewables Deployment Fund.
’The Government talks of these technologies having the potential to meet 15-20% of the UK’s electricity demand by 2050 and improving our security of supply - but that isn’t going happen unless device and project developers get consistent encouragement over the long term.’
Maria McCaffery, chief executive of trade body RenewableUK, said: ’Overall, the first generation of marine energy projects is likely to cost £80 million per 10 MW scheme, and we need at least 3 or 4 projects to drive costs down and achieve the best technical solutions to maintain our premier global position in this field. So £20 million is a good start - but it’s only a drop in the ocean.’
The MRDF was launched in 2005 with the aim of providing money to new tidal and wave devices but was criticised by industry for making the qualifiying conditions too tight.
The new scheme is expected to open in spring next year and, subject to a value-for-money assessment, will support two projects to test prototypes in array formations.
This is the final development stage in generating large-scale electricity from marine power prior to commercial roll-out.
The government hopes to develop more projects, such as Aquamarine’s Oyster device, to their final testing stage before commercial roll-out
The £20m comes from DECC’s budget of £200m, announced in the government’s spending review last November, which also includes £60m for the development of offshore wind manufacturing infrastructure at port locations.
Barker added: ‘The money we’re announcing today will take marine power to the next stage of development in the UK and a step closer to being a real contender in the future energy market.’
The UK is also hoping to secure funding from the EU New Entrant’s Reserve 300 (NER300) fund, having submitted three tidal and one wave-energy projects to the competition.
UK wave energy company Aquamarine Power announced earlier this month that it is preparing for the installation of its second full-scale Oyster wave energy converter off the coast of Orkney later in the summer.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (12)
Andrew H Mackay | 28 Jun 2011 9:49 pm
These so called renewable energy systems are actually fossil thermal systems with annoyingly small intermittent pulses of renewable electricity making up about 22% of the input.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mark W. Swanepoel | 29 Jun 2011 1:12 pm
Some readers will know that >2 GW of new pumped storage (PS) schemes are now being considered in Scotland. At an average recommended ratio of 3.5 GW of RE capacity to each GW of PS, & adding the existing PS capacity, Scotland could accommodate 9.5 GW of RE with total decoupling of times of generation & use. (In fact such strict decoupling is unnecessary, allowing much more RE capacity to be installed.) However, the need for extensive wind & wave farms would be greatly reduced if the UK & devolved governments could grasp this: During the grand era of "Power from the Glens" construction, (with respect for the magnificent work of the civil and mechanical engineers, and the workmen themselves) - some schemes should have been much bolder. A huge dam could be constructed just west of Cashlie in Glen Lyon instead of the existing dams, for example, and similarly a wall 500 feet high holding back a single massive dam could have been built at Glendevon in the Ochil Hills, instead of the two small reservoirs. Such hydropower schemes could still be built, but would be much more expensive due to the need to remove existing dams. Scotland has also been slow to harness its microhydro capacity - which could avoid >600 MW of centralised generation, perhaps >1 GW. Certainly, when all such options are examined, the need for wind & wave power is much reduced, & nuclear looks non-competitive when lifecycle costs are contemplated.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jon White | 29 Jun 2011 1:44 pm
How do you conclude that these are 'fossil thermal' systems?
Aside from any plastic components in the design I can't see any link to fossil resources whatsoever.
I do however have my reservations about marine power. One major concern is what unforeseen effect might extracting wave energy have on local marine environments. Not to mention what will we surf?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Hector Bravo | 29 Jun 2011 1:48 pm
Could you develope your thoughts to light us or it's only a "I don't believe in climate change" rant, Andrew?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Pitchfork | 29 Jun 2011 2:27 pm
'So £20 million is a good start - but it’s only a drop in the ocean.’
Nice Pun!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ian Reynolds | 29 Jun 2011 2:58 pm
"The £20m comes from DECC’s budget of £200m, announced in the government’s spending review last November, which also includes £60m for the development of offshore wind"
It's not windy all the time, but the tide never has an afternoon off, in the Humber, near me. Aren't the funding ratios a little skewed?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Julian TIMOTHY | 29 Jun 2011 4:49 pm
Germany developed wind power as tidal flow wasnt an option for Germany.
GB is a collection of islands with dependable tidal flows and tidal races in the English Channel powered by the lunar pull on the Atlantic Ocean.
Installing wind power provides jobs and wealth in Germany and subsidies to German Industries.
Developing tidal flow power with known tides and power generated on load for 85% of the day makes far more sense than 20% on load for land based wind turbines and 25% on load for marine wind turbines.
From a renewable energy viewpoint marine turbines harnessing tidal flow and tidal races makes sense. MORE IMPORTANTLY, financially it will create jobs and a wealth creating industry in GB PLC with massive export markets available.
As to Hector Bravo - it is clear to me that Andrew H Mackay is referring to the fact that the National Grid has to keep conventionally (fossil) fuelled Power Stations on steam burning fossil fuels 24 hours a day 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year to provide electric power for the 78% of the day that wind power cannot provide electricty - The 18 hours and 43 minutes a day that the Wind Turbines cant supply.
Tidal flow turbines can provide a guaranteed output 85% of the day OR 20 hours and 24 minutes a day at predictable times meaning guaranteed power output to the National Grid with a maximum 3 hours and 36 minute a day to cover at predictable times - A shortfall that can be exactly planned for using stored water hydroelectricity or fuel cells.
I have worked in the Power Industry since the early 1980's and believe coal and oil is too valuable as a chemical resource for future generations to waste by burning to generate electric power and that gas is too valuable as a domestic heating and cooking source to burn generating electricty!
Whether or not I believe in global warming is irrelevant I have seen the damage caused to our environment by acid rain and I am totally against fossil fuelled power stations for both environmental reasons and the fact we need to preserve coal and oil as chemical resouces for future generations.
I am 100% behind nuclear power and marine turbines as the future of power generation in the UK suppoerted where possible by hydroelectric power and stored energy hydroelectric power for peak load lopping and for the changes in tides when marine water turbines cannot
turn under load.
Wind Power - It was the right choice for Germany due to the relative lack of coast line with sufficient tidal flow (Baltic sea unsuitable) to make marine water turbines a realistic option.
Wind Power in the UK would be the right choice for Siemens and Germany plc as it generates jobs and wealth in Germany.
As an Island Nation, Marine Water Turbines are the right choice the UK and in terms of jobs greated and export markets available it is the right choice for UK plc. Wind Power might provide an intermediate and short term solution but it diverts us from the main priority that we have - DEVELOPING A MARINE TURBINE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY, hand in hand with the required stored energy power sources to cover for the 3 hours and 36 minutes a day marine Turbines cannot power the national grid combined with New Nuclear Builds for that part of the UK's generating needs that cannot be met by land based hydroelctric power and marine water.turbines.
Finally, I should add that I once also believed in Wind Farms provided they are marine based as there are noise and health problems associated with the pressure waves generated near people homes by land based wind turbines BUT was converted to the operating advantages marine based water turbines compared to wind turbines after reeding the conference proceedings of a renewable energey conference some 10 years ago PLUS consideration of the economic benefits from trade and job creation to UK plc generating a marine water turbine industry.
As a Metallurgist and Welding Engineer with almost 30 years experience in the power generation industry, mainly gas turbines, I am familiar with the damage done by low cycle thermal fatigue to gas and steam turbines each time they undergo a thermal cycle when they are switched on and off and am very worried about the damage and cost imlications to UK plc and consumers of keeping fossil fueled power stations 'on steam' to provide back up power to the National Grid due to the unpredictability and unreliabilty of Wind Power Generation. I raised the matter at a Power Generation seminar in 2010 at the UK Welding Institute following the key note presentation on UK energy mix and the drive for renewables made by a civil servant in Chris Hunes department. The answer was the it was a major worry but we had to live with it as wind power would be the major part of UK's 30% plus from renewable energy AS THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT HAVE ANY MONEY LEFT IN THE KITTY TO FUND MARINE WATER TURBINES during a period of national austerity! We should be spending at least £1billion to fund the establishment of a marine water turbine industry, not a paltry £20 million!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter Langridge | 29 Jun 2011 6:08 pm
Julian - I couldn't have put it better myself! What a pity politicians seem unable to think in a logical, joined up way. If they could, they would agree with you too.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Scott Bergquist | 29 Jun 2011 8:10 pm
@Mark Swanepoel and other interested parties: in my applied research for wave energy devices (and the Saltire Prize), I developed a method of storing intermittent wave and tidal energy offshore, without onshore large dams. It is a type of "reverse river" where the water flows to land-based conventional hydro-turbines to generate power. Anyone wishing to examine/improve/refine my invention, write me at undulational.harvester@gmail.com and I will send you my "white paper" about it. I'm one broke bloke, so's I cannah d'velop it meself!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
R W Harrap | 29 Jun 2011 9:22 pm
I agree with Julian TIMOTHY in regard to Marine Tidal Power. However, 24 hour generation can be achieved using tidal power on the Severn Barrage by using a second pond. An additional dam enclosing an area of water can be filled when the tide is at a maximum on both sides of the main dam – that is water from the high water tide is run through turbines into an empty second pond generating electricity. Similarly, when the tide is out and the main area of water reaches a minimum height the second pond can empty water into the sea to maintain generation. An excellent tidal expert worked all this out previously, if memory serves his surname was Price. The objection to this extra dam is that in terms of additional GW per pound invested, this second pond structure is deemed expensive compared to the main dam. Pumped storage has been mentioned previously. This second pond could be designed so that if a grid failure or sudden power station failure occurred then that could be easily accommodated – the perfect pumped storage scheme that is never valued by penny counters in their calculations.
Reference to Wikipedia ‘Severn Barrage’ indicates 15 GW or 8 GW rated capacity depending upon the location of the main dam. Fuel supply is the moon going around the earth which may I humbly suggest is a longer term supply than Fossil fuel which too valuable to be burnt, it’s chemical feedstock for our grandchildren. Uranium and Thorium are finite in availability; the moon and tides will outlast humans.
One objections to the Dam is that if the Dam is removed global warming will mean that extensive costal defences. That is reverse of the truth; the Dam will protect the Somerset levels and other delicate coastline thereby saving money.
It is claimed it is new technology – weren’t there tidal mills in the UK? Forty years ago my father went with the Institute of Electrical Engineers to the La Rance Tidal Power Station that was opened in 1966. It has worked perfectly reliably after correcting a shaft oil seal design. It has paid off the capital and generates electricity cheaper (€0.018 / kw) than ANY French Nuclear Station (€0.025 / kw) because of low maintenance. La Rance only generates on the ebbing (outflow) tide, imagine the low generation costs if it also generated on the flood tide.
The Severn Barrage opponents claim it will damage the wildlife. Yes, the Severn Bore will disappear. The opponents claim that large areas of the mud flats will be permanently covered by water depriving wildlife of feeding areas. This would only happen if it was STUPIDLY designed to operate on the ebb tide only. Ebb flow is beneficial to run with a high head in the dam to maximise generation on outflow only. Also, these opponents claim that since the La Rance only works on the outflow, generation will be limited to two 4 hour periods in the day at the Severn Barrage. This is the classic way of killing a project; claim generation is one third of actual generation available. It could provide a road and rail link that could offset the cost further. Then all you need is Professor Salter’s Ducks operating at 90% efficiency along the dam front recovering wave energy, protecting the dam and increasing power output.
The London Olympics are costing £13 Billion, for twice that we would have a facility generating for over 125 years – easy to prolong life beyond 125 years. Unfortunately, all taxpayer’s capital must be spent in London. Yes, if Nuclear is safe as Londoners tell us and is so easy to remove after 35 years; then why not compulsory purchase the Battersea Power Station Turbine Hall, reinstall new Turbines, with an elegant Nuclear Station alongside. The original Power Station did Combined Heat and Power if I recall, power demand is local (saving National Grid) and Father Thames is a proven heat sink for Power stations. In the old days the River Thames rose by a maximum of 7°C with all the old coal fired power stations on line.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment