Pelamis Wave Power Limited has gone into administration after failing to secure the funds required to further develop its marine energy solution.
Pelamis’ wave machines comprised five tubed sections linked by universal joints that allow flexing in two directions. The machine floats semi-submerged on the surface of the water and faces into the direction of the waves. As waves pass down the length of the machine and the sections bend in the water, the movement is converted into electricity via hydraulic power take-off systems housed inside each joint of the machine tubes, and power is transmitted to shore using subsea cables and equipment (The Engineer, April 2012).
In a statement, Neil Kermode, managing director of European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) said: ‘Pelamis have been one of the icons of the marine renewables industry, so we are absolutely gutted at this setback.
‘It is all the more galling when we know that marine energy has the potential to be a major supplier of power to the UK. But just like anybody who has been to sea, we know how hard it is out there, and trying to build a new power source was never going to be easy.
‘Today’s announcement is undoubtedly a big setback in the mission to learn how to harvest energy from the sea, but the prize is still there. The waves will keep pounding into the Orkney coastline and the world is still using precious and irreplaceable fossil fuels at an increasing rate. We know marine energy will have its day. It just looks a bit harder tonight.’
In September 2014 Pelamis Wave Power was selected to progress to the next stage of a competitive procurement process with Irish utility ESB for the deployment of Pelamis wave machines on the west coast of Ireland.
WestWave is a 5MW capacity project led by ESB, which has secured €23.5m of NER300 funding from the European Commission. With proposed delivery of the wave farm by 2018, WestWave will be Ireland’s first wave energy project.
This is a real shame, it would be great if he published the work done so that other companies can benefit if the worst does happen to Pelamis
The Pelamis concept was first developed by Prof Norman Bellamy at Coventry University about 30 years ago. He built a prototype and then abandoned it in favour of a much better device called “Sea Clam”. He has since abandoned Sea Clam and developed an even better device called “SeaWave”. If the remaining technical problems can be solved it will make all other wave power devices obsolete overnight.
Pelamis was seriously obsolete before PWP started working on it. I’m amazed that they were able to raise as much money as they did. The lure of subsidies I suspect.
It does raise questions on the economic viability of such solutions.
Economic viability seemed unlikely. But worse how did such a Heath-Robinson contraption be expected to supply reliable power in such a hostile environment as the open sea??
Neil Kermode states above:-
“It is all the more galling when we know that marine energy has the potential to be a major supplier of power to the UK”.
This would seem at odds with the discussion on wave power by Prof David JC MacKay where on page 74 of the November 2008 version of his free to down load book “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air” (available at http://www.withouthotair.com) he concluded:-
“While wave power may be useful for small communities on remote islands, I suspect it can’t play a significant role in the solution to Britain’s sustainable energy problem”
It would seem sadly for Pelamis Wave Power and their employees that Prof MacKay would appear to have been right.
But turn to page 81 and you will find his much more positive discussion on “Tide” where under “Beauties of Tide” on page 86 he lists 7 reasons why we should be excited about tidal power in the British Isles.
So all is not lost and marine energy, generated from tidal power not waves, does appear to have the potential to be a major supplier of sustainable energy to the UK.
Britannia rules the tides, not the waves?
Pelamis (like many engineering developments) is (was?) driven by the energy and passion of an individual – an engineer – funded by grants, and thus developed far too slowly. i.e. an under-invested proof-of-concept. They deserve a medal for hanging on this long – and I hope they bounce back.
Since not a single concept of any marine energy device has become economically viable, no-one can say if this design might have become the defacto choice (or might still do).
Just like wind turbine design has converged on a horizontal axis type with 3 conventional blades, so will (eventually) marine energy devices converge on the most viable solution. But that solution is defined by an equation in the units of £ and not kPa.
The major barrier to all these designs however is not the ‘sexy’ engineering of the turbine/duck/snake etc – it is the relatively boring power transmission system including cables connectors transformers etc which take the generated energy from the turbine to where it’s need – onshore (along with the system that controls and processes the electricity into grid-standard form).
Returning to the first point, the second biggest barrier is one of scale. Prototype wind turbines 20 years ago were small devices (also constrained by research funding), but even though production versions are now 100m high, a farm of dozens is still needed to generate meaningful quantities of energy.
In the same way, wave, current or tidal devices (despite the energy density of water) ALSO need to be deployed in ‘farms’ of 20 – 50 machines, ALL of which require mooring and cabling (and then operation and maintenance).
You only have to look at how ludicrously close to the coast some of the wind energy projects are currently to realise the cost-per-km of the cabling (plus the massive cost of installation in an offshore environment) are the governing factors in these projects.
Wind turbines also have to contend with water depth in terms of foundation design and installation, whereas the location of marine energy devices is completely constrained by their method of operation… and typically closer to the coast is better.
So one has to add all the NIMBY grief of close-to-shore sites which are often very specific (e.g. tidal – Severn estuary etc) and almost always clash with some wildlife or other.
Then one must add the business activities outside engineering which demands due diligence like Environmental Impact Assessments – licencing – investment funding – research grants – all without really knowing the efficiency of the device, let alone a farm as a whole (a bit like many internet startups who have a bright idea but really no idea how it can be monetised). In fact as engineers its likely these pioneers don’t even care if their idea – their baby – is economic. And with oil and gas still literally gushing out of the North Sea it’s unlikely any alternative would be.
Then as noted, add the deafening silence from the City, whose legendary greed will overlook any of this ‘boffin scale tinkering’ – leaving even the most promising engineering solution to wither and die…
…until the Return on Investment is double or triple what it is now. This can only happen when demand outstrips supply. This will come in 10-15 years time when the power stations can no longer match rising demand and the lights start going out – North sea gas is in decline – gas from Russia is held to ransom – and surprise surprise any new nuclear power stations are still under construction.
By then consumers will not be paying 20% more but 200% – because it took too long to take the decision to reopen the nuclear option. People will be on the streets demanding blood: we will think the 1973 energy ‘crisis’ was a picnic.
THEN we will no doubt invite the Chinese, French, Germans (add any self-respecting country of choice) to do BOTH the investing AND engineering, so we will pay them for the work, the devices AND a nice tariff percentage of the energy production!
In fact we will pay even more dearly because we will be desperate, and THEIR engineers will be on overtime rates as they rush to correct our lazy policy mistakes and get the lights back on.
(Of course a fifth ‘whammy’ is that – like in the 70s – government will have to prioritise energy supply to the hospitals and factories and leave us to huddle around candles – but hey, at least plasma TVs don’t need much power so you could buy a generator).
It reminds me of the day I found out that the old UK power stations (you know, the ones with the cooling towers) were only 30% efficient. That is the Great Britain I grew up with. It seems little has changed…
Except now I am an engineer who’se been made redundant twice specifically because it suited the board better to invoke that law that puts the survival of a company above its workforce – Look it up if you don’t believe me. The company is the shareholders not the employees. (That stuff that HR tells you about the people being the company’s best asset? – they even believe it themselves, poor saps.)
You know we are all Willing Slaves (read the book, I am not affiliated)… the City and Parliament are symbiotic parasites living off our fat flat-screen-TV watching lazy complacent stupidity. You think you have a career but you don’t. You have a job – and that only exists because it makes some shareholder richer (and probably not in the UK).
So if you are an engineer or not, the way to get energy generation for the future is not to spend hours in the shed inventing some wacky ghizmo – its to get down to your MPs constituency office and give them hell. Trouble is, us engineers are better with cold metal than people, and MPs have a habit of twisting what they hear to meet their own ends. In fact they probably don’t even listen.
So Pelamis going out with a whimper is the fault of the City and our elected leaders – and come the revolution I hope they remember they had their chance to actually make the country great, but were too busy with their noses stuck deep in the capitalist trough to notice the lights going out.
Hi Neil and others,
I am new to this post, but I have done significant research around wave energy conversion in answer to Prof David JC MacKay’s thoughts on the subject, the jury is still out as to whether this will be a viable option to throw in to the renewable/ green energy mix.
With regard to the Pelamis device, in 2008 I was asked to carry out a case study on the Pelamis technology; I used the information freely available from their own web site such as their power production matrix and their predicted cost of equipment.
The site used for this case study had significant hind cast wave data which allowed for the future forecasting of power output for the project with a good potential wave energy resource.
Using the Pelamis PPM, up to date wholesale cost of electricity and government incentives for marine renewable energy the case study showed that when servicing the cost of finance that the revenue generated would leave an annual deficit of £149,000 per device, no amount of modification in the structure, mass production techniques or selection of cheaper material was likely to make any significant difference therefore no informed investor should have touched this company, yet they did to the tune of around £90 million. There are 2 other companies which spring to mind who have received similar figure investments and they are also likely to go the same way as Pelamis, worldwide we can estimate that more than £300 million has been invested with not much in the way of results. One of the reasons behind the misguided investment is down to the UK government funding bodies and lack of thorough and informed due diligence by the investors, some of the blame can be laid squarely at the feet of institutions such as DECC & the TSB who decided that a focussed approach excluding all other technologies was the way to go, this obviously stimulated the misguided confidence from the investors.
I also know that there has been an over reliance on the adopted TRL method of technology assessment, and the fact that the main focus missed the fundamental reason for this technology; which is to produce viable energy and because energy already has a defined value then there is a ratio of cost of capital equipment to the amount of power it produces that needs to be achieved before it is at TRL9 if this is taken in to consideration when TRL9 is achieved the Technology can also be said to be 100% investment ready and then the proven technology can then be used to create profitable energy generation facilities in the form of wave farms.
“Since not a single concept of any marine energy device has become economically viable, no-one can say if this design might have become the defacto choice (or might still do).”
I don’t believe the above statement. Thirty years ago the Queen’s University Belfast oscilalting water column device using a self rectifing Wells turbine was installed on Islay in a natural rock gully. It has produced electrical power consistently for years AT A PRICE THAT WAS ECONOMIC FOR ISLAY . The Outer Hebrides is simply too far away from the centre of gravity of the power requirements of the UK to be economic . This was well known in 1982 when the the official funeral service for Wave energy was held at Harwell ! In short wave power can be economic in a local context particularly when the passive reactance to the wave forces can be supplied by a natural rock formation or a break water