1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov

Water Power Peer Review

M3 Wave Energy Systems(TRL 1 2 3 System)

PI: Mike Morrow

M3 Wave Energy Systems LLCEmail:mike@m3wave.com (541) 602-4160November, 2011

M3 Wave’s DMP: Simple, Scalable, and Submerged

Water Power 2010 project to advance DMP technology from TRL2 to TRL3+

2 | Wind and Water Power Program eere.energy.gov

Purpose, Objectives, & Integration

Project Purpose: Determine commercial potential of DMP Submerged WEC.

Expected performance Estimated Cost per kWh including first pass LCOE model Explore Design concepts and Methods for fabrication, operations,

maintenance, deployment Strategy: Minimize system cost/kWh instead of merely pushing on

nameplate rating or efficiency.

Relation to Program Objectives: A commercially viable stationary, submerged WEC technology would

provide additional portfolio options for harnessing wave energy and improving the energy independence of the US with reduced stakeholder impact.

Identifying methods for fabrication, O&M, and deployment early in the design cycle will reduce cost and decrease risk and time to market for a new technology.

3 | Wind and Water Power Program eere.energy.gov

Technical Approach

Technical Approach: Identify representative sites and characterize the wave resource in the mid-shore region of

the Oregon Coast (relatively little data existed on this region). Scientists at Oregon State University’s Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center

(NNMREC) applied SWAN modeling to site bathymetry:

Develop computer model of WEC device NNMREC scientists and M3 Wave engineers independently developed CFD and

numerical models and cross-validated the resulting output.

Sample Sites

Predicted Wave ConditionsWave spectra vs depth

Oscillating Air Column CFD modelPressure Response Curves

4 | Wind and Water Power Program eere.energy.gov

Technical Approach

Technical Approach (cont): Construct and test 1:50 scale model device

A 1m long scale model was designed, constructed, and tested using representative materials, methods, and procedures.

Key investigations using this device included: Impact of bag size and orientation on relative efficiency Impact of water depth on device performance Impact of system pressure on device performance

Tsunami test

5 | Wind and Water Power Program eere.energy.gov

Technical Approach

Key/remaining issues:• Methods for fabrication and O&M to reduce levelized cost of energy

– Working with barge manufacturers, raw material suppliers, and marine engineering firms to develop optimum solutions.

• Instrumentation– Measuring relatively low velocity bi-directional flow in small diameter pipe turned out

to be challenging. New methods being developed and refined

• Complex Bag FEA/modeling– Bag response during operation ended up being more complex than original model

capability. Currently developing empirical linkages where possible. Bag modeling will be key to sizing device output and optimizing conversion efficiency

• Refining Levelized Cost of Energy Model incorporating unique aspects of device (essentially an “area absorber”) and ability to dense pack arrays.

To be investigated on subsequent projects pending Go/no-go:

Sediment transport, biofouling, benthic ecosystem impact, more detailed LCOE model inputs.

6 | Wind and Water Power Program eere.energy.gov

Plan, Schedule, & Budget

Schedule• Initiation date: Nov 1, 2010• Planned completion date: Oct 31, 2011• Milestones:

– Wave and system model (June 2011)– Completion of scale model testing (Sept 2011)– Final roll-up of LCOE model (Oct 2011)

• GO-NO GO decision points: – Viable, data-supported cost/Kw: estimate by end of Oct 2011– Scale factor match predictions: 1:6 scale testing end of FY11– Open Water Pilot test (FY12-FY13): pending funding secured FY12

Budget: • As of Sept 1, 2011, M3 has expended $184,121.80 of the entire budget of $299,972.39, or 61.4%

of entire budget. In the last 2 months we expect the majority of subcontract dollars to be invoiced and monthly labor hours to increase due to final integration and report writing.

• In general, budget is on track. The largest variance is that we are over budget by 120 hours on grant administration. This was due to underestimating the tasks required for adherence to DOE requirements, this being our first DOE grant. This has been offset by being under budget in hardware costs for both wave flume modification and device fabrication.

Budget History

FY2010 FY2011

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share

$0 $5374.74 $149,359.22 $29,387.84

7 | Wind and Water Power Program eere.energy.gov

Technical Approach

DevelopOAC Mass

measurementTechnique

2) 50:1 scale deviceOAC mass flow from test

Estimated full scale OAC air

mass flowValidation

CAN HYDRODYNAMIC DEVICE REACH UTILITY SCALE POWER ?

PROJECTEDDEVICE FULL

SCALEPOWER OUTPUT

Research

Testing

Modeling

Three main thrusts:1) Model idealized device air mass flow.2) Compare modeled output to scaled testing results for validity.3) Refine model based on possible component properties (especially- bag).

Identify preferred COTS Turbine

Representative wave data via NOAA Buoy

Wave data corrected for Device Depth (via

NNMREC Swan Model)

Gross Device geometries

3) Refined FEA Model of System

Scale device, wave tank modifications

Frame/casing interactions

Industry research on key system components

First Pass System Model

INITIAL COST/KW ESTIMATE

Bag materials Investigation

Bag materials Testing

WHAT IS COST/KW (initial estimate) ?

1) Idealized Oscillating Air Column Mass Flow Rate Model

CompletedAs of 9/19/2011

Project Roadmap (from original proposal)