Interview with:
Alison La Bonte MARINE AND HYDRO-KINETIC TECHNOLOGY MANAGER US Department of Energy |
Tim hurst
MANAGING DIRECTORWave Energy Scotland |
Matthijs Soede RESEARCH PROGRAMME OFFICER DG Research & Innovation, European Commission |
|||
Cristoph Tagwerker
CLIMATE CHANGE DIVISIONInfrastructure and Environment Sector, Inter-American Development Bank |
Simon Robertson
PROJECT COORDINATOR Nagasaki Marine Industry Cluster Promotion Association |
Takaaki Morita
DIRECTOR Marine Industry Development Office, Industry & Labor Department at Nagasaki Prefectural Government |
Note: In July 2014, Nagasaki Prefecture was designated by the Japanese National Government as a “Marine Renewable Energy Demonstration Field” which is suitable for floating wind and tidal energy generation. Nagasaki Prefecture will promote the development of the Nagasaki demonstration field by attracting various demonstration projects from home and abroad in cooperation with the national government in accordance with a national government decision in 2012 to promote the development of a marine renewable energy demonstration field.
Ocean Energy technology is usually developed and brought forward by small companies. These had the entire development risk and needed to acquire external capital (partly Venture Capital) in order to proceed to full scale prototypes or first demonstration projects. The long time span between developing and commercialising not only a single technology, but an entire sector, obviously needs serious and medium-long term commitment from the industry (utilities, industrial manufacturers…). Do you feel such commitment exists at this stage? If not, how could such commitment be triggered in your opinion?
ALISON LA BONTE:
|
TIM HURST:
For sure there is commitment. From the policy site I see huge interest for Ocean Energy by the support for the Ocean Energy Forum, and different financing instruments on a national and international level. But also commitment from an industrial perspective. For instance, if you analyse the members of the Ocean Energy Europe Association you can see clearly that manufacturers and utilities are interested in ocean energy technology development. Another example is that they are participating in our demonstration projects in Horizon2020. At the moment we have never financed so many ocean energy projects on a European level like now. I hope we will have great results in the coming year helping the whole sector to develop. |
In order to help trigger a long term commitment from the industry, it is necessary for the centre to successfully demonstrate renewable energy turbines, even at a modest level. In addition to proving the technology, a positive regulatory environment including public funding support is required to commercialise the sector. Moreover, addressing the wide range of issues involved requires close cooperation between Government, industry, investors and device developers. Whilst much is being achieved by the strong long-term commitment at a regional level in Nagasaki, more widely in Japan higher levels of commitment from large industrials, utility companies and the Japanese Government is essential. |
CHRISTOPH TAGWERKER: In Latin America this commitment does not exist. Latin America is still a technology importer and as such is more focused on implementing already proven technologies rather than supporting technology development, especially in the case of renewable energies. Much stronger public sector support and policies would be necessary to trigger that support. |
Tidal current energy has reached a point of starting pre-commercial development, because in several projects reasonable responses to the technical challenges could already be found. At present stage, would you see tidal current energy projects and wave energy projects, among other less-established ocean energy concepts (salinity gradient, OTEC) with the same type of support? Or would you agree that wave energy (and others) might need a different funding approach?
ALISON LA BONTE: I would like to give two recent examples of diverse funding approaches showing how the unique
|
TIM HURST:
CRISTOPH TAGWERKER: More public information is needed and non disclosure of information in the industry is a barrier for further development. |
TAKAAKI MORITA & SIMON ROBERTSON: It is essential that funding support is designed on a case by case basis to meet the needs of developers and the market situation at the time. Tidal energy, wave energy, OTEC and salinity gradient generation technologies and markets all face different development challenges. Funding support should be provided by taking into account the different circumstances surrounding the needs of individual developers and varying market environments that are prevalent at different times.. |
Wave energy has suffered some credibility loss, since several ambitious projects failed to meet the investors’ short term expectations in the last decade. Nevertheless, the RTD support on an international level has increased. How important would you think is transparency and open sharing/discussion of results in this phase of the sector? Could a public-financed initiative link more substantial support to the obligation to give access to results to a broader scientific and technical community, and/or joint development projects that do not exclusively aim at one technology?
ALISON LA BONTE: Additionally, the degree to which applicants are willing to publically share valuable data is used as an evaluated criterion in both the merit review and award selection process. DOE’s Water Power Program is also excited about a new initiative that is focused on creating a “Structured Innovation” framework to help develop optimal WEC technologies. This initiative has recently been kicked off through a joint effort by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories. This project is not aimed exclusively at one technology, as the national labs and other partners in this joint development effort will have no attachment to a single “idea” or “innovation.” By engaging with industry, the team will approach the engineering problem of defining what would be an optimal wave energy conversion based on fundamental design principles. First, they will specify the basic functional requirements of the system and then set minimum metrics that will serve as the required performance standard for each of these functions. Then they will employ a technique for innovative problem solving, which is based on a theory that defines generalizable patterns in the nature of inventive solutions, along with the distinguishing characteristics of the challenges that these inventions have to overcome. |
TIM HURST: It is very difficult to achieve sharing of results, particularly negative results, when small technology companies want to project their image and stock value. At Wave Energy Scotland (WES) we fully fund technology development and put a contractual requirement on participants to share and disseminate results within our technology programme. Expanding this programme approach to other EU member states would be a significant step forward. |
TAKAAKI MORITA AND SIMON ROBERTSON: There are many opportunities for joint development projects within offshore renewables such as deployment methods for a turbine system as well as operations and maintenance activities. This requires the cooperation of multiple developers to agree to joint developments of such technologies. Public entities and funding organizations are well placed to facilitate the drawing up of the necessary framework arrangements for undertaking such collaborations. In Japan an appreciation of the advantages of knowledge sharing and collaboration is widely held by funders and industry. The Ministry of the Environment, acting as a key funder, has been supporting the 2MW Floating Offshore Wind demonstration project which is a joint project among industrial and academic partners in the waters off Nagasaki Prefecture and in 2013 this became the first grid connected floating offshore wind turbine in Japan. To help inform future projects, knowledge sharing reports and data relating to technical and environmental aspects of the project will be produced and disseminated. |
MATTHIJS SOEDE: I think sharing information is extremely important for the sector. It is maybe not that you share exactly all the details of your technology, but everybody is facing the same challenges working in a harsh environment. Everybody did make mistakes or had bad experiences, but these are giving very useful information for new innovations. For that reason we asked Ecorys together with Fraunhofer to conduct a study in 2016 on lessons learned for the whole sector. Ocean energytechnology companies should embrace and share knowledge about challenges and failures and view them as learning opportunities. The study is meant to open up the sector and to prioritize future activities, and I would like to ask everybody to cooperate and to share their knowledge. |
CHRISTOPH TAGWERKER: Yes, I agree that a public financed initiative would be more effective as it would allow easier access to information. In the early technology development stage transparency and information is crucial to design and size funding support. |
In order to seriously advance the ocean energy development, only extensive field testing and gradual improvements will help to overcome the technical challenges in the present development phase. Projects have to be monitored heavily, and quick interaction in case of unexpected problems must be assured. Typically, this means too heavy commitment of one single development team at a site. EMEC has been a very important fore-runner in concentrating know-how in one test centre, but other regions require similar infra-structure, in order to enable the sector to develop. Could it be an option to create an international network of 3-5 of such centres in various sea conditions, mostly run by public funds? In addition, could device developers be offered grant schemes to access these sites, where they are obliged to undergo pre-defined test schemes including sharing/publication of results?
ALISON LA BONTE: DOE’s Water Power Program agrees that a diversity of test sites is required in order to span the range of energy intensity that developers are ready totest at as their WEC technology steps through the Technology Readiness Level progression. Where these test sites are located is important as:
For these reasons, the United States is investing in the development of a fully energetic wave energy device testing facility that will play an integral role in advancing wave energy technologies from early-stage prototypes through commercial ready products. In addition, this facility will provide a training ground for the next-generation of wave energy researchers. |
TIM HURST:
CRISTOPH TAGWERKER: MATTHIJS SOEDE: Most of these test sites have been set up by public finance and they are still financed by grant schemes. The demonstration projects which we are supporting are mainly using these test sites, because of the existing infrastructure the overall cost for these projects will be lower and they have in general already the necessary permits to do experiments. I think the IEA OES can play a role in a better coordination and cooperation. It would help the sector and if the sector is successful it will be beneficiary for all test sites. |
TAKAAKI MORITA & SIMON ROBERTSON: The Nagasaki Prefecture demonstration centre in Western Japan is ideally located to enable collaboration and knowledge sharing across neighbouring Asian and South East Asian countries and to act as an Asian hub for development, in much the same way EMEC is in Europe. Planners of the centre are ready to make it an active participant in a strong network of international test centres and to this end are already collaborating actively with top officials at EMEC, initially for the development of the test centre. In due course, the planners are also likely to do so regarding the R&D which takes place there. It is expected that most projects at test centres will require grant funding and other support to access the sites. Such funding presents an excellent opportunity to require valuable knowledge sharing and publication measures whilst respecting commercially sensitive information. |
All ocean energy technologies are expected to go through a phase of development. Can you comment on the possibility and implementation of a stage-gate approach, in other words, only engaging funding for the next phase if the performance indicators of the former phase are achieved?
ALISON LA BONTE: The most aggressive implementation of stage gates and performance metrics in the Water Power Program is through stage-gate down-selection in the Wave Energy Prize. In the Prize, competing technologies must measure up against stage-gate metrics transparently stated in the Prize Rules, and to be eligible to be awarded prize money in the Wave Energy Prize, teams must have met a minimum threshold performance metric. The Prize measures the state-of-the-art performance of WECs through a new metric created in the prize design process, the ACE metric-Average Climate Capture Width per Characteristic Capital Expenditure. ACE represents the energy captured per unit structural cost of WECs. This is a proxy metric for LCOE. LCOE is a metric that allows for comparisons of the costs of electricity produced by different means and sources (like solar, wind, fossil, and so on). The state-of-the-art value for ACE is 1.5 meters per million dollars (1.5 m/$M). A Finalist becomes eligible to win the $1.5 million grand prize if they double ACE to 3 m/$M during the final round of testing. To achieve the Prize goals stated above, the participants are required to undertake more and The benefit of this kind of quantitative and transparent approach is that the Prize will not only achieve the sector rapid innovation needed to reach a new state of the art performance of the |
TIM HURST: The stage gate approach is exactly what WES has now implemented with its two innovation calls. Developers are funded for a discrete phase of development and can only move to the next phase if they meet the requirements of the stage gate technical milestone. This provides continuity of funding for those who meet their milestones and an element of competition between technologies. |
TAKAAKI MORITA AND SIMON ROBERTSON: Public entities and funding organizations therefore have a responsibility to set appropriate technological goals for developers as part of a stage-gate development approach. It is vital to carefully devise a system which is flexible enough to allow developers to progress rapidly when ready to do so but one which also permits further development iterations if required before the next stage and up-scaling. A stage-gate approach to development has been adopted here in Nagasaki Prefecture with the 2MW floating offshore wind turbine having been preceded by a smaller 100kW part scale demonstrator. Having been successfully demonstrated and yielded much knowledge and learning, the next technology step is expected to involve a multiple-turbine farm based on the successfully demonstrated 2 MW turbine. |
MATTHIJS SOEDE: We introduced in 2015 a new financing instrument InnovFin Energy Demo Projects to bring technologies further to the market. Unfortunately I see some developers trying to apply in all different possible programmes and just adopting their 'technology readiness level' according to the requirements of the respective funding scheme. I think this is not fair to the funding organisations and make makes them suspicious. It is also not fair to themselves; they are putting themselves in a situation which they shouldn't be and that enlarges the risk on failure. It |
CHRISTOPH TAGWERKER: It might be difficult to apply during technology development and definition of success is important here. If something hasn’t worked as expected in one stage that doesn’t mean it won’t work in the next phase because there could be lessons for improvement which make the next stage work. In other words most lessons are learned by failure not by success. |