Large scale photovoltaic array deployment for lacustrine and marine environments: A critical review. ENGR 6116 E – Seminar Series Kim Trapani Research Supervisor: Prof. Dean Millar Introduction Advances in renewable energy have resulted in large scale offshore deployment of renewable technologies, exploiting wind, tidal and wave energy. Water covers almost 71% of the earth’s surface; hence a great proportion of the solar resource is not exploitable using traditional onshore photovoltaic (PV) arrays and configurations. Offshore PVs An offshore PV array would consist of floating PV panels. In large scale application this could consist of a number of standard size devices or of a scaled up version. Far Niente, California Current Offshore Technologies WIND TIDAL WAVE North Hoyle, 60MW La Rance, 240MW Aguçadoura, 2.25MW Thanet, 300MW Strangford Lough, 1.2MW Oahu, 40kW Strangford Lough, 1.2MW North Hoyle, 60MW Far Niente, 110kW Aguçadoura, 2.25MW La Rance, 240MW Thanet, 300MW Oahu, 40kW Wind Resource Where the power extracted is: P = ½ρAv3 Example of a typical wind rose and power output from a wind farm On average a typical wind turbine site is intermittent, that is at 0m/s for 3-4% of the time. Horns Rev, Denmark 80 x V80 Turbine spacing is 7D x 7D Wind Technology Advantages: • Developed technology • Low physical footprint Disadvantages: • Wake effects • Visual impacts • Cut in/Cut out speed Typical spacing for offshore wind farms: >7D Horns Rev, Denmark GLOBAL INSTALLED CAPACITY – 2056MW Tidal Barrage (Boyle, 2004) Advantages: • Developed technology • Predictable and controlled power output Disadvantages: • Major environmental impacts • Requires large catchment area • Visual impacts TIDAL BARRAGE Marine Current Turbines (MCTs) Typical spacing MCTs is 5 – 8D Retrieved from http://green-tide.org/technology/ MCTs Advantages: • Predictable • Minimal impacts Disadvantages: • Subject to wake effects • Minor visual impacts Attenuating WECs Advantages: • Sector leader (has sold 4 units!) Attenuator – the energy absorber is of comparable magnitude to the wavelength of incident waves and aligned parallel to the wave propagation direction. Disadvantages: • Device complexity • Need for maintenance • Scales only with more devices ATTENUATING WECs Utilisation of biodegradable hydraulic and transformer fluids. Point Absorber WECs Advantages: • Higher density installed capacity Point absorber – the energy absorber is very small with respect to the wavelength of incident waves. Disadvantages: • Submerged components POINT ABSORBER WECs Retrieved from www.oceanpowertechnologies.com Spacing requirements for OPTs Powerbuoys is 5D* * According to proposal from Coos Bay Wave Park Terminating Absorber WECs Advantages: • High absorption efficiency Terminator – the energy absorber is of comparable magnitude to the wavelength of incident waves and aligned perpendicular to the wave propagation direction. Disadvantages: • Requires large catchment area • Arms fall off! • Moorings TERMINATING ABSORBER WECs Retrieved from http://www.wavedragon.net Offshore Case Studies Device North Hoyle Type Wind Horns Rev Wind Turbine 2002 € 272.00M $ 403.05M $ 531.72M 20 160.00 MW 20.00km² 39.0% Thanet Wind Turbine 2010 £ 780.00M $1,388.47M $ 1,388.47M 20 300.00 MW 35.00km² 35.0% La Rance Strangford Lough Aguçadoura Tidal Barrage 1967 Fr. 640.00 M $ 139.83M $ 665.26M 30 240.00 MW 22.00km² 25.7% Tidal TCT 2008 £ 8.50M $ 16.71M $ 15.15M 15 1.20 MW 0.01km² 40.0% Wave Pelamis 2006 $ 8.20M $ 9.30M $ 9.71M 15 2.25 MW 0.22km² 25.0% HL Crystalline Offshore PV Crystalline Proposal $ 350.00M $ 350.00M $ 350.00M 20 224.00 MW 2.00km² 12.2% HL Thin Film Offshore PV Thin Film Proposal $ 330.00M $ 330.00M $ 330.00M 20 224.00 MW 3.00km² 12.5% ML Crystalline Offshore PV Crystalline Proposal $ 350.00M $ 350.00M $ 350.00M 20 224.00 MW 2.00km² 14.9% ML Thin Film Thin Film Proposal $ 330.00M $ 330.00M $ 330.00M 20 224.00 MW 3.00km² 15.3% Discount Rate 7.50% Offshore PV Technology Installation Turbine 2003 £ CAPEX CAPEX* 2009/10 - CAPEX Design Life Capacity Footprint Capacity Factor 86.00M $ 196.36M $ 255.12M 20 60.00 MW 10.00km² 36.3% *CAD $ Yield Production Wind 1,339 kWh/kW 3,180 kWh/kW 1,304 kWh/kW 1,071 kWh/kW 3,416 kWh/kW Footprint Capacity (MW) Capacity Factor Yield (MWh) 10.00km² 60.00 MW 36.3% 190793 20.00km² 160.00 MW 39.0% 546624 35.00km² 300.00 MW 35.0% 919800 22.00km² 240.00 MW 25.7% 540317 0.01km² 1.20 MW 40.0% 4205 kWh/kW kWh/m² W/m² 3,180 kWh/kW 19.1 6.0 3,416 kWh/kW 27.3 8.0 3,066 kWh/kW 26.3 8.6 2,251 kWh/kW 24.6 10.9 3,504 kWh/kW 525.6 150.0 Agucadoura 0.22km² 2.25 MW 25.0% 4928 2,190 kWh/kW 22.4 10.2 HL Crystalline HL Thin Film ML Crystalline ML Thin Film 2.00km² 3.00km² 2.00km² 3.00km² 224.00 MW 224.00 MW 224.00 MW 224.00 MW 12.2% 12.5% 14.9% 15.3% 240000 246000 292000 300000 1,071 kWh/kW 1,098 kWh/kW 1,304 kWh/kW 1,339 kWh/kW 120.0 82.0 146.0 100.0 112.0 74.7 112.0 74.7 kWh/kW 3,066 kWh/kW Offshore PV 2,190 kWh/kW Wave Tidal 1,098 kWh/kW Device North Hoyle Horns Rev Thanet La Rance Strangford Lough 3,504 kWh/kW 1000.0 160.0 900.0 140.0 800.0 120.0 700.0 600.0 100.0 500.0 80.0 400.0 60.0 300.0 40.0 200.0 20.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 North Hoyle Horns Rev Thanet La Rance Strangford Agucadoura HL Lough Crystalline kWh/m² W/m² HL Thin Film ML Crystalline ML Thin Film Installed Capacity per m² Production Yield per m² 2,251 kWh/kW Economics 40.00 c/kWh 35.00 c/kWh 30.00 c/kWh 25.00 c/kWh 20.00 c/kWh 15.00 c/kWh 10.00 c/kWh 5.00 c/kWh 0.00 c/kWh North Hoyle Horns Rev Thanet La Rance Strangford Lough Levelised Investment Agucadoura HL Crystalline HL Thin Film ML ML Thin Film Crystalline O&M Costs Data compiled from case studies and EWEA, 2009 Albedo Effect The increase in diffuse lighting from the water surface, could be as much as 60% higher depending on the angle of incidence. Similar increases in diffused lighting could be expected from surfaces with snow/ice. PV Technologies: Review There are two main PV technology types in the market: • Crystalline solar cells • Amorphous solar cells Crystalline Cells Mono-Crystalline Cells Amorphous Cells η = 9 – 11% η = 14 – 15% ~ 0.140 kWp/m2 ~ CAN $ 2.50/Wp Poly-Crystalline Cells η = 13 – 14% ~ 0.140 kWp/m2 ~ CAN $ 2.00/Wp ~ 0.080 kWp/m2 ~CAN $ 1.00/Wp Waste Heat in PVs When PV panels are exposed to direct sunlight only a fraction of the rays is converted into electricity, the rest is converted into waste heat – this is what determines the efficiency of a PV panel. PV panels only converts light of a certain wavelength according to the panel’s band gap. It though still absorbs most of the solar spectrum (apart from that which is reflected at the PV surface), and what is not converted into electricity is given out as waste heat. Effect of Efficiency with Heat “Temperature coefficients provide the rate of change (derivative) with respect to temperature of different photovoltaic performance parameters” (King, Kratochvil, & Boyson, 1997) STC Standard Temperature and Conditions: Temp. = 25°C Irradiance = 1000W/m2 Air Reference Mass = 1.5 Temperature coefficient is -0.4342%/K for tested PV panel at STC. ↓ η ∝ ↑heat Heat Transfer In ground mounted PV arrays this heat would have to be extracted through radiation, convection and conduction using air as the medium. Radiation: Convection: Conduction: P = eσA(T4 – Tc4) ∆Q = hA∆T ∆Q = -kA∆T/l P – net radiated power e – emissivity σ – Stefan’s constant A – radiating area T – temp. of radiator Tc – temp. of medium ∆Q – heat transfer h – convective heat transfer coefficient A – surface area ∆T – temperature gradient ∆Q – heat transfer k – thermal conductivity A – surface area ∆T – temperature gradient l – length Heat Transfer In ground mounted PV arrays this heat would have to be extracted through radiation, convection and conduction using air as the medium. Radiation: Convection: Conduction: P = eσA(T4 – Tc4) ∆Q = hA∆T ∆Q = -kA∆T/l P – net radiated power e – emissivity σ – Stefan’s constant A – radiating area T – temp. of radiator Tc – temp. of medium ∆Q – heat transfer h – convective heat transfer coefficient A – surface area ∆T – temperature gradient ∆Q – heat transfer k – thermal conductivity A – surface area ∆T – temperature gradient l – length Hence the heat extracted depends on the temperature and thermal conductivity of the medium. Since h is a factor of k ↑ Efficiency with ↓ Temp. Hence at lower air to water temperatures the efficiency of the PV panels would be higher – thus giving a higher power output. Thus at -55°C the efficiency of the PV panel would be ~ 19% compared to the 14% at STC Thermal Conductivities (Water vs. Air) Medium Thermal Conductivity (W/mK) Temperature (K) Density (kg/m3 ) Air 0.025 293 1.29 Water 0.6 293 1000 Ice 2.1 293 917 (Hukseflux, 2010) The change of fluid medium from air to water would imply a significantly higher thermal conductivity. Hence the fraction of heat extracted through conduction would be higher, since the heat extracted is directly proportional to the thermal conductivity. This will though require testing in order to determine the increase in efficiency of the PV due to the enhanced heat conduction medium. ∆Q = -kA∆T/l ↑ η ∝ ↑heat extracted ∝ k PV Reliability • PV has no moving part • Minimal maintenance (other than maintaining surfaces clean) • Conventional technologies rely on mechanical movement With moored devices the scenario is slightly different since the reliability of the whole structure relies on the device maintaining its moored position. WECs have a mooring failure rate of 0.555/annum*. *Thies, Flinn, & Smith, 2009 Self Cleaning Surface ↑PV Reliability implies ↓Lower Failure Rate Land Competition ↑Population ∝ ↑Agricultural land requirement United Nations, 2004 Land Cover Percentage Urban 0.30% Ice/Cold Desert 5.90% Coastal Fringes 3.20% Irrigated Cropland 3.00% Wetland 0.70% Cropland 8.30% Desert/Barren Land 20.90% Grassland 13.60% Mosaics inc. Cropland 8.40% Woodland 14.50% Forest 21.20% IIASA Data 2000 Floating PV Devices: Review (TTi, 2008) • First floating PV array installation. • Tilted at the optimal solar gain angle. • Floating on pontoons. • Gaps between panel arrays for cleaning access and avoiding panels shading. (Faenza-Lugo, 2009) • Laid almost horizontal over a support structure. • Fixed structure. • 7-8% output reduction due to being horizontal. • Cleaning access available. Design Concepts • Modular unit • Central buoy – for dry cable coupling • Electrodes/heating elements • Flexible to deform according to oncoming waves • Transparent to minimise blocking of sunlight with the water column • Scalable device • Central buoy – heating PCM • Slightly raised for a gradient • Articulating according to oncoming waves Research Outline Design Criteria • Self-cleaning • Anti-fouling protection • Modular or scalable for large scale application • PVs cooled to allow enhanced yields • Heating element incorporation to ensure maximal availability in lacustrine environments (freezing and snowed waters) • Easily deployed • Materials with least environmental impacts or which mitigate the impacts • Modules connection according to required voltage output • Electrical safe connections, and availability for eventual access to electrical systems during operation phase • Mooring configuration which allows the higher installation packing Device Loadings The design should account for the loading forces, depending on the site’s environment, to ensure that the device remains in place during its operational periods and also that it produces the optimal power output. POTENTIAL IMPACTS Environmental Impacts: • Sunlight blocking of the water column • Reduction of oxygen levels • Electro magnetic fields from the cables Social Impacts: • Fishing and leisure exclusion zone • Collision risk Simulation Stage Simulation work is required to estimate the yield which could be expected from a floating PV device, since the tilt at which the rays would be incident to are continuously changing according to the movement of the device. Time dependent wave simulation modelling of the device Time dependent numerical modelling for the device at the simulated orientation Net yield estimation for particular device Wave Simulation Modelling Both SWAN and OrcaFlex are capable of producing a time dependent motion study, based upon a specified wave model. Retrieved from www.orcina.com SWAN is a geometrical model based which defines the wave spectrum according to the characteristics of the region’s bathymetry. OrcaFlex is a dynamic analysis simulation software which allows evaluation of entire offshore systems. Irradiance Numerical Modelling R is the ratio between the horizontal and the tilted plane for the various irradiance factors (i.e. direct, diffused and reflected) Hence by applying the inclination factor derived from the wave simulation, the yield will be estimated. Testing and Large Scale Application A small scale model will be deployed, to investigate the performance of the offshore device and conclude discrepancies with the estimated yield. PERFORMANCE Actual power output COMPARISON Tested estimation for large scale offshore PV installations Estimated power output Conclusion Photovoltaic devices floating on the water is a relatively new concept, which needs to be developed further if it is to be considered as another renewable offshore technology. Compared to other offshore technologies, offshore PVs have the potential to be cost competitive – with predictable power outputs. When considering large scale ground mounted structures it has the potential to be more efficient and could essentially produce a better yield per m2. Research Partners 1. Mining Innovation, Rehabilitation and Applied Research Corporation (MIRARCO), Sudbury, Northern Ontario, Canada (Lead Partner). Key contact: Prof. Dean Millar. 2. Laurentian University, Sudbury, Northern Ontario, Canada. Cooperative Freshwater Ecology Unit/Department of Biology. Collaborating contact: Prof. Charles Ramcharan. 3. CANMET Energy Technology Centre, Collaborating contact: Dr. Sophie Pelland. Varennes, Québec, Canada. 4. Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK. Applied Photovoltaics Research Group. Collaborating contact: Prof. Ralph Gottschlag, Head of Group. 5. University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, UK. Peninsula Research Institute for Marine Renewable Energy (PRIMaRE). Collaborating contact: Dr. Lars Johanning, Head of PRIMaRE. References Andre, H. (1978). Ten Years of Experience at the "La Rance" Tidal Power Plant. Ocean Management , 4, 165 - 178. Budikova, D. (2010). Albedo. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Albedo Retrieved from The Encyclopaedia of Earth: Boyle, G. (2004). Renewable Energy: Power for a Sustainable Future. Oxford University Press. Brook, B. (2009). TCASE 5: Ocean Power I - Pelamis. Retrieved from Brave New Climate: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/25/tcase5/ Krohn, S. Ed. (2009). The Economics of Wind Energy. European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), Belgium. Faenza-Lugo. (2009). Energia sull'acqua. Il Resto del Carlino (Anno 123, No. 287) , 12. Hukseflux. (2010). Thermal Conductivities Measurements. Retrieved from Hukseflux Thermal Sensors: http://www.hukseflux.com/thermalScience/thermalConductivity.html King, D. L., Kratochvil, J. A., & Boyson, W. E. (1997). Temperature coefficient for PV modules and arrays: Measurement methods, difficulties and results. 26th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference. California: Sandia National Laboratories. References Natural Resources Canada. (2010). RETScreen International . Retrieved from Retscreen : http://www.retscreen.net/ang/home.php Overton, J., & Lemming, J. (2006). Offshore wind energy development in the North European Seas. DTI. Power-Technology. (2006). Pelamis, World’s First Commercial Wave Energy Project, Aguçadoura , Portugal. Retrieved from Power-Technology: http://www.power-technology.com/projects/pelamis/ SunElectronics. (2010). Solar Panel and Inverter Price Comparison. Retrieved from Sun Electronics: http://sunelec.com/ Thies, P. R., Flinn, J., & Smith, G. H. (2009). Is it a showstopper? Reliability assessment and criticality analysis for wave energy converters. Proceedings of the 8th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference. Uppsala, Sweden. TTi, (. T. (2008). Moving Energy Forward - Floatovoltaics Spec Sheet. Novato, CA: TTi. Vattenfall. (2005). Kentish Flats Facts. http://www.kentishflats.co.uk/page.dsp?area=1414 Retrieved Vattenfall. (2010). Thanet Offshore Wind Farm. http://www.vattenfall.co.uk/en/thanet-offshore-wind-farm.htm from Retrieved Kentish from Flats: Vattenfall: THANK YOU ANY QUESTIONS?