MRE INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT UPDATE Final Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MRE INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT UPDATE BAY OF FUNDY OERA Final Report Prepared by: Mairead Atcheson Cruz Atcheson Consulting Engineers George Gibberd Cruz Atcheson Consulting Engineers Vincent Cliquet INNOSEA Antoine Henry BY: S. DE BELIE INNOSEA CHECKED R.CRUTCHER Steve De Belie APPROVED: S. DE BELIE Allswater DATE: 08/23/2016 REVISION: 1 PROJECT#: 16030 DOC #: 16030-100-R-001 1111 Bedford Highway Suite 201, 123 Clyde Ave Halifax, NS Mt. Pearl, NL Canada, B4A 1B9 Canada, A1N 4R9 Tel:+1-902-444-7447 Tel:+1-709-747-9100 Fax +1-902-444-7449 Fax +1-709-747-2778 www.allswater.com Internal Ref: FT-009, May 2016 16030-100-R-001 - Rev 1 BAY OF FUNDY Revision Table Checked Approved Rev # Date Change Description By: By: by: 0 06/30/2016 Initial Release S. De Belie R. Crutcher S. De Belie 1 08/23/2016 Final Release S. De Belie R. Crutcher S. De Belie Allswater P a g e | i 16030-100-R-001 - Rev 1 BAY OF FUNDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Allswater in collaboration with Cruz Atcheson and INNOSEA, have been engaged by OERA to produce an update of the 2011 study “Marine Renewable Energy Infrastructure Assessment” [1]. Since the 2011 study, new developers have been awarded projects in the Bay of Fundy and different technologies introduced. In addition, the global tidal industry has been, and still is, changing rapidly with new developers emerging who might feasibly come to the area in the future. A shortlist of tidal technology developers was surveyed to determine the latest projected infrastructure requirements. Ports in Digby, Hantsport, Parrsboro and Saint John were canvassed for up-to-date information regarding current infrastructure. Additionally, West Bay was investigated to determine the feasibility of a “greenfield” development in the area. The following European ports were also reviewed as a benchmark for comparison with Nova Scotia: Hatston Pier (EMEC, Scotland), Nigg Energy Park (Scotland), Cherbourg (France) and Brest (France). The gap analysis of the collected data revealed: Infrastructure requirements have not changed significantly since the original 2011 study. A wet port was identified as a requirement by the majority of developers for installation and most currently anticipated operations & maintenance (O&M) activities. Digby and Saint John offer wet ports in the area. Digby‘s proposed port expansion, and the port of Saint John meet the majority of the respondents’ current requirements. The case for using a dry port for operations and maintenance has not been sufficiently considered due to the lack of detailed O&M plans, and may come down to a trade-off between close proximity to the deployment site (with associated lower costs and risk) versus the limited availability of a dry port and available facilities. At present, evolving and undefined O&M plans make it difficult to determine port requirements and the viability of developing a new facility at West Bay, or upgrading Parrsboro or Hantsport facilities. Considering only availability during the tidal cycle and proximity to the Minas passage, West Bay near Ottawa House and Partridge Island would be a beneficial dry port. A cost-benefit analysis should be developed to determine the feasibility of using a dry port in West Bay, Hantsport or Parrsboro, that considers the costs of upgrading or greenfield development. There are a number of global and local uncertainties associated with the tidal energy industry, which in turn affects the timing and nature of infrastructure needs. A l l s w a t e r P a g e | ii 16030-100-R-001 - Rev 1 BAY OF FUNDY Based on the analysis, the following recommendations are offered: As the current short term installation requirements can be accommodated by the infrastructure already in place, and given the lack of precision of developers’ O&M requirements, along with considerable uncertainties on the development timeline, it is recommended to defer investment in costly infrastructure improvements and/or greenfield construction until such time as the critical uncertainties are resolved. If it is later confirmed that an expansion of wet port facilities is required in Nova Scotia, the Port of Digby offers the best opportunity to meet the needs for the industry. This can be achieved by developing the proposed greenfield site. Perform a detailed assessment of infrastructure demands before investment is made as the current survey shows a large range of values. Conduct a future review of developer infrastructure demands relating to O&M, to facilitate a trade-off analysis of the three dry port options near Minas Passage. Generally, it is recommended to engage further with identified developers and installation contractors in order to fully account for their potential adaptability to the Bay of Fundy’s unique characteristics as part of detailed port upgrade studies. Investigate the feasibility of a shared-usage submersible barge or drydock for use in the transport and possible installation of tidal devices. Investigate the feasibility of a smaller, shared-usage beach–lander vessel to support O&M and ancillary operations from dry ports. Search for synergies with other industries – although major multi-use opportunities like those experienced in Europe are unlikely in the Bay of Fundy, any multi-use opportunity will contribute to justification for infrastructure investment. A l l s w a t e r P a g e | iii 16030-100-R-001 - Rev 1 BAY OF FUNDY DEFINITIONS BRTP – Black Rock Tidal Power COMFIT – Community Feed-In Tariff DOF – Degrees of Freedom DP2 – Dynamic Positioning Class 2 EMEC - European Marine Energy Centre FORCE - Fundy Ocean Research Center for Energy FTI – Fundy Tidal Inc LAT – Lowest Astronomical Tide LOA – Length Over All MRE – Marine Renewable Energy NB – New Brunswick NS – Nova Scotia O&M – Operations and Maintenance OEM – Original Equipment Manufacturer OERA – Offshore Energy Research Association ROV – Remotely Operated Vehicles ROM – Rough Order of Magnitude SPMT - Self-Propelled Modular Transporter TEC – Tidal energy converter A l l s w a t e r P a g e | iv 16030-100-R-001 - Rev 1 BAY OF FUNDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary: ........................................................................................................................................................ ii Definitions .......................................................................................................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................................... v 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Overview of the study ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Limitations of the study ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.2.1 Data sources ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2.2 Conclusions of the study ................................................................................................................ 4 2 Defining the demand ................................................................................................................................................ 6 2.1 Shortlisting tidal developers for Nova Scotia ..................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Potential tidal development sites in Nova Scotia .................................................................... 6 2.1.2 Tidal industry review: TEC shortlist .......................................................................................... 13 2.2 Developers survey .................................................................................................................................. 21 2.3 Key results: What do tidal technology developers want?............................................................ 22 2.3.1 Overview of tidal technologies and current status .............................................................. 22 2.3.2 Large tidal technologies (>500kW) ........................................................................................... 25 2.3.3 Small tidal technologies (up to 500kW) ................................................................................... 33 2.3.4 Summary of key infrastructure requirements ....................................................................... 36 2.4 Summary of the key findings ............................................................................................................... 38 2.4.1 High Level Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 38 2.4.2 The global tidal Industry and implications for future development in Nova Scotia .... 41 2.4.3 Developer Technical & Financial Strength .............................................................................. 42 2.4.4 The importance of water depth ................................................................................................. 43 2.4.5 Limitations of operating out of “dry” ports ............................................................................ 45 2.4.6 Proximity requirements