DOCSLIB.ORG

Coastal Marine Power and the Role of Marine Current Turbine’S Technology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coastal Marine Power and the Role of Marine Current Turbine’S Technology 20 January 2009 I Mech E Manchester Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Coastal Marine Power and the Role of Marine Current Turbine’s technology by Peter Fraenkel, BSc(Eng), CEng, FIMechE, FIE Technical Director Marine Current Turbines Ltd The Court, The Green, SkGiffdBilBSStoke Gifford, Bristol BS34 8PD, UK . www.marineturbines.com 1 Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Climate change - CO2 last 1000 years Start of industrial revolution 2 Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Peak Oil - the Supply-Demand Gap Source: Dick Lawrence, The Case for Modeling World Energy Flow, World Energy Modelling, Berlin 2004 BB 100 80 ? gap World Conservation ? Renewables ? 60 Lifestyle change ? Substitution ? Deprivation ? Conflict ? 40 OPEC 20 USA 0 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 3 Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Most renewables are diffuse Source: Prof. David MacKay Sustainable Energy Without the Hot air 2008 4 Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Marine Energy - the options Technology Status Load Installed Unit cost Size of UK factor Capital cost electricity resource (%) (£/kW) (p/kWh) (TWh/yr) Offshore wind commercial 25 to 40% 1300 – 2000 5 to 7p over 100 ☯☯ Tidal barrage uneconomical 20 to 25% 1500 - 3000 >9p ~50 ☯ Tidal & marine current pilot projects 30 to 45% 1500 - 2500 3 to 9p * >20 ? turbines ☯ Wave – shoreline OWC experimental 20 to 30% 1500 - 3000 5 to 10p ~2 Wave - nearshore OWC experimental 25 to 35% 1500 - 3000 5 to 12p ~50 ☯? Wave - offshore – point pilot projects 20 to 50% 1500 - 2500 ? 4 to 12p * >100 or line absorber or ☯? OWC OTEC experimental 80% + ? ? ? n/a to UK Salt gradient laboratory 80% + ? ? ? ? ? * Carbon Trust “Future Marine Energy: The Results of the Marine Energy Challenge”, Jan 2006 figures apply for 1GW installed Highlighted rows show technologies most likely to be cost-effective for use off the UK Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Wind - the big one for the UK? 23,000 offshore 5MW widtbiind turbines wou lddlild deliver on average more than the entire present UK domestic electricity demand Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd UK Offshore Wind Gross usable Sea-Space = 76,000km2 Typical power capture = 3MW/km2 Gross energy capture = 3,200 TWh/yr DTI projection (2002) = 100 TWh/yr implies th e go v ernm en t onl y ex pects to use 3% of gross at approx 7GW A total of approx 390TWh of eltiitlectricity was genera tdithUKted in the UK in 2004. Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd La Rance Tidal Power Barrage the exception that proves the rule the only large tidal barrage in the world Rance River estuary, Brittany (France) 24×10 MW bulb turbines (240 MW) Built 1966 http://www.stacey.peak-media.co.uk/Brittany2003/Rance/Rance.htm Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Severn Barrage - coming up for its 4th review • Severn River estuary • 8,640 MW total capacity • 17 TWh average energy output • Ebb generation with flow pumping • 16 km (9.6 mi) total barrage length • £14 billion estimated cost • 27% Capacity Factor (2 x 4hr in 24hr) unlikely to be economically competitive Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Comparison: Severn tidal barrage v tidal stream Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Severn Barrage - coming up for its 4th review Proposed Cardiff Weston Barrage silt Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Excellent Reference Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd What could be possible Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Where we seem to be heading? Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd State Sector Energy R&D spending 1974-2005 15 Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Structural: the reaction to power generation ~100t per MW at 2.5m/s ~170t per MW at 1.5m/s Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Decentralised Marine RE Systems*: What do we need for commercial success? 1. Scale – must be 1MW or more to be economic 2. Access – safe, affordable, reliable access for servicing 3. Reliability – need to minimise costly intervention 4. Life – several decades; otherwise not economic … fthldlfew technology developers are anywhere near to delivering technology to fit these criteria * i.e. wave and tidal stream energy systems 17 TM Marine Current TurbinesWave Ltd Energy UK Resource water depth mean power annual (()m) (GW) energy (TWh) 40 10 87 20 7 61 shoreline 0.2 1.75 Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Shoreline Wave Energy Converters: Wavegen’s Limpet Oscillating Water Column Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Near-shore - Aquamarine “Oyster” Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Pelamis Wave Power Pitching segments react against each other - hydraulic rams drive hydraulic motor and hence an electrical generator Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Ocean Power Technology - 40kW Powerbuoy Heaving buoy with internal reaction Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Wave Dragon - overtopping wave collector Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Tidal Stream Energy 1. Large resource - too big to be neglected or ignored 2. Technical feasibility - rapid development is possible 3. Predictability - driven by gravity - not weather 4. Minimal environmental impact - and favourable ERoEI - <12mths San Bernardino Straits - The Philippines shown running at 3.5m/s or 7 knots 24 Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Marine currents = High energy intensity A tidal current turbine gains over 4x as much energy per Size Comparison 2 m of rotor as a wind turbine 1MW wind turbine compared with 1MW tidal turbine 1 x 55m dia Outline of 1MW solar array 70m x 70m 2 x 16m dia 25 Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd The Effect of Velocity Shear Velocity Power / Energy Sea Level 75% of the Energy is in the upper 50% of the water column 25% of the Energy is in the lower 50% Sea Bed Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Hammerfest Strøm 300kW - (2003 - ?) Hammerfest Strøm 300kW axial flow ((y)Norway) Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Ponte di Archimede “Kobold” Turbine - (2004) - 20kW Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd North American experimental devices UEK - 30kW? Verdant Power (35kW) (6 units in East River NY) Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Recent experimental devices in 2007 Open Hydro - 50kW? Clean Current - 50 to 100kW? Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Marine Current Turbines: SeaGen 31 Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd MCT responsible for 3 out of 5 tidal turbines tested so far in the UK at least 300m2 rotor area needed for economic viability because of high fixed cost overheads of off-shore projects MCT MCT MCT 2 10m 150m2 95m2 28m2 402m2 note that SeaGen is the first large enough for commercial viability - 4x the size of even Seaflow 32 Marine Current Turbines S q tidal turbinesuare metres in the of sea so far…. TM Ltd rotor area sq.m. 410 400 390 380 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 290 280 270 260 250 240 230 220 210 nominal minimum size for commercial scale generation 200 300 sq.m. gives about 1000kW at 2.5m/s 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 Rotor Area 80 Rotor Size 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Date 1994 2002 2003 2003 2004 2006 2006 2006 2007 2008 2008 10 24 95 113 28 20 28 28 48 28 402 sq.m. MCT Proof of 3.5 2 x 4 11 12 6 5 6 6 4 x 12 6 2 x 16 metres Concept UEK MCT Seaflow Hammerfest Stroem Ponte di Archimedi Verdant Power Open Hydro Clean current AR Nereus AR Solon MCT SeaGen Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Background: 15kW Tidal Current Turbine (1994-5) PROOF OF CONCEPT PROJECT (IT Power. Scottish Nuclear & NEL) Loch Linnhe, Scotland World’s first tidal current turbine 34 Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Seaflow installed operational rotor raised for access 30 May 2003 rotor dia. 11m (= 95 sq.m.) rated power 300kW @ 2.5m/s pile dia. 2. 1m mass 130t water depth 24m ± 5m Low cost access from a RIB 35 Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd SeaGen Prototype Some key features:- 2 x 600kW rotors:16m diameter rotors and nacelles raised above sea level for maintenance and easy replacement transformer and electrical connection to grid in accessible and visible housing at top of pile 180 degree pitch control allows efficient rotor operation with bi- directional flow deployment in arrays or “farms”. of hundreds of turbines 36 Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Seagen: Performance at Lynmouth & Strangford Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd 38 Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd SeaGen - 600kW hub, gearbox and generator 39 Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Speed-increasing gearbox 8 planet wheels to cope with torque Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Rotor assembly at H&W - 16m diameter - 2 x 600kW 41 Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd SeaGen 1.2MW Commercial Demonstrator - installed in Strangford Narrows, NI - to be used as testbed for SeaGen technology - will have continuous environmental monitoring - mean max current 9kt water depth 25m ± 2m - but structural change from monopile as shown to jacket 42 Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Seacore Jackup-rig Excalibur visits Strangford 16-19 April 2005, to complete SeaGen geotechnical survey - original plan was to use Excalibur for monopile installation but in the end no jack-up barge proved to be available 43 Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Plan ‘B’ - Jacket Foundation Unable to obtain use of Jack-up Barge within sensible time frame Therefore MCT team worked fast to convert monopile structure to new self-installing Quadrapod - from concepttt to i ns ta lltillation in bare ly s ix months This is designed to be drilled into place from temporary platform and can be positioned from a Crane Barge Pinned to seabed with 1m diameter steel piles, 9m embedment Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd IidInside SeaGen… 5 levels containing… power conditioning 11kV transformers control systems safety systems hydraulic lift mechanisms cooling & climate-control Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd SeaGen showing quadropod (4 feet) jacket structure beinggy collected by crane barge “Rambiz” at Har lan d & Wolff , Belfast ballasted to over 1000 tonne note temp drill platform Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Positioning operation Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd SeaGen is lowered to the seabed 04:35hrs 2 April 2008 Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Construction Barge in Position alongside SeaGen -note drilling platform with two conductor tubes in place SeaGen structure ballasted to stay in place during drilling Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd Drilling and Grouting Operations - carried out from temporary work platform Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd SeaGen: installation completed 15 May 2008 Marine Current Turbines TM Ltd SeaGen commissioning in progress note - this shows rotors raised at slack tide Notes: 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Scotland, Nuclear Energy Policy and Independence Raphael J. Heffron
    Scotland, Nuclear Energy Policy and Independence EPRG Working Paper 1407 Cambridge Working Paper in Economics 1457 Raphael J. Heffron and William J. Nuttall Abstract This paper examines the role of nuclear energy in Scotland, and the concerns for Scotland as it votes for independence. The aim is to focus directly on current Scottish energy policy and its relationship to nuclear energy. The paper does not purport to advise on a vote for or against Scottish independence but aims to further the debate in an underexplored area of energy policy that will be of value whether Scotland secures independence or further devolution. There are four central parts to this paper: (1) consideration of the Scottish electricity mix; (2) an analysis of a statement about nuclear energy made by the Scottish energy minister; (3) examination of nuclear energy issues as presented in the Scottish Independence White Paper; and (4) the issue of nuclear waste is assessed. A recurrent theme in the analysis is that whether one is for, against, or indifferent to new nuclear energy development, it highlights a major gap in Scotland’s energy and environmental policy goals. Too often, the energy policy debate from the Scottish Government perspective has been reduced to a low-carbon energy development debate between nuclear energy and renewable energy. There is little reflection on how to reduce Scottish dependency on fossil fuels. For Scotland to aspire to being a low-carbon economy, to decarbonising its electricity market, and to being a leader within the climate change community, it needs to tackle the issue of how to stop the continuation of burning fossil fuels.
    [Show full text]
  • Turning the Tide, Tidal Power in the UK
    Turning the tide The Sustainable Development Commission is the Government’s independent watchdog on sustainable in the UK Tidal Power development, reporting to the Prime Minister, the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. Through advocacy, advice and appraisal, we help put sustainable development at the heart of Government policy. www.sd-commission.org.uk England (Main office) 55 Whitehall London SW1A 2HH 020 7270 8498 [email protected] Scotland 3rd Floor, Osborne House 1-5 Osborne Terrace, Haymarket, Edinburgh EH12 5HG 0131 625 1880 [email protected] www.sd-commission.org.uk/scotland Wales c/o Welsh Assembly Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3NQ Turning 029 2082 6382 Commission Development Sustainable [email protected] www.sd-commission.org.uk/wales Northern Ireland Room E5 11, OFMDFM the Tide Castle Buildings, Stormont Estate, Belfast BT4 3SR 028 9052 0196 Tidal Power in the UK [email protected] www.sd-commission.org.uk/northern_ireland Turning the Tide Tidal Power in the UK Contents Executive Summary 5 1 Introduction 15 1.1 Background to this project 16 1.2 Our approach 17 1.3 UK tidal resource 19 1.3.1 Two types of tidal resource 19 1.3.2 Electricity generating potential 22 1.3.3 Resource uncertainties 22 1.3.4 Timing of output from tidal sites 23 1.3.5 Transmission system constraints 25 1.4 Energy policy context 28 1.4.1 Current Government policy 28 1.4.2 The SDC’s advice 28 1.5 Public and stakeholder engagement
    [Show full text]
  • STATUS REPORT on SEISMIC RE-EVALUATION English Only Text
    Unclassified NEA/CSNI/R(98)5 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques OLIS : 10-Nov-1998 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Dist. : 16-Nov-1998 __________________________________________________________________________________________ English text only Unclassified NEA/CSNI/R(98)5 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY COMMITTEE ON THE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS STATUS REPORT ON SEISMIC RE-EVALUATION English text English only 71673 Document incomplet sur OLIS Incomplete document on OLIS NEA/CSNI/R(98)5 ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: − to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; − to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and − to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter; Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996) and the Republic of Korea (12th December 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • LOW CARBON ENERGY OBSERVATORY ©European Union, 2019 OCEAN ENERGY Technology Market Report
    LOW CARBON ENERGY OBSERVATORY ©European Union, 2019 OCEAN ENERGY Technology market report Joint EUR 29924 EN Research Centre This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. Contact information Name: Davide MAGAGNA Address: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Petten, The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected] Name: Matthijs SOEDE Address: European Commission DG Research and Innovation, Brussels, Belgium Email: [email protected] EU Science Hub https://ec.europa.eu/jrc JRC118311 EUR 29924 EN ISSN 2600-0466 PDF ISBN 978-92-76-12573-0 ISSN 1831-9424 (online collection) doi:10.2760/019719 ISSN 2600-0458 Print ISBN 978-92-76-12574-7 doi:10.2760/852200 ISSN 1018-5593 (print collection) Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 © European Union, 2019 The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Reuse is authorised, provided the source of the document is acknowledged and its original meaning or message is not distorted. The European Commission shall not be liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.
    [Show full text]
  • Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2012
    Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2012 Production team: Iain MacLeay Kevin Harris Anwar Annut and chapter authors A National Statistics publication London: TSO © Crown Copyright 2012 All rights reserved First published 2012 ISBN 9780115155284 Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics Enquiries about statistics in this publication should be made to the contact named at the end of the relevant chapter. Brief extracts from this publication may be reproduced provided that the source is fully acknowledged. General enquiries about the publication, and proposals for reproduction of larger extracts, should be addressed to Kevin Harris, at the address given in paragraph XXIX of the Introduction. The Department of Energy and Climate Change reserves the right to revise or discontinue the text or any table contained in this Digest without prior notice. About TSO's Standing Order Service The Standing Order Service, open to all TSO account holders, allows customers to automatically receive the publications they require in a specified subject area, thereby saving them the time, trouble and expense of placing individual orders, also without handling charges normally incurred when placing ad-hoc orders. Customers may choose from over 4,000 classifications arranged in 250 sub groups under 30 major subject areas. These classifications enable customers to choose from a wide variety of subjects, those publications that are of special interest to them. This is a particularly valuable service for the specialist library or research body. All publications will be dispatched immediately after publication date. Write to TSO, Standing Order Department, PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN, quoting reference 12.01.013.
    [Show full text]
  • Coasts and Seas of the United Kingdom. Region 4 South-East Scotland: Montrose to Eyemouth
    Coasts and seas of the United Kingdom Region 4 South-east Scotland: Montrose to Eyemouth edited by J.H. Barne, C.F. Robson, S.S. Kaznowska, J.P. Doody, N.C. Davidson & A.L. Buck Joint Nature Conservation Committee Monkstone House, City Road Peterborough PE1 1JY UK ©JNCC 1997 This volume has been produced by the Coastal Directories Project of the JNCC on behalf of the project Steering Group. JNCC Coastal Directories Project Team Project directors Dr J.P. Doody, Dr N.C. Davidson Project management and co-ordination J.H. Barne, C.F. Robson Editing and publication S.S. Kaznowska, A.L. Buck, R.M. Sumerling Administration & editorial assistance J. Plaza, P.A. Smith, N.M. Stevenson The project receives guidance from a Steering Group which has more than 200 members. More detailed information and advice comes from the members of the Core Steering Group, which is composed as follows: Dr J.M. Baxter Scottish Natural Heritage R.J. Bleakley Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland R. Bradley The Association of Sea Fisheries Committees of England and Wales Dr J.P. Doody Joint Nature Conservation Committee B. Empson Environment Agency C. Gilbert Kent County Council & National Coasts and Estuaries Advisory Group N. Hailey English Nature Dr K. Hiscock Joint Nature Conservation Committee Prof. S.J. Lockwood Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences C.R. Macduff-Duncan Esso UK (on behalf of the UK Offshore Operators Association) Dr D.J. Murison Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment & Fisheries Department Dr H.J. Prosser Welsh Office Dr J.S. Pullen WWF-UK (Worldwide Fund for Nature) Dr P.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Current Energy Conversion
    Marine Current Energy Conversion Resource and Technology MÅRTEN GRABBE UURIE 309-09L ISSN 0349-8352 Division of Electricity Department of Engineering Sciences Uppsala, December 2008 Abstract Research in the area of energy conversion from marine currents has been car- ried out at the Division of Electricity for several years. The focus has been to develop a simple and robust system for converting the kinetic energy in freely flowing water to electricity. The concept is based on a vertical axis turbine di- rectly coupled to a permanent magnet synchronous generator that is designed to match the characteristics of the resource. During this thesis work a pro- totype of such a variable speed generator, rated at 5 kW at 10 rpm, has been constructed to validate previous finite element simulations. Experiments show that the generator is well balanced and that there is reasonable agreement be- tween measurements and corresponding simulations, both at the nominal op- erating point and at variable speed and variable load operation from 2–16 rpm. It is shown that the generator can accommodate operation at fixed tip speed ratio with different fixed pitch vertical axis turbines in current velocities of 0.5–2.5 m/s. The generator has also been tested under diode rectifier opera- tion where it has been interconnected with a second generator on a common DC-bus similar to how several units could be connected in offshore operation. The conditions for marine current energy conversion in Norway have been investigated based on available data in pilot books and published literature. During this review work more than 100 sites have been identified as interest- ing with an estimated total theoretical resource—i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Energy: the Big Lie
    The Trap Chapter 6 Nuclear Energy: The Big Lie You believe that it is possible to make a very major change in our energy policy? Yes. Technology is now available which would allow us to transform the way we produce and use energy. If we seize the opportunity to make a radical change, the effects would be extraordinarily beneficial to the economy, the environment and public safety. What has suddenly changed to make you so optimistic? The Cold War has ended. During the Cold War, the principal weapons were nuclear. Nuclear energy was an extension of military research and both were to some degree controlled by the same state scientific elites, which for reasons of national security maintained secrecy even when the nuclear programme was extended to non-military projects. Successive governments believed that if problems arose in the civil project, these should be kept secret so as not to endanger the military programme. At first it was thought that nuclear energy would be safe and unlimited, and therefore would put an end to western dependence on imported energy. It was also believed that electricity generated by nuclear means would be, as the Chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission declared, 'too cheap to meter'.1 Western governments devoted a major part of their resources to developing nuclear energy. Between 1979 and 1990 the member nations of the International Energy Agency spent nearly 60 per cent of their energy research budget on nuclear power. Only 9.4 per cent was devoted to developing renewable sources of energy and 6.4 per cent to methods for saving energy.2 With almost unlimited state backing, nuclear scientists and administrators operated in secret and above the law.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Power & Severn Barrage Review
    SUPPLEMENT TO THE HISTELEC NEWS AUGUST 2007 "WATER POWER & SEVERN BARRAGE REVIEW" Two of our members, Mike Hield and Glyn England have produced articles pertaining to the Severn Barrage as prelude to the talk by David Kerr of Sir Robert MacAlpine on 10th October. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WATER POWER by Mike Hield Introduction Normally a report on a talk is done after the event, but in the case of the talk on "The Severn Barrage" I thought a preliminary briefing would be of interest. My own interest arises from a career in SWEB as an electrical distribution engineer and my leisure activity as a dinghy sailor and yachtsman. History Man used water power as long ago as 200 BC for grain milling and water pumping, around 1100 AD for "Fulling" woollen cloth and later for processing metals. From about 1700 mathematicians and engineers started to analyse the workings of the water wheel and came to realise that the weight of water in the wheel was more significant than the impact from the flow. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) established his Second Law of Motion - i.e. Force is equal to rate of change of Momentum. Leonhard Euler (1707-1783) a Swiss mathematician developed his equation of motion for non-viscous flow. Daniel Bernoulli (1700-1782) defined three forms of energy in a fluid ie. height, velocity and pressure; these being interchangeable and the total constant. These ideas formed the basis for analysing the performance of turbines, fans and pumps. Tidal Mills were very rare as they needed to be away from damaging waves and also the relative small size of the mills made them impracticable for large tidal ranges.
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Years of Research Progress in Horizontal-Axis Marine Current Turbines
    Energies 2013, 6, 1497-1526; doi:10.3390/en6031497 OPEN ACCESS energies ISSN 1996-1073 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies Review 2002–2012: 10 Years of Research Progress in Horizontal-Axis Marine Current Turbines Kai-Wern Ng 1, Wei-Haur Lam 1,* and Khai-Ching Ng 2 1 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia; E-Mail: [email protected] 2 Center for Advanced Computational Engineering (CACE), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Km. 7, Jalan IKRAM-UNITEN, 43000 Kajang, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia; E-Mail: [email protected] * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +603-7967-7675; Fax: +603-7967-5318. Received: 30 November 2012; in revised form: 13 February 2013 / Accepted: 26 February 2013 / Published: 6 March 2013 Abstract: Research in marine current energy, including tidal and ocean currents, has undergone significant growth in the past decade. The horizontal-axis marine current turbine is one of the machines used to harness marine current energy, which appears to be the most technologically and economically viable one at this stage. A number of large-scale marine current turbines rated at more than 1 MW have been deployed around the World. Parallel to the development of industry, academic research on horizontal-axis marine current turbines has also shown positive growth. This paper reviews previous research on horizontal-axis marine current turbines and provides a concise overview for future researchers who might be interested in horizontal-axis marine current turbines. The review covers several main aspects, such as: energy assessment, turbine design, wakes, generators, novel modifications and environmental impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Endless Trouble: Britain's Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
    Endless Trouble Britain’s Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) Martin Forwood, Gordon MacKerron and William Walker Research Report No. 19 International Panel on Fissile Materials Endless Trouble: Britain’s Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) © 2019 International Panel on Fissile Materials This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License To view a copy of this license, visit ww.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 On the cover: the world map shows in highlight the United Kingdom, site of THORP Dedication For Martin Forwood (1940–2019) Distinguished colleague and dear friend Table of Contents About the IPFM 1 Introduction 2 THORP: An Operational History 4 THORP: A Political History 11 THORP: A Chronology 1974 to 2018 21 Endnotes 26 About the authors 29 About the IPFM The International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM) was founded in January 2006 and is an independent group of arms control and nonproliferation experts from both nuclear- weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states. The mission of the IPFM is to analyze the technical basis for practical and achievable pol- icy initiatives to secure, consolidate, and reduce stockpiles of highly enriched uranium and plutonium. These fissile materials are the key ingredients in nuclear weapons, and their control is critical to achieving nuclear disarmament, to halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and to ensuring that terrorists do not acquire nuclear weapons. Both military and civilian stocks of fissile materials have to be addressed. The nuclear- weapon states still have enough fissile materials in their weapon stockpiles for tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. On the civilian side, enough plutonium has been sepa- rated to make a similarly large number of weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • The Long Term Storage of Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor (Agr) Fuel Xa9951796 P.N
    IAEA-SM-352/28 THE LONG TERM STORAGE OF ADVANCED GAS-COOLED REACTOR (AGR) FUEL XA9951796 P.N. STANDRING Thorp Technical Department, British Nuclear Fuels pic, Sellafield, Seascale, Cumbria, United Kingdom Abstract The approach being taken by BNFL in managing the AGR lifetime spent fuel arisings from British Energy reactors is given. Interim storage for up to 80 years is envisaged for fuel delivered beyond the life of the Thorp reprocessing plant. Adopting a policy of using existing facilities, to comply with the principles of waste minimisation, has defined the development requirements to demonstrate that this approach can be undertaken safely and business issues can be addressed. The major safety issues are the long term integrity of both the fuel being stored and structure it is being stored in. Business related issues reflect long term interactions with the rest of the Sellafield site and storage optimisation. Examples of the developement programme in each of these areas is given. 1. INTRODUCTION British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) has been contracted to manage the lifetime irradiated AGR fuel arisings from British Energy reactors1. The agreement formulated is a mixture of reprocessing (covering the planned life of the Thorp reprocessing plant) and interim storage for the remainder of the fuel arisings. Interim storage is projected to be up to 80 years to comply with direct disposal acceptance criteria and projected repository availability. Eighty years represents a significant increase in storage times compared to current operational experience; of around 18 years. Confidence that AGR fuel can be stored safely for extended periods has been provided by our experience of storing AGR fuel to date and the supporting research and development programmes initiated in the late 1970's for wet storage and 1990's in the case of Scottish Nuclear (SNL) dry storage project.
    [Show full text]