Baseload Supply Strategy Banner   Strathclyde University website
Esru website

Logbook


The Team Logbook

Week 1   Week 2   Week 3   Week 4    Week 5     Week 6  

Week 7   Week 8   Week 9   Week 10   Week 11   Week 12  


Week 1 (26th Jan ~ 1st Feb)

After selecting our group members we meet briefly with our project tutor, Dr. Andy Grant who helped outline the scope and direction of the project. We then decided to carry out a comprehensive literature review into marine current theory and technologies. We also arranged a set time for meeting our project tutor, Dr. Andy Grant, of 2pm every Tuesday.

Neil:
As my part of the background search I choose to look at the Environmental impact of marine developments (targeting the impact of offshore wind as the nearest comparison) and the planning aspects of offshore development.

Cat:
I chose to research the economic side of the project, looking at the important factors in the cost and price of marine technology, but also began to draw up mind maps of the wider information I had found relating to tidal behaviour, current projects and research teams.

back to top


Week 2 (2nd Feb ~ 8th Feb)

This week was spent defining the project, drawing up lists of data required and areas to research. Initial leads were chased up and library and web searches were implemented. At this stage it was decided that we would look into: existing projects and research, funding, economics, technology and policy.

We envisaged our project as: addressing the potential benefits of marine current technology, identifying and quantifying site selection criteria, illustrating the global potential of marine currents and featuring some sort of economic model. We identified that we would need the following tidal data for analysis purposes: 28 days (2 x 14 day cycle), 1 day equivalent power, and spring, neap and average values. We also realised at this stage that we would have to place some sort of realistic timescale constraint on our scenarios.

We pulled together our research so far into a presentation for the first crit, with each person giving some background on their personal area of research. From the feedback, we decided to try as much as possible to use our own figures in future to justify our points, and to be very careful to place disclaimers upon any information that we had obtained from other sources, as we could not be sure that this was un-biased.

Cat:
At this stage we had a lot of general background information to read through as a team to get up to speed. Whilst reading the background information I tried to pick out the most relevant points to my particular area of research. We were unsure what to expect from the crit, and so decided to try to give the audience a good background understanding of the area we were researching. I worked on drawing up summaries of all the current research and relevant projects that were being implemented, as well as addressing the econnomics.

back to top


Week 3 (9th Feb ~ 15th Feb)

By now we had a good idea of where the project was going and also how we wanted to get there. We had decided that we were aiming to meet Scotland's baseload needs using marine current technology. We made contact with several of the major players in the renewables industry such as Scottish (SEEF) and Garrad Hassan (GH). In addition we also got in touch with Marine Current Turbines (MCT) as we had decided to use there turbine design as the basis for our farms. We began to put together the energy output calculation spreadsheet “power calculation” using MS Excel.

We identified packing of turbines as being an area we required more information on, and decided to model each of our locations based on peak values.

Reflecting on our first crit, we felt that we had perhaps focussed too much on research results, and hadn't presented enough of our own analysis approach and team organisation. For the next crit we decided to present on our project management organisation (including presenting a gantt chart of our future plans, and show how the group was organised in terms of workload.

Neil:
In order to help in the site selection process I contacted Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) in order to determine all sites of special scientific interest (SSSI) in Scotland. I also put together a project plan using MS project to help identify critical task and important milestones for the project. In order to obtain the seawater density for the power calculations, I performed a search on the Internet to obtain average values for water around the coast of Scotland.

Cat:
I worked on putting together the emails to contacts such as Garad Hassan. The meeting with SEEF was useful as I managed to get some specifics on the economics, which I began to write up in a word document. We decided that we needed a means of formally evaluating the different technologies in the area, and I began work on a "technology evaluation matrix", collecting information on the ten different concepts we had identified, and trying to break these down into evaluation criteria. Neil, Robin and I went to the Mitchell library and looked through the charts of the various locations we had identified as strong current locations. We ordered photocopies of the specific areas of the charts, although the amount of each map we were allowed to photocopy was limited

Francis:
worked on defining a detailed turbine specifcation using data from MCTs, and trying to determine the optimum value for rated speed for a tidal turbine.

Robin:
Looked into details of the resource.

back to top


Week 4 (16th Feb ~ 22nd Feb)

Work continued on the “power calculation” spreadsheet, resulting in the creation of version 2. We approximated the power outputs to a sine curve using the mean speeds for each site at neap and springs.

We also began to think about the output of the final project i.e. what scenarios we could use to show the potential for using marine currents to produce a constant baseload. Information about the capacity and estimated closure dates of all power stations in Scotland was obtained so that we might be able to evaluate the future supply situation and the part that our "baseload" could play. At one point, we had our doubts over whether the baseload approach was the correct one to take, as contacts in the electrical department had informed us that it would be difficult to make this work in terms of achieving such a geographically dispersed but large-scale implementation in the current electricity market. However, we decided that the point of our project was to highlight the potential that existed were the appropriate transmission and regulatory measures put in place, to highlight what Scotland could achieve in an ambitiouse implementation.

We identified the importance of grid considerations in relation to development of power supply in remote and offshore parts of Scotland, and had a meeting with a PHD student from the electrical department to determine how best we could incorporate an analysis of this into our scenarios. We considered the use of PSSE software, but decided this would be too time consuming for a project of our scale. We thought instead that we might somehow be able to divide our map of Scotland into areas and simulate usage of the grid in each area in order to create a grid to consider how each area interacted.

The group as a whole were preparing for Crit 2, in which we were able to present the results of some of our modelling of tidal behaviour of sites in Scotland and the results of our further research into existing projects and technology. We decided to make this presentation purely in the form of images and tables (no bullet points) to experiment with a different format. We would talk about our progress, people we had contacted, the process we were going through and some of the results so far, and then where we intended to go next.
The feedback on the crit was that we must be able to support any comments we make – we stated that “there was a large potential energy available and we’ll optimise to extract as much as possible” without actually being clear on what we meant by "optimise". Additionally, we needed to be careful with the accuracy of our calculations - using the correct significant figures and calculating errors to account for uncertainties.

Cat:
I finished working on the technology matrix - which had unfortunately become corrupted so required considerable re-work! I looked into some of the site analysis for locations we were considering, and read up further on the approach previous studies had taken so we would be able to evaluate our approach in relation to others. From the crit, the feedback was that people felt a matrix could be a very biased means of evaluation, and that we had to be careful to weight our criteria and evaluate each concept based on all its merits and disadvantages rather than just using a total on the bottom line to choose the best concept. Taking this on board, I weighted the matrix the following week, based upon the criteria that he group felt were most/least important, and ensured concepts were evaluated taking into consideration all the individual criteria.

Neil:
The aspect of planning permission also arose during group discussions this week for both onshore and offshore developments, and I continued to research this particular area.

Prafulla:
Started looking into the performance of the chosen turbine and decided on optimisation

back to top


Week 5 (23rd Feb ~ 29th Feb)

The first version of the website was created after a brainstorming session on the content and layout of the website. We consulted several of the previous years designs as well as other examples of sites found on the web. Work continued on “power calculation” increasing the version number to 3. We realised that our information was lacking slightly in accuracy as we did not have absolute maximum and minimum values and times for speed for each of our sites, so we decided to do more research to see if we could obtain this information. However, we felt that after so much research and data gathering, we really wanted to draw the line this week and focus ourselves more on the analysis work. As it emerged, it was not possible with the project timescales and budget to obtain the exact information we required.

We decided we should have a testing strategy for our scenarios where we should consider what would happen to the power network in the event of a failure of our implementation, how we might meet demand, and how the site would perform if we used a different technology to the MCT technology.

Cat:
I produced a sitemap based on the group discussion - this would later act as a basis for structuring the website. Having found information on a technology concept that performed very differently to MCTs, I set about obtaining data on this concept so that we might compare the potential resource and power output with this concept against the one we had chosen. I wrote up what I had found out so far on grid connection and also wrote up a matrix justification for the website. Luckily, I managed to source some copies of charts, a nautical almanac and some pilot books, so that we could analyse them without needing to rely on access to the library. I continued to update my research status documentation and technology information, updated the new tasksheet that we were using which was excel based, and developed a highlevel flow chart for our project approach.

back to top


Week 6 (1st Mar ~ 7th Mar)

We met with SEEF again to discuss constraints to the project such as the capacity (and upgrading) of the existing transmission and distribution system. We also discussed the outcomes that they would like to see from this project (socio-economic benefits, carbon dioxide emissions saved etc).
The group were told that stage one of the transmission and distribution infrastructure upgrade will take place but stages two and three will not take place unless renewables integration takes off. Gary then told us about the outputs he would like to see from this project – future generation mix, pollution reduction levels and the socio-economic benefits. Also discussed the economics of the project.

Cat:
I began to look at carrying out a 14 day analysis to evaluate the impact of springs and neaps on the overall power output from sites. This involved combining our model of tidal speed for a site with a graph of variation of tidal height at dover, in order to understand how the proportional size of the peaks varied over time.

Prafulla:
Started a computational analysis on the turbine using a Q Basic Programme

back to top


Week 7 (8th Mar ~ 14th Mar)

In this week we began working on power calculation version 6.
Cat/Neil met with architecture students to hear a proposal for implementing a river based renewable energy extraction method into their design for the new Glasgow museum of transport.

We met with our supervisor and discussed problems associated with fishing and other sea users and how underwater developments would impact on them.

We discussed using some kind of storage for levelling out the peaks and troughs and spoke about our plan for the next presentation, crit 3 to be delivered on the 12th. We decided to make a technical presentation without use of powerpoint at all, to show exactly where we were at with our analysis. We presented on our locational analysis, our power modelling and phasing, our 14 day and frequency analysis and on the website so far and out future plans for analysis. Feedback from this presentation was that we appeared to be reaching a high degree of complexity, but seemed to be handling this reasonably well. However, feedback from fellow students later suggested that they had found the presentation very confusing, and too technical - something we took on board in the subsequent presentation.


Neil:
Cat and I attended the Scottish Renewables Meeting in Glasgow. Topics covered included the energy white paper, upgrading of the transmission and distribution system, green energy payment models, licensing (and exemptions) of renewable developments, problems created by reactive power and opposition to renewable developments.

Cat:
I began working on the website, trying to incorporate accessibility features and make it XHTML compliant. This involved trying out the site with many different menus downloaded free from other websites, and experimenting with the stylesheet. I started to build the basic site structure. I completed a 14 day analysis for one site, and carried out a frequency analysis to assess how differences in the length of the assumed 12.4 hour cycle would impact our calculations and phasing.
back to top


Week 8 (15th Mar ~ 21st Mar)

The group discussed the results of Crit 3, deciding to make the next presentation more illustrative and less technical.

The group decided to look into the problem of packing density in more detail. We also spoke about looking at a price comparison between marine current turbine generation and other renewables. We had a meeting with Cameron Johnston to discuss the packing density with the outcome being to try and look into using CFD to determine optimum farm layout.

A group discussion was held on the use of pumped storage – short term and long term - and what level of storage capacity we would require, for how long. We considered what was the maximum we could get from existing pumped storage.

At this point we set our list of scenarios to explore in more detail.
The team attended the Hydraulic Aspects of Renewable Energy conference at the Scottish Engineering Centre in Glasgow. Ths was highly applicable o our area of research, with speakers delivering presentations on topics such as the renewable energy policy of the Scottish executive, modelling energy extraction from tidal flows and the use of CFD in wind farm development and the environmental impact of marine renewables. We managed to spend some valuable time talking to Prof. Peter Fraenkle of MCT, Prof Ian Bryden and Peter Stuart of RES.

Cat:
At this point I became interested in the impact that weather would have on the tidal behaviour. I collected information regarding this, although much of it was inconclusive in terms of the ability to predict such impacts. I also began to read through information on previous socio-economic analyses that had been implemented in the area of marine/tidal currents. I began writing up the 14 day analysis for the website, and continued working on the structure of the website itself.

Francis:
I was working on combining phases for the best power output and also looking at failure scenarios.

Neil:
I began looking into the emissions saved by marine implementations.

Prafulla:
Parameters for an optimised turbine was obtained

back to top


Week 9 (22nd Mar ~ 28th Mar)

Cat/Neil meeting with architecture students to discuss possible technology that could be implemented into their design.
At this point we were having some problems achieving our flat baseload waveform as we had a gap around 9.30am, which meant the we had to address pumped storage. We looked into how we could use pumped storage to get the best out of our scenarios, also looking at switching scenarios between sites. We started thinking about the market economics of our strategy - should we be looking at flat baseload, or should we be trying to provide an element of load following, or should we simply be providing the electricity as and when we have it to the gird - which would get us the best price?

This was the week of our fourth crit, in which we took a "back to basics" approach that was much more simplistic and graphical. Francis spoke about results and assumptions, Robin spoke about locations, and Neil gave an overview of our scenarios.

Cat:
I continued working on the website, which was really starting to take shape by this point. I followed up on some of the contacts we had made at the Marine Renewables conference. I also began on the socio-economic analysis for our main scenario (requiring timescales to be placed on the scenario implementation phases), and started writing up the weather impact and tidal basics for the website and presentation.

Prafulla:
Proceeded with power calculations using the parameters of the optimised turbine for various locations

back to top


Week 10A (29th Mar ~ 4th Apr)

The team discussed pumped storage, and decided to look at how much energy was being thrown away in some of our scenarios, and if the current storage in Cruachan could cope with our requiements or if more storage would be required. We decided to look at extreme cases for the daily pumped storage requirement, a typical summer and a typical winter day. We also considered analysing the impact of slack water variations.

Cat/Neil meeting with the architecture students. Suggested several possible technologies. Highlighted potential application and possible limitations in the use of renewables.

Cat:
Worked extensively on the website, wrote up some information for the website on grid considerations and storage, and wrote up an overview of the project for the Group Project Prospectus. back to top


Week 10B (5th Apr ~ 11th Apr)

Easter Holidays. Working on website output.

Cat:
Finishing storage write up, researching and writing up slack water, converting group write-up to HTML for the website, researching the electricity market and electricity prices.

Prafulla:
Compared results of Power outputs for various sites and ended up with results showing the use of an optimised turbine

back to top


Week 10C (12th Apr ~ 18th Apr)

Easter Holidays. Working on website output.

Cat:
Converting group write-up to HTML for the website and working on structure and presentation of website, writing up findings on the electricity market and electricity prices. Analysing the future demographics of the Scottish supply ffrom seef figures to understand the future energy situation.

Prafulla:
Started writing up results for the website.

back to top


Week 11 (19th Apr ~ 25th Apr)

Preparation for last crit before final presentation

Cat:
Converting group write-up to HTML for the website, finishing odds and ends of web write up, finalising layout and navigation for website, and working on cfinishing socio economics write up for all scenarios.

Prafulla:
Prepared for final presentation

back to top


Week 12 (12th Apr ~ 18th Apr)

Final Presentation
back to top