Home| Technology Decisions |
 |
Matrix analysis Evaluation
Matrix analysis
With so many different concepts for exploiting the power of marine currents, it was necessary to take a methodical approach to deciding on the technology to be applied in our baseload strategy.
Detailed information on each concept was collected in a tabular form. A corresponding matrix was then created to enable comparison between the qualities of each concept. In order to ensure the analysis was valid, the matrix was weighted according to which criteria the team considered most important to the study, and low, medium and high values used to enable an easier comparison between the concepts. It should be noted that each concept was compared on the basis of all of it's merits and it's disdavantages wherever possible, rather than just looking to the bottom line for a decision - however, there is an element of subjectivity within this evaluation as it is based around the team opinion of gradings and weightings.
|
criteria ratings |
overall ratings |
|||
|
high |
over 19 |
high |
1 or more high rated |
|
|
mod |
12 to 19 |
mod |
6 or more mod rated |
|
|
low |
below 12 |
low |
less than 6 mod rated |
|
|
|
3 |
6 |
9 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
MCTs |
Engineering Business |
Engineering Business |
Robert Gordon University |
Blue Energy (Canada) |
Edinburgh University |
Rvco Ltd |
Abacus Controls |
Seapower/ Delta/ Strom turbiner |
GCK Technology |
|||||||||||
|
Speed flexibility |
2 |
10 |
3 |
15 |
3 |
15 |
3 |
15 |
3 |
15 |
4 |
20 |
5 |
25 |
4 |
20 |
2 |
10 |
3 |
15 |
|
Power out |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Efficiency |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
|
Economics |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
|
Location flexibility |
2 |
10 |
3 |
15 |
3 |
15 |
5 |
25 |
3 |
15 |
3 |
15 |
5 |
25 |
3 |
15 |
3 |
15 |
4 |
20 |
|
Installation |
3 |
12 |
3 |
12 |
3 |
12 |
5 |
20 |
3 |
12 |
4 |
16 |
4 |
16 |
3 |
12 |
3 |
12 |
3 |
12 |
|
Maintenance |
4 |
12 |
3 |
9 |
5 |
15 |
4 |
12 |
5 |
15 |
4 |
12 |
3 |
9 |
3 |
9 |
3 |
9 |
3 |
9 |
|
Marine growth and cavitation prevention |
2 |
4 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
6 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
6 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
6 |
2 |
4 |
|
Environment impact |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
Project advancement |
5 |
20 |
3 |
12 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
8 |
4 |
16 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
12 |
3 |
12 |
3 |
12 |
4 |
16 |
|
Technology availability |
5 |
20 |
3 |
12 |
3 |
12 |
2 |
8 |
4 |
16 |
4 |
16 |
3 |
12 |
3 |
12 |
4 |
16 |
4 |
16 |
|
Future potential |
4 |
16 |
3 |
12 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
8 |
4 |
16 |
2 |
8 |
4 |
16 |
3 |
12 |
3 |
12 |
4 |
16 |
|
Environment and navigation acceptability |
2 |
4 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
6 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
6 |
|
Applicability to Scotland |
3 |
9 |
3 |
9 |
3 |
9 |
4 |
12 |
2 |
6 |
4 |
12 |
3 |
9 |
2 |
6 |
2 |
6 |
2 |
6 |
|
Availability of funding |
3 |
9 |
3 |
9 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
6 |
4 |
12 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
9 |
3 |
9 |
4 |
12 |
4 |
12 |
|
TOTALS |
49 |
140 |
45 |
129 |
42 |
114 |
46 |
136 |
46 |
140 |
45 |
129 |
55 |
161 |
42 |
126 |
43 |
125 |
49 |
145 |
|
number high |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
||||||||||
|
number moderate |
3 |
6 |
5 |
3 |
8 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
6 |
||||||||||
|
number low |
10 |
9 |
10 |
10 |
7 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
8 |
||||||||||
OVERALL |
|
high |
|
mod |
|
low |
|
high |
|
mod |
|
high |
|
high |
|
high |
|
mod |
|
high |
back to top
Evaluation
From this analysis, it can be observed that there are a number of high scoring concepts. Evaluating the individual strengths and weaknesses of each of the concepts, the team felt that the three strongest concepts were the Gorlov turbine, MCT concept and the Rochester/Hydro Venturi. The deciding factor was technology availability, which led to the Marine Current Turbine Concept being chosen.
back to top