Case Study Process

Spacing restrictions

The case study highlighted the complexity of the interdependent relationship between optimum resource and technology matching.

It was concluded that generally, the site and device geometry, required spacing, and restricted depth installation constraints, limit deployment of devices in any lateral array.

Significant Impact Factor [SIF]

Associated loss in tidal flow velocity and subsequent energy yield dictates the longitudinal array spacing further down stream.
Intuitively, individual, larger turbines have the largest power outputs in comparison with alternative smaller devices. Interestingly due to their size and related increased blockage effects, to adhere to SIF research and environmental concerns they must be deployed using lower packing densities, indicating that large farm areas are required to utilise these technologies. Associated cost with large farm areas such as cabling and multiple transformer stations could make the cost of this option prohibitive.

Packing Density~Power Coefficient

In this case (the case study site) it is preferable to utilise devices with a lower SIF, by utilising a higher number of smaller alternative devices to extract maximum power in a smaller farm area. This is however dependant on economic modelling as the deployment costs of multiple, smaller devices in comparison to larger, diffusely spaced devices, may be very different.

A significant point to note is in cases where devices have lower power coefficients, such as that of our modelled oscillating hydrofoil, the power loss effects are radically offset by its minimal blockage effects. Overall this means that higher packing densities of such devices can offset low device efficiency, and can yield an equivalent high energy capture.

back to top

 

Case Study Process

Go back to Contents