Power Absorption Measures and Comparisons of Selected Wave Energy Converters

Abstract

In this study, a selection of Wave Energy Converters (WECs) with different working principle is considered. It comprises a heaving device reacting against the seabed, a heaving self-reacting two-bodies device, a pitching device, and a floating OWC device. They are inspired by concepts which are currently under development. For each of these concepts, a numerical Wave To Wire (W2W) model is derived. Numerical estimates of the energy delivery which one can expect are derived using these numerical models on a selection of wave site along the European coast. This selection of wave site is thought to be representative with levels of mean annual wave power from 15 to 88 kW/m. Using these results, the performance of each WEC is assessed not only in terms of yearly energy output, but also in terms of yearly absorbed energy/displacement, yearly absorbed energy/wetted surface, and yearly absorbed energy per unit significant Power Take Off force. By comparing these criteria, one gets a better idea of the advantages and drawbacks of each of the studied concepts.

Wave Energy Resource Harnessing Assessment in a Subtropical Coastal Region of the Pacific

“…Seven well-known WECs with different designs and operational principles were evaluated to quantify harvestable wave energy. These were the AquaBuOY, WaveStar, Oyster315, Oyster800, WaveDragon, OWCFloating, and Pelamis [39][40][41][42][43][44]. From the point of view of their operability, these technologies cover the whole range of existing WEC types that have reached the full test stages.…”

“…where HR is the availability matrix, which represents the probability of occurrences of the different sea states expressed as a fraction from the total number of observations and PWEC is the corresponding WEC power matrices, obtained from publicly available technical data of the seven devices considered [39][40][41][42][43].…”

Shape optimization of wave energy converters for broadband directional incident waves

“…Clearly the methodology is very general, and we have checked that the qualitative nature of results presented here do not change by varying these constraints within a reasonable range. Table 1: The shape difference factor ξ, defined according to (12), for comparison of relative absorber plate shapes presented in figure 5. Differences in shape decrease as N c increases that indicates a convergence of our scheme with N c .…”

“…For instance, we know today that (i) depending on the wave condition, depth of the water and the bathymetry, a different class of wave energy converters may be more suitable (i.e. more efficient and cost effective) [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. (ii) A wide range of active control strategies have been proposed and their performance have been investigated [18][19][20][21][22].…”

Benefits of using a spectral hindcast database for wave power extraction assessment

“…An efficient way of optimizing the power extraction is to design the system and, if necessary, the associated control procedure (Falnes, 2007) so that its response is efficient and optimal over the widest span of the sea-states spectral bandwidth (Babarit et al, 2011; Saulnier et al, 2011). Hence, in order to correctly design and optimize such a device, a proper description of the actual spectral wave energy distribution within sea states should be taken into account, especially in areas with wave climates dominated by complex sea states.…”