Technical Readiness of OTEC - NOAA

Technical Readiness of
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC)
November 3 – 5, 2009
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
Coastal Response Research Center

University of New Hampshire
FOREWORD
The Coastal Response Research Center, a partnership between the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Response and Restoration
(ORR) and the University of New Hampshire (UNH), develops new approaches to
marine environmental response and restoration through research and synthesis of
information. In 2009, the center partnered with NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management (OCRM) to host a series of workshops to gather information
about Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). The Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion Act of 1980 (OTECA) designates NOAA as the lead licensing agency for
OTEC projects. All federal authorizations, with the exception of those of the U.S. Coast
Guard, are to be issued under the NOAA license and within the procedural timeframes
of OTECA. As the primary licensing agency, NOAA OCRM sponsored these
workshops, developed the agenda and workshop goals, and were integral in the synthesis
of information obtained from the workshop.
The first workshop, held in November, 2009 at the University of New Hampshire
in Durham, NH, aimed to assess the technical readiness of key components of OTEC
technology. This report provides a qualitative analysis of the technical readiness of
seven key components of OTEC technology: cold water pipe, platform/pipe interface,
heat exchangers, platform, pumps and turbines, power cable, and platform mooring.
The report is designed to serve as a resource for NOAA OCRM and governmental
decision makers, as well as the OTEC community to summarize the current state of
technical readiness and identify key research needs.
I hope you find the report interesting and exploring the discussion insightful. If
you have any comments, please contact me. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Nancy E. Kinner, Ph.D.

UNH Co-Director, Coastal Response Research Center
Professor of Civil/Environmental Engineering
1
Acknowledgements
The Coastal Response Research Center gratefully acknowledges the CRRC authors of this
report: Joseph J. Cunningham, Zachary E. Magdol, and Nancy E. Kinner. The Center
acknowledges the time and effort provided by the participants in the workshop, whose
contributions have been synthesized into this report. In addition, the Center acknowledges the
thoughtful input and comments received from the reviewers of the draft report: Whitney
Blanchard (NOAA), Kerry Kehoe (NOAA), Peter Pandolfini (John Hopkins University), and
Avram Bar-Cohen (University of Maryland).
The following individuals helped plan this workshop: Roger Bagbey (Inspired Systems); Hoyt
Battey (US DOE); Whitney Blanchard (NOAA-OCRM); Brian Cable (NAVFAC); Kerry Kehoe
(NOAA-OCRM); Andrew Knox (NAVFAC); Dallas Meggitt (Sound and Sea Technology);
Mike Reed (US DOE); Susan Skemp (FAU Center for Ocean Energy Technology); William
Tayler (NAVFAC); and Iris Ioffreda (OLA Consulting). The Center staff for this meeting
consisted of: Nancy Kinner, Kathy Mandsager, Joseph Cunningham, Zachary Magdol, Michael
Curry, Chris Wood, Nate Little, Adria Fichter, Marcel Kozlowski, Heather Ballestero, and
Michaela Bogosh. The Center also gratefully acknowledges Roger Bagbey, Whitney Blanchard,
Rick Driscoll, Matt Gove, Dallas Meggitt, Mike Reed, and Andy Knox for serving as group
leaders. Cover images courtesy Natural Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) and Joseph
Cunningham.
Citation:
Coastal Response Research Center. 2010. Technical Readiness of Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion (OTEC). University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 27 pp and appendices.
2
Table of Contents
Foreword……………………………… ……………………..…..……………………... 1
Acknowledgements……………………………………………….….……………......... 2
I. Executive Summary………………………………………...…………………... 4
II. Introduction……………………………………………..…………………….... 5
III. Workshop History and Limitations…………………….………………………. 7
IV. Workshop Organization and Structure……………..….……………………….. 8
V. Breakout Group Reports……………………………….……………………..… 9
A. Platforms..…….………………..……………………….………………. 9
B. Platform Mooring…………………………………………….……….. 10
C. Platform/Pipe Interface........................................................................... 12
D. Heat Exchangers..................................................................................... 15
E. Pumps and Turbines……………….…………………….….………… 18
F. Power Cable……………………….…………………….……….……. 20
G. Cold water Pipe…………………….………………………..………… 22
VI. Research and Development Needs…………………………….………………. 24
VII. Conclusions……………………………………………………………………. 25
VIII. References Cited……………………………………………………..………... 26
Appendices:
A. Workshop Agenda
B. Participant List
C. Breakout Questions
D. Breakout Groups
E. Breakout Group Notes and Report Outs
F. Powerpoint Presentations
3
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) is a technology that dates back to the
late 1800’s and makes use of temperature differences between surface and deep ocean
waters to drive a heat engine, and extract energy via the Rankine cycle. While pilot scale
plants (< 1 MWe) have successfully generated energy, a combination of technical and
economic feasibility limitations tempered investment and interest in OTEC. However, the
decreasing supply, and increasing costs, of fossil fuels, advancements in OTEC
technology, renewable energy mandates, and energy security concerns have resulted in a
resurgence in interest in OTEC for tropical locations.
As the lead licensing agency for OTEC, NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management (OCRM), in cooperation with the Coastal Response Research
Center (CRRC), held the first in a series of workshops to determine the technical
readiness of seven major components of OTEC: 1) cold water pipe; (2) heat exchangers;
(3) platform/pipe interface; (4) platform; (5) power cable; (6) platform mooring system;
and (7) pumps and turbines. The first workshop, discussed in this report, sought to gather
information on the technical readiness of OTEC and evaluate advancements to the
technology since the last major attempt, OTEC-1 in 1980.
The qualitative analysis of the technical readiness of OTEC by experts at this

workshop suggest that a < 10 MWe floating, closed-cycle OTEC facility is technically
feasible using current design, manufacturing, deployment techniques and materials. The
technical readiness and scalability to a > 100 MWe facility is less clear. Workshop
participants concluded that existing platform, platform mooring, pumps and turbines, and
heat exchanger technologies are generally scalable using modular designs (several
smaller units to achieve the total capacity needed), however, the power cable, cold water
pipe and the platform/pipe interface present fabrication and deployment challenges for ≥
100 MWe facilities, and further research, modeling and testing is required. The
experience gained during the construction, deployment and operation of a ≤ 10 MWe
facility will greatly aid the understanding of the challenges associated with a ≥ 100 MWe
facility, and is a necessary step in the commercialization and development of OTEC.
4
II. INTRODUCTION
The decreasing supply, and increasing cost, of fossil-fuel based energy has
intensified the search for renewable alternatives. Although traditionally more expensive,
renewable energy sources have many incentives, including increased national energy
security, decreased carbon emissions, and compliance with renewable energy mandates
and air quality regulations. In remote islands where increased shipping costs and
economies of scale result in some of the most expensive fossil-fuel based energy in the
world, renewable energy sources are particularly attractive. Many islands, including
Guam and Hawaii, contain strategic military bases with high energy demands that would
greatly benefit from an inexpensive, reliable source of energy independent of the fossil-
fuel based economy.
The oceans are natural collectors of solar energy and absorb billions of watts of
energy from the sun in the form of solar radiation daily. In the tropical latitudes, intense
sunlight and longer days result in significant heating of the upper 35 to 100 m of the
oceans, yielding comparatively warm (27 - 29°C) oceanic surface waters. Below this
warm layer the temperature gradually decreases to an average of about 4.4°C. When the
second law of thermodynamics is considered, this temperature differential represents a
significant amount of potential energy which, if extracted, would be a completely
renewable source of energy.
One method of extracting this energy is Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion

(OTEC). OTEC facilities take advantage of the Rankine cycle, a process which converts
thermal energy into kinetic energy via turbines. The turbines can then be used to drive
generators, producing electricity. There are two major OTEC facility designs: open-cycle,
and closed-cycle. In an open-cycle OTEC facility seawater is used as a working fluid.
Warm surface water is exposed to a vacuum, causing it to boil and generate steam. The
cold water from deep in the ocean is then pumped through a condenser, causing the steam
to condense (Figure 1). This constant vaporization and condensation is used to drive a
turbine, converting thermal energy into mechanical energy. The open-cycle process has
the added advantage of creating fresh water as a byproduct.
Figure 1: Principles of operation of an open-cycle OTEC Facility
5
In a closed-cycle facility, a working fluid with a low boiling point (i.e., ammonia)
is used in place of seawater. Both the warm and cold water are passed through heat
exchangers which transfer the heat to the working fluid, which then vaporizes and
condenses as in the open-cycle facility, driving a turbine and converting thermal energy
into mechanical energy (Figure 2). While closed-cycle facilities are more complex, they
are significantly more efficient and result in greater output due to the greater efficiency of
the working fluid.
Figure 2: Principles of operation of a closed-cycle OTEC facility
Development of OTEC dates back to the late 1800s, however the first attempt at
constructing an operational OTEC facility did not occur until 1930 off the coast of Cuba,
and produced a net 22 kilowatts (kWe)1 for 11 days before it was destroyed in a storm.
The next major milestone came in 1979 when a project dubbed “mini-OTEC” was
launched, and marked the first successful operation of a closed-cycled OTEC facility.
Mini-OTEC produced a net 15 kWe for 3 months before the planned shutdown, and was
widely considered a success. The next major advancement in OTEC came in 1980 – 1981
with the experimental OTEC-1 facility. This facility was not designed to generate
electricity, rather, it was designed as a platform to test various OTEC-related
technologies. OTEC-1 reached several milestones, including successful deployment of a
670 m long cold water pipe, and mooring in 1,370 m of water. Subsequently, numerous
small-scale (< 1 megawatts (MWe)2) experimental facilities have been constructed by
Japan and India, and a land-based OTEC facility on the island of Hawai’i, with mixed
success. The land-based facility on the island of Hawai’i successfully operated from 1993
to 1998, and produced a net 103 kW, and still holds the world record for OTEC output
(Vega L. A., 2002/2003).
One of the most important considerations when planning an OTEC facility is

location. Large differences (> 20°C) in temperature between the cold water intake and the
warm water intake are required, and as a result, the facility must be located in a region
with access to warm surface waters and deep, cold water. An OTEC facility can be
1
kWe = 1,000 joules of electrical energy produced per second
2
MWe = 1,000,000 joules of electrical energy produced per second
6
located on land if adjacent to a shelf or rapid decrease in depth, however, the long length
of the cold water intake pipe needed to reach the required temperature differential may
make this impractical in most locations. Alternatively, an offshore, floating, moored,
facility with a vertical cold water intake pipe may be more practical. Technological
advancements in the offshore oil industry have made floating OTEC platforms a
possibility. Floating platforms can be located virtually anywhere above deep water as
long as they can be adequately moored, and the power cable can reach a land-based
power grid for electricity generation.
Although the focus of OTEC is typically on production of electricity, the energy

produced has the potential to be used for numerous co-products, including desalinization,
mariculture, hydrogen production, and air-conditioning, all of which would add to its
economic viability and further reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
OTEC facilities are complex and house many components working together to
produce energy. The quantity and magnitude of these components will vary with the size
of the facility, however, will typically consist of: a platform, used as a base for all OTEC
operations; a cold water pipe, used to draw cold water from below the thermocline; a
warm water pipe, used to draw warm water from near the surface; warm and cold water
discharge pipes, which are used to return the cold and warm water after heat has been
extracted; working fluid, used as a heat transfer medium; heat exchangers (closed-cycle
only), evaporators and condensers, used to transfer heat between cold and warm waters
and the working fluid; a platform/pipe interface, which couples the cold and warm water
pipes and platform; a power cable, which transfers electricity back to a shore-based
electrical grid; a platform mooring system, which ensures that the OTEC facility remains
stable and in the same location; pumps, which draw water through the cold and warm
water pipes; and turbines and generators, which are used to convert thermal energy into
electricity.
Expectations for OTEC were high following the passage of the Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion Act of 1980 (OTECA), and OTEC was forecast to generate > 10,000
MWe of energy by 1999. A combination of economic and technical feasibility factors
brought development of the technology to a near standstill by the mid-1980s, and the
technology has never proceeded past the pilot plant stage. Recently, decreasing
availability and increased cost of fossil fuels, advancements in OTEC technology, and
interest in renewable alternatives have once again led to a resurgence in interest in OTEC
as a potential solution to the energy needs of many island and equatorial nations.
III. WORKSHOP HISTORY AND LIMITATIONS
Due, in part, to increased interest by the U.S. Navy and the issuance of several
recent contracts to industry to increase research and development on OTEC components,
NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), in cooperation
with the Coastal Response Research Center (CRRC), held the first in a series of
workshops focused on OTEC. The first workshop, discussed in this report, sought to
7
gather information on the technical readiness of OTEC and evaluate advancements to the
technology since the last major attempt, OTEC-1 in 1980.
In order to provide the workshop participants with common assumptions for the
design of an OTEC facility, the Organizing Committee (OC) limited discussion to a
floating, closed-cycle, moored OTEC facility producing electricity transmitted to shore
via an undersea cable. The OC acknowledged that the first OTEC facility constructed was
likely to be ≤ 10 MWe, however, commercially successful OTEC facilities would likely
be ≥ 100 MWe, and are the expressed goal of the OTEC industry. The OC selected
closed-cycled for evaluation at this workshop, as they believed the first ≥ 100 MWe
OTEC facilities will use a closed-cycle design due to its greater efficiency. The
discussions at the workshop were limited to electrical generation. The technical
feasibility of additional applications for OTEC (i.e., potable water, seawater air
conditioning) were not discussed. While an operational OTEC facility will contain many
components, the OC decided to limit discussion to seven components: (1) platforms; (2)
platform mooring system; (3) platform/pipe interface; (4) heat exchangers; (5) pumps and
turbines; (6) power cable; and (7) cold water pipe. Discussion was limited to these
components because they were viewed as critical and a potentially limiting technical
factor to the success of OTEC.
It should be made clear that this report is a qualitative analysis of the state of the
technology, and is meant to inform NOAA OCRM. This report is not an exhaustive
engineering analysis, nor is it an independent appraisal of the technology. This report
does not take into account economic, environmental and social impacts and/or
constraints, and is not part of the decision and permitting process for OTEC by OCRM in
the United States.
IV. WORKSHOP ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE
The workshop, held at the University of New Hampshire from November 3 – 5,

2009, consisted of plenary sessions where invited speakers discussed their experiences
with OTEC and gave their views on the state of the technology. Seven breakout groups
further discussed key components of the technology: platforms; platform mooring
system; platform/pipe interface; heat exchangers; pumps and turbines; power cable; and
the cold water pipe. The workshop agenda (Appendix A), participants (Appendix B),
discussion questions (Appendix C), and breakout groups (Appendix D) were identified
and developed by an organizing committee comprised of members of government,
academia and industry.
The workshop participants were divided into the seven groups based upon their
expertise. Each breakout group identified: the state of the art technology; changes to the
technology since 1980; the component life cycle of the technology (design, fabrication
and construction; deployment and installation; operation and maintenance;
decommissioning, excluding environmental implications), scalability to ≥ 100 MWe,
challenges; risks and cost drivers; and research and development needs for their
respective OTEC component. This report summarizes the group discussions for each
8
OTEC component, research recommendations, and general conclusions on the technical
readiness of OTEC.
V. BREAKOUT GROUP REPORTS
A. Platforms
The Platforms group examined the technical readiness of existing platform technology
for an OTEC application. The group members were:
Andy Knox, NAVFAC Engineering Service Center

John Halkyard, John Halkyard & Associates
Ed Horton, Horton Deep Water Development
Jonathan Ross, OTEC International/Alion Science & Technology
Ian Simpson, American Bureau of Shipping
Rob Varley, Lockheed Martin
State-of-the-Art Technologies:
Changes in offshore platforms have primarily been driven by the petroleum

industry. Since the 1980’s, there has been improved meteorological and oceanographic
data gathering methods, which has led to more reliable and weather-resistant platform
designs. In addition, improved analytical tools allow for optimized and cost-effective
platform construction. The group identified three platform designs as being most feasible
for OTEC application: semi-submersible, spar, and ship shape (monohull). All three have
been validated in other industries (e.g., offshore oil, windfarms) and there are no
significant additional manufacturing, operating, or deployment challenges associated with
their use in an OTEC application.
Semi-submersible platforms have standard offshore rig fabrication procedures.

There are fewer qualified manufacturing facilities for spar platforms than semi-
submersible and monohull. Monohull manufacturing uses a Floating, Production,
Storage, and Off-loading Unit (FPSO) for construction. Spar platforms present the most
difficulties for installation because they require deepwater work. Spars are also more
difficult to operate than the other two platform types.
Operation and maintenance (O&M) procedures for these platforms are well
established, and typically include maintenance of machinery and removal of biological
growth on the submerged sections. Relocating platforms can present some difficulties
especially with the spar configuration. Spar platforms need to be disassembled and
reassembled for relocation. However, the spar configuration is most favorable for the
cold water pipe attachment because there is less motion at the joint. Decommissioning of
platforms is regularly performed in other industries and should not cause significant
challenges for OTEC facilities. Overall, the life cycle of a platform for an OTEC facility
is straightforward and has well-established procedures.
9
Challenges, Risks, and Cost Drivers:
There are few challenges associated with using currently available platform
technology for OTEC application. The following table compares risks associated with the
three platform configurations.
Table 1.
Motion/ Arrangement Cost Technical
Platform Type survivability difficulty Readiness
risk
Semi- Small Medium Medium High
submersible
Spar Small High Medium-High Medium
Ship Medium Low Low High
shape/monohull
The major cost driver for platforms is size and adaptability to OTEC application.
Platforms need to house a significant amount of equipment for an OTEC application, and
larger platforms significantly increase the cost and difficulty of fabrication and
deployment.
Research and Development:
Because platforms are well established, the majority of research and development
goals are efficiency and cost related. Development of simpler, lower cost manufacturing
and deployment techniques will reduce overall OTEC costs and improve the economic
feasibility of the plant. Because OTEC platform technology is transferred from other
industries, standards must be developed for platforms specific to OTEC facilities.
B. Platform Mooring
The Platform Mooring group examined the technical readiness of existing platform
mooring technology for an OTEC facility. The group members were:
Rick Driscoll, Florida Atlantic University Center for Ocean Energy Technology
Fred Arnold, NAVFAC Engineering Service Center
Helen Farr, NOAA Ocean Coastal Resource Management
Mark Greise, Sound & Sea Technology
Kunho Kim, American Bureau of Shipping, Energy Project Development
Gerritt Lang, NAVFAC Engineering Service Center
Pete Lunde, SBM Offshore, NV
10
The most important advancement from 1980 to the present is the significant
progress made in deep water moorings in sand and rock bottoms. In 1980, the depth limit
was ~305 m, but within the past 10 years advancements in synthetic materials has
allowed numerous moorings at depths up to 3,000 m. Advancements in software have
allowed precise models to be created that facilitate optimization of platform mooring
systems, and the widespread use of GPS and underwater acoustic systems (e.g., SONAR)
allows precise placement of mooring components.
Assuming that an OTEC platform is not significantly different than platforms

currently in use in the offshore oil industry, mooring technology is mature and has been
demonstrated in more challenging and demanding environments. The key driver will be
optimization to make it economically viable in the environment in which it is deployed.
The group reported that appropriate mooring technology exists for numerous vessel sizes,
loads and bottom types, however it is very site specific and the mooring system would
need to be custom designed using existing components (anchors, pilings). Mooring lines
for all components currently exist for depths to 3,000 m. Electrical conductor can be
embedded into mooring line in order to combine the mooring and power cable, however
this presents a new set of issues and design challenges that may not be economically
viable. Equipment currently exists to deploy mooring systems, however it may need to be
modified based on location and economics. Software models exist for mooring systems,
however they would need to be modified to address the intricacies of an OTEC plant (i.e.,
Does fluid flow in pipeline have a significant impact on the model?). Increasing
availability of GPS coupled high resolution SONAR has provided a more detailed view
of the seafloor and allows precise placement of moorings.
Design, fabrication, and construction of the platform mooring components

(anchors, mooring lines, hardware/terminations, integrity monitoring instrumentation)
were identified as either commercially available off-the-shelf, or requiring minimal
customization. The amount of customization and difficulty may increase with increasing
platform size, weight, bottom slope and exotic seafloor characteristics. Mobilization and
deployment of mooring components were identified as simple without significant
challenges, however some minor modification to equipment may be required. Monitoring
component performance during installation and use was also identified as relatively
simple with few challenges and high reliability.
Operation of the platform mooring is not complex and very reliable; existing
technology is suitable. Maintenance of the platform mooring system is technically
simple, with the primary focus on mitigating the impact of marine fouling on equipment
and periodic replacement/repair of integrity monitoring instrumentation.
Decommissioning of the platform mooring as a system was identified as

technically feasible and routine, however, labor intensive and expensive.
11
One of the most important challenges with the platform mooring is preventing
marine fouling of the mooring line and hardware. Excessive fouling may impact the
integrity of the mooring lines, and increase drag resulting in higher loading. Most
platform moorings are near shore, while OTEC platforms are likely to be in very deep
water and are exposed to high sea conditions, which may present design challenges.
Another significant challenge will be the requirement to disconnect and recover the
moorings in case of extreme storms.
Mobilization and deployment were identified as the riskiest part of the platform
mooring life cycle. Potential issues include: inability to deploy effectively and safely,
significant delay in startup, additional costs, or complete system failure.
Cost drivers include need for spare components, site conditions, weather, water
depth, installation complexity, material costs, performance requirements, installation risk
and insurance, labor costs, permitting and regulations, removal and decommissioning
costs and requirements. Cost savings could be realized through mooring optimization
(single point vs. multipoint), coordination and optimization of platform design, less
stringent motion and survivability requirements, citing, mitigating high cost factors, and
the ability to self-install.
Research and Development Needs:
The Platform Mooring group identified several research topics, including:

Adaptation of codes and standards to reflect OTEC systems, mooring systems on high
slope bottoms, techniques requiring minimal equipment for mooring and power cable
installation, optimized anchoring systems for volcanic rock, and new paradigms and
designs relevant to OTEC needs.
C. Platform/Pipe Interface
The Platform/Pipe Interface group examined the technical readiness of existing

platform/pipe interface technology. The group members were:
Dallas Meggitt, Sound & Sea Technology

Mark Brown, Sound & Sea Technology
Dennis Cooper, Lockheed Martin
Pat Grandelli, Makai Ocean Engineering
Dennis How, NAVFAC Engineering Service Center
Manuel Laboy, Offshore Infrastructure Associates, Inc.
Susan Skemp, FAU Center for Ocean Energy Technology
12
One of the most significant advances since 1980 is experience working in open
ocean deep water environments and advanced modeling technology. Sensor and
modeling technology has matured and now gives a better understanding of sustained
loading, allowing optimized designs. Advances in materials science have produced
lighter, stronger, and more durable materials that can be incorporated into the
platform/pipe interface, allowing larger pipes to be used. Several experimental OTEC
plants have been constructed since 1980, and while most either failed or were shut down
for various reasons, numerous lessons have been learned from those experiences,
including important design considerations and failure points related to the pipe/platform
interface.
The pipe/platform interface group concluded that the technology to create a

interface suitable for a ≥ 100 MWe facility (~ 10 m diameter CWP) is not currently
available, but experience with smaller 1 m diameter pipes has demonstrated that the
technologies are viable. There are generally three accepted platform pipe interface
designs: a flex pipe attached to a surface buoy, a fixed interface, and an interface with a
gimbal. The off-shore oil industry routinely handles multiple risers up to 1 m diameter at
substantial depths (> 305 m), and the technology used can likely be adapted to OTEC and
scaled to larger diameters.
Design, fabrication and construction of a platform/pipe interface for a ≥ 100 MWe

facility will require significant testing and modeling, and may require two to four years
before it is ready for installation. Fixed and gimbaled interfaces are easier to design and
manufacture, while flex interfaces are more complex and more difficult to design and
manufacture. Construction of the interface is not technically challenging, and could be
completed rapidly, however, mobilization and deployment is difficult and has been the
failure point in several OTEC projects. The effort required and probability of success of
mobilization and deployment depends greatly upon the type and size of the cold water
pipe, platform type, and interface. While some experience exists for smaller pipes, larger
interfaces (> 1 m CWP) will require custom installation and it is unclear what special
requirements or problems may occur. Vertical build interfaces are easier to deploy than
horizontal. Horizontal build interfaces are difficult for fixed and gimbaled interfaces. The
ability to detach the CWP adds complexity and cost to the interface.
Operation and maintenance of the interface is relatively simple for a fixed

interface, but substantially more involved for gimbaled and flex interfaces. The gimbaled
interface requires periodic lubrication and cleaning, while the flex interface requires
frequent repair as it has several connection and fatigue points.
The fixed interface has the highest scalability followed by the gimbaled. The flex
interface is probably not feasible for ≥ 100 MWe facilities due to the size of the cold
water pipe. Current design and deployment technologies are likely scalable to ≥ 100
MWe, however the group noted that a interface for a ≤ 10 MWe facility should be
successfully fabricated and deployed prior to attempting anything larger, as unforeseen
difficulties may arise with increasing pipe size.
13
There are numerous challenges with the platform/pipe interface. The most
significant is the lack of experience with interfaces holding pipes larger than 1 m
diameter. A significant amount of design, fabrication, and modeling will be required to
develop an interface for a ≥ 100 MWe OTEC facility. The biggest challenge will be to
design an interface that is able to couple and decouple the CWP, and withstand the forces
of an open ocean environment and storm events.
Risks associated with the platform/pipe interface include complete failure,

resulting in loss of the pipe and significant production delays, as well as partial failure,
resulting in degraded performance due to leakage. If the interface fails, it will be difficult
and expensive to repair in situ, especially if the pipe is lost.
Cost drivers include: choice of materials, and the design and fabrication process
for not only the interface, but also the cold water pipe and the platform. Local climate,
currents and wave patterns will dictate the design loading and will have a significant
impact on cost. Tradeoffs between relative motion of the CWP vs. the platform and
complexity of the system will also impact costs, as well the ability to couple/decouple the
CWP.
The research and development needs include: modeling of failure modes,

expanded remote monitoring, low cost buoyancy, OTEC system modeling, deep
oceanographic data collection, data mining, and processing, supply chain integration, and
improvement in composite materials.
The CWP and pipe/platform interface groups are closely linked and present some
difficulties in design and installation. Because the platform/pipe interface for a hanging
CWP has only been demonstrated for ≤ 1 m diameter pipes, the scalability is unclear and
there are significant unknowns. Research should focus on increasing the size of the
platform/pipe interface to accommodate pipes used in ≥ 100 MWe facilities. The
conditions of the open ocean and deep-sea currents cause numerous stresses on the CWP
and interface, and until significantly larger sizes of these components are built and used
successfully, they will remain the biggest hurdle to successful ≥ 100 MWe OTEC
facilities.
14
D. Heat Exchangers:
The Heat Exchangers group examined the technical readiness of existing heat exchanger
technology for an OTEC facility. The group members were:
Whitney Blanchard, NOAA Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Avram Bar-Cohen, University of Maryland, Department of Mechanical
Engineering
Desikan Bharathan, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Yunho Hwang, University of Maryland, Department of Mechanical Engineering
Laurie Meyer, Lockheed Martin
C.B. Panchal, E3Tec Service, LLC
Nate Sinclair, NAVFAC Engineering Service Center
Heat exchangers (HX) have improved in many ways since the 1980s driven primarily
by other industries (e.g., aerospace, power plant, petroleum, cryogenic, liquefied natural
gas (LNG), geothermal). Typical 1980 HX designs were plain tube, shell and tube, and
plate and frame. Stainless steel was typically used. The open cycle and hybrid cycle
OTEC facility concepts were developed in the 1980s, but HXs for these applications were
not designed or validated. Today HX have an improved heat transfer coefficients mainly
due to the use of new and modified materials. Titanium is more cost effective today,
plastics have been developed for HX use, and aluminum-alloying techniques have
improved. Surface enhancements have been developed (e.g., roughing). Fabrication
practices have also improved: extrusion, aluminum brazing, welding techniques, quality
control, instrumentation, and coating processes. More of the HX fabrication process is
automated and, therefore, has improved capacity for large HXs.
HXs have been validated for closed cycle applications and designed for hybrid cycle
application. Direct contact condensers are currently operational for geothermal
applications. Flash evaporators have been demonstrated and mixed working fluid cycle
HXs have been developed. This discussion focuses on heat exchangers for a closed cycle
OTEC facility. The most appropriate working fluids for OTEC are propylene and
ammonia, with an emphasis on the latter due to its thermodynamic properties and
extensive experience with similar applications. Shell and tube, plate and frame, and
aluminum plate-fin are the three HX types most suited and ready for OTEC.
The group discussed the life cycle of three different types of HXs that could be used
for an OTEC facility: shell and tube, plate and frame and aluminum plate-fin. The time
frame for commercial manufacturing for OTEC use for all three of these HX types is two
to three years.
Shell and tube HXs are typically constructed of titanium, carbon steel, stainless steel,
copper-nickel, or aluminum. Complexity and cost of HX installation would vary with
platform design; an HX integrated into the platform would likely need to be done while
15
the platform is being constructed. The size of these HXs is important because of the
limited space on an OTEC platform. The manifold design for shell and tube HXs depends
on the platform configuration. The largest shell and tube HX currently available would
result in 5 MWe (net OTEC power), however, they can be installed in modules, creating
greater net power output. Manufacturing of shell and tube HXs is relatively labor
intensive, but integrating them into the OTEC facility is low cost compared to the
alternatives. The HX is constructed on shore and then floated to the OTEC facility. There
are some issues with transportation due to the large size of shell and tube HXs; special
equipment is needed.
O&M of shell and tube HX is easy and there are performance data to validate
performance. These HXs degrade slowly and need few repairs. They are replaced once
they surpass their service life, usually limited by material degradation (e.g., corrosion,
pitting). It is necessary to monitor the HX for leaks. Some of this monitoring is visual,
and therefore, there needs to be space for personnel to inspect HXs. There are detectors in
the exhaust water to detect ammonia (i.e., the working fluid). Chlorination is necessary to
decrease biofouling in the “warm” (i.e. evaporators) water portion of the HX. There are
well-established guidelines for personnel safety when handling shell and tube HXs. These
O&M processes and guidelines/codes come from other industries using shell and tube
HXs (e.g., process industry, refrigeration industry, power plants). American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) developed most of these codes.
Shell and tube HXs can be easily scaled to ≥100 MWe facilities with a modular
design. Decommissioning these HXs is labor intensive and there are environmental risks
associated with the release of the working fluid. However, there are existing industry
standards for decommissioning. There is salvage value in the metals and ammonia as
both can be recycled.
Plate and frame HXs are constructed of stainless steel or titanium. Manufacturing is
easy because it consists of a completely automated welding process. One complicating
factors is there the large plate size of plate and frame HXs needed for OTEC facilities.
Installation of the HXs into the OTEC facility is difficult because of the complex piping
system and expensive valving required. Each individual plate and frame HX is
transported to the OTEC site. Plate and frame HXs are less flexible than shell and tube
for OTEC because they require more ventilation. However, the plate and frame HXs are
less expensive than the shell and tube. With the necessary piping and manifolding
system, the costs of the two types of HXs are equivalent.
Many of the O&M processes for plate and frame HXs are the same as the shell and
tube HX. However, there are some added difficulties. Plate and frame HXs cannot be
submerged because gaskets are not fully welded and have to be dry. The HXs can be
repaired by replacing the individual plates. Personnel safety is similar to that of shell and
tube HXs, but also includes confined space entry. Plate and frame HXs have limited
scalability. To scale up to a ≥ 100 MWe, the number and size of plates required would
greatly increase. Decommissioning plate and frame HXs has the same procedures and
issues as shell and tube.
16
Aluminum plate fin HXs are fabricated with brazed aluminum and mostly used in the
cryogenic and LNG industries. They have a modular design similar to shell and tube, but
with lower power output per module. Due, in part, to surface area to volume ratio
constraints, each module has an effective upper thermodynamic limit of approximately 2
MWe, requiring the use of multiple modules for plants ≥ 2 MWe. Aluminum plate fin
have a lower integration cost because the brazed aluminum units can be assembled on
site. The units can fit inside a standard shipping container, presenting fewer
transportation issues.
O&M for aluminum plate fin HXs is similar to that of shell and tube and plate and
frame. O&M practices unique to plate fin HXs include: monitoring for aluminum
corrosion and the need for offsite repair. Plate fin HXs are scalable because of their
modular design. There is data validating performance for aluminum plate fin HXs; the
Department of Energy (DOE) has test data for these HXs. Decommissioning practices for
plate fin are the same as the other two HXs.
There are risks associated with working fluids leaking from the HXs because of
potential environmental damage, and the negative impact on turbine efficiency. There
needs to be more data collected on biofouling of HXs. The biggest challenge is the
limited economic incentive for HX manufacturers to optimize HX design/fabrication for
OTEC facilities. The temperature difference between the “warm” and “cold” water (T)
is relatively small compared to other applications for HXs. The challenge is to design an
HX that can handle large flows, have a high heat transfer coefficient, and be easily
integrated into an OTEC facility.
Research and development on HXs for OTEC application aims to improve heat
transfer without incurring a large pressure drop. Improvements to HX design will
increase the cost effectiveness of the entire OTEC plant. Research areas include:
materials, enhanced surface, and fabrication techniques. Many of these areas have already
been the subject of much research but OTEC requires further improvements and
validation. Surface enhancements will increase surface area, turbulence and mixing,
thereby increasing the heat transfer capacity. Research into materials includes greater
extraction processes, qualification of aluminum alloys for the lifetime of an OTEC plant,
and the use of plastics.
17
E. Pumps and Turbines
The Pumps and Turbines group examined the technical readiness of existing pump and
turbine technology for an OTEC facility. The group members were:
Michael Reed, Department of Energy

Alexandra DeVisser, NAVFAC Engineering Service Center
Leslie Kramer, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control
Donald MacDonald, NOAA Coastal and Ocean Resource Managment
Peter Pandolfini, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Lab
Orlando Ruiz, Offshore Infrastructure Associates, Inc.
Compared to other components of the OTEC facility, pump and turbine technology is
the most advanced with respect to technical readiness. There have not been any
revolutionary breakthroughs in the design of pumps and turbines in the past 30 years,
however, there have been some changes since the 1980s that have improved performance
including use of lightweight and lower friction materials. Electronic monitoring is now
available that can examine the health and status of pumps and turbines, helping to
decrease O&M costs.
The petroleum industry has more than 30 years of experience with pumps and
turbines in harsh environments, such as offshore facilities. Axial flow turbines are able to
support large MWe production and these units are commercially available. Toshiba
(Tokyo, Japan), GE Rotoflow (Fairfield, CT), Mitsubishi (Cypress, California), Elliott
Turbomachinery (Jeannette, PA) and Hitachi (Tokyo, Japan) manufacture suitable
turbines. For a 10 MWe facility, two radial flow turbines each rated at 7-8 MW gross
power could be used. Increasing the number of turbines improves reliability and net
power production. This is relatively easy to do because of the modular design used in
OTEC facilities.
Cold and warm water pumps for an OTEC facility would be axial flow impeller
design mounted on the platform. These pumps are highly efficient (87-92%), and are
commercially available from numerous vendors. A 100 MWe facility would require
pumps capable of moving approximately 200 m3/s of cold water and 400 m3/s of cold
water (Vega L. , 1995). Multiple-pump solutions of this size are available off-the-shelf,
and could integrate into a ≥100 MWe OTEC facility. The OTEC working fluid pumping
system would require feed pumps and recycle pumps. For the ≥ 100 MWe facility, 8
working fluid pumps and 8 recycle pumps would be required. These pumps are
commercially available and have a relatively low cost, however, they require significant
maintenance. There is a large design database available for these pumps.
Turbines for OTEC applications are commercially available. Materials suitable for
these turbines include steel, carbon steel and chromium. Large turbines are a challenge,
18
however, this can be mitigated by using a modular design. There are well-established
manufacturing practices for 5-10 MWe turbines (e.g., forging, machining, and casting).
Turbines are very adaptable to a platform environment and could easily be integrated into
an OTEC system. Ammonia turbines are reliable, but there is little data in their use at this
scale. There are some manufacturers of ammonia turbines; mainly for the refrigeration
industry. There is an 18-24 month lead-time for delivery of these turbines.
O&M procedures for turbines of this sort are well established and do not to present
any extra difficulties. Routine inspection is required along with periodic repair. There are
few unique safety concerns for personnel working on turbines on OTEC facilities;
however, it is important to note that a leak of the working fluid (e.g., ammonia) may
present safety issues. Some of the monitoring can be done using electronic sensors
without disrupting plant performance and avoiding potential risk to personnel. The pumps
and turbines would likely last the life of the OTEC plant (30 years).
Turbines would likely be installed in modular fashion for a ≥ 100 MWe OTEC
facility. They should be reliable because they are a very well established technology that
is already in use in similar conditions and because it is relatively easy to provide
redundancy. Typically twice the number of turbines needed are installed. This
redundancy allows for regular maintenance without compromising the plant performance.
Decommissioning the turbines is straightforward and protocols and procedures exist. 85-
90% of the materials can be recycled.
Pumps for OTEC application are also available with a 12-18 month lead-time. The
maximum impeller diameter for a pump is ~2.1 m. There is a range of design
configurations available from multiple vendors. Similar to OTEC turbines, the pumping
system would use n+1 redundancy. The main materials used in pump fabrication are
carbon steel, stainless steel, copper, and insulating material.
Access to pumps on an OTEC platform can complicate and increase the cost of O&M
because in some designs they are submerged. It is critical to have spare working fluid
pumps available at the facility. The overall performance of the plant relies heavily on
proper operation of pumps and turbines. Pumps are scalable to a ≥ 100 MWe OTEC
facility because they can be installed modularly. Pumps are also highly reliable.
Turbines have very low operational risks, however, if they do fail OTEC performance
is greatly hindered. It is important to have spare parts readily available to maintain
turbines and pumps. There is a risk of foreign objects damaging the turbine blades.
Electronic monitoring must be able to detect any potential internal damage. Cost drivers
are turbine and pump efficiency. Currently, turbines and pumps are ~ 80-90% efficient.
Improving efficiency will result in higher net power output of the OTEC facility.
19
There are few R&D needs for pumps and turbines for OTEC application because they
are commercially available. Any improvements will decrease the cost and allow the plant
to operate more efficiently. The main research area is condition-based maintenance:
remote sensing for turbine and pump performance. Other research areas are associated
with open cycle OTEC facilities that operate at much lower pressure than closed cycle
systems. This presents unique challenges for pump and turbine design. R&D is needed to
improve lower pressure turbine and pumps.
F. Power Cable
The power cable group was asked to examine the technical readiness of the power cable
technology for an OTEC facility. The group members were:
Matt Gove, NOAA Ocean Coastal Resource Management

Koeunyi Bae, Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors
Warren Bartel, NAVFAC Engineering Service Center
Lee Brissey, Sound & Sea Technology
Steiner Dale, Florida State Univ, Ctr for Advanced Power Systems
Dave Tietje, Science Applications International Corp (SAIC)
One of the biggest advances since 1980 in power cables is associated with
production and installation of high voltage undersea cables. There are currently 10 sea
crossing alternating current (AC) cables ranging from 90 kV – 500 kV, and 20 direct
current (DC) cables up to 500 kV in use; the majority has been installed within the last 10
years. The increase in offshore wind farms has led to a better understanding of cable
dynamics, and connections up to 50 kV are common. Significant progress has been made
in understanding cable dynamics, primarily driven by needs of the offshore oil drilling
and wind farm community, which use similar sized cables. Platform-cable connections
are now standard and routine up to 50 kV.
The group concluded that the technology to create power cables systems (cable,
splicing, terminations) suitable for use with OTEC facilities exists, however there are
several limitations. The most notable is that while cables are available up to 500 kV,
there is a larger selection at lower voltages (< 100 kV) and OTEC plants design may be
limited by power cable availability. Cables under 20 miles long are likely to be AC and
use single phase > 69 kV, or three phase < 69 kV. Cables longer than 20 miles are likely
to be DC in order to reduce transmission losses. DC cables are currently available up to
500 kV, however have the disadvantage of requiring conversion between AC and DC on
both ends, resulting in significant energy loss. Codes and standards exist for cable
construction, including Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE),
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and American Petroleum Institute
(API). To protect the cable during installation and throughout its 30 year expected
20
lifespan, it will likely have steel armoring, adding a significant amount of weight and
strain.
For cables less than 500 kV, design and fabrication were identified as either
commercially available off the shelf, or requiring minimal customization. For cables
greater than 500 kV, no commercial product exists and significant effort would be
required to design and manufacture an appropriate cable. For OTEC facilities larger than
10 MWe, design and fabrication of the cable termination on the platform side will require
a custom design and be the most technically challenging part of the power cable system.
Mobilization and deployment of the cable is difficult, but well understood. The depth,
seafloor characteristics, weight of cable, and required route will affect the difficulty and
cost of mobilization and deployment.
Operation and maintenance of the cable is routine and well understood.

Maintenance of the power cable system includes periodic marine growth removal, full
cable inspection, and annual maintenance of substations using divers and ROVs, where
appropriate. In the event damage to the cable is discovered, repair is possible in shallow
water, but very difficult in deep (> 500 feet) water, and may require replacement of the
cable.
The power cable system will be difficult to scale to a 100 MWe OTEC facility
due to capacity limitations and ability to design and fabricate a platform-side termination
interface. A 10 MWe plant is unlikely to use the same cable type and design as a 100
MWe plant, and a completely new design will likely be required. Power cable design is
also affected by the mooring system; individual mooring types may require significantly
different power cable systems.
One area identified by the group as a challenge is the cable termination interface
on the platform side. While standard for ≤ 10 MWe plants, the larger and heavier power
cables required by ≥ 100 MWe OTEC plants will increase fatigue, bending and the stress
and strain on the cable and the cable-platform interface and pose significant technological
and engineering challenges. Further analysis and modeling is needed, however, the group
noted that software already exists to complete this analysis. In addition, the extreme
depths at which the cables will be located may present challenges with respect to
hydrostatic pressure, and additional testing and modeling may be required. Cost drivers
include size and type of cable required, design sea conditions, seafloor characteristics,
cost of materials, exchange rate, and required cable routing.
The primary research need identified by the group was development of a dynamic
cable for an OTEC facility > 10 MWe that can withstand repetitive bending and have
more dielectric capabilities. Lighter armoring and conductor materials are needed to
reduce weight, which will also reduce the stress and strains on the cable.
21
G. Cold Water Pipe
The Cold Water Pipe group examined the technical readiness of existing cold water pipe
(CWP) technology for an OTEC facility. The group members were:
Roger Bagbey, Inspired Systems, LLC

Robert Bonner, NAVFAC, Engineering Services Center
Kerry Kehoe, NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
Alan Miller, Lockheed Martin
James Roney, Consultant
Phil Sklad, Oak Ridge National Lab
William Tayler, NAVFAC, Shore Energy Office
Luis Vega, Hawaii Natural Energy Institute
James Anderson, Sea Solar Power
David Kaiser, NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
In the 1980s, materials considered for CWP construction included E-glass/vinyl

ester, steel, and/or concrete, and typically had a synthetic foam core sandwich design.
Currently, CWP materials include: R-glass/vinyl ester, fiberglass, and carbon fiber
composite. The design has improved; proprietary designs have been developed including
the hollow pultruded core sandwich. Fabrication of the CWP will likely include vacuum
assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM) and large protrusion processes. VARTM
allows sandwich core manufacturing and/or stepwise manufacturing. The large protrusion
process allows hollow core manufacturing which helps mitigate pressure issues at depths
in the water column. There have also been improvements in computational tools and
structural monitoring of CWPs (e.g., cameras, sensors, robotic devices).
The design, construction, and deployment of a CWP for a ≤ 10 MWe facility is

fairly well understood, however has only been successfully completed at ≤ 1 MW (e.g.,
OTEC-1). The fabrication methods required for construction of a ≤ 10 MWe CWP (~ 7 m
diameter) are currently available, and can likely be scaled to construct a pipe suitable for
a ≥100 MWe facility (~ 10 m diameter). The CWP can be deployed in situ with a
stepwise fabrication or as one whole pipe. The latter would be fabricated on shore and
towed to the platform. Both of these methods have been developed and validated for a
CWPs suitable for a ≤ 10 MWe plant (~ 7 m), however have only been successfully
demonstrated on a much smaller scale (< 2 m diameter). Construction and deployment of
a CWP for a ≥ 100 MWe CWP have not been attempted.
Studies have shown that biofouling on the interior and exterior of the CWP will
not significantly impact the performance of the OTEC plant (C.B. Panchal, 1984).
Smooth interior surfaces of the CWP achieved by coatings and additives mitigate
biofouling. The CWP is designed to last the lifetime of the facility, and with current
engineering knowledge and methods may approach 30 years. Fiber optics will be used to
monitor CWP performance and detect any damage. Fiber optics is a well-understood
technology that is regularly used in the offshore oil industry. The offshore oil industry
22
also has experience in repairing structures at depth. There are existing monitoring
methods to analyze ageing, saturation, and fatigue.
Emergency preparedness is a key issue for the CWP of an OTEC facility. The
design may include the ability to detach the CWP from the platform prior to a large storm
event in order to prevent damage and/or loss. This significantly complicates the design of
the platform/pipe interface and is likely to increase complexity and cost. The CWP from
OTEC-1 was successfully recovered and re-used from a depth of 1,371 m in 1982, and
suggests that recovery and decommissioning (i.e., disposal or recycling) of the CWP will
use established procedures used previously in OTEC, as well as the oil industry, and
should not present any significant technological challenges.
The challenges and risks associated with a ≤ 10 MWe CWP are fairly well
understood. Transportation, deployment, and decoupling of a single piece pipe is
difficult, and would require towing it from shore. Conversely, segmented pipes, while
easier to deploy, risk failure at the many joints required. The CWP is vulnerable to severe
storm events that may exceed design limits, cause damage and/or failure. The increased
CWP size required for a ≥ 100 MWe facility introduces some challenges, primarily due
to lack of experience with pipes in that size class. While previous OTEC pilot and
experimental plants have successfully constructed and deployed CWPs, there is little
experience with a CWP larger than 2 m.
The major cost drivers for the CWP are the materials used in fabrication and the
deployment techniques. Deployment of the CWP is equipment and labor intensive, and
will be greatly affected by labor, fuel and equipment costs.
CWP research and development on CWPs for both ≤ 10 MWe and ≥ 100 MWe
facilities should address material and equipment cost effectiveness. Research on
alternative designs (e.g. flexible CWP) should be conducted. A full demonstration of
large CWP (i.e., suitable for ≥ 100 MWe) production, delivery, and installation is needed.
In addition, there must be a minimum of a one year operational record of CWP at a ≤ 10
MWe facility prior to scaling up to a ≥ 100 MWe facility.
The CWP and its interface with the platform are the most complex components on
the OTEC plant. The CWP is unique to OTEC facilities, and nothing on the same size
scale has been attempted in oceanic environments. There are numerous risks associated
with these technologies. Many of these risks should be studied further with the goal of
validating the CWP and interface design.
23
VI. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
At the conclusion of the workshop, the groups reconvened and developed the following
general list of research and development needs to improve the technical readiness of
OTEC.
Heat Exchanger
 Enhanced heat transfer through an increase in surface area, turbulence, mixing
without pressure drop validated performance
 Advancement in materials (aluminum alloys, plastics, low cost titanium)
 Improved fabrication techniques (bonding, brazing, welding, extrusion, etc.)
Power Cable
 Development of dynamic cable greater than 30 MWe
 Development of a platform-cable interface that can withstand repetitive bending and
have better dielectric capabilities.
 Lightweight armoring and conductor
Cold Water Pipe

 Improve cost effectiveness of materials/equipment
 Full demonstration of pipe production, delivery and installation
Pumps and Turbines

 Low pressure steam for open cycle
 Lower cost of compressors for maintaining vacuum (centrifugal)
 Condition-based maintenance sensing and turbine performance optimization
 Condition-based maintenance sensing for pumps
Platform Moorings
 Investigate/be flexible to new paradigms and designs relevant to OTEC needs
 Optimization of platform moorings for OTEC needs
 Investigate effective anchoring systems in volcanic rock
 Investigate techniques that require minimal equipment for mooring & power cable
installation
 Investigate effective mooring systems on high slope bottoms
 Adapt codes and standards to reflect OTEC systems
Platform/Pipe Interface
 Develop low cost buoyancy
 Analytical simulation specific to OTEC
 Find and adapt existing technologies and analysis tools to structural analysis and
simulation
 Better modeling of failure modes
24
Platform
 Low cost manufacturing techniques (i.e., innovation, quality control)
 Developing OTEC standards based on cost/risk
General
 Large scale testing of subsystems
 Trade off studies need to be performed relative to the location of water production
(onshore vs. offshore, water production)
 Compile standards from other industries and adapt to OTEC
VII. CONCLUSION
It should be made clear that this report is a qualitative analysis of the state of the
technology, and is meant to inform NOAA OCRM. This report is not an exhaustive
engineering analysis, nor is it an independent appraisal of the technology. This report
does not take into account economic, environmental and social impacts and/or
constraints, and is not part of the decision and permitting process for OTEC by OCRM in
the United States.
The qualitative analysis of the technical readiness of OTEC by experts at this

workshop suggest that a < 10 MWe floating, closed-cycle OTEC facility is technically
feasible using current design, manufacturing, deployment techniques and materials. The
technical readiness and scalability to a > 100 MWe facility is less clear. Workshop
participants concluded that existing platform, platform mooring, pumps and turbines, and
heat exchanger technologies are generally scalable using modular designs (several
smaller units to achieve the total capacity needed), however, the power cable, cold water
pipe and the platform/pipe interface present fabrication and deployment challenges for ≥
100 MWe facilities, and further research, modeling and testing is required. The
experience gained during the construction, deployment and operation of a ≤ 10 MWe
facility will greatly aid the understanding of the challenges associated with a ≥ 100 MWe
facility, and is a necessary step in the commercialization and development of OTEC.
25
VIII. REFERENCES CITED
1. C.B. Panchal, H. S. (1984). Biofouling and Corrision studies at the Seacoast Test Facility
in Hawaii. DE84-014643; CONF-840930-1, (pp. 364-369).
2. Vega, L. A. (2002/2003). Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Primer. Marine Technology

Society Journal 6(4) , 25-35.
3. Vega, L. (1995). Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. In Encyclopedia of Energy

Technology and the Environment pp. 2104-2119. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
4. W. H. Avery, W. C. (1994). Renewable Energy from the Ocean: A Guide to OTEC. New
York: Oxford University Press.
26

Appendix A
Meeting Agenda

November 3-5, 2009

New England Center
University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH

Tuesday, November 3
08:15 Continental Breakfast New England Center, Great Bay Room
08:45 Welcome Nancy Kinner, Jan Nisbet, and NOAA
Department of Navy William Tayler

Department of Energy Mike Reed
NOAA Kerry Kehoe
09:20 Background & Workshop Goals/Outcomes Nancy Kinner
09:30 OTEC Timeline & Participant Introductions Iris Ioffreda, Facilitator
10:30 Break
10:45 Plenary Session: Setting the Stage

A. Cold Water Pipe Alan Miller
B. Heat Exchangers Avram Bar-Cohen
C. Platform Mooring Frederick “Rick” Driscoll
D. Platform/Pipe Interface Patrick Grandelli
E. Pumps & Turbines Peter Pandolfini
F. Platforms Edward Horton
G. Power Cable Steiner Dale
H. Cycle/Auxiliary Uses C.B. Panchal
I. Overall System & Program Luis Vega
11:45 Workshop Structure & Logistics Iris Ioffreda
12:00 Lunch
13:00 Breakout Session I Breakout Discussion Groups
15:30 Plenary Session I: Group Reports (10 minutes each)
17:00 Adjourn
18:30 Shuttle to Dinner Portsmouth

Wednesday, November 4
08:30 Continental Breakfast New England Center, Great Bay Rm
09:00 Overview and Review/Recalibrate Iris Ioffreda
09:15 Panel Discussion: Cycle and Auxiliary Uses:

Today and the Future
10:15 Breakout Session II Breakout Discussion Groups
12:15 Lunch
12:45 Breakout Session III Breakout Discussion Groups
15:00 Plenary Session: Group Reports (10 minutes each)
17:00 Adjourn (Dinner on your own)
_______________________________________________________________________

Thursday, November 5
08:30 Continental Breakfast New England Center, Great Bay Rm
09:00 Overview/Review Iris Ioffreda
09:15 Panel Discussion on OTEC as a System
10:30 Break
10:45 Discussion of OTEC as a System
12:00 Lunch
13:00 Plenary Session: Synthesis and Next Steps Iris Ioffreda
14:30 Closing Remarks Iris Ioffreda & Organizing Committee
15:30 Adjourn

Appendix B
Participant List

Workshop Participants
James Anderson Lee Brissey

Sea Solar Power Sound & Sea Technology
[email protected] [email protected]
Frederick Arnold Mark Brown

NAVFAC Engineering Service Center Sound & Sea Technology
Koeunyi Bae Brian Cable**

Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors NAVFAC
Roger Bagbey** Joseph Cunningham

Inspired Systems, LLC Coastal Response Research Center
Avram Bar-Cohen Steiner Dale

University of Maryland, Mechanical Engineering Florida State Univ, Ctr for Advanced Power Systems
Warren Bartel Alexandra DeVisser

NAVFAC Engineering Service Center NAVFAC Engineering Service Center
Hoyt Battey** Frederick "Rick" Driscoll

US Department of Energy FAU Ctr for Ocn Energy Technology
Desikan Bharathan Helen Farr

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) NOAA Ocean Coastal Resource Management
Whitney Blanchard** Mathew Gove

NOAA Ocean Coastal Resource Management NOAA Ocean Coastal Resource Management
Robert Bonner Patrick Grandelli

NAVFAC Engineering Service Center Makai Ocean Engineering
Mark Greise Andrew Knox**
Sound & Sea Technology NAVFAC Engineering Service Center
George Hagerman Leslie Kramer

Virginia Tech Advanced Research Institute Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control
John Halkyard Manuel Laboy

John Halkyard & Associates Offshore Infrastructure Associates, Inc.
Edward Horton Gerritt Lang

Horton Deep Water Dev NAVFAC Engineering Service Center
Dennis How Dennis Loria

NAVFAC Engineering Service Center LORIA Emerging Energy Consulting, LLC
Yunho Hwang Pete Lunde

University of Maryland, Dept of Mechanical SBM Offshore, NV
Engineering [email protected]
[email protected]
Donald MacDonald
Iris Ioffreda** NOAA Special Projects
OLA Consulting [email protected]
[email protected]
Kathy Mandsager
David Kaiser Coastal Response Research Center
NOAA Ocean Coastal Resource Management [email protected]
[email protected]
Dallas Meggitt**
Kerry Kehoe** Sound & Sea Technology
NOAA Ocean Coastal Resource Management [email protected]
[email protected]
Laurie Meyer
Kunho Kim Lockheed Martin
American Bureau of Shipping, Energy Project [email protected]
Development
[email protected] Alan Miller
Lockheed Martin
John King [email protected]
NOAA Ocean Coastal Resource Management
[email protected] C.B. Panchal
E3Tec Service, LLC
Nancy Kinner** [email protected]
Coastal Response Research Center
[email protected] Peter Pandolfini
Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Lab
[email protected]
** Designates Workshop Organizing Committee Member

Michael Reed** Phil Sklad
U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL)
James Roney William Tayler**

Consultant NAVFAC
Jonathan Ross Dave Tietje

OTEC International/Alion Science & Technology Science Applications International Corp (SAIC)
Orlando Ruiz Robert Varley

Offshore Infrastructure Associates, Inc. Lockheed Martin
Ian Simpson Luis Vega

American Bureau of Shipping, Offshore Hawaii Natural Energy Institute (HNEI)
Technology & Business Development [email protected]
[email protected]
Donna Wieting
Nate Sinclair NOAA Ocean Coastal Resource Management
NAVFAC Engineering Service Center [email protected]
[email protected]
Susan Skemp**
FAU Ctr for Ocn Energy Technology
[email protected]
** Designates Workshop Organizing Committee Member

Appendix C
Breakout Questions

Breakout Discussion Topics

For Each Individual Component:

(These questions will be used in each of the 7 breakout sessions.)
Breakout Session 1:
1) What are the state-of-the-art technologies for the technical component?
Breakout Session II:

2) What processes (e.g., equipment, personnel) of the technology are associated with:
i. fabrication, deployment, construction, and installation;
ii. operation (including monitoring) and maintenance (including cleaning,
repair, and replacement);
iii. monitoring component performance;
iv. personnel safety and emergency preparedness; and
v. decommissioning?
3) What risks are associated with failure with these processes?
Breakout Session III:

4) Are the technologies associated with this component viable? What are the economic
factors associated with these technologies? What are the hurdles/limiting factors
associated with these technologies?
5) What is the development time frame for the technologies associated with this component?
System Questions:
(These questions will be addressed in the Panel Sessions.)
 What are the performance metrics that must be demonstrated prior to commercial
development? What is the development time frame (e.g., today, 1-2 yr, 5-10 yr) for a
commercial OTEC system?
 What are the potential failures that could lead to the shutdown of an OTEC system?
 What processes/diagnostics are needed to detect, monitor and reduce these risks?
 What are the flexibilities in the OTEC system’s components that could minimize
environmental impacts?

Appendix D
Breakout Groups

Discussion Groups
A. Cold Water Pipe Mark Brown

(Berkshire Room) Brian Cable
Roger Bagbey, Group Lead Dennis Cooper
Mike Curry, Recorder Pat Grandelli
Jim Anderson Dennis How
Robert Bonner Manuel Laboy
Kerry Kehoe Susan Skemp
Alan Miller
James Roney E. Pumps and Turbines
Phil Sklad (Great Bay Room, West)
Bill Tayler Mike Reed, Group Lead
Luis Vega Adria Fichter/Marcel Kozlowski, Recorder
Alexandra DeVisser
B. Heat Exchangers Les Kramer
(Penobscot Room) Dennis Loria
Whitney Blanchard, Group Lead Donald MacDonald
Zachary Magdol, Recorder Peter Pandolfini
Avram Bar-Cohen Orlando Ruiz
Desikan Bharathan
Yunho Hwang F. Platform
Laurie Meyer (Charles Room)
C. B. Panchal Andy Knox, Group Lead
Nate Sinclair Heather Ballestero, Recorder
John Halkyard
C. Platform Mooring Ed Horton
(Windsor Room) Jonathan Ross
Rick Driscoll, Group Lead Ian Simpson
David Gaylord, Recorder Rob Varley
Fred Arnold
Helen Farr G. Power Cable
Mark Greise (Great Bay Room, East)
Kunho Kim Matt Gove, Group Lead
Gerritt Lang Chris Wood/Michaela Bogosh, Recorder
Pete Lunde Koeunyi Bae
Warren Bartel
D. Platform/Pipe Interface Lee Brissey
(Kennebec Room) Steiner Dale
Dallas Meggitt, Group Lead Dave Tietje
Nate Little, Recorder

Appendix E
Breakout Group Notes and Report Outs

APPENDIX E:

Coldwater Pipe Group

Breakout Session I:
Tuesday, November 3: 13:00-15:30
What are the state-of-the-art technologies for the technical component?
Very important to discern between land-based and sea-based OTEC plants.
Requirements need to be set out to understand material properties needed.

 Buckling from ext. pressure, bending fatigue from platform motions, vibration strain (sheared current), core
collapse from 1000m pressures, corrosion (30 year design life), behavior in service, weight-positive but not
excessive,
 Biofouling issues? Inside doesn’t have biofouling issues due to a lack of growth, but still may be issues with
outside weight problems
 Fatigue may be largest problem with respect to pipe life
*Possibility of nano-tube for future? Or carbon fiber?

 New stimulus coming for low cost carbon fiber plant for low cost materials
Best pipe - 2m HDPE, but not being constructed by industry
More recent work done with more practical materials as far as cost, structural materials,
*CWP very likely to be a sandwich pipe, possibility of fiberglass, how do we construct it may be the larger problem?
Reliability?
 Failure usually at the joints of large composite materials, need ONE piece
 Cross currents and platform rocking cause stress
 Is the CWP design for a 100 year storm?
 Can we realistically temporarily remove the pipe in an emergency? What happens if a storm approaches?
BIG issues
Who is actually doing work besides Lockheed and gov’t?

*One of the largest problems with the CWP includes DEPLOYMENT.

 Fabrication directly off of the platform could be the best option
What is the technological readiness of the CWP technologies?
*What’s new at the table?

 High strength fiberglass-substantial fatigue strength and cost effective
 Vinyl Ester resins-tough, corrosion resistant, experience
Fabrication processes?
 VARTM, vacuum assisted resin transfer molding, now standard. Allows sandwich core manufacturing and also
stepwise manufacturing
 Large protrusion processes, allows for hollow core manufacturing to try and combat pressure issues at depth
Four main materials to look at. (not steel and reinforced concrete)
 Fiberglass, carbon fiber composite (possible price update), steel, HDPE
 Steel: AH36 shipbuilding steel
Possibility of new steel, but FATIGUE problems
 HDPE pipe worked in principal, but low cost manufacturing didn’t
Moored platform was what is generally looked at, but there’s a thought of TLPs with membrane CWP.
*CWP Design
 Double wall hollow core composite sandwich
 Continuous face sheets
 Modern fiberglass with excellent fatigue resistance and seawater resistance
*CWP Deployment
 In-situ stepwise fabrication and deployment (about 80 39’ steps)
 Continuous fabric to produce one piece CWP

*CWP Fabrication
 Most off the shelf fabrication techniques have a major issue
 Liquid resin infusion seems to be an acceptable process, ordinary RTM vs. VARTM (used for production of large
wind turbine blades), pilot step-wise VARTM CWP work piece completed in Dec. 2008
Available technologies are out there, rough quotations and specs are available.
 Materials identified
 Engineering methodology available
Issues of concern don’t include wind in a floating platform, but heave may concern
Carbon fiber may soon be a viable option with new cost considerations
*Engineering knowledge is available to create a CWP for a 30 year design life.
Do we have a design today for a 5-10 MW CWP? Yes. But not for 400 km off shore.
Weather is a large concern for CWP depending upon location. De-coupling the pipe when a storm comes through is a
possible solution.
Environmental concerns are many. Design of the CWP is available.
Three state of the art viable designs should be put on a timetable. If the most simple design is set in motion, others will
be helped.
Should near term and long term designs be different?
Capital cost for a 5-10 MW OTEC plant expected $150 million or less.


Wednesday, November 4: 10:15-12:15
i. Fabrication, deployment, construction, and installation;
ii. Operation (including monitoring) and maintenance (including cleaning, repair, and replacement);
iii. Monitoring component performance;
iv. Personnel safety and emergency preparedness; and
v. Decommissioning?
Notes:
Assume floating offshore, 5-10 MW scalable to 100MW, moored, power cable to shore, potential relocation for todays breakout
session
 Scalability issues work in both directions when thinking about CWP
 Challenges involved in relocation issues for the CWP


1) Are the technologies associated with this component viable? What are the economic factors associated with these
technologies? What are the hurdles/limiting factors associated with these technologies?
2) What is the development time frame for the tecnologies associated with this component?
GROUP DID NOT ANSWER

6/10/2010
The CWP must meet a number of requirements

Quantifiable technical Anticipated quantitative Dominant Met in LM
Basis
loading design?
drivers: driver?
Buckling from net external 7.5 psi suction inside CWP
at top Yes Yes FEA
pressure
Bending fatigue from Prelim. HARP analysis (10 MW plant)
Approx. +/- 4 degrees of
+ prelim. test data on fatigue after
platform motions, including pitch or roll, plus surge and Yes Yes
high-pressure seawater conditioning to
sway motions
knockdown for long-term seawater immersion saturation
Cold Water Pipe Buckling from platform motions
Fatigue from Vortex-Induced Vibration (VIV)

Same as preceding
Sheared current profile,
approx. 4 fps surface
velocity
No
No
Yes
Yes
FEA
Several analyses indicate no excitation
of CWP in sheared currents
Tensile failure from clump weight and CWP + clump weight; Bending and tension strain
GROUP B streaming current

Core collapse from high
current profile
1500 psi
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
calculations
Venting of hollow core eliminates net
pressure on core
pressure at 1000m depth
CWP wet density is same as
Wet weight must be positive but not excessive CWP & clump weight Yes Yes
fiberglass/vinyl ester laminate
30-year immersion in
What are the state of the art technologies? Corrosion seawater at depths to Yes Yes
Industry experience with fiberglass/
vinyl ester composites
1000m
Also:
Behavior in service CWP is single point of One-piece CWP eliminates
failure for OTEC plant Yes Yes
maintenance / repair / failure of joints
must be very reliable
Very large consideration -
Fabrication directly from the platform
Previous OTEC failures
Deployment must be low-risk have been dominated by Yes Yes eliminates large risks associated with
transport, assembly, upending, etc.
CWP deployment
Minimum-cost design through
Cost must fit within OTEC Electricity cost <= optimization. Materials costs from
$0.25/kwh for 100 MW Yes Yes supplier quotes; recurring fabrication
plant budget profile OTEC plant in Hawaii costs from large wind turbine blade
data
• *CWP very likely to be a sandwich pipe,

possibility of fiberglass, how do we construct it
• FIRST GENERATION BASELINE: FRP- may be the larger problem?
Sandwich per NOAA/DOE 1980s Design • Reliability?
and At-Sea Testing, with horizontal • Failure usually at the joints of large composite
materials, need ONE piece
towing and upending in-situ; Gimbal • Cross
C currents and d platform
l f rocking
ki cause
connected. stress
• Is the CWP design for a 100 year storm?
• Can we realistically temporarily remove the pipe
in an emergency? What happens if a storm
approaches?
1
6/10/2010
• *One of the largest problems with the CWP includes

DEPLOYMENT.
• Fabrication directly off of the platform could be the best • Available technologies are out there, rough
option quotations and specs are available.
• *What’s new at the table?
• Materials identified
• High strength fiberglass-substantial fatigue strength and
cost effective • Engineering methodology available
• Vinyl Ester resins-tough,
resins-tough corrosion resistant
resistant, experience • Weather is a large concern for CWP depending
• Fabrication processes? upon location. De-coupling the pipe when a
• VARTM, vacuum assisted resin transfer molding, now storm comes through is a possible solution.
standard. Allows sandwich core manufacturing and also
stepwise manufacturing • Three state of the art viable designs should be
• Large protrusion processes, allows for hollow core put on a timetable. If the most simple design is
manufacturing to try and combat press set in motion, others will be helped.
2
6/10/2010
Baseline Parameters for

Workshop OTEC Discussions
Cold Water Pipe •Offshore
•Floating
•Moored
M d
Life cycle considerations: •Cable to shore
•5-10 MWe scalable to commercial
Manufacturability, operability, scale
reliability, logistics, scalability •Potentially relocatable
Manufacturability Manufacturability
1. Fabrication: Variety of methods currently 3 Installation: attachment to platform
available to fabricate up to 12 m I.D. pipes 3.1 Scalable Method which was demonstrated
1.1: Some methods commercially available in OTEC 1 (Gimbal required)
1 2: Some methods under validation
1.2: 3 2 Aerospace technologies applied to
3.2
conceptual method to create a strong and
2. Deployment: Variety of methods available
robust termination
2.1:On shore manufacture of CWP tow to 3.3 Oil field technologies can be applied
platform for installation
2.2: In-situ manufacture of entire CWP
1
6/10/2010
Manufacturability Operability
Monitoring component performance
4O&M • Existing well understood technologies
• Bio-fouling is not a concern on the interior will be applied such as fiber optics
• Smooth surfaces on exterior address most • Repair at depth is a proven capability for
like materials and structures based on oil
concerns with
ith bi
bio-fouling
f li field experience
• Existing technologies in coatings and
additives to inhibit exterior bio fouling Decommissioning
• Within understanding based on offshore
industry experience-no technological
challenges
Reliability Logistics
• See manufacturability
• Within the technological capability to
design a pipe that matches the design life
of the plant
• There are known testing methods to
address the combined effects of ageing,
saturation, and fatigue
2
6/10/2010
Scalability
• Able to scale to 10-12 m I.D. pipe using
physics based, well understood
engineering practices Why OTEC? Why now?
Group A: Cold Water Pipe
Cold Water Pipe Cold Water Pipe

Then Now Benefit Then Now Benefit
Materials E-glass/Vinylester 1. R-glass/vinyl ester 1. Higher fatigue
Steel, concrete Carbon fiber composite strength; better Fabrication Filament winding VARTM process In-situ, continuous
2. E-glass/vinylester reliability and lower pipe
cost
2. Still viable, Technology Computational tool Higher precision,
additional validation development lower testing cost
has been done
Improved structural More reliability,
Designs Syntactic foam core 1. Hollow pultruded core 1. Much lower cost,
monitoring (cameras, less labor, less risk
sandwich sandwich and other less labor
proprietary
i t designs
d i i t
intensive
i andd sensors robotic
sensors,
greater devices)
2. Syntactic foam core consistency
sandwich 2. Still viable,
additional Summary:
validation has
been done Due to advances in computational capability,
Practices Off-shore industry Lower cost and better
composite materials, fabrication methods, and the
experience reliability, more design vast experience of the offshore industry, there is a
flexibility
high level of confidence that we can construct and
maintain a reliable, cost efficient cold water pipe.
3
6/10/2010
Risks Cost Drivers/Potential savings

On Shore In-situ On Shore In-situ
Fabrication Low Medium Fabrication Materials, labor Materials, labor
Assembly Low Low* Assembly Labor/equipment
Deployment-Towing Medium N/A Deployment-Towing Requires flotilla
Deployment-Upending Low N/A Deployment-Upending
Deployment-attachment
p y Med.-Low Low Deployment-attachment
p y Analytical
y tools Analytical
y tools
Operations Low Low Operations
Planned Detachment Low Low Planned Detachment
Reattachment Med.-Low Med.-Low Reattachment
Recovery after failure High High Recovery after failure
Relocation High High Relocation
Decommissioning Low Low Decommissioning
Question 4 and 5
•Technologies are viable for the CWP

•Economic factors: Refer to cost drivers
•Hurdles:
H dl OTEC & CWP validation
lid ti
•Hurdles: needs a minimum of one
year operational record with plant that is
big enough to be scaled to commercial
size plants
4

APPENDIX E:

Heat Exchangers

Breakout Session I:
Heat Exchangers
4 or 5 specific requirements for OTEC HX

Not necessarily off the shelf
e.g. low delta T
Closed Cycle HX:
Working fluid other than water, Material compatibility

Ammonia issues: toxicity,
Ammonia benefits: heat transfer coefficient, zero GHG
R-22 – not viable because of environmental concerns (GHG) and thermodynamics are not advantageous (lower performance) pumping cost
greatly increased with R-22
Propylene
Based on: Performance, Cost, Environmental issues ammonia is best. propylene as replacement/alternative
Ammonia leaks can be problematic (parking lot issue)
Aluminum appropriate with both propylene and NH3
Scale up issue for ammonia HX
Low delta T
Pressure drop important
COP ratio of heat transferred to amount invested
Parameters: gross power to net power ratio (similar to COP)
1.3-1.4 for gross power to net power ratio, not to exceed 1.5. this is an overall system ratio, how do we figure out a parameter for HX only
CW HX lose ~30% compared to warm water HX lose ~50%
Use system metric and apply to HX (gross power to net power ratio)
From GP to NP ratio obtain pressure drop metric
OTEC HX, delta T 3-4 whereas conventional HX delta T 30-40
No one has accepted challenge to design/construct a highly productive, low cost, HX with low delta T because there hasn’t been a need
100 MW plant- can HX be built cost effectively
Corrosion and biofouling control
Do we have data to get a biofouling and corrosion coefficient

Biofouling in warm water is manageable
Certain Aluminum alloy is feasible for OTEC to avoid corrosion
Need to proactively deal with fouling- chlorination is the only feasible/cost effective way to mitigate fouling
Chlorination concerns (parking lot)
Manufacturability
In sea water
HX does not necessarily add significant weight to platform
Can sometimes be treated as neutrally buoyant
Weight is important but not critical
HX integration with platform

Manifolding
Volume is an issue
State of the art HX:
State of the art vs. off the shelf

We must define what we mean by “state of the art”
State of the art: something that can me manufactured today
Off the shelf: can be purchased today
Shell and tube

Plate and frame
Aluminum plate fin
Spiral HX not used because of small delta T
Evaporator materials:
Defined; aluminum alloys,
ASME codes for HX
Will new codes need to be made for OTEC HX?

ASME codes pretty much cover
Are there additional regulations for HX on platforms
May develop new standards
Do we need a test standard (biofouling) – data needs to be collected
Codes for NH3 systems and codes for HX they need to be merged for whole system
Flashing systems: (used for open cycle- parking lot)

Summary:
Design basis/considerations:
Working fluid
Low deltaT, low pressure drop: performance parameter, gross to net power ratio
Material compatibility
Manufacturability
Biofouling/Corrosion
System Integration
ASME Codes for safety not for performance

Standards for working fluid
Need to be some kind of code for system
No codes for testing OTEC HX for system
HX platform integration: may need to discuss with platform group


2) What is the development time frame for the technologies associated with this component?

Need to come up with good spec but the materials, manufacturing processes, test capabilities, are out there to construct
Technology for OTEC HX exists, need investment for R&D to optimize HX for OTEC
5-10 MWe plant could use existing state-of-the-art (custom design) HX but for commercial scale need a more optimized HX
Pilot plant will use customized HX
No real hurdles for 5-10 MWe
Commercial scale needs a more viable/optimized HX
Economic factors/drivers:
Materials, manufacturing, assembly/integration, logistics, O&M
Low deltaT drives large size of HX. Translates to cost driver
HX design type/configuration (efficient use of material)
What are the hurdles?
HX industry not motivated to provide optimized units to meet OTEC needs
Technical hurdles:
Time to test and evaluate different designs
Qualifying aluminum manufacturing processes
Chlorination is accepted process for coastal power plants will it be acceptable for OTEC?
recognition that it will continue to be acceptable (5 years time)
What research can be done to get over technical hurdles?
Parking lot:
Chlorination/ biofouling
concentration is lower than coastal power plants, however total amount per kW-hr is higher for OTEC (due to higher flow rates)
plume study, local biology,
recognize impact (need go-ahead from EPA)
open water vs. coastal waters very different
(part of cost)
Get HX industry involved

Funding
Pilot plant will help
Engage vendor community (e.g. HX industry)
What is the development time frame for the technologies associated with HXs?
5 MWe- 10 month delivery time
Spec development- 2 month
12-18 months assuming design exists and processes established (for 5-10 MWe plant)
Commercial Design: 1 year
Commercial Manufacturing: 2-3 years
Technical Readiness, Manufacturing:

TRL (technical readiness level); high for all HX types (plate fin, less than 9; 5)
Bet
Small scale dominated by: platform and CWP cost

Large scale dominated by: HX cost
State-of-the-art Heat Exchanger comparison table

HX Type Shell and tube Plate frame Aluminum Plate Fin Common
Material Titanium (power plant stainless steel, titanium brazed aluminum
condensers), carbon steel (process industry) cannot (cryogenic and LNG
(process industry), use aluminum plants)
stainless steel (high
pressure), copper-nickel
(corrosion issue),
aluminum (refrig.
Industry)
Installation/ Deployment Simple, do-able Difficult Easy to manifold in
Cannot be used in vertical complex piping system modular system
evaporator expensive valving Easier from a handling
Size and weight; weight less flexible for OTEC perspective
not limiting, size important confined space-ventilation
in terms of system
configuration/manifold
Specific to platform design
Easy to scale up Limited Easy to scale up

Modular design- 100 MWe Size and number of plates
-- 10 MWe modules Not use gasket
Scalability
Performance data and Lots of performance data; Lots of data Lots of data
design need enhanced tube High pressure drop HX DOE test data
Field O&M Easiest Difficult; gaskets not fully Monitoring aluminum Personnel Safety: Divers
A lot of experience with welded corrosion for submerged HX
these HX Has to be dry; cannot be Does not degrade Dry dock PPE
“Degrades gracefully” submerged gracefully requirements (for
Cleaning: prevent Repair: replace individual Modular design - pull and inspection) in confined
biofouling- chlorination, plates replace space- active ventilation is
sodium hypochlorite Replacement: replace Repair: can’t repair on required
(warm water only) individual HX site. Take module out. Labor requirements:
Repair: plugging Monitoring: leaking in Fraction of performance is training for ammonia
Replacement: degraded air- through gasket. lost handling, confined space,

past service life. Major Include monitoring water : Decommissioning: key
operation, plant will have Personnel Safety: handling of ammonia.
power loss, large cost Confined space Platforms designed so that
(equipment, labor) requirements, ventilation- HX can be
Monitoring: leaks, ammonia leak- need PPE decommissioned without
monitor pressure of Decommissioning: removing/destroying entire
ammonia side. Need system. Cost of decomm.:
accessibility for visual recycling.
inspection. Detector in Decommissioning
exhaust water to find ammonia system can take a
presence of NH3. measure long time to get rid of all
pressure and temp. NH3
Personnel Safety: divers, Use industry standards for
PPE cleaning NH3 out of HXs
Ammonia is resalable after
decommissioning- transfer
to barge for sale
Manufacturability Largest at this point, 5 Easy: automated welding Modular;
(MRL) MWe (net OTEC power); Plate size is an issue Current extrusion and
6 m shell diameter (OTEC needs large) brazing limit size of
Can be modular MRL: 8 modules (2 MWe)
Process: manually MRL: 6
intensive
Titanium could have issues
for large plant
MRL: 7
Relative Cost High: labor intensive; HX cheaper but add Potential lower cost (R&D
integration: low cost pipes/manifolding; in progress)
ammonia side esp lower in cost for
integration
Logistics Issues with transporting, ship individual HXs and modular brazed units
special transportation is plumb in shipped and assembled on
needed. site- not difficult. Can go
Build on shore- float to in shipping container.
plant, depending on Already doing this kind of
location of plant. thing for LNG industry,

Equipment requirements; including offshore.
large cost. 5 MW plant;
diameter 6 m, road
transport can be done,
limited import
TRL 8 8 5
What risks are associated with failure?
Ammonia safety- leaks

Maintain HX to prevent leaks
Codes and standards for refrid. industry are applicable to OTEC
Coastal ammonia facilities – codes, handling (e.g. ports, barge transp.,
Leak in piping system- need sensors (refridg. Standards)
Sensors needed for air and water leakage
Redundancy to mitigate NH3 leak
Ammonia pump could fail – need standby (redundancy)
Do redundant pumps go above/beyond existing standards?
No clear codes for water-NH3 systems
Periodically change/calibrate sensors
Low temp and pressure make for safer system than other industries
Tanks exposed to tropical sunlight- need to be designed to consider this
Risk of failure: lower performance- cost issue
Biofouling
Chlorination failure
Water leaking into ammonia (affecting turbine performance)
Chloride into ammonia may affect turbine
Pump failure
Filters/ mist eliminator
Leaking from one side to the other; turbine performance

What are the cost drivers? What are possible cost-savings? What research could be done on cost reduction?
Materials, manufacturing, assembly/integration, logistics, O&M
Size/amount of material, operating in sea water
Low deltaT drives large size of HX. Translates to cost driver
HX design type/configuration (efficient use of material)
Design configurations
Enhanced surfaces
No identical applications (not off-the-shelf)
What are possible cost-savings?
R&D: (OTEC optimization)
Enhanced heat transfer (increasing SA, turbulence, mixing, validated performance)

Material (aluminum alloys, plastics, low cost titanium)
Fabrication techniques (bonding, brazing, welding, extrusion, etc.)
LUV
Life, u-value, cost
Pilot plant will help build investment in OTEC
Different type of investment (other then R&D)
Risk factors:
Water leak into ammonia reduces power, affects turbine efficiency
Chloride into ammonia may affect turbine
If pump fails
Does the platform group need to join HX group?
Questions from larger group after reportout I:
LUV factor
L-life
U-value
V-cost
HX performance along with overall performance
Would you be able to get quote from manufacturer for HX design for OTEC
What changes have occurred in materials, designs, practices, fabrication,

manufacturing, and technology between 1980 and today to make OTEC feasible
to pursue on a commercial scale?
1980s Today
Materials  stainless steel  Titanium cost effectiveness (aerospace and
 low volume/high cost of titanium automobile industries)
 Titanium: developing improved processes
(power plant condenser)
 Thermally enhanced plastics
 Aluminum: alloying improved (aerospace
industry)
 Aluminum: more choices
Designs  Plain tubes/Some enhanced tubes  Potential new HX designs

 shell and tube  Plastic or foam HX new emerging techniques
 Plate frame (improving efficiency in processing
industry)
 Surface enhancements
 Improved heat transfer coeff. without
incurring pressure drop penalty
Practices  High speed/low cost capability of computing

- Performance Prediction  Improved analytical and design modeling
techniques
Fabrication  Extrusions have improved
 Aluminum brazing technology (cryogenic,
LNG)
 Improved welding techniques (for sea water

applications; petro industry, LNG, oil, ships,
power plant condensers)
 Improved instrumentation/quality control
Improved coating processes
Manufacturing  Improved capability/tooling (petro industry,

LNG)
 Capacity for larger HX
 greater automation
Technology  Open cycle concept  Open cycle performance validation
- Cycle development  Hybrid cycle concept developed  Hybrid cycle design
 Direct contact condensers operational
(geothermal application)
 Flash evaporators demonstrated
 Mixed working fluid cycle developed
(demonstrated in geothermal)
6/10/2010
Materials, Installation, Scalabilty,
Performance
HX Type Shell and tube Plate frame Aluminum Plate
Fin
Material Aluminum, Stainless steel, Brazed aluminum
Heat Exchangers Titanium, Stainless
steel, Copper-nickel
titanium
I t ll ti /
Installation/ Simple;
Si l size
i Diffi lt complex
Difficult; l E
Easy to
t manifold
if ld in
i
Deployment important in terms piping system, modular system,
of expensive valving, easy handling
Reportout II configuration/manif less flexible for
old OTEC
Scalability Easy; Modular Limited; Size and Easy to scale up
design- 100 MWe -- number of plates
10 MWe modules
Performance data Lots of Lots of data Lots of data
and design performance data; High pressure drop DOE test data
need enhanced tube HX
Operability Easy: automated

• Repair modular welding
– Shell and tube: plugging Manufacturab Process: manually Plate size is an
– Plate‐frame: replace individual plates ility intensive issue Modular;
– Plate‐fin: cannot repair on‐site (MRL) MRL: 7 MRL: 8 MRL: 6
• Replacement
– Shell and tube: degrades past service life (major operation ) HX cheaper but Potential lower cost
– Plate‐frame: replace individual HX High: labor add (R&D in
– Plate‐fin: replace module intensive; pipes/manifoldi progress)
• Decommissioning integration: low ng; ammonia lower in cost for
– Key: handling ammonia Relative Cost cost side esp. integration
– Platform designed so that HX can be decommissioned without destroying
whole system Issues with modular brazed
– Materials are resalable including NH3
transportation ship individual units shipped
– Use industry standards for clean NH3 out of HX
Build on shore- HXs and and assembled
• Personnel Safety
– PPE/confined space entry for dry HXs Logistics float to plant plumb in on site
– Divers for submerged HXs
– Ammonia handling TRL 8 8 5
1
6/10/2010
What risks are associated with failure? What are the cost drivers?
• Ammonia safety‐ leaks • Low deltaT drives cost (large size required)
– Codes and standards for refrig. industry are applicable to
OTEC – Materials
– Leak in piping system‐ need sensors (refrig. Standards) – Assembly/integration
– Sensors needed for air and water leakage
– Ammonia pump could fail – need standby (redundancy) – Manufacturing
– No clear codes for water‐NH3 systems – Logistics
– Periodically change/calibrate sensors
– O&M
• Low temp and pressure make for safer system than
other industries
• Risk of failure: lower performance ‐ cost issue
– Biofouling
– Corrosion
What are possible cost‐savings? What are the hurdles?
• Performance enhancements (reduce size of • HX industry not motivated to provide
HX) optimized units to meet OTEC needs
– Surfaces (increasing SA, turbulence, mixing) • Time to test and evaluate different designs
– Configuration • Qualifying aluminum manufacturing processes
Q lif i l i f i
– Surface treatments
• Chlorination acceptable
– Optimization
• Cost Reduction
– Materials (e.g. plastics, different alloys)
2
6/10/2010
What is the development time frame for the
technologies associated with HXs?
• 5 MWe (12‐18 month)
• Commercial Design: 1 year
• Commercial Manufacturing: 2‐3 years
3

APPENDIX E:

Platform Mooring
GROUP C BRAINSTORMING SESSION
Differences between OTEC development and typical offshore

development?
 More cost sensitive

o What suggestions can be made to other groups that will
reduce the costs of mooring
 Initial developments will be near shore (10^1 miles or less),
deep water (1000 m) installations
 Sensitive bottom habitats
 Tropical conditions
 Marine growth issues
 More open exposure to sea conditions
 Loose moorings and you’ll be on the beach fairly quickly
 Different platform dynamics
 Large mass of pipe and interactions with vessel*
o Another group dealing with that
o Pendulation
o Are strikes required on the cold water pipe to prevent
vortex induced motion?
 Mooring to cold water pipe?
 Near shore currents
o Possible higher standards and more inspection?
o Or higher safety factor?
 Need some data on current
 Downstream of the pipe, what are the effects on the cables?
 What the coupling is and where is it between the platform
and the cold water pipe?
 What type of structure is best for OTEC? Relates to what
type of mooring is appropriate.
 Can the codes evaluating current mooring be applied directly
to OTEC mooring?
 Depending on the production method of OTEC, how
hazardous is the ammonia and how close is it to the shore,
will this drive new standards?
 Do you require additional SF for moorings depending on
OTEC production methods?
 For future commercial is there a product that will be off-
loaded that will affect the mooring system, with non-
weathervaining system will additional structure systems
affect the mooring?
 Some areas that are envisioned for plant installation do not
have the infrastructure capabilities
 Design of mooring system and extra equipment will have to
consider
 How many risers are required? assumed 1 but you may want
more than 1
 Single point mooring will require swivel for power cable
 Is there a single point mooring advantage for some locations?
 Are their percentages of allowable motions available?

* Deal with other groups but may affect mooring costs

Breakout Session I:
 Anchors/Piles
o Anchor technology exists but very site specific.
o Well developed technology for a variety of conditions (vessel size, loads,
bottom types) installation costs and methods may need to be changed to meet
the costs drivers of OTEC as well as local and environmental conditions that
may be new.
o New anchors or piles do not need to be designed, current technologies may be
modified.
o Anchors may be leased for demonstration projects
 Mooring Lines
o All of the components exist, for up to 10,000 ft.
o For plants within the next decade the current mooring technologies are
probably efficient in terms of materials, supplies, size, etc.
o If the conductor is embedded into the mooring line there may be new issues
o Method of attaching power cable if a single point mooring systems is used, it
can likely be done but there would be new design challenges taking a combined
mooring power cable system.
o Tropical conditions promote more marine growth
 Hardware/terminations
o Fatigue of the chain for long life,
o operation to periodically adjust the mooring lines may be required to be

available on the vessel

o Shallow water and marine fouling impact on equipment lifespan and load, and
maintenance cycle
o Equipment to support the high power cables such as slip rings, strain reliefs,
terminations
 Integrity monitoring instrumentation
o Design a system that can be replaced in a period
 Service and inspection
 Installation equipment/vessels
o Exist but may need to be modified based on location and economics
 Codes and standards
o Review and modification for site specific conditions and hazards
 Demobilization/recovery/restoration
o Exist but may need to be modified based on location
 Analysis modeling tools
o Well developed with a strong practical backing however they need
modification in order to accurately model OTEC plant.
o Does fluid flow in pipeline have a significant impact on the model?
 Test requirements
 Met ocean data and site survey
o Couple year data collection program
 Geotechnical site survey
 Staging area/facilities and support facilities and proximity
 Mooring design

o Allow the genesis of the mooring system to be driven by the requirements of

the platform and the cold water pipe instead of platforms and designs that are
already existing, out of the box thinking may be required to break existing
paradigms
o Cost effective
o Requirement for disconnect in case of extreme storm/typhoon and hardware
involvement, consideration needs to be made for the power cable
 Single point mooring
o Fouling
o Termination
o Surface area
o Photec zone
 What is the life requirement for the demonstration system?
o Detailed requirement of the entire demo system
 Permitting
o General rules and regulations are in place but have been rescinded
Mooring technology is mature and has been demonstrated in more challenging and demanding environments, it’s a
matter of detailing and optimization to make it economic and viable in the environment for which it’s deployed.
Assuming that the OTEC platform is not significantly different than systems that exist today.
We are assuming a compliant mooring system which will not affect the surface motion and wave frequency response of
the platform.
Does the cold water pipe de-couple?



6/10/2010
• Mooring technology is mature and has

been demonstrated in more challenging
and demanding environments, it’s a matter
of detailing and optimization to make it
Platform Mooring economic and viable in the environment
for which itit’s
s deployed
deployed.
Session 2
• Key driver that will affect the evolution of
OTEC mooring systems is cost.
Question 1 Question 1
• Manufacturability • Operability
– Achievable with COTS or custom products – No special technology required
– Low to no risk – Existing techniques sufficient, slight
• Mobilization
M bili ti & DDeployment
l t modification may be required
– Achievable with COTS or custom products • Reliability
– Highest risk, high cost, most opportunity for – No major issues
cost savings
1
6/10/2010
What risks are associated with

Question 1
failure with these processes?
• Logistics
– Existing techniques and systems are sufficient • Manufacturing quality and testing to mitigate unexpected
failures.
• Reduced confidence in the system.
• Scalability
S l bilit • Risk of inability to deploy effectively & safely
safely.
• Significant delay in startup
– Yes
• Additional costs
– Some consideration for size and location • System failure
– Cost driver • Not accurately identifying risk and defining risk mitigation
• Limitation on overall size & placement of OTEC
Question 3:
What are the cost drivers for this • Cost Drivers:
component? What are possible • Spares;
• Site conditions; location; water depth
cost-savings? What research • installation, vessel time
could be done on cost reduction? • material costs
• required performance
• installation risk & insurance
• labor cost
• permitting & regulations
• removal and decommissioning costs & requirements
2
6/10/2010
• Cost Savings:
• Mooring optimization (single point vs. multi point
mooring)
• Coordination of Optimization of design of platform
• Less stringent motion and survivability requirements
• Citing
• Identifying the high cost factors and mitigate them
• Optimize the cost of vessel & transportation
• Self installing
3
6/10/2010
• Mooring technology is mature and has

been demonstrated in more challenging
and demanding environments, it’s a matter
of detailing and optimization to make it
Platform Mooring economic and viable in the environment
for which itit’s
s deployed
deployed.
Session 1
• Key driver that will affect the evolution of
OTEC mooring systems is cost.
Components Technical Advances

• Anchors/Piles • Test requirements
• Mooring Lines • Met ocean data and site
• Mooring technology has developed
• Hardware/terminations survey significantly since OTEC 1 based on
• Integrity monitoring • Geotechnical site survey offshore oil advances
instrumentation • Staging area/facilities and
• S i and
Service d iinspection
ti support facilities and – Deeper water moorings
• Installation proximity
• Mooring design
– Materials
equipment/vessels
• Codes and standards • Single point mooring – Analysis tools
• Demobilization/recovery/r • What is the life – Maintenance systems
estoration requirement for the
• Analysis modeling tools demonstration system? – Installation and positioning capabilities
• Permitting
1
6/10/2010
Assumptions Questions
• What are the differences between conventional oil platform
• The OTEC platform is not significantly requirements and those of OTEC plants?
different than systems that exist today. • Can a single point mooring be considered?
• What type of structure is best for OTEC? Relates to what type of

mooring is appropriate.
appropriate
• A compliant
li t mooring
i system
t will
ill nott affect
ff t
the surface motion and wave frequency • How is the platform coupled to the pipe and is there any direct
interaction with the cable and what about disconnection?
response of the platform.
• Do you require additional safety factor for moorings depending on
OTEC production methods?
Components
• Anchors/Piles • Test requirements
• Mooring Lines • Met ocean data and site
• Hardware/terminations survey
• Integrity monitoring • Geotechnical site survey
instrumentation • Staging area/facilities and
• S i and
Service d iinspection
ti support facilities and
• Installation proximity
equipment/vessels • Mooring design
• Codes and standards • Single point mooring
• Demobilization/recovery/r • What is the life
estoration requirement for the
• Analysis modeling tools demonstration system?
• Permitting
2
6/10/2010
What is the State of the Art

• Moorings
– Materials, design, fabrication have advanced to
enable moorings to 10k feet, far exceeding the 1k foot
Platform Mooring limit of 1980, required OTEC mooring depth is 3k +
feet
Day 3 • Infrastructure
Priorities – Industry has developed which routinely designs and
installs mooring systems in depth up to 10k feet
• Comprehensive codes and standards now exist
for deep water moorings
Positioning Materials
Synthetic Mooring lines have increased
• In 1980 positioning of surface and subsurface mooring depths to greater than 10k feet
assets was inadequate for deep water, far from
today
shores for placements. Present technology is
sufficient to meet OTEC requirements. – High strength to weight ratio,
– Satellite positioning and shipboard dynamic neutrally buoyant materials
positioning allows positioning of surface assets within such as polyester, kevlar,
1 meter anywhere on the planet, efficiently installed spectra, etc
anchor systems – High strength steel for use in
– Underwater acoustic system has advanced accuracy mooring wire and chain
of placement of underwater assets
1
6/10/2010
Anchor Design Analysis Tools

• General advances in anchor technology • Advances in software enable deep water
have led to increased capacities in wide moorings to be accurately modeled and
ranged bottom types analyzed
– Validated by field installations in deep water
– Allows optimization of the system
– Broad range of commercially available,
industry verified software
Installation and Operation

• Dynamically positioned installation vessels
are commonly available
• Under water equipment advances allow
safe and effective installation
installation, inspection
inspection,
maintenance, and recovery in deep water
2
Platform Mooring
Day 3
Research Needs
Research Needs
• Investigate
g and be flexible to new p paradigms
g and
designs relevant to OTEC needs
• Investigate effective anchoring systems in volcanic rock
• Investigate techniques that require minimal equipment
for mooring & power cable installation
• Investigate effective mooring systems on high slope
b tt
bottoms
• Increase the fidelity of tools to improve capability to allow
y
overall system optimization
• Advance codes and standards to reflect OTEC systems

APPENDIX E:

Platform/Pipe Interface
Breakout Session II: GROUP D
Discuss the entire life cycle that needs to be considered for each component.
Address the following:
1) manufacturability,
2) operability,
3) reliability,
4) logistics,
5) scalability
with respect to:
 fabrication, deployment, construction, and installation;
 operation and maintenance (including cleaning, repair, and
replacement);
 monitoring component performance;
 personnel safety and emergency preparedness; and
 decommissioning?
• What risks are associated with failure with these processes?
• What are the cost limiting factors for this component? What are possible
costs-savings? What research could be done on cost reduction?
Comments or Questions
- Decommissioning
o pipe/platform interface may need be detachable and able to be reattached
o What do you do with the pipe?
- Initial pilot off Oahu
o Can it be moved?
TLR
- Need to attach pipe to platform
o Rigid or Gimbal? (Design Decision)
- CWP needs to be detachable at least one time
- CWP Optionally able to be reattached – dependent on relocation area
- Need to have some level of pipe recovery
- Survivable for duration of plant life
o Corrosion, etc
- Must be able to attach 4m pipe
- Interface may need angle of motion (Design Consideration)
- Interface Sealant
- Compatible with CWP construction
Manufacturing
- Design issue but not a factor of “can we build it?”
- Gimbal
Operability
- Performance
- Are there issues with making this work?
Reliability
- Reliable over the design life (20 yrs)?
- Which is most likely to be accommodating to an extreme event?
- Not solely longevity
Ship-Shape
- Makes relocation more realistic
Logistics
- Depends on fabricating on vs. off
- Personnel Safety and Emergency preparedness
o Fixed = safer?
- Fixed
o Vertical
 Oil industry uses existing technologies (for 1m pipe)
o Horizontal
- Gimbal
o Horizontal
Maintainability
- Fixed
- Gimbal
o Lubrication
o Materials
- Flex
o Involves hose
o Hose wears out two reconnections
Scalability
- 4 to 10m
Risk
- Install/Deinstall vs. Operation
o Deinstallation easier with self-supporting pipe
o Likelihood of self-supporting buoyant pipe?
- Probability of Failure
o Loss of Pipe
o Leakage
- Fixed
- Gimbal
o Moving parts
Pipe that will hold itself up and one that won’t

- Self-supporting Pipe
o OTEC 1
o using buoyancy and weight
o Easier for horizontal build
- Hanging Pipe
o Fundamental issue – heavy
o May or may not need dead weight at bottom
Decommissioning
- Large driver
- Self-supporting pipe better
- Can you attach flotation on to a hanging pipe?
- Will the handling system be able to raise and lower the pipe?
- Interface must be detachable
- Can we detach dead weight?
Relocation
- if we build heavy pipe, then new pipe must be built
- if we build self supporting vertical or horizontal pipe, then save those costs
Breakout Session III:GROUP D
• What are the cost limiting factors for this component? What are possible costs-
savings? What research could be done on cost reduction?
• Are the technologies associated with this component viable? What are the
economic factors associated with these technologies? What are the
hurdles/limiting factors associated with these technologies?
• What is the development time frame for the technologies associated with this
component
Off-Shore Industry
- A lot of technology has already been developed
- A lot of knowledge exists that should be tapped into
Someone needs to discuss operations

Risks in a horizontal build pipe are greater than a vertical build pipe
Manufacturing Orientation
Horizontal
- Implies self-supporting and manufactured on land
Vertical
- Implies configured on platform
Cost Drivers
- Gimbal vs. Fixed
- Relative motion of pipe vs. platform
- Complexity of handling system
- Buoyancy costs
- Trade-off between land fabrication vs. platform fabrication
Decommissioning is bigger driver than relocation
Technologies viable
- Dimensions and material are issues
What is the time frame associated with developing an interface?

- 2 years or less
- Depends on path taken (maybe 2 years or less)
- 2 years
- 2 years
- Custom equipment: 2 years or less
- Design is associated with pipe and platform: 3 years
- Custom pouring, forging: 3-4 years
- We are not considering a developing stage
Is this a development time frame?

- manufacturing time would be shorter than proposed
Breakout Session IV: GROUP D
Thursday, November 5: 9:15-15:00
1. Now and then
a. Hydromechanical Structure – not sure if bounds have been made
b. Know how to do deep water work
c. 20 years of deep water experience
d. It is an industry – deep water: didn’t exist before
i. Industrial base
ii. Code
iii. Standards
iv. Control Technologies - handling
v. Better understood
e. Data collection and analysis
f. Sensor technology – know the loads
g. No cheap buoyancy
h. Material
i. Composite improvements (materials and processes)
2. Research priorities
a. Three previously mentioned
b. Want to expand
i. Electrical Modeling
ii. System wearing
1. Does technology today provide us acceptable risk?
2. Analytical simulation specific to OTEC
c. Modeling failure mode
6/10/2010
Group D: Baseline Parameters for
Platform/Pipe Interface Workshop OTEC Discussions
•Offshore
•Floating
“Where
Where it all comes together
it all comes together” M
•Moored d
•Cable to shore
•5‐10 MWe scalable to commercial
scale
•Potentially relocatable
Interface Requirements CWP Manufacturing Orientations
• Need to attach pipe to platform
– Rigid or Gimbal? (Design Decision)
• CWP needs to be detachable at least one time
• CWP Optionally able to be reattached – dependent on
relocation area
• Need to have some level of pipe recovery
pp y
• Survivable for duration of plant life
– Corrosion, etc
• Must be able to attach 4m pipe
• Interface may need angle of motion (Design Consideration)
• Interface Sealant
• Compatible with CWP construction
1
6/10/2010
CWP Configurations Life Cycle Considerations
Fixed Gimbal Flex
Manufacturability G G Y
Operability G G G
Reliability Y1 G G
Vertical Build Y G Y
Logistics
Horizontal Build R R G
Maintainability G Y R
Scalability G Y R
1
Dependent on platform but also imposes risk on to CWP
Hanging Self-supported
Risks What are the cost drivers for the
• If interface detaches with hanging pipe, then the
interface?
pipe sinks • Gimbal vs. Fixed (Flex not scalable)
• If interface detaches with self‐supporting pipe, then • Decommissioning
the pipe is available to be reconnected • Relative motion of pipe vs. platform, especially
• If interface leaks, then performance degradation during fabrication
• If interface leaks, then repair is difficult • Complexity of handling system
• If horizontal build, then installation and • Buoyancy costs
deinstallation logistics are more complicated • Trade‐off between land fabrication vs. platform
• If vertical build, then handling system failure could fabrication
result in loss of pipe • Coupling/Decoupling
2
6/10/2010
What research could be done on cost
What are possible costs‐savings? reduction?
• Refined analysis and model tests
• Utilize existing technologies • Find and adapt existing technologies and
– Scalable technologies analysis tools
• Material choices • Material selection
– More robust
More rob st • Buoyancy
– Corrosion
• Manufacturing process selection
• Relocatable pipe
• Economy of scale
Are the technologies viable? What are
What is the development time frame?
the economic factors? What are the
limitations?
• 1 to 2 years for requirements development to
• Technologies are viable and have been include analysis and model tests
demonstrated at various scales • 1 to 2 years to delivery
– Dimensions and material are issues
Dimensions and material are issues
• Cost
• Limitations are manageable with current
knowledge
3
6/10/2010
Then and Now

Group D: •
•
Hydromechanical Structure
Lack of deep water industry and
•
–
Established deep water industry
Industrial base
– Code
Platform/Pipe Interface •
experience
Limited analytical capabilities and
capacities
–
–
–
Standards
Control Technologies (handling)
Better understood
• Limited sensor technology
• Improvement in Composites
• Lack of dynamic underwater cables – Materials
• Limited survey technology – Processes
• Improved analytical capabilities and
“Where it all comes •
•
capacity
Environmental awareness
Improved Sensor technology
together” •
•
•
Development of underwater tools
Underwater construction techniques
Deep dynamic cables
• Survey Technology
• Improved engineering process
– Configuration management
OTEC Then OTEC Then
1
6/10/2010
OTEC Now
2
6/10/2010
Heavy Lift Spar
3
6/10/2010
Spar FPSO
Bathymetry Then Bathymetry Now
4
6/10/2010
Platforms Then Platforms Now
Research Requirements Glomar Explorer Gimbal

• OTEC system modeling
– Dynamic coupled structural modeling of CWP
interface
– Mesoscale hydrodynamic modeling
• Deep oceanographic data collection, data
mining, and processing
• Strengthening the “weakest link”
– Defining and modeling failure modes
• Supply chain integration
5
GROUP D Fixed Gimbal Flex
Manufacturability G G Y
Operability G G G
Reliability Y1 G G
Vertical Build Y G Y
Logistics
Horizontal Build R R G
Maintainability G Y R
Scalability G Y R
1
Dependent on platform but also imposes risk on to CWP

APPENDIX E:

Pumps and Turbines
Day III/Session IV: Changes since 1980: Pumps and Turbines
 Pumps and Turbines have been ready for 30 years
 No revolutionary breakthrough in pump/turbine; all advances evolutionary
 Electronics starting to be introduced into pumps/turbines to monitor health and status; most
advances will be in outage management/condition based management
 Ammonia is probably the most practical working fluid
 Move toward a desire to create a sustainable system where system can function without
external hydrocarbon inputs making it less susceptible to shifts in hydrocarbon availability and
cost.
 Pumps exist today for a 10 mW; for a 100 mW commercial scale pumps would need to be
ganged together
 Seaborne environment (roll, pitch, yaw) has proven out turbine machinery over worse or
equivalent situations.
 Petroleum industry has 30 years of additional experience working in increasingly harsh
environments (due to less conveniently available oil) and much has been learned about
operations, methods and materials.
 OTEC‐style plant in India that produces Freshwater – more expensive than traditional
desalinization methods, however operational and works.
 Many attempts since 1980; 250 kW open cycle at NELHA, 1996‐2000 50 kW Hx Testing (NEHLA),
2005 Diego Garcia Feasibility Study, 2006 0TEC Study Makai SBIR, 2007‐2008 10 MW Pilot Plant
Design by Lockheed Martin.

Breakout Session I: GROUP E




v. Decommissioning?
Notes:
What are the components: (turbines)

Blades, some form of stainless steel
Casing, welded or cast steel
Rub strips, stainless steel
Shafts, low alloy steel
Sleeve baring, no fatigue limit
Manufacturability:
Turbine rotor (7-8MW) single piece forging, not changeable, no erosion or foreign object damage
Open die-press forging
Not too difficult to forge, limits would be tip speed goes up, centrifugal stress goes up, adds cost
Okay for 5-10MW, lots of experience, forging capability exists, manufacturing exists
Oil getting into the system through seals of the rotating equipment
Need to minimize seal leakage (should be a state-of-the art technology)

Leakage should be working fluid out, not oil in

Most manufacturers would know how to handle this
Ammonia turbines reliability, don’t have a database yet

Some manufacturers have ammonia turbines as a standard product (What are the applications for these? Refrigerant..
Talking about radial flow turbines
Scalability would be on a modular basis
Capital cost for 10MW prototype huge compared to the cost for the 100MW
There are other issues for multiple turbines: all the piping, valving, shafts etc.
Assessment needs to be completed
Blades:
The blades on the roto-flow turbine, machined and non-removable
Axial, blades are replaceable individually
Can be: Forged, machined, or cut out of plate with wire EDM and machined
Reliability and manufacturability: Depend on the process
Dynamic testing needs to be done (risk reduction activity)
Scalability:
What limits the size and speed is the blade tip speed, need to be subsonic
Axial Flow turbine, can add stages, but get more energy taken out on the last few stages
Reliability is there for these turbines
Logistics:
Maintenance aspect: have redundancy, in a small plant have at least 3 turbines, maybe 4, assume there are 2 operating
At these sizes the turbines shouldn’t be too expensive, might pay to have an extra turbine or inventory parts
Manufacturers have repair services

However with ammonia, might have to have inventory of parts for 1 turbine set
Can always get the parts but there is a lead time, would want back up
What is the periodic shut-down, 1 annual inspection, 1st inspection is ~5 years
Don’t have a database on ammonia turbines, would want to inspect
Invasive vs. noninvasive monitoring

Noninvasive: ensures do not mess up the turbine through inspection
Sensors are being put in
Plant will be shut-down for other maintenance issues
The potential of erosion blades

Density of ammonia less than the density of water
In some steam-turbine, lots of erosion, but almost no fatigue failures
Don’t think that will be a problem with ammonia, because of the lower density, might be harder to cavitate
(Liquid droplet erosion)
Ammonia will form a bubble, but won’t have the same impact as water
We are not sure whether liquid droplet erosion will occur against a steel substrate in an ammonia environment at high speeds.
Need to set-up a whole materials list for what you are going to need in inventory
When you have an outage for some other reason, what do we go and do for the turbines?
Turbine is not going to be driving the shutdown
Need a set of critical parts for the turbines, not a full turbine as extra
Need to have multiple turbines so you can shut down part of the plant (Allows modularity)
If you shut down one turbine you are shutting down two heat exchangers
Do not want stagnant water in your heat exchangers
On the pump side, would make sense to have an extra pump

Always have multiple pumps, need excess capacity

Risks:
Expect turbine to be the most reliable component
Environment is inert and the machine design practices are good
Risk reduction: having spare parts available
Foreign object damage off the pump that could damage the turbine
Failure of a valve or pump or strainer, weld icicles could break off which might not come off in the flush
Radiography will be done, ultra-sonics as well, surface inspection from the outside
Mitigation to this risk is training welders and having automated machinery
Oil leak into the ammonia side would: impact the performance, might get cavitation or erosion
Would change out the working fluid
Platform motion probably will not have additional stress on the turbines
Most ships powered by steam turbines, motion not a problem
Cost Drivers:
Operational mode, spare part inventory
Life cycle: 30 years, so why skimp on capital cost?
Changing types of stainless steel might not save that much money
Lead times for large turbines could be on the order of a year – 18months
Pumps:
Axial flow for large water pumps
Components:
Structure, motor, shaft, impeller, substation
Maximum size limit on some of these pumps for the larger plant, driving towards multiple pumps
Might want to have two oversized pumps each would be able to the whole flow-rate

560,000kg/sec for 100MW, warm water pump

460,000 kg/sec for 100MW, cold water pump
Problem with submersible pump, if something goes wrong have to pull it out. Need to be able to do that easily
Non-submersible can fix
Wide range of configurations for these pumps

Need to consider both submersible and non
Pumps are basically available.

Might not be quite off the shelf, but close enough, always something that needs to be tweaked
Databases are there
Several vendors would be able to manufacture these pumps
Warm water pump issue with the organisms

Did not seem to be a problem when talking to pump manufacturers
Lot of pump manufacturers of different quality

Depending on what they are doing, operability and reliability differs
Logistics: double the pumping in case of bypass

Pumps are pretty reliable
Pump manufacturer will have a design that is almost what you need and it will just be a tweak
In terms of reliability, operability, manufacturability, pumps are pretty standard
Operation and Maintenance: submersibles will have to be inspected more frequently

Circuit performance is monitored
Typically pumps are not highly sensitive to erosion, corrosion
Have a wide variety of materials to pick to prevent erosion and corrosion

Materials are not high cost drivers
Mitigation:
Redundancy
Spare parts inventory for non-submersible pumps
For submersibles would need a spare pump
If something happens to the submersible pump would ship back to the manufacturer
Life Cycle should be the primary driver

Should spend according to the life cycle
Lead times: ~ 1 year – 18 months
If they are using air-cooled generators could get corrosion and shorting out
Decommissioning:
Turbines shaft/rotor- carbon steel or low alloy steel

Turbine blades- 12% chromium stainless steel or higher alloy steel
Turbine casing- carbon steel
Misc. parts- bearings (babbit) – can be re-melted, valves and seals – stainless steel
Pumps:
Casings – carbon steel (may have epoxy coating or other corrosion protection)
Impeller- stainless steel
Motor- combination of copper, solder, insulation material; non-metallic material,
Shaft casing- carbon steel
Conclusion: > 85-90% recyclable materials
Contaminants associated with decommissioning- oils + solvents


Life Cycle-
Turbines
manufacturability Not difficult at 5-10 MW and larger outputs up to 100 MW. Standard manufacturing practices
in existence (forging, machining & casting).
operability Fully adaptable to platform environment
reliability Most reliable component in the system. Long periods between routine inspections.
logistics Stock critical spares (rotors, seals, bearings, etc.)
Periodic inspections opportunities during downtimes caused by other components.
18-24 month lead time to delivery.
scalability 5-10 MW Turbine (radial flow) has size limit.
Larger size axial turbines, add blade length or number of blade stages to achieve greater
output or efficiency.
Water Pumps
manufacturability Max impeller diameter 7ft. Wide range of design base configurations available from multiple
vendors.
operability Warm water pump issue with organisms.
reliability Pumps have proven high reliability. Multiple or oversize pumps to sustain operation.
logistics Depot repair for submersible pumps; organic partial repair potential for non-submersible.
12-18 month lead time.
scalability Maximum size limit on some of these pumps for the larger plant, driving towards multiple
pumps.
Working Fluid Pumps

manufacturability Wide range of design base configurations available from multiple vendors.
operability Ammonia pumps are self lubricating.

reliability Pumps have proven high reliability. Multiple pumps to sustain operation.
logistics 12-18 month lead time. Critical spares necessary.
scalability No scaling issues. Scaling is achieved through module replication.
Assumptions:
-Closed cycle operating system

Decommissioning:
Turbines-
Pumps-
Viability of technologies:
All commercially available technology that can be altered to fit these requirements.
Economic factors:
All components are technologically mature. All pumps and turbines 80-90% efficient.
Limiting factors:
None
Development time frame:

Required custom modifications:
18-24 months for turbine
6 -12 months for pumps
Dependent on size of unit.



Economic factors:
Limiting factors:
None


Foreign object damage from heat exchanger piping:

How will FOD such as slag or welding residue be eradicated from the system prior to operation? Should not be a problem with
adequately trained welders, quality control and non-destructive testing.
If not adequately addressed, severe damage to turbines and pumps will result.
Influent screen to prevent damage.
Roll, pitch and yaw of the platform and how it affects alignment of turbine and pumps:
Efficiency vs. allowable movement?
Ships & platforms already deployed at sea with turbines (30 year design life)– operational design for 0.06G with max of 0.15
Survival design 0.5G (kinematic and gravitational effects)
Bearings overdesigned to handle the shock loads.
Concern: Working fluid (ammonia) contaminated with oil-

More of an issue for heat exchangers (fouling).
Prevention + monitoring – maintaining seals
Removal-

Breakout Session I:
Components:
Cold water pump
Warm water pump
Working Fluid pump
Turbines
Vacuum pump for open cycle
Les- concern with open cycle, turbines subject to salt water corrosion from material standpoint
Open cycle - forces you to use more expensive materials and processes
Reference Guam OTEC Assessment, Avery
Discuss state-of-the-art technologies for 10MW and 100MW TURBINES
Turbine Closed Cycle:

Operating Parameters (Guam OTEC Makai study)
Axial flow turbines for larger gross MW requirements
4 – 16$ million for 4 units
Options:
Radial flow turbines, less available from manufacturers for higher MW
Smaller turbines commercially available
Practical limit on the physical size of the turbine for ammonia applications
Operation trade-off in terms of size
Have to stage the start-up of the turbines

State of the art for radial flow turbines: machined from one piece of metal, has to do with the size of metal you can get
Reasonable limit, to make these turbines
Axial flow turbines:

Control issues, different valve system, bypass
Sizable,
Vendors make a lot of smaller turbines and the development cost for larger turbines would be big
For a 10MW facility:

2 radial flow turbines each at 7 – 8 MW (gross)
Would get modularity, redundancy, reliability
Some would look at increased number of smaller turbines

4 radial flow turbines, high-speed
Need to add a gear-box, parasitic losses associated with this, and increased cost
These options are commercially available

Toshiba, GE Rotoflow, Mitsubishi, Eliott, Hitachi
Costs: 4- 16million for 4 units
10million for 2 units 10MW
State – of – the –art

Closer to 25MW size
100MW options:
Add modules, not going any larger in terms of turbine size
Trade-study recommended: axial, radial, modules, cost

Unique requirements for ammonia instead of steam
Market need: turbines in this size range need to be designed specifically for ammonia
Control valves to designed to ensure less pressure loss upstream of the turbine
Easier design, but fewer bidders
1st product engineering
Ammonia turbines are specialty items and require development
Pumps:
State of the Art:

Types: Submersible or non-submersible
High efficiency pump with high efficiency motors
These pumps commercially available

Price might need to come down
Enough demand in the market to develop higher efficiency motors (OTEC funding would not be necessary)
8 coldwater and 8 warm water pumps 200,000gpm each (OTC Design) for 100MW
100MW
460,000 kg/sec coldwater
209,000gpm (Makai, OTEC)
560,000 kg/sec for warm water
255,000gpm warm water
The number of pumps, varies depending on vendor
Efficiencies: 87 – 92%
Submersible, axial flow impeller design

10MW
2 cold water pumps would be available as state of the art today
Available from 2 vendors ~9month to a year lead time
Working Fluid Pump (ammonia): NH3

Parameters:
OTC
8 working fluid feed pumps (1operating, 1 standby)
2 per heat exchanger
8 recycle pumps
Total: 16 pumps
These pumps are commercially available and inexpensive

Lowest cost hardware in the system
Require more maintenance
Limited application for hybrid cycles in offshore projects

Would need to transport the water to shore (economical?)
How far offshore is it?
What will it cost to ship the water back to mainland?
Or produce the water onshore using the power produced from OTEC
A study needs to be completed to determine offshore vs. onshore water production
Vacuum pump: commercially available at this scale

State – of –
the Art
Closed Cycle Operating Parameters: Technologies
100 MW (135MW)
Inlet ammonia temp is 21 C = 69.8 F
Outlet ammonia temp is 9.7 C = 49.46 F
Pressure in: 890 kPa = 129.1 psi
Pressure out: 609 kPa = 88.3psi
Flow rate: 3566 kg/s
Efficiency not listed
(Guam OTEC Makai study)
20 MW
Inlet temp: 69.6 F
Pressure inlet: 127.9 psia
Exit Pressure: 90.8 psia
Exit temp: 50.9 F
(Baseline Designs of Moored and Grazing 40-MW OTEC Pilot
Plants George and Richards June 1980 JHU/ APL SR – 80-1A
Turbine
Flow rate:
Operation efficiency:
Cold Water Motor efficiency:
Pump Head:
Warm Water
Pump

Working Fluid
Pump

Topic State of the Art Engineering Challenge
Processes
Fabrication
Deployment
Construction
Installation
OMR&R
Environmental
Monitoring
Safe Operating
Procedures

Decommissioning
RISKS ASSOCIATED
WITH PROCESS
FAILURE
COMPONENT
VIABILITY
ECONOMIC FACTORS
HURDLES/LIMITING
FACTORS
DEVELOPMENT TIME
FRAME


v. Decommissioning?
Notes:

Topic State-of-the-art: Engineering Challenge

PROCESSES:
Fabrication
Deployment
Construction
Installation
OMR&R
Environmental Monitoring
Safe Operating
Procedures
Decommissioning
Risks Associated with
Process Failure
Component Viability
Economic Factors
Hurdles/Limiting Factors
Development Time Frame



6/10/2010
Pumps & Turbines Pumps & Turbines
Turbines Water Pumps
manufacturability Not difficult at 5-10 MW and larger outputs up to 100 manufacturability Max impeller diameter 7ft. Wide range of design base
MW. Standard manufacturing practices in existence configurations available from multiple vendors.
(forging, machining & casting).
operability Fully adaptable to platform environment operability Warm water pump issue with organisms.
reliability Most reliable component in the system. Long periods reliability Pumps have proven high reliability. Multiple or oversize
between routine inspections.
inspections pumps to sustain operation
operation.
logistics Stock critical spares (rotors, seals, bearings, etc.) logistics Depot repair for submersible pumps; organic partial repair
Periodic inspections opportunities during downtimes potential for non-submersible.
caused by other components. 12-18 month lead time.
scalability 5-10 MW Turbine (radial flow) has size limit. scalability Maximum size limit on some of these pumps for the larger
Larger size axial turbines, add blade length or number of plant, driving towards multiple pumps.
blade stages to achieve greater output or efficiency.
Assumptions: Assumptions:
-Closed cycle operating system -Closed cycle operating system
Pumps & Turbines Decommissioning
Working Fluid Pumps Turbines‐
• Turbines shaft/rotor‐ carbon steel or low alloy steel
manufacturability Wide range of design base configurations available from
multiple vendors.
• Turbine blades‐ 12% chromium stainless steel or higher alloy steel
• Turbine casing‐ carbon steel
operability Ammonia pumps are self lubricating. • Misc. parts‐ bearings (babbit) – can be re‐melted, valves and seals – stainless steel
reliability Pumps have proven high reliability. Multiple pumps to Pumps‐

sustain operation.
operation
logistics 12-18 month lead time. Critical spares necessary. • Casings – carbon steel (may have epoxy coating or other corrosion protection)
• Impeller‐ stainless steel
• Motor‐ combination of copper, solder, insulation material; non‐metallic material,
• Shaft casing‐ carbon steel
scalability No scaling issues. Scaling is achieved through module
replication.
Conclusion‐
Assumptions: • > 85‐90% recyclable materials
-Closed cycle operating system • Contaminants associated with decommissioning‐ oils + solvents
1
6/10/2010
Viability of technologies
Economic factors:
• All components are technologically mature. All pumps and turbines 80‐90%
efficient.
Limiting factors:
• None
• Required custom modifications:
• 18‐24 months for turbine
• 6 ‐12 months for pumps
• Dependent on size of unit.
2
6/10/2010
Assumptions:
• Closed cycle leading contender for near
term commercialization
Pumps and Turbines References:
• Guam
G OTEC F Feasibility
ibilit Assessment
A t
Breakout Session 1: State-of-the- • Baseline Designs of Moored and Grazing
Art Technologies 40-MW OTEC Pilot Plants
• Renewable Energy From the Ocean
• OTC Study
Turbines
Components Addressed:
• Reviewed Operating Parameters for 30 year period and
remained consistent
• Turbines
• Ammonia turbines are specialty items and require additional
• Pumps development time
• Optimization for ammonia working fluid is desirable
– Cold Water Pump
• Radial Flow for 10MW
– Warm
W Water
W t Pump
P – 2 per plant
– Working Fluid Feed Pumps – 7 - 8 MW gross each turbine
– Commercially Available, multiple vendors
– Vacuum Pump (Open/Hybrid Cycles) • Axial Flow for 100MW
– Trade study recommended to optimize size for NH3
• For all power levels multiple turbines are required for
modularity, reliability, redundancy, operation and
maintenance
1
6/10/2010
Cold/Warm Water Pumps Working Fluid Pumps

• Axial Flow impeller design
• Feed pumps
• Submersible vs. non
• Recycle pumps
• High efficiency pumps with high efficiency
motors • One of the lowest cost items in the system
• 87-92% efficiency possible in some • Commercially available
configurations • Large Design database established
• Commercially available
• Multiple vendors
Vacuum Pumps
• Needed for Hybrid Cycle
• Commercially adaptable database
• Currently used in conventional sea water
cooled
l d nuclear
l and
d ffossilil plants
l t ffor start-
t t
up
• Trade off studies need to be performed
relative to the location of water production
(onshore vs. offshore)
2

APPENDIX E:

Pumps and Turbines
Day III/Session IV: Changes since 1980: Pumps and Turbines
 Pumps and Turbines have been ready for 30 years
 No revolutionary breakthrough in pump/turbine; all advances evolutionary
 Electronics starting to be introduced into pumps/turbines to monitor health and status; most
advances will be in outage management/condition based management
 Ammonia is probably the most practical working fluid
 Move toward a desire to create a sustainable system where system can function without
external hydrocarbon inputs making it less susceptible to shifts in hydrocarbon availability and
cost.
 Pumps exist today for a 10 mW; for a 100 mW commercial scale pumps would need to be
ganged together
 Seaborne environment (roll, pitch, yaw) has proven out turbine machinery over worse or
equivalent situations.
 Petroleum industry has 30 years of additional experience working in increasingly harsh
environments (due to less conveniently available oil) and much has been learned about
operations, methods and materials.
 OTEC‐style plant in India that produces Freshwater – more expensive than traditional
desalinization methods, however operational and works.
 Many attempts since 1980; 250 kW open cycle at NELHA, 1996‐2000 50 kW Hx Testing (NEHLA),
2005 Diego Garcia Feasibility Study, 2006 0TEC Study Makai SBIR, 2007‐2008 10 MW Pilot Plant
Design by Lockheed Martin.

Breakout Session I: GROUP E




v. Decommissioning?
Notes:
What are the components: (turbines)

Blades, some form of stainless steel
Casing, welded or cast steel
Rub strips, stainless steel
Shafts, low alloy steel
Sleeve baring, no fatigue limit
Manufacturability:
Turbine rotor (7-8MW) single piece forging, not changeable, no erosion or foreign object damage
Open die-press forging
Not too difficult to forge, limits would be tip speed goes up, centrifugal stress goes up, adds cost
Okay for 5-10MW, lots of experience, forging capability exists, manufacturing exists
Oil getting into the system through seals of the rotating equipment
Need to minimize seal leakage (should be a state-of-the art technology)

Leakage should be working fluid out, not oil in

Most manufacturers would know how to handle this
Ammonia turbines reliability, don’t have a database yet

Some manufacturers have ammonia turbines as a standard product (What are the applications for these? Refrigerant..
Talking about radial flow turbines
Scalability would be on a modular basis
Capital cost for 10MW prototype huge compared to the cost for the 100MW
There are other issues for multiple turbines: all the piping, valving, shafts etc.
Assessment needs to be completed
Blades:
The blades on the roto-flow turbine, machined and non-removable
Axial, blades are replaceable individually
Can be: Forged, machined, or cut out of plate with wire EDM and machined
Reliability and manufacturability: Depend on the process
Dynamic testing needs to be done (risk reduction activity)
Scalability:
What limits the size and speed is the blade tip speed, need to be subsonic
Axial Flow turbine, can add stages, but get more energy taken out on the last few stages
Reliability is there for these turbines
Logistics:
Maintenance aspect: have redundancy, in a small plant have at least 3 turbines, maybe 4, assume there are 2 operating
At these sizes the turbines shouldn’t be too expensive, might pay to have an extra turbine or inventory parts
Manufacturers have repair services

However with ammonia, might have to have inventory of parts for 1 turbine set
Can always get the parts but there is a lead time, would want back up
What is the periodic shut-down, 1 annual inspection, 1st inspection is ~5 years
Don’t have a database on ammonia turbines, would want to inspect
Invasive vs. noninvasive monitoring

Noninvasive: ensures do not mess up the turbine through inspection
Sensors are being put in
Plant will be shut-down for other maintenance issues
The potential of erosion blades

Density of ammonia less than the density of water
In some steam-turbine, lots of erosion, but almost no fatigue failures
Don’t think that will be a problem with ammonia, because of the lower density, might be harder to cavitate
(Liquid droplet erosion)
Ammonia will form a bubble, but won’t have the same impact as water
We are not sure whether liquid droplet erosion will occur against a steel substrate in an ammonia environment at high speeds.
Need to set-up a whole materials list for what you are going to need in inventory
When you have an outage for some other reason, what do we go and do for the turbines?
Turbine is not going to be driving the shutdown
Need a set of critical parts for the turbines, not a full turbine as extra
Need to have multiple turbines so you can shut down part of the plant (Allows modularity)
If you shut down one turbine you are shutting down two heat exchangers
Do not want stagnant water in your heat exchangers
On the pump side, would make sense to have an extra pump

Always have multiple pumps, need excess capacity

Risks:
Expect turbine to be the most reliable component
Environment is inert and the machine design practices are good
Risk reduction: having spare parts available
Foreign object damage off the pump that could damage the turbine
Failure of a valve or pump or strainer, weld icicles could break off which might not come off in the flush
Radiography will be done, ultra-sonics as well, surface inspection from the outside
Mitigation to this risk is training welders and having automated machinery
Oil leak into the ammonia side would: impact the performance, might get cavitation or erosion
Would change out the working fluid
Platform motion probably will not have additional stress on the turbines
Most ships powered by steam turbines, motion not a problem
Cost Drivers:
Operational mode, spare part inventory
Life cycle: 30 years, so why skimp on capital cost?
Changing types of stainless steel might not save that much money
Lead times for large turbines could be on the order of a year – 18months
Pumps:
Axial flow for large water pumps
Components:
Structure, motor, shaft, impeller, substation
Maximum size limit on some of these pumps for the larger plant, driving towards multiple pumps
Might want to have two oversized pumps each would be able to the whole flow-rate

560,000kg/sec for 100MW, warm water pump

460,000 kg/sec for 100MW, cold water pump
Problem with submersible pump, if something goes wrong have to pull it out. Need to be able to do that easily
Non-submersible can fix
Wide range of configurations for these pumps

Need to consider both submersible and non
Pumps are basically available.

Might not be quite off the shelf, but close enough, always something that needs to be tweaked
Databases are there
Several vendors would be able to manufacture these pumps
Warm water pump issue with the organisms

Did not seem to be a problem when talking to pump manufacturers
Lot of pump manufacturers of different quality

Depending on what they are doing, operability and reliability differs
Logistics: double the pumping in case of bypass

Pumps are pretty reliable
Pump manufacturer will have a design that is almost what you need and it will just be a tweak
In terms of reliability, operability, manufacturability, pumps are pretty standard
Operation and Maintenance: submersibles will have to be inspected more frequently

Circuit performance is monitored
Typically pumps are not highly sensitive to erosion, corrosion
Have a wide variety of materials to pick to prevent erosion and corrosion

Materials are not high cost drivers
Mitigation:
Redundancy
Spare parts inventory for non-submersible pumps
For submersibles would need a spare pump
If something happens to the submersible pump would ship back to the manufacturer
Life Cycle should be the primary driver

Should spend according to the life cycle
Lead times: ~ 1 year – 18 months
If they are using air-cooled generators could get corrosion and shorting out
Decommissioning:

Pumps:


Life Cycle-
Turbines
manufacturability Not difficult at 5-10 MW and larger outputs up to 100 MW. Standard manufacturing practices
in existence (forging, machining & casting).
operability Fully adaptable to platform environment
reliability Most reliable component in the system. Long periods between routine inspections.
logistics Stock critical spares (rotors, seals, bearings, etc.)
Periodic inspections opportunities during downtimes caused by other components.
scalability 5-10 MW Turbine (radial flow) has size limit.
Larger size axial turbines, add blade length or number of blade stages to achieve greater
output or efficiency.
Water Pumps
manufacturability Max impeller diameter 7ft. Wide range of design base configurations available from multiple
vendors.
operability Warm water pump issue with organisms.
reliability Pumps have proven high reliability. Multiple or oversize pumps to sustain operation.
logistics Depot repair for submersible pumps; organic partial repair potential for non-submersible.
12-18 month lead time.
scalability Maximum size limit on some of these pumps for the larger plant, driving towards multiple
pumps.
Working Fluid Pumps

manufacturability Wide range of design base configurations available from multiple vendors.
operability Ammonia pumps are self lubricating.

reliability Pumps have proven high reliability. Multiple pumps to sustain operation.
logistics 12-18 month lead time. Critical spares necessary.
scalability No scaling issues. Scaling is achieved through module replication.
Assumptions:
-Closed cycle operating system

Decommissioning:
Turbines-
Pumps-
Economic factors:
Limiting factors:
None




Economic factors:
Limiting factors:
None


Foreign object damage from heat exchanger piping:

How will FOD such as slag or welding residue be eradicated from the system prior to operation? Should not be a problem with
adequately trained welders, quality control and non-destructive testing.
If not adequately addressed, severe damage to turbines and pumps will result.
Influent screen to prevent damage.
Roll, pitch and yaw of the platform and how it affects alignment of turbine and pumps:
Efficiency vs. allowable movement?
Ships & platforms already deployed at sea with turbines (30 year design life)– operational design for 0.06G with max of 0.15
Survival design 0.5G (kinematic and gravitational effects)
Bearings overdesigned to handle the shock loads.
Concern: Working fluid (ammonia) contaminated with oil-

More of an issue for heat exchangers (fouling).
Prevention + monitoring – maintaining seals
Removal-

Breakout Session I:
Components:
Cold water pump
Warm water pump
Working Fluid pump
Turbines
Vacuum pump for open cycle
Les- concern with open cycle, turbines subject to salt water corrosion from material standpoint
Open cycle - forces you to use more expensive materials and processes
Reference Guam OTEC Assessment, Avery
Discuss state-of-the-art technologies for 10MW and 100MW TURBINES
Turbine Closed Cycle:

Operating Parameters (Guam OTEC Makai study)
Axial flow turbines for larger gross MW requirements
4 – 16$ million for 4 units
Options:
Radial flow turbines, less available from manufacturers for higher MW
Smaller turbines commercially available
Practical limit on the physical size of the turbine for ammonia applications
Operation trade-off in terms of size
Have to stage the start-up of the turbines

State of the art for radial flow turbines: machined from one piece of metal, has to do with the size of metal you can get
Reasonable limit, to make these turbines
Axial flow turbines:

Control issues, different valve system, bypass
Sizable,
Vendors make a lot of smaller turbines and the development cost for larger turbines would be big
For a 10MW facility:

2 radial flow turbines each at 7 – 8 MW (gross)
Would get modularity, redundancy, reliability
Some would look at increased number of smaller turbines

4 radial flow turbines, high-speed
Need to add a gear-box, parasitic losses associated with this, and increased cost
These options are commercially available

Toshiba, GE Rotoflow, Mitsubishi, Eliott, Hitachi
Costs: 4- 16million for 4 units
10million for 2 units 10MW
State – of – the –art

Closer to 25MW size
100MW options:
Add modules, not going any larger in terms of turbine size
Trade-study recommended: axial, radial, modules, cost

Unique requirements for ammonia instead of steam
Market need: turbines in this size range need to be designed specifically for ammonia
Control valves to designed to ensure less pressure loss upstream of the turbine
Easier design, but fewer bidders
1st product engineering
Ammonia turbines are specialty items and require development
Pumps:
State of the Art:

Types: Submersible or non-submersible
High efficiency pump with high efficiency motors
These pumps commercially available

Price might need to come down
Enough demand in the market to develop higher efficiency motors (OTEC funding would not be necessary)
8 coldwater and 8 warm water pumps 200,000gpm each (OTC Design) for 100MW
100MW
460,000 kg/sec coldwater
209,000gpm (Makai, OTEC)
560,000 kg/sec for warm water
255,000gpm warm water
The number of pumps, varies depending on vendor
Efficiencies: 87 – 92%
Submersible, axial flow impeller design

10MW
2 cold water pumps would be available as state of the art today
Available from 2 vendors ~9month to a year lead time
Working Fluid Pump (ammonia): NH3

Parameters:
OTC
8 working fluid feed pumps (1operating, 1 standby)
2 per heat exchanger
8 recycle pumps
Total: 16 pumps
These pumps are commercially available and inexpensive

Lowest cost hardware in the system
Require more maintenance
Limited application for hybrid cycles in offshore projects

Would need to transport the water to shore (economical?)
How far offshore is it?
What will it cost to ship the water back to mainland?
Or produce the water onshore using the power produced from OTEC
A study needs to be completed to determine offshore vs. onshore water production
Vacuum pump: commercially available at this scale

State – of –
the Art
Closed Cycle Operating Parameters: Technologies
100 MW (135MW)
Inlet ammonia temp is 21 C = 69.8 F
Outlet ammonia temp is 9.7 C = 49.46 F
Pressure in: 890 kPa = 129.1 psi
Pressure out: 609 kPa = 88.3psi
Flow rate: 3566 kg/s
Efficiency not listed
(Guam OTEC Makai study)
20 MW
Inlet temp: 69.6 F
Pressure inlet: 127.9 psia
Exit Pressure: 90.8 psia
Exit temp: 50.9 F
(Baseline Designs of Moored and Grazing 40-MW OTEC Pilot
Plants George and Richards June 1980 JHU/ APL SR – 80-1A
Turbine
Flow rate:
Operation efficiency:
Cold Water Motor efficiency:
Pump Head:
Warm Water
Pump

Working Fluid
Pump

Topic State of the Art Engineering Challenge
Processes
Fabrication
Deployment
Construction
Installation
OMR&R
Environmental
Monitoring
Safe Operating
Procedures

Decommissioning
RISKS ASSOCIATED
WITH PROCESS
FAILURE
COMPONENT
VIABILITY
ECONOMIC FACTORS
HURDLES/LIMITING
FACTORS
DEVELOPMENT TIME
FRAME


v. Decommissioning?
Notes:


PROCESSES:
Fabrication
Deployment
Construction
Installation
OMR&R
Safe Operating
Procedures
Decommissioning
Process Failure
Component Viability
Economic Factors



6/10/2010
Pumps & Turbines Pumps & Turbines
Turbines Water Pumps
manufacturability Not difficult at 5-10 MW and larger outputs up to 100 manufacturability Max impeller diameter 7ft. Wide range of design base
MW. Standard manufacturing practices in existence configurations available from multiple vendors.
(forging, machining & casting).
operability Fully adaptable to platform environment operability Warm water pump issue with organisms.
reliability Most reliable component in the system. Long periods reliability Pumps have proven high reliability. Multiple or oversize
between routine inspections.
inspections pumps to sustain operation
operation.
logistics Stock critical spares (rotors, seals, bearings, etc.) logistics Depot repair for submersible pumps; organic partial repair
Periodic inspections opportunities during downtimes potential for non-submersible.
caused by other components. 12-18 month lead time.
scalability 5-10 MW Turbine (radial flow) has size limit. scalability Maximum size limit on some of these pumps for the larger
Larger size axial turbines, add blade length or number of plant, driving towards multiple pumps.
blade stages to achieve greater output or efficiency.
Assumptions: Assumptions:
-Closed cycle operating system -Closed cycle operating system
Pumps & Turbines Decommissioning
Working Fluid Pumps Turbines‐
• Turbines shaft/rotor‐ carbon steel or low alloy steel
manufacturability Wide range of design base configurations available from
multiple vendors.
• Turbine blades‐ 12% chromium stainless steel or higher alloy steel
• Turbine casing‐ carbon steel
operability Ammonia pumps are self lubricating. • Misc. parts‐ bearings (babbit) – can be re‐melted, valves and seals – stainless steel
reliability Pumps have proven high reliability. Multiple pumps to Pumps‐

sustain operation.
operation
logistics 12-18 month lead time. Critical spares necessary. • Casings – carbon steel (may have epoxy coating or other corrosion protection)
• Impeller‐ stainless steel
• Motor‐ combination of copper, solder, insulation material; non‐metallic material,
• Shaft casing‐ carbon steel
scalability No scaling issues. Scaling is achieved through module
replication.
Conclusion‐
Assumptions: • > 85‐90% recyclable materials
-Closed cycle operating system • Contaminants associated with decommissioning‐ oils + solvents
1
6/10/2010
Viability of technologies
Economic factors:
• All components are technologically mature. All pumps and turbines 80‐90%
efficient.
Limiting factors:
• None
• Required custom modifications:
• 18‐24 months for turbine
• 6 ‐12 months for pumps
• Dependent on size of unit.
2
6/10/2010
Assumptions:
• Closed cycle leading contender for near
term commercialization
Pumps and Turbines References:
• Guam
G OTEC F Feasibility
ibilit Assessment
A t
Breakout Session 1: State-of-the- • Baseline Designs of Moored and Grazing
Art Technologies 40-MW OTEC Pilot Plants
• Renewable Energy From the Ocean
• OTC Study
Turbines
Components Addressed:
• Reviewed Operating Parameters for 30 year period and
remained consistent
• Turbines
• Ammonia turbines are specialty items and require additional
• Pumps development time
• Optimization for ammonia working fluid is desirable
– Cold Water Pump
• Radial Flow for 10MW
– Warm
W Water
W t Pump
P – 2 per plant
– Working Fluid Feed Pumps – 7 - 8 MW gross each turbine
– Commercially Available, multiple vendors
– Vacuum Pump (Open/Hybrid Cycles) • Axial Flow for 100MW
– Trade study recommended to optimize size for NH3
• For all power levels multiple turbines are required for
modularity, reliability, redundancy, operation and
maintenance
1
6/10/2010
Cold/Warm Water Pumps Working Fluid Pumps

• Axial Flow impeller design
• Feed pumps
• Submersible vs. non
• Recycle pumps
• High efficiency pumps with high efficiency
motors • One of the lowest cost items in the system
• 87-92% efficiency possible in some • Commercially available
configurations • Large Design database established
• Commercially available
• Multiple vendors
Vacuum Pumps
• Needed for Hybrid Cycle
• Commercially adaptable database
• Currently used in conventional sea water
cooled
l d nuclear
l and
d ffossilil plants
l t ffor start-
t t
up
• Trade off studies need to be performed
relative to the location of water production
(onshore vs. offshore)
2

APPENDIX E:

Platforms
Breakout Session I: GROUP F

Platform
-Aimed towards offshore platforms for this workshop
-Differences between open and closed cycle systems
-Closed cycle: The working fluid (typically ammonia) is in a closed system and is evaporated/condensed
using heat exchangers. The evaporated working fluid powers the turbine generator.
-Pumping around 10,000 gallons seawater/second/MWe
-Ammonia (working fluid) will make up about 30% of the payload
-Open cycle: The warm seawater is the working fluid and is flash evaporated using a vacuum. Steam
generated by the vacuum powers the turbine generator.
-Must pump much more water to generate similar amounts of electricity as closed cycle systems
-Location, size, and volume of the system components on the platform are the driving issues of platform design
-The design of the platform depends on the entire system
-There most likely will not be one standard design for OTEC platforms due to location, ocean conditions, size of the
OTEC system, what kind of system (open vs. closed), etc.
-Options for platform shapes are:
-Semi-submersible platform
-Spar
-Ship shape
TYPE MOTION/ ARRANGEMENT COST TECHNICAL

SURVIVABILITY RISK DIFFICULTY MATURITY
SEMI SMALL MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH
SUBMERSIBLE
SPAR SMALL HIGH MEDIUM-HIGH MEDIUM
SHIP SHAPE MEDIUM LOW LOW HIGH
-Need to consider transportation of the structure
-Need to consider deck installation
-Platform TRL = 9
-Mission Condition TRL = ? (hasn’t been done before on the scale we’re interested in)
-For similar situations (floating platforms/oil rigs) = 9
-Offshore oil rig requirements far exceed the requirements for OTEC

v. Decommissioning?
-Relocatability is an issue depending on the type of platform (difficult with a spar platform)
-Strive for maximum versatility with minimum costs
-Standardize OTEC design so that it is more or less repeatable
-Make Semi-Submersible platform design a baseline

Topic Engineering or Operating Challenges for OTEC (failure risks)

PROCESSES:
Fabrication State-of-the-art
Deployment State-of-the-art
Construction N/A
Installation (integration -Deck equipment modules sized for lifting capability at integration site
and commissioning) -Floating draft less than depth at integration site
OMR&R State-of-the-art
Monitoring State-of-the-art
Safe Operating State-of-the-art
Procedures
Decommissioning State-of-the-art
Component Viability Little or no risk of component failure under standard operating conditions
Economic Factors
Topic: Semi-submersible Manufacturability Operability Reliability Logistics Scalability

PROCESSES:
Fabrication Semi-Submersible: -- High Less than No issues

Standard offshore established
rig fabrication offshore
Spar: Fewer industry
qualified
manufacturing
facilities
Monohull:
Acceptable FPSO
Construction
Deployment N/A N/A High Standard Adequate for

heavy-lift 20,000 ton total
ships weight (hull
sufficient up and equipment)
to 20,000 tons
Spar: ~165 m
length
limitation
Construction (Assumed same as -- -- -- --
fabrication)
Spar: Outfitting
with OTEC equip is
more complicated
Monohull: Ship is
more amenable to
installation of
internal OTEC
equip
Installation (Integration Quayside deck Local lift High (if the Wet-tow to Standard oil rig
and commissioning) commissioning capacity for equipment is final site techniques

Spar: Requires integration available) (short
deepwater for deck may be an distance) or
installation and issue (eg. dry-tow (long
heavy lift or float pacific distance)
over islands)
OMR&R Routine/ Close to shore

Standard
maintenance
(simpler than
typical oil rig)
Spar: More
Difficult to
access
Monohull:
Greater
response to
sea states
Monitoring Performance Monohull:
monitoring Instrumentation
advised to
monitor fatigue
Safe Operating Meet High
Procedures regulatory and
company HSE
operating
requirements
Decommissioning In accordance with N/A High Transporting N/A
current practices to desired
Spar: Harder location for
disposal
Relocation NA Consistent High Requires new NA
with Normal moorings;

Practices Spar:
Spar: Extensive
Difficult, may disassembly +
not be cost reassembly
effective
Manufacturability Operability Reliability Logistics Scalability
*Based on Semi-Submersible platform design
COST:
-Consistent with normal marine practice
-Bulk steel plus labor
-Making the hull the simplest it can be (minimal equipment within) will keep costs down
-Design to manufacture
-work with the shipyard
-FEED design (front-end engineering design)
-Suppose a 100 Million dollar project, steel would be about 2,000 $/ton (for just materials, no labor)
-Standardization of design will significantly lower costs from the first to the second design
-learning curve and non-recurring costs
-The pound per facility for OTEC will be less than the pound per facility for other platform type rigs (oil industry)
-Since OTEC is a fundamentally different system than normal oil rig platforms, can we go about designing and building a platform a
different way to reduce costs significantly?
4 Key Factors:
-Standardization
-Mass Production
-Progressive Innovation
-Versatility
Standards for offshore oil requirements for semisubs and spars currently exist; standards for OTEC would need to be
developed
Session III:
OTEC machinery not different than equipment currently used on ships/platforms/subs
Spar is most favorable for attachment of CWP due to less motion on attachment point relative to
surface.
Semi-Submersible
Cost Limiting Labor
Factors/cost drivers? rates/productivity
Outfitting (equipment
in hull)
Steel costs
Transportation
Possible Cost Savings? Design for
inexpensive
manufacturing;
Minimize internal
equipment; optimize
schedule
What Research can be Low cost
done on Cost manufacturing
Reduction techniques, materials;
developing OTEC
standards based on
cost/risk
Are Technologies Yes

viable?
What are the associated
economic factors?
What are the
hurdles/limitations?
What is the
development Time?

Changes In Platform Technology
Si
Since 1980
• 1980 • Today
1 R
1. Required
i d offshore
ff h OTEC 1 Fl
1. Floating
ti production
d ti platforms
l tf
depth of 3000ft is considered at 3000ft considered routine
technically challenging for from a technical standpoint
offshore oil industry 2. There are about 200 floating
2 Floating production systems
2. production systems
were at infant technology 3. Computer software and
3. Limited software was experimental facilities for
available and data was not design are in use and have
validated been validated
4. Limited ability to predict 4. Meteorological/
impact of extreme weather oceanographic data gathering
5. Platforms were designed to capability is more
very conservative standards sophisticated
due to uncertainties in 5. Improved tools and
extreme storm conditions and oceanographic data allows
calculation accuracy design of more cost effective
p
platforms
6/10/2010
Challenges and Risks

Topic Engineering or Operating Challenges for OTEC (failure
risks)
PROCESSES:
Fabrication State-of-the-art
Platform Group Deployment State-of-the-art
Construction N/A
Installation -Deck equipment modules sized for lifting capability at
(integration and integration site
Day II Discussion commissioning) -Floating draft less than depth at integration site
OMR&R State-of-the-art
Monitoring State-of-the-art
Safe Operating State-of-the-art
Procedures
Decommissioning State-of-the-art
Component Viability Little or no risk of component failure under standard
operating conditions
Processes Processes
Topic: Semi-submersible Manufacturability Operabil Reliability Logistics Scalability Topic: Semi-submersible Manufacturability Operability Reliability Logistics Scalability
ity
PROCESSES:
PROCESSES:
Installation (Integration and Quayside deck Local lift High (if the Wet-tow to Standard oil rig
Fabrication Semi-Submersible: Standard -- High Less than No issues commissioning) commissioning capacity for equipment is final site (short techniques
offshore rig fabrication established Spar: Requires integration may available) distance) or
Spar: Fewer qualified offshore deepwater for deck be an issue (eg. dry-tow (long
manufacturing facilities industry installation and heavy pacific islands) distance)
M h ll Acceptable
Monohull: A t bl lift or float
fl t over
FPSO Construction
OMR&R Routine/ Close to shore
Deployment N/A N/A High Standard Adequate for Standard
heavy-lift ships 20,000 ton total maintenance
sufficient up to weight (hull and (simpler than
20,000 tons equipment) typical oil rig)
Spar: ~165 m Spar: More
length Difficult to
limitation access
Monohull:
Construction (Assumed same as -- -- -- --
Greater
fabrication)
response to sea
Spar: Outfitting with OTEC
states
equip is more complicated
Monohull: Ship is more Monitoring Performance Monohull:
amenable to installation of monitoring Instrumentation
internal OTEC equip advised to
monitor fatigue
1
6/10/2010
Processes Economic Drivers

Topic: Semi-submersible Manufacturability Operability Reliability Logistics Scalability Semi-Submersible/ Spar/ Monohull
PROCESSES:
Cost Limiting Factors/cost drivers? Labor rates/productivity
Safe Operating Procedures Meet High Outfitting (equipment in hull)
regulatory and
Steel costs
company HSE
operating Transportation
requirements
Possible Cost Savings? Design for inexpensive manufacturing;
Decommissioning In accordance with N/A High Transporting to N/A
Minimize internal equipment; optimize
current practices desired location
Spar: Harder for disposal schedule
Relocation NA Consistent with High Requires new NA What Research can be done on Cost Low cost manufacturing techniques,
Normal moorings;
Reduction materials; developing OTEC
Practices Spar: Extensive
Spar: Difficult, disassembly + standards based on cost/risk
may not be cost reassembly
effective Are Technologies viable? Yes
Manufacturability Operability Reliability Logistics Scalability
Semi-Submersible Used for Oil and Ship Shape

Gas Drilling
2
6/10/2010
“Red Hawk” Spar Platform
3

APPENDIX E:

Power Cable
Breakout Session I:
 Ocean cable technology known, manufactures have the necessary cables
 Armoring the cable (steel) –
 trench closer to shore, water jets, plowing
 directional drilling, shore landings
 Pressure is a problem b/c of the depth
 AC cable within 20 miles – copper conductor, polyethylene insulation
 Cables must survive for 30 plus years
 Termination technology on platform side is a challenge
 Problem with motion of suspended cable from bottom of the ocean to the platform, fatigue, bending stress/strain
 Need modeling for connection of the cable and for the dynamics of the cable
 Cable length > 20 Km solution is DC
 Potential corrosion issue with steel armor on cable
 Larger availability in lower voltage
 Cables available up to 500 kV
 Splicing technology is known
Companies Available today

 Subocean
 JDR Cable Systems
 Seabed Power
 ABB
 Nexans
 Sumitomo
 Siemens
 South bay
 General Cables

 Falmat
 Parker Scancorp
 Prysmian Cables and Systems: long cable up to 500 kV (NY, NJ)

 Mechanical


v. Decommissioning?
Notes:


PROCESSES:
Fabrication
Deployment
Construction
Installation
OMR&R
Safe Operating
Procedures
Decommissioning
Process Failure
Component Viability
Economic Factors



Day 3 – GROUP G
What changes have occurred in materials, designs, practices, fabrication, manufacturing,
and technology between 1980 and today to make OTEC feasible to pursue on a
commercial scale?
 Today: 10 sea crossing AC cables from 90 kV-to500 kV
 20 DC cables up to 500 kV
 Majority have occurred in last 10 years
 Availability of remote resources and interconnection of grids
o US: east coast NY/NJ
o From Canada to NJ
 Dynamics cables: technology driven by offshore wind farming
o Off shore oil drilling
o Common connection by 13.6kV up to 50 kV
o Connection at platform are standard and routine, sock rigid connection run
through tube, secured at top
o Length, width, diameter are function of cable
o Swivel joint done on top side like fixed connection
 Offshore wind floating platforms
o Individual cables to shore
R and D
 High power dynamic cable greater than 30 MW
State of the Art
•Available Technologies
–Codes
C d and
d standards
t d d ffor cable
bl construction
t ti
•IEEE and IEC
•ABS
ABS, DNV
DNV, and API
–Many manufactures
•Larger availability with lower voltage
–Armoring: Steel
–In water cable transition (platform to ocean
b tt )
bottom)
•Can be computer modeled
•Software
Software readily available
State of the Art cont.
• Cable Voltage rating up to 500 kV
– AC
• Single Phase is 69 kV and up
• Three phase cable below 69 kV
• AC within 20 miles of shore
– DC
• Available up to 400 kV today
• Has to be converted on both ends
• Standard Splicing Technology
• Typ. done in factory
• Standard Shore Landing
• Directional drilling
• Trenching
• Proven Durability
• Corrosion
Manufacturers
• JDR Cable Systems
• ABB
• Nexans
• Sumitomo
• Siemens
• South bay
• General Cables
• Falmat
• Parker Scancorp
Challenges
g Specific
p to OTEC
• Applicable standards specifically for OTEC

• Hydrostatic pressure
• Large vertical riser cable
• Mechanical termination technology at the
platform
• Modeling
– Connection of cable
– Mechanical dynamics of the cable
• Cable Installation
6/10/2010
Assumptions
• Offshore
– Less than 20 miles
– Water depth 1,200 m or less
• Floating
• Moored
– Cable and termination design depends on dynamics and azimuth
POWER CABLE constraints on platform and mooring configuration
– Potential requirement to disconnect for weather drives complexity
• P
Potentially
i ll RRelocatable
l bl ((platform)
l f )
– Not applicable for cable
– Interconnect design depends on location
DAY 2 – Breakouts II and III • 5-10 MW to commercial scale (100 MW)
– Three phase AC cable, up to 10 MW
– Three single phase AC cables, 100 MW
– Cable includes power and communication controls
– Cable includes own diagnostic system, fiber optic for temperature
sensing
POWER CABLE – Day 2 POWER CABLE – Day 2
Breakout II – Manufacturability Breakout II – Operability

• Fabrication • Operation
– Cable: Commercially available – Fully automated and controlled from shore
– Termination: Custom design b/c of motion – Enclosed environmentally controlled substation
• Fatigue testing required • Keep out salt water and humidity
• Dry type oil free transformer
• Deployment
• Maintenance
– Difficult but well understood
– Cleaning
• Difficult on steep shelf
• Periodic marine growth (diver), and full cable inspection
– Issue with depth b/c of limited experience • Annual maintenance of substation
– Handling the weight of cable – Cable Repair
– Cable site survey and route planning necessary • Standard practice in shallow water
• Installation • More difficult in power cables in deep water
• Splice requires mobilization of ship
– Need sufficient space for platform substation
– Replacement
– AC equipment requires less space • Leave adequate time to order new cable
• Depends on location of fault
1
6/10/2010
Breakout II – Reliability Breakout II – Logistics

• Monitoring performance
– Fiber optics to monitor temperature
– Online methods for monitoring partial discharges in cable
insulation
– Location of cable faults done with injected voltage pulse
• Specialized ships needed for repair and
• Fatigue Mitigation deployment
– Control of abrasion on cable at the sea floor and sea junction
near platform
l tf • Shore landing equipment e
e.g.
g
– Strumming suppression? – Horizontal directional drilling (HDD)
– Flexing fatigue (bend strain relief and/or flotation)
• Personnel Safety and Emergency Preparedness – Trenching
– National Electric Safety Code or international equivalent • Utility interconnect study needs to be done
– OSHA
• Decommissioning to establish shore side transmission
– Recovery of cable depends on environmental permit agreement capacity
Breakout II – Scalability Breakout II – Life Cycle
• Cables are commercially available from 10 • Risks from Failure?

kV to 500 kV – Failure to comply with terms and conditions of
• Unlikely using same type of cable from contractual obligations
10MW plant to 100 MW plant – Not generating revenue for lack of power
generation
• Should cable be planned for future
– Downtime could be long
upgrade on the platform?
• Lack of repair ship
• Time to find fault location
• Long lead time for ordering new cable
2
6/10/2010
Breakout II – Life Cycle Breakout II – Life Cycle cont.

• Cost limiting factors?
• Cost savings?
– Material costs such as copper and steel
– Tagging on to existing orders
– Shortage of cable manufacturing capability
– Location closer to shore landing means less cable
– Limited number of cable laying ships – Distance to shore from interconnect should be shorter
– Weather and location – Overhead line from shore to utility connection
– Scheduling of ships • Research for cost reduction?
– Survivability mitigation (burying or trenching, – Reducing weight with use of different materials
micro tunneling) – Flexible connection and termination to platform
– Fatigue testing
Breakout III Breakout III cont.

• Technologies viable?
– Cable • Hurdles or limiting factors?
• TRL-8/9 – Cable route
• MRL-9/10
– Cable connection at platform
– Limited supplier of armored cable
• TRL and MRL-5? ? Depending on requirements ((like mooring, – Riser Cable
platform dynamics, quick disconnect) and needs further study
– Flexible connection to platform
• Custom solution
• Site specific – Availability of ship
• Economic factors?
– Exchange rate
– Cost of materials
3
6/10/2010
Breakout III
• Development time frame?

– 2-3 years
• Driven by OTEC system level modeling, simulation
and design
g
– Cable connection to platform
– Integrated platform mooring cable simulation
– Normal design and development time frame
for pilot plant
POWER CABLE – Day 2
4

Appendix F
Powerpoint Presentations

6/10/2010
Logistics
• Fire Exits
• Restrooms on this level
• Map of conference center in packets – location of breakout rooms
• Dining – breakfasts & snacks (outside meeting rooms)
Welcome
• Lunch:
− Hot/Cold Buffet
− Dining Room (on this level)
Dining Room (on this level)
− Reserved seating
• Evening Dinner:
− Shuttle – pick up outside New England Center at 6:30 pm
− Mahalos Catering at The Pearl in downtown Portsmouth
− Cash bar available (beer and wine)
− If you have any questions – check with staff at registration table
Key CRRC Staff Center Creation

• NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration
• Nancy Kinner – UNH Co‐Director (ORR)/UNH spill partnership in 2004
• Co‐Directors:
• Kathy Mandsager – Program Coordinator − UNH – Nancy Kinner
• Joseph Cunningham – Research Engineer
Joseph Cunningham Research Engineer − NOAA –
NOAA – Amy Merten
Amy Merten
• Funding for oil spill research decreasing
• Zachary Magdol – Engineer
− Government
− Private sector
• Many research needs exist regarding spill response,
recovery and restoration
1
6/10/2010
Overall Mission Specific Center Missions

• Conduct and oversee basic and applied research and
• Develop new approaches to response and outreach on spill response and restoration
restoration through research/synthesis of
• Transform research results into practice
information
• Encourage strategic partnerships to achieve mission
• Serve as a resource for ORR, NOAA and other
,
• Conduct outreach to improve preparedness and
C d h i d d
agencies response
• Serve as a hub for spill research, development • Create an educational program for new approaches to
and technical transfer for ALL stakeholders spill response and restoration
− Spill community (U.S and internationally) − Educate/train students who will pursue careers in
spill response and restoration
− Internships with agencies, laboratories
Outreach Efforts
• Workshops on hot topics to identify research priorities and
partners
– Dispersed Oil: Efficacy and Effects
–
–
Submerged Oil: State of the Practice
Human Dimensions of Spills Background/
– Dispersed Oil Research Forum
–
–
Integrated Modeling
PAH Toxicity
Goals/Outcomes
– Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA™)
– Environmental Response Data Standards
– HEA Metrics Workshop
– Opening the Arctic Seas: Envisioning Disasters & Framing Solutions
2
6/10/2010
CRRC/OCRM Partnership OTEC Workshop
• NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource • CRRC hosting two OTEC workshops for OCRM
Management (OCRM) licensing of OTEC – November, 2009: Technical Aspects
• OCRM Director David Kennedy on CRRC – 2010: Environmental Impacts and Risks
Advisory Board
Advisory Board • Format:
Format: Plenary Sessions and Breakout Groups
Plenary Sessions and Breakout Groups
• OCRM Senior Policy Analyst David Kaiser • Participants representing a spectrum of industry,
affiliated with CRRC at UNH public sector, academia, and NGOs
– OTEC experts
• CRRC experience hosting workshops
– Related experts
• e.g., platforms, power cable, mooring
Key Concept Overall Goal
• Bring diverse expertise and perspectives to
To Understand Technical Readiness of
the table
Commercial Scale OTEC System
• Dialogue on:
– Where we are?
– Where do we want to be?
– How do we get there?
3
6/10/2010
Technical Components to be Discussed

Specific Foci (Breakout Groups)
• State‐of‐the‐art of OTEC Technology • Cold Water Pipe
• Technical feasibility • Heat Exchangers
• Time frame for commercial development • Platform
• Platform Mooring
• Platform/Pipe Interface
• Pumps and Turbines
• Power Cable
Plenary Panel Discussions Agenda

Tuesday AM
09:20 Background & Workshop Goals/Outcomes Nancy Kinner
• Cycle and Auxiliary Uses 09:30 OTEC Timeline & Participant Introductions Iris Ioffreda, Facilitator
10:30 Break
• OTEC as a System 10:45
A.
Plenary Session: Setting the Stage
Cold Water Pipe Alan Miller
B. Heat Exchangers Avram Bar‐Cohen
C. Platform Mooring Frederick “Rick” Driscoll
D. Platform/Pipe Interface Patrick Grandelli
E. Pumps & Turbines Peter Pandolfini
F. Platforms Edward Horton
G. Power Cable Steiner Dale
H. Cycle/Auxiliary Uses C.B. Panchal
I. Overall System & Program Luis Vega
11:45 Workshop Structure & Logistics Iris Ioffreda
4
6/10/2010
Agenda Agenda
Tuesday PM Wednesday AM
13:00 Breakout Session I Breakout Discussion Groups 09:00 Overview and Review/Recalibrate: Iris Ioffreda
15:30 Plenary Session I: Group Reports (10 minutes each) 09:15 Panel Discussion: Cycle and Auxiliary Uses: Today and the Future
17:00 Adjourn 10:15 Breakout Session II
18:30 Shuttle to Dinner Portsmouth 12:15 Lunch
Agenda Agenda
Wednesday PM Thursday
09:00 Overview/Review Iris Ioffreda
12:45 Breakout Session III Breakout Discussion Groups
09:15 Panel Discussion on OTEC as a System
15:00 Plenary Session: Group Reports (10 minutes each)
10:30 Break
17:00 Adjourn (Dinner on your own)
10:45 Discussion of OTEC as a System
Discussion of OTEC as a System
12:00 Lunch
13:00 Plenary Session: Synthesis and Next Steps: Iris Ioffreda
14:30 Closing Remarks: Iris Ioffreda & Organizing Committee
15:30 Adjourn
5
6/10/2010
Breakout Questions for Each Component Breakout Questions for Each Component
Session I: Session II:
• What processes (e.g., equipment, personnel) of
• What are the state‐of‐the‐art technologies for the technology are associated with:
the technical component? • fabrication, deployment, construction, and installation;
• operation and maintenance (including cleaning repair and
operation and maintenance (including cleaning, repair, and
replacement);
• monitoring component performance;
• personnel safety and emergency preparedness; and
• decommissioning?
• What risks are associated with failure with these
processes?
Panel Discussion Questions:
Breakout Questions for Each Component OTEC as a System
• What are the performance metrics that must be
Session III: demonstrated prior to commercial development? What is
• Are the technologies associated with this component the development time frame (e.g., today, 1‐2 yr, 5‐10 yr) for
viable? What are the economic factors associated with a commercial OTEC system?
these technologies? What are the hurdles/limiting factors
associated with these technologies?
i t d ith th t h l i ? • What are the potential failures that could lead to the
What are the potential failures that could lead to the
shutdown of an OTEC system?
• What is the development time frame for the technologies • What processes/diagnostics are needed to detect, monitor
associated with this component? and reduce these risks?
• What are the flexibilities in the OTEC system’s components
that could minimize environmental impacts?
6
6/10/2010
Workshop Outcomes CRRC’s Role as Workshop Host
• Report compiling information gathered at workshops • CRRC is a Neutral Party
(NOT recommendations)
– No oil or OTEC in NH waters
• Report Contents:
– Introduction • Expertise ‐ engineering and scientific based
– Workshop organization and structure
p g discussion
– Information gathered
• By component
• Academy is safe place to have frank and open
• As system discussion
– Synthesis of workshop results
– Possible research topics
• Academia approach garners public trust
– Appendices – (e.g., participants, slides, relevent – Peer review approach
references)
• CRRC brings all parties to table
Participant Introductions
Coastal Response Research Center • Name
• Affiliation
www.crrc.unh.edu • Technical Expertise
7
6/10/2010
Intended Outcomes
To understand technical readiness of
commercial scale OTEC system
Workshopp
Structure
This Workshop is NOT: Workshop Structure
• Mostly in small groups. Three breakout sessions per topic.
• A decision making meeting Reports to large group on Monday and Tuesday afternoons.
• Looking to define one “best” technology • Small group facilitators will manage the discussion and help
• Asking for disclosure of proprietary information the group develop report outs.
or design specs • Each small group has an assigned note‐taker.
• Focused on environmental impacts
F d i li • Success in the small groups will come from active
S i th ll ill f ti
• Focused on regulatory challenges participation by all, and allowing all to have a voice.
• Issues that are relevant but not within scope of this workshop
• About the process to get a license for commercial
will be captured on a “Parking Lot.”
OTEC
• Nancy Kinner and Iris Ioffreda will be floaters.
• It IS focused on technical, engineering issues!
8
6/10/2010
What Do You See?
Your Role
• What will I take away?
• What will I contribute?
• What do I need to and not do to
What do I need to and not do to
make both those things happen?
9
6/10/2010
Ground Rules
• Be fully present (which includes turn off
ringtones for cell phones and blackberries)
• Honor time schedules
• Speak openly and honestly and only for
p p y y y
yourself
• Allow everyone an opportunity to express
their views
• Ask questions and listen for understanding
10
This Workshop is NOT:
• A decision making meeting
g g
• Looking to define one “best” technology
• Asking for disclosure of proprietary information
or design specs
• Focused on regulatory challenges
F d l t h ll
OTEC
, g g
6/10/2010
Intended Outcomes
To understand technical readiness of
commercial scale OTEC system
Workshopp
Structure
This Workshop is NOT: Workshop Structure
• Mostly in small groups. Three breakout sessions per topic.
• A decision making meeting Reports to large group on Monday and Tuesday afternoons.
• Looking to define one “best” technology • Small group facilitators will manage the discussion and help
• Asking for disclosure of proprietary information the group develop report outs.
or design specs • Each small group has an assigned note‐taker.
F d i li • Success in the small groups will come from active
S i th ll ill f ti
• Focused on regulatory challenges participation by all, and allowing all to have a voice.
• Issues that are relevant but not within scope of this workshop
will be captured on a “Parking Lot.”
OTEC
• Nancy Kinner and Iris Ioffreda will be floaters.
1
6/10/2010
What Do You See?
Your Role
• What will I take away?
• What will I contribute?
• What do I need to and not do to
What do I need to and not do to
make both those things happen?
2
6/10/2010
Ground Rules
• Be fully present (which includes turn off
ringtones for cell phones and blackberries)
• Honor time schedules
• Speak openly and honestly and only for
p p y y y
yourself
• Allow everyone an opportunity to express
their views
• Ask questions and listen for understanding
3
6/10/2010
Workshop Objectives
Luis A. Vega, Ph.D.
National Marine Renewable Energy Center
at University of Hawai’i
• Are commercialization challenges:

(i) Technical,
NOAA OTEC Workshop
Nov 3-5,
3 5 2009 (ii) Engineering,
Engineering
(iii) Development costs?
• OTEC Development Roadmap
1 2
USA OTEC: Development Schedule OTEC: The Challenge

(Assumption)
• Major Challenge is not technical but
rather financing of a capital intensive
USA OTEC DEVELOPMENT  YEARS  technology without an operational record;
1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 26 to 
Pre-Commercial Plant (> 5 MW) Ops • If plant > 50 MW, cost of electricity
($/kWh)) would be cost competitive;
($ p
Electricity (Desal Water) Plants Prelim
in Hawaii and USA Territories: Design Ops Ops    How do you get more than ¾ Billion Dollars for a 100 MW plant
~ 20 x 100 MW Plants
without a “track record” and without invoking national security, global
warming, environmental credits, etc.?
NH3/H2 Plantships Supplying all Prelim

• Without operational records from a pre-
States Design Ops
commercial plant ( 5 MW) financing of
commercial sized plants (> 50 MW) is highly
doubtful;
3 4
1
6/10/2010
OTEC Pre-Commercial Plant Economics Summary

• Federal funding required for pre-commercial
plant ( $120M to $150M);
• Pre-Commercial Plant would take 5-years

from the go-ahead to deliver electricity to Because OTEC is capital intensive
the grid;
g ; electricity cost
cost-competitiveness
competitiveness if
• Pre-Commercial Plant must operate for at least
one year before finalizing engineering and Size > 50 MW & > 15-year Life-Cycle.
environmental-impact mitigation design
aspects of the commercial size plant;
• The Commercial Plant would take another 4 to

5-years to deliver electricity to the grid;
5 6
Cost of Electricity Production for 1st Plant and 10th Plant

1st Plant and 10th Plant [ COE = CC + OMR&R ]
Capital Cost Estimates
60,000
100
Installed Capital Cost, $/kW
50,000 90 1st Plant Loan: 8%/15-Years

3% Inflation
80 2006 Capital Cost Estimates
y = 53185x-0.364
40,000 70
/kWh
60
30,000
COE, c/
50 10th Plant
20,000 40
30
10,000 20
y= 36525x-0.365
10
0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
1.35 5 10 50 100
Nominal Size, MW-net

Nominal Plant Size, (MW-net)
7 8
2
6/10/2010
OTEC Plant Schedule

OTEC Cost of Electricity Production
as a
Function of Loan Term
80
For 10th Plant OTEC PLANT SCHEDULE Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
8% 15-Years (Bank Loan)
70 1.0 MANAGEMENT
60
2.0 ENGINEERING DESIGN/PERMITS
/kWh
50 4.2%/20-Years (State Bonds)

3 0 ACQUISITION & CONSTRUCTION
3.0
COE, c/
40 Long-Lead Items
30
4.0 DEPLOYMENT
20
5.0 STARTUP & COMMISSIONING
10
0 6.0 OPERATIONS
1.35 5 10 50 100
Nominal Size, MW-net
9 10
OTEC Plant Schedule Workshop Objectives

• Detailed-Engineering-Design  one-year;
Permits  two-years; • Are commercialization challenges:
• Major components are long-lead-items, (i) Technical,
q g 12 to 24+ months f
requiring for delivery,
y, (ii) Engineering,
Engineering
and are available from established
industry; (iii) Development costs
• As much as 5-years after-receipt-of-
order (ARO) is required before • OTEC Development Roadmap (see p. 3)
delivering electricity to grid.
11 12
3
Things that Keep Us Up at Night
 80% of world’s fuel travels by

ocean
 90% of world’s trade travels
Navy Ocean Energy Program through choke points
 Navy’s fuel cost in 2007 was
$1.2B, in 2008 it was $5.1B
 U.S. imports 57% of energy
Bill Tayler needs
Director, Energy Development  Piracy adds $1M to shipping
NAVFACENGCOM, Public Works costs/trip
 Cost to refill a DDG-51:
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) Technology Workshop $1.8M in 2008, $643K in 2009
University of New Hampshire, Durham NH  FBCF $400/gal
November 3, 2009
Impact to military readiness
page number 2
Recent Guidance from Administration What do we want?/ What do we bring to

the table?
 On October 14, 2009, the Secretary of the Navy established five Department of the
Navy (DoN) Energy Targets:
 The lifecycle energy cost of platforms,  What do we want? “Operational Independence”
weapons systems, and buildings, the fully-
burdened cost of fuel in powering these, and  Long term goal: For island locations obtain reliable & affordable
contractor energy footprint will be mandatory power, water and cooling from ocean resources – power purchase
evaluation factors used when awarding
contracts. agreement
 The Navy will demonstrate a Green strike
group of nuclear vessels and ships using  Short term goal: Partner with industry to expedite commercialization
biofuel in local operations by 2012. By 2016, of ocean power with emphasis on OTEC
the Navy will sail a “Great
Great Green Fleet”
Fleet
composed of nuclear ships, surface
combatants with hybrid electric power
systems using biofuel, and aircraft flying only
on biofuels.  What do we bring?
F-18  By 2015, the Department of the Navy (DoN)  funding
will reduce petroleum use in the commercial
Green fleet of 50,000 vehicles by 50 percent by
Hornet
 sponsor for SBIR and Congressional Adds
phasing in a composite fleet of flex fuel,
hybrid electric, and neighborhood electric  long term contracts (stability)
vehicles.
 By 2020, at least half of the DoN’s shore-  land, infrastructure support, security
based energy requirements will come from
alternative sources.  we pay our bills favorable financing terms
 By 2020, half of total DoN energy  assistance expediting permitting
consumption will come from alternative
sources.  with DOE & NOAA, help to bring industry together
page number 3 page number 4
1
OTEC Opportunities Island Requirements
 Reliable electric power supply to meet mission (no grid for

Navy first looking at Diego Garcia, Hawaii & Guam reliability)
 Eliminate vulnerable fuel oil supply
 Adequate, potable water supply
 Refrigeration/cooling
 Reduce/eliminate environmental impacts
Hawaii
Guam
Kwajalein
Diego Garcia

Courtesy: NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Role of US Navy in supporting OTEC Navy OTEC projects
 OTEC offers hope as potential long term baseload technology for

island locations, with further benefits from renewable fuel and potable  Navy OTEC Projects
water generation  Evaluate and test high efficiency, low
 Problem- expanding OTEC to required scale and competitive
cost heat exchanger configurations for
commercial OTEC system
pricing requires technological and commercial advances  OTEC Key Component and System
 For OTEC to assist in meeting Navy goals, OTEC Design: Provide system and
CWP/platform interface component
commercialization needs to speed up design for floating OTEC
 Conduct survey in private sector to
identify maturity levels for ocean energy
devices/systems
 Determine technical feasibility of
 Navy plans to partner with DOE, NOAA synthetic fuel production from floating
and industry to advance the technology OTEC
 Navy has multiple OTEC and other  Determine technical & economic
ocean energy R&D investments feasibility of on shore & offshore OTEC
systems at GUAM Naval facility
designed to commercialize
promising technologies and  Conduct OTEC surveys to identify most
suitable NAVY/USMC site in Hawaii
encourage eventual private
investment for large scale projects  Identify wave, tidal, ocean current, and
thermal ocean energy resources at
Naval/USMC facilities world-wide
2
Questions????
page number 9
3
OTEC Power Cycles
OTEC Power Cycles and Auxiliary Uses  Closed Cycle: leading power cycle; ammonia or hydrocarbon working
fluid; single stage or multi-stage
 Open Cycle: originally pursued by Westinghouse and 210 kW Prototype

system tested at NELHA, Hawaii
 Hybrid Cycle for co-production of power and desalinated water: pursued
C.B. Panchal by Westinghouse (large scale plants) and Argonne National Lab (small
land-based plants)
E3Tec Service, LLC
 Ammonia-Water Absorption Power Cycle: Pursued for Geothermal
Phone: 443-812-5930
power and being considered for OTEC
[email protected]
 Mist-lift Cycle: Prototype unit tested; no significant development work
pursed
 Salinity-Gradient Cycle: Concept developed

E3Tec Service, LLC 1 E3Tec Service, LLC 2
Rankine--Cycle – Single vs Multi

Rankine Multi--Stage Cycle Ammonia--Water Absorption Power Cycle
Ammonia
Effective utilization of seawater temperature difference without high Heat/Mass transfer resistances that would produce non-equilibrium
conditions limit the thermodynamic advantages of ammonia-water
costs of heat exchangers is key to the overall economics of OTEC plants
absorption power cycle
30 30
Temperature-Entropy Diagram
Temperature-Entropy Diagram
Warm Water Warm Water

30 30
25 Temperature-Entropy
p py Diagram
g Temperature-Entropy Diagram
25
Warm Water Warm Water
25 25
20 Area B
20 Area D Area B
Stage 2
Area D
Rankine Cycle Stage 1
20 20
15
15 Rankine Cycle
Rankine Cycle
15 15
10
10
Area C
Cold Water 10 Area C 10
Cold Water 5 Absoprion Cycle Area A
Area A Absoprion Cycle
5
Cold Water
Cold Water 5
5
0
0
0
0
1
Open Cycle Hybrid Cycles for Coproduction of Power and
Desalinated Water
Large scale low-pressure turbine is a key component to be developed for
 Integrated Hybrid Cycle
commercial viability of OC-OTEC plants  Combined (Parallel or in-Series) Hybrid Cycle
Steam
Condenser
Vacuum Pumps for
Discharging
Noncondensable
Desalinated
Flash Chamber Flash Chamber
Water
Ammonia
Turbine/Generator
Warm Water
Supply Ammonia
Evaporator Ammonia
Condenser
Cold Water
Supply
On-Board Reverse Osmosis (RO) is an option for at-sea

production of desalinated water
OTEC Plantships for Ammonia Production

Other Auxiliary Uses and Products
 Ammonia is being considered as the hydrogen carrier for
renewable energy sources – wind, remote PV, and OTEC
 Cold-water can be used for air-conditioning at selected sites
 Global impact of OTEC Plantships – Four Strategic Regions
 Mariculture seems attractive; however, limited to land-based plants

with additional requirements of seawater quality for downstream
use of seawater for mariculture
 Micro-Algae is being pursued for small OTEC plants for favorable
island sites
2
Technology Status Technology Status
 1st Generation of Commercial OTEC plants will most likely be designed
based on closed cycle with ammonia as the working fluid  Ammonia-water absorption cycles have potentials in 2nd or 3rd
 Hybrid cycle would be considered for sites with critical water generation of OTEC plants with the development of high-performance
requirements of heat/mass transfer exchangers
 Towards the end of federal funding in 1980s, aluminum was qualified  There are critical technical issues to demonstrate the viability of the
for OTEC heat exchangers and biofouling became manageable; mist-lift
mist lift cycle for large OTEC plants due to the uncertainty of the two
two-
however, further development work could not be continued to develop phase flow in large riser pipe
OTEC-optimized modular aluminum heat exchangers  Haber-Bosch is commercial ammonia synthesis process hydrocarbon
 Multi-stage Rankine cycle requires the development of modular high- as feedstock
performance heat exchangers that can be easily integrated with out  Innovative solid-state ammonia synthesis process has been proposed
significant engineering with significantly improved energy efficiency

 Technical and economic viability of OTEC micro-algae based fuel need
to be evaluated
Path Forward
Five--Step Commercialization Goals
Five
1. Global displacement of petroleum-based fuels (diesel and fuel

oil) for power generation specifically in the island market
2. At-sea production of desalinated water for regions of critical
water shortages
3. Displacement of carbon-based production of fertilizer ammonia
4. Hydrogen supply to allow economic processing of heavy crude
oils and upgrading oil sands
5. Ammonia-fuel-based distributed energy to displace natural-gas
for power generation
E3Tec Service, LLC 11
3
OTEC’s biggest challenge: A very large
NOAA OTEC Technology workshop single* Cold Water Pipe is required
Nov. 3-5, 2009
Plenary session 5-minute overviews of OTEC major sub-systems
The CWP for a full-scale 100 MW OTEC plant is

10m / 33 ft in diameter
Cold Water Pipe
Dr. Alan K. Miller

Lockheed Martin Corporation
OTEC program, Technology development
CWP sub-system Lead
*Multiple CWP’s require unacceptable pumping power

1 2
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7tB79IR_qrQ/SCVh6hwIVBI/AAAAAAAADn0/l5plCrhYsAk/s400/empireStateBuilding.jpg
To meet these requirements, a number of

The CWP must meet a number of requirements
top-level choices must first be made
Quantifiable technical Anticipated quantitative Dominant Met in LM
Basis
loading design?
drivers: driver?
Buckling from net external 7.5 psi suction inside CWP
at top Yes Yes FEA
pressure
Bending fatigue from Prelim. HARP analysis (10 MW plant)
Approx. +/- 4 degrees of
pitch or roll, plus surge and Yes Yes
+ prelim. test data on fatigue after •Material (fiberglass? steel? HDPE? membrane?.....)
platform motions, including sway motions
high-pressure seawater conditioning to
knockdown for long-term seawater immersion
Buckling from platform motions Same as preceding No Yes
saturation
FEA
•Architecture (monolithic? sandwich?)
Fatigue from Vortex-Induced Vibration (VIV)
Sheared current profile,
approx. 4 fps surface No Yes
Several analyses indicate no excitation •If a sandwich, what type of core (foam? honeycomb? balsa? hollow
of CWP in sheared currents
Tensile failure from clump weight and
velocity
CWP + clump weight; Bending and tension strain
laminate?)
No Yes
streaming current current profile calculations
Core collapse from high Venting of hollow core eliminates net
•One piece? Assembled from separately fabricated lengths using
•One-piece?
1500 psi Yes Yes
pressure on core mechanical or bonded joints?
pressure at 1000m depth
CWP wet density is same as
Wet weight must be positive but not excessive CWP & clump weight Yes Yes
fiberglass/vinyl ester laminate •Fabrication method and location (on-shore? from the platform?)
30-year immersion in
Industry experience with fiberglass/
Corrosion seawater at depths to Yes Yes
vinyl ester composites •Deployment method
1000m
Also: •Rigidly attached to platform? Gimbaled?
Behavior in service CWP is single point of One-piece CWP eliminates
failure for OTEC plant Yes Yes
maintenance / repair / failure of joints
must be very reliable
Very large consideration -
Fabrication directly from the platform
Previous OTEC failures
Deployment must be low-risk have been dominated by Yes Yes eliminates large risks associated with
transport, assembly, upending, etc.
CWP deployment
Minimum-cost design through
Cost must fit within OTEC Electricity cost <= optimization. Materials costs from
$0.25/kwh for 100 MW Yes Yes supplier quotes; recurring fabrication
plant budget profile OTEC plant in Hawaii costs from large wind turbine blade
data 3 4
1
Issues and path forward
There is no available “off the shelf” CWP solution that meets all of the
requirements at the required size scale.
Relevant existing technology ingredients are available (some developed in recent

decades), but they must be synthesized into a new CWP solution.
Careful judgment and quantitative optimization are necessary to choose the best
ingredients and integrate them into the new solution.
Thorough development, prove-out, and scale-up are necessary to retire the risks.
Within Lockheed Martin’s OTEC program, the ingredients for our baseline CWP
have been chosen, the selected fabrication process has been proven out in the
laboratory, and scale-up validation is now underway with the help of DoE funding
(under their AWPP program) and US Navy funding (under NavFac’s OTEC
program).
These activities (now ongoing) will bring the OTEC CWP to a state of
technological readiness for commercial deployment.
5
2
Horton Deepwater Development Systems Horton Deepwater Development Systems
Horton Deepwater Development Systems can design floating

Horton Deepwater Development Platforms for the OTEC Industry to suit
any water depth in any condition.
Systems
E. Horton, President
The Offshore Oil Industry has developed floating systems for

A vast variety of Applications, Loads and Purpose.
16420 Park Ten Place, Suite 240

Houston, TX 77084 USA
www.HortonDeepwater.com
Nov 2009 Horton DDS 2009 All Rights Reserved Nov 2009 Horton DDS 2009 All Rights Reserved
Deepwater Platforms
The OTEC Industry can have confidence that the we can provide a
Floating System to Support their needs.
OTEC’s Challenge will be to Provide an Economic

Energy Source from the Ocean where Appropriate.
-Confidential - AGR DDS –

Do not reproduce without AGR DDS consent
Horton DDS 2009 All Rights Reserved Nov 2009 Horton DDS 2009 All Rights Reserved
1
Horton Deepwater Development Systems can design floating

Horton Deepwater Development Platforms for the OTEC Industry to suit
any water depth in any condition.
Systems
E. Horton, President
The Offshore Oil Industry has developed floating systems for

A vast variety of Applications, Loads and Purpose.
16420 Park Ten Place, Suite 240

Houston, TX 77084 USA
www.HortonDeepwater.com
Nov 2009 Horton DDS 2009 All Rights Reserved Nov 2009 Horton DDS 2009 All Rights Reserved
Deepwater Platforms
The OTEC Industry can have confidence that the we can provide a
Floating System to Support their needs.
OTEC’s Challenge will be to Provide an Economic

Energy Source from the Ocean where Appropriate.
-Confidential - AGR DDS –

Do not reproduce without AGR DDS consent
Horton DDS 2009 All Rights Reserved Nov 2009 Horton DDS 2009 All Rights Reserved
1
Moorings: Passive Mechanical Station
Keeping and Motion Mitigation Systems
Platform Moorings
Frederick R. Driscoll
Department of Ocean and Mechanical Engineering
and S
Source: Shell
Sh ll
Center for Ocean Energy Technology Major Components:

Florida Atlantic University
• Load handling equipment
and terminators
June 10, 2010
• Mooring lines (ropes,
chains, and equipment)
• Anchors
Designs are Site Specific and Mission Driven One Last Consideration
A Few Design Considerations
The components are big, really really really big!
• Site and Metocean Characteristics
• Design and Analysis Tools
• Performance, Dynamics and Stability
• Line Weight, Strength, Fatigue, Creep, Torque, Bend,
Vibration, Fouling, Availability, Cost, Durability/Longevity
• Line
Li L LoaddHHandling,
dli T
Tensioning,
i i and
dT Termination
i ti
• Deployment, Inspection, Maintenance and recovery
• Available and Capability of Deployment Assets
• Safety, Standards and Best Practices
• And of Course … Permitting, Rules and
Regulations They want us to recover what????
1
6/10/2010
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) Humanity’s Top Ten Problems for next 50 years*
1. ENERGY
2. WATER
Presented at:
3. FOOD
The OTEC Workshop OTEC is poised to offer
4. ENVIRONMENT
UNH Durham
UNH, solutions !
5. POVERTY In dramatic ways
6. TERRORISM & WAR
------------------
Dr. Mark L. Swinson,
7. DISEASE
Chief Scientist, SMDC;
Edward B. Kiker, 8. EDUCATION
General Engineer, SMDC
9. DEMOCRACY
10. POPULATION
Desikan Bharathan, Principal Engineer, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401
*from R.E.Smalley’s presentations
November 4, 2009 1 November 4, 2009 2
The blue planet Prior OTEC R&D efforts - achievements

– where the
Ocean is the • OTEC
largest solar
collector ! — Operation of resource pipes and pumps have been proven
reliable over long periods of time at NELHA.
— Ocean resource has been proven to be “reliable and
sustainable.”
t i bl ”
— Systems have been proven to produce:
» electricity
» water;
» food;
165,000 TW » air-conditioning;
of sunlight » high-value bio-medicals.
hit the earth
1
6/10/2010
Components of the OC-OTEC system

Open-Cycle
OTEC
System
Cut-away y
Illustration
Vacuum system Cost and Research implications

• Almost half the cost is associated with the cold-water pipe
and pumping resource.
— Substantial potential exists to reduce this cost with
further R&D.
• Open
Open-cycle
cycle turbine stands to be made of alternative
materials for cost reduction and longevity in corrosive
environment.
— Material advances in plastics and composites will
advance turbine design and fabrication.
• Multiple product production can be established
incrementally.
2
Power Cables
OTEC Technology Workshop
Power Cables • Factors
– Generation nameplate capacity
– Cable length -Distance from shore and to grid connection
– AC or DC
OTEC Technology Workshop –

–
–
Cable voltage
Robustness of on-shore grid system (weak systems)
Cable laying route on sea bottom and trenching needs
– Size and weight of the power generation and conditioning plant
– Black-start requirements
• Similar applications
– Oil drilling platforms powered from shore (North Sea)
– Offshore wind farms
– Sea cable connections –existing and planned
November 3-5, 2009 • Types of Cables
– XLPE
Steinar Dale – Mass Impregnated
– HTS?
Center for Advanced Power Systems
• Environment
Florida State University – The high voltage equipment must be protected from the ocean environment (salt water,
dampness/condensation, corrosion)
Power Cables
Nysted offshore wind farm, Denmark
HVDC Light Module on

Troll-A platform (ABB)
Transformer unit (33 kV/132 kV) for the aggregation of the 72 wind turbines
of the park, 165 MW
Troll-A oil platform in the North Sea ABB Review 2/2007

and cable laying ship (ABB) Cable laying ship
1
Power Cables
OTEC Technology Workshop Power Cables
• The most powerful HVDC
submarine
• cables to date are rated
700 to 800 MW
• at 450 to 500 kV.
kV The
longest of these Source: Statkraft
• are the the 580 km
HVDC Light™ Superconducting cable NorNed link between
400-kV XLPE cable. extruded 132 kV
The copper conductor submarine cable, • Norway and The
is divided into five Submarine cable for the
with double
600 MW, 450kV Baltic
Netherlands
segments to reduce armoring (80 kV
skin effect losses. rating)
Cable HVDC link • in service in 2008. Flat submarine cable
between Germany
Source: ABB Review and Sweden (Nexans) Source: ABB
2
Power Cables
Power Cables • Factors
– Generation nameplate capacity
– Cable length -Distance from shore and to grid connection
– AC or DC
OTEC Technology Workshop –

–
–
Cable voltage
Robustness of on-shore grid system (weak systems)
Cable laying route on sea bottom and trenching needs
– Size and weight of the power generation and conditioning plant
– Black-start requirements
• Similar applications
– Oil drilling platforms powered from shore (North Sea)
– Offshore wind farms
– Sea cable connections –existing and planned
November 3-5, 2009 • Types of Cables
– XLPE
Steinar Dale – Mass Impregnated
– HTS?
Center for Advanced Power Systems
• Environment
Florida State University – The high voltage equipment must be protected from the ocean environment (salt water,
dampness/condensation, corrosion)
Power Cables
Nysted offshore wind farm, Denmark
HVDC Light Module on

Troll-A platform (ABB)
Transformer unit (33 kV/132 kV) for the aggregation of the 72 wind turbines
of the park, 165 MW
Troll-A oil platform in the North Sea ABB Review 2/2007

and cable laying ship (ABB) Cable laying ship
1
Power Cables
OTEC Technology Workshop Power Cables
• The most powerful HVDC
submarine
• cables to date are rated
700 to 800 MW
• at 450 to 500 kV.
kV The
longest of these Source: Statkraft
• are the the 580 km
HVDC Light™ Superconducting cable NorNed link between
400-kV XLPE cable. extruded 132 kV
The copper conductor submarine cable, • Norway and The
is divided into five Submarine cable for the
with double
600 MW, 450kV Baltic
Netherlands
segments to reduce armoring (80 kV
skin effect losses. rating)
Cable HVDC link • in service in 2008. Flat submarine cable
between Germany
Source: ABB Review and Sweden (Nexans) Source: ABB
2
6/10/2010
Heat Exchanger Technology

Seawater Heat Exchangers
Avram Bar-Cohen
ME Department – UMD
CRRC- NOAA OTEC Technology Workshop

November 2009
Nov '09 ABC OTEC HX 2
Heat Exchanger Fundamentals Seawater Heat Exchanger Issues

 Applications
OTEC, desalination, coastal powerplants, gas/oil processing
 Corrosion Resistance
titanium, copper-nickel, aluminum, plastics, ceramics, (coatings)
 L  U 2  Biofouling
q = UA Tlm p   f  K L ,entry  K L ,exit 
 Thermal Conductivity
 Dh  2
1  Density
UA 
1 t
 b 
1 f = f (Re, l/D, /D)  Material Cost
no At ,m hm k Ab no At , w hw  Manufacturability; Manufacturing Cost
h = h (Re, Pr, l/d, k)
Nov '09 ABC OTEC HX 3 Nov '09 ABC OTEC HX 4
1
6/10/2010
Polymer Heat Exchangers Material Conductivity Effect
W=L=1m,
Hfin=10mm,
tf=tb=1mm.
V l Li
Vel Liq = 1 m/s,
/
Vel Gas:<
10m/s
Nfins,m=100,
Nfins,w=5
Nov '09‘09
March ABC
ABC-TAMU
OTEC HX 5 Nov '09‘09
March ABC
ABC-TAMU
OTEC HX 6
Mass-Specific Heat Transfer Coefficients Total Coefficient of Performance
Nominal
Least-Material
Least-Material Nominal
W=L=1m, Hfin=10mm, tb=1mm, Vel Liq = 1 m/s, Nfins,g=100,

W=L=1m, Hfin=10mm, tb=1mm, Vel Liq = 1 m/s, Nfins,g=100,
Nfins,l=5, tfin > 0.1mm
Nfins,l=5, tfin > 0.1mm
Nov '09 ABC OTEC HX 7 Nov '09 ABC OTEC HX 8
2
6/10/2010
Laboratory X-Flow PHX Prototype
Nov '09 ABC OTEC HX 9
3
6/10/2010
Summary of Improvements
Session IV:
Since 1980s
What changes have occurred in  Materials:
materials, designs, practices, • New materials
fabrication, manufacturing, and  e.g., composites, synthetics
technology between 1980 and today • Higher Strength
to make OTEC feasible to pursue on • More reliable
a commercial scale? • Lower cost
Summary of Improvements Summary of Improvements

Since 1980s Since 1980s
 Design:  Manufacturing:
• Vastly improved computing capability
• New analytical methods • Automation vastly improved
• Vastly improved modeling methods • Improved tooling
 Fabrication:
• Improved extrusion methods  Sensor Development:
• Welding advances • In situ health and Status Monitoring
• Aluminum brazing advances
• Coatings improvements
methods
• Advances in QC
1
6/10/2010
Summary of Improvements Summary of Improvements

Since 1980s Since 1980s
 MET OCEAN:  New Bathymetric and
• Real Time Data Geopositioning Techniques
 Satellite technology
 Ocean observing network
 Codes
C d / Standards
St d d D Development
l t
• Weather prediction modeling
• e.g., deepwater industry
 Development of Deepwater Oil

 Cable Design and Construction
and Gas Industry
Vastly Improved
Advances in Cold Water Pipe

Then Now Benefit
Materials E-glass/Vinylester 1. R-
R-glass/vinyl ester 1. Higher fatigue
Steel, concrete Carbon fiber strength; better
composite reliability and
2. E
E--glass/vinylester lower cost
2. Still viable,
additional
validation has
been done
Designs Syntactic foam core 1. Hollow pultruded 1. Much lower
sandwich
d i h core sandwich
d i h cost,t less
l
and other labor
proprietary intensive and
designs greater
consistency
2. Syntactic foam core 2. Still viable,
sandwich additional
validation
has been
done
Practices Off
Off--shore industry Lower cost and
experience better reliability,
more design
flexibility
2
6/10/2010
Advances in Cold Water Pipe

Then Now Benefit
Advances in Heat Exchangers
Fabrication Filament winding VARTM process In-situ, continuous
 Materials
pipe
• Titanium cost effectiveness (aerospace and automobile
Technology Computational tool Higher precision, industries)
development lower testing cost • Titanium: developing improved processes (power plant
Improved structural More reliability, condenser)
monitoring (cameras, less labor, less risk • Thermally enhanced plastics
sensors, robotic
• Aluminum: alloying improved (aerospace industry)
devices)
• Aluminum: more choices
 Designs
Summary: • Potential new HX designs
• Plastic or foam HX new emerging techniques (improving
Due to advances in computational capability, efficiency in processing industry)
composite materials, fabrication methods, and the • Surface enhancements
vast experience of the offshore industry, there is a • Improved heat transfer coeff. without incurring pressure
drop penalty
high level of confidence that we can construct and
maintain a reliable, cost efficient cold water pipe.
Advances in Heat Exchangers Advances in Heat Exchangers

 Manufacturing
 Practices/Performance • Improved capability/tooling (petro industry, LNG)
• Materials • Capacity for larger HX
 High speed/low cost capability of computing
• greater automation
 Improved analytical and design modeling techniques
 Technology/Cycle Development
• Fabrication
 Extrusions have improved
• Open cycle performance validation
 Aluminum brazing technology (cryogenic, LNG)
• Hybrid cycle design
 Improved welding techniques (for sea water • Direct contact condensers operational (geothermal
applications; petro industry, LNG, oil, ships, power application)
plant condensers) • Flash evaporators demonstrated
 Improved instrumentation/quality control
• Mixed working fluid cycle developed (demonstrated in
 Improved coating processes geothermal)
3
6/10/2010
Advances in Platform Mooring Advances in Platform Moorings

 Moorings  Positioning
• Materials, design, fabrication have advanced to • In 1980 positioning of surface and subsurface assets
was inadequate for deep water, far from shores for
enable moorings to 10k feet, far exceeding the
placements. Present technology is sufficient to meet
1k foot limit of 1980, required OTEC mooring OTEC requirements.
depth is 3k + feet
• Satellite positioning and shipboard dynamic positioning
• Comprehensive codes and standards now exist allows positioning of surface assets within 1 meter
for deep water moorings anywhere on the planet, efficiently installed anchor
 Infrastructure systems
• Underwater acoustic system has advanced accuracy of
• Industry has developed which routinely
placement of underwater assets
designs and installs mooring systems in depth
up to 10k feet
Advances in Platform Moorings Advances in Platform Mooring

 Materials  Anchors
• Synthetic Mooring lines have increased mooring depths • General advances in anchor technology have led to
to greater than 10k feet today increased capacities in wide ranged bottom types
 Installation and Operation
• High strength to weight ratio, neutrally buoyant • Dynamically positioned installation vessels are
materials such as polyester, kevlar, spectra, etc commonly available
• High strength steel for use in mooring wire and chain • Under water equipment advances allow safe and
effective installation, inspection, maintenance, and
recovery in deep water
 Design Analysis Tools
 Advances in software enable deep water moorings to be
accurately modeled and analyzed
• Validated by field installations in deep water
• Allows optimization of the system
• Broad range of commercially available, industry verified
software
4
6/10/2010
Advances in Platform Pipe Advances in Platform Pipe

Interface Interface
 Established deep water industry  Improved analytical capabilities and capacity
• Industrial base  Environmental awareness
• Code  Improved Sensor technology
• Standards  Development of underwater tools
• Control Technologies (handling)  Underwater construction techniques
• Better understood  Deep dynamic cables
 Improvement in Composites  Survey Technology
• Materials  Improved engineering process
• Processes • Configuration management
Advances in Pumps and

Advances in Platform
Turbines
 1980  Today  Pumps and Turbines have been ready for 30 years
1. Required offshore OTEC 1. Floating production  No revolutionary breakthrough in pump/turbine; all advances
depth of 3000ft is platforms at 3000ft evolutionary
considered technically considered routine from a  Electronics starting to be introduced into pumps/turbines to
challenging for offshore technical standpoint monitor health and status; most advances will be in outage
oil industry 2. There are about 200 management/condition based management
2. Floating production floating production  Move toward a sustainable system that can function without
systems were at infant systems external hydrocarbon inputs
technology 3. Computer software and  Seaborne environment (roll, pitch, yaw) has proven out turbine
3. Limited software was experimental facilities for machinery over worse or equivalent situations.
available and data was design are in use and  Petroleum industry has 30 years of additional experience working
not validated have been validated in increasingly harsh environments and much has been learned
4. Limited ability to predict 4. Meteorological/ about operations, methods and materials.
impact of extreme oceanographic data  OTEC--style plant in India that produces Freshwater – more
OTEC
weather gathering capability is expensive than traditional desalinization methods, however
5. Platforms were designed more sophisticated operational and works.
to very conservative 5. Improved tools and  Many attempts since 1980; 250 kW open cycle at NELHA, 1996-1996-
standards due to oceanographic data allows 2000 50 kW Hx Testing (NEHLA), 2005 Diego Garcia Feasibility
uncertainties in extreme design of more cost Study, 2006 0TEC Study Makai SBIR, 2007-2007-2008 10 MW Pilot
storm conditions and effective platforms Plant Design by Lockheed Martin.
calculation accuracy
5
6/10/2010
Advances in Power Cable OTEC Then

 Today: 10 sea crossing AC cables from 90 kVkV--to500 kV
 20 DC cables up to 500 kV
 Majority have occurred in last 10 years
 Availability of remote resources and interconnection of grids
• US: east coast NY/NJ
• From Canada to NJ
 Dynamics
D i cables:
bl technology
h l d
driven
i b
by offshore
ff h wind
i d
farming
• Off shore oil drilling
• Common connection by 13.6kV up to 50 kV
• Connection at platform are standard and routine, sock rigid
connection run through tube, secured at top
• Length, width, diameter are function of cable
• Swivel joint done on top side like fixed connection
 Offshore wind floating platforms
• Individual cables to shore
OTEC Then OTEC Now
6
6/10/2010
7
6/10/2010
Heavy Lift
Spar Spar
8
6/10/2010
FPSO Bathymetry Then
Bathymetry Now Platforms Then
9
6/10/2010
Platforms Now Glomar Explorer Gimbal
10
6/10/2010
SeaWater Air Conditioning

Other Uses of OTEC 
(SWAC)
It exists today in Stockholm
Technology  It may exist tomorrow in Honolulu
Fresh Water Hotels and
office
M i lt
Mariculture buildings
H2
Cold deep
Cooling water off
the coast
“HALF AN OTEC”
Power Plant Cooling OCW as a heat sink for CSP

Cold seawater as a heat sink Ocean
Existing: Many proposed OTEC plants

Existing: Cold
are sited near existing power plants Water
for transmission connections

for
Innovative::
Innovative
OTEC technology and Concentrating Solar
Power plants can have mutually
beneficial combinations Efficiency!!
1
6/10/2010
CA Concentrating Solar SOTEC

 California Coast to Mojave
Concentrating Solar Augmentation of OTEC

Technical Readiness of OTEC - NOAA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Readiness of OTEC - NOAA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Readiness of OTEC - NOAA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Readiness of

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Coastal Response Research Center

The Coastal Response Research Center, a partnership between the National

Nancy E. Kinner, Ph.D.

III. Workshop History and Limitations…………………….………………………. 7

IV. Workshop Organization and Structure……………..….……………………….. 8

V. Breakout Group Reports……………………………….……………………..… 9

E. Pumps and Turbines……………….…………………….….………… 18

G. Cold water Pipe…………………….………………………..………… 22

VI. Research and Development Needs…………………………….………………. 24

VIII. References Cited……………………………………………………..………... 26

The qualitative analysis of the technical readiness of OTEC by experts at this

One method of extracting this energy is Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion

Figure 1: Principles of operation of an open-cycle OTEC Facility

Figure 2: Principles of operation of a closed-cycle OTEC facility

One of the most important considerations when planning an OTEC facility is

Although the focus of OTEC is typically on production of electricity, the energy

III. WORKSHOP HISTORY AND LIMITATIONS

IV. WORKSHOP ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE

The workshop, held at the University of New Hampshire from November 3 – 5,

V. BREAKOUT GROUP REPORTS

Andy Knox, NAVFAC Engineering Service Center

Changes in offshore platforms have primarily been driven by the petroleum

Semi-submersible platforms have standard offshore rig fabrication procedures.

Research and Development:

Assuming that an OTEC platform is not significantly different than platforms

Design, fabrication, and construction of the platform mooring components

Decommissioning of the platform mooring as a system was identified as

Research and Development Needs:

The Platform Mooring group identified several research topics, including:

The Platform/Pipe Interface group examined the technical readiness of existing

Dallas Meggitt, Sound & Sea Technology

The pipe/platform interface group concluded that the technology to create a

Design, fabrication and construction of a platform/pipe interface for a ≥ 100 MWe

Operation and maintenance of the interface is relatively simple for a fixed

Risks associated with the platform/pipe interface include complete failure,

Research and Development Needs:

The research and development needs include: modeling of failure modes,

Whitney Blanchard, NOAA Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Challenges, Risks, and Cost Drivers:

Research and Development Needs:

Michael Reed, Department of Energy

Challenges, Risks, and Cost Drivers:

Matt Gove, NOAA Ocean Coastal Resource Management

Operation and maintenance of the cable is routine and well understood.

Challenges, Risks, and Cost Drivers:

Research and Development Needs:

Roger Bagbey, Inspired Systems, LLC

In the 1980s, materials considered for CWP construction included E-glass/vinyl

The design, construction, and deployment of a CWP for a ≤ 10 MWe facility is

Challenges, Risks, and Cost Drivers:

Research and Development Needs:

Cold Water Pipe

Pumps and Turbines

The qualitative analysis of the technical readiness of OTEC by experts at this

2. Vega, L. A. (2002/2003). Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Primer. Marine Technology

3. Vega, L. (1995). Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. In Encyclopedia of Energy

November 3-5, 2009