Rusch
I think your reply to my report demonstrates a certain lack of perspective. It is not sufficient to make unsubstantiated sweeping statements that are not backed by facts. Allow me to elaborate.
You appear to have confused the rate of energy generation, MWh, where the ‘h’ stands for hours, with overall production over the 12 month period with some 14,000 hours of operational performance for all three units. You trumpet that the 12MWh means less than 857 watts per hour over the demonstration period, a residential solar array generates this much on a winter’s day and that should have given you a clue that you might be jumping to the wrong conclusions. I understand that the power settings were set at different levels for different sea conditions and that much of the power generated was not released to the grid during extensive safety testing. Testing of the validation of the system would have meant that much of the output would have been dissipated onshore through the hydraulic link.
You claim that the technology is useless and is the cause of CCE ‘s demise. I have reviewed the statements by the Minister and her department, and there is no mention of any technological issue, rather it is all to do with insufficient funding to satisfy her concerns for completion of the project.
I stated in my original post that the CETO 5 project off Garden Island was to be a full scale pilot plant to demonstrate proof of concept. This is not my opinion, but rather the strategy outlined in the CCE Annual reports from 2015 to 2018. It is clear that this would be a primary key requirement prior to committing to a full scale commercial project, especially for an unproven emerging technology. The electricity generators, such as Western Power, would want clear proof of the following key parameters:
1. Survivability over an extended period, you would have to agree that 12 months is a good metric, especially as no other wave energy system, to my knowledge, has survived more than a few weeks, but I am always ready to be corrected on this point.
2. Maintenance, you would have to agree that this was demonstrated by the deployment, retrieval and redeployment of individual actuators.
3. Efficiency, you would have to agree that the numbers you have bandied about do not meet this fundamental criteria, but clearly the engineering department of Western Power, ENEL Green Power and EdF in France, think otherwise. I am inclined to side with their assessment rather than yours. Naturally, you are entitled to your opinion that they are all clowns.
CCE did not just demonstrate their technology on all three parameters outlined above, they undertook additional work to ensure that the next generation actuators, CETO 6, would not just be larger, but also more responsive by having the offtake on board rather than via a hydraulic link to an onshore facility. This means that the actuators can be deployed in deeper water, all according to information published by CCE, which you do not appear to have read.
I therefore stand by my original assessment that the cancellation and subsequent administration of CCE was not caused by technological issues, but rather by insufficient funding as widely reported in the media.
I note that you only started to post on this thread in early May this year, that you do not hold and recommend to sell. It appears to me that you have an agenda, which suggests you are enjoying the unravelling of the company as evidenced by your lecturing comments to Keg75 today. It is not a good look to dance on the misfortune of others. HC readers can decide, which one of us is misleading and spreading ‘fake news’.
Naturally, everyone should undertake their own research and draw their own conclusions.
Expand
