Looking at these very scant numbers we can extrapolate some information:
1. Deployed capacity: They put 3 x 240kW bouys (720kW of source power) in the water - that was on one of their road show presentations.
2. Where was the 12MWh measure? They state "energy converted and exported to the grid as electricity" - thereore it was measured at a meter where the energy is exported to the grid.
2. On the topic of "deployed" versus operational" I think I also recall something similar (again, in a presentation, maybe an announcement) because I remember it made me think they'd had the bouys in the water for 2 years. Now it reads as they left them in for 12 months and achieved 14,000 operational hours. Anywho... as there are 8,760 hours in a year and Carnegie claim "14,000 operational hours" I can only deduce they collectively got 14,000 operational hours out of the three bouys (which had a total operational capacity of 3 x 8,760 = 26,280 hours). So an availability factor of ~53%. I am not critical of that - it seems reasonable for a pilot facility. That said - one of my questions is - why is it all so vague? Why isn't it all published, explained, and crystal clear? They are deliberately being vague and careful with their wording. We should not have to ask what it means and be guessing!
3. Still - the real killer is that the thing looks like it cost ~$45M (ok, its a pilot) and generated a tiny 12MWh. Seriously - a home rooftop system generates about that much energy each year. Even at 53% availability the losses would effectively be ~99.8%, to achieve only 12MWh in a year. After 10 years, $200M the best they could do was 12MWh and now they are back to computer modelling with nothing that can be commercialised. Nothing to show shareholders or tax payers.
How can so much time and money have amounted to so little? How have they managed to avoid real scrutiny and avoid publishing real findings for so long?
CCE Price at posting:
0.4¢ Sentiment: Sell Disclosure: Not Held
