This is the grand key announcement we have been waiting for. It...

This is the grand key announcement we have been waiting for. It really is good. It was clear from reading between the lines over the last two years that a significant redesign was in progress. This was verbally confirmed by MO at the roadshow in March this year, although it never appeared in any presentation. I suspect that he didn’t want anyone to make the interpretation that the previous CETO models were inadequate or failures in design. Shareholders and journalists panic easily.

The redesign allows for:

1. Making use of the horizontal component of the circular water particle motion of the wave, whereas previously only the vertical component was employed. This increases considerably the energy extractable without increasing the size of the BA.
3. Significant reduction in the cost of foundations which seemed to be prohibitive in the total cost structure, and was almost a project killer. When only a vertical tether is used the mass of concrete in the sea floor has to be so massive that its weight is always greater than the lifting force produced by the BA near the surface. (Discussed here many earlier times.) This is also an illustration of the value of bringing in ideas from external research groups such as Uni WA. (MO used to be very cagey about letting out even simple ‘secrets’.)
5. Good use of the numerical modelling capacity of the Pawsey Supercomputer. CCE gained much confidence and expertise in correctly modelling the wave effects on the C5. When a particular line of R&D works well you stick with it and see how far it will go. Clearly they understand it so well that the design could be extrapolated to incorporate the parameters for the LCoE which are the ultimate deciders. Hats off to those numerical modellers.

The cost of wave power will still be high but its reliability is considerably greater than wind or solar. It should be understood that the energy build up in the swell has a smoothing effect over days and persists long after the generating winds cease. As such the ocean can also be considered as a mechanical battery which does not have to be purchased or maintained. This is in effect a dramatic cost saving.

Some specific comments on the announcement:
The C6 schematics of the tethered BA do not show the pump piston. It could be that in the second pic there are three pumps, one on each sloping tether (a little strange).
The 3D diagram on p.3 (Parametric model output) is excellent. It clearly demonstrates that there is an optimum BA diameter for cheapest LCoE, and that this is largely independent of BA aspect ratio (diameter to thickness). The slope of the ‘valley’ is very gradual. Note that they have conveniently left off any scale figures from the sketch axes. I guess that would be giving too much away to competitors.
How will the BAs be retrieved when necessary? The single quick release mechanism of the C5 is absent. The intention is of course to be able to remove the PTO from above for servicing. Further info could be asked at the AGM (please).
Nevertheless, it still demonstrates that they have this modelling capacity at their fingertips. Going through these detailed procedures may save constructing inappropriate scale versions of CETO.

There is no doubt that this ann is meant to impress shareholders just before the AGM. The question arises of how rapidly they can construct these BAs to get one in the water. It should take a minimum of about two years but CCE have a notorious score card of rarely getting things done to a time schedule.

For those attending the AGM, try working together by asking follow up questions on the last one asked. Don’t ask irrelevant questions. You will have only limited opportunity (and time) to ask since the business part of the AGM is the most important. Roadshows are much better for gaining useful information. The speaker at roadshows is more relaxed and often has a loose mouth!

I can’t help but notice that there have been many negative posts here in the last few months. This all stems from the fact that people do not understand that CCE is still a R&D company, that CCE can attract more grants while it is still in this mode, and that posters seem not to be able to envisage the modus operandi of the company as demonstrated over the longer time period.

Yes, I do think that everything has been going well.

Jukes