testing question, page-20

Another technical note. (Apologies, to some readers.)

Primo. The computer modelling is not a purely theoretical exercise. End results of predictions have to be compared with the experimental results from the working model, and the theoretical parameters have to be changed until there is a good match. The laws of nature are always right. On 16 Oct 2007 CWE proudly announced that they had a near perfect correlation computer model. The market seemed not to take any notice but I was very pleased. It was a meaningful statement. Since then there have been various major changes, in scale and in attachments, and the computer models have to be adjusted at each step. (Some very interesting graphics have been shown in presentations.) It is when the computer models match the measured reality we say that we understand what is going on and we are justified in having confidence in the outcomes. Hence I am not expecting any disconnect such as you may fear.

Newbrownshoe's very observant comment effectively makes the same point from a different angle.

[Generally expanding on your questions, Hammerhead.] The testing that we are all looking forward to is for the combined system of the BA, pump, and flexible joint in a real wave field situation. We are not primarily interested in the dummy load (hydraulic energy management module) per se. They have to bung an energy absorbing device onto the output end of the pump to make the test a realistic representation of the future pipeline plus other attachments. While it is all still onshore performance measuring devices are attached and the dummy load can still be tweaked.

What they are probably looking for offshore is detailed information on how the buoy moves when a wave of specific height passes over it, and how much fluid the pump will move against the load. It won't be with exactly the same amplitude as the wave (a bit less) or precisely in phase with it (a slight lag). The effect of the (simulated) load is important here. N.B. The issue is not whether it works but in the fine tuning.

Evaluation of test data will also take a 'finite' time beyond the 'one' month; then comes key decision making time for proceeding with manufacturing 12 ? 30 CETO units (2 - 5 MW). 5 MW was the projected size, as per the HoA with the DoD, and is small enough already, but 2 MW may well be the funds limited option, little more than a toy in the power industry. What would be achieved with a 2MW generator? The capital costs and $/ MWh would be at their highest which is the opposite of what they are trying to demonstrate. The funding hurdle of moving from pilot plant to commercial demonstration is also considerable.

Keep in mind the parallel goal of desalination being investigated at the moment can be done at lower power and generate much needed publicity. It is quite distinct from energy generation but it can aid in capital raising.

A decision to proceed means contracts for component manufacture can be let.
? 30 piers (3 rows of 10?) can be drilled and installed by jack-up rig in continuous sequence, thus reducing unit cost.
? Pressure line piping can be laid to shore.
? Pelton wheel and generator set can be ordered.

The companies (Douce Hydro, Techlam, etc) that have manufactured the present one-offs will be very aware that orders for 1000s more will eventually be required so that they will have securely kept the computer controlled lathe programs for rapid duplication at low cost. The prototypes are always hideously expensive.

The CWE set schedule for first commercial grid connected 2-5 MW demonstration is during the period 2011 to beginning 2013, i.e. a two year+ time window (see Oct AGM presentation).

I hope this helps some people's thinking a little; perhaps enough to increase confidence somewhat.

Juke