Project Proposal Feasibility Study

Electro-Wave

Team 8 Austin Juza Matt Ramaker Ryan Rhodes Ed Smit

Engineering 339 10 November 2014

© 2014 Calvin College Engineering Department

Austin Juza, Matt Ramaker, Ryan Rhodes, Ed Smit

Executive Summary Wave energy is a new form of renewable power generation, and one that Team Electro­Wave believes could be implemented in the Great Lakes. Thus far wave energy has been determined to be an economically unreasonable source of renewable energy in the Great Lakes Region by various power generating companies. This is a result of high initial costs and low energy returns. Relating wave energy to that of solar and wind generation, Electro­Wave believes that the energy in waves should not be overlooked due to the consistency found in the nature of the waves themselves. Great Lakes wave spectrum data will be used to calculate potential power output and energy return on investment for a proposed wave energy plant. Team Electro­Wave’s goal is to determine the economic feasibility of implementing wave energy converters (WECs) into the Great Lakes along with the development of a small scale WEC for testing purposes.

Table of Contents 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..

1.1. Team Members…………………………………………………………………... 1.2. Team Duties……………………………………………………………………….. 1.3. Team Organization……………………………………………………………….. 1.4. Class Description and Purpose…………………………………………………….. 1.5. Project Definition……………………………………………………………………

2. Design Goals………………………………………………………………………………… 3. Design Norms……………………………………………………………………………….

3.1. Stewardship………………………………………………………………………... 3.2. Trust………………………………………………………………………………... 3.3. Delightful Harmony………………………………………………………………….

4. Project Management………………………………………………………………………... 4.1. Schedule…………………………………………………………………………….. 4.2. Budget……………………………………………………………………………….

5. Background and Research…………………………………………………………………… 5.1. History of Wave Energy……………………………………………………………. 5.2. Current Usage……………………………………………………………………...

6. Federal and State Regulations and Codes…………………………………………………… 6.1. The Great Lakes Submerged Lands Permit………………………………………... 6.2. Clean Water Act of 1972…………………………………………………………… 6.3. Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 section 10………………………… 6.4. Michigan Underwater Preserves…………………………………………………… 6.5. Water­based Renewable Energy Generation Pilot Project…………………………

7. Customer Selection………………………………………………………………………….. 8. Location…………………………………………………………….. 9. Scale…………………………………..……………………………………………………. 10. Design to Resist Ice…………………………………………………………………………. 11. Energy Storage……………………………………………………………………………… 12. Design Options………………………………………………………………………………

12.1. Wave Dragon/Overtopping Device………………………………………………..... 12.2. Oyster 800/Oscillating Wave Surge Device………………………………………... 12.3. Eco­Wave/Wave Clapper………………………………………………………….. 12.4. Point Absorber………………………………………………………... 12.5. Oscillating Water Column……………………………………………………………

13. Power Calculations………………………………………………………………………….. 14. Return on Investment (ROI) Calculations…………………………………………………..... 15. Great Lake Weather Conditions……………………………………………………………..

15.1. Icy Conditions…………………………………………………………………… 15.2. Frost and other Wear……………………………………………………………….. 15.3. Wind……………………………………………………………………………

16. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………… 17. Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………… 18. Works Cited...……………………………………………………………………………

Table of Figures Figure 1. Team Electro­Wave: Austin Juza, Ed Smit, Ryan Rhodes, and Matt Ramaker…………….. Figure 2. Structure of Senior Design…………………………………………………………... Figure 3. Availability Schedule………………………………………………………………. Figure 4. United States Energy Consumption………………………………………………………... Figure 5. Carbon Dioxide Emissions per Region (Fossil­Fuel CO2 Emissions)..................................... Figure 6. Climate Change in the United States (Global warming's impact on allergy sufferers in North America).............................................................................................................................................. Figure 7. Gantt Chart of Work Breakdown……………………………………………………… Figure 8. Michigan Underwater Preserve Areas……………………………………………... Figure 9. Effects of Cold Weather on Battery Performance………………………………………….. Figure 10. Overtopping Device………………………………………………………………………. Figure 11. Oscillating Wave Surge Device…………………………………………………………. Figure 12. Wave Clapper………………………………………………………………………….. Figure 13. Point Absorber…………………………………………………………………………. Figure 14. Oscillating Wave Column…………………………………………………………………...

1. Introduction 1.1. Team Members

Figure 1. Team Electro­Wave: Austin Juza, Ed Smit, Ryan Rhodes, and Matt Ramaker Austin Juza grew up in southwest Michigan, in the city of St. Joseph where he graduated from Lake Michigan Catholic High School. Throughout college Austin has gained working experience through several years of internships. Following freshman year, Austin worked for Whirlpool Corporation in their Cooking Technician Lab. After his sophomore and junior year, Austin worked at Donald Cook Nuclear Power Plant where he spent his time in the Nuclear Steam Supply Systems Department and in the Production Engineering Department. Austin hopes to work in the renewable energy industry with no specific area of concentration. Ed Smit grew up in northern New Jersey, in the town of Stockholm. He attended Veritas Christian Academy in Sparta, NJ, where he graduated Valedictorian. After graduation from Calvin College with a Bachelors of Science in Engineering, Ed hopes to find an engineering position in the renewable energy field. Ryan Rhodes grew up in western Michigan in the city of Zeeland, Michigan where he attended Zeeland East High School. Throughout high school, he gained manufacturing work experience through several years of work. During his Junior year of college, Ryan started his first internship at Nucraft Furniture. He worked in the engineering change request department where gained experience in both AutoCAD and Autodesk Inventor. Ryan hopes to work in the oil industry following graduation.

Matt Ramaker grew up in Grandville, MI and graduated from Calvin Christian High School. He then went on to Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI. In college, Matt worked several internships where he obtained valuable work experience. Matt worked for the Kent County Road Commission at the end of his sophomore year where he learned a lot about designing systems, specifically for road signs. After his Junior year in college, Matt worked for BrawnMixer, a growing company in the fluid mixer design business. Here, Matt learned a lot about engineering design and ethics as he worked with quoting for and assisting customers with their mixing needs. Matt hopes to continue to work in new and exciting fields as he continues his engineering career.

1.2. Team Duties Throughout the fall semester, each team member’s duties where very similar. Much of the semester required extensive and thorough research, as wave energy was a subject that no member of the team was familiar with. Further research will be required throughout the fall semester and into the spring semester to develop a well rounded and accurate economic study of wave energy converters (WECs). This research will also need to include material properties, power outputs, and other aspects towards the building of a WEC. On top of research, individual team roles were handed out in the fall semester. Austin was designated to be Team Electro­Wave’s webmaster, which means he is the owner of the website and has official access to it through Calvin IT. Ryan Rhodes was chosen to be the main point of contact. Ryan will be the team member who throughout the year will communicated to potential companies to provide the economic feasibility report to as well as communicating with the Team Electro­Wave’s consultant, Professor J.L van Niekerk. Ed and Matt, will help out with the website, provide communication between contacts, as well as continue to do extensive research and calculations.

1.3. Team Organization

Figure 2. Structure of Senior Design

Meetings are conducted normally twice a week with research topics given to be completed at a certain time. Electro­Wave agreed to hold everyone accountable to show up on time for meetings and therefore all four members are in charge for keeping up to date with the schedule. Below is a figure that was created to show what times are available for the team to meet.

Figure 3. Availability Schedule

1.4. Class Description and Purpose

Engineering 339/340, called Senior Design, is a class designed to make students focus on task specifications in light of the design norms and preliminary validation of the design by basic analysis and appropriate prototyping. Senior Design is meant to show students how to design a solution through design criteria such as the design norms and how to pick and develop the proper solution for the problem.

1.5. Project Definition

1.5.1. Purpose

Universally, fossil fuels almost always have a much higher energy return on investment (EROI) than most renewable alternatives. However, due to the depletion of resources, the EROI for fossil fuels have been on the decline. As a result of the declination of fossil fuels and the increasing difficulty of inexpensive extraction, renewable energies are becoming a viable option for energy production (Gutierrez).

Fossil fuels are a non­renewable source of energy. As seen in Figure 4, energy consumption has been continuously increasing, recessions being the only factor for reducing consumption. With the continuing upward trend of energy consumption, an energy crisis will surely be imminent if no change is made in energy production or consumption methods. Even with improved methods of oil discovery and extraction, fossil fuels are not a sustainable venture for the worlds economy.

Dr. Matthew Kuperus Heun / Running the Engine: How Energy Propels the Economy

Figure 4. United States Energy Consumption

Regardless of the state of oil supply, CO2 emissions are also becoming an issue. Since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 emissions have been increasing annually. It can be seen below in Figure 5 that most of the world has drastically increased its CO2 emissions over the past century.

Figure 5. Carbon Dioxide Emissions per Region (Fossil­Fuel CO2 Emissions)

This increase correlates perfectly to the amount of energy consumption as seen. According to the Trends in Global CO2 Emissions 2013 Report, the United States is responsible for emitting the second most amount of CO2. The United States emits 15% of the World’s total emissions behind China at 29%. While global warming has been debated for several years with no definite answer, global climate change (GCC) is the more serious issue at hand. There has been a scientific consensus that GCC is in fact occurring. Amongst other factors, CO2 emissions plays a large part in the GCC. Figure 6 depicts the change in vegetation growth over a 16 year time span.

Figure 6. Climate Change in the United States (Global warming's impact on allergy sufferers in North America) The vegetation zoning has shifted significantly north while the upper regions have decreased in size. Changing of seasonal events are also a factor of GCC. Due to the changing seasons, “our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half­billion years. We are currently experiencing the worst spate of species die­offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago”(The Extinction Crisis). This extinction is greatly reducing the amount of biodiversity in several regions of the world. This lack of biodiversity can have drastic effects on the environment, thus humans. Unless steps are taken to reduce the usage of fossil fuels, resources will be depleted and GCC will continue to worsen. This brings up the need for more sustainable energy, such as wave energy. Harnessing energy from waves could greatly reduce the need for fossil fuels, and in turn, CO2 emissions.

1.5.2. Method

1.5.2.1. Feasibility Study

Team Electro­Wave is looking at wave energy differently than most WEC companies. The main goal is to determine whether or not wave energy in the Great Lakes region will be economically feasible. To justify such a claim, standard energy production systems are to be analysed on an economic basis. Fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas are the standard for energy production worldwide, due to their relatively cheap costs on a dollar per kilowatt hour basis. Data from various locations, such as wave height and frequency, will be utilized to calculate the average power output for the desiredWEC on an annual basis. The desired WEC and all its components will be optimized to produce the greatest amount of electricity for the lowest price. Following the optimization, return on investment (ROI) calculations will be conducted in accordance to the ROI section. Lastly, an electricity production cost can be calculated on a dollar per kilowatt hour basis. This cost will then be compared to the production costs of fossil fuel plants to determine the feasibility of the WEC.

1.5.2.2. WEC Design

The WEC that will be used for the feasibility study and small scale construction will be chosen from the design options section. Following Team Electro­Wave’s industrial consultant meeting, the team will be able to determine which WEC is best suited for the Great Lakes region. Subsequently, in­depth power generation calculations will be conducted. Further analysis will take place in the form of fine element analysis (FEA) utilizing Autodesk Inventor along with stress and strain calculations. These calculations will provide Team Electro­Wave with the required material strengths necessary to construct he WEC. Materials will then be chosen to meet the required strengths for the lowest cost. Construction of the device will ensue with the aid of current WEC patents.

1.5.3. Benefit One of the main benefits of using wave power to produce energy, as opposed to using other renewable energy sources, is the reliability. Waves are a constant source of power and are more stable; wind is not

always present and solar may be blocked by cloud cover (not to mention that solar only produces power during the daylight hours). In the area of predictability, waves are just as predictable as cloud cover and wind speed/direction. Yet another benefit of the wave energy is the area of potential area of use. Water covers approximately 71% of the Earth’s surface, most of it being the oceans. This massive area could be used to harness energy, and while it could be argued that wind energy is currently being utilized offshore, the costs associated with the construction of wind farms offshore can be extremely high.

2. Design Goals

The goals that Team Electro­Wave have in mind are to provide a well detailed study that will be provided to the customer, and will show whether or not wave energy is an economically viable source of renewable energy generation. Secondly, Team Electro­Wave anticipates to construct a WEC that transfers the energy from the waves of LakeMichigan into useful electrical energy that can be stored to power an object during the final senior design presentation. 3. Design Norms

As Christian engineers Team Electro­Wave should be designing with Christian mindset. Throughout this process of planning and designing WEC technology, design norms need to be implemented that can be viewed through a Christian perspective. 3.1. Stewardship

The first and most important is the idea of stewardship. Renewable resources like solar, wind, and waves will help man to become less dependent on the non­renewable resources which will inevitable get scarcer as time continues. Using more renewable resources results in reusing the resources God has given to man, therefore using them more responsibly and creating less pollution, which is destroying the Earth the God has given to us.

3.2. Trust Team Electro­Wave wants the person or group using these WECs to be able to trust in the product and the engineering of it. It should produce power reliably and be strong enough to take on the power that is the Great Lakes.

3.3. Delightful Harmony

The concept of integrity/delightful harmony needs to be factored into the design. While the WEC should do the job it was designed for, it should not be an eyesore to those on the shore or out on the water. It must look aesthetically pleasing, creating a harmony between form and function.

4. Project Management

4.1. Schedule

Figure 7. Gantt Chart of Work Breakdown

4.2. Budget

Team Electro­Wave has a budget of $500 to use on this project. To purchase a generator for the prototype, the group expects to need somewhere between $500 to $1,000. The group plans to apply for an extra $1000 from the Eric DeGroot Engineering Fund. Other major costs will come from the materials used to construct the parts. Team Electro­Wave is currently looking into prices for generators and estimating material needs to create a budget for materials.

5. Background & Research

5.1. History of Wave Energy “The first generation of ocean energy technologies were developed over 100 years ago: the initial patents for wave­powered devices were issued in the 19th century”(Leary). By the year 1980, more than one thousand patents had been registered. It was not until the oil crisis of the 1970’s that ocean wave energy really took off.

5.2. Current Usage To date, there are 140 wave power companies in the world. Pelamis is one of the world’s largest wave energy companies and also the most advanced. It was the first company to produce electricity to the grid and to be used commercially. There is currently a large 2.25MW farm of Generation 1 Pelamis Wave Generators off the coast of Portugal. Pelamis is currently developing a Pelamis 2 generator which will constitute a 25 MW wave energy farm. The pelamis WEC is a semi­submerged cylindrical device linked together by hinged joints. This type of WECwas not considered for one of Team Electro­Wave’s designs due to the size of the converter, 100 or more meters long.

6. Federal/State Regulations and Codes

In order to install anything in any of the Great Lakes, due to the fact that the Great Lake bottomlands are owned by the State of Michigan, there are numerous state and federal regulations that need to be followed. The specific set of regulations required is different when considering nearshore construction or offshore construction, but the list of potential legal conditions, and a synopsis of each, are presented below. 6.1. The Great Lakes Submerged Lands Permit ­ Part 325 This permit, which is required when constructing anything beyond the ordinary high water mark of the Great Lakes, is submitted through the Water Resource Division (WRD) within the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). In addition to the permit application, detailed drawings and plans must be presented of the project. Lastly, an application fee is required, which must be paid at the time of submitting the application. The only other

stipulation is, if the installation is nearshore, to secure conveyances from the riparian owners with a separate “Application of Conveyance,” also provided by the MDEQ. These are persons who own property up to the ordinary high water mark of a Great Lake. Permission from these property owners, as well as from the adjacent landowners needs to be acquired using the application for conveyance.

6.2. Clean Water Act of 1972 Following this government regulation properly is to make sure that the units do not pollute the waters of the Great Lakes with harmful substances such as oil. The water quality must meet specific criteria in areas such as impact on aquatic/biological life and human health (in the areas of microbials and drinking water, as the Great Lakes are a source of drinking water).

6.3. Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 ­ Section 10 This federal act states that the construction of any obstruction within any navigable waters of the United States must be authorized by Congress. Additionally, the plans must be recommended by the Chief of Engineers (U.S. Army Corp of Engineers) and authorized by the Secretary of War. 6.4. Michigan Underwater Preserves The State of Michigan contains thirteen underwater preserves, where bottomlands are protected due to shipwrecks that bring sport divers. The waters above the sites are not affected by federal regulations, but the bottomlands and any potential permits for bottom land use (moorings) would be extremely difficult if not impossible to obtain. The areas and depths of these sites vary among the different underwater preserves. The geographical locations of the thirteen underwater preserves are pictured below in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Michigan Underwater Preserve Areas

6.5. Water­Based Renewable Energy Generation Pilot Project Permit (U.S Army Corp. of Engineers)

This permit pertains to pilot projects, defined as “an experimental project where the renewable energy generation units will be monitored to collect information on their performance and environmental effects.” These pilot projects must be a water­based renewable energy generation system.

7. Customer Selection

Team Electro­Wave, at this point, is working toward proving that this technology is viable in smaller scale applications such as in Lake Michigan. The customer then, would be major electricity suppliers such as Consumers Energy or General Electric. Team Electro­Wave could also look to focus this project to shoreline property holders as their customer if the size and power output is sufficient.

8. Location

Finding the optimal places for WEC systems is based on a few crucial factors. The first is where these WECs can be constructed from a legal standpoint, following the state and federal regulations as stated in the previous section. Secondly, the optimum location will depend upon the type of WEC chosen, and whether it is an onshore, nearshore, or offshore device. Most important, however, is the wave spectrum of the Great Lakes. This will be the main

determinant of where these WECs should be placed and in what volume, based on the energy output potential.

9. Scale

Typically, WECs are only built at a very large scale in the form of wave energy farms. Team Electro­Wave has put an emphasis on research at a smaller scale for the purposes of this project. One of the objectives of the project is to see how small of a scale will be economically feasible for customers in the Great Lake area.

10. Design to Resist Ice Damage

Currently, Team Electro­Wave has several ideas to prevent ice damage. These include saturating the water around or within some part of the structure to prevent ice formation, placing the WEC in water close enough to the center of the lake that ice formation is unlikely, or designing a mechanism to remove or submerge theWEC during the winter months when ice is most likely. The mechanism that lifts or submurges it out of the water would mean that there would be no energy generation in winter months, however, some of the favored designs would not work well with the first two options. Team Electro­Wave is actively searching out other options that would allow the WEC to continue generating electricity in icy conditions.

11. Energy Storage

The purpose of building a small scale WEC is to acquire actual power readings in the Great Lakes. For this purpose, it would not be reasonable to wire the model WEC into the power grid. A battery will be required for proper data readings and energy storage. For simple data recordings and energy storage, a car battery will suffice. A 12­Volt lead­acid base would be the ideal battery for cost and usage. Lead­acid batteries can contain a large amount of electrical energy which can be discharged very quickly. Storing the electrical energy produced from the WEC will be beneficial for several reasons. First, a steady electrical output will not be needed. The battery will be able to sit charging for a given amount of time to accumulate a charge. The time and charge readings will be able to produce a kWh reading, which is the desired piece of information for the feasibility study. Using a battery for energy storage will also allow for the bypass of wiring into the grid. For the feasibility calculations of a large scale WEC plant, battery storage will be neglected. It has been deemed ideal to have the WEC plant wired directly into the grid. This decision is appropriate due to the shear amount of WEC plants active today that also operate in the same manner. Furthermore, the excessive cold weather in the Great Lakes region would have drastic effects on battery storage, as seen in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Effects of Cold Weather on Battery Performance (Deep Cycle Battery) 12. Design Options (Alternatives) In order to construct a WEC, realistic models had to be found but needed to be efficient enough to perform a feasibility study. Taking in to account the cost, structural integrity, size, location needed, amount of information on a given WEC, efficiency, and the average power produced a design matrix was able to be constructed to weigh Team Electro­Wave’s design options.

12.1. Wave Dragon (Overtopping Device)

This specific device is know as an overtopping WEC. Waves are driven over the top of this offshore platform into a reservoir above the water level, as seen in Figure 10. These waves are then released through a number of turbines, thus creating useful electrical energy. Positive aspects for aWEC of this nature are that it is robust, only needs a low wave density, and is a rather simple design. Negative aspects for this WEC design is the size, it needs to be stationary, and high costs. Since size and cost will be a major challenge, the Wave Dragon was not deemed feasible for this project.

Figure 10. Overtopping Device

12.2. Oyster 800/Oscillating Wave Surge Surge Device

The Oyster 800 is another largeWEC. This device stretches to 26 meters wide, and is usually placed in depths around 13 meters so that it is not fully submerged. Using this partially submerged technique means that the top of the Oyster 800 will be using the greatest area of force in the waves: the surface. The Oyster 800 works by means of a wave­powered pump that pushes high pressured water to an onshore turbine approximately 500 meters away as seen in Figure 11. Positives for this device would be that there is no control box, the size of theWEC, electricity is kept out of water, and there are minimal underwater moving parts. Negatives for this type ofWECwould be the size, high installation costs, and the location where the device needs to be implements (500 meters from shore).

Figure 11. Oscillating Wave Surge Device

12.3. Eco Wave/Wave Clapper The Eco Wave is a device that is associated as being a “wave clapper.” This device is more realistic for a Senior Design team. The Eco Wave is designed to be attached to a structure directly offshore. This design converts energy by riding the waves as they fall and rise while being connected to a given structure with a robust hydraulic arm. Currently, the EcoWave claims to be cheaper than power that is produced by coal and is developing ways to produce electricity cheaper than oil, gas, wind and solar. The positive aspects for the Eco Wave device are the size, optimization already implemented, cost, accessibility, and the long life expectancies. The negative aspect for this type of device would be the amount of “wave clappers” needed to produce a significant amount of energy.

Figure 12. Wave Clapper

12.4. Point Absorber A Point Absorber is a floating device that absorbs energy through the movements at water level. This device converts the rise and fall of the buoy relative to the base into useful electrical energy. This device, as it is an offshore device, uses subsea cables to transmit power, as seen in Figure 13. This could be considered the most popular type of WEC, as it is simple, easy to implement, does not take a great amount of space, and has the potential to generate large amounts of energy from an array point absorbers.

Figure 13. Point Absorber

12.5. Oscillating Wave Column An oscillating wave column is a device that is fixed to the shore and uses the rise and fall of the waves to create pressure in an enclosed column of air. This pressure drives the air through a turbine system, creating power. One advantage to this type of system is that the major components do not come into

contact with the water, extending the life of the WEC. One negative aspect is that the system is large and must be onshore, which could potentially make it difficult to construct.

Figure 14. Oscillating Wave Column

13. Power Calculations

The energy in waves can be calculated using the formula,

a formula to calculate the energy flux per meter of waves. This shows that wave energy is largely reliant on the square of the height of the wave, Hm0. Due to this, wave height becomes the most important variable in the energy that is in the wave as well as in the energy that can be taken out of a wave. In order for energy to be taken out of the wave, there must be energy in the wave. Lake Michigan waves can get to be significantly sizeable, though not always on the scale of ocean waves. Finding a location in Lake Michigan with significant wave height will be a priority for the group.

The formula above also shows that wave energy is largely dependent on the period of the wave, Te. As the time between waves shorten, more energy will be in the wave system over a given time.

Each of the design options harvests energy based on a different part of the equation and each uses their own methods to produce energy. For an overtopping device, the energy produced from the turbine is based on the gravitational energy on the water that is in the system. This equation is based on the mass of the water flowing through the system and the height it falls before reaching the turbine. In order to collect more water, the device should be lower so that more of the wave is captured; the higher it is, the greater distance water has to fall, so it is more effective. There is an optimization involved here that can be calculated based on a string of equations that deal with the energy output and the decreasing water volume towards the top of the wave.

For a point absorber WEC and the Eco wave device, the WEC tries to harness the energy in every direction of the wave as it follows the flow of the water up, forward, down, and back. These types of WECs are dependent mostly on the height of the wave because of the way that they rely on the wave energy equation. For an oscillating water column, the driving force is the pressure generated by the water moving up with the wave and pushing the air through a turbine. This one dimensionally takes the water from the wave was it moves up and down. The height of the wave becomes the driving force in this energy generation equation.

14. Return on Investment (ROI) Calculations

Return on investment calculations will be done considering the energy return of the system with the current rate of electricity, which is about $0.12/kWh. This will be the value of the system as it is evaluated for how many kW it can produce over its lifetime. The group is fairly optimistic about this because it will run non­stop throughout the lifetime of the generator so if the initial cost is fairly low, the WEC could have a reasonable ROI. Lifetime of the part will be determined based on the chosen material of the parts, taking into account the wear of the waves, wind, sun, and frost or freezing that may occur. An Eco WaveWave Clapper, which is about 8 feet long, produces approximately 5 kW of energy. If Team Electro­Wave can make a similar WEC, scaled down for smaller waves and design inefficiencies, the customer could expect to start to see a breakeven point of about 5 years. As production costs are refined, Team Electro­Wave will get a better idea of what the break even point will be.

15. Great Lake Weather Conditions

15.1. Icy Conditions

Ice is a significant problem with using WECs in the Great Lakes, and something that needs to be taken into consideration. Depending on the WEC design chosen by the group, Team Electro­Wave believes there are a few different options available. If the design chosen is a offshore design, then it could be placed in the middle of the lake where ice does not usually occur. The problem with this option is that the farther out the WEC is from the shore, the more costly it will be to connect to the grid. Another option considered involves saturating the water in an area around the WEC. This may be a more costly choice as well, depending upon the type ofWEC chosen. The last idea is to place a bubble or membrane filled with another liquid which will not freeze but flow as the water would within the waves.

15.2. Frost and Other Wear

Another problem that arises due to weather is the wear on the structure. The design needs to be able to withstand Michigan temperatures that can range between ­40°F and 110°F. The structure also needs to be able to deal with rain, frost, and potential freezing on and around the structure. There will also be wear from being left in the

sun. This will all need to be accounted for when determining the expected lifetime of the part and the dimensions of the structure.

15.3. Wind

Wind combined with wave movement could also be a problem in terms of dislodging the structure, so proper moorings must be chosen to anchor the part in place while still producing power adequately

16. Conclusion *Will be constructed once the entire project is conducted. 17. Acknowledgements

Calvin College Engineering Department, for sponsoring the project Professor VanAntwerp, for advising the design team throughout the project Mr. Glenn Remelts, for advising the team in research Professor Matthew Heun, for renewable energy information and contact with industrial consultant

18. Works Cited

Works Cited 1. "Clean Water Act, section 404." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 9

Nov. 2014. <http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/sec404.cfm>. 2. "Decision Document Nationwide Permit 52." USACE. USACE, n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

<http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/nwp/2012/NWP_52_2012.pdf>. 3. "Deep Cycle Battery." Ujyalo Urja Solar Home System Manufacture & Distributor .

N.p., 2011. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. <http://www.ujyalourja.com.np/deep­cycle­battery/>. 4. Eco Wave Power. Eco­Wave, n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

<http://www.ecowavepower.com/about/>. 5. Elwood, David E. "Evaluation of the Performance of a Taut­Moored Dual­Body

Direct­Drive Wave Energy Converter through Numerical Modeling and Physical Testing." (2008). Print.

6. "The Extinction Crisis." Center for Biological Diversity . Ed. Noah Greenwald. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Nov. 2014. <http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/>.

7. Falcao, Antonio. "Modelling of Wave Energy Conversion." Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa(2014). Print.

8. "Fossil­Fuel CO2 Emissions." Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center . U.S. Department of Energy , n.d. Web. 8 Nov. 2014. <http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html>.

9. "Global warming's impact on allergy sufferers in North America." Climate Change

Science Digest. N.p., 16 Apr. 2010. Web. 8 Nov. 2014. <http://climatechangesciencedigest.blogspot.com/2010/04/global­warmings­impact­on­allergy.html>.

10. "Great Lakes Bottomland Conveyances." Department of Environmental Quality. DEQ,

n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. <http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7­135­3313_3677_3702­10865­­,00.html>.

11. "Great Lakes Submerged Lands Permit (Part 325)." State License Search. Michigan,

n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. <http://michigan.gov/statelicensesearch/0,1607,7­180­24786_24813­244636­­,00.html>

12. Gutierrez, Luis T. "Long­Term Strategies for Sustainable Energy." Mother Pelican: A

Journal of Sustainable Human Development 8.3 (2012). Web. 2 Nov. 2014. <http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv08n03supp3.html>.

13. Leary, David, and Miguel Esteban. "How Things Work: Ocean Energy Making

Waves." Our World. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2014. <http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/ocean­energy­making­waves>.

14. "Michigan Underwater Preserves." Department of Environmental Quality. DEQ, n.d.

Web. 9 Nov. 2014. <http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7­135­3313_3677_3701­14591­­,00.html>.

15. "Point Absorbers: The Technology and Innovations." Energy and the Environment­ A

Coastal Perspective. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. <http://coastalenergyandenvironment.web.unc.edu/ocean­energy­generating­technologies/wave­energy/point­absorbers/>.

16. "Projects: Oyster 800 Project, Orkney." Aquamarine Power. Aquamarine Power, n.d.

Web. 9 Nov. 2014. 17. Shah, Abhishek. "Wave Energy Companies,Stocks List – Wave Power Startups

Profilerating in Edinburg (UK),Oregon (USA),Ireland,Australia." Green World Investor. N.p., 10 July 2011. Web. 28 Oct. 2014. <http://www.greenworldinvestor.com/2011/07/10/wave­energy­companiesstocks­list­wave­power­startups­profilerating­in­edinburg­ukoregon­usairelandaustralia/>.

18. "Sections 9 to 20 of the Act of March 3, 1899." EPW. EPW, n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

<http://www.epw.senate.gov/rivers.pdf>.

19. "Simple and Robust Construction­ Complex Design." Wave Dragon. Wave Dragon,

n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. 20. "Wave Devices." EMEC Orkney. European Marine Energy Centre LTD, n.d. Web. 9

Nov. 2014. <http://www.emec.org.uk/marine­energy/wave­devices/>.