DEVELOPMENT OF EVOPOD TIDAL STREAM TURBINE

G C Mackie, Ocean Flow Energy Limited, UK SUMMARY The paper describes the development of a floating tethered platform for supporting a turbine which extracts energy from bi-directional tidal stream flows. The author initially describes the special environmental conditions and operational constraints for tidal stream turbines that led to the proposed design solution a semi-submerged platform connected to a spread moored midwater buoy. The proof of concept of the solution is described involving simulations and small (1/40th) scale model tests carried out at Newcastle Universitys combined wave and current flume tank. This led to the further testing of a 1/10th scale device in the real bi-directional tidal flow conditions in Strangford Narrows, Northern Ireland and preliminary findings from these trials are presented. 1. INTRODUCTION Turbines placed in the middle of the water column tend to be supported on monopiles or tripod structures. The greater height off the seabed means that significant bending moments are experienced by the support structures and proportionally greater pile diameters need to be used. Gravity bases and monopile support structures are commonly deployed for oil and gas installations in the North Sea, particularly in the shallower and less extreme environment of the Southern North Sea. However the deeper waters and more extreme wave environment of the Central and Northern North Sea and Atlantic Margins have seen the adoption of compliant moored floating platforms as providing more economically attractive solutions. A study carried out for The Carbon Trust [1] identified that the majority of the UKs tidal stream resource is in deeper waters that are exposed to Atlantic wave systems. Deeper water in this context means waters over 40m deep and not the thousands of meters of water from which oil and gas is now being recovered in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coasts of Brazil and south west Africa. Nevertheless anything over about 30m water depth is beyond the capacity of the jack-up barges currently used for the installation of pile and gravity base support structures for offshore wind and tidal turbines. If the turbine device is not rigidly fixed to the seabed then the further options available are a midwater device constrained by tension tethers or a semi-submerged or surface floating platform supported by tension tethers or catenary mooring systems. Figure 1 shows the generic options available.

The commitment of governments to reduce carbon emissions and the requirement placed on energy producers to generate a certain percentage of their output from renewable sources has led to a resurgence of interest in tidal stream and ocean current energy sources. The majority of the UKs tidal stream resource is in areas of harsh wave environment and in water depths where jack-up installation vessels will have problems operating. This paper presents the concept development of a moored floating platform for deploying a tidal stream turbine - EVOPOD - that has application to most deep water energetic tidal stream and ocean current sites. 2. 2.1 OPTIONS TURBINE OPTIONS

A number of technologies are currently being developed for recovering the kinetic energy in free flowing tidal streams and ocean currents. The majority of solutions employ a turbine that delivers torque through its shaft axis that can be coupled to a rotating generator machine. With open channel flow there is very little differential pressure head involved so turbine solutions generally employ either horizontal axis axial flow lifting surface devices or vertical axis lifting surface (Darrieus) or drag (Sevonius) devices. 2.2 FIXING / ANCHORING OPTIONS

In order to recover energy from the flow these turbines will experience a significant amount of drag which needs to be reacted against a fixed point, normally the seabed. To a degree the fixing solution is dictated by the position of the turbine in the water column. Some bottom mounted devices use gravity bases or post tensioned rock anchors to load the contact surface between the base structure and the seabed in order to use friction to resist the horizontal force. Other bottom mounted devices use piles grouted or hammered into drilled holes in the seabed to use the shear resistance of the steel piles to react the turbine horizontal forces.

Figure 1: Options for constraint of tidal stream turbines

If a submerged tethered turbine is to maintain constant elevation above the seabed it must be positively buoyant otherwise it will descend in the water column as the flow speed and horizontal drag force increases until the vertical component of the mooring line tension is balanced by the devices buoyancy force. Therefore a positively buoyant submerged device must rely on a tension tether mooring system which will impart uplift into the anchor points on the seabed. If the anchor points experience uplift then gravity and drag-in anchor solutions are ruled out and only grouted-in pile or rock anchors can be used. A floating tethered turbine on the other hand has a reserve of buoyancy (freeboard) that can come into play as the current speed increases. The change in buoyancy with submergence balances the increase in the vertical component of the mooring line tension. With this solution it is feasible to use a catenary mooring system and with such a system the load applied to the seabed anchors is always horizontal, i.e. no uplift, which permits gravity and drag-in type anchors to be used. The concept of tethering a tidal stream turbine to the seabed using a catenary mooring solution forms the subject of this investigation. 3. 3.1 THE ENVIRONMENT TIDAL STREAMS

Pentland Firth and the English Channel particularly around the Channel Islands. Good flow speeds, though not quite as strong, exist where the Atlantic meets the Irish Sea at Rathlin Head and the Mull of Galloway. Typical flows and water depths at these sites are shown in Table 1 [2]. Together these sites represent about 60% of the UKs tidal stream resource. If the UK is to exploit these areas it must develop technologies that can be installed and maintained in a tidal stream environment that is also exposed to severe wave climates. 3.2 WAVE ENVIRONMENT

Figure 2 gives expected wave conditions for the Pentland Firth area exposed to Atlantic wave systems.
% occurrence 25.000% 20.000% 15.000% 10.000% 5.000% 0.000%
0. 25 1. 25 2. 25 3. 25 4. 25 5. 25 6. 25 7. 25 8. 25 9. 25 10 .2 5 11 .2 5 12 .2 5

Hs (m)

Figure 2: Percentage occurrence of wave heights Pentland Firth Wave headings will be predominantly from the W to NW sector but occasional storms can also be expected from the N to NNE direction as shown in Figure 3.

Britain is fortunate in having some of the worlds best sites for strong tidal streams. These are formed because the phase difference between tidal elevations in the Atlantic and North Sea leads to strong flows in the channels to the north and south of our mainland, i.e. the Location Water depth (m)

V-spring (m/s)

V-neap (m/s) 2.64 2.20 2.20 2.05 1.80 1.79 1.46 1.44 1.44 2.41 1.39 1.39

Pentland Firth Areas Pentland Skerries 59 6.18 Stroma, Pentland Firth 71 5.15 Duncansby Head 65 5.15 S. Ronaldsay, Pentland Firth 58 4.89 Hoy, Pentland Firth 76 4.38 S Ronaldsay, Pentland Skerries 63 4.38 Irish Sea Areas Rathlin Sound 40 2.93 Rathlin Island 80 2.57 Mull of Galloway 80 2.57 Channel Islands Race of Alderney 39 4.38 Casquets 115 2.57 Big Russel 48 2.57 Table 1: Location of UK deep water tidal stream sites

Wave direction
0 30.00% 330 25.00% 20.00% 300 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 270 0.00% 90 60 30

240

120

210 180

150

Figure 3: Percentage occurrence of different wave headings expected in the Pentland Firth 3.3 CONSTRAINTS ON MARINE OPERATIONS

The alternative to a jack-up would be to use a floating installation vessel. For this type of vessel to maintain position it would have to deploy a mooring spread which is difficult given that the seabed in regions of strong tidal flow will be predominantly swept of all sediment cover leaving bare rock which rules out the use of conventional drag-in anchors. The alternative would be to rely on dynamic positioning to maintain station but vessels constructed for the offshore oil industry rarely experience currents greater than 1.0m/s and would have difficulty maintaining station in anything approaching the 3m/s to 4m/s flow rates where tidal devices are to be deployed. Any device that requires precise positioning such as the mating of a turbine with its pre-positioned seabed foundation will require even more benign conditions to carry out operations and such operations will only be feasible when brief periods of slack water coexist with periods of calm weather. 3.4 FLOW DECAY WITH WATER DEPTH

The marine operations involved in installing tidal stream turbines will inevitably be weather constrained. Figure 4 shows expected wave height exceedance data for the Pentland Firth.
Wave Exceedance
10% exceedance 6.00 5.00 Hs (m) 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00
ry ry e t be r ov em be D r ec em be r ch ly M ay ril gu s br ua M ar O ct o Ja n Au m be Ju n ua Ap Ju r

The horizontal speed of flow is generally assumed to decay in accordance with a 1/7th power law over the depth of the water column [2]. Therefore a horizontal axis turbine placed in a 60m deep tidal stream site with a surface current of 4.0m/s would experience the kinetic flux through a 20m diameter disc and corresponding flow rates as given in Table 2. Shaft centre below WL 15m Kinetic power flux through disc 9.00 MW Corresponding flow speed over disc

50% exceedance

Figure 4: Wave exceedance data expected for Pentland Firth Typically jack-up barges used for marine operations can only jack themselves up on their legs when the wave heights are less than 1.5m which relates to a limiting sea state with a significant wave height of about 1.0m. As Figure 4 shows, this effectively rules out marine operations involving jack-up barges for the months of September through to May in exposed areas of the Pentland Firth, even assuming that a jack-up capable of operating in water depths of 60m and resisting the drag forces associated with peak flows of 3.5m/s (7 knots) (mid flow rate between spring and neap tides) could be found. Breakdown of a turbine during the winter months would lead to significant generating down-time if it required intervention by a jack-up barge to change out components.

Surface 3.82 m/s device Midwater 30m 7.54 MW 3.60 m/s device Bottom 45m 5.54 MW 3.25 m/s mounted device Table 2: Decay in steady current flow speed with water depth As the amount of energy flowing through the turbine disc per unit time reduces with immersion this requires that a larger bottom mounted turbine would be required to generate power output equal to that generated by turbines closer to the sea surface. Alternatively the number of bottom mounted devices installed will have to be larger than the number of surface or midwater devices installed for the same tidal stream farm output. Additionally kinetic power increases with speed cubed whereas drag increases with speed squared therefore greater anchoring loads are required to constrain a device generating the same power in slower moving water.

Fe

Se

pt e

3.5

WAVE PARTICLE MOTION

Onto the steady tidal stream current must be added the oscillatory motion of the wave particles which will vary in magnitude with wave height, wave period and water depth and will also vary in direction according to the prevailing sea conditions. The decay of the peak horizontal component of wave particle velocity with water depth for different wave conditions is shown in Figure 5. In an area such as the Pentland Firth a 2.0m wave will be exceeded 50% of the time while a 4m wave will only be exceeded 10% of the time. A 10m wave is an extreme event with a one year return period.
Peak horizontal wave particle velocity
0
Distance below WL (m)

-3

-2

-1

-10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60

H=2m / T=5s H=4m / T=8s H=10m / T=12s

than 40m. Ocean current sites are generally in water depths greater than 120m. A catenary mooring connected to a subsurface buoy can be deployed using anchor handling boats that are less weather sensitive than jack-ups and in advance of hooking-up the turbine to its mooring. A floating solution can be disconnected from its moorings and removed off site for maintenance. This requires a disconnect system that is relatively sea state insensitive and can be carried out quickly during periods of slack water. A semi-submerged platform was selected in preference to a surface floating platform. The reduced motion responses of a semisubmerged platform with small waterplane area surface piercing struts lowers the risk of platform motions destroying turbine performance. DEVICE DESCRIPTION

4.2

Horizontal velocity (m/s)

The Evopod solution is illustrated in Figure 6 and described below.

Figure 5: Variation in peak wave particle velocity with wave height and water depth The circle drawn on Figure 5 shows the location of Evopods turbine. Any near-surface horizontal axis turbine operating in exposed sea areas will have to cope with fluctuations in flow with a passing wave that could be as much as 25% to 50% of the steady flow rate. An adaptive control system that can cope with wave frequency fluctuations in shaft input torque level will be able to capture some of this kinetic energy in the waves. A variable speed drive coupled to an induction generator is one possible solution as modern PWM (pulse width modulation) drives have a fast response time. 4 EVOPOD SOLUTION

Evopod is a semi-submerged, floating platform that is designed to support a turbine or turbines in a bidirectional tidal stream or a unidirectional ocean current. The device is moored off to a sub-surface buoy that is held on a geofixed location by a 4 point catenary spread mooring system. 4.1 DESIGN RATIONALE

Figure 6: Evopod with midwater buoy The required dimensions of the submerged pod were determined for a full scale 1800kW device fitted with a horizontal axis mono-turbine. The pod was sized to provide sufficient volume and length to house the gearbox, generator, inverter drive, switchgear and transformer, i.e. similar equipment to that fitted in a wind turbine nacelle. The buoyant strut layout selected consists of a single vertical strut forward and twin V-struts aft. The transverse separation of the struts provides roll damping and a hydrostatic restoring moment to resist

The rationale behind the selection of this particular solution is: A moored or tethered solution requires reasonably deep water (2.5 to 3 times turbine diameter). The majority of the UKs tidal stream energy sites are in water depths greater

the generator torque reaction. The longitudinal separation of the struts provides some pitch damping. The waterplane area was kept to a minimum but made sufficient to limit the change in draft to not more than 2.0m when subject to the change in vertical component of force from the mooring system between zero (slack water) and maximum (mid tide) flow rates. The device is moored such that it is free to yaw (weathervane) into the predominant current direction which allows the use of simple fixed pitch downstream turbine. The semi-submerged nacelle or pod has surface piercing struts so that there is sufficient reserve of buoyancy to resist vertical component of drag force reacted by the moorings. The surface piercing struts have a small waterplane area so that the motions of Evopod in waves are minimised and do not destroy the turbine performance. A semi-submerged nacelle or pod houses the turbinegenerator equipment. In the 1/10th scale device it also houses the control, instrumentation and data logging equipment. A mono-turbine is used for simplicity. The transversely separated surface piercing struts provide a righting lever to resist the heeling moment induced by the generator torque reaction from the single turbine. The device is moored off to a geo-fixed spread moored midwater buoy that is sufficiently immersed to avoid the worst of wave action and has positive buoyancy to help support the weight of the catenary mooring lines. An advantage of tethering the floating body to a midwater buoy is that the floating body maintains constant freeboard with change in tide level, adjusting only the angle of connection of its yoke to the midwater buoy. Power is exported to the seabed via an umbilical cable running from the Evopod device to the centre of the mooring buoy and from there to the seabed. The baseline concept is to use a submerged power export swivel mounted in the buoy as used in floating production platforms but an alternative solution involves deleting the swivel and fitting a transverse thruster to the device to allow the umbilical cable to be unwound at periods of slack water to avoid more than 270 degrees of rotation. 5 VALIDATION OF THE CONCEPT

Figure 7: 1/10th scale Evopod The yaw stability when subject to current eddies and fluctuating waves, wind and current forces.

A programme of numerical simulations, small (1/40th) scale model tests and 1/10th scale device trials was structured to validate the concept. The work was carried out with the support of the Regional Development Agency in the north east of England, ONE North East. The numerical modelling carried out by Ocean Flow Energy is described later. The 1/40th scale model tests were carried out by Newcastle Universitys Department of Marine Science and Technology (MAST) using initially their towing tank and then their combined wind, wave and current (WWC) flume tank. For the tests carried out in the WWC tank the wind tunnel facility was not used. While the tests were limited to unidirectional currents and could therefore not validate the ability of the device to rotate about its mooring system, they did confirm the feasibility of the semi-submerged hull geometry and the midwater buoy spread mooring solution. The success of these tests led to the construction of a 1/10th scale device (Figure 7) that is currently undergoing trials in real tidal flow conditions in Strangford Narrows, Northern Ireland adjacent to Queens Universitys Portaferry Marine Laboratory. These trials are complementary to a programme of fundamental investigations into tidal stream energy conversion being carried out by Queens University Belfast as part of the Supergen programme. A target set of parameters for a full scale device deployed at a tidal stream farm in the Pentland Firth is given in Table 3. Table 3 also shows the key particulars for the scale test devices.

While the above concept offers a potential solution to the requirement for a floating tethered turbine, a number of risk issues were identified, namely: The ability of the device to avoid being dragged under by the vertical component of the mooring line forces The ability of the device to align with the current rather than wave direction.

Full Scale (Pentland Firth) Length overall (m) Breadth across struts (m) Displacement (t) Turbine diameter (m) Rated output (kW) Rated flow speed (m/s) Average operating sea state Survival sea state 21.5 13.7 375,000 15.0 1800 4.0 Hs = 3m Tz = 8s

1/10th Scale (Strangford Narrows) 2.15 1.37 375 1.5 0.57 1.26 Hs = 0.3m Tz = 2.5s

1/40th Scale (Newcastle University test tank) 0.538 0.343 5.86 0.375 0.004 0.63 Hs = 0.075m Tz = 1.26s Hs = 0.35m Tz = 2.21s

Hs = 14m Hs =1.4m Tz = 14s Tz = 4.43s Table 3: Evopod key parameters

5.1

NUMERICAL MODELLING

Newcastle Universitys WWC tank can only create an environment where waves are in line with the current. A risk area with the concept of a swing moored device is that when waves are not aligned with current the device heading will deviate from alignment with the current vector to the detriment of power capture performance. A programme of simulation work was identified to address this issue using the OrcaFlex package. OrcaFlex is a marine dynamics simulation program developed by Orcina for the static and dynamic analysis of flexible pipeline and cable systems in an offshore marine environment. It is a fully 3D non-linear time domain finite element program and is eminently suitable for modelling the loads and excursions of a catenary mooring system. It can also be used to generate applied forces on the mooring system from Evopod and its midwater buoy. The submerged pod is represented in OrcaFlex as a cylindrical towed body and the turbine as a disc with an appropriate drag coefficient. The vertical surface piercing struts are represented as pipe elements to give the correct weight, buoyancy and waterplane area but with zero drag properties. OrcaFlex has the facility to add wing sections to the struts so that the correct lift and drag forces are applied to the device according to the angle of incidence to the combined current and wave particle velocity. The lift, drag and moment coefficients for the struts were derived using the Java-Foil fluid dynamics package. The hydrodynamic loads on the pod are calculated using Morisons equation which is acceptable for a body that is small in relation to the applied wave length.

Modelling the floating body and its mooring system in OrcaFlex when subject to seas (Sea State 6 which is only exceeded for 10% of the time at the Pentland Firth site) at right angles to the tidal flow demonstrates that the device aligns with the current direction even as the flow speed decays. Evopod follows, though lags, the change in flow direction as the tide changes from flood to ebb. For this full scale model simulation the heading lag is corrected after about 10 seconds.
Evopod heading prediction in beam seas with tidal direction change
200 150 100 50 0 0 100 200 300
Time (sec)

Evopod resiprocal heading Flow direction

Flow speed x 40

Figure 8: Analysis of Evopod heading in beam seas An appropriate turbine blade geometry was selected for fitting to the physical models in order to apply the correct drag to the mooring system. The drag force is fairly constant over the range of operating turbine speeds but falls off rapidly if the blade has stalled so it is important to avoid stall when developing the load control system. WT_Perf software made publically available by NWTC (USAs National Wind Technology Centre) was used to estimate blade efficiency and turbine performance in order to select an appropriate gearbox and generator for the 1kW 1/10th scale device. WT_Perf uses blade-element momentum theory to predict the performance of wind turbines and is a descendent of the PROP code originally developed by Oregon State University. Typical performance

curves for the 1/10th scale turbine are shown in Figure 9. It is noted that the turbine drag reduces to about 80% of its peak value when operating at its point of peak efficiency. This equates to a form drag coefficient for a disc equal to the swept area of the turbine of about 0.8.
Turbine performance curves
1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 50 RPM 100 150 Power (W) Drag (N) Torque x 10 (Nm)

An optical tracking system was fitted to the model in the WWC tank in order to measure first order motion responses. Figure 11 compares the measured heave response with that computed using a simple strip theory model developed by Ocean Flow Energy. The peak heave response at 14 seconds is well removed from average operating sea conditions but would coincide with extreme events which may be an issue in terms of vertical loads imparted into the midwater buoy through the yoke connection.
Heave RAO
1.40 1.20 1.00 RAO (m/m) 0.80 0.60 0.40 Strip theory Model Tests

Figure 9: WT_Perf turbine performance curves 5.2 1/40th SCALE TESTS

0.20 0.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00

The key objective of these tests which were carried out by MAST was to confirm viability of the concept and to firm up on the turbine drag properties used in the OrcaFlex model. The 1/40th scale model was fitted with an electromagnetic brake that generated a resistive torque when an electrical current was applied. By measuring the turbine speed of rotation and combining this with the applied resistive torque it was possible to find the shaft power generated by the scale turbine. By adjusting the applied electrical current it was possible to home in on the optimum power operating point for the small turbine. Drag measurements were made with the device pulled along by a carriage in the Universitys towing tank and repeated with the device held in position by its mooring system in the flume tank (with and without waves). Figure 10 shows a plot of the drag forces in the WWC tank and clearly demonstrates the much reduced drag on the system when the turbine is in stall mode.
35

Period (sec)

Figure 11: Heave motion response of Evopod 5.3 1/10th SCALE TRIALS

Drag force in WWC tank

Flat water With Waves Turbine Stalled Trend line for With Wave Trend line for still water

While the 1/40th scale tests confirmed the results obtained from OrcaFlex that the model was stable and was not dragged under by the mooring forces the unidirectional flow in the WWC tank did not allow understanding of the ability of Evopod to swing around its geofixed mooring system as the tide direction changes. This would require placing the device in real tidal flow conditions all be it at a scale flow rate. A suitable site for carrying out affordable 1/10th scale trials was identified as Strangford Narrows. While the flow in the deepest part of the Narrows can peak at 4.5m/s as you move inshore the flow rate reduces and a site near the Portaferry Marine Laboratory in 6m water depth (mean tide level) where the flow peaks at 1.5m/s was identified. The 1/10th scale Evopod was constructed in steel and fitted out with a comprehensive instrumentation package by NaREC (New and Renewable Energy Centre) at Blyth, Northumberland. Figure 12 shows Evopod operating at the Portaferry site.

30

25 Drag Force (N)

20

15

10

0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Velocity (m/s) 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Figure 10: Total drag force on Evopod

Figure 12: 1/10th scale Evopod in Strangford Narrows

The Portaferry site is exposed to waves from the NW and SE directions generated over a reasonable fetch and will provide scale sea conditions. On parameter that has not scaled correctly is tidal range. This is of the same absolute value at Portaferry as it would be for a full scale device in the Pentland Firth. At the Portaferry site the tidal range of 3.5m is equal to more than half the mean water depth of 6.0m. Nevertheless the mooring system works successfully though with greater variation in the excursions and submergence of the midwater buoy. Figure 13 shows the measured flow characteristics at the test site during a period of neap tides. This shows that at the Portaferry site the flood flow is more consistent than the ebb flow and the duration of the flood tide is longer than the duration of the ebb tide. Surveys carried out at other potential tidal stream sites have revealed that the real flow conditions frequently deviate from theoretical sinusoidal tidal flow assumption. The flow vectors are fairly consistent in heading during the flood and ebb periods and Evopod was found to maintain a reasonably consistent alignment to the flow. However there is some evidence of a yaw oscillation with a period of about 2 seconds and amplitude of about 5 degrees (see Figure 14). Future trials will provide measurement of the wave excitation that may

be present during the trials and which might be causing the yaw motion. Another possible cause is the coupled roll and yaw motion linked to the changing heel angle of the device as it counteracts the generator torque reaction. However Figure 14 overlays the power generation curve on the plot of heading angle and there does not appear to be any link between power fluctuations driven by unsteady flow conditions and heading angle.
1/10th scale unit trials data
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 16 18 20 Time (sec) 22 Head (deg) Shaft Power (W)

Figure 14: Yaw motion of 1/10th scale Evopod

Figure 13: Sample tidal stream flow data at Portaferry site

6.

CONCLUSIONS

A high percentage of the strongest tidal stream sites around the UK coast are in areas of relatively deep water exposed to harsh wave climates. Novel solutions requiring installation and maintenance techniques that can cope with moderately deep water and harsh weather conditions are needed to exploit this resource. The 1/40th scale model tests carried out in Newcastle Universitys WWC flume tank provided confirmation that Evopods semi-submerged floating platform connected to its midwater buoy mooring could cope with the high drag forces developed by the tidal turbine. The OrcaFlex numerical modelling tool can provide useful performance analysis of a floating tethered tidal turbine in non-aligned wave and current conditions. The analysis indicated that Evopods strut and turbine geometry ensures that it aligns with the predominant current direction even when exposed to beam seas. 1/10th scale device trials can help to de-risk full scale prototype tests for a fraction of the cost provided that a suitable scale environment can be found. Such an environment exists at the Strangford Narrows. While the 1/10th scale trials are still ongoing, the results to date (October 2008) have demonstrated the yaw stability of Evopod under real tidal flow conditions. The trials have also demonstrated that the device can safely weathervane about its mooring system as the tide direction changes. 7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank the support provided by ONE North East, Newcastle University and Queens University Belfast. 8. REFERENCES

1. BLACK & VEATCH, Phase II UK Tidal Stream Energy Resource Assessment, The Carbon Trust, 2005. 2. BRYDEN, I.G., COUCH, S.J., OWEN, A., MELVILLE, G., Tidal Current Resource Assessment, Proceedings of the I MECH E, April 2006. 9. AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY

Graeme Mackie holds the current position of Managing Director at Ocean Flow Energy Limited. His previous experience includes managing the design process on a number of FPSO projects and supporting wave energy companies in the development of model scale and full scale prototypes.