Three individual wave power generation technologies were studied and evaluated using multicriteria decision analysis through the use of the PROMETHEE method. To evaluate the three technologies, data were collected from previously performed experimental testing on the performance of each wave power generation technology. These data were used to feed into seven different criteria; namely the capacity factor, rated power, capital cost, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, cost of electricity (COE) for a 10 year payback, maturity, and survivability. The associated data and criteria were used to determine the optimal technology. The results from the Decision Lab modeling ranked the Wave Dragon, AquaBuOY, and Pelamis technologies as 1, 2, and 3, respectively, for all three locations: Tofino/Ucluelet, Hibernia Oil Platform, and St. John's, Newfoundland. A sensitivity analysis of the threshold values determined for the baseline modeling indicated that the original ranking was essentially unaffected when the threshold values were modified (increased and decreased). The weights of the criterion were individually adjusted to evaluate any change in ranking order. A sizable increase in weighting of greater than 40% of any one criterion (while the others were weighed equally) resulted in a change of the overall ranking order of the three technologies. Final weightings on each of the criterion were assigned with preference on rated power, COE, and maturity stage. All other criteria were weighted equally and like the baseline modeling output, the results of the model ranked Wave Dragon, AquaBuOY, and Pelamis from most favorable to least favorable for all three of the locations analyzed.

References

References
1.
Dalton
,
G. J.
,
Alcorn
,
R.
, and
Lewis
,
T.
,
2010
, “
Case Study Feasibility Analysis of the Pelamis Wave Energy Convertor in Ireland, Portugal and North America
,”
Renew. Energy
,
35
, pp.
443
455
.10.1016/j.renene.2009.07.003
2.
Dunnett
,
D.
, and
Wallace
,
J. S.
,
2009
, “
Electricity Generation From Wave Power in Canada
,”
Renew. Energy
,
34
(
1
), pp.
179
195
.10.1016/j.renene.2008.04.034
3.
Koola
,
P. M.
,
Ravindran
,
M.
, and
Guenther
,
D. A.
,
1994
, “
Studies on the Relative Performance of Three Oscillating Water Column Wave Energy Devices
,”
ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol.
,
116
, pp.
287
289
.10.1115/1.2906455
4.
Brown
,
D. G.
,
Jones
,
D.
, and
Aswathanarayana
,
P. A.
,
1979
, “
Power Extraction From Ocean Surfaces Waves
,”
ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol.
,
101
, pp.
141
144
.10.1115/1.3446904
5.
Burdette
,
E. L.
, and
Gordon
,
C. K.
,
1983
, “
Available Ocean Wave Power and Prediction of Power Extracted by a Contouring Raft Conversion System
,”
ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol.
,
105
, pp.
492
498
.10.1115/1.3230961
6.
Beyene
,
A.
, and
Wilson
,
J. H.
,
2007
, “
Digital Mapping of California Wave Energy Resource
,”
Int. J. Energy Resour.
,
31
, pp.
1156
1168
.10.1002/er.1326
7.
Beatty
,
S. J.
,
Wild
,
P.
, and
Buckham
,
B. J.
,
2010
, “
Integration of a Wave Energy Converter into the Electricity Supply of a Remote Alaskan Island
,”
Renew. Energy
,
35
, pp.
1203
1213
.10.1016/j.renene.2009.11.040
8.
McGowin
,
C.
,
2005
, “
Ocean Tidal and Wave Energy: Renewable Energy Technical Assessment Guide
,” Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Paper No. TAG-RE: 2005.
9.
Baz
,
A.
,
Ezz
,
M.
, and
Bayoumi
,
M. S.
,
1979
, “
Optimization of Power Absorption From Sea Waves
,”
ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol.
,
101
, pp.
145
152
.10.1115/1.3446905
10.
Mohamadabadi
,
H.
,
Tichkowsky
,
G.
, and
Kumar
,
A.
,
2008
, “
Development of a Multi-Criteria Assessment Model for Ranking of Renewable and Non-Renewable Transportation Fuel Vehicles
,”
Energy
,
36
, pp.
112
125
.10.1016/j.energy.2008.09.004
11.
Brans
,
J. P.
, and
Vincke
,
P.
,
1985
, “
A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making
,”
Manage. Sci.
,
31
(
6
), pp.
647
656
.10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647
12.
Brans
,
J. P.
,
Vincke
,
P.
, and
Mareschal
,
B.
,
1986
, “
How to Select and How to Rank Projects: The PROMETHEE Method
,”
Eur. J. Oper. Res.
,
24
(
2
), pp.
228
238
.10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5
13.
Visual Decision Inc.
,
2004
,
Getting Started Guide
, Executive edition Decision Lab 2000, Visual Decision Inc., Montreal, Quebec.
14.
Kumar
,
A.
,
Sokhansanj
,
S.
, and
Flynn
,
P.
,
2006
, “
Development of a Multicriteria Assessment Model for Ranking Biomass Feedstock Collection and Transportation Systems
,”
Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.
,
129–132
(
1–3
), pp.
71
87
.10.1385/ABAB:129:1:71
15.
Le Teno
,
J. F.
, and
Mareschal
,
B.
,
1998
, “
An Interval Version of PROMETHEE for the Comparison of Building Products' Design With Ill-Defined Data on Environmental Quality
,”
Eur. J. Oper. Res.
,
109
(
2
), pp.
522
529
.10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00074-5
16.
Visual Decision Inc.
,
2004
, Decision Lab 2000, Visual Decision Inc., Montreal, Quebec, http://www.visualdecision.com.
17.
Holmes
,
B.
, and
Barrett
,
S.
,
2009
, “
State of the Art Analysis. HMRC Internal Report for Waveplam
,” http://www.waveplam.eu/files/downloads/SoA.pdf.
18.
Sheng
,
W.
, and
Lewis
,
A.
,
2012
, “
Assessment of Wave Energy From Seas: Numerical Validation
,”
ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol.
,
134
, p.
041701
.10.1115/1.4007193
You do not currently have access to this content.