Sustainable energy from water: a
technological
potential
Groningen, 4 December 2009 Author: Robin E. Student number: S1664131 Email: robingeijer@versatel.nlPlease consider the environment before printing this thesis or by printing this thesis on recycled paper
energy from water: a
technological perspective on the Dutch
Geijer S1664131
robingeijer@versatel.nl
Please consider the environment before printing this thesis or by printing this thesis on recycled paper
energy from water: a
perspective on the Dutch
Sustainable energy from water: a
technological perspective on the Dutch
potential
Groningen, 4 December 2009
Author: Robin E. Geijer
Student number: S1664131
Email: robingeijer@versatel.nl
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business MSc. Technology Management
University supervisors
Assessor: Dr. L. Zhang
Co-assessor Prof. dr. H.C. Moll
Company supervisors Ir. R. Mom
Ir. G.J. Steendam
December ’09 III
Executive summary (English)
In this research has been attempted to answer de question which technologies to generate
sustainable energy from water has the highest potential in an area. In this research the Netherlands has been taken as a starting point and the following categories of technologies have been
investigated:
1. Energy from currents; 2. Energy from waves; 3. Energy from osmosis;
For the analysis of the technologies a model has been developed based on dominant design theory and with this model the potential of the technologies has been determined. The model scored the technologies on for categories: external conditions, technological factors, non-technological factors, and complementary assets. The weights of this categories are respectively 10%, 40%, 30% en 20%. A second model has been developed, which should be used to select an appropriate location to implement a technology. This method is comprised of four steps:
1. Problem definition;
2. Search for alternatives and selection criteria; 3. Evaluation of alternatives;
4. Selection of alternatives.
This model should take 15 attributes into account that come from the model which was developed to evaluate the technologies. The application of this model can be twofold: given a technology a
location can be selected with this model, but the other way around the MCDM method can select the technology that has the highest potential for a given location.
For the evaluation of the technologies 46 technologies have been selected. This selection is based on the stage of development: the development has to be close to commercial application or the design of the technology is very special and a high potential can be expected. The result of the evaluation of the technologies is that a Dutch innovation, the Tocardo, has the highest chance to become the dominant design and thus has the highest potential in the Netherlands. Another result is that there are mainly technologies that extract energy from currents in the top of the evaluation.
When a technology will be implemented in an area, the following subjects should get attention: LifeCycle analysis, economical concerns, environmental concerns, societal concerns, and installation concerns.
For the selection of an area knowledge about the following subjects is needed: data gathering methods, and more general knowledge about the source, water.
In conclusion, from a sensitivity analysis is found that the model seems to function properly.
Nevertheless, further validation is strongly recommended through a case study. In this case study the developed models should be proven by applying them in a real life situation to confirm the
functionality and define improvements.
December ’09 IV
Managementsamenvatting (Nederlands)
In dit onderzoek is getracht een antwoord te vinden op de vraag welke technologieën om duurzaam energie uit water te winnen veel potentieel hebben in een gebied. In dit onderzoek is in het
algemeen gekeken naar het gebied Nederland en daarbij zijn de volgende categorieën technologieën onderzocht:
• Energie uit stromend water; • Energie uit golven;
• Energie uit osmose.
Voor de analyse van de technologieën is op basis van de dominant design theorie een model opgesteld. Aan de hand van dit model is het potentieel van de verscheidene beschikbare
technologieën getoetst. Deze toetsing vindt plaats op basis van de volgende categorieën: externe condities, technologische factoren, niet-technologische factoren en aanvullende eigenschappen. De weging van die categorieën zijn respectievelijk 10%, 40%, 30% en 20%.
Daarnaast is een model ontwikkeld waarmee een geschikte locatie gezocht kan worden om een technologie te implementeren. Deze methode gaat uit van vier stappen:
1. Probleem definitie;
2. Zoeken naar alternatieven en selectiecriteria; 3. Evaluatie van alternatieven;
4. Selectie van alternatieven.
Dit model houdt rekening met 15 attributen uit het model wat is opgesteld om de technologieën te evalueren. Dit model kan tweeledig toegepast worden; als eerste kan een locatie bij een technologie worden gezocht, en ten tweede kan een technologie worden geselecteerd die het meeste potentieel in een locatie heeft.
Voor de analyse van alle technologieën zijn 46 technologieën geselecteerd voor analyse. Deze selectie is gebaseerd op de huidige voortgang van ontwikkeling: deze moet bijna commercieel geëxploiteerd kunnen worden of het ontwerp moet zeer bijzonder zijn waarbij een hoog potentieel valt te verwachten. Het resultaat van de analyse van de technologieën is dat een Nederlandse ontwikkeling, de Tocardo, de grootste kans heeft om het dominante design te worden en heeft daarmee het meeste potentieel in Nederland. Daarnaast zijn het voornamelijk
stromingsgeoriënteerde technologieën die in de top van de analyse terug te vinden zijn. Bij het implementeren van een technologie in een gebied moet aan de volgende onderwerpen aandacht besteedt worden: LifeCycle analyse, economische overwegingen, milieutechnische overwegingen, maatschappelijke overwegingen en installatie overwegingen.
Voor het selecteren van een locatie is, naast een model, kennis over de volgende onderwerpen benodigd: data verzamelingmethoden en generalistische kennis over de bron, water.
Concluderend aan de hand van een gevoeligheidsanalyse kan gesteld worden dat het model goed lijkt te werken. Toch wordt zeer sterk aanbevolen om een case studie uit te voeren waarbij de ontwikkelde modellen in de praktijk worden getest om de werking te bevestiging en eventuele verbeteringen te kunnen bepalen.
December ’09 V
Preface
Dear reader,
Before you lays a thesis that is special to me. This thesis marks the end of more than seven years studying, four years in The Hague and more than three years in Groningen. The last three years in Groningen were to me a perfect representation of how a student life should be: you start as a green freshman and live throughout the year with lots of beers and strange experiences and you’ll end up with a MSc grade and a girlfriend at the end of your student days. Thanks to everybody who made this great time possible!
I would like to say some special gratitude to Ms. Zhang and Mr. Moll for their feedback and patience with me. Also I would like to thank the employees, and especially Roy and Gosse Jan, from Infram for the pleasant Inframdays and the great trip to Hilversum. And more important, making it possible for me to graduate with this company on this nice subject. Further I would like to thank my in-law parents for lending me their redundant car and therewith made it possible for me to graduate with Infram. Off course I would like to thank my own parents for supporting me the many years I was a pain in the neck and when I was finally living independent, for still being a pain in the neck. And last but not least I would like to think my girlfriend for loving me the way I am and supporting me through the nice times, but also through tougher times.
Well, that’s enough for the emotional part. Now it is time for you, the reader, to struggle through this thesis!
Have fun!
December ’09 VI
Table of Contents
Executive summary (English) ... III Managementsamenvatting (Nederlands) ... IV Preface ... V 1 Introduction ... 9 1.1 Project environment... 10 1.2 Research objective ... 11 1.3 Problem statement ... 11 1.4 Research questions... 11 1.5 Report organization ... 11 2 Background concepts ... 12 2.1 Sustainability ... 12 2.2 Technology ... 12 2.2.1 Technology lifecycle ... 13 2.2.2 Lifecycle stages ... 13 2.3 Dominant design ... 14 2.4 GIS ... 16
2.5 Energy from water ... 16
2.5.1 Energy from currents ... 17
2.5.2 Energy from waves ... 18
2.5.3 Energy from salinity gradient: osmosis ... 19
2.5.4 Energy from the earth: geothermal ... 20
2.5.5 Energy from temperature differential: Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion ... 22
3 Research design ... 24
3.1 Research scope ... 24
3.2 Conceptual model ... 24
3.3 Research methodology ... 25
4 Model development ... 26
4.1 Dominant design model ... 26
4.1.1 External conditions ... 27
4.1.2 Technological forces ... 28
4.1.3 Non-technological forces... 30
December ’09 VII
4.2 Dominant design model relationships ... 34
4.3 Location selection method ... 35
5 Energy generating technologies investigation ... 39
5.1 Unit of analysis ... 39
5.2 Granularity of analysis ... 39
5.3 Temporal sequencing ... 39
5.4 Causal mechanisms ... 40
5.5 Technologies evaluation ... 42
6 Technology implementation issues ... 45
6.1 Lifecycle analysis ... 45
6.2 Competing uses of natural resources ... 45
6.3 Economical concerns (Profit)... 47
6.3.1 Business case calculations ... 47
6.3.2 Learning effect ... 49
6.4 Environmental concerns (Planet) ... 49
6.5 Societal concerns (People) ... 51
6.6 Installation concerns ... 52
7 Location selection ... 55
7.1 Data gathering methods ... 56
7.2 General directions ... 58
8 Conclusion and discussion ... 64
8.1 Conclusion ... 64
8.2 Limitations ... 66
8.3 Suggestions for further research ... 67
Bibliography ... 68
December ’09 8
List of appendices
Appendix 1 Types of turbines ... 77
Appendix 2 Technology hierarchy tree ... 78
Appendix 3 Technologies investigated ... 79
Appendix 4 Data for the investigation of the technologies ... 96
Appendix 5 Energy generating technologies ranking ... 97
December ’09 9
1
Introduction
“Who aims to high, overshoots its target.” Verschuren & Doorewaard (2007, p. 31)
By the year 2050 even the most conservative estimates predict that the world’s energy requirements will more than double (World Energy Council, 1995). As populations grow, many faster than the average 2%, the need for more and more energy is exacerbated. Enhanced lifestyle and energy demand rise together and the wealthy industrialized economies which contain 25% of the world’s population consume 75% of the world’s energy supply (Fells, 1990). Energy is a prerequisite to economic stability and supplying it to the developed and developing world at an affordable cost can become problematic. Basic facilities will not be accessible for large parts of the world population with existing energy scenarios. These scenarios are hampered by political motives (Pandit, Holzwarth, & de Groot, 2008) as well as environmental concerns (Jacobsson & Johnson, 2000; Dincer, 2000). Political motives originate to the traditional system wherein energy supply depends on import from politically unstable regions with few and vulnerable supply routes. Market power is shifting away towards the countries in these regions, thus making fossil fuel innovations insecure for other countries. Environmental concerns include the emission of greenhouse gasses as a source of global climate warming, ozone depletion and acidification.
The need for new sustainable energy technologies is apparent. However, the total energy market is much too large for even radical changes in the rate of diffusion of new, and still marginal, energy solutions to be noticed. A fast diffusion as now seem to happen (Jacobsson & Johnson, 2000) will help to install small energy generation units as the price/performance ratio raises, which all together can generate a substantial part of the total energy demand of a country (Wehnert, et al., 2007). To be able to rely fully on sustainable energy, disruptive innovations will be necessary (Pandit,
Holzwarth, & de Groot, 2008). Tidd et al. (2005) assert that the need for sustainability offers discontinuous conditions and Tushman and Anderson (1986) state that discontinuities have important effects on environmental conditions. Despite having difficulties and challenges, the research and development on sustainable energy resources and technologies has been expanded during the past two decades.
December ’09 10 systems is competing with each other, without it being clear which will be the final winner
(International Energy Agency, Annual report 2008). Research in this direction is abundant. Several authors have taken an (technology) innovation system approach for evaluation (Lente, Hekkert, Smits, & Waveren, 2003; Jacobsson & Johnson, 2000; Otto, 2009). The necessity of an evaluation of technologies is recognized (The Carbon Trust, 2006) and in some case studies a first step is made by selecting the data, although no analysis or conclusion is done (Bedard, Previsic, Siddiqui, Hagerman, & Robinson, 2005). An integral evaluation of technology, implementation concerns and site selection requirements is also absent. Literature (Khan, Iqbal, & Quaicoe, 2008) as well as interviewees
(Hoeksema, 2009; Mom, 2009) have confirmed this absence and stress the importance of this integral evaluation. For Infram it is important to gain knowledge which technology design will be converged upon and therewith still being available in the future.
The Netherlands, as part of the European Union (EU), has the ambition to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels. Therefore a target of a 20% share of sustainable energy use is envisioned for the year 2020. The present share is only 3.4% (year 2008). With this percentage it is far lower than the EU average of 6.8%. The target for the Netherlands is ambitious and a steep development curve has to be adopted to achieve the target (Figure 1). Within the European Union the Netherlands is in the region of the 5 worst performing countries. In the World Climate Change Performance Index of 2009 the Netherlands is at the 33th place, lower than countries like India and Brazil.
Figure 1: Sustainable energy in the Netherlands (source: CBS).
1.1
Project environment
This research is performed under the authority of Infram b.v. (further Infram), which is an independent consultancy company in the field of management and maintenance of civil
infrastructure. The mission of Infram is (translated from Dutch): “contribute to a sustainable living environment by being a co-frontrunner in new developments”. Infram has about 40 to 45 employees divided over different areas of attention. The student conducting this research is working together with the area of water (defense) management.
0 5 10 15 20 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 P e rc e n ta g e s u st a in a b le e n e rg y o f th e t o ta l e n e rg y s u p p ly Year
Sustainable energy in the
Netherlands (1990-2020)
December ’09 11
1.2
Research objective
Infram is looking for ways to combine their knowledge and skills with sustainability. The goal of this research is to define criteria and use these to assess different technologies to generate energy from water in a certain area. The location of research will be the Netherlands in general. Five main streams in technologies that have to be acknowledged because of their potential are:
1. Kinetic energy from water movement in the form of currents; 2. Kinetic energy from water movement in the form of waves; 3. Energy from salinity gradients: osmosis;
4. Energy from the earth: geothermal energy;
5. Energy from temperature differential: Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC).
The potential of these technologies is acknowledged by governmental institutions (see paragraph 2.5), but the latter two categories will be discarded due to reasons explained in paragraph 3.1. With the knowledge of the technologies, Infram should be able to use a Geographic Information System (GIS) to advise on the location of application of a technology.
1.3
Problem statement
There are several technologies that can generate energy from water. Infram wants to apply these technologies in their current work of consulting on integral spatial development and combine this with their knowledge about water management, water defenses, spatial planning and the earth surface from their remote sensing techniques and application in GIS. The multitude of technologies makes it difficult to assess the potential and no single report or standard is available. Also an appropriate framework and method to select a location is not present.
1.4
Research questions
The following research question can be constructed following the problem statement:
“Which technologies, to generate energy from water, have high potential in a certain area?” To help answer the main research question several sub questions will be used:
• Which concept can be used to determine the potential of a technology and how can the potential be measured?
• How can GIS be used to match a location and a technology?
• Which technology or technologies will likely become the dominant design, thus have high potential?
• Which implementation concerns influence the potential of a location?
• Which details associated with the matching of a technology and a location are relevant?
1.5
Report organization
This thesis is structured as following: in the following chapter the main concepts that are used in this thesis are introduced and elaborated. In Chapter 3 the research design and methodology is
December ’09 12
2
Background concepts
“Centuries are needed to destroy a popular conception” Voltaire (1694-1778), French writer and philosopher
In this chapter the main concepts as introduced in the previous chapters will be elaborated. First the concept of sustainability will be discussed briefly, followed by an introduction of the concept of technology and an elaboration of the concept dominant design. The concept Geographical Information Systems (GIS) is introduced, followed by an elaboration of energy from water.
2.1
Sustainability
There are a lot of different definitions and ideas about sustainability, but the one in the report “Our common future”, presented by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in 1987, is until today one of the internationally most accepted ones (Kates, Parris, & Leiserowitz, 2005): “Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable, to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The WCED managed to put the environmental aspect on the agenda, besides the common known economical factor, through publishing their report.
A popular conceptualization and reporting method for sustainability is the triple bottom line (Brown, Dillard, & Marshall, 2006). The triple bottom line is expressed as minimal levels of performance on profit, people and planet, often abbreviated as triple-P or 3-P’s, and often attributed to Elkington
(1999; 2004). An alternative is economic, environmental and social (Hart, Milstein, & Caggiano, 2003). By using the triple bottom line the success of a company is not just measured by the traditional financial performance, but as well with its social and environmental performance. Companies have a lot of different stakeholders like employees, shareholders, customers and local communities all with their own different needs. According to Keeble (2003), stakeholders are becoming more demanding for non financial information, like:
• Investors are looking for evidence for good corporate governance;
• Customers are asking about the origins of products, who made them and what they contain; • Employees are looking to work for company’s who take their responsibility according to the
society and the environment;
• Government and civil society are increasingly placing pressure on business to report on social and environmental performance.
Some argue that triple-P reporting and measuring is no more than enhancing the organizations public image (Schilizzi, 2002), while others see it as a way of showing engagement in environmental and social responsibility (Cheney, 2004). This does not matter if all companies strive to score the best, or to be “profitable” on all the P’s, all stakeholders should benefit.
2.2
Technology
December ’09 13 that technology is the knowledge, capabilities, products, processes, tools and systems used in the creation of goods or in the provision of services. This is supported by other literature (Dodgson, Gann, & Salter, 2008).
The impetus for technology modification or revolution, i.e. innovation, is often the improvement of cost and performance and driven by a changing market or political forces (Stoddard, 1996). The diffusion of sustainable energy technologies has so far essentially been driven by environmental factors and policy interventions and takes place in a context of general deregulation and
internationalization of the sector (Jacobsson & Johnson, 2000). Sustainability can offer technological discontinuities (Tidd, Bessant, & Pavitt, 2005).
2.2.1 Technology lifecycle
Every technology has a lifecycle. A life cycle of a technology is described in terms of the s-curve of technological progress (Tidd, Bessant, & Pavitt, 2005; White & Bruton, 2007; Rogers, 1995; Hall, 2006). A s-curve refers to the pattern the development of a technology experiences: the slow buildup as it takes time to get an idea of the ground, then increasing growth, and finally a slowdown of diminishing returns. In a two paper series, Christensen concludes in his first paper (1992a) that curves exists in component technology developments and that there are limitations for the use of s-curves for this purpose. He also suggests in this first paper that there are s-s-curves in predictions on architectural technologies. He confirms this in his second paper (1992b) and states that s-curves can provide important perspectives on what is happening in terms of performance trajectories on aggregated levels. It is found that on the architectural level the functionality of a product or process is redefined, is initially deployed in a new or remote market segment and eventually invades established market segments after reaching a level of commercial scale and maturity in the initial market. Different architectural technologies can follow-up or replace each other in time, thus phasing out the previous and inferior technology. Anderson & Tushman (1990) define this as a cycle of technological change with the stages variation, selection and retention with technological discontinuities and dominant designs as the key points in this cycle.
2.2.2 Lifecycle stages
A typical progression of the development of a technology is given by Stoddard (1996). He divided this progression in stages (in order of progression):
1. Technology conceptualization; 2. Bench scale tests;
3. Proces development unit; 4. Pilot plant;
5. Demonstration plant; 6. Commercial plant.
Every technology usually passes through every stage and proceeds to a next stage when proven successful. When proven unsuccessful in a stage, a technology could be cycling back and forth
between two stages until proven successful and is allowed to proceed to a new stage. Demonstration scale plants are often only economically viable with a subsidy and operate for many years.
December ’09 14 progress from concept-only to deployment of a long-term prototype. The model by Stoddard does not envision the adoption and diffusion of the technology.
Schumpeter (1942) divides the process of technological change in three stages, namely invention, innovation and diffusion. These stages are alike the stages defined by Anderson and Tushman (1990), who called them variation, selection and retention, though from a different point of view. The invention stage involves the conception and generation of new products or production processes, while the innovation stage leads the invention to its first adoption and economic application. The diffusion stage then involves successive adoption, i.e. “an innovation that is communicated through certain channels over time in a timely matter among members of a social system” (Rogers, 1995). Moore (1999) provided an updated diffusion model, stating a chasm exists at the point of adoption by the majority. Where the chasm is crossed, a dominant design rises (Jacobs & Snijders, 2008). According to Moore this is where the majority of the high tech ventures fail. The reason that these ventures fail is mainly because they do not focus on a single- or niche market. When domination in the single or niche market is won, that market can be used as a springboard to access adjacent markets. This focus is very important, because this puts the new products to work by adopting and using them as this is as important as inventing the new products to create potential and competitive advantage (Hoppe, 1999).
A new model is developed based on the above described theories. This model is depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Technology scratch till growth model.
2.3
Dominant design
From the literature is stated that at the chasm a dominant design emerges. Dominant designs are interesting, because they signal a change in the game with attendant winners and losers1 (Suarez, 2004) and the strategic importance is widely recognized (Lee, O'Neal, Pruett, & Thomas, 1995; Smith, 1996; Suarez, 2004; Teece, 1986; White & Bruton, 2007). At the heart of dominant design thinking
1 A notorious example is the lock-out of the technically superior Video-2000- and Betamax system in favor of
December ’09 15 lies the empirical observation that technology evolves by trial and error and thus entails risks for the population of firms engaged in its development (Murmann & Frenken, 2006). Before going deeper into the dynamics of dominant design, it is important to define what a dominant design is. Many definitions exist and evolved over time. Several authors (Murmann & Frenken, 2006; Srinivasan, Lilien, & Rangaswamy, 2006) review these definitions. While Srinivasan et al. follow the work of Christensen, Suaréz, and Utterback (1998) and define dominant design as “the specification (consisting of a single design feature or a complement of design features) that defines the product category’s architecture”, Murmann and Frenken generate a new definition building upon their review and classification. They state that
“a dominant design exists in a technological class when the majority of complex technical systems have the same technologies for the high-pleiotropy (core components and core subsystems) components”
and that dominant design is best viewed as a continuum meaning a design is more or less dominant in an industry. The implications of this paradigm shift are articulated in Table 1.
Table 1: Paradigm shift adopted from Cook (1989).
Pre-Dominant Design Post-Dominant Design
Uncertain market size Predictable market size
Fluid product specifications Stable product specifications
Performance sensitivity Price sensitivity
Reviews and demonstrations are the basis of differentiation
Features and flexibility are the basis of differentiation
User-maintenance and modification Service and reputation
Change is rapid and radical Change is slow and incremental
Cost of entry is low Cost of entry is high (due to service &
reputation)
Innovation is in product Innovation is in process
Utterback described the concept of dominant design extensively as one of the first in his book ‘Mastering the dynamics of innovation’ (1994). He describes the emergence of a dominant design as an inverted u-shape (Figure 3) suggesting that at the top of the shape the dominant design emerges, followed by a wave of exits caused by improved scale, costs and performance. This tendency is expected, stated by The Carbon Trust (2006), for both wave- and current energy converters.
Figure 3: Dominant design and number of competing firms.
December ’09 16 In addition to what Utterback has found, other research (Funk, 2006) suggests a difference in goods for consumer and industrial application. The industry puts more emphasize on performance than on compatibility and network effects, like consumers do. This can result into up to 4 times more
dominant designs and more interface standard updates. These findings can imply that the design for industrial use is fluid for a longer time till the point a design is recognized as dominant and that design is at, or at least close to, the frontier of technical performance.
Some limitations of dominant design exist as it is not applicable to industries producing non-assembled products like gasses, rayon, pulp, metals, paper or glass (Utterback, 1994). Within these product categories the emphasis is more on the production process, rather than on the product and design. These product are categorized in an own industry and is known as the process industry (Fransoo & Rutten, 1994). Also the limitation holds for products like integrated circuits and photographic film as they share some characteristics of both assembled and non-assembled products. Also there are reports that multiple designs are able to exist next to each other (de Vries, de Ruijter, & Argam, 2009). This does not mean that 20 designs will become dominant, but there is a possibility of more than one design being dominant. This occurrence is likely in an industrialized application as emphasize is more on performance.
2.4
GIS
A geographic information system (GIS) captures, stores, analyzes, manages, and presents data that is linked to a location. A GIS includes mapping software and can be applied for example for remote sensing. Satellite remote sensing is great for monitoring environmental change (Elkington, 1999).
2.5
Energy from water
Within the literature the following categorization of water energy sources is emphatic present (Brooke, 2006; Cavanagh, Clarke, & Price, 1992; Stoddard, 1996; Vining, 2007):
• Kinetic energy from water movement in the form of currents; • Kinetic energy from water movement in the form of waves; • Energy from salinity gradients: osmosis;
• Energy from the earth: geothermal energy;
• Energy from temperature differential: Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC).
There are several sources that aggregate current and wave energy sources under the name of hydro (power) or ocean (energy systems), but in this research the distinction is kept. Geothermal is often not present in this row. While the water used in the different categories may have different sources (the sun, gravitational force or the earth’s core) by which the water has gathered the energy, the medium by which the energy is transferred is water and is therefore incorporated in this research. The theoretical global ocean energy resource is estimatedto be on the order of (International Energy Agency, Annual report 2008):
• 2000 TWh/year for osmotic energy (200 GW);
• 10000 TWh/year (1 TW) for ocean thermal energy (OTEC); • 800 TWh/year (90 GW) for tidal current energy;
December ’09 17 The Dutch research institute Deltares performed a study to the potential of energy generation from water in the Netherlands (Deltares, 2008), expressed in Table 22. The potentials described are raw estimates. The total energy potential is the energy that is present in the total natural system. All that energy cannot be extracted due to limitations in extraction technologies and efficiency losses and what is retrievable is called technical retrievable. Also, not all the space present in the natural system can be used, because of shipping and other competing use of the resource and this results in the social retrievability. The numbers in the table are in Petajoules (PJ). One PJ is equal to 277.78 GWh. The total need for energy is 3550 PJ per year, of which 420 PJ is electrical and 960 PJ is thermal. The rest, 2170 PJ, is the use of mechanical energy through burning oil, gas, kerosene, or petrol. The average energy use of a Dutch household is 937,5 x 10-9 Terajoule (1000 TJ =1PJ) and households account for 20% of the Dutch energy use.
Table 2: Theoretical energy potential of the categories in the Netherlands. *Geothermal Heat Pump.
In PJ Heating GHP*
Total energy potential 54 100 220 3000 1200 1200 5774
Technical retrievable 10 17 65 3000 960 20 4072 Social retrievable 5 8 22 960 290 10 1295 Total OTEC shallow Osmosis Current Wave Geothermal
2.5.1 Energy from currents
Water currents can have three sources. The first is the current in a river. Due to height differences, also referred to as the ‘head’, the water flows towards the sea. Most previously used applications of hydropower use this head to generate energy. The head in the Netherlands is not big enough, besides several small applications in locks in the river the Maas. The differential in height generates a small flowing current of maximal 2 to 3 m/s in the rivers. The second source is the current induced by the tide. The tide in the Netherlands are semidiurnal in character, which means that in 24 hours two high tides and two low tides occur. The height of the tide is not equal every day and is dependent on the position of the moon and the sun relative to the earth. The third source is the current in oceans. This is a uni-direction current induced by several forces like wind, salinity, temperature etc. A well known example is the gulf stream. There is no ocean current directly flowing in the North Sea or near the Netherlands, so this is not a source of currents in the Netherlands. Note that only sources that do not require a barrier are described.
Current Energy Converters (CEC’s) is the collective of technologies applicable in water currents. CEC’s are electromechanical energy converters that convert kinetic energy from water currents into other usable forms of energy, usably electricity.
Current is well-suited for distributed power generation, for example for rural areas (Khan, Iqbal, & Quaicoe, 2008). The technology has been available for decades; however despite its minimal environmental impact, commercialization has been limited. The technology differs from more conventional hydropower technologies in that it does not require a dam, or powerhouse. Current energy technologies depend on the more or less horizontal movements of river currents, ocean currents and tides to move a generator that converts mechanical power into electrical power. Current energy technologies are often rotating machines that can be compared to wind turbines – a
2
December ’09 18 rotor spins in response to the movements of water currents or tides, the rotational speed being proportional to the flow speed of the water (Bedard, Previsic, Siddiqui, Hagerman, & Robinson, 2005). The rotor may have an open design like a wind turbine or may be encased in a duct that channels the flow. Further, the rotor may be characterized by conventional “propeller-type”
technologies or by a 3-dimensional lay-out capturing the flow with a cross-flow turbines. A common categorization of current technologies is (U.S. Department of Energy, 2008; RESOLVE Inc., 2006):
• Horizontal axis turbine (HAT); • Vertical axis turbine (VAT); • Oscillating hydrofoils; • Ducted (turbines).
In the category oscillating hydrofoil only two devices were under development. For one of the devices, ‘The Stingray’, the development was recently discontinued. A newer generation hydrofoil is still under development. Ducted turbines can generate extra flow and flow speed to cross the turbine, but a duct always needs a turbine. Therefore this will not be a separate category, but it will be an addition to a horizontal axis turbine or a vertical axis turbine. Both a horizontal axis turbine or a vertical axis turbine can have different forms, but the common denote for both categories is the axis orientation. Note that only technologies that do not require a dam will be evaluated.
2.5.2 Energy from waves
Waves are created by wind blowing over the surface of a water body. Wind generally create irregular and complex waves and these are called wind waves (Figure 4). In deep water, after the wind dies down, the storm waves can travel thousands of kilometers in the form of regular smooth waves, or swells that retain much of the energy of the original storm waves. The energy in swells or waves dissipates after it reaches waters that are less than 200m deep. At 20m water depth, the wave’s energy typically drops to about one-third of the level it had in deep water (Minerals Management Service, 2006).
Figure 4: Generation of waves by the wind adopted from (EPRI, 2005).
December ’09 19
Figure 5: Particle motion in different water depths adopted from (EPRI, 2005).
The energy in the waves can be captured in a variety ways and the different technologies used to capture the energy of the waves are categorized according to this variety. The technologies used to capture the energy are often called Wave Energy Converters (WEC’s). Categories of wave (U.S. Department of Energy, 2008; EPRI, 2005), supplemented with a short description:
• Attenuator – a long flexible device oriented parallel to the direction of the waves. The device is made up of multiple parts and the relative yawing and pitching between these parts is used to pressurize a hydraulic piston, which in turn drives a turbine or generator;
• Point absorber – device capable of capturing the energy of a wave front that is physically greater than the device. The device absorbs energy in multiple directions and is moored to the seabed or is a standing structure;
• Oscillating water column – this device comprises an air chamber. The incoming wave drive the air through a turbine, which generates energy;
• Overtopping device – this is a floating or partially submerged structure with a collector reflecting the waves towards a ramp. The waves topple over the ramp and are collected in a reservoir from which the water runs through a turbine;
• Pitching/Surging/Heaving/Sway (PSHS) device – a device that collects energy without a specific collector, but uses the relative motion between a float/flap/membrane and a fixed point. Energy is extracted from this motion.
2.5.3 Energy from salinity gradient: osmosis
Salinity gradient technology can take two forms. The first, commonly known as the solar pond approach, involves the application of salinity gradients in a body of water for the purpose of collecting and storing solar energy. Large quantities of salt are dissolved in the hot bottom layer of the body of water, making it too dense to raise to the surface and cool, causing a distinct thermal stratification of water that could be employed by a cyclic thermodynamic process similar to OTEC. The second application of salinity gradients takes advantage of the osmotic pressure differences between salt and fresh water. The exploitation of the entropy of mixing freshwater with saltwater is often facilitated by use of a semi-permeable membrane, resulting in the production of a direct electrical current or a pressure differential to drive a turbine. The following five categories can be distinguished:
• Pressure-retarded osmosis (PRO);
• reversed electro dialysis or reverse dialysis (RED); • Salinity gradient solar pond (SGSP);
December ’09 20 Of these five categories there are three that will be discarded and not evaluated. Searching for the basic function of the three categories was difficult and little information was found. This is not a good position for in depth research of these categories. Although not all categories will be evaluated, all will be described shortly as it might become a more realistic option in the future.
Pressure-retarded osmosis and reverse electro dialysis
Pressure-retarded osmosis (PRO) and reverse electro dialysis (RED) are the most frequently studied membrane-based processes for energy conversion of salinity-gradient energy. The main drawback of these membrane-based conversion techniques was the high price of membranes. However, the decreasing prices of membranes for desalination and water reuse applications as well as the increasing prices of fossil fuels make salinity-gradient power attractive in near future. Post et al. (2007) are very active in researching RED and make comparisons with PRO. RED uses a membrane to directly generate an electric current. PRO uses the membrane to create a pressure difference that drives a turbine.
Salinity gradient solar pond
The sunlight which reaches the bottom of the pond remains entrapped there. The useful thermal energy is then withdrawn from the solar pond in the form of hot brine. The pre-requisites for establishing solar ponds are: a large tract of land, a lot of sun shine, and cheaply available salt. A prototype for the use on rooftops has been build on a university building in Australia, with high temperature storage even in winter time (Green-Trust.Org, 2007).
Vapor compression
The technique exploits differences in vapor pressure of water and seawater to obtain power from the gradient in salinity. Freshwater is evaporated under a vacuum and condensed in seawater. The resulting vapor flow drives a turbine. The turbine conditions are analogous to the open cycle OTEC. There are several technological developments that could offer advantages over other techniques in the future (Jones & Finley, Recent development in salinity gradient power, 2003), but research and development has to be started.
Hydrocratic generation
Hydrocratic generation was first mentioned in Jones and Finley (2003) and is a hydraulic power generation system for generating power using a pseudo-osmosis process which efficiently exploits the osmotic energy potential between two bodies of water having different salinity concentrations. The advantage of this method is that it does not need a semi-permeable membrane or other specially formulated material. There are also no special requirements for the fresh water, besides it should have a different salinity. The mixture comprises the relatively high salinity water and the relatively low salinity water in a ratio of approximately 34:1. The concept was tested in a scaled situation and resulted in a strong ‘hydrocratic’ effect with a strong correlation to the amount of input of fresh water. However, no difference in upwelling effect has been found among three different tube lengths (Jones, 2004). There is no information found about follow up research or further development.
2.5.4 Energy from the earth: geothermal
December ’09 21 most of the world and in the Netherlands it is even 35°C per km of depth. A downside of this type of energy is that the warmth is not retrievable everywhere due to the composition of the soil. There has to be a formation that contains water; an aquifer. An aquifer is a water containing soil layer, usually sand. The usability of such a layer for geothermal use is determined by the following properties: thickness, permeability, the stretch and the porosity (Heederik, 2009). A categorization of geothermal can be made using the depth of the application:
• Up to 500 meters depth:
o Heat exchange: either vertical or horizontal; o Warmth/cold storage;
• Deeper than 500 meter depth:
o High enthalpy: pit temperature is at least 150° C, produces steam which is used for electricity production. Pits can mainly be found in Iceland, USA and new Zealand; o Low enthalpy:
Heat generation;
With a secondary system: binary (ranking) cycle.
Geothermal application up to 500 meters of depth usually has the form of Geothermal Heat Pump Systems (GHP), which is a ground-source heat pump that uses the shallow ground or ground water (typically starting at 10-12°C) as a source of heat, thus taking advantage of its seasonally moderate temperatures. There are four basic types of ground loop systems. Three of these—horizontal, vertical, and pond/lake—are closed-loop systems. The fourth type of system is the open-loop option. There is no single best system. Variables as climate, soil conditions, land availability, and installation costs become important. Application can be residential and commercial. A short elaboration of the systems follows:
• A horizontal closed loop system is generally most cost-effective for residential installations, particularly for new construction where sufficient land is available.
• A vertical closed loop system is often used in large commercial buildings and schools, because the land area required for horizontal loops would be prohibitive. Vertical loops are also used where the soil is too shallow for trenching, and they minimize the disturbance to existing landscaping.
• A pond/lake closed loop system may be used if the site has an adequate water body nearby. This may then be the most cost effective option.
• An open loop system uses a well or surface water body as the heat exchange fluid that circulates directly through the GHP system. Once it has circulated through the system, the water returns to the ground through the well, a recharge well, or surface discharge. This option is obviously practical only where there is an adequate supply of relatively clean water, and all local codes and regulations regarding groundwater discharge are met.
For geothermal application deeper than 500 meters a hydrothermal heating or power system is appropriate. For high enthalpy wells two types of plants can be used:
• Dry steam plants are of the first types of design and use the hot steam (150°C) directly to drive a turbine;
• Flash steam plants use hot water, typically over 180°C, flash that to steam and use the steam to drive a turbine. This is the most used type of plant today;
December ’09 22 • The most recent developed type of geothermal plant is the binary cycle plant. Fluids of at
least 57°C heat a secondary system. The secondary system driver a turbine. The thermal efficiency is typically about 10%;
• Direct use - Geothermal reservoirs of low-to moderate-temperature water (20°C to 150°C) provide direct heat for residential, industrial, and commercial uses, with primary uses in district and space heating, greenhouses, and aquaculture facilities. The working of the system is of a binary type system. These systems can also be used in areas where the soil is made up of rock. This type is called ´hot dry rock´.
2.5.5 Energy from temperature differential: Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) was formulated long ago as a way to recover some of the solar energy stored in the upper mixed layer of tropical oceans (d’Arsonval, 1881; Avery & Wu, 1994; Claude, 1930). A part of that energy is re-emitted to the atmosphere and a part is distributed in the form of currents and waves. The majority of the energy is stored in thermal gradients in the water layers. OTEC technology refers to a mechanical system that utilizes the natural temperature gradient that exists in the water between the warm surface water and the deep cold water, to generate electricity and produce other economically valuable by-products (Huang, Krock, & Oney, 2003). These byproducts include desalinated water (Block & Valenzuela, 1985), mineral extraction,
mariculture and energy-intensive products like hydrogen (Cavanagh, Clarke, & Price, 1992), methanol and ammonia (Avery, Richards, & Dugger, 1988).
OTEC plants must be built in environments that are stable enough to run operations efficient and cost effective. Locations proposed are (National renewable energy laboratory):
• Land-based and near-shore facilities; • Platforms attached to a shelf; • Deep water floating facilities.
All locations have advantages and disadvantages, but a land-based or near-shore facility looks favorable. This has to do with cost motives and the by production of desalinated water, which can be large quantities. An OTEC installation placed at the right location can provide a (large part of a) country with energy and fresh water. A 10 MW OTEC plant could produce about 11 million liter of freshwater per day.
December ’09 23
Figure 6: Temperature differences between surface and depth of 1000m (National renewable energy laboratory).
The depth of the North Sea near the Netherlands, south of the Doggersbank, is about 30 meters deep which can vary with maximal 15 meters, because the ground is made up of sand dunes (Willem Wever vraag en antwoord). The mean temperature at the bottom of the North Sea is 5° C (De Volkskrant). The temperature of the surface layer of the water depends on seasonal fluctuations and varies between 19° C in the summer and 6° C in the winter (www.meteopagina.nl, 2009). The mean temperature of the surface layer is about 13° C, thus making the temperature difference 8° C between bottom and top layer. This only holds for the deeper parts of the North Sea. When considering the potential sites near the coastal line and the larger lakes the average temperature difference between top and bottom water layers is 5° C (Deltares, 2008).
Using the mean temperature of the surface layer, 13° C, and the temperature of the bottom layer, 8° C, of the North Sea, the efficiency can be calculated using a rule of basic thermodynamics. The maximum efficiency of any heat engine is given in equation 1.
ܧ݂݂ ≤ 1 −்் (1)
Where:
Tc = temperature of the cold water body in Kelvin
Th = temperature of the hot water body in Kelvin
December ’09 24
3
Research design
“A theory is a hunch with an academic background” Jimmy Carter (1924- ), 39th president of the USA
3.1
Research scope
This paragraph describes the scope of this research and is in part based on the short elaboration upon the main categories to generate energy from water in paragraph 2.5. The categories geothermal and OTEC have been dropped for further investigation in this thesis. For geothermal there are two reasons; first the heat carrier of geothermal is water, but the water is confined inside land. Therefore there are very different technological considerations and implementation aspects related to geothermal. Second the concept of geothermal is somewhat older compared to the other energy from water categories. There is a large market where there are geothermal plants installed and there are a few major players in the market. This implicates that a dominant design has already emerged, resulting in the clear applicability of different type of systems for different situations. For OTEC the reason is mainly the shallowness of the North Sea. In paragraph 2.5.5 the efficiency of an OTEC system is calculated and is much too low and this makes further evaluation of OTEC needless. Of the five osmosis technologies, only RED and PRO will be evaluated. Searching for the basic function of the other three technologies was difficult and little information was found. This is not a good position for in depth research of these categories.
3.2
Conceptual model
A conceptual model has been constructed (Figure 7) to help clarify the problem and the relations between the different aspects. Note that this is not a causal model in the common known sense, but one has to think more of the existence of a relation that can be either positive or negative.
The factors that help predict the emergence of a dominant design, if chosen properly, act as a multi-criteria analysis and can therefore also determine the potential of an energy generating technology. This alone does not determine which technology generates the most energy, because to determine that several additional variables come into play. The first are the implementation concerns. These are variables that determine which areas might be suitable to generate energy from water and how to do this in a sustainable way. The second are the characteristics of a location. Both these variables can rule out technologies that are predicted to have the highest potential based on the dominant design analysis. These three variables therefore determine the potential of a technology in an area and thus determines the maximum amount of energy that can be generated from water in an area.
December ’09 25
3.3
Research methodology
The research methodology is the whole of interdependent decisions which describe the way of conducting the research and is based on several core decisions (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2007):
• Breadth or depth of the research; • Quantitative or qualitative research; • Empirical or literature desk research.
Based on these core decisions, five approaches or methods can be followed (translated from Dutch): o Survey (e.g. interviews, enquiry etc.);
o Experiment; o Case study;
o Funded theoretical approach; o Desk research.
The model for the research of the technologies and the location(s) is developed through desk research and interviews. A validation of the causal mechanisms of the dominant design model is done by conducting a sensitivity analysis.
A large number of technologies were present in the three remaining categories for evaluation: current, wave, and osmosis. To create a manageable set of alternatives a selection is made based on the stage of development of a technology, near commercial application, or high expected potential. An analysis of the stages of development is a part of the investigation of the technologies.
The scoring of the technologies was done based on the proposed model. This model was based on the dominant design theory. This theory can predict which technology will be the final design when consensus in the design is established. The input for the scoring of the wave and current technologies was the Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology Database of the U.S. department of Energy (2008), added with extra information from the website of the manufacturer and from scientific articles. The decision not to conduct a survey has been explicitly made; the approach of a company that is starting its search for a sustainable energy generating technology from a wide variety of choices has been taken. It is not likely that that company is going to contact all the manufacturers of the technologies and conduct a full survey, but uses the internet to make a selection. This approach is adopted within this research and therefore uncertain technologies, i.e. technologies of which little information can be found, might have low potential.
The determination of the implementation concerns is done through desk research and interviews and is a qualitative analysis based on existing empirical research that is existent on energy generation from water. Some of the concerns were also evaluated quantitative where possible, so they can be taken into account as restrictions for the selection of a location.
A physical selection of a location has not been done, but some directions will be elaborated like data gathering methods needed to select a location, some general properties of water that influence a location and how the proposed model could be applied. Where necessary, interviews and desk research will support that research.
December ’09 26
4
Model development
“A fact will always arise to disturb a theory” Carlo Dossi (1849-1910), Italian writer
In this chapter the model to evaluate the technologies and locations will be elaborated. First a general model for the prediction of dominant designs is presented. Then the relations within the model are discussed. Last, a method and model that can be used to select a location is presented.
4.1
Dominant design model
There are three schools of thought that explain the way a dominant design can emerge (Utterback, 1994). The first one is based on the emergence of a dominant design out of chance events. The second states that something inherent in the technological design determines the dominant design while the third one suggests that social and organizational factors determine the dominant design. Although research stated that none is entirely right, within this research the latter two visions are adopted. This is based on the idea that there must be an event affiliated with the technology (inherently, social or organizational) that triggers the emergence of a dominant design. This vision is also obtained by Anderson and Tushman (1990) and Tushman & Murmann (2003).
A systematic hierarchical model to study the emergence of dominant designs is used. This model helps determining the appropriate level and detail of analysis. The variables that are of influence (Murmann & Frenken, 2006):
• Unit of analysis – this can vary from the system level, through different levels of subsystems till the basic components that make up the system. Systems differ in terms of their breadth and depth. Specifying the unit of analysis unambiguously needs definition of the level above and below the level to be analyzed;
• Granularity of analysis – this determines the level of abstraction of the objects to be analyzed. Dominant designs do not exist at both extremes of the level of granularity, so a intermediate level has to be selected;
• Temporal sequencing – as earlier described, a technological cycle consists of variation, selection and retention (the same as invention, innovation and diffusion). It is important to determine the stage of the objects analyzed to be sure a dominant design can emerge; • Causal mechanisms – several mechanisms are believed to play a role in the emergence of a
dominant design. The factors in these mechanisms as well as their relative importance differ with the nature of the technology under study. Several models developed to map these mechanisms are discussed in short hereafter.
December ’09 27 categories, van de Kaa et al. (2007) also paid attention to relations between the different categories and constructed a model based on this data, but do not develop these relations further or provide validation.
The model by Lee et al. (1995) divide the factors described in four categories. These categories will be used as a starting point. From there on, factors are used to describe these categories. The factors and relations described in the above mentioned models will not be adopted blindly: battles for dominance differ (Shapiro & Varian, 1999) and so do the variables used to describe or predict these battles. The model has to be made suitable for the situation of the problem: sustainability in relation to technologies used for energy generation from water. Therefore some factors will originate from Lee et al. (1995), but these are sometimes not measurable and will be replaced with other measures. An overview of the model developed in this thesis follows in Figure 8. An overview of all factors can be found at the end of this paragraph in Table 3.
Figure 8: Causal mechanisms of the proposed model.
4.1.1 External conditions
The first element in the dominant design model is external conditions and consists of one factor.
Appropriability
Appropriability is the ability of a firm to protect their innovation from imitation by competitors. It is partly a function of secure R&D and production environments, and partly of patents, copyrights and trademark. However, appropriability has two sides: encouraging imitation encourages market development and the adoption of a particular design. Imitation results in the stimulation of demand (positive), but it enforces the competitive pressure (negative). It should be noted that the
December ’09 28 mechanisms will slow the technology's diffusion into the marketplace and increase the risk of having the technology locked out altogether (Schilling, 1998). Other research (Srinivasan, Lilien, &
Rangaswamy, 2006) concluded that the weaker the appropriability regime, the shorter the time and the higher the probability of the emergence of the dominant design. Thus, appropriability can be measured as the number of patents and the lower the number of patents, the higher the likelihood that a dominant design emerges.
4.1.2 Technological forces
The model by Lee et al. (1995) proposes to use the factors rate of technological change, type of change, and degree of fit. These factors will not be used, because there is no measurement in time of the technologies to consider. Instead, the dimensions of product acceptability defined by Fusfeld (1978) will be used. The importance of the technological forces is emphasized in research (Funk, 2006), stating that industries value the performance of a technology higher than other factors. It is therefore important to describe the performance of the technology extensively.
Functional performance/technological superiority3
The specification of the functional performance is the description of how well the technology performs under certain conditions. The specification of this factor is therefore twofold and are interconnected; the first is the conversion efficiency, i.e. the water-to-wire efficiency, and second, the speed for which it reaches the efficiency, i.e. the design speed4. The efficiency and the design speed are important factors, because they describe if the technology is superior or inferior compared to another technology. A superior technology has a higher likelihood to become the dominant design than a inferior one. Although this is not always true, see the example described in paragraph 2.3. The factor design speed makes the dominant design model easier usable for multi criteria analyses related to the Dutch situation and therefore the design speed will be rated relative to the Dutch limit. This is different for osmosis, wave and current. For wave the maximum amount of power is between 9 and 11 kW/m of wave crest. For current this will be between 2 and 3 m/s of flow speed. For osmosis there will be no value. The osmosis technology is suitable for every size of water flow, as it will be dimensioned on specification. These technologies automatically get the highest score.
Economic feasibility
The specification of the economic feasibility describes the costs associated with the installation and operation of the technology. This is important, because this determines the economic feasibility of the technology as a commercial implementation. Economic feasibility has to be proven before an implementation can start.
Economic feasibility is discarded in this thesis, because there will be no cost calculations done. This is because economic feasibility is related to an area. First an area has to be selected using the method described in paragraph 4.3. this can then be followed by the development of a business case. Directions on the development of a business case are given in paragraph 6.3.1.
Reliability
The factor reliability addresses the reliability of the technology. It addresses the robustness of the technology, but also has influence on the economic feasibility.
3
Source: van de Kaa et al. (2007)
4 Note that this is not the maximum value for which it is designed, but the value for which it functions best (i.e.
December ’09 29 • The useful or economic lifetime;
• The availability.
The more reliable a technology, the higher the likelihood of it becoming the dominant design. Especially availability is important as this is a major variable in the amount of energy generated and herewith influencing the payback period of an implementation.
Several goal values can be determined for the attributes. The economic lifetime should be around 20 years with a deviation of 2,5 years. The availability is the percentage of time that the device is not broken down and is able to perform its job (uptime divided by the uptime+downtime).
Serviceability
The specification of serviceability is translated into the following attributes: • Maintenance free operating period;
• Reach ability; • Complexity.
With this attributes all aspects of servicing a technology are described. It is important to describe the serviceability of a technology, because this can have a major impact on the operating costs. Also it addresses the quality of the design. Both issues play a role in the emergence of a dominant design. As part of serviceability some suggest to use the service interval. Sometimes the technology cannot be serviced in parts of the year due to weather conditions, thus it is constrained by time (e.g. boat availability or summer season). The measurement of maintenance free operating periods is appropriate to replace service interval and is ’the length of time the equipment is expected to operate without maintenance’ (BMT Cordah, 2007).
Compatibility
The specification of the factor compatibility is twofold. It addresses the compatibility of the
technology to be able to be implemented in groups or farms, but it also addresses the compatibility of the technology with the resources that can be found in the Netherlands. This is expressed in the following attributes:
• Cut-inn threshold; • Farms possible.
The importance that a technology is able to work in farms is that a farm influences the efficiency of the technology (also see the paragraph ‘Park set-up’). Also an implementation of a farm can be more cost effective, because installation costs can be shared by multiple devices.
December ’09 30 Installed base5
The specification of installed base is the number of devices of a technology are installed. A high installed base increases the visibility of the technology to the greater audience and the media. This increase in popularity can stimulate the application of a more popular technology in favor of a less popular technology. Popularity combined with application can result in a high likelihood of
emergence of a dominant design.
Flexibility of the design6
The factor flexibility of design evaluates the flexibility of a technology to alter its design to meet alternative requirements than for which it was originally designed. If the flexibility of a design is low, than it means it is designed for a specific situation or area and it cannot be easily altered to meet different requirements. It therefore is unlikely that such a design will become dominant. A technology which is flexible designed has a higher chance of becoming the dominant design.
4.1.3 Non-technological forces
The third element in the dominant design model is non-technological forces and consists of five factors and addresses several factors inherent or associated with the technology under
consideration.
Demand side economic factor
This factor specifies the economics associated with the demand side of a technology. It is measured as the search costs incurred through searching for the appropriate information about a technology. The search costs incur by the relative difficulty of finding information about a given technology. Withholding information in the early stages can also lead, besides higher search costs, to a lock-in into an inferior technology (Frenken, Hekkert, & Godfroij, 2004). It is therefore undesired that information is difficult to find about a technology.
Supply side economic factor
This factor specifies the economics associated with the supply side of a technology. It evaluates the economic position of supplier of the technology. This can be either be evaluating the credibility of the financier or by evaluating recently added funding or subsidy. This factor is important, because it gives a signal if the supplier has financial problems and therewith will not be able to complete the technology and make it a commercial product. If this is not possible, it is unlikely it will become the dominant design.
Organizational factor
This factor evaluates the impact pressure and persistence of an organization. This is evaluated by determining whether there is a ‘big fish’ involved in the development of the technology. A ‘big fish’ is an organization or a company involved or affiliated with the development of the technology which is famous, very large, has a lot of money or has extensive knowledge (in the scope of the technology). It is thus an organization that has the power or resources to make a technology work whatever
happens. This characteristic can be the last bit that is needed to get the technology a bit further than that of competitors and can be the difference between having a dominant design or not.
5 Source: van de Kaa et al. (2007) 6
December ’09 31 Environmental factor
The environmental factor evaluates the impact of the technology on the environment. From the interviews performed the following attributes were selected:
• Fish mortality rate;
• Type of mooring – pile-driving sometimes kills (endangered) species living nearby (RESOLVE Inc., 2006), therefore piles are less good than a single point mooring . Once pillars are in place they can act as artificial reefs;
• Oil spillage (chance on) – this factor rewards oil-less designs to reduce the risk of environmental pollution.
The environmental factor can consist of an endless number of attributes. Most of them are difficult to measure or not appropriate for the situation described in this thesis. Therefore the attributes that can be measured were chosen. Thereby these are visible to the audience and a technology has to perform well on these attributes. If it does not, then a fauna or wildlife protection NGO can start protesting against the implementation of the technology. This creates a negative atmosphere around a technology and this makes it unlikely that the technology will become the dominant design.
Societal factor
The societal factor evaluates the impact of the technology on society. From the interviews performed the following attributes were selected:
• Horizon pollution – is the device visible or is it located under water;
• Catchiness (appealing technology) – how appealing is the technology to for example to the media or governmental institutions.
Horizontal pollution is important, because if the technology is visible and society starts to protest against an implementation, this can create a negative atmosphere. This atmosphere may hinder the emergence of the technology as the dominant design.
Catchiness is important, because if a technology is catchy a hype can be created around it. The hype can create a preference for the hyped technology, thus increasing the chance of it becoming the dominant design.
4.1.4 Complementary assets
The category of complementary assets is about capabilities or resources, in addition to technological knowledge, that are essential for commercial success. Complementary assets are sometimes the reason why imitators outperform the innovators (Teece, 1986). In part, complementary assets are a function of the particular innovation, but it is also partly a function of strategic choice. Some assets or resources may be bought on the market, but others have to accumulate over time and are difficult to imitate (Lee, O'Neal, Pruett, & Thomas, 1995).
Learning-by-doing7
Technology development is a primary source of learning and therefore the forfeit of this learning curve has to be incorporated. As a technology is used, it is further developed and made more effective and efficient. Cost reductions will be high and knowledge accumulates with experience from production and the market. The more an organization can apply learning-by-doing, the more technological progress it makes and therewith increasing the chance that its’ technology design will become dominant. The factor learning-by-doing is very hard to measure as it is subjective and hardly
7
