Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions

Treball de Fi de Grau Grau en Enginyeria en Tecnologies Industrials (GETI) Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions REPORT Autora: Luisa Pinyol Sarrias Director: Marc Cheah Mañé Convocatòria: Setembre 2024 Escola Tècnica Superior d’Enginyeria Industrial de Barcelona Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 2 RESUM En aquest treball de fi de grau s’ha dut a terme un estudi sobre el potencial de les ones oceàniques com a font d’energia renovable i la seva aplicació mitjançant tecnologies específiques. L’energia d’ones es presenta com una alternativa prometedora dins del marc de la transició energètica cap a sistemes més sostenibles, però encara planteja diversos reptes tecnològics i econòmics que cal abordar. El projecte es divideix en una part teòrica i una part pràctica. A la part teòrica, s’analitza el context actual de l’energia d’ones, les seves característiques principals i els avantatges que pot oferir en comparació amb altres fonts d’energia renovables. També es presenten les diferents tecnologies disponibles per a la conversió d’aquesta energia, així com els criteris clau per avaluar-ne la viabilitat tècnica i econòmica. La part pràctica se centra en un cas d'estudi específic, en què es combina l'anàlisi de dades reals sobre les condicions marítimes amb l'avaluació de les tecnologies disponibles. A través d'aquest procés, es defineixen els requisits tècnics i ambientals necessaris per a una implementació viable. D’aquest cas específic, es duu a terme una anàlisi tecnoeconòmica mitjançant el càlcul d'indicadors clau de rendiment. Els resultats del treball permeten formular recomanacions per a futures aplicacions de l'energia d'ones tant a nivell local com global, destacant la importància de fomentar l'avenç d'aquestes tecnologies per facilitar un accés més ampli a la informació i reduir-ne els costos d'implementació. Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 3 RESUMEN En este trabajo de fin de grado se ha llevado a cabo un estudio sobre el potencial de las olas oceánicas como fuente de energía renovable y su aplicación mediante tecnologías específicas. La energía de las olas se presenta como una alternativa prometedora dentro del marco de la transición energética hacia sistemas más sostenibles, aunque todavía plantea varios retos tecnológicos y económicos que es necesario abordar. El proyecto se divide en una parte teórica y una parte práctica. En la parte teórica se analiza el contexto actual de la energía de las olas, sus principales características y las ventajas que puede ofrecer en comparación con otras fuentes de energía renovable. También se presentan las distintas tecnologías disponibles para la conversión de esta energía, así como los criterios clave para evaluar su viabilidad técnica y económica. La parte práctica se centra en un caso de estudio específico, en el que se combina el análisis de datos reales sobre las condiciones marítimas con la evaluación de las tecnologías disponibles. A través de este proceso se definen los requisitos técnicos y ambientales necesarios para una implementación viable. De este caso específico, se lleva a cabo un análisis tecno-económico mediante el cálculo de indicadores clave de rendimiento. Los resultados del trabajo permiten formular recomendaciones para futuras aplicaciones de la energía de las olas tanto a nivel local como global, destacando la importancia de fomentar los avances en estas tecnologías para facilitar un acceso más amplio a la información y reducir los costes de implementación. Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 4 ABSTRACT In this final degree project, a study has been conducted on the potential of ocean waves as a source of renewable energy and their application through specific technologies. Wave energy is presented as a promising alternative within the framework of the energy transition towards more sustainable systems, although it still poses several technological and economic challenges that need to be addressed. The project is divided into a theoretical part and a practical part. The theoretical part analyses the current context of wave energy, its main characteristics, and the advantages it can offer compared to other renewable energy sources. It also presents the different technologies available for the conversion of this energy, as well as the key criteria to assess its technical and economic viability. The practical part focuses on a specific case study, combining the analysis of real data on maritime conditions with the evaluation of available technologies. Through this process, the technical and environmental requirements necessary for a viable implementation are defined. From this specific case, a techno-economic analysis is carried out by calculating key performance indicators. The results of the study allow for the formulation of recommendations for future applications of wave energy at both local and global levels, highlighting the importance of promoting advancements in these technologies to facilitate broader access to information and reduce implementation costs. Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 5 Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 6 LIST OF CONTENTS RESUM ............................................................................................................................ 2 RESUMEN ....................................................................................................................... 3 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ 6 ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS.................................................................................... 8 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... 9 LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ 10 1.INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 12 1.1 MOTIVATION............................................................................................................ 12 1.2 SCOPE OF THE WORK ............................................................................................ 12 1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE WORK ..................................................................................... 12 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND.................................................................................. 14 2.1.ENERGY IN WAVES ............................................................................................. 14 2.2 WAVE ENERGY CONVERTERS ........................................................................... 17 2.2.1 Introduction of WECs ....................................................................................... 17 2.2.1.1 Main Components ......................................................................................... 17 2.2.1.2 Wave energy converters classification ........................................................... 19 2.2.2 Background of wave energy ............................................................................. 20 2.2.3. Current science and technology and challenges............................................... 22 2.2.4 Integration of Wave Energy Converters into Power Grids and Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems ....................................................................................................... 23 2.3. TECHNO-ECONOMIC METRICS .......................................................................... 24 2.3.1 Technical KPIs ................................................................................................ 24 2.3.2 Economical KPIs ............................................................................................. 26 3. DESCRIPTION & COMPARISON OF WAVE ENERGY CONVERTERS. ....................... 30 3.1. DESCRIPTION OF DIFFERENT WECs ................................................................. 30 3.2 WEC COMPARISON TABLES ............................................................................... 36 4.DEVELOPMENT OF WEC SYSTEM ............................................................................ 41 4.1. REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................. 41 4.2.WEC SELECTION FOR CASE STUDY .................................................................. 42 4.2.1 WEC comparison matrix .................................................................................. 42 4.2.2 Selection of the WEC ....................................................................................... 44 4.3. SITE SELECTION FOR CASE STUDY .................................................................. 46 4.3.1 Areas of interest .............................................................................................. 46 4.3.1 Restrictions in the selected area ....................................................................... 48 Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 7 4.3.2 Selected location for CorPower Point Absorber ................................................. 49 5 TECHNO ECONOMICAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 51 5.1 MODEL CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................... 51 5.2 CALCULATIONS ................................................................................................... 52 5.2.1 System design ................................................................................................. 52 5.2.2 Technical KPIs ................................................................................................ 57 5.2.3 Economic KPIs ................................................................................................ 60 5.2.4 Grid connection ............................................................................................... 62 5.3 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 65 6. PLANNING .............................................................................................................. 67 7. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 68 8. ENVIROMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 69 9.SOCIAL AND GENDER EQULITY ASSESSMENT .................................................... 71 9. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 72 10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................... 73 11.APPENDIX 1. Legend for Figure 28 ......................................................................... 74 12. BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................... 77 Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 8 ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS The objective of this section is to list all the namings, acronyms and abbreviations used in the Thesis. WEC - Wave Energy Converter CAPEX - Capital Expenditures OPEX - Operational Expenditures LCOE - Levelized Cost of Energy CF - Capacity Factor PBP - Payback Period PTO - Power Take-Off System OWSCs - Oscillating Wave Surge Converters OWCs - Oscillating Water Columns LIMPET - Land Installed Marine Power Energy Transmitter DEGs - Dielectric Elastomer Generators ρ - Water density g - Gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s²) Tp - Peak wave period Hs - Significant wave height Paviable - Available power Wcapture - Effective capture width λ - Wavelength CWR - Capture Width Ratio NAEP - Normalized Annual Energy Production η - Efficiency n - Expected lifespan Af - Annuity Factor r - Discount rate Pn - Rated Power p(kW/h) - Price of energy per kWh Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Wave energy potential in spain .......................................................................... 14 Figure 2 Wave formation process .................................................................................... 15 Figure 3 Wave components . ........................................................................................... 17 Figure 4 Schematic diagram of wave energy converter . ................................................... 18 Figure 5 Wave devices according to their location . .......................................................... 19 Figure 6 Salter's Duck Wave Energy Converter . .............................................................. 21 Figure 7 Pelamis Wave Energy Converter . ...................................................................... 21 Figure 8 Mutriku Wave Power Plant in Spain . .................................................................. 23 Figure 9 Wind-wave hybrid system . ................................................................................ 24 Figure 10 Oscillating Wave Surge Converter .................................................................... 30 Figure 11 WaveRoller OWSC .......................................................................................... 30 Figure 12 CorPower WEC . ............................................................................................ 31 Figure 13 Point Absorber . ............................................................................................... 31 Figure 14 Attenuator . ..................................................................................................... 32 Figure 15 Pelamis . ........................................................................................................ 32 Figure 16 Oscillating Water Columns . ............................................................................ 32 Figure 17 LIMPET . ........................................................................................................ 33 Figure 18 Onshore overtopping device . .......................................................................... 33 Figure 19 Wave Dragon ................................................................................................. 33 Figure 20 Archimedes Wave Swing . ............................................................................... 34 Figure 21 Submerged pressure differential . .................................................................... 34 Figure 22 Penguin WEC . ............................................................................................... 35 Figure 23 Rotating Mass WEC . ...................................................................................... 35 Figure 24 Anaconda Bluge Wave WEC . ......................................................................... 35 Figure 25 Examples of WECs with CD-DEGs as the PTO system . .................................. 36 Figure 26 CorPower WEC .............................................................................................. 44 Figure 27 CorPower power matrix ................................................................................... 45 Figure 28 Northen Europe ocean restriction map ............................................................. 49 Figure 29 Galicia's available SIMAR buoys ..................................................................... 49 Figure 30 SIMAR 3010017 bathymetry map .................................................................... 50 Figure 31 SIMAR 3010017 restrictions map .................................................................... 50 Figure 32 techno economical analysis workflow ............................................................... 52 Figure 33 CorPower Grid connection ............................................................................... 62 Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 16 Bathymetry and distance from shore: As waves approach the coast, they interact with the seabed, which can affect their energy content [4]: - Deep water (typically considered as depth > half wavelength): Waves maintain most of their energy as they propagate. - Intermediate water: Waves start to "feel" the bottom, which can lead to changes in wave height and direction through processes like shoaling and refraction. - Shallow water (depth < 1/20 wavelength): Wave energy dissipation increases due to bottom friction and breaking. Coastline shape: Bays and headlands can focus or disperse wave energy, creating localized areas of high or low wave power. The irregular coastline of Galicia, with its numerous rias (coastal inlets), can concentrate wave energy in certain areas. Seasonal variations: Wave energy potential often varies seasonally, with higher energy levels typically occurring during winter months in temperate latitudes. In Spain, these factors combine to shape a varied wave energy landscape. The Atlantic coast, especially in Galicia and the Cantabrian region, has the most wave energy potential thanks to long fetches across the North Atlantic and steady westerly winds. On the other hand, the Mediterranean coast has lower potential due to its shorter fetch and more sheltered conditions. The Canary Islands, even though located further south, benefit from consistent trade winds and a vast Atlantic fetch, making them another key area for exploring wave energy opportunities. 3. Components of a Wave and power calculation Understanding the different parts of a wave is crucial for wave energy conversion. The main components of a wave include Figure 3: a) Crest: The highest point of the wave b) Trough: The lowest point of the wave c) Wave height: The vertical distance between the crest and trough d) Wavelength: The horizontal distance between two consecutive crests or troughs e) Period: The time it takes for two consecutive crests to pass a fixed point f) Amplitude: Half the wave height Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 17 Figure 3 Wave components (image from [5]) The theoretical power density of a wave is a measure that describes the amount of energy contained in the wave per unit of coastal length, and it is calculated using the following equation [3]: 𝑃(𝑘𝑊/𝑚)= ρg² 64π ∗Hs²Tp (Eq. 1) In this formula, ρ is the water density (approximately 1,025 kg/m³ for seawater), g is the gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s²), Hs is the significant wave height (an average of the highest waves from one-third of the total observed), and Tp is the peak wave period (the time it takes for a wave to pass a given point). The theoretical power density is essential for estimating the energy potential of waves in a specific region, as the energy of a wave is directly related to its height and period. The power density, initially calculated in terms of energy per meter of wave, can then be adapted to the specific wave energy converter being used. By applying the local wave conditions, the power density can help estimate the amount of energy that a WEC device could absorb in a specific location. 2.2 WAVE ENERGY CONVERTERS 2.2.1 Introduction of WECs Wave Energy Converters are devices designed to capture the energy of ocean waves and convert it into electricity. The diversity of wave climates across the globe has led to various designs, each tailored to specific environmental conditions. These devices have the potential to play a significant role in the transition to renewable energy sources. This section introduces the primary components, some classifications, and operational principles of WECs. 2.2.1.1 Main Components Most wave energy converters rely on a set of five critical components that work together in order to obtain energy from waves effectively. Primary Interface (Energy Capture Mechanism) This is the component that directly interacts with the waves, capturing energy from their motion or pressure. Common designs include floating buoys, flaps, or submerged chambers. The choice of interface depends on the wave environment and the WEC’s operating principle, such as oscillatory motion or pressure differential. The materials and structure of this interface are Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 18 designed to withstand harsh marine conditions while maximizing energy capture efficiency. In the Figure 4 it is represented by the buoy. Power Take-Off System (PTO) The PTO system converts the mechanical energy from the primary interface into electricity. PTO technologies vary, with some employing hydraulic systems to drive generators, others using air turbines, or advanced direct-drive systems that eliminate intermediary steps. The PTO's efficiency and reliability significantly influence the overall performance of the WEC. In the Figure 4 it is represented by the hydraulic PTO system. Control System The control system ensures the WEC adapts to varying wave conditions. By optimizing the interaction between the device and the waves, the control system maximizes energy output and ensures safe operation during extreme conditions. Advanced control strategies may include machine learning algorithms to predict and adjust to changing wave climates in realtime. For the example in the Figure 4 the control system could be onshore in a control unit (processors), inside the buoy (sensors, processors) or in the PTO system (actuators). Mooring System Mooring systems anchor the WEC to the seabed, balancing the need for stability with the flexibility required to move with the waves. Different configurations, such as catenary moorings, tension-leg systems, or hybrid designs, are used depending on the water depth and wave environment. Properly designed mooring systems are crucial for the WEC's longevity and efficient operation. For the example in the Figure 4 the mooring system are or catenary chains or tension legs. Energy Storage and Grid Integration To address the intermittent nature of wave energy, many WECs incorporate energy storage systems, such as batteries or flywheels. These systems smooth power delivery to the electrical grid. Additionally, power conditioning systems ensure that the generated electricity meets grid requirements, enhancing the technology's reliability and usability. Figure 4 Schematic diagram of wave energy converter (image from [6] ) Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 19 2.2.1.2 Wave energy converters classification The deployment of wave energy converters is one of the main characteristics that makes the devices differ from one another. Firstly there are 5 options of deployment location represented in the Figure 5. Onshore,Based Onshore WECs are installed at depths of 0–10 meters, typically integrated into coastal structures such as breakwaters or seawalls. These systems are fixed to the seabed, simplifying installation and maintenance. Onshore devices benefit from proximity to the grid, reducing power transmission costs. However, they are limited by the lower wave energy available near the shore. Nearshore,Based Nearshore fixed WECs operate in 10–25 meters of water depth, attaching to the ocean floor. They capture significant wave energy while benefiting from a more stable wave environment compared to offshore locations. Their closer proximity to the shore ensures easier maintenance and lower transmission costs than offshore devices. Nearshore,Floating Floating WECs in nearshore environments are deployed at depths of 25–50 meters and anchored to the seabed. These devices can adapt to more predictable wave directions near the shore, enhancing energy capture efficiency. However, they require robust mooring systems to ensure stability and reliability in varying conditions. Offshore,Submerged Submerged WECs are located in deeper waters, typically beyond 50 meters, and operate fully underwater. They harness the powerful waves of offshore environments while minimizing visual impact and exposure to harsh surface weather. However, they face challenges related to high installation and maintenance costs and the need for long-distance energy transmission. Offshore,Floating Floating WECs deployed offshore operate in deep waters beyond 50 meters. These devices are designed to capture the high-energy potential of large offshore waves. Despite their significant energy potential, they face substantial challenges in survivability during harsh ocean conditions, as well as high installation and maintenance costs. Figure 5 Wave devices according to their location (image from[1]) Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 20 Two other important characteristics that make WECs differ from one another are the orientation to waves and their size relative to wavelength. WEC perpendicular to waves Devices positioned directly facing incoming waves can exploit the horizontal motion of waves effectively. This orientation is suitable for systems that rely on oscillatory motion, where the wave’s kinetic energy is maximized. WEC parallel to waves Devices aligned with the wave direction, such as long attenuators, absorb energy along the wavefront. This orientation can increase energy capture efficiency, especially in consistent wave climates. Omnidirectional WEC Omnidirectional systems are capable of capturing energy from waves approaching from any direction. While offering versatility, these devices often trade off some efficiency compared to designs optimized for specific wave orientations. WEC small compared to wavelength Devices with dimensions much smaller than the targeted wavelength, such as point absorbers, can efficiently capture localized wave energy regardless of the wave’s direction. WEC comparable to wavelength Medium-sized devices designed to match the wavelength can align with the wave’s motion, optimizing energy absorption. WEC larger than wavelength Large-scale devices, such as overtopping structures, span a significant portion of the wave front, capturing energy from the entire length of the wave. These systems are well-suited for locations with consistent, high-energy waves. This thesis examines specific types of Wave Energy Converters , including Oscillating Wave Surge Converters, Point Absorbers, Attenuators, Oscillating Water Columns, Overtopping Devices, Submerged Pressure Differential Systems, Rotating Mass Systems, Bulge Wave Converters, and Dielectric Elastomer Generators. 2.2.2 Background of wave energy The concept of harnessing wave energy for electricity production originated in 1799 when the first wave energy device patent was filed in Paris [7]. However, significant advancements in wave energy technology didn’t occur until the 1970s, motivated by the global oil crisis of 1973. This period marked an important moment in wave energy research and development, as researchers and engineers attempted to utilize the power of ocean waves more effectively[8]. In 1974, Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh introduced the "Salter's Duck" wave energy converter represented in the Figure 6 [9]. This innovative device demonstrated the Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 21 great potential of wave energy and encouraged further research in the field. The Salter's Duck represented a significant advancement in efficiency compared to earlier concepts, as its unique shape allowed it to capture energy from both the up and down motion of waves, as well as the forward movement. Figure 6 Salter's Duck Wave Energy Converter (image from[10] ) During the 1980s and 1990s, many countries started big wave energy projects, which led to the creation of different test devices. In Japan, scientists made the Mighty Whale, a floating device that used the up and down motion of waves in a chamber. This 50-meter-long test device showed that wave energy technology could be made bigger [11]. In Norway, they developed the Multi-Resonant Oscillating Water Column , utilizing a novel multi-chamber design to improve efficiency across a broader range of wave frequencies. The start of the 2000s brought new interest in wave energy, along with big improvements in technology. In 2004, an important milestone was reached when the Pelamis Wave Energy Converter (Figure 7) [12], developed by a Scottish company, became the first large-scale wave energy device to successfully produce electricity for the power grid. The Pelamis, a semi-submerged articulated structure, represented a major step forward in offshore wave energy technology. Its ability to operate in deep water environments opened new possibilities for wave energy deployment, demonstrating improvements in survivability, power take-off systems, and grid integration. These developments from the late 18th century to the early 2000s laid the foundation for modern wave energy technology, showcasing advancements in efficiency, survivability, and scalability. Each iteration of WEC design brought new insights and improvements, gradually moving the field towards commercial viability. Figure 7 Pelamis Wave Energy Converter (image from [13] ) Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 22 2.2.3. Current science and technology and challenges Current science and technology Recent years have seen significant advancements in wave energy technology, driven by ongoing research and development efforts worldwide. One area of focus has been improving the efficiency of wave energy converters . For instance, researchers at the University of Plymouth have developed a new type of WEC that uses a flexible rubber membrane to capture energy from waves. This design has shown potential for increased efficiency and reduced maintenance costs compared to traditional rigid structures. Cost reduction has been another key area of research. The Wave Energy Scotland program, launched in 2014, has been instrumental in driving down the costs associated with wave energy technology. Through a series of innovations and fundings, the program has supported the development of novel materials, control systems, and power take-off mechanisms that promise to make wave energy more economically viable [14]. Integration of wave energy into electrical grids has also seen progress. In 2020, EMEC successfully demonstrated the world's first ocean energy virtual synchronous machine, a technology that allows wave and tidal energy converters to mimic the behavior of conventional power plants, facilitating easier grid integration. Another innovative approach being tested is the combination of wave energy with other offshore renewable technologies. The EU-funded MUSICA project is developing a multi-use platform that integrates wave energy, wind energy, and aquaculture, showcasing the potential for synergies between different marine sectors [15]. Challenges of the actual situation Despite the progress made in wave energy technology, several challenges persist. One of the primary problems is the high cost of wave energy compared to other renewable sources. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency [16], the levelized cost of electricity for wave energy in 2019 ranged from $0.33 to $0.63 per kWh, significantly higher than the LCOE for offshore wind ($0.08 to $0.16 per kWh) or solar PV ($0.05 to $0.14 per kWh). The harsh marine environment poses another significant challenge. Wave energy devices must withstand extreme weather conditions, corrosion, and biofouling, which can lead to high maintenance costs and reduced operational lifetimes. Environmental concerns also present challenges. While wave energy is considered environmentally friendly, there are potential impacts on marine ecosystems that need to be carefully studied and mitigated. The EU-funded WESE project is conducting comprehensive environmental monitoring around wave energy sites to better understand and address these potential impacts [17]. Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 23 Despite these challenges, the wave energy sector also presents numerous opportunities. The predictability of wave energy compared to other renewable sources like wind and solar is a significant advantage. Waves can be forecast several days in advance, allowing for better grid management and integration. The potential for job creation and economic growth in coastal communities is another opportunity. A report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) [16] suggests that the ocean energy sector, including wave energy, could create up to 680,000 jobs by 2050. Furthermore, wave energy can be key in achieving energy security and decarbonization goals, particularly for island nations and remote coastal communities. The EU-funded OPERA [65] project demonstrated how wave energy could provide a reliable power source for offshore applications. 2.2.4 Integration of Wave Energy Converters into Power Grids and Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems The integration of Wave Energy Converters into existing power grids and hybrid renewable energy systems is gaining traction as a viable strategy for enhancing energy security and sustainability. WECs can be effectively combined with other renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, to create more productive hybrid systems. For instance, wave energy tends to be more consistent during periods when wind and solar energy generation may be low, providing a reliable source of electricity that can stabilize the overall energy supply. Hybrid systems that incorporate WECs can improve grid resilience by diversifying the energy mix. For example the Mutriku Wave Power Plant in Spain (Figure 8) [20], where oscillating water column technology is integrated into the local power grid. This facility demonstrates how wave energy can contribute to meeting local electricity demands while reducing reliance on fossil fuels Furthermore, studies have shown that combining wave energy with wind power can lead to increased capacity factors and lower overall costs of energy production, making such systems economically attractive [21]. Figure 8 Mutriku Wave Power Plant in Spain (image from [20]) Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 24 However, integrating WECs into power grids also presents technical challenges. Variability in wave energy output can lead to fluctuations in voltage and frequency, which may affect grid stability. To resolve these issues, advanced control systems and energy storage solutions are being developed. For example, battery storage can help smooth out the power output from WECs before it is fed into the grid. Moreover, the development of smart grid technologies allows for better management of variable renewable resources, facilitating the seamless integration of wave energy alongside other renewable sources. As research progresses, the potential for WECs to play a significant role in hybrid renewable energy systems (Figure 9) becomes increasingly apparent. Initiatives like the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) are actively exploring strategies for integrating marine energy devices into existing electrical infrastructure. These efforts highlight the importance of collaboration between different sectors of the renewable energy industry to create robust and resilient energy systems capable of meeting future demands [22]. Figure 9 Wind-wave hybrid system (image from [23] ) 2.3. TECHNO-ECONOMIC METRICS This section introduces the techno-economic metrics for wave energy converters, categorized into technical Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and economic KPIs. Reference values for these metrics are provided, derived from thorough research and analysis from [1][24][25][26][27][28][29]. 2.3.1 Technical KPIs 1.Available power (𝑷𝒂𝒗𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆) The available power (eq. 2) is a critical metric for understanding the maximum energy a Wave Energy Converter can capture under real conditions at a specific site. It combines local wave power density, wavelength, and the device’s efficiency to calculate the effective energy capture. The process involves three main steps: determining the wavelength, calculating the effective capture width, and computing the theoretical power captured. 𝑃𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒=𝑃𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠[𝑘𝑊 𝑚]∗𝑊𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 (Eq. 2) Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 25 The wavelength (λ) is a key parameter in wave energy analysis. It is determined by the peak wave period (Tp), which varies based on real conditions at the selected location. The formula for the wavelength depends on water depth (eq. 3,4,5). For Deep Water (h> λ/2): λ= 𝑔∗𝑇𝑝2 2∗𝜋 (Eq. 3) For intermediate depth (λ/20<h<λ/2): λ= 𝑔∗𝑇𝑝2 2∗𝜋 tanh(2∗𝜋∗ℎ λ0 ) ;λ0=𝑔∗𝑇𝑝2 2∗𝜋 (Eq. 4) For shallow water (h> λ/20): λ= 𝑇𝑝∗√𝑔∗ℎ (Eq. 5) Where g= 9.81 m/s^2 is the gravitational acceleration and Tp is the wave period typically between 6 and 12 seconds depending on the site. The effective capture width (Wcapture) reflects how much energy the WEC can effectively extract from the wave, expressed as (Eq. 6). It is determined by the Capture Width Ratio (CWR), which relates the capture width to the wavelength, each WEC has their reference values: 𝑊𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒=𝐶𝑊𝑅∗λ (Eq. 6) Finally with the wave power density and the effective capture width the theoretical Power Captured is calculated. This available power is critical for further calculations, such as efficiency and other Key Performance Indicators, which are essential for assessing the performance of the wave energy converter. 2. Normalized Annual Energy Production (NAEP) The Normalized Annual Energy Production is a key metric used to evaluate the energy performance of wave energy converters and other renewable energy systems. It represents the annual energy output of a system normalized by its installed capacity (Eq. 7) . This allows for a standardized comparison of different systems, regardless of their size or rated power. 𝑁𝐴𝐸𝑃=𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡∗𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑁𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 (Eq. 7) 3. Capacity Factor (CF) The Capacity Factor measures the performance of a Wave Energy Converter (WEC) by comparing its actual energy output to its maximum potential output over a period (Eq. 8). It is expressed as: 𝐶𝐹=𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦∗𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑 (Eq. 8) Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 32 3.Attenuators Attenuators are elongated structures designed to capture wave energy by flexing along the length of the wave. These devices are typically larger than the wavelength and are oriented parallel to the direction of wave propagation. An attenuator consists of a series of connected cylindrical sections that move relative to each other as the wave passes along the device. The joints between the segments are equipped with hydraulic pumps that generate electricity from the flexing motion. Attenuators are usually deployed offshore, where wave conditions are more consistent and powerful. As floating devices, they remain on the water surface and can capture energy over a long stretch of the wavefront. The Pelamis wave energy converter is a well-known example of an attenuator. Despite their high energy capture potential, attenuators have a more significant visual impact compared to other WEC types and require complex mechanical systems to maintain and operate. Their primary advantage is their ability to capture energy along the entire length of the device, making them particularly suitable for offshore wave farms. 4.Oscillating Water Columns (OWCs) Oscillating Water Columns (OWCs) are partially submerged, hollow structures that use the rise and fall of waves to generate electricity. The device consists of a chamber open to the sea below the water surface and connected to an air turbine above. As waves rise, they push air inside the chamber through the turbine, generating power. When the wave recedes, air is drawn back into the chamber, continuing the cycle. OWCs typically use bidirectional turbines, capable of rotating in the same direction regardless of the airflow direction, ensuring continuous power generation. Figure 14 Attenuator (image from [35]) Figure 15 Pelamis (image from [35]) Figure 16 Oscillating Water Columns (image from [36]) Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 33 OWCs can be built into coastal structures (shoreline OWCs) or deployed as floating devices offshore. Shoreline OWCs, like the LIMPET (Land Installed Marine Power Energy Transmitter), are integrated into cliffs or breakwaters to reduce construction costs and improve reliability. However, these devices face challenges in optimizing air flow efficiency to maximize power output. Their primary advantage lies in their ability to be integrated into existing infrastructure, reducing their visual impact and construction footprint. 5.Overtopping Devices Overtopping devices capture wave energy by allowing water from waves to spill over into a reservoir located above sea level. The accumulated water is then released back into the ocean through hydraulic turbines, generating electricity in a manner similar to conventional hydroelectric plants. These devices can be deployed either onshore or offshore. Onshore overtopping devices, like the Tapchan (Tapered Channel), use a gradually narrowing channel to focus wave energy into the reservoir. Offshore devices, such as the Wave Dragon, utilize large reflective arms to direct waves into the central reservoir. While overtopping devices can smooth out fluctuations in power output by using the reservoir to store potential energy, they are sensitive to tidal variations and require consistent wave conditions for optimal performance. The main challenge for overtopping devices is maintaining efficiency in variable sea states. However, their ability to provide relatively steady power output and their straightforward hydroelectric conversion process make them promising candidates for large-scale wave energy projects. Figure 17 LIMPET (image from [37]) Figure 19 Onshore overtopping device (image from [38]) Figure 18 Wave Dragon (image from [39]) Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 34 6.Submerged Pressure Differential Submerged pressure differential devices are typically installed nearshore and attached to the seabed. They operate by utilizing the pressure difference created by waves passing over them. When a wave crest passes over the device, the increased water pressure compresses a flexible membrane or internal mechanism. As the wave trough passes, the pressure decreases, allowing the device to expand. This alternating compression and expansion drives a fluid through a power take-off system, usually hydraulic or pneumatic, which generates electricity. The Archimedes Wave Swing is a well-known example of this technology. It consists of a large cylindrical structure that moves vertically with the wave-induced pressure changes. These devices have a low visual impact since they are installed underwater and are less affected by surface conditions. However, they are limited by water depth and require precise calibration to maximize efficiency in varying sea states. Figure 21 Submerged pressure differential (image from [40]) 7.Rotating Mass Rotating mass devices generate electricity by using the motion of waves to move an internal rotating mass, such as an eccentric weight or gyroscope. These devices float on the water surface and capture energy from the motion induced by waves. The internal rotating mass creates a gyroscopic effect that drives a generator, converting mechanical energy into electrical power. The Penguin WEC by Wello Oy is a notable example of a rotating mass device. It uses an asymmetric mass that rotates within the floating structure as the device responds to wave motion. This technology allows the device to capture energy from waves coming from multiple directions, making it suitable for offshore deployment. Figure 20 Archimedes Wave Swing (image from [40]) Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 35 While rotating mass devices offer the advantage of omnidirectional energy capture, they face challenges related to complex internal mechanics and the durability of moving parts in harsh marine environments. 8. Bulge Wave Bulge wave devices consist of a long, flexible rubber tube filled with water, anchored to the seabed and oriented in the direction of incoming waves. As waves travel along the tube, they create a bulge inside the tube that grows in size as it moves toward the end of the device. This bulge pushes water through a turbine, generating electricity The Anaconda device, developed by Checkmate Seaenergy, is a prominent example of a bulge wave device. It is designed to be simple, with few moving parts, making it a robust solution for wave energy capture. However, achieving high efficiency requires large-scale devices, which can pose deployment and maintenance challenges. 9.Dielectric Elastomer Generators (DEGs) Dielectric Elastomer Generators (DEGs) are an emerging wave energy technology that uses flexible materials to directly convert mechanical energy from waves into electrical energy. DEGs consist of a soft capacitor made from a dielectric elastomer material placed between two compliant electrodes. As waves deform the DEG, its capacitance changes, which can be used to generate electricity. Figure 23 Rotating Mass WEC (image from [41]) Figure 22 Penguin WEC (image from [42]) Figure 24 Anaconda Bluge Wave WEC (image from [43] ) Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 36 DEGs offer a promising solution due to their simplicity, low cost, and potential for high power density. They can be integrated into various WEC designs, including point absorbers, oscillating water columns, and bulge wave devices. The PolyWEC is an example of a DEG device currently in development. However, DEGs remain in the early stages of research, and challenges include improving their durability and scalability. Figure 25 Examples of WECs with CD-DEGs as the PTO system (image from [44]) 3.2 WEC COMPARISON TABLES Following the detailed descriptions of each wave energy converter, this section presents key information through a series of organized summary tables. These tables aim to make it easier to compare the selected WEC devices, covering aspects such as technical details, benefits and challenges, and economic data. By providing a clear overview, they help to better understand the differences between the devices and their suitability for different marine environments. The information in these tables combines general details about each WEC category with specific examples, especially for numerical data. This method addresses the lack of consistent information available about these devices. Notably, CAPEX and OPEX data have been taken from the general category of each device by reviewing multiple research papers and commercial examples. Despite efforts to fill in all the data, some gaps remain due to the early stage of development of some technologies. Additionally, the data shown refers to devices at a commercial scale; if prototype devices were used, the CAPEX and OPEX values would likely be higher. One key point in this analysis is the decision not to include efficiency data. Although efficiency is an important measure for most energy technologies, it is particularly hard to assess for WECs due to the changing nature of marine environments. Wave conditions, which greatly affect WEC performance, vary a lot depending on location and time, making efficiency data hard to compare fairly. Instead, capacity factor has been used as a more useful performance measure. This value shows the actual energy output of a device compared to its maximum possible output, giving important insight into how well a WEC might work economically. Capacity factor is a common measure in renewable energy because it accounts for the fact that these technologies do not produce energy all the time. Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 37 The first table summarizes the qualitative characteristics of various WEC technologies, providing insights into their deployment locations, energy capture methods and other design features. These parameters offer a foundational understanding of how each device interacts with its environment and its suitability for specific marine conditions. Table 1 Qualitative Technical and Physical Information From this table, it’s evident that devices such as Oscillating Wave Surge Converters and Oscillating Water Columns are better suited for nearshore or onshore deployment, where wave dynamics are less harsh but require specific orientations to function efficiently. In contrast, floating devices like Point Absorbers, Attenuators, and Rotating Mass are designed for offshore environments, offering greater flexibility in deployment. Additionally, the energy capture methods vary widely, from horizontal motion in OWSC to the unique gyroscopic effect in Rotating Mass systems, showcasing the technological diversity in wave energy conversion. Example device Size relative to wavelength Orientation to waves Typical location Energy capture method Power take-off system Oscillating Wave Surge Converters WaveRoller Comparable Perpendicular Nearshore, based Horizontal motion Hydraulic Point Absorbers CorPower Ocean Smaller Omnidirectional Nearshore to offshore, floating Vertical motion Hydraulic or direct drive Attenuators Pelamis Larger Parallel Offshore, floating Flexing motion Hydraulic Oscillating Water Columns LIMPET Varies Varies Onshore, based Air compression Air turbine Overtopping Devices Wave Dragon Larger Varies Nearshore to offshore, floating Water collection Hydro turbine Submerged Pressure Differential Archimedes Wave Swing Smaller Perpendicular Nearshore, based Pressure difference Hydraulic or pneumatic Rotating Mass Wello Penguin Smaller Omnidirectional Offshore, floating Gyroscopic effect Mechanical to electrical Bulge Wave Anaconda Comparable Parallel Nearshore to offshore, floating Bulge propagation Hydraulic turbine Dielectric Elastomer Generators PolyWEC Variable Flexible Variable Deformation of elastomer Electrostatic Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 38 The second table provides numerical details of the WEC devices, such as power output, capacity factor, lifespan, deployment depth, and distance to shore. These parameters allow for a comparison of the technical capabilities and adaptability of each technology. Table 2 Quantitative technical and physical information Sources: [34][32][35][37][39][45][40][42][43] Devices like Overtopping Devices and Rotating Mass stand out with the highest power outputs, making them attractive for high-energy environments. However, Submerged Pressure Differential devices excel in capacity factor, indicating their efficiency in converting wave energy. Deployment depths vary significantly, with Oscillating Water Columns primarily suited for shallow waters, while technologies like Attenuators and Rotating Mass are designed for deeper offshore installations. Additionally, lifespans range from 10-15 years for mechanically complex systems to 25-30 years for simpler, more robust designs like Oscillating Water Columns. Power Output per device(kW) Capacity Factor (%) Expected Lifespan (years) Deployment depth (m) Distance to shore (km) Oscillating Wave Surge Converters 675kW 25-50% 20-25 years 10-25 m 0.3-2 km Point Absorbers 300kW 40-60% 15-20 years >40m >5km Attenuators 750kW 25-45% 20-25 years 50-70 m 5-10km Oscillating Water Columns 500kW 25-35% 25-30 years 0-10 m 0km Overtopping Devices 5500 kW 30-40% 20-30 years 20-50m >5km Submerged Pressure Differential 258 kW 50-68% 25-30 years 10-30m 1-5km Rotating Mass 1000kW - 10-15 years 50-70m 5-10km Bulge Wave 875kW 25-35% 15-20 years 10-50m 2-15km Dielectric Elastomer Generators 360kW - - 10-30m 0-5km Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 39 The following table summarizes the main strengths and limitations of each WEC type, focusing on factors such as visual impact, key challenges, and notable advantages. Table 3 Key benefits and challenges Visual impact plays a significant role, with technologies like Submerged Pressure Differential and Oscillating Wave Surge Converters offering minimal disruption to coastal aesthetics. Meanwhile, devices like Attenuators and Bulge Wave exhibit higher visual impacts, which might limit their acceptability in certain regions. Each technology also faces unique challenges: Oscillating Water Columns must optimize airflow for efficiency, while Rotating Mass systems grapple with internal mechanical complexity. Despite these challenges, advantages like the versatility of Point Absorbers and the energy-smoothing potential of Overtopping Devices highlight the adaptability of WEC technologies to different scenarios. Visual impact Main challenge Key advantage Oscillating Wave Surge Converters Low Site-specific efficiency Efficient in surge zones Point Absorbers Medium Limited individual output Compact and versatile Attenuators High Complex mechanical system Captures energy along wavelength Oscillating Water Columns Medium Optimizing air flow efficiency Can be integrated into structures Overtopping Devices High Tidal variation effects Smooths power output Submerged Pressure Differential Low Limited by water depth Low visual impact Rotating Mass High Complex internal mechanics Captures energy from multiple wave directions Bulge Wave High Large scale required for efficiency Simple design with few moving parts Dielectric Elastomer Generators Medium Still in early development stages Low-cost, highpower density Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 40 The fourth table focuses on the economic aspects of WEC technologies, particularly CAPEX (Capital Expenditure) and OPEX (Operational Expenditure). These metrics provide a glimpse into the financial requirements and operational sustainability of each device. Table 4 Economic information. Sources: [1][24][25][26][27][28][29] [34][32][35][37][39][45][40][42][43]. The economic table illustrates notable differences in costs between technologies. Point Absorbers and Submerged Pressure Differential devices are among the most cost-effective options, with relatively low CAPEX and OPEX. In contrast, Bulge Wave and Overtopping Devices show significantly higher capital costs due to their scale and structural requirements. Interestingly, emerging technologies like Dielectric Elastomer Generators are expected to CAPEX (€/kW) OPEX (%) Justification Oscillating Wave Surge Converters 3000-6000 2-4% Moderate CAPEX for nearshore devices like WaveRoller; average OPEX due to easy maintenance. Point Absorbers 2500-4500 2-5% CAPEX low due to compact offshore devices; OPEX reflects offshore servicing. Attenuators 2050 -6100 2-4% Large, complex systems like Pelamis require higher CAPEX, the OPEX is average Oscillating Water Columns 4000-5000 2-3% Nearshore integration devices like LIMPET; moderate CAPEX and OPEX reflect structural costs. Overtopping Devices 3500-6000 3-4% Large devices like Wave Dragon with robust structures; higher OPEX for offshore maintenance. Submerged Pressure Differential 2500-4000 2-4% Simple submerged devices like Archimedes Wave Swing; low CAPEX and average OPEX Rotating Mass Should be high due to complexity in mechanics Should be high due to offshore deployment and high complexity Complexity in mechanics (e.g., Wello Penguin) increases costs, especially for offshore deployment. Bulge Wave 7000-12000 3-5% Very large-scale devices like Anaconda; high CAPEX and OPEX reflect their novel design and size. Dielectric Elastomer Generators Should be the lowest Should be high due to earlystage technology Early-stage technology like PolyWEC; low CAPEX offset by high OPEX for research and maintenance. Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 41 have low CAPEX but higher OPEX, reflecting their early development stage and associated research and maintenance needs. It’s important to emphasize that these figures reflect commercial-scale systems; prototype devices would exhibit higher costs due to smaller economies of scale. 4.DEVELOPMENT OF WEC SYSTEM 4.1. REQUIREMENTS To ensure the appropriate selection of technologies and locations for the installation of Wave Energy Converters, specific technical, economic, and environmental requirements are defined. These requirements are tailored to ensure that the project meets the objectives of optimizing energy capture, minimizing environmental impact, and achieving economic feasibility. Below is a schematic outline of the key requirements. Power Output Requirements The project’s target capacity is set at 10 MW, making it a medium-scale installation suitable for real-world deployment [30]. This capacity provides a balance between technological feasibility and economic impact. The project will consist of multiple identical WEC units working together to achieve the desired output. Additionally, the WECs in this project will not be connected to an existing grid. Instead, the generated energy will be used for autonomous systems or local storage. Site Selection Requirements One of the most critical aspects of the project is selecting a suitable site that maximizes energy capture while minimizing environmental and social impacts. The chosen site must have favorable wave resource availability, including significant wave height and wave period, which should align with the WEC’s operational range. The site’s bathymetry and depth must match the chosen WEC’s deployment requirements, whether the devices are floating or fixed. The selected site must comply with environmental and regulatory restrictions. It is essential to avoid marine protected areas, such as Natura 2000 zones, to ensure the project does not negatively impact sensitive ecosystems. Regulatory compliance will also involve obtaining the necessary permits, including environmental impact assessments and maritime usage rights. Current activities and uses in the selected area must be carefully considered to avoid conflicts. The site must avoid areas used for fishing, shipping lanes, recreational activities, and military operations. Additionally, the project must steer clear of zones designated for coastal protection, cultural heritage sites, national defense, and navigation safety. Avoiding these areas will help mitigate risks to both the WEC installation and other users of the marine environment, ensuring that the project does not disrupt existing activities or compromise safety. Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 48 Galicia has the highest mean power (30.26 kW/m), which is significantly higher than the other sites. While its standard deviation (6.15 kW/m) is moderate, the maximum power (37.01 kW/m) and minimum power (11.99 kW/m) show that the site is capable of both high energy production and maintaining a reasonable baseline during calmer conditions. This makes it the most suitable location for a WEC at 100 m depth. From the three tables it can be concluded that Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, País Vasco, and Canarias are the regions with the highest wave energy resources. As expected, the highest standard deviation is observed in Canarias, owing to the significant differences between the windward and leeward coasts of the archipelago. 4.3.1 Restrictions in the selected area Once the areas of interest for applying the Wave Energy Converters have been selected, it is necessary to take into account all the restrictions imposed for the installation of the WECs. This is because there are several zones designated for specific activities and protected areas. In the following map, the northern region of Spain is shown, which represents the area of interest for installing the WECs, along with all the restrictions that limit the selection of sites where the WECs can be applied. The regions that are shaded must be avoided. The selected areas on the map (Figure 28) include the following categories. The legend for Figure 28 can be found in Appendix 1. Protected Areas (Marine Environment): These are zones where activities may be restricted or prohibited to preserve the marine environment. They include Ramsar Wetlands, the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas, Biosphere Reserves (MaB), Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance (ZEPIM), Protected Natural Spaces (ENP), Spain's Network of Marine Protected Areas (RAMPE), and the Natura 2000 Network. Protected Areas (Marine Activities and Uses): These zones have restrictions on various activities in the marine environment. Limitations include scientific activities, mining activities, recreational activities, underwater activities, and aquaculture activities. There are also restrictions on cables and pipelines, hydrocarbon extraction and CO2 storage, military maneuvers, and activities related to flora and fauna. Additionally, limitations exist for the installation of wind turbines, the construction of infrastructure, shellfishing, navigation, fishing activities, discharges, and energy infrastructure. Priority Use Zones: These are zones where certain activities are prioritized due to their importance for the environment, heritage, and national security. They include priority areas for biodiversity protection, the extraction of aggregates for coastal protection, the protection of cultural heritage, national defense, and navigation safety. Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 49 Figure 28 Northen Europe ocean restriction map (image from [49]) 4.3.2 Selected location for CorPower Point Absorber Once it is known that the WEC to be implemented is the Point Absorber CorPower, which requires a depth of more than 40 meters, the specific installation site is selected. The area of interest is located in Galicia, as the installation will take place at a depth of approximately 50 meters. Additionally, all the previously mentioned restrictions will be respected, and a wave power analysis will be conducted for the selected site. The specific location within Galicia has been selected based on data collected from the SIMAR 3010017 buoy, which provides historical measurements of oceanographic conditions. The buoy is managed by PORTUS (Puertos del Estado), which tracks and monitors maritime and coastal conditions in Spain. The coordinates of the selected point are Longitude: 9.08° W and Latitude: 42.71° N, which correspond to the position of the buoy marked in red on the map (figure 29). Figure 29 Galicia's available SIMAR buoys (image from [50]) Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 50 As shown in the following bathymetry map (Figure 30), the depth of the selected area perfectly matches the required conditions for the CorPower device. The map clearly illustrates that the site lies at an approximate depth of 50-70 meters, which is within the ideal range for the Point Absorber CorPower, which operates at a depth of more than 40 meters . Figure 30 SIMAR 3010017 bathymetry map (image from [49]) Additionally, as shown on the restrictions map (figure 31), the selected area does not overlap with any restricted activities or protected zones. By using the Infomar platform we can confirm that the site is free from conflicts with other uses, such as marine reserves or areas with special regulations for fishing, navigation, or military activities. This ensures the CorPower installation can proceed without violating any environmental or legal restrictions. Figure 31 SIMAR 3010017 restrictions map (image from [49]), legend in Appendix 1 Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 51 With data sourced from PORTUS (Puertos del Estado), a historical dataset of wave conditions measured by the SIMAR 3010017 buoy has been compiled. This dataset encompasses significant wave height and peak period observations spanning the years 2015 to 2025. Using this dataset, a graph has been generated to plot Hs (against Tp (peak period). The graph below (Table 11) shows the frequency of each combination of Tp and Hs observed over the past decade. This visualization facilitates the analysis of wave behavior in the selected region during the specified period, offering valuable insights into the most common wave conditions and their patterns. Table 11 Frequency of Hs and Tp combinations .Source [50]: 5 TECHNO ECONOMICAL ANALYSIS 5.1 MODEL CONSTRUCTION Before performing the techno-economic calculations, a structured model is established to guide the entire process. The workflow begins with input data, which includes the wave climate for the specific location, such as the Tp vs. Hs table, and the characteristics of the WEC, such as its power matrix. Using this information, performance calculations are carried out. These calculations involve first determining the theoretical power that the WEC can absorb from the sea at the given location, followed by computing the exact power generated by the WEC. With these results and input data, technical KPIs such as capacity factor and efficiency can be evaluated. Next, the performance calculations are combined with the economic characteristics of the WEC, namely CAPEX and OPEX, to perform the economic calculations. These calculations include metrics such as the Levelized Cost of Energy and Payback Period. Hs vs Tp (frequency) Peak Period (s) Total <=1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11=> Significant height (m) <=0,5 - - 0,016 0,019 0,039 0,063 0,357 1,014 1,272 1,39 1,616 5,786 1 - - 0,469 0,763 0,286 0,369 1,189 2,055 4,414 7,822 10,346 27,713 1,5 - - - 0,323 0,194 0,287 0,391 0,516 1,524 6,847 15,271 25,353 2 - - - 0,022 0,025 0,135 0,383 0,333 0,516 2,01 11,938 15,362 2,5 - - - - 0,008 0,019 0,342 0,274 0,441 0,968 8,017 10,069 3 - - - - 0,005 0,003 0,133 0,194 0,265 0,61 5,211 6,421 3,5 - - - - - - 0,021 0,116 0,213 0,54 3,416 4,306 4 - - - - - - - 0,039 0,096 0,298 2,133 2,566 4,5 - - - - - - - 0,002 0,023 0,134 1,01 1,169 5 - - - - - - - - 0,002 0,071 0,603 0,676 5,5=> - - - - - - - - - 0,008 0,572 0,58 Total 0 0 0,485 1,127 0,557 0,876 2,816 4,543 8,766 20,698 60,133 100% Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 52 The established workflow is represented in the following Figure 32. Figure 32 Techno economical analysis workflow To ensure maximum accuracy in the calculations, a matrix-based approach is employed, taking into account all possible combinations of significant wave heights and peak periods alongside their respective frequencies. Instead of using average values of Hs and Tp to compute parameters like power or efficiency, the calculations are performed for each individual combination of Hs and Tp. The frequency of each combination, as detailed in the previously described table, is then incorporated into the analysis. This approach provides highly precise average values, ensuring a more accurate representation of the wave conditions and their influence on the studied parameters. 5.2 CALCULATIONS 5.2.1 System design This section focuses on the techno-economic calculations for the implementation of the CorPower Wave Energy Converter at the selected location, defined by the buoy SIMAR 3010017. The following subsections detail the steps taken to calculate key parameters such as significant wave height (Hs), peak period (Tp), power density, and available power. These calculations are essential to assess the energy potential of the deployment site and estimate the performance of the WEC. 1.Average significant height and peak period The average significant wave height (Hs,avg) and peak period (Tp,avg) are essential parameters for understanding the wave conditions at the deployment site. These values give insight into the typical sea state the WEC will encounter, helping to evaluate its operational suitability. It is crucial to verify that the Hs values fall within the operational range of the CorPower device, which is between 0.25 m and 8 m. Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 53 Using equations (18) , (19) and the previos Table 11 “Frequency of Hs and Tp combinations”, the average values for Hs and Tp were calculated based on the frequency distribution of different wave conditions at the site. 𝐻𝑠,𝑎𝑣𝑔 =∑ ∑ 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞(𝐻𝑠,𝑖,𝑇𝑝,𝑗)∗𝐻𝑠,𝑖 𝑛 𝑗=1 𝑚 𝑖=1 ∑ ∑ 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞(𝐻𝑠,𝑖,𝑇𝑝,𝑗) 𝑛 𝑗=1 𝑚 𝑖=1 (Eq.18) 𝑇𝑝,𝑎𝑣𝑔 =∑ ∑ 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞(𝐻𝑠,𝑖,𝑇𝑝,𝑗)∗𝑇𝑝,𝑗 𝑛 𝑗=1 𝑚 𝑖=1 ∑ ∑ 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞(𝐻𝑠,𝑖,𝑇𝑝,𝑗) 𝑛 𝑗=1 𝑚 𝑖=1 (Eq. 19) 𝐻𝑠,𝑎𝑣𝑔 =1,81𝑚 & 𝑇𝑝,𝑎𝑣𝑔 =10,17𝑠 After performing the calculations, the average significant wave height (Hs) is found to be 1.81 m, and the average peak period (Tp) is 10.17 s. These averages indicate the typical wave conditions at the site. Additionally, the most frequent combination observed is Hs = 1.5 m and Tp ≥ 11 s, while the least frequent combinations include Hs = 4.5 m with Tp = 8 s and Hs = 5 m with Tp = 9 s. 2. Theoretical Power density (𝑷𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒔) The theoretical power density represents the wave power available at the site per meter of wave front. This value is calculated for all combinations of Hs and Tp using Equation 20 to achieve maximum accuracy. The power density provides an estimate of how much power can be generated from the waves at the site, depending on the significant wave height and peak period. 𝑃𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠= ρg² 64π∗Hs²Tp (Eq. 20) Table 12 Theoretical power density for different combinations of Hs and Tp. 𝑷𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒔 (kW/m) Peak Period (s) <=1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10> Significant height (m) <=0,5 - - 0,37 0,49 0,61 0,74 0,86 0,98 1,10 1,23 1,35 1 - - 1,47 1,96 2,45 2,94 3,43 3,92 4,42 4,91 5,40 1,5 - - - 4,42 5,52 6,62 7,73 8,83 9,93 11,04 12,14 2 - - - 7,85 9,81 11,77 13,74 15,70 17,66 19,62 21,59 2,5 - - - - 15,33 18,40 21,46 24,53 27,60 30,66 33,73 3 - - - - 22,08 26,49 30,91 35,32 39,74 44,15 48,57 3,5 - - - - - - 42,07 48,08 54,09 60,10 66,11 4 - - - - - - - 62,80 70,65 78,50 86,35 4,5 - - - - - - - 79,48 89,41 99,35 109,28 5 - - - - - - - - 110,39 122,65 134,92 5,5=> - - - - - - - - - 148,41 163,25 Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 54 The results from the Table 12 show that the highest power density values correspond to the largest Hs and Tp combinations, as expected. To obtain a realistic estimate, the average power density is calculated by considering the frequency of each Hs and Tp combination (eq 21). 𝑃𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠,𝑎𝑣𝑔 =∑ ∑ 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞(𝐻𝑠,𝑖,𝑇𝑝,𝑖)∗𝑃𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠,𝑎𝑣𝑔(𝐻𝑠,𝑖,𝑇𝑝,𝑖) 𝑛 𝑗=1 𝑚 𝑖=1 ∑ ∑ 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞(𝐻𝑠,𝑖,𝑇𝑝,𝑖) 𝑛 𝑗=1 𝑚 𝑖=1 (Eq. 21) 𝑃𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠,𝑎𝑣𝑔 =21,757𝑘𝑊/𝑚 The calculated average power density at the site is 21.757 kW/m, indicating the wave energy potential per meter of wave front. This value is used for further calculations. 3. Available Power (𝑃𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒) The available power represents the power received by the wave energy converter at a specific location. This calculation takes into account the wave power density at the chosen location in Galicia, and determines how much energy is available for the WEC through the effective capture width of the CorPower device. The available power is calculated as the product of wave power density and the effective capture width (eq. 22): 𝑃𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒=𝑃𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠 [𝑘𝑊 𝑚]∗𝑊𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 (Eq. 22) To compute Pavailable , we must consider the wave power density Pdens for all combinations of peak period and significant wave height. However, before proceeding with this calculation, it is necessary to first determine the effective capture width. This process begins by calculating the wavelength (λ), which for deep water is given by the following formula (eq.23), where g=9.81 m/s^2 is the gravitational acceleration and Tp is the wave period for the chosen location: λavg=𝑔∗𝑇𝑝2 2∗𝜋 (Eq.23) The following table 13 provides the calculated wavelength values for various combinations of Hs and Tp. These values, along with their corresponding frequencies, are used to calculate the average wavelength: Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 55 Table 13 Wavelength for different combinations of Hs and Tp. λavg=∑ ∑ 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞(𝐻𝑠,𝑖,𝑇𝑝,𝑖)∗λavg(𝐻𝑠,𝑖,𝑇𝑝,𝑖) 𝑛 𝑗=1 𝑚 𝑖=1 ∑ ∑ 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞(𝐻𝑠,𝑖,𝑇𝑝,𝑖) 𝑛 𝑗=1 𝑚 𝑖=1 =164,76 𝑚 (Eq. 24) Once the wavelength values are calculated for each combination of Hs and Tp, the average wavelength of 164.76 m is obtained by taking the weighted average using the corresponding frequencies with (Eq.24). Right after, the effective capture width is determined using the Capture Width Ratio (CWR), which represents the relationship between the capture width and the wavelength (Eq. 25). The values are shown in the Table 14. For point absorbers, the CWR typically ranges from 0.2 to 0.4. Given the moderate wave energy potential at the deployment site, a CWR of 0.2 is considered an optimal trade-off between performance and reliability. The effective capture width for each combination of Tp and Hs is calculated with (Eq.25), and the average value of 32,95m is found with the formula in the (Eq. 26). 𝑊𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒=𝐶𝑊𝑅∗ λ (Eq. 25) Table 14 Wcapture for different combinations of Hs and Tp. Wcapture,avg=∑ ∑ 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞(𝐻𝑠,𝑖,𝑇𝑝,𝑖)∗Wcapture(𝐻𝑠,𝑖,𝑇𝑝,𝑖) 𝑛 𝑗=1 𝑚 𝑖=1 ∑ ∑ 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞(𝐻𝑠,𝑖,𝑇𝑝,𝑖) 𝑛 𝑗=1 𝑚 𝑖=1 =32,95𝑚 (Eq. 26) Finally, using the wave power density table and the effective capture width, the theoretical power captured is calculated with (eq. 27) for all combinations of Hs and Tp as shown in the 𝛌 (m) Peak Period (s) <=1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10> Significant height (m) <=0,5 - - 0,22 0,47 1,52 3,54 27,31 101,32 160,87 217,02 305,29 1 - - 6,59 19,06 11,16 20,74 90,96 205,34 558,24 1.221,25 1.954,57 1,5 - - - 8,07 7,57 16,13 29,91 51,56 192,74 1.069,02 2.885,00 2 - - - 0,55 0,98 7,59 29,30 33,27 65,26 313,82 2.255,33 2,5 - - - - 0,31 1,07 26,16 27,38 55,77 151,13 1.514,57 3 - - - - 0,20 0,17 10,17 19,38 33,51 95,24 984,46 3,5 - - - - - - 1,61 11,59 26,94 84,31 645,35 4 - - - - - - - 3,90 12,14 46,53 402,97 4,5 - - - - - - - 0,20 2,91 20,92 190,81 5 - - - - - - - - 0,25 11,09 113,92 5,5=> - - - - - - - - - 1,25 108,06 𝑾 capture(m) Peak Period (s) <=1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10> Significant height (m) <=0,5 - - 2,81 5,00 7,81 11,24 15,30 19,98 25,29 31,23 37,78 1 - - 2,81 5,00 7,81 11,24 15,30 19,98 25,29 31,23 37,78 1,5 - - - 5,00 7,81 11,24 15,30 19,98 25,29 31,23 37,78 2 - - - 5,00 7,81 11,24 15,30 19,98 25,29 31,23 37,78 2,5 - - - - 7,81 11,24 15,30 19,98 25,29 31,23 37,78 3 - - - - 7,81 11,24 15,30 19,98 25,29 31,23 37,78 3,5 - - - - - - 15,30 19,98 25,29 31,23 37,78 4 - - - - - - - 19,98 25,29 31,23 37,78 4,5 - - - - - - - 19,98 25,29 31,23 37,78 5 - - - - - - - - 25,29 31,23 37,78 5,5=> - - - - - - - - - 31,23 37,78 Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 56 table 15, taking into account their respective frequencies. The average available power is then determined with (Eq. 28). 𝑃𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 =𝑃𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠 ∗𝑊𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 (Eq.27) Table 15 Available power for different combinations of Hs and Tp. 𝑃𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒,𝑎𝑣𝑔 =∑ ∑ 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞(𝐻𝑠,𝑖,𝑇𝑝,𝑖)∗𝑃𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒,𝑎𝑣𝑔(𝐻𝑠,𝑖,𝑇𝑝,𝑖) 𝑛 𝑗=1 𝑚 𝑖=1 ∑ ∑ 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞(𝐻𝑠,𝑖,𝑇𝑝,𝑖) 𝑛 𝑗=1 𝑚 𝑖=1 (Eq. 28) 𝑃𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒,𝑎𝑣𝑔 =775,812 𝑘𝑊 The average available power is calculated to be 775,812 kW. This value represents the power generated by the sea at the selected site that is available to the device, not the power absorbed by the device itself, as the device has a specific absorption efficiency. 3. Generated power The generated power refers to the power produced by the CorPower device at the specific location under study. To obtain the values in Table 16, these were manually calculated using the CorPower device's power matrix, which provides the generated power for each combination of significant wave height (Hs) and peak period (Tp) at the deployment site. For Tp values of 3 and 4 seconds, the values were approximated since they do not appear in the CorPower power matrix. However, these are combinations with very low frequency, so the margin of error is minimal. It should be noted that the CorPower device's power matrix was obtained through simulation. As a result, some values above 300 kW were generated, but since the device's nominal power is 300 kW (it cannot produce more than this amount), any values exceeding this limit were capped at 300 kW. 𝑷𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 (𝒌𝑾) Peak Period (s) <=1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10> Significant height (m) <=0,5 - - 1,03 2,45 4,79 8,27 13,14 19,61 27,9 38,3 50,98 1 - - 4,14 9,80 19,15 33,09 52,54 78,43 111,6 153,2 203,9 1,5 - - - 22,06 43,08 74,46 118,22 176,48 251,2 344,6 458,7 2 - - - 39,22 76,59 132,37 210,18 313,74 446,7 612,7 815,6 2,5 - - - - 119,68 206,83 328,40 490,21 698,0 957,4 1.274,4 3 - - - - 172,33 297,83 472,89 705,91 1.005,1 1.378,7 1.835,1 3,5 - - - - - 0,11 643,66 960,82 1.368,1 1.876,6 2.497,8 4 - - - - - - - 1.254,94 1.786,9 2.451,1 3.262,5 4,5 - - - - - - - 1.588,29 2.261,6 3.102,2 4.129,1 5 - - - - - - - - 2.792,1 3.829,9 5.097,6 5,5=> - - - - - - - - 4.634,1 6.168,1 Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 57 Table 16 Generated power for different combinations of Hs and Tp. After processing the power matrix data and the frequency table with (Eq.29), the average generated power was calculated to be 124.224 kW. 𝑃𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝑎𝑣𝑔 =∑ ∑ 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞(𝐻𝑠,𝑖,𝑇𝑝,𝑖)∗𝑃𝑔𝑒𝑛(𝐻𝑠,𝑖,𝑇𝑝,𝑖) 𝑛 𝑗=1 𝑚 𝑖=1 ∑ ∑ 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞(𝐻𝑠,𝑖,𝑇𝑝,𝑖) 𝑛 𝑗=1 𝑚 𝑖=1 (Eq. 29) 𝑃𝑔𝑒𝑛,𝑎𝑣𝑔 =124,224 𝑘𝑊 5.2.2 Technical KPIs In this section of the thesis, various technical Key Performance Indicators are analyzed to evaluate the performance of the CorPower Wave Energy Converter in the specific conditions of Galicia, Spain. These KPIs include efficiency, capacity factor, and normalized annual energy production (NAEP), which provide essential insights into the device’s energy production capabilities and overall effectiveness in harnessing wave energy. 1.Efficiency Efficiency is defined as the ratio of the energy generated by the device to the energy available from the sea at the location expressed by (Eq. 30). The efficiency is calculated for all combinations of significant wave height (Hs) and peak period (Tp) shown in Table 17, and an average value is obtained by weighting it according to the frequency of each combination (Eq. 31). 𝜂= 𝑃𝑔𝑒𝑛 𝑃𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 ∗100 (Eq. 30) 𝑷𝒈𝒆𝒏(𝒌𝑾) Peak Period (s) <=1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10> Significant height (m) <=0,5 - - 1,5 3 4 8,3 12,5 16,5 20 22 24 1 - - 3 6 8 16,6 25 33,3 48 50 56,25 1,5 - - - 10 12 25 44 58 80 83,3 100 2 - - - 13 16 33,3 70 112,5 135 148 150 2,5 - - - - 20 50 110 165 185 205 215 3 - - - - 25 75 150 216 248 260 258 3,5 - - - - - - 183 270 300 300 300 4 - - - - - - - 300 300 300 300 4,5 - - - - - - - 300 300 300 300 5 - - - - - - - - 300 300 300 5,5=> - - - - - - - - - 300 300 Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 64 𝐶𝐴𝑃𝐸𝑋(€)=𝑃𝑛(𝑘𝑊)∗𝐶𝐴𝑃𝐸𝑋 € 𝑘𝑊 =300∗303.750=91.125.000€ (Eq. 46) 𝑂𝑃𝐸𝑋( € 𝑘𝑊∗𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟)=𝐶𝐴𝑃𝐸𝑋( € 𝑘𝑊)∗𝑂𝑃𝐸𝑋( % 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟)=303.750∗0,04=12.150 € 𝑘𝑊∗𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 (Eq. 47) 𝑂𝑃𝐸𝑋(€)=𝐶𝐴𝑃𝐸𝑋(€)∗𝑂𝑃𝐸𝑋(%)=91.125.000∗0,04=3.645.000€/𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 (Eq. 48) Since all the variables in the LCOE and PBP formulas are multiplied by 81, the resulting values should remain unchanged. However, if economies of scale were considered, both the LCOE and PBP would decrease due to reduced costs associated with bulk purchasing, management optimization, and shared infrastructure. In the case of the LCOE, although the NAEP from the 81 devices increases to 293.814,54 kWh/kWyear (eq. 44), the proportional increase in CAPEX and OPEX keeps the LCOE at 0.155 €/kWh. This is because all other factors, including the initial investment and operational costs, increase in a similar manner. Similarly, the payback period (PBP) also remains at 11.21 years. Even though the revenue increases to 11.767.272,33€ (Eq. 59) with the addition of more devices, the scaling of CAPEX and OPEX to match the larger installation ensures that the PBP remains unchanged. Therefore, despite the higher revenue, the payback period does not decrease unless economies of scale are factored in, which would reduce both CAPEX and OPEX, leading to a shorter payback period. 𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒=𝑁𝐴𝐸𝑃( 𝑘𝑊ℎ 𝑘𝑊𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟)∗𝑃𝑛(𝑘𝑊)∗𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒( € 𝑘𝑊ℎ)=293.814,54∗300∗0,1335= 11.767.272,33€ (Eq. 59) The grid installation analysis for 81 devices, as reflected in the calculations, shows that, without considering economies of scale, the only values that change are the CAPEX, OPEX, production, NAEP, revenues, and total cash flow. If economies of scale were considered, the LCOE and PBP would decrease due to reduced costs associated with bulk purchasing, management optimization, and shared infrastructure. Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 65 5.3 DISCUSSION The economic analysis of the CorPower wave energy converter reveals a highly promising financial outlook, based on several key indicators. The calculated Levelized Cost of Energy of 155 €/MWh is notably lower than the expected range for wave energy converters by 2030, which typically falls between 1130 €/MWh and 226 €/MWh. This low LCOE is a strong indicator that CorPower is a highly competitive option for energy generation in the wave energy sector, making it a potentially attractive solution for sustainable energy production. Additionally, the Payback Period of 11.21 years, based on average energy production and expected revenue, falls within the common 8-15 years range for commercial WECs. This suggests that the device can generate sufficient returns within a reasonable timeframe, making it a financially viable investment. However, while these results are encouraging, there are other factors that could impact the overall costs and financial feasibility of the CorPower WEC. The analysis primarily focuses on CAPEX, OPEX, and other internal costs, but it does not fully account for infrastructure-related expenses. These expenses, which include the cost of offshore grid connections, cabling, and remote maintenance logistics, could significantly increase the overall deployment cost and therefore raise the LCOE in real-world applications. The cost of installation infrastructure, while not captured in the initial analysis, is a critical consideration that could alter the overall economic viability of the technology. In addition to infrastructure costs, the specific characteristics of the wave climate at the deployment location must be thoroughly evaluated. The performance of the device is highly dependent on local wave conditions, and variations in energy availability across different sites can directly affect both operational costs and expected revenue. A more detailed analysis of site-specific conditions, along with optimization efforts, could lead to improved performance and potentially lower costs, further enhancing the financial metrics of the device. Technological advancements that improve the efficiency of the device could also contribute to cost reductions over time. Regarding grid integration, the analysis indicates that to achieve a total output of 10 MW, 81 CorPower devices are required based on the average power generated. This emphasizes the importance of designing the system to effectively handle potential overproduction and ensure stability in the energy output. Furthermore, scaling up the installation would reduce costs due to economies of scale, such as bulk purchasing, optimized operations, and shared infrastructure. While economies of scale were not included in this analysis, it is expected that their incorporation would lead to reduced LCOE and PBP, making large-scale deployments more economically feasible. The need to account for overproduction is particularly important in the context of grid integration. Excess energy generated by the wave energy converters could pose challenges, such as the need for efficient storage solutions or grid management strategies. Therefore, Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 66 proper design of the system to manage these factors is crucial to ensure that the energy produced is effectively utilized. In conclusion, the CorPower WEC shows strong potential for commercial success in the wave energy sector. Despite the need for further consideration of infrastructure and grid integration costs, the device demonstrates solid techno-economic viability. With continued development, site-specific optimization, and scaling efforts, CorPower could play a key role in advancing the renewable energy market, particularly in the wave energy segment. The ability to further reduce costs, improve performance, and integrate efficiently into the grid could enable the device to make a substantial contribution to the transition to sustainable energy. Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 67 6. PLANNING The project spans four months, from October 2024 to January 2025, focusing on the technoeconomic analysis of wave energy converters. It is organized into three phases: foundational research (green), case development and calculations (blue), and analysis and finalization (pink). The process progresses from exploring wave energy concepts and techno-economic indicators to comparing WECs, selecting an optimal location, and conducting a comprehensive evaluation. The timings of key tasks are represented in the involve: 1. Initial research on wave energy fundamentals, techno-economic KPIs, and available WEC technologies. This step consists on getting enough background on the subject to be able to define a project scope. 2. Defining the project scope, including outlining the project's structure and methodology. 3. Developing the theoretical background, covering wave energy, economic metrics, and a detailed review of WEC technologies. 4. Comparative analysis of WECs to determine the most suitable converter for a specific location. 5. Researching potential deployment locations and selecting one based on energy potential and economic viability. 6. Techno-economic analysis of the selected WEC in the chosen location, including CAPEX, OPEX, LCOE,PBP and other key metrics. 7. Final analysis of results to assess the viability and efficiency of the proposed solution. 8. Writing and finalizing the report, ensuring all findings are documented clearly and professionally. Figure 34 Gantt Chart for Techno-Economic Analysis Project Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 68 7. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT The economic assessment of the techno-economic analysis for wave energy converters includes various components such as labour costs, hardware amortisation, operational costs, and taxes. Below is a detailed breakdown of all expenses incurred during the project development. Hardware Costs (Amortisation) The main hardware used for the project was a desktop computer purchased for 1,200€. Considering an expected lifespan of 5 years, the annual amortisation rate is 240€ per year. Since the project lasted for 4 months, the amortisation cost for the project duration is 80€. Labour Costs The project required a significant amount of time for research, analysis, and report preparation. The Final Degree Project (TFG) accounts for 12 ECTS credits, each equivalent to 25-30 hours of work. For this analysis, we assume 360 hours of dedication at an hourly rate of 15€, resulting in a total labour cost of 5,400€. Operational Costs The operational costs include internet usage, electricity consumption, and other related expenses.The project required continuous internet access over 4 months. Assuming an internet cost of 40€ per month, the total internet cost amounts to 160€. As for the electricity consumption, the desktop computer used for the project has an approximate power consumption of 0.2 kW. With an electricity rate of 0.15€ per kWh and a total usage time of 360 hours, the electricity cost amounts to 10.80€. Total Costs Summary Expense Expense amount Computer Amortisation 80€ Labour Costs (360 hours) 5.400€ Internet Usage 160€ Electricity Consumption 10,8€ Total Estimated Cost 5.650,80€ Labour costs represent the largest portion of the budget, reflecting the time investment required. Operational costs are minimal, indicating efficient resource use. The overall cost is reasonable considering the project's complexity and scope. Tax Considerations In a realistic scenario, the total cost of the project should include applicable taxes. For this assessment, we consider a Value Added Tax (VAT) rate of 21%. Therefore, the total cost with VAT included is 6,837.47€. Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 69 8. ENVIROMENTAL ASSESSMENT This section evaluates the environmental impact of the CorPower Point Absorber, focusing on its lifecycle from manufacturing to decommissioning. The assessment highlights key environmental indicators such as greenhouse gas emissions, energy and water use, waste generation, and potential ecosystem impacts. Additionally, the positive environmental contributions of the device are discussed, emphasizing its role in reducing dependence on fossil fuels and mitigating climate change. Manufacturing and Material Requirements The CorPower Point Absorber, weighing 70 tonnes, relies primarily on steel, a material with a high carbon footprint. Producing 70,000 kg of steel emits approximately 129,500 kg of CO₂, based on a standard emission factor of 1.85 kg CO₂ per kg of steel. This stage also requires significant water resources; steel production consumes approximately 25,000 liters of water per tonne, amounting to 1.75 million liters. While steel's recyclability mitigates some of these impacts, the initial resource demand remains substantial. During manufacturing, additional materials like coatings and mechanical components also contribute to emissions and waste. These materials, though smaller in volume, require proper management to avoid harmful environmental effects. Operation and Energy Production The CorPower Point Absorber is designed to operate efficiently, with a capacity factor of 40– 60%. At an average of 50%, the device generates approximately 1.31 GWh of electricity annually. Over its 20-year lifespan, this equates to 26.2 GWh of renewable energy. When replacing coal-fired electricity, which emits about 1 kg of CO₂ per kWh, the CorPower offsets 26,200 tonnes of CO₂, a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Maintenance activities, such as periodic inspections and part replacements, contribute minor emissions. With operational expenses (OPEX) estimated at 3–5% of CAPEX, emissions from maintenance are minimal compared to the overall environmental benefits. However, vessel operations for maintenance trips release small amounts of pollutants, including nitrogen oxides (NOₓ) and sulfur dioxide (SO₂). Over two decades, these are estimated at 1.5 tonnes of NOₓ and 0.5 tonnes of SO₂, based on standard marine fuel emission factors. Decommissioning and Waste Management At the end of its 20-year lifespan, the CorPower Point Absorber is decommissioned. Approximately 85% of the steel used in the device can be recycled, significantly reducing waste generation. For a 70-tonne device, this translates to 59.5 tonnes of recyclable material, leaving only 10.5 tonnes as waste. Proper disposal of hazardous materials, such as lubricants, is critical to avoid contamination during decommissioning. Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 70 Positive Environmental Contributions The CorPower Point Absorber offers substantial environmental benefits compared to fossil fuel-based energy systems. First, its compact design and high capacity factor enable significant energy generation with minimal material use, reducing its overall footprint. The device operates with low noise emissions, minimizing disturbance to marine life. Additionally, its operational range of 0.25–8 meters in wave height ensures consistent energy production even in variable sea states. Another advantage is the device’s potential to enhance marine ecosystems. Its anchoring structures can act as artificial reefs, providing habitat for fish and other marine organisms. Over time, these structures may contribute to increased biodiversity in the deployment area. The CorPower's ability to offset 26,200 tonnes of CO₂ over its lifetime underscores its importance in mitigating climate change. To contextualize this achievement, planting a tree sequesters an average of 25 kg of CO₂ during its growth. Thus, the CorPower’s emissions savings are equivalent to planting over 1 million trees. Conclusion The CorPower Point Absorber demonstrates a strong environmental profile, with its renewable energy production significantly outweighing the impacts of manufacturing, transportation, and maintenance. Over 20 years, the device offsets substantial GHG emissions, reduces dependence on fossil fuels, and supports biodiversity in marine ecosystems. While challenges remain, particularly in manufacturing and waste management, targeted mitigation strategies can further enhance its environmental sustainability. Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 71 9.SOCIAL AND GENDER EQULITY ASSESSMENT Wave energy offers a promising path toward reliable, clean energy systems, with technologies like CorPower poised to drive the energy transition while fostering sustainable jobs, particularly in coastal regions. However, addressing gender inequality and social justice is crucial to ensure these benefits are equitably shared. Gender Inequality in Access to Technology Women remain underrepresented in energy and technology sectors, with only 15% of students in energy-related technical fields in Spain being women (Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Tourism). This disparity extends to the workforce, where women hold fewer technical and leadership roles, especially in marine energy. Perceptions that roles like infrastructure installation or project management are male-dominated exacerbate this inequality, creating cultural and social barriers despite women’s technical qualifications. The renewable energy sector, including wave energy, offers an opportunity to address this gap. With policies that promote training and awareness, women’s participation can increase, potentially driving cultural shifts in engineering and technology. Gender Dynamics in This Project The gender imbalance observed in the sector is reflected in this project’s composition: the team is predominantly male, with myself, the author, being the only woman involved. This mirrors broader trends where women remain a minority in technical and leadership roles. Greater gender diversity in research teams could improve inclusivity and foster innovative solutions by ensuring diverse perspectives are represented. Social Impacts of Wave Energy Wave energy projects, like those from CorPower, have the potential to create up to 400,000 sustainable jobs globally by 2050. Coastal communities, often reliant on traditional industries like fishing, could benefit from economic growth and innovation. However, ensuring equal access to these opportunities for women and underrepresented groups is essential. This requires inclusive training programs and policies that actively reduce barriers to participation and promote gender diversity. Inclusive Language and Representation Using inclusive, non-sexist language and ensuring balanced visual representation in project materials can challenge stereotypes and encourage broader participation. Featuring men and women equally in imagery and language fosters a culture of equity and inclusion. In conclusion, wave energy represents a vital opportunity for sustainable development, but its success depends on integrating social and gender equity considerations. Inclusive policies, accessible training, and cultural shifts are essential to ensuring this technology benefits everyone, regardless of gender or social status. Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 72 9. CONCLUSIONS This study has assessed the technical and economic feasibility of implementing a Wave Energy Converter (WEC) along the Spanish coastline. Despite limitations in integrated data sources and industry collaboration, the findings highlight the potential of this technology in the renewable energy transition. The research began with an in-depth exploration of wave energy fundamentals and a comparative analysis of various WEC technologies. The CorPower Ocean device was identified as the most suitable option due to its high efficiency and adaptability to site-specific conditions. The chosen location was selected based on its suitability for the selected WEC, avoiding protected areas and zones prioritized for other activities. This approach ensured both technical feasibility and minimal conflict with environmental and socio-economic interests. The techno-economic analysis, incorporating metrics such as Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE), Payback Period (PBP), and Capacity Factor (CF), demonstrated that wave energy, while requiring high initial investments, offers competitive long-term costs. However, challenges remain, including the absence of a complete installation design and the lack of detailed performance data for certain devices. Future efforts should focus on expanding the scope of analysis to include additional WECs and locations, exploring hybrid systems with other renewables like offshore wind, and developing comprehensive designs for installations. Creating unified data repositories and fostering stronger collaboration with industry stakeholders are also crucial steps. In conclusion, while significant barriers remain, wave energy presents a promising opportunity to diversify Spain’s renewable energy mix. Continued technological advancements and coordinated efforts will be key to unlocking its full potential. Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 73 10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor, Marc Cheah, for proposing this project and providing invaluable guidance throughout its development. His expertise and support have been instrumental in shaping the direction and quality of this work. This project holds a special meaning for me as it combines two passions that have been shaped by my parents. My interest in renewable energies, inspired by my mother’s dedication to sustainability, and my love for the sea, instilled by my father, have both deeply influenced my connection to this topic. Their encouragement and the values they have passed on to me have been a constant source of motivation during this journey. Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 80 2.png [40] AWS Ocean Energy. Archimedes Waveswing. n.d. Available from: https://awsocean.com/archimedes-waveswing/ [41] RESEARCHGATE. Rotating Mass-based WEC. n.d. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Rotating-mass-based-WEC-The-swaying-motionproduced-by-waves-a-and-b-makes-rotate_fig2_290789720 [42] WELLO OY. Penguin Wave Energy Converter. n.d. Available from: https://wello.eu/technology/penguin/ [43] RESEARCHGATE. Artists' impression of a full-scale Anaconda. n.d. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-Artists-impression-of-a-full-scale-Anaconda-fromCheckmate-SeaEnergy-Ltd-and-b_fig1_268173217 [44] MORETTI, G., SANTOS-HERRAN, M., Forehand, D., Alves, M., Jeffrey, H., Vertechy, R., & Fontana, M. Advances in the development of dielectric elastomer generators for wave energy conversion. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 117, 109430, 2020. [45] CORDIS. PolyWEC Official Document. n.d. Available from: https://cordis.europa.eu/docs/results/309/309139/final1-polywec-final-publishablesummary-2nd-submission.pdf [46] IRENA. Wave energy: A review of the status of wave energy technology. 2014. Available from: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2014/WaveEnergy_V4_web.pdf [47] BUSTOS, E., & SÁNCHEZ, D. (2018). Historical evolution of the wave resource and energy production off the Chilean coast over the 20th century. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 91, 115-128. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327320907. [48] Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía (IDAE). (2017). El aprovechamiento de la energía de las olas en España. Available from: https://www.idae.es/uploads/documentos/documentos_11227_e13_olas_b31fcafb.pdf. [49] MINISTERIO PARA LA TRANSICIÓN ECOLÓGICA Y EL RETO DEMOGRÁFICO. (n.d.). Infomar: Infraestructura de Datos Espaciales del Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica y el Reto Demográfico. Available from: https://infomar.miteco.es/visor.html. [50] PUERTOS DEL ESTADO. (n.d.). Portus: Sistema de Información Geográfica de Puertos del Estado. Available from: https://portus.puertos.es/?locale=es#/ [51] OPERADOR DEL MERCADO IBÉRICO DE LA ELECTRICIDAD (OMIE). (n.d.). Operador Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 81 del Mercado Ibérico de la Electricidad. Available from: https://www.omie.es/ Complementary bibliography [52] IGLESIAS, G. and CARBALLO, R. Wave energy potential along the Death Coast (Spain). Energy, 2010, vol. 35, no. 5. [53] ADERINTO, A., and LI, H. Ocean wave energy converters: Status and challenges. Energies, 2018, vol. 11, no. 5, p. 1250. [54] ASTARIZ, S., and IGLESIAS, G. Wave energy vs. other energy sources: A reassessment of the economics. International Journal of Green Energy, 2016, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 747–755. [55] DREW, B., PLUMMER, A. R., and SAHINKAYA, M. N. A review of wave energy converter technology. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, 2009, vol. 223, no. 8, pp. 887–902. [56] LAVIDAS, G., and VENUGOPAL, V. Wave energy resource evaluation and characterisation for the Libyan Sea. International Journal of Marine Energy, 2020, vol. 17, pp. 28–52. [57] MAGAGNA, D., and UIHLEIN, A. Ocean energy development in Europe: Current status and future perspectives. International Journal of Marine Energy, 2015, vol. 11, pp. 84–104. [58] OCEAN ENERGY EUROPE. CEFOW Project [online]. 2021. Available from: https://www.oceanenergy-europe.eu/project/cefow/. [59] WAVE ENERGY SCOTLAND. About Us [online]. 2021. Available from: https://www.waveenergyscotland.co.uk/about-us/. [60] WESE PROJECT. About WESE [online]. 2021. Available from: https://weseproject.eu/about-wese/. [61] WAVESPY PROJECT. Project Overview [online]. 2021. Available from: https://wavespy.eu/. [62] EMEC. World's first ocean energy virtual synchronous machine tested at EMEC. 2020. Available from: https://www.emec.org.uk/press-release-worlds-first-ocean-energy-virtualsynchronous-machine-tested-at-emec/ [63] LAVIDAS, G., and VENUGOPAL, V. Wave energy resource evaluation and characterisation for the Libyan Sea. International Journal of Marine Energy, 2020, vol. 17, pp. 28-52. [64] OCEAN ENERGY EUROPE. CEFOW Project. 2021. Available from: https://www.oceanenergy-europe.eu/project/cefow/ Techno-economical analysis of wave generation solutions Pág. 82 [65] OPERA PROJECT. Final Report Summary. 2019. Available from: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/654444/reporting [66] WAVESPY PROJECT. Project Overview. 2021. Available from: https://wavespy.eu/ [67] FUSCO, F., NOLAN, G., and RINGWOOD, J. V. Variability reduction through optimal combination of wind/wave resources – An Irish case study. Energy, 2010, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 314-325. [68] VEIGAS, M., CARBALLO, R., and IGLESIAS, G. Wave and offshore wind energy on an island. Energy for Sustainable Development, 2015, vol. 29, pp. 53-64. [69] ENERGIFORSKNING. Wave Dragon Official Documentation. n.d. Available from: https://energiforskning.dk/files/slutrapporter/wd15mwv4_efm-17.pdf [70] WIKIPEDIA. Penguin Wave Energy Converter. n.d. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wello_Penguin [71] DREW, B., PLUMMER, A. R., & Sahinkaya, M. N. A review of wave energy converter technology. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, 223(8), 887-902, 2009. [72] POLINDER, H., & SCUOTTO, M. Wave energy converters and their impact on power systems. 2005 International Conference on Future Power Systems, 1-9, 2005. [73] MÄKI, T., VUORINEN, M., & MUCHA, T. Wello Penguin–Next step in wave energy technology. 5th International Conference on Ocean Energy, 2014. [74] CHAPLIN, J. R., FARLEY, F. J. M., Prentice, M. E., Rainey, R. C. T., Rimmer, S. J., & Roach, A. T. Development of the anaconda all-rubber WEC. 7th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Porto, Portugal, 2007. [75] FARLEY, F. J. M., RAINEY, R. C. T., & Chaplin, J. R. Rubber tubes in the sea. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 370(1959), 381-402, 2012. [76] HENDERSON, R. Design, simulation, and testing of a novel hydraulic power take-off system for the Pelamis wave energy converter. Renewable Energy, 31(2), 271-283, 2006.