energies

Article
Cost Assessment Methodology and Economic
Viability of Tidal Energy Projects
Eva Segura 1 , Rafael Morales 1, * and José A. Somolinos 2
1 Escuela de Ingenieros Industriales de Albacete, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 02071 Albacete, Spain;
Eva.Segura@uclm.es
2 Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Navales, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain;
joseandres.somolinos@upm.es
* Correspondence: Rafael.Morales@uclm.es; Tel.: +34-967-599-200 (ext. 2542); Fax: +34-967-599-224

Received: 15 September 2017; Accepted: 6 November 2017; Published: 9 November 2017

Abstract: The exploitation of technologies with which to harness the energy from ocean currents
will have considerable possibilities in the future thanks to their enormous potential for electricity
production and their high predictability. In this respect, the development of methodologies for the
economic viability of these technologies is fundamental to the attainment of a consistent quantification
of their costs and the discovery of their economic viability, while simultaneously attracting investment
in these technologies. This paper presents a methodology with which to determine the economic
viability of tidal energy projects, which includes a technical study of the life-cycle costs into which the
development of a tidal farm can be decomposed: concept and definition, design and development,
manufacturing, installation, operation and maintenance and dismantling. These cost structures are
additionally subdivided by considering their sub-costs and bearing in mind the main components
of the tidal farm: the nacelle, the supporting tidal energy converter structure and the export power
system. Furthermore, a technical study is developed in order to obtain an estimation of the annual
energy produced (and, consequently, the incomes generated if the electric tariff is known) by
considering its principal attributes: the characteristics of the current, the ability of the device to
capture energy and its ability to convert and export the energy. The methodology has been applied
(together with a sensibility analysis) to the particular case of a farm composed of first generation tidal
energy converters in one of the Channel Island Races, the Alderney Race, in the U.K., and the results
have been attained by means of the computation of engineering indexes, such as the net present
value, the internal rate of return, the discounted payback period and the levelized cost of energy,
which indicate that the proposed project is economically viable for all the case studies.

Keywords: renewable energy; marine currents; tidal energy; economic viability; cost assessment;
life-cycle costs

1. Introduction
There has been, in recent years, an increasing concern about global climate change, the importance
of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the current dependency on and limited life span of fossil
fuels and the current increase in energy prices [1–3]. Renewable energies play a key role in this
framework, and this has been recognized by the European Union (EU), which in 2009 established
the need to reduce 20% of energy consumption and 20% of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions with the
objective of 20% of the EU’s final energy consumption originating from renewable sources in 2020 [4,5].
This milestone was a definite boost as regards the promotion of clean renewable technologies for
electricity generation. It led to the fixing of legally-binding targets that marked a path for the future,
with continuity beyond 2020, and opened up a horizon of opportunities for the development of
new sources and renewable technologies, as well as economic sectors linked to renewable energies.

Energies 2017, 10, 1806; doi:10.3390/en10111806 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2017, 10, 1806 2 of 27

It is, therefore, necessary to attain and increase the aforementioned renewable energy percentages
in the near future, and there is consequently a growing interest in the contribution of other types of
renewable energy that are currently less developed and will remain so for the next five years, since
their technologies are still in the development and demonstration phases [6–8]. One of these is ocean
energy whose exploitation could provide the following opportunities and benefits [9–11]: energy
independence, decarbonization, job creation and being a complement to other renewable sources
within the global energy mix (improved predictability, decreased variability, spatial concentration and
socio-economic benefits) [12,13].
This research is focused on tidal energy, which, although its technologies are at the prototype
and pre-commercial demonstration at sea phases, will have considerable possibilities in the future
thanks to its enormous potential for electricity production and its high predictability [14–16]. In this
respect, any system based on renewable sources that is intended for commercialization must first
pass through an economic assessment in order to achieve a consistent quantification of the costs of
these technologies, to verify the profitability of the system while simultaneously attracting investment
and to allow commercialization [17]. However, limited experience hinders the evaluation of tidal
energy projects with an adequate level of confidence owing to the current lack of data and the
high level of uncertainty [18]. We should note that, despite the potential benefits of this renewable
energy source, very few studies have focused specifically on the economic feasibility of these systems
and how to estimate them. Issues such as costs [19], the net present value [20] (NPV), the internal
rate of return (IRR) [21], the discounted payback-period (DPBP) [22], the levelized cost of energy
(LCOE) [23] or the life-cycle costs (LCC)—from an economical [24] or an environmental [25] point
of view, among others—have been developed in previous works that were principally focused on
other products/process and other sorts of renewable energy sources [26]. With regard to tidal energy
projects, several authors have performed studies for tidal farms, indicating the general percentages
of influences of each cost, but without providing a specific methodology with which to calculate the
cost involved in a tidal farm [27,28]. A more detailed description of the development of the economic
viability of marine energy farms is found in [29], which includes interesting information regarding
how to obtain the annual energy produced (AEP) and to determine the costs of the main components
of a marine energy farm. However, with regard to the AEP, this research does not include information
about aspects such as the stele effect, blend effect, velocity deficit or effects related to the tidal farm
topology, among others, which have a great influence on the determination of the final value of the
AEP. Furthermore, with regard to the determination of the costs of the main components of the tidal
farm, the aforementioned research does not provide detailed information with which to compute
detailed aspects of the costs of the main sub-components of which the tidal farm is composed (turbine,
foundation, export energy system), and this influences the final value of the cost incurred by the
energy farm during its service life. Under these premises, and with the intention of covering this
lack, the main contributions to the state of the art of this research are the following: (i) a methodology
with which to determine the economic viability of tidal energy projects and that includes a technical
study of the LCC, defined by modifying the recommendations proposed in [30], since this normative
is focused on a product rather than a process. Bearing in mind the aforementioned consideration,
the main stages into which the development of a tidal farm can be decomposed are: concept and
definition, design and development, manufacturing, installation, operation and maintenance (O&M)
and dismantling. These cost structures are additionally subdivided by considering their sub-costs
and bearing in mind the main components of the tidal farm: the nacelle, the supporting tidal energy
converter (TEC) structure and the export power system. Specific expressions have been included in
order to increase the detail involved in calculating the LCC for tidal energy projects, which is rarely
found in other studies. A technical study is then performed in order to describe the estimation of the
AEP in detail (and, consequently, the incomes generated if the electric tariff is known) by considering
its principal attributes: the characteristics of the current, the ability of the device to capture energy
and its ability to convert and export the energy. Additionally, (ii) the proposed methodology has been
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 3 of 27

used to discover the economic viability of a tidal farm located in one of the Channel Island Races, the
Alderney Race, in the U.K. A sensitivity analysis was also carried out. The results obtained through the
use of engineering indexes such as NPV, IRR, DPBP and LCOE indicate that the project is economically
feasible for all the case studies. Finally, the remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2
illustrates the proposed methodology for the economic evaluation of tidal energy projects. Section 3
shows a case case study of a 50-MW tidal farm in the Alderney Race. Section 4 depicts the numerical
results obtained for the case study, and finally, Section 5 shows our conclusions and proposals for
future works.

2. Proposed Methodology of the Evaluation of Tidal Energy Projects

The methodology proposed for the economic feasibility of these energy projects is based on the
LCC of the project and the determination of the AEP. The aim of attaining the LCC is to provide
useful criteria for decision-making at any or all of the stages that comprise the life-cycle of the project.
In essence, the LCC represents an accounting structure that contains mathematical expressions with
which to estimate the associated costs of a project during its service life [31,32]. We should emphasize
that the development of a methodology for the economic assessment of projects based on LCC is a
simplified representation of the real world based on the main characteristics and relations of the project
and their corresponding estimation costs. In order to carry out an adequate LCC for tidal energy
projects from the perspective of environmentally sustainable economic efficiency, it is fundamental to
understand the life-cycle of this sort of project and the activities to be performed at all the stages. All the
decisions made as regards the design, manufacture, operation, maintenance, and so on, including
environmental impact, may therefore affect the total cost in a substantial manner [33,34]. The stages
of which the proposed methodology are composed are the following (See Figure 1): (i) concept and
definition costs: C1 ; (ii) design and development costs: C2 ; (iii) manufacturing costs: C3 ; (iv) installation
costs: C4 ; (v) operation and maintenance costs: C5 ; and (vi) decommissioning costs: C6 . Once these
costs have been computed, the total LCC of a tidal energy project yields the following result:

LCCTEP = C1 + C2 + C3 + C4 + C5 + C6 (1)

Furthermore, the information concerning the site (water depth, tidal energy resource, weather
windows, distance from shore, etc.), the device (geometry, configuration, power, materials, etc.) and
the export energy system (farm topology, connectors, cables, transformation platform, converters, etc.)
makes it possible to estimate the AEP and, consequently, the incomes obtained from the possible
commercial exploitation of the tidal energy project. All the aforementioned information is then
analyzed by means of several indicators (NPV, IRR, DPBP and LCOE) that will have a decisive
influence on the decision to invest in the tidal energy project and will allow comparative studies with
other renewable energy sources to take place. It is important to note that the estimated costs and
the estimation of the AEP included in the methodology for the economic feasibility of tidal energy
projects have been obtained by studying the current scientific literature, internal technical reports
generated at the Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Navales of the Universidad Politécnica de
Madrid and information provided by companies that specialize in tidal energy projects and shipyards.
The following subsections deal with all the details required to describe the proposed methodology.
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 4 of 27

LCC FOR TIDAL ENERGY PROJECTS

Concept and Design and Installaon Operaon and Decommissioning

Manufacturing Costs
Definion Costs Development Costs Costs Maintenance Costs Costs
(C3)
(C1) (C2) (C4) (C5) (C6)

Market Research Costs Project Management Transforma!on plaform

Gondole (C31 ) Blade Cleaning (C51 ) Stopping the System (C61 )
(C11) (C21) and converters (C41 )

Structure (C311)
Project Management Engineering Design Light Preven!ve Transforma!on Pla#orm
PTO Frame (C312) Submarine Cables (C42)
Costs (C12) (C22) Maintenance (C52 ) and Converters (C 62)
Fairing (C 313)

Concep!on and Design Documenta!on for the PTO (C314) Ground Exporta!on Cable High Preven!ve
Submarine Cables (C63)
Analysis Costs (C13 ) Design (C23 ) Auxiliary Systems (C315) (C43) Maintenance (C53 )

Rotor (C 316)
Project Requirements Determina!on of the Correc!ve Maintenance Ground Exporta!on Cable
TECs (C43 )
Specifica!on Costs (C14 ) Manufacturing Steps (C 24) Suppor!ng TEC Structure (C54) (C64)
(C32)
Selec!on of the Suppliers Base Support (C321) Insurance Costs and Fixes
TECs (C65 )
(C25) Expenses (C55 )
Transi!on Structure(C322)
Ver!cal Column (C323)
Quality Management Incomes from sales of the
(C26) Concrete Ballasts (C324) main components (C66 )
Special Concrete Bags (C325)

Export Power System (C33 )

Equipment in nacelle (C331)

Equipment in base (C332)

Umbilical Cables (C333)
Transforma!on Pla#orm
and Converters (C334)
Exporta!on Cables (C335)

Figure 1. Cost and sub-costs for the proposed methodology. LCC, life-cycle costs; TEC, tidal
energy converter.

2.1. Concept and Definition Costs (C1 )

The concept and definition costs are attributed to various activities whose objective is to guarantee
the project’s viability. If we focus on tidal energy projects, the following costs are typically included:

• Market research costs (C11 ): It is necessary to determine the current state of the market as regards
tidal energy generation and to analyze the economic viability of the tidal energy project on
the basis of environmental information, site information (water depth, tidal energy resource,
weather windows, distance from shore, etc.), device information (geometry, configuration,
power, materials, etc.), export power system information (farm topology, connectors, cables,
transformation platform, converters, etc.), and so on. This cost is modeled as a constant value, i.e.,

C11 = C MR (2)

where C MR is defined as a constant value.

• Project management costs (C12 ): These include the completion and obtaining of certificates and
regulations, such as environmental studies (seabed surveys, local species and ecosystem surveys,
coastal process surveys, etc.), social impact surveys and the authorization of the installation.
These costs are usually constant, with the exception of the authorization of the installation of the
tidal farm, which depends on the surface required to install the tidal energy project. These costs
are, therefore, modeled as:
C12 = CCS + C AI · STEP (3)

where CCS denotes a constant value in e, C AI expresses the cost per m2 in e/m2 and STEP defines
the surface required to install the tidal energy project in m2 .
• Conception of the tidal farm and design analysis costs (C13 ): This comprises the cost of obtaining
the preliminary solution for the tidal energy project. One or more possible solutions are
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 5 of 27

synthesized at this stage and are then evaluated with regard to the restrictions imposed. This cost
is modeled as a constant value, i.e.,
C13 = CCDA (4)

where CCDA denotes a constant value in e.

• Project requirements’ specification costs (C14 ): At this stage, the main components of the tidal
energy project and their interactions are determined in sufficient detail to be able to carry out an
objective evaluation of the project proposal. In the particular case of tidal farms, it is necessary to
consider site information (water depth, tidal energy resource, weather windows, distance from
shore, etc.), device information (geometry, configuration, power, materials, etc.), export power
system information (farm topology, connectors, cables, transformation platform, converters, etc.),
and so on. This cost is again modeled as a constant value, i.e.,

C14 = CPRS (5)

where CPRS expresses a constant value in e.

Once these costs have been attained, the concept and definition costs, C1 , are obtained as follows:

C1 = C11 + C12 + C13 + C14 (6)

2.2. Design and Development Costs (C2 )

The design and development costs are those related to fulfilling the specification of the project
requirements and providing proofs of its compliance. They typically include costs regarding:
(i) project management (C21 ); (ii) engineering design (C22 ), the inclusion of reliability, maintainability
and activities for environmental protection; (iii) detailed documentation for the design (C23 );
(iv) determining the manufacturing steps required for the park (C24 ); (v) the selection of the suppliers
(C25 ); or (vi) quality management (C26 ). All these costs can be modeled as a constant value, i.e.,

C2 = C21 + C22 + C23 + C24 + C25 + C26 = CDD (7)

where CDD defines a constant value in e.

2.3. Manufacturing Costs (C3 )

The manufacturing costs comprise all the costs involved in manufacturing the elements from
which the tidal farm will be constructed. In the case of tidal energy projects, the main costs considered
at this stage are the following:

• Nacelle (C31 ): This cost (see Figure 2) is estimated by considering the following sub-costs
associated with the structure of the nacelle (C311 ): power take off (PTO) frame (C312 ), fairing
(C313 ), PTO (C314 ), auxiliary systems (C315 ) and rotor (C316 ). They are estimated as follows:

– Structure of the nacelle (C311 ): This cost is estimated by considering the number of TECs
manufactured, NM , the cost per kg of the carbon steel produced, CSD , in e/kg, and the mass
of the structure (front cover, horizontal and vertical cylinders, longitudinal and transversal
reinforcements, etc.) of the nacelle, mSD , in kg, i.e.,

C311 = NM · mSD · CSD (8)

– PTO frame (C312 ): This cost is estimated by considering the number of TECs manufactured,
the cost per kg of the carbon steel produced for this element, CPTOF , in e/kg, and the mass
of this element, m PTOF , in kg, i.e.,
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 6 of 27

C312 = NM · m PTOF · CPTOF (9)

– Fairing (C313 ): This cost is estimated by considering the number of TECs manufactured,
the cost per kg of the fiberglass produced for this element, CF , in e/kg, and the mass of this
element, m F , in kg, i.e.,
C313 = NM · m F · CF (10)

– PTO (C314 ): This cost considers the number of TECs manufactured and the costs of the thrust
bearing, the gearbox, the high-speed shaft, the slip ring system, the brake system, the electrical
generator, etc., of each TEC [35–38]. The main variables required to estimate these costs are
included in a nonlinear function depending on the number of TECs manufactured, the power
of each TEC, PT , the cost per MW of the thrust bearing, CTB , in e/MW, the cost per MW
of the high-speed shaft, CHSS , in e/MW, the cost per MW of the gearbox, CG , in e/MW,
the cost per MW of the brake system, CBS , in e/MW, and the cost per MW of the electrical
generator, CEG , in e/MW, i.e.,
 
C314 = NM · PT · (CTB + CBS + CHSS + CEG ) + PT1.2 · CG (11)

– Auxiliary systems (C315 ): This cost considers the number of TECs manufactured and the costs
of the yaw system, cooling system, pressure oil system, protection and connection switches,
bilge system, compressed air system, circuit board, control system, condition monitoring
systems and added elements. The main variables required to estimate this cost are the
number of TECs manufactured, the power of each TEC, the mass of the yaw system, mYS ,
in kg, the cost per kg for this element, CYS , in e/kg, the cost per MW of the cooling system,
CCOS , in e/MW, the cost per MW of the pressure oil system, CPOS , in e/MW, the mass
of the protection and connection switches mSWT in kg, the cost per kg of these elements,
CSWT , in e/kg, the mass of the bilge system m BIS in kg, the cost per kg of this element, CBIS ,
in e/kg, the mass of the compressed air system m ACS in kg, the cost per kg of this element,
C ACS , in e/kg, the mass of the circuit board mCB in kg, the cost per kg of this element, CCB ,
in e/kg, the mass of the control system mCTS in kg, the cost per kg of these elements, CCTS ,
in e/kg, the cost per MW of the condition monitoring system, CCMS , in e/MW, the mass of
the added elements m AE in kg, and the cost per kg of this element, C AE , in e/kg, i.e.,

C315 = NM · (mYS · CYS + mCTS · CCTS + PT (CCOS + CPOS + CCMS ) +

mSWT · CSWT + m BIS · CBIS + m ACS · C ACS + mCB · CCB + (12)
m AE · C AE )

– Rotor (C316 ): This cost is estimated by considering the number of TECs manufactured,
the costs of the blades, the pitch system and the core of the rotor. The main variables required
to estimate these costs are included in a nonlinear function depending on the number of TECs
manufactured, the radius of the rotor, R R , in m, the cost per m of each blade, CB , in e/m,
the number of blades per TEC, NB , the cost per m of the pitch system, CPS , in e/m, the cost
per m of the low-speed shaft, CLSS in e/m, and the cost per m of the core of the rotor, CCR ,
in e/m, i.e.,
 
C316 = NM · NB · R2.7 R · C B + R R · ( C PS + C LSS + CCR ) (13)
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 7 of 27

Low speed shaft

High speed shaft

Thrust bearing

Rotor

Blade

Gearbox

Generator

Slip rings system

Brake system

Figure 2. Distribution of the main elements within the nacelle.

• Supporting TEC structure (C32 ): This cost is estimated by considering the following sub-costs
(see Figure 3) associated with the base support (C321 ), the transition structure (C322 ), the vertical
column (C323 ), the concrete ballasts (C324 ) and the special concrete bags (C325 ). They are estimated
as follows:

– Base support (C321 ): This cost is estimated by considering the number of TECs installed, NI ,
the cost per kg of the steel produced, CTBS , in e/kg, and the mass of the structure, m TBS ,
in kg, i.e.,
C321 = NI · m TBS · CTBS (14)

– Transition structure (C322 ): This cost is estimated by considering the number of TECs installed,
the cost per kg of the steel produced, CTTS , in e/kg, and the mass of the structure, m TTS ,
in kg, i.e.,
C322 = NI · m TTS · CTTS (15)

– Vertical column (C323 ): This cost is estimated by considering the number of TECs installed,
the cost per kg of the steel produced, CTVC , in e/kg, and the mass of the structure, m TVC ,
in kg, i.e.,
C323 = NI · m TVC · CTVC (16)

– Concrete ballasts (C324 ): This cost is estimated by considering the number of TECs installed,
the amount of concrete ballast per TEC, NCB , the cost per kg of the concrete produced, CEC ,
in e/kg, and the mass of the ballast, m EC , in kg, i.e.,

C324 = NI · NCB · m EC · CEC (17)

– Special concrete bags (C325 ): This cost is estimated by considering the number of TECs
installed, the amount of special concrete bags per TEC, NBG , the cost per kg of the concrete
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 8 of 27

contained in the special bags, CBG , in e/kg, and the mass of the concrete produced for the
special bags, m BG , in kg, i.e.,

C325 = NI · NBG · m BG · CBG (18)

Vertical Column

Concrete Ballasts
Transition Structure

Special Concrete Bags

Base Support

Figure 3. Supporting TEC structure.

• Export power system (C33 ): This cost is estimated by considering the following sub-costs
associated with the electrical equipment in the nacelle (C331 ), the electrical equipment in the
base support (C332 ), the umbilical cables (C333 ), the transformation platform and the converters
(C334 ) and the exportation cable (C335 ). They are estimated as follows:

– Electrical equipment in the nacelle (C331 ): This cost is estimated by considering the number
of TECs manufactured, the power of each TEC, the cost per MW of the protection switch,
CPSW , in e/MW, the mass of the submarine connector, mSC , in kg, and the cost per kg of this
element, CSC , in e/kg, i.e.,

C331 = NM · ( PT · CPSW + mSC · CSC ) (19)

– Electrical equipment in the base support (C332 ): This cost is estimated by considering the
number of TECs installed, the mass of the submarine connector installed in the base, m BSC ,
in kg, the cost per kg of this element, CBSC , in e/kg, the mass of the internal wiring, m IW ,
in kg, the cost per kg of this element, C IW , in e/kg, the mass of the connection box, mCBX ,
in kg and the cost per kg of this element, CCBX , in e/kg, i.e.,

C332 = NI · (m BSC · CBSC + m IW · C IW + mCBX · CCBX ) (20)

– Umbilical cables (C333 ): This cost is estimated by considering the length of the umbilical
cables, LUC , in m, and the cost per m of this element, CUC , in e/m, i.e.,

C333 = LUC · CUC (21)

– Transformation platform and converters (C334 ): This cost is estimated by considering the
number of TECs installed, the power of each TEC, the cost per MW of the rectifiers, CR ,
in e/MW, the cost per MW of the inverters, C I , in e/MW, the cost per MW of the electrical
boxes, CEB , in e/MW, the number of transformers, NTF , the cost per MW of the transformers,
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 9 of 27

CTF , in e/MW, the mass of the transformation platform, m TP , in kg, and the cost per kg of
this element, CTP , in e/kg, i.e.,

C334 = NI · PT · (CR + C I + CEB + NTF · CTF ) + m TP · CTP (22)

– Exportation cables (C335 ): This cost is estimated by considering the number of submarine
exportation cables, NSEC , the length of the submarine exportation cables, LSEC , in m, the cost
per m of this element, CSEC , in e/m, the length of the ground exportation cables, LGEC , in m,
and the cost per m of this element, CGEC , in e/m, i.e.,

C335 = NSEC · LSEC · CSEC + LGEC · CGEC (23)

Once these costs have been attained, the manufacturing costs, C3 , are obtained as follows:

C3 = C31 + C32 + C33 (24)

2.4. Installation Costs (C4 )

The estimation of the installation costs for tidal farms is of particular difficulty owing to the
characteristics and uncertainties of the offshore operations and the volatility costs of the vessels used
in these operations. Several concepts need to be considered if these costs are to be estimated in an
appropriate manner:

• Specialized vessels: The evolution of offshore wind farms and the development of advanced
offshore technologies result in progressions in infrastructure and the attainment of specific
solutions for these particular sectors. When designing the installation and O&M procedures, it is
therefore essential to search for specialized vessels with which to perform these activities. Without
the existence of these specialized vessels, the costs of these operations would be so high that the
economic viability of these offshore systems might be seriously compromised.
• Base port: When studying of the implementation of a tidal farm, it is very important to determine
the location of nearby industrial base ports. These ports need to be equipped with sufficient means
for the reception of materials and components and have the capabilities to load and upload these
materials and components, along with the means to perform TEC maintenance tasks. The location
of the port base has a great influence as regards ensuring a reduction in the installation and
O&M costs.
• Weather windows: Weather phenomena, such as wind velocity, wave height and tidal current
velocity, need to be studied in order to perform the installation and the O&M procedures in safe
conditions. The definition of favorable weather windows throughout the different seasons of the
year is fundamental if an adequate and a safe planning of the installation and the O&M tasks is to
take place.

Bearing the previous considerations of the cost structure in mind, the following costs are
considered at this stage:

• Installation of the transformation platform and converters (C41 ): In order to evaluate this activity,
it is necessary to include the cost of leasing the vessels (specialized installation vessel, cable-laying
vessel, remotely-operated vehicles (ROVs), etc.), CVIPC , the cost of technical labor (technical
specialist, divers, etc.), CTL IPC , the cost of operations in the port (excavators, winches, trucks, etc),
CPO IPC , which depend on the distance from the tidal farm to the base port, d P−TF , and the weather
windows, WW; i.e.,

C41 = CVIPC (d P−TF , WW ) + CTL IPC (d P−TF , WW ) + CPO IPC (d P−TF , WW ) (25)
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 10 of 27

• Installation of the submarine cables (C42 ): This cost has a similar structure to that explained
previously. In order to estimate this activity, it is necessary to include the cost of leasing the
vessels, CVISC , the cost of technical labor, CTL ISC , the cost of operations in the port, CPO ISC , which
depend on the distance from the tidal farm to the base port, and the weather windows; i.e.,

C42 = CVISC (d P−TF , WW ) + CTL ISC (d P−TF , WW ) + CPO ISC (d P−TF , WW ) (26)

• Installation of the ground exportation cable (C43 ): In order to evaluate this activity, it is again
necessary to include the cost of leasing the vessels, CVIGEC , the cost of technical labor, CTL IGEC ,
the cost of operations in the port, CPO IGEC , which depend on the distance from the tidal farm to
the base port, and weather windows:

C43 = CVIGEC (d P−TF , WW ) + CTL IGEC (d P−TF , WW ) + CPO IGEC (d P−TF , WW ) (27)

• Installation of the TECs (C44 ): Finally, and using a similar procedure to that described above,
the evaluation of this cost structure is the following (cost of leasing the vessels, CVITEC , the cost of
technical labor, CTL ITEC , the cost of operations in the port, CPO ITEC , which depend on the distance
from the tidal farm to the base port, and weather windows):

C44 = CVITEC (d P−TF , WW ) + CTL ITEC (d P−TF , WW ) + CPO ITEC (d P−TF , WW ) (28)

Once these costs have been attained, the installation costs, C4 , are obtained as follows:

C4 = C41 + C42 + C43 + C44 . (29)

2.5. Operation and Maintenance Costs (C5 )

In the case of tidal energy projects, O&M procedures suppose an important part of the design of
the TECs and will have a direct and important repercussion as regards the time it takes to get the TECs
working properly and, consequently, the energy generation capacity of the tidal farm. The reduction
in the time spent on these tasks substantially influences the reduction in the cost of energy [39].
Additionally, and as explained in the previous section, the performance of the maintenance tasks
should be carried out in periods of small tidal currents in order to ensure safe conditions when raising
the nacelle and carrying out insertion operations on it and to minimize energy losses during the time
spent on these operations [40]. During the development of an effective maintenance plan for the tidal
farm (and the cost structure), it is necessary to estimate the downtimes that each component requires,
the failure probability of each component, the specialized vessels used in these tasks and the weather
windows in which these tasks can be performed [41,42]. Furthermore, it is very important to include
the insurance costs and fixed expenses in the operation and maintenance cost structure, because they
are some of the most expensive factors in the offshore renewable energy sector [17]. The computation
of this cost structure has been performed in accordance with the procedures developed in [43,44].
Bearing the previous considerations regarding the cost structure in mind, the following costs are
considered at this stage:
• Blade cleaning (C51 ): This concerns the removal of algae, microorganisms and fouling from the
blades of the TEC. This cost depends on the number of TECs manufactured, the downtimes spent
on this process, DBC , the weather windows, the transport costs, CTBC , the labor costs, CLBC , and
the costs incurred as the result of production losses, CPLBC , i.e.,

C51 = NM · (CTBC ( DBC , WW ) + CLBC ( DBC , WW ) + CPLBC ( DBC , WW )) (30)

• Light preventive maintenance (C52 ): This involves light general maintenance (grease changes,
review of painting defects, etc.) in the TECs (nacelle + supporting structure) and the export
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 11 of 27

energy system. The estimation of this cost category is carried out by considering the number of
TECs manufactured, the downtimes spent on this process, DLPM , the weather windows, WW,
the transport costs, CTLPM , the labor costs, CLLPM , the material costs, C MLPM , and the costs
incurred as the result of production losses, CPLLPM , i.e.,

C52 = NM · (CTLPM ( DLPM , WW ) + CLLPM ( DLPM , WW ) +

C MLPM ( DLPM , WW ) + CPLLPM ( DLPM , WW )) (31)

• High preventive maintenance (C53 ): This implies more in-depth maintenance (bearing
replacements, inspection of the nacelle and the structure components, etc.) in the TECs (nacelle +
supporting structure) and the export energy system. As in the previous category, the estimation of
this cost category is carried out by considering the number of TECs manufactured, the downtimes
spent on this process, D HPM , the weather windows, WW, the transport costs, CTHPM , the labor
costs, CLHPM , the material costs, C MHPM , and the costs incurred as the result of production losses,
CPLHPM , i.e.,

C53 = NM · (CTHPM ( D HPM , WW ) + CLHPM ( D HPM , WW ) +

C MHPM ( D HPM , WW ) + CPLHPM ( D HPM , WW )) (32)

• Corrective maintenance (C54 ): This concerns repairing the TECs (nacelle + supporting structure)
and the export energy system, The computation of this cost category is developed by including
the number of TECs manufactured, the failure probability of the i-component of the tidal farm, PFi ,
the downtimes spent on this process, DCM , the weather windows, WW, the transport costs, CTCM ,
the labor costs, CLCM , the material costs, C MCM , and the costs incurred as the result of production
losses, CPLCM , i.e.,

C54 = NM · (CTCM ( DCM , WW ) + CLCM ( DCM , WW ) +

C MCM ( DCM , WW ) + CPLCM ( DCM , WW )) (33)

• Insurance costs and fixed expenses (C55 ): The estimation of this cost is an area that needs to be
studied in depth within the offshore renewable energy sector. According to the scientific literature,
two possible metrics can be used to estimate these costs [17]: (a) % of the total capital expenditure
(CAPEX, an expenditure whose benefit extends beyond one year; this concept will be explained in
detail in Section 2.8); or (b) e/MWh. For example, in [45], the cost of insurance is estimated as 2%
of the CAPEX, while [46] includes an estimation of the insurance cost of 15,000 eper MW. In our
case, the insurance costs and fixed expenses have been estimated as a percentage of the CAPEX.

Once these costs have been attained, the operation and maintenance costs, C5 , are obtained
as follows:
C5 = C51 + C52 + C53 + C54 + C55 . (34)

2.6. Decommissioning Costs (C6 )

This stage includes all the costs incurred during the removal and disposal of the project
components and leaving the sea as it was initially. It is expected that this will occur in approximately
20 years [47]. The decommissioning costs incurred are typically the following: (i) stopping the system
(C61 ); (ii) dismantling the transformation platform and converters (C62 ); (iii) dismantling the submarine
cables (C63 ); (iv) dismantling the exportation cable (C64 ); (v) dismantling the TECs (C65 ). At this stage,
it is necessary to include the incomes obtained from the sales of the main components (steel, converters,
etc.) of the tidal farm (C66 ). This value will be modeled as a negative value in the cost structure.
Once these costs have been attained, the decommissioning costs, C6 , are obtained as follows:
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 12 of 27

C6 = C61 + C62 + C63 + C64 + C65 + C66 . (35)

As occurred with the installation costs and the operation and maintenance costs, the estimation of
the decommissioning costs for tidal farms is of particular difficulty owing to the characteristics and
uncertainties of the offshore operations, the volatility costs of the vessels used in these operations,
the weather windows, etc. Additionally, there is currently no accurate information about the
quantification of the economic costs of offshore tidal farms owing to the fact that no offshore tidal farm
has, as yet, been dismantled.
Another possible option is the renewal/total inspection of the devices and platforms in such a
way that the service life of the tidal farm can be extended. This is a very interesting option because
some of the investments made will barely need renewal. The cost of energy of the tidal farm during this
elongated service life would, therefore, substantially decrease, thus making the project more profitable.
Bearing the aforementioned considerations and the uncertainties currently involved at this stage
in mind, the dismantling cost will not be included in the case study performed.

2.7. Annual Energy Produced

One of the most important items, and a clear indicator for decision-making during the installation
of a tidal farm, is the achievement of the AEP. In order to estimate the AEP (and consequently,
the incomes generated if the electric tariff is known), it is necessary to determine a model that considers
the characteristics of the current (speed, direction, distribution, etc.), the ability of the device to capture
energy and its ability to convert and export energy. The following items are required to estimate the
AEP (see Figure 4):

• Estimation of the current velocity at the depth of the rotor. During the computation of this
parameter, it is necessary to consider the following aspects:

– Histograms of the current velocity: These histograms provide information about the
frequency (number of hours) with which a given current velocity is repeated in a year.
They provide useful information as regards estimating the energy produced by a TEC [48].
– Current profile at the operating depth: A relation of 1/7 is used to adapt the measured current
velocities at the surface (represented in the aforementioned histograms) to the operating
depth [49].
 1
Zr 7
Vr = Vh (36)
Zh
where Vr represents the rotor velocity in m/s, Vh denotes the velocity at the sea surface
in m/s, Zr is the rotor depth in m and Zh expresses the depth of the water column.
– Stele effect, blend effect and velocity deficit: When the flow passes through the rotor,
it transfers energy to it, but it simultaneously undergoes diverse hydrodynamic phenomena
that result in a flow speed deficit downstream of the rotor. It additionally generates a stele
with a great turbulence that causes disturbances in the flow. This effect appears when the
flow passes through each TEC and, consequently, when it passes each row of the tidal farm.
The last rows of the tidal farms will, therefore, receive a lower quality flow, signifying that the
TECs will capture less energy [50]. This is obtained by employing the following expression:
p
a = 1 − 1 − Ct (37)
1 − 0.5a
 
As = Ar (38)
1−a
Vs = (1 − a)Vr (39)

where a is the stele coefficient, Ct represents the buoyancy coefficient, Vr denotes the input
flow velocity in m/s, Ar is the surface of the rotor in m2 , Vs denotes the output flow velocity
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 13 of 27

in m/s and As expresses the output flow surface in m2 . Once this effect has been estimated,
it is necessary to take into account the blend effect between the perturbed flow and the free
flow downstream of the rotor by considering the configuration of the tidal farm and applying
the energy conservation law. The following result is obtained:

As Vs2 + ( At − Ar ) Vr2 = At Vz2 (40)

where At denotes the total frontal surface of the device and Vz expresses the final velocity of
the blended flow in m/s. The velocity deficit is then computed as:
x
Vx = (Vs − Vz ) e−0.2 D (41)

with an exponential decay model for an intermediate point (x, Vx ) located between the rotor
output (stele effect) and the blend flow downstream and where D denotes the diameter of the
rotor [51]. The usual values of velocity deficit are around 5% when the flow passes through a
row of TECs.
• Performance of the PTO: When the tidal current velocity is small, the PTO of the TEC is working
in a partial regime that only captures a part of its nominal power, and its performance is, therefore,
considerably reduced. This effect needs to be considered in order to estimate a realistic value of
the AEP and to characterize the cut-in velocity (the cut-in velocity of a TEC can be defined as the
minimum velocity required to generate energy with which to feed at least the auxiliary systems
that allow the TEC to operate) of the device.
• Additional requirements when estimating the total energy produced: Several requirements need
to be considered when estimating a realistic value of the total energy:

– Availability factor: The TEC does not always work properly owing to device breakdowns
and maintenance periods. This availability factor needs to be estimated on the basis of the
information obtained from the maintenance procedures used, weather windows, and so on.
– Tidal farm topology: This influences the final value of the AEP, and it is necessary to evaluate
the performance of each TEC on the basis of the position (row, column) that it occupies within
the tidal farm.
– Performance of the power export system: The last stage involved in obtaining the AEP for
the tidal farm is its exportation and conversion into quality energy. The performance of the
export power system from the generators of the TECs to the water-to-wire point therefore
needs to be included.

Farm topology: Farm topology:

Tidal Farm Loca"on Zr Zh (row, column) Ct Ar (row, column) Ar As At D x

Vs Vz
Histograms of Vh Current profile Vr Vx
the current at the opera"ng Stele Effect Blend Effect Velocity Deficit
velocity depth

A, CP, ρ Farm topology:

η PTO η AF η PES (row, column)

Power
Performance of PTO Availability ( Performance of the AEP of the
Computa"on
the PTO
~ factor Power Export System Incomes
1
P̂ P
(
P
(
P ∑
"dal farm Electric Tariff
Pˆ = C P ρAV 3 ~ ~ (€/MW)
2 P = η PTO Pˆ P = η AF P P = η PES P

Figure 4. Summary of the computation of the annual energy produced (AEP).

Energies 2017, 10, 1806 14 of 27

2.8. Viability Analysis

After computing the LCC and the AEP of the project, it is necessary to perform a feasibility
analysis, which is done by studying several economic and technical indicators. The conclusions
obtained from this study will have a decisive influence on the decision-making process, showing
the current value of the benefits, the profitability of the project and the possibility of performing
comparative studies with other renewable energy sources. Of the various economic and technical
indicators, we include the following: (i) net present value (NPV); (ii) internal rate of return (IRR);
(iii) discounted payback period (DPBP); and (iv) levelized cost of energy (LCOE). The NPV, IRR and
DPBP are indicators that usually depend on market conditions. However, the LCOE is independent of
market conditions and is frequently used in the study of renewable energy projects. The following
subsections deal with the definition of these indicators.

2.8.1. Net Present Value

The NPV is represented by the difference between the present value of cash inflows (given by
the total investment costs and the operational costs) and the present value of cash outflows (obtained
from the cost of the electricity and the tidal resource) [52]. The NPV is usually used to analyze the
profitability of a project or a projected investment. It is obtained by means of the following expression:
n
NPV = −C0 + ∑ Ct · (1 + k)−t (42)
t =1

where C0 denotes the initial investment costs (e), Ct represents the net cash flow during the period t in
years (e), k is the annual discount rate and n expresses the number of time periods.

2.8.2. Internal Rate of Return

The IRR is defined as the annual discount rate that makes the NPV of all net cash flows equal
to zero [52]. It is also used to analyze the profitability of investing in the project. From a financial
perspective, the IRR provides a measure of the gross annual relative profitability per monetary unit
involved in the project. Mathematically, it is expressed as follows:
n
0 = −C0 + ∑ Ct · (1 + r)−t ⇒ r = IRR (43)
t =1

Owing to the nature of Expression (43), the IRR must be calculated by employing an iterative
process or using programmed mathematical software.

2.8.3. Discounted Payback Period

The DPBP provides the number of years it takes to break even after the initial expenditure [52]. It is
configured as a suitable method with which to evaluate risk investments that allows the profitability
analysis performed with the NPV and the IRR to be carried out. It is obtained by means of the
following expression:
B
DPBP = A + (44)
C
where A denotes the last year with a negative discounted cumulative cash flow, B represents the
absolute value of discounted cumulative cash flow at the end of the year A and C is the discounted
cash flow during the year after A.

2.8.4. Levelized Cost of Energy

The LCOE is a useful tool with which to compare the unit cost of different technologies throughout
their economic life and serves as a benchmarking or ranking tool with which to compare different
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 15 of 27

technological alternatives that could be achieved by different investments and time operations.
It should be studied on the basis of specific countries (or even the same place) [53,54]. The LCOE is
defined as the life-cycle cost divided by lifetime energy production and is computed as follows [55]:

CCAPEX + ∑nt=1 COPEXt · (1 + k )−t

LCOE = (45)
∑nt=1 Et · (1 + k)−t

where CAPEX (capital expenditure) signifies an expenditure whose benefit extends beyond one year.
CCAPEX mostly includes the general costs, the cost of the PTO and ancillary/mooring systems, the main
support structure of the TEC, base and/or mooring, other device units, the installation of the TEC and
other units, the TEC farm hub platform and the energy transportation systems, among others [38].
OPEX (operational expenditures) involves the ongoing cost of running the tidal energy project. COPEX
includes administrative costs, scheduled and unscheduled O&M costs, insurance, taxes, rent payments
and shipping and shore facilities. The COPEX values have a high uncertainty owing to the lack of
precision and the lack of available published data and have a tendency to increase when equipment
ages [56]. CCAPEX denotes the capital expenditures in e; COPEXt expresses the operating expenditures
in year tin e; and Et represents the production of energy in years texpressed in kWh.

3. Case Study in the Alderney Race

3.1. The Alderney Race

Alderney is one of the islands in the English Channel whose surface is almost 10 km2 and is
dependent on the British Crown. It is located approximately 18 km to the west of the Cape of La Hague
(France), 37 km to the northwest of Guernsey and 110 km to the south of the English coast. The tidal
farm is planned to be located in the orange square illustrated in Figure 5a. The strait in this place
has a width of 13 km and a minimum depth of 17 m, while the proposed zones are 30–40 m in depth.
The search for a relatively plain zone with the adequate depth is essential for the location of the tidal
farm. Moreover, the seabed in this location is composed of large plates of hard flat rocks [57].

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Alderney Race: (a) delimited zone for the tidal farm; (b) current velocity in the Alderney Race.

Furthermore, the marine currents in the Alderney Race can flow in both directions depending on
the tide. This phenomenon is continuously repeated according to the period of the tides. What is more,
the current velocity is almost always greater than 1 ms−1 (see Figure 5b), which will be translated into
high electricity production for a high percentage of time. The information provided about the current
velocities, distance to shore and the seabed compositions allowed us to conclude that this site is a very
good candidate for the construction and commercial exploitation of a tidal farm.
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 16 of 27

3.2. Configuration of the Proposed First Generation Tidal Farm

The proposed tidal farm is composed of 42 TECs of 1.2 MW. The TECs selected have an open rotor
configuration whose axis is parallel to the flow (see Figure 6). The nacelle of the TEC can be separated
from the structure in order to facilitate the maintenance tasks, but when the nacelle is mounted on the
structure, its orientation is fixed, thus making it mandatory for it to have a pitch controllable blade
system so as to maximize the energy captured in both current directions. The diameter of the blades
is 20 m, and the TEC is fixed to the seabed by gravity, i.e., the structure that supports the TEC is
supported on the seabed by means of a substantial mass. Finally, the tidal farm will be composed of a
small number of rows, with 11, 10, 11, 10 TECs per row, in order to minimize the shadow effect in the
last rows and maximize the total energy captured by the tidal farm.

(a) (b)

Figure 6. (a) Proposed TEC; (b) view of proposed tidal farm.

3.3. Installation Procedures

For the case study developed, the following considerations and installation procedures have been
kept in mind for the tidal farm during its expected service life of 20 years [47]:

3.3.1. Previous Considerations

Bearing the assumptions made in Section 2 in mind, the following considerations have been
included to develop the installation and the O&M costs:

• Vessels: We have selected the HF4 vessel designed by MojoMaritime R for this purpose. This vessel
is characterized by its dynamic positioning and the fact that it is able to work under extreme
conditions. The use of this vessel makes it possible to obtain larger weather windows for the
development of the installation and O&M procedures and, consequently, helps substantially
reduce the total life-cycle costs. An additional advantage of the vessel selected is that it allows
the transportation of all the equipment required to install one TEC or the transportation of three
nacelles at the same time (see Figure 7), which helps reduce the maintenance tasks.
• Base port: The port selected for its operative qualities is the Port of Cherburg in France.
The distance from the base port to the location of the tidal farm is approximately 39 km.
This distance, although small, cannot be ignored since, owing to the nominal velocity of the
vessel selected (14 knots), it would spend 1.5 h on the displacements.
• Weather windows: Bearing the vessel characteristics and the climatological considerations in mind,
we have obtained the percentages of time during which operations can be performed in each
season. These are the following: (a) spring: 75% (68 days); (b) summer: 95% (87 days); (c) autumn:
50% (46 days); and (d) winter: 15% (14 days). These percentages show that it is possible to
operate around 215 days a year, which is sufficient time to satisfy the installation and maintenance
procedures of the tidal farm.
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 17 of 27

(a) (b)

Figure 7. (a) HF4 installation vessel transporting the equipment needed to install the TEC; (b) HF4
installation vessel transporting nacelles.

3.3.2. Installation Sequence

After studying the seabed on which the tidal farm will be located, it is necessary to study the
zones in which the TECs will be situated in order to find the optimal route for the cables that belong
to the TECs and the umbilical cables that join the TECs to the transformation platform, as well as to
define the optimal route for the exportation cable. Figure 8 illustrates an example of the installation
procedure of the TECs.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 8. Installation procedure: (a) controlled descent of the base structure; (b) support structure on
the seabed and deposited guide wires; (c) controlled descent of the nacelle; (d) removing the tool for
nacelle installation and unstressing the guide wires.
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 18 of 27

3.4. Maintenance Procedures

For the case study developed, the following maintenance plan is considered for the tidal farm
during its expected service life:

3.4.1. Blade Cleaning

The colonization of algae, microorganisms and fouling will lead to a reduction in the
hydrodynamic efficiency of the rotor surfaces. Although the blades should be protected with copper
paint, which acts as a biocide, one of the essential tasks is that of cleaning the blades in order to
guarantee the performance of the system. The task of removing the algae, microorganisms, etc.,
is performed once or twice a year through the use of pressurized water in the installation vessel. It is
also necessary to consider the processes of recovering and lowering the nacelle during this procedure.

3.4.2. Light Preventive Maintenance

All the components need a general maintenance and periodical inspection about every two years.
We plan light preventive maintenance every two years, and this includes the following operations:
changing the grease in the thrust bearing and the gearbox, filling the bottles of compressed air,
inspecting all of the components, blade cleaning or checking the paint for defects.

3.4.3. High Preventive Maintenance

This procedure is more complicated than that described above, and it is necessary to perform
more complex operations on the nacelle. This procedure is carried out every four years. In this
case, the nacelle is moved from the tidal farm to the base port and is then completely disassembled.
The following operations are carried out: bearing replacement of the thrust bearing and the gearbox,
the replacement of grease in the seal ring, a detailed inspection of all the nacelle components, painting
the entire nacelle, etc.

3.4.4. Corrective Maintenance

On a medium size tidal farm, it is supposed that faults may occur in a TEC that were not foreseen
in the maintenance plans. The greater or lesser speed of action needed to solve the problem depends
on factors such as the availability of the vessel, the particular weather window at that time, the
current climate conditions and even the availability of an additional nacelle. It should be noted that,
although this will probably occur, it is expected that it will be limited owing to the consideration of
PTO with redundancy.

3.5. Annual Energy Produced

Bearing in mind the considerations explained in Section 2.7 as regards the estimation of the current
velocity at the depth of the rotor (Vr ), the performance of the power drive train (ηPTO ), the availability
factor (η AF ), the performance of the power export system (ηPES ) and the tidal farm topology, the AEP
obtained for the TECs in each of the four rows of which the tidal farm is composed is illustrated in
Figure 9, where the following values have been taken into consideration: Zr = 20 m, Zh = 40 m,
Ct = 0.716, As = 452 m2 , Ar = 314 m2 , At = 4000 m2 (separation between devices of 100 m and
total depth of 40 m), D = 20 m, x = 30 m, CP = 0.45, ρ = 1025 kg/m3 , ηPTO = 0.39, η AF = 0.97 and
ηPES = 0.946.
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 19 of 27

ROW 1 Hours TEC Power Hours TEC Power

450 1400 ROW 2
450 1400
400 1200 400

TEC Output Power [kW]

350 1200

TEC Output Power [kW]

1000 350
300 1000
300
800
me [h]

250

me [h]
250 800
200 600 200 600
150 150
400 400
100 100
50 200 50 200
0 0 0 0

0,04
0,22
0,39
0,56
0,73
0,91
1,08
1,25
1,43

1,77
1,94
2,12
2,29
2,46
2,64
2,81
2,98
3,15
3,33
1,6
0,05
0,23
0,41
0,59
0,77
0,95
1,13
1,31
1,49
1,68
1,86
2,04
2,22

2,58
2,76
2,94
3,13
3,31
3,49
2,4
Current Velocity at the Rotor Depth [m/s] Currtent Velocity at the Rotor Depth [m/s]

ROW 3 Hours TEC Power ROW 4 Hours TEC Power

450 1400 450 1400
400 1200 400 1200

TEC Output Power [kW]

TEC Output Power [kW]
350 350
1000 1000
300 300

me [h]
800
me [h]

250 800 250

200 600 200 600
150 150
400 400
100 100
200 50 200
50
0 0 0 0

0,04

0,35
0,51
0,67
0,83
0,98
1,14

1,46
1,61
1,77
1,93
2,08
2,24

2,56
2,71
2,87
3,03
0,2

1,3

2,4
0,04
0,21
0,37
0,54

0,87
1,03

1,36
1,53
1,69
1,86
2,02
2,19
2,35
2,51
2,68
2,84
3,01
3,17
0,7

1,2

Current Velocity at the Rotor Depth [m/s] Current Velocity at the Depth [m/s]

Figure 9. Energy generation of a TEC placed in the different rows of the tidal farm.

4. Numerical Results
The LCC obtained for the case study is summarized in Table 1, while all the numerical values
used in the model have been included in Appendix A. Furthermore, Figure 10 depicts a percentage
distribution of these costs (CAPEX and OPEX), which is highly illustrative as regards showing the
offshore situation of the proposed tidal energy project. Upon analyzing the manufacturing results
obtained for the tidal energy farm, which are shown in Figure 11, it will be observed that the highest
costs correspond to the most important components in the energy conversion system. Furthermore,
the steel used in the manufacturing process of the nacelle also makes a significant contribution to the
total costs.

Table 1. Summary of the cost of the tidal farm in the Alderney Race.

Cost Category Total Value (e)

Concept and Definition Costs (C1 ) 7,350,000
Design and Development Costs (C2 ) 200,000
Manufacturing Costs (C3 ) 103,613,935.88
Nacelle 39,563,655.88
Supporting TEC Structure 21,938,280
Export Power System 42,112,000
Installation Costs (C4 ) 27,700
Transformation Platform and Converters 3700
Submarine and Ground Exportation Cables 7200
TECs 16,800
O&M Costs (C5 ) 4,905,070.07
Material Costs Transport Costs Labor Costs Production Losses Costs
Blade Cleaning 0 81,120 4080 1256.40 86,456.4
Light Preventive Maintenance 142,293.45 533,512.45 53,659.63 32,394.14 761,859.67
High Preventive Maintenance 221,784.22 777,458.31 39,454.02 25,669.26 1,064,365.81
Corrective Maintenance 0 197,122.85 7068.15 10,918.47 215,109.47
Insurance Costs and Fixed Expenses 2,777,278.72
Decommissioning Costs (C6 ) 0
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 20 of 27

(a) (b)

Figure 10. Cost distribution of the tidal farm: (a) CAPEX costs; (b) OPEX costs.

Figure 11. Manufacturing costs of the nacelle.

Furthermore, in order to study the economic indicators, the following assumptions have
been considered:

• Although the current inflation values are lower than normal (typical values are between 1%
and 3%), in this study, a value of 2% has been considered for the rate of inflation. This term is
taken into consideration in the computation of the cash-flows through the use of the following
expression [58]:
1 + k̂
k= −1 (46)
1+i
where i denotes the inflation rate and k̂ represents the nominal annual discount rate.
• In order to attain the cash-flows, the electric tariff considered is 0.09 e/kWh, and this increases by
1.5% every year.
• All the costs are increased by 1.5% each year.
• The service life of the tidal farm considered is 20 years, although, as explained previously,
if conditions for the continuation of its exploitation are favorable, it could last up to five more years.

Figure 12 illustrates different NPV curves depending on the value of the nominal interest rate
k. The greater the values of the parameter k, the greater the risks and the uncertainties of the project.
It will be observed that the initial investment is, in all cases recovered, between the 7.5th and 12th year.
The results obtained, NPV > 0, k < IRR = 0.149 and acceptable DPBD values for all cases, indicate
that the tidal energy project is economically feasible for all scenarios and that a good profitability is
additionally achieved for a renewable energy project in its experimental stage.
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 21 of 27

300,000,000

250,000,000

200,000,000

150,000,000
NPV (€)

100,000,000

50,000,000

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-50,000,000

-100,000,000

-150,000,000
Time (Years)

k=3% k=4% k=5% k=6% k=7% k=8% k=9% k=10% k=11%

Figure 12. NPV values for different values of the rate of return in the interval between k = 3% and
k = 11% and for different years of operation.

Furthermore, with regard to the technical indicators, in the case of a tidal energy project in
a non-commercial stage and, therefore, with higher risks and uncertainties (high values of the k
parameter), the value obtained for the LCOE indicator is close to 0.15 e/kWh (see Figure 13). This value
is quite acceptable for this type of project. In fact, in the case of the current generation of devices that
harness energy from the ocean currents, values of between 0.10 e/kWh and 0.20 e/kWh for the LCOE,
with core values of between 0.12 e/kWh and 0.15 e/kWh are predicted [59].

0.16
0.15
0.14
LCOE (€/KWh)

0.13
0.12
0.11
0.1
0.09
0.08
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%
k(%)

Figure 13. LCOE values for different values of the rate of return in the interval between k = 3% and
k = 11%.

Note that, as occurred with wind energy, there is a high margin for improvement if the installed
capacity is increased and more efficient technical advances are made and exploitation procedures
produced [60–63]. It is expected that when the installed capacity increases to 1 GW, the LCOE will
have values of around 0.09 e/kWh (by that time, the risks and the uncertainties of the project will
have been substantially reduced, moving to the smaller k values), thus making it possible to obtain
cost values similar to those of the traditional renewable energy sources, whose values are between
0.05 e/kWh and 0.10 e/kWh [59].
In conclusion, after comparing all the economic and technical indicators, along with considering
the commercialization of the tidal energy project, we conclude that the proposed tidal energy project is
economically and technically feasible for all the case studies.

5. Conclusions
Tidal energy is a promising technological field thanks to its enormous potential for electricity
production and its high predictability. Although the tidal energy industry has only just begun to
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 22 of 27

demonstrate full-scale devices and device arrays, the nascent status of these technologies implies
that they have not yet obtained a sufficient level of reliability, feasibility and survivability to be
marketable when compared to other renewable technologies. The economic assessment of tidal
energy technologies is very important as regards achieving a coherent quantification of the costs of
these technologies, discovering their economic viability and simultaneously attracting investment
in these technologies. It is currently complicated to find studies that focus particularly on the cost
assessment and economic feasibility of tidal energy projects. In order to cover this gap, in this research,
we propose a methodology for the economic assessment of tidal energy projects. This methodology
is based on the LCC of these projects and proposes a cost structure that coincides with the main
stages of the tidal energy project during its life-cycle. These costs are: (i) concept and definition
costs; (ii) design and development costs; (iii) manufacturing costs; (iv) installation costs; (v) operation
and maintenance costs; and (vi) decommissioning costs. Furthermore, these costs are subdivided into
sub-cost structures, taking into consideration the main components into which the tidal farm is divided:
nacelle, base support and export power system. The proposed model, meanwhile, determines the
AEP (and, consequently, the incomes generated) by considering the following characteristics: (i) site
current properties (speed, direction, distribution, etc.); (ii) the ability of the device to capture energy;
and (iii) its ability as regards energy conversion and energy exportation. All these data are used
to determine the feasibility analysis of the project with the use of different economic and technical
indicators. This allows the profitability of the project to be attained along with making it possible
to perform comparative studies with other renewable energy sources. The proposed methodology
has been used to study the viability of a tidal farm in the Alderney Race, where the tidal resource
is high. The results obtained after carrying out an analysis of the economic indicators (NPV, IRR,
DPBP and LCOE) are the following: (i) the project is economically feasible for all the scenarios studied;
(ii) there is good profitability for a tidal renewable energy project in an experimental phase; (iii) bearing
in mind that these sorts of projects are still in their infancy, if we are able to advance in the learning
curve and the installed capacity is increased (around 1 GW), a relative decrease in the installation
and maintenance costs (around 30–40%) can be predicted, with an increase in the ability to capture
and export tidal energy, which would lead to an increase in the profitability of the project. Finally,
our future research will focus on applying this methodology to new technical solutions for tidal
technologies developed by the research group in the field of the automation of emersion/immersion
TEC maneuvers in order to quantify its economic viability and to attract investors.

Acknowledgments: This research has been supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad
under Research Grants DPI2014-53499-R.
Author Contributions: E.S., R.M. and J.A.S. conceived, designed and performed methodology and the case study.
Additionally, E.S., R.M. and J.A.S. analyzed the data and participated in writing the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Values of the Variables Used in the Case Study

Table A1. Values of the variables in the case study.

Variable Concept Value Units

C MR Market research costs 250,000 e
CCS Cost of certificates and surveys 4,000,000 e
C AI Cost per m2 of the surfaces of the farm 2.0 e/m2
1,000,000 (1000 m width
STEP Surface of the tidal energy farm in m2 m2
× 1000 m length)
CCDA Cost of conception and design analysis 600,000 e
CPRS Cost of project requirements specifications 500,000 e
CDD Cost of design and development 200,000 e
NM Number of TECs manufactured 43
CSD Cost per kg of the carbon steel manufactured for the structure of the nacelle 8.0 e/kg
mSD Mass of the structure of the nacelle 23,830 kg
CPTOF Cost per kg of the manufactured carbon steel for the PTO frame 4.0 e/kg
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 23 of 27

Table A1. Cont.

Variable Concept Value Units

m PTOF Mass of the PTO frame 3600 kg
CF Cost per kg of the manufactured fiberglass for the fairing 10.0 e/kg
mF Mass of the fairing 1240 kg
PT Power of each TEC 1.2 MW
CTB Cost per MW of the thrust bearing 40,000 e/MW
CBS Cost per MW of the brake system 2000 e/MW
CEG Cost per MW of the electrical generator 180,000 e/MW
CG Cost per MW of the gearbox 35,000 e/MW
CHSS Cost per MW of the high-speed shaft 3000 e/MW
CYS Cost per kg of the yaw system 12 e/kg
mYS Mass of the yaw system 60 kg
CCOS Cost per MW of the cooling system 15,000 e/MW
CPOS Cost per MW of the pressure oil system 15,000 e/MW
CCMS Cost per MW of the condition monitoring system 110,000 e/MW
CSWT Cost per kg of the protection and connection switches 12 e/kg
mSWT Mass of the protection and connection switches 124 kg
CCTS Cost per kg of the control system 12 e/kg
mCTS Mass of the control system 30 kg
CBIS Cost per kg of the bilge system 12 e/kg
m BIS Mass of the bilge system 260 kg
C ACS Cost per kg of the compressed air system 12 e/kg
m ACS Mass of the compressed air system 110 kg
CCB Cost per kg of the circuit board 12 e/kg
mCB Mass of the circuit board 90 kg
C AE Cost per kg of the added elements 3 e/kg
m AE Mass of the added elements 1000 kg
NB Number of blades per TEC 3
RR Radius of the rotor 10 m
CB Cost per m of each blade 40 e/m
CPS Cost per m of the pitch system 500 e/m
CCR Cost per m of the core of the rotor 1000 e/m
CLSS Cost per m of the low-speed shaft 500 e/kg
NI Number of TECs installed 42
CTBS Cost per kg of the base support of the TEC structure 3 e/kg
m TBS Mass of the base support of the TEC structure 87,200 kg
CTTS Cost per kg of the transition structure of the TEC 3 e/kg
m TTS Mass of the transition structure of the TEC 39,500 kg
CTVC Cost per kg of the vertical column of the TEC 3 e/kg
m TVC Mass of the vertical column of the TEC 29,800 kg
NCB Number of concrete ballast per TEC 2
CEC Cost per kg of the elaborated concrete of the ballast 0.2 e/kg
m EC Mass of the concrete of the ballast 113,200 kg
NBG Number of special concrete bags per TEC 4
CBG Cost per kg of the special concrete bags 0.3 e/kg
m BG Mass of the special concrete bags 6300 kg
CPSW Cost per MW of the protection switch 25,000 e/MW
CSC Cost per kg of the submarine connector 25 e/kg
mSC Mass of the submarine connector 300 kg
CBSC Cost per kg of the submarine connector installed in the base of the TEC 12 e/kg
m BSC Mass of the submarine connector installed in the base of the TEC 300 kg
C IW Cost per kg of the internal wiring 12 e/kg
m IW Mass of the internal wiring 150 kg
CCBX Cost per kg of the connection box 12 e/kg
mCBX Mass of the connection box 150 kg
CUC Cost per m of the umbilical cables 250 e/m
LUC Length of the umbilical cables 11,350 m
CR Cost per MW of the rectifiers 100,000 e/MW
CI Cost per MW of the inverters 100,000 e/MW
CEB Cost per MW of the electrical boxes 20,000 e/MW
NTF Number of transformers per TEC 4
CTF Cost per MW of the transformers 40,000 e/MW
m TP Mass of the transformation platform 4,000,000 kg
CTP Cost per kg of the transformation platform 3 e/kg
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 24 of 27

Table A1. Cont.

Variable Concept Value Units

NSEC Number of submarine exportation cables 2
CSEC Cost per m of the submarine exportation cables 500 e/m
LSEC Length of the submarine exportation cables 11,000 m
CGEC Cost per m of the ground exportation cables 150 e/m
LGEC Length of the ground exportation cables 5000 m
CVIPC Cost of leasing the vessels (installation of the transformation platform) 2,900,000 e
CTL IPC Cost of technical labor (installation of the transformation platform) 300,000 e
CPO IPC Cost of operations in the port (installation of the transformation platform) 500,000 e
CVISC Cost of leasing the vessels (installation of the submarine cables) 3,150,000 e
CTL ISC Cost of technical labor (installation of the submarine cables) 150,000 e
CPO ISC Cost of operations in the port (installation of the submarine cables) 300,000 e
CVIGEC Cost of leasing the vessels (installation of the ground exportation cable) 3,150,000 e
CTL IGEC Cost of technical labor (installation of the ground exportation cable) 150,000 e
CPO IGEC Cost of operations in the port (installation of the ground exportation cable) 300,000 e
CVITEC Cost of leasing the vessels (installation of the TECs) 14,700,000 e
CTL ITEC Cost of technical labor (installation of the TECs) 700,000 e
CPO ITEC Cost of operations in the port (installation of the TECs) 1,400,000 e
CTBC Transport costs (blade cleaning) 81,120 e
CLBC Labor costs (blade cleaning) 4080 e
CPLBC Cost incurred as result of production losses (blade cleaning) 1256.4 e
CTLPM Transport costs (light preventive maintenance) 533,512.45 e
CLLPM Labor costs (light preventive maintenance) 53,659.63 e
C MLPM Material costs (light preventive maintenance) 142,293.45 e
CPLLPM Cost incurred as result of production losses (light preventive maintenance) 32,394.14 e
CTHPM Transport costs (high preventive maintenance) 777,458.31 e
CLHPM Labor costs (high preventive maintenance) 39,454.02 e
C MHPM Material costs (high preventive maintenance) 22,1784.22 e
CPLHPM Cost incurred as result of production losses (high preventive maintenance) 25,669.26 e
CTCM Transport costs (corrective maintenance) 197,122.85 e
CLCM Labor costs (corrective maintenance) 7068.15 e
C MCM Material costs (corrective maintenance) 0 e
CPLCM Cost incurred as result of production losses (corrective maintenance) 10,918.47 e

References
1. Fernández, L. A diversified portfolio: Joint management of non-renewable and renewable resources offshore.
Resour. Energy Econ. 2005, 27, 65–82.
2. Considine, T.J.; Heo, E. Price and inventory dynamics in petroleum product markets. Energy Econ. 2000,
22, 527–548.
3. Castro-Santos, L.; Prado, G.; Díaz-Casas, V. Methodology to study the life cycle cost of floating
offshore wind farms. In Proceedings of the 10th Deep Sea Wind R&D Conference, Trondheim, Norway,
24–25 January 2013.
4. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of
the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing directives 2001/77/EC
and 2003/30/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, 5 June 2009, pp. 16–60.
5. Orlandini, V.; Pierobon, L.; Schløer, S.; De Pascale, A. Dynamic performance of a novel offshore power
system integrated with a wind farm. Energy 2016, 109, 236–247.
6. Bacelli, G.; Coe, R.G.; Patterson, D.; Wilson, D. System Identification of a Heaving Point Absorber: Design of
Experiment and Device Modeling. Energies 2017, 10, 472, doi:10.3390/en10040472.
7. Luo, Y.; Liu, X.; Wang, Z.; Xiao, Y.; He, C.; Zhang, Y. Optimization of the Runner for Extremely Low Head
Bidirectional Tidal Bulb Turbine. Energies 2017, 10, 787, doi:10.3390/en10060787.
8. Younesian, D.; Alam, M.-R. Multi-stable mechanisms for high-efficiency and broadband ocean wave energy
harvesting. Appl. Energy 2017, 197, 292–302.
9. Stegman, A.; de Andres, A.; Jeffrey, H.; Johanning, L.; Bradley, S. Exploring Marine Energy Potential in the
UK Using a Whole Systems Modelling Approach. Energies 2017, 10, 1251, doi:10.3390/en10091251.
10. Giorgi, S.; Ringwood, J.V. Can Tidal Current Energy Provide Base Load? Energies 2013, 6, 2840–2858,
doi:10.3390/en6062840.
11. MacGillivray, A.; Jeffrey, H.; Hanmer, C.; Magagna, D.; Raventos, A.; Badcock-Broe, A. Ocean Energy
Technology: Gaps and Barriers; Strategic Initiative for Ocean Energy (SI Ocean): Brussels, Belgium, 2013.
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 25 of 27

12. Badcock-Broe, A.; Flynn, R.; George, S.; Gruet, R.; Medic, N. Wave and Tidal Energy Market Deployment
Strategy for Europe; Strategic Initiative for Ocean Energy (SI Ocean): Brussels, Belgium, 2014.
13. Mofor, L.; Goldsmith, J.; Jones, F. Ocean Energy. Technology Readiness, Patents, Deployment Status and Outlook;
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA): Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2014.
14. Mofor, L.; Goldsmith, J.; Jones, F. Annual Report-2014. Implementing Agreement on Ocean Energy Systems;
Ocean Energy Systems, International Energy Agency OES-IEA: Lisboa, Portugal, 2014.
15. Somolinos, J.A.; López, A.; Núñez, L.R.; Morales, R. Dynamic model and experimental validation for the
control of emersion maneuvers of devices for marine currents harnessing. Renew. Energy 2017, 107, 333–345.
16. Morris, C.E.; O’Doherty, D.M.; O’Doherty, T.; Mason-Jones, A. Kinetic energy extraction of a tidal stream
turbine and its sensitivity to structural stiffness attenuation. Renew. Energy 2016, 88, 30–39.
17. O’Connor, M.; Lewis, T.; Dalton, G. Operational expenditure costs for wave energy projects and impacts on
financial returns. Renew. Energy 2013, 50, 1119–1131.
18. Mueller, M.; Wallace, R. Enabling science and technology for marine renewable energy. Energy Policy 2008,
36, 4376–4382.
19. Segura, E.; Morales, R.; Somolinos, J.A.; López, A. Techno-economic challenges of tidal energy conversion
systems: Current status and trends. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 77, 536–550.
20. Trapero, J.R.; Horcajada, L.; Linares, J.J.; Lobato, J. Is microbial fuel cell technology ready? An economic
answer towards industrial commercialization. Appl. Energy 2017, 185, 698–707.
21. Castro-Santos, L.; Díaz-Casas, V. Life-cycle cost analysis of floating offshore wind farms. Renew. Energy 2014,
16, 41–48.
22. Castro-Santos, L.; Díaz-Casas, V. Sensitivity analysis of floating offshore wind farms. Energy Convers. Manag.
2015, 101, 271–277.
23. Magagna, D.; Uihlein, A. Ocean energy development in Europe: Current status and future perspectives.
Int. J. Mar. Energy 2015, 11, 84–104.
24. Kleyner, A.; Sandborn, P. Minimizing life cycle cost by managing product reliability via validation plan and
warranty return cost. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 112, 796–807.
25. Wee, H.; Lee, M.; Yu, J.C.P. Optimal replenishment policy for a deteriorating green product: Life cycle
costing analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011, 133, 603–611.
26. Castro-Santos, L.; Filgueira-Vizoso, A.; Carral-Couce, L.; Fragela-Formoso, J.A. Economic feasibility of
floating offshore wind farms. Energy 2016, 112, 868–883.
27. Radfar, S.; Panahi, R.; Javaherchi, T.; Filim, S.; Mazyaki, A.R. A comprehensive insight into tidal stream
energy farms in Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 79, 323–338.
28. Neary, V.S.; Lawson, M.; Previsic, M.; Copping, A.; Hallett, K.C.; LaBonte, A.; Rieks, J.; Murray, D. Methodology
for design and economic analysis of marine energy conversion (MEC) technologies. In Proceedings of the 2nd
Marine Energy Technology Symposium (METS2014), Seattle, WA, USA, 15–18 April 2014.
29. Maslov, N.; Charpentier, J.-F.; Claramunt, C. A modelling approach for a cost-based evaluation of the energy
produced by a marine energy farm. Int. J. Mar. Energy 2015, 9, 1–19.
30. National Standards Authority of Ireland. Dependability Management Part 3-3: Application Guide—Life
Cycle Costing; IEC 60300-3-3:2004; National Standards Authority of Ireland: Ireland, UK, 2004.
31. Barringer, H.P. A Life Cycle Cost Summary. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Maintenance
Societies (ICOMS 2003), Perth, Australia, 20–23 May 2003; pp. 1–10.
32. Fabrycky, W.; Blanchard, B. A Life Cycle Cost Summary. In Life-Cycle Cost and Economic Analysis; Prentice-Hall:
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1991.
33. Dhillon, B.S. Life-Cycle Costing for Engineers; CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010.
34. Vail Farr, J. Systems Life Cycle Costing—Economic Analysis, Estimation and Management; CRC Press, Taylor and
Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011.
35. Fingersh, L.; Hand, M.; Laxson, A. Wind Turbine Design Cost and Scaling Model; NREL/TP-500-40566; National
Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2006.
36. Ricci, P.; López, J.; Villate, J.L.; Stallard, T. Deliverable D7.1. Summary of Attributes of Cost Models Used by
Different Stakeholders; Commission of the European Communities: Brussels, Belgium, 2009.
37. Acorn Bearings Web Page, 2017. Available online: www.acornbearings.co.uk/price-lists/skf/page/12
(accessed on 15 August 2017).
38. BVG Associates. A Guide to an Offshore Wind Farm; The Crown Estate: London, UK, 2010.
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 26 of 27

39. Astariz, S.; Iglesias, G. The economics of wave energy: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45,
397–408.
40. Lyding, P.; Faulstich, S.; Hahn, B.; Callies, D. Offshore–WMEP: Monitoring offshore wind energy use
European Offshore Wind. In Proceedings of the European Offshore Wind 2009 Conference & Exhibition,
Stockholm, Sweden, 14–16 September 2009.
41. Abdulla, K.; Skelton, J.; Doherty, K.; O’Kane, P.; Doherty, R.; Bryans, G. Statistical Availability Analysis
of Wave Energy Converters. In Proceedings of the The Twenty-first International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, Maui, HI, USA, 19–24 June 2011; pp. 572–578.
42. Brook, J. Wave Energy Conversion; Elsevier Ltd: Oxford, UK, 2003.
43. O&M Aspects of the 500 MW Offshore Wind Farm at NL7. Available online: https://www.ecn.nl/fileadmin/
ecn/units/wind/docs/dowec/10090_001.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2017).
44. Obdam, T.; Braam, H.; Van De Pieterman, R.; Rademakers, L. O&M Cost Estimation & Feedback of Operational Data,
Wind Farm—Technical Regulations, Potential Estimation and Siting Assessment; InTech: Vienna, Austria, 2011.
45. Carbon Trust. Oscillating water column wave energy converter evaluation report. In The Carbon Trust;
ARuP: London, UK, 2005.
46. The Irish Wind Energy Association (IWEA) Web Page. Available online: www.iwea.com/index.cfm/page/
planning_regulationsandadminis (accessed on 15 August 2017).
47. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). DNV–OS–J101 Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Structures; Det Norske Veritas:
Hovik, Norway, 2010; pp. 1–142.
48. ABPmer, Atlas for UK Marine Renewables. Available online: http://www.renewables-atlas.info/ (accessed
on 15 August 2017).
49. Winter, A. Speed Regulated Operation for Tidal Turbines with Fixed Pitch Rotors. In Proceedings of the
IEEE Oceans Conference, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 19–22 September 2011.
50. Rathmann, O.; Frandsen, S.; Barthelmie, R. Wake modeling for intermediate and large wind farms.
In Proceedings of the EWEC 2007 Wind Energy Conference and Exhibition, Milan, Italy, 7–10 May 2007;
Paper BL3.199.
51. Sun, X.; Chick, J.P.; Bryden, I.G. Laboratory-scale simulation of energy extraction from tidal currents.
Renew. Energy 2008, 33, 1267–1274.
52. Short, W.; Packey, D.; Holt, T. A Manual for the Economic Evaluation of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Technologies; NREL/TP-462-5173; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 1995.
53. Ouyang, X.; Lin, B. Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) of Renewable energies and required subsidies
in China. Energy Policy 2014, 70, 64–73.
54. Castro-Santos, L.; Prado-García, G.; Estanqueiro, A.; Justino, P.A.P.S. The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)
of Wave Energy Usig GIS Based Analysis: The case study of Portugal. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2015,
65, 21–25.
55. Davey, T.; Harrison, G. Procedures for Economic Evaluation; Equitable Testing and Evaluation of Marine Energy
Extraction Devices Deliverable D7.2.1; Commission of the European Communities: Brussels, Belgium, 2009.
56. Levitt, A.; Kempton, W.; Smith, A.P.; Musial, W.; Firestone, J. Pricing offshore wind power. Energy Policy
2011, 39, 6408–6421.
57. Sánchez, G. Diseño de un Dispositivo Para el Aprovechamiento de la Energía de las Corrientes (DAEC)
y su Integración en un Parque Marino. Master’s Thesis, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Navales
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (ETSIN-UPM), Madrid, Spain, 2014.
58. Davis Langdon Management Consulting. Towards a Common European Methodology for Life Cycle Costing
(LCC)—Literature Review; Davis Langdon Management Consulting: London, UK, 2007.
59. Fraenkel, P. Marine Current Turbines: Pioneering the Development of Marine Kinetic Energy Converters.
Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part A J. Power Energy 2007, 221, 159–169.
60. López, A.; Núñez, L.R.; Somolinos, J.A. Modelado energético de convertidores primarios para el
aprovechamiento de las energías renovables marinas. Rev. Iberoam. Autom. Inform. Ind. 2011, 11, 224–235.
61. Morales, R.; Segura, E.; Somolinos, J.A.; Núñez, L.R.; Sira-Ramírez, H. Online signal filtering based on the
algebraic method and its experimental validation. Mech. Syst. Signal Proc. 2016, 66, 374–387.
Energies 2017, 10, 1806 27 of 27

62. Somolinos, J.A.; López, A.; Portilla, M.P.; Morales, R. Dynamic model and control of a new underwater
three-degree-of-freedom tidal energy converter. Math. Probl. Eng. 2015, 2015, 948048.
63. Morales, R.; Fernández, L.; Segura, E.; Somolinos, J.A. Maintenance Maneuver Automation for an Adapted
Cylindrical Shape TEC. Energies 2016, 9, 746.

c 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).