WIND AND WATER POWER PROGRAM 

1st Advanced Marine 

Renewable Energy 

Instrumentation Experts 

Workshop 

April 5-7, 2011 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge 

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy 

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov 

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov 

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx 

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Executive Summary 

The U.S. marine energy industry is actively pursuing development of marine hydrokinetic 

(MHK) and offshore wind energy systems. Experience in the wind energy and marine sectors 

shows that to reduce technology risk and accelerate development timelines, site characterization 

and field measurement of device performance, loads, and response are essential. To do this, the 

marine energy industry needs robust instrumentation systems that can operate in the harsh ocean 

environment, with the ability to provide a broad set of coordinated, high quality measurements. 

Presently, no instrumentation system solutions have been demonstrated that effectively meet the 

measurement needs of the marine energy industry. 

The 1st Advanced Marine Renewable Energy Instrumentation Experts Workshop brought 

together technical experts from government laboratories, academia, and industry representatives 

from marine energy, wind, offshore oil and gas, and instrumentation developers to present and 

discuss the instrumentation needs of the marine energy industry. The goals of the meeting were 

to: 

1.	 Share the latest relevant knowledge among technical experts 

2.	 Review relevant state-of-the-art field measurement technologies and methods 

3.	 Review lessons learned from recent field deployments 

4.	 Identify synergies across different industries 

5.	 Identify gaps between existing and needed instrumentation capabilities 

6.	 Understand who are the leading experts 

7.	 Provide a forum where stakeholders from the marine energy industry could provide 

substantive input in the development of new marine energy field deployable 

instrumentation packages. 

Sixty people attended the three day workshop and 35 presentations were made. It is clear that the 

instrumentation systems presented will need further development to meet the needs of the marine 

energy industry. Lessons learned were presented and the top instrumentation development needs 

were identified: 

1.	 Device developers lack the resources and capabilities to instrument pilot-scale 

deployments for performance, environmental, and ecological monitoring
 

2.	 Standards are needed for both the collection and analysis of field data 

3.	 No comprehensive instrumentation system solution exists for MHK systems 

4.	 Standardized instrumentation systems and measurement methodologies are needed for 

MHK device deployment 

5.	 Communication between instrument and sensor manufacturers and the offshore wind and 

MHK communities should be encouraged 

The following report summarizes the workshop. 

iii 
 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Table of Contents 

1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 1
 

1.1 Workshop Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1
 

1.2 Workshop Scope .............................................................................................................. 1
 

1.3 Workshop Objectives ....................................................................................................... 1
 

1.4 Format .............................................................................................................................. 2
 

2 Findings and Gaps Identified by Participants.......................................................................... 4
 

2.1 Lessons Learned from Field Deployments....................................................................... 4
 

2.2 Measurement Gaps and Recommendations ..................................................................... 7
 

2.3 Overall Instrumentation Systems Gaps and Recommendations ...................................... 8
 

2.4 Instruments and Sensors Gaps and Recommendations.................................................... 9
 

2.5 Data Processing Gaps and Recommendations ............................................................... 12
 

2.6 Feedback from Audience - Potential Roles for Government RDT&E........................... 13
 

3 Appendix A: Agenda ............................................................................................................ 14
 

4 Appendix B: List of Attendees .............................................................................................. 17
 

5 Appendix B: Response to Follow-up Survey ........................................................................ 19
 

iv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Acronyms
 

COTS Commercial Off-The-Shelf 

MHK Marine Hydrokinetic 

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

NWTC National Wind Technology Center 

RDT&E Research Development Testing and Evaluation 

TEC Tidal Energy Converter 

WEC Wave Energy Converter 

v 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 


 

1 Overview 

The 1st Advanced Marine Renewable Energy Instrumentation Experts Workshop was held April 

5-7, 2011, at the Renaissance Hotel in Broomfield, CO, USA. 

1.1 Workshop Purpose 

The U.S. marine energy industry is actively developing offshore wind and MHK technologies, 

including ocean wave, tidal current, river current, open-ocean current, and fixed and floating 

wind energy devices. It also is identifying promising deployment sites where marine energy 

resources can be harnessed. The offshore wind and MHK devices are multifaceted, electromechanical machines that are used in complex environments to convert various forms of 

renewable ocean energy to produce electricity. 

As technologies mature from concept to commercial readiness, extensive testing and monitoring 

efforts occur as part of RDT&E. Accurate measurements to verify loads and performance are 

essential to advance the state of offshore wind and MHK technology. The availability of a 

reliable, accurate, high resolution, and high speed instrumentation system that can be deployed in 

marine environments will help accelerate the development and deployment of marine renewable 

energy. Presently, no turn-key instrumentation system solution that includes software, hardware, 

and sensors exists to meet the necessary requirements to advance the state of technology 

readiness in the marine energy industry. However, many marine and land-based instrumentation 

systems do exist and are being used in related marine applications, such as offshore oil and gas 

and land-based wind energy. The challenge is to identify the relevant state-of-the-art 

instrumentation components and systems and then integrate them into a customized system that 

is capable of meeting the needs of the MHK and offshore wind industries. 

1.2 Workshop Scope 

The workshop focused on marine grade instrumentation systems used for open water site 

characterization, structural field testing, certification testing and verification, commissioning, 

and operational monitoring. The technology scope is offshore wind, wave, and current (tidal, 

river, and open-ocean) systems in water-based testing facilities and at open water sites. 

Participants were technical experts in the fields of instrumentation, monitoring, and field testing. 

They have hands-on roles in the development or use of instrumentation in support of offshore 

wind and MHK technology RDT&E, or aligned and relevant fields. 

The relatively small technical workshop included 60 invited participants from industry, national 

laboratories, and academia. The size of the conference was intentionally kept small to facilitate 

open and in-depth discussion of various subjects relevant to the MHK industry. Attendees of the 

conference were informed that the conference was not a venue to market or advertise products, 

programs, or facilities. Our intent is to establish this as an annual workshop. 

1.3 Workshop Objectives 

The objectives of the workshop were to: 

1.	 Share the latest relevant knowledge among technical experts 

2.	 Review relevant state-of-the-art field measurement technologies and methods from the 

offshore wind, MHK and related industries 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

3.	 Review lessons learned from recent MHK and offshore wind device field deployments 

4.	 Identify synergies across different industries 

5.	 Identify gaps between existing and needed instrumentation capabilities 

6.	 Identify leading subject matter experts 

7.	 Provide a stakeholder forum to elicit substantive input for the development of new 

marine energy field-deployable instrumentation packages. 

1.4 Format 

This was a single track workshop, with 10 sessions and seven distinct topic areas. Some topic 

areas contained breaks and were considered to be two separate sessions. To ensure participation 

in the discussion sessions, it was decided not to have multiple sessions that would divide the 

small audience. The topic areas for the sessions were: 

1.4.1	 Sessions 1 and 2: Lessons Learned from In-water Deployment and 

Operation 

Deploying and operating instrumentation in the field is technically challenging and obtaining 

quality field data can be elusive and fraught with unforeseen pitfalls. This session presented field 

experience and lessons learned when deploying instrumentation and taking measurements in the 

ocean and/or on land. 

1.4.2	 Sessions 3 and 4: Structural Loads and Response 

This session presented state-of-the art techniques and technologies used to measure structural 

loads including systems and sensors for field measurement of the strains, forces, moments, 

deflections, and accelerations in device structures. Structural loads may be measured on 

blades/foils, towers, housings, drive train, mooring lines, foundations and other components, as 

well as environmental forces acting on the device, such as wave slamming, wind, and underwater 

current loads. Field measurements of these forces are crucial design inputs for device 

developers. 

1.4.3	 Session 5: Device Electrical Power, Performance, and Condition Monitoring

Instrumentation and methods used to monitor the function and state of MHK and offshore wind 

technologies, while operating in normal and extreme conditions, including power generation and 

quality, device condition, device stability and response, and device integrity were covered in this 

session. 

1.4.4	 Session 6: Sensors, Instruments and Platforms 

This session covered a range of sensors, instruments, and instrument platforms needed to support 

in-water testing, demonstration, certification, and operation of MHK and offshore wind 

technologies. 

1.4.5	 Session 7: Environmental Inflow Monitoring 

This session covered measurements needed to accurately quantify the underwater inflow and 

outflow conditions of marine renewable energy systems, such as velocity profiles, turbulence 

conditions, wave fields, and meteorological conditions. These measurements are essential inputs 

into many of the device measurements, including the structural, mooring, dynamics, and power 

performance monitoring, as well as computational design tools and models. 

2
 
 

 

 


 

1.4.6 Session 8: State-of-the-Art Integrated Monitoring Systems 

The development of advanced measurement systems for MHK and offshore wind will require the 

integration of a wide array of sensors that operate and communicate in different ways that can be 

located in different environments and far apart. Instrumentation can include device, 

environmental, and ecological sensors operating together that require fine temporal coordination 

and can be controlled from a central location. This session presented case studies of systems that 

have successfully and reliably integrated complex sensor networks to meet specific measurement 

needs. 

1.4.7 Sessions 9 and 10: Ecological and Environmental Monitoring 

Under current regulatory oversight, all MHK and offshore wind technologies likely will be 

required to perform ecological monitoring. This session reviewed the state-of-the-art 

instrumentation and methods for detecting, classifying, and tracking sea life. 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

2 Findings and Gaps Identified by Participants 

During the workshop, discussion sections followed each grouping of presentations. In each 

discussion, the presenters from the topic section answered questions from the audience. The 

discussions were open and not scripted. To the best of our ability, we captured the ideas, views, 

and conversations. The following findings, gaps, and recommendations were gleaned from the 

discussions and presentations and are not listed in any particular order. 

2.1 Lessons Learned from Field Deployments 

2.1.1	 MHK and offshore wind technologies are complex technologies – be 

prepared to expand measurement scope to capture the unknown 

In early wind energy development, circa 1970-80s, there was a general underestimation of the 

complexity of technology and operation in the field. The interaction between the environment 

and wind turbines was not well understood. Numerous initial assumptions, like “...inflow 

turbulence will not be a significant load...”, were eventually found to be false. Ultimately, 

turbulence was found to be a significant factor and much effort was put into characterizing the 

turbulent regimes and the corresponding loading and response of turbine systems. From this 

experience, the MHK industry should expect unknown conditions, interactions, and responses to 

arise and be prepared to deploy measurement equipment to characterize and understand the 

phenomena. Measurements of these unexpected phenomena are essential and can be used to 

develop design tools that will serve as a basis for design revisions. However, a compromise must 

be reached in terms of any characterization effort’s equipment costs and data processing and 

account for man-hours versus the design benefit for the device developers. 

2.1.2	 Ensure that sufficient measurements are available to forensically analyze 

failures 

Experience in the wind industry has demonstrated that no matter how well a system is designed, 

if it is new and/or being deployed in a new environment, some mechanism of failure is probable. 

Ensure that there are sufficient measurements to analyze a failure and to determine the 

appropriate loading to guide subsequent design iterations. 

2.1.3	 The 1, 3, 8 rule 

This validated rule from naval architecture states that what would take one hour (dollar) to install 

in a shore/land facility will take three hours (dollars) in a dry dock and at least eight hours 

(dollars) in the field. Therefore, every effort should be made to attach all sensors and 

instrumentation on land prior to moving to a dry dock. Not only is installation in the field 

expensive, it can be unsafe and time consuming. Often, time is limited and installation can occur 

during calm conditions only. For tidal systems, installation time is limited to slack tide, which 

can be compressed into minutes. 

2.1.4	 Temporally synchronize all measurements during data collection 

It is prudent to synchronize all measurements during data collection. Aligning measurements 

during post processing can be complex and time consuming. Single, synchronous data streams 

are preferable to multiple data streams. 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

2.1.5	 Careful sensor selection is crucial for long term sensor operation in the 

marine environment and for acquiring correct data 

Be judicious in sensor selection: 

•	 Many commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) sensors, instruments, and components sourced from 

vendors are labeled “water-proof” or have water ingress protection through IP68 

(International Protection Rating interpreted as Ingress Protection Rating). While this rating 

may be applicable for short duration deployments or operation in laboratory environments, it 

is not suitable for extended deployments in the energetic, corrosive ocean environment where 

ocean energy is extracted. COTS enclosures rated for IP68 rapidly fail due to leaks when 

deployed for any length of time. 

•	 Instruments designed to work in the offshore oil and gas industry or for other marine industry 

applications may not work properly or fail because they are not designed for the energetic 

current or wave environments found at MHK sites. 

•	 Adaptation of sensors developed for land-based applications to the MHK sector must be done 

carefully and their performance must be re-verified. The ocean is a very different 

environment and many assumptions from land-based operation do not hold true. For 

example, in land-based applications, it is often assumed that sensor mounting is stationary 

and rigid, which is typically not the case in marine applications (see following bullet). 

Another example is seen in the difference in reflective properties of the ocean surface from 

those on land, which can effect radar and radio transmission. 

•	 If a sensor is to be mounted on a floating platform, the motion of the platform will affect the 

sensor’s performance and applicability – many remote sensors used on land cannot be used 

on floating platforms without extensive modification in hardware and software. It is 

possible, though potentially difficult, to account for the motion during data post-processing, 

but the floating platform's motion must be accurately known. 

2.1.6	 Considerations for more efficient instrumentation system development and 

deployment 

Considerations for instrumentation system development and deployment: 

•	 Conduct onshore integration testing before full deployment – ensure/verify ALL 

functionality prior to deployment – see the 1, 3, 8 rule in section 3.1.3 

•	 Full mechanical sea trials are essential prior to final deployment 

•	 Ensure the installation sequence is reversible. If something goes wrong or needs to be 

corrected, it is useful to be able to back through the process. Permanent fixtures/attachments 

can make this impossible 

•	 Use multiple recovery options; failure of a component in a recovery mechanism is common 

and mobilizing and using underwater vehicles and divers for recovery is very expensive 

•	 Knowing the exact location of underwater instruments is very important. Uncertainty in 

location and delays between environmental measurements and device measurements will 

lead to inaccurate estimates of power, efficiency, and other quantities. High accuracy 

positioning in energetic wave or current environments can be difficult to achieve without 

acoustic positioning systems 

5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 


 

• There are many different causes of failure and these include human handling, connectors, 

extreme events, corrosion, welding, leak, and fatigue 

•	 Avoid underwater connections, if possible. Connector failure is the most common type of 

failure. 

2.1.7 Expect sensor failure and monitor data to catch these failures 

Sensor failure is common. When a sensor fails, it does not necessarily stop sending data. The 

effect of bad sensor data can range from inaccurate assessments of performance to extreme 

actions taken, such as rapid machine shutdown. Within an instrumentation system, mechanisms 

are needed to determine/infer the status and performance of a sensor, especially critical sensors, 

which should have redundancy. Often sensor models, sensor-to-sensor comparisons, and 

thresholds (measurement values and their derivatives) are used to detect sensor failures. 

2.1.8 Control systems are often the cause of failures in wind turbines 

Control systems typically utilize a broad set of inputs and complex multi-layered algorithms to 

determine the state of an energy system. Because of this complexity, wind and initial MHK 

experiences have shown that failures often arise from unforeseen or improper control system 

actions. It is important to ensure that the control system has several levels of safety checks so 

that the system is able to shut down safely in the case of a control system fault or failure. 

2.1.9 Stainless steel and other “passive” materials are not corrosion proof 

Stainless steel and other materials are not corrosion resistant/proof in the marine environment or 

in the presence of other materials and electrical fields. Careful attention must be give to material 

selection and measures taken to inhibit corrosion. 

2.1.10 Always include rigorous specifications that include reliability requirements 

when purchasing instruments 

When working with vendors, be very detailed when specifying performance and absolutely 

include reliability. An instrument can be delivered that meets the performance, but rapidly fails 

in the harsh marine environment. 

2.1.11 When the number of sensors is limited, choose sensors that have the 

broadest measurement capabilities 

If funding is limited, and all the desired sensors cannot be used, it is best practice to choose 

sensors that have broader, more encompassing measurement capabilities. It is, however, essential 

to ensure that all critical measurements are made to ensure device and personnel safety. In 

choosing fewer sensors than needed, there is increased risk. For example, if a failure occurs and 

measurements did not capture the event sufficiently to determine the cause, a definite solution 

may not be possible. 

2.1.12 Try to avoid grounding devices to seawater for any duration other than 

very short term deployments 

Grounding devices to seawater is not good practice for long term installations. Using the 

seawater ground may save money by reducing the number of conductors in a cable, but it will 

create an electric dipole and create an electromagnetic field (EMF). In addition, grounding to 

seawater accelerates corrosion or leads to increased replacement of cathodic corrosion protection 

anodes. 

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 


 

2.1.13 Burying cables may not suppress EMF noise 

EMF noise may not be suppressed by burying the cable. If a cable is buried, coupling may occur 

with the EMF conductive layers of sediment that could increase transmission. Using DC 

transmission does not eliminate EMF issues due to fluctuations in the line current and coupling 

to the earth’s magnetic field. These can create magnetic fields which may affect some sea life. 

2.2 Measurement Gaps and Recommendations 

2.2.1	 Loading and inflow measurements are insufficient to develop loading 

profiles needed for blade and dynamometer testing 

Blade testing facilities exist that are capable of testing all existing water current blade designs, 

including both horizontal and cross-flow designs, although, in some cases, custom fixtures would 

be needed. Dynamometer facilities exist that are capable of testing all rotating and some linear 

MHK drive trains, although, in some cases, some modification also would be required. If the full 

capabilities of these facilities are to be realized, accurate loading and inflow measurements are 

needed so realistic conditions can be simulated. These include the loading on different blade 

profiles (both axial and cross-flow designs), as well as inflow conditions, such as turbulence, 

velocity profiles, wave pressure forces (including wave slamming), etc. 

Recommendation: Acquire detailed measurements of wave, current, and wind inflow conditions 

at characteristic locations for the likely deployment of MHK and offshore wind energy 

conversion devices. Synchronously measure the inflow, loading, and response of devices in the 

field under a range of conditions from calm to extreme storms. Measurement sampling rates 

should be determined from the MHK devices' predicted response frequencies. 

2.2.2	 Insufficient model and field data are available to calibrate and validate the 

various Computer-Aided Engineering (CAE) tools under development 

Several CAE tools are being developed and some existing COTS CAE products are being 

adapted to support design and development of MHK and offshore wind systems. MHK and 

offshore wind systems are at an intermediate scale, larger than conventional buoy systems and 

smaller than offshore platforms. Therefore, existing models have not been validated at scales 

relevant to the MHK and offshore wind industries. Data are needed to validate these models. 

Recommendation: Acquire comprehensive sets of measurements from laboratory experiments 

and field deployment that will provide baseline data to calibrate and validate the CAE tools. 

2.2.3	 Insufficient baseline resource, environmental, and ecological data 

Long term baseline resource and site characterizations of the environment and ecosystem are 

needed at a site prior to deploying a device. Marine life and ecosystems have seasonal cycles, 

and even annual cycles, that are unknown. Prior to deploying a device, these should be well 

characterized to avoid speculation that the technology is affecting the ecosystem. Measurement 

should be statistically significant to detect changes caused by an MHK installation. 

Measurements need to be made at, or near, the site since environmental and ecological 

conditions can vary significantly over relatively short distances. This type of monitoring is often 

too expensive for a developer to perform at each new deployment site, especially in terms of 

hardware costs (see 2.4.1), deployment costs, and analysis costs (see 2.5.1). 

7
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

Recommendation: The national laboratories and national marine renewable testing centers 

should develop a pool of instruments and instrumentation systems for resource, environmental, 

and ecological monitoring so device/site developers can afford, and are able to conduct, 

comprehensive site studies (see 2.4.1). This would reduce the uncertainty in environmental and 

ecological impact studies. Alternatively, if the government provided baseline environmental 

characterizations, it would accelerate the pace of MHK project development. Note that the cost 

of the instrumentation may be a small fraction of the total cost to deploy, recover, and analyze 

the data. 

2.3 Overall Instrumentation Systems Gaps and Recommendations 

2.3.1	 No comprehensive instrumentation system solution exists for marine 

energy systems 

No publicly available instrumentation system exists that meets the necessary device, 

environmental, and ecological measurement capabilities, with the required breadth and depth, 

needed to support MHK testing. This results in: 

•	 custom instrumentation systems developed by each technology developer, often customized 

to each experiment, adding to project cost, timelines, and risk 

•	 limited measurement capabilities and insufficient data sets 

•	 difficult integration/reconfiguration of sensors and instruments, especially across 

technologies and resources 

•	 reduced certainty and credibility of measurements 

•	 difficult comparisons between technologies and project sites. 

Recommendation: Develop a publicly available instrumentation system, with extensive 

measurement capabilities and extensible architecture that is configurable for wave and current 

energy measurement applications. This system would help standardize sampling approaches for 

inflow and performance data. 

2.3.2	 Wind turbine measurement technologies and procedures have not been 

leveraged to their full potential to support MHK and offshore wind 

Within the national laboratories, many instrumentation systems, software, and 

measurement/calibration procedures/protocols have been developed to support laboratory and 

field testing of wind energy systems. These include systems for loads, environmental, structural, 

inflow, mechanical, electrical, health, power, and device performance monitoring. These 

represent significant capabilities that, if adapted to MHK and offshore wind, could help 

accelerate technology development, increase credibility, reduce risk, yield more comprehensive 

data sets, and reduce developer costs. 

Recommendation: Work with the national laboratories to adapt wind turbine measurement 

technologies and procedures for MHK and offshore wind. 

8
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 


 

2.3.3	 Standards development is not sufficiently comprehensive 

To help develop consistent methods and measurements across the industry, the MHK and 

offshore wind industries need to develop standards for: 

• Instrument performance 

• Instrument reliability 

• Instrument survivability 

• Instrument/sensor mounting 

• Instrument calibration 

• Data processing and reporting. 

Recommendation: Increase participation in IEC/ISO standards development, particularly by 

industry, to provide relevant input and provide sufficient manpower to develop a robust set of 

MHK standards. This will be an evolving process. For example, insufficient information exists 

on how turbulence affects tidal device performance to establish a meaningful standard that 

characterizes turbulence at a site. 

2.4 Instruments and Sensors Gaps and Recommendations 

2.4.1	 High instrument/hardware costs limit access to instrumentation 

Marine sensors and instruments are typically much more expensive, often by an order of 

magnitude, than land-based equivalents. This results in increased testing and development costs 

and fewer-than-needed instruments deployed. Because of the relatively small market and harsh 

operating environments, it is unlikely that instrument and sensor costs can be appreciably 

decreased. 

Recommendation: The national laboratories, or DOE, could support of supply instruments and 

data acquisition systems to device and site developers in early stages of in-water testing. 

Additionally, many other federal agencies, e.g. NOAA and DoD, have large inventories of 

environmental sensors that could be leveraged. 

2.4.2	 Need an approved list of sensors and instruments for application in the 

MHK and offshore wind industries 

The industry would benefit from a certification process that provides an “approved list” of 

instruments and sensors. Presently, standards, such as the IP68 highest ingress protection rating, 

are vague. This leaves the rating open to interpretation by manufacturers. It also has limited 

applicability to the marine energy industry. Instrumentation costs are high (see 2.4.1) and 

choosing the wrong sensors can add significant costs and time to a project. Independentlycertified sensors and instruments that meet a standard for the marine energy industry would help 

reduce costs and development timelines while increasing certainty in the measurements. Some 

factors to consider include operating depth, sensor life under continuous submerged use, and 

characterized effects of saltwater and temperature on output. 

9
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 


 

Recommendations: Develop a set of performance and survivability standards for different 

classes/uses of instrumentation for MHK and offshore wind (see 2.3.3). Use these standards to 

develop testing protocols and perform tests at national laboratories and/or certification 

agencies/bodies to rate performance. Make the results publicly available. 

2.4.3	 Underwater acoustic monitoring capabilities in tidal flows are limited 

Any ecological assessment must consider the noise generated by an MHK device and 

characterize the sound level and frequency relative to the ambient noise and known animal 

communication/detection frequencies. Instruments used to passively measure noise in the ocean 

work well in low-flow environments. However, as flow speed increases, the pseudo-noise 

received by conventional hydrophones also increases. In parallel, the ambient noise at some 

frequencies also increases with flow speed. Conventional hydrophone deployments may not be 

able to accurately differentiate between flow noise and turbine noise. 

Recommendation: Develop a standardized approach to hydrophone measurement that achieves 

low pseudo-noise when deployed in, and exposed to, tidal currents in excess of 1 m/s. 

2.4.4	 Instruments are insufficient to measure inflow/outflow conditions for tidal 

energy resource assessment and performance/loads measurement 

Inflow and downstream turbulence are major factors in the loading and fatigue on wind turbine 

blades. With the strong analogy between wind and water current technology, it is also assumed 

that turbulence will play a strong role in MHK blade design and survivability. Many of the 

acoustic instruments used in oceanographic turbulence measurements have the base capabilities 

needed to observe a wide range of length and time scales for inflow/outflow characterization. 

The limiting factor is that Doppler profilers have high measurement uncertainty for time scales 

shorter than 10 seconds. Doppler velocimeters (point measurements) require a rigid mounting to 

eliminate vibration and probe motion. In wind, turbulence is typically measured from met towers 

that provide a stable measurement platform. Instruments are positioned in the flow, across the 

span of the turbine blades. On large towers, the turbulence sensors often are extended forward of 

the tower and equipped with motion measurement to compensate for platform motion. In the 

ocean, using a tower that extends throughout the water column will likely not be viable and a 

flexible mooring would be required. (Bottom mounted profiling devices cannot capture the 

instantaneous motions at the resolution and accuracy needed). Sensors mounted on a mooring 

line will experience large motions and vibration in a tidal flow, even when using vibration 

mitigation schemes. Technology is needed to provide motion compensation of the measurements 

and to synchronize measurements from sensors distributed along a mooring. 

Recommendation: Develop motion measurement hardware and motion compensation 

algorithms that can be embedded into existing water velocity probes. Develop mounting systems 

that enable placement of Doppler velocimeters on mooring lines. 

2.4.5	 No instruments are able to adequately measure incoming wave fields for 

wave energy converter resources 

Wave fields are composed of a distribution of waves, with many different properties, including 

different wave lengths, heights, velocities, and directions. As a result, wave profiles change as 

they propagate. As such, to characterize the time response of a wave energy converter to 

incoming waves, the waves need to be measured as close to the wave energy converter (WEC) as 

10
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

possible. Otherwise, analysis is limited to the frequency domain. Technology is needed to 

measure the incoming wave field close to the WEC. Measurement of the incoming wave field is 

especially relevant for developing and implementing efficient power take-off control systems for 

WEC devices. 

Recommendation: Develop measurement technology that can provide a time series of wave 

surface elevation and wave propagation direction at each grid point of a horizontal grid 

extending from a wave energy converter. This has been demonstrated in the laboratory, but these 

technologies need to be evaluated for field deployment. 

2.4.6	 No in-situ sensors to adequately monitor and measure fouling 

Fouling, from biological and non-biological sources, is likely to have a significant impact on the 

performance of marine energy systems (both devices and monitoring equipment). Quantifying 

fouling would help identify its effect on performance, as well as identify when servicing is 

needed. However, monitoring technology is limited to video surveillance, which is, itself, subject 

to degradation by fouling. Methods to evaluate fouling use coupon testing, which is typically 

done in a laboratory and limited to just one organism colonization versus the community 

colonization that occurs in the field. 

Recommendation: Investigate methods and develop sensors for in-water detection and 

measurement of biofouling on MHK devices. However, until the objectives of biofouling 

monitoring are established, developing sensors will not be possible. 

2.4.7	 No standardized methods or hardware are available to mount instruments 

The way in which instruments and sensors are mounted (i.e., installed) can have a significant 

impact on measurement accuracy. For example, the wind industry has standards for sensor 

mounting on meteorological towers to ensure that the wake from the tower does not affect the 

measurement accuracy. Currently, there is no standard for mounting instruments on or near 

MHK devices. An instrument mounting standard would help ensure measurement consistency 

and provide guidance for proper use. 

2.4.8	 Recommendation: Develop standards that specify how instruments should 

be mounted (see 2.3.3). 

2.4.9	 Insufficient input to instrument and sensor manufacturers/suppliers from 

the offshore wind and MHK community 

One consistent point that was made throughout the workshop is the lack of sensors and 

instrumentation specifically designed for the MHK and offshore wind industries. Therefore, 

manufacturers need a detailed and consistent set of requirements from industry to address these 

hardware and performance deficiencies. With industry consensus, manufacturers could 

comfortably develop the needed solutions. 

Recommendation: Develop standards for MHK and offshore wind instrumentation (see 2.3.3) 

and make these available to instrumentation manufacturers. Better collaboration and 

communication between the MHK industry and oceanographic instrument developers may be the 

best way to balance MHK industry desires and instrument development constraints. 

11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 


 

2.4.10 Fiber-optic structural and motion sensor performance in salt water and the 

effects of static and dynamic pressure are not well characterized and 

understood 

Fiber-optic sensors hold great promise in underwater structural, load, and response monitoring. 

They offer a solution to the use of foil-type strain gauges, which are highly susceptible to rapid 

corrosion and electrical shorting in sea water. Fiber-optic sensors also can be connected in series, 

requiring less cabling. Because they use fibers, not electrical lines, they are not subject to electromechanical (EM) noise and the sensors can be located relatively distant from the supporting 

instrumentation. However, the outputs from fiber-optic sensors are affected by hydrostatic and 

dynamic pressure. These pressures may have a significant impact on measurements. Also, the 

long term sensor reliability when exposed to sea water is unknown. The cost of fiber-optic 

systems is several times higher than comparably sensitive mechanical strain gauges. 

Recommendation: Characterize the response of fiber-optic structural and motion sensors to 

pressure and develop correction tables and algorithms, if they are able to be used for underwater 

measurement. Characterize sensor degradation in sea-water. 

2.4.11 Cavitation is an important design consideration, but is difficult to detect 

and monitor in the field 

Cavitation occurs when the static water pressure drops below the local vapor pressure of water. 

If cavitation occurs over surfaces of MHK devices, it can negatively affect device performance 

and cause erosion of blade surfaces. Water current turbine blades are particularly susceptible to 

cavitation and appropriate calculations should be performed to ensure that cavitation does not 

occur. Nevertheless, in some cases, small amounts of blade tip cavitation cannot be avoided. 

Cavitation has been extensively studied by the designers of marine propellers and lessons learned 

from this industry should be leveraged by the MHK industry. 

Recommendation: Design the system to avoid cavitation. If that is not possible, then leverage 

existing techniques used in labs, and by the Navy, to develop a system for use with current 

turbine technology. Two possible methods (among many) for detecting cavitation are video 

inspection and acoustic monitoring. 

2.5 Data Processing Gaps and Recommendations 

2.5.1	 Processing of acoustic data from underwater animal monitoring sensors is 

costly and time-intensive 

Many active acoustic sonar systems used for underwater monitoring of fish, mammals, birds, and 

turtles produce massive amounts of data. Presently, people sift through the data to detect and 

identify targets. They analyze for species target types, numbers, and tracks. This is very time 

consuming and expensive. In addition, it is easy to miss detections because of the quantity of 

information that must be analyzed. The development of computer-aided detection and 

classification algorithms would help reduce the time and cost of analysis and possibly increase 

accuracy. For example, if a real time detection algorithm were available, data would need to be 

stored and analyzed only where a positive detection occurred. 

12
 
 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

Recommendation: Develop computer-aided detection and classification algorithms to postprocess the voluminous data gathered from acoustic monitoring and reduce the volume of 

information requiring manual review. 

2.6 Feedback from Audience - Potential Roles for Government RDT&E 

The audience was asked what role the government can play in research, development, testing, 

and evaluation in the MHK and offshore wind industries. Based on the conversation, the 

following list of potential roles, in no particular order, was identified: 

•	 Perform site and resource characterization to provide site specific data for the permitting 

process 

•	 Develop a standardized instrumentation system and measurement protocols 

•	 Develop a pool of approved instrumentation and sensors to support resource assessment, 

characterization, and field testing 

•	 Develop specific instrumentation standards 

•	 Provide third party testing of COTS sensors and report on accuracy, reliability, and 

applicability 

•	 Develop loading and inflow models based on field measurements 

•	 Develop data processing algorithms for detection and classification of marine animals (fish, 

mammals, birds, and turtles) 

•	 Assist device and site developers through permitting and other regulatory processes by 

providing hardware, software, data and data acquisition system designs. 

•	 Develop loading and inflow models based on field measurements 

•	 Develop a list of materials' performance in salt water. 

13
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

3 Appendix A: Agenda
 

Day 1 

8:00 8:10 Welcome and Logistics 

8:10 8:30 Workshop Overview and Framing – Description of the motivation and goals of the 

meeting. Walt Musial and Rick Driscoll (NREL) 

8:30 9:45 

Session 1: Lessons learned from in-water Deployment and Operation 

David Simms (NREL), NREL Overview of NREL Wind Testing Capabilities 

Nate Sinclair (NAVFAC), Navy Projects, lessons learned 

Matthew Reed (Marine Current Turbines), SeaGen Project 

9:45 10:00 Break 

10:00 11:20 

Session 2: Lessons learned from in-water Deployment and Operation (continued) 

Ryan Beaumont (ORPC), A Review of Sensors Used With the ORPC Turbine 

Questions and Discussion (10:50 – 11:20) 

11:20 12:00 

Session 3: Structural loads and Response 

Jon White (Sandia National Labs), DOE/SNL Distributed Time-Synchronized Inflow 

and Structural Measurement Technologies 

Scott Hughes (NREL) Overview of Blade Testing 

12:00 1:30 

LUNCH including the presentation “The Important Role, Proper Use and Challenges 

of Instrumentation System in Offshore Monitoring” 

Tasneem Abbasi (Technip) Monitoring of Offshore Assets 

1:30 3:30 

Session 4: Structural loads and Response (continued) 

Jim O’Sullivan (Technip), Offshore Wind Platform Design Model Calibration 

Nate Sinclair (NAVFAC), Structural Loads & Response - Buoy Moorings 

Robb Wallen (NREL), EtherCAT Based Distributed Data Acquisition 

Tom Graver (Micron Optics), Verifying MHK Loads and Performance Using Fiber 

Optic Sensors 

Questions and Discussion (2:30 – 3:30) 

3:30 3:45 Break 

3:45 5:30 

Session 5: Device Electrical Power, Performance, and Condition Monitoring 

Jeremy Sheldon (Impact Technologies), Key Technologies and Lessons Learned in 

WT Monitoring Applications 

Ismael Mendoza (NREL), NREL Wind Turbine Testing 

Ean Amon (Oregon State University), Power Analysis and Data Acquisition Systems 

for MHK Device Testing 

Joseph Williams (Sandia National Labs), Power Quality and Power Quality 

Monitoring 

Questions and Discussion (5:05 – 5:30) 

14
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Day 2 

8:00 8:10 Welcome Back and Logistics. Walt Musial and Rick Driscoll (NREL) 

8:10 10:30 

Session 6: Sensors, Instruments, and Platforms 

Martin Wosnik (University of New Hampshire), Cavitation on Turbine Blades: 

Detection, Observation, Measurement, and Mitigation 

Pierre Beaujean (Florida Atlantic University), Underwater Acoustic 

Communications – Technology and Challenges 

Bill Straka (Penn State University), Cavitation 

Adam Schultz (Oregon State University), Monitoring the electromagnetic Emission 

and Sensitivity of fish, cetaceans, and pinnipeds 

Bernadette Hernandez-Sanchez (Sandia National Labs), Biofouling Monitoring for 

MHK Technology 

Questions and Discussion: (9:50 – 10:30) 

10:30 10:45 Break 

10:45 12:15 

Session 7: Environmental Inflow Monitoring 

Arnie Fontaine (Penn State University), Turbulence Measurements of Tidal and 

River Flows: MHK Turbine Applications 

Andrew Clifton (NREL), Resource Characterization 

Mark Ivey (Sandia National Lab), ARM Climate Research Facilities on the North 

Slope of Alaska – Barrow, Atqasuk, and Oliktok 

Questions and Discussion: (11:45 – 12:15) 

12:15 1:30 LUNCH 

1:30 3:10 

Session 8: State-of-the-Art Integrated Monitoring Systems 

Paul Fleming (NREL), Advanced Controls Research at NWTC 

Jonathan Colby (Verdant), State-of-the-Art Integrated Monitoring Systems: RITE 

Project Case Study 

Greg Willden (Southwest Research Institute), Sensors and Sensor Networks in 

Harsh Environments: Lessons Learned 

Patrick McEnaney (NOAA), Characterizing the Resource Baseline: Marine 

Instrumentation Usage in Renewable Energy Infrastructure 

3:10 3:30 Break 

3:30 5:00 

Open Discussion 

Device monitoring instrumentation needs and gaps 

Role of measurement standards in defining instrumentation requirements 

5:00 5:30 Day 2 Closeout Discussions 

15
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Day 3 

8:30 8:40 Welcome Back and Logistics 

8:40 10:10 

Session 9: Ecological and Environmental Monitoring 

Richard Jepsen (Sandia National Laboratories), Sediment and Water Quality 

Measurements 

Tom Carlson (Pacific Northwest National Lab), Passive and active acoustic systems 

for detection, classification, and localization of resident killer whales in Puget 

Sound’s Admiralty Inlet 

Jason Wood (SMRU Ltd), Telemetry and acoustic techniques for monitoring marine 

mammals 

Tom Fedenczuk (University of Hawaii), Instrumentation for passive acoustic 

monitoring of marine mammals 

Sidney Gauthreaux (Geo-Marine Inc.), Radar Studies of bird movements in the 

offshore environment 

10:10 10:30 Break 

10:30 12:30 

Session 10: Ecological and Environmental Monitoring (continued) 

Brian Polagye (University of Washington), Passive acoustic monitoring for tidal 

energy projects 

Mike Slater (SAIC), Ecological and Environmental Monitoring - Tracking and 

measuring effects of submarine electromagnetic fields (EMF) 

Sarah Henkel (Oregon State University), Surveying Benthic Habitats and Biological 

Communities in Areas Targeted for Offshore Wave Energy Development 

Questions and Discussion: (11:30 – 12:30) 

12:30 1:30 Lunch 

1:30 3:00 

Tour of National Wind Technology Center – if you intend to attend this tour, please 

inform Arielle Wolfe because we will need to get you a site pass. 

16
 

 


 

4 Appendix B: List of Attendees
 

Adam Shultz 

Al LiVecchi 

Andy Clifton 

Anthony Viselli 

Arni Fontaine 

Belinda Batten 

Bernadette Hernandez 

Bill Straka 

Brian Polagye 

Chris Malzone 

Cliff Goudey 

Dave Simms 

Doug Lessig 

Dwayne Telford 

Ean Amon 

Edward Lovelace 

Eric Nelson 

Frederick Driscoll 

Greg Willden 

Ian Stewart 

Ismael Mendoza 

Jarlath McEntee 

Jason Wood 

Jeff Rieks 

Jeremy Sheldon 

Jim Eder 

Jim O'Sullivan 

Jim VanZwieten 

Jody Cronenberger 

Joe Smith 

Jonathan Colby 

Jonathan White 

Lewis Girod 

Luis Vega 

Mark Ivey 

Martin Wosnik 

Matthew Reed 

Michael Slater 

Nate Sinclair 

Nehal Gajjar 

Patrick McEnaney 

Oregon State University 

NREL 

NREL 

University of Maine 

Penn State University 

Oregon State University 

Sandia National Labs 

Penn State University 

University of Washington 

Nortek USA 

Maine Marine Composites 

NREL 

Verdant 

Aquamarine Power 

Oregon State University 

Free Flow Power 

NREL 

NREL 

SwRI 

NFESC 

NREL 

ORPC 

SMRU 

Cardinal Engineering 

Impact Technologies 

Ocean Power Technologies 

Technip 

Florida Atlantic University 

Southwest Research Institute 

NREL 

Verdant 

Sandia National Labs 

Resolute Marine Energy 

University of Hawaii 

Sandia National Labs 

University of New Hampshire 

Marine Current Turbines 

SAIC 

NFESC 

Dehlsen Associates, LLC 

NOAA 

17 

adam@coas.oregonstate.edu 

al.livecchi@nrel.gov 

andrew.clifton@nrel.gov 

anthony.viselli@maine.edu 

aaf1@psu.edu 

Belinda.Batten@oregonstate.edu 

baherna@sandia.gov 

was107@arl.psu.edu 

bpolagye@u.washington.edu 

Chris@NortekUSA.com 

cliffgoudey@gmail.com 

dave.simms@nrel.gov 

dlessig@verdantpower.com 

dwayne.telford@aquamarinepower.com 

amon@eecs.oregonstate.edu 

elovelace@free-flow-power.com 

eric.nelson@nrel.gov 

frederick.driscoll@nrel.gov 

gwillden@swri.org 

ian.stewart@navy.mil 

ismael.mendoza@nrel.gov 

jarlath.mcentee@myfairpoint.net 

jw@smru.co.uk 

jrieks@cardinalengineeringllc.com 

Jeremy.Sheldon@impact-tek.com 

JEder@oceanpowertech.com 

jfosullivan@technip.com 

jvanzwi@fau.edu 

jody.cronenberger@swri.org 

joe.smith@nrel.gov 

jcolby@verdantpower.com 

jonwhit@sandia.gov 

lgirod@gmail.com 

luisvega@hawaii.edu 

mdivey@sandia.gov 

martin.wosnik@unh.edu 

Matthew.Reed@marineturbines.com 

MICHAEL.A.SLATER@saic.com 

nate.sinclair@navy.mil 

ngajjar@ecomerittech.com 

psmiley70@gmail.com 

 

Paul Fleming 

Pierre Phillipe-Beaujean 

Richard Jepsen 

Robb Wallen 

Robert Lindyberg 

Robert Thresher 

Ryan Beaumont 

Sarah Henkel 

Sarah Smith 

Sidney Gauthreaux 

Tasneem (Tas) Abbasi 

Tom Carlson 

Tom Fedenczuk 

Tom Graver 

Tracey Kutney 

Walt Musial 

Ward Thomas 

Will Denman 

NREL 

Florida Atlantic Univeristy 

SNL 

NREL 

University of Maine 

NREL 

Ocean Renewable Power 

Company 

Oregon State University 

University of Rhode Island 

Geo-Marine Inc. 

Technip 

PNNL 

University of Hawaii 

Micron Optics 

Canmet Energy/ Natural 

Resources Canada 

NREL 

Impact-tek 

National Instruments 

paul.fleming@nrel.gov 

pbeaujea@seatech.fau.edu 

rajepse@sandia.gov 

robb.wallen@nrel.gov 

robert_lindyberg@umit.maine.edu 

Robert.thresher@nrel.gov 

ryan@ryanbeaumont.net 

Sarah.Henkel@oregonstate.edu 

sarah@crc.uri.edu 

gocajuns@bellsouth.net 

TAbbasi@technip.com 

thomas.carlson@pnl.gov 

tmf@hawaii.edu 

twgraver@MICRONOPTICS.COM 

Tracey.Kutney@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca 

walter.musial@nrel.gov 

Ward.Thomas@impact-tek.com 

will.denman@ni.com 

18
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 


 


 


 


 


 

5 Appendix B: Response to Follow-up Survey 

A survey was distributed to workshop attendees after the workshop to collect information on 

how to refine the next workshop. A total of 25 responses were received.
 

Question 1: Please rate the overall quality of the workshop.
 

Excellent: 60 %
 

Good: 40 %
 

Fair: 0 %
 

Poor: 0 %
 

Question 2: The workshop was informative and the content was relevant.
 

Strongly Agree 47.8 %
 

Agree 47.8 %
 

Somewhat Agree 0 %
 

Disagree 0 %
 

Question 3: The workshop achieved the following goals:
 

•	 Share the latest relevant knowledge among technical experts 

•	 Review relevant state-of-the-art field measurement technologies and methods 

•	 Review lessons learned from recent field deployments 

•	 Investigate synergies across different industries 

•	 Identify gaps between existing and needed instrumentation capabilities 

•	 Understand who are the leading experts, and 

•	 Provide substantive input in the development of new field deployable instrumentation 

packages capable of making the necessary measurements to promote technology 

advancement. 

Strongly Agree 52.%
 

Agree 36 %
 

Somewhat Agree 0 %
 

Disagree 0 %
 

Question 4: What goals were not achieved and how could they be better achieved?
 

19
 
 

 

 

 

 

 


 

This was an excellent first workshop on the subject, and the stage is set for future workshops. 

People on both coasts are actively involved in the planning of test platforms/turbines and/or the 

actual testing of hydrokinetic turbines (University of Washington, University of New Hampshire, 

Florida Atlantic University), so there should be plenty to discuss at future workshops. 

Discussion of how to turn the knowledge into action within the industry, including interaction 

with the relevant devices and deployment areas, resulted in an understanding that most results 

must be publicly shared. 

I think a (sic) generation of a guide of best practices derived from collective experience would be 

useful. Also, it seems that an industry driven list of measurement requirements is needed to let 

people know when measurements are good enough. 

Develop a roadmap for the path forward. Identify a plan, timeline, and budget sources. 

I think that lessons learned from field deployments was weak; however, this is probably the most 

difficult to get people to commit to. (sic) Also, when dealing with state of the art measurement 

techniques a lot of the focus was academic, which is good but more current industrial presence 

would be good. 

[Conduct] further discussions of the data and accuracy requirements so that data can feed into 

device design. Some of the presentations did not seem to 'match' the description in the agenda. 

[There are] some possible mismatch[es] between [the]cost structure for marine energy 

installations and instrumentation used for terrestrial wind and for oil and gas. 

Not all of the experts were in attendance and I would have enjoyed a breakout session focusing 

on actually measuring inflow/outflow around MHK turbines. 

[There was a] lack of discussion of new field deployable instrument packages. 

Question 5: What topics should be included if another marine energy workshop was held next 

year? Please prioritize the topics? 

Hydrodynamics of hydrofoil (incl. under conditions of fouling, cavitation, corrosion). Flow 

around structures. Performance of turbines under effects of waves or turbulence. 

The topics were very good. I'd really like to see the national labs and test centers report results of 

using their knowledge and equipment to evaluate as many devices and deployment sites as 

possible. 

More on monitoring environmental/ecological effects, as this is likely to be a driver in what 

types of devices will be allowed. 

Something on modeling, it seems like everything is modeled (whether it is needed or 

not)1)Review progress made since first workshop, particularly in area of instrumentation 

20
 
 

 

 


 

development and deployment strategies for proper use. 2) Since environmental impact and 

permitting appears to be a dominant driver in getting devices in the water, what are the right 

measurements that need to be made and how to do it? 3) How can the field test process be 

optimized to improve efficiency and cost? 4) A session on device use with hands-on examples 

illustrating proper (and improper) use and processing - may be hands on if time permits 

We are definitely moving into an area where more site characterization and environmental 

assessment is required; so that should be emphasized a bit more.limitations with current 

equipment 

Performance requirements for a MHK instrumentation package. 

More constructive organization of what the development community may need from the resource 

management and observation community, ie., how NREL can use data from NOAA, Sandia, and 

other national labs? Each organization is subject to considerable challenges w.r.t. funding 

availability in the current political/economic climate. Communicating shared priorities to the 

White House, Congress, DoC, DoE, etc., can assist with securing support for mutual benefit if 

there is comprehensive understanding of where the shared data priorities are. 

Discussion of how to work with, and process data collected by, instrumentation to address key 

uncertainties - tie the data back to the problem. 

Applying COTS technology to satisfy the needs of the Renewables community would be 

interesting. 

Question 6: What topics should not be included? 

A couple of the vendor and vendor-related presentations were a little too self-serving from a 

marketing standpoint (i.e., companies trying to develop a product they'd ideally like to make the 

case is required on every MHK installation - this is a red flag to developers because it is all adds 

to the cost of energy). On the flip side, I do want to hear about the latest technologies; just not 

hear the message that I need it from a regulatory standpoint. I'd rather them make the business 

case for its value. 

How to know when your measurements are good enough (perfection is not required). 

All of the covered areas where (sic) relevant and should remain. 

I felt there was too much "land based" talks. 

21
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Question 7: Please rate the balance between presentation and discussion. 

Excellent: 48 % 

Good: 44 % 

Fair: 8 % 

Poor: 0 % 

Question 8: Please comment on any changes you would recommend for the workshop format
 

and schedule.
 

Include "focus groups," where people with first-hand experience can discuss issues.
 

Actually, the format and schedule worked really well. Timing was good.
 

Overall the schedule was good. Just want to be sure the presentations will be made available.
 

Also, I'd have fewer presenters and longer discussions.
 

Larger audience - should have been done in cooperation of other conference/venue. Size of
 

workshop limited discussions.
 

Maybe 25% fewer presentations, but allow for longer presentations and Q&A.
 

See above with incorporating a session (hands on) illustrating sensor/instrument operation.
 

Question 9: If the workshop were to be held next year, what would be a good location?
 

Colorado works. Or alternating North East/North West - based on where most people who are
 

working on this are located.
 

Somewhere coastal where we could see an MHK device in the water.
 

Same location.
 

Same.
 

I thought the current location was great!
 

DC or anywhere a substantial lab/test facility tour can be conducted (Sandia, ORNL, NNMREC, 

FAU).
 

Where ever (sic) it is at. It should be better advertised. There was no public announcement of this
 

workshop. I bet there may have been more interest but relevant companies/organization if it was. 

(sic)
 

A location where a field trip can be undertaken to see a device deployed.
 

22
 
 

 

 


 

The UK so I don’t have to travel (EMEC?). 

Timberline Lodge, OR or Skamania Lodge, WA 

It would be good to have another instrumentation workshop. 

Site with an operating MHK device. 

NREL is in CO, which is always great to visit, especially since I have a handful of good friends 

and family in Boulder and Denver. It might be good to hold it in other places that have strong 

renewable energy presence. 

Boulder is fine. 

I actually enjoyed Colorado. It's central for most people to get to (sic). If you need to move 

it...possibly the Pacific Northwest?! Maybe have a different lab host it every year. 

NREL or the same location. 

Local to NREL seems to be a good location - central and well connected. 

Question 10: Based on the discussion at the workshop and from your experience, please list the 

instrumentation gaps that the national laboratories and DOE can focus on to help advance the 

marine energy industry. 

Instrumentation development for accurate prediction of turbulence in tidal, river and ocean 

currents, thus enabling “calibrated” energy extraction device development and evaluation (sic). 

Both performance and loading of turbines are directly related to the highly variable 

hydrodynamic conditions encountered in turbulent flows. An integrated laboratory and open 

water test site study to develop “calibrated” instrumentation for tidal, ocean, and river currents 

would be desirable. Of particular interest is turbulence at the “blade scale,” which are eddies of 

sizes down to, say, one quarter of the chord length of the turbine blades. 

Environmental monitoring. Both measuring the resource (esp. wave) and measuring 

environmental/ecological parameters as affected by devices in an economical way. 

floating offshore wind 

Standardized performance measurement techniques and packages (velocity and area in, 

mechanical and/or electrical power out, loss breakdown). 2. Standardized methods to correlate 

off-ideal cubic curve data. 3. Standardized results for EMF emissions from AC and DC cables. 4. 

Standardized results for EMF interaction with navigation and communication equipment (don't 

believe there is any, but developers are being asked to do repetitive useless work in this area that 

the DOE could put to rest). 5. Results for AC and DC EMF interactions with an expanding 

database of biota. 6. Standards on where and why acoustic and EMF field measurements 

SHOULD (not could) be made both for baseline environments and with MHK equipment. 

23
 
 

 

 

 


 

All areas since this is a new area. But the key will be to stress the "minimum/cost effective 

approach" that is needed. DOE/National labs tend to over instrument. 

Cheaper, more reliable sensors that are more intuitive to use and analyze. (sic) 

Field test measurements are very challenging. While new instrumentation capabilities may come 

forward, the proper use of current state of the art instruments and understanding of limitations 

could be very important. Often, novice to inexperienced instrument users will be deploying the 

devices in the field. The quality of the data obtained can be strongly dependent on the experience 

of the user. 

Support of partnerships to develop environmental monitoring capabilities. 

appropriate data to feed into device design 

Sensors for fish behavior and mammal detection. 

Integrated inflow measurement devices that satisfy the requirements of the Marine Energy 

Community. These can range from COTS ADV's, ADCP's, Wave buoys, subsurface systems, 

etc. 

Comparison of turbulence measured by ADCP against that seen / felt by MHK devices 

24
 
WIND AND WATER POWER PROGRAM �
 

EERE Information Center 

1-877-EERE-INFO (1-877-337-3463) 

www.eere.energy.gov/informationcenter

Prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC 

DOE/GO-102011-3342 • October 2011 

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, 

including 10% post consumer waste.