MUL TI -DISC IPLINARY RISK IDENTIFIC ATION AND EVALUATION FOR THE TIDAL INDUSTRY Athanasi sios s J K olios Lecturer in E ngineering Risk Analysis Geo eorge W . Rea ead Researcher Anas astas asia a K . Io Ioannou Researcher Department of Offshore and Process Engineering P lat-o S ystems Integration P latform by S ME
Introduction/Ove vervi view • Aim of the study • Methodology • P E S TLE analysis • S takeholder identification • Risk identification • Multidisciplinary risk assessment • Results • Conclusions • F uture work 2
Aim of of the study dy • Id Identify stakeholders and risks of in- stream tidal industry, based on a P E E S S TLE segmentation analysis • P rio iorit itise risks through establishing a generic multi-disciplinary analysis framework • Highlight key risk sks s that should be mitig igated towards further development of the industry 3
P E S TLE approach • Despite there being numerous reports focusing on individual or just a few aspects of risk, there is a lack k of a compreh ehensive e risk register er covering all of the P E S TLE factors. • S imilar approaches have been compiled for competing industries • A thorough P E S TLE analysis allows the grea eater er picture (macro- environmental) to be looked at instead of focusing on certain aspects of projects 4
S takeholder ident ntification ( n (cont nt.) • P olitical stakeholders: International, E uropean and UK national • E conomic S takeholders: P ublic, private sector, investors etc • S ocial S takeholders: Communities, fishing, shipping etc • T echnological S takeholders: Developers and researchers • L egal S takeholders: National and E U level directives • E nvironmental S takeholders: Government departments, charities etc 5
S takeholder i identif ific icatio ion POLITICAL ECONOMIC SOCIAL ACER Competing conventional energy RNLI Department of Energy Northern Ireland CORDIS Commercial Shipping EU-Ocean Energy Association DOENI Dredging Communities European Commission Energy Technologies Inst. Emergency Services International Energy Agency European Commission Fishing Communities IRENA Green Investment Bank Local Communities Local Councils Insurers National Support RenewableUK Market Competition Royal Yaught Association Scottish Government Other Public Investors Tourism Scottish Ministers (W&T) Private Banks Surfers The Carbon Trust Private Investors The Energy Community Scottish Ministers UK Government - DECC Technology Strategy Board UNESCO The Carbon Trust United Nations - DESA The Crown Estates Welsh Assembly Government UK Government - DECC TECHNOLOGICAL LEGAL ENVIRONMENTAL CORDIS DEFRA CEFAS Classification e.g. Lloyd's Register & DNV European Commission DEFRA ICEPT/UKERC Marine licensing Scotland Environment Agency Manufacturers Marine Licensing Wales Environment and Countryside Dpt. Marine Installation & Commissioners Marine Management Org. EU-OEA National Grid National Grid European Commission Other Industries e.g. Offshore Wind Renewable Energy Lawyers JNCC RenewableUK The Crown Estates Marine Management Org Suppliers & Supply Chain UK Government Natural England Technology Strategy Board United Nations (Law of the Sea) RAFTS 6 Test Sites e.g. EMEC & Wavehub RSPB UK Tidal Developers* Scottish Heritage UK Research Organisations e.g. Universities WWF
Risk Identif ific icatio ion POLITICAL SOCIAL European level politics Social groups being ignored/not being involved Environmental related politics Social groups delaying/stopping a project UN not supporting future renewable energy developments Local scale opposition Politicians may focus on proven renewable energy sources National level opposition National level politics – insecurity of part in power Public acceptance Government cut backs in spending for renewables Public support Difference in regional political support within the UK Awareness of technology Fishing communities – incentive schemes ECONOMIC Commercial and recreational boating Emergency services Securing (private) capital investment Tourism Financing through banking system Resistance of existing technology High cost of technology at current True cost of tidal developments (CAPEX & OPEX) Unit and array deployment Current projection for investment pay off Global recession and uncertainty of future economy Public sector investment/involvement including R&D funding Cost of electricity from tidal energy Government incentives (subsidies) Competing renewable technologies Competing conventional technologies 7 Insurer risk Cost effective technology
Risk Identif ific icatio ion (cont.) .) LEGAL Changes in legislation Complicated legislation TECHNOLOGICAL Commitment to legally bound renewable targets Maturity of technology Strategic Environmental Assessments Understanding the engineering of the technology Environmental Impact Assessments Engineering design uncertainty Difference in legislation between different countries Engineering design of components Overlooking details of legislation Supply chain Planning permission Reliability (component & system) Licensing Effective power output Intellectual property Fragmented industry (no widely accepted configuration) Costs associated with legal battles Support methods Anchoring & mooring ENVIRONMENTAL Design variability based on depth and conditions Carbon footprint and lifecycle assessment Restriction in prototyping and lack of numerical tools Short term Environmental damage System efficiency on array scale development Long term environmental damage Availability of design standards and certification guidelines Unknown environmental impacts Installation & commissioning Environmentalists causing delays Grid connection Indirect environmental damage Maintenance Collision risk Removal and decommissioning Sound and light emissions Transferability of knowledge from similar industries Farm scale impact 8
S takehold lder s sur urvey • W eb eb-ba based d survey with anonymity of responses • Limited num umber of que uestions and LIK E E R RT scale • Input requested: o Evaluate risks (list of 72 risks) o Provide category of activity o Perceived level of importance of each category o Perceived level of expertise • In total 68 68 responses; 30 industrial and 38 academics stakeholders • Resp sponse se rate above 1 1 5 5% across both categories • Industry had a very effective spread of resu sults s across the PESTLE categories with the exception of legal stakeholders • Majority of academic resp sponses s were technological, with sufficient 9 responses in environmental and economic
Multid idis isciplin inary risk asse ssessm ssment • MCDM DM methods are widely applied in decision making for ranking of different options subject to different criteria ia • In this instance criteria are considered the cumulative scores of each risk from each category of stakeholders • T echnique for Order of P reference by S imilarity to Ideal S olution (T OP S IS ) has been selected here, normalising the results and ranking them based on their relative distance from a theo eoretical idea eal positive and negative ideal solutions 1 0
Indus ustry S ur urvey R Result ults • Risk analysis ranked ‘private e inves estmen ent’, ‘inves estment pay off period’ and ‘reli liabili lity’ as the most critical risks in the sector. • T T o op 1 0 of risks comprised of 4 economic, 5 technological and 1 political risk. • No legal or so social issu ssues were regarded as critical risks (top 1 0) with the majority of these three categories of risk featuring in the bottom half of the ranking. • The current average of P E S TLE sectors weighting factors marked polit itic ical as 25%, economic ic 26%, social 6%, technolo logical l 26% and environmental 1 3%. 1 1
Indus ustry S ur urvey R Result ults (cont.) .) • P olitical stakeholders identified ‘grid d connection on’ as most critical, as well as ‘public acceptance’ and ’support’ alongside technological and economic risks. • E conomic stakeholders identified ‘UN su support’ as most critical. • S ocial stakeholders identified legal, social and environmental risks as the most critical. The most critical risks were ‘internat ational al legi gislat ation’. • ‘S upport struc uctur ure’ was the critical risks for technological stakeholders with technological, economic and political factors making up the remaining top 1 0 risks. • E nvironmental stakeholders ranked ‘Internat ational al legi gislat ation’ as the most critical risk. • The legal stakeholder group were omitted from this part of the 1 2 analysis as there were only 2 responses from this stakeholders’ group.
Result ults for Academics • Analysis ranked ‘c ‘cut backs in spending’, ‘m ‘maintenance’ ’ and ‘t ‘true cost’ ’ highest with 5 economic risks, 4 technological risks and 1 environmental on the top 1 0. • Due to the majority of the responses coming from technological academics, it was not possible to conduct a valid analysis for each individual category. • This lack of participation of different stakeholder groups was down to the fact that the majority of of academic wor ork in the tidal energy industry is foc ocusing g on on technologi gical aspects (with a number of environmental also), with many engineers currently working with tidal energy developers and not many having expertise in the other sectors. 1 3
Recommend
More recommend
