Offshore Report 2009

8/8/2019 Offshore Report 2009

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/offshore-report-2009 1/69







Oceans of opportunityEurope’s o shore wind potential is enormous and able to power Europeseven times over.

Huge developer interestOver 100 GW o o shore wind projects are already in various stageso planning. I realised, these projects would produce 10% o the EU’selectricity whilst avoiding 200 million tonnes o CO 2 emissions each year.

Repeating the onshore successEWEA has a target o 40 GW o o shore wind in the EU by 2020,implying an average annual market growth o 28% over the coming 12years. The EU market or onshore wind grew by an average 32% per yearin the 12-year period rom 1992-2004 – what the wind energy industryhas achieved on land can be repeated at sea.

Building the offshore gridEWEA’s proposed o shore grid builds on the 11 o shore grids currentlyoperating and 21 o shore grids currently being considered by the gridoperators in the Baltic and North Seas to give Europe a truly pan-Europeanelectricity super highway.

Realising the potentialStrong political support and action rom Europe’s policy-makers will allowa new, multi-billion euro industry to be built.

Results that speak for themselvesThis new industry will deliver thousands o green collar jobs and a newrenewable energy economy and establish Europe as world leader ino shore wind power technology.

A single European electricity market with large amounts o wind powerwill bring a ordable electricity to consumers, reduce import dependence,cut CO 2 emissions and allow Europe to access its largest domesticenergy source.



3OCEANS OF OPPORTUNITY OFFSHORE REPORT

Oceans o OpportunityHarnessing Europe’s largest domestic energy resource

By the European Wind Energy Association

September 2009

Coordinating and main authors: Dr. Nicolas Fichaux (EWEA) and Justin Wilkes (EWEA)

Main contributing authors: Frans Van Hulle (Technical Advisor to EWEA) and Aidan Cronin (Merchant Green)

Contributors: Jacopo Moccia (EWEA), Paul Wilczek (EWEA), Liming Qiao (GWEC), Laurie Jodziewicz (AWEA), Elke Zander (EWEA),Christian Kjaer (EWEA), Glória Rodrigues (EWEA) and 22 industry interviewees

Editors: Sarah Azau (EWEA) and Chris Rose (EWEA)

Design: Jesus Quesada (EWEA)

Maps: La Tene Maps and EWEA

Cover photo: Risø Institute






EWEA’s 20 Year O shore Network Development Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29How an o shore grid will evolve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Kriegers Flak. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31O shore grid construction timeline – staged approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Onshore grid upgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35The operational and regulatory aspects o o shore grids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Network operation: close cooperation within ENTSO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Combining transmission o o shore wind power and power trading . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Regulatory ramework enabling improved market rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Economic value o an o shore grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Intrinsic value o an o shore grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Value o an o shore grid in the context o a stronger European transmission network . 38

Investments and nancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Investment cost estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Financing the European electricity grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4 Supply Chain Building a second European o shore industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Supply o turbines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44The uture or wind turbine designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Supply o substructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Vessels – turbine installation, substructure installation and other vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55A brie introduction to some vessels used in turbine installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Vessels status or European o shore wind instal lation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Future innovative installation vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Ports and harbours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Harbour requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Existing acilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Showcase: Bremerhaven’s success stor y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Harbours o the uture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Future trends in manu acturing or the o shore wind industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5 Main Challenges

Annex: Offshore Wind Energy Installations 2000-2030 66



OCEANS OF OPPORTUNITY OFFSHORE REPORT6

ExecutiveSummary

hoto: Dong Energy




O shore wind power is vital or Europe’s uture.

O shore wind power provides the answer to Europe’senergy and climate dilemma – exploiting an abundantenergy resource which does not emit greenhousegases, reduces dependence on increasingly costly

uel imports, creates thousands o jobs and provideslarge quantities o indigenous a ordable electricity.This is recognised by the European Commission in its2008 Communication ‘O shore Wind Energy: Actionneeded to deliver on the Energy Policy Objectives or2020 and beyond’ (1).

Europe is aced with the global challenges o climatechange, depleting indigenous energy resources,increasing uel costs and the threat o supply disrup-tions. Over the next 12 years, according to theEuropean Commission, 360 GW o new electricitycapacity – 50% o current EU capacity – needs to bebuilt to replace ageing European power plants andmeet the expected increase in demand. Europe mustuse the opportunity created by the large turnover incapacity to construct a new, modern power systemcapable o meeting the energy and climate challengeso the 21 st century while enhancing Europe’s competi-tiveness and energy independence.

EWEA target

In March, at the European Wind Energy Con erence2009 (EWEC 2009), the European Wind EnergyAssociation (EWEA) increased its 2020 target to 230GW wind power capacity, including 40 GW o shorewind. Reaching 40 GW o o shore wind power capacityin the EU by 2020 is a challenging but manageabletask. An entire new o shore wind power industry anda new supply chain must be developed on a scale that

will match that o the North Sea oil and gas endeavour.

However, the wind energy sector has a proven trackrecord onshore with which to boost its con dence,and will be signi cantly longer lived than the oil andgas sector.

To reach 40 GW o o shore wind capacity in the EUby 2020 would require an average growth in annualinstallations o 28% - rom 366 MW in 2008 to 6,900MW in 2020. In the 12 year period rom 1992-2004,the market or onshore wind capacity in the EU grewby an average 32% annually: rom 215 MW to 5,749MW. There is nothing to suggest that this historiconshore wind development cannot be repeated atsea.

Unlimited potential

By 2020, most o the EU’s renewable electricitywill be produced by onshore wind arms. Europemust, however, use the coming decade to prepare

or the large-scale exploitation o its largest indig-enous energy resource, o shore wind power. Thatthe wind resource over Europe’s seas is enormouswas con rmed in June by the European EnvironmentAgency’s (EEA) ‘Europe’s onshore and o shore wind

energy potential’ (2). The study states that o shorewind power’s economically competitive potential in2020 is 2,600 TWh, equal to between 60% and 70%o projected electricity demand, rising to 3,400 TWhin 2030, equal to 80% o the projected EU electricitydemand. The EEA estimates the technical potentialo o shore wind in 2020 at 25,000 TWh, betweensix and seven times greater than projected electricitydemand, rising to 30,000 TWh in 2030, seven timesgreater than projected electricity demand. The EEA

(1) European Commission, 2008. ‘O shore Wind Energy: Action needed to deliver on the Energy Policy Objectives or 2020 and

beyond’. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDF.(2) EEA (European Environment Agency), 2009. ‘Europe’s onshore and o shore wind energy potential’. Technical report No 6/2009.




has clearly recognised that o shore wind power willbe key to Europe’s energy uture.

Over 100 GW already proposed

It is little wonder there ore that over 100 GW o o shorewind energy projects have already been proposed orare already being developed by Europe’s pioneeringo shore wind developers. This shows the enormousinterest among Europe’s industrial entrepreneurs,developers and investors. It also shows that EWEA’stargets o 40 GW by 2020 and 150 GW by 2030 areeminently realistic and achievable. The 100 or moreGW is spread across 15 EU Member States, as well

as three other European countries. The rewards orEurope exploiting its huge o shore wind potential areenormous – this 100 GW will produce 373 TWh o elec-tricity each year, meeting between 8.7% and 11% o the EU’s electricity demand, whilst avoiding 202 milliontonnes o CO 2 in a single year.

In order to ensure that the 100 GW o projects canmove orward, and reach 150 GW o operating o shorewind power by 2030, coordinated action is required

rom the European Commission, EU governments,regulators, the transmission system operators (TSOs)and the wind industry. Working in partnership on devel-oping the o shore industry’s supply chain, putting in

place maritime spatial planning, building an o shoreelectricity grid based on EWEA’s 20 Year O shoreNetwork Development Master Plan, and ensuringcontinued technological development or the o shoreindustry, are key issues.

By 2020, the initial stages o an o shore pan-Euro-pean grid should be constructed and operating withan agreed plan developed or its expansion to accom-modate the 2030 and 2050 ambitions.

Grids

The uture transnational o shore grid will have manyunctions, each bene tting Europe in di erent ways. It

will provide grid access to o shore wind arms, smooththe variability o their output on the markets andimprove the ability to trade electricity within Europe,thereby contributing dramatically to Europe’s energysecurity.

We must stop thinking o electrical grids as nationalin rastructure and start developing them -- onshoreand o shore -- to become European corridors or elec-tricity trade. And we must start developing them now.

The aster they are developed, the aster we will havea domestic substitute i uture uel import suppliesare disrupted or the cost o uel becomes prohibitivelyexpensive, as the world experienced during 2008.

The uture European o shore grid will contributeto building a well- unctioning single European elec-tricity market that will bene t all consumers, withthe North Sea, the Baltic Sea and the MediterraneanSea leading the way. Preliminary assessments o the

Executive Summary

P h o

t o :

E l s a m




economic value o the o shore grid indicate that it willbring signi cant economic bene ts to all society.

Europe’s o shore grid should be built to integratethe expected 40 GW o o shore wind power by 2020,and the expected 150 GW o o shore wind power by2030. It is or this reason that EWEA has proposed its20 Year O shore Network Development Master Plan(Chapter 3). This European vision must now be taken

orward and implemented by the European Commissionand the European Network o Transmission SystemOperators (ENTSO-E), together with a new businessmodel or investing in o shore power grids and inter-connectors which should be rapidly introduced based

on a regulated rate o return or new investments.

2010 will be a key year or grid developmentplanning

The European Commission will publish a ‘Blueprint ora North Sea Grid’ (3) making o shore wind power the keyenergy source o the uture. ENTSO-E will publish its

rst 10 Year Network Development Plan, which should,i suitably visionary, integrate the rst hal o EWEA’s20 Year O shore Network Development Master Plan.The European Commission will also publish its EUEnergy Security and In rastructure Instrument whichmust play a key role in putting in place the necessary

nancing or a pan-European onshore and o shoregrid, and enable the European Commission, i neces-sary, to take the lead in planning such a grid.

Supply chain

The o shore wind sector is an emerging industrialgiant. But it will only grow as ast as the tightest supplychain bottleneck. It is there ore vitally important thatthese bottlenecks are identi ed and addressed so asnot to constrain the industrial development. Turbine

installation vessels, substructure installation vessels,cable laying vessels, turbines, substructures, towers,wind turbine components, ports and harbours must be

nanced and available in su cient quantities or thedevelopers to take orward their 100 GW o o shorewind projects in a timely manner.

Through dramatically increased R&D and economieso scale, the cost o o shore wind energy will ollowthe same path as onshore wind energy in the past.

The technical challenges are greater o shore but nogreater than when the North Sea oil and gas industrytook existing onshore extraction technology andadapted it to the more hostile environment at sea.An entire new o shore wind power industry and a newsupply chain must be developed on a scale that willmatch that o the North Sea oil and gas endeavour,but one that will have a much longer li e.

Technology

O shore wind energy has been identi ed by theEuropean Union as a key power generation technology

or the renewable energy uture, and where Europe

should lead the world technologically. The support o the EU is necessary to maintain Europe’s technolog-ical lead in o shore wind energy by improving turbinedesign, developing the next generation o o shorewind turbines, substructures, in rastructure, andinvesting in people to ensure they can ll the thou-sands o new jobs being created every year by theo shore wind sector.

To accelerate development o the technology andin order to attract investors to this grand Europeanproject, a European o shore wind energy paymentmechanism could be introduced. It should be a volun-tary action by the relevant Member States (coordinatedby the European Commission) according to Article 11o the 2009 Renewable Energy Directive. It is impor-tant that such a mechanism does not inter ere withthe national rameworks that are being developed inaccordance with that same directive.

Spatial planning

The decision by countries to per orm maritime spatialplanning (MSP) and dedicate areas or o shore winddevelopments and electricity interconnectors sends

clear positive signals to the industry. Provided the rightpolicies and incentives are in place, MSP gives theindustry long-term visibility o its market, and enablessynergies with other maritime sectors. Consolidatedat European level, such approaches would enableinvestments to be planned out. This would enable thewhole value chain to seek investment in key elementso the supply chain (e.g. turbine components, cables,vessels, people) while potentially lowering risks andcapital costs.

(3) The Council Conclusions to the 2nd Strategic Energy Review re erred to the Blueprint as a North West O shore Grid.




The O shoreWind PowerMarket o the Future

Chapter 1

hoto: Dong Energy




2008 and 2009: steady as she goes

2008 saw 366 MW o o shore wind capacity installedin the EU (compared to 8,111 MW onshore) in sevenseparate o shore wind arms, taking the total installedcapacity to 1,471 MW in eight Member States. The UKinstalled more than any other country during 2008 andbecame the nation with the largest installed o shorecapacity, overtaking Denmark. Activity in 2008 wasdominated by ongoing work at Lynn and Inner Dowsingwind arms in the UK and by Princess Amalia in theNetherlands.

In addition to these large projects, Phase 1 o ThorntonBank in Belgium was developed together with two near-shore projects, one in Finland and one in Germany. Inaddition, an 80 kW turbine (not connected to the grid)was piloted on a foating plat orm in a water deptho 108m in Italy. Subsequently decommissioned, thisturbine was the rst to take the o shore wind industryinto the Mediterranean Sea, which, together withdevelopments in the Baltic Sea, North Sea and IrishSea, highlights the pan-European nature o today’so shore wind industry.

2009 has seen strong market development with amuch larger number o projects beginning construc-tion, under construction, expected to be completed, orcompleted during the course o the year. EWEA antici-pates an annual market in 2009 o approximately 420MW, including the rst large-scale foating prototypeo the coast o Norway.

By the end o 2009 EWEA expects a total installedo shore capacity o just under 2,000 MW in Europe. 2010: annual market passes 1 GW

Assuming the nancial crisis does not blow theo shore wind industry o course, 2010 will be ade ning year or the o shore wind power market inEurope. Over 1,000 MW (1 GW) is expected to beinstalled. Depending on the amount o wind powerinstalled onshore, it looks as i Europe’s 2010o shore market could make up approximately 10%o Europe’s total annual wind market, making theo shore industry a signi cant mainstream energyplayer in its own right.

• Total installed capacity of 3,000 MW

• Annual installations of 1,100 MW

• Electricity production of 11 TWh

• Meeting 0.3% of total EU electricity demand

• Avoiding 7 Mt of CO 2 annually

• Annual investments in wind turbines of €2.5 billion

Summary o the o shore wind energy market in the EU in 2010:




2011 – 2020(See annex or detailed statistics)

In December 2008 the European Union agreed ona binding target o 20% renewable energy by 2020.To meet the 20% target or renewable energy, theEuropean Commission expects 34% (5) o electricity tocome rom renewable energy sources by 2020 andbelieves that “wind could contribute 12% o EU elec-tricity by 2020”.

Not least due to the 2009 Renewable Energy Directiveand the 27 mandatory national renewable energytargets, the Commission’s expectations or 2020should now be increased. EWEA there ore predictsthat the total installed o shore wind capacity in 2020will be 40 GW, up rom just under 1.5 GW today.

As can be seen in Figure 1, EWEA’s o shore scenariocan be compared to the growth o the Europeanonshore wind market at a similar time in the industry’sdevelopment.

AnnuAl instAllAtions

Between 2011 and 2020, EWEA expects the annualo shore market or wind turbines to grow steadily rom1.5 GW in 2011 to reach 6.9 GW in 2020. Throughoutthis period, the market or onshore wind turbines willexceed the o shore market in the EU.

(4) Independently o EWEA’s survey o o shore developers which identifed 120 GW o o shore wind arms under construction,

consented, or announced by companies or proposed development/concession zones (available at www.ewea.org/o shore) NewEnergy Finance has indentifed 105 GW o o shore wind projects in Europe (NEF Research Note: O shore Wind 28 July 2009).

(5) European Commission, 2006. ‘Renewable Energy Roadmap’, COM(2006)848 fnal.

Chapter 1 - The Offshore Wind Power Market of the Future

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Onshore (1992-2004)

O shore (2008-2020)

FIGURE 1: Historical onshore growth 1992-2004 com-pared to EWEA’s o shore projection 2008-2020 (MW)

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

(MW) 0

In summer 2009 EWEA surveyed those o its mem-bers active in developing and supplying the o shorewind industry, in order to underpin its scenario devel-opment or 2030. The project pipelines suppliedby o shore wind developers are presented in theO shore Wind Map and outlined in this report. In all,EWEA has identi ed proposals or over 100 GW o o shore wind projects in European waters - eitherunder construction, consented, in the consenting

phase or proposed by project developers or govern-ment proposed development zones. This 100 GW o o shore wind projects shows tremendous developerinterest and provides a good indication that EWEA’sexpectation that 150 GW o o shore wind power willbe operating by 2030 is both accurate and credible (4).

To see the updated O shore Wind Map:www.ewea.org/o shore

100 GW and counting…

FIGURE 2: O shore wind energy annual and cumula-tive installations 2011-2020 (MW)

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

(MW) 0

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 (MW)2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Annual (right-hand axis)

Cumulative (le t-hand axis)




160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

(TWh) 02011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

TWh o shore

(6) The 230 GW o wind power operating in 2020 would produce 582 TWh o electricity, with the 40 GW o shore contributing 148 TWh.

Wind EnErgy Production

The 40 GW o installed capacity in 2020 would produce148 TWh o electricity in 2020, equal to between 3.6%and 4.3% o EU electricity consumption, depending onthe development in electricity demand. Approximatelya quarter o Europe’s wind energy would beproduced o shore in 2020 (6). Including onshore, windenergy would produce 582 TWh, enough to meetbetween 14.3% and 16.9% o total EU electricitydemand by 2020.

o shorE Wind PoWEr invEstmEnts

Annual investments in o shore wind power areexpected to increase from €3.3 billion in 2011 to€8.81 billion in 2020.

FIGURE 4: Annual and cumulative investments ino shore wind power 2011-2020 (€billion 2005)

Avoiding climAtE chAngE

In 2011, o shore wind power will avoid the emissiono 10 Mt o C0 2 , a gure that will rise to 85 Mt in theyear 2020.

FIGURE 3: Electricity production 2011-2020 (TWh)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

9.0

7.5

6.0

4.5

3.0

1.5

02011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Annual investment (right-hand axis)

Cumulative investment (le t-hand axis)

(€bn ) (€bn )




(7) The 400 GW o wind power operating in 2030 would produce 1,155 TWh o electricity, with the 150 GW o shore

contributing 563 TWh.

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

(MW) 0

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0 (MW)2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

2021 - 2030

AnnuAl instAllAtions

Between 2021 and 2030, the annual o shore market

or wind turbines will grow steadily rom 7.7 GW in2021 to reach 13.6 GW in 2030. 2027 will be the rstyear in which the market or o shore wind turbinesexceeds the onshore market in the EU.


Summary of the offshore wind energy market in the EU in 2020:

• Total installed capacity of 40,000 MW

• Annual installations of 6,900 MW

• Electricity production of 148 TWh

• Meeting between 3.6% and 4.3% of totalEU electricity demand

• Avoiding 85Mt of CO 2 annually


Wind EnErgy Production

The 150 GW o installed capacity in 2030 wouldproduce 563 TWh o electricity in 2030, equal tobetween 12.8% and 16.7% o EU electricity consump-tion, depending on the development in demand orpower. Approximately hal o Europe’s wind electricitywould be produced o shore in 2030 (7). An additional592 TWh would be produced onshore, bringing wind

energy’s total share to between 26.2% and 34.3% o EU electricity demand.

o shorE Wind PoWEr invEstmEnts

Annual investments in o shore wind power areexpected to increase from €9.8 billion in 2021 to€16.5 billion in 2030.

FIGURE 6: O shore wind energy annual and cumula-tive installations 2021-2030 (MW)

FIGURE 7: Electricity production 2021-2030 (TWh)

600

500

400

300

200

100

(TWh) 02021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Annual






140

120

100

80

60

40

20

(€bn) 0

17.5

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

(€bn) 02021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

FIGURE 8: Annual and cumulative investments ino shore wind power 2021-2030 (€billion)

Avoiding climAtE chAngE

In 2021, o shore wind power will avoid the emissiono 100 Mt o C0 2, a gure that will rise to 292 Mt inthe year 2030.

2,000

1,750

1,500

1,250

1,000

750

500

250

(mt) 0

320

280

240

200

160

120

80

40

0 (mt)2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

FIGURE 9: Annual and cumulative avoided CO 2 emis-sions 2021-2030 (million tonnes)

Summary of the offshore wind energy market in the EU in 2030:

•Total installed capacity of 150,000 MW

•Annual installations of 13,690 MW

•Electricity production of 563 TWh

• Meeting between 12.8% and 16.7% of total EUelectricity demand

• Avoiding 292 Mt of CO 2 annually



Cumulative (le t-hand axis)Annual (right-hand axis)






O shore development – deeper and urther

As technology develops and experience is gained, theo shore wind industry will move into deeper water

and urther rom the shore. Looking at the wind armsproposed by project developers, the wind industry willgradually move beyond the so-called 20:20 envelope(20m water depth, 20 km rom shore).

FIGURE 10: Development o the o shore wind industry in terms o water depth (m) and distance to shore (km)

This scatter graph shows the probable uture devel-opment trends o the o shore industry in the 2025time rame (approximately) (8) .

Identi ed trends:

<20 :<20At the moment operating wind arms tend to be builtnot urther than 20km rom the shore in water depths

o not more than 20m.

<60 :<60 The current 20:20 envelope will be extended by themajority o o shore arms to not more than 60 km

rom shore in water depths o not more than 60m.

>60 :<60Far o shore development, which includes currentdevelopment zones – those illustrated here mainly

result rom development in Germany – and will includein the uture the UK’s Round 3, characterised by arms

ar rom shore (more than 60 km) connecting in idealsituations to o shore supernodes, with a water depthgenerally between 20m and 60m.

<60 :>60 Deep o shore – based on project proposals high-lighted to EWEA rom project developers using foating

plat orm technologies during the course o the nextdecade, not urther than 60 km rom shore.

>60 :>60Deep ar o shore – this scatter graph highlights the

uture long term potential o combining an o shoregrid ( ar o shore) with foating concepts (deepo shore) which is beyond the scope and time rameo this report.

(8) The data is based on an EWEA spreadsheet containing in ormation on all o shore wind arms that are operating, under construc-

tion, consented, in the consenting process or proposed by project developers supplied to EWEA and available (updated) at www.ewea.org/o shore. The scatter graph contains only those arms where both water depth and distance to shore was providedto EWEA, and should there ore be treated with a suitable level o caution.

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

D i s t a n c e t o s h o r e

( k m )

Water depth (m)

<60 km:>60 m >60 km:>60 m<60 km:<60 m >60 km:<60 m<20 km :<20 m




Europe’s frst mover o shore advantage

To date, all ully operational o shore wind arms arein Europe. However, two countries outside Europe inparticular are determined to exploit their o shorewind potential, providing European companies withsigni cant opportunities or manu acturing and tech-nology exports, experienced developers, projectplanners, in rastructure experts, and installationequipment. The United States: hot on Europe’s heels (9)

The prospects or wind energy projects o the coasts

o the United States brightened in 2008 and 2009. Agovernment report (10) recognised signi cant potential

or o shore wind’s contribution. Two states completedcompetitive processes or proposed projects, onecompany signed a Power Purchase Agreement witha major utility, and a nal regulatory ramework wasreleased by the Obama Administration in its rst 100days (11) .

In May 2008, the U.S. Department o Energy released“20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’sContribution to U.S. Electricity Supply”, which investi-gated the easibility o wind energy providing 20% o U.S. electricity. The report ound that more than 300GW o wind energy capacity would need to be installed,including 54 GW o shore.

Rhode Island and New Jersey each conducted compet-itive processes to choose developers to work onprojects o their shores, demonstrating that stateleadership is driving much o the interest in o shorewind projects in the U.S.

A Delaware utility signed a Power Purchase Agreementwith a developer, committing that state to a project inthe near uture.

The wind industry welcomed the release o a newregulatory ramework rom the Minerals ManagementService (MMS) o the Department o the Interior a termuch delay. President Bush signed the Energy Policy

Act o 2005 setting MMS as the lead regulatory agencyor projects in ederal waters, but the nal rules were

not released until April 2009.

And not to be le t behind, states surrounding theGreat Lakes have also showed interest over the pasttwo years in pursuing projects in America’s reshwater. Michigan and Wisconsin both completed majorstudies regarding the potential or o shore wind, Ohiois conducting a easibility study or a small project inLake Erie, and the New York Power Authority asked

or expressions o interest or projects in Lake Ontarioand Lake Erie in the rst hal o 2009.

On 22 April 2009, President Barack Obama said “…we are establishing a programme to authorise -- or

(9) Contribution rom Laurie Jodziewicz, American Wind Energy Association.(10)

U.S. Department o Energy, 2008. ‘20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply’http://www.20percentwind.org/20p.aspx?page=Report. May 2008.

(11) http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/031709.html.

P h o

t o :

S i e m e n s




the very rst time -- the leasing o ederal waters orprojects to generate electricity rom wind as well as

rom ocean currents and other renewable sources.And this will open the door to major investments ino shore clean energy. For example, there is enormous

interest in wind projects o the coasts o New Jerseyand Delaware, and today’s announcement will enablethese projects to move orward.”

China: the frst arm is developed (12)

With its large land mass and long coastline, Chinais exceptionally rich in wind resources. Accordingto the China Coastal Zone and Tideland ResourceInvestigation Report, the area rom the country’s


coastline to 20m out to sea covers about 157,000km 2 . Assuming 10% to 20% o the total amount o seasur ace were to be used or o shore development, thetotal o shore wind capacity could reach 100-200 GW.However, in the coastal zone to the south o China,

typhoons may be a limiting actor or the deploymento o shore wind turbines, especially in the Guangdong,Fujian and Zhejiang Provinces.

In 2005, the nation’s Eleventh Five Year Planencouraged the industry to learn rom internationalexperience on o shore wind development and toexplore the o shore opportunities in Shanghai,Zhejiang and Guangdong Province. The plan also setsa target o setting up one to two o shore wind arms

(12) Contribution rom Liming Qiao, GWEC.

P h o

t o :

S i e m e n s




o 100 MW by 2010. In the same year, the NationalDevelopment and Re orm Commission (NDRC) alsoput o shore wind development as one o the majorR&D priorities in the “Renewable Energy IndustryDevelopment Guideline”.

At provincial level, o shore wind planning also startedto take place in Jiangsu, Guangdong, Shanghai,Zhejiang, Hainan, Hebei and Shangdong. Among them,the most advanced is Jiangsu province, with a theoret-ical o shore potential o 18 GW and a littoral belt o over 50 km, which is an excellent technical advantage

or developing o shore wind. In its Wind DevelopmentPlan (2006-2010), Jiangsu province stipulated that by

2010, wind installation in the province should reach1,500 MW, all onshore, and by 2020, wind installationshould reach 10 GW, with 7,000 MW o shore. Theplan also oresees that in the long term, the provincewill reach 30 GW o onshore wind installation capacityand 18 GW o shore capacity. The rst o shore wind turbine in China was installedand went online in 2007, located in Liaodong Bayin the northeast Bohai Sea. The test turbine has acapacity o 1.5 MW. The wind turbine was built bythe China National O shore Oil Corp (CNOOC), the

country’s largest o shore oil producer, with an invest-ment o 40 million yuan ($5.4 million).

Construction o the rst o shore wind arm in Chinastarted in 2009, close to Shanghai Dongdaqiao. The

rst three machines were installed in April 2009. It isexpected to be built by the end o 2009 and to provideelectricity to the 2010 Shanghai Expo. The wind armwill consist o 34 turbines o 3 MW. In terms o R&D, the government has put o shore windenergy technology into the government supportedR&D programme. Meanwhile, domestic turbine manu-

acturers are also running their own o shore R&D.

The development o o shore wind in China is still at anearly stage. Many key issues need to be addressed.At national level, there is still no speci c policy orregulation or o shore wind development. All currentpolicies are or onshore wind. Meanwhile, the approvalo o shore wind projects involves more governmentdepartments than or onshore wind projects, with alack o clarity over the di erent government depart-ments’ responsibility or approving o shore windprojects. Grid planning and construction is anotherkey issue, with grid constraint hindering development.




Spatial Planning:

SupportingO shore Wind andGrid Development

Chapter 2

Photo: Elsam




Maritime spatial planning

Increased activity within Europe’s marine waters hasled to growing competition between sectors such asshipping and maritime transport, the military, the oiland gas sector, o shore wind and ocean energies, portdevelopment, sheries and aquaculture, and environ-mental concerns. The act that the di erent activitiesare regulated on a sectoral basis by di erent agen-cies, each with its own speci c legislative approachto the allocation and use o maritime space, has ledto ragmented policy making and very limited EU coor-dination. In contrast to spatial planning on land, EUcountries generally have limited experience o inte-grated spatial planning in the marine environment,and sometimes the relevant governance structuresand rules are inadequate.

In addition to the wide range o sectoral approaches

to the use o the sea, there are very di erent plan-ning regimes and instruments in the di erentMember States. For example, in Germany there areregional plans or the territorial seas and national EEZ(Exclusive Economic Zones) plans, whereas in France,sea “Enhancement Schemes” have been used insome areas as the main instrument.

Only a ew European countries currently have de neddedicated o shore wind areas, including the UK,

Germany, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands,each o which has its own approach. A ew coun-tries, such as the UK, Germany and Denmark, haveintegrated the deployment o o shore wind energyinto a global approach that encompasses industrial,research and policy aspects, and they are seen as themost promising markets.

Most other countries use existing marine plan-ning laws, which can delay projects considerably aso shore wind is a newly developing and unique energyresource. Drawn out and imprecise planning canincrease the costs o o shore projects signi cantly.

With no integrated approach, o shore wind energydeployment is caught between conficting uses,interest groups and rules rom di erent sectors and

jurisdictions (both at inter-state and intra-state level).This creates project uncertainty, increases the risk

o delays in, or ailure o o shore wind projects, andimpairs the sector’s potential or growth.

These barriers are urther aggravated by the absenceo an integrated and coordinated approach to mari-time spatial planning (MSP) between the di erentMember States and regions. There are potentialsynergies between o shore projects and cross-borderinter-connectors that are currently not being exploitedand taken into consideration in MSP regimes. Without




(13) COM (2008) 768. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDF.(14)

COM (2007) 575. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0575:FIN:EN:PDF.(15) COM (2008) 791. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0791:FIN:EN:PDF.

TABLE 1: Overview o the di erent planning methods

UK

Denmark

S i n g l e - w i n d o w A p p l i c a t i o n

P r o c e s s

M u l t i p l e - w

i n d o w

A p p l i c a t i o n

G u i d e l i n e s

b e i n g d e f n e d / f n

a l i z e d

Spain

Netherlands

Belgium

Germany

Norway

Ireland

Sweden

Italy

France

Poland

Crown Estate (CE):Tenders right to

develop site

Danish Energy Authority(DEA): Site pre-screening

Developer:Expressiono interest

in site

Developer: Application or locationincl. EIA to Ministry o Transport

and Water Resources (MTW)

Developer: Presents concessions appli-cation, incl. detailed site plan/EIA to

Ministry o Marine Environment (MME)

Developer: Notice o intentionto construct communicated toBSH ( ederal marine authority)

Developer: Intention to applyor permits communicated

Energy Regulator

Department o Communications, Energy, and NaturalResources (CENR): Foreshore license to explore site

Ministry o Industry:Permit or explotation

o seabed

Maritime Authority: Siteconsent dependent on MoT

Authorization

Competent AuthorityTBD: Declaration o ZoneDevelopment Eolien (ZDE)

No current protocol

Competent Authority TBD:Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS)

Pre ect Maritime:Concession or use

o public land

Competent AuthorityTBD: Construction

permit

Ministry o Transport (MoT): Consultationwith Economic and Environment Ministries

and stakeholders

MoT: Authorization tobuild and operate wind

plant

Ministry o SustainableDevelopment:

Environmental permit

Building permit, Municipalityi in 12 nm zone , Ministry o

Industry i in EEZ

Network Authority (part o EnergyAdministration): Concession or

cabling and grid access

Developer: In ormalpublic and stakeholder

consultation

Developer: Public andstakeholder consultation

preparation o EISCENR: Foreshore

lease

Commission or energyregulation: Construction,

generation, and supply permit

Developer: Formalapplication presented

to Energy Regulator

Energy Regulator:Formal public and stake-

holder consultationEnergy Regulator:

Application approval

Oil and EnergyMinistry: Final project

approval i appeal

Developer: Publicand stakeholder

consultation

Developer: Two years envi-ronmental study, shipping

risk analysis

BSH:Project

approval

BSH:Cable approval

EEZ

Länder (state government): Cableapproval 12 nm zone or the

Transmission System Operator

MME:Consultation with

stakeholders

MME: Publishes initial concessionapplication, opens concession

process to competitors

MME: Building andexploitation authorization

(plant/cabling)

MTW: Consultation withstakeholders (EIA, de ense,

shipping, shing, etc.)

MTW: Invitationto submit building

application

MTW: Dra tbuilding permit

MTW: Finalbuilding permit

General Directorate or Energy Policy and Mines(DGPEM): Site pre-screening, evaluation o envi-

ronmental/tourism/ shing/shipping impact/grid conection

DEA: Site tender/permit to surveyor Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA)

DEA: Building permit Developer:Construction o

wind plant

DEA: Permit to exploit siteand generate electricity

DGPEM: Coordinateapplication review

with govt. agencies

DGPEM:Lease

agreement

Developer:Project planning,easibility studies

DGPEM: Adm.Authorization

and constructionpermit

DGPEM:Site

tender

Department o Trade and Industry’s (DTI) O shoreRenewables Consents Unit (ORCU): Food and

Environment Protection License or works at sea

ORCU: Permit orconstruction/operationo a generating station

ORCU: Coastprotection permit

Secretary o State or Trade andIndustry: Permit or construction o onshore substation/overhead line

cross-border coordination, grid investments in partic-

ular risk being sub-optimal because they will be maderom an individual project and national perspective,

rather than rom a system and transnational perspec-tive. This harms both the deployment o o shore windenergy projects and the development o a well- unc-tioning Europe-wide market or electricity.

The lack o integrated strategic planning and cross-border coordination has been identi ed as one o the main challenges to the deployment o o shore

power generation by the recent European Commission

Communications:

• ‘Offshore Wind Energy: action needed to deliveron the Energy Policy Objectives or 2020 andbeyond’ (13) ;

• ‘An Integrated Maritime Policy for the EuropeanUnion’ (14) ; and

• ‘Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning: achievingcommon principles in the EU’ (15) .

Chapter 2 - Spatial planning: Supporting offshore wind and grid development

SOURCE: E e E e re ea , 2008. ‘g ba o e W E e ma e a s a e e 2008 – 2020’.

Di erent ministry involved Developer National authority Local authority To be defned




O shore wind synergies with other maritimeactivities

O shore wind parks cover large areas as the projectsize must be su cient to ensure the nancialviability o the project, and as a minimal distancebetween the turbines is needed to avoid or mini-mise the wake e ects. It is there ore possible tooptimise the use o the space by developing syner-gies with other activities. For example, a project has

started in Denmark to combine o shore wind parkswith aquaculture. O shore wind parks could also becombined with large desalination plants, or be usedas arti cial ree s to improve sh stocks. Since the

oundation structure in an o shore wind turbine islarge and stable it may in the uture be combinedwith ocean energies to give additional power produc-tion at a given o shore site. This last point was alsopromoted by the European Commission through therecent 2009 FP7 call.

I Member States decided to per orm maritime spatialplanning (MSP), and dedicate areas or o shore winddevelopments and electricity interconnectors, it wouldsend clear positive signals to the industry. Providedthe right policies and incentives are in place, MSPgives the industry long term visibility o its market.Consolidated at European level, such approacheswould enable investments to be planned out. Thiswould enable the entire value chain to seek invest-ment in key elements o the supply chain (e.g. turbinecomponents, cables, vessels, people) while poten-tially lowering the risks and capital costs.

Maritime spatial planning approaches should bebased on a common vision shared at sea basin level.In this regard, cross border cooperation on MSP iskey or building a common and streamlined planningapproach and making optimal use o the maritimespace. Cross-border cooperation on MSP would aidprojects crossing several Economic Exclusive Zonessuch as large-scale o shore wind projects, and theinterconnectors o the uture pan-European grid.

Recommendation:

P h o

t o :

E n e c o




Building the

EuropeanO shore Grid

Chapter 3

Photo: Siemens




Introduction

The deployment o o shore wind energy requires adedicated o shore electricity system. Such a systemwill provide grid access or the more remote o shorewind arms, and additional interconnection capacity toimprove the trading o electricity between the di eringnational electricity markets. The transnational o shoregrid o the uture will have many unctions, each bene-

tting Europe in di erent ways:

• the geographically distributed output of theconnected o shore wind arms will be aggregatedand there ore smoothed, increasing the predict-ability o the energy output and diminishing theneed or additional balancing capacity (16) ;

• wind farm operators will be able to sell wind farmoutput to more than one country;

• power trading possibilities between countries willincrease;

• it will minimise the strengthening of onshore(mainland) interconnectors’ high-voltage networks,which can be di cult due to land-use conficts;

• connecting offshore oil and gas platforms tothe grid will enable a reduction o their GHGemissions;

• it will offer connection opportunities to othermarine renewable energy sources;

• shared use of offshore transmission lines leadsto an improved and more economical utilisation o grid capacity and its economical exploitation;

• European energy security will be improved, due toa more interconnected European grid;

• increased interconnection capacity will provideadditional rm power (capacity credit) rom theo shore wind resource.

The uture European o shore grid will there orecontribute to building a well- unctioning single Europeanelectricity market that will bene t all consumers.Because o the prominent concentration o plannedo shore wind arms in the North Sea, the Baltic Seaand the Mediterranean Sea, a transnational o shoregrid should be built rst in those areas. In many o the o shore grid designs that have already beenproposed, an o shore grid has branches reaching as

ar as Ireland, France and Spain.

This section will address planning issues, technologyaspects, possible topologies, and the consequences

or the European network in general. Furthermore itwill briefy discuss the operational, regulatory andeconomic aspects o an o shore grid.

Mapping and planning the o shore grid

drivErs or PlAnning

Building an o shore grid is di erent rom building anonshore grid in many ways – not least technically andeconomically. Perhaps the greatest challenge is theinternational aspect. The two basic drivers throughoutthe planning (and later in the implementation stage)o a transnational o shore grid are its role in interna-tional trade and the access it provides to wind powerand other marine energy sources.

(16) TradeWind, 2009. “Integrating Wind - Developing Europe’s power market or the large-scale integration o wind power.”

Available at: http://www.trade-wind.eu.




The basis or planning the o shore grid is there ore acombination o an ambitious - but realistic - vision o

uture o shore wind power capacities and a commonstakeholder vision on the uture necessary expansiono the European transmission network. This reportseeks to develop and implement such a vision. The uture projections or o shore wind power capacityare discussed in Chapter 1.

The uture development o the European transmissiongrid is described in di erent publications (TDP UCTE2008, Nordic Grid Master Plan 2008) and variousnational studies (the Netherlands, the UK, Denmark).

Some international studies (TradeWind) have exploredthe implications o o shore wind or grid require-ments. At present, issues related to the joint planningo o shore wind power development and grid rein-

orcement arise in markets with signi cant o shorewind development (Germany, the UK). Finding practicalsolutions or these issues will be very help ul or theprocess o international joint planning.

PlAnning in thE di ErEnt mAritimE ArEAs

At present, o shore grid ideas are being developedabove all or northern Europe, especially or the NorthSea and the Baltic Sea. However, o shore wind armsare expected to be developed in most Europeanwaters, and so the grid aspects o developments alongthe Atlantic Coast and in the Mediterranean area alsohave to be considered in pan-European planning. In thelonger term, and depending on urther technologicaldevelopments enabling the industry to reach deeperwaters, the o shore network should be expanded toareas that have not yet been investigated, includingthe northern part o the North Sea.

PlAnning APProAch

A realistic schedule or a transnational o shore gridshould:

• closely follow existing plans and ideas fromnational transmission system operators (TSOs) toenable a smooth start, or example the di erentplanned connections between the Nordic area andUK, the Netherlands and Germany;

• ensure the network is conceived and built in a

modular way, i.e. that it is made up o modulesthat can easibly be exploited;

• take into account time-dependent aspects such asrealistic implementation scenarios or wind powerdevelopment, supply chain issues and nancingpossibilities;

• coordinate the implementation of the offshorenetwork with the upgrade o the onshore network;

• present a coordinated approach to implementingthe common vision shared by the relevant stake-holders throughout the process.

Partners in the planning and work process are the TSOs,governments, regulators, technical suppliers, wind arm

developers, consultants and nancing bodies.

Policy ProcEssEs suPPorting thE PlAnning

Because o the complexity o transnational planningprocesses, the planning o an o shore grid requiresstrong policy drivers and supra-national control mecha-nisms. In the present political ramework, transmissionlines through di erent marine zones are orced toseek regulatory and planning approval with the rele-vant bodies o each Member State through which theline passes. Multiple country reviews impose delays o years to an approval process that is already complexenough.

O shore grid topology and construction

no lAck o idEAs

There is no shortage o ideas rom academics, gridcompanies and various industries on how to constructa dedicated o shore transmission grid. Because o the concentration o planned o shore wind arms inthe North Sea and the Baltic Sea, a transnationalo shore grid will be constructed in those areas rst.

Proposals have been put orward by several di erentbodies, including the ollowing:

• TradeWind• Airtricity (see Figure 11)• Greenpeace• Statnett• IMERA• Mainstream Renewable Power (Figure 12)

Chapter 3 - Building the European Offshore Grid




FIGURE 11: Airtricity Supergrid concept This report seeks to build on these approaches andpropose an optimal long-term development plan orthe uture pan-European o shore electricity grid.

o shorE grid tEchnology

The utilisation o HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current)technology or the o shore grid is very attractivebecause it o ers the controllability needed to allow thenetwork both to transmit wind power and to providethe highway or electricity trade, even between di erentsynchronous zones. Moreover, HVDC o ers the possi-bility o terminating inside onshore AC grids, and thusavoiding onshore rein orcements close to the coast.

There are two basic types o HVDC transmissionlinks: HVDC-LCC (conventional HVDC) and the recentHVDC-VSC (Voltage Source Convertor). HVDC-LCC hasbeen extensively used worldwide, operating over 6 GWper line, at voltages o up to 800 kV. 60 GW had beeninstalled by the end o 2004 (17) .

Today, the drivers or the o shore grid avour HVDCVSC as the best option (17b) or the ollowing reasons:

• the technology is suitable for the long distancesinvolved (up to 600 km), with minimal losses;

• the compactness (half the size of HVDC LCC)minimises environmental impact and constructioncosts, or example o the HVDC plat orms;

• the system is modular. A staged development ispossible, and stranded investments can moreeasily be avoided;

• the technology – because of its active controllability- is able to provide fexible and dynamic voltagesupport to AC and there ore can be connected toboth strong and weak onshore grids. Moreover, itcan be used to provide black start (18) , and supportthe system recovery in case o ailure;

• multi-terminal application is possible, which makesit suitable or meshed (19) grids.

In this way the HVDC VSC technology seems to o erthe solution or most o the o shore grid’s technicalchallenges.

There are two major manu acturers o HVDC VSCtechnology. ABB uses the brand name HVDC Light,whereas Siemens has branded its technology HVDC

(17) & (17b) European Academies Science Advisory Council, 2009. ‘Trans orming EU’s Electricity Supply – An in rastructure strategy or

a reliable, renewable and secure power system’.(18) Black start is the procedure or recovering rom a total or partial shutdown o the transmission system.(19) Meshed topology o shore grids are able to cope with the ailure o a line by diverting power automatically via other lines.

FIGURE 12: Mainstream Renewable Power

SuperNode(Mainstream Renewable Power)

The SuperNode con guration, developed byMainstream Renewable Power, is a rst step

or the development o the European Supergrid.It would allow the three-way trading o powerbetween the UK, Norway and Germany, andinclude two 1 GW o shore wind arms, one in theUK and one in Germany. Depending on the wind

arm output at any given time, the capacity ortrade would go up to 1 GW between each pair o countries in the combination.

1GW1GW

UK

Norway

Germany




HVDC circuit breakers, load fow control concepts andvery ast protection schemes. Also, operational experi-ence has to be collected to optimise the inter ace withwind power generation in the HVDC environment.

o shorE grid toPology

There are three basic elements which will orm thebackbone o the uture o shore transmission network.These are:

• lines/branches: these consist of submergedcables characterised by transmission capacity;

• offshore nodes (hubs or plugs): these offshorenodes consist o o shore plat orms containing

Plus. The technologies are not identical, and e ortsare needed to make them compatible and jointly oper-able, when used together in the uture o shore grid.For that purpose, two major conceptual decisions haveto be taken – namely, to agree to standardise the DC

working voltage levels and to agree on the largestpossible plug and play boundary. In addition, otherplayers such as Areva are also developing HVDC VSCtechnology.

Although all technologies or the o shore grid alreadyexist in principle, there are several aspects o HVDCVSC technology which require technical developmentin the short term in order to achieve the necessarytechnical maturity - such as the availability o ultra ast


P h o

t o :

E l s a m




HVDC conversion equipment, switchgear and otherelectrical equipments, and will serve as:

- common connection points or a number o o shore wind arms;

- common connection points or a number o other marine generators; and

- intersections (junctions) o network branchesallowing the electricity to be dispatched to thedi erent electricity markets.

• Onshore nodes: connection points between theo shore transmission grid to the onshore trans-mission grid.

The o shore grid topology basically builds upon the

ollowing types o transmission highways:

• A. interconnectors developed by TSOs (in principlethrough bilateral cooperation) or the purpose o cross border exchange between electricity markets(current state o play);

• B. lines speci cally developed for connection of o shore wind arms, and o shore acilities (currentstate o play); and

• C. lines developed in a coordinated effor t for thepurpose o connecting o shore wind, marine tech-nologies and the promotion o cross border trade.

The capital costs o the HVDC converter stations arehigher than corresponding substations in AC, while thecost o cables is lower or DC than or AC.

Regarding electricity loss, HVDC has signi cantlosses at converter station level, but lower lossesper km than AC. There is thus a trade o in theuse o DC versus AC. There ore, the nodes o thegrid should be located near spatially clustered wind

arms, as in this way a ew nodes per country can bedetermined, but o shore wind clusters not too ar

rom the coast should be directly connected to shorewith an AC line.

EWEA’s 20 Year O shore Network DevelopmentMaster Plan

EWEA’s 20 Year O shore Network Development Master

Plan is based on the necessary grid upgrades thatwould allow all planned, proposed, under constructionand operating o shore wind arms to transport all theelectricity produced to European electricity consumersin an economically sound way. It is underpinned bythe TradeWind study and existing TSO plans, and isdesigned, in addition to connecting o shore wind

arms to the grid, to increase electricity trading oppor-tunities and improve Europe’s energy security.

EWEA urges other stakeholders, particularly theEuropean Commission in its Blueprint or a North SeaGrid and ENTSO-E’s System Development Committee,to incorporate EWEA’s 20 Year O shore NetworkDevelopment Master Plan, taking into accountthe results o European- unded projects such asWindSpeed (www.windspeed.eu) and O shoreGrid(www.o shoregrid.eu).

o eg will develop a scienti cally-based viewon an o shore grid in northern Europe along witha suitable regulatory ramework that takes all the

technical, economic, policy and regulatory aspectsinto account. The project is targeted at Europeanpolicy makers, industry, transmission system opera-tors and regulators. The geographical scope is rstlythe regions around the Baltic and North Sea, theEnglish Channel and the Irish Sea. Secondly, theresults will be trans erred by qualitative terms to theMediterranean region.

The main objective o the WINDSPEED project is toidenti y a roadmap to the deployment o o shorewind power in the central and southern North Sea.

The roadmap includes the de nition o an o shorewind energy target and a set o coordinated policyrecommendations or the deployment o o shorewind in this speci c sea basin. WINDSPEED deliversa decision support system or the evaluation o thephysical potential or o shore wind, having inputssuch as policy targets or all users o the sea, alloca-tion rules and calculation rules or the assessmento impacts on o shore wind economics.

Spotlight on specifc EU- unded projects






hoW An o shorE grid Will EvolvE

In northern Europe the o shore grid spans aroundGreat Britain and Ireland, the North Sea including theChannel and the Baltic Sea.

n sea a i sea The topology in this area links the countries borderingthe North Sea: the UK, Norway, Denmark, Germany,the Netherlands, Belgium and the north o France.

The uture North Sea o shore grid will evolve out o existing TSO plans. Improving Norway’s connection to

the European grid will allow o shore wind arms in theNorth Sea to connect to these interconnectors, andwill at the same time improve the connection o Nordichydro to northern Europe. EWEA there ore proposesto take the best practice example o Kriegers Flak inthe Baltic Sea and apply this principle to the intercon-nectors already being studied - NorGer, Nord Link andNorway/UK. EWEA proposes a three-legged solution

or each o the planned lines:

• NorGer: planned as a link between Norway andGermany but EWEA proposes also linking it toDenmark and having a trajectory and node in theGerman EEZ (21) to enable o shore wind arms tobe connected.

• Nord Link: planned as a link between Norway andGermany but EWEA proposes also linking it tothe UK and having a trajectory and node in theGerman EEZ to enable o shore wind arms to beconnected;

• Norway/UK: planned as a link between Norwayand the UK but EWEA proposes also linking itto Germany via a node, which would also allowUK Round 3 arms to connect in UK waters andprovide an additional node or Norwegian o shore

wind arms (and oil and gas plat orms).

EWEA also proposes additional three-legged solutionsand other lines or the 2020 time rame:

• a link between Ireland, Northern Ireland and Wales;• a link between Belgium, the UK and the Netherlands;• a cable off Northern Norway linking to an offshore

node;• an upgrade between Denmark and Sweden

In the 2030 time rame the UK link to Ireland will beimproved, as will its link to the node o the coast o Norway via the Shetland Islands; Ireland will be directlyconnected with France, and the nodes o the coast o Belgium and the Netherlands are interconnected withGerman and UK nodes.

Ba a ea

In the Baltic Sea the main o shore grid elements arethe ollowing:

• on the western side, the Kriegers Flak 1,600MW wind arms will be considered to be the rstnucleus or an international o shore grid once it is

success ully connected to three markets (Germany,Denmark, Sweden);

• further main grid elements are the NordBaltInterconnection between Sweden and Lithuania,pre erably built with HVDC-VSC technology, togetherwith a second line between Finland and Estonia(Estlink II) and a rein orcement o the Swed-Pol line;

• further strengthening between Germany/Sweden,Germany/Denmark, and Denmark/Sweden.

(21) EEZ: Exclusive Economic Zone

Kriegers Flak

Kriegers Flak is seen as a fagship project at Europeanlevel. It is located on a sandbank (Kriegers Flak) inthe Baltic Sea, and is likely to consist o a combi-nation o three wind arms connected to Sweden,Germany and Denmark, or a total capacity o 1.6GW. Three di erent TSOs are involved: Vatten all,Energinet.dk and Svenska Kra tnätt.

sourcE:“k e e a p e ep ”.

FIGURE 17: Vatten all Europe Transmission,Energinet.dk, Svenska Kra tnät, 2008





TABLE 2: EWEA’s 20 Year O shore Network Development Master Plan (North and Baltic Seas)

Name, description and timeframe StatusCapacity

(MW)

Existing - 11 o shore grids

NorNed linking Norway and the Netherlands Operating 700

Skagerrak linking Norway and Denmark Operating 940

HVDC linking France and the UK Operating 2,000

Kontek linking Germany and Denmark Operating 600

HVDC linking Germany and Sweden Operating 600

Konti-Skan linking Denmark and Sweden Operating 300

SwePol linking Sweden and Poland Operating 600

HVDC Linking Swedish mainland and Gotland Operating 260

Estlink linking Finland and Estonia Operating 350

Fenno Skan linking Sweden and Finland Operating 500

Moyle Interconnector linking N. Ireland and Scotland Operating 500

In the 2020 time rame

Planned/under construction - seven o shore grids

Great Belt, internal Denmark Planned by 2010 600

Fenno Skan II linking Sweden and Finland Planned by 2011 800

BritNed linking the UK and the Netherlands Planned by 2011 1,000

East-West Interconnector linking Ireland and north Wales Planned by 2012 500

Estlink II linking Finland and Estonia Planned by 2013 700

Upgrade linking Norway and Denmark (Skagerrak) Planned 350NordBalt linking Sweden and Lithuania, possibly as HVDC-VSC ( ormerlySwedLit)

Planned by 2016700 to1,000

Under study - 14 o shore grids

Internal HVDC between Scotland and England Under study 1,800

Internal HVDC between Scotland and Wales Under study 1,800

Internal HVDC between Scotland and Shetland Islands Under study 600

Internal HVDC between Scotland and Isle o Lewis Under study 600

Internal HVDC in Scotland Under study 600

Nemo HVDC linking Belgium and UK Under study 1,000

Upgrade linking UK and France (EFA) Under study 2,000

Skagerrak 4 linking Norway and DenmarkUnder study by

2014600

Cobra Cable linking the Netherlands and DenmarkUnder study by

2016700

NorNed 2 linking Norway and the NetherlandsUnder study2015 - 2016

700




Name, description and timeframe (North and Baltic Seas) StatusCapacity

(MW)

(Under study with EWEA recommendation – our o shore grids)

Kriegers Flak l inking Denmark, Sweden and Germany.EWEA recommendation: The EU and countries involved should push

orward with the project or a three-legged solution as outlined by therecent TSO pre- easibility study (22)

Under study 600 each

NorGer linking Norway and Germany.EWEA recommendation: NorGer should be developed as a three-leggedHVDC-VSC line linking Norway, Germany and Denmark, as a modularconnection with a higher capacity potential. With appropriate nancialsupport rom the Commission it should be able to plug in o shore wind

arms in Norwegian EEZ waters bordering the Danish EEZ, and o shorewind arms in the northern part o the German EEZ

Under study2017 - 2018

1,400

Nord Link linking Norway and Germany.EWEA recommendation: Nord Link should be developed as a three-leggedHVDC-VSC line l inking Norway, Germany and the UK), as a modular connec-tion with a higher capacity potential. With appropriate nancial support

rom the Commission it should be able to plug in o shore wind arms inNorwegian EEZ waters bordering the Danish EEZ and o shore wind armsin the norther-western part o the German EEZ

Under study2016 - 2018

700 to1,400

(22) Energinet.dk, Svenska Kra tnät, Vatten all Europe Transmission, 2009. ‘An analysis o O shore Grid Connection at Kriegers Flak in

the Baltic Sea’.

Norway/UK linking Norway and the UK.EWEA recommendation: This line should be developed to becomea three-legged HVDC-VSC linking the UK, Norway and Germany withpossibly three nodes as a modular connection, with a higher capacitypotential and with appropriate nancial support rom the Commission.The node in the Norwegian EEZ could allow o shore wind arms to plugin, together with the Eko sk and Valhall plat orms, and could link to thenorth-western node in German EEZ

Under study2017 – 2020

(characterised by

Statnett as low+maturity)

1,000 to5,000

EWEA recommendation - eight o shore grids

Three-legged HVDC-VSC line linking Ireland, Northern Ireland and WalesEWEA

recommendation1,000

Three-legged HVDC-VSC line linking Belgium, UK and the NetherlandsEWEA

recommendation1,000

HVDC Netherlands linking to o shore nodeEWEA

recommendation2,000 to

5,000

HVDC North Norway linking to o shore nodeEWEA

recommendation2,000

Upgrade linking Denmark and Sweden (Konti-Skan II)EWEA

recommendation360

Upgrade linking Germany and Sweden EWEA

recommendation600

Upgrade linking Poland and SwedenEWEA

recommendation600

Upgrade linking Germany and DenmarkEWEA

recommendation550






investproceed

FIGURE 19: Stages in the development o a transna-tional o shore grid. The actual rate o development oo shore wind power capacity might ollow a more stepby step development

sourcE: XPW , EWEA

Onshore grid upgrade

The o shore grid cannot be isolated rom the rest o the network. The rational development o such a grid

or the purposes o promoting trade and connectingo shore renewable power has to be part o an overallplanning process or the European networks.

The consequence in the short to medium term is thatonshore rein orcements have to be implemented onspeci c transmission corridors and lines. The exactlocations o corridors and lines to be upgraded needto be identi ed by detailed studies (23) .

One o the rst studies that looked into this issue wasthe TradeWind project. On the basis o wind powerscenarios, the study identi ed upgrades that wouldsigni cantly alleviate the congestions in the European

grid or wind power scenarios up to 2030.

The operational and regulatory aspects oo shore grids

nEtWork oPErAtion: closE cooPErAtion WithinEntso

The principal operational tasks concerning theo shore grid are:

(23) Such as the German study: DENA, 2005. ‘Integration into the national grid o onshore and o shore wind energy generated in

Germany by the year 2020’. Available at: http://www.dena.de/en/topics/thema-esd/publications/publikation/grid-study.

• operating and maintaining the grid in a secure and

equitable way, whilst granting air access to theconnected parties; and

• scheduling the HVDC lines for the predictedamounts o wind power and the nominatedamounts o power or trade.

The operation o the o shore grid will, however, be anintegral part o the operation o the interconnectedEuropean grid and there ore very close coordinationis required between the various connected powersystems, which is a challenging task or the newly

ormed ENTSO-E. It is there ore vital that ENTSO-Eestablishes a structure that is suited to such coop-

eration, or example through the North Sea RegionalGroup, as well as within the System Operations andMarket Committees.

P h o

t o :

S i e m e n s





Beside these organisational developments, one o the rst tasks or the TSOs and industries involved isto set up a system o standards and grid connectionrequirements. New standardisation e orts are neededin the eld o HVDC, more speci cally to agree on acommon system o voltage levels. Furthermore, inorder to enable a smoothly and e ciently constructedgrid, it will be essential that parties agree on a systemo plug and play and standard – interchangeablebuilding blocks.

comBining trAnsmission o o shorE WindPoWEr And PoWEr trAding

The capacity o the o shore grid should be su -cient to transport the maximum expected output o the connected o shore wind arms. However, thismaximum is only produced or a certain amount o hours each year. On average (annual basis or longer),the capacity actor o the o shore wind arms, andso the capacity usage o the line by the wind arm, isapproximately 40%. The o shore wind arms shouldhave rst call on the rights to use the grid connec-tion, as:

• in a properly functioning electricity market, windpower’s very low marginal cost will ensure it isthe cheapest (and environmentally most benign)electricity at any time on the market place; or

• in the absence of a properly functioning electricitymarket (as is currently the case) priority accesswould need to be granted to wind power, as stip-ulated in the EU Renewable Energy Directive2009/28/EC.

Either way, wind arm operators would speci y theirgrid requirements to the grid operator on a day-aheadbasis, together with unctioning intra-day markets.The remaining capacity would then be available or

interconnection users at day-ahead nomination,together with unctionioning intra-day markets.

The bene ts o the operation o such a grid or themarket have been outlined by the TradeWind project.The o shore grid enables the di erent electricitymarkets to be interconnected in a much better wayand with a signi cant surplus, with markets relyingon import and at the same time providing accessto cheap balancing power to deal with the added

variability introduced by the o shore wind resource.As an example, north-west Germany is identi ed as anenergy surplus area with high internal congestions onthe mainland grid. Taking into account the act that theNetherlands and Belgium will bene t rom increasedimports, and that Norway has large amounts o control-lable and storable hydro power, an o shore grid whichlinked these countries together would bring consider-able economic, environmental and system bene ts (24) . In the Baltic Sea, linking the wind arm clusters inthe Kriegers Flak together would enable fexibility ortransporting higher amounts o o shore wind power toareas with higher electricity prices. Furthermore, such

a link would make it possible to trade power e ec-tively between Sweden, east Denmark and Germany inperiods with low wind speeds.

rEgulAtory rAmEWork EnABling imProvEdmArkEt rulEs

At present, there are signi cant barriers in the elec-tricity market in Europe, which hamper an e cientcombination o trade and o shore wind power trans-mission via a transnational o shore grid:

• the differences in regulator y regimes and marketmechanisms o the countries involved;

• a lack of proper rules with respect to priorityeed-in or wind power versus nomination o day-

ahead and intra-day trade.

These issues should be taken up in the ongoingRegional Initiative or the integration o Europeanpower markets as pursued by ERGEG. In order toensure that su cient grid capacity is built in time,a common regulatory regime should be put in placeto incentivise the organisations responsible or wind

arm connection (TSOs) and organisations responsible

or planning interconnection (TSOs, market parties) toplan and construct the most economically e cientgrid system.

It is necessary to establish a legal and regulatoryramework that enables an e cient use o the di erent

lines o the o shore grid in all its stages. In orderto ensure an e cient allocation o the interconnec-tors or cross-border trade, they should be allocateddirectly to the market via implicit auction.

(24) TradeWind, 2009. ‘Integrating Wind - Developing Europe’s power market or the large-scale integration o wind power.’

Available at: http://www.trade-wind.eu.




Further market integration and the establishment o intra-day markets or cross border trade are o keyimportance or market e ciency in Europe when inte-grating large amounts o o shore wind power. In thisway, the market will respond more adequately to thecharacteristic properties o wind energy (25) :

• its predictability, which improves with a shorterorecasting horizon and as the size o the area or

which the orecast is organised increases;• its variability, which decreases as the size of

the geographical area increases due to spatialde-correlation;

• its low marginal costs and low CO 2 emissionswhich avour the use o wind power wheneverwind is available, even at times which can be chal-lenging in situations o low load, near minimumgeneration level.

Taking these properties into account, TradeWind usedmarket models to help estimate the economic bene ts

at EU level o market mechanisms avouring windpower integration, leading to the ollowing results:

• fex b e e pa e e e e a x: accepting intraday wind power

orecasts by shortening gate-closure times wouldresult in a reduction in the total operational costsof power generation of at least €260 million peryear;

• fex b -b e ex a e(assuming su -cient transmission capacity): allowing the intraday

rescheduling o cross border exchange would leadto annual savings in system operation costs o €1-2 billion per year.

Economic value o an o shore grid

intrinsic vAluE o o shorE grid

There are several ways o evaluating the economicvalue o an o shore grid. A basic distinction can be

(25) TradeWind, 2009. ‘Integrating Wind - Developing Europe’s power market or the large-scale integration o wind power.’ Available at:

http://www.trade-wind.eu.

P h o

t o :

S i e m e n s




(26) C. Veal, C. Byrne, S. Kelly, 2007. ‘The cost-beneft o integrating o shore wind arm connections and subsea interconnectors in the

North Sea’. Proc. European O shore Wind Con erence and Exhibition, Berlin, Germany.

made between the purely market orientated approachwhich looks at economic bene ts or speci c interestedparties ( or example investors) and the ‘regulated’approach, which looks at the bene ts to society.

A preliminary assessment o the costs/bene ts o atransnational o shore grid in the regulated approachindicates that it brings high economic value to society.This can be concluded rom the TradeWind analysis,with an estimated reduction in operational cost o power generation at the European level of €326 millionper year, as brought about by a meshed o shore grid.The bene ts are to a great extent due to the addedfexibility introduced when including an HVDC network

that links many countries (Norway, Denmark, Germany,the Netherlands, Belgium and the UK in the NorthSea and Sweden, Denmark and Germany in the BalticSea). Because HVDC connections are controllable,bottlenecks in the AC grid can be avoided when trans-porting o shore wind power to consumers in areaswith an energy de cit or high local generating costs.

As demonstrated by TradeWind, a €326 mil lion reduc -tion in annual total power generating costs can beinterpreted as a very conservative estimate o thebreak-even cost or the extra investments neededto realise a meshed transnational o shore network,compared to a more nationally orientated approach.

Taking into account actors that are not covered in theTradeWind cost model, such as the start-up cost o thermal generators, internal grid constraints and thebalancing o wind power, the operational bene ts o ameshed o shore grid could very well be signi cantlyhigher than estimated by the model. It is also impor-tant to note that the o shore grid structure was by nomeans optimised in the TradeWind study.

This conclusion is in line with ndings o the study by

Veal (26) , which looked into the economics o combiningo shore connections with interconnectors or trade.The combination appears to be cost-e ective inmany scenarios, depending on the distance romthe o shore wind arm cluster to shore. Certainly ordistances o more than 90km rom shore, there isalways some economic bene t gained rom integratingthose wind arms that lie among the interconnector’sroute, or where this route can easily be diverted topass through the wind arm area.


Apart rom the economic bene ts highlighted above,the actual implementation will create high socialbene ts in terms o economic growth, industrial devel-

opment and employment.

thE vAluE o An o shorE grid in thE contEXt o A strongEr EuroPEAn trAnsmission nEtWork

On a European level, the bene ts o the transmissionnetwork upgrades – such as building subsea intercon-nectors linking o shore wind arms - are even moresigni cant. A preliminary evaluation has been madewithin the TradeWind project, which calculated the

Photo: GE




reduction in the operational costs o power generationcaused by dedicated grid upgrades.

For TradeWind’s 2020 grid and wind power scenario,the savings in operational costs amount to €1.5billion per year, allowing or an average investmentcost of €490 million for each of the 42 transmis -sion upgrade projects that were proposed, includingseveral o shore HVDC lines. Because this estimateassumed a less strong interconnection betweenthe countries around the North Sea than the oneproposed in this report, it should be considered asconservative.

Investments and fnancing invEstmEnt cost EstimAtEs

Until now, ew studies have published estimates oninvestment costs or a Europe-wide o shore grid. Tworecent reports made some preliminary calculationswhich allow ballpark gures to be estimated or thetotal investment cost o a transnational o shore grid.

• Greenpeace (27) : this study proposed a grid in theNorth Sea or 68 GW o o shore wind power, tobe in place by around 2025. The topology consid-ered or the study has a total single line length o

6,200 km. Assuming 1 GW capacity per line, theproposed grid would cost €15-20 billion;

• TradeWind (28) : the additional investment costs wereestimated or a meshed o shore grid connectingthe “ ar” o shore wind arm clusters with a totalinstalled capacity o 80 GW in the North Sea tothose in the Baltic Sea, according to the 2030 highscenario. The additional investment costs or thetopology were estimated to be around €9 billion,taking into account speci c cable lengths andtransmission capacities (not including the costso the interconnectors envisaged already now ortrading purposes);

• for comparison purposes: the UK’s East CoastTransmission study (29) looked at an o shorenetwork along the east coast o GB linking in theShetland and Orkney Islands in 2020. It estimateda total investment cost of €5.5 billion.

Taking into account the act that the o shore networkdiscussed in this chapter is more extensive than thetopologies used in the studies mentioned above, a sa ebottom line assumption or investments in o shoretransmission up to 2030 is in the range of €20-30billion. This number would include both the ‘trade’

interconnectors and the dedicated lines or wind powerconnection. For comparison, the International EnergyAgency (IEA) estimates total investments in Europeanelectricity transmission grids of €187 billion in theperiod 2007-2030 (30) . The economic projections andbudgeting should be made within the ramework o atotal upgrade o the European transmission network,which also comprises the required onshore upgrades.It is evident that a detailed assessment has to bebased on detailed network designs. Furthermore in

(27) Greenpeace, 2008. ‘A North Sea Electricity Grid [R]evolution’. Available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/belgium.(28)

TradeWind, 2009. ‘Integrating Wind - Developing Europe’s power market or the large-scale integration o wind power.’Available at: http://www.trade-wind.eu.

(29) Seanergy: East Coast Transmission (January 2008).(30) International Energy Agency, 2008. ‘World Energy Outlook’.




the assessment o the economics, the cost o elec-trical losses and operation and maintenance costsshould be taken into account.

inAncing thE EuroPEAn ElEctricity grid

The nancing o the uture pan-European o shore gridwill involve signi cant investments. There ore a goodunderstanding o the transiting electricity volumes,which will come rom the production o the o shorewind parks and the development o trading, is neces-sary to ensure a sustainable return on investment.

Investments in regulated interconnectors, per ormedand operated by TSOs should prioritise meshed grids.In this respect, the regulators should allow these


investments with higher risks and longer return rates.Up ront guarantees are needed, possibly in combina-tion with regulated returns. Such guarantees shouldbe based on the cumulative number o consumerson the interconnected markets. The nal cost or theconsumers, however, would be lowered by the ees

collected by the network operators through the useo the interconnector. There ore, as the Europeanelectricity market becomes ully operational, tradingdevelops, and the grids are used at ull capacity, thecost or the nal consumer would be minimal.

I allowed by regulators, merchant interconnectorscould represent additional pro ts or TSOs, whichwould incentivise their construction. Private compa-nies investing in these ace higher risks, in particular

P h o

t o :

V e s t a s




or the connection o large o shore wind arrays, asthe pro tability o the interconnector would thendepend on the development speed in the area. Inthese cases, the investment could be guaranteed bya speci c instrument, or example by the EuropeanInvestment Bank Risk Sharing Finance Facility(RSFF).

As described previously, the bankability o the uturepan-European electricity grid seems ensured, butinvestments should happen in a timely manner. Inorder to speed up the process, and in addition to

dedicated streamlined legislation, support shouldbe provided to the investments. In this respect, theEuropean Economic Recovery Plan is a welcome smallstep in the right direction. But existing EU instruments,such as the unds or Trans-European Networks,or the orthcoming ‘Marguerite und’, managed bythe European Investment Bank, should be directedtowards o shore wind power, key components o thevalue chain, and electricity in rastructure or o shorewind power. At regional level, structural unds shouldalso be directed towards the development o electricityin rastructures.

It is recommended that a transnational o shore gridin rastructure be built to connect the predicted 40 GWby 2020, 85 GW by 2025 and 150 GW o o shorewind power by 2030, together with the promotion o trade between electricity markets. A realistic planningschedule or the o shore grid should closely ollowexisting initiatives or o shore interconnectors, andwould conceive a grid in a modular and methodical way.The transnational o shore grid must be planned as anintegral part o the European transmission system andinvolve onshore rein orcements where necessary.

An ambitious European vision must be establishedusing EWEA’s 20 Year O shore Network DevelopmentMaster Plan; the planning and implementation processshould involve close cooperation and e cient coordi-nation between the stakeholders (European TSOs).ENTSO-E should provide the appropriate orum or coop-eration, should a su ciently ambitious vision emergein ENTSO’s 10 Year Network Development Plan.

HVDC VSC is a promising technology and R&D should

be accelerated to address the remaining technical

issues. Appropriate standardisation work should becarried out in the short term.

Preliminary topologies will be presented, includingpossible time rames (short, medium and long term).Ongoing studies like the European Commission

unded O shoreGrid project are expected to providemore detailed analyses in the short term. Theseproposals should be taken up as soon as possiblein the planning process o ENTSO.

A common regulatory regime should be put in placeto incentivise the organisations responsible or wind

arm connection (TSOs) and the organisations respon-sible or planning interconnection (TSOs, marketparties) to plan and construct the most economicallye cient grid system.

Preliminary assessments o the economic value o the o shore grid indicate that it will bring signi canteconomic bene ts to all society.

Recommendations:




Supply Chain

Chapter 4

Photo: Vestas




Building a new European o shore industry

In the last ew years, the o shore wind energy sectorhas emerged as a distinct sector o the wind industry.In terms o technology, the onshore market isapproaching maturity, with well established processesand reliable mass-produced products. Onshore, tech-nological improvements are ocused on deliveringlarge numbers o wind turbines and ensuring costcompetitiveness through the optimisation o themanu acturing process and supply chain manage-ment. Research is ocused on urther improving theproducts’ reliability and e ciency.

The o shore wind energy sector is at a much earlierstage o development. In terms o annual installa-tions, o shore wind energy is where onshore windwas in the early 1990s. With 1.5 GW installed today,the sector will shortly leave the demonstration phaseto enter a phase o strong industrial growth. In thecoming years, the main ocus will be on standardisingthe installation processes and developing dedicatedo shore turbines rom a dedicated supply chain, just

as it was or onshore wind 15 years ago.

Whereas the size o onshore wind turbines, andonshore turbine technology, seem to be reaching anoptimum, o shore wind turbine technology is stillprogressing and evolving ast, to refect the require-ments o conditions speci c to o shore, such asmarket evolution and economies o scale. In this

eld, incremental technology innovations are takingplace, but technological breakthroughs are sought in

parallel. In the development o o shore, the door isstill wide open or innovative concepts and designs.

There ore, the European o shore wind industryshould be seen as a speci c industry, distinct romonshore wind industry development. Reaching 40 GWo o shore wind energy by 2020 will mean manu ac-turing, installing and operating approximately 10,000wind turbines, which corresponds to an average o three to our o shore turbines being installed perworking day over the next 12 years. Currently, the windpower industry installs 20 onshore wind turbines inthe EU per working day. Developing a new Europeano shore industry is a challenge, but the developmento onshore technology and markets serves as a strongindicator and benchmark or what can be achieved.

This industry will also develop in partnership withrelated industries, such as the oil and gas sector, theshipbuilding industry and the steel sector, and be adriver or their uture development. O shore windenergy provides an historic opportunity to create anew heavy industry in which Europe is a technology

leader, uniting existing heavy industries in a commone ort to tackle climate change and improve the secu-rity o Europe’s energy supply, whilst reducing energyimports, creating new jobs and ensuring Europeantechnology leadership.

Cost reductions or the o shore wind energy sectorwill arise in particular rom higher market volumesand longer production series rom the industry. Theproject scale will increase, and the trend will continue




towards larger o shore wind arms in the 200-300MW range and beyond, using dedicated and standard-ised o shore turbines. This will enable streamlined,repeatable installation processes, and provide incen-tives to build the necessary installation vessels andaccess technologies. Regarding access, dedicatedharbours will be necessary to support the implementa-tion o a large number o o shore wind turbines and

oundations.

In the ollowing sections, some o the major costdrivers are addressed: turbine supply, the availablesubstructures, vessels and harbours.

Supply o turbines

Today, six turbine manu acturers are already supplyingthe o shore market: Siemens, Vestas, REpower, BARD,Multibrid and Nordex.

Most current o shore turbines are adaptations o onshore designs. The production capacity or o shorewind turbines is there ore dependent on the growth inthe onshore market. Given that the onshore marketis less risky than the o shore market or turbine

manu acturers and developers, this causes bottle-necks in periods o high onshore demand.

MAKE consulting (31) (Figure 20) indicates that there iscurrently more production capacity in Europe than isneeded to ul ll European demand. Total onshore ando shore demand is orecast to reach 10 GW in 2010,compared to a production capacity o approximately12 GW, i castings are considered as the limitingelements. That would leave room or productioncapacity to be available or o shore manu acturing.

In addition, o shore wind turbine manu acturers areincreasing their capacity. A minimum o shore turbine

capacity o 5,750 MW by 2013 (Table 3), will be su -cient to supply the increase in the o shore marketdemand rom 1.7 GW in 2011 to 6.8 GW in 2020.

2008 was characterised rst by component and thenturbine supply shortages which led to growth in windturbine prices, partly due also to an increase in theprice o raw materials. The market will now see signso relaxation, including o shore turbine availability,and increased competition, which may drive the costsdown in the medium term.

The economics o o shore wind tends to avourlarger machines. The o shore environment may allowthe relaxation o a number o constraints on turbinedesign, such as aesthetics and sound emission level.However, addressing marine conditions, corrosionand reliability issues creates new challenges in theo shore sector. In the near term this will lead to a

signi cant modi cation o onshore machines by theo shore sector, and in the medium and long term, tothe development o speci c o shore turbine designs.

This trend is refected by the new generation o o shorewind turbines which are coming on the market. Theselarger designs (in the 5 MW range) are dedicated to the

TABLE 3: Turbine supply estimates our years ahead

(31) MAKE Consulting, 2009. ‘The wind orecast, supply side’.(32)

Siemens reserved one third o its capacity or o shore wind.(33) No data available. Estimate assumes Vestas delivers as much as Siemens.(34) Based on Reuters Article Repower Plans Capacity Expansion April 2, 2008.(35) Assume 1/3 o capacity.

ManufacturerTurbine supply

2008 (MW)

Offshorecapacity

2008 (MW)

Projected production(MW) and timeline

Offshore capacity(MW)

Siemens 1,947 649 (32) 6,000 2,000

Vestas 5,581 - 10,000 by 2010 2,000 (33)

REpower 943 - 2,600 by 2010 (34) 850 (35)

BARD Engineering - - 400 by 2010 400

Multibrid 50 50 505 505

Nordex 1,075 150 4,450 by 2011 n.a.

Chapter 4 - Supply Chain

s e: Btm c , 2008. “W a e p a e 2008” e pp e apa 2008, a EWEA.




FIGURE 20: Domestic production capacity in Europecompared to demand (MW)

o shore environment, and are aimed at addressing itsmajor challenges, such as marinisation, corrosion, reli-ability and maintainability.

There is no consensus within the sector regarding theoptimal size o an o shore wind turbine as the main

ocus is reliability and cost e ciency. In this regard, aglobal approach to the value chain is needed. In thepast, upscaling was a major cost driver or the windindustry. However, while large wind turbine designs (upto 10 MW) are o ten cited, this raises the issue o theavailability o the installation vessels and cranes ableto install and operate these machines. The main driver

or o shore wind technology continues to be economice ciency, rather than generator size.

For uture applications, the key element will be tourther improve turbine reliability, as the accessibility

o o shore wind arms or repair and maintenance islower than or o shore. Two philosophies are currently

emerging in this regard:

1. improving wind turbine intelligence, imple-menting redundancy, advanced control algorithms,condition monitoring, and preventive maintenancealgorithms;2. developing simple, robust wind turbinesincluding as ew moving parts as possible to limitthe risk o ailure (two-bladed, downwind, direct-drive turbines, variable speed with new generatorconcepts).

s e: mAkE c , 2009. ‘t e w e a . s pp e.’

P h o

t o :

D o n g

E n e r g y




TABLE 4: O shore wind turbine manu acturers

Manufacturer Power output Record

Siemens 3.6 MW

Siemens Wind Power has stated that it is prepared to reserve up to one third o itsproduction capacity or o shore wind turbines. In o shore development, Siemenshas taken a lead position, with the SWT3.6 107. This position was urther strength-ened in 2008, when the company signed an agreement with Denmark’s DONGEnergy or the supply o up to 500 o shore turbines.Bonus – now Siemens Wind Power - pioneered the o shore installation o windturbines with the world’s rst o shore wind arm at Vindeby, Denmark, installed in1991. Since then, its track record includes Nysted Havmøllepark, Burbo O shoreWind Farm and Greater Gabbard. Siemens Energy will supply 175 o its SWT-3.6-107 (3.6 MW) wind turbines to the 1 GW London Array o shore wind arm owned byDONG Energy, E.ON and Masdar.Siemens is currently developing its next generation o o shore turbines, andtesting 3.6 MW direct drive concept, suitable or o shore applications, with theaim to improve reliability and reduce costs.

Vestas 3 MW

Vestas is one o the ew players that has experience in the o shore sector. Inlate 2008 the company won a large order o 300 MW or Warwick Energy’s Thanetproject in the UK. Vestas will increase its total production capacity (onshore ando shore) to 10 GW in 2010. No reservation o capacity has been announced oro shore. The o shore turbine supply will rely on the developments o the onshoremarket.

Nordex 2.5 MWThe N90 o shore is an adaptation o the onshore design. This turbine is designed

or o shore use.

REpower 5 and 6 MW

REpower manu actures some o the largest wind turbines in the world suitable oro shore use, the 5M (5 MW) and the 6M (6 MW).REPower will install six 5M in 2009 at the test project Alpha Ventus. The 5Mserial production begun in autumn 2008 in a new construction hall in Bremerhaven.In the beginning o 2009, the rst three 6M turbines were erected close to theDanish-German border, where they are to be tested or o shore operation andwhere they will be subjected to a type certi cation.REpower is participating in the “Beatrice Demonstrator Project” to test the per orm-ance o the 5 MW turbine on the open sea 25 km o the east coast o Scotlandand at a water depth o over 40m. REpower recently signed an agreement withVatten all to supply 150 MW to the Ormonde wind arm. Delivery is scheduled tostart in 2010.

BARD Engineering 5 MW

BARD has developed a speci c o shore design. Their development ocuses onthe Deutsche Bucht. In the rst phase BARD has planned three wind arms eachwith 80 turbines o 5 MW. The permit or the project “Bard O shore 1” has alreadybeen obtained.

Multibrid 5 MW

Multibrid developed a speci c o shore design based on a 5 MW permanentmagnet generator and a single stage planetary transmission, currently being testedat Alpha Ventus. Multibrid will supply 80 M5000 turbines or the o shore GlobalTech 1 wind arm (400 MW). Global Tech 1 is located 90 kilometres rom the coastin the German North Sea. Delivery is scheduled or 2011-2012.


sourcE: mAkE c , w e ab a .




In addition to the current market players, newcomersare taking an interest in the market, such as Acciona,which is participating in the UK’s Round 3 with amarinised 3 MW turbine (36) , and Gamesa, which mayproduce a 3.5 MW o shore turbine be ore 2015,depending on market dynamism. In addition, theupcoming large market volumes may also attract non-European newcomers.

The uture or wind turbine designs

In order to establish large production volumes,several pressing demands have to be met. This canbe realised through a strategy ocused on producing

continuous, incremental improvements in the currentbasic concepts o wind turbine systems. Besides thisstrategy o incremental improvement, o shore projectdesigners and operators, or instance, are requestingthe development o completely new concepts. Thissecond approach is also an opportunity to make signi -icant reductions in the cost o energy by developinginnovative concepts. These two strategies should bedeveloped in parallel.

This dual approach is illustrated Figure 21, throughthe evolution o maintenance costs as a unction o concept li etime. A typical learning process demon-strates an increase o maintenance and repair costimmediately a ter putting a new concept into operation.Through incremental technological improvements, themaintenance and repair costs decrease. For an innova-tive concept, it is likely that a new learning trajectorywith the same characteristics will be ollowed.

This dual approach applies or o shore wind energy.On the one hand, manu acturers ocus on incrementalinnovation by improving product reliability, increasingcomponent li etime and developing preventive main-tenance strategies. On the other hand, breakthroughconcepts are discussed, with the objective to makeo shore turbines as simple and robust as possible.

O shore operation and maintenance o wind turbinesis still very much in its in ancy with each projecthaving its own approach. As the amount o operational

o shore units increases, the operation and mainte-nance (O&M) unction will have to be certi ed anduni ed to create a uni ed O&M industry. Some ideasthat may be introduced into the O&M market are as

ollows:• swing off systems enabling a spare nacelle to

replace a nacelle in need o service;• preventive and automatic systems that can carry

out oil, brush and lter changes independently o human presence;

FIGURE 21: Illustration o problem-solving and inno-vation orientated research

(36) Recharge, 12 June. ‘Taking our turbines o shore will be a breeze says Acciona’.

c e : J Be e , Ecn.

P h o

t o :

D o n g

E n e r g y




• multi–coated blades keeping blade maintenance toa minimum;

• modular drive trains should be introduced makingheavy part replacement easier. Service schedulesshould be modelled on those rom the conven-tional power industry with proper li e time analysis

o the di erent components.

Improving the reliability o o shore wind turbines isparamount to the success o o shore wind energy inthe uture. The larger the machine and urther away

rom the coast, the larger the economic loss or non-operation and associated maintenance. Vintage windturbines o ten have the same gearbox or their entireworking lives. Modern wind turbines are much largerand optimised by weight and e ciency. They need a

number o major overhauls during their li etimes toensure e cient operation, as does any conventionalpower generation plant. Wind turbines are currentlydesigned in such a way that the exchange o maincomponents or sub assemblies is di cult. Moree cient and newer drive train concepts are needed

to bring turbine reliability up to the required level. Amore modular build up o drive trains with more builtin redundancy could help aster, cheaper and moree cient turbine maintenance. The need or extremelyreliable machines o shore can also be an extra driver

or the reliability o onshore machines.

Innovative concepts, such as variable speed, direct-drive o shore wind turbines are currently emerging,with the aim o limiting the number o moving parts


P h o

t o :

S t i f t u n g

O f f s h o r e

W i n d e n e r g i e




Supply o substructures

The o shore manu acturing industry was originallydeveloped by the oil and gas industry to supply a limitedquantity o bespoke structures. It established a numbero acilities around Europe to manu acture these struc-tures, and over the last 40 years it has built severalhundred o them. However, as oil and gas technology

has moved towards subsea developments, o shoremanu acturing capacity has been signi cantly reduced.

Today the main actors in the o shore wind industry arecivil marine engineering rms such as MT Højgaard,Per Aarsle , Bil nger and Berger, Hochtie , Züblin,Dredging International, Van Oord and Ballast Nedam.The same goes or the vessels used: Buzzard, JumpingJack, Vagant, Excalibur, Eide, Rambiz and Svanen aremainly used or marine works.

The o shore wind industry will need to deploy upwardso 10,000 structures by 2020. The o shore manu-

acturing industry cannot deliver this in its currentorm. The industry currently has insu cient capacity,

and the processes adapted rom oil and gas manu-acturing are not capable o delivering the volumes

required. There ore the o shore wind industry musttake urgent steps to recti y this situation. In addition,the supply o substructures should not been seen asindependent rom their transport and installation asan integrated approach is taken, taking into accountunique site conditions and the location o the wind

arm.

Substructures represent a signi cant proportion o o shore development costs. In the case describedby Papalexandrou (37) , the oundation represents 25%(5 MW turbine) to 34% (2 MW turbine) o investmentcosts in 25m water depth. Thus, novel sub-structuredesigns and/or improved manu acturing processesthat reduce costs will be critical to improving theeconomics o o shore developments.

(37) Papalexandrou, 2008. ‘Economic analysis o o shore wind arms. KTH School o Energy and Environment, in partnership with Eco ys’.

and lowering maintenance costs, as gearboxes areexpensive to replace o shore. A multi-pole gearlessmachine also operates at lower drive train speeds andthus creates less stress on components. A main chal-lenge or these concepts is to reduce the weight on topo the tower, in order to optimise the use o materialand limit the transport and installation costs. So ar,gearless machines have been heavier and more expen-sive to produce than their geared equivalent. Lightergearless technology is now being tested onshore.

Larger machines (5 to 10 MW), speci cally designedor o shore could bring bene ts in terms o econo-

mies o scale by placing ewer larger machines on

ewer oundations, or increasing the wind arm’spower output. For example, economies o scalecould also be realised by increasing the li etime to30 years, provided it does not negatively a ect thedesign.

Concepts such as two-bladed downwind turbinescould emerge in the medium term. Two-bladedmachines are louder in operation making them lessappropriate onshore, but not o shore. A two-bladedmachine would be easier to install as nacelles canbe stacked with the ull rotor mounted, whereas thesingle blade li ts o the third blade or the bunnyeared con guration are highly dependent on calmweather. No large two-bladed o shore turbine iscurrently in operation.

P h o

t o :

E l s a m




Type of substructure

Brief physical

description

Suitablewater depths

Advantages Limitations

Monopile steelOne

supportingpillar

10 – 30mEasy to manu acture, experi-

ence gained on previousprojects

Piling noise, and competitive-ness depending on seabed

conditions and turbine weight

Monopileconcrete,installed bydrilling

Onesupporting

pillar10 – 40m

Combination o provenmethods, Cost e ective,

less environmental (noise)impact. Industrialisation

possible

Heavy to transport

Gravity base

Concretestructure,used at´Thornton

bank

Up to 40mand more

No piling noise, inexpensive

Transportation can be prob-lematic or heavy turbines. Itrequires a preparation o theseabed. Need heavy equip-

ment to remove it

Suction bucket

Steelcylinder withsealed top

pressed intothe ocean

foor

n.a.No piling, relatively easy to

install, easy to removeVery sensitive to seabed

conditions

Tripod /quadropod

3/4-leggedstructure

Up to 30mand more

High strength. Adequate orheavy large-scale turbines

Complex to manu acture,heavy to transport

JacketLattice

structure> 40m

Less noise. Adequate orheavy large-scale turbines

Expensive so ar. Subjectto wave loading and atigueailure. Large o shore instal-

lation period ( rst piles, lateron placing o structure and

grouting) there or sensitive orweather impact

FloatingNot in

contact withseabed

> 50mSuitable or deep waters,allowing large energy poten-

tials to be harnessed

Weight and cost, stability, lowtrack record or o shore wind

Spar buoyh w be

e e

Floatingsteel

cylinderattached to

seabed

120 - 700m Very deep water, less steel Expensive at this stage

Semisubmersible

Floatingsteel

cylinderattached to

seabed

Blue HPrototype

being testedin 113m

Deep water, less steel Expensive at this stage

s e: ca b t , EWEA, c pa e


TABLE 5: Overview o the di erent types o substructures




FIGURE 23: Tripod oundation or the Multibridturbines at the RAVE test site

sourcE: www.a p a- e . e

Today, there is no standard o shore substructuredesign, and at depths o over 25m the oundationcosts start to increase dramatically. Most o shorestructures developed to date use 2–3 MW turbinesin water depths o up to 20m, and most o those tobe developed in the near uture will do the same.These will be largely based on monopile technologyand gravity-based structures (Figure 22). However, asturbine size increases and the industry migrates intodeeper waters, additional sub-structure designs willbe required. Di erent concepts will compete, such as

xed structures with three or our legs (tripods/quad-ropods) (Figures 22, 23 and 24), gravity structuresor jackets. Such technologies are suitable or waterdepths o up to 50-60m, depending on the projecteconomics, and site conditions and would be there orewell adapted to countries with medium depth waters.

FIGURE 22: Shallow water and medium depthoundations

sourcE: ca b t a p b e re a e 26/06/09.

In order to harness the o shore wind potential o deeper waters such as those o the Norwegian coast,

the Atlantic Ocean, or the Mediterranean Sea, foatingdesigns are required (Figure 23). Three demonstratorsare available in Europe today:

• the Hywind concept from Statoil Hydro (Figure 26),consists o a steel jacket lled with ballast. Thisfoating element extends 100 metres beneaththe sur ace and is astened to the seabed bythree anchor piles. The turbine itsel is built bySiemens. The total weight is 1,500 tonnes. The

rst prototype has been built and has been opera-tional since June 2009;

• the Blue H concept (Figure 25), recently testedin Italy, has been selected by the UK’s EnergyTechnology Institute (ETI) as one o the rstprojects to receive unds as part o i ts £1.1 billioninitiative. This UK based project aims to developan integrated solution or a 5 MW foating turbinedeployed o shore in waters between 30 and 300meters deep. In addition, Blue H was recentlyselected under the Italian ramework “Industria2015” to develop a hybrid concrete/steel 3.5 MWfoating wind turbine ideal or the deep waters o the Mediterranean Sea;

• the Sway concept is developed in partnership withStatkra t and Shell in particular. It is based on afoating elongated pole ar below the water sur ace,with ballast at the bottom part. The centre o gravitybeing ar below the centre o buoyancy, the systemremains stable. It is designed or turbines o up to5 MW and water depth rom 80 to 300m.




FIGURE 25: Blue H technology

FIGURE 26: The Hywind concept


sourcE: re a e s B e a o e s / Ja oe e .

FIGURE 24: Medium and high depth oundations

sourcE: ca b t a p b e re a e 26/06/09.

In the short term, standard, easy to manu acture sub-structure design is essential or large-scale o shorewind deployment. However, to reduce the unit cost o substructures, new and improved materials and manu-

acturing technologies are required or welding, castingand pouring concrete. These must be coupled withmore e cient manu acturing processes and proce-dures, making use o automation and robotics, orexample. Unique concrete/steel hybrids may also bedeveloped in the uture.

In the near term, the major deployment issue is thedevelopment o the production acilities and equip-ment or manu acturing the sub-structures in the

necessary quantities, on schedule and to the requiredstandards, at an acceptable price. This will requiresigni cant investment in new manu acturing yardsand in the associated supply chain. It will also meanthe deployment o new and improved manu acturingprocesses, procedures and equipment to increaseproduction e ciency and reduce costs.




Vessels - turbine installation, substructureinstallation and other vessels

The current market or o shore wind turbine installa-tion makes use o a number o di erent vessels ordi erent projects, and also draws on some vessels

rom the oil and gas sector and civil marine sector.A critical element o the o shore supply chain will bethe availability o installation vessels to acilitate theinstallation o 10,000 o shore wind turbines, togetherwith the necessary substructures and cables by 2020.

Compared to existing o shore sectors (oil and gas,marine installation), the installation processes or

the o shore wind industry are extremely demanding,due to a higher number o operation days, and repeti-tive installation processes. Many installation vesselsare not ideal or such conditions. Their equipment iso ten not up-to-date (38) as most up-to-date vessels arebooked by the oil and gas industry.

The installation o o shore wind turbines has osteredthe creation o specialised jack up vessels to ensurethe turbines can be quickly and e ciently installed.Initially the rm A2SEA converted two eeder vesselsto install the Horns Rev I wind arm, which were againused or the major repairs. The record or putting upthe tower, nacelle and blades o one turbine on HornsRev was close to eight hours. The second generationo o shore wind installation ships was pioneered bythe MPI Resolution. This vessel is also able to install

oundations and lay cables. Currently there are threeactors which are driving the current development o

Turbine Installation Vessels (TIV):• wind turbine size, as larger turbines imply larger

ships;• water depth, as the deeper the water, the more

expensive and larger a turbine installation shipneeds to be;

• distance from shore, as the further a site is fromthe supply harbour (and the larger the capacity o the turbines) the higher the transport costs to site;

• optimisation of installation in a given weatherwindow.

The current technology trend will avour large-scalevessels able to carry multiple pre-assembled windturbines. Turbine installation vessels have the advan-tage o being custom built, ast-moving, sel -propelled,

multi-turbine vessels that can ully exploit the availableweather windows. A number o ambitious plans existto build new large capacity ships. The Gaoh O shorevessel (Figure 32 on p.58) is an ideal example, as ithas a planned capacity o 18 x 3.6 MW wind turbinesincluding towers and rotors. However many o theplanned vessels lack su cient nance to build due tothe increased reluctance o banks to take risks due tothe nancial crisis and the lack o support work in theoil and gas industry.

(38) Dynamic positioning systems are o vital importance or the precise positioning o wind turbines and sa e installation o shore.(39)

http://www.bno shore.com.

New Energy Finance (Figure 27) orecasts a shortageo installation capacity a ter 2011, with an installationcapacity o 2 GW per year.

In addition to the turbine and tower installation vessels,only a ew vessels are available or heavy oundationinstallation (39) . Heavy li t vessels rom the oil and gasindustry are not suited to serial installation o oun-dations, largely because o their cost. The industrywill there ore rely on scarce equipment to achieve itsobjectives.

An additional barrier to o shore wind deploymentwill be having su cient o shore personnel trainedto operate these boats at the required securitylevel. Another actor that can complicate the use o vessels is the need to be able to operate in di erent

jurisdictions.

FIGURE 27: Project, turbine and vessel supply orecastscompared to annual government targets (MW)

n e: t b e e a e e e e pe ’ e a e a e 2011.

sourcE: new E e a e.

The type o vessel to be developed depends greatlyon the strategy to be chosen or deploying the utureparks. A key conclusion o the Beatrice project is that




mAnu ActurE And PrE-AssEmBly At hArBour

This approach entails the setting up o an assemblyoperation close to the site. A second approach isshipping the pre-assembled turbines directly rom theturbine manu acturer to the site. Suppliers based inBremerhaven, or example, are able to deliver this typeo service.

AssEmBly o shorE

Using this method, eeder vessels supply an o shore jack-up vessel to the installation site. The advantageo this method is that the installation vessel doesnot need to be used or transport. However, an extraloading operation has to be used to load the eedervessels or barges.

most o the o shore assembly should be done onland. Previous experience has led to the bunny earcon guration whereby nacelles have the hub andtwo blades mounted on shore and the third bladestacked onboard a ship or installation. However, asinstalling the third blade at sea is a sensitive and timeconsuming element o the li ting operation, a trendshould emerge towards the ‘one li t concept’ o ullyerected turbines. This means that the o shore windindustry should be located near harbours, in orderto optimise operation and lower costs (see harbourssection).

Three installation strategies are illustrated below:

PrE-AssEmBly At hArBour

Turbines, substructures and towers are shipped to asupport harbour (40) . At this support harbour nal ttingand assembly takes place. When the pre-assemblywork is nished the turbines are transported andinstalled at site by a turbine installation vessel. Thiswas the installation con guration used or Horns Rev1, or example.

(40 & 40b) BVG Associates or UK Department o Energy and Climate Change, 2009. ‘UK Ports or the O shore Wind Industry: Time to Act’.

The choice o a given installation strategy depends on

the economic balance between the number and type o ships used, the distance to the coast, and the trans-portation / operation risks involved. For instance, thethird strategy limits the transition times o the instal-lation vessel. However, it requires a second ship, andmeans the wind turbines have to be handled a secondtime rom the eeder to the installation vessel. A2SEAdemonstrated that such a strategy could be economi-cally viable compared to the rst and second options

or UK Round 3, involving longer distances to the coast.


C

MWF

1

2

FIGURE 28: Ship turbines to local construction port, jack-up vessel shuttles rom there

sourcE: Bvg A a e (40b)

FIGURE 29: High speed jack-up vessel shuttles rommanu acturing site

MWF

sourcE: Bvg A a e

FIGURE 30: Feeder barge shuttles rom manu ac-turing site to jack-up at wind arm site

MWF

sourcE: Bvg A a e




FIGURE 31: Two new access systems, WindcatWorkboat (top) and Ampelmann (below)

In addition to installation vessels, e ective accesssystems will be essential or the operation o theo shore acilities and the sa ety o personnel involvedin the installation, hook-up, commissioning and opera-tions and maintenance (O&M) o the turbines. Thesesystems must be capable o trans erring people andequipment sa ely to the turbine. They must provide asuitable means o escape and casualty rescue and berobust in northern European weather conditions.

A variety o access solutions will be needed. Thesewill range rom helicopters through to an array o di erent-sized boats and jack-ups capable o li tingthe heaviest components into and out o the nacelle.

This will require the development o specialist vesselsthat can replace and repair major equipment, such asgearboxes and blades.

Figure 31 shows two o the access systems devel-oped: the access catamaran developed by WindcatWorkboats and the Ampelmann system by TU Del t.

.

Recommendations:

The installation o 40 GW by 2020 will require dedi-cated o shore installation vessels or the o shorewind energy sector. Such vessels should be able toinstall o shore wind arms in medium water depths(30-40m and beyond), and operate in harsh condi-tions, in order to increase the number o days o operation rom an estimated 180 days a year to260-290 days. Ideally, these vessels should be ableto carry assembled subsystems, or even a set o assembled turbines in order to limit the number o operations per ormed at sea.

On the basis o a minimum capacity o 10 turbines,10 sets o blades and 10 tower sections, 12 instal-lation vessels will be required. Each vessel could

cost in the region of €200 million, with a total invest -ment of €2.4 billion. Accessing capital to build suchvessels requires strong and stable market conditionsto guarantee return on investments. To speed up theprocess and enable the timely delivery o the neces-sary number o installation vessels, speci c nancialmeasures are required. The European InvestmentBank in particular should take the necessary meas-ures to support the risk related to these signi cantinvestments. Through the European InvestmentBank, the necessary nancing instruments exist orrenewable energies. As key elements or the deploy-

ment o o shore wind power, installation vesselsshould be eligible or such instruments, expandedaccordingly.






TABLE 8: Some vessels due to enter service in the near term

TABLE 9: Vessel availability ( or European o shore wind installation) by type o application

Attribute Adventure Discover Shamal SciroccoWind

CarrierInwind Gaoh Blue Ocean

Owner MPI MPISeajacks

IntSeajacks

IntWind

carrierInwind Gaoh

Operation depth 40m 40m 40m 40m na na 40m 60m

Crane max. 1,000t 1,000t 700t 200t na na 1,600t 1,200t

Confguration

Sel propelled jack-up

crane ship


ship


ship


ship

na na


ship

Sel propelled

jack-up ship

Accommodation120 incl.

crewMax 120

60 incl.crew

52 incl.crew na na

121 incl.crew

na

In service Q1 2011 Q3 2011 na na na naAwaiting

nanceQ3 2011

Vessel type Vessel supply

Survey vessels Used to survey the sea foor in preparation or theinstallation o an o shore wind arm.Smaller survey vessels are used to per ormEnvironmental Impact Assessment studies andpost-evaluation.

Currently su cient or market.

Turbine Installation Vessels Custom built sel propelled installation vessels thatcan carry multiple turbines at a time.

Three out o our in operation, three being built, 12needed in total.Extremely di cult to nance in the current climate.

Construction support vessels Used to assist in the construction o o shore windparks. Includes motorised and non-motorised jackup barges, barges, pontoons and plat orms.

Su cient but supply dependent on demand rom oiland gas sector.

Work boatsSupport the work o other vessels by providingsupplies o tools and consumables to other boats.

Su cient vessels.

Service vesselsSu cient or scheduled maintenance work.Construction and installation vessels are o ten used ormajor service work.

Crew trans er vessels Su cient vessels and quick to build.

sourcE: w e ab a , EWEA e be ’ expe e.






activities onshore (see section on vessels). In order todo this suitable ports and harbours need to be able to

ul l the ollowing requirements (43) , including:• an area of storage of 6 to 25 ha (60,000 to

250,000m 2);•a private dedicated road between storage and quay

side;• quay length: approximately 150m to 250m;• quay bearing capacity; 3 to 6 tons/m 2;• a seabed with suf cient bearing capacity near the

pier;• draft of minimum 6m;• warehouse facilities of 1,000 to 1,500m 2;• access for smaller vessels (pontoon bridge, barge

etc);• access for heavy/oversize trucks;•potentially license/approvals for helicopter transfer;• being available for the project installation.

Concerning operation and maintenance, the speci crequirements include:

• full time access for service vessels and servicehelicopters;

• water, electricity and fuelling facilities;• safe access for technicians, and• loading/unloading facilities.

EXisting AcilitiEs

Ports able to service o shore wind power develop-ments in the North Sea are illustrated in Figure 24.A total o 27 harbours are identi ed, which could beadapted to the speci c needs o the o shore windsector. Only a ew, however, would be suitable or theinstallation o substructures.

Germany and the UK, in particular, are very active in portdevelopment, which is considered as a way to diversi yharbour activities, attract companies and create local

employment. In the case o Bremerhaven, Germany,an integrated industrial approach was implemented,leading to promising successes (see showcase onBremerhaven on p.60). Such an approach bases thedevelopments in port activities on strong local part-nerships with wind turbine manu acturers, componentsuppliers, research institutes and developers.

The same trend is emerging in the UK, where initiativesare underway to improve the “o shore readiness” o

UK ports. The UK Department o Energy and ClimateChange’s recent report (44) identi es UK harbours aspotential candidates or the large-scale deploymento o shore wind energy. This brochure also proposessupporting wind turbine manu acturers and developersthat wish to launch activities in these areas, therebypromoting an integrated industrial approach.

In Greater Yarmouth, or instance, which is one o themain UK acilities or the o shore oil and gas industry,speci c actions are being taken to adapt and extendthe harbour in rastructures and services to supporto shore wind development.

(43) UK Ports and o shore wind Siemens´Perspective, Presentation by Chris Ehlers, MBA, MD Renewables Division, Siemens plc - 30

March 2009.(44) UK Department o Energy and Climate Change. ‘UK O shore Wind Ports Prospectus’.

FIGURE 34: Identifed harbours suitable or utureo shore wind developments

1. Newhaven2. Ramsgate3. Medway (Sheemess and

Isle o Grain)

4. Great Yamouth5. Humber6. Hartlepool and Tees7. Tyneside8. Methil (Fi e Energy Park)

9. Dundee10. Montrose

11. Peterhead Bay12. Cromarty Firth (Nigg Bay

and Highland Deephaven)

13. Hunterston

14. Bel ast (Harland & Wol )15. Barrow-in-Furness16. Mostyn17. Mil ord Haven18. Swansea/Port Talbot19. Portland20. Southampton




Bremerhaven has attracted half of the €500 millioninvested in o shore wind power development along theGerman North Sea coastal region during the past years.Its economy, based on shipping, shipbuilding, and acommercial shery aced a strong economic downturnin the 1990s. In the early 2000s, the local authoritiesevaluated possible means o economic diversi cation.The historical strengths o this area included compre-hensive maritime technology know-how and a skilledwork orce specialised in shipbuilding, heavy machinerydesign and manu acture. O shore wind energy waschosen as an alternative development.

So ar, Bremerhaven has attracted (see Figure 35):• two offshore wind turbine manufacturers REpower

and Multibrid;• two onshore wind turbine manufacturers,

PowerWind and Innovative wind;• powerBlades, which is manufacturing blades up

to 61.5m long or REpower 5 and 6 MW turbines;• WeserWind Offshore Construction weorgsmarien -

hütte, specialised in the design and manu acturingo heavy steel o shore oundation structures.It has designed the tripod support structures

or Multibrid turbines, the jacket- oundations orREpower, and tripods or BARD Engineering.

Regarding the harbour’s acilities, an additionalterminal is planned or 2011. This terminal will becapable o directly handling large, heavy and bulkycomponents, and/or complete assemblies – likenacelles weighing over 250 tonnes and large rotorblades with lengths o 61.5 metres and up.

(45) Based on Renewable Energy World, 13 March 2009.(46)

The role o the RDAs and the Devolved Administrations, March 2009, DECC port seminar.(47) http://www.power-cluster.net.

FIGURE 35: Bremerhaven site description

Wind energy heavy loadterminal Luneort(decided, building in 2008)

O shore constructionCenter (Existing)

River Weser32 m Locks

Repower Systems AGproduction hall or 5M(construction started)

Railroad

Luneort: Fisherie harbour development or o shore wind- Started in 2003- Sand depositing fnished, heavy load capable- Space now completely sold/booked

Heavy load quay

Fraunho er CWMTrotor blade test

acility (2008)

Multibrid Productionhall or M5000(Existing)

Produktion acility WeserWindGmbH O shore ConstructionGeorgsmarienhuttle (option)

Tower production(reservation)

Rotor blade joint ventureRepower Systems AGAbelong & Rasmussen(Start 2008)

B71 3 kmto Motorway

The industrial development is supported by researchacilities such as Deutsche Windguard, which oper-

ates one o the largest wind tunnels in the world,with special acoustical optimisation or rotor blades.Another example is the Fraunho er Institute, whichoperates a new rotor blade test acility or blades upto 70m long. In uture this blade testing capabilitywill be expanded to include 100m long blades.

Speci c support was provided or wind turbinedemonstration, with ast and streamlined permit-ting processes (6 weeks or the Multibrid M5000

prototype). Today ve 5 MW turbines ( our MultibridM5000s and one REpower 5M) are demonstratedwithin the Bremerhaven city limits, with speci c oun-dations designed or o shore implantations.

The success o Bremerhaven is said (46) to be dueto a clear and integrated industrial strategy, publicownership o land, and signi cant clustering o compe-tencies. Bremerhaven’s companies have alreadycreated some 700 new jobs in the past three years,this is expected to rise to 1,000–1,200. In order tocontinue this growth, these established and newercompanies require new workers in both blue andwhite collar positions. Dedicated training schemeswere put in place internally in the companies them-selves, through the Fachhochschule Bremerhaven,or the co-operation between the technical universi-ties o Oldenburg, Bremen and Hannover, involved inForWind, or the Bremerhaven Economic DevelopmentCompany through the POWER Cluster project (47) .


Showcase: Bremerhaven’s success story (45)

s e: W e e e A e




hArBours o thE uturE

As discussed in this chapter, o shore manu acturingcapacities are likely to be increasingly located near theharbour acilities, in order to acilitate transport andinstallation, in particular or large machines.

New concepts are emerging or servicing the utureo shore wind arms, such as the Dutch ‘harbour at sea’concept. This concept is currently being developed toservice the uture large o shore arrays implemented

ar rom shore. Such multi-purpose plat orms couldallow sailing times to be reduced or installation andmaintenance. They could also allow host crews andtechnicians on site, spare parts storage, and provide

or o shore installation o trans ormer stations.

w e e :

• a station for transporting, assembling and main -taining o shore wind turbines;

• accommodation for personnel (hotel);

• storage of spare parts;• workplaces;• foundations for commissioning of assembled wind

turbines;• test site for new offshore wind turbines ( ve

places),• transformer station;• electrical substation for connections on land (elec -

trical hub);• heliport.

o e :

• aquaculture of raw materials for food, energy andmaterials;

• shelter in emergency situations;• recreation (yachting marina);• ‘gas-to-wire’ units;• logistics centre for the shing sector;• coastguard service;• lifeboat service;• harbour for offshore.

sourcE: We@sea

FIGURE 36: Harbour at Sea concept. Courtesy oWe@Sea

sourcE: www. a e e a pzee. .

P h o

t o :

D o n g

E n e r g y




Future trends in manu acturing or the o shorewind industry

• Production of offshore wind turbines can beexpected to remain in the established clustersin the short term as a stable and reliable supplychain is in place;

• as offshore machines increase in size, more manu -acturers will be relocated directly to or close

to harbour acilities to ease transportation o machines and delivery o components;

• as offshore foundations increase in size andcomplexity they will be built closer to o shore windsites;

• as offshore installations increase, a large numbero o shore-ready personnel will be needed or theinstallation and later or the O&M o the o shorewind arms;

• independent offshore O&M companies will emergeas soon as the market is large enough to supportthem;

• the predominant offshore market is planned forthe North and Baltic Seas in the short to mediumterms. Countries in this area can expect to reapthe bene ts o o shore wind development.

Bremerhaven has attracted a large number o o shoreplayers due to its integrated approach towardso shore wind energy (48) (see Harbour section on p.58).A similar trend may emerge in Dutch and UK ports.The current schemes will however not be su cientto supply the necessary number o workers to deliver

40 GW o shore wind by 2020, as the market alreadyaces shortages o project managers and electrical

engineers in par ticular.

In this chapter, some o the major cost drivers o o shore wind energy were addressed: turbine supply,available substructures, vessels and harbours. Costreductions or the o shore wind energy sector will bebrought about above all rom higher market volumesand a more established track record rom industry.

(48) Bremerhaven has put nine separate initiatives in place to encourage o shore wind turbine manu acturers to relocate there.

Green Jobs ippr, page 39. 2009.


P h o

t o :

E l s a m




Project scale will increase, and the trend will continuetowards larger o shore wind arms in the 200-300 MWrange and beyond, using dedicated and standardisedo shore turbines and installation processes. This willenable the industry to implement streamlined, repeat-able installation processes, and build the necessaryinstallation vessels and access technologies.




Main Challenges

Chapter 5

hoto: E.ON






YearCumulative

capacity(MW)

Annualinstallations

(MW)

Wind energyproduction

(TWh)

Windenergy'sshare of

electricitydemand(EC ref

scenario)

Windenergy'sshare of

electricitydemand (ECNew Energy

Policy)

Annualoffshore

wind powerinvestments

(€ billion)

CO 2 avoidedannually (Mt)

2000 35.35 3.8 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.007 0

2001 85.85 50.5 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.089 0

2002 255.85 170 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.306 1

2003 515.05 259.2 2 0.1% 0.1% 0.480 1

2004 604.75 89.7 2 0.1% 0.1% 0.175 2

2005 694.75 90 3 0.1% 0.1% 0.185 2

2006 895.25 200.5 3 0.1% 0.1% 0.431 2

2007 1,105.25 210 4 0.1% 0.1% 0.483 3

2008 1,471.33 366.08 5 0.2% 0.2% 0.879 4

2009 1,901 430 7 0.2% 0.2% 1.032 4

2010 3,001 1,099 11 0.3% 0.3% 2.529 7

2011 4,501 1,500 16 0.5% 0.5% 3.300 10

2012 6,459 1,958 24 0.6% 0.7% 3.916 15

2013 8,859 2,400 32 0.9% 0.9% 4.320 20

2014 11,559 2,700 42 1.1% 1.2% 4.320 26

2015 14,659 3,100 54 1.4% 1.6% 4.573 33

2016 18,259 3,605 67 1.7% 2.0% 5.047 40

2017 22,375 4,116 82 2.1% 2.4% 5.557 49

2018 27,240 4,865 101 2.5% 2.9% 6.315 59

2019 33,090 5,852 122 3.0% 3.6% 7.526 71

2020 40,000 6,915 148 3.6% 4.3% 8.810 85

2021 47,700 7,717 177 4.3% 5.2% 9.779 1002022 56,200 8,500 209 5.0% 6.1% 10.713 117

2023 65,500 9,303 244 5.8% 7.1% 11.662 135

2024 75,600 10,100 282 6.6% 8.2% 12.593 155

2025 86,500 10,904 323 7.5% 9.5% 13.521 176

2026 98,100 11,650 366 8.5% 10.8% 14.367 198

2027 110,400 12,470 413 9.5% 12.2% 15.293 221

2028 123,200 13,059 461 10.6% 13.6% 15.927 244

2029 136,400 13,290 511 11.7% 15.1% 16.118 268

2030 150,000 13,690 563 12.8% 16.7% 16.510 292

Annex: O shore Wind Energy Installations 2000-2030



Offshore Report 2009

Documents