- 1. Report ExtractWEU OffshoreFoundations Report 2013The
ultimate guide to assessing market opportunities,
cost-reductionstrategies and commercial viability in the changing
foundations landscape Report highlights include: Foundation Market
Sizing, Share and Project Pipeline nComprehensive overview of the
offshore foundations landscape size (MW) and share by turbine,
substation, HVDC converter station and met mast foundations;
geographical market; and project status; including identification
of commercial opportunities up for grabs on projects Foundation
Installation Options, Concepts and Designs nTechno-economic
evaluation of the complete foundations portfolio including
commercial deployment trajectories, vessel suitability and
availability, installation logistics and supply-chain explained
Foundations Scorecard nAssessing the technological suitability and
commercial viability of the foundations portfolio for water depths
of up to 30m and up to 60m using the 7 main weighting categories
and an additional 30 sub-categories
2. Report extract Industry Overview The offshore wind energy
industry stands at an important stage in its development. Sustained
growth demonstrated in the year-on-year additional capacity coming
on-line (the global installed capacity produced over 18 terawatt
hours of electricity in 2012 compared to approximately 12 terawatt
hours in 2011) is coupled with key changes in the offshore
landscape as new markets are set to enter the industry, projects
move to deeper waters farther offshore, and turbine unit capacities
continue to increase. Set against this backdrop is the more
enduring pursuit to secure cost reductions in offshore wind energy
and in doing so secure the long-term success and viability of the
industry. The offshore foundations landscape will not only be
shaped by these key expansions and changes but the technological
and commercial development of wind turbine foundations as well as
other substructures will play a pivotal role in reducing both CAPEX
and LCOE. Based on over 12,000 pieces of data, company case-studies
and industry interviews, 1270+ survey responses, proprietary and
secondary material, this report provides a comprehensive
techno-economic assessment of the global foundations portfolio
(pre-commercial and commercial options) and the key industry
insights, market-by-market sizing, forecasts and terrain/technology
configurations essential to constructing a business strategy best
positioned to optimize commercial opportunities in this growing but
increasingly competitive sector. Leading companies who have
contributed Universal Foundation Principle Power Keystone
Engineering Inc. Mainstream Renewable Power Technip Wind Offshore
Foundations Report 2013 | 2 3. Report extractFeatures and benefitsn
Market Sizing: Complete and up-to-date offshore wind energy
capacity data by geography (global, continental and country
breakdown) and project status (operational, under construction,
construction authorised, consent authorised, consent application
submitted, concept/early planning, and development zone), also
including share and size (MW) of dormant, failed and cancelled
projects by country market.n Market Share: Percentage of global
operational and under construction market share by offshore wind
developer, operator and owner companyn Foundation Market Sizing,
Share and Project Pipeline: Comprehensive analysis of the offshore
founda- tions landscape size (MW) and share by turbine, substation,
HVDC converter station and met mast foundations; geographical
market; and project status; including identification of commercial
opportunities where projects have yet to have decided on foundation
type.n Foundations Installation Options, Concepts and Designs:
Techno-economic evaluation of the complete foundations portfolio
(Floating, Suction Bucket, Monopiles, Gravity-Based, Jacket,
Tripod, Tripile, High-Rise Pile Cap) including commercial
deployment trajectory, vessel suitability and availability,
installation logistics and supply-chain explained.n CAPEX, OPEX,
LCOE and Balance of Plant Data: Up-to-date and complete cost data
across the lifespan of an offshore wind farm including viable
strategies for cost reductions.n Foundation Scorecards: Configuring
which foundation type is best suited for which terrain based upon
the following parameters; water depth, seabed hydrogeology,
distance to shore, serialised manufacturing, cost, logistics,
erection, O&M costs and track record.Who should buy this
report:n Foundation designers, installers and suppliersn OEMsn
Utilities/IPPsn Developersn Logistics vessels, barges and haulagen
Insurers and financiers Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013 | 3
4. Report extractContentsList of figures
.............................................................
12List of
tables.............................................................
15Abbreviations............................................................
17Definitions
..............................................................
19Executive summary
.........................................................
20Methodology............................................................
221.
Introduction.........................................................
232. Offshore wind energy market overview
........................................ 29 2.1. Installed
capacity.................................................... 31
2.2. Capacity under construction
............................................. 33 2.3. Future
projects ...................................................... 35
2.3.1. Worldwide
................................................... 36 2.3.2.
Europe..................................................... 42 2.4.
Dormant and cancelled projects
........................................... 43 2.5. Market
share....................................................... 43
2.5.1. Operating wind
farms........................................... 44 2.5.2. Wind
farms under construction ..................................... 463.
Foundations market
overview.............................................. 48 3.1.
Turbine foundations
................................................... 50 3.2.
Substation foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 3.3. HVDC
converter stations ................................................
54 3.4. Met-mast foundations
................................................. 56 3.5. Global
and regional market outlook
......................................... 57 3.6. Drivers of
change.................................................... 62
3.6.1. Offshore wind farm landscape
evolution............................... 62 3.6.2. Cost
reduction................................................ 63 3.6.3.
Supply chain ................................................. 65
3.7. Political and industrial climate for innovations
.................................. 66 3.8. Overview
.......................................................... 674.
Foundations installation options, concepts and designs
............................ 68 4.1. Technological
overview................................................ 70 4.2.
Industry
overview.................................................... 71
4.3. Oil and gas
parallel................................................... 73 4.4.
Current foundation landscape
............................................ 74 4.4.1.
Turbines.................................................... 76
4.4.2. Commercial substation foundations
.................................. 81 4.4.3. Commercial met-mast
foundations ................................... 81Wind Offshore
Foundations Report 2013| 4 5. Report extract 4.5. Surveying the
pre-commercial landscape .....................................
824.5.1.
Floating....................................................
834.5.2. Suction bucket
................................................ 84 4.6. Technical
pros and cons of foundation technologies
.............................. 855. Vessels and barges configuring
suitability and assessing availability.................... 85 5.1.
Commercial foundations
................................................ 885.1.1. Monopiles
................................................... 885.1.2.
Gravity base ..................................................
905.1.3. Jacket
...................................................... 915.1.4.
Tripod/Tripile ................................................. 91
5.2. Pre-commercial foundations
............................................. 935.2.1.
Floating....................................................
935.2.2. Suction bucket
................................................ 936. Foundation
scorecard................................................... 947.
Case studies 112 7.1. Principle Power Floating foundation
....................................... 95 7.2. Keystone
Engineering Varied foundation selection
.............................. 96 7.3. Universal Foundations
commitment to the suction bucket .......................... 978.
Industry
learning...................................................... 989.
References........................................................
99APPENDIX A Vessels in use
.................................................. 101APPENDIX B -
Vessels under construction
.......................................... 103APPENDIX C - Vessels
in planning ...............................................
104APPENDIX D Scorecard methodology
........................................... 105 Wind Offshore
Foundations Report 2013 | 5 6. Report extractList of FiguresFigure
1: Cumulative and Annual Offshore Wind Installed Capacity. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .19Figure 1: Offshore wind LCOE
breakdown.......................... 21Figure 2: Potential for cost
reduction in offshore wind all respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . .
.19Figure 3: Potential for cost reduction in offshore wind
utilities................. 20Figure 4: Potential for cost reduction
in offshore wind developers................ 20Figure 5: Potential
for cost reduction in offshore wind executives drawing most revenue
from the UK. .20Figure 6: Potential for cost reduction in offshore
wind responses from executives drawing most revenuefrom Germany . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21Figure 7: Offshore wind CAPEX breakdown. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .23Figure 8: Offshore wind project landscape.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Figure 9:
Worldwide installed capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .26Figure 10: European installed capacity by country. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Figure 11: Worldwide
capacity under construction by country.................. 28Figure
12: European capacity under construction by
country................... 28Figure 13: Continental breakdown of
new market entries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30Figure
14: Regional market outlook responses........................
31Figure 15: Market penetration within the next five years
responses from executives drawing most revenue from the UK . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Figure
16: Market penetration within the next five year responses from
executives drawing most revenue from Germany . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Figure 17: Market share
of current installed capacity by wind farm developer. . . . . . . .
. . . .38Figure 18: Market share of current installed capacity by
wind farm operator. . . . . . . . . . . . .39Figure 19: Existing
wind farm ownership by developer..................... 39Figure 20:
Wind farm capacity under construction by developer . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .40Figure 21: Wind farm capacity under construction
by owner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40Figure 22:
Comprehensive offshore wind foundation type
landscape................ 43Figure 23: Market share of operating
turbine foundation.................... 45Figure 24: Market share of
turbine foundation under construction................. 45Figure 25:
Project pipeline foundation type uncertainty.....................
45Figure 26: Foundation technology landscape of consent authorised
projects . . . . . . . . . . . .45Figure 27: Operational foundation
types by capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.46Figure 28: Operational foundation types by water depth. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46Figure 29: Offshore substation
foundation selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.47Figure 30: Known offshore substation foundation landscape. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47Figure 31: Offshore HVDC converter
station DolWin Beta Gravity Base Foundation. . . . . . . . .
.48Figure 32: Offshore HVDC converter station Borwin Beta Jacket
Foundation............ 48Figure 33: Foundation selection. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49Figure 34:
Operational foundation type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .49Figure 35: Number of met
masts.............................. 50Figure 36: Known met-mast
foundation type breakdown.................... 50Figure 37: Average
rating for anticipated five-year market share . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 52Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013 | 6 7. Report
extractFigure 38: Average rating for anticipated ten-year market
share.................. 52Figure 39: Under construction foundations
by capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55Figure 40:
Under construction foundation types by water depth. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 55Figure 41: Importance of technology as a key to
cost reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Figure 42:
Offshore wind project lifecycle.......................... 61Figure
43: Offshore wind industry ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .63Figure 44: Offshore oil and gas project
lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67Figure
45: CAPEX breakdown, balance of plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .68Figure 46: CAPEX breakdown. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68Figure 47: OPEX breakdown.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
69Figure 48: Backfilling with multi-purpose barge at Thornton Bank
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Figure 49: Scour protection
layout. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.73Figure 50: Rambolls Anholt substation in Denmark. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Figure 51: Global Tech 1
self-floating substation installed in 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .77Figure 52: Tripod structure for NAREC demonstration
platform and met mast............ 78Figure 53: E.ON and Nordic ABs
self-installing jacket basis for movable met mast..........
79Figure 54: Suction bucket................................
82Figure 55: Suction bucket depth comparisons . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .83Figure 56: Installation time
distribution of bucket at Horns Rev II................. 84Figure
57: Jack-up barge by GeoSea installing monopile foundations . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 88Figure 58: Kraken by Seajacks, designed for
the North Sea oil and gas industry and suitably equipped to support
offshore wind installation activities..................... 88Figure
59: Scaldis Salvage & Marine Contractors heavy lift vessel
Rambiz used to install jacket foundations for the Walney 1 Farm. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89Figure
60: Jacket foundations at Alpha Ventus placed on pre-installed
piles by Heerema Marine ContractorsThialf.89Figure 61: Jack-up
vessel INNOVATION at Global Tech I wind farm. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .90Figure 62: A2SEA SEA INSTALLER in Esbjerg, Denmark . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90Figure 63: Jumbo with
transition piece installation at Anholt wind Ffarm. . . . . . . . .
. . . . .91Figure 64: Sea fastening of monopiles on transport
barge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93Figure 65: Rambiz
lifting the first concrete gravity base Foundation................
95Figure 66: STRABAG carrier dedicated to complete system
transport. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96Figure 67: STRABAG
terminal for gravity base foundations.................... 96Figure
68: Jacket structure tugged to Alpha Ventus site. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .97Figure 69: Free-floating vessel by Teekay
and A2SEA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97Figure 71:
Wind Lift 1 unloading transition piece on foundation piles . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .99Figure 72: Floating turbine Wind Float 1
being towed..................... 100Figure 73: Keystone
Engineerings twisted jacket foundation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .102Figure 74: Keystone Engineerings Twisted Jacket
Installation Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Wind Offshore
Foundations Report 2013| 7 8. Report extractList of TablesTable 1:
Continental breakdown of installed capacity. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .26Table 2: Continental breakdown of capacity under
construction................. 27Table 3: Continental breakdown of
capacity with consent authorised............... 29Table 4:
Continental breakdown of capacity with consent application
submitted.......... 29Table 5: IEA Global offshore wind market
outlook...................... 30Table 6: Awarded DOE funding for
offshore wind farm development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35Table
7: Inactive offshore wind project capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .37Table 8: Offshore wind foundation technology
landscape, operating worldwide. . . . . . . . . . 53Table 9:
Offshore wind foundation technology landscape, under construction
worldwide . . . . . . . 53Table 10: Offshore wind foundation
technology landscape, consent authorised worldwide....... 54Table
11: Offshore wind foundation technology landscape, consent
application submitted worldwide.. 54Table 12: Potential cost saving
opportunity offered by foundation innovations. . . . . . . . . .
.56Table 13: Monopile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 69Table 14: Offshore wind example
projects.......................... 71Table 15: Gravity base. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Table
16: Jacket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .74Table 17: Tripod/Tripile. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75Table 18: Spar floating
foundation............................. 80Table 19:
Semi-submersible floating foundation....................... 81Table
20: Suction bucket................................ 83Table 21:
Suction bucket depth comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .83Table 22: Offshore wind turbine foundations pros and
cons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85Table 23: Vessel charter
day-rates for existing turbine and support structure installation.
. . . . . . .92Table 24: Monopile and transition piece installation
schedule using jack-up vessel. . . . . . . . . .93Table 25:
Scorecard results at 30 m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 102Table 26: Scorecard Results at 60m. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Wind Offshore
Foundations Report 2013| 8 9. Report extractMethodologyWind Energy
Updates Offshore Foundations Report 2013 responds to the most
topical informationneeds of the wind energy industry, representing
4 months of research (primary and secondary) andculminating in over
100 pages of high-quality data and analysis, 75 figures and 26
tables.Industry Research:Identifying gaps in knowledge,
definingExample Information Requestsfocus and refining content How
will existing foundation technologiesAt the crux of WEUs research
process are the 25+ perform as projects move farshore, to
deeperin-depth industry interviews conducted with a cross-waters
and adopt larger turbine MW capacities?section of offshore wind
energy executives to identify: Which pre-commercial foundation
opportunities arebeing developed, how commercially viable are they,
Key industry trendswhat is the cost-reduction value of each option,
and Challenges and opportunities currently facing thehow willing
are the utilities and developers to invest in industry such
opportunities at the commercial level? Significant information gaps
How will the foundations landscape alter in The precise data and
analysis required byaccordance to the key shifts in offshore farm
companies to optimize success in the offshorecharacteristics, as
new offshore markets emerge wind energy sector and new
technological options come to market? In-depth interviews broken
down by company typeDeveloper 2 Supplier 2 Cable Specialist
2Insurance 2 Ports & Harbours 2 Utility/IPP
4FoundationSpecialist 3Legal 2 Installation Contractor 3Service
Provider 2 OEM (Turbine) 4 Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013 |
9 10. Report extractReport Production:Methodological Approaches of
up to 30m and up to 60m using the followingThe methodological
approaches adopted overkey weighting categories and an additional
30the course of this report have been framed by the
sub-categories:pursuit to meet the information needs outlined inthe
original 25+ in-depth industry interviews. Siting Design
Fabrication InstallationQuantitative Analysis Maintenance
DecommissioningIndustry Data: Over 12,000 pieces of data have
Overallbeen collated from a combination of proprietary andpublished
sources, and verified and analysed by our Qualitative
Analysisexpert authors to provide the most comprehensive, Industry
Case Studies and Interviews:convenient and digestible facts and
figures on market Case-studies with the leading foundation
designsizing and market share by country, foundation market
companies providing unique insights includingsizing and share by
technology and project status.commercial development trajectories,
techno-economic credentials, timelines for deployment, aswell as
interviews with developers to understandtechnology preferences,
routes to uptake andassociated risks. Secondary Sources: Additional
analysis includessecondary research conducted by our analysts.
AWEUs Offshore Foundations Survey (February comprehensive review of
industry and academic2013): 1270 + responses from industry
executivesjournals, conference presentations, online
publica-providing unparalleled insight into the foundationtions,
news articles, government policy documents,designs being backed for
success in the near andcompany press releases, and proprietary
literaturelong term, the offshore markets companies are and
materials providing a strong foundation fromcurrently drawing most
revenue from and the which to contextualise the report findings
andmarkets they are looking to enter in the next fivehighlight
points of corroboration and departure.years, and an understanding
of how importantWhere applicable, all secondary research sources
areinnovation in foundation technology is believed toappropriately
cited within the report.be within the broader pursuit of reducing
the costof offshore wind energy. Information is also filteredby
location and company type adding exceptionalExpert knowledge:nuance
to the analysis. This report has been researched and written by
aFoundations Scorecard: To assess the suitability team of
highly-qualified and impartial experts andand commercial viability
of the foundation reviewed by 3 highly-regarded industry
specialiststechnologies examined over the course of the report, to
ensure that only the highest quality and mosta scorecard has been
developed for water depthsrelevant information is published.Wind
Offshore Foundations Report 2013 | 10 11. Report
extract3.Foundations market overviewChapter summary Todays offshore
wind industry is dominated by monopile foundations, constituting
66.5% of operating wind farms and 64.3% of wind farms under
construction. Jackets and gravity base types of foundations follow
with 5.0% operating, 5.7% under construction and 15.9% operating,
2.9% under construction. Tripods have a limited presence in the
operating landscape, with 0.3% of the total, but reach 10.3% in
projects under construction. Of the operating wind farms, 63% of
foundations are submerged in waters of less than 30 m, and
supporting turbines of 2 to 5 MW. The situation for offshore wind
farms under construction differs in terms of water depth, where 38%
of the projects are to be installed in waters of more than 30 m. Of
the known foundations linked to offshore wind substations, jackets
strongly dominate the market over monopiles with 51% to 30% market
shares, respectively. For substations, the situation differs with
mobile jack-ups dominating over jackets with 57% market penetration
over 29% for their counterpart. Of the known met masts used or to
be used in the offshore wind industry, 44% are erected using
monopiles. Many alternative technologies are also deployed for
demonstration purposes, due to the lower loads inherent to their
operation.Offshore foundations are not only necessary to erect In
the past, the industry perceived foundations as awind turbines, but
also for other platforms such asmere balance of plant component,
purchased off themet-masts, substations and accommodations quarters
shelf: a sound rational for locations where monopilesfor O&M
crews. Since its inception, more than threesuffice, but not anymore
in a conjuncture wheredecades ago, the industry has predominantly
relied profound examination is now required to choose fromon
monopiles for venturing offshore. Driven by the available
foundation types. As delivery schedules ofnecessity to reduce CAPEX
and LCOE, the industry has foundations become tighter and tighter,
the industry issince then explored several foundation concepts
whichshifting towards a buyers market, meaning that utilitiesare
now an integral part of the commercial landscape.and developers are
gaining leverage over OEMs.That said, with the large cost
contribution of founda- For the moment, firms producing subsea
foundationstions in offshore wind projects, it remains
quintessential for the offshore wind sector are limited in number
andto seek alternatives solutions for sustaining market the market
is dominated by large steel mills, oil and gasgrowth, farther out
at sea and in deeper waters. fabrication yards and construction
companies, which Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013 | 11 12.
Report extract have required relatively little investment to join
this Tata Steel and TAG Energy Solutions in the UK and industry.
Recent experience has demonstrated that Dillinger Htte in Germany.
irrespective of the type of foundation required, factories appear
capable of increasing production in a relatively Even though, the
current depths for offshore wind short time (one to two years), but
not without longer-farms have proven to be more cost effective for
term confidence (five to 10-year outlook) and significant monopiles
at greater water depths, for larger turbines investment. and
varying soil conditions, particularly in Germany and UK Round 3
projects, other types of foundations are The monopile is relatively
simple to manufacture andalso becoming competitive. However,
standardisation there is already a reasonable degree of
automationis needed for jacket sections (serial approach with cast
in their manufacturing process. So far, productionsteel nodes
instead of batch technique) and transition has largely been limited
to two consortia: the jointpieces (TP) to reach more cost effective
solutions. Bladt venture of Sif Group (Netherlands) and Smulders
Group Industries and BiFAB (UK) are the market leaders in the
(Belgium), and the partnership between Erndtebrckerjacket
foundations. BiFAB has been rapidly growing Eisenwerk (EEW)
(Germany) and Bladt Industriessince entering the offshore wind
market with the (Denmark). Earlier this year, Smulders faced
bankruptcy,manufacturing of jacket structures for the Beatrix wind
raising concerns in the industry. However, Smulders has farm as
well as Ormonde and Thornton Bank 2 and 3. expressed confidence in
its ability to bounce back, and Aker Solutions (Norway) entered the
wind market by has put offshore foundations at the centre of its
futuremanufacturing the six tripod structures of Alpha Ventus
business. The monopiles for the Greater Gabbard windin their Verdal
yard. Recently, the company supplied farm were produced by Chinese
manufacturer Shanghai 48 steel jackets and piles for the Nordsee
Ost offshore Zhenhua Heavy Industry (ZPMC). A number of otherwind
farm project in the North Sea. Bremerhaven- players are also
seeking to enter the market, including based WeserWind (Germany),
owned by German steel Figure 23: Comprehensive Offshore Wind
Foundation Type Landscape300025002000Other 2 3468Number of
foundationsTripile 1 80 2561500Tripod6120 128Floating7291000HRPC206
400Gravity Base291 3469 500Jacket 92 67 293Monopile 12027481820 0
OperatingUnderConsent construction authorised Source: [1] WEU, 2013
Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013 | 12 13. Report
extractprocessor Georgsmarienhtte, is also manufacturingFigure24:
Belwind Monopilesjacket and tripod supporting structures. A
consortiumof WeserWind and EEW manufactured the tripods
andassociated piles for the Global Tech 1 offshore windfarm. In
addition, other companies such as Harland &Wolff (UK), Shepherd
(UK), Offshore Group Newcastle(UK) and Heerema (Netherlands) have
announced theirinterest in this market.Bard Groups patented tripile
foundation, manufacturedin series by the firms subsidiary Cuxhaven
SteelConstruction GmbH in Cuxhaven, has only beendeployed
commercially at the Bard Offshore 1 windfarm. Moreover, Bard
recently announced that despiteits extensive efforts to attract new
investments andprojects, the Cuxhaven plant failed to secure
sufficientcontracts to sustain operation and will therefore
beshutting down at the end of April 2013.Gravity base foundations
have also been used, mostlyfor shallow water wind farms and
particularly in theSource: [45], Contractor World)Baltic Sea. These
are produced by large buildingand civil engineering firms and large
infrastructuredepths and turbine sizes for the great majority of
projects,contractors, such as MT Hjgaard and Aarslef
(Denmark)together with the ease of financing intertwined withand
Hochtief (Germany). Moreover, there are manytheir track record, it
is not surprising that 64.3% of thesolutions offered from leading
market contractors suchfoundations under construction are also
monopiles.as Strabag (Germany), GBF Consortium, COWI
andHochtief/Costain/Arup. Concrete gravity base founda-In shallow
waters and under special conditions (i.e.tions are designed for
larger turbines and deeper waterspresence of sea ice in winter),
especially in the Balticand are proposed for more exposed
conditions such asSea, concrete gravity bases have also been
usedthe North Sea, having first been deployed at Thornton
successfully given the geotechnical advantage,Bank 1 in 2009.
accounting for 16.4% of the currently operationalturbines. Even
though most of these are for shallowFor the operating, under
construction and consent water applications, the first stage of the
Thornton Bankauthorised project pipeline worldwide, a
compre-offshore wind farm used concrete gravity bases in
muchhensive breakdown of wind turbine foundationdeeper waters off
the Belgian coast, but at relativelytechnology is shown in Figure
22, demonstrating the high cost (associated with the peculiarity of
the project),dominance of monopiles and the emergence of several
using 3,000 tonnes of concrete plus substrate ballast.alternatives.
Concrete material prices are generally much less volatilethan steel
and improved designs by experienced civil3.1.Turbine foundations
engineering firms are on the way which are takingTo date, 66.5% of
operating offshore wind turbines have a more holistic approach than
before. Based onbeen erected using monopiles, either driven into
thesuch potential, the gravity base may become a verysea bed or
fitted into drilled sockets and grouted into competitive solution
in the coming years. However,place as required. Considering the
limited range of water developers are still waiting for such
improvements toWind Offshore Foundations Report 2013 | 13 14.
Report extractcome through as commercial solutions, or large-scale
share of such structures has however risen, and thedemonstration
projects to prove the technology and experience gained from 99
operational pieces will bejustify investments, and therefore, the
share of gravity further increased by 267 pieces under
construction,base structures will remain minimal in the next three
to corresponding to approximately 23% of the foundationfour
years.structures under construction.For larger turbines and in
deeper waters, the diameter High-Rise Pile Cap (HRPC) foundations
whileand thickness of monopiles increases in such a
mannerconsidered by some not to be truly offshore foundationthat
scaling becomes cost prohibitive. At around 30types do have a
relatively high share of the market, atto 35 m water depth,
alternative designs typically 11.5% of the operational projects.
HRPC is a derivativebecome competitive, including tripods and
tripiles of an onshore foundation type and is limited to softbut
especially jackets. It is much easier to design asoils and shallow
waters. This type of foundation hasstiffer jacket structure for
large turbines in order toespecially been preferred in the mud
flats of China,meet natural frequency requirements, giving such
while its future application is limited by the number ofstructures
an edge over monopiles. The still low marketsuitable offshore
sites.Figure 25: Market Share of Operating Turbine FoundationJacket
5.1% Gravity Base 16.1%HRPC 11.4%Floating 0.4%Monopile 66.5%Tripod
0.3%Tripile 0.1%Other 0.1%Source: [1] WEU, 2013Figure 26: Market
Share of Turbine Foundation Under ConstructionJacket 5.8% Gravity
Base 2.9%HRPC 3.4% Floating 0.2% Tripod 10.3%Tripile 6.9%Monopile
64.3%Other 2.9%Unknown 3.4%Source: [1] WEU, 2013 Wind Offshore
Foundations Report 2013 | 14 15. Report extract Order your report
in less than 60 secondsJust fill in this form and access the
knowledge you need to develop your knowledge of Offshore Wind
Foundationsn Pages: 105First namen Price: 1950 (standard price)n
Price: 1320 (launch price)Last name:Launch price expires 11th March
2013 it is then $1950 CompanyFour ways to order:
www.windenergyupdate.com/ Telephone: offshore-foundations-report
Email: Scan and email this form back to:
[email protected] Address: Or fax: +44 (0)870 238 7255
Steve Johnson, Account Manager, +44 (0)20 7375 4334Payment details:
CityName (as it appears on card):Zip/PostcodeCard Number: Report
NameType of card:Expiry date: Security Code: Quantity Order your
copy today at:
www.windenergyupdate.com/offshore-foundations-reportAbout Wind
Energy Update (WEU)Wind Energy Update is the reference point for
over 35,000 senior executives working in wind powergeneration. Were
the worldwide leaders in O&M knowledge, connections and B2B
conference delivery.Our impartial perspective allows us to comment
freely and express views on whats happening and why.Our
international events explore industry opportunities, challenges and
emerging best practices tailored forexecutives working in wind
energy.Wind Energy Update is part of FC Business Intelligence Ltd.
Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013 | 15 16. Report
extractThought leadershipEnd of Warranty Wind Farm O&M Options
Report 2012Improve your levelized cost of energy, increase
reliability and productivity with new retrofittingand repowering
strategies. 253 pages 49 tables 67 graphs 22 figures $2895
USDOffshore Wind Operations and Maintenance Report 2011The true
costs, downtimes and failure rates of modern and future wind farms
100 pages 66 figures 29 tables $1995 USDOffshore Wind Turbine
Supply Report 2011-2012Identify key drivers in supply chain
strategies of Wind Turbine OEMs. 100+ pages 68 figures $1695
USDOffshore Wind Installation & Construction Report 2011How to
install and construct farshore, deepwater wind farms on time and
cost efficiently. 100+ pages 4 case studies 67 figures 29 tables
$2095 USDWind Energy Operations & Maintenance Report
2011Maximize wind power production, minimize turbine downtime and
plan for cost effective on andoffshore wind O&M. 100+ pages 59
figures $2095 USDWind Offshore Foundations Report 2013 | 16