Report Extract        WEU Offshore    Foundations Report 2013The ultimate guide to assessing market opportunities, cost-re...
Report extract       Industry Overview       The offshore wind energy industry stands at an important stage in its develop...
Report extractFeatures and benefitsn	 Market Sizing: Complete and up-to-date offshore wind energy capacity data by geograp...
Report extractContentsList of figures .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  ...
Report extract	   4.5.	 Surveying the pre-commercial landscape .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . ...
Report extractList of FiguresFigure 1: 	 Cumulative and Annual Offshore Wind Installed Capacity  .   .   .   .   .   .   ....
Report extractFigure 38: 	 Average rating for anticipated ten-year market share  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . ...
Report extractList of TablesTable 1: 	      Continental breakdown of installed capacity  .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   ....
Report extractMethodologyWind Energy Update’s Offshore Foundations Report 2013 responds to the most topical informationnee...
Report extractReport Production:Methodological Approaches                                 of up to 30m and up to 60m using...
Report extract3.Foundations market overview  Chapter summary  ■■   Today’s offshore wind industry is dominated by monopile...
Report extract   have required relatively little investment to join this             Tata Steel and TAG Energy Solutions i...
Report extractprocessor Georgsmarienhütte, is also manufacturing          Figure24: Belwind Monopilesjacket and tripod sup...
Report extractcome through as commercial solutions, or large-scale       share of such structures has however risen, and t...
Report extract         Order your report in less than 60 seconds  Just fill in this form and access the knowledge you need...
Report extractThought leadershipEnd of Warranty Wind Farm O&M Options Report 2012Improve your levelized cost of energy, in...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Wind Energy Foundations report Extract 2013

427

Published on

Cost-reduction strategies and commercial viability in the changing foundations landscape

The Offshore Foundations Report 2013 provides independent and strategic insight in to the changing global foundations landscape. To better understand the coverage of our data and depth of our analysis, please fill in the form on the right to receive your complimentary extract from the report.

This complimentary Report Extract focusses on the global foundations market overview, providing you with information on:

Comprehensive market sizing and market share of turbine foundations by foundation type (including number and MW capacity) and project status (operating, under construction and consent authorised)

Data on how the shifting depth of projects is impacting upon market share of turbine foundations

Substation and met mast foundations market sizing and market share, including key changes by project status
Reports Team
Wind Energy Update
reports@windenergyupdate.com
+44 (0)207 422 4344

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
427
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
36
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Wind Energy Foundations report Extract 2013

  1. 1. Report Extract WEU Offshore Foundations 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 n Comprehensive 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 n Techno-economic evaluation of the complete foundations portfolio including commercial deployment trajectories, vessel suitability and availability, installation logistics and supply-chain explained Foundations Scorecard n Assessing 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. 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. 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. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013 | 4
  5. 5. Report extract 4.5. Surveying the pre-commercial landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 4.5.1. Floating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 4.5.2. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 5.1.1. Monopiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 5.1.2. Gravity base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 5.1.3. Jacket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.1.4. Tripod/Tripile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.2. Pre-commercial foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 5.2.1. Floating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 5.2.2. 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 Foundation’s 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. 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 revenue from 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013 | 6
  7. 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: Ramboll’s 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 AB’s 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 Contractor’s 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 Contractors’Thialf . 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 Engineering’s twisted jacket foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Figure 74: Keystone Engineering’s Twisted Jacket Installation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013 | 7
  8. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013 | 8
  9. 9. Report extractMethodologyWind Energy Update’s 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, defining Example Information Requests focus and refining content ■■ “How will existing foundation technologies At the crux of WEU’s research process are the 25+ perform as projects move farshore, to deeper in-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 are being developed, how commercially viable are they, ■■ Key industry trends what is the cost-reduction value of each option, and ■■ Challenges and opportunities currently facing the how 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 by accordance to the key shifts in offshore farm companies to optimize success in the offshore characteristics, as new offshore markets emerge wind energy sector and new technological options come to market?” In-depth interviews broken down by company type Developer 2 Supplier 2 Cable Specialist 2 Insurance 2 Ports & Harbours 2 Utility/IPP 4 Foundation Specialist 3 Legal 2 Installation Contractor 3 Service Provider 2 OEM (Turbine) 4 Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013 | 9
  10. 10. Report extractReport Production:Methodological Approaches of up to 30m and up to 60m using the followingThe methodological approaches adopted over key 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, as well as interviews with developers to understand technology preferences, routes to uptake and associated risks.       Secondary Sources: Additional analysis includes secondary research conducted by our analysts. AWEU’s Offshore Foundations Survey (February comprehensive review of industry and academic2013): 1270 + responses from industry executives journals, conference presentations, online publica-providing unparalleled insight into the foundation tions, news articles, government policy documents,designs being backed for success in the near and company 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 five highlight points of corroboration and departure.years, and an understanding of how important Where applicable, all secondary research sources areinnovation in foundation technology is believed to appropriately 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 exceptional Expert 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 depths relevant information is published. Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013 | 10
  11. 11. Report extract3.Foundations market overview Chapter summary ■■ Today’s 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 as mere 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 three suffice, 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 which shifting 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. 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 Hütte 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 and also becoming competitive. However, standardisation there is already a reasonable degree of automation is needed for jacket sections (serial approach with cast in their manufacturing process. So far, production steel nodes instead of batch technique) and transition has largely been limited to two consortia: the joint pieces (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 Erndtebrücker jacket foundations. BiFAB has been rapidly growing Eisenwerk (EEW) (Germany) and Bladt Industries since 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 future manufacturing the six tripod structures of Alpha Ventus business. The monopiles for the Greater Gabbard wind in 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 other wind 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 Landscape 3000 2500 2000 Other 2 34 68Number of foundations Tripile 1 80 256 1500 Tripod 6 120 128 Floating 7 2 9 1000 HRPC 206 40 0 Gravity Base 291 34 69 500 Jacket 92 67 293 Monopile 1202 748 1820 0 Operating Under Consent construction authorised Source: [1] WEU, 2013 Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013 | 12
  13. 13. Report extractprocessor Georgsmarienhütte, is also manufacturing Figure24: 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 Group’s patented tripile foundation, manufacturedin series by the firm’s 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 the Source: [45], Contractor World)Baltic Sea. These are produced by large buildingand civil engineering firms and large infrastructure depths and turbine sizes for the great majority of projects,contractors, such as MT Højgaard and Aarslef (Denmark) together with the ease of financing intertwined withand Hochtief (Germany). Moreover, there are many their track record, it is not surprising that 64.3% of thesolutions offered from leading market contractors such foundations 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 waters presence of sea ice in winter), especially in the Balticand are proposed for more exposed conditions such as Sea, 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 operational turbines. 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 foundation deeper 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 volatile than 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 the such 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 to Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013 | 13
  14. 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 manner considered by some not to be truly offshore foundationthat scaling becomes cost prohibitive. At around 30 types – 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 a soils and shallow waters. This type of foundation hasstiffer jacket structure for large turbines in order to especially 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 market suitable offshore sites.Figure 25: Market Share of Operating Turbine Foundation Jacket 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 Construction Jacket 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. 15. Report extract Order your report in less than 60 seconds Just fill in this form and access the knowledge you need to develop your knowledge of Offshore Wind Foundations n Pages: 105 First name n Price: £1950 (standard price) n Price: £1320 (launch price) Last name: Launch price expires 11th March 2013 it is then $1950 Company Four ways to order: www.windenergyupdate.com/ Telephone: offshore-foundations-report Email: Scan and email this form back to: reports@windenergyupdate.com Address: Or fax: +44 (0)870 238 7255 Steve Johnson, Account Manager, +44 (0)20 7375 4334 Payment details: City Name (as it appears on card): Zip/Postcode Card Number: Report Name Type 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. We’re the worldwide leaders in O&M knowledge, connections and B2B conference delivery.Our impartial perspective allows us to comment freely and express views on what’s 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. 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 USD Wind Offshore Foundations Report 2013 | 16

×