Wind Energy Foundations report Extract 2013

Report Extract
WEU Offshore
Foundations Report 2013
The ultimate guide to assessing market opportunities, cost-reduction
strategies 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

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

Report extract
Features and benefits
n 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 company

n 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 suppliers
n OEMs
n Utilities/IPPs
n Developers
n Logistics – vessels, barges and haulage
n Insurers and financiers


Report extract
Contents

List of figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
List of tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4. 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


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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6. Foundation scorecard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
7. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
8. Industry learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
APPENDIX A – Vessels in use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
APPENDIX B - Vessels under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
APPENDIX C - Vessels in planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
APPENDIX D – Scorecard methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105


Report extract
List of Figures
Figure 1: Cumulative and Annual Offshore Wind Installed Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 1: Offshore wind LCOE breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 2: Potential for cost reduction in offshore wind – all respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 3: Potential for cost reduction in offshore wind – utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 4: Potential for cost reduction in offshore wind – developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 5: Potential for cost reduction in offshore wind – executives drawing most revenue from the UK . . 20
Figure 6: Potential for cost reduction in offshore wind – responses from executives drawing most revenue
from Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 7: Offshore wind CAPEX breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 8: Offshore wind project landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 9: Worldwide installed capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 10: European installed capacity by country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 11: Worldwide capacity under construction by country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 12: European capacity under construction by country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 13: Continental breakdown of new market entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure 14: Regional market outlook responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 15: Market penetration within the next five years – responses from executives drawing most revenue
from the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 16: Market penetration within the next five year – responses from executives drawing most revenue
from Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 17: Market share of current installed capacity by wind farm developer . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Figure 18: Market share of current installed capacity by wind farm operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 19: Existing wind farm ownership by developer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 20: Wind farm capacity under construction by developer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Figure 21: Wind farm capacity under construction by owner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Figure 22: Comprehensive offshore wind foundation type landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Figure 23: Market share of operating turbine foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 24: Market share of turbine foundation under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 25: Project pipeline foundation type uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 26: Foundation technology landscape of consent authorised projects . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 27: Operational foundation types by capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 28: Operational foundation types by water depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 29: Offshore substation foundation selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Figure 30: Known offshore substation foundation landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Figure 31: Offshore HVDC converter station – DolWin Beta Gravity Base Foundation . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 32: Offshore HVDC converter station – Borwin Beta Jacket Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 33: Foundation selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 34: Operational foundation type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 35: Number of met masts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Figure 36: Known met-mast foundation type breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Figure 37: Average rating for anticipated five-year market share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52


Report extract
Figure 38: Average rating for anticipated ten-year market share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 39: Under construction foundations by capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 40: Under construction foundation types by water depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 41: Importance of technology as a key to cost reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 42: Offshore wind project lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Figure 43: Offshore wind industry ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Figure 44: Offshore oil and gas project lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Figure 45: CAPEX breakdown, balance of plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Figure 46: CAPEX breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Figure 47: OPEX breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Figure 48: Backfilling with multi-purpose barge at Thornton Bank I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Figure 49: Scour protection layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Figure 50: Ramboll’s Anholt substation in Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure 51: Global Tech 1 self-floating substation installed in 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Figure 52: Tripod structure for NAREC demonstration platform and met mast . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Figure 53: E.ON and Nordic AB’s self-installing jacket – basis for movable met mast . . . . . . . . . . 79
Figure 54: Suction bucket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Figure 55: Suction bucket depth comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Figure 56: Installation time distribution of bucket at Horns Rev II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Figure 57: Jack-up barge by GeoSea installing monopile foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Figure 58: Kraken by Seajacks, designed for the North Sea oil and gas industry and suitably equipped to
support offshore wind installation activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Figure 59: Scaldis Salvage & Marine Contractor’s heavy lift vessel Rambiz used to install jacket foundations for
the Walney 1 Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Figure 60: Jacket foundations at Alpha Ventus placed on pre-installed piles by Heerema Marine Contractors’Thialf . 89
Figure 61: Jack-up vessel INNOVATION at Global Tech I wind farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Figure 62: A2SEA SEA INSTALLER in Esbjerg, Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Figure 63: Jumbo with transition piece installation at Anholt wind Ffarm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Figure 64: Sea fastening of monopiles on transport barge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Figure 65: Rambiz lifting the first concrete gravity base Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Figure 66: STRABAG carrier dedicated to complete system transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Figure 67: STRABAG terminal for gravity base foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Figure 68: Jacket structure tugged to Alpha Ventus site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Figure 69: Free-floating vessel by Teekay and A2SEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Figure 71: Wind Lift 1 unloading transition piece on foundation piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Figure 72: Floating turbine Wind Float 1 being towed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Figure 73: Keystone Engineering’s twisted jacket foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Figure 74: Keystone Engineering’s Twisted Jacket Installation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102


Report extract
List of Tables
Table 1: Continental breakdown of installed capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 2: Continental breakdown of capacity under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 3: Continental breakdown of capacity with consent authorised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 4: Continental breakdown of capacity with consent application submitted . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 5: IEA Global offshore wind market outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 6: Awarded DOE funding for offshore wind farm development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 7: Inactive offshore wind project capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table 8: Offshore wind foundation technology landscape, operating worldwide . . . . . . . . . . 53
Table 9: Offshore wind foundation technology landscape, under construction worldwide . . . . . . . 53
Table 10: Offshore wind foundation technology landscape, consent authorised worldwide . . . . . . . 54
Table 11: Offshore wind foundation technology landscape, consent application submitted worldwide . . 54
Table 12: Potential cost saving opportunity offered by foundation innovations . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Table 13: Monopile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table 14: Offshore wind example projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Table 15: Gravity base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Table 16: Jacket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Table 17: Tripod/Tripile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Table 18: Spar floating foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Table 19: Semi-submersible floating foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Table 20: Suction bucket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Table 21: Suction bucket depth comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Table 22: Offshore wind turbine foundations pros and cons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Table 23: Vessel charter day-rates for existing turbine and support structure installation . . . . . . . . 92
Table 24: Monopile and transition piece installation schedule using jack-up vessel . . . . . . . . . . 93
Table 25: Scorecard results at 30 m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Table 26: Scorecard Results at 60m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102


Report extract
Methodology

Wind Energy Update’s Offshore Foundations Report 2013 responds to the most topical information
needs of the wind energy industry, representing 4 months of research (primary and secondary) and
culminating 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


Report extract
Report Production:
Methodological Approaches of up to 30m and up to 60m using the following
The methodological approaches adopted over key weighting categories and an additional 30
the course of this report have been framed by the sub-categories:
pursuit to meet the information needs outlined in
the original 25+ in-depth industry interviews. ■ Siting ■ Design

■ Fabrication ■ Installation

Quantitative Analysis ■ Maintenance ■ Decommissioning

Industry Data: Over 12,000 pieces of data have ■ Overall
been collated from a combination of proprietary and
published sources, and verified and analysed by our Qualitative Analysis
expert 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 design
sizing and market share by country, foundation market companies providing unique insights including
sizing 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. A
WEU’s Offshore Foundations Survey (February comprehensive review of industry and academic
2013): 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 literature
long term, the offshore markets companies are and materials providing a strong foundation from
currently drawing most revenue from and the which to contextualise the report findings and
markets 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 are
innovation in foundation technology is believed to appropriately cited within the report.
be within the broader pursuit of reducing the cost
of offshore wind energy. Information is also filtered
by location and company type adding exceptional Expert knowledge:
nuance to the analysis.
This report has been researched and written by a
Foundations Scorecard: To assess the suitability team of highly-qualified and impartial experts and
and commercial viability of the foundation reviewed by 3 highly-regarded industry specialists
technologies examined over the course of the report, to ensure that only the highest quality and most
a scorecard has been developed for water depths relevant information is published.


Report extract
3.

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 a
wind turbines, but also for other platforms such as mere balance of plant component, purchased off the
met-masts, substations and accommodations quarters shelf: a sound rational for locations where monopiles
for O&M crews. Since its inception, more than three suffice, but not anymore in a conjuncture where
decades ago, the industry has predominantly relied profound examination is now required to choose from
on monopiles for venturing offshore. Driven by the available foundation types. As delivery schedules of
necessity to reduce CAPEX and LCOE, the industry has foundations become tighter and tighter, the industry is
since then explored several foundation concepts which shifting towards a buyers’ market, meaning that utilities
are 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 foundations
tions in offshore wind projects, it remains quintessential for the offshore wind sector are limited in number and
to seek alternatives solutions for sustaining market the market is dominated by large steel mills, oil and gas
growth, farther out at sea and in deeper waters. fabrication yards and construction companies, which


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 68
Number 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


Report extract
processor Georgsmarienhütte, is also manufacturing Figure24: Belwind Monopiles
jacket and tripod supporting structures. A consortium
of WeserWind and EEW manufactured the tripods and
associated piles for the Global Tech 1 offshore wind
farm. In addition, other companies such as Harland &
Wolff (UK), Shepherd (UK), Offshore Group Newcastle
(UK) and Heerema (Netherlands) have announced their
interest in this market.

Bard Group’s patented tripile foundation, manufactured
in series by the firm’s subsidiary Cuxhaven Steel
Construction GmbH in Cuxhaven, has only been
deployed commercially at the Bard Offshore 1 wind
farm. Moreover, Bard recently announced that despite
its extensive efforts to attract new investments and
projects, the Cuxhaven plant failed to secure sufficient
contracts to sustain operation and will therefore be
shutting down at the end of April 2013.

Gravity base foundations have also been used, mostly
for shallow water wind farms and particularly in the Source: [45], Contractor World)
Baltic Sea. These are produced by large building
and 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 with
and Hochtief (Germany). Moreover, there are many their track record, it is not surprising that 64.3% of the
solutions offered from leading market contractors such foundations under construction are also monopiles.
as Strabag (Germany), GBF Consortium, COWI and
Hochtief/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 Baltic
and are proposed for more exposed conditions such as Sea, concrete gravity bases have also been used
the 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 shallow
For the operating, under construction and consent water applications, the first stage of the Thornton Bank
authorised project pipeline worldwide, a compre- offshore wind farm used concrete gravity bases in much
hensive breakdown of wind turbine foundation deeper waters off the Belgian coast, but at relatively
technology 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 civil
3.1. Turbine foundations engineering firms are on the way which are taking
To date, 66.5% of operating offshore wind turbines have a more holistic approach than before. Based on
been erected using monopiles, either driven into the such potential, the gravity base may become a very
sea 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


Report extract
come through as commercial solutions, or large-scale share of such structures has however risen, and the
demonstration projects to prove the technology and experience gained from 99 operational pieces will be
justify 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 foundation
four years. structures under construction.

For larger turbines and in deeper waters, the diameter High-Rise Pile Cap (HRPC) foundations – while
and thickness of monopiles increases in such a manner considered by some not to be truly offshore foundation
that scaling becomes cost prohibitive. At around 30 types – do have a relatively high share of the market, at
to 35 m water depth, alternative designs typically 11.5% of the operational projects. HRPC is a derivative
become competitive, including tripods and tripiles of an onshore foundation type and is limited to soft
but especially jackets. It is much easier to design a soils and shallow waters. This type of foundation has
stiffer 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 of
structures 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%


Figure 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%



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-report

About Wind Energy Update (WEU)
Wind Energy Update is the reference point for over 35,000 senior executives working in wind power
generation. 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 for
executives working in wind energy.

Wind Energy Update is part of FC Business Intelligence Ltd.


Report extract
Thought leadership

End of Warranty Wind Farm O&M Options Report 2012
Improve your levelized cost of energy, increase reliability and productivity with new retrofitting
and repowering strategies.
■■ 253 pages
■■ 49 tables
■■ 67 graphs
■■ 22 figures
■■ $2895 USD

Offshore Wind Operations and Maintenance Report 2011
The true costs, downtimes and failure rates of modern and future wind farms
■■ 100 pages
■■ 66 figures
■■ 29 tables
■■ $1995 USD

Offshore Wind Turbine Supply Report 2011-2012
Identify key drivers in supply chain strategies of Wind Turbine OEMs.
■■ 100+ pages
■■ 68 figures
■■ $1695 USD

Offshore Wind Installation & Construction Report 2011
How to install and construct farshore, deepwater wind farms on time and cost efficiently.
■■ 100+ pages
■■ 4 case studies
■■ 67 figures
■■ 29 tables
■■ $2095 USD

Wind Energy Operations & Maintenance Report 2011
Maximize wind power production, minimize turbine downtime and plan for cost effective on and
offshore wind O&M.
■■ 100+ pages
■■ 59 figures
■■ $2095 USD


Wind Energy Foundations report Extract 2013

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Featured

Featured (20)

Wind Energy Foundations report Extract 2013