Wind farm offshore projects in France, Denmark, Spain, Germany

1,720 views

Published on

Following cases in WindPro pre-feasibility study format:

1. MIDDELGRUNDEN, Denmark, 40 MW (20 x 2 MW)
2. BUTENDIEK, Germany, 240 MW (80 x 3 MW)
3. AIGUES MORTES, France 72 MW (24 x 3 MW) parallel row-layout
4. EBRO DELTA, Spain, 210 MW (60 x 3.5 MW) arc-layout
5. YORKSHIRE FORELAND, UK, 52.5 MW (15 x 3.5 MW)
6. SHANNON, Ireland, 20 MW (4 x 5 MW)

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,720
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
53
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Wind farm offshore projects in France, Denmark, Spain, Germany

  1. 1. SEAWIND – project descriptions Following cases in a pre-feasibility study format: 1. MIDDELGRUNDEN, Denmark, 40 MW (20 x 2 MW) 2. BUTENDIEK, Germany, 240 MW (80 x 3 MW) 3. AIGUES MORTES, France 72 MW (24 x 3 MW) parallel row-layout 4. EBRO DELTA, Spain, 210 MW (60 x 3.5 MW) arc-layout 5. YORKSHIRE FORELAND, UK, 52.5 MW (15 x 3.5 MW) 6. SHANNON, Ireland, 20 MW (4 x 5 MW) The methodology and presentation of this case studies is established as part of ALTENER Contract No. 4.1030/Z/01-103/2001. For further information and discussion please contact the project coordinator Green Globe Energy I/S or EMD on e-mail: hansb@post8.tele.dk or euroscan@post.tele.dk or pn@emd.dk.
  2. 2. SEAWIND – project description: MIDDELGRUNDEN, Denmark, 40 MW (20 x 2 MW) Figure 1 Photomontage from Copenhagen, 4,3 km from WTGs Project description Just 1.6 km to nearest part of the Capital of Denmark, Copenhagen, and less than 5 km from the “heart” of Copenhagen, the royal castle Amalienborg. A row (arc) of 20 x 2 MW Bonus WTGs at 64 m hub height and 76 m rotor diameter. The spacing is 175 m, which is only 2.3 RD. Grid connections from the trafo’s in each WTG (30 kV) are made with 2 parallel 30 kV lines from a collection point in the middle of the Windfarm to the power plant “Amagerværket” just at the shore. This is only 2.7 km away. The foundation type is gravity made of steel with an ice-breaking cone made of concrete. The water dept is 3-10 m. Organization and planning procedure The planning started 1998 initiated by the local environment and energy office in Copenhagen, a “grass root” organization. Together with the local utility “Copenhagen Electricity”, the development took form and with help from the Danish Energy Agency there were sponsored around 100 k€ to perform the needed investigations/planning. The project was given the final permission in 2000. This project was established in December 2000 – January 2001. 1
  3. 3. Facts on layout proposal and estimated investment costs WTG size layout specification and price Total installed power 40 MW Distanse in RD Number of rows 1 - WTGs per row )* 20 175 2.3 Number of WTGs 20 Hub height RD (m) Size of WTG 2 MW 64 76 Price information in this case are very rough estimates Price for WTGs, installed (k€) 26,840 671 €/kW Foundation, specification and cost estimate: 40 MW Type of foundation Gravity Number of foundations: 20 Water debt (m) 5 RD HH WTG-size (MW, rotor diameter, hub height) 2 76 64 Debt#1 Debt#2 Debt#3 Debt#4 Debt#5 Ice risk (yes/no) Yes 100 year max wind gust (m/s) ? 100 year max wawe height (m) ? Tidal difference (m) ? For all k€ k€ per pcs. €/kW Per foundation, debt dependend Fixed price. design cost, Fixed price, building/shipping facilities Fixed ground prepare cost Variable ground prepare cost Variable, building cost Installation cost SUM 9,920 496 248 Grid connection: Division into components partly estimated Number or Prices k€ Per unit or Off shore length (m) Voltage(kV) mm^2 Material Lines/cable For all per meter, € €/kW Sea cable, from wind farm to shore 5400 30 300 CU Cable 540 100 14 In row cables 0 30 300 CU Cable - 100 - Rows to collect point cables 3325 30 300 CU Cable 333 100 8 Cable roll out/Wash down, variable 6025 301 50 8 Cable roll out/wash down, fixed cost 500 500,000 13 Total number of WTG connectors *) 20 900 45,000 23 Off shore HV station 0 - - Connection (electrical work) Other fixed costs 1,000 1,000,000 25 Other variable costs On shore From shore to HV-grid HV station (if needed) Connection (electrical work) Compensation (reactive power) Other fixed costs 1,000 1,000,000 25 Other variable costs Total *) Incl. Transformers in WTGs !! 4,574 114 Total budget for 40 MW wind farm k€ € per kW Percent Note: There has WTGs 26,840 671 58% been added some Foundation 9,920 248 21% subsidy in the Grid connection 4,574 114 10% planning phase. Planning and permissioning 2,141 54 5% NOTE: In this Organisation, management 1,071 27 2% description, the Miscellaneous (e.g. risk) 1,606 40 3% WTG transformers TOTAL 46,152 1,154 100% are not included in WTG price, but in grid connection. 2
  4. 4. Energy production, operation cost, PPA and economic feasibility. There were established a measure mast, 50m off shore near the site and measured for around 1 year. Unfortunately, the quality of the measurements was quite low due to low availability. Off shore measurements are more critically to perform than onshore. Based on as well local measurements as general wind data for Denmark, calculated mean wind speed for the site is around 7.4 m/s, slightly higher based on local mast. But especially the array losses are calculated much different due to different wind direction distribution. Based on local measure mast: 4500 MWh/year/WTG – array loss 14% Based on general wind data for DK: 5200 MWh/year/WTG – array loss 7% Experiences so far show around 5000 MWh/year/WTG as expected long-term energy production, corrected for availability and wind index. Goodness (actual wind index and availability corrected AEP/calculated This means that AEP) for Middelgrunden base on 1 year of operation calculations based 1.20 on general 1.10 experience from on shore wind data 1.00 gives a more precise estimate for 0.90 Goodness, local off shore mast calc. this wind farm than Goodness, DK92 on shore extrapolated wind data local off shore 0.80 measurements – Avg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 but the wind farm WTG number are close to the shore, so it might not be a general conclusion that on shore extrapolations is better or good enough. Power purchase agreement Power purchace agreement øre/kWh €c/kWh For first 10 year, base price 33 fixed (until 2003) 4.44 CO2-bonus, extra all 20 years 10 fixed (politically decided) 1.35 First 12000 full load hour, extra 17 fixed (untill 2001) 2.29 Marked price after 10 year 23 Estimated 3.10 Operation costs and economic feasibility Based on onshore experience following figures have been used in the calculations: Operation cost onshore offshore estimate Insurance 5 €/kW/y 10 €/kW/y Service and maintenance 10 €/kW/y 18 €/kW/y Adm. and management 3 €/kW/y 5 €/kW/y SUM/year 18 €/kW/y 33 €/kW/y Per WTG: 1.3 €c/kWh/y Decommissioning 25 k€/WTG 0.6 €/kW/y Figure 2 Operation cost used in calculation. The resulting 1.3 €c/kWh is a little higher than expected for large-scale projects. The decommissioning costs is set very low here, while 3
  5. 5. access is very easy and there should be good reasons to believe in that instead of decommissioning, repowering would be more likely. Figure 3 With 5000 MWh/y per 2 MW WTG, 7% interest rate, tax regulations for coop owned shares, O&M cost of 1.3 €c/kWh and the PPA for DK at the time of installation, a 10.4 year pay back time is expected. Figure 4 One share is here 1000 kWh/year, an investment of 462€. Note that only 2500 kWh/kW is produced due to Copenhagen relative close in main wind direction and relative small rotor area /kW. 4
  6. 6. Environmental aspects: Figure 5 The terrain profile (water dept with factor 5 oversize) shown for a part of the Windfarm clearly showing the low water ground which keep the water dept around 4 m for most of the WTGs. The proportions of the Amager Power plant are shown for comparison (actual size might differ – no information on the height is found). Figure 6 The 5 WTGs most south - WTG no. 20 is outside the 4 m dept with around 10 m, which increase the cost. Visual impact The visual impact was considered to be the only “real” environmental problem. Therefore several photomontages were made from many different spots as a part of the approval process, see example on front page. Of other possible concerns was the sea traffic and air traffic (location only 5.3 km from the main Airport of Scandinavia, Kastrup), but all aspects were handled in a positive dialogue – light marking on top of nacelle secures visibility for the air traffic. The methodology and presentation of this case study is established as part of ALTENER Contract No. 4.1030/Z/01-103/2001. For further information and discussion please contact the project coordinator Green Globe Energy I/S or EMD on e-mail: hansb@post8.tele.dk or euroscan@post.tele.dk or pn@emd.dk. 5
  7. 7. SEAWIND – project description: Butendiek, Germany, 240 MW (80 x 3 MW) Stylistic photomontage showing the visible part of the WTGs seen from Westerland, Sylt based on standard 45 mm focal length camera. Photo point is shown on map with green lines. Due to earth rounding only the upper half of rotor will be visible, indicated by red line. Below a heavy zoom at the closest WTG show that from 1.5 m a.s.l. around 20% of the 80 m high tower will be visible. Project description The proposed project is 35 km offshore outside Sylt, an island in the North Sea NW of Germany. The project consists of a 5 rows with 6-24 WTGs in total 80 WTGs. With 3 MW WTGs (size not yet decided), 240 MW will be installed. Each WTG is here assumed with a hub height of 80 m and a rotor diameter of 90 m. Calculations show that around 905 GWh could be produced annual. The proposed layout has 966 m spacing (10.7 rotor diameters) between rows, 478 (5.3 RD in row). The foundation type is assumed to be monopile at a water dept around 20 m. 6
  8. 8. The project description and the calculations performed are of initial nature and must be further consolidated. Facts on layout proposal and estimated investment costs WTG size layout specification and price Total installed power 240 MW Distanse in RD Number of rows 5 966 10.7 WTGs per row )* 16 478 5.3 Number of WTGs 80 Hub height RD (m) Size of WTG 3 MW 80 90 Price information in this case are very rough estimates Price for WTGs, installed (k€) 220,000 917 €/kW Foundation, specification and cost estimate: 240 MW Type of foundation Monopile Number of foundations: 80 Water debt (m) 20 RD HH WTG-size (MW, rotor diameter, hub height) 3 100 95 Debt#1 Debt#2 Debt#3 Debt#4 Debt#5 Ice risk (yes/no) No 100 year max wind gust (m/s) ? 100 year max wawe height (m) ? Tidal difference (m) ? For all k€ k€ per pcs. €/kW Per foundation, debt dependend Fixed price. design cost, Fixed price, building/shipping facilities Fixed ground prepare cost Variable ground prepare cost Variable, building cost Installation cost SUM 80,000 1000.005 333.3 Figure 1 Foundation costs are based on estimates so far. Number or Prices k€ Per unit or length (m) Voltage(kV) mm^2 Material Lines/cable For all per meter, € €/kW Sea cable, from wind farm to shore 35500 150 630 CU Cable 17,750 500 74 In row cables 3864 30 300 CU Cable 386 100 2 Rows to collect point cables 7170 30 300 CU Cable 717 100 3 Cable roll out/Wash down, variable 46534 2,327 50 10 Cable roll out/wash down, fixed cost 500 500,000 2 Total number of WTG connectors 80 2,000 25,000 8 Off shore HV station 1 150/30 kV 15,000 15,000,000 63 Connection (electrical work) Other fixed costs 2,000 2,000,000 8 Other variable costs From shore to HV-grid HV station (if needed) Connection (electrical work) Compensation (reactive power) Other fixed costs 34,320 34,320,000 143 Other variable costs 75,000 313 Figure 2 The sum is based on project calculations, but division into different parts is a rough estimate. Total budget for 240 MW wind farm k€ € per kW Percent Note: Cost WTGs 220,000 917 54% estimates are Foundation 80,000 333 20% based on Grid connection 75,000 313 19% estimates Planning and permissioning 12,135 51 3% made by the Organisation, management 8,090 34 2% project Miscellaneous (e.g. risk, reserve) 9,274 39 2% initiative group TOTAL 404,500 1,685 100% 7
  9. 9. Expected energy production, and PPA The energy calculation based on wind data from Danish onshore experience. The WAsP calculation model is used from the WindPRO software tool, where the whole project is modeled. The calculation shows 905 GWh/year. From this uncertainty, grid losses and availability losses shall be withdrawn – probably around 12% at present stage, which makes almost 800 GWh/y, which is the estimate based on more detailed evaluations by Techwise. Figure 3 The energy calculation printout from WindPRO software. Knowledge from existing onshore wind farms near site combined with the Horns Rev (first large Offshore project in North Sea in DK installed end 2002) experience that now start to come, a more certain estimate can be made with relative limited effort. Installation of wind measurement mast at site would be preferable. German off shore PPA Number of months In years Price paid per kWh (start 2006) Increased subsidy 158 13.1 8.6 Decreased subsidy 5.7 Figure 4 The price paid per kWh are fixed in Germany for 20 years. For Off shore projects installed no later than 2006 outside three nautical miles outside baseline used to demarcate territorial waters, the increased price is at least 9 years (5 year on shore), 8
  10. 10. Operation costs and economic feasibility Based on onshore experience following figures have been used in the calculations: Operation cost onshore offshore estimate Insurance 5 €/kW/y 10 €/kW/y Service and maintenance 10 €/kW/y 18 €/kW/y Adm. and management 3 €/kW/y 5 €/kW/y SUM/year 18 €/kW/y 33 €/kW/y Per WTG: 1.0 €c/kWh/y Decommissioning 50 k€/WTG 0.7 €/kW/y Figure 5 Operation cost used in calculation. The resulting 1 €c/kWh match well the DK utilities expectations for the calculated DK projects. The decommissioning costs is set relative low, but there should be good reasons to believe in that instead of decommissioning, repowering would be more likely. Figure 6 With the above estimated price development a payback time of 9.7 years will be expected. Tax calculations is not included, but these will typically have a positive influence on the pay back time due to tax credits from loans. Figure 7 One share is here 1000 kWh/year, an investment of 508€. 9
  11. 11. Infrastructure, environmental aspects, time schedule etc. Figure 8 The wind farm shown on top of the map from North sea offshore show that the wind farm is within the important bird area zone, but detailed studies has confirmed that the site is accepted. Environment impact assessment Subsurface life Fish Birds Guinea pig, seal et. al. The conclusion is that none of the above topics will be disturbed in a way that rejects the project proposal. Security regarding ship collision The conclusion is that the risk is very low due to the remote location relative to main ship traffic. Visual impact Due to the long distance to nearest shore position at Sylt, the earth rounding influence, combined with prevailing weather conditions, the wind park will only be visual in very limited time and only a small part of it. Fishing Shrimp fishing will be reduced and compensation to the shrimp fishers will be negotiated. Time schedule The remaining contracts and financing including sale of the project for small investors will be done during 2003-2004. In 2003 the first part, the grid connection will start construction. In 2005 the off shore construction is planned. The methodology and presentation of this case study is established as part of ALTENER Contract No. 4.1030/Z/01-103/2001. For further information and discussion please contact the project coordinator Green Globe Energy I/S or EMD on e-mail: hansb@post8.tele.dk or euroscan@post.tele.dk or pn@emd.dk. 10
  12. 12. SEAWIND – project description: Aigues Mortes, 72 MW (24 x 3 MW) parallel row-layout Photomontage showing the WTGs seen from coastline based on standard 45 mm focal length camera. Photo point is shown on map with green lines giving the photo angle. Project description The proposed project is around 4 km offshore in the Montpellier region in southeastern France. The project consists of a matrix 8 x 3 WTGs, in total 24 WTGs. With 3 MW WTGs, 72 MW will be installed. Each WTG is here assumed with a hub height of 90 m and a rotor diameter of 98 m. Calculations show that around 268 GWh could be produced annual, but with very uncertain wind data. The proposed layout has 882 m spacing (9 rotor diameters) between rows, 686 m in row (7 RD). The foundation type is assumed to be monopile at a water dept from 10-20 m. 11
  13. 13. Facts on layout proposal and estimated investment costs WTG size layout specification and price Total installed power 72 MW Distanse in RD Number of rows 3 882 9.8 WTGs per row )* 8 686 7.6 Number of WTGs 24 Hub height RD (m) Size of WTG 3 MW 80 90 Price information in this case are very rough estimates Price for WTGs, installed (k€) 61,200 850 €/kW Foundation, specification and cost estimate: 72 MW Type of foundation Monopile Number of foundations: 24 Water debt (m) 20 RD HH WTG-size (MW, rotor diameter, hub height) 3 100 95 Debt#1 Debt#2 Debt#3 Debt#4 Debt#5 Ice risk (yes/no) No 100 year max wind gust (m/s) ? 100 year max wawe height (m) ? Tidal difference (m) ? For all k€ k€ per pcs. €/kW Per foundation, debt dependend Fixed price. design cost, Fixed price, building/shipping facilities Fixed ground prepare cost Variable ground prepare cost Variable, building cost Installation cost SUM 24,000 1000.005 333.3 Figure 1 Foundation costs are very roughly estimates while no detailed data on water, weather and sea bottom conditions are available so far. Grid connection: Number or Prices k€ Per unit or Off shore length (m) Voltage(kV) mm^2 Material Lines/cable For all per meter, € €/kW Sea cable, from wind farm to shore 8000 30 630 CU Cable 4,000 500 56 In row cables 4802 30 300 CU Cable 480 100 7 Rows to collect point cables 1764 30 300 CU Cable 176 100 2 Cable roll out/Wash down, variable 10566 528 50 7 Cable roll out/wash down, fixed cost 500 500,000 7 Total number of WTG connectors 24 600 25,000 8 Off shore HV station 0 150/30 kV - 15,000,000 - Connection (electrical work) Other fixed costs 1,000 1,000,000 14 Other variable costs On shore From shore to HV-grid HV station (if needed) Connection (electrical work) Compensation (reactive power) Other fixed costs 500 500,000 7 Other variable costs Total 7,785 108 Figure 2 No detailed specifications available, but 2 x 30 kV lines in parallel is assumed sufficient for connection for nearest 30 kV line. Total budget for 72 MW wind farm k€ € per kW Percent Note: Cost WTGs 61,200 850 61% estimates are Foundation 24,000 333 24% based on rough Grid connection 7,785 108 8% scaling of mainly Planning and permissioning 3,009 42 3% experience from Organisation, management 2,006 28 2% Danish offshore Miscellaneous (e.g. risk, reserve) 2,300 32 2% projects. TOTAL 100,300 1,393 100% 12
  14. 14. Expected energy production, and PPA The energy calculation based on wind data from EU-Windatlas data at Perpignan get a calculated mean wind speed level at 9.2 m/s in 50 m h.a.s.l. This is probably some optimistic. The WAsP calculation model is used from the WindPRO software tool, where the whole project is modeled. The onshore surface roughness has been taken into consideration in the calculation that shows 252 GWh/year. From this uncertainty, grid losses and availability losses shall be withdrawn – especially due to the lack of local wind data, 20% at present stage is withdrawn, which makes 202 GWh. Figure 3 The energy calculation printout from WindPRO software. Knowledge from existing onshore wind farms near site combined with the Horns Rev (first large Offshore project in North Sea in DK installed end 2002) experience that now start to come, a more certain estimate can be made with relative limited effort. Installation of wind measurement mast at site would be preferable. Power purchase agreement For offshore wind farms no regulations is known so far, so the estimates from Spain is used. Here analyses indicates that a level of 6.3 €c/kWh should be a realistic level. This value is used in the economic calculation with an inflation of 2% per year. But this is an uncertain factor that shall be evaluated further. 13
  15. 15. Operation costs and economic feasibility Based on onshore experience following figures have been used in the calculations: Operation cost onshore offshore estimate Insurance 5 €/kW/y 10 €/kW/y Service and maintenance 10 €/kW/y 18 €/kW/y Adm. and management 3 €/kW/y 5 €/kW/y SUM/year 18 €/kW/y 33 €/kW/y Per WTG: 1.2 €c/kWh/y Decommissioning 50 k€/WTG 0.8 €/kW/y Figure 4 Operation cost used in calculation. The resulting 1.2 €c/kWh is a little more than DK utilities expectations for the calculated DK projects. The decommissioning costs is set relative low, but there should be good reasons to believe in that instead of decommissioning, repowering would be more likely. Figure 5 With the above estimated price development a payback time of 14.1 years will be expected. Tax calculations are not included. The feasibility is not looking to promising, more investigations that indicate reduced costs, better energy production or higher PPA will be needed. Figure 6 One share is here 1000 kWh/year, an investment of 498€. 14
  16. 16. Infrastructure, environmental aspects etc. needs investigations. Figure 7 A map with different restriction zones and the proposed sites for offshore wind farms (red boxes). Due to the fast increasing water dept, probably only a few of the sites will be realistic with present technology. The red lines show 30 kV grid and green the 150 kV grid lines. Blue lines are water dept. Figure 8 The seabed profile from shore including the 3 rows of WTGs The Environmental Impact Assessment will be a major part of the needed project documentation. The methodology and presentation of this case study is established as part of ALTENER Contract No. 4.1030/Z/01-103/2001. For further information and discussion please contact the project coordinator Green Globe Energy I/S or EMD on e-mail: hansb@post8.tele.dk or euroscan@post.tele.dk or pn@emd.dk. 15
  17. 17. SEAWIND – project description: Ebro Delta, Spain, 210 MW (60 x 3.5 MW) arc-layout. Photomontage showing the WTGs seen from Ampolla based on standard 45 mm focal length camera. Photo point is shown on map with green lines giving the photo angle. Project description The proposed project is around 5 km offshore outside the Ebro Delta in northeastern Spain. The project consists of a 4 arcs with 15 WTGs in total 60 WTGs. With 3.5 MW WTGs, 210 MW will be installed. Each WTG is here assumed with a hub height of 95 m and a rotor diameter of 100 m. Calculations show that around 580 GWh could be produced annual, but with very uncertain wind data. The proposed layout has 1183 m spacing (11.8 rotor diameters) between arcs, 600 m in average (410-800) in the arcs (6 RD). The foundation type is assumed to be monopile at a water dept from 5-25 m. This layout proposal is very special and will have an “origin” from where all WTGs can be seen as parallel rows. This should for sure be the place where an “info building” should be made and this could be an attractive “tourism spot” where many would like to come and see the Windfarm. The project description and the calculations performed are of initial nature and must be further consolidated. 16
  18. 18. Facts on layout proposal and estimated investment costs WTG size layout specification and price Total installed power 210 MW Distanse in RD Number of rows 4 1183 11.8 WTGs per row )* 15 Average 600 6.0 Number of WTGs 60 Hub height RD (m) Size of WTG 3.5 MW 95 100 Price information in this case are very rough estimates Price for WTGs, installed (k€) 178,500 850 €/kW Foundation, specification and cost estimate: 210 MW Type of foundation Monopile Number of foundations: 60 Water debt (m) 20 RD HH WTG-size (MW, rotor diameter, hub height) 3.5 100 95 Debt#1 Debt#2 Debt#3 Debt#4 Debt#5 Ice risk (yes/no) No 100 year max wind gust (m/s) ? 100 year max wawe height (m) ? Tidal difference (m) ? For all k€ k€ per pcs. €/kW Per foundation, debt dependend Fixed price. design cost, Fixed price, building/shipping facilities Fixed ground prepare cost Variable ground prepare cost Variable, building cost Installation cost SUM 94,500 1575 450 Figure 1 Foundation costs are very roughly estimates while no detailed data on water, weather and sea bottom conditions are available so far. Grid connection: Number or Prices k€ Per unit or Off shore length (m) Voltage(kV) mm^2 Material Lines/cable For all per meter, € €/kW Sea cable, from wind farm to shore 18000 150 630 CU Cable 9,000 500 43 In row cables 3549 30 300 CU Cable 355 100 2 Rows to collect point cables 8400 30 300 CU Cable 840 100 4 Cable roll out/Wash down, variable 29949 1,497 50 7 Cable roll out/wash down, fixed cost 500 500,000 2 Total number of WTG connectors 60 1,500 25,000 7 Off shore HV station 1 150/30 kV 10,000 10,000,000 48 Connection (electrical work) Other fixed costs 1,000 1,000,000 5 Other variable costs On shore From shore to HV-grid HV station (if needed) Connection (electrical work) Compensation (reactive power) Other fixed costs 1,000 1,000,000 5 Other variable costs Total 25,692 122 Figure 2 No detailed specifications available. Needs detailed analyses. Total budget for 210 MW wind farm k€ € per kW Percent Note: Cost WTGs 178,500 850 50% estimates are based on rough Foundation 94,500 450 27% scaling of mainly Grid connection 25,692 122 7% experience from Planning and permissioning 28,447 135 8% Danish offshore Organisation, management 10,668 51 3% projects. Miscellaneous (e.g. risk) 17,779 85 5% TOTAL 355,586 1,693 100% 17
  19. 19. Expected energy production, and PPA The energy calculation based on wind data from EU-Windatlas data at Zaragossa mixed with some very short local measurement from Munesia. The mix is used to get a calculated mean wind speed level at 7.7 m/s in 100m h.a.s.l. which is the level indicated by a study performed based on many different sources, that indicate from 6.7 – 8.5 m/s. The WAsP calculation model is used from the WindPRO software tool, where the whole project is modeled. The onshore surface roughness has been taken into consideration in the calculation that shows 583 GWh/year. From this uncertainty, grid losses and availability losses shall be withdrawn – especially due to the lack of local wind data, 25% at present stage is withdrawn, which makes 437 GWh. But this will be too small production for feasibility. Therefore the economic calculations are based on the calculated value – so more precise wind data is a must here. Figure 3 The energy calculation printout from WindPRO software. Knowledge from existing onshore wind farms near site combined with the Horns Rev (first large Offshore project in North Sea in DK installed end 2002) experience that now start to come, a more certain estimate can be made with relative limited effort. Installation of wind measurement mast at site would be preferable. Power purchase agreement In Spain, both a fixed and a variable tariff structure are available. Analyses indicates that a level of 6.3 €c/kWh should be a realistic level. This value is used in the economic calculation with an inflation of 2% per year. But this is an uncertain factor that shall be evaluated further. 18
  20. 20. Operation costs and economic feasibility Based on onshore experience following figures have been used in the calculations: Operation cost onshore offshore estimate Insurance 5 €/kW/y 10 €/kW/y Service and maintenance 10 €/kW/y 18 €/kW/y Adm. and management 3 €/kW/y 5 €/kW/y SUM/year 18 €/kW/y 33 €/kW/y Per WTG: 1.0 €c/kWh/y Decommissioning 50 k€/WTG 0.7 €/kW/y Figure 4 Operation cost used in calculation. The resulting 1 €c/kWh match well the DK utilities expectations for the calculated DK projects. The decommissioning costs is set relative low, but there should be good reasons to believe in that instead of decommissioning, repowering would be more likely. Figure 5 With the above estimated price development a payback time of 16.5 years will be expected. Tax calculations are not included. The feasibility is not looking to promising, more investigations that indicate reduced costs or better energy production will be needed. Figure 6 One share is here 1000 kWh/year, an investment of 610€. 19
  21. 21. Infrastructure, environmental aspects etc. needs investigations. Figure 7 A photomontage of the wind farm from the top of the Water tower. The Environmental Impact Assessment will be a major part of the needed project documentation. The methodology and presentation of this case study is established as part of ALTENER Contract No. 4.1030/Z/01-103/2001. For further information and discussion please contact the project coordinator Green Globe Energy I/S or EMD on e-mail: hansb@post8.tele.dk or euroscan@post.tele.dk or pn@emd.dk. 20
  22. 22. YORKSHIRE FORELAND, UK, 52.5 MW (15 x 3.5 MW) Photomontage showing the visibility from coastline at Easington based on standard 45 mm focal length camera. Photo point is shown on map with green lines. Project description The proposed project is 4.5 km offshore outside Kilnsea, Humberside, around 18 km east of Grimsby. The project consists of a bow with 15 3,5 MW WTGs which makes 52,5 MW in all. Each WTG is assumed with a hub height of 95 m and a rotor diameter of 100 m. Some very rough preliminary calculations show that around 800 GWh could be produced annual. The proposed layout has 600 m spacing (6 rotor diameters) – the circle bow has 10 km radius. Grid connections are assumed obtained with one or more direct 30 kV lines to Grimsby. The foundation type is assumed to be monopole at a water dept less than 20 m. The project description and the calculations performed are of initial nature and must be further consolidated. 21
  23. 23. Facts on layout proposal and estimated investment costs WTG size layout specification and price Total installed power 52.5 MW Distance in RD Number of rows 1 x x WTGs per row )* 15 600 6.0 Number of WTGs 15 Hub height RD (m) Size of WTG 3.5 MW 95 100 Price information in this case are very rough estimates Price for WTGs, installed (k€) 44,625 850 €/kW Foundation, specification and cost estimate: 52.5 MW Type of foundation Monopile Number of foundations: 15 Water debt (m) 20 RD HH WTG-size (MW, rotor diameter, hub height) 3.5 100 95 Debt#1 Debt#2 Debt#3 Debt#4 Debt#5 Ice risk (yes/no) No 100 year max wind gust (m/s) ? 100 year max wawe height (m) ? Tidal difference (m) ? For all k€ k€ per pcs. €/kW Per foundation, debt dependend Fixed price. design cost, Fixed price, building/shipping facilities Fixed ground prepare cost Variable ground prepare cost Variable, building cost Installation cost SUM 23,625 1575 450 Figure 1 Foundation costs are very roughly estimates while no detailed data on water, weather and sea bottom conditions are available so far. Grid connection: Number or Prices k€ Per unit or Off shore length (m) Voltage(kV) mm^2 Material Lines/cable For all per meter, € €/kW Sea cable, from wind farm to shore 36000 30 300 CU Cable 3,600 100 69 In row cables 0 30 300 CU Cable - 100 - Rows to collect point cables 8400 30 300 CU Cable 840 100 16 Cable roll out/Wash down, variable 26400 1,320 50 25 Cable roll out/wash down, fixed cost 200 200,000 4 Total number of WTG connectors 15 375 25,000 7 Off shore HV station 0 - - Connection (electrical work) Other fixed costs 300 300,000 6 Other variable costs On shore From shore to HV-grid HV station (if needed) Connection (electrical work) Compensation (reactive power) Other fixed costs 500 500,000 10 Other variable costs Total 7,135 136 Figure 2 In this calculation 2 parallel 30 kV cables are assumed to Grimsby. Needs detailed analyses. Total budget for 52.5 MW wind farm k€ € per kW Percent Note: Cost WTGs 44,625 850 50% estimates are Foundation 23,625 450 26% based on rough Grid connection 7,135 136 8% scaling of mainly Planning and permissioning 7,180 137 8% experience from Organisation, management 2,692 51 3% Danish offshore Miscellaneous (e.g. risk) 4,487 85 5% projects. TOTAL 89,744 1,709 100% 22
  24. 24. Expected energy production, and PPA The energy calculation based on wind data from nearest EU-Windatlas data at Waddington (which might be quite uncertain) is performed. The WAsP calculation model is used from the WindPRO software tool, where the whole project is modeled. The onshore surface roughness towards west has been taken into consideration in the calculation that shows 226 GWh/year. From this uncertainty, grid losses and availability losses shall be withdrawn – probably around 20% at present stage, which makes 181 GWh. Figure 3 The energy calculation printout from WindPRO software. Knowledge from existing onshore wind farms near site combined with the Horns Rev (first large Offshore project in North Sea in DK installed end 2002) experience that now start to come, a more certain estimate can be made with relative limited effort. Installation of wind measurement mast at site would be preferable. UK-WTG electricity price £/MWh €/kWh min max min max Average Comment Brown electricity price 12 18 0.019 0.029 0.024 Inflated Climatee Change Levy 4.3 0.000 0.007 0.003 limited to 12000 full load hour Ren. Obl. Cert. (ROC) 30 50 0.048 0.081 0.065 non inflated, very uncertain Local prod. benefit 1.5 0.000 0.002 0.001 Inflated Total 42 73.8 0.068 0.119 0.094 Figure 4 The price paid per kWh and especially the development is uncertain. To minimize the risk, it could be an option to make long-term contracts, especially for the ROC's. The CCL is only included the first 12000 full load hours, simply due to lack of knowledge of future expectations. 23
  25. 25. Operation costs and economic feasibility Based on onshore experience following figures have been used in the calculations: Operation cost onshore offshore estimate Insurance 5 €/kW/y 10 €/kW/y Service and maintenance 10 €/kW/y 18 €/kW/y Adm. and management 3 €/kW/y 5 €/kW/y SUM/year 18 €/kW/y 33 €/kW/y Per WTG: 1.0 €c/kWh/y Decommissioning 50 k€/WTG 0.7 €/kW/y Figure 5 Operation cost used in calculation. The resulting 1 €c/kWh match well the DK utilities expectations for the calculated DK projects. The decommissioning costs is set relative low, but there should be good reasons to believe in that instead of decommissioning, repowering would be more likely. Additionally 2% of total income is added for rent to Crown Estate. Figure 6 With the above estimated price development a payback time of 9.6 years will be expected. Tax calculations is not included, but these will typically have a positive influence on the pay back time due to tax credits from loans. Figure 7 One share is here 1000 kWh/year, an investment of 496€. 24
  26. 26. Infrastructure, environmental aspects etc. needs investigations. Figure 8 The wind farm shown on top of the map from dti’s WindBase. This show that the site is within the 5-20 m water dept and that it does not conflict with major traffic routes. The Ramsars and Natural nature reserves indicate no problems for this specific site. There will be a 30- month investigation and documentation phase in order to achieve a building permission, where the Environmental Impact Assessment will be a major part. 25
  27. 27. SHANNON, EI, 20 MW (4 x 5 MW) Photomontage showing the visibility from coastline at shore grid connection point based on standard 45 mm focal length camera. Project description The proposed project is 1.5 km offshore in the “Mouth of Shannon”. The proposed project consists of 4x 5 MW WTGs, which makes 20 MW in all. Each WTG is assumed with a hub height of 110 m and a rotor diameter of 115 m. Some very rough preliminary calculations show that around 75 GWh could be produced annual. The proposed layout has 1000 m spacing (8.7 rotor diameters). Grid connections are assumed obtained with an offshore 1.5 km 38 kV sea cable + a 11.5 km direct 38 kV lines on shore to a 110 kV station, which should be capable to take 25 MW. The foundation type is assumed to be monopole at a water dept less than 20 m. The project description and the calculations performed are of initial nature and must be further consolidated. 26
  28. 28. Facts on layout proposal and estimated investment costs WTG size layout specification and price Total installed power 20 MW Distanse in RD Number of rows 1 0 - WTGs per row )* 4 1000 8.7 Number of WTGs 4 Hub height RD (m) Size of WTG 5 MW 110 115 Price information in this case are very rough estimates Price for WTGs, installed (k€) 17,000 850 €/kW Figure 1 No experience with 5 MW WTGs so far, so the 2-3 MW experience is just up scaled. Foundation, specification and cost estimate: 20 MW Type of foundation Monopile Number of foundations: 4 Water debt (m) 20 RD HH WTG-size (MW, rotor diameter, hub height) 5 115 110 Debt#1 Debt#2 Debt#3 Debt#4 Ice risk (yes/no) No 100 year max wind gust (m/s) ? 100 year max wawe height (m) ? Tidal difference (m) ? For all k€ k€ per pcs. €/kW Per foundation, debt dependend Fixed price. design cost, Fixed price, building/shipping facilities Fixed ground prepare cost Variable ground prepare cost Variable, building cost Installation cost SUM 10,000 2500 500 Figure 2 Foundation costs are very roughly estimates while no detailed data on water, weather and sea bottom conditions are available so far. Due to the low number of WTGs rater high p.u. price is assumed. Grid connection: Number or Prices k€ Per unit or Off shore length (m) Voltage(kV) mm^2 Material Lines/cable For all per meter, € €/kW Sea cable, from wind farm to shore 1500 38 300 CU Cable 150 100 8 In row cables 0 38 300 CU Cable - 100 - Rows to collect point cables 3000 38 300 CU Cable 300 100 15 Cable roll out/Wash down, variable 4500 225 50 11 Cable roll out/wash down, fixed cost 200 200,000 10 Total number of WTG connectors 4 100 25,000 5 Off shore HV station 0 - - Connection (electrical work) Other fixed costs 300 300,000 15 Other variable costs On shore From shore to HV-grid 11500 38 1,035 90 52 HV station (if needed) Connection (electrical work) Compensation (reactive power) Other fixed costs 250 250,000 13 Other variable costs Total 2,560 128 Figure 3 In this calculation a 38 kV cable to nearest assumed 150 kV grid is included. Needs detailed analyses. Total budget for 20 MW wind farm k€ € per kW Percent Note: Cost estimates WTGs 17,000 850 48% are based on rough Foundation 10,000 500 28% scaling of mainly Grid connection 2,560 128 7% experience from Danish Planning and permissioning 1,056 53 3% offshore projects. The Organisation, management 1,056 53 3% risk is estimated higher Miscellaneous (e.g. risk) 3,519 176 10% due to the non- TOTAL 35,190 1,760 100% approved WTG size. 27
  29. 29. Expected energy production, and PPA The energy calculation based on wind data from nearest EU-Windatlas data at Shannon – this should be a quite safe estimate while the Shannon data is measured around 60 km more towards east and the wind climate has shown to increase towards west. There are WTGs at Beal Hill close to the site – these could give very precise indications on the local energy level. The WAsP calculation model is used from the WindPRO software tool, where the whole project is modeled. The onshore surface roughness towards east has been taken into consideration in the calculation that shows 75 GWh/year. From this uncertainty, grid losses and availability losses shall be withdrawn – but this is probably fully included in the conservative wind data. Figure 4 The energy calculation printout from WindPRO software. PPA: 8.4 €c/kWh first 15 years reserved for 50 MW offshore in AER VI – this is inflated with consumer price index. Bid with lowest price will get accept first. 28
  30. 30. Operation costs and economic feasibility Based on onshore experience following figures have been used in the calculations: Operation cost onshore offshore estimate Insurance 5 €/kW/y 10 €/kW/y Service and maintenance 10 €/kW/y 35 €/kW/y Adm. and management 3 €/kW/y 5 €/kW/y SUM/year 18 €/kW/y 50 €/kW/y Per WTG: 1.3 €c/kWh/y Decommissioning 50 k€/WTG 0.5 €/kW/y Figure 5 Operation cost used in calculation. The resulting 1.3 €c/kWh is around 30% higher than utilities expectations for the calculated DK projects. The reason is the small number of WTGs and the unproven WTG type. The decommissioning costs is set relative low, but there should be good reasons to believe in that instead of decommissioning, repowering would be more likely. Figure 6 With the above estimated price development a payback time of 9.1 years will be expected. Tax calculations is not included, but these will typically have a positive influence on the pay back time due to tax credits from loans. Note only a part of the subsidy price is inflated with 2% inflation (safe price dev.) Figure 7 One share is here 1000 kWh/year, an investment of 470€. 29

×