Quick and Dirty?

Infrastructure investment in renewable energy

          The case of performance of offshore wind farms




Christian Koch
Aarhus University

Nordisk Forum 2011
Presentation CK


Mc. Engineering
Ph.D. Social Science
Professor (WSA) Technology based Business Development

1985-1990       Technological Institute

1994-1999       Research Centres (Management of Technology)
                Technical University of Denmark (TUD)

1999-2007       Building Processes and Management, (TUD)

2007-           Center for Innovation and Business Development,
                Aarhus University (cleantech business development)
Challenges of Renewables


Ambitious Government plans – on the move

EU budget 2014-2020 announces a 20% focus on sustainability
renewable energy

EU 2020-20-20 (2009)

Denmark
Norway
Sweden
United Kingdom
Quick delivery needed


But at any cost?

Initiating question:

Do renewable power plant projects suffer from
the same mechanisms as other megaprojects
(re. Flyvbjerg) ?
Mega projects (Flyvbjerg)


Flyvbjerg et al (2003:16) notes that cost and time
underestimation is a global and longterm phenomena
and it is not deteriorating over time.

Cost and time underestimation cannot be explained by
technical error, but rather by psychological, optimism
bias and socio- political, strategic misrepresentation
Strategic Misrepresentation


Two components : underestimation of costs and
overestimation of benefit

Sociological phenomena; a series of private and
publice players have common interest in promoting a
mega project (Flyvbjerg and COWI 2004)

Indirect argumentation, counterfactual
Case Offshore wind farms


The outside view

Exploratory work


Desk research

Limitations (not full view of costs and benefits)
Offshore wind farms strategically
           important to society

• Offshore wind farms are expected to grow as market at
  approximately 45% from 2009 to 2015

• Government place wind as central climate strategy, yet it
  takes looong time and the investment are substantial

• Is the investment done in the optimal way?

• Good reasons to investigate costs, time and operational
  performance results of offshore wind turbine projects,
8
What is a wind farm?

•   Turbines
•   Foundation
•   Infield cable
•   Substation
•   Export cable




9
Main processes
1. Preparatory and regulatory process

2. Design, Manufacture and Implementation

1. Operation
Main processes Prepatory process

• Preplanning (Investigations of potential sites a.o.)
• Environmental, Archeological, Geophysical and more
  investigations
• Five regulating laws to follow (ecology, planning,
  naval traffic, fishing)
• Consents
• Finansing
• Tendering Bidding
Main processes Implementation

• Preplanning (Investigations of potential sites a.o.)
• Manufacture of components (turbine, substation,
  cables a.o.)
• Transport
• Foundation
• Assembly of turbines (interface with foundation)
• Single Turbine Test
• Power plant test
• Commissioning                            Gerdes et al (2005)
Main processes Operation
•   Production of power
•   Surveillance
•   Maintenance
•   Repair
Phase 1 Experiences
10 UK offshore wind farms:
Round 1, 2 and 3
Preparation takes averagely 4 years

-apparently well planned and designed
-assuring tendering and proper bidding (Anholt)
Phase 2 Implementation
Focusing in on implementation processes
Scroby Sands Monopile deployment




16
A2sea


17
Who makes them?

Example contractors at Kentish Flat:

•    EDF Energy, UK (Grid Connection)
•    Vestas Offshore Associated contractors (Wind Farm)
•    MT Hojgaard, DK (foundations)
•    AEI Cables, UK (cables)
•    MPI, UK (installation, foundations)
•    Global Marine, UK (installation, offshore cables)
•    Fitzpatrick, UK (installation, onshore cables)
•    A2SEA, DK (installation, turbines)

18
Focus on British offshore farms
•   20*20 segment
•   Recent
•   Comparable
•   Monopiles
•   Average Cost 333 mio. Euro in 2003-2010
    prices (Flyvbjerg average 300 mio Euro 1995
    prices, 2% yearly inflation)
Focus on British offshore farms
•   Barrows
•   Burbo Banks
•   Gunfleet Sands
•   Kentish Flats
•   Lynn and Inner Dowsing
•   North Hoyle
•   Rhyll
•   Robin
•   Scroby Sands
•   Thanet
Results Budget overrun




21
Results Time overrun




22
Delays (indicative)
• Most frequent explanation: bad weather,
  especially during winter.
• Product technology:-turbines -testing, cables
• Implementation equipment bottleneck
  (vessels)
• Cabling processes gives problems
Phase 3 Operation: Performance




24
Discussion I: Not quick
• Considerable time and cost overruns.

• A small share of the wind farm has relatively, some
  might say acceptable, low overruns.

• No project ends before time or under budget.

• Operation exhibit under performance so far
26
Discussion 2: But Dirty
• In SUM indications of strategic
  misrepresentation (so DIRTY in that sense)

• No clear learning curve, need to relax public
  incentives?
• The long and the short time span (public,
  regulatory reform still needed)
• Delays due to weather, product technology,
  site, process, equipment bottlenecks
Conclusion
• Offshore wind farms do not distinguish themselves from other
  mega projects ( Flyvbjerg et al 2003, 2004, 2011).

• The analysis and results give basis for further investigation of
  assumptions of strategic misrepresentation (and may be
  optimism bias)

• Mega projects should be understood as combined social and
  technical, qualitative and quantitative, product and process

• Further work needed

28
Implications
• (practical)Reference Class Forecasting pro et
  cons
• (practical) Mass Customisation, product
  configuration
• Life cycle costing
• (research) Public- Private interaction; political,
  financial, performance, PPP
• (research) supply chain and manufacture
• (research) process management

Christian Koch

  • 1.
    Quick and Dirty? Infrastructureinvestment in renewable energy The case of performance of offshore wind farms Christian Koch Aarhus University Nordisk Forum 2011
  • 2.
    Presentation CK Mc. Engineering Ph.D.Social Science Professor (WSA) Technology based Business Development 1985-1990 Technological Institute 1994-1999 Research Centres (Management of Technology) Technical University of Denmark (TUD) 1999-2007 Building Processes and Management, (TUD) 2007- Center for Innovation and Business Development, Aarhus University (cleantech business development)
  • 3.
    Challenges of Renewables AmbitiousGovernment plans – on the move EU budget 2014-2020 announces a 20% focus on sustainability renewable energy EU 2020-20-20 (2009) Denmark Norway Sweden United Kingdom
  • 4.
    Quick delivery needed Butat any cost? Initiating question: Do renewable power plant projects suffer from the same mechanisms as other megaprojects (re. Flyvbjerg) ?
  • 5.
    Mega projects (Flyvbjerg) Flyvbjerget al (2003:16) notes that cost and time underestimation is a global and longterm phenomena and it is not deteriorating over time. Cost and time underestimation cannot be explained by technical error, but rather by psychological, optimism bias and socio- political, strategic misrepresentation
  • 6.
    Strategic Misrepresentation Two components: underestimation of costs and overestimation of benefit Sociological phenomena; a series of private and publice players have common interest in promoting a mega project (Flyvbjerg and COWI 2004) Indirect argumentation, counterfactual
  • 7.
    Case Offshore windfarms The outside view Exploratory work Desk research Limitations (not full view of costs and benefits)
  • 8.
    Offshore wind farmsstrategically important to society • Offshore wind farms are expected to grow as market at approximately 45% from 2009 to 2015 • Government place wind as central climate strategy, yet it takes looong time and the investment are substantial • Is the investment done in the optimal way? • Good reasons to investigate costs, time and operational performance results of offshore wind turbine projects, 8
  • 9.
    What is awind farm? • Turbines • Foundation • Infield cable • Substation • Export cable 9
  • 10.
    Main processes 1. Preparatoryand regulatory process 2. Design, Manufacture and Implementation 1. Operation
  • 11.
    Main processes Prepatoryprocess • Preplanning (Investigations of potential sites a.o.) • Environmental, Archeological, Geophysical and more investigations • Five regulating laws to follow (ecology, planning, naval traffic, fishing) • Consents • Finansing • Tendering Bidding
  • 12.
    Main processes Implementation •Preplanning (Investigations of potential sites a.o.) • Manufacture of components (turbine, substation, cables a.o.) • Transport • Foundation • Assembly of turbines (interface with foundation) • Single Turbine Test • Power plant test • Commissioning Gerdes et al (2005)
  • 13.
    Main processes Operation • Production of power • Surveillance • Maintenance • Repair
  • 14.
    Phase 1 Experiences 10UK offshore wind farms: Round 1, 2 and 3 Preparation takes averagely 4 years -apparently well planned and designed -assuring tendering and proper bidding (Anholt)
  • 15.
    Phase 2 Implementation Focusingin on implementation processes
  • 16.
    Scroby Sands Monopiledeployment 16
  • 17.
  • 18.
    Who makes them? Examplecontractors at Kentish Flat: • EDF Energy, UK (Grid Connection) • Vestas Offshore Associated contractors (Wind Farm) • MT Hojgaard, DK (foundations) • AEI Cables, UK (cables) • MPI, UK (installation, foundations) • Global Marine, UK (installation, offshore cables) • Fitzpatrick, UK (installation, onshore cables) • A2SEA, DK (installation, turbines) 18
  • 19.
    Focus on Britishoffshore farms • 20*20 segment • Recent • Comparable • Monopiles • Average Cost 333 mio. Euro in 2003-2010 prices (Flyvbjerg average 300 mio Euro 1995 prices, 2% yearly inflation)
  • 20.
    Focus on Britishoffshore farms • Barrows • Burbo Banks • Gunfleet Sands • Kentish Flats • Lynn and Inner Dowsing • North Hoyle • Rhyll • Robin • Scroby Sands • Thanet
  • 21.
  • 22.
  • 23.
    Delays (indicative) • Mostfrequent explanation: bad weather, especially during winter. • Product technology:-turbines -testing, cables • Implementation equipment bottleneck (vessels) • Cabling processes gives problems
  • 24.
    Phase 3 Operation:Performance 24
  • 26.
    Discussion I: Notquick • Considerable time and cost overruns. • A small share of the wind farm has relatively, some might say acceptable, low overruns. • No project ends before time or under budget. • Operation exhibit under performance so far 26
  • 27.
    Discussion 2: ButDirty • In SUM indications of strategic misrepresentation (so DIRTY in that sense) • No clear learning curve, need to relax public incentives? • The long and the short time span (public, regulatory reform still needed) • Delays due to weather, product technology, site, process, equipment bottlenecks
  • 28.
    Conclusion • Offshore windfarms do not distinguish themselves from other mega projects ( Flyvbjerg et al 2003, 2004, 2011). • The analysis and results give basis for further investigation of assumptions of strategic misrepresentation (and may be optimism bias) • Mega projects should be understood as combined social and technical, qualitative and quantitative, product and process • Further work needed 28
  • 29.
    Implications • (practical)Reference ClassForecasting pro et cons • (practical) Mass Customisation, product configuration • Life cycle costing • (research) Public- Private interaction; political, financial, performance, PPP • (research) supply chain and manufacture • (research) process management